[vineethvazhayil]

Originally Posted by Rehaan

Check this thread out - regarding eye contact & a more human interaction between drivers : Are towns really safer without traffic lights? | csmonitor.com

Imagine an Indian city without traffic lights, with lights there is 50% disregard, without it, you can't even walk! Guess in cultures and communities where being courteous and sensible is an expectation this kind of a system will work!

[Parm]

Originally Posted by godog

I am using the dark tints to:
1. Avoid skin rashes, sun-burns. USE SUN CREAMS
2. Keep cool in summer. USE AC
3. Not feel conscious of myself at a stop-light. ??
4. Have a meal when time permits. YOU NEED DARK TINTS FOR THAT?
5. Catch a quick Nap, when time permits . YOU NEED DARK TINTS FOR THAT?

and Not To:
1. Rape anyone. Me included. I NEVER TOOK ANYONE'S NAME!
2. Hijack my own car.
3. Rob anyone. Me included.

Lighter shades are available with the same heat control for your car.

as for privacy, 30% is enough to give you that!

its a fact that darker tints are used for un lawful activities (again im not naming any individual or a group)!

its a world wide restriction on darker tints and upto 30% dark shades are recomended.

in usa and europe, the driver and non-driver windows cant even have 30% dark shade!

[pranavt]

Originally Posted by Parm

terrorism, hijacked cars, kidnappings, robbery, rape in cars, etc is what the dark tints are being used for.

Yes, so you're accusing everyone (including T-BHP members) who has dark tints on their cars of being a kidnapper, terrorist, hijacker, rapist or a robber?

Originally Posted by Parm

its a fact that darker tints are used for un lawful activities (again im not naming any individual or a group)!

Why not? Is it because you just want to make blanket statements without backing them up with any facts? Please refrain from falsely accusing your fellow motorists of being rapists or terrorists. And terrorism? Last time I heard, the terrorists stole other peoples' cars...lol

Originally Posted by Parm

1. Avoid skin rashes, sun-burns. USE SUN CREAMS
2. Keep cool in summer. USE AC
3. Not feel conscious of myself at a stop-light. ??
4. Have a meal when time permits. YOU NEED DARK TINTS FOR THAT?
5. Catch a quick Nap, when time permits . YOU NEED DARK TINTS FOR THAT?

1] No. Sun creams make my skin oily and I hate the smell.
2] We do. Glasses up = AC. Unless someone enjoys carbon monoxide poisoning.
3] Some of us are handsome studs and don't want people of the fairer sex ogling at us all the time. Same if you're a girl. It's called right to privacy and means that we don't have to endure vulgar looks from bystanders and other people on the road
4] Do you enjoy having your meals in public? Where exactly do you live/hang out? What is your profession?
5] Same as above. Some of us expect and appreciate privacy.

[Parm]

Originally Posted by pranavt

Yes, so you're accusing everyone (including T-BHP members) who has dark tints on their cars of being a kidnapper, terrorist, hijacker, rapist or a robber?



Why not? Is it because you just want to make blanket statements without backing them up with any facts? Please refrain from falsely accusing your fellow motorists of being rapists or terrorists. And terrorism? Last time I heard, the terrorists stole other peoples' cars...lol



1] No. Sun creams make my skin oily and I hate the smell.
2] We do. Glasses up = AC. Unless someone enjoys carbon monoxide poisoning.
3] Some of us are handsome studs and don't want people of the fairer sex ogling at us all the time. Same if you're a girl. It's called right to privacy and means that we don't have to endure vulgar looks from bystanders and other people on the road
4] Do you enjoy having your meals in public? Where exactly do you live/hang out? What is your profession?
5] Same as above. Some of us expect and appreciate privacy.

looks like i started an argument. i apologise for hurting your femine sentiments and intruding your privacy.

i had no intention to accuse anyone of any unlawful activity.

i dont want to take it further, so i apologise once again and end it here only. have a nice day and drive safe.

[pranavt]

Originally Posted by Parm

looks like i started an argument. i apologise for hurting your femine sentiments and intruding your privacy.

i had no intention to accuse anyone of any unlawful activity.

i dont want to take it further, so i apologise once again and end it here only. have a nice day and drive safe.

No worries, no offense taken, none given hopefully

[tanwaramit]

I think Indian Lawmakers feel like what Parm feels and hence they have made that rule.

Its in the best interest of all to help and cooperate with rules of the land.

[godog]

Originally Posted by tanwaramit

I think Indian Lawmakers feel like what Parm feels and hence they have made that rule.

Its in the best interest of all to help and cooperate with rules of the land.

Hey! Some sections of the CrPC and the IPC still have dates like 1882, 1938 etc before them. e.g. Section 377 of the IPC of 1860. Do we still have to "cooperate with rules of the land" when the rule of the land is half archaic and half bizarre? (I'm straight btw )

Originally Posted by Parm

looks like i started an argument... i apologise for hurting your femine sentiments and intruding your privacy.

You leave me confused.

Originally Posted by pranavt

1] No. Sun creams make my skin oily and I hate the smell.
2] We do. Glasses up = AC. Unless someone enjoys carbon monoxide poisoning.
3] Some of us are handsome studs and don't want people of the fairer sex ogling at us all the time. Same if you're a girl. It's called right to privacy and means that we don't have to endure vulgar looks from bystanders and other people on the road
4] Do you enjoy having your meals in public? Where exactly do you live/hang out? What is your profession?
5] Same as above. Some of us expect and appreciate privacy.

1. Plus there are more things on my mind than applying a sunscreen all day. Then some people might accuse me of harbouring feminine sentiments.
2. Try the AC in 48*C.
3. Lol, so True.
4. Poverty is sad. Poor people ogle my grub!

