Suggestion for amendment to Road Traffic Act (item 76) OR to State Courts Guide book

It was more than 6 months since I last heard from TP about the need to amend the rules.

I wrote to TP again:-


to SPF, MOT, Efran 

Dear Efran,

With reference to my email enquiry last year.  

Please advise if there any decision to amendment of the roundabout's rule?

As we know, the insurance companies / FIDReC endorse the State Courts' publication rules while LTA endorse the Highway Code/ Road Traffic Act rules.

Drivers need to know which set of rules to comply with.

It seem more advantage to comply with State Courts rules as insurance companies are the one handling our claims.

Thank you,
Mr. Han JK

TP replied as follow :-

Efran KOH (SPF)
Jun 28 (3 days ago)
Reply to all
to me, MOT, SPF 
Dear Mr Han,

            Thank you for your patience. Basically, we have taken note of the scenario within the round-about which you have illustrated, taking reference to your interpretation of the Highway Code as well as the Motor Accident Guidebook published by the State Courts. In fact, this scenario is included in our study of the driving curriculum as a whole. The study is currently ongoing. In the interest of road safety, Traffic Police will like to advise that motorists, when entering and travelling in a round-about, shall always remember to maintain lane discipline, look out for one another, obey the right-hand rule and show consideration for one another.

2          Traffic Police will also like to take this opportunity to clarify that the Highway Code should be understood by motorists as a code of conduct which lists the recommended behaviours that road users should adopt in the interest of road safety. Road users are not bounded by the law to abide by the Highway Code. This is unlike how rules stated under the Road Traffic Act Chapter 276 should be interpreted where they must be followed by motorists and where non-adherence can result in enforcement actions taken . On the other hand, the “Motor Accident Guidebook” published by the State Courts “informs parties of the estimated quantum of damages that can be expected from the wide range of injuries suffered, and is useful for parties to make informed decision in settling their cases involving personal injury”; this is used for civil suits or insurance claims and not to assist in determining the criminal liability for accident cases.

3          Thank you for your attention. Hope the above clarifies. Have a great week ahead.




Efran Koh
Head Service Quality
Service Quality Branch / Traffic Police
Singapore Police Force


I hope someone can step in to clear this matter fast.
There are so many near-miss accident in the roundabout because of this rule.
It concern life and death, not so much about claims.
Must there be a fatal accident then something can be done?
Who created this confusion and which department should be taking responsibility to solve it?

Now I know why motorists are confuse about the roundabout rules.

Last year, I spoke to a lawyer and found out that our State Courts had published "Motor Accident Guide" book to help lawyers, motor insurers and road users to access the likely level of liability that can be expected in any given road traffic accident scenario. This book is available at AA for S$15.

He shown me the roundabout page and I'm shock to find it is the same as the Barometer Of Liability Agreement given to me by NTUC Income.

Now I know why motorists are confused with the roundabout rules.

I went to AA to buy this Guide book.

Page 69 in Guide Book mentioned the reasons:-
1. Drivers should only exit the roundabout from the outer lane.
2. It also did not fault drivers on outer lane who continue within the roundabout without exiting.

This is totally different from the Road Traffic Act.

 Our Highway Code Book/ Road Traffic Act diagrams shows :-
1. Drivers can exit on both inner and outer lane.
2. Drivers on the outer lane must exit.

State Courts guide provides a simple and safe method to exit a roundabout but it is inefficient as only the outer lane can exit therefore caused bottle neck jam at the outer lane.

On the other hand, Highway Code rule is complex but very efficient as traffics on both lane can exit together but dangerous when drivers on the outer lane forget to exit and collided into the inner lane vehicle.

When such collision occurs, who is at fault?

Should drivers comply to the State Courts guides or Highway Code rules?

Complying to State Courts guide has advantage because insurer and adjudicator use this Guide book to settle their claims.

Then the Road Traffic Act or State Courts guides on roundabout need amendment as many drivers are unaware the State Courts had interpreted this rule differently.

I wrote again to Ministry of Transport (MOT)again about this controversial in the State Courts guide.

MOT replied-

Subject: [feedback] Suggestion for amendment to Road Traffic Act (item 76)

Dear Mr Han

We refer to your email dated 14 December 2015 to the Ministry of Transport.

We note your concern on the traffic rules for roundabout in the Road Traffic Act. By copy of this email, we are forwarding it to the Traffic Police (TP) for its attention and follow-up.

Thank you for taking the time to write in.

