These bozos still haven't grasped that tint, readily available from 3M and others, allows near daylight visibility from within while preserving anonymity of the occupants from without. Very important for security, especially for women drivers. I know, I have it on both my vehicles and I'm damned if I'm doing away with it. Send 'em over here for a bit of education, we've had this stuff in Asia before they'd heard what "air-con" meant. Knee-jerk legislation from more seat-warming pimply liberal bleeding heart bureaucrats. Such lovely language and from 'arrow-on-the 'ill, I believe.
Perfick, just perfick.
Regards.
|
Knee-jerk legislation from more seat-warming pimply liberal bleeding heart bureaucrats.
That's why I think the reason for the change has possibly got more to do with 'seeing in' than 'seeing out'.
Oz (as was)
|
|
Note that victim was on two wheels, key safety observation is whether the bozo at the wheel is paying attention. Can't make eye contact through blackened glass.
|
The first time I saw the amount of tint which is now common was in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. The front screen and drivers and front seat passengers windows were clear. The rear windows and back screen seemed black. Perhaps there was also a mid division screen. The impession was given that the women in the rear were able to see out without being seen.
We are beginning to see more women wearing full veils with an eye slit in the north now. I wonder if this is giving rise to the trend for blackout tints.
|
|
|
Note that victim was on two wheels, key safety observation is whether the bozo at the wheel is paying attention. Can't make eye contact through blackened glass.
I am a dedicated rider but I don't expect cars to have legislation applied to them just because of me. I don't find any need to make eye contact with drivers anyway.
Anyway there must be far more motorbikes in Asia than in UK, and no one ses the need for such nonsense here, so I stand by my point that it's petty jobsworths whose mission in life is to ratchet up their bomb-proof pensions by justifying their miserable existences devising methods to consume wealth without creating any by making other people's lives miserable with half-baked un-thought-through rules which soak up more and more enforcement time and resopurces. Meanwhile my daughter has to take a 6 quid taxi from the station every night to her flat, not being able to walk a mile or so because of all the low-lifes hanging around, despite UK alleged now being the most surveilled nation in the world (see last Sunday's papers).
It is phenomenal to me and never ceases to amaze, how UK has totally managed to lose the plot in just about any area you can think of since I was a mere stripling.
Yee-haw.
|
Hi Growler,
As implied in my post, I suspect the real emphasis is on seeing who's in the car, for whatever reason. Traffic enforcement cameras? counter terrorism? who knows.
Oz (as was)
|
Seems like a good idea to me.
There is plenty of 'cheap and nasty' window film around (as used by the boy racers) that is pretty opaque both ways (the local 'go faster' shop sells it).
Would you drive at night wearing sunglasses?
I have no problem about people seeing me at the wheel (ditto my wife).
No offence to Growler, but I can't let him get away with such sweeping statements. I don't think there is that much that the West (esp. Europe) can learn from SE Asia. Having been there and seen the traffic and standard of driving (diabolical!), the pollution and whole families living on a rubbish tip. Europe may have its problems, but having seen a lot of the world (and having lived outside of Europe for part of my life) I still think the Western European countries are collectively the best place to live and bring up a family, with the possible exception of NZ - 'bleeding heart liberals' or not ;-)
|
I'm with you Aprilia - let's face it, this is about vanity at the expense of safety (and on that subject, anyone know the legislation covering "shaded" rear lights - what on earth moves one to dim ones rear/brake lights?).
As for the relative safety of roads across 99% of Asia v's the UK - LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!
I am increasingly worried about the paranoia which appears to be infecting the backroom - is this a new + worrying form of computer virus?
|
|
like most important issues this one is not straightforward, however, I'm with Aprilia and Jehova. Not because everyone whose car glass is tinted is vain, stupid or irresponsible (although some very definitely are) but because on balance I think the cons outweigh the pros. Neither do I think there is some secret Orwellian plan to monitor us all 24/7. It seems to me that anything which significantly hinders vision either into/out of a car is not a good idea for all the reasons mentioned above (and no doubt others too). I would however add that since certain forms of blinds have the same and even worse effects it might make more sense to make illegal anything which restricts vision to an extent which is quantifiable and considered dangerous. Why more people can't just use their common sense and avoid the need for all this legislation defeats me. With all due respect to Growler, as far as I can see the 'value of life' exchange rates in the 'west' and elsewhere have traditionally been poles apart and seem to be going in opposite directions so we here can probably all look forward to more legislation to protect us from ourselves.
|
Oh and Growler - this is not the first time you've stated your very understandable concern for you daughter's safety. Dare I say it but you're beginning to sound a bit like a....
.....
nanny :-)
ps On a serious note I'm sure you are well aware of the problems we have here with attacks on women by unlicensed 'dodgy' taxi drivers so if you haven't already, do stress to her the importance of using only licenced cabs no matter how tiresome or inonvenient that may be.
Once a parent always a parent!
|
"anything which significantly hinders vision either into/out of a car is not a good idea "
I can't agree completely with that.
