[searacer932]

Folks, I don't know about other states but here in TN particularly in Chennai there is a TASMAC at least every 5 kms on all major roads of Chennai including national highways and state highways. The people who visit TASMAC create a ruckus with their parking and shouting and what not and they are nuisance lot. I am just happy that most of these TASMAC shops will be impacted by this :-).

[apachelongbow]

Interesting experiment going on in Hyderabad currently. Police are regularly conducting nakabandis and DUI checks. If anyone is caught, the first fine is heavy and they are made to hold placards against drink and drive for a whole day in a busy intersection near their homes. It brings instant fame and shame to such culprits, and possibly a reduction in urge to drive after drinking henceforth. The other thing they started is a bit controversial. Police will now contact companies you work for, to highlight you are caught drinking and driving and they will also talk to counsulates to cancel visa, visa applications for such people. I'm not sure the net results of such schemes, but atleast the government seems to try hard to wipe out this menace

[blackasta]

Originally Posted by apachelongbow

Interesting experiment going on in Hyderabad currently. Police are regularly conducting nakabandis and DUI checks. If anyone is caught, the first fine is heavy and they are made to hold placards against drink and drive for a whole day in a busy intersection near their homes. It brings instant fame and shame to such culprits, and possibly a reduction in urge to drive after drinking henceforth. The other thing they started is a bit controversial. Police will now contact companies you work for, to highlight you are caught drinking and driving and they will also talk to counsulates to cancel visa, visa applications for such people. I'm not sure the net results of such schemes, but atleast the government seems to try hard to wipe out this menace

I think the first example is controversial and (possibly?) illegal.
Is there any law that gives the Police right to publicly shame you?

The second one is well in line with many company policies - DUI can and should affect you. If DUI amounts to felony, consulates are free to base their judgement on the same.

[avira_tk]

Just curious, can consulates access your details if you're caught DUI? It might pop up on your Police verification for a passport.

Companies will be certainly interested as media has a tendency to highlight the employer when something goes horribly wrong. Imagine the employee is part of a car pool, it'll be a disaster waiting to happen.

I need to add that the legal system has a tendency to jump the gun, your licence can be suspended even if a drunk motorist gets himself killed by your vehicle. The dead one becomes the victim as he couldn't know he was driving on the wrong side of the road at night without his headlight on as he was drunk.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by binand

Now I understand why you are batting for the liquor industry.

Batting for the liquor lobby... So should I consider you are batting for the moral policing lobby?

Those who have knowledge of the domain and entrepreneurship will know I am batting for facts. Since you don't fall into either category, your confusion is understandable.

Originally Posted by binand

I on the other hand have lost people who mattered to me in DUI accidents

And this is what leads to such ineffective and often disastrous decisions based on goodwill and morals argument. Throwing the baby with the bathwater is the only way to explain this trend.

Did the blanket ban on sunfilms (even clear film) stop/reduce rapes? Did anybody collect data on that? It killed the whole sunfilm industry, and everybody is suffering the UV rays and heat in their cars.

Familiarity with the problem doesn't mean you have all the facts necessary to propose/judge a solution. What does a hardcore drinker do if highway shops are closed? He will purchase the bottle in advance, and start carrying the bottle on the vehicle. This is what people do when when travelling to places that don't have a wine shop. Many resorts/homestays that don't have bar license, advise the customer to bring their own liquor.

Originally Posted by Ramon

I am a teetotaler. This order has not affected me adversely in any manner.

I am not a teetotaler, and it has not affected me either. But as a teetotaler, can you really judge the solution?

Should vegetarians decide whether a certain meat should be banned? We know that happens.
Should men decide what kind of medical benefits women should receive? We know that happens too.

Originally Posted by Ramon

There was a liquor shop near my wife's house (Bakery Junction, Trivandrum for those of you familiar with Trivandrum). It was a challenge to pass the shop. If we want to take an evening walk or go to one of the restaurants at the junction we had to pass by this shop. It's difficult to walk with the stench of liquor and unruly people throwing around cuss words and abuse and having brawls at any point of the day not to say anything about the inevitable ones who have passed out from drinking liquor right on the spot.

