Toyota Rush SFB 8288 C Kuailan Driver Destroys Bicycle

[Kingkong]

 

Same with cars, its called hit and run. And cars can drive away faster.

 

There are road hoggers on lane 1 who last minute jam brake and siam

 

left 3 lanes to get to the exit.

 

All the cars behind jam brake and 2 or 3 cars down there is a pile up

 

and the road hogger who jams brakes happily drives off the highway

 

without a scratch.

 

When a car hit and run, we have a license plate number to reference to, but do we have such luxury with a bicycle?

[Leinad8919]

 

[Nzy]

Remember the tampines cement truck and the young boy cycling accident at traffic junction? The young boy pass away. The blindspot maybe wider then some people may think. Heavy vehicles are seated at higher position and their wide body make it very difficult to see what's on their left front that is blocked by the pillar. I can imagine that the cyclist is at the cement truck blindspot and the driver didn't even know he run over the cyclist. So its always not very wise to stay directly infront of them. Car no need say la, car bigger in size and have certain length, so cannot be missed, it is the cyclist and motocycle which is smaller in size that are more difficult to spot.

 

I know. That is why if I get to stop infront of a heavy vehicle, I will make sure he can see me. I won't stay in their blindspots.

[Detach8]

Eh, the few of you can stop putting words in my mouth? I lazy to quote the replies one by one. I make my opinions clear here:

 

1. I am OK with bikes on the road as long as they are identifiable, licensed or otherwise. My proposal is to have them licensed (incl. rider)

 

2. I did NOT say I do not give way to bicycles on the road. As long as they ride properly and don't behave like morons. But if the road is of terrible condition, cyclists should evaluate if it is safe for them to ride on the road. And for that matter, that's why I feel they should be insured, otherwise just like any risky form of sports they should indemify all other road users from any accidents they cause. See also point 7 below.

 

3. I am OK with bikes on padestrian pavements as long as they show due courtesy to padestrians. See also point 6.

 

4. IIRC, riding on the road when a bicycle pathway is available (e.g. PCN) *IS* against the law. Check it.

 

5. Saying that bikes have a speed higher than 15kph so it is dangerous for padestrians is like saying I drive a Ferrari and therefore people w/slow cars should get off the roads for me to drive because it is dangerous for them. This is selfish and flawed logic.

 

6. Understand that the road is a traffic system, unlike padestrian walkways it is unregulated. Padestrians don't have rear view mirror, they don't check blindspot, they don't signal when they turn, and they don't walk in lanes. If I am walking along the PCN with 20 bicycles are rushing towards me if I still stand there and block then I am the cock.

 

7. And I just want to add one last point to why I think any vehicle, electric, gasoline or chicken rice powered needs to be licensed, registered, insured is really simple... the road is a dangerous place. When an accident happens it will become a civil case if there's no insurance.

Edited March 9, 2015 by Detach8

[Detach8]

Bro. Since you know the speed of racing bikes, why do you suggest them going onto PCN where the limitation is 15km/hr & higher chance getting into accident with park goers & children?

 

https://otterman.wordpress.com/2015/01/26/no-speeding-cyclists-and-no-motorised-vehicles-banner-campaign-in-pcns/

 

......and FYI, there's no info that if there's a PCN, cyclists are to use the PCN and are not allowed on the roads. Think that's just your personal opinion.

 

 

I quote:

(3) Wherever part of a road or a path adjacent to a road has been set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles, no bicycle shall be used on any other part of the roadway.

[beeepmeeep]

 

 

I quote:

(3) Wherever part of a road or a path adjacent to a road has been set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles, no bicycle shall be used on any other part of the roadway.

 

This one if really want to enforce I think TP cannot tahan. Just have to take a look at the whole stretch of Changi Coast Road (with Changi Coast Track and Changi Park Connector running parallel) especially during the weekends and you will know what I mean.

