[Gordon]

Me and my friends were trying to reason out how the guy in the rear died. And come to think of it, he may have possibly taken EACH and EVERY impact. The poor thing bore allllll the force of every impact that occured that morning. The moment it touched the tempo (right rear), to the palio (left rear), and finally to the rickshaw (left).

[danlalan]

Night scene here in mumbai has become bad..its a horrible accident...but none of our generation will learn for this..thats the sad part...

[Aditya]

Just back after a romantic drive with my girl.
Either no one reads the papers or people have very short memories here. Saw atleast a dozen cars being driven at insane speeds throughout south Bombay and no cops were present.

[rks]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

So my theory from the pictures,
1. Swift guy sees truck, changes lanes abruptly. Palio hits the swift, spins it.
Trick hits the swift rear, and it flies into the auto, and the Palio guy and truck meet at right angles. the truck being high, and palio seed being very fast, the impact is directly on the body shell, and the right fender is ripped of the Palio.

My theory is slightly different. To me it looks like the Swift guy was slightly ahead of the Palio; he sees the tempo, and does the only thing he could have done to avoid a head-on collision -- swerve hard to the left, probably just in front of the Palio. The Palio guy brakes and may have given a glancing blow to the Swift rear left side. The Swift's hard left swerve plus the possible glancing blow from the Palio causes the Swift to spin 180 degrees and the rear/left side of the Swift collides head-on wiith the parked auto, killing the rear passenger in the Swift and throwing the auto on to the parked milk van. The Palio's braking maneuver might have slowed the Palio down just enough for the tempo (who swerved right) to directly collide with the Palio's right side, killing the Palio driver.

Now here is my crucial point:

Did anybody ever notice that as per the TOI depiction, the auto and milk van were both illegally parked right next to an intersection?

If so, that is really deplorable, for it caused the death of the Swift passenger and probably grievously injured the auto driver as well. Such illegal parking next to an intersection also probably gave no room for the Palio to maneuver out of trouble.

Nevertheless, in my opinion the Palio driver may have made a fatal error in braking when the Swift guy swerved in front of him. The Palio driver should have swerved to the left along with the Swift and taken his chances with another collision with whatever might have come in his way, including the auto or milk van. For at least he would had some time to slow down and reduce the impact and secondly a frontal impact would mean that the Palio's strong build and bonnet might have saved the driver. A direct right angle collisoin with the Tempo gave him no chance. But then the Palio driver may have never seen the Tempo at all; his view may have been partially blocked by the Swift. If he had seen the Tempo, he might have swerved along with the Swift to the left.

All this is my speculation, of course.

[v1p3r]

Nice thread, great to see how everyone's being holier-than-thou and pointing fingers. Good job, mcl, in pointing it out.

My condolences to the families and all those close to the deceased.

Originally Posted by rks

Doesn't matter what I call them. They were 18 and 20, and had licenses, but what they did was underage driving. Why would the car owners hand over their cars to them at 3-00AM? Must be peer pressure. This is what one must resist. Every parent who buys his son a car has a duty to first ensure that his son can drive responsibly, and secondly to ensure that his son doesn't give his car to friends; at least not without the father's permission. I know this is difficult to enforce, though.

Oh come off it. We all drive others' cars. What if the owner was drunk, huh? Then is it still irresponsible to give it to someone else? I have personally driven a lot of fast cars belonging to a lot of members. Does that make them irresponsible?

And underage means underage. As in under the age. Which is 18. Until you have proof that they were below 18, they're not underage.

[rks]

Originally Posted by v1p3r

Oh come off it. We all drive others' cars. What if the owner was drunk, huh? Then is it still irresponsible to give it to someone else? I have personally driven a lot of fast cars belonging to a lot of members. Does that make them irresponsible?

First of all it appears that the kid owning and driving the Swift was 17. His father had no business to buy him any car, leave alone a fast car like Swift. Secondly, do you expect a 17-year old to have good judgement on who is qualified to drive his car and who is not? His friends are probably trying to brainwash him all the time and trying to get the car keys from him. It is OK to entrust your car to some responsible person known to you if you plan to get drunk. It is another matter to succumb to the pressure exerted by your classmates to hand over your car and let them rip it.

[v1p3r]

Originally Posted by rks

First of all it appears that the kid owning and driving the Swift was 17. His father had no business to buy him any car, leave alone a fast car like Swift. Secondly, do you expect a 17-year old to have good judgement on who is qualified to drive his car and who is not? His friends are probably trying to brainwash him all the time and trying to get the car keys from him. It is OK to entrust your car to some responsible person known to you if you plan to get drunk. It is another matter to succumb to the pressure exerted by your classmates to hand over your car and let them rip it.

Your whole stand is based on one word, appears. We will talk when you have conclusive evidence that he was underage.

