There are strong views on both sides of the divide. The main area of criticism is the sharp increase in the quantum of fines for traffic offences. The justification for the increase is that fines of Rs 100 or thereabouts were almost laughed at by offenders who thought nothing of repeating the offence. With increases going up between four to ten times, there is no doubt that offenders will think twice about repeating the offence. Critics of the increase argue that the fines are out of reach for the average low-income driver. But that is precisely the purpose of stiff fines; to act as a deterrent, the value of which is unquestionable based on evidence from countries where penalties are harsh. There are, however, some aspects that need reflection and review.
Firstly, any rule introduced to alter human behaviour needs adequate publicity before enforcement to make the public aware of the need for such a rule and the potential benefits to society. For example, when the helmet and seat belt rules were introduced in the UK, there was a preceding media publicity blitz to increase awareness. To demonstrate the need for helmets, George Cooper, the British heavyweight boxing champion’s twin brother appeared on television, and smashed a coconut with a baseball bat. He then repeated the exercise covering a coconut with a helmet. The point was made dramatically and the protective value of a helmet was rammed home. The benefits of seat belts were demonstrated with dummy crashes to illustrate the injuries that were prevented. In spite of protests about infringement of fundamental rights, common sense prevailed. As a consequence, attendance at emergency departments dropped dramatically overnight; a great relief to young medical officers like me working in the A&E department at the time. Similarly, drunk driving has been curtailed significantly with stiff penalties and rigid implementation.
Secondly, there should be a distinction between violations that endanger lives and those of a more logistical nature. Over speeding and talking on cell phones endangers lives; parking in no parking zones is not as serious. Drunk and dangerous driving is obviously more serious than not having car papers with you. The former must invite heavy fines; the latter is treated more lightly and the offender given the opportunity to produce the papers at the police station later and pay a lesser fine. Bear in mind that a sharp distinction is made between not having a licence and having one but not carrying it with you. Thirdly, the Motor Vehicular Accident (MVA) act does have some progressive sections which are undoubtedly beneficial. The state of the roads has rightly caused an uproar, with citizens insisting on proper roads before such fines are imposed. In the new act, Section 198A holds “road contractors, consultants or concessionaires accountable for faulty road design, construction and maintenance and failure to do so will lead them to being fined up to Rs.1 lakh”. This will be welcomed by all. Children must now wear seat belts. The licensing system has been tweaked; but it still lacks the efficiency of a strict driving test. Motoring schools and their instructors need tighter rules for accreditation to function, so that the student applies for a licence well versed with road rules. Instructors must be licensed based on higher standards.
At present, for example, most drivers are totally ignorant of the relevance of fast and slow lanes on dual carriageways; largely because the instructors at driving schools are themselves ignorant of the norms. The problem of hit-and-run cases has been addressed and clauses included for good Samaritan protection, cashless golden hour treatment and increased compensation for victims; a Motor Vehicle Accident Fund will be set up.
Last but not least, the bill has become a victim of subtle politics. At the preliminary discussions for drafting the bill, 18 States were involved; there was no dissent. The standing committee approved the draft, again without objections. The bill sailed through parliament without any demands for amendments. Yet after the enforcement date, 11 States came out against the level of fines including 8 BJP-ruled ones. The revolt was led by Vijay Rupani the Gujarat CM and a staunch party loyalist. Party leaders, politicians and even cops were found openly flouting the rules. The question is, how is it that BJP leaders at State level mustered the courage to apparently defy the Central leadership? Two explanations are doing the rounds. The first is the impending elections in some of these States. The more interesting one is that Nitin Gadkari was being cut down to size. His comments on the Modi leadership are a matter of record at a stage when he had the blessings of the RSS as a possible alternative to Modi in the event of an election debacle. Instead, the Modi landslide provided the leadership with an opportunity for retribution, reflected in tacit approval for a revolt on his pet project, the MVA 2019.
In summary, a priming media campaign for public awareness was lacking; the explanations and defence came too little too late. The public is still unaware of the positive aspects of the bill, and comparisons between the old and new bill needed to be publicised. Most unfortunately the bill became a political football for the very party that introduced it. It was an amendment whose time had come. Let us hope it does not become a lost opportunity with the baby getting thrown out with the bath water.
(The writer is a founder member of the Voluntary Health Association of Goa.)
