Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Petitioners belong to school of thought opposing the rules regulations, notifications, which make wearing of helmet compulsory. Petitioners contend the following:

a) Notification/ Regulation imposing wearing of helmet as being arbitrary inconsistent since it has no relevance to the object sought to be achieved since accidents occur irrespective of the fact whether riders wear helmet or not as the same is attributable to the carelessness and negligence of either riders or others. Human error as being the major cause for road accident.

12. It is in every ones knowledge that people have settled for two wheelers to solve their commuting and it is in every ones comprehension as to how the zooming down the pot holed roads for the mere sheer joy of zipping down a highway with the wind whip ping through ones hair, chances of running over a truck or bus, hitting a stray dog, horse or cow and flying in to nearer electric poles, and footpaths used by pedestrians, no matter how hard headed or soft headed, rider would be dead en route to NIMHANS or other medical centres. Oner has to realise that it is not just the law but it is Qnes life. Wearing of Helmet is made compulsory for purposes of protection from injury, heat and pollution Rules and Regulations alone cannot be panacea since human error is considered as the major cause for road accidents. Accusations regarding the causes of the accident as being due to carelessness, drunkenness, rashness, negligence, overspeeding arrogance, incompetence etc. are of secondary line of thinking since often riders might not be there as a living witness to explain the causes. In this modern society one should not speak through, rules and regulations but must visualise their moral commitment to the Society at large. Rider must realise that woman who is widowed because of the road accident may be his own wife or vice versa.