[MAS]

Originally Posted by k_nitin_r

When I enter Bangalore/Chennai, does it help if I roll down all of the windows when I drive and my front windshield has no sun film at all? My rear windshield still does have a sunfilm on it and so do the rear quarter panels.

In Hyderabad, there haven't been any issues with the sun film so far.

This well not help. The cops are particular about films at the back and the side windows. If caught, they could fine and remove the sun control film.

You are very lucky that Hyderabad cops are yet to implement the ban.

[Jebs]

Atlast, yesterday evening i'm returning from the office, I was stopped by the cops at pallikaranai road-thoraipakkam toll gate. As someone said here, chennai traffic cops are very friendly and they simply collected Rs.100 (no chalan) throw some advises followed by good handshake as well. They asked me whether they want to remove the films or you can do yourselves. I told him "Sir, I just enquired one shop, they charging Rs.500 for this" and I left from there.

Funny thing is that, this was happened just after I enquired the car accessories shop near thilaiganga nagar and they asked me to come today morning 11 A.M (Rs.500 for the same).

[spadix]

Originally Posted by drmohitg

Shouldn't this go in favour of banning the films all together. You end up the mess once and ban the product. Continued circulation of the same would just cause more and more damage to the environment ( going by your facts) during the manufacturing and finally disposing the films. The point regarding Skin cancers is a very valid one and can have serious effects on millions of Indians.

I don't think this would go in favour of banning film altogether. Film usage and its safe disposal are orthogonal in letter (albeit not in spirit, in an ideal world). Not having safe disposal didn't preclude manufacturing and marketing of films, did it?

Ideally, safe disposal should've been thought about first and then the question of an all-out/one-shot enforcement of 100(2) pan-India. And now - just before the monsoons kick in, especially in the South - it'll hit us where it hurts us the most.

Originally Posted by PatchyBoy

Finally. Glad that someone agrees with what I have been shouting from the rooftops about. I even started a blogpost describing the hazard with a lot of scientific data. A fellow BHPian has posted a link in page 125 of this thread.

Just for statistics, I read the whole blogpost with a stopwatch in hand and it took 6 minutes and 5 seconds. The survey took another 5 seconds.

My signature conveys my findings, thus far :(

Rajan, my personal apologies for not having the diligence to click-through the link in mukeshgoel's post in page 125. The link was not qualified enough in that post, so I thought it was a link to some generic knowledge. I've gone through the post now and responded to the survey. To do my bit, I'm going to put the link to the post and survey in my signature here.

Regards,
spadix

[Fornax]

Let me get this straight - Supreme Court has NOT banned sun films as the title of this thread suggests. They have said, it was never allowed in the first place. You cannot ban something which was against the law to begin with.

Secondly, the judgement says' owners are not allowed to tamper with the VLT characteristics of automotic glass provided by the manufacturer, this will automatically include every parking stickers, creative arts, political logos that go on them too, bring that up when the police stops you.

Thirdly, I don't think the UV argument will fly, as Skin Cancer is not very prevalent in our part of the world.

Lastly, I also think its' best to file a petition to allow states to interpret certain sections of MV act as per their socio economic conditions. Mumbai Police has ample luxmeters and have periodically stuck down on dark tints. Its' the lax police elsewhere who have failed in their duties and responsible for this judgement.

[Naturalist]

I think all of us are trying to judge if these rules are valid and should we follow it. Let us honor the courts judgement. If one follow, I am pretty sure others will. Then we dont need to worry about all these fines and cops.
Lets also hope they allow to put it again back with minimum UV transmission in future.

[sgiitk]

I just had a look at my Santro (seven years old) glasses. 75% in front and 70% all round. So the manufacturers have been aware for ages.

[sumathindra]

Originally Posted by sgiitk

I just had a look at my Santro (seven years old) glasses. 75% in front and 70% all round. So the manufacturers have been aware for ages.

Well this is a classical example where the stake holders knew all along that films were not allowed from day one however the rule/law was never implemented, thanks to the lobbiest etc. Finally it boils down to enforcement and usually this happens only when there is an incident and the masses makes noise about it.

[Bluengel180]

Originally Posted by sgiitk

I just had a look at my Santro (seven years old) glasses. 75% in front and 70% all round. So the manufacturers have been aware for ages.

Same here on a ten year old Palio. pretty sure every car has the same .

Question. if peoples cars already came with factory tinted glasses (75% in the front and 70% at the sides) adhering to the permissible limit.why did they jump onto the sunfilm bandwagon?

[autocrat]

Originally Posted by Bluengel180

Same here on a ten year old Palio. pretty sure every car has the same .

Yep, even on my xeta

Well, if vehicles don't satisfy every rule of CMVR, ARAI will not allow such vehicles to be sold...

[PatchyBoy]

Are you saying that VLT % is printed? Could you please share the glass manufacturer details? Even the DOT code will suffice.

Some cars seem to have this and some others don't, which is very wierd and inconsistent.

Rajan

EDIT: Just went and verified in our office's parking lot. None of the newer cars seem to have this specification - Ritz, Estilo, Swift, Punto, Skoda and even my boss's Audi A6. However found 70% printed on the side windows of a couple of old Santros. Strange.

[asdon]

Originally Posted by PatchyBoy

Are you saying that VLT % is printed? Could you please share the glass manufacturer details? Even the DOT code will suffice.

Some cars seem to have this and some others don't, which is very wierd and inconsistent.

Rajan

EDIT: Just went and verified in our office's parking lot. None of the newer cars seem to have this specification - Ritz, Estilo, Swift, Punto, Skoda and even my boss's Audi A6. However found 70% printed on the side windows of a couple of old Santros. Strange.

Don't make comments without proper checking, Punto glasses have VLT print as 75%, I am sure others too have them.

[motorworks]

Originally Posted by Fornax

Let me get this straight - Supreme Court has NOT banned sun films as the title of this thread suggests. They have said, it was never allowed in the first place. You cannot ban something which was against the law to begin with.

If sunfilms were never allowed in the first place, how did the government allow the dealers or manufacturers to sell them? Would'nt the government earned some revenue in the form of taxes from all these sunfilms sold?
I'm not trying to question the SC's verdict here, but the SC, being the Apex court, should have considered all factors. If sunfilms are illegal, then what happens to the VAT or CST that a dealer pays to the government while selling these? Isnt that illegal as well?
This is the issue with an SC ruling, it does not factor in what the govt has already enacted.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by Fornax

Let me get this straight - Supreme Court has NOT banned sun films as the title of this thread suggests. They have said, it was never allowed in the first place. You cannot ban something which was against the law to begin with.

Good point, which I don't think has been properly understood in nearly 2,000 posts. Certainly I didn't understand it.

[sgiitk]

I think PatchyBoy is right. Did not find the transmission printed on my Civic's glasses. I think most of the firms now use glasses from Asahi. Will check and let you know if there is any difference. Civic definitely is Asahi.

[IronH4WK]

Originally Posted by sgiitk

I think PatchyBoy is right. Did not find the transmission printed on my Civic's glasses. I think most of the firms now use glasses from Asahi. Will check and let you know if there is any difference. Civic definitely is Asahi.

went for a stroll after lunch and was inspecting a new 2012 Honda City (and few older models) in the parking lot and i did not find any transparency level mentioned on the glass (i do see it mentioned in my Getz though).

and yes, the glass is from Asahi.