[Parthasarathig]

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

.

As msdivy mentioned, the states in US also have restrictions regarding sunfilm usage. But instead of finding fault with the reasons behind the petition or find fault with the SC ruling, why don't we just comply with the MVA rule which clearly states that sun-film is illegal ?

Yes in fact if you check my earlier posts Ive written about various countries like UK USA and Gulf and their restrictions regarding Sunfilms in detail. What is allowed over there is my concern and not what is restricted there as I already have a blanket ban in my country. Usa states allow films for the rear passenger windows and rear windshields. Msdivy mentioned rentals like hertz etc dont have sunfilms. But rentals isnt our concern is it? We drive private vehicles which in the US are allowed to have tints for the rear. It will only increase the privacy of occupants in the rear which mostly is our family. Theres a reason why we build houses which have walls and not just roofs. For the safety and privacy of our families. Why cant we have something similar on the move? Shouldnt our families have privacy and safety on the road too?

We are the law abiding citizens.My point is if after so many attacks and what not, sunfilms arent still banned in the US then why in India cant we make laws favorable for the law abiding citizens.

Here im not talking about the ruling by the apex court. The apex court has just interpreted the law that had been laid down by our ancestors.My point was not against the SC ruling. Ive removed sunfilms from my car after the judgement.
What i want is an amendment to the CMVR rules. They were framed during a phase of our country which probably doesnt exist now in these modern times. Which only calls for a review of the laws. If child abuse, sexual consents etc law can be reviewed why not the CMVR? But then all this needs a changed India. Where the government, the law enforcers work to facilitate the well being of an individual. Because amending the law amd giving a luxmeter to the enforcer will reduce his capacity to collect bribes everyday and hence this law may never be amended for our good and if it is then we can see Kalyug disappearing.

P.s SupremeBaleno sir the first para of my post relates to your quote. Please do not be offended by the rest.

Regards.

[Ford5]

Just travelled Frazer town to Indiranagar 100 feet road. Nothing new. Cops stopping tempo's as usual. Many cars with dark sunfilm still plying on the road. Guess bangalore cops are not upto this.

Edit: Just realised June 9 is the new enforcement date !

[Daewood]

Originally Posted by Parthasarathig

We are the law abiding citizens.My point is if after so many attacks and what not, sunfilms arent still banned in the US then why in India cant we make laws favorable for the law abiding citizens.

Actually the law doesn't say you can't have sunfilms. It only says " 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 " -CMVR 100 (part 2)
But then this is the same country where the legal drinking age is 25, wheras the legal age for marrying is 15 as per a recent Delhi Court judgement.

[Revy]

2nd day of pushing my luck in Bangalore :-) . Drove from Sarjapur road - Silk board - BTM - Bannerghatta Road in the peak morning hours of 8:45 - 9:45 AM. No checking found anywhere.

My side glasses have 3M films of type RM 55. Does that mean it permits 55% light which is fine as per the vehicle law ? At the time of installing sun films, I had asked the shop people to use a light shade which is within legal limits. They told me that RM 55 is fine.

Anyway, the new ruling allows police men to decide on their own, so very soon I will get caught and will have to remove it. But if I am within the originally allowed limit, then I want to push my luck till I am caught.

[PatchyBoy]

Originally Posted by Revy

My side glasses have 3M films of type RM 55. Does that mean it permits 55% light which is fine as per the vehicle law ? At the time of installing sun films, I had asked the shop people to use a light shade which is within legal limits.

They told me that RM 55 is fine.

Sorry Sir. The SC says it is not fine and it has to go. Yes, RM 55 allows 55% VLT according to specifications, but the SC ruling is clear. No films whatsoever. Period.

Rajan

[cool_dube]

One of my friends was fined (INR 100) by RTO officials (not BTP) on his way to E-City. He was told that his is a "medium" film and hence he was fined. Had it been a "light" one, he would have been let go/ignored. When my friend politely requested to be enlightened on the definition of light/medium/dark, he was told a very interesting test to determine the same - hold a newspaper just inside the glass with film and try to read it from outside. If you can, you have a "light" film and will not be bothered by the cops

As it always happens with any new regulation passed in this country, everyone has their own interpretation and ways of implementing it.

PS - I am still pushing my luck and have not yet removed my films.

