Mind your head

…If you have one.

Apparently that was a popular phrase sometime back. I suppose the Karnataka Government was thinking of the same thing, when, in its infinitesimal wisdom it deigned that moped-riders and pillions dont need protection for their heads(according to Vijay Times).

Effective from July, the Government proposes to re-introduce for the nth time, the law on helmets being compulsory for both two wheeler rider and pillion. And in that it has included an exception clause – if the two-wheeler is a moped, then the law doesnt apply.

So folks who jump from a bike to a moped grow an automatic crash protector around their heads, I suppose?

7 Comments so far

  1. NParry (unregistered) on June 14th, 2006 @ 7:35 pm

    Just proves the fact that we’re destined to be ruled by rulers who border just on the thicker edge of stupidity and mediocre intelligence. Unbelieveable, that in this day and age, we’ve chosen and agreed to live with such dumb idiots – our Honorable Ministers!!!

  2. Ravi (unregistered) on June 14th, 2006 @ 9:02 pm

    Let’s not knock it before we really think about it. Mopeds are mostly the workhorse of the poorer sections of society who cannot afford a helmet. It is not fair to enforce the helmet rule on them and then fine them if they do not follow. I think the decision is a right balance.

  3. BangaloreGuy (unregistered) on June 15th, 2006 @ 12:03 am


    Yep! Dont forget quite a few of our babus fit there too!


    The poor have the most to lose if they’re injured. What is the rationality of making helmets mandatory? That lives are saved.
    Why shouldnt the lives of our poorer folks not be saved?
    And people who ride mopeds can afford helmets.

  4. Ravi (unregistered) on June 15th, 2006 @ 11:29 am

    The popular belief is that the ‘helmet manufacturers’ lobby is behind this whole sordid saga. A coupla thousand to the right people and these laws/rules keeping cropping up every now and then.
    Hmmmm…one more ‘Ravi’ here?!

  5. Jace (unregistered) on June 15th, 2006 @ 12:19 pm

    Thank goodness the government had the sense to not make it mandatory for all — it was one of the stupidest rules around. Enforcing that rule was bound to cause more problems than it solved.

  6. Ravi A (unregistered) on June 15th, 2006 @ 3:00 pm

    OK, am the first Ravi and now I call myself Ravi A so that would avoid confusion :)
    TO answer bangalore guy, well the poor’s lives are to be saved too, but have you considered the probabilities and the immediate priorities of the poor? Why would anybody be willing to do construction work in high rise buildings at all if life safety is the only concern? They are willing to tradeoff the low probability of a fatal moped accident against the savings in capital required for a helmet, which could otherwise feed their family for a month.

  7. BangaloreGuy (unregistered) on June 15th, 2006 @ 8:02 pm

    Ravi (metblogs),

    That is a poor excuse actually – the helmet lobby might bring in the law, but who got them repealed time and again?

    I dont quite see whats the harm if the helmet lobby brings it in – road safety is paid no attention at all in India – even after 80,000 deaths per year

    Anyhow, this time its the Courts that are askin the law to be put in place and enforced.


    imo, if it’s to be mandatory – there can be no exception clauses. And considering the screw-ups that go by the name of our road infrastructure, IMO its a good thing to have them mandatory.

    Ravi (a),

    I’m sure there are other ways to reduce the burden on the folks who are poor. That should not deter from the reason the rule is in place – saving lives.

Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.