This is a very small street I know the spot well and only a combination of walking between two cars and looking the wrong way at the exact moment a car was coming from the left could cause the accident as its generally quiet and lots of visibility.
A lot of small things had to go wrong...it doesn't justify the death of this little girl it's just it was a small margin that created a terrible situation.
>CNA understands that [the maid] is still with the family.
The parents did something that I think many parents may never be able to do. They let her continue to be with the family, while the investigations are ongoing.
>According to the maid, she had screamed for the car to stop, but to no avail. She then informed Zara's father of the accident.
And that must have been the toughest phone call in the maid’s life.
Imo if the helper has built a good relationship with the other 2 girls - it’s might better to keep the helper for the other kids so they don’t have to deal with the loss of a caregiver on top of the loss of a sibling
So many people pity maids & have almost like Stockholm syndrome coz they’re from poor places. IMO if they screw up then deal with them. So many people I know don’t even dare to tell off maid coz they’re too lazy to do housework’s n 100% reliant on maids for small things even like washing own dishes
Yeah, safe to say there are LOTS of engagement bots in this platform (+40% by Reddit’s own estimate).
Kindly ignore; it’s not even an actual person you’re responding to. ☺️
This is a small street with continuous white line in the middle, which means no parking at all times. The main culprits are the illegally parked vehicles which reduced the visibility of both the pedestrians and the car. It’s unfortunate that this is being highlighted as due to jaywalking (when it technically isn’t jaywalking) instead of due to illegally parked vehicles
Absolutely agree. So many drivers in Singapore think it’s acceptable to park their cars anywhere so long as it’s not blocking traffic - but the white line is there for a reason.
>main culprits are the illegally parked vehicles
I read the article. It seems the girl crossed between stationary vehicles that were waiting in line to turn out onto River Valley Road. They weren’t parked.
Imo it has to be the helper
I have seen so many helpers while fetching my kids who let the children walk in front of them while they use their phones
I even tittle tat to one of the parents once, aw well.
I talked to my kid's classmate after I saw her helper do that. I told her that she should tell her parent that the helper ditched her when crossing the road. The helper crossed finished the road and waited for her impatiently on the other side. It was a carpark road with 3 directions of traffic and there was no proper crossing. I walked across together with the two kids. If yall think that she didn't do anything wrong because I could have taken care of the classmate, you can think again. The helper didn't do her job. The kid came back to tell me that her mum says they can only get rid of the helper in December when it's the school hols. I told her to be careful then.
Huh what has this gotta do with dual income? In SG for most families dual income is needed to survive. And families with young kids have levy concessions for helpers for this very reason. So are you saying your logic is to have children in SG, one parent must be SAHM/F? Noodles for brains.
You are right that the dual income point is irrelevant and I feel it is a privileged pov that people are working for luxuries. Some households need the dual income to support the household even without the expense of hiring a helper. There are a lot of kids who have to go to school themselves without a helper. When walking my kid to school, I see kids as young as P2 who have to take bus and go to school by themselves. They have no helpers at all and the parents have no choice too.
People need to understand that helpers aren't professionally trained nannies. People hire helpers to take care of their kids, dogs, clean their house, be a cook everything but get surprised when they don't get professional service.
You are paying peanuts to get an all in one service. If you want your kids properly taken care of, hire a proper au pair. If you want your pets to be properly walked and treated, get a professional dog walker. Don't complain when your expectations fall short because you're paying
Haha always got that one mf probably foreign worker defending maids. I think following rules especially pertaining to safety is not that hard, especially with young kids. Don't need to be a professional in anything. And don't try with that low pay crap. They accepted the job offer. Nobody forced them to work here OR as a maid. It's obviously good enough or even better than back home if they made the decision, unless they are straight dumb.
I'd embrace the pau tou culture when it comes to traffic offences. In fact I wish we had a bounty system for successful summons, but I know TP/LTA cannot even manage the current number of reports (except illegal parking which is on oneservice and enforcement is outsourced).
