Go Back   Team-BHP > BHP India > The Indian Car Scene


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12th June 2012, 21:12   #2641
Senior - BHPian
 
spadix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Gurgaon
Posts: 1,018
Thanked: 185 Times
Default Re: Car tints banned by HC! EDIT: Supreme Court bans all kinds of sunfilms in cars

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaggu View Post
  • Visibility hasnt improved! since i started wearing shades all through out the day lol. Night the blidning lights from ORVM irritates and distracts more. Maybe put some sun film on them i guess. Only reversing at night feels better.
Reversing at night in particular has definitely become much better. Also I know that on really dark nights (no moon, or cloudy/rainy nights) visibility out of the side windows and from the ORVMs will be vastly better.

Small mercies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vid6639 View Post
The ORVM glare is so bad that sometimes you are blinded by it.

The IRVM can atleast be flipped to night position but the ORVM's are useless at night as the car behind with high beam makes sure you can't even see anything when changing lanes.
Just tilt the ORVMs down slightly and you'll be alright.

Quote:
Originally Posted by .sourov View Post
Bangalore is still OK to travel without sunflims I can only imagine how the Delhi and Chennai people are suffering.
I'm just thankful that the AC is a real chiller. I can feel the prickly heat again from the direct sunlight now that I've removed the film from the side windows, but the AC ensures that the cabin is freezing cold otherwise. I use auto mode so I don't know if the blower is working harder. I'm pretty sure it is. The next few tankfuls will tell me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by B103 View Post
Guys, I have two questions:
(1) Am I obliged to pay a fine if my sun film conforms with the spec mentioned by Motor vehicles act? Isn't this act made by the parliament and hence supreme? The spec made by law is very clear. How can a judge override that, make his own law and subjugate people?

(2) What about health implications? Now a days, people drive long distances in India too. Under the blistering tropical sun, devoid of sun films, there are serious health hazards involved like chances of getting sun burn or even skin cancer. I know many people whose skin is quite allergic to sun when overexposed. This verdict is mindless of those implications as well
All I can say is - please read older posts in this thread. Both these issues have been dissected and critically (and also not so critically) analyzed. From every possible angle.

Regards,
spadix
spadix is online now   (1) Thanks
Old 13th June 2012, 11:17   #2642
Newbie
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: NEW DELHI
Posts: 5
Thanked: 2 Times
Default Re: Car tints banned by HC! EDIT: Supreme Court bans all kinds of sunfilms in cars

If in our country it is felt the need of tints to overcome the harsh weather - I think the MV act could have been altered with manufacturers being allowed to provide tinted glasses . I remember old times when we were kids- the Premier Padmini used to offered with tinted glasses as well.

Let the manufacturer takes this onus of the intensity of glasses and not the aftermarket process.

Yes I do agree to of complete ban of films - Good for our children and safety of everyone.
gepco is offline   (1) Thanks
Old 13th June 2012, 14:24   #2643
BHPian
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Bangalore.
Posts: 640
Thanked: 40 Times
Default Re: Car tints banned by HC! EDIT: Supreme Court bans all kinds of sunfilms in cars

Quote:
Originally Posted by gepco View Post
Yes I do agree to of complete ban of films - Good for our children and safety of everyone.
Safety by banning the films ! how ?

i personally feel that this verdict has compromised everybody's safety by removing the little privacy one had, while driving alone or with the family.

My spouse drives home alone late in the evenings or sometimes even late in the night. She drives for a fair bit of distance on highways to reach home. This verdict has increased the number of calls i make to her while she is driving back home.

I personally feel that this verdict is not in good taste of majority of the citizens for sure. I dont understand what SC was thinking when this verdict was done. Not fair for me. Not all verdicts are fair by the court, for once come to think about Jessica's case when the court pronounced that " Nobody Killed her" People had to fight back to get the judgement taken back.

This verdict has put that much more risk to families, female executives driving alone & everybody for that matter.

Last edited by nandans2005 : 13th June 2012 at 14:25.
nandans2005 is offline   (4) Thanks
Old 13th June 2012, 14:47   #2644
BHPian
 
Parthasarathig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Pothole-city
Posts: 878
Thanked: 489 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nandans2005

Safety by banning the films ! how ?

i personally feel that this verdict has compromised everybody's safety by removing the little privacy one had, while driving alone or with the family.

My spouse drives home alone late in the evenings or sometimes even late in the night. She drives for a fair bit of distance on highways to reach home. This verdict has increased the number of calls i make to her while she is driving back home.

This verdict has put that much more risk to families, female executives driving alone & everybody for that matter.
Very aptly said. But i guess now you will be criticised for making calls to your better half while on the road and endangering her all the more.

I dont understand how it has made it safe for children or family in anyway possible. It has rather increased their vulnerability. As you can see in posts by a lady in the previous pages, it has only increased the chances of more crimes. Crimes that wouldve taken place in cars with dark tints will happen elsewhere until criminals are handed down proper punishments and enforcements are stricter.
Ive been posting in this thread since judgement day and will have to argue again.

If you think logically, if sunfilms ban is really going to make people safe then why are Z plus security people still allowed to put sunfilms? In other words removal of sun films would also improve their safety too if you apply the logic what everyone says that it removal = more safety. And anyway the stay petition has been filed and it says as stated in the previous posts that the main intent of the CMVR visibility rules were to enable the driver to have better visibility from the inside and not outsiders to have visibility into the inside of the car.

However mr. Goenka has utilised the rules to suit his own purposes or may i say advantages, whereas the law is for the benefit of the public and not for individual gain. And anyways the society has adapted a male chauvinistic approach these days. Open the newspaper and one can see what im talking about. If this continues, a day wont be far enough when there will be a complete ban of women. And its not just Jessica Lal's case but so many other cases that went through similar situation.

Last edited by Parthasarathig : 13th June 2012 at 14:56.
Parthasarathig is offline  
Old 13th June 2012, 15:02   #2645
BHPian
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Bangalore.
Posts: 640
Thanked: 40 Times
Default Re: Car tints banned by HC! EDIT: Supreme Court bans all kinds of sunfilms in cars

Quote:
But i guess now you will be criticised for making calls to your better half while on the road
Partha, People have a say on everything others say or do. I dont care much about it though. As a family we are very thoughtful and conscious on what we indulge in, while driving.

Quote:
If you think logically, if sunfilms ban is really going to make people safe then why are Z plus security people still allowed to put sunfilms?
Well,well, well, It happens only in INDIA! The powerful and the rich get away with all the wrong doings here. Don't I love my country - It is a Unique Nation.

For example : I was shocked yesterday to know the CBI has filed a case closure report on Ruchika's case and Ruchika's family is not even saying a word about it. They made such a noise all these years. So what does this episode get us to understand ?

Quote:
If this continues, a day wont be far enough when there will be a complete ban of women
Has the countdown started

I am floored by your signature !!!

Last edited by nandans2005 : 13th June 2012 at 15:05.
nandans2005 is offline   (1) Thanks
Old 13th June 2012, 15:05   #2646
BHPian
 
PatchyBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 822
Thanked: 1,189 Times
Default Re: Car tints banned by HC! EDIT: Supreme Court bans all kinds of sunfilms in cars

Everyone that is upset about loss of privacy, please think. If you had films that did not violate the specified VLT % according to CMV rules, you will not be talking about privacy now.

Please check picture on #1827 (page 122) which gives a visual reference as to what 50% VLT will look like.

If you had anything darker, then you will be in violation of the law, even if the SC ruling gets stayed / quashed. Even if by miracle all cops are issued with lux meters and people are allowed to put films that have VLT >50%, it is not going to give you privacy or anything. The sun control film was never meant for privacy. It was meant for what the name suggests, "Sun Control"

Sorry if anyone gets offended, but that is the truth. That some of us chose to use it for different purposes, like privacy and selected darker films to ensure we get it, is the single most important reason why we are facing this situation today.

Rajan

Last edited by PatchyBoy : 13th June 2012 at 15:13.
PatchyBoy is offline   (1) Thanks
Old 13th June 2012, 15:16   #2647
BHPian
 
DRIVE_ADDICT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 409
Thanked: 180 Times
Default Re: Car tints banned by HC! EDIT: Supreme Court bans all kinds of sunfilms in cars

Chennai Police Allow Curtains Instead Of Tint If this is true, what's the necessity to ban the sun film? Why on this part of the world were no rule is PROPERLY defined/followed/implemented
DRIVE_ADDICT is offline  
Old 13th June 2012, 15:20   #2648
BHPian
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Bangalore.
Posts: 640
Thanked: 40 Times
Default Re: Car tints banned by HC! EDIT: Supreme Court bans all kinds of sunfilms in cars

Quote:
Originally Posted by PatchyBoy View Post
Sorry if anyone gets offended
There is nothing to get offended. This is only a medium where everybody puts forth their thoughts about a subject. I have been following you throughout. I appreciate your efforts and research. Truly, your work has given great knowledge to me atleast.

And yes, i have seen the post # 1827 sometime back. I do understand the difference. But my POV is that the "SUN CONTROL" film came with the added advantage of giving some privacy based on the film one selects. My bigger sedan has 5% and i am stubborn not to remove it. The film has helped me tremendously. I am always loaded with lot of stuff and putting it in the boot is simply not a viable option for me.

and lastly, i dont like people peeping into my car especially the 2 wheelers guys, when i am with my family. A car without "SUN CONTROL FILMS " is like an house without roof , windows without glasses and no DOORS !! I can as well use a rick ! i need not have to bother about driving et all !!

