[KL01toKA03]

Originally Posted by GTO

Whoever said that you need to be able to read & write to be a good driver?

Most of our law enforcement is concerned with following the letter of the law than following the spirit of the law.

Yes, the cops should book everyone who drives as though they cannot understand the traffic signs instead of being concerned with their education. Emission testing should be random and strict instead of making everyone get an emission certificate every few months or banning cars over a certain number of years.

[King_pin09]

This is indeed a sensible move by the Judiciary. I would rather welcome such directives whole heartedly. However I really wonder if the governments are equally logical in implementing such directives. Let us remember that illiterates form a crucial vote bank for several political parties and no such party would be willing to ‘hurt’ the sentiments of its own support base.

Coming to the question, how would literacy matter as the drivers can follow the signage easily, I would provide my three point response as follows;

1. Symbolic signage although correlate to certain common instructions like bridge ahead, narrow road ahead, school ahead etc, which an illiterate can be trained to decipher. However, written instructions such as ‘Do not stop in the tunnel’, ‘Take Mcgrath road from Raymond circle to reach Airport’ , ‘Heavy vehicles not allowed’, ‘Slippery road ahead’, etc., also form an integral part of road signage machinery. For the uninformed let me say the signage are itself in various sorts viz., Mandatory, Cautionary, Informatory etc. The question is how an illiterate could understand these instructions accurately.

2. Most of the road names, junction names etc are in written form which for an illiterate new comer is nothing more than a maze and it is so very easy for him/ her to violate a law and end up in confrontation with the authorities.

3. The number of traffic rules to be complied with by an automotive driver is much more than the elementary ones such as stop at red light, stay on left lane, etc. For the uninformed let me say there are separate laws for usage of fog lamps, high beams, overtaking, First Right of way on an incline, etc., Then, there are offences and penalties as well.
A licensed driver is expected to understand and abide by all the laws applicable. For a driver who cannot read (and thus understand) the Laws by his/ her own, is it not very sane to expect such person to obey them.

And yes let me add that just if an educated person acts irresponsibly on the road it only means that he / she should be punished or penalized. It does not however give automatic rights to the uneducated ones to claim a license.

[sgiitk]

I agree totally. If you cannot read the signage then you should not drive.

Of course one can argue that most the signage is symbolic. But some notifications are in text.

[boniver]

Originally Posted by VeluM

This is such a ridiculous statement, I would expect a politician chasing their votebank to say such, but not a TBHPian.

Appreciate your chain of thought. Allow me to say a few words.

Regardless of what their sad and certainly genuine socio-economic state, the government and RTO cannot compromise on the minimum standards required for a license.

They did compromise on the minimum standards required when the licenses were issued in the first place.

The economic status and lack of literacy are a separate issue, must be tackled as such, and must not be used as a reason to issue an illiterate person a driver's license.

Honestly, I disagree. The issues regarding the economic status and lack of literacy should be tackled first, before using them as an excuse to deny people what they deserve.

In this context, if they can drive well, they deserve a govt. issued license stating the same.

To understand a sign one still needs to be trained in what it means. Also, more importantly, one of the basic requirements for a license is class 10th (needs confirmation).

My pet dog (who can neither read or write, by the way) starts jumping in happiness when he sees his food packet. The packet in question has a pictorial description of a bone. Just goes on to show that literacy isn't required for identifying basic signs/symbols.

I'd find it appalling if you're stating that a human being who cannot read or write, but can speak, won't be able to understand basic signs.

We have a problem to solve, which is illiteracy in the first place.

Like I said previously in this post, solve the problem of illiteracy first, before using it as an excuse.

[RaviK]

Originally Posted by boniver

So the illiterate ...which in most cases is the local language of the place...

A quick note, Rajasthan doesn't have a local langauge (written format). All the bords/signs are in Hindi and/or English.

If I recall correctly, it was mandatory to submit the school mark sheet while applying for the DL in Rajasthan (not sure whether it was for verifying the DOB or education credentials). I had to do it when I applied for my DL in 2000.

[kraken]

Whether the judgement makes sense or not is something that should be debated, there's a lingering doubt I have regarding how the department granted them a license. When I took my license in Tardeo in Mumbai I was told to bring a copy of my SSC certificate (attested if I remember correctly). Fine they might have furnished some other proof of identity or address but what about the learners license test you've to write / appear (in case of digital exams) ? My brother had to give a exam on a computer here in Kerala. Which implies you have to know to read at least. Which brings me back to the question, how in the world did the RTO even grant a learners permit ?
And how the court did not even question this is beyond me !

[SJM1214]

This is one more classic example of government agencies/ department trying to fight small battles without the idea of the bigger War. It's sad to see these government agencies taking decisions without collaboration with other agencies.

The issues related to traffic and road manners are because of lack of discipline and not because of the low level of literacy/education. Yes, that's a classic argument that discipline comes with education. But that's not entirely true for we Indians. We face educated but un-discipline people on daily bases on our roads. It is very much possible to be disciplined without literacy. We need strict rules and better implementation.

[boniver]

Originally Posted by RaviK

A quick note, Rajasthan doesn't have a local langauge (written format). All the bords/signs are in Hindi and/or English.

Apologies for my poorly worded post. What I meant is the local language of a place, the language that a majority of the people staying in that place use to converse.

If I recall correctly, it was mandatory to submit the school mark sheet while applying for the DL in Rajasthan (not sure whether it was for verifying the DOB or education credentials). I had to do it when I applied for my DL in 2000.

In WB, I applied for a license in 2017, and I provided my ICSE admit card as a proof of DOB. Hence I was initially confused if they actually use the admit card for verification of qualification.

Then I remembered that my mother applied for a new DL last year itself. Checked with her and no, she never had to submit any documents to prove her education. She had used her passport as her address and age proof.

Originally Posted by kraken

Fine they might have furnished some other proof of identity or address but what about the learners license test you've to write / appear (in case of digital exams) ? My brother had to give a exam on a computer here in Kerala. Which implies you have to know to read at least. Which brings me back to the question, how in the world did the RTO even grant a learners permit ?

I agree. I too had to take a learner's test on a computer which is impossible to pass unless one can read atleast one language. But these rules have been implemented only in the recent past. My father received his DL in 1984 without having to do anything. He had simply instructed his office peon to get him a license, and a couple of months later it landed on his desk.

[VeluM]

Originally Posted by boniver

They did compromise on the minimum standards required when the licenses were issued in the first place.

That's a systemic issue, not something that means that the holder is deserving of the license.

Originally Posted by boniver

Honestly, I disagree. The issues regarding the economic status and lack of literacy should be tackled first, before using them as an excuse to deny people what they deserve.

In this context, if they can drive well, they deserve a govt. issued license stating the same.

There are minimum requirements for holding the license. If not fulfilled, they shouldn't be allowed to hold the license. It is that simple. If the pilot of the aircraft you are travelling in does not meet the minimum requirements to hold the license (however that happened, hypothetically), do you think that they should continue to fly just because they "fly well"? How do you define flying well? How do you know they have the full breadth of knowledge?

Originally Posted by boniver

My pet dog (who can neither read or write, by the way) starts jumping in happiness when he sees his food packet. The packet in question has a pictorial description of a bone. Just goes on to show that literacy isn't required for identifying basic signs/symbols.

I'd find it appalling if you're stating that a human being who cannot read or write, but can speak, won't be able to understand basic signs.

I'd find it appalling if you are comparing a human being who cannot read or write with a dog. Again, please stop putting words in my mouth or attributing your thoughts to me.

On the comparison itself, it is ridiculous. Dogs do not recognise by sight as much as smell, and the first time without smell they wouldn't know what was in the packet and would be less enthused by it. I've had pets all my life, and can be called experienced in this respect.

Illiteracy is a separate issue, and must be addressed by the government. However it still remains that literacy is a basic requirement to gain a drivers license. It is that simple.

Your statement that despite being a good driver they are being denied a license is flawed simply because by definition the illiterate person does not know how to read or understand the written signs on the side of the road, and can potentially be a hazard on the road. I'm not saying that they are, but what evidence can be provided that they fulfill the basic knowledge requirements?

The test to be a driver is both of knowledge of the road rules and of skill in driving. While the testing process itself is flawed and the matter of a different discussion, that still doesn't directly imply that it is not required.

It is a written rule that one must not drive in a way that causes another road user to change direction or speed unless following a road sign (stop sign or signal, for example). Do the truck/bus drivers who change lanes at will, drive at 20 in the fast lane on highways, know this? Again, most literate license holders don't know most of the rules either, but that again is a systemic issue that needs to be changed by overhauling the licensing process. The requirements need to be more stringent, not less.

