[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by blacksport

Sorry, I still don't see how by not wearing a helmet, I am putting other people at risk.

I'll rephrase for your benefit. Consider this scenario.

You're riding your bike (with a helmet) and get involved in a minor bump with a car in traffic (happens to a lot of people everyday). You fall off your bike and bump your helmet-protected head on the road. Minor injuries (and possibly a damaged helmet). The person you bumped into may be fined at worst for negligent driving (may or may not be anyone's fault).

Now take the helmet out of the situation, and the same car driver is looking at possible involuntary manslaughter charges for the same minor mistake in traffic, based on how badly you bump your unprotected head. The laws will hold the person responsible for your death or responsible to prove his innocence at the very least. All because you decided you're too FREE to wear a helmet.

Clear enough now?

P.S. All this doesn't even consider the family/dependents (including your own folks) who may be affected and have their lives destroyed by your negligence and its legal/situational fallout. Risky enough for you now?

[pjbiju]

Originally Posted by blacksport

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.
...
So stop crying hoarse, do your part, and let others do what they want. Be a libertarian.

In this case, you became the law enforcer and forced everyone in your family to wear seatbelts. If you are so keen on leaving people to their free will, why did you force them? Mr. Rishiraj Singh was trying to do the same to all that you did only for your family.

Why do more developed countries (with better roads and road manners in general) enforce this? E.g. "Under EU law, drivers and passengers must wear a seat belt in any seat fitted with one." (source: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_s...s/index_en.htm)

One of the reasons a lot of people in our country do not wear seatbelts is that they are simply ignorant of its benefits. Not everything can be left to the free will of individuals all the time.

[blacksport]

Originally Posted by pjbiju

In this case, you became the law enforcer and forced everyone in your family to wear seatbelts. If you are so keen on leaving people to their free will, why did you force them? Mr. Rishiraj Singh was trying to do the same to all that you did only for your family.

If you don't see the difference, you never will, even if I bang on my keyboard for hours. So I will leave it to you to figure it out.

Why do more developed countries (with better roads and road manners in general) enforce this? E.g. "Under EU law, drivers and passengers must wear a seat belt in any seat fitted with one." (source: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_s...s/index_en.htm)

If you are willing to turn a few pages backward and read what I wrote earlier, you would clearly see why I don't advocate having such laws here. In europe, you have a willing population, very low corruption, and have enough money at their disposal. In a country like ours, such laws only benefit the corrupt. These laws that will get misused, while being of meager benefit. We have more important law and order issues to be tackled, than having men in khaki standing by the road side flagging down motorists. Put them to better use. West does a lot of things which we can't afford to do, not that we don't want to do.

One of the reasons a lot of people in our country do not wear seatbelts is that they are simply ignorant of its benefits. Not everything can be left to the free will of individuals all the time.

The libertarian in me says, create awareness. After all, I would respect somebody who would want to wear a seat belt.

[msdivy]

Originally Posted by MaxTorque

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.

Clearly the minister needs to be educated on safety. Whoever is in-charge of reducing lives lost due accidents on Indian roads, must show the minister & other skeptics, the videos of crash tests' results, with & without seat-belts. That is how I learnt the importance of seat-belts.

[Raghav_K]

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

I'll The laws will hold the person responsible for your death or responsible to prove his innocence at the very least.

Sorry for off-topic, but isn't it the other way round?

It's the job of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the person is guilty of negligent driving.

Similar to the job of the prosecution to prove beyond doubt that Mr. X committed the murder. Mr. X is charged with murder but he cannot be called a murderer yet. It's not his job to prove his innocence.

Negligent driving is almost impossible to prove, unless the driver is drunk, or there was some video evidence, or he was openly flouting rules like driving on the wrong side etc. Over speeding is difficult to prove and because of these many negligent drivers walk away with a fine after causing deaths.

Correct me if I'm wrong!

[pjbiju]

Originally Posted by blacksport

...
If you are willing to turn a few pages backward and read what I wrote earlier, you would clearly see why I don't advocate having such laws here. In europe, you have a willing population, very low corruption, and have enough money at their disposal. In a country like ours, such laws only benefit the corrupt. These laws that will get misused, while being of meager benefit. We have more important law and order issues to be tackled, than having men in khaki standing by the road side flagging down motorists. Put them to better use. West does a lot of things which we can't afford to do, not that we don't want to do.
...

Your reasoning does not make a good case my friend. When the speed guns and cameras were put up at a lot of places in Kerala, there were a lot of protests. But I guess they have implemented it sensibly and by implementing an automated system, the possibility of having to pay bribes is removed largely. Now you hear less of cribbing about those things and people are now more aware of the speeds that they need to maintain. One of the most effective ways of increasing awareness is through the imposition of financial penalties. And this is what most of the developed countries have done and still do. Yes, more police/RTO personnel would be required to check for compliance initially. But as people start paying penalty amounts, the awareness will increase and people will comply with such rules more easily. And there will be less need for monitoring later on.

You need to pay a visit to some of the other RTOs and cities (e.g. Pune) to see how pathetic the conditions over there are. Pune city also spent a huge amount on cameras but that never worked because there was nobody like Mr. Rishiraj Singh. That guy is proving that even a single person can make a lot of positive difference to the system (we have other examples of such people too). Should we not be encouraging such people rather than lauding the inefficient politicians? And at the end of the day, people who want their freedom can still not wear seatbelts. Nobody is stopping them from exercising their free will.

