Jump to content

Near accident with cyclist 16dec 2015


Kamikaze89
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi bro, I suggest don't waste your time refuting his points here. If you feel strongly about something, spend your effort writing to LTA, REACH or even your MP to propose your ideas. If enough people write in, they will think through the implementation and ask for proper feedback.

 

I personally feel that taxpayers and insurance payers shouldn't be subsidising the risky behaviour of cyclists. They should pay for it themselves.

 

That's all I have.

 

 

Bro,

 

Can't say like this lah. This is an open forum and I'm just giving my opinion. Darryn can also give his opinion.

 

No right no wrong. Just differences of opinion only.

 

I agree with your view on bicycle registration, but I also think part of the issue lies with the fact that Singapore has not really a clear set of traffic laws pertaining to cyclists. In many instances, it is blurred as to whether cyclists are treated as vehicles or pedestrians. On the flip side, I also believe that if we were to register cyclists, we should also need to clarify all the traffic rules pertaining to cyclists and make sure that other road users also respect these traffic rules.

 

There is really no one size fits all with respects to all cyclists and there is a world of difference in road behaviour from the AMDK who cycles on the road thinking he has all "rights" and the auntie who cycles on the left of the lane and tries to be as little obstruction to other traffic as possible. 

↡ Advertisement
  • Praise 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Twincharged

A. If we were to charge $10 for cyclist to register bicycles that they want to use on roads, I don't think the low income will be disproportionately impacted

 

B. Enforcement will be just like other vehicles. You get punished when you get caught. Some drivers and riders also escape breaking traffic rules just because they are not caught. Also as an extra deterrent, if you cycle on the road in an unregistered bicycle, you are not able to seek recourse if you get involved in a road accident.

 

C. This relates to insurance that I do not have any views

 

D. Registration is more cumbersome and many cyclists will dislike it. But ultimately a better knowledge of traffic rules can save lives and prevent accidents. The greater good outweighs the inconvenience.

 

E. If a cyclist is discouraged from cycling just because they need to have more familiarity with traffic rules and now know that potentially they can be caught for violating traffic rules then I'm not sure these cyclists should be on the roads. 

 

A: If they only charge $10 to register a bicycle, I am sure most cyclists can afford it. However, who is subsidizing it? Car drivers? 

B: I think enforcement will be a problem unless they make all bicycles get registered. Or else, how do we know if the bicycle on the road is registered or not. Then how to determine who can ride on the roads? What age? etc.

 

I am not against registration of bicycles. But to the govt, is it worth the effort. Of course if you ask the drivers, they'll say it is worth the effort. Cuz they don't need to do anything and now they can easily complain against reckless cyclists. Of course there is the duty of care to other road users but as I mentioned before, the problem of reckless cyclists on the roads isn't significant enough to warrant the effort required to get all cyclists/bicycles to be registered. Cuz most serious accidents involving cyclists would only cause injuries/death for the cyclists, unlike other motorized vehicles on the roads that can injure/kill other road users easily.

 

Btw, is there any country in the world that requires cyclists/bicycles to be registered?

 

Edited by Nzy
  • Praise 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

A: If they only charge $10 to register a bicycle, I am sure most cyclists can afford it. However, who is subsidizing it? Car drivers? 

B: I think enforcement will be a problem unless they make all bicycles get registered. Or else, how do we know if the bicycle on the road is registered or not. Then how to determine who can ride on the roads? What age? etc.

 

I am not against registration of bicycles. But to the govt, is it worth the effort. Of course if you ask the drivers, they'll say it is worth the effort. Cuz they don't need to do anything and now they can easily complain against reckless cyclists. Of course there is the duty of care to other road users but as I mentioned before, the problem of reckless cyclists on the roads isn't significant enough to warrant the effort required to get all cyclists/bicycles to be registered. Cuz most serious accidents involving cyclists would only cause injuries/death for the cyclists, unlike other motorized vehicles on the roads that can injure/kill other road users easily.

 

Btw, is there any country in the world that requires cyclists/bicycles to be registered?

 

A. I'm not sure the real cost of registering bicycles, but just do not think that it will be too expensive to maintain a register.

 

B. With registration comes a licence plate. You want to cycle on the road, you need to have a license plate on the bicycle. Enforcement is on a "if caught" basis. Also as an extra "encouragement", if you cycle on the road on an unlicensed bicycle, you lose all recourse to damages in the event of road accident. As to who can cycle on roads, we just follow current system which is anyone that wishes.

 

Is it worth effort to the government now? Most likely not as cycling population is too small and they still need to fix the MRT/Bus system. However, it might start to be worth the effort if we would like the cycling population to grow.

 

Many drivers would like to get cyclist to get registered so that they can easily complain. This might be true. But on the flip side of the coin, if we start to really put into place a clear framework for cyclists, many drivers now who currently do not give cyclists the proper respect on the roads will have to start to treat cyclists as proper vehicles.

 

Serious accidents involving cyclists and a car will most likely kill/injure the cyclist. That is true and this makes it even more important to put into place a proper framework for cyclists. Ultimately it can save their lives. I feel that in this case, the greater good warrants the inconvenience.

 

I cannot think offhand of any other country that requires cyclists to be registered but on the same note, I also cannot think of another country that has COE for cars and motorcycles and that bans sale of chewing gum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Twincharged

A. I'm not sure the real cost of registering bicycles, but just do not think that it will be too expensive to maintain a register.

 

Registration fees do seem insignificant to us as car owners cuz it is only $140(registration fee)+$25(processing fee) excluding GST. It is a small percentage of the cost of a car. However, compared to the price of a bicycle, eg. a supermarket bike from Giant that is $69, that is a huge cost.

 

B. With registration comes a licence plate. You want to cycle on the road, you need to have a license plate on the bicycle. Enforcement is on a "if caught" basis. Also as an extra "encouragement", if you cycle on the road on an unlicensed bicycle, you lose all recourse to damages in the event of road accident. As to who can cycle on roads, we just follow current system which is anyone that wishes.

 

The problem with only registering bicycles that is going to be ridden on the road is that it creates more ambiguity.There'll be cyclists with license plates, cyclists with no license plates and cyclists who registered their bikes but license plates are not visible or dropped off/removed. Unlike cars, now when we see a car with no license plate/illegible license plate, we know for sure that is illegal. Plus by allowing people to choose to register their bicycles based on whether they are going to cycle on the road, will make more people start cycling on the footpaths and across pedestrian crossings. That is not good for pedestrian safety. Unless they are going to make cycling on the footpath a very serious offence as well.

 

Is it worth effort to the government now? Most likely not as cycling population is too small and they still need to fix the MRT/Bus system. However, it might start to be worth the effort if we would like the cycling population to grow.

 

Many drivers would like to get cyclist to get registered so that they can easily complain. This might be true. But on the flip side of the coin, if we start to really put into place a clear framework for cyclists, many drivers now who currently do not give cyclists the proper respect on the roads will have to start to treat cyclists as proper vehicles.

 

Serious accidents involving cyclists and a car will most likely kill/injure the cyclist. That is true and this makes it even more important to put into place a proper framework for cyclists. Ultimately it can save their lives. I feel that in this case, the greater good warrants the inconvenience.

 

The reason I brought up this point is that why cars have to be registered in the first place. Because in the wrong hands, it can cause serious damage/injury, whereas for a bicycle, of course it can cause serious injury as well, but how often and how easily can that happen? Even if I intentionally cycle very quickly and hit a pedestrian, it usually won't be anywhere as serious as if I drove a car and intentionally knocked down someone else.

 

I cannot think offhand of any other country that requires cyclists to be registered but on the same note, I also cannot think of another country that has COE for cars and motorcycles and that bans sale of chewing gum.

 

Can't think of many countries that restricts the number of cars sold per year but one of them is Beijing if I am not wrong.

http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/new-pcn-crossings-make-cycling-walking-safer

 

Now they are making it more confusing for cyclists and drivers again. When crossing here, do cyclists need to dismount and push? Who has the right of way here? I think its the drivers. But some cyclists/pedestrians might not think that way. One example would be at whampoa where there are two hawker centres. There is something similar in the carpark and some people treat it like a zebra crossing expecting drivers to stop for them when they want to cross. 

Edited by Nzy
Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/new-pcn-crossings-make-cycling-walking-safer

 

Now they are making it more confusing for cyclists and drivers again. When crossing here, do cyclists need to dismount and push? Who has the right of way here? I think its the drivers. But some cyclists/pedestrians might not think that way. One example would be at whampoa where there are two hawker centres. There is something similar in the carpark and some people treat it like a zebra crossing expecting drivers to stop for them when they want to cross. 

 

 

 

 

It was one of 10 suggestions mooted in an active mobility study done by government think-tank Centre for Liveable Cities and United States-based research body Urban Land Institute last year.

The study said the crossings "prioritise the right of way for pedestrians or cyclists at minor intersections and slip lanes, allowing for greater continuity of movement".

 

SG happily take people's suggestion without thinking whether it works properly or not. Based on the article, I understand it as merely a "convenience" feature. Right of way still lies with the vehicles. But like what the taxi driver said, it's probably going to end up a gray area as some pedestrians and cyclists will think it's a zebra crossing and vehicles should give way to them.

 

I will be waiting for them to announce that they decided to paint it into a zebra crossing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone can say you should all cycle. It's great for the city, it's great for the environment.

 

But I guarantee you won't like it, when the roads are all filled with just cyclists.

 

A million cyclists on the roads is a million hell.

 

Everyone will ride as he/she wants. There's no regulation, there's no insurance. The slow cyclists will complain  the quick ones are reckless. The quick ones will complain the slow road hogging.

 

If you think motorcyclists cutting in and out of traffic is bad, wait till they are all cyclists.

 

The best form of public transport is undoubtedly the trains.

Unfortunately, here it's run by a bunch of incompetent highly paid people, who are more interested in profit than anything else.

Edited by Kb27
  • Praise 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone can say you should all cycle. It's great for the city, it's great for the environment.

 

But I guarantee you won't like it, when the roads are all filled with just cyclists.

 

A million cyclists on the roads is a million hell.

 

Everyone will ride as he/she wants. There's no regulation, there's no insurance. The slow cyclists will complain  the quick ones are reckless. The quick ones will complain the slow road hogging.

 

If you think motorcyclists cutting in and out of traffic is bad, wait till they are all cyclists.

 

The best form of public transport is undoubtedly the trains.

Unfortunately, here it's run by a bunch of incompetent highly paid people, who are more interested in profit than anything else.

 

Undoubtly, train is the best form of public transport in term of load capacity.  What is the cost of building & maintaining train?  Who is financing this cost?  What is the lead time to complete a train line?

 

On the the hand, bicycle only need road just like car, bus & motorcycle.

 

The only reason our traffic is so bad because most road user forget about road etiquette once they are on the road.  +lack of TP enforcement other than those income generating enforcement.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone can say you should all cycle. It's great for the city, it's great for the environment.

 

But I guarantee you won't like it, when the roads are all filled with just cyclists.

 

A million cyclists on the roads is a million hell.

 

Everyone will ride as he/she wants. There's no regulation, there's no insurance. The slow cyclists will complain  the quick ones are reckless. The quick ones will complain the slow road hogging.

 

If you think motorcyclists cutting in and out of traffic is bad, wait till they are all cyclists.

 

The best form of public transport is undoubtedly the trains.

Unfortunately, here it's run by a bunch of incompetent highly paid people, who are more interested in profit than anything else.

 

 

Public transports and trains I see the light. Seems that they have already removed the incompetent highly paid people , who are more interested in profit than anything else.

http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/new-pcn-crossings-make-cycling-walking-safer

 

Now they are making it more confusing for cyclists and drivers again. When crossing here, do cyclists need to dismount and push? Who has the right of way here? I think its the drivers. But some cyclists/pedestrians might not think that way. One example would be at whampoa where there are two hawker centres. There is something similar in the carpark and some people treat it like a zebra crossing expecting drivers to stop for them when they want to cross. 

 

Yeah. I also think this makes it more confusing. Before slapping on new items, I think the current framework should be streamlined and clarified first.

  • Praise 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone can say you should all cycle. It's great for the city, it's great for the environment.

 

But I guarantee you won't like it, when the roads are all filled with just cyclists.

 

A million cyclists on the roads is a million hell.

 

Everyone will ride as he/she wants. There's no regulation, there's no insurance. The slow cyclists will complain  the quick ones are reckless. The quick ones will complain the slow road hogging.

 

If you think motorcyclists cutting in and out of traffic is bad, wait till they are all cyclists.

 

The best form of public transport is undoubtedly the trains.

Unfortunately, here it's run by a bunch of incompetent highly paid people, who are more interested in profit than anything else.

 

Have you ever been to Copenhagen?  Rated as the most liveable city in the world, and bike usage rates are the highest too. 

I quote again: "Sometimes it's better to keep quiet and be thought a fool than to open mouth and remove all doubt."

 

This was your direct reply to me, with my quotes enclosed in your post.

 

That's a very personal statement. I appreciate this is a forum, but I don't see others making such statement.

 

That reminded me of a class bully who hit a classmate because he didn't know how to react when someone called him fat.

 

Maybe a kind moderator can clarify what is acceptable posting behaviour.

 

If you get upset with stuff on the internet, then you should stop being on the internet.

 

You are never going to meet these people, so chill.

These people don't know who you are, so chill.

And it is just words on a screen, your response is your interpretation, so chill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you get upset with stuff on the internet, then you should stop being on the internet.

 

You are never going to meet these people, so chill.

These people don't know who you are, so chill.

And it is just words on a screen, your response is your interpretation, so chill.

 

Piss off lah. You are the low-brow who asked me to google for a law that wasn't enacted in the first place. This demonstrated your shocking level of ignorance.

 

You are never going to meet me, so chill.

  • Praise 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Piss off lah. You are the low-brow who asked me to google for a law that wasn't enacted in the first place. This demonstrated your shocking level of ignorance.

 

You are never going to meet me, so chill.

 

Haha!

Link to post
Share on other sites

for all the arguments, i can safely assume that there is indeed no law for the 1.5M thingy.

 

Its a recommended measure that guide the cyclists and drivers to share the road.

 

Btw, for those who have misunderstood that if your ride is damaged by bicycles or for any reason, you can do a self claim and the NCD is not affected, there is no such thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

for all the arguments, i can safely assume that there is indeed no law for the 1.5M thingy.

 

Its a recommended measure that guide the cyclists and drivers to share the road.

 

Btw, for those who have misunderstood that if your ride is damaged by bicycles or for any reason, you can do a self claim and the NCD is not affected, there is no such thing.

This is factually wrong. 

 

here is a cite for you

 

 

 

GIA recommends that No Claims Discount is not affected where a customer is less than 20% liable for the accident – we  [DirectAsia]  follow this guideline. 

 

 

Piss off lah. You are the low-brow who asked me to google for a law that wasn't enacted in the first place. This demonstrated your shocking level of ignorance.

 

You are never going to meet me, so chill.

Errr...

 

the transport minister himself has said that motorists "must" give a 1.5 m gap, that they are "required" to do so.....

 

As to whether the 1.5 gap is specifically mentioned in law, or whether it is covered under the "catch all" of inconsiderate driving (or similar) may well be a different matter,  but thinking it is law hardly rises to a "shocking level of ignorance" 

Link to post
Share on other sites

this is in an event where one is rear ended and not at fault but chose to do a self claim first before claiming 3rd party.

 

Self claim for non accident case is another thing all together.

"Not at Fault" is pretty unambiguous - 

they didn't add in any qualifiers (such as must be able to claim from other party) 

 

Here's the thing - if a bicycle hits you, it is, by definition, an accident

 

In any case - you are now moving the goal posts by saying "non accident case".  If a bike hits you, and causes damage, why wouldn't you report it as an accident? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You just answered why cyclists are not required to be registered. Yet. It is the cheapest form of transport. In a way, the govt is giving out free COE to this group of low-income people. The bicycles. if they start to make bicycles get registered, either they pass on the cost to the cars to keep cycling the cheapest mode of transport or make cycling expensive. Furthermore, it has been proven that cycling is the way to go for small cities, and Singapore definitely qualifies as one. Why would the govt want to go backwards?

 

Off Topic: Recently the roads have been made more cyclist friendly. Most of the drain covers at the side of the roads have been changed to become perpendicular to the road direction rather than parallel like they used to be. Noticed this around Bishan and Thomson area already. They have been changing them to the new covers over the past few weeks. Hopefully this will get more people to start cycling. The fear of getting stuck in these drain covers and being thrown over the bicycle was one of the fears I had to overcome before I dared to cycle on the road.

i remember about 40+++ years back when I got my first bicycle (a chopper which was the rage then)i had to bring it to Middle Road for stamping and registering with a red disc and numbers have to match of course ;  if they can do it back then for all bikes ridden on roads, I'm sure they can do it now too and it makes the rider a little more responsible and curb thefts too at the same time ; Registering bikes - Its something our Govt is very good at  ; When and why they stopped doing it - I don't really know and cannot remember; but nowadays with so many road bikes (made of carbon fibre and light weight- maybe they can come up with lasering) but the poor foreign construction or low income workers plight must be addressed too as its the weekend warriors in leotards - I'm more scared of, actually on a Saturday/Sunday morning  

   

I'm sure with the number of e-bikes swarming the roads nowadays (those illegal ones especially) ; they have to do something

post-157298-0-79253700-1450666472.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Not at Fault" is pretty unambiguous - 

they didn't add in any qualifiers (such as must be able to claim from other party) 

 

Here's the thing - if a bicycle hits you, it is, by definition, an accident

 

In any case - you are now moving the goal posts by saying "non accident case".  If a bike hits you, and causes damage, why wouldn't you report it as an accident? 

 

aiyo...sibei loso.

 

what i am saying is, if you do a self claim no matter what the nature, accident or no accident, the NCD will be reduced by 30%.

 

That is why many would choose to pay from their pocket rather than self claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

aiyo...sibei loso.

 

what i am saying is, if you do a self claim no matter what the nature, accident or no accident, the NCD will be reduced by 30%.

 

That is why many would choose to pay from their pocket rather than self claim.

Yeah - I understand what you are saying, 

And I am telling you it is directly contradicted by what DirectAsia said and by what GIA recommends - 

 

If you are less than 20% at fault, your NCB is not affected - whether claim self damage or third party or whatever does not make any difference to this. 

Anyway - I would like to see this written in LAW - because I know that some insurance companies do not follow

↡ Advertisement
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...