[Blue_V]

Banning will only make it worse. You will then have a cigarette mafia, people buying things in black market. Look at what happened during prohibition. Here's a quote from Wikipedia: "While Prohibition was successful in reducing the amount of liquor consumed, it stimulated the proliferation of rampant underground, organized and widespread criminal activity".

Personally I dont see why it needs to be banned.

Talking of lives, how many riders do not wear a helmet in India? Should they be fined severely or jailed so that its a deterrent? No.

[ashwin.terminat]

Originally Posted by Mik

Regarding cigarettes/beedi/alcohol
Firstly, it provides guilt free thousands of crores of taxes to the government. Why would the government kill the golden geese.
In all colleges in India you will get marijuana and almost all the sages carry it with them. This, when its completely banned. Illegal distribution will never be a problem.
Secondly, its a personal choice to have these products. Its not as if these things kill instantly. Also, its not as if every smoker is dying a horrible death at the age of 40. Smoking ganja/pot/hukkah are practices which have been going on for centuries. Even a constant exposure to high sugar/high fat food can be fatal (what with diabetes being one of the biggest killers) The choice should be left to the consumer.

About speed limit, have you used bikes just as an example or have you singled them out ?
If the thought is limited just to bikes then, well, why should cars be going above 90kmph(the speed limit on NH8) or rather - why not have all cars speed limited to 90kmph.
As has been pointed out, its nice to have power on the tap, even if you are doing 60kmph. With some level of practice and with awareness, its possible to maintain close to triple digit speeds on certain bikes and cars comfortably. I believe that the issue is not about having archaic speed limits - its about having a very very poor, corrupt and porous licensing mechanism in our country which lets loose crazy drivers.

No no. Not singled out to bikes, but any vehicle in general. And yes, I get your point regarding the sages and the "aftermarket" availability of these products.
But consider this, I'm 20 and free to do as I like, well legally atleast. I can buy a cigarette with confidence because it's so freely available and light up, even if I decide to try it just once. And I've honestly no clue to source pot etc. in Bangalore. So even if I'd like to try smoking up pot once, I can't source it as easily as cigarettes. Besides, pot costs a bomb because of exclusivity. If cigarettes are banned, aren't you looking at the same increase in costs for the exclusivity. Wouldn't the fear of getting caught lighting up pot etc. deter some, if not most, from doing it?
Also, forget the upper and kind of the middle class of society. They've access to the best medical facilities and the choicest products. You generally see well-to-do people lying on our streets after being drunk. Not saying they're not drunk at all, but they're a tad more appropriate in their method of indulgence. And in the event of a death, the family can cope better than that of a poor man's family. Who can't afford to pay medical bills and gets cheap products which I think ruin one's health more quickly.
What I've marked in bold, is absolutely true. Our roads are very capable of 100+ speeds. But very very few people are capable of handling these speeds. Consider Azharuddin's son in recent memory. But can we actually bring in a method to single out these people?
In my opinion, testing for a DL should not be a matter of 100m where one rides/drives his best only in front of the Inspector. It ought to be done over a course of time and also check how the person is riding/driving post issuance of the DL. By means of what, I am not aware of.

[GTO]

Originally Posted by ashwin.terminat

We all know cigarettes, gutkha and alcohol have very adverse effects on health. Yet, cigarette companies continue manufacturing them and our Citizens continue lighting up.

Similarly, in our country, the Highest legal speed limit according to Wikipedia, is 80kmph.
Yet, we have a bike dubbed "Fastest Indian" capable of speeds upto 150kmph

Eh, why single out India? Is ours the only country to sell cigarettes, or cars / bikes capable of exceeding speed limits?

[ashwin.terminat]

Originally Posted by GTO

Eh, why single out India? Is ours the only country to sell cigarettes, or cars / bikes capable of exceeding speed limits?

