Shift to new satellite base ERP system in 2020

[Mkl22]

9 hours ago, Phang said:

walao.... smartphone is consumer grade product, not automotive grade

my car's ECU is mounted on the engine and ABS module is in the engine bay. 

drive by wire, traction control, ABS, cruise control all depending on these, failure of such systems will lead to fatality one leh

engine bay is not hotter than cabin?

I got a feeling that OBU is made of substandard non automotive grade components, probably cost $20 to make one

Yeah. More than 10years ago. All the PND sit inside the car as a compact unit also quite robust. 
 

[Yonjushichi]

10 hours ago, inlinesix said:

I told LTA officer that replied my email that my car cam does not have overheating issue despite parking under hot sun for suns. How your OBU has overheating issue?

This was the reply from OYK when I made the same comment:

"The Professionals did a thorough study and assessed that it is better not to have the processing module on the dash board. If a car is parked under the hot sun, the temperature I believe can go up to 70 degrees. So I think there are safety and reliability considerations."

 

For anybody who is interested, the Processing Unit measurements according to him:

"The dimension of the processing unit is L:142mm, W:86mm and H:35mm. LTA is meeting up with various authorised agents, inspection centres and motor dealers, to discuss placement of OBUs and training of technicians to ensure proper installations.  We will share the recommendations with the public once they are ready."

 

According to TODAY online , Amy Khor was quoted as saying “But, having said that, we are open to taking feedback from the public, which we have done and we are going to do,” Therefore, for those who believe the petition can mean something, please sign here:

https://www.change.org/p/singapore-drivers-ministry-of-transport-to-redesign-ugly-new-3-piece-erp-unit?utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=custom_url&recruited_by_id=808a4910-f3e8-11ea-9fe9-0537c6856dc6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Wt_know]

9 hours ago, Mockngbrd said:

Coe for congestion? Hahahahahahahahhahaha.... They fart u smell ah? 

with distance based ERP ... COE will still EXIST la ... 

ARF, COE, ERP = golden goose ... no way any of the goose will be slaughtered not for the next 100 years

based on their "saying"

ARF = tax for super car ... what's wrong to collect MORE 

COE = control car population (some say want certainty wor) ... fluctuate based on market demands

ERP = control where and when you drive ... fluctuate based on location and timing

Edited October 6, 2020 by Wt_know

[Datsun366]

Not about distance base charging but regarding the hideous and obscene OBU...🙈🙉🙊

Can we get Mr Shan to evaluate the contract?

No wriggle room meh?🤬

At least give got time to boil some eggs. Or deliver some even.😤

Delay lor. Put in just before next GE. 😁

A daily driver reminder of the depreciation of quality decision ability. Superfluous unsinkaporean presentation.😡

Sorry but when you are distinction student and a moderated 'D' isapointed grade smells so fishy.😭

Sign petition for what? Just send the eggs. NICELY, do not throw.😈

Edited October 6, 2020 by Datsun366

[Beanoyip]

Do you all think distance based charging will reduce the number of cars on the road?

[Datsun366]

11 minutes ago, Beanoyip said:

Do you all think distance based charging will reduce the number of cars on the road?

it sure will increase revenue to pay for obtuse and third world quality decisions.

 

[Butakim]

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/parliament/videos/october/amy-khor-on-superior-security-features-of-next-generation-obus-13202826

Show and Tell. Can see the new OBUs.

Edited October 6, 2020 by Butakim

[kelaihoyin]

12 hours ago, wlalala said:

From what I know, the new distance based ERP will only be charging within ERP roads, and not on all roads travelled.

But if indeed we are charged on any roads travelled by distance, then I say at that point COE should be abolished as the distance based charging will more than take care of any congestion we might have.

In fact even now I feel that COE is not the best solution to solve congestion issues. I feel like something like the e-day license for OPC could actually work pretty well instead. But of course right now the OPC scheme doesn't really make much sense cause you still have to bid for the COE quota which kinds of defeats the purpose of the scheme. Taxation on usage is good, but COE cannot exist at the same time.

Anything that gets the government more money can exist at the same time. Is a matter of how they spin it, like how they did for this 3 piece OBU 😄

[Fat_slayer]

I agree that not everything the government do must consult the public.  But in this case when this damn ugly device which will be installed in our car which is our private property should be consulted for our opinion.  End of day, the car is our property and the car price that we Singaporean paid are notoriously one of the highest in world.  We should have the right of refusal to have this hideous device which is damn old design / technology in our car. 

What did our minister mean by "first in the world"?  Also the ugliest and lack of consideration for safety. 

 

[Didu]

13 hours ago, Kklee said:

IMHO.
This is not a political issue. 
This is a safety issue.
The political aspect - build so many HDBs in the outskirts and now want to do distance based charging.   HDB is 99 years. 

IIRC,  there was this WEC Scheme,  at that time the PM was GCT.   

Objectives and rules of the WEC Scheme - 
The objective of the WEC scheme was to allow more people to own cars without contributing to traffic congestion.

Source :  https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_152_2005-02-02.html

Now,   the easier way out is to target ownership by making it expensive. 

I suspect those elected officials sees everything thru political lens. 🧐

Yes, allowing more people to own cars to boost collection from taxes & COE. Ownership, yes, but Govt did not encourage people to drive them onto the roads. Muah...ha...ha...ha

SG is already the most expensive country in the world for car ownership. (This one I guess no other country can overtake for next few hundred yrs) 

[Yonjushichi]

18 minutes ago, Fat_slayer said:

I agree that not everything the government do must consult the public.  But in this case when this damn ugly device which will be installed in our car which is our private property should be consulted for our opinion.  End of day, the car is our property and the car price that we Singaporean paid are notoriously one of the highest in world.  We should have the right of refusal to have this hideous device which is damn old design / technology in our car.

