Getting a ticket while legally parked

[HansonBoy]

Originally Posted by Soundy

I have no ties whatsoever to law enforcement or any level of politics. My only ties are to reality and a need to exist in a world that's increasingly being populated by selfish assholes whose only concern is their own desires. The assholes who think, for example, it's perfectly alright to blind everyone else on the road with their illegal HIDs. Or to use someone else's example in another "tint" thread, the ones who think their need to look "cool" behind dark windows trumps the rest of the pedestrian public's need to see and be seen. Or to go blasting through a construction zone at double the speed limit because hey, their car can handle it! (even if they can't).

My ties are to an ability to see "the big picture" and how there's much more involved that just one selfish person's short-sighted desires... much as Graeme S has spelled out here.

But hey, you believe whatever you want.

Maybe I've yet to encounter some ridiculously bright HIDs, but so far i've been more grateful than sorry when it comes to other drivers and their HIDs. Mostly when driving on the freeway, either early morning or night, their HIDs light up my side mirrors so that i didn't even need to mirror check to know that they're coming up from my blind spot. That's actually quite helpful in my case. Is it an arguing point for legalizing HIDs? Not necessarily, but it reminded me of how there is a double edged sword on most things. Yes i know you should always mirror check carefully and then again before lane changing, etc, but the car with the HID basically made me more aware of him which IMO is the whole point of installing them in the first place. That and illuminating road signs ahead of you.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by Graeme S

1) "The Line"
How do we decide what is safe at the front and isn't? Let's assume that we allow 70%, and say that's safe for the fronts (including the windshield). So what do we do in terms of measurement and enforcement?

PLENTY of US states have already done this research and have determined that front side tint is safe. The allowable % varies from state to state, but most permit it.

Originally Posted by Graeme S

First, we're going to have to give all officers updated regs (and since most officers get pissy at tint at roadchecks, we'll have to make sure they get training). Who's going to pay for this? The newspapers will be up in arms "RCMP officerspaid to look at windows!"

Using a tint meter is pretty easy. Slip over window, press a button and get a reading. It would take about 5 minutes of training at morning muster.

Originally Posted by Graeme S

Second, we'll have to do one of two things:
1) Officer-issued metering devices.
2) Metering devices at inspection facilities.
If an officer thinks that someone's tint is too dark, the person will have to get it checked. Now, we're all familiar with how incredibly annoying a VI is. Nobody wants to have to go to an inspection facility and pay a giant chunk of money to get their car inspected and tell them it's OK. So logically, we should hand out light metering devices. If an officer suspects a car's tint is too dark, all they have to do is shine their light through and see how much passes through the tint.

But again, that's going to cost. "RCMP on the hook for fancy flashlights". That's not going to be very good optics.

Actually, you wouldn't even need to give all officers meters. A credit card sized plastic card with a black to white gradient that could be held up behind the glass to give the officer a "preliminary" cause to issue further inspection order or let the driver go.

Originally Posted by Graeme S

Finally: Who decides what's safe?


While you may feel that an 80% is safe for use, others may feel that 50% is safe, or like it is now that 5% is safe for the rears. Who's to decide? You say that we should look at those two and "decide which is safer". Well, yes. When people are given two solid and distinct choices, it's entirely probable that people will be able to choose what they like best.

There's plenty of precedent already set. The majority of US states allow it. If you really don't want to do any work, take an average and use that number. Laws that apply to vehicles which are free to travel across provincial and state lines should be harmonized. As it stands right now, the RCMP could set up tint traps at CBSA stations and order tint be removed from every vehicle that comes up from the US, but they can't order that they turn on headlights during the day.

Originally Posted by Graeme S

Now while we think that's easy, let's try and remember that BC includes everything from Downtown Vancouver (which is ridiculously well let at nearly any hour of the day) all the way out to the Trans-Canada that leads to Golden and Rogers Pass. I very very much doubt that the same tint which allows you to see everything around you with perfect clarity at noon in Downtown Vancouver would do the same out in the BC/Alberta-border boonies.

Again, don't forget that the same would apply to the many US states that permit the tint. I'm sure it gets just as dark out of the city there as it does here.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by Soundy

The assholes who think, for example, it's perfectly alright to blind everyone else on the road with their illegal HIDs.

Hey, we agree on something. Go figure.

Originally Posted by Soundy

Or to use someone else's example in another "tint" thread, the ones who think their need to look "cool" behind dark windows trumps the rest of the pedestrian public's need to see and be seen.

