Reckless Cyclist

[Tedlhw]

 

The fact that we (me and cyclist) were travelling in the same direction, if my lau pok kai ride can stay on the left lane without any issue, don't see why he needs to risk his limbs or life to switch from left to right.

 

no matter how skillful this cyclist, don't forget there are goondu drivers around and he may be killed by goondu

 

Cyclist should stick to traffic law, see attached for details.

Quoted in attached:

Bicycle to be ridden on left side of road

Singapore Laws on Cycling.pdf

 

Bro, no need to talk about rules one.

These cyclists do not understand that with rights comes responsibility.

They just want the rights to kpkb, install camera on their bicycles to 'enforce' rules on other road users, when they are not prepared for it to be enforced on themselves.

The only reason why cyclist dun want to get get registered is so they can continue doing all sorts of crap on the roads and not get caught.

If they are prepared to abide by traffic rules, why so scared?

So really no point talk rules etc..

 

If you see what they say, zigzag in and out considered skill wor...Power sia...Where got problem...!! Satki...

We see car zigzag.. reckless. We see motorbike zig zag, reckless. We see bicycle zigzag, its SKILL!!!

[Kingkong]

 

Even if the cyclist run red light etc also cannot catch what.

Don't worry, if the cyclists do it too often, they will by caught very soon... not by the TPs, but by the vehicles that have right of way moving across the road...

[inlinesix]

 

Both.

There have been so many cases of people who flout traffic laws, caught by car cameras. Think the Kim lookalike road bully.

 

But cyclist? how to enforce without plate number?

 

I have explained in another thread before, that i have seen a cyclist denting a stationary car at East Coast Park. Again if there was a registration number, i could have been a witness.

 

I think it is only fair that if you wanna use the roads; want people to give you 1.5m clearance etc, you should at least be responsible for anything that happens on the roads.

 

In our case in SG, cyclist have rights(which i am happy to have as i cycle sometimes too), but zero responsibility.

Frankly coming from a amateur cyclist, i am more than happy to register my bikes.

I have zero tolerance for cyclists that ride dangerously; injuring pedestrians(this i saw with my own eyes as well in Bedok Central), pull dangerous stunts on the roads with scant regard to their own and other people's safety, and of course the spandex clad troupe of AMDKs on the road that threaten violence when honked at.

 

Why we as road users have to be eye & ear of TP/LTA?

 

Shouldn't it be the job of TP/LTA?

 

I agree with what you had said. Aren't we too lenient on TP/LTA?

Edited October 25, 2014 by Davidtch

[Sam7770]

 

The fact that we (me and cyclist) were travelling in the same direction, if my lau pok kai ride can stay on the left lane without any issue, don't see why he needs to risk his limbs or life to switch from left to right.

 

no matter how skillful this cyclist, don't forget there are goondu drivers around and he may be killed by goondu

 

Cyclist should stick to traffic law, see attached for details.

Quoted in attached:

Bicycle to be ridden on left side of road

Singapore Laws on Cycling.pdf

 

Do you follow every rule, all the time?

 

Seems to me the cyclist annoyed you in some way, but as an objective observer he didn't cause you any problems, so not sure why you feel the need to complain about how he chose to ride through that section of road.

 

(Viewing video again: But you don't stay on the left lane, do you? You immediately pull out into the second lane from the kerb, so you may pass the bus. So far the same as the cyclist. He is further ahead than you and so then moves another lane over to the right to pass a slower moving file of traffic, which he is entitled to do. He then filters back to the left when it is safe to do so.)

 

Citing the rules you posted, "No bicycle shall be ridden on the right of another vehicle proceeding in the same direction except when overtaking such other vehicle."

Edited October 25, 2014 by Sam7770

[Mason016]

 

Do you follow every rule, all the time?

 

Seems to me the cyclist annoyed you in some way, but as an objective observer he didn't cause you any problems, so not sure why you feel the need to complain about how he chose to ride through that section of road.

