[vivekiny2k]

Originally Posted by w 12

The police have slapped similar cases on many including Salman earlier. If what you say is true, then there would be no case.

there wud be no case if they were sleeping in middle of the road.

but he went out of the way to hit them, that's a case for resh driving.

and they were in wrong place at wrong time. illgeal, and unfortunate for them.

As i have mentioned earlier. we believe in cheap living and sell the same point to westerners (while offshoring). we choose to live in hazardous condition to save some bucks. we keep our children at risk to save money from proper school buses. we save money on helmets. we save money on any overheads meant for safety. and then we brag about it. these folks are on road because somebody took a contract on a much cheap rate, cutting into their labour charge, and they suffer. after all this world is a market.

[sajo]

Originally Posted by w 12

..and I am sure given a choice even those 2 would have preferred to sleep in a Bungalow..

If it was not these 2 sleeping yestersday, it could be me or you walking back from office on the pavement..and someone else can say when will people stop walking on pavements?

No offence meant..but IMO rashdriving was the cause for 2 deaths..

Peace

Completely agree. Rash and irresponsible driving would be the most likely cause. Sleeping on the footpaths isnt as serious an offence (if at all, since they have nowhere else to go) as fast and rash driving, endangering their lives AND of others.

[Boom Shiva]

Dude, I didn't mean for you to take it that personally. I think you got me wrong there.

I'm not condoning rash or drunk driving, I never will. But sleeping on the pavement is still illegal and being poor is no excuse for breaking the law.

Agreed they don't have homes to sleep in. Life is unfair. But you still are not supposed to sleep on the pavement.

And since we're all concerned about equal treatment being meted out here, let us acknowledge then that BOTH sides were breaking the law, for whatever reasons.

[yogi1771]

Originally Posted by jathinrao

i am unable to reognise the car . which car is it ?

its an opel corsa recently he had spent serious bucks redoing the car

[Shan2nu]

Something like saying the victims of recent Mumbai blast were in the wrong compartment of the wrong train at the wrong time..

It's definately not the same. Those people were using the train for what it was meant for.

These guys were not supposed be sleeping on the footpath.

This isn't about the rich and the poor.

It's about looking at something from both perspectives.

Shan2nu

[Rtech]

there wud be no case if they were sleeping in middle of the road.

By Indian law, yes, there would be. It doesn't matter if a person jumps in front of your car to commit suicide and carries a note in his pocket to say the same, the driver would still be booked on the same charges. Welcome to India...

[Wheeliej]

Anyone who has visited Bombay (or Mumbai) will wonder how these accidents dont occur more often. The last big case was when Salman Khan drove and killed/injured some pavement dwellers. Pavement dwelling is a way of life for about 1/2 of Mumbai's population and this kind of death seems inevitable. It is very sad, yes, but also (i feel) inevitable.

Add to the chaos are the state of Bombay's roads with huge potholes caused by the weather and, in most cases, by stagnant water created by the very same pavement dwellers........

[rks]

It may be illegal to sleep on the footpath. But the driver is still legally liable for running over pavement dwellers. That is the way the law works and I think it is right. There are many other similar scenarios -- e.g. most of our pedestrians cross the road illegally -- they are supposed to go to a pedestrian crossing and then maybe wait for the traffic signal, but they seldom do. That doesn't mean that our drivers should be able to get away with running them over. It is still the driver's responsiblity to ensure safety of pedestrians.

[yogi1771]

Originally Posted by rks

It may be illegal to sleep on the footpath. But the driver is still legally liable for running over pavement dwellers. That is the way the law works and I think it is right. There are many other similar scenarios -- e.g. most of our pedestrians cross the road illegally -- they are supposed to go to a pedestrian crossing and then maybe wait for the traffic signal, but they seldom do. That doesn't mean that our drivers should be able to get away with running them over. It is still the driver's responsiblity to ensure safety of pedestrians.

because of this idiotic rules driving in india will never be safe and people will never learn to use pedestrian crossing or wait for the signal etc

[2fast4u]

.
good they are not related to anyone of team-bhp otherwise the story and judgement would be much different.
lucky that u guys have something called a roof over your head and a nice bed to sleep on.
unfortunate are those who have nothing at all and over that a few more to mock at their living standards.
quite pathetic!!!

[normally_crazy]

OK - sleeping on the footpaths / pavements is fine - then what about people who have the houses but still sleep on the road dividers (not pavements) ?

What about them ? if some one runs them over then what ?

[naveendhyani]

no offence to nybody, but this fault is with both parties. the only thing being the "bigger" is always wrong (unless they happen to b the politician).

in this case its the car.

if a car hits a motorcycle, its the car even if the bike rider was rash.

if a truck hits a car, its the truck even if the car driver was rash.

in this case since the driver was an NRI everybody will try to fleece him of the $$$$. what if they were killed by a truck or tempo. i m sure this case wud have died its own death sooner than later.

so this is a never ending discussion. both parties should be held guilty.

[Boom Shiva]

Originally Posted by 2fast4u

.
good they are not related to anyone of team-bhp otherwise the story and judgement would be much different.
lucky that u guys have something called a roof over your head and a nice bed to sleep on.
unfortunate are those who have nothing at all and over that a few more to mock at their living standards.
quite pathetic!!!

Boss, all these Mithun dialogues sounds very good and help you bask in the warm glow of your humanity I'm sure. Hum amir log ko roti ki keemat ka kuch nahin pata etc etc.

First of all, no one is mocking pavement dwellers. The point being made is that it is illegal, hence both parties are at fault.

It's not a question of rich vs poor, or our relatives vs total strangers or whatever.

Everyone deserves equal treatment by the law. Hence, if the NRI chick broke the law by driving drunk and rashly, it should also be acknowledged that the people who were run over were breaking the law by sleeping on the pavement, and this should be taken into account by the court when passing a judgement.

Don't mean to offend anyone here, so please don't take it the wrong way. I'm just a bit tired of trying to make a logical point and having these reverse-snobbery attitudes and dialogues being used as counterpoints.

[rks]

Originally Posted by naveendhyani

no offence to nybody, but this fault is with both parties.
[...]
so this is a never ending discussion. both parties should be held guilty.

I think the law may work something like this -- running over somebody will be automatically dealt with as a criminal offence. So the driver will be charged by the state for rash driving and maybe manslaughter. If the driver can make a case that the accident was unavoidable and not his fault, I am sure the court will acquit him. But it will be difficult for the driver to make such a case because it is hard to understand how you can run somebody over if you observe the speed limit (often absurdly low, like 50 kmph) -- unless there was something like a brake failure, in which case the car owner is still liable. Now if that individual who was run over happened to be illegally crossing the road or illegally sleeping on the pavement, that individual's next of kin will not be able to file a civil lawsuit claiming damages from the state or the car owner/driver.

The point here is that in a criminal offence, the driver will not be able to compensate the victim's family privately and escape being charged by the state. That is why Salman Khan has to face charges, even though he almost certainly has paid off the pavement dweller's family. I suspect that the court proceedings in this case will be farcical, because those who are supposed to testify against Salman would already have been paid off. Maybe the police as well, who will no longer be interested in pursuing the case.

I think the law as it stands is fair enough. What is missing is more serious enforcement of the law, both with respect to vehicle users and pedestrians.

[w 12]

Originally Posted by Wheeliej

. Pavement dwelling is a way of life for about 1/2 of Mumbai's population and this kind of death seems inevitable. It is very sad, yes, but also (i feel) inevitable.

Why is driving a car on pavement / footpath inevitable ? Only Roads and not footpaths are meant for cars AFAIK.