Team-BHP - Accidents in India

Quote:

Originally Posted by binand (Post 2893849)

IOCL is not being blamed for the tanker's safety (they have been claiming that their tankers are totally safe). They are being blamed for dragging their feet for several years on the proposed LPG terminal at Kochi. .

Since I think we are slightly OT from the thread, I would like to make my final point on this case. The Terminal in Kochi is a must and should be done without delay. My objection was to the cry for naming IOCL as an accused for murder in the tanker case, by politicians. I rest my case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by selfdrive (Post 2894499)

dont count on that. we have enough conspiracy theories going around about how the helmet rule was put in place so that relatives of politicians could make money.

We see helmets being sold on road side and people actually buying them. This happens right under the nose of cops. No ISI, no nothing. Its a thin sheet with some thermocol in it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by carwatcher (Post 2894824)

Your post has made me post this comment from someone in today's newspaper.
I personally feel that for each concerned citizen, we have 10 (or more) fools like this.:Frustrati

What more can be expected in a country like ours where the Govt. has to give ads requesting its citizens to put handkerchief on nose while sneezing in bus.:Shockked:
We conveniently blame and curse Maruti (Kitna Deti Hai), Govt. (above mentioned ad), China (for cheap chinese products) but forget completely the facts that have lead to such situation.

Call me a fool if you please, but I'd agree with what he has written. I'm vehemently against making someone wear one forcibly. Its my head and I'll decide if I want to mash it up or protect it. I dont need a cop to tell me what to do and ask for a bribe to let me have my way.

To those who cite roundabout reasons like a person's life not being his own, cite economic losses, etc., I'd say they are demeaning human life to being an automaton. I'm not much interested in being the nation's/family's or anyone else's economic asset. Those who feel that way are exercising their freedom to feel that way, but they should not impose it on others.

To those who want to forcibly cram helmets down everyone's heads, I'd sincerely request them to focus their energies on how they can themselves become better drivers, make their vehicles safer, etc., and contribute to making the world a safer place. And yes, they can certainly always wear a helmet themselves... and maybe even sermonize on its benifits to others. :p If we look harder, we'll always find ways of improving on those. And that makes me really wonder - do most here who are in favor of a compulsory helmet law even ride two wheelers? I somehow have this nagging feeling that most might be users of 4 wheelers who are enjoying breathing an air of superiority by condescendingly discussing the topic...

As for myself, I do wear a helmet 99% of the time. So dont let anybody for a moment think that I'm against helmets. What I'm against is making helmets compulsory by law.

That said, while walking late night in a lonely defence area in Poona couple days ago, we chanced upon an accident up close. A guy going at a fairly low speed on an Activa kissed the ground due to an oversized speed-breaker. He suffered fairly severe injuries and lacerations. As it had rained, his open wounds got covered in wet filth. And yes, he was wearing a helmet though the helmet didn't have any part and did not take a hit. Its the rest of him that was badly hurt. Won't get into what followed as its not very relevant; but there is a whole lot of things that is wrong with our roads and its users. Making helmets compulsory is NOT going to address it. Instead it will generate an anti-helmet camp and a lot of time and energy will be wasted. Instead of addressing core issues, everyone (politicians, government, people) prefers to waste disproportionate time and energies on making helmets mandatory or fighting against it. Maybe it is done to deliberately digress from the real issues, and in the process make a show to convince that something is being done. True, helmets should be worn if you value your head and face; but its upto that head to decide if it wants to protect itself. By not wearing one, the head is not endangering anybody else's head. And as long as its not doing that, nobody should have the right to tell it what to do. Spurious justifications to encroach on that right do not hold any water. Spurious reasoning and spurious laws give rise to those spurious helmets and such which we have seen sprout on road sides; which are good enough to satisfy the letter of the law. But then maybe thats what this nation is designed to do - live by the letter of the law and consign common sense to the bin.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raccoon

Will have to respectfully disagree.
To start off, on just a couple of points. If someone not wearing a helmet bangs into my car, and gets a small knock on the head and dies-from a hit that would have been headache inducing with a helmet- then the resulting burning of my car or the years long litigation is being forced down my throat because of the riders anarchist attitude.
And frankly, what you have suggested is exactly that.
Let's not carry indignation against law and makers to such an extent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raccoon (Post 2895437)

On the subject of personal freedom - sure its your head. Its your bike, its your head and so on. But when you are the victim of an accident you surely expect emergency responders to protect your life, dont you? If the answer is no - and that you would prefer to be left to fend for yourself as a matter or personal freedom - I respect your right to ride without a helmet. On the other hand, if you do require the 'system' to send you an ambulance, take you to a hospital and receive emergency care - you need to be ready to make sure that you are taking adequate precautions against head injuries & also drive defensively. This is what we can do as individuals.

Do consider that even in parts of the world where traffic management is of a much higher quality and accident rates are low - Helmets are compulsory.

Sure a helmet cannot prevent injuries to the torso but one cannot ignore statistical evidence that confirms that head injury is the #1 cause of fatalities in two wheeler accidents. I lost a cousin - he was 19 at the time - to a motorbike accident on account of a head injury. It was a slow speed crash. He did not have any serious injuries on his torso or limbs. It was just one sever impact on his skull. He would most probably have survived had he been wearing a helmet.

Since the discussion is going on regarding bikes and wearing helmets, I would like to take the liberty of going slightly off topic to share an incident which is not directly related to the topic, but does go a long way to speak about the attitude.