Again, my answer must be a no. I am not singling out anything here. Thing is, I am only aware of these rules in our Country. Not too aware of the enforcement and the laws of other countries.

[DerAlte]

Originally Posted by ashwin.terminat

... But isn't empowering someone to do something illegal wrong by itself? ...

Wrong starting point in thinking!

* No one is 'empowered' by the Govt. to do something illegal

* What individuals do is their own prerogative. Differentiating bad from good is inculcated at the family level, though some people have that sense even if they weren't given the inputs at the family level. Strange, but that is how different brains work - some are disciplined, a few completely Bohemian, the rest somewhere in between. Alcoholism is worse than all the examples that you gave, and all the few Govts. who chose to impose prohibition did was to exacerbate the problem

* Private enterprise (those that you have pointed out) always precedes Govt. laws and statutes, and not the other way around. Whether smoking, alcohol or fast bikes - all these made and appearance in front of consumers long before the Govt.'s attempt to regulate. Govts. cannot be operating research labs and teams well before the products make an appearance, just to pre-empt the harmful effects on people. Almost all Govt. regulations are post-facto

* Leaving out the 'empowering' bit, one has to realize that if there IS a law, regulation or statute covering a product, idea or action, transgressing that is illegal. Consider suicide - it is illegal BUT is the Govt., any Govt., able to prevent it? The one who is considering suicide doesn't think of the legality of that action even if they were to be aware of the law

All Govts. depend on self-regulation - whether by fear or by understanding. The word 'regulation' covers the laws, statutes, etc. Yes, the Govt. can penalize such transgression post facto - but then the bad deed would already have been done, right?

[Suess]

Originally Posted by rohanjf

Powerful bikes: high top speed also means good pick up, which is essential for overtaking. Imagine a single lane road with a speed limit of 60 kmph. A truck is going steadily at 50 kmph. But I want to go at 60. The road is straight and there is no oncoming traffic. Yet I don't want to overtake at 60 kmph, because that would take an awefully long time. I accelerate and overtake at 80 kmph and once I have a sufficient lead, I gradually get down to the speed limit.
......

that's wrong....going at 80 in 60 zone! at 60kmph you should be able to overtake the truck (lets say 10mts length) doing 50kmph in less than 4 Sec! and again high top speeds and pick ups are 2 different things.

the point ashwin trying to make is valid one. but the things are same through out the world. we have set limits, we know what is right what is wrong but we sell those wrong things/ideas and encourage people to do wrong things for one reason or other. it is sad but that's how it is. so, in most case it's your call to decide with you consciences.

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by ashwin.terminat

2) Similarly, in our country, the Highest legal speed limit according to Wikipedia, is 80kmph.

I do not think Wikipedia is an elected representative of the country to decide speed limits. there exist roads with higher speed limits all over the country.

[rohanjf]

Originally Posted by Suess

that's wrong....going at 80 in 60 zone! at 60kmph you should be able to overtake the truck (lets say 10mts length) doing 50kmph in less than 4 Sec! and again high top speeds and pick ups are 2 different things.

Ok, point taken. When I have to overtake, I want to finish it ASAP, to get out of the wrong lane.

Here is another example. Pickup depends on torque and torque is proportional to power output. Suppose you approach a crossroad and the perpendicular road is a more important one, so with a higher speed limit. You have to take a left, so you wait till main road traffic clears. But you see a car at a distance. You must take the left and reach the speed limit quickly, so that the straight traffic need not slow down.

If your car is slow, it may not reach the upper speed limit quickly enough, so you must wait longer for a bigger gap.

This is never a problem in India though. Who cares here?

But I do. While waiting to come out of a fuel station, I had the same dilemma today. My car is not so bad in pickup, but I got this thought.

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by ashwin.terminat

Again, my answer must be a no. I am not singling out anything here. Thing is, I am only aware of these rules in our Country. Not too aware of the enforcement and the laws of other countries.

