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

[night86mare]

I just hope that something gets done so that the public will not be under the FALSE impression that Lexus drivers and people living in 28 Ming Teck Road gets away with hit and run with a ...... $2500 fine.

so this is your issue lor...

but are you saying that if a suzuki driver living on pulau ubin gets the same treatment you will be less outraged? then there is something wrong with your sense of objectivity.

need to harp on where the person come from, where they live, what car they drive... frankly speaking... at the end of the day, the cyclist was dragged, the person can claim what they want to claim. don't think the car the person was driving makes a difference.

 

[night86mare]

next up in clubsnap hot news:

"community outraged that nikon d3 user gets away with fine after molesting model during photoshoot."

do you really think most of the comments would centre around how the d3 user is a spoilt brat and how all d3 users tend to be high-handed stuck-up people? :bsmilie:

or does it matter? if the person uses a pentax k100d, a nikon compact, or a leaf MF digital back, the action is what matters.

frankly speaking, this is my point - it 's not that the person has done nothing wrong, it is the fact that unnecessary attention is being paid to a detail which means nothing, if one is objective. do we really want singapore to become a place renowned for having people attack totally unrelated points to show their unhappiness with others aspects of life and apply reasoning beyond what is factual to derive ridiculous, illogical conclusions to stereotype others?

 

[NMSS_2]

actually if you did read the case transcript you will find that the make of the car, Lexus, is material to the defence case as one of the arguements was that the EXCELLENT soundproofing of the Lexus has muffled the sounds of the bicycle causing the driver to ignore the fact that she hit a cyclist, shattered her window, dragged the bicycle for 2km.

Common, the verdict is sooooo ridiculously light and the defence of the accused so unbelievable that EVERYONE who reads it is shocked. Why is our legal system like that?

I just hope that something gets done so that the public will not be under the FALSE impression that Lexus drivers and people living in 28 Ming Teck Road gets away with hit and run with a ...... $2500 fine.

so this is your issue lor...

but are you saying that if a suzuki driver living on pulau ubin gets the same treatment you will be less outraged? then there is something wrong with your sense of objectivity.

need to harp on where the person come from, where they live, what car they drive... frankly speaking... at the end of the day, the cyclist was dragged, the person can claim what they want to claim. don't think the car the person was driving makes a difference.

I think you need to read his whole quote instead of selective reading and quotation. :sweat:
Stop hitting the strawman and claim victory.

 

[night86mare]

I think you need to read his whole quote instead of selective reading and quotation. :sweat:
Stop hitting the strawman and claim victory.

i think you need to read every single post i posted, including the one about soundproofing not being unique to lexus cars.

motoring forums are full of people asking about how to soundproof their cars.

please apply your own advice to your own kind self about reading selectively. :bsmilie::bsmilie:

and just because it's singapore,

(a) i do not drive any car
(b) i do not have any family member driving a lexus
(c) none of the stray cats i know drives a lexus
(d) in fact, no one in my life drives a lexus, unless i do not know what car they drive

and just for clarification, i think that yes, it is indeed quite something that has been reported, but i would not bring in things like "this person drives a lexus, so must be spoilt brat" to cloud my feelings about the issue. as far as i'm concerned, anyone with any car can make such claims. if people choose to see otherwise, then i guess i'm wasting my breath.

i'm out of here.

p.s. just a personal opinion, any person i've met who waves the strawman retort around tends to be a person i don't want to bother arguing with.

 

[commonjunks]

A very disappointing sentence but what can we do, can we challenge it?

I have read countless cases when rich ppl get away with lighter sentence (coz maybe they have donated to charities and good citizen or maybe hired lawyer who can speak lies from their nose).
Once i did cross red light camera (it is was totally un-intentional) and when i appear in-front of traffic police, she never even bother to listen what i was saying and just ask me to pay. Maybe i should have just said a branch was there and i was not able to see traffic light :think:.

Everyday i see a number of FW cycling or walking at AYE, i always try to keep my eyes peeled and made sure that i keep my distance from them.

I suspect she was drunk, if a person feel sleep behind wheel a loud bang can easily wake him/her but in this case she drag bicycle for 2km with out noticing any thing in her back/side mirrors?

A person who can afford Lexus, do you think he/she will feel any pinch paying 2.5k (it was just a simple joke).

 

[pokiemon]

food for thought: could it be seen someone driving a lexus and staying in ming teck park can afford (or even afford) a better lawyer to defend the case? :think:

 

[Janrac]

Dear Alen:

Maybe you should not get too upset or too dishearten with our legal system. As I read it, the Judge is being fair, but the main problem lies with the prosecutor. This case is most likely to be settled out of the court and it is going to be a Win-Win situation. I have no wish to elaborate on this point.
Lets read the case this way:
A rich girl driving a Lexus, knocked over a cyclist (presumably a poor guy). There are just too many argument points which the prosecutor simply let up and allow the defendance to use those factors to alleviate the case from dangerous driving to inconsiderate driving. It is mentioned several times in the file that the prosecutor did not challenge those contention points. I hope it will shed some light on this type of case.

