$154 ticket for my tint

So how's that any different from hitting a pedestrian when driving at a speed beyond legal limits?

 

It's notable that just because a company can decide not to cover something doesn't mean they will. The insurance company will do a risk assessment and decide if it is worth it to deny coverage. Part of that decision process will be estimating how much they'll have to pay out f it goes to trial.

I'd be willing to bet that when a car hits a pedestrian, juries tend to sympathize more and that results in larger payouts.

 

Unless the pedestrian is running full tilt out of a blind alley your probably screwed anyway. Unless blackout/limo tint is banned on any window then the safety arguments are weak at best. Ive never been in a car with tint so dark i couldn't see out, if you hit a ped your probably not paying attention. The police safety argument is just as weak unless blackout tint is banned on all windows.

 

I'm not a layer, but ...

The insurance company would have to prove that you broke the law intentionally, rather than accidentally or negligently. This will involve a court fight.

In the case in question, one third party (the pedestrian) already fought that fight, and another third party (a jury) already made that judgement. The driver is in no position to claim that the aftermarket tint somehow got onto the windows by accident or inattention. The insurance company doesn't need to get its feet wet.

Have you check the language of your policy yet?

 

I guess we can't wear dark sunglasses then.

Sounds like you were the better lawyer that day or the IDIOT couldn't come up with a better explanation.

I suspect it wasn't the tint that IMPEDED his vision, but rather he was distracted or simply not paying attention. Good for you and your verdict, but you need to lay off the ALL CAPS and !!!!

 

LTZR1 just represented a client who was hit by a car. Since there was a 6 figure settlement/decision, we can assume that the person was hurt, likely badly, requiring hospitalization, potentially broken bones, missed work and maybe future pain and restricted mobility.

Yes, LTZR1 is charged up about it. I think folks here would be too if you were representing the victim. And if I was the victim, how would I like to hear the car driver say they didn't see me.....cold comfort as I lay on the ground. Later, you finding out that they had too dark a tint on their windows, making it more difficult to see you at night......I'd be pissed.

Instead of getting defensive at LTZR1's passion and occasional ALL CAPS typing, maybe we should look at it from a different perspective. If we are involved in an accident, and it can be argued that visibility out of the car windows played a role (didn't see the oncoming car, didn't see the pedestrian, didn't see the bicyclist) and we have illegally dark tint, we will most likely lose the court case, just because of that fact alone. This will cost us money, maybe lots of money.

Seriously. If you were in a court of law and had to defend your illegal tint, many of the common reasons can be simply addressed. This leaves you very vulnerable, from a legal standpoint, when trying to defend your decision.

Illegal Dark tint because car gets too hot = Turn on A/C
Illegal Dark tint because too bright outside = get sunglasses
Illegal Dark tint because of stereo equipment = get insurance
Illegal Dark tint because of appearance = get a good lawyer

He's trying to give us some wisdom, my advice is to take it.

 

Insurance companies don't have to prove anything to deny coverage. All they have to do is deny the coverage for whatever reason they want, perhaps because it's Thursday. The policy holder or injured party must then go to court to force them to honor the policy. It's just like any other contract: having it doesn't mean anything unless you are willing to fight it out in court.

Absolutely true if the dark sunglasses prevent you from seeing clearly. If you hit a pedestrian at night, wearing sunglasses could be considered a negligent act. It would be a hard point to defend. When you state that the sunglasses did not hamper your night vision, the follow-on question would be: "Then why did you hit the pedestrian?"

Tom

 

Wearing glasses at night can be a hazard, but more so because it would impede visibility out of your front windscreen. In my years of driving, I've never had an instance where I couldn't see something or someone because of my tint. While my current car (and past few) is lightly tinted. I drove for several years with 20% and below without issue.

To that end, I know I've only been driving for 15 years, but to my best recollection I see pedestrians out of the windshield when making a right or left handed turn as I approach the intersection. You have to figure if the pedestrian is being viewed out of your side windows, it's already too late. Color me skeptical. As I said before, I suspect the person was not paying attention or distracted.

Did the driver have a tinted windshield? Other thought is that he was looking left to watch for on coming traffic.

Also, just so we are all on the same page... What qualifies as "Dark Tint" or what is "too dark?" All states have different standards and quantification of what is "illegal." I would love to read the expert's report on this matter.

 

There are many, many circumstances where drivers see people and other vehicles out their side windows that they could not possibly have seen out their front windows.

If you cannot picture one then you are either a horrible and dangerous driver or are being disingenuous.

 

Regardless of what the experts say, if you were in a court of law and you had an illegally dark tint on your car, you have an uphill battle. It is the perception that matters. Regardless of what you argue, you have to convince the jury that you could see. What they will know is that the law says a certain transmittance is legal and that the driver exceeded that level. The perception is that beyond this level is not safe therefore the driver was operating a vehicle that was not safe.

It can be argued that some states allow 35%, others 80% and what is truly safe? But in your state, you have to adhere to its limits. To exceed it puts you on legal thin ice.

The suspect driver said they didn't see the pedestrian. We don't know "why" the driver didn't see the pedestrian (didn't look, was distracted, etc). However, the fact that they had illegal tints on the window made it a lot easier for LTZR1 to make a successful arguement to the jury.

For many, the only consequences of their actions are a ticket and fine to be paid. For this driver, the consequences were much bigger. Someone got hurt and while the tint may or may not have played a part in it, the perception is that it did play a part and the judgement was made accordingly.

