
If no-one helps you after a car crash in India, this is why - CarolineW
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36446652
======
varchar
My family has lived in South India for many decades. India's infrastructure
and emergency response in not very good although it has improved over the
years. One thing I have observed is - it is the bystanders, the common man who
rushe to the aid of victims in case of disasters - accidents, train
derailment, floods, earthquakes. I could give you dozens of examples gathered
from newspapers and from first hand experiences of kith and kin. People just
jump in and start helping in such situations. People help each other
especially when the emergency response is not reliable or immediately
available. If your car slid into a ditch in rural Minnesota, passing cars will
come to your aid. Where as in New York City, people may just drive by knowing
that you will get a tow truck. This is the issue with reports like this - they
pick one or two such statistically rare case and write a report it, opening
the door wide to generalization especially on a globally popular news site.
For every such incident, I'm sure there are tens of thousands incidents where
people help, which never get reported.

~~~
Alterlife
To be fair, all the cases that you mentioned are those where where the police
and the system do not look for someone to blame.

The article doesn't disagree with you:

> what safety campaigner Piyush Tewari saw wasn't a lack of compassion but an
> entire system stacked against helping road victims.

...

> He contrasts the reluctance of passers-by to help victims of road accidents
> with their response to train crashes or bombs blasts. In these cases, he
> says, "before the police or media arrives everybody's been moved to
> hospital".

There's also very important information in the article about new guidelines
published by the supreme court of India to protect good samaritans.

~~~
pjlegato
It also says the new Supreme Court orders (not guidelines) are being widely
ignored, and so they are now running a state-by-state campaign to get laws
passed that match the orders.

------
jargnar
A very real, slightly non-obvious problem is the size of the Indian population
itself. There are so many people here that, competition is a stronger emotion
than community. To an extent that sometimes it is considered normal to put
someone else at risk for your benefit, while self-empathizing along the lines
of "Hey, if I don't do it, someone else will stamp on that person to move
ahead in life."

Competition is everywhere.

\- Want a seat in a University? Compete with, _literally_ a million others for
just one seat.

\- Want a train ticket to travel within India? Login to the IRCTC exactly at 8
am, and pray that the next 5 seconds is your lucky time.

\- Want to travel via local train? Hang on to the windows outside (Mumbai).

Too many people that -- it is dangerously becoming almost culturally normal to
prioritize your life over someone else's. Combine this with the corrupt
administration, and poor infrastructure... and it is painful to think about.

 _We 're forgetting humanity at the cost of too many humans to compete with._

That being said, there are definitely people who _do_ help. Helpful people in
India are in fact, extremely helpful. I've received help myself. But these
days, the probability of that happening is perhaps decreasing.

~~~
djsumdog
Fun fact, the train ticketing systems in India and China using Apache Geode
for their backend.

Anyway, back to the point, I agree with you. Indian's population situation is
really insane. Last time I was in India was in 1998 and the traffic situation
was totally insane. All the red lights had "relax" written on them in English
in an attempt to calm drivers down.

You'd think the 2nd most populated country in the world would be able to chose
from that pool of talent; find the right people to help solve these major
problems plaguing the nation.

But it doesn't work that way. People struggle to get out. My dad had dreams of
returning. He visited after retiring and said the water is still unsafe to
drink, the air unsafe to breath and a flat in Delhi was over $300k USD.
Decades after he left, the situation has only gotten worse.

~~~
spacecop
What is wrong with Apache Geode?

~~~
petemc_
How does pointing out a systems use imply something wrong with it?

~~~
chc
It was randomly pointed out in the context of a discussion that might be
summarized as "the problems India has," so it could reasonably be read as a
slight on Geode. I don't think it was meant that way, but I had to read it a
couple of times to determine that it wasn't.

------
Chris2048
Relevant:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Wang_Yue](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Wang_Yue)

context: "...the story of a man named Peng Yu in Nanjing who was sued by a
woman after helping her. The old woman was successful in seeking damages from
the man because the judge claimed that the man wouldn’t have helped her unless
he was guilty of injuring her in the first place..."

\-- [https://chinachange.org/2011/10/20/the-good-samaritan-in-
chi...](https://chinachange.org/2011/10/20/the-good-samaritan-in-china/)

~~~
jlg23
Not really relevant, the problem in China is that one has[1] to pay for a
disabled person for all that person's life while a death incurs a one time
payment.

[1] IIRC the recently changed the relevant laws or are currently debating to
change them.

