Put the car on “bail”, not just the driver — that’s former IPS officer Kiran Bedi’s blunt prescription for repeat road-rage offenders, after a viral video showed a car ramming into a woman biker on Gurugram’s Golf Course Road.
The incident, involving moto-influencer Sia and accused driver Kalyan Bainsla, has reignited the debate on dash cams, road safety, and the impunity of drivers on Indian roads.
In this episode of AI With Sanket, The Federal spoke to Dr Kiran Bedi, ex-IPS officer and former Lieutenant Governor, on what the case reveals about entitlement, enforcement, and technology’s role in catching offenders.
What do you have to say about this incident?
Well, this incident says that we don’t care for what the law says. We know nobody is around to catch us, and speed will help us get away. They’re not afraid of the law, and they thumb their nose at everybody. That’s what they do. They’re actually showing a thumb to the law, or any system, or law enforcement. That’s what they’re doing.
Also Read: Gurugram hit-and-run: Accused’s lawyer blames biker, says ‘she wants publicity’
And if they had not been caught on camera, you could not even have booked them, because then they would have had expensive lawyers defending them. So I would think that this is a product of a system which is not afraid of the law, and they feel they can get away with anything — speed can get them away, and then they are drunk. Most of them are drunk while driving; speed and drunkenness go together. They are a product of a generation, an upbringing which has no respect and no consideration for others. Very inconsiderate people, wealthy and indisciplined.
The accused’s opening statement dismissed the footage entirely — he claimed the bikers were doing it for social media likes and views. What’s the logic in that?
Look, it’s a very entitled mindset. Without wanting to generalise, it speaks of entitlement — a very arrogant upbringing, a very selfish kind of living, in a world of their own. So this is a mindset of its own which is responding to this situation. Thank God the camera caught him. Otherwise, he would never have considered anything else.
One of his comments suggested he didn’t even notice she was a woman — as if it’s fine to enter into road rage with men, but not women. What should one do about this, going forward?
Obviously, it’s clear from what you are saying that if this hadn’t been caught on camera — thank God we had a functioning, recording camera. If we hadn’t had this, we would have had to wait for a meeting.
The only quick answer should have been to catch him red-handed, handcuff him right on the spot, the way the American police does — they catch somebody like this, bring the person out, put him down, handcuff him from behind right away, take him to the police station, and send him to custody.
This is what is required. The camera should lead to handcuffing, and then the vehicle is frozen — the licence taken away.
Do you think mandatory dash cams or action cams in all vehicles should be the need of the hour, given that the camera presents the truth rather than versions of it?
I am suggesting that there can be a situation — and by the way, this representation and proposal is there in front of Parliament — whether, by law, manufacturers embed cameras which record the movement of a vehicle at all times.
That could be the condition for release of such people. If they get the vehicle and licence back, it should be only on this condition — that hereafter your vehicle will have an inbuilt camera. It’s like your vehicle is on bail. It’s like the electronic ankle bracelet they use in the UK — we keep tracking you wherever you’re going. Similarly, your vehicle is on bail by having this kind of camera stuck on it. You want the vehicle back? Then your vehicle is now only on “bail” — it is on camera, and it will keep track of you. Maybe that would be an interesting compromise.
Also Read: Gurugram biker hit-and-run: Accused Kalyan Bainsla arrested in Rajasthan
Till such time as all vehicles are equipped with dash cams — which will be a very difficult task, not unachievable but difficult; it will take some time — at least vehicles caught in road rage incidents must have recording. Make that conditional. You want your vehicle back, you want your driving licence back, then you are on constraints. You are restricted in your liberty and freedom of movement because you are a danger to others. Therefore your vehicle, your mobility, will now be within an anklet — if there’s an anklet for the hand or the leg, this one could be for the car. Why not? I think this could be a very reasonable measure.
A survey found that 48 per cent of urban car owners say a dash cam is the first thing they’d install in a car — even before a five-star safety rating or six airbags. Should dash cams become mandatory rather than optional?
Nothing wrong if somebody is voluntarily willing to come under better watch — I think that’s welcome. But at least offenders — particularly those involved in rash and negligent driving of this kind, involved in these kinds of accidents — their vehicle release should be conditional.
Insurance too should insure you only if you have a dash cam. I think exactly the way individuals are under watch overseas, with an ankle bracelet that tracks you — why not here? If this can be tried in other democracies of the world, why can’t it be tried here? We are the same kind of democracy, with liberal laws.
Based on your experience as a police officer — most of these offenders operate with impunity because they know the law, or lawmakers, are on their side, and they can pull rank through community or political connections. Have you encountered this pattern before? Is it common?
It is becoming very evident, this pattern with people who have more money to spare, who want to speed, and who have habits of alcoholism, or being high — speed and being high go hand in hand. And just as we have facial recognition for people in mobs, I think there should be facial — or rather, number-plate — recognition of vehicles on the move.
Also Read: ‘Felt unsafe on Gurugram roads’: Woman biker alleges car chased, rammed her
The camera should detect it: here’s an offending vehicle, keep track. I think our cameras can become smarter, and also be linked with the police control room, on wireless or on the network — here is a moving offending vehicle, keep watch. So I think we now need smarter technology to track a mobile vehicle that is known to be rash and negligent but on bail. A vehicle on bail, rather than just the driver on bail.
As a short-term measure, this idea of putting the vehicle itself “on bail” seems achievable. What about the long-term measure — connecting that to on-ground enforcement?
Yes. And the cameras should talk to each other — the capturing camera should connect with the intercepting motorcycle on the ground. So you have a camera that alerts you, and then the ground interceptor.
That means we need mobile interceptors somewhere on the side, the way the American police have it — you never know when they come out. They intercept the vehicle, signalling that they are chasing it. The vehicle trying to run away, which is actually on bail, is then chased by the interceptor alerted by the camera from above. I think that’s the way — this is the only way to put the scare into these people’s minds.
By 2028, the government has made it mandatory for new cars to have V2V — vehicle-to-vehicle — communication technology, which will record speed, acceleration, and sudden braking. Do you think a camera should also be a valuable addition to this system?
We have two or three years. Good. But then we need to have the eye above — the camera above — which also keeps a record of offending vehicles, and it’s easy to have. It gets recorded, the number plate gets recognised, and the interceptor vehicle on the road intercepts it and holds it, carrying a handcuff with it.
Also Read: SC asks Centre to enhance compensation in hit-and-run accidents
And the moment you pick up that man — he may be that body builder, hiding his face. Now why are you hiding your face? You’re showing off your body, and now why are you hiding your face?