[wheelguy]

The transport minister of Gujarat, R.C. Faldu has just announced that wearing a helmet while riding a two wheeler is ‘optional’ within city limits. Helmets will have to be worn by those using highways and village roads though. The helmet exemption only applies to municipal corporation and municipality limits. Meanwhile, here is the statement that the minister just made while announcing that helmet use for two wheeler riders was now optional on city roads, according to TheHindu,

"We received many complaints regarding mandatory helmets within the city areas. So we decided to make it option only within the city areas."

https://www.cartoq.com/helmets-optional-in-gujarat/

[hserus]

So enforcement of helmet regulations is left to Old Man Darwin. Let the less intelligent break their heads in accidents is the corollary to what this chap has now decreed.

The cops will be disappointed, non wearing of helmets has been a reliable source of fines and that has now gone away.

[SmartCat]

RC Faldu makes sense. I wonder if he got the Transport Minister's job because of his initials.

Stopping at red lights too should be made optional within city limits, but compulsory on highways and village roads.

[jailbird_fynix]

Brilliant! It's good to see the Minister employing such effective population control strategies. Are we sure that this is the Transport Minister and not the Minister Of Health & Family Welfare?

[Hayek]

As a libertarian, I have to agree with him - why should the government protect two wheeler riders from their own stupidity? The only error is that he restricted it to cities alone - why can’t people kill themselves on highways or in rural areas? Hope he also scraps rules on wearing seat belts, crash testing of cars (the market will ask for safe cars if it wants them), air bags etc. And why have RC books at all? - they are Faltu. So repeat after me “ RC Faltu”

[Chetan_Rao]

It would be amusing, if it wasn't horrifying that we're at the mercy of lawmakers like these making critical public safety decisions & policy.

[GTO]

What a regressive move! If the transport minister were to ever fall on his head in the city, he'll realise that concrete road is just as hard as the one on highways!

Originally Posted by Hayek

why should the government protect two wheeler riders from their own stupidity?

I feel in obvious areas like these, the government has a responsibility to make people understand what they don't themselves. That's also why seatbelts are mandatory by law, as are airbags & ABS. We can't leave the option of selecting ABS as an option on the end car buyer.

[shankar.balan]

What idiocy is this? Irresponsible statements of this nature can only emanate from people who are truly distanced from reality on the ground.
Elected Representatives like this are seriously exemplary in showcasing their stupidity.

So now helmets are not necessary. That’s lovely. What a sense of freedom one will get, with that wind in the hair feeling!

There is absolutely no regulation around transporting construction workers and similar working people to various sites by open tractor/ trailer.
Nor is there any regulation around packs of people sitting at the back of those little delivery trucks and other types of trucks/ vans.
And such means of transportation actually ply happily on the highways and superhighways with complete impunity.
None of the above (least of all, the driver and front passenger) are constrained by seatbelt’s or any similar restraining aids.
None of the above smoke belching vehicles seem to be regulated in terms of emissions, and safety aids like ABS and Airbags etc.

But, there is in the same breath, deep and draconian regulation for all private cars, motorbikes and so on, around ABS and Airbags and Emissions and all the rest of it.

A country full of polarities.

[KiloAlpha]

<dripping sarcasm>
For all those who are calling the hon'ble transport minister's rule as regressive are not understanding the deep philosophy behind it.
See, when an individual does not wear a helmet, he/she is at very high risk of Traumatic Brain Injury in case of an accident. That is the risk of accident multiplied by risk of brain injury in case of accident. Which is ... well, who knows? And does anyone care?
However, the decision to wear or not wear the helmet depends solely on whether or not the individual feels responsible for his/her own continued existence. Now, in Western societies, this responsibility is highly concentrated on the individual. BUT, we are not in the "West", this is India. Responsibility for the helmetless 2-wheeler rider's continued existence is shared between other vehicle users, pedestrians, animals, push-cart vendors, 3 layers of Government, Fate, various Gods, the sins of your past birth, etc etc.
I think this the main point of the hon'ble transport minister's pronouncement.
<end dripping sarcasm>

But seriously, if we are to have a "helmet is optional" rule, I think all the associated consequences of Traumatic Brain Injury should be solely the responsibility of the rider - basically, treat the rider like an adult (see footnote below for definition of "adult"). In the event of an accident and brain injury, all medical treatment, even at Government hospitals, should be paid for by the rider. No insurance pay-out at all. The unwritten "bigger vehicle is automatically at fault" will not apply. Can't sue the local authority for the pothole that led to the accident. Etc etc.

Footnote: An adult is a person who takes full responsibility for all of his/her actions (or inaction) and words. Proportion of Indians above the age of 18 who qualify as adults is up for debate.

[navin_v8]

Sad times we are living in, first it as Pune and now Gujarat where wearing helmet is optional. WHY?

The answer is simple, because people DON'T want to wear helmet. In the greed for votes the authorities are appeasing people of their whimsical/unreasonable demands.

I have been in a sideways collision accident where I was thrown from my bike and landed on my head. Had I not worn the helmet, I wouldn't be alive and typing this. The impact of hitting the tarmac was so hard that the helmet flexed which resulted in the visor popping out off its assembly. Imagining the impact that was absorbed by the helmet, had I not worn it, my head would've opened up like a smashed watermelon.

It pains me to see some ladies/men dropping off their children to school on a scooter. 8 out of 10 times neither parent is wearing a helmet and 0 out of 10 times the child is without helmet. Some parents don't even know that there are helmets available for children offered by both local and foreign brands.

My 5 year old nephew loves to ride pillion on a motorcycle, but I don't allow him if he doesn't wear a helmet. He cries and resists on not wearing a helmet as it makes him feel claustrophobic, but I don't budge. Moral: I am trying to impart the importance of safety in his mind from childhood.

IMO people riding a two wheeler without a helmet are SUICIDAL and a threat to themselves and others on road.

It amuses/baffles me when I confront people doing this and they say, "Agar mere naseeb mein yeh likha hai toh hoga hi." English Translation, "If it is written in my fate for this to happen, then nothing can stop it."

At the end of the day, besides other factors one's SAFETY is one's OWN RESPONSIBILITY.

[hserus]

Originally Posted by navin_v8

It pains me to see some ladies/men dropping off their children to school on a scooter. 8 out of 10 times neither parent is wearing a helmet and 0 out of 10 times the child is without helmet. Some parents don't even know that there are helmets available for children offered by both local and foreign brands.

I live near a school and there are a couple of blind 90 degree right turns near my place. So every so often some unhelmeted aunty or uncle with one kid on an Activa's pillion and another one standing in front crosses to the wrong side of the road and does a wrong side right turn .. to sudden brake right in front of my Scorpio. Even that doesn't seem to cure them of the habit, I see the same people doing the same thing day in and day out so I never take those turns without honking and flashing my lights.

[arvind71181]

I don't care if an adult wants to die because he/she prioritizes comfort over safety.

What I do worry about is, if I am involved in an accident with a 2-wheeler guy without a helmet and a serious injury occurs. I do not want to be the collateral damage for some random persons' decision not to wear a helmet

[bpnpmr]

Well apart from the minsters decision based on complaints, the use of helmets does protect ones head (skull and Brain) - this however depends on the construction, any damages that helmet may have sustained, speed of collision, helmet design etc. No doubt our Brain is a vital organ and needs protection during driving, however, helmets do not protect the upper spine (neck region - cervical spine) which can lead to fatality or severe neurological injuries to the spinal cord (resulting from direct injury to the collar bones or sudden neck movements).
Users need to choose there helmets wisely and companies need to look at ways to protect the upper spine during driving.

[SS80]

I am shocked to see this news, how can someone bring out this ruling? Isn't it a Supreme Court order that helmets are a must for rider and pillion?

Vote bank greed alone must be the root cause for this kind of a call. This also shows, what they (politicians) think about people. Comfort over safety, hairstyle over HEAD.

[speedmiester]

Enforcing the helmet rule does not make sense as people just wear for the sake of escaping fines rather than their own safety.
Instead, there needs to be regulations that if a two wheeler rider without helmet dies or gets injured in an accident, their insurance will be null and void even if they are not at fault.