This is a law and order problem, and not related to DUI. I have a similar problem in the liquor shop next my Bangalore home. Customers park and sometimes double park in front of the apartment gate creating major hassle. But that shop probably won't close since it is beyond 500 meters from highway I think. This SC order doesn't address this problem.

Originally Posted by Ramon

But horror of horrors. The store was being shifted to near my house at Nanthencode. And that too right at the entrance to a small lane leading to the back gate of a nearby girls school.

Again, not allowed under existing law. You can't have wine shops near schools or religious places. The license must have been acquired by breaking the zoning laws.

Originally Posted by apachelongbow

Interesting experiment going on in Hyderabad currently. Police are regularly conducting nakabandis and DUI checks. If anyone is caught, the first fine is heavy and they are made to hold placards against drink and drive for a whole day in a busy intersection near their homes.

This is actually a good method, but must be done under instruction of the court to be legal. Contrary to popular belief, police have no right to issue punishment. They are supposed to catch the law breaker, and courts decide the punishment.

Punish the DUI drivers, they are the real culprits. Moving the businesses off the highway will do nothing at all. This is more like killing the sparrows to save the food grains.

[libranof1987]

The SC should stick to what it knows best: the law. Through the ruling on sun films and now this highway liquor ban, it has passed a judgement on something they don't have the faintest idea about- because this doesn't seem to be a decision driven by facts.

If it was so concerned about these issues, they should have asked for studies by experts. Not a Govt. committee run by buffoons who will most likely visit some western country on a "study tour".

- Did they find a causal relationship between sale of alcohol WITHIN 500m of a highway and accidents?

- What is so special about a 500m radius?

- Why highways and not city roads?

The SC has been poking its nose in something they are not fit to judge, without expert advice.

I'm saddened by how there is no sincere effort towards elimination of the problem.

Why isn't there such a stringent DUI check every Fri-Sun that the very thought of drink-drive scares people. There's only about one or two spots in Pune where there's a DUI check, a few days a week, always at the same spot. How easy is it to beat that!

Edit: Given how highways cross through most major towns at multiple places, this ruling is going to create an unnecessary hassle as a number of restaurants/pubs are going to be caught in the cross-fire between stupidity (this SC ruling) and recklessness (DUI).

Originally Posted by Samurai

Isn't it the trend these days in India? The ban on sunfilm or the ban on 2+ liter diesel engine, was all based on feel good factor and not data driven. There is no study later on the impact of the ban either.

Very succinctly put!

Can we petition the SC for statistics before and after? I'd like to do so, so the next time they decide to pass around wisdom that affects every citizen of India, they'd stop to think.

[condor]

This may have already been posted, but a person who wants to buy a drink, will drive another 500 m from the said roads. Additional effort for to & fro travel for this would be less than 5 min and a few more rupees. Not a big deal, right ?

Originally Posted by searacer932

Folks, I don't know about other states but here in TN particularly in Chennai there is a TASMAC at least every 5 kms on all major roads of Chennai including national highways and state highways.

Tamil Nadu is said to have the highest number of road crash injuries .. Wonder how many of these involve a drunk driver ?

[apachelongbow]

I am not sure how the Telengana state is addressing legal issues, but I read from papers that they are calling holding of placards as community service (with the blessings of the court). I think the culprit pays a fine, attends court, one day lecture and video session on DUI horrors and then does placard holding name and service for a day. Now I am not sure if after all this his visa gets cancelled or is that for repeat offendors.

[abhishek46]

This decision, like many other court judgement have no proper data basis and logic.
However, it can potentially save some lives.
I support this judgement, as potentially this can save lives, no matter how small their number is.

On a side note, There are so many cities, where the highway is the integral part of the city/town itself.
The whole Bazaar is on the highway itself in many localities. Govt agencies are de-notifying those areas to make them district roads.

Lastly, there are so many Highway dhabas etc. where these things are available without any Bar license. Orders/judgement like these have no effect on these establishments, which run under the helpful hand of Law Enforcement Agencies.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by abhishek46

However, it can potentially save some lives.
I support this judgement, as potentially this can save lives, no matter how small their number is.

Sure, but is there proof it saves lives? Where is the data supporting that claim?

