Accident analysis discussion

[Zippaboy]

can overtake.

 

it is not illegal.

 

only if double white line then cannot overtake.

 

[Turret]

 

I opine that your friend is in the wrong.... it is apparent that your friend did not check his blind spot prior to turning... plus of course the signal as well..

 

[Nohnemwan]

Yes, this is what i am looking for. Your penultimate sentence took the words right out of my mouth.

 

Thank you very much.

 

You can ignore all the rest of the rubbish on this thread. The case happened many years ago. It was also reported in the newspapers.

 

Of course the lawyers for the deceased tried to claim that the driver did not signal. That is actually irrelevant.

 

Tell your friend to fight any claims all the way. Regardless of all this should have / could have / after-the-fact reasoning / nonsense, the law is on his side. That is the bottom line and that is all that matters.

 

[Kar_lover]

And if you don't know the difference between "consumed by" and "ruined by", then there is no emotion I can feel for you other than pity. (This would also be tempered by a sense of wonder that a supposed National Level Debater can't tell the difference in such shades of meaning, such nuance (and no I am not talking about the duty free chain) should be beyond you)

 

Is there any nuance by the way u wrote an entire sentence in brackets?

 

Anyway, just to clarify, my statement that i was an ex-national debater is in fact to demonstrate to u that competent speakers are not necessarily competent writers, "spellers" or anything else. this was in reply to u suggesting i ask any competent speaker whether it should be wrecked or wracked. Do you get it?

 

At no point did i mean that because i am an "ex-so-and-so" (ESAS) therefore i am perfect or correct. It is precisely my imperfection that i am highlighting. Yet u seem hell-bent on attacking me on dat basis (dat i am an ESAS). This gives me the feeling (or is it nuance?) that u might just be feeling a tad insecure having to face me (an ESAS and in this insecurity) that u are taking particular delight to show urself to be superior and hence validating urself?? haha...

 

Anyway enough already, soon other forumers will be bored.

[Darryn]

You can ignore all the rest of the rubbish on this thread. The case happened many years ago. It was also reported in the newspapers.

 

Of course the lawyers for the deceased tried to claim that the driver did not signal. That is actually irrelevant.

 

Tell your friend to fight any claims all the way. Regardless of all this should have / could have / after-the-fact reasoning / nonsense, the law is on his side. That is the bottom line and that is all that matters.

 

Well of course, on the face of it the facts of the two cases are different.

 

In the current case the driver has ADMITTED he didn't signal, and has also ADMITTED to not checking blind spot before turning...two things that he is required to do by law....

[1fast1]

Your friend will be assessed to have the majority of the fault. Won't be 100%, because the bike can also be accused of "failing to keep a proper lookout" or whatever, but your friend made the following MAJOR mistakes:

 

1) Failed to indicate intention to turn - I don't know what makes Singaporeans think this is unnecessary under ANY circumstances. They like to cut here and there without signalling, and they lack even the basic judgement and skill to know when it's safe to do so (unlike most Malaysian cars). When something like this happens, then "I told you so" seems inadequate. But the worst thing is, the recalcitrant offenders will STILL insist they're right, like in the case of your friend (or you, defending him somewhat by saying the bike bears the majority of the blame).

 

2) Failed to check blind-spot before making turn - another big pet peeve of mine with Sg drivers. Even without signalling, this accident could've been completely prevented if your friend had checked his blind-spot.

 

Your friend can of course be dishonest and try to mitigate his blame by claiming his signal light was broken and he wasn't aware. But that still won't eliminate his blame for point 1, since it's up to the owner to make sure the car is in fine fettle. And it won't obviate any blame for point 2.

 

When my Vios signal light (right side) got fused, I knew immediately because the blinker started ticking fast (reduced resistance in the circuit means the time constant of the oscillator is reduced). You know what I did until I got it fixed? I turned off my a/c, rolled down my window and stuck out my hand to signal right! That's how important I think signalling is. I remember thinking to myself how lucky I was that the *left* side didn't go instead since I didn't have a passenger to signal and I didn't think many people would understand the proper way to signal left from the driver's side (it's to stick out your hand and make a circular motion - people would probably think I was calling them "crazy". The alternative is to stick out your hand with forearm bent at a right angle - but that might just look like I'm telling the driver behind to slow down or something).

 

So, sorry, your friend doesn't get a whole lot of sympathy from me. Because I've had too many close shaves with idiots who don't think signalling is important (only alert and defensive driving saved me).

Edited June 26, 2010 by Turboflat4

[Kar_lover]

You can ignore all the rest of the rubbish on this thread. The case happened many years ago. It was also reported in the newspapers.

 

Of course the lawyers for the deceased tried to claim that the driver did not signal. That is actually irrelevant.

 

Tell your friend to fight any claims all the way. Regardless of all this should have / could have / after-the-fact reasoning / nonsense, the law is on his side. That is the bottom line and that is all that matters.

 

Yes, i have informed him already and he has taken note. Lets see how things go.

 

Thanks again.

[Darryn]

Is there any nuance by the way u wrote an entire sentence in brackets?

 

Anyway, just to clarify, my statement that i was an ex-national debater is in fact to demonstrate to u that competent speakers are not necessarily competent writers, "spellers" or anything else. this was in reply to u suggesting i ask any competent speaker whether it should be wrecked or wracked. Do you get it?

