E-Bikes

[inlinesix]

Remember chewing gum?

 

How difficult it was to catch people who stick their gums everywhere, from parks to train doors?

 

In the end, it was completely banned and hardly ever can see the problem of sticky gums everywhere.

 

These PMDs are hard to enforce because I believe it's hard to track them down because they are not licensed, and probably there are no / not enough resources to enforce them.

 

So why not just solve the problem like chewing gums, ban them once and for all and divert the resources and attention to other problems instead?

 

When PMD was banned on public road and property, ppl using PMD without being caught.  Are you sure ban is useful?

 

Ban also need enforcement 1 hor.

 

The only reason chewing gum was successful is it is done during LKY era.

[DACH]

When PMD was banned on public road and property, ppl using PMD without being caught. Are you sure ban is useful?

 

Ban also need enforcement 1 hor.

 

The only reason chewing gum was successful is it is done during LKY era.

I get what you mean.

But banned on public roads and properties isn't a complete ban. They just flout the rules in one minute and in another minute keep off the restricted areas when they see the enforcers and public who have seen them flout the rules.

Are there registration details that you can note down and check? Just look at Uncle2'case. He took a photo of the abuser and send to the police. What can the police do? There are no registration details and Uncle2 can't just ask the abuser to provide him his personal details to report to the police at the time of incident. The abuser could also had run away before Uncle2 could even call and wait for the police to come.

[Ender]

Those pmd accident that the riders kenna caught are either they gave themselves up, or stay back to assist. Those hit and run, low chance of catching them.

[inlinesix]

I get what you mean.

But banned on public roads and properties isn't a complete ban. They just flout the rules in one minute and in another minute keep off the restricted areas when they see the enforcers and public who have seen them flout the rules.

Are there registration details that you can note down and check? Just look at Uncle2'case. He took a photo of the abuser and send to the police. What can the police do? There are no registration details and Uncle2 can't just ask the abuser to provide him his personal details to report to the police at the time of incident. The abuser could also had run away before Uncle2 could even call and wait for the police to come.

 

Sorry hor!

 

Ban on public roads and properties means 70% of Singapore.  Only can use in Condo, GCB or Terrace house.  When the offender sees TP, are you sure that the person can run to the nearest condo, GCB or terrace house?

 

Who says having photo of abuser no use?  As if ChengHu don't have everybody IC photo.  It is a matter of whether got heart to do it or not. 

[DACH]

Sorry hor!

 

Ban on public roads and properties means 70% of Singapore. Only can use in Condo, GCB or Terrace house. When the offender sees TP, are you sure that the person can run to the nearest condo, GCB or terrace house?

 

Who says having photo of abuser no use? As if ChengHu don't have everybody IC photo. It is a matter of whether got heart to do it or not.

You sure they can't run? They can run faster than a bus.

 

If no heart to do it, then just ban it. A ban will exert a stronger message to solve the problem than half hearted efforts trying to solve it, since they have no heart to trace them and register them properly to track them.

[inlinesix]

You sure they can't run? They can run faster than a bus.

 

If no heart to do it, then just ban it. A ban will exert a stronger message to solve the problem than half hearted efforts trying to solve it, since they have no heart to trace them and register them properly to track them.

 

We are getting into circular reference now.

 

Ban also needs to be enforced.  Who's going to enforce THE ban?

 

Please address "Who's going to enforce THE ban?"

[DACH]

We are getting into circular reference now.

 

Ban also needs to be enforced. Who's going to enforce THE ban?

 

Please address "Who's going to enforce THE ban?"

LTA.

 

If these people ride it on the roads, LTA and TP/Cisco Police.

 

Sorry if I had not answered your first question.

[inlinesix]

LTA.

 

If these people ride it on the roads, LTA and TP/Cisco Police.

 

Sorry if I had not answered your first question.

 

If LTA/TP can't enforce the current rule, what makes you think that they could enforce the BAN?

