Ways to prevent erroneous claims from accident

[A_korusawa]

nothing to do with judge.

the passenger and insurance came to an agreement before the verdict was reached.

nothing to do with judge???

will the passenger who oledi engaged a representative lawyer willing to eat this if all parties were invited to a kopitiam to settle?

wahh cow!

 

 

[A_korusawa]

Its not about ebrake on time or not. The correct method is to ebrake.

. . . . . . . . . .   so is it or not about ebrake?

 

 

Swerve and hit another vehicle, its your fault. If cannot react in-time, either the driver is really unlucky to meet a pedestrian that jump out infront of him or he never drive defensively.

if based on what you said above, then should the passenger still need to pay since the driver did not drive defensively?

so isn't it a wrong judgement from this case as per your comment?

[Beng2]

Drivers should have good habits to begin with,

 

After stopping the car, the driver should always tell passenger to wait for his instruction to open door, if the passenger has to open the right side.  Don't just sit and keep quiet. 

 

Driver check the side to clear by looking at side mirror, before telling passenger to open door. 

 

I always do that, as far as i rem.  Its called "situational awareness"

I notice many people who have no driving license tend not to check for vehicles when opening car door. For my passengers, I'll remind them and help to look out for cars when they are about to alight.

[Nzy]

. . . . . . . . . .   so is it or not about ebrake?

 

 

if based on what you said above, then should the passenger still need to pay since the driver did not drive defensively?

so isn't it a wrong judgement from this case as per your comment?

 

You are saying driver cannot ebrake on-time. So we are talking about reaction time. If the driver don't have enough time to avoid an accident by e-braking, it usually means he has left too small gap or no situational awareness or not concentrating. No need to swerve. If swerve to avoid accident, also his fault.

 

Driver never drive defensively? This got nothing to do with driving. Its not like he was driving off when the passenger open the door. He stopped and the passenger decided to alight from the right side. How to drive defensively? But the other car really didn't drive defensively. Guess that is why he got 50% of the blame. You talking about the other car that drove into the cab's door?

Edited November 15, 2016 by Nzy

[A_korusawa]

  . . . . . .  I am talking about passenger in this case is wrongly summoned to pay for the accident . . . . . .  

[Nzy]

  . . . . . .  I am talking about passenger in this case is wrongly summoned to pay for the accident . . . . . .  

 

Passenger opened door without checking for traffic. Wrong or correct?

[Ahgong]

Erroneous claim on a repair job that would have cost no more than $1K. Highly marked up repair cost. Injustice to the passenger who had to pay $5K in compensation.

 

http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/cab-passenger-pays-part-bill-damage-crash

 

liddat also can?

how come the article never include any video from at least the taxi POV?

[A_korusawa]

Passenger opened door without checking for traffic. Wrong or correct?

 

"You are saying driver cannot ebrake on-time. So we are talking about reaction time. If the driver don't have enough time to avoid an accident by e-braking, it usually means he has left too small gap or no situational awareness or not concentrating. No need to swerve. If swerve to avoid accident, also his fault."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 . . . . familiar?

[Kusje]

 

"You are saying driver cannot ebrake on-time. So we are talking about reaction time. If the driver don't have enough time to avoid an accident by e-braking, it usually means he has left too small gap or no situational awareness or not concentrating. No need to swerve. If swerve to avoid accident, also his fault."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 . . . . familiar?

 

Dunno what he was talking about but what he said is only valid for front to rear collisions leh.

[Nzy]

 

"You are saying driver cannot ebrake on-time. So we are talking about reaction time. If the driver don't have enough time to avoid an accident by e-braking, it usually means he has left too small gap or no situational awareness or not concentrating. No need to swerve. If swerve to avoid accident, also his fault."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 . . . . familiar?

 

Yup. So passenger is the one opening the door. He is the one "driving"/opening it. So he/she is responsible. Unless you say that as an adult you don't know open doors need to check for traffic need other people to tell you.

[A_korusawa]

Dunno what he was talking about but what he said is only valid for front to rear collisions leh.

bro, agree with you . . . .

out of sudden, he began talking about ebraking (below) then followed by driver's fault, and now passenger's fault . . . . . me oso beri beri confused & blur !

the main point here is not about whose fault it is, but rather the DJ's hasty decision to summon for passenger's payment when it involved both commercial vehicles and played-up legal fees by the insurances' lawyers.....

 

Are we saying that taxi's insurance only covers for taxi drivers and their vehicles that totally neglected passengers' stake? 

if this is true, then shouldn't there be clear notice to all passengers that " Dear Passengers, My Taxi's Insurance does NOT include you! " ???

 

you see . . .  if passengers are liable to taxis' accidents, then there MUST be clear communications and justifications from the commercial/profitable gains by each concerned parties!  and all taxis have their accountabilities to ensure their passenger is safely alighted at the right designated spot. 

what if aged or very young passengers?  Surely, taci should not obliged if passenger's demand to alight dangerously,,,,,

 

This bloody DJ's decision has painted a very vague precedence to all future passengers stakes, regardless aged, young, handicapped etc. and this may give rise to unnecessary fabrications towards dodgy accidents claims too !!!!

