Tint Laws

[Guest jason11286]

This oughta get real interesting real quick. You can pick only one answer and I want to see why you think it. Here's the question (I'll post my answer a little later): Are tint laws more for the po-lice officer pullin you over, or for your protection so you can see?

[Guest pmuzik]

PLEASE not again

[Guest Stratusrtrida]

haha I know right?

[Guest Neofamulus]

Neither...

If they were for anything in particular, they would be relatively uniform. Is it less difficult to see with dark tint at night in New Mexico than in another state? Are police in Montana more likely to face dangerous situation where they need to see into the drivers side window (and not the rear seat window) than in another state? I think that there may be some generic basis to the laws but that everything has gotten mixed up and out of hand.

If I have to answer tho... I would say that it was mostly for the police. Traffic stops are supposed to be one of the most dangerous things they do, and you don't need to walk up next to some cracked-out guy you just pulled over and not be able to see the gun he is hastily loading. They other thing seems like a bonus... you should know better than to tint too dark to see at night... the law just happens to help (or try to) prevent stupidity.

[Guest Stratusrtrida]

I think my biggest problem with the whole tint law thing is that some of these SUV's come straight from the factory with dark tint on their back windows. You can't see through those windows if you put your face up to them during the day. To me that is crap that I can't have my back window as dark as I want. Or, better yet, you can drive a van with no windows at all, there could be an ary of people holding guns back there that an officer couldn't see. I do agree that the front roll ups should have some restrictions on them though.

I wasn't gonna answer this thread but I just got home and I was bored..

Nick

[Guest willie]

[tigerstripe]

where do I vote?

[Leader'sSHADES]

Ok, I'll bite just cuz!

It seems prudent to suggest that it is for the safety first and foremost of the officers.

It seems to me that the latter argument about visibility and thus, liability in the wake of a personal inury accident......is more a function of something else that is wrong with this country right now. That is.......a society of money hungry lible suit lawyers and others that are looking to cash in. This type of activity has lead to such fear that it changes the way business, medical, social, and personal things are conducted/reacted to.

Then, the crooks come in! Insurance companies apparently jumping on the band wagon and saying,,,,,,I don't have to pay due to this ingnorant consumer or tinter's "negligence" with all this fluffy BS legal language.

I would guess that most of us here don't see a HUGE problem with most tint jobs (there is always the idiot blacked out all around) and our overall ability to see and be safe, but this whole "moral high ground" is simply a prudent reaction to the current state of affairs and under the guise of better business practices!

sorry so long, just my

[Guest Key West]

I'm not gonna waste bandwidth and fuel the fire on this thread. BUT ANYONE who is interested in why not to do !llegal tint or at least Cover your arses just in case, email me at tinteffects@comcast.net. I'll send you the story of my friend in miami who lost everything because of it. There are ways of covering the posterior. BUT the possible consequences can be REALLY harsh indeed.

[Guest metint]

My personal position on the subject:

Any officer approaching a vehicle with heavily tinted windows is in no more or less danger than one approaching a house with blinds or drapes... there are actions an officer can take (approaching from the front of the spot-lighted vehicle, insisting by PA system the occupants exit stopped vehicle, call in back up, etc,) rather than follow through on the stupidity involved in blindly approaching a dangerous situation.

As the retired head of Homicide from a major city in Florida once said to me, and is the same philosophy my 2 cops brothers carry, "Any police officer stupid enough to approach a vehicle that he cannot see into, without first having his spotlights on bright and asking the occupants to exit the vehicle, deserves the consequences such a moronic act".

It's a multi-faceted issue, though driven through legislation by law enforcement, that is beneficial to all, including the survival of our industry..