[Sahil]

I have my doubts on there "tint meters" ! A friend got fined after the cop checked the tints with his meter. The car was fitted with garware icecool 50%. I'm sure of this as I chose the tints for that car and have the same on my Altis. The cop said it was 20% over limit!
Now how can one challenge such inaccurate judegements?

[Akshay1234]

its really silly. we were at a signal yesterday and a cop was walking by looking at all the cars. i predicted it was for tints. he stopped at my car and started arguing with my driver. i told him the tro allows 50% on the sides and 70% on the fronts. he said no films are allowed. we didnt have time to waste so my driver just slipped him a note and we carried on.

[prince85]

Originally Posted by Sahil

I have my doubts on there "tint meters" ! A friend got fined after the cop checked the tints with his meter. The car was fitted with garware icecool 50%. I'm sure of this as I chose the tints for that car and have the same on my Altis. The cop said it was 20% over limit!
Now how can one challenge such inaccurate judegements?

Well i totally agree with you and highly doubt the accuracy of these tint meters. Today at the Vile-Parle Traffic Signal on the W.Express Highway, i was stopped by these 2 pandus who had these soo called tint meters. I had installed Lumar Black 20 in my Wagon-R some 2 months back (yea i know they are way too dark) and i was expecting a fine for the same! Soo one of the pandus asked me to roll down the drivers side window.......which i obediently did! Then he held this tint meter in a way where the meter was sandwiching the glass! and up came the reading....... I was expecting 20 since it was supposed to be that much (if you believe lumar, which i do) But guess what? The reading was a shocking "7", can you believe that?

Anyways slipped in 100 bucks to the pandu and off i went! But am really shocked that these tint meters were inaccurate by a long shot!

[tanwaramit]

hmm, another way of cops to make that extra income.

[akj53]

The logic behind law is correct. Public must cooperate by installing the correctly tinted films only.

Apart from launching such checking drives, the government should also raid and penalise the auto shops selling such films. After all they are also partners in crime and making money from such illegal activities.

[rudrah]

I've installed 3M film on side windows and rear windshield + Garware sun protection in front. The dealer said its RTO approved. But I'm still unsure if it passes RTO's meter!

However dont you think these film brands should come with a standard info on the package with RTO approved?

A standard information about the approved and disapproved film should be circulated and then the cracking down should start!

Originally Posted by prince85

Anyways slipped in 100 bucks to the pandu and off i went! But am really shocked that these tint meters were inaccurate by a long shot!

No wonder we the People then complain Cops takes bribe!

[freak1201]

My 2 cents -
Doesent it make sense for the police / authorities / whoever to crack down on the illegal film manufacturers?
That way, the police can mind the business they are supposed to do (definitely not harassing innocents) and the janta in general also is happy?

[drvarunagarwal]

Originally Posted by akshay1234

its really silly. we were at a signal yesterday and a cop was walking by looking at all the cars. i predicted it was for tints. he stopped at my car and started arguing with my driver. i told him the tro allows 50% on the sides and 70% on the fronts. he said no films are allowed. we didnt have time to waste so my driver just slipped him a note and we carried on.

You are right that legally 50% visibility is allowed for side windows and 70% on front and rear.

With so much confusion and cop harassment regarding sunfilms going on I recently had an idea to check Delhi and chandigarh traffic police websites. This is what they have to say:

"Use of dark, black or reflective glasses in vehicles is not permitted as per law. As provided in Rule 100 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989, the glass of windscreen and rear window of motor vehicles should have a visibility of at least 70% and that of side windows a minimum visibility of 50%. The specification of glass should conform to Indian Standards [ IS:2553 - Part 2 - 1992 ]. The front windscreen shall be of laminated safety glass, whose pieces do not fly in the event of a crash and edges would be less jagged than in case of ordinary glass."

Source: Delhi Traffic Police, New Delhi (India) - Tinted Glass in Motor Vehicles


"As per the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 100 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 the glass of the windscreen and rear window of every motor vehicle has to be such and be maintained in such a condition that the visual transmission of light is not less than 70%. The glasses used for side windows have to be such and be maintained in such condition that the visual transmission of light is not less than 50%.
The flagrant violation of the above said rule by use of extremely dark coloured sun films/tints on window glasses of cars led to the issuing of directions by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court on the matter in CWP No.7639 of 1995 - Nimit Kumar versus Chandigarh Administration and Others. The Hon'ble High Court restricted the use of 'Black Films on Window Glasses' to cars of only those persons/ VIPs who needed to use such films to avoid serious security hazards. The Hon'ble Court authorised the Director General of Police or an officer duly authorized by him in this behalf (not below the rank of Additional Director General of Police) to issue permissions for the purpose to such persons under his seal and signatures. Consequent to this Court directive, permissions for use of black films were issued by way of special authorization stickers. The question that remained unsettled was whether these persons facing security risk could be permitted to use films darker than what was stipulated by the Central Motor Vehicle Rules. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its recent order dated 27-9-2004 in Civil Appeal No. 3700 of 1999 (arising out of CWP 7639 of 1995) has directed that the mandate of sub-rule (2) of Rule 100 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 has to be kept in view by the law & order enforcing agencies while laying down any security requirement."

Source: Safety Helmets



And the fines:

for wrong visibility sunfilms fine is Rs.400 (though I am not sure, can anyone confirm?)

23. Over Speeding (Subsequent Offence) 112/183(1) MVA Rs. 300
24. Abetment of Over Speeding 112/183(2) MVA Rs. 300
25. Section 183(2) (2nd or Subsequent Offence) 112/183(2) MVA

43. Using Mobile Phone while Driving 184 MVA Rs. 1000