Mother's view of tinted windows

I congratulate the journalist who wrote the front-page article Police With No Means To Check Tinted Glass (July 13). The thrust of the report is on the degree of rear window tint and the police/wardens' inability to assess same. The problem is that windows are tinted all over.

As a mother of two school-going children, I have followed with interest the correspondence on tinted windows, especially the reference to vans filled with non-visible young schoolchildren. What amazes me is that those responsible (apart from parents), that is, the Commissioner for Children, the police and school head teachers, have remained silent. Don't they have a duty to be heard? In default of their protest, if something happens, are they not to be held accountable? Unfortunately, it often appears that responsibility and accountability are alien to Maltese culture. That is a national tragedy.

The case against tinted car windows has been convincingly put by Hugh Peralta. In defending tinted car windows, Jeremy Aquilina's reply does not give a reason why there should be tinted car windows. Mr Aquilina speaks about a rear tinted window (legally in order if not in excess of a 30 per cent tint) and those illegally tinted for "privacy" purposes. Clearly, the meaning of privacy is diametrically opposed to public places. Or are we to be encased on the beach in a tinted perspex box?

Ironically, in trying to defend tinted rear car windows within the allowed legal limit, Mr Aquilina condemns them when he concedes that: "Even when visibility through windows is diminished, one can still drive safely as long as one makes use of the side rear view mirrors." It is this "diminution" of safety - not to say practical removal - that one is striving against. Mr Aquilina claims that with a 30 per cent tint the danger is practically minimal. But minimal is not zero. The 30 per cent tint has a bearing. Even a one per cent tint has a bearing, especially if it brings about a result where one is in a wheelchair throughout a lifetime!

And this brings us to the front page article. What are the police supposed to do? Should they carry a pack of tinted glass frames to see whether the 30 per cent tint has been surpassed? And how does one calculate the tint? From the inside? From the outside? In the sunlight? Are cars with such windows being confiscated or put away for safe keeping until the tinted windows are replaced? That should be a partial solution.

The real solution is the removal of the law that allows their use.

Mr Aquilina also refers to robbers using cars, before the use of tinted car windows; yes, admittedly. But do we want to make it easier for them?

He does not even mention school vans with tinted glass. He cannot defend them and conveniently does not consider them as part of the debate when, in fact, they constitute the greatest issue.

We all know of the phrase "the law is an ass" and, in this case, it is certainly an ass. It is absolute nonsense, both in theory and in practice, and should be removed.

The question is whether tinted glass in cars is a danger to society in general or whether it is not. And, in my view, the answer is that such tinted glass is a danger.

Meanwhile, I trust that the view of the Commissioner for Children etc. will be made known and that they do not retain the heaviest tint of glasses.