Notices
Regional - Great Lakes IL, IN, OH, MI, WI

window tint update?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Apr 13, 2009 | 02:56 PM
  #1  
GQQSE13's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
10 Year Member

5 Year Member
SL Member
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,942
From: Decatur, IL
Default window tint update?

anyone heard anymore update on the bill that the house passed regarding front window tint?
Old Apr 13, 2009 | 03:15 PM
  #2  
burstaneurysm's Avatar
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
Fail, INC
SL Member
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,312
From: Forest Park, IL
Default

???
Old Apr 13, 2009 | 03:17 PM
  #3  
bigBOAT's Avatar
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 476
Default

what is it your talking about ! please let me hear its now legal!!!!!!
Old Apr 13, 2009 | 03:19 PM
  #4  
Yo_Br0ski's Avatar
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
 
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 542
From: Pittsburgh, PA
Default

is this for all states or just the state that you live in?
Old Apr 13, 2009 | 03:22 PM
  #5  
bigBOAT's Avatar
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 476
Default

im hopeing at least ill!
Old Apr 13, 2009 | 04:21 PM
  #6  
burstaneurysm's Avatar
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
Fail, INC
SL Member
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,312
From: Forest Park, IL
Default

It's pretty much the opposite of that.
Originally Posted by Illinois House Bill #4327
Synopsis As Introduced
Amends the Illinois Vehicle Code. Provides that a person may not install or repair any sign, poster, window application, reflective material, nonreflective material, or tinted film upon the front windshield, sidewings or side windows immediately adjacent to each side of the driver. Provides that a first violation is a petty offense with a fine between $50 and $500, and a second or subsequent offense is a Class C misdemeanor with a fine between $100 and $500. Provides that an installer may install window treatment for who is legally permitted, due to medical reasons, to drive with window treatment that would otherwise be !llegal and provides that the installer must obtain and store a copy of a doctor's certificate or letter from the person with medical condition in the installer's permanent records. Provides that the Secretary of State shall provide a notice of the requirements of a provision prohibiting driving a motor vehicle with any sign, poster, window application, reflective material, nonreflective material, or tinted film upon the front windshield, sidewings or side windows immediately adjacent to each side of the driver, unless an exception applies, to a new resident applying for vehicle registration.
Old Apr 13, 2009 | 04:27 PM
  #7  
burstaneurysm's Avatar
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
Fail, INC
SL Member
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,312
From: Forest Park, IL
Default

I just found another bill, slightly more recent than the above that would allow two options. Either 50% Front/ 30% Rear, or 38% all around. Can't find a bill number on that though.
Old Apr 13, 2009 | 04:31 PM
  #8  
madscionce's Avatar
Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 75
Default

the bill simply states this; it is legal to have your fronts tinted with a doctors certified note stating you need them for medical purposes. the installer must keep a copy of this drs note also.
it does not allow ANYONE to have tinted windows. it is still illegal.
Old Apr 13, 2009 | 04:43 PM
  #9  
bigBOAT's Avatar
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 476
Default

dang! so does any one know a good doctor
Old Apr 13, 2009 | 04:55 PM
  #10  
burstaneurysm's Avatar
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
Fail, INC
SL Member
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,312
From: Forest Park, IL
Default

Actually, no. That's the law as it stands. This bill is set to amend the previous law. As far as I can tell, this amendment does not include any preexisting ailment clause. The purpose of the bill is to reduce greenhouse gases from people running AC. Also for more significant UV protection.

The full text is available here:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/full...ID=10&Session=
Old Apr 13, 2009 | 05:11 PM
  #11  
burstaneurysm's Avatar
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
Fail, INC
SL Member
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,312
From: Forest Park, IL
Default

Originally Posted by HB3325
Paragraph 'a'
No person shall drive a motor vehicle with any sign,
poster, window application, reflective material, nonreflective
material or tinted film upon the front windshield, sidewings or
side windows immediately adjacent to each side of the driver,
except as provided in this subsection and subsections (a-5),
(a-7), and (a-9) of this Section.

(a-5)
A nonreflective tinted film that does not allow less
than 50% light transmittance, with a 5% variance observed by
any law enforcement official metering the light transmittance,
may be used on the side windows immediately adjacent to each
side of the driver. This subsection does not apply to the front
windshield. This subsection does not apply to any motor
vehicle, except as provided for in subsection (a-9) of this
Section, that has one or more windows to the rear of the
driver's seat treated in a manner described by subsection (b)
of this Section that allows less than 30% light transmittance.

(a-7)
A nonreflective tinted film that does not allow less
than 35% light transmittance, with a 5% variance observed by
any law enforcement official metering the light transmittance,
may be used on the side windows immediately adjacent to each
side of the driver. This subsection does not apply to the front
windshield. This subsection does not apply to any motor vehicle
that has one or more windows to the rear of the driver's seat
treated in a manner described by subsection (b) of this Section
that allows less than 35% light transmittance.

