[PatchyBoy]

Originally Posted by Originally Posted by manasm

It also shows that the supreme court has dwelled at length before delivering the verdict and is unlikely to be challenged in the future.

Really?

Originally Posted by longford

After a detailed read, it is very clear that nothing is permitted on factory fitted glass, which of course , need to conform to the minimum 70/50 % VLT limits.

Again,Really?: Here is the relevant paragraph

23. In light of the above discussion, we have no hesitation in holding that use of black films or any other material upon safety glass, windscreen and side windows is impermissible.
In terms of Rule 100(2), 70 per cent and 50 per cent VLT standard are relatable to the manufacture of the safety glasses for the windshields (front and rear) and the side windows respectively. Use of films or any other material upon the windscreen or the side windows is impermissible in law. It is the VLT of the safety glass without any additional material being pasted upon the safety glasses which must conform with manufacture specifications.

This makes all films PASTED to the glasses, that alter the VLT illegal. It does not make any of the following illegal, technically:

• Curtains as in the Scorpio (posted 3 times in this thread)
• Popular detachable windscreenblinds
• Chipkoos sold at traffic signals
• Towel held up by the glass (as seen today on OMR, Bangalore)
• Newspaper, also held up by the glass (as seen in one of my company cabs)

All of the above make the physical visibilty 0% without altering the VLT of the glass and are much more dangerous. I like to think that in the letter and spirit of the law, all of the above are illegal, but law enforcement seems to be not so sure. It is the understanding of law enforcement agencies that make a difference to the end-user. No one gives a damn what I think.

And you think this is dwelled at length and very clear?

Please see the photoageing picture posted by Pri2. Is this how you want your children to look when they are adults?

I donno about anyone else, but let me make this very clear. It believe I have been treated unfairly and I am not willing to take this lying down. As a group or alone, doesn't matter.

For the nth time : the PIL was asking for a technically impossible 100% VLT, thus demonstarting the amount of thought and research that went into this PIL. As far as I am concerned, this PIL is very poorly researched and has caused a lot of problems to the very same AAM ADMI that the NGO that filed this claims to save. While it may not be possible now to reverse the SC ruling, I am sure it is possible to try and get the out-dated law changed. And I intened to do just that.

Thanks,
Rajan

EDIT: This thread could do with some *condoring*. It deserves that more than the jokes thread.

[SedatedDrive]

23. In light of the above discussion, we have no hesitation in holding that use of black films or any other material upon safety glass, windscreen and side windows is impermissible.
In terms of Rule 100(2), 70 per cent and 50 per cent VLT standard are relatable to the manufacture of the safety glasses for the windshields (front and rear) and the side windows respectively. Use of films or any other material upon the windscreen or the side windows is impermissible in law. It is the VLT of the safety glass without any additional material being pastedupon the safety glasses which must conform with manufacture specifications.

On the contrary to the previous post by PatchyBoy, this makes the following illegal due to the above section in bold:

• Curtains as in the Scorpio (posted 3 times in this thread)
• Popular detachable windscreenblinds
• Chipkoos sold at traffic signals
• Towel held up by the glass (as seen today on OMR, Bangalore)
• Newspaper, also held up by the glass (as seen in one of my company cabs)

[rameshnanda]

Originally Posted by SedatedDrive

On the contrary to the previous post by PatchyBoy, this makes the following illegal due to the above section in bold:

Interesting. Why not introduce topless cars in India and ban all others? No need to worry about anything as every thing will be visible. Let citizens suffer as usual.

[manasm]

@Patchyboy - the only reason I posted, was that I got the official document report. Before it was only discussion on points from the report and people's interpretation.

I just thought that since this is a public forum of enthusiasts, some people might want to see the official document. Sorry to have wasted your time in reading my post.

Will not post on this subject anymore. Thanks!

[PatchyBoy]

Originally Posted by manasm

@Patchyboy - the only reason I posted, was that I got the official document report. Before it was only discussion on points from the report and people's interpretation.

I just thought that since this is a public forum of enthusiasts, some people might want to see the official document. Sorry to have wasted your time in reading my post.

Will not post on this subject anymore. Thanks!

Why take it personally? Your post was the 7th (or is it 8th?) time the SC ruling was posted in this thread, verbatim, pdf and all that. Please check the attachments on this thread and you will see for yourself.

All I am asking is for people to atleast search the thread before posting. That is all. Isn't that expected in any of the threads in this forum?

This being a hot (literally) issue, post with vital and useful information gets buried, because members do not search before posting. Thats all.

Rajan

[spadix]

Originally Posted by SedatedDrive

On the contrary to the previous post by PatchyBoy, this makes the following illegal due to the above section in bold:

Exactly. And that's why the "in letter and in spirit" phrase keeps coming up.

However, and this is one of PatchyBoy's peeves (rightfully so), cops are unfortunately letting all ghetto/jugaad solutions go. In fact, there's one report on this thread of a cop himself advising the TBHPian to use chipkoo instead of film! To the extent that these things are a hazard to driving and to the safety of victims trapped in such cars, these cars and their drivers should be caught and fined as well. This is a clear case of cops not understanding the spirit of the verdict and simply going conveniently by the most easily understood letter ("no black film"). Suddenly, people with legal film are criminals, whereas those with newspapers/towels stuck on to their windows aren't. Sheer brilliance!

