Window tint - the blind killer

[JC]

Originally Posted by mcnews

And the moronic press run this police spin yet again almost in its entirety. The whole thing is beyond pathetic on so many levels. I don't have any aftermarket tint, never have and probably never will. But believe people should have the right to have whatever tint they like. Where does it stop, a certain colour car has more chance of an accident according to dodgy statistics, well let's ban that colour car.... Don't joke, the morons would do it if they could get away with it.

Whataver they like - yes, within the law, and ADRs. They are targetting illegal tint, which you or anyone else shouldn't have a problem with.

[Redrum]

Originally Posted by JC

A guy I work with had 20% tint fitted to his car, and at night, he said he had to drive with the driver's window down just so he could see enough to give way to the right. He ended up getting it stripped and going back to 35% film.

I can understand why the police are targetting these cars and why they are saying pedestrians, cyclists etc are the ones in danger - it would be pretty hard to see a barely moving/small object at night through heavily tinted windows - it is bad enough just trying to see other cars!

It is not just the percentage. I have been in cars which had 5% tint which was like driving in a box and you couldn't see stuff all at night to other 5% tints where you can see as clearly as 35% tint. It is the quality of the tint also.

[fg_nitro]

Originally Posted by bungarra

A friend bought an EX WA Police XR6 complete with "police" according to the paperwork in the owners manual. He got defected a few weeks later for it. When he showed the officers the paperwork, the senior of the two said "It is no longer a police vehicle".

When he took the XR6 over the pits, turned out he was the 3rd owner that day with ex cop cars who had been done for the same thing. The guy at the pit from DPI explained police tint is legal only for police vehicles!!

Take it to court.

Illegal to sell an unroadworthy car as roadworthy. Of all people they should know that.

So before it's sold and released from police duties it should be returned road worthy and meeting ADRs.

Do you think that would wash if you tried it on?

[gossy]

Originally Posted by Redrum

The Government should look more at vehicles driving around with obstructed forward vision. Especially in relation to sat nav units mounted hanging of windscreens. That is a far bigger and more dangerous issue.

I agree totally, the placement of some of these units I have seen is ludicrous.

[Maggot]

People taking this way too seriously.. it is not a revenue raiser.. it's actually not a bad idea to crack down on it.

Many overtinted cars are using two layers of film.. one to reduce heat/UV, and one for looks.. the net result is simply too dark.

If you pull up to turn left at a t junction.. you cannot see vehicles coming from the right through another car.. that is a huge cause of accidents.. especially motorbikes.

.

As far as pedestrians getting hit is would be in the following order.

1. innatentive /distracted drivers
2. people walking along with their head up their backside
3. quieter cars (my justification for having an a/m exhaust :-)

[Bobman]

Will they include the TMU SS Commodores in this operation? Some of them have darker tint than some of us on here.

I have 17% tint on my car and even at night when it's raining I have no issue seeing things.

You can have no tint and still run into people because people just step out in traffic without looking. How about some responsibility for yourself?

[landau460]

With all this "cracking down" and we are not doing this to raise revenue we still dont see the death toll dropping where is our value for money? I paid good money for them not to die. I want my money back till i see a drop. When the people dont like a word the government use the government change the word, revenue to road safety
check this out

Our road safety message.

Speeding, travelling too fast for the conditions is dangerous.
Do not fall prey to false safety messages that providing that you travel below the speed limit you are safe, 98% of fatalities on Australian roads occur while travelling at or below the speed limit.
All motoring collisions involve speed yet it is the dangerous "below-the-limit speeding" which speed cameras are unable to detect that causes the majority of fatalities.
Drive/ride alert, according to the conditions and within the law at all times.
Road Safety - Get the Facts

Common sense policies that reduced the road toll in the past are now displaced by an automated revenue based "speed kills", speed camera policy that has failed with tragic consequences.
It is the most massive "road safety" campaign in history yet the road toll is higher than if the previous policy had been allowed to continue. Meanwhile the road toll in new 50km/h zones continues to rise.
This site provides the facts, based on Government data, as to how and why the current policy has failed, how we are being mislead and what needs to be done to save lives on our roads.
I found this at www.roadsense.com.au/

