Getting a ticket while legally parked

[Duff Beer]

I haven't seen this one posted, so here it goes:

Was parked legally on the street side while waiting for a friend at the pacific central station on main st., and all of a sudden a traffic police pulled over handed out a ticket for tinted windows. My driver's side tint is illegal because I've got a skin condition, but aside from that, my question is: Could a police officer hand out a ticket while I am not operating motor vehicle? Engine wasn't turned on and I was just sitting there waiting.

TIA

[Sky_High]

Yes



/thread

[zulutango]

Yes...he served on the person who had care and control. You. BTW, the skin condition dodge will not work. NO exemptions given by SMV any more.

[dsot]

What's the difference? You clearly know that your tint is illegal.

Would it have made you felt better if the officer waited until you turned on the engine first?

[Hot Karl]

Ive got a skin condition. LOL so what happens when you leave the car? Do you run into your home or job?

Maybe wear something with sleeves and a c-lai face shield. You have a serious condition right? Its not like another douche who just wants front tints?
Posted via RS Mobile

[broken_arrow]

Illegal tinting is a strict liability offence... There is no justification allowed.

[sebberry]

Just curious - what %VLT is your tint? And have you considered moving to one of the many provinces and states where tint isn't considered unsafe?

List here:
http://www.iwfa.com/NewsEvents/Legis...LawCharts.aspx

[Sango]

If your tint was considered high profile because of how dark it is, they'll just give you a ticket for the front.

I have F1 pinnacle 35 front, 40 rears, and Llumar Airblue 80 front windshield, and never had issues with police.

[parm104]

Kinda sucks that you'll have to get your tint removed now and won't be able to drive because of your skin condition...

Do you tint your face when you go out in the sun too?....

[sebberry]

For those who do have various reactions to sun exposure, small doses of sunlight don't do too much harm. But if you're spending hours in the car then the additional protection is important.

[hchang]

Originally Posted by Sango

If your tint was considered high profile because of how dark it is, they'll just give you a ticket for the front.

I have F1 pinnacle 35 front, 40 rears, and Llumar Airblue 80 front windshield, and never had issues with police.

Your fronts are darker than your rears??
Posted via RS Mobile

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by Sango

If your tint was considered high profile

What on earth is high profile tint?

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by sebberry

For those who do have various reactions to sun exposure, small doses of sunlight don't do too much harm. But if you're spending hours in the car then the additional protection is important.

That's why god invented long-sleeved shirts... LONG before he invented tinted front windows.

[sebberry]

Right, because those are comfortable when it's 45 degrees in the car.

[Soundy]

So turn on the A/C, or open the windows. If it's 45 degrees in the car, you're gonna be cooking whether you have long sleeves or not.

Seriously, you come up with some of the most idiotic, ignorant, lame-brained statements when you're trying to defend your disdain of authority. Why don't you just come right out and say, "I hate authority in all its forms" and be done with it, instead of continually trying to find excuses to point out flaws in each and every law, and then inventing some of the most retarded "examples" imaginable to "illustrate" your blathering?

[sebberry]

Laws NEED to be picked apart an examined to not only ensure fairness but to make sure that the government isn't sticking their noses too far beyond where they belong. If you love big government, over regulation and constantant monitoring of the population then perhaps you'd feel more at home in the US or England.

That reminds me - the Americans threw up a big fuss about fuel consumption stemming from DRLs. If folks were allowed to keep their cars a bit cooler through the use of window films, imagine the reduction in fuel consumption from running air conditioners a little bit less.

I'd bet you a roll of window tint that if you stuck our Transportation Minister in a car with 80% tint on the front side windows she (or any of the Ministers before her) would hardly notice that it was there. One person's disdain for drug-dealer blackout window tint many many years ago and now we all have to pay the price...

[parm104]

Originally Posted by Soundy

So turn on the A/C, or open the windows. If it's 45 degrees in the car, you're gonna be cooking whether you have long sleeves or not.

Seriously, you come up with some of the most idiotic, ignorant, lame-brained statements when you're trying to defend your disdain of authority. Why don't you just come right out and say, "I hate authority in all its forms" and be done with it, instead of continually trying to find excuses to point out flaws in each and every law, and then inventing some of the most retarded "examples" imaginable to "illustrate" your blathering?

Just an observation, and I know you'll take this the wrong way of course...but you're kind of the same just on the opposite spectrum...

Any thought of policy criticism or negative law enforcement critique and you usually go up in arms about it. And by usually, I mean always. He is just as guilty of seeing things through a one sided lens as you are unfortunately.

I'll just leave it at that but your bias is blatantly obvious either by trade or because you want everyone to know which side of the spectrum you strongly have ties to.

[bobbinka]

Originally Posted by sebberry

What on earth is high profile tint?

good question. what on earth is considered a "safe" % of tint that still provides optimal visibility?

[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. your needs and expectations are not the only ones to be considered and met. for every person whose view is not represented, there are others whose views are represented. this is how our government works. there is no conspiracy.

the government exists to serve the people, people who need rules and regulations to live by. if the rules or regulations dont suit you, take it up with your representative so they can be your voice in the government. you dont have to agree with what's in place, but you should recognize how policies, laws, and regulations come into place and respect them.

if your desire for 70% front tint is allowed under new regulations, the person who wants 35% would still have to adhere the 70% allowed. there will always be people who get left out or will be unhappy. if you are the one unhappy, you can voice your dissatisfaction to your representative, but you are still expected to follow the same rules.

[Sango]

Originally Posted by hchang

Your fronts are darker than your rears??
Posted via RS Mobile

Yes, this is correct. It was originally 40 (spec at 43%) on the front windows but they were replaced with 35 (spec at 38%) (the installer recommended me to go a tad darker a bit) under warranty due to a debris being trapped inside the tint during the initial installation.

After the install, it looked quite nice. In a way it does look more uniform because since more light comes in from the front. On the the side view, the front and back windows look almost virtually the same at a glance. It's barely noticeable on the outside of the darkness differences, but inside it is a bit more noticeable.

Ideally, I would of wanted to go 35 in the rear as well because I like the slightly darker look in comparison to 40 but the installer mentioned was not worth paying to have them change it for a 5% difference.

As for the front window tint with Air Blue 80 (spec at 78%). It essentially would provide you with reducing the glare without affecting the overall light since the difference of about 20% is virtually indistinguishable to the eye without a side by side comparison of the window not tinted. When people look at the car, they don't know that there is a front window tint on there unless I tell them.

Originally Posted by sebberry

What on earth is high profile tint?

What I meant is that, the tint is so dark, such that, it attracts attention; essentially meaning the owner of the vehicle is asking to be targeted.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by bobbinka

good question. what on earth is considered a "safe" % of tint that still provides optimal visibility?

Oh I don't know.. let's see.. can you see into it? Yes? Ok, legal!

Clearly the owner of this CRV is a heavily armed drug dealer with his tinted front side windows: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v76/blarg/tint/82212ad8.jpg

(taken from: Air Blue 80...The best tint you can't see. - TrueStreetCars.com)


Take a look at the difference between that and the Navigator behind it and draw your own conclusion as to what should be considered safe and legal.

[Sango]

^
Other AirBlue 80 pics

LLumar Air Blue 80 Clear UV and Heat Reduction Film

[Graeme S]

I'll be honest. I personally think that tints that are too dark (tints like 5% are the ones that come to mind offhand, but I'm no skyentist) are completely and totally unsafe. I've driven in cars with tint at night, and have felt very very unsafe. I don't like not being able to see everything around me. Street light suck, I'm paranoid and worried that one day there's gonna be someone whose DRLs have been deactivated or aren't working and I won't see them in my blind spot when I make a lane change.

My cars have never had tinted windows. And my car at the moment is a dark blue with black leather seats. Sure, it gets warm, but that's why God invented A/C.


Now, all of that having been said, I'm against modifying the tint laws in order to allow front tint. "But why?" you might ask, as Sebbery has, bringing up all the all-things-considered-reasonable points that he has.

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?

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!"

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.

Neither would it make many road-going individuals happy that they have to get their car inspected within a few days to make sure they don't need a ticket. Inconvenience, annoyance, and more than anything else, time out of an officer's day to deal with more paperwork. Because we can all agree officers' time would be better spent investigating serious crimes rather than following up on a tinting inspection.


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. Show someone two shades of green and they'll tell you exactly which one they like.

But it's not yes/no, black/white. It's shading. A full fucking spectrum. In my younger days, I spent hours agonizing over which shades of which colours to use as my font and background colours on my livejournal (yes, I was one of those emo losers, shut up). I knew what colours I wanted, but I just couldn't find exactly the right ones. #0000FFF or a bit lighter? Darker? WHAT?!

That means we'd have to invest money into science. Yes, science. The thing that you continually bring up in your speed-doesn't-really-kill-stupid-people-kill rantings (which, while I don't necessarily disagree with the content, I do disagree with the audience and the tone). Which means we'd have to hire people to find out real road conditions. And what would really be safe.

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.

And as a result, for those of us who live in Ye Auld Big City, we might think the rules and regulations suck ass. But only maybe because we're not seeing the big picture that the scientists and lawmakers who did the analysis did.





Also, I'll be honest. I'd rather see more money going to permanently house the mentally ill and help rehabilitate drug users and hire more nurses and surgeons and build more hospitals rather than going through the hackery of fixing an annoying yet ultimately unimportant tint law.


[/rant]

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by Graeme S

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

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/4030692/mem...id%20there.jpg

Finally: Who decides what's safe?

Silly - they just have to ask Sebberry, he's already got it all figured out. He knows exactly what tint level is safe, what speed limit is safe for every road in the province, what BAC% is safe for everyone... he's been everywhere and done everything, he knows it all!

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by parm104

Any thought of policy criticism or negative law enforcement critique and you usually go up in arms about it. And by usually, I mean always.

Oh trust me, I have plenty of opinions on laws that are silly or meaningless... it's not a pro-authority stance, it's an anti-idiotic-ranting thing for me. Certain people are good at coming up with the most ridiculous shit, and THAT is what sets me off. Those people who are just me-me-me, I want, my way, nobody else matters.

I'll just leave it at that but your bias is blatantly obvious either by trade or because you want everyone to know which side of the spectrum you strongly have ties to.

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.