[nitnab]

What I meant was that the restrictions on using films per se should go. As per the present SC ruling NO films are allowed on the automobile glass. There are UV films available which are almost transparent and block UV. This too is not allowed presently.
The total VLT% allowed can be decided by the experts but that % VLT should be allowed to be achieved by glass alone or glass and film together. Maybe they can have a checkup and certificate from some designated centres (like it is done for PUC) that the %VLT is as per allowable norms.
I have written a letter to Mr. Nitin Gadkari on his official email id to reconsider the ban on films. Maybe if his email box is flooded with such letters he will understand the feelings of the public.

[Piyush46]

There is a new movement by a group of MP's to again legislate for allowing tinted films. Can all think how to give strength to support this movement?

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/i...w/51300402.cms

I tried searching a bit, couldn't find any update on this issue. Do you, by any chance, have any update ?

On a different note, found this on net while trying to find any updates on the link you posted.

https://www.change.org/p/chief-justi...etition-no_msg

I don't know how effective such drives are, can anyone shed some light over it. But i feel, people who are in for revising the ban on sun film should have a look and support this. I know everyone has their own opinions, including me. Thus, i do support the plan of revising the ban on sun films owing to the fact that it gets uncomfortable beyond the tolerable limits especially if the car is parked for even a small duration in sun. Before anyone gets mad at me, I apologise if i offend anyone.

[Sawyer]

Originally Posted by Piyush46

Before anyone gets mad at me, I apologise if i offend anyone.

Don't worry, this forum is not intolerant the way the real world outside is getting to be!

[nitnab]

Originally Posted by Piyush46

I don't know how effective such drives are, can anyone shed some light over it. But i feel, people who are in for revising the ban on sun film should have a look and support this. :

I too really don't know how effective such drives are but I hope everyone does his bit to see if this ban can be reversed. This ban is really illogical IMO.

[Sheel]

Do cops still check upon cars for having sun-films, especially in NCR region?

[bblost]

Originally Posted by Sheel

Do cops still check upon cars for having sun-films, especially in NCR region?

They may not do it today, maybe not this week, maybe not even this month.

But one day the cops in eevry city will suddenly wake up and start the checking. What will you do then?

[Sheel]

Originally Posted by bblost

What will you do then?

Me...? I am sitting on the fence and will continue to do so

To counter this, I get the AC filter cleaned twice a year. I am more concerned about privacy.

[Sawyer]

Originally Posted by nitnab

This ban is really illogical IMO.

How so?
The logic to the ban is that allowing sun film in addition to what is already allowed to auto manufacturers via the CMV rules will reduce light transmission to below safe driving limits. And the lack of visibility from outside to what is happening inside the car may come in the way of police intervention where the car has terrorists, rapists or other criminals inside.

You may disagree with the logic, but that does not mean the ban is illogical.

As to any drive by MPs, our illustrious representatives also still want proof that smoking causes cancer/premature death and are fighting to prevent warning signs on cigarette packets to be larger than what they are today. Pardon me then for not respecting the motive behind any of their drives.

[nitnab]

Originally Posted by Sawyer

How so?
The logic to the ban is that allowing sun film in addition to what is already allowed to auto manufacturers via the CMV rules will reduce light transmission to below safe driving limits. And the lack of visibility from outside to what is happening inside the car may come in the way of police intervention where the car has terrorists, rapists or other criminals inside.

You may disagree with the logic, but that does not mean the ban is illogical.

As to any drive by MPs, our illustrious representatives also still want proof that smoking causes cancer/premature death and are fighting to prevent warning signs on cigarette packets to be larger than what they are today. Pardon me then for not respecting the motive behind any of their drives.

Just to give an example: Even if we stick a 100% transparent film on the glass , as per SC guidelines, it is illegal. NO FILM IS ALLOWED. Which means that the %VLT is irrelevant. There are transparent films which prevent UV radiation but this will also not be allowed. Logical thing would have been that Film or no film, the %VLT specified in MV act should not be violated. Period. The reason why this was forced was because, I believe, the authorities claimed that they don't have enough transparency checking instruments. So looks like they have decided to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[Sawyer]

OE glass of most cars has some level of tint, and many already have 70% VLT glass. Any film installed on such VLT OE glass would result overall in a lower than 70% VLT because a film with 100% VLT cannot be made.

Are you expecting the police to check compliance of cars on the road using films of varying levels of VLT by measuring overall VLT based on what VLT the OE glass has, using measuring equipment? As it is they are unable to enforce the current simple law to the fullest extent. Even a film with 90% VLT, that the most transparent film today such as the 3M CR90 offers, would result in VLT lower than the specified 70% if the OE glass on the car had a VLT any lower than 78%. And the expensive 3M CR 70, or the equally expensive V Kool-70 would still always be illegal because one cannot make glass with 100% VLT; the most transparent glass possible with that film attached would still have overall VLT lower than 70%.

