[airbus]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

I don't think that either driver has much respect for safety. Hope they both learned.

Exactly, both are responsible for this accident.

I remember this from National Geographic series Seismic Seconds/Seconds From Disaster - "Disasters don't just happen. They're the result of a critical chain of events".

If the chain was broken at any point, the accident would not have happened.

[SS-Traveller]

Originally Posted by ravimathi

CCTV footage of a cab hitting a two wheeler near Vellore, Tamilnadu. From the footage, it looks like the cab was driven at a high speed...
https://www.Youtube.com/watch?v=FTodlx9S8u0

The cab driver COULD have COMPLETELY stopped before the impact, IF he was alert and not distracted. The scooterist COULD have braked before intruding into the Dzire's lane, IF she was also alert.

From the time when the moving scooterist and the car appear in the same frame, to the time of impact, time elapsed is ~4 seconds. Enough time for an LMV at that speed to come to a dead stop.

It's just that Indian driving licence holders are not taught to STOP, just to drive and steer.

[honeybee]

No matter if the law allows you to drive at 60 kmph or any other speed, it is your duty to be aware of your surroundings and ensure to your best possible effort that any accidents are prevented. Just because you are driving within the legal speed limits does not absolve you of your duty towards safety, yours and that of others.

The case, if it ever comes to trial, will be tried on if the cab driver was in a position to prevent the mishap, notwithstanding the possibility the woman rider may not have looked to her right or left. The woman driver was already on the road and the cab driver, if he had been alert and had been driving cautiously, could have avoided the mishap. It is not exactly as if the lady on the scooter suddenly popped up on the street.

If you add to the situation the ambiance of a small town, a driver must anticipate such moves by locals and others, and adjust his driving accordingly. There may or may not be an explicit speed limit posted, however that again does not absolve one of his duties to exercise due caution.

I hope we stop referring to legal speed limits which are theoretical max, and not what you are supposed to be driving at at all times. We live in a society where not everyone has received the proper training (heck, even we haven't received proper training - we just have more experience and possibly more common sense), nor does have the same amount of common sense or road sense as others. We must acknowledge that a villager in Haryana is less likely to know about the right way / place to take a U turn and is more likely to take a U turn whenever and wherever he deems fit. If I claim to know better, or be a better driver, it's my duty to make sure his actions do not endanger my vehicle or its occupants.

[Zed]

Originally Posted by honeybee

I hope we stop referring to legal speed limits which are theoretical max, and not what you are supposed to be driving at at all times.

A lot of motorist miss this basic fact. Speed limits are maximum allowable speeds and drivers/riders need to moderate speeds according to traffic and weather. One often reads posts in our forum where driving below the speed limit is interpreted (almost) as a traffic offence. On the flip side, doing 20kmph in the fast lane of an 80kmph motorway is dangerous driving

[hok kolorob]

What ever the speed limit of that place while driving in India one needs to be careful. One needs to use common sense and experience here, rather than the speed limit. The cab driver should have braked earlier. About the lady driver, nothing to say. Not only she was not wearing a helmet, she was bothered about her surrounding also.

She never looked around. Also, it is difficult to miss the sound of a speeding vehicle(tyre noise). Both them were in their own world. Hope she recovers fast. Another hope would we all learn something from this accident.

If the speed was legal at that place, we do not want to go through such traumatic experience. Even if our lawyers are worth their salt/sugar/biriyani/steak.

@Zed loved your signature.

[audioholic]

Originally Posted by TorqueyTechie

Read this news today in TOI. A TV actor and actress from Karnataka died in an accident. The article says that they were travelling to Kukke subramanya for a temple visit when the vehicle they were travelling in collided with a parked truck near Magadi. RIP!

Further information on this, from today's Deccan Herald:



Sadly, the deceased were not driving the car and it was a third person. The actress was at the front seat while the actor was behind her, and the speed of impact should have been pretty high to have killed the rear passenger. Of course, having worn seat belts would be a remote possibility in this case since if not the actress, the actor could have at least been safer. Also, by not wearing seat belts at rear, the impact would have crushed the actress sitting at front from both sides. Not sure why celebrities are so overconfident about their own safety and end up in such situations. Now the daily soap has to undergo a total overhaul since both lead actors are no more.

