SAF Colonel only fined $6,000 for traffic accident

[Alheych]

This pix of him in Jul 13 - as Defence Attache in KL.

He seemed to have put on weight - stress?

 

Anybody can recall? Did the 86 year old cross at a pedestrain crossing?

 

wow, defence attache is quite an important post.

[Vega]

 

wow, defence attache is quite an important post.

 

if can hold full col rank, must be some body already. so far, I only know 1 A level holder who is promoted to full Col in the early 2000 after serving for 20+ yr.

[Baal]

a) Raining at night not easy to see pedes at night, esp in dark clothing. Night plus rain is bad combo.

b) Yck road is 60km limit or 70km limit ?

c) If light rain, that's when the road surface has the least traction. Hardest to stop. Yck road also have lotsa up & down slopes.

d) Whys a very elderly man jaywalking alone in the evening? No family member accompanying.

 

- Would a cam have helped if can prove mod heavy rain?

-Since sin rains half the time, is it time to ban tinting again? Must have fog light that must be turned on at night.?

- Recalled a case a few years back where a very elderly was also involved at Thomson road. The family also decided not to pursue as they mentioned their elder had tendency to jay walk.

[TVT]

Wah, this kind of standard can be colonel? What if got war . . . enemy appear in front of him and he cannot see then how?

 

Exactly. So he will give the same excuse lah - can't see clearly, cos raining, etc etc etc...so could not see the enemy

Edited January 10, 2014 by TVT

[TVT]

 

 

Lookout is lookout wor, it has little to do with the actions resulting from the lookout. Seeing and doing something after seeing are two different activities, dio boh?

 

If you see someone attractive, this is a result of your keeping a lookout for attractive bodies. What you do after spotting the attractive body, and how fast your do it, will be the resulting actions, or stage 2 so to speak. Lookout is stage 1

 

Actually I am also not very sure.

 

Maybe to make it simple, Good Lookout = Lookout using normal eyes, Better Lookout = Lookout using an eagle's eyes... or bionic eyes.

 

I am more confused now.

 

You say like never say like that....cos I don't even understand what you are saying!

 

Just give us an example to explain your point - eg. how you lookout for chio girls on the street, and how different is it to see her, then (later) doing something (to her) after seeing her, blah blah blah....that would be clearer...

[Celicar]

Colonel also human and therefore will make judgement error. Plus this is really a split second judgement thing, I don't think it is representative of his ability to be a colonel or not. sure he didn't set out to knock the guy down, it is an accident that nobody wanted to happen and certainly not him. Go court will of course say things to try and get the best possible outcome for himself. But presuming he has some level of conscience, long after the $6000 fine is paid and the suspension is over, the memory that he ever knocked down a person fatally will stay with him forever.

 

Wah, this kind of standard can be colonel? What if got war . . . enemy appear in front of him and he cannot see then how?

 

[Maseratigood]

 

You say like never say like that....cos I don't even understand what you are saying!

 

Just give us an example to explain your point - eg. how you lookout for chio girls on the street, and how different is it to see her, then (later) doing something (to her) after seeing her, blah blah blah....that would be clearer...

 

LOL, i no need to say liao since you said it so well.... thank you, thank you

 

If there's nothing more to talk about this colonel, shall we contiune with the lookout-for-chio-buu discussion?

 

I like taking aircon buses going thru CBD/Orchard.... no need to watch out for traffic (as a driver), full lookout for chio buus on the streets, at the bus stops (from higher eye level on the bus somemore!)

 

Why LTA never uses such real-time benefit to promote the use of public transport?

 

Exactly. So he will give the same excuse lah - can't see clearly, cos raining, etc etc etc...so could not see the enemy

 

maybe thats why with his cock eye, he doesnt serve in combat role but as a defence attache somewhere...

[Maseratigood]

Dunch forget x-ray eyes

 

That's why I am curious how the courts ascertain if the accused did or did not give a proper lookout but yet, could not avoid hitting the pedestrian.

 

Sometimes courts' decisions are not for laymen like you and I to fully understand? very sad a life is lost

[Camrysfa]

Witness said he saw car brake light did not flash

[TVT]

 

If there's nothing more to talk about this colonel, shall we contiune with the lookout-for-chio-buu discussion?

 

I like taking aircon buses going thru CBD/Orchard.... no need to watch out for traffic (as a driver), full lookout for chio buus on the streets, at the bus stops (from higher eye level on the bus somemore!)

 

 

Sure...lets proceed with chio-buu discussions...

 

How about taking buses to Chinatown? Or take the Sentosa beach tram? The former can see more of ATB, the latter are to see bikini chio-buu on Siloso and Palawan beaches....

[Penn1]

Wah, this kind of standard can be colonel? What if got war . . . enemy appear in front of him and he cannot see then how?

 

since when colonel go to the front line? if really got war, they probably in ops room kpkb...lim kopi and having proper meal while his men out in the war zone

[Darryn]

So was the pedestrian jaywalking?

 

If he was, then this punishment is actually quite harsh. Even more so if the pedestrian had suddenly dashed out onto the road.

The poor pedestrian was 86 years old - where got dash at that age?

 

Going by the relatively moderate sentence though, it does seem that

a) he was jaywalking

b) there is at least some sympathy from the judge for the poor driver

Wah, this kind of standard can be colonel? What if got war . . . enemy appear in front of him and he cannot see then how?

 

Since when does such rank fight on the front lines?

At 86 I doubt the elderly man knows what he's doing. It's kinda dangerous he's not being looked after and let him roam about on his own.

 

You saying 86 is senile already? then how about LKY?

 

There are many many many at 86 who are fully fine and in charge of their faculties (and of course some that are not)

 

Don't think it's very fair to bring up such an insensitive point when you really don't know.

[1fast1]

This pix of him in Jul 13 - as Defence Attache in KL.

He seemed to have put on weight - stress?

 

Anybody can recall? Did the 86 year old cross at a pedestrain crossing?

No need to recall. Full article posted on SGCM itself: http://www.sgcarmart.com/news/article.php?AID=9525

 

 

 

Mr. Chua testified that after passing a traffic light junction, he saw the pedestrian about 100m away, crossing the road. Almost immediately, he saw Tan's car pass him on the right and hit the pedestrian. Mr. Chua also made "a very significant observation", according to Judge Liew. He noticed that the brake lights of Tan's car did not flash, which is "clearly an indication that the defendant did not apply his brakes in this case", said the judge.

100m away from a junction, will there be another crossing? The situation is suggestive of a jaywalker.

 

Even more dangerously, that's the point at which car accelerate after a light.

 

Also, how is the fact that he didn't apply his brakes against him? That suggests he genuinely failed to see the old man, rather than that he didn't care that he was there.

 

The poor pedestrian was 86 years old - where got dash at that age?

 

Going by the relatively moderate sentence though, it does seem that

a) he was jaywalking

b) there is at least some sympathy from the judge for the poor driver

This is hardly a moderate sentence. A more reasonable sentence would've been to DQ him from driving for maybe a year. The fine really doesn't matter that much, but maybe that should've been something like $3000 at most.

 

The pedestrian HAS to bear the brunt of the blame here. Jaywalkers have no place on the road. And if a person (elderly/child/intellectually disabled) is an irresponsible pedestrian, he should be supervised at all times. He shouldn't be let loose on the roads.

Edited January 10, 2014 by Turboflat4

[Kklee]

Quote -

 

Mr. Chua testified that after passing a traffic light junction, he saw the pedestrian about 100m away, crossing the road. Almost immediately, he saw Tan's car pass him on the right and hit the pedestrian. Mr. Chua also made "a very significant observation", according to Judge Liew. He noticed that the brake lights of Tan's car did not flash, which is "clearly an indication that the defendant did not apply his brakes in this case", said the judge.

 

-

The speed of the car must be very incredible. If it happens in a second, the car must be travelling at about 360km/h.

[Maseratigood]

 

Sure...lets proceed with chio-buu discussions...

 

How about taking buses to Chinatown? Or take the Sentosa beach tram? The former can see more of ATB, the latter are to see bikini chio-buu on Siloso and Palawan beaches....

 

 

LOL, we must have a MU in Chinatown and another one at sentosa beach!!! no time limit, only when our eyes are tired then we end the MU then OTOT!!

