Give way to buses scheme is so stupid

From: Cherry
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 12:53:34 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Fri, Sep 4 2009 3:53 am
Subject: Re: Give way to buses scheme is disingenuous

Give way to buses scheme is disingenuous (Ver3.2; 4Sept09):

The most ridiculous explanation: “How the Scheme Works- The Mandatory
Give-Way to Buses Scheme is similar conceptually to a zebra crossing,
except that it is meant for buses.”

1)Have the authorities considered the interests of cyclists, whose
established medium to transportation is evidently healthier and
'greener'? Already making a personal sacrifice in sunny Singapore,
should the hot, sweaty cyclist also be expected to stop and give way
to smoky buses, (the newly crowned 'pedestrians' of the road)?

2)What if it is a taxi/ car/ private bus etc exiting the bus lane:
should motorists before the 'yellow box' give way too? Would all
drivers (including foreign talents and tourists) understand the new

3)Re inventing the wheel (
There already exists in LTA's arsenal of road rulings system (http://
): the normal and full day bus lanes system (continuous and dotted),
yellow lines (single & double, straight & zig-zag) , yellow boxes
(spanning 1 or more lanes), ERP gantries, bus only green lights. These
are all established and easily understood conventions unlike this new
LTA rule which obviously contradicts both the existing “Changing lane
without consideration for other road users” rule found on the SPF
website (
Driving_in_Singapore/Information/roadsafety/causeandtips.htm ); and
the common rules of overtaking (
Overtaking) .

4)Given the counter intuitive nature of the new law and the fact that
a bus is in many ways NOT a pedestrian, can bus drivers and other
commuters be logistically expected to abide harmoniously by such ill
conceived laws, not to mention the possibility of some new/ demented
drivers on our roads: local or foreign:

5)Such regulatory ambiguities will have the following results:
Tragic accidents/ near misses due to ignorance, mis-communication or
lapses in judgment.
Heavy vehicles eg trailers which cannot logically stop in time may
take the 2nd inner lane thus posing a road hazard and slow down
overall traffic.
Ambulances/ emergency vehicles may be slowed down as their drivers
deploy extra caution against buses when using the left most lane.
Dangerous confusions amongst bus drivers on who it is that actually
has the right of way.
Overall road traffic congestion due to accidents, and the extra care
needed to discern each driver's intentions/ disposition in such
ambiguous situations.
Chain collisions could occur as some excitable car drivers suddenly
screech to a halt to avoid $130 fine/ 'collision' upon seeing the
buses' right signal blinking; only to discover that the bus driver has
again changed his signal to allow a late arriving commuter to board.
Difficulties in enforcement as those caught could always argue that
the bus was not obvious in its intentions/ suddenly pulled out without
due warning.

6)I've always accepted of bus lanes as effective if well planned;
easily policed and helpful to both cyclist and emergency vehicles both
of which should have as special place on roads as buses. These
regulations, in addition to an affordable and well planned public
transport system would surely make land transport in Singapore a
hassle free experience.

BT, May11, 2009: “By the end of this year, LTA will take over the role
of Central Bus Planner (CBP) and will be reviewing the island-wide bus
route plans to optimise network efficiency.”... “There is an average
cost of $7,000 per location ”... (
Story/A1Story20090511-140749.html ). Regrettably, LTA must now swiftly
review its inappropriate regulations and contain the wasted

Whilst, LTA's new role as CBP implies new responsibilities, I hope
this is not the usual high-handed approach towards achieving
departmental goals. A place for proper consultation and consideration
exists in this case as the roads in question serve a myriad of users.
It is obvious from LTA's article (at
that in haste to declare the trial a success, LTA's approach has been
rash and myopic; the main parties consulted it seems were only '200
commuters' and 'public transport operators'. I doubt LTA consulted
SPF, cyclist's associations, emergency vehicles, vehicle insurers and
general bus drivers before implementing these laws. (29April09: )

This narrow minded, elitist mode of administration will ultimately
fail and cannot be the modus operandi of a government that prides
itself for integrity, service and excellence. (
index.htm )

In conclusion, this ill-considered regulation as unacceptable as it is
dangerous, shows the need to have committed and qualified individuals
managing our civil service and our ministries. Slip-shod, distracted,
half baked scholars in their ivory towers wont do; and Singaporeans
must ensure so by voting wisely, a stable and sustainable government
and policies.

I've made my case, those stupid ornaments MUST go.

From: "AleXX"
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 22:16:18 +0800
Local: Sat, Aug 22 2009 10:16 pm
Subject: Re: Give way to buses scheme is disingenuous

It comes at a time where Temasek lost tons of money and all government
bodies must contribute and make up these losses. LTA is one of the
contributor by squeezing money from the public and motorists. This explain
everything in this subject.


No comments:

Post a Comment