duro78

iTrader: (6)

A line has to be drawn between sacrificing safety for a look

3-fifty-WeEe

just do it with a light tint, with dark windows your gonna notice a good difference, my buddy did his Z's windshield n it puts me to sleep when im in there!

Mike@Blackline

iTrader: (37)

no state allows for tinting of the windshield below the ASCII line or whatever its called.

heres 35% on windshield, 5% on front, 1% on everything else

Kwame

iTrader: (78)

^ That's actually incorrect. I actually could legally keep my windshield tinted if I had my optometrist complete the correct DMV form (I was too lazy to do it). My eyes are actually super sensitive to light, to the point where they tear sometimes from just being in direct sunlight.

The NYS DMV form:
http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/forms/mv80w.pdf

abarclay

iTrader: (41)

50% wouldn't be that bad. I've got 45% on mine and love it. There was a truck with 35% at the shop I got mine done and there is no way I would want it that dark. I also have 15% all the rest of the way around, so it makes the front look darker. You do have to be more careful at night and the xenon's don't "pop" as much. On the plus side, it does protect the dash and seats much more than a strip or no tint.

I can take better pics if you want, just PM me

I am also much, much more comfortable driving with this at night vs. when I had 5% on only the sides and back of an older car.

duro78

iTrader: (6)

its bad enough looking through the rear view mirror thru tint at night but the windshield would drive me crazy

Khanvict

iTrader: (6)

[QUOTE=halfass872;8003963]lol-- i said that because i use to have 50% tint all around and was a waste of money.. so i changed it up to 35% all around and it's still way too light.. but he has 35 all around with a 50% windshield and it made it look completely pitch black... maybe i shouldve elaborated a lil instead of sounding stupid lol

dhays

iTrader: (10)

+1 (I definitely get the sarcasm) Only an idiot would put a tint on the windshield if they ever were going to drive the car at night. Of course, there are a lot of idiots around...

Dave

04fairlazdyz

iTrader: (10)

mine are 50 windshield and 20 all other (best picture i got right now):

dhays

iTrader: (10)

If a patient asked me for that statement, I would refuse. There is nothing wrong with using sunglasses during the day and a windshield tint is not needed. If headlight glare is such a problem that they have to use a tint for night driving, they should NOT be allowed to drive at night under any conditions. If your Doc had any *****, ethics, or half a brain, they would have refused as well.

Just my professional opinion...

04fairlazdyz

iTrader: (10)

just because you were born with bad eyes, means that you shouldnt be allowed to drive at night because a doctor's opinion on tint is different than their own? some people need to be able to drive their self places and can not rely on other people at all times.

dhays

iTrader: (10)

Let's take it to it's logical conclusion...

Regardless of someones visual (or physical, mental?) disability they should not be prohibited from driving? Really?

People should be able to decide for themselves if they are qualified to drive? No visual requirements? How about letting folks decide if they should be able to get a license on their own as well? No testing. No physical or mental requirements. If they think they should be able to drive, just let them.

So now it is the persons perceived need to drive that should determine what they can or cannot do to their car? If someone thinks they need to drive and thinks they need a tint to do it, they should be allowed to. If someone thinks they need to drive, they should be allowed to ignore any vehicle or licensing requirements?

No. Society puts into place all kinds of restrictions on cars and drivers.

• You can't operate a vehicle without brake lights or turn signals, regardless of how much you think you need to drive or what your disability is.
• You have to have working headlights to drive at night, regardless of how well you think you can see in the dark or if you can't afford to fix your headlights.
• You have to wear seat-belts in most states, regardless of how fat you are.
• You have to keep your speed within certain operating limits on public roads.
• You have to be able to see at least 2/40 in the better eye and have 110 degrees of horizontal visual field to get a license in most states. It doesn't matter how much you think you need to drive, how well you think you see, or how stupid you think those requirements are. If you can't demonstrate that at the DMV, they send you to me to determine whether you can meet that requirement or not.

Living in a society carries all kinds of restrictions. Who can drive, what they can drive, and under what conditions are all determined by the society at large.

04fairlazdyz

iTrader: (10)

^^^no my point is that if tint makes it safe for them to drive, then why should you be the one to stop it? technically they can see fine, just the sun hurts thier eyes, therefore tint would allow them to drive like any normal person, including you and myself. just like small people have things installed in their vehicles to be able to drive. things like pedal extenders. does the fact of them being born short stop them from being able to drive? no, so y should sensative eyes? your debating that 50% tint would cause them to be bad drivers, and you couldnt be more wrong. 50% tint, even at night, makes it no harder to see than no tint. it just reduces the lighting during the day. you wouldnt know this because you dont have it.


your other points, have no affect on this situation, and make no sense that you bring them in. just like you state, that you must where a seatbelt no matter how fat you are, well they do this by making seatbelt extenders, same as putting tint on windows to help someone with delicate eyes.

Kwame

iTrader: (78)

Your reading comprehension skills are not the greatest. Perhaps you should re-read my post that you retorted to prior to insulting and prattling off on another medical professional (I'm assuming that you are one from your first post, but your logic and the manner in which you present your ideas leave me with some doubts).

04fairlazdyz

iTrader: (10)

^^^I agree, comprehension skills are off. His reply to my post had nothing to do with what I was saying.

dhays

iTrader: (10)

Daytime driving is not the problem, nor the point. Night drive is the problem. A 50% tint reduces all light transmittance by 50%. This cuts down on the intensity of headlights, which is fine. It also cuts down on the visibility of everything else, including non-illuminated objects. If someone was going to only drive during daylight hours, then a windshield tint would not be a problem. However, I know very few folks who intend to only drive during daylight hours and even those that intend to only drive during the day, often get stuck having to drive in the dark on occasion. A windshield tint makes it hard to see objects that aren't very bright at night. Wearing sunglasses at night is a bad idea for the very same reason.

So, a windshield tint is a safety issue, and not simply an accommodation such as extended pedals or column mounted accelerator and brakes.


I believe I read your post correctly. You said that you thought you could get a form filled out by your eye doc that would allow you a windshield tint. My response, is that your optometrist would not sign such a form. The form lists three reason for allowing the exemption.

1. porphyria
2. xeroderma pigmentosa
3. drug induced photo-sensitivity

From your description, it doesn't sound like you have any of these three conditions. You may have light sensitivity but that doesn't meet your state requirements. So, unless your optometrist was willing to commit fraud to make you happy (lack of *****), had no professional ethics (not willing to compromise themselves and commit fraud), or was not smart enough to read the form and understand it (half a brain), they wouldn't have filled it out.

I have a rather high regard for the level of professional competence and ethics in optometry. That is the reason why I doubt that they would have filled it out. Instead, once they read the form they would have explained how you didn't qualify. Since your optometrist did NOT fill out the form for you, my comments should not have been interpreted as being insulting to your optometrist.

aaronz8

or, you know, you could just wear sunglasses

RMichael

San Francisco is a pretty gray climate a lot of the time and you want tint on the windshield? That is just a hazard. It isn't like you're in Arizona. And you'd better be carrying proof you need tint in CA or they are not only going to make you take off the 35 and they don't allow a windshield tint. I don't get it
No offense intended.

RMichael

Christ.....I've seen you before....you must be Tomas!

welcome....

T_K

iTrader: (5)

Would you like to put a wager on that with a photosensitive device that measures luminosity?

How about a vision test at your local optometrist while wearing sunglasses of similar darkness?