~~~
Chris2048
The problem is also that you risk getting blamed merely for helping, This is
why it is relevent.

~~~
crimsonalucard
IMO the above case is more of a symptom of the problem rather than what causes
the problem itself. Someone who helps is implicated as guilty because being
indifferent and lacking morals is expected behavior, while 'helping' is
considered highly abnormal and therefore the action is suspect.

From personal experience I do not believe this is the real reason for why a
family is left dying on the road. When I travel to certain countries in Asia I
notice that there is a severe lack of morals and ethics. Heck in China,
drivers back up over accident victims that they just hit to make sure the
victim is dead so as to avoid a lifetime of hospital fees. I mean, this is
murder done in the name to avoid paying a fee.

What you see here in India is part of this same lack of ethics and morals that
pervade certain cultures. People are honestly capable of great evil.

What makes one culture more ethical than another country? I believe that the
anthropological correlation lies in wealth and population. If a country is of
high population and poor, then you will see more of this type of behavior.

High population cities that are wealthy like tokyo or singapore are not like
this at all while in the rural areas of nepal I've seen a sherpa carry an
injured european stranger on his back down a mountain to base camp.

Of course this is all anecdotal. There really needs to be a scientific study
on ethics and culture. It would be a very touchy subject though as the results
of the study will implicate some cultures as more 'evil' than others.

~~~
burfog
"It would be a very touchy subject though as the results of the study will
implicate some cultures as more 'evil' than others."

You don't say? There is a mighty good chance it is even worse: this is a brain
trait, and we know that brain traits are at least partially due to DNA.
Anybody who dares to research this one is completely nuts, with or without
tenure.

~~~
crimsonalucard
I disagree. I believe there is higher chance that the trait is cultural. But
this of course is just derived from my anecdotal observations of human nature.

>Anybody who dares to research this one is completely nuts, with or without
tenure.

What is interesting though is that in the field of anthropology there is total
awareness of a certain fact. Throughout all ancient and historical human
cultures, women have consistently been to certain degrees less privileged and
more subservient to men. There is no definitive reason why this is the case,
however biological imperative has not yet been ruled out. It's "nuts" but this
is a case where political correctness has not yet suppressed what is otherwise
a scientific observation.

More interesting is that I was made aware of this fact by an anthropology
professor at UCLA. She specifically believed that it was biological. She
thought that women in general do not want to be leaders. (keyword: She)

~~~
eric_h
> Throughout all ancient and historical human cultures, women have
> consistently been to certain degrees less privileged and more subservient to
> men

I suspect that this is largely due to men's greater capacity for violence than
women, due to having proportionally more muscle mass.

~~~
crimsonalucard
This theory has been examined. It is unlikely. First and foremost strength
does not correlate with power, neither does violence. The most powerful people
throughout history are not those that are strong or violent, but those that
are well connected. Obama, Warren Buffet and Donald Trump are not known for
their physical strength. Additionally, power correlates with age. Those that
are older and weaker tend to be more powerful then younger people while
younger people tend to be physically stronger but less powerful.

When the most powerful people throughout history are not simple minded violent
brutes, it becomes unlikely for men to be in power due to physical strength or
violence.

Personally, I do not believe that the reason is biological. Other than that
I'm as befuddled as the rest of the anthropological field, I don't know why
men have consistently been in power throughout the majority of human history,
but the correlation cannot be denied.

------
jasode
China also has similar culture of punishing good samaritans:
[http://www.businessinsider.com/two-year-old-hit-by-car-in-
ch...](http://www.businessinsider.com/two-year-old-hit-by-car-in-
china-2011-10)

~~~
po
It's worse than that, the incentives are such that it's better to kill than
maim:
[http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2...](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2015/09/why_drivers_in_china_intentionally_kill_the_pedestrians_they_hit_china_s.html)
(although this is apparently in question: [http://www.snopes.com/chinese-
drivers-kill-pedestrians/](http://www.snopes.com/chinese-drivers-kill-
pedestrians/))

This is one of those subjects where people like to put moral consequences on
the bystanders when it's the rules and larger structures of the society that
matter.

Driving in India is completely insane and after about a week of white-knuckle
driving you kind of just go with the flow and convince yourself that it must
just work. While that is true the definition of it 'working' is totally
unexpected for a westerner. Driving conditions are extremely adversarial and
accidents are frequent. People are injured and die _all the time_. It's the
kind of problem that absolutely needs to be solved at the regulatory/policy
level.

~~~
sonink
Driving in India is only insane to westerners. I have been driving in India
for a decade and I dont find it hard at all. Driving in the US though is one
of the most stressfull things for me.

Part of the stress in US is because of the different side driving, but also a
lot because I have to keep in mind a TON of rules - lane markers, speed
limits, lane changing etc.- and everyone moves in super high speed so any
mistake can be fatal.

In India, on the other hand I just need to take care of the signals and
otherwise wherever my car can fit, I am good to go. If my car rubs a bit
against another car or a small bump here and there - no big deal. Driving in
the night though is stressful in India also and I avoid it.

