[noopster]

5% VLT films even on windows is over the top in any circumstances. I don't think an individual's right to privacy is absolute: at least in the case of law enforcement officials needing to have unhindered visibility in case a crime is being committed, an exception is called for.

It's very disconcerting to see a vehicle slowly cruise by with blacked out tints on the sides and you're wondering whether there is a lecher or pervert in there ogling his heart out at your family. When you consider the primary motivation behind the blanket ban- sexual assault in moving vehicles- it is even more scary. Surely whatever it is you want your privacy for, you can wait till you get home to do it, in the interest of general good?

SB, nandan- the point is made. Let's not belabour it- move on!

[supremeBaleno]

Originally Posted by suhaas307

What I'm trying to say is, let not, the opportunity to meet with accidents arise in the first place. I do not advocate driving with sunfilm of low VLT. At the same time, if one wants to then he can by all means. It's just that he needs to be extra careful and keep his eyes and ears open for every little thing all the time (not that he others shouldn't anyway)

Well, even though illegal, one can surely buy any VLT and use it - worst to happen would be cops fining and removing it. But that does not take away from the fact that this is not offset by keeping eyes/ears open. Agree with the rest of what you said.

Originally Posted by nandans2005

I dont have 5% on my windshield for God's sake. The common sense would demand one to understand that these are on windows. Nobody drives watching the sides of the road always.

I do understand that it would take a lot of ignorance for someone to stick 5% VLT on the windshield. But given the privacy requirements people have here, I would not be surprised if I came across someone who insists on having 5% VLT in the front too I meant the sides only and while no one drives looking sideways, you do need visibility at the sides. Else ORVMs would have been redundant.

Originally Posted by nandans2005

Nobody will struggle to see through the 5% in the night. The windows are rolled down, so please. Experience shows !!

So, are you implying that as soon as the sun sets, everyone rolls down their windows and drives ? Maybe you need to do that since you would be unable to see anything anyway at the sides. But others drive as always with windows up and a/c on. And when you drive with windows down in the evenings, you are not worried about the peeping 2-wheeler guy who can now clearly see inside since windows itself are rolled down ?

EDIT : Saw the mod note only after posting this. No more on this from me.

[nandans2005]

Originally Posted by srishiva

condescending attitude

This word has two meanings. I am sure you dont know the good meaning of this word et all, else i am sure you wouldn't have used it.

Originally Posted by srishiva

dont know how you look at women and dont want to know.

I do like you do.

Well, read my post properly, i have used the word "too" in my sentence about the park. Not that i have compared park and work.

EDIT:With regards to noopster, i Rest my case with this post for the day.

Note From Team-BHP Support-Staff: Please take the time to compose your posts including using quote tags correctly. Thanks!

[spadix]

My thoughts on less than 50% VLT film on the side windows -

I had 35% VLT (3M RE35) and yes, I was enjoying the lack of proper enforcement. To the extent that I and others like I contributed to the PIL happening in the first place, I stand guilty.

With that out of the way, here are my observations on 35% VLT and lesser films.

I always drive with windows rolled up and the AC on. This is not because I can't bear the heat even during January or anything, but just because I want a quiet, dust-free environment inside my car while I'm driving.

35% VLT
With RE35, the only times I genuinely felt the visibility out of the windows was low was on dark *and* rainy/foggy nights. I drove the car around for a good 6 months (Aug. '10 to Feb. '11, with monsoon '10 being especially torrid in Hyd) and I know for a fact that the RE35 made matters worse during monsoon '11, which was much lighter in intensity.

At all other times, visibility into/out of the car was brilliant. I would never have done something inside the car which I wouldn't have done outside of it. If someone came close enough, they could *clearly* see inside the car despite the reflective nature of the RE series.

20% VLT
Dad's Indigo has a 3M film which is darker than the RE35 but still light enough that I can clearly see out even during night (when it doesn't rain of course). So I'm assuming it's CS20 or SP20 or whatever consumer-grade 20% VLT 3M film was on sale in May 2006.

This film's not so dark that I can't see into other cars, and once again, to someone who's reasonably close to the car, visibility into the car during day time isn't too heavily compromised. To the extent that the CMVR is meant for visibility from the inside looking out and not the other way round, this is bearable.

Once again, just like with RE35, I never felt much discomfort except on really dark and rainy nights. Maybe I was just lucky.

5-10% VLT
Another family member's i10 had extremely dark film (he tore it off sometime in the middle of last year, finally). This was some cheap brand installed by Hyundai much against his wishes. He asked for lighter varieties and they either didn't have one in the 35-50% VLT range or were not prepared to give it away for free/cheap. Under pressure from family (some film *had* to be put), there was no option but to get this installed at the time of delivery.

This film was much darker than the one on Dad's Indigo. It must've been 5 or 10% VLT, not more. Now this was a fearsome experience even during broad daylight. I would simply not be able to make out what's outside. VLR (VL reflected) was also obviously high and not only did this film give me tunnel vision while driving, but also distracted me with vivid reflections of the beige dashboard in my periphery. Visibility from the outside in was even worse - practically nil unless you have your face to the glass. This film is ideal for changing trousers inside the car etc.

In summary, I would think - at least for me, personally - that 50% VLT would be the most ideal on the sides because 35% VLT was great except for one special case which 50%+ could perhaps easily handle. Now, given that even 20% and 35% VLT itself didn't exactly allow privacy (not that I was looking for it), obviously 50% won't. The CMVR pertaining to visibility is pretty well thought-out, I think. In my experience at least, privacy and safe driving DO NOT go hand-in-hand.

The only way out of this is I guess to allow films with VLT of any % *only* on the two rear side windows and not on the driver's and co-driver's side windows and rear windscreen. I think this is a workable solution for those looking for privacy for their families. While I wasn't after films for privacy, I can empathize with those looking for privacy on the road - everyone has their reasons. Of course, sole women drivers will not be covered with this work-around.

Other than to ensure good visibility while glancing over and back to cover blind spots, I fail to see why the CMVR can't be amended to allow < 50% VLT on the two side windows on the rear.

In hindsight, I now feel I should've invested in CR50 instead of RE35. The heat rejection properties are similar and UV rejection is better. It was the cost at which I balked. But from what I see, CR50 is going undetected, and it's possible that I may have benefited from that on May 4.

Regards,
spadix

[PatchyBoy]

Originally Posted by spadix

Other than to ensure good visibility while glancing over and back to cover blind spots, I fail to see why the CMVR can't be amended to allow < 50% VLT on the two side windows on the rear.

That would be against the fundamental contention of this PIL that Law Enforcement must be able to see what you are upto inside the car.

Rajan

[msdivy]

Originally Posted by vikram_d

Dunken driving and lowered visibility driving is a very bad analogy in my opinion.

Right. When your are drunk, alertness level goes down. Even if you comprehend whats happening and want to react, reaction is very slow. But with sun-films with low VLT, you are still fully alert. Safe driving is about having clear view of whats happening for atleast 50m distance. So VLT of side windows doesn't matter during day. During night, if you are alert to whats happening around, you can drive with low VLT glass.
So the comparison doesn't hold good. Drunken driving is illegal and *harmful*. Using low VLT glass too is illegal but *harmless*. Its similar to doing 90 on a road with speed limit of 80.

Note: This is my experience driving 20%, 35%, 50% VLT side, rear sun-films and cars with no sunfilm.

Originally Posted by spadix

Other than to ensure good visibility while glancing over and back to cover blind spots, I fail to see why the CMVR can't be amended to allow < 50% VLT on the two side windows on the rear.

I don't remember anytime seeing thru' rear window while driving (even while reversing). Probably in the car I drive, there isn't much information available via rear window. IRVM, OVRM & windshield is good enough.

[supremeBaleno]

Originally Posted by msdivy

Drunken driving is illegal and *harmful*. Using low VLT glass too is illegal but *harmless*. Its similar to doing 90 on a road with speed limit of 80.

If it were totally harmless, there would not have been the need to have a law about it, making it illegal. The very reason for defining VLT in CMVR (not the reason for which PIL came up) is that there is possible harm due to going below prescribed limit. But yeah, agree with you that a drunk driver is much more of a hazard compared to someone with limited visibility.

Originally Posted by msdivy

I don't remember anytime seeing thru' rear window while driving (even while reversing). IRVM, OVRM & windshield is good enough.

Blind spots would not be covered by the I/O RVMs and that is where a quick glance behind helps. If the rear side windows are tinted heavily, it will not help see what is in the blind spot. A quick glance behind is recommended while changing lanes etc during driving lessons in other countries - we dont have a proper system at all, so...

@spadix, that was a good balanced post about your experience.

[PatchyBoy]

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

Blind spots would not be covered by the I/O RVMs and that is where a quick glance behind helps. If the rear side windows are tinted heavily, it will not help see what is in the blind spot. A quick glance behind is recommended while changing lanes etc during driving lessons in other countries.

totally.

I have driven extensively both in Australia and in the US. I have driven cars with heavy tints on rear side-windows as well as the rear windscreen. Always followed the MIST principle when shifting lanes, in both countries.

Mirror - Indicator - Shoulder - Turn

Always works like a charm. The difference is the level of organized traffic there and the level of chaos here. The MIST does not work here. So having dark films on rear side-windows is a lot more hazardous.

Afterall you never find a kamikaze autorickshaw trying to overtake you from the wrongside AFTER you have looked over your shoulder and started to make your turn / lane change in those countries

Rajan

[gopa99]

Originally Posted by spadix

My thoughts on less than 50% VLT film on the side windows -

you seem to be referring to CR 70. VLT 50 cannot go undetected.


Note from Moderator: Please avoid quoting an entire large post. It inconveniences our small screen & mobile readers. Thanks.

[spadix]

Originally Posted by msdivy

I don't remember anytime seeing thru' rear window while driving (even while reversing). Probably in the car I drive, there isn't much information available via rear window. IRVM, OVRM & windshield is good enough.

It's only for blind spots. So I find it extremely useful to glance back once while for instance merging onto a main road and sometimes for changing lanes. I agree with you that modern cars with their thick B and C-pillars and high-waistlines and boot lines make this trickier.

For reversing, I usually rely only on the 3 RVMs. Sometimes instinct or circumstance tells me to crane my neck back using the left hand behind the co-driver's headrest for support (the European way) and I usually end up thanking myself for doing so.

Originally Posted by gopa99

you seem to be referring to CR 70. VLT 50 cannot go undetected.

I would've thought so too but I'm going by anecdotal evidence from TBHPians, including some from NCR where the drive has been stricter than in other cities.

@supremeBaleno: You're welcome, thanks!

Regards,
spadix

[WindRide]

So privacy seems to be the concern#1.
Seeing a lazily maintained indica on way to office, an idea stuck me: Why dont i get smart and never wipe or wash my car, especially the side/rear glass areas. That way i have a thick layer of dust, mud, assorted bird poop, whatnot, etc preventing sun and lewd glances getting into my car. Ah what privacy!!

Will cops haul me over if iam, er, my car, is covered with mud and seen running post 1/7?

[VW2010]

I can never take my car out looking dirty. I rather keep it spanking clean without the sun film than dirty.

Hate to take my car out dirty.

[Daewood]

I guess most of us here use sunglasses while driving. You know what's the VLT of most sunglasses including the green-gray Ray Ban Aviators? 12-16%. The darker ones have VLT as low as 8%. Why none of those are considered suicidal. Agree not many use sunglasses after sundown, but then what's the difference between between 15%VLT sunglasses in daylight and 50% VLT sunfilm in night.

For reference i've attached a sample pic.
a)Sunfilm with 50%VLT: If you see the night pic there isn't a big difference between the view through sunfilm, and without it.
b)Sunglass with 15% VLT: In the day pic the view through Sunglass is so dark. Then how do we see through a sunglass? Our eye is like a SLR camera. On seeing the bright daylight picture it automaticaly shrinks the aperture and hence we are not able to see clearly through the sunglass area. In real life when we wear a sunglass and see through it, all the viewing angles are dark and hence the aperture is always enlarged enabling clear view.
In the darker picture we are able to see clearly through the sunfilm area also, because already the aperture is enlarged by the brain on seeing the dark picture.
You might have experienced the same concept when you enter a cinema hall which is dark, and you regain your vision after a few seconds of blindness.

[Rehaan]

Nice post Daewood, though the second picture would have been even more apt if the 15% VLT was applied over a car window (eg. if we were cops trying to look in from the bright outside).

Cheers,
R

[mukeshgoel]

I was stopped at Rajiv Chowk in Gurgaon. One of the cops thought there is less light in my car. He asked me to roll down the window. and tried to feel the film at the edge, but did not find anything. He asked me move on.

BTW, I have CR70 at the front and RE35 at rear in my Civic. No films on sides anymore.