[Stratosphere]

Originally Posted by binand

Tourism industry in Kerala was shown - with numbers - to be growing despite the booze ban there. DUI is increasing in the US at least.

Incidentally - the nearest DUI checkpoing near my house is at NAL gate in Murugesh Palya. So drivers who have actually consumed alcohol go via 12th Main/4th Main and Suranjan Das Road to hit OA Road from Indira Nagar. Easily avoids the DUI check.

What you fail to see is the rate of growth. Earlier hospitality was growing at over 20% but due to these squint eyed measures, the industry is crippled. Add to that the pressure of GST and it makes no sense for anyone to invest in hospitality right now. What about the people who have already invested and were counting on goverment support?

DUI checking is the administration's responsibility. When we open a bar or a restaurant, we cannot check every patron who goes out our doors. Sorry to say but this is a case of punishing someone who has no idea what is going on.

Originally Posted by avira_tk

The MICE sector has been battered by the ban, with growth at a standstill when additional capacity has been added. All that investment has gone down the tube adding to the NPAs of banks that are already stressed.

The MICE sector is the biggest contributor to revenue to all properties in India. It's the way the economy works. Companies outsource things like catering and hospitality to hotels because they can't coordinate everything. When you remove a bulk of liquor providing hotels from the equation, it is essentially a roadblock in the functioning of the business machinery. Hotels lose revenue because they can't host events and companies have further headaches because they don't have any venues.

How is this supportive of the industry ?

Originally Posted by TorqueyTechie

What I mean to say is that its a vicious circle of one feeding the other. Government, cops and the business owners. Government wants money (legal and illegal), cops (well atleast few of them) want to perform their duty but again will not or cannot do it and business owners, lets say they are there to do business and by any means. In the end, "Sabse bada rupaiyya, bhaiyya".

Again this is the fault of the administration. Business owners would obviously like to do business. It's the way they are made. And after putting crores in investment and providing thousands of people with jobs, they deserve to earn something for their pains?

The more rules and regulations are put on any sector, the more business owners will devise ways to get out of the clutches. They didn't invest their money to become lawyers and fight their way out of hundreds of rules.

With due respect, any way you look at it, this is a very one sided measure and sooner or later the people who have made the decision and the ones supporting it, will face difficulties. Even the man who made the PIL is facing difficulties.

Sorry for the long post and any words which may have hurt someone. I just speak for the business side.

Thank you.

[binand]

Originally Posted by avira_tk

There is significantly less drunk driving at that time, that's why the checking is less, certainly there are random checks at that time at those times, you may not be aware of this.

Random checks on ORR between 6-8 PM?

A statement like "significantly less drunk driving at that time" needs to be substantiated. Any reference for this?

And even if we take it at face value, DUI checks should not to be scheduled based on number of drivers on the road who are drunk; such scheduling tells people what is a "safe" time to be on the road drunk.

Originally Posted by avira_tk

Kerala tourism is growing at 6% where Sri Lankan tourism is growing at 20%, there is huge drop in numbers. People in the industry don't agree with the government propaganda which you seem to have swallowed.

Again something unquantified and unsubstantiated like "huge drop in numbers". If you think government numbers are incorrect please share the numbers that you think are correct. I only quoted numbers from an article someone shared here. The key point was that Kerala tourism grew just as much in the years when the bar ban was effective, as in years when it wasn't.

In any case, Kerala government's propaganda is that tourism is suffering and hence we need the bars open - though their own numbers don't agree with them.

Originally Posted by avira_tk

Tourists regret having wasted their holiday in a dry place and say that they would have been better off choosing South East Asia.

Did anyone actually conduct a survey among the tourists to substantiate the claim that they "regret wasting their holiday" because of non-availability of booze?

All we have is a survey conducted among 3+* bar owners that said MICE is suffering (not overall bookings) due to the excise policy. For the drop in overall bookings their cited reason was "competition" - homestays and the like (from same state).

So the only downside I can see from Kerala's booze ban (which will be lifted from 1/7, incidentally) is the drop in MICE. That I agree, but it is not the only foundation on which the state's tourism industry is based. The rest of the industry seems to be going strong.

In any case, the question is about highway ban. The position of those who are opposed to the ban is that DUI has to controlled only by police action. The point about ORR at 6 PM above is (a) either faulty reasoning (in which case I'd like to know why) or (b) shows the frailty of that argument. In the general case, the argument is that DUI checks cannot cover all the roads all 24 hours a day, therefore there will be unchecked roads and hence DUI on those roads.

Thinking about this a bit: if the bar owners were a bit caring of the result of their business they'd have taken measures themselves to reduce DUI. Like not allowing people to drive out when they're drunk; offering VAS like driver-for-hire, overnight stay etc. and in the worst case calling the cops themselves, it wouldn't have come to this. At the moment they are part of the problem and don't seem to have any inclination to align themselves with the solution. The sad part is that the government seems to be worried only about the short-term impact on its revenue stream.

[sdp1975]

How effective are DUI checkpoints ? The reports here and here state that :

The survey found no deterrent effect: "To date, there is no evidence to indicate that this campaign, which involves a number of sobriety checkpoints and media activities to promote these efforts, has had any impact on public perceptions, driver behaviors, or alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes and injuries.

