Saturday, September 23, 2006
Holidays
The holidays are here. Don't seem to have the holiday mood though. There's a maths test as soon as term starts again, and I have to go back to school during the holiday week for sets. We still have to work 16 hours, but we're trying to pack it all into 2 days.
Saw a letter to the Straits Times today. The title is "Old hands at driving booked 5 times in a month". First of all, I shall state some of the implied assumptions which were made.
The writer suggests that with their combined driving experience of almost 40 years, it's an outrage that they were booked 5 times in the past month. Their offences were speeding, crossing a double white line and trespassing in the bus lane.
They were incredulous to learn that some traffic police roles have been outsourced. Personally, I don't think it makes a difference. You don't have to be a specially trained traffic policeman to note down the number plates of cars driving in the bus lane during bus lane hours, and I don't think you need special training to note down the numbers of vehicles crossing double white lines. Also, there's a suggestion that this benefits the companies, when the writer states that the $3 million in fines for bus lane violations is big business. She failed to state that the company in question is paid $300k to perform this role. I assume that the fines go to the government. Thus there is no incentive for the company to do a dishonest job, unless they pay their officers by the number of vehicles they book. If they do, then they should change that system.
It's true that driving in Singapore is not as easy as going in a straight line at a constant speed. However, that's no excuse to break the rules. I cannot see how veering suddenly in and out of lanes can prevent an accident. Of course, you avoid the immediate threat, but an accident was only avoided because there was no car in the lane you veered into. The safer solution would have been to avoid tailgating in the first place, then no veering would have been necessary.
Why do you need to be extra alert and look out for traffic wardens?? You only need to worry if you're doing something wrong. If you're following all the rules, you can drive past a traffic warden with no anxiety at all. Why do you need to keep a special lookout for them?
The writer also mentions that they did not realise that they had infringed the rules. Obviously, 40 years of combined experience have made them forget what the road markings mean. They aren't drawn there to make our roads look pretty. Perhaps the two of them should take the basic theory test again. Double white lines, bus lane timings, what a speed limit sign looks like, and the speed limits of roads with no explicit signs are all covered in the test.
Her conclusion is just as absurd. Both of them have been safe drivers for many many years, so how can one explain the summonses they got recently? Well, the answer to that is simple. It is obvious that her definition of safe driver is one who has not had many accidents. However, our roads weren't designed to be a free for all. There are rules to be followed, this is for everyone's safety. She must have been breaking the rules all this while, and now that she's caught, she's complaining about it.
So what if everyone speeds? You're caught for the offence. It's not going to help if you go outside and tell them everyone is speeding too. Just because everyone does it doesn't make it right.
Saw a letter to the Straits Times today. The title is "Old hands at driving booked 5 times in a month". First of all, I shall state some of the implied assumptions which were made.
The writer suggests that with their combined driving experience of almost 40 years, it's an outrage that they were booked 5 times in the past month. Their offences were speeding, crossing a double white line and trespassing in the bus lane.
They were incredulous to learn that some traffic police roles have been outsourced. Personally, I don't think it makes a difference. You don't have to be a specially trained traffic policeman to note down the number plates of cars driving in the bus lane during bus lane hours, and I don't think you need special training to note down the numbers of vehicles crossing double white lines. Also, there's a suggestion that this benefits the companies, when the writer states that the $3 million in fines for bus lane violations is big business. She failed to state that the company in question is paid $300k to perform this role. I assume that the fines go to the government. Thus there is no incentive for the company to do a dishonest job, unless they pay their officers by the number of vehicles they book. If they do, then they should change that system.
It's true that driving in Singapore is not as easy as going in a straight line at a constant speed. However, that's no excuse to break the rules. I cannot see how veering suddenly in and out of lanes can prevent an accident. Of course, you avoid the immediate threat, but an accident was only avoided because there was no car in the lane you veered into. The safer solution would have been to avoid tailgating in the first place, then no veering would have been necessary.
Why do you need to be extra alert and look out for traffic wardens?? You only need to worry if you're doing something wrong. If you're following all the rules, you can drive past a traffic warden with no anxiety at all. Why do you need to keep a special lookout for them?
The writer also mentions that they did not realise that they had infringed the rules. Obviously, 40 years of combined experience have made them forget what the road markings mean. They aren't drawn there to make our roads look pretty. Perhaps the two of them should take the basic theory test again. Double white lines, bus lane timings, what a speed limit sign looks like, and the speed limits of roads with no explicit signs are all covered in the test.
Her conclusion is just as absurd. Both of them have been safe drivers for many many years, so how can one explain the summonses they got recently? Well, the answer to that is simple. It is obvious that her definition of safe driver is one who has not had many accidents. However, our roads weren't designed to be a free for all. There are rules to be followed, this is for everyone's safety. She must have been breaking the rules all this while, and now that she's caught, she's complaining about it.
So what if everyone speeds? You're caught for the offence. It's not going to help if you go outside and tell them everyone is speeding too. Just because everyone does it doesn't make it right.
posted by cosine @ 9:52 PM 
