[Sudipto-S-Team]

Sorry that I couldn't come back earlier to this post. A few quick points - A. there indeed is such a rule, apparently. Told an important journalist friend of mine who said he was aware of it and there is a law - no matter how funny it may sound.
B. Calcutta Police raises serious amount of money in the form of fines from two-wheeler riders (and of course from other petty offences). First it was helmets. Now when everyone started wearing a helmet they started a drive on ISI marked helmets. When whole of Calcutta became compliant they started checking the papers and when even that failed they have now started to find out these little known laws.
Good time to buy into Bata shares ?

[neel385]

Originally Posted by Sudipto-S-Team;2769365-

A. there indeed is such a rule, apparently. Told an important journalist friend of mine who said he was aware of it and there is a law - no matter how funny it may sound.

Sudipto, could you please ask this jurno friend to actually quote which rule this is? A few points that you might want to specifically ask him would be:

a. Is this a WB specific rule or all India rule?

b. If this rule is true, is there a different yardstick for women drivers, because, almost all of them would be breaking the law.

[Ragul]

Originally Posted by vb-san

Oh yes! I remember my driving instructor insisting on me removing the shoes before starting on the daily session. According to him, that helps to connect with the car

And yes, riding motorbikes with slippers is dangerous. But then, I wish they get stricter on saving the head (helmet rule) before getting on with the footwear rule.

Yes, wearing soft soles and being able to use only the thumb toe to press the accelerator for example is kinda a zen experience ...

--R

[Sudipto-S-Team]

Neel I will but I think Motor Vehicles is a state subject. I mean the MV department is part of the state government and all the taxes they collect go to the state government. So perhaps it is a state rule (though concurrently some central rules might also be in place). And indeed women are guilty of such a rule if the rule states: "no slippers". I have not seen it written anywhere but I am sure that area is vague with something like "the rider should wear proper footwear so as not to cause any harm to himself or herself .......". Such vagueness leaves a lot of scope for the interpreters to use them to their advantage. Unless someone files a PIL against such vagueness it is unlikely to be changed.
Incidentally when a policeman catches you and imposes a fine on you he doesn't show you any book with the rules written down. You are supposed to know the law and there is a famous one liner in legal circles: "ignorance of law is not a defence". That is, you cannot say, "I was not aware of this law".
But I must certainly find out more details of it.
It is only in West Bengal that we have it written prominently on the back of all commercial vehicles: "obey traffic rules". No one quite knows what the rules really are. I once saw a very very fat book called Motor Vehicles Act xxxx. It's way fatter than any dictionary I have ever seen in life. It detailed all the provisions and also detailed all the fines for the violations. This was shown to me when I went to a police station over a friend's licence seizure.

[Sutripta]

^^^
'Poriborton' - Cal traffic cops ARE running amok. And like opportunistic predators, they go after soft targets. And they are setting up traffic light timings, and stop lines in such a way that they are never short of victims. And the TP of neighbouring areas are joining in (has anyone noticed the indiscriminate 'paper checking' on Kona Expway of late.

However, to come back to the shoes/ slippers thing, it is a rule in Assam. For 4 wheeler drivers. Used when they have nothing else to pin on you. Apparently, it was a rule introduced by the British. The Britishers wore shoes, the Indians normally didn't. Criminalise the Indians. More to do with power and exercise of authority. I wouldn't be surprised if the Calcutta rule, if true, has similar origins.

Regards
Sutripta

[neel385]

Originally Posted by Sudipto-S-Team

Incidentally when a policeman catches you and imposes a fine on you he doesn't show you any book with the rules written down. You are supposed to know the law and there is a famous one liner in legal circles: "ignorance of law is not a defence". That is, you cannot say, "I was not aware of this law".

I would like to disagree. The policeman who gives you a chalaan is also duty bound to tell you exactly what you are being penalised for, and, yes, even show you the rule book if required. The problem I feel really starts from our inability to really stand up to tyranny by the police. I have been pulled up a couple of times for frivolous reasons and at all times as I did not buckle down in front of the constable who generally is the man on the street and asked him to take me to his superior which generally closed the chapter.

Originally Posted by Sudipto-S-Team

But I must certainly find out more details of it.

Thank you.

[markmytravel]

This rule makes sense in countries like US where bikes are used for leisure but in India where two-wheeler are part and parcel of life, it makes little sense to me.

[Sheel]

Originally Posted by markmytravel

This rule makes sense in countries like US where bikes are used for leisure but in India where two-wheeler are part and parcel of life, it makes little sense to me.

What?

To have a fall and let the foot-peg pierce through your foot or shear off your finger?

I am not saying to ride with full riding gear while commuting for short rides, but a good quality helmet and a sturdy shoe (preferably covering the ankle) is a must.

Its is for your own good & safety. And when one gets used to it, one can't ride w/o one.

Else, take the Car out.

[Shivank]

Can't make my mind on this one.

