WTF LTA !!! cyclist hurt by stupid device
-
Look, i think you are missing the point here. Yes, there is nothing wrong with trying to make cyclists dismount, or at least slow down, in the interests of the safety of all users of the bridge.Originally posted by Bloop...:The point is? I know what happened. I know the condition he is in. I do feel sorry for him and his family.
That still does not change the fact that he was cycling on the bridge when he was not supposed to.
He admits (or someone did on his behalf) that he has been cycling on that bridge for quite sometime.
I use that bridge myself regularly and have been hit by a cyclist more than once. But as long as its was the pedestrian on foot that got hurt and not the cyclist, they keep on cycling on the bridge.
It has been made known from way back that they are to get off their bicycles and push it across. Do they care? No, they don't. As long as they feel they can get away with it, regardless of how they put others at risk/inconvenience, they'll keep doing it.
How fast was this guy going that he could get that badly hurt? What if he had hit someone instead of that barrier?
What is objectionable here, however, is that the device is of such a design as to be likely to be deadly to cyclists. It does not take a genius (i hope- i might be overestimating my fellow humans here) to figure out that:
1) Cyclists are likely to be approaching the barrier at great speed since the barrier is located at the foot of a ramp, and
2) Said cyclists might be unable to avoid the barrier and be struck in the head or upper torso while cycling though the barrier, and
3) that being struck in those areas would likely result in severe injuries.
Are we going to be deploying anti-personnel minefields on all public roads next? -
why are the cyclists likely to be approaching the barrier at a great speed when they are suppose to dismount and push ur bicycle???Originally posted by lwflee:1) Cyclists are likely to be approaching the barrier at great speed since the barrier is located at the foot of a ramp, and
2) Said cyclists might be unable to avoid the barrier and be struck in the head or upper torso while cycling though the barrier, and
3) that being struck in those areas would likely result in severe injuries.
Are we going to be deploying anti-personnel minefields on all public roads next?
so are u saying that car will approaching a traffic junction at a top speed? and if the light turn red and they have to brake suddenly.. and kissed the car infront of them then it's the in front car's fault?
-
What do you propose? A barrier so high they can cycle right under it, or so low that they can't push the bikes under?Originally posted by lwflee:Look, i think you are missing the point here. Yes, there is nothing wrong with trying to make cyclists dismount, or at least slow down, in the interests of the safety of all users of the bridge.
What is objectionable here, however, is that the device is of such a design as to be likely to be deadly to cyclists. It does not take a genius (i hope- i might be overestimating my fellow humans here) to figure out that:
1) Cyclists are likely to be approaching the barrier at great speed since the barrier is located at the foot of a ramp, and
2) Said cyclists might be unable to avoid the barrier and be struck in the head or upper torso while cycling though the barrier, and
3) that being struck in those areas would likely result in severe injuries.
Are we going to be deploying anti-personnel minefields on all public roads next?
It's a ramp. Of course if someone was to cycle down it, which I have to reiterate they are not supposed to, they will pick up speed.
All your arguements circle around the same thing, they will get hurt if they cycle where they shouldn't.
Don't give ridiculous arguements about minefields, the barrier isn't hidden ready to pop up infront of an unsuspecting cyclist who is cycling somewhere they are allowed to. If anything, this would be the same as you making an illegal turn and driving so fast that you don't see a lowered gantry and hit it. -
looking @ comments posted, Wudnt it be better if a separate one is made... only thing is cannot
-
you trip and fell. you didnt break your neck.Originally posted by Bloop...:Yes I have. I've ran across roads that I'm not supposed to. I've tripped and fell across a chain barrier at the Tampines mall too because of that. I don't blame the LTA for that chain being there.
I take the blame for not seeing that chain because I was jaywalking.
Simple as that - Don't place blame on someone else's shoulders when you get hurt doing something you're not suppose to do.
If a traffic cop had run out and stuck his foot out in front of me, that's a diff story.
Same in this case, it's not like the LTA hired someone to hide behind a bush with a rod. Then jump out and hit cyclists on their heads. -
So the degree to how badly you cause your own accident by failing/refusing to do what you're suppose to dictates whose fault it is?Originally posted by crazy monkey:you trip and fell. you didnt break your neck. -
the point is the device is dangerous and poorly installed.Originally posted by Bloop...:So the degree to how badly you cause your own accident by failing/refusing to do what you're suppose to dictates whose fault it is? -
then why not u tell us how it's suppose to be install?? 20m height limit, 20m width?Originally posted by crazy monkey:the point is the device is dangerous and poorly installed.
-
1 the barrier is install only on one endOriginally posted by I-like-flings(m):then why not u tell us how it's suppose to be install?? 20m height limit, 20m width?
2 the area was poorly lit
3 its at neck level
go read the newspaper report yourself. -
no sg newspaper here and newspaper where i am will not report this kind of stupid news as this kind of barrier is EVERYWHERE!!! and i can only agreed with u on the 1st point that it's stupid to have it on 1 side only... maybe they run out of budget lahOriginally posted by crazy monkey:1 the barrier is install only on one end
2 the area was poorly lit
3 its at neck level
go read the newspaper report yourself. -
forget to add. its paint green to blend in well with the surroundings.Originally posted by I-like-flings(m):no sg newspaper here and newspaper where i am will not report this kind of stupid news as this kind of barrier is EVERYWHERE!!! and i can only agreed with u on the 1st point that it's stupid to have it on 1 side only... maybe they run out of budget lah -
Originally posted by crazy monkey:
i never know that bridges in sg are painted GREEN!!!
forget to add. its paint green to blend in well with the surroundings. -
It's only dangerous if these cyclist insists on cycling on the bridge/ramp. If you feel it's "poorly installed", then how would you install it? Any lower and a bicycle can't be pushed under. Any higher and these bull-headed, irresponsible idiots will just cycle under. Any further out and they'll cycle around it. Any softer and within a week someone would have broken it so they can keep cycling there.Originally posted by crazy monkey:the point is the device is dangerous and poorly installed.
