New Rules : Giving Way to Buses Coming Out From Bus Stop.

[Alfpoon]

  Quote

Just let them put this sign in CBD area and where traffic is very heavy.....

 

they should implement this kind of rules on 6th avenue...then we don't need to feedback, this stupid rule will be abolished!

[Mydotcom]

No... they will survey all the bus riders and drivers ONLY.

 

So their answers will be 100% agree and are happy with this new scheme.

[Blackhouse]

This happened to me! no middle finger but danger instead.

 

I was driving along Bukit Batok East Ave 3, near the bus stop close to Ke Ming Pri school. When I approached the first Give -Way Triangle sign, found a bus in the bus bay signal right to come out. I slow down and stopped after the 2nd Give -Way Triangle sign and before the double line (this is the rule).

 

Then funny thing happend. The bus did not continue to move out. Don't know why. maybe some rider on bus suddenly decided to alight or the driver found some one from far want to catch the bus. Anyway, it stopped. But turn right signal still on.

 

Then a taxi behind me start to horn. I hesitated a few seconds, started to move forward, at this time the bus also started to move. We almost hit each other. It's very dangerous. I think the most stupid part of this rule is that, it doesn't tell exactly when car has to give-way. I still keep the brochure from LTA.

 

I hope LTA can explain it well. Otherwise one day this rule-made accident for sure will happen.

[Shull]

the problem is..sometimes we dunno when the bus wanna move out..because some of them don't signal at all!!!

[Ldlian987]

lol. like u said maybe the bus driver had to stop for passenger last min alight or whatever, then when the driver wanted to move off u also wanted to move off haha. or maybe the bus driver thought u were not going to stop for him, so he wait for u to move off first? lol ya this is a grey area here and accident waiting to happen.

 

 

[Drive_carcar]

In the end you have a very kuku situation, you give way, bus give way, bus realise you gave way bus move, you think maybe bus not moving, you move. So crash lor...

[Fiiser]

Dun think LTA will revise anything in favour to private cars, lets just get used to it and understand the 1st car encountering such ambiguous rules. LTA might as well change buses rear decals to "Give way to GODLY buses driving" instead of exiting.

Public buses are already abusing their newborn authorites everywhere on the road ie expressway. Public buses being larger, bullied others smaller users like nobody business, just how small. If you think they behave this way only during working hours, check this out. And how well are their behaviour during working hours, PUI!!!

Given me a choice i rather be hit by these buses exiting than give way to these Legal road bullies. I hope the TPs can touch their conscience and start nabbing those bus crooks.

[Kenneve888]

I used to give way to buses, when they come out of bus bays or when they want to cut lanes. I even give way to them when they jump queue, especially at busy junctions waitintg to turn right.

 

BUT NOT ANYMORE,

ever since this stupid bus lane thingy begun near my place. During peak hours, it causes jams on the two lanes with the bus lane totally empty. What a joke. Since the buses have more right of way nowadays (albeit forced upon us), I have decided NEVER to give way to buses when I HAVE MY RIGHT OF WAY.

Edited January 24, 2009 by Kenneve888

[Joanna]

I hate all the bus lanes - stress siah

[Girl_powerful]

Seems like this new rule is causing some confusion,

 

http://singaporeseen.stomp.com.sg/singapor...nt.jsp?id=83988

 

http://www.asiaone.com/Motoring/Drivers/Ot...820-162262.html

 

Can the buses turning out of the bus stop bay GIVE CLEAR indications that They are driving out! So that Drivers can stop before the give way print.

 

Not knowing these bus drivers intention is causing confusion as when we need to stop, when we can drive on!?

[Hamburger]

no matter wat e senario r...eg. E brake or swirl R, its imperative to give way to buses exiting out!!! Mi aways do tat, but later cut back in immediately aft i overtook it .Tis way, mi no break rules unless its a bus lane

Edited August 25, 2009 by Hamburger

[Bic_cherry]

Give way to buses scheme is disingenuous (Ver3.2; 4Sept09):

 

The most ridiculous explanation: “How the Scheme Works- The Mandatory Give-Way to Buses Scheme is similar conceptually to a zebra crossing, except that it is meant for buses.”

http://www.onemotoring.com.sg/publish/onem...y_give_way.html

 

1)Have the authorities considered the interests of cyclists, whose established medium to transportation is evidently healthier and 'greener'? Already making a personal sacrifice in sunny Singapore, should the hot, sweaty cyclist also be expected to stop and give way to smoky buses, (the newly crowned 'pedestrians' of the road)?

 

2)What if it is a taxi/ car/ private bus etc exiting the bus lane: should motorists before the 'yellow box' give way too? Would all drivers (including foreign talents and tourists) understand the new markings?

 

3)Re inventing the wheel ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinventing_the_wheel): There already exists in LTA's arsenal of road rulings system ( http://www.onemotoring.com.sg/publish/onem...e_motorist.html ): the normal and full day bus lanes system (continuous and dotted), yellow lines (single & double, straight & zig-zag) , yellow boxes (spanning 1 or more lanes), ERP gantries, bus only green lights. These are all established and easily understood conventions unlike this new LTA rule which obviously contradicts both the existing “Changing lane without consideration for other road users” rule found on the SPF website ( http://driving-in-singapore.spf.gov.sg/ser...auseandtips.htm ); and the common rules of overtaking ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overtaking) .

 

4)Given the counter intuitive nature of the new law and the fact that a bus is in many ways NOT a pedestrian, can bus drivers and other commuters be logistically expected to abide harmoniously by such ill conceived laws, not to mention the possibility of some new/ demented drivers on our roads: local or foreign: http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/09/19/...ia.html?ref=rss .

 

5)Such regulatory ambiguities will have the following results:

Tragic accidents/ near misses due to ignorance, mis-communication or lapses in judgment.

Heavy vehicles eg trailers which cannot logically stop in time may take the 2nd inner lane thus posing a road hazard and slow down overall traffic.

Ambulances/ emergency vehicles may be slowed down as their drivers deploy extra caution against buses when using the left most lane.

Dangerous confusions amongst bus drivers on who it is that actually has the right of way.

Overall road traffic congestion due to accidents, and the extra care needed to discern each driver's intentions/ disposition in such ambiguous situations.

Chain collisions could occur as some excitable car drivers suddenly screech to a halt to avoid $130 fine/ 'collision' upon seeing the buses' right signal blinking; only to discover that the bus driver has again changed his signal to allow a late arriving commuter to board.

Difficulties in enforcement as those caught could always argue that the bus was not obvious in its intentions/ suddenly pulled out without due warning.

 

6)I've always accepted of bus lanes as effective if well planned; easily policed and helpful to both cyclist and emergency vehicles both of which should have as special place on roads as buses. These regulations, in addition to an affordable and well planned public transport system would surely make land transport in Singapore a hassle free experience.

 

BT, May11, 2009: “By the end of this year, LTA will take over the role of Central Bus Planner (CBP) and will be reviewing the island-wide bus route plans to optimise network efficiency.”... “There is an average cost of $7,000 per location ”... ( http://www.asiaone.com/Motoring/News/Story...511-140749.html ). Regrettably, LTA must now swiftly review its inappropriate regulations and contain the wasted expenditure.

 

Whilst, LTA's new role as CBP implies new responsibilities, I hope this is not the usual high-handed approach towards achieving departmental goals. A place for proper consultation and consideration exists in this case as the roads in question serve a myriad of users. It is obvious from LTA's article (at http://www.onemotoring.com.sg/publish/onem..._give_way.html) that in haste to declare the trial a success, LTA's approach has been rash and myopic; the main parties consulted it seems were only '200 commuters' and 'public transport operators'. I doubt LTA consulted SPF, cyclist's associations, emergency vehicles, vehicle insurers and general bus drivers before implementing these laws. (29April09: http://app.lta.gov.sg/corp_press_content.asp?start=2118 )

 

This narrow minded, elitist mode of administration will ultimately fail and cannot be the modus operandi of a government that prides itself for integrity, service and excellence. ( http://www.gov.sg/index.htm )

 

In conclusion, this ill-considered regulation as unacceptable as it is dangerous, shows the need to have committed and qualified individuals managing our civil service and our ministries. Slip-shod, distracted, half baked scholars in their ivory towers wont do; and Singaporeans must ensure so by voting wisely, a stable and sustainable government and policies.

 

I've made my case, those stupid ornaments MUST go.

 

 

Ref:

STOMP 29Aug09: “I gave way to bus -- and got rammed from behind”, http://singaporeseen.stomp.com.sg/stomp/sg...rom_behind.html

 

STOMP 19Aug09: “I am one of many 'victims' unfairly fined $130 under new 'give way to bus' rule ”, http://singaporeseen.stomp.com.sg/stomp/sg...o_bus_rule.html

http://www.asiaone.com/Motoring/Drivers/Ot...820-162262.html

 

 

Comments n update at: : http://social-progress.blogspot.com/2009/0...-scheme-is.html pls

:).

Edited September 3, 2009 by Bic_cherry

[Lordau]

haa i usually dun give way to bus moving out also unless they signal and saw their hand signal then i will let them move

[Macclaren]

The only thing to avoid getting fine, avoid being bang or whatsoever is to get your car out of the extreme Left lane. Haha... =P

[Knightsljx]

don't drive on the left lane? if need to turn left, wait till after bus stop then filter in cause the bus will help you block the traffic anyway

[Bic_cherry]

Give way to buses scheme is disingenuous (Ver4.0; 10Sept09):

@

http://www.mycarforum.com/index.php?showto...p;#entry2863594

 

won't post whole thing again to save space n 'cannot edit' last one

 

 

[Bic_cherry]

  Quote

Give way to buses scheme is dangerous and disingenuous (Ver5.1; 31Dec09):

 

The conception behind this new policy is not only contradictory, it's also extremely dangerous and quite unenforceable as I shall describe:

- The LTA concept: see 1st large heading at 'How the Scheme Works')-

"The Mandatory Give-Way to Buses Scheme is similar conceptually to a zebra crossing, except that it is meant for buses.

When nearing a bus stop under this scheme, motorists will first see triangular give way markings on the road. These markings indicate that motorists approaching these bus stops need to slow down and watch in case buses are pulling out of the bus bay. Motorists come to a complete stop before the give way line and give way to buses exiting the bus bay at the location. Motorists may continue their journey once the bus has successfully exited the bus bay and no other buses are pulling out from the bus bay.

It will be a traffic offence if motorists do not give way to buses exiting from bus bays where the new road markings are drawn. The penalty for each offence is a fine of $130 (no demerit points). " http://www.onemotoring.com.sg/publish/onem...y_give_way.html

 

- The give way to buses scheme is likely to contravene the Geneva Convention on Road Traffic [1949] (GCRT1949) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Conven...on_Road_Traffic which Singapore is signatory to, (and by which agreement are international driving permits accepted in Singapore).

 

 

1.Severe Legal contradiction(s):

Of Article 12 (GCRT1949) are described as follows,

- Para 2 states: "Priority of passage may be accorded at intersections on certain roads or sections of road. Such priority shall be marked by signs and every driver approaching such a road or section of road shall be bound to yield the right of way to drivers traveling along it."

- Para 4(a) states: "Every driver before starting to turn into a road shall: (a) make sure that he can do so without danger to other road users;"... ( http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Geneva_Conve...on_Road_Traffic )

- I believe that bus bays/ exit are certainly better described as a 'side road' and definitely not 'road intersection', so para 4(a) should logically take precedence, and so any vehicle exiting the bus lane should thus give way to the main road traffic. (Para 2 can only be relevant in this context to the legitimization of bus lanes/ bays so that only 'privileged vehicles' would have right of passage for priority use of roads by public/ emergency vehicles and incidentally, cyclist in single file ).

The result of this legal contradiction can only be more conflict and confusion amongst road users as the new law contradicts the existing international agreement. Such contradictory rulings would make any such conflict unresolvable in any esteemed court of law, leading to the embarrassment of policy makers in Singapore.

 

The rest at:

http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/showthread.php?t=2621609

 

  Quote

The LTA reply:

Our Ref: LTA/CC/PCF/FB/F20.000.000/13623/VT

Date : 29 January 2010

Tel : 63961519

Fax : 63961192

Dear Sir/ Madam

 

GIVE WAY TO BUSES SCHEME IS DANGEROUS AND DISINGENUOUS

FEEDBACK NUMBER: 20100102-0076

We refer to your email of 1 January 2010.

