WTF LTA !!! cyclist hurt by stupid device
-
Joshua1975!Originally posted by lwflee:Yes, why did LTA not ensure that the workers were properly equipped to do the job? These are not areas that you should save on.
Any experts on Health and Safety regulations here? -
Originally posted by Agressor:
From your answer here. One thing for sure! you have inferior complexity, a pervert, disgusting, disorientated, suckers, inhumane, mentalilty disorder, bird's brain......a not even worth of an animal's ass hole; who provide such answers.
[b][/b]
-
Simple, non profitable business, who cares. the civil servants won't get credits to rectify these stupid problems.Originally posted by pearlie27:It's really sad that someone have to pay such a heavy price for not heeding warnings.
LTA is as guilty as the victim for not considering carefully all the safety factors when installing those barriers. The barriers should be installed, at one go and before both ends of the ramp, so that cyclists would have to dismount from their bicycles before they get onto the ramp. And as safety, not aesthetics, is the main reason for the barriers these should be in striking colors with luminous markings.
ln fact I find some of the govt organisations really careless with safety. The slippery tiles on the newly upgraded lift landing of my block were only replaced after several accidents. Some pedestrian crossings are also situated at places where motorists least expect. I wonder whether those involved in installing fittings and fixture for public use have gone through any safety course. -
If this happen in state; Lta will be sued. But it won't happen with tyrant gov here.Originally posted by pearlie27:It's really sad that someone have to pay such a heavy price for not heeding warnings.
LTA is as guilty as the victim for not considering carefully all the safety factors when installing those barriers. The barriers should be installed, at one go and before both ends of the ramp, so that cyclists would have to dismount from their bicycles before they get onto the ramp. And as safety, not aesthetics, is the main reason for the barriers these should be in striking colors with luminous markings.
ln fact I find some of the govt organisations really careless with safety. The slippery tiles on the newly upgraded lift landing of my block were only replaced after several accidents. Some pedestrian crossings are also situated at places where motorists least expect. I wonder whether those involved in installing fittings and fixture for public use have gone through any safety course. -
losing balance on a bike may in fact cause a person to fall of the bridge if you factor in the extra heigtht of the bicycle ....... unlikely but i would say definitely no t in the same category as flying off a hump which is like impossible. all we need is one incident therefore even if it is unlikely i think its worth a mentionOriginally posted by Gun:Wobble ? Sounds more like a novice biker taking risk by riding over it. Ramming into a chest-level steel bar, however, is guranteeed A&E case that even skilled riders can encounter.
And adding the fact someone has already been hurt badly by such barrier and not by a hump, which has been implemented on some overheard bridges without any known incident so far.
Are you still going for steel fence smack in the path a ram ?
Common sense tells that such DANGAROUS device should be removed from public usage.
and who said that pple who ride on bridges are non-novices? i assue you there are plenty of novices around that like to cycle over bridges. i would say that a novice or expert have the same chance of knocking into a chest high bar which is probably zero in normal lighted conditions(if the person is drunk cyclling i hope he get hit then). i would say the barrier itself is not a problem since one can quite easily see it in lighted conditions, instead of callign for a change in the barrier might as well call for lights installed as per normal singapore paths(i'm not sure how well lighted thee place was but if it was well lighted then i would say was that guy dreaming?)
the barrier is not extra dangerous, going over a steep hump(this seems to be the trend on road btw with humps getting narrower but thicker) at high speeds can easily cuase an averaged-skilled person to lose balance; going over said hump without expecting it and at high speeds can just as easily cause injuries to the same extent as this incident. i quote the high speeds and not knowing due to the fact that that was probably the cuase of the accident(otherwise it wouldn;t have been so bad i think you would agree)
unfortunately common sense also tells us that humps is potientially as dangerous. maybe its less btu without studies its all conjectures.
oh you said the humps installed, do they actually help in reducing the speeds? are there similar conditions such as very poor visibilty or the humps painted green(in this case perhaps repainting instead of removal?)? in addition i dare say that the barrier in question is very effective since this unfortunate incident would pretty much guranttee that pple who do cycle on that bridge will be extra careful and thus slower(not ends justify means but at least it has a good effect). -
This was the statement from LTA
LTA Regrets Accident Involving Cyclist At Pedestrian Overhead Bridge At Tampines Street 43 -
From your comments here, I can be sure for one thing is that you are loosing your stand because you could not answer honestly to my last question that I had posed, and you are that typical low class man Singaporean mentioned in my last thread who will complain and complain in every situation but never come out with any constructive solutions.Originally posted by Lowclassman:From your answer here. One thing for sure! you have inferior complexity, a pervert, disgusting, disorientated, suckers, inhumane, mentalilty disorder, bird's brain......a not even worth of an animal's ass hole; who provide such answers.