~~~
bdrool
> Driving in India is only insane to westerners.

According to Wikipedia[1], there are 56% more traffic fatalities annually than
in the US. Compared to the UK, it's 472% more. I don't think it's merely a
matter of perspective. The data indicates it's much more dangerous in absolute
terms.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-
related_death_rate)

~~~
avg19
Those figures dont necessarily mean that driving in India is stressfull.

To give you one data point - almost ALL cars in the US/UK will have Air Bags.
My guess is that MOST cars in India do NOT have an air bag. Additionally, this
figure also included two wheelers, which will obviously have a higher fatality
rate.

India might be having a lot less accidents than the US (and possibly because
of low speeds), but just because most vehicles do not have air bag, the
fatality rate could be much higher.

In any case, I am not really arguing that India traffic should not improve.
Just that the perceived 'stress' level might be just because of a relative
comparison against a different 'system' of traffic.

------
tunap
Tragic. I, personally, could not sit idly by and watch, or record, anyone
suffering without attempting to assist. Consequences be damned, I would hope
for the same assistance if I were injured & needing aid.

This is something I have spent a lot of time contemplating lately as I watch
people texting while operating multi-ton vehicles at any speed, let alone at
80mph(130kmh)down the highway. I have witnessed a notable increase in single
vehicle rollovers under optimum driving conditions on the US highway system in
the last +/\- two years. Thankfully, I have yet to arrive before the 1st
responders but if I ever do, I will forgo the "they brought it upon
themselves" judgement and assist my fellow man/woman, if need be. Yet, I still
wonder, how many could have been avoided if distracted driving laws already on
the books were enforced?

~~~
bnegreve
> I, personally, could not sit idly by and watch, or record, anyone suffering
> without attempting to assist.

We should be careful with this kind of statements. I remember that in
_Thinking, Fast and Slow_ , Daniel Kahneman describes an experiment which
shows that most people don't actually take action when the responsibility is
shared among other people. Of course most people think they would.

~~~
hrnnnnnn
It's called the Bystander Effect, and the most disturbing thing about it is
that its strength is in proportion to the number of people present.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect)

~~~
tunap
Yep. Take charge until an authority arrives. Engage the victim, if conscious,
ask questions and gather any info you can to give to 1st responder to arrive
on scene. Give direct commands to specific peoples. Do NOT make matters worse
by moving the injured unless immediate danger is present. Most importantly,
educate yourself/certify beforehand. I used my CPR cert once 25 years ago, yet
I still renew it every year.

Oh yeah, when the pro does arrive, don't take it personally if he/she is
brusque or 'rude'. They are sometimes brutally efficient.

~~~
mschuster91
> Oh yeah, when the pro does arrive, don't take it personally if he/she is
> brusque or 'rude'. They are sometimes brutally efficient.

This. Also, for some medical personnel being brusque and (apparently)
unattached is the only way for them to not crack under seeing death every day.

It's a fucking hard job and I highly respect everyone in the field.

------
simula67
> legal proceedings can be notoriously protracted in India

This is the root of so much evil in India. It is probably the largest issue
facing this country. Every citizen should have a fundamental right to a speedy
resolution to their grievances.

~~~
mschuster91
To be fair, it's not just India that faces this problem. Italy, and to a
lesser extent France, are kept back in economic development due to extremely
long (civil) legal proceedings - in fact, Berlusconi and his crooks abused
this multiple times to STFO of jail time.

In Germany, it's mostly the criminal justice system that suffers from massive
case overload - it takes sometimes over a year to get the first trial in a
simple pub brawl case or a small store theft - and that disconnect between
infraction and punishment has been shown multiple times to result in more
infractions (because thieves will think "ah, won't happen anything anyway").

I get why people want to claim India is a 3rd world country (and, for what
it's worth, parts of India ARE, given e.g. sanitary conditions!), but one
should not compare based on the efficiency of the legal system. Some might say
that the USA could be considered a 3rd world country under this comparison,
given that you can land in jail for civil debt, end up life-long in prison for
small thefts (3 Strike Rule), end up on the chair for dealing drugs, ...

~~~
pjlegato
"Third world country" is not shorthand for "poor, backwards land."

It means a country that was not aligned with either the United States (first
world) or the Soviet Union (second world) during the Cold War.

~~~
mschuster91
I know, but for what it's worth it means the same thing.

------
weeksie
A little tangental.

Indians are insanely good drivers given their actual traffic conditions. I
just spent two months there and as (fucking annoying) as it was to walk
through the crowds with motorcycles whipping by, inches away from me all the
time, I wasn't very concerned with them hitting me. Anecdotally, everybody
appeared to be watching everyone else on the road—otherwise it would have been
sheer insanity because their infrastructure is _horrible_.

Thai drivers on the other hand. . . .

~~~
FussyZeus
I've always been curious where the downright crazy driving style/culture came
from in India. It's like nowhere I've ever seen, they drive on whatever side
of the road they want, there are no traffic lights, I mean I get that it's a
developing country but none of this stuff is that expensive to procure, is it?

~~~
zyxley
Coordinated control of traffic lights isn't cheap. Some quick googling says
$250K to $500K per signal[1] when done from scratch.

[1]:
[http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Operations/Traffic/signals.htm](http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Operations/Traffic/signals.htm)

~~~
FussyZeus
I stand corrected then. Still seems like it would be a worthwhile investment
given their insane traffic death rates.

~~~
ocean3
Traffic lights are not an issue. Its present in most towns as well. Most of
the time if you break a traffic light you would not be penalized. Usually
there won't be an policeman nearby. Even they are present they do not
implement the law.

------
petilon
In California the supreme court has ruled that you can be sued by an accident
victim for being a Good Samaritan:

[http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1871331,0...](http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1871331,00.html)

~~~
Johnny555
California tightened up their Good Samaritan protection in response to that
court decision:

[http://www.metnews.com/articles/2009/bill080709.htm](http://www.metnews.com/articles/2009/bill080709.htm)

[http://www.montereysar.org/SARMembersDocs/Good_Samaritan_Lia...](http://www.montereysar.org/SARMembersDocs/Good_Samaritan_Liability_in_CA_2009.pdf)

------
mizzao
Also related, but a different problem: the "hit-to-kill" phenomenon in China.
Drivers try to kill any pedestrians they injure because they will be liable
for more economic costs if the victim survives.

[http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2...](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2015/09/why_drivers_in_china_intentionally_kill_the_pedestrians_they_hit_china_s.html)

------
anupshinde
India is a diverse country, and people in different cities behave differently.
I've had my experiences. I have found bystanders in Bangalore, Mumbai,
Ahmedabad to be helping. But bystanders in Pune get a brain-freeze, and in
Delhi they just don't care

------
abraham_s
1) This is highly dependent on the place. In rural areas or smaller towns,
there is high probability that someone will take you to the hospital.

2) There is no equivalent of 911 in India. You can call the police but they
usually don't have ambulances. Most cases you will have to take the injured in
a private vehicle to the hospital.

3) Harassment by police is a real thing in many places. They will suspect you
of being involved in the accident. At least in my state (Kerala) there has
been conscious effort to resolve this and seems to be working.

4) There is government hospitals who will treat you, no questions asked. But
these are not present everywhere, and many don't have adequate resources
(Operation theaters, Intensive Care Units etc) in many of these. So there is a
chance that you will have to travel to bigger hospital to get appropriate
care.

Anecdote. Few years back , I was driving to my home when police flagged me
down and asked me to take a lady injured (she was pillion-riding on a two
wheeler) to the hospital. Took then to fairly large government hospital (which
is also a medical college). The attending doctor asked me whether I was
involved in the accident and the told me I can leave. I informed the relatives
of the injured (got numbers from her companion) and left.

