Window Tints = 3 Penalty Points

[Jimmy321]

As the title says.

Was in the pub last night playing poker, the cops pull up outside and start going over a players car.

He goes out to see whats wrong. Front widow tints, he said they had a light meter and only 30% light was getting through.

The result, told he could not drive the car, they helped him remove the front tints then handed him a £60 fine and 3 penatly points.

Location was high street Paisley. I also saw 3 other cars being stopped during the day in Paisley all of them inocent looking 50-60ish year olds in run off the mill cars.

Jim.

[oobster]

I wonder how they could do that when he wasn't actually driving the car or even in it? Surely you have to be USING the car to commit the offence?

[gus the bus]

As the title says.

He goes out to see whats wrong. Front widow tints, he said they had a light meter and only 30% light was getting through.

thats a pretty dark tint tbh. Glad I got mine checked with the light meter once fitted. Although never say never

As Andy (Oobster) says tho, surprised they did it with nobody in/using it.

they must be looking for their monthly target and Christmas bonus

Edited December 13, 2007 by Gus the Bus

[RA Dunk]

how can they fine him and give him points if they didnt actually seee him driving? seems a bit odd to me

[scientific steve]

well, it is his car

how did he get it to the pub's car park !!???

[RA Dunk]

well, it is his car

how did he get it to the pub's car park !!???

he maybe got it tinted after he took it to the car park lol, hey ya never know

[andy]

Ker-ching! £££££

Shouldn't they be out looking for drink-drivers?

[speech]

Ker-ching! £££££

Shouldn't they be out looking for drink-drivers?

Probably the reason they were outside the pub methinks???

[Jimmy321]

The car was parked in High Street Paisley. He addmited it was his car and had been driving it, they prob had it on the town CCTV anyway.

He diden't know he was getting a fine and points.

He bought the car with the tints on 5 years ago, I'd say rough justice after all he did remove the tint on demand not like he lied and gave excuses.

[scouk]

The car was parked in High Street Paisley. He addmited it was his car and had been driving it, they prob had it on the town CCTV anyway.

He diden't know he was getting a fine and points.

He bought the car with the tints on 5 years ago, I'd say rough justice after all he did remove the tint on demand not like he lied and gave excuses.

I got done for this back in June.. Apart from the fine and points it was a real pain in the a***! Car was off the road and wasn't allowed to be driven again unless it was taken straight to a MOT station for testing then directly from test station to police station.. Any other diversion and I'd be prosecuted.. If the police still werent happy for whatever reason the car get impounded!

It's a really horrible situation to be in for such a trivial thing.

For the record I purchased the car a few months earlier knowing it had tinted windows obviously but never realised I was changing 3 points and a fine. Coudl see clearly at night but seemed darker from the outside during the day.. Had I known what the penalty wasI would have ripped the film off before I was caught... Speaking to the officers in teh back of their car, they pretty much said any sort of film is considered illegal as most modern cars have a certain amount of manufacturers tint on their glass anyway for UV protection..

So basically:

£60 fine

+ £30 (or whatever for MOT test even though it wasn't due for months. )

+3 points on my licence & a hell of an inconvenience being without the car for most of the week while it got tested (we had another car booked in for MOT so the scooby got it's place but could have been weeks to get it MOT'd) ..

Live and learn as they say...

Edited December 13, 2007 by ScoUK

[RA Dunk]

i would have thought they had to give a warning first , before they pressed charges? but since he took them off there and then the charges were not justified IMO

[jamesm]

Seems a bit OTT. I would have thought he would have got a warning and a 'fix it ticket' before they started dishing out points.

But, rules is rules and if the coppers decide it is best dealt with by way of points and a fine, then I suppose they can.

Edited December 13, 2007 by JamesM

[scouk]

i would have thought they had to give a warning first , before they pressed charges? but since he took them off there and then the charges were not justified IMO

Nope they stopped giving the warnings ever since they got those "tintman" devices for on the spot testing...

It's on the spot now.. no questions asked! I did try and appeal mine but got nowhere...

[scooby doom]

There is not just a blank 'points, points, points' attitude with regard to tints. From what I've seen, heard and read it appears as always that individual forces are operating to their own set of local criteria. Certainly in this area there is a graded approach depending on the % over. This can vary from a verbal warning to the full boona of points and prohibition. As has already been said I cannot see how they possibly issued a fix penalty when the car wasn't being driven. While there are technicalities of how it could be done it seems inconceivable that it would. The legal processes to identify a competent person to report would invariably lead to a full report to the PF and not an on the spot ticket. Personally I don't think I'd be happy with that myself and would have to suggest it should be challenged. If it's not bad enough that I/we are constantly berated by the uneducated on the basis they merely don't agree with being caught, having 'clown shoes' like these going about things in this way doesn't help the public perception of the rest of us. What can I say - Scotlands premier force leading by example again.

Edited December 13, 2007 by Scooby Doom

[ScoobySounds]

Intresting.

what about reactalite style tints?

.. ones that get darker in bright light and lighter in darkness.

whilst they might fail the police test in bright conditions, they will easily pass at night, conditions for which the law is written.

Edited December 13, 2007 by ScoobySounds

[scooby doom]

Intresting.

what about reactalite style tints?

.. ones that get darker in bright light and lighter in darkness.

whilst they might fail the police test in bright conditions, they will easily pass at night, conditions for which the law is written.

Although it seems a bit of a lottery of where you're stopped and by whom, you'd like to think that an element of common sense would prevail. I'd like to think any offence would have to be incident related. Basically, if they're too dark at the time you're stopped then that's that, as you could only be reported on the evidence at the time. Having the changing film sounds a bit like 'Tint Roulette' to me.

[gus the bus]

Some Info from VOSA

Gus

Window Tinting - Amendments to legislation

During the early part of 2004, Section 32 of the Road Vehicles (Construction & Use) Regulations will be amended to include "Window Tint Films" where such materials attached to the glass are capable of reducing the visible light transmission of forward windows to below prescribed levels (70% VLT for front side windows). These changes will be back-dated to become applicable from 1st January 2004.

This will effectively ban the practice in future of applying virtually any tinted films to windows forward of the B-Post on any vehicle that is to be driven on UK roads.

The reasons for these changes is the recent proliferation of vehicles that are excessively tinted. Some vehicles may be so heavily tinted that they present a real danger when used on public roads. The action being taken by the Government follows a fatality that occurred recently where a heavily tinted car was involved in a collision with a motorcycle and the window tints were held to blame due to the vision of the driver being impaired.

There is, however, a recognized difference between "light window tints" which may be considered safe for road use and "excessively dark window tints" which are not.

There has also been a great deal of debate in recent years about the legitimacy of window tints that do not obscure the vision of the driver. A clear case has been argued that road-safe window tints do not actually conflict with existing regulations. The Department of Transport have argued however, that Section 32 was always intended to cover materials attached to the glass, despite the fact that no mention of this is made in the Regulation itself. The only solution remaining would be to amend the Legislation.

Consequently and in order to clarify the solution the Government have finally decided to up-date the Regulations to specifically include Tinted Films since, in the view of the Police and the Department of Transport, this is the only way in which the problems of excessive tints can be remedied.

Unfortunately however, even tint films that maybe considered to be safe for road use will now be viewed as in conflict with the Regulations, enabling the Police and Vehicle Inspectorate to take action against vehicle owners.

This has significant implications for the owners of vehicles that have window tints and also those that are responsible for installing or selling window tints.

Implications for the Installer and Motor Retailer.

From when the amendments to Section 32 come into force, any Motor Retailer that sells a vehicle that has window tint films applied which reduce visible light transmission levels to below prescribed levels forward of the B-Post is committing an offence and runs the risk of prosecution under Section 75 of the 1988 Road Traffic Act with reference to Section 41 (which defers to Construction and Use Regulations).

In a similar way, anyone responsible for the fitment of window tints which reduce visible light transmission level to below prescribed levels on windows forward of the B-Post is committing an offence and can also be prosecuted under Section 76 of the 1988 Road Traffic Act.

Implications for the vehicle owner.

After much discussion, a sympathetic Enforcement Policy has been agreed between the Department of Transport and The Glass and Glazing Federation to ensure that all vehicle owners that have had tints applied in the past may be dealt with fairly. This applies in particular where the infringement is with respect to tints that do not pose a significant threat to Road Safety, despite being in contravention with the amended Regulations.

In any event, after the date of the amendment to Section 32, the owner of the vehicle that has window tints applied forward of the B-Post is liable to be challenged by either a Police Officer or by an Inspector from the Department of Transport Vehicle Inspectorate, where their vehicle is noticed being driven on Public Roads.

Where such a vehicle is stopped and the window tints applied are such that the visible light transmission level, when measured using an appropriate device, falls to below prescribed levels, the following enforcement guidelines have been agreed with and recommended by the Government.

