The State government's step to address public ire over transport fines is belated but welcome. Nevertheless, questions remain about how these fines are imposed in the first place, and the objective behind their collection. While announcing the cabinet decision to relieve two-wheeler riders of fines except for non-wearing of helmets, and to fine three-wheeler drivers only from the fourth violation, the Chief Minister has acknowledged that' small earners' are harassed by penalties.
As no relief has been provided to four-wheelers, does it mean that those who stake much to take out vehicle loans to eke out a living as taxi drivers and transporters, can blithely afford to pay arbitrary fines? Aren't they squeezed enough in a high-cost fuel, insurance, licensing and maintenance regime? The logic should not be about size of earning, it should rather be about fairness and transparency. There can be no argument against penalties, given the broad public ignorance, negligence and brazen violation of transport rules. Reckless driving and over-speeding, haphazard parking, contempt for traffic etiquette, and road rage seriously endanger life and limb on the roads. Such behaviour should be strictly punished, hence fines should ideally serve punitive and deterrent purposes. But there is also widespread frustration with how Transport officials go about their work. Improperly placed and poorly visible signs leave drivers unsure about speed limits and road turns. There are complaints galore about unjustified and sneakily imposed parking fines, as well as confusion over paying up online or at the court. A suspicion is being increasingly voiced whether the ulterior objective is to lay such traps and meet 'collection targets' through fines! This is unfortunate, considering the Transport department's role in educating the public and improving road safety. The less opaque its ways, the better.
Also watch: