Pune Accident | Welcome To Rich Privilege

Summary

The script recounts a tragic incident in Pune where a 17-year-old, under the influence of alcohol and driving recklessly, caused a fatal accident, killing two. It delves into the systemic flaws that allowed the affluent teenager to escape severe consequences, highlighting the preferential treatment of the rich and powerful in India's legal system. The narrative critiques the lack of road safety awareness, the failure of law enforcement, and the influence of political financing on justice, urging for systemic reforms to ensure fair treatment and better road safety.

Takeaways

• 🎉 A 17-year-old boy celebrated his Class 12th results with friends at a pub, using his grandfather's credit card, despite the legal drinking age being 25 in Maharashtra.
• 🍻 The underage boy was served alcohol at two pubs, Cosie and Blak, leading to a bill of ₹48,000 and raising questions about law enforcement of alcohol regulations.
• 🚗 After drinking, the boy drove an unregistered Porsche without a license plate, highlighting the lack of adherence to traffic laws and the potential consequences.
• 💥 The boy's reckless driving resulted in a fatal accident, killing two 24-year-olds, Aneesh Awaidhya and Ashwini Koshtha, who were on a motorbike, and sparking public outrage.
• 🚔 The initial response by the police was criticized for its preferential treatment of the accused, including the boy sitting in the ACP's chair and receiving pizza from a man in a safari suit.
• 📝 The Juvenile Justice Board granted bail to the boy with conditions perceived as lenient, such as writing a 300-word essay, which ignited debates on justice for the rich and powerful.
• 🚨 The boy's father falsely claimed that the family driver was behind the wheel, which was later proven to be a lie, showcasing attempts to manipulate the legal system.
• 🛑 The Pune police were accused of not following proper protocols, such as conducting blood and personal appearance tests within the required timeframe to verify alcohol consumption.
• 🚨‍♂️ The incident exposed the manipulation of evidence, including the alleged tampering of blood samples by the hospital's Chief Medical Officer, leading to arrests and further public distrust.
• 📉 Public pressure led to the boy's bail being cancelled and his father's prosecution, but it also revealed the systemic issues within the legal and political framework that favor the wealthy.
• 🌐 The case underscored the need for changes in incentives within the system, including better traffic law enforcement, transparent political financing, and police independence to ensure justice for all.

Q & A

What was the occasion for the 17-year-old boy's celebration at the pub?

The boy was celebrating his Class 12th's result with his friends.

Why was the boy's use of his grandfather's credit card significant?

It indicates the boy's access to financial resources for the party, despite being underage and not legally allowed to consume alcohol.

What is the legal drinking age in Maharashtra, and how does it relate to the incident?

The legal drinking age in Maharashtra is 25 years. The incident is significant because the 17-year-old boy was served alcoholic drinks despite being underage.

What was the total bill amount after the boy and his friends spent time at the pub?

The total bill amounted to ₹48,000.

Why was the second pub, Blak, significant in the narrative?

Blak was significant because it was another establishment where the underage boy and his friends were served alcohol, and it is known to allow entry only to members, which suggests a possible preferential treatment.

What vehicle was the 17-year-old boy driving after leaving the pubs?

The boy was driving a Porsche, which was unregistered and without a license plate.

What were the occupations of the two victims, Aneesh Awaidhya and Ashwini Koshtha?

Aneesh was a business analyst and Ashwini was an IT analyst, both working for Johnson Controls.

What was the speed at which the 17-year-old boy was driving the Porsche during the accident?

The boy was driving at a speed of 150 kmph in a crowded area.

What were the initial conditions set by the Juvenile Justice Board for the 17-year-old boy's bail?

The initial conditions included writing a 300-word essay, which was criticized as being too lenient considering the severity of the crime.

What was the role of the local MLA, Sunil Tingre, in the aftermath of the accident?

Sunil Tingre visited the police station shortly after the accident, claiming to be a responsible public representative and knowing the boy's family well, which raised questions about potential influence on the case.

What was the controversy regarding the blood test conducted on the 17-year-old boy?

The controversy was that the boy's blood samples were allegedly thrown away and replaced with another person's samples to show that he had not consumed alcohol.

What actions did the public take in response to the incident?

The public in Kalyani Nagar, Pune, organized a candlelight march to protest the incident and demand justice.

