Bus 87 hit by crane at Bedok North Road
-
Originally posted by jgho83:
So u are saying the bus is travelling at a slow speed, and slow speed causes such a horrible outcome? Thats quite an analysis.
You know that momentum = mass x velocity? -
Originally posted by TIB1232Z:
I stand by my position that the driver is majority at fault this time; SBST needs to take up some form of responsibility this time since after all a passenger died in their buses.
Nope, it is not the drivers fault.If you are driving a DD, you can't have the best of both views? Unless a CCTV is installed.
-
Originally posted by One Harmonius Blend:
Nope, it is not the drivers fault.If you are driving a DD, you can't have the best of both views? Unless a CCTV is installed.
wad nonsense is that?driving requires good judgement skills, and the driver made a mistake there by driving too close to e truck.
-
Originally posted by AEW5001:
wad nonsense is that?driving requires good judgement skills, and the driver made a mistake there by driving too close to e truck.
Be prepared for backlash from others
-
Originally posted by AEW5001:
wad nonsense is that?driving requires good judgement skills, and the driver made a mistake there by driving too close to e truck.
Yes, it requires good judgement skills, but not when your view is blocked.How can the driver see the upper deck of the bus, when he is driving?
Even if I drive an ADD, I still can't see what's above me still.
-
Originally posted by AEW5001:
wad nonsense is that?driving requires good judgement skills, and the driver made a mistake there by driving too close to e truck.
Where in the world is the bus supposed to drive through then? Third lane? Then cut back to 2nd then 1st??If you can't sympathise with the BC's predicament, then "driving requires good judgement skills" becomes meaningless.
-
he could just wait for all e cars to go thru b4 making e pass himself.
if he can't drive thru, don't insist. what's wrong with my arguement here?
-
Originally posted by AEW5001:
he could just wait for all e cars to go thru b4 making e pass himself.
if he can't drive thru, don't insist. what's wrong with my arguement here?
Looking at the pics, its clear that it was clear to go through in the first place. It was the aft parts of the bus that came into contact with the boom.So how do you then justify the horrifying cherry-picker contact with 9599G?
-
Originally posted by AEW5001:
he could just wait for all e cars to go thru b4 making e pass himself.
if he can't drive thru, don't insist. what's wrong with my arguement here?
Dont bother arguing with them. They will soon come up with physic/mathematics calculations.
-
Originally posted by SBS2601D:
Looking at the pics, its clear that it was clear to go through in the first place. It was the aft parts of the bus that came into contact with the boom.So how do you then justify the horrifying cherry-picker contact with 9599G?
then did u tink abt e crane sticking out of e road? -
Originally posted by AEW5001:
then did u tink abt e crane sticking out of e road?was the crane sticking out of the road when the bus first passed it?
-
Originally posted by AEW5001:
then did u tink abt e crane sticking out of e road?
I'm no investigator, but look carefully at the pics again. The front of the upper deck metal frame is undamaged. The frames that were damaged only began from the middle.If its the BC's fault, then the bus should have been cutting lanes which clearly it wasn't.
Whose fault then?
jgho> If you can't find anything else to argue/debate, then don't bother. What you're saying amounts to: You guys are stupid.....but I don't know why, so just stop arguing!
-
Originally posted by SBS2601D:
I'm no investigator, but look carefully at the pics again. The front of the upper deck metal frame is undamaged. The frames that were damaged only began from the middle.If its the BC's fault, then the bus should have been cutting lanes which clearly it wasn't.
Whose fault then?
jgho> If you can't find anything else to argue/debate, then don't bother. What you're saying amounts to: You guys are stupid.....but I don't know why, so just stop arguing!
now then can i agree with u that yes, e driver did not see this coming and it was e operator's fault.
-
Originally posted by SBS2601D:
I'm no investigator, but look carefully at the pics again. The front of the upper deck metal frame is undamaged. The frames that were damaged only began from the middle.If its the BC's fault, then the bus should have been cutting lanes which clearly it wasn't.
