Van rear-ended in Lane 1

[Fooblack]

Today, taking my usual route on BKE (towards city) to work around 7.30am.

 

saw a van being rear-ended by a car on lane 1 of the expressway.

 

wonder will the van be able to claim full from the car? the issue is whether the car driver can defend himself or pass on some liabilities to the van since the van is technically not legal to be on lane 1?

 

BKE in the morrning is such a hazardeous place. Trailers, malaysian buses, motorbikes zooming in and out of lanes. once the traffic builds up, all these trailers and buses, vans, lorries "automatically" move to the first lane and cause the traffic to worsen....

[Wolfy3769]

why is it not van rear-ended car in Lane 1?

[Vega]

Van can still be in lane1 but can't travel more than 70km/hr if he can prove that. he can claim all lanes are slow during the morning peak hour.

[Fooblack]

Van can still be in lane1 but can't travel more than 70km/hr if he can prove that. he can claim all lanes are slow during the morning peak hour.

 

you sure this is the correct rule? i have asked TP a thousand and one times.. they always reply me that lane 1 is out of bounds for commerical vehicles...

 

[Vega]

you sure this is the correct rule? i have asked TP a thousand and one times.. they always reply me that lane 1 is out of bounds for commerical vehicles...

 

what if lane 2 and 3 are jam. you expect the vans and lorry to stay put and not use lane 1?

[Fooblack]

what if lane 2 and 3 are jam. you expect the vans and lorry to stay put and not use lane 1?

 

but today the traffic was still moving leh.. how?

 

[SimonTan]

Van can be anywhere.

Is lane1 speed is slow due to peak hours, then is ok.

 

Dont forget that most van/lorry drivers are also driving/riding during their off-hours.

Sometimes, its really really hard for a van driver to keep to the slow lane, as one is used to the higher speed of riding motorcycles and cars.

My uncle drives his 12footer lorry like a normal car, zoom here and there. His other car is the Lexus GS300, which he seldom drives.

My motorcycle kakis, love to ride fast on our bikes. So driving a slow van,lorry for them can be a torture during their working hours.

 

 

van is technically not legal to be on lane 1?

[Donut]

the van is already in the wrong for been in lane 1. so no chance the van can claim anything. If i'm the car owner, i will fight the case.

 

anyway, van drivers are normally company employed. so he's just as scared (losing his job) as the car driver. i will fight the case.

 

 

[Vega]

but today the traffic was still moving leh.. how?

 

that is why in my earlier post, the van driver must prove he is using lane 1 due to jam on lane 2 and 3.

[Donut]

Van can be anywhere.

Is lane1 speed is slow due to peak hours, then is ok.

 

Dont forget that most van/lorry drivers are also driving/riding during their off-hours.

Sometimes, its really really hard for a van driver to keep to the slow lane, as one is used to the higher speed of riding motorcycles and cars.

My uncle drives his 12footer lorry like a normal car, zoom here and there. His other car is the Lexus GS300, which he seldom drives.

My motorcycle kakis, love to ride fast on our bikes. So driving a slow van,lorry for them can be a torture during their working hours.

 

 

van is technically not legal to be on lane 1?

 

 

Who the hell care about van drivers are motorcycler riders or not? the law will consider this?

 

when u are driving commercial vehicles, you jolly well follow the commercial vehicles rules.....

 

 

[Donut]

that is why in my earlier post, the van driver must prove he is using lane 1 due to jam on lane 2 and 3.

 

even got traffic jam, commercial vehicles cannot be on lane 1, unless directed by law enforcements

[Fooblack]

Van can be anywhere.

Is lane1 speed is slow due to peak hours, then is ok.

 

Dont forget that most van/lorry drivers are also driving/riding during their off-hours.

Sometimes, its really really hard for a van driver to keep to the slow lane, as one is used to the higher speed of riding motorcycles and cars.

My uncle drives his 12footer lorry like a normal car, zoom here and there. His other car is the Lexus GS300, which he seldom drives.