~~~
Loughla
Real naive question time, sorry ahead of time - are the police as corrupt as
they're portrayed to be in western media? Bribes requested constantly, that
sort of thing?

~~~
abraham_s
Short answer is yes. Long answer is that it is that the level of corruption
varies from place to place but the police susceptible to political influence
everywhere. A daily interaction with the cops like a traffic stop can be
similar to one in US , cop checks your documentation and issues a citation, or
it can be “indian” one where he accuses you of a crime (that you have
committed or not), gives a option of pay him x amount as bribe or paying a
fine of 5x.

There are many honest policemen/women (as well as dishonest ones) but if you
are pitted against someone well-connected politically or rich or (usually)
both then chances are police is going to side with them and you will probably
lose regardless of who is guilty. Unless something extraordinary happens,like
you get showcased in the media.

It is not only police. The government machinery on the lowest level is
inefficient and corrupt. You need to pay a bribe to get a power connection to
your home, a drivers license etc. If you refuse to do so, you will be forced
to spent your time in following up, complaining to superiors. It is doable to
some extent but you will spent significant amount of your time and energy.

This is my experience in one of the better states in India, which makes me
wonder about the rest of the country.

------
titomc
Kerala
[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerala](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerala)]
, a small southern state in India known for its high literacy rate in India
[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Kerala](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Kerala)]
has a highly efficient emergency service on
#108.[[http://www.arogyakeralam.gov.in/index.php/special-
initiaves/...](http://www.arogyakeralam.gov.in/index.php/special-
initiaves/kemp)]

I often hear news of this service being extremely efficient and the reports of
bystanders not helping accident victims are rare from that state. This has to
do something with the literacy rate as well as an efficient emergency service.
Most of the cases of "no one helps you in India" cannot be generalized is my
opinion.

------
inputjoker
I would like to add one more issue to this. In India local roads are narrow
and it is mostly two lane or 4 lane with heavy traffic blocks. Even if someone
tried to carry someone to hospital,(op already has mentioned about the
ambulance crisis, and don't even think about air ambulance), he/she will be
met with roadblocks after roadblocks.

------
sly010
I can't find it now, but there is a video of a dozen pedestrians lifting a
double decker in London. It's all started by a single person, but others
quickly joined. I wonder where is "helping others" on the Maslow piramid?

Edit: Found:
[http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-32993891](http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-32993891)

~~~
zyxley
That's a good example of both crowd generosity and crowd stupidity: everybody
joined in on trying to lift the bus instead of just making the bus driver
reverse off the guy who was trapped.

~~~
philjohn
If you read the article, the bus driver was completely flustered and shut
down.

------
hitr
I am from India and many people I know at least think that they will get into
more trouble with police or hospital formalities if they help.Even many films
made here portray same picture to the public. My mother once told me (when i
was a kid) one person from her hometown who was a lorry driver ,once helped an
accident victim and took him to hospital. But in the end they framed the same
guy on murder attempt and he had to run behind the case for long time and he
eventually lost everything. Having said all this,I personally think how can
someone ignore an injury to anyone ? My conscience will not let me pass
through without offering help if I ever see anything.

~~~
ocean3
I heard these kind of stories as well. But the driving school where i went
specifically mentioned to help injured passengers. Maybe times are changing.

------
pif
> "[At the hospital", they wait for somebody to give them assurance that they
> will pay the bill."

How can such low levels of humanity be reached at a hospital?

~~~
Xenon54
When first visiting the US many years ago I was warned always to carry with me
proof of insurance, for otherwise a hospital might not treat me until I could
provide some proof that I could pay.

I wonder if that was true, whether it's still true, and what the situation
really was or is.

~~~
djrogers
Hasn't been true for ages - at least as long as I've lived in the US (since
1990). Hospitals are required to give emergency medical service regardless of
insurance or proof of ability to pay if you show up in the ER. An unintended
side-effect of that is that it's sadly not at all uncommon for people to show
up to the ER for non-emergency services, then stick the public or the hospital
with their bill if they can't pay it.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Hospitals are required to give emergency medical service regardless of
> insurance or proof of ability to pay if you show up in the ER.

Hospitals (that take Medicare payments) are required to screen for emergency
medical conditions and provide treatment to stabilize any emergency conditions
found through the screening if you present at an ER; they are _not_ required
to either screen for and diagnose or treat any other conditions.

> An unintended side-effect of that is that it's sadly not at all uncommon for
> people to show up to the ER for non-emergency services, then stick the
> public or the hospital with their bill if they can't pay it.

Note that hospitals are not required to screen for, diagnose, or treat non-
emergency conditions without regard to ability to pay when a patient presents
at an ER.

