'Give Way to Buses Scheme': a litany of leadership missteps

ponpokku (27Oct2012) wrote:

Re thread:'Give Way to buses scheme'= senseless, draconian public policy? the simple logic behind giving way was that in the past, we dont always have multi-lanes everywhere, so somehow u gotta give way when the situation arise. it is still so in smaller lanes/avenues in a good number of HDB estates. as u can see from the pic u posted in the 1st post.
- so taking the whole issue out of context is not gonna prove ur point. some places, esp built up places, couldnt have more road widening. u are not gonna tear down whole blocks of flats or shops are u?
- and all these got nothing to do with bikes. bikes are even less efficient than buses. and like i said in the past, dun use angmohs for examples. americans 8 cars/10 persons, all of EU and japan, 6 cars/10 persons. singapore, 1 car/10 persons. then they come and tell u about greenie theories and environmental problems. lol, farking hypocrite i say, and pretty dumb for ppl to buy that. go tell the angmohs to cut down on car ownership and not us.

Hi ponpokku, nope, I've no objection to giving way, in fact I often do, by sometimes traveling at or under the speed limit of the road along the left most lane and slowing down to let buses exit should they wish to (its safer to drive slower, and you can conduct conversations (w passengers) whilst you do)(80kmh@ expressway is most fuel saving).

The context of this argument is that transport, road use and citizen's lives would be improved if the government were to favor cycling and public transport use over the use of private cars.

In the beginning, when traffic was negligible/ light, bus bays never had to exist, since buses would just stop anywhere by the side of the road and then move on; any other vehicles following would either stop altogether, or else overtake by filtering into the opposite lane (provided no oncoming traffic was seen).

But times have moved on, bus frequencies have increased, as have their loads and so has the population of private cars- exploded.

Road widening would keep up with the traffic flow but as you have mentioned, this is drastic suggestion would not be ideal in the light of high rise buildings recently built.

You are however very wrong where the use of bikes concerned. Absent the danger of riding bicycles on Singapore roads, cycling certainly provides an overall better commuter experience. According to the study 'Relationship between physical activity and general mental health' [Preventive Medicine, 07Sept2012]: "The optimal threshold volume for mental health benefits was of 2.5 to 7.5 hours of weekly physical activity. .... Individuals who engaged in the optimal amount of physical activity were more likely to have reported better mental health".
According to 'Public transport in Singapore: Ride bicycle is faster' [HWZ,18Jan2012][alt site]: "bus speeds have gone down from 19.1kmh in 2007 to 17.8kmh (latest)... ... a 'more experienced' cyclist can maintain an average speed of 25kph over a 'short-medium distance of 20-30miles' (32 - 48km)".
Given that on average, cycling is ~40% faster than taking a bus in Singapore [25kmh(cycle) vs 17.8kmh(bus)] (for the 'more experienced cyclist'), and the fact that by virtue of it contributing excellently towards the attainment of "2.5 to 7.5 h of weekly physical activity"- an so reducing the rates of mental illness prevalent in Singapore, besides being 'environmentally friendly' I find it hard to understand how you may logically suggest that "bikes are even less efficient than buses".

According to 'List of sovereign states and dependent territories by population density' [Wikipedia], Singapore's population density is 7,363/sqkm, USA: 34/sqkm, Japan: 338/sqkm. Using your figures of "americans 8 cars/10 persons, all of EU and japan, 6 cars/10 persons. singapore, 1 car/10 persons", the density of cars per sqkm in SG, USA, Japan would be in the ratios of 736.3: 27.2: 202.8, of which one can easily see that the density of cars in Singapore is at least 3 times its nearest rival- in a land where space is a scarcity, the use of private bicycles and public transportation MUST be given significant priority.

The best way for one bus to exit a bus bay during peak hours is the obstruction to on coming traffic caused by the presence of another seeking to enter the same bay; the best way to reduce motorcar traffic on roads is to make cycling and bus rides an effective and efficient way to get around.

In the light of better planned bus routes, more frequent bus services, the freedom to cycle, travel free, keep fit and improve the overal state of health of the community, mental or otherwise; the effectiveness and ease of enforcing restricted hour bus lane rules, the 'give way to buses scheme' (GWTBS) is a mere slip shod, lip-service creation of a government which has lost its moral compass to govern; and in time, will soon lose its popular mandate too.

Reference(s):
- 'I gave way to bus -- and got rammed from behind'- "STOMPer Givewayornot was driving on the left lane when a bus suddenly swerved into his lane. In order to avoid a $130 fine for not giving way to buses, the STOMPer had to jam his brakes, causing the car behind to crash into him." [STOMP, 29Aug2009][alt link]
===========
At:
HWZ:
30Oct2012: 'Give Way to buses scheme'= senseless, draconian public policy?
A1:
30Oct2012: LTA to expand Mandatory Give-Way to Buses Scheme
SGbike:
30Oct2012: GWTBS=: lipstick on pig; a glaring public policy mistake
SGC:
30Oct2012: LTA to expand Mandatory Give-Way to Buses Scheme
SGF:
30Oct2012: Effective public private transport in S'pore a pipe dream
SBY:
30Oct2012: GWTBS=: lipstick on pig; a glaring public policy mistake
PF:
30Oct2012:Singapore: 'Give Way to Buses Scheme': a political leadership mistake.

30Oct2012: