Give way to buses scheme is dangerous and disingenuous
-
Give way to buses scheme is dangerous and disingenuous (Ver5.1; 31Dec09):
The conception behind this new policy is not only contradictory, it's also extremely dangerous and quite unenforceable as I shall describe:
- The LTA concept: see 1st large heading at 'How the Scheme Works')-
“The Mandatory Give-Way to Buses Scheme is similar conceptually to a zebra crossing, except that it is meant for buses.
When nearing a bus stop under this scheme, motorists will first see triangular give way markings on the road. These markings indicate that motorists approaching these bus stops need to slow down and watch in case buses are pulling out of the bus bay. Motorists come to a complete stop before the give way line and give way to buses exiting the bus bay at the location. Motorists may continue their journey once the bus has successfully exited the bus bay and no other buses are pulling out from the bus bay.
It will be a traffic offence if motorists do not give way to buses exiting from bus bays where the new road markings are drawn. The penalty for each offence is a fine of $130 (no demerit points).
”http://www.onemotoring.com.sg/publish/onemotoring/en/on_the_roads/traffic_management/mandatory_give_way.html- The give way to buses scheme is likely to contravene the Geneva Convention on Road Traffic [1949] (GCRT1949)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_Road_Traffic which Singapore is signatory to, (and by which agreement are international driving permits accepted in Singapore).
1.Severe Legal contradiction(s):
Of Article 12 (GCRT1949) are described as follows,
- Para 2 states: “Priority of passage may be accorded at intersections on certain roads or sections of road. Such priority shall be marked by signs and every driver approaching such a road or section of road shall be bound to yield the right of way to drivers traveling along it.”
- Para 4(a) states: "Every driver before starting to turn into a road shall: (a) make sure that he can do so without danger to other road users;"... (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Geneva_Convention_on_Road_Traffic )
- I believe that bus bays/ exit are certainly better described as a 'side road' and definitely not 'road intersection', so para 4(a) should logically take precedence, and so any vehicle exiting the bus lane should thus give way to the main road traffic. (Para 2 can only be relevant in this context to the legitimization of bus lanes/ bays so that only 'privileged vehicles' would have right of passage for priority use of roads by public/ emergency vehicles and incidentally, cyclist in single file ).
The result of this legal contradiction can only be more conflict and confusion amongst road users as the new law contradicts the existing international agreement. Such contradictory rulings would make any such conflict unresolvable in any esteemed court of law, leading to the embarrassment of policy makers in Singapore.2. Compromised efficacy
By its own admission, LTA has admitted the new rule to be less efficacious then the existing bus lane scheme by up to 5% (7% vs 12%) in terms of total travel time reductions. (http://www.onemotoring.com.sg/publish/onemotoring/en/on_the_roads/traffic_management/mandatory_give_way.html cf
3. Practical/ other legal issues and controversies.
a) Bicycling is established as an efficient, economical, healthy, clean and sustainable means of personal transportation/ recreation. Its invention preceding that of all motorized transportation, its value to society historically etched. However, due to their slower pace, such mode of transportation has since been relegated to the left most lane on Singapore roads. This new rule is 'regressive', in the sense that a healthier and more sustainable mode of transportation has now to compromise for another one less so; not to mention the fact that with the new law, cycling has become more unhealthy because of the intense fumes they receive whilst they give way to buses accelerating out of the bus bays. Why have the environmentally citizens been penalized, just so that bus commuters can be happier? The new law is surely a jaundiced proposition.
b) The existing bus lanes serve an intangible dual purpose. Hasn't anyone noticed how police and ambulances on emergency missions have benefited from the clear thoroughfare as a result of bus lanes being free flowing? Emergency vehicles need their well prioritized use of roads for the conduct of their essential emergency services.
