[500ContyCruiser]

Tonight, I came across a Swift parked right in middle of narrow lane. On asking if that's the way to park by blocking traffic. He calmly says, he has parked correctly and that's the way he parks...

What has happened to people. This guy does seem to be educated. Moral values... common sense are just drained into gutter.

[Guite]

It's because of all the variables that one must maintain safe distance from the vehicle in front, the gap invariably being more than a car length. Now a lot of people will squeeze in into this gap. What the heck. Be safe.

[Kumar R]

Originally Posted by ::CMS::

"Expect \ Anticipate the Unexpected and prepare early"

Originally Posted by ::linuxmanju::

Very well said. If you rear end someone its your fault, unless the other vehicle rolls back.

This is a fine bit of armchair deduction that seems admirable but which is impossible to translate into practice (and sometimes undesirable). On the road everyone makes assumptions all the time. Let's say you're cruising at a speed of 60-65 kmph on the well-known NH8 from New Delhi towards gurgaon (just an example). Standard test results advertised by governments in most developed countries indicate an estimate of 60+ metres of stopping distance for cars traveling at that speed with good visibility, no fatigue, absence of mechanical problems, brakes being in good shape, no slipping, slidingetc. Now 60 metres is about 16 car-lengths for an average-sized car such as the Maruti Swift. Is such a "precaution" possible in a city (I'm referring to good city roads) -- even during afternoon hours? Does that mean safe driving at anything over 30 kmph (approx. 20m stopping distance) or even a sedate 40 kmph (approx. 35m stopping distance) is possible? Of course it is -- it's based on certain assumptions such as --

- an assumption that the car in front (say 15m) will not stop suddenly for no reason (even at relatively low speeds);

- an assumption that a pedestrian walking on a footpath will not fall onto the road with no warning (especially when using the left lane);

- an assumption that a bus you are overtaking on a two (or even three) lane road will not suddenly lurch towards you and collide (even after he seems to be aware that you are overtaking);

- an assumption when crossing a signal (that has halted traffic on the right / left perpendicular to you) that a motorist will not ignore the traffic and speed onto you (or that a pedestrian will not rush across).

The point is that one cannot prepare or anticipate any unexpected contingency. There is an amount of risk in driving and reasonable assumptions are taken -- indeed are necessary if driving is to serve a purpose. Not only do good drivers make such assumptions but they keep in mind that others around them are also making such assumptions. As with any other assumption, are these assumptions always true -- no, they're not -- a driver might be distracted or unwell, might be on a mobile, or might be oblivious to traffic behind him. Does this mean the one who made the assumption is at fault? Not in my belief. Does it mean the other driver is never at fault -- of course not. He might be driving DUI or using a mobile (both illegal) or in my case not using an ORVM (bad driving). In some instances (such as having a heart seizure or a blown tyre) there is, of course, nothing he can do as well -- but I'm excluding those.

A proposition therefore that suggests that rear-ending is always the fault of the vehicle in the rear seems to me a foolish one. Would you consider yourself not at fault if you brake hard and dead stop in the middle of the road while driving at 40/50 kmph for no apparent reason and a driver 15-20 metres behind rear-ends you? If so, let's agree to disagree again and I only hope the drivers of vehicles I meet/cross on the road each day do not share such a view.

For your info - what I'm describing is not limited to driving. A customer who orders tea from a shop assumes it's not poisoned. Leaving a kid at a day-care centre is based on an assumption that the staff are not paedophiles. Paying in advance when you order something is founded on an assumption that the seller will deliver. Waiting on a platform for a train is founded on the assumption that the two guys beside you are not killers who will grab you and shove you into the path of the train. These are all reasonable assumptions, which form the basis of most human behaviour. The only way to truly guard against the "unexpected" is to stick to an underground bomb shelter .

[linuxmanju]

Originally Posted by Kumar R

This is a fine bit of armchair deduction that seems admirable but which is impossible to translate into practice (and sometimes undesirable).

