0sykes0

Im sure this has been covered before now.

But what is the legal aspects of window tinting, meaning the front side windows.

Thankz

Lambchop

iTrader: (1)

i'd like clarification also. i've been told it can depend on age of vehicle but not sure how true that is!

Ed1

I got told that 75% light has to be able to pass through the front windows, most windows are tinted from the factory so you would need to check how much is passing through to start with, the rears can be as dark as you like!

0sykes0

does any one have a picture of how dark 75% looks like?

RichieST

iTrader: (2)

I got done for this a while ago. Can't remember what the percentage is, but once i removed my tints and had the windows rechecked, my standard focus glass was to within 0.5% of the legal limit. Have a look at the black stamp in the corner of your window and it will say tinted. Pretty much all glass is tinted as standard this way, so you can not put any more film on the front side windows. Anything on the rear side or back windows is ok tho

0sykes0

are all Focus' like that? mines a mk II 3dr

RichieST

iTrader: (2)

Yes most likely! Go have a look and see if it says tinted. If so, that is the legal limit, its hardly anything!!

0sykes0

where will it say that?

RichieST

iTrader: (2)

there will be a small square of black writing in the bottom corner of the window. But i can guarantee they're already tinted

0sykes0

ill check in 50mins lol, there dont like tinted to me, but i could be wrong

Lee Ivatt

iTrader: (1)

ever heard of google mate

heres what 30 seconds gets you!

i run a busy tint shop and get asked (and always explain) the same questions everytime, mainly, whats a " legal tint for the front side windows?"
well, to put it simply, there isnt any! the law states that the windscreen and both front side windows must allow 70% light transmission. how they got to this figure im not sure, but if you drive a modern renault, citroen, ford, vw, rover, etc, chances are that your front glass measures 65-68% straight from the showroom!
technically,the dealers broke the law when they sold the car! this is our wonderful government for you, (which is why i dont bother voting) anyway, what it means is that any film applied to front side windows will not be legal-ish.
i say legal-ish because although the police state 70%, the ministry of transport (who are the geezers with the light testing kits) should only issue an advisory if the glass reads 45% or lighter, but then if youre stopped by the feds for tints (usually outside a max power show) it doesnt matter if youve got tints above 45% or not, the law is 70%.
this applies to every vehicle on the road,no matter how old.what is more important is the "dangerous vehicle" level. any window film above 30% should only be ordered to be removed and maybe a statutory £30 fine.
any filmed window that measures below 30% is classed as " a dangerous vehicle" and can be instantly impounded and transported away,which you'll have to pay for, leaving you with a bus ride home with all your homies!
you could also be prosecuted for driving said "dangerous vehicle" which comes with a hefty fine and min 3 points-something to bear in mind if youre a new driver or have a bagfull already
remember,points dont mean prizes when it comes to keeping your licence. more importantly, your insurance could be invalidated should you need to make a claim.
just to confuse you a bit more, the percentage rating on the film is not the same as the reading you will get when its fitted to the glass. it depends on the thickness of the glass, the origional tint of the glass and the quality of the film.
typically,(with the film i use)
50% film will read from 37-32% on most modern cars
35% film will read from 23-18% on most modern cars
20% film will read from 11-7% on most modern cars
5% limo just manages 0.3% on anything.........its dark!
so basically, nothing is legal but 50% should only get you a ticking off,unless you were smoking crack or summut when you got blagged. in which case you'll probally need darker film to avoid such intrusions-but then you'll probally get blagged cos the feds couldnt see if you were having a toot or not.
now all this lot is ment as a general guide and not for use in court so dont go sueing me if its not totally correct. i could go on about the different types of film and why it costs so much but my beer has run out so its time to go.
and on a final note, i see a few ads on ebay saying tinting is easy, why pay a tint shop when you can do it yourself?
well, anyone can buy a couple of litres of car paint and spray their own motor-but would you want to drive it to a cruise and show it off after?
cheers


