I've just been done by the Police

[maddog]

I would have thought that if the glass was a factory option there would be 3 digits on the vehicle data card in the back of the service book. If it is then theres nothing the fuzz can do about it.

jib

best of luck with that

Its either legal or illegal.

I would expect MB to remove the film FOC if they are selling cars not fit for the road its the least they can do

 

[Dave's E55 AMG]

At the time of fitting it was legal.


The car would only be impounded if it was below 30% - my reading is 31% so I'm can carry on using the car.

 

[pb8770]

tints

I had the understanding that if a vehicle is built to the standards of the year it was built you dont have a problem if the law changes. A few examples: any vehicle built I think before 1974 and was not fitted with rear seatbelts it was not compulsary to have them fitted. But if you did fit them they had to work. The same applies if the vehicle is not fitted with reverse lights.
It must be the law trying to think of more ways to squeeze more out of the motorist. Or is it because if you go through a speed camera that takes pictures from the front, if your tints are to dark they cant pinpoint exactly who was driving, so they cant prosecute the driver who was actually driving and use the photos in court. So I can't understand that if the tints are fitted as standard, I would seek legal advice and see where you stand, because I dont see why you should foot the bill for replacement glass. Besides What about the idiots who wear sunglasses whilst driving day and night especially at night that must be more of an issue that your tints.

pb.8770

 

[Dave's E55 AMG]

I had the understanding that if a vehicle is built to the standards of the year it was built you dont have a problem if the law changes. A few examples: any vehicle built I think before 1974 and was not fitted with rear seatbelts it was not compulsary to have them fitted. But if you did fit them they had to work. The same applies if the vehicle is not fitted with reverse lights.
It must be the law trying to think of more ways to squeeze more out of the motorist. Or is it because if you go through a speed camera that takes pictures from the front, if your tints are to dark they cant pinpoint exactly who was driving, so they cant prosecute the driver who was actually driving and use the photos in court. So I can't understand that if the tints are fitted as standard, I would seek legal advice and see where you stand, because I dont see why you should foot the bill for replacement glass.

pb.8770

If it was the glass that was tinted it would exempt - but it's film so it has to be removed.

 

[hawk20]

Doesn't this suggest any significant tinting ahead of the B pillar is illegal?
""Clear glass only allows approximately 86% of light to pass & the slight tint of standard manufactured glass varies from the 70% maximum limit up to approx 80% of light passing through, thus any film being applied to these windows will drop the light transmissions to below the regulation limit.

If your front windows are tinted to any level you do risk being stopped by either Traffic Police or VOSA (Vehicle & Operator Services Agency) they have light meters to test the light that passes through your glass. If you have a subtle tint fitted then you should just be asked for it to be removed, if you have dark front door windows you could be told you
can’t drive your car any further and face a fine and points on your licence!"

I would have thought we could all agree that any tinting -really any reduction of visibility through the front windows - is dangerous and should be banned. If someone hits a cyclist or pedestrian at night because they did not see them due to reduced visibility caused by tinting, I for one would not consider 'well I like the look of tinted windows' to be an adequate defence whoever it comes from.
And if tinting is being done to levels that pose a danger to others I'm glad if it is retrospective.

Sunglasses have nothing to do with the argument. They can be put on in sunlight and removed in dimmer light.

 

[maddog]

Doesn't this suggest any significant tinting ahead of the B pillar is illegal?
""Clear glass only allows approximately 86% of light to pass & the slight tint of standard manufactured glass varies from the 70% maximum limit up to approx 80% of light passing through, thus any film being applied to these windows will drop the light transmissions to below the regulation limit.

If your front windows are tinted to any level you do risk being stopped by either Traffic Police or VOSA (Vehicle & Operator Services Agency) they have light meters to test the light that passes through your glass. If you have a subtle tint fitted then you should just be asked for it to be removed, if you have dark front door windows you could be told you
can’t drive your car any further and face a fine and points on your licence!"

