Range Rover privacy glass and arse hole police!
Discussion
Just been stopped and fined for having official factory fitted tinted glass in my Range Rover:furious:
How the hell can that be right?
Was told the glass was totally illegal and was only letting 20% light through front side windows!!I told the copper it was factory fitted spec. and came with the vehicle as new and he said yeh we come across this all the time!
Anybody else had a similar experience or got any answers?
These jumped up authoritarian tossers really piss me off!
How the hell can that be right?
Was told the glass was totally illegal and was only letting 20% light through front side windows!!I told the copper it was factory fitted spec. and came with the vehicle as new and he said yeh we come across this all the time!
Anybody else had a similar experience or got any answers?
These jumped up authoritarian tossers really piss me off!
Sounds to me like a message has got through to Traffic plod, that all new Range Rovers with privacy glass don't meet the legal requirements. On the basis that this is clearly a manufacturer cockup rather than you intentioanlly breaking the law, a response that would have shown the police in better light, would have been some sort of rectification notice to fix the problem. Giving you a fine for something the manufacturer did might indicate to some a police "service" that is driven more by money and targets than doing the right thing.
Out of interest did they have a machine for testing the tint at the side of the road?
DAZ
Out of interest did they have a machine for testing the tint at the side of the road?
DAZ
GREENV8S -I take it you don't have a Range rover then? or privacy glass. Is that 'Green' as in the colour of your car or your political affilation?
Dazren- thanks for sensible reply. Yeh I think what you say is correct they've obviously been told to target specific manufacturers whose cars they deem to be illegal in respect of this legislation.
I don't frankly believe this glass is blocking 80% of light transmission or anything like it and it does not reduce my visibility in any way in even the poorest of light conditions.
It is the enforcement of these endless petty regulations for revenue raising purposes rather than pursuing serious motoring offenders that upsets genuine law abiding motorists like us and gradually errodes peoples respect for the police and authority in general I am afraid.
I find it hard to believe that ever Range Rover out there with factory issue privacy glass is now illegal! and can be impounded on the spot at the whim of any police officer who may have got out the wrong side of his bed that day!
I'd just like to know if anyone else with Range rover privacy glass has had the same problem or come across this issue themselves?
Dazren- thanks for sensible reply. Yeh I think what you say is correct they've obviously been told to target specific manufacturers whose cars they deem to be illegal in respect of this legislation.
I don't frankly believe this glass is blocking 80% of light transmission or anything like it and it does not reduce my visibility in any way in even the poorest of light conditions.
It is the enforcement of these endless petty regulations for revenue raising purposes rather than pursuing serious motoring offenders that upsets genuine law abiding motorists like us and gradually errodes peoples respect for the police and authority in general I am afraid.
I find it hard to believe that ever Range Rover out there with factory issue privacy glass is now illegal! and can be impounded on the spot at the whim of any police officer who may have got out the wrong side of his bed that day!
I'd just like to know if anyone else with Range rover privacy glass has had the same problem or come across this issue themselves?
Daz
Sorry, yes he did have a machine that he supposedly calibrated then took a reading. I watched him and the meter came up with a figure of 20%. I pointed out that surely that reading indicated only 20% reduction in light transmission but he said no, in fact it was 80% reduction and the legal limit was 25% max!
I am going to speak to Landrover on monday and see what they have to say because obviously it will be very expensive to have to replace both passenger and driver side windows!
Sorry, yes he did have a machine that he supposedly calibrated then took a reading. I watched him and the meter came up with a figure of 20%. I pointed out that surely that reading indicated only 20% reduction in light transmission but he said no, in fact it was 80% reduction and the legal limit was 25% max!
I am going to speak to Landrover on monday and see what they have to say because obviously it will be very expensive to have to replace both passenger and driver side windows!
kinetic said:
GREENV8S -I take it you don't have a Range rover then? or privacy glass. Is that 'Green' as in the colour of your car or your political affilation?
Calm down there! Peter was just stating the legal case, that your issue appears to be with the manufacturer. No matter how we may disagree with how the individual plod handled it, he was legally entitled to do so as he did. If you check Peter's profile, you'll see he is very far removed from being a Greeny. In fact having seen him at the Caterham driving challenge in November he's a pretty skilled wheelman.
DAZ
kinetic said:
GREENV8S -I take it you don't have a Range rover then? or privacy glass. Is that 'Green' as in the colour of your car or your political affilation?
