[zenren]

Originally Posted by mallumowgli

You leave it to the politicians to botch up every progress that state makes or at least tries to make.

A very strange logic from the home minister :"There are many such difficult to implement traffic rules and if action is taken against everyone breaking the rules, then the entire state needs to be booked."

Great!! Is he going to take the same approach to every difficult to implement rule in the state?

Slight correction there - He is the Transport Minister now after Chennithala took over Home.

Link to English report - http://beta.english.manoramaonline.c...uvanchoor.html

It finally came down to what I predicted a few days back in this same thread:

Originally Posted by zenren

It would be interesting to see how many politicians actually obey these rules in Kerala. We see them arriving in style at various functions which are telecast in news channels. Lets see if any of them unbuckle once they arrive or buckle up once they get into their car to leave. I'm not sure if this may get enforced properly.

In case of sun-films or speed-guns, state cars with red lights on top were exempt and that resulted in no objection from the top with implementing those reforms. This time, there is no grounds for expempting VIPs from following the rule.

Originally Posted by blacksport

To implement the rule or not is left to state governments. The transport commissioner has no business getting into what is the legislative's jurisdiction.

Are you implying that the ministers and MLAs should stand in the road and catch those who are not wearing helmets/seat belts or jumping a red light?

AFAIK, it is upto the state government whether to create or withdraw a law. Enforcement doesn't come under their purview. If they don't want the law, they have the power to scrap it but they don't have the power to ask the enforcement officials not to enforce an existing rule that is still in force.

[Yeldo]

Has to agree that seatbelts and helmets saves lives.

But the issue with Mr. Sinh's step, at least in Kerala, is the inconvenience and harassment caused by the Police to the general public due to his directives. In Kerala, the MVD / RTO people are more transparent and generally free of corruption when they are out on the roads to enforce the law. But with the police, the case is just the opposite. They just get out to collect some money for their evening tipple, or at best some revenue to the government as fines. And therein lies the opposition from the general public.

Two days back, while I was waiting for my friend outside his shop, which happens to be located in a one- way, a police jeep with a driver and an officer stopped before the shop for vehicle checking. Both of them were not wearing seat belts, and they had broken the one way restriction. They parked their vehicle dangerously and on the wrong side (the whole side of that street is a no- parking zone) in a turn with poor visibility, and started flagging down motorists. I could overhear them, and the officer threatened drivers and riders with Rs. 1,000 fines for not having helmets or seatbelts. Then the driver would say "Give Saar 250", and would let go of those who paid up. Soon the owner of a local bar hotel came in his Discovery (with tax dodging out of state plates) in the wrong way, without seatbelts, and both the officer and the driver smiled broadly at him and waved at him. The "lesser" motorists who were around the police jeep were uttering eye- popping curses under their breaths. Most of them were blaming the Government.

In our state, we respond to such irritations when it is time to vote. So the Minister, who is a politician, has to keep his officials in check.

Helmets and seatbelts are ESSENTIAL, I agree, and so are laws making them mandatory, but what is to be gained from selective, discriminatory implementation that breeds corruption and popular resentment? The Minister very well knows that it is impossible to implement the law universally in a fair and equal to all way? My fellow Keralites very well know that this is the case everywhere in Kerala.

Finally, just to point out, the Minister did not interfere at all in most of Mr. Sinh's measures, like strict enforcement of speed limits, stringer safety measures for school buses, corruption- free issuance of driving licenses, etc.

[blacksport]

Originally Posted by phamilyman

This is India where everyone gangs up on the larger vehicle irrespective of who made the mistake.

If that is the problem, fix that. Here you are only increasing the number of problems you have to solve.

In non ideal traffic, people can make mistakes inadvertently. Or there may be hazards.

Because youare not wearing a helmet, you are infinitely more prone to dying, and what could have been a graze becomes a fatality. You may not care about your death but the legal case of your death will ensnare the other poor motorist who will suffer because of your unreasonable stubbornness and blatant disregard of the law.

Agreed, but don't you think that your reasoning is a bit flimsy?

Originally Posted by zenren

Are you implying that the ministers and MLAs should stand in the road and catch those who are not wearing helmets/seat belts or jumping a red light?

Did I imply that or you just assumed it for the sake of convenience?

AFAIK, it is upto the state government whether to create or withdraw a law. Enforcement doesn't come under their purview. If they don't want the law, they have the power to scrap it but they don't have the power to ask the enforcement officials not to enforce an existing rule that is still in force.

Mr Singh's job is to implement what the legislature (govt) decides. To decide what to implement still rests with the legislature. In some parts of the BIMARU states the thanedar decides what the law is, and Mr Singh thinks he is one.