Precisely. These were my exact words to OYK:

"It will be very galling to have this 3-piece unit imposed upon car owners when they were not even consulted with in the first place, and subsequently not have their feedback listened to. It goes against the grain of what the Deputy Prime Minister have been exhorting about listening to feedback.

Car owners are already ‘penalised’ with various ownership and usage taxes. This extremely intrusive equipment, especially the Processing Unit, symbolically represents LTA’s forceful encroachment into the car owner’s privacy and ‘personal space’. It is vulgar, offensive and repulsive. This whole exercise smacks of high-handedness...

While I understand the need to honour a contract, I think LTA should consider on-ground feedback and seek a middle ground. Perhaps LTA can offer the simpler unit as an option to car owners. At the very least, it offers owners the ameliorative illusion of having a choice to decide what goes into his/her car, which is a very personal and private space. The sanctity of this privacy is second only to that of their homes."

[Watwheels]

Aiya, if LTA want to intro new scheme they will have to remove some other revenue to strike a "balance".

For example if they really want to charge based on distance travelled then they will have to consider reducing the road tax significantly or remove it totally. Not everything also add add add like daylight robbery. No matter what got to wayang abit like previously want to increase erp the road tax is reduced but overall still collect more revenue. "Win-win". Ok? 🤣

[Kklee]

14 hours ago, wlalala said:

From what I know, the new distance based ERP will only be charging within ERP roads, and not on all roads travelled.

But if indeed we are charged on any roads travelled by distance, then I say at that point COE should be abolished as the distance based charging will more than take care of any congestion we might have.

In fact even now I feel that COE is not the best solution to solve congestion issues. I feel like something like the e-day license for OPC could actually work pretty well instead. But of course right now the OPC scheme doesn't really make much sense cause you still have to bid for the COE quota which kinds of defeats the purpose of the scheme. Taxation on usage is good, but COE cannot exist at the same time.

IMHO,  they do not know what is causing the jam and they want to be the 1st.  
 

[Eyke]

1 hour ago, Yonjushichi said:

Precisely. These were my exact words to OYK:

"It will be very galling to have this 3-piece unit imposed upon car owners when they were not even consulted with in the first place, and subsequently not have their feedback listened to. It goes against the grain of what the Deputy Prime Minister have been exhorting about listening to feedback.

Car owners are already ‘penalised’ with various ownership and usage taxes. This extremely intrusive equipment, especially the Processing Unit, symbolically represents LTA’s forceful encroachment into the car owner’s privacy and ‘personal space’. It is vulgar, offensive and repulsive. This whole exercise smacks of high-handedness...

While I understand the need to honour a contract, I think LTA should consider on-ground feedback and seek a middle ground. Perhaps LTA can offer the simpler unit as an option to car owners. At the very least, it offers owners the ameliorative illusion of having a choice to decide what goes into his/her car, which is a very personal and private space. The sanctity of this privacy is second only to that of their homes."

nicely written 😄

[yishunite]

16 hours ago, Didu said:

Current SG private car population is only about 550K. Assuming the rest of the 2.1 million eligible voters are not interested in this topic, there might still be sufficient numbers for Govt to take our feedback seriously.

What's the population of PMV users in sg? I will happily give another GRC to WP in exchange for this unit.

[inlinesix]

5 minutes ago, yishunite said:

What's the population of PMV users in sg? I will happily give another GRC to WP in exchange for this unit.

550k excludes PMV.

[yishunite]

13 minutes ago, inlinesix said:

550k excludes PMV.

Not my point

What i meant was pmv users could unite to tilt enough voters and throw out lampamin

[Kklee]

14 hours ago, wlalala said:

From what I know, the new distance based ERP will only be charging within ERP roads, and not on all roads travelled.

But if indeed we are charged on any roads travelled by distance, then I say at that point COE should be abolished as the distance based charging will more than take care of any congestion we might have.

In fact even now I feel that COE is not the best solution to solve congestion issues. I feel like something like the e-day license for OPC could actually work pretty well instead. But of course right now the OPC scheme doesn't really make much sense cause you still have to bid for the COE quota which kinds of defeats the purpose of the scheme. Taxation on usage is good, but COE cannot exist at the same time.

IMHO.
Now perhaps not,  later perhaps?   The system, if it works, is already in place. 

We have  ARF, COE, ERP and Road Tax.   Regardless of the various implementation methods of distance based charging,  it will be hard to decoupled any of them. 

E.g.  A person drives to work from Tampines to Tuas.  He does not need to pay ERP.    If distance based charging reference to ERP gantry is implemented,  no change.  If distance based charging reference to actual distance travelled,  this person will be penalized. 

So let's say for the latter, remove the Road Tax component,  if the person drives 40k km per year,   to "recover" the road tax,  he needs to be charged 1,855 cents per km  ( based on $742 p.a. road tax ) .    Those who drives lesser km than him/her,  pay less road tax.  The average SG driver clocks about 18,000 km per year ?   That means the road tax of $742 per year will be $333.9 per year.   This translate to an "instant" loss.   COE can only be remove and not reduced,  imagine the ramification of removal of COE ? 
 

Point blank,  some say in a way COE is flawed.  IMHO,  there  is a limit to the number and there is a dollar value.   The word is entitlement.  Are we then saying,  you have $, you are entitled? 
Equality = the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, or opportunities.