Sunday Rantings. 18 Dec 2011.

As expected, after the 3 times failure of the rail operator within this same week, I am joined not just by a chorus  but a full choir of rants this weekend.

FRONT PAGE:  PM ORDERS INQUIRY AS TRAINS BREAK DOWN AGAIN
First time, we would put it to bad luck. We accept things do breakdown. Just bad luck if it happens to you.
Second time, we are irritated and frustration goes up. You should have known better, ete, etc,
Third strike, you're out! No excuses can justify the lack of vigilance. Not when it happens 3 times in 4 days.

The rail disruptions affected me yesterday.
My trip from Bukit Batok to Novena took 2 hours instead of 40 minutes.
This included being 'de-trained' at Toa Payoh where the line for the bridging buses were snaking 200meters long! Frustrated commuters switching over to the normal bus services were not any better due to the sudden surge of commuters overloading the system.

I was one of those who had no choice but to join the line at Toa Payoh.

SMRT CEO Saw Phaik Hwa should shake off her complacency, get off her high horse and truly realise the frustration of commuters. "I can't see anything significant... People can board trains, its whether they choose to..." does not bode well  for your so call empathies with commuters' frustration over the bad service.

Personally, I feel Saw is not the right person for the job. Her specialty is in Retail and she has proven this magnificently by making the retail component of the SMRT revenues a whopping 45% of the profits it generated. But SMRT is not a retailer! Its core business is transportation! You are a people mover system, first and last.

Here's a little trivia I'll confess to you.
Saw Phaik Hwa was my classmate. We were in the same Pre-U batch in school.
As an ex-classmate, I wish her all the best in getting the system to work, but as a commuter, I think maybe someone else who specializes in transit might be more suitable.

Here's another bit of interesting facts I picked up reading the reports and complaints.
When the commuters were complaining of packed trains, SMRT used the figure 1400 per train as the norm. When the trains got stuck the last few days, this figure mysteriously went down to 1000 per train..?
I check  Wikipedia and the stated maximum capacity for the train was 1920.
Interesting? Different figures are used for different justifications?


PAGE 35 THINK:  WHEN DOCTORS INVOKE GOD'S WILL
Dr Lee's amoral piece on why doctors cop out when they defer decisions to 'euthanize' patients.
However, I must thoroughly disagree with Dr Lee's morality.
She may not believe in a God but that does not give anyone including medical professionals the right as well to decide who lives or who dies. By saying you won't consign people to further suffering, you are already playing God.

It's a very slippery slope when one starts to be firm in deciding who is normal and who is not; who is suffering terminally and don't deserve to live; and that those suffering or who are not 'normal' should be put out of their misery?
Using our reasoning, our logic and our innate moral sense does not necessarily mean we should take 'God's will' out of the equation. I am a Catholic and I believe in God's will.


Page 34 YOUR LETTERS: IT'S LEGAL TO RIDE TWO ABREAST
Two letters on the same issue this week.
Never a week goes by without someone highlighting the bicycle/pedestrian, bicycle/motorist issue.
Someone in authority must take up the issue and clarify matters. LTA? SPF?
Nobody seems to want to touch this hot potato despite the endless calls in the weeklies.

* Sunday Rantings are my thoughts on a lazy Sunday morning after reading the Sunday papers. This may or may not be a regular feature depends on whether I have the energy after breakfast. Also Sunday Mass has a calming effect, so the more I pay attention to the sermons, the less I rant. The long rants probably mean I fell asleep during Mass.

A letter to my MP

This is a letter I wrote to Mr David Ong, the Member of Parliament for Jurong GRC which I sent today.

Mr David Ong (davidong@bukitbatok.sg)

Member of Parliament

Jurong GRC

Dear Mr Ong,

Re: Pavement cyclists and Pedestrian safety.

I am one of your constituents living at Blk 203 Bukit Batok.

I noticed that the Park Connector project from Bukit Batok to Jurong East is nearing its completion. The track is completed and signage has been mounted.

This will make travelling between the towns much more pleasant and perhaps safer for cyclists and pedestrians.

After mulling over the issue for some time, I would like to offer some of my personal feedback, not just specifically on the Park Connector (PCN) but on pedestrian safety and cyclists in general in Bukit Batok.

I do not own a car and neither do I cycle, so I am basically a pedestrian. Unless I take the bus or the train, I usually move about Bukit Batok on foot. The most difficult thing about walking in Bukit Batok is the danger posed by pavement cyclists. I must clarify that I am not against cyclists per se.

Unlike Tampines New Town where cycling on pavement is legal, cyclists in Bukit Batok technically still come under Rule 28 of the Road Traffic Rules (1981) where it is prohibited to ride on the pavement. 1^st time offenders can be fined $20 for the traffic offense.

Officially under the Road Traffic Act (Chap 276, Sec140), bicycles are considered as vehicles and are required to be ridden on the road abiding to all the relevant traffic rules and regulations.

But in reality, the majority of cyclists in Bukit Batok ride on the pavements. Many of them do this due to their fear of being on the road with other bigger vehicles, for their own personal safety, or simply due to the fact that they are ignorant of the cycling prohibition rule.

I have seen cyclists showing utter disregard for traffic lights, pedestrian crossings, riding along shop corridors and even taking their bicycles onto escalators. Then there are those who constantly ring their bell to impose their ‘right of way’ along pavements, never mind the safety of pedestrians.

With all disregards to etiquette and rules by cyclists, pedestrians like me are most vulnerable on the pavements.

Even waiting at a bus stop poses a great danger to commuters.

The way our road pavements are designed, the path leads right through the bus stop shelter.  Many years ago, a raised floor or bollards prevented bicycles from accidentally going through a bus stop but these were removed to make it more user-friendly for the physically challenged. 

The downside to this is that it became a boon for cyclists who now have an unhindered ride straight through without consideration for commuters’ safety.

The new PCN along Bukit Batok Ave 1 is a prime example.

Even though the PCN cycling section detours behind the bus stop shelter, cyclists routinely disregard this safety path and continue to cycle through the bus stop. Some even without slowing down at all despite signs that say “Dismount and Push” which are completely ignored.

Bukit Batok Ave 1 Park Connector

The other thing that I await in trepidation is that under the Jurong GRC 5-year plan, there is a proposal to build a new Bicycle Park at the Bukit Batok MRT station south end.

From the preliminary sketch plan, you can see that the exit from the Bicycle Park leads out onto, and connects directly to, the pedestrian pavement and not to the road.  This is an implicit open invitation to cyclists to ride on the pavement itself.

It seems it was designed to benefit cyclists without considering pedestrian safety. Something is not right here.

(Copyright Jurong GRC Town Council) - Scanned picture used for example.

Can I suggest that before you launch the PCN officially, and before you build the Bicycle Park, a bit more thought be given to the safety of pedestrians?

We need a more holistic approach to the whole matter.

Besides just building the infrastructure for better connectivity, we need to educate the public, the pedestrians, the cyclists, the motorists and other road users.

Once a suitable PR or education programme is completed, we should then enforce basic rules and regulations for its proper usage.

In the area of educating the public, we can start with some sort of awareness programme in schools, in commercial places and factories within Bukit Batok.

Many of the offenders are foreign workers who may not be aware of the pavement restriction.

For motorists driving through Bukit Batok town, consider signage to warn them about giving space to cyclists (who should be educated to ride on the road instead). It’s all about courtesy to each and every road user.

I am not suggesting that enforcement of Rule 28 be heightened immediately. This will only result in more accidents for cyclists if enforcement takes place without education and thus will serve no beneficial purpose.

Unlike the way Tampines estate is trying to resolve their problem, my opinion is that we should tackle the problem at its root, i.e. teach cyclists the correct manner of safe cycling on the roads. Make Bukit Batok town a bicycle friendly estate but we should tackle the problem head-on rather than spend money on creating parallel bicycle tracks. Bicycles belong on the road, thus cyclists and motorists should be made aware of this.  In the absence of a national awareness programme, let our constituency take the lead.

We can educate motorists to give space to cyclists by putting up signage like “Look out for cyclists”, “Give 1.5m space” “Cyclists ahead”, etc.

There are some motorists who actually believe that cyclists should be off the roads. They should be educated to share the roads in a safe manner within Bukit Batok.

We should educate cyclists to ride safely on the roads, keep left, observe traffic rules, use safety gear, etc. I know of many cyclists who are completely ignorant of the fact that pavements are off limits. This is partially due to the very lax enforcement by the authorities, which seem to have a live and let live attitude instead. But we are sending the wrong message with this attitude.

We should educate pedestrians too. Even to give way to recalcitrant cyclists, as there will always be those who will ride on pavement for their own selfish safety as against riding on the road. Though it’s wrong, they prefer to accept the risks without considering the danger to others.

I remember when I took my driving tests decades ago; the emphasis was always “Pedestrian First”.  Their safety is of utmost priority, even when they may be in the wrong like jaywalking or crossing against their favour. Flesh against metal is a no win situation.

I appreciate your time in reading my rather long feedback.  For everyone’s safety, I believe that sustained and persistent education, coupled with the proper facilities you have built, will result in a safer environment for all in Bukit Batok.

I remain,

Yours faithfully,

James Tann

I attached a sample video of a safe cycling programme.