I read in the paper this morning about the police in Manchester refusing to let a driver with his family in the vehicle drive his car,because the tinted windows were too dark,as it prevented him from having vision of other road users.He had to get the car taken back to London by a motoring organisation
Why can't they do the same to motorists driving without Insurance,Road tax, No licence,No M.O.T. Banned drivers etc.
|
|
Don't be mad! That would be too sensible! This was sparked off because of a fatal accident involving a driver who did not see a biker due to tinted windows. I'm a biker also and I can confirm that lots of drivers cannot see bikers even with clear glass. I speak from experience having been knocked off last year.
|
|
|
Don't know what the law is but I guess it's because it came down to a safety issue and hence the police acted accordingly.
The sort of people you mention should of course be taken off the road but it's impossible for a policeman to know a driver has no licence, MOT or insurance unless he stops and questions that driver and even then most people don't carry such documents and may only be required to produce them at some later date. In the case of these tints I assume it was obvious that they were too dark so the police would have been negligent if they'd failed to act.
|
|
Not impossible for a policeman to see that a car is untaxed, though; since untaxed almost invariably means uninsured and uninsured frequently means no licence either, would it not be a good idea for such cars to be removed from the road immediately. Police already have these powers. I fear the problem actually lies in our having too few policemen.
|
|
Agree that we haven't enough cops and that often their priorities (determined by their PC 'superiors' & politicians remember) are questionable. People driving without tax are of course visible and often stopped as a result but I don't know if the law allows the police to prevent them from driving off for such an offence which, although extremely serious, is not a direct danger in itself. I think the police should be able to temporarily 'confiscate' or immobilise vehicles with no tax etc. until all paperwork is shown to be in order. I think a separate division should be created to manage this task and get all the morons off our roads.
|
|
No in law there is no specific power to seize a vehicle. There are certain powers with unroadworthy vehicles. Mind you I was witness to an excellent case of "creative Policing". Circumstances were that a car had been stopped twice being driven with no Insurance on the third occasion within an hour the Officer seized the car as "evidence" using S24 of PACE, which was much admired by all in the subsequent case.
|
Hi
If the cars were Factory fitted with Tinted windows then its a problem of the manufactureres to address not the humble car driver
Regards
J Stephenson
|
We have gone through all this before. Correctly applied tint, and I quote my own instance of a US built Ford with 3M one-way tint factory fitted, i.e. 80% dark from the outside but virtually clear when you look out from the inside, has a number of practical uses. It is advisable on air-conditioned vehicles in hot countries, it has security benefits and it poses no safety risk whatsoever if the proper kind is correctly applied.
If correctly used it is never applied on the windshield itself beyond a several inch strip across the top.
It should not need repeating (a) that 3M would not market an inherently unsafe product, and (b) Ford would not fit such a product.
Perhaps these dimwits need to get their heads from wherever they left them (if in doubt consult a good proctologist), sit inside the vehicle THEN make their judgement as to the effect of the tint. Or maybe it's that good old Brit cultural streak coming out which says, I haven't seen that before, it looks odd, I don't like it, I haven't got it therefore I don't see why you should have it, ergo it must be wrong and let me find an obscure arcane regulation somewhere in my little book to make your life a misery. Bah!
|
|
I think Growler has spoken for me too.
|
Hi
is my statement reasonable as well or has it been overlooked
J Stephenson
|
|
|
|
I think it reasonable to assume that the b-i-b did indeed "sit inside the vehicle THEN make their judgement as to the effect of the tint" otherwise they are indeed unable to judge if the vehicle complies with the law or not.
Think we have agreed to disgree on this one previously Growler and I'm definitely going to leave it there!
Question for DVD as I'm busy earning his pension money and not got the time to look it up.
What are the rules re light units? Reason ask is that I saw a blue Corsa with dark tinted rear light lenses and it was almost impossible to see the brake and indicator lights. I would judge that the position lights would have been invisible except in pitch darkness.
|
Fif:
In a nutshell for the sun is shining and I want to enjoy my free time your labours are kindly providing me with...
Without going into EEC Regs and Type Approval which sets the standards and ensures all vehicles coming off the assembly line comply with lighting requirements etc and therefore street legal from the onset, then our RVLR 89 as you know,also make provisions/requirements in relation to UK use.
Sched 7 - Indicators
Sched 10 - Rear position lamps, and
Sched 12 - Stop lamps.
Whilst all go into some detail as to angles of visibility, little is required in relation to intensity.
However Reg 23(1) all these lamps have to be in good working order and CLEAN and RPL lit at night and unobscured (Reg24(1))
If some tampering has taken place by tinting of the glass encompassing the units, then depending exactly what has taken place then consideration can be given to prosecution for using a vehicle the parts and accessories of which are in such condition as likely to cause danger (S40A, RTA 88, S8(a) RTA 91).
Applying lateral thinking - fower thars gitten lang int tee-ath -seen an optician lately?. (Departs hastily to sun bed and glass of red)
DVD
|
Na then me owd flower,
Ta fer thi answer, up ter me armpits wit' lawyers last week.