I would have thought we could all agree that any tinting -really any reduction of visibility through the front windows - is dangerous and should be banned. If someone hits a cyclist or pedestrian at night because they did not see them due to reduced visibility caused by tinting, I for one would not consider 'well I like the look of tinted windows' to be an adequate defence whoever it comes from.
And if tinting is being done to levels that pose a danger to others I'm glad if it is retrospective.

Sunglasses have nothing to do with the argument. They can be put on in sunlight and removed in dimmer light.

Yes any tinting film on the front windows is going to push most people with tinted glass already on their car over the accepted transmitted light figure.

There are many benefits to tinting windows with film though.

Security, people cant see in easily and also the film makes the glass difficult to break.

It also dramatically reduces the temperature inside the car when its parked in the summer , making it more pleasant for pets and meaning your air con doesnt have to work as hard so saving fuel. In the event of an accident it reduces the amount of flying glass.

 

[jberks]

This is my understanding. You can tint the rear but on the front. The freelander I've just bought has factory privacy glass, but only from the B pillar back (stops people peering at the saddle and other expensive kit in the boot). It has normal tint B forward.

 

[johnmc]

I agree with jberks, my Alhambra is the same. Very dark glass from the b-pillar backwards and a much lighter tint in the front. I believe the difference is for driver visability out, but also for enforcement looking in at who is driving the car. The dark glass does reduce my rear vision.

John

 

[S500al]

Sounds like the new thing to me... The police now use machines for everything it seems (This light meter, Speed camera's, APNR etc) just more chances of fleecing he motorist while they sit an thier ar5es eating dohnuts.
I got done for 2mm Illegal spacing on a numberplate last year by a machine but the guy next to me at the lights never got done for using a mobile phone and driving erraticly because the police were more interested in the machine on the dash (destracted like the mobile phone user).
On another note I still have never heard anything of the £700 garage equipment stolen from me 6 years ago or any info about it.

 

[philharve]

Anti-terrorism

Hi All

There is another issue that has just reached my attention. I am a keen photographer and I have just learned that the anti-terrorism laws have been tightened to such an extent in the Capitol that anyone seen using a tripod can come under investigation and be stopped and searched and asked to cease taking photographs, even if they have a legitimate reason. The police and security services no longer need to justify their behaviour and have reasonable suspicion of anything amiss before taking action. If they do resort to 'stop & search' tactics, the police must follow strict guidelines. If they are breached, a complaint can be lodged online with the appropriate authority.

The use of smoked-glass panelling in vehicles is also frowned upon by the security authorities and it could draw the attention of the police and result in an embarrassing stop & search session, if only to verify who is travelling in the vehicle.

The burkha, as worn by Muslim women, is another contentious issue because it disguises the wearer.

IMO, celebrities probably have sufficient reason to employ smoked-glass panelling in their vehicles but the reason for a non-celebrity wanting smoked-glass panelling is not quite so clear cut. It's driver and passengers will almost certainly come under suspicion if seen travelling in a 'sensitive area', e.g. around the Palace of Westminster, and this has nothing to do with the ability of the driver to see and be seen and the control of their vehicle in a safe and secure manner.

It may be that a complete ban on smoked-glass panelling in vehicles may be in the pipeline unless written authority is obtained. It seems that vehicle manufacturers are quite well informed concerning the direction future legislation is likely to take.

It would appear that increasing anti-terrorism laws are gradually eroding personal liberties.

REGARDS

Phil

 

[Dave's E55 AMG]

Hi All

There is another issue that has just reached my attention. I am a keen photographer and I have just learned that the anti-terrorism laws have been tightened to such an extent in the Capitol that anyone seen using a tripod can come under investigation and be stopped and searched and asked to cease taking photographs, even if they have a legitimate reason. The police and security services no longer need to justify their behaviour and have reasonable suspicion of anything amiss before taking action. If they do resort to 'stop & search' tactics, the police must follow strict guidelines. If they are breached, a complaint can be lodged online with the appropriate authority.