(a-9)
A nonreflective tinted film that does not allow less
than 50% light transmittance, with a 5% variance observed by
any law enforcement official metering the light transmittance,
may be used on the side windows immediately adjacent to each
side of the driver in any multipurpose passenger vehicle, as
defined by Section 1-148.3b of this Code. This Section does not
apply to any multipurpose passenger vehicle which has tinting
other than the tinting originally applied by the manufacturer.

Paragraph 'b'
Nothing contained in this Section shall prohibit the
use of nonreflective, smoked or tinted glass, nonreflective
film, perforated window screen or other decorative window
application on windows to the rear of the driver's seat, except
that any motor vehicle with a window to the rear of the
driver's seat treated in this manner shall be equipped with a
side mirror on each side of the motor vehicle which are in
conformance with Section 12-502.

Paragraph 'g'
Paragraph (a) of this Section shall not apply to any
motor vehicle with a window treatment, including but not
limited to a window application, reflective material,
nonreflective material, or tinted film, applied or affixed to a
motor vehicle that:
(1) is owned and operated by a person afflicted with or
suffering from a medical illness, ailment, or disease,
including but not limited to systemic or discoid lupus
erythematosus, disseminated superficial actinic
porokeratosis, or albinism, which would require that
person to be shielded from the direct rays of the sun; or
(2) is used in transporting a person when the person
resides at the same address as the registered owner of the
vehicle and the person is afflicted with or suffering from
a medical illness, ailment or disease which would require
the person to be shielded from the direct rays of the sun,
including but not limited to systemic or discoid lupus
erythematosus, disseminated superficial actinic
porokeratosis, or albinism.
Okay, so there's a lot there, but basically it offers a three tiered law that allows anyone to follow the tint laws as laid out in a-5, a-7 and a-9. The following paragraph, 'g' excludes those with the specific medical conditions from the restrictions laid out in paragraph 'a'... presumably meaning that tint can be darker if deemed necessary by a physician with all of the appropriate paperwork filed with the State. Make sense?

This amendment passed the house last week with a unanimous vote (117-0)
The senate reconvenes on April 21st. It will probably see another revision, but who knows, this might go somewhere.
Old Apr 13, 2009 | 05:37 PM
  #12  
madscionce's Avatar
Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 75
Default

ian
do you know if this has even passed yet?
Old Apr 13, 2009 | 05:50 PM
  #13  
burstaneurysm's Avatar
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
Fail, INC
SL Member
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,312
From: Forest Park, IL
Default

It passed the house. It'll go to the state senate when they next meet, on April 21st. It's got quite a few backers (including sponsors from the IL State Police).

I'd be more than happy with 35% all around. The back glass sits at approximately 33%, so pop 35% on the front and call it a day.

I'd expect a few alterations to be made when it goes to the senate... then, of course, Quinn would need to approve it.
Old Apr 13, 2009 | 06:05 PM
  #14  
theunclesam's Avatar
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
 
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 596
From: Streamwood, IL
Default

35% all around is nice. The law in TN is this way.
Old Apr 13, 2009 | 06:09 PM
  #15  
brownfaux's Avatar
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
Utah Scions
SL Member
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 362
Default

in utah we are at 43%. 35% would be much better.
Old Apr 13, 2009 | 06:35 PM
  #16  
GQQSE13's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
10 Year Member

5 Year Member
SL Member
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,942
From: Decatur, IL
Default

Originally Posted by burstaneurysm
It passed the house. It'll go to the state senate when they next meet, on April 21st. It's got quite a few backers (including sponsors from the IL State Police).

I'd be more than happy with 35% all around. The back glass sits at approximately 33%, so pop 35% on the front and call it a day.

I'd expect a few alterations to be made when it goes to the senate... then, of course, Quinn would need to approve it.
oh ok i wasn't sure if it had went to senate. sucks cuz i'll have to strip my back 3 of 3% but it'll look better with 35% all around. thanks for the update!

now if only we could get rid of front plates to save on costs of manufacturing plates lol
Old Apr 13, 2009 | 07:40 PM
  #17  
o8tC's Avatar
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
 
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,131
From: Haterville aka Chicago
Default

35% all around would be awesome!

i had 20% all around and got 8 tickets in 1 year so i took them off....hopefully it passes so i can get tints again. i hate all the glare during the day.

keep us updated! and thanks for the info!
Old Apr 13, 2009 | 10:34 PM
  #18  
MasKeo13's Avatar
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
Team Echo
SL Member
 
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 101
Default

interesting.....watching.
Old Apr 13, 2009 | 11:32 PM
  #19  
Need4Bass05's Avatar
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
Scikotics
SL Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,396
From: Central Illinois
Default

I vote to allow tint and to remove front plates as well. Save on material cost!
Old Apr 21, 2009 | 05:13 PM
  #20  
burstaneurysm's Avatar
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
Fail, INC
SL Member
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,312
From: Forest Park, IL
Default

Follow the status of HB3325 here:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/bill...0&SessionID=76



All times are GMT. The time now is 08:36 PM.