[raghu.t.k]

Originally Posted by Soumyajit9

.....
You cannot simply brake suddenly because you forgot a left turn, or the car ahead of you stops suddenly. If you don't have that reflexes, or that kinda car, stay 2 cars away from the previous vehicle, even though it is a bike.
Don't bang into its rear, or dont brake abruptly and get banged from rear.

We need to stop the concept of whoever bangs from rear is at fault. Its a combination of your bad driving + the bad driving of the vehicle which rear ended you.
....

While I agree that you do not stop suddenly because you forgot your turn, we need to stop sharply if the vehicle in front stops suddenly. We need to maintain a distance so that we do not hit the vehicle in front, but you cannot stop at your own pace when there is not going to be any space left.

In fact last week this was the exact scenario which happened to me. I always drive leaving a reasonable amount of space so as to stop with hitting anyone even if the guy in front slams the brake. At this intersection We were moving out of the signal at MMDA Junction on the JN road on 14th, suddenly the guy in front slams the brake, and I too stop as fast as I can. The guy behind me in a Beat also managed to stop with around 1 -2 feet to spare, while a Indica cab on the left lane could not stop and rammed into my vehicle with good enough force to dent and cause a small tear on the rear bumper on the left side of my SX4.


So how could the chevy beat stop and not the indica, which was not even in my lane?

Its imperative, that the guy behind drive at a distance that his vehicle can be stopped without damaging the the vehicle in front.

[Stratos]

Originally Posted by W.A.G.7

My office colleague was involved in this pile up. Luckily he had no injuries and walked out of it without a scratch, because he was belted up. But his i10 was a mess. It is now lying at the service centre awaiting insurance/repairs. The front and the back of the car are history now.

I think that some cars in the middle of the pile-up may have stopped on time. They might have been rammed into from the back by someone else and pushed on to the next car. One is helpless in such a situation. Glad your friend made it out without any injury.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Crawling in closer in a stop and go traffic will be much safer than tailgating at 30-40 kmph. Both are different scnarios.

The distance is not fixed, it does vary according to speed.

but

those rear-endings are probably most likely to happen in slow-moving traffic. All my narrow escapes have been like that. One lesson I have learnt is that, if the person in front starts moving it does not mean they will go on moving. Stop-start bumper-to-bumper driving has dangers all of its own.

We have to take into account thinking distance, and we have to take it into account realistically, not with our egos. In slow moving (I mean single-digit) traffic, we might not even have our attention on the car in front. It is always good to learn from other people's mistakes (it hurts less) and I can't forget the friend of mine who had his first accident in thirty years in just this situation --- because he was looking at a woman on the pavement.

Originally Posted by Stratos

What I saw next was terrible. A total of ten cars had crashed, one-behind-another, the Vista being number tenth. The first car, an Ertiga had suddenly stopped under heavy braking which made the ten cars crash into one another behind him. Reason for the Ertiga to brake hard, was unknown as there was nothing in front of it.

Reason for this crash = Tailgating

And worst of all is this group tailgating thing. Moving in such a group (I call it a "knot" of traffic) is so dangerous. If I find myself in such a knot, at anything over single-digit speeds, I immediately try to escape it. Usually the answer is slowing down, then, at least, the traffic in front gets away.

Everybody in such a knot wants to get ahead of everybody else. Don't join that club. Let them go.

Also I try to remember that if the person behind is up my backside then I need his stopping distance as well as mine, and, if the road is wet, both need to be doubled.

<and, further adding to answer another post...>

Originally Posted by Stratos

I think that some cars in the middle of the pile-up may have stopped on time. They might have been rammed into from the back by someone else and pushed on to the next car. One is helpless in such a situation. Glad your friend made it out without any injury.

Exactly. We are helpless while we are part of that knot.

~

[Padcot Prakash]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

Everybody in such a knot wants to get ahead of everybody else. Don't join that club. Let them go.

Also I try to remember that if the person behind is up my backside then I need his stopping distance as well as mine, and, if the road is wet, both need to be doubled.

<and, further adding to answer another post...>

Exactly. We are helpless while we are part of that knot. ~

This is the perfect advise given, get out of the knot.

Secondly, maintain distance. This is utmost important and very safe. Be away from generic trouble makers like taxis and others evidently visible in front and back of you especially during rains.

Ego comes our way during knot club. Me first , Me first. My car and driving is better. We should leave egos back home when on road. Though I have to confess, sometimes it gets difficult for me.

Note from Support - Please avoid quoting an entire post as it inconveniences our mobile users.

[BeantownThinker]

Originally Posted by swiftnfurious

In traffic, what will be the max speed you will be doing? Crawling in closer in a stop and go traffic will be much safer than tailgating at 30-40 kmph. Both are different scnarios.