Here is the data on the economic effect of the ban.

http://www.indianrestaurantspy.com/t...enue-loss.html

[abhishek46]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Sure, but is there proof it saves lives? Where is the data supporting that claim?

Here is the data on the economic effect of the ban.

http://www.indianrestaurantspy.com/t...enue-loss.html

You are right.
There is no proof for the same.
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 like the Ban of cigarettes outside Colleges. If something is available easily at hand, people may consume it.

[V-16]

Actually one cannot expect those who are tee totalers to, forget support but even understand the ban.
Let me project to you the anomalies in the ban.

While there are people for and against the ban it is the most daft estimate to even think that the ban will anyhow effect accidents on the highways. The govt tried earlier by imposing a dry day which was in my opinion one of the most ridiculous ideas ever and remains till date. There are no statistics to prove that dry days have made any difference in the consumption of liquor or the resultant expected behavioral problems, on basis of which the dry day was admnistered.

Coming back to this ban. There is no proof to show that he accidents that take place on highways, occur due to drunk driving. The actual reasons for accidents are idiotic and impatient people who drive on these highways. How many times have you come across a stubborn goof driving at 60 on the extreme right lane when the entire left lane is empty? His reasoning being he is following the speed limit so you, who want to overtake him from the can buzz off and use the wrong lane to pass him, even if that endangers the traffic..... its because you are actually over speeding. Along with these samples are also ST buses who have no business to be on the extreme right lanes and trucks who want to compete with Schumaker (pardon the spelling). Then of course there are those who blatantly disregard the rule of direction and drive in the wrong direction. Those who change lanes without giving a glance at their rear view mirrors and those who take a U turn just because they want to save driving a few meters to take the legitimate cut in the road. Then the trucks which operate without lights at all. What about our dear two wheeler drivers with their entire family of 4-5-and i have even seen 6 on a single two wheeler riding without a helmet? Let me tell you, these and more such reasons are the prime reasons for accidents on highways. What about dogs, cows, jaywalkers on such roads. Gau Mata is allowed anything is it? Has anyone of you seen any statistics to show what is number of accidents caused due to drunk drivers as opposed to other reasons.

Now lets go to logic. How does shifting a shop deter you to drive without drinks? How on earth does stopping a restaurant or a bar from serving liquor on or close to a highway deter anyone from drinking and driving? What is one carried his bottle with him? What if he drinks from home? what if he drives 500 meters, buys a bottle and then drives into the highway? Ridiculous isnt it?

Ramon whioe i respect your non drinking how did you manage to measure the shame on the faces of the wives of those who have gone to procure his daily fix? Just because you are a tee totaller does that also make you a behaviour specialist or face reader? Im sorry bro your explanation just doesnt cut it. What you mention is a traffic problem which may or may not be the reason for the traffic jam. Its unruly parking that can be seen at any busy place, a pan shop, a tea stall, anywhere.

Socio economic results: No one is bothered about the more than one million jobs that are going to be lost. As long as i dont drink and it doesnt effect me, the others can go to hell ....stems from a very selfish attitude. Very easy to say shift the shop. Leave a liquor shop or a hotel or restaurant, how many of us having successful shops will be willing to shift our shops to anther location? The industry employs largely semi and unskilled persons who do not know what else to do. Dont you think it will create a law and order problem soon enough? What work will you offer someone who has been serving you food in a restaurant. Wont this lead to crime, because a man has to eat, his hungry family needs to eat too. IMHO the Govt must intervene in this and will. Flimsy excuses like we cant intervene in a SC order cannot be taken at face value. They intervened during the Jallikattu order, didnt they? So now, Isnt livelihood of the citizens and owners more important than a festival? While the H'ble SC has used its wisdom and its reasons to give its ruling, the govt must do its job and ensure that livelihood is not affected. One million at least is a staggering figure especially in a country where employment is already a problem.
It is not rocket science to know how capital intensive the hospitality business is. What about the poor guy who has just invested his life savings on a restaurant or a lounge to be told after a few days that now its all defunct. Before you tell me that these places can still operate selling food then you guys know nothing about this business. Restaurant will CLOSE down. they will shut shop. at an average a restaurant with approx 75 seats employs at least 50 people, at least. so imagine the number of jobs which will be lost. For restaurants, it means the end of the road, for it's an established fact that any restaurant that is not a part of a fast food chain, starts attracting footfalls only after it gets a liquor licence. The estimated revenue loss is estimated at Rs. 1 Lakh crore

Cities all over the world are built along state and national highways. Cities develop around these only.

