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 !

SCENARIO WHERE NTUC INCOME CAN BE RIGHT

NTUC Income only have this reason to support their case:-
 “Vehicles exiting a roundabout should keep to the left-lane; failure to watch out vehicle on the left"
 This is applicable  only to certain situation but not to mine.

Let’s look at a scenario where NTUC Income can apply it.

See diagram 3.18 with 4 exit A,B,C,D and assume this is a NON-traffic light control roundabout.      

At location-C, if the Purple car (on the left-lane) entered the roundabout and wanted to go straight to exit-A but collided with Red car which is exiting to exit-D.
Both cars followed the roundabout diag 3.18 turning rule. Then who is at fault?
NTUC Income "Red car should keep left when exiting the roundabout" is applicable here because Blue car MUST exit at C, therefore there won’t be any car on the left-lane (between exit-C and exit-D). Therefore Purple car is free to enter the roundabout and proceed to exit-A. Red car should have noticed Purple car entering the roundabout on his left and watch out for it when exiting to D.

Therefore Red car should have filtered to the left-lane after location C (as Blue car MUST exit at C) to "block" Purple car from entering the roundabout and can exit safely into D via the left-lane.
However if Red car want to exit at A instead, Purple car MUST exit at A too (since it was on the left lane coming out from C), then Red car can exit-A together (side-by-side) with Purple car. Same time Yellow car cannot enter the roundabout because he must  give way to Purple car.

Therefore in a non-traffic light control roundabout, if the left-lane is clear,vehicles on the right-lane going to exit on next exit should filter-left to exit  as any vehicles entering the roundabout need to give way to your vehicles already on the left-lane in the roundabout. All drivers should signal their intention.
If the left lane is NOT clear, the right lane vehicle can exit from the right lane as the vehicle on his left MUST  exit too. 
The rule clearly stated vehicles MUST "decide" before entering roundabout where to exit and follow the 3.18 traffic flow diagram.

Pandan Circle is a clear-cut case. It is a traffic light control roundabout.
Blue car if entered the roundabout at A, via the left-lane, MUST exit at B or C. If not he should have entered via the right-lane. THIS IS THE MAIN CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT!

Traffic light regulate the flow of traffic within the roundabout and therefore such accident should not happen unless vehicles did not follow the rules by continue driving in the left-lane within the roundabout without exiting.
This seem rather technical but I hope everyone can understand these rules and its purpose.

Look at the roundabout rules again, there are the few “MUST” which motorists must follow!

Investigators assigned to this case must know all these rules and  principles and cannot blindly say “keep left to exit a roundabout”! 

Our situation are different, we enter the roundabout  from the same entrance A and collided at C. The sketch the other driver produced in his accident report is misleading because it did not indicate where he came from.

This 100% fault on us is really unfair.

NTUC Income having new CEO

This is NTUC Income's promise found in their website http://www.income.com.sg/servicequality/index.asp

The NTUC Income board of directors has appointed Ken Ng as chief executive of NTUC Income, effective 1 October 2013.  Ken Ng will take over from Tan Suee Chieh.

I hope Ken Ng will work toward fulfilling NTUC Income's promise to customers.

I just need NTUC Income to produce legal proof to their statements made regarding  roundabout rules:-
1. We feel that you should have filtered to the left lane before making the exit into Jurong Town Hall
2. She should thus keep to the left and not right of the roundabout.

So far nobody able to show me the proof. They are telling me general rules for normal road.
But roundabout have their own general rules.

However Fidrec did tell me their proof as follow:-
Vehicle on the left-lane of the 2-lane roundabout can exit on the 2nd exit legally, then vehicle from this 2nd exit can proceed to the 3rd exit on the left-lane legally, then vehicle from the 3rd exit can proceed to the 4th exit on the left-lane legally. When combined all of them together, therefore vehicle can proceed all the way in a roundabout on the left-lane!

This is the first time I heard rules can be combined to form new rule.

LTA did not want to be involved in this matter and refer me to TP.

