[jacksons]

Originally Posted by anoop_lamba

Hello all,

I found this notice on Pune Traffic Police's website.

वाहतूक शाखेकडून Tinted Glass ची कारवाई केलेबाबत...

They are still talking about 50% and 70% VLT.
Hopefully this means they are not going to challan for approved sunfilms (at least for now).

I still have not removed my sunfilms. Original plan was to continue till getting a challan for the first time. Now plan is to carry a print out of this notice.

Anyone else from Pune having any updates on the situation?

P.S. : My Marathi is not very good but I think they have mistakenly mentioned VLT should not be more that 50% and 70% which is exactly opposite of the rule.

Here is link to Delhi Traffic Police's website for Sun films.
Delhi Traffic Police, New Delhi (India) - Tinted Glass in Motor Vehicles
They have clearly mentioned that sun films are not allowed but company fitted tinted glasses of 70/50 VLT are allowed.
Question is how does it matter if its sun film or company fitted dark tinted glasses ? What difference it make to SC ?.
I have failed to understand, please some one guide me.

[Santoshbhat]

Originally Posted by drmohitg

Isn't this a much more potent weapon in the hand's of the criminals?

Yes it is. It is a cargo van and with no windows can be deadly dangerous in the hands of a deranged individual. But compared to the number of passenger cars out there , the no. of such vans is miniscule.

I don't think crime can ever be completely eliminated. But laws can be enacted to deter crime. Strict punishment for a particular crime is one such example. What the Supreme court hopes with strict enforcement of this law, is that it will help reduce crimes that are committed with the help of a car with dark tints and zero visibility from outside.

Lets assume that cops are able to acheive 100% enforcement. If after that there is a significant drop in crimes such as rape and abduction, don't you think that's a good thing? Yes its an inconvenience and I too cribbed a lot about it when it was first announced. But if this rule is going to make our cities even a wee bit safer for the women and children in my family, I think I should accept it.

[Daewood]

Originally Posted by Santoshbhat

But compared to the number of passenger cars out there , the no. of such vans is miniscule.

Even the number of such crimes committed is miniscule. Why penalize the entire nation for such isolated incidents, when it's definitely not going to be a deterrent.

Originally Posted by Santoshbhat

But if this rule is going to make our cities even a wee bit safer for the women and children in my family, I think I should accept it.

Do you think a sick mind with a criminal intent would give up on his intentions, because he couldn't find a car with sun-films. He would simply find another way.

[scopriobharath]

Originally Posted by anoop_lamba

Hello all,

I found this notice on Pune Traffic Police's website.

वाहतूक शाखेकडून Tinted Glass ची कारवाई केलेबाबत...

Anyone else from Pune having any updates on the situation?

P.S. : My Marathi is not very good but I think they have mistakenly mentioned VLT should not be more that 50% and 70% which is exactly opposite of the rule.

Is this announcement passed by supreme court? I dont think Local police can prevent challaning as it would imply contempt of court.

I think its the local police who are debating this and at the most they might not stop and fine cars that are having films like 3M CR70 et all. They cannot issue an official letter. They can do it unofficially. My Marathi is not so good and could not infer much.

- People who could help translate this Marathi to English - Your help is most appreciated.

[Santoshbhat]

Originally Posted by Daewood

Even the number of such crimes committed is miniscule. Why penalize the entire nation for such isolated incidents, when it's definitely not going to be a deterrent

When we travel by air, every passenger has to go through security check. How many terrorists have hijacked a plane in our country? So why should each and every citizen be subject to a security check on each and every flight?

Isn't strict security and strong punishment a deterrent?

THe court is not 'penalizing' the whole nation, come on! Its just tints on windows, how hard is it to drive without them?!!

Originally Posted by Daewood

Do you think a sick mind with a criminal intent would give up on his intentions, because he couldn't find a car with sun-films. He would simply find another way.

It would be easier for him if the unsuspecting victim walks into his car (a cab for example) with tints. If he then locks the car from inside he has no fear of the outside world. He can't get his victim to walk inside a locked room so easily, as then the victim would suspect foul play. Its all about making it harder for them that's all. As I said before crime can never be completely eliminated, we can only put deterrents. All criminals are not determined and dedicated to their crime . So if we can deter at least some of them, good job!