[avira_tk]

I am glad the drivers who are cutting the traffic lights when the pedestrian green light is on and driving at night without headlights on the wrong way are mostly graduates. Good manners is key here, education has negative effects on driving manners from my experience.

Literacy means that you need to be able to sign your name, there are no meaningful signboards on any major road. Idiot phrases like "speed is a five letter word so is the death" and "left is right, right is wrong" are avoided is you're illiterate.

There is only a need to enforce existing laws, not make additional avenues for corruption given that bribes are already expensive at the rto. I'm sure an oral examination can be conducted by the authorities to record an illiterate applicants understanding of road signs. How difficult is it to connect a camera to the computer and record this test?

[aniyo]

First thighs first. Driving is a motor skill and can't really be taught in a classroom. It's perfected with practice and experience. I believe people who are illiterate can be trained to drive safe regardless of their ability to read.

I wonder of there is a study conducted to ascertain co-relation between Literacy and driving habits. I hold a contrary view that too much education makes people elitist and rigid.
Literacy is important from a larger society perspective. People need to know the govt. schemes and understand their rights and responsibility. People reading and knowing by themselves is a huge benefit (not so much for the politicians)

Even if people cannot read and write, they have a sense of responsibility towards their families. Many drivers are defensive on the highway, comes from years of experience. They have a better judgement of the situation and area.
I am not convinced on the ruling

[libranof1987]

A very surprising, and might I add, immature ruling.

Here's some data from the GoI Census website: the overall literacy of our country is 63%, that of RJ is 56%
http://www.censusindia.gov.in/2011ce...umeration.html

First of, how do you define literacy: Primary/Secondary/Graduation? Let's be honest, the actual numbers for literacy will be far lower considering several students would be counted as having gone through schooling (ergo called "literate") without even attending school. I can say this with confidence because the daughters of our domestic help don't attend school but just visit their village twice a year to take exams.

Secondly, do our laws have a provision in place to mandate literacy in order to get a driving license?

Our country is essentially run by those that have no/barely any education (commercial vehicle drivers). Do these guys realize the magnitude of such a ruling?! Not just on the livelihood of such people but on the economy!

Yes, not just all drivers but every citizen of the country needs to be literate. But until we can guarantee that, such a ruling is not pragmatic.

[am1m]

This reminds me of Bangalore traffic regulation. You see groups of cops at several places busy checking for the 'no-helmet' rule, while everywhere else there are cars driving the wrong way on one-way roads, bikes driving on footpaths and other such chaos.

I don't think anyone is against the enforcement of a law that has been passed, I think the resentment is that when there are far more serious offenses being committed large-scale, this relatively minor issue is getting attention. I don't see too much difference between how badly the 'non-educated' drivers behave and the 'highly educated' do here in Bangalore at least. There are more than enough representatives from both sections who flout rules quite openly and regularly.

[ShivrajG]

Let me tell you guys a short story.

There is a junction in Hinjewadi Phase 3 Pune where all the so called literate people working in our dearest IT industry regularly take wrong side road to reach their office.
They do this so arrogantly that they even eyeball a person coming onto the right side.
I go there to drop my wife and never take the wrong side and so do a tractor trolley driver. Who looks like 60+ and by his looks only I am assuming he is a native from Nearby village and a illiterate (Assuming). He goes near the same office space to get debris but takes a U turn like a gentlemen.

My Heart would weep if this guy's licence is cancelled. He knows the basic and I dont mind him driving alongside me.

Then again traffic violation is so rampant that stringent actions should be taken against all offenders not just the People who cant read or write thats harsh isnt it ?

[superbad]

I think we can all agree that the spirit behind this law is to make our roads safer. However, the key hindrance to the latter is attitude of the people, not literacy. An illiterate is allowed to vote, to contest elections, be a Sarpanch, MLA, MP, heck, become the prime minister of the country (just an example, no connection to current political scene whatsoever). If them being in a position of power despite being illiterates can decide the fate of the country, I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to drive.
In concept, this law is good - only literates to apply for/obtain driving license. However, concepts are not in tune with ground realities. For implementation, do police start stopping ALL & ask them to read a word or something to ascertain their literacy? Do police have enough manpower to do all this? The point I'm trying to make is judiciary will make a good solid theoretical judgement, yet is clueless about the pitfalls in its implementation.
What is the solution to all this? Change in attitudes of people, stricter enforcement of existing traffic rules, & more random police patrolling on highways to check racers driving at 120+ kmph or mindlessly changing lanes etc.