[PatchyBoy]

Originally Posted by gvivek75

One last question. After the SC ruling, now does the average car user know the law about tints? If yes, then SC did succeed in imparting this education wouldn't you say?

Unfortunately NO. In your own words - "why do we still get posts on privacy and other totally unrelated matters?". If this is the status of members here, after all these discussions and research, I can only shake my head in disbelief, when I think of the average joe. You must read some of the comments people post in traffic police FB pages on this topic. There is one member who has posted right after your previous post referring to "100% VLT"

Rajan

[supremeBaleno]

Originally Posted by gvivek75

saying that a car should give you privacy on the road is not reasonable at least in my opinion. A road is a public place which has pedestrians, cyclists, two wheeler riders, autos and what not.

Could not agree more. Someone wants privacy in his home and puts film on the windows of his house is understandable, but to expect privacy on what is essentially a public space is above my understanding and more so when this is done using dark-film in contravention of a motoring law. While most of us here do not spare anyone who drives badly (check the bad drivers thread), it is surprising how our attitude changes completely when it comes to something close to us. I hope no one doubts the rationale behind the original visibility rule - providing better all round visibility to the driver so as to drive safely and not get into accidents. By that logic all of us driving with dark film on the glasses need to figure in the bad drivers thread.

Originally Posted by Daewood

When the Bajaj Sunny was launched, thousands of middle class fathers bought one for their college going daughters, so that they don't have go through the harassment from eve-teasers in crowded buses.

Having known one person who owned a Sunny (though no idea whether her Dad bought the bike for the same reason you mentioned), all I can say is that the bike is so bloody underpowered that it would be tough for a girl on a Sunny to escape a pursuing eve-teaser who is on foot.

Originally Posted by Daewood

In the past 10 years middle class India has grown, and many young women commute to offices in i10s and Estilos with sunfilm aided privacy. It shields them from our notorious sex-starved road side romeos. Ask any father who has a daughter who commutes daily in a car all alone, and i bet you'll change your stand.

Out of ignorance, what exactly do these sex-starved roadside romeos do once they spot a woman in a car without sunfilm ? At best they will stare (ignore them) and then the car moves on. Even if they try to follow or ride by the side of the car, the woman has an edge since she is on a stable vehicle (4-wheels) compared to the guys and if cornered, she can inflict pain on the bikers using the car. Compare this to the plight of the Sunny-riding women who not only has zero privacy but also has her life at risk when a romeo decides to ride alongside them for cheap thrills & in fright the girl/woman loses her balance and falls.

If it is just about staring, there are a lot of angles to this :
1) Innocent staring : As car enthusiasts, I am sure most of us check out cars around us, say when stopped at a traffic-light. I do and it does not need to be a Lamborghini - I look at Lancers, old Honda Citys, Palio1.6s, Astras, Balenos etc and if it is a well maintained car (or badly kept), I do look at the driver - and irrespective of whether it is a man or woman at the wheel, the look is short. There is nothing evil-intentioned in this look.

2) Reverse staring : Some 10 years ago, if you were biking/driving down the road in Chennai and a girl was walking on the road coming from the opposite direction, 99.9999% of the time, she would keep her gaze firmly down. Today, it isn't a surprise to me when they look straight into the car at the driver or if on a bike try looking through the helmet vizor. I neither have complaints about their staring/curiousity nor do I think it makes them sex-starved and wonder why a similar stare from a man needs to be looked upon as being sex-starved and what not.

Originally Posted by PatchyBoy

Are you trying to say that we should not have used sun control film to protect our children here, because the road side urchin is exposed to the sun all day long?

Hey Rajan, doesn't the combo of factory-tinted glass and the air-conditioner provide enough protection from the sun ? Asking because I travel with kids and probably the only time I have faced an issue was the time of day when the sun is rising/setting and we have the sun on either side of the car. Even then, we could move the kid to the other side. Apart from the fact that this is a short-term incomvenience.

[PatchyBoy]

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

Hey Rajan, doesn't the combo of factory-tinted glass and the air-conditioner provide enough protection from the sun ? Asking because I travel with kids and probably the only time I have faced an issue was the time of day when the sun is rising/setting and we have the sun on either side of the car. Even then, we could move the kid to the other side. Apart from the fact that this is a short-term incomvenience.

No Sir. Not really. While the glass + AC does provide some respite against heat, the same is not true for UV radiation. Since UV is not related to heat, we do not feel it. The front windshield is laminated and as a side effect filters more than 98% UV. However, the side and rear are usually tempered glass, which in its classic form as found in most cars does not filter UVA, which is the harmful wavelength that penetrates deep into the skin and causes a variety of problems, the worst of which is melanoma or skin cancer. We Indians, by virtue of the high melanin content in our skins (dark skinned) are naturally protected to a certain extent, but not immune.

