OHTA.ca

I currently drive a honda civic, with tinted windows. It is 35 % in the front and 20% in the back. however, i got a ticket due to a police officer said the front tints were to dark and he could not see me (at 4 pm, broad day light). Is this ticket unnecessary? and what is the legal limits?

The ticket said: Colour coating obscuring interior

73(3) No person shall drive on a highway a motor vehicle on which the surface of the windshield or of any window to the direct left or right of the drivers seat has been coated with any coloured spray or other coloured or reflective material that substantially obscures the interior of the motor vehicle when viewed from outside the motor vehicle

The guideline that is typically used is can the driver be clearly seen, can the seatbelt be clearly seen.

Interesting...

The statute describes view-obscuring "COLOUR" or "REFLECTIVE" material. However, if dark tint is not considered reflective, than I should be able to use it to protect my interior from harmful UV rays, No?

If the sole purpose of this section was to make certain that law enforcement can see the driver at all times, then why doesn't it just say that? (ex. "No material shall be place on any side window which would prevent the interior of the vehicle from being viewed from the outside?). The fact the the words "colour" and "reflective" are used seems to leave room for argument about whether all dark tint is "reflective". In fact, many tints actually "ABSORB" most of the light, and reflect very little.

Lets assume this definition of "reflection" applies to this statue:

"Reflectance" means the ratio of the amount of total light, expressed

to the amount of total light falling on the product or material.

Now take a look at this site (http://www.snaptint.com/help.php?section=specs) and note the "reflection" vs. "absorption" numbers. Note that some tints actually ABSORB most of the light while REFLECTING very little. Visibility from the outside is definitely diminished, but by means of "absorption", not "reflection" as specified in the Act. So on the face of it, it would appear there are legal ways of obscuring the view of the interior.

This section also fails to specify the technical conditions necessary for "viewing" from the outside. Perhaps I could assume it means a small peephole could be cut out of the tint which would satisfy this section by allowing an officer to see in when his eyes are only an inch or less from the glass!

Keep in mind, interiors are not visible to the naked eye at night! So why is the daytime treated so differently? If the answer is that an officer can use his flashlight to observe an interior at night, then can we not just install sufficient interior lighting for illumination at a traffic stop?

I can imagine an awful lot of minorities don't want to be profiled as they drive by, just by the colour of their skin and wish to push the tint-level up as high as possible.

Also, visibility through tint changes as weather and lighting conditions change. What might be legal at 12:00 noon on a sunny day may become illegal at 8:00pm on an overcast evening.

Lots of stuff to consider when planning a defense.

Not sure what how the reflective, absorption thoughts are even a factor.

Very simple that a window can not be "coloured" and can not "reflect". If there is some sort of colour added onto a window (grey, black, silver, blue, red, geen etc) or if some sort of reflective (mirror) is added and prevents viewing of the interior of the vehicle.

I park perpedicular to the road.

Moving vehicle: If I can not even see an outline of a driver as they go by, it is too dark.

Stationary vehicle: If I can not see the driver and seatbelt going across their shoulder it is too dark.

I have probably been to court just over 20 times on this with 100% conviction rate (knock on wood)

Tint law is in place for one main reasons that I can think of:

1) Driver has to be able to sufficiently see out (especially at night, have to be able to see the bicycle, pedestrian etc..)

hwybear wrote:... If I can not even see an outline of a driver as they go by, it is too dark.

Stationary vehicle: If I can not see the driver and seatbelt going across their shoulder it is too dark.

OK, YOU have chosen to interpret this statue in this manner and have been rewarded with 100% convictions. But, typically, us members of the general public have to rely on the actual wording of the Act before we pay money for products that protect our valuable interiors from the damaging rays of the sun. NONE of your criteria for laying this charge is mentioned in the act. Ever wonder why we get agitated with the system?

Bear, I thought we have discussed in one of the threads a while back that "Black" is equal to "absense of colour"....

Bookm wrote: Ever wonder why we get agitated with the system?

I do not wonder....I just understand it and don't take it personally.

Still think a few of us on here should rewrite the HTA sections to make sense and submit it to the government for changes. Write it so that even our new drivers at 16yrs old can understand it.

hwybear wrote:Still think a few of us on here should rewrite the HTA sections to make sense and submit it to the government for changes. Write it so that even our new drivers at 16yrs old can understand it.

How do you propose we do that? Sub-by-sub or from clean sheet?

Clean sheet

Where do we start then? Definitions?

Your opinion is all that matters. If the officer can't see you because of any tint, and he can articulate to the justice of the peace the reasons, your cooked. You can talk all day about colour, but at the end of the day its based on opinion, and the picture painted to the court.

There is no percentage under the HTA. If the officer can't see you, then you can use the tint.

just keep riding your MC and you have nothing to worry about, except if you have the mohawk attachment

hwybear wrote:

Tint law is in place for one main reasons that I can think of:

1) Driver has to be able to sufficiently see out (especially at night, have to be able to see the bicycle, pedestrian etc..)

I have a problem with this statement. Just because you cannot see into my car does not mean I cannot see out. Does this mean my autodarkening mirror is illegal too? It gets darker at night when headlights shine on it. It makes it a little harder to see things without light. Also I find the statement offensive because it reminds me of the ostrich with his head in the ground. I can't see you, therefore you cannot see me.

knight_yyz wrote:

hwybear wrote:

Tint law is in place for one main reasons that I can think of:

1) Driver has to be able to sufficiently see out (especially at night, have to be able to see the bicycle, pedestrian etc..)

I have a problem with this statement. Just because you cannot see into my car does not mean I cannot see out. Does this mean my autodarkening mirror is illegal too? It gets darker at night when headlights shine on it. It makes it a little harder to see things without light. Also I find the statement offensive because it reminds me of the ostrich with his head in the ground. I can't see you, therefore you cannot see me.

Thanks for proving the point that much further.

If the ostrich hides the head in the sand (such as hiding behind tint), ostrich can not see properly......and you can't see the ostrich head due to the sand (tint)

....and a vehicle does not need a centre rear view mirror....so that point is mute.

Moot! Moot!

And 73 (2), which states that no window coating can obstruct the driver's view, is the one that is for the safety of the driver. 73 (3), which states that no window coating can obstruct the interior view from outside, is meant for the safety of officers approaching the vehicle, as well as defensive drivers who use other drivers' head movements to predict their behaviour (although that probably wasn't a big consideration when writing that subsection).