what is your definition of "reckless driving"??
just because 8 wild animals die?


in this case
why driver doesn't consider as "reckless driving" ??
https://www.studocu.com/my/document/univers...se-law/10740391

This post has been edited by jvcpcv55: Apr 16 2022, 10:00 AM

agreed,

someone needs to be taught simple physics calculations on response time, momentum, and breaking distance.

I didn't say drive within speed limit means reckless, I said even driving within speed limit can still be reckless in certain circumstances.

While you can say that what amounts to reckless is open to debate, ultimately it will be up to the court to determine on a case to case basis.

This case you shared is a civil case, where the plaintiff suffered losses because of the negligence of NSH, whereas the present one is a criminal case.

Anyway, my point is that when a reasonable driver see obstruction ahead they will slow down despite what the speed limit says, if a driver never slow down and swerved at last minute and cause casualty to other road user, that is reckless driving despite driving within speed limit.

The argument in SKT's case is that the so called obstruction could not be easily detectable probably because of the angle of the road, road brightness, the bicycle group not wearing bright shirt etc. In such a situation just how slow you need to drive to not be reckless is really unclear, hence the dissatisfaction of the judgment by many of us.

Firstly, NSH as the Defendant didn't raise this argument i.e. Plaintiff being contributory negligent.

It could also be that the facts of the case is such that despite Plaintiff driving carefully the situation on the road is such that even a competent driver could not have avoided the cow, so maybe the parties in that case agreed with that, so no argument about it.

We expect similar decision in SKT's case because the bicycle gang was unexpected and could be difficult to notice given the road conditions, but the High Court given the evidences of the case somehow decided otherwise. We can't tell for certain whether the facts of the case is such that SKT was really reckless or the High Court simply misappreciated the facts and imposed excessive standard of care, this will be ultimately decided by the Court of Appeal.

This post has been edited by vincent2197: Apr 16 2022, 10:20 AM

I think everyone miss one point here.

The case were over relying on story telling. Of course if we rely on her story, of course its sounds more likely she is not guilty

Because there's no cctv or camera. Have to only rely on story telling

Then, the driver somehow add another story, which is she try avoiding another car. This story has never been raised out in the previous case. This is where everyone like what?

So what is the real story version. If she lied, could that be she lie on everything. Could it be that she intent to protect the other driver (maybe friend, relative) because the damage of the car is minor. Or is cover up her negligence?

Most of the netizen are judging based on her story. Now the whole story is now currently spoiled, we don't know what is now the truth version story. Esp with 30 bicycle ramp n 8 died, of course the judge has to believe that this is reckless driving, as her story is not reliable anymlre

This post has been edited by bani_prime: Apr 16 2022, 10:45 AM

They act like animals anyway by not paying road tax and sprinting across and all over the roads without consideration for other vehicles. So might as well treat them like animals & erect a 'Awas basikal lajak' sign. Let them face the consequences like animals. When I drive on the highway, I get weirded out why always so many dead animals on the side of the road also.

Actually, they're worst than animals. Animals just need to get somewhere but these basikal lajak kids do it for fun.

This post has been edited by 349813049: Apr 16 2022, 11:19 AM

You also need to understand that the court did not just rely on witnesses' testimony, but also forensic evidence from expert etc. The Magistrate Court which got the benefit of hearing all these evidences presented before them and actually acquitted SKT twice, so despite the High Court's decision, it is safe to at least say that the case is not as clear cut as many of us thinks.

Also, just because she lied about there being another car that hit the children, or any other things that she might have lied, that does not automatically mean she was guilty of reckless driving, the court can only come to its decision upon taking into account all the things. I'd advise not to jump the gun and make conclusion based on what you guess or heard, and wait for the Court of Appeal's final decision and the grounds of judgment.

Agreed... That's why the judge takes account into 8 death 30 bicycle. This also suggest mechanism of accident which made the judge believe there is reckless driving

Im not jump straight to the point. I'm addressing possibilities. Why an UN oath statement is choose. No one will lie if one know he is not guilty. But a lie could also mean trying to cover up something. We don't know. Maybe she's fall asleep... Remember that was 3am,

The thing is netizen is relying on her story to draw conclusion that she is not guilty. But that story is now spoiled, it's not safe to draw whatever conclusion. The judge simply made out of sense from number of death n injury to believe there is reckless drivimg

This post has been edited by bani_prime: Apr 16 2022, 11:13 AM

Nono he is correct if he say it is dangerous to those basikal lajak.

On the other hand for a vehicle like cars and the like then no.

👀🤭🤣😂

I don't think you understand the law or at least you didn't make it clear enough. For the offence SKT is being charged with, namely s.41 of the Road Traffic Act 1987 causing death by reckless or dangerous driving, causing death AND reckless or dangerous driving are two separate requirements to be proven by the prosecution. The way you are saying is that because SKT caused death, therefore she was reckless. That is simply incorrect because this would presume guilt just because of death. Why have to go through all witnesses' testimony and expert investigations etc. if by virtue of death one is said to be reckless?

Just wondering, how can parents anticipate that their kids will be a sohai? Need to share to prevent breeding more ppl like ts into this world

Most are relying on the findings of the previous trial where the magistrate judge let her go. Let me repeat again.

1. No alcohol, drugs or handphone. This is a fact from police investigation. The story of the kids saying they saw her playing with handphones was already dismissed.

2. Speed of her vehicle is between 55 to 75. It's not her story but based on the MIROS investigation report.

3. The place is dark hilly and there is no way she can avoid hitting the kids because there were just too many of them. This is not her story but facts as all those were verified during the last trial.

It is strange that the current trial dismiss all these findings and just come to conclusions that she ought to slow down because she should anticipate there are danger up ahead. It really sounds absurd as if she must have spider sense to detect danger.

On her bringing up a new story about another car, even if she lied it does not invalidate the earlier 3 evidence.

Why was the judge not judging base on evidence but based on what she ought to do and come up with reckless driving.

bro itu panggi reasonable doubt lol

itu kerja DPP hasilkan bukti yang tidak dapat dinafikan

yes. correct.

https://www.bharian.com.my/berita/nasional/...alam-kemalangan

so this is not reckless driving to you. coz 9 "wild animals" stop by the roadside.

Buddy..isn't that the same point raised by a certain royalty..but after that he deleted the post?

Fikirlah kenapa post got deleted...

Death does not automatically validate driver is reckless. You need to provide prove beyond all reasonable doubt. It means you need to PROVE with EVIDENCE and not talking.

and Sam's lolyar should be fired.

you do realize in court there is a thing called circumstantial evidence. right?

then?

Insult to dumfuck too... He diff level

8 person die is not prooof of negligence and reckless driving