2017年12月01日

Helmet and vest with patent on motorcycles

In La Plata, zones and timetables were not defined in which no more than one person can travel per vehicle. Launched in April 2014 as part of a package of measures aimed at combating insecurity, the rule that determines the mandatory use of helmets, both for driver and passenger, and yellow reflective vest for motorcycle companions, both with the printed patent, is barely met in the Region.

So much so, that according to community sources recognized this way, in La Plata not even came to define a scheme for implementing the rule, and no fines were applied. That is, the second provision was never implemented, which invited "the intend ants to restrict the geographical zones and schedules in which no more than one person can circulate by motorcycle, taking into account the banking and commercial zones and the particularities of your district. "

Although other municipalities, for example Benison, defined at the time the scheme of application of resolution 224/14, the truth is that vests with patent are seen less and less in the Region. This despite the fact that those who do not comply with the obligation to wear a helmet and the yellow vest will be subject to a serious infraction of Traffic Law No. 13.927 and may suffer the preventive retention of the vehicle and the driver's license.

However, the director of Urban Control, Gustavo Lizard, stressed that in recent months the vehicle control operations in the lateness streets were reinforced "which resulted in more than 7 thousand seized motorcycles.” In addition, he said, "we noticed a change in people, who are increasingly using helmets and complying with safety regulations." In turn, the norm was launched as an element of "citizen prevention" and as a response to "a new type of crime: those committed with motorcycles with a second occupant".

Therefore, it was not exempt from criticism and controversy. It provoked, above all, numerous manifestations of groups and associations that bring together motorcyclists, who considered that it was a "stigmatizing" norm and rejected its application.

  


Posted by vivianq at 12:20Comments(0) safety regulations