[Turbanator]

Originally Posted by IshaanIan

I don’t think there is any reason one should stop on a flyover.

Yes, the car should not have stopped and is at fault. But what if it had broken down a few minutes before? Or What if it was not a car and some other stationary object or an animal?

The scooter guy was not looking and is a major contributor. Maybe he was thinking somewhere else. And he is the one who is the most sufferer. The car will be repaired and the car driver may have to go through some hassles - court/ police etc but it's the scooter driver who's going to feel this accident forever, and that helmet- is it even legal?

Learnings for everyone here.

[IshaanIan]

Originally Posted by BoneCollector

There is no reason to stop on a flyover that is excusable. Although, there can be some instances which may warrant a stop, just to name a few -

1. A tyre blowout.
2. Sudden feeling of nervousness/ panic/ other medical emergency with the driver or passenger.
3. An emergency call which demands more of your attention.
4. Missing the correct way.

If it were a tyre blowout or a medical emergency, he would not have been able to then come to the rescue of the two wheeler so it is safe to say we can rule those out. Also missing the correct way is not an excuse to stop on a flyover, you can easily go ahead and search for a safe u-turn/exit ahead. As for the emergency call from his wife, just because she is pregnant any call from her should be considered an emergency that warrants stopping the car before even picking up the phone? That is hogwash and for someone with a dashcam in their car, it is inconceivable for me that they do not have Bluetooth hands free to take calls. Such nervous Nellies must be punished. There is simply no excuse for stopping on a flyover when the car is in a perfectly drive able state.

Originally Posted by Turbanator

Yes, the car should not have stopped and is at fault. But what if it had broken down a few minutes before? Or What if it was not a car and some other stationary object or an animal?

Lessons, learning, distractions and what-ifs aside, at the end of the day the preliminary causal factor to this accident was a perfectly functioning car, choosing to stop on the mouth of a flyover. This kind of lackadaisical attitude to road usage must be tackled and I hope the driver of the car gets punished to the full extent of the law there’s no point bumbling about and being ditzy on the roads, causing an accident and then trying to be polite or deemed a Good Samaritan simply for doing the bare minimum after goofing up so royally.

[binand]

Originally Posted by IshaanIan

...is not an excuse to stop on a flyover... Such nervous Nellies must be punished.

Certainly. Punish him with the fine or jail term or whatever is prescribed for stopping on a flyover.

Originally Posted by IshaanIan

at the end of the day the preliminary causal factor to this accident was a perfectly functioning car, choosing to stop on the mouth of a flyover.

At the end of the day - the only person responsible for a rear-ending (in most cases, and this is not an exception) is the trailing driver.

[FlankerFury]

Originally Posted by Turbanator

The scooter guy was not looking and is a major contributor. Maybe he was thinking somewhere else. And he is the one who is the most sufferer.

+1

...it's the scooter driver who's going to feel this accident forever, and that helmet- is it even legal?
Learnings for everyone here.

According to this tweet, the scooter rider had earphones on at the time of accident. I'm fairly certain that's illegal.
Twitter

Originally Posted by IshaanIan

As for the emergency call from his wife, just because she is pregnant any call from her should be considered an emergency that warrants stopping the car before even picking up the phone? That is hogwash and for someone with a dashcam in their car, it is inconceivable for me that they do not have Bluetooth hands free to take calls.

If she is indeed 9 months pregnant then yes, it could very well be an emergency, any call at that time could be about informing the husband to head down to the hospital. I mean, there's no countdown timer for childbirth. The baby usually doesn't pop out at the end of exactly 9 months.

And didn't the driver do the right thing by stopping the car before picking up the call? I see WAY too many drivers with their heads stuck in their phones while on my commute so it's a welcome change to see someone pulling over before reaching for their phone.
It's just that he picked a terrible spot to pull over.

Lessons, learning, distractions and what-ifs aside, at the end of the day the preliminary causal factor to this accident was a perfectly functioning car, choosing to stop on the mouth of a flyover.

How do we put aside the very thing that caused the accident? The distracted scooter rider.

In a case of rear ending collision, isn't it the fault of the driver / rider following behind?
It's not like the car slammed on his brakes and cut across two lanes, multiple two wheelers crossed the slowing car safely.

The scooter rider just wasn't paying attention.
And who cares why the car stopped, if you're on a collision course with an obstacle, you go around it, you don't slam head first into it.

Replace the slowing car with any vehicle of choice facing any kind of situation, chances are the scooter rider would've hit whatever is in front simply because he's zoned out.

