Go Back   Team-BHP > Buckle Up > Street Experiences


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 29th September 2009, 18:41   #31
BHPian
 
watashi75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hyderabad
Posts: 518
Thanked: 7 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pranavt View Post
...
Please read the complete thread. Already many have been quick to form opinions here without going through the facts of the matter first!
watashi75 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 29th September 2009, 19:15   #32
Team-BHP Support
 
Jaggu's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 17,491
Thanked: 6,768 Times
Default

Proved guilty and paying compensation are 2 different matters altogether, and as rightly pointed out, its all circumstantial evidence playing here.

Questions in my mind, what if the driver's vision was blinded by another vehicle in front or side and the pedestrians cut across abruptly?

Did the driver plead guilty for the section's charged so that he could avoid a lengthy court case? (Usually these criminal case run separate and based on which the liability is decided, in a separate case/settlement with insurance). This is usually the case because paying fine and finishing the matter is much more convenient, rather than dragging it for years.

As far as i understood this case mainly deals with the insurance compensation, where as the article seems to have mislead it to the actual incident. If you go through the sheet in detail you will understand all this and more.

EDIT: if you read my original post, i tried pointing out the difference then itself.

Last edited by Jaggu : 29th September 2009 at 19:19.
Jaggu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 29th September 2009, 19:37   #33
BHPian
 
gomzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 784
Thanked: 125 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by amitoj View Post
well, just goes to prove that ZeeNews is hardly a reliable source of information
IndiaTV neither

Well, we could debate about the quality of reporting/journalism (or lack of it) in our media, but thats a different rant and thread.
gomzi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th September 2009, 19:56   #34
Distinguished - BHPian
 
amitoj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Nashua, NH
Posts: 2,947
Thanked: 1,584 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaggu View Post
Proved guilty and paying compensation are 2 different matters altogether, and as rightly pointed out, its all circumstantial evidence playing here.

Questions in my mind, what if the driver's vision was blinded by another vehicle in front or side and the pedestrians cut across abruptly?

Did the driver plead guilty for the section's charged so that he could avoid a lengthy court case? (Usually these criminal case run separate and based on which the liability is decided, in a separate case/settlement with insurance). This is usually the case because paying fine and finishing the matter is much more convenient, rather than dragging it for years.

As far as i understood this case mainly deals with the insurance compensation, where as the article seems to have mislead it to the actual incident. If you go through the sheet in detail you will understand all this and more.

EDIT: if you read my original post, i tried pointing out the difference then itself.
N number of what-ifs can be brought in. For every N scenarios thought of, there will be an N+1th that will come up from somewhere else.

Question is, are those adding any values here? I think NOT.

So, if you actually KNOW something more about the case than mentioned in the case file, please do share!!
amitoj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th September 2009, 20:22   #35
Senior - BHPian
 
prince_pervez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Redwood shores, CA, USA
Posts: 4,205
Thanked: 27 Times
Default

Good Lord, this is going to encourage more hit and run cases.
I hope this hearing is appealed and some sense prevails.
prince_pervez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th September 2009, 20:27   #36
Team-BHP Support
 
Jaggu's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 17,491
Thanked: 6,768 Times
Default

Amitoj: I don't have anymore info than what is posted here. After going through the judgement, I have posted my perception of the verdict, same way you are entitled to yours.

Only part I DONOT agree is passing the buck on responsibility over to the driver blindly, which is the "usual" case in India. Hope the case was well represented and facts of the case argued extensively by the honourable judge. Ideally this should happen in all case, but we are not living in an ideal world. Hence the apprehension in my mind, that this doesn't become the norm and hope the verdict will NOT be used blindly against anyone.

Whatever said and done a human life was lost and no amount of compensation can justify it. Prayers are with the departed soul and his family. Hope and pray such incidents don't occur to anyone and all will behave safely on public roads.

Hope you are not feeling agitated with the discussion on this topic.

Last edited by Jaggu : 29th September 2009 at 20:29.
Jaggu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 29th September 2009, 20:44   #37
BHPian
 
rohan_iitr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 992
Thanked: 401 Times
Default

I would not like to jump to conclusions because I still don't understand the situation completely.

But before believing this story, we need to understand that this is only the pedestrian version of the story. We cannot dismiss the possibility that this story may not be 100% correct, or that some facts may have been distorted in this version of the story.

