Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They still don't stand. If it were a valid argument, the law would apply to police as well.
No, sorry to inform you but you'd be incorrect. The law officially and explicitly exempts law enforcement in item. The law is specific, and people can lobby to change it if they disagree with it, but until that time it stands as written. As with any law there are people who feel they don't need to obey it, and that's fine as long as they take the penalty without whining about it.
TITLE 40. MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC
CHAPTER 8. EQUIPMENT AND INSPECTION OF MOTOR VEHICLES
ARTICLE 1. EQUIPMENT GENERALLY
PART 4. HORNS, EXHAUST SYSTEMS, MIRRORS, WINDSHIELDS, TIRES, SAFETY BELTS, ENERGY ABSORPTION SYSTEMS
O.C.G.A. § 40-8-73.1 (2009)
§ 40-8-73.1. Affixing of materials which reduce light transmission or increase light reflectance through windows or windshields
(a) As used in this Code section, the term:
(1) "Light reflectance" means the ratio of the amount of total light that is reflected outward by a product or material to the amount of total light falling on the product or material.
(2) "Light transmission" means the ratio of the amount of total light, expressed in percentages, which is allowed to pass through a surface to the amount of light falling on the surface.
(3) "Manufacturer" means a person who produces or assembles a vehicle glass-coating material or who fabricates, laminates, or tempers a safety-glazing material, which material reduces light transmission.
(4) "Material" means any transparent product or substance which reduces light transmission.
(5) "Multipurpose passenger vehicle" means a motor vehicle designed to carry ten persons or less which is constructed on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation.
(b) Except as provided in this Code section, it shall be unlawful for any person to operate a motor vehicle in this state:
(1) Which has material and glazing applied or affixed to the front windshield, which material and glazing when so applied or affixed reduce light transmission through the windshield; or
(2) Which has material and glazing applied or affixed to the rear windshield or the side or door windows, which material and glazing when so applied or affixed reduce light transmission through the windshield or window to less than 32 percent, plus or minus 3 percent, or increase light reflectance to more than 20 percent.
(c) The provisions of subsection (b) of this Code section shall not apply to:
(1) Adjustable sun visors which are mounted forward of the side windows and are not attached to the glass;
(2) Signs, stickers, or other matter which is displayed in a seven-inch square in the lower corner of the windshield farthest removed from the driver or signs, stickers, or other matter which is displayed in a five-inch square in the lower corner of the windshield nearest the driver;
(3) Direction, destination, or termination signs upon a passenger common carrier motor vehicle if the signs do not interfere with the driver's clear view of approaching traffic;
(4) Any transparent item which is not red or amber in color which is placed on the uppermost six inches of the windshield;
(5) Any federal, state, or local sticker or certificate which is required by law to be placed on any windshield or window;
(6) The rear windshield or the side or door windows, except those windows to the right and left of the driver of:
(A) A multipurpose passenger vehicle;
(B) A school bus, any other bus used for public transportation, and any bus or van owned or leased by any religious or any nonprofit organization duly incorporated under the laws of this state;
(C) Any limousine owned or leased by a public or private entity; or
(D) Any other vehicle, the windows or windshields of which have been tinted or darkened before factory delivery or permitted by federal law or regulation;
(7) Any law enforcement vehicle;
(8) Any vehicle that displays a valid special license plate issued to a government official under Code Section 40-2-61, 40-2-63, or 40-2-64;
(9) Any vehicle owned or operated by the state or a political subdivision thereof and that displays a valid license plate issued pursuant to Code Section 40-2-37; or
(10) Any vehicle operated in the course of business by a person licensed or registered under Chapter 38 of Title 43, relating to private detective and private security businesses.
(d) The Department of Public Safety may, upon application from a person required for medical reasons to be shielded from the direct rays of the sun and only if such application is supported by written attestation of such fact from a person licensed to practice medicine under Chapter 34 of Title 43 or a person certified as an optometrist under Chapter 30 of Title 43, issue an exemption from the provisions of this Code section for any motor vehicle owned by such person or in which such person is a habitual passenger. The exemption shall be issued with such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed by the Department of Public Safety.
(e) No person shall install any material upon the windshields or windows of any motor vehicle, the installation of which would result in a reduction of light transmission or an increase in light reflectance in violation of subsection (b) of this Code section.
(f) The Department of Public Safety is authorized to promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Code section.
(g) Any person who violates subsection (b) or (e) of this Code section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
There's a chance I may be moving to GA for school next summer, and my wife's car has factory tint (that passed MD inspection - 35% or more). If by chance one of us got pulled over while driving her car, what defense would we have?
There's a chance I may be moving to GA for school next summer, and my wife's car has factory tint (that passed MD inspection - 35% or more). If by chance one of us got pulled over while driving her car, what defense would we have?
35% is legal, and if the tint is factory, then it's covered DOT regs and by federal law and not subject to state limits anyway. That's why factory tint on SUVs that is around 20% is legal.
No, sorry to inform you but you'd be incorrect. The law officially and explicitly exempts law enforcement in item. The law is specific, and people can lobby to change it if they disagree with it, but until that time it stands as written. As with any law there are people who feel they don't need to obey it, and that's fine as long as they take the penalty without whining about it.