 

(Viewing video again: But you don't stay on the left lane, do you? You immediately pull out into the second lane from the kerb, so you may pass the bus. So far the same as the cyclist. He is further ahead than you and so then moves another lane over to the right to pass a slower moving file of traffic, which he is entitled to do. He then filters back to the left when it is safe to do so.)

 

Citing the rules you posted, "No bicycle shall be ridden on the right of another vehicle proceeding in the same direction except when overtaking such other vehicle."

 

I think the general rule for singaporeans is "Just follow law..."

[Nzy]

The problem now is that are we suppose to to look for out cyclist when they are not suppose to be on the roads at all? And when an accident happens the liability is with the motorist and not the cyclist, the cyclist put themselves at risk by cycling on the road.

 

Cyclists are supposed to be on the roads and not on the footpaths.

[Achtung]

Just thinking.. what would u do if a MOFO cyclist decide to slam dunk his bike on ur precious ride.

 

Would u do a WWE raw with em and impress your woman?

 

Would u apologise like a wuss?

 

Would u just KNNBCCB and all talk no action?

 

Would u come to MCF and KPKB?

 

 

Yes.. I hate cyclist on footpath! They can kill.

 

 

 

Cyclists are supposed to be on the roads and not on the footpaths.

 

[Nzy]

 

That's actually a very dangerous position for a cyclist to be in (blind spots). Unfortunately the law appears not to understand this, in terms of the keep left at all times rule. One time a cyclist arrived on my left just as the lights turned green and I was pulling away and he was in my path! I posted a video about it, and all the cyclists commented that he should not have been in that

side position to turn right.

 

I think you'd be even more annoyed if he took the left lane, as the law requires, but in a position that doesn't allow you to pass, which would be the safest way for him to do so, and would be the longest path across the junction. I think he's an experienced cyclist, without knowing what else he was up to it's hard to say for sure. Some give and take is required, as long as nobody assumes right of way we should all get along fine.

 

Of course don't stop in the blind spot. I always make sure I am taking the whole lane if I am turning right and the lane can go right or straight. This way the car behind will not be able to overtake me if he is going straight while I am turning right.

[TVT]

Sometimes -

 

what did he do wrong?

 

Where did he hold up traffic?

Did he run any red lights?

If that had been a motorbike, would you have a problem?

 

Its not about him breaking the traffic rules. But its about him didn't follow safety rules and procedures.

Of course there won't be a problem if it had been a motorcycle. Cos motorbikes are faster and are registered vehicles. Bicycle are not fast and not registered.

[Darryn]

 

Its not about him breaking the traffic rules. But its about him didn't follow safety rules and procedures.

Of course there won't be a problem if it had been a motorcycle. Cos motorbikes are faster and are registered vehicles. Bicycle are not fast and not registered.

He was moving fast than the cars in this instance -

 

I'm just playing devil's advocate here, because it seems that the bigger problem than what he was doing is the lack of a number plate on his bike..

 

But perhaps I'm wrong...

[Xers007]

Some anon ask me a qns but did not give me an avenue to answer him back direct so i answer him/her here...

 

its not difficult to give way to him and didnt you see from the video i let him pass... if i not gracious i would have horn the F out of him liao...

[1fast1]

Actually cyclists with driving licenses can still get demerit points!

That sounds like discrimination to me - against cyclists who get a driving licence. Do pedestrians with licences also get DPs for jaywalking?

 

The driving licence entitles one to drive one or more classes of motorised vehicles. The bicycle doesn't fall into any of those classes. As such, an offence committed while on the bike shouldn't accrue on the driving licence.

 

Issuing DPs for cycling offences singles out those cyclists who have driving licenses. The ones who are not qualified to drive get off lighter. Where's the equitability?

 

Moreover, it's more than a little illogical. In theory, a badly-behaved, recalcitrant cyclist (who is somehow a model driver) can get so many DPs on his driving licence from committing repeated cycling offences that he loses his ability to drive his car. Ironically, this means that he loses the ability to drive his car, but retains his ability to ride a bike! In fact, losing his driving licence will likely make him cycle even more. In other words, he loses the opportunity to use a mode of transport he was employing responsibly, only to be "cornered" into using a mode of transport he was repeatedly guilty of abusing. Where's the logic in this?

 

Now, I am in favour of separate licensure and registration of cyclists. If this is done, cyclists who commit offences should have DPs on that "cycling licence".

Edited October 27, 2014 by Turboflat4

[Darryn]

That sounds like discrimination to me - against cyclists who get a driving licence. Do pedestrians with licences also get DPs for jaywalking?

 

The driving licence entitles one to drive one or more classes of motorised vehicles. The bicycle doesn't fall into any of those classes. As such, an offence committed while on the bike shouldn't accrue on the driving licence.

 

Issuing DPs for cycling offences singles out those cyclists who have driving licenses. The ones who are not qualified to drive get off lighter. Where's the equitability?

 

Moreover, it's more than a little illogical. In theory, a badly-behaved, recalcitrant cyclist (who is somehow a model driver) can get so many DPs on his driving licence from committing repeated cycling offences that he loses his ability to drive his car. Ironically, this means that he loses the ability to drive his car, but retains his ability to ride a bike! In fact, losing his driving licence will likely make him cycle even more. In other words, he loses the opportunity to use a mode of transport he was employing responsibly, only to be "cornered" into using a mode of transport he was repeatedly guilty of abusing. Where's the logic in this?

 

Now, I am in favour of separate licensure and registration of cyclists. If this is done, cyclists who commit offences should have DPs on that "cycling licence".

It might be discriminatory against cyclists in a strict sense - but quite frankly, I am ok with that..

 

Do anything in / on any kind of vehicle that would get you cited as a driver, you get to "enjoy" the penalties..

 

Having a cycling license I don't think is workable, and I would be against anyone trying

[Elfenstar]

That sounds like discrimination to me - against cyclists who get a driving licence. Do pedestrians with licences also get DPs for jaywalking?

 

The driving licence entitles one to drive one or more classes of motorised vehicles. The bicycle doesn't fall into any of those classes. As such, an offence committed while on the bike shouldn't accrue on the driving licence.

 

Issuing DPs for cycling offences singles out those cyclists who have driving licenses. The ones who are not qualified to drive get off lighter. Where's the equitability?

 

Moreover, it's more than a little illogical. In theory, a badly-behaved, recalcitrant cyclist (who is somehow a model driver) can get so many DPs on his driving licence from committing repeated cycling offences that he loses his ability to drive his car. Ironically, this means that he loses the ability to drive his car, but retains his ability to ride a bike! In fact, losing his driving licence will likely make him cycle even more. In other words, he loses the opportunity to use a mode of transport he was employing responsibly, only to be "cornered" into using a mode of transport he was repeatedly guilty of abusing. Where's the logic in this?

 

Now, I am in favour of separate licensure and registration of cyclists. If this is done, cyclists who commit offences should have DPs on that "cycling licence".

It is unfair. I did bring it up, but then I am but a peasant LOL

[1fast1]

It might be discriminatory against cyclists in a strict sense - but quite frankly, I am ok with that..

You are completely missing my point. It is not discriminatory against cylists per se. It is discriminatory against a particular subset of cyclists who happen to have a driving licence. The penalty for the rest of the cyclists is less.

 

Having a cycling license I don't think is workable, and I would be against anyone trying

It *is* workable. It's just a matter of defining the criteria strictly enough - for example, "what constitutes a bicycle?" Kid's cycles can be excluded from the definition, so a height criterion might be imposed. Anything that doesn't meet the criteria for being an (adult) bicycle is excluded from registration and also forbidden from being driven on roads with a speed limit greater than 40km/h (basically, non-residential roads). Anything meeting the criteria are allowed to ride on any road, albeit with licensure and clearly visible registration plates meeting a defined standard, at least at the rear.

 

If you described exactly how complicated it is to own and run a car in Singapore to a foreigner (hey, like you used to be!), he'd probably say "it's not workable" too. The complexities are immense, and at some point a fundamental question like "what constitutes a car?" arises. I'm not being rhetorical here - defining what makes a car is very important because all the relevant government agencies are hungry for their pound of flesh when a "car" is imported - particularly Customs and the LTA. I know of people who've had to jump through flaming hoops when importing non-road legal, non-registered track-day cars and even go-karts because some bureaucrat was convinced that a fraud was being attempted. The point is this: despite all that crap surrounding the importation, sale, inspection, licensure-to-operate, road pricing and deregistration of "cars", somehow the bloody thing is still "workable".

 

Now, after having considered that carefully, tell me again why licensure and registration of cyclists is NOT workable.

 

It's not so much the infeasibility of the idea as the unpopularity of it amongst the vociferous "lycra brigade". You've already stated your intent to oppose any nascent steps in that direction. I bet there are hundreds more of you just waiting in the wings to start the chest thumping and gnashing of teeth over what would actually be a very equitable and even-handed policy. If you cyclists want your machines to be treated as vehicles in their own right, it's time to man up and shoulder the burden of other classes of vehicles.

 

Also, before you state that Singapore would be unique in requiring this, that argument is a non-starter. For one thing, Singapore has never been leery of being the first to implement some motoring policies. For another, a few countries (including some states in the US) have actually seriously considered the licensure and registration of road-going cyclists. If I'm not mistaken, Poland actually requires mandatory testing and licensure for cyclists under 18 (but not adults, apparently). Besides, other countries have done unique things as far as their cyclists go - Copenhagen has basically become a cyclists' haven with many purpose built paths dedicated to cycling (in fact, they've gone a little overboard with favouring the cyclists; I read a news article the other day about how indiscriminate parking of cycles has become a huge problem there, but I digress). My point is that there's nothing wrong with Singapore being the first to take the step to impose mandatory registration of cyclists - and I would welcome such a bold move.

[Sleepyrob]

end of the day,

 

 

agree?

[Darryn]

I think it's unworkable to license on a number of fronts

 

For a start - the need for a license would be a significant burden on the less privileged, a burden that would affect them disproportionally and to my mind, create a lot of social inequity. You really want to require the 70 y.o uncle that takes his grandkids to school everyday by bike to have a license?

 

And how can you exempt him? By giving him permission to ride his bike illegally on the footpath?

 

How about the 19 yearold that cycles out to a job at McDonalds or similar?

 

Who is going to bear the administrative cost of this license?

 

Furthermore - what about the added costs? And trying to stop bikes that don't have the required plates from entering Singapore?

Cars can be licensed because access points to the network for cars are much more controlled - how can you control access points for a bike? The only answer is heavy user penalties for flouting the law - which again, will create the sort of social inequity that you don't want to see. The "lycra brigade" have the resources, intellect, money and whatever such that a license won't make any difference to them.

Those that actually most need the convenience and extra mobility that a bike can offer, would end up being squeezed by such a scheme. That's why I feel it's unworkable. I also think that it's going to cost a lot more than any benefit it will bring.

 

I mean, really, do you have any idea - what is the cost in repairs for accidents are caused by accidents that are the fault of unlicensed bicycles that you will now be able to "recover" from them? I would be willing to bet that it is only a fraction of the cost of trying to impose a licensing system - you will be spending vastly more, for only a very small increment in benefit.

 

What's more - if that same administrative cost were to be spent on bicycle rider education and facilities, you will achieve FAR better results than any punitive licensing scheme. It's simply not money well spent.

 

BTW - just for the record, I am NOT part of any "lycra brigade" - if I am cycling on the road - it is because I am commuting. If I am cycling for leisure, I am on the PCN

You are completely missing my point. It is not discriminatory against cylists per se. It is discriminatory against a particular subset of cyclists who happen to have a driving licence. The penalty for the rest of the cyclists is less.


It *is* workable. It's just a matter of defining the criteria strictly enough - for example, "what constitutes a bicycle?" Kid's cycles can be excluded from the definition, so a height criterion might be imposed. Anything that doesn't meet the criteria for being an (adult) bicycle is excluded from registration and also forbidden from being driven on roads with a speed limit greater than 40km/h (basically, non-residential roads). Anything meeting the criteria are allowed to ride on any road, albeit with licensure and clearly visible registration plates meeting a defined standard, at least at the rear.

