Jump to content

GusTheTinter

Member
  • Posts

    2,699
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by GusTheTinter

  1. sorry that didn't go through as I planned.

     

    The bill would amend Section 709 of the Michigan Vehicle Code to the following:

    • --  Revise or delete provisions concerning the application of window tint on a motor vehicle's windshield, a rear window, or side window to the rear of the driver.

    • --  Prohibit a person from operating a motor vehicle with a sign, poster, nontransparent material, window application, reflective film, or nonreflective film upon or in the side windows immediately adjacent to and forward of the driver or front passenger.

    • --  Allow a person to operate a motor vehicle with a material that had a visible light transmittance of 70%, plus or minus 5%, or more, upon or in the side windows immediately adjacent to the driver or front passenger or the sidewings adjacent to and forward of the driver or front passenger.

    • --  Allow a person to operate a motor vehicle with a material that had a visible light transmittance of 25%, plus or minus 5%, or more, upon or in a rear window or a side window to the rear of the driver.

    • --  Delete a provision exempting the use of nonreflective, smoked or tinted glass, nonreflective film, perforated window screen, or other decorative window application on the rear window or a side window to the rear of the driver from Section 709.

    • --  Specify that Section 709 would not require the operator of a motor vehicle equipped with a special window treatment or application to be the individual for whom a physician or optometrist considered the treatment or application medically necessary.

      MCL 257.709 Legislative Analyst: Drew Krogulecki

  2. I was at a political debate last week, and had the opportunity to speak with a state trooper. He indicated that there is legislation about changing the law to allow film on the front windows. He was a little confused about what percent of film. He gave me the name of the state police  liaison. Sounds like their considering a 70%.

    I've got a call into my state rep to find out what is really being asked for, & try and get the house bill#

     

  3. On 8/17/2018 at 11:38 AM, bamh5 said:

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(bcujfcqnkms44vyrym4cmidy))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-257-709

     

    "(e) A special window treatment or application determined necessary by a physician or optometrist, for the protection of a person who is light sensitive or photosensitive, if the owner or operator of a motor vehicle has in possession a letter signed by a physician or optometrist, indicating that the special window treatment or application is a medical necessity. However, the special window treatment or application shall not interfere with or obstruct the driver's clear vision of the highway or an intersecting highway."

     

     

    Tickets from law enforcement really don't bother me. 

    What really worries me is a civil lawsuit. It looks like there's a legal loophole for some slick lawyer to use in a civil suit against the tinter.

     

    "However, the special window treatment or application shall not interfere with or obstruct the driver's clear vision of the highway or an intersecting highway."

     

    Even some Tinters will agree that 20% is too dark for front side windows, & the vast majority will agree that 5% is just dangerous on the front windows. And that will interfere with or obstruct the driver's clear vision at night.

    And that's what the guy that started this thread stated that he has on his vehicle! (just put on sunglasses).

    In the end for me, it comes down to what I'm will to risk for a few hundred bucks and will that make or break me.

     

     

×
×
  • Create New...