Who said anything about using tint to "look cool"?

Originally Posted by Soundy

Or to go blasting through a construction zone at double the speed limit because hey, their car can handle it! (even if they can't).

I don't think anyone here is advocating that.

Originally Posted by Soundy

My ties are to an ability to see "the big picture" and how there's much more involved that just one selfish person's short-sighted desires... much as Graeme S has spelled out here.

I don't think you're stepping back far enough to see the "big picture", Soundy. If you were, you'd actually see how things like appropriate speed limits reduce collisions, and how alternatives to red light cameras are actually more effective than the cameras themselves. But you like surveillance so I can understand why it might be hard for you to see "the big picture"

[bobbinka]

Originally Posted by HansonBoy

Maybe I've yet to encounter some ridiculously bright HIDs, but so far i've been more grateful than sorry when it comes to other drivers and their HIDs. Mostly when driving on the freeway, either early morning or night, their HIDs light up my side mirrors so that i didn't even need to mirror check to know that they're coming up from my blind spot. That's actually quite helpful in my case. Is it an arguing point for legalizing HIDs? Not necessarily, but it reminded me of how there is a double edged sword on most things. Yes i know you should always mirror check carefully and then again before lane changing, etc, but the car with the HID basically made me more aware of him which IMO is the whole point of installing them in the first place. That and illuminating road signs ahead of you.

Obviously if they are driving next to you, it is not an issue for you. The problem is when they are part of oncoming traffic and it blinds the hell out of you.

HID bulbs are too powerful/bright, thats why they need HID projectors to redirect and aim the light. when you run an HID kit without a projector, the light just disperses in all directions, almost like running with your high beams on at all times.

Originally Posted by sebberry

But you like surveillance so I can understand why it might be hard for you to see "the big picture"

we're all looking at big pictures. just different ones.

there's no conspiracy. the government isn't out to get you. the government exists to serve the public. just recognize that it's not there to solely cater to you.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by bobbinka

the laws and regulations in place are not arbitrarily set out. we live in a country where you can vote and elect people to represent you in the government.

Personal opinions and the opinions of very small (but very noisy) special interest groups are responsible for the majority of the silly laws and regulations that we have.

Unfortunately you can't vote for a transportation minister. When you go to cast your vote, you don't get to choose from x number of transportation engineers. You get stuck with whoever the Premier puts in that position. (Same goes for health care, finance and all the other appointed ministers)

How many transportation ministers have we gone through in the last 10 years? How many of them actually have a background in transportation?

[HansonBoy]

Originally Posted by bobbinka

Obviously if they are driving next to you, it is not an issue for you. The problem is when they are part of oncoming traffic and it blinds the hell out of you.

HID bulbs are too powerful/bright, thats why they need HID projectors to redirect and aim the light. when you run an HID kit without a projector, the light just disperses in all directions, almost like running with your high beams on at all times.

No i meant i dont really mind them oncoming eithr, but good info about the projectors, i guess ive been lucky as most of them probably have it. I did get shined the hell out of my side mirrors when a jeep with FOUR bright ass HIDs on the HOV on Hwy1 rushed passed me, he most def did not have projectors.

[blakgtp]

i think we should remember that technically ANY modification on a vehicle is illegal without an inspection. we all do it. but we have to accept the fact that one day we will be pulled over and/or ticketed for it. it kinda sucks but that's the law

[Graeme S]

Originally Posted by sebberry

Personal opinions and the opinions of very small (but very noisy) special interest groups are responsible for the majority of the silly laws and regulations that we have.

I won't disagree, and I'd even say you could remove "silly" from the list. But depending on the eyes, any law can be called "silly". It's silly we can't drink while out and about. It's silly that the government restricts us heavily from doing things which are permitted by the law (smoking, prostitution), and yet essentially allows us to do things which are firmly prohibited (Insite injection drug use, CBSA guards who don't charge duty and taxes yet arrest smugglers).

It all depends on where your priorities are.

I'm curious, have you ever written letters to heads of the MV branch or to ministers of transportation before to have any of your suggestions analyzed or implemented?

[Sango]

Originally Posted by blakgtp

i think we should remember that technically ANY modification on a vehicle is illegal without an inspection. we all do it. but we have to accept the fact that one day we will be pulled over and/or ticketed for it. it kinda sucks but that's the law

Yes it depends. If the police recognizes or knows their cars, they could potentially pull the cars with illegal HID's.

