WTF LTA !!! cyclist hurt by stupid device

last SG · 2005-07-16T18:47:03+00:00

err...FUN ? You consider this discussion for FUN ?? oh yes. I must hv mis-understood you and wasted my time in appreciating your sadism of "hoping someone g...

Profounder SG

Do you read English at all?

They removed all the barriers.

"It" is a singular pronoun referring to a single subject.

Here's a link for you while I search for courses on how to increase a person's IQ:

http://www.britishcouncil.org/sg-english-primary.htm

sbst275 SG

Just shut up... You wanna boast your language very well, go ahead...

Anyway, for that tyre... You want to be smart, go work as a tech @ SMRT Bus

SilverPal SG

Hi,

It is to my experience that there are many novice cyclists who, despite their dismal skill in manipulating a bicycle, still do stupid things like cycle on busy roads, cycle on pavements with many pedestrians (including women pushing prams and old folks wobbling feebly). These same black sheep (the cyclists, not the old folks), would resort to shouting and swearing to bully their way thru the crowd.

I feel that the barrier should have been installed on both sides of the ramp and not one today, and another one whenever you are free. Also, for safety, the barrier should have bright (preferbly luminous) markings on it before being painted a bright and distinctive colour rather than waiting for the price of paint to drop before painting it.

It is slipshot work on the part of the contractor to cut cost and negligence on the part of LTA on overseeing the installation.

The reason why I feel LTA should oversea the installation or removal of all equipment what so ever used for safety is because lives are at stake. If no lives are at stake, then it won't be for safety.

You can put up a multitude of signs to inform ppl not to speed, not to cycle on ramps, not to spit. You can threaten them with fines, jail and caning, but there is a difference between passing a law and enforcing it... stating a rule and ensuring it.

The barrier was supposed to ensure ppl dun cycle on the ramp. It does so by blocking the ramp, not by killing the offender. Its supposed to be easily distingushable from far and in poor lighting to deter, not to stop cyclists by making them bang into it.

I cycle up and down ramps regularly and I consider myself an advanced cyclist. I can control my bicycle in emergencies but I know this is no excuse for breaking rules.

In my capacity as a cyclist, I know that putting a barrier on a ramp will result in me having to dismount and mount, thus putting it on both ends of the ramp WILL adequately deter me. Putting it up on only 1 side means that once I'm past it, I will still cycle on the ramp. Sad but true. This is common sense. There are times when the pramatism of the real world situation voids all armchair speculations and rules.

If roads are for cars and motorcycles and pavements are for people, then bicycles can only be used in parks with the designated lanes? Then why bother getting a bicycle? Why bother getting rollerblades? In fact, why stop there? There should be designated pram lanes and old folks and wheelchair lanes least someone get hurt! What bullsh!t. Cyclist haters should try to dignify their arguments with logic and real situations, not scenes they plucked out of thin air and cartoons.

iveco SG

http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/news/story/0,4136,91828,00.html?

Even MP for Tampines GRC Irene Ng thinks there are flaws with the design of the barrier. Seems like A-frame barriers are not viable after all. Rolling Eyes

pearlie27 SG

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.

pearlie27 SG

Joshua1975!

Lowclassman SG

Originally posted by Agressor:
[b][/b]

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. Mr. Green

Lowclassman SG

Simple, non profitable business, who cares. the civil servants won't get credits to rectify these stupid problems. Mr. Green

Lowclassman SG

If this happen in state; Lta will be sued. But it won't happen with tyrant gov here.

hisoka SG

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 mention

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).

tranquilice SG

This was the statement from LTA LTA Regrets Accident Involving Cyclist At Pedestrian Overhead Bridge At Tampines Street 43

Agressor SG

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.

sbst275 SG

Bet contractor would kena telok

the.raven SG

hahahaha that device is ingenius!! Laughing 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

SilverPal SG

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.

Lowclassman SG

LTA Regrets Accident Involving Cyclist At Pedestrian Overhead Bridge At Tampines Street 43

From here What can you prove? Who is losing stand now. Look at yourself with your ass.

hisoka SG

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?

Lowclassman SG

Originally posted by Agressor:
[b][/b]

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????????"

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!!!!!

Gun SG

Originally posted by hisoka:
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

Contradictions here.
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 ?
Wou

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)

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.

hisoka SG

abit long and sicne i am not sure how to get the whole msg i'll just address what i can remember.

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?

« Previous Page Next Page »