[IamNikhil]

Originally Posted by binand

I do not agree with the conclusion that the car driver is at "absolute zero fault". The fact remains that their vehicle hit another on the road and caused injury to someone. There is culpability here.

How is there culpability here, I fail to understand? Again, I re-iterate that the car driver had no possible way of knowing that some moronic biker is going to appear magically in front of his car, that too from a blind spot in the absolute wrong direction. The CCTV footage in itself absolves the car driver of any fault on his part. There has to be some sanctity left in the concept of "right-of-way", otherwise any and everyone can ride as they please and blame the others.

[Yieldway17]

Originally Posted by binand

I
Here is what I was trying to say. If there are 100 blame points to be divvied up then I am of the opinion that they go, about 75 to biker and 25 to car driver.

Thankfully this is not how the law or insurance determines fault.

Right of way doesn't give me right to bulldoze everyone in my path and drivers should take 'reasonable' care to avoid an accident. Right of way is a rule based system and safety framework to determine on how the traffic should behave and who is at fault. There needs to be some bare minimum expectations to drive, ride, or walk on a road which is a shared space.

In this case, car driver passed the 'reasonable' test just fine. If the car driver had clear visibility of the rider before he crossed, I would assign a 10-15% cause for not being defensive for India but this is just open and shut for me.

If right of way can be ignored, why even have any motor laws and rules, let's throw the book out and act even more wild west than what we are already.

[AutoNoob]

Originally Posted by binand

I do not agree with the conclusion that the car driver is at "absolute zero fault". The fact remains that their vehicle hit another on the road and caused injury to someone. There is culpability here.

Here is what I was trying to say. If there are 100 blame points to be divvied up then I am of the opinion that they go, about 75 to biker and 25 to car driver.

(a) of course - but it needn't be 30 kmph. The actual number would be determined by the distance between the two vehicles.

From the video, it is clear that the car driver was slow before approaching the median. And just started to accelerate after ascertaining that the median is clear.

You suggested that the car driver should have approached median slowly. HE ALREADY DID THAT. He wasn't 'bulldozing' through the median. Expecting anything beyond that from him is inhuman.

All the while he tried to overtake the tractor and cross the median, the idiots on the bikes would be totally hidden from his view. The bikers were coming in WRONG DIRECTION, hidden from the view of the car driver.

Will we be OK with everyone doing phantom braking on a divided two lane road/highway because they are trying to have precognition every once a while.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by venkyhere

Who does this ? How many BHPians do this ? Do you do this?

Actually, something to the effect of don't overtake at a junction is one of the British Highway Code rules. Do I always follow that in India? I wouldn't like to make that claim.

But if I am overtaking a vehicle that I can't see through, or past, I do so with care. If that driver behaves suspiciously, changing course or speed, I will wonder why, and hold back.

Road design often gets blamed on this thread, and I am one of those who always says, it is never the road's fault, it is always the drivers' fault. But there is no doubt that some road design is inherently dangerous.

[chaitanyakrish]

Sensitive Content :

A 2 year old kid was run over by a car in Delhi.

https://patialapolitics.com/40072/

Originally Posted by IamNikhil

Biker tries to cross lanes without due regard for oncoming traffic

I recall seeing this video many years ago and I bookmarked it.
It happened in Tirupathi and uploaded by Tirupathi Traffic Police.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKyJODXs57E

Now, coming to the video, car driver didn't anticipate such moves.
There is a rule that we should not do any lane change near Zebra Crossings as it may confuse pedestrians.
The car driver overtook the tractor near a Zebra Crossing.
Also, no overtakings near Gap in Medians, bridges too.

It's very difficult to follow rules when we are not used to. It requires 1 or more people to make a mistake and cause a crash. But the mistake by the biker is much bigger than the mistake by the car driver, and the car driver had to pay the price.

I had posted a similar video on X

https://x.com/skc2000rpm/status/1707...rI0xVix3Q&s=03

[binand]

Originally Posted by IamNikhil

How is there culpability here, I fail to understand? Again, I re-iterate that the car driver had no possible way of knowing...