I really don't know how wide the marine drive is, Mumbaikars can throw some light on this. Lets assume that it is 100 feet wide (50+50) and try to reconstruct the story. (Please see the attached image). The Sherlock Holmes in me feels that there are a lot of unanswered questions in this story.

If I understand correctly, the deceased was crossing the road from east to west (footpath to divider) 236 feet south of the signal, when the signal was red for vehicles coming from the north side.

1. It has been mentioned that the pedestrians started crossing the road when the signal was red for vehicles coming from the north. Lets assume that it takes 15 seconds for an able bodied person to cross a road 50 feet wide. Also, lets assume that the signal turned green for the vehicles coming from the north side exactly at the same time as the pedestrians started to cross the road. Also, assuming that the car driver started to move south as soon as the signal turned green. Then the car would have to cover roughly 250 feet in 15 seconds for the accident to happen. It may be noted that the car started from a complete halt 250 feet away. It is highly unprobable that the car was doing insane speeds when the accident happened. (If you read the complete article, it has been mentioned that the car speed was in the range of 40-50 kmph at the time of the accident)

2. It has been mentioned that one daughter managed to cross the road and reach the divider, while the other 2 pedestrians had a collision with the car. This clearly indicates that the 3 of them did not start crossing the road together (the other 2 possibly started crossing the road after the signal had turned green and traffic started coming from the north side) OR the other two were crossing the road too slowly and negligently, while not paying attention towards the traffic coming on the road.

3. Even if the pedestrians had started crossing the road after the signal had turned green for the traffic coming from the north side, when they saw a car coming towards them, they should have turned back and allowed the car to pass through, instead of expecting the car driver to apply brakes, to avoid the accident.

4. It has been mentioned that the car driver made no attempt to apply the brakes when he saw the pedestrians crossing the road. For this to happen, the car driver would have to be completely blind OR a complete moron OR totally distracted OR the pedestrians may have behaved in a very unexpected manner. The pedestrians may have been running across the road, or they may have made sudden forward/backward or start/stop move in the middle of the road, which the driver was not able to anticipate.

I am not taking anybody's side. I just mean to say that there are a lot of unanswered questions in the story. I really doubt whether the court listened to the car driver's side of the story before passing the popular judgement.

The car driver had stopped properly on the red signal. He started moving only after the green signal. He was not driving rash. He was not driving under influence. I still don't understand why he could not see 3 pedestrians crossing a well lit road. (As Jaggu mentioned, he may have simply plead guilty to put an end to the trial)

In my opinion, this judgement is the beginning of a very negative trend. What happened to this car driver could happen to any of us on any day. A responsible car driver should not be held responsible for pedestrians who don't care about their lives and the lives of their loved ones.

Rohan
Bangalore

P.S. I know that I should have been a lawyer or a crime scene investigator. Unfortunately, I am stuck in the IT industry.
Attached Images
 
rohan_iitr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th September 2009, 20:45   #38
BHPian
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 938
Thanked: 161 Times
Default

I've relocated the horn button from the Steering to the Seat. Now, its ALWAYS ON.

Torqy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th September 2009, 20:52   #39
Distinguished - BHPian
 
amitoj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Nashua, NH
Posts: 2,947
Thanked: 1,584 Times
Default

Jaggu, i agree that the buck should not be passed BLINDLY to the driver. And i agree that this is what happens on the road most of the times.
But this does not mean that we should BLINDLY start blaming the pedestrians eithers. Look at this thread. Even after posting the court judgement, people are still continuing with their blind statements! One would think that atleast we would be able to be better judges than the unruly mob out there on the streets. Sadly, thats not the case.
We see the news, and we blindly start screaming bloody murder from the rooftops!

"He who fights the monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster"

Quote:
Originally Posted by rohan_iitr View Post
I would not like to jump to conclusions because I still don't understand the situation completely.

But before believing this story, we need to understand that this is only the pedestrian version of the story. We cannot dismiss the possibility that this story may not be 100% correct, or that some facts may have been distorted in this version of the story.
Wow. Amazing!
What if the driver was drunk at the time and decided to not contest because of this? What if the driver was too busy staring at the boss's daughter in the backseat to notice a father running towards his daughter? What if the driver took his eyes off the road to adjust the radio in the car?

