Been driving around for nearly a year with this tint, passed in the previous WoF (at another testing station), purchased the car with the tint and always assumed anything behind the driver was fair game as it doesn't affect my visuals when driving.
Turns out I might be wrong as VTNZ just failed me on all rear windows quoting that "the factory tint is more than dark enough"
Do I try another testing station for a second opinion or do I really have to rip it all off?
au crap i got some tint on my car also . What somone on here said and i only beleave in stuff that makes sense my self. The person said tints often darken over time = that is how you would get a pass and then a fail later on.
supern0va,
Jun 28, 4:37pm
to dark unless on commercial vehicle. Id say you will have to remove it and go a lighter tint. 35% is the max I think for private use car
intrade,
Jun 28, 4:39pm
i think in your xase you have no leg to stand on that tint is way to dark Rear cab tinted like this is only allowed in vans So you would have to remove all rear seats like opel combo or vw caddy for example. You can look up the rules on vrim or what ever its called online
henry284,
Jun 28, 4:40pm
Guess I better register as an Uber driver or maybe try out for a kiwi FakeTaxi driver. Then I think the tint may be justified
kazbanz,
Jun 28, 5:21pm
henry-if the tint was failed because of an "eyecrometer" reading (he eyeballed it and thought its too dark) Then tell them --politely to get knotted. BUT if they have put the machine on the windows and its failed then its fair cop. I would suggest though if its borderline give the windows a really good clean up. That might get ya over the line.
fungles,
Jun 28, 6:49pm
Tinted windows represent no visual problem for the driver, and has never been a safety issue. The Police like to see how many "heads" are in any vehicle they pull over. and demand "visual access" inside of your car. Because of this ONE factor, it has been changed into a bogus safety issue.to resonate more with public opinion. and to allow the easy passage of the relevant legislation through parliament. Obviously, if there really was a driver visibilty issue, the same legislation would need to apply to all vehicles. This simplifies /allows ticketing of seat belt and cell phone offences, child restraints etc which is a definite bonus. If testing stations are making judgments on things like light transmission, , exhaust noise and exhaust emissions, they must have the calibrated equipment capable to give quantitative and absolute figures, not just a "gut feeling" or opinion. just as a roadside "safety check" by a Police constable, when pushed, will fail in court for the very same reason when backed up with quantitative alternative facts by the driver. Unfortunately, a WOF station is their own authority, this should change.
tweake,
Jun 28, 7:28pm
i had 35% tints on a van many years ago and it looked as black as those pics. (at the time 35% was the max, then they changed the rules etc).
unless they test it with the machine i would tell em to stick it.
a.woodrow,
Jun 28, 7:30pm
Class MA limit is 35% VLT
s_nz,
Jun 28, 8:44pm
It is strange how that tint would be fine on a SUV, but not a car.
But rules are rules, and that tint looks way darker than 35% VLT.
Small factory tint + 35% film tint = too dark.
vtecintegra,
Jun 28, 8:46pm
It's fine on a car too if it's factory and part of the glass rather than an overlay.
Tint overlays definitely make it harder to see out of the car than proper tinted glass
henry284,
Jun 28, 9:41pm
Gonna get a second opinion from the local tint and sound workshop, I'm thinking they eyeballed it as I was never given a current percentage.
franc123,
Jun 28, 9:44pm
Not at all surprising that got rejected, prove its compliant (light meter check) or else yes it will have to come off. Most professional tint installers will provide a certificate of compliance and/or small decals stating it complies, if you cannot provide this then it gets viewed with suspicion by an inspector. AS3 factory tint is already plenty dark enough without adding to it.
fungles,
Jun 28, 10:36pm
So, is it now a requirement for the owner to prove compliance , rather than the WOF inspector to prove non compliance? Thats a slippery slope.