When you are driving, you are bound by what is known as duty of care. And when you ignore your duty of care, you are guilty of negligence. Quoting a high court judgment:

"Where there is a duty to exercise care, reasonable care must be taken to avoid acts or omissions which would be reasonably foreseen likely to caused physical injury to person... It is well settled law that at intersection where two roads cross each other, it is the duty of a fast moving vehicle to slow down and if driver did not slow down at intersection, but continued to proceed at a high speed without caring to notice that another vehicle was crossing, then the conduct of driver necessarily leads to conclusion that vehicle was being driven by him rashly as well as negligently."

Originally Posted by Yieldway17

Thankfully this is not how the law or insurance determines fault.

As far as I know, this is exactly how the law and insurance determines culpability. I would love to be corrected here, though - if you have something that says otherwise, please share.

Originally Posted by AutoNoob

Will we be OK with everyone doing phantom braking on a divided two lane road/highway because they are trying to have precognition every once a while.

Yes. See below.

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

Actually, something to the effect of don't overtake at a junction is one of the British Highway Code rules.

In India the relevant code is Rules Of The Road Regulations, 1989. Its regulation #8 says:

"The driver of a motor vehicle shall slow down when approaching a road intersection, a road junction, pedestrian crossing or a road corner, and shall not enter any such intersection, junction or crossing until he has become aware that he may do so without endangering the safety of persons thereon."

[IamNikhil]

Originally Posted by binand

When you are driving, you are bound by what is known as duty of care. And when you ignore your duty of care, you are guilty of negligence. Quoting a high court judgment:

"Where there is a duty to exercise care, reasonable care must be taken to avoid acts or omissions which would be reasonably foreseen likely to caused physical injury to person... It is well settled law that at intersection where two roads cross each other, it is the duty of a fast moving vehicle to slow down and if driver did not slow down at intersection, but continued to proceed at a high speed without caring to notice that another vehicle was crossing, then the conduct of driver necessarily leads to conclusion that vehicle was being driven by him rashly as well as negligently."

Sir, I don't think anyone is arguing on the technicalities. Laws are there for a reason and it's fair to note that all of us here respect them fully. However, the relevant paragraph that you've quoted completely misses the very point in this case, per se. Neither was the car "fast-moving", nor did it "continue to proceed at a high speed without caring to notice another vehicle was crossing..."

Negligence is to be pinned entirely on the biker. The law is supposed to protect vehicles who have the right of way and are driving within the parameters of the law; while those who are blatantly disregarding traffic rules and causing irreparable harm to themselves and people at large, should be punished. Surely this is acceptable without demur or contestation.

[binand]

Originally Posted by IamNikhil

Neither was the car "fast-moving", nor did it "continue to proceed at a high speed without caring to notice another vehicle was crossing..."

At 3 seconds into the video the car is approx one car-length behind the tractor. At 6 seconds into the video (the instant of impact) the car is abreast of the tractor. Based on this observation, I have to disagree on your conclusions above.

Originally Posted by IamNikhil

Negligence is to be pinned entirely on the biker. The law is supposed to protect vehicles who have the right of way and are driving within the parameters of the law

Not entirely, that is my point. The car was also not driving within the parameters of the law. See the extract from the Rules Of The Road Regulations, above - the car was in violation of that.

[electric_eel]

Originally Posted by binand

Not entirely, that is my point. The car was also not driving within the parameters of the law. See the extract from the Rules Of The Road Regulations, above - the car was in violation of that.

I agree with you. If I am not mistaken the car was going a bit fast and was accelerating. A defensive driver should also be aware of the situation. The area looked like a crowed place (market?) with lots of chaotic stuff happening. Should always err on the side of caution.

[HIGHWAY_PATROL]

Originally Posted by binand

The car was also not driving within the parameters of the law. See the extract from the Rules Of The Road Regulations, above - the car was in violation of that.

I guess observations and judgement could be subjective.
Even supreme court judges have had differing opinions on many cases of national importance.

In this case, the car driver seems to have checked for intrusions in his line of sight and seems to have concluded that it was safe to increase the speed to overtake the slow moving tractor(towards the end of the junction). So, I would deem that he has acted within 'reasonable' limits of his duty of care.

The situation itself is outside one's normal reasoning while driving. So, each observer will have his/her own 'reasonable' limits.

