Jump to content

RSAF pilot sue cabby for 4million dollars


Yewheng
 Share

Recommended Posts

What if the person lives till 90 years old?

 

based on statistical life.

 

they have a term for it.

 

VOSL. value of statistical life.

 

they use it for computation of a lot of things like benefit transfer etc.

Sing stat says Singapore life expectancy is 90 years old.

 

 

usually based on retirement age.

  • Praise 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

based on statistical life.

 

they have a term for it.

 

VOSL. value of statistical life.

 

they use it for computation of a lot of things like benefit transfer etc.

 

 

 

usually based on retirement age.

I know.

 

Within Insurance industry, there is a mortality table for that purpose

Link to post
Share on other sites

For public interest reasons, I would actually advocate a cap (a very high one).

 

in an extreme scenario, what happens if someone langga into hsien loong? insurer goes bankrupt? [laugh]

How is this “for public interest”?

 

Why should reckless people be insulated from being made responsible and accountable for their actions?

 

To be clear - I am against fraudulent and inflated claims but if the claim amount is suitably justified, I see no reason to cap the claim.

 

If nothing else, it will serve as a deterrent against reckless behaviour and protection for innocents. That is what would be in the public interest.

  • Praise 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm frankly appalled by some of the views and comments expressed here.

 

Sexist, misogynistic and blatantly ignorant.

 

Have you any idea how much/long it takes to train an attack helicopter pilot? Have you any idea how much multitasking goes on in the cockpit of an Apache in a combat situation?

 

Actually, I don't know either - I am not in the Air Force. But it would be presumptuous to dismiss her $4 million dollar claim as spurious. Want to play also don't play so big until High Court. The judge would throw it out summarily if that were the case. But in this case, the news article does specifically mention that the claim is substantiated.

 

And it boggles my mind that some think that just because she is a woman, she would be grounded at some point because she has the ability to bear children means she needs to do so to "fulfil another national service". Her body, her choice - in the absence of which, she can fly till mandatory retirement like any other man.

 

Last point - it was already ruled without a doubt and the cab driver has fully accepted liability for causing the accident through no fault of the pilot.

 

If you don't agree with the message that it is sending, I don't agree with you either. You got behind the wheel, you made your choices, in this case to beat the red light. You created the outcome, you bear the consequences whatever it may be.

If it’s a surgeon.. the damage could be well over 10m if she can’t operate anymore due to the injury
Link to post
Share on other sites

If nobody has beaten red light.. the lady pilot would still be happily flying her Apache and the cabbie would be happily driving his cab...

 

Just don’t Cheong red lights from today onwards everyone..

↡ Advertisement
  • Praise 2
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...