Jump to content

More frequent inspection for illegal exhaust & engine


LiuDeHua
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hahah.. First thing first.

 

The people who like your post thinks are the people I rebuke against, retaliate by like your post. It could be they are losing on logical battle or they feel that I am not intelligent enough to warrant a proper response.

 

Point 2:

There is no divide between views from policy makers and ground sentiments. In response to F5 case, the basis may be the same but end is extremely different. One is national security and financial prudent. I am very sure SG can afford better fighter plane than to extend life span of F5. The other is simply a personal hobby, an expression of individualism, at times, at the expense of others living in the same space.

 

Point 3:

Lets skip the rationale and validity of the rule and use this particular analogy.

Students cannot bring food out of canteen. In your case, you will argue that just because I bring food out, doesn't mean I am going to eat outside the canteen. I want to bring home the food. Maybe it applies to you but can you guarantee that everyone who does that is honest and will not cause spillage or leave behind rubbish in the surrounding area?

 

Then think about the intention. When a student brings food out, it is really always about bringing it back or is there intention to consume the food outside the canteen?

 

The question that as a school, do you give your trust to all the students and then spend time and effort to investigate every case of spillage or food trash?

 

Bringing it back into context, what is the intention of a driver to change its exos, engine capacity, or add turbo? Simply for aesthetics? They will never use the additional power at all? Do you trust people who intentionally breaks rules that they will be responsible with it? 

 

I am sure people change exo purely for its musical notes. They are allowed to do so with certification. Yes, it cost more with the certification but is the cost that vendor add on or by LTA?

 

If you look at the LTA Modification Guide, they are rather reasonable in general.

 

If you read the article carefully, no new department was created. I'm not sure whether STA or VICOM will benefit from this but I am pretty sure I will lower my chances of being awake by loud exhaust in the middle of the night. I am very sure I am not alone.

 

 

Let me give you another analogy. School dictated that students must meet certain criteria for hair cut. These rules are set and informed to all students. The rationale was to project a proper student image.

 

After the holiday, a group of students came back with long hair and when caught, complained that the school is being unreasonable and that they must be helping barbers to earn more money.

 

We live in a democratic society where the needs of the majority almost certainly superseded the needs of the minority. It is not always fair but it is consistent.

 

Oh.. I almost forget another analogy.

 

A student who has been breaking rules in school is felt up and complained to his parents that teachers are targeting him for some reasons he does not know. He will complain that teacher never catch X, Y or Z but only him. 

 

 

So here is the great divide between scholarly views and views on the ground. Granted that the F5 example is on a different level altogether, though the basis to extend the life span of the particular equipment and improve or bespoke the performance is actually the same between the two.

 

If the authorities can take their heads out of their asses and do factual studies on modification of cars, they would realise that their views do not hold much ground in reality.

 

A souped up Toyota or Subaru would not equate a reckless driver, decrease the car's on road capability, cause danger to other motorists just because it is going to suddenly stop moving or burst into flames. If we were just to flip through the past decade news clippings of road accidents, how many actually involved modified cars?

 

I am not supporting the illegal acts of lupping a big turbo onto a 2.0RS Subaru Impreza or a 1.6 Vios, because if you wanted turbo, buy a turbo charged car, simple. I just don't see the danger in changing a stock exhaust to a Fujitsubo exhaust. Are flames going to come out of the Fujitsubo?

 

Just as tax payers money shouldn't be wasted on setting up a separately new department to police illegal modifications, by coming up with this new ruling, they already are wasting resources. The only people who are going to benefit? Probably STA, VICOM for the increased traffic to their inspection centres.

 

Edited by Pioneer
↡ Advertisement
Link to post
Share on other sites

They have been conducting surveys and studies about it.  Expected to announce outcome in Q1 2016.

 

Policy making is not suka suka ban this ban that. Have to study ground sentiments, possible consequences and possibilities.

 

Why they not putting a stop on those electric bike that are causing problems to road user?

 


Do you know the policy making process?

 

I have seen policies being studied and research for years before they are formalised.

 

It takes quite an amount of time, effort and resources to do so. 

 

I want my LTA and government agencies in general to be kiasu and kiasi. Heroes die young. #yodo

 

Btw, they did not ban exos. Exos are under a list of items that can be install with approval. If they want to their lives easier, they will ban not certify.

 

 

LTA like many gahmen people are filled with kiasu, kiasi, lazy type of people.

They make rules to suit themselves, and banned everything else, the easy way.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

half the girls and guys i see inside are useless bimbos and brainless toots who dont drive or do nothing but holidays a few times a year with money from goodness noes where

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hahah.. First thing first.

 

The people who like your post thinks are the people I rebuke against, retaliate by like your post. It could be they are losing on logical battle or they feel that I am not intelligent enough to warrant a proper response.

 

Point 2:

There is no divide between views from policy makers and ground sentiments. In response to F5 case, the basis may be the same but end is extremely different. One is national security and financial prudent. I am very sure SG can afford better fighter plane than to extend life span of F5. The other is simply a personal hobby, an expression of individualism, at times, at the expense of others living in the same space.

 

Point 3:

Lets skip the rationale and validity of the rule and use this particular analogy.

Students cannot bring food out of canteen. In your case, you will argue that just because I bring food out, doesn't mean I am going to eat outside the canteen. I want to bring home the food. Maybe it applies to you but can you guarantee that everyone who does that is honest and will not cause spillage or leave behind rubbish in the surrounding area?

 

Then think about the intention. When a student brings food out, it is really always about bringing it back or is there intention to consume the food outside the canteen?

 

The question that as a school, do you give your trust to all the students and then spend time and effort to investigate every case of spillage or food trash?

 

Bringing it back into context, what is the intention of a driver to change its exos, engine capacity, or add turbo? Simply for aesthetics? They will never use the additional power at all? Do you trust people who intentionally breaks rules that they will be responsible with it? 

 

I am sure people change exo purely for its musical notes. They are allowed to do so with certification. Yes, it cost more with the certification but is the cost that vendor add on or by LTA?

 

If you look at the LTA Modification Guide, they are rather reasonable in general.

 

If you read the article carefully, no new department was created. I'm not sure whether STA or VICOM will benefit from this but I am pretty sure I will lower my chances of being awake by loud exhaust in the middle of the night. I am very sure I am not alone.

 

 

Let me give you another analogy. School dictated that students must meet certain criteria for hair cut. These rules are set and informed to all students. The rationale was to project a proper student image.

 

After the holiday, a group of students came back with long hair and when caught, complained that the school is being unreasonable and that they must be helping barbers to earn more money.

 

We live in a democratic society where the needs of the majority almost certainly superseded the needs of the minority. It is not always fair but it is consistent.

 

Oh.. I almost forget another analogy.

 

A student who has been breaking rules in school is felt up and complained to his parents that teachers are targeting him for some reasons he does not know. He will complain that teacher never catch X, Y or Z but only him. 

 

Your "haha" is by no means a sign of amusement.

 

Also, this is not a popularity contest and whoever likes what is up to them, it is just that whatever I have put out resonates with the ones who "liked" my post. I don't see anyone commenting on your intelligence or lack of it, neither has anyone made a logical nor illogical stance against you, except for me. So, no need for a broadside there.

 

Point for point, you've made your stand and I'll just finish this "debate" for what it's worth and end with my replies to you.

 

Firstly, the divide between policy makers and "policy receivers" is plain to see with the grousing and mumbling, just take a look at the LTA post on Facebook disseminating this piece of news that we are "debating" on. When you say there is no divide, are you sure?

 

As for the F5, as long as you agree that the basis of modifying something remains the same, I am satisfied with that. Moreover, you have also pointed out that the F5 is not the best example, but as long as we agree that the basis of modification is to prolong the use of the equipment, to customise or bespoke the performance of the equipment, that is enough for me, because that is what I am trying to put across in the first place.

 

Your rationale of buying food in the canteen and bringing it out for consumption had befuddled me, but after some analysing, I realised that yes, it can be used albeit in another way. Food is bought for consumption, as is a car is bought for driving. I will not buy a pack of hokkien mee, bring it home and refuse to eat it just because I am not in the canteen. What the NEA nor seller cannot do is to stop me from using another kind of chilli sauce (modification).

 

It is the same with cars, I bought it to drive it. This car is produced for a million people, not everyone drives the same way, I could have a more leaden foot, I could like to "kup" corners, there's so many ways to drive one car that it is definitely impossible to please everyone. That's where modification comes in. Just because the seller likes his prawn mee without chilli, doesn't mean I should.

 

And then, you talk about intention. Again, food bought is meant for eating, as a car is for driving. Nobody buys a car and at the point of signing the agreement, and says, "I am going to be a reckless driver." The same way no one buys a pack of hokkien mee and thinks that he is going to throw it at his neighbour's door. Nobody's intent is to destroy.

