How in the heck does a Hyundai go 147? Now, I think I need a supercharger for my 997!

 

LOL --I remember reading the article on a BMW forum to stir a bit of discussion about the BMW speed limiter settings.

 

That's the trouble with relying on a FAQ. You have to read it with a lawyer's eye to know what they left out. First, notice that this is a FAQ question about aftermarket tints. That's okay, since we're discussing aftermarket tints right now, but many cars come with a tint, or at least a UV blocking layer that is what laymen call a tint, so you need to read the original law to know what is permissible when they combine.

Second, notice that part I underlined. Those exceptions are exactly what makes Tejoe right. California law does not ban all tints. First, you can put colored tints on your windshield above 29" from the seat bottom when the seat is at its furthest back and down position. But you specifically can not have opaque letters saying "P O R S C H E", so you'll have to tie a string around your finger if you have trouble remembering which car you're driving. (Okay. It just says any opaque letters. They didn't pick on forgetful Porsche drivers specially.) You can also put other things in specified portions of the windshield, like those paper licenses that dealers put on a newly sold vehicle, not that we care.

Finally, and most apropos to this discussion, you can put clear ultraviolet shields on the front side windows following some rules I'll repeat in a moment. These 'colorless' layers would be called a tint by most people, but they meet the law so long as they are what we call a neutral-density gray. The point is they don't distort your perception of colors, as do those hokey yellow tints used in the fifties to "enhance contrast and ease eye fatigue." I'm pretty sure those were the target of this legislation, especially on the windshield, rather than the dark blue 'gangster' tints, which I don't remember anyone using in the days when this law was written. But never ask why when dealing with a legislature. I'm just supposing.

Those other requirements are that the material itself not block more than 12% of light in the visible region, and that the window after the layer is installed must still pass at least 70% of the light in the visible region. We call that 70% transmittance. I know it sounds confusing in 26708, with the 88% of the add-on layer being followed immediately by 70%, but it's not vague at all. Just... not terribly easy to read if you don't read such things a lot. The first part is a restriction on the new layer being added. The second part refers to a federal standard and says the modified window shall continue to meet that standard. Put another way...

1. If your window already incorporated a neutral density gray UVA shield from the manufacturer that approached that 70% standard, then you would be effectively blocked from putting on any more shielding using aftermarket materials. I've never seen a factory tint this strong, but the law deals with it if anyone should be inspired that way.

2. If your manufacturer only used an 80% UVA barrier, you can add an 88% layer, which will take you to the federal limit of 70% transmittance. (Multiply 0.80 by 0.88.) You've maxed out under both requirements in that case.

3. If your manufacturer only used a 90% barrier, you still can't use a stronger tint. You're limited to the 88% aftermarket layer. That will take you only to 79% transmittance, but it is the limit you can do, no matter what the federal standard says. You are not permitted to put a 70% layer on a window at the driver's position, the "front side" windows, even if your original manufacturer's glass were completely clear. (Which no glass is, but skip that.)

You can get those even darker "sun screening devices" someone mentioned, if you carry a letter from a doctor or optometrist. But they must meet standards specified in another subsection. I didn't bother to look up those requirements, because they also must be removed when the sun goes down. Useless for cosmetic purposes in other words. So we needn't strain our ethics.

This is why senior engineers have to take law classes. First, the engineering schools teach us how to do things, then the law school teaches how to know what we can not do. You would not credit how much of my career was spent studying public laws that affect engineering projects so I could find the legal ways to do what we planned to do.

Gary
Who still doesn't like tints, even if he does
know exactly how far the law lets him go

 

Gary, thanks for taking the time to clarify the letter of the law. So what you're saying is 'tint' (if it has a color and is after-market) is illegal in California on the front doors???

