[sanjz]

Originally Posted by humyum

The biggest cause of tyre bursts is underinflation, that usually happens when lack of knowledge about cold and hot tyre pressures come in the picture. Don't we see so many people filling their tyres up on the petrol pumps at Mumbai - Pune expressway after they are doing filling Diesel. Imagine, driving at 100-120 and then immediately filling up your tyres to the cold tyre pressure in hot condition ? How much air you will be removing from your tyres and in a fully loaded SUV, you are building a script for a disaster. Heck there is a Nitrogen centre too which has come up at the COCO bunk before the first Toll Naka while heading from Mumbai to Lonavala. I have warned so many people while I have been filling up diesel and exiting the bunk to not touch their tyre pressure, but they all give me this *Tu tera dekh* look.

I am the proud owner of a Storme too and this is my firth SUV and by the grace of God, I have never had to face such a disastrous situation owing to the following precautions I took. Firstly, as soon as I buy a new vehicle, I change into a new set of better tyres, like I traded my presents Storme's, Bridgestone to Yokohama ATs. I always maintain the correct tyre pressure filling only nitrogen, which has a low coefficient of expansion. Lastly, I have a TPMS system also installed, which constantly displays the tyre temperature and state of inflation of the tyres. The TPMS, though slightly expensive, is a very useful tool to monitor the state of inflation of the tyres as it has a very loud alarm for under inflation, over inflation, or when tyres heat up abnormally owing to some mechanical problem in the axle stub or bearings. AFAIK, TPMS systems have now become standard fitment on all cars in the the US to avoid such catastrophic tyre blow outs and the resultant fatalities.

[Santoshbhat]

Originally Posted by techcoze

Didn't the BMW car had DVR camera system? I am not sure if it comes default with BMW cars. If yes, then that should be primary evidence.

No, the DVR does not come by default and is a paid accessory. I would imagine a very small percentage of cars to have it installed.

[deerhunter]

Originally Posted by khoj

the man may have paid for his own driving mistake

As for the driver's statement, he may be telling the truth but no one would want to believe him

I am doing this because there is a very good possibility that the cab driver did stop abruptly

It doesnt matter if the cab guy stopped abruptly or if the BMW guy says that the cab driver stopped abruptly. The truth is, the BMW rear ended the cab.
This happened because the BMW guy was not keeping adequate gap. This is not like any other accident, this is more like manslaughter. He failed to keep distance, so he must pay.

Most Indians do not know that rear ending is the fault of the person driving behind. Because of this ignorance, blaming the car in the front is far too common. This has to stop. Rear ending is not an accident, it is more deliberate than an accident.

Probably all accidents are more deliberate than mere accidents. But rear ending and victim blaming is familiar to me.

[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by binand

My view is this: If you do not present yourself at a police station and volunteer for a blood alcohol test within 1 hour of an accident, then the burden of proof that you were NOT DUI should rest on you. That is, the investigators only have to show that you were present at a place where alcohol was available (restaurant, club, bar, party... even someone's house) maybe in the 8 hour window leading to the accident, to convict you for DUI.

Exactly the thing most DUI cases in India leverage to get away scott-free or with a lesser charge. Not only is the 24-hour limit absurd, I don't believe there are any significant repurcussions to flouting it (can someone please clarify the legal bits?).

Most suspected DUI cases have the driver absconding for a couple days, then surrendering voluntarily and getting bail within hours/days.

No rocket science what's going on there.

[rrsteer]

Originally Posted by n_naik

But if you look closely, he was the reason of that accident. The SUV and the truck seemed to have spotted him at the last moment and in a bid to avoid him, panicked and braked hard which led to the loss of control.

Originally Posted by carwatcher

I think there is some confusion as the Fortuner driver has passed away (as mentioned in the next news clip on YouTube). I also thought that the BSF guy was being referred to until I saw the next two news videos. Both the videos mentioned only one casualty. rrsteer could clear the confusion.

The deceased in question was driving the Fortuner. The accident was triggered by the BSF jawan. But the driver in the Fortuner also made a mistake as he was overtaking the lorry from the wrong side. Also that roundabout is a very tight one in terms of turning around it.

[Jr Godzilla]

Originally Posted by deerhunter

Most Indians do not know that rear ending is the fault of the person driving behind. Because of this ignorance, blaming the car in the front is far too common. This has to stop. Rear ending is not an accident, it is more deliberate than an accident.

The time to stop has passed and long gone. Driving in any country where there is NO system or training in place for a getting a Driving License. then YOU should take the precautions and that includes being driven by a cab driver. You set the rules as I do.

Before I board a Uber or Ola cab in India, driver is cautioned
1) I have a round around the car to see how the tyre treads look like
if its worn I ask him to be at 40kmph but did not happen so far. probably cars are newly registered.
2) Driver is told follow speed limits and in city dont exceed 50kmph
3) follow signals, keep on left lane and NO mobile )only use handsfree) otherwise park to safe side and talk.
4) Dont use BRT (Bus lane) in Pune
I have had NO issue and drivers obeyed till date.

[shubhodeepdas@g]

Originally Posted by deerhunter

Most Indians do not know that rear ending is the fault of the person driving behind. Because of this ignorance, blaming the car in the front is far too common. This has to stop. Rear ending is not an accident, it is more deliberate than an accident.

Not always. I have been in a situations where a Honda City just stopped on the right most lane on a 120 Kph NICE Expressway just to read the exit sign. Me in my car being the immediate one behind also doing 100+ speeds had to face a "moose test" to avoid rear ending this car.

Fact is, if I was in my Fusion, I would have not managed to avoid. If I was in an even taller car like a Qualis or even a Fortuner, I might have toppled trying to avoid this fellow. In the news report I would have been a speeding car who toppled, with the City long gone.

Do note that there were 2 more lanes on the left which the person in doubt could have taken to just slow down and read the signs.

However this does not take away from the fact that avoiding the collision will always the be prerogative of the car behind.

[Axe77]

Originally Posted by rrsteer

A bit of hesitation, bad judgement and bad luck did him in. Prayers for the departed soul and for strength to his family, especially parents.

This is so sad. Th Fortuner is the least to blame. The person crossing is doing recklessly, crossing virtually in the middle of a crossing as well depicted by someone in a later image. The truck too is practically tailgating the Fortuner dangerously. I think he was on a correct line with indicator on but had to brake as he sighted the pedestrian.

Really bad luck if the Fortuner driver passed away for the fault of two others.

[deerhunter]

Originally Posted by shubhodeepdas@g

Not always. I have been in a situations where a Honda City just stopped on the right most lane on a 120 Kph NICE Expressway just to read the exit sign. Me in my car being the immediate one behind also doing 100+ speeds had to face a "moose test" to avoid rear ending this car.

Here, the City guy is at fault for stopping suddenly in the middle of the road. But he is not at fault for forcing you to take a 'Moose test'. That is entirely due to you not keeping adequate distance. What if there was another vehicle on your left? You would ve rear-ended the City.

What if the guy had stopped suddenly because a child had jumped in front of him from the divider? Such a scenario is very much possible in Indian roads. That is why I said, the person driving behind is always at fault for rear-ending.

[bblost]

Deerhunter,

I really hope you are kidding. Every road user assumes the person in front of him to maintain a bit of common sense and not stop without warning on a expressway.

Unless you maintain a distance of over 100 metres, at 100 kmph, how do you react safely.
Can anyone actually maintain so much distance at all times.

https://www.drivingtests.co.nz/resou...ing-distances/

It's 98 meters for 100 kmph to 0.

[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by bblost

Deerhunter,

I really hope you are kidding. Every road user assumes the person in front of him to maintain a bit of common sense and not stop without warning on a expressway.

Unless you maintain a distance of over 100 metres, at 100 kmph, how do you react safely.
Can anyone actually maintain so much distance at all times.

https://www.drivingtests.co.nz/resou...ing-distances/

It's 98 meters for 100 kmph to 0.

Driving is inherently risky, esp. in a country with lax law enforcement and non-existent driver training.

Doing the right thing isn't always practical or possible (we all overtake from the left sometimes, don't we?), but when we do something against the book, we also assume responsibility (at least partly) for the consequences.

Assuming the driver ahead of me has common sense exposes me to the risk when that assumption is proven false, and then I can't blame his lack of common sense entirely, my assumption is equally at fault.

Driving is an imperfect science and someone doing everything right still isn't immune to bad results, but most of us making assumptions (knowingly or subconsciously) don't get to act innocent when something goes wrong.

Perfect example above, and we've all been there sometime in our driving lives. The following driver could've (in theory) left enough gap to avoid an incident, but made the assumption (like most of us) that the guy ahead won't do anything stupid at highway speeds. The guy who stopped was an idiot of course, but the guy who got moose tested isn't blameless either.

[jaspal singh]

Originally Posted by bblost

Deerhunter,

I really hope you are kidding. Every road user assumes the person in front of him to maintain a bit of common sense and not stop without warning on a expressway.

Unless you maintain a distance of over 100 metres, at 100 kmph, how do you react safely.
Can anyone actually maintain so much distance at all times.

https://www.drivingtests.co.nz/resou...ing-distances/

It's 98 meters for 100 kmph to 0.

Hi
few members are holding vehicle which rear ends accountable for accident irrespective of scenario. this is not true.
Theory of maintaining safe distance comes into picture only when a vehicle is following the one in front for a constant period (few seconds or more ) of time. for safe distance in dry weather , one needs to follow 2-second rule.
ie you should not cross a landmark (example pole, tree etc ) before 2 seconds after the vehicle moving ahead has crossed it. This is applicable at all speeds. In more adverse conditions like rain, there must be a gap of 4 seconds between two vehicles travelling in a straight line.
Rear ending vehicle is culpable if it is tailgating ie following too close. In other words maintains a gap of less than 2 seconds.
the 98 meters distance above comes into picture if you start breaking while seeing a stationary object -like a truck parked in the middle of a road.
Rear ending while tailgating is different from hitting stationary objects placed illegally on roads. These objects can be broken down trucks, buses, rocks etc There can be several situations where a car being driven at speed limit rear ends a vehicle. Example
1) a vehicle parked illegally on road
2) a broken down vehicle at night without working tail lamps or safety triangle put in place to warn road users
3) a vehicle moving too slow in fast lane
4) slow moving vehicle suddenly changes lane and enters the fast lane

so we should not confuse tailgating with above situations common on our roads.

In the BMW -wagon r accident, the rear ending was due to "over speeding" and zig zag driving by X5 driver or sudden change of direction and speed by cab driver or both.

[GeneralJazz]

Got this via WhatsApp:









Happened near Aluva. The road is 4-lane with a fairly wide divider with metro pillars. Heard two died. Injured includes a child. Shocked at the condition of the Bolero!

[deathwalkr]

Ouch! That is an image to scar the soul even :(

Any clue as to what happened?

[deerhunter]

Originally Posted by bblost

Deerhunter,

I really hope you are kidding. Every road user assumes the person in front of him to maintain a bit of common sense and not stop without warning on a expressway.

What if the person driving in the front does a panic braking due to a cow/dog/child jumping in front of him? Grazing cows on the divider is a common scene in our highways. In such a scenario, how will the guy in the front warn you before braking?

Originally Posted by bblost

Unless you maintain a distance of over 100 metres, at 100 kmph, how do you react safely.
Can anyone actually maintain so much distance at all times.

It's 98 meters for 100 kmph to 0.

Maintaining 100m gap is not necessary to stop the car without rear-ending. A 20m gap is enough for modern cars with good brakes.

Let's assume that the guy driving in the front is travelling at 100kph. He will take 98m to stop completely. So if you are maintaining a 20m gap, you will have a total of 118m to stop safely. With a reaction time of 0.5s, you will need only 14m extra, i.e 112m, still 6m clear of the vehicle in front of you.

Anyway, most sane people travelling at 100kph will maintain a gap of 30m atleast.