I know an acquaintance said he got pulled over in his vehicle once because the police who pulled him over knew that the year of his car did not come with factory equipped HIDs (even thou it was aimed aimed and stuff) while the newer ones did.

I got HID's fogs on my car and it doesn't blind people. It's pretty bright, but I didn't like the light scatter piece of it because it was not a projector and wasn't providing the functionality I was looking for. Later during the week or so, I will have HID projectors installed into the car to rectify this problem such that I will have the functionality of being able to see wide and far as possible and aimed straight with the way the projectors are calibrated to (as per my request to the HID projector retrofit company of what I was looking for).

[zulutango]

If you want to be legal you are wasting your money. Your car needs a complete factory HID system, as offered for your model of car by them, to be legal. Just installing projectors does not control the light output.
Daniel Stern Lighting Consultancy and Supply

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by HansonBoy

Maybe I've yet to encounter some ridiculously bright HIDs, but so far i've been more grateful than sorry when it comes to other drivers and their HIDs. Mostly when driving on the freeway, either early morning or night, their HIDs light up my side mirrors so that i didn't even need to mirror check to know that they're coming up from my blind spot.

And you can't see this with regular headlights???

There's a twit who must live somewhere in Maple Ridge, drives a jacked-up truck and has HID headlights and driving lights... every now and then coming home on Lougheed eastbound through Pitt Meadows, he's somewhere behind me... from half a mile back, through my tinted back window, with my rearview mirror on night mode, the f(#&$ing things are STILL blinding.

[Sango]

Originally Posted by zulutango

If you want to be legal you are wasting your money. Your car needs a complete factory HID system, as offered for your model of car by them, to be legal. Jjust installing projectors does not control the light output.
Daniel Stern Lighting Consultancy and Supply

Yes definitely brings up a good point. For the low-beams I agree with this.

As for the fogs, questionable but I would recommend a HID for projectors for those changing to HID fog. I know for my car, the earlier years of it, there was a factory HID fog kit which was available directly from the car manufacture however they changed the design of the car slightly such the HID kit for later years don't work for it and for the newer model only offer a 4300K LED factory fog kit.

[falcon]

Isn't the law prohibiting front tint due to it's effect of holding glass together and making it more difficult for emergency personnel to break and remove a window to get to someone inside?

[wing_woo]

Originally Posted by falcon

Isn't the law prohibiting front tint due to it's effect of holding glass together and making it more difficult for emergency personnel to break and remove a window to get to someone inside?

That's what I thought too, cause currently, you're allowed 70% front window tint as long as it's not a film tint (ie. you have to have tinted glass)

[parm104]

Originally Posted by falcon

Isn't the law prohibiting front tint due to it's effect of holding glass together and making it more difficult for emergency personnel to break and remove a window to get to someone inside?

Originally Posted by wing_woo

That's what I thought too, cause currently, you're allowed 70% front window tint as long as it's not a film tint (ie. you have to have tinted glass)

No, I think it's really limited to the idea of visual contact with the driver in the front seat. Not only do they want pedestrians and other drivers on the road to make eye contact with the car driver; but also they don't want any safety issues to arise from not being able to see the driver.

Ie: Police don't want to approach a car with dark windows and not realize if there is a gun being pointed at them through the dark windows. It all comes down to safety.

Furthermore, in a collision, tint film holds the broken glass together, which can cause the broken window to act like a knife. Rather than shattering in small little pieces and crumbling down.

And on a side note, I don''t know what people are talking about when they're referring to a certain percentage of tint being legal now...As far as I know, this is still a strict liability issue. Tint = illegal No-Tint = legal. There's no in between...

[wing_woo]

Originally Posted by parm104

And on a side note, I don''t know what people are talking about when they're referring to a certain percentage of tint being legal now...As far as I know, this is still a strict liability issue. Tint = illegal No-Tint = legal. There's no in between...

Look at any new car, there is slight tint on the windows. I don't have it with me but I read somewhere that the limit was 70% as long as it came from the factory that way or something like that and the tint cannot be applied onto the window (ie. no film). I did all this research a few years back when a Richmond RCMP gave me a front window tint ticket because of the factory tint that comes with all new vehicles. He actually dropped the ticket after I pointed it out and he just honestly did not know, cause his supervisor also came out and showed him what to check for (film on the window) and told him my car was legal.