Keep a safe distance between your vehicle and the one in front of you. "Safe distance" will vary on speed. Just because you are crawling in stop and go traffic it does not mean that you drive close to the vehicle in front of you. And I say this from experience.

Over the last 10 years that I have been driving, I have been involved in 6 "fender-benders". All of them have occurred when the speed of the vehicles have been less than 10kph. I was at fault in one case, another case was of the other vehicle cutting in front of me. The remaining 4 cases were when my vehicle was stationery or just starting to move. Reasons for collision ranged from "foot slipped of clutch", to "braked late", to "started moving before vehicle in front moved".

It is good driving sense to maintain enough distance to give time for the driver to react and the car to stop.

[IronH4WK]

first (i think) of a series of videos i'm gonna put up about our traffic situation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMJp...ature=youtu.be

[Soumyajit9]

Originally Posted by IronH4WK

first (i think) of a series of videos i'm gonna put up about our traffic situation

Great capture !! This video should be posted to BTP's Facebook wall. Should be fun :-)

Note from Support - Please avoid quoting posts which contain videos.

[Kumar R]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

No we do not!

We need to shout and bang it into everybody's heads until they have not only got it, but they drive as if they have got it.

Sorry Thad, I have to disagree with you on this and must point out the danger of any such rigid rule of presumption.

Mechanical application of such a rule only closes our minds to the need to be alert to traffic behind as well as ahead. If you support such a rule, you must be prepared to agree that even in a case where a vehicle abruptly stops for no good reason [i.e. not a case of a child coming onto the road suddenly] and causes grievous injury to the vehicle behind including loss of life, the braking vehicle is without any fault. I believe it's very dangerous to drive with such an ideology and will certainly not venture on Indian roads with this belief that I can stop on the road whenever I want for no justifiable reason and still not be held responsible -- and I can only hope others think the same way.

There's a reason why absolute liability (the same concept where one is liable based on outcome regardless of cause) is limited to barely 2-3 instances. The easiest one I can think of is the [absolute] liability of suppliers of nuclear plants (they are liable even if the plant operator caused a meltdown by human error) -- and look at how contentious that has turned out to be.

Incidentally, as far as criminal law is concerned (at least in India - I cannot speak of the UK though I expect it to be similar) contributory negligence does not affect criminal liability. That is a charge of dangerous driving against a driver who brakes for no good reason cannot be weakened or avoided even where the guy behind was indeed tailgating. If necessary both can and will be charged.

On a separate note, I do not rule out the possibility of such a rule serving a purpose in a country such as the UK with its vastly more courteous and conscientious driving climate, not to mention the existing road infrastructure and vehicle density. But application of first-world rules and principles to India is not something that guarantees success and in many instances has compounded problems. Can you imagine what would happen if Scandinavian labour welfare standards were made applicable to India overnight? Or American free market standards led to the complete removal of all subsidies on kerosene and grain in Ration shops across India? That's not to suggest these are without merit or inherently bad but for all their merit simply cannot be applied to India as of now without creating a whole bunch of more serious problems.

[sourabhzen]

Originally Posted by Kumar R

Sorry Thad, I have to disagree with you on this and must point out the danger of any such rigid rule of presumption.

Mechanical application of such a rule only closes our minds to the need to be alert to traffic behind as well as ahead. If you support such a rule, you must be prepared to agree that even in a case where a vehicle abruptly stops for no good reason [i.e. not a case of a child coming onto the road suddenly] and causes grievous injury to the vehicle behind including loss of life, the braking vehicle is without any fault. I believe it's very dangerous to drive with such an ideology and will certainly not venture on Indian roads with this belief that I can stop on the road whenever I want for no justifiable reason and still not be held responsible -- and I can only hope others think the same way.

There is no danger of any such rule of presumption as it will only make the drivers more cautious. I am less likely to crash into a vehicle in front if I am am prepared of it stopping suddenly. Moreover, our minds can not and shall not cease to be alert of the traffic behind us as we are also at a loss in case someone crashes our car from behind. Also there is always a fear of getting hit by a heavier and larger vehicle which is a rick for us more than vehicle behind us. I, for one, agree with Thad and do not think the same way as you do.

Originally Posted by Kumar R

There's a reason why absolute liability (the same concept where one is liable based on outcome regardless of cause) is limited to barely 2-3 instances. The easiest one I can think of is the [absolute] liability of suppliers of nuclear plants (they are liable even if the plant operator caused a meltdown by human error) -- and look at how contentious that has turned out to be.

Do we need to discuss the leagle liability here? Shall we not discuss the good driving practices?

