Window Tinting In Ga. Must Read!

[seracis]

Originally posted by Setec Astronomy

I`m not going to get into a huge argument here, but some of the points you have made are erroneous.





If you look at the window manufacturer chart here you will see that clear glass only has a UV transmission rate of 58%. You may also notice the Low-E glass (which has a sputtered metal coating which has a very low UV transmission), which may be what you were referring to as "films that are so light you don`t even notice them, but they keep out 2-4 times the heat that privacy glass does". I`m not aware of Low-E coatings being used on automobiles.

I`m not referring to Low-E glass, they are not used in vehicles. I`m referring to high VLT films.

This is just wrong. A quote from here "As a general rule, photochromic lenses won`t darken behind the windshield because the glass blocks out the UV rays that cause the lenses to change color."

FYI, pc eyeglasses do not require UV rays SOLELY to darken. I should have worded that differently. Also, windshields do not block all of the UV rays that cause fading. (Copied directly from superiorcarcare.net - "and protect from the UV rays that are magnified through the windshield, and would otherwise speed up aging and catalyze deterioration." This is referring to WG int. protectants.

It gets hot inside your house because the sun is shining on THE WHOLE HOUSE. Your house has MUCH less relative window area than a vehicle. I don`t know if by "curtains" you refer to the filmy transparent kind, but I tend to open my blinds/curtains/drapes during the day, which lets light/heat in and can cause fading over time. This whole house comparison is bogus because stuff in your house isn`t designed to be fade resistant in the same manner your car is, but I don`t worry about it because I have Low-E windows, and I can see out at night, unlike you guys with your dark tints! :p

If you stand in front of the window you can feel the heat coming in. True, your whole house is getting heated, but the insulation in your walls and ceilings should be taking care of the sunlight that ISN`T hitting the window area. I don`t know about where you live or your house, but my house doesn`t climb more than 1 degree an hour without using the A/C. And, yes, it gets up to about 110 here in the summer. If you were to have your windows tinted in your house, you could keep your possessions from fading. But you probably think that flat glass film has to look like something from "Pimp My Ride". Here`s a hint: it doesn`t.



Now you`re telling me that the things inside my vehicle are designed to withstand UV ray damage moreso than things in my house? Do they come injected with SPF40????







What causes fading?



40% UV Light



25% Visible Light



25% Heat

[Setec Astronomy]

Well, nothing is 100%, whether it be window tint, or house insulation. Design criteria for equipment that is outside (like a car) usually specifies UV resistance (that doesn`t mean that everything will be 100% UV resistant, just that consideration is made for the UV exposure). I doubt that UV resistance is high on the design criteria list for living room furniture. Where is that guy who is an automotive seat designer? He can tell us about UV specs for car seats.

[seracis]

Seats, carpet, dash, door panels, seat belts, etc. Besides, window film blocks 99.9% of the UV rays. No, nothing is 100% but that`s a lot closer than anything else except never leaving the garage.

[Setec Astronomy]

If you don`t think that when an auto mfr. buys interior components, they don`t specify colorfastness as a performance criteria (among many others), then you don`t understand how products are specified. That doesn`t mean that the item in question will be 100% UV resistant, it means that it will have a specifed amount of UV resistance (x exposure to x intensity = x max fading). That could mean more colorfast dyes, UV protective ingredients in the plastic, vinyl, and rubber parts. Interior furniture, if they have those requirements, will be less severe.



Let`s try this example. Nylon cable ties. Remember these used to all be translucent? Natural nylon has bad UV characteristics, and when these came to be used commonly, the ones outside would become brittle and fail. So they developed a UV absorber additive, which makes them black. Look at this page: Panduit Link . There are the regular ties, and the weather resistant ones. If you look at the details on the weather resistant it says "weather resistant material resists ultraviolet light. For outdoor use". So, if I`m designing a system for outdoors that uses cable ties, I will specify that the resistant ties be used, in the same way that an automotive designer will require a certain amount of UV resistance to his interior pieces--within the limits of what is reasonable, cost, effect on tactile properties, etc. That means that the auto interior will have a specified amount of UV resistance , not invulnerability. Your living room furniture designer, if he considers UV sensitivity at all, has it a lot lower down on his list than the automotive interior designer. The auto designer also likely specifies an amount of UV resistance that will get the car thru warranty with an actuarial certainty before failure, rather than the optimal resistance, in order to control cost and the other factors mentioned.



/lesson, /Setec`s participation in this thread

[Mochamanz1]

Originally posted by JayC

So does that mean traveling salesmen in Florida should be allowed to have extra dark glass? While I can agree about a lot of stuff that the police should be permitted to do that the average Joe Citizen can`t, tinted windows is not one of them.



I recently relocated from Texas to NC and had to remove all my tint and have my windows retinted due to the laws being different. Personally, I think it sucks. It should be standardized in the US, good or bad.

Certain States, AZ is one, allow 20% due to climate. I am not too sure that crime fighting is a bogus reason to bar certain levels of tint. I will say that with enforcing $1000.00 for a violation of a tint law, the cops and court system might have crossed over....:angry In this state all you need is an optometrist to give you an endorsement to tint the front windshield.... and if you want more than 35%, you have to pay cash....