[Daewood]

Originally Posted by Santoshbhat

When we travel by air, every passenger has to go through security check.

It's process by which you eliminate 99.99% possibility of someone smuggling a potent weapon into the aircraft, and hence it works. The sunfilm case is not the same. Can anyone guarantee that 99% of criminal activity done using vehicles will end, because sunfilms are banned.

Originally Posted by Santoshbhat

THe court is not 'penalizing' the whole nation, come on! Its just tints on windows, how hard is it to drive without them?!!

So if somebody bans all private vehicles tomorrow and says, how difficult it is to live without our cars, we have to welcome the ruling, right? Just because someone is comfortable with minimal things in life, he cannot force his way of life on others.

Originally Posted by Santoshbhat

So if we can deter at least some of them, good job!

You are sounding as if this is a daily occurrence and if atleast some of them can be stopped the rule would have done it's part. It's not so. Out of the millions of cars in our roads 3 or 4 have been used for such crimes and majority of them had, no sunfilms on them. So, clearly the fault lies somewhere else and not because of sun films. In fact it's impossible to be anonymous in cars with 70/50 VLT sunfilms. We have much bigger issues to deal with in Indian roads and this should have been the last.

[StarrySky]

Originally Posted by Raccoon

The highest court has effectively ruled that Indians have any right to the shelter component of the basic necessities of life like food, clothing and shelter.

I think you are over-dramatizing things. How many shelterless 2-wheeler riders or pedestrians have you sheltered in your sunfilmed car so far?

[SLK]

Originally Posted by Santoshbhat

THe court is not 'penalizing' the whole nation, come on! Its just tints on windows, how hard is it to drive without them?!!

I have a list of 100+ items I can live without that does not give anyone a right to ban it. They have banned an object (a 50+% VLT film) which is clearly inconsequential in stopping crime, and if you can deny that then we are not having a reasonable discussion here.

Originally Posted by Santoshbhat

It would be easier for him if the unsuspecting victim walks into his car (a cab for example) with tints. If he then locks the car from inside he has no fear of the outside world.

What type of tints? Which were aways illegal?

The courts went out of their way to read the law which was never written! Only because of the incapability of the law enforcers, who did not bother checking the dark tints.

We need to understand that the way to keep anything in control is not to ban it. Though this is not new to India, our law enforcers and policy makers have always been quiters and always choose an option where there is less work to do. Just look around you and you'll realize there are so many of such policies.

Originally Posted by StarrySky

I think you are over-dramatizing things. How many shelterless 2-wheeler riders or pedestrians have you sheltered in your sunfilmed car so far?

Lol! Lets ban cars then? Most of the 2 wheelers have not yet taken shelter in my car!
Can you also tell me how many rapes happened in cars with earstwhile legal films? Like my car?

[StarrySky]

Originally Posted by SLK

They have banned an object (a 50+% VLT film) which is clearly inconsequential in stopping crime, and if you can deny that then we are not having a reasonable discussion here.

In case you want to nitpick, technically no glass provides 100% VLT, so in any case a 50% VLT film was never legal. And a 70% VLT sunfilm on the front/rear windscreen were never legal either.

Originally Posted by SLK

The courts went out of their way to read the law which was never written!

It was also never written that sunfilms are allowed.

Originally Posted by SLK

Lol! Lets ban cars then? Most of the 2 wheelers have not yet taken shelter in my car!

I was only reacting to the statement which implied that the car with sunfilm is the "shelter" as in the basic necessities, which to me is a laughable comment. Let's provide the homeless with cars, then.

[Santoshbhat]

Originally Posted by SLK

I have a list of 100+ items I can live without that does not give anyone a right to ban it. They have banned an object (a 50+% VLT film) which is clearly inconsequential in stopping crime, and if you can deny that then we are not having a reasonable discussion here.

