Re: Mumbai: Signing helmet bond necessary to register a two-wheeler Quote:
Originally Posted by GTO If motorcyclists don't wear helmets, the primary blame lies with them - NOT the RTO. Only an idiot would ride without safety gear, especially on Indian roads where disaster is waiting to happen at every junction.
I'm surprised at the scepticism displayed by BHPians. It's a great move in my opinion. Signing that declaration can serve as a serious reminder of the helmet rule to bike owners. It also ensures that each motorcycle is sold with a helmet.
Equally, I believe the only way foolish helmetless riders will wear one is by strict enforcement. But that shouldn't take away from the fact that this is a step in the right direction. Every little bit helps. |
I agree with you on the riders without protection part. However, that is not the issue out here. No one is disputing the fact that people who ride without protection are morons.
The issue out here is about enforceability of the undertaking that is being asked for by the authorities. It is a meaningless process if the undertaking is not enforceable.
Let us test what is being proposed; I am rider who is not wearing a helmet. I am standing at traffic signal as it is red. I get into an accident wherein a car jumps the signal and rams me in the back and throws me in to the flowing traffic (totally plausible, as I have seen it happen).
Under these circumstances, just because I have signed a undertaking, I am responsible for that accident? The RTO can pull out my undertaking and say that because you have signed a undertaking and you are not wearing a helmet you are fault for this accident?
If I am not wearing a helmet then I can be punished under the relevant law/act. But how is my signing a undertaking abdicating my right to fair trial under the relevant act?
Now for the second part; What about the guy broke the signal and rammed into the bike? He gets away scot-free because I have signed an undertaking saying that if I am not wearing a helmet I am responsible for the accident? That I have given up the right to remedy under law? Thats ridiculous and against the principles of natural justice.
Also when has RTO ever been responsible for any accident that happens? Why does it want a undertaking from me absolving them from all legal liabilities if any against them?
The point is that such a undertaking will not withstand a legal test. If that is the case what is the point of taking such undertaking from bike owners.
Another important aspect is that by doing this RTO is discriminating. Does the RTO take such a undertaking from car owners saying that if you are not wearing a seat belt you are responsible for any accident that happens. Does it take a undertaking that if there are no airbags in your car you are responsible for any injuries that you will sustain in an accident?
The need of the hour is for proper and stringent enforcement of traffic rules and not such stunts.
Last edited by PratikPatel : 18th April 2015 at 13:26.
Reason: Grammer
|