[Knight Rider]

Originally Posted by Rajeevraj

A question to SX4 owners. I had got a pre-owned SX4 from True Value and the sales guy said that the tints on it were factory fitted and noting additional was stuck. So I was thinking what I had was legal and did not bother to check in detail. Couple of days back I was checking the glass and then only noticed that there was sun film stuck to it.

I plan to get it removed tomorrow. But my question is this: 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.

There wont be any tint left on the glass and you will end up with clear glass (That is what i have now) as the car does not come with factory tinted glass, Mine is a VDI though.

[raghu.t.k]

Originally Posted by Rajeevraj

But my question is this: Does the SX4 come with any sort of tint from the factory itself? .

Mine is the earlier version of the SX4 zxi, there is no dark film on it, if I am correct it has a very mild tint. I put the films as soon as I took it out of the show room, hence dont recollect it. But no films, unless they are talking of freebies given.

[Parthasarathig]

Originally Posted by mkaysaw

? "

Na dont worry. If you are of Indian origin then nothing of that sort will probably happen to you. Maybe a bit of sunburn, bit of dry skin thats it. We asians and africans are blessed with Melanin pigments(dark skin) and this helps to counteract the UV radiations of the sun.
In any case use SPF30 sunscreens whenever you travel in the car.

Cheers!!

[benbsb29]

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

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.

Tints within the limits prescribed earlier help you blend in with the car, without attracting attention to yourself. My point was about remaining as inconspicous as possible, given the way the state of affairs are in this country, with regards to personal security.

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

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 ?

The answer to this question of yours has already been given by Jaggu, since his wife also commutes similar areas and he understands the vulnerability of the situation. Any person who has seen/been informed of such threats will understand the point i am trying to make here. Whether an incident of the sort you mentioned has happened or not is not my concern here - it's just that i do not wish that my family or anyone else's has to go through such a situation ever.

Also, the logic behind the PIL was of crimes against women. So, the question was what about cars which are owned and driven by women?

If you scan through the Bangalore muggings thread, you can see how a fellow member has mentioned how one of the infamous Pulsar gangs in Bangalore tried to mug him while returning from Electronics City (which is manned by Rapid Action Force toting machine guns, no less!) and had the ORVM on his car broken off, because he didnt allow himself to get mugged. Also, earlier incidents didnt really happen in lonely areas!

I have fellow colleagues who are not bothered about this ruling because they had no tints on their cars. In the same way, there are many who are not bothered if petrol prices are hiked, as they may be driving diesel cars. So, unless one is directly affected, no one tries to understand the other persion's POV.

I do not wish to go further off topic, so hope I clarified enough.

[supremeBaleno]

Originally Posted by Daewood

I don't understand to whom your half page preaching in intended to, for nobody in this thread has argued for pasting the darkest of tints.

Sorry, was not intending to preach. Are you saying that the kind of privacy required to make the driver (women) invisible to outside can be provided by the legal 70/50 VLT tints ? I doubt because with the existing tint on factory glasses, it is only light film that can be pasted to stay legal. Also, do you really think all those that have films on their cars today and want it to stay, opted for films meeting CMVR limits ? Does anyone really go into a sun-film shop and say, "Hey, this is the VLT of my factory glass. Please give me film that when pasted on the glass keeps me within CMVR" ? Actually did we even know about VLT till this whole thing happened ?

Originally Posted by Daewood

We are only agitated because the CMVR only says, you need to maintain the visibility at 70% and 50%. Banning sunfilms because the cops can't afford a VLT meter is what's stupid. It's akin to banning all cars that can go beyond 40kmph in cities, because our cops can't afford to buy speed guns.

Does the CMVR specifically say that it is allowed to stick sunfilms as long as the VLT is within 70/50 ? If so, please post a link and then yes, you have a point and the ruling needs to be modified. But in the search done by me, I not only don't see a mention of sun-films in CMVR anywhere, but there are also penalties laid out for sticking film, which to me implies that they are not allowed at all.

@mayankk, I did read Sugeeta's thread the day she posted it (though did not follow it after that). And regarding phone snatching, that was discussed earlier in this thread - keep costly stuff away so as to not give a cause for snatching. That's how it is the world over and we have no option but to follow.

Originally Posted by benbsb29

Tints within the limits prescribed earlier help you blend in with the car, without attracting attention to yourself. My point was about remaining as inconspicous as possible, given the way the state of affairs are in this country, with regards to personal security.