[Everlearner]

Originally Posted by IshaanIan

I don’t think there is any reason one should stop on a flyover. Could you please highlight reasons to stop on a flyover that are excusable? Infact the car driver seems to have begun slowing down at the mouth of the flyover itself so it is classic behaviour selfish behaviour that I will take the flyover and stop on it to take a call rather than go from below. Other people’s time be dammed. I don’t see how the car person is being polite at all.

The basic premise of driving or riding is to see in front of you and ride according to the conditions. Scooter guy was definitely major culprit here, he might have been distracted or sleepy.

Yes, the car shouldn't stop on the road, and is clearly a fault. but that is not the primary cause of this accident. What if there was a boulder or a pot hole in that location. Heck, many tines I have seen vehicles on the fast lanes in highways slowly moving along the median and the staff trimming the bushes. That doesn't mean I go bang them.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by FlankerFury

And who cares why the car stopped, if you're on a collision course with an obstacle, you go around it, you don't slam head first into it.

Ah, the simple truth. Thank you!

It shouldn't have been there is never mitigation for driving into something.

However wrong, stupid, illegal, thoughtless, careless, etc, etc, is a driver for stopping, that is not an excuse for driving into them. If they have broken a law by stopping where they are, that is a separate issue.

[IshaanIan]

Originally Posted by FlankerFury

If she is indeed 9 months pregnant then yes, it could very well be an emergency, any call at that time could be about informing the husband to head down to the hospital. I mean, there's no countdown timer for childbirth. The baby usually doesn't pop out at the end of exactly 9 months.

And didn't the driver do the right thing by stopping the car before picking up the call?

Could have been an emergency is different than IS an emergency. If he cannot make that judgement appropriately on roads then we can never expect this kind of behaviour to stop. Besides, if his wife is in such a precarious position then why is he not using Bluetooth hands free telephony to communicate? If that is enough of an excuse to gain any sort of sympathy for stopping just past the entrance of the flyover, then we should create a lane on all flyovers for doctors, expecting fathers and even ambulances to stop and take calls.

Originally Posted by FlankerFury

It's just that he picked a terrible spot to pull over.

Cannot be stated enough. It was absolutely the wrong spot.

Originally Posted by Everlearner

Yes, the car shouldn't stop on the road, and is clearly a fault. but that is not the primary cause of this accident.

Why wouldn’t it be? The first anomalous act involved in this crash was the clown who stopped their car at the entrance of a flyover. The scooter then proceeded to crash into it afterwards. Purely from a timeline based perspective, it is the car stopping that caused this crash.

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

It shouldn't have been there is never mitigation for driving into something.

However wrong, stupid, illegal, thoughtless, careless, etc, etc, is a driver for stopping, that is not an excuse for driving into them. If they have broken a law by stopping where they are, that is a separate issue.

what everyone on our forum seems to be forgetting is that it is usually the person coming from behind who is at fault in a rear ending. Usually. Not always. What the expecting father has done here is to essentially stop or park illegally in a place not meant for stopping and in such cases especially with the proof he has himself foolishly provided, any attorney can easily argue that it is the car driver’s fault. If there is crawling traffic ahead it is understandable but if that isn’t the case, how can we blame the scooterist? For all we know, he saw the car braking and assumed he was just slowing down and would move forward not actually come to entire stop on the flyover for no apparent or visible reason. It did not break down, it did not blow out a tyre, it did not stop because someone stopped ahead of it, it did not stop to avoid an animal crossing the road these are all conceivable reasons to stop where we can then blame the scooterist for following too closely and causing a crash. However this guy in a calm and cool manner simply moves left and stops his car right after the entrance of a flyover. This is inconceivable. Sure we can blame the scooterist for not taking responsibility for his own well-being but the accident, is 100% the fault of the car guy.

[Hayek]

Agree fully that the car driver should not have stopped on the flyover. But this is a flyover, not an expressway. And we have plenty of reasons why traffic on a flyover comes to a halt. The car driver slowed down, pulled over to the left lane and then stopped. The accident is primarily the fault of the scooterist who was obviously driving while distracted. May be a small fine for the car driver (halting in a no halting zone) would be appropriate. But seizing the car or holding him responsible for the irresponsibility of the scooterist is not done.

[sravankrishnan]

Some debates are really not worth having. The scooter guy might as well have continuously stared only at his speedometer and GPS, not look ahead, and continued on, because of course the traffic in front has absolutely no reason to ever stop

He had all the time in the world to react, but maybe he employed some telepathy to figure out that the driver in front stopped for some silly reason and hence it's no longer his responsibility to avoid the crash

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by IshaanIan

For all we know, he saw the car braking and assumed ...

