https://thenewshimachal.com/2024/07/...oss-districts/
Regarding Delhi/NCR and that expanding belt/few other places, this kind of thing has been discussed in some detail. But now we are coming to the question of rural, generally low-population-density regions. Some thoughts/ questions on both sides of it:
1. 15 years in some way seems a reasonable lifespan for a vehicle.
2. Obviously we would want pristine/ cleaner natural realms to remain as such.
3. Population is increasing in parts of H.P. due to the influx of settlers from outside the state. And there is also the maddening tourist traffic flow to consider.
4. Focus in the article curiously seems to be on safety and the assumed lack of this in older vehicles.
However, as counterpoints/ questions:
1. In H.P. news recently, it was also stated that tenders had been put out for automated, high-tech vehicle safety inspection centers; So assuming a vehicle has been inspected pre-renewal, what's the safety issue???
2. Banning the use of used parts promotes safety in what respect? If a mechanic takes a door glass (or whole door!) from a 15-year old Bolero and puts it on a 9-year old Bolero which was vandalized / damaged, what is the safety disadvantage there? Why should anyone have to pay a high premium on new factory parts to repair a vehicle which is beyond the halfway point of its use cycle? Very questionable.
2. Granted, many older cars lacked airbags/ ABS, but A) No evidence has been forthcoming demonstrating that accident/ serious injury / death rates have decreased in the state/ other hill regions since the advent of these technologies or in vehicles so-equipped; and B) If my 15-year-old DOES have these features and is well-maintained, how is it less safe than a 7-10 year-old?
3. If the state is SO concerned about road safety, then why don't they direct police to get strict about traffic violations? I have seen local cops here daily looking the other way as multiple vehicles headed wrong way up a four-lane divided highway to more quickly access a parking lot there. Many people (still) don't know how to properly turn across a lane of oncoming traffic, typically stopping on the shoulder and waiting for those behind them to pass by before making an attempt! They often don't use turn indicators, or dip high-beams at night, they overspeed, drive rashly, talk on the phone, etc, with almost complete impunity. Locals and tourists alike. These are apparently over-lookable.
But put a good used part on a car??? Now that's dangerous!!!???
4. On that note also would wonder why such a keenly safety-conscious authority is still using an archaic "parking-test" in lieu of a proper
driving test in the qualification/certification of new motor vehicle operators. Is it a safe assumption that those who know how to park their vehicle in a specific scenario are going to be safe and responsible drivers? Any data out there on how many accidents are caused by poor parking skills vs. all the bad driving habits / continual violations cited above? Answer pretty obvious.
5. Coming to pollution:
A) Why are grossly-polluting sub-15 y-o tourist vans billowing smoke clouds not being detained / fined/ cited?
B) Why is it that neither of our local PUC facilities can be bothered to actually put a probe in the pipe of any vehicle they're printing PASS certificates for?
C) If air pollution in a sensitive region is so vitally important, then why is nobody in the state pollution board taking up the issue of locals burning unseasoned firewood or (much worse) plastic refuse in their tandoors for months every winter? Why do Forest Guards / inspectors remain so bribe-able re: illegal tree-felling? Etc.
My big concern:
There are many of relatively low income level in the state for whom purchasing a new vehicle is a very difficult proposition. The public transport options are not complete nor always running on very feasible time schedules. Ror many, having a family vehicle available can be crucial in terms of getting kids to school, earning a little extra in micro-scale businesses that most here need to be involved in: delivering a couple crates of vegetables or fruits to the wholesale market, taking a goat someplace, or else family members to a wedding, or even to hospital late night!
5. Coming to the influx of tourists: Low-budget masses will be coming in on recent BS-standard tourist buses/vans, as anyway older ones have already been banned. As for settlers, anyone able to afford land lease/ purchase up here by now can be considered relatively affluent, and will not be seen in older vehicles anyway.
As for us, the Marshal has been renewed twice already, will be 25 years old in 2026. It is a BS2 standard. It is well-maintained and unlike any newer-standard vehicles we see running locally, doesn't emit visible smoke. At this point we keep it as a backup/special use vehicle, probably drive it 20km's per week, and at that rate there is absolutely no doubt, scientifically speaking, that crushing/scrapping it and melting it all down for raw materials for a new car, throwing unrecyclable items into landfills, etc, is going to have a worse environmental impact than our keeping and driving it a few hundred km's per year for another five years.
Our neighbor has an old Gypsy that he uses similarly, i.e., very little.
Some developed nations have introduced
voluntary scrappage programs, in conjunction with higher re-registration fees for older cars. That is fully rational. Other incentives as described here also effective WITHOUT mandatory scrappage.
India no doubt has a high population density overall and needs to protect its environment and the health of everyone. But anything perceieved as draconian/ pandering to the interests of auto-industry lobbyists at the expense of the common-man, is not likely to be well-received, and will very likely be ignored by many. In which case roads will be replete with illegal/ ill-maintained/ uninsured vehicles - thus making the initiative ultimately counterproductive on all points.
If gov claims they'll get tough on enforcement, then the valid questions raised in points above re: current lack of enforcement of safe driving practices / effective pollution testing, etc, would be very pertinent.
For the record, I would happily pay even three or four times the Road-Tax if it meant I could keep my backup vehicle, its complete legality providing strong ongoing incentive to maintain it well.
I feel that almost no decision I've seen in this realm has being truly data-driven. Whenever driven by other whims/ motivations / perceptions, they will do little or nothing towards acheiving stated goals.
Basic rule towards largescale improvement in ANY realm is that focus and efforts must be placed on the most potentially impactful actions/ initiatives first.
This one will NOT be impactful, I am quite sure. How many 15+ year olds are daily driven here? And yet these limited/ occasional use cases are so valuable for so many. I also see how in decisions like these, the rich get richer and the poor poorer, and that feels wrong to me.
It would also be good to see some allowances made and rules formed for the continued, limited use of "classic" cars and bikes of 25 years (as defined in developed nations) or older. This was alluded to somewhere in the last revision of the Motor Vehicle Act, as I recall, but I hear very little about it. And this ruling could seem to conflict with that Law, as well.
I realize that the average person rather than raising questions will just act subversively. If the law is inequitable/ impractical, it is ignored. But I don't believe that's the best or most satisfying solution.
Other thoughts / discussion welcomed.
-Eric