The window tinting debate

[human909]

Each to their own really, but I disagree with a few things said here.

if you want to know what a driver is doing, looking at them is pointless.

Looking for eye contact is a fairly dubious technique IMHO. Even if the windows are not tinted, the reflections off a closed window often preclude a good eye contact until it's too late, and some drivers will look at you and still go through.

I whole heartedly disagree here. When the road is clear apart from me and I don't see a driver make eye contact I will not proceed assuming the car has seen me. This has saved me SEVERAL TIMES from an collision one time the incident resulted in my riding partner colliding with the car as she did not brake while I did (I did let her know).

The fact that this has directly saved me from significant injury suggests it is not pointless.

3. Do not ease pedalling or coast at all - your continued pedal action is a de facto signal to the driver that you are proceeding; to coast suggests you are braking.

I don't do this unless I'm already going slowly. Generally if I'm concerned I will raise myself in the saddle to make myself more visible and stare intently at the driver I find this causes them to pause. It also puts me in a better position for evasive action and emergency braking. The last position I want to be in is sitting and still pedalling as reduces your ability for quick manoeuvring of the bike.

[zero]

I don't do this unless I'm already going slowly. Generally if I'm concerned I will raise myself in the saddle to make myself more visible and stare intently at the driver I find this causes them to pause. It also puts me in a better position for evasive action and emergency braking. The last position I want to be in is sitting and still pedalling as reduces your ability for quick manoeuvring of the bike.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqRvqw4Y ... re=related" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Standing is only helpful when the surface is broken imo - for a smooth surface it doesn't help at all. Counter steering doesn't care whether you are standing, and may in fact not work as well.

Dodging is only really a useful strategy for out-of-nowhere events like a 'roo jumping on the road or for another vehicle that has fully lost control. For a formal intersection (ie a marked conflict zone), anything other than covering the brakes and being prepared to stop is poor practice at best. Soft pedaling is a useful reminder for some road users but imo simply being wide and away from the "I'm making a left turn spot", is the most effective body language thing you can do.

[human909]

Standing is only helpful when the surface is broken imo - for a smooth surface it doesn't help at all. Counter steering doesn't care whether you are standing, and may in fact not work as well.

Simply untrue for quick maneuverability. Comparing it to a motor cycle is not at all valid as they are significantly heavier. Bicycles a light and can be thrown around much easier than a motorcycle, counter steering doesn't play nearly as an important role. Sure for planned turns I would always stay seated such as for tight mountain turns. However if the situation may call for sudden movements then standing is better.

Dodging is only really a useful strategy for out-of-nowhere events like a 'roo jumping on the road or for another vehicle that has fully lost control. For a formal intersection (ie a marked conflict zone), anything other than covering the brakes and being prepared to stop is poor practice at best.

Again simply absurd. In some emergencies braking may not stop you in time whereas a swerve away may lead to no collision. Though I would agree that the vast majority of the time braking is the best option. I cover the brakes almost at all intersections so I didn't feel the need to comment on that obvious precaution.

Also what I didn't mention is that if I'm in a collision (which thankfully I've never have), I'd much rather be standing. I've had several falls off my bike including one OTB where I've landed on my feet uninjured. That is much easier to do if you are already standing.

[DentedHead]

Wow. It amazes me that any sane person would suggest that observing useful info is a bad idea. Seeing a driver's head pointed at me does not mean he's seen me, but observing the same driver talking to passenger, texting, watching for a gap in oncoming traffic etc is an big indicator they have NOT seen me. This is valuable info, and I feel denying that is crazy. I have tint on my car, as I bought it 2nd hand with tint already on, but my wife's car has none, and I find the temperature difference negligible (hot day = hot car, tint or not).


Dent.

[zero]

Simply untrue for quick maneuverability. Comparing it to a motor cycle is not at all valid as they are significantly heavier. Bicycles a light and can be thrown around much easier than a motorcycle, counter steering doesn't play nearly as an important role. Sure for planned turns I would always stay seated such as for tight mountain turns. However if the situation may call for sudden movements then standing is better.

