Go Back   Team-BHP > BHP India > The Indian Car Scene


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 5th June 2016, 11:50   #226
Distinguished - BHPian
 
RavenAvi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Flying Around
Posts: 4,639
Thanked: 20,926 Times
Default Re: Let's know the law (Motor Vehicles Act)

The GoM, a panel of state transport ministers set up by the Centre to frame stricter traffic and road safety rules, has proposed a Rs 100 crore penalty + compulsory ordering a recall for automakers who produce faulty designs and don't provide necessary safety features in their vehicles.

The new Road Safety Bill also has a penalty of Rs 5000 levied on individuals for use of unauthorised components and other manufacturing or maintenance-related violations, such as fog lights, pressure horns, extra lights, roof-top carriers and metallic protectors. Dealers and vehicle body-builders would face a fine of Rs 1 lakh for the same offences.

In addition, component dealers will also be penalised Rs 1 lakh for selling non-approved critical safety components for vehicles.

Quote:
These proposed penal provisions form part of recommendations made by a panel of state transport ministers, set up by the Centre to frame stricter traffic and road safety rules.

For the automakers, the panel has suggested "stringent penalties to the extent of Rs 100 crore for non-compliance of automobile regulations by automobile companies and power to order compulsory recall within stipulated time frame".

The panel, headed by Rajasthan Transport Minister Yunoos Khan, in its preliminary recommendations has proposed these penalties for contravening the provisions relating to construction and maintenance of vehicles, for which the current rules provide for a fine of Rs 1,000 for first offence and Rs 5,000 for subsequent offences.

The final recommendations are expected to be in place this month.
Financial Express
RavenAvi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th July 2016, 10:03   #227
Distinguished - BHPian
 
RavenAvi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Flying Around
Posts: 4,639
Thanked: 20,926 Times
Default Re: Let's know the law (Motor Vehicles Act)

In it's bid to make public interactions with transport departments and related government agencies smoother, the Road Ministry has proposed elaborate reforms in the Motor Vehicles Act which will come up for debate during the Parliament's monsoon session.

Among the host of changes proposed, is one significant modification - allowing drivers and vehicle owners to carry soft or hard copies of licences and other documents such as registration and insurance papers, which will be considered valid for verification purposes by the police.

A proposal to make wearing of helmets mandatory for children over four years is also forwarded.

Quote:
Applicants will also have the freedom to apply for licence or registration with any of the regional transport offices (RTO) in a state and window for renewal of licence will be one year from date of expiry against the present norm of 30 days. This will avoid repeat of several formalities. But the holder of an expired licence won't be allowed to drive.

All forms and applications are being made shorter and people can submit details online for processing. The measures seem to be directed at reducing physical interface with RTOs and law enforcement agencies to curb corruption.

"The focus of the amendments is to make services people friendly and also to improve road safety provisions. While RTOs will give smart chip-based driving licences and registration cards, but drivers will have the freedom to carry them or copies in hard form or soft copies since the entire proposal is based on the premise that personnel of law enforcing agencies will have hand-held devices to check the genuineness of the documents and to access past offences by the driver or the owner," said a government official.
ET
RavenAvi is offline   (2) Thanks Reply With Quote
Old 19th July 2016, 14:25   #228
BHPian
 
ankurchaturvedi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Thane
Posts: 73
Thanked: 77 Times
Post Strange rule in CMVR 1989

I wish to install a FFE on my Alto K10, hence was reading up about it here and also wished to know more about its legal aspects so was reading about "exhausts" in the CMVR 1989 on the TN government website: Link here-
http://www.tn.gov.in/sta/Cmvr1989.pdf

Came across a somewhat strange rule and i quote "Exhaust gases.—Every motor vehicle shall be so constructed or equipped that the exhaust gases from the engine are discharged neither downward nor to the left side of the vehicle and shall be so fitted as to allow the gases to escape to the right side or rear of the vehicle" . This is mentioned on page 95 of the document under point 112. This left me a bit confused. My Alto K10 and Accent both have downward pointing exhaust pipes. A good number of vehicles which i see plying on the road share the same downward pointing exhaust. Technically speaking, they are in violation on this rule of CMVR, or so i feel.Need all you inputs and thoughts about this.

