Quote:
Originally Posted by Daewood How would you see the road if the vehicle ahead of you is a cargo vehicle or bus. If you follow the mandatory distance between 2 vehicles, there is absolutely no need to peep through the rear glass of the vehicle ahead of you. |
Being in Chennai, are you able to maintain the mandatory distance between the vehicle in front / rear? Our cities/traffic is different from the US - in the US everyone goes on marked lanes, traffic is mostly cars/trucks with almost no bikes. Compare that to our roads which are packed with all kids of vehicles you can think of from bullock-carts to bikes to trucks and maybe a few cm of space between vehicles. In such situations, we need all the visibility that is available to avoid accidents, instead of blinking through heavily tinted glasses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by benbsb29 I would prefer not to have my family or even me for that matter appear as a sitting duck. If sunflims within the earlier approved limits help maintain a certain level of privacy and associated safety, then why is it wrong? |
Given the crimes we hear about from Blore, the only way to not be a sitting duck would be to sit at home. And regarding privacy, even if you apply films on already factory-tinted glasses to stay within the legal limt, you would have to put the light / costly stuff that Patchboy and some others had on their cars and these will not provide the darkness required for women to stay unnoticed in the car. So, then you will have to put dark films above the legal limit, which apart from being in violation, has issues with visibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by benbsb29 My wife asked a very pertinent question : If the argument against having sun films on cars is to prevent crimes against women, what about cars which are owned and driven by women? |
What about them ? To take Blore as an example since your wife drives there - She is in a car driving a little late from work. She has the option to lock the doors and the windows. Windows are breakable I agree, but is that something that normally happens in Blore ? Also she is not really in a remote place with no human presence for some goons to stop and break the glass, right ? I am not trying to play down a perceived threat, but trying to understand if really women are stopped in their cars, windows broken and at threat in Blore or this is just a fear ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2cents By your argument ogling and leching are lawful. And so will be eve-teasing as long as it isn't physically intrusive. No body in this thread is arguing for films beyond permissible VLT(70-50). |
There is a very thin line between looking and ogling, and the interpretation can depend on the person being looked/ogled at and the one indulging in it. Are you saying that you have never ever looked at a girl in your life other than your wife ? Should you have been charged with eve-teasing because your gaze lingered a little longer than what someone considers normal ? I dont know about your place, but while travelling through Chennai in my car, I have not observed people roaming the streets just to ogle at women in cars. Yeah there will be the odd person(s) who are out for trouble, but they can be anywhere - in the mall, at the beach etc and not just looking for women in cars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2cents Having a few month old child, I know the need for privacy every time I take my family out within the city - a drive that can sometime last over an hour. My films are within the 70-50 limit, and the little privacy it provides is indispensable when my wife has to feed our child. |
Women know how to feed kids in the privacy provided by cars with even factory tints. If you think that is tough, how would your wife feed the kid when she has to travel for an hour or more in our trains or a plane ? Don't women feed kids in trains where even a 2TAC coach has atleast 4 people in a small space ? Planes are even more open. None of these options provide any semblance of privacy that even a plain-glass car can provide. And BTW, again I doubt people stare at women feeding kids - be it in cars or trains or planes. Usually men move away physically or move their gaze in such situations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2cents If plain interpretation is all we expect of the judiciary then language teachers should be made judges. The role of the learned judge is to interpret the spirit behind the law, and the best way for that spirit to be adhered to keeping with the changing times, if need be. |
Let us atleast give them credit for knowing their job - I am sure you will agree that it is not a bunch of illiterate people who just sat over a couple drinks and decided without going into the details, "hey let us ban sun-films". And regarding going by the spirit of the law, the problem is each one of us interprets the spirit differently as can be seen from this thread itself. Many want all the darkness that is possible for reasons ranging from safety to privacy to prevent kidnapping, while some are OK with being within the legal limit. If laws get interpreted to each one's liking, one can guess what the result would be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parthasarathig Young couple travel on bikes and in cars and so do families. Privacy is an equal right for both. |
Sir, first things first, I am not sure why such a big rant related to sex, adultery and what not about a simple comment about privacy for young couples.
Agree that I should have added a smiley and maybe elaborated, but I thought people would get the gist - what I meant was "maybe young couples in love would like to have sun-film provided privacy on the roads to maybe not get spotted by the brother/father of the girl or maybe for some romantic discussion in the car". Can we now leave all the sex-in-the-city discussion here and get back to sun-films ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parthasarathig I dont want anyone to target my child when im a bit late to pick him up from school. |
If you are late to pick up your kid from school, I don't how does sun-film on your car protect him from kidnapping ? While waiting for you at school, is he not vulnerable and that too by your belief, because I dont think we have a culture of kids being kidnapped from schools. And your location shows as "pot-hole city" - not sure which city this is in India, but other than maybe Bihar where kidnappings used to be the norm till recently (now not so I understand), I dont know any place where this happens as a norm. Yeah, in Chennai once in a while someone kidnaps a kid for ransom - mostly an employee/relative of the parents, but does sunfilm solve this. I am clueless.
After all this debate, it is funny to go to the "bad driver's thread" where we crucify someone for not driving in the lane or not adhering to the speed limit or for carrying a load on his bike etc. But we are OK even with sticking the darkest tints on our cars, which is in violation of the law. But hey we are above the law, right because we can interpret the law to what we want. But others should behave. Way to go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rajeevraj Does the SX4 come with any sort of tint from the factory itself? Either sun film or tinted glass? If I remove what is stuck, will I end up with a plain glass or will there be some level of tint. |
Not an SX4 owner/user, but since my Baleno and even our plain-jane M800 came with tinted glasses, I am sure the SX4 will also have it.
EDIT : BTW, yesterday's Hindu newspaper had a picture/article of a person removing sun-films from all the cars (a whole stable of white/cream Corollas could be seen in the pic) of the Madras High Court judges in the court parking.
Laudable that they are showing the way !!!