Front window tint *new fines?*

[Soundy]

I'm sorry, I've seen nothing in this thread that would indicate logic has any place in the discussion.

[zulutango]

This IS RS after all....you were expecting logic? Really????

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by Soundy

I'm sorry, I've seen nothing in this thread that would indicate logic has any place in the discussion.

Sadly, our traffic laws also lack some basic logic.

[Soundy]

Logic tells me that if 70% were allowed, sebberry would argue the law is stupid and it should allow 60%; if it were 60%, he'd argue for 50%.

Sebberry asks if I simply accept whatever the government says; logic tells me there's nothing wrong with the current tint law so yes, I accept it as-is.

Logic tells me it doesn't matter how sensible a law may be, he will find (or invent) a way to question it.

Logic tells me that zulutango has now had his morning donuts and coffee and is sitting with his laptop in Timmy's leeching off their free wifi

And finally, let us not forget the immortal words of Spock: "Logic is a little tweeting bird chirping in a meadow. Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, which smell BAD." And more importantly, "Logic is the BEGINNING of wisdom, not the end."

[snails]

Originally Posted by zulutango

"I got it because I am taking this medication that make my eyes extremely sensitive to the light. A lot of people do have this issue so I think if you have a note from your doctor (which I do) then I think the Police may let it slide."

ICBC has not issued medical tint variance exemptions for at least 10 years. They reasoned that dangers of the tint still exist to the driver and other road users. I had one driver try to use the medical excuse for a tint ticket and 2 fail to comply charges. He told the JP that he was so sensitive that he was on medication and named it. After the JP found him guilty of all 3 charges, she pointed out that she had the same medical condition and when it got so bad that she was on the medication, she was not capable of driving safely. She ripped him for purjury and told him to wear long sleeves, a hat, glove and sunglasses...if he really had the condition and it was that bad. A Doctor's letter is just that...a letter from a Doctor. It's is not a legal exemption to allow someone to break the law. As a side note, ICBC also stopped issuing medical seatbelt exemptions finally. The said that science has shown that there is no benifit to NOT wearing the belt and a huge danger if they are not buckled in. Now if they would only drop the cabbie's exemption.

not a widespread exemption no, or else everyone would find loop holes, the dealership i work for tinted a customers windows all around because her children had some sort of skin disease that made them sensitive to sunlight, icbc and rcmp approved of the tint and it was dark tint all around

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by Soundy

Logic tells me that if 70% were allowed, sebberry would argue the law is stupid and it should allow 60%; if it were 60%, he'd argue for 50%.

Where have I ever suggested one thing, then come back saying it wasn't enough or was too much? I wouldn't argue for 50%, that's too dark. Don't be silly.

Originally Posted by Soundy

Sebberry asks if I simply accept whatever the government says; logic tells me there's nothing wrong with the current tint law so yes, I accept it as-is.

That there's nothing wrong with the tint law is certainly an opinion you're entitled to. By extension you must disagree with all the jurisdictions that permit it, correct?

Originally Posted by Soundy

Logic tells me it doesn't matter how sensible a law may be, he will find (or invent) a way to question it.

Now for my next trick - red lights! No, that would be stupid to question sensible laws.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by snails

not a widespread exemption no, or else everyone would find loop holes, the dealership i work for tinted a customers windows all around because her children had some sort of skin disease that made them sensitive to sunlight, icbc and rcmp approved of the tint and it was dark tint all around

Sorry, I don't believe that. There is no provision in the MVA for a medical exemption for window tint.

[HansonBoy]

Hmm, speaking of window tints. I wasn't sure about the dangers of front window tints, but rear windshield tints have been really annoying me recently. Most SUVs and vans seem to have it nowadays, and when they're driving in front of me, I feel like Ray Charles. I can't see sh*t! Not being able to see through the car in front of you, dramatically decreases your anticipation to brake, because you're then only seeing that one big SUV n front of you and if he/she slams the brakes then you're in for a big surprise.

[sebberry]

I agree, that's why I've only got 60% on the back 5 in my car. I wanted people to be able see through, and for me to see out. I find most factory tint to be too dark for good visibility, both in and out.

[bobbinka]

Originally Posted by HansonBoy

Hmm, speaking of window tints. I wasn't sure about the dangers of front window tints, but rear windshield tints have been really annoying me recently. Most SUVs and vans seem to have it nowadays, and when they're driving in front of me, I feel like Ray Charles. I can't see sh*t! Not being able to see through the car in front of you, dramatically decreases your anticipation to brake, because you're then only seeing that one big SUV n front of you and if he/she slams the brakes then you're in for a big surprise.

you should be driving at a safe distance from the vehicle in front of you so that you can brake in time to begin with. if you feel uncomfortable behind a large vehicle that you can't see through (regardless of whether it's a SUV or semi-truck), then stay even further back.

[sebberry]

Yes, but the more information you have about what's happening ahead the better off you are.

[BrRsn]

Originally Posted by HansonBoy

Hmm, speaking of window tints. I wasn't sure about the dangers of front window tints, but rear windshield tints have been really annoying me recently. Most SUVs and vans seem to have it nowadays, and when they're driving in front of me, I feel like Ray Charles. I can't see sh*t! Not being able to see through the car in front of you, dramatically decreases your anticipation to brake, because you're then only seeing that one big SUV n front of you and if he/she slams the brakes then you're in for a big surprise.

Probably obvious but just slightly offset your lane position so that you can see past them. I always drive really close to the shoulder on the left hand side or vice versa on the right.


By the way, I have 30% factory tint with 5% limo overlayed on the back you'd hate me haha. Even with the sun shining through my front window you can barely see outlines from the back. Gotta keep the subs hidden.

[GabAlmighty]

I noticed today driving my non tinted vehicle that I had to be more sly with my texting and driving. Therefore making me a greater risk due to my efforts in hiding my phone from other drivers.

[bobbinka]

Originally Posted by sebberry

Yes, but the more information you have about what's happening ahead the better off you are.

By that logic, the less tint you have, the more you would be able to see (looking out AND looking in). You would have more information and therefore be better off
Posted via RS Mobile

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by bobbinka

By that logic, the less tint you have, the more you would be able to see (looking out AND looking in). You would have more information and therefore be better off
Posted via RS Mobile

Good point. So by sebberry's own logic - "the more information you have about what's happening ahead the better off you are" - NOBODY should be allowed ANY tint on ANY windows.

[sebberry]

Except you're missing the point again Soundy. If the windows are too dark to let you see through, that's a problem. If the windows are at the 50-60% VLT mark and you CAN see through to the vehicle in front, then what's the problem with that?

Personally I'd set a minimum VLT around the 40-50% mark for windows rear of the B pillar, and allow for 70% front side tint as opposed to letting people slap 5% all over the back windows. How's that for a solution, Soundy? Happy?

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by sebberry

If the windows are too dark to let you see through, that's a problem. If the windows are at the 50-60% VLT mark and you CAN see through to the vehicle in front, then what's the problem with that?

Two problems with this:

One, "too dark to see through" is somewhat subjective, depending on a person's eyesight, whether they're wearing dark glasses (prescription or otherwise), and what exactly a person considers a "clear view". So what YOU might find sufficient vision through the car ahead of you, may not be enough for someone else to feel safe. And similarly, someone else may feel that they can see reasonably through 30% tint in front of them, when you obviously don't - what makes your opinion of what's "too dark" more valid than theirs?

Two, 50-60% may provide plenty of light transmission in bright daylight... what about on a cloudy day? In the evening? At night?

You said it yourself, "the more information you have about what's happening ahead the better off you are". Not "the more information UP TO A CERTAIN POINT". Is is okay to have just a LITTLE better view of what's ahead... or a KINDA better view... or should it always be a LOT better view?

[sebberry]

Surely you can't believe what you're saying, Soundy...

It's almost as if you don't think any tint should be permitted at all... But wait!

Originally Posted by Soundy

logic tells me there's nothing wrong with the current tint law so yes, I accept it as-is.

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by sebberry

Surely you can't believe what you're saying, Soundy...

It's almost as if you don't think any tint should be permitted at all... But wait!

Surely you're not reading what I'm saying.

I'm not commenting either way on the wisdom of tint or tint laws.

I'm commenting solely on you contradicting yourself.

You go on and on about how the law prohibiting front tint is wrong and should allow some... and then directly contradict that by stating that the more you can see through the car ahead of you, the safer it is. Well... ANY TINT, no matter how light, reduces that visibility even at the best of times... and few of us drive ONLY during the best of times.

So which is it? Do you want your tint, or do you want as much safety as possible? Or are you admitting that you're willing to give up some safety to have your precious front tint?

[08civicsi_coupe]

^ this guy should be shot! preferably from behind tinted glass on someones front windows

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by Soundy

So which is it? Do you want your tint, or do you want as much safety as possible? Or are you admitting that you're willing to give up some safety to have your precious front tint?

Taking your "logic" to the next level - virtually all automotive glass has some tint or coloration to it. It may not be "privacy glass" but it's never 100% VLT either. Are you suggesting we remove glass from windows entirely? What about reflections on glass that make it hard to see through the vehicle or through to the driver?

Or are you willing to sacrifice some safety and visibility to to have your precious glass in place?

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by 08civicsi_coupe

^ this guy should be shot! preferably from behind tinted glass on someones front windows

A cop getting shot through a tinted driver's window was precisely why Oregon outlawed front tint decades ago.

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by sebberry

Taking your "logic" to the next level - virtually all automotive glass has some tint or coloration to it. It may not be "privacy glass" but it's never 100% VLT either. Are you suggesting we remove glass from windows entirely? What about reflections on glass that make it hard to see through the vehicle or through to the driver?

Or are you willing to sacrifice some safety and visibility to to have your precious glass in place?

I'm not the one making the fuss about the law - you are. Again, since you don't seem to get it: I'm ONLY commenting on YOU CONTRADICTING YOURSELF.

[monoxide_tryst]

Originally Posted by HansonBoy

Hmm, speaking of window tints. I wasn't sure about the dangers of front window tints, but rear windshield tints have been really annoying me recently. Most SUVs and vans seem to have it nowadays, and when they're driving in front of me, I feel like Ray Charles. I can't see sh*t! Not being able to see through the car in front of you, dramatically decreases your anticipation to brake, because you're then only seeing that one big SUV n front of you and if he/she slams the brakes then you're in for a big surprise.

Why not just approach the big bad suv with tint so dark that you cant see through it....like a cube van or other such vehicular unit that has no rear windows.

[bobbinka]

Originally Posted by sebberry

Taking your "logic" to the next level - virtually all automotive glass has some tint or coloration to it. It may not be "privacy glass" but it's never 100% VLT either. Are you suggesting we remove glass from windows entirely? What about reflections on glass that make it hard to see through the vehicle or through to the driver?

Or are you willing to sacrifice some safety and visibility to to have your precious glass in place?

we are merely commenting on the fact that you have contradicted yourself, rendering any argument you make invalid.

A. you want tint laws to be set at X amount.

B. you believe that the more you can see and the more information you have, the better off you are (as the driver and to everyone else around you)

if statement B is to be true, then the lesser amount of tint in statement A would have to be (with no tint = most visible and safe).

if you are trying to say that setting it at 70% is sufficient for statement B, then the next question that arises is, how is your definition of what is "safe" and "visible" more valid than someone else's?





you challenging someone else's argument by taking something overboard does not change the fact that your argument is still invalid. in fact, your argument about completely taking glass out because it is reflective is irrelevant, because the entire argument is based on "whether it should be legal to have X amount of tint up front", not "should we have reflective windows". cars are designed with windows, all cars have them. Tint is something you choose to add on. if your car came with Tint from the factory, your only argument would be "if those cars can have it factory, why cant i add it on?", but even then, it's not the same thing.