What was the significance of the second FIR lodged by the Pune police?

The second FIR was significant as it led to the prosecution of the boy's father and the owners and managers of the bars that served alcohol to minors, and it was an attempt to try the boy as an adult due to the severity of the crime.

What were the two main issues highlighted in the case?

The two main issues were the multiple crimes committed by the boy, including underage drinking, drunk driving, and over-speeding, and the alleged manipulation of the legal system by a rich family.

How does the script suggest changing the incentives in the system to prevent such incidents?

The script suggests increasing the costs associated with breaking the law, improving law enforcement, hiring more traffic personnel, employing electronic monitoring, and changing societal norms to discourage rule-breaking.

What is the 'Prisoner's Dilemma' and how is it related to traffic rule violations in India?

The 'Prisoner's Dilemma' is a game theory concept where individuals acting in their self-interest do not produce the optimal outcome for the group. It is related to traffic rule violations in India because when everyone follows the rules, it's better for an individual if they break the rules, leading to a situation where everyone suffers due to widespread rule-breaking.

What are the two types of benefits that people consider when deciding to break traffic rules?

The two types of benefits are faster travel time and psychological benefits, such as feeling smart, powerful, or improving mood after breaking a rule.

What are the two types of costs that people consider when deciding to break traffic rules?

The two types of costs are the Cost of Punishment, which includes the likelihood of getting caught and the severity of the punishment, and the likelihood of an accident and its consequences.

How does the script suggest improving road safety in India?

The script suggests improving road safety by increasing the likelihood of getting caught through better law enforcement, hiring more traffic personnel, investing in training, employing electronic monitoring, and changing societal norms to discourage rule-breaking.

What is the role of societal norms in influencing people's decision to break traffic rules?

Societal norms can either encourage or discourage rule-breaking. If breaking a rule results in negative societal judgment and a decrease in social status, it can act as a deterrent and increase the cost in people's cost-benefit analysis of breaking traffic rules.

How does the script relate the incident in Pune to the broader issues of legal and political systems in India?

The script relates the incident by highlighting how the rich and powerful can manipulate the legal system, the need for police independence from political influence, and the importance of transparent political financing to prevent favoritism towards the wealthy.

Outlines

00:00

🚔 Tragic Accident Involving a Minor and Socio-Legal Implications

The script details a tragic incident where a 17-year-old boy, celebrating his class 12th results, ends up causing a fatal accident in Pune. Despite the legal drinking age being 25, the boy was served alcohol at a pub and later caused the accident while driving an unregistered Porsche at high speed, killing two young professionals. The narrative highlights the preferential treatment received by the underage driver, including bail conditions that seemed trivial compared to the severity of the crime. It also points out the public's reactive demand for justice and the need for systemic change to prevent such incidents.

05:03

🏢 Political and Police Involvement in a Juvenile Crime

This paragraph delves into the political and police response to the accident. It describes how the local MLA's intervention and the police's lack of adherence to protocol in conducting tests on the accused minor raise questions about the influence of wealth and power. The narrative also uncovers attempts to manipulate evidence, including the alleged tampering with blood samples to absolve the boy of alcohol consumption, and the subsequent public outrage that led to the boy's bail being cancelled and his father's arrest.

10:05

🛑 Incentives and the Flawed System Behind Road Safety

The script discusses the root causes of poor road safety in India, focusing on the incentives that drive individuals to break traffic rules. It explains the lack of awareness about traffic safety rules, the benefits perceived by rule-breakers such as faster travel time and psychological gratification, and the low perceived costs due to the infrequency of punishment. The paragraph emphasizes the need to understand these incentives to address the systemic issues contributing to high accident rates.

15:06

👮‍♂️ The Role of Police and Legal System in Traffic Law Enforcement

This section examines the role of the police and the legal system in enforcing traffic laws and the challenges they face. It points out the disproportionate number of vehicles to traffic police and the low likelihood of rule-breakers being caught. The script suggests that increasing the probability of getting caught, rather than the severity of punishment, is a more effective deterrent for traffic violations and calls for societal norms to play a part in discouraging such behavior.