Chill mate, those comments were not directed at your post. Its a general statement made towards regular day to day driving errors. As a matter of fact and to be honest, I still could not completely understand whose fault was it in your scenario. May be I need to re read those and try to re construct the scene.

- an assumption that the car in front (say 15m) will not stop suddenly for no reason (even at relatively low speeds);

- an assumption that a pedestrian walking on a footpath will not fall onto the road with no warning (especially when using the left lane);

In both assumption above, you are forgetting that the car in front when braked will not come to stop immediately. if your car takes 20 meters to stop so will his car, may be a meter less. IMHO if you are tailgating a car the difference in time between when the he applies brake ( assuming his brake light glows ) and you do, should not be more than 1 or 2 seconds if you are alert and anticipating a stop light in front.

- an assumption when crossing a signal (that has halted traffic on the right / left perpendicular to you) that a motorist will not ignore the traffic and speed onto you (or that a pedestrian will not rush across).

I thought we are talking about rear ending.

in my case not using an ORVM (bad driving).

Not having ORVM is bad, but not sure if that would have helped in your case. He might have checked his IRVM before braking as I see him in the left most lane ( correct me if I am wrong here ), and you are the one who is overtaking him ( again my interpretation from your picture ) as you are more towards the right side. Unless that guy overtakes you and cuts across you to a stop.

what are the chances that you were too busy checking your ORVM while overtaking and suddenly realized that the vehicle in front of you has stopped. In which case you were way too close to do the overtake maneuver or you might not have honked to alert the driver in front to draw his attention before overtaking.

Would you consider yourself not at fault if you brake hard and dead stop in the middle of the road while driving at 40/50 kmph for no apparent reason and a driver 15-20 metres behind rear-ends you? If so, let's agree to disagree again and I only hope the drivers of vehicles I meet/cross on the road each day do not share such a view.

I wouldn't do that for no apparent reasons,. But in case of an emergency, my immediate worry would be to avoid what's in front of me rather than what's behind me. I expect the driver behind me to do the same. One can anticipate only what's visible to him, the car behind me would not know everything what's in front of me and judge their movement unless he is sitting in my car. For the car behind me, I expect him to anticipate and react to my movements like I would do to the vehicle in front.

Again, as I told earlier, I am trying to reconstruct the events by looking at the picture mate so it may not be accurate. What I said earlier is a general opinion rather than a critic to your post, sorry if you found it offending.

Cheers.

[Kumar R]

Originally Posted by linuxmanju

Chill mate, those comments were not directed at your post. Its a general statement made towards regular day to day driving errors.

No worries, no offence taken.

Originally Posted by linuxmanju

In both assumption above, you are forgetting that the car in front when braked will not come to stop immediately. if your car takes 20 meters to stop so will his car, may be a meter less. IMHO if you are tailgating a car the difference in time between when the he applies brake ( assuming his brake light glows ) and you do, should not be more than 1 or 2 seconds if you are alert and anticipating a stop light in front.

The second assumption I wrote down was where *you* (meaning the assumption maker) are the driver - i.e. you have to assume a pedestrian will not suddenly strays / fall off the footpath onto your path (more applicable for bikers I think). In the first one, I have taken into account the stopping distance of the vehicle ahead but it is still a tight call, especially because even at a very low speed of 30 kmph the 0.5 sec / 1 sec reaction time you take to yourself brake can translate into 4-8 metres of additional distance. At 60kmph that reaction time adds 8-16 metres ! Today I was doing about 10 kmph while maneuvering to set a good lane precedent at the front (in second gear at that). Even at such a slow speed a one sec reaction time would have added 2.7 metres for me. At that speed I had about one car length (or 4m) vertical distance separation which was still severely tested!

Originally Posted by linuxmanju

I thought we are talking about rear ending.

Rear-ending is just one possible area where assumptions come into play. What I wrote was another example on everyday driving. That was written in response to CMS who wrote earlier that one should expect for the unexpected.

