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


Rashkae

Senior Member
Nov 28, 2005
19,105
12
0
#2
Thank goodness the cyclist was not seriously injured/killed. However:

" It was apparent the cyclist unfortunately cycled in the middle of the road without appreciating the risks he was taking against all the lurking dangers he could encounter"
 

Jan 19, 2005
554
0
0
Singapore
#4
Actually, she shouldn't be penalised at all, since she is a lady driver and that's how typically a woman driver drives. She should be acquited under the Woman Charter! :p

This is not the first time already, I rememberd a few years ago when a lady driver was rushing to fetch her husband from Changi Airport, she knocked down someone and dragged him to death. She didn't even realised it till police turned up at her home hours later!

Just last week, there's another lady driver who was travelling at 10-20kmh, can even knocked an killed a garderner who was pruning beside the road.

I think this one takes the cake: the lady driver reversed parked in an open space carpark, accelerated, panicked, and killed a man who was seated on the bench at a nearby basketball court, and dragged him to death.

What can I say? They are spectacular drivers!!!
 

alantkh

Deregistered
Jun 16, 2009
786
0
0
42
#5
Thank goodness the cyclist was not seriously injured/killed. However:

" It was apparent the cyclist unfortunately cycled in the middle of the road without appreciating the risks he was taking against all the lurking dangers he could encounter"
that is not a fact of the case. I don't understand how can the Judge state that and use it a mitigation? Is it correct? not a lawyer here.

"The Statement of Facts however did not disclose in which lane of Holland Road the Accused and the victim were traveling on prior to the accident. I noted that in her mitigation, it was the Accused’s position that she was traveling in the middle lane and in response the prosecution stated that according to the victim, he was traveling on the double yellow line."

I think the prosecution was too relaxed... Look at the facts. Lady driver coming home from Zouk at 5am.... hit a cyclist on her WINDSCREEN.... drove off draggin the bicycle for 2km without reporting and rendering assistance.... If you are not drunk or scared that you hit a person, why would you not stop your car after DRAGGING a frigging bicycle for 2km until it got dislodged....

If this is not a case for hit and run.... must we have like 10 witness before we can convict something? prosecution probably thought the case was a slam dunk so never do anything...
 

Last edited:

sbs99

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 17, 2002
2,024
0
0
#6
It's strange how can someone would drive on, even if it's really a branch hitting the car. Normal driver would slow down, stop, come out to take a look at the damage, but she drove on. :dunno:

And it was mentioned the cyclist was cycling in the middle of the road (which is wrong also lah), Very strange...what was she doing not to pay attention? :bsmilie:

She didnt see the cyclist in the middle of the road, in front of her? Went zouk, was she drunk? or at 5am...she was really very tired...did the tree canopy block out the street lamps so she can't see clearly? Her Lexus's headlights wasn't switched on? All just speculations... lucky the accident wasn't fatal.

a peculiar case of hit and run, cyclist probably called the cops on her. :sweatsm:
 

alantkh

Deregistered
Jun 16, 2009
786
0
0
42
#7
And it was mentioned the cyclist was cycling in the middle of the road (which is wrong also lah), Very strange...what was she doing not to pay attention? :bsmilie:
It is NOT A FACT that the cyclist was on the middle lane.
 

Nov 17, 2005
400
1
18
53
Jurong West
#9
Question: 1) How come she did not notice its a cyclist that struck her windscreen and not a branch??? Puzzling!!! At that speed, she must have been quite sleepy not to see and know the difference.

2) Why did she not stop the car and alight to check, there were not much traffic then I presume at that hour? Laziness or Arrogant that she is so sure that she is right that its a tree branch that she hit!!!

3)Dragging a bicycle underneath the car, its strange!, the car must have been going through a very bumpy ride after the incident at least for a while? What kind of driver is she, common sense will prevail that she needs to stop to check!!! Couldnt be bother metality.

4) Whether the cyclist is endangering himself by cycling in the center of the road is not an excuse for the driver.