The use of smoked-glass panelling in vehicles is also frowned upon by the security authorities and it could draw the attention of the police and result in an embarrassing stop & search session, if only to verify who is travelling in the vehicle.

The burkha, as worn by Muslim women, is another contentious issue because it disguises the wearer.

IMO, celebrities probably have sufficient reason to employ smoked-glass panelling in their vehicles but the reason for a non-celebrity wanting smoked-glass panelling is not quite so clear cut. It's driver and passengers will almost certainly come under suspicion if seen travelling in a 'sensitive area', e.g. around the Palace of Westminster, and this has nothing to do with the ability of the driver to see and be seen and the control of their vehicle in a safe and secure manner.

It may be that a complete ban on smoked-glass panelling in vehicles may be in the pipeline unless written authority is obtained. It seems that vehicle manufacturers are quite well informed concerning the direction future legislation is likely to take.

It would appear that increasing anti-terrorism laws are gradually eroding personal liberties.

REGARDS

Phil

Going off this statement things are getting out of hand. Big brother even wants to watch you when your driving.

 

[Dave's E55 AMG]

Apparently a police force can go hunting for revenue into another police forces county.

 

[dava]

It's also an MOT failure now. Not so long ago a certain footy manager up here got stopped by plod in his X5 and was told to either remove the tints or drive away with both windows down and as it was raining, he drove away with the windows down, not a team I support so Ha ha.

 

[S500al]

Railway stations in london dont even let you take photo's at all, Even without a tripod

 

[Dave's E55 AMG]

I went down to Bristol yesterday in the car. I pulled into the Micheal Wood services just North of Bristol on the M5 for a sandwich and a drink. I parked the car in the middle of the car park about halfway down. I was walking out of the services with my lunch and generally walking in the direction of where I left the car, I looked up to see if I was heading in the right direction and there was no sign of it only a police range rover. As I walked near I could just see my front end - I did sigh with relief at first because I thought it had been nicked. Then I saw 2 police officers walking around it, "here we go". "Hello Sir is this your vechicle" was his greeting "yes officer" was my reply - "very nice" was his response "what do you get to the gallon" was his next question and the encounter broke out into general chitchat, and to finish off he said "take care and drive carefully". And guess what I still haven't had the glass tints removed and he never mentioned it - "unbelievable".

 

[cleverdicky]

Sounds as if it was one of those rare policemen, and not one of the more general general police officer.

 

[truthfindergeneral]

We can't have darkened front windows because we need to be able to see motorbikes approaching from the left or the right whilst we are waiting to enter a main road. Strange though, the rider of the motorbike is more than likely to have one of those near black visors that make them look like aliens than a clear one ....

 

[Diver233]

Im just glad the boys in blue have caught all the real criminals and now have plenty of time to catch these dangerous criminals who put tints on car windows.
Correct me if im wrong but I have not seen any figure where tinted car windows have caused more accidents

 

[ncooper]

Im just glad the boys in blue have caught all the real criminals and now have plenty of time to catch these dangerous criminals who put tints on car windows.
Correct me if im wrong but I have not seen any figure where tinted car windows have caused more accidents

Possibly not,but if someone pulled out in front of you because he couldn't see through his designer windows in the dark,would you be so dismissive?

Front windows are there to see through.

Regards,
Nick.

 

[muller1]

Tints

What is unfair though, is that responsible companies like Pentagon, who would not put anything other than a light tint on the front windows are penalised, all their work was perfectly legal. But because the boy racer brigade and the iffy back street accessory shops have no qualms about putting midnight black tints on the front, the goverment decides a blanket ban is required and all front tints should be removed. So the law abiding motorist and responsible companies suffer, rather than target the main offenders, becuase that would mean having to think about it logically which is beyond them.

Russ

I do not think there is a "blanket ban on all tints" forward of the B pillar as you say, but is is illegal for the glass to pass less than 75% of transmitted light through the tint.


Regards.
Mike