20:08

🏛️ The Influence of Wealth on the Legal System and the Need for Reform

The final paragraph addresses the influence of wealth on the legal system, particularly in the context of the Pune accident. It discusses how political financing and the dependence of politicians on wealthy individuals can compromise the impartiality of the police and the legal process. The script calls for reforms such as transparent political financing, police independence, and better enforcement of traffic laws to change the systemic incentives and improve outcomes in the country.

Keywords

💡Underage Drinking

Underage drinking refers to the consumption of alcohol by individuals below the legal drinking age, which in the script's context is 25 years in Maharashtra, India. The video discusses the incident where a 17-year-old boy was served alcoholic drinks despite being underage, leading to a tragic accident. This concept is central to the video's theme of the different legal standards applied to the rich and powerful.

💡Drunk Driving

Drunk driving is the act of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. In the video, the 17-year-old boy's drunk driving is highlighted as a critical factor that contributed to the fatal collision. This term is integral to the video's exploration of road safety and the consequences of reckless behavior.

💡Over-Speeding

Over-speeding is the act of driving a vehicle at a speed higher than the legal limit or in a manner that is unsafe given the conditions. The script mentions the boy driving his Porsche at 150 kmph in a crowded area, illustrating the disregard for traffic safety norms and its deadly outcomes.

💡Juvenile Justice Board

The Juvenile Justice Board is a legal entity responsible for the administration of justice for minors involved in criminal activities. The video describes the initial lenient treatment of the 17-year-old boy by the Juvenile Justice Board, which granted him bail with conditions akin to school homework, sparking public outrage and debates about justice and privilege.

💡Bail

Bail is a legal arrangement in which a person accused of a crime is allowed to be released from custody on the promise to appear in court. The video script discusses the controversial granting of bail to the underage driver, which was perceived by the public as a reflection of preferential treatment due to his affluent background.

💡Police Protocol

Police protocol refers to the standard procedures that law enforcement must follow during an investigation. The script criticizes the Pune police for not adhering to these protocols, such as conducting blood and personal appearance tests promptly, which raises questions about the integrity of the investigation and the potential influence of the accused's wealth.

💡Blood Sample Tampering

Blood sample tampering involves the illegal alteration or substitution of blood samples to manipulate the results of a forensic test. The script alleges that the boy's blood sample was discarded and replaced with another's to falsely indicate sobriety, highlighting corruption and the manipulation of evidence in this case.

💡Vote-Bank Politics

Vote-bank politics is a strategy used by political leaders to consolidate the support of a particular group of voters by catering to their interests, often at the expense of broader public welfare. The video uses this concept to explain why public infrastructure and services, such as traffic safety, are sometimes neglected due to the focus on winning elections through targeted benefits.

💡First-Past-The-Post System

The first-past-the-post system is an electoral system in which the candidate with the most votes in a constituency wins, even if they do not secure a majority. The video script uses this term to discuss how this system can lead to vote-bank politics, where politicians focus on securing a specific group's votes rather than the general public's interests.

💡Prisoner's Dilemma

The Prisoner's Dilemma is a scenario in game theory where two individuals acting in their self-interest do not produce the optimal outcome for either party. The video script applies this concept to explain why traffic rules are often broken—individuals believe they benefit from breaking rules, even though collective adherence to rules would be more beneficial.

💡Cost-Benefit Analysis

Cost-benefit analysis is a method used to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of alternatives by comparing the costs and benefits of each. The script mentions that individuals who break traffic rules often conduct a cost-benefit analysis, concluding that the perceived benefits, such as faster travel time or a sense of power, outweigh the potential risks and penalties.

💡Police Independence

Police independence refers to the autonomy of law enforcement agencies to operate without political interference. The video argues that for a fair and effective legal system, the police need to be independent from political control, which is currently lacking and contributes to the preferential treatment of the wealthy and influential.

Highlights

A 17-year-old boy celebrated his Class 12th results at a pub despite the legal drinking age being 25 in Maharashtra.

The underage boy was served alcohol at Cosie pub, leading to a bill of ₹48,000 within 90 minutes.

The boy, after drinking, drove an unregistered Porsche without a license plate.

A high-speed collision occurred between the Porsche and a motorbike ridden by two 24-year-olds, resulting in their deaths.

The Juvenile Justice Board granted bail to the minor driver with conditions akin to school homework, sparking public outrage.

The boy's family allegedly attempted to cover up the incident by claiming the family driver was at the wheel.

