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

berbukit sedikit u mean man bobot

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

Judge tokok own drive like macam safe.. lol

You make some interesting points, which I believe actually help to highlight the real issue here.

Absolutely agree that as a good driver, there is many behaviour and also law that we should follow. Follow speed limit, don't drive when mabuk or on drugs, don't play handphone, drive carefully, don't simply change lane suddenly, drive more carefully during raining, switch on headlamp at night, ensure car well maintained, tire and brake in good condition, valid road tax and license etc etc. This is the responsibility of all motorist on the road.

Now, everything else you mentioned, should be the responsibility of the other party.

Let's say school area. Actually it is the responsibility of the school and town council that approved the development, that necessary safety measure is in place. For example, speed bumps, school warning sign, very low speed limit, have school guard/warden to help control traffic, proper waiting area for student (not stand on road side). The most important objective is protect safety of school children.

Let's say TNB replace lampu. It is the responsibility of TNB or contractor to ensure proper health safety procedure are following. Example again, get approvals to do it, put warning signs and warning light far in advance, block off the lane if needed with proper diversion, have people or robot to wave the flag to warn oncoming traffic, etc etc. The most important objective is protect safety of TNB worker.

So it is clear what the gap is in this situation. Legally, the above 2 case the courts may argue whether or not a driver who bang schoolkid or TNB worker should be penalize or not, to be honest I don't really care. But, it is very clear that all parties have responsibility to ensure safety for all concern. In this case, it seem greatly overlook about the safety of our young children, which should really be the important. They had absolutely no right to be in that situation, but the car and driver had every right to be.

As you said, you can be on the road for some reason. Like if your car breakdown middle of highway, you are stuck there obviously, but better not to stand on the emergency lane, so many case kena bang and died. The basikal lajak kids also have responsibility as well, to practice good and safe behaviour when on a road, but they quite literally did everything they possibly could, in the most wrong and dangerous way.....

how she know it is risky and dangerous place?

she is not yuri

So next time u langgar lembu or chicken on kampung road at night, you ok to be jailed 6 years ya since you are not anticipating and careful in driving.

parking tered seiji self destruction tis gon b gud

So next time I drive car horr, if my road traffic light is green which means I can go then suddenly got bike or basikal lajak kids from opposite road langgar their traffic light and I bang into them, they die. That means I'm at fault too. Coz hakim say, I have to anticipate kids with bikes will coming and must brake in time. But because I cannot brake in time, I'm considered driving recklessly although I'm right.

ladies and gentleman, basikal lajak is the new king of the road. They can be anywhere anytime in whatever situation it's their road thus you must always anticipate and respect their presence.

Baik letak speed limit 30 kmph dekat highway ja. Sebab takut ada kanak-kanak dan bas sekolah berhenti di sana

Sebab "anticipation"

Bani ini khilaf

So next time I drive car horr, if my road traffic light is green which means I can go then suddenly got bike or basikal lajak kids from opposite road langgar their traffic light and I bang into them, they die. That means I'm at fault too. Coz hakim say, I have to anticipate kids with bikes will coming and must brake in time. But because I cannot brake in time, I'm considered driving recklessly although I'm right.

ladies and gentleman, basikal lajak is the new king of the road. They can be anywhere anytime in whatever situation it's their road thus you must always anticipate and respect their presence.

it is up to you to be more careful

Heh.
Your statement are not even relevant as here i am not being aborted.
Learn to actually make a sound argument instead of throwing bad insults like dumbass.

Supporting a road abuser.
You are no different than a mat rempit.
Guna jalan macam bapak kau punya.

If Jkom have logical brain, Malaysia would be a better place already. So far all jkom only proves to have no logic.
Wrong become right.
Right become wrong.

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

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.

kesian, kejap say straight road, bright and well lit road

kejap say dangerous must slow down

eh, keep story straight lah

50 kph is slow in highway

It is not normal taman road

About that. So whoever that crash into vehicle driving against traffic is actually salah coz not anticipating got car driving against ttaffic lah?

Sorry lah. No matter how careful I am. Sometimes accident will still happen due to other people's irresponsible and reckless behaviour.

this case would be a good precedence for those lawan arus dude to claim innocent

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?

Sei sohai TS delete my post. Kesian..

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

So now anecdotal claim is more important?

Miros examination can buang ke laut?

The lajak, lawan arus, mabuk etc make a surprise entry and fck up the traffic which cause the accident means you should just slow down like turtle and if still langgar means you did not slow down enough and should masuk jail?

a 30km/h car need 1 second to move more than 8 meters.

so if you have a great eyesight and great reflex to floor the brake after 1 second, the car is already 8meters away.

there is no magic to stop immediately.

now don't tell me should drive at 20 or 10 km/h.

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?

So JKR ppl need to drag to jail too..those faggot leeching our tax payers money, without doing anything. Well, goyang kaki pun dapat gaji.

