Window Tinting - Amendments to Legislation
22 January 2004, 01:33 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: just to your right
Posts: 1,859
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mods can we make this a sticky for the mo and leave in here as it is very important everyone understands what is about to change.
Window Tinting - Amendments to Legislation
During the early part of 2004, Section 32 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations will be amended to include ?Window Tint Films?, where such materials attached to the glass are capable of reducing the Visible Light Transmission of forward windows to below prescribed levels. These changes will be back-dated to become applicable from 1st January 2004.
This will effectively ban virtually all tinted films fitted to windows forward of the B-Post on any vehicle that is to be driven on UK roads.
The reason for these changes is the recent proliferation of vehicles that are excessively tinted. Some vehicles may be so heavily tinted that they present a real danger when used on public roads. The action being taken by the Government follows a fatality that occurred recently where a heavily tinted car was involved in a collision with a motorcycle and the window tints were held to blame due to the vision of the driver being impaired.
There is however, a recognised difference between ?light window tints? which may be considered safe for road use (such as those supplied to you by Pentagon) and ?excessively dark window tints? which are not.
There has also been a great deal of debate in recent years about the legitimacy of window tints that do not obscure the vision of the driver. A clear case has been argued that road-safe window tints do not actually conflict with existing regulations. The Department for Transport have argued however that Section 32 was always intended to cover materials attached to the glass, despite the fact that no mention of this is made in the Regulation itself.
The only solution remaining would be to amend the Legislation.
Consequently and in order to clarify the situation, the Government have finally decided to up-date the Regulations to specifically include Tinted Films since, in the view of the Police and the Department for Transport, this is the only way in which the problems of excessive tints can be remedied.
Unfortunately however, even tint films that may be considered to be safe for road use will now be viewed as in conflict with the Regulations, enabling the Police and Vehicle Inspectorate to take action against vehicle owners.
This has significant implications for the owners of vehicles that have window tints already fitted and also those that are responsible for installing or selling window tints.
Implications for the vehicle owner
After much discussion, a sympathetic Enforcement Policy has been agreed between the Department for Transport and The Glass and Glazing Federation to ensure that all vehicle owners that have had tints applied in the past may be dealt with fairly. This applies in particular where the infringement is with respect to tints that do not pose a significant threat to Road Safety, despite being in contravention with the amended Regulations.
In any event, after the date of the amendment to Section 32, the owner of a vehicle that has window tints applied forward of the B-Post could be challenged by either a Police Officer or by an Inspector from the Department for Transport?s Vehicle Inspectorate, where their vehicle is noticed being driven on Public Roads.
Where such a vehicle is stopped and the window tints applied are such that the Visible Light Transmission level, when measured using an approved device falls to below prescribed levels, the following enforcement guidelines have been agreed with, and recommended, by the Government.
Above 30% Visible Light Transmission (Less Severe Window Tints)
The owner or driver of such a vehicle would be required to have the tinted film removed from the windows under the direction of either a Rectification Notice or a Delayed Prohibition Notice. A period of grace will apply for a limited number of days (normally ten) during which time the vehicle may be driven whilst the rectification work is to be completed.
In either case, the vehicle will need to be inspected by either a Police Officer or Vehicle Inspectorate Officer to confirm that the glass has been restored to a compliant condition. Prosecution is unlikely in such circumstances provided the vehicle owner complies fully.
Action that needs to be taken
All Businesses that have supplied window tints forward of the B-Post are being encouraged by the Government and the Glass and Glazing Federation to contact all of their previous customers to inform them of the changes to Legislation and to offer them a chance to have their vehicle rectified by having the front tints removed.
As one of our existing customers, this is a service that we are happy to offer to you free of charge. It is also something that we can do for you while you wait to minimise any inconvenience.
Should you wish, we can instead apply Clear SupaGlass once the tints have been removed, for a small charge, and full details are available on request. Please note that in order to apply SupaGlass to the two forward windows we will need to retain your vehicle for a longer period, depending on the model.
