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?