Helmets must not be 'forced'

Yes, 60 crore business, or even an amount much less than it is enough for politicians to get their bribes. A single politician getting bribed results in rules getting made. That is why they make such one-sided rules, that is why they implement such rules with such high-handed ways. It is administrative terrorism. It is judicial terrorism. Shame on this country for having such hitlaristic administration and such yeah-saying judiciary.

I have been riding my bike for 9 years and never had an accident.

All those data of 40% deaths are actually misleading, because they are just saying that "among the total number of accidents, 40% people die of injuries", whereas we take them to mean that 40% of people riding a bike meet accident. It is not correct. hope someone provide data about how many vehicles and how many riders there, and how many of them meet accident.

I also guess that those riders who have accident, most of them are having accidents because of fast driving, or because they were drunk. I have not data, just a hunch, depending on newspaper reports of several accidents that I have read. There are already rules to control fast driving and drunken driving but people violate them and bring problems for themselves and for others. In foreign countries there are various equipments in place to check fast driving and drunken driving but in india, I am sure you must have never heard anything being done anywhere as a routine.

So, they are not really interested in making roads and driving safer, because there is no bribe in controlling fast driving or drunken driving. But, helmets bring big bribes, so they go all out to implement these.

You didn't do your homework well, otherwise you would have come to know that I am staying in Indore having a BJP government here. I have nothing for or against BJP or congress or any other party. You are bringing up your own mockery of your own twisted thoughts that you love to attribute wrong reasons to everybody instead of concentrating on the issue in hand. No point to demean others like this. It is offensive. Thanks.

Rawat jee,

Usually in India,while some people appreciate certain newly formed rules,many disobey even if it's for their own good.One example:Making it compulsary to wear seat belts.How much does a belt cost?

Tomorrow if the govt. bans alcohol,you v.well know what the reactions will be,even if it reduces domestic violence owing to alcoholism,eve-teasing,alcohol related disorders,drunken driving and so on.

There can be countless examples where people oppose whatever is done for them in the name of so called democracy.I cant mention so many of them.

Comparing the price of helmet with that of Rs. 10 lak policy or with the price of parachute!

Inside an aircraft,it's the duty of airlines people to take steps for safety of passengers if anything goes wrong.But when we are on roads,we are responsible for our own safety.

In the end I shall only say,if you don't want to wear a helmet,it's your choice....

Meenal ji,

it is not a question of affordability of this. It is a question of omission of what government or judiciary could have done. As Suchitra Ji's quoted reported had suggestions to reduce taxes on helmets for short durations to make people willing to buy them. Government could have done that, Judiciary could have made it a condition for implementation of that rule that the taxes will be reduced to minimum or nil for one or two months at least. I am sure many more people would have willingly bought helmets then, as we indians (or we humans) have a teeth for "free" or "discount".

But, government doesn't reduce taxes on it by a paisa, and earns huge taxes when 600000 people of Indore are made to buy it. Judiciary doesn't bother to put condition that will make people more willing. Thus, common man becomes a stupid donkey on which administration and judiciary are riding to uphold their high standards of care of general public.

government could also have done mass bargaining. In the sense that government could have released global tenders, telling manufactures that such helmet rule is being implmented that would necessitate 6 lac helmets to be bought by general public, so manufactures can submit quotes of their helmet price, and government should have selected 3-4 minimum cost brands that meet all safety requirement, and would have prompted public to buy them. No middlemen, no distributor, that itself reduced 2-3 levels of commissions, and a few manufacturing companies getting direct orders would have meant that they would have earned big even with minimal profit margins. This, with reduced taxes for a short duration, plus government bearing transportation cost, would have got the cheapest priced, good quality helmets to people.

But no one will do anything. And they all pose to be doing this in larger public interest, making helpless voiceless people shell out huge money. This is not what a caring government or a caring judiciary is supposed to do.

Rawat ji, I agree with your views regarding the implimentation of helmet rule by providing helmets in reasonable rates. All I wanted to convince you is that helmet rule by itself should not be the matter of protest. I end my replies with this. Thanks for appreciating my efforts. 

Roshni ji,

I am having a helmet and I am wearing it. If you or others are under impression that I am personally against helmets, that was not correct conclusion. Helmets are indeed helful.

I am objecting the method of their implementation, that someone tells us what is good for us, and makes us spend money against our will, and they not doing anything in making that expenditure less by reducing taxes or analyzing the prices of various brands and publicizing the cheapest cost, good quality brands.

That is what my basic objection is. Thanks.

What choice do I or you or anyone else have here? If you don't want to wear a helmet, they will stop your vehicle at 20 points in a day and will check all your papers, wasting your time, and they will make challans again and again so you are made to shell out money that will be even higher than the price of helmet, and if you don't pay the challan money, they will confiscate your vehicle and will arrest you and jail you.

Is that some choice you thought that you or I or anyone else have? To end up in jail?

There is no choice. We are coerced to follow each and every rule that government makes and judiciary approves.

Thanks.

@V.S.Rawat

I really like your post and suggestion.

I wear helmet since 2003 when i purchased a bike and it not only protect our head but also protect from dust .

Some of my advocate friends dont like it and they often create jokes about my helmet and they doesnt wear helmet. But i wear helmet .

And i advise to all people in this forum wear helmet and buy good quality helmet ,not a cheap helmet that you found on road side .

And one more thing i have notice why women should not  wear helmet ?(very less if you see it) compare to men......

One of the person said ,when women ride without  a byke their concentration is on riding ,but for men ,their concentration is on riding and ..... thats why most men dont wear helmet and often meet accidents.

@V.S.Rawat

Dear Roshni ko byke chlana nahi aata to helmet kya pahengi.

Nahi ji kushan ji, yaha par concepts discuss ho rahe hain, isme isse farq nahi padta ki bike chalana aata hai ya nahi, ya helmet pahnna pasand hai ki nahi.

waise hi jaise mainne kabhi anda nahi diya leking main omlette ke baare me murgi se zyada jaanta hu. :-)

Helmet is useful. Compelling to use it for even small trips shows the failure of the law enforcing authorities in enforcing the traffic rules in cities.

Helmet is useful. Compelling to use it for even small trips shows the failure of the law enforcing authorities in enforcing the traffic rules in cities.

"25 AUGUST 2006 | GENEVA - Each year about 1.2 million people die as a result of road traffic crashes, and millions more are injured or disabled" is it due because helmets are not worn?.

In the above news item, printed in Patrika news paper on 26th May, The traffic DGP provides information that in 4 months there had been total 142 accidents in which 149 people have died. Out of these, 80 were riding two wheelers and were not wearing helmets.

So, it is 80 deaths in 4 months, that is 20 deaths per month, less than 1 death per day.

Of course, nobody can undermine a human life and every effort should be put to save every single human life, there is no denying or arguing about it.

Still,  it is said that indore need 6,00,000 helmets to clad all two wheeler riders. So for 20 deaths per months, they have decided to make 6,00,000 people to wear helmets every time they ride a two wheeler. Does this ratio or propotion sound logical enough?

And, I don't have data, but I am still sure that many of these deaths in two wheeler accidents are more on account of rash driving and drunken driving. In city, traffic is so much that nobody can drive even at 15-20 kmph for small distances, so many traffic signals, so many turns and crosses, so many walkers and other vehicles all stopping our way to make us drive slow. These deaths must have been at bye-pass roads, highways etc. where people can race, that too at nights, and due to rash driving.

cladding entire city helmets seems too much of a decision without taking the above factors in account.

After you get used to helmet, it won't be a problem at all, I hardly notice anymore.