A licence needed just to cycle?

[inlinesix]

Please lah. Issue licence, put licence plate, all this will be useless if the authorities continue not to enforce road regulations on cyclists.

 

If they step up enforcement on cyclists, it would not be necessary to go to all this song and dance.

Putting licence plate <> enforcement. Enforcement = More TP on the road. Not hiding in some bush with speed trap gun.

[Icedbs]

 

Regulation is warranted if the activity poses sufficient threat to disruption of usage to an otherwise normal functioning road.

 

There are very few joggers, roller-bladers and pedestrains on the road. They can however be found on the road on rare occasions - pavements blocked by something.

 

Your analogy is seriously flawed.

 

Honestly, after driving for nearly 2 decades everyday, I have never found cyclist to be a nuisance or a safety hazard. There could be some errant cyclist, but not enough to make an impression on me. Most you could see them from afar and you can easily avoid them.

 

I find more hazards from pedestrians who stands in some dark corner waiting to jaywalk, or some joggers who dash across suddenly, or some who still dash after their lights turn red. These are plenty and it's always difficult to watch out for them at night. It's also hard to anticipate them because they could be static and then suddenly they dash. And it is almost a daily affair that I will see errant pedestrians everyday.

 

So I don't agree if you say errant pedestrians are few. I definitely find them much more than errant cyclist. Perhaps you don't drive around places with many pedestrians everyday.

 

But it's all about safety first and drive & anticipate safely regardless who has the right of way. As long one maintain that mindset, no errant pedestrians, cyclist or motorist will ever be an issue. This whole regulation thing about cyclist is more like a knee-jerk reaction in trying "to get back at them" simply because they also use the road, and not so much about objectivity. Trying to regulate seems like the most obvious solution, but think deeper and you will know that there is a whole lot of complexity from fair administration to enforcement. And it the end, after going through all the trouble, it may not be even effective as much as we want for all the logistic, organisation and infrastructure (and taxpayers money) that has been put in place due to the inherent nature of cycling which in recreational, transferable, portable, and viable for all ages.

Edited October 12, 2013 by Icedbs

[Datsun366]

My 2 cents,

 

In my neighborhood of Queenstown, thru the years,

 

1. Mommy ferrying kids to school. Mom works at low wages, cannot afford picnic or suv, just two legged power and determination. Guess what, she rides on pavement, cross junctions at pedestrain crossing. Blue collar heartlander, not to mention she is immigrant from Johore. *wink*

 

2. PRC girl from waitressing job, riding to her next job. Riding on the road, waving and chatting to her girl friends, while mindlessly ignoring motor vehicles coming from her backside. Weaving a bit, not too bad looking, hate to have her a bloody mess.

 

3. Bangle bayah(sp) riding to get his groceries, zipping thru zebra crossing, at night. Respect his attempt to sacrifice more.

 

4. Fort road riders on early Saturday morning wi blinking lights, expensive bikes and sexy outfits with turtles on their heads. Exercise and relaxation after five days of hard work.

 

5. Boston lobsters cruising to vivocity and the kuku riding against traffic at Neil road with expensive gear. For their recreation.

 

6. Myself riding to kopitiam for takeaway and when I was not so well off ...to work.

 

Look up and down boys and girls.

 

Licensing and registration and insurance help the resource rich individuals, hurt that mom, good looking girl and hard working brother. Asking them for more, when they have less. Not good politics.

 

I dislike balls grab when bikes zoom across my path, heck no way at puttering speed can I avoid a kamikaze attack. Mat mata also cannot avoid when fly out of nowhere.

 

Just commit the rule explicitly and clearly what cyclists are entitled too.

 

Insofar, it's the well heeled that are barking for their rights.

 

No one bother to ask the vitagen or yakult lady. Dr So and so, cooking curry arh?

 

No wonder they making like the titanic. Wrong people at the helm or those working the bridge better wake up.

How did the bosun teach navigation? Bring your inner liner.

[Porker]

 

Honestly, after driving for nearly 2 decades everyday, I have never found cyclist to be a nuisance or a safety hazard. There could be some errant cyclist, but not enough to make an impression on me. Most you could see them from afar and you can easily avoid them.

