[sustran] Re: [pttfgen:2819] Cycle rickshaws need of the hour, ban arbitrary: Court

[Ranjit Gadgil]

However the media is behaving like one!

The Times of India has subtly twisted the story to make it sound as if this
was a poor decision. Megha Suri has been doing this quite consistently. She
quotes dubious "experts" and puts the blame on traffic on cycle rikshaws!

Deflated cops brace for
chaos<http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=Archive&Source=Page&Skin=TOINEW&BaseHref=CAP/2010/02/11&PageLabel=2&EntityId=Ar00200&ViewMode=HTML&GZ=T>

The high court may have given rickshaw-pullers a reason to rejoice but an
already stretched traffic police is keeping its fingers crossed

*The HC decision to remove cap on the number of rickshaws in the city has
evoked strong reaction from traffic experts and police. They say that the
slow mode of transport will only add to chaos and more mishaps on roads*


*Megha Suri Singh | TNN*


Even as Delhi High Court ruled that there wont be any upper cap on the
number of cycle rickshaws in the city and banned confiscation and crushing
of the rickshaws, traffic experts said that allowing rickshaws to mushroom
will only lead to absolute chaos on city roads.
The traffic police, too, have for long held the view that cycle rickshaws
need to be banned on arterial roads as they cause congestion and accidents.
Experts feel that rickshaws move at slow speed on main roads and
rickshaw-pullers are unaware of the traffic laws of the road. In a city
where over 30 modes of transport co-exist , slow moving vehicles especially
cycle rickshaws are one of the major causes of congestion. At present,
rickshaws are banned on arterial roads. But this would change after
Wednesdays order. Cycle rickshaws are one of the major causes of congestion
on Delhi roads. They should not be allowed on main roads, and not at all on
express highways as they are vulnerable to accidents and slow down traffic,
said Rohit Baluja, traffic expert and President , Institute of Road Traffic
Education (IRTE).
The traffic police have held the view that rickshaws are fine for
short-distance , local trips. The cops feel that with limited manpower, and
no powers to confiscate or crush a rickshaw, prosecution will be badly hit
and there could be chaos .
When asked about implications of the order, senior officers refused to
comment. We can comment after seeing the order, said a senior traffic police
officer.
The long-term solution, the government feels, is creation of dedicated
tracks for cycles and cycle rickshaws along all major roads.
Delhi chief secretary Rakesh Mehta said: With issues like climate change
looming large, I dont think we can look at non-motorised vehicles (NMVs)
like cycle rickshaws as elements which can be removed from Delhis integrated
transport network. The police needs to support NMV lanes even along
highspeed corridors.
megha.suri at timesgroup .com

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Ashok Sreenivas
<ashok.sreenivas at gmail.com>wrote:

>  Sometimes, the law is not an ass!
>
>
> http://blog.taragana.com/law/2010/02/10/cycle-rickshaws-need-of-the-hour-ban-arbitrary-court-20114/
>
> The Delhi High *Court* Wednesday termed the ban on cycle rickshaws on the
> city’s arterial roads “arbitrary” and stressed that non-motorised vehicles
> were the need of the hour in the wake of rising pollution and global
> warming.
>
> A division bench comprising Chief Justice Ajit Prakash Shah, Justice S.
> Muralidhar and Justice Ravinder Bhatt said: Planet earth seems to be
> running out of options unless unorthodox and sometimes unpopular policies
> are pursued. Whatever be the nuances about the technical soundness of the
> exact extent of global warming , the signs are self evident - erratic
> weather patterns, drying rivers and a depleting water table, food
> insecurity, retreating glaciers, drastically reducing forest cover.
>
> Turning down the traffic police’s submission that cycle rickshaw pullers
> create a nuisance on the roads, the court said: It would be important for
> public authorities, particularly law enforcement agencies, to display
> sensitivity when exercising the coercive powers under various statutes to
> the vulnerable situation in which the underprivileged populations, of which
> the rickshaw pullers form an integral part, are placed.
>
> This is a fit case where authorities should explore all options to reduce
> road congestion and consider all proposals from an overall or holistic
> perspective, the bench said while forming a committee to explore the options
> available.
>
> Our country is vast with an ever-growing population, alarming numbers of
> whom continue to swell the list of the unemployed. In these circumstances,
> any opportunity towards gainful employment, howsoever slight, is worth
> exploring - it may be part-time employment or full-time, it may be seasonal
> or regional. If these are recognised as legitimate, the conclusion that
> cyclerickshaw plying is offensive to human dignity cannot be understood at
> all, the bench remarked.
>
> Terming that every person has the right to earn their living, the court
> said:Prohibiting a class of impoverished persons altogether of the chance of
> livelihood in a category of non-dangerous commercial activity, i.e. hiring
> cycle rickshaws for plying cannot be supported as a reasonable restriction.
>
> Quashing the Municipal Corporation of Delhis (MCD) policy of ‘owner should
> be plier’, the *court* said: The owner-plier policy, even though valid 22
> years ago, cannot be regarded as non-discriminatory and valid now. It is
> arbitrary.
>
> The court was hearing a petition by NGO Manushi and Initiative for
> Transportation & Development Programmes that the court’s order and the MCD’s
> policy of banning rickshaws from arterial roads and Chandni Chowk area in
> Old Delhi was arbitrary and violated the fundamental rights ofrickshaw
> pullers.
>
> The petition also criticised the ceiling imposed on the number of licences
> granted to rickshaw pullers in the city.
>
> The bench prohibited the MCD from confiscating and crushing cycle rickshaws
> without licence, terming the action unjustified.
>
> Stressing the need for non-motorised mode of transport, the court said: The
> figures of registered motor vehicles are in excess of 60 lakh… As far as
> private commercial vehicles catering to the public are concerned, there are
> 76,090 auto rickshaws and 30,809 taxis on the road. Thus, there is a felt
> need for non-motorized road transportation, which the cycle rickshaws
> offer.”
>
> The *court* then directed the MCD to provide parking space to cycle
> rickshaws as well.
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "PTTF General" group.
> To post to this group, send email to pttfgen at googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> pttfgen+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com<pttfgen%2Bunsubscribe at googlegroups.com>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/pttfgen?hl=en.
>