[adman77]

Originally Posted by Mpower

For example (only) if you are going to get sloshed, and drive at double the speed limit with a car that has bald tires and worn out brakes in the dead of the night without working headlights ... then kill someone say "sorry, yaar adjust karo..it was an accident", then nobody is going to buy that. I think most people are smart enough to tell the difference between recklessness and freak accidents.

AFAIK, the tests have confirmed that he was not driving drunk. So did you get some insider information on this? Please let us know. It's speculations like these that need to be stopped. Oh, and you are a moderator. At least you should stay away from spreading such rumours.

[Tejas@perioimpl]

Originally Posted by Mpower

For example (only)

Originally Posted by adman77

AFAIK, the tests have confirmed that he was not driving drunk. So did you get some insider information on this? Please let us know. It's speculations like these that need to be stopped. Oh, and you are a moderator. At least you should stay away from spreading such rumours.

Dude, he has said for example only and has underlined it and you have quoted that in your post. Read it before accusing someone of spreading rumours.
He was referring that some accidents can also be caused by carelessness and stupidity and not all are freak accidents as quoted by straight6. He never said that this gentleman was drunk.

EDIT: Straight6, you also have a point, pedestrians and cyclists are most of the times at fault.

[adman77]

Originally Posted by Tejas@perioimpl

Dude, he has said for example only and has underlined it and you have quoted that in your post. Read it before accusing someone of spreading rumours.
He was referring that some accidents can also be caused by carelessness and stupidity and not all are freak accidents as quoted by straight6. He never said that this gentleman was drunk.

Dude, even i can see that he has said for example only. But the other facts in the so called "example", such as 'drive at double the speed limit with a car that has bald tires and worn out brakes in the dead of the night without working headlights' bear a really uncanny resemblance to the real facts involving the said accident. And, as you must have noticed, people have a habit of taking things at face value. So, even if you are giving "examples", please give them responsibly.

[Tejas@perioimpl]

Originally Posted by adman77

Dude, even i can see that he has said for example only. But the other facts in the so called "example", such as 'drive at double the speed limit with a car that has bald tires and worn out brakes in the dead of the night without working headlights' bear a really uncanny resemblance to the real facts involving the said accident. And, as you must have noticed, people have a habit of taking things at face value. So, even if you are giving "examples", please give them responsibly.

Agreed. However, examples have to be relevant to be given. He can't say that if a building contractor didn't tighten some screws and the roof fell and thus this would be a careless accident rather than a freak accident. An example given in a particular case has to pertain to it.

Anyways, Mpower, this is all yours to defend... I'm out.

[straight6]

Originally Posted by straight6

I'm not saying that they are always at fault.

Originally Posted by Tejas@perioimpl

pedestrians and cyclists are most of the times at fault.

@Mpower: I repeat, most of the times, not always. There have been many occasions when I've just missed having another accident because the guy crossing the road was careless and it was so obvious that the mistake was his.

Just yesterday there was a guy crossing the road looking down instead of looking in the direction from where I was coming.

Of course, you have exceptions like Alistair and Salman.

[PhrozenFire]

Originally Posted by adman77

AFAIK, the tests have confirmed that he was not driving drunk. So did you get some insider information on this? Please let us know. It's speculations like these that need to be stopped. Oh, and you are a moderator. At least you should stay away from spreading such rumours.

He has clearly said its as an example only, and he was talking in reference to some other post that said accidents happen and will continue to happen. What he was trying to say is that sometimes the blame can be apportioned to a particular party and sometimes it cant. Sometimes it just happens, thats the very definition of an accident.

@straight6 - I absolutely agree with you. A couple of days ago on my way back from work on Hosur Road, I was travelling down a stretch of road which is completely barricaded on both sides to prevent people from crossing the road. This stretch is 4 lanes wide, really smooth and the average speed of all vehicles is about 60-80kmph. I was doing about 70 odd on my bike when a guy suddenly jumped the barricade and ran across the road in front of me. Now lets see things from his perspective. Maybe he was in a hurry to get home, just like everybody else. At the time he jumped the barricade, he saw a bike's headlight at some distance and thought 'Oh I will easily make it across'. He probably did not make a good judgement of what the bike's speed was. After running across one lane, he suddenly was a lot less sure and did not know whether to let the bike pass first or whether he should run across as originally planned. I was not sure what was going through his head, so I just slammed on the brakes and continued on my line. He did run across and I missed him by a couple of feet.
How many times has this happened to all of us. When you just aren't sure of what is going through another person's head. Had I hit the guy, I too would have been lynched because i would be deemed to have been riding too fast. Unfortunately this is the way things are in India and thats why we are the accident capital of the world.

[kaushik_s]

Originally Posted by adman77

But the other facts in the so called "example", such as 'drive at double the speed limit with a car that has bald tires and worn out brakes in the dead of the night without working headlights' bear a really uncanny resemblance to the real facts involving the said accident. .

So you mean to say that even in the real case that is being discussed here involved, "drive at double the speed limit with a car that has bald tires and worn out brakes in the dead of the night without working headlights'" ? Nah, I'm not getting into this debate, just that this line caught my attention and probably can clear up a few thing here.