New compliant SupaGlass and Tints Package
Pentagon Glass Tech?s new SupaGlass and Tints Package will be compliant with the new Regulations.
This will include Clear (untinted) SupaGlass forward of the B-Post and either Tints or Tinted SupaGlass to the rear of the vehicle which will be acceptable under the amended legislation.
********************************************
Please Note:
Pentagon as a group have always sought to ensure that the tints we supply are both safe for road use and acceptable within the law. Throughout our history we have regularly consulted the Police, Road Safety Groups and other Authorities for guidance on this matter.
Our policy has been not to supply tints on the driver and forward passenger windows that may obscure the vision of the driver in any driving conditions. This follows similar practices that have existed for decades in other parts of the world (such as in the USA and Australia) where window tinting above prescribed levels of Visible Light Transmission is widely employed and accepted as being safe for road use by the Authorities concerned.
To illustrate the confusion that exists about the current law in the UK, Pentagon have been requested in the past to supply tints to the Royal Family, the Prime Minister and for many Police Officers including Chief Constables.
We will continue in our efforts to campaign for a change in legislation that may eventually allow window tints which are known to be road safe on these windows, as is permitted in other parts of the world. Window tinting provides many benefits as you will have experienced and we feel that the motorist should have an opportunity for greater safety, security and comfort in their vehicles provided that this does not compromise road safety.
Taken from the pentagon site.
Window Tinting - Amendments to Legislation
During the early part of 2004, Section 32 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations will be amended to include ?Window Tint Films?, where such materials attached to the glass are capable of reducing the Visible Light Transmission of forward windows to below prescribed levels. These changes will be back-dated to become applicable from 1st January 2004.
This will effectively ban virtually all tinted films fitted to windows forward of the B-Post on any vehicle that is to be driven on UK roads.
The reason for these changes is the recent proliferation of vehicles that are excessively tinted. Some vehicles may be so heavily tinted that they present a real danger when used on public roads. The action being taken by the Government follows a fatality that occurred recently where a heavily tinted car was involved in a collision with a motorcycle and the window tints were held to blame due to the vision of the driver being impaired.
There is however, a recognised difference between ?light window tints? which may be considered safe for road use (such as those supplied to you by Pentagon) and ?excessively dark window tints? which are not.
There has also been a great deal of debate in recent years about the legitimacy of window tints that do not obscure the vision of the driver. A clear case has been argued that road-safe window tints do not actually conflict with existing regulations. The Department for Transport have argued however that Section 32 was always intended to cover materials attached to the glass, despite the fact that no mention of this is made in the Regulation itself.
The only solution remaining would be to amend the Legislation.
Consequently and in order to clarify the situation, the Government have finally decided to up-date the Regulations to specifically include Tinted Films since, in the view of the Police and the Department for Transport, this is the only way in which the problems of excessive tints can be remedied.
Unfortunately however, even tint films that may be considered to be safe for road use will now be viewed as in conflict with the Regulations, enabling the Police and Vehicle Inspectorate to take action against vehicle owners.
This has significant implications for the owners of vehicles that have window tints already fitted and also those that are responsible for installing or selling window tints.
Implications for the vehicle owner
After much discussion, a sympathetic Enforcement Policy has been agreed between the Department for Transport and The Glass and Glazing Federation to ensure that all vehicle owners that have had tints applied in the past may be dealt with fairly. This applies in particular where the infringement is with respect to tints that do not pose a significant threat to Road Safety, despite being in contravention with the amended Regulations.
In any event, after the date of the amendment to Section 32, the owner of a vehicle that has window tints applied forward of the B-Post could be challenged by either a Police Officer or by an Inspector from the Department for Transport?s Vehicle Inspectorate, where their vehicle is noticed being driven on Public Roads.
Where such a vehicle is stopped and the window tints applied are such that the Visible Light Transmission level, when measured using an approved device falls to below prescribed levels, the following enforcement guidelines have been agreed with, and recommended, by the Government.