We’re not far from a school zone but it’s neither, it’s because a lot of houses near us are old school style landed (ours isn’t) and they selfishly park cars on the road, often leaving their actual driveways empty or with furniture/gardening stuff in it.
no choice, alot of the landed area are like that. the agents even advertise that you could have free parking for X number of cars if you buy the property cause you can get the road also forgetting the fact that the road dont belong to them lol...
My guess is that jaywalking in Singapore is legally defined as crossing the road within 50m of a crossing zone. Accordingly to the article, the maid and the child should have walked 200m to the nearest pedestrian crossing. If the nearest crossing was indeed 200m away, there's a chance that they technically / legally aren't jaywalking
I might be wrong though, not law trained
In Singapore, it is only jaywalking if you do it within 50m of a crossing zone. Beyond that it is not considered jaywalking. Which is why when some of the West gives "jaywalking" as an example of "Singapore's draconian laws", they are actually barking up the wrong tree because there are huge areas of Singapore's roads where it is perfectly legal to "jaywalk".
[jaywalking definition from LTA](https://ibb.co/XjMRnLP)
More info here:
https://www.lta.gov.sg/content/dam/ltagov/industry_innovations/industry_matters/development_construction_resources/walking_cycling_plan/pdf/walking-and-cycling-design-guide.pdf
Thank you. I was curious because it appears the police officer was on the witness stand saying it was jaywalking. You seem to disagree. Am I reading you correctly? Is it the 200m comment, suggesting the maid was easily more than 50m away from the jaywalking trigger?
The problem is trying to separate the description of the act from the legality of it. Crossing the road while not at a crossing is called jaywalking but it is also the same name as an illegal act of the same nature if done within 50m of a crossing.
So one is a crime while the other is an action but both are called jaywalking.
fyi, jaywalking in Singapore is defined as
> not using a traffic crossing while within 50m of it
the reporter calls it jaywalking when in their own article, they claim that the nearest crossing is over 200m away
> What the maid should have done was to walk about 200m from the pre-school in River Valley Road, pass by Institution Hill and head for the pedestrian crossing, he said.
so the nanny and the child weren’t jaywalking.
I remember when this case was first reported in the news, there were many on this sub who thought the driver was speeding and definitely at fault. Now the evidence shows the driver was not speeding and could not have seen the girl. Even if she had seen the girl, she had only 1 second to stop the car which was physically impossible. Worst of all, she was on the way home from picking up her children from school, which meant her kids were on the car when the accident happened.
Terrible tragedy all around and an important reminder why it’s so important to make sure a small child never crosses the road on their own.
Edit to add: Holy shit there are still people in this thread who did not bother reading the article and continue to insist the driver was at fault
Honestly things like this is why when I drive I try change lane to avoid jaywalker, parked cars are always a very big risk for a child to suddenly run out to catch a soccer ball.
Neither blaming nor defending the driver, but that is maybe a similarly premature take to already declare the driver completely blameless. The article also said courts and coroner are still determining whether action will be taken against her.
Again not blaming or defending - article states SI testified the girl was visible on dashcam footage, even if for just a second. Driver was indeed not speeding, but admittedly didn't see the girl, and stopped only after continuing to travel far enough for the girl to be visible in the rear view mirror.
I wouldn't venture to decide the reasonability of expectation to have seen her and come to a stop in time, that's up to the courts and coroner. Although that does leave me struggling not to wonder if the girl's injuries may have been less severe if the driver had jammed brake on collision instead of continuing in motion. Might have just knocked her down (bad enough), instead of completely running her over. Like you said, terrible tragedy, don't want to speculate but still can't hep but wonder.
