Vehicle tint laws for civilians vs government vehicles

[GunRelated]

You do realize not every LEO is automatically allowed to just tint their windows. I know of 2 departments that only allow it for certain positions.

I know more LEOs that wanted tint and were told no than I know that actually have tint.

A large portion of the ones I see, at least in LP, are.
Regardless, even if it were a very small % of vehicles, then those vehicles are a danger to the public. If the public, or anyone else cannot drive safely with tinted windows then it's safe to say the same would apply to anyone else operating a vehicle on public roads. Even if only 1 person dies as a result of window tint on a government vehicle, that is too much. Am I right? Is this not the line always being pushed about safety? The theorized goal of public safety is 0 preventable deaths, no? Especially when we are talking about the government, or more specifically law enforcement, where the stated intended goal is to protect and serve. Driving around with dangerous window tint is not protecting, quite the opposite.

I'll repeat my opinion on why this hypocrisy exists. This law is not about safety, it is about privacy. Anytime you want to know if the government is acting in your best interests, check to see if what they are pushing is 'for your safety'; decent probability you are being bamboozled.

 

[bigtattoo79]

A large portion of the ones I see, at least in LP, are.
Regardless, even if it were a very small % of vehicles, then those vehicles are a danger to the public. If the public, or anyone else cannot drive safely with tinted windows then it's safe to say the same would apply to anyone else operating a vehicle on public roads. Even if only 1 person dies as a result of window tint on a government vehicle, that is too much. Am I right? Is this not the line always being pushed about safety? The theorized goal of public safety is 0 preventable deaths, no? Especially when we are talking about the government, or more specifically law enforcement, where the stated intended goal is to protect and serve. Driving around with dangerous window tint is not protecting, quite the opposite.

I'll repeat my opinion on why this hypocrisy exists. This law is not about safety, it is about privacy. Anytime you want to know if the government is acting in your best interests, check to see if what they are pushing is 'for your safety'; decent probability you are being bamboozled.

Well driving is a privilege and anyone is welcome to quit driving to take a stand against the unjust laws lol.

 

[AustinBR]

A large portion of the ones I see, at least in LP, are.
Regardless, even if it were a very small % of vehicles, then those vehicles are a danger to the public. If the public, or anyone else cannot drive safely with tinted windows then it's safe to say the same would apply to anyone else operating a vehicle on public roads. Even if only 1 person dies as a result of window tint on a government vehicle, that is too much. Am I right? Is this not the line always being pushed about safety? The theorized goal of public safety is 0 preventable deaths, no? Especially when we are talking about the government, or more specifically law enforcement, where the stated intended goal is to protect and serve. Driving around with dangerous window tint is not protecting, quite the opposite.

I'll repeat my opinion on why this hypocrisy exists. This law is not about safety, it is about privacy. Anytime you want to know if the government is acting in your best interests, check to see if what they are pushing is 'for your safety'; decent probability you are being bamboozled.

Not everything is binary or absolute.

Greater tint doesn't make the vehicles a danger to the public, but rather it makes them more of a danger to the public than they were before they were tinted.

Having dark tint doesn't mean you cannot drive safely with tinted windows. It simply impairs one's ability to see as well as they could without tint, which decreases safety.

It's easy to argue that LEOs (who are part of the public) are more likely to need tint than the average driver. Hence the exception process which allows non-average drivers to also receive the same exception for either medical or security purposes.

The law is absolutely about safety. Very dark tint is not safe. If you block out 95% of light entering a vehicle, you physically cannot see out of it well enough to drive. A line has to be drawn somewhere on what is safe vs what is not. I would argue that Louisiana drew the line a little too aggressively, but nevertheless, the folks we elected drew it.

Sure, dark tint helps with privacy, certainly, but privacy is not more valuable or greater than safety to oneself or the general public.

 

[charlie12]

Something must be wrong with me. I've had my DL for 55 years and never had tint.

 

[Danny Abear]

Something must be wrong with me. I've had my DL for 55 years and never had tint.

Me2, actually removed it from a truck I bought used...

 

[bigtattoo79]

Something must be wrong with me. I've had my DL for 55 years and never had tint.

Back in my younger days I always had blacked out windows as I got older I lost the need/want… However I have ceramic window tint applied to every automobile I buy it makes a huge difference when it comes to the harmful rays and high temps.

 

[Magdump]

You said you believed "Immoral" and "danger to anyone" were not subjective terms. That should make the objective terms. If it's objective, it can be measured. That means on one side of a line is moral and safe and on the other side is immoral and danger. The line used to compare things on either side of it is a standard.



No, the question wasn't nonsense. And off the top of my head, from the people participating in this particular train wreck, I'd bet AustinBR would say that you would act on any opportunity to prove me wrong. And I'm pretty sure there's another one in this thread who likes to stay pretty neutral most of the time so I'll decline to call him out by name.

Im not moved an inch by your weak argument. I’d be shocked if Austin did not agree with anything you say. And I’m pretty sure your neutral friend wouldn’t make a difference. Motor has already openly said he believes I just like to argue. Ever think he might just feel the same about you? So whether it’s one or it’s two, who really cares Perez? I think I could find more folks very aware that you are here to simply attempt to pick apart what someone says and argue for the sake of arguing, often getting so far off point that I begin mistaking your posts for pop up ads. I don’t find it nearly that entertaining. Conflict is not my favorite pastime. It’s not even in the running. And again, nobody is trying to make you look bad. Are you worried about looking bad bro? Maybe look within yourself. And if you’re talking about train wrecks, try looking back at all the wrecked and closed threads on this site over the years that a couple of moderators contributed to so greatly.
Lastly, no matter the examples you will come up with, the word danger is used quite objectively in law enforcement. People get locked up every day when they are found to be a danger to themselves or others. Danger can indeed be measured and or defined. So can immorality. ESPECIALLY in the eyes of the law.
Here’s something that I hope will help you. You are neither a master of the law nor the English language, so many times your statements are your beliefs or opinions, although you state them as if they are time tested and proven facts. When someone rebuts your beliefs or opinions, they may only be voicing their own beliefs or opinions.

 

[Magdump]

How is the tint law unjust?

Dark tint makes it harder to see out of a vehicle.
Harder to see out of a vehicle = higher potential for hitting something that you can't see.

Hitting things with a vehicle = bad

How is the "whole of society" being inconvenienced by being forced to be able to see out of their windows?

Keep in mind that we can't write laws in a way that targets certain people. There is a vision spectrum between "perfect vision" and "blind enough where you have to wear glasses to drive."

Maybe those with perfect vision can legally have a slightly darker tint and we exclue those who are closer to needing glasses?

I have 20/20 vision and can fairly okay out of my darker than LA allowed tint. If my vision deteroriated a bit, then I'd have a harder time and would need to either consider getting glasses, or removing tint so I could see to the same degree as before.

I just wanna know, how dark are we talking about? Surely there are shades of tint that are neither legal nor limo. You already admitted that you have a shade darker than legal on your car. Can you really see ok through that tint? Good enough so as not to be a hazard on the road? Why did you choose that particular shade? Does it make a difference in comfort/temperature/looks over the maximum legal shade? Can people on the outside see into the car ok? How dark would you have to go before you actually start running into things with your car (assuming you mean while driving in reverse, since we aren’t talking about tinting a windshield)?
I’m not trying to argue, btw, just trying to figure out why the common theme here seems to be between legal tint (that so many agree doesn’t help much at all) and completely blacked out limo that nobody could possibly see through and may be hazardous when driving sideways or backwards.

 

[AustinBR]

I just wanna know, how dark are we talking about? Surely there are shades of tint that are neither legal nor limo. You already admitted that you have a shade darker than legal on your car. Can you really see ok through that tint? Good enough so as not to be a hazard on the road? Why did you choose that particular shade? Does it make a difference in comfort/temperature/looks over the maximum legal shade? Can people on the outside see into the car ok? How dark would you have to go before you actually start running into things with your car (assuming you mean while driving in reverse, since we aren’t talking about tinting a windshield)?
I’m not trying to argue, btw, just trying to figure out why the common theme here seems to be between legal tint (that so many agree doesn’t help much at all) and completely blacked out limo that nobody could possibly see through and may be hazardous when driving sideways or backwards.

I have a shade darker than what is legal in Louisiana as I don't have Louisiana plates, so I can legally go darker.

I can see okay through it, but at night people in the back of my SUV cannot clearly see things outside whatsoever. Without bright lighting, they cannot distinguish faces at a distance of 10 or so feet.

My rear window on my SUV is either 15% or 20%, and it makes headlights very hard to see at night. Backing into even moderately well lit parking spaces without the use of a backup camera is near impossible. If I didn't have 360 cameras, I wouldn't have the tint that dark.

All of my tint would be legal with Louisiana plates except for the driver/passenger windows, which are a hair darker than LA legal, though legal with the plates I have.

Why did I pick the particular shade? Easy, to keep people from seeing in. The ceramic I have doesn't really matter how dark it is, it blocks light just as well.

I am already dark enough where no backup camera would be a safety hazard. And it's already legal in LA.

People on the outside can see into my windshield and driver/passenger windows, though the driver/passenger windows are a bit harder to see through. Having any darker tint on the front/side windows would likely be a safety hazard when turning at night.

If windshield tint were legal, I wouldn't do it. If I could go any darker in the driver/passenger windows, I wouldn't do it.

 

[GunRelated]

My rear window on my SUV is either 15% or 20%, and it makes headlights very hard to see at night.

Either you have really poor eyesight, your tint is darker than specified, or you are embelishing in order to prove a point.

My truck has/had factory 20% on the rear glass and rear doors. I was often blinded by headlights on vehicles close to me and could clearly see any headlight that was capable of being seen at all. I put 5% over the factory tint and I can still see headlights but they do not blind me anymore.

 

[AustinBR]

Either you have really poor eyesight, your tint is darker than specified, or you are embelishing in order to prove a point.

My truck has/had factory 20% on the rear glass and rear doors. I was often blinded by headlights on vehicles close to me and could clearly see any headlight that was capable of being seen at all. I put 5% over the factory tint and I can still see headlights but they do not blind me anymore.

It's quite possible that you don't actually have 20% factory tint. Have you had that checked with a meter?

My SUV is likely a bit longer (interior) than your truck is, so the rear window is substantially further back, likely over double the distance. Not being as close to the window will make a difference in seeing out of it with a rear view mirror.

I am 100% sure it's either 15% or 20% - I just don't remember which one it is.

 

[GunRelated]

It's quite possible that you don't actually have 20% factory tint. Have you had that checked with a meter?

My SUV is likely a bit longer (interior) than your truck is, so the rear window is substantially further back, likely over double the distance. Not being as close to the window will make a difference in seeing out of it with a rear view mirror.

I am 100% sure it's either 15% or 20% - I just don't remember which one it is.

All windows on the truck were 20% when I bought it, they all visually matched. Driver window tint was damaged, they replaced it with 20%. There was no aftermarket tint on any of the rear glass. A longer vehicle would lessen visibility, so maybe that's the reason.

 

[davidd]

I have a shade darker than what is legal in Louisiana as I don't have Louisiana plates, so I can legally go darker.

I can see okay through it, but at night people in the back of my SUV cannot clearly see things outside whatsoever. Without bright lighting, they cannot distinguish faces at a distance of 10 or so feet.

My rear window on my SUV is either 15% or 20%, and it makes headlights very hard to see at night. Backing into even moderately well lit parking spaces without the use of a backup camera is near impossible. If I didn't have 360 cameras, I wouldn't have the tint that dark.

All of my tint would be legal with Louisiana plates except for the driver/passenger windows, which are a hair darker than LA legal, though legal with the plates I have.

Why did I pick the particular shade? Easy, to keep people from seeing in. The ceramic I have doesn't really matter how dark it is, it blocks light just as well.

I am already dark enough where no backup camera would be a safety hazard. And it's already legal in LA.

People on the outside can see into my windshield and driver/passenger windows, though the driver/passenger windows are a bit harder to see through. Having any darker tint on the front/side windows would likely be a safety hazard when turning at night.

If windshield tint were legal, I wouldn't do it. If I could go any darker in the driver/passenger windows, I wouldn't do it.

It's late Sunday and I'm just havin some fun, and I don't feel like doing the google thing to verify, so here goes... Isn't there some kind of law that says if you live in a state for some amount of time, and you are not a student with a parental permanent residence elsewhere, you have a legal obligation to register your vehicle in that state? And I think you are now employed? I think so, but admit I am too lazy this evening to look it up, and could be wrong about your situation. Have at me. I probably deserve it for poking the bear. But this **** has been too much fun to watch and not eventually get involved in.

 

[AustinBR]

It's late Sunday and I'm just havin some fun, and I don't feel like doing the google thing to verify, so here goes... Isn't there some kind of law that says if you live in a state for some amount of time, and you are not a student with a parental permanent residence elsewhere, you have a legal obligation to register your vehicle in that state? And I think you are now employed? I think so, but admit I am too lazy this evening to look it up, and could be wrong about your situation. Have at me. I probably deserve it for poking the bear. But this **** has been too much fun to watch and not eventually get involved in.

You are correct.

With that being said, I am breaking 0 laws by not having LA plates

 

[davidd]

You are correct.

With that being said, I am breaking 0 laws by not having LA plates

I will take you at your word. Have a good evening Sir!

 

[GunRelated]

If windshield tint were legal, I wouldn't do it. If I could go any darker in the driver/passenger windows, I wouldn't do it.

I said the same thing. Even told coworker that tinting his windshield was a bad idea and that he was probably going to regret it; I had to eat my words because he can see perfectly fine out of it, even at night. He also has 5% over the factory tint on all other glass. Now, if he gets on a back road, with no road markers or street lights, it gets dark.
That said, if you didn't go any darker than say 20% on the front windows and 35% on the windshield, it probably wouldn't be bad on the back roads.

Given that the legal tint is nowhere close to being as dark as any of what I just spoke about, I'm going to reinforce my stance that it has much less to do with safety, and much more to do with limiting privacy.
To add to that, with the amount of people I see with dark tint, and the increasing number of tinted windshields I've noticed, if it were such a safety hazard, you'd think there would be accidents every single day at the fault of tint and it would be all over the news... I have personally never, not once, heard of an accident caused by tint. Not saying it hasn't or doesn't happen but is certainly is prevelant enough for me to have heard about it.