[parm104]

Originally Posted by wing_woo

Look at any new car, there is slight tint on the windows. I don't have it with me but I read somewhere that the limit was 70% as long as it came from the factory that way or something like that and the tint cannot be applied onto the window (ie. no film). I did all this research a few years back when a Richmond RCMP gave me a front window tint ticket because of the factory tint that comes with all new vehicles. He actually dropped the ticket after I pointed it out and he just honestly did not know, cause his supervisor also came out and showed him what to check for (film on the window) and told him my car was legal.

Well I do have it and it's a BC Statute that states clearly what is legal and what is not. What is permitted and what is not...

Table of Contents - Motor Vehicle Act Regulations

Feel free to ignore all outside third party research and stick to what is stated in THAT document.

And in case you're wondering if it's up to date, it was revised at the beginning of this year so I think it's fair to say it's a reliable source of information.

What you want to do is focus on section 7.05 and read all subsections in their literal sense. NOT what YOU THINK it means or what you think it ought to mean, but what is literally written down on that document.

7.05 (1) No person shall drive or operate on a highway a motor vehicle the windshield or any window of which is in such condition that the vision of the driver is impaired.

In addition, at least on the cars that I've owned, "factory tint" has been glazed windows. That being it's tinted glass and not tinted film (I think you mentioned that.) At that point, the argument is irrelevant because it's the actual glass that has been colored and has already been approved and abides by the standards of the MVA...

PS I found your source. Looks pretty good LOL:

Car owners need not wary of tinted glass - Times Of India

NOW....if we want to talk about ridiculous rules and regulations lets focus on things that matter...Like the fact we can't fail posts in the police forum. This sub-section has some of the dumbest posts and threads ever and they deserve fails!! This isn't a freaking UN peace ground where everyone is safe! Let's reign a fire of fails on posts that go along the lines of "I have window tint...I got a ticket for it...how can I dispute it..."

[sebberry]

AS1 glass is permitted to be as dark as 70% VLT. Which sort of throws away the argument that the law is all about visibility.

Laminated front side glass on some new vehicles throws away the argument that the law is to ensure that the glass shatters into small pellets on impact.

[Sango]

parm104 does bring up a good point in the article.

If the window is factory tinted, it is legal in general. I heard that some cars may appear to have tinted fronts as well but because its a sports car or something, it was fine or something of that nature since it wasn't a film tint being from the factory.

Of course there are some that push the limits. I had an acquittance who said they were pulled over in their Porsche because suspecting they were tinted (because they were, including the front windshield at 50%) but the owner of vehicle acted innocent and insisted it came from the factory that way. The police tried to look for the tint inspecting the car to verify his story but because the officer could not find where the film tint started because tint job was well done, they let him go because they could not prove on the spot he actually had a tint installed in the vehicle.

I had a look at the vehicle for myself and 50% front windshield tint, did make it a bit dark.

[sebberry]

That only works providing the police man doesn't take his key to the window and scratch it up to see if there's a tint there.

[Sango]

There maybe an implication if the officer ends up damaging a real window using a key like that to test. Probably couldn't just do that out right.

I'll have to check with a friend since their parents work for the the RCMP and one of the relatives is on patrol on the road.

[parm104]

Officer's aren't idiots...(for the most part.) An officer that comes to your car and tries to scratch your window with a key will do so only once and after he has established that you have an after-market tint/film on your window.

The reason why the scratch it is not to test whether you have a film on it or not. It's generally to deter you from simply paying your ticket and avoiding an inspection and continuing to drive your vehicle with the tint. Nobody wants to drive around with scratched up tint on their cars.

[Sango]

That comes back to the point, after he has established, which essentially would me that the officer he would of needed to find where the tint started

I've seen a lot of cheap tint places around the area and their job isn't as good so the officer can probably easily look and feel and find where the tint starts. This one in particular where the officer had let the acquaintance go which I stated earlier, one could not literally could not find or feel the start of it since it was well done. I had a look at the window for myself.

After getting more info, I went to the same tint shop the acquaintance have so I can get my tints. I don't have problems myself.

[zulutango]

As far as trying to decide if the tint is on the inside of the window...or glass tinted by the manufacturer during the manufacturing process...it is easy to rub your finger on the inside and outside of the windows where there is tint and there is not. I could always feel a difference where the tint was stuck onto the glass or spray painted on. The glass feels completely different. I also carried a swiss army knife with a sharp blade that I used to shave a tiny piece from the very edge of the glass without damaging the glass underneath.

[sebberry]

I feel much safer knowing the police man has a knife to scrape at my windows with.

Now, how about those clubbings? Purse thief in Hillside area clubs woman