[Jaggu]

Originally Posted by svsantosh

Get the top 4-5inches of your windscreen sunfilmed with super-dark film. Like a amby taxi i dont think thats illegal, planning to do it in my AG.

I had that, and removed it since its not OE and didn't want to shelve out 100 bucks to cops for that strip. That really was a boon though.

I would be ok if they allow the patti with front door glass sunfilm

Actually its a brilliant idea right, how many multi tasking criminal drivers are out there??

[Alter_Ego]

Couldnt help but post



By the way just drove from M.G. road to my office in ORR, Ecospace and saw cops stopping speeding vehicles on ORR but not for having dark films.

[scopriobharath]

Originally Posted by msdivy

One more problem for traffic police. The movie stars have removed sun-films in their cars. Guess what? They are being mobbed by people at traffic junctions, to have a glimpse, get autograph, get photo etc. The traffic was held up for half an hour at one such instance.

Black film tinted glass banned supreme court order - Oneindia Kannada

Aren't Movie stars allowed sun-films under Z category security?

[Jaggu]

Originally Posted by scopriobharath

Aren't Movie stars allowed sun-films under Z category security?

For that you dont have to be a movie star, all Z category would get exempt i guess.

[Alter_Ego]

Originally Posted by scopriobharath

Aren't Movie stars allowed sun-films under Z category security?

Movie stars come under Z categoy security
I wasn't aware.What threat do they have.I guess Sunny Deol might have after he released Gadar.
But why others.LOL.

[KiloAlpha]

Originally Posted by Jaggu

I had that, and removed it since its not OE and didn't want to shelve out 100 bucks to cops for that strip. That really was a boon though.

I would be ok if they allow the patti with front door glass sunfilm

Actually its a brilliant idea right, how many multi tasking criminal drivers are out there??

You really need not have bothered with removing the shade strip on the top of your windscreen. All taxis, without exception, have that shade strip. In their case, it is not even sun film but totally opaque reflective paper stuck on the top of the glass, on which they proffer thanks to their God, Mother, Father, advertise their services, etc etc. I don't see any of them removing that shade band, and I don't see cops bothered about it.

[scopriobharath]

Originally Posted by Jaggu

For that you dont have to be a movie star, all Z category would get exempt i guess.

Originally Posted by Alter_Ego

Movie stars come under Z categoy security
I wasn't aware.What threat do they have.I guess Sunny Deol might have after he released Gadar.
But why others.LOL.

I agree - then I am curious to know why the movie star mentioned in the post removed sub-film in the frst place. The comissioner / DGP would have issued a certificate to the star, permitting usage of sun-films.

A coincidence - to the best of my knowledge we do not have any movie stars in TBHP . Hope even movie stars join TBHP. There is so much usful info here.

[Jaggu]

Originally Posted by Alter_Ego

Movie stars come under Z categoy security
I wasn't aware.What threat do they have.I guess Sunny Deol might have after he released Gadar.
But why others.LOL.

Lol even i was confused when i read it first, but i guess they also need to get a permission. ie the special category people in xyz categories of the world.

Originally Posted by KiloAlpha

You really need not have bothered with removing the shade strip on the top of your windscreen.
==========
I don't see any of them removing that shade band, and I don't see cops bothered about it.

Yeah i should have, but then it was looking more odd on the white car. Then the reason mentioned above ^^ After the pain of ripping the rest, why take a chance with the law, just coz of a small band. And in swift it doesn't come oe in any models.

[man_and_machine]

The Hindu : NATIONAL / KARNATAKA : Did Supreme Court verdict err on banning sun films?

I think this article is a real eye opener on one aspect. The VLT was designed in the Motor act for the driver visibility (for someone inside the car to get a good view of his/her surroundings) and not for outside in view. Now this is breaking news to me! How can the SC get it wrong? Also does the SC have the jurisdiction to create law? by banning films it feels like they have modified the Motor Act. Does the legislature only have the power in our democracy to make amendments to a law?
Somehow I am getting a feeling that the SC might modify its order.
On the lighter side (with no particular political bias), I know the govt in the center is in a policy paralysis, does not mean that SC judges should take the responsibilities on!

[vnk77]

Even if the supreme court has erred, nothing can be done till the vacation is over. Which I guess ends on 1st of July. So nearly 20 more days left, the police has free hand to ensure that every one has removed the sunfilms. So I am just hoping that I dont get fined till that time, although there are very remote chance of that happening.

Slightly OT:
I wonder what this TBHP member has done. By removing the sunfilms, he may have to put an end to teh hanky panky that he was planning.

http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/hatchb...uld-i-buy.html

[srishiva]

Originally Posted by vnk77

Even if the supreme court has erred, nothing can be done till the vacation is over. Which I guess ends on 1st of July. So nearly 20 more days left, the police has free hand to ensure that every one has removed the sunfilms. So I am just hoping that I dont get fined till that time, although there are very remote chance of that happening.

Slightly OT:
I wonder what this TBHP member has done. By removing the sunfilms, he may have to put an end to teh hanky panky that he was planning.

http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/hatchb...uld-i-buy.html

Thanks for showing the thread, a hilarious one. Think he might have removed the sun films too.

[Parthasarathig]

Originally Posted by vnk77

Slightly OT:
I wonder what this TBHP member has done. By removing the sunfilms, he may have to put an end to teh hanky panky that he was planning.

http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/hatchb...uld-i-buy.html

Rofl what a thread that was. And you should read all his posts. He did start a new thread after the hanky panky business. I only wish i could advise him to get the punto. Bellissimo hankypanky.

[gtonsing]

Was that a closed thread? Hilarious one. We should have more of those!!!

[B103]

Guys, I have two questions:

(1) Am I obliged to pay a fine if my sun film conforms with the spec mentioned by Motor vehicles act? Isn't this act made by the parliament and hence supreme? The spec made by law is very clear. How can a judge override that, make his own law and subjugate people?

(2) What about health implications? Now a days, people drive long distances in India too. Under the blistering tropical sun, devoid of sun films, there are serious health hazards involved like chances of getting sun burn or even skin cancer. I know many people whose skin is quite allergic to sun when overexposed. This verdict is mindless of those implications as well

[PatchyBoy]

Originally Posted by B103

Guys, I have two questions:
(1) Am I obliged to pay a fine if my sun film confirms with the spec mentioned by Motor vehicles act? Isn't this act made by the parliament? The spec made by law is very clear. How can a judge override that and make his own law and force that on people?

You are partially correct. The SC cannot make a law. Having said that, until and unless the SC ruling is challenged and stayed / quashed, it is a ruling and the police are bound to abide by it. If you are stopped for having film on your windows until then, yes you are obliged to pay the fine.

Originally Posted by B103

(2) What about health implications? People drive long distances now a days in India. Under the hot sun without any sun film, there are health hazards involved like chances of getting sun burn or even skin cancer. I know many people whose skin is quite allergic to sun when overexposed. This verdict is mindless of those implications as well

At the risk of being ridiculed again, yes, you are right. There are many ripple effects that have not been considered in this ruling. Harmful effects of exposure to sun is one of them. I guess you have no choice but to use a sun screen till such time this ruling is reversed. SPF 15 should suffice unless you are very allergic to sun, in which case, please consult with a dermatologist.

Hope this helps.

Rajan