Which is best window tint/tinter in Sydney

[R36 Dreamer]

R36 Dreamer

You must just be lucky as the Cops in Sydney are mostly younger and not as experienced. I can tell you in Ncle the HWP are a lot older and wiser and bust these people all the time. Every time you get busted by the Cops it goes onto the computer what your defects were and what action taken. If you continue to re offend they will charge you instead of giving you a TIN (day in Court where the penalty can go up to $000"s). The annual rego check is a safety inspection and more often than not will not look at things like ground clearance, tint etc. I have seen them not even look under the car at all???? I don't want you to think I'm having a go at you but I see this happening here a lot in Ncle. Must be a tougher town with the law I guess.

Funny you should mention Newcastle. I lived there for a couple of years, and only 3 weeks ago was pulled up by highway patrol driving into Newcastle from Wallsend (That road should be a bloody 100km/h!!).

Got a ticket for speeding (12 over the limit) but not even a mention on the tints.

As you say perhaps I have been lucky, or there are just too many cars in Sydney for the cops to bother about.

[brad]

R36 Dreamer

You must just be lucky as the Cops in Sydney are mostly younger and not as experienced. I can tell you in Ncle the HWP are a lot older and wiser and bust these people all the time. Every time you get busted by the Cops it goes onto the computer what your defects were and what action taken. If you continue to re offend they will charge you instead of giving you a TIN (day in Court where the penalty can go up to $000"s). The annual rego check is a safety inspection and more often than not will not look at things like ground clearance, tint etc. I have seen them not even look under the car at all???? I don't want you to think I'm having a go at you but I see this happening here a lot in Ncle. Must be a tougher town with the law I guess.

Thread dredge but feel compelled to answer:
Annual rego check doesn't happen until the car is 5 years old these days. I'm a bit confused by your comment as supposedly vehicle height & darkness of tint are both supposed to be safety items & the vehicle inspection procedure is supposed to include using the light transferance meter on the windows.

I think people that get busted for tint are usually those that have done something to upset the coppers already. I've been running darker than legal tint on my cars since 2001 and never had an issue or been pulled over. Possibly this is because: My cars weren't excessively lowered, the exhaust was stock, I don't do burnouts, I don't drive with doof-doof music, I don't speed in built-up areas, I don't have my seat tilted back to almost horizontal, I dont wear my hat backwards, i don't wear a hoody, I'm middle-aged.

The cops will pick on those that stand out fom the crowd.

[Rocket36]

Something else to consider regarding illegal tint is the possibility of your insurance company voiding your insurance in the even you cause a crash and they can legally argue that had the tint not been illegally dark, the crash could possibly have been avoided.

[brad]

Something else to consider regarding illegal tint is the possibility of your insurance company voiding your insurance in the even you cause a crash and they can legally argue that had the tint not been illegally dark, the crash could possibly have been avoided.

Yep, that is a possible issue.

like most things, we weigh up the risks & make a decision. Some prefer to stay totally within the letter of the law, others step over to varying degrees.

[evr]

Hate to sound like a prude but has anyone stopped to think for a minute why there is even such a thing as a "darkest legal" tint? That figure of 35% isn't just a random number that the ADR regulators plucked from their bums nor is it them just being spoilt sports not wanting our cars to look "cool".

In fact, there's plenty of research gone into this that shows at normal driving speeds our eyes have trouble instantly transitioning & adjusting from looking through a non tinted glass (the front screen) to a tinted window (side or rear) & back again to the clear glass. This could cause momentary focus problems & potentially confuse our brains & slows the processing of information by our brains from what our eyes see. Anything darker than around 35% just makes this situation dangerous. In addition, darker than legal tints DO inhibit your vision somewhat & it's enough to extend your reaction time just enough to be risky in an emergency situation at speeds.

Moral of the story is, it's illigal because it's unsafe not because the authorities are party poopers. Also, if some bastard hit & injured one of your kids in a pedestrian accident because their reaction time was ever so slightly extended due to darker than legal tint, how would you then feel about the argument that it's a "personal choice" & "you weigh up the risks"?

[Lance B]

Hate to sound like a prude but has anyone stopped to think for a minute why there is even such a thing as a "darkest legal" tint? That figure of 35% isn't just a random number that the ADR regulators plucked from their bums nor is it them just being spoilt sports not wanting our cars to look "cool".

They didn't just pull it of their bums? That'd be a first. Just about every other ridiculous ruling seems as though they just "made it up" as they couldn't think of anything else to do.

