[phamilyman]

Originally Posted by panky12345

Whats the fine in Delhi? 100 or 1000? Can somebody confirm??

100+ free removal in delhi
Just add a zero n no free removal if you cross the border to Gurgaon :-)

[PatchyBoy]

Originally Posted by srishiva

Shouldn't it be the first one? For the second one, you need to make two measurements?

How would you measure the front and rear windshield VLT with the first one? The second one uses a external light source / ambient light

Rajan

[vb-saan]

Originally Posted by PatchyBoy

So, that brings us back to the question of how could the RTO approve such films? A source in 3M tells me that the VLT of the film is determined after applying it to 3 mm glass. The problem seems to be that Laminated glass and tempered glass, as used in the automotive industry have a lesser VLT as compared to regular annealed glass. My source was not sure if the test was done with annealed glass or with tempered glass.

Since the application is for automobile glasses, should they (3M and likes) be testing on laminated/tempered glass?

Originally Posted by PatchyBoy

There also seem to be variances in the automobiles themselves - some Punto owners have posted that their OEM VLT is 70%. My Palio is the same too. However one Ford Figo owner has posted that his is 90% VLT. This would mean that a 70% VLT film on the side windows would be legal (as per CMV rule 100(2)) in a Ford Figo, but illegal in a Punto.

Yes, it will be interesting if there is any published data on this. AFAIK, Asahi hold majority of the market share as OEM automotive glass suppliers, but not sure of what are the different grades they supply to the car majors.

[lancer_rit]

Originally Posted by racer_m

3. Find the effective VLT% of the whole glass with sunfilm with the simple formula V3=V1*V2

This is what PatchyBoy and I already posted, but it also seems Garware claims that they test the VLT of their film on 3mm glass itself. That is not sufficient for windshield though, and also original glass may have minor tints ...

[the VTEC guy]

As many have said earlier banning too dark films is fine but putting a general blanket ban is just too much. The purpose of the ban does not get solved to a larger extend.
Banning sun-film with certain degree of opaqueness is ok.
As per ruling dark tints are banned but however those cargo vans(omni and others) which are closed completely without any glass are allowed(I think this omni is the most potent kidnap/crime vehicle). What happens to the tourist buses who have the perforated sticker/vinyl advertising stuck on the entire bus that blocks view from outside. Are thse ok? pull the curtains on the windows of the buses and it too blocks the view from outside. Are these allowed?

[esskay08]

Will the nylon curtains, such as those made by Amritras, make more sense in a country like ours? First, the rules keep flip-flopping between allowing OEM provided tinted glass and approved after-market sunfilms. This season belongs to the former, going by the SC Ruling.

So, I wanted to know to what Bhpians think about such curtains since I am about to get a brand new car. It being a Jazz, with so much of glass area, I can't ignore putting some sort of heat-mitigator...Has anyone who's used such roll-up curtains benefited? Do you use it as a replacement of sunfilms or not? Do they help in heat-rejection in any way?

Also on my mind, are the issues with night-time visibility while driving. I wonder if newbie drivers should go for sunfilmed windows rightaway. And, hence, the curtain option, won't need to pull them up at night...

I was thinking of installing sunfilm on the windscreen and these curtains on the side windows...

[msdivy]

Originally Posted by the VTEC guy

What happens to the tourist buses who have the perforated sticker/vinyl advertising stuck on the entire bus that blocks view from outside. Are thse ok? pull the curtains on the windows of the buses and it too blocks the view from outside. Are these allowed?

The verdict talks about only cars. If mapped to CMV, RTO parlance, it translates to LMV - Light Motor Vehicles. So heavy motor vehicles - which includes all buses, trucks - are exempt from this ruling.

[sarathlal]

Mostly those who have never used tints on their cars are all out favoring the ruling, whereas those who have experienced the good things of the tints feel the pinch.

I still believe, the 1% miscreants who actually misused the liberty, have now caused inconvenience for the rest 99%.

[the VTEC guy]

Originally Posted by msdivy

The verdict talks about only cars. If mapped to CMV, RTO parlance, it translates to LMV - Light Motor Vehicles. So heavy motor vehicles - which includes all buses, trucks - are exempt from this ruling.

As per my reading from http://www.tilakmarg.com/img1/tinted-glass.pdf I doubt its only applicable for cars. Actual Rule 100 says as follows -

“100. Safety glass.—(1) The glass of windscreens
and the windows of every motor vehicle 188[other
than agricultural tractors] shall be of safety glass:
Provided that in the case of three-wheelers and
vehicles with hood and side covers, the windows
may be of 189[acrylic or plastic transparent sheet.]
Explanation.—For the purpose of this rule,—
(i) "safety glass" means glass conforming to
the specifications of the Bureau of Indian
Standards or any International
Standards and so manufactured or
treated that if fractured, it does not fly or
break into fragments capable of causing
severe cuts;
(ii) any windscreen or window at the front of
the vehicle, the inner surface of which is
at an angle more than thirty degrees to
the longitudinal axis of the vehicle shall
be deemed to face to the front.
[(2) The glass of the windscreen and rear window
of every motor vehicle shall be such and shall be
maintained in such a condition that the visual
transmission of light is not less than 70%. The
glasses used for side windows are such and shall
be maintained in such condition that the visual
transmission of light is not less than 50%, and
shall conform to Indian Standards [IS: 2553— Part
2—1992];
(3) The glass of the front windscreen of every motor
vehicle [other than two wheelers and agricultural
tractors] manufactured after three years from the
coming into force of the Central Motor Vehicles
(Amendment) Rules, 1993 shall be made of
laminated safety glass:
Provided that on and from three months after the
commencement of the Central Motor Vehicles
(Amendment) Rules, 1999, the glass of the front
windscreen of every motor vehicle other than two
wheelers and agricultural tractors shall be made of
laminated safety glass conforming to the Indian
Standards IS: 2553—Part 2—1992.
Explanation.—For the purpose of these sub-rules
"laminated safety glass" shall mean two or more
pieces of glass held together by an intervening
layer or layers of plastic materials. The laminated
safety glass will crack and break under sufficient
impact, but the pieces of the glass tend to adhere
to the plastic material and do not fly, and if a hole
is produced, the edges would be less jagged than
they would be in the case of an ordinary glass.”

