Automotive Law Revisited  

The Indian Automotive industry boomed at the start of the 21^st century and has not stopped growing since. There have been occasional slow downs in demand, but due in part to the growing purchasing power of Indians and in part the burgeoning middle class, demand for private vehicles has risen steadily. In 2008-2009 over 95 lakh automobiles were sold in the country, comprising cars, two-wheelers, three-wheelers and commercial vehicles. In 2010 India was the 5^th largest automobile manufacturer in the world and the rate of production is continuing to increase.

With the ever increasing demand for bigger and better cars and motorcycles, space for driving and parking our personal transport has started to come at a premium. Packed into ever-wider yet more-congested roads, vehicle owners have had to accept a bitter reality of motoring, that with the exceptional number of vehicles on the road, they will occasionally bump into things. These ‘things’ include persons, property and (often) other vehicles. In fact, with the exponential increase in the number of cars, an inability of the infrastructure to keep up with this increase and a low standard of driver training regimes have caused the number of road accidents on the country’s roads to skyrocket. In 2009 alone there were approximately 5 lakh accidents on the country’s roads. As a result, there were over 1 lakh fatalities and 5 lakh injuries. In 2010, India was at the top of the list for the most number of road accidents amongst South-East Asian countries.

Such figures indicate the hazardous nature of driving on our roads, but more significantly are evidence of a growing trend of poor driving culture. The question: why this poor driving culture? Why are Indian drivers more callous towards road rules and less bothered about considerate road behaviour than Western drivers? An answer to this question may lie in the laws that dictate road use in India.

Driver training

Complete and thorough training is the most fundamental step in becoming a good driver. Sections 8 and 9 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 prescribe steps a person must take in order to attain a license to drive on the roads. These involve verbal, visual, theoretical and practical tests and training on the vehicle the applicant is going to drive. Furthermore, several sections in the Act burden the driver with certain obligations, such as not to drive at excess speed (s.183) and to not drive dangerously (s.184). All in all, the legislation makes appropriate arrangements to ensure that drivers are well-trained and aware of the rules of the road. However, despite the presence of such rules dangerous driving contiunes to underscore our driving culture.

The problem lies in the inherent nature of the training that is provided at the outset. It is not that Indian drivers cannot drive their vehicles; most drivers on the road seem well attuned to the art of accelerating, braking and steering. The failings in driver training lie in that a concept of ‘considerate driving’ is not nurtured and the science of efficient driving is simply ignored. The fallacy thus lies in the failure to explain to the motorist why he or she must follow these rules.

Law pertaining to murder in most legal jurisdictions involves a physical and mental aspect to the crime, known as the actus reus and the mens rea. While the commission of the act of murder forms one half of the story, the remaining is provided by the intent to cause death. While the actus reus and mens rea pertaining to murder are applied to the commission of a crime, the same can be implemented in road rules by providing a standard of road behaviour required by motorists. Such a system has been adopted in the UK where, the Road Traffic Act 1988, section 12A provides a standard of care for motorists; drivers are required not to ‘fall far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver’. Such standard of care is lacking in the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. Moreover, the Act fails to prescribe any level or standard of road behaviour.

Taking responsibility

The Motor Vehicles Act 1988 warns motorists of fines, reprimands and possible imprisonment for the commission of certain acts, such as ‘driving in a manner dangerous to the public’ (s.184), driving a vehicle in contravention of the speed limits (s.183) and for failure to obey traffic signs (s.119). When a motorist is in control of a vehicle, he/she has to take full responsibility of his/her actions on the road and any subsequent consequences of those actions. The Act fails to instill this sense of responsibity in the Indian motorist. Though occasional references to ‘the public’ are made, they fail to actively induce a duty of care with regards to other road users. Also, the immediate consequences for ‘dangerous’ driving are not assertive enough to induce any real sense of fear or shame having committed a motoring offence. Section 132, entitled ‘duty of driver to stop’ provides little authority to the person stopping a motorist for a breach of road law. Under s.132(1) power to stop a driver lies either with a policeman of sufficient rank or someone incharge of an animal (if the emotional status of the animal may be at risk); s.132(2) allows any other person to stop a driver but only if the driver is culpable under s.184 (dangerous driving).

It must also be noted that the word ‘dangerous’ in s.184 is not defined. The ‘dangerousness’ of ones driving depends on the traffic and road conditions and the nature of the location of driving. Thus there is no specific standard or even a base standard which must be adhered to all times, irrespective of location. Such an omission allows drivers much greater leeway and nullifies the ability of an ordinary citizen to take real action.

This feeble authority of fellow road users to curb poor driver behaviour, the often inept attitude and reaction of traffic police to the frivolous treatment of motoring laws, there is no effective motivation for motorists to improve their road manners.

The Motor Vehicles Act 1988 warns motorists of fines, reprimands and possible imprisonment for the commission of certain acts, such as ‘driving in a manner dangerous to the public’ (s.184), driving a vehicle in contravention of the speed limits (s.183) and for failure to obey traffic signs (s.119). When a motorist is in control of a vehicle, he/she has to take full responsibility of his/her actions on the road and any subsequent consequences of those actions. The Act fails to instill this sense of responsibility in the Indian motorist.

Conclusion

Motor vehicles form but a portion of road users. Pedestrians, cyclists, rickshaws and various other means of transport share the road with motorists. Each of these entities has their own rules and regulations pertaining to acceptable behaviour on the road. Factor that into the equation and the law needs to be immensely more detailed to deal with this mix of road users.

However, it would be wrong to suggest that inadequacies in the law are the sole reason for hazardous road conditions. Poor implementation and enforcement of rules, disorgansied infrastructure and a plethora of other factors are responsible for making the nation’s roads as unsafe as they are today. Flaws in the initial training and induction of new motorists onto ever crowded roads has only worsened the problem. A culture of not accepting responsibility and an absentee system of traffic law enforcement has inculcated in the Indian motorist an attitude of disregard towards other road users.

The Motor Vehicles Act 1988 commenced in July 1989. There have been a series of amendments, however none of them significant or wide enough to accommodate the exponential increase in the number of motorised vehicles in India and the growth in road and highway infrastructure. Framers of the Act could not reasonably foresee the quantity of changes to the country’s roads; with time the shortcomings of the legislation are becoming more apparent.

Further amendments to the 1988 Act had been envisaged in the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Bill 2007, however the status of that Bill is unknown. It is essential that any change in the law concentrates not only on road rules, but also on a development of a regime of responsibility. A ‘duty of care’ and ‘standard of care’ approach, as adopted in the UK, is a good example of this. A codified regime not just dictating the rules that can be broken, instead appointing the motorist responsible for his or her actions, is required. For effective change, a change in the attitude of road users must be compelled by the law.

The Indian Automotive industry boomed at the start of the 21^st century and has not stopped growing since. There have been occasional slow downs in demand, but due in part to the growing purchasing power of Indians and in part the burgeoning middle class, demand for private vehicles has risen steadily. In 2008-2009 over 95 lakh automobiles were sold in the country, comprising cars, two-wheelers, three-wheelers and commercial vehicles. In 2010 India was the 5^th largest automobile manufacturer in the world and the rate of production is continuing to increase.

The problem lies in the inherent nature of the training that is provided at the outset. It is not that Indian drivers cannot drive their vehicles; most drivers on the road seem well attuned to the art of accelerating, braking and steering. The failings in driver training lie in that a concept of ‘considerate driving’ is not nurtured and the science of efficient driving is simply ignored. The fallacy thus lies in the failure to explain to the motorist why he or she must follow these rules.

BY LAWZ BUREAU