 

I also find it weird as to what you mean by can we trust a person not to use the extra horse power after the modification is done. What is the reason for modification? Car not powerful enough? Low torque? Does a modification of installing a Fujitsubo exhaust increase the actual horsepower of a vehicle so much so the vehicle becomes a danger to other road users? Like the very first paragraph of this article says and I paraphrase "Nobody runs their vehicle at 5,000rpm all the time" (Link: http://www.exhaustvideos.com/faq/gain-more-horsepower-exhaust-system/)

 

By your rationale, does this mean that anyone who drives a car above a certain horsepower is highly likely to speed? If that's so, then does this relate more towards driver behavior than modifications?

 

No doubt the general guidelines are reasonable, on paper. Again, look at the Facebook post by LTA and tell me that it is so.

Same brand, same model, same design, same vendor. One gets approved, the other not.

 

It is true the needs of majority supersedes the minority, but I will not play the race card here.

 

I will end off here because I don't see any end to this debate. Modifications cannot harm like what the LTA has justified repeatedly, even proven erroneously. The intent of modifying is not because the driver is going to slap on his big ass pipes and then go around jioing other cars for a street race. If the reason is because after market pipes are too loud, then what about the stock pipes on Maseratis, Ferraris, Lamborghinis? Are their pipe decibels regulated to the same level as after market pipes or Italian sounds more sexy to the polished ears of the policy makers in LTA?

 

Until the scholars in LTA can accurately and factually come out with a rationale as to why they are going on a modification witch hunt, everything will just remain status quo. Policies continue to get stuffed down the people's throats to minimise the grousing and mumblings.

 

I shall end with these eight words: 以德服人,以理治国

 

 

  • Praise 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There has been pleas to LTA since decades ago to allow exhaust mods based on noise level and emissions.

 

Slap on any exhaust mod you want, pay for it to be tested for emissions and noise. Simple, but extra work for LTA.

 

This oft repeated statements from LTA is just grating.

 

The LTA said illegal modifications can create serious safety and environmental hazards.

 

Once a vehicle's engine or exhaust system is modified without due certification and approval, the existing vehicle components may not be able to handle the increased power or speed. Such modifications may also affect the durability and reliability of a vehicle.

 

It is like not being able to win a debate with logic and resorting to aphorisms.

 

Worker : Boss I can't unscrew this nut with a hammer, I need a spanner!

 

Boss : A bad workman blames his tools.

 

Worker : Boss I can't drive the nail in with a allen key, I need a hammer!

 

Boss : A bad workman blames his tools.

Edited by Ake109
  • Praise 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Loud pipes like loud people annoy....

 

Unless it is a proper V8/10/12!

 

Actually LTA should station at the Check points to catch/turn back boleh cars with bull bars designed to kill pedestrians, trucks with black smoke killing all of us, and also Kancil with modified engines designed to kill its driver. 

 

One day catch 1000 - both effective AND efficient!

  • Praise 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not true. What ever they do now has only one objective.

 

I believe many should know what it is [;)]  [idea]

yeah. Falling numbers of old cars with more new cars resulting in lower volume of work at the test centers.

 

It makes the worker busy for the time being. else the test center becomes a retiree workers paradise..?

  • Praise 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

They have been conducting surveys and studies about it.  Expected to announce outcome in Q1 2016.

 

Policy making is not suka suka ban this ban that. Have to study ground sentiments, possible consequences and possibilities.

 

 

Do you know the policy making process?

 

I have seen policies being studied and research for years before they are formalised.

 

It takes quite an amount of time, effort and resources to do so. 

 

I want my LTA and government agencies in general to be kiasu and kiasi. Heroes die young. #yodo

 

Btw, they did not ban exos. Exos are under a list of items that can be install with approval. If they want to their lives easier, they will ban not certify.

 

 

Fully understand policy take time to implement but is it at a extend where serious accident occur then they will start cracking their heads to resolve and really implement the new rules. We should learn from the past mistake, early prevention and not when a precious life is lost. 

 

Edited by SkyDevils
  • Praise 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am guessing from your response that you may not have management experience and hence unable to see the difference between efficiency and effectiveness.

 

The most effective way to reduce such accident is through reinforcement of the law but it is also the least efficient.

 

The most efficient way to reduce such accident is through education and programme but it is also the least effective.

 

As of 2014, (https://www.lta.gov.sg/content/dam/ltaweb/corp/PublicationsResearch/files/FactsandFigures/MVP01-1_MVP_by_type.pdf)

 

There are roughly 6 times more cars than trailers and truck, ceteris paribus, you will expect 6 cars/taxi/motorbikes being stopped by TP per 1 truck.

 

It is important to also know, statistical analysis is more accurate than personal experience. It is a established fact that our personal experience is not an unbiased sample and in statistics, biased sampling creates inaccurate results.

 

Remember our last election? Remember how accurate was the sampling voting results to the final one? As compare to all the hearsays? 

