The ministry of road transport and highways has uploaded a draft Road Transport and Safety Bill 2014 (DRTSB) on its website. An accompanying document claims that the vision of the Bill is to "provide a framework for safer, faster, cost effective and inclusive movement of passengers and freight in the country, thus enabling the mission of Make in India" and that the enactment of the Bill is expected to save 200,000 lives in the next five years, increase India's gross domestic product by four per cent and provide one million extra jobs in the country. Nowhere do they explain how they arrived at these numbers. Statements from the ministry also suggested that this Bill incorporates the best evidence-based international road safety policies.
There is no evidence of this. Even worse, the ministry has ignored some of the sensible policies recommended by well-considered reports submitted to it over the past few years - the Report of the Sundar Committee to establish a National Road Safety Board (2007), Report of the Sundar Committee for revising the Motor Vehicle Act (2011), and the most recent National Transport Development Policy Committee's report (2014). A detailed reading of the DRTSB suggests that it is the result of a hasty cut and paste job. The cutting and pasting seems to have been done by many people, some of whom may not be privy to the complexities of the subject.
A sentence in Section 205 of the DRTSB caught my attention. This has to do with the right of way for ambulances that have "oscillating red or blue lights, visible under normal conditions from a distance of five hundred (500) feet to the front of such vehicle; or the driver is given audible signal by siren, exhaust whistle, or bell...." This wording seemed strange in an Indian Act, especially the mention of distance in feet. A quick search revealed that the language in this section is almost the same as that in Section 189.930 of the Kentucky Traffic Regulations in the US. This finding prompted me to put the whole document under an originality review on the internet.
Significant parts of the DRTSB have similarities with provisions in the Road Traffic Act (UK), US Department of Transportation Federal Register and Federal Transit Administration documents, and a host of other sources in India and abroad. Unfortunately, laws and ideas picked from all over the place don't hang together. Somewhat like a bhel puri gone bad where the ingredients and spices are in all the wrong proportions.
This is illustrated best in Schedule III of the document, which specifies penalties for various offences. The fines range from Rs 5,000 to Rs 1,00,000. These amounts are similar to those imposed in many states of the US in equivalent dollars. In some cases, the fines and punishments proposed for India are higher than those prescribed in the US. Almost half the penalties include the possibility of jail terms. This goes against all evidence on the science of deterrence available internationally. A report from the Criminal Justice Policy Group of New Zealand states categorically that, "There must be principled means for adjusting the amount of a fine to take account of both the offender's culpability and his or her resources... Fines cannot be applied to impecunious offenders because either they have such limited ability to meet additional financial obligations that little or nothing will be paid or they will commit more crime to obtain illicit income to pay the fine... (large fines) may punish the families of offenders more than the offender themselves". Therefore, it is not surprising that the fines in the US start at about $100, which is less than one day's wage for a middle-class road user. The vast majority of drivers on Indian roads are two-wheeler riders, taxi, three-wheeler, personal and bus drivers who earn less than Rs 500 per day. The proposed fines are about 10 times higher than what they should be.
The national road safety agency of Netherlands also reports that "Making penalties heavier, as an isolated measure, has been found to have little extra effect... Frequently conducted and very visible traffic checks, which are unpredictable in terms of time and place, bring about the general prevention of traffic violations". Experts from all countries successful in controlling road traffic deaths concur with these findings. The penalties in India will have to be reduced drastically and jail terms made more limited for serious criminal lapses, otherwise the system will be corrupted completely and reporting of accidents discouraged.
This is supported by our own experience. The provision in the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, regarding drinking and driving prescribes a limit of 0.03 mg/100 ml of alcohol in the blood, whereas the law in the the US is 0.08 mg/100 ml. Similarly, the use of hand-held cell phones is banned in India, but only in 15 of the 50 states in the the US. But, the US is much more successful in reducing its road traffic death rate than we are. What this suggests is that just making strict laws and harsh penalties is not enough. It is the daily visible enforcement of laws on the street that promotes deterrence. For example, in most European countries, more than 250 drivers are stopped for a breath test every day per million population. This means that in a city like Delhi, more than 4,000 drivers should be checked for alcohol everyday for the law to have any effect.
The DRTSB includes the setting up of three new authorities: Motor Vehicle Regulation & Road Safety Authority of India (MVR), National Road Transport and Multi-Modal Co-ordination Authority (NRT), and a Highway Traffic Regulation and Protection Force (HTRPF). Unfortunately, too many responsibilities and duties have been mixed up for the MVR and NRT. The MVR is responsible for setting safety standards and managing the driving licence and vehicle registrations system in the country. As a matter of principle, a standards-making authority (MVR) with responsibility for research and data analysis should not be in the business of testing and policing since it is likely to get corrupted and come under undesirable pressures for conformity. The NRT is given the responsibility for managing public and goods transport in a country, including monitoring of BRT and urban transport issues in a very centralised manner. The authorities are expected to work by appointing temporary committees for each topic. This will not work at all since our current experience suggests that working by committees results in half-baked recommendations.
A professional agency must have its own cadre of professional employees working under similar contracts as agencies like the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research. This is essential, as standard-making bodies must make recommendations, enact policies or support legislation ensuring that the measures are proven effective and backed by sound research. The Sundar Committee had proposed that one per cent of the revenue from the cess on diesel and gasoline allocated for national highways be credited to the Road Safety and Traffic Management Fund annually, for the functioning of the National Road Safety And Traffic Management Board. This item has been deleted and must be restored.
The proposed Road Transport and Safety Bill 2014 is too full of flaws to be introduced in Parliament right away. The ministry should consider replacing the MVR with the revised National Road Safety And Traffic Management Board Bill, 2010, and then holding consultations to include the remaining provisions of MVR in a revised NRT.
This is too important a Bill to be passed in such a great hurry when not enough effort has gone into ensuring that it will be effective in reducing the horrific death toll on our roads.
The writer is Professor Emeritus at the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi
These views are personal
These views are personal
Disclaimer: These are personal views of the writer. They do not necessarily reflect the opinion of www.business-standard.com or the Business Standard newspaper
