[swiftnfurious]

I had decided to wait and watch! But on a long drive from Mookambika, I was stopped near Vadakara [Kannur] and was fined a Rs. 100/- for NOT removing it. The cops also said that they have received orders for impounding vehicles as there was a gang in a tinted car who murdered someone the previous day. However they helped removing the sun films from the car without any damage.

I had fims on the front windshield and they didnt even notice or bother as it's 100% transparent. Wanted to check with you all whether don't we have 100% transparent films for the side windows as well?

[drmohitg]

Originally Posted by swiftnfurious

I had fims on the front windshield and they didnt even notice or bother as it's 100% transparent. Wanted to check with you all whether don't we have 100% transparent films for the side windows as well?

Well you can even opt for the 70% VLT films all around your car. The cops would never make out that. Only risk would be if they decide to stop every car and check the windows from inside for any films pasted. I have seen that happen in Delhi once.

[limited-edition]

Originally Posted by swiftnfurious

I had fims on the front windshield and they didnt even notice or bother as it's 100% transparent. Wanted to check with you all whether don't we have 100% transparent films for the side windows as well?

Its illegal even on windshields, but I don't think there will be a COP/Officer who will identify 80 or 100% transparent films. Of-course they are illegal, on side windows / windshield or anything, they can make you remove or fine you for having them. But if there is a single COP who finds out that I have a 80/100% tints on my car then I am happy to even get arrested

[swiftnfurious]

Originally Posted by drmohitg

Well you can even opt for the 70% VLT films all around your car. The cops would never make out that. Only risk would be if they decide to stop every car and check the windows from inside for any films pasted. I have seen that happen in Delhi once.

Thats way too expensive to be all around the car. I was looking whether I could find the normal ones for sides & rear which are transparent. Again, the soul aim to ban films is on the "visibility" front I guess, so what's the point on checking the transparent films too?

Edit:: The sunlight falling on my right arm was kind of burning after removing the sun films. So I probably will have to look for some options to reject the rays on side & rear soon.

[Raccoon]

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

^^^If the "Solar Glass" indeed screens out UV rays and also insulates the interior like sunfilms did, then this is a good replacement for the films and would also does not impede visibility (both from inside the car for safe driving and from outside as the SC wants it).

Good replacement for films? But it would be way more expensive. Pray tell who will finance it on cars that have their films ripped off? If the SC pays for that glass on my car, I'm ready to sing paeans about the SC and maybe even become an SC "fan" like some here. And that financing better be from the Judge's pocket and not from the taxpayers pocket. Else that joke is again at our expense.

Another huge drawback of not having sunfilm which i just encountered - often I need to keep things in the car. I often hide stuff like bags etc, on the rear floor space. With the tints on, its very difficult for anybody to see things on the rear floorboard. Without the films everything is like in an open showcase; and someone is more than likely to break into the car and help himself while its parked somewhere. Its obvious that if its not easy to see inside, there is much less likelyhood of anyone breaking into the car.

[scopriobharath]

I use the car in Chennai summer and i really feel that SC should have allowed 70% VLT Film.

There are enough people with Jet black tints to collect fine from.

As of now The back color vaccuum-cup sun blocker(Chipkoo) sold at signals, malls et all is allowed. At least police do not catch for using that. Technically we are not sticking anything on the glass.

[Raccoon]

^^^Yeah, if at all I'm forced to remove my films, those screens will be most definitely found on my windows. However, they will most likely not be half as good as sunfilm in insulating heat, for obvious reasons.

[FuelInjector]

In Bangalore - last night noticed cops stationed all along outer ring road at various points fining cars with sun films. Many were found arguing with the cops, but invain. Indira nagar and Jeeves bhima nagar police stations are making a lot of collections ( as told by a friendly cop)

[supremeBaleno]

Originally Posted by Raccoon

Good replacement for films? But it would be way more expensive. Pray tell who will finance it on cars that have their films ripped off?