------
ArenaSource
Change the law. In Spain not helping someone that is found helpless and in
danger, when you can do so without risk to yourself or others, is a criminal
offence.

~~~
sbuttgereit
Sure, why fix the problem (being too easily blamed for an accident when you
give aid, etc.) when you can just write a law that does nothing to address it?
You assuage whatever societal guilt you might have for the problem without
requiring the hard work of actually making any substantive change.

Such a law would be virtually impossible to enforce in any reasonable way;
yes, you can make the odd example of someone, but are you going to spend
massive effort on tracking down every passerby on whatever surveillance video
might exist should they fail to give aid? If you were said passerby, wouldn't
you just get away from the scene all that much more quickly to avoid the
greater likelihood of being caught up in the mess?

While I disagree with your thinking, I do have to say you're clearly qualified
for politics as this sort of logic drives a significant part of lawmaking...
certainly in the U.S. and I suspect in other places around the world as
well... maybe even India.

------
whistlerbrk
Sounds like they desperately need a good samaritan law

~~~
kzrdude
No, it sounds like they need to fix a whole range of issues including medical
fees, police culture, and so on, that each has a part in enabling social
trust.

~~~
adrianratnapala
This kind of answer to social problems is itself a problem -- no single reform
will do much good, so we risk paralysis. But really to move forward people
should try to make whatever easy reform might help a bit.

In this case a procedural reform in the courts might help. If someone who
looks prima-facie like a good Samaritan is being charged with something, and
if the court is too swamped to deal with it quickly, they should just drop it.

That could help with the police too -- the reason police harass people is to
try and get bribes. People pay those bribes because they fear endless red-tape
if the try to fight a spurious charge.

------
SixSigma
Whoever is around when the cops arrive often gets arrested.

If you find a body in India, you run the other way.

If you take an injured person to hospital you get a bill.

------
pc86
> _" Oftentimes if you assist someone the police will assume you're helping
> that person out of guilt."_

The most charitable way I can think of to describe that might be "one of the
stupidest things I've heard in a long time."

Maybe it's guilt, or maybe it's because the bystander is not a terrible human
being?

~~~
jandrese
To the cop it doesn't matter. He just needs someone to blame and look, here's
someone who looks kinda guilty.

Sure the case might fall apart in court, but that means going to court and
defending yourself, a not inconsiderable expense and time commitment.

------
ck2
This is a crazy thought but the government or charities could award a random
lottery to good-Samaritans?

Then suddenly everyone will want to help.

The only problem is this will also cause fake incidents for fraud purposes. Or
people who purposely cause accidents to "help".

But if they can solve that issue, might work?

~~~
shripadk
Government/charities need not award us any lottery. All the Government needs
to do is bring a law that protects the good-samaritans (remove all the
unnecessary legal hassles and allow us to be anonymous). Heck I would even be
willing to pay the hospital's initial deposit only if I don't have to be
entangled in all sorts of legal issues.

Currently if you report an accident or get the injured person to a hospital
you'll be treated as a witness and have to attend all court proceedings. The
law should differentiate between a samaritan and a witness (unless the
samaritan also wishes to be treated as a witness).

~~~
naveen99
> you'll be treated as a witness and have to attend all court proceedings

sounds like FUD. why should a witness have to attend any time other than one
time to testify (usually as a friendly witness, i imagine forcing hostile
testimony is even rarer). court proceedings can include filing various forms
which are done by one person or not done at all (causing delays). I don't see
anyone dragging you to court to file papers that you have nothing to do
with... Unless they are charging you with something and arresting you or
making you serve on a jury (india doesn't even have jury trials), why would
you have to be at the court multiple times just as a witness ?

> I don't have to be entangled in all sorts of legal issues.

The way to avoid being entangled in legal issues is 1. avoid doing things you
know are illegal and 2. avoid pissing off someone (who will see that you get
prosecuted for failing at 1).

~~~
shripadk
It is not FUD. It is a fact and has been the case with lots of accidents in
India. If that was not so, the Supreme Court of India would not have approved
guidelines on how to treat Good-Samaritans. Read about it here:
[http://thewire.in/2016/03/30/sc-guidelines-now-protect-
good-...](http://thewire.in/2016/03/30/sc-guidelines-now-protect-good-
samaritans-who-help-road-accident-victims-26680/) .

The PIL (filed by SaveLIFE foundation) that enabled this issue to be brought
to the notice of the Supreme Court clearly states that 88% of the people who
they surveyed had attributed this hesitation to fear of legal and procedural
hassles: “These hassles include intimidation by police, unnecessary detention
at hospitals and prolonged legal formalities,”.

The problem is that these guidelines are not enforceable unless they are
turned into a law.

~~~
naveen99
> fear of legal and procedural hassles

FUD = _fear_, uncertainty, doubt

> unnecessary detention at hospitals

hospital has no power to detain you, unless they are committing you to the
psychiatry ward. You stay for the same reason you bring that person to the
hospital (to help).

I understand that people in india are afraid. But my point is that it is a
fear based on uncertainty and doubt due to ignorance of the law and other
reasons (economic) mis attributed to "legal formalities". Its a polite term to
use when the real reason is you have better things to do (your own problems to
deal with).

