When u approaching, corner, dark n hilly area, that considered risk area lah

Based ontp this shit logic, every shit driver needs to do 6 years jail

Anyway I saw this on fb but not sure where the source was

[attachmentid=11136068]

The bicycle were in stationary position. N driver was playing hp?

Another revelation from fb comment which has similar principle as mimr

KEPUTUSAN PENDAKWAAN KES BASIKAL LAJAK..

Selepas saya baca kesemua fakta ini. Keputusan Tuan Hakim adalah munasabah dan bermerit. Bukan berdasarkan sentimen dan semata2 menlihat fakta sebelah pihak sahaja.

Fakta 1 ;

Dalam kertas keputusan tersebut. Tuan hakim mengatakan. Pelaku sepatutnya tidak membawa laju ketika jalan raya GELAP.

Ini tindakan biasa. Kalau jalan yang gelap , tiada lampu jalan. Dah tentu kita bawa perlahan kerana pemandangan mata dan penlihatan di depan tidak JELAS kerana GELAP.  Ini fakta yang kukuh.

Dan andai PELAKU membawa perlahan dan berhati - hati ketika menlalui jalan GELAP. Dah tentu kalau berlaku kemalangan. TIDAK MUNGKIN MATI , mungkin hanya Cedera.

Tapi dalam kes ni. 8 nyawa melayang serta merta ,

Adakah kerana pelaku membawa perlahan dan berhati - hati? Kebiasaannya sebaliknya.. LAJU..

Fakta 2 ;

Dalam kertas keputusan tersebut. Tuan hakim mengatakan , pelaku tahu jalan tersebut berselekoh dan berbukit.

Sepatutnya pelaku membawa perlahan dan berhati- hati. Kerana kebiasaannya pemandu tidak akan bawa laju di jalan yang berselekoh dan berbukit kerana mana- mana pemandu lebih utamakan KESELAMATAN diri sendiri. Bila lalui jalan selekoh dan berbukit..

Ini fakta ke 2 yang munasabah. Logik kita sebagai pemandu dah tentu kita takkan bawa laju atau menekan minyak bila lalui jalan selekoh atau berbukit.

So keputusan TUAN HAKIM munasabah dan bermerit. ( logik ).

******************

Rumusan dari saya ;

6 tahun di penjara tidak sama seperti kehilangan nyawa. Kehilangan nyawa atau kehilangan anak ni LUKA belum tentu sembuh walaupun ibu bapa arwah kanak2 tersebut hidup selama 70 tahun.

Ye mereka kanak - kanak nakal keluar malam lewat pagi. Saya nampak fakta ni.

Namun kenakalan kanak2 ni bukan bersifat SELAMANYA.

Andai mereka tidak dilanggar ketika kejadian kemalangan itu , dah tentu mereka masih ada PELUANG untuk berubah.

Sayangnya , mereka tak sempat berubah. Malah nyawa ditarik sebegitu. 

Maka keadilan perlu ditegak. Itu fungsi MAHKAMAH dan TUAN HAKIM .

Keadilan yang tertangguh bukan KEADILAN. 

Selagi pelaku tidak diberi HUKUMAN , maka KEADILAN TIDAK WUJUD LAGI. 

KEADILAN WAJIB DIBERI BERDASARKAN FAKTA DAN BUKTI. 

Selepas baca kertas keputusan ni. Saya rasa HUKUMAN 6 tahun LAYAK untuk Pelaku..

Macam saya kata tadi , 6 tahun di Penjara TIDAK SAMA seperti KEHILANGAN NYAWA.

Jangan bandingkan 2 perkara ni. Terlalu jauh beza.

Sekian ,
#dieyoadie

Example of herd mentality. U only follow the trend, there is no independent thinking from u.

We are away from that n into new dimension of thought

I think the judge will have the final say in defining "laju". For example, the speed limit is 70km/h, but it is during hari raya and traffic jam, if in such circumstance you still drive 70km/h, are you not "laju" or reckless? Sorry for using this obvious example, but my point is speed limit is only one factor to consider reckless or not, you also need to see the road condition.

