[triedeverything]

I've also signed it, and just like others here, am quite skeptical of the impact that it is going to create. Though a lot of people who own cars don't see how this ruling is going reduce this particular kind of crime, only a fraction of them are Net savvy. So even though there may be many who are willing to sign, only a few will know about this effort and fewer who will actually sign.

[anoopap]

I have always felt safer on road when cars either comming from opposite or in front doesnt have tinted glasses. It definitely helps in better understanding among parties on the road.

Considering the fact that women drivers prefer to use tinted glasses to avoid harrassment, banning may not be in the best of interest for all. But it is again avoiding the problem rather than facing it.

[godog]

I am yet to come across any meaningful opposition to the stance taken by the petition at Change.org. There have been more than 750 responses so far, in less than 2 days since the petition was floated. The people's verdict is unanimous.

• Women, whom the verdict sets out to protect from Rapists, are vociferously protesting the blanket ban.
• Libertarians have pronounced the judgement as infringement on the basic right to safety, and the right to reasonable privacy. (One person went so far as to complain that his wife won't be able to feed their infant while in the car. A bit extreme, but hits the nail on the head.)
• People with sensitive skins have come out blazing; pun intended.
• The cancer society is up in arms against the threat from unadulterated UV rays.

I request the BHPian society to solicit their Supreme Court advocate friends or colleagues to advise us on the issue in order to take the petition forward.

[ashphil]

I have signed the petition too! All the benefits of having the film on our cars have been ignored in the hollow name of maintaining overall public safety. A clear case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater!
regards,
Ashok

[Daewood]

Originally Posted by godog

People with sensitive skins have come out blazing;

My uncle has a severe case of Psoriasis. It gets aggravated whenever sunlight falls on his skin. Hence his car and windows at home are all covered with sunfilm. Wonder how he will travel to work now. Maybe he should quit his current job and take a job which permits him to do night shifts?

[invincible7]

I just signed it, hope it works on for us in the right direction.

I believe the ones who were not following the earlier laid down guidelines should have been penalized heavily first before going for the complete ban.

[Ragul]

That petition I feel is somewhat poorly drafted. It needs to be polished a little more. I don't feel like signing a petition that might result in it not being taken with t he right amount of seriousness and does not stir the right amount or quality of debate.

--R

[VW2010]

Are these petitions of any use at all. Do we know any instance such petitions working. I am not convinced that this signing up petition helps.

In chennai so far the police have not started troubling and i see almost 85% of the cars on raod with sun films. This is going to be fun in the next few weeks when they start impelementing if at all.

Say paying 1000 rupees fines means one can still get caught 15 times hoping the law would change. This is for those who have spent close to 15K on sun films in windshield and windows. As we may deifnitely reinstall the sun film once the rule is reverted.

I hope the rule is modified if not reverted.

[Coolman]

Signed...

Reasons:

1. Not in the best interests of the common man - no sun-films invades privacy.
2. Some amount of protection from hot climate gone without sun-films.
3. Some amount of protection from UV rays gone without sun-films.
4. Effectiveness of AC reduced to some extent without sun-films.
5. More time and power used by AC reduces mileage to some extent.
6. Sun films aren't exactly cheap, if such a thing gets implemented do it in phases over a period of time, like an year.
7. If you can see what is inside the car, that's it! I wouldn't want you to see each and every particular or details, it's my car and my people inside.
8. No sun-films means severe discomfort to infants, children and aged citizens while traveling.
9. Finally, if "no sun-films" can reduce crime, then "no cars" will make the country crime free!

Thanks,
C_

[godog]

Originally Posted by Ragul

That petition I feel is somewhat poorly drafted. It needs to be polished a little more. I don't feel like signing a petition that might result in it not being taken with t he right amount of seriousness and does not stir the right amount or quality of debate.

--R

If you have any suggestions, they are most welcome. Not only about the draft, but any help regarding ANY procedure, ANY activity related to this petition are most welcome.

Any and all meaningful suggestions and guidance will duly be accommodated into the petition etc.

Originally Posted by sgiitk

I have already signed it ....
....
... for two reasons. Individual freedom of choice, and it is not fair to allow some to get away....

.... By the looks of it an ambulance does not need privacy but a neta or babu does!!!

add to the list: Commercial Vans. Lest the aloo-gobhi get cancerous radiation!! ooh-la-la! Now we don't want the VEGETABLES to get cancer, or skin burns, or irritable while in-transit, do we?

The timing, the stance of the ruling, and the industry reaction are all fishy to me at the moment.

All those who want to know about the Manufactures update... Here is their point of view :-

The executives with whom we are in contact told us, That all companies have decided not to appeal against for at least more 1-2 weeks.. Because they are earning Rs. 200-Rs.500 firstly from every car for removing tints.. Secondly they think that if time prolongs maximum people will remove the tints.. so More they will earn when the petition gets a stay and tinting starts again...!!

Incredible India..!! HUH

Source: Facebook Page

[ajitkumarlb]

Signed.

I had to go get my RC book endorsed with LPG and the RTO would not endorse it until I remove the film (this was about a year back). And so was the case with all other private vehicles that were there for inspection.

However I have not seen any instance of BTP stopping/removing the film in Bangalore in the last few days.


Petitions do work and I have seen them do, certainly the content matters, but what matters most is the number of people signing it, so please do sign it and request all the people you know to sign it as well.

[Su-47]

When I glanced over the headline in the newspaper a couple of days back, was thinking this is yet another drive to get rid of VLT violators. But, remove even the lightest tints, this is excessive!

[vineethvazhayil]

Originally Posted by godog

I, therefore, request all BHPians to sign this petition, if you too feel that

Done. Signed! Good luck with the petition sir.

[raamki]

Signed the petition sir, good luck!

If they are allowing manufacturer specifications of VLT 70 & 50% for the front/back and sides, they should allow after market too since not all cars come tinted from the factory! Also, am more worried about the safety of women who work late shifts driving back alone without the films which otherwise would protect their privacy!

[asdon]

Signed it, but tell me what is the next step? Are you meeting any advocate to discuss the case further?

In the other tthread, I just posted that if required we BHPians poolin funds and proceed further, what do you think?