Originally Posted by linuxmanju

Not having ORVM is bad, but not sure if that would have helped in your case. He might have checked his IRVM before braking as I see him in the left most lane ( correct me if I am wrong here ), and you are the one who is overtaking him ( again my interpretation from your picture ) as you are more towards the right side. Unless that guy overtakes you and cuts across you to a stop.

Since he was braking 10 m ahead of the expected end-of-traffic point (which to me was is wholly unexpected / unusual), he should have checked to see whether anyone was partly or entirely behind -- in my case partly.

Originally Posted by linuxmanju

what are the chances that you were too busy checking your ORVM while overtaking and suddenly realized that the vehicle in front of you has stopped.

I wasn't - and I hope you accept my word on it as a TeamBHP member. But to conjecture - even if I was it would be contributory negligence. The cab driver would still be at fault for stopping abruptly for no particular reason.

Originally Posted by linuxmanju

I wouldn't do that for no apparent reasons,. But in case of an emergency, my immediate worry would be to avoid what's in front of me rather than what's behind me. ... For the car behind me, I expect him to anticipate and react to my movements like I would do to the vehicle in front.

No disagreement here. You're referring to a genuine emergency; my example was an illustration of someone abruptly braking for no good reason (i.e. not an emergency) which is something we cannot anticipate / predict. I don't mean to belabour the point but in my opinion stopping suddenly while coasting to a halt ahead of a signal without checking your ORVM is such a 'no good reason'.

[Thad E Ginathom]

It is always annoying if the person in front brakes sharply, for no apparent reason. Shout! Horn! Let off steam! But it must be understood that if we hit them it is our fault.

I wasn't expecting; he should have; he shouldn't have; I thought he would... and so on for ever and ever and ever don't change that.

One day, shortly after I had passed my UK driving test, I was driving an automatic transmission car that I wasn't used to, and I put my foot on the clutch. Except, of course there wasn't one. Nobody comes to an abrupt halt on a British roundabout, except there is always a chance of someone that stupid. or inexperienced, being around and, luckily, the guy behind was far enough away.

<Cross-posted with a whole page>

Originally Posted by Kumar R

- an assumption that the car in front (say 15m) will not stop suddenly for no reason (even at relatively low speeds);

- an assumption that a pedestrian walking on a footpath will not fall onto the road with no warning (especially when using the left lane);

- an assumption that a bus you are overtaking on a two (or even three) lane road will not suddenly lurch towards you and collide (even after he seems to be aware that you are overtaking);

- an assumption when crossing a signal (that has halted traffic on the right / left perpendicular to you) that a motorist will not ignore the traffic and speed onto you (or that a pedestrian will not rush across).

All these are dangers you should be expecting, not things you assume will not happen.

A proposition therefore that suggests that rear-ending is always the fault of the vehicle in the rear seems to me a foolish one. Would you consider yourself not at fault if you brake hard and dead stop in the middle of the road while driving at 40/50 kmph for no apparent reason and a driver 15-20 metres behind rear-ends you? If so, let's agree to disagree again and I only hope the drivers of vehicles I meet/cross on the road each day do not share such a view.

Morally, I'd have a tough time with that, legally, if that guy on the roundabout had hit me, it would have been his fault. Not keeping sufficient distance.

Yes, we do make assumptions, and we cut into the strict safety limits because of them, but if our assumption turns out wrong that is our responsibility, even when they are fairly reasonable ones, like the idiot in front of you on the roundabout not stopping.

.

[Kumar R]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

But it must be understood that if we hit them it is our fault.

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

legally, if that guy on the roundabout had hit me, it would have been his fault.

I'm sorry to disagree but I see absolutely no merit in such a blanket presumption. Nor, apparently, does the law.

For your information, sudden braking is a traffic violation in most countries that take such things seriously. In the U.S. it (sudden braking without just cause) is one of the actions classified as "reckless driving" in nearly all states and could lead to a misdemeanor charge and permanent revocation of license.