[1fast1]

This one if really want to enforce I think TP cannot tahan. Just have to take a look at the whole stretch of Changi Coast Road (with Changi Coast Track and Changi Park Connector running parallel) especially during the weekends and you will know what I mean.

Oh, but nooooo. One champion here (he's posted in this thread, so I don't need to "summon" his presence) has refuted that by stating that the PCN is not dedicated to the exclusive use of cyclists since pedestrians are allowed on it. Therefore, cyclists are perfectly entitled to use the adjacent roads. Basically, there are NO dedicated cycling paths in Singapore so that law on the books is valid like...never.

 

Such marvellous sophistry!

Edited March 9, 2015 by Turboflat4

[beeepmeeep]

Oh, but nooooo. One champion here (he's posted in this thread, so I don't need to "summon" his presence) has refuted that by stating that the PCN is not dedicated to the exclusive use of cyclists since pedestrians are allowed on it. Therefore, cyclists are perfectly entitled to use the adjacent roads. Basically, there are NO dedicated cycling paths in Singapore so that law on the books is valid like...never.

 

Such marvellous sophistry!

 

Haha, that one must let lawyers sort out. But if anyone does see "pedestrian/s" on the park connector along that stretch especially in the absence of daylight, better step harder on accelerator or pedal faster, hehe.

[Darryn]

And since when is the PCN for the exclusive use of bicycles?

 

And furthermore, do you realize just how little of the PCN is actually adjacent to the roadway?

 

 

I quote:

(3) Wherever part of a road or a path adjacent to a road has been set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles, no bicycle shall be used on any other part of the roadway.

[Ingenius]

I have driven many years and have never had any problem with cyclist on the road, but occasionally meets errant drivers.

[Detach8]

And since when is the PCN for the exclusive use of bicycles?

 

And furthermore, do you realize just how little of the PCN is actually adjacent to the roadway?

 

Maybe you live in Sentosa.

 

Take a look at your PCN. There's one side for cyclists and one side for padestrians.

[inlinesix]

Don't say those on the road. Recently just being a pedestrian on the pavement is a safety hazard. Cyclists zoom past me in crowded places, ring their bells and expect us to have bruce-lee reflexes to siam and give way. Got once almost bang into my pregnant wife. I tell you if any of them hit my wife, I swear I will bash the mutherfarker up.

 

I have no problems with bikes and skate scooters sharing the pedestrian. I am a cyclist too, and when I see a crowd, I slow down and wait for people to pass. I wonder what the f**k is so difficult to slow down and wait? When there's a space for you to move again, you will be easily ahead of all the crowd.

 

Sometimes I just want to kick those cyclists so they fall off.

 

Juz elbow that bugger. I have no sympathy for these ppl.

Oh, but nooooo. One champion here (he's posted in this thread, so I don't need to "summon" his presence) has refuted that by stating that the PCN is not dedicated to the exclusive use of cyclists since pedestrians are allowed on it. Therefore, cyclists are perfectly entitled to use the adjacent roads. Basically, there are NO dedicated cycling paths in Singapore so that law on the books is valid like...never.

 

Such marvellous sophistry!

 

Juz look at Changi Coastal Rd. It is adjacent to PCN. However, there is still sign on the road to tell drivers to be aware of cyclist on the road.

 

How??

 

With exclusive, does it mean that it is solely for the use of cyclist?

Edited March 9, 2015 by Davidtch

[Thaiyotakamli]

Just saw this over at HWZ:

compilation for reckless cyclist:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vx8YlZXEu2w&t=56

 

 

 

Like the 00:45 timing

 

 

the mini bus driver dont give a sh1t hahaha

[inlinesix]

Ahemmm.....instead of making a pest of themselves on public roads, these 'aggressive' ppl shld take up a new hobby........like playing Russian Roulette.

 

Sorry hor. You are an outdated hor.

 

The new "golf club" is

 

Pinarello Dogma F8.

 

By the way, Singapore can buy gun meh?

