[Sojogator]

Well, I found the initiative great when I read it for the first time and then I read it again, keeping what I have experienced at these places, and things looked downwards.

I feel we are barking the wrong tree, yet again.

Why does one have to get a helmet from the dealer ? So that the dealer can make funny amounts of money by selling them at exorbitant prices ? Why doesn't RTO provide a certificate to the guy after he gets his helmet inspected at their office instead during document collection ? Takes exactly the same amount of time and is a safer measure than checking the bill !!

"Here you go. That is my AGV K3. Great. Here's your documents ! Ride Safe"

But instead it would be "Where is the bill for the helmet from the dealer ? What is a Pista GP. Screw you. No new bike for you. But wait, maybe we can 'adjust'... Here's your documents. "

Affidavit, pledges and indemnity bond would be source to further 'adjustments' and hassle.

And as for, the rider being responsible, is almost funny. I had my gear on but an auto zoomed in my way after breaking a signal. Sorry sir, we will need to "adjust" You were the one with least number of wheels !!!


Also, I do not believe it is the duty of the govt to stipulate laws for the safety at a personal level. I doubt any of the major countries has a law for a helmet. If the rider is smart enough, he wears. If he doesn't want to, he doesn't. I don't see why does the police have to waste time and resources on things like these. I believe it is impossible to teach someone the need for safety unless they have seen/experienced it. A guy who had a fall and was saved by his full faced helmet would never not wear one and the guy who doesn't wear one will always find ways to not wear one, whether or not he signs some pieces of paper without reading them in entirety.

Instead of making a complex process simpler and more efficient, we are are further introducing loops.

It is my opinion so do not kill me for it.

[naveenroy]

Originally Posted by GTO

If motorcyclists don't wear helmets, the primary blame lies with them - NOT the RTO. Only an idiot would ride without safety gear, especially on Indian roads where disaster is waiting to happen at every junction.

I'm surprised at the scepticism displayed by BHPians. It's a great move in my opinion. Signing that declaration can serve as a serious reminder of the helmet rule to bike owners. It also ensures that each motorcycle is sold with a helmet.

Equally, I believe the only way foolish helmetless riders will wear one is by strict enforcement. But that shouldn't take away from the fact that this is a step in the right direction. Every little bit helps.

Yes and in that case, we have millions of idiots on the road - on 2-wheelers and in cars. Yes - seat-belts are also a basic safety device on the car. How many of drivers wear em regularly?

Carrying on with the "helmet bond" logic, I sincerely hope they ask people who buy a car also to sign a document saying that they will wear seat-belts regularly and that will never move the car without being belted in.

And like someone has posted above, this gives more avenue for:
1. The dealer to push off lousy helmets onto unsuspecting customers.
2. Overcharge them for it
3. RTO to say only certain helmets (brands) are approved and to squeeze the rider for some "chai" money

and the list will go on.

IMHO, this helmet bond is akin to the government asking citizens to sign a bond saying that they will be good and honest citizens. Its just empty. All IMHO.

[Divya Sharan]

Originally Posted by GTO

It also ensures that each motorcycle is sold with a helmet.

Everything is fine and agreed to, but for this very point.

I have a few helmets with me (all DOT certified). I want to get a new bike for me, but not a helmet. What do I do?
Most probably, I'd get a Studds (agreed it's good for its price) helmet, but I do not want it.

IMO, there should be a provision of delivering the vehicle WITH a helmet, but if the buyer has 'brought' his helmet with him, the dealer need not insist on selling a helmet from his shelves.

[zenren]

Originally Posted by blackwasp

Rather than improving traffic /road conditions, this is being done to wash off their responsibility. Legal experts please explain about the validity of this declaration. What happens if a person wearing a helmet who has signed such a declaration meets with an accident due to a pothole ?

This affidavit/bond or whatever it is called would not hold any legal binding as far as I know. However, it can act as a proof that the rider was made aware of the importance of helmet and that there is a rule to wear helmets.

Now, coming to the issue of a pothole in the city roads and an accident cause due to it. If a biker falls into a pothole and injures himself and his pillion, the government body responsible for maintaining the road can be made responsible for the type of injury that can be caused while falling off at city speed limit of 35km/h while wearing helmet. If the biker was speeding above that speed limit and/or was not wearing helmet, he should also be made responsible for contributory negligence and any higher injuries sustained to the biker and the pillion. Only in very rare scenario would someone wearing a helmet and falling off a bike going at city speed limit get life threatening injuries. When the accident happens due to the fault of multiple parties, the compensation would also be adjusted accordingly in most cases.

[blackwasp]

Post deleted by the Team-BHP Support : Please do NOT post messages that add little or no informational value to the thread. We need your co-operation to maintain the quality of this forum.

Please read our rules before proceeding any further. We request you to post ONLY when you have something substantial to add to a discussion.

[PratikPatel]

Originally Posted by GTO

If motorcyclists don't wear helmets, the primary blame lies with them - NOT the RTO. Only an idiot would ride without safety gear, especially on Indian roads where disaster is waiting to happen at every junction.

I'm surprised at the scepticism displayed by BHPians. It's a great move in my opinion. Signing that declaration can serve as a serious reminder of the helmet rule to bike owners. It also ensures that each motorcycle is sold with a helmet.

Equally, I believe the only way foolish helmetless riders will wear one is by strict enforcement. But that shouldn't take away from the fact that this is a step in the right direction. Every little bit helps.

I agree with you on the riders without protection part. However, that is not the issue out here. No one is disputing the fact that people who ride without protection are morons.

The issue out here is about enforceability of the undertaking that is being asked for by the authorities. It is a meaningless process if the undertaking is not enforceable.