(cyclist incidentally end up getting 'priority', partly as a compromise on part of the government for the lack of planning for dedicated cycle lanes, the compromise being that they use the roads, but in single file http://forums.asiaone.com/showthread.php?t=25939&page=6 ). I can imagine police and ambulances getting stuck in jams just because some wise crack at LTA decided that this was a quick, cheap way of 'solving a problem', a stop gap measure I guess.
c) Since LTA doesn't specify the definition of 'motorist approaching' nor grant easy access to any legislature that does, the lack of specific provisions would thus thus imply that all other 'motorist' (includes ambulances/ other buses etc) become legally compelled to 'give way' to buses. [The rule of 'Failing to give way to ambulance or fire brigade or police vehicle'(which is and offense yielding 4 demerit points according to the DIPS):( http://driving-in-singapore.spf.gov.sg/services/Driving_in_Singapore/Information/dips/offences.htm ) unfortunately remains non-directive since my observation is that it often applies to motorist having 'equal right of way', such as vehicles obstructing an ambulance along an expressway. At side roads, ambulances are legally obliged like all others (unless otherwise arranged) to give way to traffic with right of way according to the highway code]. These new rules thus compromise the priority given to emergency vehicles going using main roads, by narrowly giving priority to buses in bays. Given this unfavorable consequence, the new rule is ill-conceived.
d) As a continuation of the above point, another bus going straight would have to give way to a bus exiting the bay I cannot therefore understand how buses slowing down to give way to another would ultimately save time. If any, such repetitive start-stop driving, 24hrs a day, by all would be no less a constant waste of fuel and tyre rubber, detrimental to road surfaces (heaviest vehicles use the left lane), and not to mention an increase in driver fatigue. Surely there are better ways to regulate road traffic?
e) Public buses leaving bays are fraught with interruptions in departure. Passengers may suddenly request boarding/ alighting at last minute/ as the driver a question. Bus lanes are thus a must where roads are often congested to ensure a safe, clear and easy bus passages.
Going by 'How the scheme works' buses have been given an exceptionally great amount of right (beyond convention). It is now the onus of all approaching motorist to avoid buses 'pulling out'. No legal argument can now be made against non signaling buses, because being in a position of 'right of way', there then remains no necessity to. Remember, unlike cyclist and pedestrians at zebra crossings, buses certainly have faster acceleration, their haste to keep timings and contrary rulings will ultimately result in either more accidents of extremely slow moving left lanes as all motorist pass in fear. I cannot imagine the untold stress this new rule must be causing to all road users.f) Likewise compounding the already unconventional and contradictory nature of the new rule, is its unnecessary operation for 24 hours a day. Poor night visibility, foreign and unfamiliar drivers would mean new roads hazards for all commuters.
Also, a 'broken down'/ stationary bus jutting slightly out of the bay in without break down signage would mean constant confusion, as all traffic has to stop only to discover a bus a bus stationary due to breakdown.
4. Difficult enforceability.
Compared to existing bus lane rules, where penalties for trespass are easily enforceable via photographic evidence form bus mounted/ stationary warden photographic shots, requiring only time stamp and the offending vehicle to be seen occupying the restricted carriageway, the same cannot be said for the new scheme as the fact of 'buses leaving' can be a subjective one. Besides the new law being oddly toothless in terms of not having demerit point provisions, the inadequacy of photographic evidence to contesting motorist, public outrage against rogue bus drivers, rule ambiguities make for a very unpleasant experiences for both the inventors and the enforcers of this new and novel concept.
5. Conclusion:
The existing traffic regulations (controlled/ uncontrolled junctions/ pedestrian crossings, ERP gantries, yellow box markings) alone or in tandem with bus lanes (which have other intangible benefits) adequately serve the purposes of expediting public and emergency transportation well. LTA in its current attempt at setting new laws is at best a lame reinvention of the wheel, at worst, a disaster waiting to unravel.
LTA has shown obvious conceit in its haste to declare the trial a success (29April09) (: http://app.lta.gov.sg/corp_press_content.asp?start=2118 ) , high- handed and cursory; the main parties surveyed seems to only include '200 commuters' and 'public transport operators' (which are almost all public listed companies). I doubt LTA consulted the traffic police departments, cyclist's associations, emergency vehicle and truck/ private bus drivers unions and motor insurers nor the judiciary adequately before implementing these laws.
