Wah, so many opc cheat every month

[Richsg300]

bro cool down man, Do what u feel is right, as long as OPC owner wan to use during the restriction hours just tear the coupon. As for those does don tear, let the arms of law deal with them, btw i own n drive a OPC too. Also seen a few time ppl drive OPC without the coupon during restriction hours.. Don know what they thinking too.

Edited December 22, 2008 by Richsg300

[Jeo01]

Ehhh seems like you got problem with opc drivers? I drive an opc car too but the reason its not because i am poor...just that i work in tanjong pagar and the parking here is expensive. And since i do not need to travel in my work, i get an opc for convenience during weekends. And there are many big cars out there with red plates. I'm sure even with the 17k off their cars, their cars will still be more exp than yours. What car are you driving now?

[Scoots]

I have to ask you to brush up on your English, I said I have seen countless. I did not say majority or even used the word "all" or "most", again, your power of assumption.

So now you conceed that your case is not based on "all" or "most".. just that you did not managed/bothered to count those incidents that you have witnessed. That being the case, how vaid is your perception/assessment since it's not based on "all" or "most" OPCs?

 

I take it that this is just a question to me. Just to let you understand my statement, OPC created a problem because often people find half the parking zone covered with OPC. Taking up space and it is in fact a waste of resources.

A COE car that's not used frequently will take up parking space.

A 2nd car that's not used frequently will take up parking space.

A normal plate car that's not used frequently will take up parking space.

A OPC being used 'normally' during the stipulated hours will take up parking space....

What reason/logic dictates that OPCs are 'guilty' of being a waste of resouces? How do you justify your claim that "OPC created a problem because often people find half the parking zone covered with OPC."? Again, your power of assumption...

 

I am so tired of asking you to do something with your English, I wrote "I have also seen FT in OPC sending husband to work" or did you see "I have also seen FTs in OPCs sending husbands to work"? Again, defensive and assuming.

I, too, am so tired of pointing out your constanly snaking arguments. You, NOW, conceed that you are basing (part of) your perception of the OPC population/system on one incident you have witnessed.

btw, Last I checked, "1" IS spelt as "O-N-E". So what's your point here? (Since we are sharing, your sentense should read:"I have also seen a FT in OPC sending her husband to work". But don't worry, I do not intend to snake away from the topic proper, I can understand what you write well enough, even if the sentense is not proper)

 

I am trying to put a fair statement when I mentioned the above (quote:"In addition, I have also witness a few incidents where OPCs performed road hogs, illegal U-Turns, driving in excess of speed limits, etc.

If you are on the road more often than me, you will see what I mean"), you choose to think otherwise. I have pointed out that I have witnessed a few incidents, did I mentioned I witnessed a lot of incidents? The only logic is that you chose what to read and assumed.

See here's the problem. It is NOT a fair statement. What you have witnessed is equally culpable of non-OPC vehicles. So assigning OPCs or the the OPC system blame is already not a fair statement. Further, if as you say, the observation was of a few incidents only, then how could you possibly raise this observation as a 'fault' of OPCs in the first place? I mean, by what you are claiming, it should mean that most of these "road hogs, illegal U-Turns, driving in excess of speed limits, etc" that you have witnessed were committed by non-OPCs. So how 'fair' is it that a minority group is assigned the blame without looking at the majority group?

 

Ask yourself this:

If there were no OPCs, will it mean that we will not see cars/bikes perform "road hogs, illegal U-Turns, driving in excess of speed limits, etc"?

 

The truth is that you have formed your opinion based on selective observation and pregudice. That's a fact that you have repeatedly demonstrated. No assumptions needed

Edited December 22, 2008 by Scoots

[Scoots]

As I've pointed earlier, all OPC owners should know full well what the policy/system is about.. as well as the consequrences.

 

If they choose to try their luck, they can roll the dice... But they cannot blame anyone when they're caught.

 

I mean, if a person needs to drive his OPC on such a regular basis that it's gonna cost him an arm and a leg to pay for the coupons, he's better off getting a normal plate car. So why choose OPC in the first place?

Edited December 22, 2008 by Scoots

[Elfenstar]

hard lar, usage of car irregular de

 

Then boh bian. What about a smaller car thats not OPC then? I think yours is quite exp to keep.

[Picanto]

its better to have a car, be it opc or normal car. if cannot afford or dun want to spend this type of $$, then mrt/bus is more unsuitable.

 

there are ppl who want a car, be it opc or normal, but too bad cannot afford also.

[Galantspeedz]

i have no inst. for my car but i am currently losing about 1k a month. This include, depreciation, petrol, insurance, road tax, maintainence. Exclude parking and erp charges.

[Galantspeedz]

very ex to keep but no choice. Cannot find a similar car for the same price.

 

On the bright side, my parf after 10yrs is slightly more than 20k excluding body value

[Friendstar]

Picanto: "its better to have a car, be it opc or normal car. if cannot afford or dun want to spend this type of $$, then mrt/bus is more unsuitable.

 

there are ppl who want a car, be it opc or normal, but too bad cannot afford also."

 

yo do u mean mrt/bus is more suitable?

[Scoots]

its 1.7k no meh? y 2.2k?

 

Here's what I think:

For a OPC, the initial 'discount' is already the $17K. Distribute that over the 10yr lifespan of one COE, it works out to $1700 per year.

 

Now if a normal plate car were to be converted to the OPC scheme, the owner does not get the this yearly 'discount' back in cash, but as a pro-rated value to the original PARF value. SO I guess the the yearly $2200 value is just a 'trade-off' to the yearly $1700 cash 'savings' for the 2 different cases.