[phamilyman]

Originally Posted by blacksport

If that is the problem, fix that. Here you are only increasing the number of problems you have to solve.

Nope. That's an additional problem that occurs after the accident and the fatality. Let's leave our mob mentality aside for now - that societal change can take a generation or even longer.

The key point here is that helmet less two wheelers operating within the flow of regular traffic pose a higher risk of fatalities which is not acceptable to most reasonable planners / police officials / law makers. If you don't like the rules for public roads, don't ride on the public roads. Or push the bike on the side of the road like a pedestrian. Simple.

Even if you would like to live freely and take responsibility for a higher chance of dying, the state would like to enforce order all the same. You cannot choose which part of the law you wish to comply with, my friend. If you choose to use public roads - follow the law. Just as you'd follow company rules in your workplace.

Heck, stretching your logic further, all village bumpkins (and pretty much most of the city of Kanpur) are totally right in their choice of driving the wrong way, even in the fast lane on NH2. Hey, its their FREE will, right? They have switched on headlight / horn and are giving everyone enough notice. Awesome! Right?

Or - how about this hyperbole:
The next time you are in an international flight, preferably one in/to the US, tell them that you don't need seat belts while taking off / descending. Statistically, if the plane lands safely (24 sigma chance) then nothing will happen. For the cases outside 24 sigma (crash), seatbelts often can't help -so as an adult, you're willing to take that infinitesimal risk. That in fact you are capable of simply standing in your place while the plane lands. Tell them that you are only putting yourself at risk. That it is well within the boundaries of liberty. We'll read in the newspapers what happened next.

Then why on Indian roads do you want to disobey the clear as day laws? Why?

Originally Posted by blacksport

Agreed, but don't you think that your reasoning is a bit flimsy?

Nope. We can just agree to disagree here. One man's flimsy is another's rock solid. I am done with my dose of outrage and hyperbole for the day. Maybe i've gone over the top but I feel very strongly about this particular topic.

Live safe and ride / drive safe.

As we say up north, rabb rakha!

PS: Here's what happens when someone drunk thinks it is fine to walk / run on the road after a few drinks: http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/street...tted-last.html If it was a waywardly driven two wheeler driven by a helmetless rider, the resulting hassle would have been the same.
PPS: Thanks for strengthening my resolve to get a dashcam. Chennai roads are crawling with motorbikers who share your libertarian ideas. I don't know when I become a victim of someone's lack of road sense and liberty.

[blacksport]

Originally Posted by phamilyman

Nope. That's an additional problem that occurs after the accident and the fatality. Let's leave our mob mentality aside for now - that societal change can take a generation or even longer.

The key point here is that helmet less two wheelers operating within the flow of regular traffic pose a higher risk of fatalities which is not acceptable to most reasonable planners / police officials / law makers. If you don't like the rules for public roads, don't ride on the public roads. Or push the bike on the side of the road like a pedestrian. Simple.

Even if you would like to live freely and take responsibility for a higher chance of dying, the state would like to enforce order all the same. You cannot choose which part of the law you wish to comply with, my friend. If you choose to use public roads - follow the law. Just as you'd follow company rules in your workplace.

Heck, stretching your logic further, all village bumpkins (and pretty much most of the city of Kanpur) are totally right in their choice of driving the wrong way, even in the fast lane on NH2. Hey, its their FREE will, right? They have switched on headlight / horn and are giving everyone enough notice. Awesome! Right?

Or - how about this hyperbole:
The next time you are in an international flight, preferably one in/to the US, tell them that you don't need seat belts while taking off / descending. Statistically, if the plane lands safely (24 sigma chance) then nothing will happen. For the cases outside 24 sigma (crash), seatbelts often can't help -so as an adult, you're willing to take that infinitesimal risk. That in fact you are capable of simply standing in your place while the plane lands. Tell them that you are only putting yourself at risk. That it is well within the boundaries of liberty. We'll read in the newspapers what happened next.

Then why on Indian roads do you want to disobey the clear as day laws? Why?


Nope. We can just agree to disagree here. One man's flimsy is another's rock solid. I am done with my dose of outrage and hyperbole for the day. Maybe i've gone over the top but I feel very strongly about this particular topic.

Live safe and ride / drive safe.

As we say up north, rabb rakha!

PS: Here's what happens when someone drunk thinks it is fine to walk / run on the road after a few drinks: http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/street...tted-last.html If it was a waywardly driven two wheeler driven by a helmetless rider, the resulting hassle would have been the same.
PPS: Thanks for strengthening my resolve to get a dashcam. Chennai roads are crawling with motorbikers who share your libertarian ideas. I don't know when I become a victim of someone's lack of road sense and liberty.

