damhooligan wrote:The t35 window in the pic, does not look concernng to me at all.
This is because that photo is one of the dodgiest excuses for "evidence" that I have ever seen! Whoever included that photo as an example of window tinting is either deliberately attempting to deceive people, or doesn't know enough about light, cameras and human eyes to be able to make any sort of constructive argument on this issue.
my detailed explanation, skip this section for TLDR wrote:A camera has only a limited range of brightness that it can record (known as its "dynamic range") and each photo has to have the exposure controlled so that the useful detail is within that range. Anything brighter than this range will saturate the sensor and will appear pure white (doesn't matter if it's 1% or 1000% outside the range, it will appear white in the photo). When you take a photo with a digital camera (all models from crappy phone cameras right up to SLRs) the processor in the camera tries to work out what part of the image you are interested in, and adjusts the exposure (aperture, ISO value and shutter speed) to keep that area of the photo in the middle of the dynamic range (so you can see the detail you intended to photograph). In the event that you have a huge range (eg, shadows vs. bright sky) then the camera cannot get the whole photo correctly exposed and will choose (in this case) the shadowy detail, which causes the sky to saturate.
Looking at the colours displayed in my browser, the colours saturated to 255,255,253 (R,G,B) in the bright area with tinting... They have *exactly* the same value in the bright area without tinting. In other words, there is absolutely no difference in the brightness of the white between the two parts of the photo that we are supposed to be comparing (so don't even bother trying to pick a difference). Note that the slightly lower blue value is probably a technical limitation in the camera.
This works in a very similar way for our eyes... The iris will open and close to adjust the amount of light that enters in response to the brightness of what we are looking at, so simple comparisons where a passenger looks out a tinted window are pretty meaningless as their eyes have adjusted. A much better comparison would be to look out the untinted windscreen and either quickly glance or try to spot something out the corner of your eye through a side window. This is also a much more realistic comparison to when a driver needs to see something important.
The only meaningful comparison I get out of this photo is by looking at the right hand side where you can see some trees near the ground with no sky backlighting them. You will notice that the untinted section has much more detail showing than the tinted section. (You may have to save the image to your PC and then open it, as the forum crops the right hand side off when I view it)
The 2nd Womble wrote:Additionally, with regard to the argument that tinting prevents other road users from being able to guage the intentions of motorists we think is by and large an invalid point.
We argue that second guessing other road users is at best a perilous passtime and at worst, a tragedy waiting to happen.
I completely disagree with this, and now have a very low opinion of whoever this "SCA" is!!! I look at other drivers all the time, and sometimes you need to be more careful because you can see that they're not paying attention. This is not "second guessing", in fact it reduces the need to second guess.
A few weeks ago I was driving, and saw a car about to pull out from a side street. It was obvious from quite a distance that the driver was focussed on a break in cars coming the opposite way and there wasn't the expected double-check head movement in my direction. I slowed down and sure enough they started to pull out right in front of me. I hit the horn and the brakes and we both stopped without any collision. Had I not been able to see the other driver I wouldn't have slowed down and there *would* have been an accident. I cannot see any possible way It could have been avoided.
Now, that was as a driver... As a cyclist I am doubly keen to see whether drivers are looking at me (yes, some pull out anyway, but the ones that *keep* looking at you are giving you feedback that they have seen you). I *hate* heavily tinted windows as you have no idea what they're thinking, you can't tell if they're using their phone, if they've turned around to yell at kids in the back, if they never even looked in the first place, if they're waving for you to go ahead, or anything like that. I like clear, or minimally tinted, windows as you get quite a lot of feedback with a significant positive impact on safety and you aren't left second guessing what's going on in the car... As someone said "second guessing other road users is at best a perilous passtime and at worst, a tragedy waiting to happen." so let's reduce that horrible second guessing by not tinting too much!
The 2nd Womble wrote:We are of the firm belief that even the most skilled and experienced drivers, motor bike riders and cyclists can and do make mistakes. You cannot rely on all going according to plan without incident.
Exactly, so why block visibility? It just removes another way we can see things coming and reduce the impact of those mistakes (see my example above where the other driver failed to look). This has to be one of the stupidest arguments I have ever seen.
damhooligan wrote:and at what t factor is affecting the drivers vieuw ??
Any amount will affect a driver's view, even the simple untinted glass in the window will have a negative effect.
The question is at what point will the effect become intolerable (which is a hugely subjective term, but you will never get any definitive answer where human eyesight or behaviour is concerned).
There are five critical points that I have on this issue...
1) Tinted side windows significantly reduce peripheral vision when looking through an untinted windscreen as your eyes have adjusted for the bright forward view.
2) Reduced light reduces the ability to perceive motion. This is particularly notable in peripheral vision.
3) What may be safe for one person may not be safe for another. What will happen if someone borrows the car? Will they check? One positive thing about Australian laws are that a heap of safety issues can be taken for granted because of a requirement to meet certain standards.
4) Some people believe that complying with the law means "safe"... In other words if the law says that T35 is OK, then it must be safe for them. This phenomenon can often be seen in adverse conditions in relation to speed limits.
5) Some people just don't care and we need a hard-and-fast rule that can be enforced. (we can't have a rule saying that a tint must be at a "safe level" as it will get abused and there will be no recourse)
Points 1 and 2 are of particular concern to cyclists who are often the vulnerable small moving object in someone's tinted peripheral vision. What do you think higher tint levels will do to the SMIDSY rate?
2nd Womble... Can you give some more information as to the source of your original post? Was it the TAC or a vulnerable road user group? And if the latter, which one?