The case against tinted car windows

I read with interest the article entitled Dermatologist Makes Case For Tinted Car Windows (May 18).

There is another side to the coin. The recent introduction of tinted car windows in Malta perplexes me.

I have never understood the raison d'etre of such tinted windows (except as an attitude to ape American style limousines) - much less why the police authorities allow their use.

One should have the police comment as to why tinted car windows have been to date allowed (and the danger to sensitive skin is not part of their equation).

Tinted car windows constitute a hazard in that the driver's vision of the road and of other users is thereby diminished - more so in artificial light, or lesser evening light.

The occupants in cars having tinted windows are not identifiable - and this constitutes a grave handicap to police authorities and others in establishing any wrongdoer in a criminal act or indeed any wrongdoer in a civil act. Tinted car windows are a boon to criminals.

The above two causes are in my view sufficient valid reasons why tinted car windows should not be allowed on our roads and this irrespective of whether these windows are tinted on importation or whether the colouring is effected in Malta, and of the percentage of the tint.

However, there is another consideration which in my view is even more serious than what has been stated above.

There are (school) vans with tinted windows which carry young children where you cannot even identify one's child inside such a van; nor of course can you know - and much less identify - if there is any other grown-up in this school van and what is happening inside such a van, whether by children of different ages or by a grown-up adult with a small child.

Furthermore if an accident were to happen and such a van overturns in a less lighted area, or a fire ensues, with the tinted car windows one is not able to know from the outside whether any child or children have been trapped inside.

I am also unsure whether insurance policies would cover such tinted car windows.

Surely there are vans with untinted windows! The above considerations lead one to logically conclude that there should be a total ban on tinted windows. If this is correct, why haven't the accountable authorities entrusted by us citizens not acted?

The Commissioner of Children, heads of schools and the Ministry of Education should provide their comments - and policy.

But we must now come back to the respected dermatologist's learned view. Tinted car windows are of help to those who have sensitive skin. I am not competent to discuss what is sensitive skin and the sun's negative effect on same while in a car not with tinted windows.

But undoubtedly such persons are a minority. The danger to their skin while in a car is very limited in time (say only during a few months and only in the peak hours and if they do make use of a car, and where they sit in the car!). Possibly the most exposure is to the hands - which like other areas of the body can be covered. Therefore, my view in this regard is that the danger from non-tinted car windows in itself is extremely limited, and so is the proposed benefit.

At a national level we have to balance the amount (minimal?) of benefit (to a few?) with tinted car windows, as opposed to the dangers these bring about - to our roads; in favour of wrongdoers; and potentially so tragic to those young and unprotected. Undoubtedly the balance is overwhelmingly against tinted car windows.

Meanwhile the views of the Commissioner for Children, of the police and education authorities are eagerly awaited. More so, their action and, God forbid, before we read of some tragedy or paedophile act.