Toyota Rush SFB 8288 C Kuailan Driver Destroys Bicycle

[Darryn]

 

 

Simple....if wanna hv the right to use public roads, the vehicle - whether motorised or leotard-powered, has to be registered and insured like any other vehicle on the road.

 

Want to use road space, want others to respect traffic rules for them, but they are unregistered, uninsured, run red lights, talk big abt respect but always picking fight wif motorists........Simi wif all this double standard?

 

If the leotards find registration and insurance too much work, then use the PCN.

 

Again ...

 

this is fine for the "reotards" that behave badly - the professional with a $5k bike that is cycling 100s of KM a week...get them to register, to have some sort of cert, whatever...it's not much of a problem.

 

What about the casual user, the auntie taking her kid to school, the ITE student that cycles 15 km a day to get to campus, the tipper truck driver that parks his vehicle at 11 pm and then has a 3-5km trip back to his house. It totally doesn't address that sort of person.

 

Also someone like me that might cycle to work 10 - 15 times a year.

 

I am quite willing to be convinced - if you can show me a robust cost / benefit analysis of how this would shake out...

 

eg: By registration we will reduce traffic offences by bikes by this much, we will reduce accidents by that much, and the cost will be this much (who is going to bear that cost is a different matter) and I wouldn't be willing to accept "just" the reduction of traffic offences - the reduction has to be tied to a concrete benefit*

 

* eg: why is running a redlight a crime? Because we can say that of every 100 cars that run a red light, x% get into / cause an accident which causes y injuries and z$ in damages - can it be cited of every 100 bikes that run a red light, what are the direct damages?

 

This doesn't make it "ok" to run a red light - but it does have an impact on how much we should spend to stop it!

 

For example - I remember reading studies from the US about the cost benefit analysis for drug testing of those on welfare - it turned out that the drug testing programme cost more to administer than was saved by the cheats they caught. Does it make sense to continue such a programme then?

[Mcf777]

Vincent Ang again?

 

Don't xia suay Singapore by taking part in any National competition.

 

You don't have any regards for on the road safety issue.

 

You should be bar from any National competition.

[Count-Bracula]

Aiayh both drivers and cyclists got good got bad lah.

 

The other day I was first car turning at junction, road was clear except for a group of cyclists (around 10) who were coming head on straight. I could have turned but waited for them to cycle past and they all waved thanks at me. and I lowered my window and returned the gesture . . . hey that feels good!

 

Drive safe, observe traffic rules and all will be happy.

[Kb27]

Why cyclists have to train on public roads?

If they want to train, go bt timah or mount faber, ride up and down until they are happy.

Edited March 6, 2015 by Kb27

[Strat]

Why cyclists have to train on public roads?

If they want to train, go bt timah or mount faber, ride up and down until they are happy.

 

so that they have a feeling that they are in "tour-de-SG" ??

Edited March 6, 2015 by Strat

[Vegas]

Actually I already gave him some space but if that bugger is cycling out of the yellow lines, how much more space can I give him?

 

Cyclists like this will have to buy more insurance in fact. Its good for their families. I see all kinds of cyclist "terrorists" on the road in recent years and its actually a fact that many lie horizonally on the road recently. The govt should do something about this before more cyclist die on the road.

do u expect motorbikes to be within yellow line?

 

not courteous of cyclist to point middle finger. but i do think one shouldnt be driving at 70km/h in the left lane

 

cyclist do have a right of being on the road, just because we pay 6 figures for the car does not mean we should corner the cyclist to within the double yellow lines. its dangerous, even motorcyclist know that.

[Fishy]

Vincent Ang again?

 

Don't xia suay Singapore by taking part in any National competition.

 

You don't have any regards for on the road safety issue.

 

You should be bar from any National competition.

 

he was in the news before?

[Vegas]

everywhere in the world, govt promote cycling for health and congestion solution...

 

here, the mentality is scary. cyclist have no where to go.

[Kusje]

 

Again ...

 

this is fine for the "reotards" that behave badly - the professional with a $5k bike that is cycling 100s of KM a week...get them to register, to have some sort of cert, whatever...it's not much of a problem.

 

What about the casual user, the auntie taking her kid to school, the ITE student that cycles 15 km a day to get to campus, the tipper truck driver that parks his vehicle at 11 pm and then has a 3-5km trip back to his house. It totally doesn't address that sort of person.

 

Also someone like me that might cycle to work 10 - 15 times a year.

 

I am quite willing to be convinced - if you can show me a robust cost / benefit analysis of how this would shake out...

 

eg: By registration we will reduce traffic offences by bikes by this much, we will reduce accidents by that much, and the cost will be this much (who is going to bear that cost is a different matter) and I wouldn't be willing to accept "just" the reduction of traffic offences - the reduction has to be tied to a concrete benefit*

 

* eg: why is running a redlight a crime? Because we can say that of every 100 cars that run a red light, x% get into / cause an accident which causes y injuries and z$ in damages - can it be cited of every 100 bikes that run a red light, what are the direct damages?

 

This doesn't make it "ok" to run a red light - but it does have an impact on how much we should spend to stop it!

 

For example - I remember reading studies from the US about the cost benefit analysis for drug testing of those on welfare - it turned out that the drug testing programme cost more to administer than was saved by the cheats they caught. Does it make sense to continue such a programme then?

 

It's not a matter of cost and benefit but more of a matter of equity. If you don't catch people that cheat the system then more people will be encouraged to cheat the system.

 

If you don't at least try to stop cyclists from running red lights then why should any cyclist stop (other than those concerned about their own safety)?

[Adrianli]

everywhere in the world, govt promote cycling for health and congestion solution...

 

here, the mentality is scary. cyclist have no where to go.

 

Becos the roads here are not designed for cyclist frenly. Same for MRT not designed for 6.9million population.

[Soya]

 

Again ...

 

this is fine for the "reotards" that behave badly - the professional with a $5k bike that is cycling 100s of KM a week...get them to register, to have some sort of cert, whatever...it's not much of a problem.

 

What about the casual user, the auntie taking her kid to school, the ITE student that cycles 15 km a day to get to campus, the tipper truck driver that parks his vehicle at 11 pm and then has a 3-5km trip back to his house. It totally doesn't address that sort of person.

 

Also someone like me that might cycle to work 10 - 15 times a year.

 

I am quite willing to be convinced - if you can show me a robust cost / benefit analysis of how this would shake out...

 

eg: By registration we will reduce traffic offences by bikes by this much, we will reduce accidents by that much, and the cost will be this much (who is going to bear that cost is a different matter) and I wouldn't be willing to accept "just" the reduction of traffic offences - the reduction has to be tied to a concrete benefit*

 

* eg: why is running a redlight a crime? Because we can say that of every 100 cars that run a red light, x% get into / cause an accident which causes y injuries and z$ in damages - can it be cited of every 100 bikes that run a red light, what are the direct damages?

 

This doesn't make it "ok" to run a red light - but it does have an impact on how much we should spend to stop it!

 

For example - I remember reading studies from the US about the cost benefit analysis for drug testing of those on welfare - it turned out that the drug testing programme cost more to administer than was saved by the cheats they caught. Does it make sense to continue such a programme then?

 

 

wahahaha.......let me get back on my chair after falling off it wif laughter.

 

if i go by your same logic, a professional race driver shld be allowed to use our public roads for their personal practice??

 

similarly, the auntie driving her kid to school, the ITE student that goes to campus 15km a day, the tipper truck driver that lives 3-5km from the HVP and some one who only drives 10-15 times a year should be exempted from car registration, insurance, driving licence, road tax, traffic rules and running red lights????.......same same what.

Edited March 6, 2015 by Soya

[Kusje]

everywhere in the world, govt promote cycling for health and congestion solution...

 

here, the mentality is scary. cyclist have no where to go.

 

Most of the people here are not asking for cyclists to get off the roads (only a minority are doing so).

 

We only want them to respect and obey the same traffic laws that apply to all other road users and for the traffic police to enforce these laws.

 

Registration is the merely the start of the means to enforce these laws.

[1fast1]

It's not that the foreign workers are "too dumb".

 

A very good proportion can and will manage it no problem -

BUT (there's always a but right?) it only takes a small proportion to get it wrong, to be incapable, to be bo-chap before the whole scheme becomes unweildy -

 

And given the record and attitude of Singapore employers you really wanna make them responsible for bicycle registration?

You are REALLY grasping, you know that? The same can be said of ANY vehicle registration. There are still, I'm sure, a very small number of unlicensed drivers trying their luck on our roads. I'm sure there are also cars without valid insurance that have slipped through the cracks. And despite the statutory inspection requirements, I still see vehicles without functioning brake lights driving around. Tell me, should we scrap licensure, insurance and LTA vehicle checks just because of this "small proportion to get it wrong, to be incapable, to be bo-chap"?

 

Furthermore - you say that "if only ride on PCN..." - the problem with bikes is that the situation is far more fluid than that - my nephew has a bike - he only rides it on the PCN, if I want to borrow it one day to ride to work...then how? Cannot right? That seems rather ..... insane.