 

I find more hazards from pedestrians who stands in some dark corner waiting to jaywalk, or some joggers who dash across suddenly, or some who still dash after their lights turn red. These are plenty and it's always difficult to watch out for them at night. It's also hard to anticipate them because they could be static and then suddenly they dash. And it is almost a daily affair that I will see errant pedestrians everyday.

 

So I don't agree if you say errant pedestrians are few. I definitely find them much more than errant cyclist. Perhaps you don't drive around places with many pedestrians everyday.

 

But it's all about safety first and drive & anticipate safely regardless who has the right of way. As long one maintain that mindset, no errant pedestrians, cyclist or motorist will ever be an issue. This whole regulation thing about cyclist is more like a knee-jerk reaction in trying "to get back at them" simply because they also use the road, and not so much about objectivity. Trying to regulate seems like the most obvious solution, but think deeper and you will know that there is a whole lot of complexity from fair administration to enforcement. And it the end, after going through all the trouble, it may not be even effective as much as we want for all the logistic, organisation and infrastructure (and taxpayers money) that has been put in place due to the inherent nature of cycling which in recreational, transferable, portable, and viable for all ages.

Errant pedestrians crossing the road cannot be lumped together with cyclists making a nuisance of themselves. One is crossing the road and the other is on the road either taking up too much space or riding dangerously. Remember: one is crossing the road and the other is using the road - two very different categories. Don't go out of context.

[Mllcg]

if licensing is out, restrict cyclists to only using pavements.

 

then again, nothing will please them.

 

they already said once that cycling in PCN got speed limits. Thats why they use roads.

[Datsun366]

How about reservations for expensive cyclists, those leotards with turtle heads and itty bitty blinking red in the rear end.

Places like Marina Barrage can have bike lanes, they can speed all they want. We will sit on the benches along the way and admire the hot sweaty flesh pumping away. Some of the bu quite chio one. I set my DSLRs up and can quite an eyeful. Cheap thrills man.

Can even encourage entrepreneurship by having drink stand.

The neighborhood ppl just let them be lor, yakult lady tough to earn ok.

Porker...crossing road also using road what.... :-)

Ever drive in CBD during lunch time, republic plaza cpf building, thereabouts? Maciam many sprinters wear tie or heels leh.

[Scoots]

If there is proper enforcement on the road, how would cyclist be untraceable? Every 1 has some form of proper ID on them.

 

Going by your logic, Drivers' vehicles (cars, SUVs, lorries, buses, container trucks, cement mixers ...) could all do WITHOUT number plates as well with 'proper enforcement' right? You sure the cycling community would really want to back THAT suggestion?

 

Or are you really expecting an enforcement officer every few metres on the road and that they will be able to STOP every errant road user?? Now THAT is really BS

 

 

If we are relying on video capture, it is like what i said earlier, pure BS.

 

You can call that whatever you want. BUT the REALITY of that video that's circulating proves that

 

Capturing that errant cyclist on video, it would have been possible for the authorities to trace back to the cyclist had there been some form of visible identification on him or his bicycle.

 

Trust you to confuse REALITY with BS ...

 

 

All the problem on the road (regardless which group of users), is cause by lack of enforcement. Every wk, i would encounter driver do not stop at zebra crossing. Should i report them?

You are free to do what you want to do with whatever evidence you have. Just one thing I would want to highlight in case you make a (bigger) fool of yourself. You would have to be a PEDESTRAIN wanting to use the zebra crossing in the first place.

 

http://sg.news.yahoo...-132701429.html

"For the record, cyclists in Singapore are allowed to use the pedestrian crossing provided that they dismount and push their bicycles, said in the safe cycling guidelines by the police. Cyclists should not cycle across pedestrian crossings."

 

 

Lastly, i assume u did not write to my MP. If yes, u could share his response on this matter. I had shared the response i read HOR.

Yup ... Assume ... assume ....

What I do is my own matter (and what you do is your own) I am not oblige to give you ANY accounting of what I do.. nor do I intend to give you the pleasure of getting any

 

Lack of enforcement is not a valid reason for not putting up any form of regulation/legislation when it's clear that there's an obvious gap that needs to be plugged.

[1fast1]

Is there even any official rules for bicycles in SG that are not just "guidelines" ? This needs to written into the Law, and enforced by TP first before you talk about licensing. Have drivers comply first to this Law first, easier to enforce and cyclists don't kill motorists, but motorists do kill cyclists. Licensing cyclists will be impractical to enforce, but at least educate them of this Law.

 

Most of the so-called guidelines *are* law. Look up the Statutes of Singapore - it's web-searchable. The problem is that the language is not locked-down absolutely tight so that it gives the irritating self-righteous cyclists more wiggle-room than it should. For instance, there is a clause in the Acts that pertains to cyclists not being permitted to ride on the main road when there is a purpose-built path alongside it for the exclusive use of cyclists. Any reasonable person would naturally think this would extend to the PCN. But no, world-class champion cyclists like Davidtch have actually argued with me, claiming that the PCN, while *primarily* for the use of cyclists, is not *exclusively* for the use of cyclists, so the law doesn't apply here. Not only is he a champion cyclist, he takes the medal for sophistical and specious reasoning as well, because nitpicking to that extent means that the law basically applies to no stretch in Singapore. At all. It's a useless law and should be done away with, according to his reasoning.

 

What the gahmen needs to do is tighten up the language, educate the cyclists, provide a regulatory/licensing and traceability framework (basically, plates) and step up enforcement. Then even the especially thickheaded members of the cycling fraternity will have to toe the line.

Edited October 13, 2013 by Turboflat4

[Jamomatt]

In my line of work I deal with the poorest of the poor and they get by just fine on public transport so don't give that bull crap. Before I could afford a car I was also on public transport like most of the population.

 

My 2 cents,

 

In my neighborhood of Queenstown, thru the years,

 

1. Mommy ferrying kids to school. Mom works at low wages, cannot afford picnic or suv, just two legged power and determination. Guess what, she rides on pavement, cross junctions at pedestrain crossing. Blue collar heartlander, not to mention she is immigrant from Johore. *wink*

 

2. PRC girl from waitressing job, riding to her next job. Riding on the road, waving and chatting to her girl friends, while mindlessly ignoring motor vehicles coming from her backside. Weaving a bit, not too bad looking, hate to have her a bloody mess.

 

3. Bangle bayah(sp) riding to get his groceries, zipping thru zebra crossing, at night. Respect his attempt to sacrifice more.

 

4. Fort road riders on early Saturday morning wi blinking lights, expensive bikes and sexy outfits with turtles on their heads. Exercise and relaxation after five days of hard work.

 

5. Boston lobsters cruising to vivocity and the kuku riding against traffic at Neil road with expensive gear. For their recreation.

 

6. Myself riding to kopitiam for takeaway and when I was not so well off ...to work.

 

Look up and down boys and girls.

 

Licensing and registration and insurance help the resource rich individuals, hurt that mom, good looking girl and hard working brother. Asking them for more, when they have less. Not good politics.

 

I dislike balls grab when bikes zoom across my path, heck no way at puttering speed can I avoid a kamikaze attack. Mat mata also cannot avoid when fly out of nowhere.

 

Just commit the rule explicitly and clearly what cyclists are entitled too.

 

Insofar, it's the well heeled that are barking for their rights.

 

No one bother to ask the vitagen or yakult lady. Dr So and so, cooking curry arh?

 

No wonder they making like the titanic. Wrong people at the helm or those working the bridge better wake up.

How did the bosun teach navigation? Bring your inner liner.

[Datsun366]

Is there even any official rules for bicycles in SG that are not just "guidelines" ? This needs to written into the Law, and enforced by TP first before you talk about licensing. Have drivers comply first to this Law first, easier to enforce and cyclists don't kill motorists, but motorists do kill cyclists. Licensing cyclists will be impractical to enforce, but at least educate them of this Law.

Road traffic Act (Chapter 274, Section 140) Road Traffic (Bicycle) rules. Revised 1990

Please search for Attorney General's Chambers AGC online.

[Nzy]

 

Most of the so-called guidelines *are* law. Look up the Statutes of Singapore - it's web-searchable. The problem is that the language is not locked-down absolutely tight so that it gives the irritating self-righteous cyclists more wiggle-room than it should. For instance, there is a clause in the Acts that pertains to cyclists not being permitted to ride on the main road when there is a purpose-built path alongside it for the exclusive use of cyclists. Any reasonable person would naturally think this would extend to the PCN. But no, world-class champion cyclists like Davidtch have actually argued with me, claiming that the PCN, while *primarily* for the use of cyclists, is not *exclusively* for the use of cyclists, so the law doesn't apply here. Not only is he a champion cyclist, he takes the medal for sophistical and specious reasoning as well, because nitpicking to that extent means that the law basically applies to no stretch in Singapore. At all. It's a useless law and should be done away with, according to his reasoning.

 

What the gahmen needs to do is tighten up the language, educate the cyclists, provide a regulatory/licensing and traceability framework (basically, plates) and step up enforcement. Then even the especially thickheaded members of the cycling fraternity will have to toe the line.

 

But if it is really illegal for cyclists to cycle on Changi Coastal Road just because there is a PCN beside it, then why didn't the TP/LTA mention it at all even after so many cyclists have died there? IIRC I even saw a sign erected by LTA to warn drivers that there are cyclists on that road.

In my line of work I deal with the poorest of the poor and they get by just fine on public transport so don't give that bull crap. Before I could afford a car I was also on public transport like most of the population.

 

 

Some the foreign workers hired by my mum's company really cannot afford public transport. If they take the bus/train to and fro, they will need about $3+ a day which is alot to them since some of them only earning $15 a day.

[inlinesix]

Going by your logic, Drivers' vehicles (cars, SUVs, lorries, buses, container trucks, cement mixers ...) could all do WITHOUT number plates as well with 'proper enforcement' right? You sure the cycling community would really want to back THAT suggestion?

 

Or are you really expecting an enforcement officer every few metres on the road and that they will be able to STOP every errant road user?? Now THAT is really BS

 

You can call that whatever you want. BUT the REALITY of that video that's circulating proves that

 

Capturing that errant cyclist on video, it would have been possible for the authorities to trace back to the cyclist had there been some form of visible identification on him or his bicycle.

 

Trust you to confuse REALITY with BS ...

 

You are free to do what you want to do with whatever evidence you have. Just one thing I would want to highlight in case you make a (bigger) fool of yourself. You would have to be a PEDESTRAIN wanting to use the zebra crossing in the first place.

 

http://sg.news.yahoo...-132701429.html

"For the record, cyclists in Singapore are allowed to use the pedestrian crossing provided that they dismount and push their bicycles, said in the safe cycling guidelines by the police. Cyclists should not cycle across pedestrian crossings."

 

Yup ... Assume ... assume ....

What I do is my own matter (and what you do is your own) I am not oblige to give you ANY accounting of what I do.. nor do I intend to give you the pleasure of getting any

 

Lack of enforcement is not a valid reason for not putting up any form of regulation/legislation when it's clear that there's an obvious gap that needs to be plugged.

Do u mean we can do away with TP?

 

When u starts to debate with me, it is my pleasure especially when i am stress up @ work. Thanks a lot.

[Darryn]

This should be done as long as the cycle is going to set wheels on a public road. If they're going to restrict themselves to parks and PCNs, then, of course, they can be exempted.

 

 

Problem is,

 

Even if you are in it purely for fun, almost every bike will go on the road at some point anyway. To get from my house to the PCN it is a 1.5 km cycle. The PCN crosses the road in at least two places.

 

So this is going to make any sort of license pretty onerous in and of itself. Furthermore, when my daughter was 5, she would cycle beside me while I jogged - there would be times when we crossed the road. You really think it is a good thing to make a young kid get a license?

 

I cycle exactly the same way here as I did "back home" - there is no difference.

 

For me, I don't expect anybody to "make concessions" for me, other than what would be required of any other vehicle on the road. (For eg: I'm turning right, you're turning left - you are supposed to give way).

 

When riding, I am as far to the left as is safe (unless i'm in the right turning lane) - if you can't get passed me safely - I'll be sorry, but there's really little I can do - unless you want me to illegally ride on the footpath.

[Kiadaw]

Problem is,

 

Even if you are in it purely for fun, almost every bike will go on the road at some point anyway. To get from my house to the PCN it is a 1.5 km cycle. The PCN crosses the road in at least two places.

 

So this is going to make any sort of license pretty onerous in and of itself. Furthermore, when my daughter was 5, she would cycle beside me while I jogged - there would be times when we crossed the road. You really think it is a good thing to make a young kid get a license?

 

I cycle exactly the same way here as I did "back home" - there is no difference.

 

For me, I don't expect anybody to "make concessions" for me, other than what would be required of any other vehicle on the road. (For eg: I'm turning right, you're turning left - you are supposed to give way).