In fact, there's plenty of research gone into this that shows at normal driving speeds our eyes have trouble instantly transitioning & adjusting from looking through a non tinted glass (the front screen) to a tinted window (side or rear) & back again to the clear glass. This could cause momentary focus problems & potentially confuse our brains & slows the processing of information by our brains from what our eyes see. Anything darker than around 35% just makes this situation dangerous. In addition, darker than legal tints DO inhibit your vision somewhat & it's enough to extend your reaction time just enough to be risky in an emergency situation at speeds.

Moral of the story is, it's illigal because it's unsafe not because the authorities are party poopers. Also, if some bastard hit & injured one of your kids in a pedestrian accident because their reaction time was ever so slightly extended due to darker than legal tint, how would you then feel about the argument that it's a "personal choice" & "you weigh up the risks"?

[brad]

Hate to sound like a prude but has anyone stopped to think for a minute why there is even such a thing as a "darkest legal" tint? That figure of 35% isn't just a random number that the ADR regulators plucked from their bums nor is it them just being spoilt sports not wanting our cars to look "cool".

I work for a gov't department that does regulations (not vehicle) and from my observations they either use "best practice" from other countries (usually Europe because then they can go on a jolly to "study" the situation), or they pluck a figure from the air, workshop it & use that. I'd imagine the dropkicks in the RTA or the Federal folk doing the ADRs are no better. In addition, they are usually dedicated pencil pushers with no practical experience because the "doers" are out achieving things & get bored writing policy.
A good example is the recent lower/higher suspension rules that the Gov't had to postpone for 12 months because they were badly thought out & ill advised.

In fact, there's plenty of research gone into this that shows at normal driving speeds our eyes have trouble instantly transitioning & adjusting from looking through a non tinted glass (the front screen) to a tinted window (side or rear) & back again to the clear glass. This could cause momentary focus problems & potentially confuse our brains & slows the processing of information by our brains from what our eyes see. Anything darker than around 35% just makes this situation dangerous.

I'm sure there is merit in what you say. I've got 20% on this car & I wouldn't do it again. Why? Because I'm 47 & I've noticed that in the last few years my night vision & long distance vision has deteriorated slightly (but I've been tested & am still in the top 5th percentile) - probably because of normal aging of the muscles. Other friends night vision went crappola in their early 30s.

I'd be thinking that 35%VLT is probably a good one size fits all tint for all times of day. Fair enough, but 95% of my car usage is daytime & the darker tint has other benefits. I wear sunglasses when I drive but it isn't enough becuase my pupils let in too much light (so don't play murder in the dark with me because I can see like a cat).

Dum question: Why is it that the recent (3 years past?) spate of vehicles with privacy glass that have a VLT of ~20% are OK? My wife has an Outlander & I'd almost guarantee it is darker than my 20% film.

Moral of the story is, it's illigal because it's unsafe not because the authorities are party poopers.

Like most rules it targets the lowest common denominator. Driving over the speed limit is illegal but it isn't always unsafe for everyone - it depends on the car & the driver & the conditions.

Also, if some bastard hit & injured one of your kids in a pedestrian accident because their reaction time was ever so slightly extended due to darker than legal tint, how would you then feel about the argument that it's a "personal choice" & "you weigh up the risks"?

I'd be thinking there was more to the accident than just window tint. Possibly a contributing factor but not the only factor (all the holes lined up in the slices of cheese). Sure I'd be pissed off but I doubt it would make me an anti-tint campaigner - more a better drivers & teach kids to be safer in traffic campaigner. Notice they don't have the road safety ads for little kids like they did in the 60s & 70s?

[Lance B]

Excellent post, Brad.

You have backed up many people's suspicions about how the government does things.

[R36 Dreamer]

Just weighing into the Insurance argument for a minute. I work in the industry and can say that in my experience I have never had an insurer knock back a claim for dark tints.

Motor Vehicle insurance is really a catch all, and when you read some of the claims I have seen like "I was looking in the mirror and couldn't see the road in front and crashed into the back of another car" etc. etc. Motor Insurers do pay a lot of claims for idiot behaviour.

I have also raised the question to motor underwriters about this issue, and they agree that they would not knock back a claim based on window tints.
One actually commented they would be more concerned about the hazed and bubbled tints on many older cars, rather than illigal tints.

Just my opinion from what I have experienced.

[Rocket36]

Back ON TOPIC and to the OP, whoever you go with - make sure they're a good enough tinter to be able to do the windows without taking off the door liners.