Quote:
Originally Posted by A M What a dumb move! And the reason cited for the judgement is Pedestrian safety. Illiteracy does not mean the person cannot distinguish between pedestrians and the road. |
Do you know where pedestrians have right of way over vehicles, and where they are prohibited? Do pedestrians know? Isn't that something that should be common knowledge? How is that education to be provided to citizens? How is it to be confirmed that the citizens - especially those aspiring to a drivers license - know and understand these rules?
Simple - exams that would be applied based on a common minimum education, and an assumption that the road signs and notices would be read and understood. That's the basis of literacy being a prerequisite to a drivers license. I'm not sure why this is so difficult to understand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by satishv1987 If literacy will make our roads safer, then Kerala should have the safest roads & the best drivers in the country, no? |
Here you go:
Quote:
However, compared to other states, Kerala is having the lowest number of road accident deaths in India.
|
How many guesses as to which states have the highest?
Source.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anurag.somani Methinks it's an absolute elitist thought-process to have a blanket ban on driving based on literacy levels. |
It is elitist. Thankfully this ruling is not elitist, simply because it relates to a binary literate/illiterate, and not levels. Illiterate means unable to read/write in
any language, so your suggestion below to have text in multiple languages is irrelevant to the illiterate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anurag.somani The problem is how to ensure people do not claim ignorance of traffic rules/signs. There are several ways to fix it, without inconveniencing the users for whom the rules are made!
* make road-signs symbolic (heck, most already are), so text is redundant
* where-ever text is required, have it in local, Hindi & English languages
* Ensure user reads road-signs in the DL test (believe they're already there for training license)
* Do a big-data analysis on the symbols where more users fail - improvise those symbols for easy readability
* reduce driving license validity to 5/10 yrs, so we need a refresher course. |
None of your suggestions will work for someone who is illiterate, because they wouldn't be able to read the booklet on road signs and rules to understand them in the first place. They would require an audio-visual training session, which private driving schools could set up, or the government could - at a cost. Private schools wouldn't be attended by the target audience because they aren't illiterate by choice - so money is a problem. I personally would rather the government spend money on broad based education for citizens than on special classes for them to understand road signs. Most highway road signs are in English/Hindi or English/Hindi/Vernacular, which would mean that they would need to be trained in English/Hindi - eerily similar to an education, don't you think?
The government could also spend money on a lot of other things as you've suggested rather than addressing the basic issue of education. Fix the root cause why don't they? Once the education, driver testing, licensing is in order, then you can do big data analysis - otherwise you can't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anurag.somani Lastly, if you want this in spirit, HAVE road signs at all places, today better managed-managed parts of the cities have these but large areas are without any signs (or with posters plastered on the signboards) leaving it to user judgement to take cognizance. |
These points are irrelevant to the discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anurag.somani In countries where road signs are proper AND enforced, the drives are more pleasurable - often because all we're focused on is following the rules. |
Mainly because
they know the rules - a very important distinction. Name a country where literacy - a basic ability to read/write a language - is not a prerequisite.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anurag.somani In India, we've road-signs (sometimes), cattle (often), jaywalkers (can't blame them, often there are no proper pedestrian crossings), multi-directional traffic in the same lane, potholes, hawkers, dug-up civil works, religious shrines and what not on our roads - it's a taxing place to drive. |
Irrelevant to the discussion again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anurag.somani If driver and road-safety is paramount, high time the judiciary focus on what's important (it shouldn't encroach on executive, but that's for another day); or stay quiet and let the government of the day decide the best way forward. |
I'm sure you understand that the judiciary was actually doing their job here? Please read the petition and the judgement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anurag.somani Off-Topic: The same illiterate folks queue up in lines (many literates don't - the voting percentages in urban areas are significantly lower than rural) and elect the government. In a democracy, everyone has a voice (& right to license ). |
Irrelevant points to the discussion. Literacy and courtesy/socio-political activism do not necessarily go hand in hand, that's a given.
In the law, ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
Those against this judgement - is it your view that an illiterate driver should be permitted to claim ignorance as an excuse for breaking the law? If they run over a pedestrian at a zebra crossing, should they be allowed free? Or if they park a truck in the fast lane atop the elevated highway to the airport (in Bangalore) with one dim, partially obsucred taillight on at night, should they be excused if they cause a death because a car rams into their truck?