Stance of 5 Political parties reg Important Issues regarding Traffic Problem

[Rajendra Sidhaye]

Hi All,

Here are responses from political party city presidents to the questions posed by NGOs regarding crucial issues about traffic mega-problem.

​

https://docs.google.com/document/d/148O1cM1EYu9BHGMhVYRDG2tWnoDQdzkRpHfJXLHZmHI/edit?usp=sharing

Though this can be termed as their pre-poll stance, this is a significant baseline from which we can work further with them.

Thanks & Regards,

Rajendra

​www.savepunetraffic.org​

​

Let's team up to get---> Pune traffic on 'Right' track!

[Anil Risbud]

excellent initiative!

on the specific point of helmets - we need to cross-check with a couple of leading orthopedic doctors re correlation between use of helmets and back/spine problems (esp. in the presence of potholes).

rgds,

Anil

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PTTF" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pttfgen+u...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ptt...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pttfgen.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Ranjit Gadgil]

No we don't.

The law requires helmets to be worn. The Courts have also emphasized that the law needs to be enforced.

Period.

-- Ranjit

[Anil Risbud]

Ranjit,

A clarification: Yes I do accept your argument! But we need to be forearmed to counter objections that may not be based on facts...

My suggestion (about checking with ortho. doctors) was based on the belief that the argument (that helmets promote back/neck injuries esp. in the presence of potholes) is invalid. And if it is not, that makes a strong case for pothole-free roads, not for not wearing helmets!!

The following link points to a US study (based on 40,000 motorcycle collisions!!) that establishes, that wearing helmets reduces the risk of spinal injuries:

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/bones-joints-and-muscles/articles/2011/02/15/motorcycle-helmets-help-protect-against-spine-injury-study

rgds,

Anil

rgds,

Anil

[Ranjit Gadgil]

Counter objections by whom and for what?

This would be useful IF there was a move to amend the law/repeal it, as the article points out.

However as there is no indication that this provision is being re-looked at, it doesn't matter.

Enforcement of a law cannot be subject to perceptions, doubts, arguments. The time for all that is when the law is being made/amended.

Proposed section in the Road Transport and Safety Bill which is slated to replace the Motor Vehicles Act.

Section 188 from Draft Road Transport and Safety Bill, 2014

(188) Protective gear and visibility requirements: motor cyclists.

1. A person who is driving or riding (otherwise than in side-cars) on motor cycles of any class without wearing protective headgear or following any mandatory visibility requirements as prescribed by the National Authority is guilty of an offence under this Act.

2. A requirement for protective head gear imposed by regulations under this section shall not apply to any follower of the Sikh religion and while such person is wearing a turban.

3. Regulations under this Section may make different provisions in relation to different circumstances.

This is what it is now

Section 129 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

129. Wearing of protective headgear.—Every person driving or riding (otherwise than in a side car, on a motor cycle of any class or description) shall, while in a public place, wear protective headgear conforming to the standards of Bureau of Indian Standards:

Provided that the provision of this sections shall not apply to a person who is a Sikh, if he is, while driving or riding on the motor cycle, in a public place, wearing a turban:

Provided further that the State Government may, by such rules, provide for such exceptions as it may think fit.

Explanation.—”Protective headgear” means a helmet which,—

(a) by virtue of its shape, material and construction, could reasonably be expected to afford to the person driving or riding on a motor cycle a degree of protection from injury in the event of an accident; and

(b) is securely fastened to the head of the wearer by means of straps or other fastenings provided on the headgear.

-- Ranjit

[Anil Risbud]

thanks - good to know that the States' discretion (which I recall was one factor coming in the way of mandating helmets) is sought to be removed in the new proposed law. The wording (old and new) makes it clear that *both* riders are required to wear it, not just the driver...

Let me clarify why I feel that that the , "it is the law..." argument, though correct - is insufficient:-

First, the context of my comments:

==========================

The response of all four parties to the helmet question is discouraging. While SS flatly refused to back compulsory helmets, other three parties have displayed an ambivalent attitude. Two of these said further discussion is needed, while one (BJP) is willing to support helmets but conditionally. This attitude of 4 major parties, appears to be a major stumbling block in enforcement - esp. in Pune.

The specific objection I was referring to - referred to BJP's response to the helmet question, in the questionaire circulated by Rajendra.

QUOTE

खड्डेविरहित रस्ते झाल्यानंतर हेल्मेटसक्ती करण्यास हरकत नाही. रस्त्याच्या सध्याच्या परिस्थितीत हेल्मेटमुळे पाठीचे आजार बळावतात असे तज्ञ डाक्टरांचे मत आहे.

UNQUOTE

I feel this objection is fishy and needs to be vetted, since potholes themselves cause back/next problems, helmets or not !! As I said, even if it turns out it is true, it supports the case for pothole free roads, not for doing away with helmets!

The need of the hour:

=================

IMO, considering the above - getting the public, and *all* political parties aligned to the cause (using awareness campaigns based on rational arguments and also by effectively countering false propaganda and irrational objections) ought to be an important agenda item for NGOs working for the cause.