MODS:Please delete if irrelevant or already discussed.Sorry for the inconvenience
ankurchaturvedi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th July 2016, 14:42   #229
NPV
Distinguished - BHPian
 
NPV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Namma Bengaluru
Posts: 4,354
Thanked: 3,965 Times
Default Re: Strange rule in CMVR 1989

Quote:
Originally Posted by ankurchaturvedi View Post
I wish to install a FFE on my Alto K10, hence was reading up about it here and also wished to know more about its legal aspects so was reading about "exhausts" in the CMVR 1989 on the TN government website
While I can't comment on the CMVR rule, I've seen several newspaper reports about Bangalore Traffic Police announcing campaigns to clamp down on vehicles with free flow exhausts (FFE) so I think its safe to assume it's illegal ?

Last edited by NPV : 19th July 2016 at 14:47.
NPV is offline   (1) Thanks Reply With Quote
Old 19th July 2016, 15:24   #230
Senior - BHPian
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Dombivli/Gurgao
Posts: 2,550
Thanked: 1,030 Times
Default Re: Strange rule in CMVR 1989

You are probably talking about the exhaust pipes which have a downward facing opening, which may not be what the law is taking about.

I must confess even I haven't been aware of any such provision, but it seems the law doesn't want you to send the hot exhaust gases directly beneath or at the pedestrians. Carrying them to the back and then releasing them at an angle should be OK.

I actually wish the ramrod straight exhausts of the bikes are angled downward so that the puffs don't hit you in your face if you happen to be standing behind the bike.
honeybee is offline   (4) Thanks Reply With Quote
Old 20th July 2016, 08:32   #231
BHPian
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Pune
Posts: 27
Thanked: 13 Times
Default Re: Strange rule in CMVR 1989

Quote:
Originally Posted by honeybee View Post
You are probably talking about the exhaust pipes which have a downward facing opening, which may not be what the law is taking about.

I must confess even I haven't been aware of any such provision, but it seems the law doesn't want you to send the hot exhaust gases directly beneath or at the pedestrians. Carrying them to the back and then releasing them at an angle should be OK.

I actually wish the ramrod straight exhausts of the bikes are angled downward so that the puffs don't hit you in your face if you happen to be standing behind the bike.
I agree with what honeybee says. The rule is in place to ensure that no dust is agitated as well as the smoke is not directly going towards slow traffic on your left or pedestrians.

An angle of 30 degrees for the tail pipe end is allowed as per CMV rules, which was notified 2 years ago.

That is why almost all new models are coming with tail pipe hidden behind rear bumper, which was not the case 2 years before.
JitendraK78 is offline   (1) Thanks Reply With Quote
Old 20th July 2016, 12:24   #232
Senior - BHPian
 
tharian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: SBC
Posts: 2,000
Thanked: 2,059 Times
Default Re: Strange rule in CMVR 1989

Quote:
Originally Posted by ankurchaturvedi View Post
A good number of vehicles which i see plying on the road share the same downward pointing exhaust. Technically speaking, they are in violation on this rule of CMVR, or so i feel.Need all you inputs and thoughts about this.
The cars that have a downward facing end-pipe are not violating the rule.

From what I decipher, it means the exhaust pipe should not end facing down as soon as it exits the engine or around that area.

The rule in the later lines state a 30 degree angle is allowed on both side exit and rear exit pipes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JitendraK78 View Post
That is why almost all new models are coming with tail pipe hidden behind rear bumper, which was not the case 2 years before.
I think regardless of this rule, we had cars in the 90's with a downward facing end-pipe(Peugeot 309 and later Santro's) and the present day, we have cars without a downward facing end-pipe.

Another point to note is that rear bumper design also may change the end pipe angle , example being the Verna 4S and its predecessor.
tharian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th July 2016, 12:36   #233
BHPian
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Pune
Posts: 27
Thanked: 13 Times
Default Re: Strange rule in CMVR 1989

Quote:
Originally Posted by tharian View Post
The cars that have a downward facing end-pipe are not violating the rule.

From what I decipher, it means the exhaust pipe should not end facing down as soon as it exits the engine or around that area.

The rule in the later lines state a 30 degree angle is allowed on both side exit and rear exit pipes.



I think regardless of this rule, we had cars in the 90's with a downward facing end-pipe(Peugeot 309 and later Santro's) and the present day, we have cars without a downward facing end-pipe.

Another point to note is that rear bumper design also may change the end pipe angle , example being the Verna 4S and its predecessor.
According to my knowledge, the cars with downward exhaust in 90s were because the rule was not clearly explained (it was a gray area) and no test agency was checking the compliance.

Since last few years, agencies like ARAI have started verifying the compliance in regard to the downward angle of the exhaust tail pipe.
JitendraK78 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th August 2016, 13:03   #234
Distinguished - BHPian
 
RavenAvi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Flying Around
Posts: 4,639
Thanked: 20,926 Times
Default Re: Let's know the law (Motor Vehicles Act)

Here's the complete breakup of the 2016 Amendment Bill to the Motor Vehicles Act, in case anyone missed it. (courtesy PowerDrift)

Let's know the law (Motor Vehicles Act)-13939313_1079491938800264_7584300760885566622_n.png
RavenAvi is offline   (4) Thanks Reply With Quote
Old 9th August 2016, 14:23   #235
Senior - BHPian
 
ghodlur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Thane
Posts: 4,867
Thanked: 1,846 Times
Smile Re: Let's know the law (Motor Vehicles Act)

Thanks for the comprehensive list Avi.

The drink and driving penalty IMO is too small. Not the amount part but would have wanted for the license also to be suspended for say 6 months at least. What will stop a one time offender to not repeat it?

Couple of penalties found missing are:
1) Absence of PUC
2) Absence of vehicle fitness certificate for vehicles > 15 yrs.
ghodlur is online now   (1) Thanks Reply With Quote
Old 9th August 2016, 14:55   #236
BHPian
 
GKMahajan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Pune/Mumbai
Posts: 506
Thanked: 644 Times
Default Re: Let's know the law (Motor Vehicles Act)

What is 'Aggregators'? I mean - what is the offense? I am assuming that being an aggregator is not the offense! OR - am I wrong?
'Travel without ticket' is interesting! I assume it is relevant to public transport only....

Girish Mahajan
GKMahajan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th August 2016, 15:19   #237
Distinguished - BHPian
 
RavenAvi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Flying Around
Posts: 4,639
Thanked: 20,926 Times
Default Re: Let's know the law (Motor Vehicles Act)

Quote:
Originally Posted by GKMahajan View Post
What is 'Aggregators'? I mean - what is the offense? I am assuming that being an aggregator is not the offense! OR - am I wrong?
Taxi aggregators (Uber, Ola, etc.) without valid licensing conditions. (link)

First time offence = Rs 25,000.

Maximum = Rs 1,00,000.
RavenAvi is offline   (1) Thanks Reply With Quote
Old 9th August 2016, 22:55   #238
Distinguished - BHPian
 
RavenAvi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Flying Around
Posts: 4,639
Thanked: 20,926 Times
Default Re: Let's know the law (Motor Vehicles Act)

Now, get ready to pay up to Rs 1,200 for getting a driving license issued for a private motor vehicle, up from Rs 320 earlier.

The Union government has proposed steep hikes on fees for issuing and renewal of driving licenses for all categories of vehicles. A learner's driving license will cost Rs 150 now, which was Rs 30 earlier.

Even a smart card issued driving license will cost Rs 400, instead of the usual Rs 200. Driving tests will now cost Rs 300 (instead of Rs 50), while a twin test for both a 2-wheeler and a 4-wheeler will cost Rs 600 (instead of Rs 50).

