I nearly killed a cop....

[Apollo]

simi equal rights?

 

pple can suddenly rise fr the grave if he sense smthg wrong with singapore leh.

 

u can anot?

 

i dun think any messiah can even claim tat....

[Apollo]

if anyone ever hit a TP, pls lemme have his carplate. i try ibet.

 

i tot came out on papers before, got 1 women tp stop a car in the middle of lane 3 before?

 

machiam stylo milo kopi-O

[Devilmaycry]

I certainly agree with you. This driver should kena demerit points for not slowing down upon approaching junction. Very dangerous driver!!!

[Pisces69]

SEP1 = sinkapoor executive president.

======================

 

Someone eating prata?

[Pisces69]

Maybe one of the TP lost count of the traffic lights he suppose to stop the cars.

===================

 

Maybe he stopped half way to go to the toilet & had to catch up real fast.

[Pisces69]

(1) All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.

=========================

 

True, all r equal but some r more equal than others.

[Fitvip]

Hi Deel,

 

I read your encounter, but there are 2 points that puzzle me a little.

 

1stly, you ask for a reply from the authorities. Did you send the letter to any proper department? The authorities may not respond to forums!

 

2ndly, you said your speed was abt 40-50 k/ph. When you e-braked, your body was thrown against the steering wheel! I am imagining how it could have happened that way? If you are taking about the passenger, that is quite understandable, but as a driver, you sort of expect such force generated by the momentum and you caould have pushed against the steering wheel, right?

 

I am just curious, not flaming you hor!

[Devilmaycry]

When approaching junction, all fellow drivers, open your eyes big big and don't assume you have the light in your favor, you can bochap and drive through . Very dangerous!!! Btw, TP instructed you to stop, you stop!!! period. Considered yourself damn lucky enough because he has to gesture to you to stop(not apologized) else you the kuku driver still insist on going. Where were your eyes looking at, you're trying to tell me that the red and blue blink blink bike is not enough to catch your attention. Are you sure or not? You're the only vehicle stuck at the junction, rest didn't dare to come near the bike. You're unhappy bcos the rest of drivers at junction laughing at your driving skill? Look far ahead and anticipate, slow down when approaching junction. Must really hantam quat quat on this bochap driver.

[Pisces69]

pity the riders...put life at risk just for the sake of president car smoothly ride....

===================

 

True. Those on escort duty cannot let the VIP vehicle come to a stop. It must b continuously moving without delays.

 

The 2 officers who leapfrog to stop traffic at the road junctions have the hardest job. The others just enjoy the ride. If full compliment, I think additional outriders can b deployed to leapfrog in congested areas.

[Pisces69]

that's the power of "Men In White". They can stop ANYTHING they like...

======================

 

I wud like to see him step onto the railway tracks & raise his hand to stop a speeding train.

[Pisces69]

B careful when u drive along Istana also. TP will suddenly drive out from there and stopped all cars. Many years back, my friend and I were walking along the pedestrian walkway which is opposite Istana and nearly got knocked down by a car cos the driver swerved to our direction. Luckily the driver stopped in time.

============================

 

Was this the time when President Nair was President? He like to sneak out to have some fish head curry at Muthu's. He wear wig as disguise so pple won't recognise him.

[Nohnemwan]

1. Did i say that having a green light in my favour means I have a 'I dont care you' attitude?

 

No you didn't. But your actions suggest that very strongly. Because you stated that your vision was blocked. But yet you continued through the intersection at 40-50kmh.

 

my vision was blocked of the perpendicular lane, the convoy was not oncoming. Be practical, if everyone slows to 10-20km/h at every green light they reach, what would happen to our traffic conditions?

 

Aiyo, no need to distort my statements to such extremes. This stretching of my position to absurd proportions only makes you look weak. I did not suggest that:

a. everyone

b. slows to 10-20km/h

c. at every green light they reach

 

I merely pointed out that YOU (NOT everyone), with YOUR (NOT everybodys') vision blocked, continued through the intersection at 40-50kmh, resulting in a near collision. This is a fact, and it suggests very strongly that you have a "I don't care you" attitude.

