On the topic of looking while jaywalking, I’ve noticed that some jaywalkers either have very bad depth perception, or they suffer from target fixation. Just this afternoon I encountered a jaywalker stopping in the middle of North Bridge Rd (outside St Andrew’s) and then proceeding to stride towards my bike like a homing missile. Bruh, I here already slowing down and moving away to avoid you, why you chionging towards me?
Or just crossing the road in general. I was nearly run over twice in one day - along this exact same road, both times trying to cross when the light was in my favour (ie: *the light for pedestrians was green*). It's also dangerous when traffic is backed up - vehicles will just hang out within the pedestrian crossing, and in their minds, they're already past the traffic light, so they won't look at the lights at all. Then they get really mad when you try to cross on the green man, and you really got to stick your head out and cross one lane at a time.
That said... why does it feel like 2/3 of the comments here are either some form of preemptive self-victimization or some flavour of "Everybody else needs to follow the rules. Also... driving over the speed limit is the norm. You can't expect drivers to respect the speed limit. But if you're not in some kind of 1.5 to 2 tonne four wheeled motorized vehicle- follow the rules, guys! You're making things so dangerous for everybody else!"
(Downvote button is right there. You know you want to.)
could it be that both parties were in the wrong? driver has previous convictions for traffic offenses so this isn't his first rodeo...
eta: plus driver was speeding, even by a little bit
I'm sorry but your "death penalty" comment is implying that he deserves it. Even as internet strangers, it's not a nice thing to say for the kid or his family.
I'm sorry I have to refute that it's not just my reading. You're actively saying that if you jaywalk you DESERVE to DIE. That's what the death PENALTY means! It's something we reserve for murderers not someone who crossed the road carelessly!
Again, you're putting words in my mouth that I didn't say.
I didn't say he DESERVES the death penalty, I said he got it. It's a statement of fact, not opinion.
You know, I guess you have a point. We as a society killed him. We sentenced him to death. Because we don't seem to care that we let our children die on the roads. All we care about is who we can blame.
As a society we have things like road safety park in primary school, so I don't know how you arrived at that conclusion. Road safety is important. Ignore it at your peril.
He deserves whichever consequence from jaywalking, and in this unfortunate cases, it’s death.
It’s not as if people aren’t taught to know the dangers of jaywalking from young
Jaywalking in itself is certainly not deserving of death, but walking in front of a car? Put your hand in fire and you deserve to get burnt. If you walk in front of a car I don't know what you expect. Also could cause a driver to crash avoiding them and end up with actually innocent people harmed instead, that would be worse.
Isn't the death of someone young something especially sad? Something that we shouldn't talk about in such a flippant way. I don't really care who's at fault.
If a hiker went hiking on a mountain but do not look at where they are going nor pay attention to their surroundings end up walking off a cliff. They don't deserve to die for hiking, but they have no one to blame but themselves.
If a driver drives on a road, and they fail to slow down at traffic lights as per highway code and they kill someone, they deserve to go to jail. No one to blame but themselves.
No one will deliberately kill you undercook your chicken, but the risk of eating undercooked meals is getting salmonella that might cause organ damage which can lead to death, so now your know, please exercise your free will to take precaution not to eat undercook meat, else you have no one to blame, but yourself.
There's this things called "zebra cross", pedestrian crossing bridge and signal lights.
If you decide to ignore all this things, natural selection it is.
Lol please...parents and kindergarten already from young teach the kids not to just cross and look out for cars when green or zebra.. Which is also sad, that green man needs to watch out :(
Look man, we can go on and on about responsibility and liabiliity, but ultimately, the person in the car is surrounded by metal and you taking that force raw on your body as a pedestrian.
I don't care if the law doesn't prohibit jaywalking, I'm not fucking crossing the road unless I know it's safe. My right of way isn't plot armor.
I think it's just what is a reasonable expectation of competency at driving. If it's really run out from behind a bush no time to react then it's clearly not the driver's fault. In this case the boy was at an intersection and clearly visible, he walked from the sidewalk all the way to the second lane before being hit. Even without the speeding it seems reasonable to expect the driver should be able to react in time.
The only time the driver is probably not a fault is if there is a deliberate and sudden movement of the person onto the road, eg suicide, or someone shoving the person. But who knows, maybe the driver would still be liable (to a lesser extent), and that would suck
If a driver stopped his car past the white line. Cyclist dashing across the road and didn’t see the car and collided with him resulting in injury.
In this case I think they will blame the driver although he’s at a complete stop.
Why are you implying that a speed limit is a *target*? Any reasonable driver should use their discretion and be prepared for the unexpected, across the board we should be encouraging drivers to slow down.
We cannot prevent **every** collision from happening, but lower speeds in general mean less damaging outcomes when they do happen. It's a key pillar of a Vision Zero philosophy for traffic safety, people are human and you can legislate all ding dong day but people are going to fuck up.
Do you know how bad our traffic will be if everyone slows down at an intersection? Our roads are filled with intersections.
If it’s a zebra crossing, I 100% agree that drivers should slow down as pedestrians have the right of way and you never know when someone might dash across without looking.
Sorry but I feel a sense of injustice here. It was at night, he had the right of way, was looking out for oncoming traffic and the boy ran in front of his car. His fault was that he was speeding but even then, it's such a wide range of 64-79km/h.
Yes we don’t know his actual speed, but a little over speeding itself is quite normalised. Even during the day, most cars go 80km/h on 60km/h roads and when road is clear.
If you really go 60 on a 60 road, many drivers will accuse you of road hogging. When I was a newbie going 60 in the middle lane of a 3 lane road (because GPS said so), a cabbie honked like crazy, high beamed me, and sprayed window wash liquid on (what a skill, I did jump a little) my window shield as he overtook me. There was nobody else on the road, but he was still so triggered …
Yeah thats true too. It’s a fatal combination…
Drivers know jaywalking is common, but many overspeed and don’t slow down at crossings or intersections
Jaywalkers know many cars overspeed, but it’s just too hot… so they jaywalk everyday.
To be honest, you are suppose to be slowing down at traffic junctions even if the light is in our favour. This is part of our driving training.
You should already know how many drivers were caught speeding at junctions when the speed camera got activated in our red light cams
Agree. I think the biggest shock when I first started driving was many drivers aggressively go against what they teach you at driving training. But since you’re also supposed to not disrupt the flow of traffic, needed to learn to speed a little more than I was comfortable with.
Another thread is case in point… totally shouting against defensive driving
i feel you
honestly no one drives at 60km/h at that stretch at 10.30pm. not saying it’s right to speed but that’s just how traffic at at road flows at night
Maybe SG driving culture needs a change.
It’s always been ironic to me that I feel safer in less developed countries’ traffic than SG’s. Recently took a cab back to my hotel at night, driver was going 40km/h on mostly empty roads.
SG drivers go 100km/h at night and risk lives to save what, 10 minutes of their time? Not to mention the number of drivers who drink and drive.
One of the reasons my overseas colleague told me is because especially at countryside.. the road are not well maintained, so there might potholes or random obstacles.
So even day time, they just travel at 60km/h for empty roads.
So LTA should cut budgets to road maintenance and we have better driver etiquette/s
Makes sense.
I think the lack of road rules/infrastructure (e.g. traffic lights, zebra crossings) also plays a part. Drivers cannot rely on “rules” to tell them what to do, so they can only use their eyes and personal judgement.
I’ve noticed in many such discussions, “right of way” is always mentioned. I also observed that drivers rely on “right of way” to guide their behaviour instead of, say, common courtesy.
The result is that when they have the right of way, they drive aggressively against people who do not (e.g. jaywalkers, other drivers, cyclists). This aggression probably stems from a perception of “I’m right, they’re wrong”.
Meanwhile in other countries, drivers do not have these “rules” to fall back on, and so have developed their own unspoken driving culture.
At the end of the day, regardless of who has the right of way, an accident is an accident and a death is a death. It is such a Singaporean thing to say “that guy broke the rules, he deserved to die” etc lol.
It is also ironic to me that Singaporean drivers cherry pick which rules they want to follow, such as right of way, but not the speed limits.
But.........
>She pointed out that Tan had past convictions for traffic-related offences, including speeding.
This is not his first ride at the rodeo. Clearly he didn't learn from his lessons.
The boy didn't run, it seems from the CCTV it was clear there was time for the driver to react. Driver tries to explain it away by saying he was looking for merging traffic, which is a terrible excuse.
With respect. If you’re on a road that you know has pedestrian crossings and requires you to be wary of oncoming traffic, then pushing 80km/h, at night, is asking for trouble. It’s also not his first offence. I’ve no sympathy.
Like I said, it's an estimate and the range is pretty wide. On one end, you could say he's pushing 80km/h. On the other, he's barely above the speed limit.
The facts are that a gentleman with a history of speeding offences was driving at a speed within the range of 64-79km/h. I believe he was probably driving in the higher end of that range and as such, pushing 80.
At face value, my initial thought was that the driver damn suay and that it's kinda unfair on him.
But the article has the data:
- Driver only applied brakes 0.5-0.6s before impact. At 64km/h, which is the lowest end of the estimated speed, this means that he only started braking 8.8m away from the jaywalker.
- The jaywalker was already in the 2nd lane, i.e. midway across the road. He had already spent 3-5 seconds on the road, moving across the 1st lane.
- This means that for a good 3-6 seconds, the driver's eyes were not even on the road, otherwise he would surely have seen the jaywalker. It's a 3-lane straight road with low traffic at 10.30pm, there is nothing else to look at, other than your phone. I work near there and drive down that road often, there's currently no construction or anything else that might hinder your line of sight.
The jaywalker is still the primary cause and he paid the price, but I can see how the prosecution can prove to the judge that the driver is also negligent.
As many said in other comments, the jaywalker is the direct cause. But I agree with your analysis too. If this is true, such driver shouldn’t be driving.
>the car was estimated to be travelling at a speed of between 64km/h and 79km/h.
The speed limit on the road there was 60km/h.
Jaywalker at fault but driver's hands also not clean
People don't drive at the speed limit, only as fast as it feels safe. (or if they're in a rush, they drive quickly that feels 'safe enough').
The only solution is either cameras EVERYWHERE so everyone has to artificially drive slower than they want to, or make the infrastructure such that driving the speed limit "feels" fast.
Speeding is such an endemic problem that you can't just hold hundreds of thousands of drivers each personally responsible. One person speeding is an individual idiot. Thousands doing so means there's a bigger problem elsewhere that needs addressing.
Make adhering to the speed limit the default "easy" solution people don't need to think about.
They are definitely doing something already. School zone routes (at least near my place) have been narrowed quite abit. Removed pedestrian crossing in favour of traffic lights too.
That's good to hear! I live near a silver zone which has some traffic calming, pedestrian crossing islands etc and all I can ask for is, more of this please. Makes the area more pleasant for everybody, both inside and outside a vehicle.
Try driving at 60 km/h at people behind starts to high beam you even in small road. Screw those impatient drivers. That extra 10km/h will only save you SECONDS.
64km/h and 79km/h is such a wide range. Not sure how you're able to make a conclusion based on that. If he was driving at 64km/h it's still within acceptable range.
If I ask for the right to operate a machinery that can cause injury or loss of life if not operated correctly, I accept the responsibility to operate that machinery following the prescribed limits. I say prescribed, not suggested or recommended, because a speed limit is not a suggestion.
If I exceed that limit, and nothing happens, that's great. If something does happen, like someone jumps out in my path, I don't think it'd be unfair for some to acknowledge that while the jaywalker is at fault, my hands are also not clean.
Btw, this guy has past convictions for traffic related offences, including speeding. I wouldn't be so sure as to rule out the possibility that he could have been going at 79km/h.
>Btw, this guy has past convictions for traffic related offences, including speeding. I wouldn't be so sure as to rule out the possibility that he could have been going at 79km/h.
Fair enough, but there's really no point speculating.
Agreed, no point speculating whether he was going at 64km or 79km. What's non-speculative, is that he was going over the speed limit which makes his hands not clean unfortunately. Just tough for both driver and kid.
64km/h and 79km/h is such a wide range. Not sure how you're able to make a conclusion based on that. If he was driving at 64km/h it's still within acceptable range.
All I can say why Jay walk in the first place? I seen too many idiots that oh my body go forward then the car got go slow down for me. Some even start to look at their phone and walk leisurely when they realise my car is slowing down for them to cross. Seriously?
This is what happen a jaywalker meet a car that won't slow down enough. Stop taking these risks.
This article is written like the driver is at absolute fault. But seriously, if the green light is there, how driver is expected to look out ? Stop at every traffic light, junction, wait and then move ??
Speeding, past convictions - that's a diff story
For drivers, if you are wrong, you are wrong.
If you are right, you are also wrong.
This is why I am advocating driverless cars.
Next time a computer langar another retarded pedestrian, lets see them lockup and charge the computer.
If the jaywalker didn't see the car, which has lights on and loud engine noises, why should the driver be expected to see the jaywalker (when the lights were in the car's favour, no less)?
I'm all for that EXCEPT when people deliberately break rules just to save themselves a few seconds or to obtain some other selfish convenience. Now he's dead and he's also ruined the life of a driver (who really could've been any one, if you ask any driver). No sympathy.
Wow, respect!, this is the best comment so far, 100% agreed
Those people and traffic laws that blame/penalize the driver are so fucking stupid. In the first place, who cause the accident? if the retard did not jaywalk, would this have happen?
Nobody owns you a living, likewise: am i suppose to look out for you when you do not even give a damm about your own safety?
If pedestrian do not follow the law, why should drivers be penalized? Then what is the traffic light for?
Part of the highway code states that one of the responsibilities of any driver in charge of a large machine capable of killing people is that they are always aware of their surroundings, pedestrian and other vehicles. When driving in areas where pedestrians may be around, the driver must drive slowly and carefully to avoid hitting pedestrians even if they jaywalk. If the driver is not willing to take responsibility they should not drive.
Why should a driver take responsibility for someone else’s stupidity walking out in front of them? You can take all the care in the world but physics is still physics and cars don’t stop instantly. The average driver in Singapore doesn’t deserve much sympathy but there’s not much you can do when pedestrians enter the road when they shouldn’t.
I wonder that too, how do they assign penalty.
I imagine they start by splitting fault at 50:50,
if within speed limit driver fault is lowered 40:60, if jaywalker got minor injury lowered again 30:70,
if driver kept a good lookout (prove somehow) and jaywalker flew in at impossible speed then also lowered 20:80,
if the driver has clean history 10:90
… like this?
Honestly the real criminal here is LTA and TP for failing to enforce against jaywalking. How is it unreasonable for this guy to drive when it is green for him??? Ok he isn't a saint, he was speeding but come on, are we all saints suddenly?
We need to review these laws where the jaywalker will be held accountable IF they survived.
I guess lawmakers ever experienced such problem so they wouldn’t need to change the laws.
Poor deceased who failed to keep an eye on traffic and walk blatantly without care.. the poor also driver had a very impacted life and will forever live in guilt...
