[SlowRider]

Originally Posted by Yeldo

I have seen even in the last month an unfortunate incident of the local people being unable to pull out a driver from his seatbelt after an accident. The driver and the passenger, incidentally, who were NRI's, both had fastened their seatbelts.

In a state that suffers from having perhaps the most congested and poorly maintained road network in the whole of South India, what probable use is having a sixteen point harness and two dozen airbags if you get overrun by a multi axle truck trying to evade a pothole?

This is awfully close to suggesting those two passengers would have been better off without seatbelts. Not liking a law that will fine you if your backseat passengers are not strapped in is one thing. Saying that seatbelts are useless is quite another.

I agree that Kerala roads are congested. Many roads are in bad shape during certain periods of the year. But seatbelts are just as effective in Kerala as it is in any other state or in any other country.

[msdivy]

Originally Posted by Yeldo

I have seen even in the last month an unfortunate incident of the local people being unable to pull out a driver from his seatbelt after an accident.

What is so difficult about removing seat-belts? Either un-buckle or cut with a knife.

[premc44]

Kindly read this as an addendum to my post in page 6 of this thread. Since that posting, so many people have given their views in this matter and I am sure this will go on for many more pages.
I am amazed at the way some people think or view things. Wearing seat belts, including in the rear seats will save lives, there is no dispute about that. Still, there is the reluctance to accept that fact and find arguments, often silly, in defence of not wearing seat belts. Rishi Raj Singh is the villain now. It is a fact that the rear seat belts were made mandatory in 2012 and he was only trying to enforce the rule, which should have been done earlier. All cars made in India after 2002 have rear seat belts and our ill informed Minister was bold enough to say that 80% of cars on our roads have no rear seat belts. Does he really mean that 80% of cars on our roads are vintage?. Who is he trying to fool?
As I wrote in my earlier post, politicians looking only at vote banks will thwart any such move by an "oversmart" officer. May be they are doing the right thing, considering the number of BHP ians, holding similar views. Did somebody tell me that team BHP stands for safe driving?

[Chetan_Rao]

For all anyone might say, I just can't see the 'harassment' angle to being asked to wear seat-belts or being fined for not doing it.

If 'corrupt systems will try to take advantage' is our reasoning to avoid every possible change, we probably deserve to stay a corrupt, mismanaged third-world dump forever where human life has no value except as numbers on the ballot that politicos play with, come every election cycle. Our 'I'll do what I please and the country can go to hell' attitude makes things worse.

We keep bemoaning the lack of safety equipment on common-man cars/models, while we have the same common folk resisting an attempt to make the use of existing equipment mandatory. Why ask for the equipment then, at all?

What concerns me more is this debate is happening on a forum that prides itself on safe driving, but members believe making basic safety equipment mandatory is 'harassment' of some sort.

[blacksport]

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

For all anyone might say, I just can't see the 'harassment' angle to being asked to wear seat-belts or being fined for not doing it.

If 'corrupt systems will try to take advantage' is our reasoning to avoid every possible change, we probably deserve to stay a corrupt, mismanaged third-world dump forever where human life has no value except as numbers on the ballot that politicos play with, come every election cycle. Our 'I'll do what I please and the country can go to hell' attitude makes things worse.

We keep bemoaning the lack of safety equipment on common-man cars/models, while we have the same common folk resisting an attempt to make the use of existing equipment mandatory. Why ask for the equipment then, at all?

What concerns me more is this debate is happening on a forum that prides itself on safe driving, but members believe making basic safety equipment mandatory is 'harassment' of some sort.

Does not enforcing the rule prevent anybody from wearing seat belts? If not, is the itch just about not getting to enforce one's sense of morality on others?

[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by blacksport

Does not enforcing the rule prevent anybody from wearing seat belts? If not, is the itch just about not getting to enforce one's sense of morality on others?

Wanting people to wear seat belts for their own safety and avoiding nuisance to fellow road users is a 'morality' issue now? Wow!

That's a very slippery slope you're on. If we leave every decision down to individual interpretation and convenience, it can lead to some really 'interesting' consequences.

While we're at it, let's turn off all traffic lights, who's stopping people from driving sensibly? Why force our 'morality' on them by telling them when/where to stop to let others go by?

