Angka 2nd Gear February 28, 2016 Share February 28, 2016 Someone must die first before government do something. ↡ Advertisement Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
inlinesix Hypersonic February 28, 2016 Share February 28, 2016 Someone must die first before government do something. If ppl don't care about their own life, why should govt waste our $$$$? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ender Hypersonic February 28, 2016 Share February 28, 2016 Someone must die first before government do something. Next time won't be a car, but a dump truck rolling over their squashed bodies, if lessons are not learnt. Red means STOP, Green means GO. This applies to all road users. Car, Motorcyclist, E-Biker, Cyclist, Pedestrian. Apparent, some group of road users can't tell the difference. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beregond Supersonic February 28, 2016 Share February 28, 2016 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjdAVGXqPIk&feature=youtu.be Motorised bicycle crash accident at a traffic junction. Two young boys on the motorised bicycle were seen riding at high speed and beating red light resulted an accident with the cam owner. Scary ... I really don't understand why garmen cannot ban these cyclists from cycling on the road! Do they want ppl to die before implementing actions? Simple solutions and yet cannot implement .... As long as one do not take and pass the necessary driving lessons, one should not be driving on the road.. and this should apply to any vehicle-users on the road... simple. sorry bro, u are very wrong, cyclist are the king of the road, its the cam car fault, no matter the car buang the cyclist or the cyclist buang the car. u see the king coming u siam far far, or else u suay Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ktglfc Hypersonic February 28, 2016 Share February 28, 2016 sorry bro, u are very wrong, cyclist are the king of the road, its the cam car fault, no matter the car buang the cyclist or the cyclist buang the car. u see the king coming u siam far far, or else u suay The car driver will not be penalized much based on the video evidence, at most fine. But the 2 children will be dead.. and their families will suffer ... Haiz... The price to pay for some life lessons are just too much to bear ... 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fcw75 Hypersonic February 28, 2016 Share February 28, 2016 Never die ah? Waste of air and resources. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnimalLover 1st Gear February 28, 2016 Share February 28, 2016 (edited) No, if the driver drove fast enough and killed these any of the kids, he is in trouble eventhough he has this cam evidence. The police will charge him for speeding and reckless driving. The society still thinks if a life is killed, someone must be liable for it. Although there is cam evidence, there will be still arguments and the driver will be charged with a lower sentence. But if there is no cam evidence, then this driver is in a big mess and he will be sentenced maximum penalty to resolve the dead. Up to today, the police in most of the world will ask you why you cannot stop in time. They will point out that you are driving too fast and reckless. That is also the fastest and straightforward way to close the case. This is the same too when you bang another vehicle's rear side in front of your vehicle. Although this vehicle suddenly stop, you are still wrong in the end. That driver can claim your insurance easily and your insurance company will not even want to waste time fighting this 100% loose case. Edited February 28, 2016 by AnimalLover 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
1fast1 Supersonic February 28, 2016 Share February 28, 2016 No, if the driver drove fast enough and killed these any of the kids, he is in trouble eventhough he has this cam evidence. The police will charge him for speeding and reckless driving. The society still thinks if a life is killed, someone must be liable for it. Although there is cam evidence, there will be still arguments and the driver will be charged with a lower sentence. But if there is no cam evidence, then this driver is in a big mess and he will be sentenced maximum penalty to resolve the dead. Up to today, the police in most of the world will ask you why you cannot stop in time. They will point out that you are driving too fast and reckless. That is also the fastest and straightforward way to close the case. This is the same too when you bang another vehicle's rear side in front of your vehicle. Although this vehicle suddenly stop, you are still wrong in the end. That driver can claim your insurance easily and your insurance company will not even want to waste time fighting this 100% loose case. The real hard truths. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
