Has anyone got pulled over for their tint?
03-19-2006, 06:58 AM
#62
Member
SL Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: San Dimas, CALI
Posts: 92
My xb are blacked out in the back windows and the darkest in the front...i likve in southern california havent got nailed yet....mostly the cops around here will pull you over for something then attach everything they can like tint, exaust, loud music.....whatever they really want!!!!
03-19-2006, 08:23 AM
#63
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: I'm da BOOM King!!!
Posts: 5,103
Originally Posted by slboettcher
Now Mr. Hyghgynx, how about hooking me up with your GF's pop? I need a note. 
Where do you take the note once you get it?
Where do you take the note once you get it?
No can-do buddy. Next time you go to your doctor or optomalogist, just tell him that your eyes get sensitive after driving awhile during the day. Tell him sunglasses help a little, but you 'heard' that tint can help as well. (How are they going to question your eyes' sensitivity? Everyone is different, right? ) Once you get the note, just keep it in your glove box next to your reg and proof of ins. That way you can show it to the pig...I mean officer... when you get pinched. I haven't had to use mine yet. 
P.S. If you're in really good with either, maybe you can get them to date your note before your recent incident. Take it to whoever (courts) and tell them that your note was at home the time you were pulled over.
It couldn't hurt, could it?I'm not breakin' the law. I'm just bending it.
03-19-2006, 10:22 AM
#64
Here are the % of tint allowed in 50 states. It was in Oct 2003 Sport Compact Car.
N/A mean not allow
AL---F 32%---R 32%
AK---F N/A---R 37%
AZ---F 33%---R ANY
AR---F 25%---R 25%
CA---F 70%---R ANY
CO---F N/A---R ANY
CT---F 35%---R 35%
DC---F 70%---R 50%
DE---F 70%---R ANY
FL---F 28%---R 15%
GA---F 32%---R 32%
HI---F 29%---R 29%
IA---F 70%---R ANY
ID---F 35%---R 20%
IL---F N/A---R ANY
IN---F 30%---R 30%
KS---F 35%---R 35%
ky---F 35%---R 18%
LA---F 40%---R 25%
MA---F 35%---R 35%
MD---F 35%---R 35%
ME---F 50%---R 50%
MI---F 4 in. from the top edge---R ANY
MN---F 50%---R 50%
MO---F 35%---R ANY
MS---F 35%---R 35%
MT---F 35%---R 20%
NC---F 35%---R 35%
ND---F N/A---R ANY
NE---F 35%---R 20%
NH---F N/A---R 35%
NJ---F N/A---R ANY
NM---F 20%---R 20%
NV---F 35%---R ANY
NY---F 70%---R 70%
OH---F 50%---R 50%
OK---F 25%---R 25%
OR---F 35%---R 35%
PA---F 70%---R 70%
RI---F 70%---R 70%
SC---F 27%---R 27%
SD---F 35%---R 20%
TN---F 35%---R 35%
TX---F 35%---R 35%
UT---F 43%---R ANY
VT---F N/A---R ANY
VA---F 50%---R 35%
WA---F 35%---R 35%
WI---F 50%---R 35%
WV---F 35%---R 35%
WY---F 28%---R 28%
{edited to fix a few typos --Tomas}
N/A mean not allow
AL---F 32%---R 32%
AK---F N/A---R 37%
AZ---F 33%---R ANY
AR---F 25%---R 25%
CA---F 70%---R ANY
CO---F N/A---R ANY
CT---F 35%---R 35%
DC---F 70%---R 50%
DE---F 70%---R ANY
FL---F 28%---R 15%
GA---F 32%---R 32%
HI---F 29%---R 29%
IA---F 70%---R ANY
ID---F 35%---R 20%
IL---F N/A---R ANY
IN---F 30%---R 30%
KS---F 35%---R 35%
ky---F 35%---R 18%
LA---F 40%---R 25%
MA---F 35%---R 35%
MD---F 35%---R 35%
ME---F 50%---R 50%
MI---F 4 in. from the top edge---R ANY
MN---F 50%---R 50%
MO---F 35%---R ANY
MS---F 35%---R 35%
MT---F 35%---R 20%
NC---F 35%---R 35%
ND---F N/A---R ANY
NE---F 35%---R 20%
NH---F N/A---R 35%
NJ---F N/A---R ANY
NM---F 20%---R 20%
NV---F 35%---R ANY
NY---F 70%---R 70%
OH---F 50%---R 50%
OK---F 25%---R 25%
OR---F 35%---R 35%
PA---F 70%---R 70%
RI---F 70%---R 70%
SC---F 27%---R 27%
SD---F 35%---R 20%
TN---F 35%---R 35%
TX---F 35%---R 35%
UT---F 43%---R ANY
VT---F N/A---R ANY
VA---F 50%---R 35%
WA---F 35%---R 35%
WI---F 50%---R 35%
WV---F 35%---R 35%
WY---F 28%---R 28%
{edited to fix a few typos --Tomas}
03-19-2006, 05:03 PM
#65
Senior Member
Big Sky Scion
SL Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: six-two-six
Posts: 4,120
See, that's what I found, but the codes Tomas posted also say ZERO tint on the front.