Above 30% Visible Light Transmission (Less Severe Window Tints)

The owner or driver of such a vehicle will be required to have the tinted film removed from the windows under the direction of either a Rectification Notice or a Delayed Prohibition Notice, A period of grace will apply for a limited number of days (normally ten) during which time the vehicle may be driven whilst the rectification work is to be completed. In either case, the vehicle will need to be inspected by either a Police Officer or Vehicle Inspectorate Officer to confirm that the glass has been restored to a compliant condition. Prosecution is unlikely in such circumstances provided the vehicle owner complies fully.

Below 30% Visible Light Transmission (Excessively dark Window Tints)

The owner or driver of such a vehicle may be issued with an Immediate Prohibition Notice and immediately

prevented from driving the vehicle on public roads until the tints have been removed and either a Police Officer or Vehicle Inspectorate Officer confirms that the glass has been restored to a compliant condition. It is also possible, depending on the severity of the offence, that the owner may be prosecuted for driving a vehicle in a non-roadworthy or even a dangerous condition with the potential for Penalty Points and a Fine.

Driving such a vehicle on public roads before the tints have been removed and before a Prohibition Notice has been lifted will be a serious offence and the owner or driver is likely to be prosecuted.

Action that needs to be taken by the Window Tint Installer and Motor Retailer

Restrictions - From the beginning of 2004, all customers of a Window Tint Installer or a Motor Retailer that enquire about window tinting should be informed about the new Regulations. It will be unlawful to sell them a vehicle that has tints applied toward of the B-Post and may render the Tinter or Retailer liable to prosecution. The vehicle may also be deemed to be in a Non-Roadworthy condition leaving the owner liable to prosecution as well.

The owner of a vehicle that is in a non-roadworthy condition may find that they void their Insurance Cover if they continue to drive it on public roads. In the event of an accident, the Insurance Company may refuse to pay part or all of their claim.

Rectification - All Window Tint Installers and Motor Retailers that have supplied window tints toward of the B-Post are being asked by the Government and the Glass and Glazing Federation to contact all of their previous customers wherever possible, to inform them of the changes to Legislation and to offer them a chance to have their vehicle returned to have the front tints removed.

This is most important since this will give every customer a chance to become informed about the amendments to the Regulations whilst being able to change their vehicle into a compliant condition before they may be challenged in the future by a Policeman or an officer from the Vehicle Inspectorate.

Clear Security Films

Clear Security Films that only marginally reduce Visible Light Transmission levels on windows forward of the B-Post may be considered to be compliant with the amended Regulations subject to the quality of the fitment being to a standard that does not result in the vision of the driver being obscured in any way.

Note: Tinted windows are not included in the MOT test (Yet), but the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA) have started roadside checks to make sure tinted windows follow the Road Vehicle (Construction & Use) Regulations. This regulation, as detailed above, specifies the minimum levels of light that must pass through the windscreen and front side windows.

Edited December 13, 2007 by Gus the Bus

[thefastone]

You know I would have thought that having to remove the tint folm at the time, would/might have been more dangerous than leaving it on... afaik, and I dont know if i'm wrong here, but dont the tint films leave a messy residue thats not the greatest for seeing though?

also, I think that I may have asked this before, but whats the bobby moore with "fix it" tickets...? I seem to recall someone saying that they dont exist? or what? they are at discression?

I should have thought that things like this should be dealt with accross scotland in EXACTLY the same mannor, as all the bobbies are all acting under the same laws, why not the same enforcement...? except perhaps special trials...

[thefastone]

ah beaten to the mark!

So basicly NOTHING on the front windaes...

[scooby doom]

whats the bobby moore with "fix it" tickets...? I seem to recall someone saying that they dont exist? or what? they are at discression?

They still exist under the Vehicle Defect Rectification Scheme (sometimes known as a VREC or 21 day ticket). They are pretty much discretionary but this can also be offence related e.g. a partially bald tyre on the limit may end up with a VREC although it would be unlikely for having two or more, or one very badly worn tyre. TBH it's less work issuing a ticket as the jobs done there and then, saves additional report writing and effectively having to do it all again if the driver fails to get it sorted.

It would appear that nothing more than fireside haze is really acceptable now. It appears obvious that the message going out is 'get em off' the front tints that is, no matter how cool they make ya mota look. Obviously it all depends on perspective. Its like many other motoring bones of contention, it's not until you or your nearest and dearest directly adversely affected that it can suddenly seem a bad idea after all.