In this sense the HC judge was not wrong. But in SKT's situation, the judge might have imposed too high a standard on drivers for if we put ourselves in her shoe, how many of us can actually avoid that collision?

Some of the reader still dont get my point

As a driver, we DONT WAIT until danger comes to us
But we must anticipate possible danger n do preventive measures

When u wait for danger to be identified, most of the time u have no time to do some preventive measures

Anyway I saw this on fb but not sure where the source was

[attachmentid=11136068]

The bicycle were in stationary position. N driver was playing hp?

Another revelation from fb comment which has similar principle as mimr

KEPUTUSAN PENDAKWAAN KES BASIKAL LAJAK..

Selepas saya baca kesemua fakta ini. Keputusan Tuan Hakim adalah munasabah dan bermerit. Bukan berdasarkan sentimen dan semata2 menlihat fakta sebelah pihak sahaja.

Fakta 1 ;

Dalam kertas keputusan tersebut. Tuan hakim mengatakan. Pelaku sepatutnya tidak membawa laju ketika jalan raya GELAP.

Ini tindakan biasa. Kalau jalan yang gelap , tiada lampu jalan. Dah tentu kita bawa perlahan kerana pemandangan mata dan penlihatan di depan tidak JELAS kerana GELAP.  Ini fakta yang kukuh.

Dan andai PELAKU membawa perlahan dan berhati - hati ketika menlalui jalan GELAP. Dah tentu kalau berlaku kemalangan. TIDAK MUNGKIN MATI , mungkin hanya Cedera.

Tapi dalam kes ni. 8 nyawa melayang serta merta ,

Adakah kerana pelaku membawa perlahan dan berhati - hati? Kebiasaannya sebaliknya.. LAJU..

Fakta 2 ;

Dalam kertas keputusan tersebut. Tuan hakim mengatakan , pelaku tahu jalan tersebut berselekoh dan berbukit.

Sepatutnya pelaku membawa perlahan dan berhati- hati. Kerana kebiasaannya pemandu tidak akan bawa laju di jalan yang berselekoh dan berbukit kerana mana- mana pemandu lebih utamakan KESELAMATAN diri sendiri. Bila lalui jalan selekoh dan berbukit..

Ini fakta ke 2 yang munasabah. Logik kita sebagai pemandu dah tentu kita takkan bawa laju atau menekan minyak bila lalui jalan selekoh atau berbukit.

So keputusan TUAN HAKIM munasabah dan bermerit. ( logik ).

******************

Rumusan dari saya ;

6 tahun di penjara tidak sama seperti kehilangan nyawa. Kehilangan nyawa atau kehilangan anak ni LUKA belum tentu sembuh walaupun ibu bapa arwah kanak2 tersebut hidup selama 70 tahun.

Ye mereka kanak - kanak nakal keluar malam lewat pagi. Saya nampak fakta ni.

Namun kenakalan kanak2 ni bukan bersifat SELAMANYA.

Andai mereka tidak dilanggar ketika kejadian kemalangan itu , dah tentu mereka masih ada PELUANG untuk berubah.

Sayangnya , mereka tak sempat berubah. Malah nyawa ditarik sebegitu. 

Maka keadilan perlu ditegak. Itu fungsi MAHKAMAH dan TUAN HAKIM .

Keadilan yang tertangguh bukan KEADILAN. 

Selagi pelaku tidak diberi HUKUMAN , maka KEADILAN TIDAK WUJUD LAGI. 

KEADILAN WAJIB DIBERI BERDASARKAN FAKTA DAN BUKTI. 

Selepas baca kertas keputusan ni. Saya rasa HUKUMAN 6 tahun LAYAK untuk Pelaku..

Macam saya kata tadi , 6 tahun di Penjara TIDAK SAMA seperti KEHILANGAN NYAWA.

Jangan bandingkan 2 perkara ni. Terlalu jauh beza.