 

 

You are saying driver cannot ebrake on-time. So we are talking about reaction time. If the driver don't have enough time to avoid an accident by e-braking, it usually means he has left too small gap or no situational awareness or not concentrating. No need to swerve. If swerve to avoid accident, also his fault.

 

Driver never drive defensively? This got nothing to do with driving. Its not like he was driving off when the passenger open the door. He stopped and the passenger decided to alight from the right side. How to drive defensively? But the other car really didn't drive defensively. Guess that is why he got 50% of the blame. You talking about the other car that drove into the cab's door?

 

 

Yup. So passenger is the one opening the door. He is the one "driving"/opening it. So he/she is responsible. Unless you say that as an adult you don't know open doors need to check for traffic need other people to tell you.

you just like arguing for the sake of arguing . . . .  sigh.

first is ebrake

then is driver's fault

and then passenger's fault

and now "as an adult you don't know . . . ."

 

aiyoh! forgot to take your medicine, izit?

[Nzy]

bro, agree with you . . . .

out of sudden, he began talking about ebraking (below) then followed by driver's fault, and now passenger's fault . . . . . me oso beri beri confused & blur !

the main point here is not about whose fault it is, but rather the DJ's hasty decision to summon for passenger's payment when it involved both commercial vehicles and played-up legal fees by the insurances' lawyers.....

 

Are we saying that taxi's insurance only covers for taxi drivers and their vehicles that totally neglected passengers' stake? 

if this is true, then shouldn't there be clear notice to all passengers that " Dear Passengers, My Taxi's Insurance does NOT include you! " ???

 

you see . . .  if passengers are liable to taxis' accidents, then there MUST be clear communications and justifications from the commercial/profitable gains by each concerned parties!  and all taxis have their accountabilities to ensure their passenger is safely alighted at the right designated spot. 

what if aged or very young passengers?  Surely, taci should not obliged if passenger's demand to alight dangerously,,,,,

 

This bloody DJ's decision has painted a very vague precedence to all future passengers stakes, regardless aged, young, handicapped etc. and this may give rise to unnecessary fabrications towards dodgy accidents claims too !!!!

 

 

 

 

you just like arguing for the sake of arguing . . . .  sigh.

first is ebrake

then is driver's fault

and then passenger's fault

and now "as an adult you don't know . . . ."

 

aiyoh! forgot to take your medicine, izit?

 

Weren't you are the one who started talking about what if a pedestrian crosses the road and the driver swerve to avoid the pedestrian. You forgot? You started it. Not me.

 

Looking at the way you type, I think you need medical attention more than me.

 

So your mentality is that since the taxi company never say that passenger is liable for damages they cause, the taxi company should cover the passenger's faults also? So you are the kind that goes into a shop and manhandles the items if they never state that once broken considered sold? Everything is other people's fault. Lol. I always thought that it is common sense that if a passenger/person causes any damage to anything, they are liable. Guess this isn't common sense to some people. Or they lack common sense.

Edited November 18, 2016 by Nzy

[A_korusawa]

Weren't you are the one who started talking about what if a pedestrian crosses the road and the driver swerve to avoid the pedestrian. You forgot? You started it. Not me.

 

Looking at the way you type, I think you need medical attention more than me.

 

So your mentality is that since the taxi company never say that passenger is liable for damages they cause, the taxi company should cover the passenger's faults also? So you are the kind that goes into a shop and manhandles the items if they never state that once broken considered sold? Everything is other people's fault. Lol. I always thought that it is common sense that if a passenger/person causes any damage to anything, they are liable. Guess this isn't common sense to some people. Or they lack common sense.

[A_korusawa]

just no time to go into nonsensical argument here about

ebrake, and swerve here & there

then what school teaches,

then driver and passenger faults

then you say first whattt hor

then this and that . . . .

 

really damn childish to argue for the sake of arguing..... especially some balless anonymous' comments . . . .

sigh . . . .

[Vinceng]

Taxi Passenger never wear seat belt and died in accident, want to claim $1 million in damages. 

 

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/family-of-late-singtel-director-sues-drivers-involved-in-his-fatal-accident

[Ganwb79]

Taxi Passenger never wear seat belt and died in accident, want to claim $1 million in damages.

 

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/family-of-late-singtel-director-sues-drivers-involved-in-his-fatal-accident

Not wearing seat belt is a mitigating factor, but Auntie reversing a car on CTE and Uncle failing to spot a big Merc with hazard and reverse lights on is directly culpable

[Beehive3783]

They are filing a 1 million dollar suit against a taxi driver.

 

Do they seriously think he has the money to pay up?

 

What idiots.

 

Taxi Passenger never wear seat belt and died in accident, want to claim $1 million in damages. 

 

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/family-of-late-singtel-director-sues-drivers-involved-in-his-fatal-accident

 

[Vinceng]

They are filing a 1 million dollar suit against a taxi driver.

 

Do they seriously think he has the money to pay up?

 

What idiots.

 

It's the taxi's insurer who will pay.