[DACH]

If LTA/TP can't enforce the current rule, what makes you think that they could enforce the BAN?

Like I have said earlier, it is very hard for them to find and track these people if they can get away easily without official registrations.

If this is the difficulty to enforce and with the half hearted efforts, ban it will be a better option as it stress a stronger message and solve the problems of these nuisance and it's easier to manage and resources can be diverted to other problems instead.

Ban sends a stronger message and easier to execute because of problems of traceability due to no registration details.

[inlinesix]

Like I have said earlier, it is very hard for them to find and track these people if they can get away easily without official registrations.

If this is the difficulty to enforce and with the half hearted efforts, ban it will be a better option as it stress a stronger message and solve the problems of these nuisance and it's easier to manage and resources can be diverted to other problems instead.

Ban sends a stronger message and easier to execute because of problems of traceability due to no registration details.

 

Ban without enforcement is paper tiger.  It would be talk like no talk hor.

 

Since you already says current enforcement is half hearted, what makes you think that Ban will make the situation better?

 

If LTA/TP don't enforce the ban, ban still useful?

[DACH]

Ban without enforcement is paper tiger. It would be talk like no talk hor.

 

Since you already says current enforcement is half hearted, what makes you think that Ban will make the situation better?

 

If LTA/TP don't enforce the ban, ban still useful?

I had gave you the example of chewing gums.

It was hard for the authorities to catch everyone who stick chewing gum everywhere. But when it was banned, the problems were solved pretty fast after that.

[inlinesix]

I had gave you the example of chewing gums.

It was hard for the authorities to catch everyone who stick chewing gum everywhere. But when it was banned, the problems were solved pretty fast after that.

 

I also give you the example of PMD.

 

It was banned prior 2017.  But you see them everywhere.  Ban useful?

[DACH]

I also give you the example of PMD.

 

It was banned prior 2017. But you see them everywhere. Ban useful?

They are not banned completely. You only said not allowed to use on roads and properties.

They are just regulated to restrict usage from certain places, and those with modifications. People are still allowed to buy them, doesn't mean they are banned.

The authorities has to put a complete ban to completely stop these nuisances and the abuse of usage without proper tracking, by stop selling these things to the public, and only to those with mobility problems due to medical issues.

[inlinesix]

They are not banned completely. You only said not allowed to use on roads and properties.

They are just regulated to restrict usage from certain places, and those with modifications. People are still allowed to buy them, doesn't mean they are banned.

The authorities has to put a complete ban to completely stop these nuisances and the abuse of usage without proper tracking, by stop selling these things to the public, and only to those with mobility problems due to medical issues.

 

Let's say it is complete ban now.

 

Who gonna enforce the use of existing PMD?  Are you sure this enforcement is not half hearted?

[DACH]

Let's say it is complete ban now.

 

Who gonna enforce the use of existing PMD? Are you sure this enforcement is not half hearted?

LTA.

I have already said earlier.

 

Past history has already shown how the authorities are in dealing with banned items. I understand your concerns about how the current govt do things. Then it's the citizens duty to remind them to keep things in check. Keep on harping on them being half hearted, what's the use? Need to wait to become a victim, then one can respond?

[inlinesix]

LTA.

I have already said earlier.

 

Past history has already shown how the authorities are in dealing with banned items. I understand your concerns about how the current govt do things. Then it's the citizens duty to remind them to keep things in check. Keep on harping on them being half hearted, what's the use? Need to wait to become a victim, then one can respond?

 

You are the 1 harping on them half hearted.  How sure are you that LTA will enforce the ban?

 

Nowadays, past history is no longer applicable.  Look at MRT.

 

I will make sure culprit learn a hard lesson rather than me being a victim.

 

[DACH]

You are the 1 harping on them half hearted. How sure are you that LTA will enforce the ban?

 

Nowadays, past history is no longer applicable. Look at MRT.

 

I will make sure culprit learn a hard lesson rather than me being a victim.

