[McQueen]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

[..above post..]

Oh absolutely, but there's only so much an underpowered, heavy Indian truck can do to crawl over an oversized speed-breaker. The comparison is not fair. Similarly, comparing our laws with the laws of other countries may give a perspective but won't answer the actual question. There's also the concept of two people who can be at fault with varying degrees of responsibility/liability.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by McQueen

there's only so much an underpowered, heavy Indian truck can do to crawl over an oversized speed-breaker.

I don't have any experience of trucks: the only commercial vehicle I've driven was a fork-lift truck . (Quite tricky actually!)

Whilst I've stated my bottom line on rolling back but I totally agree that there is another bottom line: not to get too close to large vehicles, or small trucks whose drivers may not have much skill. Both from the standpoint of allowing them room and of keeping ourselves safe.

[AutoNoob]

Originally Posted by Suryendu87

The truck rolled back from the speed breaker. Agreed, my wife was at fault for following too close but that doesnot completely absolve the truck.

Originally Posted by McQueen

Funny that you think the truck intentionally reversed back into OP's car. The only reason the collision happened was because of NOT keeping a safe distance.

Originally Posted by MT_Hyderabad

This is a clear case of intentional or unintentional reversing, which is the responsibility of the driver in front.

Originally Posted by MT_Hyderabad

Rule 17 is for preparing for abrupt stopping of the vehicle in front not reversing.

We may debate this till the end of times.

From my experience and the way I perceive vehicles on the road, never go too close to any vehicle even when it is stopped; particularly if it's a truck, bus or tractor trolley. Once they start moving, have seen them rolling back umpteen times, sometimes due to unperceivable incline in the road or due to simply release of brakes. Also, have seen many rolling back after failing to crawl over speed breakers, like in this case.

We are probably discussing this case so much as there was dashcam video that clearly showed the truck rolling back. What if there was no video ? It's always better to be safe than sorry and not every owner would be so willing to compensate for the damage.

[chaitanyakrish]

Originally Posted by AutoNoob

We may debate this till the end of times.

100%. We cannot apply any rules of MVDR in India as no one is aware of the rules and the infrastructure doesn't support the proper implementation of the same.
Maintaining Crash Avoidance Space at places where things can go wrong is required. I always say this to my friends that, we cannot crash and prove that we had the right of way.

[Goandiaries]

Another one from KL. The delivery person didn't seem to notice the car's indicator nor the car driver seem to check his left OVRM.

https://youtu.be/t3Sdso8UL-k?si=1qZpBn_LsTPjtSem

[ruskinash]

Originally Posted by Goandiaries

Another one from KL.

This is mindlessness and zero anticipation from the motor-biker. What did he think the car was doing?
The car driver is also at fault for not looking.


Geez! If only folks concentrated more. It's a big ask I suppose.

[Maxwell Arthur]

Originally Posted by ruskinash

This is mindlessness and zero anticipation from the motor-biker.

The car was already at an angle to take the left turn and the OVRM would not have shown the biker. I don't think the car driver is at fault here. The biker is clearly at fault considering the speed. Maybe he was in a hurry to deliver.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by Maxwell Arthur

The Car driver is also at fault for not looking.

The biker was overtaking on the left. They all do, most of the time, but it is still wrong.

The biker was at fault for ignoring the indicator. It was not safe to overtake. But again, they all do, most of the time.

Once before, I wrote something like...

Bikers do not believe in indicators.
And they do exist, bikers do not know what they mean.
And of the they do know what they mean, they don't believe it has anything to do with them

It is a wonder that those guys ever complete any journey safely!

Let me add: before taking a turn, left or right, I always check for that biker.

[sarathlal]

Originally Posted by Goandiaries

Another one from KL. The delivery person didn't seem to notice the car's indicator nor the car driver seem to check his left orvm..

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

Let me add: before taking a turn, left or right, I always check for that biker.

I had a very similar incident few years back.

The house I had to turn onto, was on the left side of the road, just after a very sharp curve. Since the gate was not wide and I was driving a car with not so great turning radius, I did the same manoeuvre as in the above video. I had my indicators ON, was extremely slow.

Just as I was about to complete the turn, just by luck I saw an old man with pillion rider on my left side, trying to zoom past through a non existing area! Pure heart in mouth moment!
Luckily I stopped, he lost balance, but luckily stopped without falling down. Pure luck and nothing else. I still don't know what caused me to see him and brake.

Long story short, that was an eye opener for me and always used to check for that biker, exactly like how @Thad E Ginathom described. Its hard to being this paranoid, but realised and accepted that there is no other option.

[Chetan_Rao]

The left turn to my home is at a major signal. I often have to stop in traffic before making the turn at GREEN.

I always stop in the left-most lane with indicator ON, but the turn is over a tall-ish drainage culvert so I have to make a slightly wider turn to avoid hitting its protruding edge. In this short exercise, bikers and sometimes autos and small hatchbacks, who stood behind me on RED and know very well I'll be turning left, barge into the little space, find themselves cut off (the culvert is tall enough that a bike/auto/car can't climb the protruding edge) or get alongside blocking my turn-in.