This is not hearsay, the result is given from Traffic Police itself: -

 

Apr 2015

http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/fewer-fatal-traffic-accidents-in-first-quarter

 

"There were 765 injury accidents involving heavy vehicles throughout last year, down slightly from 773 in 2013. But fatal accidents involving these vehicles rose from 43 in 2013 to 44 last year. Figures for the first quarter of this year were not yet available."

 

Cars are involved in lesser accidents. So if heavy vehicles are so much less than cars but number of accidents proved otherwise. A sit-in office management who thinks he knows the difference between effectiveness and efficiency is just on papers. I'm glad my management style is better than that.

 

But I do hope I'm proven wrong when the figures for the first quarter of this year 2015 is released by traffic police.

  • Praise 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

so.... how many accidents/injuries/fatalities are caused per year that can be directly attributed to vehicles having an LTA-deemed illegal engine and exhaust?

 

I suspect driver behaviour has more effect than the state of the vehicle.

  • Praise 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you know the policy making process?

 

I have seen policies being studied and research for years before they are formalised.

 

It takes quite an amount of time, effort and resources to do so. 

 

I want my LTA and government agencies in general to be kiasu and kiasi. Heroes die young. #yodo

 

 

Sure some of our policies are sound, but not all. And it is precisely this 'we know all, we always right' attitude of the govt. scholars which is especially grating.

 

Sure some policies are studied and researched well. Some are STUPID. e.g. the Euro IV fiasco. And arguably the COE hiccups.

 

The car modification regime is something I do believe has room for practical improvement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure some of our policies are sound, but not all. And it is precisely this 'we know all, we always right' attitude of the govt. scholars which is especially grating.

 

Sure some policies are studied and researched well. Some are STUPID. e.g. the Euro IV fiasco. And arguably the COE hiccups.

 

The car modification regime is something I do believe has room for practical improvement.

 

I see most are STUPID!

  • Praise 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

Point 1:

Fatal accident had dropped. Accident had also dropped. The number was big but the trend was dropping so what was the problem?

 

The most immediate problem in the article was on motorcyclist and elderlies.

 

I once saw an illustration that demonstrated the many blind spots a heavy vehicle has. The cause of frequent accident may be a result of design flaws in truck but I do not have any data so I am merely speculating.

 

Point 2:

Efficiency vs Effectiveness is not a matter of management style. It is a matter of management knowledge. Management knowledge also means you know you cannot fight all battles at all fronts. 

 

 

This is not hearsay, the result is given from Traffic Police itself: -

 

Apr 2015

http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/fewer-fatal-traffic-accidents-in-first-quarter

 

"There were 765 injury accidents involving heavy vehicles throughout last year, down slightly from 773 in 2013. But fatal accidents involving these vehicles rose from 43 in 2013 to 44 last year. Figures for the first quarter of this year were not yet available."

 

Cars are involved in lesser accidents. So if heavy vehicles are so much less than cars but number of accidents proved otherwise. A sit-in office management who thinks he knows the difference between effectiveness and efficiency is just on papers. I'm glad my management style is better than that.

 

But I do hope I'm proven wrong when the figures for the first quarter of this year 2015 is released by traffic police.

 


Oh most definitely.

 

A lot will depend on the person leading the organisation. His personal believes will impact the policies he implements. However, we must also understand at times, he is part of a larger group and may need to adjust, adapt or submit to someone or something higher than him.

 

It is easy to complain and laugh at a policy after it materialised without knowing the constraints one may have to begin with. Of course, I am guilty of that and there are polices or ideas that I disagree with.

 

Sure some of our policies are sound, but not all. And it is precisely this 'we know all, we always right' attitude of the govt. scholars which is especially grating.

 

Sure some policies are studied and researched well. Some are STUPID. e.g. the Euro IV fiasco. And arguably the COE hiccups.

 

The car modification regime is something I do believe has room for practical improvement.

 


Pure politics.

 

Something only becomes important when something serious happens. Afterall, what may see like a priority to us may not be to someone up there because there is something even more important to deal with.

 

Fully understand policy take time to implement but is it at a extend where serious accident occur then they will start cracking their heads to resolve and really implement the new rules. We should learn from the past mistake, early prevention and not when a precious life is lost. 
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your "haha" is by no means a sign of amusement.

 

Also, this is not a popularity contest and whoever likes what is up to them, it is just that whatever I have put out resonates with the ones who "liked" my post. I don't see anyone commenting on your intelligence or lack of it, neither has anyone made a logical nor illogical stance against you, except for me. So, no need for a broadside there.

