[Nahushrc]

Originally Posted by am1m

I say why bother at all? Why get into fights or try and find ways to convince people who won't be convinced anyway.

It actually started out with the uncle asking about my bike. Then I just politely asked him why he wasn't wearing a helmet, to which he replied “there are no cops around today“. That's when I told him the helmet was for his safety not the cops', and that debate progressed and ended with me calling him stupid. In retrospect I also think I should have let it go.

Haven't preached on the roads since

[antz.bin]

Pune RTO is getting ready with all guns blazing.

Round 2 will not be the easy victory Punekars were expecting.

https://www.google.co.in/amp/s/m.tim...w/66757614.cms

[ksameer1234]

Originally Posted by antz.bin

Pune RTO is getting ready with all guns blazing.

Wow! This will be interesting. An unstoppable force meeting an immovable object! The article says helmets are mandatory for pillions as well. If true, it will be really amazing to see how people respond.

[haldar_siliguri]

On a lighter note, a temporary helmet business might not be a bad prospect in Pune at least for the next few months.

[paragsachania]

Originally Posted by antz.bin

Pune RTO is getting ready with all guns blazing.

Round 2 will not be the easy victory Punekars were expecting.

For now, I can say this is good news and I so wish the victory is of the authority and not the moronic public opposing this rule with the most illogical rationale.

I hope the authorities do not succumb to pressure tactics that will have a political mileage to gain as we all know.

If they fail this time, I am sure this thread will get refreshed in may be 2025!

[quickfox11]

OT: Although policemen here are no saints, the authority is actually doing some serious work and in a civilized manner.

Yesterday, a traffic police vehicle with speakers (which they use to disperse traffic and move halted vehicles on the roads) while waiting at a signal, was announcing to citizens that do not stop on zebra crossing - its wrong and would result in electronic challan.

Today, at another signal I saw a traffic constable telling motorist the same as well as asking bikers why they do not have helmets on their heads.

It's good to see their efforts. But only till some dimhead will start quarrelling with them for giving free preaching!!

[deadguy25]

Originally Posted by quickfox11

Yesterday, a traffic police vehicle with speakers (which they use to disperse traffic and move halted vehicles on the roads) while waiting at a signal, was announcing to citizens that do not stop on zebra crossing - its wrong and would result in electronic challan.

Here at Bangalore, I think even the cops have forgotten how a zebra crossing would look. Lot of places do not have them at all. So, at a signal, we can either stop or choose to jump; if we stop, we can stop anywhere, right up to the middle of the road. Trust me, the others have to be happy and appreciative of the fact that one has stopped for the sake of the signal.

In general, any idea from when the helmet rule @ Pune is being implemented in full swing?

[itwasntme]

Just this week, one of my elderly (but physically very fit) relatives suffered a shoulder fracture + extensive ligament damage when he was forced to dive to the side of the road to avoid a rashly driven cab. My relative was doing around 2 km/hr :-)

I shudder to think of the damages that 2 wheeler riders self-inflict when they avoid certified helmets and even routine rider padding like knee and elbow pads.

This particular group's action should be entered into Ripley's!

[quickfox11]

Originally Posted by deadguy25

Here at Bangalore, I think even the cops have forgotten how a zebra crossing would look.

In general, any idea from when the helmet rule @ Pune is being implemented in full swing?

It's from Jan 1.

In Pune, people say - "Don't follow the traffic lights, follow the people in front of you. If they have started moving, so should you!" If you don't, go deaf by honkings or probably someone will nudge your vehicle with his to ask you to move!

They all know that a single policeman cannot handle a beeline of riders coming together from the wrong side. And they are confident that at least one in them would be local 'dada', ready to fight and throw weight more than his blingy RE! So, even policemen just watch helplessly!

Originally Posted by itwasntme

Just this week, one of my elderly (but physically very fit) relatives suffered a shoulder fracture + extensive ligament damage

So unfortunate!

[ach1lles]

I have a bit of a contrarian view on this. Wearing helmets and engaging seatbelts is a personal safety issue. Using either, or not, does not change their behaviour on the road, does it? They don't bother anyone else on the road by not using a helmet or a seatbelt.
So why enforce it? Those who don't care for their safety, let them get hurt, or worse, and set an example for others to learn from. I mean, what next? I can't do a backflip because I might break my neck?
Making sure the rules of the road that might endanger others on the road are far more pertinent, and should be enforced with a higher priority.

[Axe77]

For the various posts (and I know many are of course sarcastic / in lighter vein but some serious too) saying people should be allowed to take the risk of self harm due to their stupidity, imagine this:

A reckless 2 wheeler rider driving rashly hits / gets hit by a car, falls and dies of a head injury. This is not an unrealistic scenario in India. Suppose a helmet could have prevented this from being a case of death.

Now the car guy, despite not being at fault is facing absolute liability under law vis a vis the bike rider. If he has died, the car driver faces culpable homicide prosecution.

Laws have to be made with some civic sense and people cannot be given absolute freedom.

[am1m]

Originally Posted by Axe77

Now the car guy, despite not being at fault is facing absolute liability under law vis a vis the bike rider. If he has died, the car driver faces culpable homicide prosecution.

Absolutely, absolutely. That is why the govt/law has no option but to enforce such rules for sure. I think what most of us were getting at was the frustration of us as individuals about this situation.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by ach1lles

So why enforce it? Those who don't care for their safety, let them get hurt, or worse, and set an example for others to learn from.

If a biker without helmet banged into your car and broke his head, do you want to be held responsible?

Quoting a post from 2007:

Originally Posted by Samurai

I had a similar experience in Bangalore with my Santro once, I braked to avoid a stopping car in front of me and a biker rams into me. I got out, asked whether he is alright, he was dazed but said he was fine. Santro had couple of dent on the back bumper. His helmet visor had cracked right in the center by hitting his head to the bike handle. The helmet actually saved him from cracking his head on his bike handle. Meanwhile a crowd was forming to take up a fact finding mission. Once I realised the biker was unhurt, I got in the car and took off. I didn't want to wait for the verdict of the fact finding mission. They would have found me guilty of reckless braking in front of a biker.

The biker broke his visor and was only dazed, because he had a helmet. If he was helmet-less and broke his head, street-side juries would have beat me up for braking suddenly.

Do you want to be in that position?

[smooth indian]

Mod note: Back to back posts. Please use Edit once the post is approved. Thanks.

Originally Posted by selfdrive

Oddly enough, if you tell a Punekar he is oversmart, that would most likely be taken as a compliment.

A case of 'Laughing at oneself' being interpreted as 'Laughing with oneself'.

Originally Posted by antz.bin

Pune RTO is getting ready with all guns blazing.

Round 2 will not be the easy victory Punekars were expecting.

https://www.google.co.in/amp/s/m.tim...w/66757614.cms

This whole 'saga' has the ingredients of a sequel to the 2007 British Movie 'Hot Fuzz'

[ach1lles]

Originally Posted by Axe77

Suppose a helmet could have prevented this from being a case of death.

Yeah, and the riders clearly don't know this, do they? It's like smoking. They all (okay, most of us, if not all) know a helmet would be safer, and they choose to ignore it anyway.

Originally Posted by Axe77

Now the car guy, despite not being at fault is facing absolute liability under law vis a vis the bike rider. If he has died, the car driver faces culpable homicide prosecution.

What about other bodily harm? What if the rider breaks their limbs, gets paralysed, or becomes a cripple? That can happen even if you're wearing a helmet. Why stop at just the helmet then?

Originally Posted by Axe77

Laws have to be made with some civic sense and people cannot be given absolute freedom.

It is certainly not absolute freedom that I spoke about. There are laws that pertain to others' safety on the road directly, which, IMO, should be prioritised.
A bike cutting lanes or a car driving on the wrong side of the road or cattle jumping in from out of absolutely nowhere, are more offensive acts that endanger others on the road far more than a helmet or a seat belt for personal safety.

Originally Posted by Samurai

If a biker without helmet banged into your car and broke his head, do you want to be held responsible?

If a bike rider wearing a helmet hits your car and broke his neck, or a leg, or something else, do you want to be held responsible?

Originally Posted by Samurai

Do you want to be in that position?

Way to make a point using a hypothetical situation that totally did not happen.