Man, did you really write all that? I cringe when I read all that reasoning. And then I saw that tag of yours. Driving on the wrong side of the road and not wearing a seatbelt in a flight are not within the definition of liberty. In a flight you become a projectile putting "other" people at risk.

Again, with the two wheeler example, it is the drunken/wayward rider which is the problem. You are just trying to strengthen your argument by bringing it into the helmet equation.

Finally, as I said earlier, I don't want to disobey any laws here. As long as the law exists, I conform, however moronic they may be. I am just questioning these laws. And above all, am more troubled about so many do-good laws which exists just so that we stay on the moral right side, but leads to corruption and nepotism. We would be better off with a world that does not try to impose their sense of morality on others. In my 40 years of existence I have seen my morals change from one extreme to other. Everybody thinks that they are on the right side. So it would only be right to leave it to the individual to decide what is right... for him.

[MaxTorque]

Now our discussions come to another turning point. Government has scrapped the decision to make the seat belt mandatory for all occupants.

Thiruvananthapuram: The state government has scrapped the decision to make seat belts compulsory for all passengers in cars, including those occupying the rear seats. At present, the seat belt is mandatory for car drivers.

In the backdrop of Union minister Gopinath Munde’s death in a car accident earlier this month, transport commissioner Rishiraj Singh had issued a circular on June 5 making seat belts mandatory for all four-wheeler passengers.

Transport minister Thiruvanchoor Radhakrishnan told the Assembly on Friday that the Transport Commissioner’s circular would be withdrawn considering the inconveniences caused by it.

“Though the Motor Vehicles Act provides for making seat belts mandatory for all passengers, strictly enforcing such norms will cause severe inconvenience to the public. Hence the Transport Commissioner’s circular would be withdrawn,” he said in reply to a submission.

Congress MLA K. Sivadasan Nair, who raised the issue in the House, flayed the directive on seat belts.

“Just because some reports suggested that Gopinath Munde’s life could have been saved had he used seat belt, some officials made seat belts mandatory for all passengers.

Enforcement of such directives is causing severe hardships to the public,” said.

He also alleged that the directive was issued by the Transport Commissioner to gain publicity.

Source:- Deccan Chronicle

[deetjohn]

From the Hindu today. Minister hits brakes on seat belt drive

Originally Posted by Hindu

The Motor Vehicles Department’s campaign to raise awareness about the importance of wearing seatbelts while travelling in cars has been cut short before it could take off.

The Department had begun a campaign to enforce the seatbelt rule, not just for front seat passengers but those in the rear seats too, following the death of Rural Development Minister Gopinath Munde in a car accident last week. The department registered 209 cases in the district in a week against car drivers and passengers who were not wearing seatbelts.

“Majority of cases were registered in the case of people sitting in the front-facing rear seats without wearing seatbelts. They were fined between Rs.100 and Rs.500 as per the law,” said an official of the Motor Vehicles Department. The department had also instructed the offenders to compulsorily attend its awareness classes on the importance of wearing seatbelts.

As many as 928 car passengers were killed in accidents across the State last year, whereas over 6,500 people were critically injured. In Kochi city alone, there were over 820 car accidents in 2013. The police, the Motor Vehicles Department officials, and trauma care experts all agree that many deaths in car accidents could be avoided by wearing a seat belt.

[Latheesh]

Now Rishiraj Singh decided to step down due to seat belt rule controversy. Very sad to see that many politicians and general public are against the rule!

[phamilyman]

Originally Posted by Latheesh

Now Rishiraj Singh decided to step down due to seat belt rule controversy. Very sad to see that many politicians and general public are against the rule!

Indeed - instead of sorting out the implementation, and rooting out corruption - politicians take an easy way out. They didn't even wait to see if the rule saved any lives or not.

The politicians will never change.

[Sankar]

Originally Posted by deetjohn

From the Hindu today. Minister hits brakes on seat belt drive

Does any Minister even care about the lives of people? He doesn't see safety, all he sees is that this drive is inconveniencing his vote bank which is bad for him, so to protect his own interest he halts this good initiative by our respected transport commisioner.

The collective iq and common sense of the general public is pretty low when it comes to safety, so they welcome any decision which saves them from the slight inconvenience of having to wear the belt and not being able to overload with unbelted passengers.

Does anybody think this seatbelt rule will hold when people worry more about their hair than their head?

