Interior Exterior
Q:
According to this site, front side windows are allow so long as they allow 70% of the light to go through. So, it sounds like the light tint is okay.
I ask because my car is AZ registered and lightly tinted on the side. If I have to take of the tint, I'll keep the AZ registration a bit longer.
http://www.tintcenter.com/laws/CA/
A:
check out this article. As far as I know tinting the front driver and passenger side windows is still illegal.
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/arc...es/05local.htm
not trying to be a internet nanny, but you do know that not registering your car in CA while you are a resident is against the law, right? It's not a violation that is easily caught, but a violation nonetheless.
A:
check out this article. As far as I know tinting the front driver and passenger side windows is still illegal.
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/arc...es/05local.htm
not trying to be a internet nanny, but you do know that not registering your car in CA while you are a resident is against the law, right? It's not a violation that is easily caught, but a violation nonetheless.
I know. The front plate and window tint, not to mention requesting the title from the lien holder, waiting hours in the DMV, etc., etc. are some fo the reasons my car is for sale. Or, it may just stay in AZ.
A:
Okay. Not want I wanted to be doing on a Friday night but I checked the vehicle code which says
Sun Screening Devices: Requirements
26708.2. Sun screening devices permitted by paragraph (10) of subdivision (b) of Section 26708 shall meet the following requirements:
(a) The devices shall be held in place by means allowing ready removal from the window area, such as a frame, a rigid material with temporary fasteners, or a flexible roller shade.
(b) Devices utilizing transparent material shall be green, gray, or a neutral smoke in color and shall have a luminous transmittance of not less than 35 percent.
(c) Devices utilizing nontransparent louvers or other alternating patterns of opaque and open sections shall have an essentially uniform pattern over the entire surface, except for framing and supports. At least 35 percent of the device area shall be open and no individual louver or opaque section shall have a projected vertical dimension exceeding 3/16 inch.
(d) The devices shall not have a reflective quality exceeding 35 percent on either the inner or outer surface.
Added Ch. 74, Stats. 1984. Effective January 1, 1985.
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc26708_2.htm
So, a luminous transmittance of not less than 35% means that it allows 65% of the light to go through?
A:
You don't like the Lotus enough to stand in a DMV line? The wait is not too bad if you do it by appointment. You can make an appointment online now so that part is easy. So instead of "hours" at the DMV, it's down to "an hour" usually!
Front plate? Yeah, that sucks that we "have to" run a front plate. Now ask how many CA owners actually put one on their car. I don't and I have yet to see an Elise/Exige with a front plate attached.
Window tint? Even if you get caught it's only a fixit ticket. At least it doesn't affect your DL and Insurance.
A:
You don't like the Lotus enough to stand in a DMV line? The wait is not too bad if you do it by appointment. You can make an appointment online now so that part is easy. So instead of "hours" at the DMV, it's down to "an hour" usually!
Front plate? Yeah, that sucks that we "have to" run a front plate. Now ask how many CA owners actually put one on their car. I don't and I have yet to see an Elise/Exige with a front plate attached.
Window tint? Even if you get caught it's only a fixit ticket. At least it doesn't affect your DL and Insurance.
It's really how much I hate the DMV The window tint was the thing that concerned me because I'd have to pass inspection. Actually, I'd have to go through inspection twice (on for the Elise and one for the motorcycyle). I have to figure out how not have a title works. From what I understand, my lender will mail the original title to the DMV. I hope that doesn't mean two trips.
A:
Here's the trick. The vehicle code is put together in a way that a cop can find something wrong with almost every car on the road.
The section you're reading can be (and probably is) interpreted to define those pull down or attachable light shades.
The window tint is covered under another section that uses a broad definition of putting anything on the front windshield and windows that would obstruct a driver's view.
A:
ahhh, I forgot the car would be put through an inspection.