 

[shrxfn]

It's quite possible that you don't actually have 20% factory tint. Have you had that checked with a meter?

My SUV is likely a bit longer (interior) than your truck is, so the rear window is substantially further back, likely over double the distance. Not being as close to the window will make a difference in seeing out of it with a rear view mirror.

I am 100% sure it's either 15% or 20% - I just don't remember which one it is.

Pretty sure what kind of truck you drive as it is the same as mine and you probably also have a rear view mirror that automatically shifts to night mode like mine which makes rear headlights dimmer and that coupled with the tint could make it hard to see headlights behind you. That is why I hate my passenger side mirror as the rear view and driver side have auto adjust for night driving and then I scan the passenger side mirror and the bro dozer behind me blinds me with his high beams on that side.

 

[Magdump]

I have a shade darker than what is legal in Louisiana as I don't have Louisiana plates, so I can legally go darker.

I can see okay through it, but at night people in the back of my SUV cannot clearly see things outside whatsoever. Without bright lighting, they cannot distinguish faces at a distance of 10 or so feet.

My rear window on my SUV is either 15% or 20%, and it makes headlights very hard to see at night. Backing into even moderately well lit parking spaces without the use of a backup camera is near impossible. If I didn't have 360 cameras, I wouldn't have the tint that dark.

All of my tint would be legal with Louisiana plates except for the driver/passenger windows, which are a hair darker than LA legal, though legal with the plates I have.

Why did I pick the particular shade? Easy, to keep people from seeing in. The ceramic I have doesn't really matter how dark it is, it blocks light just as well.

I am already dark enough where no backup camera would be a safety hazard. And it's already legal in LA.

People on the outside can see into my windshield and driver/passenger windows, though the driver/passenger windows are a bit harder to see through. Having any darker tint on the front/side windows would likely be a safety hazard when turning at night.

If windshield tint were legal, I wouldn't do it. If I could go any darker in the driver/passenger windows, I wouldn't do it.

Thanks Austin. Yeah I think it’s as I suspect with the law. The back seat and rear glass are not affected by the law. That can be blacked out. The law applies to the driver and passenger windows in the front seat and the windshield. I think the argument can be made both ways about the reason for the law. Blacked out rear and side rear glass is no more unsafe for driving conditions than a van with solid panels rather than windows, so we can throw that theory out since none of the reasoning applies there. Looks like the law is based on keeping the glass clear enough to visualize the interior of the vehicle in the interest of identifying the driver and activity going on in the front seat, rather than driver safety. I think most reasonable people would agree that there is no extra difficulty driving safely and visualizing things outside of windows tinted a shade or two darker than the legal limit. I’m intrigued by the fact that some states allow darker tint than others also. I was not aware of that until your post (thanks again). So again, it’s a privacy issue.

 

[shrxfn]

I think the origin of the law for tint on the driver window and front passenger window is more for LEO safety than a privacy issue. Think about when a LEO walks up to your car to talk to you after pulling you over. I am certain that the LEO would like to be able to look in the window and see where your hands are and what is in them before you roll down the window. There have been too many cases of people getting pulled over and then shooting the officer as they roll down the window. Not having a dark tint on that window could give the officer a second or two quicker reaction time if he sees something hinky and may just save their life. I think really hot states like AZ allow more tint as it can keep your car from cooking you during the summer. Ask me how I know..... Spent some time in Tucson during summer in a rental car with no tint and it took 10 minutes for me to be able to get in the car after opening the door to allow it to cool off enough to get in and turn it on it was crazy hot inside. Probably could have roasted a turkey in that thing while I was working.

 

[Magdump]

I think the origin of the law for tint on the driver window and front passenger window is more for LEO safety than a privacy issue. Think about when a LEO walks up to your car to talk to you after pulling you over. I am certain that the LEO would like to be able to look in the window and see where your hands are and what is in them before you roll down the window. There have been too many cases of people getting pulled over and then shooting the officer as they roll down the window. Not having a dark tint on that window could give the officer a second or two quicker reaction time if he sees something hinky and may just save their life. I think really hot states like AZ allow more tint as it can keep your car from cooking you during the summer. Ask me how I know..... Spent some time in Tucson during summer in a rental car with no tint and it took 10 minutes for me to be able to get in the car after opening the door to allow it to cool off enough to get in and turn it on it was crazy hot inside. Probably could have roasted a turkey in that thing while I was working.

I consider the two issues to be one. It’s a privacy issue that cops don’t want to deal with and so safety concerns are cited. They don’t want anyone being able to maintain a certain degree of privacy while in their car because they can’t see what’s going on.