Mandatory Give Way to Buses Scheme improve overall bus speed

QX179R SG

Mandatory Give Way to Busese Scheme improves overall bus speeds

The Land Transport Authority, LTA, says the Mandatory Give Way to Buses Scheme has resulted in improvements of overall bus speeds.

Buses are now able to exit the bus bays up to 73 per cent faster.

Bus journey times have also improved by up to 7 per cent.

LTA says the scheme will be extended to three more bus bays along Upper Thomson Road from March 5.

With the extension, the scheme will now be implemented at 44 bus-bays islandwide.

The extension is in line with the Land Transport Master Plan’s objectives to speed up bus travel.

The Mandatory Give Way to Buses Scheme is similar conceptually to a zebra crossing, except that it is meant for buses.

When nearing a bus stop under this scheme, motorists will first see triangular give way markings on the road.

These markings indicate that motorists approaching these bus stops need to slow down and watch in case buses are pulling out of the bus bay.

Motorists come to a complete stop before the give way line and give way to buses exiting the bus bay at the location.

Motorists may continue their journey once the bus has successfully exited the bus bay and no other buses are pulling out from the bus bay.

It's an offence if motorists do not give way to buses exiting from bus bays where the new road markings are drawn or if they stay in the yellow box marked ‘Give Way to Buses.’

--938Live

sbst275 SG

Upp Thomson Rd?

There's alrdy bus lanes

105090 SG

haha.. if they dont spout these news, then everyone will call it a failure. it will b quietly removed and never heard of again

with these news, the dear authorities will have ever more reasons and "evidence" to implement these highway-code defying stunt.. give motorists more summones and more danger on our already dangerous roads

105090 SG

i hope, since buses will exit the bus bay faster, saving time, they wont slow down on the road to waste back the saved time (due to too much extra scheduled time)

a whammy?

Junyang700 SG

I dun like the "Give Way to Buses" Scheme.

Its hard to determine whether the bus driver is trying to move out from the bus bay or not.

Do they drive to the front and jam brake when they see the bus driver has the intention to move out from the bus bay?

Sometimes bus drivers fear the cars will not give way and wait for the cars to move off first.

Car drivers, afraid that the bus will move out without looking at the side mirrors, jam brakes in front of the yellow arrow box when they realise the bus driver is moving out from the bus bay at the arrow box and the sudden brakes result in the car crashing from behind.

If both are courteous drivers, both wait... and eventually.. both decide to use the same patch of road at the same time, causing unwanted accidents. =X

I hope SBST and SMRT introduce more routes like 161 and 190, and eliminate services like 51 and 61, too lengthy and stops too often.

Making the bus routes call on lesser stops improve bus speeds, rather than stopping every 30 seconds to pick up passengers, then asking motorists to stop and wait.

the Bear SG

two words: red line

sinicker SG

i either

1. dont drive along these roads.
2. if really have to, avoid the leftmost lane.

it's very dangerous.

105090 SG

anyway most cars will not drive on left lane unless necessary.
no buses exiting, but will also have taxis, bicycles, road works

lemon1974 SG

I hope SBST and SMRT introduce more routes like 161 and 190, and eliminate services like 51 and 61, too lengthy and stops too often.

Making the bus routes call on lesser stops improve bus speeds, rather than stopping every 30 seconds to pick up passengers, then asking motorists to stop and wait.

51/61 are there to serve a purpose.. usually ppl wont take it for long distance for such services. if you are staying in Bukit Panjang, you will want more sv190 services.. that mean that for sv184/67/75/180 etc, SMRT should amend them to ply expressway? or skip bus stops along the way? then other ppl will complain that they cant get to their destination...

lemon1974 SG

i either

1. dont drive along these roads.
2. if really have to, avoid the leftmost lane.

it's very dangerous.

agree... me too. i avoid the leftmost lane while travelling along AMK Ave 8....

i think they should have just implement full day bus lane near the exit of these bus stops.. 40M of red line for each bus stop....haha... more ppl will curse.. if not just remove all the bus bay...

JaSoNhSu92 SG

if this scheme can be combined with bus lane scheme, this will avoid almost accidents.

bic_cherry SG

Our Ref: LTA/CC/PCF/FB/F20.000.000/13623/VT
Date    : 29 January 2010
Tel       : 63961519
Fax      : 63961192
Dear Sir/ Madam

GIVE WAY TO BUSES SCHEME IS DANGEROUS AND DISINGENUOUS
FEEDBACK NUMBER: 20100102-0076
We refer to your email of 1 January 2010.