[veyron_head]

Originally Posted by condor

OT, but Rajan, I would like to hear you say the same AFTER you do for a week what they do every day. I would like to see your reaction/ response to driving a bus in Bangalore city traffic, during peak hours, catering to the passengers, maneuvering through the dynamic maze created by two wheelers and auto's ..

You have given us a lot of information in this thread on the topic of the Sun-film ban .. Shall we stick to the topic of this thread, please ?

Its what they signed up for. Its that simple. What I do for a living may get as monotonous as their job, but do I yell back at my customers because I am frustrated?

Your thoughts only go to justify indiscipline and incompetence.

I know I did go too OT on this one. Will stop now

[supremeBaleno]

Originally Posted by PatchyBoy

my fight is not to get a stay order or reversal of the SC ruling. My fight is to get the CMV rule amended to allow law abiding citizen the luxury of comfort where possible, without violating the purpose of the law.

I see your point, but to attain that, is there even a need to amend the CMV rule ? Why not the car manufacturers provide glass (not film-stuck glass) conforming to the specs under CMV as OE, which will be in compliance with the rule and also be a remedy for the issues that concern you like UV/radiation etc ? The problem with allowing film is that unlike the US where the retailers and consumers alike follow the rules, here we will go back to the old situation where everyone sticks whatever film catches their fancy or which looks cool on their car, ignoring the VLT. And then maybe someone will come with a PIL asking for doing away with windows itself.

Originally Posted by PatchyBoy

People who resort to curtains and chipkoos are defeating the purpose of the law and endangering themselves as well as fellow road users, aren't they?

True. And I hope the cops track these too without waiting for a chipkoo-ruling.

Originally Posted by Parthasarathig

It will only increase the privacy of occupants in the rear which mostly is our family. Theres a reason why we build houses which have walls and not just roofs. For the safety and privacy of our families. Why cant we have something similar on the move? Shouldnt our families have privacy and safety on the road too?

Privacy part has been discussed before - a house is built on private land and hence allows you to implement whatever privacy you want. But that definition cannot be extended to a public road. Also, to provide privacy in cars, the film will have to be dark and that screws up the main purpose behind the CMV rule - visibility to driver. Is the life/safety of your folks more important than their privacy for the few hours they are on the road ?

Originally Posted by Parthasarathig

What i want is an amendment to the CMVR rules. They were framed during a phase of our country which probably doesnt exist now in these modern times.

While the rules might have been framed ages ago, I am sure proper research has gone into it - if you read the CMV, you will see the level of details they have gone into for the glass, lamination, safety in the event of breaking etc. Also, I dont think over the years there has been any change in the driver-visibility to present a case for changing the permitted VLT level.

I think the onus is now on manufacturers to provide glass conforming to prescribed VLT and thus giving an option for people to shield themselves from the heat/rays.
Any amendment to the act to allow sun-films will bring us back to square-one and the whole effort/time/money/film spent on enforcing the ruling become an utter waste.

[PatchyBoy]

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

I think the onus is now on manufacturers to provide glass conforming to prescribed VLT and thus giving an option for people to shield themselves from the heat/rays.
Any amendment to the act to allow sun-films will bring us back to square-one and the whole effort/time/money/film spent on enforcing the ruling become an utter waste.

Hmmmm. Food for thought. I wonder what will happen to the existing cars? They will be left without any economical options. The only option would be to upgrade to tinted glass from the manufacturer, which would be priced about 3 times the normal rate.

Rajan

[vb-saan]

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

I think the onus is now on manufacturers to provide glass conforming to prescribed VLT and thus giving an option for people to shield themselves from the heat/rays.
Any amendment to the act to allow sun-films will bring us back to square-one and the whole effort/time/money/film spent on enforcing the ruling become an utter waste.

I am still supportive of a well laid out rule on the visibility aspect. For e.g.; 70% VLT for the windscreen, and 50% for the windows, with/without sun films. High heat resistance + high transparency films are currently on the expensive side, and if this becomes a standard, I guess the prices will come down as well, and may remove the possibility of dealers offering cheaper dark films FOC, or folks going for it to add the style quotient.

But, if this is left to the manufacturer, very soon we’ll see a VW Vento** highline with 90% UV protection windows, comfortline with 50%, and trendline with no protection – just another way to charge a premium.