Above 30% Visible Light Transmission (Less Severe Window Tints)
The owner or driver of such a vehicle would be required to have the tinted film removed from the windows under the direction of either a Rectification Notice or a Delayed Prohibition Notice. A period of grace will apply for a limited number of days (normally ten) during which time the vehicle may be driven whilst the rectification work is to be completed.
In either case, the vehicle will need to be inspected by either a Police Officer or Vehicle Inspectorate Officer to confirm that the glass has been restored to a compliant condition. Prosecution is unlikely in such circumstances provided the vehicle owner complies fully.
Action that needs to be taken
All Businesses that have supplied window tints forward of the B-Post are being encouraged by the Government and the Glass and Glazing Federation to contact all of their previous customers to inform them of the changes to Legislation and to offer them a chance to have their vehicle rectified by having the front tints removed.
As one of our existing customers, this is a service that we are happy to offer to you free of charge. It is also something that we can do for you while you wait to minimise any inconvenience.
Should you wish, we can instead apply Clear SupaGlass once the tints have been removed, for a small charge, and full details are available on request. Please note that in order to apply SupaGlass to the two forward windows we will need to retain your vehicle for a longer period, depending on the model.
New compliant SupaGlass and Tints Package
Pentagon Glass Tech?s new SupaGlass and Tints Package will be compliant with the new Regulations.
This will include Clear (untinted) SupaGlass forward of the B-Post and either Tints or Tinted SupaGlass to the rear of the vehicle which will be acceptable under the amended legislation.
********************************************
Please Note:
Pentagon as a group have always sought to ensure that the tints we supply are both safe for road use and acceptable within the law. Throughout our history we have regularly consulted the Police, Road Safety Groups and other Authorities for guidance on this matter.
Our policy has been not to supply tints on the driver and forward passenger windows that may obscure the vision of the driver in any driving conditions. This follows similar practices that have existed for decades in other parts of the world (such as in the USA and Australia) where window tinting above prescribed levels of Visible Light Transmission is widely employed and accepted as being safe for road use by the Authorities concerned.
To illustrate the confusion that exists about the current law in the UK, Pentagon have been requested in the past to supply tints to the Royal Family, the Prime Minister and for many Police Officers including Chief Constables.
We will continue in our efforts to campaign for a change in legislation that may eventually allow window tints which are known to be road safe on these windows, as is permitted in other parts of the world. Window tinting provides many benefits as you will have experienced and we feel that the motorist should have an opportunity for greater safety, security and comfort in their vehicles provided that this does not compromise road safety.
Taken from the pentagon site.
22 January 2004, 03:26 PM
#2
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Some say he has frost on his helmet...
Posts: 2,970
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mines booked in for Tuesday next week and they will only do the rear windows...
Agree in a way as I had a bike and, seeing the amount of very dark front windows is somewhat disturbing...
This has simply been caused by peolple requesting darker than the 35% for the fronts and the suppliers for doing the job.
Saw an X5 today that had completly black fronts, and last knight a Girl on a scooter with only her sidlight on... Lets hope they don't meet!
Agree in a way as I had a bike and, seeing the amount of very dark front windows is somewhat disturbing...
This has simply been caused by peolple requesting darker than the 35% for the fronts and the suppliers for doing the job.
Saw an X5 today that had completly black fronts, and last knight a Girl on a scooter with only her sidlight on... Lets hope they don't meet!
22 January 2004, 06:41 PM
#3
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Passing ...............
Posts: 13,320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So excuse the stupidness here but i was going 2 book my STi in 2 get the lighter tint on all the windows does this mean that the p**s can tell me to remove my film on the front ???????
22 January 2004, 07:01 PM
#5
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Never do names esp. Joey, spaz or Mong
Posts: 39,688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where is the B-Pillar on a LIMO ?
What is the law for Police ?
What about sunglasses with more than 35% tints ? also police sunglasses.
What about glare ? thought that was cause of more accidents than tinted windows.
What is the law for Police ?
What about sunglasses with more than 35% tints ? also police sunglasses.
What about glare ? thought that was cause of more accidents than tinted windows.
