Robert Dearing

1. 1. non-standard anti-glare sun visor

   “received evidence that an examination of the motor car involved in this collision revealed that at the time of the collision it was fitted with a non-”

2. 2. unregulated anti-glare visor

   “received evidence that whilst there is specific legislation governing the light transmission qualities of vehicle windscreen glass, that the legislation does not currently extend to such devices, which are unregulated”

3. 3. non-compliant visor VLT

   “received evidence that there was a legal requirement that the vehicle windscreen should have a Visual Light Transmission (VLT) reading of not less than 75%”

4. 4. extremely low VLT

   “received evidence that an analysis of the anti-glare visor demonstrated that if used in single thickness mode, it had a VLT of between 17.5% and 22.1%. When used in double thickness mode, as in this case, the VLT readings were greatly reduced, to between 3.9% and 4.2%”

5. 5. obscured vision

   “received evidence that such results could be considered dangerous in that the driver's vision of the road ahead may be considerably obscured”

6. 6. lack of certification

   “received evidence that there is currently no British Standard certification for such items”

No published response was found on judiciary.uk.