All such revised proposals have been accepted by the Ministry.

Quote:
The cost of driving lessons will also go up as the government has proposed a four-fold increase in licence issue and renewal fees for driving schools from Rs. 2,500 to Rs. 10,000. Moreover, the States have been authorised to charge an additional fee for conducting driving tests.

The Union Road Transport and Highways Ministry proposed amendments to the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, on July 28 to charge separate fees for conducting driving competence test for different categories of vehicles. The fee structure was last revised during 2001-02.

While a one-time fee of Rs. 50 is now charged for conducting a driving test for all vehicles, the Centre has proposed increasing it to Rs. 300 for each class of vehicle. This means a twin test for a two-wheeler and a four-wheeler will cost Rs. 600, from Rs. 50 at present.

As per the proposed amendments, a smart-card driving licence will cost Rs. 400, up from Rs. 200 at present, and a learner’s driving licence will cost Rs.150 for each class of vehicle, up from Rs. 30.

A separate fee of Rs. 50 has been proposed for the learner’s licence test fee.

The fee for the renewal of all types (smart card and non-smart card) of driving licence is proposed to be increased to Rs. 200 from Rs. 50, and for receiving an international driving permit to Rs. 1,000 from Rs. 500. The government has proposed Rs. 200 for applying for changing the particulars in the driving licence such as the residential address.
The Hindu
RavenAvi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th August 2016, 10:45   #239
Senior - BHPian
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 1,029
Thanked: 576 Times
Default Re: Let's know the law (Motor Vehicles Act)

Quote:
Originally Posted by RavenAvi
Here's the complete breakup of the 2016 Amendment Bill to the Motor Vehicles Act, in case anyone missed it.
Will scout for the amended Act. Most likely these bills would be put up in some official web site. To be frank, it is good that the fines have been revised based on the current times. Paltry sums like Rs.100/- etc. my have been big money in 1988 (when MV Act was brought in), but today even a beggar would have that money in his pocket.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghodlur
The drink and driving penalty IMO is too small. Not the amount part but would have wanted for the license also to be suspended for say 6 months at least.
Even with existing laws K.P has been able to curb drunken driving to a very large extent. One thing in Kerala, Sec.185 MV Act is not compundable by the police. That means the case has to goto the magistrate's court. Which also means that there would be a quick visit of the person to the police station, and also a medical clinic. And then the person is only let out on police station bail, with two people (tax payers) stand surety. And then the person has to goto the court, where the magistrate 99% levies the maximum fine possible which is Rs.3000/-. Now imagine all the above, with an increased fine of Rs.10,000/-??

Quote:
1) Absence of PUC
2) Absence of vehicle fitness certificate for vehicles > 15 yrs
The provision is there. Sec 190, MV Act 1988. But the fine amount does not seem to have changed.
sachinpk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th August 2016, 10:56   #240
Senior - BHPian
 
KiloAlpha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Cubicle
Posts: 1,171
Thanked: 1,253 Times
Default Re: Let's know the law (Motor Vehicles Act)

Can someone please point me in the direction of the relevant section in MV Act, and the related fine, for the offense of "driving on the wrong side of the road"?

Thanks
KiloAlpha is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Motor Vehicles Act: Stricter penalties- Now Cabinet-Approved! Klub Class The Indian Car Scene 133 15th May 2012 21:43
SOPA & PIPA : Stop Online Piracy Act & Protect IP Act nitinbose Shifting gears 28 28th January 2012 01:40
Govt plans amendment to Motor Vehicles Act - To task automakers for lemons SR-71 The Indian Car Scene 23 8th September 2011 18:59
Review of Motor Vehicles Act - Govt Inviting Suggestions acidkill The Indian Car Scene 12 25th March 2010 21:07
confusion on Motor vehicles act law manaa45 Shifting gears 11 10th October 2005 23:06


All times are GMT +5.5. The time now is 12:53.

Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Team-BHP.com
Proudly powered by E2E Networks