[prakash_ajp]

Originally Posted by Wheeliej

Saw in the rear view mirror that he stopped at the turn wondering how to backtrack and follow as I sped away.

Guess have to be prepared for more of the same as the roadside romeos now have more visibility. sigh!!

Looks like you broke somebody's heart!

On a serious note, what's the big deal, as long as he doesn't bang someone/somewhere looking at you. Why do you even bother? It's just not possible to be invisible all the time, is it?. You will have to step out sometimes, go to a mall and such, right? It's just that we have gotten used to the privacy that the dark films have been providing us in vehicles. But then, you are right; you may have to be prepared for more like that.

[PatchyBoy]

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

Is it possible to source the previous ruling (which allowed sun-films provided overall VLT was within 70/50) and then use that to appeal against the current ruling ? Because different interpretations of the same law by the same court is both confusing and inconsistent. And given that the MV law goes into minute details, there should not be a case for inconsistency.

This is what the SC ruled in Civil Appeal 3700 of 1999

One other direction which has been assailed relates to the use of black films on the glasses. It is submitted that Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (in short 'Central Rules') provide for the measure to be taken in such cases. We find that sub-rule (2) of Rule 100 of the said Rules deals with the issue. We, therefore, modify the direction of the High Court to the extent that while carrying out the directions, the mandate of sub-rule (2) of Rule 100 shall be kept in view. This shall be in addition to any security requirement as may be laid down by the law and order enforcing agencies.

To me the bold text means "Films that do not violate the 70/50 mandate of CMVR are allowed." How I hate the langauge used in these documents
I still have to figure out what the original High Court direction was. Maybe later today.

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

If it is illegal as per the law of the land (like you said above), then it is illegal to upsize, irrespective of what tyrebible.com says or what we individually think about the benefits of upsizing. While I agree that upsizing tyres could provide better stability, the other side is that the manufacturer who rolls out cars with OE size would surely have done lots of research/tests to ensure the right tyre for the car, given the conditions it is to be used.

The unstated fact in your post is (incontinuation to the text in bold),
"...while also ensuring that it is the most cost effective (read cheapest) choice complying to the mandate, in order to reduce costs (read increase profits)."

The only reason car manufacturers resort to 70% VLT (minimum) on side windows as well, is the reason stated above. After all 70% is greater than 50%, right?

Rajan

[Wheeliej]

Originally Posted by prakash_ajp

Looks like you broke somebody's heart!

On a serious note, what's the big deal, as long as he doesn't bang someone/somewhere looking at you. Why do you even bother? It's just not possible to be invisible all the time, is it?. You will have to step out sometimes, go to a mall and such, right? It's just that we have gotten used to the privacy that the dark films have been providing us in vehicles. But then, you are right; you may have to be prepared for more like that.

Hey Prakash,

Its a woman's viewpoint. Women have to be very careful to be alert about such followers. Some of them turn out to be psychos and may cause harm even if not encouraged in the slightest (we hear about cases of brazen murder and acid throwing in broad daylight every day). Allowing such people to follow can also be seen as encouragement. In a mall scenario there are enough security guards around to ask for help and cameras to deter, but when driving, and especially at night, even with the doors locked and window panes up, there is little protection those offer if forcibly stopped at a lonely stretch.

Having said that, I have had instances where wrong type of attention has been stopped by alert men (knights) who happen to be travelling on the same road at the same time who had to do no more than stop and stare at the offending person. It is the small things that count and sunfilm was one of those for me. Bangalore, for me, scores high on security, but that wont prevent me from being alert and taking appropriate action if I feel someone is following me or giving the wrong kind of attention. What with it occurring so soon after removing the sunfilm (within a week), I had to update/comment

Cheers,

[benbsb29]

Originally Posted by Wheeliej

Hey Prakash,

Its a woman's viewpoint. Women have to be very careful to be alert about such followers. Some of them turn out to be psychos and may cause harm even if not encouraged in the slightest (we hear about cases of brazen murder and acid throwing in broad daylight every day). Allowing such people to follow can also be seen as encouragement. In a mall scenario there are enough security guards around to ask for help and cameras to deter, but when driving, and especially at night, even with the doors locked and window panes up, there is little protection those offer if forcibly stopped at a lonely stretch.

Having said that, I have had instances where wrong type of attention has been stopped by alert men (knights) who happen to be travelling on the same road at the same time who had to do no more than stop and stare at the offending person. It is the small things that count and sunfilm was one of those for me. Bangalore, for me, scores high on security, but that wont prevent me from being alert and taking appropriate action if I feel someone is following me or giving the wrong kind of attention. What with it occurring so soon after removing the sunfilm (within a week), I had to update/comment

Cheers,

This is exactly the same thing i had said in an earlier post of mine on this thread.

