how much reduce is considered reduce?

if the road is stipulated to be save at 50, and she was determined not over 50, how much you want her to slow down?

40 can kill, 30 also can, a 5km/h car can kill too.

if you consider the case of lawan arus, the one who lawan arus memang salah, but can you say the one who are on the right way salah because he never slow down and anticipate a lawan arus car?

it is absolutely absurd to argue like that.

My personal experience, at the corner u should drive from 30km HR or 40 km HR. More than that, its easy to lose control... Esp this involves corner that goes into housing area

Can sue JKR cos why no put speed bump there, or more lights? JKR also suppose to anticipate drivers might not slow down on this road?

My personal experience, at the corner u should drive from 30km HR or 40 km HR. More than that, its easy to lose control... Esp this involves corner that goes into housing area

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

True.. I actually question the condition of the road too

Because it was highway that turn into suddenly a housing area. There is no wall to prvent people of that household to go into that road. That corner also is common usage for pedestrian too

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)

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

She's not speeding... True. But she should reduce her speed because she is approaching risky or dangerous area

Based on this guy logic, if you drive 50km/hr on highway and say happens to get into an accident, you get 6 years jail time. ...................Im sorry, I dont get this logic.

If she is driving dangerously and killed a preggy woman who drive lawfully on the road, yes, in fact I think 6 years is too short.

BUT sam is driving 50km/hr (which is so slow that car at the back will honk you for hogging lane) on "highway", went around a corner, hit bunch of lanjak kids who has no business racing in middle of the road at 3am in the morning, and somehow she gets the full brunt of 6 years in jail? This like getting 6 years jail for hitting a robber to death for breaking into your house.

Also weirdly enough one of the judges reasoning: "Sam’s ignorance of basikal lajak activities in the area should not have been accepted as an ‘excuse’ to drive dangerously" is so rtrded. That would mean this lanjak activities been going for a while and polis not taking any action. Maybe should put the polis in charge of that area in 6 years jail for failing to stop the lanjak that lead to the kids death.

Haha..put a police to jail? Even the MACC chief also got cases..from top to bottom all in same boat...who dare to point out, unless u r ikan bilis level.

Based on this guy logic, if you drive 50km/hr on highway and say happens to get into an accident, you get 6 years jail time. ...................Im sorry, I dont get this logic.

If she is driving dangerously and killed a preggy woman who drive lawfully on the road, yes, in fact I think 6 years is too short.

BUT sam is driving 50km/hr (which is so slow that car at the back will honk you for hogging lane) on "highway", went around a corner, hit bunch of lanjak kids who has no business racing in middle of the road at 3am in the morning, and somehow she gets the full brunt of 6 years in jail? This like getting 6 years jail for hitting a robber to death for breaking into your house.

Also weirdly enough one of the judges reasoning: "Sam’s ignorance of basikal lajak activities in the area should not have been accepted as an ‘excuse’ to drive dangerously" is so rtrded. That would mean this lanjak activities been going for a while and polis not taking any action. Maybe should put the polis in charge of that area in 6 years jail for failing to stop the lanjak that lead to the kids death.

the point here is, their bike have no light, so no can is able to avoid.

like this



how to avoid? in this case, lembu salah or driver?

You missed the point where she drove dangerously.
Nothing excuses her from driving dangerously.

what is the evidence she drive dangerously? 

Ask the high court judge la.
High court haven't released any documentation yet.

Regardless, her driving resulted in death.
If that's not dangerous, i hope I'll continue to never get to interact with shitty drivers like you and her.
And hopefully putting dangerous drivers off the road for a long time like this one becomes a norm.