Yours sincerely

Cecilia Du (Ms)

For Quality Service Manager

Ministry of Transport

Traffic police then replied-

SR#: SR/20151214/0731) - Activity # - 1-841LUP: FW: [feedback] Suggestion for amendment to Road Traffic Act (item 76)

Inbox

x

SPF Feedback TP (SPF) <SPF_Feedback_TP@spf.gov.sg>	12/22/15		Reply to all
to me, Efran, MOT

Dear Mr Han,

            Thank you for engaging Traffic Police. We have taken note of your feedback and suggestion to amend the legislation concerning traffic rules for moving within the roundabout. We have shared your suggestion with the relevant branch for their attention and further study.

2          I will also like to take this opportunity to share with you our internet website should you wish to log on to read more about our road safety initiatives and efforts. (http://driving-in-singapore.spf.gov.sg/ ) We have also launched a new movement this year called the “Use Your RoadSense” movement and through this road safety initiative, we do hope to garner the community to come together and raise their awareness on road safety while commuting on the roads. If you have a Facebook account, do ‘like’ the page and journey with us on this quest for safer roads.

3          Once again, thank you for writing in to us. Have a great week ahead. Advanced Merry Christmas to you and all at home.   

Efran Koh Head Service Quality Service Quality Branch / Traffic PoliceSingapore Police Force I requested for an update On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 11:46  AM, Han JK  wrote: Dear Efran, Thank you for the reply and greetings, Please update me the result once the relevant branch has come to a conclusion. Merry Christmas to you and all at home. Thank you, Mr. Han JK

"to build a democratic society based on justice and equality" - with integrity

When MAS replied they unable to do anything as this case was adjudicated by FIDREC but will required NTUC Income reply me on why  3rd party claim was made from my policy without my consent.

I wrote to Mr. Lui Tuck Yew, Minister for Transport again 9 July 2014:-

"Dear Mr. Lui,

Sir, with reference to this matter, MAS has their limitations. 

Why should I seek my own legal advice when this issue concerns rules gazetted by government?

LTA is the best party for the ministry to consult if my evidence on the roundabout rules is valid or NTUC Income's opinion is correct.

FIDREC's  role is that of an Alternative Dispute Resolution institution, they are not responsible for this dispute, they did not accept the roundabout rules and I can reject their decision. Therefore MAS should not use them as an excuse and say they cannot do anything.

NTUC Income quickly closed this case and refused to respond to my query. I am their policyholder and they allowed another party to claim my insurance without my consent.

I requested for a report of this claim through MAS and they still refuse to give me. I want to know exactly what words they use as evidence to justify this payout.

FIDREC's style is non-transparent but NTUC Income should be transparent in its payout/claim process with policyholder.

It is made mandatory to have a motor insurance to drive on the road. Insurance companies collected our premiums and need to obey the rules set in the highway code manual for all settlement of claims. That is why I need the government to step in when insurance companies' opinion speak louder than rules. 

Can the government do something to increase our trust and not push responsibility around when there is discrepancy.

Best regards,

Mr. Han JK "

I received NTUC Income reply as follow:-

I still did not get any answer to why this accident has zero liability on the other party and 100% liability on me.

My reasoning is not from my opinion, I produced proven rules from the Highway Code manual whereas NTUC Income opinion is my car need to be on the left lane to exit the roundabout.

NTUC Income mentioned in this letter that I was given the opportunity to present my case at FIDREC and why liability was not in my favor.

Then let us examine what "opportunity" I was given.

FIDREC's mediator agreed with NTUC Income that Pandan Circle is not a roundabout and therefore the roundabout's rules does not apply. 

I protested and said there is this roundabout's "triangle signboard" planted on the entrance to Pandan Circle.  But the mediator refuse to acknowledge it as roundabout and concluded 100% liability to me.

Then I paid FIDREC $250 to proceed further for adjudication to challenge this 100% mediator indication.

The adjudicator agreed with me Pandan Circle is a roundabout but he said the rules is; vehicles on the outer lane (left-lane) can proceed to the next exit and therefore my vehicle has to give way to it. 

I don't believe what he said as he also did not produce any document to support it. 

What "opportunity" do I have at FIDREC to defend my case? They need not produce any documentary prove to support their statement and just pass a judgement of 100% liability to me.

After this, I managed to find the Singapore Road Traffic Act website and found the actual rules for roundabout:-

The Act did allow vehicles on the wrong lane( left-lane) to proceed to the next exit. This should be what the adjudicator refer to.