 

I didn't say they will be half hearted if they want to completely ban it.

But you keep on thinking that they will be half hearted to ban, since you see their half hearted efforts to enforce the current rules.

Enforcement of current rules is different from enforcement of complete ban, since the latter sends a stronger message, just like completely banning chewing gums, against catching all the people trying to stick their gums everywhere. The results are different.

 

While you think you can make sure the culprit learn a hard lesson, how sure are you that the culprit won't get back to you harder?

[Jman888]

 

West Coast e-bike deaths: Trailer driver made no attempt to brake

By Kamini Devadass @KaminiCNA

19 Oct 2017 11:44PM (Updated: 20 Oct 2017 12:11AM)

 

 

Sahadevan Senguttuvan said he panicked when he saw the e-bikers and did not brake.

 

SINGAPORE: The driver of the trailer involved in an accident that killed two e-bikers on West Coast Highway last October said he panicked when he saw them, and made no attempt to brake before the collision.

 

Instead, Sahadevan Senguttuvan, now 35, told a coroner’s inquiry that he tried "changing lanes".

 

Two men were killed on Oct 27 last year when Sahadevan's prime mover trailer crashed into them. Ang Yee Fong, 25, was pronounced dead at the scene, and Ong Zi Quan, 18, was pronounced dead at the National University Hospital.

 

The third e-biker, Marcus Loke Teck Soon, who was 17 years old at the time, had leg injuries.

 

Mr Loke said in the inquiry that he did not see the trailer hit Mr Ang. He said he was in front of his two friends when he turned around and saw the trailer. He then told Mr Ong to ride faster.

 

Mr Loke said Mr Ong did try to speed up, but it was too late as the trailer had hit his power-assisted bicycle.

 

It also hit Mr Loke's e-bike, and the impact sent him "flying”, he said. 

 

Mr Loke added that all three of them had been riding on the double yellow lines on the extreme left side of the road, and did not stop at any point in time.

 

However, Sahadevan said in his testimony that the trio had been stationary when the accident happened.

 

CCTV footage from a building opposite the scene of the accident showed that the e-bikes had been in continued motion.

 

Sahadevan was travelling at a speed of about 40kmh – which was below the prescribed road speed limit of about 70kmh. He was on his way to deliver a container to Keppel Distripark when the accident happened.

 

He had worked for more than 12 hours that day, including time for meals and rest, which came to a total of about 2.5 hours, the inquiry heard. He added that he was not sleepy at the time of the accident.

 

He also said during the inquiry that the street lights had been dim at the time of the accident.

 

This was disputed by Traffic Police investigation officer Vilton Hia, who said the “roads were well-lit” that day, and that one would have been able to see clearly on the road. In addition, all three e-bikes had LED lights on them.

 

 

 

The accident occurred at the junction of West Coast Highway and Pandan Crescent. (Photo: Eric Ang / Facebook)

 

The late Mr Ang’s older sister, Ms Ang Hui Yee, grew frustrated on hearing Mr Sahadevan’s testimony.

 

She asked Mr Sahadevan if he was short-sighted, to which he replied “no”.

 

She also asked if he had seen the lights on their e-bikes, to which he said that there may have been lights at that point, but “it was not bright”.

 

Mr Ong’s mother, Mdm Chen Xuehong, also questioned Mr Sahadevan. She asked him why he kept denying the facts, when there was evidence. She told him: "If more people were there (that day), then more people would have died".

 

"I apologise to you, Madam," Mr Sahadevan said, turning to Ms Chen with tears in his eyes.

 

"I didn't want a loss of life," he said. “I tried my best. I didn’t want to hit them.”

 

The three power-assisted bikes were found to have been illegally modified with a throttle, motorcycle seats and an additional battery fitted for the LED lights. The modifications were found not to have contributed to the accident, the investigation officer said.

 

The findings from the coroner’s inquiry will be delivered on Friday.