I don't know. I may try to bring this stuff in to court and try the doctor's note after.
What a PITA over freakin' tint. And mine is mellow.
Scott
I don't know. I may try to bring this stuff in to court and try the doctor's note after.
What a PITA over freakin' tint. And mine is mellow.
Scott
03-19-2006, 09:08 PM
#66
Originally Posted by slboettcher
See, that's what I found, but the codes Tomas posted also say ZERO tint on the front.
I don't know. I may try to bring this stuff in to court and try the doctor's note after.
What a PITA over freakin' tint. And mine is mellow.
Scott
I don't know. I may try to bring this stuff in to court and try the doctor's note after.
What a PITA over freakin' tint. And mine is mellow.
Scott
Section "a" of the law says tint not allowed, and section "d" explains the exception to that with a doctor's letter in your possession:
(d) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), clear, colorless, and transparent material may be installed, affixed, or applied to the front side windows, located to the immediate left and right of the front seat if the following conditions are met:
(1) The material has a minimum visible light transmittance of 88 percent.
(2) The window glazing with the material applied meets all requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 (49 C.F.R. 571.205), including the specified minimum light transmittance of 70 percent and the abrasion resistance of AS-14 glazing, as specified in that federal standard.
(3) The material is designed and manufactured to enhance the ability of the existing window glass to block the sun's harmful ultraviolet A rays.
(4) The driver has in his or her possession, or within the vehicle, a certificate signed by the installing company certifying that the windows with the material installed meet the requirements of this subdivision and identifies the installing company and the material's manufacturer by full name and street address, or, if the material was installed by the vehicle owner, a certificate signed by the material's manufacturer certifying that the windows with the material installed according to manufacturer's instructions meets the requirements of this subdivision and identifies the material's manufacturer by full name and street address.
(5) If the material described in this subdivision tears or bubbles, or is otherwise worn to prohibit clear vision, it shall be removed or replaced.
(1) The material has a minimum visible light transmittance of 88 percent.
(2) The window glazing with the material applied meets all requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 (49 C.F.R. 571.205), including the specified minimum light transmittance of 70 percent and the abrasion resistance of AS-14 glazing, as specified in that federal standard.
(3) The material is designed and manufactured to enhance the ability of the existing window glass to block the sun's harmful ultraviolet A rays.
(4) The driver has in his or her possession, or within the vehicle, a certificate signed by the installing company certifying that the windows with the material installed meet the requirements of this subdivision and identifies the installing company and the material's manufacturer by full name and street address, or, if the material was installed by the vehicle owner, a certificate signed by the material's manufacturer certifying that the windows with the material installed according to manufacturer's instructions meets the requirements of this subdivision and identifies the material's manufacturer by full name and street address.
(5) If the material described in this subdivision tears or bubbles, or is otherwise worn to prohibit clear vision, it shall be removed or replaced.
Notice that even with a doctor's letter the law limits the total tint to 70% transmittance, not 35% or 20% or 5%, but 70%. It's not a free pass to put whatever tint you want to on the side glass, and STILL does not allow you to tint the windshield...
There is not a disagreement between the two postings. The list just doesn't show the extra letter requirement.
Tom
03-19-2006, 09:46 PM
#67
Member
Team ScioNRG
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Greenbelt,MD
Posts: 30
I live in MD and I have my tC tinted, it's been about a year and a
half. I have 20% all the way around and 35% on the windshield. I
got pulled over about a month ago, the officer just asked to see my
license and asked if it was suspended. Then he told me to go to
Rockville and get it certified (yeah, okay). If he had given me
some sort of citation telling me that I HAD to go, then I would go,
but he didn't, so I'm not. Next month I'm getting 15% all the way
around so it wouldn't have mattered if he told me to take it off.
He just wanted to see who was in the car, and when he saw that I was
a female he let me go. All of this happened in about 30 secs.