[R32_GTR]

Originally Posted by iceman91

r32 gtr, I still don't see the need to close the thread.

This issue is of a personal nature to the parties involved..None of the assumptions, comments, speculation etc made here are adding value to any of the parties involved.

People do not always appreciate doing laundry in public..let alone instances where the parties involved in the accident are NOT even here to clarify it or debate it..

The case is registered and the law shall prevail..And there is a good chance that it (the case and its outcome) would be suppressed. (No matter what the outcome is or how they arrived at it) Most of us / our families would do the same if any of us were involved in such a case.

Or like Nitroxx mentioned earlier..find out the details of the accident yourself as opposed to doing it on the forum.

What we've (I'm saying WE) managed to do here is use the forum to bicker amongst ourselves in order to fulfill our curiosity when it frankly doesn't concern us. Instead, make an effort to find out what is required to REDUCE such accidents..But NOT at someone elses expense..

This is why I recommended that this thread be closed.. and once again - this is in public interest and has no bias towards any of the parties involved.

[pypkmsrikanth]

Originally Posted by R32_GTR

What we've (I'm saying WE) managed to do here is use the forum to bicker amongst ourselves in order to fulfill our curiosity when it frankly doesn't concern us. Instead, make an effort to find out what is required to REDUCE such accidents..But NOT at someone elses expense..

This is why I recommended that this thread be closed.. and once again - this is in public interest and has no bias towards any of the parties involved.

+1 to it. While those who have been privy to the accident not wanting to share information and those who have read about the accident continuing to pass judgements on the basis of what they have in hand (ironically all they have is one so called tabloid & other similar rags) we are only left with bickering on the forum. It only reminds me of a play school, till such time the concerned would like to share the information of the accident, I reiterate accident I think this tread should be locked, alternatively when the case comes up for public discussion (court) we could discuss and deliberate who is guilty and who is not.

[suman]

All those who are propagating that this thread be locked, I have a question for you -

Should all threads pertaining to pictures & discussions of various street & highway accidents also be locked then? Since they do pertain to issues of a personal nature of those involved in those accidents (irrespective of whether we know them or not or whether they are forum members or not).

Why these double standards my friends

[pypkmsrikanth]

Suman, I have nothing to do with the said gentleman, nor do I wish to judge the case with what is available as information. In cases of other accidents since we rarely know either of the parties we do not have such personal flaming happening, I agree that heated discussions happen but I doubt things come to such a state in every thread.

[R32_GTR]

Originally Posted by iceman91

Well put Gilead.
r32 gtr, I still don't see the need to close the thread.

Originally Posted by suman

All those who are propagating that this thread be locked, I have a question for you -

Should all threads pertaining to pictures & discussions of various street & highway accidents also be locked then? Since they do pertain to issues of a personal nature of those involved in those accidents (irrespective of whether we know them or not or whether they are forum members or not).

Why these double standards my friends

Sir,

Please don't misunderstand this request as a result of any double standards..

People on the forum are discussing various street and highways accidents..They are doing exactly that! (Discussing accidents) And NOT discussing the person involved.

This thread discusses the parties involved.

[anekho]

Originally Posted by Mpower

Well I have to disagree.. there are 'unfortunate' accidents and on the other hand there are accidents caused by 'carelessness.'
For example (only) if you are going to get sloshed, and drive at double the speed limit with a car that has bald tires and worn out brakes in the dead of the night without working headlights ... then kill someone say "sorry, yaar adjust karo..it was an accident", then nobody is going to buy that. I think most people are smart enough to tell the difference between recklessness and freak accidents.

Well said.

There is a very large difference between accidents that can be avoided (by following the rules) and freak accidents.

Regarding people who think this thread should be closed - why? I thought forums were for discussion. Also most people here have been keeping the discussion reasonable.

[adman77]

Originally Posted by kaushik_s

So you mean to say that even in the real case that is being discussed here involved, "drive at double the speed limit with a car that has bald tires and worn out brakes in the dead of the night without working headlights'" ? Nah, I'm not getting into this debate, just that this line caught my attention and probably can clear up a few thing here.

Buddy, please go through the thread and see the picture of the car on page 1. The car was a 'work in progress' and the above facts have been discussed extensively.

[suman]

Originally Posted by pypkmsrikanth

In cases of other accidents since we rarely know either of the parties we do not have such personal flaming happening, I agree that heated discussions happen but I doubt things come to such a state in every thread.

I think we do have flaming, its just that no one objects because of the reason highlighted in bold

Originally Posted by R32_GTR

People on the forum are discussing various street and highways accidents..They are doing exactly that! (Discussing accidents) And NOT discussing the person involved.

This thread discusses the parties involved.

Whenever there is an accident of this nature, isn't the driver always castigated/flamed/blamed? Its just that, in most cases, as mentioned by Srikanth above, its a one-way flaming process because no one knows the driver personally. So, no one requests that the discussions be stopped.

Here, people are protesting because the driver in question is a forum member & known to some. Or have I got it wrong?