REVscene - Vancouver Automotive Forum

orgasm_donor · 05-10-2010, 10:55 PM

I heard today that Police are handing out $600 fines for front tint (passenger and drivers windows) because of the new handsfree laws. Any truth to this?

Acuracura · 05-10-2010, 11:04 PM

I don't think so, it has nothing to do with the electronic device law.

If you got a notice and order to remove your tint (or whatever it was) and ignored it, then the cop caught you again, he could give you a $600 ticket for fail to comply with order.

Solo_D33A · 05-10-2010, 11:32 PM

removing front tint isn't hard at all... I did it myself without the need to scrape anything, did a much better job than when I had my windows redone at DAS which they left residue and then proceed to tint over it... by the time I came back with my car they closed down.

Soundy · 05-11-2010, 07:15 AM

Why not just comply with the law in the first place, and not have to worry about the fine at all?

gdoh · 05-11-2010, 07:22 AM

i heard if you get you the glass tinted then its ok rather than taking it to a place to put the tint on your window...

orgasm_donor · 05-11-2010, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soundy

Why not just comply with the law in the first place, and not have to worry about the fine at all?

Because tint looks cool.
Seriously though, I have light tint on my front windows. 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.

Soundy · 05-11-2010, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orgasm_donor

Because tint looks cool.
Seriously though, I have light tint on my front windows. 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.

SO wear sunglasses. They can come off at night; tint can't (unless your eyes are more sensitive to dark as well). You can also keep wearing them when you get out of the car, which you can't do with window tint. Get the type that block the sides, like mountaineers wear. Or use the big wraparound things that are designed to go over regular glasses. Worst case, get a nice big C-Lai face shield.

Seriously dude, I'd hope your logic skills were better than this considering where you work.

Soundy · 05-11-2010, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gdoh

i heard if you get you the glass tinted then its ok rather than taking it to a place to put the tint on your window...

Not exactly. A light smoke built into the glass *from the factory* is allowed.

gdoh · 05-11-2010, 08:09 AM

you know what i dont understand...how come people get the lightest tint in the front and get a ticket, while people who have it so dark that you can barley see in dont get anything???

zulutango · 05-11-2010, 09:44 AM

"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.

Soundy · 05-11-2010, 10:15 AM

I know of ONE person who was seriously injured by wearing her seatbelt - she was in a crash and the belt cut her abdomen significantly. But that's only ONE out of how many dozens or hundreds of people I know who've been in various levels of crashes... and I think it was later determined that she wasn't wearing the belt properly.

XtC-604 · 05-11-2010, 11:22 AM

zzzzz retarded, if smoked glass from factory can get away with it why can't light tint? its still reducing light the same damn way.

Soundy · 05-11-2010, 11:35 AM

Quick Zulu, better call the whaaaaaambulance! Hey, you guys want a whaaaamburger with a side of cries??

sebberry · 05-11-2010, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soundy

I know of ONE person who was seriously injured by wearing her seatbelt - she was in a crash and the belt cut her abdomen significantly. But that's only ONE out of how many dozens or hundreds of people I know who've been in various levels of crashes... and I think it was later determined that she wasn't wearing the belt properly.

How many people do you know of who was injured by their tint?

Soundy · 05-11-2010, 02:11 PM

How many people do you know that were punched in the face for being a smartass?

BlackZRoadster · 05-11-2010, 02:15 PM

^ i know quite a few, and i've punched smartasses

sebberry · 05-11-2010, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soundy

How many people do you know that were punched in the face for being a smartass?

One way to dodge the question I suppose.

Soundy · 05-11-2010, 02:54 PM

Okay, you want an answer? This one comes from my aunt, who worked most of her life for the Oregon DMV.

I do know of one person who was injured by tint. Well, "injured" isn't really the right word... "killed" might be a better one. As in, the state trooper who was shot from behind a driver's tinted window during a routine traffic stop.

That particular incident, BTW, was the impetus for Oregon's no-tint laws.

Any more stupid questions?

sebberry · 05-11-2010, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soundy

Okay, you want an answer? This one comes from my aunt, who worked most of her life for the Oregon DMV.

I do know of one person who was injured by tint. Well, "injured" isn't really the right word... "killed" might be a better one. As in, the state trooper who was shot from behind a driver's tinted window during a routine traffic stop.

That particular incident, BTW, was the impetus for Oregon's no-tint laws.

Any more stupid questions?

Is the officer not in just as much danger from someone hiding behind tint in the rear seat?

Soundy · 05-11-2010, 03:12 PM

Jsunu · 05-11-2010, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebberry

Is the officer not in just as much danger from someone hiding behind tint in the rear seat?

I always assumed tint laws were for both visibility of the driver at night and for the officer to see the occupents of the vehical at all times. Even if you had the rear tint, you would still see the occupents from the front.

Soundy · 05-11-2010, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jsunu

I always assumed tint laws were for both visibility of the driver at night and for the officer to see the occupents of the vehical at all times. Even if you had the rear tint, you would still see the occupents from the front.

My understanding is that the main reason for tint laws, at least in BC, is for driver visibility. The fact that you're allowed to have completely blacked out back windows IF you have the appropriate mirrors, bears this out (visibility is no worse then than with any cargo or cube van). Glass breakage performance and officer visibility may be additional concerns/reasons/excuses but I believe DRIVER visibility is the primary thinking.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebberry

Is the officer not in just as much danger from someone hiding behind tint in the rear seat?

You really do insist on playing the f*cktard, don't you?

You asked for an example where someone was hurt because of having front tint. I gave you a good one. Now go sit in the corner and STFU.

Phil@rise · 05-11-2010, 05:00 PM

Wear Blue Blockers and sunscreen for you sensitive burger with cries types. lol
If the only reason for no tint was officer safety then that should be good enough.
I guess they could allow dark window tinting and just allow cops to issue speeding tickets with guns drawn.

Soundy · 05-11-2010, 05:06 PM

This is what gets me with the "medical condition" crowd: what do you do when you GET OUT of the car, and you don't have your precious tint to protect you? Unless you live in a place with underground parking and only shop at malls with covered parking and otherwise adjust your whole life so you never have to see the sun, it's a complete BS excuse for "needing" tint.

orgasm_donor · 05-11-2010, 10:41 PM

Quote:

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.

Thank you for the helpful answer.