Why? When it comes to cars, people can't just hop into a friend or relative's car without first ascertaining if the insurance will cover them in the event of an incident. And how about if your nephew had a minibus or goods vehicle. Now you *know* how to operate it. But you're not licensed to drive it around. Isn't it just...insane that the gahmen would try to stop you?

 

In any case, I think this is a straw man argument, simply because I never said anyone needed to stop you from borrowing your nephew's bike. But that bike better be registered before you take it onto a public road. That way, if you mess up, the police can track that back to your nephew, who will promptly name you as the miscreant rider. Same deal as with cars. Full accountability, full traceability.

 

Your nephew has no obligation to register the bike if he's keeping it off major roads. But that also means *you* can't just willy-nilly take it onto the roads. And this restriction is hardly as "insane" as you think it is. My neighbour (a very nice Dutch gentleman I've become quite friendly with) frequently works on his purpose-built open-wheel race car in his front driveway (after trailering it in). It has all the paraphernalia to be road worthy, and I am capable of piloting it on the public roads. Isn't it just "insane" that I can't take this unregistered piece of awesome machinery onto the roads?

 

I grew up using bikes a certain way, they are a great way to get around, the idea of licensing this way seems overly restrictive, and....draconian.

We all wish for the halcyon days of simpler times, blah blah. But a minority of cyclists have pushed motorists a little too far with their presumption, which is why some of us are demanding more accountability of them.

 

In any case, registration of cyclists is not a new thing - just something that has fallen into disuse here. In the past, Singapore did require cyclist registration. And some jurisdictions in the world actually require cyclist registration right now. Just because that doesn't cohere with your experience or expectations doesn't make it "overly restrictive", let alone "draconian". I would say that a measure to make all road users more accountable is a highly sensible one.

 

We don't need more rules - we need more patience on all sides of the equation.

If wishes were horses... the point is we don't live in a Utopia. If every driver and cyclist were perfectly behaved, then there wouldn't even be a need to display *any* licence plates, even for cars. The point is that there are black sheep out there. In cars, and yes, on cycles. The former are easily held to account, the latter far, far less so. It's high time that changed.

 

Now - if you want to tell me that you want to try and control the "loony lycra muttonheads" riding in a peloton - let's look specifically at that. Maybe they can be required to be members of a club? Or have to carry some form of membership card if the group is over a certain size?

I am not in favour of specific punitive measures. Just make blanket cyclist registration compulsory for those wishing to go on any road with a limit of 50 and above. Step up TP and LTA patrols to actively enforce compliance and pull over any unregistered cyclist and levy hefty fines with impounding of the bike, etc. plus imprisonment for recalcitrant offenders. I guarantee you all will step quickly into line.

 

One thing that holds me back on the registration front - are the benefits big enough to justify the cost, inconvenience and the problems it's going to cause - I just can't see it. How many accidents that cause damage to innocent road users (eg - pedestrians) are caused by bikes? Have you got any numbers, or perhaps value to assign to how much damage is caused by bikes that don't obey traffic regulations?

 

It won't be difficult to get numbers on how much damage is caused by cars running red lights - how much is caused by cyclists running red lights?

 

Same thing for failure to give way.

And these really are the million dollar questions, aren't they? As you yourself said, the stats are easy to get on law-breaking drivers, but very elusive when it comes to cyclists. And there is one simple explanation for the difference. Compulsory visible registration. Until we have that, we won't have good stats on cyclist-caused incidents.

Edited March 6, 2015 by Turboflat4

[Darryn]

Round and round the mulberry bush we go...

 

I say you say we all say something different.

 

Why not like this - to support a change from the status quo, why not we do something evidence based?

 

1. How many crimes will be stopped by registration?

2. How much will be "saved" in terms of negative externalities of said crimes? (let's face it - the reason for traffic laws is to prevent negative costs to society from the resulting accidents)

3. What will be the cost of any registration scheme to

3a) Users (i.e bike riders)

3b) General tax payers

4. Once we know the costs - we can then ascertain if there are other ways to achieve the same ends at a lower cost, or indeed, if the benefits even justify the costs.

 

And there's two other big ones to me, that I've been circling for a long time in this thread...

1. Will registration / licensing "unfairly*" impact the less fortunate, the lower strata of society, those that most "need" a bike.

2. Singapore is already a rigidly controlled country - in terms of cultural mores, attitudes, beliefs, general freedoms whatever you want to call it - does cracking down and instituting more controls justify the outcome that you are going to achieve? Does driving the sometime cyclist off the road (and let's face it - this is what will happen), and the consequent reduction in freedom of something I'm not sure how to define justify the benefits we're going to obtain.

 

You may well claim the reduction in "freedom of thought / action" from requiring a licence for cycling is inconsequential or doesn't matter - for me, I'm not so sure - I don't think kids need MORE rules - I think they need to be encouraged to think for themselves more, to rely on themselves more, to bike to school instead of taking the school bus.

 

By introducing bike registration plates, requiring tracking, or whatever format would eventually be taken you are taking away some of that - you are further constraining the population into "just follow law" attitudes - which is something that has already been identified as a problem for Singapore.

 

Now I've got no idea how to measure or quantify it, or even if it is a "real" thing to be considered - but I don't think it should be ignored.

 

One thing I am very very sure of though - the problem has not yet reached the scale where we are in a crisis state that demands action.

 

And these really are the million dollar questions, aren't they? As you yourself said, the stats are easy to get on law-breaking drivers, but very elusive when it comes to cyclists. And there is one simple explanation for the difference. Compulsory visible registration. Until we have that, we won't have good stats on cyclist-caused incidents.

And just to address the stats part -

 

I am not sure how I can do desktop research on the matter, but from the LTA / TP point of view there will likely be at least some base stats available on things like how many complaints have been made against cyclists, how many times cyclists have been involved in an accident because of their law breaking, how much damage has been caused -

 

You may need to also liaise with someone like SCDF on how many times they have been called to accidents with cyclists.

 

It may also be worthwhile to talk to insurance companies to see if there is anyway they can extract information from their accident reports on how many times a cyclist was cited as a factor in an accident.

 

I am very sure it is a non zero number, and I am also very sure that whatever information you do have will underestimate the problem - but it would at least be a starting point.

[1fast1]

Round and round the mulberry bush we go...

I tire of running around the mulberry bush, and you don't seem to have directly responded to most of my earlier points. So I'll just respond to this one:

 

One thing I am very very sure of though - the problem has not yet reached the scale where we are in a crisis state that demands action.

And a lot of motorists (and some pedestrians) would beg to differ. In any case, what is the "crisis state" that you are envisioning that will legitimately trigger this "draconian" regulation?

Edited March 6, 2015 by Turboflat4

[Darryn]

I tire of running around the mulberry bush, and you don't seem to have directly responded to most of my earlier points. So I'll just respond to this one:

 

 

And a lot of motorists (and some pedestrians) would beg to differ. In any case, what is the "crisis state" that you are envisioning that will legitimately trigger this "draconian" regulation?

I like mulberries and I like dancing

 

Crisis state - I'd define that as a number of factors

1. When pedestrians are regularly being injured by law breaking cyclists

2. When "damage causing" accidents are regularly being caused by law breaking cyclists

3. When cyclists who break the law cause "significant" delays and inconvenience to motorists. What is significant? Not sure, it is more of the definition of pornography vs art "I'll know it when I see it" - but it certainly ISN'T being delayed by a couple of minutes in your left turn while you wait for the parade of Tour De Francers to file past, HOWEVER - the recent case under discussion here is one that certainly adds strength and impetus to the idea of registration* BUT the $64,000 dollar question was and is - are there enough of such cases to warrant any new regulations?

 

 

* I rather strongly suspect that the cyclists were somehow blocking the road and causing inconvenience - but short of seeing a video from the Rush, I'm not sure just how much inconvenience - I there is always an inherent level of inconvenience on a public road you need to live with.

[Darryn]

You are REALLY grasping, you know that? The same can be said of ANY vehicle registration. There are still, I'm sure, a very small number of unlicensed drivers trying their luck on our roads. I'm sure there are also cars without valid insurance that have slipped through the cracks. And despite the statutory inspection requirements, I still see vehicles without functioning brake lights driving around. Tell me, should we scrap licensure, insurance and LTA vehicle checks just because of this "small proportion to get it wrong, to be incapable, to be bo-chap"?

 

Cars are very different to bikes - in terms of numbers, who's using, cost, etc etc -

YES - while you will also have some number of cars that ignore regulations, some number of drivers who circumvent the rules - by their very nature bikes are so much more difficult to control, so much more difficult to regulate, and also by the nature of who's riding it's a vastly different case - as it should be because of the both the cost differential and the differences in the potential / ability to do harm

 

 

Why? When it comes to cars, people can't just hop into a friend or relative's car without first ascertaining if the insurance will cover them in the event of an incident. And how about if your nephew had a minibus or goods vehicle. Now you *know* how to operate it. But you're not licensed to drive it around. Isn't it just...insane that the gahmen would try to stop you?

 

And again - you cannot compare cars to bikes in this nature - what country in the world allows you to drive a car on the road without a license? How many countries in the world require bicycle registration? Doesn't that tell you something? How many countries in the world require insurance before you can drive a car? How many serious injuries are caused by cars vs how many caused by bikes?

 

BTW - I can and have driven both goods vans and minibusses legally on my class 2 license - it IS allowed (PA / PB plate, 16' lorry)

 

In any case, I think this is a straw man argument, simply because I never said anyone needed to stop you from borrowing your nephew's bike. But that bike better be registered before you take it onto a public road. That way, if you mess up, the police can track that back to your nephew, who will promptly name you as the miscreant rider. Same deal as with cars. Full accountability, full traceability.

The fact is though - that while it may not be your intention, requiring registration effectively stops me from borrowing the bike. Within a dorm situation I would also be willing to bet that there is a whole LOT of bike sharing going on - tracability is possible for cars

 

Your nephew has no obligation to register the bike if he's keeping it off major roads. But that also means *you* can't just willy-nilly take it onto the roads. And this restriction is hardly as "insane" as you think it is. My neighbour (a very nice Dutch gentleman I've become quite friendly with) frequently works on his purpose-built open-wheel race car in his front driveway (after trailering it in). It has all the paraphernalia to be road worthy, and I am capable of piloting it on the public roads. Isn't it just "insane" that I can't take this unregistered piece of awesome machinery onto the roads?

 

 

We all wish for the halcyon days of simpler times, blah blah. But a minority of cyclists have pushed motorists a little too far with their presumption, which is why some of us are demanding more accountability of them.

Like you say "a minority", yes it is a problem and yes it does need to be dealt with - but by requiring registration you are taking a sledgehammer to a walnut

 

In any case, registration of cyclists is not a new thing - just something that has fallen into disuse here. In the past, Singapore did require cyclist registration. And some jurisdictions in the world actually require cyclist registration right now. Just because that doesn't cohere with your experience or expectations doesn't make it "overly restrictive", let alone "draconian". I would say that a measure to make all road users more accountable is a highly sensible one.

 

 

If wishes were horses... the point is we don't live in a Utopia. If every driver and cyclist were perfectly behaved, then there wouldn't even be a need to display *any* licence plates, even for cars. The point is that there are black sheep out there. In cars, and yes, on cycles. The former are easily held to account, the latter far, far less so. It's high time that changed.

The point is - cars can and do cause far more damage than bicycles, and because of that greater damage, and potential for damage more expense and effort can (and should) be expended to control them

 

And here are some starter stats for you - (disclaimer - I'm sure that the number of citations vastly under-estimates the number of actual offences, but also that the number of deaths is pretty accurate)

 

 

 

There were 1455 traffic violation committed by cyclists in 2013. No one was killed due to these offences.

In comparison, motorist committed 252 times more traffic violation in 2013, including the followings:

1) Speeding 260,512 (in 2013)

2) Running red light

3) Careless driving

All together there were 367,496 traffic violation committed by motorists in 2013. 159 persons were killed which included 43 pedestrians.

And in relation to the above - I can think of one death of a pedestrian caused by a bike - and in that case bike wasn't even being ridden on the road so your licensing regime wouldn't even have applied

I am not in favour of specific punitive measures. Just make blanket cyclist registration compulsory for those wishing to go on any road with a limit of 50 and above. Step up TP and LTA patrols to actively enforce compliance and pull over any unregistered cyclist and levy hefty fines with impounding of the bike, etc. plus imprisonment for recalcitrant offenders. I guarantee you all will step quickly into line.

Any road with a limit over 50? Do you have any idea how difficult that would make life? How difficult it would be to educate for and enforce. I live in Punggol - my most common route is straight down Upper serangoon road - portions of which are 60km....to avoid this is going to be a huge and complicated circuit - does that preclude implementation?

Of course not - but it is just one example - Mandai Road would be another, as would Nicoll Highway, West Coast Highway, Telok Blangah, many many routes would be a no go...making cycling for commuting a total non starter.

 

And these really are the million dollar questions, aren't they? As you yourself said, the stats are easy to get on law-breaking drivers, but very elusive when it comes to cyclists. And there is one simple explanation for the difference. Compulsory visible registration. Until we have that, we won't have good stats on cyclist-caused incidents.

 

Edited March 6, 2015 by Darryn

[Mustank]

hey guys! tea break liao lor