 

2. Right side view is not of oncoming traffic, my other side of the road is ONCOMING traffic if you do not understand the term ONCOMING.

 

OK lah, you got me here, happy? ONCOMING to you means only traffic coming from directly in front. ONCOMING to me means traffic that is also coming from the side. 100 marks to you if you insist. The facts have shown that a police bike did suddenly appear to your right side, you say that is not defined as ONCOMING, ok lor, but that does not erase the fact that he came at you.

 

to me ONCOMING is coming straight at me from the front, you trying to tell me oncoming is coming from all directions including the back?

 

Hallo, you already score 100 marks on this point, not happy I give you 1000 lah. I still got try to tell you ONCOMING means behind, on top, underneath, inside meh? Is it, or is it not, a fact that the TP appeared on your right? OK, so I cannot say oncoming, so can say come from the right or not? Again, you are distorting my position to now include even things I did NOT say.

 

3. You ASSUMED that I bo chup, and FURTHER ASSUMED that i did not slow down further

 

It is a fact, not an assumption. Read your own post. It is so detailed. You said:

"My vehicle was travelling well within the speed limit on the right lane of the abovesaid road."

Then you said:

"There was an extended right lane for right turns and the lane was packed with vehicles, thus obstructing my view of the traffic from the perpendicular Dunman Road."

But there was no mention that you slowed down FURTHER after acknowledging that your view was blocked.

Do you know the meaning of FURTHER?

 

I said I was travelling within speed limits in my letter, because I did not want the authorities to think I was speeding, not because I bo chup like u ASSUMED.

On the matter of further slowing down, if I did not slow down FURTHER, i would have mowed down the traffic policeman.

 

Orh, now and only now you claim that you slowed down FURTHER, but why not in your original post? Trying to shift your position? Why in your original post did you make the effort to claim to be well within the limit but then conveniently forgot to mention that you slowed down FURTHER? Can believe this convenient and sudden extra information or not?

 

4. I was travelling at 40-50km/h and let my car cruise along the road, if I did not slow down, I could not have stopped my car in such a short distance.

 

I do not dispute that you did not initially slow down. By your own statements, you said that you were already "well within the speed limit". And then you said that your view was blocked. But you did not say that you slowed down FURTHER, after seeing that your view was blocked. Read your own post. Like I said, do you know the meaning of FURTHER?

 

My view was blocked, my foot was off the accelerator and prepare to break, just like when i pass through any traffic light. Letting my car cruise and crusing along means 2 totally different thing

 

Orh, now you claim that all this slowing down business happened. But only AFTER I questioned your position. Yes, all very convenient. But can believe or not?

 

5. You mentioned the cases in SG courts scenario. The scenario you mentioned is when the arrow just turned green and the motorists involved just turned, for my case, the lights were GREEN from AFAR, long in my favour.

 

No. The cases of contributory negligence are NOT involving "arrow just turned green" scenario. They are for cases like yours - far away see green (arrow), so anyhow just continue.

 

Please, enlighten me, quote me a case where a motorist proceeds lawfully on a long green traffic signal and was judged to be more than trivial negligence. Contributory suggests that.

 

You want precedence? There are many. Here is a recent one:

http://lwb.lawnet.com.sg/legal/lgl/rss/sup...ourt/52981.html

Take note: supreme court case OK? Not just district court. Read the whole case then see Para 7 in particular. Moral of the story - green (light or arrow) for you does not mean it is a magic force field that will shield you from all blame.

 

6. I do not think that SG courts will rule that a motorist is negligent because the other party BEAT a traffic sign that was no longer in his favour since long ago and caused an accident.

 

They have not ruled "that a motorist is negligent" but they have ruled that he is contributorily negligent, hence my use of "ALSO wrong in not keeping a proper lookout and thus contributing to the cause of the accident". Read my first post to you again.