[msdivy]

Originally Posted by the VTEC guy

Original law always talks about "Every motor vehicle" apart from two wheelrs and agricultural tractors.

Right. CMV glass rule is for all vehicles. But court judgement (section 17) mentions just 'car'. Judgement could be a misprinted.

[benbsb29]

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

If you say that a woman in a 1-tonne car (which if required can be used as a battering ram) that has a protective covering of metal and glass is unsafe without tints, what about the women who bike to/from work after sunset and are easily visible ? Aren't they sitting ducks then ? Also for her to be not visible from outside, the tints would have to be dark and that would impede her view around the car, especially the rear and sides.

BTW, when you say tint from dealer, do you mean tinted-glass from manufacturer or tints put on by the dealer ? If it is the latter, they are not legal as per the new SC ruling.

What if the 1 tonne car is faced with a 2.5 tonner SUV? Why do we even give a chance to attract such unwanted attention?

In the case of my car, i am referring to tints from the dealer, which are rather light. However, on a dark road, even this helps in preventing one from becoming easy prey.

Originally Posted by Jignesh

Hello Benbsb29,

I am definitely sure that women will prefer to Drive in Car that have Tints or Sunfilms on them.

It is not about South or North or East or West India. I have seen this in almost all parts of the Country - People on two wheelers or on Roads literally peep in a Car when they see a single woman driving the Car. If the lady is attractive (I understand that is subjective) & wearing a modern outfit she will mostly invite a lewd comment or dirty look.

Thanks,

Never did i say any part of India is safe for women.

Originally Posted by srishiva

I think we have got used to the tints and will stick to arguing for it providing umpteen reasons. Other than the Sun peeping through, I don't think the reverse of crime inside tinted windows will be justifiable.

On the other hand, most (or all!) of the muggings (not the same crimes that the SC is trying to prevent here) happened to guys

People have already mentioned on this thread about how the law on tints is enforced in other countries of the world which are much more safer than India.

As for the statistics on mugging being more in favour of men, my point as below :

In a country which has a highly skewed male-female ratio, and that too in favour of men, in a country where the number of female drivers is miniscule, it is but natural that the statistics will tend to be in accordance.

Originally Posted by vb-san

Agree with your comment that it’s a misconception about south being safer. But I am not fully convinced with the idea of having sun-films for safety. For e.g.; in the Bangalore mugging thread, there are cases were the victim is held up in the car, and been driven around to withdraw cash from various ATMs. In those cases, transparent glass may work as a deterrent for the muggers.

I would prefer to remain discreet rather than appear as a sitting duck. If greater transparency was the main idea, lets promote the cause of convertibles. That way, a person being attacked can jump out the car at any time, and also cops can continue to remain complacent about the people within the car. As for the rest of the society, since we cannot correct them anyway, let them continue to do what they enjoy doing.

[srishiva]

Originally Posted by PatchyBoy

How would you measure the front and rear windshield VLT with the first one? The second one uses a external light source / ambient light

Rajan

With the second one, you need to know how much light was there in the first place which has to be measured first. Then you measure the light inside.

The first one can be used on window glasses only.

[longford]

Not sure why folks are going around in circles.

Having read the order it states
1. 70% Visibility for front and rear windshields. So that you can see whats happening in front and behind your car.
2. 50% Visibility for side windows. So that you don't get hot by the sun from the side
3. Exempt Z security crooks and Home Ministry exempt thugs

So if you comply, you are fine. Don't know why everyone is on an overdrive to remove tints even of they fall in the prescribed limits!

So, just like the fancy number plates pull ups, you will be hauled up even if you have a factory fitted tint. Like our cops are going to be equipped with Rs.2500 worth of Luxmeter at every signal.

[jayded]

Originally Posted by longford

Not sure why folks are going around in circles.
.....

So if you comply, you are fine. Don't know why everyone is on an overdrive to remove tints even of they fall in the prescribed limits!

Sorry bro, the reason why the discussion is going around in circles is because of posts like this of your's.
As per the SC order, NO FILMS are allowed on your car window glasses, be it 100% VLT. As simple as that. That is the reason why a lot of members are getting their "now illegal" tints removed even if it falls within the old permissible levels. Only OEM factory fitted tinted glasses are legal now. Hope you got it now.

Any news from Hyderabad anyone? No real updates from Hyd happening here, not cool! Literally!

[coolboy007]

Originally Posted by longford

So if you comply, you are fine. Don't know why everyone is on an overdrive to remove tints even of they fall in the prescribed limits!

Another misunderstanding
No one is removing their tints, infact you cant remove tints, the only way out is to break that glass and get a new transparent glass which isnt possible.

There is a difference between tints and sunfilms, SC has banned all sun films which all of us had on cars, be it 80 or 90% VLT, no sun film is allowed, you are getting confused between tints and sun films.

Tint is what manufacturers provide but thats only limited to 20-25% light tint given at the time of manufacturing the glass, only this is allowed by SC - 70% on front and rear and 50 on sides.
Hope you are clear now.