There has been a lot of emphasis on Road Safety – it has always been there, but recently the authorities have started to enforce it rather sternly. I welcomed the rule making helmets mandatory for two-wheelers, and seat belts for four-wheelers, among the others where periodic checks were made to ensure that drivers weren’t driving under the influence . Of course, the traffic cops aren’t omnipresent and couldn’t guarantee that every single driver wasn’t a threat to themselves, and more importantly, others on the road. These actions were to increase the probability of someone’s chances of survival when a mishap occurs.
There must be regulations that would not allow a transport vehicle to carry rods and other construction material protruding outside, but with the long string of legal terms and alternatives used, I gave up on my search for it. Of course, I understand that there are times when the material being carried will protrude, but should those vehicles necessarily be allowed to go on the roads when its rush hour? Can’t a permit be made mandatory for such vehicles in which the route and time when it has to move is made of and approved? A simple search for ‘road driver protruding rods’ on our favorite search engine yields plenty of articles from news agencies that have the necessary information on the hazards of such vehicles.
I was a witness to one accident in which, fortunately, no one was injured, where a rather large metal tube fell of a vehicle and the driver behind the vehicle was able to brake in time. What surprises me is the ease at which this can be enforced – there is no need for special equipment to check if rods are protruding from beyond a vehicle. Clearly, something is wrong – the motive with which road safety is enforced becomes questionable when such an easy safety hazard is let go of. No seat belt, helmet can guarantee survival in a case where a rod or tube falls of such a vehicle.
For those curious, the two pictures above were taken when the vehicle I was driving wasn’t moving.