[Camrysfa]

 

No need to recall. Full article posted on SGCM itself: http://www.sgcarmart.com/news/article.php?AID=9525

 

 

 

 

100m away from a junction, will there be another crossing? The situation is suggestive of a jaywalker.

 

Even more dangerously, that's the point at which car accelerate after a light.

 

Also, how is the fact that he didn't apply his brakes against him? That suggests he genuinely failed to see the old man, rather than that he didn't care that he was there.

 

 

This is hardly a moderate sentence. A more reasonable sentence would've been to DQ him from driving for maybe a year. The fine really doesn't matter that much, but maybe that should've been something like $3000 at most.

 

The pedestrian HAS to bear the brunt of the blame here. Jaywalkers have no place on the road. And if a person (elderly/child/intellectually disabled) is an irresponsible pedestrian, he should be supervised at all times. He shouldn't be let loose on the roads.

 

 

Mr. Chua testified that after passing a traffic light junction, he saw the pedestrian about 100m away, crossing the road. Almost immediately, he saw Tan's car pass him on the right and hit the pedestrian. Mr. Chua also made "a very significant observation", according to Judge Liew. He noticed that the brake lights of Tan's car did not flash, which is "clearly an indication that the defendant did not apply his brakes in this case", said the judge.

 

Guess the traffic light was GREEN and the car was at cruising speed when passing the traffic light?

 

Several factors were against the driver:

Victim carried a white plastic bag ( visibility )

Witness did not see the car’s brake light illum at point of hitting the victim.

Witness said it was a light drizzle ( visibility )

Several witnesses testified.

 

Whether jaywalking or not --- think the judge had to take “care” of pedestrains.

[Baal]

 

 

Mr. Chua testified that after passing a traffic light junction, he saw the pedestrian about 100m away, crossing the road. Almost immediately, he saw Tan's car pass him on the right and hit the pedestrian. Mr. Chua also made "a very significant observation", according to Judge Liew. He noticed that the brake lights of Tan's car did not flash, which is "clearly an indication that the defendant did not apply his brakes in this case", said the judge.

 

Guess the traffic light was GREEN and the car was at cruising speed when passing the traffic light?

 

Several factors were against the driver:

Victim carried a white plastic bag ( visibility )

Witness did not see the car’s brake light illum at point of hitting the victim.

Witness said it was a light drizzle ( visibility )

Several witnesses testified.

 

Whether jaywalking or not --- think the judge had to take “care” of pedestrains.

In any case, usually the law will side the party that suffered severe grievious loss. The penalty needs to be more than a slap on the wrist relative to the impact caused. And in SG, if they take out the hw code & check ur papers, they will already prove that driver is aware how he is "suppose" to drive. And the onus will be on the party with more power. Superheroes ? With great powers come greater responsibilities.

 

But its a sad case. Yck is along road & not that well litted. Speed limit 70? That means by typical sin driver standard, speed should be easily 80+.

 

As for the driver, it could have happen to ne1 of us. All it takes is a tiring day, caught up with thoughts at work, drift into the music...

 

btw, was it ever mentioned what car he driving?

[Nightkids]

 

 

 

 

45 year old Tan Yan Yee, a colonel in the Singapore Armed Forces, was fined $6,000 and had his license suspended for 3 years for causing the death of a pedestrian in 2011.

 

Tan had been driving along Yio Chu Kang Road at 8:14pm on November 13, 2011. He had failed to keep a proper lookout and as a result, hit an 86 year old pedestrian, Mr Lau Ing See, who was crossing the road.

 

Tan had argued that he was keeping a good lookout but the visibility on the night was bad and he was unable to see the pedestrian in time and by the time he did see Mr Lau, it was too late for him to stop.

 

He had said that it was raining moderately heavily and the victim was wearing dark clothing.

 

However, the court ruled that the rain was only a slight drizzle and there was fair visibility. Therefore, Tan should have been able to see the old man in time to stop and could have reasonably avoided the accident if he had been keeping a better lookout.

 

For his failure to keep a good look out for dangers while driving, Tan was fined $6,000 and had his licence suspended for 3 years.

 

 

wah.....$6000 and 3 years so harsh ah.....?

 

sama sama cheng hu lang, bo pang tam po chance meh.....??

 

knn la, the judge damn buay swee lo.....