Window Tinting - Amendments to Legislation
23 January 2004, 02:34 PM
#32
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 369
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will the police not enforce this like they do on bikes?
I ride with with a dark visor during the day, carrying a clear one to swap as it gets dark, and I have never been stopped by the police for using it during the day, they understand it's actually safer to ride with a dark visor on a bright sunny day rather than sunglasses under your helmet.
Surely they aren't going to bother pulling people over and issuing rectification notices (more paperwork for them) for those who have sensible tints and aren't causing a safety issue??
For those who have the total black limo tints on front windows I can't wait to see them got off the road - as a bike rider who always rides with headlight on (no option on a new bike anyway!) they are a danger to us all
Matt
I ride with with a dark visor during the day, carrying a clear one to swap as it gets dark, and I have never been stopped by the police for using it during the day, they understand it's actually safer to ride with a dark visor on a bright sunny day rather than sunglasses under your helmet.
Surely they aren't going to bother pulling people over and issuing rectification notices (more paperwork for them) for those who have sensible tints and aren't causing a safety issue??
For those who have the total black limo tints on front windows I can't wait to see them got off the road - as a bike rider who always rides with headlight on (no option on a new bike anyway!) they are a danger to us all
Matt
23 January 2004, 02:45 PM
#34
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2001
Location: From the roads of South East Essex....
Posts: 561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is nothing to do with the insurers mate..... At worst they may charge more premium to reflect the fact the car's more desireable, including the thieving scum element.
No, I think this is down to knee-jerk, over reaction by meddling government "civil servant" types. It's said it's prompted by a driver being unable to see a motorcyclist / other car, but I suspect this was an easier reason to prosecute than more likely the true accident cause of the driver not paying sufficient attention.
I have dark tints on my car (they were on it when imported from Japan), and, imho, I have no problems seeing other cars & bikes - providing they are showing lights at night as they should. The tints do not obstruct visibility, but actually improve it in bright conditions by helping to cut down glare.
I guess I'll just have to wait & see, & be prepared to pacify any "jobs-worths" I may come across.
No, I think this is down to knee-jerk, over reaction by meddling government "civil servant" types. It's said it's prompted by a driver being unable to see a motorcyclist / other car, but I suspect this was an easier reason to prosecute than more likely the true accident cause of the driver not paying sufficient attention.
I have dark tints on my car (they were on it when imported from Japan), and, imho, I have no problems seeing other cars & bikes - providing they are showing lights at night as they should. The tints do not obstruct visibility, but actually improve it in bright conditions by helping to cut down glare.
I guess I'll just have to wait & see, & be prepared to pacify any "jobs-worths" I may come across.
23 January 2004, 03:11 PM
#35
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 8,384
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys,
I've contact my insurer just to clarify the stand point in the event of an accident. As if front window tints (ie. A->B pillar) are illegal/MOT failure - my car isn't road legal and as such surely a possible get out of paying in the event of a claim clause.
Of course I hope I don't have an accident.
I don't blame the insurers at all - this is the government + road safety groups + and the nutters that use limo tints on the front side windows as Nick said.
Alex
I've contact my insurer just to clarify the stand point in the event of an accident. As if front window tints (ie. A->B pillar) are illegal/MOT failure - my car isn't road legal and as such surely a possible get out of paying in the event of a claim clause.
Of course I hope I don't have an accident.
I don't blame the insurers at all - this is the government + road safety groups + and the nutters that use limo tints on the front side windows as Nick said.
Alex
23 January 2004, 03:53 PM
#36
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dull White BMW
Posts: 5,052
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've contact my insurer just to clarify the stand point in the event of an accident. As if front window tints (ie. A->B pillar) are illegal/MOT failure - my car isn't road legal and as such surely a possible get out of paying in the event of a claim clause
Steve
23 January 2004, 04:02 PM
#37
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Co Durham
Posts: 1,659
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alex, I agree entirely!
The more I think about this the more I am seething![img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]
The cynical part of me says that road safety has nothing to do with the decision but to enable new weapons against the war on speed like Truvelo to be able to see the driver's face whereas it is quite difficult to make mine out in my car at present (but this is me just being cynical and, of course, has no basis at all..........
The more I think about this the more I am seething![img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]
The cynical part of me says that road safety has nothing to do with the decision but to enable new weapons against the war on speed like Truvelo to be able to see the driver's face whereas it is quite difficult to make mine out in my car at present (but this is me just being cynical and, of course, has no basis at all..........
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
serpico
ScoobyNet General
20
01 April 2019 07:47 AM