Here i try to understand the basis of reasoning from the judge on why the judge decided that unfortunate driver is guilty
Several key point i want to highlighted from the report i read

"... makhamah bicara terkhilaf apabila menerima pembelaan Responden yang tidak mengetahui adanya aktiviti basikal lajak pada malam kejadian sebagai alasan untuk memandu keretanya secara merbahaya sehingga mengorbankan mangsa yang dinyatakan dalam pertuduhan. Responden seharusnya memandu kereta dengan lebih berhati - hati dan bukannya memandu dengan laju sehingga menyebabkan kemalangan tersebut."

"...Responden yang memandu keretanya secara merbahaya mengambil kira keadaan jalan yang berselekohj dan berbukit sedikit"

In my personal opinon, i think what the judge trying to highlight, as a good driver, we must anticipate any possible danger . So whenever we encounter a location that has potential danger like reduce our visibility, down the hill, crowded place, and so we must able to take necessary step to reduce the risk.
For example if we goes into school area, we must reduce our car speed, in anticipating possible danger that kid will run across the road from no where. We cant just say, eh aku tak nampak ada budak lari"

A dangerous driving will be like, even u know u are in school area, u continue to speed and somehow hit a kid. This is what considered a dangerous driving. Because u fail to anticipate n do what necessary. Same thinglah if u drive during raining too

In this case, obviously the driver not only she was approaching a dangerous location. She goes down hill and approaching the corner and its dark. A good driver usually able to anticipate the risk of danger n reduce the speed,. Unfortunately, in this case, there is no preventive measure taken during this risk location. For this the judge said " Responden seharusnya memandu kereta dengan lebih berhati - hati dan bukannya memandu dengan laju sehingga menyebabkan kemalangan tersebut. " (esp in the hilly area, at the corner and dark location)



The presence of the boys on the road is also wrong. But does it change anything if we replace the boys with ordinarly motorcycle, ordinary pedestrian, or romobongan orang? or TNB replace bulp There is no law saying that these people cant be presence on the road or the corner of highway. So a responsible driver must always able to anticipate dangerous location n do what is necessary , whatever preventive measure to prevent accident. This is in my personal opinion, the basis of the judge reasoning on the case (or course tambah dengan statement inconsistentcies like tiba2 ada new version of another car hit the kid)

This post has been edited by bani_prime: Apr 15 2022, 09:56 PM

Eja nama pun dah salah jkom bodoe

Sam poh tong?

He is dyslexic

Calling him dyslexic is an insult to actual dyslexics. He is actually a complete dumbfuck

too long.

> Highway
> anticipate a group of kids on both sides of the road and in the middle of the road

Yeah. Very reasonable assumption to make.

Exactly.
Our road are so dangerous to every other road users because drivers with lesen kopi like her are everywhere.

Good thing she's off the road for 6 years.

Hopefully this will be a good lesson for everybody yo drive safely and defensively.

This post has been edited by cursetheroad01: Apr 15 2022, 09:41 PM

highway is a dangerous location?

akal mana akal?

Those kids could be anything.
It could be a stranded car/bike.
It could be a pothole.
It could another accident scene.
It could be a drunk driver going wrong direction.

Regardless of who the victim, it will results in collision.

Good thing its just a bunch of useless kids.

any of these will drive against traffic?

I challenge anyone to cite an example where a person who followed all the rules under the RTA, and got into an accident based on the above mentioned examples, KILLED SOMEONE, and got a 6 year jail sentence.

Go ahead.

So we punish one wrong and closed an eye on another wrong? If 2 wrong doesn't make a right, then both wrong must be address / punish....

Well, this case duh
The 6 years jail is a good precedence.

Btw, if ahe had followed the rule, she could have avoided such incident.
She clearly not following the rule, causing deaths.

Serves her right. Off the road with you

This post has been edited by cursetheroad01: Apr 15 2022, 09:56 PM

I'd say your parents aborting you 20 years after you are born is a pretty good precedent at this point.

Tell me what is the speed limit of that highway

Well, the other wrong had been punished by death and their parents too lost their children. Though if a drive is to be imposed such high a standard of care, then perhaps it is only fair that the parents be responsible for negligence on their part.

if i drive on a road, i would anticipate may be there are lubang or may be there are branches from roadside tree or even breakdown cars etc, but budak nyamuk is not something that i am supposed to anticipate.

like the highway construction material drop and kill the driver case, will you say hey itu driver sepatutnya anticipate benda nak jatuh, so driver tu salah dan patut dipenjara kalau dia tak mati?

and for the umpteenth times, the MIROS has already determined that she was not speeding.

Brapa kali nk cakap ini, color! Color!

Tak kisah.... The issue here is anticipation. Even u are below speed limit, if it was raining heavily n u have poor vision, even driving fast n even bow speed limit considered dangerous driving