Last edited by nandans2005 : 13th June 2012 at 15:22.
nandans2005 is offline  
Old 13th June 2012, 15:29   #2649
BHPian
 
PatchyBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 822
Thanked: 1,189 Times
Default Re: Car tints banned by HC! EDIT: Supreme Court bans all kinds of sunfilms in cars

Quote:
Originally Posted by nandans2005 View Post

And yes, i have seen the post # 1827 sometime back. I do understand the difference.
If that is indeed true, then please do tell me, what kind of privacy will anyone get with 50% VLT, which is the legal mandate, film or no film?

Rajan
PatchyBoy is offline  
Old 13th June 2012, 15:38   #2650
Senior - BHPian
 
srishiva's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Bengaluru
Posts: 3,582
Thanked: 823 Times
Default Re: Car tints banned by HC! EDIT: Supreme Court bans all kinds of sunfilms in cars

An 'added advantage' with something illegal should not be taken as a right. I think the discussions are happening around the same points. My wife drives to work and she never had sun films because the car was not used for family trips and long drives.

People in this country look at women walking on the streets, shopping in the malls etc. We don't have any reasons and means to hide from it. There are a lot of things we do at home which we dont in cars, so a home and car are not the same.

I hope the SC would modify the ruling and allow the VLT prescribed by CMV act make the police enforce it and not worry about the way its realized.

Last edited by srishiva : 13th June 2012 at 15:40.
srishiva is offline   (2) Thanks
Old 13th June 2012, 15:47   #2651
BHPian
 
Daewood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Chennai
Posts: 943
Thanked: 223 Times
Default Re: Car tints banned by HC! EDIT: Supreme Court bans all kinds of sunfilms in cars

Quote:
Originally Posted by PatchyBoy View Post
Even if by miracle all cops are issued with lux meters and people are allowed to put films that have VLT >50%, it is not going to give you privacy or anything. The sun control film was never meant for privacy. It was meant for what the name suggests, "Sun Control"
I don't understand why we think 'privacy' is a taboo word and asking for some is as cheap as asking for a bribe. Cars that are sold with darker glasses in the developed countries call that glass as 'PRIVACY GLASS'. So it isn't a forbidden thing, i guess.
As you say 50% VLT will not give privacy all the time. But if the same VLT film is pasted at the rear windows and front windows the rear passengers do get privacy most of the time, because the amount of light in the rear cabins and front cabins is vastly different. Many more factors also come into play like interior colour( beige or black), size of windows, skin color of person sitting inside, dress colour, relative difference in luminance between surroundings and inside, angle at which sun or light source is located, colour of vehicle standing next to you at a signal, etc,etc. It's a highly complicated case with no formula to guarantee proper visibility inside the car always, even if the glasses are 100% VLT like that PIL guy wanted.

Last edited by Daewood : 13th June 2012 at 16:01.
Daewood is offline   (2) Thanks
Old 13th June 2012, 15:52   #2652
Newbie
 
saptarshi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 8
Thanked: 0 Times
Default Re: Car tints banned by HC! EDIT: Supreme Court bans all kinds of sunfilms in cars

Is it possible to get a fitness certificate that shows my sunfilm is above 70%?

In Bangalore, what's the consequence of keeping the film on? How much fine does one have to pay when the cop bust you? How much for the second time you get caught? And while we are at it, how much for a monthly pass?
saptarshi is offline  
Old 13th June 2012, 16:06   #2653
Senior - BHPian
 
msdivy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 1,446
Thanked: 838 Times
Default Re: Car tints banned by HC! EDIT: Supreme Court bans all kinds of sunfilms in cars

Quote:
Originally Posted by PatchyBoy View Post
If that is indeed true, then please do tell me, what kind of privacy will anyone get with 50% VLT, which is the legal mandate, film or no film?
If somebody needs privacy, they would need 5% or atleast 20% VLT.

I had 35% VLT films on the sides and inside was visible. I removed the side & rear films since even without ban, they wouldn't have passed current CMV rules on a lux meter. I have retained the 70% VLT front films. Unless I tell them, nobody can tell if front sun film is installed or not.

After effects of removal of my sun film are,
1) Glare from sides burn the arm while driving at around noon. (Since I have front films, my hand is saved).
2) Driving at night is difficult due to headlight glare from RVM. I am constantly switching between day-night modes. (so far haven't faced any problem with OVRM, since I keep them at 90 degrees).