It's hazards out weighing its intent, this disingenuous 'give way to buses' scheme must quickly be suspended lest more public resources be spent rectifying the social and economic damage that it has caused.
References:
How the scheme works (3july09):http://www.onemotoring.com.sg/publish/onemotoring/en/on_the_roads/traffic_management/mandatory_give_way.html#MainPar_0007
Existing bus lane rules and timings:http://www.onemotoring.com.sg/publish/onemotoring/en/on_the_roads/traffic_management/full_day_bus_lanes.html#MainPar_0062
ST forum 1 Jan2009: Safety aspect in new rule on bus bays: http://forums.asiaone.com/showthread.php?t=26228
STOMP 29Aug09: “I gave way to bus -- and got rammed from behind”,http://singaporeseen.stomp.com.sg/stomp/sgseen/this_urban_jungle/236430/i_gave_way_to_bus__and_got_rammed_from_behind.html
STOMP 19Aug09: “I am one of many 'victims' unfairly fined $130 under new 'give way to bus' rule ”,http://singaporeseen.stomp.com.sg/stomp/sgseen/what_bugs_me/107792/unfairly_fined_130_under_new_give_way_to_bus_rule.html
Ver.1.0 (this article) posted to REACH web site on 22.8.09.http://app.reach.gov.sg/reach/YourSay/YourDiscussionCorner/tabid/117/ptid/414/threadid/2541/forumtype/posts/Default.aspx
A1motoring, 22Dec09: Give way to buses at 15 more bus bays: http://motoring.asiaone.com/Motoring/News/Story/A1Story20091222-187483.html
Pict illustration:
http://www.straitstimes.com/STI/STIMEDIA/image/20090429/SPORE-BUSscheme.jpg
warden on duty:
http://motoring.asiaone.com/A1MEDIA/motoring/20090617.173828_busbayfinal.jpg
Reason why feedback article is NOT on LTA forum site: 'Full name and NRIC are required' there:https://www.onemotoring.com.sg/publish/onemotoring/en/members_area/membership/register.html
-
wow
-
in another look, there are always youngsters speeding along these days.
not just tat, change lane at bus stop box junctions when there's a bus in bus bay
-
Originally posted by Whatdatoot:
wow
Thank you for the encouragement, pleased to update that LTA seems to be 'investigating' some what, guess all should be welcomed to contribute. I emailed direct because post was >10,000 chara long, in excess of what their website accomodates.
.JPG)
The full email is assessible on my blog (http://just-my-observation.blogspot.com/2010/01/human-at-lta-replies.html#more).
Our Ref: LTA/CC/PCF/FB/F20.000.000/14713/VT
Date : 20 January 2010
Tel : 63961519, Fax : 63961192
Dear Cherry
GIVE WAY TO BUSES SCHEME IS DANGEROUS AND DISINGENUOUS, FEEDBACK NUMBER:20100120-0690
We refer to your email dated 1 January 2010.
We apologise for taking longer time then usual to look into your feedback. We are currently gathering information with regard to your feedback and will reply to you as soon as we have all the details.
We thank you for writing in.
Yours sincerely
(SIGNED IN LOTUS NOTES)
Cindy Ong (Ms), Executive
Project Communications & Feedback
*We invite you to share your views on land transport related issues with us at http://talk2lta.lta.gov.sg. Now, you can also send us your feedback via SMS at "77LTA" (77582). -
ur Ref: LTA/CC/PCF/FB/F20.000.000/13623/VT
Date : 29 January 2010
Tel : 63961519
Fax : 63961192
Dear Sir/ Madam
GIVE WAY TO BUSES SCHEME IS DANGEROUS AND DISINGENUOUS
FEEDBACK NUMBER: 20100102-0076
We refer to your email of 1 January 2010.
Please allow us to explain that there is no legal contradiction or contravention of the Geneva Road Traffic Convention in our give way to bus scheme, as the "give way box" already modifies the road priority.