1) "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."
2) “It was highlighted in her plea in mitigation and not disputed by the prosecution, that there was a canopy of trees along the stretch of road where she had been travelling.
3) "She assumed it must be a rotten branch that had fallen on her windscreen. The window was cracked or shattered from the impact. I noted that this assumption by the Accused on the cause of the impact was not challenged by the prosecution."
4) Nevertheless, it was not entirely clear whether the injuries suffered by the victim had caused him to be ‘during a period of 7 days in severe bodily pain or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits’.

 

[NMSS_2]

i think you need to read every single post i posted, including the one about soundproofing not being unique to lexus cars.

motoring forums are full of people asking about how to soundproof their cars.

So based your definition, all cars should have excellent soundproofing qualities and then should getaway with hit-and-run with that as mitigating factor? Or sound proofing should never be used as a mitigating factor simply because most cars would have it?

How about telling the judge that? Seriously, i dont know what to expect from your post...... whether you are defending the judge or you are against the posters who are disgusted with some of the nonsensical mitigating factors.

but i would not bring in things like "this person drives a lexus, so must be spoilt brat" to cloud my feelings about the issue. as far as i'm concerned, anyone with any car can make such claims. if people choose to see otherwise, then i guess i'm wasting my breath.

p.s. just a personal opinion, any person i've met who waves the strawman retort around tends to be a person i don't want to bother arguing with.

You dont seems to know what he is talking about when you quote his statement. Never was "spoilt brat" being stated by him so what is the point of quoting that? Never was that relationship being established by him.

ps. stirring my kopi now. :embrass:

 

[night86mare]

So based your definition, all cars should have excellent soundproofing qualities and then should getaway with hit-and-run with that as mitigating factor? Or sound proofing should never be used as a mitigating factor simply because most cars would have it?

the fact that you are even saying whatever i have quoted reflects that you had not read whatever i have been saying. either that or you are just commenting for the sake of commenting.

well, or you don't "seems to know what i am talking about" :bheart:

just for the sake of clarification, once again i repeat myself for the last time:

(1) it does not matter if the car is made by lexus to have the defendant make a claim of soundproofing. this is what alankhtwhatever seems to believe. he claimed that "lexus" was relevant to the case because of the soundproofing. this suggests that soundproofing is unique to lexus cars. obviously this is not the case.

(2) all my points are made based on my opinion that "lexus" is irrelevant to the entire case, save for the fact that the person was indeed driving a lexus. you could just as easily replace "lexus" with "suzuki", "kia", "hyundai" and if the proposition by the defendant sounds ridiculous to you, it sounds ridiculous and that is your point of view and you're entitled to it. however, there is no reason why anyone should make more noise about this case simply because a lexus was involved, unless they aren't being objective. if a driver can drag a cyclist for 2 km, claim that they thought they had hit a branch, i think the car brand really shouldn't matter, should it?

(3) i am merely making a point about the point in (2). if you can't understand this, and seek to extend or extrapolate this to mean that i support the judge's decision, or disagree with people making statements about branches, cars and what-not, then that's your very own (mis)interpretation and please do not carry on with such a folly. i had not made clear any stand on this incident, and i'm not going to bother doing so.

 

[alantkh]

and lexus is the only car with soundproofing... oh my. :bsmilie:

time to google "suzuki soundproofing", "toyota soundproofing", and you'll quickly realise that soundproofing can actually be installed and the claims are not unique to lexus owners.

?? who said lexus is the only car with soundproofing? do you drive? if you do, you know that cars come with different levels of soundproofing. (just like a k-5 has higher levels of raw NR than a D700 )

Common, even the lawyer thinks that the make of the car is material to the case as they put it in the transcript.

"The vehicle is a 3000 cc Lexus with good soundproofing which belonged to her father"

PS: they did not put the make of the bicycle in the transcript....

 

[alantkh]

What do you mean my "settled out of the court" and a "win-win" situtation? If it means that the driver privately pays some compensation to the injured and thus gets away with a slap of the wrist, then I would consider that situation "win-win-lose" . The loser is the public.

How can I not be dishearten by our legal system if that is the case? What sort of deterrent can I expect from the law if that is the case?

