Idiotic sia
-
HE stopped his car abruptly on the fast lane of a busy highway to insert his CashCard.
Miss Tiong's bike which was damaged after the accident. TNP File Picture: GAVIN FOO And it caused an accident that left a woman seriously injured.
But to Mr Lim Huang Khim, 45, it was the 'natural thing' to do. He does not think he did anything wrong.
This, despite being fined for his inconsiderate driving that caused a motorcyclist to slam into the car behind him - which had braked in time to avoid hitting Mr Lim's car.
This, despite a judge ruling in a civil suit that Mr Lim was 50 per cent liable for the accident.
The motorcyclist, Miss Tiong Zhen Cheng, 33, was flung more than 20m and landed beside Mr Lim's car.
The sales executive was warded in the intensive care unit and spent about a week in hospital. She still suffers pain and some memory loss.
Miss Tiong ended up being sued by the driver of the second car, Mr Lye Chiew Meng, for the damage to his Toyota.
His rear windscreen was shattered and the repair bill came to $7,000.
But her insurance company felt Mr Lim should also be liable and he was named as the third party in the civil suit.
SMILED MANY TIMES IN COURT
TNP Photo Illustration Earlier this month, Mr Lim, who works as a driver, insisted he was not to blame and smiled several times as he recounted the accident on the stand.
He was chided by District Judge Lim Wee Meng for his cavalier attitude.
Judge Lim said: 'I don't think it's funny. Someone was seriously injured and I don't think it's funny at all.'
The accident happened around 7.50pm on 29 Nov 2006 on the Central Expressway, just before the Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) gantry near the Braddell exit.
Mr Lim was driving a rented silver Mitsubishi car and was travelling on the extreme right lane on his way home with his wife and four children.
When he saw that the gantry was activated, he switched on the car's hazard lights and stopped to slot in his CashCard.
Mr Lye, a finance manager, who was behind him, managed to stop in time. But Miss Tiong's 400cc Honda motorbike crashed into Mr Lye's car.
When cross-examined by Miss Tiong's lawyer, Mr Lim maintained that he was not at fault.
Her lawyer, Mr William Chai, asked: 'A car was damaged, a person was severely and mentally injured, are you saying you are not responsible? Not even 1 per cent?'
Mr Lim replied: 'I'm saying that I'm totally not to be blamed.'
He told the court that he had not inserted his CashCard into the in-vehicle unit (IU) earlier because he did not know that the ERP gantry was activated at that time.
When asked if seeing the activated gantry was a big surprise, Mr Lim said he had seen it from afar and was trying to insert the CashCard in time.
He also told the court that he did not see Miss Tiong's bike behind Mr Lye's car.
He admitted that following the accident, he had purposely left out in his police report the reason for stopping his car as he knew that it was an offence.
Mr Lim, who has been driving for 24 years, was fined $200 by the Traffic Police for inconsiderate driving and given nine demerit points.
But in his affidavit tendered to the court, he said: 'I decided to pay the $200 out of convenience even though I do not believe that I should be responsible for the accident.
'I did not want the trouble to engage a lawyer to contest the claim because this would be time-consuming and the legal fees would definitely exceed $200.'
In contrast, Mr Lye was apologetic about what happened to Miss Tiong. His lawyer, Miss Bonnie Kwok, told the court: 'My client would like to extend his sympathies to Miss Tiong.'
She also said that while Mr Lye could clearly see the traffic conditions in front of him, Miss Tiong could not.
Said Miss Kwok: 'It's not a situation whereby the vehicles were approaching a traffic light junction, so there's no reason for Miss Tiong to anticipate a sudden stopping.
'Mr Lim had created a dangerous situation. I found it rather distasteful that Mr Lim's demeanour in court showed that he couldn't be bothered that Miss Tiong had suffered severe injuries and trauma.'
Before giving his verdict, the judge pointed out that Mr Lim could have gone through the ERP gantry and paid an administrative fee of $10 for not having a CashCard.
LIABLE FOR DAMAGE
He ruled that Mr Lim and Miss Tiong were each 50 per cent liable for the damage caused to Mr Lye's car.
When contacted by The New Paper, Mr Lim insisted that he was not in the wrong.
He said in Mandarin: 'Are you a driver? Have you driven a car before?
'If you have, you should know that it's a driver's natural reaction (when you see an activated gantry).
'You can't say it's right or wrong because there's no right or wrong in such situations. I did switch on the hazard lights to warn the vehicles behind me.'
Mr Lim said that he felt sorry for the injured Miss Tiong, though he did not speak to her in court.
'She might think that I have an ulterior motive if I went up to her and apologised,' he said.
Just two days before the accident involving Miss Tiong, Mr Lim said he was involved in a similar accident along the East Coast Parkway.
Mr Lim told The New Paper that the car in front of his had slowed down suddenly.
'So I also braked and stopped my car to take a closer look at what the driver was up to and to take down his licence plate number,' he said.
'But the car behind me couldn't stop in time and ended up crashing into the rear of my car.'
Mr Lim said the first car then drove off. His car, a Honda Stream, ended up at the workshop for five days.
That was why he was driving a rented car, which did not have a CashCard in the IU.
Mr Lim added: 'If I was driving my car, this wouldn't have happened because I always have the CashCard inside the IU.'
-
ERP ERP ERP ERP ERP ERP
ERP ERP ERP ERP ERP ERP
ERP ERP ERP ERP ERP ERP
ERP ERP ERP ERP ERP ERP
ERP ERP ERP ERP ERP ERP
-
i am suspecting he thinks the woman on the bike is a lousy driver.
and the article, featuring his argument and his point of view, is kinda convincing..
i still think that was a retarded action,
-
i double posted
so here's a link to urbandictionary
www.urbandictionary.com
-
bull shiat la... he noe tt place got ERP one lo den still dunwan to put his cashcard inside.
such kind of driver, no comments. every morning ECP oso liddat. at gantry can suddenly see cars stop.
-
but shouldn't the vehicles behind keep a safe distance?
-
Keeping a safe distance using 2 or 3 second rule is not going to guarantee adequate braking room all the time. Conditions vary from time to time. To gauge and maintain the right safety distance relative to traveling speed is a pain in the ass. If and when you do, somtimes you end up road hogging. It really is a no win situation. It's not the habit of most drivers to adhere to this practice.
Why was the motorcyclist traveling on the extreme right lane? Braddell exit should be a two lane exit.
How come the 2nd car immediately behind 1st car managed to stop in time without bumping into its rear but the motorcyclist third in row slammed so badly into second car?
Were there safety distance, delayed reaction and speed control issues?
What are the chances of any driver doing a jam brake on an extreme right lane?
He probably switched on hazard lights and came to a halt within a matter of seconds. If second driver stopped his car and didn't sustain minor injuries but the motorcyclist behind him got flung and landed 20m away, who was the one speeding? Pardon me but it's common sight for young motorcyclists to travel at high speed, weaving in and out of traffic, take on extreme right lane even when they are clearly not supposed to.
In the first place, the headline for this article is one sided and very misleading. It could've been Motorist charged for traffic offence approaching ERP gantry. But hey it's TNP afterall. Tabloid paper.
To be honest, if I were in his shoes, I would have adopted the same views and attitude. If he were sobbing in court, readers would have that action as tears of guilt. It's a real no win situation.
-
slow is dangerousss
aiya kena! beep beep beep
Go listen to the ERP song. hahaha
-
stupid la really stupid.. inconsiderate bastard still can smile like a dumbass.. why didnt the woman torpedo into his car instead.. lol..
-
Originally posted by Gackt247:
stupid la really stupid.. inconsiderate bastard still can smile like a dumbass.. why didnt the woman torpedo into his car instead.. lol..
bike leh.
-
im not surprise that Singaporeans will suddenly stop infront of the gantry if they forget their cashcard...we Singaporeans are capable of waaaaay uglier acts.
but idiot smiled in court is really asking for it man...and since he caused an injury, give him a JAIL TERM!!!
-
reali idiot... ppl injured liao still dare to smile...
-
Its sad that someone was injured just because someone wanted to avoid a $10 fine but to be fair, what was the motorcyclist travelling on the extreme right lane. Notice the fine and demerit given by the judge was to penalise him for stopping on the expressway, but makes no mention of the driver being punished for the motorcylist's injury.
-
wait a min, mr lye extended his sympathies to miss tiong, n then proceeded to sue her bed ridden ass?
-
I say all three of them should team up to sue the government as all this would not happen if there are no ERP gantries
-
Originally posted by ChiBet:
I say all three of them should team up to sue the government as all this would not happen if there are no ERP gantries
Yah...screw the ERP system!
If you wish to charge, charge it to the tax system and stop creating unproductive and inefficient system that are dangerous and toopid!
-
Irregardless i still feel that the driver who slowed down to put his cash card is retarded.
Given you are driving a rented car without a cash card, you are not a new driver, you know where the ERP are and you already have a cash card, so why can't you just slot it b4 you start your journey? And the gantry is a big structure, you can see from far, why can't you filter to the side? Putting hazard lights on the RIGHT lane, and trying to put the cash card is truly asking for trouble.
Well, going by "hit my bottom and you pay" rule, these people won't learnt. It is the same as cars(taxis) when they cut into your lane aruptly to pick up a passenger. They know if you hit, you pay so why care?
I feel s strong message should be sent to deter such people. They seems to live in their own world and despite someone injured, they are able to take it lightly.Now, imagine you or someone you know being in the woman's shoes.
-
Originally posted by Matthiessen:
Keeping a safe distance using 2 or 3 second rule is not going to guarantee adequate braking room all the time. Conditions vary from time to time. To gauge and maintain the right safety distance relative to traveling speed is a pain in the ass. If and when you do, somtimes you end up road hogging. It really is a no win situation. It's not the habit of most drivers to adhere to this practice.
Why was the motorcyclist traveling on the extreme right lane? Braddell exit should be a two lane exit.
How come the 2nd car immediately behind 1st car managed to stop in time without bumping into its rear but the motorcyclist third in row slammed so badly into second car?
Were there safety distance, delayed reaction and speed control issues?
What are the chances of any driver doing a jam brake on an extreme right lane?
He probably switched on hazard lights and came to a halt within a matter of seconds. If second driver stopped his car and didn't sustain minor injuries but the motorcyclist behind him got flung and landed 20m away, who was the one speeding? Pardon me but it's common sight for young motorcyclists to travel at high speed, weaving in and out of traffic, take on extreme right lane even when they are clearly not supposed to.
In the first place, the headline for this article is one sided and very misleading. It could've been Motorist charged for traffic offence approaching ERP gantry. But hey it's TNP afterall. Tabloid paper.
To be honest, if I were in his shoes, I would have adopted the same views and attitude. If he were sobbing in court, readers would have that action as tears of guilt. It's a real no win situation.
Hi,why can't the motorcycle stop in time? -> cause it can't see the joker stopping.
Have you driven a motorcycle b4? Cars have fours wheels, more weight/stability and of course, it is able to handle the impact better than a motorcycle better even if the motorcycle is driving @ a slower speed.
Please, don't co-relate young, reckless motorists with this case, this only cloud judgement and stops you from being impartial.
if the joker's action were so right, why did the car behind also hit him?
Imagine going @ centre lane of an expressway, and you see a car suddenly, turning on his hazard lights, and slowed @ 20km/h, and you were from 90km/h, you have time to stop/ebrake? what if the vehicle behind is a heavy 5 toner?
This joker comes out of car, and said "I forgot to put cash-card la. " Not even asking how you are and apologetic.
What you do? Come out of car, and shake his hand and say, "what, the vehicle behind blur, never see you on hazard lights meh??"
-
Originally posted by iceFatboy:
Hi,why can't the motorcycle stop in time? -> cause it can't see the joker stopping.
Have you driven a motorcycle b4? Cars have fours wheels, more weight/stability and of course, it is able to handle the impact better than a motorcycle better even if the motorcycle is driving @ a slower speed.
Please, don't co-relate young, reckless motorists with this case, this only cloud judgement and stops you from being impartial.
if the joker's action were so right, why did the car behind also hit him?
Imagine going @ centre lane of an expressway, and you see a car suddenly, turning on his hazard lights, and slowed @ 20km/h, and you were from 90km/h, you have time to stop/ebrake? what if the vehicle behind is a heavy 5 toner?
This joker comes out of car, and said "I forgot to put cash-card la. " Not even asking how you are and apologetic.
What you do? Come out of car, and shake his hand and say, "what, the vehicle behind blur, never see you on hazard lights meh??"
Well said. Many drivers simply do not give a damn about bikers' safety and act as if they have the right of ROAD. Hey just because your fat ass is sitting in a steel box doesn't give u the right to bully bikers who are more vulnerable to accidents.
The fact that the schmuck smiled all the way in court and his previous similar accident tells alot about his bad driving attitude.
-
Originally posted by iceFatboy:
if the joker's action were so right, why did the car behind also hit him?
The car behind didn't hit him. It's the motorcyclist that hit the 2nd car which was behind the first car, which stopped to slot in his cashcard.
-
Originally posted by newcomer:
wait a min, mr lye extended his sympathies to miss tiong, n then proceeded to sue her bed ridden ass?
Yes. Sympathies aside, someone's gotta pay for the damages to the rear of his car.
-
Oh i read about this article.. The guy is simply idiotic.. He still can smile and said he pay the fine cos he dunwan drag the stuff and not cos he is guilty .. WTF! The victim got a dislocated pelvis bone ler -.-
-
wah if i'm the judge i would make him stand trial for manslaughter!
all the signs placed before the ERP gantry also he never see is it.
imagine every 10mins someone does this oncoming to an erp gantry!!! -
No matter what of not keeping safety distance or other..
Suddenly stop on the extreme right lane of expressway is an offence unless it is an emergency or accident!
He himself also admit, he omitted the detail of forgetting putting in cashcard.
It is obvious this idiot driver commited a grave mistake. Still got some forumer comment and try to point mistake to motorcyclist. What a joke! Typical ugly singaporean....
-
Originally posted by iceFatboy:
Hi,why can't the motorcycle stop in time? -> cause it can't see the joker stopping.
Have you driven a motorcycle b4? Cars have fours wheels, more weight/stability and of course, it is able to handle the impact better than a motorcycle better even if the motorcycle is driving @ a slower speed.
Please, don't co-relate young, reckless motorists with this case, this only cloud judgement and stops you from being impartial.
if the joker's action were so right, why did the car behind also hit him?
Imagine going @ centre lane of an expressway, and you see a car suddenly, turning on his hazard lights, and slowed @ 20km/h, and you were from 90km/h, you have time to stop/ebrake? what if the vehicle behind is a heavy 5 toner?
This joker comes out of car, and said "I forgot to put cash-card la. " Not even asking how you are and apologetic.
What you do? Come out of car, and shake his hand and say, "what, the vehicle behind blur, never see you on hazard lights meh??"
Hi,
Why did the 1st fucker stop and 2nd fucker didn’t even hit his rear? → 2 has super fucking electric human reaction? 2 is a super duper fantabuloso driver? Or did 2 keep a safe distance? You mean he is plain fucking heng is it?
Excuse the language, my point is there is room for questions. I’m not launching personal attacks on all motorcyclists.
If 2 hits 1, then it’s inevitable for 3 to hit 2, that is what we call a chain accident caused by one single fucker in front.
But why did the 2 stop in time but 3 slam into the rear windscreen and got flung off? What about 4? Why didn’t 4 hit 3?
Of course 3 cannot see 1 but 3 can see 2 right? If 3 cannot see 2 then are you telling me 4 cannot see 3, 5 cannot see 4. Wouldn’t the whole traffic system in Singapore go haywire with an island full of blind motorists on the highway day in and out? What sort of argument is this?
No I am not a motorcyclist and I'm not one for good reasons.
True cars can handle impact better. From the report you read, what physical impact due to direct front condition did vehicle 2 and driver 2 sustain? Even if minor compared to the trauma and broken bones sustained by 3?
Did 2 hit 1? Can you clarify where you got that information?My point is, many things can be para phrased, taken out of context with very selective quotes. It won't hurt to question why scenarios were painted in one single stroke.