Whose fault then?
jgho> If you can't find anything else to argue/debate, then don't bother. What you're saying amounts to: You guys are stupid.....but I don't know why, so just stop arguing!
to add on, was there safety cordon?probably further investigation could trace back its findings.
-
Originally posted by AEW5001:
then did u tink abt e crane sticking out of e road?
obviously you have not seen how they extrude or retract e crane itself.There's e X, Y, Z movement axis.
-
Originally posted by sbst275:
obviously you have not seen how they extrude or retract e crane itself.There's e X, Y, Z movement axis.
that i know. -
Originally posted by SBS2601D:
jgho> If you can't find anything else to argue/debate, then don't bother. What you're saying amounts to: You guys are stupid.....but I don't know why, so just stop arguing!
Apparently my views are met with rebukes but thats fine.U have your opinion, I have mine. At least I dont go around twisting words.
-
Originally posted by jgho83:
Apparently my views are met with rebukes but thats fine.U have your opinion, I have mine. At least I dont go around twisting words.
Originally posted by jgho83:Dont bother arguing with them. They will soon come up with physic/mathematics calculations.
Originally posted by jgho83:Be prepared for backlash from others
i'd suggest, if you have nothing constructive to contribute other than take potshots, please leave this thread.
for the record, no one has given come up with any physics or mathematical calculations yet, but you're already looking at it with tinted spectacles. you back your assertions with neither facts nor sense but just rhetoric, even when asked to show cause.
and there is no need to twist your words. your posts were not being edited, but we're not amused if you think you have the answer to the problem which no road safety experts have, and put the blame squarely on the bus captain.
-
Originally posted by lemon1974:
if the bus is travelling fast, the whole roof should already collapse.
can do some simple maths... 20km/hr = 20000m/hr = 333m/min = 5.555m/sec. so the bus will travel around 5.555m/sec if travelling at 20km/hr.. normal reactive time is around 0.8sec.. so by the time the BC heard the sound and slam the brake, bus will have travel 4.4444m at least, and by the time the bus stop, it will have travel another 5.5555m (let say it can stop in 1 sec)... i would believe that the Bus is travelling at 15km/hr... which is consider as ROAD hogging? How can this be fast?
tamago> is this not some form of calculation? So much for "for the record". I also think you got nothing constructive to say other than aiming at me isnt it. You look at other threads and people also leave all kinds of remarks. Be it constructive, non constructive, poking fun of another's comment etc.
If you want people to "Stick to topic" then many other people should also "leave the thread" when they talk about other things beside the topic?
And do open your eyes and read carefully. I did not pin the fault squarely on the bus driver. In my very first post in this thread, i start of with "The bus driver also goondu lah"
When i use the word "also", i put some of the blame with the worker too.
-
-
this kind of mathematical calculations is so simple it does not constitute to be a form of technical calculation we can safely use to put the blame on another, but only meant to be generate a ballpark figure against accusations on travelling speeds that is far off from expected. this kind of mathematics, even you can do if you have made some preparations to augment your case, so i don't understand why you'd fail to do it even you seem to have the kind of experience to put the blame on the speed the bus driver was travelling. i'm sure your intelligence level is higher than this. or is it not?
i don't think i have to aim at you without you taking potshots. don't try to victimise yourself or resort to martyrdom if you can't win the argument. how can such one-liner statements that juts out against the flow of the discussion be of any substance? you're just talking about your sufferings, more so than the mainstream discussion.
so? i have not seen you accuse the crane driver, but that's because you have nothing to say about the crane driver. with such subtlety, please clarify what is the meaning of the word "also" doing in your statement of "The bus driver also goondu lah". even i dare not say who is at fault or is incompetent here without any investigtions done!
-
Originally posted by SBS3688Y:
I think the lorry crane operator is solely at fault, which is why the police arrested the bangladeshi as reported on TV. The following are possible safety lapses from the lorry operator and company:
1) The boom of the crane must not protrude onto the path of vehicles at all times; because the lorry company, supervisor and crane operator have a duty of care to ensure safety at all times. This is under the MOM Occupation Safety and Health Act and I believe the crane operator and company will be investigated and probably prosecuted by MOM.
2) If the boom is necessary to be extended, then the supervisor in-charge got to place cones and signages to the front or back of the lorry to block the affected lane so that vehicles will avoid hitting the crane. And the boom must not protrude onto the adjacent lanes where vehicles are free to move at all times.
3) Did the lorry company station a person as a look-out for any safety lapses when the crane is in operation? Solely depending on the crane operator is not the solution to ensure safety to the public and motorists.
4) I think SBST and the victims can claim the lorry company's insurance company and it is mandatory for contractors to purchase insurance policies for every project they undertake.
Although I'm not a driver and dont really know the conduct of the tree cutting operators, but I agree the point that the boom should not obstruct any area beyond it's cordoned area so to say, since they are working without road closure at any rate.
Since there are multiple workers among the tree cutting ops, I thought one of them ought to be a "road martial" who only gotta signal and redirect drivers and maybe need not do other stuff? At any rate, if the crane is lowering, there's a call in advance and that signaller will proceed to control traffic.
The tree cutting squad has been there before the bus came, so at any rate the tree cutting squad is at more liberty of look out the traffic and do any action like traffic control or pause operation if i may say so. For the BC, even if he stop behind the truck and dont overtake, he might end up blocking the mouth of the zebra crossing and who knows, the boom might swivel into windscreen all the same than a full row swipe as it did.
In short, the truck is doing stationary work while traffic beside continue to flow, so to say they are at more liberty in controlling the boom and to direct the traffic than a bus who dont really foresee wat is ahead of its road.
I'm not a pro, pls pardon my ignorance if any and dont flame me if that's so.
-
Originally posted by ^tamago^:
this kind of mathematical calculations is so simple it does not constitute to be a form of technical calculation we can safely use to put the blame on another, but only meant to be generate a ballpark figure against accusations on travelling speeds that is far off from expected. this kind of mathematics, even you can do if you have made some preparations to augment your case, so i don't understand why you'd fail to do it even you seem to have the kind of experience to put the blame on the speed the bus driver was travelling. i'm sure your intelligence level is higher than this. or is it not?
i don't think i have to aim at you without you taking potshots. don't try to victimise yourself or resort to martyrdom if you can't win the argument. how can such one-liner statements that juts out against the flow of the discussion be of any substance? you're just talking about your sufferings, more so than the mainstream discussion.
so? i have not seen you accuse the crane driver, but that's because you have nothing to say about the crane driver. with such subtlety, please clarify what is the meaning of the word "also" doing in your statement of "The bus driver also goondu lah". even i dare not say who is at fault or is incompetent here without any investigtions done!
So now u deny anyone coming up with any physic or mathematical calculations. And to cover yourself, u simply say "this kind of mathematical calculations is so simple it does not constitute to be a form of technical calculation".
Why not u tell me the meaning of "any"?
-
Originally posted by jgho83:
So now u deny anyone coming up with any physic or mathematical calculations. And to cover yourself, u simply say "this kind of mathematical calculations is so simple it does not constitute to be a form of technical calculation".
Why not u tell me the meaning of "any"?
i didn't deny. as i've said, "this kind of mathematical calculations" are very simplistic for anyone who wishes to know roughly the magnitude of the impact, but are nowhere near the sophiscation you have purported. i cannot bring this calculation and make my case at the insurance brokers. maybe it's beyond you to actually come up with something as simple as this, so someone has to put up a simple calculation for you.
now, answer my questions.
-
When u put two entity in the picture
1. Bus driver
2. Crane worker
And compare the following statements
"The bus driver also goondu lah"
VS
"The bus driver goondu lah"
Isnt it obvious enough "also" indirectly refer to the crane worker?