TP did not want to commit and say "Our investigation has not produced any substantive result.  However, this does not preclude further prosecution should new evidence emerge later"

But TP did gave me this diagram:-

I can understand NTUC is a very large organisation here in Singapore and
Singapore is a democratic society .

I hope Singaporean can still remember what we pledge.

Lane enchantment: Before & After Videos

Videos showing the general traffic condition at accident site.
The combined videos is also available at:-
 http://youtu.be/jUeTMkZgT5k

(Traffics are exiting roundabout into Jurong Town Hall Road.)

Before lane/arrow enchantment.

After lane/arrow enchantment



.












http://youtu.be/bBxrC02TKs4

Indeed, roundabout rules apply in Pandan Circle !

I want to thank TR Emeritus and The Real Singapore for publishing my story.
http://www.tremeritus.com/2013/08/12/ntuc-income-doesnt-understand-highway-code/
http://therealsingapore.com/content/ntuc-income-doesnt-know-basic-road-rules

Thank you to all readers, your feedback and in particular those who were able to understand my point.

I did approach the relevant authorities when NTUC Income found me 100% liable.

I wrote to LTA and was referred to TP.

Then I went  TP to make a report and submitted the video, knowing that I won't be 100% correct or 100% at fault.

Their investigation took two months to complete and I received their reply in two sentences :-
"Our investigation has not produced any substantive result.  However, this does not preclude further prosecution should new evidence emerge later"

I still did not get a firm answer and wondered how NTUC Income made their assessment since TP could not find substantive result.

I wrote to LTA again and subsequently got an answer that it was advisable for vehicles turning right to keep to the right lane and that some motorists may be unfamiliar with the surrounding. And  they were also working on enhancing the lane and arrow markings to improve the lane indications at this location.

When I informed NTUC Income about this, they said this case was already closed.

Recently these enhanced lanes and arrows marking have been completed. I test drove into the roundabout from all the four entrances and confirmed the the left-lane vehicles have only two exit options( 1st-exit; left OR 2nd -exit; straight) from any point of entry.

It is exactly the same concept as the illustrated diagram in the highway code manual !

(Message to NTUC Income:- Please sent to your staff there to understand the true concept of a roundabout rules)

AFTER MATCH OF NTUC INCOME ASSESSMENT

Since NTUC Income already closed this case, I requested for their detail report as I want to know what true supporting evidences they have.

But they cannot accede to my request. 29 July 2013 they wrote this:-

7th  and 17 May 2013 they wrote this:-

We have watched the video and I still don't understand how NTUC Income made such assessment.

It seems like NTUC Income is pushing the buck to Fidrec and don't want to take responsibility.

ISN'T IT NORMAL FOR INSURER TO GIVE OUT A FULL REPORT (UPON REQUEST) WHEN A CLAIM WAS MADE AGAINST YOUR POLICY??

Recently LTA have added new road marking on Pandan Circle to reinforce roundabout rules :-
Dotted lane marking to guide left-lane vehicles out of the roundabout. (see photo)

Even with this new dotted line , I still see some left-lane vehicles do not follow but proceed further to the next exit.

If insurance company do not want to endorse the roundabout rules, whatever LTA does to improve roundabout's safety will go to waste!!
Insurance company said the other party is not at fault and will compensate them fully for the accident.

Lets look at how NTUC INCOME interpret traffic sign

HI, HAVE YOU SEEN THIS SIGN BEFORE?

Yes, many times on our road. This sign is always planted at road junction and mounted quite near to the ground. It is "SPLIT TRAFFIC" sign.

So what is this split traffic sign??

Some highway code manual define it as:-
-YOU MAY PROCEED ON EITHER SIDE.
 
-MOTORISTS CAN PASS TO EITHER SIDE, BUT EITHER SIDE MIGHT NOT REACH   THE SAME DESTINATION.



HAVE YOU EVER WONDERED WHAT IS THE MEANING OF THIS SIGN??

IS IT A CHOICE TO SELECT WHICH SIDE YOU WANT TO GO ??

