368.13 works as well.

 

One can go through a long period thinking these laws are "bogus" but all it takes is one negative event to bring it to light .

If one is with driving with illegal tint in a Porsche all he has to do is have one accident with an injury and have the cop on the scene document the tint and he could face so many legal issues over something that he thought was a huge nothing.
Add to this .. that a judge would see all those fix it tickets to even further ruin is case.

I certainly didn't write the laws of "keeping the bad guys away" with dark tint . It was simply one of the many legislative factors in that state used that their argument to pass the law. Do I agree with it? Yeah I do. Not that it matters if I do or not because it's the law. (Petty thugs do make an effort to conceal their identity and they are within their rights to swear a hoodie and sunglasses at night BUTthery can't use illegal tint in California and I think the cops are right).

Usually it's the celebrities who complain . Someone like Lindsey Lohan ends up in jail over rolling her eyes at the details of the system .

You may not be a celebrty but you are driving a porsche and there is no judge or cop who will sympathize with repeat offenses no matter how minor they may seem to you .

The worst part of this ..is that such an effort is made for car vanity knowing these risks and consequences .

That's why I don't get it.

 

He would have to document those vision requirements with his insurance . If it was true his rates may climb. If it's false then it places him and even his physician in a legal bind. Especially if it comes to light after an accident.

 

No. You are incorrect.

The rules apply differently for each state. Federal HIPPA laws prohibit a physician from notifying an insurance company of a new diagnosis code unless authorized by a patient. He does not need to document anything with insurance. More importantly, how many patients are paying for services out of pocket these days? Do you really believe that a patient's insurance company is notified of every new diagnosis?

If a physician has evaluated him and offers him proper documentation, most states hold provisions to allow darker tints to be applied.

 

If you are able to have the ticket signed off as corrected and pay the fix it fee on time, it will not go down on any record.

 

It's not the physician who has to document the vision diagnosis and requirements --it's the insured . The onus is on him to notify his insurance company that he requires these special needs.

The only burden on the physician is that his evaluation is in fact accurate and truthful . That means when an accident injury attorney is ruining this guys case he may call in second and third opinions and so might the state if in fact the owner is charged with a vehicular crime.

all over tint.

 

I don't like tinted windows, or front license plates - though I use the latter.

There is no requirement for any patient to inform their insurance company of any pre-existing condition without a reason, in fact, it would be foolish to do so. Given this condition, the law would rely on a physician's evidence after an accident with no problem.

 

Completely wrong.

It is the physician who has to document the diagnosis. Unless a patient wants to, he/she has NO responsibility or legal obligation to inform his health insurance or auto insurance. Most states will allow application of darker tints with medical documentation. Period. Everything else you state is pure speculation and conjecture. Stick to the facts and what is written in legal statues.

I have no idea what the point is of your last paragraph.

 

A visually impaired person who doesn't notify his insurance company opens himself up for legal problems . They will still insure him. But that was not the topic of illegal tint.

Perhaps I am confused because this discussion somehow turned into medical visual disalbility and special needs .None of the members on this thread have even claimed to be visually disabled. So if they got a note from a physcian it simply needs to be accurate . If it isn't .. then that false claim would place accountability on both the physician and insured .

But that isn't the same topic as a normal vision driver deliberately using illegal tint and facing the consequences (whether its a simple fix it ticket or more serious legal issue).

 

His reason would be that he needs an exception to use illegal tint . That's a reason .

Another reason would be to cover himself because insurance companies don't like to pay and they do like to have the honest facts . They won't discriminate and even try to assist a truly disabled person . Californa is even heading in the direction of permitting blind drivers in the future. http://www.insure.com/car-insurance/...d-drivers.html

BUT --
ALL this is very different than a normal vision person defying the law.
Very different topics.

 

If there is a written record anywhere .. a judge can see it.