Crime reporters observed suspicious activities outside the police station, including the presence of luxury cars and the delivery of pizzas to the accused.

The Pune police failed to follow proper protocols for testing alcohol consumption, waiting 8 hours before conducting tests.

There were allegations of tampering with the blood test results to absolve the accused boy of alcohol consumption.

The public demanded justice, leading to a candlelight march and increased media scrutiny of the case.

The boy's father was prosecuted for giving his underage son the car, and the bar owners were also prosecuted for serving alcohol to minors.

The case raised questions about the different treatment of victims and culprits by the police, highlighting systemic biases.

The driver of the family claimed he was forced to take the blame and was locked up by the boy's family, leading to his arrest.

The video discusses the need for changing incentives in the system to prevent such incidents and improve road safety.

The speaker emphasizes the importance of understanding the incentives of all parties involved to find a solution to the problem.

The video concludes by advocating for systemic changes, including better traffic law enforcement and police independence, to ensure justice.

Transcripts

On the night of 18th May, a 17-year-old boy

wanted to celebrate his Class 12th's result with his friends

so he went to a pub in Pune's Koregaon Park area,

The pub is called Cosie.

The boy's grandfather gave his credit card to the boy to

cover the expenses of the party.

At around 10.30 pm, everyone reached the pub

and ordered food and drinks.

In Maharashtra, the drinking age is 25 years

but a 17-year-old boy was served alcoholic drinks.

Within 90 minutes, their bill amounted to ₹48,000.

After which, they go to another pub,

the pub Blak, in Marriott Suites.

Only the members get an entrance in Blak.

But these people were allowed to enter

and alcohol was served to them till 2 am.

After which, everyone decides to go home.

And a 17-year-old boy decided to

drive the car himself.

After which, he starts driving his Porsche.

It was an unregistered car without a license plate.

At the same time, two 24-year-olds

Aneesh Awaidhya and Ashwini Koshtha,

were going home after having dinner in Kalyani Nagar, Pune.

Both worked for the company Johnson Controls.

Aneesh was a business analyst

and Ashwini was an IT analyst.

After dinner, they were going home on Aneesh's motorbike.

At the same time, a 17-year-old boy

was driving his Porsche

on Pune's Kalyani Nagar road,

at a speed of 150 kmph,

in a crowded area,

his car collides with Aneesh's motorbike.

After the accident,

many people try to take Aneesh and Ashwini to the hospital.

They even try to manhandle the boy.

But Ashwini and Aneesh d!e on the spot.

"A 17-year-old minor, intoxicated with alcohol,

was driving a car at 200 kmph and ended up k!lling two people."

"The car driver was allegedly drunk."

"The two people on the bike were k!lled on the spot."

The Juvenile Justice Board grants bail to the 17-year-old boy

with several conditions that would seem like

a homework for a school student.

"Think about it,

after running over a 24-year-old boy and girl

the punishment is to write a 300-word essay."

But after a lot of media coverage,

this story had so many twists

just like a Bollywood film.

For example, the boy's father told the police that

the boy wasn't driving

and the family's driver reached the police station

to accept that he was driving indeed.

Unfortunately, why do such incidents happen in our country?

Because the reaction is very predictable.

We demand punishment

only when the incident is in the limelight.

But the underlying structure never changes.

And until that structure changes,

the outcomes won't change.

And that's what I want to tell you about.

First, let's understand this incident in detail.

After this Pune accident,

many things happened

which prove to us that

there's a different set of laws for the

rich and powerful people in our country.

On May 19, at around 2.30 am,

many crime reporters noticed something strange

outside Pune's Yerwada police station.

Outside the police station, they noticed the Porshe that hit Aneesh's bike,

along with two Mercedes cars.

A crime reporter who was present there

said that he saw a man getting out of a Mercedes

wearing a safari suit

carrying 7-8 pizza boxes.

The reporter told News Laundry that

the 17-year-old boy

was sitting on the ACP's chair

when the man in the safari suit gave the boy the pizzas.

Another reporter who works for a Marathi newspaper

confirmed that the 17-year-old boy was sitting on the ACP's chair

when the ACP wasn't present there.

When the ACP came there,

she was bewildered at this and scolded several officials there.

