[Suryendu87]

Originally Posted by McQueen

Why would you ask for reimbursement for a fault that's not of the truck owner?

The MV Act distinctly mentions that the vehicle rear-ending another vehicle is one hundred percent at fault.

I don't agree with this.

The truck rolled back from the speed breaker. Agreed, my wife was at fault for following too close but that doesnot completely absolve the truck.

I showed entire footage and the owner agreed to the same.

[McQueen]

Originally Posted by Suryendu87

The truck rolled back from the speed breaker. Agreed, my wife was at fault for following too close but that doesnot completely absolve the truck.
I showed entire footage and the owner agreed to the same.

The owner agreed because he's perhaps not aware of the law and/or he knows that winning a Court case is effectively still a loss in this country, and I say this as someone who belongs to a family of Judges, including a Judge of the Hon'ble SC. An FIR would result in his vehicle being seized (for generation of crash report by the RTO) which would affect his business for weeks, if not months. Then there's the police who would extort from the truck owner.

Originally Posted by MT_Hyderabad

This is funny; if a car reverses into you will you be still at fault as per MV act?

Funny that you think the truck intentionally reversed back into OP's car. The only reason the collision happened was because of NOT keeping a safe distance.

Read #17 from MV Driving Regulations.

Keeping safe distance

1. A driver driving behind another vehicle shall keep sufficient distance, commensurate with the traffic conditions, from the vehicle ahead, so as to be able to stop (pull up) safely if the vehicle ahead suddenly slows down or stops.
2. When being followed by another vehicle, not suddenly brake without a compelling reason.
3. The driver shall during rainfall, snow or storm or ice on the road due to severe weather conditions and during other adverse weather conditions, further increase the distance from the vehicle ahead.

Read #14 for overtaking rules if the goal was to overtake the truck.

Please read this decade-old discussion on the same topic on T-BHP. It's almost always the fault of the rear driver for not keeping a safe distance. The rule applies in other countries too - and is very intuitive in fact.

[MT_Hyderabad]

Originally Posted by McQueen

Funny that you think the truck intentionally reversed back into OP's car. The only reason the collision happened was because of NOT keeping a safe distance.

Read #17 from MV Driving Regulations.

Good to see that you have read rule 17. I think it is time to read rule 18 also.

We all are very well aware about rear end rule. It is nowhere described that if a vehicle reverses, the liability lies with the driver behind. This is a clear case of intentional or unintentional reversing, which is the responsibility of the driver in front.

Your previous post was edited by a moderator without complaint. This one will be done with complaint. Please keep calm when making your point.

The funny coincidence is that rule 17 and rule 18 are consecutive. Someone was very clear in his/her mind while drafting these rules. During intentional or unintentional reversal of vehicles, especially on hills, elevations or speed breakers, the vehicle in front has to ensure that the vehicle does not roll back.

[McQueen]

Originally Posted by MT_Hyderabad

Good to see that you have read rule 17. I think it is time to read rule 18 also.

It's for driving backwards and not accidentally/unintentionally sliding backwards.

[MT_Hyderabad]

Originally Posted by McQueen

It's for driving backwards and not accidentally/unintentionally sliding backwards.

Rule 17 is for preparing for abrupt stopping of the vehicle in front not reversing.

[McQueen]

Originally Posted by MT_Hyderabad

Rule 17 is for preparing for abrupt stopping of the vehicle in front not reversing.

Rule 17 is violated regardless. Rule 18 isn't since the reversing wasn't intentional.

[MT_Hyderabad]

Originally Posted by McQueen

Rule 17 is violated regardless. Rule 18 isn't since the reversing wasn't intentional.

Rule 17 was not violated. The driver kept distance as per the condition. Rule 18 was violated.

There is no excuse that my vehicle went back "unintentionally". When someone is driving, he/she knows that there is a speed breaker ahead and has to maintain throttle input to prevent a roll back.

If I am a truck driver with sadistic mindset, I can exploit this 'unintentional' movement daily to harm everyone around. I hope you have seen videos where a truck driver in US road rages with other small vehicles (not visible in the video) and when the vehicle comes in front and tries to stop the truck driver, the truck driver bangs the car in front, exploiting the rear end rule.

There is nothing unintentional when you are driving a vehicle. If there is, you have to anticipate and avoid it, like when moving over a huge speed breaker at a toll plaza. You are not allowed to move up and slide backwards on it. Sliding backwards and not braking can take away a car's front if the vehicle in front is a heavy vehicle like this truck. Similar vehicle can completely crush a car if it is on a hill. The driver has to learn hill assist or use hand brake and prevent backward movement.

With this, I rest my case.

[bblost]

Originally Posted by MT_Hyderabad

There is nothing unintentional when you are driving a vehicle. If there is, you have to anticipate and avoid it, like when moving over a huge speed breaker at a toll plaza. You are not allowed to move up and slide backwards on it. Sliding backwards and not braking can take away a car's front if the vehicle in front is a heavy vehicle like this truck. Similar vehicle can completely crush a car if it is on a hill. The driver has to learn hill assist or use hand brake and prevent backward movement.

MT_Hyderabad,

The truck moved back about one feet.

I don't think any of us have the skill that can prevent this. I have not driven trucks but have driven the old generation heavy UV's that had basic brakes in them.

Even the old Boleros and even Scorpio etc, the hand brake even if engage will not prevent the vehicle form rolling down a little.

The truck driver had literally no way to stop that truck from moving back unless he went much faster on that speed breaker.

I actually feel very bad for that truck driver.

[McQueen]

Originally Posted by MT_Hyderabad

Rule 17 was not violated. The driver kept distance as per the condition. Rule 18 was violated.

No, the distance was not sufficient. There's no clear rule that defines the sufficient distance but in my opinion, that was not sufficient. You may disagree but I doubt if a Court will and I bet they won't.

If one keeps sufficient distance and still the vehicle in front rolls backward and collides, the rear vehicle will not be at fault. The same applies when you're on a hill.

Originally Posted by MT_Hyderabad

There is nothing unintentional when you are driving a vehicle. If there is, you have to anticipate and avoid it, like when moving over a huge speed breaker at a toll plaza.

Or like.. by keeping a safe distance!

Originally Posted by MT_Hyderabad

If I am a truck driver with sadistic mindset, I can exploit this 'unintentional' movement daily to harm everyone around. I hope you have seen videos where a truck driver in US road rages with other small vehicles (not visible in the video) and when the vehicle comes in front and tries to stop the truck driver, the truck driver bangs the car in front, exploiting the rear end rule.

If that were the case, then a sadist in India would love creeping behind another vehicle hoping it rolls two inches backwards to kiss his own (vehicle).

Anyways, I don't get much time to watch YouTube shorts. But I know that in the UK, stopping so close to a vehicle results in a serious/dangerous ('major') fault and an immediate fail during a DL test. Similarly, as per rule 17, the distance was in no way 'sufficient' in my humble opinion.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by McQueen

The MV Act distinctly mentions that the vehicle rear-ending another vehicle is one hundred percent at fault.

I 100% agree. But this whole rear-ending scenario assumes that the rear car has been driving behind and fails to stop. What if the forward car cuts in, at a slow speed? The "rear-ending rule" does not mean any time the front of someone's vehicle hits the back end of another vehicle.

Originally Posted by MT_Hyderabad

This is funny; if a car reverses into you will you be still at fault as per MV act?

No. Because the reversing vehicle drive into the forward vehicle. Another example of the above.

Originally Posted by bblost

The truck moved back about one feet.

I don't think any of us have the skill that can prevent this.

I don't think I understand your reference here, because I'm sure that most if not all of us can prevent our vehicles rolling back. How else do we accomplish starting on a slope?

If we fail to do so, then we were not in proper control of our vehicle. I'm not saying that never happens, but, if it does: our fault.

[bblost]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

I don't think I understand your reference here, because I'm sure that most if not all of us can prevent our vehicles rolling back. How else do we accomplish starting on a slope?

If we fail to do so, then we were not in proper control of our vehicle. I'm not saying that never happens, but, if it does: our fault.

This truck like the old Bolero, Scorpio etc have very poor hand brakes.

The vehicles are too heavy for that to have immediate stopping power. They always roll back. Unfortunately in this particular accident, the trailing car was very close to it.

