_ 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-standard 'Sunblaster" anti-glare sun visor which had been clipped onto the standard internal fitted visor . The additional visor measured approximately 3Ocm X 1Ocm when folded. It was of bi-fold design, which allowed it to be opened down, to measure 30cm x 2Ocm_ It was possible for the visor to be used with either one, or both sections of the visor in use, ie either single or double thickness (II) At the time of the collision the driver had been the visor folded, so that it was used in "double thickness mode (IV) 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. received evidence that there is currently no British Standard certification for such items_ I 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%. (Vi) 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%_ (VII) received evidence that such results could be considered dangerous in that the driver's vision of the road ahead may be considerably obscured. In addition received evidence that;, if used in single mode, the fold line between the two sections may fall across the driver's eye-line and present a further impediment to the driver's field of view