差点酿成大祸

可以洗洗睡了搞半天某人沾沾自喜的结果是完全错的，还说什么直行车只是超速被罚，没有其他责任，那不是断章取义，那是纯扯淡，

正式过程和结果在这里，非常详细，直行车没有超速那么多，是72到84，他没有减速，但不是故意，而是只看到了第一辆右转的车，没看到跟着的taxi，最终被判了35%责任。这个判罚我认为是有根有据。而绝不是什么路权最大说。

https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2021_SGCA_93

We therefore dismissed this appeal. This case certainly does not establish a precedent that the relative liability of straight-moving vehicles with the right of way against turning vehicles has now been raised to 35% without qualification. The appellant’s liability was assessed to be higher than most of the cases he cited simply because that degree of contributory negligence was justified on the facts.


以后跟fqfp辩得先做基本查证，否则连起点都是被误导的

这段判决依据尤其的好，深得我心，我给法官点赞29The video footages showed two motorcycles from the Taxi’s end of CAW crossing the junction followed by the unknown vehicle on the left of the Taxi. There can be little doubt that the Nissan’s speed, calculated to be about 20.5 metres per second, assuming it was travelling at the lower end of the range of 74 to 87 kmph, was not a speed at which the driver could take reactive action if some other turning vehicle also started to cross the Nissan’s path.

还有这段 有理有据35As described earlier, the Nissan was practically charging down CAW at a dangerous speed when it should have been obvious to any driver paying attention to the traffic situation ahead of him that the junction was fairly busy and that there were vehicles waiting to turn across the junction. The appellant agreed that he did not lift his foot off the accelerator although he did not accelerate. Two motorcycles and the unknown vehicle were seen moving across the junction in the path of the Nissan when it was near the junction. It was surely incumbent on the appellant, as the driver of the Nissan, to have slowed down to a speed where he could deal with the possibility that a vehicle at the other end of CAW would start to turn right too early. An attentive and cautious driver would certainly have slowed down his vehicle immediately, especially if it was then travelling at between 74 and 87 kmph. However, the appellant did not do so and missed the turning unknown vehicle narrowly. As the Taxi started to move into the junction merely because the unknown vehicle had done so, the trial Judge was correct to hold the second respondent largely to blame for the accident and to have assessed his liability at 65%. Equally, the trial Judge was entirely justified in finding the appellant to be 35% liable although this percentage was not within the range that the appellant contended ought to be the norm.

确实可以洗洗睡了

24楼一开始就说了“主责是违法抢先右转的士司机。”，为啥不说全责，是因为直行车超速了，所以要承担一部分次要责任。

这部分次要责任，全都是超速带来的，所以说，直行车司机只需要承担超速带来的责任。

这还能嘴硬？事故的35%责任 不是说只罚了5000了事，我感觉你在用谎言污蔑法官

看到法官强调的责任了吗你路权枪毙人的牛逼劲呢

为啥罚5000知道不？普通超速，罚几百，记几分而已。为啥这次罚5000，吊照2年，这就是35%的责任带来的惩罚。

换言之，如果不超速，的士司机就是全责，或者接近全责了。

客观来讲，撞死人的是直行车，直行车还超速，为啥的士65%的责任？知道路权的意义了吧。

你前面不是清清楚楚说路权和超速分开判吗5000是因为双方都有损失，折算比例之后taxi要给他垫一部分钱。而不是说他只有超速罚款5000那么简单，他的超速要承担这次死伤事故的35%总体责任。

而不是你一直说的有路权无责任，只是超速罚了款。这次判罚，新加坡的法官还是清楚的，只是被某些人扭曲了。

你还认为有路权无事故责任吗?