 

When riding, I am as far to the left as is safe (unless i'm in the right turning lane) - if you can't get passed me safely - I'll be sorry, but there's really little I can do - unless you want me to illegally ride on the footpath.

Bro, please calm down a little. Nobody demand licence required if it is just crossing a road. I have been a kid at some point also, & cycle around my neighbourhood, & you can totally cycle without ever ride along a road.

 

If you can for a moment to not try to dead set on Not requiring licence, & see both side of the argument, then maybe you can see clearer. From your comments so far, its rather clear that you are dead set on NOT requiring licence & bring out all the arguments against it, & not really bother to see the other side of the argument.

 

I think your problem, is you keep comparing Singapore with New Zealand, its not the same, & I have said many times, the issue is NOT you, or me, or many of the cyclists that follow rules. But this is not about you or me.

 

I think for a start, is to put up signs & billboards across the Island, on TV, on how Motorist & cyclists need to act with the presence of each other, & that cyclists need to observe traffic rules etc. Make it clear that if there is still no significant improvement, LTA will consider a harsh next step, be it having cyclist licence, or something. At least we ensure we already did our best to educated people, & they have no excuse not to know the rules.

Edited October 13, 2013 by Kiadaw

[1fast1]

 

But if it is really illegal for cyclists to cycle on Changi Coastal Road just because there is a PCN beside it, then why didn't the TP/LTA mention it at all even after so many cyclists have died there? IIRC I even saw a sign erected by LTA to warn drivers that there are cyclists on that road.

 

To tell you the truth, I wouldn't rely on the police agencies' knowledge of the law. They've been caught out many times.

 

That's why it remains valuable to complain (kpkb) to the press and "higher powers" - at least that way, the police actually have to research the law (or get someone in the legal profession to interpret it for them) before making a statement or taking some action.

 

The most probable reason for the police to have put up those signs is because it's their standard MO (or SOP) - if there are accidents, put up cautionary signs. If the accidents involve cyclists, put up those particular signs warning people there are cyclists around. Note that the signs didn't explicitly say cycling is fully legal there, they're merely advisories. It's like those signs warning of "Camera Zones" or "Acccident Area" - if people were fully compliant with traffic law and weren't speeding and were driving alertly, there wouldn't be a need for those signs at all. Yet they remain.

[1fast1]

Problem is,

 

Even if you are in it purely for fun, almost every bike will go on the road at some point anyway. To get from my house to the PCN it is a 1.5 km cycle. The PCN crosses the road in at least two places.

 

The rationalisation that you need to cycle on the road to get *to* the PCN is pure BS. There's no reason you can't drive to the PCN, leave your car at the carpark and then mount your bike, is there?

 

And by "crossing" the road, what exactly do you mean? If it's just a question of briefly going at right angles to a public road, that can easily be dealt with by declaring that little stretch of the road a "special zone" (with signage) where cyclists don't require licensure to traverse it and motor vehicles are required to be more alert. Surely, it's not a case of the PCN actually *merging* with a major road for any stretch, now, is it?

 

 

 

So this is going to make any sort of license pretty onerous in and of itself. Furthermore, when my daughter was 5, she would cycle beside me while I jogged - there would be times when we crossed the road. You really think it is a good thing to make a young kid get a license?

Read my earlier post. There's no point trying to attack my points if you refuse to read what I've written so recently. I said that licensure would come with an age requirement, but this could be handled by leaving some public roads passable to unlicensed bikes - e.g. residential roads with a limit of just 40km/h or less.

 

 

 

 

I've said earlier that the PCN could also be similarly exempt from licensure. However, it really depends on what cyclists themselves want of the darn thing. Lots of cyclists complain that they can't go fast on the PCN because there are kids there, and they use that as a justification for going onto the (motor) roads and irritating motorists. The reasonable solution would've been to petition the government to get the slower moving human traffic - pedestrians, baby prams, kids on trikes and small bikes, etc. off the PCN so that you can go as fast as you like. However, it's clear that many "gung ho" cyclists (like yourself, it turns out) are also "guilty" of perpetuating the problem of bringing kids to the PCN, when you could easily be riding with her along a small residential road instead.