I am not justifying the driver of that truck. But these trucks almost always behave in this manner.

9 out of 10 of us could be in that truck and still not able to prevent that little roll backwards.

[MT_Hyderabad]

Originally Posted by bblost

Even the old Boleros and even Scorpio etc, the hand brake even if engage will not prevent the vehicle form rolling down a little.

The truck driver had literally no way to stop that truck from moving back unless he went much faster on that speed breaker.

I actually feel very bad for that truck driver.

Yes, it is an unfortunate incident.
However, the onus lies with the truck driver.
It happens to all of us, but then, we are ones who will bear the consequences.

There was a mention of UK driving test. Hence, I pulled the requirements.

If a Scorpio moves backwards for any reason during this test, the driver fails the test.

Originally Posted by McQueen

But I know that in the UK, stopping so close to a vehicle results in a serious/dangerous ('major') fault and an immediate fail during a DL test.

UK test requirements with hill start without moving backwards attached.

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

If we fail to do so, then we were not in proper control of our vehicle. I'm not saying that never happens, but, if it does: our fault.

Yes, the problem is that we all see this happening so often, that we start considering it a norm.
However, the vehicle which is moving forward or is stationary, should not abruptly move backwards (without indication).

If anyone goes line by line as per law, the onus lies on the driver in front.

Good discussion, we all learn something everyday.

A video from Driving Test Australia:

https://youtu.be/28kv08mqZaM?si=1-36gi-1hVQYSRQd

[Mustang Sammy]

In India we are conditioned to almost hug the rear end of the vehicle in front while driving, else 2 auto rickshaws, 3 motorcycles and 1 Fortuner will squeeze in first chance they get.
It’s a bad situation compounded by bad roads and badly maintained trucks.

[McQueen]

Originally Posted by MT_Hyderabad

There was a mention of UK driving test. Hence, I pulled the requirements.
If a Scorpio moves backwards for any reason during this test, the driver fails the test.
UK test requirements with hill start without moving backwards attached.

Moving a few inches backwards (if there's no pedestrian behind) is not considered a fault in the UK and is also forgiven in the DL tests. However, stopping so close to a vehicle in front (like in OP's video) is an immediate fail in the UK. I think that says something!

If anything, it suggests that UK's equivalent of Rule 17 is violated unlike what you wrote before:

Originally Posted by MT_Hyderabad

Rule 17 was not violated. The driver kept [sufficient?] distance as per the condition.

Originally Posted by MT_Hyderabad

If anyone goes line by line as per law, the onus lies on the driver in front.

Our laws in cases like these are less objective and more open to interpretation, so you can't quite go "line by line". In a case such as this, more than one rule applies along with unwritten rules, and the Court decides who's at greater fault. When you see a heavy vehicle in front of you struggling on a speed-breaker and you still roll forward till your left headlight is six inches away from it, you're responsible for the collision.



The truck is a few inches away from the left headlight which implies that the front-most end of the car is a few inches past the rearmost end of the truck. No Court will agree that the car's driver is practicing the safe distance rule.

Originally Posted by MT_Hyderabad

A video from Driving Test Australia: [..]

The last bit says that only one point is deducted for rolling backwards. That's not a fail. I also found that after you've obtained your DL, rolling backwards more than necessary attracts 0 demerit points and fine level 2, rolling backwards unsafely attracts a fine level of 3 and 2 demerit points while not maintaining a safe distance attracts a fine level of 6 and 3 demerit points. I once again think that says something!

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by McQueen

Moving a few inches backwards (if there's no pedestrian behind) is not considered a fault in the UK and is also forgiven in the DL tests.

It is an old family story that my dad, teaching my mum long before I was born, told her: "I've put your favourite hat behind the back wheel: now start without rolling back at all." If that standard could be applied 80 years ago, it can today! Absolutely it is considered bad driving to fall back. One is expected to be able to hold the car on the clutch, control the car with the clutch, and start cleanly on hills. If and when one fails, one is not in proper control of the car. For me, that's the bottom line. With no fallback . I'm certain that this would be the position of all my British driving gurus, from my dad, through expert friends, to professional instructors.

By the way, My Indian driving instructor, here in Chennai, taught me that it was necessary to know clutch control in case of brake failure!