Charged for Careless Driving

[rhema83]

Originally posted by 168km/h@Nov 2 2006, 09:19 PM

congrates. , , lets pray that others will learn this lessons. But care to share what kind of punishment does the jaywalker gets( except 13 hospital ) ? I dun think its fair.

I think it's traumatising enough for the jaywalker to have to stay in hospital for 13 days. Imagine the problem he caused to himself and his family by jaywalking that moment. Probably some broken bones and scars that will never heal completely. That should be enough punishment.

[aidiero]

Originally posted by Strong Eagle@Aug 16 2006, 09:46 PM

I have a hard time believing this one. In Vietnam, yes. In Singapore... well, I think the law is applied very evenly... why would the value of life of a person be dependent upon skin color?

 

Would the ruling have been different if an Indian under the same circumstances?

 

The fundamental fact is that a great deal of Singapore drivers refuse to acknowledge the fact that a pedestrian is in a far weaker position that a 2000 kg cage, and they need to pound on cagers and bikers so they understand that pedestrians are always at a disadvantage.

its true man,try hitting a bangla den a local(pick 2 choices) n a angmoh...all charge will be diff....

 

give u a example,can find in the papers one...australian guy murder 2 ppl neber kena hang but kena 24 years prison...local murder mistress,hang,no need to talk c*** so much..wat is more to say??u may say dat wat nt enuf eveidence to prosecute lah...i believe all dis talk c*** ah

[Arcfire]

well, i agree that there is a need to protect pedestrians as they are more at risk in an accident. That is why there are pedestrian crossings and overhead bridges and zebra crossings. If and when they choose to jaywalk they are already willingly forgoing their rights for safety.

 

By jaywalking, they are already breaking the law. Being injured in an accident does not reduce the fact that the jaywalker was still the one who has initially broken the law.

 

And it is precisely because of such things that pedestrians do not give a sh*t about oncoming vehicles when they jaywalk, thinking that they are almighty.

 

And if pedestrians need more protection as they are more at risk then shouldn't it apply to motorcyclist as well since we are more likely to lose out in an accident?

[pyro13]

were u speeding.. cos they have can say that u were speeding thus no speed to stop

[DeusExMachina]

Originally posted by Strong Eagle@Aug 16 2006, 09:46 PM

I have a hard time believing this one. In Vietnam, yes. In Singapore... well, I think the law is applied very evenly... why would the value of life of a person be dependent upon skin color?

 

Would the ruling have been different if an Indian under the same circumstances?

 

The fundamental fact is that a great deal of Singapore drivers refuse to acknowledge the fact that a pedestrian is in a far weaker position that a 2000 kg cage, and they need to pound on cagers and bikers so they understand that pedestrians are always at a disadvantage.

 

Many Singaporeans suffer from a severe strain of the Pinkerton Syndrome. You can see it by observing the differences in attitude of service staff (hotels, shops in town, etc) towards locals, asians, and caucasians.

 

Very glaring differences. The fault does not lie in the foreigner, the fault lies at home. Also, ever notice how a great many Singaporeans automatically change from speaking his/her own very relaxed Singlish.... into some very distorted and ugly angmoh-ified English (that sounds very Cantonese slanted) when they speak to a caucasian foreigner?? The accents and inflections are all at the wrong places. They add an "R" where it doesn't need to be... (eg: The = The'rrrrr)

 

Quite a severe strain, eh?

 

 

As for these pedestrians, another fundamental fact is that a great deal of Singapore pedestrians themselves refuse to acknowledge the fact that a pedestrian is in a far weaker position that a 2000 kg cage, so do they need to end up in hospital, or worse... the morgue, before they understand that pedestrians are always at a disadvantage.

 

To put it succintly, "Look, before you goddamned cross!"

[ronald814]

U are quite lucky to just get fine and disqualified for only 3 mths, Wow, 13 days in hospital is a serious case. Usually, at the most stay 2 to 3 days, but the pesdestrian injuried so seriously what abt U are U ok? If yes, take care. Thank your lucky stars already.

[contrarian]

Originally posted by 168km/h@Nov 2 2006, 09:19 PM

congrates. , , lets pray that others will learn this lessons. But care to share what kind of punishment does the jaywalker gets( except 13 hospital ) ? I dun think its fair.

The law puts the duty of care on the motorists and especially when it comes to the pedestrian. I think that is fair. You have been given the licence. It's your duty as the one in control of a vehicle to keep a proper lookout.

 

If you believe standing fast if you have right of way, then the law says too bad.

In an accident with a pedestrian, it does not matter if a pedestrian is jaywalking (although that may allow you pay a lower percentage of damages in his claim against you).

In an accident with another vehicle, in the great majority of cases, both parties different proportions of the blame. See my post in the Law Awareness - Road Accident thread:

http://www.singaporebikes.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=149

[contrarian]

Originally posted by aidiero@Nov 3 2006, 05:20 AM

give u a example,can find in the papers one...australian guy murder 2 ppl neber kena hang but kena 24 years prison...local murder mistress,hang,no need to talk c*** so much..wat is more to say??u may say dat wat nt enuf eveidence to prosecute lah...i believe all dis talk c*** ah

If you want to make an example, at least get your facts right. Before you accuse anyone or the law of being "talk c***", take a good look at yourself. You have completely misrepresentated the facts.

 

The woman was not sentenced to hang. She was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment, and her sentence is now being sent back to the court for review.

[Arcfire]

Originally posted by contrarian@Nov 3 2006, 01:20 PM

The law puts the duty of care on the motorists and especially when it comes to the pedestrian. I think that is fair. You have been given the licence. It's your duty as the one in control of a vehicle to keep a proper lookout.

 

If you believe standing fast if you have right of way, then the law says too bad.

In an accident with a pedestrian, it does not matter if a pedestrian is jaywalking (although that may allow you pay a lower percentage of damages in his claim against you).

In an accident with another vehicle, in the great majority of cases, both parties different proportions of the blame. See my post in the Law Awareness - Road Accident thread:

http://www.singaporebikes.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=149

Yes, the law does state that we should shoulder greater responsibilities when we ride/drive. But there is no way in which we can control how pedestrians or road users react. If the pedestrian wants to jump out on the road at the very last minute there is little we can do about it, less travel at 20km/h everytime we go pass a person standing remotely near the road.

I'm sure we've all had similar situations where we are walking towards a person going in the opposite direction. You shift left to give way only to find that the other person coincidentally shifted to your left in an attempt to let you pass. You both shift again and end up in the same spot. I'm just trying to say that we can control what we do but we cannot anticipate what another person is going to do all the time.

I only hope for abit stiffer penalties for jaywalkers to deter them from making the wrong move.