In my personal opinion, i think as a good parents, we must anticipate any possible danger to our kids. So whenever we think a location that has potential danger to our rubbish kids, like racing on highway, down the hill, crowded place, and so parents must able to take necessary step to reduce the risk.
For example if rubbish kids goes into highway and ride basikal lajak, parents must stop their rubbish kids, in anticipating possible danger that kids may die on the road and gives trouble to others. We cant just say, eh anak aku baik orang" . Anways, again this is just my personal opinion

This post has been edited by PikachuM: Apr 15 2022, 10:25 PM

So gomen should start putting up "beware basikal lajak" pole already coz seems like everyone are supposed to anticipate basikal lajak at 3am

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.

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

This post has been edited by TrialGone: Apr 15 2022, 10:26 PM

I am anticipated.in dumbass analysis plucked out from butt hole from TS.

Anticipated indeed

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

ini driver salah dah, ini confirm driver bawa kereta secara meluru, nah, jail 2 tahun makan nasi kari

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.

you know, what happened at high court is an appeal. the judge only look at fact and evidence during lower court trial.

so you tell me, where the dangerous driving coming from?

Lanciao ts, obviously this is racebase attack.
Pandanmuka those knn those kid who ask them fly out at 3am.

Tnb Replace light bulb no done safely driver can sue back.

Motorcycle got backlight. Normal bicycle also got back reflectance?

Mat lajak got what? Brake pad pun tak ada brother

This post has been edited by staind: Apr 15 2022, 10:51 PM

Threads like this need to stop lmao. The correct word is "foreseeability" instead of "anticipation" btw.

The key element here is "recklessness" or "gross negligence", as per s. 41(1) of the RTA 1987.

To satisfy this, the driver would have to have acted in a way that showed that he/she does not care about the danger or the effect his/her behaviour will have on other road users.

To expect a driver to foresee something impossible like the presence of another road user who doesn't use any lighting at 3AM is simply illogical.

Reasonable man test: Would a reasonable person have anticipated that there would a group of people doing illegal racing on 3AM without lighting and therefore would have acted more carefully?

If your answer is no, then it means that you couldn't even prove the case on the balance of probabilities, much less beyond reasonable doubt.

"In the context of road traffic accidents, this principle may be taken to mean that the user of the road is not bound to guard against every conceivable eventuality, but only against such eventualities that a reasonable man ought to foresee as being within the ordinary range of human experiences." (Fardon v Harcourt-Rivington (1932) 146 LT 391 at 392).

And to be fair, she would have definitely reacted in a better way had it been any other vehicle that had sufficient lighting. This includes TNB personnel who would have definitely provided sufficient warning cones with lighting.

Again it's "recklessness" we are talking about. While contributory negligence isn't applicable to criminal cases in Malaysia, to satisfy the element of "recklessness", you would usually have to prove that it's 99% the fault of the accused.

This post has been edited by Cyberbullies: Apr 15 2022, 11:07 PM

BANI SAY DRIVE 1 METER STOP LOOK LEFT LOOK RIGHT CONTINUE 1 METER STOP LOOK LEFT LOOK RIGHT. VERY SAFE LIDDAT

From majistret court summary


I refrain from commenting magistrate court decision in her not guilty despite driving dangerously.
Just glad a shitty driver is off the road for 6 years.
Taking down another 8 road abusers along with her is just the icing.

eh dude, that is hasil siasatan, court doesn't need to agree with hasil siasatan polis, else what we need court for?

This post has been edited by desmond2020: Apr 15 2022, 10:59 PM

So you have not come across any evidence of reckless driving and dispute the PDRM officer’s testimony and independent expert witness findings (not disputed by High Court in its summary decision).

Regardless and tak kisah sums up shitty and dangerous drivers like yourself.

This is new. What was the reason she "gagal mengawal motokar"?
Car problem?

hi bani,

fuck you if you are even suggesting that we need to anticipate nyamuk lajak in the highway.

And that's why the case was brought to a higher court
And justice prevailed

let see on appeal court.

don't cry yo

Dont care...the POINT is are at the corner, n u cant anticipate what in front of u. Ur visibility already affected. U know u cant see what in front, still mau speeding? 50 km/hr at corner is speedlah

Lain cerita if u are in straight road, where u can see everything in front of u

This scenario also applied in hilly road, where ur visitbility already affected n cant see whats will be in front of u

Do u know how many broken car that parked beside the road kena hit? All because no anticipation

.................sorry but driving 50km/hr on a half empty "highway" road at 3am in the morning is hardly against the rule.

Is 50km/hr too high or something in KL that I dont know of?

This kind of previous magistrate court documentation? Partial MIROS report.

https://twitter.com/Nash_ANJ/status/1514124190672031744

Me no clever enuf to interpret the whole technical report (not complete screenshots); but what I can get is, the below 50km/hr speed isn't the main factor? The modded bicycles (motorbike disc brake) also contributed to the impact inertia?

The officers investigation supports her being reckless.
Independent expert findings are still just a piece of puzzle, among every other pieces, which non of us are privy to.

It seems like it's you who are presumptive in your opinion.
The disregard for fact checking and integrity is also, yours.
Good job though deducing my driving skills out of a wrong presumption, of your own even.
What a muppet. Playing yourself to this degree.

This post has been edited by cursetheroad01: Apr 15 2022, 11:18 PM

The thing is, if everything happen too fast, likely she wont remember every detail.

Example: Imagine you driving the car, maybe hit the body of one the lanjak kids (which probably got knocked by another car), car spun out of control hitting other kids on the road as well. At that moment if people start asking you how fast you driving, is it dark or visible, describe how you first hit the lanjak, she probably wont remember much cause I definitely wouldn't if shocked.

There's a lot of detail in this case we dont know about. But I think the judges also just make waaay too many assumption that she is driving dangerously. In this case, shouldn't it be innocence until proven guilty?

Anyway, I probably be putting stocks into dashcam companies after this. Brb.

This post has been edited by TrialGone: Apr 15 2022, 11:18 PM

Deswai dashcam is important yooo

Agreed....story telling can be challenged

It just shows the court was so fixated to the speed of travel and the visibility (or non visibility) of/from the lady's car.
Forgetting the fact that 8 kids died from the supposed "low speed" impact.

And the high court got it right.

This post has been edited by cursetheroad01: Apr 15 2022, 11:27 PM

Gotcha. Did you read the judgement and the officers in verbatim clarification. No right. Too malas right.

Here do practice what you preach and do not be a muppet hypocrite ok.

“Stop making this personal and getting butthurt about something not related to you or within your control.

Fuckin get a life …”

How much you get posting this time?

I think next time need dashcam for lanjak bikes as well, lol.

Anyway we are making too many assumptions here. My theory, its 3am in the morning. Likely not many cars at the time, she probably just driving at little faster on the half empty road. If you ever seen cyclist (with no reflector or lights) on the road at night, they are still very difficult to spot in middle of the road even with powerful road lights cause our brain is usually train to see cars or motorbikes with red lights at the back and close to same speed. Also accident tends to be instantaneous, a lot drivers probably wont remember much detail including how fast she is driving or how she hits the kids. Like I mentioned, there's likelihood one of the kids felled (she mentioned got another car hit the kids), she drove over him and lost control mowing the rest. We just DONT KNOW. But the judges I can tell just make incredibly flawed reasoning there. No proof how can just sentence her like that?

This post has been edited by TrialGone: Apr 15 2022, 11:33 PM

Corner? Looks like straight road to me.

I think you misinterpreted what the judge meant by "keadaan jalan yang berselekoh dan berbukit sedikit".

Don't think the driver hit the victims at a corner lmao, plus the speed test wasn't calculated at the corner pun.

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

Still presumptive.
I bet you yourself didn't plow through the transcript as thorough as the lady plowing through 30 kids and bikes, killing 8.
Tengok screen shot from the Twitter post only issit?
Yep. Thought so.

What for going through the details of the proceedings transcript when the summary is sufficient enough.
Yes I've read the judgement and clarifications.

But it doesn't matter now. The high court got it right this time around.

Btw. We are all in this casual corner of an asian tech forum on a Friday night, arguing over a done case.
While i admit i don't have much life, i hope you would atleast not be a hypocrite yourself and "fucking get a life".

This post has been edited by cursetheroad01: Apr 15 2022, 11:39 PM

so why accident happened?

can anticipate kid throwing rock at your wind shield?

can you anticipate scaffolding collapsed and crash onto your car?

well that is rich coming form a one star dupe account

U should go there. I worked at nearby location before, so i can understand the situation there.
After petronas station, the road started curved slightly before it turns sharp at the corner
And at the corner, it was one lane road into jalan kampubng

This is the reason why i raise issue, the highway n the kampung is so closeby. A lot of people including pedestrian use that road

Regardless, tak kesah, but it does not matter now ,,, how can you be so sure HC got it right when full judgement of HC not out yet.

Gotcha again.

Ok just friendly reminder in your own words “Stop making this personal and getting butthurt about something not related to you or within your control.”


p/s: Here is the Magistret full judgement and also HC keputusan. You are welcome.

https://forum.lowyat.net/index.php?showtopic=5262973&hl=

This post has been edited by Ray2021: Apr 15 2022, 11:48 PM

U pick up different context maa...

Ur context is about something outside from the road suddenly flying into the road. No one can anticipate like that lah
This is about anticipitating what LIES ahead you on the road, esp at corner where u cant see or hilly area

Because the other road users didn't anticipate.
When you drive defensively, you did your part in reducing risk of accident.
The risk would have been further reduced to nill if both the lady had been more aware and drove better, and the kids actually have a brain.

Imagine the kids were a stranded trailer by the roadside but didn't put down cones or increase visibility around the corner in anticipation of any incoming vehicles.
It would have been a clerk dead for crashing into the back of a trailer instead and we would have a very different kind of discussion.

and lajak bike is onl your list?

ayam never expect to see one

the road got two three lane, can easily switch to other unoccupied lane

meanwhile this case, whole road is filled with lajak bike

Ah so instead of actually discussing about the case, you just want to nitpick my choice of words.
Basically, you have nothing of value to bring into the discussion.

Oh well, until you have learn how to participate in a discussion like a well adjusted adult, I'm done with you.