Let's close down the law & order system, who's stopping people from behaving themselves and not indulge in criminal activity? What right does the law have to tell me my actions are unacceptable when my own interpretation says I'm completely justified in my actions?

Add any other example of forced 'morality' of your choice to continue this chain.

This isn't going to get anywhere so good luck with your POV. As rightfully valid as mine or anyone else's.

[manojkgopalan]

Can't believe what's happening to people in India and especially in Kerala. If we refer back to solar case, we can find the comments the current minister said that time. Let's scrap all rules and regulations. Go ahead and good luck to God's own country.

[Yeldo]

Originally Posted by SlowRider

This is awfully close to suggesting those two passengers would have been better off without seatbelts. But seatbelts are just as effective in Kerala as it is in any other state or in any other country.

That was not my suggestion, Sir. I simply wanted to point out that safety does not begin and end with seatbelts alone. Safety is a comprehensive issue, not just limited to passenger restraints like seatbelts and airbags, or some other physical parameter. It engulfs good driving skills including execution of emergency maneuvers or urgent braking, polite road manners, good tyres, properly working brakes, a crash-worthy vehicle, and most importantly your luck. The way in which other road users go about exercising their right is also very important. Just because you are strapped in, you are not guaranteed to get out of a sticky situation always.

Originally Posted by msdivy

What is so difficult about removing seat-belts? Either un-buckle or cut with a knife.

The driver was pressed against the steering, and as you know, the buckle was on the other side, inaccessible after the crash. And please do not assume that the local people keep knives handy at all times.

Certain other members seem to be very hostile and intolerant towards anyone expressing different views. I do not think anyone here disagrees about wearing seatbelts. Seatbelts have proven to be the most important passive safety feature after the structural integrity of the vehicle in the event of a collision. There is no argument on that issue, it is a given.

[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by Yeldo

That was not my suggestion, Sir. I simply wanted to point out that safety does not begin and end with seatbelts alone. Safety is a comprehensive issue, not just limited to passenger restraints like seatbelts and airbags, or some other physical parameter. It engulfs good driving skills including execution of emergency maneuvers or urgent braking, polite road manners, good tyres, properly working brakes, a crash-worthy vehicle, and most importantly your luck. The way in which other road users go about exercising their right is also very important. Just because you are strapped in, you are not guaranteed to get out of a sticky situation always.

Safety is a comprehensive issue as you say, and it can be achieved only one step at a time. If the first step happens to be making primary restraint systems (seat-belts) mandatory, then that's where we need to start. It's what's called the low-hanging fruit, the easiest steps to implement. Improving other things will need years of policy and social conditioning to achieve. Why not at least do the stuff we easily can? A seat-belt (or any other piece of equipment) will never ensure 100% safety, but a cavalier attitude to safety won't help either.

The driver was pressed against the steering, and as you know, the buckle was on the other side, inaccessible after the crash. And please do not assume that the local people keep knives handy at all times.

Was the driver wearing the seat-belt? If yes and still ended up pressed against the steering post-crash, not wearing the seat-belt would've probably only led to a more gruesome scene.

But the issue here is how Mr. Sinh selectively implemented certain laws, manipulated the media to get some publicity as always at the Minister's expense, and the apprehension about how his measure would be misused by the law enforcement, and how far would be the benefits in tangible terms in a chaotic traffic environment.

And about Mr. Sinh's claims of the lower number of accidents being reported, my friend who is in a very senior position said that he simply under- reported the figures by re- classifying the reporting criterion to make hmself look good. Now, how is that?

The issue is not the commissioner in question. He may be a saint who had the public's best interest at heart or a crook who just wanted some publicity and a power-rush. The issue is the public's reluctance to follow simple safety guidelines. Why do we need a transport commissioner (or anyone else) to force us to wear seat-belts for our own safety? We don't, but it's also true that we're an extremely rule-averse country and need someone to force us to do stuff for our own well-being. I've met well-educated people in my circle of acquaintances who are great people otherwise, but wear seat-belts only to escape the traffic police. Why the nonchalance?

