[GTO]

Originally Posted by ptaneja

When will people learn to be sensible.

Alcohol, youth & adrenaline = deadly combination. These people had their entire life ahead of them; sad to see it wasted like this.

[BoneCollector]

Originally Posted by bkc

People had gathered, heard them say that, the taxi customer was badly hurt than the driver. I wish both are safe and stable at hospital. :(

.

The damage to passenger could be due to not belting up. He/ She might have sustained facial injuries.

I've always insisted on belting up even when on rear seat of a cab. Once there was no buckle visible on rear seat so I took the front seat ( I was alone), next time same thing happened, I asked the driver to stop and pull out the buckle from under the seat cover. I have even complained about this issue to Meru but they never responded.

[shubhodeepdas@g]

Originally Posted by BoneCollector

I've always insisted on belting up even when on rear seat of a cab.

I take cabs occasionally and every time I notice the same thing.

1. Absence of seat belts that are lost inside the leather covers.
2. Absence of headrests on the rear seat to prevent whiplash injuries to the neck. 3. This is also the case with most passenger cars, not just cabs. Metro Ford used to hide the buckles under the seat for my Fusion before delivery.

Cabbies response many a times have been : "It irritates other passengers"

Even if the passenger was belted up, the momentum of the bus hitting can snap the neck backwards badly causing permanent injuries or even death.

[GranvilleDsouza]

Girlfriends friends brother was on his way to Lonavala when a truck abruptly stopped ahead of him. Now from the speed, he hit the brakes and ended up hitting the truck. The car in question is a Chevrolet Cruze. Well built and with nice crisp brakes. The story would be different if it were to be a smaller car. No injuries, a few scratches from the glass. Safety of vehicles is paramount now, can't see any reason why people would buy smaller cars until they're driving strictly in the city! The car has been scrapped!

[deerhunter]

Originally Posted by GranvilleDsouza

Girlfriends friends brother was on his way to Lonavala when a truck abruptly stopped ahead of him. Now from the speed, he hit the brakes and ended up hitting the truck. The car in question is a Chevrolet Cruze. Well built and with nice crisp brakes. The story would be different if it were to be a smaller car. No injuries, a few scratches from the glass. Safety of vehicles is paramount now, can't see any reason why people would buy smaller cars until they're driving strictly in the city! The car has been scrapped!

Looks like the lorry had no rear under-run guard. The crash almost completely bypassed the front, except for the hood. Lucky that the occupant is safe. No car is designed to take a hit directly on the A-pillars and roof, be it an expensive or a cheap car.

The lack of under-run guard is a big safety hazard for car owners. It could easily decapitate the occupants of even the safest cars. While giving more importance to airbags and crash safety norms, govt seems reluctant to implement under-run guard for all trucks.

I make it a point to keep more than enough distance from the trucks with no under-run guards.

[shagils]

7th Jan 2017 Midnight

Took place in Ambikapur (Chhattisgarh). Two people died in a tragic incident when a Pajero-Sport collided with a truck coming from the opposite side. Four others got injured & rushed to the hospital.
The vehicle was cruising at a speed of 140-150 km/per hour. The collision was so strong that front part of the SUV had crashed under the truck.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by GranvilleDsouza

Girlfriends friends brother was on his way to Lonavala when a truck abruptly stopped ahead of him. Now from the speed, he hit the brakes and ended up hitting the truck. The car in question is a Chevrolet Cruze. Well built and with nice crisp brakes. The story would be different if it were to be a smaller car. No injuries, a few scratches from the glass. Safety of vehicles is paramount now, can't see any reason why people would buy smaller cars until they're driving strictly in the city! The car has been scrapped!

Missed point error.

The story would have been different if he had left enough distance.

[born_free]

Originally Posted by GranvilleDsouza

Safety of vehicles is paramount now, can't see any reason why people would buy smaller cars until they're driving strictly in the city! The car has been scrapped!

Check the post above, even a big SUV like Pajero could not save its occupants, no matter what car you are driving there is no substitute for defensive driving.

A big car gives false sense of security and I have seen enough SUV's driven rashly in city conditions.

What is more important is knowing your vehicle's and own limit, a well build car with safety features is no doubt helpful but two aspects have to be taken together in context of highway driving.

A big/safe car is like a medical insurance, you rather would stay fit and avoid being sick than to rely on insurance money to take care of your health.

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

Missed point error.

The story would have been different if he had left enough distance.

Completely agree thats why I made above point.

[GranvilleDsouza]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

Missed point error.

The story would have been different if he had left enough distance.

Note, he was not tailgating! It happened at a distance and he braked before he could ram into the truck! He was on triple digit speeds and there was distance

Originally Posted by born_free

....A big car gives false sense of security and I have seen enough SUV's driven rashly in city conditions....

I didn't say a big car has a better sense of security, but a well build car will have a better ability to take impact than a tinny car. Also, the smaller cars don't come with the safety features the bigger better ones do

Anyway, it was just a post on the thread

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by GranvilleDsouza

Note, he was not tailgating! It happened at a distance and he braked before he could ram into the truck! He was on triple digit speeds and there was distance ...