Many international traffic convention and practices come from the 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Traffic. Article 15 of the Convention recommends "Give-Way to Buses" as follows: Article 15: Special regulations relating to regular public transport service vehicles Domestic legislation must provide that in built-up areas, in order to facilitate the movement of regular public transport service vehicles, the drivers of other vehicles shall, subject to the provisions of Article 17, paragraph 1, of this Convention, slow down and if necessary stop in order to allow public transport service vehicles to perform the manoeuvre required for moving off from stops marked as such.
The provisions thus laid down by Contracting Parties or subdivisions thereof shall in no way affect the duty incumbent on drivers of public service vehicles to take, after having given warning by means of their direction indicators of their intention to move off, the precautions necessary to avoid any risk of accident. European countries, such as Germany and France , are amongst the first to implement regulations to require motorists to give way to buses. Nowadays, most member states in the European Union (with the notable exception of Greece and Italy ) now accord buses and trams the right of way when leaving bus or tram stops. The practice has since spread to Australia , Japan , and certain parts of Canada and USA . In Northern America , the rule is more commonly known as the "Yield to Bus" rule. So far, literature review and traffic studies do not indicate that the operation of the scheme in these countries increase the risks of accidents.
In a land scarce Singapore , it is essential to optimise the use of our limited road space to move people and goods efficiently. Compared to the public transport, bicycles are not an efficient mode of transportation for moving the masses. Therefore, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) does not provide bicycle lanes within road reserves.
However, some new initiatives were announced recently to make cycling more convenient, such as more cycling tracks will be built next to existing footpaths linking to residential areas.
The Tripartite Committee of LTA, Traffic Police (TP) and Tampines GROs, in consultation and discussion with the cycling community and other agencies, will continuously look into ways to improve the safety of cyclists and pedestrians. These include educational efforts on the observance of traffic rules. We also understand that the TP carries out regular talks and exhibitions on safe cycling habits as part of their public education efforts on road safety.
We thank you for writing in.
Yours sincerely
(SIGNED IN LOTUS NOTES)
Cindy Ong (Ms)
Executive
Project Communications & Feedback(response deleted, see update below.)
-
Mandatory Give Way to Busese Scheme improves overall bus speeds, will be extended to three more bus bays along Upper Thomson Road
-
to me, places like Jln Toa Payoh are freaking dangerous places for buses.
speeding cars and unwilling to slow down and give way to buses. Os/ Opp Trellis Twr are fine examples
-
sg ppl want to drive car but dunno how to drive.. in the end become road hazards.. sg also too much cars liao.. shud scrap some and make lifespan of cars to 7yrs.. its also time to increase COE.. i can tell you most of the time when buses e-break its because of cars... zzzz.
-
Originally posted by bic_cherry:
(response deleted, see update below.)
My response to LTA/CC/PCF/FB/F20.000.000/13623/VT
Dear Ms Ong
I thank you for your well informed response 'LTA/CC/PCF/FB/F20.000.000/13623/VT'
Please ignore my last mail dated 24Feb2010 as this one supercedes the last (updated for clarity/ grammar).
I've managed to find a copy of the said 'Convention on Road Traffic (CoRT1968), amendment 1*, (done at Vienna on 8th Nov 1968)', * incorporating the amendments of 3 September 1993 at http://www.unece.org/trans/conventn/crt1968e.pdf , from which your description of article 17 subtly yet significantly differs. Excerpts as follow:
Chapter II: RULES OF THE ROAD:
ARTICLE 15: Special regulations relating to regular public-transport service vehicles
It is recommended that domestic legislation should provide that in built-up areas, in order to facilitate the movement of regular public-transport service vehicles, the drivers of other vehicles shall, subject to the provisions of Article 17, paragraph 1, of this Convention, slow down and if necessary stop in order to allow the public-transport vehicles to perform the manoeuvre required for moving off from stops marked as such. The provisions thus laid down by Contracting Parties or subdivisions thereof shall in no way affect the duty incumbent on drivers of public-transport vehicles to take, after having given warning by means of their direction-indicators of their intention to move off, the precautions necessary to avoid any risk of accident.
