[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by N.A.GTC

(you have a green signal means you start driving?).
This logic appeared to be something out of a Douglas Adams novel.

He's one part right and ten parts wrong.

A green light means go if safe to do so. It actually doesn't mean drive on regardless. This is his one part right.

On the other hand, a red light absolutely means stop. This his ten parts wrong.

(why did you stop when the light had just turned red?).

Becaue, Red. That's it. Only possible exception might be for an emergency vehicle (which is one reason why one shouldn't just blindly cross a green light).

The lesson I have learnt also sounds odd to write down: just because the signal has changed does not mean you have to change anything.

If it's red, yes it does.

Stopping on red can cause accident

If the guy behind runs into you, that's entirely his fault. Especially at a traffic signal, where a change of signals can be so easily anticipated. It's him that caused the accident, not you.

driving on green can cause accident. Just look on all sides of the car all the time and decide accordingly.

True.

I don't know the text for India, but this is what I learnt in GB:

Red means stop.

Amber (yellow) means stop if it safe to do so.

Green means go if it safe to do so.

Let me say it one more time: Red always means stop

PS: I know, peculiar things happen... Like turning all the lights to red in the middle of the night. (I wish they'd choose yellow or just turn them off!)

[N.A.GTC]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

He's one part right and ten parts wrong.

I had a feeling you would be responding, sir! I absolutely agree with everything you have said, with one exception:

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

If the guy behind runs into you, that's entirely his fault. Especially at a traffic signal, where a change of signals can be so easily anticipated. It's him that caused the accident, not you.

If the guy behind runs into me, it is his fault, no doubt. But if accelerating a bit and going over the zebra crossing/changing lanes for a few meters can AVOID the accident from happening, I feel that is a better thing to do. Of course, if it is safe to move (i.e. no pedestrians and no traffic).

To illustrate further, what I mean is this: you're stopped at a red light but notice in your mirror that the vehicle behind you is coming too fast and may not stop in time. It may be better to move a bit ahead to give them a little more stopping distance so as to prevent any accident at all.

You are 100% right about your assessment otherwise as to which party is at fault, and what should be done legally. But as a lawyer, I am also aware of the unfortunate reality (as I am sure you are as well), that what is right legally may not always be right practically. Personally, I will prefer making a stop-line violation in order to prevent an accident (provided it is guaranteed to not harm anyone else). Better to be making a small legal infraction to prevent an accident, rather than being in an accident while being legally right.

[Turbanator]

Originally Posted by N.A.GTC

Just as it turned green, and the extra traffic stopped flowing from the other side, I drove ahead. "light green ho gayi iska matlab chalne lagoge?" (you have a green signal means you start driving?).

As Thad has pointed, you can enter intersection only when it's clear. It's not practiced in India, so you did what everyone else does, demanding right of way on a green light .

Overseas, it's very common to see people calmly waiting on a green light if the road ahead is not clear. Or as in your case, you were wrong to enter intersection until it was clear. What other guy was doing was wrong too but he might have a reason or simply wrong.

Another rule not practiced here (read for LHD), is turning left on a Green light after yielding to oncoming traffic. This is allowed on most intersections unless there's a sign for this. I gave example of LHD based on my experience in Canada. In UK or other RHD markets it will be opposite if allowed. Thad can tell about UK but it's a strict NO here for lack of understanding by users and rightly so.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by N.A.GTC

But if accelerating a bit and going over the zebra crossing/changing lanes for a few meters can AVOID the accident from happening, I feel that is a better thing to do. Of course, if it is safe to move (i.e. no pedestrians and no traffic).

Totally agree. Let us obey the rule and use common sense.

It is a sad fact that law-abiding 2-wheelers die because they don't even notice the guy behind who has no intention of stopping.

Better to be making a small legal infraction to prevent an accident, rather than being in an accident while being legally right.

Indeed. And better to be alive.

Originally Posted by Turbanator

Another rule not practiced here (read for LHD), is turning left on a Green light after yielding to oncoming traffic. This is allowed on most intersections unless there's a sign for this. I gave example of LHD based on my experience in Canada. In UK or other RHD markets it will be opposite if allowed. Thad can tell about UK but it's a strict NO here for lack of understanding by users and rightly so.

There is no free-left allowance at signals in UK. None at all. If left turn is allowed while other traffic is allowed, there will be a green left arrow.

But Doesn't India have a free left rule? People drive as if it does --- and I see "No free left" signs at some junctions, implying that there is at others.

[GeneralJazz]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

I don't know the text for India, but this is what I learnt in GB:

Red means stop.

Amber (yellow) means stop if it safe to do so.

Green means go if it safe to do so.

Let me say it one more time: Red always means stop

In India, it goes something like this:

Green: Go

Amber: Go really fast

Red:
a) First few seconds: Go
b) Your path is not yet blocked: Go
c) If no cop present: Go
d) If none of the above: Stop

[Turbanator]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

There is no free-left allowance at signals in UK. None at all. If left turn is allowed while other traffic is allowed, there will be a green left arrow.

But Doesn't India have a free left rule? People drive as if it does --- and I see "No free left" signs at some junctions, implying that there is at others.

For India and UK it will be the right side. I gave example of Left turn on a straight green after yielding to incoming for Canada/ USA.

Can you turn Right in UK on a green light after yielding to incoming traffic

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by Turbanator

For India and UK it will be the right side. ... ... ... Can you turn Right in UK on a green light after yielding to incoming traffic

Oh! I think the vital detail collided with dyslexia

I haven't driven in Britain for a long, long time, but let me now try to imagine taking a right turn at signals.

If you can see that there is a right-filter arrow, then one should wait for it even if the road is clear. After so many years of driving here, I can hardly believe that, it seems silly, but I think it is the rule.

If there is no filter light, you turn as soon as you have a gap.

A further factor in Britain is the yellow-striped boxes at many junctions. You are not supposed to enter the box unless your exit is clear, ie traffic is moving. I think you can to wait and turn right.

My British driving licence has expired. If I do ever need to renew it, I hope they don't make me take another test!

[N.A.GTC]

Originally Posted by Turbanator

As Thad has pointed, you can enter intersection only when it's clear. It's not practiced in India, so you did what everyone else does, demanding right of way on a green light .

Or as in your case, you were wrong to enter intersection until it was clear.

You too are right! But I had not entered the intersection when there was any traffic. I had waited for even the red-light jumpers to clear out. There were probably about 3-4 seconds after the light turning green that I had started moving. Perhaps I didn't articulate it properly in my original post when I said

Originally Posted by N.A.GTC

Just as it turned green, and the extra traffic stopped flowing from the other side, I drove ahead.

Not only was the Swift not on the intersection when I had entered it, it was nowhere to be seen at all! (the road from which it was coming curves a bit before joining the intersection, probably that's how)

[supermax]

Originally Posted by hrman

No pity for these guys. They endanger the lives of so many people on the road for Cute Girl reactions One less idiot on the road.
And the nutcase explaining this video is riding with one hand and looks like another Darwin's theory waiting to happen. Such a fool!

Exactly right. Riding with one hand, and likely didn't even indicate before pulling a U-turn. Idiots all of them.

Here's a video of another bike accident.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZQozRMIOSw

I initially thought he understeered into the divider, but when I watched it in slow mo a few times, realized that

1. He's obviously riding quite fast; he is on the white 'dashes', when he realizes he's on a collision course with the biker ride ahead.
2. He's leaning to the left to make the turn at speed, but instead of easing on the lean, he continues to lean left, but steers straighter. This works, but too well. He's now heading towards the divider at speed.
3. He's still leaning left, but now makes a sharp left, without countersteering. You can see the bike dipping further left very briefly before getting pushed back up.
4. The bike straightens and he's now headed right for the divider. He's realized now he's screwed up (and screwed), but there's neither time nor distance remaining to the divider, to give him another chance.

He'd avoided the bike ahead successfully, but if he'd only let off the gas, straightened a bit, and then turned left again, he'd have been between the biker ahead and the median, without any foul up, but he neither straightened the bike, nor eased up on the gas. The final mistake was not countersteering, but he'd clearly panicked. There's another video of a biker crashing into a truck because he fails to countersteer. He tries to sharply steer away from the oncoming truck, but each time he applies a sharp input without countersteering, the bike goes the otherway, pushing him right towards the truck.

Here's that video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVE79XT8-Mg

[sarathlal]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

But Doesn't India have a free left rule? People drive as if it does --- and I see "No free left" signs at some junctions, implying that there is at others.

Yes, Indian Driving Regulations allow free left, unless explicitly prohibited at that signal.

The article allows vehicle facing RED signal to proceed and complete the LEFT turn after giving right of way to vehicles approaching from its right side and for any other movements on its way of proceed. Unless this left turn is explicitly prohibited by indicators/signages on that signal.

EDIT: Quoting the clause as-is for easy reference

Article: 12.1.f
notwithstanding anything contained in clauses (a) to (d), a motor vehicle may take a left turn and proceed further after giving way to the traffic approaching the intersection from its right side and to the pedestrians and cyclists crossing the intersection on its left side unless a traffic control device or a road sign prohibits a left turn whenthe red light is on.

[revvharder]

Looks like the driver accidentally put Reverse instead of D, i think maruti should label Ignis as SUV as well after all it did manage to climb up over parked vehicles

https://youtu.be/8dvFA1TrvIs

[svsantosh]

Originally Posted by supermax

I found a better video of the actual accident.

For all that youtube channel was famous for, his death also carried forward the legacy...

False Pertinence

[supermax]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

I don't know the text for India, but this is what I learnt in GB:

Red means stop.

Amber (yellow) means stop if it safe to do so.

Green means go if it safe to do so.

Let me say it one more time: Red always means stop

100% agree with you. There are more cues too; if red and amber lights are lit up simultaneously, it means that it's going to go green, but if only amber is lit, it's going to go red. This is to avoid the confusion when one sees the a.mber light, to know if it's going to go green or red. Very useful, say you take a turn and see an amber (or amber+red light), and no vehicles ahead of you. Then, you won't be confused whether to brake or continue at the same speed. I know that this behavior is common across EU and I'm guessing this is also true in the UK and in India?

Originally Posted by N.A.GTC

You too are right! But I had not entered the intersection when there was any traffic. I had waited for even the red-light jumpers to clear out. There were probably about 3-4 seconds after the light turning green that I had started moving. Perhaps I didn't articulate it properly in my original post when I said

Basically no way you could have predicted his arrival at the intersection, unless you had the ability to see into the future! Even if that were to be so, you'd still probably have caused an accident if you hit the brakes on, some 4 seconds after the light had gone green, and that would be at least partially your fault, if not entirely your fault, if you caused somebody to drive into you, stopping on green.

[MT_Hyderabad]

Originally Posted by supermax

1. He's obviously riding quite fast; he is on the white 'dashes', when he realizes he's on a collision course with the biker ride ahead.
2. He's leaning to the left to make the turn at speed, but instead of easing on the lean, he continues to lean left, but steers straighter. This works, but too well. He's now heading towards the divider at speed.
3. He's still leaning left, but now makes a sharp left, without countersteering. You can see the bike dipping further left very briefly before getting pushed back up.
4. The bike straightens and he's now headed right for the divider. He's realized now he's screwed up (and screwed), but there's neither time nor distance remaining to the divider, to give him another chance.

He'd avoided the bike ahead successfully, but if he'd only let off the gas, straightened a bit, and then turned left again, he'd have been between the biker ahead and the median, without any foul up, but he neither straightened the bike, nor eased up on the gas. The final mistake was not countersteering, but he'd clearly panicked. There's another video..

The video you shared is from another accident.

The same accident video was posted 9 months back on youtube. Please find it here.

https://youtu.be/S1S-Mxi39_o

I know the urge, but I do not comment on riding skills of these youtubers for the following reasons:

1. They have driven faster than me. Not once but multiple times.
2. They own a motorcycle that I never rode. I started off with 100 cc and ended with a 150 cc.
3. I do not know what led to that accident, as I was not there. He may have chosen to die than to hit someone. This makes him a martyr? Just exaggerating.

In yester years, when I was riding fast sometimes, I had a pledge, that I will not kill someone for my mistakes. The pledge remains, only the ride got converted to a drive.

I only know that he was riding fast and was a habitual offender and most likely got killed for the offence this time.

[sravankrishnan]

Originally Posted by supermax

I found a better video of the actual accident.

Here we can clearly see the speedo of the rider, it's around 122kph in the beginning which means the guy who died was doing at most 130-140, not 294 as some police reports even have suggested.