[Tanmay007]

Originally Posted by LokiPilaniya

I assume you missed the part where I mentioned about rumble strips.

I'm sorry but that's just conjecture. Without any factual data whatsoever about the path the car took leading to the crash, it's just an assumption. Most sane drivers would definitely slow down on rumble strips, it's instinctive.

I'm just trying to put things in perspective about what was the actual cause of this accident in the first place.

Simplified version of this is
Unbelted passengers - Over speeding - Ignoring rumble strips - Blind overtake - then you can place things like bridge/a cow/a slow moving vehicle like tractor etc.

The simplified version itself is wrong, it's about fatality rather than the accident itself. Being unbelted did not cause the crash. The cause of crash is most definitely bad design. If the road was designed as per spec (and I guarantee you the spec would have mandated merge signs, rails, crash guards, etc) then things would've been different.

With so many discussions I think now we should leave it to the authorities and wait what they say in their final report.

Hmm it'll be nice to live in a world where the authorities held the people in power accountable.

[novice]

Originally Posted by Amrik Singh

When you know there are stray cattle on the road, while driving, do you expect them to move away, or you drive carefully ?
Indian roads are full of surprises though newer construction is minimising it. So instead of blaming the roads as badly designed (which is a known fact) we all have learnt to drive carefully. Rare case of negligence end in fatality

Absolutely, save driving trumps everything else. But I don't agree to completely disregarding the role played by bad road design in such accidents. That will only encourage poor planning and design with no accountability.

I am pretty sure that thousands of lives could be saved every year in our country if we design our highways properly.

[i74js]

Originally Posted by anjan_c2007

Another news pouring in says that the Electronic Control Module (ECM) of the Mercedes Benz GLC 220d 4Matic will be sent to Germany. Earlier in the day the vehicle's data was collected that will be decrypted.

The company's initiatives are expected to reveal more details of the mechanical faults and driver error. The report will be submitted in a few days the company says.

Details on this link

https://www.news18.com/amp/news/indi...ource=inshorts

Why MB and not an independent lab. In case of air crashes, the FDR and CVR are sent out to investigation agency of the respective country and not to directly Boeing or Airbus. Even when the manufacturer gets involved, it is just for analysis and investigation support and not to lead it
Why should we believe on the manufacturing company?

[Amrik Singh]

Originally Posted by novice

I am pretty sure that thousands of lives could be saved every year in our country if we design our highways properly.

Making Cattle proof design is Engineers responsibility or Law makers ?
Sorry to say that observing ones religion is ones right, but, we forget the nuisance caused by stray cattle.

[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by Tanmay007

...If the road was designed as per spec (and I guarantee you the spec would have mandated merge signs, rails, crash guards, etc) then things would've been different...

Will pick on the logical fallacy here, if I may. No offense intended, because I agree with quite a bit of what you say.

If the road was built to the safest known global specifications: surface, signage, barriers/buffers, there are still enough variable factors: weather, visibility, driver attention/skill, vehicle mechanicals, that might still have caused a crash, or altered the outcomes.

That said, what's the likeliest factor the occupants did have 100% control of and could've (statistically proven around the world) affected outcomes in a crash? Primary restraints (seat-belts). We've got a decade-long thread (ARTICLE: Seat Belts Saved My Life! True Stories & Pictures from BHPians) chronicling first-hand BHPian stories to back that up.

It's NOT an either/or scenario. We can and should definitely blame faulty infrastructure and hold people accountable, but also acknowledge that accountability, much like charity, begins at home. Especially so when it pertains to our fragile mortality, it's no use being right AND dead.

All things being exactly the same, poor infrastructure et. al, a little strip of woven fabric over their shoulder and a metal buckle at their hip could've likely saved the deceased occupants, and who knows, they could've used their personal bad experience and significant influence to crusade for better infrastructure for all of us.

As it is, they're gone and all we're likely to get is some PR speak about 'corrective action' and condolences before we return to status quo.

You're right, things could've been different, now they very likely won't.

[CCRider]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Each month I do at least a couple of inter city road trips on work related matters often returning the same day/night. A steady 70 to 80 kmph gets me to my destination no later than the chaps who are forever accelerating off at 100 or 120 kmph. A junction, a railway crossing, navigating through a town,, a herd of cattle, a toll plaza are all equalizers of speedsters and slow pokes like me alike. Indian roads by habit, attitudes and design are simply not meant for driving safely beyond 80 kmph. Just one old man's views.

Totally agree with you.
I realized few years back based on my own experience that there was only an insignificant difference in long distance travel times between driving styles that optimized for speed at every possible opportunity vs one which just maintained a comfortable cruising speed of 80-90 kmph .
I was curious to see if this was just my perception and read up a bit and found that this was actually true due to the inverse relation between speed and time.
Basically this implies that the savings in travel time will keep reducing with increasing speed.
Eg:
Time taken for 100 km at 100 kmph = 60 mins
Time taken for 100 kms at 150 kmph = 40 mins (60 – 20)
Time taken for 100 km at 50 kmph = 120 mins (60 + 60)

With 100 kmph as a baseline, increasing the speed by 50 kmph saves only 20 mins but decreasing it by same 50 kmph adds 1 hour to the total time. Seen in another way, if you split your journey into two legs, the slower leg where you must unavoidably go slower (due to bad road patches, traffic through towns/villages, rest stops etc.) will have greater weight on the overall time than the faster leg.

This had a couple of takeaways for me
1) To make up for time lost you must go a lot faster, thereby increasing your risk disproportionately
2) (more importantly for me) going at a comfortable cruising speed will not increase the overall time significantly as the major factor is the slower leg which is in most cases unavoidable.

Ever since, I have become a sedate driver never straying far from what I feel is a comfortable speed (around 80kmph). I do regular day trips of about 350 kms once every 2 months or so and I must say I have been enjoying the drives a lot more. Apart from the reduced driving strain due to the sense of being in control, and reduced risk of accident I see another important benefit - the other occupants, in my case its usually my parents or wife and kid, experience much less travel fatigue at the end of the journey. When you drive hard, there is a sub conscious sense of anxiety and strain during sudden bursts of acceleration / deceleration or risky overtakes among the co-passengers which adds up and leaves them tired. Moreover the backseats of most cars are less comfortable than the front seats so the driver cannot assume that if he doesn’t feel bumps or undulations it’s the same for back seat passengers. Driving at a relaxed pace with consideration to the co-passengers helps them enjoy the drive as well and that I think is the least we can do for them as they have to sit through the journey doing nothing while we get to do the fun part of driving : )

[prajwalmr62]

Originally Posted by CCRider

I realized few years back based on my own experience that there was only an insignificant difference in long distance travel times between driving styles that optimized for speed at every possible opportunity vs one which just maintained a comfortable cruising speed of 80-90 kmph.

I tried both methods, turned out the average speed I maintained while speeding was lesser compared to the one where I maintained an lower speed.

Because when you are revving hard, you'll have to slow down more frequently compared to maintaining lower speed. So, why should I spend more fuel, revv the engine hard, risk hitting something, AND go to my destination late?

You can drive faster and have less margin of safety, but it is just not worth the effort or risk.

[coldice4u]

At the end of the the day, its your life and you are the best judge of what is an acceptable speed. Increased speeds brings increased risk, if someone is willing to accept the tradeoff, its an individual choice. You can ask/demand/request what you deem might be acceptable but whether you will get it is a different discussion altogether and how you respond subsequently is what matters?

Unfortunately not everyone can get the benefit of hindsight.

[simplyself]

Originally Posted by prajwalmr62

I tried both methods, turned out the average speed I maintained while speeding was lesser compared to the one where I maintained an lower speed.

Because when you are revving hard, you'll have to slow down more frequently compared to maintaining lower speed. So, why should I spend more fuel, revv the engine hard, risk hitting something, AND go to my destination late?

You can drive faster and have less margin of safety, but it is just not worth the effort or risk.

I always have felt the same. Maintaining around 80 kmph keeps both the car and the driver relaxed, and I realized there is not much increment in time saved if one goes very fast. The speedy one and the steady one, more often than not, reach the destination with not much time difference.

I have experienced this many times, almost every time I drive on highways. Guys who are in terrible hurry to go fast end up reaching the destination very much at the same time as I do, and I seldom cross 80 kmph.

By seeing the pictures of that ill-fated car in which Mr. Mistry was travelling, there wasnt much damage to the cage, relatively speaking. Even windshield remained intact. I have far worse damage to lesser cars when they hit a buffalo. Of course, dynamics of hitting a concrete barrier are different compared to hitting an animal, but still, speed as such is not a big issue here. Of course, we humans always fail to understand the impact of inertia of motion when the vehicle they are travelling at speed comes to stand still in a second. Part of Mr. Mistry's autopsy said, among other things, blunt force trauma to thorax. I guess that is what caused death in Mr. Mistry's case, as also in the case of Mr. Jehangir Pandole who also succumbed to injuries.

[no1lives4ever]

Originally Posted by simplyself

I always have felt the same. Maintaining around 80 kmph keeps both the car and the driver relaxed, and I realized there is not much increment in time saved if one goes very fast. The speedy one and the steady one, more often than not, reach the destination with not much time difference.

I have experienced this many times, almost every time I drive on highways. Guys who are in terrible hurry to go fast end up reaching the destination very much at the same time as I do, and I seldom cross 80 kmph.

My take is a bit different on this. A lot of highways in india can become fairly boring. If you are driving thru the day at a sedate speed, then I end up getting relaxed and not focusing as much on the road as I should when driving on the highway. This is more the case near the end of the day in case of long drives.

OTOH, when i am driving fast, looking for overtake opportunities and in general trying to avoid all possible obstacles to go faster, i end up being a lot more attentive to the road and am fully focused.

For me relaxed driving is more dangerous than when i am fully focused and actively looking out for danger. That does not mean doing reckless speeds or breaking the speed limit, but instead it is more about trying to maintain speed limit and trying to look out for overtaking opportunities and performing those overtakes.

In India, except for a few highways, you are mostly in the middle of moderate to heavy traffic and very difficult to achieve average speeds that are anywhere close to the speed limit of 90 or 100kmph. Besides other reasons, you will have to slow down for the slow trucks overtaking each other, for the cow that decides to cross the highway in front of you, for the guy dangerously driving in the wrong direction or because on a single carriageway there is someone overtaking a vehicle in the opposite direction and blocking you.

-- no1lives4ever

[simplyself]

Originally Posted by no1lives4ever

My take is a bit different on this. A lot of highways in india can become fairly boring. If you are driving thru the day at a sedate speed, then I end up getting relaxed and not focusing as much on the road as I should when driving on the highway. This is more the case near the end of the day in case of long drives.

-- no1lives4ever

Sedate speed depends upon the road and traffic. It is just that I forgot to add about traffic. If there is moderate to heavy traffic, holding speed at 80 kmph is more involving than doing a 100 plus on an empty stretch.

As for getting bored, yes, you pointed it out correctly. We do get bored after driving for a few hours. In that case, for me, involvement doesnt mean I need to travel at 120 kmph or more. However, it all depends upon one's reflexes and frame of mind.

I find travelling at high speed on empty stretch more frightful than doing decent speeds on a trafficked road.

Having driven on two laned roads aplenty, I find the four laned road less involving. At the same time it has become irritating because of the democratization of car purchase and lesser skills of all those who are driving on the roads without any regard for the road manners.

[V.Narayan]

The matter about speed, reaction time, and risk to my mind works roughly as follows:-

Let's assume a speed of 70 kmph. This gives you 2.57 seconds to address an issue 50 metres ahead. Reality is our mind needs a fraction of a second, lets say 0.50 seconds to see, figure out and determine reaction needed leaving the driver with 2.07 seconds in which to actually implement physical action. Now let's assume a speed of 100 kmph. Here we get only 1.29 seconds to implement our evasive/protection action. At 120 kmph God forbid that number drops to 1.0 seconds.

In my about ~2.5 to 2.7 lakhs kms {similar to hundreds of other BHPians} of driving over 44+ years {might be a wee bit above the BHPian average!} the top 5 things to ensure safety of the car and passengers in India are - the first spot is taken up by driver common sense, alertness and frame of mind. The 2nd and 3rd spots are moderation, moderation, moderation in speed relative to the road, traffic environment, surrounding habitat, terrain etc. The 4th spot is wearing a seat belt. If these items are addressed 99%+ of your safety requirements are fulfilled. The 5th spot is all the safety devices and design of the car. We lay too much emphasis on the safety devices of a car when in my observation over a very long period of time they collectively represent only a fraction and are really the last resort when the first 4 spots are violated.

Most experienced pilots approach their 10,000th landing with the same care, preparation and attentiveness as they did on say their 50th landing years before. In car driving most of us get over confident and careless as our driving hours of experience increases.

[Venkatesh]

Amul Tribute to a dynamic businessman.

[Safari Persona]

Originally Posted by Amrik Singh

So instead of blaming the roads as badly designed (which is a known fact) we all have learnt to drive carefully.

Just because it's a known fact doesn't mean we have to put up with it. In fact, we should be more vocal about it precisely because it's a known fact that nothing is being done about.

We, Indians, are far too tolerant of incompetence for our own good.

[novice]

Originally Posted by no1lives4ever

For me relaxed driving is more dangerous than when i am fully focused and actively looking out for danger. That does not mean doing reckless speeds or breaking the speed limit, but instead it is more about trying to maintain speed limit and trying to look out for overtaking opportunities and performing those overtakes.

Same here, gotten into trouble many times driving sedately. My mind drifts away from driving, reflexes become slower and I often start feeling sleepy when going slow. Few other problems that come with sedate driving are - being tailgated and overtaken from all sides by rashly driven buses, trucks, mini vans, cabs and other cars. Most of these vehicles get up-to 100kmph. So I try to stay above that if conditions on the road allow it.

Disclaimer: I am not advocating or promoting fast driving. I am simply stating what works for me.