.
You don't get it. Of course it exempts them. But why? If it is such a big crime, why does it exempt them? Double standards typically apply to trivial matters designed to strip away liberties from the common folks. They do not affect those in power, hence why they are enacted. If they affected everybody equally, do you think there would be so little resistance to it? Most people love to villanize and outcast everybody who doesn't abide by any and all arbitrary laws, but we all know what blind following of the laws gets you. Just look at history.
Tint laws like seat belts are designed to allow for extra revenue and some legal justification to harrass and check upon the citizens when otherwise you would not have such an ability.
Proper and just tint laws, if actually enacted for ANY safety should be limited to the following:
1. windshield. If you can't see the road you are more likely to crash into somebody else.
2. reflectivity. Mirror tint can cause deadly glare from sun etc blinding others
But anything other than those 2, is just revenue collection/harrassment
Any more things you need clearing up on neil?
And agreed on the whole crime v penalty issue. Do it, deal with it. Works well.
There's a chance I may be moving to GA for school next summer, and my wife's car has factory tint (that passed MD inspection - 35% or more). If by chance one of us got pulled over while driving her car, what defense would we have?
They need to have a light meter to issue a ticket. That's your defense.
Besides you have a better chance of getting a DUI than a tint infraction in GA
You don't get it. Of course it exempts them. But why? If it is such a big crime, why does it exempt them? Double standards typically apply to trivial matters designed to strip away liberties from the common folks. They do not affect those in power, hence why they are enacted. If they affected everybody equally, do you think there would be so little resistance to it? Most people love to villanize and outcast everybody who doesn't abide by any and all arbitrary laws, but we all know what blind following of the laws gets you. Just look at history.
Tint laws like seat belts are designed to allow for extra revenue and some legal justification to harrass and check upon the citizens when otherwise you would not have such an ability.
Proper and just tint laws, if actually enacted for ANY safety should be limited to the following:
1. windshield. If you can't see the road you are more likely to crash into somebody else.
2. reflectivity. Mirror tint can cause deadly glare from sun etc blinding others
But anything other than those 2, is just revenue collection/harrassment
Any more things you need clearing up on neil?
And agreed on the whole crime v penalty issue. Do it, deal with it. Works well.
I get it....I get what the law is as written and I obey it. It's really not a big deal....geez, it's window tint for crying out loud. This is the same argument used by idiots who take the mufflers off motorcycles and ride around with 100dB exhaust that shakes windows because they feel entitled to do whatever they want.
There are just some people in our society who feel they should be exempt and be able do what they want, then they whine and moan when the cops write them up and they have to pay fines. They knew the rules and made a decision to break them. If you disagree with the law, then get it changed, but it has nothing to do with "outcasts" or any other such nonsense.
You are probably right that enforcement is weak since it's not the most pressing problem for the cops, but if someone gets yanked for something else, and they also get a ticket for tint, they should just shut up and pay the ticket.
My argument is with people who think they are special cases and don't have to obey the law, not someone who accidentally puts some tint on their car that's a little dark or someone from out of state. BTW...the cops are special cases and they are exempted by law for reasons such as K-9 and special tactics. They are also trained more completely than the average thug.
I get it....I get what the law is as written and I obey it. It's really not a big deal....geez, it's window tint for crying out loud. This is the same argument used by idiots who take the mufflers off motorcycles and ride around with 100dB exhaust that shakes windows because they feel entitled to do whatever they want.
There are just some people in our society who feel they should be exempt and be able do what they want, then they whine and moan when the cops write them up and they have to pay fines. They knew the rules and made a decision to break them. If you disagree with the law, then get it changed, but it has nothing to do with "outcasts" or any other such nonsense.
You are probably right that enforcement is weak since it's not the most pressing problem for the cops, but if someone gets yanked for something else, and they also get a ticket for tint, they should just shut up and pay the ticket.
My argument is with people who think they are special cases and don't have to obey the law, not someone who accidentally puts some tint on their car that's a little dark or someone from out of state. BTW...the cops are special cases and they are exempted by law for reasons such as K-9 and special tactics. They are also trained more completely than the average thug.
Did that clear it up?
It cleared it up that you are hopelessly confused on how it all works and have no personal concept of justice.
The law is not the law. That law clearly applies to some, and not others. And that is written in the law itself. You will do well in countries like NK, Iran and others.
Only laws that apply universally can be argued to be remotely just. Everything else, well, its a laughing matter.
No they are not exempted because of dogs. In other jurisdictions k9 vehicles are an exempted class in its own. Try again? Rhetorical question; please do not.
There's a chance I may be moving to GA for school next summer, and my wife's car has factory tint (that passed MD inspection - 35% or more). If by chance one of us got pulled over while driving her car, what defense would we have?
If you are moving to a different state due to school, there are several state laws that don't apply to you. I got pulled over a dozen times in Cali, even went to court (for not changing my driver license, license place, tint front windows - not legal in CA). They couldn't do anything to me.
I just got the ticket. My tint car about 28%. you know How much I have to pay for ticket.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
