When will jaywalkers ever learn?

vaylon wrote:

Do you know that under the employment act, as long as you are below 21, whatever contract you sign, you won't be liable for it. However, you are still able to use it against the company for any damages they caused to you.

Why is it so? Why is it that when you are below 21, you are entitle to this? As you are below that age, you are not on the clear mind when you sign it. Correct me if I am wrong. As for a 5 year old. Why should she be blame when she doing a right thing? In law, it is wrong to jaywalk, but in the eye of the 5 year old, it maybe common to jaywalk. She is too young to judge and know what is right and wrong. Putting the blame on her is ridiculous. Do you even call yourself an adult for blaming a child? This is Singapore, we are a developed country, do we have to have the FIVE YEAR OLD girl held responsible for a mistake of a TWENTY SEVEN YEAR OLD or we share it between both of them? The dead will never come alive, but does it mean that we can put the blame on her? The guy should get the maximum punishment without any leniency.

What? You are comparing contracting under the Employment Act with risks under jaywalking??

And, who said anything about putting the blame on her? I would certainly discourage you from drawing such conclusions as they seem rather far-reaching.

To be clear, I'm not saying that it's the child's fault. What I'm saying is that there are many other factors which had resulted in the accident including the grandfather, the lack of proper barricades etc. Certainly, the driver is to blame too if he was going faster than allowed.

vaylon wrote:

Let me put it this way in my own view (it is just an assumption base on what I read), the child is leading way for his grandpa. She look left and right to ensure it is safe to walk, then she look back at her grandpa to tell him to faster. She cross the road, as she walk she turn back and look at her grandpa again, just when she was going to call him to faster. The car knock her down.

That's a big assumption to make. I didn't get that from the news article. Perhaps you read it somewhere else but I think based on that article alone, it doesn't say anything about who was leading who. Regardless, as a grandfather (i.e. someone who is older), wouldn't you discourage your grandchild from jaywalking realizing the risks involved? Particularly if there's a young child and an elderly man involved.

vaylon wrote:

As for the driver, he could have saw the girl walking from far away. As a driver, he judge that the girl will be on the other side by the time she crossed, so he didn't reduce his speed. He never know that a little girl do not walk so fast neither did he know that she was leading her grandpa. By the time the girl reduce her speed and look at her grandpa, the driver couldn't stop in time. The tragic happen.

Again, another assumption. Unless it happened before your eyes or know more about this matter than I do, how do you know that he could have seen the girl walking from far away? She may have stepped out from a blind corner, she may have tried to run across etc. There were many possibilities. I wouldn't jump to conclusions.

vaylon wrote:

Well it is just an assumption. Why did the girl look left and right? From our Kindergarten, we are told that when WE CROSS THE STREET WE LOOK LEFT AND RIGHT. Why did she look behind, her grandpa is behind, naturally she will look behind before crossing.. The delay in it before she cross, and the delay of her slowing her pace on the road to look back on her grandpa add on that delay.

Another assumption based on an earlier assumption. I'm not saying that you're wrong but what's the basis for saying that her grandfather was behind her? Was this in the article?

vaylon wrote:

So if all are true, then the driver will have miscalculate about his car will not hit on her in that speed, causing him not to slow down. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE GIRL WILL RUN ACROSS THE ROAD. Why? If you are leading way for people behind you who are slower, you need not run and while crossing, also to ensure the safety of the one behind you, you sure will look out for traffic..

I think you should stress your "if" since it's a pretty big one. Again, did you get more from the article than I did? Or did you get these facts from a different article?

vaylon wrote:

If she did all precaution, why is she been knock down? I guess is the delays I mention to cause her to have not notice the speeding car, plus the driver didn't even slow down from far away despite seeing her on the road.. However what is truth will be judge by the court and not by me.. I hope I don't get anything from speaking my mind.

What's the key word here, folks? Say it with me now... "Aaaa... summppp... tion"

vaylon wrote:

As a Singaporean and a 23 year old. I feel totally disgrace if someone tell me that under the jurisdiction of Singapore Law, we put the blame on a 5 years old child instead of harshly punishing a 27 year old who is speeding.. This is a road with many traffic, not a highway for him to test his Subaru Impreza. I wonder if he even stop when the traffic light is red.

Again, who here is blaming a 5 year old? I don't think anyone is.

My point is that there are many factors involved in this (or any) accident for that matter. It's never easy to fault anyone specifically. As such, I try to be careful not to allocate blame without basis. I will say that I do agree with you in that if the country faults the girl alone, then it's a terrible thing to do and I would be embarrassed to. However, I doubt we'll see that. If anything, the driver is usually to blame BUT the reasons for such blame should go beyond pure assumptions.

Techno's in Da HOUSE!!!!!

The driver would certainly be at fault for speeding if proven and failure to keep a proper lookout. If the newspaper article which quoted motorists saying that the driver os weaving in and out, he would be charged with additional inconsiderate driving and/or reckless driving.

