 |
| # | Name | Comments |
|---|
| 601 | Bruno Peclat Galletti | |
| 602 | Bryan Finch | Let me first state that I have been installing window film since 1978. That said, the only way you will ever change the window tinting law(26708-A-1-2) is to obey this state law. Here in the central valley of California I'm the only one installing CA DOT approved UV-85 film on the front windows. This law also lists the windshield as well, these are also being tinted illegally, you are only allowed to tint the top 4 inches , this includes the black matrix at the top of your windshield. Now for those of you saying that this is a ridiculous law need to understand that being able to see out of your vehicle is the first prerequisite of operating a motor vehicle, while I agree that 35% would be acceptable the mainstream seems to think that its okay to push the envelope of this law and continue to install film illegally on the front half of the car. Window film was designed to cut heat and control UV rays that we are exposed to on a daily basis, for temperature control lighter is better, its just like clothing, if its over 80 degrees outside lighter colored clothes are more comfortable than dark, its the same for window tint. During a film study done in 1990, we found out that the temperature control properties dropped off considerably with any film darker than 35% gray film, and the air conditioning system began to work less efficiently (would cycle more frequently as if no window film was present). What we found out was that when using anything darker than 35% we were increasing the heat transfer level of the glass, actually causing the car to become warmer inside while driving the car with the ac system running at max level. 35% and lighter films offer the best heat control, the ac system actually worked better (on the lower settings) than when the darker films were used. In 1999 the state of California amended state law 26708 to allow the use of clear film with UV controlling properties, however, the only film that the California DOT approved is UV-85%, there is a UV-70%, but combine this film with any auto glass on the market ( All auto glass since 1975 already has a 90% light transmittance value, due to the OPEC oil crisis, this shading coefficient was federally mandated to conserve fuel.) this already puts the front windows into the illegal category by 10%. All window film stops 99% of the UV rays coming onto the vehicle, and its the UV rays that make the inside of your car hot, The darker the film the hotter the inside of the car. From a legal stand point you should also consider the following, say your driving you car and you have a momentary lapse of reason and have an accident, lets say that one of the occupants dies in your or the other vehicle, Enter the lawyer,
My clients family member died as a direct result of the driver of Vehicle A not being able to see out of his car due to the ILLEGAL FILM INSTALLED ON HIS OR HER CAR and hit ting my clients car and causing the untimely death of my clients family member, well, I think you get the idea, not only will the owner be on the hook but everyone who has touched the vehicle with after market parts prior to the accident. This brings me to my final point, if the laws are changed, and I hope they are, they should require a DOT certification, (state issued license) to install automotive window tinting, and the minute your caught installing illegal film on a customers vehicle, you lose your license. |
| 603 | Anonymous | |
| 604 | Anonymous | UV-85% can't be consider legal either. Vehicle code indicated 88%+ VLT film. Solargard UV Clear is 90%, but not that many tinter carry it. Which brings to the point, the law has to be logical. Requiring a film that is virtually non-existant is irresponsible. |
| 605 | Clyde | |
| 606 | Christopher Ferbend | |
| 607 | Christa | I am fighting a ticket right now for a 25% tint, this law is ridiculous, if you can see me in the car there should be no probelm. |
| 608 | Anonymous | Nothing wrong with having a tint on your car. Ban limo tints but keep normal tints to like 35% |
| 609 | Kathee Heasley | |
| 610 | jj blinn | |
| 611 | Anonymous | |
| 612 | lydia | living in the desert should at least get some considertion for the tinting issue. |
| 613 | Anonymous | |
| 614 | Angel Neishabouri | Hello,
I got a ticket yesterday for having tinted windows on my front side windows. I just moved to California in March of last year and I never knew about any window tinting laws. I am the 2nd owner of my vehicle, which came with factory-installed tinted windows that I would like to keep in order to protect the leather interior. The sticker on my windows says 70% transparency but the CHP that pulled me over said I had to take it off and gave me a "fix it ticket", I guess that's what it's called.
I live in Orange County, but I got pulled over in Banning (Riverside County).
Is this ticket valid or does that cop have the wrong information?
Thanks for your petition...I am signing it.
Angel Neishabouri
260 Scenic Way
Brea, CA 92821
714-423-9356 |
| 615 | Anonymous | 35% would be great. Even 50% would be better than nothing. |
| 616 | Omar Soriano | c'mon the CHP have got to stop pulling the innocent citizens for the tint laws dude. They say they want to stop criminals, but what are the chances your going to be cruising and see osama in the driver seat of a car. plzzzzzz |
| 617 | Curtis Compton | I have to agree with your statement as written up on your website. I have to add that it is those who question such type of laws such as you are doing is a healthy practice of freedom of choice. I feel that this law and various others on the books does nothing more than to infringe upon the value of choice. Is This STILL America?
Best wishes on your effort/efforts and Thank You. |
| 618 | Gregory Craig | |
| 619 | Lanai N. Ferro | I agree with you strongly. California needs to change the tint law because I live in the inland empire and it gets hot out here. My front dash board cracked over this summer when the temp hit triple digits. This is with having my windows cracked opened and parked in a shady area. I give all my support to you. |
| 620 | Dan Halverson |
| 621 | Brett Borenstein | I agree with the petition as stated. Also, with a family history of skin cancer, a tint of 35% would be sufficient to protect about 99% of UVA and UVB sun rays. Unfortunately, being a California resident, I cannot have any tint, which is a big problem, health wise. |
| 622 | Anonymous | I completely agree. 35% is reasonable for front windows in a vehicle. Tint on front windows are becoming a necessity with the damaging UV and heat transmission in California |
| 623 | Roor Christman | |
| 624 | Anonymous | |
| 625 | remus r. muresan | I understand the officer safety, but we do not need to get extra crispy... |
| 626 | Anonymous |
| 627 | Anonymous | |
| 628 | Anonymous | |
| 629 | Eric Weis | |
| 630 | RoMe | |
| 631 | Daniel Allington | |
| 632 | Kelly Rodriguez | |
| 633 | Anonymous | |
| 634 | Anonymous | |
| 635 | reggie lucas | i live in the high desert of ca and it hits 95+ dagrees all summer and its my car i should have my privcy if i wont it and be cool at the same time |
| 636 | Roberta Johnson | |
| 637 | Anonymous | |
| 638 | Anonymous | |
| 639 | Jay Shah | |
| 640 | Jay Shah | |
| 641 | JP Rastrullo | Please change these laws. 35% is definitely a reasonable amount of light to be passed through a window. There is enough light to where the officer would be able to see inside. |
| 642 | Anonymous | |
|
|