 

At no point did i mean that because i am an "ex-so-and-so" (ESAS) therefore i am perfect or correct. It is precisely my imperfection that i am highlighting. Yet u seem hell-bent on attacking me on dat basis (dat i am an ESAS). This gives me the feeling (or is it nuance?) that u might just be feeling a tad insecure having to face me (an ESAS and in this insecurity) that u are taking particular delight to show urself to be superior and hence validating urself?? haha...

 

Anyway enough already, soon other forumers will be bored.

 

You know (or should that be no?) what I am taking delight in?

 

Rubbing your nose in it. I politely took the time to point out the difference between "wracked" and "wrecked" which mean two quite different things. Instead of taking this in the spirit it was intended, you wanted to come back and tell me "nyah nyah you are wrong", when infact your "research" (if it even qualifies as that) was highly flawed and incomplete.

 

You then went on to try and "win" me (yes, I will use the incorrect construction, becasue I fear it is all you will understand) by claiming to be an ex national debater.

 

And you know what? I obviously am superior. Why? Because when people point out my errors to me I humbly take the opportunity to learn, rather than trying to prove them wrong.

 

In this thread you have shown a very apparent propensity to ignore the opinion of others. Instead of listening and taking on board the very opinions you asked for, you have argued and tried to (tried being the operative word here, you haven't had much success) justify why it is that your friend is in the right (or is that rite, or perhaps it is write?) when it is his laziness in turning on his signal, coupled with his failure to check the blind spot that is the major contributor to this accident.

[Mrlau]

I am always right !

 

Even I have only 1% right, I still right !

[Kar_lover]

Well of course, on the face of it the facts of the two cases are different.

 

In the current case the driver has ADMITTED he didn't signal, and has also ADMITTED to not checking blind spot before turning...two things that he is required to do by law....

 

I said he admitted he didn't signal. He did check his mirrors but did not see anyone which i then resonably conclude that the biker was prob in the blind spot. In any case, nohnemwan already pointed out that that the non-usage of signal was irrelevant.

[Darryn]

I said he admitted he didn't signal. He did check his mirrors but did not see anyone which i then resonably conclude that the biker was prob in the blind spot. In any case, nohnemwan already pointed out that that the non-usage of signal was irrelevant.

 

Well you are obviously an adherent at Mr. Lau's church.

[Mrlau]

I said he admitted he didn't signal. He did check his mirrors but did not see anyone which i then resonably conclude that the biker was prob in the blind spot. In any case, nohnemwan already pointed out that that the non-usage of signal was irrelevant.

 

Yes, it is the biker's fault to stay at the blind spot.

[Mrlau]

Well you are obviously an adherent at Mr. Lau's church.

 

haha.....

 

The recent case, you can't blame me for break in to your house, blame yourself for a lousy lock.

 

[Infinitywerkz]

firstly, your friend is wrong. according to the minor injury, your friends car should be travelling at a low speed. The bike is just wanted to overtake you since there is only one lane and you bloody hell travel so slow. If i m the biker i will also overtake. Overtake in single lane dont need to put signal correct. Another thing, who is your friend driving coach. you think you are the king. just see a mirror and turn. your friend first time driving is it. He is lucky enough that the impact is minor. When about to turn you should check the side situation, turn the signal, check again and turn. Do it a habit. your friend is 铁包皮， biker is 皮包铁. In court you are already loser for not signal. Overtaking is legal when you road hog. If not everyday traffic jam. Sorry my ang mo is not very good

[Kar_lover]

And you know what? I obviously am superior.

 

Yes, u are superior and i am inferior. How? Feels good?

 

I guessed u missed it but many posts ago, i already conceded u were right about the wrack and wreck thing. And i also went to the link to check the pronunciation. Maybe due to my inferiority, my attempt to replicate the different pronunciation of the words was met with little success although i can hearl the difference quite clearly by the digitised voice.

 

 

 

[Kar_lover]

firstly, your friend is wrong. according to the minor injury, your friends car should be travelling at a low speed. The bike is just wanted to overtake you since there is only one lane and you bloody hell travel so slow. If i m the biker i will also overtake. Overtake in single lane dont need to put signal correct. Another thing, who is your friend driving coach. you think you are the king. just see a mirror and turn. your friend first time driving is it. He is lucky enough that the impact is minor. When about to turn you should check the side situation, turn the signal, check again and turn. Do it a habit. your friend is 铁包皮， biker is 皮包铁. In court you are already loser for not signal. Overtaking is legal when you road hog. If not everyday traffic jam. Sorry my ang mo is not very good

 

Prof Darryn!! Got student! Got student!

[Kar_lover]

Dear All

 

Thanks for all your opinions, be they constructive or otherwise.

 

I am now "abandoning" this thread and i tink have gotten watever i can out of it already.

 

Particular thanks to bro nohnemwan for info on past case.

 

Thanks again. Peace & drive safe.

 

 

 

[Darryn]

Yes, u are superior and i am inferior. How? Feels good?

 

I guessed u missed it but many posts ago, i already conceded u were right about the wrack and wreck thing. And i also went to the link to check the pronunciation. Maybe due to my inferiority, my attempt to replicate the different pronunciation of the words was met with little success although i can hearl the difference quite clearly by the digitised voice.

i grumpy at work on a saturday morning....

 

And frankly speaking, depending upon the accent, rack and shrek will sound velly velly different.

 

But to share, one thing I hate hate hate hearing, that is being propagated via the States is "troop" to refer to a soldier. The next one that bugs me is "a cabin crew" to refer to a flight attendant. I may be a bit of a pedant, but this sort of shift towards WRONG usage drives me crazy

Edited June 26, 2010 by Darryn