Apportioning fault would be more of compensation. If it is proven that the girl is jaywalking, the family would get less but i don't think they really care that much now.

Birdman wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong TS since ur the lawyer here.

I don't think it's really a matter of blaming the little girl, it's about setting a precedent in terms of the law, which is pretty much black n white. In the eyes of the law, wrong is wrong, no exceptions, no morality issues. I think we all know that especially in this little red dot.

Judges n lawyers look to past cases for precedence, refering back to them and arguing that "see, this was the judegement in this case, as such in our case...." so to mantain the integrity of the how the original law was set out and not to veer from it over time, it's interpreted as strictly to the letter as possible, if not, with every different little exception to the rule, you'll find that suddenly, the law orginally set out becomes so different to what it has eventually become. Like how threads morph into totally different topics here in GR.

The little girl is seen as just a pedestrian, nothing more. Cos if not, then over time (decades or centuries perhaps), all blame will fall on purely drivers, leaving pedestrians to jaywalk as they please causing further havoc on the roads.

Please excuse my very simplistic view of way of putting it across. JMHO!

BM, you are quite right.

It's often about following precedents but I will say that there's a trend these days for judges to be very strict against drivers. I may be mistaken but the number of road accidents being reported of late has increased. I guess it's a combination of many factors - perhaps people are more stressed (times are bad) and drive faster, perhaps people are more worried (times are bad *2) and are less focused, perhaps people are less patient and end up taking short cuts. Lots of various reasons. Whichever the case, accidents seem to be on the rise.

It is easy to fault drivers as they have a responsibility to drive carefully and they should too. Pedestrians are aplenty and knowing how things work here, drivers should be careful when negotiating the car on the road. Certainly, speeding is a big no-no.

Back to topic, let's not assume that the girl is to blame (or even to be partly blamed). What we do know is that a life has been lost, and frankly there was no reason for this to have happened. What we should all take away from this matter is that as a pedestrian, we are unprotected. Short cuts should be avoided. A simple gamble can be very taxing.

Likewise, for those of us who are drivers, please please please take care when driving. There's no sense in speeding. A few minutes saved may end up costing someone their life. It's simply not worth it.

2 cents, and then some.. so it seems.

TS

Nah it is with the topic.. When will the jaywalker learn? It is like saying the fault is on the little girl. If you look at the accident as driver and pedestrian then it does not involve age. As for employment act, I mention is to say that if age is not a concern in law, then there won't be a protection for age 21 and below..

Well I am not a lawyer nor a law student. I do not know much about law. But I do know that most of us are adult here. A little girl has die in an accident. The assumption I made has nothing to do with the fact. Like you said aaa summm ption.. Just personnel view, nothing more.. There are no right nor wrong in individual view.. I did say from what I read, not an assumption base on fact, but assumption from the information I read. In short, a baseless assumption.

"Again, who here is blaming a 5 year old? I don't think anyone is." Mentioning that both party are at fault already mean that the 5 year old is at fault too. Isn't it so? Or you mean that both are at wrong so no one is at fault and no one is to be blamed?

Lastly, is there really no one blaming on the girl by stating both at fault?

Vaylon, I like you - relentless with your points. Fight for what you believe in, it's a good attribute

The topic isn't meant to fault the girl. It's meant to say that pedestrians should not be taking short cuts by jaywalking. Jaywalking is dangerous. This matter proves the point but is not meant to fault the girl.

I assume that you believe 110% that the girl (or any jaywalker for that matter) is totally free from fault. On this point, let's agree to disagree, ok?

Peace

vaylon wrote:

Lastly, is there really no one blaming on the girl by stating both at fault?

5 years old kid. She has her own mind - barely. She'll follow the daily habit I believe.
If the parents/grandparents teach her strictly that she has to use the crossing instead of jaywalking - will that happen ? Will she understand that jaywalking is dangerous ? I believe so.

I believe that can be teached from early age.

I will NEVER EVER jaywalk when my son is with me.

daveaha wrote:

vaylon wrote:

Lastly, is there really no one blaming on the girl by stating both at fault?

5 years old kid. She has her own mind - barely. She'll follow the daily habit I believe.
If the parents/grandparents teach her strictly that she has to use the crossing instead of jaywalking - will that happen ? Will she understand that jaywalking is dangerous ? I believe so.

I believe that can be teached from early age.

I will NEVER EVER jaywalk when my son is with me.

Hear hear!

Technospaz wrote:

Birdman wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong TS since ur the lawyer here.

I don't think it's really a matter of blaming the little girl, it's about setting a precedent in terms of the law, which is pretty much black n white. In the eyes of the law, wrong is wrong, no exceptions, no morality issues. I think we all know that especially in this little red dot.

Judges n lawyers look to past cases for precedence, refering back to them and arguing that "see, this was the judegement in this case, as such in our case...." so to mantain the integrity of the how the original law was set out and not to veer from it over time, it's interpreted as strictly to the letter as possible, if not, with every different little exception to the rule, you'll find that suddenly, the law orginally set out becomes so different to what it has eventually become. Like how threads morph into totally different topics here in GR.

