Citizens’ groups in the city continue to remain fiercely divided over Pune police’s compulsory helmet rule, which has come into force from January 1.
While nearly 8,000 two-wheeler riders were penalised for violating the rule on New Year’s Day, several bike riders remained hostile to it despite Pune Police Commissioner K. Venkatesham warning that offenders would be taken to task.
With mounting pressure from anti-helmet outfits and politicos, even the police seemed ambivalent about enforcing the rule too rigidly.
This has prompted a city-based NGO Parisar, associated with urban safety issues, to send a legal notice to the Director -General of Police, the State Transport Commissioner and the Police Commissioners of the Pune and Pimpri-Chinchwad regions for “failing to ensure the strict compliance” of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles (MV) Act, 1988.
Sujit Patwardhan of Parisar observed that in July 2003, the Bombay High Court had passed an order directing the implementation of the provisions of Section 129 of the Act, which make the use of protective headgear compulsory for every person driving or riding pillion on a motor cycle of any class or description.
In March 2005, the HC had again taken note of the non-compliance of the 2003 order and directed that the provisions of the MV Act be strictly implemented in the entire State from July 1, 2005.
“In spite of the said judgment, a large number of two-wheeler drivers continue to flout these mandatory provisions of Section 129 of the MV Act. This legal notice is to put ‘constructive pressure’ on the police to carry out their promised enforcement and not be swayed by the anti-helmet faction,” Mr. Patwardhan told The Hindu .
A recent survey by the NGO revealed that barely 28% of riders and 1.1% of pillion riders used a helmet.
“Pune has the highest number of two-wheelers in the country – a number which is only increasing every year. But so are the fatalities. Other than some token ‘awareness programmes’, no consistent effort has been taken by civic authorities to bring down the number of accident-related deaths. So, we are left with no option but to take legal recourse,” said Ranjit Gadgil, Programme Director, Parisar.
Mr. Venkatesham said that the objective behind making helmets compulsory for riders as well as the pillion was to bring about discipline and drastically reduce deaths from two-wheeler accidents.
“As opposed to last year, this time on New Year’s Eve there were no fatal accidents owing to our enforcement of the helmet rule,” he claimed, Violators, he added, will undergo counselling sessions.
‘Misplaced priorities’
However, RTI activist Vivek Velankar, founder of the Sajag Nagrik Manch and part of the anti-helmet faction, asserted that the decision to wear or not wear a helmet ought to be an individual choice.
“With traffic crawling on Pune’s congested roads, 80% of citizens never wear helmets. Instead of repairing dysfunctional roads and apprehending traffic offenders, the Pune police is merely trying to enforce a law which usually degenerates into a revenue garnering exercise for the authorities,” Mr. Velankar alleged.
He observed that the most vociferous advocates of the helmet rule usually were people who owned four-wheelers and had seldom worn a helmet.
Mr. Velankar said the rule only helped increase the market for spurious helmets.
“The traffic policeman seldom checks if a rider is wearing an ISI-quality helmet or not. If the helmet is of dubious quality, how can it act as protective headgear,” he observed, adding that in the end, the two-wheeler rider is compelled to buy a helmet for ₹800 to avoid a ₹500 fine.