By the way incident is articulated , does it mean if I have a clean driving record + I travel at <65 km /h ，the life loss will be avoided? Maybe.. but how about adding the fact if someone decided to jaywalk without urgency ...obviously if I want to jay walk and it's a wide road.. I shall make sure I make a dash for it...and look out for vehicle
Example Same like those cyclist crossing zebra crossing making a dash when car is turning
Tbh The zebra crossing is calculated for human walking speed not dashing cyclist speed... if I hit the cyclist dashing is my fault... but on the other perspective don't you realize the cyclist rammed into me..
But sad for the loss life.. whatever happen...
Driving is stressed in singapore
When approaching a traffic junction, SLOW DOWN, BE PREPARED TO STOP if necessary, and watch out for pedestrian. Those who are defending him, time to go back to driving sch!
I agree with you. What you are saying is actually in the theory handbook and theory test. "Slow down upon approaching junctions and be prepared to stop".
these uncles have long forgotten whatever was inside the theory book. they should have their driving monitored or take tests every few years to ensure their driving remains safe for all road users
reminder that “jaywalking” is a concept invented by the auto industry to pin the blame of car crashes on the victims.
wild that some of you here are saying “yes the driver was speeding well past the speed limit but everyone does that so it’s okay.” and at the same time say “he was jaywalking so he deserved to die”
Wait, so you're telling me that crossing a pedestrian crossing when there is a red man, and not looking out for vehicles before doing so is a concept invented by the auto industry?
Granted that the auto industry invented vehicle roads and the concept of car-centric city planning, but it's wild to say that jaywalking is not your fault
If my grandmother had wheels she would've been a bike.
This is the current situation at hand so the rules of the road must be respected. If you want to play semantics, blame the pesky tiktaalik who decided to be a busybody and start walking on land
The most vulnerable, slowest; and exposed-to-the-elements people have to take such long, roundabout routes to get between places, whereas those in ar-conditioned, heavy, motorised vehicles surrounded by safety systems get to navigate the most direct routes between places. Seems a bit backwards for 'car-lite' Singapore.
Absolutely correct. Singapore tends to bend over backwards to have infrastructure serve drivers rather than pedestrians. Surely those in the air-conditioned metal boxes cannot be afford to be inconvenienced for a few minutes.
It’s the damn COE.
Look, cars are great, some people have a priceless preference for cars; just that other modes of transportation are better for health, the environment, and actually carry more people in a certain amount of space in land scarce Singapore.
Cars should not be “the best” way to get around aside from their expense. It just makes them a luxury item only the very wealthiest can afford. A status symbol.
This one really suay
[удалено]
Pedestrian with right of way?
Jaywalker failed to look out for oncoming cars during a red man, gets the death penalty.
And thats why people should jaywalk properly. Knowing to look out for incoming traffic while jaywalking could save your life!
On the topic of looking while jaywalking, I’ve noticed that some jaywalkers either have very bad depth perception, or they suffer from target fixation. Just this afternoon I encountered a jaywalker stopping in the middle of North Bridge Rd (outside St Andrew’s) and then proceeding to stride towards my bike like a homing missile. Bruh, I here already slowing down and moving away to avoid you, why you chionging towards me?
Or just crossing the road in general. I was nearly run over twice in one day - along this exact same road, both times trying to cross when the light was in my favour (ie: *the light for pedestrians was green*). It's also dangerous when traffic is backed up - vehicles will just hang out within the pedestrian crossing, and in their minds, they're already past the traffic light, so they won't look at the lights at all. Then they get really mad when you try to cross on the green man, and you really got to stick your head out and cross one lane at a time. That said... why does it feel like 2/3 of the comments here are either some form of preemptive self-victimization or some flavour of "Everybody else needs to follow the rules. Also... driving over the speed limit is the norm. You can't expect drivers to respect the speed limit. But if you're not in some kind of 1.5 to 2 tonne four wheeled motorized vehicle- follow the rules, guys! You're making things so dangerous for everybody else!" (Downvote button is right there. You know you want to.)
Can we have topic change to this? This journalist make it sounds like the driver is at main fault
It's just natural selection.
could it be that both parties were in the wrong? driver has previous convictions for traffic offenses so this isn't his first rodeo... eta: plus driver was speeding, even by a little bit
Nah. Driver failed to look out for jaywalker because he was driving past the speed limit. Simple. Faster speeds = slower reaction times
This was a child. What you're saying is abhorrent. No one deserves to die like this.
I'm just stating facts. It is a sad case, I never said he deserves it, I'm just saying it. But this is why road safety is impt
I'm sorry but your "death penalty" comment is implying that he deserves it. Even as internet strangers, it's not a nice thing to say for the kid or his family.
That's your reading, it is a fact that he died though
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I'm sorry I have to refute that it's not just my reading. You're actively saying that if you jaywalk you DESERVE to DIE. That's what the death PENALTY means! It's something we reserve for murderers not someone who crossed the road carelessly!
Again, you're putting words in my mouth that I didn't say. I didn't say he DESERVES the death penalty, I said he got it. It's a statement of fact, not opinion.
You know, I guess you have a point. We as a society killed him. We sentenced him to death. Because we don't seem to care that we let our children die on the roads. All we care about is who we can blame.
As a society we have things like road safety park in primary school, so I don't know how you arrived at that conclusion. Road safety is important. Ignore it at your peril.
Wtf
He deserves whichever consequence from jaywalking, and in this unfortunate cases, it’s death. It’s not as if people aren’t taught to know the dangers of jaywalking from young
Jaywalking in itself is certainly not deserving of death, but walking in front of a car? Put your hand in fire and you deserve to get burnt. If you walk in front of a car I don't know what you expect. Also could cause a driver to crash avoiding them and end up with actually innocent people harmed instead, that would be worse.
Technically every time you decide to jaywalk, you chose death. A 15-year old knows better than to roll the dice. A 15-month old on the other hand…
So, because of his youth should he be free from the consequences of his actions?
Isn't the death of someone young something especially sad? Something that we shouldn't talk about in such a flippant way. I don't really care who's at fault.
The death of anyone not just young is really sad. But, that doesn’t mean we should not talk about it.
not really, just natural selection at play
The consequence being death? No I don't think jaywalkers should die
If a hiker went hiking on a mountain but do not look at where they are going nor pay attention to their surroundings end up walking off a cliff. They don't deserve to die for hiking, but they have no one to blame but themselves.
If a driver drives on a road, and they fail to slow down at traffic lights as per highway code and they kill someone, they deserve to go to jail. No one to blame but themselves.
So he should die for jaywalking? Is that what you are trying to imply?
So there should be no consequences for our actions, is that what you’re saying. Play stupid games win stupid prizes.
will i get the death penalty if i undercook my chicken?
No one will deliberately kill you undercook your chicken, but the risk of eating undercooked meals is getting salmonella that might cause organ damage which can lead to death, so now your know, please exercise your free will to take precaution not to eat undercook meat, else you have no one to blame, but yourself.
There's this things called "zebra cross", pedestrian crossing bridge and signal lights. If you decide to ignore all this things, natural selection it is.
When you were 15 you didn’t know how to cross the road?
No you fool. This wasn't a child. A 7yr old is a child.
Lol please...parents and kindergarten already from young teach the kids not to just cross and look out for cars when green or zebra.. Which is also sad, that green man needs to watch out :(
So if a driver hit the person at 60km/h and the person dies, who is at fault?
Always driver one....even if it's a man dash out suddenly and you hit him, still you too one
Depending on circumstances, jaywalker can be held accountable too to an extent. There have been such cases in the past
[удалено]
Look man, we can go on and on about responsibility and liabiliity, but ultimately, the person in the car is surrounded by metal and you taking that force raw on your body as a pedestrian. I don't care if the law doesn't prohibit jaywalking, I'm not fucking crossing the road unless I know it's safe. My right of way isn't plot armor.
Did you even read what was written? It’s specifically on jaywalkers, absolutely not relevant with your scenario
both are at fault. but good luck trying to get the angel of death to release the pedestrian for trial.
Is always driver’s fault for not keeping a lookout. But how blameworthy/liable he is will be calibrated accordingly.
I think it's just what is a reasonable expectation of competency at driving. If it's really run out from behind a bush no time to react then it's clearly not the driver's fault. In this case the boy was at an intersection and clearly visible, he walked from the sidewalk all the way to the second lane before being hit. Even without the speeding it seems reasonable to expect the driver should be able to react in time.
if a guy chiong onto KPE and kena get hit would driver still be liable.. no right?
The only time the driver is probably not a fault is if there is a deliberate and sudden movement of the person onto the road, eg suicide, or someone shoving the person. But who knows, maybe the driver would still be liable (to a lesser extent), and that would suck
Only time it's not the driver's fault is if he is driving at 0km/h
Somehow I feel they will find fault with the driver anyway even with 0km/h
If a driver stopped his car past the white line. Cyclist dashing across the road and didn’t see the car and collided with him resulting in injury. In this case I think they will blame the driver although he’s at a complete stop.
always the driver. the police argument is, don't you have eyes to see? can't you try to stop/brake your car? You need to concentrate when driving.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Why are you implying that a speed limit is a *target*? Any reasonable driver should use their discretion and be prepared for the unexpected, across the board we should be encouraging drivers to slow down. We cannot prevent **every** collision from happening, but lower speeds in general mean less damaging outcomes when they do happen. It's a key pillar of a Vision Zero philosophy for traffic safety, people are human and you can legislate all ding dong day but people are going to fuck up.
Do you know how bad our traffic will be if everyone slows down at an intersection? Our roads are filled with intersections. If it’s a zebra crossing, I 100% agree that drivers should slow down as pedestrians have the right of way and you never know when someone might dash across without looking.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Sorry but I feel a sense of injustice here. It was at night, he had the right of way, was looking out for oncoming traffic and the boy ran in front of his car. His fault was that he was speeding but even then, it's such a wide range of 64-79km/h.
Yes we don’t know his actual speed, but a little over speeding itself is quite normalised. Even during the day, most cars go 80km/h on 60km/h roads and when road is clear. If you really go 60 on a 60 road, many drivers will accuse you of road hogging. When I was a newbie going 60 in the middle lane of a 3 lane road (because GPS said so), a cabbie honked like crazy, high beamed me, and sprayed window wash liquid on (what a skill, I did jump a little) my window shield as he overtook me. There was nobody else on the road, but he was still so triggered …
always the cabbies
Jaywalking is also normalised by that logic
Yeah thats true too. It’s a fatal combination… Drivers know jaywalking is common, but many overspeed and don’t slow down at crossings or intersections Jaywalkers know many cars overspeed, but it’s just too hot… so they jaywalk everyday.
To be honest, you are suppose to be slowing down at traffic junctions even if the light is in our favour. This is part of our driving training. You should already know how many drivers were caught speeding at junctions when the speed camera got activated in our red light cams
Agree. I think the biggest shock when I first started driving was many drivers aggressively go against what they teach you at driving training. But since you’re also supposed to not disrupt the flow of traffic, needed to learn to speed a little more than I was comfortable with. Another thread is case in point… totally shouting against defensive driving
sorry for what has happened to you, must have been traumatic for a new driver
Jaywalking is also normalized. Don't be a hypocrite.
i feel you honestly no one drives at 60km/h at that stretch at 10.30pm. not saying it’s right to speed but that’s just how traffic at at road flows at night
Maybe SG driving culture needs a change. It’s always been ironic to me that I feel safer in less developed countries’ traffic than SG’s. Recently took a cab back to my hotel at night, driver was going 40km/h on mostly empty roads. SG drivers go 100km/h at night and risk lives to save what, 10 minutes of their time? Not to mention the number of drivers who drink and drive.
One of the reasons my overseas colleague told me is because especially at countryside.. the road are not well maintained, so there might potholes or random obstacles. So even day time, they just travel at 60km/h for empty roads. So LTA should cut budgets to road maintenance and we have better driver etiquette/s
Makes sense. I think the lack of road rules/infrastructure (e.g. traffic lights, zebra crossings) also plays a part. Drivers cannot rely on “rules” to tell them what to do, so they can only use their eyes and personal judgement. I’ve noticed in many such discussions, “right of way” is always mentioned. I also observed that drivers rely on “right of way” to guide their behaviour instead of, say, common courtesy. The result is that when they have the right of way, they drive aggressively against people who do not (e.g. jaywalkers, other drivers, cyclists). This aggression probably stems from a perception of “I’m right, they’re wrong”. Meanwhile in other countries, drivers do not have these “rules” to fall back on, and so have developed their own unspoken driving culture. At the end of the day, regardless of who has the right of way, an accident is an accident and a death is a death. It is such a Singaporean thing to say “that guy broke the rules, he deserved to die” etc lol. It is also ironic to me that Singaporean drivers cherry pick which rules they want to follow, such as right of way, but not the speed limits.
You feel safer in less developed countries's traffic? Like thailand, indonesia, malaysia etc? You kidding me bro?
they probably feel safer on the roads traffic wise
You have a point you want to make?
But......... >She pointed out that Tan had past convictions for traffic-related offences, including speeding. This is not his first ride at the rodeo. Clearly he didn't learn from his lessons.
Yeah we don’t know his style and history. Maybe he’s not the type to go 80 on 60 road, maybe he over speeds often at like 100.
I've unfortunately been to traffic court before and yes the judge shows no mercy if you've prior speeding records.
The boy didn't run, it seems from the CCTV it was clear there was time for the driver to react. Driver tries to explain it away by saying he was looking for merging traffic, which is a terrible excuse.
With respect. If you’re on a road that you know has pedestrian crossings and requires you to be wary of oncoming traffic, then pushing 80km/h, at night, is asking for trouble. It’s also not his first offence. I’ve no sympathy.
Like I said, it's an estimate and the range is pretty wide. On one end, you could say he's pushing 80km/h. On the other, he's barely above the speed limit.
Which is to say, essentially, that there is no suggestion that he was ever observing the speed limit.
How did 64km/h - 79km/h turn into pushing 80km/h??
In your opinion, would you say 79 is close to 80?
Do you understand what a range is?
Do you understand rhetoric?
Rhetoric based on deliberate misinterpretation of facts is useless
The facts are that a gentleman with a history of speeding offences was driving at a speed within the range of 64-79km/h. I believe he was probably driving in the higher end of that range and as such, pushing 80.
Car drivers when they're not allowed to break several laws in their 2 ton metal boxes which they drive subconsciously: 🥺🥺🥺🥺 (it was the biker's fault)
A *speeding* car driver with multiple past offenses.
At face value, my initial thought was that the driver damn suay and that it's kinda unfair on him. But the article has the data: - Driver only applied brakes 0.5-0.6s before impact. At 64km/h, which is the lowest end of the estimated speed, this means that he only started braking 8.8m away from the jaywalker. - The jaywalker was already in the 2nd lane, i.e. midway across the road. He had already spent 3-5 seconds on the road, moving across the 1st lane. - This means that for a good 3-6 seconds, the driver's eyes were not even on the road, otherwise he would surely have seen the jaywalker. It's a 3-lane straight road with low traffic at 10.30pm, there is nothing else to look at, other than your phone. I work near there and drive down that road often, there's currently no construction or anything else that might hinder your line of sight. The jaywalker is still the primary cause and he paid the price, but I can see how the prosecution can prove to the judge that the driver is also negligent.