The answer is, 'NO', it is not an entitlement to choose! As what LTA had replied me:-

'The "split" sign simply indicates that traffic can proceed either way. It does not dictate which lane. It is the lane marking on the ground and the arrow markings that informs motorists of the appropriate movements to make.'

The definition is a bit misleading and some people still mistaken it as choice of movements.

ARROW MARKING on your lane is the rule that give this choice of movements.

             This above lane with arrow-marking is the one motorist can choose to proceed or turn right.


How about this split traffic sign shown below( circled in red).
 Can you choose to proceed either side when you drive near to this sign? Definitely no.

 

     

 

 

 

 

                            

So what is its purpose of split traffic sign??

The answer is:-
Traffic flow is on left and right of this sign. Do not drive in-between.


OK. NOW LET'S SEE HOW NTUC INCOME INTERPRET THIS SIGN.

I came to realise this only after making an accident claim with NTUC Income.

Last year, 7th Aug 2012, my wife was involved in a minor side-collision accident in Pandan Circle.

 

 

                                               ( the black dot is the " split traffic" sign)

 

Ref to above diagram 3.18 as an illustration of the roundabout.

My car (shown in red) wanted to exit from the right-lane to the 2nd exit (Jurong Town Hall road). The other car (shown in blue) should also exit base on the general rule, but he (blue car) wanted to continue to the 3rd exit (West Coast road). Therefore this accident happened.

The other driver blames her for the accident and does not believe there are roundabout rules. Saying all vehicles must exit from the left lane, vehicles on the left lane can proceed all the way in the roundabout. I told him he needed to keep-right lane when approaching roundabout in order to turn right (3rd exit) base on general rules of roundabout.

As we could not agree, we decided to report to insurer for 3rd party claim. Both are insured with NTUC INCOME.

I have video footage of this accident in my car and submitted to NTUC Income.

To my surprise, NTUC Income informed me liability at my side as follows:-

 After reviewing the video that you have sent, our management conclude that liability is down on your side for the above accident. We feel that you should have filtered to the left lane before making the exit into Jurong Town Hall. From the video, it seems that you are cutting through the left lane to exit.
    From the design of this roundabout, we can see that the left lane has the option to either turn left (into jurong town hall road exit) or move straight (ie continue the roundabout). Hence to say that the vehicles coming from the right lane would not be allowed to turn left into Jurong Town Hall Road as it would cause danger to the vehicles on the left lane that is intending to move straight. I seek your understanding in our assessment of your case.

I questioned them about what special design in this roundabout that enable the left lane vehicles to proceed further. Isn't the roundabout rules indicate vehicles can exit from the right-lane to the 2nd exit?

Their reply as follow:-

  from the video and the attached picture, we could see the directional sign points for the vehicle travelling on the left lane to either turn left or continue with the roundabout.

From this directional sign, the vehicle that had collided to you can have the option to either turn left or move straight (ie continue on the roundabout).

MY GOD!!!! How can NTUC Income make such interpretation!

This is a "Split Traffic" sign, It will be dangerous for other motorists if interpret this way!

They did not accept my explanation about this sign and insisted on their assessment.

My No-Claim-Discount was then cut from 50% to 20% during my policy renewal in October.

I sought redress from my MP but NTUC Income still maintained their stand.

I was then referred to FIDREC (Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre) . The mediator there also concluded 100% liability on my side , I then chose to proceeded for their adjudication (at fee of $250 ) hoping the adjudicators would understand my point. But to my disappointment, FIDREC's adjudicator also concluded the same ie100% liability still on my side.

NTUC Income had presented their assessment as follows:-

"The complainant mentioned in her report that she has intention to turn left. She should thus keep to the left and not right of the roundabout. The fact that she has looked towards her left and not seen our insured clearly showed her line of vision was blocked when she executed the turn. The other evidence that speaks louder than words is the video footage that captured the event.

As the accident was clearly the complainant's own negligent for failing to exercise proper lookout whilst switching into other road user's lane, we regret we would have to maintain our stand to reject her claim."
 

