(引用 fqfp:脑子怎么就转不过弯呢安全与否，是看结果，不是用最高限速来计算。转过去没有发生事故才算安全，否则就是不安全。直行车就算超速，也是不...)我也觉得吵不出结果所以后来zf把很多这种绿灯右转改成了绿箭头右转。可能就是因为他们也吵过。
但是认为这件事路权超速肯定是要在一起看待，绝对不能分开判定。
---
系统生成：由于楼层数受限，本帖实际回复的是 Blzrd 的帖子 “别争了，你俩踢足球合适 一个defence 一个offence..”
原地址：http://bbs.huasing.org/wap/xbbs.php?B=172_14956072
[本文发送自华新手机Wap版]
[typhoonzj (2-18 23:52, Long ago)]
[ 传统版 |
sForum ][登录后回复]101楼
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
[本文发送自华新手机Wap版]
[typhoonzj (2-19 0:21, Long ago)]
[ 传统版 |
sForum ][登录后回复]102楼
(引用 typhoonzj: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...)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. [本文发送自华新手机Wap版] [typhoonzj (2-19 0:39, Long ago)] [ 传统版 | sForum ][登录后回复]103楼
(引用 typhoonzj:这段判决依据尤其的好，深得我心，我给法官点赞29 The video footages showed two motorcycles from the Taxi’s end of CAW cross...)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. [本文发送自华新手机Wap版] [typhoonzj (2-19 0:43, Long ago)] [ 传统版 | sForum ][登录后回复]104楼
(引用 typhoonzj: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...)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。
[fqfp (2-19 0:43, Long ago)]
[ 传统版 |
sForum ][登录后回复]105楼
(引用 fqfp: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 [本文发送自华新手机Wap版] [typhoonzj (2-19 0:46, Long ago)] [ 传统版 | sForum ][登录后回复]106楼
(引用 fqfp: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。 � ...)看到法官强调的责任了吗你路权枪毙人的牛逼劲呢 [本文发送自华新手机Wap版] [typhoonzj (2-19 0:47, Long ago)] [ 传统版 | sForum ][登录后回复]107楼
(引用 typhoonzj: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)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。[fqfp (2-19 0:55, Long ago)]
[ 传统版 |
sForum ][登录后回复]108楼
(引用 typhoonzj:看到法官强调的责任了吗你路权枪毙人的牛逼劲呢)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。[fqfp (2-19 0:58, Long ago)] [ 传统版 | sForum ][登录后回复]109楼
(引用 fqfp: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...)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。
[本文发送自华新手机Wap版]
[typhoonzj (2-19 0:59, Long ago)]
[ 传统版 |
sForum ][登录后回复]110楼
(引用 fqfp: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。)你还认为有路权无事故责任吗? [本文发送自华新手机Wap版] [typhoonzj (2-19 1:01, Long ago)] [ 传统版 | sForum ][登录后回复]111楼
(引用 fqfp: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。)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。[fqfp (2-19 1:02, Long ago)]
[ 传统版 |
sForum ][登录后回复]112楼
(引用 fqfp: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。)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
[本文发送自华新手机Wap版]
[typhoonzj (2-19 1:05, Long ago)]
[ 传统版 |
sForum ][登录后回复]113楼
(引用 typhoonzj:你还认为有路权无事故责任吗?)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。[fqfp (2-19 1:06, Long ago)] [ 传统版 | sForum ][登录后回复]114楼
(引用 fqfp: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...)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 [本文发送自华新手机Wap版] [typhoonzj (2-19 1:06, Long ago)] [ 传统版 | sForum ][登录后回复]115楼
(引用 fqfp: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。)呵呵你也就这点耍赖本事了 [本文发送自华新手机Wap版] [typhoonzj (2-19 1:07, Long ago)] [ 传统版 | sForum ][登录后回复]116楼
(引用 typhoonzj: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 be...)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。[fqfp (2-19 1:08, Long ago)] [ 传统版 | sForum ][登录后回复]117楼
(引用 fqfp: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。)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 [本文发送自华新手机Wap版] [typhoonzj (2-19 1:09, Long ago)] [ 传统版 | sForum ][登录后回复]118楼
(引用 typhoonzj: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[fqfp (2-19 1:11, Long ago)] [ 传统版 | sForum ][登录后回复]119楼
(引用 fqfp: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 [本文发送自华新手机Wap版] [typhoonzj (2-19 1:14, Long ago)] [ 传统版 | sForum ][登录后回复]120楼