You are the Singaporean with the two cows. Cow Pe and Cow Bu.
My final comment on this issue :
If an egg throws itself onto a rock and breaks, the egg has itself to blame. But if the rock throws itself onto the egg and breaks the egg, the rock needs to be punished.
Similarly, in this case, the cyclist hit onto the obstacle where he is not supposed to be cycling, he has himself to be blamed. On the other hand, the teenager who was hit by a falling lampost, the authorities should not get away with their responsibilities so easily as it was. -
Bet contractor would kena telokOriginally posted by tranquilice:This was the statement from LTA LTA Regrets Accident Involving Cyclist At Pedestrian Overhead Bridge At Tampines Street 43 -
hahahaha that device is ingenius!!
I could almost imagine the man cycling onto it and banging onto the bar and his bike keeps on going but the man dunno fly where already -
You mean like the way jail deters people from overstaying, anti corruption laws prevent CEOs from misusing funds to pay for their personal cars COE etc?Originally posted by hisoka:oh you said the humps installed, do they actually help in reducing the speeds? are there similar conditions such as very poor visibilty or the humps painted green(in this case perhaps repainting instead of removal?)? in addition i dare say that the barrier in question is very effective since this unfortunate incident would pretty much guranttee that pple who do cycle on that bridge will be extra careful and thus slower(not ends justify means but at least it has a good effect).
So many people have been punished for one thing or another here in sg, yet people still try their luck. Why? Because if they can get away with it, they will do it.
Many people have been burnt in stocks and shares. Many have lost everything, yet there are so many more playing the market. Why? Does losing your entire life savings, wife and kids deter anyone?
Sometimes, before we kill 1 as an example to the many, we have to think if this is effective. -
LTA Regrets Accident Involving Cyclist At Pedestrian Overhead Bridge At Tampines Street 43Originally posted by Agressor:From your comments here, I can be sure for one thing is that you are loosing your stand because you could not answer honestly to my last question that I had posed, and you are that typical low class man Singaporean mentioned in my last thread who will complain and complain in every situation but never come out with any constructive solutions.
You are the Singaporean with the two cows. Cow Pe and Cow Bu.
My final comment on this issue :
If an egg throws itself onto a rock and breaks, the egg has itself to blame. But if the rock throws itself onto the egg and breaks the egg, the rock needs to be punished.
Similarly, in this case, the cyclist hit onto the obstacle where he is not supposed to be cycling, he has himself to be blamed. On the other hand, the teenager who was hit by a falling lampost, the authorities should not get away with their responsibilities so easily as it was.
From here What can you prove? Who is losing stand now. Look at yourself with your ass. -
crime/jail is diff i think, crime is ffor benefit this case is for convenience. anyway i also have to say that there are still pple doing it, nothing can stop pple form doing such stuff i guess but in the end i guess there is still some deterence right?Originally posted by SilverPal:You mean like the way jail deters people from overstaying, anti corruption laws prevent CEOs from misusing funds to pay for their personal cars COE etc?
So many people have been punished for one thing or another here in sg, yet people still try their luck. Why? Because if they can get away with it, they will do it.
Many people have been burnt in stocks and shares. Many have lost everything, yet there are so many more playing the market. Why? Does losing your entire life savings, wife and kids deter anyone?
Sometimes, before we kill 1 as an example to the many, we have to think if this is effective. -
Originally posted by Agressor:
NOW MY QUESTION FOR YOU : "NOW THAT THE BARRIER IS REMOVED, IF A PEDESTRIAN IS HIT AND PARALYSED BY A CYCLIST ON THE BRIDGE, WOULD YOU NOT BLAME THE MP FOR REMOVING BARRIER????????"
[b][/b]
Ha...ha....ha...what a stupid question!!!can you name me? Anyone got hit by Bicycle and got PARALYSED or paradise here? Please check our medical history that you can find someone got knocked down by bicycle an become PARALYSED? Maybe, someday those bicycles that powered by motor that might cause severe injuries, but who approved it? Can you tell me You freaking idiot!!!!! -
Originally posted by hisoka:
Contradictions here.
losing balance on a bike may in fact cause a person to fall of the bridge if you factor in the extra heigtht of the bicycle ....... unlikely
You mentioned "fact" of falling off the bridge due to lossing balance and next you stated "unlikely". You need to re-assess what you are trying to say here.
