Lexus driver bang cyclist, drag bycycle for 2km, fine $2500..

[night86mare]

Is this my personal issue? Are you not concerned about this case and what message it sent out to the public?

As I said the social status of the accused is my primary concern as it gives the public the FALSE idea that people can pay to get themselves out of trouble. But the case has not ended and I am waiting for outcome of the appeal by the public prosecutor. Hopefully given the due process of law, something can be done.

If it was a suzuki driver living on pulau ubin, I would be outraged but for a totally different reason, how in the world do we have such incompetent public prosecutors?

so my question is, you are saying that in the case of the lexus driver, one should take special caution to address the case because of the potential social issues involved?

if you are indeed of such an opinion, then my next question would be - is it any concern of the court making such a decision? in the first place, any social considerations should have been accounted for when drawing up legislation. you seem to suggest that our courts should bend and swing according to social whims. i do not agree with such an opinion, if you choose to take it.

in both cases, i.e. suzuki driver living on pulau ubin versus lexus driver living wherever lexus driver is living, if you wish to take the stand that incompetency is involved, then it should not change from case to case.

are you saying that a mercedes driver should be held more accountable than a suzuki driver because of "social issues" that might arise? are you saying that cases involving a person of higher stature should be looked at with more gravity?

 

[alantkh]

so my question is, you are saying that in the case of the lexus driver, one should take special caution to address the case because of the potential social issues involved?

if you are indeed of such an opinion, then my next question would be - is it any concern of the court making such a decision? in the first place, any social considerations should have been accounted for when drawing up legislation. you seem to suggest that our courts should bend and swing according to social whims. i do not agree with such an opinion, if you choose to take it.

in both cases, i.e. suzuki driver living on pulau ubin versus lexus driver living wherever lexus driver is living, if you wish to take the stand that incompetency is involved, then it should not change from case to case.

are you saying that a mercedes driver should be held more accountable than a suzuki driver because of "social issues" that might arise? are you saying that cases involving a person of higher stature should be looked at with more gravity?

???

you should REALLY read my replies before replying. common.... I think my english is not that bad.

do you even know what I am argueing for?

For your sake I will rewrite it again, in hopefully simple english with short sentences.

I feel that social standings SHOULD NOT MATTER in the court.
The social standing in this case is important (outside the context of the court) because it gives the public the FALSE impression that the rich can get away with hit and run cases.
Both a mercedes driver and suzuki driver should be equally and heavily penalised for hit and run cases. (did I ever said otherwise?)
However, the public perception on why a mercedes driver was let off easy will be very different from why a suzuki driver was let off easy.
If the reasons are different, the solutions to the two problems are different too.

Is it simple enough? Frankly I would try to write more clearly but it is impossible as I am not clear about the laws with regards to contempt of the court. I could say something that gets me into trouble and it is just not worth it.

As I have said, the due process of the court is not done yet. Who knows, the appeal may go through and something will get done.

 

[night86mare]

???

you should REALLY read my replies before replying. common.... I think my english is not that bad.

do you even know what I am argueing for?

as a tongue-in-cheek comment, it should be "come on", not "common".

and "arguing", not "argueing", but moving on...

For your sake I will rewrite it again, in hopefully simple english with short sentences.

I feel that social standings SHOULD NOT MATTER in the court.
The social standing in this case is important (outside the context of the court) because it gives the public the FALSE impression that the rich can get away with hit and run cases.
Both a mercedes driver and suzuki driver should be equally and heavily penalised for hit and run cases. (did I ever said otherwise?)
However, the public perception on why a mercedes driver was let off easy will be very different from why a suzuki driver was let off easy.
If the reasons are different, the solutions to the two problems are different too.

ok, understand... so yes, i agree with your point that it is possible that the public might get the impression that you convey.

then my next question will be, if the decision was indeed made as reported on lawnet, how else would you go about handling this to ensure that people do not get this impression?

if you ask me, it is a fact that the car used is inconsequential in the case. any conclusion that people wish to derive from facts is solely their own. for example, if i smile at the CEO of a large MNC, people could interpret it as my innate desire to pander to the leaders of capitalism. it is a fact that i smiled, but my intentions and what was conveyed (or misconveyed) cannot be controlled. any thoughts?

 

[lancey]

I think alantkh made valid points about "public misconstruing expensive car owners getting away with such acts"..according to how the case has panned out..

but

nightmare86 is also right about "but what can u do about it? everyone forms their own opinions about such judgements".

I think neither of you are harping on the "car brand" being the determining factors to hit and run cases...but because the mitigating factors was directed at Lexus's soundproof, it was inadvertently used here as the point of argument.

JMO

 

[night86mare]

I think neither of you are harping on the "car brand" being the determining factors to hit and run cases...but because the mitigating factors was directed at Lexus's soundproof, it was inadvertently used here as the point of argument.

JMO

yes, that would be correct.

my point is that other than factual reporting of the car brand, too much attention (in my personal opinion) is being paid to this detail which has little to do with individual behaviour or whatever justification was used.

 

[NMSS_2]

do you even know what a straw man argument is?

btw, you are speaking for alankth, are you him?

how come he is singing a different tune? are you now the new clubsnap psychic who reads others' minds to champion their causes? :bsmilie:

No leh! Because i bother to read and not to do selective reading? :bsmilie:

As I said the social status of the accused is my primary concern as it gives the public the FALSE idea that people can pay to get themselves out of trouble. But the case has not ended and I am waiting for outcome of the appeal by the public prosecutor. Hopefully given the due process of law, something can be done.

alankth has stated clearly that he is of the opinion that "lexus" the brand is important as it is reflective of the accused's social status, etc. so he is indeed focusing on the brand, and he is not focusing on it because it was used as any mitigating factor. in fact, i also have not talked about mitigating factors, save the fact that "soundproofing" as a mitigating factor is not unique to lexus, hence the brand itself does not matter. i have already stated quite clearly what my point is, but you are happily indulging in an argument put forth by an imaginary person, which is not me. i have no idea how you could misconstrue my posts to such an extent, it is beyond my belief - from the very start my point was that BRAND DOES NOT MATTER. yet you suggest that i am harping on the brand. yes, i am harping on it because IT DOES NOT MATTER. thank you very much for agreeing with me, even though you seem to want to insist that you disagree.

Quotation of:

"the social status of the accused is my primary concern as it gives the public the FALSE idea that people can pay to get themselves out of trouble"

and:

"the social status of the accused is my primary concern"

are entirely two different things. One is the false impression and another is the actual social status.

False impression is the real stuff and social status is the strawman. So which one again that you are referring?

suspect you have completely misread whatever is going on and are just arguing for the sake of arguing. please re-read everything and refrain from singing "strawman" until you are clear what is going on. it is almost reminiscent of a kid who just found a brand new toy that he finds interesting, and is determined to wave it around despite all the adults telling him that it is nothing new.

Have a good read. Your interpretation is a little off. :bheart:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=straw%20man

 

[Old Boy]

Wreckless drivers are not confined to the rich group. I have been cycling for quite a number of years and notice those that drive luxurious cars and taxis have this higher tendency. If you draw a venn diagarm, maybe the common area would be " Time is Money" . :bsmilie:

 

[Limsgp]

Whatever the make of the car has no relation to how guilty the driver is.

But whether the make of the car "affects" how guilty a driver is........................... (how prosecution, defense, judgement is made etc................)........................................ ?

 

[Limsgp]

I guess quite a while ago there's a case in China.. A rich driver hit a poor worker and run away. The judgement by the courts is driver not guilty and she got away. but the news go on the internet and there was a widespread public outrage.

The local court is forced to review the case fairly and somehow justice was finally served and the driver got her due punishment. The power of the internet....

 

[night86mare]

i think i wanna name myself Aristotle or Plato. LOL!

:sweat::sweat:

 

[night86mare]

i think u guys should take a chill pill... dont argue already. the anger should be directed at Cleopatra.

let's paint this with a simpler example:

"the color of the chicken i have cooked is my primary concern."

versus

"the color of the chicken i have cooked is my primary concern because black chickens are ugly."

if i dispute whether the color of the chicken is relevant, i *could* agree that black chickens are ugly, but still, it should not warrant taking the color of the chicken being cooked into concern.... as it matters not whether the chicken you are eating is ugly or not. in both cases, i still would dispute that your point of primary concern is totally irrelevant in the first place!

it is that simple... but i guess sciolistic people will have trouble understanding this. :bsmilie:

the main reason why i dread people who throw the strawman retort on the internet, is that in all the cases i've seen, you just end up hurling it at each other. if you can clearly paint out accurately (which is not done in this case) how the strawman has been set up, fair and dandy. otherwise, just firing off "strawman! you have not read enough" is sloppy work at the very least.

 

[arctos]

Wreckless drivers are not confined to the rich group. I have been cycling for quite a number of years and notice those that drive luxurious cars and taxis have this higher tendency. If you draw a venn diagarm, maybe the common area would be " Time is Money" . :bsmilie:

I have seen equally reckless cyclists (and no, I'm not a driver). While cycling may be a better and healthier alternative mode of transport, I seriously feel that Singapore is not ready for it yet. The roads are too congested and the infrastructure and traffic rules are not in place. So to all the cyclists out there, please do champion for Sg rules to change by all means but do not cycle as though you have every right to be on the road - you are just putting unnecessary risks on yourselves and others.

Back to the case: the driver is also strange. Even if given the benefit of the doubt that circumstances really allowed her to believe she hit a fallen branch, why did she not stop her car to check? It should be pretty obvious that there's something caught under the car as the handling should feel quite different.

And hor, to those who are arguing... take a step back and go do something else for a change before it turns personal and ugly. Unless you are ALL able to continue arguing in a nice way.

 

[NMSS_2]

This case really got no help liao lah. This world is filled with idiotsyncrasy that it is not funny. Just a good look at the case and u know why. So straight forward and yet.... alas.


We are doomed!

 

[NMSS_2]

I have seen equally reckless cyclists (and no, I'm not a driver). While cycling may be a better and healthier alternative mode of transport, I seriously feel that Singapore is not ready for it yet. The roads are too congested and the infrastructure and traffic rules are not in place. So to all the cyclists out there, please do champion for Sg rules to change by all means but do not cycle as though you have every right to be on the road - you are just putting unnecessary risks on yourselves and others.

Cycling on the road with other vehicle users is a bad idea simply because
1) we are not cultured,
2) we dont give a hoot to others (most of the us),
3) we own the car and therefore we are king syndrome,
4) dont know how to drive a car despite passing
5) i only practise what is taught in driving school, not on the actual road
6) What have i knocked into? Is that a ghost? Let just drive on and hoped it will float away.
7) weird sense of thinking they are still right. whether it is due to raging hormones or wrong context
8) .....

The only safe way to cycle safely would be individualized lanes in roads or parks connections that is linked throughout the entire island. A number of countries are already practising this........ though they are given the luxury of having a bigger country.

Perhaps more ideas on how cyclists should be taxed for the gahment, then gahment would give a hoot or two for the cyclists to be given better rights of protection be it in law or infrastructure.

 

[night86mare]

This case really got no help liao lah. This world is filled with idiotsyncrasy that it is not funny. Just a good look at the case and u know why. So straight forward and yet.... alas.


We are doomed!

it's idiosyncrasies. :bsmilie:

yes, the world is full of idiosyncrasies, but that doesn't really lead to the eventual conclusion that it's doomed. :bsmilie:

did you look up the definition of the word? :bsmilie:

 

[night86mare]

Cycling on the road with other vehicle users is a bad idea simply because

here, this goes beyond cycling on the road with other vehicle users. the cyclist was also cycling in the middle of the road. i think anyone here who has driven in singapore would agree with me that that's a bad idea from anyone's point of view. :dunno:

 

[iMac08]

really.... i have seen cyclists coming from opposite direction of traffic and zooming out all of a sudden a couple of times while in a cab. and even with the light turn green for vehicle,they want to make a dash for it...most of the time..never mind if they are locals or foreigners...unless we are in the actual situation,it is hard to understand. recently i even see ppl cycling on the highway when vehicles are moving at high speed...is that even allow?

i have even seen a motorbike out of convenience,riding in opposite direction for at least 200m to get to a turn for him, and then there wwas a few near hit/miss...i am not saying the lexus driver is right and the person that got hit was wrong...but there are many possibilities.

there are bad drivers just like there are bad cyclist. some cyclist cycle like they think they are driving a tank,even if kanna hit also won't die......

 

[night86mare]

I have seen equally reckless cyclists (and no, I'm not a driver). While cycling may be a better and healthier alternative mode of transport, I seriously feel that Singapore is not ready for it yet. The roads are too congested and the infrastructure and traffic rules are not in place. So to all the cyclists out there, please do champion for Sg rules to change by all means but do not cycle as though you have every right to be on the road - you are just putting unnecessary risks on yourselves and others.

Back to the case: the driver is also strange. Even if given the benefit of the doubt that circumstances really allowed her to believe she hit a fallen branch, why did she not stop her car to check? It should be pretty obvious that there's something caught under the car as the handling should feel quite different.

And hor, to those who are arguing... take a step back and go do something else for a change before it turns personal and ugly. Unless you are ALL able to continue arguing in a nice way.

strawman argument!

you have not read anything i have written properly. :bsmilie::angel:

 

[arctos]

strawman argument!

What argument? I got argue meh? :dunno::bsmilie:

 

[arctos]

there are bad drivers just like there are bad cyclist. some cyclist cycle like they think they are driving a tank,even if kanna hit also won't die......

Agreed. I have nearly gotten knocked over by a cyclist who chose to squeeze between the bus and the curb when alighting, as well as nearly falling over because the bus had to brake hard to avoid the cyclist who zip across traffic junctions. At the end of the day, it's all about consideration for others in the way one drives/rides/cycles.