> guidelines on how to treat Good-Samaritans.

they sound reasonable and within expected legal procedure to begin with... the
reason they might have been issued is because of the FUD, not because the law
already doesn't say the same thing...

------
tmalsburg2
When I visited India a couple of years ago, we also observed this indifference
towards victims of accidents. Someone noticed that we were puzzled by this a
told us that this is due to Indian culture. First, if someone is seriously
hurt or killed that's this person's (perhaps deserved) fate. Second, helping
others may not be as much a moral imperative as it is in Christian cultures. I
don't know whether this is correct and even if it's correct it would of course
not negate the reasons discussed in the article. It may rather be an
additional factor. Would be interesting to hear an Indian person's view on
that.

~~~
shripadk
> Someone noticed that we were puzzled by this a told us that this is due to
> Indian culture. First, if someone is seriously hurt or killed that's this
> person's (perhaps deserved) fate.

As an Indian I can tell you that that viewpoint is incorrect. Culture is the
last thing that would come in between a good-samaritan and a person in need.

> Second, helping others may not be as much a moral imperative as it is in a
> Christian culture

Are you implying that Christians don't exist in India? If they do, then why
are Christian Indians not coming to the rescue of those who met with an
accident? This is a completely incorrect take on the situation. Mixing
religion with a social issue is dangerous. Indian culture is good enough that
we can accommodate any culture and have been doing so for centuries. To say
that we do not have moral fiber is an insult. If that was the case why is it
that when there is a terror attack or a natural tragedy in India people help
in huge numbers? See the number of people out there to help in the recent
Kolkatta Flyover accident:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XmvROEYYps](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XmvROEYYps)

So why do you think that Indians are more than willing to help when there is a
natural tragedy / terror attack but not when a single person/family meets with
an accident?

~~~
tmalsburg2
I appreciate the response but you completely misinterpreted my comment. I did
not say or imply that there are no Christians in India, and I did not say or
imply that every Christian would rush to help while every non-Christian would
be indifferent. I also didn't imply that Indian culture(s) are somehow
inferior to western culture(s). I just related what one person in India told
me and asked whether Indians think it's correct. I don't see how this insults
anyone.

------
baking
American GI's noticed the same thing in India during WWII but it was
attributed to Hindu fatalism. I wonder if that cultural history plays an
unspoken role too.

~~~
hackeratti
What is Hindu fatalism? Hearing the term for the first time.

~~~
up_and_up
Karma. If something happens to you, it is your actions in the past either in
this life or a previous life which are the original cause. Hence you are just
receiving back the same as you have given. The problem with ignoring someone
in trouble is those people are actually missing the chance to create good
karma by helping those in need.

~~~
baking
Also, reincarnation played a part in the American understanding. They were
moving on to a new life and you wouldn't want to interfere.

I'm not saying that this was a sophisticated understanding. These were random
American service men send to support the airlift to Burma. All I'm saying is
that this was a common phenomena in the early 1940's in at least part of India
and it's unlikely that it was the result of the British-Indian judicial system
of the time.

------
ehmuidifici
I have a friend who lived in India and one of things he got impressed here in
Brazil was how helpful we are, specially in these situations.

Which is weird because as someone said before, I could not sit and watch
someone suffering in front of me without attempting to assist too. But if
you're inserted into a culture that says "don't be a good samaritan unless you
want to be sued for it", you have to think twice.

------
Xcelerate
> Oftentimes if you assist someone the police will assume you're helping that
> person out of guilt.

That doesn't make the bystanders apathy any more tolerable. I'd like to think
I would help someone in need even if I went to jail for it (you never know
what you'd actually do unless you're in the situation, but still...)

~~~
dominotw
>I'd like to think I would help someone in need even if I went to jail for it

You have no idea how bad indian courts and jails are. You would __not __want
to go to jail in India. It would be miracle if you get to see a judge in India
between absentee judges, strikes, power cuts ect. Absolutely noone will give a
shit about you being incarcerated unfairly.

~~~
Xcelerate
If that's the price you have to pay to save someone's life, then so be it.

~~~
LionessLover
You can go to India and lead by example instead of from your comfortable room.

------
busterarm
I'm vaguely reminded of Bradbury's 'The Crowd' here.

------
thuruv
There are not many reasons except the nightmare of getting their time wasted
by Police officers (Along with a gift of being treated like a accused) only
turns the bystanders heart stoned.