The facts speak for themselves. There was not enough distance.

Technically, stopping distance is divided into reaction time plus braking time. And reaction time includes time taken to even notice the situation. Think about how much that adds if we just happen to be, for instance, checking the song name on the head unit, or briefly looking to one side. Or even the stuff we are supposed to do like checking mirrors.

Distance, distance and... more distance is enough. And if we do hit the guy in front, it wasn't.

[sourabhzen]

Originally Posted by GranvilleDsouza

Note, he was not tailgating! It happened at a distance and he braked before he could ram into the truck! He was on triple digit speeds and there was distance

Anyway, it was just a post on the thread

It amounts to tailgating if he was doing triple digits speed and rammed the truck inspite of braking.

Agreed it was a post in the thread but the purpose of this thread is to learn from others mistakes. Accidents happen because of someone's carelessness and with these posts we learn to be careful.

[deerhunter]

Originally Posted by GranvilleDsouza

Note, he was not tailgating! It happened at a distance and he braked before he could ram into the truck! He was on triple digit speeds and there was distance.

If someone hits a vehicle travelling in front of them, it is his/her fault and not the fault of the vehicle travelling in front of him/her. I have seen many people (outside this forum ofcourse) arguing that the vehicle in front of them stopped suddenly, so its not their fault but that of the vehicle that stopped abruptly. That is just not true. It will never happen if a safe distance is maintained.

So even if your friend(?) claims that he was not tailgating, the fact that he hit the vehicle in front of him proves otherwise.

An Etios, a so called tinny car (it doesnt feel particularly well built), is as safe as a Cruze. A Figo with 6 airbags is probably safer than a Cruze, even though it is much smaller.

[sunishsamuel]

Originally Posted by deerhunter

If someone hits a vehicle travelling in front of them, it is his/her fault and not the fault of the vehicle travelling in front of him/her. I have seen many people (outside this forum ofcourse) arguing that the vehicle in front of them stopped suddenly, so its not their fault but that of the vehicle that stopped abruptly. That is just not true. It will never happen if a safe distance is maintained.

Completely true. Even the law mandates keeping safe distance. Whether the guy in front of you took an abrupt turn or braked suddenly, you have to maintain enough distance so that you have reaction time to either brake or change lane safely. We can continue arguing about Indian conditions, traffic situations etc. but those will never help us get over the facts.

A car like Etios or Ritz might be having weak structure compared to a big SUV like Fortuner or Pajero, Innova is weaker than Fiat Linea but within the speed limits they perform reasonably well to protect the passengers. I don't think most cars are crash tested for speed above 100kmph (I could be wrong here) so at those triple digit speeds beliefs/arguments of surviving in a big vs small car remains mostly hypothetical. Each accident is different so its not safe to assume that big car can protect anyone ! Probably the chances are slightly higher but not significant.

[Torqy]

Originally Posted by GTO

Alcohol, youth & adrenaline = deadly combination. These people had their entire life ahead of them; sad to see it wasted like this.

Alcohol + Driving = Deadly combination. There's no age factor coming here.

[dark.knight]

Originally Posted by GTO

Alcohol, youth & adrenaline = deadly combination. These people had their entire life ahead of them; sad to see it wasted like this.

I think the amount of "adrenaline" that is produced in the body during the youth is directly connected to the amount of resources available to them, and of course a misplaced sense of belonging to "western culture" due to the number of YouTube videos, movies, newspaper adverts etc, promoting them.

I'm truly grateful that I grew up in a middle-class household, and also happy that when I was in my early teens, internet was hardly around except for the rich people, even then the connection was a basic dial-up with low speeds. Mobile phones were around but they were for simple voice conversations / texting and I didn't have one until well into my 20's.

Peer pressure is truly a disease during the college days, its when the "western" concept of breaking into the world and cutting loose comes to reality for teens. During my college days it were the Pulsars and CBZ's that were en vogue, today with the rise of globalism and wallets, parents give their kids unlimited access to cars, they do have "their life to enjoy" after all. Mixing spirits was never wise, mixing liquor and petrol? You've GOT to be kidding me.

A car is about keeping control, taking responsibility and gaining your senses, it is like any other aspect of life where something new comes in. We've all said it again, and again, and again.. to no effect. At the end of the day the parents are to be blamed whenever someone under 20 does something like this and no, rebellion, mischief, doing without knowledge are all NOT excuses. The amount of stupidity that needs to be present while one parties & dances senselessly out on the open and then proceeds to drive the car to various locations, is mind-boggling.

BTW, I used to have a classmate in college who'd invite me for a drop home on his bike whenever he saw me walking towards the bus stand, I'd politely decline though they were mostly based on my first experience on the same bike where I'd tears running through my eyes (wind speed) and terror on my face. He proceeded to have 2 accidents, one of them with another classmate. The one who drives drunk is a criminal, but you don't have to partake in that act as a passenger if you care about your safety.