Sekian ,
#dieyoadie

Malaysia is a country that upholds its constitution and laws,
Malaysia doesn't uphold judge personal opinions, the judge has to follow what is written in the constitution and laws,
as for your example,
the speed limit is 70km/h
any speed below 70 km/h is considered abide the laws.
traffic jam = slow-moving
you drive lower speed, and the judge can not say you break the law and jail you !!

so your point is irrelevant,

Causing death by reckless or dangerous driving  41. (1) Any person who, by the driving of a motor vehicle on a road recklessly or at a speed or in a manner which having regard to all the circumstances (including the nature, condition and size of the road, and the amount of traffic which is or might be expected to be on the road) is dangerous to the public, causes the death of any person shall be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction be punished with imprisonment for a term of *not less than two years and not more than ten years and to a fine not less than five thousand ringgit and not more than twenty thousand ringgit

Perhaps I did not explain well, let me try again.

When you are driving, speed limit is only one of the factors you need to take into account, you have to also take into consideration of other road conditions.

Let me quote RTA1987 since you are talking about laws,
As you can see, there is no guarantee that if you drive within speed limit then you are not reckless. While you may not be guilty of exceeding speed limit, there can be times where even you drive within the limit but is still dangerous to the public, for example heavy rain or obstruction in the middle of the road etc.

Topkek bani posting stupid things again.

No wonder you missed your exam.

U do know there are low level pulis right? But that's what the judges is implying.

Oh please be specific on this case, what other road condition you are talking about now. Dont need to swerve off topic. The point being brought forward was,

Driver:
1)-she was driving within speed limit (below 50km/h) as proven by majistret court and MIROS system.
2)-she couldnt see those riders under dark road condition and hilly condition

Road condition:
-Dark and not much light and jpj admitted the area is not fully lighted.

Rider: (mat lajak)
-Their basikal is not considered as valid transport vehicle because it has been modified.
-Basikal is not permitted to use in highway at all.
-Their basikal is modified to be lowered to the ground to reduce drag, this makes driver even more difficult to see them.
-Their basikal is WITHOUT ANY lights. Alot of people missed this important point.
-I have not yet give how fast riders are riding that time.

So we go to the core problem now which the Judge has decided she drove her car dangerously, which everyone here disagree. Now, you as accuser/prosecutor please prove how Ms Sam is driving dangerously when she is driving below speed limit under that road condition and riders that is not supposed to be on highway.

Perhaps I did not explain well, let me try again.

When you are driving, speed limit is only one of the factors you need to take into account, you have to also take into consideration of other road conditions.

Let me quote RTA1987 since you are talking about laws,
As you can see, there is no guarantee that if you drive within speed limit then you are not reckless. While you may not be guilty of exceeding speed limit, there can be times where even you drive within the limit but is still dangerous to the public, for example heavy rain or obstruction in the middle of the road etc.

Nevertheless, there is a limit as to how careful we can drive, sometimes even if we drive reasonably accident can still happen. Now the recent decision has IMO imposed too high a duty that many thinks is unreasonable, which I too agree and hope that the coming appeal can clarify this. The HC judge's point remains valid that a driver should be vigilant of the conditions of the road, though for the facts of this particular case whether SKT really drove recklessly remains a question to be answered by the Court of Appeal.

It is rather unfortunate that we actually don't have the details and reasons as to why what was held to be no prima facie case established in the Magistrate Court was overturned by the High Court in 2021 and SKT was ordered to enter defence. I tried to search for the written grounds of judgment but could not find it anywhere.

Now, I don't disagree with you that the prosecution and/or the judge are probably asking SKT to do the impossible which the Magistrate herself in her judgment said SKT could not have possibly avoid it unless the car can fly. My initial reply was towards your question about who decides how fast amounts to "laju" and whether driving within speed limit can be dangerous, which I said the judge will have final say as they will be the interpreter of the law and there are times where driving within speed limit can be dangerous.

I too am puzzled on the core problem that you asked, for what reason the Magistrate's finding of reckless driving not proven by prosecution be overturned, but no one really has answer to it until we see the grounds of judgment of the High Court. Though since the appeal is set to be heard soon, let's hope that a more satisfying decision can be made and all these questions that we have be answered.