[1fast1]

This video is a perversion of the entire situation. It constructs a blatant straw man by putting up an extreme road-raging driver as the opponent to the supposedly-reasonable cyclist. In fact, it's quite clear that this is a propaganda video made by a self-righteous "leo-tard", because that is exactly what they like to think about most drivers.

 

Even though the video was atrocious in its fairness and accuracy, it's worth dissecting some aspects of it just to deflate the pompous ego-balloon that some cyclists have puffed up around themselves. So:

 

1) It's ironic how the cyclist goes on about speed limits and traffic laws when, to them, the same traffic laws are often just mere "suggestions". I can count on one hand the number of cyclists I've actually seen dismount - oh wait, I don't need any hands since I've seen none personally. And I've lost count of the number of cyclists I've seen run red lights.

 

2) It's very telling how the cyclist derides the driver for not wanting to slow down to avoid hitting people - yet he refuses to use the sidewalk because he would have to do the same to avoid mowing down pedestrians! Note that he pompously dresses it up to sound decent, i.e. "I don't want to use the sidewalk because it would be dangerous for pedestrians", which sounds awfully noble - until you realise that if he followed the same advice he was hypocritically administering to the driver, he wouldn't be endangering anyone. But oh, no - he can't slow down, that's beneath him.

 

3) OK, not entirely "beneath him". He's got a valid excuse, right? He's a competition cyclist! He's practising on the roads! Why not? Well, why not indeed? Can a race car driver use the same excuse to practise (realistically) on public roads? This has been discussed in this very thread, with some rather obtuse comments of the "well, if he's following traffic law, duh" sort being thrown about by some in the pro-cycling brigade. The fact of the matter is that the racing driver can practice neither legally nor safely on a public road in any meaningful fashion, and *neither can the competition cyclist*. There is a solution. The race car driver can take it to the track. The cyclist can, and damn well should, take it to the velodrome. Right now, there is no velodrome in Singapore (and they come up with all kinds of excuses to not use the PCN), so maybe Singaporean cyclists don't have this option right now. Frankly, I really hope they build one, so they'll have no excuses to use the public roads for high speed cycling. But take a look at the situation in countries that do have *multiple* velodromes, with cyclists still street-racing on the public roads. I bet that the same would still apply in Singapore. The cyclists really want to have their cake and eat it too.

 

4) I kept this point to the last, because it is sure to be a contentious one, but also the one that I've long wanted to make (so it's going to be a long-ass write-up). There is this debate about the purpose of "roads", where the cyclist character goes on about how roads are for the open passage of vehicles, animals and humans. Umm... maybe they were once upon a time, genius, but things change, y'know? Roads have been around since antiquity, pre-dating both bicycles and motorised vehicles by millennia. And in the past, roads were used as walking paths, animal herding paths, wagon paths and Roman troop marching paths. But ever since tarmac was invented, the roads have been specially designed to carry motorised vehicles. The point is this: it was recognised that motorised vehicles were the quickest, most efficient method of getting from one place to another, which is why specialised roads were constructed in the first place that could bear these vehicles safely. Bicycles basically never had any specialised public roads built for them historically. So, if anything, roads *are* for the preferential use of motorised vehicles.

 

Some cyclists have argued that cycling is an efficient form of commuting. Well, there are times that may be true, especially when motorised vehicular traffic volume is allowed to grow without proper restraint beyond the carrying capacity of the roads. In a highly congested environment, cycling may well be a faster means of transport for shorter distances. But cycling will never replace motor vehicles as a primary modality. Well, what happens if the "commuter cyclists" *all* get their way and we completely eliminate all other vehicular traffic? The average speed of traffic would be something like 20 to 30km/h. Contrast that to properly regulated motorised traffic with average speeds of *at least* 60km/h, and often much higher. Can you even conceive of a modern society regressing to purely human-powered transport like that? Nothing would ever get done!

 

(As an aside, that's why congestion control is so important - to ensure motorised transport lives up to its potential for speed and efficiency).

