Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Vehicle Safety Window Tint topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears safety, enforcement concerns as bill would allow 30% window tint
Summary
Vermont State Police told the House Transportation Committee that a proposal in S.123 to authorize 30% window tint raises operational safety concerns, enforcement challenges and equipment costs, and that outreach and data collection might be better handled by highway-safety offices than by troopers.
Lieutenant Paul Raval of the Vermont State Police told the House Transportation Committee on April 30 that the S.123 miscellaneous motor-vehicles bill’s proposed 30% allowable window tint would create enforcement and safety trade-offs for police and inspection stations.
The testimony focused on three problems, Raval said: (1) safety for drivers and officers when very dark tint limits visibility, (2) the cost and calibration burden of devices needed to measure tint reliably in court, and (3) inconsistent results when inspection stations warn drivers but do not fail vehicles for tint while police issue citations later.
Raval, executive officer of the State Police special operations unit, described tint as an “operational safety issue” even if not a mechanical defect. “If you have a certain level of window tint, you have to roll your window down to see,” he said, adding that officers have stopped vehicles where the driver told them they needed to roll the window down to be visible. He said that makes vehicle stops longer and can increase officer exposure during traffic stops.
Raval told the committee that law enforcement uses handheld tint meters to measure visible light transmission, and that a reliable, calibrated meter costs roughly $150 to $250 each. “For state police alone, for us to buy a reliable tint meter system, it's somewhere between 150 to $250 per meter for 200 troopers. So we're looking at 40 to $50,000,” he said, noting that annual calibration and training add ongoing cost.
Beyond equipment cost, Raval said the state faces a fairness and consistency problem: inspection stations issue safety stickers after mechanical inspections but are not intended to fail vehicles for non-mechanical issues. Under current practice, some inspection paperwork warns drivers that tint may violate Title 23 even if the vehicle passed inspection; drivers then “roll the dice” and sometimes receive tickets after leaving the station. “How can we say you’re good to go, but you’re not good to go?” he asked.
Raval said the committee previously settled on a 30% visible light transmission (VLT) threshold (often described as “30% tint” or “70% of light transmitted”) as a compromise but warned that proving a violation in court will require reliable meters and uniform procedures. “If it turned out it cannot be, this person's tried 4 or 5 days maybe to find a station that has one and someone's there,” he said of proposed centralized testing at barracks, and he cautioned that many rural barracks are lightly staffed.
Committee members raised alternatives and equity questions. Representative Holland said she was surprised by how much tint can reduce visibility at dusk; Representative McCoy demonstrated that most aftermarket window film can be peeled off, and other members suggested limiting allowable tint to factory-installed levels only. Representative Casey and others questioned who should pay for equipment and calibration and noted the Department of Public Safety’s limited outreach capacity.
Raval suggested that if the Legislature adopts an acceptable VLT level, the Vermont Highway Safety Office or Department of Motor Vehicles might be better placed to lead public education and the required reporting than the State Police, which are organized for enforcement rather than statewide education campaigns. He also repeated that reverting to a strict ban would be the simplest enforcement approach: “When it was just illegal altogether... I don't need a tint meter. I'm not delaying you any longer on the side of the road long enough to write you a ticket,” he said.
No formal action or vote on S.123 occurred during the hearing; the committee moved on to other amendments after discussion.
The committee heard cost and enforcement trade-offs that lawmakers will have to weigh if they accept a statutory VLT limit and create new compliance, testing and outreach responsibilities.
Ending: The committee took no vote on S.123 at the hearing and moved to consider a separate amendment on bicycle rules. Raval said the highway-safety office or DMV could lead outreach and reporting if the committee sets a VLT standard in statute.
