[KiloAlpha]

Originally Posted by vibbs

...
What they should do instead is ensure that such people do not receive any sort of insurance if proven that they ahd not worn a helmet while on a two wheeler or a seat belt in a car!!

Originally Posted by landcruiser123

I think it is high time insurance companies now publish full-page newspaper ads that medical coverage will be denied if rider/driver and other occupants are not wearing helmet/seatbelt.
...

In the spirit of "freedom of personal choice", we should allow people to not wear helmets. However, freedom goes hand-in-hand with responsibility. So the helmet-less riders will be responsible for all the consequences of their choice to not wear helmets. Insurance companies are well within their rights to put curbs on coverage based on risk. So yes, private insurance companies denying coverage due to willful negligence on the part of the rider (not wearing helmet) is probably going to nudge some of these guys to strap on helmets.

Then, the same anti-helmet committee will harangue IRDAI, take the case to Supreme Court, force PSU insurance companies to not make such rules on their medical/accident insurance policies, etc etc.

Bottom line is - the people who form such committees was all the freedom with none of the responsibility of the consequences of free choice.

They need to grow up and become adults.

[Shreyans_Jain]

Height of idiocy. Only so much the administration can do when the people are so damn stupid.

I strongly feel that the Motor Vehicles Act should have a provision that outrightly denies insurance claims in case of accident to
1. Those riding without helmets.
2. Those riding/driving on the wrong side of the road.

If you are openly tempting fate by riding without helmets, why should the insurance cos be liable for your folly? Oh... But what proportion of bikes on the road actually have a valid insurance cover?

[ksameer1234]

There will always be a tiny group who will come together and oppose just for the sake of it and to gain publicity. But it is the common public which is up against the helmet here. I have heard far too many stories from friends and relatives about how someone they knew took a fall from two wheeler and suffered serious / fatal injury to head, something which could have been avoided / reduced greatly with helmet.

Amazingly, these very same people still don't wear helmet. I think we should let evolution take care of this problem. The world is anyways suffering from overpopulation. Sorry for such sadist comment but it beats me as to how people give so little priority to their own safety.

[dailydriver]

Wow, wow and wow!

It is indeed naive of us to expect the knowledgeable folks from the Oxford of the east to be insane. They surely know what is good for them and what is not. Let me elaborate.

What is a helmet supposed to do?

Protect one's head's internals, right?

When time and again (2005 helmet rule, 2018 one way spike etc), these very Einsteins have proved beyond doubt that there is hardly anything worth protecting inside the skull, what is the necessity of an extra contraption?

Moreover, any decent helmet will at least weigh a kilogram. Would that not add to the load on two wheelers, reducing fuel efficiency? If a single rider can extract 0.000000001kmpl extra mileage by not wearing a protective shell over his stubborn head, think of the amount of fuel thousands of two wheeler riders can save in a month.

Will that not result in substantial foreign exchange savings for the nation?

We are short of oil, not people.

Let's laud the large heartedness of these selfless individuals who have come together for a noble cause.

Please stop berating the No Helmet Brigade.

[deadguy25]

Originally Posted by dailydriver

Wow, wow and wow!

When time and again (2005 helmet rule, 2018 one way spike etc), these very Einsteins have proved beyond doubt that there is hardly anything worth protecting inside the skull, what is the necessity of an extra contraption?

...
Will that not result in substantial foreign exchange savings for the nation?

We are short of oil, not people.

Let's laud the large heartedness of these selfless individuals who have come together for a noble cause.

Please stop berating the No Helmet Brigade.

Well written with a great pun.

In general, if the authorities let go of this rule due to public outcry, then other states may follow the same soon.

If they crib traffic is high, then people in Bangalore should be demanding a refund of all the tax we pay for our four\two-wheelers to use the roads in Bangalore.

[atnyia]

I did a survey with several known people here who don't wear a helmet AND oppose the implementation of the rule.

According to them, the primary problem is that wearing helmets ruins hairstyles.

A few other told me that wearing helmet affects their brains' motor functions and they might end up in an accident because of wearing a helmet.

You can't beat that logic, can you?

[saket77]

You know it is nearly impossible to kill someone who is hell bent on committing a suicide. These guys remind me again.

I am aghast. I thought we, the citizens are making some progress towards safety on roads by adapting seat belts, demanding safer cars, wearing helmets (both riders and pillion), asking for better infrastructure and now we get to read this! What do you do with them? Fine them? Not enough. These people are still living on the other side of spectrum. Hope they don't create trouble for anyone by getting into accidents.

Actually I wonder if I need a law to keep myself safe in the first place? Safety is not an option, that's the basic premise.

[paragsachania]

Pune Traffic Police I believe have been struggling to put sense into fellow motorists on why and how wearing helmets will save your life in case of an accident.

Came across this post today on their Facebook page where the lady rider who stopped spotting the signal turn red was rear ended by a car and soon after she suffered a fall. The car driver instead of asking her well being accused her of braking abruptly and causing the minor accident. The rider also goes on to say that how wearing a helmet ensured that she was alive and able to talk right now.