 

Please allow us to explain that there is no legal contradiction or contravention of the Geneva Road Traffic Convention in our give way to bus scheme, as the "give way box" already modifies the road priority.

Many international traffic convention and practices come from the 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Traffic. Article 15 of the Convention recommends "Give-Way to Buses" as follows: Article 15: Special regulations relating to regular public transport service vehicles Domestic legislation must provide that in built-up areas, in order to facilitate the movement of regular public transport service vehicles, the drivers of other vehicles shall, subject to the provisions of Article 17, paragraph 1, of this Convention, slow down and if necessary stop in order to allow public transport service vehicles to perform the manoeuvre required for moving off from stops marked as such.

 

The provisions thus laid down by Contracting Parties or subdivisions thereof shall in no way affect the duty incumbent on drivers of public service vehicles to take, after having given warning by means of their direction indicators of their intention to move off, the precautions necessary to avoid any risk of accident. European countries, such as Germany and France , are amongst the first to implement regulations to require motorists to give way to buses. Nowadays, most member states in the European Union (with the notable exception of Greece and Italy ) now accord buses and trams the right of way when leaving bus or tram stops. The practice has since spread to Australia , Japan , and certain parts of Canada and USA . In Northern America , the rule is more commonly known as the "Yield to Bus" rule. So far, literature review and traffic studies do not indicate that the operation of the scheme in these countries increase the risks of accidents.

 

In a land scarce Singapore , it is essential to optimise the use of our limited road space to move people and goods efficiently. Compared to the public transport, bicycles are not an efficient mode of transportation for moving the masses. Therefore, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) does not provide bicycle lanes within road reserves.

 

However, some new initiatives were announced recently to make cycling more convenient, such as more cycling tracks will be built next to existing footpaths linking to residential areas.

 

The Tripartite Committee of LTA, Traffic Police (TP) and Tampines GROs, in consultation and discussion with the cycling community and other agencies, will continuously look into ways to improve the safety of cyclists and pedestrians. These include educational efforts on the observance of traffic rules. We also understand that the TP carries out regular talks and exhibitions on safe cycling habits as part of their public education efforts on road safety.

 

We thank you for writing in.

 

Yours sincerely

 

(SIGNED IN LOTUS NOTES)

Cindy Ong (Ms)

Executive

Project Communications & Feedback

 

My response today:

 

Dear Ms Ong

I thank you for your well informed response 'LTA/CC/PCF/FB/F20.000.000/13623/VT'

 

I've found a copy of the 'Convention on Road Traffic (CoRT1968), amendment 1*, (done at Vienna on 8th Nov 1968)', * incorporating the amendments of 3 September 1993 at http://www.unece.org/trans/conventn/crt1968e.pdf , from which your description of article 17 subtly yet significantly differs. Excerpts as follows:

 

Chapter II: RULES OF THE ROAD:

 

ARTICLE 15: Special regulations relating to regular public-transport service vehicles

It is recommended that domestic legislation should provide that in built-up areas, in order to facilitate the movement of regular public-transport service vehicles, the drivers of other vehicles shall, subject to the provisions of Article 17, paragraph 1, of this Convention, slow down and if necessary stop in order to allow the public-transport vehicles to perform the manoeuvre required for moving off from stops marked as such. The provisions thus laid down by Contracting Parties or subdivisions thereof shall in no way affect the duty incumbent on drivers of public-transport vehicles to take, after having given warning by means of their direction-indicators of their intention to move off, the precautions necessary to avoid any risk of accident.

 

ARTICLE 17: Slowing down

1. No driver of a vehicle shall brake abruptly unless it is necessary to do so for safety reasons.

 

As such, I have a few related queries/ observations.

1) There seem to be many bus stops without annexed yellow boxes. Given to the established function and ease of policing of such, wouldn't the provision of such contribute further to the smooth flow of buses?

 

2) Bus lanes, in addition to prioritizing bus flows, have proven an invaluable conduit for emergency vehicles. Their presence have many a time made the difference between life and death of those whose lives depended upon emergency vehicles taking to the bus lane. Bus lanes also appropriately operate during peak hours, is it necessary that the GWTBS operates 24 hours? Do plans to extend the bus lane scheme to improve bus flows rank high on the LTA's list of priorities?