framtech,
Jun 28, 10:40pm
Why do people need such a dark tint, is it because the driver is so ugly, like hiding like a phantom of the opera behind a mask or is it because the owner is a criminal, (bit like a hoody) From a intelligent point of view, tints are a pain in the arse for other drivers as they can't see through the car to see other traffic in front and for intersections, its hard to see if the driver is paying attention , therefore a big safety issue, from a personal point of view I think dark tints signal a dick boy racer want a be.
fungles,
Jun 28, 10:58pm
Can I say this. Large trucks and SUVs also cause these problems at intersections, ie, you cannot see through or around them. I assume too that many drivers wear tinted sunglasses, also hiding much of there face and intentions., but may have sensitive eyes. I dont know. I know my factory tinted windows make it hard for people to be motivated to further explore the interesting "junk" I have scattered on my back seat in the course of my work, and helps prevent the UV from buggering up the plastic trim. I may be ugly, but Im no crim. Oddly enough, the plastic louvers over my back window makes looking in from the rear virtually impossible, far greater than tints would, yet these are perfectly legal as far as Im aware. I dont mind rules for a reason, but have little time for when theres not. And, I wear a hoody, great in winter, and Im 66. Its silly to generalise these things.
henry284,
Jun 28, 11:06pm
I've only got tint in the rear, was great over summer when I was camping out in the back. Privacy for getting changed and the sun wasn't blinding in the morning, was actually pretty cozy.
clark20,
Jun 28, 11:12pm
Ahhh yes, the owner is responsible for their own car, if they or a previous owner has modified something then yes.
fungles,
Jun 28, 11:13pm
One other thing overlooked. If tinted windows are such a safety issue, why then do the Police tint their camera vans? Surely they should be setting an example to us lesser mortals? They do it for the obvious reason of operator comfort and privacy, as Henry said above.
fungles,
Jun 28, 11:27pm
Clarke, I cannot agree. You cant have it both ways. IF I need to prove compliance, then there is no need for a WOF, for anything. I just turn up with the paperwork, the LTSA or whoever they are today, stamp it, job done, No inspection required. My brakes, lights, wheels, engine, all complies, I have the proof, here it is. No no no. If they fault the car, they need to plainly state why with actual hard proof, not just an opinion., The logical conclusion would be to eyeball the lights for instance, and if they look to be shining in the right direction, then its a pass, money saved right there on the light machine. We could jump on the brakes, car stops reasonably quickly, thats also a pass with opinion. money saved on the rolling road. Seriously, noone tells the WOF inspector, you had best go through my car with a fine toothed comb, I have just bought it, and there could be unknown faults and modifications. we assume, and quite rightly we should, that we are all treated the same and our cars are professionally deemed to be safe, or not, by facts, and not opinion. remember, it works both ways. I would prefer to see a hard copy of my brake performance, than a verbal opinion that "they seem fine to me", and that is what I paid to get. That works for brakes, lights or tints.
franc123,
Jun 28, 11:29pm
They do it because they can, given the camera vans are generally L300's or iLoads they are perfectly entitled to be tinted out to whatever level they want on all glass behind the front row seats, they are NA class vehicles, the vehicle rego class is critical to what tint is allowed where, this applies whether they are Gov't vehicles or private. Id save further embarrassment in this thread if I were you (puts outer edge of index finger vertically over mouth).
marte,
Jun 28, 11:40pm
#20. A brand new car would probably pass the 'WOF rubber stamp test".
#21. Yep, I agree. And they also have nice wee flashing red & blue lights on their cars that for some reason Joe Public isn't allowed to have.
fungles,
Jun 28, 11:55pm
I am certainly not embarrassed, on the contrary, it proves the safety issue is largely non existent as I have stated all along. I fail to see the relevance of red and blue flashing lights, Tints are only a "safety issue" when its a private car with people in the back.
sandypheet,
Jun 29, 6:59am
There is no where in the virm that says those silly little stickers are acceptable proof the tints are compliant.
sandypheet,
Jun 29, 7:00am
They are vans.
Since the public registrations are closed, you must have an invite from a current member to be able to register and post in this thread.
Have an account? Login here.