Well, if tints within allowed limit help inmates stay inconspicous, then why not ? Though there still is not clarity as to whether CMVR allows sun-films at all. If it does, then the court cannot modify an existing law and thus they will have to change their ruling to accomodate this. If not, the ruling is perfectly right in banning any films and then parliament needs to change the CMVR for it to be legal.

[KarthikK]

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

Does the CMVR specifically say that it is allowed to stick sunfilms as long as the VLT is within 70/50 ? If so, please post a link and then yes, you have a point and the ruling needs to be modified. But in the search done by me, I not only don't see a mention of sun-films in CMVR anywhere, but there are also penalties laid out for sticking film, which to me implies that they are not allowed at all.

Pardon me, but if sunfilms were never deemed to be legal till now, how then did the government collect VAT, central sales tax and and state sales tax on sunfilms being sold all this while? Even that should be illegal money in that case.

I am referring to automobile accessory shops here, so let us not get into the debate of films being used for house windows or glass buildings (and not just cars)

[Daewood]

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

Actually did we even know about VLT till this whole thing happened ?

The same drama happened around a decade back when someone filed a PIL against dark sunfilms. From that time all major sunfilm makers had specific markings in their catalogue sheet mentioning what is legal and what is not.
When i went for sunfilms to Radio Warehouse, i was adviced to go for 55% VLT for the sides and 75% for rear, as my glasses already had a slight tint.
It's only those downmarket sunfilms available for very cheap rates that didn't adhere to visibility rules.

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

Does the CMVR specifically say that it is allowed to stick sunfilms as long as the VLT is within 70/50 ? If so, please post a link and then yes, you have a point and the ruling needs to be modified. But in the search done by me, I not only don't see a mention of sun-films in CMVR anywhere, but there are also penalties laid out for sticking film, which to me implies that they are not allowed at all.

CMVR only states visibility should be maintained at 50% for sides and 70% for the others, which automatically means you do anything within those limits. Nowhere does it say you will be penalized for pasting sunfilms within legal VLT limit or for having scratches on your glass. It's similar to saying speed limit is 40kmph, which means you cannot exceed 40kmph and you can also drive at 30kmph, 25kmph,etc.

[wanderlust]

There is a drive being conducted against cars with dark films in Bangalore by the RTO. They were stopping cars with tinted windows at Gottigere. But they were being lenient by letting some with lighter tints go.

[shankar.balan]

Originally Posted by Parthasarathig

Na dont worry. If you are of Indian origin then nothing of that sort will probably happen to you. Maybe a bit of sunburn, bit of dry skin thats it. We asians and africans are blessed with Melanin pigments(dark skin) and this helps to counteract the UV radiations of the sun.
In any case use SPF30 sunscreens whenever you travel in the car.

Cheers!!

Ha ha! In other words we are all of sufficiently dark complexion to actually not have much right to make a big silly fuss about a bit of sun! Actually, it seems that many Indians are suffering from Vitamin D deficiency. Indeed, I ve also been told by my doc that I suffer from the same. And I really cant understand why because I go for a good walk daily in the early mornng sun and play in the sun every weekend etc. it seems weird. I guess that the removal of sunfilm will ensure that I get more sun anyway.

[PatchyBoy]

Originally Posted by shankar.balan

Ha ha! In other words we are all of sufficiently dark complexion to actually not have much right to make a big silly fuss about a bit of sun! Actually, it seems that many Indians are suffering from Vitamin D deficiency. Indeed, I ve also been told by my doc that I suffer from the same. And I really cant understand why because I go for a good walk daily in the early mornng sun and play in the sun every weekend etc. it seems weird. I guess that the removal of sunfilm will ensure that I get more sun anyway.

Wikipedia:

Vitamin D3 is made in the skin when 7-dehydrocholesterol reacts with ultraviolet light of UVB type at wavelengths between 270 and 300 nm, with peak synthesis occurring between 295 and 297 nm. These wavelengths are present in sunlight when the UV index is greater than three, as well as in the light emitted by the UV lamps in tanning beds (which produce ultraviolet primarily in the UVA spectrum, but typically produce 4% to 10% of the total UV emissions as UVB). At a UV index greater than three, which occurs daily within the tropics, daily during the spring and summer seasons in temperate regions, and almost never within the arctic circles, vitamin D3 can be made in the skin.