So what? Status quo? We are to rely on the signs that have already been there for the last 4 years at least telling them not to ride on the bridge? That obviously did not work.
My point is that people should learn to take responsibility for their own actions. If they choose to do things they are not supposed to and get hurt in the process, do not go pointing fingers in all other directions.
It is tragic that that man got hurt, but he would be home with his family now had he pushed his bike like he was supposed to.
Think back on how many times you've read in the papers of people gettng hurt by cyclist on pavements, etc; Places they aren't supposed to be cycling. Even all that still failed to appeal to these cyclists who will bend the rules to suit themselves.
When my shoulder got dislocated by a damn cyclist on that bridge, do you think he stopped? Do you think he offered to pay for my medical bills? No, he just picked himself up, barely mumbled a sorry and left. What if I was an older person?
So no, it is time to take enforcement of that "no cycling on the bridge" rule one step higher than just signs on BOTH sides of the bridge, which these idiots ignored for the last 4 years. -
Painted green? No objection to it, but hard to notice. Maybe the top of the bar could have a luminous red and white strip.
-
No, I don't agree on point one either. You know how long that bridge is? Even if it was on both sides, they'll still push it through one end, get on the bike and cycle across again.Originally posted by I-like-flings(m):no sg newspaper here and newspaper where i am will not report this kind of stupid news as this kind of barrier is EVERYWHERE!!! and i can only agreed with u on the 1st point that it's stupid to have it on 1 side only... maybe they run out of budget lah -
This one, have to blame the contractor...
Do the job 1/2 way done.. -
The irony...one the one hand you have signs telling you you're approaching a speed camera/red-light camera, and here the barrier is not easy to see in poor lighting conditions...only a sign tells you not to cycle on the bridge and that's it (everyone knows that, just as he knows the speed limit on the expressway is 80/90km/h).
-
are they removing the thing?Originally posted by crazy monkey:
-
And LTA has to be blamed also...Originally posted by sbst275:This one, have to blame the contractor...
Do the job 1/2 way done..
Never ENSURE
-
There has to be smarter ways of doing this, while you shouldn't cycle down the ramp, surely there are better ways that could be thought of that will not end up causing serious injury but still force cyclists to slow down? Speed bumps, the like...
It's kinda akin to putting a brickwall at the start of a runway where planes are supposed to take off to deter pilots from wrongfully landing there... sure the act may not be correct but surely there are better ways to do things. -
red light camerasOriginally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:There has to be smarter ways of doing this, while you shouldn't cycle down the ramp, surely there are better ways that could be thought of that will not end up causing serious injury but still force cyclists to slow down? Speed bumps, the like...
It's kinda akin to putting a brickwall at the start of a runway where planes are supposed to take off to deter pilots from wrongfully landing there... sure the act may not be correct but surely there are better ways to do things.
-
1) It is clearly a reasonably foreseeable occurence. In fact, the barrier was put there because cyclists have been known to coast down the ramp.Originally posted by I-like-flings(m):why are the cyclists likely to be approaching the barrier at a great speed when they are suppose to dismount and push ur bicycle???
so are u saying that car will approaching a traffic junction at a top speed? and if the light turn red and they have to brake suddenly.. and kissed the car infront of them then it's the in front car's fault?
2) It would be the fault of the driver of the first car. IF he had installed a 10 foot spike at the back of his car, and that spike was aimed at the eye level of the driver behind. -
u like that also can.. fine lor. u win lor...Originally posted by lwflee:1) It is clearly a reasonably foreseeable occurence. In fact, the barrier was put there because cyclists have been known to coast down the ramp.
2) It would be the fault of the driver of the first car. IF he had installed a 10 foot spike at the back of his car, and that spike was aimed at the eye level of the driver behind. -
1) Well, speed bumps + Lower barriers at the top + middle of the bridge would do, i think. The person who came up with the idea surely had more time to think.Originally posted by Bloop...:1) What do you propose? A barrier so high they can cycle right under it, or so low that they can't push the bikes under?
2) It's a ramp. Of course if someone was to cycle down it, which I have to reiterate they are not supposed to, they will pick up speed.
3) All your arguements circle around the same thing, they will get hurt if they cycle where they shouldn't.
4) Don't give ridiculous arguements about minefields, the barrier isn't hidden ready to pop up infront of an unsuspecting cyclist who is cycling somewhere they are allowed to.
5)If anything, this would be the same as you making an illegal turn and driving so fast that you don't see a lowered gantry and hit it.
2) Yes, can't argue with gravity. Hence my remark about it being foreseeable that people will be coasting down the ramp at great speeds.
3) And what do you perceive the 'thing' is? I do not agree that people should get hurt if they cycle where they should not. That is the point i was trying to make.
4) Sorry, i really meant to say "are they going to be deploying Clearly Sign-Posted AP mines on all public roads next?". My fault.
5) Not really, no. It would be akin to driving so fast that you did not see that a road is being blocked off with a clearly sign-posted mine field. -
Sorry, i want to make a slight alteration to my 2nd statement. I meant to say that some fault should be attributed to the driver of the first car. The person who was speeding should of course share in the blame.Originally posted by I-like-flings(m):u like that also can.. fine lor. u win lor...