[GTO]

If you walk on the road instead of the footpath, you cannot absolve yourself of responsibility if a vehicle hits you. A Motor Accidents' Claims Tribunal has held a now 27-year-old CA accountable for 25% contributory negligence after a speeding car dashed her and ran over her foot on a Worli road in 2011.

Source & Full Times of India Article

[mayankk]

Originally Posted by GTO

Source & Full Times of India Article

I read this. She was, apparently, three feet away from the available sidewalk.
In a saner world, she would have been held completely liable and made to pay the motorist.

[SS-Traveller]

Twisted logic at its best!

A vehicle anywhere in the world can claim NO right of way by running over a human being, unless the act of the pedestrian in coming on to a carriageway can be proved to be sudden / suicidal in nature.

The victim's "marriage prospects were adversely affected" and she therefore deserves a compensation ₹1 lakh? A lifelong disability does not come into the picture?

Appalling...

[paragsachania]

Pedestrian:

• I don't want to walk on footpath
  
  
• There is that Pani Puri vendor and a clothes exhibitor to fulfill my hunger or wardrobe, I like their competitive pricing!
  
  
• There's a broken slab easy enough to gulp me alive by that drain underneath, I better watch out and walk on road
  
  
• That's a nice number by Badshah, I can walk faster now - Earbuds tucked in
  
  
• 2 wheeler honking at you to give way (yes this happens) - Oh yes, Its unsafe to walk on footpath at peak hours
  
  
• OK, I am done with footpath, now let me walk on the side of the road - But, I don't face the traffic while doing so
  
  
• Fine, let me face the traffic and walk but then a bad and inattentive driver on phone will crash into me
  
  
• There's a skywalk - Let me better make use of it
  
  
• Can't we have a skywalk here - Let me cross lane after lane, stand on the median marker and show my hands to say "I am here"

Driver:

• Oops, that poor fella is crossing the road, let me gradually stop and allow him to finish crossing the road
  
  
• Oh dear, Slam (BRAKES!), please walk by, CRASH! - Someone just hit my car from behind
  
  
• Damn, that's not the way to cross the road, HONK HONK (get off my way)!!
  
  
• Being close friends is good; So is walking side by side on a narrow road - I won't honk, I am good driver
  
  
• I want to build a spacious home with swimming Pool and courtyard - footpath is a nice parking place for my second (and 3rd) car; Pedestrians can manage walking down on the road for such a short distance after all

Civic agencies:We just finished building a state of the art pedestrian friendly footpath

Hawkers:We are expanding our business and foraying into newer locations

Phone and Gas companies:Technology is evolving quickly; grant us permission to dig it open and lay new lines

Pedestrian:Where do we walk and how?

It is a never ending permutation and combination:

Good pedestrian - Bad driver
Bad Pedestrian - Good driver
Good pedestrian, Good driver - Bad road design
Good pedestrian, Good driver, Good road design - Bad Civic authority
Good driver, Good road design, Good Civic authority - Bad pedestrian
Good pedestrian, Good road design, Good Civic authority - Bad Driver..................

(replace the good with bad a lot more sensible & real combinations will follow )

[dhanushs]

This doesn't make any sense.

Ideally, you should be driving at stopping distance & speed to any stationary or moving obstacle on road.

The pedestrian cannot be held responsible for the accident.

[anjan_c2007]

The pedestrian could have thrown the dice at the local Municipal authorities, adding the Municipal Commissioner as a Respondent. This is because the Municipality encourages illegal hawking and encroachments on the footpaths, that any sane person will avoid. To prove this averment, pictures of the footpaths encroached, as annexures to her petition would have sufficed.

[NetfreakBombay]

Originally Posted by anjan_c2007

To prove this averment, pictures of the footpaths encroached, as annexures to her petition would have sufficed.

This road has zero hawkers and well-maintained pavements. One side of road has a sidewalk that is wider than road itself.

