[SLK]

Originally Posted by saket77

Otherwise banning CNG vehicles during the odd-even makes no sense.

To be honest. CNG is painful with the refueling queues, which will only get longer with the scheme in force. Many private CNG vehicles, will not drive in CNG mode because they will be out of gas and refueling is a 1 hour wait and there is no way for that to be detected. As Indian mentality goes, ban what you can't control without moving a leg, this is perfectly logical.

I can still give you arguments on why it still makes sense to let CNG vehicles ply, but this is off topic.

[am1m]

Originally Posted by SLK

What a non-sense debate we are having here!

Originally Posted by SLK

I'm actually disturbed that this stupid scheme has already divided this forum itself and while we burn each other over a stupid scheme

Really? Looks like just another good forum discussion to me, like all the other threads on this forum. (If there is really anything not appropriate here, the Mods will step in as always.)

I've learned a lot from this discussion. For instance, this is a good point that I didn't consider and I'm glad you pointed it out:

Originally Posted by SLK

Try to understand, there are many who have drivers, many who travel with their husbands/ male friends, but now most of them will be forced to use some kind of public transport too and if most here now believe that uber is risky then you are putting all these women at risk too.

------------------------------------------------------------

I don't see any need to end a debate just because someone disagrees with my point of view.

[RaghuChn]

Just to add - Manila (Philippines) has the odd-even rule for more than a few years now. The after effects (read, long term) are staggering. I can't comment on whether this will even be a successful short term solution to the 'problem' on hand - whatever that be, (again, 'narrow view point' as someone called out before, since I have not been living in Delhi-NCR anymore ), it certainly is a long term disaster. It encourages people to buy more cars than they otherwise would. Economy? YES; but solution to the 'problem'? A BIG NO.

Result - imagine how chaotic it could get on weekends, when the rule does not apply. Convenience of having 2-3-4 cars and all free to roll !

[RodeoSport]

Originally Posted by giri1.8

Frankly though, if public transport was any good, no one would even buy a car! Don't see the point of being able to use my car on only 50% of the days when I paid 100% of the road tax.

Reminds me of a Quote


"A developed country is not a place where the poor have cars. It's where the rich use public transportation.”


― Gustavo Petro

[Sanidhya mukund]

To all those who are arguing that men are equally unsafe, I am surprised that they can't see the obvious. They argue that men are equally likely to get robbed at gun/knife point or get pickpocketed. This is something that your car does not protect you from. Anyone can just show a gun at a traffic signal and Rob you of everything, including your car. This is something that can happen to anyone irrespective of gender. But do you know what women face and men don't face? When they get onto a crowded bus or metro train, there is a huge possibility of a pervert getting onto the vehicle just to grope them. In such situations, it is no use raising an alarm- all those around you will just turn a blind eye, because the insensitivity is very deeply rooted in our society. What a personal car does is that it provides a metal shell that is closed on all sides, and hence protects them from all those entitled males who know that they can get away with what they do.
You might argue that this might happen as a one off incident, but there are more than enough reports to prove that it happens on a daily basis. Our government is not implementing measures just for the sake of it. Just think, why do we need ' women's only' coaches in trains and metros? You can still chose to ignore the truth and call them parasites, but that does not take away the fact that WOMEN NEED MORE SAFETY than us.

PS. My post is not specifically directed towards anybody, but just trying to make a point.

[SLK]

Originally Posted by Sanidhya mukund

PS. My post is not specifically directed towards anybody, but just trying to make a point.

While we are in agreement on the principles and the facts that you talk about, there is absolutely no sense in comparing a person travelling in a car suddenly shifting to a crowded local bus when odd-even scheme applies.

I see a Mercedes in your display image/ avatar, I would really like to understand if you were not able to use your car for a day, will you be looking out for a local bus that day?. At least I won't do that even as a male!. So lets just not start the discussion assuming that a woman doesn't get a car means local bus travel.

This is not part of the slumdog millionaire movie that the image people have to paint here is of 'that India'. We live in a multi faced country, all of us very well know that.

It is a fact that women have to go through a lot of planing/ precautions on a routine basis (men have to too! maybe not as much but some women think its zero!), the argument here is, this exemption doesn't really change anything for women safety, that can't be managed, in an already hostile environment.

And, you made a good point too, metro special women coaches, that's a relatively safe way already available isn't it? (I know last mile connectivity can be issue for some).

See this is a touchy topic, but don't make it about disrespecting women. Anyone who says anything against the exemption doesn't automatically become insensitive towards women safety issues, that's like a foul in a discussion which should have been based on practical and logical arguments.

[Sanidhya mukund]

@SLK


1. If I am not able to use my Mercedes, then I would most probably borrow somebody else’s car or rent one. If all else fails, would have to use my non-AC omni ( all my other cars are more than 15 years old )

2. Imagine if somebody does not have the above options, then a bus or metro is the only option. In fact, this is what the government is giving as a justification for the exemption given to women.

3. Agreed that women special coaches are there, but IIRC they are not present on all the routes.

4. I am not implying that in any way. But the tone and words used in certain posts did feel disrespectful.( not your posts)

Regards
Sanidhya

[bmw_lover]

Originally Posted by rovingeye

Try doing that outside of India and get slapped with a billion dollar gender discrimination lawsuit. In our country, women do not pollute. What a joke.

Odd-even: Lawyer moves court against exemption to women

A lawyer approached Delhi high court on Tuesday challenging the proposed implementation of the oddeven road rationing scheme on the ground claiming that the exemption to women drivers was discriminatory and violates the fundamental right to equality.

A bench of Chief Justice D N Patel and justice C Hari Shankar listed the matter for November 1 as the petitioner did not place on record a copy of the scheme formed by Delhi government.