I have reproduced below a para from a report (at p.2, attached) by the U.K. Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents in a report they prepared for the Government that you may or may not be aware of. This is in relation to the prevailing law in the U.K. on careless / dangerous driving:

"Careless driving includes a variety of behaviours, such as tailgating, failing to look properly and sudden braking. It is defined in law (section 3ZA of the Road Traffic Act 1988) as driving that "falls below what is expected of a competent and careful driver" and "driving without reasonable consideration for other persons only if those persons are inconvenienced by his driving"

Your understanding of the law is therefore incorrect. On the contrary, the law takes into account what is reasonably expected and one of the principles of liability apportionment states that a person is not chargeable with negligence if the person exercises that degree of care which a reasonable person would have exercised under the same or similar circumstances [This bit is reproduced from U.S. motor vehicle laws]. There is very much a reasonableness test put into test in fixing liability in any accident.

A driver (or any person in any job) certainly cannot be expected to forsee every possibility on the road and as a lawyer I certainly cannot advise that this belief (that rear-ending always is the rear-ender's fault) guarantees any immunity from criminal charges.

I hope this convinces you to reconsider your views on rear-ending. Please understand that I am not suggesting that every case of rear-ending is the preceding vehicle's fault, just that liability is determined on a case-to-case basis based on the prevailing circumstances and taking into account what a reasonable driver is expected to do.

RS Report on Careless Driving.pdf

[naveen.raju]

Spot the number of bad drivers. On 1.36, a bike decided to cut his way through resulting in hitting my driver side door. Result is a visible scratch and a dent. As it was a right turn, the biker isnt visible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivVg3Y0ST-E

[supremeBaleno]

@Kumar, I see the point you are making about our traffic situation being such that it is not possible to always precisely predict actions of other actors.

I think each situation is different and trying to put it into words is not only difficult, but also open to mis-interpretation. Which seems to be the case in the above discussion, where your mention of "almost rear-ended the cab", "at a signal" etc sent out the wrong signals to the readers/posters.

[katchkamalesh]

http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/street...ers-fault.html

@kumar, I once faced a similar situation. Kindly have a look at the above thread.

Rather than issue a generic statement like rear ender is always at fault, lets just analyse the situation.

What I would like to see is that people should realize that coming to a abrupt halt anywhere on the road is an invitation to trouble and they must be made to pay.

eg. there was a news on a women who stopped on a highway to save couple of ducklings and this act of hers lead to a accident where human life/lives was lost. In this case was the rear ender at fault? No, the women was put behind bars, for the reason for her to stop on the highway was found to be an irresponsible act. If she had suffered a break down, she would have been let free.

Similarly Kumar must have expected the cabbie to stop in front of the stop line (If that 10m ahead is where the motorists usually stop).

People, I request you not to use "what if" statements.

Because if a car in front was involved in a crash or hit a pedestrian or whatever it may be. I am sure that rear ender will not complain anywhere.

The person is complaining because there was no apparent reason for person in front to come to abrupt halt.

[Binzone]

In an accident, it's wrong to assume that only one of the party is at fault. In developed countries a certain percentage of fault may be attributed to all parties involved depending on the case, and sometimes this determines compensation to be paid too.
If a vehicle brakes abruptly without a valid reason, and this results in a rear ending, the vehicle in front is liable to be charged with reckless driving, and the rear ender will be charged with not maintaining sufficient distance. So both are at fault. But in a court the bigger challenge will always be for the rear ender, and possibility to get compensation from the vehicle in front is extremely low.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by Kumar R

I'm sorry to disagree but I see absolutely no merit in such a blanket presumption. Nor, apparently, does the law.

For your information, sudden braking is a traffic violation in most countries that take such things seriously. In the U.S. it (sudden braking without just cause) is one of the actions classified as "reckless driving" in nearly all states and could lead to a misdemeanor charge and permanent revocation of license.

