|
Post by oldbanger2 on Feb 17, 2005 16:33:02 GMT -5
anyone no the law regauding window tints? just been pulled and got a £30 fine! police said i cant have any tints at all on front side windows! surley that cant be right? my insurance company said they were ok, dark smoke police used a light meter , there was 14 .8% light geting through. is there a way out of it? ??
|
|
|
Post by chi_chee on Feb 17, 2005 16:43:46 GMT -5
i think by law the police do have the right to fine u and request u remove the tints within a given time and u must produce your car to them within 7-14 days (me think).
but it sounds like you've been really unlucky getting pulled coz most other drivers with tints are fine, i have seen some literally blacked out and the police will drive past with no hesitation.
is your car modded any other way by any chance?
|
|
|
Post by oldbanger2 on Feb 17, 2005 17:01:47 GMT -5
its only got lexus lights at the back, rest it standard for now..
|
|
|
Post by chi_chee on Feb 17, 2005 17:26:10 GMT -5
then it seems like u were extremely unlucky and the plod was a complete b*tch!!!
sorry mate!!
|
|
|
Post by BigOL on Feb 17, 2005 18:03:25 GMT -5
I would get the window tested in daylight. I would protest that the light meter maybe inaccurate. Anything is worth a try at the moment.
AFAIK about tints, you can have light smoke ONLY on the front end of the car, but the light smoke must only be 10% and NO MORE
Behind you can have what you like.
I would say you got a copper which didn't get none last night and wanted to pregnant dog it up with someone and you happened to be in the way.
Have you got to go to a DOT Test Centre to produce the car or you just get a producer.
|
|
|
Post by Blackpug on Feb 17, 2005 18:13:33 GMT -5
You would think the police had nothing better to do with their time. How many cars stolen / houses burgled while they were wasting your time.
|
|
|
Post by chi_chee on Feb 17, 2005 18:34:54 GMT -5
You would think the police had nothing better to do with their time. How many cars stolen / houses burgled while they were wasting your time. well when targets have to be reached, targets have to be reached!!
|
|
|
Post by Blackpug on Feb 17, 2005 18:52:07 GMT -5
I don't think its your average constables fault. I think it comes down from the top to hassle the motorist. Easy money and turns us all into criminals.
|
|
|
Post by oldbanger2 on Feb 18, 2005 1:33:58 GMT -5
ive looked on a few sites and it says the law was changed in jan 2004 ,no tints at all in front! before i had them done i told my insurance company if darksmoke was ok they said yeh. its on my certificate. how do i go about proveing the lightmeter was calibrated? anyone no???
|
|
|
Post by Wardy! on Feb 18, 2005 3:20:44 GMT -5
Thing is , your insurance company ain't the law, so because they said they would insure you doesnt mean that it's fully road legal. I can't offer any advice though about tinting as I know very little about the subject legal-wise, sorry mate I was thinking instead of going for mirror effect on mine to go for blue tinted windows, might look nicer on a sunny day
|
|
|
Post by BigOL on Feb 18, 2005 3:23:08 GMT -5
I am assuming by your first post time that you were tested in the dark. This to me is enough to prove its not a fair test.
Dark smoke is a No No, but being as you got it done before the law changed, can you get dispensation under grandfather's rights. Other words you had the install before the law changed, which now would make you exempt.
I only thought about disproving the light meter because a breathlyser on the side of the road is not suffcient to charge you with drink driving. However it provides enough evidence to offer suspision. Its why the cops drag you back to the station and make you blow in another machine which using the two results as positive IS enough to charge with drink driving offence or ask for a blood sample. I was thinking of using the same reasons.
There has been an article also in my local rag, about a guy in court nicked for speeding. He was doing 137mph according to the police report and the radar guns information, however, the chap has a Jap import Subaru which has a limiter fitted as standard as thats the rules in Japan. The car therefore is limited to 112mph, which this guy proved by putting the car on a rolling road and submitting it as part of his evidence that he was in the clear. It became a clear cut case of the police gun was not calibrated properly or misused.
I was thinking of the same thing again here. Two tests day and night should be done to prove beyond doubt that it doesn't conform.
|
|
|
Post by chi_chee on Feb 18, 2005 9:15:21 GMT -5
.......... There has been an article also in my local rag, about a guy in court nicked for speeding. He was doing 137mph according to the police report and the radar guns information, however, the chap has a Jap import Subaru which has a limiter fitted as standard as thats the rules in Japan. The car therefore is limited to 112mph, which this guy proved by putting the car on a rolling road and submitting it as part of his evidence that he was in the clear. It became a clear cut case of the police gun was not calibrated properly or misused. ..... i am guessing he stil got done tho?
|
|
|
Post by oldbanger2 on Feb 18, 2005 11:27:48 GMT -5
the test was done at night,he held a round small disc on one side of window and another on the inside window, imagine two coins together, &glass between it! attatched to two wires that went to the tintman test meter.....14.8% light .would it make any difference in the day?
|
|
|
Post by PugGTi on Feb 18, 2005 12:55:17 GMT -5
From that description I wouldn't have thought it would make any difference - it sounds as though it shines it's own light through the window and measures how much gets through...
|
|
|
Post by oldbanger2 on Feb 18, 2005 13:51:42 GMT -5
yeh it seems that way. if i get pulled againg i,d prob get fined & i think old bill will make me remove them there & then & if i refused they,d prob inpound my car!
|
|