The government has decided to implement the road rationing scheme from November 4 -15, a decision that has been assailed by way of the PIL filed by advocate Shashwat Bhardwaj.

“The state, that is the sole respondent here, in implementing the said scheme and enforcing it is denying the equality before law on the ground of sex, and therefore, the said scheme warrants it to be struck down by this court as it is clearly in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution,” it argued.

The PIL has also sought directions to the government to set up a committee comprising senior bureaucrats and members of the Bar to conduct a study on the viability of the odd-even scheme and any alternatives that does not violate any fundamental right and also fills the void that the scheme fails to take into account.

The petitioner said a representation was made before the chief secretary, but elicited no response. The plea claimed that the rationale given by the government for exempting women was “vague, mischievous and misconceived and the scheme was being enforced only to gain political mileage”.

This will be the third round of the scheme in Delhi after two 15-day periods in January and April 2016. The vehicles carrying school students will also be exempt from the scheme. Unlike the previous occasions, privately owned CNG vehicles will not be exempted.

TOI article on 23.10.19

[2000rpm]

Originally Posted by SLK

While we are in agreement on the principles and the facts that you talk about, there is absolutely no sense in comparing a person travelling in a car suddenly shifting to a crowded local bus when odd-even scheme applies.

It is a fact that women have to go through a lot of planing/ precautions on a routine basis (men have to too! maybe not as much but some women think its zero!), the argument here is, this exemption doesn't really change anything for women safety, that can't be managed, in an already hostile environment.

And, you made a good point too, metro special women coaches, that's a relatively safe way already available isn't it? (I know last mile connectivity can be issue for some).

Absolutely poor understanding / in-sensitivity of on-ground women safety issues, especially in a city like Delhi, where even Metro stations are spooked by Tharkis. Recently, some women reported a man masturbating on the platform with police taking no action.

If you are saying that Delhi (and many other cities) are equal for Men and Women, you are living in a different world my friend. Speak to a few working women in NCR and you will realize the pain of the transit, especially if you dont have 9 to 5 hours. There are a lot of working women in Delhi (from other states) who drive on their own at odd hours (even 9 pm is odd timing in NCR).

The effectiveness / stupidity of the odd / even scheme is something I dont have data or expertise on! I understand the frustration of the inconvenience caused, but we should be thankful that women are exempt and not wish they suffer too. That seems to be the sentiment for people who are opposing the exemption. I guess that objection should apply to evacuation / rescue protocol for women and kids also!

PS. I have thanked the quoted post by mistake, the portal has no feature to remove the same.

[SLK]

Originally Posted by 2000rpm

Absolutely poor understanding / in-sensitivity of on-ground women safety issues, especially in a city like Delhi, where even Metro stations are spooked by Tharkis.

You seem to be self motivated to write this, and you haven't obviously read the entire discussion or understand the context. I'm not going to clarify but only motivate you to read and understand the context.

Originally Posted by 2000rpm

If you are saying that Delhi (and many other cities) are equal for Men and Women, you are living in a different world my friend.

Really? Is that what I said? Even once?

For the record I live in Delhi.

Originally Posted by 2000rpm

The effectiveness / stupidity of the odd / even scheme is something I dont have data or expertise on!

But you have data on how during odd-even this exemption adds to women safety, which doesn't have an alternative.

Originally Posted by 2000rpm

I understand the frustration of the inconvenience caused, but we should be thankful that women are exempt and not wish they suffer too.

Exactly opposite of what has been said. This exemption helps and is welcome for the sheer convenience. But is it justified over a emergency pollution situation which is supposed to trigger this scheme, in the name of safety and not appeasement.

Different people can have different views, but the topic definitely is not insensitivity on women safety, but rather is this really a solution? That weighs over everything else.

[SS-Traveller]

Very strangely, the Delhi Gazette notification of 1 November for the odd-even scheme does not exempt EVs from the prohibited days.

[Born 2 Be Wild]

I have a question . Is a car being driven by a chauffer carrying a female passenger exempt or is it supposed to all female occupants including the driver, theres a lot of ambiguity regarding the same if someone could clarify please?

[SLK]

Originally Posted by Born 2 Be Wild

I have a question . Is a car being driven by a chauffer carrying a female passenger exempt or is it supposed to all female occupants including the driver, theres a lot of ambiguity regarding the same if someone could clarify please?

Only all female cars exempt, no male drivers.

[SS-Traveller]

Originally Posted by Born 2 Be Wild

I have a question . Is a car being driven by a chauffer carrying a female passenger exempt or is it supposed to all female occupants including the driver, theres a lot of ambiguity regarding the same if someone could clarify please?

Male drivers carrying female passengers are not exempt. However, male drivers carrying school children in uniform below the age of 12, specifically during school hours only, are exempt. So, someone can send his <12y.o. child to school in a chauffeur-driven car, but the car would be unable to come back empty from the school without the probability of attracting a fine - the chauffeur will have to park and wait until school is over, pick up the child and then return home.

[SLK]

Originally Posted by SS-Traveller

So, someone can send his <12y.o. child to school in a chauffeur-driven car, but the car would be unable to come back empty from the school without the probability of attracting a fine - the chauffeur will have to park and wait until school is over, pick up the child and then return home.

True. Its so weird that a female driver can go to school to pickup a 13 year old girl child but not a boy child, the mom, will have to leave the boy to come home in public transport (obviously, he can't take the school bus, because he can't make that subscription for a 14 day period). I mean com'on a minor is a minor, why make this for them.

And talking about enforcement, police is holding carbon dating equipment to determining the age of children travelling?

Delhi govt. should be filing a case against Haryana and Punjab for compensation (there is enough proof, even NASA can see!) and then use that money to do some good, like grand scale air purifiers in public areas.