Accidents have little to do with the availability or not, of liquor on the highways, than with the poor enforcement of the laws. How much have the Centre and the state governments done in making our highways safe. In Bombay one cant even think of driving after ingesting liquor. Why cant other states also employ this strict attitude towards drunken driving?

Banning the sale of liquor on the highways is really the easy way out and as mentioned before there's an equally easy way of circumventing it if one really wants to. Also It's not physically possible for hotels and restaurants to relocate with such ease vis a vis liquor stores.

So if you ask me, though im a near tee totaller (who consumes maybe less than a bottle of liquor spread through the year or even less) im on the side of those affected.

[binand]

Originally Posted by phamilyman

SC's hypothesis that liquor vends located on the highway increase DUI. Moving them 500m away solves the DUI problem substantially.

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. From the judgment:

The existence of liquor vends on national highways is in the considered view of the National Road Safety Council and MoRTH – expert authorities with domain knowledge – a cause for road accidents on national highways.
[...]
Since 26 October 2007, when an advisory was issued, MoRTH has consistently advised all the state governments to remove liquor shops and not to issue fresh licences to liquor vends along national highways.

Basically the states ignored the messages from the GoI for a decade when they could have made alternate arrangements, and now are hit with this judgment.

this Court while exercising its jurisdiction has neither formulated policy nor (as we shall indicate) has it assumed a legislative function. The basis and foundation of the judgment delivered on 15 December 2016 is (i) the policy of the Union Government, formulated by the Union Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH); (ii) the decision of the National Road Safety Council (NRSC), which is an apex body for road safety established under Section 215 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; (iii) advisories issued by the Union Government to the states over a period of one decade; and (iv) the Parliamentary mandate of zero tolerance for driving under the influence of alcohol, evident in Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Edit: see also - http://morth-roadsafety.nic.in/Write...7fc9668714.pdf

[sunishsamuel]

Originally Posted by V-16

Ramon whioe i respect your non drinking how did you manage to measure the shame on the faces of the wives of those who have gone to procure his daily fix? Just because you are a tee totaller does that also make you a behaviour specialist or face reader? Im sorry bro your explanation just doesnt cut it. What you mention is a traffic problem which may or may not be the reason for the traffic jam. Its unruly parking that can be seen at any busy place, a pan shop, a tea stall, anywhere.

If you have been to Kerala or lived in kerala, you will understand the challenge. Lot of times you see the men leaving their kids on bike or car, all for themselves or with wives while they go purchasing the booze. The whole scene around a beverages shop in kerala is messy. And i don't know why its like that in kerala. Similarly with TASMAC shops. I have seen kids pleading their dads not to buy liquor and drink - but this has to do with addiction and not to do with ban or location of the shop

Because of the topography in Kerala, most of the shops/bars are too close to the highways(State highways). Drunk folks jetting on to the road are very common. They do result in accidents and i have seen quite a number of them. When i drive through Kerala, i am equally worried about drunk men, drunk drivers who can be on the road any time.

Now does it mean that banning the shops on the highway will solve the problem ?The answer is NO. But there will be some positive impact. However, will need data to substantiate. So let's leave it there.

As mentioned by many of you, whether you close the shop or not, the person who wants to drink liquor and drive will do that. The focus should be on enforcement and heavy punishment for Drinking Under Influence, rash and negligent driving - if the intention is to reduce accidents.

At the same time, if the court did give time for alternate arrangements and state governments + business did not do anything about it, then court cannot be blamed.

[V-16]

Absolutely agree Sunish but thats a different factor, the ills of anything in excess are known to public. Maybe thats why there is near prohibition in Kerala and again maybe thats why this greed of liquor also.
Its not upto the Govt to hand hold everyone neither is it in their scope to be restrictive in such a large way.