If you stand up - you increase the distance your mass has to go through to effect a lean - which then reduces the speed at which you gain lean (which affects the speed that you gain rate of turn). For the axis that you need to pivot on to lean, you increase the polar moment by standing up - which is one reason why trackstands are easier standing.

If you lean outside of the bike yourself, the bike pivots on the bottom of the tires, and leans the other way (and further than you go because its lighter - such is newtons third law - its not actually helpful). its not until you counter steer the bottoms of the front tire out from under the CoG that the bike will do much in the way of leaning in a useful direction. ie there is no advantage to standing up in terms of causing the bike to turn by trying to hang off it from a standing position, in fact it turns more slowly.

Dodging is only really a useful strategy for out-of-nowhere events like a 'roo jumping on the road or for another vehicle that has fully lost control. For a formal intersection (ie a marked conflict zone), anything other than covering the brakes and being prepared to stop is poor practice at best.

Again simply absurd. In some emergencies braking may not stop you in time whereas a swerve away may lead to no collision. Though I would agree that the vast majority of the time braking is the best option. I cover the brakes almost at all intersections so I didn't feel the need to comment on that obvious precaution.

This is the kind of circumstance that causes me to dodge, and to be honest, its only ever vehicles from behind that cause me to dodge.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24dgLRAL ... re=youtu.b" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The truck from behind qualifies as out of ****ing control.

For urban intersections I'd rather simply keep control of my entrance to the conflicting course zone, so that I don't need to dodge, and by and large that is a very successful strategy that has lead to years of not having accidents, particularly with people who are crossing my course (and thus who have the ability to hurt a lot). The very last time I dodged an intersection event (this was long time ago mind you), I got stuck on the kerb seam and my bar hit a signpost. In the 1 second between dodging and thinking this was maybe not the best idea I'd gone 8 metres, had no idea about surface and effectively lost control. I could honestly have chosen to brake 5 seconds before all that.

Also what I didn't mention is that if I'm in a collision (which thankfully I've never have), I'd much rather be standing. I've had several falls off my bike including one OTB where I've landed on my feet uninjured. That is much easier to do if you are already standing.

I'm clipped in, if I've got enough time to unclip, then I had enough time to brake.

[human909]

If you stand up - you increase the distance your mass has to go through to effect a lean - which then reduces the speed at which you gain lean (which affects the speed that you gain rate of turn). For the axis that you need to pivot on to lean, you increase the polar moment by standing up - which is one reason why trackstands are easier standing.

If you lean outside of the bike yourself, the bike pivots on the bottom of the tires, and leans the other way (and further than you go because its lighter - such is newtons third law - its not actually helpful). its not until you counter steer the bottoms of the front tire out from under the CoG that the bike will do much in the way of leaning in a useful direction. ie there is no advantage to standing up in terms of causing the bike to turn by trying to hang off it from a standing position, in fact it turns more slowly.

I can't adequately argue with that. Your analysis makes senses. (In fact I had already pondered about that same stuff.)

My real world experience suggests differently though so I might get on the bike an have a play. But for now, I'd give win on the debate to you.
EDIT:
Having been for a short ride this morning. I admit that I am wrong. I still will be standing in areas of increased conflict but quicker turns isn't a good reason.

For urban intersections I'd rather simply keep control of my entrance to the conflicting course zone, so that I don't need to dodge, and by and large that is a very successful strategy that has lead to years of not having accidents, particularly with people who are crossing my course (and thus who have the ability to hurt a lot).

I do agree that intending dodge is generally not the best strategy. In fact I can't remember ever having to take such significant evasive action on the bike.

I'm clipped in, if I've got enough time to unclip, then I had enough time to brake.

It's not about unclipping it simply a better position to be in should the worst happen. As said numerous times slowing is normally the best defence against incidents. Either way standing has certainly worked for me. It gets me noticed. I've NEVER had any incidents so I believe I am doing something right.

[InTheWoods]

ensure that the photo is exposed for the *non*-tinted part of the image to avoid blowing it out. This will give you a relative difference between tinted vs non tinted, but not an absolute measurement of how much light is available.

I got tinting on our new car and a couple of different T35 type tints gave different amounts of light transmission to my eyes.

ps. I'm a fairly serious photographer.

Any chance of you posting some photos of this, taken as you described?

Sorry its taken so long but here it is. The sun was not out when I took this.

[jaffaman]

I recently bought a new car and the dealer offered T35 film tinting on it. I declined - will probably add a clear UV/heat only film sometime. What is interesting is that the car comes with factory fitted glass that has a built in tint - making it T72 or so out of the factory.

Applying T35 to that actually reduces total transmission to about 25%. To get a legal tint on cars with tinted glass (which seems to be most cars these days) you can only apply a T50 film, which you can get but is hard to find.

What amazed me was a major car dealer didn't believe me when I mentioned that T35 tint film was too much for the car to stay legal and insisted that the law allowed a T35 tint to be applied.

Clearly no understanding of the physics involved. From my recent shopping it is clear that there are very few cars sold with no tinting and 100% light transmittance. And yet nearly all tint films available and used are T35.

I wonder how many cars on the road are actually over tinted and how often this is actually picked up?

[jules21]

I wonder how many cars on the road are actually over tinted and how often this is actually picked up?

cops have measuring tools but obviously they're not standard issue that get hooked up to their belt.

you're absolutely correct about the compounding effect of tinting. does it surprise you car dealers don't know (or don't want to know)?

[KenGS]

A position paper from The Institute of Transportation Engineers Australia and New Zealand Section (ITEANZ)
http://www.ite.org.au/public/editor_ima ... sition.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ITEANZ has developed a position on motor vehicle window tinting. Basically we are saying the industry has gone too far and is compromising road safety. We are asking the Ministers for Roads or Transport to review the current regulations which allow too much tinting. If you are interested in this subject you can read our Positon Paper

[g-boaf]

So far comparisons are being made with the British and European experience, where cars are usually not legally permitted the use of tints less than T70 on the front side windows. Remember too that German and French cars come equipped from the factory with tinted door mirror glass and - quite strongly - blue tinted front windscreens. The fact that they are spec'd as standard with various tints, allowing them to sideskirt ADR's. alot of European cars also avoid being pinged for less than 100mm minimum ground clearance in the same way. Take a look at the next newer Peugeot you spot on the road.
Another argument being used is that in some US states, dark tints are banned for the safety of police officers after incidents of more than a few being shot through glass due to not being able to see inside.

Not quite sure of those claims, Womble 2. ALL cars imported into Australia have to meet ALL the relevant Australian Design Rules otherwise they dobn't get in. I had a look at a lot of new Peugeots recently. Didn't see one with less than 100mm ground clearance. Do you realise that racing V8 Supercars have almost 100mm ground clearance? I doubt there are any stock road cars that would be that low, including the likes of Porsche 911.

I was in Europe last week. Drove Audi, Mercedes-Benz and VW product and did not encounter one with any blue tinting on any glass.

Mclaren P1 has a very low ride height in stock standard form. It may be even lower than a V8 supercar (and it is certainly much faster). It goes down to 50mm from various ride heights that are higher than that in its various driving modes.

Ferrari 430 Scuderia is also low. It is legal here.

One annoying thing with tinting is you can never see if the driver has seen you. You can also talk on the phone while driving being seen easily. It's a problem with "Protection" and "Guard" versions of common German cars that you can now commonly see in Sydney.

[AUbicycles]

Thanks for posting that link to the Institute of transportation engineers Australia & New Zealand section inc. Paper.

I was contacted however don't really know what to do with - sure it is a topic but there are other topics that are of more significance with regard to cyclists.

[jules21]

I was contacted however don't really know what to do with - sure it is a topic but there are other topics that are of more significance with regard to cyclists.

i agree