$154 ticket for my tint

This member has 5% limo tint all around (including the front side windows) and 5% brow 1/3 down the length of the windshield, which I think is downright moronic. He admitted he almost ran over a person at night due to difficulty seeing out before he edited that information out of his post (after I called him on it).

You're arguing about the legality of light tint limits in some states, but that's really beside the point. It's only when you go down to limo tint levels that tint can be blamed for the sole cause of the accident, especially at night.

I don't think LTZR1 is able to reveal too much information about the case due to client confidentiality so I wouldn't expect it.

 

Thanks. I agree and disagree. 5% is moronic, especially on the front windshield below the AS1 line. I've been in many taxi's in Mexico where they've had HALF of their front windscreen covered in purplish-bubbly tint making for some interesting trips. Although I have to say it was not so much the tint, but rather the traffic laws down there which taxi drivers have deemed only a suggestion.

But, yes, you've uncovered my other contention here where the anti-tint people have made a blanket statement that illegal tint is bad, disregarding the varied state laws. They incorrectly contend that window tint obstructs your vision. That simply is not true unless you have blackout tint (0%.) Here in PA, the law is ambiguous, but I have found no precedent to suggest that it exists for reasons other than officer safety. A reason that I actually agree with.

PA indicates that the law does not prohibit tint unless it "does not permit a person to see or view the inside of the vehicle through the windshield, side wing or side window of the vehicle." This ambiguous statement has been translated to 70% by some authorities. When considering a car is typically 73%-80% from the factory, virtually any tint is illegal here. Yet other states go down to say 18-20% is legal and further if you have a doctor's exemption (including PA.) Based on 70%, my BMW above with 50% is technically illegal. If you think that obstructs, impairs or limits your vision in any way, you need to visit an eye doctor.

State variances aside, back to how dark is too dark? I can certainly entertain your 5% assessment. Have you ever been in a car with 35% tint?

Also, LTZR1 can certainly address any non-confidential/privileged information, given the jury verdict... I suspect it will be spread among window tinting forums and car forums alike.

 

We should also make a distinction between law and what makes sense; the two are often not in agreement. You can have a law that is complete rubbish, but if you break it and get caught you may pay. Obviously one can choose to fight a law, but generally that is a long and expensive process, better left for organizations with deep pockets.

So when we argue issues like this, let's remember that we can argue about the legal aspects, or we can argue merits, but one doesn't prove the other.

Tom

 

When a car and I meet at intersections where the bicycle trail crosses the street, and I am trying to look at the driver through his left side window (NB: not the front windshield) with 50% tint, his view of me is attenuated to 50% brightness. But his whole view through that window is attenuated by the same factor, so his pupils will accommodate for the reduced light. Contrast from his viewpoint is unchanged.

However, my view of his face is attenuated to just 25% brightness. Daylight illuminating his face is cut in half on the way in, then by half again on the way back out. Making matters worse, the majority of my field of view is not dimmed at all, so my pupils will not widen to accommodate the dimmer light from that small (compared to my field of view) window. Contrast from my viewpoint becomes very unfavorable.

Plus, when I've been driving and pedaling longer that that tinted driver has been alive, my vision is afflicted by the natural processes that hits everyone my age, reducing contrast and any possible dark accommodation that might be achieved by using a hand to block the brightest objects. There is nothing an eye doctor can do about this. Young greenhorns, your time will come.

If the car's tint is 35%, then the two-pass nature of the view from outside reduces the light to just 12%. Compared to the 100% lighting of the rest of the scene, that 12% is effectively blacked out. I cannot determine whether the driver sees me. This is dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians.

 

(The below is assuming you actually know what 50% looks like and have considered a number of factors stated below.)

Based on your scenario, I can only deduce that the car was stopped. So therefore you are perpendicular to a stopped car, that is somehow going to hit you when either party starts moving? Interesting. If you are in a position to safely ride in front of a car you would be at about 1 o'clock in the driver's view (read: windshield), I am not sure how this equates to you looking at him from 3 o'clock (or side window.) Unless your state allows cars to stop on top of the bike path, at which point, I can see how this could be dangerous. Here, where cars are stopped near a bike path's intersection, the car is stopped typically 10-15 feet back. So maybe this is my disconnect in your story.

Other things to consider: How many windows does the car have? What color is the interior? What position was the sun? How large is the front windshield? Is the sunroof open? The darkness of 50% varies based on a number of outlying factors. In the picture I posted of my BMW, that day was over cast and you can clearly see the drivers side A-Piller. That car has a very large windshield in proportion to the number of windows, but the sunroof shade was closed. Either way, in some lights if I told you it was tinted, you would have to take a second look.

All the above aside, why would you knowingly move toward their side-window, when you could very easily insure that you are visible. This would be true for tint or no tint. You are more likely to be seen where the driver is looking the most. If you were in a blind spot, would you move further into a blind spot? What if you are in the A-Pillar, why go left when you could easily shift to your right? It sounds to me like your lycra bib might be a little too tight (inside roadie humor.)

Also, if tint is such an issue, should we mandate that cars come without tint from the factory? By your numbers, our vision is lessened by 20% (and even more with the two-pass theory you attempt to illustrate below.)

You are simply incorrect here (described below.)

Again, incorrect. Your two-pass assumption works on theory, assuming the entire car is tinted to 35%. Take a look at several cars tinted 35%, you will notice that different cars allow for more/ less to be visible on the inside. This has to with the factors I posed above.

Thanks for your thoughts. As you can see we are on opposite sides of the table for opinion. Yours based on on theory and outside observation: mine based on inside/ outside experience. We'll let the jury decide.

 

Regarding the OP, and I know this is late to the party, but as someone who has worked in law enforcement in Hawaii, I am shocked that it is a MISDEMEANOR for the tint, here it is only a simple traffic infraction, which is part of the reason why you can just pay a ticket. In Hawaii, you would actually have to waive a right to jury trial if you were charged with a misdemeanor, let alone be able to just send in a check.

 

Then, after your court date, get new license plates, say someone stole them or get a different version (offered in some states), so the officer won't be looking out for you.