Team-BHP - Accidents in India

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rohitthebest (Post 5727910)

....
Lesson learnt: Always analyse the intention of the vehicle moving ahead of you .....

Just a couple of observations without getting into who was in the wrong/right :)

Truck drivers on our roads have a tendency to stick to a lane which has the least interruption and cruise along the same.
Sometimes the truck (tempo in this case) can suddenly switch lanes without any indication/warning and in the process there is a high chance that the driver will be oblivious to the vehicles behind due to the inherent blind spots.

For the above reason, its always a safe practice to make a small peck of the horn so that the truck driver is atleast aware of our presence behind him. A slight drop in speed, sounding a quick tap on the horn and then cautiously overtaking is a safer way.

Another aspect is even a momentary stop/halt on the fast lane can significantly increase the chance of getting rear ended by that truck on the fast lane.
Even if the driver wanted to, it would be next to impossible to quickly stop a loaded truck. The driver will most likely be forced to make a difficult split second decision of the inevitably rear ending rather than swerving with heavy load and toppling over.

The relatively safer option is to stop on the extreme left side.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rohitthebest (Post 5728572)

Yes totally agree with you. After that incident she has been over conscious for quite a few weeks but later on understood where she went wrong and it became a great lesson in learning without much loss at our end. We almost do regular 1500+ KM drives almost every quarter to our home towns - Ujjain and Bhopal respectively, touchwood it has all been amazing travel experiences and nothing untoward that we recorded in our Dashcam :).

I hope this incident doesn't serve as a deterrent to her driving but helps her understand what could happen on the road. A lot many times, people are scared off the wheel after having an accident and wouldn't want to drive again.

Wishing you both many more safe miles together.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alphahere (Post 5727068)

This isn't the case and I would like to think of it as a potent speed that needs to be managed well. 62mph is a fairly high speed anywhere in the world. The max speed limit that I am aware of in the US is 70mph which is not too far off from 62. Do the cops give drivers an unofficial allowance to go above that is another matter. Even in the UK the motorways are limited to 70mph and as there are no cops to pull you over there are speed cameras that fire only a bit above 75.

In the U.K. 62 mph is a Sunday Afternoon cruise with both aged parents in the back of the car and is the absolute minimum speed for dual carriage ways and expressways unless you want to create a moving road block.

In the UK if you travel at 62 mph (100 kmh) on our dual carriage ways, express ways etc even 7.5 tonne trucks will be overtaking you at 70mph (112 kph).

Blimey, even fully laden 44 tonne trucks can do 60 mph (96 kmh).

In reality most cars travel between 70 and 80 mph (110 to 130 kph).
The traffic Police are fairly lenient if you are driving in a safe and considerate manner. They apply logic and still use the dated "speeding" guidance of
Speed limit + 10% + 1 mph, anything above that could result in a Fine and Penalty points
On my commute I regularly see Traffic Police cars ignoring motorists doing about 80 mph.
By the way there is no fixed rule for speed cameras, some with catch you at 1 mph over the posted limit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by binand (Post 5728981)

Are you saying these limits don't apply at all? I can't see any type of vehicle allowed to breach 70 mph in any category of road. For 7.5 tonne trucks 60 mph seems to be the maximum.

https://www.gov.uk/speed-limits

Hi, follow the link YOU put on your quote. Scroll down to "motorways" expressways in your terms. Find 7.5 tonne HGV scroll left and you will find
7.5 tonne HGV motorway speed limit 70mph (112kph) unless towing a trailer then 60mph (96kph).
If you read my comment I have stated that the Police tend to ignore people exceeding the 70mph limit until they get in excess of 80mph or are driving inappropriately in poor weather. This is just common sense being applied by the police.
Yes the national speed limit is 70 mph. Some speed cameras will be set to 70mph. But in the real world most people travel between 70 and 80mph without being fined or getting points on their licences.
Unofficially the police have some discretion as fines are not usually issued unless you exceed the posted limit by more than 10%. This rule was to allow for speedometer error. Using a SAT nav will show that most car speedos over read. My car over reads by 5%.
The comments I make are based on 52 years of driving on U.K. roads covering more than 3 million kilometers in various types of vehicle.
Below is a summary of the tolerance shown by 39 British Police Force Regions
Quote :
Most police forces have a tolerance of 10% plus 2 mph above the limit before a speed camera ‘flashes’. So on a 30 mph road, a camera wouldn’t normally activate unless a car drove past at 35 mph or faster. On a 70 mph stretch of motorway, the threshold would go up to 79 mph.
Up until 1967 when I was 12 we did not have a National Speed Limit and you could travel as fast as your car could go when outside urban areas. I well remember my father driving his new cars flat out both directions on a dual carriageway to get an average top speed. Mk4 Zodiac 3.0 ltr V 6 top speed 105mph (170kph).