换个角度来说如果一辆车超速，追尾前车，导致前车死一人，重伤两人，你觉得法官只是判35%的责任？只是罚款和吊照？
为啥金文泰事故中直行车只需要付次要责任，就是有路权这个护身符。

直行超速事故起点15% 但是这是起点而已。法官会视严重性加量The appellant submitted that the MAG recommends that he should bear only 25% liability based on the following reasoning. Scenario 7(b) in the MAG suggests that the driver of the straight-moving vehicle in the Discretionary Right Turn Scenario should bear 15% liability. The MAG further recommends that if the driver having the right of way exceeds the speed limit, his liability should be increased by 10%. On this basis, the appellant argued that he should bear 25% liability at most. However, the MAG also recommends that if the other vehicle has crossed the junction substantially, the liability of the driver having the right of way should be increased by 5% to 10% as he would have had greater opportunity to avoid the collision The video footages showed that the second respondent had almost crossed at least the path of the Nissan at the junction when the collision occurred. If the appellant had not been charging into the junction at a dangerous speed, he would have been in a much better position than the second respondent to prevent the accident from happening. The trial Judge’s apportionment of 35% liability on the appellant’s part was therefore in keeping with the MAG anyway.

直行责任从来就不是因为路权而免除

这个理解能力也是醉了一开始就说的清清楚楚，有路权无违规行为，无事故责任。有违规行为，根据违规程度，承担相应的责任。

不是你说路权下撞死人跟美国人打死进入家里外人一样无罪吗，继续装呗

呵呵你也就这点耍赖本事了

加来加去，也就只能加到35%这就是路权的作用，否则后果不堪设想。

记住这个人的超速low end 只有74而不是你说的92， 真的92了法官肯定会改判

如果控制在70以下，法官更是要改判无责

70以下 15%起步然后法官会看有没有车已经在转了

路权的作用，可以简单对比一下同样的路口，同样的的士和直行车，同样的速度。只不过这次是绿箭头亮起，直行车没有路权了，路权是的士的。如果发生同样的事故，对比现在的判决，就是路权的作用。

那你可以去试试看，如果你有驾照的话

夫妻肺片你斯不斯活在自己的想象力天天聊路权


你自己开车吗？

可以看下正式的判决结果和依据在这里https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2021_SGCA_93

直行车超速lower end其实只到74kmh而不是前面说的92kmh，但是 超速程度，是否有减速，是否已经有右转车辆，这些每一个因素都被纳入了责任考量，最终判决35%事故责任。如果他敢开到92-97肯定就不止35%。

而绝不是fqfp说的有路权就不承担事故责任，只是超速罚了5000。

法官是清楚的，右转司机被重罚也解释得通，但是争论的话题正是直行超速车的责任问题，这个结果清楚告诉我们，有路权，不考虑交通安全，甚至违章，每一条都会被纳入刑量考量，fqfp类似这样危险却不自知还洋洋得意的自诩老司机才是最大的隐患。

说的蛮对 实在变不了就不变 耐心跟在后面开一会也没有事情 等到安全的时候再去变道

夫妻肺片 别以为路是你家的，所谓的路 权 可以随时没收滴。。跟你家可不一样，。。。。。

看了几段 触目惊心，几百公里没人的高速超速who cares,这种heavy traffic town超速个头啊


---
系统生成：由于楼层数受限，本帖实际/> “可以看下正式的判决结果和依据在这里”
原地址：http://bbs.huasing.org/sForum/bbs.php?B=172_14956126

是的繁忙路段 繁忙时段 路口有车，超速最低值不到10%，但是没松油门。都是法官的考虑。

---
系统生成：由于楼层数受限，本帖实际/> “看了几段 触目惊心，几百公里没人的高速超速who cares,”
原地址：http://bbs.huasing.org/sForum/bbs.php?B=172_14956174

键盘开车难道不行吗

变道打灯遇到很多的车在你打灯准备变道的时候都会突然加速，非得要跑你前面

纯讲路权直行车完全不减速的话

我担保很多小道的车出不了大道。有的地方车流不断的

有些小路前也没黄格子