Team-BHP - No zebra crossing, no problem

Mumbai high court says that, its the responsibility of the riders/drivers to care of the pedestrians/Jaywalkers and should be driving with in a controllable speed. Also says Road vs Street law cannot be applied to a country like India.

The judgement doesn't say if this is applicable only in internal roads/city roads. Can expect drivers to come to stand still from decent speeds when someone just walk across the highway.

Quote:

The court noted that the public is not expected to search for zebra crossings, which are the designated places to cross a road. The court said that the absence of zebra crossing or traffic signal is not within the control of the prosecution witnesses or the accused.

Quote:

“Admittedly, the spot of incident is not a highway. It is an internal road near the hotel. So, it is not expected for the general public to search for zebra crossings or traffic signals before crossing the road. On the contrary, it is the responsibility of the rider to consider the peculiar situation on the road and control the speed limit.”

Full Article here

It’s an interesting ruling. It is also on line with how many other countries deal with similar issues. By and large under many traffic rules pedestrians and also cyclist are seen as the most vulnerable. Which means other road users (cars, trucks, busses etc) need to exercise due caution.

E.g if you find yourself driving through a build up housing estate, it is likely that there are kids about who might run into the road. If you drive along a busy shopping road you will have people crossing the road. So motorist need to anticipate that and adjust their speed and behaviour accordingly

Jeroen

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeroen (Post 5385085)

It’s an interesting ruling. It is also on line with how many other countries deal with similar issues.

In most other countries where I have observed these/similar rules, they were only for zones that were marked appropriately. So if you were on any major road, motorway etc. these rules didn't apply.
What would be really worrying is if this were to be somehow applied sans nuance in this country, and if future accident cases across the country started referencing this ruling.

Good ruling with impossible implementation. Indian drivers and riders treat pedestrians and cyclists as second class citizens, and I'd certainly hope this ruling would at least partially change that attitude. However, the act of randomly crossing any road, street or highway, without looking out for vehicular traffic, just because a court says they can, is likely to seal the record in favour of India being one of the worst countries in the world for road fatalities, for a very long time to come.

So according to the court, all zebra crossings ever painted on our roads have been a complete waste of taxpayer resources as pedestrians are unburdened now by being limited by them.

Also takes away any responsibility from suicidal pedestrians who jump in front of fast moving traffic with no thought of self preservation.

By invalidating the road vs street law, the judgement also takes away any special rights the pedestrians have on designated zebra crossings under rule 8 of the Motor vehicle act. What next? Red lights are optional?

Sensible ruling. Basics of respecting pedestrian is non existent in India. Those who walk everyday know how difficult it is to, when people in cars and motorcycles do not care about pedestrians. Do not get me wrong but I have seen cars with Team Bhp stickers behaving really bad with respect to pedestrians or not waiting for them to cross. We as a society lack patience and our entire need to save time happens only when driving.

This is specially true in the inner roads more than your city roads where pedestrians in general avoid crossing road at random points.

It is sad we lack basic empathy for other humans in general.

I strongly support the ruling.
If the driver behind the wheel does not have empathy for the fellow human beings, then they don't deserve the driving license. License test should include this psychological testing.
Whoever criticizing the ruling, please note that the rider tried to flee instead of helping the victims.
I personally find it extremely difficult in zebra crossings where vehicles continue to rush even in red signal leaving no window for a safe passage for pedestrians.
In private roads inside office premises, the "yield to pedestrian" is nicely followed (or enforced by security) as in the USA, but that concept does not exist in public roads.
I have also experienced in USA that, when I am waiting on the pavement for signal to come (which is on need basis, you press a switch to indicate you are willing to cross, then traffic signal change will happen at appropriate time), cars have stopped and gestured me to cross the road. I heard they follow this not only out of empathy, but due to very strict rule on road accidents.
And when our fellow colleagues from US visited here and travel with our cars, and we slow down our cars to allow pedestrians to cross the road; they would panic, because we don't come to a stand still.

My char anna (baaraa anna = inflation?): Court ruling is NOT binding on others, it can only be referenced to in a future ruling;

Simple fact: In hamara Bharat mahaan, NO ONE cares about etiquette on the road, pedestrian or otherwise;

We are a NOT a law-abiding lot, we are a LAW-FEARING people. If 'no danda', then my way = highway. (Team-BHPians, please correct me if I am wrong in my assessment);

Enforcement is non-existent. So I jaywalk, who gives an ounce of excreta? :D

I try, I fail, I try again, I fail again (ad nauseum) ... to uphold the relevant rules of the road and laws. I remain a failure. I apologise for my failing and I regret not following the law of the land.

Sound ruling.

Have come across multiple posts in other threads where we have rightly vented their frustrations and anger at our traffic chaos especially the others/smaller entities like two-wheelers, autos, rikshaws, pedestrians etc.
But the problem really isn't the size/mode of transport but rash/negligent behaviour on roads.

But the question remains where do we start ?
Fining pedestrians doesn't work in real life considering the hardships of our population.
Nor does having mindless dictats in the name of rules.
For example, crossing at designated places only makes sense in places where the town planning is sound enough so that residents don't have to cross main roads to get everyday essentials, which is accomplished by the city-blocks approach.
Do we really think that its a possibility across our country ? I would say no.

Real life example :
We have some areas where a lot of jaywalking happens, en masse. Reason is that the residential area/basti is on the left and the daily needs shops, school and most other stuff is across the road on the right. The crossing points/signal is 300m ahead.
Since the cavalcades pass through this area their erected 2-3 feet high concrete dividers to prevent this. But still folks cross over through the gaps with great difficulty.
I was thinking why can't they just go over to the signal and cross ? Is it just about the habit being formed over decades ?
Turns out it has other challenges as well.
The layout of the place with essentials across he road and a lot of ladies dropping kids, elders(even 80+) getting essentials, youngsters running back and forth to their work multiple times a day doesn't make it very feasible. Add to that the situation at the signal isn't quite rosy either, the video shared by VKumar earlier is a good example.
The diversion from the signal is a good 600-700m in total and at least 20-25 minutes factoring in the traffic at the signal for folks who are physically capable.

While I cannot think of a feasible solution except a demolition and rebuild of the place(not possible I know) I appreciate their problem and let them through if its clear and mind my own business.

Quote:

Originally Posted by saisree (Post 5385017)

The merits of the judgement aside, just a small correction here. The judgement is from a Magistrate Court and not Bombay High Court. I would be very surprised if Bombay High Court comes up with such a judgement or affirms it.

It would be interesting to see if the accused person will appeal this judgement in a higher court, i.e Sessions Court and see if he can get relief from there.

To my knowledge, the law and the rule would be such that in such cases the motorist or rider would and can be held liable if and only if he was in a position to see the pedestrian and reduce the speed of the vehicle and he deliberately did not. Otherwise, fault cannot be attributed to him