I think the point LTZR1 was making was that illegal tint isn't just a $154 ticket, it can be a lot worse and that car owners should consider the seriousness of the consequences of their decisions.

 

I can think of many as well. WHAT I SAID is that I cannot think of an intersection where I would not be viewing the crossing pedestrians in my front windscreen. Even if I was stopped at a light in the city and making a 90 degree turn, the pedestrian would be just to the left of my A-pillar as I begin the turn. I frequently drive in Philadelphia, in the suburbs and on dimly-lit country roads, maybe our roads are setup differently. If that is not what I said previously, then I apologize if it was written in a manner that was EASILY misconstrued!!!!!!!! (unnecessary emphasis added for tonal inconsistencies.)

Regardless, I appreciate your callous prejudgment toward my driving abilities and mental shortcomings. Thanks.

Anyway. So this begs the question again, how dark is too dark? If my doctor writes a script based on skin irritabilities, will my insurance then cover me if I get into an accident and the PI attorney makes some random argument that his impeccable and unblemished vision is dramatically decreased to zero regardless of whether it matters in the first place?

 

If you listen to PI attorneys talk about any subject, even legal ones... You would live a fearful life of being sued and held personally liable. That is their job: to convince people that a duty was missed and that there was a causal connection (nexus) between the injuries received (damages) when the breach of that duty occurred. Listen to enough PI attorneys and you will never want to leave your house.

Unless of course your house was insulated with asbestos, then you would want to move and hope that your moving truck doesn't accidentally let a bookshelf fall out of the back in transit to the new house, killing innocent babies.

I was merely skeptical of the stated facts and the judgment based solely on window tint. I was asking for more facts based on my own experience in driving with tinted cars for 15 years. My apologies for thinking freely.

 

LTZR1 sounds a bit over the top, most attorneys would educate and inform calmy. The only time you hear "SEE YOU IN COURT" is on TV or Judge Judy. Maybe he can share the case number and state, should be public record (except for settlement numbers) by now so we can all be better informed.

 

I did my own experiment tonight, as an expert in these matters, I saw plenty of pedestrians when approaching the adjacent crosswalk and more pedestrians on the sidewalk. Now I don't have 20/20 vision, maybe that is my problem??

 

I should add, and as I conjectured earlier, the pedestrians in the crosswalk were plainly visible in my front windshield just inside my a-pillars. No tint obstructed my view.

 

Seeing plenty of pedestrians is not the issue. What matters is how many you failed to see that you should have seen. How do your experiments quantify this?

After more than twice as many driving years as you, and plenty of pedestrian experience watching drivers see or not see me, and after having a pickup driver not see my mother in a marked crosswalk in full daylight while she had the signal light, until the 'thump' threw her forward 40 feet, your descriptions are not inspiring any confidence.

 

Did the pickup truck have tinted windows? Can you say without a doubt that it was the tint that caused the accident or their deficient attention span? Here is your answer, a driver traveling at a velocity to knock someone 40 feet was not hindered by their side window tint.

Have you ever driven a car with tinted windows? From the responses here, I suspect many armchair combatants are speculating based on semi-lucid imaginations.

 

What are you doing to confirm that you are actually seeing all the pedestrians you need to see?

From the armchair responses here, I suspect your certainty is just a semi-lucid imagination.

 

This all seems pretty easy to me.
I live in the south, and it gets hot and sunny down here. A lot of people put tint on their windows to ameliorate those hot and sunny days. Some people also put the stuff on thier windows cause they think it "looks cool." Others like to take a pull on their "drive home beer" without some concerned citizen reporting them to LEO.
Hey.
Whatever.

Me? I'd like to put the stuff on my windows too, but since there's no photochromic tint that I'm aware of, and since I can't stand what it does for my night driving, AND since I left the "gotta be cool" stage of my life getting smaller in the rear-view mirror a decade or so back, AND.....since I don't really care if somebody can see what I'm up to in my car while I'm driving it...AND since I don't want some LEO to think that I'm a teenager, I'll continue to roll tint-free for right now.

The laws are pretty clear in most states---no punn intended. Abide by them, and you'll probably be OK where LEO is concerned. It's not a huge deal if you wanna be a scoff-law, and you're willing to pay up if the Po-Po catches you (like the OP.)
It's also not the next great civil-rights battle if the States decide that you can't have limo-tint on your G3 if you wanna drive on their streets.

Personally, I see a lot of people riding around doing stupid, irresponsible things in their cars, with or without tint. You just can't see IN the car with some of the tint. There are many LEOs that do the reserves thing, and I've done a lot of ride-alongs with some of them. Most cops HATE window tinting, or at the very least it tags you as a younger driver. That's reason enough for me not to put the stuff on one of my cars.
Also....if you don't do it properly...t looks like a bag of A$$. Even if you do have it 'professionally' applied.....a few years down the road....it looks like a bag of A$$.
No thanks.

LikeI said.....It seems pretty easy to me. FIND OUT what your state's laws are. Make an informed decision as to whether or not you want to drive within those limits. It's kinda like speed limits....YMMV. For some people, PSL +10 is criminally irresponsible. For others, it's "going with the flow."
No big deal eiither way, really.

....Till you see those lights in your rear-view mirror, that is!

 

Lets close this thread, it is getting old and tiresome