Quote:

Originally Posted by anjan_c2007 (Post 5727313)

On the intervening night of Sunday- Monday (25-26 February), two ladies on a Mercedes Benz, one among them driving the car MH 49 AS 6111, knocked down two riders who were on a Honda Activa MH 37 Q 2948. Both were in their 30's.

The accident happened at 1.30 am on the Ram Jhula, on this very newly renovated bridge passing over multiple rail tracks very near the Nagpur railway station.

The question of law debated was why did the police not book the Mercedes driver under Section 304 of the IPC which is non bailable? To book a driver under Sec 304, the investigating officer has to back up his contentions to prove that the driver was drunk. Even rash and negligent driving and overspeeding invites culpability under Sec. 304. The Section 304
covers punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It states that if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death it amounts to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. If the driver is either under the influence of alcohol or driving rashly or speeding, then the stricter IPC section 304 is better applied. This section 304 presumes that after getting intoxicated the driver knew that his act will cause harm. Hence, if convicted, punishment can be up to 10 years in prison. Its similar for rash, negligent driving and overspeeding where the driver is aware that by indulging in such actions, he can injure or kill a person.

The Section 304 of IPC, has provision for maximum punishment up to 10 years, and this is non-bailable at the police station level. Whereas the Section 304 a has provision for maximum punishment of upto 3 years and is bailable at the police station level. Sec. 304 covers any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide.

In many, many road accident cases the police can apply Sec. 304 but the investigating officer (IO) has to do lots of home work while doing the panchnama and preparing the police chargesheet.

And now finally, the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory report in respect of the lady Merc driver has been received by the police. The report has found alcohol in the blood sample, paving the path to register an offence under the non bailable Sec 304-II of the IPC.

Today's Times of India carries this news.

Quote:

The woman driver behind the wheels of the Mercedes that mowed down two youths, Mohd Hussain Mustafa and Mohd Ateef, on Ram Jhula bridge on Sunday, has tested positive for alcohol, even though blood samples were sent to the lab more than seven hours after the incident. The Regional Forensic Science Laboratory (RFSL) on Thursday confirmed presence of alcohol in samples taken from the accused, Ritika alias Ritu Maloo.

The forensic report will now pave the way for invoking a stringent IPC section (304-II) against Ritika that entails imprisonment up to around 10 years along with a fine for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Police had earlier booked her along with her co-traveller, Madhuri Sarda, under a bailable section of 304(A) IPC, which would have meant imprisonment up to two years if her role was proved.

Sources stated RFSL authorities led by deputy director Vijay Thakare conducted the analysis in a record 48 hours. Mustafa was declared dead on the spot and Ateef succumbed to his injuries later in the evening. The duo's scooter was rammed by the luxe sedan driven by Ritika.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/.../108134498.cms

But there's a catch here that could prove to be a big, big legal loophole. The blood sample was collected in the morning after nearly six hours having elapsed since the accident (1.30 am). Blood samples need to be collected within three hours as per law from the time of such accidents.

Quote:

Originally Posted by anjan_c2007 (Post 5729395)

But there's a catch here that could prove to be a big, big legal loophole. The blood sample was collected in the morning after nearly six hours having elapsed since the accident (1.30 am). Blood samples need to be collected within three hours as per law from the time of such accidents.

Precisely the issue. This report holds no value in the court of law. The team of lawyers representing the driver will easily argue that it's a procedural error. If the driver wasn't in police custody from the moment of the accident until the blood sample was taken, they can simply assert that the alcohol consumption occurred due to stress after the accident. It's as straightforward as that, and even this can be the actual fact also. This argument will likely be dismissed in a single hearing, unless the police can demonstrate that the driver consumed alcohol within three hours prior to the accident.