5 dead in Tanjong Pagar speeding accident

[Yewheng]

3 hours ago, Macrosszero said:

From where I sit, I can still hear cars wailing down the street. 

Not enough people have seen their coffin yet.

What the... These people really yolo... Haiz..

[BanCoe]

7 hours ago, Ho2786 said:

buy the best tires and upgrade the best brakes money can buy.

what matters are how fast you stop not how fast you go.

Preambree tree 🌲 saying ......... a bad worker always blames his tools Period 

[BanCoe]

7 hours ago, boonhat_91 said:

in this case, it is worth at least a M4 and probably a few rolexes at minimum 

And Loan ?? .......... oh! must be an MCfer .....pay full cash 1

[ER-3682]

6 hours ago, Lethalstrike said:

Have. 

Michelin Pilot Super Sports or Pilot Sport Cup 2 😂

 

 

PS4s is Replacement for Pilot Super Sports.

[Beehive3783]

On 2/19/2021 at 11:43 AM, Ravinged said:

No we don't need more space for him. There's always the understanding of waste of bandswidth. We need solutions, not talk for the sake of airtime. The Parliament is not a radio station.

Your masters also talk for the sake of airtime, do talk to them about this matter, ok?

[Beehive3783]

On 2/19/2021 at 3:03 PM, Evillusion said:

Wah...really go burn car....GTR!  

Picture kope from edmw.

They burn GTR because M4 no good. Crashed.

[inlinesix]

3 minutes ago, Beehive3783 said:

They burn GTR because M4 no good. Crashed.

 

[Weez911]

15 minutes ago, Beehive3783 said:

Your masters also talk for the sake of airtime, do talk to them about this matter, ok?

I think I'm paying too much corporate and individual tax for these slaves to fester and thrive here.

[Evillusion]

26 minutes ago, Beehive3783 said:

They burn GTR because M4 no good. Crashed.

Somebody should try with a GTR....oh wait....fella have a GTR right?

[Beehive3783]

15 hours ago, Jusnel said:

As long as they find alcohol in the driver's blood that's high enough to say it's drunk driving, the insurance can F care about paying a cent. 

Every car insurance policy has the drunk driving clause. 

Just wait and see. 

Death by immolation, whatever alcohol in the body would have been burnt and evaporated.

[Beehive3783]

28 minutes ago, Evillusion said:

Somebody should try with a GTR....oh wait....fella have a GTR right?

Ya... GTR guy was Eugene Yap if I still read chinese correctly

[kobayashiGT]

On 2/20/2021 at 6:47 PM, Sdf4786k said:

Any clue where to top up a extinguisher n the costs?

For household extingusher, i think they will ask you buy new one. 🤣

[Kar_lover]

16 hours ago, Jusnel said:

As long as they find alcohol in the driver's blood that's high enough to say it's drunk driving, the insurance can F care about paying a cent. 

Every car insurance policy has the drunk driving clause. 

Just wait and see. 

Assuming no alcohol was found to be involved, can the sheer act of completely reckless driving also be used by insurer to decline the claim?

[Blueray]

8 minutes ago, Kar_lover said:

Assuming no alcohol was found to be involved, can the sheer act of completely reckless driving also be used by insurer to decline the claim?

my layman understanding is that insurance covers accidents only.

anything non-accident ... 

my $0.02. 

Edited February 22, 2021 by Blueray

[Kar_lover]

1 minute ago, Blueray said:

my layman understand is that insurance covers accidents only.

anything non-accident ... 

my $0.02. 

But this case is still termed as an accident. I guess it's because while it may have been reckless, it was still an unintended outcome, i.e. accident. Even the title of this thread is also "accident". Most "accidents" would involve at least 1 party being in the wrong. For example, following to close to the car in front and rear ending him due to unable to brake in time or filtering without checking blind spot, etc are also a kind of recklessness. Just that in this case, the extent of the recklessness is quite extreme. So I am just wondering if there are clauses in car insurance policies that exclude themselves in cases of flagrant or extreme recklessness.

[Blueray]

1 minute ago, Kar_lover said:

But this case is still termed as an accident. I guess it's because while it may have been reckless, it was still an unintended outcome, i.e. accident. Even the title of this thread is also "accident". Most "accidents" would involve at least 1 party being in the wrong. For example, following to close to the car in front and rear ending him due to unable to brake in time or filtering without checking blind spot, etc are also a kind of recklessness. Just that in this case, the extent of the recklessness is quite extreme. So I am just wondering if there are clauses in car insurance policies that exclude themselves in cases of flagrant or extreme recklessness.

they were like +100km/h over speed limit lei ...

anyways, have to wait for the final findings. 

[Lethalstrike]

1 minute ago, Kar_lover said:

But this case is still termed as an accident. I guess it's because while it may have been reckless, it was still an unintended outcome, i.e. accident. Even the title of this thread is also "accident". Most "accidents" would involve at least 1 party being in the wrong. For example, following to close to the car in front and rear ending him due to unable to brake in time or filtering without checking blind spot, etc are also a kind of recklessness. Just that in this case, the extent of the recklessness is quite extreme. So I am just wondering if there are clauses in car insurance policies that exclude themselves in cases of flagrant or extreme recklessness.

That will also depends on how the insurance companies want to play around this, considering this was a high profile case. Back in 2012, the Ferrari 599 GTO case at Victoria Street, I think the insurance did compensated to the taxi driver and his female passenger. As for Ma Chi and his unfortunate female companion of the night, I'm not too sure if they are covered.   

For this case, if the police has eye witnesses coming forward to say that they are already doing rounds before the accident, which I believe the police already had, I guess the insurance company have more valid grounds to argue their case around their definition of "accident". Clearly, this was intended reckless driving no matter how one argues. 

[kobayashiGT]

I think the insurance company will pay for this incident because it have been a headline for so long, if they pull stun and don't pay, I think will have bad publicity.

 

But then again, if they pay. They will be encouraging other daredevils to perform such acts. So is a tough one here.