Youth is not trying to hide anything, but just trying to protect themselves from the scorching sun, is the contention of youth from Vijayawada. They say the Supreme Court ruling on the non-use of black films was not a practical solution. The ruling states that the front and rear wind-shields of four-wheelers should have 70 per cent visual light transmission, while the side windows should have 50 per cent.
In view of the impending drive from November 11, the owners were seen stripping the windows off the black film but not happy about it. Many of them voiced out that their main concern was how to endure the increasing temperatures in a tropical place like Vijayawada. “The obvious solution might seem the use of an air conditioner, but with transparent windows it would take longer and more fuel to get the optimum temperature inside a car,” observes Vijeth Kumar. This goes against the whole save energy concept, he adds.
The Supreme Court decision was in response to the PIL filed by one Avishek Goenka in which he claimed that criminals were using cars with tinted glasses to commit heinous crimes.
“They are the most absurd reasons I have heard in recent times,” opines Rohit Yanamadala. People have lost their minds if they think that all the criminal activities happen in cars, he says. Most of them occur in hotel rooms or secluded houses, but that does not mean we ban the hotels or build them with transparent walls to prevent crime, he says.
While the discontented youth, grudgingly remove the black film from their cars, one more dilemma is what to do with all the film removed. “I don’t know whether this ruling would help in bringing down the crime rate but it is definitely making us leave a larger carbon footprint,” says environmental enthusiast Kousalya.
Maybe the Government or Mr. Avinash will also provide a solution to dispose this toxic non-biodegradable waste, she says with a sarcastically.