Are you sure the windscreen doesn't just look dark because there's no light in the car? I should have thought it was difficult to get a heavily tinted screen and you couldn't apply film to a compound curve...
I'm not defending her, particularly, but you might find that the view from inside the car is different (although dark tints are a fashion item at the moment, and are doubtless popular with those who would use their mobile phones on the move).
|
I live in the land where heavy tint is widely used, often for security reasons and of course for anti-glare. Indeed my company's executive security policy specifically stated that my bland Honda should be tinted to the extent occupants were not easily visible from outside. But the windshield itself never bore more than a wide strip across the top, for the reasons mentioned re compound curves, and these guys are tint wizards, so if it was possible they'd've done it.
What did happen was the tint on the other windows tended to darken the interior when viewed from outside the car, which may have explained the Citroen example.
I still drive with strong tint after retirement and the 3M stuff applied here by Ford is sort of one way, so that the view from inside is not noticeably hampered.
Seems to me this is another of those nanny crackdowns where we can rack up the traffic apprehension stats a bit on a dead easy no risk guaranteed revenue basis because that's easier and looks better on the numbers than tackling the awkward stuff like protecting pensioners too scared to leave their homes. Or keeping my daughter's street in one of UK's most prosperous towns free from scumbags shooting up or just plain hanging around looking for trouble.
|
|
|
|
The point is that the legislation as it stands IIRC, though I'm sure Pugugly or DVD will be along to set me straight, says that ~75% of the light from outside must be transmittable through the windows. This applies to front windscreen and front side windows.
Where people are getting pulled is when they tint the drivers and front paasengers side windows, and the windscreen if they are stupid enough, to match the heavy tint of the rear windows.
Without the matching tint the vehicle looks ridiculous in my opinion. With the tint it means that in conditions of poor light they are a danger to themselves and others.
It also appears that some dealers, Chrysler being one so named in my paper, have being encouraging people to get this extra tinting done as a manufacturer/dealer fit option.
Personally I think the police are right to stop 'em and nick 'em!
|
I don't know where they're getting their tint from. Mine is very dark from the outside, but visibility perfect from the inside. Now this is fitted by the Ford dealership (you have a choice of color or tint of tint (if you see what I mean), and uses 3M film. I cannot imagine either manufacturer exposing themselves to the obvious if this was in any way dangerous.
As for poor light, today we have tropical storm Chedeng upon us, and it's about as gloomy as gloomy can be out there yet I notice no impairment in my vision other than that caused by the weather.
|
|
|
Fif
Reg 31 Table II Before 1.4.85 all glass 70%. After this windscreens 75% other glass 70%.
DVD
|
|
Thought my memory was still working. Stones CD-ROM now being ised as a laser deflector since DVD's database is superior.
|
If everyone drove with dipped headlights day and night, there would be no problems in seeing other cars. Legal tints inc. 20% on the windscreen are not the problem, it is distracted drivers.
BTW Growler, which country do you live in? I'd just like to cross it off my list of holiday destinations!
Regards,
Alf
|
Don't! It's one of Asia's best, stunning scenery and cheapest, with English spoken everywhere (no SARS either!)
tinyurl.com/cpob
..take a look.
|
|
|
|
|
70% transmission sounds like a lot of tint, but it isn't. Most sunglasses transmit less than 10% and most people are comfortable with that in reasonably bright daylight. Cutting glare can actually improve matters, but the rule is there because things are different at night.
|
Back again (no titters in the audience please).
I have just spent 90 mins in the Ford showroom while my truck was being serviced. I scrutinised and sat in: 1- F-150, 1 Ranger, 2-Excursions, 1- Expedition and a Club Wagon. Oh and 2 Ghia Lynxes.
All had 3M tint film as standard on all windows. In the case of the windshield this was restricted to a 4" strip across the top (the windshield in any case was somewhat tinted).
I commanded Miss Philippines to perch her beautiful bod in each of these vehicles and close the door. As I suspected she was barely visible from outside. I then repeated the exercise using myself. She confirmed I was also barely visible from outside.
Now then ,wait for it. Precisely as I thought, and as is the case with our own 2 darkly tinted vehicles, the view out from inside all vehicles was perfect. The shading effect was less than that of the lightly tinted one way Men In Black Raybans I got for my birthday.
So: either those who are complaining about tint are using the wrong stuff, or else they haven't sat inside a 3M tinted vehicle and established the visibility for themselves and are in knee-jerk mode. As happens so often, the loudest critics of anything are often the least well-informed.
Now then it's shopping day and I need to consume an excess of irreplaceable natural resources while I drive my SUV 2.3 km to the supermarket ;-0
|
How come a thread all about stopping tints has got 20 replies whilst mine asking how to get the car tinted has only got 2? I think everyone is obviously biased! :-)
Blue
|
|
|
As I suspected she was barely visible from outside. I then repeated the exercise using myself. She confirmed I was also barely visible from outside.
This is the reason I never, unless forced to, give way to anyone with tinted front side windows. Driving a battered old UNO, that doubles its value every time I fill er up, most seem to be convinced that I will be prepared to swop a matt finish wing for a shiny one.
I agree that the view from inside is reasonable but it does help, in most cases, if you can see the other driver. Road rage excepted.
|
|
|
Look Growler.
has anyone actually said that this magical 3M tint will be banned? NO!
What they want is to stop the sort of tints which reduce passage of light more than a certain degree.
I don't give a stuff how well you can see out of a F-150 in a Phillipines showroom on a rainy day. What I do care about is that someone can see well enough to notice lets say a pedestrian on a dark night where the street lighting may be a bit iffy. Whats so wrong in that?
Change the record man!
|
Mate of mine is a traffic Plod and he was talking the other day about them just being issued with a small light meter to stop and check vehicles with blacked out windows. He did mention the acceptable level but I can't remember the exact figures.
He said anything on the drivers side front, passenger side front had to comply or the vehicle was illegal. One vehicle deemed illegal by him was an X5 which had dealer fit blackouts!
|
"One vehicle deemed illegal by him was an X5.."
Every cloud has a silver lining, then! Can anyone tell me what X5's are for? Apart from massaging the ego of the sadly deluded owner, that is...
|
|
|
|
Perhaps I did not make myself clear. My point is that quality tint manufactured by a company like 3M does not give rise to the visibility problems that are being complained about. If indeed they ARE problems. My post was made on practical experience of living with proper tint over more years than I can remember.
This, I respectfully propose, suggests two issues:
* the tint being discussed here may not of the quality or fitness
for purpose as that produced, let's say by 3M, which is the market leader in the countries where I have encountered it, and is thus potentially dangerous in that it indeed inhibits visibility from inside the vehicle.
and/or
* the voluble critics we are hearing from have not actually seen for themselves the effect of the tint they are talking about from inside the vehicle(s) they are criticising, and therefore are unaware that "one-way" type tint exists. Such type presents no more danger by day or night than the general slight tint of factory fitted glass these days.
Certainly, apart from myself I have not heard anyone else say "ah, yes, but are you aware that proper tint is designed to provide shade from outside light whilst preserving internal visibility?".
So I am drawn, increasing inescapably, to the inference that the judgements I am hearing are based less on the sound ground of actual experience and more on the off-the-cuff judgement that "it looks dark, so it must be dangerous".
Perhaps like car airconditioning, tint is one of UK's recent discoveries and there is a lot of ignorance and folk-lore to be dispelled as yet. I have driven with sensible tint for fully four decades in countries where traffic conditions day or night require eyes in the back of your head, let alone good external visibility. This especially true at night where anything on two legs, any number of wheels can apperar unannounced and unlit.
So, I suggest, rather than change the record, it needs to be replayed and listened to with a keener ear and a more receptive mind.
|
|
Well said, G. You could probably argue for it on environmental grounds, too, as it must reduce heat build-up and thus demands on air conditioning...
|
|
|
Oh deep sigh!
Shortish words, simply put.
The acceptance criteria surely is on the amount of light transmitted from outside the vehicle to the inside. Is anything other han that been indicated? A legislative limit has been set of 70%/75% transmitted light by means of some sort of technical investigation rather than by mere blind opinion. Yes? No?
Could comment on other safety issues, like being unable to see if a driver behind a one way tint has seen you? established eye contact? is conscious? on the phone? engaged in animated antics with passenger? about to exit parked vehicle without looking? a whole heap more stuff. Just like buses covered 100% with adverts where one can no longer see passengers get up and thus make the observation link that the bus might be about to stop.
I could comment, but I won't because it is just all so obvious that one shouldn't need to.
Good day!
|
Oh yes another thing while I'm here.
Growler wrote:
Certainly, apart from myself I have not heard anyone else say "ah, yes, but are you aware that proper tint is designed to provide shade from outside light whilst preserving internal visibility?"
FiF had written 4 days previous to the above:
"~75% of the light from outside must be transmittable..."
Don't think that was "listened to with a keener ear" was it?
|
Lest this degenerate into mere semantics, I would simply say that your points are based on conjecture, mine on experience.
Let's leave it at that.
"Criterion" is the singular by the way :-)
|
You're both right, and wrong.
I've been in cars with 'heavy' tints in both england and a variety of asian countries (though not phillipines).
Difference is a lot of the 'tints' in england are designed to make the inside of the car dark (as opposed to cool), as a kind of fashion thing and so you can see the stereo graphics, little leds, blue dash etc etc.
So, you're talking about different things.
|
Regulations state...
Minimum 70% light transmission on windscreen (i.e. max 30% tint)
Minimum 70% light transmission on front side windows if you only have one wing mirror (i.e. max 30% tint)
Minimum 65% light transmission on front side windows if you have two wing mirrors (i.e. max 35% tint)
Minimum 30% light transmission for rear windows (i.e. max 70% tint)
|
Sorry, I was wrong about the windscreen - should be minimum 75% light trasmission and max 25% tint - see below
The below summary is from the Department for Transport website, but there is a disclaimer stating the their interpretation should not necessarily be classed as law.
Regulations 31 & 32 of the Road Vehicles (Construction & Use) Regulations 1986 (as amended).
LIGHT TRANSMISSION OF GLAZING - Summary of requirements
Motor vehicles first used between 1/6/1978 and 31/3/1985 must have windows which allow at least 70% of light to pass through. Motor vehicles first used on or after 1/4/1985 must have windscreens which allow at least 75% of light to pass through - all other windows must admit at least 70% of light.
These requirements do not apply to:
any part of the windscreen outside the ?vision reference zone? (as defined in C&U# Regulation 32(13));
windows through which the driver is unable, at any time, to see the road;
windows in ambulances which are behind the driver?s seat;
windows in buses, goods vehicles, locomotives or motor tractors which are behind the driver?s seat (except those which face the rear - as defined by C&U# Regulation 32(12) - or which form all or part of an exterior door); and
windows in cars which are fitted behind the driver?s seat and which bear an ?e? mark indicating type approval to the European glazing Directive 92/22/EC.
Tinted film
C&U# Regulation 32 does not specifically prohibit any window from having a tinted film applied, but a window with a tinted film which takes light transmittance levels below those specified above could be interpreted as contravening the Regulation.
If a vehicle's windows were excessively tinted by the use of stick-on film or a spray, there may be a contravention of C&U# Regulation 30. This requires that all glass or other materials fitted must be maintained in such a condition that it does not obscure the vision of the driver. Again, it does not specifically prohibit those windows from having a tinted film applied, but doing so could be interpreted as contravening the Regulation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
