criminal or civil case
it still has the same obstacle on road,
where the driver fails to control the car and "reckless" knock into it.

if your argument stand, then NSH will not need to pay compensation as SKT kes she is bearing 100% responsibility.


the obstructions are 40+ wild animals scattering on the road,
NOT 1 but 40+
i doubt there is enough room for her car to squeeze past.
have you ever calculated reasonable driver driving at 50km/h needs how long stopping distance to stop the car?

great to know 3 cars stop at lorong kecemasan and not kawasan rehat,
any idea what is their "kecemasan"?

BTW do you know that cars are legally allowed to drive on highways and bicycles are not allowed ?

spider sense
any idea where can find that spider that bites spiderman??
can make billions by selling its bites to Malaysia drivers

Criminal case like SKT focuses on the driver, whereas the civil case focuses on the company maintaining the road. In SKT case the main question is whether SKT was reckless, in NSH case the driver was the one bringing the suit and NSH did not argue that the driver was reckless.

My argument is simply that a driver needs to drive reasonably and respond to road conditions appropriately, but then there are times when you drive reasonably but still can run into something because whatever that suddenly appears does not give you enough reaction time. I didn't meant that if you drive reasonably therefore you won't hit anything, because if that is the case then every time road accident happens driver will be always at fault. Without knowing the detailed facts of the cases, I believe that in the NSH case the sudden appearance of the cow didn't give the driver enough reaction time to avoid it, and that was probably what happened in SKT's case too. Without the High Court's grounds of judgment I really cannot understand what makes the court came to such conclusion that there was recklessness despite the Magistrate Court's finding.

All the plotek in this forum. Diam la, you guys never drive is it. When you are on the road you are handling a heavy machinery capable of causing damage and death. So just be aware at ALL times and learn to anticipate in advance the unexpected. That is the responsibility of ALL road users.

So can diam a bit kah. Don’t show your stupidity so much, argue and politicize for no reason

which act says bicycle not allowed?

do you know even trishaw and kereta lembu is legally allowed?

you have misdirected yourself.

almost 99% of the people including some so called lawyer 79 here seems to be making this mistake. Its as if what the magistrate used as case law from a now Federal judge's previous ruling is just her opinion.

Wanna ask.. if someone driving opposite lane and i accidentally bang him.. its my fault?

that make me feel like the judge say u been charge for miss slaughtering because

i know u r in panic for self defense when u being rapped but u should chose less legal weapon when defense instead of lethal weapon that cause death to criminal

This post has been edited by bai1101: Apr 17 2022, 01:35 AM

Both are judged accordingly
Even though the driver that drive in opposite lane is fault.
They also will look into your standard of driving too. If ur standard of driving is good u innocent

The logic is

Whatever I did, the courts will decide

If not satisfied, then go to a higher court, still not satisfied, go highest.

yes agree. this people think its their road they can drive as their father head.

kids playing bike is different story. YOU driving recklessly is another story.

simple only but people make an issue out of a non issue.

People made issue because their hate on rempit or lajak gang. There is some element of racial stereotype too

If we replace that bike with motorbike, car, pedestrian, same shit happen also. But because lajak or rempit are involved, thing change drasriy