[jeeva]

Originally Posted by Wheeliej

Its a woman's viewpoint. Women have to be very careful to be alert about such followers. Some of them turn out to be psychos and may cause harm even if not encouraged in the slightest (we hear about cases of brazen murder and acid throwing in broad daylight every day). Allowing such people to follow can also be seen as encouragement. In a mall scenario there are enough security guards around to ask for help and cameras to deter, but when driving, and especially at night, even with the doors locked and window panes up, there is little protection those offer if forcibly stopped at a lonely stretch.

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

I doubt this was about lack of sun-films on your car - more likely due to wrong interpretation of the face/eye contact that happened. I think the guy misunderstood your looking at him - an innocuous look at the face (helmet-strap) could have been taken by him in the wrong meaning. Neither belittling the safety thing nor saying the guy was right - but from what you mentioned, this looks to be the cause than sunfilms.

No offense meant, but I find your investigation and conclusion rather funny than ridiculous.
Here is a lady, who shares her experience first hand and you, sitting miles away, conclude over the internet that its because of wrong eye contact that invited trouble for her. All this, to justify your stand on the ban of sun-films.

I had stopped posting in this thread, but this one forced me to.
Amen!

[msdivy]

One more problem for traffic police. The movie stars have removed sun-films in their cars. Guess what? They are being mobbed by people at traffic junctions, to have a glimpse, get autograph, get photo etc. The traffic was held up for half an hour at one such instance.

Black film tinted glass banned supreme court order - Oneindia Kannada

[supremeBaleno]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

I bought the nearest to totally transparent film that would reduce heat/UV as I could get/afford. I'm very fussy about visibility, and mine is not, not even on an unlit road, affected. If I have to loose it, I'll be upset, as in understatement of the year.

@Thad, from what I have observed about the sun-film checks being done by cops in Chennai, you don't really have to worry, since your films are nearly transparent.
I have seen cops wave off cars that to even me looked clearly like having darker than 70/50 tints, and focus only on the real dark ones. You should be OK.

Originally Posted by jeeva

No offense meant, but I find your investigation and conclusion rather funny than ridiculous. Here is a lady, who shares her experience first hand and you sitting miles away conclude over the internet that its because of wrong eye contact that invited trouble for her. All this, to justify your stand on the ban of sun-films.

No offense taken, but you could do with reading again the part of my post that you quoted and let me know where I concluded anything as you say. I just put forward a possibility (google eye-contact if you think it is funny/ridiculous) - and just as I was not there, you were also not there I presume - so what makes you think for sure that it was due to sunfilms being removed ? And even if we assume it is due to sun-films being removed, then this cannot be an isolated incident - I am sure there would be more scum like him in Blore and Wheeliej & other women should forever be looking in the RVM & fleeing from them, which is not happening right ?

And regarding stand on sun-films, this is the law - so does not matter what stand you or me have on this. We can bang on the keyboard all day long, but have to comply if the law is enforced.

[condor]

So are we discussing body lanugage now ?

Guys, let us stick the topic. And as jeeva mentioned, @WheelieJ has shared what she felt. She would know best what it was.

[pramodpk]

Read in Times of India today that 600 cars were fined in Bangalore for using sun films.

[supremeBaleno]

Originally Posted by condor

So are we discussing body lanugage now ? Guys, let us stick the topic. And as jeeva mentioned, @WheelieJ has shared what she felt. She would know best what it was.

In a thread about sun-films, we seem to have covered everything else about the body - allergies / UV-effect / skin-cancer / privacy / bodily harm etc, while ignoring the rationale behind the law. But yeah, she is the best judge of what happened.

[superutp]

There is so much ambiguity in the SC rullling. Was talking to some colleagues and some of them still think 70% VLT sun-films are allowed. BTP has put of these displays saying Black Tints not allowed. That is so unclear for someone who is not following the ruling in detail. Luckily the fine for the first time is only 100 bucks.

Still haven't seen a single cop stopping anyone though plenty of 'black tints' abound.

[sheelapratosh]

Originally Posted by superutp

There is so much ambiguity in the SC rullling.

If you live in Bangalore, my advise to you is to read the Times of India story today (Interview by Top Traffic Cop.) His interpretation of the judgement is all the more important than our interpretation..

The way I read it .. "No films other than the factory fitted tints"

[KarthikK]

Originally Posted by superutp

There is so much ambiguity in the SC rullling. Was talking to some colleagues and some of them still think 70% VLT sun-films are allowed. BTP has put of these displays saying Black Tints not allowed. That is so unclear for someone who is not following the ruling in detail. Luckily the fine for the first time is only 100 bucks.

Originally Posted by sheelapratosh

If you live in Bangalore, my advise to you is to read the Times of India story today (Interview by Top Traffic Cop.) His interpretation of the judgement is all the more important than our interpretation..

The way I read it .. "No films other than the factory fitted tints"

@sheelapratosh - actually superutp has a point. Even many of my colleagues feel the same way as what he said. In many locations across the city, there are these huge digital displays with orange text displaying "no black films allowed, need to be removed as per SC order". The average car user will think "mine is not black film, so I need not worry" . Not many people read the newspaper in full detail I think, anyway this interview you mention will be in TOI page 4 or 5 in some corner. Such things should be given first page space since it affects more citizens, rather than some irrelevant face wash or shampoo ad on page 1.

[WindRide]

With this law getting enforced, one positive development for people like me, is it just got easier to identify lady-driven vehicles. I usually keep a lane or two distance from them. Blame it on paranoia.

[superutp]

Originally Posted by sheelapratosh

The way I read it .. "No films other than the factory fitted tints"

Originally Posted by KarthikK

@sheelapratosh - actually superutp has a point. Even many of my colleagues feel the same way as what he said. In many locations across the city, there are these huge digital displays with orange text displaying "no black films allowed, need to be removed as per SC order". The average car user will think "mine is not black film, so I need not worry" .

@ Karthik: Yup exactly the point I was trying to make. Not everyone reads about things in detail. People reading this thread know whats right and whats wrong but someone more ignorant may just think that this ruling is for those people with extremely dark sunfilms (considering BTP are themselves calling it Black tints) and won't bother removing the 70% sunfilms they have on (because it looks as good as nothing's there).

@ sheelapratosh: exactly- 'no films other than factory tints', but the general public with cars can't really differentiate between sunfilms and tints and they use it interchangeably especially when there is noone to tell them.

[PatchyBoy]

Looks like there might be light at the end of the tunnel, afterall:

Source - Today's Hindu

The court rightly declined the petitioner's plea to ask the government to provide VLT of 100 per cent instead of levels prescribed saying that it cannot issue such direction, but later “erred” to state that the user cannot bring down VLT using sun films even as the law itself allows variation within the permitted range, the former Advocate General Mr. Acharya said.

By wrongly interpreting the rules, Mr. Acharya points out, the Supreme Court has virtually legislated a new law, having far-reaching consequences and with retrospective effect, which it is not competent to do.


Another former Advocate General Mr. Holla said the VLT limit prescribed in the Motor Vehicles Rules is from the point of view of safety to ensure that the driver has sufficient visibility, both during day and night, of the surroundings and not for visibility into the vehicle.

“If there is a need to ensure a certain percentage of visibility from the outside into the vehicle from the security angle, then law has to be amended suitably on scientific basis and study,” Mr. Holla said and added that the verdict could be reviewed to set right the perception.

Rajan

[KarthikK]

Originally Posted by PatchyBoy

Looks like there might be light at the end of the tunnel, afterall:

Source - Today's Hindu


Rajan

How badly I wish I was a car accessory shop owner now

I could have made money charging 500 Rs. per car for removal all these days, and the next few months I will make 5000 Rs. per car for re-applying sunfilms. Wow!

[msdivy]

Another positive development due to ban is in detecting over-loading. Now its easy to detect how many are in the vehicle. So Omni, Sumo, Trax owners beware, especially Omnis which ferry kids to schools.

[Vid6639]

Yes I agree. If visibility is required into the vehicle from outside at all times then the law needs to be amended and manufacturers need to design all cars in India with glass doors along with windows. This way 100% visibility is assured.