[vnk77]

In USA, I guess the tint/sunfilm is allowed for rear passenger windows. Correct me if I am wrong, but thats what I observed.

And more over we can't copy the rule that west follows, especially wrt the sunfilms.

Privacy is a special concern here because in the west I dont think any one would peep in to your car and give a dirty look while at traffic signal if a pretty woman(or any woman for that matter) is sitting in the car. I mean atleast such cases are minimal.

[supremeBaleno]

One thing is pretty clear in this thread. It won't be enough for many here if an amendment is brought to allow films that maintain the final VLT at 70/50 as required by law.
What is instead demanded is a change in the existing CMVR rule to allow films with much lower VLT so as to provide the so-called privacy on road. Ofcourse, it does not
matter that it will impact the driver's visibility and thus is a risk to others on the road. Well as long as my family's privacy is maintained, why bother about a few people
knocked down. Yeah, right.

Originally Posted by nandans2005

But my POV is that the "SUN CONTROL" film came with the added advantage of giving some privacy based on the film one selects. My bigger sedan has 5%

The whole problem today is because some people started selecting darker-than-allowed sun-films for reasons like privacy, instead of using legal films that would control the effects of the sun. And while we could possibly argue for an amendment to the ruling/CMVR law to allow films as long as the final resulting VLT is within 70/50, there is simply no case for allowing films with say 5% VLT, which is a danger to other road-users due to not providing the driver with visibility to see his surroundings. Things like pedestrian-safety and avoiding collisions with other people's cars/bikes is more important than the need of a few people to stay out of sight from others in their cars.

Originally Posted by nandans2005

i dont like people peeping into my car especially the 2 wheelers guys, when i am with my family.

Given your aversion to others looking at/into your cars (peeping is too harsh a word to use), I guess it would be right to assume that when you and your family are on the road, none of you looks to the sides at the bikers or at the people in other vehicles, to respect their privacy. And instead, all of you just maintain a straight gaze forward.

[nandans2005]

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

Ofcourse, it does not matter that it will impact the driver's visibility and thus is a risk to others on the road. Well as long as my family's privacy is maintained, why bother about a few people knocked down. Yeah, right.

I dont know how you drive around ? but i have been driving since 25 years without an incident to my credit.

guess it would be right to assume that when you and your family are on the road, none of you looks to the sides at the bikers or at the people in other vehicles. And instead, all of you just maintain a straight gaze forward

Of course ! i dont like anybody "peeping" and I will decide what i need to do or not to on the streets. Dont need you to suggest what my family to do or not to ?

Only a horse family maintain a straight gaze like you may be following or suggesting !

[Parthasarathig]

I guess we should start refering to them as "SIN"films now.

Originally Posted by nandans2005

floored by your signature

Haha. Perhaps thats why my comments for privacy have only been taken in that sense. Whereas my intention was for the safety of my family. Also one is forgetting one more advantage of sunfilm. In the event of a crash, the sunfilm somewhat prevents the shattered glass injuring the occupants. It was advertised as an advantage on some website i think.

For everyone's knowledge i had cr70 sunfilms installed in my car and i got some privacy from that atleast. And i never installed any sunfilm on the front windshield. These films would provide me privacy enough so that i could enjoy my lunch alone or wear my tie or read before a presentation and other small things without people poking their nose into my matter. Infact i do keep shoes and a trouser in my car during rainy season in case i happen to walk onto a puddle. Film would provide me privacy then to change my trousers. Privacy doesnt always mean bad. When i didnt have the so called "SIN"films people would stare inside especially at signals and it is very irritating especially when you are enjoying your favorite burger and coke. Not all of us have time to have lunch at home and sometimes we just end up grabbing a snack before driving to the next destination.

And regarding everyone staring at women. Hmm. There's someting as plain staring which is mostly harmless, and there is something called ogling. Example. Some lady goes to the mall. So many people stare at her. Ok no problem with that. Then there's this guy who keeps staring at her and follows her to the parking lot. Then you can only guess what may happen after that. I had recently read about this on facebook from a women's welfare page. The looking example can also be explained with the example of touches. Children are taught in schools about good touch and bad touch. So you know what i mean. These examples arent regarding the sunfilm directly but what others seem to think about staring at women. How something as innocent as a glance can turn into something ugly.

Originally Posted by vnk77

.

Privacy is a special concern here because in the west I dont think any one would peep in to your car and give a dirty look while at traffic signal if a pretty woman(or any woman for that matter) is sitting in the car. I mean atleast such cases are minimal.

In the west, everyone minds their own business. Sadly In our country, somebody else's business becomes others business. Peiple actually enjoy it poking into others business you know.
Example If someone's spouse is fixing her makeup on with the vanity mirror and people from outside happen to enjoy the show, how would that man feel then? Here nothing bad is going on. Just a harmless thing as applying makeup. Now arguments will start regarding whether applying makeup on the road is bad or not. Funny thread this. Hmm.

Now somewhere curtains have become legal. Mr. Goenka's purpose Of visibility from outside to inside has been defeated. Rofl. And i thought the car is driven by the driver inside and not the people on the road.

And anyway tell me something. Criminals always have accomplices right. How the hell is anyone going to stop a crime happening in a car or on the road when they maybe having knives, or guns or more accomplices than the single you. I dont think superman actually exists, does he?

Cheers!!

[supremeBaleno]

Originally Posted by nandans2005

but i have been driving since 25 years without an incident to my credit.

To drive around with severely visibility-inhibiting 5% VLT films (when legally allowed max is 50%) and saying that you never had an incident is at best as good as a habitually drunken driver saying that he has always been driving around after a few drinks but never hit anyone and so is OK.

Originally Posted by Parthasarathig

Also one is forgetting one more advantage of sunfilm. In the event of a crash, the sunfilm somewhat prevents the shattered glass injuring the occupants.

You dont need sun-film for that. The normal OE tinted glasses (referred to as safety glasses in the CMVR) also do the same.

[vikram_d]

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

You dont need sun-film for that. The normal OE tinted glasses (referred to as safety glasses in the CMVR) also do the same.

Only the front window (windshield) is a shatter proof safety glass. The side windows do shatter. But since they are tempered they shatter in a non-sharp/dull edge sort of way. This flying glass can still act as shrapnel and hurt pretty bad. The "SIN" film as one of our user puts it, prevents the glass from shattering and there is no flying shrapnel.

Dunken driving and lowered visibility driving is a very bad analogy in my opinion.

[condor]

Originally Posted by vikram_d

Dunken driving and lowered visibility driving is a very bad analogy in my opinion.

@Vikram, to be fair to SB, the analogy was not that bad, but was actually a good one. Arent you simplifying it bit here, even if you did a ... ?

[MAS]

Update from Chennai: Chennai Traffic Police is active in catching cars with dark tints. I saw the cars being stopped at OMR SRP Tools junction, Velachery, OMR-Kamakshi Hospital Ring Road.

[vikram_d]

Originally Posted by condor

@Vikram, to be fair to SB, the analogy was not that bad, but was actually a good one. Arent you simplifying it bit here, even if you did a ... ?

I know I am going off topic, but drunken driving causes a loss of major motor controls in your body where as "SIN" films dont and that is why I felt it was a bad analogy.

I have had 5% VLT tints on all my cars since I got my first car in 1998. I have never met with any accidents because of it. The only reason I didn't have any accidents is because I have been extremely careful and drive within the limits of my overall view from the car and this view includes all sides and not only the front. Please dont get me wrong I am not justifying the films nor the reasons I have them on my car.

[suhaas307]

When you crash into something because you haven't seen it, it isn't because of the sunfilm. It's because you weren't paying the sort of attention you need to. End of story.

[supremeBaleno]

@vikram, I was not equating using-illegal-films to drunken driving - only meant that both are illegal (for their own different but equally valid reasons) and just because we did not have an incident till date, does not make it legal or OK. It could as well be someone who habitually runs a red signal or always overtakes from the left and never had an accident - does not mean a thing, because either he has been lucky till date or others on the road took extra precaution to avoid incident due to his running the light or wrong overtaking.

Originally Posted by suhaas307

When you crash into something because you haven't seen it, it isn't because of the sunfilm. It's because you weren't paying the sort of attention you need to. End of story.

Not as simple as that Sir. During evenings when visibility is poor, even if you pay all the attention you can muster, it won't be enough to see through the fully dark films that are on the windows.
I hope you agree that the variance in VLT has a direct bearing on what can be "seen" by the person behind it ie. the visibility factor being related to the light passing through ?