 

Now all this doesn't mean that cyclists cannot use the roads. But they do have to understand that the *primary purpose* of a modern road is to carry fast moving motorised vehicles in a smooth and unobstructed fashion. There will inevitably be times when they hold up motorised traffic, but they should aim to minimise that by following every single law that's made for cyclists. If they did, they would not only hold up motorised vehicular traffic a lot less, they'd make things much safer for themselves too. How hard is it to stick strictly to riding in single file or, at most, two abreast, like the law stipulates? How hard is it to abstain from the temptation to run a red light "just because they can" (lacking registration plates and accountability)? How hard to dismount at a pedestrian crossing?

 

Cyclists are basically allowed the legally-enshrined privilege of being on the public roads with motorised vehicles. It is very clear that it's (in spirit) a *privilege* and not a *right* if we consider that pedestrians, who were historically the original users of ancient roads, have been barred from walking on tarmac for many years (with the exception of designated crossing areas). Pedestrians have specially designed walkways for their use. Even other human-powered wheel-bearing transport does not have an automatic right to public roads - skateboards and scooters are barred from many classes of public roads in many jurisdictions, for instance. If cyclists realised that they were basically being given an accommodation by being allowed on major modern roads (despite their obvious primary purpose to ferry motor-vehicular traffic) and obeyed all laws and acted considerately toward other road users, a lot of friction can be avoided.

 

So what gets in the way of that realisation? A lot of it is smugness, which is due to the positive reinforcement from the environmental lobby - basically there are many cyclists who love to think and say "I'm doing good for Mother Earth by riding my bike, whereas you're killing her with your car, so I have more right than you to be on this road!". This sort of thinking is not limited to bicycles - when electric and hybrid vehicles first came on the market, there were quite a few complaints from petrol car drivers about how arrogant some hybrid drivers were acting.

 

Look, I'm not saying that all (or even most) drivers are angels - far from it. But cyclists must know their place in the grand scheme of things - they certainly are not riding a realistic replacement for motorised transport in the modern era and cannot replace/depose cars or motorcycles. But they certainly do have the legal right to share the roads with the motorists and motorcyclists - if they follow all the rules assiduously and do not take liberties. If a driver gets impatient with, or complains about a cyclist that's following all the rules, I would side with the cyclist. But most of the incidents I've seen involving cyclists have involved at least some seriously provocative (and often blatantly illegal) behaviour from cyclists.

Edited March 9, 2015 by Turboflat4

[Thaiyotakamli]

thats a long essay,

 

 

make it short,

 

 

to all cyclist;

 

 

 

"Dont take things for granted"

[1fast1]

Juz look at Changi Coastal Rd. It is adjacent to PCN. However, there is still sign on the road to tell drivers to be aware of cyclist on the road.

 

How??

Either I've gone over this exact point with you before (and I tire of repeating myself) or my sense of deja vu is seriously acting up today. Regardless, I'll say it for the last time: the presence of those signs may be less an indication of the LTA's approval of cyclists using that road, and more of a "bowing to the inevitability" of the situation because they can't remove the cyclists from that road without massive unpopularity (with the cyclists, who can be a rather vocal and self-righteous bunch).

 

An analogous situation would be the "Speed Camera Ahead" signs. If everyone drove within limits all the time, there wouldn't be a need for the signs. Does that mean that having the warning signs is a tacit endorsement of being able to speed when there are no cameras around?

 

With exclusive, does it mean that it is solely for the use of cyclist?

Yes, and I've often thought the best solution would be for the gahmen to designate the PCN for the sole use of cyclists (with maybe a lane division, with the "fast lane" reserved for cyclists going over 20km/h). there are plenty of other parks and nice gardens that pedestrians gambolling about with baby strollers and dogs in tow can frequent. When that's done, the gahmen can (and should) come down hard on the cyclists using public roads running parallel to those dedicated cycling tracks.

[Volvobrick]

All we can say about those self-righteous avid road racing cyclists who break traffic codes is that someday they will end up in cyclists' heaven, i.e. cycling in heaven.