Sticking to CMV VLT will reduce glare, but IMO its not adequate and if somoebody is looking for privacy, it doesn't help.

Last edited by msdivy : 13th June 2012 at 16:07.
msdivy is offline   (2) Thanks
Old 13th June 2012, 16:21   #2654
BHPian
 
PatchyBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 822
Thanked: 1,189 Times
Default Re: Car tints banned by HC! EDIT: Supreme Court bans all kinds of sunfilms in cars

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daewood View Post
I don't understand why we think 'privacy' is a taboo word and asking for some is as cheap as asking for a bribe. Cars that are sold with darker glasses in the developed countries call that glass as 'PRIVACY GLASS'. So it isn't a forbidden thing, i guess.
Whoever said that privacy is taboo? Let us not compare ourselves with other countries. We do not live there. When we do travel to those countries, we follow the rules there. By derivation, we need to follow the rules here.

The "Privacy Glass", usually found in Limousines would be 5% VLT and are strictly prohibited on windows before the "B" pillar, even in those countries. The primary difference is, those countries created the rule, with the understanding that VLT % is to ensure that the driver is able to see the surroundings clearly. I have said this time and again, even before the same view was endorsed by our ex-advocate general as published in The Hindu article yesterday.

Our courts on the other hand seem to think that VLT % is to ensure visiblity for peeping toms. Sad state of affairs.

On close study of CMVR 1989 one can actually get away with using Pilkington Optifloat Satin glass for the windows - as the company states "84% VLT, 100% privacy". It is a translucent glass. However, the law is saved by the mere fact that the relevant IS section uses the word "Transparent"

My contention is very simple -
  • 70% for front and rear and 50% for sides is the rule
  • Even if one pasted films but still stayed within those limits, there would not be so much privacy that the insides of the car will be invisble
  • To attain any level of privacy, one will have to get 25% VLT or lesser, which is illegal to start with
  • So, privacy is not a sustainable argument in this context

I think I will go buy a panel van. It is legal, 0% VLT on the sides, 100% privacy. What more can I ask for

Rajan

Edit: Did I just give ideas to all those criminal elements to switch from "Black Film" to Panel Vans? Guess Mr. Avishek is going to have a field day filing a PIL to get the panel vans banned.

Last edited by PatchyBoy : 13th June 2012 at 16:32. Reason: Added text
PatchyBoy is offline  
Old 13th June 2012, 16:24   #2655
BHPian
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Bangalore.
Posts: 640
Thanked: 40 Times
Default Re: Car tints banned by HC! EDIT: Supreme Court bans all kinds of sunfilms in cars

Quote:
Originally Posted by srishiva View Post
An 'added advantage' with something illegal should not be taken as a right
.

Added advantage- yes, nobody can deny this. If you see properly, most of them are speaking about privacy and not about sunburn and suncontrol.

Dont tell me that you have been always following the rules on the road. Haven't you not overtaken from left at all in Bangalore? Haven't you crossed the road anywhere but on the zebra crossing ? Haven't you ever not used the Hi- Beams in the city? Have you painted the top half of the head lights black ?

Quote:
I think the discussions are happening around the same points. My wife drives to work
Having sunfilms or no is one own's liking. We need to have a controlled discussion and not get into family liking and dislikings. What one does with their family and safety is their's choice.

Quote:
she never had sun films because the car was not used for family trips and long drives
i suppose anybody driving to the park for a walk too can have sun films ! i sincerely dont get this point of yours.

Quote:
People in this country look at women walking on the streets, shopping in the malls etc. We don't have any reasons and means to hide from it. There are a lot of things we do at home which we dont in cars, so a home and car are not the same.
Likewise, people "looking" at women in malls and through the car is different. There are people in the mall and "there is a lady driving a car" Looking at "lot of people" and "looking at a women" are different. Hope the grammer rings a bell !!

Last edited by .anshuman : 13th June 2012 at 20:54. Reason: Quotes fixed. Thanks
nandans2005 is offline  
Closed Thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Supreme Court bans registration of diesel cars over 2,000 cc in Delhi & NCR:EDIT lifted with 1% cess neeld The Indian Car Scene 411 28th September 2017 00:17
Supreme Court bans pressure / musical / multi-sound Horns darklord The Indian Car Scene 29 20th July 2016 18:25
Protest against Tata Motors.EDIT Supreme Court Orders Tata to repair Sumo (pg.40) v1p3r The Indian Car Scene 713 19th January 2013 18:31
Supreme Court bans tourism in core areas of Tiger reserves across the country gauravdgr8 Shifting gears 26 17th October 2012 14:02


All times are GMT +5.5. The time now is 22:19.

Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Team-BHP.com
Proudly powered by E2E Networks