It is true that we should enforce and support the rule that a bicycle is a vehicle on the road . Still I like to share what I learnt in my motorbike license. We are now taught Defensive Riding which basically in summary is : Respect the Ride of Way but Do Not Expect the Right of Way. The Defensive Riding lessons also shows that : The number of cyclists fatalities is the same as that of motorcar drivers for the past 3 years.

As vehicles – motorbikes or bicycles, we do have the right on the road. It is still better to not expect the right of way and ride defensively.

P.S: I have a car license, learning my motorbike and I cycle at least once a month on the road between NUS and Serangoon.

Just checking … has anyone got back to you yet?

If not, it’ll be good to touch base with Steven SCTF’s President first at safecyclingsg@pacific.net.sg

Thanks!

Kind regards
theodore

I reckon Diagram 4.100 and 4.101 needs to be redrawn with a brush stroke “X” over 4.101, and draw a second diagram showing a motorist allowing a cyclist to pass before turning right. The situation in Diagram 4.101 is a regular bone of contention for cyclists. We all know that a picture tells a thousand words… So I think readers act as the diagrams show rather than read the words “Do not make a sudden turn, you may knock down a cyclist. ” So this point put this way currently seems to teach incorrectly even if the intention was a “DO NOT”.

I could bring this up to the TP Safety department when I meet them next. Or perhaps, Steven, you could when you meet them next too. Let’s effect a change soon.

Cheers
theo

Those guidelines/rules in the theory book should be PRACTICED by all motorists (and cyclists, and anyone that operates vehicle on the road that can injure others) as much as possible, for safety of all road users.

Those guidelines/rules will be “just theory” or empty words if not practiced.

Regarding the definition of bicycle as vehicle, I believe the definition is there in the rules, but it’s implicit. An example is in the following line:
7.—(1) No bicycle shall be ridden on the right of another vehicle proceeding in the same direction except when overtaking such other vehicle.

In that line, bicycle is being referred to with respect to “another vehicle”, i.e. it’s implicit that a bicycle is a vehicle, and it’s a vehicle that should not be operated on the right of another vehicle proceeding in the same direction.

You can replace the word “bicycle” in the line with a non-vehicle; for example, a pedestrian that, for the sake of this discussion, are able to run fast enough to overtake a vehicle (whoa!):
7.—(1) No pedestrian shall run on the right of another vehicle proceeding in the same direction except when overtaking such other vehicle.

It’s clear that in this case the vehicle being overtaken should not be referred to as “another vehicle”, since a pedestrian is not a vehicle, and thus the line should have been:
7.—(1) No pedestrian shall run on the right of a vehicle proceeding in the same direction except when overtaking such vehicle.

- These rules do not define the bicycle as a vehicle, neither do they clarify whether a bicycle can only be driven on the road, or on the pavement, or both.
- They all relate to the cyclist only, they do NOT talk to how cars should respect cyclists as vehicle with equal rights on the road.
- Finally, a number of rules seem to be outdated/irrelevant/never enforced. The whole section on signaling, about no one does that. Lights? I have lights, but it seems that most cyclists don’t have them, and there is no enforcement.

So in conclusion, I think although it is good to see that indeed there are some rules, they seem to be ready for an update!

Cheers Hannes

I am Kunal Katarya, from Raffles Institution , and am doing a school Social Studies project about cycling as an alternate means of transport in Singapore. The Safe Cycle Task Force is an ideal organization for us (my group and I) to gain expert feedback and opinions on this matter; as such we sincerely hope that we can conduct a short interview with one of the people from the SCTF. I have also emailed you on this matter, and do hope that you can get back to me as soon as possible.

Sincerely,
Kunal Katarya

A helmet camera is a REALLY GOOD toy!

I got mine at Sim Lim square, 2nd floor. I don’t want to say which model, there are a few, they are water-safe, record on a memory card and connect to a PC or TV by cable. The cool thing is that they record and overwrite, and the one I have does a little vibration when I switch it on on my head, so it is really quite easy to have it on all time when riding. Fixing it on the helmet wasn’t too easy, in the end I used 2 long cable binders from a DIY shop, and placed a bit soft material below. This bright yellow thing sits next to 2 super light on top of the helmet, looks a bit special yes.

Ok, what do I do with all these recordings? 2 categories:

1) I sometimes watch just for fun, something funny on the road, how I was riding, offroading or in dense riding conditions. Sometimes also useful to recap a situation, was this really scary, strange, or what? Replay.

2) If someone almost killed me, then I have no mercy, sorry guys. I screenshot the pictures out, capture the situation, driver, and number plate and Email the pictures as a report to SPF_Feedback_TP@spf.gov.sg, which takes me only minutes. Also, naturally this doesn’t happen too often, maybe once a month. The TP staff there is really diligent, they send a hard copy letter back and confirm the reporting of a hazardous driver. I once called back and confirmed, a person who almost knocked me off the road when turning got 6 points.

Additionally, I feel that there are two more good effects while I ride with this helmet decoration: I had a few situations where I am sure drivers saw my camera and then had more respect (point fear?) and did NOT cut into my lane. Second, this think on the head makes you adhering 100% to all traffic rules now, not 99%, because recording what you do you makes you also more conscious of the rules cyclist shell adhere to.

Highly recommended!

Cheers H