Whatever, flouting laws is a certain no-no.

Sure, agreed. But what I do not agree with is that this can also be used as a plea to justify calls for privatization.

The logic for banning ads due to driver distraction is also questionable since it is a revenue stream that cannot be ignored with dubious justifications.

• favorite 97 Likes
• | login or register to post comments

But what I do not agree with is that this can also be used as a plea to justify calls for privatization.

Perhaps this would, at least to end the monopoly?
 

• favorite 89 Likes
• | login or register to post comments

They're armed with an Act of law, a high court ruling and a Road Safety Authority (RSA) decision which prohibits display of ads on vehicles as these could distract other drivers

 Road Safety Authority - What is that? How long has it been in existence? Is it a state of central authority?

• favorite 116 Likes
• | login or register to post comments

Having been nurtured in gandhian ways, we, as a nation are loathe to any form of commercialization, particularly when it involves public utilities. What's wrong with commercialization of some space on buses for ad revenues ? After all, aren't they providing vital services & could do with income to sustain such services ?

Step across to the east - Singapore, Malaysia, Hongkong or anywhere else in the world including the Americas or Europe & commercialization of all possible ad spaces including those within & outside buses, trains, on flyovers, bridges, etc. are evident & govt /public institutions generate substantial revenues on the side to support such subsidized public services. Do they suffer from such alleged driver distractions there ?

This argument of driver distraction has it's origins in a case of the 1970s when a trailer bus had crashed into KG circle & it was argued in court that the ads on the overhead pedestrian bridge just before the circle had distracted the driver, though it had remained unproven & inconclusive.

As far as ads on buses go, the way they are grotesquely displayed just about anywhere & everywhere needs to be stamped out & the RSA must enforce guidelines as to where & how much area can be utilized for displaying ads on buses. A 335E volvo bus that is operating now is completely covered up in a painted ad colored white & looks more like a private bus, except that an LED that displays the route suggests that it's a BMTC bus. Such ugly depictions certainly need to be stamped out, no doubt.

We continue to produce regulations that empower one authority over the other for one-upmanship - a remnant of the license-permit-raj. If ads are completely banned, BMTC & others are bound to get around the rule & do things on the sly, & it's not surprising to come across articles such as the recent one in TOI.

The solution is to admit ads & prescribe where & how much area can be utilized for such depictions - not banning them entirely.

Mr Murali - your argument to seek privatization for this sounds lame again.

• favorite 91 Likes
• | login or register to post comments

There are two angles to the post I think:

1.  Ads on buses causing safety issues

2.  Flouting of rules by BMTC

Second point first.   If we take flouting of rules by any entity to support an argument against its structure of ownership, then we can argue till the cows come home. 

As for the ads on buses causing safety issues, there was an interesting campaign on London buses recently.  They carried a paid message : "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life".  This message should've startled almost everyone who saw it and caused them to jump a bit, believers and atheists alike.  But there has been no observed increase in fatalities related to this in that city (as far as I know, glad to be proved wrong).

• favorite 91 Likes
• | login or register to post comments

@ Naveen

I had said this is another good reason - meaning, of course, that there are enough and more other, and in fact better reasons.

Further, the question that arises is what kind of a message is supposed to go out to the public when one government agency openly flouts the rules framed by another government agency (whether right or wrong is another argument), even while applying them strictly in respect of private players?

And, this is not an isolated case. Between BMTC and KSRTC, they engage hundreds of temporary workers, for years together, even for their key functions. And, there are plenty more of such instances.

If a government agency can't play by the rules, it has no business to be in the game, in the first place. It's a matter of keeping the public trust.

Would you call this line of reasoning also lame?
 

• favorite 88 Likes
• | login or register to post comments

@Murali,

what kind of a message is supposed to go out to the public when one government agency openly flouts the rules framed by another government agency even while applying them strictly in respect of private players?

Good point, but as I said, our regulatory mechanisms always appear to be in conflict with one another & never seem to be able to adhere to one another's directives strictly. I don't think private players are in full compliance either. They flout advertising norms just as badly. Clearly, if the rules do not permit any ad displays on buses (supposedly due to some bizzare concern about driver distractions), it's an overkill for nothing & one is bound to see transgressions like the case above - the real problems lie in loss of revenues here.

Between BMTC and KSRTC, they engage hundreds of temporary workers, for years together, even for their key functions. And, there are plenty more of such instances. If a government agency can't play by the rules, it has no business to be in the game, in the first place.

Temporary staff is all too common in any industry, whether private or public (& not just in this country alone) - BMTC or KSRTC are not exceptions here. Whilst I do support competition in city transport services, I am not convinced that concerns raised above lend support to the call for privatization since private parties will also be doing just the same, if not worse.

• favorite 87 Likes
• | login or register to post comments

@ Naveen

You seem to miss the point. The government's biggest job is to decide on policies, frame laws, and ensure compliance. But, when one of its wings openly flouts laws stipulated by another, what moral authority will it have to ensure compliance by others?

That private players also flout laws is no excuse for government players to follow suit, and in fact provide the lead.

If a government player needs support in the form of subsidy, concessions, etc for the operation to remain viable, it must pursue them. Whatever, flouting laws is a certain no-no.
 

• favorite 87 Likes
• | login or register to post comments

Certainly - BSNL 's plea is way out of reason, I think.

• favorite 91 Likes
• | login or register to post comments

Government advts with large photographs of chief minister BS Yeddyurappa and transport minister R Ashoka were also part of the menace. Subsequently, prompt action from RTO followed and they refused to give fitness certificates to Volvo buses with ads. However, cases of BMTC officials using removable ad material without using glue came to forefront.

For the full report in the New Indian Express, click here.

Plainly, they are a law unto themselves - and that is I expect inevitable when the government is both the player (a monopoly at that) as well as the referee.

• favorite 96 Likes
• | login or register to post comments