The little girl is seen as just a pedestrian, nothing more. Cos if not, then over time (decades or centuries perhaps), all blame will fall on purely drivers, leaving pedestrians to jaywalk as they please causing further havoc on the roads.

Please excuse my very simplistic view of way of putting it across. JMHO!

BM, you are quite right.

It's often about following precedents but I will say that there's a trend these days for judges to be very strict against drivers. I may be mistaken but the number of road accidents being reported of late has increased. I guess it's a combination of many factors - perhaps people are more stressed (times are bad) and drive faster, perhaps people are more worried (times are bad *2) and are less focused, perhaps people are less patient and end up taking short cuts. Lots of various reasons. Whichever the case, accidents seem to be on the rise.

It is easy to fault drivers as they have a responsibility to drive carefully and they should too. Pedestrians are aplenty and knowing how things work here, drivers should be careful when negotiating the car on the road. Certainly, speeding is a big no-no.

Back to topic, let's not assume that the girl is to blame (or even to be partly blamed). What we do know is that a life has been lost, and frankly there was no reason for this to have happened. What we should all take away from this matter is that as a pedestrian, we are unprotected. Short cuts should be avoided. A simple gamble can be very taxing.

Likewise, for those of us who are drivers, please please please take care when driving. There's no sense in speeding. A few minutes saved may end up costing someone their life. It's simply not worth it.

2 cents, and then some.. so it seems.

TS

hehe you are right here. Hope you do not take to heart. I just read too much from the STOMP. There are some saying that the China grandpa do not know Singapore road. Well I am not a golfer so perhaps i should refrain from posting here. Sorry for all the rubbish I been talking about. Just feel that some Singaporean can rub salt on other wound because it does not involve them. People deserve the consequences because he/she did a wrong thing, even if he die, serve him right attitude.

Just feel pity that such a young girl lost her life. Even so, there are people who are talking bad about her. So make my posts. Real sorry if I offend any of you. Nice reading your comments and thanks for replying. Forgive my grammar =(

Vaylon, please do not apologize for your grammar. I think you articulated your points well and I'm happy to see that you're visiting the Golf Republic even if you don't play golf. Welcome, my friend

Your posts are not rubbish, bro. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

I feel horrible to see a small girl lose her life like this. This is especially painful for me as I'm expecting my first child very soon and I can feel all the anticipation a parent-to-be feels and I feel awful just thinking how bad the parents must feel knowing that their little baby is gone. It breaks my heart.

Lastly, no offence, my friend. Glad to have you visit us and keep doing so.

As for golf... do consider the sport. It's a lot less risky than jaywalking and very enjoyable

i think everyone can feel their pain.

This is just a very sad case. It is even more sad as there are many who do not learn from others' mistakes. Those reckless drivers and those persistent jaywalkers.

Sigh....

btw, welcome here! I am quite surprised to see a non-golfer here. Do take up this sport! we would all love to have one additional golfing kaki.

ya but I may need to be careful with the golf ball flying around. Hope it does not speed so fast that may take my life away hehe. Anyway, I have some encounter with people speeding with their posh car, which I see those lower end driver drive safely.

One example, is when crossing zebra crossing. In basic theory, there already stated that if the road ahead have zebra crossing you are to slow down. Well for my case, the driver is driving at least 80km/hr and above. If I didn't stop, I may not be so lucky to post here. 80km/hr is not fast but just enough to send you flying.

It is around Enous area, some distant away from the MRT. When someone crossing zebra crossing or traffic light, it is best to look out first. Don't think it hurt them even if they run you down, maybe it is painful when sending their new posh car for repair. But guess most of the reader are driver, judging from the comment hehe. Please drive slower but do not cripple the flow of traffic T__T

FYI everybody,

The location of the accident is polluted with jaywalker. With bus-stop on both side and a shopping plaza it just one accident waiting to happen. I feel sad to know of the accident.

I believe the driver has no local knowledge on the area and was speeding, with the same breath that area has high volume of jay walker and with mature plants flaking the central divider its really hard for any driver to reacti until its too late.

Peace

any zebra crossing or traffic lights nearby?

my observation some very bad habits of pedestrian
1) smsing or on the HP when crossing the road as though it part of the footpath, never stop to look.
2) this one really piss me off, parents pushing their baby prams out onto the road a bit to see if the car stop, before starting to cross. perhaps many dont realise they are doing it but so many times when they stop, the baby pram is almost 1/2 way on the road.
3) walking out onto the road with their hands up, expecting the driver to stop, when the approaching car has not stopped yet. This is really dangerous!!!!
4) standing in front of the zebra crossing with no intention to cross.
5) run towards and across or ride their bicycles towards and across fast, many times the driver will not see them until too late.

Hey Missmoon,

There is a traffic junction about 100m away and an overhead bridge right outside the mall.

The central divider house the pillars of the LRT system.

With the cover of the night plus the car speed = no chance even for an adult.

cheers