[MT_Hyderabad]

Look at this rider.

https://youtu.be/XReOVy8hAek

[anjan_c2007]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

Even when there are wide, clear, new-made footpaths, a family or group will be found walking side by side in the road.

Well said!

We also find bikers riding on the footpaths and Jay walkers occupying at least one /more lane/s on the road.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by MT_Hyderabad

Look at this rider.

If I had been his passenger I would have kicked him in the head.

They are so lucky. Being almost stopped, the car driver seemed to take the bike from under them, leaving them on the road. The car driver had two or three seconds to react.

Well, he had maybe six or seven seconds to see the rider moving to the right, and to consider that the guy might be a lunatic. But most people are not that crazy.

[skb1811]

Originally Posted by MT_Hyderabad

Look at this rider.

Man thought he was an 18 wheeler instead of a 2 wheeler, hence the wide turn I assume?

Some people never learn I guess - at least they lived

[Axe77]

Originally Posted by MT_Hyderabad

Look at this rider.

Utter idiocy. This is the exact reason I am always cutting speed and looking both sides every time there is a cut in the highway. My going in assumption is that someone might do something entirely ludicrous on these roads, including from a small side road and immediately cut to the right most lane.

Of course this works well on regular highway routes where you are well familiar with where the intersections are, but I can imagine something taking one completely off guard on a long road trip involving new routes.

Short point for Indian driving is:

# Defensive driving; and
# Expect the unexpected, all the time.

[chaitanyakrish]

Multiple rear ends in Bangalore and all of them are avoidable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a__Rji_sw1k

[poised2drive]

Originally Posted by chaitanyakrish

Multiple rear ends in Bangalore and all of them are avoidable.

In Rear end crashes like these, there is only one universally held rule.

It is always the tailing vehicle, which failed to adhere to the Safe Stopping Distance, that is at fault, regardless of the reasons why the front vehicle braked.

[sarathlal]

Originally Posted by poised2drive

In Rear end crashes like these, there is only one universally held rule.

It is always the tailing vehicle, which failed to adhere to the Safe Stopping Distance, that is at fault, regardless of the reasons why the front vehicle braked.

This is true, but there are exceptions that favours the rear ending vehicle, like brake checks and illegally parked vehicles.

In the above video;

The first one is almost equivalent to a brake check. The alto was cruising at quite high speed and braked abruptly to a standstill with nothing in front apparently. (Maybe he wanted to take that exit and realised it very lately). While the pickup is at fault, the Alto is equally responsible.

For the second part of the video, the biker is at fault for inattentive riding. Equally responsible was the car who decided to park in middle of the road to look at the accident scenario.

[svsantosh]

Originally Posted by chaitanyakrish

Multiple rear ends in Bangalore and all of them are avoidable.

https://www.Youtube.com/watch?v=a__Rji_sw1k

Damn! I jumped from my seat when the scooter guy hit your car. It was almost better than those spooky youtube shorts where you are distracted somewhere else and a creep pops on the screen!

And I heard this in mute in office, dont know if there a spook audio in BG

[chaitanyakrish]

Originally Posted by svsantosh

I jumped from my seat when the scooter guy hit your car.

It's definitely a jump from the seat moment, but its not my car !!

[anandhsub]

Originally Posted by sarathlal

with nothing in front apparently.

Didn't he brake for the speed breaker?

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by sarathlal

This is true, but there are exceptions that favours the rear ending vehicle, like brake checks and illegally parked vehicles.

I'd say that the only real exception is if someone cuts in and immediately brakes in front. Otherwise, it's no, no no!

It doesn't matter if the person in front brakes for no reason, stupid reason, or whatever reason, there should be distance to allow for that, and if there isn't, the crash is the fault of the following car.

If a driver runs into a stationary vehicle... their fault. Vehicle shouldn't have been there? Tough. Lots of things shouldn't be where they are. Drivers have eyes and should be able to see and react. How about if they illegally park on the the other side of blind corner? Utterly stupid. But drive round that corner and hit them? Not their fault. Apply this test: what if it was a cow? Or this one: what if it was a child.

I do agree that, if we split the hairs fine enough, we might find reasons to the contrary, but, for all practical (and safe) purposes, it is better to consider that it's always one's own fault if hitting a vehicle in front.

I have one instance when I have a doubt about this. That is when I read that a driver has rammed a two-wheeler from behind. Unless there is further information, eg the two-wheeler was stopped at a signal, I always wonder how the two-wheeler came to be there: eg did they cut in.

(For all two-wheelers who are genuinely rammed from the rear, of course I am sorry. Of course, there are times when they are innocent victims.)

[Nalin1]

Originally Posted by anandhsub

Didn't he brake for the speed breaker?

Yeah exactly. Very obvious that he missed the speed breaker and noticed in the last moment, braked hard, tempo was not maintaining adequate distance and rammed the Alto .

This is exactly why ALWAYS maintain enough distance for the worst case abrupt slow down or stop by the vehicle in front. Even more important if the view ahead is not clear (as in this case). Very very few do that. Almost all like to tail gate within sniffing distance. Even more ridiculous on the highways with each one tailgating the other at 100 plus!. In the unfortunate event of a pile up, each one looks at the other faces, not knowing whom to blame, but eventually the vehicle at the pole position ends up like a goose (while cooking up stories), "dog jumped in front, cyclist suddenly turned, bike entered from the wrong side, blah blah blah.

[sarathlal]

Originally Posted by anandhsub

Didn't he brake for the speed breaker?

Thanks, totally missed that.

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

I'd say that the only real exception is if someone cuts in and immediately breaks in front. Otherwise, it's no, no no!

Had doubt about these two scenarios and you had explained very clearly of the nuances. Thanks for clarifying.

[Pennant1970]

In the case of the multiple rear-end crashes, I am very conscious of leaving a couple of car lengths ahead of my vehicle. My sister, who's usually my shotgun in the car, used to question that and I would always repeat the usual "gyan" about braking distance etc.

In the last couple of weeks, I have had to drive to a nearby town to take our youngest cat to a vet after she was mauled by a feral tom.

Much of the drive is over State Highways with clear marking and fair width. However, with any sort of traffic density, if I leave a space ahead (even on open roads), there's always someone who wants to "fill up the blanks"! You might say, "so, slow down!" Fair enough - but this usually happens at a railway level crossing that is immediately followed by a long, narrow bridge. With about 30 odd vehicles on both sides, do you know the amount of patience that's required? My sister has certainly added to her vocabulary of foul expletives in the last few days as she listens to my ravings!

Given that the main road in the town I have to go to has barely 2 lane width and is now being converted to concrete, 1 lane at a time, with roads from 4 destinations converging in this little place, I am fearful for my sanity!

If you know the way that autos and private buses behave here, you'll understand some of my despair.