 

The situation is not unsalvageable. Time-based zoning could be put into effect. For example, the PCN could be made licence-free during the daylight hours, and be made "fast, licensed, adult cyclists only" throughout the night and early morning. Weekdays could have different zoning times from weekends. School hols can be similarly tweaked. Whatever the actual details are, the point remains that an easy solution exists as long as the sodding cyclists are willing to compromise just a little. But they've never been enamoured of compromise in any way, shape or form - others must bend to their will instead.

 

 

 

 

I cycle exactly the same way here as I did "back home" - there is no difference.

 

For me, I don't expect anybody to "make concessions" for me, other than what would be required of any other vehicle on the road. (For eg: I'm turning right, you're turning left - you are supposed to give way).

 

Actually, is there any right turn in Singapore which cannot be navigated instead by taking the left lane, walking the bike along the crossing then mounting it on the other side? That way, you'll be in full compliance of the law that requires bikes to keep to the left of the road (that law mentioned *nothing* about right turns being an exception). So why are you still turning right on the roads?

 

In any case, even if you follow traffic law to the letter, the point is the cyclists - well educated, well heeled ones who really should know better - who refuse to are legion. This is why licensure and compulsory plates are critical. Without that, these idiots will continue flouting the law with impunity.

 

 

 

 

When riding, I am as far to the left as is safe (unless i'm in the right turning lane) - if you can't get passed me safely - I'll be sorry, but there's really little I can do - unless you want me to illegally ride on the footpath.

 

Again, excuses, excuses. Is there any reason (other than the inconvenience of dismounting and remounting, which you can jolly well undergo) that you can't use the pedestrian crossing instead of effecting a right turn with motor vehicles?

 

EDIT: My reply in blue, since this new forum software is vexing me no end and wrongly formatted my reply.

Edited October 13, 2013 by Turboflat4

[inlinesix]

 

To tell you the truth, I wouldn't rely on the police agencies' knowledge of the law. They've been caught out many times.

 

That's why it remains valuable to complain (kpkb) to the press and "higher powers" - at least that way, the police actually have to research the law (or get someone in the legal profession to interpret it for them) before making a statement or taking some action.

 

The most probable reason for the police to have put up those signs is because it's their standard MO (or SOP) - if there are accidents, put up cautionary signs. If the accidents involve cyclists, put up those particular signs warning people there are cyclists around. Note that the signs didn't explicitly say cycling is fully legal there, they're merely advisories. It's like those signs warning of "Camera Zones" or "Acccident Area" - if people were fully compliant with traffic law and weren't speeding and were driving alertly, there wouldn't be a need for those signs at all. Yet they remain.

As far as i could see the marking on that PCN, it is a shared path for cyclist, jogger & etc.

 

If police agency knowledge of the law is so unreliable, could we rely on them to administer it?

[Kiadaw]

 

 

 

When riding, I am as far to the left as is safe (unless i'm in the right turning lane) - if you can't get passed me safely - I'll be sorry, but there's really little I can do - unless you want me to illegally ride on the footpath.

 

Again, excuses, excuses. Is there any reason (other than the inconvenience of dismounting and remounting, which you can jolly well undergo) that you can't use the pedestrian crossing instead of effecting a right turn with motor vehicles?

 

EDIT: My reply in blue, since this new forum software is vexing me no end and wrongly formatted my reply.

Actually I am agreeable to you on most points, but not fully on last time. A cyclist have the right of the road, by law, so you cannot force him to use the pavement, which is illegal, with exception of maybe kids cycling slowly.

 

But in the end, its also give & take. If cyclist need to use the road, & the traffic is light, by all means, or its the only way to get to his destination. However, as a cyclist, unless necessary, I will avoid travel on a busy road & cause a major jam, or slow down.

 

There must be an understanding for all road users, what is legally allow and right, vs, consideration & common sense. I will be angry when I was driving on a busy city road, to work, & a cyclist see fit to cycle at rush hours, to hold up traffic. By the same logic, I will be angry if I am cycling on the countryside, & got horn by a driver, because he can't wait 10 sec for the next chance to overtake me.

 

At the same time that we implement rules, we must also exercise common sense and be reasonable as well. We can discuss all day about what happen in a abnormal situation, where you have to go a bit out of regulation, but if situation is reasonable, I think most people, including our TP, can accept. I have have at times have my car over pavement to make a turn for instance, get in wrong direction in car park, especially when you are unfamiliar with carpark also. But when the carpark is empty, does it matter. Important thing is look out for people.

Edited October 13, 2013 by Kiadaw