Window Tinting In Ga. Must Read!

restaff said:
By that logic than they shouldn't be allowed to carry guns, exceed the speed limit, etc..... There are plenty of things the police are permitted to do in the line of their job that we cannot do. Would you enjoy spending 8 hours (usually much more) driving around in your car in the hot Florida sun without tinted windows?



I drive a lot and my side windows are tinted to 28% and I can still get a tan through them.
Click to expand...



That has nothing to do with their ability to carry guns or do their jobs. If I chose to carry a gun in my car, I could with the right permit. I am in sales and spend 8 hours a day behind the wheel. If my windows weren't tinted my left arm and the left side of my face would be fried. I've been pulled over several times over the past 15 years and not one officer said anything about my tint.

My suggestion to those who have dark tint is if you're pulled over, roll down the windows and keep your hands where the officer can see them.
 
ssarcevic said:
That has nothing to do with their ability to carry guns or do their jobs. If I chose to carry a gun in my car, I could with the right permit.
Click to expand...



Sure it does, you stated that since everyone else was required to have 35% than that is what they should have. By your logic since no one else is allowed to carry a loaded weapon on their belt than neither should police and since it is illegal to exceed the speed limit that the same should go for the police.



That badge is their permit to have dark tint.



I can't possibly see how it affects you but, it obviously bothers you so my suggestion would be for you to run for office and do something about it :D
 
I think Tint law is non-sense. Some people can see from the law enforcement's veiwpoint. But, you can also see from the law abiding (except for the tint law) resident who is minding his/her own business in the privacy tint provides. There are so many nut cases out there (especially in NY metro areas where I live) and I prefer I don't want anyone looking at me while driving. If the cops are worried about the hidden guns, then, restricting the gun ownership will resolve this problem. But, it is a polical hot potato (gun ownership matters); so, the gov't took an easy target at the tint restriction which do not anything about the law enforcement's safety. If the law enforcement is not confortable with a tinted car he/she stopped, he/she can always ask them to roll down the windows (dah). If the occupant did not repospond to the request, you know you got someone you need to catch.

I think the well balanced tint grade is 30% to 35% (enough privacy for tax payer/law abiding resident but at the same time it does not impede the night time driving).
 
LouisanaJeeper said:
it wont effect them unless their car is registered in GA
Click to expand...

As a previous poster said, if you are out of state, it does not affect you. I think CA is only exception as it has a very draconian approach for out of state registered vehicle with tint. My cars are tinted all round 30% except for the front window and I used to live in NY and now in NJ. I think Tint law enforcement is based on the local situations. If your local law enforcement is not too busy with crimes, they will start busting you for other minor things as they need to write a ticket for revenue (this is synical way to look at it; but I see it that way). Good example is "click it or ticket." US Federal Govt gives out grants to police authorities money if they do the seat belt check certain days during the campaign. My areas do it; I click it when I see the road block (you can see it by the lights and traffic slow down). Usually right before the lunch time and around 1 to 3 p.m. time (thank god, cops don't do this stoppage during the rush hours after 3 p.m.).
 
Sir Clean said:
I think Tint law is non-sense. Some people can see from the law enforcement's veiwpoint. But, you can also see from the law abiding (except for the tint law) resident who is minding his/her own business in the privacy tint provides. There are so many nut cases out there (especially in NY metro areas where I live) and I prefer I don't want anyone looking at me while driving. If the cops are worried about the hidden guns, then, restricting the gun ownership will resolve this problem. But, it is a polical hot potato (gun ownership matters); so, the gov't took an easy target at the tint restriction which do not anything about the law enforcement's safety. If the law enforcement is not confortable with a tinted car he/she stopped, he/she can always ask them to roll down the windows (dah). If the occupant did not repospond to the request, you know you got someone you need to catch.

I think the well balanced tint grade is 30% to 35% (enough privacy for tax payer/law abiding resident but at the same time it does not impede the night time driving).
Click to expand...



So gun ownership laws will prevent people who don't obey the law in the first place from having guns? That makes a lot of sense :nixweiss Police officers aren't worried about normal law obiding citizens shooting them but, unfortunately people don't come with a sign that says they are a normal law obiding citizen.



In your situation above what if only the driver opens just their window? Is the officer to assume there is nobody else in the car since he can't see through the other windows? What about a minivan where only the front windows open?
 
rjstaaf said:
So gun ownership laws will prevent people who don't obey the law in the first place from having guns? That makes a lot of sense :nixweiss Police officers aren't worried about normal law obiding citizens shooting them but, unfortunately people don't come with a sign that says they are a normal law obiding citizen.



In your situation above what if only the driver opens just their window? Is the officer to assume there is nobody else in the car since he can't see through the other windows? What about a minivan where only the front windows open?
Click to expand...



Most of the tint laws allow all the windows except for the front driver/passenger windows and windshield. You can tint the the rest of the vehicle as, for example, most SUVs come as factory equipment. In that case, no one can see bad seat areas of those vehicle anyway if those cars have those tints. I don't get your point on your 2nd graph.



Also just because a few bad apples in the society may try to shoot at someone from the car, I don't think the law abiding citizen/resident should be subject to the tint laws (which is not effective for law enforcement's safety). If you stretch this line of argument, maybe gov't will tell you not to wear clothing because the law enforcement is worried about the concealed weapon under your cloth.
 
Sir Clean said:
Most of the tint laws allow all the windows except for the front driver/passenger windows and windshield. You can tint the the rest of the vehicle as, for example, most SUVs come as factory equipment. In that case, no one can see bad seat areas of those vehicle anyway if those cars have those tints. I don't get your point on your 2nd graph.



Also just because a few bad apples in the society may try to shoot at someone from the car, I don't think the law abiding citizen/resident should be subject to the tint laws (which is not effective for law enforcement's safety). If you stretch this line of argument, maybe gov't will tell you not to wear clothing because the law enforcement is worried about the concealed weapon under your cloth.
Click to expand...



Where do you get your information that dark tinted windows are not a safety issue for law enforcement? It is also a safety issue for other drivers on the road. Lets not pretend that this issue has to do with concern about the rights of all the law abiding drivers on the road to have dark tint. Seems more likely a few people that have had to comply with varying tint laws whining about it.



I do agree that $1000 is way out of hand for a tint violation. I would like to see more information on it though before I jump to the conclusion that it is just local government trying to bilk drivers. Could be an effort to quickly curb what they perceive to be a serious problem. So many people seem quick to assume everyone in government is corrupt.



It is obvious no one is going to change anyone else's mind here. I have said my piece so I am going to bow out of this one. :p
 
Setec Astronomy said:
And how does factory tinted (privacy? as called above) glass not offer a UV reduction? Glass by ITSELF substantially reduces UV transmission (which is why self-darkening sunglasses don't work in your car), and, um, blocking the light IS what keeps the heat out of the car.
Click to expand...



Glass by itself does NOT substantially reduce UV rays. If it does, why does the interior fade? I've been tinting windows for over 11 years. I'm not just tossing out random thoughts. By the way, self-darkening glass (photochromatic) IS available for vehicles but it is VERY expensive. Also, UV rays have absolutely nothing to do with photochromatic glass. They sense the amount of light, not UV rays.



Have you ever had curtains on a window at your house? No blinds or anything else, just curtains. Did it still get hot inside? Did anything still fade? Yes on both. Factory privacy glass has the same relative properties as curtains.



Yes, reducing the amount of light that comes through the glass cuts down on the heat, but it reduces vision as well. The amount of heat stopped by privacy glass is neglible. And, um, blocking the HEAT is what keeps the heat out. They make 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 going to get into a huge argument here, but some of the points you have made are erroneous.



seracis said:
Glass by itself does NOT substantially reduce UV rays.
Click to expand...

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.



seracis said:
Also, UV rays have absolutely nothing to do with photochromatic glass. They sense the amount of light, not UV rays.
Click to expand...



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."

seracis said:


Have you ever had curtains on a window at your house? No blinds or anything else, just curtains. Did it still get hot inside? Did anything still fade?
Click to expand...



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
 
Setec Astronomy said:
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.
Click to expand...



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."
Click to expand...



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
Click to expand...



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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
JayC said:
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.
Click to expand...



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.... ;)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top