But tha's reet, optician not seen since 18 months ago. Better get off me backside and get mi 'and in mi pocket.
Seein' as tha's a lad from God's own country, tha' owt to know abart how these charlatans laik to pick t'pocket of us honest Yorkshire lads. Spending brass puts WIND up me an' no mistake.
Sithee
FiF
|
|
|
|
The law now says that glass should let through 75% of light. If it does not then its illegal.
Regardless of the fact that its factory fitted (the example above was fitted by a main dealer approved specialist) or made by some large corporate it wont make a jot of difference.
As long as its not illegal there are invaribly companies that will supply tints that are too dark, even if it is unsafe.
|
|
|
Growler
It should not need repeating (a) that 3M would not market an inherently unsafe product, and (b) Ford would not fit such a product.
I think you and I could come up with a lot of examples of apparently reputable companies marketing what appeared to be inherently unsafe products because there was profit in it. Most recently I suppose is the Ford Explorer/Firestone Tyre debacle.
Chris
|
|
|
|
I'd have thought that anything fitted to a vehicle as standard or, indeed, an option by the manufacturer and subsequently found to be illegal in the country of sale would be cause for swift and harsh legal action. Of course laws vary from country to country and it's perfectly possible for companies to manufacture all sorts of products which are legal in some countries but not others. If you imported a vehicle from Timbuktu with brakes, lights, tints etc. that were legal there but not so here I don't see how the manufacturer/vendor can be blamed - surely the reponsibility then lies with the purchaser.
Equally if some twit decides to fit some tinted plastic to his windows and it turns out to be illegal I don't see how the manufacturer can be blamed unless they falsely claimed that the film met all legal requirements and the purchaser relied on that when installing the product.
IIRC there are certain devices which are legal to own but illegal to use in this country. I don't see why that couldn't necessarily apply to tint film since it's only the use to which it's being put that will determine whether any laws have been broken.
|
|
Ps. It seems that vehicles with tints are going to be coming under increasingly close scruitiny and I for one will be delighted if all those driving with illegal tints are either removed from our roads or forced to either replace the glass or remove the tinting. I've got no problem with people having sensible tints which comply with the regulations and don't therefore represent a danger to other road users. Whilst I wouldn't go out of my way to have my car windows tinted and wonder about the true motives of many who do, I really couldn't care less if people want to spend their money that way.
|
|
|
hi
no no what i mean is if the car has tinted windows at manufacture then its the fault of the manufacturer
but if like you said that joe bloggs puts tinted plastic on his windows then it isnt the fault of the manufacturer its joe bloggs fault
Tinted Rear lights should have the same law put on them as people said they are hard to see in the day.
Regards
J Stephenson
|
That's sort of what I was saying James but the manufacturer would only be liable if the tinting supplied were illegal in the country in which the new vehicle was being sold.
As for companies not manufacturing or selling inherently unsafe products, surely tobacco companies do that every day don't they ?
|
|
|
|
I'd have thought that anything fitted to a vehicle as standard or, indeed, an option by the manufacturer and subsequently found to be illegal in the country of sale would be cause for swift and harsh legal action. Of course laws vary from country to country and it's perfectly possible for companies to manufacture all sorts of products which are legal in some countries but not others. If you imported a vehicle from Timbuktu with brakes, lights, tints etc. that were legal there but not so here I don't see how the manufacturer/vendor can be blamed - surely the reponsibility then lies with the purchaser.
I would have thought any liability for illegality would be borne by the importer who surely has to comply with British law in order to get a certificate for the car?
|
This is far from the best pic to describe what I mean but it's all I can lay mouse on at this time. I think it gives some idea of the external appearance of the said tint. You have to take it from me that the internal view is perfectly clear day or night. If it wasn't on these roads in this country and after a night out on the local strip let me assure you I would not be driving.
This is a vehicle assembled in the Ford plant at Kansas City MO designed for the US domestic market with factory tint. Given what we know about Wilderness tires and the litigious nature of American culture I think it's fairly safe to say America's biggest selling pick-up truck would not be loose on the highways were the tint as shown considered a safety hazard.
tinyurl.com/fc6n
|
Last year before I bought my E-Class the garage lent me an ML270 for the day which had the back half of the vehicle tinted.
From the outside you could hardly see in but once you got inside it was almost as if it just had a very slight tint. I was very surprised as you could barely make anything out in the car even getting up close to the glass.
The tint used was a factory fit option and I would be very surprised if it didn't pass these tests as vision through it was perfect.
|
as the garage famously said, mr and mrs blair have a people carrier with exactly the same windows
wonder if plod will keep their car off the road ?
off course not
without fear or favour my pink fluffy dice
|
Miat,
Your endless negative comments in *every* thread are becoming wearing. I think we all have absorbed the fact that you hate the police, especially the ones in Dover who are out to get you.
I think we all have realised that you are particularly impressed with the wit and originality involved in the use of the word "brats".
Now, do you think you could have a go at talking about something else in a more positive or interesting manner ?
|
|
|
|
|
The following story is in today's Daily Telegraph. If the original article referred to by Sherwood was of a similar nature, i would think Police were doing a good job; and I wonder what the fuss was all about?
>>>> "Police clamp down on windscreen tints
By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
(Filed: 28/06/2003)
Thousands of drivers are risking the loss of their cars because of over-zealous window tinting.
Vehicle inspectors and police are staging increasing numbers of roadside checks out of concern that motorists have darkened windscreens to the point where they cannot see properly.
The Vehicle and Operator Services Agency has issued more than 100 prohibition notices in the past three months, preventing cars from being driven because the tints breach safety limits. Owners are given an hour to take their car off the road, and then barred from further journeys until the tints are removed or reduced in strength.
By law, windscreens must admit 75 per cent of light, and front side windows must allow in 70 per cent. However, a boom in sales of tinting films and sprays, which owners apply themselves, has led to treatments involving much bigger reductions. Suppliers of some films claim that their products admit as little as five per cent light. " >>>
|
|
Agree eMBe - call me a nanny if you like but I think that the sort of cerebrally challenged morons who apply films like that shouldn\'t be allowed on the roads at all, tints or no tints !
|
With mobile 'phones dealt with, we're now onto tinted windows.
What else can we ban / control / regulate / define to the n'th degree? Oh, I know sunglasses. Better be sure that drivers aren't putting on sunglasses that are too tinted, just in case they can't see when they drive.
Reminds me of when I bought a sunscreen for putting over the car windscreen (for reducing heat build-up in the car when it's parked). Fortunately for me the instrutions made clear that you should remove it when driving, otherwise I may have considered driving with it in place.
|
I am more than happy that those with heavy tints on the front side windows are sorted out.
I do not give way to such vehicles, as a courtesy, unless forced to. I cannot see what the driver is doing or where he/she is looking. It does help that I drive a shed.
Re sunglasses. I use photochromatic prescription glasses. As I am sure others are aware there can be a big problem if any long unlit tunnels are on your route. I was NOT aware and had a very nasty shock when entering such a tunnel above the snow line, at altitude, from bright sunshine. Vary scary as I had almost no vision. I Just had to stop and to hell with the queue behind me. I guess the answer is to keep my spare pair ready to swap to when required.
I have never seen a warning about this. I have had no problems in this country as out tunnels are lit.
|
I would like to know the way the roadside test is done.
According to the reports the other day the police simply help a light meter outside the car and took a reading, and then held the meter inside the car and took a reading. If you do the test like that with no tints I would think the reading inside the vehicle would be about 25-35% difference with the light outside the difference especially on a sunny day.
If on the inside you have to have 70% of outside light penetrating then you are stuffed from the start, especially in a van.
|
|
|
|
James,
I sympathise to some extent with your and Growler's view about nanny states, e.g. packets of peanuts printed with "Warning: this product may contain nuts." Really!
On the other hand, however, whilst you, I and indeed the majority of the population can probably be trusted to act sensibly there is a clear minority who cannot.
One can remove sunglasses almost at will, rather difficult for a windscreen. I guess side windows could be wound down at night.
|
|
|
|
Very funny James - the fact remains though that if there weren't so many morons out there doing stupid things like speaking on their mobiles when driving, tinting their windows too much etc. etc. etc. we wouldn't need to ban these things would we. Likewise it's only because so many people persist in breaking the speed limit that things like road humps and speed cameras are necessary. Sadly we can't rely on common sense can we !
|
|
Yes and while all this fun and games is suitably exercising the colective mind of the police farce, not to mention the UK citizen busybody growth industry, my daughter still has to walk home alone down a street where low-lifes are shooting up. In one of the SE\'s most prosperous towns I might add. Presumably under some health and safety regulation it is deemed a hazard for the constabulary to put themselves at risk and besides it\'s a non-revenue generating activity.
|
hi
there are many james's around here arent there but dont confuse james jameson
Regards
J Stephenson
|
|
|
Agree Growler but then if there weren't so many morons driving around killing people the police wouldn't be spread so thin and they'd be able to spend their time doing the sorts of things we'd all like to see. Bear in mind also, the police don't make the law they just have to implement it according to the whims of the Government.
Finally, with a young wife and two young kids I too worry about my loved ones walking home and being attacked but I reckon they've got a far higher chance of being mown down by a drunk or otherwise negligent driver than being dragged off and murdered so the police can continue cracking down on the idiots as far as I'm concerned and perhaps when we've all learned to be more responsible drivers they'll be able to protect our streets as well as we'd all like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting replies one and all.I agree to the dangers stated regarding excessively tinted windows,particularly to seeing motorbikers.and I don't disagree to the action taken by the police regarding this issue.However my original question was if the police can prevent this person from driving his car under these circumstances why can't they confiscate or prevent a person from driving whilst uninsured,etc,etc,surely they are even more dangerous.Assuming they have already been stopped for some reason?
|
|
Tinted windows - just another reason to drive around with sidelights on all the time. The dynamo went years ago- your battery won't run down.
|
|
|
|
