Tinted-glass school vans need checks

Jean Pierre Aquilina’s guarantee to the nation in Tinted Glass Windows No Cause Of Accidents (July 31) is extremely bold and presumably more than challengeable. I am once again perplexed by Mr Aquilina’s logic. While I understand his wish to take preventive measures and protect his children from the sun’s ill effects, I cannot understand his statement concerning the use of tinted glass school vans which do not permit one to see the occupants.

Mr Aquilina states as follows: “I did not refer to school vans intentionally… 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.”

So, according to Mr Aquilina, preventative measures should not be taken because once a wrongdoer has the will then there is a way. This statement would logically lead our society not to take any preventive measures vis-à-vis thieves, drug pushers etc; in short, to all criminals (including the burglars that he mentioned in previous correspondence)! Surely not the proper attitude for our various protective groups. Surely an illogical conclusion and in principle contradictory to the very preventive measure that Mr Aquilina takes vis-à-vis his children and the sun’s rays. In practice, after all, one can argue that destiny/fate (or one’s genes) has the most determined will. Of course, I do sincerely wish Mr Aquilina success in the preventive measures he is taking vis-à-vis his children – which after all is in line with the principle I am proposing in this correspondence.

I must refer to Lawrence Scerri’s reiteration (July 30) that basically tinted car glass prevents skin cancer from the sun’s rays. I accept this: but must weigh it with my previously stated concern. At this stage I would therefore limit my query to the necessary use of tinted glass in school vans which pick up children at 7 a.m., mainly from October 1 (sunrise at 6.57 a.m.) to end May (sunrise at 5.47 a.m.) with the return at 4 p.m., when the sun’s rays are not so damaging. Surely the danger of having children in a school van where one does not know who is sitting with them, or what is happening is more dangerous than the sun’s rays.

Allow me to congratulate the Commissioner for Children on her statement (August 4). The Commissioner’s mature view has been clearly expressed in defence of the children, and in their best interest. I believe the salient points warrant repetition, both for those who have not read same, as well as for the purpose of this letter. The Commissioner stated as follows: “The Office of the Commissioner for Children maintains that on all occasions where children are being transported in a motor vehicle, visibility to the inside of the vehicle must not be compromised under any circumstances. This is particularly important where children are being transported to and from school, and should be equally applicable in all other circumstances. Existing legislation by virtue of LN 414 of 2007 must be rigorously monitored and enforced at all times, especially where children are concerned. If it is found that the existing parameters of this legislation are insufficient or are not at present enforceable, an immediate review of this legislation and enforcement procedures are required.”

Which brings us, of course, to the proposed “definite enforcement” and “possible revocation” of the legislation in question. We should look at pre-emption not post action. The school season is due to start in a few weeks’ time. It is therefore suggested that vans intended for use for the transport of schoolchildren should be immediately inspected by the police – even if at the insistence of the education authorities or Commissioner for Children – and a certificate issued that their glass is (or is not) within the allowed tint.

In default of such a certificate such vans should not be allowed to be used from September/October 2010, (onwards) either for public or for private schools. Any uncertified van in breach (i.e. caught transporting children) will be confiscated. I do believe that ultimately the law may have to be revoked.

As I have made my point on this topic and I do not like polemics, I do not intend to enter into further correspondence on this matter. It is now up to the responsible authorities to carry out their duty.