Please allow us to explain that there is no legal contradiction or contravention of the Geneva Road Traffic Convention in our give way to bus scheme, as the "give way box" already modifies the road priority.
Many international traffic convention and practices come from the 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Traffic. Article 15 of the Convention recommends "Give-Way to Buses" as follows: Article 15: Special regulations relating to regular public transport service vehicles Domestic legislation must provide that in built-up areas, in order to facilitate the movement of regular public transport service vehicles, the drivers of other vehicles shall, subject to the provisions of Article 17, paragraph 1, of this Convention, slow down and if necessary stop in order to allow public transport service vehicles to perform the manoeuvre required for moving off from stops marked as such.

The provisions thus laid down by Contracting Parties or subdivisions thereof shall in no way affect the duty incumbent on drivers of public service vehicles to take, after having given warning by means of their direction indicators of their intention to move off, the precautions necessary to avoid any risk of accident. European countries, such as Germany and France , are amongst the first to implement regulations to require motorists to give way to buses. Nowadays, most member states in the European Union (with the notable exception of Greece and Italy ) now accord buses and trams the right of way when leaving bus or tram stops. The practice has since spread to Australia , Japan , and certain parts of Canada and USA . In Northern America , the rule is more commonly known as the "Yield to Bus" rule. So far, literature review and traffic studies do not indicate that the operation of the scheme in these countries increase the risks of accidents.

In a land scarce Singapore , it is essential to optimise the use of our limited road space to move people and goods efficiently. Compared to the public transport, bicycles are not an efficient mode of transportation for moving the masses. Therefore, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) does not provide bicycle lanes within road reserves.

However, some new initiatives were announced recently to make cycling more convenient, such as more cycling tracks will be built next to existing footpaths linking to residential areas.

The Tripartite Committee of LTA, Traffic Police (TP) and Tampines GROs, in consultation and discussion with the cycling community and other agencies, will continuously look into ways to improve the safety of cyclists and pedestrians. These include educational efforts on the observance of traffic rules. We also understand that the TP carries out regular talks and exhibitions on safe cycling habits as part of their public education efforts on road safety.

We thank you for writing in.

Yours sincerely

(SIGNED IN LOTUS NOTES)
Cindy Ong (Ms)
Executive
Project Communications & Feedback

bic_cherry SG

My response to LTA/CC/PCF/FB/F20.000.000/13623/VT

Dear Ms Ong
I thank you for your well informed response 'LTA/CC/PCF/FB/F20.000.000/13623/VT'
Please ignore my last mail dated 24Feb2010 as this one supercedes the last (updated for clarity/ grammar).

I've managed to find a copy of the said 'Convention on Road Traffic (CoRT1968), amendment 1*, (done at Vienna on 8th Nov 1968)', * incorporating the amendments of 3 September 1993 at http://www.unece.org/trans/conventn/crt1968e.pdf , from which your description of article 17 subtly yet significantly differs. Excerpts as follow:

Chapter II: RULES OF THE ROAD:

ARTICLE 15: Special regulations relating to regular public-transport service vehicles
It is recommended that domestic legislation should provide that in built-up areas, in order to facilitate the movement of regular public-transport service vehicles, the drivers of other vehicles shall, subject to the provisions of Article 17, paragraph 1, of this Convention, slow down and if necessary stop in order to allow the public-transport vehicles to perform the manoeuvre required for moving off from stops marked as such. The provisions thus laid down by Contracting Parties or subdivisions thereof shall in no way affect the duty incumbent on drivers of public-transport vehicles to take, after having given warning by means of their direction-indicators of their intention to move off, the precautions necessary to avoid any risk of accident.

ARTICLE 17: Slowing down
1. No driver of a vehicle shall brake abruptly unless it is necessary to do so for safety reasons.

As such, I have a few related queries/ observations.
1) There seem to be many bus stops without annexed yellow boxes. Given the established function and ease of policing of such, wouldn't the complete provision of such contribute further towards overall reduction of bus ride durations? Other possibly unexploited options include road widening, bus first green lights, pedestrian crossings that interrupt traffic flows and allow buses to exit bays, more cycle tracks etc.

2) Bus lanes, in addition to privileging bus flows, have an important secondary purpose- as a conduit for emergency vehicles. Their presence have many a time made the difference between life and death of those whose lives depended upon emergency vehicles taking to the bus lane. Bus lanes also appropriately operate only during peak hours, is it necessary that the GWTBS operates 24 hours? By LTA's own admission, the GWTBS remains far inferior to the existing Bus Lanes scheme http://www.onemotoring.com.sg/publish/onemotoring/en/on_the_roads/traffic_management/mandatory_give_way.html vs http://www.onemotoring.com.sg/publish/onemotoring/en/on_the_roads/traffic_management/full_day_bus_lanes.html : overall journey time improvements of (up to) 7% vs. 12% as I understand the case to be.
Do plans to extend the bus lane scheme to improve bus flows rank high on the LTA's list of priorities?

3) My example of an ambulance/ even another bus meeting with an exiting bus leaves is another GWTBS ambiguity that remains yet unresolved. Your directives may need elaboration.

4) Is there a time line towards the creation of cycle tracks and would they further result in a greater built up areas, higher maintenance costs etc. The current 'park connector network' with their wide road girths have successfully married pedestrians and cyclists on the same path; are newer housing estates being planned with the popularity of cycling in mind?

5) What efforts have been made thus far to coordinate safe use of 'footpaths' by both pedestrians and cyclists? http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1024539/1/.html : accesses the 13thDec09 CNA Tampines cycling report. The video has since been withdrawn but problem in the photo is same: there is no sense of left or right amongst pedestrians some pedestrians continue to hog the entire path resulting in cyclist weaving in and out between- tragedy awaiting.
Many shopping centers programme their escalators with no sense of left or right, thus Singaporeans seem very confused if slower pedestrian traffic should keep left or right. In my opinion, it is this state of confusion aggravated by the over-commercialization of Singapore society that has resulted in all the friction between pedestrians and cyclist. Instead of just focusing upon training and penalization of errant cyclist, wardens should start with education of pedestrian traffic.
Unless the 'main users' of the paths coordinate their act , wheeled 'visitors' would always remain a suspect and much unwelcome lot! Pedestrians need to be coordinated first (starting from primary 1).

6) Would it be valid for an 'offending' driver to appeal that according to CoRT1968 article 17, paragraph 1, re: to avoid braking abruptly; a driver who doesn't comply to the 'give way to bus scheme' (GWTBS)/ article 15, since article 15 is "subject to the provisions of Article 17, paragraph 1"- i.e. if the bus signal to exit had been given abruptly/ is not clearly seen? Given these legal contortions, would it be ill-anticipated that such ambiguities might potentially lead to greater conflict and wastage of court and administrative time in prosecution and reconciliation?
Why is it that Singapore isn't on the UN list of countries signatory to the 'Convention on Road Traffic [Vienna, 8 November 1968]': http://www.unece.org/trans/conventn/legalinst_08_RTRSS_RT1968.html .

7) Lastly, I'd like to feedback that the current bus lanes scheme is by fortunate coincidence, a boon to cyclist as they allow cyclist an 'unobstructed' passage on busy roads. This remains so as by virtue of cyclist's 'slower' speeds, they are required to keep to the left-most lanes. Buses exiting bays also rightfully give way to them according to article 14 of CoRT1968: [General requirements governing manoeuvres]: Para1. 'Any driver wishing to perform a manoeuvre such as pulling out of or into a line of parked vehicles, moving over to the right or to the left on the carriageway, ..., shall first make sure that he can do so without risk of endangering other road-users traveling behind or ahead of him or about to pass him, having regard to their position, direction and speed.'

In short, with many other well established options applicable towards public transport efficiency remaining unexploited, the GWTBS should be the last on the list of LTA's options.
Bus lanes remain a boon to both emergency vehicles as well as cyclists- whose mode of transportation remain a socially responsible, efficient and healthy choice; and rightly so as National Development Minister and MP for Tampines GRC, Mah Bow Tan, had admitted in announcing: [circa.Aug2008]"The Ministry of Transport has already indicated...(it is) interested to promote cycling as a mode of transport, instead of just as a form of leisure. … ...."

Given the increasing concerns about global warming and rising energy costs, it would be wise for the LTA to not dwell too much on their perception that “bicycles are not an efficient mode of transportation for moving the masses”.

Conceiving of cyclist having to directly inhale the bus fumes of exiting buses, the 'legitimate' result of their abidance to the GWTBS remains an unimaginable thought.

CoRT1968 Article15 'Special regulations relating to regular public-transport service vehicles', by nature of the term 'special' should remain an exception rather then the norm, a last option only after ALL other established traffic control measures have been exhausted.

I despair with the thought of cycling becoming untenable and unhealthy activity due to LTA imposed obstacles and increased air pollution, the result of our 'money god' driven economy. Has the objective of remaining garden city been sidestepped?

I hope that that worry will never see the light of day.

I thank you for your prompt well informed responses thus far and eagerly look forward to your further categorical response of consideration and concern. Do have a nice day.

References (in order of appearance):

Warmest regards and Best wishes,

BicCherry
"Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race". ~ H. G. Wells, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._G._Wells