 

No. Exception for using darker tint is not an indicator to inform an insurance company. Please provide facts if you dispute this, and I will find the exact text in HIPPA regulations.

Speculation. Unsupported by any facts. If you would like to continue this discussion on factual basis, please provide some.

Allow me to cite MN's statute:

(1) have not been modified since the original installation, nor to original replacement windows and windshields, that were originally installed or replaced in conformance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 205;
(2) are required to satisfy prescription or medical needs of the driver of the vehicle or a passenger if:
(i) the driver or passenger is in possession of the prescription or a physician's statement of medical need;
(ii) the prescription or statement specifically states the minimum percentage that light transmittance may be reduced to satisfy the prescription or medical needs of the patient; and
(iii) the prescription or statement contains an expiration date, which must be no more than two years after the date the prescription or statement was issued; or
(3) are applied to:
(i) the rear windows of a pickup truck as defined in section 168.002, subdivision 26;
(ii) the rear windows or the side windows on either side behind the driver's seat of a van as defined in section 168.002, subdivision 40;
(iii) the side and rear windows of a vehicle used to transport human remains by a funeral establishment holding a license under section 149A.50;
(iv) the side and rear windows of a limousine as defined in section 168.002, subdivision 15; or
(v) the rear and side windows of a police vehicle.


And Wisconsin's

 

If you have a physician that has given you a diagnosis with the codes that I provided, most states will provide exceptions for darker tint applications with no penalties.

There is no legal need to inform your insurance company (medical or automotive.) It does not increase your liability. Federal laws restrict the sharing of information beyond your health care provider. Law suits, increased liability, fictitious or hypothetical "vehicular crimes" are nothing but speculation, which makes for interesting reading, but have no basis in fact. Neither diagnosis code falls under legal blindness or impaired use of a vehicle. To suggest otherwise is irresponsible.

 

Again --two different topics -even within your topic.

Original topic --healthy person using illegal tint.

Your topic --
1) Doctor writes a valid note for a visually impaired person -no problem
2) Doctor falsefies a note so driver can use illegal tint --big problem

BIG difference between those two.
None of the drivers claimed to have a visual disability ... BTW.

California http://www.mdsupport.org/library/dri...tml#California

from link -
California

Drivers must also pass a vision test and a written knowledge test upon license renewal if they appear in person to renew. Drivers age 70 and older may not renew by mail, so they must appear in person to renew their licenses every 5 years. The knowledge test is useful for determining the driver's mental competency, and cognitive and language skills. It can indicate when a person with dementia has deteriorating reading and comprehension skills as well as impaired cognitive and perceptual skills that may impact his or her ability to drive safely. The Department's visual acuity screening standard is 20/40 or better with both eyes together, and no worse than 20/70 in the poorer eye. Drivers who fail the vision screening are referred to a vision specialist who must examine the driver and complete a Report of Vision Examination. Drivers with visual acuity of 20/200 or worse may not be licensed to drive. Drivers may use bioptic telescopes for driving, but may not use them to meet the vision standard. Following review of the Report of Vision Examination, the driver may be scheduled for a Drive Test or Special Drive Test to determine whether the vision condition impairs the ability to drive or whether the driver can adequately compensate for the vision condition. The Guidelines document provides matrices for visual conditions, definitions, range of severity, whether a driving test or special driving test should be administered for a particular acuity level, and what kinds of restriction (including limited term licenses) should be placed on the license. Restrictions could include corrective lenses, sunrise to sunset driving only, no freeway, area restriction, additional mirrors (right side, wide angle, panoramic, right- or left-fender-mounted mirrors). An immediate revocation may be imposed after an examiner gives a driving test or special driving test to a low-vision driver who has performed dangerously poor and the condition renders the person unsafe to drive.
Back to Top

 

Please look up the ICD9 code and tell me it affects visual acuity. If you actually knew what they represented you would understand that what you posted is irrelevant to visual acuity and vision testing.

Keep trying.