But this was just an example

of how the police treat victims

and how they treat the culprits.

"One of the family members

who say that the friends of the victims,

were actually detained by the Pune Police

and were only released,

after the VVIP brat

was granted bail by the Juvenile Justice Board."

Forget about giving pizza to the victim's family,

they weren't even allowed to sit inside the police station.

Instead, the police were trying to convince them

that the boy wasn't driving.

Gyanendra Soni, Aneesh's relative,

said that the police were doing what they could to protect the boy.

He said that instead of helping the victim's family,

the police were asking Soni

about the relationship between Aneesh and Ashwini.

The first twist in the story came

when many journalists noticed

the local MLA, Sunil Tingre,

reached the police station at 3 AM,

just an hour after the accident.

We don't know what conspired between the MLA and the police.

But later, he did say that

since he is a responsible public representative,

he decided to go to the police station.

Later, he said something else too.

He knew the boy's family very well.

He said that he has known the Agarwal family for the last 30 years.

Since the family asked him for help,

he went to the police station.

He claimed that when he reached the police station,

he found out how serious the incident was.

So he decided not to interfere in the investigation.

The next day, on the afternoon of May 19th,

the boy was presented to the Juvenile Justice Board in Yerwada.

But before presenting the boy to the Juvenile Justice Board,

the Pune police didn't follow the protocols.

According to the protocol,

the Pune police had to conduct 2 tests immediately after the incident.

A blood test and a personal appearance test.

To check if the boy had drunk alcohol or not.

But the Pune police didn't conduct these tests for 8 hours.

In the personal appearance test, it is checked if

the accused's behaviour shows any evidence of alcohol consumption.

Can they walk properly?

Do their bodies smell of alcohol?

But since the tests were not conducted for 8 hours,

obviously, there was no evidence of alcohol consumption.

As for the blood test, there was another twist.

On May 19th, at around 11 am,

the boy's blood samples were sent to the Sasoon Hospital.

But the Pune police commissioner said that

the boy's blood samples were thrown in the hospital's dustbin.

And instead, another person's blood samples were used

to prove that the boy didn't drink alcohol.

"In the initial investigation,

it was revealed that

they had taken the blood sample of the juvenile accused,

but it was thrown away into a dustbin.

And was replaced with a sample from another person

they wrote the name of the juvenile accused on this sample

and sent it to the forensic lab."

The commissioner said that the hospital's Chief Medical Officer

switched the blood samples.

"The second biggest thing

that has been revealed so far

is that the mother of the juvenile accused

gave her blood sample to tamper with the blood report."

The doctors who were involved in this have been arrested.

But the Juvenile Justice Board granted bail to the boy immediately.

The boy was told that for his alcoholism problem,

he should seek de-addiction counselling

and consult a psychiatrist.

But when the media released these details on 19th May,

a large number of people were furious,

and asked how could a person be granted bail so soon after k!lling 2 people.

In Kalyani Nagar, Pune, where this incident took place,

many locals came together for a candlelight march.

And since this incident was being discussed at a national level,

a day later, on 20th May,

the Pune police lodged a second FIR.

Vishal Agarwal, the boy's father,

was prosecuted under the Motor Vehicle Act

for giving his car to an underage person.

Four other people were also prosecuted

who were the owners and managers of the bars

who served alcohol to the minors.

The same day, Vishal Agarwal went missing from Pune.

Due to public pressure, the Pune police went to court

to ask for the permission

to try the boy as an adult in this case.

The next day, on 21st May,

the Pune police arrested Vishal from Aurangabad

and brought him back to Pune.

Then the Sessions Court told the Pune police

to go to the Juvenile Justice Board

to ask for permission to try the minor as an adult.

And so the Pune police filed another FIR

where they said that the boy

had committed a serious crime.

When an FIR is filed accusing a minor of committing a serious crime,

the minor can be tried as an adult.

Then Maharashtra's Deputy Chief Minister held a surprise press conference

from Pune's Police Commissioner's office.

"In this case, until justice is eventually served,

the police will continue to look for every legal remedy."

But he failed to answer

why didn't the Pune police

arrest the boy for a serious crime in the first FIR.

This could have ensured that he was tried as an adult.

He didn't talk about why his MLA

went to the police station at 3 AM in the morning.

On 22nd May, we saw some developments.

The Juvenile Justice Board cancelled the boy's bail

and sent him to a remand home.

A remand home is a place

where criminals under the age of 18

are sent for detention.

The court also passed an order relating to Vishal Agarwal

that he needs to be kept in police custody until 24th May.

While this was happening, the accused's family wrote a story

that could have been a script for a Netflix special.

The boy's lawyer said that

the boy is going through a depression

and so he is addicted to alcohol.

After this, the boy's father said that

the boy wasn't driving.

The DCP of Pune confirmed that

the family's driver said that he was driving.

The driver said that the boy was driving from his home to Cosie

and then from Cosie to Blak.

But after Blak, when the accident took place,

the driver was the one driving.

But now, there's another twist.

The driver has filed a case against the boy's father and grandfather.

The driver's complaint states how

the boy's father and grandfather snatched the driver's phone

and locked him up in their house for a day.

The driver's wife had to get him out.

After this complaint, the boy's grandfather has also been arrested.

Now, there are two issues in this case.

The first issue is that multiple crimes were committed.

Like underage drinking,

drunk driving, and over-speeding.

The second issue is that a rich family tried to manipulate the legal system

in their favour.

Now, I want to discuss these two issues.

It's crucial to understand

the incentives in the system for every actor.

Give me 3 minutes to tell you

why it's important for us to understand these incentives.

Famous investor Charlie Munger said,

"Show me the incentive, I'll show you the outcome."

Incentives decide how people behave in each scenario.

It's important to understand these incentives,

Because now, after each news incident,

our reaction has become predictable.

There's a public outrage

that tries to change the situation.

As long as this outrage persists,

our governance system

uses all its resources to solve the case and satisfy the public.

And eventually, when this public outrage ends,

these resources are then used like before once again.

The public outrage may change one outcome

but the inherent incentives in the system decide how people behave

doesn't change.

Because of this, outcomes remain the same in the other cases.

We saw this happen in 2012, in the Nirbhaya case

and in the 2019, Hyderabad r@pe case.

When due to public outrage, convicts of the Nirbhaya case were hanged,

and the accused was encountered in the Hyderabad case.

But the incentives didn't change on the ground level.

Until we change the incentives,

we won't be able to solve the problems.

Recently, I made a video on why Indian cities are so dirty.

If you use first-principle thinking,

the reason is vote-bank politics.

Many countries became democratic after becoming somewhat rich.

But India was an exception.

When we were poor, our leaders decided that

we'll become democratic as soon as we become independent.

Then, our country had fewer resources.

The electoral system we adopted

was the first-past-the-post system.

If a leader gets even 30%-40% votes,

he can still win the seat.

Now, let's understand the incentives of a leader.

Our country has less resources.

And there's the first-past-the-post system to win the elections.

So, you have two options.

The first option is to use the few resources

for the welfare of your constituency.

Or, you can take all the resources

and hand it to one group

so that they can benefit a lot.

So, you can either help out a large number of people to some extent,

Or, you can help one group to a large extent.

Now, think logically,

what will you do to win the elections?

This is called vote-bank politics.

This is why Karthik Muralidharan wrote in his book that

political leaders don't invest in public goods.

To build roads, to maintain cleanliness in the city,

or to build schools.

Because though this benefits everyone,

it's only a small benefit.

The political leaders are not stupid.

The political leaders are actually very logical.

We are stupid who expect that the outcome will be different

with these incentives.

We keep changing our leaders

hoping that the outcome will be different each time.

But, until the incentives change,

how will the outcome change?

This video is not about the cleanliness of a city.

This is about the Pune accident.

So, let's understand the incentives of the people involved in the Pune accident.

Only then, will we be able to understand the solution to the problem.

In this Pune case, the boy committed many crimes.

Underage drinking, drunk driving, and over-speeding on a busy road.

Let's focus on drunk driving and over-speeding.

Because, personally, I am very frustrated about road safety in India.

Many accidents in India occur because people don't know the rules.

For example, there's a rule known as Right of Way.

Look at this accident.

This auto driver probably doesn't know the Right of Way rule.

The vehicle going straight has the first right to the road.

Only after the car passes,

the auto should have taken the U-turn.

And this is because of a lack of awareness.