AND


The Law On Window Tinting
Back . . .
For between 30% and 45% of light transmission the vehicle is assumed to be unfit for use but not to pose an immediate danger. A delayed prohibition is issued and the owner has up to ten days from the date of issue to remove the tint.
At less than 30% the legal position is that driving the vehicle would involve a risk of injury, and the vehicle cannot be moved under its own power from the issuing of the prohibition notice until the tint has been removed.
Where It Can Get Fuzzy
Whatever an individual's views on window tinting may be, all of this at least has the advantage of being quite clear-cut. But CARkeys is concerned about another aspect of the situation which quickly became apparent when VOSA contacted us to pass on information about these rules, and which coincidentally had been raised a couple of weeks earlier by a reader who had been stopped for having what were considered to be excessively tinted windows.
In that particular case we understand that no light meter was used. This is covered by VOSA in the following statement: "If the equipment is not available, a subjective assessment can be carried out. This involves looking at the window outside in and inside out, and if it is obvious that insufficient light is getting through the tint, an immediate prohibition may be issued."
That set the alarm bells ringing. Looking for confirmation, we asked these questions:
"Does this mean that whoever is carrying out the assessment is legally assumed to be able to tell by eye alone, and without any measuring equipment, whether up to 30%, 30% to 45%, or 45% to 65% of available light is being transmitted through the windows? And could a prosecution and possible fine of up to £2000 result from this?
"If measuring equipment exists (presumably because it is required for the job to be done properly) but is not used for whatever reason, how can a serious case be made against the alleged offender? Is VOSA confident that it would win a case that was based on subjective assessment?"
VOSA's reply was as follows:
"If it is obvious that the visual light transmission is less than the legal requirement and the level of visibility of the surroundings has been obscured to the extent that the 'danger of injury' criterion has been met, then an immediate prohibition may be issued under the Construction and Use Regulations 1986.
"If the level of visibility is not obviously dangerous then the officer will advise that the legal requirements may have been breached, thus putting the onus on the owner to investigate further."
This Needs To be Got Straight
We understand the appeal of tinted windows. We are also keen that safety standards should be maintained at a high level. It must be possible - and is surely desirable - for an acceptable compromise to be reached. But the situation at the moment appears to be that there is a reasonable and straightforward method of enforcing the regulations . . . which in certain circumstances can be replaced by the opinion of someone using their eyes alone with no form of reliable back-up.
Different penalties apply for 65% and 75% of light transmission. The latter means the car is legal, the former may lead to a £2000 fine. Do you think you could distinguish between those two levels without properly calibrated measuring equipment? Do you know anyone else who could?
The idea behind the laws on window tinting is a laudable one, but there has to be a better way of enforcing them than this.

Lee Ivatt

iTrader: (1)

so basically, is the car was PROFESIONALLY retro fitted before 2004, and falls with in the 50% light area then you should be fine, anything after that date and its really not advisable to have any at all.

I had a car years back with limo black all round!! and i must admit, it did look good but christ was it dangerous! In fact most of the time i drove around with the front windows down just so i could see!

theres no way id have tints again, unless factory of course.

In my personal opinion, they are not that cool anymore. It was all the rage back in the 80/90's, but it certaliny not the be all and end all these days.

0sykes0

cheers for that, my car is 2004, i dont fancy anything as extreme as limo black but just a little darker

Lee Ivatt

iTrader: (1)

it has nothing to do with the age of the car matey, its the date the film was applied.

your car could be a 1985, it dont make any difference, the legistation is on the film not the car!

So any car with film applied after 2004 is technically illegal.

theres even a well known tint firm on the net who offer to remove front window tints for free and strongly advise not to fit front tints. And i hardly think they are saying that lightly as in affect they are turning work away.

Basically tint the rear and rear 1/4's as much as u like. but if u thouch the fronts then ur asking for trouble!

arch

We carry light meters in our cars, so can easily test. General rule of thumb, if it 'looks' tinted then usually illegal. Gonna cost £30 to look kewl!!!

S1rst

I was told by the traffic officer and the vosa guy that stopped me in my Lexus, that anything other than a factory tint is illegal. I had my fronts done to match the factory rears of my IS200 sport (that were done as standard) and got a £30 fine and told to rip them out. What annoyed me about this though, was the fact they waiting outside my place of work at the time for me to finish. They even said they were waiting for me for an hour since 5 as thats when i usually left, but i finished at 6 that day!!!!!

I was told its more to do with the fact they cant see whose in vehicle rather than it being to do with saftey. The light tints i had did not affect vision at all in my opinion.

0sykes0

turns out mine are tinted, but it doesnt say by how much. they look clean as day to me, only thing i see is the self tinting (because its so dirty )

S1rst

To be honest it will really be down to the force in your area, and will depend on how strict they are. I had mine on the Lexus for a year or so and was pulled a couple of times and they never even mentioned it. I just was just unlucky as the vosa guy was out with the traffic cop for the day teaching him how to use the machine, so i was used as a guinea pig and ended up £30 lighter with £100 tints in the bin.

RichieST

iTrader: (2)

Sounds like you got done just the same as me - however you got off pretty light! I had a prohibition order put on my car ordering it off the road until the tints were removed, then it had to be reinspected by vosa before they would lift the prohibition and let me drive it again!

They said if i was caught driving it it would be towed away straight away