------
Gys
tl;dr:

"The foremost reason was intimidation by police," he says. "Oftentimes if you
assist someone the police will assume you're helping that person out of
guilt." Apart from the fear of being falsely implicated, people also worried
about becoming trapped as a witness in a court case - legal proceedings can be
notoriously protracted in India. And if they helped the victim get to
hospital, they feared coming under pressure to stump up fees for medical
treatment.

~~~
Dylan16807
You're missing the section at the end about hospitals refusing treatment when
someone's brought in by a stranger that won't be paying.

~~~
wmt
I wonder how does that even work? If someone drops in an injured person and
leaves, will the hospital just let the injured person die on the floor? If
bystanders doing nothing raises headlines in India, I'd imagine hospitals
doing that would be an even bigger scandal.

~~~
shripadk
I can confirm this. Hospitals don't treat unless the injured person's
relative(s) sign legal papers. The general rule of thumb in India is that one
should always carry at least an ID proof (better yet an insurance policy) so
that in case of an accident the hospital can contact the relative.

~~~
mikeash
This is what a true free-market health care system looks like.

I always wonder about this when I see people arguing against socialized
medicine. Should accident victims be left to die like this? Any answer besides
"yes" implies some sort of government intervention. In the US, since 1986, ERs
must treat everyone. This basically gave us a really bizarre socialized
medicine system with horribly inefficient funding and procedures.

~~~
ars
It used to be that charitable societies setup funds within hospitals to pay
for such people.

If they were able to bill insurance, or the person, later, then the fund would
be replenished.

So it is possible to say "yes" and not have government involved.

~~~
shripadk
That exists in India in the form of societies like Lions Club, Rotary Club
etc. However, the number of hospitals that are supported by these charitable
societies are understandably smaller in comparison to the number of private
hospitals.

------
known
Here is the real reason [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325502/Map-
shows-wo...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325502/Map-shows-worlds-
racist-countries-answers-surprise-you.html)

~~~
shripadk
Huh? What rubbish! It has nothing to do with race. In India we do have a caste
system but even with that you won't be able to look at an injured person and
get to know his/her caste.

~~~
curun1r
Being able to know someone's caste has nothing to do with it. It's the
willingness to see someone else as an "other" rather than part of your own
group that allows you to dehumanize them. The caste system teaches people to
become desensitized to the suffering of those around them, which is a
precondition for the behavior described in the article.

~~~
shripadk
If the caste system teaches people to become desensitized to the suffering of
those around them why do the same people go en-masse to rescue the so called
"others" when a natural tragedy or terror strike takes place in India? Do they
suddenly forget the "teachings" of the so called "caste system"?

Or are they conveniently becoming desensitized when only a person/family meets
with an accident?

Don't you see how ridiculous your statement sounds now?

~~~
curun1r
Your continued defense of the caste system is entirely missing the point. This
isn't and Indian thing, it's a human thing. It's a prerequisite for allowing
suffering to take place without feeling the need to help and owes to our
tribal nature. Look at any genocide or mass murder in human history and you'll
find the targeted group was an "other" that those perpetrating the slaughter
were made to feel was fundamentally different from them.

Or look at it in reverse...have you ever traveled to a far off place and met
someone who was from, say, your home state/province? Back at home, you'd feel
very little connection with them since the live in a different city from you
and you're surrounded by people in your city whom you feel closer to. But meet
that same person half-way around the world and suddenly you feel closer to
them. They're now more part of your tribe than those around you.

We're tribal animals, by nature, and our capacity to help and tolerate the
suffering of those we consider to be in our tribe is significantly different
from those outside our tribe. If aliens invaded, you'd see almost all racism
and human conflict disappear almost overnight. We'd become a human tribe
struggling against an alien "other". But absent that, we'll continue to
subconsciously divide ourselves along tribal boundaries. In your rabid defense
of India from what you perceive is an attack on one of its customs, you're
perceiving me to be an "other" to the Indian tribe.

This is well established human psychology. My point was that the caste system
is divisive, by it's very nature and purpose. According to our understanding
of the human capacity for experiencing the suffering of others, anything that
divides us in any capacity can only increase the kind of unfeeling behavior
described in the article.

And you need look no farther than India to see the exact opposite type of
force. How many devout Buddhists would stand by idly as someone in a car crash
lay dying? The Buddha realized (warning: ridiculous oversimplification
approaching) that our sense of self is an illusion and we're all one...there
is no "other." When viewed through that lens, what is the hassle of being
dragged into and administrative mess or needing to pay for hospital care when
compared to the suffering of a dying person? A Buddhist would jump in to help
without even the slightest regard for the consequences that would result.