My motorcycle kakis, love to ride fast on our bikes. So driving a slow van,lorry for them can be a torture during their working hours.

 

 

van is technically not legal to be on lane 1?

 

why dont you try emailing TP @ [email protected]? I have asked them many times cos this rule is not enforced sufficiently on our roads.

 

even on expressways, the notices always say "heavy vehicles keep left"? togt it was a basic rule all along until recent times the reality on the roads somehow made this rule greyish?

 

anyway, my question was whether the car driver who rear-ended the van, can push the liabities to the van for being there on lane 1? anybody has practical experience on this matter?

 

 

 

[macrosszero]

the fact that the van is on lane 1 is an issue that the Traffic Police should take up with the van driver. It should not have any bearing on lessening the responsibility of the car that rear-ended it. That would be a insurance matter between the two of them. To attempt to say that the van shouldn't have been there in the first place is akin to saying that it is ok to run down a jaywalking pedestrian because he/she shouldn't have been there.

[Mustank]

Bro, there is no law specifically outlawing goods vehicle from lane 1. but it is an offence for slow moving vehicles to hog lane 1. but law is law and societal norm is different altogether.

 

i drive musso pigkarp. i don do lane 1 unless there is strong justification to do so. for south bound bke, the only reason i can think of is that there is a queue for pie changi while there is no queue for pie jurong.

 

makes no sense to join the queue for pie changi when i wanna go pie jurong. makes equally no sense for jokers who hold up lane 1 to jump the queue to pie changi

[Fooblack]

the van is already in the wrong for been in lane 1. so no chance the van can claim anything. If i'm the car owner, i will fight the case.

 

anyway, van drivers are normally company employed. so he's just as scared (losing his job) as the car driver. i will fight the case.

 

my sentiments too. the car driver should tell the van-driver in the face that he is illegal to be on lane 1. should will be prepared to fight the case. If car-driver wishes to avoid all the NCD or insurance issue, maybe he can offer a token sum as private settlement and that's it.

 

if I am the van-driver, I will probably accept the token amount and let the issue go. There is a chance that he will lose the case in all likelihood.

 

[Darryn]

the fact that the van is on lane 1 is an issue that the Traffic Police should take up with the van driver. It should not have any bearing on lessening the responsibility of the car that rear-ended it. That would be a insurance matter between the two of them. To attempt to say that the van shouldn't have been there in the first place is akin to saying that it is ok to run down a jaywalking pedestrian because he/she shouldn't have been there.

 

You got it right. The legality or otherwise of driving on lane one does not matter, the car driver still crashed into his backside.

 

But anyway, lorries ARE allowed in lane one.

[Fooblack]

Bro, there is no law specifically outlawing goods vehicle from lane 1. but it is an offence for slow moving vehicles to hog lane 1. but law is law and societal norm is different altogether.

 

i drive musso pigkarp. i don do lane 1 unless there is strong justification to do so. for south bound bke, the only reason i can think of is that there is a queue for pie changi while there is no queue for pie jurong.

 

makes no sense to join the queue for pie changi when i wanna go pie jurong. makes equally no sense for jokers who hold up lane 1 to jump the queue to pie changi

 

Bro, TP has always reiterated to me that it is truly an offence for any commerical vehicles to be on lane 1.

 

I have highlighted to TP the issue of commercial vehicles on lane 1 of southbound BKE during morning peak hours. They have replied to me that they will increase enforcement activities at the exact location of the split into PIE (tuas) and PIE (city) mentioned in my email.

 

They stationed themselves last Tues at the exact location after my email.

 

[Fooblack]

You got it right. The legality or otherwise of driving on lane one does not matter, the car driver still crashed into his backside.

 

But anyway, lorries ARE allowed in lane one.

 

you maybe right. however, the car driver can certaintly argue in the case that the van should not be there in the first. it is creation of harzard in anycase.

 

i am interested to find out whether anyone has practical experience on such cases so as to create learning pt.