FLAT 20% OFF and 3-Months ADDED Validity on All Courses Absolutely FREE! Enroll Now Use Code: INDIA20
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

V S Rawat (self employed)     24 May 2011

Helmets must not be 'forced'

Helmets are being enforced in all cities one by one. I am apprehensive by the dictatorial decisions taken by the administration and upheld by judiciary. Say, assuming that a judge's salary is 50,000per month, and there are about 100 judges in indore (district plus high court), so if each judge donates his one month's salary and helmets are bought from this money and distributed to people for free, people will happily use it. Now, judges will say, who the hell are you to tell me to donate my one month salary? I have earned it by my hard work, and I have all the rights to decide how to spend it. I am not giving a single paisa in such dontation for such a cause. Exactly. When a judge can't be forced to donate his own money, what right a judge has to ask all the people to spend their 1000on a helmet? Ask administration and police also to donate their one month's salary. You will receive the same above reply, and you can again wonder that they are not giving a paisa in donation and they want everybody to spend his own money on the whims of judges and administration. It is said that 6 00 000 helmets are required to be bought by indore two wheeler riders. Taking1000 per helmet, that becomes a 60 00 00 000 (sixty crore) business for helmet industry. You can now see how this decision is helping helmet industry so they are obliging judiciary and administration to force this rule on general public. Sad that such things can happen in India.



Learning

 33 Replies

Naveen Kumar (service)     24 May 2011

Dear Rawat, 

They made the rule for our safe guard.  What to do we are all common people and we dont have time to protest, or anything.  only way is to obey the order.  It's better you select any helmet which cost around 200 to 300 in supermarkets, why go for 1000.

1 Like

Suchitra. S (Advocate)     24 May 2011

Rawat Sir, you are confused. All the services provided by the Goernment is from our money only. Government is basically run by the revenue collected form the people. They will provide helmets if we are ready to pay little more tax. Otherwise, one day people will ask Government to feed them free of cost as it is Government"s responsibility to protect its citizens. 

Laws are made for our benefits. And they are not made without any analysis. As law abiding citizens, it is our responsibility to abide law. 

1 Like

DR.SANAT KUMAR DASH (Eye Specialist)     24 May 2011

Dear     Rawat,

                            What      is    the     use    of     the     Helmet    to    you???  Don't     use    the    Two-wheeler......    

It    is    easy     to   say      in    this    Forum    But    it     is    very      difficult       to    say     in    the    Court     Room.

It    is       you    to   decide........what      to    do???

      

V S Rawat (self employed)     24 May 2011

Originally posted by :Naveen Kumar.J
"
Dear Rawat, 

They made the rule for our safe guard.  What to do we are all common people and we dont have time to protest, or anything.  only way is to obey the order.  It's better you select any helmet which cost around 200 to 300 in supermarkets, why go for 1000.
"

Yes, Naveen ji, that is the helpness of Indian public that you have so beautifully summarized. These guys are putting Hitler to shame by putting such one sided order. And we, common public, just can't do anything but to obey the orders otherwise they will make our challan again and again, they will snatch away our vehicles, they will put us in jails. In such decisions and implementation of Indian adminstration, one can see the semblance of jews going to their slaughterhouse in Hitler regime. It is further shame that our judiciary has become aparty to it and is allowing it to happen.

V S Rawat (self employed)     24 May 2011

Originally posted by :Suchitra. S
"
Rawat Sir, you are confused. All the services provided by the Goernment is from our money only. Government is basically run by the revenue collected form the people. They will provide helmets if we are ready to pay little more tax. Otherwise, one day people will ask Government to feed them free of cost as it is Government"s responsibility to protect its citizens. 

Laws are made for our benefits. And they are not made without any analysis. As law abiding citizens, it is our responsibility to abide law. 
"

Dear Madam, Hilter has also made laws that Jews were forced to abide by, by giving their property and life. English also made laws for India that we Indians had to abide by and let them loot our country. But a half naked faqir called MK Gandhi didn't abide by the laws that he had found unjust to Indians and so he protested and got our country free. This is another such incidence when an uncaring government has made law that will put monetary burden on common public. It needs to protested. Thanks.

V S Rawat (self employed)     24 May 2011

Originally posted by :DR.SANAT KUMAR DASH
"
Dear     Rawat,

                            What      is    the     use    of     the     Helmet    to    you???  Don't     use    the    Two-wheeler......    

It    is    easy     to   say      in    this    Forum    But    it     is    very      difficult       to    say     in    the    Court     Room.

It    is       you    to   decide........what      to    do???

      
"

doctor saheb, you are probably a doctor of human body only, you have decided to ignore the diseases of society and administration and judiciary. If vehicle is useless, it would not have been invented and people had not been using it. To say that we don't use vehicles to protest against helmet, it like saying that Indians should have left INdia instead of protest again british occupation, or Anna Hajare should have left India instead of protesting against corruption. If something is good for us, we should realize it and we should voluntarily do it. They can't beat us out to make us do something for our good. They have become Khuda on earth for other citizens destinies. That is what is wrong. They should have brought awareness about it, instead of making challans and instead of putting us in jails for not using helmets. Thanks.