Have a look at my profile and then take a guess!
My point is that if your car is indeed illegal (as it seems, based on what you've said so far) then the BiB has done nothing to deserve that attitude from you. Maybe you would prefer it if he had let you off with a finger wagging, but if your attitude here is any indication of how you dealt with him then perhaps it's no surprise that he didn't ...
Caterham challenge eh! May have a go at that next year myself. I am currently racing my motorsport elise in the yokohama midengined series.
Still maintain the bloke was a tosser though. The area I was driving through at the time I was stopped is littered with untaxed, uninsured and unroadworthy cars and unfortunately as usual the police simply ignore these people and pick on someone who they know will actually pay up!
Still find it hard to believe that all Range Rovers with factory fitted privacy glass are now illegal and would like to know if anyone else on here has been stopped for the same supposed offence?
Still maintain the bloke was a tosser though. The area I was driving through at the time I was stopped is littered with untaxed, uninsured and unroadworthy cars and unfortunately as usual the police simply ignore these people and pick on someone who they know will actually pay up!
Still find it hard to believe that all Range Rovers with factory fitted privacy glass are now illegal and would like to know if anyone else on here has been stopped for the same supposed offence?
How on earth, can someone judge the opacity of tinted glass at a glance by the roadside ?
Thats a bit knee-jerk I suspect. should have mentioned the tint was a 'gangsta/dealer' trim option reserved for special cash customers of Land rover, and ofered him a suitable retainer, to;
"go about your business PC Babylon"
Police, appear to wonder, sometimes in the media, why they get such a negative response from, perhaps the very strata of society that contribute taxes etc
Thats a bit knee-jerk I suspect. should have mentioned the tint was a 'gangsta/dealer' trim option reserved for special cash customers of Land rover, and ofered him a suitable retainer, to;
"go about your business PC Babylon"
Police, appear to wonder, sometimes in the media, why they get such a negative response from, perhaps the very strata of society that contribute taxes etc
Just been reading about this type of thing on an american/canadian sight and apparently they have brought in legislation to reverse earlier restrictions on window tinting and allow darker tints because they have now decided it is actually safer in many respects in terms of reduced dazzling or glare etc. and has been proven not to cause any increase in accidents or reduce night time vision. Also womens groups have lobied for dark tintng so they can remain anonimous in their cars and therefore safer from potential male threats on the road!
What we need then is a few lesbian/ feminists to write in to Tony Blair demanding dark window tints - we'll all be driving blacked out gangster rapper style motors within a fortnight. Come to think of it though they would probably make it women only!
What we need then is a few lesbian/ feminists to write in to Tony Blair demanding dark window tints - we'll all be driving blacked out gangster rapper style motors within a fortnight. Come to think of it though they would probably make it women only!
kinetic said:
The area I was driving through at the time I was stopped is littered with untaxed, uninsured and unroadworthy cars.......
Unroadworthy cars? What like lights out, bald tyres, worn-out shocks, blacked out windows and stuff?
Sorry mate, couldn't resist it
>> Edited by likesbikes on Wednesday 8th June 15:15
80% absorption seems rather high. If your windows really are that strongly absorbing, I would have thought you'd have found difficulty seeing out of them in poor light or at night.
To put it into perspective, the kind of sunglasses you use for skiing have about 82% to 92% absorption (that being Category 3; really dark glasses used for hard core mountaineering are Cat 4 glacier glasses and go up to 98% absorption ... you could probably use them for the odd bit of welding.)
I certainly wouldn't think it safe to drive at night with sunglasses on, so I can see why 80% absorption ought to be illegal. And even in dim conditions, your eyes won't have much time to adjust to the dimmed view out the side windows if they are accustomed to looking out a clear windscreen (at the most extreme, it takes minutes for eyes to adjust to night vision).
If plod had said your glass was 30% absorbing I could understand it, but 80% seems unlikely unless you were really taking the piss. And as said Range Rover would be mad to ship cars with dodgey glass.
I do wonder if you were right about the 20% absorption versus 20% transmission. I really can't see how an absorption meter could work so badly as to mis-read by such a big factor.
To put it into perspective, the kind of sunglasses you use for skiing have about 82% to 92% absorption (that being Category 3; really dark glasses used for hard core mountaineering are Cat 4 glacier glasses and go up to 98% absorption ... you could probably use them for the odd bit of welding.)