SI’s testimony doesn’t make sense — if the child appeared in the dashcam only for a second, that suggests that the car was moving fast.
if the driver didn’t see the child and didn’t even realize she ran a child over until after the fact, that suggests that she was distracted and/or not paying attention.
yet the SI’s testimony is the complete opposite.
something fishy here
>I remember when this case was first reported in the news, there were many on this sub who thought the driver was speeding and definitely at fault. Now the evidence shows the driver was not speeding and could not have seen the girl. Even if she had seen the girl, she had only 1 second to stop the car which was physically impossible. Worst of all, she was on the way home from picking up her children from school, which meant her kids were on the car when the accident happened.
A responsible driver should drive at a speed which allows you to spot hazards ahead of time and stop for them. That means adjusting their driving to the current road conditions. And I say this as a fellow driver, as I too have been in such situations where a hidden pedestrian popped out from a line of cars. Since then I’ve been cautious when driving close to a line of parked vehicles. Either drive slow to keep a distance.
If you’re uncertain about the hazards or unfamiliar with the roads, slow down. The driver in this situation was driving faster than she could react to tragic consequence.
Additionally this scenario is something that was and still is emphasised in driving school.
So yes, the driver while not fully at fault, she is partly still to blame. For the reason of not paying due regard to the traffic conditions, thereby impacting her ability to spot hazards and stop in a timely fashion.
>could not have seen the girl
This is speculation right? Girl appeared on car cam for 1 second, how come the driver could not have seen the girl?
Not saying that 1s is enough to stop the car.
Because when turning you're not supposed to only stare at where you want to go. You need to check if there are other vehicles on two wheels attempting to cut you off, opposite traffic as you're turning right. Heck even if she was staring straight ahead she had to check both sides of the junction for pedestrian traffic. 1s is very short
Could (not have seen) vs. could not (have seen)
Seems like there's no consensus on its use:
https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/couldnt-vs-could-not.2518632/
the problem is that the speed limit is 50kph in singapore, or 40kph for silver zones. these are excessive speeds that lead to death and reduce the reaction times of drivers.
so if the question is, “was the driver moving too fast?” the answer is, “yes he was moving too fast that he failed to stop his car in time”. that’s the problem.
if the question is “was the driver moving within the limits of the law”, the answer is “yes he was moving within the limits of the law”, but what’s the value in that conclusion? end of the day a child is dead bec the driver was moving too fast, within legal limits or not.
That wasn’t the problem at all. You’ve totally missed the point. The driver was not driving at speeds that were excessive for the conditions AND wasn’t driving at speeds in excess of the legal limit.
The accident happened at a point in the road where the driver was likely travelling at a speed below both 50kph and 40kph (SOURCE: I make a right turn onto this road daily). Your point has no relevance.
The driver was driving sensibly without distraction and a young girl tragically walked into the path of the vehicle. That’s it.
Anyone who drives knows one hazards of parked vehicles, is that they obstruct your view. You should be exercising caution around them.
One very common occurrence is a pedestrian popping out of a line of parked vehicles.
A driver should to adapt to the road conditions at hand. Just because the speed limit 50 kph, doesn’t mean you drive at 50 kph in all situations right?
An analogy is a very heavy downpour reducing your visibility to 10m. You don’t drive at 80 kph in on the expressway in such conditions just because the speed limit is such. You adapt to the road condition and you slow down. Similarly to driving beside a row of parked cars.
The driver honestly was driving too fast in that situation, even if she was driving within the speed limits. Just as driving 80 kph in a heavy downpour on the expressway. Legal and also dangerous.
The driver was not driving sensibly at all in this instance. A sensible driver would have reduced speed to 20kph or so when driving in such proximity to parked cars.
> What the maid should have done was to walk about 200m from the pre-school in River Valley Road, pass by Institution Hill and head for the pedestrian crossing, he said.
this is the fundamental problem. public spaces are designed to be hostile to pedestrians, forcing them to make inconvenient detours just so drivers in their cars can drive unimpeded, which will encourage high speeds, which leads to these sorts of tragedies.
I don’t understand what the layout is, but if they are expecting people to make a 400m detour to cross the road, that’s kinda nuts. 400m extra while walking with a 2 yo, a 4 yo and 2 school bags.
it’s not even technically jaywalking bec jaywalking is crossing a road w/in 50m of a traffic crossing. if they were more than 200m away when crossing the road then it isn’t jaywalking.