In 2021, a Ford survey showed that

95% of car drivers who have a valid license

don't even have 50% awareness

about traffic safety rules.

And the reason behind this is the way licenses are issued in India.

In 2017, a survey was conducted in 10 Indian cities.

It showed that 60% of people who have a driving license,

didn't need to pass any driving test.

And the 17-year-old drunk boy, who was

driving the car at 150 kmph on a busy road,

doesn't have an awareness problem.

He knew what he was doing.

Recently, an influencer got popular,

for driving his car at a high speed in Delhi NCR,

and has now become a favourite of many creators,

because they get views through him.

So, he doesn't have an awareness problem.

They know that what they're doing is against the rules.

But, according to them, what they're doing is logical.

They are thinking of their cost-benefit analysis

and, according to that equation,

they conclude that over-speeding is logical.

Now, let's understand the equation going through their mind.

There are two parts to this equation.

Benefits and cost.

Benefits are of three types.

The first one is faster travel time.

This is why people drive on the wrong side.

Or, they start reversing on the highway

if they've missed a turn.

Now, this is logical to them,

based on a game theory concept called Prisoner's Dilemma.

Prisoner's Dilemma is an important concept

that can be applied to many aspects of your life.

So, listen to it carefully.

Imagine that two people, Rahul and Raj, have been arrested for a crime.

And, both of them are detained in different cells.

They can't communicate with each other.

A police officer gives a deal to each prisoner.

If one prisoner confesses, and the other stays quiet,

the one who confesses will be released.

But, the one who stays quiet, will have to spend 5 years in jail.

If both the prisoners confess,

both of them will have to spend 2 years in jail.

But if both of them remain silent,

they'll have to spend only 1 year in jail.

Now, think about this from Rahul's perspective.

If Raj decides to stay quiet,

it's better for Rahul to confess.

But, if Raj decides to confess,

it's still better for Rahul to confess.

So, confessing is the better strategy for Rahul every time.

It's the same for Raj.

So, what do they do?

Both of them confess.

And when both of them confess,

they would be imprisoned for 2 years.

But, had both of them stayed quiet,

they would have been imprisoned for only 1 year.

This is the Prisoner's Dilemma

that applies to Indian roads as well.

Everyone will benefit only when everyone follows the rules.

But, in a system where everyone follows the rules,

it's better for you if you break the rules.

And, according to this logic, you break the rules,

and so does everyone else.

And, so everyone suffers a loss.

And the system gets worse and worse.

So, in an environment where someone is breaking the signal

and someone else is driving in the wrong lane,

everyone's logical reaction is to

break the signal and drive in the wrong lane.

And so, the end result is bad for everyone.

The second benefit is psychological.

When people break the rules, they don't feel guilty.

Rather, researchers at the University of Washington and

Harvard University have shown that

after breaking a rule, many people consider themselves to be smart

and their mood improves.

Another study from 2011 showed that

people feel powerful after breaking a rule.

These were the benefits.

Now, let's talk about the cost.

There are two types of costs.

The first is the Cost of Punishment.

The likelihood of getting caught

multiplied by the punishment for breaking the rule.

The second part is related to the accident.

The likelihood of an accident

multiplied by the consequences of an accident.

People who break a rule

feel that the likelihood of getting into an accident,

that is the probability of them being in an accident

is very low.

Because they feel over-optimistic.

For example, in 2017, it was reported that every hour,

4 two-wheeler drivers d!e in road accidents

who don't wear helmets.

But, people feel that accidents won't happen to them.

So, they don't need to wear helmets.

This was also seen in an online poll in 2022

where Indians were asked about why they don't prioritise their safety.

They said that accidents happen to others,

not to them.

Now, let's look at the Punishment part.

The likelihood of getting punished.

People who break any rules

correctly feel that

the probability of them being caught by law enforcement

by the police,

is very low.

Because it's true.

Government data from 2023 showed that

there are about 85,000 police personnel on traffic duty.

And, how many vehicles are there in our country?

Around 210 million two-wheelers

and 70 million four-wheelers.

That's 1 traffic police personnel

for 3,300 vehicles.

Traffic expert M N Sreehari said that

this number should be 1 traffic police per 1,000 vehicles.

So, because of this ratio, the likelihood of getting caught

is very low.

And, people take advantage of this.

