The car was likely in the left lane while negotiating a curve and was moving at around 100kmph (based on information from Mercedes EDR as provided by Maharashtra Police), said the report, continuing: It is assumed that unknown vehicles were ahead of the car in the left and right lanes and during a possible overtaking manoeuvre, the car entered the left paved shoulder, which narrowed down; the vehicle climbed the left raised curb of the highway; it then went onto impacting the bridge’s parapet wall approximately nine metres ahead at a speed of 89kmph. “Due to the impact, the vehicle rotated anticlockwise for 35 degrees and came to rest a t the point of impact,” said the report. The study was commissioned by transport commissioner Avinash Dhakne.
The report emphasises on inadequate shoulder, inadequate tre atment for a change in road geometry and the presence of an unprotected parapet wall of the bridge. “The road was at a curve and transformed from three lanes to two lanes; there was inadequate treatment of the highway with signage, delineation and demarcation to guide road users. Further, the superstructure of the bridge near the roadside acted as a hard object with which the vehicle collided,” the report says.
It was also found that the rear seat passengers didn’t use seatbelts: the report says the evidence of seatbelt usage like torn web, scratches on seatbelts and burn marks on seatbelt tongues were found for the car’s two front occupants, but for the two rear occupants, no evidence of seatbelt use was found. It said seatbelt pretensioners were fired due to crash and both rear seatbelts were tightened to the seat in their original, unused position. Had the rear passengers used seatbelts, the front seats would not have been deformed and loaded (impacted by bodies after the crash).