OK, anything which hinders the driver's vision out is an unqualified bad idea.
Things that hinder the view of the interior seem to me more arguable. It is rare to need to see inside a car from the outside, and the powers that be tell us not to leave things on display but seem to want a clear view of the inside .. some contradiction?
My real point, however, is that anyone who has endured the noise of two toddlers in the rear seats whinging for mile after mile after mile that the sun is in their eyes will see that there is some serious benefit to blacking out the rear windows, in terms of a reduction in driver distration.
|
Rest assured, Patently, that with 2 young children myself I know only too well the problem you describe which I why I said it wasn't a straightforward issue. At least with sunblinds you can use them when required and vice versa. Not easy to do that with tinted glass! Like most things it comes down to weighing up the risks and striking a sensible balance.
Oh and as regards the 'seeing into cars argument' - there is a clear benefit to being able to see through cars which is why it's so annoying being stuck behind or adjacent to a van and being unable to see what's ahead.
|
there is a clear benefit to being able to see through cars which is why it's so annoying being stuck behind or adjacent to a van and being unable to see what's ahead.
Good point - although most of the tinted glass seems to be on big SUV/4WD things that are too high up to see through anyway ;-)
|
|
Yes you've hit on a good point there Patently. If it's purely a question of improved visibility in bright sunshine etc., why is it that most heavily tinted vehciles seem to be large SUV's and 4x4's? Don't the drivers of other cars need/want the same assistance or could it be that film stars and VIP's traditionally used heavily tinted galss to avoid the hassle of being recognised and it's quite nice to feel like a VIP even if you're not one ? :-)
|
Oh and as regards the 'seeing into cars argument' - there is a clear benefit to being able to see through cars which is why it's so annoying being stuck behind or adjacent to a van and being unable to see what's ahead.
It is annoying. But it's perfectly possible to drive safely behind a vehicle you can't see round or through, so that's no argument against tinted windows. And while eye contact can often be reassuring, if you can't establish it, just fall back to the default assumption that the other driver is probably going to do something stupid, and you won't be caught out.
I seem to be using a different definition of liberal to Growler et al. To me it means open-minded and tolerant. Hence if you want tinted windows, and they have no significant effect on your ability to see out, then it's none of my business. (And none of the State's business either).
GJD
|
I take your point that it is not necessarily unsafe to drive behind a vehicle you can't 'see through' GJD and IMO this aspect of the tinting question isn't the most important. However, next time you're driving in heavy traffic just consider how much extra, important information your brain is processing as a result of what your eyes can see through the glass of adjacent vehicles - is it clear ahead?, what are the cars in front doing?, is it safe to pull out?, is the driver in front on the phone, eating a sandwich and steering with his knees? etc. Of course normal safe driving behaviour is still vitally important though whatever the situation.
As regards being liberal - I really couldn't care less what people do with their cars as long as it doesn't put me/mine at extra, unnecessary risk. In the case of slight/ moderate tinting I don't think there's a significant risk. I do however think there is a very significant risk with some of the extreme tints commonly seen these days. Last night I spoke to a guy who lives around the corner and drives a large van with heavily tinted side windows. I casually asked him if they affect his view when driving and he said "oh yes, but if it's too bad I just open the window"!
Surely the point is that until science proves beyond reasonable doubt what is safe and what isn't who's to say what degree of tinting has a material effect ? If you wouldn't drive at night wearing sunglasses on the basis that it unnecessarily hinders your vision how can it be safe to drive a car with heavy tints under the same circumstances, even allowing for the fact that windscreens aren't tinted and it's only side and rear vision which is restricted ?
|
|
|
Question for the mods:
How is it I see this forum generally effectively policed (quite severely at times) and yet Growler is permitted these anti-UK rants with impunity?
|
scotty,
he must have had a bad time over here judging by the amount of carp he goes on about ie. the nanny state, nothing works, how everything is better anywhere else.
Personally he's welcome to it.
I love it here. I have a great life. Wouldn't want to be anywhere else. I don't feel victimised, threatened, over-regulated - I just get on with on things and enjoy my life.......
JD
|
|
|
As a rule we don't discuss individual moderating issues here, prefering to take it offline by email. I shall make an exception in this case.
The majority of Growler's posts are viewed by us (well, certainly by me) as either good natured or firmly t-i-c. Growler has been part of the community here for goodness knows how long and will be the first to tell you that we do rein him in, nanny fashion, from time to time. Remember that this is the world-wideweb amd as such we are a global community, with people posting their views from all over this insignificant speck of cosmic detritus we call home. So what if it's sometimes provocative. Are you really that convinced that UK plc is in such great shape right now?
Anyway, I digress.
We (I) let him "get away with it" because on the whole it's not offensive and I enjoy the variety it brings.
And that's just hoopy with me.
No Dosh
mailto:Alan_moderator@honestjohn.co.uk
|
|
|
|
|
"Can't make eye contact through blackened glass."
Doesn't matter what the glass is if the driver's not looking...
|
|
|
|
|
