Uttar Pradesh's 'No Helmet, No Fuel' policy begins in Lucknow to encourage road safety
Uttar Pradesh's 'No Helmet, No Fuel' policy begins in Lucknow to encourage road safety
To improve road safety, Lucknow's administration has ordered petrol stations to deny fuel to two-wheeler riders and passengers without helmets from January 26.
I wonder why India doesn't have more public transport. Is it just too spread sparsely populated? Too much influence from the auto-lobby and western powers? Corruption?
More public transport could reduce road deaths by reducing traffic and getting people off of motorised two-wheelers.
What does this have to do with cars?
both are vehicles that run on roads and use fuel, i find it kind of bigoted that you exclude other minority vehicles
Fuel? I'm honestly surprised two-wheelers in India haven't been completely been overtaken by electrics, at least outside of the modern traffic infrastructure of Mumbai. I've only been there a few times but so much of what I saw (mostly in Thiruvananthapuram) was urban design where the high speed and power of a motorbike wouldn't be very useful (at least as a solo rider not carrying a heavy load like a passenger or anything) - slow, cramped, chaotic traffic on dusty zig-zagging roads.
Helmets are important. But I do wonder if this approach is going to lead to unjustified anger and violence against filling station employees simply for complying with the law and refusing fuel (as if it's even their choice)
Im curious about your argument because this would justify not putting any rules at any time. No cigarettes for under age in shops (might attack a shop keeper), no alcohol in pubs (might attack a bartender), no fines for speeding (might attack cameras or police), no parking restrictions (might attack ticket wardens), etc.
Maybe the threat of fines are not enough to change this behaviour (which I can understand in India after spending a lot of time there) so they are trying a novel approach. One thing Indian police will take more seriously is attacking a worker for applying the rules compared to risking your own life.
I am overall in favour of the new rules being applied. I think the change is good, and this manner of enforcing it should save a lot of lives.
Despite being in favour I still wanted to raise that potential consequence - that some blameless worker is pretty certainly going to get assaulted over this by some angry idiot.