Re: Car tints banned by HC! EDIT: Supreme Court bans all kinds of sunfilms in cars Quote:
Originally Posted by enzo10 how much did it cost you to get CR70 all around? I paid 6K for my CR70 on the windshield.
The solar energy rejection of CR70 (50%) is way superior to RE70(34%)
thanks |
It cost me 18.5 K for 4 windows and rear windscreen. No film on the front windscreen. It was very good with heat rejection and barely visible, unless you lower the glass and feel the edges. It was hard to let it go :( Quote:
Originally Posted by supremeBaleno Even assuming that lack of sun-film on cars puts them at risk (which is debatable) how much time do kids spend in cars vs the time spent outside on the playground in school or playing with other kids ? We can't keep kids cocooned and unexposed to sunlight for all their life, worried that they will contract skin-cancer.
Why do we really need to do that ? Or to put it better, why do you think they need us to make them aware ? They would definitely be reading newspapers which have info about this enforcement. Or, they would be hearing of it from others ? Or they see this mentioned by the cops on the LED boards at traffic signals. Infact the average user is not as bothered about this as we are at tbhp. I talk to my colleagues and find just 2 types of response
(1) I have films installed and will either remove it now OR do it if I am fined (betting on the cops waving them off saying the film is not dark).
(2) I dont have films installed - so am good. |
I apologize for not being clearer in my earlier post. This is neither about me nor about sun films. This is about my basic freedom to provide comfort for my family being taken away from me. Please read the kind of questions that people ask in BTP FB page and you will see the level of awareness the average user has. Also, I still feel it is the law makers' responsibilty to make the law enforcers aware.
I do not understand why you keep referring to sun cancer time and again, in spite of my clarification that there are lesser evils? You think sunburn is a very pleasant experience?
If my children decide to go play in the sun 12 hours a day, I will not stop them. Of course I will try to educate them about the harm, but I will not force them to stay indoors all the time. Having said that, I will not deny them the privilege of using the A/C when they are indoors, just because they spent so much time in the sun. IF they choose not to use the A/C, that is fine too. As a parent, it is my responsiblity to ensure I do my best, within my means to make sure my family is comfortable. I believe as a democracy, I should have the right to decide what is best for my near & dear, as long as I am not breaking any law.
CMVR 100(2) does not explicitly prohibit the use of sun control film. As per SC ruling, it is implied is what I understand. As a law abiding citizen, I voluntarily removed the sun control film from my car on the day the ruling came into force, inspite of 18.5 K going down the drain. That is because I respect the law and not necessarily because I agree with the ruling.
I really wish I had the means to measure the actual VLT of the glass, before pulling the film off. I am quite sure it was more than the specified 50% for the side windows. How can any harm come by using a film that rejects heat, keeps the interiors cool and comfortable, filters UV and still complies with the specified VLT%? Why should I deprieve my family of that comfort? Maybe no harm will come by taking the sun control film off, but it sure is less comfortable.
Try explaining the logic and the reasoning behind this ruling to a 12 year old and you will understand what I am saying here. How do I convince a 12 year old to respect and follow the law of the land, when I am unable to convince that it is right to start with?
Each man to his own Sir. Peace.
Rajan
Last edited by PatchyBoy : 4th June 2012 at 20:20.
|