WRX Wannabe

Dont know if anyone has seen this?



Look here

Scrappydoo2003

Bloody hell... just had some done a couple of months ago, was reassured if they let enough light in, they'd be ok.. what now? NOT BLEEDING HAPPY

jason4656

thats always been the case as far as i know, i called a company for tints the otehr day and thats exactly what they told me~!!

UFO

So what happens to Limos?

rav4640

guess sun glass,s will be next, whats it all coming to......

ALX

That's nothing new...just the law has been clarified more - like mobile phones!

Having tints too dark on the front side windows was always illegal. But I think before you would get prosecuted under driving without due care or similar (because you can't see! ). Where now there is a specific offence for the windows being too dark.

I had to endure all this 3 years ago with a tint firm that tinted my windows too dark, when I asked for a very light tint, and the car came back like a pimp mobile.

BTW I won - and nearly cut up a white transit whilst reversing and nearly hit a cyclist whilst I used the car between it being fitted and removed simply due to it being too dark and me not being able to see beacuse of it.

That law is there for a good reason IMO

[Edited by ALX - 1/21/2004 11:22:00 PM]

scrappydoo

So you can still have very light tints on the front and be legal eh?

-=Buzz=-

If I still had my scoob I'd be worried, according to that.

We had 50% tint to the rear and 35% front and back side window tints done.. so technically thats illegal tints on the front side windows.

I've got the receipt to PROVE it was done before Jan 2004, so I would have hoped to have been treated "sympathetically" if stopped. They can't surely enforce it if it was done when it WAS legal? That's silly. Just like they can't re-try you for something you have been found innocent of.

but I've sold it anyway, so I don't care

johnfelstead

that looks like a sensible law to me, i thought that was already the case, obviously not.

DJ WATTS

Much of the same old same old but i guess like someone has said here that wearing dark sunglasses is fine then...? lol
And i supose the police are fine in their tinted vehicles as they are a law unto themselves...





I would love to try out their light meter on these cars!!

In fact if you look at my signature below i can hardly see a difference if any...

But who do you think would come out better in court?

[Edited by DJ WATTS - 1/22/2004 6:47:24 AM]

iain ross

so is i legal to have a lighter tint than 35% on the front two windows???

Boyakasha

iTrader: (2)

Put it this way, on a standard car the glass is around 72% which means it lets in 72% of light. The law now states that on the front if it lets in less than 70% of light it is illegal. So to sum up if you put any tint on the cars front windows you will be breaking the law (with the exception of clear security film).

I have a friend that works for a tinting firm, and he has told me that the lightest tint they do is 50% and that is not dark as we have it on our WRX and I have 35% on my STi so it looks like I will be removing the tint from the fronts.

chiark

This isn't how it's always been, it has changed. There's still confusion though as to the legal limit. It must be shown somewhere?

Tints forward of the B pillar are discouraged in all cases by the sounds of it.

Any vehicle with any tints in front of the B pillar may be stopped.

What is the prescribed level? I don't know. Someone must know. It used to be 35%, but that has probably changed, as Pentagon are saying that this effectively bans all front tints.

If you're stopped, and if you've got over 30% light transmission, you can carry on driving and you've got 10 days to sort it out.

If you've got less, I can only presume that you're in trouble and may not be allowed to continue on your journey.

Excessive tinting is dangerous, but this seems to outlaw all front tints.

Cheers,
Nick.