[rajagopal_j]

While I understand the wing commander's accident case and agree to it.

A quick question pops to my mind. Mind you I am not challenging the case but setting stage for a parallel universe thingi like in the tamil movie 12B.

It has been agreed that both the pedestrian and the car driver were at fault and the case was decieded against the car driver because the pedestrian had a greater loss, the loss of his life. Now what comes to my mind is what if the car driver tried averting the accident and ended up smashing into a telephone/elec pole or a cement barrier or another car which lead to the loss of his life and the wing commander and his second daughter were left unscathed.

Now would the court have found them guilty and made him pay compensation to the driver's family? the fault is still as much as it was in the previous case right? or rather in the first case would have been even looked at as guilty by onlookers/police??

parallel universes!

[amitoj]

Originally Posted by vinaydas

well im still driving around the speed limit.
its not specified that during rain there is a different speed limit

Riiiggght. Am sure that argument would have let you off the hook with a clean chit!!
Refer to the original case being discussed here. The driver was well within the speed limit. Just being within the speed limit (which driving at 100 kmph is most surely NOT) does not give the driver the right to run over people. There is something called responsible driving, in which the onus is as much on the driver, if not more, than on the authorities.

[straightdrive]

Originally Posted by vid6639

..........There is a well lit underpass........yet you see hardly any pedestrians use it and instead they try to dart across 4 lanes of traffic and climb the median then do the same on the other side of the road. I don't know why car driver's should be arrested for that stupidity.

Similar incident in Hyd a few months ago, not involving a pedestrian but same principle - the one who gets banged into gets the sympathy. Biker on a uni-directional flyover takes a u-turn, rides the wrong way, with three people on the bike, gets hit by a cabbie going the right way and dies. The last I heard the cops had registered a case against the cabbie for speeding and were looking for him.

[Atul-C]

Does the same logic apply to a case where a person gets killed by train crossing the railway line?

Roads are for vehicle and the person who is crossing the road need to be more cautious than the vehicle...

It is a wrong verdict on part of the court...

[sgiitk]

Originally Posted by Atul-C

Does the same logic apply to a case where a person gets killed by train crossing the railway line?

Very well said, Take the logic that the heavier/bigger vehicle is always to be blamed to the logical conclusion.

But then train is 'Bharat Sarkar'.

It is time when sanity also entered the picture. Is the grieved party also responsible for his/her fate? But then the law is an a$$

[beejay]

Somehow this is not right, but what can we do?

I remember an incident where a drunk jumped in front of a mini bus here in town. The people beat up the bus driver black and blue. Its not right that they do this.

[l_tejash]

I remember one trip of mine when we were going to Malsej Ghat and we had hired a Sumo. The driver of our car was a bit wiered, he went and banged an old shepherd who was grazing his sheep. The worst part is instead of checking on him if he was ok he started abusing and almost beating him up. Then we all had to calm him down. Don't know what this fellow was thinking

[newinthomas73]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

"He could have averted the accident" Now who decides that. This this a classic case of "andher Nagri Chaupat Raja!"

So next time some guy comes on the wrong side, gets killed, the bigger vehicles will get fined because by not deciding to drive, he could have averted the accident.

I support you. Actually, the reason for road accidents is that Vehicles ply on the roads.

So, to avert road accidents, Ban vehicles !!!

[honeybee]

Originally Posted by Atul-C

Does the same logic apply to a case where a person gets killed by train crossing the railway line?

Roads are for vehicle and the person who is crossing the road need to be more cautious than the vehicle...

It is a wrong verdict on part of the court...

Sorry to revive another old thread, but we need to understand a few basic facts. The railway tracks are meant for the railway carriages and not for other creatures/vehicles. The level crossings have been provided for where it's either impossible or extremely impractical to avoid crossing the railway lines. Except at the level crossings and except when indicated by the signals/signalman/after making sure there's no train in sight on either side, you are not allowed to cross the railway lines.

Roads are not meant only for vehicles. Most of the roads/lanes are just paved walkways, earlier used by pedestrians and now taken over partially by vehicles. Take the case of the Mumbai - Pune expressway. Not only pedestrians, but even 2-wheelers and bullock carts are banned from using the expressway. Do you still want to complain that vehicles are not given free access to the roads? The expressway has been built specifically for the purpose of driving vehicles on it. City roads cannot be dedicated to only vehicular traffic.

Also before commenting on the decision of the courts, one must realize the judges are not biased against any particular community or person. So to say that the blame always falls on the bigger vehicle would be ambitious. Even the news report clarifies the point on which the judgement was decided: The driver could have prevented the accident. It also mentions that the driver failed to even honk, a basic reaction by any driver whenever he sees an obstacle (heck, I honk even when it's an immovable obstacle, so others following me may be warned). There must have been ample evidence to suggest that the driver could have prevented the mishap but did not do so (reasons could be his inability to act on time, lack of knowledge of evasive procedures etc). Purely because the pedestrian ignored the signal or was not using the zebra crossing cannot be a reason to hold him guilty. This is consistent with what is printed on the backside of your driving license: Driving is a privilege, not a right.

While pedestrians should not be crossing roads in a hazardous manner and put their and others' lives in danger, we must also understand that specially on the city roads, such incidences (I mean jaywalking, not accidents) will keep happening. Till the time we get all vehicular traffic onto flyovers and allow the roads on the ground level for use of the pedestrians, I guess there may be no end to such conflicts.

[Jaguar]

Originally Posted by honeybee

Till the time we get all vehicular traffic onto flyovers and allow the roads on the ground level for use of the pedestrians, I guess there may be no end to such conflicts.

This is the dumbest comment I have heard. Are you suggesting building elevated roads above all existing roads and leave the existing ones to the pedestrians?
We need to sensitize public about road safety and that has to start from primary class level. Even when there are zebra crossings, people ignore them and jump across on-coming traffic. No amount of infrastructure can replace common sense.