Team-BHP - Rash driving need not have excessive speed linked to it, says Karnataka HC
Team-BHP

Team-BHP (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/)
-   Road Safety (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/road-safety/)
-   -   Rash driving need not have excessive speed linked to it, says Karnataka HC (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/road-safety/199365-rash-driving-need-not-have-excessive-speed-linked-says-karnataka-hc.html)

http://www.livelaw.in/over-speeding-...read-judgment/

Quoting from Law Article.

Quote:

The Karnataka High Court has observed that it is not necessary that the offending vehicle must have always exceeded its speed limit or over speeded to constitute ‘rash and negligent’ driving....

Justice HB Prabhakara Sastry made this observation while dismissing a revision petition by a lorry driver who was convicted by the trial court under Sections 279, 304 A of Indian Penal Code and under Section 134 r/w. Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles of the Motor Vehicles Act. In this case, the lorry driven by the accused had hit a cyclist from his hind side, who sustained injuries and succumbed to it.

Rejecting such a contention, the court said: “By the said statements of these witnesses that there were speed breakers and also a traffic signal near the place of accident, by itself cannot be taken that rash or negligent driving in the said area was not possible. By the word ‘rash driving’ it cannot be automatically imagined that the vehicle alleged to be rash in its driving should also necessarily be coupled with high speed.”

The court also referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Ravi Kapur v. State of Rajasthan and observed that failure to exercise the required care and caution expected to be taken by a driver in a circumstance, in which he was driving would constitute a negligent driving. “An act of driving done without due care and caution though not coupled with high speed still results into a rash driving. Therefore, in the instant case merely because there was said to be few speed breakers on the road and and traffic signal near the spot of the accident, by itself cannot be deduced that there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle,” the court said dismissing the revision plea.

Wonderful!! Glad that there is still hope that somewhere, someone will understand what constitutes Rash or Negligent driving.

Realistically, you can be both Rash as well as negligent by being stationary also. So this makes complete sense.

I believe this is atleast couple of weeks old judgement, which I read in Times of India, Delhi edition.
Really thankful to court for acknowledging this fact otherwise the way people are being fined and their driving license suspended in Delhi that it looks more like a "Capital" punishment (pun intended)
Only other day a Bus was completely burnt to ashes in twenty minutes on NH-8 (or 48) just opposite the international runway. Traffic police could not arrange for Fire brigade in 20 minutes but yes they were swift enough to challan many public carrier for violation like no entry, NGT bans.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wanderers (Post 4416707)
Really thankful to court for acknowledging this fact otherwise the way people are being fined and their driving license suspended in Delhi that it looks more like a "Capital" punishment (pun intended)

I think the Court's logic was different. What the judgment meant, was:

Rash driving need not have excessive speed linked to it, to be considered as rash driving. So one can be penalized for dangerous driving even if driving below the speed limit.

OTOH, exceeding the posted speed limit will be automatically labelled as rash driving, which Delhi Traffic Police is doing for the last couple of years. It cannot be argued that exceeding the posted speed limit is still safe, and is not rash driving.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SS-Traveller (Post 4416714)

Rash driving need not have excessive speed linked to it, to be considered as rash driving. So one can be penalized for dangerous driving even if driving below the speed limit.

I agree with this. The title of the thread is misleading. The words "over-speeding" and "rash driving" should be interchanged.

Sensible judgement. Both with respect to a penalty linked to a possible crash staying within the speed limits if driver loses control and also with respect to being wrongly given a ticket by an over zealous traffic cop without a valid reason if found speeding but within limits & not causing danger. Seen it in bangalore where spirited green light take offs well within 60 km/h and wide open roads ahead without traffic gets a cop to radio the next cop to flag that car down. Usually within half a kilometer of the previous red light.

Wish the honourable courts could also make a distinction between safety of women and a blanket ban on window tints atleast on passenger cars with respect to a celestial body called the Sun causing discomfort to many road users who follow the no tint car rule. I understand it's a SC judgement, but a precedent is required to undo this incorrect judgement.

Excellent Judgment passed by HBPSJ, and certainly a precedent for future reference.

I have had the privilege and pleasure of appearing and arguing a civil dispute before the Hon'ble HBPSJ, and I can personally vouch for his command over law and logic. May his tribe increase!