[Picanto]

mrt/bus is more suitable if cost saving is important. there are ppl who can afford but dun want to waste 1k + per mth. there are also ppl who cannot afford but still choose to buy. to each his own........i would say.

[Friendstar]

i agree with u.

 

but ur message typed "unsuitable"

 

tats why i reiterated. cheers

[Friendstar]

I have to ask you to brush up on your English, I said I have seen countless. I did not say majority or even used the word "all" or "most", again, your power of assumption.

So now you conceed that your case is not based on "all" or "most".. just that you did not managed/bothered to count those incidents that you have witnessed. That being the case, how vaid is your perception/assessment since it's not based on "all" or "most" OPCs?

 

I take it that this is just a question to me. Just to let you understand my statement, OPC created a problem because often people find half the parking zone covered with OPC. Taking up space and it is in fact a waste of resources.

A COE car that's not used frequently will take up parking space.

A 2nd car that's not used frequently will take up parking space.

A normal plate car that's not used frequently will take up parking space.

A OPC being used 'normally' during the stipulated hours will take up parking space....

What reason/logic dictates that OPCs are 'guilty' of being a waste of resouces? How do you justify your claim that "OPC created a problem because often people find half the parking zone covered with OPC."? Again, your power of assumption...

 

I am so tired of asking you to do something with your English, I wrote "I have also seen FT in OPC sending husband to work" or did you see "I have also seen FTs in OPCs sending husbands to work"? Again, defensive and assuming.

I, too, am so tired of pointing out your constanly snaking arguments. You, NOW, conceed that you are basing (part of) your perception of the OPC population/system on one incident you have witnessed.

btw, Last I checked, "1" IS spelt as "O-N-E". So what's your point here? (Since we are sharing, your sentense should read:"I have also seen a FT in OPC sending her husband to work". But don't worry, I do not intend to snake away from the topic proper, I can understand what you write well enough, even if the sentense is not proper)

 

I am trying to put a fair statement when I mentioned the above (quote:"In addition, I have also witness a few incidents where OPCs performed road hogs, illegal U-Turns, driving in excess of speed limits, etc.

If you are on the road more often than me, you will see what I mean"), you choose to think otherwise. I have pointed out that I have witnessed a few incidents, did I mentioned I witnessed a lot of incidents? The only logic is that you chose what to read and assumed.

See here's the problem. It is NOT a fair statement. What you have witnessed is equally culpable of non-OPC vehicles. So assigning OPCs or the the OPC system blame is already not a fair statement. Further, if as you say, the observation was of a few incidents only, then how could you possibly raise this observation as a 'fault' of OPCs in the first place? I mean, by what you are claiming, it should mean that most of these "road hogs, illegal U-Turns, driving in excess of speed limits, etc" that you have witnessed were committed by non-OPCs. So how 'fair' is it that a minority group is assigned the blame without looking at the majority group?

 

Ask yourself this:

If there were no OPCs, will it mean that we will not see cars/bikes perform "road hogs, illegal U-Turns, driving in excess of speed limits, etc"?

 

The truth is that you have formed your opinion based on selective observation and pregudice. That's a fact that you have repeatedly demonstrated. No assumptions needed

 

chill bro... caparo must have had a bad one last night

[Friendstar]

Let me put it in a way you will understand: Yes, I will still buy a car. (Let me try to understand your situation. Why would you want to buy a car when you said you only need it for the off peak reasons?.)

 

 

Why not?

 

many folks need a car to ferry their family + grandparents, children, go malaysia to visit relatives etc.

 

children being the MOST important reason. with Strollers, Prams, haversack carrying milk products/diapers.

 

what about ur wife expecting? u wan to see her squeeze with the inconsiderate crowd in the MRT on the weekends? I don't want to.

[Scoots]

... yeah. Time to soak in the festivities. And seeing that MCF will be 'shutdown' till 27th...

 

All:

Have a Merry Christmas! 2009 may be a challenging year ahead, but chin up, drive safe and cherish your loved ones!

Edited December 22, 2008 by Scoots

[Friendstar]

1. How different is a OPC owners deciding not to spend and extra $17K for a 'full' car, taking into consideration that he most likely will not need the use of a car during that time, different from your asking "if it makes sense to waste resources not using it most of the time"

 

I have to ask, what do you think I was referring to when I mentioned resources? From your reply, it seems like you are referring to the 17K (correct me if I am wrong). If that is the case, just for the record - I was referring to limited parking spaces at night and LTA to verify the red plates and coloured coupons. Power of assumptions.

 

what has OPC got to do with limited parking spaces at night?

 

 

[Friendstar]

I have seen countless OPCs on the roads when they were not supposed to. (Right or Wrong?)

 

Fact: There are OPC cheats and there are law abiding OPC drivers.

Can you say that your observation is representative of the majority of OPCs?

 

I have to ask you to brush up on your English, I said I have seen countless. I did not say the (missing word) majority or even used the word "all" or "most", again, your power of assumption.

 

Hi the word "majority" must be used together with "the".

Edited December 22, 2008 by Friendstar

[Friendstar]

I have to ask you to brush up on your English, I said I have seen countless. I did not say majority or even used the word "all" or "most", again, your power of assumption.

 

Hi,

in the english dictionary,

 

countless

adjective

too numerous to be counted;

 

the population of OPC stands at 30,000. That's a "countable" whole figure (integer).

 

certainly not a case of "power of assumption" but a case of "power of CONNOTATION".