[sachinpk]

The amended CMVR is available at the MORTH web site. It is a small document and reading it would give lots of insights.
1. Section 21 of CMVR lists out the conditions in which the driver's license can be disqualified. One of them is indulging in any activity which is likely to disturb his concentration. Over speeding is another good thing to do to get one's license disqualified.
2. Section 139 is quite detailed on the way documents are to be produced for inspection. The driver or conductor of a motor vehicle shall produce certificates of registration, insurance, fitness and permit, the driving licence certificate for Pollution Under Check and any other relevant documents in physical or electronic form, as available on or downloaded from the portal, on demand by any police officer in uniform or any other officer, authorised by the State Government in this behalf, and if any or all of the documents are not in his possession, he shall produce in person an extract or extracts of the documents duly attested by any police officer or by any other officer or send it to the officer who demanded the documents by registered post within fifteen days from the date of demand.

Provided that after validation of the documents in electronic form, referred to in sub-rule (1), by any police officer in uniform or any other officer, authorised by the State Government in this behalf, if the information in documents are found to be valid and in force, then physical forms of such documents shall NOT be demanded for inspection, including in cases where there is an offence made out necessitating seizure of any such documents.

As per my understanding documents such as Registration Certificate and License are available in mParivahan portal. I myself have configured the same on my cell phone app. What cannot be found there are; Insurance Certificate and PUC Certificate. On the insurance certificate some insurance companies do seem to have a way to integrate their databases with that of the MORTH. So it may be better to continue the practise of keeping the Xerox copies of all important documents in the vehicle.

And each time a police official checks a vehicle's records in mParivahan it is also getting recorded (audit trial). A very good idea for later proof that vehicle documents were checked (or not checked).

3. Section 139A is about the procedure to seize documents in case they are produced electronically. The portal seems to have a provision to electronically seize a document using the portal/app which is to be used by the enforcement agencies. In cases where there is an offence made out necessitating seizure of any documents, and such documents are produced in electronic form in accordance with subrule (1) of rule 139(1), their seizure by any police officer or any other officer, authorised in this behalf shall be made electronically on the Portal.

4. Section 165 deals with the use of hand held device. It is a very small section and quite terse on what can be done. - Use of handheld communications devices while driving shall solely be used for route navigation in such a manner that shall not disturb the concentration of the driver while driving. Now who decides what activity on the mobile would disturb the concentration would be based on the interpretation by the enforcement officials. But for a layman it is better to assume that what is permitted would be fixing the mobile on a stand on the windshield, and Google Maps or any other Navigation software in working mode. Yes we can rant about the loop holes etc, but we need to remember one thing. If you plan to challenge the summons/challan, then it has to be in a court room (social media/internet rants is of no use). For a police man and an advocate court rooms are part of their jobs. Police men appear in court as part of their duty (i.e paid, and not by taking leaves from work). For the contesting individual, this may not be the case (unless he is an advocate). A day's leave from work, long wait at the magistrate's court, many egos broken etc. etc.

Originally Posted by Eddy

Can I still talk on my bluetooth connected phone?

Originally Posted by RS90

Except the unlucky lad moving his lips while driving alone and not wearing a face mask.

Originally Posted by RedTerrano

Could you please share the source for this?

If you read Sec 165 CMVR, you cannot use the bluetooth feature to talk. But many cars already come with bluetooth integrated with the audio system in the car. It is tough to prove that a person was using the phone when a police officer stopped him. Generally they rely on the CDR to also prove that there was a call going on at or a time close to when the police official checked the vehicle. And another dead give away is that many people tilt their heads to keep the mobile phone sit tightly between the neck & head in order to speak. This tilted head is a sure short indication for the police man to pull aside the rider and start a friendly chat on Sec 165 CMVR.

Originally Posted by sridharj77

I remember a similar thread a few years ago on a similar topic, where GTO and others had suggested apps for the police (on laptops etc), where they could directly access the RTO data, by connecting all RTO databases in the country. Now **that** would have been awesome.

Your's (and GTO's) wishes are fulfilled now. Vehicle registration & license database is now centralised. Along with that an e-court (virtual) also has come up in case the accused wants to contest the case. The mParivahan app comes in various flavors, one for the civilians and another for the enforcement agencies. It also allow tagging of mobile phone numbers, using which SMS can be sent out as soon as a charge is levied on the vehicle/license. Payment of fine can then be done by the e-court mechanism. Secondly, police and MVD officials all across the country can now see the horoscope of a vehicle and a license. The list of previous violations, nature of the violations (like, specialist in over speeding) etc are all on the finger tips. The only loop hole open is the chances of people getting multiple licenses using different addresses. Linking license with Aadhaar may fix that, but this requires amendments in UIDAI related Acts.

[RedTerrano]

Originally Posted by sachinpk

If you read Sec 165 CMVR, you cannot use the bluetooth feature to talk. But many cars already come with bluetooth integrated with the audio system in the car. It is tough to prove that a person was using the phone when a police officer stopped him. Generally they rely on the CDR to also prove that there was a call going on at or a time close to when the police official checked the vehicle. And another dead give away is that many people tilt their heads to keep the mobile phone sit tightly between the neck & head in order to speak. This tilted head is a sure short indication for the police man to pull aside the rider and start a friendly chat on Sec 165 CMVR.

