[knownstrangerr]

Originally Posted by scopriobharath

With the trend of posts, most of us have adhered to the 70/50 usage and films are installed just to beat the heat primarily and secondly for safety.

India is country (sorry to say) where if you leave a GPS device on a dashboard, someone will break in and steal it. Films add privacy factor here. At least in Chennai, Its very hot from February to at least november and i cannot dream of driving without tints. India is a tropical country and sunfilms are a must here.

Supreme court is free to bring in any rule but on humanity basis should have done the below. People are following the rule, where they like it or not.

• Give a comfortable deadline (say 1 year) to remove sunfilms. Note that implementation of BS3 to BS4 emission norms were given sufficient timelines. Manufacturers must be given sometime to offer factory tints in their production line on all models and variants
• Give some kind of a compensation to those folks who have invested in sunfilm (50/70 Approved ones) at least within the past 1 year.
• Ban and prevent the sale of black films and enforce the same using Policing and checks.
• Suggest / Provide and alternative of preventing heat entering the car by non-usage of sunfilms.
• Alternative for owners of old cars (my 2007 santro) where there was no option to go for factory tints.
• Give some tax exemptions and encourage film-makers to come up with films that reject heat and IR rays but allow 100% VLT. This is something Many would use as many of us have installed films for heat control rather than to commit crime.

Barath I do agree on all the aspects you.The Police was quoted as having lesser man power to check whether the sun film meets the 50/70 requirement so a total ban was sought.What bewilders me is from did the man power grow all of a sudden that they are allover to remove the sun film and challan us.If the man power is enough why cant they concentrate on controlling crime than torturing us is a question beyond my understanding

[scopriobharath]

Originally Posted by knownstrangerr

Barath I do agree on all the aspects you.The Police was quoted as having lesser man power to check whether the sun film meets the 50/70 requirement so a total ban was sought.What bewilders me is from did the man power grow all of a sudden that they are allover to remove the sun film and challan us.If the man power is enough why cant they concentrate on controlling crime than torturing us is a question beyond my understanding

I agree - govt must increase policing manpower if it deemed less. If our country had a colder climate, something like the northern parts of canada, i would agree to removing tints.

From my heart - I am okay removing the dark tintend film. I am just asking the people who presented this law about an "alternative" to common man. All those who passed this law would be covered under Z/Z+ security or would have "influence" and "contacts" to overcome ordinary police nakabandi checks. Common man is affected by this.

[SedatedDrive]

I have 3M CR70 at front and rear, CR50 at sides, fixed by the dealer during purchase as an offer. I never had any film on my previous car Swift in its 3.5 years of ownership. But the film does provide privacy when traveling with your family. I agree about the benefits of the order with respect to ensuring law and order. Yet I am sympathetic towards the many women drivers and passengers who unfortunately are going to be at the receiving end of this order.

I read one post that said "it is time to leave this country". It takes far less effort to file a PIL than to abandon your country over a single court order.

I am now considering installing screens in the car as an alternative.

[SafeSteer]

While I agree that sunfilm is helpful in multiple ways, I think one positive side of 'no sunfilms' is visibility in highway. That is, you can see vehicles/road-traffic ahead of the car(s) in front of you - through the clear glasses.

[shashank.nk]

Originally Posted by SafeSteer

While I agree that sunfilm is helpful in multiple ways, I think one positive side of 'no sunfilms' is visibility in highway. That is, you can see vehicles/road-traffic ahead of the car(s) in front of you - through the clear glasses.

+1 to this. Probably the only positive we can take from this decision. Improved all round visibility at night and on rainy days certainly makes driving easier.

[man_and_machine]

June 5th in BLR seems to be the deadline that will not see another extension. I see more cars now with films removed. The wait and watch might soon be over. On the flip side, any idea on the counter petitions that were filed? (if any of those where true).
I see some dealers suggesting lighter (transparent ones), I know business is to make profits, but to con is crime! As long as there is uneducated junta, there will be those who will take advantage of it.
Please spread the word of caution around. you do not want your known ones to be ripped off, of their newly installed films, I have saved some thousands for the ones I know, be a true Bhpian, please..

[Daewood]

Originally Posted by SafeSteer

While I agree that sunfilm is helpful in multiple ways, I think one positive side of 'no sunfilms' is visibility in highway. That is, you can see vehicles/road-traffic ahead of the car(s) in front of you - through the clear glasses.

This is all that you'll see through the rear glass of a Hyundai Verna, if you were trailing it. Now will someone file a PIL to ban all coupes and sedans with a coupe like rear?

[rohan_iitr]

I tried a DIY to remove the sunfilm only from the rear windshield of my i10. Since it was a good quality film, it came out in one piece without leaving any gum residue.

I just wanted to ensure that I would be able to remove the tints myself, without having to visit a sun film installer.

I will wait till 4th June (next weekend) before removing the sun films from the side glasses.

Rohan

[gopikb]

I had voted for grounding car until the tint rule is relaxed. I realized office rides can be managed in my Unicorn. However, weekend drives with family has to use the car and there is no alternative. Given the June 5 deadline, I decided to remove the film in DIY method. Thanks to the multiple posts on the experiences of BHPians.

Managed to remove the side windows and rear window film without any issue. I am leaving my front 3M CR70 untouched. I still have to clean the glue residue from the glass. Will do it today. It was heartbreaking to remove tints from the car. The car feels naked now. I was always used to leaving my purse, mobile, keys etc on the car before. I realized this cannot be done anymore. Need to change habits. But it was really hard decision for sure

[ameaa]

Any one knows if movable screens or curtains are also banned? If not we should go back to old days.

[itwasntme]

Originally Posted by Daewood

This is all that you'll see through the rear glass of a Hyundai Verna, if you were trailing it. Now will someone file a PIL to ban all coupes and sedans with a coupe like rear?

Guys, if you were driving an Ariel Atom, that's all you'd see. But not in any 'normal' car I assure you.

Safesteer has a very valid point. Following a vehicle with dark tints is riskier than without tints. By dark I mean the totally black ones!

[PatchyBoy]

Not sure if I am being judgemental here. Yesterday evening when I was driving out for shopping, I felt that the cars behind me did not honk as much as they used to, possibly because they were able to see that I was slowing down due to an obstacle in front and not because I was determined to block their way.

Maybe a positive side-effect of transparent windows?

Rajan

[Daewood]

Originally Posted by itwasntme

Guys, if you were driving an Ariel Atom, that's all you'd see. But not in any 'normal' car I assure you.

Aren't Esteem, Figo, Lancer 'normal' cars. Most of the Luxury sedans are also of similar height or less.
And what would you do if you happen to follow a Bus, LCV, or a taller vehicle like Fortuner ? You can't you see through them.

[Manuuj]

My Fortuner has sunfilm on it. I got challaned today..the catch was the cop had to ask me if there was any sunfilm installed or was he mistaking Tinted Glass as Sunfilm.

The point i am trying to make is that the visibility is so good and the film so light that the policeman actually asked me to roll down the windows to see the edge of the film on the edge of the windowpane.

These are a few pics of the vehicle upon delivery and servicing. The Car came with the 3M film pre-installed by the dealer. Judge for yourself if the Film is dangerous in any way. There is no Film on the Front windscreen anyway.

On Delivery Day



This pic is to give you an idea of the lightness of the installed film. The cop actually had to ask me and then physically check for himself if there is any Film installed.


Its a very arbitrary and unfair decision by the Supreme Court in my opinion. Instead of improving infrastructure and providing lightmeters to enforce the law they are completely banning it. It feels like a kneejerk reaction instead of a well thought out law.

In any case, the Films are set to come off the Fortuner soon.

[scopriobharath]

Originally Posted by ameaa

Any one knows if movable screens or curtains are also banned? If not we should go back to old days.

the judgement says no material is to be "pasted" on the glasses. Curtain does not get pasted on the glass, so you should be good. Just have a copy of the judgement in your car