Originally Posted by benbsb29

I totally disagree. My wife drives our Ikon to work and back occassionally, and being in the IT sector catering to US and European clients, there are many days when she has to return back after sunset. Ask a woman in that situation if she would prefer being in a car without tints or with them. Therein lies the answer! Let's not underestimate that with comparing this to women travelling on 2 wheelers. Also, i disagree with the part about it being safer in the south. A quick look at the muggings in Bangalore thread can dispel many such misconceptions.

Infact, more than anything else this is my primary concern at the moment. That said, my Ikon has tints which were provided by the dealer, and are RTO approved.

[supremeBaleno]

Originally Posted by SCRulingOf1999

One other direction which has been assailed relates to the use of black films on the glasses. It is submitted that Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (in short 'Central Rules') provide for the measure to be taken in such cases. We find that sub-rule (2) of Rule 100 of the said Rules deals with the issue. We, therefore, modify the direction of the High Court to the extent that while carrying out the directions, the mandate of sub-rule (2) of Rule 100 shall be kept in view. This shall be in addition to any security requirement as may be laid down by the law and order enforcing agencies.

Inspite of trying my best, I could not understand any part of the SC ruling of 1999 quoted above, except for the first line So much of legalese in there.

Originally Posted by PatchyBoy

The unstated fact in your post is (incontinuation to the text in bold), "...while also ensuring that it is the most cost effective (read cheapest) choice complying to the mandate, in order to reduce costs (read increase profits)."

Even if we assume it to be the case, as long as they are in specs, cutting costs is not a bad thing. Infact organisations the world over (including the ones we work for) are looking out for ways to cut costs, not just to increase profits, but to remain in the reckoning. Stock tyres might look skinny, but for normal usage within rules/limits these are fine. And for those Schumachers that want to carve corners, even the widest rubber filling the wheel-well is no guarantee against the car turning turtle.

Originally Posted by Wheeliej

Was returning from Koramangala and when stopped at Richmond Circle noticed a motorcyclist going in the opposite direction had his helmet strap hanging and thought to myself that he would get caught since there was police presence down the road.

I doubt this was about lack of sun-films on your car - more likely due to wrong interpretation of the face/eye contact that happened. I think the guy misunderstood your looking at him - an innocuous look at the face (helmet-strap) could have been taken by him in the wrong meaning. Neither belittling the safety thing nor saying the guy was right - but from what you mentioned, this looks to be the cause than sunfilms.

[Wheeliej]

I doubt this was about lack of sun-films on your car - more likely due to wrong interpretation of the face/eye contact that happened. I think the guy misunderstood your looking at him - an innocuous look at the face (helmet-strap) could have been taken by him in the wrong meaning. Neither belittling the safety thing nor saying the guy was right - but from what you mentioned, this looks to be the cause than sunfilms.

Not sure thats the case; was wearing dark sunglasses and noticed more like from "corner of eye" rather than a "full-on look that lingered and followed" type....... anyways.....

[gpa]

Originally Posted by Wheeliej

Its a woman's viewpoint. Women have to be very careful to be alert about such followers.

+1 to this.

Although Bangalore is 'relatively' safer when compared to other cities, one still has to be on guard. A few months ago a friend and I exited Forum Mall after a late movie show and two guys on a bike followed us right from the entrance since they got a glimpse of her paying the parking fee at the exit gate. A while down the road, they kept tail-gating the car and finally pulled up beside the driver's side window at one of the intersections when we were waiting for passing traffic.

At that very instant I told her to lower the tinted windows and the guys on the bike got a look that I was seated in the passenger seat in front. When they looked in and realized my friend was not alone, they quietly turned left while we continued straight.

I wonder if the scenario would have played out differently had she been alone and the car didn't have sun-films.

[Parthasarathig]

Originally Posted by Wheeliej

Not sure thats the case; was wearing dark sunglasses and noticed more like from "corner of eye" rather than a "full-on look that lingered and followed" type....... anyways.....

Originally Posted by gpa

I wonder if the scenario would have played out differently had she been alone and the car didn't have sun-films.

Finally we have a woman's view point here to support our argument about the privacy sun films offer. It is these kinds of roadside romeos who can be a chance of major trouble for a lady alone in a car. Madam just be careful as youd normally be in any other place whether it be shops, a walk etc. And never let these people follow you to your place of work or residence.
Maybe you can drive around in circles or get someone to meet you at a waypoint so that such fellows are discouraged. This i say for every lady who is driving a car alone and is caught in such a situation. And never panic. Its just a mindgame and the one who stays calm is going to win.

And even if you didnt wear sunglasses i doubt if he wouldve been able to notice your eyes from another side of the road. So its a case of pure eve teasing or loaferpanthi or whatever you may call it and it certainly isnt safe.

Bangalore maybe relatively safer in terms of violent crimes against women, but everywhere within this city you'll find oglers and other scum, whether you are in koramangala or malleshwaram or yelahanka, these eve teasers are present everywhere on the roads, on buses, in cars, on bikes. Safety is in your hands and that should never be compromised. And i see people in bangalore respect women a lot lesser than other cities even though bangalore is relatively safer. Those knights in shining armors are hard to comeby. And i know this for a fact as ive stayed in quite a few cities over the past few years and this is from my family and friends experiences. And its all over the newspapers everyday.