 

These rulings you said, can easily be distinguished from my scenario. It is a totally different thing, from an objective point of view, it is RIDICULOUS for the court to suggest that everytime someone cross a traffic light controlled junction, they have to slow to 10-20km/h or wait and see got car or not. BY THAT TIME LIGHT TURN RED ALEDI LAH!

 

Again and again you are distorting the situation from YOUR case where YOUR view was blocked, to one purporting that the courts have REQUIRED ALL motorists to slow to 10-20kmh. No such thing has happened. Such leaps of logic reinforce the impression that you are self righteous (alamak, flaming!) and incapable of recognising (alamak, more flaming!) a hazard to yourself. Go back to my reply to your point 1.

 

7. DO NOT quote unfounded legal precedents.

 

They are founded, not unfounded.

 

Founded? By you? Quote me a case I will distinguish it for you.

 

See point 5. Of course in that case it was an accident involving traffic from opposite directions, not exactly the same as your situation where it was involving traffic from YOUR right. But the reasoning regarding contributory negilgence still holds. The legal position is that a driver no matter how innocent STILL has a duty to avoid an accident, even when he has a green light in his favour. If it were otherwise, anytime you have a green light in your favour you can then have the right to run over all the aunties who are a little slow in crossing the road.

 

8. Be it a policeman or anybody, I would have the same amount of anger, just that coming from someone who is supposed to be an enforcer on our roads, I would condemn it further.

 

Really ah? Maybe you are masking your own contributory negligence by being angry. The facts are that you did not have a full clear view of the junction and yet you carried on your "let my car cruise along the road" behaviour. If the situation was that you had a full 100% clear view of the junction, drove through at 30km/h when the lights were green for you, and then a Bangla fell from a tree onto your path and you hit him, then yes, you have a right to be angry. Also, "green for a long time" - a reasonable motorist would then know that the light might change soon - so is it better to slow down in readiness for amber or just continue "let my car cruise along the road" attitude?

 

In some posts, I highlighted that the policeman also had a family you know. Letting my car, letting = allowing. UNDERSTAND?? Cruising in my car and letting my car cruise is totally different. Again, HOW SLOW DO YOU EXPECT A MOTORIST TO GO? as in RIDE A BICYCLE like u?

 

Oh dear, getting angry? No need to distort my position yet again (it is really getting very tiring, this distortion of what I said), I never said or suggested that you should be as slow as a bicycle. Ey, no need to say I ride bicycle lah. Just that YOU stated that YOUR view was blocked, but did not state that you slowed down (but now conveniently try to claim that you slowed down further). You included so much detail in your original letter and yet conveniently fail to mention that you slow down further AFTER realising that your view was blocked? Can believe or not?

 

10. READ POINT 9 AGAIN ALOUD.

 

You read my reply to your point 9 hor.

 

Conclusion: by "testing" you with pointed questions your reply has proven that you are full of righteous indignation.

 

Enough of the name calling ya, I don't suppose the forum is FOR PPL LIKE YOU, to come and TEST PPL'S PATIENCE, for you to decide if ppl ARE INDIGNANT OR RIGHTEOUS. If I go to every thread and test ppl patience just to call ppl names like you, I will be kicked out pretty soon... wake up...

 

Wah, thin skin again, I say you are bohchup (merely an attribute concerning your behaviour) means I'm calling you names? By such reasoning if I say someone is confident (also merely an attribute concerning his behaviour), I'm also calling him names? Wah, so clever hor (oops, just called you another name).

 

You could have brushed aside the baiting and answered in a factual unexcited way.

 

whether I am/was excited or not, does not attribute anything to my attitude at that time

 

Your original statement (which you only now conveniently try to adjust by claiming that you slowed down futher after realising that your view was blocked) TOGETHER with what happened is 100% proof that:

 

Attitude + Circumstance = Near Collision.

 

If you had a more cautious attitude to match the circumstances (and not as you have distorted - "every" traffic light "all the time" "slow down to 10-20kmh") you would have arrived at the junction maybe a mere 3 seconds later, enough to see the TP there from 3 seconds away, and not have to brake until bang your chest. You cannot deny this.

