[IronH4WK]

Originally Posted by lohithrao

what about the helmet wiser which are dark or reflective?

err.. Don't give them ideas; I've a mirror finish visor on my GPR and theres a devil's mind at work behind that, which you can never ban

Although this thread started off as a thread to discuss the serious issue of the ban on sin (sorry, sun) film on our vehicles, it has now (kinda) become the official joke thread.. on SC!

Nothing official about it

[mayankk]

Originally Posted by lohithrao

oh yaaa, what about the helmet wiser which are dark or reflective?

Yes .
The courts should take coognizance of the innumerable crimes being committed against miniature people who are robbed and molested, while taken captive inside dark helmets.
Its the scourge of our times!




Ps :I've passed by the HC 2 days back . I did not see any "law abiding" citizen's cars parked there.

[StarrySky]

Originally Posted by asdon

OT: Yesterday I took a picture of one IPS, ACP ranked officer's white amby in HSR Layout, with all black tint, thinking of sending it to press, what do you think friends?

I saw a Kerala High Court judge's official car (Corolla) with pretty dark sun film today at the Cochin airport. Wanted to take a picture, but did not have the camera handy.

[optimist]

Any lawyers on this forum? please comment.

What are the means/method of appealing or trying to counter such judgements if one is confirming to the existing laws in force at the time of judgement?

It really does not help that the existing regulations are held valid for vehicle manufacturer but denied to the general public. An individual who is not able to buy high end pretinted vehicles is also entitled to the same comfort level as one who can if it is within the permitted range.

There is no need to show any mercy to those who go beyond this but how this can be measured is a moot point. This judgement is an easy way out of such siutations.

Does it help if the affected parties write to the honourable court to reconsider the judgement and is there any merit in individuals writing letters to the concerned bench at supreme court citing reasons like :
a. prevention of skin allergies / cancer due to reduced exposure to harmful sun rays?
b. Reduction of pollution and fuel consumed due to reduced load on engines?
c. Reduced incidents of opportunistic theft and personal harm due to less visiblity of items and people in car knowing the shoddy level of security an individual experiences in the street and society at large.

Thank you.

[HotChillyPepper]

Originally Posted by StarrySky

I saw a Kerala High Court judge's official car (Corolla) with pretty dark sun film today at the Cochin airport. Wanted to take a picture, but did not have the camera handy.

Don't bother. I was a bit scared to take out my car due to the tinted glasses, but as soon as I reached the first junction, I saw a tragic police Jeep with pitch black film pasted on rear and side glasses.

[sara.ramli]

I am about to book a Figo tomorrow and the dealer has offered to provide Sunfilms free of cost. With this recent development, should I request him not to apply the sunfilms at all? Or delay it by a month or so, to see what the Chennai Traffic Police does in this regard and then decide?

[manolin]

Originally Posted by jalex77

I'm afraid that is not possible, Perhaps you might have only read paragraph 26 of the Order, Take a look at the next paragraph:

27. For the reasons afore-stated, we prohibit the use of black

.

Upon means affixed to. A curtain is not upon a window.

[coldice4u]

This court ruling is definitely not a very sensible one. But also it cannot be denied that pitch black films are a security threat.

Whta should have been done is that the court should have made ileegal the sale of all films which does not comply to the RTO standard. That would have ensured that people end up only with road legal films in their cars. Just as sale of non ISI helmets should have been banned a long time ago.

[girishglg]

Originally Posted by HotChillyPepper

Don't bother. I was a bit scared to take out my car due to the tinted glasses, but as soon as I reached the first junction, I saw a tragic police Jeep with pitch black film pasted on rear and side glasses.

That a nice typo there hehe 'tragic' police. Just having a good laugh at the expense of the cops (no offence meant to the author). They (cops) surely are a tragic lot to many innocent people's wallets (come and watch them at work at EC targetting IT crowd and letting many cabs and auto offenders go scott free), lightening them for even the silliest of reasons (at least in Blr) and now they have got one more reason to fleece harried motorists!

[HotChillyPepper]

Originally Posted by girishglg

That a nice typo there hehe 'tragic' police. Just having a good laugh at the expense of the cops (no offence meant to the author). They (cops) surely are a tragic lot to many innocent people's wallets (come and watch them at work at EC targetting IT crowd and letting many cabs and auto offenders go scott free), lightening them for even the silliest of reasons (at least in Blr) and now they have got one more reason to fleece harried motorists!