Let us test what is being proposed; I am rider who is not wearing a helmet. I am standing at traffic signal as it is red. I get into an accident wherein a car jumps the signal and rams me in the back and throws me in to the flowing traffic (totally plausible, as I have seen it happen).

Under these circumstances, just because I have signed a undertaking, I am responsible for that accident? The RTO can pull out my undertaking and say that because you have signed a undertaking and you are not wearing a helmet you are fault for this accident?

If I am not wearing a helmet then I can be punished under the relevant law/act. But how is my signing a undertaking abdicating my right to fair trial under the relevant act?

Now for the second part; What about the guy broke the signal and rammed into the bike? He gets away scot-free because I have signed an undertaking saying that if I am not wearing a helmet I am responsible for the accident? That I have given up the right to remedy under law? Thats ridiculous and against the principles of natural justice.

Also when has RTO ever been responsible for any accident that happens? Why does it want a undertaking from me absolving them from all legal liabilities if any against them?

The point is that such a undertaking will not withstand a legal test. If that is the case what is the point of taking such undertaking from bike owners.

Another important aspect is that by doing this RTO is discriminating. Does the RTO take such a undertaking from car owners saying that if you are not wearing a seat belt you are responsible for any accident that happens. Does it take a undertaking that if there are no airbags in your car you are responsible for any injuries that you will sustain in an accident?

The need of the hour is for proper and stringent enforcement of traffic rules and not such stunts.

[GTO]

Originally Posted by Sojogator

Affidavit, pledges and indemnity bond would be source to further 'adjustments' and hassle

'Adjustments' are available for every transaction in this country. If we go by your line of thought, should we just abolish every law in the country?

Also, I do not believe it is the duty of the govt to stipulate laws for the safety at a personal level.

It is actually. If there is something basic that the public doesn't understand, it's up to the government to enforce it. Do you also complain when you are forced to buckle up in an aeroplane? Do you complain when you are forced to buckle up in a car?

Originally Posted by naveenroy

Yes - seat-belts are also a basic safety device on the car. How many of drivers wear em regularly?

100 times more than if the law wasn't in place, I can assure you of that.

Originally Posted by Divya Sharan

Everything is fine and agreed to, but for this very point.

I have a few helmets with me (all DOT certified). I want to get a new bike for me, but not a helmet. What do I do?

Nothing is perfect out of the box. The requirement can always be tweaked to accommodate riders who already own helmets.

Originally Posted by PratikPatel

The RTO can pull out my undertaking and say that because you have signed a undertaking and you are not wearing a helmet you are fault for this accident?

I don't think the RTO is doing this to absolve itself of any legal responsibility (when was the last time someone sued the RTO for death due to not wearing a helmet???!!!). That's only an assumption.

My guess is, the RTO is doing this to spread awareness & increase helmet usage.

[v12]

This is a very good move by the RTO - along with ensuring that motorists buy a helmet, it will also ensure that they wear one too. Having said that, I am sure that this move is not with the intention of motorists safety. It may be more to do with reducing the insurance claims, boosting the sales of local helmets or probably motorcycle dealers making a quick buck.

Before implementing the helmet rule, the RTO along with the civic body should ensure that the road conditions are safe to ride. With the amount of digging going around the city and the number of potholes - there are equal chances of getting seriously injured while walking than riding. I would say - first make the roads safe and we will welcome all the safety rules you implement without any hesitation.

If a two-wheeler is to be registered, the buyer has to give a declaration on oath that he will wear a helmet while riding. The seller has to submit an affidavit declaring that he has sold a helmet along with the two-wheeler. The RTO will not register the vehicle if the two documents are not submitted.

What does this mean? Does this mean that the buyer has to purchase a helmet from the dealer? If so, why? Where is the freedom to chose? Dealers will definitely charge a bomb for their helmets. As long as there are cops to catch people riding without helmets - why should they bother from where the helmet has been bought?

And what is the RTO doing about the non-ISI roadside helmets that are being sold on the road-side?

Again I am not against this rule. Its just that the intentions behind such a rule are not for our benefit - but the benefits of others pockets. That said, please always wear a helmet while riding.

[Cartman]

Good move! Rather disappointing that this is limited to Mumbai as of now. I have long believed that if you want to enforce anything in Mumbai, make sure you levy heavy fines if the rules are not followed. In hindsight, that is how the Mumbai RTO enforced both, seat-belts and helmets. Also, it'd be swell if the cops themselves could start wearing seat-belts and helmets. Practice before you preach!

PS:The two-wheeled commuter community is generally at the receiving end of not-so-pleasant words from a lot of drivers, primarily because of their stupid urge to get into every millimeter of space available on the road. If they could stop doing that, I'd be a happy bloke.


Cheers!
Cartman

[outofthebox]

I think this is an excellent move by Mumbai RTO on the 'multi-controversial' topic of helmet usage in our country. It's a small step in the right direction and deserves to be applauded.

The other issues which should be tackled next with a greater involvement of RTO:

1) Enforcing a blanket ban on manufacture and sale of substandard helmets. TOI had written an excellent article on it a while back.

2) Implementation of biker friendly road layout & maintenance standards. (proper visibility of speed breakers, removal of potholes, parallel 'tar snakes'/repair strips etc)

3)Transferring the onus of helmet safety standards to RTO from ISI/BIS.

Although the ISI standard is pretty comprehensive (read: mostly a copy of ECE), it is the RTO organisations who are privy to data related to two wheeler accidents in our country. This puts them in a better position to implement feedback and constantly improve helmet safety standards in our country. As opposed to a 'disconnected' standards organisation like BIS blindly following a western standard.

DOT is the RTO of USA. They implement & enforce helmet safety & usage standards in USA. There is another 'amusing' observation about parallels with USA - India & USA are the only two major countries, where there is a wide spread resistance by riders against the use of helmets.