Many of us think that there are too many

government employees in our country.

And, in fact, Karthik Muralidhar wrote in his book that

when you compare us with other countries,

there are very few government employees.

We need more government doctors, policemen, and diplomats.

And, there's a huge irony in our country

where there's so much unemployment

and such a craze for government jobs

but we don't have enough government personnel.

So, people who break the traffic rules

think about this equation

and conclude that

the benefits are higher than the costs.

So, breaking rules becomes logical for them.

This was the first-principle approach to understand the problem.

Now, how can we solve this?

First, we need to increase the costs.

How can we increase the cost?

The best way is to increase the 'likelihood of getting caught' variable.

Unfortunately, most of our focus

is on the severity of punishment,

as I have talked about in this video.

But increasing the punishment is not as effective in stopping a crime,

as is increasing the probability of getting caught.

That is, improving law enforcement.

To do this, we will have to hire more traffic policemen,

invest in training them,

and employ electronic monitoring

to make their work easier.

Those who drive in the wrong lane

do know that they're breaking the rules.

That's why such people upload many Stories

where they're breaking the rules regularly.

Their logic is that the 'Benefit'

of getting more followers,

feeling more powerful,

and being recognised by creators like Samir Anna and Lakshay Chaudhary,

is much more than the cost.

So if we want to improve road safety,

we'll have to increase the cost in people's calculations.

To increase the cost, we can add another thing.

That is, societal norms.

For example, look at this video.

A car jumps a red light.

Then other people start doing the same thing.

That means there's a norm among our public

that if one person breaks a rule,

everyone else will start breaking the rule.

But this can be changed by influencers.

So that our public norms change.

For example, in Singapore,

if you break a traffic rule,

it's not like the police will catch you every time.

But the people around you

will definitely judge you negatively.

This will decrease your societal status.

This is a social norm.

But if such a social norm is created,

then people's equation will have another cost.

They wouldn't want to face other people's criticisms,

so they will choose not to break the rule.

Unfortunately, many people have a defeatist attitude.

That we Indians are terrible people.

We keep breaking rules.

But this is a good way for you to feel superior,

without solving the problem.

That's why in this video, I wanted to use the first-principle approach

to see the incentives of most of the people.

Because by changing those incentives

we can adopt a solution-oriented approach.

Now, let's see why does our legal system favour rich people?

First of all, in politics,

for any politician, favouring the rich people

is always beneficial for them.

This is because of political financing.

In my video on Washing Machine and Electoral Bonds, I showed how

expensive the elections of our country are.

That's why our Finance Minister claimed that

she can't contest the elections because she doesn't have the required money.

"I don't have that kind of money to contest."

In such a situation, politicians will obviously work for those

who can give money for their campaigning.

That's why in Pune, the MLA

went to the police station at 3 AM

just a few hours after the accident.

When politicians start helping the accused,

the police don't have much of a choice

because the police have to follow the politician's directions.

Because it is the state government that decides

where will the police officers be transferred.

Which means the police will do what the state government wants.

They don't have any independence.

So the rich people rule over politicians

who, in turn, rule over the police.

Prakash Singh, former DGP of UP and Assam police,

had filed a PIL in the Supreme Court in 1996

for police reforms.

In this case, 10 years later, in September 2006,

the Supreme Court announced a landmark judgment

where it talked about several police reforms.

One of these reforms was that

a board would decide the transfer of police officers.

The Police Establishment Board.

Not politicians,

but senior police officers and bureaucrats would decide

where the police officers should be transferred.

A report published in September 2020 showed that

not a single state followed these reforms.

So if we want the police to do their job,

they need to be independent of the state government.

But this will happen only when a state government

voluntarily reduces its powers.

However, no state government wants to do this,

it will be possible only when

the Supreme Court enforces its own ruling.

After the incident, the Maharashtra government did take several actions,

but they didn't change the incentives of the system.

They have diverted many government resources to solve one case.

But it is only about this one case.

If we want to solve more cases,

we need to change the attitude that

nothing good can happen in India.

Instead, we need to change the incentives of the system.

We need to demand that the traffic laws be enforced better,

by hiring more traffic personnel

and through electronic monitoring.

We need to demand transparent political financing

and we need to demand police independence.

When the incentives of the system will change,

the outcomes in our country will also change.