[WindRide]

Do i feel sad for this drunkard who most probably died in this accident? NO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgCLwCkVydM

Glad this ruling came about.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by abhishek46

But, how are you so sure that this will never, ever save even a single life?
That is why even if there is no data, and it is illogical, my support still goes to it.

This is a well known logical fallacy, claiming it must be true because it is not proven otherwise.

That can't be a basis for destroying 1 million jobs.

[libranof1987]

Originally Posted by WindRide

Do i feel sad for this drunkard who most probably died in this accident? NO.

OT: how can one be sure the driver was drunk?

You may be aware of that famous Delhi-cop-drunk-in-Metro video where we later found out that the cop had had a seizure.

We are not expected to go into harm's way just to check if the other person needs help or actually help them but surely we can have our facts straight before coming to a conclusion.

[Jaggu]

Just thinking out loud, moving the liquor shops 500 Mts inside means... more highway traffic will flow into them and then the drunken folks drive back in thicker traffic.

Won't this ^ cause more accidents than on highway? Simple mathematical probability this.

Like so many mentioned, courts in our country also needs lot of rework. Figure out more scientific and social consultation methods than use individual temperament towards decision makings in such topics.

[poloman]

I am not a teetotaler. I neither support drinking nor support banning of drinking. That is purely a personal choice.

I strongly condemn this move by supreme court. This is just like the sun film ban after which judges themselves start travelling around in cars with curtains instead of sun film. What purpose has that judgement served? That totally crippled the booming sun film industry, but never stopped crime against women. Ordinary people are left out sweltering in summer heat. That is the only after effect of this.
With this judgement SC has gone a step further. Here is the statistics of National Crime Records Bureau on accidents in India. A mere 1.5% cases are caused by DUI as per this report below.
The details are available at this link
http://ncrb.nic.in/StatPublications/...l%20report.pdf
Now if you are crippling a significant contributor of your economy for such a low statistically occurring issue, there is something really bad in the way Judges frame their opinion.
Also there are two major dry states in the country, Gujarat and Bihar. Is the accident rate in these two states significantly lower? The records do not suggest so. In fact Gujarat is one of the states with highest accident rate. So this is a clear case of judges wandering in to the domain of moral policing.

I also come from Kerala. Agree to many people who say drinking has become a major issue in the state. But there are many factors contributing to this seemingly visual pollution by tipplers. This has something to do with the drastic cut down of outlets and bars in the state. This has led to people crowding in front of outlets and drinking in public places. Bangalore has a liquor shop in every corner. I have not seen a single soul lying unconscious on the sidewalks. They either drink at a bar or take the bottle home and drink peacefully. So if you limit the supply and make it a big taboo all hells will break lose like what is happening in Kerala. A queue in front of a beverage shop was supposedly 2Km long and all major cities had traffic jams

[phamilyman]

Originally Posted by binand

This is not the SC's hypothesis. It was GoI's position for at least the last 10 years and was repeatedly communicated to the state governments.

So what if it was the GoI's position? The repeated question is whether it stands up to a real world test or not.

This reminds me of Goebbels' propaganda thesis: “Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”. Ditto for flawed ideas. Repeat a morally compelling but fatally flawed idea long enough and it becomes the rule.

Forget the states, the GoI should've tested it out in union territories.

I think this 500m is inconvenient for most places except for cities like Delhi. Let's leave my opinion aside. Let's read MoRTH's "Road Accidents in India, 2014", shall we?

1. Drunken driving accounts for only 5%/6.8% of the accidents / deaths on Indian roads. Thus, this initiative, however, noble, does NOT address the bulk of the deaths, which are driver related. Clearly the government cares more about decrees that are easier to pass, THAN about enforcing speed limits (which accounts for 8.3x the deaths from drunk driving), since it is hard work.

2. Regardless, let us then examine the data. Let us see whether this sweeping order makes sense, or not? Let us ask ourselves, whether there was any way the government could have sliced and diced the data better?

Exhibit 1: Annexure 32, Accidents classified according to responsibility of driver during the calendar year 2014


Read the data for each city. Let this data sink in. The government has been maintaining a statistically indefensible policy stand, which has now been enforced by the SC.

There was absolutely NO NEED to execute this order in Goa, Delhi, Daman & Diu, Manipur, Chandigarh, D&N Haveli or even in Kerala / Himachal / NE states (excl Assam) for that matter. Even in other places, the number of deaths is staggeringly low.

Even otherwise, the real question is - how many of these accidents will be prevented by moving the liquor vends 500m away? That theory only works as long as the root cause is that DUI accidents are caused by long distance drivers, and who are otherwise competent to drive hundreds of km, but will be somehow dissuaded from driving an additional km. That seems contrary to human behavior. Further, this theory seems to ignore that many DUI cases are of locals, rather than long distance trippers. In which case, the net effect will not be positive, and can even be negative, since now inner city dwellers need to drive further to get their fix, and need to cover more distances drunk. Not every town / village has the convenience of Uber/Ola, right?


Of course, if I read the data wrong, please feel free to correct me. I could be wrong - let's improve our thinking as a team!

EDIT: I will slice this data further later in the week - to further isolate the states that actually have a problem. But let's chew on this set for now.

[binand]

Originally Posted by phamilyman

Of course, if I read the data wrong, please feel free to correct me.

This was mentioned in some reportage in another context - if a drunk driver overspeeds and causes an accident, it is counted in "Exceeding lawful speed" and not in "Intake of alcohol" (and similarly in other cases). That is, some of the accidents under all the remaining heads have a DUI root cause. One reason cited was that DUI status is often unknown when the accident is reported.