Dear Alen:

Maybe you should not get too upset or too dishearten with our legal system. As I read it, the Judge is being fair, but the main problem lies with the prosecutor. This case is most likely to be settled out of the court and it is going to be a Win-Win situation. I have no wish to elaborate on this point.
Lets read the case this way:
A rich girl driving a Lexus, knocked over a cyclist (presumably a poor guy). There are just too many argument points which the prosecutor simply let up and allow the defendance to use those factors to alleviate the case from dangerous driving to inconsiderate driving. It is mentioned several times in the file that the prosecutor did not challenge those contention points. I hope it will shed some light on this type of case.

1) "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."
2) “It was highlighted in her plea in mitigation and not disputed by the prosecution, that there was a canopy of trees along the stretch of road where she had been travelling.
3) "She assumed it must be a rotten branch that had fallen on her windscreen. The window was cracked or shattered from the impact. I noted that this assumption by the Accused on the cause of the impact was not challenged by the prosecution."
4) Nevertheless, it was not entirely clear whether the injuries suffered by the victim had caused him to be ‘during a period of 7 days in severe bodily pain or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits’.

 

[alantkh]

so this is your issue lor...

but are you saying that if a suzuki driver living on pulau ubin gets the same treatment you will be less outraged? then there is something wrong with your sense of objectivity.

need to harp on where the person come from, where they live, what car they drive... frankly speaking... at the end of the day, the cyclist was dragged, the person can claim what they want to claim. don't think the car the person was driving makes a difference.

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?

 

[mookie]

lexus has a new marketing strategy....

imagine an advert the world is having war outside, and the driver inside the car is listening to music (best if there's a baby sleeping soundly)

 

[jopel]

Protecting the rich is only right cos they contribute to the economy, this is an universal norm - Alleged hit-and-run driver may not face felony

It could be the judge really see cyclists as nuisance on the road.

 

[mookie]

Protecting the rich is only right cos they contribute to the economy, this is an universal norm - Alleged hit-and-run driver may not face felony

It could be the judge really see cyclists as nuisance on the road.

wah this kind of bull**** can actually happen....

 

[fotoudavid]

Protecting the rich is only right cos they contribute to the economy, this is an universal norm - Alleged hit-and-run driver may not face felony

It could be the judge really see cyclists as nuisance on the road.

like that also have, the world really dying........ from responsibilities....

 

[mookie]

at least one community (slowtwitch) in the states is trying to petition against that ruling...

 

[yqt]

The law is fair, but lawyers are not.
The more money you pay the better the lawyer.
The better your lawyer, the better your chances.

 

[NMSS_2]

the fact that you are even saying whatever i have quoted reflects that you had not read whatever i have been saying. either that or you are just commenting for the sake of commenting.

well, or you don't "seems to know what i am talking about" :bheart:

just for the sake of clarification, once again i repeat myself for the last time:

(1) it does not matter if the car is made by lexus to have the defendant make a claim of soundproofing. this is what alankhtwhatever seems to believe. he claimed that "lexus" was relevant to the case because of the soundproofing. this suggests that soundproofing is unique to lexus cars. obviously this is not the case.

(2) all my points are made based on my opinion that "lexus" is irrelevant to the entire case, save for the fact that the person was indeed driving a lexus. you could just as easily replace "lexus" with "suzuki", "kia", "hyundai" and if the proposition by the defendant sounds ridiculous to you, it sounds ridiculous and that is your point of view and you're entitled to it. however, there is no reason why anyone should make more noise about this case simply because a lexus was involved, unless they aren't being objective. if a driver can drag a cyclist for 2 km, claim that they thought they had hit a branch, i think the car brand really shouldn't matter, should it?

(3) i am merely making a point about the point in (2). if you can't understand this, and seek to extend or extrapolate this to mean that i support the judge's decision, or disagree with people making statements about branches, cars and what-not, then that's your very own (mis)interpretation and please do not carry on with such a folly. i had not made clear any stand on this incident, and i'm not going to bother doing so.

Thanks for reinstating my point and yes, you are hitting the same straw man again!

Never did lexus the brand was used to wave off as mitigating factor but lexus with its excellent soundproofing was used (post 58). But you harped on lexus brand, hitting the straw man again and again (post 61), claiming victory.

My point now is still the same as post 63. Read his whole quote instead of selective reading and quotation. What is the purpose of attacking a point that he never even mentioned?

 

[night86mare]

Thanks for reinstating my point and yes, you are hitting the same straw man again!

Never did lexus the brand was used to wave off as mitigating factor but lexus with its excellent soundproofing was used (post 58). But you harped on lexus brand, hitting the straw man again and again (post 61), claiming victory.

My point now is still the same as post 63. Read his whole quote instead of selective reading and quotation. What is the purpose of attacking a point that he never even mentioned?

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:

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?

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.

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.

alternatively, you can try to re-establish a proper psychic connection with alankth before you speak for him next time. have a nice day, and i am not going to participate in this circus-like exchange, more for your sake than mine. :bsmilie: