The limit in Minnesota is 50%. (+or-3%) The question is: Is it the film that is allowed to be 50% or the net effect with the glass combined. All glass has some degree of tint. Even the clear film I pull off the tint before I install it has tint. Where the biggest problem comes into play is how do the police know what it is. They do that by using a meter. The meter checks the combined effect. The law does not clearly state wether or not it's a net effect or film. So that is probably why they added a line into the law that says the installer must place a light transmittance of the film label on it. All that said, I believe there is confusion brought on by the way the law has been written in the past(well before 85), and the way the police are enforcing it(onset of the common light meter in most squad cars). read this table....it says alot. It is not my website, nor is it a Minnesota State website. It is a 3rd party. http://www.solargard.com/Assets/PDFs/Performance/StateTint Law Chart 9-18-07.pdf This link is Minnesota State law. https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=169.71 Note the confusing laguage. I believe they need to revise it and add more darkness allowable. To say darker than 50% is bad or too dark is to say all the other states are dumb or wrong. It has to state "net", or "combined effect" or something like that. What we need to do as a group is pressure the legilasture to fix it and get rid of the ridiculous tickets. Texas, traditionally a "dark" tint allowing state changed the law somewhere in the 90's to say 35% net from 35% film because of the light meter phenom. Now they are in the transition phase to allow what is typical with a 35% film install(about 28% net) because 35% net was too light. Alot of states (if not most)allow any darkness behind the driver. Minnesota does not, unless you fit their description of a van. That is a vehicle of boxlike design with no barrier or separation of the cargo compartment and passenger compartment. Most people will say that dark tint is needed in hot temperature states, but not Minnesota. That's if you ignore the glare portion of it's benefits. Minnesota has a glare problem in the winter, does it not? Snow/ice on the ground, bright sunny days and the sun low on the horizon all day! A Leading cause of accidents after alcohol is glare! The general public should be allowed to protect themselves from that, too! I believe we should allow a 35% film install whch is about 28% net, and 10% net on the rear if not any film you want allowed. Maybe we could start a petition to get such a law revised. Anyone else interested?
YES I AM INTERESTED!!! Or at least if they could change they law in Eden Prairie, they are the only cops who seem to care!
I support darker tint. What's the point of not allowing darker tint? Officer safety? Cause that's the only benefit that comes to mind. Problem is, whenever I get pulled over, I get bathed in incredibly bright light that cuts straight through even my really, really dark (like 15% or something) rear window tint. So, why require lighter tint?
Yes those lights get right through. That's why they have 'em! Check this glare killer link http://www.sunposition.com/GlaringDanger.html
South Dakota allows 35% net on front sides, 20% net on rear windows. Montana does, too. Wyoming allows 28% net on the sides, anything goes on the rear. They are just as far north as we are. North Dakota allows 50% front sides, anything on the rear. That demonstrates that we are quite concervative when it comes to the tint rule. Washington state, who is politcally the same as us, attitudinally and lattitudinally the same as us allows 35%film and anything on the rear of all vehicles. That's because it's safe.
Just a word of advice. Nobody cares about internet petitions. Not a single one has accomplished anything that I know of. They are kind of a joke. If you want to do a petition, you are better off getting the signatures in person in writing. People, especially politicians, take those more seriously because they have hand written names and addresses that can be verified if necessary. Internet petitions can be signed and re-signed over and over if someone wants to.
I had 35% added to my windows, all around. I'd say that is just right, for me that it. 50% lets in to much light for my taste. I wouldn't mind getting my entire front windshield done with 50 though!
I'm not sure how you know this, but I know your screen name. I do trust this and it makes sense. I'll have to print out what I have written and bring it to some of these meets.
The reason it works, some of the internet petitions don't check for duplicate IPs. As long as the info doesn't come up twice, it's ok...and even that is ok some times. Other times, people can go through proxies and spoof the IP address they are signing from. It just isn't a trustworthy way of polling the public. Too many ways to fool the system to make it look like there are TONS of signatures. Also, go look over the signatures on an online petition. About 1/4 of the signors look like bogus accounts or joke names.