[Seduce XR6]

But the glass we actually look out of when driving forward is not tinted & an night cars have lights so can be seen through the tint so where is the issue?
Or are we talking about people who walk out in front of cars somehow from the side or maybe bike riders whom we have already seen through the windscreen becoming less visable as we pass them.
I agree dark tint even legal tint makes it hard when reversing at night but what are the chances of hitting someone at night when reversing?
If they are silly enough to walk into the path of a reversing vehicle.
I dont see the safety issue for Pedestrians, cyclists or motorcyclists who we can see through the windscreen as we drive forwards & not backwards.
And yes I have 35% tint & have had tint on my cars since 1980 & it has never been an issue for me.

[landau460]

Talkin bout being silly enough to walk behind a reversing vehicle i was in the city bout 9 months ago when i pulled up passed a spott to reverse into it as i was reversing into it beinga work vehicle it is sometimes hard to see out the back i had a young woman abuse me saying that i just cant reverse back.............. I dont just reverse with out looking but how do i reverse into a spott without just reversing? This was in broad daylight sunny, so in the dark you will get all types of people potentially doing the same. Like i tell my kids and any im with you are not invincable a car, truck and the like will squash you dead i dont think they understand so i keep telling/reminding. Some kids never grow up they just look older.
No amount of tint or lack of will help stupidity.

Its lik when you get into a new car you have to get used to it. Once this period of getting familier with the vehicle you will be safe untill someone walks behind you in the dark...

[landau460]

Originally Posted by bungarra

A friend bought an EX WA Police XR6 complete with "police" according to the paperwork in the owners manual. He got defected a few weeks later for it. When he showed the officers the paperwork, the senior of the two said "It is no longer a police vehicle".

When he took the XR6 over the pits, turned out he was the 3rd owner that day with ex cop cars who had been done for the same thing. The guy at the pit from DPI explained police tint is legal only for police vehicles!!

Buying a used vehicle from a licensed dealer is the safest way to buy. Licensed dealers are regulated by state laws that protect consumers, ensuring that the vehicle you buy is safe and comes with clear title (no outstanding finance). Although these laws differ from state to state, many vehicles purchased from a licensed motor dealer will also come with statutory or an optional warranty. Make an enquiry on this vehicle today and ask the dealer about the warranty and consumer protection offered in that state.
Found that last bit on ebay
Dont let the buggers get one over you just because its not police someone other then your friend is to blame

[bungarra]

Originally Posted by fg_nitro

Take it to court.

Illegal to sell an unroadworthy car as roadworthy. Of all people they should know that.

So before it's sold and released from police duties it should be returned road worthy and meeting ADRs.

Do you think that would wash if you tried it on?

It was taken to court by another person and it was ruled that the onus is on the purchaser to ensure that all modifications are legal by requesting from the seller that all modifications including tint is in accordance with the relevant legislation. Also, as the vehicles were released for sale from a fleet services company, the police are not required to ensure that the tint was within guidelines as it may have been changed at fleet services level. Basically, it came down to buyer beware.

Funnily enough though, since then most have lighter tints when sold, or the dark tin on back window and side rear windows but lighter tint on the front, some are even devoid of tint. Someon covering their butts just in case I think

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by Redrum
The Government should look more at vehicles driving around with obstructed forward vision. Especially in relation to sat nav units mounted hanging of windscreens. That is a far bigger and more dangerous issue.

Originally Posted by gossy

I agree totally, the placement of some of these units I have seen is ludicrous.

Disagree, under new ARR - GPS units, mounted to the windscreen with commercial fitment device are legal. Driver commonsense should apply as to what spot of the windscreen it is fixed.

I'd rather have folk listening/referring to a GPS than holding a street directory/map.

Tint, has the effect of preventing side glass from shattering, acting like a laminate reducing the amount of glass spray during a crash.

Don't need too many nanny state laws.