Suchitra. S (Advocate)     24 May 2011

Sir, probably you have not seen the statistics of death rates that occur on roads. I am not talking something non sense here. I know what is law and how they are formed and in whose interest. 

Let me see anybody supporting your views and be ready to protest like the way it happens with protest against corruption. Do not compare two unconnected issues. 

1 Like

Suchitra. S (Advocate)     24 May 2011

I meant to say accidents due to head injury alone. Injuries to the head and neck are the main cause of death, severe injury and disability among users of motorcycles. Enforcement of helmet wearing for both rider and passengers will increase the likelihood of crash survival by up to 40 percent depending on the speed of the motorcycle and quality of the helmet. Helmet wearing is compulsory in many countries, but in many low- and middle- income countries, these laws are not enforced.
1 Like

Suchitra. S (Advocate)     24 May 2011

See the report of World Health Organisation in the following link. 

https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2006/pr44/en/index.html

 

 Each year about 1.2 million people die as a result of road traffic crashes, and millions more are injured or disabled. Most of the deaths are preventable. In many low-income and middle-income countries, users of two-wheelers - particularly motorcyclists - make up more than 50% of those injured or killed on the roads. Head injuries are the main cause of death and disability among motorcycle users, and the costs of head injuries are high because they frequently require specialized medical care or long-term rehabilitation.

Wearing a helmet is the single most effective way of reducing head injuries and fatalities resulting from motorcycle and bicycle crashes. Wearing a helmet has been shown to decrease the risk and severity of injuries among motorcyclists by about 70%, the likelihood of death by almost 40%, and to substantially reduce the costs of health care associated with such crashes.

The World Health Organization (WHO) is intensifying efforts to support governments, particularly those in low-income and middle-income countries, to increase helmet use through a new publication, Helmets: a road safety manual for decision-makers and practitioners.

The manual is a follow-up to the World report on road traffic injury prevention, published in 2004 by WHO and the World Bank, which provided evidence that establishing and enforcing mandatory helmet use is an effective intervention for reducing injuries and fatalities among two-wheeler users. The manual has been produced under the auspices of the UN road safety collaboration, in collaboration with the Global Road Safety Partnership, the FIA Foundation for the Automobile and Society, and the World Bank, as one of a series of documents that aim to provide practical advice on implementing the recommendations of the World Report.

The importance of increasing helmet use follows dramatic growth in motorization around the world, largely from increasing use of motorized two-wheelers, particularly in Asian countries. In China, for example, motorcycle ownership over the last ten years has increased rapidly. In 2004 it was estimated that more than 67 million motorcycles were registered in the country, and approximately 25% of all road traffic deaths were among motorcyclists and their passengers.

"We want to make helmet use a high priority for national public health systems," says Dr. Anders Nordström, Acting Director-General of WHO. "We need to stress not only the effectiveness of helmets in saving lives, but the fact that helmet programmes are good value for money. Countries will recoup their investment in these programmes many times over through savings to their health care systems, as well as savings to other sectors."

Many countries have succeeded in raising rates of helmet use through adopting laws that make helmet use compulsory, enforcing these laws, and raising public awareness about the laws, as well as the benefits of helmet use. This new helmet manual draws on such examples.

In Thailand, for instance, 80% of the 20 million registered motorized vehicles are motorcycles. In 1992, when helmet use was not mandatory, 90% of deaths resulting from traffic injuries were among motorcycle users, almost all due to head injuries. Legislation passed in the north-eastern province of Khon Kaen to make helmet use mandatory, supported by enforcement and publicity programmes, led to a 40% reduction in head injuries among motorcyclists and a 24% drop in motorcyclist deaths within the two years

This new manual provides technical advice to governments on the steps needed to assess current helmet use, and then design, implement and evaluate a helmet use programme. The manual addresses specific issues pertinent to many low-income and middle-income countries, such as:

  • What can be done to protect the large number of children who ride as passengers on their parents' motorcycles?
  • Are there financial disincentives in place that make helmets unaffordable and thus reduce their use, for example, sales tax, or import duties that could be removed by governments in efforts to increase helmet use?
  • How can enforcement be consistent and effective when resources are constrained? Should countries aim to implement a comprehensive helmet law, or is it more appropriate to phase in a law, in order to allow the traffic police to manage the new responsibility?

The manual will be implemented in a number of countries over the next two years, starting in the ASEAN region through the Global Road Safety Partnership’s GRSI initiative, but extending to cover countries from Africa, Latin America and the Middle East.

In addition to the publication of this manual, WHO has also established a network of experts working to increase helmet use, and supports helmet programmes directly in its country work on road safety.

1 Like

Roshni B.. (For justice and dignity)     24 May 2011

Many yrs. back there were reports of adulteration in mustard oil.In fact people stopped to purchase it and blamed the govt. for its inability to check adulteration.

 

Few days later,there was a newspaper report in which police conduct a surprise check in a person's shop in Delhi to test if he sells adulterated oil.