Anyone who is from MD knows that Montgomery County police have
nothing better to do than pull over people for no reason, I wasn't
even speeding or driving crazy. My cousin got pulled over in her
Cadillac STS that has 20% tint all the way around. When the officer
walked to the car and saw her, the only excuse he could come up
> with about why he pulled her over was because "she had too many
air fresheners hanging from her rear view mirror." (WTF?)
half. I have 20% all the way around and 35% on the windshield. I
got pulled over about a month ago, the officer just asked to see my
license and asked if it was suspended. Then he told me to go to
Rockville and get it certified (yeah, okay). If he had given me
some sort of citation telling me that I HAD to go, then I would go,
but he didn't, so I'm not. Next month I'm getting 15% all the way
around so it wouldn't have mattered if he told me to take it off.
He just wanted to see who was in the car, and when he saw that I was
a female he let me go. All of this happened in about 30 secs.
Anyone who is from MD knows that Montgomery County police have
nothing better to do than pull over people for no reason, I wasn't
even speeding or driving crazy. My cousin got pulled over in her
Cadillac STS that has 20% tint all the way around. When the officer
walked to the car and saw her, the only excuse he could come up
> with about why he pulled her over was because "she had too many
air fresheners hanging from her rear view mirror." (WTF?)
03-19-2006, 09:59 PM
#68
Senior Member
Big Sky Scion
SL Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: six-two-six
Posts: 4,120
Tomas, I got the letter requirement part, just not sure about the % of tint.
When we install a "32%" tint, does that mean it blocks 32% or leaves 32%? Not accounting for the tint already in the glass...
I think if it means 32% allows 32% of the light and I have to go to 70%, I'm done with the tint - period, except for the rear.
Scott
When we install a "32%" tint, does that mean it blocks 32% or leaves 32%? Not accounting for the tint already in the glass...
I think if it means 32% allows 32% of the light and I have to go to 70%, I'm done with the tint - period, except for the rear.
Scott
03-19-2006, 10:27 PM
#69
Tints are USUALLY rated by how much light they let through, Scott.
A "32%" tint usually means that it lets only 32% of the light through.
This is called "transmittance" and is the common way glass and tints are rated.
Regular "clear" glass has less than 100% transmittance. There is always some loss through even the best, most clear optical glass.
Current "normal" auto glass actually is "tinted" to some degree and has considerably less than 100% transmittance - just roll down your driver side window part way and look outside. Through the glass will be a slightly different color and not as 'bright' as through the open space. That's because the glass is treated during manufacture to block a lot of IR and UV.
That filtering of IR and UV also affects the visible light that falls between IR and UV in the spectrum. Regular autoglass these days is usually in the range of 85-95% transmittance (of visible light) with no tint film added.
As neat as I might think all around tint looks on some cars, and as much as I try to be helpful by explaining some of the laws and physics, I also personally think that repeat offenders - for tint, speeding, DUI, racing, improper lighting, wreckless driving, etc. (any law) - are not treated harshly enough.
First time for some things COULD be an error - they weren't fully aware of the law. After that, though, they KNOW, and if they are stopped again for the same thing it should be painful. Third time and they should view the world throuigh bars for a while, or some other punishment that will really get their attention.
Let's face it, even if first time could have been an error, after that they are knowingly and willfuly breaking the law. Persons who knowingly and willfully break the law should be treated more harshly than those who (possibly) accidentally broke it.
How 'bout if third time breaking the same law with their vehicle in a two year period they just automatically donated their vehicle to charity? :D No quibbles, no arguement, done.
(Tom's a little harsh, eh? )
Take care,
Tom
{damned tpyos!}
A "32%" tint usually means that it lets only 32% of the light through.
This is called "transmittance" and is the common way glass and tints are rated.
Regular "clear" glass has less than 100% transmittance. There is always some loss through even the best, most clear optical glass.
Current "normal" auto glass actually is "tinted" to some degree and has considerably less than 100% transmittance - just roll down your driver side window part way and look outside. Through the glass will be a slightly different color and not as 'bright' as through the open space. That's because the glass is treated during manufacture to block a lot of IR and UV.
That filtering of IR and UV also affects the visible light that falls between IR and UV in the spectrum. Regular autoglass these days is usually in the range of 85-95% transmittance (of visible light) with no tint film added.
As neat as I might think all around tint looks on some cars, and as much as I try to be helpful by explaining some of the laws and physics, I also personally think that repeat offenders - for tint, speeding, DUI, racing, improper lighting, wreckless driving, etc. (any law) - are not treated harshly enough.
First time for some things COULD be an error - they weren't fully aware of the law. After that, though, they KNOW, and if they are stopped again for the same thing it should be painful. Third time and they should view the world throuigh bars for a while, or some other punishment that will really get their attention.