[prydey]

i have quality 3M tint @ 25% on my bf2 wagon. i regualarly drive at night as i work shiftwork. last night driving to work, there was very little difference between looking out the front windscreen and the side. it looks dark from the outside but to look through from the inside, it doens't make a lot of difference.

[mik]

would`nt it be nice if they targeted pedestrians and bike riders with the same gusto they do with cars and trucks, how often do you see bike riders with no lights ,dark clothing, the same for pedestrians , surely it its not rocket science, a bloke in a dark coat and jeans dawdled across the road tonight (j walking) not looking behind him,you could hardly see him, i just wanted to wack the idiot with a cricket bat.....fair dinkum , it would`nt have mattered tint or no tint if someone else had of been comeing around the corner in a slight hurry this bloke could have ended up road kill, i wonder who would have got in the poop for it?

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by landau460

Speeding, travelling too fast for the conditions is dangerous.
Do not fall prey to false safety messages that providing that you travel below the speed limit you are safe, 98% of fatalities on Australian roads occur while travelling at or below the speed limit.
www.roadsense.com.au/

What an utter load of crap. That would mean that out of approximately 20 road fatalities I have attended, 19.6 of them would have occurred at below the speed limit. What rubbish, not one of them involved all cars involved traveling below the posted speed limit, I am sure every other paramedic would have a similar experience. The only difference would be some of the rural paramedics but in urban areas, fatalities almost exclusively involve higher than posted speeds.

Lets face it, it is simple physics. Our eyes sense light by triggering light sensitive cells lining our retina as a result of focussed transmitted light. Yes in bright light you can reduce the amount of light transmitted to your retina without unacceptable reduction in vision (to a point), but the amount of reduction at night that is acceptable is significantly less without causing reduction in vision. If you need an example, wear your cool as sunnies at night and then tell me you can see as well as you can without them. That is simple fact and that is why we have a legal limit.

Yet another case of those nasty cops enforcing a law which is what we pay them for, sack em all!

I have an idea for all those that think it is purely revenue raising. Lets take the fines out of the equation so they can not be accused of revenue raising, from now on if you are caught in a defectable vehicle you don't get a fine, you just lose your license and car for 3 months. No revenue raising there. People might reconsider their fully sick dark as window, headlight and tail light tint when their license and use of their car is on the line.

[388cube_edxr8]

Why don't we just use that transitions glass stuff you can get with prescription sunnies?

It goes dark when UV light hits it, and then goes clear when it gets dark outside.

Problem solved.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by 388cube_edxr8

Why don't we just use that transitions glass stuff you can get with prescription sunnies?

It goes dark when UV light hits it, and then goes clear when it gets dark outside.

Problem solved.

Thats a really good idea but I wonder what the cost would be like.

[FTe342]

When I bought my ute from Vic 15mths ago, the tint was so dark that I couldn't see out the side windows at night and literally had to put the window down to look for traffic and to see where I was going.
Immediately I had it removed and replaced with the darkest legal tint in Qld for my own safety and to prevent damaging the ute
It looked good but was stupidly impractical

And to the idiots who change their tail lights/blinkers with tint to the point they are hard to see I hope someone runs into you or you get defected or both

[Full Noise]

Originally Posted by loftie

Almost as good as the Media outlets regarding the AFL suspension of Steven Baker for 12 weeks...

headline = Baker's Dozen...

Hahah ahahaha ahahha
Oh dear me...

I wonder if the knucklehead journalist, Jon Ralph, realises that a baker’s dozen is 13?

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/af...-1225884874765

[dave289]

Had a mate illegally tint his side windows in his black falcon last week, if that was'nt bad enough he also had his windscreen tinted. It was in the afternoon when I saw the car and you could not see into the car from looking through the front windscreen, I asked him wtf he was doing an he just shrugged his shoulders. Told him he will be lucky to last 2 weeks before being defected, he has already survived 1 week, my other mate gave him one month.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by dave289

Had a mate illegally tint his side windows in his black falcon last week, if that was'nt bad enough he also had his windscreen tinted. It was in the afternoon when I saw the car and you could not see into the car from looking through the front windscreen, I asked him wtf he was doing an he just shrugged his shoulders. Told him he will be lucky to last 2 weeks before being defected, he has already survived 1 week, my other mate gave him one month.

