[ptushar]

I for one, don't understand the logic on what benefit this is likely to achieve? The moot issue here is drunk driving, which needs to be addressed. So if liquor is sold 500m away from a SH/NH, will this in any way solve the issue of drunk driving? I don't think so.

Also don't like 'ban' culture. Banning something is seldom a solution. Awareness and implementation of laws are better alternatives. Some states ban liquor and what happens? You still get liquor, but through non-authorized channels and for a few rupees more. Some states ban meat, and then what happens? The same again.

And what happens to the 4 & 5 star hotels next to a highway? E.g. Sayaji and Holiday Inn in Pune. Do they stop serving liqour?

I would seriously appreciate if some action is taken on the following, instead of rules like these which will be extremely difficult to implement.

• Trucks / other vehicles without proper tail lights
• Vehicles parked on a SH/NH
• Temporary / kuccha roads being connected to highways in a haphazard manner
• Wrong side driving on highways
• Slow vehicles in rightmost lanes (especially on three laned highways)
• Overweight trucks
• Trucks carrying rods which protrude from the back of the vehicles (with no lights or indicators)
• Maniacs trying to prove Einstein wrong, that nothing can travel faster than speed of light

[scythian]

There's some work being done on alcohol detection system in cars that I was reading about. It's called the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety (DADSS). From the website:

The DADSS research program brings together the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety (ACTS), which represents the world’s leading automakers, in one of the most important government and private sector partnerships in recent years.

This is more sophisticated than attaching a simple breathalyzer to the ignition system, and looks like it involves continuous monitoring of the driver's breath, in addition to skin sensors. Here's an overview video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yykyT4YRw4A

Here is the website.

I am sure people will figure out ways to circumvent this eventually, but seems like a good initiative, and will at least make it harder to drink and drive.

[ariesonu]

http://mumbaimirror.indiatimes.com/n...w/56008650.cms



Regards-Sonu

[binand]

Originally Posted by Thilak29

Wow! Wonder who rules this land, SC or Gov?

We shouldn't be lauding the SC only when it makes laws that we approve of, and dissing it when we don't. The SC does have the power under article 142 of the constitution to create laws in areas where none exist; in fact for a long time (about 15 years) the law for sexual harassment at the workplace was as laid down by the SC ("Visakha Guidelines"), till parliament passed the an act in 2013.

Originally Posted by ptushar

The moot issue here is drunk driving, which needs to be addressed. So if liquor is sold 500m away from a SH/NH, will this in any way solve the issue of drunk driving? I don't think so.

Well, I do. I certainly believe the easy availability of alcohol along the highways do contribute to higher number of DUI accidents. I know people who stop for a meal while on a drive, and just because their chosen restaurant served alcohol decided to have a couple of drinks. I believe this new law will reduce such cases - alcohol consumption as an activity during a break in journey as opposed to a journey that starts from a bar.

Originally Posted by ptushar

Also don't like 'ban' culture. Banning something is seldom a solution. Awareness and implementation of laws are better alternatives.

That is the often-cited argument against banning, and I think the one refuted easiest. Any attempt at changing consumption behaviour has to start simultaneously at both supply and demand ends and meet at the middle. In this context it means reducing availability of alcohol (choke supply) along with all the awareness and enforcement (stifle demand) that you speak of, to achieve any result.

[mac187]

This will not help in anyway.

Case in point, all the Dhabas' will continue to sell liqour for the weary truck driver who needs a quarter to sleep!! They will charge him more, worse he may decide to buy it before hand and drink while on the wheel..

All the vacation junta will invest in a cooler box and get on with life..

Like someone mentioned, there should be better monitoring, checks of Transport vehicles which don't have basic safety requirements like brake lights or hazard lights. And their tendency to park on the highway to relax themselves.

[ptushar]

Originally Posted by binand

I believe this new law will reduce such cases - alcohol consumption as an activity during a break in journey as opposed to a journey that starts from a bar

Well. That point I do agree. This will surely curb those people who order a drink simple because it is available.

Originally Posted by mac187

Case in point, all the Dhabas' will continue to sell liqour for the weary truck driver who needs a quarter to sleep!! They will charge him more, worse he may decide to buy it before hand and drink while on the wheel..

But this is exactly what will happen. You will have small places 'behind' the dhaba to get 'what you want'. Of course you will pay a small premium for this additional service.

Originally Posted by binand

In this context it means reducing availability of alcohol (choke supply) along with all the awareness and enforcement (stifle demand) that you speak of, to achieve any result.

This one I disagree. Banning something or choking supply only leads to black marketing. It only creates avenues of alternate markets which is detrimental to the society and more so it promotes more transactions through cash, which then leads to the situation that prevails in India now.