Obviously the guy who wants the benefit has to pay for it. So if car-cos provide this type of glass as an option, those who want the benefits will pay extra for it. Till some years ago, people balked at the idea of paying ~20K for 2 baloons (airbags), but now most people insist on it, don't they ?
Regarding being an SC fan, everyone was a fan when they put scam-tainted people behind bars taking action when the govt was silent/inactive. But now that their ruling is hitting us (though they did not ban films - it was never explicitly allowed by the rules in the first place) we take affront.

Originally Posted by Raccoon

Another huge drawback of not having sunfilm which i just encountered - often I need to keep things in the car. I often hide stuff like bags etc, on the rear floor space. With the tints on, its very difficult for anybody to see things on the rear floorboard. Without the films everything is like in an open showcase; and someone is more than likely to break into the car and help himself while its parked somewhere.

This "argument" and host of others were already discussed thread-bare in the other sun-film thread that is now closed. You will get your answer there about this "concern" of yours. It is common-sense to keep expensive things out of view, be it in a car or in your home/office. And lack of sunfilms is not to be blamed for your inaction. In simple words, keep expensive stuff in the boot or if it is a hatch, get a parcel-tray to hide stuff in the rear, just like people do in other parts of the world.

[Raccoon]

^^^Your argument is also as untenable as it gets. Permit me to rip it to shreds like sunfilm.

You have said, someone who wants the benefits has to pay for it. I like the benefits of sunfilm, so I'v paid for it. Now can you tell me what is the rationale behind allowing tinted glasses and not allowing sunfilm of "reasonably dark" tint? Please give me just ONE sensible reason. Both of them can be equivalent when it comes to visibility in and out of the vehicle.

Furthermore, for now they have banned sunfilms. Tommorrow, with the same specious reasoning they can ban tinted glasses too. And then changing the glass itself is going to pinch a whole lot more than having the films ripped off. So supposing I want the benefit in question, and pay for it, can you guarantee that my investment is not going to be shattered at the court's/government's whim?

I completely fail to reconcile the airbag analogy with the sunfilm topic. How can they even be compared? You are saying, I should pay for tinted glass if I want the benefit, just like the safety afforded by airbags. But I'm saying I'v already paid for sunfilm because of the benefit accrued by the same. Given that film and tinted glasses can have the same visibility, your argument (and the court's) about making people spend extra for something that has the same effect is to put it simply, just ridiculous.

In fact, it reeks of a conspiracy by the sunfilm industry to increase its sales by having the ban imposed and possibly lifting it later, after the law is differently interpreted by a more sensible and more honorable individual. On the same lines, I see a similar opportunity for the glass industry.

Regarding the issue of being an SC "fan", are you saying that one should remain a "fan" irrespective of what the SC does? The act of putting scam-tained people behind bars was laudable (its another issue that they are all free as of now). The act of interpreting the law such that sunfilms get banned altogether, is an antisocial and irrational act. If you can remain a fan, no matter what the act or its outcome, then I must say I do not envy you your abilities of blind faith.

Now about the last issue of keeping things out of view in the booth. I hope you are aware that getting into the booth is as easy as getting into the car. Now imagine, I shake my "inaction" (as you mention) and proceed to take the extra trouble to get out of the car and shift things in the booth. Its a given that I would need to do this in full view of someone who is watching a parking lot with the intent of staling valuables in car. So again this dramatically increases the probability of my car getting cleaned out by the time I'm back. Hence I propose once again that not a single reason you have given stands up to reason. All these and other "solutions" given b SC "fans" are simply aimed at making life more difficult than simpler; and while doing even this, they do not solve a single issue as there is no remotely credible data that suggests that un-filmed glasses prevent any crimes whatsoever.

[supremeBaleno]

Originally Posted by Raccoon

You have said, someone who wants the benefits has to pay for it. I like the benefits of sunfilm, so I'v paid for it. Now can you tell me what is the rationale behind allowing tinted glasses and not allowing sunfilm of "reasonably dark" tint? Please give me just ONE sensible reason.

The one reason is it is not allowed in the rule-book, while manufacturer-provided tints of a certain VLT are allowed. As simple as that. If each one of us were to define our own interpretations of the law (reasonably dark can be different for each person), then it is easy to imagine how things would end up. You can even pay to have the glasses in your car replaced with metal (like the Omni cargo van), but just because you paid for it does not make it legal.