LBNL, if everyone believed in the letter and spirit of all existing laws, would there be any corruption, tax evasion...? Even in Mumbai, where there is some level of enforcement of the helmet rule, I do see regular violations - with riders saying "I wear it while riding on the highway".

rgds,

Anil

[Rajendra Sidhaye]

Hi Anil,

I agree with you and I have already planned to meet Dr. Rajeev Sharangpani regarding this and initiated the contact. His name was specifically mentioned by Shri. Anil Shirole when this point was discussed. 

Thanks for this link you have sent. It should be useful. 

The state of helmet rule implementation tells us one thing --> 

पुणे हे विद्येचे माहेरघर असेल, पण शहाणपणाचे नक्कीच नाही!  

Regards,

Rajendra

Thanks & Regards,

Rajendra

​

Let's team up to get---> Pune traffic on 'Right' track!

[Jayant Joshi]

The question to be asked to the good doctor is what is a bigger risk - neck pain or no neck pain (because the person is either dead or in coma due to not wearing helmet)? It is very clear that wearing anything substantial on the head - even a Sikh patka for that matter - will worsen a neck pain. But not wearing a helmet by one person will introduce all sorts of pain to multiple people including the person in question. 

- Jayant 

[Ranjit Gadgil]

I'm still of the opinion that by asking political parties such questions, we are opening the door for the attitude that the law is subject to their will.

Why should we talk to any doctor?

Anil Shirole is member of the ruling party at the Centre. His job is actually a policy maker. It is not to ensure that roads in Pune are good or garbage is lifted and what not.

So when the Parliament makes a law, he should vociferously object to helmets. He should back it with data, research etc.

But once the law is made, why do we ask people whether they think it should be implemented/enforced?

To be fair, the State Govt. had used the power under the Act to exempt people in urban areas from wearing helmets. This was challenged in a court of law and struck down. The State has the option of challenging this in the Supreme Court. They chose not to do so.

So you can't have your cake and eat it too.

You can make the laws, you cannot also decide which get implemented and which do not.

You can use the courts of law just as we can. But we have to accept the judicial system and the judgments.

So my personal opinion is that we should keep insisting that this is the law and it has to be implemented and that if anyone has objections then there is a process.

By getting into a discussion about the effects of wearing a helmet, we are in a sense partners in this attitude that the law is subject to the whims and fancies of this person or that or public opinion.

Just not the way a democracy should work.

-- Ranjit

[abhijit....@gmail.com]

Ranjit,

Agree 100%. Helmets have saved lives all over the world and I think it’s high time we stop wasting everyone’s time.

Sent from Windows Mail

[Anil Risbud]

Ranjit,

>> Just not the way a democracy should work.

True, but let us honestly answer the question - Does it? In practice, politicians do influence the implementation of laws whatever be the intentions. Hence, engaging them /convincing them *not to fall prey* to "public opinion" and trying to forge a political concensus based on data, is the need of the hour.

e.g. See: 

http://www.thegoan.net/Goa/The-Goan-Grill/The-unending-helmet-debate/08615.html

 (Sep. 14!!! Goa govt. bows to public pressure, relaxes the helmet rule for internal roads !!! )

best regards,

Anil

[Rajendra Sidhaye]

Hi Ranjit,

I agree with you.... what you are saying is the correct and ideal way in which it should happen. But the fact of the matter is that it is not happening. SPTM tried to push PTP to do that..and other NGOs also must have done it...We all also raised it several times in traffic advisory committee meeting. But police haven't been able to do it. 

So, the question is how to move forward from here. Though it is the law, people have all kinds of misconceptions, including the feeling that helmet manufacturer's lobby is behind this law. I have heard it in past from some politicians also. So, this is a case where, due to the widespread misconceptions, partly fueled by such medical 'experts' and politicians (some of them want to be saviors of people from 'draconian law', some ignorant and some simply want to score brownie points, and some choose the keep quiet or sit on the fence), police are massively overpowered!! 

Hence to move forward, we have to take such strategic steps.. meeting with some of these vocal doctors is important as they supply the 'knowledgebase' to citizens and politicians. Else, the deadlock continues and people die. 

Thanks & Regards,

Rajendra

​

Let's team up to get---> Pune traffic on 'Right' track!

[Rajendra Sidhaye]

Hi Ranjit,

I agree with you.... what you are saying is the correct and ideal way in which it should happen. But the fact of the matter is that it is not happening. SPTM tried to push PTP to do that..and other NGOs also must have done it...We all also raised it several times in traffic advisory committee meeting. But police haven't been able to do it. 

So, the question is how to move forward from here. Though it is the law, people have all kinds of misconceptions, including the feeling that helmet manufacturer's lobby is behind this law. I have heard it in past from some politicians also. So, this is a case where, due to the widespread misconceptions, partly fueled by such medical 'experts' and politicians (some of them want to be saviors of people from 'draconian law', some ignorant and some simply want to score brownie points, and some choose the keep quiet or sit on the fence), police are massively overpowered!! 

Hence to move forward, we have to take such strategic steps.. meeting with some of these vocal doctors is important as they supply the 'knowledgebase' to citizens and politicians. Else, the deadlock continues and people keep losing lives. 

Thanks & Regards,

Rajendra

​

Let's team up to get---> Pune traffic on 'Right' track!

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 8:22 PM, <abhijit....@gmail.com> wrote: