|
I like lightly tinted stuff, but the really dark looks chavy IMHO.
|
|
The first time that I saw it was in Saudi Arabia to give privacy to the wives of the rich. It then became the thing in the UK. When I was in the showroom of a big dealer I criticised some of the the features that I'd considered too too. One of them was, of course, sunroofs, I'm bald, and the other was 'privacy' tinting, gloomy. The 'sales executive' said that he favoured sunroofs because he could open them and get some light in there.
|
|
Do sunroofs make you bald? I don't see the connection - I'm bald and will pay extra to have a glass sunroof.
|
|
"Do sunroofs make you bald? I don't see the connection - I'm bald and will pay extra to have a glass sunroof."
Do you wear a hat in the car ? I suffer painful sunburn from sun exposure.
|
|
No I don't wear a hat - but I can use the blind on the rare occasion in the UK when the sun is strong enough to burn.
|
|
Car designers obviously never have to reverse cars with dark rear tinted windows in the middle of winter in an area with no lights. Coupled with a dark interior and black roof lining it gives the feeling of being buried alive.
|
|
The only useful uses for tinted windows in the rear of a car are for shade protection from sunshine & heat for people and pets and for camouflaging items being carried on rear seats etc.
Otherwise tinted windows are pointless and make a car look cosmetically ugly.
They make reversing at night even more difficult than it already is, and they make the inside of a car darker than it needs to be.
Edited by MikeTorque on 14/07/2012 at 14:39
|
If you don't like wags windows don't buy a car with them. At least with most cars they are either an option or there is a model in the range without them.
I hate people who drive with fog lights on when there isnt any thick fog, headlights when you can see for miles and day running lights. At least you can do something about owning a car with wags windows.
To reverse at night you have reversing lights, cameras and door mirrors, easy.
Sun roofs are a nonsense, we don't get much sun, they increase the cost of the car and decrease the headroom, turning the air con is much better and you don't then have to suck in all those smelly diesel fumes from cars that sound like tractors.
Still good job we aren't all the same or we would all be driving around in Audi's and Beemers, now that would be boring;-)
|
|
"To reverse at night you have reversing lights, cameras and door mirrors, easy. "
Not quite. The latest cars seem to have only one reversing light. On mine it is positioned on the near side of the car, about half way up the rear door. It is more a decorative feature than a useful one. I have supplemented my last two cars with additional lights under the rear valence. The dealer provided the wiring and I fitted the lights and the additional fusing.
When I reversed into the village car park one afternoon I was stopped by a young woman who kindly pointed out that one of my 'reversing lights' wasn't working. It took me a little while to discern that she was referring to the rear fog light, the same shape and colour as the reversing light when it is Off but at the equivalent position on the off side of the car.
I find that I use the wing mirrors more than the interior mirror when reversing because the view of the rear from the interior mirror isn't that good anyhow. So having 'privacy' glass wouldn't change that. A big aid is the parking obstruction bleeper. Bollards below the level of the rear window are a pain, especially when they have weeds growing around them.
|
|
What do you think drivers did BEFORE reversing lights were universal - especially when street/housing light levels were much lower.
In the days when it was popular, road rallying drivers used to add a light at the back as they were "always" making errors of navigation and having to turn round.
One of the tricks taught me then and still useful is to use the indicators on the side of the nearest obstruction when reversing - it may be intermittent on/off but quite adequate to see things.
|
|
"One of the tricks taught me then and still useful is to use the indicators on the side of the nearest obstruction when reversing - it may be intermittent on/off but quite adequate to see things."
I'll try that, but why not use the hazard lights, all four should give more vision. I generally need maximum light when I'm reversing up my narrow driveway so I don'y think anyone will object.
|
|
Darkened glass in the rear window should be banned outright; it prevents "through vision" of the road ahead and is a major impediment to road safety, as well as making reversing awkward. There are enough manic van drivers out there without converting half the cars on the road into van-like obstructions!
And whatever happened to those 1970s louvres, once so popular? Kept the sun out but allowed almost unimpeded forward and rearward vision. (Also allowed passing pigeons a larger target area, but I digress...) I remember seeing some cars with what looked like interior venetian blinds, which served the same purpose and could actually be adjusted.
Edited by Bilboman on 16/07/2012 at 15:06
|
|
According to the DVLA:
The law requires that the windows on the vehicle allow at least:
- 75 per cent of light through the front windscreen
- 70 per cent of light through the front side windows
In most modern vehicles there is a slight tint added to the windows when they are made. If you add any more tint it’s likely to result in the windows failing to meet the legal requirements.
The rules on tinted windows don’t apply to the rear windscreen or the rear passenger windows.
As an aside, I think they are tacky, and only scallies have them.
|
Darkened glass in the rear window should be banned outright; it prevents "through vision" of the road ahead and is a major impediment to road safety, as well as making reversing awkward.
So you want to ban all vans and trucks as well ?
Through-vision simply isn't a requirement - you should be reading the traffic ahead from around the vehicles in front, not through their windows.
|
|
I have no objection to people having darkened windows if they want them, but I don't like them being made compulsory.
Take the new Mazda CX-5, for example. This car has had some extemely good reviews, and has won at least one group test in a car magazine. According to the official Mazda website (which I just checked) privacy glass is STANDARD.
Well, that's just one car - there are plenty of others, you might say. However, I've got a horrible feeling that this privacy glass is going to become ubiquitous in cars, pretty much like air conditioning. The difference with something like air conditioning and privacy glass is that with aircon you don't have to use it if you don't want to - whereas privacy glass is something you can't ignore.
Personally, I loath privacy glass, but like I said at the beginning, if you like it then by all means enjoy it . . . . BUT AS AN OPTION! :-)
|
Take the new Mazda CX-5, for example.
Yes, but, like all crossovers, it's a Range Rover wannabe. Since every self respecting sleb in Beverley Hills has a Range Rover fitted with dark glass, then every crossover driver wants it too.
Hopefully it won't become ubiquitous on cars. Ford seem really keen on it right now.
|
|
My Megane has these selectable tints, they roll up from the doors. (I'm talking about built in sun blinds).
|
|
(Actually, I DO read the traffic ahead, now you mention it!) If, say, half the cars on the road had deliberately blackened rear windows, there would be less general "through" visibility, and given that the majority of vehicles on our roads are passenger cars I don't think that is a step in the right direction. High level brake lights would be rendered all but useless and road safety would then go back 30 years.
By a similar logic, the deliberate obscuring of approach roads to roundabouts - strangely popular amongst certain county council "planning" departments -restricts vision and hinders traffic flow. Yes, we can adjust accordingly, slow down in advance, etc., etc... but I would argue as a general principle that better visibility and fewer obstructions are to everyone's benefit.
And if you've ever driven at night down a winding country road perhaps like me you also get peeved by the mimsing driver tootling along at 41 mph on dipped beam, whereas using main beam would allow you (the driver behind) to get a better view of the road ahead and overtake when expedient to do so.
I saw a car with diplomatic plates last week, and every single window was darkened, front, rear and sides, with just a triangle cut out on the front windows to allow the driver to use his mirrors (if he so chose). THe driver was also wearing sunglasses. Barmy.
Edited by Bilboman on 18/07/2012 at 20:59
|
|
