Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.
Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.

Ontario Highway Traffic Act

Discuss the Ontario Highway Traffic Act.


Post Your Traffic Ticket, and Get Help!


The Ontario Traffic Ticket Forum!


All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Check It Out
No unread posts New Set Fines Starting Sept 1st, 2015! Read and Learn Here.
  Print view

Car Windows Tints allowance in Ontario (mississauga,gta,etc)
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Feb 14, 2009 7:54 pm 
Offline
Newbie

Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 7:47 pm
Posts: 1
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 14, 2009 9:40 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:21 am
Posts: 2933
Location: In YOUR rearview mirror!
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 driver’s 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.

_________________
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 10:41 am 
Offline
Sr. Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:38 pm
Posts: 632
Location: Stratford, Ontario
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
in a percentage, which is reflected outward by the product or material
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 11:04 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:21 am
Posts: 2933
Location: In YOUR rearview mirror!
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..)

_________________
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 11:38 am 
Offline
Sr. Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:38 pm
Posts: 632
Location: Stratford, Ontario
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? ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 8:05 pm 
Offline
VIP
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 8:27 pm
Posts: 959
Location: Guelph, Ontario
Bear, I thought we have discussed in one of the threads a while back that "Black" is equal to "absense of colour"....

_________________
"The more laws, the less justice" - Marcus Tullius Cicero
"The hardest thing to explain is the obvious"

www.OHTA.ca & www.OntarioHighwayTrafficAct.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 8:10 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:21 am
Posts: 2933
Location: In YOUR rearview mirror!
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.

_________________
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 8:29 pm 
Offline
VIP
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 8:27 pm
Posts: 959
Location: Guelph, Ontario
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?

_________________
"The more laws, the less justice" - Marcus Tullius Cicero
"The hardest thing to explain is the obvious"

www.OHTA.ca & www.OntarioHighwayTrafficAct.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 11:50 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 2:49 pm
Posts: 1490
Location: somewhere in traffic
Clean sheet

_________________
http://www.OHTA.ca OR http://www.OntarioTrafficAct.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 1:38 am 
Offline
VIP
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 8:27 pm
Posts: 959
Location: Guelph, Ontario
Where do we start then? Definitions?

_________________
"The more laws, the less justice" - Marcus Tullius Cicero
"The hardest thing to explain is the obvious"

www.OHTA.ca & www.OntarioHighwayTrafficAct.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:03 am 
Offline
Newbie

Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 7:59 am
Posts: 6
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.

_________________
A student of life. Enjoying every minute.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 6:18 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:21 am
Posts: 2933
Location: In YOUR rearview mirror!
just keep riding your MC and you have nothing to worry about, except if you have the mohawk attachment :wink:

_________________
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 01, 2009 10:50 pm 
Offline
Newbie

Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:42 am
Posts: 13
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 02, 2009 5:11 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:21 am
Posts: 2933
Location: In YOUR rearview mirror!
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.

_________________
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 02, 2009 8:32 am 
Offline
Sr. Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:45 am
Posts: 709
Location: Orillia
Moot! Moot! :wink:

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).

_________________
         Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Related topics
 Topics   Author   Replies   Views   Last post 
There are no new unread posts for this topic. First post: Is there a speed allowance for overtaking?

CliffClaven

7

1663

Fri Sep 21, 2012 6:33 pm

bend View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Importing Car from Manitoba to Ontario, questions

forevergone

2

209

Wed Aug 30, 2017 3:43 pm

argyll View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Ontario car/driver, Kentucky speeding ticket

Mobility

9

2530

Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:23 pm

Mobility View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Are flashing LED lights legal at the back of a car? ONTARIO

Law2Law

1

3806

Fri Oct 12, 2012 3:58 pm

hwybear View the latest post

This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies. Windows to afford clear view Sect 74

racer

0

4167

Sat Feb 07, 2009 11:51 pm

racer View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Using Laser downhill and through tinted windows a violation?

notxcopper

11

1072

Wed Jun 11, 2014 10:24 am

notxcopper View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Car Plate not attached to car (unathorized plates to the car

jeet

1

963

Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:57 am

tdottopcop View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. rear-end collision, ticket to lead car not the back car

Cathywutoronto

0

251

Tue Oct 31, 2017 12:23 pm

Cathywutoronto View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Car #3 in a 5 car pileup - got hit with careless driving.

justadude

7

400

Mon Jan 30, 2017 11:20 am

bobajob View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Right of way-Car from Crescent or a car from parking lot

johnchow101

1

524

Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:59 am

tdottopcop View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Rear ended car after that car was cut off

drivingcanuck

3

1199

Sun Mar 31, 2013 10:20 am

FyreStorm View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Who is at fault if a car backs up into a car turning right?

WaterlooResident

2

1442

Sat Sep 06, 2014 3:51 pm

WaterlooResident View the latest post

 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Web Development & Search Engine Optimization
Home | Court Listings | Ontario Traffic Ticket

Copyright 2007 - 2017 © Microtekblue Inc. Web Development & Search Engine Optimization Service. We Support phpBB All Rights Reserved.