[parik_ind]

More than the law, what concerns me are the reasons that people give to retain the sun films. It might be a crappy law but if it mandates that vehicles don't feature sun films then it must be followed. It is only because several thousands have decided to retain sun films and pay the occasional fine, the government has proposed such a rule.

What would happen if they suddenly mandated that every vehicle must have a road worthiness certificate that needs to be renewed periodically and to get this certificate owners must ensure that all rules are followed. We would all be in a fix considering the after market installations found on our cars, which in many cases are deemed illegal.

What we need is an attitudinal shift considering there are several people who are willing to disobey rules by simply saying "kya karlega".

I may have come off a little strong but it really disheartening to see this every single day.

Parik

[Sahil]

Originally Posted by Rehaan

Its a very smart move, but for a very stupid reason.

I too would be applauding this if it was to the tune of "We wont honour your insurance claim if..."

• You weren't wearing seatbelts at the time of the accident
• Your tyres were below the minimum allowed tread depth
• Headlights/brakelights in non-working condition
• Wipers missing (monsoon months)
• etc

I think the zero-tolerance ban on sun-film is stupid. The earlier regulation of allowing only upto a certain amount of darkness of the films was fine.

There's a thousand better ways to improve (road) safety in this country than ban sunfilm.

cya
R

There are far larger issues where they should implement such smart moves. The first being drunken driving !!

[msdivy]

Originally Posted by n.devdath

Now since, two incidents of heinous child rape happened inside houses, will they ban opaque windows in houses too?

CMV rules don't allow sunfilms. SC just upheld the CMV rules. Law & order has got nothing to do with that judgement. Yes, if building rules don't allow opaque windows, SC will ban them too

Originally Posted by KiloAlpha

In the world of auto insurance, a clause like "vehicle must be road-worthy and legal in all respects" anyway gives an insurance company an excuse to deny claim since sun film is against the law.

That is right. It all depends on the Insurance Surveyor's judgement & report.

[n.devdath]

Originally Posted by msdivy

CMV rules don't allow sunfilms. SC just upheld the CMV rules. Law & order has got nothing to do with that judgement.

This is the irony.
We do not realize that rules that are outdated, ineffective and fail to curb crime MUST be changed, and NOT upheld.

Do we have statistics comparing the crime rates in cars with sunfilms Vs cars without sunfilms?

Do we have statistics of the safety of women who drive cars with sunfilms Vs those who drive cars without sunfilms?

Do the SC or our super outdated CMVR understand the meaning of "transparent" sun films? I don't think they even bother to.

So while I know that it is "socially fashionable" to agree to comply with whatever the SC or our Victorian rule books say, I agree to be different. Period.

[Blue Thunder]

Originally Posted by Rehaan

....I think the zero-tolerance ban on sun-film is stupid. ...There's a thousand better ways to improve (road) safety in this country than ban sunfilm...

And it is probably a sad reflection on the pathetic state of the polity that we live in, that a reference is being made to "preventing the large number of crimes against women happening in vehicles which had tinted glasses and solar film"

[thoma]

Related: One another thing that worries me is the growing trend in our country (and may be other countries too) of the lack of commitment by companies in honoring warranty and insurance claims after taking huge premium for the same upfront.

It is becoming a norm to need to use external pressure (monetary/political/social media/insider contacts) to get even a deserved claim approved. This is plain consumer harassment, especially for the common man who might not have access to the means of pressurizing.

[Gansan]

Originally Posted by Rehaan

I too would be applauding this if it was to the tune of "We wont honour your insurance claim if..."

• You weren't wearing seatbelts at the time of the accident
• Your tyres were below the minimum allowed tread depth
• Headlights/brakelights in non-working condition
• Wipers missing (monsoon months)
• etc

Add "two wheeler riders not wearing helmets" to this.

[Altocumulus]

In my opinion sun films are a necessity due to the climate in India. I hate to do away with them just because the police or the government are incapable to prevent any rape. Like someone mentioned, how many rapes are there inside a car/bus compared to total number of cars with dark films. This is not a solution, it is just an eyewash.

If the car is stopped at a nakabandi, they anyways look inside the car and ask questions. Otherwise how the hell does anyone get to know what is happening inside a speeding car, sunfilms or not. Its more difficult when it comes to a bus.

Also no sun films may tend to be a security issue as well. If I am going for a marriage or party with my family, the jewellery and ornaments will be openly visible. Also if there is a lady with you, you will find guys on bikes, from buses, from the car next to you staring at them. There has been many times I had to drive really fast on city streets to avoid guys on bikes going with the car and staring inside. What if its just a woman driving down an empty stretch ? If she is followed, and she panics ?

This law will make us more vulnerable to petty nuisances apart from the discomfort the climate will give us. That's my take on it.

[avira_tk]

Originally Posted by thoma

Related: One another thing that worries me is the growing trend in our country (and may be other countries too) of the lack of commitment by companies in honoring warranty and insurance claims after taking huge premium for the same upfront.

It is becoming a norm to need to use external pressure (monetary/political/social media/insider contacts) to get even a deserved claim approved. This is plain consumer harassment, especially for the common man who might not have access to the means of pressurizing.

Glad you brought this up, the posts in support of this highhanded government interference in what is essentially another excuse to deny legitimate claims is surely great shakes for all of us.

This is another box ticking stupidity, tomorrow if you get your claim denied because the law says it is illegal to upsize your tyres, I wonder how many who support this hare brained rule will nod in agreement to that also.

[msdivy]

Originally Posted by Altocumulus

In my opinion sun films are a necessity due to the climate in India. I hate to do away with them just because the police or the government are incapable to prevent any rape. Like someone mentioned, how many rapes are there inside a car/bus compared to total number of cars with dark films. This is not a solution, it is just an eyewash.

At the risk of repeating myself, sun films are banned *not* to prevent crime. It is banned because CMV rules don't allow them. CMV rules are framed in the interest of motorists & fellow road users, and preventing crime is not the objective of CMV rules at all.

Originally Posted by n.devdath

Do we have statistics comparing the crime rates in cars with sunfilms Vs cars without sunfilms?

Do we have statistics of the safety of women who drive cars with sunfilms Vs those who drive cars without sunfilms?

Do the SC or our super outdated CMVR understand the meaning of "transparent" sun films? I don't think they even bother to.

Well, in the form of Govt we have, judiciary is not responsible for the items you have mentioned. The duty lies with legislature and they have to solve these with the help of executive. Its unfair to blame SC for the ban.

So while I know that it is "socially fashionable" to agree to comply with whatever the SC or our Victorian rule books say, I agree to be different. Period.

There is nothing fashionable in following court order. Actually, there is no option till a stay order is obtained.

[srishiva]

I hope the govt mandates the car companies in providing good heat rejecting glass with vehicles. (Almost no UV and half or more or infra red radiation like the sun films do). This will stop any tinting after and will be suitable for our country.

[Lalvaz]

So, Can I avoid paying my insurance premium since I have solar film on my car on the front windscreen? Even though its clear film, its in contravention of this new rule, and hence the insurance companies will be perfectly justified in refuting my claims incase I meet with an accident, plus ofcourse my car will be impounded since I have the solar film.

Considering the above, I feel I should not be made to pay the insurance premium at all, I mean, you are not servicing my claims, so I should not pay you a premium, makes sense no?

Stupid laws made by stupid people, gosh, whats happened to basic commonsense?

[Altocumulus]

Originally Posted by msdivy

At the risk of repeating myself, sun films are banned *not* to prevent crime. It is banned because CMV rules don't allow them. CMV rules are framed in the interest of motorists & fellow road users, and preventing crime is not the objective of CMV rules at all.

Sun films were never banned until now. 50% visibility for front and rear windshields and 25% for side windows was always allowed. Yes, people had darker shades put up. That's wrong. But as long as I stuck to the previous rule where was the problem ?

Sometimes I think how's the idea of smoking my windows with smoke paint ?? The cops would not find any film and I can happily say it was how it was tinted by the manufacturer, since manufacturer tints are allowed.

[Santoshbhat]

Law : No Dark tints. Nobody follows it, so ban all films.

Still people don't remove tints. Take away their insurance cover.

Still people don't remove tints. Ban glasses from all cars.

Still people got tints. Ban cars.

Still people got tints. Ban people from living in this country. That ought to bring the crime rate down for sure.

I don't understand this obsession with sunfilms! Don't know what makes them think a world without sunfilms is a world without crime!!

[n.devdath]

Originally Posted by msdivy

CMV rules are framed in the interest of motorists & fellow road users, and preventing crime is not the objective of CMV rules at all.

What interests, and dating from what year? How are these interests decided and by who? Is public opinion taken into account?
We are supposedly a democracy, correct?

Originally Posted by msdivy

Well, in the form of Govt we have, judiciary is not responsible for the items you have mentioned. The duty lies with legislature and they have to solve these with the help of executive. Its unfair to blame SC for the ban.

We have seen enough instances of the SC intervening with the legislature in trying to set right certain things and we know that the SC can rap them on their heads if it wishes to.
Let us not talk like politicians and advocates here.

Originally Posted by msdivy

There is nothing fashionable in following court order.

Not in following it, but defending whatever the courts say, is certainly very socially acceptable to a lot of us. Given a chance, how many of us would actually like want our sun films back? Most, even though we may not accept it on the internet and in our gossips.

Originally Posted by Lalvaz

Stupid laws made by stupid people, gosh, whats happened to basic commonsense?

Precisely Lalvaz, you ve hit the nail on the head.

Originally Posted by Altocumulus

But as long as I stuck to the previous rule where was the problem ?

Well, someone, initially at the SC and then at the centre needed some news item to prove that they exist.