And yes, I expect a 17-year old to have good judgement on these things. I did when I was that age (not that I had a car to drive), and I had friends who did.

And how do you know he wasn't drunk and thus being driven?

[rks]

Originally Posted by v1p3r

Your whole stand is based on one word, appears. We will talk when you have conclusive evidence that he was underage.

I am relying on post #131 by Dippy in this thread.

And yes, I expect a 17-year old to have good judgement on these things. I did when I was that age (not that I had a car to drive), and I had friends who did.

And how do you know he wasn't drunk and thus being driven?

Possible that he was drunk. All I am saying is that he did not have responsible people around him to take care of him. If I am the father, I would care for my 17 year-old son and insist that a professional driver (whom I will hire) accompany him whenever he drives and more importantly, whenever he gets drunk. And I would tell that driver that his job depends on taking care of my son till he is old enough to drive responsibly. And if anybody wants the car the driver will be held responsible to make the judgement and he should if possible consult me also. It is possible that some 17-year olds are already mature enough, but I would not be inclined to take a chance with my son. There are parents who have actively campaigned to make 21 as the legal age for driving because they have lost their teen-age sons to fatal accidents.

[v1p3r]

Originally Posted by rks

I am relying on post #131 by Dippy in this thread.

Ok, fair enough. But he wasn't driving. So there's nothing illegal. But you have said, and I quote:

Originally Posted by rks

First of all it appears that the kid owning and driving the Swift was 17..

So, was he driving or not? If he was driving, you would blame him for underage driving. If he wasn't, you blame him for giving the car to someone else.

Originally Posted by rks

There are parents who have actively campaigned to make 21 as the legal age for driving because they have lost their teen-age sons to fatal accidents.

Too bad. Maybe they should have thought about teaching their kids to drive properly, and being more proactive.

[rks]

Originally Posted by v1p3r

So, was he driving or not? If he was driving, you would blame him for underage driving. If he wasn't, you blame him for giving the car to someone else.

That is a confusing statement on my part. The 17-year old wasn't driving in this specific instance; what I meant was his father allowed him to drive the car. Probably his father got him a license by bribing somebody. There were enough indicatiions (as per the post by Dippy) that the 17-year old was not a responsible driver, and was apparently ripping the car along with his friends. Sad ending to this story, will probably result in life-long regrets for the parents.

[zenx]

I agree finger pointing is useless and even not in the right spirit for this thread. However, one can understand that some people feel a little helpless and frustrated that these needless accidents occur - and give vent to it differently. We're all a bit responsible, and yet all of us would love to see such instances reduced.

[esteem_lover]

Originally Posted by v1p3r

Ok, fair enough. But he wasn't driving. So there's nothing illegal. But you have said, and I quote:

So, was he driving or not? If he was driving, you would blame him for underage driving. If he wasn't, you blame him for giving the car to someone else.


Too bad. Maybe they should have thought about teaching their kids to drive properly, and being more proactive.

Originally Posted by rks

That is a confusing statement on my part. The 17-year old wasn't driving in this specific instance; what I meant was his father allowed him to drive the car. Probably his father got him a license by bribing somebody. There were enough indicatiions (as per the post by Dippy) that the 17-year old was not a responsible driver, and was apparently ripping the car along with his friends. Sad ending to this story, will probably result in life-long regrets for the parents.

can we stop please ? this is getting nowhere.

[Dippy]

Been reading the posts by rks and v1p3r. At the time of the accident the owner of the car who was all of 17 years was sitting behind while his friend was driving it. Yes the boy who was killed was not responsible for the crash. But the Swift was a gift to him and he was quite infamous for rash driving with blaring music (I have seen him myself) plus doing handbrake 180 deg turns in residential areas.

A counsellor has been called to speak to the driver about the accident. He has been going on saying the deceaesed body was blown to smithereens on impact.

[pjbiju]

As people have pointed out, I think this should act as an eye-opener and it is perhaps time for some introspection to see how well or badly we ourselves have been driving.

One of the best ways to know if you are driving well is to have a couple of passengers on one of your "normal" drives and then have their frank opinion. If they are scared to sit in a car driven by you, then in all probability you are not driving right, however skillful you may be.

[suman]

Originally Posted by Dippy

Been reading the posts by rks and v1p3r. At the time of the accident the owner of the car who was all of 17 years was sitting behind while his friend was driving it. Yes the boy who was killed was not responsible for the crash. But the Swift was a gift to him and he was quite infamous for rash driving with blaring music (I have seen him myself) plus doing handbrake 180 deg turns in residential areas.

And guys, that is that....lets stop now. Dippy lives around that place, he's seen the kid countless times so it is clear what kind of a lifestyle (and driving style) we are talking about here.

So lets stop the slugfest now, its becoming VERY THEORETICAL and not leading us to any conclusion as to what actually happened. Till we hear further details, lets suspend the conjecture & all else.........my thoughts