If such kinda law/regulation were to be implemented at my place, whether justifiable or not, I for one can't wear shoes every time I run to the grocery shop, which is barely 1 km from my home. And so this regulation is stupid IMHO.

I always ride with my helmet on even if the distance is 100m or less; I support this cause. However, always riding wearing your shoes is too much of an ask, especially if the travelling distance is short.

And if the government care for my body parts so much, why leave my knees/arms/chest/spine/shoulders etc.? I think, each body part is equally vulnerable to injury in case of a fall, isn't it?

[voodoochild]

Originally Posted by markmytravel

This rule makes sense in countries like US where bikes are used for leisure but in India where two-wheeler are part and parcel of life, it makes little sense to me.

This, according to me, is exactly the attitude which inhibits ANY sort of change for the better with regard to traffic in India. If a two-wheeler is a part and parcel of your life, why is riding gear not? If you can get a helmet for 100 bucks on the road, get shoes for another 100! Even a cheap pair of military PT shoes offer more protection than our beloved "havaai" chappals. Or better yet, get a pair of 200-rupee ammunition boots man! They come fully recommended for motorcycling (by me )

Apparently there was a helmet rule attempted in Pune, which was vetoed by the junta, as they said "if we feel safe without a helmet, who are you to impose it on us?". Wow, just wow!!! Hats (read helmets) off to the public display of retardation!!

Cheers,
Rahul

PS: I'm not an NRI or anything. Not even "phoren-return".

[markmytravel]

Originally Posted by voodoochild

This, according to me, is exactly the attitude which inhibits ANY sort of change for the better with regard to traffic in India. If a two-wheeler is a part and parcel of your life, why is riding gear not? If you can get a helmet for 100 bucks on the road, get shoes for another 100! Even a cheap pair of military PT shoes offer more protection than our beloved "havaai" chappals. Or better yet, get a pair of 200-rupee ammunition boots man! They come fully recommended for motorcycling (by me )

Rahul - I am all in with your thoughts on safety and would never encourage anyone to drive with out shoes but REALITY is most people who are riding in havaii can't really think of buying shoes as they are too involved in meeting their monthly expenditures think auto rickshaw, paper vala, etc.. People like us with at least 30-40-50+ a month will mostly be in proper gear. When our law authorities are short on man power to tackle much more important issues, should they really be involved in harassing the poor who is already struggling.

[voodoochild]

Originally Posted by markmytravel

...most people who are riding in havaii can't really think of buying shoes as they are too involved in meeting their monthly expenditures...When our law authorities are short on man power to tackle much more important issues, should they really be involved in harassing the poor who is already struggling.

We've reached times where even the neighbourhood vegetable vendor with his wooden wagon can afford two or more cellphones, but cannot afford shoes that cost less than a tenth of that amount? Whats he doing with a motorcycle then? Most of the time, there's a character riding a motorcycle WHILE talking on his cellphone!! Its general apathy, not financial shortcomings. If a motorcycle dealership offers a deal on basic riding gear (just helmet and shoes, suppose) and a helmet rule is enfored ruthlessly (without lending an ear to the wailing about "its my head, I'll do as I please" or "my makeup will be ruined") a change may, JUST MAY come about.

Cheers,
Rahul

[TaurusAl]

Originally Posted by Sheel

What?

To have a fall and let the foot-peg pierce through your foot or shear off your finger?

I am not saying to ride with full riding gear while commuting for short rides, but a good quality helmet and a sturdy shoe (preferably covering the ankle) is a must.

Its is for your own good & safety. And when one gets used to it, one can't ride w/o one.

Else, take the Car out.

Absolutely, Learn from my experience. I had a fall at 35 KMPH in a very small lane in Mumbai when suddenly a Dog cut my way. I had to cut my turn even shorter which made my bike slip. I was wearing Nike Floaters. My feet was damaged to an extent of my bones getting exposed as I was dragged with the bike. I was only hurt on my feet. If I was wearing shoes or even something that covered my feet, I would have come out unscratched.

I have learnt my lesson. Think about it. Its should not be just a rule. Your safety should matter to you the most.

[thoma]

A related query here; a hearsay that I want to clarify.

I know that many of us do love to drive in our bermudas / three-fourths. But I've heard some two of my friends saying that you'll be fined for driving in shorts + slippers. At the very least, is there any wording in the rule book that says you have to drive in proper attire? May be some cops have taken it wrongly as Pants and Shoes.

[vulcanize]

I had earlier posted on another thread about riding superbikes in flip-flops (aka chappals) and it got deleted since it was deemed irrelevant to topic.
Anyways, when I went for a motorcycle endorsement in the US (there is a mandatory training program of four days that one needs to attend) the instructor flatly refused to allow me to ride the bike even in sneakers.
They insisted on boots because "personal protective equipment (PPE) required sturdy over the ankle footwear that affords protection for the feet and ankles to be worn".

So will India too require one to upgrade from shoes to boots when people start to comply????