Our traffic is chaotic at the best of times, and it follows from simple common sense that we should take all precautions humanly possible. Or is it more important to make sure errant public servants are put in their place and their egos quashed, while we take a cavalier attitude to our own safety? If I wear a seat-belt, the life saved would be mine. If I don't, the injured/dead body will also be mine, not the transport commissioner's or the minister's, neither of whom probably care for the public anyway if I take the cynical view of things. But I may end up creating a bigger issue for myself and the other party involved if I refuse to take even basic safety precautions and end up in an accident.

[blacksport]

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

Wanting people to wear seat belts for their own safety and avoiding nuisance to fellow road users is a 'morality' issue now? Wow!

"moral": standards of behaviour; principles of right and wrong.

That's a very slippery slope you're on. If we leave every decision down to individual interpretation and convenience, it can lead to some really 'interesting' consequences.

Not everything. But for things that affects only oneself, it should be left to the individual. I have heard of the so called moral police in Kerala, who tries to impose their sense of morality on others. Maybe a team-up is good for both of the groups.

While we're at it, let's turn off all traffic lights, who's stopping people from driving sensibly? Why force our 'morality' on them by telling them when/where to stop to let others go by?

Let's close down the law & order system, who's stopping people from behaving themselves and not indulge in criminal activity? What right does the law have to tell me my actions are unacceptable when my own interpretation says I'm completely justified in my actions?

Add any other example of forced 'morality' of your choice to continue this chain.

You are delving into the absurd. Let me assure you, none of the above constitutes individual liberty.

This isn't going to get anywhere so good luck with your POV. As rightfully valid as mine or anyone else's.

Apply this POV for yourself and respect others'. Let them decide what is right for them. I use seat belts because I am convinced about its benefits, but am not interested in imposing my POV around the world.

OT: We are going in circles now. So I get down here and wait for another bus.

[torquecurve]

How is wearing a seatbelt "Harrassment" ? By that logic - enforcement of any rules whatever they might be will be harrassment! Isnt being stopped - just because ministers cavalcade is passing a bigger harrassment than this?

The "I saw an accident where a person wearing seatbelt died" is typically what people use for saying why you shouldnt wear seatbelt.

Please understand - wearing seatbelts will save you in 50-60% of typical accidents. It wont save you everytime. Wearing the helmet - likewise will not save you everytime.
What it does is INCREASES your chances to survive.

[saket77]

It is very difficult to 'kill' someone who is hell bent on committing a suicide.
That's the best I can think off about it and at the cost of being sounding insensitive, I would say let them die who do not follow the rules and do not know what was better for them and we will slowly become a country with sensible & law abiding people and a country with lower population.

[::CMS::]

What everyone forgets is the MV act which says about the seatbelts. As far as I know, It is mandatory to wear seatbelts with the existing MV act itself and due to the convenience factor or NA cars during that time made the unwritten rule to keep the driver's seat belt mandatory. Mr Singh himself didnt change or impose any variation in the rule, he made the actual rule to be implemented. It was those irresponsible violators propagate it as a new rule being imposed, pity them. Everything boils down to the number of the onboard passengers, with this rule, no vehicles can carry more people than its seat capacity. I feel thats the main reason for all these far cry.

[swiftnfurious]

Now the transport minister states that "if opposition wants the rear seat belt rule, he shall approve it". Looks like he is on a back foot after the news of Rishiraj Singh's resignation is doing the rounds. He also states that there is no difference between Mr. Singh and the government - just that they had some communication gap. But the transport minister re-iterates that "80% of the vehicles in Kerala doesn't have rear seat belts and also it's difficult to implement what is NOT there in the first place". He has taken it to a new level where he implies all vehicles without seat belts need to be equipped with one.

Source:: www.deepika.com

[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by swiftnfurious

Now the transport minister states that "if opposition wants the rear seat belt rule, he shall approve it". Looks like he is on a back foot after the news of Rishiraj Singh's resignation is doing the rounds. He also states that there is no difference between Mr. Singh and the government - just that they had some communication gap. But the transport minister re-iterates that "80% of the vehicles in Kerala doesn't have rear seat belts and also it's difficult to implement what is NOT there in the first place". He has taken it to a new level where he implies all vehicles without seat belts need to be equipped with one.

Source:: www.deepika.com

The India in his version of reality probably only has two car choices: The Padmini and the ambassador.