[dozer]

I normally take my car to work (pre-covid) but for a few months in a year I take public transport I.e bmtc buses. Crossing a road is hard in main roads, especially the super wide ones. People don't slow down and you have to make a run for it.
I've always wondered how older people cross the roads.

I had to stop doing buses because of monsoon later. Roads aren't built for pedestrians.

Oh and for people saying zebra crossing, no one cares. No one slows down. There's a zebra crossing right outside my campus gate. Even if they care, when traffic is fast and neck to neck how does a driver even see a zebra crossing until its too close?

Pedestrians lack knowledge too. Especially the ones who don't drive much. They think a car can see them and break instantly at night. They often cross from curved points which are blind spots. But we can't expect them to know much. They don't have licenses or the aptitude on roads sometimes.

I suspect we're guilty of similar lack of knowledge when it comes to dealing with buses.

[glovins2004]

Worst case scenario is on the highways, what if someone jumps off from the bushes in the median. I had a near miss once but by god’s grace nothing happened.

Not sure who is at fault by law.

[amol4184]

Judgement is welcome but instant judgement also happens on the road after accident.

If you are in a 4 wheeler and involved in pedestrian accident, you will be judged by the crowd as guilty and in some cases beaten, as justice. Lot of frustrated junta ready to unleash all the built up anger on someone unknown at slightest of reasons. Besides you can always run away when the police come.

God help you if you are a young/middle aged guy in a moderately expensive car and hit a pedestrian.

[GeeTee TSI]

The clip shared in an earlier post brings up the point, an irresponsible pedestrian can cause a pile up of collosal proportions in roads with high traffic density and good speeds. Wonder if pedestrians can be penalised depending on the scale of damage they caused.

That said, with size also comes responsibility and a car driver MUST anticipate (even put up with) errant jaywalking pedestrians however frustrating it may be

[knshailender]

Originally Posted by Indian2003

A speed limit does not mean that you have to drive at that speed. It just shows the maximum speed allowed.

If I'm not wrong, a speed limit does mean you have to "drive at that speed" +/- 10kmph. Driving at 20kmph on a 60kmph road is also dangerous to others using the road.

[AKSarkar1]

Originally Posted by ruzbehxyz

All in all, it is always better to have a dashcam in the car to record all movements. No matter what make it is, having one is important.

Wholeheartedly agree with the dashcam point. It is one of the only ways to have some evidence should it come down to courts and the legal system.

Apart from this one needs to understand the massive amount of grey zone when it comes to negligence. Most lawyers would agree to the fact that negligence in itself can become complicated and proving it is another hassle. I'm not familiar with the IPC but I have done German law and negligence reports can run into pages and isn't always easy to prove.

In India, we have to factor in things like massive potholes, broken roads, or imperfect signages before we can understand whose fault it really was. If the real negligence is in the infrastructure, then who really is to blame there?


Therefore I believe in these cases there is a lot of grey zone and as capable as our courts are, the decision may not always be objective. Such rules are always welcome but alongside strict regulations, we need a physical infrastructure that reduces the chances of negligence in the first place. Our priorities seem to be a bit off.

[Indian2003]

Originally Posted by knshailender

If I'm not wrong, a speed limit does mean you have to "drive at that speed" +/- 10kmph. Driving at 20kmph on a 60kmph road is also dangerous to others using the road.

You are wrong. The maximum speed limit is the maximum you are allowed. There is no such thing as a +/- 10kmph

We are not talking about driving at 20 km/hour on a motorway. Would you drive at maximum speeds of there is a traffic jam? If you are not able to drive over 20 kmph, you should stay away from the motorways

It is the same as driving at max speeds when there are people on the roads and when you drive by children or a school.

You need to be able to analyse the traffic conditions and drive at a responsible speed.

[SchrödingersCar]

Here is the link to the full case file.

The acquittal is not as straight forward as it seems.
There are multiple parameters that the judge considered, and it was somewhat due to laxity or omission on part of prosecution/case as well w.r.t witness testimonies and details.

Part of the conclusion from the judgement.

Perusing the entire evidence there is nothing trustworthy to fix the involvement of the accused in the alleged accident and no substantial particulars put*forth to establish the negligence driving of the alleged vehicle, because incident took place on the road beside foot path. I am of the opinion that while crossing or walking the road it is the duty of pedestrian to take precaution. If any mishap happened due to negligence of the pedestrian no criminal liability would be fixed on the vehicle. On this aspect I would like take valuable guidance from the case*law of Mahadeo Hari Lokre Vs. State of Maharashtra 1971 STPL (L.E.*Crim)20774 SC wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court in its para*4 laid down that* “If a person suddenly crosses the road, the bus driver, however, slowly he may be driving, may not be in a position to save the accident. Therefore, it will not be possible to hold the bus driver was negligent.” On going through the facts of instant case and facts before Hon'ble Apex Court, the factual matrix is the most identical one as in instant case also the informant walked over the portion meant for vehicle and ignoring the foot path for pedestrians.

[karanddd]

Originally Posted by gkveda

But, if a pedestrian is walking on the road (car's way), and a car hits the pedestrian, same logic is not applied. It is again the mistake of the car driver. This is not right.

So, irrespective of whether there is a Zebra crossing or not, if a pedestrian steps on to the black tarmac(road) and stays on road, it is his responsibility to ensure he steps in when there is no vehicle on the road till the time he crosses or stays on the road.
...

The problem in our country is, pedestrians are not TAUGHT the road culture and behaviour. They think jumping on road whenever they wish and being on road is their birthright.

Have you ever been walking outside? 99% of roads in India don't have footpaths. There are no separate roads for pedestrians and automobiles, it's just one free for all. In such a situation, blaming a pedestrian for stepping on asphalt (when there's nothing else) is positively absurd and silly.

[Surprise]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

By law, pedestrians and cyclists, are considered far more vulnerable than cars. So in case of an accident between a pedestrian/cyclist and a car, the car driver, by default, is at fault.
Jeroen

I read couple of your posts, with the other on how ** car saved life....i used to get irritated at the bikers cyclist for what they are criticised often, not anymore. At least a fair attempt from my side with a thought that you have inculcated