I actually noticed the typo after sometime and by then the edit button was gone. But then I myself couldn't control laughing at my typo

[drmohitg]

Originally Posted by SLK

Sorry, I think this might be getting a bit now. All I was trying to say is that, DTP gladly took the opportunity to harass people, one may choose to see that as efficient/ active and give them credit for their efficiency, that is personal opinion.

I totally agree with you that they are acting all weird while enforcing this rule. This is not drunken driving or any serious offence. And the way they enforce other rules, this looks like a Nazi regime cracking on Delhiites at the moment. Its almost as if they know that the rule will not stay the same for long and have decided to make as much money as possible. Or Mr. Garg has become too used to all that applause he gets in the Media.

[jalex77]

Originally Posted by manolin

Upon means affixed to. A curtain is not upon a window.

It has more wider meaning and not just that I'm afraid dear sir. Try this one for instance
Upon: in or into complete or approximate contact with Upon | Define Upon at Dictionary.com.

Okay lets leave that, They wrongly interpreted the Rule in the CMVR and put a blanket ban on the whole idea of sun-films across the length and breadth of the country and you say upon means just affixed to? Have you seen the judgement? Its whole point is to enable the cops to see what 'terrorist act' we are upto and curtains will make it easy for us to 'build a weapon of mass destruction' inside our car while driving.

You cant put anything to block the windows or windscreen of a car in any way and thats the order of the Supreme Court and will so remain till someone files an appeal and the Order is stayed. Another thing is that the order is very much challengeable and someone will do it soon I presume.

[godog]

I will need help with getting a stay order, which I can imagine will be difficult to get within this week, given:
1. the resources at my disposal vis-a-vis the SC and its procedures
2. the response on the petition website.

I'm hoping for nearly 800 more signatures tomorrow itself. After a stay is granted, although its a nigh impossible task given the obtuse stance the court has taken, I think one needs at least a week if not two in order to file a proper review petition. This being the SC, you can't take any chances; you don't get another shot.

Hence, request anyone reading this to PM me if you can provide legal support during the next 7 to 21 days in this matter.

[CBlazer]

I can understand the issue the Supreme court is trying to address, but banning sun films is no way of doing it. It is impractical to drive around a car without sun films in summer even in a place like Bangalore. Many years ago I've seen the digital clock casing of my Omni melt in the hot Raichur summer.

My car didn't come with tinted glasses - I don't know which of the cars do. Using AC in full blast will not help, if anything will only cause people to burn more fuel. Why are judgements passed without considering all factors? IMO, the only option is to enforce a strict visibility criteria for all sun films used in cars and maybe also ban the sale of dark films. BTW I never understood why they have a 50% criteria for the sides and 70% for the front and rear, if crime is what they are trying to prevent.

[ramneek009]

Originally Posted by Alter_Ego

Also are you ready to pay the damages cost by thieves to ramneek's headunits which were stolen as soon as he got the sunfilms removed.
Please read the quoted post below.This is not one off incidents.You will soon hear these kind of cases on the rise.

Rather than addressing the root cause you are just trying to get rid of the symptoms.

Sir you might be rough and tough but some people have kids and they cannot bear the harsh sun causing damage to their family.

It was not me or my family's fault that crimes happen in cars with tinted windows.So please don't make us suffer.There are lots of other situations where crimes happen, so guess you would support banning almost all of those too.
I am not blaming you for the SC ruling but the way you are strongly supporting it amuses me.

Okay, now i am a little relaxed. Its not that removing the tints made the insides visible and my head units were stolen. The cars had VLT 70% tints all around. Its just that when bad things happen they all start happening at the same time.

Totally agree with the skin allergy part. My sister is having skin allergy and just yesterday she developed a sun burn on her arm as she was travelling in my car without tints. So basically this move by SC is just one of the many ways for traffic police to harass people and extort funds.

I have said it before and i'll say it again. To hell goes the law. This is a country where more than half the people forming government are uneducated, underqualified for the job. Every now and then a law is passed which puts the citizens of the country in troubling situations. I'll use all the contacts and connections possible but i am not taking the tints off my third car. Just because someone's weird logic states that taking tints off will reduce crime rates i am not willing to see my sister getting sun burnt on a daily basis.

PS: I, just like many of you want to follow the laws(removed the tints on 4th may) and as a part of a community called Team-Bhp its my responsibility to make sure whatever i write here does not make a wrong impression in front of all the members and the readers but to me its more important to see my family not suffering rather than following a weird, illogical law.