 

Now the people living in the same locality as this shop pelted stones at the policemen,because that shopkeeper has v. good relations with all of them,who are his customers.So he cannot be "dishonest".This way they drove away the policemen.

 

How long can we blame the govt.,when we ourselves don't appreciate anything done by govt.?

2 Like

Roshni B.. (For justice and dignity)     24 May 2011

Rs. 1000 helmet is such an issue?

What if you don't wear helmets and meet with an accident?

Then you spend 1000s of Rs. on medical bills and hospital admission,and 1000s again in court cases,after you file a case against person causing accident.

If you get a major injury,you can't go to workplace also and lose your salary also,which may be in 1000s

 

1 Like

(Guest)

Then buy one that's fairly priced.

 

Even  if it's for 1000,see it this way.

 

A person owning a scooter/bike can easily afford a helmet worth 1000.At a time only 2 persons can sit on a bike.Which means only Rs. 2000 have to be invested by a family for their security.

 

If they have  to buy a new one after it's broken,they will not buy everyday because helmets don't break everyday.

 

So either invest 2,000 for security,or else blame the govt. and refuse to follow govt. orders of wearing helmets.

 

Finally when you meet with an accident,spend Rs.1000s or perhaps lakhs of rupees on medical treatments,court cases,etc,depending upon how major the accident was.

 

Choice is yours,as to which way you choose.

1 Like

V S Rawat (self employed)     24 May 2011

Originally posted by :Suchitra. S
"
See the report of World Health Organisation in the following link. 

https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2006/pr44/en/index.html
 
"

Excellent quoted report, Suchitra Ji. You are a gem of a lawyer and have an alalytical and open mind. You present facts whereas several other persons just convey their own whimsical opinions.<br>

<br>
Helmet is good, still I feel there is something called human dignity that a human being should be allowed to decide whether to accept what is termed by others good for him. A government can't assure us a Rs 500 earning, so a government of judiciary has no right to make us spend Rs 500 for what is good for us. <br>

<br>

Reservation is bad for country and it was originally envisaged only for 5 years, yet it continues endlessly and increases. If they are so worried for bad things why don't they remove corruption, lethargy, wastage of money and resources? If they are so worried about good things why don't they implement rules like One person, one house, or limit holding of precious metal to 1KG or some quantity per person.<br>

<br>

they will not do anything about good or bad at their end which they are bound to do by their constitutional duties also. But they will make challans of person who doesn't spend Rs 500 of his own hard earned money on helmets. If helmet is good, train us about it. Who gave administration or judiciary any right to consider normal public a fool who doesn't understand its own good so they become authorise to make us shell out our money on what they consider good for us. <br>

<br>

thanks.

 

V S Rawat (self employed)     24 May 2011

Originally posted by :Roshni B..
"
Many yrs. back there were reports of adulteration in mustard oil.In fact people stopped to purchase it and blamed the govt. for its inability to check adulteration.

 

Few days later,there was a newspaper report in which police conduct a surprise check in a person's shop in Delhi to test if he sells adulterated oil.

 

Now the people living in the same locality as this shop pelted stones at the policemen,because that shopkeeper has v. good relations with all of them,who are his customers.So he cannot be "dishonest".This way they drove away the policemen.

 

How long can we blame the govt.,when we ourselves don't appreciate anything done by govt.?
"

Roshni ji,<br>

<br>

what people in an individual area did, doesn't meet the required minimum statistical data to qualify as an example representing the entire nation. I am indeed surprised why would people do this even when they are in good terms with the shopkeeper. Shopkeeper must be pocketing his own margins on everything he sold to people, he must have even increased rates as the market rates increased. So, people have no reason to be so affiliated with a trader as to counter policemen doing their duties.<br>

<br>

I don't really know, but it appears more like that the shopkeeper had hired goons or had prompted local people to attack police. But, I really don't know. this type of mechanism sounds more logical.<br>

<br>

How did you conclude that people, as a whole, don't appreciate good things by government? Today country has many better things than were there at the time of independence or that were not at all there in Ram Rajya also. People do appreciate good things. That's why Nitish Kumar government wins again in Bihar and Bihar is no more considered the worst managed state of India.<br>

<br>

This type of generalizations on a single incident, or general statements about public behavior have really no answer. My only objection is to government making challans of people who don't wear helmets. It is too much draconian. Tomorrow, if government says that everybody has to take a Rs 10 lac policy for each of his family member and pay premium from his pocket, it is absurdity even if it would be a good step for the family. <br>

<br>

Tomorrow, if they say that not just head injuries but injuries to rest of body also cause deaths, so one should clad his entire body in protective equipments and make rule that one goes riding a scooter clad like dilip kumar and prithviraj kapoor were in the war scene of mughal-e-azam, all that bought by himself, it would be absurdity even if it is required. <br>

<br>

Tomorrow, if they they say that plane can crash so everybody in a flight must wear a parachute bought by himself, it will be absurdity, even if it will surely help people to survive in case of a plane crash.<br>

<br>

If it is our money, we have all the right to spend it on something or not spend it. Government or judiciary don't have any right to force us how to spend our money. It is demeaning that we loose right to our money.

<br>

Thanks.


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  



Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query