... in general, the number of alcohol-related crashes was reduced by 20% in states that implement sobriety checkpoints compared to those that do not.

Now in theory if there are checkpoints every km and for every driver , the figure will be 100% , but practical constraints make it 20%.

The figure is likely to be much less in India due to lack of resources and funding. Are there any numbers available on the supposed reduction in drunk driving cases in Bangalore and Bombay due to police checks ? Couldn't find anything from a quick search.

[binand]

Originally Posted by sdp1975

Are there any numbers available on the supposed reduction in drunk driving cases in Bangalore and Bombay due to police checks ?

Not Bangalore or Mumbai - this article talks about Hyderabad:

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/natio...uring-day.html

The DUI problem simply shifted to the day/early evening due to on-road checks during the night.

[sukiwa]

Different perspective is needed for a long-term solution, please read how Portugal dealt with drug menace.

http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/xstC...rk-at-all.html

[djpeesh]

Originally Posted by binand

Not Bangalore or Mumbai - this article talks about Hyderabad:

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/natio...uring-day.html

The DUI problem simply shifted to the day/early evening due to on-road checks during the night.

This actually goes against the argument you're making, and proves that those who do want to drink and drive will figure out a way to do it, rendering the verdict meaningless. So 500 meters or not, it's going to happen.

There's no way of getting around the point that enforcement is the only way to check drunk driving.

[binand]

Originally Posted by djpeesh

This actually goes against the argument you're making, and proves that those who do want to drink and drive will figure out a way to do it, rendering the verdict meaningless. So 500 meters or not, it's going to happen.

Huh? This supports the two points I made; that DUI checks are not effective in controlling drunk driving menace (outside of the time intervals and road sections where they are done), and that the bar owners are part of the problem.

Let us take the extreme case. If alcohol were not available (legally and illegally) in all of Hyderabad would there be any DUI at all?

Originally Posted by djpeesh

There's no way of getting around the point that enforcement is the only way to check drunk driving.

I will repeat the question. Please tell me what kind of enforcement is required to check drunk driving on Bangalore's ORR between 6-8 PM on weekdays. Or since you are in Mumbai, let us use the Western Express Highway.

[Stratosphere]

Originally Posted by binand

Let us take the extreme case. If alcohol were not available (legally and illegally) in all of Hyderabad would there be any DUI at all?

The fact that you are mentioning this case reveals that the public is not worried about the consequences. The order right now is playing with the hard work and efforts of people while making no new efforts to actually control DUI.

By this logic if in Hyderabad or any other city, if there were no cars allowed, then the D from DUI would be removed thus making this discussion moot.

[noopster]

Originally Posted by binand

Let us take the extreme case. If alcohol were not available (legally and illegally) in all of Hyderabad would there be any DUI at all?

Are you familiar with the expression, "Throwing the baby out with the bathwater?"

Alcohol sales bring in revenue in terms of taxes/duties to the government and also through increased tourism and F&B expenditure in hotels and restaurants. Obviously this has to be weighed against the cost of allowing alcohol sales in the first place. DUI is one aspect of it; others are the cost of alcoholism, both in terms of increased healthcare burden as well as social cost, plus a consideration of the prevailing cultural ethos ( a much-bandied term these days).

With a couple of exceptions, most states have taken the position that the good outweighs the bad and permitted alcohol sales. The SC judgement, while noble in its intent to save lives, completely ignores the trade-off that is involved, as a result of which many legitimate businesses have shut down overnight and a direct reduction in revenues to the state.

Pushing for complete prohibition (in AP or elsewhere) has a much bigger impact. I would like to see what the research says on the effectiveness of Prohibition in terms of reduced health care costs, improved social indicators, employment, overall death rate etc. in the long term rather than focus on the very obvious and meaningless stat of reduced DUI count in the short term.

As far as I know, and if the very sound article posted by sukiwa is any indication, outright Prohibition has never worked.

[vinit.merchant]

Originally Posted by noopster

As far as I know, and if the very sound article posted by sukiwa is any indication, outright Prohibition has never worked.

Reminds us of the prohibition era in the US and how bootleggers made big of this opportunity.
There is prohibition in Gujrat too, doesn't mean no one drinks there. You will be surprised how much more the people enjoy drinking there because it is banned.

As for the rule to ban on the highway, some sensible solution should have been derived. Yes, there are hotels and restaurants on the highway where people do go (case in point, our old and beloved Sunny da dhaba) and banning liquor as such places does make sense. But when highways pass through cities, these should have been exempted.
Where I stay, a number of business & 5 star hotels fall on the highway which is well within the municipality limits. These have lost huge chunks of business. Ditto for a huge mall (phoenix mall) with like at least 15 restaurants inside who have gone out of business overnight due to this ruling (beer cafe, bar bar, Irish cafe, etc etc.)

[TorqueyTechie]

Originally Posted by Stratosphere

Again this is the fault of the administration. Business owners would obviously like to do business. It's the way they are made. And after putting crores in investment and providing thousands of people with jobs, they deserve to earn something for their pains?

The more rules and regulations are put on any sector, the more business owners will devise ways to get out of the clutches. They didn't invest their money to become lawyers and fight their way out of hundreds of rules.

I understand from your viewpoint but what I contest is the highlighted part. And I again agree its not just business people who do this. It is by default en-grained in many of us. I am infact all-in for the PIL to be quashed but the business owners/hoteliers also should have responsibility and not take illegal means so as to allow there patrons consume alcohol. Let the cops do their job of DUI checks (& be very stringent) while letting the business run. Win win for both as long as both work within the law and don't try other dubious ways.

[Stratosphere]

Originally Posted by TorqueyTechie

I understand from your viewpoint but what I contest is the highlighted part. And I again agree its not just business people who do this. It is by default en-grained in many of us. I am infact all-in for the PIL to be quashed but the business owners/hoteliers also should have responsibility and not take illegal means so as to allow there patrons consume alcohol. Let the cops do their job of DUI checks (& be very stringent) while letting the business run. Win win for both as long as both work within the law and don't try other dubious ways.

I agree with your thoughts and am sorry that my words sounded wrong. What I meant was that business owners will try to scrape by the rules to do what they originally were meant and given permission to do, since that is the reason they had invested their time and efforts into the endeavour. Just because the mood of the law changes, they cannot shut their shops?

I am all for increasing the responsibility at the business end if it does not hamper the progress of the primary purpose, i.e. Business.

I understand that all of us as citizens have to get to a point where the roads become safe but that should not happen at the cost of someone's livelihood.

Thank you.

[TorqueyTechie]

Originally Posted by Stratosphere

I agree with your thoughts and am sorry that my words sounded wrong. What I meant was that business owners will try to scrape by the rules to do what they originally were meant and given permission to do, since that is the reason they had invested their time and efforts into the endeavour. Just because the mood of the law changes, they cannot shut their shops?

I am all for increasing the responsibility at the business end if it does not hamper the progress of the primary purpose, i.e. Business.

I understand that all of us as citizens have to get to a point where the roads become safe but that should not happen at the cost of someone's livelihood.

Thank you.

Mate, no need to be sorry. I was not offended. Just wanted to highlight that in the end this is all interlinked. And as I said, the honorable SC should have made sure that every government takes DUI checks seriously.

What I think is that SC knew how the DUI checks works and so instead of asking them to be stringent , this was there way of making the government's responsible. Cut the main link of income for the government which will make sure that they will set things in order and go back to the SC to remove the PIL. Yes I am an optimistic fool.

[binand]

Originally Posted by djpeesh

those who do want to drink and drive will figure out a way to do it, rendering the verdict meaningless. So 500 meters or not, it's going to happen.

Originally Posted by binand

Let us take the extreme case. If alcohol were not available (legally and illegally) in all of Hyderabad would there be any DUI at all?

Originally Posted by noopster

Are you familiar with the expression, "Throwing the baby out with the bathwater?"

This was meant as a thought exercise (though I suppose it was not clear). djpeesh (and many others) says 500m is not sufficient to stop DUI. I was pointing out that if alcohol (all types - legal as well as illegal) is not available at all, then nobody can DUI.

If we can agree that these are two extremes, then there must be a sweet spot in between them that deters people from drinking and driving, while allowing some alcohol in the state? In which case the right course of action must be to observe the results of the 500m limit, and if it doesn't work extend it to 1000m, 2000m and so on? Not completely get rid of the rule?

Alternatively you don't agree that these two are not the extremes then I'd like to know why.

Originally Posted by noopster

Alcohol sales bring in revenue in terms of taxes/duties to the government[...] With a couple of exceptions, most states have taken the position that the good outweighs the bad and permitted alcohol sales.

You are basically giving a specific instance of what I believe holds good in the general case - that our governments at all levels have become simple money-making (revenue collecting) machines and have completely forgotten what they are there for.

Originally Posted by noopster

Pushing for complete prohibition (in AP or elsewhere) has a much bigger impact. I would like to see what the research says on the effectiveness of Prohibition in terms of reduced health care costs, improved social indicators, employment, overall death rate etc. in the long term rather than focus on the very obvious and meaningless stat of reduced DUI count in the short term.

But this thread is about the restrictions on alcohol sales along highways. It often gets derailed into a discussion on prohibition (I am also guilty of that) but that is not the focus here. The question is whether the restrictions on sale of alcohol on highways positively affect the DUI cases.

[blackasta]

I think (and guess I am reiterating) that the ban, if there should be one (as I also believe that DUI is a law and order issue which should be dealt by police on roads, not PIL in courts), should have only been on alcohol pouring and consumption within 500 m. Not on selling of sealed bottles.
Hotels with rooms could have been given a rider that they can only pour drinks for someone who has booked atleast for one night.

If you allow sale of poured drinks and allow consumption beside roadside dhaba / hotels, there's actually a chance that people would end up on the road drunk.

Allowing sales of sealed bottles only would have lowered that chance by a big margin.

How many DUI cases by % are people who have front loaded and then found driving vs people drinking from a bottle while on the wheel? Is there any stats available?