This is what i am talking about. Even people's analyses have an inherent bias

Last edited by amitoj : 29th September 2009 at 21:00.
amitoj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th September 2009, 21:01   #40
Senior - BHPian
 
pramodkumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Gods own country
Posts: 1,971
Thanked: 819 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by amitoj View Post
One person gives example of Sam's dad "spending time in jail"!! A totally out of context situation.

I am the one who gave that example, and why do you think it was out of context? i was just comparing this situation where in Sams dad just accidentally stepped on the road and a car hits him from behind. The only thing he said out of good gesture was that's ok its my fault and he was in jail, this is because of good governance, there was no streat brawl and no one has a chance of being betten up but anyways, I have seen a lot of bad accident because i spent close to 13 years where my balcony overlooked one of the bussiest intersections On Baba Khark Singh Marg New Delhi. I have seen kids getting hit by car when they try catching kites. I have seen people pedestrains just trying to stop cars the way Neo stops bullets in Matrix, i mean they dont even bother to look at the oncoming traffic. Though in this case the involvement of the driver cannot be completly ruled out, but this indeed opened a can of worms, most of the people who are speaking here are the ones who might have got themselves in a heart in the mouth situation because someone was jay walking. I dont drive these days as my car is getting a second life, i prefer walking. In a day i feel like cursing at least a dozen drivers because either they drive rash as per me, or just are way to close. Even today morning a guy just nearly splashed muck on me when he hit the puddle fast, but i just thought since he might not have seen that puddle its my duty to walk carefully.

@ Amitoj and others i feel the exact same way that you feel a human life is much more important than those 5+ lacs the driver had to pay up, but does that absolve people of their road sence? Will you all stop driving fast, cornering hard, talking on phones etc...I will again repeat Roads are for Vehicles, pedestrians need to use footpaths, in this entire game we missed the actual point would this accident been averted if there was a foot over bridge? will the pedestrians still use it? all these questions are subjective people need to be educated about road manners. The ones who have used the train example are right, would any one do jay walking on tracks probably not because they know its certain death and secondly their breaks aren't that great .


Pramod
pramodkumar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th September 2009, 21:25   #41
Distinguished - BHPian
 
amitoj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Nashua, NH
Posts: 2,947
Thanked: 1,584 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pramodkumar View Post
I am the one who gave that example, and why do you think it was out of context?
He did not have his passport on him and the authorities did not know that his insurance will not cover the accident repairs. He had to spend few hours at the police station while they sorted things out. Nothing to do with jaywalking there. He was not charged with jaywalking.
amitoj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th September 2009, 21:25   #42
BHPian
 
gomzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 784
Thanked: 125 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pramodkumar View Post
The ones who have used the train example are right, would any one do jay walking on tracks probably not because they know its certain death and secondly their breaks aren't that great .
Jay walking on train tracks?

Dude, this happens in Mumbai everyday! And if you happen to travel on the Mumbai locals early morning, its not confined to only jay walking if you know what I mean
gomzi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th September 2009, 22:08   #43
BHPian
 
rohan_iitr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 992
Thanked: 401 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by amitoj View Post

Wow. Amazing!
What if the driver was drunk at the time and decided to not contest because of this? What if the driver was too busy staring at the boss's daughter in the backseat to notice a father running towards his daughter? What if the driver took his eyes off the road to adjust the radio in the car?

This is what i am talking about. Even people's analyses have an inherent bias
This is not a case of driving under influence. I'm sure that this is the first thing which our able policemen would have checked after the accident. It would have been an open and shut case it the driver was driving under influence.

I totally agree that the car driver had a loss of concentration at that moment. It is still not known why it happened. The car driver is definitely to blame.

But, at the same time, the accident could not have happened only because of the car driver's negligence. The pedestrian would have been equally negligent for not watching the road while crossing.

Unless the car bangs a pedestrian standing on the footpath or the divider, the pedestrian is equally to blame.

Hence, in my opinion, passing the judgement in favour of the pedestrian just sends the wrong message that no matter whose fault it is, the pedestrian is always right and the car driver will always pay the compensation.

With the facts that are available with us, I would have judged both parties to be equally guilty with no compensation for either.

I have sympathy for the family of the deceased, but court decisions should be based on facts, not based on the sympathy factor.