 

Point for point, you've made your stand and I'll just finish this "debate" for what it's worth and end with my replies to you.

 

Firstly, the divide between policy makers and "policy receivers" is plain to see with the grousing and mumbling, just take a look at the LTA post on Facebook disseminating this piece of news that we are "debating" on. When you say there is no divide, are you sure?

 

As for the F5, as long as you agree that the basis of modifying something remains the same, I am satisfied with that. Moreover, you have also pointed out that the F5 is not the best example, but as long as we agree that the basis of modification is to prolong the use of the equipment, to customise or bespoke the performance of the equipment, that is enough for me, because that is what I am trying to put across in the first place.

 

Your rationale of buying food in the canteen and bringing it out for consumption had befuddled me, but after some analysing, I realised that yes, it can be used albeit in another way. Food is bought for consumption, as is a car is bought for driving. I will not buy a pack of hokkien mee, bring it home and refuse to eat it just because I am not in the canteen. What the NEA nor seller cannot do is to stop me from using another kind of chilli sauce (modification).

 

It is the same with cars, I bought it to drive it. This car is produced for a million people, not everyone drives the same way, I could have a more leaden foot, I could like to "kup" corners, there's so many ways to drive one car that it is definitely impossible to please everyone. That's where modification comes in. Just because the seller likes his prawn mee without chilli, doesn't mean I should.

 

And then, you talk about intention. Again, food bought is meant for eating, as a car is for driving. Nobody buys a car and at the point of signing the agreement, and says, "I am going to be a reckless driver." The same way no one buys a pack of hokkien mee and thinks that he is going to throw it at his neighbour's door. Nobody's intent is to destroy.

 

I also find it weird as to what you mean by can we trust a person not to use the extra horse power after the modification is done. What is the reason for modification? Car not powerful enough? Low torque? Does a modification of installing a Fujitsubo exhaust increase the actual horsepower of a vehicle so much so the vehicle becomes a danger to other road users? Like the very first paragraph of this article says and I paraphrase "Nobody runs their vehicle at 5,000rpm all the time" (Link: http://www.exhaustvideos.com/faq/gain-more-horsepower-exhaust-system/)

 

By your rationale, does this mean that anyone who drives a car above a certain horsepower is highly likely to speed? If that's so, then does this relate more towards driver behavior than modifications?

 

No doubt the general guidelines are reasonable, on paper. Again, look at the Facebook post by LTA and tell me that it is so.

Same brand, same model, same design, same vendor. One gets approved, the other not.

 

It is true the needs of majority supersedes the minority, but I will not play the race card here.

 

I will end off here because I don't see any end to this debate. Modifications cannot harm like what the LTA has justified repeatedly, even proven erroneously. The intent of modifying is not because the driver is going to slap on his big ass pipes and then go around jioing other cars for a street race. If the reason is because after market pipes are too loud, then what about the stock pipes on Maseratis, Ferraris, Lamborghinis? Are their pipe decibels regulated to the same level as after market pipes or Italian sounds more sexy to the polished ears of the policy makers in LTA?

 

Until the scholars in LTA can accurately and factually come out with a rationale as to why they are going on a modification witch hunt, everything will just remain status quo. Policies continue to get stuffed down the people's throats to minimise the grousing and mumblings.

 

I shall end with these eight words: 以德服人,以理治国

So the main issue here is that the country residents r not fully convinced by the authority move on certain policy as the explanation or rationale is not convincing enuf n probably lacks statistical analysis.

 

Eg there may not b sufficient cases of incidents arising from illegally modded cars on engine n exhaust only. Nothing was mentioned about checkin on illegally wired cars that may cause short circuitry.

 

End of day, I'll take it that since I'm a layman who's not even a scholar, authority policy rationale is too profound for me to understand, sarcasm intended.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There has been pleas to LTA since decades ago to allow exhaust mods based on noise level and emissions.

 

 

Have you seen the quality of cheap exhausts? Even with OEM exhausts and materials, given enough years, they will drop off and pose hazards to other road users - and there is no test for cheap material or shoddy workmanship.

 

And we all know that there are plenty of legal aftermarket exhausts that are much louder than stock yet are approved. I didn't mind blowing my legal aftermarket Fujitsubo even next to LTA bikes, knowing they could check me but there was nothing they could nail me for, so long as I was within the speed limits. 

 

Or would you rather they ask you to go to Sin Ming for a dB test (because ambient traffic noise renders a roadside dB test useless)?

 

That certificate, and that additional cost, saves you any/all inconvenience of going to Sin Ming to check you are legal. All it takes is a bit of inconvenience at the roadside for all of 5 minutes.

↡ Advertisement
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...