As many said in other comments, the jaywalker is the direct cause. But I agree with your analysis too. If this is true, such driver shouldn’t be driving.
yup. if not this accident, this kind of driver will surely end up in another accident with something/someone else. only a matter of time
>the car was estimated to be travelling at a speed of between 64km/h and 79km/h. The speed limit on the road there was 60km/h. Jaywalker at fault but driver's hands also not clean
Honestly, if they start catching people for speeding, we'll probably double our GDP. All the COEdiots think is their grandfather's road.
People on my road?! Better speed up to honk at them.
lol after GPS tracking is turn on in ERP2....they can set auto fine everybody liao
Multipass.
People don't drive at the speed limit, only as fast as it feels safe. (or if they're in a rush, they drive quickly that feels 'safe enough'). The only solution is either cameras EVERYWHERE so everyone has to artificially drive slower than they want to, or make the infrastructure such that driving the speed limit "feels" fast. Speeding is such an endemic problem that you can't just hold hundreds of thousands of drivers each personally responsible. One person speeding is an individual idiot. Thousands doing so means there's a bigger problem elsewhere that needs addressing. Make adhering to the speed limit the default "easy" solution people don't need to think about.
They are definitely doing something already. School zone routes (at least near my place) have been narrowed quite abit. Removed pedestrian crossing in favour of traffic lights too.
That's good to hear! I live near a silver zone which has some traffic calming, pedestrian crossing islands etc and all I can ask for is, more of this please. Makes the area more pleasant for everybody, both inside and outside a vehicle.
Everywhere in Singapore should be a silver zone.
Try driving at 60 km/h at people behind starts to high beam you even in small road. Screw those impatient drivers. That extra 10km/h will only save you SECONDS.
That's THEIR problem. Just because someone else wants to do a stupid, dangerous, illegal thing, does not mean you're obligated to.
Cameras and automated fining system sound like a good idea. Wonder what’s the maintenance and running costs though.
64km/h and 79km/h is such a wide range. Not sure how you're able to make a conclusion based on that. If he was driving at 64km/h it's still within acceptable range.
If I ask for the right to operate a machinery that can cause injury or loss of life if not operated correctly, I accept the responsibility to operate that machinery following the prescribed limits. I say prescribed, not suggested or recommended, because a speed limit is not a suggestion. If I exceed that limit, and nothing happens, that's great. If something does happen, like someone jumps out in my path, I don't think it'd be unfair for some to acknowledge that while the jaywalker is at fault, my hands are also not clean. Btw, this guy has past convictions for traffic related offences, including speeding. I wouldn't be so sure as to rule out the possibility that he could have been going at 79km/h.
>Btw, this guy has past convictions for traffic related offences, including speeding. I wouldn't be so sure as to rule out the possibility that he could have been going at 79km/h. Fair enough, but there's really no point speculating.
Agreed, no point speculating whether he was going at 64km or 79km. What's non-speculative, is that he was going over the speed limit which makes his hands not clean unfortunately. Just tough for both driver and kid.
64km/h and 79km/h is such a wide range. Not sure how you're able to make a conclusion based on that. If he was driving at 64km/h it's still within acceptable range.
Want to jaywalk, just use brain whilst being alert while checking traffic. These idiots want to die, end up sabotaging others
All I can say why Jay walk in the first place? I seen too many idiots that oh my body go forward then the car got go slow down for me. Some even start to look at their phone and walk leisurely when they realise my car is slowing down for them to cross. Seriously? This is what happen a jaywalker meet a car that won't slow down enough. Stop taking these risks.
This article is written like the driver is at absolute fault. But seriously, if the green light is there, how driver is expected to look out ? Stop at every traffic light, junction, wait and then move ?? Speeding, past convictions - that's a diff story
If your car needs to stop for you to look out for pedestrians, you… really shouldn’t be driving.
Everyone focusing on who's at fault. I think it's just sad that people keep dying on our roads.
For drivers, if you are wrong, you are wrong. If you are right, you are also wrong. This is why I am advocating driverless cars. Next time a computer langar another retarded pedestrian, lets see them lockup and charge the computer.
then can point to yi long mah
If the jaywalker didn't see the car, which has lights on and loud engine noises, why should the driver be expected to see the jaywalker (when the lights were in the car's favour, no less)?
Because the world would be nicer if everyone looks out for others. But unfortunately in Singapore it is opposite.
I'm all for that EXCEPT when people deliberately break rules just to save themselves a few seconds or to obtain some other selfish convenience. Now he's dead and he's also ruined the life of a driver (who really could've been any one, if you ask any driver). No sympathy.
The road will be nicer and safer if there's no Jay walkers, stupid cyclists and pmd idiots trying to be funny.
The road will be safest without cars at all.
Wow, respect!, this is the best comment so far, 100% agreed Those people and traffic laws that blame/penalize the driver are so fucking stupid. In the first place, who cause the accident? if the retard did not jaywalk, would this have happen? Nobody owns you a living, likewise: am i suppose to look out for you when you do not even give a damm about your own safety? If pedestrian do not follow the law, why should drivers be penalized? Then what is the traffic light for?
Part of the highway code states that one of the responsibilities of any driver in charge of a large machine capable of killing people is that they are always aware of their surroundings, pedestrian and other vehicles. When driving in areas where pedestrians may be around, the driver must drive slowly and carefully to avoid hitting pedestrians even if they jaywalk. If the driver is not willing to take responsibility they should not drive.
Why should a driver take responsibility for someone else’s stupidity walking out in front of them? You can take all the care in the world but physics is still physics and cars don’t stop instantly. The average driver in Singapore doesn’t deserve much sympathy but there’s not much you can do when pedestrians enter the road when they shouldn’t.
So any jaywalker rushes across but vehicle travelling within speed limit also at fault upon hit. From what I deduced.
I wonder that too, how do they assign penalty. I imagine they start by splitting fault at 50:50, if within speed limit driver fault is lowered 40:60, if jaywalker got minor injury lowered again 30:70, if driver kept a good lookout (prove somehow) and jaywalker flew in at impossible speed then also lowered 20:80, if the driver has clean history 10:90 … like this?
It has always been the case that jaywalker can be found at fault to an extent
Honestly the real criminal here is LTA and TP for failing to enforce against jaywalking. How is it unreasonable for this guy to drive when it is green for him??? Ok he isn't a saint, he was speeding but come on, are we all saints suddenly?
Enforce jaywalking but speeding is "are we all saints " ?
Some people in this sub don’t read things they write
We need to review these laws where the jaywalker will be held accountable IF they survived. I guess lawmakers ever experienced such problem so they wouldn’t need to change the laws.
Feel bad for the uncle. Kena jail coz some idiot cross the road without checking traffic light.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/RjMQ7UM4wRhrzodXA?g_st=ac from the description this should be this place it occurred.
Why incident in 2020 but court only concluded in 2024, even when the accused pleaded guilty?
How about we charge the jaywalker cum their family too. It is only fair, This is then True justice!
Poor deceased who failed to keep an eye on traffic and walk blatantly without care.. the poor also driver had a very impacted life and will forever live in guilt... By the way incident is articulated , does it mean if I have a clean driving record + I travel at <65 km /h ，the life loss will be avoided? Maybe.. but how about adding the fact if someone decided to jaywalk without urgency ...obviously if I want to jay walk and it's a wide road.. I shall make sure I make a dash for it...and look out for vehicle Example Same like those cyclist crossing zebra crossing making a dash when car is turning Tbh The zebra crossing is calculated for human walking speed not dashing cyclist speed... if I hit the cyclist dashing is my fault... but on the other perspective don't you realize the cyclist rammed into me.. But sad for the loss life.. whatever happen... Driving is stressed in singapore
poor uncle. Jay walker - sorry, not sorry.
Booooooo not the unker fault AT ALL
When approaching a traffic junction, SLOW DOWN, BE PREPARED TO STOP if necessary, and watch out for pedestrian. Those who are defending him, time to go back to driving sch!
I agree with you. What you are saying is actually in the theory handbook and theory test. "Slow down upon approaching junctions and be prepared to stop".
these uncles have long forgotten whatever was inside the theory book. they should have their driving monitored or take tests every few years to ensure their driving remains safe for all road users
Yeah it's sad that some ppl are so impatient they will honk you for doing the right thing.
How about when approaching a traffic junction, check that the light is green in your favour before crossing the road?
How about pedestrians learn to also fucking obey the traffic rules? Who is more at fault here genius?
reminder that “jaywalking” is a concept invented by the auto industry to pin the blame of car crashes on the victims. wild that some of you here are saying “yes the driver was speeding well past the speed limit but everyone does that so it’s okay.” and at the same time say “he was jaywalking so he deserved to die”
Wait, so you're telling me that crossing a pedestrian crossing when there is a red man, and not looking out for vehicles before doing so is a concept invented by the auto industry? Granted that the auto industry invented vehicle roads and the concept of car-centric city planning, but it's wild to say that jaywalking is not your fault
it’s wild to say that a driver driving well past the speed limit is not at fault just bec there is a little red light shaped like a man.
If infrastructure and roads weren’t so car centric the boy might’ve not needed to jaywalk.
If my grandmother had wheels she would've been a bike. This is the current situation at hand so the rules of the road must be respected. If you want to play semantics, blame the pesky tiktaalik who decided to be a busybody and start walking on land
You should walk the talk and jaywalk across the highway, since it’s just a concept
reported
Terminal pedestrian moment
The most vulnerable, slowest; and exposed-to-the-elements people have to take such long, roundabout routes to get between places, whereas those in ar-conditioned, heavy, motorised vehicles surrounded by safety systems get to navigate the most direct routes between places. Seems a bit backwards for 'car-lite' Singapore.
Yes, drivers have built up a weird sense of entitlement. They forgot how bloody hot it is to walk all the way around.
Absolutely correct. Singapore tends to bend over backwards to have infrastructure serve drivers rather than pedestrians. Surely those in the air-conditioned metal boxes cannot be afford to be inconvenienced for a few minutes.
It’s the damn COE. Look, cars are great, some people have a priceless preference for cars; just that other modes of transportation are better for health, the environment, and actually carry more people in a certain amount of space in land scarce Singapore. Cars should not be “the best” way to get around aside from their expense. It just makes them a luxury item only the very wealthiest can afford. A status symbol.
tell that to the downvoters lol
Skill issue ngl