Warning For Illegal Windows

tint123 · April 10, 2008

Just noticed Mdog posted update on the Texas Law.

Thanks for the update MDOG !

Iron Duck Designs · April 11, 2008

as a shop we lose $1000 a month because we won't tint illegally, our insurance won't cover !llegal tinting, our tint manufacturer won't warranty !llegal tinting, however the "type" of custy that generally wants !llegal tint on their car is 70% of the time, we have found, not the kind of custy we want in our shop. Losing $$$ by not window tinting illegally sucks, but the benefits for our shop being upstanding outways the negative.

1. We have more custys that will spend more money with us because they respect our honesty, even though we won't tint their car illegally, they will have us tint it legally and then end up buying more of our products because they trust us.

2. We are able to rise above the competition around here because we offer more products than just window tinting, it has made us a bigger, better shop because we have been forced to improve ourselves as a business to make a profit doing something else, example: Paint Protection, signs, banners, magnets, shirts, custom graphics, full wraps, logos, etc.

3. In the long term we have many custys that will come to us again and again for our quality products, quality installs, and our honesty as a shop. And we have a lot of custys that will get their windows tinted illegally somewhere else for $200, but because we were honest with them and courteous, they will spend $3500 on a custom wrap from us.

It would be nice to make the extra $$$ from !llegal window tinting, but really we are so busy doing the legal stuff and making a killing on it, that it is okay that the shop down the street tints illegally...we sell him his shop's window graphics and we just did a wrap for his dad...so we got the illegall tinting money from him, but legally...LOL. :dunno

April 21, 2008

The validity of tint laws is wanting at best.

Tint restrictions, in regards to the safety of other drivers, should be restricted to insurance policies. If you get in an accident because you couldn't see because you were dumb enough to have limo tint installed on your windshield, your insurance company will have to eat the cost in the form of fiscal liability. It would be in their best interest to limit tint to safe percentages. Restrictions are always best in the private sector, where you have a choice rather than in public where the one-size-fits-all loud beast of government allows no dissent whatsoever.

Furthermore, even if tinting your windows past a certain percentage decreases your ability to drive safely, where do you draw the line? Being tired can make you an unsafe driver as can being angry, upset, or sad. Some cars have blind spots, so should we outlaw those as well? If you're seriously concerned about the safety of other drivers, there are plenty of other more realistic things out there to focus your public policy energy on. For example, my friend who is blind in one of his eyes happily gets his driver's license renewed every four years, without having to pass the vision test; he gets a doctor's note that basically lies and says he can see fine. (He can't; he has absolutely no distance perception--that requires at least two sources of vision, two eyes. Last time I checked, distance perception is pretty important in driving.)

I suppose you could argue tint restrictions on the safety of approaching officers. The idea is that a guy can pull a gun on a cop because the cop can't see anything. But requiring drivers of tinted cars to roll down their windows before an approaching officer gets there is a much more common sense law IMO. (Besides, how do you address the safety of officers approaching tinted cars whose drivers have a medical or security exemption? Their gun can kill the cop just as well as a regular citizen's.)

As for enforcement is concerned, going after the tint shops is a stupid thing to do. Installing tint on a car is a private contractual agreement between two private parties. It's no one's business but the shop and the customer. The safety of other drivers--according to those in favor of tint restrictions--is only affected when the car is driven on public roads. Some cars are never driven on public roads, and when they are it is not the responsibility of a service shop but that of the driver. If threatening the safety of the other drivers is what the laws are all about, then enforce it when the safety is affected--not when it might be affected.

*This all coming from the perspective of the consumer. Please don't throw me out because I'm not in the business. :nohit: Also, I apologize for the long first post. Sometimes the coffee is made a bit too strong.

May 5, 2008

- I dont stock 5% much - too dark - also would it be !llegal for a tint shop to tint windows (from whatever) out of the vehicle? sum tin 2 chew on

:lock Very good point!!!

The validity of tint laws is wanting at best.
Tint restrictions, in regards to the safety of other drivers, should be restricted to insurance policies. If you get in an accident because you couldn't see because you were dumb enough to have limo tint installed on your windshield, your insurance company will have to eat the cost in the form of fiscal liability. It would be in their best interest to limit tint to safe percentages. Restrictions are always best in the private sector, where you have a choice rather than in public where the one-size-fits-all loud beast of government allows no dissent whatsoever.

Furthermore, even if tinting your windows past a certain percentage decreases your ability to drive safely, where do you draw the line? Being tired can make you an unsafe driver as can being angry, upset, or sad. Some cars have blind spots, so should we outlaw those as well? If you're seriously concerned about the safety of other drivers, there are plenty of other more realistic things out there to focus your public policy energy on. For example, my friend who is blind in one of his eyes happily gets his driver's license renewed every four years, without having to pass the vision test; he gets a doctor's note that basically lies and says he can see fine. (He can't; he has absolutely no distance perception--that requires at least two sources of vision, two eyes. Last time I checked, distance perception is pretty important in driving.)

I suppose you could argue tint restrictions on the safety of approaching officers. The idea is that a guy can pull a gun on a cop because the cop can't see anything. But requiring drivers of tinted cars to roll down their windows before an approaching officer gets there is a much more common sense law IMO. (Besides, how do you address the safety of officers approaching tinted cars whose drivers have a medical or security exemption? Their gun can kill the cop just as well as a regular citizen's.)

As for enforcement is concerned, going after the tint shops is a stupid thing to do. Installing tint on a car is a private contractual agreement between two private parties. It's no one's business but the shop and the customer. The safety of other drivers--according to those in favor of tint restrictions--is only affected when the car is driven on public roads. Some cars are never driven on public roads, and when they are it is not the responsibility of a service shop but that of the driver. If threatening the safety of the other drivers is what the laws are all about, then enforce it when the safety is affected--not when it might be affected.

*This all coming from the perspective of the consumer. Please don't throw me out because I'm not in the business. Also, I apologize for the long first post. Sometimes the coffee is made a bit too strong.

I could NOT agree with you more!!! All tint laws are unconstitutional. There are some valid concerns as to safety, but not to the point of government regulation or intervention. The tint laws are designed to provide probable cause for a stop, where no other probable cause exists, and to generate revenue. Here you can be fined up to 500.00 for tint, yet no one is enforcing, for example, the "folllowing too closely" laws. A semi at 75 mph that is only 10 or 15 feet behind me poses a MUCH larger threat than the jackass next to me with 5%. One of the biggest interstate pileups in the nation occurred here about 5 years ago on 75. It was caused by a Semi following too closely, and shut down I75 for over 12 hours, north and southbound.There are FAR greater public safety issues that need to be addressed, but sadly, they would generate no or little revenue, and do not further the Gov't agenda of abolishing whats left of our constitution. Everything you state is true and correct. Sadly, it's easier and cheaper to just pay and go. Nobody wants to stand up to Big Brother.

Tinitman · May 5, 2008

as a shop we lose $1000 a month because we won't tint illegally, our insurance won't cover !llegal tinting, our tint manufacturer won't warranty !llegal tinting, however the "type" of custy that generally wants !llegal tint on their car is 70% of the time, we have found, not the kind of custy we want in our shop. Losing $$$ by not window tinting illegally sucks, but the benefits for our shop being upstanding outways the negative.
1. We have more custys that will spend more money with us because they respect our honesty, even though we won't tint their car illegally, they will have us tint it legally and then end up buying more of our products because they trust us.

2. We are able to rise above the competition around here because we offer more products than just window tinting, it has made us a bigger, better shop because we have been forced to improve ourselves as a business to make a profit doing something else, example: Paint Protection, signs, banners, magnets, shirts, custom graphics, full wraps, logos, etc.

3. In the long term we have many custys that will come to us again and again for our quality products, quality installs, and our honesty as a shop. And we have a lot of custys that will get their windows tinted illegally somewhere else for $200, but because we were honest with them and courteous, they will spend $3500 on a custom wrap from us.

It would be nice to make the extra $$$ from !llegal window tinting, but really we are so busy doing the legal stuff and making a killing on it, that it is okay that the shop down the street tints illegally...we sell him his shop's window graphics and we just did a wrap for his dad...so we got the illegall tinting money from him, but legally...LOL.

Finally a young green person who sees the light!

Keep up he good work!

Customtinting · May 5, 2008

As posted by TD:

Let's put this thread up as a reference to point to for customers that post here who may be inclined to tint darker than legal.

Instead of repeating the same old arguments, we can just give a link to this thread.

A link to this thread will also appear in the side navigation for easy reference, so, let's hear some of the many good reasons to keep it legal!

Reasons to Keep it Legal Thread

June 13, 2008

Many many officers around Tennessee have warned all these people about the tint. I own a 03 ford f 150 that has five all the way around, twelve inch tint strip on the front and my WHOLE windshield is tinted 35%....its been on there ever since 03 and I not once got a warning, or ticket. I have done about 10 trucks that exact way, and many others close to that. Yes !llegal, but damn does it look good. :sign