He is living on borrowed time, what a rocket scientist? Hope he does not cause a serious injury or death in his stupidity.

[zdcol71]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Lets face it, it is simple physics..... If you need an example, wear your cool as sunnies at night and then tell me you can see as well as you can without them. That is simple fact and that is why we have a legal limit.

Yet another case of those nasty cops enforcing a law which is what we pay them for, sack em all!

I have an idea for all those that think it is purely revenue raising. Lets take the fines out of the equation so they can not be accused of revenue raising, from now on if you are caught in a defectable vehicle you don't get a fine, you just lose your license and car for 3 months. No revenue raising there. People might reconsider their fully sick dark as window, headlight and tail light tint when their license and use of their car is on the line.

To quote a very fine song writer from way back when, "Stop making sense"!!

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by zdcol71

To quote a very fine song writer from way back when, "Stop making sense"!!

Sorry, it is a bad habit that gets me into trouble all the time, I will try to repent!

[flappist]

Originally Posted by 388cube_edxr8

Why don't we just use that transitions glass stuff you can get with prescription sunnies?

It goes dark when UV light hits it, and then goes clear when it gets dark outside.

Problem solved.

Unfortunately no as the glass takes time to react so some moron flashing you with a very strong high beam will darken the glass after a few seconds but it will take a few more seconds to lighten up again.

Try driving for 3 seconds with your eyes closed (or in dense fog). 3 seconds is a REALLY long time.......

[tweeked]

I am all for it.

Especially this new silver tint that is becoming popular - really bad for sun reflections.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by flappist

Unfortunately no as the glass takes time to react so some moron flashing you with a very strong high beam will darken the glass after a few seconds but it will take a few more seconds to lighten up again.

Try driving for 3 seconds with your eyes closed (or in dense fog). 3 seconds is a REALLY long time.......

That is definitely an issue if the windscreen is tinted, which I don't believe it ever should be, that is what sunglasses are for.

Not an issue for side and rear glass though, certainly no worse than window tint.

[388cube_edxr8]

Originally Posted by flappist

Unfortunately no as the glass takes time to react so some moron flashing you with a very strong high beam will darken the glass after a few seconds but it will take a few more seconds to lighten up again.

Try driving for 3 seconds with your eyes closed (or in dense fog). 3 seconds is a REALLY long time.......

Not necessarily. There is photochromic (transition) glass available that only reacts to UV light, That is why they don't go dark inside at night with the lights on, if they did then they would only go clear when there is no light, thus completely defeating the purpose - there is no point having transparent glass in front of your eyes if the room is pitch black.

There would conceivably be issues driving from daylight into a dark tunnel, as the glass takes a few seconds to react, as you correctly pointed out. This is why the windscreen should still not allowed to be tinted, even with the transition glass.

EDIT: I think this is the first time in recorded history that GeckoGT and I have been in agreeance

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by 388cube_edxr8

Not necessarily. There is photochromic (transition) glass available that only reacts to UV light, That is why they don't go dark inside at night with the lights on, if they did then they would only go clear when there is no light, thus completely defeating the purpose - there is no point having transparent glass in front of your eyes if the room is pitch black.

There would conceivably be issues driving from daylight into a dark tunnel, as the glass takes a few seconds to react, as you correctly pointed out. This is why the windscreen should still not allowed to be tinted, even with the transition glass.

EDIT: I think this is the first time in recorded history that GeckoGT and I have been in agreeance

Surely there have been other times, I actually enjoy reading your posts most of the time. The times that I don't you normally put up a good debate and I love a good debate.

But thats a bit

[prydey]

Originally Posted by 388cube_edxr8

agreeance

agreement!

sorry, i'm not normally a grammar/spelling policeman but that one gets to me.

[388cube_edxr8]

Originally Posted by prydey

agreement!

sorry, i'm not normally a grammar/spelling policeman but that one gets to me.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agreeance