According to a research paper published by Pfizer, skin cancer related deaths in India was around 1250 a year in 2009. Definitely more numbers than the victims of "behind dark film crimes".

To make matters worse, tempered glass filters out UVB, which is responsible for Vitamin D production by our bodies, but allows more than 70% of the harmful UVA to passthrough. UV treated glass and tinted glass addressed this problem to a great extent. For the common man who bought his first (most times also the only) car that came with clear tempered glass on the side windows and rear windscreen (read ~85% VLT, actual not Minimum), sun control film was the easy and affordable alternate to achive the same effect. Even the so called "RTO approved" ones provided the much needed protection against this silent killer.

This Sirs, is my primary grouse against this PIL.

If you are out for a long drive with or without kids, please get some other kind of protection. Please also remember the UV Index has nothing to really do with Summer. Cloud cover does reduce the UVI to a certain extent, but not enough. Please, for your sake and your kids sake, spend some time reading the WHO website and understand UV Index.

Just to scare(for lack of a better word) you - UVI of 6-7 is high, 8-10 is very high and 11 and above is extreme. UVI at solar noon today in Chennai was 10. And we really don't worry unless the sun is shining in our eyes.

Rajan

[sameerg001]

Finally, today i have to pay fine of Rs 100/- for sun films on my car. I didn't removed them earlier, but after getting a challan, today i removed all of them myself, i must say it was an easy job

I even asked the cop, if rule will be taken back or not, but he said NO one can challenge SC's order, nor they have received any PIL for this.

So all those BHPian living in west Delhi, please do take extra care if you're in Dwarka ( specially in sector-1,3,5,11,10,6,9 ). I got a challan in sector-6 .

With summers on the peak, i will try to use the car as less as possible in afternoons, as i have skin allergy.

Cheers
Sameer

[drmohitg]

Originally Posted by PatchyBoy

According to a research paper published by Pfizer, skin cancer related deaths in India was around 1250 a year in 2009. Definitely more numbers than the victims of "behind dark film crimes".

Pfizer does have its own interests in publishing such research. I hope you have taken that into consideration too. In a tropical country like ours one need not get so bothered by the sun exposure you will get while driving in a car. Come on. There is much more exposure in the few minutes when you walk outside in the sun. Do you always carry an umbrella with you while out in the sun? Answer that honestly and see if such paranoia is justified or not about skin cancers. Plus as you also mentioned melanin is something that protects you almost completely. Thats the reason why the poor in our country are still surviving. Skin cancers don't just occur because you got exposed to the sun rays for sometime. Yes the caucasian race is susceptible but thats because they don't have any melanin.

So yes sunfilms do protect you but more importantly prevent that heating up off your car which is very annoying. So first and foremost you need to view it as a product which helps make your travel more comfortable and enjoyable rather than a shield protecting you from cancer.

[PatchyBoy]

Originally Posted by drmohitg

So yes sunfilms do protect you but more importantly prevent that heating up off your car which is very annoying. So first and foremost you need to view it as a product which helps make your travel more comfortable and enjoyable rather than a shield protecting you from cancer.

Agree with you. Going by your handle, I assume you are a doctor. I am sure you will agree that cancer is not the only harm that UVA does. Having said that, I agree that most users looked at Sun Control Film as a "looker" more than from a comfort / protection point of view. I personally would not be comfortable taking a child on a long drive in my car sans sun control film. Now since that is a SC ruling and cannot be disregarded, I think at least a SPF 15+ cream is warranted, at least for children,dont you think?

Originally Posted by Sameerg001

With summers on the peak, i will try to use the car as less as possible in afternoons, as i have skin allergy.

These are the people that really worry me. What is this gentleman's fault?

Rajan

[SLK]

Originally Posted by PatchyBoy

This Sirs, is my primary grouse against this PIL.

+1 and To add to that! mine is also against the people who entertained and even made the whole country dance in the sun for this PIL.

I'm driving my car without film now-a-days and the difference in heat is phenomenal, the AC does little.

The back of my right hand is definitely darker and red, after the morning drive to office.

Kept my spectacles on the co-driver's seat for the entire 1hr drive while I used the goggles and when I reached office, I had to start the car again just to cool the spectacles in AC.

- the UV;
- the heat;
- the existing law, and the '000 of people who had legal films;
- the sun-film industry;
- the sun allergic people.

How can one possibly not consider any of this! just because the police allowed some people to break the existing law!

[drmohitg]

Originally Posted by PatchyBoy

I personally would not be comfortable taking a child on a long drive in my car sans sun control film. Now since that is a SC ruling and cannot be disregarded, I think at least a SPF 15+ cream is warranted, at least for children,dont you think?

