Van rear-ended in Lane 1

[Unfair]

If my car stationary @ double zig zag lines and you bang me.

Also you fault right?

 

Pedestrian anyhow crossing road and you bang them

also your fault right ?

[Darryn]

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.

 

How many such summonses have been issued?

 

IF they have been issued it has not been reported. At any stage.

[Fooblack]

How many such summonses have been issued?

 

IF they have been issued it has not been reported. At any stage.

 

well, of course i do not know how many summons. but since it is working to increase enforcement activities, i will continue to feedback to them if situation do not improve in due course...

 

[Joseph22]

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.

 

irregardless of whether a person had broken a law, unless you are a van in lane one rear end another car, if not the other insurance is liable to pay for the damage.

its like a car parked in a illegal parking slot, but if you bang it, you pay. legallity got nothing to do with its, as the issue is, the bangger bang something.

[Joseph22]

How many such summonses have been issued?

 

IF they have been issued it has not been reported. At any stage.

actually quite a lot. but did not report nia. all those road hogging summon likely to be issue to them

[Fooblack]

If my car stationary @ double zig zag lines and you bang me.

Also you fault right?

 

Pedestrian anyhow crossing road and you bang them

also your fault right ?

 

wont there be a case whereby you can argue for a mitigation of liabilites? i will do that if it was me...

 

[Donut]

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.

 

I got a practical experience once with van driver. but its in a car park, the van was trying to reverse out of the lot, while i'm driving straight. the van driver didnt see me and i also didnt see him reversing. so both of us banged. he kena his backside while my left front fender kena.

 

Van driver scared like hell, coz he's company employed driver, driving company van (just like i said in my above posting: van drivers are scared of losing their job). He offered private settlement. asked me not to report insurance or else he will kena from his bosses. So he offered me his workshop repair and he will pay everything....

 

so why not? i just drive to his workshop and repair done swee swee....

 

so take advantage of driver's mentality. Company drivers are scared of losing their jobs or even kena black marked by bosses....

 

so if i'm the car driver rear end the van, i will fight the case..... i won't lose 100%

 

 

[Fooblack]

I got a practical experience once with van driver. but its in a car park, the van was trying to reverse out of the lot, while i'm driving straight. the van driver didnt see me and i also didnt see him reversing. so both of us banged. he kena his backside while my left front fender kena.

 

Van driver scared like hell, coz he's company employed driver, driving company van (just like i said in my above posting: van drivers are scared of losing their job). He offered private settlement. asked me not to report insurance or else he will kena from his bosses. So he offered me his workshop repair and he will pay everything....

 

so why not? i just drive to his workshop and repair done swee swee....

 

so take advantage of driver's mentality. Company drivers are scared of losing their jobs or even kena black marked by bosses....

 

so if i'm the car driver rear end the van, i will fight the case..... i won't lose 100%

 

i always agrue for the case as commercial vehicles create increase hazard on lane 1 whereby it is fast lane. they are usually taller and therefore reduces visibility on lane 1. some of them are so old and without 3rd brake light, definitely you are exposing to more risk when following them on lane 1. so, the case is definitely not closed in my mind.

[Jaf78]

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?

 

if u think the above statement hv their legal rights,

just do it safely, do not jeopardise others safety......

when get caught, u r answerable for your cause of action..

be it on the road or courtroom...hv a nice day...

[Donut]

i always agrue for the case as commercial vehicles create increase hazard on lane 1 whereby it is fast lane. they are usually taller and therefore reduces visibility on lane 1. some of them are so old and without 3rd brake light, definitely you are exposing to more risk when following them on lane 1. so, the case is definitely not closed in my mind.

 

Yeah! I do see some dun even have their brake lights working at all....... damm dangerous......

[Civic6228]

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

 

I use the BKE daily early in the morning (between 6.30 to 7.00 am). Vans, trucks, buses etc are traveling on Lane 1 on BKE and this is a common sight. As a matter of fact, you will find these slow moving vehicles on lane 1 anytime of the day. I am glad that the accident happens and i think the van deserved it.