ARTICLE 17: Slowing down
1. No driver of a vehicle shall brake abruptly unless it is necessary to do so for safety reasons.
As such, I have a few related queries/ observations.
1) There seem to be many bus stops without annexed yellow boxes. Given the established function and ease of policing of such, wouldn't the complete provision of such contribute further towards overall reduction of bus ride durations? Other possibly unexploited options include road widening, bus first green lights, pedestrian crossings that interrupt traffic flows and allow buses to exit bays, more cycle tracks etc.
2) Bus lanes, in addition to privileging bus flows, have an important secondary purpose- as a conduit for emergency vehicles. Their presence have many a time made the difference between life and death of those whose lives depended upon emergency vehicles taking to the bus lane. Bus lanes also appropriately operate only during peak hours, is it necessary that the GWTBS operates 24 hours? By LTA's own admission, the GWTBS remains far inferior to the existing Bus Lanes scheme http://www.onemotoring.com.sg/publish/onemotoring/en/on_the_roads/traffic_management/mandatory_give_way.html vs http://www.onemotoring.com.sg/publish/onemotoring/en/on_the_roads/traffic_management/full_day_bus_lanes.html : overall journey time improvements of (up to) 7% vs. 12% as I understand the case to be.
Do plans to extend the bus lane scheme to improve bus flows rank high on the LTA's list of priorities?
3) My example of an ambulance/ even another bus meeting with an exiting bus leaves is another GWTBS ambiguity that remains yet unresolved. Your directives may need elaboration.
4) Is there a time line towards the creation of cycle tracks and would they further result in a greater built up areas, higher maintenance costs etc. The current 'park connector network' with their wide road girths have successfully married pedestrians and cyclists on the same path; are newer housing estates being planned with the popularity of cycling in mind?
5) What efforts have been made thus far to coordinate safe use of 'footpaths' by both pedestrians and cyclists? http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1024539/1/.html : accesses the 13thDec09 CNA Tampines cycling report. The video has since been withdrawn but problem in the photo is same: there is no sense of left or right amongst pedestrians some pedestrians continue to hog the entire path resulting in cyclist weaving in and out between- tragedy awaiting.
Many shopping centers programme their escalators with no sense of left or right, thus Singaporeans seem very confused if slower pedestrian traffic should keep left or right. In my opinion, it is this state of confusion aggravated by the over-commercialization of Singapore society that has resulted in all the friction between pedestrians and cyclist. Instead of just focusing upon training and penalization of errant cyclist, wardens should start with education of pedestrian traffic.
Unless the 'main users' of the paths coordinate their act , wheeled 'visitors' would always remain a suspect and much unwelcome lot! Pedestrians need to be coordinated first (starting from primary 1).
6) Would it be valid for an 'offending' driver to appeal that according to CoRT1968 article 17, paragraph 1, re: to avoid braking abruptly; a driver who doesn't comply to the 'give way to bus scheme' (GWTBS)/ article 15, since article 15 is "subject to the provisions of Article 17, paragraph 1"- i.e. if the bus signal to exit had been given abruptly/ is not clearly seen? Given these legal contortions, would it be ill-anticipated that such ambiguities might potentially lead to greater conflict and wastage of court and administrative time in prosecution and reconciliation?
Why is it that Singapore isn't on the UN list of countries signatory to the 'Convention on Road Traffic [Vienna, 8 November 1968]': http://www.unece.org/trans/conventn/legalinst_08_RTRSS_RT1968.html .
7) Lastly, I'd like to feedback that the current bus lanes scheme is by fortunate coincidence, a boon to cyclist as they allow cyclist an 'unobstructed' passage on busy roads. This remains so as by virtue of cyclist's 'slower' speeds, they are required to keep to the left-most lanes. Buses exiting bays also rightfully give way to them according to article 14 of CoRT1968: [General requirements governing manoeuvres]: Para1. 'Any driver wishing to perform a manoeuvre such as pulling out of or into a line of parked vehicles, moving over to the right or to the left on the carriageway, ..., shall first make sure that he can do so without risk of endangering other road-users traveling behind or ahead of him or about to pass him, having regard to their position, direction and speed.'
In short, with many other well established options applicable towards public transport efficiency remaining unexploited, the GWTBS should be the last on the list of LTA's options.
Bus lanes remain a boon to both emergency vehicles as well as cyclists- whose mode of transportation remain a socially responsible, efficient and healthy choice; and rightly so as National Development Minister and MP for Tampines GRC, Mah Bow Tan, had admitted in announcing: [circa.Aug2008]"The Ministry of Transport has already indicated...(it is) interested to promote cycling as a mode of transport, instead of just as a form of leisure. … ...."
Given the increasing concerns about global warming and rising energy costs, it would be wise for the LTA to not dwell too much on their perception that “bicycles are not an efficient mode of transportation for moving the masses”.
Conceiving of cyclist having to directly inhale the bus fumes of exiting buses, the 'legitimate' result of their abidance to the GWTBS remains an unimaginable thought.
CoRT1968 Article15 'Special regulations relating to regular public-transport service vehicles', by nature of the term 'special' should remain an exception rather then the norm, a last option only after ALL other established traffic control measures have been exhausted.
I despair with the thought of cycling becoming untenable and unhealthy activity due to LTA imposed obstacles and increased air pollution, the result of our 'money god' driven economy. Has the objective of remaining garden city been sidestepped?
I hope that that worry will never see the light of day.
I thank you for your prompt well informed responses thus far and eagerly look forward to your further categorical response of consideration and concern. Do have a nice day.
References (in order of appearance):- 'Convention on Road Traffic (CoRT1968), amendment 1*, (done at Vienna on 8th Nov 1968)', : http://www.unece.org/trans/conventn/crt1968e.pdf * incorporating the amendments of 3 September 1993
- 13 December 2009: Cycling on footpaths will be allowed in Tampines next year: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1024539/1/.html
- UN list of countries signatory to the 'Convention on Road Traffic [Vienna, 8 November 1968]': http://www.unece.org/trans/conventn/legalinst_08_RTRSS_RT1968.html
- 03 August 2008: Tampines Town Council starts building cycling tracks: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/364646/1/.html
Warmest regards and Best wishes,
BicCherry
"Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race". ~ H. G. Wells, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._G._Wells -
Haiya be more gracious on the road thats all.Remember look rear view mirror.Dun just brake suddenly.Tap twice before braking to warn behind of your intention.I always do that.Anticipate other road users behaviour.For me i always give in depending on the situation too.Driving buses before makes me more gracious on the road.
-
agree. and I find SBST and SMRT bus captains are generally much better motorists than the others. and during my trip in Malacca, I realised the motorists there are generally much more gracious than Singapore! Many pedestrians just walk right in front of oncoming vehicle to cross the road, but they slow down or stop to let them cross. and motorists there don't anyhow horn at others. they generally got better patience and road manners.
-
Wow if it is dangerous.. how about hong kong especially the urban kowloon area :(
-
Originally posted by bus555:
Wow if it is dangerous.. how about hong kong especially the urban kowloon area :(
shld c china cities like shanghai how the drivers drive in the city
-
Malaysian drivers generally are better than Singaporeans.They still got the patience to give way to you and some even wave after that.Yes they drive fast but they're also safety consious abeit few cases where their express bus drivers taking pills to stay awake and not to mention some only possess car driving licence but still co employ to drive.Singaporean nowadays a lot of Kiasu types,Rude and selfish.
-
Put a traffic light behind the bus stop.
Bus install a button and press the button to change it to red before move out of the bus bay.
-
i thought a trial was done at eunos about 2 years back to totally remove bays and have bus stops on the road?
what happened lol.
-
Originally posted by jayh272416:
i thought a trial was done at eunos about 2 years back to totally remove bays and have bus stops on the road?
what happened lol.
Well, put it simply, Old management was more pro-bus than the new management.
-
Originally posted by likeyou:
Put a traffic light behind the bus stop.
Bus install a button and press the button to change it to red before move out of the bus bay.
Costly system