Hmm, so you mean to say that you were not aware whether other countries exist where such substances are available and where you can buy cars capable of exceeding limits... I do not believe you.

[ashwin.terminat]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

Hmm, so you mean to say that you were not aware whether other countries exist where such substances are available and where you can buy cars capable of exceeding limits... I do not believe you.

Fair enough, I have heard of a car company called Ferrari indeed.
But no, I talk about India simply because it's the country I live in. Besides, from Wikipedia again, seems like all countries have similar if not higher speed limits. But which are still below the Top Speed most vehicles can touch there too. An exception may be Autobahn. I'm unaware of anymore.
And about Wikipedia, yes, people edited, can be faulty. But I haven't really seen any Sign in Indian which indicates Speed Limit in Triple Digits.

[ashwin.terminat]

Originally Posted by DerAlte

* No one is 'empowered' by the Govt. to do something illegal

* What individuals do is their own prerogative.

* Whether smoking, alcohol or fast bikes - all these made and appearance in front of consumers long before the Govt.'s attempt to regulate.

*Consider suicide - it is illegal BUT is the Govt., any Govt., able to prevent it? The one who is considering suicide doesn't think of the legality of that action even if they were to be aware of the law

Yes, the Govt. can penalize such transgression post facto - but then the bad deed would already have been done, right?

Point 1: Accepted, the Government isn't empowering anyone to do anything illegal. Wrong choice of words from my end. But what I'm trying to say is by allowing vehicles capable of these speed limits, isn't that giving you the power to break the very law which they set? Yes, you can't ban knives only because they can be used for stabbing someone. That's because they have other uses. While in the case of vehicles, I don't really see any other use of one other than transportation.

Point 2 and Point 4: A person attempting suicide doesn't need to bother about the law because he believes he won't be around anymore to be implicated by it, right? Our Judicial System cannot punish a Dead Person.
Yes, every deed is one's own prerogative. Just because it's your own, doesn't make it legal. Just because I can, doesn't mean I should right? Right, wrong. Inculcated at family level. Safe to assume that none of us were taught to ride above speed limits? So personal history cannot really be considered. In the court of law, no one is going to ask about his childhood lessons. You broke the law, your a criminal. What is right to one may not be right to another.

Point 3: I'm considering what's in bold.
As per The Guardian:
Speed limits rise as India falls in love with the car | World news | guardian.co.uk
India's speed limits weren't reviewed post 1989 until 2007. The new rules allowed a speed limit of 100kmph. The YZF-R15 made its debut in 2008, very much capable of speeds beyond 100kmph.
So the R15 was launched post the new mandate passed by the GOI. So it doesn't necessarily have to be that the laws came after the vehicle. You just have an example of a vehicle coming after a law.
Also, everyone is punished only after the bad deed is done right? It's not like the Government punishes people even before they commit a crime.

As a reference link:
Speed limit for vehicles in India is 90 K.M ,then why the Govt is allowing the vehicles manufecturers to make vehicles with a speed of 200 K.M/H

[selfdrive]

Just an example. It may sound as a bad one, but its subjective.
Its like asking the Govt to close all wells because it is like allowing someone to jump into them. Now, wells are not built with the explicit purpose of allowing people to jump in but people still do that!
There are enough rules in place about not crossing rail tracks. We all know what happens there. A very selfish opinion I hold is that everyone is entitled to choose what he/ she wants to do. I am bothered by that choice only if it impacts me in some way.

So the way I understand this thread is that people should not be allowed to cross any boundaries as they do not understand what their limits/ rights/ duties are.

IMHO the answer lies in evolving as a society, but in the absence of any such genuine/ successful effort, revolution is being called for. A true paradox this :(

[bblost]

ashwin.terminat:
So I guess all gym's should ban members from lifting more than 20 kilos.
Of what use is such strength. If it can possibly be used to hurt another person.

