gsm026

I find that I can see well enough at night with 30% or more on the side windows (which is the Colorado limit anyway). My old car came with 15 or 20% on the side windows and that was too much for me. A couple of close calls driving at night (one with an unlighted bicycle) convinced me to get the tint redone on that car. Bicycles are a real hazard here and a lot of them don't follow the rules regarding lights at night, traffic signals, etc.

Greg

mathnerd88

iTrader: (1)

That's why you don't change lanes when you see a car coming from two lanes over. In your scenario, if you change lanes slowly, then accidents will be prevented. If in case another driver decides to switch over to your lane, as long as you change lanes slowly, an accident is completely avoided. The accidents you describe are probably from people who change lanes too quickly. It can happen to everyone, tint or no tint. Trucks and moving vans don't even have rear side or rear windows.

A safe driver wouldn't be trying to merge on the same lane as another driver in the first place. That can be easily seen by your windshield if you're passing them. I usually change lanes when I know there's no other car two lanes over that would switch lanes into the lane I'm switching to. If you're merging onto the freeway, your side mirrors can show you what's behind two lanes away who is passing you.

Plus, looking two lanes over is also dangerous because it takes your eyes off the road to see what's ahead of you. There's not enough time to do that. Most accidents on the freeway is usually a rear-end accident from distracted drivers not seeing what is ahead of them.

I'm not arguing with you that extremely dark tints obstruct vision; of course they do! But some states have outrageous laws like "no tints in the front windshield whatsoever." My car has the side and rear windows tinted with 55% tint, and I am able to see clearly in all situations, plus benefit from protecting my interior from harmful rays of the sun and keeping the car cooler.

Chekov

mathnerd88,

You seem to be stretching your argument to contradict yourself. Of course you don’t change lanes when you see a car coming from two lanes over. That’s why you have to look out a side window first. Furthermore, you cannot see this from your windshield. That’s why your past comment “You don't need to see what is happening two lanes away on your side windows” is just plain wrong.

And your comment that with 55% tint you are able to see clearly defies logic, the laws of physics and basic human anatomy. If there’s no tint you can see clearly. With 55% you cannot see as well so “clearly” becomes just another tint zealot’s rationalization.

The reason I’m even bothering with you to continue this discussion may stem from my training as a commercial pilot. I was trained to compromise nothing and to have all systems, including visual equipment working at their best before venturing out. We would never be so irresponsible as to put a 55% restriction on our ability to see out of the airplane. Of course, automobile driving is not quite the same, but it’s my view that they should be. Besides, airplanes don’t look any less “cool” in the absence of dark tints.

mathnerd88

iTrader: (1)

Sigh...no use in arguing. People can say wearing sunglasses during the day can reduce glare and cause safer driving, especially when the sun is setting and shining through your rear windshield. One of the biggest problems today in driving is glare. It is very difficult to drive when the sun is setting and the glare is all in your eyes. That's why in some cars, there is already tint in the upper 6" of your windshield.

As for pilots, I believe most of them prefer to have sunglasses on when it is bright outside. Air Force pilots have anti-glare on their helmets and a slight tint so they can actually see more. Glare is actually also another big problem that can cause accidents. I don't see you have an argument for that.

Obviously one size can't fit all. Most people who have tints are able to see out enough that there shouldn't be a safety concern. The benefits outweigh the safety concern you're making. Plus, you can't pinpoint that it is specifically tints that is causing drivers to be unsafe. It may or may not be a contributing factor, but it isn't significant enough to warrant a safety issue. Logic dictates this because if it really was a safety concern, all states would have very similar laws about tint mandated by federal law, and that is honestly not the case.

Even a correlation doesn't imply causation. Not every product is always going to benefit you in all circumstances. Automakers even slightly tint ALL windows for a reason. No car window has 100% VLT. There's no reason to argue about this because accidents will happen regardless of tint or not. You can be the safest driver in the world and do everything right and still get into an accident.

Chekov

Yes, most pilots have sunglasses. But we don’t wear them at night, and neither should you. But I guess there’s nothing more to be said here lest we repeat ourselves.

rks

iTrader: (6)

just like every other pedantic anti-tint argument that you have posted. How about we stay off your lawn and you stay out of tint threads?

Chekov

Sorry, I can’t help myself. Whenever I see posts such as “I can see perfectly at night with 50% on my windshield,” or “your only problem is being pulled over,” or other gibberish like that I have a compulsion to respond. But let’s negotiate; what do you mean by staying off my lawn?

NJ Torque

iTrader: (5)

My black on black sedan has 20% on the sides/back and 35% on the windscreen...

wifey has black on stone with 35% on sides/back and 50% on windscreen

mathnerd88

iTrader: (1)

So you DO agree that tints can be safer for use during the day. It is only at night that you're concerned about safety?

So overall, tints really don't benefit people because they equally are safe and non-safe at the same time? That means they should be neutral, and you shouldn't be against them or for them.

As for me, (and probably most people who own tints,) I find them to benefit me more than harm me, so I don't mind sacrificing a little bit of visibility at night for anti-glare from high beams or glare from sunsets and keeping my car cooler in the hot sun.

TONY37X

iTrader: (2)

35% Sides and Rear for 3+ years in NJ, no stops yet!

My 2013 will be getting tinted next week, trying 35% Sides 20% Rear on this one.

mathnerd88

iTrader: (1)

I had my car in NJ for a year and a half and during that time, I had tinted windows (only 20% in the rear.) One day, a cop came up to my window and asked me to roll up my front windows to see if there were any tint on them, so be careful.

This was near Rutgers University in New Brunswick.

TONY37X

iTrader: (2)

I had that happen once like 10 years ago on my Scion TC at the time, think it was a checkpoint of some sort, but I bet it was because of the dark 20% I had on the rear windows at the time, 35% they seem to leave alone.

g37x2011

I got 35% all around no windshield tint. Didn't think it was dark enough so I changed the tint to 20% all around.

connoisseurr

iTrader: (5)

Tint for looks is one thing. If you want quality tint to do what window film is suppose to do, I'd suggest going with a quality product such as 3M Cystalline. It blocks 99% of UV and up to 60% of IR (heat).

I had 50% on all my windows and 70% on my windshield and rear window (all 3M crystalline) on my previous two vehicles and it keeps heat out of your car much better than conventional window film that most places apply as their generic tint job. It looks great and the performance is outstanding.

g37x2011

My tint is 3M Cystalline