See as a parent you have all the right in the world to be worried about your kids. So a sunscreen would do no harm and you can very well use it. Personally I would not still make a lot of noise about this. Yes you can use some sort of window drape or sunscreen lotions but no hell will break loose if you choose not to. I hope you understand what I am trying to say here. Infact the more common problem that may occur on prolonged sun exposure is redness, itching, sunburns and those kind of things. And the best way to prevent these would be to introduce some window drape or something whenever you are going on a long drive. Regular city drives should not be an issue. Also do remember that excess use of sunscreen lotions may in itself lead to skin irritation.

Edit: Always take medical research papers specially circulated by pharma companies with a pinch of salt. There is a reason why any new drug/treatment is given approval only after a decade of thorough testing.

[PatchyBoy]

Originally Posted by drmohitg

Yes you can use some sort of window drape or sunscreen lotions but no hell will break loose if you choose not to. I hope you understand what I am trying to say here. Infact the more common problem that may occur on prolonged sun exposure is redness, itching, sunburns and those kind of things. And the best way to prevent these would be to introduce some window drape or something whenever you are going on a long drive. Regular city drives should not be an issue. Also do remember that excess use of sunscreen lotions may in itself lead to skin irritation.

Agreed. But why would I want to expose my near & dear to that? Just because some jerk decided to commit some crime in a car and another jerk decided to go to court asking for a technically impossible 100% VLT?

NO SIR, ABSOLUTELY NO.

Originally Posted by drmohitg

And the best way to prevent these would be to introduce some window drape or something whenever you are going on a long drive.

That is also illegal, isn't it?

See SLK's post. He has to suffer during his 1 hour drive daily for no fault of his. He was using the so called "RTO approved" films. It may be a minority (afterall 1250 is a minisicule % of our population) that really suffers because of this PIL, but they suffer nevertheless. How many of these suffers committed crimes behind the sun film? Why are they being punished? Are we still a democracy?

Rajan

[drmohitg]

Originally Posted by PatchyBoy

See SLK's post. He has to suffer during his 1 hour drive daily for no fault of his. He was using the so called "RTO approved" films. It may be a minority (afterall 1250 is a minisicule % of our population) that really suffers because of this PIL, but they suffer nevertheless. How many of these suffers committed crimes behind the sun film? Why are they being punished? Are we still a democracy?

+1 to that. I myself have grounded my car since the judgement and using my other car which doesn't have the films. And in this peak summer time its a very big nuisance. I still sincerely believe that the court will take some corrective action and go back to the earlier setting.

[Alter_Ego]

Finally the alternatives seeing the light of the day

[M5_fan]

Originally Posted by sameerg001

Finally, today i have to pay fine of Rs 100/- for sun films on my car. I didn't removed them earlier, but after getting a challan, today i removed all of them myself, i must say it was an easy job

I even asked the cop, if rule will be taken back or not, but he said NO one can challenge SC's order, nor they have received any PIL for this.

So all those BHPian living in west Delhi, please do take extra care if you're in Dwarka ( specially in sector-1,3,5,11,10,6,9 ). I got a challan in sector-6 .

With summers on the peak, i will try to use the car as less as possible in afternoons, as i have skin allergy.

Cheers
Sameer

They did not strip the film from your car? I though that they are stripping the film off on every car that they catch.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by Alter_Ego

Finally the alternatives seeing the light of the day

It had to happen. I'm wondering when we'll see the first vehicle with curtains across the front windscreen!

[carwatcher]

I couldn't stop myself from asking this question to fellow BHPians.
I read on this very thread that almost 50% cars don't have sun control films. So are 50% of people are suffering very badly due to skin cancer, and other diseases and do one spend that much time that sun control film acts as the ultimate savior, etc.
Secondly if only 50% of the cars are having these films, so why we think that general public "wants" the sun control film ban to be removed. Infact of these 50% cars around say (20% to 33%) are having darker sun films and infact, because of them we all are suffering actually.
As I also see that just because the people who don't feel this ban should not be lifted are not posting as vehemently, the environment is being created that as though hon'ble SC has done a grave injustice with the larger public.
If a single rape victim comes and write her story and ordeal faced due to dark films, majority of the arguments in defence of the sun control films will stand no chance, but we all know that will not happen.
Someone mentioned that due to films women can be saved from peeping toms. Similarly due to the same sunfilms women can suffer inside the car.
50% and 70%VLT films are anyway so light that you can't get that desired privacy.
Please do remember that in the eyes of any law, ignorance is no excuse. Similarly, it won't help if rather than accepting one's mistake of not knowing the law or putting the darker film intentionally, we keep on arguing and justifying our actions and then blaming others (read SC) about the mischief one is facing.

[MAS]

Originally Posted by Alter_Ego

Finally the alternatives seeing the light of the day
Attachment 934124

thanks for sharing. I was looking at buying a set of curtains myself (not these types, but with black porous black cloth. The one in the picture seems to be inspired by the tempo traveller.