Sorry, but assumptions, when they I wrong, don't count either. "But I thought you were going to ... ... ... " Is also not a defence for driving into something or someone.

But I too thought, if he is feeling the probability of getting that urgent call, he should have the bluetooth set up. Anyway: he's on the flyover. There is nothing he can do until he is off the flyover. So, no, he should not be taking calls, let alone stopping to take a call with handheld phone.

The guy is an idiot. But he's not to blame for the bigger idiot who ran into him.

Personally, I am fed up with people who just stop. Especially two wheelers seem to think this is fine... check the phone, check the route, wonder where they are going, etc etc etc. I've seen people do it on flyovers too. Can't drive into them, though!

[ashkamath]

I believe that the fault lies in both the car driver and the scooter rider.

The incident occured on a fly over where the vehicles were moving at a decent speed and that essentially means a big NO for any stoppage. As many mentioned the various reasons for a stoppage, unless it is a sudden mechanical failure / breakdown (in which case, the car driver is helpless and it's one of those "being in the wrong place at the wrong time" situation), the car driver shouldn't be stopping at all on that section of the road.

I speak from my experience. I never take the call when I am riding or driving. I hear the phone ring, but I ignore it. Then I choose a very safe spot to park the car / scooter away from the traffic and then look into the phone. I have done it all my life and not even once I have spoken on a phone while driving / riding. If there is a passenger, I ask them to take the call and inform I am driving and I shall call back soon. So, here the car driver is at fault for stopping on a flyover ( section of the road which is inherently dangerous to stop)

The scooter rider was at fault that he did not notice the car stopped in front of him and stop in time. where is his situational awareness? If I were the rider, I wouldn't abruptly change the lane as the vehicles are moving quite fast and it is quite dangerous to change lane abruptly, but I would have slowed down and stopped behind the car and then wait for the opportune time to change the lane and pass the car. The scooter rider appears to be not present in the moment / alert, that one expects of a vehicle rider / driver when on road.

For insurance purpose, the proximate cause of loss is considered. A Proximate cause is the event that is considered the direct and immediate cause of the loss or damage, rather than a remote or indirect cause.

In this case the proximate cause of loss is the stoppage of the car on a fast moving fly over and the remote cause is the scooter rider colliding with the car at rear. The premise is that if the car was moving, then this accident wouldn't have occured (irrespective of the fact that whether the scooter rider was attentive or not).

The scooter rider should have stopped. he had ample time to slow down / stop. However he just continued and collided with the car which baffles me. Well the scooter rider was not attentive when he should have been and perhaps his mind was elsewhere (listening to music / speaking with some on phone etc with is ear phone in place).

Now, police can impound a car parked in a no-parking zone or stopped in no stopping zone, especially if it's obstructing traffic or causing a safety hazard, and in this case, an accident has also occured and hence it may be a part of investigation process.

[bblost]

Mod Note:

Let's stop the flyover accident related discussions here.

Thanks for the support & understanding

[after]

edit: just saw the above mod note after posting. Mods, feel free to delete this post if required.

Originally Posted by IshaanIan

at the end of the day the preliminary causal factor to this accident was a perfectly functioning car, choosing to stop on the mouth of a flyover

Of course the accident wouldn't have happened if the driver hadn't stopped there, but what was the rider doing?

1. Wearing a "cap" helmet
2. Going quite fast, in the leftmost lane? It's recommended to stick to middle lane as it provides two routes of escape in case of an emergency
3. Not clear in the video, but the rider didn't seem to spot a stopped vehicle until the last second
4. 0 attempt at trying to change lanes once he sees the vehicle. Target fixation maybe?

Yes it's wrong to stop on a flyover and the driver should be punished for it, but the rider didn't make it any easier for himself. But of course, this is India, so in the end the larger vehicle is blamed completely.

[BhayanaV]

Originally Posted by Hayek

Agree fully that the car driver should not have stopped on the flyover. But this is a flyover, not an expressway. And we have plenty of reasons why traffic on a flyover comes to a halt. The car driver slowed down, pulled over to the left lane and then stopped. The accident is primarily the fault of the scooterist who was obviously driving while distracted. May be a small fine for the car driver (halting in a no halting zone) would be appropriate. But seizing the car or holding him responsible for the irresponsibility of the scooterist is not done.

Fully agree. India is a place for defensive driving, always, even 5 in the morning with empty roads. You never know who will come from where

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by BhayanaV

Fully agree. India is a place for defensive driving, always, even 5 in the morning with empty roads. You never know who will come from where

Actually, driving at those times when streets are almost deserted can be even more dangerous, because all of the few people out there are expecting that nobody else is out there!