22 January 2004, 07:22 PM
#6
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Cumbria
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am i reading this correctly,
This means that ANY tint on the drivers or passenger doors will have to be removed
Mine have been on the car since new
[Edited by philgr - 1/22/2004 7:22:54 PM]
This means that ANY tint on the drivers or passenger doors will have to be removed
Mine have been on the car since new
[Edited by philgr - 1/22/2004 7:22:54 PM]
22 January 2004, 07:37 PM
#7
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Passing ...............
Posts: 13,320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
just been onto pentagons website they r stating less than 30% is what is being outlawed at the mo, so 35% will be ok light fronts it is then !!!
Trending Topics
22 January 2004, 07:51 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 13,735
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Read it carefully.
Anything that drops the transmission below permissable limits is not allowed.
If you have tints, you can be stopped and the windows inspected.
Anything that still allows 30% or greater is likely to be given 10 days to get it corrected.
Anything less and you're probably walking home.
I read it as tints are outlawed in worst case, but the "permissable limits" is not defined so I think there's a lack of clarity... It says something that pentagon are offering to remove/fit clear supaglass to fronts (although money will no doubt change hands)
Anything that drops the transmission below permissable limits is not allowed.
If you have tints, you can be stopped and the windows inspected.
Anything that still allows 30% or greater is likely to be given 10 days to get it corrected.
Anything less and you're probably walking home.
I read it as tints are outlawed in worst case, but the "permissable limits" is not defined so I think there's a lack of clarity... It says something that pentagon are offering to remove/fit clear supaglass to fronts (although money will no doubt change hands)
22 January 2004, 09:36 PM
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 7,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But, of course, most cars front windows are "tinted" to some extent anyway. Where is the limit set? It certainly can't be 100% light transmission (unless they measure it with the windows down 
)
)
23 January 2004, 08:49 AM
#11
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: just to your right
Posts: 1,859
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chiark is correct. I have spoken with a friend who has a tint business and he told me that a standard manufacturers tint allows 72% of light through, so this means you only have 2% left over so any tint is going to push it over the limit 
23 January 2004, 09:03 AM
#12
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ecosse
Posts: 1,156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Complete and utter waste of Police time again.... its not as if theres rapists, burgulars and drug dealers for them to be dealing with.....
Anyway rant over, does anybody know how they are going to measure this exactly, surely they must have to use a calibrated meter of some type....
John.
Anyway rant over, does anybody know how they are going to measure this exactly, surely they must have to use a calibrated meter of some type....
John.
23 January 2004, 09:14 AM
#13
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: just to your right
Posts: 1,859
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, spoke to the traffic police in our area and they are being sent the equipment. Also I think it will form part of your MOT so there is no escape 
23 January 2004, 10:43 AM
#14
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 8,384
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Above 30% Visible Light Transmission (Less Severe Window Tints)
The owner or driver of such a vehicle would be required to have the tinted film removed from the windows under the direction of either a Rectification Notice or a Delayed Prohibition Notice. A period of grace will apply for a limited number of days (normally ten) during which time the vehicle may be driven whilst the rectification work is to be completed.
The owner or driver of such a vehicle would be required to have the tinted film removed from the windows under the direction of either a Rectification Notice or a Delayed Prohibition Notice. A period of grace will apply for a limited number of days (normally ten) during which time the vehicle may be driven whilst the rectification work is to be completed.
10 days notice is just blantantly not enough, the place I used was booking 2-3 weeks ahead as was!
So in short, it cost me say circa £80 to install the front tints, and its probably gonna cost me to get them removed.
I love this country - NOT!
23 January 2004, 11:25 AM
#15
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: just to your right
Posts: 1,859
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm in the same boat, 35% all round so I am 35% short of the limit. It is insurance that is going to cause people the most problems as they just won't cover you with any tints at the front.
23 January 2004, 11:53 AM
#16
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 8,384
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the government should foot the bill for removal, and all tinting places be given a mechanism to claim the money back.
damn government [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]
Hmm.. might go visit plod to save me some grief later on and get the windows tested.
damn government [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]
Hmm.. might go visit plod to save me some grief later on and get the windows tested.