1fast1 Supersonic February 28, 2016 Share February 28, 2016 (edited) Speaking of irresponsible cyclists, I noticed this late last week (I haven't got my cam set up yet, so can't offer footage). Been going earlier to work, so I see sights that I normally wouldn't see. I saw two "lycra brigade" cyclists along Macritchie Viaduct (after Lornie Road toward Sembawang). They were cycling two abreast, which is fine if you look at the letter of the law. What was decidedly not fine was that one was in the left lane and the other in the middle lane. Essentially, they were taking up two-thirds of the roads to themselves, cycling slowly in the middle of the lane with some weaving around, and chatting away. Cyclists, as per the law, are supposed to be cycling as close to the left of the road as possible. At first I thought: it's early, something like 0600+, what's the harm really? But then I thought: can I, as a motorised vehicle user, cite the same justification if I break the traffic rules? "Sir/your honour, it was really early in the AM, there were no other cars about, and I submit there was no real harm in doing 200" - do you think that would work? Do you think it *should*? If your answer is no, then the same should apply to bicycles. The point is this: there are too damn many bicyclists who think the law doesn't apply to them. And it's not like these chappies are ignorant of the law. The only way to get a group of road users to comply with a law they are wilfully breaking is increased enforcement and accountability. And since it doesn't seem practical to have TPs everywhere to nab these guys (and even then these cyclists may easily be able to escape an ambush if they're garang enough), I submit (yet again) that having visible unique registration is the best way. That way, video footage of errant cyclists can be sent in to the TP for them to act on, and there will be consequences. If news of the consequences starts filtering through the cycling community, things will change. It's not just a matter of the amount of damage a given vehicle can inflict. It's all about accountability. Even if a cyclist is 100% liable for an accident with a car, the car will likely still have to make an own damage claim and suffer long term consequences (not all insurance providers recognise no-fault claims and waive the loading of premiums or even the loss of NCD). And should, god forbid, an injury or death occur to the cyclist involved, the car driver is the one who has to live with the guilt. We are all human beings, even those in cars. We demand protection from certain irresponsible humans on bicycles just like we already have against those in other cars. End rant. Edited February 28, 2016 by Turboflat4 12 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
inlinesix Hypersonic February 29, 2016 Share February 29, 2016 No, if the driver drove fast enough and killed these any of the kids, he is in trouble eventhough he has this cam evidence. The police will charge him for speeding and reckless driving. The society still thinks if a life is killed, someone must be liable for it. Although there is cam evidence, there will be still arguments and the driver will be charged with a lower sentence. But if there is no cam evidence, then this driver is in a big mess and he will be sentenced maximum penalty to resolve the dead. Up to today, the police in most of the world will ask you why you cannot stop in time. They will point out that you are driving too fast and reckless. That is also the fastest and straightforward way to close the case. This is the same too when you bang another vehicle's rear side in front of your vehicle. Although this vehicle suddenly stop, you are still wrong in the end. That driver can claim your insurance easily and your insurance company will not even want to waste time fighting this 100% loose case. http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/2-teenagers-on-e-bike-beat-red-light-but-collided-with-car-and-flung-on-bonnet?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&link_time=1456659096#xtor=CS1-10 Look at the photo. It is e-bike bang car le. Since it is red man, should we assume pedestrian to beat red light whenever we make a right turn? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optramagnum 6th Gear February 29, 2016 Share February 29, 2016 Even if any bike hits a car, the finger will still point against the driver.. From young, whenever an older boy fight with his younger sibling, fault will oftenly blamed on the elder boy, regardless of the fact. I guess it's like that.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strat Supercharged February 29, 2016 Share February 29, 2016 No, if the driver drove fast enough and killed these any of the kids, he is in trouble eventhough he has this cam evidence. The police will charge him for speeding and reckless driving. The society still thinks if a life is killed, someone must be liable for it. Although there is cam evidence, there will be still arguments and the driver will be charged with a lower sentence. But if there is no cam evidence, then this driver is in a big mess and he will be sentenced maximum penalty to resolve the dead. Up to today, the police in most of the world will ask you why you cannot stop in time. They will point out that you are driving too fast and reckless. That is also the fastest and straightforward way to close the case. This is the same too when you bang another vehicle's rear side in front of your vehicle. Although this vehicle suddenly stop, you are still wrong in the end. That driver can claim your insurance easily and your insurance company will not even want to waste time fighting this 100% loose case. things will only change when some whitehorse get involved in e-bike related accident... 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baal Supersonic February 29, 2016 Share February 29, 2016 This morning, radio, 91.3. They spoke about the electric bicy case. Citing that they should be licensed. Reason cited: Elec Bike Cyclist have the 'motorcyclist mentality'. Coz unlike manual cyclist who usually don't have the burst of strength to speed up & attempt to beat the lights, Elec Bike Cyclist have the electric motor, empowering them to do so & hence, have the aforementioned mentality. <I think it should be motorist mentality.....not specifically motorcyclist mentality> Anyway, it ended off with a DJ issuing a warning to lta in jest, that they have been warned.....so don't say no one gave any feedback. Now, 91.3 is owned by sph? Hmm..... Electric scooter how ah? Any clear direction yet? Don't wait until I buy one then.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
inlinesix Hypersonic February 29, 2016 Share February 29, 2016 This morning, radio, 91.3. They spoke about the electric bicy case. Citing that they should be licensed. Reason cited: Elec Bike Cyclist have the 'motorcyclist mentality'. Coz unlike manual cyclist who usually don't have the burst of strength to speed up & attempt to beat the lights, Elec Bike Cyclist have the electric motor, empowering them to do so & hence, have the aforementioned mentality. <I think it should be motorist mentality.....not specifically motorcyclist mentality> Anyway, it ended off with a DJ issuing a warning to lta in jest, that they have been warned.....so don't say no one gave any feedback. Now, 91.3 is owned by sph? Hmm..... Electric scooter how ah? Any clear direction yet? Don't wait until I buy one then.... E-bike does not have throttle. How to act like motorcyclist? Those that has throttle is illegal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baal Supersonic February 29, 2016 Share February 29, 2016 E-bike does not have throttle. How to act like motorcyclist? Those that has throttle is illegal. The DJs did not elaborate on this part. They spoke on the tendency to beat the lights & the easily achievable speeds ~40kmh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beregond Supersonic February 29, 2016 Share February 29, 2016 This morning, radio, 91.3. They spoke about the electric bicy case. Citing that they should be licensed. Reason cited: Elec Bike Cyclist have the 'motorcyclist mentality'. Coz unlike manual cyclist who usually don't have the burst of strength to speed up & attempt to beat the lights, Elec Bike Cyclist have the electric motor, empowering them to do so & hence, have the aforementioned mentality. <I think it should be motorist mentality.....not specifically motorcyclist mentality> Anyway, it ended off with a DJ issuing a warning to lta in jest, that they have been warned.....so don't say no one gave any feedback. Now, 91.3 is owned by sph? Hmm..... Electric scooter how ah? Any clear direction yet? Don't wait until I buy one then.... 958 also talk about the problem, a few weeks back. they invite the public to give their view on it. but I reach my office , didn't manage to listen finish , Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nzy Twincharged February 29, 2016 Share February 29, 2016 (edited) The DJs did not elaborate on this part. They spoke on the tendency to beat the lights & the easily achievable speeds ~40kmh. This is why education is important also. Not many people seem to know that these are illegal e-bikes. The legal ones can't have the motor on if the bike hits 25km/h. So if an e-bike goes above 25km/h, either the rider is a strong rider or his is an illegal e-bike. Secondly, it is illegal to have a throttle on the e-bike. It is supposed to be pedal assisted, so the motor is only helping to make pedaling easier rather than remove the need to pedal at all. The motor only kicks in when the rider is pedaling. A fit and experienced cyclist will probably be faster than a legal e-bike. Edited February 29, 2016 by Nzy 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenTong Turbocharged February 29, 2016 Share February 29, 2016 Lucky that the ebike Cheong red light and "hit" a car. Had it "hit" some pedestrians.. Imagine the consequence. About time LTA take some serious view about licensing these e bikes. Whether this will help or not.. Not sure but a step forward ↡ Advertisement 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In NowRelated Discussions
Related Discussions
Trip to New York with road trip to Niagara Falls
Trip to New York with road trip to Niagara Falls
Germany: Self Drive Road Trip from Frankfurt to Munich
Germany: Self Drive Road Trip from Frankfurt to Munich
Advice needed for New Zealand road trip
Advice needed for New Zealand road trip
5 days Road Trip in Malaysia - suggestions & tips?
5 days Road Trip in Malaysia - suggestions & tips?
Real Life Heroes: Restore your faith in humanity
Real Life Heroes: Restore your faith in humanity
Total asset vs car price affordability
Total asset vs car price affordability
What movies / music are you watching / listening during the Covid Times
What movies / music are you watching / listening during the Covid Times