Hey Readymix, would you be willing to get signatures at the meets or know someone who would? I would be happy to maintain the records if I could just get someone to be at the meets and collect them. I can't usually make the meets. Little known fact: the average Mom's caravan that is tinted on the rear is at about 19-20%. To get that dark on your own car would take darker than 35, but about 23% addition to your glass. They use 19, or 20 because it is a reasonable amout for all around driving, day or night. In the 1980's the Chevy Suburban came with 5% on the rear and was called privacy tint. They have since backed off of that amount because of night time driving, now they use a reasonable amount for the average person....20% on the rear. Keep in mind if you add 20% to the factory 70-75 you would get about 15%. So all you guys who have or have seen "20%" added to a car....it measures 15% or even lower.
here you go guys. Cut and paste. It'll take you just a few minutes. The link is for Tim's email in the state of mn. http://www.emailyourgovernor.com/minnesota-governor-tim-pawlenty.html This petition is for the review of the current window tinting law for automobiles in Minnesota. Minnesota law needs to be reviewed by the lawmakers of Minnesota. It is currently at 50% + or – 3 %. Part of the need for review is that Minnesota is vague in the wording whether or not you can have 50% + or – 3 film applied, which is extremely light, or a 50% net or combined effect with the glass. What is happening in the field is that police want to know how dark the windows are. They then measure the window with a light meter. That gives you a “net” effect reading. Logic would tell you that the law was pertaining to a net effect. However, it does not clearly state that. Most states, with the exception of 2(Minnesota is 1), clearly state net effect or film. Minnesota law, when read sounds like it is describing a film that will be applied to the glass must not be darker than 50% + or – 3%. Once the film is applied, you can no longer measure that, because you now will have a “net” effect measured. We’re splitting hairs here, but in the field = a ticket for a person who fundamentally isn’t breaking the law. Many people are being ticketed unnecessarily at a large expense for something that would be viewed as ridiculous in most states. 50% is way lighter than what is necessary to see in a vehicle. Many fatal accidents are the result of glare. We are destroying a complete industry within the state of Minnesota by having this law this light. If we were to go to a 50% net that would be the last nail in the coffin. Window tinting is a cottage industry worth hundreds of millions of dollars per year, thousands of jobs. It has many benefits for occupants that include: increased driving ability or vision in high glare driving situations(winter time sun reflecting off the snow and ice), reduced need for air conditioning in the summer, glass being held in one sheet in many types of accidents, rather than being strewn around the cabin. Millions of dollars are being left at the table in taxes of Business who make the revenue, employee tax from the people who do the jobs, and sales tax. So what should we do? Let’s look at what other states have done to compromise and develop their industry and general public benefit. Minnesota law is set to an unnecessary light limit. 50% is almost imperceptible and has little effect or benefit for the occupant thereby resulting in huge numbers of people across the state to opt into a medium tint and get a resulting ticket, even though it seems logical that they picked a tint you can see into. Most states at our northern latitude and temperature range have adopted a safe level of tint to be applied to the glass of an automobile. Most use some form of 35% interpretation (which is a light to medium tint). Washington state allows 35% film to be applied to the windows of cars in the front and any film that a person would want on the rear, without regard for vehicle type. Oregon has an almost similar law but they want a 35% net effect on their automobiles. Montana has a similar law, too, but they allow 35% film and a limit of 20% on the rear which is short of limo tint. South Dakota allows 35% net and 20% on the rear. Wyoming allows a 28% net effect for window tint (which is merely a 35% film applied to the glass combined with the typical factory tint at its federal maximum (typical on most GM cars that don’t actually look tinted like with a film). Kansas allows 35% net all the way around the vehicle. Missouri allows 35% on front windows and anything on the back windows. All of these states can’t be wrong. Some states allow nothing in the front, but limo tint on the rear. We are proposing a 35% film allowed in the front and any darkness on the rear windows. It is reasonable, safe and responsible solution and would spur on our local economy to some degree, and actually give a driver comfort that would help reduce accidents from glare and fatigue from heat. Most of all it would still allow for officer safety. August 21, 1991 the New York Times wrote a story about how a judge threw out a lawsuit alleging that 35% was blocking too much light. In fact the judge was quoted as saying that not only does it not block too much light, but it actually increases a driver’s ability by reducing glare.
One additional suggestion would be to have you draft a letter and compile a list of the state representatives from each district. You could direct people to printer off the letter, sign, and mail to their district rep. It may be antiquated, but physical mail still gets read by all of our representatives, and to get this law changed, you need a representative willing to write up the new law and champion it in congress.