It isn't always about not noticing what's happening around or ahead of them. It's the collective 'see space, will fill' instinct.

[Fawlty]

Originally Posted by Goandiaries

Another one from KL. The delivery person didn't seem to notice the car's indicator nor the car driver seem to check his left OVRM.

Definitely biker's fault in this situation. But is the i20 driver responsible for creating such a situation?

This is indeed a 90degree turn with an oddly placed lamp post. But considering the vehicle is an i20 (and not a truck) and the road is sloping downwards, such a wide turning arc is not necessary. ~70% of the car is on the opposite lane thereby inviting the idiot bike rider to occupy the space to the car's left. Ofcourse, if the car had stuck to the lane, the bike would have still tried to squeeze in but the chances are relatively less considering he would have had the entire opposite lane to overtake.

[anandhsub]

What surprises me is that based on that angle he took to take the steep left it looks like the car driver had done this maneuver multiple times and yet he didn't watch out for the biker.

A newer driver likely would have been in the left lane and did 3-4 point turns to take that left (which is not necessarily wrong).

[ruskinash]

Originally Posted by Maxwell Arthur

The car was already at an angle to take the left turn and the OVRM would not have shown the biker. I don't think the car driver is at fault here. The biker is clearly at fault considering the speed. Maybe he was in a hurry to deliver.

Look at the screenshot. This was the opportunity for the car driver to look before making a turn. Just because one has his indicators on doesn't mean one should make a turn right away, look first, and turn only when it's safe.

(I also blame the slim/tiny indicators that are designed these days that aren't prominently visible when switched on, especially in bright sunlight. I have faced this scenario many times).



The biker perhaps assumed that the car was waiting for him to pass, as is usually the case (this time the biker learnt it the hard way).

When making a turn, I may need extra space to navigate it properly. In such cases, I move beyond the boundaries of my lane, even into the other lane if required. However, I make sure to wait for any vehicles that may be passing by on my left before making the turn. This is to ensure my safety as well as the safety of others.

The attachment below is a GIF, click on it if it doesn't play automatically.

[chaitanyakrish]

Originally Posted by ruskinash

Just because one has his indicators on doesn't mean one should make a turn right away, look first, and turn only when it's safe.

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

Let me add: before taking a turn, left or right, I always check for that biker.

Always do a shoulder check before turning left or right.
The car driver is driving on the road for a while and might have seen ( or not seen ) the biker in the mirrors. When we spot bikers in mirrors and if we need to turn in a few seconds, we should not assume that the biker will wait until we complete the turn.

1. Indicate early
2. Be in proper lane position
3. Shoulder check
4. Allow the biker to pass

The car driver left a very wide gap which may make the biker exploit the gap.
This image is from my driving manual at Singapore.

[anjan_c2007]

Originally Posted by anjan_c2007

But there's a catch here that could prove to be a big, big legal loophole. The blood sample was collected in the morning after nearly six hours having elapsed since the accident (1.30 am). Blood samples need to be collected within three hours as per law from the time of such accidents.

Newsreports say that despite the confirmation of alcohol content beyond permissible limits of the lady Merc driver by the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, cops are going slow and have not as yet taken any action to cancel her bail. If the offence is registered u/s 304 (II) of IPC, its non bailable. Here the catch is that they failed to collect her blood sample till seven hours past the incident that puts the cops on a sticky wicket.

Some new revelations include the fact that the Merc's left side had brushed against the left side wall of the Ram Jhula bridge, before hitting the duo riding the Activa. The cops are retrieving the car's dash cam video too.

Another startling revelation is that none of the two Activa riders were wearing a helmet as concluded by the police.

The Tehsil police are yet to file a plea for cancellation of Ritika Maloo’s bail in the Ram Jhula bridge accident, though the charges against her have been upgraded to the non-bailable 304 (II) IPC after finding alcohol in her blood samples. Meanwhile, police sources revealed that Ritika’s Mercedes had first brushed the side wall of the bridge and then moved towards the middle of the road to hit the scooter, killing Mohd Hussain Mustafa and Mohd Ateef on February 25.

Four days ago, the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory (RFSL) had said Ritika’s blood had alcohol traces in it, prompting the cops to step up the charges from bailable 304A of Indian Penal Code (IPC) to non-bailable 304 (II) IPC. However, the cops are yet to take the subsequent logical step of filing for bail cancellation. Moving at snail’s pace, the cops just updated their case diary about amendment of charges, and informed the court about it in the two remaining working days of last week.

Ritika’s blood samples were collected seven hours after the accident. Despite the delay, forensic experts confirmed the presence of alcohol in her blood. Ritika had left CP Club in Civil Lines and was going towards Wardhaman Nagar. The club’s liquor bills and CCTV footage of Ritika and her co-passenger Madhuri Sarda there have been seized by the cops.

Sources said the inspection report of the Regional Transport Authority (RTO) confirmed a scratch mark on the left side of the Mercedes car caused when it brushed the side wall of the Ram Jhula bridge.
After the car hit the scooter, both youngsters on it were thrown off, leading to serious head injuries. The cops said there were no helmets found on the bridge, which meant the youngsters were riding without the mandatory protective headgear.

Details on the link:-

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/.../108221543.cms