Now we see different police forces and RTOs implementing the SC's verdict in their own manner. Nothing is sacrosanct now. Neither Rule 100(2) nor the SC verdict. SC recognizes that film on VIPs' chariots is illegal but lets certain govt. departments frame and implement their own guidelines. Embassy car drivers aren't fined but film is removed. Everything is arbitrary and open to interpretation by the enforcers. Does this help the common man?

The fact that the petitioner himself has, in his rebuttal, said that SC has allowed 70/50 at source and people should be satisfied with that shows how unconvinced he himself is in his baseless request to ban anything less than 100% VLT.

What difference does it make if it's 70/50 OEM or 70/50 aftermarket? Another bit of brilliance in this whole saga.

Originally Posted by rameshnanda

Interesting. Why not introduce topless cars in India and ban all others? No need to worry about anything as every thing will be visible. Let citizens suffer as usual.

This has come up as well in jest on this thread.

Regards,
spadix

[PatchyBoy]

Originally Posted by spadix

Exactly. And that's why the "in letter and in spirit" phrase keeps coming up.

However, and this is one of PatchyBoy's peeves (rightfully so), cops are unfortunately letting all ghetto/jugaad solutions go. In fact, there's one report on this thread of a cop himself advising the TBHPian to use chipkoo instead of film! To the extent that these things are a hazard to driving and to the safety of victims trapped in such cars, these cars and their drivers should be caught and fined as well. This is a clear case of cops not understanding the spirit of the verdict and simply going conveniently by the most easily understood letter ("no black film"). Suddenly, people with legal film are criminals, whereas those with newspapers/towels stuck on to their windows aren't. Sheer brilliance!
Regards,
spadix

Thanks. I could not have explained it any better. You see, the problem is this is not a variable like speed limits. So, you get stopped by a cop in Karnataka, or maybe even one part of a city who says," You have very light films so, they are OK". So you drive on happily and another cop in another part stops you and says,"No films. Period." and tears it off, but recommends Chipkoos. So you get Chipkoos only to be stopped by another cop somewhere else who says "In the letter and spirit of the law, no material is allowed" and confisticates your Chipkoos.

So, who has to make the cops aware and create a common understanding?

And we are not helping members here to get a common understanding by posting in circles.

Rajan

[autocrat]

On a lighter note:
Met a cabbie in my office parking lot, who said he is going to Kollegala (his home town, well known for black magic) to get an evil spell cast on the guy who filed PIL

Edit: While we wait for something good to happen, this guy is taking action - he rocks, whatsay?

[PatchyBoy]

It is not as if we are the only country faced with such dilemma. For those of us academically interested in similar situations in other countries, please read the attached document.

Source : Kent Police

Browse down to section 6, bullet point 5. Appendix E is what is attached to this post. Why can we not have a similar enforcement guidelines, so everyone understands what this ruling means to us and more importantly, the law enforcement agencies understand how to enforce?

Thanks,

Rajan

[sumeethaldankar]

Still no action in Mumbai ? I have ripped off my oldie 800's film as i have to get the registration renewed this month.The film got off ok with some residue.Can't bear the heat in the car as OE glass do not have tints on them.

[Deep Blue]

Originally Posted by Pri2

Here is an interesting article

Proof That the Sun Makes You Age Prematurely.
Source: Shocking Proof That the Sun Makes You Age Prematurely

Wow! Next will be skin cancer if we don't have sun films on our cars.
I feel many of the opinions in this thread are slight overreactions. Except for privacy with those jet black films, I don't think I am loosing anything very significant without the sun films.

Yes, Iam ducking for cover!

I had 3M SP70 on my sides and rear which I have removed now. All that I am missing is the better looks with the films

[dkamath]

Guys, having read this thread, I know there's no point in me posting this, but can I get a wise suggestion to the following issue I will face, which is:
We have a Maruti 800 standard model (no factory tints provided by default), for which we had the AC fitted, and sun controls added later to compliment this move. What's the best solution, other than:
a) stop using the AC :(, and
b) replace all plain glasses with tinted ones, again a :(

Is there any film available in the market that resembles the factory tinted hue?

[Bazinga]

Ban or no ban I am not removing anything. I currently have 3M on my windows and they will stay (They are genuinely RTO approved when I bought them) . Summer is too harsh to be driving without them.

SC should have kept some %age of opacity as a cut off and given instruments to traffic constables to measure than to declare them completely illegal.

Bad move.

[man_and_machine]

My little girl used to sleep in the car, but not anymore! Well, banning all films is not a good solution, as it stands today. I would have appreciated if the court had allowed transparent films (approved may be) and allowed us to carry a VLT certificate (like we carry the emission certificate, remember not all nakas have the emission meters hence a certificate). I would be willing to spend some extra money on certified transparent but heat resistant films.
Because the cops can't be provided with VLT meters, its not right to ban the films. Its like saying since the cops only use Sumo's, Boleros and Jeeps (alike), ban all cars that go faster than them :-).
Well, Bangalore starts the dance tomorrow!

[PatchyBoy]

Originally Posted by dkamath

We have a Maruti 800 standard model (no factory tints provided by default), for which we had the AC fitted, and sun controls added later to compliment this move. What's the best solution, other than:
a) stop using the AC :(, and
b) replace all plain glasses with tinted ones, again a :(

Is there any film available in the market that resembles the factory tinted hue?

Not sure why you would want to stop using A/C. There are films with 70% VLT from 3M that can be fitted. They are quite transparent. The problem is, if some cop stops you and checks for film, then you may have trouble.

Factory tinted glass means coloured glass, which has a pigment additive. No matter what film you use, it will never pass for factory fitted tint.

Hope this helps.

Rajan