FYI not all riders hv their seat adjusted such that it exceeds the standing height. Avg communting bikers are more likely to hv a lower seat level to allow easier support with their feet when required. Also a BRIGHTLY painted hump willl deter errand riders from racing over it makes the chances of "falling of the bridge" , as you said, unlikely.but i would say definitely no t in the same category as flying off a hump which is like impossible. all we need is one incident therefore even if it is unlikely i think its worth a mention
That is a hypothesis which is best applied to the reality of 50% chance in running into a barrier of steel piping. THAT device has already caused serious injuries and IMO, means a high chance that similar accident may occur.and who said that pple who ride on bridges are non-novices?
And where is this hear-say from ?i assue you there are plenty of novices around that like to cycle over bridges. i would say that a novice or expert have the same chance of knocking into a chest high bar which is probably zero in normal lighted conditions(if the person is drunk cyclling i hope he get hit then).
Can you assure that ALL novice/expert cyclist CAN SEE such barrier in normal lighted condition ? No ?
How about the probablity of getting badly hurt by these steel barrier ?
Very likely ? Maybe 50% probabilty of sustaining head tremour and broken ribes ?
Ah yes, I can see your justification here:
You do HOPE to see some cyclists get hurt. tsk tsk tsk.
My friend: the whole idea of a steel barreir is NOT TO GET SOMEONE HURT. And if such device does inflict injury, then it should NOT be consider as safety device by any definition.i would say the barrier itself is not a problem since one can quite easily see it in lighted conditions, instead of callign for a change in the barrier might as well call for lights installed as per normal singapore paths(i'm not sure how well lighted thee place was but if it was well lighted then i would say was that guy dreaming?)
Lots of assumptions here.
Was the 40-year-old cyclist dreaming ?
Can LTA assure all barrier-fitted overhead brigde are ALWAYS brightly lit ?
Lightbulbs do get burnt out and that steel barrier will always be there rain or shine.
So the barrier not a problem you say ? Or izzit the lighting ?
Why not try assuming that a rider will NOT get injured when crashing into this barrier ? Can you assure that ?going over said hump without expecting it and at high speeds can just as easily cause injuries to the same extent as this incident.
Pls take another good look at the barrier again.
Need you to ans following questions:
(A) Can you share with us how a hump can exact similar severe injury as this steel-barrier ?
(B) How do you conclude that only speeding cyclist can sustain injury upon running into this steel barrier ?
Woui quote the high speeds and not knowing due to the fact that that was probably the cuase of the accident(otherwise it wouldn;t have been so bad i think you would agree)
Here you go again. Assumptions of the conditions while ignoring the fact this device has resulted in serious injury.unfortunately common sense also tells us that humps is potientially as dangerous. maybe its less btu without studies its all conjectures.
Commen sense dictates if you DO SEE an obstacle, you will slow down. If you do not see one, depending on the speed, you will either experience an unpleasant kick in the butt or in the case of your favoured steel-barrier, a total lost of conciousness.
Which would u chose ?
People commit petty offences due to reasons from ignorance,habit to utter laziness. And no amount of notices, policing or safety measures can prevent such acts. However, there doesn't mean taking measures that can cause accidents to justify the execise of rule enforcement.
You say the ends justify the means but at least it has a *good effect* ?
If I were u. I'd be ashame of myself. -
abit long and sicne i am not sure how to get the whole msg i'll just address what i can remember.Originally posted by Gun:Commen sense dictates if you DO SEE an obstacle, you will slow down. If you do not see one, depending on the speed, you will either experience an unpleasant kick in the butt or in the case of your favoured steel-barrier, a total lost of conciousness.
Which would u chose ?
People commit petty offences due to reasons from ignorance,habit to utter laziness. And no amount of notices, policing or safety measures can prevent such acts. However, there doesn't mean taking measures that can cause accidents to justify the execise of rule enforcement.
You say the ends justify the means but at least it has a *good effect* ?
If I were u. I'd be ashame of myself.
firstly for the first point you broke up that paragh/sentence. i said its unlikely but not in the same category its not a contradiction. unlikely means that it has a small possibility anyway like in common usage you would say that going for a medical treatment with 0.1% chance of failure it can be said that its unlikely that somethign adverse will occur.
regarding high danger well you said it its your opinion as is its my opinion the only way to prove would be to test it i guess.
going over a hump and losing balane can easily cause serious injuries. you can fall over and unluckily get your jugular vien or someother major artery severed by the chain, you can fall off the bridge due to falling on the railings and tipping over, some of the more serious ones i'm qouting i guess but i think you should reasonably admit it has possibilities.