[sam_sant2005]

Originally Posted by chevyman

Lets put ourselves in the shoes of both the Swift driver as well as scooter rider and consider how we would have reacted.

Scenario #1: as driver of Swift car
If you think the crossing vehicle has enough speed to cross the road before you intercept it, you will not slow down or break (this is what we do in our day to day driving, lets be honest and practical).

You have just questioned the fundamentals of driving. When such instances come up, regardless of whether the other person crosses (can cross), stops, tries to cross and then stops whatever, it is fundamental on my part as a driver to apply firm brakes "to reduce the severity of the scenario" as soon as we spot something on the road. This has been my practice for past 20 yrs ever since I started driving. No wonder my brake pads last 30% lesser than normal drivers

Driving has to be taken in a very very pessimistic way, I mean we should assume idiots all around and we should expect the inevitable. I drive fast, but I take extra caution at bends, people crossing, vehicle crossing, intersections etc. Better be safe than be sorry. That is my policy and I have been very effective at that with gods grace minus my brake pads!

So my take is, Dzire driver has to be punished for one of the 2 counts - 1) not alert on the steering assuming he did not see the scooter or 2) not taking required precaution of slowing down to reduce the impact.

Scooty rider obviously is dumb and she already got the punishment.

[lawdgawd]

Originally Posted by sam_sant2005

...fundamental on my part as a driver to apply firm brakes "to reduce the severity of the scenario" as soon as we spot something on the road.

...Driving has to be taken in a very very pessimistic way, I mean we should assume idiots all around and we should expect the inevitable. I drive fast, but I take extra caution at bends, people crossing, vehicle crossing, intersections etc. Better be safe than be sorry.

That's very good defensive driving practice.

I still live in fear though, about that one day I would be a bit relaxed about defensive driving (statistically it should happen sometime), and that would be the day when the entire chaos and unpredictability of our roads ruin my life.

[jagzrk]

Depressing to see the comments on the forum in response to the cab driver's arrogant stint on the road. The cab driver is to blame 100%. If there is a zebra crossing, your speed should be dead slow. That is the law. As per law, this case is a no-brainer. Give what excuse you may, it is "necessary" to slow down at intersections so that you may stop in a second or two.

It's exactly similar to the rear-ending rule (you maintain distance and stop in time no matter what the person in front does). Also, similar to the pedestrian rule. You don't plough into pedestrians on a zebra crossing even if your signal is green.

[shubhodeepdas@g]

Originally Posted by jagzrk

Depressing to see the comments on the forum in response to the cab driver's arrogant stint on the road. The cab driver is to blame 100%. If there is a zebra crossing, your speed should be dead slow. That is the law. As per law, this case is a no-brainer. Give what excuse you may, it is "necessary" to slow down at intersections so that you may stop in a second or two.

All the rules apply when there is a pedestrian involved. Here its a Motor Vehicle that is embarking onto a main road from a footpath, or a side road. In a non-manned traffic situation this motor vehicle has to stop and let vehicles on the main road pass and then and only then embark onwards with their journey.

What if this was a car coming on from the footpath? Does the same apply. No.

As far as the Taxi cab goes, he should definitely slow down and be ready to brake at a moments notice near a zebra crossing regardless of wherever that crossing maybe.

Originally Posted by jagzrk

It's exactly similar to the rear-ending rule (you maintain distance and stop in time no matter what the person in front does). Also, similar to the pedestrian rule. You don't plough into pedestrians on a zebra crossing even if your signal is green.

Not really. If the vehicle in front reverses into you, its the vehicle in front that is to blame.

Just a quick observation.
Yesterday and day before I was on my way and back from Mysore and noticed that there were many speed traps Enroute. Did not matter to me as I am a very sedate driver and almost always within the limits. What was worrying is that there were no efforts to curb rampant wrong side driving by Two Wheelers, Tractors and the occasional taxi.

3 Times there were two wheelers that popped up from the bushy median to cross without any zebra crossing and each time I was reminded of this above video.

