Army Truck Crash
-
heard it on the news
-
so??driver kana charged?
-
well i think its a 1.5 tonner .
-
rsaf vehicle....
-
MB 240
but i think its the lorry which crash into the SAF vehicle, which is stationary, havent read the news fully yet... -
was ferrying 17 people from changi east air base to changi west airbase.Originally posted by kwlee:rsaf vehicle....
accident happened on 050805 at 1050. in fornt of the 1.5 tonner was 2 trucks. the 3 vehicles were waiting for the traffic to turn green when suddenly a truck from behind crashed onto the 1.5 ton and caused a chain reaction.
all 17 personels inside the tonner was sent to the changi hospital. 15 of them suffered light wounds while 2 were hospitised with factures in their legs. -
East to West??Originally posted by Gordonator:was ferrying 17 people from changi east air base to changi west airbase.
accident happened on 050805 at 1050. in fornt of the 1.5 tonner was 2 trucks. the 3 vehicles were waiting for the traffic to turn green when suddenly a truck from behind crashed onto the 1.5 ton and caused a chain reaction.
all 17 personels inside the tonner was sent to the changi hospital. 15 of them suffered light wounds while 2 were hospitised with factures in their legs.
-
Wat so funny?Originally posted by sbst275:East to West?? Getting from CAB west to CAB east is a bloody long journey lor, on a slow army vehicle it will take more than half an hour.
That stretch of road where the accident happened is quite dangerous cause its a busy junction - freight trucks going to airport, taxis from tanah merah ferry terminal, SAF vehicles from CAB and CNB, and heavy vehicles from changi north construction site - all using a tiny junction. During my time there, witnessed several civilian accidents along that area.
Surprised this got into the papers. Past MT accidents have always been covered up. -
I know... The long road to CNB is killing, long and straight...Originally posted by Zooish:Wat so funny? Getting from CAB west to CAB east is a bloody long journey lor, on a slow army vehicle it will take more than half an hour.
That stretch of road where the accident happened is quite dangerous cause its a busy junction - freight trucks going to airport, taxis from tanah merah ferry terminal, SAF vehicles from CAB and CNB, and heavy vehicles from changi north construction site - all using a tiny junction. During my time there, witnessed several civilian accidents along that area.
Then need to use Changi Coast Rd, Changi Village.. -
What happened to the driver of the 5-tonner that crashed in Tekong? Eating curry rice @ Kranji camp?
-
didn't u read at all? it wasn't the driver's fault. next time if u don't know anything just keep quiet. ignorance is bliss.Originally posted by SBS3641G:What happened to the driver of the 5-tonner that crashed in Tekong? Eating curry rice @ Kranji camp? -
My friend is a driver in SAF. THere is a joke going around that drivers have "one foot in the detention barracks". Also heard from him that front seat passenger gets dragged down as well if there is mishap.Originally posted by Gordonator:didn't u read at all? it wasn't the driver's fault. next time if u don't know anything just keep quiet. ignorance is bliss. -
Dunno abt army side, but for airforce, the fella who is the front seat passenger is considered the vehicle commander(v-com), if got accident, the v-com will have to take responsibility as well.Originally posted by TIB1133B:My friend is a driver in SAF. THere is a joke going around that drivers have "one foot in the detention barracks". Also heard from him that front seat passenger gets dragged down as well if there is mishap. -
image edited.
What is your point?
-
Yup...and in my time, every SAF driver that gets involved in an accident will go DB. That's why those about to ROD will try like mad not to drive in the last few weeks... even our MOs are sympathetic enough to 'excuse' them.Originally posted by Zooish:Dunno abt army side, but for airforce, the fella who is the front seat passenger is considered the vehicle commander(v-com), if got accident, the v-com will have to take responsibility as well. -
tot the army viehicles's body is armored...how come minor accident already made some big dents?
-
The vehicle involved in the accident is unarmoured.
Many people have a general impression that all army vehicles are clad in steel jackets. However, this is not true as only combat vehicles such as tanks, IFVs, APCs and SP Guns etc enjoy such protection. Logistic vehicles like the one in the accident have just about as much protection as a heavy industrial vehicle. This applies to most armies around the world. -
I find the comments in this thread reflects many servicemen's attitude to such accidents.
When something bad happens, the first thing is always "how?! got charged?!". Then comes all the theories about what happened, how screwed up the people is, how unprotected the vehicle is.
Did anyone think of the servicemen injured in this accident? And this is not even the fault of SAF, the vehicle, or the driver(s). Watching the newsclip which shows the men in stretchers and being carried into ambulances, being charged should be the last thing in anyone's minds.
We should relook at how we approach certain issues. -
Precisely.I believe the mindset these days have changed drastically to be more fair to the people involved, and safety of our soldiers is of utmost priority these days.Originally posted by EXCO:I find the comments in this thread reflects many servicemen's attitude to such accidents.
When something bad happens, the first thing is always "how?! got charged?!". Then comes all the theories about what happened, how screwed up the people is, how unprotected the vehicle is.
Did anyone think of the servicemen injured in this accident? And this is not even the fault of SAF, the vehicle, or the driver(s).
We should relook at how we approach certain issues.
If it is not the fault of the driver, and TP can ascertain that the MID vehicle was totally in the clear, why should the driver or the vehicle commander be charged?If this happens, then there is a clear character flaw in the people handling the investigations of such cases. -
that will have to depend on the nature of the accident.Originally posted by Zooish:Dunno abt army side, but for airforce, the fella who is the front seat passenger is considered the vehicle commander(v-com), if got accident, the v-com will have to take responsibility as well. -
someone has to take the blame...bo bian....its like dat one.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Precisely.I believe the mindset these days have changed drastically to be more fair to the people involved, and safety of our soldiers is of utmost priority these days.
If it is not the fault of the driver, and TP can ascertain that the MID vehicle was totally in the clear, why should the driver or the vehicle commander be charged?If this happens, then there is a clear character flaw in the people handling the investigations of such cases. -
SAF is well known for finger pointing , so now we just have to watch and see whose fault it is...
Just like India's MIG-21 , when it was actually the fault of the MIG-21 , which has ageing avionics and equipment , but the fault was eventually pushed to the pilot.
SAF truck don't have ABS, anti lock braking system , or electronic braking system or active sensory control or even a proper GPS satellite tracking system.
I don't even wanna drive it...
-
errrr 5 ton got abs hor just for ur infoOriginally posted by SMAPLionHeart:SAF is well known for finger pointing , so now we just have to watch and see whose fault it is...
Just like India's MIG-21 , when it was actually the fault of the MIG-21 , which has ageing avionics and equipment , but the fault was eventually pushed to the pilot.
SAF truck don't have ABS, anti lock braking system , or electronic braking system or active sensory control or even a proper GPS satellite tracking system.
I don't even wanna drive it...
well if really the lorry whack the 1.5 tonner and create a chain reaction... i dun find a reason why charge the driver lah.
And .. ya very long journey... what other vehicles can we use to ferry 17 ppl. However i think 17 pple if at the back of the 1.5 tonner kinda a bit overloaded leh. -
Originally posted by Altis84:errrr 5 ton got abs hor just for ur info
well if really the lorry whack the 1.5 tonner and create a chain reaction... i dun find a reason why charge the driver lah.
And .. ya very long journey... what other vehicles can we use to ferry 17 ppl. However i think 17 pple if at the back of the 1.5 tonner kinda a bit overloaded leh.
-
wah u think saf so good ah... whenever need to transport pple use chinhook