[DerAlte]

You are making a simple thinking mistake:
* "Capable of doing ..." is an engineering prerogative; domain of some people whose primary job responsibility is to make things better, irrespective of laws of the land governing the subject of whatever they create (simply because the Govt. does not make its business - other than in relation to family planning and destructive objects - to regulate creation)
* "Wanting to do ..." is an individuals prerogative, simply because NO ONE has (can have) control over an individual's mind
* "Possible to do ..." governing (physical) constraints on the act of "doing" (anything). I am sure you would have seen people on 2-wheelers trying to rip even on a crowded road - and ultimately coming to grief. No one considers them sane, right?
* "Actually doing ..." is a result of rare combination of "wanting to do ...", "capable of doing ...", "possible to do ..." and disregard for common sense and rational thought (in relation to anything that can be physically dangerous for human beings - self and others)

Why are you singling out the Govt's ability / inability to regulate? It doesn't play a role, does it? The only thing that can play a role is a person's own mind, so that the "actually doing ..." does not take place? Who should control that, Govt? Or the individual? Does imposing a speed limit actually limit physical speed on the road?

Or should we say that the only way to regulate is to control the "capable of ..." (don't make things better) or the "possible to do ..." (don't improve infrastructure). The last one seems the easiest to do - do nothing as most Govts. land up doing. As the saying goes, that would leave us "eating from the floor" due to the fear that thieves can steal the crockery.

[ashwin.terminat]

Originally Posted by selfdrive

Just an example. It may sound as a bad one, but its subjective.
Its like asking the Govt to close all wells because it is like allowing someone to jump into them. Now, wells are not built with the explicit purpose of allowing people to jump in but people still do that!
There are enough rules in place about not crossing rail tracks. We all know what happens there. A very selfish opinion I hold is that everyone is entitled to choose what he/ she wants to do. I am bothered by that choice only if it impacts me in some way.
So the way I understand this thread is that people should not be allowed to cross any boundaries as they do not understand what their limits/ rights/ duties are.

IMHO the answer lies in evolving as a society, but in the absence of any such genuine/ successful effort, revolution is being called for. A true paradox this :(

Point taken, but you cannot possibly STOP people from doing this. Where as it is possible to govern speed.

Originally Posted by bblost

ashwin.terminat:
So I guess all gyms should ban members from lifting more than 20 kilos.
Of what use is such strength. If it can possibly be used to hurt another person.

Nice comparison, honestly.

Originally Posted by DerAlte

You are making a simple thinking mistake:
* "Capable of doing ..." is an engineering prerogative; domain of some people whose primary job responsibility is to make things better, irrespective of laws of the land governing the subject of whatever they create (simply because the Govt. does not make its business - other than in relation to family planning and destructive objects - to regulate creation)
* "Wanting to do ..." is an individuals prerogative, simply because NO ONE has (can have) control over an individual's mind
* "Possible to do ..." governing (physical) constraints on the act of "doing" (anything). I am sure you would have seen people on 2-wheelers trying to rip even on a crowded road - and ultimately coming to grief. No one considers them sane, right?
* "Actually doing ..." is a result of rare combination of "wanting to do ...", "capable of doing ...", "possible to do ..." and disregard for common sense and rational thought (in relation to anything that can be physically dangerous for human beings - self and others)

Why are you singling out the Govt's ability / inability to regulate? It doesn't play a role, does it? The only thing that can play a role is a person's own mind, so that the "actually doing ..." does not take place? Who should control that, Govt? Or the individual? Does imposing a speed limit actually limit physical speed on the road?

Or should we say that the only way to regulate is to control the "capable of ..." (don't make things better) or the "possible to do ..." (don't improve infrastructure). The last one seems the easiest to do - do nothing as most Govts. land up doing. As the saying goes, that would leave us "eating from the floor" due to the fear that thieves can steal the crockery.

You got me there! Here, I concede defeat.
Well done T-BHPians, you have indeed as I said before, widened my perspective!