And a scary incident
A person walking his cow on the left beyond the white lines on KRS Road, seems usual. I do not honk as I don't want to spook the cow or its owner. Speeds are around 45 kph, limit is 60. Suddenly the cow jumps and drags the owner right into my path. Luckily, there was no oncoming traffic, me and the car following me were able to manoeuvre around this mess.

But if I were to hit this "cow owner", my chances are slim there after as the cow would have definitely run away and I would be left with an injured or worse, villager.

[freak1201]

Scenario #2 (a) - As the scooter driver
The engine died out.

Scenario # 2 (b) - As the scooter driver
Noticed some bigger vehicle on other side of the highway and decided to stay on this side, assuming the Dzire will steer left and use the other lanes, which are free


Although both are equally at fault, the Swift driver should have slowed down to let her pass. What if it was a 20 ton lorry instead of a moped?

[Lobogris]

Originally Posted by IshaanIan

Tyre marks starting at the point of impact doesn't necessarily mean that the driver didn't do anything. It just means that his wheels didn't lock up up until the point of impact. He could have been braking more progressively and trying to shift down the gears until he hit the woman at which point he may have just stabbed the brake pedal fully and caused those tyre marks.

I don't think so. The car travels at an alarming speed and does not appear to slow down at all in the video. If you look at distance from which he should have seen the scooterist, even if he was travelling at say 90 kmph, he could have easily stopped or at least slowed down to have a much lesser collision. In addition, if he had seen the scooterist and wanted to be cautious, he could have at least tried to change lanes or move a little left in an attempt to avoid her. However he had full frontal impact. This makes it likely that he was speeding in a cavalier manner and assumed that the scooter would get out of his way and took no action. In addition, why would he slam the brakes only after impact? It is much more likely that he would have slammed them at least a few yards before the impact.

Of course this doesn't absolve the scooterist as the car had the right of way but nevertheless once one sees an obstruction, one is duty bound to to slow down and avoid hitting it at all cost regardless of the right of way. For instance, you can't just hit another vehicle if your light is green and that vehicle is jumping the light. If you se it in advance, you are expected to make every effort to avoid it.

[IshaanIan]

Originally Posted by Lobogris

I don't think so. The car travels at an alarming speed and does not appear to slow down at all in the video. If you look....

Please note that I was not adding to the conjecture or typing my opinion down or anything like that. He may have braked before that point, he may not have braked before that point. Infact even I feel he could have done a much better job stopping the car. I used the word "could have been". The purpose of my post was just to warn that the starting point of tyre skid marks on the road is not absolute proof of where the driver began braking. He could very well have began braking at that point for which one will have to analyze the video footage frame by frame, which could very well prove that he actually did infact, not brake up until that point. Just pointing out that it is wrong to rely on tyre skid marks to come to that judgement is all

[chevyman]

Originally Posted by freak1201

Scenario #2 (a) - As the scooter driver
The engine died out.

You would get off the scooter and drag it away as soon as you can.

Originally Posted by freak1201

Scenario # 2 (b) - As the scooter driver
Noticed some bigger vehicle on other side of the highway and decided to stay on this side, assuming the Dzire will steer left and use the other lanes, which are free

This scenario is ruled out because I was outlying only those scenarios which are relevant to this particular incident. But even if we consider this scenario, in such a case the car would have slowed down looking at the bigger vehicle and scooter approaching each other and the car driver would have anticipated the scooter driver to slow down.

Originally Posted by freak1201

Although both are equally at fault, the Swift driver should have slowed down to let her pass. What if it was a 20 ton lorry instead of a moped?

As I have said before IMHO as per the initial mental calculations of the car driver the scooter should have passed the point of intersection comfortably. She slowed down or stopped out of confusion, infact she just panicked and froze. This is a rare case as no sensible driver would freeze in the middle of the road, especially not the big truck drivers who based on my experience are the most convenient and friendly ones to handle on highways. Defensive driving is all about taking into consideration such rare case scenarios. This is the only fault of the Swift car driver.

[swissknife]

This does not seem too different from the crash on the highway. Girl does not look for vehicles that she may "enounter" while going across the road.

The only difference is that this car has stopped and the biker continues to go across and hits the front of the vehicle.

No helmet on this one as well.

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