23 January 2004, 01:25 PM
#18
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Co Durham
Posts: 1,659
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This reminds me of all the fuss made about bikers who had dark visors on their helmets.
Yet it's perfectly legal to ride or drive around wearing sunglasses at night!
I agree that some vehicles are rediculously overtinted (like a lad in a black saxo near me who has 20% front and rear from what I can see!). FFS use common sense - if you an make out the driver's features behind the tint then fine, but if you can't then they are too dark.
I had my tints done last year - 35% front and 20%rear & back. Guess, it's just a matter of time before I get pulled then![img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]
Yet it's perfectly legal to ride or drive around wearing sunglasses at night!
I agree that some vehicles are rediculously overtinted (like a lad in a black saxo near me who has 20% front and rear from what I can see!). FFS use common sense - if you an make out the driver's features behind the tint then fine, but if you can't then they are too dark.
I had my tints done last year - 35% front and 20%rear & back. Guess, it's just a matter of time before I get pulled then![img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]
23 January 2004, 01:38 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 13,735
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My interpretation is that it's a response to people who take the p with limo black on the front windows. No doubt that that is a dangerous thing to do, as highlighted by the accident mentioned in the main post.
If you've not got silly tints, I wouldn't expect a pull... We'll just have to see how it is implemented.
If you've not got silly tints, I wouldn't expect a pull... We'll just have to see how it is implemented.
23 January 2004, 01:41 PM
#20
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 8,384
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
drumsterphil
What really pisses me off is I followed the letter of the law when getting mine done last year, as the tinting company I used said this is currently what is recommended by law.
And now, on a whim, they change it and make it effective to all existing cars.
Why they can't just inforce the recommended levels as before, rather than outlaw altogether, I don't know!?
It would have made more sense surely!!
Nick - agreed, it might be simple to remove the tints myself.
But that still doesn't get round the fact only 2 months ago I paid to get this done when it was LEGAL and now I stand to be out of pocket because they just changed their mind.
What really pisses me off is I followed the letter of the law when getting mine done last year, as the tinting company I used said this is currently what is recommended by law.
And now, on a whim, they change it and make it effective to all existing cars.
Why they can't just inforce the recommended levels as before, rather than outlaw altogether, I don't know!?
It would have made more sense surely!!
Nick - agreed, it might be simple to remove the tints myself.
But that still doesn't get round the fact only 2 months ago I paid to get this done when it was LEGAL and now I stand to be out of pocket because they just changed their mind.
23 January 2004, 01:47 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dull White BMW
Posts: 5,052
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DrEvil I agree. I had my tinits done last October. I went for the 35% as this was classed as a light tint and therefore acceptable by law.
My insurance co. knows I have them fitted and I've just spoken to the local traffic police who are of the opinion that as long as they can see who is driving they are happy. They have not been issued with light meters.
I'm leaving mine on!
Steve
My insurance co. knows I have them fitted and I've just spoken to the local traffic police who are of the opinion that as long as they can see who is driving they are happy. They have not been issued with light meters.
I'm leaving mine on!
Steve
23 January 2004, 01:57 PM
#22
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 1,428
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just So I have this the right way round, the xx% figures quoted are the amount of light passed through the tint not the amount of lighted blocked.
So 20% is very dark 40% a fair bit lighter.
Need to find out what my tints are.
So 20% is very dark 40% a fair bit lighter.
Need to find out what my tints are.
23 January 2004, 02:27 PM
#30
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 8,384
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grant,
Don't think thats fair, think you will find its these damn road 'safety' groups, you know, the Rover 75 drivers club.
Alex
PS. no offical word from my insurer yet. I've left in the hands of my broker, very helpful chap
Don't think thats fair, think you will find its these damn road 'safety' groups, you know, the Rover 75 drivers club.
Alex
PS. no offical word from my insurer yet. I've left in the hands of my broker, very helpful chap