Nothing stops people from buying cars that have the maximum permitted tinted glass; many cars have that already I suspect, though Maruti for its Baleno are the first to advertise having it when they say it has UV cut glass.

In reality also, few car owners install the close to 100% VLT films; for one it is very expensive, and secondly they want the tint for privacy as well.

[Sawyer]

Originally Posted by nitnab

There are transparent films which prevent UV radiation but this will also not be allowed.

As I said, physics dictates that when light passes through any transparent object, some light will not pass through - 100% VLT isn't possible in practice. And it is very expensive to make films that are very close to 100% VLT and yet very high in UV rejection. Note also that such films have very low infra red light rejection so the concern about heat build up isn't addressed in any case by such films. CR90 has UV rejection of close to 90% with VLT of 90%, but IR rejection is around 50% only. IR rejection of close to 90% is achieved only with films of VLT of 50%.

Consider that cars with close to no tint on their OE glass are almost always the ones from the lowest price segment. In practice how many owners of such cars would spend what it would take - approx Rs 25k to 30k at current film prices - to install the transparent film referred to, for just UV rejection?

I agree that the law can sometimes be an ass. Not in this instance, I am afraid.

[Vik0728]

Originally Posted by Sawyer

And the lack of visibility from outside to what is happening inside the car may come in the way of police intervention where the car has terrorists, rapists or other criminals inside.

I agree that the law can sometimes be an ass. Not in this instance, I am afraid.

I for one, differ completely from your school of thought Sawyer. On the flip-side, I still think the "Decision Makers" at SC could have surely handled this issue a lot more maturely and sensibly.

I hope these folks don't assume that everybody who is travelling in a tinted vehicle were (are) terrorists, rapists or other criminals !!
Considering the fact that Indian suburbs have really modernised and many independent women are working professionals, who may travel at odd hours. One of the most secure mode of transport for them has to be their cars. Not allowing even a bit of privacy can put them at the mercy of goons on the road who are looking for trouble.

This rule shows how inefficient our so call 'Law Makers' really are and how easy it is for them to blame it on the 'Law Keepers' (cops). There are so many instances of domestic violence on a daily basis against women and children at homes behind brick walls and closed doors. So does this mean that very shortly we may be asked to not have doors/windows to our houses and use only Glass for construction??

The worse part about this ban is the heat and the skin damage it brings with it.

Personally, a sensible decision would be to allow a certain percentage of tint on private vehicles and increase the police checks, or even give a SOS sort of an add on that anybody can install in their car.

This really seems like a dictatorship rather than democracy where personal preferences must adhere to some dumb rules and regulations.

[Tanveer_2558]

Originally Posted by Sheel

Do cops still check upon cars for having sun-films, especially in NCR region?

Not very sure about the NCR region, But it seems the cops have relaxed a bit about the sun- films atleast here in Mumbai, I am driving around with more than 70% tints which turn 90 - 95% in the night, But i still wasn't stopped even once.

Can others from Mumbai - Delhi chip in too, Anyone got caught recently for any kind of films?

[adneeraj]

I agree with Vik0728. This law should have been passed after much thought.
Safety of women at odd hours, the skin diseases or any discomfort caused by the heat trapped inside a car when parked for a long time is a serious concern.
films with a good IR reduction rate with 70% or more VLT should be allowed. It is a boon to have those in summers and makes a lot of difference.
To add to that, such good amount of solar reduction mean less fuel is consumed to run the AC. In turn means less fuel burnt - less pollution.
UV cut glasses do make a lot of difference. If not the films, there should be another law made to ensure that no car - NO CAR comes with an E2 grade glass. E6/8 should be made mandatory. It is sad to see so many car manufacturers cutting corners here even on cars beyond 10 lacs. Ertiga, for e.g. gets E6 on the windows and rear wind shield but a pricier S-Cross gets E2. Honda City gets E2 and so on..

@Tanveer - I have Llumar sunfilm on my Fiesta (all 6 glasses) and the transparency is pretty good with an IR of ~45% I guess. It immensely helps reducing the solar heat to a great extent. Unfortunately, I had to remove the tints from my Swift as it was being a soft target with my wife driving it regularly to her office. She was challaned almost 3 times in a month for the tints. But those were the simple ones, just for show types. That car still has the Llumar wind shield tint, although visibly tinted, I haven't been stopped for that yet.

[straight6]

I'm most probably going in for minimum 50% tint. I've had enough of the heat going to 42 in Mumbai. Whenever I see cops I'll just roll down all windows. My route to work and back usually doesn't have too many cops and I'll be doing quite a few few outstation trips this summer.

Will it be a good idea to go with the clear tint on the windshield and slightly lesser than the windows on the rear glass? Also, which is the best clear tint?