[suhaas307]

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

Not as simple as that Sir. During evenings when visibility is poor, even if you pay all the attention you can muster, it won't be enough to see through the dark films that are on the windows. I hope you agree that the variance in VLT has a bearing on what is "seen" by the person behind it ?

You are right in what you say, SB.

Sunfilm with low VLT does tend to act as a catalyst to an accident. But careful driving will certainly go a long way in ensuring that accidents are minimized.

I had removed the tinits on my car several days before the deadline. I must say, it's quite a different experience. I now see vehicles sooner than I would have, had I retained the sun-film. It most definitely helps in visibility. And the drunken-driving analogy isn't off either. I sort of agree with it.

Drunken driving hampers visibility, much like the way tints do. You often miss things that are there. But with tints, your judgement isn't hampered the way it would be if you were intoxicated.

Anyway, what I'd like to say is we can't keep blaming tints, bad roads, stupid drivers, etc if we get into an accident. What I'm trying to say is, let not, the opportunity to meet with accidents arise in the first place.

I do not advocate driving with sunfilm of low VLT. At the same time, if one wants to then he can by all means. It's just that he needs to be extra careful and keep his eyes and ears open for every little thing all the time (not that he others shouldn't anyway)

This brings me to Thad E Ginathom's signature: "Forget about Road development, it's driver development that we need" or something like that.

Let's try and correct our driving habits first.

[PatchyBoy]

Originally Posted by Parthasarathig

For everyone's knowledge i had cr70 sunfilms installed in my car and i got some privacy from that atleast.

Film would provide me privacy then to change my trousers. Privacy doesnt always mean bad. When i didnt have the so called "SIN"films people would stare inside especially at signals and it is very irritating especially when you are enjoying your favorite burger and coke.

Are you sure you were changing your trousers and enjoying your burger behind the "privacy" of CR 70 film?

Window with CR 70



I would hesitate to change even behind CR 50



Maybe we thought no one can see us behind these films?

Rajan

[nandans2005]

Mod Note: Please take the time to compose your posts including using quote tags correctly. Thanks!

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

To drive around with severely visibility-inhibiting 5% VLT films (when legally allowed max is 50%) and saying that you never had an incident is at best as good as a habitually drunken driver

You sense of comprehension and comparison is something you have to be surely.

I dont have 5% on my windshield for God's sake. The common sense would demand one to understand that these are on windows. Nobody drives watching the sides of the road always.

and your statement would only suit people who have the habit of drinking, anyway, so.

You dont need sun-film for that. The normal OE tinted glasses (referred to as safety glasses in the CMVR) also do the same

The effect is far more better than without the films. One can be that much more safe.

because either he has been lucky till date or others on the road took extra precaution to avoid incident due to his running the light or wrong overtaking.

As i earlier said, i dont know how you drive around ? It seems like even the good drivers without any incident is battered here. It looks like each one should have had an incident and only then he is certified as a good driver as per you.

Not as simple as that Sir. During evenings when visibility is poor, even if you pay all the attention you can muster, it won't be enough to see through the fully dark films that are on the windows.

Nobody will struggle to see through the 5% in the night. The windows are rolled down, so please. Experience shows !!

[srishiva]

Originally Posted by nandans2005

Added advantage- yes, nobody can deny this. If you see properly, most of them are speaking about privacy and not about sunburn and suncontrol.

Dont tell me that you have been always following the rules on the road. Haven't you not overtaken from left at all in Bangalore? Haven't you crossed the road anywhere but on the zebra crossing ? Haven't you ever not used the Hi- Beams in the city? Have you painted the top half of the head lights black ?



Having sunfilms or no is one own's liking. We need to have a controlled discussion and not get into family liking and dislikings. What one does with their family and safety is their's choice.



i suppose anybody driving to the park for a walk too can have sun films ! i sincerely dont get this point of yours.



Likewise, people "looking" at women in malls and through the car is different. There are people in the mall and "there is a lady driving a car" Looking at "lot of people" and "looking at a women" are different. Hope the grammer rings a bell !!

Having sunfilms is not about one's liking. There is a law and you either follow it or break it.
Coming to sunfilms, I follow the law. I dont use hi beams in city, even on highways I dont use it all the time.

Stop your condescending attitude and stick to the topic. Going to work is not going to Park. I dont know how you look at women and dont want to know.