[imported_intoran]

It`s up to $1000. Shouldn`t be $1000. I have heard the min fine is around $150. Also, the way the law reads states that your car doesn`t need to be registered in GA. So in essence if you are just passing through you could be ticketed. Makes no sense to me.

[randomman84]

it used to be only cars registered in ga. now its all cars. I believe if the cops see you are just passing through they will leave you alone but if you are moving here... well thats another story. As for me, i`ve decided to skip the law and leave my tint. Ill risk a warning. I cant let go of the look it gives me. And with that, I`m out.

[imported_themightytimmah]

Its unfortuneate (sp) the way laws are going recently. Lawmakers seem to think that making punishments rediculously overboard for statuatory (or in this case, lame) crimes is going to prevent anything.

[imported_intoran]

More laws to punish the innocent and to create revenue.

[petraidm]

I got frustrated reading all these "stop trampling my rights" comments ...



Driving is not a right, it is a privilege. As a privilege, it can be restricted my those granting that privilege. If you don`t like it, you have 4 choices:



1) conform

2 don`t conform

3) quit driving

4) move

[Mochamanz1]

Originally posted by petraidm

I got frustrated reading all these "stop trampling my rights" comments ...



Driving is not a right, it is a privilege. As a privilege, it can be restricted my those granting that privilege. If you don`t like it, you have 4 choices:



1) conform

2 don`t conform

3) quit driving

4) move

IMHO, In this road dependent society, with no real public transportation for many, probably a majority of the people, this talk of privilege to drive is pure hogwash ! This "privilege" is a really an unprincipled rhetorical invention used to manipulate the situation that is perpetrated on the public of: lack of collective means of getting around, coupled with laws guaranteed to cause some of the public to accidental transgress against some trap. Calling a publicly taxed, necessary means of getting around a "privilege" is such a lie.....



I get fatigued and frustrated that this kind of talk about driving is a privilege is not roundly denounced by the citizens of this fine country.... Such a lie ! As long as the roads are publicly taxed , the public, not some agency granting a license is the rightful owner of that public property.... Sure you don`t drive drunk, or recklessly, but many laws are simply revenue sources, like the cop lurking at the bottom of the hill.....:angry



Hmmm... this is post 666....oh my !

[imported_themightytimmah]

Originally posted by petraidm

I got frustrated reading all these "stop trampling my rights" comments ...



Driving is not a right, it is a privilege. As a privilege, it can be restricted my those granting that privilege. If you don`t like it, you have 4 choices:



1) conform

2 don`t conform

3) quit driving

4) move

I`m gonna have to go ahead and disagree with that one. Rights and priviledges are both granted by the people, not lawmakers. They work for us, although it doesn`t always seem that way. If we the people decided collectively tomorrow to enact a "right to drive" law, we sure as hell could.



/RantOn



Personally, I never agreed with the whole "driving as a priviledge" thing. It always seemed like a way for old people and middle-aged women to jerk the rest of us around.

In this state (Maine), we have a ton of dumb driving laws, because the Legislature decided that it would improve safety. Unfortuneatly, the laws are imposed mostly on minors, who cannot vote, and don`t really count as "we the people". As a guy who just reached the age of majority, I`m not voting for any incumbents.



The way I see it, "safety" is a terrible argument to do anything. The world would be plenty safe if we banned cars, guns, alcohol, religion, tv, electricity, fire......but it certianly wouldn`t be much fun. Hell, Communist France is pretty safe.



Not to start a flamewar, but attitudes (I don`t blame you personally, hate the sin, love the sinner, ya know) like that are whats screwing up our country. It seems like no one wants to follow the Founding Father`s plan on how to run things. I see government slowly becoming larger, more domineering, and more unnecessary. Seat belt laws, lawsuits against gun manufacturers, the war on drugs, all that endangered species BS, unreasonably low speed limits, bans on radar detectors, etc..... rational, fair people are being squeezed from both sides, left and right.



/RantOff



Yeah, I`m a bit of a Libertarian. Just a little .



To be a little more on topic, I also hate how you can`t tint a front windshield. I don`t like to wear sunglasses (feel kind of goofy), and I`d rather have 40% or so all around, than be able to have 20ish% abd a clear windshield.

[petraidm]

I knew my comments would spark some flames. However, just because you think driving is an inalienable right does not make it so! A right is something you are entitled to and a privilege is a right which has been granted to you … the operative word is granted. So yes, it is a right only because it has been granted … thus it is a privilege. People have blurred this distinction.



Now that we have established that it is a granted right (i.e., privilege) versus an inalienable right, the granter has the authority to restrict or qualify that right. If I take the position that they are infringing on my rights by passing this law then I should be able to use the same arguments to say any restriction / regulation violates my rights. In other words, I should have the right to drive whatever I want, wherever I want and however I want.



I’ll reiterate my original points … If you do not like these restrictions:

1. Conform to them anyway

2. Don’t conform (and suffer the consequence if caught)

3. Quit driving

4. Move



I’ll add a fifth … work to change the law.

[jjwalker]

here in texas, the front windows cant be less than 35% (only 25% to pass inspection) and you can have anything you want on the other windows. You can also have an "eyebrow" as long as it doesnt go more than 5 inches down the windshield, or pass the AS1 line.

[Sir Clean]

Lawmakers say driving is "privilege." It is such a condesending term. You would be surprised to see their "personal standards in life" considering those people are setting up the so-called "standards" which are above their levels.