**Mentioned Vento just as an example

[Daewood]

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

Privacy part has been discussed before - a house is built on private land and hence allows you to implement whatever privacy you want.

A car is a 'private property' as long as it is not registered for commercial use. The road tax that we pay is for that essential luxury. Tomorrow if someone tries to peep into our dress because we are walking on a public road, do we have to accept that too? Who knows, maybe we'll accept that too. In a country where we tell our entire family history to someone we met 10 minutes back in a train journey, it's very difficult to preach 'privacy'.

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

Is the life/safety of your folks more important than their privacy for the few hours they are on the road ?

Do you mean to say a Evoque with privacy glass or an Merc with curtains, is less safer than a mass-market car with clear glass? If so all cargo vehicles will be unfit for driving on roads, as they have no rear windows or rear glasses.

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

While the rules might have been framed ages ago, I am sure proper research has gone into it - if you read the CMV, you will see the level of details they have gone into for the glass, lamination, safety in the event of breaking etc.

I'm sorry, the level of detail regarding visibility of glass is very vague and written as if only one category of motor vehicle exists in the country. A few posts back i've pasted the entire rule regarding the visibility of glass.

[PatchyBoy]

Ok. I dilly-dallied since yesterday about posting this here and finally made up my mind now:

I posted this on BTP FB page yesterday -

From the days I commuted by bicycle, I always dreamt of owning a car
So I worked hard and saved up, grew slowly but steadily
Till the day finally arrived, when I bought my car
The Sun was bright and the glass was clear, every summer was hotter than ever
The AC in the car kept me cool, but the UV exposure gave me sunburn
So I saved up some more, went to a shop to get Sun Control Film
It is RTO approved said the man, and gave me a certificate to that effect

I could still see what is outside; you could still see what is inside
But the car felt much cooler, my sun burn was gone
It is happy days again I told myself, started to enjoy the car again
Till the day a PIL was filed and all kinds of films had to go

The traffic police in my city was kind; they gave me time to rectify
They also setup free camps, so with a heavy heart I drove to the “free” camp
The man almost raped my car, with knife in hand
He ripped off the film ruthlessly, scratching the glass
Then looked me in the eye and said “That will be Rs. 250”

So I paid him to destroy my property, worth a month’s wages so I don’t break the law
He then threw away the film rolled up into a ball
I realized there is no disposal plan and took the rubbish back home
The sunburn was back but that’s OK I said, use sunscreen and you’ll be fine, better to follow the law

Then on enforcement day I drove to work, swathed in Sunscreen and squinting from the Sun
A truck was stopped no tail lights or any crash bar, the cop stood there with his palm outstretched
The BMTC Volvo had full body advertisements, the cars in front and back had dark films
A Motorcyclist overtook me, head tilted to touch shoulder Cell phone held in between

I was there feeling naked and stunned into a shocked daze
When the minibus behind honked loudly in spite of being in a Hospital zone
I got into work still in a daze and sit here thinking to myself
“When in Rome do as the Romans do” someone said a long while back,
Am I doing the right thing against the proven norm, or am I an idiot or what?

Here is the response I got from BTP:

Dear Rengarajan, after reading this ,it reminds one sanskrit proverb- कर्मण्ये वाधिकारास्ते मा फलेषु कदाचन I...

For the benefit of those who cannot read Sanskrit -

Karmanye vadhikaraste ma phaleshu kadachna
Karmaphalehtur bhurma te sangostvakarmani.

In English translation:
You have a right to perform your prescribed duty, but you are not entitled to the fruits of action। Never consider yourself the cause of the results of your activities, and never be attached to not doing your duty.

However hard I tried, I am unable to understand the context of this quote and it is killing me. All I am able to understand is -
" Follow the law. Do not expect any benefits for following the law. Also do not expect us to take any action against the offenders, just because you are following the law"

Can I get fellow BHPians' interpretation?

Thanks,
Rajan

PS: The post was never intended to be a poem or anything. Formatted to look like one, so as to entice the reader to read the whole thing

[supremeBaleno]

LOL, Rajan. That was funny. Especially your post which almost read like a poem set to rhyme. And the icing was the Sanskrit reply from BTP.

BTW, I dont think it means "not entitled to the fruits", but more like "work without having the reward in mind". Do you duty and the rest will follow. Maybe the cops are telling you that you just follow the law without bothering about others or worrying about the effects.

