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.
Which is why it is heavily advised to make eye contact with the driver. That you disagree with the safety councils that advise it is your right and your opinion. We can disagree with this but I will go along with the safety councils advise rather than your experience.
As far as tint removal in the UK they will send you to a removal shop
The example I was thinking about happened in either Alberta or British Columbia but that was a couple of years ago and I have no desire to go through the internet to find that example. In Alberta anyways they can order to have it removed the same as they can order you to get lights repaired in a specific period of time, or they can just give you a ticket or just a warning.
This explains a lot, thank you. I could care less about these nanny states. They are the result of too many people like you coming up with and supporting asinine regulations under the guise of "safety"... OH WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!! Unfortunately you and your kind have been slowly enslaving yourselves with absurdities such as this. Over-regulation from the Brussels law factory was one of the key causes of Brexit. Get a clue. Americans are protected from unreasonable seizure, such as seizure due to having 2 grams of plastic film on a window.
I'm sorry that you have been indoctrinated by "Safety Councils", whatever they may be.
This explains a lot, thank you. I could care less about these nanny states. They are the result of too many people like you coming up with and supporting asinine regulations under the guise of "safety"... OH WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!! Unfortunately you and your kind have been slowly enslaving yourselves with absurdities such as this. Over-regulation from the Brussels law factory was one of the key causes of Brexit. Get a clue. Americans are protected from unreasonable seizure, such as seizure due to having 2 grams of plastic film on a window.
I'm sorry that you have been indoctrinated by "Safety Councils", whatever they may be.
I was not going to reply to you but this last comment I thought I would. When my wife was a little girl her younger sister was sick and was admitted to the hospital. While there she slipped in between the cracks in the crib and was strangled or choked by the bars of the crib. Cases like hers resulted in regulations governing the safety of cribs and that type of crib was outlawed. A nanny state cannot prevent all accidents from occurring but at least they try to make a safer world where they can is a lot better than the attitude of well we cannot prevent all accidents so lets not concern ourselves with any of them. If the regulations had come in place a few years earlier my wife would have grown up with one more sister.
Alberta is probably the most conservative province in Canada and the one least supported of government interference but even here we think that if you can do things to prevent preventable accidents or situations we should. I am sure of any parent who lost a child to those cribs would have wanted them outlawed earlier and I am sure that any parent that has lost a child to a car at a crossing would prefer regulations that made the crossing safer and that could include no tinted windows on the front windows.
And I suppose the whole concept of not having a nanny state and that you are free and know best are not part of your indoctrination? And Canadians have protections and rights as well, that is not exclusively an American thing.
A nanny state cannot prevent all accidents from occurring but at least they try to make a safer world where they can is a lot better than the attitude of well we cannot prevent all accidents so lets not concern ourselves with any of them. If the regulations had come in place a few years earlier my wife would have grown up with one more sister.
I am sorry to hear for the loss of life but your anecdote is apples to oranges. There were enough instances of injuries and fatalities above a certain pitch of cradle bar placement that warranted investigation. Through investigation and research it was found that, indeed, above a particular dimension that there was a statistically high risk factor for children which the cradles were rated for. Where is the data and science to substantiate tint laws? Transmission percentage is even specified, where did it come from? I'm fine with safety regulations so long as they are substantially backed by data. I do not appreciate freedoms being stripped away purely based on the emotions of control freaks and the anxious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander
Alberta is probably the most conservative province in Canada and the one least supported of government interference but even here we think that if you can do things to prevent preventable accidents or situations we should.
Canada in general is a very different system than the US. Even here (where we have far more liberties than you) we are still not satisfied with how we are regulated and governed and to a greater extent. Canada is a much more submissive culture to a controlling government, its too bad, but I guess that comes with monarchism.
I am sorry to hear for the loss of life but your anecdote is apples to oranges. There were enough instances of injuries and fatalities above a certain pitch of cradle bar placement that warranted investigation. Through investigation and research it was found that, indeed, above a particular dimension that there was a statistically high risk factor for children which the cradles were rated for. Where is the data and science to substantiate tint laws? Transmission percentage is even specified, where did it come from? I'm fine with safety regulations so long as they are substantially backed by data. I do not appreciate freedoms being stripped away purely based on the emotions of control freaks and the anxious.
