REVscene - Vancouver Automotive Forum


Welcome to the REVscene Automotive Forum forums.

Registration is Free!You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.


Go Back   REVscene Automotive Forum > Automotive Chat > Police Forum

Police Forum Police Head Mod: Skidmark
Questions & info about the Motor Vehicle Act. Mature discussion only.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-10-2012, 10:49 AM   #51
I WANT MY 10 YEARS BACK FROM RS.net!
 
Soundy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Abbotstan
Posts: 20,730
Thanked 12,144 Times in 3,366 Posts
I'm sorry, I've seen nothing in this thread that would indicate logic has any place in the discussion.
Advertisement
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godzira View Post
Does anyone know how many to a signature?
..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brianrietta View Post
Not a sebberry post goes by where I don't frown and think to myself "so..?"
Soundy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2012, 11:36 AM   #52
RS Peace Officer
 
zulutango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vancouver Islan
Posts: 3,850
Thanked 1,623 Times in 678 Posts
This IS RS after all....you were expecting logic? Really????
zulutango is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2012, 11:38 AM   #53
I subscribe to Revscene
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,977
Thanked 185 Times in 129 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundy View Post
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.
__________________
Consider reading the research before commenting on photo enforcement: http://thenewspaper.com/

Support Road safety through education, not speed enforcement.
sebberry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2012, 11:51 AM   #54
I WANT MY 10 YEARS BACK FROM RS.net!
 
Soundy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Abbotstan
Posts: 20,730
Thanked 12,144 Times in 3,366 Posts
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."
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godzira View Post
Does anyone know how many to a signature?
..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brianrietta View Post
Not a sebberry post goes by where I don't frown and think to myself "so..?"
Soundy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2012, 12:34 PM   #55
Zionism gets my shell hard and slimy
 
snails's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: in a shell
Posts: 2,580
Thanked 5,905 Times in 1,119 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by zulutango View Post
"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
snails is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2012, 01:37 PM   #56
I subscribe to Revscene
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,977
Thanked 185 Times in 129 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundy View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundy View Post
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundy View Post
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.
__________________
Consider reading the research before commenting on photo enforcement: http://thenewspaper.com/

Support Road safety through education, not speed enforcement.
sebberry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2012, 01:38 PM   #57
I subscribe to Revscene
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,977
Thanked 185 Times in 129 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by snails View Post
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.
__________________
Consider reading the research before commenting on photo enforcement: http://thenewspaper.com/

Support Road safety through education, not speed enforcement.
sebberry is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 09-10-2012, 09:53 PM   #58
Proud to be called a RS Regular!
 
HansonBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: eastside
Posts: 131
Thanked 27 Times in 17 Posts
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.
HansonBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2012, 09:58 PM   #59
I subscribe to Revscene
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,977
Thanked 185 Times in 129 Posts
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.
__________________
Consider reading the research before commenting on photo enforcement: http://thenewspaper.com/

Support Road safety through education, not speed enforcement.
sebberry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2012, 11:16 PM   #60
Diagonally parked in a parallel universe
 
bobbinka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,449
Thanked 2,255 Times in 438 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by HansonBoy View Post
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.
bobbinka is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 09-10-2012, 11:19 PM   #61
I subscribe to Revscene
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,977
Thanked 185 Times in 129 Posts
Yes, but the more information you have about what's happening ahead the better off you are.
__________________
Consider reading the research before commenting on photo enforcement: http://thenewspaper.com/

Support Road safety through education, not speed enforcement.
sebberry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2012, 11:20 PM   #62
The Brown Reason
 
BrRsn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Whalley
Posts: 4,594
Thanked 5,847 Times in 1,521 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by HansonBoy View Post
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.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcrdukes
fuck this shit, i'm out
BrRsn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2012, 11:30 PM   #63
RS has made me the bitter person i am today!
 
GabAlmighty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Yellowknife NWT
Posts: 4,877
Thanked 3,212 Times in 1,054 Posts
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.
__________________
'16 Ram 1500
'85 Corolla
GabAlmighty is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 09-11-2012, 09:00 AM   #64
Diagonally parked in a parallel universe
 
bobbinka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,449
Thanked 2,255 Times in 438 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebberry View Post
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
bobbinka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2012, 09:35 AM   #65
I WANT MY 10 YEARS BACK FROM RS.net!
 