 

3) My example of an ambulance/ even another bus meeting with an exiting bus leaves room for conflict/ confusion.

 

4) Is there a time line towards the creation of cycle tracks and would they further result in a greater built up areas, higher maintenance costs etc. The current 'park connector network' marries pedestrians and cyclists on the same path; are newer housing estates being planned with the popularity of cycling in mind?

 

5) What efforts have been made thus far to coordinate safe use of 'footpaths' by both pedestrians and cyclists? http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/sin...1024539/1/.html : accesses the 13thDec09 CNA Tampines cycling report. The video has since been withdrawn but problem in the photo is same: there is no sense of left or right between pedestrians/ cyclist and pedestrians continue to hog the entire path. Many shopping centers programme their escalators with no sense of left or right, thus Singaporeans seem very confused if slower pedestrian traffic should keep left or right. In my opinion, it is this state of confusion aggravated by the over-commercialization of Singapore society that has resulted in all the friction between pedestrians and cyclist. Instead of just focusing upon training and penalization of errant cyclist, wardens should also coordinate pedestrian traffic.

Unless the 'main users' of the paths coordinate their act , wheeled 'visitors' would always remain an unwelcome and much feared lot! Pedestrians need to be coordinated first (starting from primary 1).

 

6) Would it be valid for an 'offending' driver to claim that according to CoRT1968 article 17, paragraph 1, that to avoid braking abruptly (from 50kmh), a driver who doesn't comply to the 'give way to bus scheme' (GWTBS)/ article 15, he might appeal to be acquitted, since article 15 is "subject to the provisions of Article 17, paragraph 1"- if the bus signal to exit had been given abruptly/ is not clearly seen? Are these legal contradictions and peculiarities anticipated to cause legal contortions that might bog down an already over-stressed judiciary?

Why is it that Singapore isn't on the UN list of countries signatory to the 'Convention on Road Traffic [Vienna, 8 November 1968]': http://www.unece.org/trans/conventn/legali...RSS_RT1968.html

 

7) Lastly, I'd like to comment that bus lanes are an incidental '(legislated)' boon to cyclist as they allow cyclist a default, 'unobstructed' passage on busy roads. Buses exiting bays also rightfully give way to them according to article 14 of CoRT1968: [General requirements governing manoeuvres]: '1. Any driver wishing to perform a manoeuvre such as pulling out of or into a line of parked vehicles, moving over to the right or to the left on the carriageway, or turning left or right into another road or into a property bordering on the road, shall first make sure that he can do so without risk of endangering other road-users traveling behind or ahead of him or about to pass him, having regard to their position, direction and speed.'

 

In short, there remain many other existing and well established options applicable towards facilitating public transportation, the GWTBS should be the last of them. Bus lanes have incidentally been a boon to many cyclists, whose mode of transportation National Development Minister and MP for Tampines GRC, Mah Bow Tan, acknowledged in saying: "The Ministry of Transport has already indicated...(it is) interested to promote cycling as a mode of transport, instead of just as a form of leisure. So as a mode of transport for travel within the town, I think Tampines is probably the first one that has gone in such big way in promoting this." (Aug2008).

 

Given the competing concerns about global warming and energy costs, it would be wise for the LTA to not dwell too much on their idea that "bicycles are not an efficient mode of transportation for moving the masses".

 

I thank you for your well informed response and look forward to your further kind, patient and categorical response to my current queries.

 

 

References (in order of reference):

• 'Convention on Road Traffic (CoRT1968), amendment 1*, (done at Vienna on 8th Nov 1968)', : http://www.unece.org/trans/conventn/crt1968e.pdf * incorporating the amendments of 3 September 1993
• 13 December 2009: Cycling on footpaths will be allowed in Tampines next year: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/sin...1024539/1/.html
• UN list of countries signatory to the 'Convention on Road Traffic [Vienna, 8 November 1968]': http://www.unece.org/trans/conventn/legali...RSS_RT1968.html
• 03 August 2008: Tampines Town Council starts building cycling tracks: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/sin.../364646/1/.html

 

Regards and Best wishes,

 

BicCherry

"Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race". ~ H. G. Wells, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._G._Wells