 

not a big deal, A: take it off and put back on... usually u can pay a shop for the "on" and theyll take it off for you to go get fixed.

other thing is find a friend with same color car.. swap plates.. and take the ticket to a random cop sitting around to sign off.. depends where you live who has to sign off but the vin isnt on ticket only thr plates... so just swap plate with someone w/o tint..

done.

btw this coming from a guy who has tint on his entire front windshield cause florida heat sucks ;-)

 

Yes. That's what the section says that someone dug up. Mind you, I've never cared since we don't like much more than a light UV blocking tint, so I never looked it up before. But someone provided the link to California's server with those laws. Over a long career, I spent a distressing number of hours that could have been productive reading such things to stay out of jail. Well... unless your ambition is training sparrows, or carving models of HMS Victory from chicken bones, then I suppose staying out of jail is itself productive. But it did not intrinsically get any rockets launched.

On the other hand, neutral-density gray is a color as ordinary people mean the term and that is permitted so long as you follow those standards. The aftermarket material cannot have a transmittance below 88% and the window when you get done must not fall below 70% transmittance.

And of course on the windshield, anything more than 29" above the driver seat's lowest position is fair game. Can't be red though. Those shades are associated with emergency vehicles. So you can put a blue tint, if you're of a mind to, along the top of your windshield, and you can put anything in neutral-density gray on the side windows up to a maximum of 12% blocking of visible light and 100% of UVA. Of course, you're only doing it for health reasons and to save the planet from running your air conditioning more often. But the law doesn't ask about that. Just the technical spec's. If it happens to look kewl, who are we to complain?

Gary

 

Its all about state revenue. $$$
Nothing personal.

 

I wonder if anyone on this thread considers it anything but personal when they continually need more money.

 

Yeah, just try and "educate" a cop who's pulled you over for illegal window tint if you think your tint is legal.

 

I think that I'm pulling it all off of the car. I have had it on my cars for years, but honestly, I'm just sick of it. It seems at least once a year some bored or pissed off cop stops me JUST for the tint. My father was a cop for 26 years, so I respect them, but sometimes they just do **** to irritate drivers. I see people driving and talking on phones and texting and nobody enforces that at all, but I continue to be pulled over for tinted windows.

 

Gary you make large posts...LOL...to my point

I am in Mass and people get pulled over all the time for tint. From what I know, it usually comes down to a few things

1 - does your state allow aftermarket tint? if your car comes from the dealer with dark window GLASS that is different as it came that way

2 - if they do allow aftermarket, what is the % per window? you need to keep in mind that almost all glass is not 100% so even though the aftermarket tint is legal when applied to a window it might make the % to low by state law.

I have had Huper Optik http://www.huperoptik.com/Automotive.html window film on my 2007 Subaru STi for 3 years now with no issue and LOVED IT. It is very light but does offer some tint like looks (described as being more European). It is a thermal film and I didn’t realize how much heat it rejected until I drove someone else’s car on a really sunny day. The heat on my arm was annoying and I didn’t realize why until I remembered that I had the film on my car. If anyone would like to see pics let me know.

 

Well, honestly, I've never had a problem with any law enforcement being unreasonable... well, there was one. Got a little piffed when I told him to "stand over there. I'll deal with you in a minute." So he felt morally obliged to write a citation afterward, which of course the DA immediately quashed when we went to court. Cindy remarked: "Dear, you have to remember. He is a sergeant, but not your sergeant." Which leads me to suspect I was somewhat peremptory, so you can't blame the man.

Normally, I would not expect a problem. Just explain the law, pointing out where and how we complied. If he got in a snit too, which is unlikely, I'd just tell a judge who would quash the citation. System works a charm, you know.

Gary

 

I don't think cops like it when someone tries to explain the law to them.

I don't know from experience, I just watch "COPS" a lot.

 

Yep. I'd say you got it. Both the rules to check and the reason to do it. And the need to remember that manufacturers caught on to the benefits of reduced UV years ago and you have to be sure the final result is still within your state's law. Actually, since the feds have a standard of 70% transmittance, very few legislatures would bother to swim upstream by insisting on a higher transmittance. (The law would be overturned if a manufacturer or someone from another state had the money to take such a thing to court.)

Gary

 

Depends on whether you're the sort of person who explains things to cops or argues with them. It is a not-very-subtle difference when you're in a situation.

Gary