The video I believe is filmed by the cops themselves and you can see the constable on duty in the end along with the car that rear ended including the occupants. The incident could he minor, but the message is not. I hope my dear Punekars take this seriously and start wearing helmets.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?sto...48036915234615

[Samurai]

Talking to Pune Mirror, Ankush Kakade, NCP leader and member of the action committee, said, “We are strictly against imposition of this helmet compulsion. This will create huge inconvenience to the riders. Why is there a need for helmets when the speed of vehicles within city limits is not more than 20-25 kmph?”

Well, it depends from person to person. During my 2-wheeler riding days (early 90s), Bangalore police had a very helpful tip posted on M.G Road. It said "If you have a brain, protect it with helmet". So it should be optional to people without brain.

I've had two 2-wheeler accidents those days, both times at 15-20kms speed. Both times I landed on the ground head/face first, followed by rest of the body. Since I always had a brain, I wore face covering helmet both times. So I could get up, and ride to nearby clinic to dress the injuries on my hands and knees. If I didn't have helmet, I would have required an ambulance both times.

[saket77]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Why is there a need for helmets when the speed of vehicles within city limits is not more than 20-25 kmph?

Quoting the leader in your quote.

20-25 KMPH not enough to kill?

Someone in my extended family suffered a fall at home. She sustained a severe injury on her head and unfortunately succumbed to it. She was declared DOA by the nearest hospital the family members took her to.

So, if one can sustain such grievous injury while walking around at home, imagine what even 20-25 kmph can do. Plus falling from a two wheeler on the hard road surface and to the equation, add the chances of injury caused by other passing vehicles too.

So, take your pick. Remembering the age old DD advertisement on helmets- 'Sar aapka, marzi aapki.' (Your head, your choice). Or may be they have kind of already made their choice.

[deadguy25]

If these helmetless people fall on their own then it is their head and headache, if they happen to touch our ride and fall, then it becomes our headache too.

[dailydriver]

Like the Spartans of the yore, the head(?)men of the Helmet Hatao Andolan would read the following line and reply:

Originally Posted by Samurai

"If you have a brain, protect it with helmet".

IF

(An appropriate choice of smileys, don't you all think?)

[paragsachania]

Originally Posted by saket77

20-25 KMPH not enough to kill?

Even when stationary and you are hit by a car at good speeds, your body will be tossed in air and you will suffer a deadly fall or hit any other hard object like a wall or a pavement.

I recollect my friend who was waiting at a Signal in his car when he was rear ended by another car and only because he was belted he suffered a small cut on his tongue right during that impact.

So we certainly don't need examples that how slower speeds don't necessarily mean you won't suffer a head injury. I guess the so called *group/association* protesting against this rule must be shown examples of what can happen with crash test dummies.

[Sherlocked]

I am of this belief that the rule of wearing helmets and seatbelts should only be recommendatory and not mandatory.

When these rules are imposed by law, they just become an extra source of income for some of our corrupt traffic police officers.

Officials should focus more on punishing people who drive recklessly/rashly, break traffic signals, drive while talking on a cellphone, driving under the influence, etc.

Instead of these, they focus more on catching people without helmets, seat belts and letting most of them go after a small bribe which goes directly into their pockets.

If some guy is riding without a helmet or driving without seatbelts and gets into an accident then he is risking his own life while for the offenses which I mentioned above, the offender is risking other people's lives as well. Hence, the latter should be focused more upon.

Simply said, helmets and seatbelts should be seen upon similar as crossing a rail track without making sure there is no train coming. If you don't, then you are only responsible if something goes wrong!

[locusjag]

Originally Posted by damanbir

I read online that their main excuse for not wearing helmets is the slow moving traffic at 20-25 KMPH in the city. This is absolutely ridiculous!!

People underestimate the things that can go wrong with motorcycles; the risks associated with them are not necessarily limited to when their motorcycles are moving.

My uncle, with TVS R&D and TVS racing for 35 years now has told me how they would set out on test mules from Hosur and cover huge distances in a day.

One such colleague of his had his helmet on when testing a new motorcycle. They had just returned safely from the Pune area to the Hosur TVS plant. He had taken his helmet off and was simultaneously trying to apply the side-stand for the motorcycle. He thought he had kicked the side-stand down, but he hadn't. As he relaxed and lifted that leg off the ground, down he went with the bike. His unprotected head met the tarmac and he left a bereaved family behind on this earth.

After covering hundreds of Kilometers safely with a helmet and protective riding gear on his torso, hands, knees and feet, he died at the precise moment when his helmet was off and when he was parking his stationary motorcycle!

Originally Posted by landcruiser123

I think it is high time insurance companies now publish full-page newspaper ads that medical coverage will be denied if rider/driver and other occupants are not wearing helmet/seatbelt.

One of the key principles of insurance is that no damage or claim arising out of an illegal act will be a covered event. If the law states that wearing a helmet is mandatory, and if an individual doesn't do so, any insurer is free to deny coverage. That is true only at a fundamental level though.

I know that it is true of vehicle insurance, when you're trying to cover damage to the vehicle; a getaway driver cannot claim physical damage coverage for the getaway car saying "I was ferrying the bank robbers away from the scene at 120 Kmph through Chandni Chowk when the wheel rims got bent by a deep pothole."

But I think medical insurance coverage would still cover an injured individual regardless of whether the rider was wearing a helmet or not. Why? I don't know/can't explain why at the moment. I just don't see it happening that way and for the moment, I'm stumped. It shouldn't be covered, yes. But it will be. Why?