Roundabout rules: was NTUC right?

[Elfenstar]

http://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:S..._Roundabout.svg

 

A roundabout is a roundabout if there is a warning sign before the junction. Pandan circle( along jalan buroh towards the pandan circle) does not have. Marine parade road that roundabout have. A very good example whether the rules apply.

 

Are you sure?

 

Btw, I take back what I said about Mr Han looking at things differently from how TP might view it. He's entirely right.

 

[Nicholas]

Nope never, be in in SG, MY, or AU.

 

Anyway obviously someone thinks Mr Han is right. Look at the Pic of the road now.

 

Good job on following up on this!

[Elfenstar]

Good job on following up on this!

 

Not me. I just came across Mr Han's latest post

[Silvermini]

Haha good job. So i think the prob lies with lta. The fact that there is no traffic light or lane marking in a "true" roundabout. Sign only along on the westcoast road but not along the jalan buloh road. So that is kind of confusion there

[Elfenstar]

Haha good job. So i think the prob lies with lta. The fact that there is no traffic light or lane marking in a "true" roundabout. Sign only along on the westcoast road but not along the jalan buloh road. So that is kind of confusion there

 

My first post in this thread already said that This is just confirming things. They're lucky this is SG. If this was AU, the US, or even the UK, they would have been sued by now.

[Yhn]

Even better then I far prefer the sub courts as you can use a lawyer to whack.

 

Er , Small Claim Tribunal excludes insurance.

 

What does SCT refer to in your post ?

 

Thanks

 

[Iisterry]

This guy is still trying to harp on his "RIGHT"?

 

Without prejudice, the Highway Code is a code of conduct and not a digest of traffic laws. It lays stress on the responsibilities of road users towards each other. It has to be read as a whole and not dissected piecemeal to build a case.

 

With regards to the newly drawn markings (assuming his info is accurate), it should be not used as evidence for him to back up his case which happened prior. The markings which are in place at time of incident are shown below. Screen captures are from his own car video. It clearly showed him/his wife's car crossing over visible lane markings without due care for adjacent traffic.

 

 

I believe others have pointed out that the particular area is not even designated a roundabout. Even if assuming by some logic that he does possess right of way, it does not allow one to drive in such an irresponsible manner (his wife accelerated and cut into the other lane). Why would she be performing such maneuvers?

 

If right of way was all he cared about, will he dash across a designated pedestrian crossing when he sees that there is vehicle oncoming? Or try to insist that he has right of way after he is buried 6 feet under?

 

His would be much better off spending his free time educating his family on common sense and defensive driving instead.

Edited August 18, 2013 by Iisterry

[Joseph22]

Nope never, be in in SG, MY, or AU.

 

Anyway obviously someone thinks Mr Han is right. Look at the Pic of the road now.

can we see the line from the other angle. there is an entrance before the exit that have 2 lane coming in.

[Joseph22]

Actually I was looking at the video again and realise that the women isn't on the 2nd lane. she was the 1st lane when approaching the junction and the beige car is at the 2nd lane.

Please take a look at the video around 20s to 25s mark and notice that she enter near the exit at the go straight one lane.

 

Attach is the google pic of the old map which show the place she cross with a more clearer marking.

 

 

 

What this tell us is, the beige car isn't on lane 3 which is the exit only lane, rather he is on lane 2 a go straight or exit lane while the women is on lane 1 the go straight only lane.

 

 

[Elfenstar]

Er , Small Claim Tribunal excludes insurance.

 

What does SCT refer to in your post ?

 

Thanks

 

Yup it was SCT, which is why when you mentioned it I said even better. Go straight to the sub-court.

[Elfenstar]

This guy is still trying to harp on his "RIGHT"?

 

Without prejudice, the Highway Code is a code of conduct and not a digest of traffic laws. It lays stress on the responsibilities of road users towards each other. It has to be read as a whole and not dissected piecemeal to build a case.

 

With regards to the newly drawn markings (assuming his info is accurate), it should be not used as evidence for him to back up his case which happened prior. The markings which are in place at time of incident are shown below. Screen captures are from his own car video. It clearly showed him/his wife's car crossing over visible lane markings without due care for adjacent traffic.

 

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/541/664b.jpg/

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/534/4hl6.jpg/

 

I believe others have pointed out that the particular area is not even designated a roundabout. Even if assuming by some logic that he does possess right of way, it does not allow one to drive in such an irresponsible manner (his wife accelerated and cut into the other lane). Why would she be performing such maneuvers?

 

If right of way was all he cared about, will he dash across a designated pedestrian crossing when he sees that there is vehicle oncoming? Or try to insist that he has right of way after he is buried 6 feet under?

 

His would be much better off spending his free time educating his family on common sense and defensive driving instead.