Look mate, I for one am not in favour of this judgement and am also one of the affected ones. All I am saying is the kind of resentment that I see here is unreasonable. You know in our country there are so many rules and laws that nobody follows. THe few that do follow the rules are left with a feeling of frustration. I always feel that we, as a nation have no respect for rules. We break them as if they mean nothing. Atleast the supreme court and the police are serious this time and I am happy to follow this ruling, seeing that it is being enforced strictly. FYI , I voted for option 5 on this poll hoping that either the ruling will be stayed or the police checking will lose its fizz after some time. I think it is time for me to remove the films now as there is big chance of getting caught if I don't.

Originally Posted by SLK

What type of tints? Which were aways illegal?

The courts went out of their way to read the law which was never written! Only because of the incapability of the law enforcers, who did not bother checking the dark tints.

Lol! Lets ban cars then? Most of the 2 wheelers have not yet taken shelter in my car!
Can you also tell me how many rapes happened in cars with earstwhile legal films? Like my car?

If the SC says they're illegal, they're illegal, end of story. So if the court bans something illegal what's wrong in that? Sometimes simple things have to be banned in order to rule out the risk. Again I will go back to the air security example. You are not allowed to carry a metallic spoon. Now if you argue how can a granny with a spoon in her handbag be dangerous, will the authorities listen? Any such rule has be applied universally otherwise it has no sanctity. One can't argue that one has no intention of committing a crime, hence be exempted from the rule.

Originally Posted by Daewood

It's process by which you eliminate 99.99% possibility of someone smuggling a potent weapon into the aircraft, and hence it works. The sunfilm case is not the same. Can anyone guarantee that 99% of criminal activity done using vehicles will end, because sunfilms are banned.

OK. As per your logic the law should be reversed in respect of
1) Drinking and driving
2) Parking in a no parking zone
3) Jumping signals
4) Driving without license

as the law & enforcement is not able to eliminate 99.99 possibility of someone breaking these laws, so that those who do it without any bad intentions are not inconvenienced.

Originally Posted by Daewood

So if somebody bans all private vehicles tomorrow and says, how difficult it is to live without our cars, we have to welcome the ruling, right?

Is is EXTREMELY difficult to live without cars. Esp me as I LIVE TO DRIVE!

No more from me on the subject. Thanks for reading.

[rajeev k]

Originally Posted by jacksons

Question is how does it matter if its sun film or company fitted dark tinted glasses ? What difference it make to SC ?.
I have failed to understand, please some one guide me.

Sun films on tinted glass will become more opaque.

Originally Posted by Santoshbhat

Yes it is. It is a cargo van and with no windows can be deadly dangerous in the hands of a deranged individual. But compared to the number of passenger cars out there , the no. of such vans is miniscule.

I have also thought of this and my suggestion to cut open all such cargo vans and to fit 50 VLT glasses.

[Raccoon]

Originally Posted by StarrySky

I think you are over-dramatizing things. How many shelterless 2-wheeler riders or pedestrians have you sheltered in your sunfilmed car so far?

I fail to see any logic in that statement. How about you shelter some homeless in your home? Am I making any sense here?

Originally Posted by StarrySky

In case you want to nitpick, technically no glass provides 100% VLT, so in any case a 50% VLT film was never legal. And a 70% VLT sunfilm on the front/rear windscreen were never legal either.



It was also never written that sunfilms are allowed.



I was only reacting to the statement which implied that the car with sunfilm is the "shelter" as in the basic necessities, which to me is a laughable comment. Let's provide the homeless with cars, then.

I don't know about you, but for me protecting against the sun and heat, esp. in summer is a basic necessity. It is true that I'm hypersensitive to heat and UV, and there are many like me. For me its basic shelter. Probably you are immune to the elements, which is great. But you ought not to enforce your outlook on others who are less fortunate.

Originally Posted by Santoshbhat

Is is EXTREMELY difficult to live without cars. Esp me as I LIVE TO DRIVE!

So for you cars are a basic necessity. I respect that, though some here may not agree, just because there are so many folks out there who are homeless. For me, the sunfilm is a basic necessity, if I am to survive in a car... esp. one that does not have a very powerful AC. And the Indian summer can bring most ACs to its knees. You probably live in a cooler region/your car AC is very powerful/you don't care about wasting fuel and wearing a/c/are immune to UV radiation. Well, thats your outlook. But please try not to enforce it on others who live in a different set of conditions from yours.