[Richie Cross]

I think a lot of blame has to go with the businesses who will readily apply the tints to the cars for

the customers.

Having never had it done, can someone tell me if they tell you about what's allowed or not?

As a member of Scotlands 'Premier Force', I've been out with traffic guys who will pull folk for number

plates and the driver didn't have a clue about what was allowed or not.

The argument is always that if you're driving a car, you should really know what you can or can't do.

It's not just different forces in Scotland, or Divisions, offices etc...it'll always come down to the officer

dealing with THAT situation at THAT time and wether or not they choose to use their discretion etc.

You do something on my beat (say booze related) and, I would give you 2 or 3 chances but I know

guys and girls that I work with would lift you before that.

If the Paisley traffic cops were stopping a few folk, it may well have been a current 'Action Plan'.

A bit like you hear on the radio about the drink drivers. We are always on the look out for drink drivers,

but at certain times there will be an even bigger push.

Most uniform cops I know won't get involved in traffic but it's always there for people who are 'deserving' of it as it's pretty much black and white with regards to what's right/wrong.

[gus the bus]

ah beaten to the mark!

So basicly NOTHING on the front windaes...

Dale,

reading more snippets from the VOSA info and it isnt as clear cut as it seams

it says later about the "70% rule" which my car falls within ( having tested it with a light meter)

guess I'll just have to stay away from Paisley etc.......or drive around with my windows down!!!

Gus

Edited December 13, 2007 by Gus the Bus

[sti pretender]

I think a lot of blame has to go with the businesses who will readily apply the tints to the cars for

the customers.

Having never had it done, can someone tell me if they tell you about what's allowed or not?

Shopped around last year for tints for my wife's car and most places told me about the tints to the front windows being illegal, was also advised that a tint may be possible on the front window but it would be dependent on what level was on it already.

They would tint the front if you requested it but would have to sign a form declaring they had informed you of the legal issues.

One or two didn't bother but they were cut-price, back-street places.

[ur.a.bus]

when i got my windows done i got them checked first to see what they are standard it came up reading 73%

the window tinting guy said even if i put on the clear shatter proof stuff it would take it just under the limit.

put the lightest i could on the front and the reading is now 60%, had them on 6months so far so good

the guy also said that all renault people carriers come under the 70% limit as standard, sure he said around 65%

[scouk]

You know I would have thought that having to remove the tint folm at the time, would/might have been more dangerous than leaving it on... afaik, and I dont know if i'm wrong here, but dont the tint films leave a messy residue thats not the greatest for seeing though?

Cheaper film can leave horrible marks but proper film designed for cars shouldn't.. If in doubt get a window film place to remove it for you.. But really nothing a hair dryer and some meths or other cleaning solution cant fix.. Had mine whipped off in 15-20 mins..

I think a lot of blame has to go with the businesses who will readily apply the tints to the cars for

the customers.

Having never had it done, can someone tell me if they tell you about what's allowed or not?

Basically no company is allowed to install illegal tinting of ay sorts.. And as far as I know ignorance isn't an excuse.. It's their line of business so it's their duty to know about it.. If they install tints which are illegal since th 2004 date they face prosecution which will probably lead to their business beign shut down..

IMHO - it's not worth the risk for the businesses.. and as someone who's been affected by the laws it's just not worth having them fitted not any kind of tints on teh front half of the car..

I admit my car looked smart with the front and rear side windows all tinted up but to be honest it doesn't look bad without the front tints! The only problem I noticed is that for a week or so after I removed them it was a bit disorientating looking in the rear view mirror as it appeared darker than before and felt my eyes had to adjust more to the darker glass in the back.. Whereas before looking at any of the mirrors there was a slight tint so less asdustment of the eyes required.. Now there's a big wing on the back so cant see much anyway LOL! (No officer I can see perfectly through the big hole )

Also I don't know what type of tints was on the front as they were on the car when I bought it, but it possibly was the polarising type that adjusts to different light. Sometimes you could see right through the car and others the front tints would look darker than the rears! really was weird stuff.. When everyone foudn out about my "incident" their first comment was "they didn't look dark" and "haven't you taken the tints off yet" joe bloggs never noticed the difference..

But after being at the a*** end of it I adhere to the laws. had I known the penalty I wouldn't of had the tints on the car. But I would have learnt my lesson from a warning... Education is the key! LOL!