I certainly wouldn't think it safe to drive at night with sunglasses on, so I can see why 80% absorption ought to be illegal. And even in dim conditions, your eyes won't have much time to adjust to the dimmed view out the side windows if they are accustomed to looking out a clear windscreen (at the most extreme, it takes minutes for eyes to adjust to night vision).
If plod had said your glass was 30% absorbing I could understand it, but 80% seems unlikely unless you were really taking the piss. And as said Range Rover would be mad to ship cars with dodgey glass.
I do wonder if you were right about the 20% absorption versus 20% transmission. I really can't see how an absorption meter could work so badly as to mis-read by such a big factor.
kinetic said:
Just been stopped and fined for having official factory fitted tinted glass in my Range Rover 
How the hell can that be right?
Was told the glass was totally illegal and was only letting 20% light through front side windows!!I told the copper it was factory fitted spec. and came with the vehicle as new and he said yeh we come across this all the time!
Anybody else had a similar experience or got any answers?
These jumped up authoritarian tossers really piss me off!
the official tinted glass is to the rear and rear side windows only, you are only allowed a light tint on the front 2.
Was your car new? If not then its likely the previous owner had the front 2 windows tinted to match the factory glass at the rear.
If thats the case you should get the dealer to cover the removal at its own cost and ask them for reimbursement of your fine and a couple of free services, i am sure they would agree
Bennno
The front side window tint is noticible externally but is still much lighter than that in the rear windows and rear screen. From inside the car looking outward the tint appears very mild ie. much less than you would experience with sunglasses and definately does not resrict my view through them at all even in the poorest of lighting conditions otherwise I would have removed them myself anyway.
If what you say about sunglasses absorption levels is correct then the coppers lighting level testing equipment was way out! I am going to get them independently testest in any event and speak to Landrover themselves and see what they have to say.
Apparently this law has been applicable since 2001 but plod have decided to start enforcing it with avengeance from January 05 so you can guarantee this is going to become a much bigger issue in the coming months.
If what you say about sunglasses absorption levels is correct then the coppers lighting level testing equipment was way out! I am going to get them independently testest in any event and speak to Landrover themselves and see what they have to say.
Apparently this law has been applicable since 2001 but plod have decided to start enforcing it with avengeance from January 05 so you can guarantee this is going to become a much bigger issue in the coming months.
Kinetic,
Might I suggest finding out when the law was indeed made law, and when your car was msanufactured with such privacy glass LEGALLY from the manufacturer?
If your car pre-dates the law, then the glass is still legal, as it was done BEFORE the law forced such a change.
You can also ask for proof from the police that it is indeed blocking 80% of the light getting through (which I highly doubt).
If the police are correct, and your vehicle was sold with this glass AFTER the law become law, then it is the manufacturer who are at fault. I should ask for compensation for the fine you received off Plod and an apology.
It is still a pain in the a*** though, and I do get your point about them only stopping those who they know will pay, rather than the group of chavs in their clearly illegal cars terrorising the neighbourhood!
>> Edited by combover on Sunday 5th June 19:01
>> Edited by combover on Sunday 5th June 19:03
Might I suggest finding out when the law was indeed made law, and when your car was msanufactured with such privacy glass LEGALLY from the manufacturer?
If your car pre-dates the law, then the glass is still legal, as it was done BEFORE the law forced such a change.
You can also ask for proof from the police that it is indeed blocking 80% of the light getting through (which I highly doubt).
If the police are correct, and your vehicle was sold with this glass AFTER the law become law, then it is the manufacturer who are at fault. I should ask for compensation for the fine you received off Plod and an apology.
It is still a pain in the a*** though, and I do get your point about them only stopping those who they know will pay, rather than the group of chavs in their clearly illegal cars terrorising the neighbourhood!
>> Edited by combover on Sunday 5th June 19:01
>> Edited by combover on Sunday 5th June 19:03
Perhaps a bit of a daft idea, but if you've got a camera, you could use it to get a rough idea of the absorption of your glass. If you sat in the passenger seat and aimed the camera out of the window with the aperature fixed, and the camera set to pick its own exposure time, you'd expect the exposure time to be five times longer with the window up if it is absorbing 80% of the incedent light as claimed by the police. If it's only absorbing 20% then the exposure time should only increase by one quarter (e.g. from 100ms to 125ms).
Gassing Station | Land Rover | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff