Apr 15 2022, 10:00 PM
QUOTE(bani_prime @ Apr 15 2022, 09:29 PM)
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)
You make some interesting points, which I believe actually help to highlight the real issue here.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)
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.....
Quote
0.0206sec
0.85
7 queries
GZIP Disabled