I was once along with my wife returning home from Gurgaon on my bike. On the Gurgaon-Dwarka link road after the underpass, there is a signal where you take right to go from front of Sector 21 metro station. Now as soon as I took the right I was stopped by traffic cops. Apparently I had jumped the red light, which I m sure I had not. Anyways, instead of arguing I decided on paying the fine. I was wearing my riding jacket, gloves n all and it was peak summer. The cop asked me , "Itna kuch pehan rakha hain, garmi nahi lagti aapko?"(You ve worn so much, dont you feel hot?)
I said its fine, safety hain.

At that he remarked, 'Safety kya hain, bas kapde bachenge inse' ( What safety, it ll protect only your clothes)
I did nt bother to explain him about my armoured jacket and all but what he commented next made me:Shockked:

My wife had taken her helmet off and was now wearing it.
The cop looking at that says," Dilli mein ladies ko helmet pehan ne ka rule nahi hain" (In delhi the rule does nt require ladies to wear helmet)

My wife said, "Sir rule nahi hain par sar toh hamaara hain na"(Sir, there is no rule, but the head is ours na?)

And I sped away, leaving him alone to think about it.

I was baffled, the law enforcers want you to do some thing only because the law says so.

Sorry for going OT, but this does tell a lot about the attitude we have in general about safety.

Quote:

Originally Posted by srishiva (Post 2895775)

You can show ads on how helmets save life but don't make it a law to force one to wear. How come cigarette smokers are not fined? they are major polluters also.

Are you sure about what you have written.
http://www.ndtv.com/article/cities/n...ic-place-18404
There are numerous others.
I again say that personal freedom, human rights, concern for others are still a distant dream in a country like others, we just can't copy developed countries blindly without talking about ground realities.
The majority of the problems are from citizens (and drivers) and rest is from Govt. For instance when road laying work is going on, we don't even have basic common sense to not to drive on it while work is going on (especially the 4-wheelers), It is dangerous as well as hampers the work and quality of road. Now who will teach this to us, Govt. Exactly same situation is with driving habits, govt. has spent whatever it could to educate us, but almost all of T-BHPians claim that things are going from bad to worse.
Similarly, if car drivers are comfortable with seat belts (Seatbelt saves lives) and why can't riders be with helmet. As regards payment of fine its the cop who asks for bribe or we offer him first. I am more than 100% sure if anyone accepts his/her mistake and simply pay the fine without arguing, cop will accept it.
:OT
One more fact I would like to bring to your notice that the previous coalition (Congress-NCP) Govt. was doing next to nothing in almost all the matters of public safety be it illegal and haphazard mining, traffic condition, etc. When people were completely fed-up and threw this govt. out by coming out in very huge numbers to vote and brought the new CM to power (who is an ex-IITian), one can immediately see the difference in traffic and road safety. We now have cops at every major junctions regulating traffic, on bikes checking papers, etc, and even that mobile vans checking speed with radar gun. Everything was already there but the govt. was too busy with mining and other scams that it didn't had time to care for public. Now this proposal of helmet rule for Pillion rider (for main rider is already in existence) is proposed as a further extension of the security measures to improve road safety. One more important point to note that the transport minister has proposed this first to a committee of MLAs from all the political parties for review within few months and after that only it will be enforced. IIRC this review is under consideration since last 2 months or so. Its certainly not enforced overnight. It may or may not be enforced. But tell me honestly, is it better to keep the proposal hanging (in typical congress fashion) or take a decision.
What I have mentioned can be verified by anyone.

The problem with stretching the right to personal freedom to the ambit of public roads and personal transportation is rife with contradictions. One can extend the argument that seat belts, insurance for vehicles, speed limits and almost every other regulation related to private \ public transport is a violation of personal freedom.

Its not that those of us backing legislation do not recognize ..
(a) ..that helmets can be uncomfortable in our tropical climate - I rode a suzuki shogun through 8 humid summers - and can be cumbersome to carry around
(b) ..that some users claim that even seat belts are uncomfortable. (On the contrary I feel very insecure even if I have to drive just a few feet without buckling up)

And so on

BUT

A public road is public space and exercising personal freedom can be to the extent of choosing ones mode of transport & its specifications. Issues related to safety, emissions and so on cannot be left to choice and opinion because these are rarely confined to individuals.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raccoon (Post 2895437)

Call me a fool if you please, but I'd agree with what he has written. I'm vehemently against making someone wear one forcibly.

Let's forget about the law for just one second and think.

Why are these policeman enforcing such a rule? (remember, they're not making it) Why are these 4-wheel drivers "condescendingly discussing" the topic? The question here is 'WHY' and not 'Why are they'.

I, as a citizen of this country, aspire to see this country grow and improve. With regard to safety of the country's citizens, with regard to life's improvement in general. Therefore, I'd like to imagine that I hold a certain responsibility. This forum has been my home and I consider all BHPians good friends. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Now, for some idiot on the road riding without wearing a helmet, I wouldn't give two hoots about. Because I know there is no changing him. My friends? Why shouldn't I? I may be a judgmental, condescending '4-wheeler driver' breathing an air of superiority as you'd say. But I feel responsible in some way.

With the number of two-wheelers sold every month, one can only imagine how many people ride them and how the number is increasing. So that many people are vulnerable to fatal injuries if they don't wear helmets. And that's what this boils down to.

Note - Team-BHP Support-Staff: This is the Accidents in India - PICS thread. The title implies that pictures may be posted here and discussion pertaining to those pictures is what this thread is about. Please avoid going OFF TOPIC and reserve this discussion for a more appropriate thread.