[radek]

Originally Posted by asdon

Sorry but I don't agree that all cars comes with tinted glass, at least not my Punto or previous Alto.

Not sure if every car will have it. But I believe majority of the cars will have OEM tinted windows. The level of tint will be very low. You will not notice it unless you compare it with clear glass. Earlier car companies used to state this as feature. Now this is standard.

Check this link for Alto. select Variant tab where there is comparative table which state this as feature under AC for Lx and Lxi.

Maruti Suzuki Alto: small Indian car

[superutp]

I started paying more attention to sunfilms on other vehicles after this SC verdict and was pretty much shocked after noticing several cars having 50% on the front windscreen and probably 30% on the sides.

Well in a way this verdict is justifiable and in a way its not. The logic seems to be that If we can't contain people from using illegal %'s on sunflims then lets just ban them. Absolutely removes chances of negotiation between a car owner and a cop when you have something banned by law.

Though you are still going to have several cops making quick bucks instead of standing and tearing sunfilms and the cycle still continues.

[Guna]

Originally Posted by vinjosep

This is the man: Twitter

There are quite a few PILs in the works too

Couple of days back, Bangalore Mirror had listed the pros and cons of the decisions (to ban).
Prominent cons are:

• Driving in the nights/deserted areas will be less safer for women drivers (as one can clearly see who is driving)
• It will be easier for thieves who lift items from cars (due to good vissibilty again)

If the crimes do increase in these 2 areas, is there a way to make this person accountable

BTW I am totally for the ban against very dark/black films as it does impact visibility both for the driver as well as other road users.

[IronH4WK]

Originally Posted by vinjosep

This is the man: Twitter

There are quite a few PILs in the works too

get a load of this guy! FAQ on his site!

Q – 1] BLACK FILMS REDUCE HEAT RETENTION IN VEHICLES ??

ANS – 1] CONTENTIONS MAY BE RAISED THAT BLACK FILMS IN VEHICLES REDUCES HEAT RETENTION IN THE VEHICLES. IT IS SUBMITTED MOST HUMBLY THAT CUSTOMARILY THE OCCUPANTS OF VEHICLES WITH BLACK FILMS ON GLASSES SWITCH ON THE AIR CONDITIONING OF THEIR VEHICLES, WHEN THEY PULL UP THE WINDOW GLASSES, WHICH NEUTRALIZES THE EFFECTS OF HARSH WEATHER CONDITIONS. ABSENCE OF BLACK FILM, WILL ONLY DELAY THE EFFECTIVE COOLING BY ONE OR TWO MINUTES BUT WILL SAVE LIFE AND LIBERTY OF HUMAN BEINGS. AS FAR AS PRIVACY ON ROADS IS CONCERNED, IT IS FURTHER HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT NATIONAL SECURITY AND PERILS PERTAINING TO LIFE AND SECURITY OF THE CITIZENS OF THE NATIONS OWES MANIFOLD ADDED CONCERN THAN THE TRIVIAL ISSUES OF PRIVACY AND MEASURES FOR LIFE AND SECURITY HAS TO PREVAIL OVER PRIVACY.
THE COOLING IS BECAUSE OF THE AIR CONDITIONER AND NOT BECAUSE OF BLACK FILMS ON GLASSES OF VEHICLES !!

courtesy: SAVE AAM ADMI

more here


question: is he gonna pay us for the fuel to run our cars on a/c all the time after removing the sun films?




PS: the quote is as is on the above site and not made so deliberately (i mean the CAPS part).

[vinjosep]

Originally Posted by IronH4WK

get a load of this guy! FAQ on his site!

question: is he gonna pay us for the fuel to run our cars on a/c all the time after removing the sun films?

His disclaimer covers up everything

DISCLAIMER

All views expressed are of an individual and no expert professional advice has been taken on any input. Following them is completely at the discretion of an individual and in no way any incentives are being extended for following them.

I'm surprised that the hon SC didnt setup an experts committee before arriving at this decision. I do hope that some sense prevails in the near future.

[vinaydas]

Heights of joblessness? Definitely on part of the person who pushed for the PIL and also the court for actually passing the order without thinking of the consequences.

[Mindgrinder]

there is facebook page against this ban and even a petition at change.org, i feel we should all get together and ask for logical bans like allowing 50% tints on sides and nothing on front and back, my linea has 70% even on sides and considering Fiat the AC just dies without the film..what about more AC more carbon foot print

[Vid6639]

So it looks like sunfilm companies are deciding to keep quiet over it. The facebook page mentions that sunfilm removal charges are 200-500 which people are making money over and by keeping quiet after a few weeks till the hype goes down after which people will go for sunfilm again thereby increasing their business even more.

Probably after that they will try and get the 50-70 rule enforced so people buy only the higher VLT films.

[jalex77]

Does anyone feel something fishy on the issue or am I the only one?

See no one has moved the courts with an appeal after all these days nor has the Sun-film manufacturers given much media releases on the issue. I tried mailing some manufactures about the issue, But no responses yet. What can all that mean now?

You can't blame anyone if they start to think that this is the result of a conspiracy by the Sun Film Manufacturers themselves.What if after a while when everyone gets their sun control films ripped off and then they file the appeal and then the Order(There is high chance for the blanket ban to be lifted on appeal.) allows the use of 70% and 50%VLT Sun Films? The manufacturers get enormous business like never before. Their stocks will rise like rockets. What do you think?

[babu.sundaram]

Originally Posted by superutp

I started paying more attention to sunfilms on other vehicles after this SC verdict and was pretty much shocked after noticing several cars having 50% on the front windscreen and probably 30% on the sides.

+1 to this.
Not being an expert at VLT specs, I was seeing if I could see something / anything recognizable inside the vehicle, today morning, ~10 AM on way to office. I was surprised / shocked that I could not recognize in most vehicles, notably higher segment vehicles and cabs.

(Sorry to occupants of the vehicles I did this, intention was not to invade into their privacy).

[benbsb29]

Originally Posted by Guna

Couple of days back, Bangalore Mirror had listed the pros and cons of the decisions (to ban).
Prominent cons are:

• Driving in the nights/deserted areas will be less safer for women drivers (as one can clearly see who is driving)
• It will be easier for thieves who lift items from cars (due to good vissibilty again)

I am more concerned about the first point. The main reason i asked my wife to use the car to drive to work and back was for her safety over a 2 wheeler. Now, with this new rule, it leaves the occupants inside easily visible for miscreants and thugs who could attack.

I pray that the very same rule which was passed by the Supreme Court to safeguard women does not work towards the opposite. A rather hasty decision which is definitely not well thought-out.

[jayded]

Any solid news from Hyderabad yet?
I've been travelling around HiTech city for a couple of days after 4th May and yet to find any cops stopping cars for checking/removing tints, saw few bikes being held up near Masab tank though while riding with a friend on his bike.

[sumeethaldankar]

Still have no clue about anything in Mumbai.It seems Mumbai police are oblivious to the supreme court ruling.The suspense is killing me.What about the appeal to be files by Garware against the ruling.Anyone has a update on that.

Also as i was observing the cars on the roads from the past week i have noticed 45% don't have any tints on them.

[HighOctane]

Originally Posted by Guna

Couple of days back, Bangalore Mirror had listed the pros and cons of the decisions (to ban).
Prominent cons are:

• Driving in the nights/deserted areas will be less safer for women drivers (as one can clearly see who is driving)
• It will be easier for thieves who lift items from cars (due to good vissibilty again)

Also in US, the skin cancer occurs towards the driving side of the infected patients as that part allow UV rays easily.

I am sure, with above reasons, PIL will be filed and then the ban would be removed and people who have pealed off the films will again go and fix new one with more visibility.

[Ragul]

Originally Posted by vinjosep

His disclaimer covers up everything



I'm surprised that the hon SC didnt setup an experts committee before arriving at this decision. I do hope that some sense prevails in the near future.

How did this person reach the Supreme Court directly? Aren't there any lower courts where this can be argued with a stipulation made that opposing parties arguments be diligently heard and debated before a overarching decision is made?

--R