However there are 4 conditions to it which the adjudicator did not mentioned.

One of the condition is  "you do not inconvenience other drivers". He caused an accident and isn't this considered as inconvenience other drivers ? Another condition is Obey right-hand rule:- he should watch out for vehicle on his right. 

If these 4 conditions does not exist, then it is meaningless to have have this general rules' diagram !

I also wrote to FIDREC and this was their reply:-

1.      Thank you for your email of 7 July 2014

2.      We have carefully investigated your complaint against the Adjudicator, retired District Judge XXX XXX XXX.

3.      We regret to inform you that we do not find sufficient grounds to substantiate your allegations against retired Judge XXX XXX XXX

4.      FIDReC’s Adjudicators are independent and impartial. They include retired judges and lawyers with years of experience. The Adjudicator for your case XXX XXX XXX is a retired Judge with more than 20 years’ experience on the Bench.  He had heard and considered relevant evidence adduced by both parties (written and oral) and their submissions thereon.  Based on the facts and merits of your case, the Adjudicator decided that no award would be made in your favour

5.      As explained to you, the decision of the Adjudicator is only binding on the Financial Institution and not on you. Since you disagree with the Adjudicator, you remain free to pursue your claim against the Financial Institution through other avenues such as legal action

6.      In view of the foregoing, although we can understand your dissatisfaction and disappointment, we have to regretfully say that we are unable to interfere with the decision of the Adjudicator

7.      You may also wish to seek independent legal advice on your rights and options including but not limited to advice relating to any legal limitation period which may adversely affect your claim(s).

8.      Thank you for writing to us and we wish you a pleasant day


Thank you & warm regards,
Rick Koh
Assistant Deputy Head, Complaints Centre
Complaints Management Division
Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre Ltd  (Co. Reg. No. 200502125D)

I can understand NTUC Income and FIDREC are not expert in traffic rules.

I just don't understand why don't they consult LTA on this type of case and use LTA answer to reply me. I will then challenge LTA if I am not satisfy with their explanation.

Most motorists self-learn their highway code from the manual which is simple and easy to pass without fully understand its detail whereas I learn mine during NS time at SAF's School Of Driver Training. The course is about 3 months and they taught intensively into highway code details.

I already checked with LTA and they agreed with the roundabout rules and had enhanced the road marking there to help those unfamiliar with roundabout to exit correctly. 

NTUC Income's traffic investigator is incompetence on traffic rules, but being incompetence is forgivable if one is willing to acknowledge it and correct it. Everybody will make some mistake and must learn from their mistake to improve. By hiding mistake and don't want to own it is lack of integrity.

I also notice NTUC Income used the in-house Barometer Of Liability Chart (BOLA) on roundabout to support its case.

There is an error in this chart. The person who drafted this chart  also don't understand the rules.

The general turning rules for roundabout can only be shown in arrow diagram because it is so important to indicate ( in the form of dotted line & arrow) where the vehicle ENTER the roundabout inorder to determine if it turning left, go straight or turn right. But the BOLA chart did not show where they enter and how to know who is going straight and who is turning left or right. So how to determine who is in  the wrong lane?  

This is a claim case between me and NTUC Income. FIDREC is not a party involve. Ultimately NTUC Income still have to answer for their decision and not use FIDREC to close the case.

My motor insurance policy is also from NTUC Income too and it was "comprehensive" coverage. Yet I unable to claim any damage and my NCB deducted. Ntuc Income paid the other party damage which is higher than my claim.  If there is no government on motor insurance companies, then motor insurance policy should not be made mandatory for car owners. 

I am writing to Mr. Lui Tuck Yew again and hope he will get NTUC Income to settle this case out of court.

I believe Mr. Lui want NTUC Income to be an organisation with INTEGRITY.

In fact there is no need to settle in court as it is basically about understanding roundabout rules which LTA know best.

I like to know where I was wrong too and learn from mistake to improve.

Fatal accident in Pandan Circle on 5th July 2014

There was a fatal accident in Pandan Circle on 5th July 2014. I knew it  from the TP appealing for witness signboard displayed on the roundabout.

I don't know if this case was related to the misunderstand of Roundabout's rule.

If it was really related, then who is responsible for creating this misleading "dangerous rule"?

As insurance companies are the pay-master for accident claim, motorists/workshops will accept the rules insurance companies adopt and take it as legal.