 

The van should not be in Lane 1 period ............ You mentioned that there is queue for PIE changi bound and the vans should be able to use lane 1 if they are Jurong bound. For your information, Lane 2 also lead to PIE Jurong and there is no need for the van tobe in Lane 1. I agree that it make no sense for jokers to hog Lane 1 to jump queue to PIE Changi. However, you will often find slow moving vehicles cutting in from Lane 1. If everyone is able to have better driving manners and lane discipline, driving on BKE would be a smoother drive.

 

Btw, so what if your other vehicle is a GS300, a 1000 cc BMW motor bike or even a Lambo ... if you are driving a slow moving vehicles, you should keep to the speed limit for the safety of the other road users. Speeding while driving is a irresponsible and unwanted behaviour.

Edited March 28, 2011 by Civic6228

[Kelpie]

Hi there,

 

I encountered 2 scenairo before:

 

1. A TP from behind directed a Van infronty, which was traveling on lane 1 to the shoulder lane and stopped there. The traffic then wasn't heavy. So what happened after that, I don't know.

 

2. Heavy traffic was forming up on the E-way near the turn to Causeway. Some Vans and Buses were traveling on Lane 1 and a TP drove infront and signal them to move away from Lane 1.

 

So traffic heavy or not, I'm of the opinion that they should not be on lane 1.

 

Regards,

 

 

[Mona-vie]

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.

 

Not really. Drivers are supposed to keep a safe distance between himself and the vehicle infront. This rule applies everywhere.

 

The van can be fined by the TP for travelling on lane 1 or road hogging but thats between him and TP.

 

Road hogging does not include rear ending though. Even if the car is hogging onto the lane and you rear end the car, its still your fault.

 

However, we don't know anything so we can't judge. Van may be wrong, car may be wrong. It may be van suddenly swerve to lane 1 and car cannot avoid in time so rear end? Can be anything.

 

 

[Mona-vie]

Hi there,

 

I encountered 2 scenairo before:

 

1. A TP from behind directed a Van infronty, which was traveling on lane 1 to the shoulder lane and stopped there. The traffic then wasn't heavy. So what happened after that, I don't know.

 

2. Heavy traffic was forming up on the E-way near the turn to Causeway. Some Vans and Buses were traveling on Lane 1 and a TP drove infront and signal them to move away from Lane 1.

 

So traffic heavy or not, I'm of the opinion that they should not be on lane 1.

 

Regards,

 

Yes, goods veh and buses are not supposed to be travelling on lane 1. However, this is not a strictly enforced rule. TPs usually just wave them to move off rather than stop them and fine.

[Darryn]

Can anyone provide an actual cite on LGV not being allowed in lane one? As in - the relevant page in the basic theory book or the section of the LTA act that says so?

 

 

[Memphis1972]

from history,actually whoever behind 100% fault by default, no need appeal, but u can choose to engage laywer n this is another story laio.

[Kelpie]

Not really. Drivers are supposed to keep a safe distance between himself and the vehicle infront. This rule applies everywhere.

 

The van can be fined by the TP for travelling on lane 1 or road hogging but thats between him and TP.

 

Road hogging does not include rear ending though. Even if the car is hogging onto the lane and you rear end the car, its still your fault.

 

However, we don't know anything so we can't judge. Van may be wrong, car may be wrong. It may be van suddenly swerve to lane 1 and car cannot avoid in time so rear end? Can be anything.

 

I once accidently hit a S-class side signal lamp when it park stationery along the road side without even switching on the hazard light. So who at fault? of course me lah...I ended up paying for the repair.

 

Hence, IMHO, even though Van is not suppose to be on lane 1 but if we hit someone back, we are almost at the loosing end, generally. Insurance company is not a law enforcement agency, they just pay according to situation. You bang someone rear, you just have to pay.

 

Regards,

[Kelpie]

Can anyone provide an actual cite on LGV not being allowed in lane one? As in - the relevant page in the basic theory book or the section of the LTA act that says so?

 

I don't know too. But one thing for sure, if a TP signal a LGV to move away from Lane 1, do you think the LGV will stop somewhere and ask :"Can you (TP) provide an actual cite on LGV not being allowed in lane one? As in - the relevant page in the basic theory book or the section of the LTA act that says so?"?

 

Regards,