Originally Posted by Kumar R

Incidentally, as far as criminal law is concerned (at least in India - I cannot speak of the UK though I expect it to be similar) contributory negligence does not affect criminal liability. That is a charge of dangerous driving against a driver who brakes for no good reason cannot be weakened or avoided even where the guy behind was indeed tailgating. If necessary both can and will be charged.

On a separate note, I do not rule out the possibility of such a rule serving a purpose in a country such as the UK with its vastly more courteous and conscientious driving climate, not to mention the existing road infrastructure and vehicle density. But application of first-world rules and principles to India is not something that guarantees success and in many instances has compounded problems. Can you imagine what would happen if Scandinavian labour welfare standards were made applicable to India overnight? Or American free market standards led to the complete removal of all subsidies on kerosene and grain in Ration shops across India? That's not to suggest these are without merit or inherently bad but for all their merit simply cannot be applied to India as of now without creating a whole bunch of more serious problems.

Can you imagine what will happen if we do not (continuously) adopt good practices/habits? We will continue to be a society where road rage is common and civic sense is rare. We should not start breaking traffic rules because other drivers on the road are least bothered. Commuting on such road and traffic conditions will only improve is majority of drivers are bit more courteous. Success is not guaranteed but at least we should try.

[SS-Traveller]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

No we do not!
We need to shout and bang it into everybody's heads until they have not only got it, but they drive as if they have got it.
...leaving space in front in which to stop is not only good and safe driving, it allows for idiots too.

Completely agree with you on this, Thad. However, it would be impossible to change the driving habits of a few million untrained egoistic drivers on Indian roads. Those who follow your advice would invariably be in Stratos' position, and those who don't - well, the next 10 cars that pile up might just include them.

Originally Posted by Stratos

Thankfully, I was at controllable speed so slowed down.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by Kumar R

Mechanical application of such a rule only closes our minds to the need to be alert to traffic behind as well as ahead. If you support such a rule, you must be prepared to agree that even in a case where a vehicle abruptly stops for no good reason [i.e. not a case of a child coming onto the road suddenly] and causes grievous injury to the vehicle behind including loss of life, the braking vehicle is without any fault.

We've been here: braking for no good reason is bad driving in itself. It may even be criminal driving.

That's point one. Point two is that the idiot who runs into the back of the idiot who stopped for no reason is responsible for that, because he was too close.

I believe it's very dangerous to drive with such an ideology and will certainly not venture on Indian roads with this belief that I can stop on the road whenever I want for no justifiable reason and still not be held responsible -- and I can only hope others think the same way.

I'm not proposing a free licence for the sort of idiocy just mentioned. Of course we should drive with due care and attention to others, including those behind us.

I don't think that turning this into a legalistic argument serves a purpose. What we are trying to avoid is not just the barney that comes afterwards, but the accidents themselves. Having space in which one can stop is a major contribution to that.

The rules for prevention of collision at sea (bear with me ) lay down detailed and precise formula for who shall give way when they meet. Having done that, it then says something like, "Hey, you all! Whatever, You are all responsible for not hitting each other, OK?" Obviously, I forget the formal wording.

That would be a good spirit for driving too.

On a separate note, I do not rule out the possibility of such a rule serving a purpose in a country such as the UK with its vastly more courteous and conscientious driving climate,

You might be surprised. Yes, there are certain rules that tend to be obeyed, but London driving is a good preparation for India. People may stay in lane, but it it is aggressive and pushy, and people tailgate, and there are plenty of accidents.

However, it would be impossible to change the driving habits of a few million untrained egoistic drivers on Indian roads.

Has to be done, somehow. All we can do is start with ourselves and each other.

[mallumowgli]

And the debate continues...regarding rear-ending
In my opinion there are two issues here

First : rear ending - be clear that whatever be the reason, the person who rear ended is at fault

Second : Stopping abruptly on a road - When done without proper reason (like some moron/monkey/donkey jumping across the road), the driver is at fault irrespective of whether he was rear ended or not

The problem with the posts above is that somehow the impression comes across that once you are rear ended by someone, you are absolved of all crimes!!

Two different cases : (1) Stopping without reason, stopping at a junction, stopping at a turn etc (2) rear ending - both are crimes and can be booked for these different reasons!!

[supremeBaleno]

^^^
@mallumowgli, you have summed up quite well. Both rear-ending and stopping without valid reason are wrong. But the way we need to look at it is that it does not matter whose fault it is and does not matter whether we are the rear-ender or the one who got hit - the idea should be to avoid being either of the two. Because getting into an accident is a mess for all concerned and so better avoided. So leave space from vehicle in front and avoid stupid/illogical braking without signalling/looking in mirror.

