from our special correspondent (MB)

Bangalore, Aug 15: Even as the state government has issued a notification earlier this week, making it mandatory for riders of two-wheelers, ambiguity continues over the order.

In accordance with a High Court order, the government was to make the wearing of helmets compulsory for two-wheeler riders from August 1, 2006.

But it extended the date by 15 days in view of objections heard from different quarters.

Ambiguity seems to be the hallmark of government orders. Firstly the government order of this week has only said the wearing of helmets compulsory for riders but has not clarified if it is a must for pillion-riders.

When the 15-day extension was allowed the government had announced that it would consider exemption for pillion-riders. However, the latest directive does not clarify on this point.

To add to the confusion, around the same date of the latest order, state home minister M P Prakash announced that the state government would file a revision petition in the High Court seeking reconsideration of its ruling and a meeting to this effect would be convened on August 17.

Strangely enough, two-wheeler-riders are averse to the idea of wearing helmets in spite of a majority of accidents proving that even in common incidents riders have died of head injuries.

As for objections about helmet being made compulsory for pillion-riders, a study by the National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences (NIMHANS), Bangalore has revealed that in most cases of accidents, the pillion-riders have died on account of head injuries and less number of riders.

A government official told this correspondent that it was shocking to find that, in spite of statistical proof for such deaths, those opposing the wearing of helmets come out with unreasonable excuses that riders develop headache, neck sprain and lose hair because of wearing it regularly.

Some have even gone to the extent of accusing that some government officials or ministers have received hefty bribes for making it compulsory, clearly forgetting that it is the High Court which has ruled so, while dealing with cases filed by the families of accident victims.

As the compulsory rule is appearing certain, helmets of substandard or mediocre quality are being sold on the roadsides, while the rules require ISI specifications for helmet.

Is fulfilling a formality of a helmet a priority or the safety of human life, quizzed the official in conclusion.