[Daewood]

Originally Posted by ramzsys

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

How would you see the road if the vehicle ahead of you is a cargo vehicle or bus. If you follow the mandatory distance between 2 vehicles, there is absolutely no need to peep through the rear glass of the vehicle ahead of you. Brake lights being mandatory across all vehicles is for aiding us in such situations.
The lenient 'Driving License' test is the main reason for different drivers creating their own versions of safe driving. Ask the guys with bull bars in their SUVs and they will all swear by the 'Safety' it provides them.

[Parthasarathig]

Originally Posted by ramzsys

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

Thats a very vague explanation for visibility. When trucks, tempo travellers etc are in front of you, how do you ensure visibility ahead?

[SLK]

I've not followed any of the posts from the last few pages and I'm almost convinced that there is nothing more left to say other than debating the same thing with every new person who joins the discussion.

Anyways I saw Muslim girl can marry at 15 if attains puberty: HC - Hindustan Times and thought if this country's judiciary is convinced that the system is incapable of checking VLT of films, how do they plan to check this? I have no words! Long live honorable judges.

[benbsb29]

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 ?

In the growing cities of India and the rest of the world, if there is a greater desire towards easy money and greed rather than hard work, incidents of crime would be on the rise. I would prefer not to have my family or even me for that matter appear as a sitting duck. If sunflims within the earlier approved limits help maintain a certain level of privacy and associated safety, then why is it wrong?

My wife asked a very pertinent question : If the argument against having sun films on cars is to prevent crimes against women, what about cars which are owned and driven by women?

[2cents]

Originally Posted by cool_dube

One of my friends was fined (INR 100) by RTO officials (not BTP) on his way to E-City.

Looks like a rip off mate! I don't think RTO officials are authorized to collect fines. You can't have two authorities doing the same job simultaneously!

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

... Why not the car manufacturers provide glass (not film-stuck glass) conforming to the specs under CMV as OE, ....

.....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 may be left without the option of a clear glass! Besides, any equipment added as standard would increase the cost. In a mature market the effort must be to give options to the customer, not straightjacket their options. You may say the manufacturers may give us the option of picking the glass of our choice. From experience, I don't think they will.

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. 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 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?

Can't agree on this mate! I go with Daewood. By your argument ogling and leching are lawful. And so will be eve-teasing as long as it isn't physically intrusive. No body in this thread is arguing for films beyond permissible VLT(70-50).

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

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.

Having a few month old child, I know the need for privacy every time I take my family out within the city - a drive that can sometime last over an hour. My films are within the 70-50 limit, and the little privacy it provides is indispensable when my wife has to feed our child. And no, you don't need really dark films for bare essential privacy. If you think this thread is 165 pages long, and counting, for the privacy of the young couples kind, you are, at best, missing the point by miles (although, I guess your comment was on a lighter vein).

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. 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. .........................

-----------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.

Rules are not God given, they are written by humans and for humans. The point here is that the honorable (that's just a word without a meaning I use reluctantly) judge erred in his dictum. If plain interpretation is all we expect of the judiciary then language teachers should be made judges. The role of the learned judge is to interpret the spirit behind the law, and the best way for that spirit to be adhered to keeping with the changing times, if need be. The judgement does not contest the acceptability, or purpose, of the 70-50 limit. So the whole privacy debate is uncalled for. The verdict just restricts the way it is achieved. Although it is silent on the reason, one can guess that it is probably owing to the hardship in enforcing. But that violates my right. You cant jail every one in the village, in order to prevent crime, just because the village doesn't have a police station.

[sriturl]

Originally Posted by 2cents

Looks like a rip off mate! I don't think RTO officials are authorized to collect fines. You can't have two authorities doing the same job simultaneously!

They definitely can for any violation under MV Act.
Transport Department

[kicksperliter]

Hi All,

I had a conversation Karnataka High Court Judge today morning who had visited our residence. I asked him the most intriguing question about SC order to him and here is what I hear from him.

The Supreme Court order might be quashed with a new Petition and Stay order being filed by few Sr.Lawyers at Delhi, as it CONFLICT's the very Constitution act formed many years ago, which is none other than Motor Vehicles Act.

Either there should be separate mandate or bill passed to change the Motor Vehicles Act (pertaining to Sun-film section) according to the SC order, which needs all MP's to approve and Finally President of India has to approve.

Once this is done, the motor vehicles act (pertaining to Sun-film) shall be changed as per the SC order.

Until the bill is passed and Motor Vehicles Act is AMENDED. The Supreme Court order can be quashed by the stay order petition.

There are 2 CONTRARY Laws for the same subject and hence it should not be imposed on public without reflecting these changes in Constitutional Law.

Since, our so called (Looting) politicians are very busy with all scams and corruptions, presenting, passing and approving the AMENDMENT BILL is not to be heard of in distant future too.

As per him, this order would be realigned to Motor Vehicles act soon.

Thought of sharing this information to all

[coloneljasi]

Looks like the drive against sun films are going to get stronger, atleast locally. There's an article in today's Mathrubhumi stating that there are still a lot of cars on our streets with sun films. Apparently the city traffic police got the hard copy of the SC order only a few days ago.

I guess I'll have to rip off the medium tint sun film from my Fiat Palio, which is the only car which still has it in intact in my house.

[subbarao]

Originally Posted by shankar.balan

Removing the llumar film was a real ordeal because the gum was horribly sticky.

Hi,

I removed myself a 3M film, BIG thanks to 3M quality control, all gum was sticked to paper only & came out in single sheet, even it was very clean not got a chance clean the glass again. with this i lost 4.5k

[Parthasarathig]

I dont understand why young couples and what not is being brought into the picture. Privacy is for family members accoding to me whether it be my mom dad brother sister wife or children.

Young couples also live in houses as do families. Young couple travel on bikes and in cars and so do families. Privacy is an equal right for both. Many eve teasers and low mentality people try to do moral policing on couples whether married or unmarried. And these low mentality people do a lot of things.

So couples being citizens of this country also have the right to privacy. A man and woman travelling in a car may not be a couple or maybe married people but cheating on their spouses. But then they are also couple and do worse things than any boyfriend girlfriend do. Yet we dont label the adulterers as "couples" but label innocent young people being together as couples with a bad notion.

Please friends and members change your mindset regarding other people's relations. It is because of this mindset that we see a rise in so called (dis)honor(able) killings. Everybody has a right to his or her happiness. But we like to interfere in our childrens relations and kill our daughters and their lovers and what not.

i hate to draw the ire of members here but young couples dont do anything more than what we married citizens do in our day to day life. Every individual has a right to his or her happiness. Human rights 101. Please view last weeks Satyamev Jayate's episode as to what is happening in this country in the name of family honor and respect.

Everyone has the right to privacy. I want privacy for my family on the road. Is that something wrong? I dont want anyone to target my child when im a bit late to pick him up from school. My child is as precious to me as is a millionaires child to him. Safety and privacy for my family are my most important concern more than getting sunburnt or audio systems stolen. to me The value of life is more than my audio systems and sunburns. As long as the rate of crimes are high and we see no positive action wrt crimes affecting people in vehicles, and as long as roads in our country remain a dangerous way to travel, i think sun films in legal limits should be allowed.

Regards.

I havent said anything off topic but i want to dismiss the notion in everyones minds that privacy doesnt just mean sex and neither does a couple asking privacy mean sex. There you go. I just killed the elephant in the room. Now everyone can talk more freely about privacy regarding families and on an individual level.

Cheers!!