 

Actually it was designated a traffic circus. I was wrong when I said it wasn't. You're right when the Highway code is a code of conduct. however it's also what TP uses as a basis for inconsiderate driving

 

As mentioned before. Bad driving skills from both aside (they both accelerated, one to get ahead, the other to cut), this Mr Han's wife has the right of way. Since the incident has happened, I believe he's complaining of the unfair result of the insurance verdict (which I agree now).

 

 

 

[Elfenstar]

Actually I was looking at the video again and realise that the women isn't on the 2nd lane. she was the 1st lane when approaching the junction and the beige car is at the 2nd lane.

Please take a look at the video around 20s to 25s mark and notice that she enter near the exit at the go straight one lane.

 

Attach is the google pic of the old map which show the place she cross with a more clearer marking.

 

 

 

 

What this tell us is, the beige car isn't on lane 3 which is the exit only lane, rather he is on lane 2 a go straight or exit lane while the women is on lane 1 the go straight only lane.

 

Dude, your picture is totally salah lah Neither of the cars was on the section of the road your picture depicts

[Nicholas]

This guy is still trying to harp on his "RIGHT"?

 

Without prejudice, the Highway Code is a code of conduct and not a digest of traffic laws. It lays stress on the responsibilities of road users towards each other. It has to be read as a whole and not dissected piecemeal to build a case.

 

With regards to the newly drawn markings (assuming his info is accurate), it should be not used as evidence for him to back up his case which happened prior. The markings which are in place at time of incident are shown below. Screen captures are from his own car video. It clearly showed him/his wife's car crossing over visible lane markings without due care for adjacent traffic.

 

-images removed-

 

I believe others have pointed out that the particular area is not even designated a roundabout. Even if assuming by some logic that he does possess right of way, it does not allow one to drive in such an irresponsible manner (his wife accelerated and cut into the other lane). Why would she be performing such maneuvers?

 

If right of way was all he cared about, will he dash across a designated pedestrian crossing when he sees that there is vehicle oncoming? Or try to insist that he has right of way after he is buried 6 feet under?

 

His would be much better off spending his free time educating his family on common sense and defensive driving instead.

 

The way you say it, it's like he's 100% wrong, only knows how to rant, and has no common sense.

 

He simply don't feel that his wife should be 100% liable for the accident, nothing wrong with that. If his wife was taught that the car on the left MUST exit, and on her lane she can exit... you can't 100% blame her. When turning at 2 lane turns, do you keep checking if the car at your right blind spot is actually going straight? But like some said, if this is not a roundabout, then roundabout rules don't apply. Like Elfenstar said, this is actually LTA's fault.

 

Seeing the responses here, I also learn that because so many road users don't know the rules, I should ignore the highway code and keep left to exit roundabouts which is fail safe.

 

He highlighted that NTUC simply bochup him to look into the matter and kept telling him "case closed" "case closed", then reduce the NCD. Who will be happy with that?

 

He made a big hoo haa by turning to the media, and now LTA made the lane markings more clear. Isn't that good for the rest of us?

 

[Joseph22]

Dude, your picture is totally salah lah Neither of the cars was on the section of the road your picture depicts

you very sure??? I go through whole loop and viewing the video together leh.

 

yeah you are right I go one page in advance on google map.

in fact you look at the video just before she turn the arrow on the floor showing go straight instead of turning at 40 second, she did a turn if you pause at 40sec mark. there is a lane line. in anycase, its 100% accident on lane change as its a round about.

Edited August 18, 2013 by Joseph22

[Yhn]

Yup it was SCT, which is why when you mentioned it I said even better. Go straight to the sub-court.

 

now i caught it

[rolleyes]

[Iisterry]

- Do I think he is ranting? Yes.

 

- Do I think he/his wife was driving recklessly? Yes.

 

- He believes that he is right and has declared the fact that the other driver is wrong. He has in fact criticized the relevant governing bodies for their lack of understanding of the Highway Code.

 

NTUC Income then put 100% liability on my side when infact the other driver was in the wrong.

 

- Whether the situation is confusing is of no relevance. The Ferrari driver's family claimed that the traffic light was confusing in Bugis. Does that absolve them of wrong-doing? He was speeding excessively in an urban area.

 

- The wife changed lanes abruptly, drove in a manner which is unpredictable by suddenly accelerating, changing lanes in an attempt to exit.

 

- I do not think any forumners here has advocated ignoring the highway code and keeping left in roundabouts. The point of contention here was that she changed lanes abruptly in an attempt to exit without due care for adjacent vehicle. Any other meaning is solely your own interpretation.

 

- Whether the lane markings have been remarked at a later point in time is also of no relevance. What matters is the actual scenario at that point in time. If a Traffic Police is in place, you follow his directions. If traffic markings are in place, you follow it.

 

- Whether the other vehicle should have exited at the 2nd exit is of no relevance as the lane markings show that he can clearly proceed on. It overwrites the Code similarly to how a give-way line reduces your priority to the lowest.

 

- Now if the other vehicle had not entered from the same point as his wife vehicle but instead entered from the left exit, he would be in the same exact position where he was. The lane marking would have shown that he can still go straight at that point in time. If his wife has still driven in such a manner, the incident would still have occurred.

 

- This does not seem like a matter which was "bochup" and case closed. I would rather infer that he had kicked up a big fuss until everyone is tired of entertaining him. He has gone to NTUC, gone for mediation, wrote to MAS and FidRec and to the extent of trying to build his case via social media by quoting selective portions from the Code and conveniently ignoring others.

 

As the accident was clearly the complainant's own negligent for failing to exercise proper lookout whilst switching into other road user's lane, we regret we would have to maintain our stand to reject her claim."

 

- The clearer lane markings are good for the rest of us. If he had acknowledged the point made by the relevant bodies and the rest of us layman, admitted his wife's unfortunate fault and requested for LTA to review the lane markings in that area, people would have applauded him.

 

- Fact remains. He did otherwise.

 

[Nicholas]

- Do I think he is ranting? Yes.

I also think that he is ranting, but it's more than that.

- Do I think he/his wife was driving recklessly? Yes.

Not really. She exit the roundabout 'cause she thought she has the right to exit.

- He believes that he is right and has declared the fact that the other driver is wrong. He has in fact criticized the relevant governing bodies for their lack of understanding of the Highway Code.

 

NTUC Income then put 100% liability on my side when infact the other driver was in the wrong.

 

He says the other driver is wrong but I don't think he has ever claimed that he wife was 100% correct, nor do I think that.

 

- Whether the situation is confusing is of no relevance. The Ferrari driver's family claimed that the traffic light was confusing in Bugis. Does that absolve them of wrong-doing? He was speeding excessively in an urban area.

 

- The wife changed lanes abruptly, drove in a manner which is unpredictable by suddenly accelerating, changing lanes in an attempt to exit.

Refer to above comments.

- I do not think any forumners here has advocated ignoring the highway code and keeping left in roundabouts. The point of contention here was that she changed lanes abruptly in an attempt to exit without due care for adjacent vehicle. Any other meaning is solely your own interpretation.

Perhaps because I made this topic so I have been following it more closely than you, so I don't blame you for missing out what other forumners have written. Btw, keeping left on roundabouts and keeping left to exit roundabouts are very different. I assume it's a typing mistake, rather than you not reading properly.

 

- Whether the lane markings have been remarked at a later point in time is also of no relevance. What matters is the actual scenario at that point in time. If a Traffic Police is in place, you follow his directions. If traffic markings are in place, you follow it.

Agreed.

- Whether the other vehicle should have exited at the 2nd exit is of no relevance as the lane markings show that he can clearly proceed on. It overwrites the Code similarly to how a give-way line reduces your priority to the lowest.

 

- Now if the other vehicle had not entered from the same point as his wife vehicle but instead entered from the left exit, he would be in the same exact position where he was. The lane marking would have shown that he can still go straight at that point in time. If his wife has still driven in such a manner, the incident would still have occurred.

If the other vehicle has entered through the next exit, it means that he has not followed the highway code to give way to vehicles at roundabout. This part is tricky and is a problem for roundabouts.

- This does not seem like a matter which was "bochup" and case closed. I would rather infer that he had kicked up a big fuss until everyone is tired of entertaining him. He has gone to NTUC, gone for mediation, wrote to MAS and FidRec and to the extent of trying to build his case via social media by quoting selective portions from the Code and conveniently ignoring others.

It's because NTUC did not chup him, that's why he look for other ways that can help him.

As the accident was clearly the complainant's own negligent for failing to exercise proper lookout whilst switching into other road user's lane, we regret we would have to maintain our stand to reject her claim."

 

- The clearer lane markings are good for the rest of us. If he had acknowledged the point made by the relevant bodies and the rest of us layman, admitted his wife's unfortunate fault and requested for LTA to review the lane markings in that area, people would have applauded him.

Agreed.

- Fact remains. He did otherwise.

From his writing, I agree that it seems he did not want to write that his wife is also to blame for the accident. But words like "I went TP to make a report and submitted the video, knowing that I won't be 100% correct or 100% at fault." shows that he knows his wife (and himself) is not 100% correct.

Edited August 19, 2013 by Nicholas

[Sam7770]

A similar situation happens at Newton Circus - for example which lane should you be in coming from Dunearn Road on to the roundabout and wishing to exit at Clemenceau Avenue North?

 

If you take either of the right lanes (technically correct, right?) you run the risk of not being allowed to filter left into Clemenceau Ave N by some driver who sticks to a left lane all the way round... in which case common sense tells you that you have to yield to them, not drive across their line!