Free markets is the way I sincerely believe things should be. Take for instance where countries have legalized betting. It is governed and regulated, but still open as a choice to the public. Alternatively take states which have banned liquor, you still get liquor, just that you pay extra, pay cash and play clandestinely. Moreover if you are 'caught' then you end up in a situation that further promotes illegal bribery.

Instead, if it were freely available, then you have curbed black marketing, curbed cash transaction, curbed corruption (since I cannot get prosecuted for just carrying it or buying it) and furthermore ensured tax revenue generation. Yes, I agree that along with this comes great responsibility and hence the need for implementing stricter laws.

[binand]

Originally Posted by ptushar

Banning something or choking supply only leads to black marketing. [...] Free markets is the way I sincerely believe things should be.

It is never so black-and-white. Certain goods need to be outright banned (heroin), some need to be regulated universally (automobiles, drugs), some regulated based on the social milieu (alcohol, betting) and so on. The fact that something is banned or regulated does not provide any argument for or against another thing. Further, possibility of a black market cannot be used as an argument against banning anything.

Free markets are a theoretical concept. If there is no regulation, enforcement or bans, the market of today will quickly degenerate into a depraved and sordid mess where human dignity amounts to nothing.

[Queryanalyzer]

Its a good move, but effective implementation is important here.
Just a few months back, somewhere along the MP/MH border, I saw a road sign saying "Caution: Liquor shop ahead. Drive slowly", so something along those lines. I was flabbergasted!

[veerubhai]

Fantastic move by SC, better late than never. This will curb the people who throng wineshops from nearby places and do drunk driving causing problems the highway motorists. Myself was a victim of an accident when a drunkard "drove" his moped directly from median of highway (wrong way/no-entry) into national highway after his drinks.

[kovilkalai]

I have several problems with this decision:

1. Why is a court establishing rules? Shouldn't it be the elected government that does this? If this is alright, why do we need the state or central government? We could all just appeal to the court and the court could just issue decrees.

2. So... if drunken driving is correlated to liquor shops next to highways, then the following should also be banned.
a. Vehicles... because road accidents happen because of them
b. Exams... because there would be no copying if it weren't for exams
The logic is ridiculous!

3. Our governments and courts seem to think more regulation is a fantastic alternative to enforcement. We have traffic laws that no one follows. That doesn't mean you pepper the road with speed-breakers so that people will drive slowly. You have to improve traffic enforcement. We seem to forget that the reason that pretty much everything is difficult to do in India because of regulations that were perhaps well-intended at some point.

[prateekvidya]

I doubt that this will help in any way, it just creates the market for some people to carry liquor in 2 wheelers to supply to the truckvaalas (if the alleged hypothesis that they drink and drive because of easy availability of liquor is true). Besides, it is near impossible to check dhabas who could still be selling them under the rug. Remember, these dhabas come under police jurisdiction of their respective villages/talukas, and most of them on the highways are small enough for people to know each other and manage internally.

A good move would have been to confiscate trucks where drivers are drunk on a random basis (trucks are stopped for many reasons on highways anyway), and keep them away for a few days. The moment their owners start cutting down salaries for their absence, this culture may start changing.

PS : Good times now since there is less cash to bribe those cops !

[binand]

Attaching the full text of the judgment.

imgs1.pdf

[VKumar]

The Man Who Made Our Highways Sober

Here is the man who made it happen. For those who doubt the effectiveness of this decision, the above article has some minor facts those can help. Appreciations for Harman singh Sidhu, who filed this PIL.

It is something like how the supermarkets are designed; they follow a simple rule in placement of items in the store. At times people just end up recalling or even buying the products which they don't even need in the real time, just because their eyes caught it, placed at the place; where it is directly in front of your head position.

Similar is the notion here. Now some may argue that the one who needs it will buy it. Well, I agree. Will a truck driver with a loaded 18 wheeler enter the city premises or drive off the highway for the purpose? Now in Punjab and Haryana; in fact in entire NCR, liquor shops are more common than even puncture repair shops and petrol pumps.

Now if one has 20 shops on a 30 kilometer long stretch with naughty friends inside the car, there will definitely come a point when the brakes will be slammed for buying plastic glasses, salted peanuts and 'lambi gardan waali'(Tall neck babe).

[Precision]

Good move, but in states like kerala and union territories where highways are also the only major roads, it would be tough enforcing the rule and also protests are bound to happen.

Another thing i would love to see happen is the enforcing of a minimum speed limit on 4 and 6 lane highways, this would lead all the slower 2 and 3 wheeler traffic to keep to the service roads.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by binand

Attaching th full text of the judgment. Attachment 1586154

The wording of the judgment has created massive confusion. The judgment says liquor shop all along, and never says bar/pub/restaurant/hotel where liquor is served, but not available for sale. Therefore, all the bar/pub/restaurant/hotel owners are scrambling to find out whether they are included in the ban too. But nobody knows (even excise department) what the judge actually meant. Wonder when they will clarify, with only 3 months given for shutdown.