 

Which has proven also that your attitude was "green light in my favour, I cannot see traffic coming at me, but I bohchup continue at 40-50kmh, policeman come, I nearly bang him die, I still 100% in the right because I got green light, he lucky to be alive".

 

read relevant posts in forum thread before you start flaming. My concern is not that I am big or i got green light I win. I have highlighted before, that this is a dangerous act by TP, not any bangla, stop using the comparison. I am highlighting this, so that ppl will be aware, esp now, revelations that SEP1 stays there, thus ppl can keep a better lookout, just in case. I am also pointing out that the TP has a family and whatever, don't need to PIA so hard so just to siam traffic. In no circumstances, did I come to be seen as boh chup, couldnt care less

 

Aiyoh, thin skin problem again. Flaming? I say you excited, bohchup, self righteous, indignant = flaming? Come come, daddy sayang....

 

And your logic is really really weak (oops flaming again). The TP / Bangla comparison I raised is not about the TP / Bangla as people. It is about unexpected events, suddenly occuring from an angle which was blocked by other cars but which you could have exercised caution by slowing down (which you conveniently now claim that you did, but obviously STILL not enough because you brake and bang chest). In your case it was TP, with headlights on and in uniform, much more obvious than some hypothetical dark Bangla near sunset, so in your case, if you had hit the TP but claimed that you did not see him, would be even harder to believe.

 

 

If there had been an accident, the court would have no trouble concluding that:

1. Your vision was blocked.

2. You did not slow down enough to allow for vehicles suddenly shooting out from blind spots .

3. There was an accident because you failed to keep a proper lookout even though the light was green for you.

4. You are contributorily negligent.

[Porche]

ah nai so heavy....the car so travel slower, the TP too gun cheong

[Porche]

u should see those NPP blue man, even worse when directing traffic. i met 2 during Chinese new year, make a mess at Bukit Timah ave 6. have to call TP to come and assist.

[Nobrainer32007]

wah piang eh, Mr Deel, if u have so much time and so much to complain about the policeman and the person he was escorting, pls lodge a formal complaint in the official channel! you think u are so so right and everyone is wrong and flaming u, so pls go NPP or TP hedquarter or MOHA or even write to the Straits Times forum. demand a public apology from that policeman or the minister or the person that was ecorted! better still, sue for damages and if u r lucky u get some compensation for time sent in this forum arguing with people

 

Before the appearance of more like-minded flamers, I will like to reiterate some stands:

 

1. I was angry (who wouldnt?) at the point of time, but mere anger will not drive me to write in to the authorities. It has further implications, especially on road safety. I am fully aware that should the accident occur, I may be charged in court for killing someone, which is not what I want. I have a career, a family and a good number of years ahead of me, which should not be destroyed in a moment of rashness. The same goes for the policeman. I say again, I do not wish my face to come out in papers, because I kena charged, or in obituary.

 

2. I am fully aware that the police has the right to do this, I just want assurance and I am sure the public will appreciate that, when using their discretion in such circumstances, they will do it safely with due respect to all other law abiding motorists.

 

3. Public awareness of this should be raised, such that ppl can be prepared for such a scenario. A forum is a good place for people to learn and give constructive comments like most which I have received from fellow MCFers

[Studio]

To Nohnemwan

 

Hey pal... I dun normally post but after reading ur reply... I say go screw yourself. Give the guy a break man. Maybe u are just one of those by-the-book fellow with no EQ.

 

Live and let live pal.

[Skyw4lker]

don't you realize there are so much complaints about policeman, cabbies ETC ETC?

 

he and the other kitten should just go ahead complain to relevant authorities and not inviting flaming here if they can't accept what others comment.waste time waste bandwidht.Period.

[Deel]

if you read relevant posts, i have mentioned that the letter was addressed to traffic police, st forum and tnp forum. period. before you start shooting your mouth off again.