Van rear-ended in Lane 1

[Civic6228]

At the end of the day, whatever the rules or laws are, it is about reinforcement.

 

I hardly sees TP on the road nowadays especially the motor bikes .... In the past, goods vehicles are fixed with the irritating beeping gadget and the warning lights but the authority has removed these speed limiting devices. I am not sure how much it will help with the speeding for these slow moving vehicles but it is still some form of determent. IMO, the many FTs driving good vehicles, increase vehicles population are not helping with the situation.

 

The lack of enforcement of the law is the main issue here ..... btw lane 1 on most expressways is supposed to be for overtaking. If the speed limit is 90 km/h, how can a good vehicles with speed limit set at 70km/h be overtaking ?

 

We all know that BKE to PIE and the exit to Clementi towards Jurong are the two exceptions ....

 

[Darryn]

At the end of the day, whatever the rules or laws are, it is about reinforcement.

 

I hardly sees TP on the road nowadays especially the motor bikes .... In the past, goods vehicles are fixed with the irritating beeping gadget and the warning lights but the authority has removed these speed limiting devices. I am not sure how much it will help with the speeding for these slow moving vehicles but it is still some form of determent. IMO, the many FTs driving good vehicles, increase vehicles population are not helping with the situation.

 

The lack of enforcement of the law is the main issue here ..... btw lane 1 on most expressways is supposed to be for overtaking. If the speed limit is 90 km/h, how can a good vehicles with speed limit set at 70km/h be overtaking ?

 

We all know that BKE to PIE and the exit to Clementi towards Jurong are the two exceptions ....

 

Last time I had to drive the van with the beepity beep - the beeper didn't worry me as much as the pervert on the roof (flashing orange light) - with that light flashing it was announcing to the whole freaking world that I was speeding.

 

[Fireball0088]

QUOTE (Townegg @ Mar 28 2011, 04:18 PM)

Copy and paste from EVC...

 

 

Dear Tony,

 

Under the law, only vehicles with speed limit of 60 km/h or less are required to stick to the leftmost lane. Therefore in your case, goods vehicles that are allowed to travel at 70 km/h can indeed use the next lane. However, we always remind drivers who are driving at a much slower rate than the prevailing road speed limit to keep as close to the left-hand side of the road as possible so as not to obstruct other vehicles moving at a faster rate.

 

2 Hence drivers who are travelling at a much lower speed should not

drive on the rightmost lane as this would obstruct traffic as well as preventing other vehicles from overtaking safely. The penalty for failing to comply with this is a $130 fine with 4 demerit points for light vehicles and $160 with 4 demerit points for heavy vehicles.

 

3 I hope I have adequately answered your query. Thank you for writing

in.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Fan Chian Jen

Policy Officer

Research & Planning

Traffic Police Department

 

 

Darryn - do you understand the above?

 

as i said, if you are not satisfied and wish to confirm you are right, pls write to TP to state your case. I provided you with link at the start of this email thread.

 

rgds

 

really officially from Traffic Police? they use "stick"

[Fireball0088]

wah your english go back to the teacher liao. pls read again.

 

what is the rightmost lane? isnt it lane 1?

 

yawnz..

 

i think the response is still not clear cut, plus they should address the PIE exit that i mentioned

[Moredhel]

"2) Hence drivers who are travelling at a much lower speed should not drive on the rightmost lane as this would obstruct traffic as well as preventing other vehicles from overtaking safely"

 

 

If I'm the car owner, don't waste time. Fight case if no extreme jam reported that day.

 

 

As long as LGV is in Lane 1, he must be doing either of 2 things under normal conditions:

 

1) Driving at or below LGvehicle speed limit - As per reply above, I quote: "Prevent other vehicles from overtaking SAFELY" - Road hogging, Safety Factor Repercussion(If you are not driving safely, you are driving dangerously. And any lawyer worth his salt would jump on that. Causation clause)

 

2) Driving above LGvehicle speed limit - Speeding (Reckless/dangerous driving without exercising due care for other road users)

 

 

In this case, while the car rear-ended the van, liability will not be 100%. If the causation clause along with chain of events including letting the van driver choose which option (1) or (2) that he is doing is put up in the sub courts, likely the car driver will be awarded the case 85/15. This is my own personal opinion.

 

Either way, the van driver is fcuked if the car driver's lawyer knows how to play the game properly along with official advisement documents from the TP.

 

 

P.S. Judges hate people who break the law, for whatever reason. I personally know that. Instant minus point for van driver.

[Darryn]

Generally I agree with you -

 

But the jam could have been localised / temporary

 

AND

 

Just because the van driver was doing something "bad" doesn't mean the car driver didn't have to keep a proper lookout.

 

My sympathies are on the side of the car though

[Moredhel]

Generally I agree with you -

 

But the jam could have been localised / temporary

 

AND

 

Just because the van driver was doing something "bad" doesn't mean the car driver didn't have to keep a proper lookout.

 

My sympathies are on the side of the car though

 

Of course, that also depends on the GIA reports of the 2 individuals, the witnesses they can produce and the affidavits made.

 

Technically, as long as the car is on lane 1, he is overtaking.

As long as the LGV is on lane 1, he's breaking the subscribed law.

 

Hence, mode of description:

 

1) Van driver broke the law, either via (driving recklessly), or (driving without due care for other road users).

2) Job of car driver's lawyer is to cross-examine and gain admissions to this effect, and proving (1), resulted/is related in/to accident (Causation Clause)

 

 

My prediction of verdict:

 

1) Van driver driving without due care for other road users.

2) Car driver neligent driving.

 

Weightage:

 

1) Van driver - 85% liability

2) Car driver - 15% liability

[Shiraz]

1) Van driver - 85% liability

2) Car driver - 15% liability

 

??

 

I don't get it. Car should be 100% at fault if not 90%.

 

It does not mean you can go around banging cars that are parked illegally along the side of the road and not be liable.

[Mllcg]

just install a speed limiter and problem solved.

 

cars got ECU can put rev cut and speed cut. vans and all sure got something they can use.

 

tamper proof it.