$154 ticket for my tint

Your circular argument bears as much weight as your off-topic story, slab experience and misinformed mimicry.

Come back when you've discerned the difference in outward visibility in cars with varied tint percentages. I've had every tint darker than 70%., I am curious to hear your informed thoughts.

 

Let's play guess the tint percentage... Hint: This car is technically illegal in PA.

 

I think it's an interesting contrast. We have the "it's the law" vs common sense crowd. Even speed limits have been changed when people have proven the speed limit to be unreasonably low. The argument that tint makes pedestrians invisible borders on hysterical. I still want to read the judgement on LTZ's big win to hear the basis for blaming window tint for hitting a pedestrian rather than someone not paying attention.

 

Good parry. Again.

How many more ways do you have to avoid answering the question: When your experiment saw plenty of pedestrians, how did you confirm that you saw all the pedestrians you needed to see?

 

I don't think I ever thanked so many posts in a single thread before

What I will never understand is why some people feel so compelled to jump into a seemingly mundane conversation about the cost of a ticket and then feel the need to assert their opinion and preach their gospel of why he deserved the ticket in the first place. The best part is, Lulz never even complained about getting the ticket!

Seriously folks, if you really want to spew the "it's the law" stuff about tint, go do it here: www.tintdude.com. You'll probably find the participants there much more lively and willing to respond to your comments. You'll also be reaching a much greater audience of people who actually give a sh*t about what it is you think of people who like to tint their cars.

 

Good points.

Let's look at this another way though. What if the incident occurred because the driver backed over a pedestrian, because their REAR windows were tinted too dark?

As you are familiar with, CA law allows a driver to tint their dark windows as dark as they would like. Obviously this would impede visibility at night.

Since the tint would technically be legal, how would that change the case?

 

I can see why they chose to not limit tinting on windows in positions where vehicles are not even required to have windows at all. If a panel van can be backed up safely, so can a car with blacked out rear windows.

Oh, but I guess they can't be backed up safely. Child backovers climbed along with the popularity of SUVs. That is why a law signed by President Bush will soon require backup cameras on all new vehicles, as soon as rulemaking issues are settled. Then this particular issue will be moot.

 

It will be less than moot; it will be rendered a non-issue.

Tom

 

As I clearly stated, when approaching an intersection, ALL necessary pedestrians are visible through my front windshield (which is only tinted from the factory.) Any comment or opinions regarding passenger window tint in this instance is moot. Any person not seen is because I simply was not looking in that direction, not because I have 35% on my vehicle. If you had any experience in this matter, you might understand. Until you do, move along.

Edit for ALL CAPS.

 

Let's play another game of guess that tint percentage:

Again considered ILLEGAL in Pennsylvania!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Same with the above BMW. Illegal!!!

You can imagine how difficult it is to see those blades of grass when I also have my Maui Jim Polarized sunglasses on. </sarcasm> As you can see, the reflection from the light colored A-Pillar and the A-Pillar itself is a greater hindrance to my outward vision.

 

I suppose this depends on whether everyone looks at the screen when reversing...

 

True, but my comment was really aimed at the use of the word "moot". Moot means debatable, or open to argument, which is where we are now. The new law would remove the debate, rendering the issue not moot, or closed.

Tom

 

Tint or no tint, if you're never using your side windows to see traffic-- pedestrian, bicycle or otherwise-- then you are a dangerous driver who is cutting people off without realizing it. The idea that everything you need to see is always in front of you and never beside you is a dangerous assumption.

 

kornkob, there is no way to illustrate what I can and cannot see out of the windows other then to tell you have I have no problem with visibility, so I left it out of the argument. I was merely focusing on hitting a pedestrian in a sidewalk, the basis of the suit that was allegedly solely won based on the fact the driver had zero visibility due to tinted windows. You all buy into an engineer and their "scientific" evidence, you're not going to listen to someone who has 15 years of driving with tinted cars and a clean record. I pick and choose my battles just as you pick and choose whether you want to stay on topic with my statements.

Again, at what point does tint become dangerous. Unless you can objectively state what is safe and what is not, we wont get anywhere.

 

I'm not even addressing the tint because it is irrelevant to the assertion that you only need to see pedestrians out your front window. If you're incapable of envisioning scenarios where drivers see potential hazards (like pedestrians but also bicycles and cars) out their side windows, then you are a dangerous driver regardless of the presence or absence of tint. If you are a dangerous driver then the value of your 15 years of experience is greatly diminished.

 

kornkob... I am not envisioning ALL scenarios. I am trying to envision the suit as described by LTZR1. CAN YOU READ THIS CLEAR? Maybe my posts are obstructed by tint.

 

I apologize for my seemingly obnoxious and sarcastic over-tones, but the predatory responses and personal attacks from a select few individuals is uncalled for.

Let's face it, our opinions obviously vary in this matter, but the only person who seems to have objective information is LTZR1 and I am merely expressing my skepticism based on my years of experience. Perhaps it is because I have a better understanding of the smoke and mirrors approach. Regardless, armchair bullying based on mere speculations and rabble-rousing is not persuasive even though this IS the INTERNET!! Some people need to step back and relax, myself included.

 

I don't see where he said that the driver only saw the pedestrian out their front window.

Can you not imagine a scenario where failing to see a pedestrian out your side window could result in an accident?

 

He didn't. I am merely speculating. Thanks.

 

If you are a defensive and an aware driver, no. I can not see an instance where tint can be blamed for the sole cause of the accident with a pedestrian.