However, there are other scenarios that are unique to us due to the pathetic road conditions or bad signage, which the developed world does not have to face. In such cases, neither of the parties can be blamed and instead blame rests on the infrastructure or authorities. Some scenarios :

1) You are driving on a 2-lane road on the left-lane with a car in front of you that is going at a speed slower than what is permissible for that road. You shift to the overtaking (right) lane and get into overtaking mode. The other car is still ambling along on left lane, making this a simple overtake. You have by now accelerated enough to be able to overtake the other car and just before you draw alongside him, he swerves to the right to avoid something on the road that should not be there (one of those concrete blocks used as medians, a rock that was used to mark in a stranded truck or even a crater/pothole). Now not only are you in accelerating mode, but you are also not expecting this sudden development and there is no braking distance available, leading to you crashing into the rear/side of the car. Who is at fault here ?

2) You are zipping through the city (within permissible speeds), reach a junction and see the red light ahead turn green for you. The car in front is some metres short of reaching the junction with you behind him maintaining decent gap for the given situation (light has just turned green, so guy in front is going to clear it followed by you). Suddenly just before the guy in front reaches the StopLine, the light turns red or blinking-yellow (due to malfunctioning, not as per the set periodicity - yes, have seen this in Chennai). The guy in front gets confused, slams on the brakes and you too after a second or so, by which time the front of your car has kissed the rear of the car in front. Who is at fault here ?

And if the above hypothetical (though very common in India) scenarios don't cut it for you, check out this real-life incident posted in another thread. No signage indicating a hump leading to a death. Scooter guy stopped, for a reason and one dictated by traffic-authorities, truck guy did not expect someone to suddenly stop at the down-end of a flyover and rear-ended. A life lost, we could endlessly argue about who was to blame, but I think the blame here is on the authorities who were so bird-brained as to put up a hump at a place where even without A-pedal input, folks would be coming down at speed, aided by gravity.

Originally Posted by rohanjf

In Bangalore, there is a flyover on a 4-lane road near Carmelaram train station. There is a junction very close to the flyover. So our authorities have put speedbreakers. Obviously, there is no indication anywhere that it exists. At nights, you realise it only after you go over it.

A few days ago, a scooter guy slowed down at this speedbreaker. He was probably aware of the road. Unfortunately for him and his family, the truck coming behind him (down the flyover), had no clue. Truck rammed the scooter from behind and the poor chap died on the spot.

While we indeed have to go a long way in improving our driving, it would not hurt to get quality signage / infrastructure also.

[unleash_thunder]

I would like to share three instances where i was banged twice in the front and once in the rear within three months of owning my new car.

Incident One: I was moving in the right lane with a decent speed (~40-50 kmph) behind another car on the Old Airport Road. The car ahead of me started giving the right indicator well in advance as he wanted to approach the Namjoshi Road. I slowed down and didn't try to disrupt the traffic behind me by abruptly changing lanes. While i was waiting for the car ahead to take a right turn, an auto came and crashed onto my left fender as he was not able to control his vehicle. The auto-driver was an elderly man and swiftly apologized. I was content that he accepted his mistake and we both left for our destination. Upon reaching home, i inspected the area and thankfully i did not witness any dent, thanks to the strong build quality of Fiat. However, paint had peeled off around the area of impact.

Incident Two: I was approaching my office entrance in the Pritech Park SEZ. There is a right turn which one has to take to enter there. While i was taking the turn, a Tavera (cab) swerved from the left and banged in the same area as mentioned in the incident one. I was furious and wanted to thrash the moron cabbie but decided against it as i did not want to disrupt traffic behind me. Inspected the vehicle upon reaching the parking and again, no dent. Only scratches.

Incident three: I was moving at a slow pace on the Jeevan Bhima Nagar road as there was traffic ahead. A moron started coming on his two-wheeler in the middle of the lane which is meant for vehicles approaching towards Suranjhadas Road, as we wanted to take a left which was well ahead of him by more than a km. I applied brakes and a bike banged me in the rear and the riders fell down on the road. While i got down to see if they have sustained injuries and what is the extent of damage to my rear, i witnessed they were not wearing helmets, looked underage and were definitely speeding. People started surrounding them and sensing trouble they picked up the bike and fled. Upon inspecting the impacted area, i witnessed a mild scratch, nothing else.

I have seen morons blocking the incoming traffic by getting onto the lanes meant for the latter as they do not have any patience. These guys will do anything to gain that iota of space to squeeze in and sadly their breed is only growing. Add to this list, the drivers talking on cellphones while driving, underage drivers speeding without any regard to their lives and other commuters, auto drivers behaving like a free flowing river, the roads of Bangalore are a nightmare to commute on.

[IronH4WK]

another public awareness video - ze NGEF bypass

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8T-...ature=youtu.be