[shankar.balan]

Originally Posted by Parthasarathig

I dont understand why young couples and what not is being brought into the picture. Privacy is for family members accoding to me whether it be my mom dad brother sister wife or children.. to me The value of life is more than my audio systems and sunburns. As long as the rate of crimes are high and we see no positive action wrt crimes affecting people in vehicles, and as long as roads in our country remain a dangerous way to travel, i think sun films in legal limits should be allowed.


Cheers!!

Legal limits need to be defined first, without any ambiguity whatsoever! That's likely to be the biggest challenge in this country of ambiguities!

[PatchyBoy]

Alright. Before we all get carried away with arguments of Cargo vehicles not having rear windscreen and thereby eliminating any possiblity of visibilty of what is happening inside the vehicle and all that, let us consider what the rule / specifications say:

1. Rule 125(2) says - Six months from the date of commencement of the Central Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Rules 1993, all motor vehicles shall be equipped with rear view mirror. Provided that on and from 1st May, 2003, the rear view mirror specifications and installation requirements shall be as specified by AIS: 001-2001 and AIS: 002-2001 respectively, as may be amended from time to time, till such time as corresponding Bureau of Indian Standards specifications are notified.

What are our cars classified as?

AIS-053 3.1.1.1 M1 category
A vehicle used for carriage of passengers, comprising not more than eight seats in addition to the driver’s seat.

Now, let us see what AIS: 001-2001 and AIS: 002-2001 say about M1:

Vehicle Category : M1
Interior Mirror Class I : Compulsory, Unless the vehicle is fitted with anything other than safety glazing material in the field of vision prescribed in paragraph 15.2.4.1. See 15.2.2.10

15.2.4.1. Interior rear-view mirror (Class I)
The field of vision shall be such that the driver is able to see at least a 20 m wide, flat, horizontal portion of the road centred on the vertical longitudinal median plane of the vehicle and extending from 60 m behind the driver’s ocular points (Figure 4) to the horizon.


15.2.2.10 If the vehicle is fitted with anything other than safety glazing material in the field of vision prescribed in paragraph 15.2.4.1, fitment of interior mirrors Class I for categories of M1 and N1 is optional. In such cases, the field of vision requirements need not be complied with.

Okay, so in layman's terms what does all this mean to us?

If we have a vehicle, which is designed to carry not more than eight passengers in addition to the driver and is equipped with glass rear windscreen, then two things are mandatory:

1. That glass shall have 70% minimum VLT
2. There shall be an IRVM, with field of vision as pictured above

While I do not endorse to the "being able to see the traffic in front of you, through your car" theory, I do not believe that there is any alternate here. The more I read, the more impressed I am. Every minute detail has been thought of and specified. ARAI documents are a researcher's wet dream

I am atleast convinced that keeping the car glasses clean and polished is the only sure-fire way to keep those prying eyes away.

Rajan

[condor]

Originally Posted by kicksperliter

I had a conversation Karnataka High Court Judge .. asked him the most intriguing question about SC order to him ..

Until the bill is passed and Motor Vehicles Act is AMENDED.

Thanks, @Kicksperliter. That would be the most authentic / qualified interpretation of the whole issue yet.

Quoting my earlier post in this thread:

Originally Posted by condor

But isnt SC only supposed to pass a judgement ? A judgement is not a law/rule untill it is passed as one by a law making body. And the law making body has said 70/50 VLT is the acceptable limit.

[quadbike]

Apparently the cops in Trivandrum have started fining people with sun films as well. And it is not a Rs 100 fine like in Bangalore. My friend was fined Rs 500 yesterday.

[Rajeevraj]

A question to SX4 owners. I had got a pre-owned SX4 from True Value and the sales guy said that the tints on it were factory fitted and noting additional was stuck. So I was thinking what I had was legal and did not bother to check in detail. Couple of days back I was checking the glass and then only noticed that there was sun film stuck to it.

I plan to get it removed tomorrow. But my question is this: Does the SX4 come with any sort of tint from the factory itself? Either sun film or tinted glass? If I remove what is stuck, will I end up with a plain glass or will there be some level of tint.