[msdivy]

Originally Posted by Altocumulus

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 ?

There is sun film ban thread in this forum, I think it was locked. From what I remember,
1) CMV rules don't allow anything to be stuck on glass surface. Since sun-films are *stuck*, sun films are not allowed.
2) CMV rules allow 70% VLT for front & rear, 50% VLT for sides. Since nothing can be pasted on glass, the glass itself can be tinted upto the allowed VLT. So only tinted glasses are allowed within VLT.

Btw, changing glass is expensive proposition. Hence not many opt for it.

PS: This is a very tiny nitty-gritty detail of CMV rule blown up in public because, some 'noble man' filed & fought a case in Supreme Court spending his time & money (which is quite expensive). There are plenty of such tiny rules in CMV, which are waiting to be brought out in public by other noble men.

Originally Posted by n.devdath

Is public opinion taken into account?

Yes, public representatives make rules such as CMV rules. Public can influence their representative.

[rejoycjohn]

Originally Posted by Altocumulus

Quoting The Telegraph, Kolkata. Wednesday , April 24 , 2013

"New Delhi, April 23: If you have vehicles with tinted glass, then be ready to let go of your insurance claim.

The proposal from the ministry of road transport also says that an insurance company can deny a claim if a vehicle with tinted glass is involved in an accident."

Link to entire article : http://epaper.telegraphindia.com/det...-16228906.html

Mods: Please feel free to merge with another thread if applicable.

Very good thought to be honest. One of the best ways to make sure that the society abides by a law mandated by the government.
And lets face it, we would be the only people in the world who makes logic on the basis of which we decide ourselves not to obey the rules of the land.
- I have heard people saying that their concentration level increases after drinking and they are better drivers once drunk !!!
It also makes those who obeys the rule doesn't look like idiots.

That being said its the government who should ensure that they make laws based upon a reasoning that its people can accept and would be happy to abide it. Atleast a majority!
They should not be making rules of speed limits of 60km in a 6 lane highway!

[bigron]

An absolute idiotic proposal by the government to say the least. Banning tints have done nothing to improve the safety of the concerned party. Frankly , nothing this country comes up with now in terms of laws / proposals / actions / executions etc surprises or shocks me. What's stopping a person from removing his tints before his car undergoes an insurance inspection ??

[JRD]

I don't see the point in this. This will just be another excuse for the insurance companies not to pay for genuine accident claims. Rather than going through all these not so genius policies, why not just pass a norm for the sun film manufactures not to distribute sun film without proper authorization.

If people won't be able to buy tints from the accessory shops, they wont install them on the cars.

[noopster]

Look at it this way: if a vehicle has dark (opaque) tints, the insurance company is probably well within their rights to claim that any accident could possibly have been caused by the loss of visibility such tints entail. And they would be within their rights!

The problem arises- as in most things in life- in cases that are not so extreme. A vehicle with clear heat repellant films for example would result in negligible loss of visibility but still be against the law as interpreted by our Supreme Court. In such a situation, denying a valid insurance claim is tantamount to a huge injustice, in my opinion.

You convert what is essentially a victimless crime into something infinitely worse. Nobody wants to be in a situation where they have to claim insurance to begin with. If your claim is denied for something like this, it would be really awful.

[pratap.pratu]

Mod Note : There are several spelling & grammatical errors in your posts. This negatively affects the forum experience for other readers.

Kindly ensure that you proof-read your posts prior to submission. Also, it would be a good idea to use spell-checkers.

[shankar.balan]

I noted on a few recent visits outside the country that there are quite a number of cars in South East Asia, Gulf Region and even Australia which have darker tinted films on their windows. Sunny and Hot climates do require such measures.

I think that our fellows have "lost it" issuing idiotic Diktats after Diktats like this.
Why dont they focus on good governance, removal of corruption, speeding up the justice process and clearing the backlog of cases etc instead of fiddling about with foolish ideas like these...

[drmohitg]

What I know is that crime against women specially in the much "media hated" city of Delhi has only increased since the ban on films. The courts and the Govt have got it all wrong in figuring out the root cause of the problem. The sad part is our Govt lacks the courage, will power and the common sense of seeing whats happening, admitting the faulty law and changing it. Rather they go a step ahead in the wrong direction.

[splitsecond]

Dont complain people, remember 'We are Mango people of Banana Republic'


The law should have been to deny insurance for vehicles with darker glass,, vehicles with light shades left alone(70% rule).

[ajmat]

There are so many other dangerous defects which are overlooked - bald tyres, faulty brakes etc. I would prefer they address this first!

[RadiantKarma]

Originally Posted by Santoshbhat

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

At least such actions often get many people believing that their noble rulers are indeed taking steps to prevent the crime! Call it perception management?

[esteem_lover]

Originally Posted by Altocumulus

an insurance company can deny a claim if a vehicle with tinted glass is involved in an accident."

Another legal reason for Insurance companies to deny claims.

Originally Posted by Rehaan

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

Smart move to appease the Insurance sector. Insurance sector is a VERY VERY strong lobby anywhere in the world.

[parrys]

How many people with tinted glass care about this?

If they have still not removed the tints, I am sure they have learnt magic.

The magic of 100-500 Rupee notes.

And, there are a lot of magic loving white-khaki people on the road. The insurance survey guys are hungry too.

On a lighter note: I hope to see the SC judges wearing transparent (see through) robes instead of jet-black

[jayded]

Originally Posted by babu.sundaram

+1 sir.

In fact, I would say this is a far effective step to implement the ban on sun films than cops trying to implement the ban!

If cops jumping in front of their cars couldn't make few people remove the tints, I highly doubt an addition of an insurance clause on paper would. If all were such careful and law abiding and going by the books, there would be no drunken driving happening on the roads especially when insurance policies say they "will not" honour warranty claims emerging from accidents involving drunken driving, as opposed to "can/may" dishonour the claim if the car has sunfilms.

To me this is just another clause for the insurance company to dishonour your claim, and plain stupid one at that.

[Wireless]

I wish govt. should start with this rule first- "No govt. vehicle either on or off duty should sport tinted screen/curtain or any kind of film. The officer entitled to the vehicle will be held responsible in case of breach"

Amen