[sgiitk]

The (dis)hon minister must be crazy or worse. Is Kerala running on all jalopies? I remember rear belts in cars for at least a decade. My Accent had them, and I am not 100% sure but I think so did my earlier Esteem. The logic is simple, if they are fitted wear them, else wait for your tryst with God, Allah or whatever. I support the ommisioner 100%.

[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by Raghav_K

Sorry for off-topic, but isn't it the other way round?

It's the job of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the person is guilty of negligent driving.

Similar to the job of the prosecution to prove beyond doubt that Mr. X committed the murder. Mr. X is charged with murder but he cannot be called a murderer yet. It's not his job to prove his innocence.

Negligent driving is almost impossible to prove, unless the driver is drunk, or there was some video evidence, or he was openly flouting rules like driving on the wrong side etc. Over speeding is difficult to prove and because of these many negligent drivers walk away with a fine after causing deaths.

Correct me if I'm wrong!

Irrespective of what the rule books actually say, as far as I'm aware (and have experienced in my circle of acquaintances), motor accident cases usually get lodged against the bigger vehicle involved irrespective of who was at fault, and then it's a mess of paperwork to get one's neck out of trouble.

What makes things worse in India is the lack of supporting evidence in the form of traffic footage, and the gross intentional neglect of basic safety/road use rules on part of a majority of road users, which makes it nearly impossible to prove anything beyond doubt. Usually ends up being one's word against another, and the one with more influence wins.

Best to do whatever we can to stay out of trouble. If it still happens, hope the system does right by you. Scary thought, but that's just how things are right now.

Apologies for off-topic. If you prefer to continue, let's take it offline or to an appropriate thread.

[ad3952n]

Originally Posted by sgiitk

The (dis)hon minister must be crazy or worse. Is Kerala running on all jalopies? I remember rear belts in cars for at least a decade. My Accent had them, and I am not 100% sure but I think so did my earlier Esteem. The logic is simple, if they are fitted wear them, else wait for your tryst with God, Allah or whatever.

Sir, It's an honor to read your views and privilege to quote you. Firstly, If the govt. was planning to revoke a important safety rule then why did they implemented it earlier ? Who ever is responsible for this joke of a move should provide logical reasoning behind this move. I totally agree with you that the provision of rear seat belts should be used always because they are given for a certain purpose. Sir after hearing about the revoking of this rule I feel a saying in hindi is very much correct "Apni suraksha apne haath" (One is responsible for his/ her own safety). I feel we as educated folks need to understand that no one is going to teach us about safety, no amount of mishaps will ever make us realize the importance of safety; rather it's our own mindset that has to be trained for safe practices while driving and we all should start taking our lives and lives of our loved ones much more seriously while driving.

Thanks

[AstonMartin]

Rishiraj Singh will most probably join the Prime Minister's security detail. Looks like he had enough of the political gimmickry in Kerala. Source:Asianet

[tharian]

So if I understand right ,Rishiraj Singh wants to move because his proposal of rear seat belts did not go through and revoked without his consent , Kerala roads are going to go back to its manic ways.

He was like a hero straight out of a movie, but didn't end like one.
True that 'good things don't last forever'.

Quoting a member who said this in the Assembly,
"The member who raised the issue also had also said that the Government should use ‘the belt’ to restrain overzealous officers who threatened to run amok among motorists with new rules."

God help this country!

[Sheel]

Originally Posted by mallumowgli

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."

So, when do they plan to implement it?

Originally Posted by MaxTorque

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

Very aptly put by zenren, but then how will these ministers buy Q7's and Range Rover if they don't tax us? You pay road tax, fuel is taxed & then you pay toll and still, you are not safe on the road.

No one is enforcing any law for wrong side drivers on NH's or a toll isn't stopped temporarily because it failed to repair roads.

But these can be discussed elsewhere. Thing is, have none of the ministers present in the house bumped their head or were thrown when their vehicle had to apply sudden brakes? Or are they always escorted, so this situation doesn't arise for them?

At the end, I feel, we as enthusiasts who are responsible, should always follow rules while driving, belt-up and try to educate family, friends about the virtues of seat-belts, helmets and driving safely on road.

Originally Posted by zenren

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.

Helmets? Try to bang your head on the wall. You may not be doing it at over 5kmph, do you ride at 5kmph? Imagine the impact.

Thanks

[blacksport]

Originally Posted by zenren

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.

I trust, that one was blurted out only to win the argument. Nevertheless, answering that one, India is a country where a lot of such buffoonery go through and bring votes. We had an election that concluded a month ago, and you are free to analyse what got some (most) parties most of their votes. If it works that way in a democracy, it is still just. Democracy is where the will of the people, however unreasonable it may be, is implemented. And even the worst form of democracy is better than dictatorship.

[mail4ajo]

After all these pages, I seriously do not think making seat belts mandatory is the solution. Even if its mandatory, people will think of avoiding them just to cheat the law.

For a change, make accident insurance claims inadmissible or lesser if seats belts or helmets were not worn at time of accident. Like in case of no license, Driving under influence etc. I believe we can see some adherence. Something like this and safety education is the key.

[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?