It is very common to see 'near-misses' on Indian roads, especially with a few bikers unpredictability. It is an unfortunate accident and bikers certainly have more lessons to learn from this.

Thank you for giving your perspective on this, though I don't agree with it

[LordSharan]

Originally Posted by binand

I do not agree with the conclusion that the car driver is at "absolute zero fault". The fact remains that their vehicle hit another on the road and caused injury to someone. There is culpability here.

Yes. Driving (at least on Indian roads) has a prerequisite of such precognition.

The car driver could not foresee this coming in any way. Pre-cognition is a meta human talent, reserved for sci-fi stories and movies.

Could the car driver have avoided this? Yes: He shouldn't have taken his car out for this trip, he should've left 10 seconds earlier, he should've driven at 40KMPH instead of 60 or whatever speed he was doing, and a million other ways.

Btw, if one is supposed to cross the road to go to other side, he/she must stop and ascertain if crossing is safe or not. that's the first thing we are taught to do, even if want to cross road as pedestrian, but the biker was in so much hurry to get hospitalized.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by binand

In India the relevant code is Rules Of The Road Regulations, 1989. Its regulation #8 says:

Brilliant. Succinctly put, in very plain language, thirty years ago.

If only the drivers on our roads new and practised this. But I doubt that they ever will

[abhishekjoshi84]

Originally Posted by binand

In India the relevant code is Rules Of The Road Regulations, 1989. Its regulation #8 says:

"The driver of a motor vehicle shall slow down when approaching a road intersection, a road junction, pedestrian crossing or a road corner, and shall not enter any such intersection, junction or crossing until he has become aware that he may do so without endangering the safety of persons thereon."

The accident happened when car was exiting the junction and not when entering. Bike was the vehicle entering the junction at that time.

Could accident have been prevented if the car was much slower? Sure. But blame of this accident still is with the biker 100%. Rider is breaking several rules in this case and will be found legally liable in a competent court.

[MT_Hyderabad]

Originally Posted by binand

In India the relevant code is Rules Of The Road Regulations, 1989. Its regulation #8 says:

"The driver of a motor vehicle shall slow down when approaching a road intersection, a road junction, pedestrian crossing or a road corner, and shall not enter any such intersection, junction or crossing until he has become aware that he may do so without endangering the safety of persons thereon."

Was reading your comments and realised that you are hell bent in proving that the car was also responsible. Let's clarify a few things.

This exact excerpt was posted by me multiple times on teambhp, and I am quite well versed with this rule.

First, apply this rule to the biker and read it again.

Secondly, there is nothing called 75%, 25% responsibility. Either one or both of the participants of an accident are fully responsible for the accident. Yes, compensation could be divided, but not the responsibility.

It is very clear that the biker is responsible for the accident. You also mention, that he is 75% responsible for the accident, which means that he is majorly responsible for the accident. The only point of contention with other participants of the discussion is that they feel biker is 100% responsible.

Let us say that a person jumps in front of moving vehicles to commit suicide. Unfortunately, one of the vehicles in front of which he landed was overspeeding (let's say well beyond the prescribed limit may be 150 km/hr on a 100 km/hr limit). Who is responsible for this accident?
You can say 75/25. But the reality is, that it is the person who jumped is 100% responsible. This poor driver was overspeeding and should be penalised for that offence, not for killing this suicidal person.

Sometime back, similar discussions happened where an overspeeding vehicle killed a person walking on the road (near the footpath, but not on it). People started blaming the person walking also. In this case the person driving the car was solely responsible. He was overspeeding, lost control and killed this poor chap. He was driving dangerously, the person was not walking dangerously. Please note, had he been walking dangerously, he will also be held accountable.

In the said video, I don't see the car driving dangerously, it was fast but not reckless for other commuters. It was the biker who was reckless.

[dockap]

100% bike riders fault. Car was slow and exiting junction with a crawling tractor in left lane. Naturally car driver accelerated a bit to overtake slow moving tractor seeing thre is no vehicle at junction trying to cross.
Bike rider came wrong way and blindly cuts across road in front of tractor. He should have waited for tractor to cross first so that he had a clear view of road.