Not really.
My Terrano came with bluetooth integration with the car system. I got a mobile stand which sticks to the windshield.
So with my hands free, if I am on a call via bluetooth, is this still a crime? If it is, what's next? Talking to a co pax while driving?

IMO this is a gray area. Hands free calls via bluetooth should be allowed. Govt should provide more clarification on this.

[hridaygandhi]

Section 165 CMVR
Talking on Bluetooth is a grey area here as even talking to the co-passenger can be interpreted as the same thing. Also, if a traffic personnel stops when you are on a call (via bluetooth), and are travelling with a co-passenger, who decides who was on the call?
Apart from that, the level of distraction for different people is different.

Recently, in Germany, the court ruled that changing wiper speed in a Tesla is illegal since it was done via the touchscreen. I personally, normally listen to the radio while driving so changing music is not distracting as it is done via steering control. Or I have my playlist predefined when I am travelling on a highway alone, but normally move over to slower lanes while changing the music as I personally find my concentration level going down.

Also, I find the audio signs on Google Maps fairly useful and friendly while travelling, negating the need to look at the screen, unless on complicated "roundabouts".

Section 139A
Since carrying documents in a car is not too much of an issue as we can always keep the documents safely in the glovebox, while this move is welcome, I personally find it easier to just carry them along and also saving the trouble to deal with the traffic constables.

[anandhsub]

Originally Posted by sachinpk

Use of handheld communications devices while driving shall solely be used for route navigation in such a manner that shall not disturb the concentration of the driver while driving. [/u] .

I think the word here is "handheld". That should mean either keeping the mobile fixed on the dashboard should be legal? Or is " handheld communication devices" just legal jargon for mobiles?

[sachinpk]

Originally Posted by anandhsub

That should mean either keeping the mobile fixed on the dashboard should be legal? Or is " handheld communication devices" just legal jargon for mobiles?

Hand held communication device would be interpreted as mobile phones, as they are generally carried by hand and not fixed to any position/location (unlike land phones). Also note the phrase - "solely be used for route navigation in such a manner that shall not disturb the concentration"; which means that the device can ONLY be used for navigation and that too it should NOT be in a manner which makes the driver lose concentration. So it would be a mobile device fixed onto the windscreen or dashboard using a stand, and not held in the hand of the driver and only used for navigation.

Originally Posted by hridaygandhi

Talking on Bluetooth is a grey area here as even talking to the co-passenger can be interpreted as the same thing.

Such a scenario even exists today. Till the amendment which came three days back, even using the cell phone for navigational purpose was an offense. So if the police/MVD wanted to make false cases by writing a charge that a driver speaking with co-passenger was actually him (or them) making a telephone call, they could have done that all this while now. Again, this is based on what I have seen around; this provision was mainly used against two wheeler riders as it is easy to detect this offense (when compared to what happens inside a car).

Originally Posted by RedTerrano

My Terrano came with bluetooth integration with the car system. I got a mobile stand which sticks to the windshield.

Same is the case with my Brezza, and I too use a mobile stand which is fixed to the windshield. The mobile gets placed there only when I have to use it as a navigational aid, or else it generally remains in one of the side pockets.

So with my hands free, if I am on a call via bluetooth, is this still a crime?

As per the 165 CMVR this would be an offense. The law in this case at least is very clear on for what a mobile phone can be used inside a vehicle. It is only for navigational purpose. Sec 165 CMVR r/w with Section 184 of MV Act leads to a fine ranging from Rs. 1000 to Rs. 5000, it is a compoundable offense i.e state governments can set a fixed fine within the range, and in case of 2nd offense the license can be impounded.

IMO this is a gray area. Hands free calls via bluetooth should be allowed. Govt should provide more clarification on this.

IMHO the law has been very precise on how a hand held communication device can be used in a vehicle. So if it is used for any other purpose it goes against the law. But yes, many people have been using the blue tooth device etc to take and make calls from the vehicles, and they may wish to continue doing so. And the famous axiom is "Ignorance of the law is not an excuse".

[Stribog]

Originally Posted by sachinpk

The.

Sec 165 actually is about tribunals, you sure that this deals with cell phones?

[setuniket]

Originally Posted by Stribog

Sec 165 actually is about tribunals, you sure that this deals with cell phones?

I think he is referring to Rule 165 of the CMV rules and not section 165 of the motor vehicles act.


Rule 165 uses the phrase “handheld communication device” which is neither defined in the CMVR nor the MV act.

However communication device is defined in section 2 of the IT act 2000 as:

communication device means cell phones, personal digital assistance or combination of both or any other device used to communicate, send or transmit any text, video, audio or image.

This should clear the position vis a vis the permitted devices.

With respect to Rule 165, it only permits ‘route navigation’.