[tsk1979]

“When the management of the marriage palace refused to serve liquor on the premises following the Supreme Court’s directions, we turned our cars and SUVs into bars for our guests,” said Jaspal Singh, a close relative of a local family, which was solemnising a marriage at a local marriage palace here. Jaspal Singh said police personnel would “understand” the problem and “cooperate”.

From http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/cha...rs/386383.html

You can make any sort of laws. For example forbidding drinking unless you are dancing naked. The only thing which will take care of drunk driving problem is enforcement. On NH1 there were liquor shops right on the highway where people would drink in their cars and then drive off. How difficult is it for policy to have a flying squad. Did they do it? Did they need any new law? Drunk driving is already illegal.

The problem in India has never been laws, its always been the enforcement. But then, when only thing you have is a hammer, every problem is a nail. So every branch thinks they can solve a problem with whatever they have. But every law, every rule, every guideline is useless without enforcement. Supreme court said no loud speakers after 11pm. Go a few kms away from houses of the law makers, and the judgement goes away. Until the enforcement problem can be fixed, its all useless.

[deetjohn]

A colleague of mine is from Mahe and it is one of the most affected places due to the ban.

He was waiting for his bus to Kochi on Sunday night and the whole place was dark and deserted. He never knew there were no street lights and the light was all from these innumerous shops selling liquor by the road side.

The shopkeepers - bakery, hotels etc are all really worried about their business as the cash flows have dried up. The tipplers used to buy things other than bottles and now that has stopped.

And my colleague is worried whether liquor shops will start to open at residential areas away from the highway.

[phamilyman]

Originally Posted by binand

This was mentioned in some reportage in another context - if a drunk driver overspeeds and causes an accident, it is counted in "Exceeding lawful speed" and not in "Intake of alcohol" (and similarly in other cases). That is, some of the accidents under all the remaining heads have a DUI root cause. One reason cited was that DUI status is often unknown when the accident is reported.

Sure - I worried about that myself. I am surprised at the low number myself. But to my mind, this is where the government needs to be strict and build its case right. That said, the surprisingly low numbers indicate either large scale fraud by the police (which should be fixed first!!) or that the theory doesnt hold.

In the absence of any fresh data, I will simply not be able to support such a sweeping regulation. Running the country on the strength of moral ideas that don't work, is a really slippery slope.

[searacer932]

I for one very very happy that the TASMAC shops in Chennai's NH and SH are closed. These guys were complete nuisance. Crossing the road in drunken state and posing huge risks to people on the road. Have seen few accidents in OMR main road where people in drunken state just blindly try crossing the road without any awareness of their surroundings.

[ninjatalli]

So all the folks crying foul on this thread - what exactly is the main problem?

That the government / SC is setting up new rules without an emperical data driven approach? Or is this because you support the inflow of liquor revenue for restaurants and bars adjacent to highways?

Frankly, I'm surprised the average person has an issue unless he or she prefers to have the liquor availability for their own highway trips; or actually are affected (i.e. linked to the hospitality industry).

Granted, this seems to be a knee-jerk reaction; but atleast in this case I see some morally correct ruling in this. Frankly a highway free of bars is a good sign in some manner atleast than one with bars lined up.

As for the loss of 'potential' revenue to the hospitality industry; as someone correctly mentioned - those who want to have a drink will go beyond the 500 mt limit. So only a subset of restaurants and bars (and dhabas) that had invested close to the highways now will have to rethink their business. Maybe this might lead to more good food options coming up on the highways

Btw saw/read that Incredible India initiative is also affected by this. I wonder how/why?

[Sankar]

Good move! Because proper enforcement to work as a strong deterrent to DUI is nonexistant in practise. Puts a stop to impromptu drink and drive incidents when out with friends/colleagues/cousins on a highway trip sees "BAR" at a distance and proceeds to stop there to down a few shots/beers and continue the rest of the journey. In many of the impromptu/unplanned drink and drive occasions (due to inefficiency in enforcement) the absence of an easy access watering hole en-route will kill the desire for many.

PS: I'm not a non-drinker.

So in a country with jugaad mindset this works. Proper always takes more time, effort and more importantly will. To handle one jugaad with another jugaad is classy; and thats how state govts are mulling over de-notifying state highways.

[heydj]

Government is sleeping on the wheel and courts stepping in to do their job. Sorry state of affairs indeed.

Increasingly I am getting a feeling that we are living in a fascist state.

[phamilyman]

Ninja and Sankar,

This is problematic because life is not a one round game and because addiction does not end at an arbitrary 500m boundary. It is fine in chess to keep going on with multiple rounds of jugaad. But when millions of livelihoods and billions in investments by aam aadmi entrepreneurs are at stake, the government needs to collect the evidence, exhaust all possible alternatives and then choose the best one, instead of the morally appealing one.

This is about as useless as the idea to print ghastly images on cigarette packets. In my extensive network, not one person even so much as paused, much less give up his or her fix. Ignoring the vagaries and stubbornness of the human mind is fallacious to say the least.

In my mind, water tight policing is the only cure. That's the one shot solution to multiple problems, as I've seen in my two years in Chennai. Even in Mumbai or Gurgaon, drunk driving reduces dramatically when the police get strict. How tough is it to ensure that? Today we have technology to enable us to roll out such initiatives very easily and ensure compliance.