tony2toness/sc

If that's the case the dealer has to pay your ticket and have the dealer put on a legal tint for free

{TEAM ADRENALINE}

iTrader: (7)

yea he can try to get them to do that but it'll proll be a fight

tony2toness/sc

Yea they will bitch and moan but they have to change it technically the car is not street legal cause can't drive with the tints so she can legally return the car for getting sold an wink wink unsafe car lol it happen to me they had no choice but to replace it the tint I think it has something to do with the contract

{TEAM ADRENALINE}

iTrader: (7)

ur right im just saying its gonna be a fight.lol

blackbird

If you look under the CVC 26708.10 under the vehicle code, it states that you can use a sun screening device if you have a letter from your doctor, but that it must be removed and can't be used in times of darkness. This is talking about the stick-on sun screen shades and tint would not meet the requirements under the law and would still be ticketable.



If you're tinting any of the windows and you use a 70% tint be aware that you'll probably still be illegal under the vehicle code. The factory glass on nearly every vehicle manufactured already has a light amount of tint applied internal to the glass itself to reduce UV rays entering the vehicle to help with cooling, keep the upholstery from fading, etc. Therefore even "clear" glass does not have 100% light transmittance and you must factor that in when adding any tint. As a side note, there's a apparently a couple European models sold in the US that meet the FMVSS (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard) guidelines for window glazings but in California would technically be illegal due to their internal tinting of the glass reducing light transmittance below the California levels.



Look up what you were sited for. No front plate is a moving violation and if your car was parked you should be able to get it dismissed if you take it to court (unless your local jurisdiction has a different code you were sited under).



The problem with the California Vehicle Code is that in many, many areas it contradicts itself. You can be sited under one article but be able to prove your innocence or compliance with the law under another. For example under CVC 26708, subdivision (d) it states in regards to the front windows "(1) The material has a minimum visible light transmittance of 88 percent.", so technically you can have a lightly tinted clear film. In reality, your glass is more than likely already near that percent with the factory tint in the glass material, but you could argue the case for allowing a light tint.



If they see a film on the front windows they can site under CVC 26708. On the other windows, the officer may have a light meter they can use to test light transmission through the window and tint. Keep in mind that as I mentioned before that all factory glass already blocks a small portion of the light transmittance. Also not every officer will have a meter as they have to pay for them out of pocket in most jurisdictions.



If it was a film, and on a passenger car, then no GM didn't add any from the factory. But the glass itself has an internal tinting so technically they did tint all the windows. Also if the vehicle falls under the category of a truck based platform, under FMVSS the manufacturer can tint the rear windows behind the driver and in many cases they will use a film-based product at the factory (but already applied to the glass prior to installation on the vehicle).

Buckweed

what are you driving that runs a 14.6 1/4 mile but slays all those dope cars in your sig?

tony2toness/sc

My cobalt and what do you meen dope cars all those cars sucked jaguar come on its the stype that car is garbaged when it comes to speed the only worthy good races were the 350zs but driver race lol and 14.6 first time at the track with all my work tools in the trunk