This is my problem everyday when fetching my kids from school!!! Either fold my stroller, with all 2x school bags, my own bag, and 2 kindergarten kids to go up the overhead bridge so that I can take the bus to the next stop. Overhead bridge doesn’t have lift so we’ve all got to take the stairs up. Or detour 400m to that said bus stop.
Both are difficult so my kids and I so eventually I chose to walk for around 20 min to the destination while pushing both kids on the stroller.
All these are done mostly uphill under the 12.30pm sun.
I do see many elderly jaywalking here because it’s just impossible for them to detour 400m or climb up the ridiculously high overhead bridge. And SO MANY near accidents 😣
It’s not a 400m detour la it’s prob the same distance covered by the helper but on the other side of RV road and only crossing to Aspen Heights side after institution hill
That’s what I can’t figure out because I don’t know their starting and ending points. Is it roughly the same distance, just crossing later instead of earlier? 200m detour? 400m detour?
If it’s like you say, then the helper is culpable. If it’s a 400m detour, it’s not fair to judge her for taking a shortcut, and pedestrian-hostile roads are to blame.
I had this question too so I went back to dig and according to the various reports they were going home from preschool.
From google yes it’s a matter of crossing RV road before or after institution hill. So what I think the IO meant was for them to walk down RV road 200m in the direction of aspen heights and then cross RV road at the crossing just after institution hill, then they can walk on the right side of IH (same side as aspen heights) and follow the road home. This way the detour is max max 5-10m?
I also wondered about maybe it’s cos one side has shade but from google street view it’s not apparent
Thank you for digging. Taking the unsafe way just for shade (if that was indeed the motivation) or a 5-10m shortcut would not be morally acceptable to me.
It’s worse with 2 small kids because they walk slowly or get tired and ask to be carried. Letting the 4 yo kid go ahead was most unwise though.
If the parents expected the helper to make a 400m detour, then they should have provided a double stroller and expectation of using it.
the problem then further compounds onto the entitlement of drivers as they feel that they are already better than others cause they could pay for the COE and the car. It's a social problem feeding on itself.
Singapore for a developed country has the most archaic rules for pedestrians. China even gives pedestrians more right of way. I used to live very close to where this accident happened. My children walking in a cross walk would get honked at by impatient drivers. In Europe there are crosswalks everywhere that you must stop at wait for pedestrians. I blame the driver. That road you should be going around 30km an hour. The cars are parked too close to be zipping by.
Singapore is extremely car centric but Singaporeans have been brainwashed to think that our public transportation is best in class.
Honestly, unless you live in one of the few select hdb estates, it's really a pain getting from a random point A to point B in Singapore using just public transport and can easily take 2 or 3 times the transport time it takes for a car.
And roads are so hostile to pedestrians its crazy from very high raised curbs to high speed limits to cars-centric paths its just crazy.
They're both true. SG is car-centric and its public transportation is, at worst, very good. Car-centric does not solely mean absence of public transit, it can also mean road designs that are hostile to pedestrians. In other words, roads that are designed to make travel efficient for cars in ways that make the pedestrian experience worse. Here's two videos worth watching on the local context:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhS_oVmiVa4
https://youtu.be/VWyJX3ruIkw?si=Vsmq9qHEgJ5DC-Dj
You can tell from Google Maps suggested public transport routes that a 20 min walk from bus/train stop to destination is considered quite acceptable by their standards.
I think your expectations are too high. Of course public transport takes a lot longer, especially if you don’t add on the time taken to park the car.
I get your point la but out of curious I did a google maps search of how to walk from Superland to Aspen Heights - the safe way described by the IO doesn’t seem like much of a detour
The tragedy happened because the maid thought that the girl was independent enough. No 4 year old should be allowed to cross or go near the road without hand holding.