Further, let me add that surviving in a car without a/c and films in summer is not exactly comparable to going on a two wheeler. Its li'l more survivable on a 2 wheeler (with proper protection) than in a car without a/c and films. And I'm speaking from experience. The car just becomes an oven, esp. in slow moving traffic.

[StarrySky]

Originally Posted by Raccoon

I fail to see any logic in that statement. How about you shelter some homeless in your home? Am I making any sense here?

My home (more precisely, its verandah), by virtue of being just a couple of metres behind a bus-stop, used to be the de facto bus shelter for many years, protecting people waiting for the bus from sun and rain. Does that count?

Originally Posted by Raccoon

I don't know about you, but for me protecting against the sun and heat, esp. in summer is a basic necessity. It is true that I'm hypersensitive to heat and UV, and there are many like me. For me its basic shelter. Probably you are immune to the elements, which is great. But you ought not to enforce your outlook on others who are less fortunate.

I am sorry if I sound insensitive, but I cannot accept that a car with sunfilm is the only way to ensure your basic necessity, i.e., protection from sun/heat.

I know it can get really hot during summers. I have experienced it when I take out my car at noon, after it having been left in the open for a few hours. I agree it's like an oven when I get in. But then I have practiced things like holding the door wide open for a little while before getting in, driving the car with all windows open for maybe a minute etc to bring the heat down, after which AC takes over.

I agree that the sunfilm ruling has caused inconvenience to many car owners. Probably a bit more inconvenience to someone like you with heat sensitivity issues. Some level of resentment is expected. But to call it destruction of property and denial of basic necessities, like you have been doing in this thread, is, in my personal opinion, way over the top.

[Raccoon]

^^^I don't think it at all way over the top. If anything is way over the top/overreaction etc., its the courts interpretation which is based on a premise that is highly questionable. And all your remedies will not work well in cars with average ACs when the mercury goes over 40 - 50 deg. C.

Just the other day I experienced it again in the rain - truck splashing thick mud on my windscreen at night. Was driving almost blind at a good speed for several long seconds/minutes, as you can neither stop suddenly nor pull over easily on a highway. A whole lot of vehicles on our roads drive without basic things like mudflaps and reflectors (forget working tail-lamps). Basic things, but matters of life and death nonetheless. And here we have cops chasing hapless drivers who are just trying to protect themselves from the heat and radiation, and damaging their property and pockets. We sure have the wonkiest priorities on the globe.

Further, to the points already mentioned, what about people engaged in this business? There are several shops here who specialize in sun film selling and installing. There are lot of workers who specialize in removing and installing sunfilm. It is their daily bread and butter. What about companies, esp. Indian companies like Garware, etc? The court, with its "infinite wisdom" *(plenty of sarcasm very much intended)* and one stroke of the pen has put everyone out of business. It has effectively destroyed their source of basic necessities as well. Have you spared a thought for those? Or do you plan to provide shelter and feed them too?

[StarrySky]

Originally Posted by Raccoon

^^^I don't think it at all way over the top. If anything is way over the top/overreaction etc., its the courts interpretation which is based on a premise that is highly questionable

There is no premise. The court has ruled that what is not explicitly allowed in the rules will be considered as not allowed. Please tell me how you arrived at the premise that sunfilms are allowed as per CMVR.

Originally Posted by Raccoon

Further, to the points already mentioned, what about people engaged in this business?

Pardon me for calling a spade a spade, but I think nobody in this thread is really concerned about shopkeepers, companies or their business (unless they are directly affected). But people find it convenient to use that in this thread, because it suits their agenda. A lot of homes and businesses are uprooted when govt acquires land for development projects, new wider roads etc. How many of us think of those businesses that were uprooted to build the road when we blast through the highways at high speeds? A new road which bypasses a city probably leads to huge fall in revenue for the businesses inside the city. How many of us really care, since we get to save time and fuel by using the new road?