here is a good place to send the petition to individually. They are asking the public how to bridge the budget shortfall. This is a good place to suggest opening the market for responsible tinting and creating jobs, and tax revenue! Here is a cut'n pasteable quick note for them: Relax our way too restrictive window tint law to open up the markets just like our niegboring states have. Minnesota has an EXREMELY light limt. If you can tell it's tinted, it's likely over the limit.The police have mounted a campaign against it lately and poeple are shying away from tint all together as a result. It is MORE THAN A BILLION DOLLAR A YEAR industry right now and we are electing to cut ourselves mostly out of it right now. Before you pass judgement on what I am suggesting, know that I am suggesting a limit that is reasonable, you can see in, and conforms to what most states in the norther tier of states do now. I am suggesting raising the limit to 35% film applied to the glass or 28% net effect, they are one in the same. And let the rear of ALL vehicles have darker film that that(like most soccer moms have on their van (20% film or darker) Here is a link to get you to all 50 states' laws on tint: http://www.solargard.com/Assets/PDFs/Performance/StateTint Law Chart 9-18-07.pdf This link gives you a look at a film and how it looks on a car with a 38% film applied to the glass giving it most likely a 30% net effect on the "tint meter" that police use. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/a...089&en=6eeb02e02feaf893&ex=1348200000&partner One last link, it is what a judge said about the application of 35% film and that it enhances your ability to drive by reducing glare(28% net effect). Glare is a deadly cause of many accidents. (Winter time driving on sunny days with glare off of the snow and ice) http://www.nytimes.com/1991/08/21/business/judge-backs-auto-tinters.html?fta=y ********************************************************************************************************* Send your note to: http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/budgetsuggestions.asp This is the link to the representatives and senator in Minnesota: http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hinfo/leginfo/elecdir08.pdf page 4 on this pdf is the alphadetical start of the representatives. page 22 is the alphabetical beginning for the senators. This link is for you to find out what district you're in: http://www.gis.leg.mn/mapserver/districts/
FYI.... from my understanding mini vans and trucks are under a different catagory then cars when it comes to window tints. That is what I herd from the dealer I got my car done at. I got 50% on all side windows and 35% on back window, should of gone with 35% all-round. O well.
Got clocked going 97 mph @ I35 just before Black Bear going north.. no ticket, just a warning. and, he checked my tint, he told me that legal is 50 front and I said do my back matter and he goes "no". Currently 20% all around, probly going to switch the front 2 to 50% though just incase. Honestly, AC doesn't't even keep cold air in the car with no tint it heats up right away and your stuck blowing more gas.
That's correct. Station wagons, too. Try and find an untinted back end of a Dodge Magnum.......It's hard but you can... Point is, wagons are in the same catagory as SUVs and trucks....No trunk is the key, it's a cargo area and of "Box like design". The more hatch back they look though like a ford probe for example puts it back in the passenegr car section. The more wagon like, the better for dark tint.
So a wrx hatch/impreza hatch is classfied as a wagon which is why my back 2 windows and very back wouldn't matter at all?
Thats what I would think.....hense that gray area. This just shows how f***** up our state laws are....
OP - Best of luck and thanks for your efforts. I've found that not driving like an arsehat is the best way to avoid tickets for illegal tint. Just sayin... This is just another reason to own a wagon, hatch, or Foz. Off to get the Reichwagen tinted tomorrow - 50% front sides, 35% all other windows, 5% unibrau, 5% moonroof all with tasteful reflectivity (WI plates!). I want to be baller, but not too baller.:ugh:
This technique worked very well for years. EP has upped the bar. Now if it looks more than barely tinted, you'll get checked,and if you're over, you'll get a ticket.
in michigan where i live and install tint we have weird tint laws NO tint on drivers and pass, front windows NONE! and as long as you have two side mirrors the other windows can be as dark as you would like,,, i.e in our shop crx we install black vynal on hatch and rear sides perfectly legal haha its a comp car 12 12" subs and 4000d and same on our van but u cant put any tint not 50% not 60% and they inforce it here!!! edit: you can have a 4" strip on the top of your drivers and pass front windows ahha looks like a$$
sounds like michigan has work to do like us.....but all you need to get added is adding something for the front windows. In a way, you're closer than us,but at the same time farther. Wisconsin was the same way untill a couple of years ago. Now they allow 50% net in front, 35 on the rear of passenger cars.
I am on the fence on this one. I really want them to change the law because I don't know if I want to tint my windows just because I don't want added police attention. I would like to not get pulled over for anything. Do people get pulled over alot? anyone got an idea for ticket prices?
I have 50% to avoid problems with the po-po, I believe the tint laws are for police saftey, but last I check criminal don't follow any laws.
I have been pulled over 1 time in 5 years. But this is the big year for tint tickets. Worst I've seen. Legal is my best suggestion if that is your concern. If you want more, and don't care about the possible hassels, well......that's up to you. It's like the gun law.....people who want to follow the law and are law abiding citizens have way more hassles than a criminal trying to get a gun and the ensuing police interest in you following the appropriate law. You'll never get rid of all the guns and if you do get rid of most of them, only criminals will have guns.....I'd rather take my chances with more law abiding citizens packin' heat. That way the criminals might think twice about pulling off a caper on some citizens.
yeah i am thinking just to skip the tint.... less attention to my car the better. i just think that it looks really cool, especially on a black car. oh well, i am going to hold off for now and if i want it maybe it will be a good x-mas present.
yeah it looks good but kicks you in the butt in the long run ive got 32% on a black wrx and get hassled now and then. only one ticket so far...