Soundy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Abbotstan
Posts: 20,730
Thanked 12,144 Times in 3,366 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbinka View Post
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.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godzira View Post
Does anyone know how many to a signature?
..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brianrietta View Post
Not a sebberry post goes by where I don't frown and think to myself "so..?"
Soundy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2012, 10:00 AM   #66
I subscribe to Revscene
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,977
Thanked 185 Times in 129 Posts
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?
__________________
Consider reading the research before commenting on photo enforcement: http://thenewspaper.com/

Support Road safety through education, not speed enforcement.
sebberry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2012, 11:00 AM   #67
I WANT MY 10 YEARS BACK FROM RS.net!
 
Soundy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Abbotstan
Posts: 20,730
Thanked 12,144 Times in 3,366 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebberry View Post
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?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godzira View Post
Does anyone know how many to a signature?
..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brianrietta View Post
Not a sebberry post goes by where I don't frown and think to myself "so..?"
Soundy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2012, 11:09 AM   #68
I subscribe to Revscene
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,977
Thanked 185 Times in 129 Posts
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!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundy View Post
logic tells me there's nothing wrong with the current tint law so yes, I accept it as-is.
__________________
Consider reading the research before commenting on photo enforcement: http://thenewspaper.com/

Support Road safety through education, not speed enforcement.
sebberry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2012, 11:40 AM   #69
I WANT MY 10 YEARS BACK FROM RS.net!
 
Soundy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Abbotstan
Posts: 20,730
Thanked 12,144 Times in 3,366 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebberry View Post
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?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godzira View Post
Does anyone know how many to a signature?
..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brianrietta View Post
Not a sebberry post goes by where I don't frown and think to myself "so..?"
Soundy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2012, 07:08 PM   #70
I don't get it
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: vancouver
Posts: 439
Thanked 46 Times in 32 Posts
^ this guy should be shot! preferably from behind tinted glass on someones front windows
__________________
2012 dodge ram 3500 laramie longhorn duelly long box (current)
2008 smart car passion (current)
1991 nissan 300zx twin turbo (sold)
2007 civic si coupe turbo with 535whp on the mustang dyno (sold)
2010 Dodge ram 1500 quad cab slt (sold)
2003 j's racing s2000 comptech supercharged (parted)
2008 civic si coupe (traded)
2006 toyota 4runner limited (traded)
92 civic eg hatch turbo d16 11.7 quarter (parted)
90 eagle talon (rip)
89 toyota celica gts (sold)
08civicsi_coupe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2012, 07:13 PM   #71
I subscribe to Revscene
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,977
Thanked 185 Times in 129 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundy View Post
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?
__________________
Consider reading the research before commenting on photo enforcement: http://thenewspaper.com/

Support Road safety through education, not speed enforcement.
sebberry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2012, 08:01 PM   #72
I WANT MY 10 YEARS BACK FROM RS.net!
 
Soundy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Abbotstan
Posts: 20,730
Thanked 12,144 Times in 3,366 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by 08civicsi_coupe View Post
^ 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.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godzira View Post
Does anyone know how many to a signature?
..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brianrietta View Post
Not a sebberry post goes by where I don't frown and think to myself "so..?"
Soundy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2012, 08:02 PM   #73
I WANT MY 10 YEARS BACK FROM RS.net!
 
Soundy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Abbotstan
Posts: 20,730
Thanked 12,144 Times in 3,366 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebberry View Post
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.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godzira View Post
Does anyone know how many to a signature?
..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brianrietta View Post
Not a sebberry post goes by where I don't frown and think to myself "so..?"
Soundy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2012, 08:09 PM   #74
Oh goodie, 5 posts already!
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: delta
Posts: 9
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by HansonBoy View Post
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.
monoxide_tryst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2012, 12:33 AM   #75
Diagonally parked in a parallel universe
 
bobbinka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,449
Thanked 2,255 Times in 438 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebberry View Post
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.
bobbinka is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Revscene.net cannot be held accountable for the actions of its members nor does the opinions of the members represent that of Revscene.net