NTUC Income then settled 3rd party claim with the other party and closed this case.

I sought MAS's (Monetary Authority Singapore)  help to address this issue and after much correspondence, MAS replied :-

We note your case has already been adjudicated at FIDReC and therefore NTUC Income will not be re-opening it or responding further to your complaint.  We would like to highlight that the decision of the Adjudicator or Panel of Adjudicators is final and binding on the financial institution, however it is not binding on you.  You may pursue your complaint through other avenues such as seeking legal advice on your options for recourse or exploring alternative dispute resolution options.  For instance, you may wish to approach the Singapore Mediation Centre (SMC) or the Singapore International Arbitration Centre.   Information on these organisations is available at their websites at www.mediation.com.sg and www.siac.org.sg.

So, my friends, is NTUC Income interpretation correct?

 

You can goggle "roundabout rules" to find out more. Do we follow international standard?

 

Question 1.
Which lane must a motorist take when approaching a roundabout intending to turn right(3rd exit)?
Lane A, Lane B or it doesn't matter??
 

 Question 2.
Which country in this world allow Lane A vehicle to proceed to 3rd exit from the left lane?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We've seen NTUC Income interpretation of split traffic.
Lets look at how this assessment came about.

 

This is how the other party made the sketch in their accident report.

 

This is an unfair presentation of the accident.

 

First, this accident occurred in a roundabout, their sketch look like a semi-circle or normal road.

Second, we were travelling from West Coast Highway, this important road was omitted instead Jalan Buroh (being the 1st exit) was drawn.

Base on this deceiving sketch, he has the right of way as travelling from Jalan Buroh toward West Coast Road can be done on the left-lane.

Ntuc Income then gave me this assessment:-

I told them I agreed with this assessment only if we are travelling from Jalan Buroh. But they still have other reasons to stand firm on their assessment.

The issue of Pandan Circle is not consider as a roundabout was also brought up. I showed them the photo of a roundabout warning sign planted there.

From this photo, you can see his car sneak into the left lane by cutting across the island-divider (probably because there is a split-traffic sign there). He probably did not see the roundabout warning sign planted on his right side.

Anyway, the dispute was then voice down to vehicles on the left lane in the roundabout have the right to proceed without exiting.

So lets look at the general rules of roundabout:-

 

 

None of the illustration  ever mentioned left lane vehicles can proceed on left lane throughout the roundabout.

Then why bother to print this illustration if it is not valid!

Item 5 of the rules stated "When arrows are marked on the road before and in a roundabout, you must drive in the direction of the arrows". That is the only circumstance that he can proceed further.

So, my friends. How good is NTUC  assessment on this case ??

Frankly, even though the rules are as above, I believe the left lane vehicles can proceed to the next exit but as "a privilege and not an entitlement". They should bear most responsibility if accident happened!

As you can see from the rules' illustration, traffics will be cutting across each other's path on 2nd exit if  NTUC Income ruling is valid.

So can both rules co-exist?

Therefore now the rule  become left lane vehicles can proceed all the way in roundabout, while right lane vehicles can exit without keeping to the left but must bear all responsibility for any accident!

Those who adhere to the published rules will be penalised.


Some people ask me what about multiple-exits roundabout like Newton Circle. There is this website to find out more:-
http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/fragview/inforce/subordleg+179+2008+pt.9+0+N?nohits=y&tocnav=y&xref=Type%3Dsubordleg%20AND%20Year%3D2008%20AND%20No%3D179

Some people also said this:
Even though the rules said vehicles turning right need to keep the right-lane, but the rules did not said they cannot keep to the left-lane!

So ladies beware of public toilets, the "female" sign did not said men cannot enter!

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let us now watch the video taken from my car's camera.
The other party car is actually beige colour (I referred it as blue for illustration purpose in diagram 3.18).

At the start of video, you will see his beige car sneaking into the left lane from the island-divider. Some cars have to brake to let him in.