High Court questions failure to act on speeding; cites 240 kmph driving before Nedumbassery crash

KOCHI: The Kerala High Court has asked what mechanisms are in place in the state to detect speeding vehicles and take action against offenders, stressing the need for an effective system. The court asked whether the accident at Nedumbassery, in which three people were killed, could have been avoided if authorities had detected and acted on an earlier instance of the young man's alleged speeding at 240 kmph.

The question was raised by a Division Bench comprising Justice V. Raja Vijayaraghavan and Justice K. V. Jayakumar while considering petitions related to road safety. The court asked whether there were any signboards along national highways, visible at night, warning motorists not to exceed 80 kmph. It observed that young people take supercars onto the roads of Kochi and other parts of the city after midnight, and that such cars take only seconds to reach speeds of 100 kmph. Even when brakes are applied, a car travelling at such speed continues moving forward, the court observed.

The court directed the authorities to provide details of the number of cases in which speeding had been detected and reported. It also directed the Transport Commissioner to appear online and explain the measures in place. The court further observed that the law prohibiting the supply of alcohol to people below the age of 23 was not being enforced.

Pain is felt only when loved ones die

The court observed that the pain of a road accident is understood only when one loses loved ones, adding that children and women account for a greater number of deaths. It directed the authorities to relocate transformers obstructing roadsides and said buses must not be allowed to drive against the designated direction of traffic or vehicles to park on highways.

Cameras alone are not enough

The High Court observed that it had issued several orders to control speeding, but effective action had not followed. Merely installing cameras was not enough, it said, stressing that proper enforcement was necessary. The court also noted that sufficient funds were available in the Road Safety Fund.