The Highway Code is within the Road Traffic Act. (see section 76 on roundabout).

It is available at:-
http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/search/display/view.w3p;page=0;query=DocId%3A%22be8eb243-8c46-449a-b9b6-c0909be66f7b%22%20Status%3Ainforce%20Depth%3A0%20ValidTime%3A19920325000000%20TransactionTime%3A20140806000000;rec=0;whole=yes

This Act clearly stated Lane A vehicles have to exit straight-ahead while Lane B vehicle can exit straight-ahead or proceed further to exit right / U-turn.

I just don't understand why  NTUC Income and FIDREC have this opinion that Lane A vehicles can exit anywhere they wish.

Their opinion can cause fatal accident when Lane B vehicle exiting straight-ahead!

I'm still waiting for NTUC Income reply as MAS required them to respond to my mail.

Does it make sense for a citizen to engage a lawyer to defend a rule set by the government?

We all know that it is a statutory requirement for all drivers to pass the Highway Code test before they can be allowed on the road.

"Roundabout rules" are within the Highway code syllabus and was also a favorite test question.

So does it make sense for me to engage a lawyer to defend this rule which is already in the Highway code?

I wrote to Ministry of Transport about this and they referred it to MAS.

I'm still waiting for MAS new answer as my previous correspondence reply from them was they can't do anything as it was already adjudicated by FIDrec.

This accident happened because the other driver jump queue by cut across the chevron road-divider to joint the left-lane then failed to filter into right-lane inorder to make the right-turn. Its all captured in my in-car video. Yet NTUC Income paid 100% to his claim! (BTW, the other party claim amount was higher than what I'm claiming)

I just wonder why when this accident happened inside a roundabout and yet the Roundabout Rules for turning was not adopted in their investigation. The investigators dismissed this rule and used their opinion instead to favor the other party.

Who would not be upset with such unfair investigation?

It is policy holders monies and NTUC Income should be prudent to this payout and not push responsibility to FIDrec. Something is wrong somewhere!

 FIDrec is not going to take any responsibility in any way whatsoever.
They said their role is of another Alternative Dispute Resolution Institute.
Ultimately I believe NTUC Income still have to bear the  responsibility for this decision!

Why Traffic Police's investigation gather no conclusion?

LTA had confirmed that Roundabout Rules Diag 3.18 for turning  is applicable to Pandan Circle and refereed me to seek enforcement action from Traffic Police.

Yet TP took 2 months to investigate and replied their investigation gathered no conclusion.

After many emails appealing TP to investigate , TP replied that they need me to produce new evidence such as  "INDEPENDENT EYE WITNESS" in order to continue investigation.

My video already shown his car in the wrong lane, the argument with NTUC Income is whether his car should be on the inner or outer lane when he intend to turn-right at the roundabout. NTUC and FIDREC insisted outer lane is ok, I insisted it must be inner lane as according to the rule in the diagram. I just need TP to confirm and take action.

Where to find this independent eye witness? What is the purpose of having this eye witness in this dispute?
On the other hand, can motorists caught speeding by speed-camera insisted TP to produce independent eye witness first or else they not going to pay the fine?

Therefore is it going to FIDREC  a trap?

It appear to be a harmless & economical route to seek FIDREC help as consumer can just reject their decision if unsatisfied. However consumers are unaware that most government agencies will just accept FIDREC adjudicator's decision regardless if it is right or wrong, they seem to gang up!

Is NTUC Income/ FIDREC method of investigating traffic accident correct?
They use their opinion rather than rules to determine the case.
I produced video evidence and highway code rules to support my case while they just produced "their opinion".
Thankfully LTA had enhanced Pandan Circle lane's marking according to roundabout rules which proved "their opinion" was wrong!

General Insurance Association of Singapore created this Barometer Of Liability Agreement which NTUC Income used it on me.

I told GIA this 13b is in contradiction with the Highway Code Roundabout rules.
They replied that this agreement is only use among insurance companies and policy holder are not bound by it and any dispute can go to FIDREC.

Is our  motor insurance industry controlled by "gangster"?
What can you do when you are being bullied by insurance company/ FIDREC?

NTUC Income pushed responsibility to Fidrec's decision

We wrote to their new CEO, Mr Ken Ng.

Letter was intercepted by "customer engagement"  and  Fidrec's decision was again used as reason to close the case.

Why Fidrec and NTUC Income chose not to observe the Roundabout rules of the Highway code?

Highway code is part of Road Traffic Act !