[ToThePoint]

I think this needs to be thought through deeply.

Going to police station doesn't ensure safety - yours or your parked vehicle. I have personally seen mobs storming into police stations and beating up both constables as well as probable culprit. I have seen vehicles lit up in police station yard by such mobs. Our police stations are least prepared to deal with mobs.

One option could be like a dedicated no (IIRC 100 was abolished and replaced with IVR based 112 which is not something you want in stressful/frightful situation) which the driver can call after an incident and there should be someone with counselling experience who can take down all details and guide on further process be it nearest police station or otherwise. All call details to be mandatorily recorded.

Police also need to be sensitivised and trained well on these laws. In many cases running away from the scene could be treated as hit and run. We know how RTO officials harass us despite law saying otherwise, don't we?

Making dash cams mandatory at least for large vehicles could be thought about, but it has a cost element to it and we know how someone in power would benefit ultimately (aka ethanol and sugar barons).

[aaggoswami]

Originally Posted by DigitalOne

As per the new law, the driver has to inform the police. It can be done by phone, or driving to the nearest police station or district magistrate office. If the driver fails to inform to the police within reasonable time, then it will considered a hit-and-run case (i.e Unidentified vehicle) and stricter provisions ensue.

I think if the above is added in respective section of the law, things would be more clear. Also, the word "escapes", usually that word will be interpreted as someone who escapes/runs away from the accident site. If "escapes" word is deleted and if its explicitly mentioned that if a driver fears mob justice or anything like that, the driver can soon surrender to Police or inform police, then things would be pretty transparent for most.

A fully loaded 31 ton truck brakes suddenly at lets say 10 kmph, a bike rider hit the truck from behind and is injured. The truck driver will not even know a biker has rear ended the truck. How will this be interpreted ?

[Revvatron]

So the first rule they should bring into action is related to mob incidents. That's the biggest reason people flee from spot. But again such laws will be difficult to impose and implement. Even if their is dashcam in vehicle, sometimes you might not get time to explain that you have dashcam evidence and the hot headed ones will already be on you.

[DigitalOne]

Originally Posted by aaggoswami

Also, the word "escapes", usually that word will be interpreted as someone who escapes/runs away from the accident site. If "escapes" word is deleted

A fully loaded 31 ton truck brakes suddenly at lets say 10 kmph, a bike rider hit the truck from behind and is injured. The truck driver will not even know a biker has rear ended the truck. How will this be interpreted ?

Good points, but please see how the law has been written in post#9 by "Cresterk". The wording says "escapes without reporting to a police officer or a Magistrate soon after the incident...". So just driving away from the scene cannot be interpreted as an "escape". I agree with you that the wording has to be improved; the word 'soon' has to be specified explicitly (6 hours? 12 hours?). Otherwise Hit-and-run drivers will call 108 when the police has identified them and are knocking on their door.

Regarding your 2nd point, it is not considered as "Rash and Negligent driving by the truck driver. Since there is an "and" between the 2 clauses both have to be satisfied.

[Sedate]

Originally Posted by ruzbehxyz

Its simple. Instead of such rules why not have a permanent camera and recorder in all vehicles like a “Black Box” which is tamper proof and which can be extracted in case of an accident. The recording should be stored in the ECU or some other place which cannot be easily accessed, although jugadu people will still find a way. If they still want to make it fool proof, the recording can be saved on a cloud based Government server which can be assessed only in case of an accident and can be overwritten over a period of time.

Wont this be the next step in moving to a surveillance state? We already have AI camera in Kerala doing law enforcement - This coupled with dashcamera is recording the entire world. Privacy and Private life may become a mirage.

[Shreyans_Jain]

Originally Posted by Sedate

Wont this be the next step in moving to a surveillance state? We already have AI camera in Kerala doing law enforcement - This coupled with dashcamera is recording the entire world. Privacy and Private life may become a mirage.

Depends on how it is implemented. A defined time limit of, say 5 minutes, after which the older footage is re-written over. More than good enough to provide a fair perspective of road conditions, driving style as well has what happened at the time of any accident. You don’t have to have continuous recording working all the time filling up 100s of GBs on every car.

We have a real problem that our law assumes bigger vehicle is always at fault. That is totally unfair. This means when anything happens, the truck and bus drivers are always guilty till proven innocent. Anything that fairly addresses this fundamental flaw is worth debating upon.

[ruzbehxyz]

Originally Posted by Sedate

Wont this be the next step in moving to a surveillance state? We already have AI camera in Kerala doing law enforcement - This coupled with dashcamera is recording the entire world. Privacy and Private life may become a mirage.

With our cell phones and online surfing, there is nothing private now. And that’s why I mentioned, that the recordings will go on a server which cannot be easily accessed and can be only accessed in case of an accident.

The positive side of this arrangement is that the innocent will be spared by way of recorded proof.
In India, we have a norm. If there is an accident between a two wheeler and a four wheeler, we blame the four wheeler. If there is an accident between a two wheeler/ car and a truck, we blame the truck.

[alpha1]

Originally Posted by Rajjaiswal92

Imagine you are a driver and because of no fault of yours someone rams into you , you see a huge crowd gather with sticks ! Would you stop ? The mob justice of this country kills more road victims than the accident itself.

Especially the mob justice demands the larger vehicle to be the accused in all cases. However, the conduct of truck drivers in steps leading up to accidents (carelessness, overconfidence, impatience) and thereafter (abscond, leaving the injured) is also not very honorable.

As others are mentioning, the law allows one to turn himself in at a later stage and thus prevent the invocation of the clause related to escape. Well, this opens up another can of worms - police can arbitrarily still declare you to be absconding in the FIR because eyewitness account says so (unless you grease their palms). So much for the trustworthiness of police department.

The sad reality is that the culprits seldom turn themselves in (scared + confidence that they won't be identified and caught), so there has to be some law to prevent/take care of such cases. The current law seems to be a step in right direction.

[Mustang Sammy]

Originally Posted by DigitalOne

As per the new law, the driver has to inform the police. It can be done by phone, or driving to the nearest police station or district magistrate office. If the driver fails to inform to the police within reasonable time, then it will considered a hit-and-run case (i.e Unidentified vehicle) and stricter provisions ensue.

There is no requirement that the vehicle should be stopped at the scene.
.

Originally Posted by Raghu M

I think the law is being interpreted in the wrong way (like in most cases). The driver can always move from the spot or even flee and surrender at the nearest police station. The police generally do not show arrest to those who surrender immediately. They give time to secure bail (a station bail can also be given with valid ids). The drivers are a little paranoid and their association should have taken care of this. I think this whole process could have been handled in a better way. Since the bigger vehicle is always at fault (as per the law), they might be worried but I think they need to read the sections in entirety.

This is all fine in theory. However, we all know how the Indian police treats people, especially those who are poor, uneducated and cannot speak English. These truck drivers are caught between a rock and a hard place.
Not to mention they aren’t even safe inside the police station, as someone else pointed out.

[ABHI_1512]

As someone who has faced the wrong end of the law despite being innocent and slapped with sections pertaining to 304(A) when I was the one who took the injured man to the hospital, these protests are somewhat understandable to me. The truckers face the maximum harassment from the authorities and with the changes in law, anyone reporting an accident to the authorities becomes an easy target for fleecing. The law on the ground is very different from the law on paper for an average Joe like me and even worse for someone who drives a truck.

I have seen what a combination of insurance officials, court officials and the law enforcement agencies can come up with in order to pocket the insurance amounts. I would have been happier if instead of amending the law and bringing changes, the focus was on the correct enforcement of the existing laws.

Existing motor vehicle laws are just as enough, it’s the enforcement part which is the sore point. In a country where laws are broken in broad daylight by anyone who holds some sort of influence, what will the average trucker do when faced with prosecution ?? The changes in law will make anyone a sitting duck in the hands of the law enforcement agencies whether or not the concerned person is guilty or not. We have a Good Samaritan law in place since long, how many lives have been saved by that virtue is anybody’s guess. I keep reading news that people have been found lying on the road after the accidents.

As someone mentioned about the plight of the truckers in an earlier post in this very thread, I can understand the reason about the protests. But then, who cares about finding the reason behind the protests as long as the idiot box and social media terms the protests as another stunt before the elections and that they also might be against the economy and the nation while conveniently forgetting that it’s the truckers who are playing a pivotal part in driving the economy forward !!

[Sedate]

Originally Posted by ruzbehxyz

With our cell phones and online surfing, there is nothing private now. And that’s why I mentioned, that the recordings will go on a server which cannot be easily accessed and can be only accessed in case of an accident.

The positive side of this arrangement is that the innocent will be spared by way of recorded proof.
In India, we have a norm. If there is an accident between a two wheeler and a four wheeler, we blame the four wheeler. If there is an accident between a two wheeler/ car and a truck, we blame the truck.

You can always turn off your cellphone and also can browse internet privately. There are choices for you. A forced recording device on every vehicle today may lead to asking people to wear bodycam from tomorrow.

While I am not against technolgy, just introspecting if technolgy is an answer to a mindset problem. If there is an accident and there is no human life lost, ideally financial impact is covered by insurance. Drivers flee the scene because of repurcussions from public and police. I dont think dashcam will save people from an angry crowd.

The burden of proof should never be on the accused, but on the state(or accuser) to prove that you are at fault.

[ruzbehxyz]

Originally Posted by Sedate

You can always turn off your cellphone and also can browse internet privately. There are choices for you.

I am aware of this. However still there is nothing private and you are being watched.

A forced recording device on every vehicle today may lead to asking people to wear bodycam from tomorrow.
While I am not against technolgy, just introspecting if technolgy is an answer to a mindset problem.

I am only telling to install a Black Box like an Aircraft which can be assessed only in case of an accident. If 50, 100 or 500 seater plane can carry it why not a 50 seater bus or a loaded truck.

The burden of proof should never be on the accused, but on the state(or accuser) to prove that you are at fault.

You are right. But if you are driving your vehicle and a two wheeler bangs into you for no fault of yours, and if you are arrested, then the burden of proof obviously will lie on you to prove yourself innocent.

The Indian mindset may not change easily but there is no harm in having some technology which can prevent ruining someone’s life. Merchant ships and Aircraft’s have this Black Box technology since years mainly because millions of dollars are involved and lives are at stake. But don’t you think one life on the road is equally important. Also having a permanent recorder will automatically prevent drivers from driving rash.