Let's face it, even if first time could have been an error, after that they are knowingly and willfuly breaking the law. Persons who knowingly and willfully break the law should be treated more harshly than those who (possibly) accidentally broke it.
How 'bout if third time breaking the same law with their vehicle in a two year period they just automatically donated their vehicle to charity? :D No quibbles, no arguement, done.
(Tom's a little harsh, eh?
)Take care,
Tom
{damned tpyos!}
03-19-2006, 10:36 PM
#70
Senior Member
Big Sky Scion
SL Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: six-two-six
Posts: 4,120
OK, Tom, get some coffee! I agree to an extent, but putting tint offenders in with some of those others is a tad harsh
I think that there should be a reasonable level for which we are allowed to tint windows is all.
I don't like or think people should be able to do 5% or even 25% as it does block too much vision. The 32% I got was the absolute most I'd go with, and now, maybe I will be happy to settle for the back only so you don't report me and have my ********* removed
Thanks for the info - it's been enlightening.
BTW, my wife has been a bit perplexed with my response to the "incident" as I'm ALWAYS griping (to put it mildly) about people breaking the rules and getting away with it.
She's right (as are you) and I have to figure out why I'm so pi$$ed at this guy for pulling me over...
Actually, I know. It's because in LA on a Friday night that also happens to be St. Patrick's Day, I know that probably 40% of the other people on the same freeway (many with much darker tint ) are likely legally drunk!
Arrrgh. Better now.
Scott
I think that there should be a reasonable level for which we are allowed to tint windows is all.
I don't like or think people should be able to do 5% or even 25% as it does block too much vision. The 32% I got was the absolute most I'd go with, and now, maybe I will be happy to settle for the back only so you don't report me and have my ********* removed
Thanks for the info - it's been enlightening.
BTW, my wife has been a bit perplexed with my response to the "incident" as I'm ALWAYS griping (to put it mildly) about people breaking the rules and getting away with it.
She's right (as are you) and I have to figure out why I'm so pi$$ed at this guy for pulling me over...
Actually, I know. It's because in LA on a Friday night that also happens to be St. Patrick's Day, I know that probably 40% of the other people on the same freeway (many with much darker tint
) are likely legally drunk!Arrrgh. Better now.
Scott
03-19-2006, 11:08 PM
#71
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Somewhere, USA
Posts: 684
You know, these people that are conspiring to commit fraud with a "doctor's note" really tick me off. I *do* have a legitimate sensitivity to light, and while my tints are no more than what's legal in my state anyway, even with them I still have to wear sunglasses to drive. If my eyes get much worse or if I move to another state, it'll be people committing fraud that make life tough for people like me...
And as long as I'm on my soapbox, they should make the people that have the "doctor's note" also be banned from driving at night. On coming headlights are a much more serious problem than headlights behind you, and always have been, tints or no. Yes, I'm on the verge of being included in that group.
And as long as I'm on my soapbox, they should make the people that have the "doctor's note" also be banned from driving at night. On coming headlights are a much more serious problem than headlights behind you, and always have been, tints or no. Yes, I'm on the verge of being included in that group.
03-19-2006, 11:50 PM
#72
I agree about the fraudsters from a slightly different direction, Frank..
I've had 'handicapped' placards or plates since my stroke in 2000, because I don't get around all that well (spent the first three years after the stroke getting around in a wheelchair). There are, of course, folks who try to get 'handicap priviledges' so the can 'get the good parking spots.'
Some try to get doctors to fill out the forms that let them get the placards, others just borrow grandma's card, or use the placard in the car even if the handicapped person isn't around. (It's a $5000 fine for a doctor to sign a fraudlent form, $250 fine - and points - in this state to use the placard if you are not the one it is issued to.)
Still, one sees all the time kids hopping out of the lifted 4X4 they just parked in the handicapped parking (blocking it's use by someone who really needs it) and running into a store - with grandma's placard dangling from the mirror.
The town I used to live in had a special patrol looking for just that sort of thing, and they even had their own phone number so if you saw something like that you could call 'em. I did several times...
I almost think that those folks who want a handicapped placard so bad they steal, borrow or otherwise fraudlently obtain them should simply have their wishes fulfilled, and be handicapped so they need them...
Uh-huh, Tom is harsh.
________________
Tom
03-19-2006, 11:55 PM
#73
Senior Member
Music City Scions
SL Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 157
I live in Tennessee and have 5% on top of the factory tint, and 5% on the front windows as well and have not been pulled over yet. I know the law in Tennessee is 35% on the front 2, but on the back you could paint them black if you wanted. But luckily I haven't been pulled over for fronts yet.
03-20-2006, 12:32 AM
#74
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Florida
Posts: 625
I have 15% on all the windows minus the windshield and the only time I've been pulled over/given a ticket is when an undercover state trooper pulled me over for speeding on the highway. He gave me a 200 dollar speeding ticket AND a 70 dollar ticket for my tint.
03-20-2006, 12:34 AM
#75
Senior Member
Big Sky Scion
SL Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: six-two-six
Posts: 4,120
Somehow, Tom, I see that as a totally different problem. But breaking the law is just that, and I guess I either need to get the laws changed or deal.
I'll deal.
At UCLA when I worked there, they ran annual undercover schemes to nail the kids using someone's handicapped placard in their car fraudulently...awesome! They video-taped them and showed them on the news - not to mention STEEP fines! I'm down with that.
Scott
I'll deal.
At UCLA when I worked there, they ran annual undercover schemes to nail the kids using someone's handicapped placard in their car fraudulently...awesome! They video-taped them and showed them on the news - not to mention STEEP fines! I'm down with that.
Scott
03-20-2006, 06:17 AM
#76
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: I'm da BOOM King!!!
Posts: 5,103
Originally Posted by mfbenson
You know, these people that are conspiring to commit fraud with a "doctor's note" really tick me off. I *do* have a legitimate sensitivity to light, and while my tints are no more than what's legal in my state anyway, even with them I still have to wear sunglasses to drive. If my eyes get much worse or if I move to another state, it'll be people committing fraud that make life tough for people like me...
P.S. I have other 'mods' on my tC that would get me busted more then having tint.
03-20-2006, 06:22 AM
#77
Senior Member
Big Sky Scion
SL Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: six-two-six
Posts: 4,120
I don't even have lights in my office - pulled out all if the fluorescent bulbs and got lamps with soft, low-wattage bulbs.
I suffer from migraines.
I am very fare-skinned and have light green eyes.
I can get a note, but I think I've decided against it.
The light tint you are allowed here in Cali won't help me, so I'm going without.
The doc's note for this is not taking anything away from those with the same problems. Taking someone's parking is not the same, because even if I lied, I'm not harming anyone.
But I'm not.
Scott
I suffer from migraines.
I am very fare-skinned and have light green eyes.
I can get a note, but I think I've decided against it.
The light tint you are allowed here in Cali won't help me, so I'm going without.
The doc's note for this is not taking anything away from those with the same problems. Taking someone's parking is not the same, because even if I lied, I'm not harming anyone.
But I'm not.
Scott
03-20-2006, 06:55 AM
#78
Uh, guys? Neither Frank or I said anything against folks getting legitimate letters, and neither of us suggested those in this thread had committed fraud.
I didn't say getting tint was hurting others the same as unlawfully parking in handicapped stalls, either.
My ONLY comparison was that getting a doc's sig fraudulently to make one's tint appear legal was no different than getting a doc's sig fraudulently to make getting a placard appear legal - they are both fraud.
ANY fraud of ANY sort, though, DOES hurt others to at least the extent that it makes it more difficult or impossible for those with legitimate needs to get them taken care of.
Why is it so difficult to get warranty service? Why are insurance rates so high? Fraud isn't the sole reason, but the "put the stock parts back on before taking it in so you can get it done under warranty" and the inflated insurance claims people submit sure as heck don't HELP.
Honest people often get hurt by the dishonest. Fact of life.
Dishonest people often get caught - eventually. Payback.
I didn't say getting tint was hurting others the same as unlawfully parking in handicapped stalls, either.
My ONLY comparison was that getting a doc's sig fraudulently to make one's tint appear legal was no different than getting a doc's sig fraudulently to make getting a placard appear legal - they are both fraud.
ANY fraud of ANY sort, though, DOES hurt others to at least the extent that it makes it more difficult or impossible for those with legitimate needs to get them taken care of.
Why is it so difficult to get warranty service? Why are insurance rates so high? Fraud isn't the sole reason, but the "put the stock parts back on before taking it in so you can get it done under warranty" and the inflated insurance claims people submit sure as heck don't HELP.
Honest people often get hurt by the dishonest. Fact of life.
Dishonest people often get caught - eventually. Payback.
03-20-2006, 06:34 PM
#79
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Somewhere, USA
Posts: 684
Hold up! What if I told you that I DO actually have a sensitivity to light?
P.S. I have a note from a doctor (gf's dad. ) that says my eyes are sensitive to light and is why I have my windows tinted. You could go that route if you have the connections.