[Utham123]

I am curious to know if anybody has ever been in a situation where, police has fined (or warned) them for talking over bluetooth in a car?
Personally, I never even thought about it as a crime. OEMs provide bluetooth connectovity in cars and government is aware of it. So, how can it even be a crime to use it for its intended purpose?
Also, does anybody know of the rules in other countries in regards to usage of phone in cars?

Thanks in advance,
Utham

[Reinhard]

Originally Posted by blackwasp

The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) has amended some of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules (CMVR) related to mobile phone usage while driving and vehicle documents.

Beginning October 1, 2020, mobile phones would only be allowed for the purpose of navigation.

I wonder if I'll see a rule/regulation that leaves no ambiguity, isn't open for interpretation & is actually implementable without prejudice by an enforcement agency on the ground. I don't have much hopes of seeing such a regulation in this lifetime in this country. Most regulations are so open ended that the actual enforcement is purely based on the on-ground personnel's interpretation & mood. Just gives them all opportunities to book someone at will.

While they may (I don't know) have genuine concern & effort to reduce accidents - they are really bad at wording & detailing these regulations. Most of these seem to end up just annoying regular road-users.

[RedTerrano]

Originally Posted by Reinhard

While they may (I don't know) have genuine concern & effort to reduce accidents - they are really bad at wording & detailing these regulations. Most of these seem to end up just annoying regular road-users.

Indeed! This rule (if the consensus interpretation is true), then I think the idea of "hands free" seems to have been lost on the law makers.

Hand held - HUGE no! Absolutely agree.
That's why people started using headsets.
Headsets in both ears was kind of dangerous, as it blocks traffic sounds.
Fair enough. So people moved to single ear blue tooth devices and cars with BT inbuilt.
Now there is a problem with the BT? Seriously? What will they identify next as a hazard? Audio systems? (Remember sun films are already banned)

In all this, I can see only one silver lining, to married folks. Cant talk to wife while driving, as it is a security hazard. But then when do hubbies get to talk in front of the wife?

[naveen.raju]

Originally Posted by Utham123

I am curious to know if anybody has ever been in a situation where, police has fined (or warned) them for talking over bluetooth in a car?
Personally, I never even thought about it as a crime. OEMs provide bluetooth connectovity in cars and government is aware of it. So, how can it even be a crime to use it for its intended purpose?
Also, does anybody know of the rules in other countries in regards to usage of phone in cars?

I have been caught once or rather nearly caught. Had shared my experience couple of times here on TeamBHP before.

I passed a major junction here in Cochin and after couple of kms reached another major intersection. Cops stationed there asked me to stop the car. Asked me whether I was using bluetooth to which I said no. On asking the reason, he said they received a wireless message from a cop stationed at the previous junction stating he saw me talking (as I was alone in the car, he assumed that I was talking over bluetooth). I politely denied it and said I was singing along to a song on the radio. Tried to show my phone's call list but the cop politely declined it and let me off with a grin and yes he said talking over bluetooth was not allowed. This happened atleast 6-7 years back though

[Utham123]

Originally Posted by naveen.raju

I have been caught once or rather nearly caught. Had shared my experience couple of times here on TeamBHP before.

Thanks for sharing. This is a revelation to me. I rarely drive in the cities and hence, never actually, faced this situation.

Next time I am in a similar situation I will follow in your foot steps

[yesyeswe]

Originally Posted by amritpal2489

What are our lawmakers smoking these days?

They aren't smoking anything, the thing is they have never walked in our shoes, a politician is always going to be chauffeur driven, so they can always use their phones, moreover who would dare to fine a politician!

I don't think the governments nowadays are "For the people, by the people and to the people", they are instead "For the millionaires, by the millionaires and to the millionaires"
They don't experience and face what we face everyday, they are in a whole different world. Exceptions are always there though.

[Tassem]

• Trucks with No Headlights: Ok, I didn't see you there, Please continue.
• Law Enforcement Vehicles emitting plumes of smoke: Ok, Hello, how do you do, Please continue.
• Buses with retreaded tyres with barely any tread even on that: Horn Ok Please Continue.
• Construction vehicles in peak traffic: Ok, sir ko hi batana. Please Continue.
• Politicos with fully curtained vehicles: Ok, Please continue, would you like some juice?

and...

• Me with magnetic window visors or bluetooth audio: License and registration please.
• Me upgrading pathetic stock tires for international spec tires: Stop in the name of the law you criminal!

Well at least since the sunfilm law, we have had no rapes or kidnappings in the country. So I hope this move will completely eradicate accidents and be a lesson to companies investing millions in developing safety tech for automobiles. I feel sorry for the poor idiots at Volvo.

Oh and also. Uber? Ola? I suppose they're gonna use telepathy now.

#NoTelephonyYesTelepathy

[Tucker48]

If talking on Bluetooth handsfree through handheld device is a crime while driving then I guess automakers should come up with e-sim feature in their display unit.
Why no law for pedestrians who walk on roads with earphones plugged into their ears?
This is why people have scant regard for laws in India as these laws are incomplete, illogical and impractical. Govts ask us to think about our future generations whereas they can't even think about present and near future.