I bought my (new) Elise from out of state as did a couple of other owners I know. They had to get a smog certificate before a CA title would be issued to them while my inspector never required it of me. It all depends on who you get. I know that's no comfort, but you can always take the tint off to pass and then have it reapplied later if you really want tint.
Personally I don't like driving around at night looking through dim windows. I'm almost 40 yrs old so I need all the light I can get!!!!! ha!
A:
Okay. Not want I wanted to be doing on a Friday night but I checked the vehicle code which says
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc26708_2.htm
So, a luminous transmittance of not less than 35% means that it allows 65% of the light to go through?
That section applies to shades and such, not window tint. Read (a) carefully. And, it states that at least 35% of the light has to be transmitted through the shade, which means up to 65% can be absorbed and reflected. But again, not applicable to window tint.
A:
If memory serves glass is at the minimum amount of transmission by itself, so 70%, so any further film will be illegal.
A:
You might want to double check that law, I have several cop friends (ironic ) and ALL have told me that having tinted windows on the front passenger side, driver's side and front windshield IS illegal and that depending on the officers mood, if you are seen with it on, they do have the right to pull you over and give you a fix-it ticket. Now it's been a while since we've talked about it and do not know if the laws have changed but, like I said, you might want to double check this.
A:
"26708.5. (a) No person shall place, install, affix, or apply any
transparent material upon the windshield, or side or rear windows, of
any motor vehicle if the material alters the color or reduces the
light transmittance of the windshield or side or rear windows, except
as provided in subdivision (b) or (c) of Section 26708.
(b) Tinted safety glass may be installed in a vehicle if (1) the
glass complies with motor vehicle safety standards of the United
States Department of Transportation for safety glazing materials, and
(2) the glass is installed in a location permitted by those
standards for the particular type of glass used."
A:
My window tint guy (here right now doing a car) states it is illiegal to apply tint to any front side windows in CA.
He does tinting for dealers, including new Audis. Since he's in business to make money and been around a while, I would expect he is not in the habit of passing up business so easily.
A:
Been there, done that. Had some tinting on my Mercedes side windows. Received the ticket.
A:
Okay. Not want I wanted to be doing on a Friday night but I checked the vehicle code which says
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc26708_2.htm
So, a luminous transmittance of not less than 35% means that it allows 65% of the light to go through?
That section describes a screen, doesn't say what windows you can use them on.
I've looked into this before, and ALWAYS have come up with the same answer - it is never legal to tint any window that is even with or ahead of the driver. The top few inches of the windshield CAN be tined, but that's it. It's only OK to tint windows behind the driver (with no limit to how dark they can be) IF there are two side view mirrors installed.
A:
I just wanted to apologize if I came across as being a #@#$. There are parts of my move to CA that I really enjoy (weather, mountain roads, etc) but several things that bother at me. And it manifested itself with the car registration issue.
On a side note, it seems strange that in a State with a large amount of high end cars and enthusiasts that front plates would be required. I would have thought there'd be a initiavate to abolish the front plate.
A:
On a side note, it seems strange that in a State with a large amount of high end cars and enthusiasts that front plates would be required. I would have thought there'd be a initiavate to abolish the front plate.
Naw, it's not really enforced except in rare circumstances, so the public outcry has been muted and people who care just don't install them.
A:
San Francisco Parking & Traffic Control (i.e. meter maids) went on a ticket writing campaign for no front plate violations years ago when the City began installing red light cameras.
All in the name of safety.... (yeah right)
A:
http://www.petitiononline.com/caplate/petition.html
online petitions are not worth the paper they're written on though
A:
Allan, the DMV drives me crazy, too. The smartest thing I ever did (with regard to cars) was become a AAA member. The annual membership (something like $40 or $50), asides from towing and road assistance, also gives you access to AAA's in-house California DMV services. The folks are knowledgeable, courteous, and the lines are minimal. You can do just about anything DMV-wise there except get a license. It has been a real time and sanity saver for me!