[SUPERSPORT]

I salute Mr. Rishiraj Singh for atleast trying to implement this law. And for the minister-, what a shame! May be they need some real life experience to understand this. I am sure this law would have helped in saving many lives. I have always observed a peculiar trend in accidents happening in Kerala. In most of the moderate accidents, including those cars without airbags, driver survives and the co passenger is seriously injured or killed. Even now when I see the news of an accident on a newspaper and I look into the details this pattern is observed. And we all know its because of seatbelts. Mr. Jagathy Sreekumars driver AFAIK was discharged from the hospital in two weeks. Another friend of my dad lost his life in an alto when it collided with another car but what caught my attention was the fact that the impact was on the driver side and the driver came out alive. I don't know what these ministers are smoking. They implement stupid laws such as banning the sun film and scraps these kind of life saving things. Aah they all have their escorts to keep them safe and moving. Last week I saw a ministers vehicle using an ambulance as an escort. I moved out of the way seeing an ambulance and then see an innova with red plates following it. I dont think its a very difficult thing to implement. When my relatives who are settled in London came home one day I saw that everyone including those naughty kids buckled up without any hesitation. And I am sure we Indians too would follow this rule abroad. Just like any other law there would be some resistance in the beginning but once used to it, its no big deal. I have always found wearing seatbelts to be more comfortable too as it helps to stay in your seat while sweeping through the corners.

[phamilyman]

Originally Posted by Sankar

The collective iq and common sense of the general public is pretty low when it comes to safety, so they welcome any decision which saves them from the slight inconvenience of having to wear the belt and not being able to overload with unbelted passengers.

Does anybody think this seatbelt rule will hold when people worry more about their hair than their head?

Agreed fully!

I overheard some very well respected / much educated individuals actually joke in Chennai when the seatbelt implementation was kicked off, that wearing a seat belt means they can actually drink one more peg "because you're safer belted in"! I was going the full time while part of this conversation.

[pjbiju]

Originally Posted by blacksport

.... Driving on the wrong side of the road and not wearing a seatbelt in a flight are not within the definition of liberty. In a flight you become a projectile putting "other" people at risk.
...

I guess every law would cause inconvenience to someone or other, because by definition laws are restrictive. That aside, even people sitting on the backseat of the car without their seatbelts are projectiles putting other people at risk. There have been numerous four-wheeler accidents where people have died of head injuries because people on the back seats went onto hit other people in the vehicle when accidents happened.

It is sad that politicians give lame excuses like "How can we insist that the people obey a rule which has not been implemented elsewhere in the country?" to be seen as pro-people. If every state decides to wait for a pan-India implementation of every rule, we do not need state governments to make rules for the state.

[blacksport]

Originally Posted by pjbiju

I guess every law would cause inconvenience to someone or other, because by definition laws are restrictive. That aside, even people sitting on the backseat of the car without their seatbelts are projectiles putting other people at risk. There have been numerous four-wheeler accidents where people have died of head injuries because people on the back seats went onto hit other people in the vehicle when accidents happened.

Thanks. I knew somebody would catch this point. That is why I had put the word others in quotes. That is because the word "others" in the case of a flight (public transport) is different from "others" in the case of a car (private transport). Last time when folks from my hometown (where almost nobody wears seat belts - where else - the state in the subject), I refused to start the car until everybody has belted up. I went around belting up everybody (all were fumbling with the latches - never worn one in their life) before i drove off. I do not need a state law for that.

It is sad that politicians give lame excuses like "How can we insist that the people obey a rule which has not been implemented elsewhere in the country?" to be seen as pro-people. If every state decides to wait for a pan-India implementation of every rule, we do not need state governments to make rules for the state.

It is definitely lame. But, playing devil's advocate, a politician has a duty to go with popular opinion (as opposed to experts opinion). Because that where he derives his mandate from. And if popular opinion is in favour of the seat belt rule, well, you don't even need a rule at all, as people would then willingly wear them.

If you think something is right, don't wait for something to be law to start following it. After all, the law does not prevent you from doing it, right? So stop crying hoarse, do your part, and let others do what they want. Be a libertarian.

[zenren]

Originally Posted by blacksport

But, playing devil's advocate, a politician has a duty to go with popular opinion (as opposed to experts opinion). Because that where he derives his mandate from. And if popular opinion is in favour of the seat belt rule, well, you don't even need a rule at all, as people would then willingly wear them.

By that same logic of going by popular mandate, shouldn't these politicians also abolish taxes and make it optional since majority of the population doesn't like to pay taxes when given a choice? For those who want to pay taxes, let them pay it voluntarily.