when i said added height i didn't mean the seat per se. i'll try to put it briefly, when you sit on the bike chances are your cg is higher then when you are walking, this higher cg allows you to more easily go over the railing by the side of the bridge if you happen to bump against it, imagine a leverage system if you will. i can't really communicate this well in words pciture would be more descriptive i guess, just hope you can get it
the device is to precent cyclign and as i said all devices are dangerous including the humps you mentioned, feel free to prove as i laid out in similar circumstances that humps are perfectly safe( i noticed you decide to go on an attack on my points rather than defend your stand but i'm bored anyway).
in addition i personall feel threat of harm is probably an effective way to discourage that in any case. i'lll jsut quote the humps for cars, ever wondered why cars do not just speed over the humps? its mostly because it hurts the car(harm) or it hurt/discomforts the motorist.
you mean to tell me a normal person on the bridge cannot be expected to see an obstacle if the obstacle is clearly visible? expert or not expert if an obstacle if clearly viisible is no issue is it? -
so did LTA say they going to compensate or just walk away with that?
SG have no lawyer or i should have say SG have no law for it ppl... ermmm nope, law is not on the poor side...
cases like this in US, well you can see how many heads going to roll in LTA and how much LTA is going to pay...
FUCK YOU -
people... the point is the barrier visible?
No doubt the barrier deter cyclist. But KNN the tube barrier can kill people!!! Have a concrete barrier can be seen and cyclist know. Do u think people pay attention to the sign? When was the last time u see a sign while walking along pathment?
Just our government is too CHEAP to built 1. A Singaporean is not worth the money to build 1 concrete barrier. End of story. -
wait they paint the concrete green alsoOriginally posted by yuppy4life:people... the point is the barrier visible?
No doubt the barrier deter cyclist. But KNN the tube barrier can kill people!!! Have a concrete barrier can be seen and cyclist know. Do u think people pay attention to the sign? When was the last time u see a sign while walking along pathment?
Just our government is too CHEAP to built 1. A Singaporean is not worth the money to build 1 concrete barrier. End of story. anyway the bar also can see one lah not like its very thin only need to paint diff colour and lights -
abit long and sicne i am not sure how to get the whole msg i'll just address what i can remember.
Precisely. If you find the posting too long for recollections, it certainly helps a long way if you can revert back what you hv stated in earlier postings. In fact, with all the misplaced punctuations and paragraphs, it easy making sence of what you are trying to get across.firstly for the first point you broke up that paragh/sentence. i said its unlikely but not in the same category its not a contradiction. unlikely means that it has a small possibility anyway like in common usage you would say that going for a medical treatment with 0.1% chance of failure it can be said that its unlikely that somethign adverse will occur.
Let's make this simplier by quantifying your 0.1% chance of failure. I give a 50% chance of a runnig into that steel barrier and multiply by the probablity of getting head or upper body injury when colliding into such "safety device".
Unlikely something advese will occur ? Fact is someone has been PERMENENTLY PARALYSED by ACCIDENTALLY running into such barrier. That is a 100% fact vs your "flying off a hump" theory. The odd is pretty obvious here. `gr`t rtgfrtgeretfrtferegarding high danger well you said it its your opinion as is its my opinion the only way to prove would be to test it i guess.
TEST ? What test ? YOu referring to ACTUALL accidents as "TEST"?
OR had LTA or any authorites conducted crash-dummy TEST on how these steel-barriers can inflict serious injuries ?
You tell me.going over a hump and losing balane can easily cause serious injuries. you can fall over and unluckily get your jugular vien or someother major artery severed by the chain,
My friend, this is NOT about bikers loosing balance nor about LUCK here. Its about the FACT that such barrier is, will and had done serious damage to an ordinary bridge user. If you hv a hard time shallowing this fact, than I suggest you do justice to your senses by visiting this 40 yr old victim and question your justification by "HOPING" someone get HIT.you can fall off the bridge due to falling on the railings and tipping over, some of the more serious ones i'm qouting i guess but i think you should reasonably admit it has possibilities.
Strange. 1st you disclaimed on your own argument by saying its a "guess". Then next you putting words in my mouth by stating I "should reasonably admit it has possibilities."
Your logic is beyond rational comprehension.when i said added height i didn't mean the seat per se. i'll try to put it briefly, when you sit on the bike chances are your cg is higher then when you are walking, this higher cg allows you to more easily go over the railing by the side of the bridge if you happen to bump against it, imagine a leverage system if you will. i can't really communicate this well in words pciture would be more descriptive i guess, just hope you can get it
Question:
How fast does a cyclist need to go flip over a hump/railing ?