[SankalpDesai]

I would personally hold the pedestrian responsible for not using the footpath and walking on the road instead. While it is clear from the article that police were successful in proving that there was a footpath, it remains to be seen how usable it was. It is no secret that almost all footpaths in Mumbai have been permanently encroached by hawkers. High time citizens and housing development associations take note of this judgment to demand their local corporators to take strict action against hawkers. Roads are meant for vehicular movement, footpaths are for walking and shops/ malls for business.

[srishiva]

Do Pedestrians have right of way wherever they can cross roads ? I am not sure thats the rule anywhere in the world. They have it at crosswalks either marked or unmarked. Roads are meant for vehicles. Suicidal or Sudden doesnt come into picture.

[BBR_SHR]

Fair enough decision. Motorist shouldn't be reckless and pedestrian shouldn't be Jaywalking. Fault lies on both sides.

[pramodkumar]

Originally Posted by SS-Traveller

Twisted logic at its best!

A vehicle anywhere in the world can claim NO right of way by running over a human being, unless the act of the pedestrian in coming on to a carriageway can be proved to be sudden / suicidal in nature.

Could you define Jaywalking?

The roads are for vehicles, footpath is for pedestrians.

If the footpath is encroached by hawkers then its not the motorists fault, in such cases the civic authorities should be taken to task.

Pramod

[SS-Traveller]

Originally Posted by pramodkumar

Could you define Jaywalking?

Jaywalkers can be penalised as per law, but no vehicle has the right to run them over.

[pramodkumar]

Originally Posted by SS-Traveller

Jaywalkers can be penalised as per law, but no vehicle has the right to run them over.

You are going off topic, the rights of a person to walk or a right to path for a vehicle is not being contested here

If someone knowingly put themselves in danger, they need to be penalised. If someone's ignorance causes harm to others then again the ignorant needs to be penalised.

Pramod

[roy_libran]

When people walk on the road especially where footpaths exist, or when they cross the road at unmarked spots, they choose to place themselves at risk, and unknowingly or unwittingly, place motorists at risk.
They are most definitely responsible for causing accidents, and although it may be easier to place the entire burden of blame on a motorist, it is not always true or justified.
I welcome this judgement by the tribunal and hope it sets a precedent for more such prosecution of jaywalking pedestrians across the country.

Wow - My 1000th!

[Sam_GTR]

I had a similar experience in 2010 when I was studying in 10th standard in the Kingdom of Bahrain. One afternoon around 4pm I was at a T junction on my cycle and the road I was getting into was a 2 way road with proper huge footpaths on both the sides however a mini bus had stopped on the side of the road with two wheels of one side on the footpath and the rest of the footpath had few tables and chairs of a cafe so I had no space to go through there so I had to go across the side of the bus on the road. I moved forward and just when my cycle's handlebar had crossed the bus and I was going to peep if any vehicle was coming a Nissan Urvan which was traveling fast hit my cycle and I was thrown off the cycle. The van went over my cycle and the front of the cycle was completely destroyed, my first thought was "there goes my new cycle' anyways I thankfully got out with just a broken tooth and few cuts on my lips and hands, the side mirror of the van broke and there were few scratches on it's door and bumper.
My parents rushed and took me to the hospital and the next day we went to the traffic Police and they told us that even if I had passed away cause of the accident my parents would have to pay for the damages on the van cause I was on the road and not on the footpath, one of the officers there whom my dad knew told us that his eldest son died in a similar accident few years back and still he had to pay for the damages on the car.
One good thing came out of this incident though, the van was rented from Avis and my dad met the manager along with me in the weekend and the manager was from Tamil Nadu and he cut down the expenses we had to pay from around 250Bhd to 120Bhd, ie around 20,000Rs and later on all the upholstery works that they had were always sent to my dad's shop and even my cousin brother got a job as a manager recently all cause of my accident. God works in mysterious ways
My point being if a footpath is provided it should be used by the pedestrians and the government should make sure that the footpath is not blocked by some street vendors or holes or something else and India has a long way to go before these are perfected.