On topic, I would say there is an urgent necessary and requirement for widening the scope of rash driving and bringing within its ambit, various other driving practices, such as driving slowly in the fast lane / right lane, parking / stopping on the fast / right lane, overtaking - however slowly - on the inside line of a turning, tailgating, etc. whatever may be the reason for such practices.

Very good and welcome judgement passed by the Karnataka High Court. I have always maintained, you don't have to drive excessively fast to be rash. Many standing vehicles set off and cut into driving lanes without the driver paying any attention to the flow of traffic, many drive slowly in the overtaking lane and many stop in the middle of the road as and when they want to without any consideration for other road users. All this is just as dangerous as over-speeding.

This judgement should be passed all over the country. However, it will be interesting to see how it is implemented in the real world. Ever seen those taxis cut across busy multi-lane arterial roads at the directions of the passengers? Educating such drivers is going to be a challenge for sure. Still, these days many drivers have started stopping behind the white line at zebra crossings. So, there is hope!

Quote:

Originally Posted by SS-Traveller (Post 4416714)
I think the Court's logic was different. What the judgment meant, was:

Rash driving need not have excessive speed linked to it, to be considered as rash driving. So one can be penalized for dangerous driving even if driving below the speed limit.

OTOH, exceeding the posted speed limit will be automatically labelled as rash driving, which Delhi Traffic Police is doing for the last couple of years. It cannot be argued that exceeding the posted speed limit is still safe, and is not rash driving.

I can't agree more. Negligent driving is probably the cause for many accidents, at whatever speeds. Higher speeds may lead to being rash, though many may argue otherwise. However, there is a reason for having allowable maximum speeds based on various conditions. It's best to adhere to these. One could be a danger to other road users by not following the rules of the road, which includes stopping/parking at spots that are dangerous.

Its completely useless in my opinion. Until police drop the unwritten rule of bigger vehicle at fault, all these makes no sense.

While the judgement by itself is logical, I wish the authorities apply logic to more things. Including what funky Karthik mentioned about larger vehicle being at fault.

Rather than this judgement, I would rather rejoice the day the "authorities" in our country are mature enough to acknowledge that overspeeding (exceeding speed limit) might not necessarily mean unsafe/rash driving.

Each accident would have competent and qualified analysts identify the right cause before prosecuting appropriately.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1100D (Post 4418969)
Rather than this judgement, I would rather rejoice the day the "authorities" in our country are mature enough to acknowledge that overspeeding (exceeding speed limit) might not necessarily mean unsafe/rash driving.

Each accident would have competent and qualified analysts identify the right cause before prosecuting appropriately.

Over speeding is ALWAYS unsafe and is without a doubt rash driving. The faster a vehicle is, the more difficult it would be to control and the longer it will take to stop. There can be no excuse for over speeding. Most accidents take place due to excessive speed. Even when the other vehicle is at fault, a lower speed can allow one to stop, manoeuvre and avoid or at least lessen the impact of an accident.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lobogris (Post 4418985)
Over speeding is ALWAYS unsafe and is without a doubt rash driving. The faster a vehicle is, the more difficult it would be to control and the longer it will take to stop. There can be no excuse for over speeding. Most accidents take place due to excessive speed. Even when the other vehicle is at fault, a lower speed can allow one to stop, manoeuvre and avoid or at least lessen the impact of an accident.

That's one of the most common misconceptions that people in our country are made to believe.

The term overspeeding itself is quite vague (Hence I mentioned in brackets right after, what I meant by it, that is. exceeding speed limits). Beyond exceeding specified speed limits, overspeeding could range from anything related to exceeding the limits of drivers skill, road conditions, the vehicle involved and a plethora of other things.

Again your statement about most accidents taking place because of excessive speed, is one that is widely believed as a thumb rule in our country, where proper "accident analysts" never analyse an incident. On the other-hand, the authorities take the easier route of saying, if there is a vehicle that was travelling beyond prescribed limits, that one is by default at fault. Irrespective of whose right of way it was, irrespective of who should not have been on the carriageway, who was jaywalking, who changed lanes unexpectedly. All that will require hard work of analyzing and some competence as to an understanding of how traffic dynamics work out.

If one watches F1 races, one should take a very good look at how the race stewards identify fault, when everyone is speeding. Those guys are competent!!

EDIT: - Also failure to evade an event, should never be wrongly assigned as a cause of an incident.


All times are GMT +5.5. The time now is 19:18.