She is very lucky to get away with just a fine.
 

2evans

New Member
Nov 8, 2007
1,862
0
0
#10
Did the bicycle have any reflective markings or lights?
 

Jan 8, 2009
151
0
0
#11
my guess is whoever reported the case did not have a high-res photo or video taken of her car dragging the bicycle. ;p

well that was what the police asked from me when I tried to report a case months ago. like i will be able to snap a photo of the person trying to run me over and run for my life at the same time. :dunno:
 

mohgui

Senior Member
Jan 31, 2005
1,294
0
0
La La Land
#12
all i can say is the driver panicked and don't know what to do but just to drive on and hopefully get away with it.

btw, what has this mitigation; The Accused is still breast-feeding her son. got to do with anything? :dunno:

you mean to say that while still breast-feeding, you can get a 'Get Out of Jail Free' card?

oh... and i like her name... Cleopatra... lol
 

Sispecho

New Member
Sep 11, 2006
451
0
0
Clementi
#13
my guess is whoever reported the case did not have a high-res photo or video taken of her car dragging the bicycle. ;p

well that was what the police asked from me when I tried to report a case months ago. like i will be able to snap a photo of the person trying to run me over and run for my life at the same time. :dunno:
Hurray for the police, i feel so much safer already.
 

Jan 19, 2005
554
0
0
Singapore
#14
all i can say is the driver panicked and don't know what to do but just to drive on and hopefully get away with it.

btw, what has this mitigation; The Accused is still breast-feeding her son. got to do with anything? :dunno:

you mean to say that while still breast-feeding, you can get a 'Get Out of Jail Free' card?

oh... and i like her name... Cleopatra... lol
Actually, all she has to do, is to enter the following statement in a mitigation plea:

"Your honour, I'm your typical woman driver.";p
 

Limsgp

New Member
Dec 16, 2005
1,128
0
0
Singapore, Bedok
#15
If cycling on the double yellow line, the cyclist isn't wrong.

If cycling in the middle of the road, the driver has no excuse for not seeing him.

Either way, there is no excuse for the driver to hit the cyclist..

Just paying a fine seems too light a sentence..
 

Jul 26, 2002
1,376
0
0
Woodlands
#16
Wow...Hit someone hard enough to crack your windscreen, claim to be a tree branch, failure to render assistance and all she got was a 2.4K fine and a 1 year ban? That's just insane. How can the judge actually think that there is less culpability in this case!? Absolute nonsense.
 

Sep 26, 2003
177
0
16
#17
Damn, that is really bs that she don't know what hit the windscreen! If someone is so blur (cant even differentiate between a branch and a person) then they shouldn't be allowed on the roads, should be ban for life. The disgusting thing is that she left the injured person and drive on, that is inhumane.
 

Last edited:
Jan 8, 2009
151
0
0
#18
even Christopher Lee got jailed for hit and run.
 

kwttan

New Member
Jan 8, 2010
845
0
0
Concrete jungle
#19
So the accused is an ex- teacher. Lucky for her, the victim sidi not die, else she can enjoy the special recipe curry rice in changi prison :sweat:
 

alantkh

Deregistered
Jun 16, 2009
786
0
0
42
#20
So the accused is an ex- teacher. Lucky for her, the victim sidi not die, else she can enjoy the special recipe curry rice in changi prison :sweat:
I don't understand why whether a person die or not die affects the sentence.

Frankly, I don't think it is wrong to hit someone accidentally. But to drive off without rendering aid is INEXCUSABLE.

And for the judge to allow stupid bullshit like thinking it was a tree branch, just gives the impression that people can get away scott free provided there is no witnesses.

The mitgation factors like tree canopy is really laughable. Common, most accidents occur when there are visibility problems right. If everyone say, sorry cannot see clearly, think it is a tree branch and just drive off, what will singapore roads become??? I mean if you are not sure, isn't all the MORE important to stop and check? how can this even be a mitagation factor???????

I still find it unbelievable the verdict.
 

Last edited:
Top Bottom