Canada in general is a very different system than the US. Even here (where we have far more liberties than you) we are still not satisfied with how we are regulated and governed and to a greater extent. Canada is a much more submissive culture to a controlling government, its too bad, but I guess that comes with monarchism.
No it is unrelated to the Monarch, she only counts on coins and stamps. I have no idea of what liberties other than the right to carry a gun for protection or to donate vast amounts of money to a politician that you have that we do not.
You can PM me rather than sidetracking the thread off topic
My search on accidents and tints just lead to mostly newspaper articles hence I do not know the published papers on the subject however getting the safety council remarks from at least four countries to me means that there just might be something in it. The OP claimed that there was no affect to others and if you and him disagree with safety councils I am not gong to be able to change your minds nor do I care to however my original intension was to bring to his attention that the reason for not allowing tinting was not simply to raise money for the police.
Last edited by badlander; 08-03-2016 at 02:01 PM..
Yes, how did you know? I tinted my windows not to block unwanted radiation but rather to express to everyone around me that I don't care about them. Where do people come up with this stuff?
I don't want your sympathy. I have had tint for a decade and have not had a single issue with it. If I were ticketed for tint I would pay the fine and NOT REMOVE it. A lot of people who tint look at any fines (if any exist for them) as the cost of having a permit for a tinted vehicle. Well worth it.
i mean have fun paying al the tickets cuz cops love stopping people for this. i love tints cuz they provide the car with cooler temperature and others can’t see me. but i dont need problems ether. i have it at the max allowed tint. whats this i dont care about everyone else argument it makes no sense. but ppl take things differently you know
There are some vehicles that don't even have doors. I've seen plenty of those Jeeps around town like that. Even having doors isn't a requirement, lol
LOL, guilty. After my driver side door got badly damaged, I took it off. A Ft. Hood MP stopped me and wanted to write me a ticket. I looked back at his jeep and said "You don't have any doors either. Are you going to write yourself a ticket?"
He looked at the jeep, looked at me, back at the jeep, then back at me...then shook his head and said "Nevermind."
I went to a gm dealer at that time for an inspection. This was about 4 years ago.
This is what i read from the link you posted. Nothing in there says you can disable them or block them out.
"(9) Check the lamps and lenses and REJECT
IF one or more of the following apply:
(i) An exterior bulb or sealed beam, if
originally equipped or installed, fails to
light properly, except ornamental lights."
The factory fog light bulb was burned out so it looks pretty cut and dry that it won't pass.
Your reference is from the inspection procedure. The inspection procedure is for inspecting items from the list of items in the sections to inspect.
Under 175.66 (i), the key term is "may", the car "may" have fog lights installed. It is not a requirement to have them, it is not a requirement to have them working. I know this not only from the rules, but being a former PA resident in which my fog lights were disabled on my car and it passes inspections just fine, and to this day a relative owns the car and it still does not have the fog lamps working. They do not work because it was wrecked and replaced the front end but never hooked the lights up.
They do not check things that are not required, they only check them as so far to ensure they do not violate the law if they are working. For example, having auxiliary lamps on a light bar is fine, but they msut be covered with an opaque cover. They are not going to fail you because the damn things do not work. Same with fog lamps, hell, many cars they are optional on the same model, all they have is the plastic insert. They are not required, they do not fail based on them not working.
Think about how a cop will approach you the next time you get stopped. Would it surprise you if he had his gun in his hand?
Exactly right. I never really thought much about it till a cop friend expressed that concern to me. You got to remember that almost always they will be approaching the car on foot from the rear and probably can't see a thing as far as what's going on inside until they are at the drivers door.
I just know that situation would spook me no matter what neighborhood I was in and let's face it, the minute a cop or anyone pulls a gun the chances of something going haywire just got upped.
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.