This means you have to expose yourself to Sunlight for about 30 minutes, when the UVI is 3 or above. Early morning walk is not going to help, because UVI goes above 3 around 8 AM. Driving the car without sun control film is not going to change anything as the glass filters out all of the UVB, which is responsible for the generation of vitamin D, but passes almost all of UVA which helps cause sunburn.

So, the only way is to drive with your windows rolled down after 8 AM allowing all the street dust to enter your car.

In summary

- open windows = dust + vitamin D
- closed windows = clean car + vitaminD deficiency
- walk in the sun after 8 am = healthy you + no job
- walk to work after 8 am = vitamin D + job + Healthy you (albeit sweaty and dirty)



Just stop worrying and do what you are doing daily. What you don't know cannot hurt you. Even if it does, by the time you find out, it will be too late anyway.

Please note: I never used the word cancer.
So stop equating Patchy's post + UV = Skin cancer. Thanks

[supremeBaleno]

Originally Posted by Daewood

CMVR only states visibility should be maintained at 50% for sides and 70% for the others, which automatically means you do anything within those limits. Nowhere does it say you will be penalized for pasting sunfilms within legal VLT limit or for having scratches on your glass. It's similar to saying speed limit is 40kmph, which means you cannot exceed 40kmph and you can also drive at 30kmph, 25kmph,etc.

I dont think alteration to the vehicle is as simple as max speed-limit example you gave.

See below the offense, 1st fine and subsequent fine from the Chandigarh police website - note the part about "ANY VLT%"

57 USE OF BLACK FILM (ANY VLT %) / ANY MATERIAL UPON THE SAFETY GLASSES, WIND-SCREEN (FRONT AND REAR) AND SIDE GLASSES 190(2) 1000 2000

The link is Chandigarh traffic police, promoting road safety, traffic safety, India road signs & rules, safe responsible driving, first aid India.

So I guess the law is clear on this.

[shankar.balan]

Originally Posted by PatchyBoy

Wikipedia:

This means you have to expose yourself to Sunlight for about 30 minutes, when the UVI is 3 or above. Early morning walk is not going to help, because UVI goes above 3 around 8 AM.
- walk in the sun after 8 am = healthy you + no job
- walk to work after 8 am = vitamin D + Healthy you (albeit sweaty and dirty)

:

Golf on Sat and Sun should help me then. We play from 6 to 11am most weekends and walk about in the sun. No golf carts for me thank you!
But I cannot do this everyday or like you said Id be jobless.

[Daewood]

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

See below the offense, 1st fine and subsequent fine from the Chandigarh police website - note the part about "ANY VLT%"

Yes, that may be a state specific law, but we were quoting the CMVR which the SC verdict supposedly upheld.
Was going through the websites of various transport authorities of developed nations and the rules regarding VLT is mostly mentioned for front windshield and driver side windows. Anything behind the B pillar is not their priority. Another thing which i noticed was on the emphasis of visibility, for the driver from inside the car to clearly see what's on the outside, rather than the misplaced priority of Indian authorities on visibilty from outside the car to see what's inside.
Funny that the SC verdict chose not to quote rules prevalent in these developed and forward thinking nations, but chose to quote rules from 'bottom of the rung' nations like Uganda, Belarus, Pakistan & Afghanistan.

[supremeBaleno]

What 5th pillar website says :
5.8 Vehicles fitted with dark glasses/sun films. Rs.100 100 CMVR177 MVA

What Maharashtra police site says :
Vehicles fitted with dark glasses/sun films 100 CMVR 177 MVA

As per Exnora :
5.8 Vehicles fitted with dark glasses/sun films. Rs.100 100 CMVR177 MVA

From goodgovernanceDelhi site :
5.9 Vehicles fitted with dark glasses/sun films. Rs.100/- 100 CMVR 177 MVA

Mumbai traffic police (http://trafficpolicemumbai.org/Offen...torVehicle.htm)
Vehicles fitted with dark glasses/sun films 100 CMVR 177 MVA Rs100

They all seem to be referring CMVR that you refer to and if so I doubt there is anything wrong in what the SC upheld.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

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 !!!

I can't follow every page of this thread, it's too much, so apologies if this has been posted already, but, it was mentioned in the newspapers that the said judges had taken the joint decision to remove the film from their car.

As so many personal opinions are being expressed here, I might as well join in.

I think that black films are just plain wrong. Nobody has the right to put their privacy so far above the requirements of road safety. Not even nursing mothers.

If only the law, whether statute or case, will somehow settle on a reasonable 70/50, and then enforce it, then I for one will be happy, and I think many others will too.