I have reproduced below a para from a report (at p.2, attached) by the U.K. Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents in a report they prepared for the Government that you may or may not be aware of. This is in relation to the prevailing law in the U.K. on careless / dangerous driving:

"Careless driving includes a variety of behaviours, such as tailgating, failing to look properly and sudden braking. It is defined in law (section 3ZA of the Road Traffic Act 1988) as driving that "falls below what is expected of a competent and careful driver" and "driving without reasonable consideration for other persons only if those persons are inconvenienced by his driving"

Your understanding of the law is therefore incorrect.

It might be. It is what was taught to me over decades of UK driving, but that does not make it certain that it is technically correct.

It may well be that the instant stopper is driving recklessly, or without due care and attention. It might even be that, when the civil/insurance claims come up, some measure of contributory responsibility might be apportioned to our idiot stopper (which could have been me in my example).

However true that they may be, I don't believe that it absolves the rear-ender in either civil or criminal terms: He too, is driving recklessly, without due care and attention, whatever --- because he is not far enough away to cope with the unexpected.

A driver (or any person in any job) certainly cannot be expected to forsee every possibility on the road

They can be expected to try. Several things have been drummed into my head over the years, some from official sources, eg the UK Highway Code, some by good driving instructors, some by other drivers, some by my own experiences. They include some the assumptions you mentioned as examples earlier in the thread, then there is stuff like

--- green signal: could turn red. Does not mean that nobody will disobey their red signal

--- one-way streets: someone could still come the other way

--- Stopped bus: means people may run out to cross the road from in front. I nearly got killed doing that as a teenager.

--- Ball in road: child will probably follow.

--- Child in road: another child will probably follow.

--- Children: ignore traffic, their mind is on other things.

--- The person you just honked at: could be deaf. (Thad's Dad; c. 1970)

--- The guy in the queue ahead of you who just started moving: might just stop again.

--- The speed limit: is not necessarily the safe speed (learning that one cost me an accident)

It is probably an infinite list, but there is a whole segment of it that can be dealt with by not driving too close to the person in front. For comfortt, convenience and safety.

I hope this convinces you to reconsider your views on rear-ending.

Whether it is legally true or not, being convinced that hitting the guy in front would be my fault makes me a better, safer driver. I'm sticking with that, and I recommend it to all!

[ajaypjayaraj]

Originally Posted by balajird

Let me play the "devil's advocate" role, there is nothing called as "blind spot" if you align your ORVM and IRVM properly, I remember seeing a Youtube video on that and it worked flawlessly for me. I no longer need to do the "shoulder check" to see if there is any vehicle is in "blind spot". I have been driving for quite a while now with great success with this setup, If you see a car in your IRVM and just before it disappears on the IRVM, you will be seeing it on the ORVM.
P.S - This is perfectly applicable in NA and I will have to agree that this MIGHT no be applicable in "Indian" driving conditions.

Thanks for sharing the video. This is very much applicable especially in Indian driving conditions where people overtake you from either sides and where people shift lanes without warning or signal. That slightly more outward adjustment of the OVRMs give a much more wider view of the surroundings which makes it much more safer.

[Auswechseln]

I too was a victim of not having ORVM in my Motorcycle way back then. Read that it is imperative & safer. Installed & have never looked back since.

This reminded me. Now-a-days a lot of two-wheelers remove their ORVMs. I never understood why. I asked one of my friend who did the same to his Splendor (He fixed it again later on). He says:

"It ruins the look of the bike".

This is the case with many bikes. Mainly Pulsars, Apaches, Dukes and the like. Then they change lanes like it's nobody's business.

[supremeBaleno]

Went over the few posts where this 2-page discussion started, especially the pic that was posted. It looks like a big junction, but the odd thing is that there is no Stop Line (or a pedestrian-crossing) marking seen anywhere, as would be expected at such junctions.

Lack of a defined StopLine would lead to individual users "deciding" where to stop for a red-light. Kumar might be used to stopping a little ahead, the cabbie might think that he needs to come to a stop earlier. Basically everyone follows their own judgement, which is an ideal situation for chaos. So while Kumar was expecting the cabbie to stop further ahead, the cabbie braked abruptly where he thought he needs to stop. This looks more like an issue due to lack of traffic-markings than anything else.