Originally Posted by Raccoon

Tommorrow, with the same specious reasoning they can ban tinted glasses too.

They can't because the court does not have powers to modify / make rules.

Originally Posted by Raccoon

Now imagine, I shake my "inaction" (as you mention) and proceed to take the extra trouble to get out of the car and shift things in the booth. Its a given that I would need to do this in full view of someone who is watching a parking lot with the intent of staling valuables in car. So again this dramatically increases the probability of my car getting cleaned out by the time I'm back.

If you are so paranoid as to assume that people are after you 24/7 to steal stuff from your car, then not sure how films will prevent that ? Because even if 70/50 films were allowed, the film is not dark enough to completely block vision into your car - a guy wanting to steal stuff from your car can easily see into the car through this VLT film. So, this argument is anyway not valid for bringing back films.

Originally Posted by Raccoon

Your argument is also as untenable as it gets. Permit me to rip it to shreds like sunfilm.

Well for someone who is breaking the law, there would be arguments galore to support their stance. As far as ripping films is concerned, the cops will take care of that for you.

[VishnuNarayanan]

I Trivandrum the scenario is as explained below,
Almost all Govt. cars have removed the tints except a few. But majority of the private cars are having sun films. I removed them as soon as the orders came.
Police here is conducting checkings for the name sake. All those biggies have their bimmers tinted and their is no action from anyone to remove those. I feel the authorities here enforce them only over a meger section of the society.
"A rule enforced over the public is acceptable but that rule must cover everyone including those big shots."

[mannubhai]

Rules are not always applicable to every one.

A common sight in Bangalore. This Police innova had dark sunfilms, a driver with out seat belt, and was zig zagging past traffic.

May be a Z+ category , I dont know !

[Raccoon]

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

The one reason is it is not allowed in the rule-book, while manufacturer-provided tints of a certain VLT are allowed. As simple as that. If each one of us were to define our own interpretations of the law (reasonably dark can be different for each person), then it is easy to imagine how things would end up. You can even pay to have the glasses in your car replaced with metal (like the Omni cargo van), but just because you paid for it does not make it legal.

They can't because the court does not have powers to modify / make rules.

If you are so paranoid as to assume that people are after you 24/7 to steal stuff from your car, then not sure how films will prevent that ? Because even if 70/50 films were allowed, the film is not dark enough to completely block vision into your car - a guy wanting to steal stuff from your car can easily see into the car through this VLT film. So, this argument is anyway not valid for bringing back films.

Well for someone who is breaking the law, there would be arguments galore to support their stance. As far as ripping films is concerned, the cops will take care of that for you.

Without taking that apart in detal, I'll just say that the main contention between us is that you seem to love to live by the rules and authority, however flawed it is. And inherently all man-made rules/laws and whatever else are far from infallible. Some are downright flawed. Just by saying that the artifact exists in some Act, Rulebook or Constitution does not make it any holier. A spade is after all a spade, as you said earlier. But accepting this is a problem for those who possess holy cows.

As for cops taking care of the ripping for me, I doubt thats going to happen too soon. Anyway, that aside, for those struggling to cope with all the unwanted radiation, here is some online solace - Car Auto Window Sun Shade Mesh Type-Set Of 4 Pc(2 PAIR) | eBay

I know these will make things way more unsafe for driving as they would be opaque, but what the heck! Who cares about safety and stuff as long as the law is obeyed? After all, we are an obedient nation; more enamored by the letter of the law than commonsense.

[rrnsss]

Originally Posted by Raccoon

but what the heck! Who cares about safety and stuff as long as the law is obeyed? After all, we are an obedient nation; more enamored by the letter of the law than commonsense.

Could not agree with you more. As I said before I am not going to be filled with pride in my death bed that I adhered to the Hon. Judge's ruling.

I am going to do what it takes to keep me , safe, comfortable and cool in my car. I am not going to suffer a head ache or UV rays to be an obedient citizen.