Originally Posted by Daewood

A car is a 'private property'. The road tax that we pay is for that essential luxury. Do you mean to say a Evoque with privacy glass or an Merc with curtains, is less safer than a mass-market car with clear glass?

Having a private property called car and having paid road-tax, does it entitle us to drive the car as we please without following the laid down rules ? This happens to be one of the rules and has to be adhered to, irrespective of the definition each one of us has about privacy. Regarding curtains, it is a sure no-no - have no idea about privacy glass.

I can understand the privacy requirement for a young couple, but don't see what privacy is needed from family POV on a public road.

Regarding the rules, I googled but each state seems to have their own interpretation. But some sites including 5th Pillar list out common traffic offenses and the fine that can be imposed for committing them and there it clearly indicates fine for having sun-film on glass.

[Parthasarathig]

What i meant regarding privacy was for the rear passengers just as it is in the US. I am not concerned about films in the front as they affect visibility on the road as everyone has agreed. Why not amend the rules to make it like its in other countries as well? Front top 1/4 can be tinted to avoid direct nuisance of the sun hitting the eye of the driver. Rear windows and windshield can be tinted as permissible. Keep the driver and pax window 100% vlt. It ensures passengers at the rear arent targetted. And also doesnt cause any lack of visibilty.

I drove around with 80%vlt films and after removing them dont feel any difference in visibiltiy but a glare in the IRVM and ORVM is always the problem whenever a rear vehicle approaches. Earlier due to the film i could atleast judge the size of the vehicle due to the absence of glare. Now no matter what vehicle comes i cant make out and i have to give it side to overtake even when i am on the faster lane.

And regarding visibility in rain one shouldnt drive when he cant see the road ahead unless one likes to risk his and his co passengers life on the road whether his car has sunfilms or not. After removing the films i did drive in the torrential rains and sometimes visibility was so bad that I had to stop till the rain reduced.

And as far as privacy is concerned, if you are being driven around in a merc or bmw or any high end car you wouldnt want the roadside fellow to peep and see who the passengers are right? So why cant we share the same perspective for my small hatchback or a sedan? I dont care if peeping toms see whos the driver or whats in the front. But my concern is the safety of the passengers.

People seem to be taking the wrong hints regarding privacy on the road. Then i can also twist the words and say that many people want removal of the films so that they can ogle at girls and women travelling in the cars. See now im creating a wrong hint also. Ive seen people travelling with their wives and ogling at women walking on the street. And those people preach about morals and whatnot. Dont want to go into that topic. Saving it for another thread.

So Lets think with an open mind about privacy. If politician travelling on the road, his privacy=safety is important as he is an asset to the country, then what about a law abiding citizen who is an asset to his family? Or his children? Arent their privacy=safety important too? If you are dropping your child to school in a high end car and some people are following they easily see the occupants and mark them for later kidnappings. Similar incident happened in Bangalore where a child was almost kidnapped by miscreants in front of a mall area. And he had been to the mall in a merc which had been parked away. But his friends had also come in their own vehicles but instead of targeting them the gang chose to attack this kid.

Privacy doesnt always mean about whatever everyone maybe thinking that should be done at home. For me it concerns safety of my family. I wouldnt want stares and unwanted attention from the road directed towards my parents, sister, wife, daughter, son. Would any of us want that?
We can go on and on about privacy but i doubt i'd exceed the word limits for the post.

Regards.


Edit
@Patchyboy sir i guess its from the Bhagvad Gita and it means do your duty diligently without thinking about the results and the fruits will automatically follow.
Loved the poem though. We should keep posting such things to BTP then only action will be taken against the offenders.
In your case however the fruit shall be- not being fined, ending up with sunburn after a week, stolen stereo, increased fuel consumption. Dont see any other result or fruit of removing sunfilms.
Cheers! !

[ramzsys]

Originally Posted by Daewood

A car is a 'private property' as long as it is not registered for commercial use. The road tax that we pay is for that essential luxury. Tomorrow if someone tries to peep into our dress because we are walking on a public road, do we have to accept that too? .

Visibility level is to be maintained because, the car behind you too have to see the road in front of you.

Regarding the peeping into the dress, isn't it already happening in body scanning devices in airport?