Anxious taxi drivers have urged the government to differentiate public and private vehicles while imposing a fine of Rs 1,000, when passengers in the rear seat fail to wear seat belts.
Those driving old vehicles without seat belts are also confused on how the rule will apply to them.
While Rule 125 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules (CMVR), introduced in 2002, states that all M1 category vehicles or eight-seater cars should have seat belts, Thursday’s rule mandating all passengers to wear them has shocked taxi drivers.
G Narayanaswamy of the Karnataka Chalakara Okkuta said taxi drivers cannot demand of passengers seated in the rear to wear safety belts.
“We have discussed the issue and have decided to approach the authorities to request that in taxis, penalty should not be collected from drivers but from passengers not wearing the seat belt.”
Drivers who insist that passengers should wear seat belts risk having a quarrel, Narayanaswamy said.
“We already face enough harassment for telling passengers not to smoke or spit outside the window. Drivers who run on Ola or Uber platforms depend on ratings. Frequent passenger complaints will reduce the number of rides or may even lead to blacklisting by the aggregators,” he said.
13.2 lakh old cars in Karnataka
Karnataka has 13.2 lakh cars, including 67,000 taxis, which are older than 15 years.
Taxi operators noted that many mid-range and economy vehicles manufactured till 10 years ago did not come with safety belts for rear
seats.
Radhakrishna Holla, president of Karnataka State Tourist Operators Association, said high-end car manufacturers started including seat belts following a demand from IT sector employees back in 2007-08.
“High-end cars have safety belts for rear seats for over 10 years now. But till recently, the economy-class vehicles did not have functional seat belts. It’s going to be a cause for concern among owners of private cars as well as taxi drivers,” Holla said.
Rule ‘self-explanatory’
A top police officer said the Union government’s rule was “self-explanatory”.
An official in the transport department, however, acknowledged the problems in sudden enforcement but said the move was necessary to ensure the safety of commuters.