Update: I emailed the Porsche of Fremont GM and he offered to cut me a check for $100 to get the tint removed! I'm very surprised! This certainly improves my opinion of the dealership a lot.

 

In 2008, when I spent 6 months at Balboa, Ca., everyone's widows were tinted. According to Ca. code 26708 this is still legal today - 70% light transmission on the front seat windows, almost anything on the rear windows as long as you have external rear view mirrors. Nothing other than an eyebrow on the windshield. I don't know where this "no tint at all" stuff is coming from.

 

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc26708.htm

At first it says 88% light transmission. Then underneath that it says 70% light transmission. It seems very vague to me. Or does this mean the combination of film and glass?

 

"The Man" is getting to be PITA. I wonder how long this will last before we all get tired of their bull.

 

Great! Save that $100 and take 5 minutes of your time and peel off the film. It's so easy and stupid to pay someone to do it.

 

GA has a law, too: no darker than 35%. I went much darker, to near-limo tint at 15% on my 996, and knew to roll down the windows in certain areas.

In any case, I sold that car, and went with legal 35% on my current 997SC.
CATTMAN

 

I think you should re-read code 26708, but here's the layman's version from the CHP FAQ:

Can I put after-market tinting on the windows of my vehicle?
The main requirements for legal window tinting in California are:

1. The windshield and front driver's side and passenger's side windows cannot receive any aftermarket tinting.
2. If the rear window of a vehicle is tinted, the vehicle must have outside rearview mirrors on both sides.

The law prohibits any person from driving any motor vehicle with any object or material placed, displayed, installed, affixed, or applied upon the windshield or side or rear windows, with certain limited exceptions.
However, legislation signed into law effective January 1, 1999, exempts from the above prohibition specified clear, colorless, and transparent material that is installed, affixed, or applied to the front driver and passenger side windows for the specific purpose of reducing ultraviolet rays. If, as, or when this material becomes torn, bubbled or otherwise worn, it must be removed or replaced.

http://www.chp.ca.gov/html/answers.html

 

This may not be the most ethical post I've made . . . if you have a relationship with your doctor ask him to write you a note for submission to the DMV. Persons that have had skin cancer or are at high risk for skin cancer are allowed to have window tint at least they are in the state of NJ with a note from a doctor. I assume CA must have a similar law. This won't stop you from getting pulled over but it should stop you from getting tickets for it.

 

California does have a similar law. Last I checked the only approved tint was a 3M 70% film.

 

yes nowadays in the bay I see cops pulling ppl over left and right. They are on a witch hunt. two-tone tints (dark in the ear, 50-70% tint front aren't really that bad imo)

front plate would be a problem also. my friend who has a 04 E46M3 got pulled over the same way as you for no front plate. get the took hook plate from JCS.

 

Because I'm stubborn and have always fully tinted my cars, I went ahead and tinted my 997 last year with 30% (except the windshield). Got a fix-it ticket and had to pull it off after having it on for only 2 weeks. That really just got me exasperated, and after 10 years of driving with multiple violations on my cars and getting pulled over far more than a normal human being could rationalize, I made a decision not to tint anymore... well, at least the 997. But I still envy all those who I see out there violating the law.

For me, tint was always a major problem to defend to an officer. Applying tint is something you did to the car, rather than didn't do (i.e. forgot to put the front plate on). And the "I didn't know it's illegal" or "it was there when I bought the car" excuses never worked for me. Although, I'm sure being a teenager/young person didn't help much.

BTW, in case you CA residents didn't know, the fine for tint has gone up to $176 as of 1/6/10. Same fine for no front plate. Wish I was joking here. See http://www.luxury4play.com/automotiv...10-update.html.

 

I am going to be the anti tint . I agree with the cops . No tint!!!
In fact the vast majority of local car related news stories --reveal a higher percentage of tinted cars linked to crime. If the cops can't see drivers then it cuts down their ability to patrol the streets and get descriptions. If the drivers wants less sunlight --sunglasses work. If he wants privacy .. a room works.

Now you may have been out enjoying a leisure drive but imagine the extra obstacle a police officer might have to deal with had you reported the car stolen . It places an added risk to the cops because he can see your car but can't see the driver. It's scary enough for them to pull over any car .. even when they can see the driver.

Aside from the police perspective -I feel that Tint cuts ones visibility and impairs nightime driving . Most of the tint is cheap but even the highest quality tint can not offer the nightime visibility of a bare window or the level of sophistication of a polarized lens.

I don't even find it appealing aesthetically.

 

Me either. A sergeant of the local Sheriff's station was admiring Cindy's NSX while his partner wrote up a report after someone keyed it. I said it was a lease return at 2,800 miles [A weird story, but irrelevant] that had pretty heavy tint, so we made the dealer remove it before we'd buy. "We prefer the visibility, and besides I hate to make you boys walk up to a car wondering what's going on inside."

The deputy said "Oh damn, I'd have left it on. Tint looks great. Don't worry about us. We treat every unknown like the pax have drawn guns anyway. It's not like they'd be waving them around even if the windows were clear."

Which is kind of a funny story, but mostly it brings up my point. Get a professional to do that tint-removal. The dealer said "Oh, try it awhile. You can always peel it off," but the truth is you can't always succeed without damaging those in-window antennas and heating wires they put on the inside. You can damage those just by careless cleaning. Take it to someone who will be responsible for the replacement of the whole damn window if he screws up the tint removal. That's why we made the dealer do it.

Incidentally, I doubt the law says "no tint" because most cars, including that NSX, come with a mild tint from the factory these days. Possibly, California law bans aftermarket tint being added to windshields. Plausible, since so much of that in the past was crap that bubbled in six months. Don't know about that.

It does ban tints that are heavier than a certain amount (70% someone said?) anywhere on the car, and it was indeed because a couple of officers got shot in traffic stops in rough parts of town. Politicians have to do something at such times to show willing. Passing a law is their best approximation to doing something. Times are a little better here now, and that deputy may be too young to remember the fuss. Or they may have taught them so well in the academy by now that the younger generation of officers take it for granted they may be facing a drawn gun when they approach some cars. Tint or no tint. [Obvious political comment elided. More fun to talk cars.]

Gary

 

I found a useful link. http://www.tintlaws.com/

 

It helps if the cops can see better. It helps even more if the person gets away because a subject description can help identify the person.

This camera even got a photo of a guy doing 147 MPH in a Hyundai --without tint!!!
http://www.caranddriver.com/news/car...onata-car_news