If you can gather that figure, then you can justify your theory of such hazard on local overhead bridge and send your finding to LTA for immediate correction.
Else, hv you EVER come across cyclist flying off bridges unintentionally ?the device is to precent cyclign and as i said all devices are dangerous including the humps you mentioned, feel free to prove as i laid out in similar circumstances that humps are perfectly safe( i noticed you decide to go on an attack on my points rather than defend your stand but i'm bored anyway).
All safety devices are "dangerous" ? Sure. Question is to which degree ?
Have humps on local overheard bridge result in a high-CG cyclist toppling off the bridge when going over it ?
Or have steel barriers have forced cyclist to dismount when using overheads ?
Your boredom is the sign of impatience. That's unfortunatein addition i personall feel threat of harm is probably an effective way to discourage that in any case. i'lll jsut quote the humps for cars, ever wondered why cars do not just speed over the humps? its mostly because it hurts the car(harm) or it hurt/discomforts the motorist.
Discourage by threat of HARM ? OMG
Why not install CCTVs on overheards with a large $500 fine notice ?
Or even better: How abt tyre-puncturing spikes to the floors ?
This certainl will cause HARM to BOTH the bike and the rider.
BTW, I am surprised you finally realised the effectiveness of humps. However your analogy of motor-car "discomfort" on a bicycle is way off. You might as well start with why 747 needs such long runway when birds can land on trees ?
Do you know that even simple speed reducing advice like this has specific design requirments which provide speeding deterrence while not compromising safety?you mean to tell me a normal person on the bridge cannot be expected to see an obstacle if the obstacle is clearly visible? expert or not expert if an obstacle if clearly viisible is no issue is it?
Again, you failed to realise the situation in how this unfortunate accident had occur. Was that tampines barrier clearly visible that time of accident ?
And even if this steel barrier is coated with reflected paint with a HUGE sign, will such device stop bikers from cycling on overheads ?
You tell me. -
There is a bridge from Marine Parade to the East Coast Park, spanning the ECP, which has humps , painted yellow/white, on it. I see ppl pushing their bicycles over the bridge, not riding it. So it seems humps can be an effective deterrant.
The barrier at the tampines bridge is an utter waste of taxpayers' money. Not to mention a life-threatening device. I think hitting that thing at low speeds could still result in serious injury.
Gun is right when saying "
Can LTA assure all barrier-fitted overhead brigde are ALWAYS brightly lit ?
Lightbulbs do get burnt out and that steel barrier will always be there rain or shine. " LTA cannot, and on this count it is not their fault. I have seen the lights vandalised by irresponsible vandals.
LTA may be reacting to residents' complaints but have adopted a wrong solution.
. -
They forgot there's such an invention called poles?
Like staggered short poles on the ground? -
you seem to enjoy brekaing up the argument so that you lose the links that are integral to the arguments. various points you stated are answered in either earlier or in the same post but you seem to miss it perhaps its too long as i said.Originally posted by Gun:Again, you failed to realise the situation in how this unfortunate accident had occur. Was that tampines barrier clearly visible that time of accident ?
And even if this steel barrier is coated with reflected paint with a HUGE sign, will such device stop bikers from cycling on overheads ?
You tell me.
for example the above quote i said earlier that whats needed was not the removal of the obstacle but rather visibility and thus my point. the issue of visibility is safety(as seems to be the main concern in this case) and not stopping the cycling. stopign the cycling was raised some where else.
not sure why you are questioning my logic(one of the parts) maybe our definitions of logic differ? if you cant see the logic that i placed out then i guess theres no real point in arguing it out, i am just doign it for fun and not to win or to write an essay anyway since i doubt that a discussion here will have any effect in reality -
I understand that the barrier was up at one end of the bridge, the other had not yet been put up. That's why the cyclist did not expect a barrier at the other end.
Regardless...LTA has a responsibility that cyclists are aware of the barrier. The signs have to be clear and the lighting good enough to see the barrier in time to slow down and stop. I do not know the exact circumstances but if LTA has not properly discharged these responsibilities, the cyclist can sue the LTA for negligence. And he should... -
Yes. However, this will not likely come to pass or we will not know that it has happened, because Singaporeans have this fear of duking it out in court with any Govt agency. Either that or the media is not reporting such occurences.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:I do not know the exact circumstances but if LTA has not properly discharged these responsibilities, the cyclist can sue the LTA for negligence. And he should... -
Since ACCIDENT did happen on such barrier by a cyclist,I believe LTA is right to remove all such barriers.Good that LTA did a right thing!