If you described exactly how complicated it is to own and run a car in Singapore to a foreigner (hey, like you used to be!), he'd probably say "it's not workable" too. The complexities are immense, and at some point a fundamental question like "what constitutes a car?" arises. I'm not being rhetorical here - defining what makes a car is very important because all the relevant government agencies are hungry for their pound of flesh when a "car" is imported - particularly Customs and the LTA. I know of people who've had to jump through flaming hoops when importing non-road legal, non-registered track-day cars and even go-karts because some bureaucrat was convinced that a fraud was being attempted. The point is this: despite all that crap surrounding the importation, sale, inspection, licensure-to-operate, road pricing and deregistration of "cars", somehow the bloody thing is still "workable".

Now, after having considered that carefully, tell me again why licensure and registration of cyclists is NOT workable.

It's not so much the infeasibility of the idea as the unpopularity of it amongst the vociferous "lycra brigade". You've already stated your intent to oppose any nascent steps in that direction. I bet there are hundreds more of you just waiting in the wings to start the chest thumping and gnashing of teeth over what would actually be a very equitable and even-handed policy. If you cyclists want your machines to be treated as vehicles in their own right, it's time to man up and shoulder the burden of other classes of vehicles.

Also, before you state that Singapore would be unique in requiring this, that argument is a non-starter. For one thing, Singapore has never been leery of being the first to implement some motoring policies. For another, a few countries (including some states in the US) have actually seriously considered the licensure and registration of road-going cyclists. If I'm not mistaken, Poland actually requires mandatory testing and licensure for cyclists under 18 (but not adults, apparently). Besides, other countries have done unique things as far as their cyclists go - Copenhagen has basically become a cyclists' haven with many purpose built paths dedicated to cycling (in fact, they've gone a little overboard with favouring the cyclists; I read a news article the other day about how indiscriminate parking of cycles has become a huge problem there, but I digress). My point is that there's nothing wrong with Singapore being the first to take the step to impose mandatory registration of cyclists - and I would welcome such a bold move.

 

[inlinesix]

Currently, TP is not doing a good job on road with motorised vehicles. Are you sure they could handle this additional workload?

 

This additional workload SHOULD not be offload to other road users (e.g. in-car camera). If it is to be offload to other road users, we might as well downside TP.

 

 

Full reply from LTA:

We appreciate and share your concerns for the well being of all road users, be they pedestrians, cyclists or motorists. Public roads are intended to be used by all road users, including cyclists and pedestrians. They are built and maintained using public funds collected from general taxes, including those who do not use motorised vehicles. All road users should use the roads responsibly with consideration for other road users. To have safer roads, we are reaching out via public education together with the Traffic Police as well as the Safe Cycling Task Force.

To share with you, like most other countries, LTA does not license bicycles. This is because majority of the people may use bicycles for leisure or recreational purposes. Thus, it is administratively cumbersome to licence and maintains the registration records of bicycles for the purpose of road tax collection.

Having exempted bicycles from registration requirements in Singapore since 1982, its re-introduction would not only be viewed as regressive but will unnecessarily subject bicycle owners to onerous requirements. At the same time, it does not sufficiently protect other road users due to the difficulty of enforcing such requirements. Licensing is therefore neither practical nor cost-effective. Developed countries like UK, Japan, USA, EU countries, Australia and New Zealand also do not require the registration of bicycles.

Apart from traffic measures we need the co-operation of all road users to create a safe travelling environment. Through its public education programmes, the Traffic Police (TP) has been constantly reminding motorists to drive carefully and look out for other motorists and pedestrians on roads. These public education efforts will be stepped up to remind all road users to play their part to make our roads safe for all. We have copied TP and the Singapore Road Safety Council (SRSC) in this email for their attention.
We thank you for your feedback. If you have other feedback on land transport related issues, please call our 24-hour Customer Service Hotline at 1800- CALL LTA (1800- 2255582) or send a SMS to 77LTA (77582).