Rohan,
Bangalore
rohan_iitr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th September 2009, 22:21   #44
Distinguished - BHPian
 
amitoj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Nashua, NH
Posts: 2,947
Thanked: 1,584 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rohan_iitr View Post
This is not a case of driving under influence. I'm sure that this is the first thing which our able policemen would have checked after the accident. It would have been an open and shut case it the driver was driving under influence.

I totally agree that the car driver had a loss of concentration at that moment. It is still not known why it happened. The car driver is definitely to blame.

But, at the same time, the accident could not have happened only because of the car driver's negligence. The pedestrian would have been equally negligent for not watching the road while crossing.

Unless the car bangs a pedestrian standing on the footpath or the divider, the pedestrian is equally to blame.

With the facts that are available with us, I would have judged both parties to be equally guilty with no compensation for either.

I have sympathy for the family of the deceased, but court decisions should be based on facts, not based on the sympathy factor.

Rohan,
Bangalore
Well, given the lack of faith in our system, i am surprised you dont believe that the DUI part MIGHT have been hushed up.

Did you go through the judgement and come across a phrase "contributory negligence" attributed to the pedestrian? That clearly indicates that the Tribunal and the court did not find only the driver guilty.

Now let me try to throw some light on why the Tribunal held the motorist more guilty than the pedestrian, which the court simply upheld.

Since you have "IIT" in your username, i assume you did actually have something to do with India's premier engineering institute once upon a time. So tell me, object "a" is moving at x kmph. Object "b" is moving at 8x kmph. Both, if they continue on their respective paths, will collide in 15 seconds. Which object's change in direction would have a bigger impact in avoiding the collision, if say, the direction of motion was to be changed by 10 degrees? Would you say the impact would be equal ?

Last edited by amitoj : 29th September 2009 at 22:27.
amitoj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th September 2009, 22:57   #45
BHPian
 
rohan_iitr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 992
Thanked: 401 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by amitoj View Post
Well, given the lack of faith in our system, i am surprised you dont believe that the DUI part MIGHT have been hushed up.
It is possible, but highly improbable. This is the kind of thing which police would definitely check and the kind of thing which media would like to blow up. If it was a case of DUI, the headlines would have read - Drunken driver bangs innocent pedestrians.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amitoj View Post
Did you go through the judgement and come across a phrase "contributory negligence" attributed to the pedestrian? That clearly indicates that the Tribunal and the court did not find only the driver guilty.
Now that you mention it, I read it again and indeed the tribunal found the pedestrians also negligent. I take back my words regarding the unfair judgement of the court.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amitoj View Post
Now let me try to throw some light on why the Tribunal held the motorist more guilty than the pedestrian, which the court simply upheld.

Since you have "IIT" in your username, i assume you did actually have something to do with India's premier engineering institute once upon a time. So tell me, object "a" is moving at x kmph. Object "b" is moving at 8x kmph. Both, if they continue on their respective paths, will collide in 15 seconds. Which object's change in direction would have a bigger impact in avoiding the collision, if say, the direction of motion was to be changed by 10 degrees? Would you say the impact would be equal ?
Lets not get into the technicalities, we both agree that the motorist and pedestrians were both at fault. It doesn't matter whose fault was bigger, both of them had to suffer. The pedestrian did not survive, and the motorist had to face the court proceedings.

Just remembered an old saying - After a battle, it doesn't matter who is RIGHT, what matters is who is LEFT. Same thing applies to road accidents too, no amount of monetary compensation can compensate for the loss of a loved one. I just wish that people had more road sense and had value for life - their life and others' life.

Rohan,
Bangalore
rohan_iitr is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Court: Speeding is not negligent or rash driving darklord Street Experiences 27 10th November 2014 11:31
Skoda ordered to pay 7.9 lakhs to Laura owner Agarwaka The Indian Car Scene 24 20th March 2014 20:13
Owner liable if minor is involved in accident: Supreme Court cooljai Street Experiences 28 21st December 2011 23:47
Pedestrian safety norms leads to a very FLIMSY car. alankarm@sancha Technical Stuff 73 20th August 2010 08:27
Coca-Cola liable to pay damages worth Rs. 216.26 cr madan80 Shifting gears 2 24th March 2010 08:24


All times are GMT +5.5. The time now is 10:55.

Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Team-BHP.com
Proudly powered by E2E Networks