(03-06-2023, 08:17 PM)Bigiron Wrote: Cyclist Jumps Onto Car Hood Near i12 Katong, Clings On As Vehicle Keeps Moving 😨
A bystander claimed that the cyclist had argued with the driver for allegedly cutting her during a turn.
👉 https://tsl.to/cyclistkatong
@mustsharenews
Car driver (Elaine Michele Ow, 49 ) is wrong on the following counts:
No overtaking is allowed at the junction. At the left turn, cam car overtook cyclist at close side clearance and cut her off at the left turn junction. This constitutes a careless driving offence.
The cam car driver drove forward into the cyclist. This is a very dangerous move, deliberately intending to injure the cyclist when it was very unsafe to do so.
By driving into the cyclist deliberately when the cyclist is collecting evidence (taking a photo) and calling the police for assistance, this might constitute an offence of destroying evidence and obstruction the police intervention/ law (despite originally cunningly, as a decoy, agreed to police assistance).
The driver's aggressive, dishonest and impatient mannerism is clearly evident in the way she sets aside the bicycle without the cyclist permission and also drives directly into the cyclist in an inhuman manner.
Together with the first overtaking incident at the earlier left turn junction, this in totality constitutes a reckless/dangerous driving offence; past court records reveal that a custodial sentence is required for drivers who disregard the safety of persons standing in front of their vehicles, for whatever reasons.
The custodial sentence for the driver should be extended for the aggravating reasons that she was both uncooperative with the request for police assistance and deliberately drove forward to prevent the cyclist from collecting photographic evidence (despite prior agreement), a deliberate disregard and insult to the police and the law, despite deceptively originally agreeing to do so- an obvious character flaw.
The cyclist is probably guilty of a rash act as she did escalate the altercation even though the cam car driver did make an apology. However, it was not wrong for her to call the police for assistance, perhaps to assist with obtaining the cam car video footage in the case where the cam car drove dangerously and overtaking at the first junction.
Past sentences on drivers who deliberately inch vehicles into people on foot, blocking their path.
1 month imprisonment, disqualified 12 mths:
https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/dr...urong-west
4 weeks imprisonment, disqualified 12 mths:
https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/ja...nt-2150086
8 weeks jail, disqualified 12mths:
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/c...ika-school
11 weeks jail, disqualification of 2 years:
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/c...windscreen
4years, 7mths jail, disqualified for life, vehicle forfeited:
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/c...-the-state
So I think, ball park, Elaine Michele Ow will probably receive 9 weeks jail, above the 8 weeks threshold for those who only inch vehicles into persons standing in front, but not so aggravated as hitting 70kph for a half hour ride. The careless driving offence at junction being taken into consideration but usually non-custodial with just fines and demerit points issued.
I think the charge against the cyclist is defendable because her blocking the moving car windscreen is the result of clinging for dear life onto the car. There is no safer position in her situation, which also began because the cam car drove into her- not to cling into the bonnet would risk being run over, so she had absolutely no other option in her situation.
The cam car driver also agreed to get the police down to mitigate the situation, thus the cyclist was just in front (as agreed) collecting essential evidence and alerting the cops. Unfortunately, what the cyclist was worried about materialised, when the driver who originally agreed to the cops attending in person, subsequently grew even more aggressive and evasive when the cyclist brought out her phone, which totally shocked the cyclist at how lawless and criminal the rogue driver actually was.
The subsequent video of cyclist still clinging onto the wiper was because she was totally shell shocked at the driver's lawless and cruel behaviour and achieving justice of some kind bystander to take photos to identify the rogue car driver, so as to seek justice and uphold the law.
As a review of making cycling roads safer in Singapore, LTA senior officials should cycle more often on roads and also engage vocational cyclist, especially food and delivery cyclist on how to make roads safer for them. As it is, poor LTA road design, conflicting laws protecting cyclist make Singapore roads biased against cyclist, thus the misfortune the cyclist in this case experienced at the hands of the rogue driver with zero respect for human safety or the law.
Even Mothership finds laws protecting Singapore road cyclist, conflicting, poorly developed and deficient.
https://youtu.be/4JXn829xUaU
Please note that this essay is NOT intended to be ultra vires in any way (i.e. sway court opinion), because it is just my observation of facts from watching the offending cam car video and news reports of past cases. These unchangeable facts will all have to be comprehensively considered by the court when this case is heard. I am in no way related to any of the parties concerned, nor do I know them.
Reference cam car video:
https://youtu.be/v4NOGggCtus
Ref news report:
https://mothership.sg/2023/06/east-coast...p-charged/
================
Interesting snippet of video: those who own COEs are more equal (entitled) than others.
"I have a car, pls don't do this"
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v4NOGggCtus&t=117
![](https://i.imgur.com/CLvY2jA.png")
![[+]](https://sgtalk.net/images/bootbb/collapse_collapsed.png)
![[Image: 869d0682857a7e6b62d960fbbf018d97f2b24bda.gifv]](https://64.media.tumblr.com/883a252a6092bf632383dc193657c9d5/59ea26b20e16e822-e3/s500x750/869d0682857a7e6b62d960fbbf018d97f2b24bda.gifv)
