Tinted glass windows no cause of accidents

I can understand a mother's concern for the safety of her children (I am a parent myself). However, matters need to put into perspective. Johanna Caruana in the Talking Point, Mother's View Of Tinted Windows (July 28) claims "In defending tinted car windows, Jeremy (she meant Jean Pierre) Aquilina's reply does not give a reason why there should be tinted car windows". The answers may vary but the most obvious is to reduce the amount of sunlight falling on passengers in the car. I see nothing wrong with this and I purchased a car with legally tinted windows to protect my little ones sitting at the back. They have not complained in summer ever since.

In my previous letters, I distinguished between the various degrees of tint legally possible. The Motor Vehicle Regulations stipulate that windscreens are to allow at least 75 per cent of light through, whereas front side windows are to allow at least 70 per cent of light to pass through. This is a standard tint available on almost all vehicles and which allows one to see both outside of and inside the vehicle. So far, to my knowledge, no causal link has been established between this level of tint and traffic accidents, as Ms Caruana tends to suggest.

Ms Caruana also refers to glass heavily tinted to the extent that probably even occupants cannot see outside. This so-called "privacy" glass (even this term has different meanings to different car manufacturers) is illegal, and yes can be dangerous when used by robbers. My point was that robbers do not require privacy glass - they resort to other means of concealing their identity. Such was the case at the recent hold-up on HSBC head office in Qormi.

Rear windows can be more heavily tinted - up to 70 per cent. This still allows one to see the vehicle's occupants. So far, I have not come across a driver driving safely by looking through clear (i.e. not tinted) rear windows. This is actually dangerous, and explains the purpose of rear-view mirrors. The two issues are separate and should not be confused.

Ms Caruana goes on to say that I did not even mention school vans with tinted glass and that I cannot defend them and conveniently do not consider them as part of the debate when, in fact, they constitute the greatest issue. I did not refer to school vans intentionally, since the law and all arguments apply to all types of vehicles, regardless of whether the vehicles are private or commercial. I also do not think that it is an issue. I would rather have my children protected from the sun than argue to remove tinted windows on school vans on the hypothesis that tinted windows encourage, say, paedophilia on school vans. I am a firm believer in the saying "where there is a will, there is a way", and thus I do not believe that the absence of tinted glass will discourage potentially increased paedophilic acts. In my view, glass tinted within the legal limits (established by experts) does not pose a danger to society.

Ms Caruana also says that "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." I have yet to be convinced.