Drive safe everyone. And pray none of us have to use that can of pepper spray ever.

Cheers

[srishiva]

RoadDriver - Safety advice for Female drivers

I guess we need to adjust to the realities and the law and be safe. Keeping a gun would be the safest but we don't do it.

[kicksperliter]

Hi All, (MIGHT BE HELPFUL FOR FEW STILL WITH SUN-FILMS ON)

I had previously posted about my conversation with HC Judge with regards to the judgement passed by SC on Car Sun Films. Refer to Page 165.

Today, I had been to ACP Traffic, through known accomplice of mine to seek permission of Sun Films on my car. My wife is a Doctor herself and has been lately been a victim of skin allergy. The Skin specialist had suggested not to go out in sun with some medications.

I went to meet ACP with the doctor's medical certificate (which was also suggested by Hon' judge as an alternative to keep the sun films intact on my car). I submitted the Medical Certificate duly and explained my case as why I would not be able to remove the sun-films for certain period of time atleast and since my car is registered under my wife's name was also an advantage. I did discuss about the ruling and seeked permission to keep sun films with VLT % limits as per MV Act.

He said, its absolutely fine and advised to keep the medical certificate in the car itself and produce whenever stopped.

To my surprise, he said the since SC is on vacation and reopening on 07/01, there is all probability to stick to VLT % norms as mentioned in MV act, and only those which is not under VLT% limits will be fined thereafter.

THANK GOODNESS, I never removed the Sun Films with haste and I waited. I am still running with SUN-FILMS on my car.

PS NOTE: THIS WAS DULY ON PERSONAL FRONT I HAD APPROACHED FEW SOURCES, seeking advise and inputs.

AUTHENTIC Medical Certificates might help all those, who have still not removed your vehicles SUN FILMS and which are under VLT % permissable limits. Please make sure, the medical certificates reasoned precisely, which helps one understand the need of Sun-Films.

Examples such as:
1. If you have a new born baby on board commuting to visit doctors, or need for baby to be fed while traveling and also SUN STROKE should be avoided for the new born baby on board (I didn't mean all the time though)
2. SKIN DISEASES, where doctors advise avoiding of Sun directly.

[sumeshmani]

The problem is the VLT of sun films used by us. In most cases, the VLT violates the norms. I have removed my sun film just for this reason. Even if sticking sun films is permitted, i would have to get new sun films that meet the VLT norms.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by srishiva

...Keeping a gun would be the safest but we don't do it.

No it would not! Remember the golden rule:

Any weapon you carry can be taken off you and used against you.

[xydon]

Originally Posted by kicksperliter

Hi All, (MIGHT BE HELPFUL FOR FEW STILL WITH SUN-FILMS ON)
=========
2. SKIN DISEASES, where doctors advise avoiding of Sun directly.

Thanks for the info buddy.

So 01/7 is the doomsday and I would have to get the Sun-Films per VLT permissable limits??

I love the ones which are currently on my car! 80% on windows/back windshield and 50% on the front windshield. Tough it looks dark from outside, the visibility is excellent from inside. I don't understand the reason! Why does the police wanna see me?

[supremeBaleno]

Originally Posted by Daewood

Actually there was on old Supreme court or High Court verdict in the last decade which intrepreted the same CMVR 100 rule as, sunfilms which didn't alter VLT beyond the prescribed limit to be legal.

Are you sure the previous ruling allowed sun-films ? Reading through the judgement, it looks like that ruling referred to OE tinted glass (not glass with films on it). The current ruling makes a reference to the previous ruling (excerpts below) and they are clearly talking of only tinted-glasses getting exemption if within VLT specified in MV Act.

21. ...We may also note that a Bench of this Court, vide its Order dated 15th December, 1998 in Civil Appeal No. 3700 of 1999 titled Chandigarh Administration and Others v. Namit Kumar & Ors., had permitted the use of ‘light coloured tinted glasses’ only while specifically disapproving use of films on the vehicles.

22. Rightly so, none of the orders of this Court have permitted use of black films. Rule 100(2) specifies the VLT percentage of the glasses at the time of manufacture and to be so maintained even thereafter.

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.

So, looks like there is no inconsistency between the previous ruling and the current one.

[autocrat]

Originally Posted by Wheeliej

I had some unwanted attention after removing sunfilm !!

Today one guy on a noisy bike was peeking into my rear left glass at a signal. I keep my bag on the rear seat.

I observed him for sometime, I lowered the rear left glass and asked him with a smile in kannada "Have lost anything in my car?"
Reply: "I am checking how I look"

A photographer friend is now concerned about leaving his photography gear in his Scorpio. My brothers wife cant feed the infant in the car.

People have been robbed of their peace of mind, and its a cost far greater than that of what was spent on films :(