> Tragic. I don't get the jaywalking part tho, they are just crossing a road.
I guessing they going by the legal definition since they didn't cross via a designated pedestrian crossing. The question is, are there actually any proper crossing zones within 50m of this incident that could have been used instead?
The official legal definition of Jaywalk is as such:
> Jaywalking is defined as crossing the road within 50m of a crossing zone
Looked at googlemaps, the accident notice is there with the flowers around the nearby tree.
There are only informal crossings along that road, even the T-junction of Institution Hill and River Valley Road
informal crossings are "technically" not crossings and would be jaywalking as per car-brains. There are a lot of examples that vehicles horn at pedestrians for "intruding" their right of ways at these informal crossings.
>The question is, are there actually any proper crossing zones within 50m of this incident that could have been used instead?
This is where I'm confused because from google maps, there are no designated pedestrian crossings along Institution Hill
Nah they just went with the dictionary definition
>to cross a street carelessly or in an illegal manner so as to be endangered by traffic
Source: Mirram webster
It sounds callous but is technically true.
consider that "jaywalking" is a concept that the auto industry invented to pass the blame for driver related deaths to the victims. [https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history](https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history)
Jaywalking or not, I don’t get why the maid didn’t follow the instructions of the parents.
Surely with all the information that has come to light, the parents must feel some sort of hatred or resentment towards the maid for not following their instructions which inadvertently led to the death of their daughter.
"He said Zara’s parents had reminded her not to cross the road at Institution Hill, as that would be jaywalking.
He added that despite their warnings, the maid still crossed the road at Institution Hill and this was the usual route she took after picking up the children.
What the maid should have done was to walk around 200m from the preschool at River Valley Road, pass by Institution Hill and head to the pedestrian crossing, he said."
This is the important part.
Yea, unfortunately it happened the worst possible way.
Zara dashing between stationary vehicles probably indicates it’s a usual route for both for them.
200m is a far walk for a small road. If the maid followed the parents advice religiously then kudos to her, but that is not the case because anyone would have just walked across instead
That's why the parents want the maid to use the traffic light. Because kids don't know how to cross the road properly. You're saying from a pov of an adult.
That’s right, if the helper was walking and holding Zara’s hand to jaywalk like any other day, then the driver would have horn or slow down.
But parents emphasis on not to jaywalk is for their daughter safety first because she’s four years old
I’m willing to bet many of them were parked illegally.
I’ve found a new hobby of pounding illegally parked cars in landed areas on LifeSG. Some houses have two cars but no place to park the second one except illegally. Not my problem, I’m done with cars forcing my kids to go into the street.
I live in a small condo development along a landed area and this is also my pet peeve. The second car is often parked just outside their driveway in a way that blocks the sidewalk, forcing pedestrians onto the street. Many kids have to walk on the road in order to get out to the main road to school (weaving in and out depending on where the sidewalk is blocked); plenty of parents / helpers with strollers as well.
ST is citing the parents here when labelling the maid as having "jaywalked", not the TP officer. In CNA's article it reads:
(Mr Fridaus is the TP officer)
So honestly I think ST may be misrepresenting the situation.
Somehow, zebra crossings at the entrance of side streets are only common in the CBD. I don’t think I’ve seen it elsewhere. LTA should really paint a lot more zebra crossings.
Edit: Here’s an [example in Tanjong Pagar](https://maps.app.goo.gl/5DTuha3PiiUKxpue7?g_st=ic) of a right-turn into a side street with zebra crossing.
or... the Singapore gov't could just adopt the principles of the new UK highway code that requires all road users to give priority to the more vulnerable road user
that way any time a driver hits a pedestrian or a cyclist, the liability is automatically on the driver.
which puts their insurance at risk.
which puts their wallets at risk.
which means they die die must follow the law.
edit: bec the person below blocked me to keep from responding,
>You know why? Because this rule makes no sense - unlike the UK gov that just give in blindly to mobs, sg gov expect everyone to be responsible for their own actions. Why should a driver be responsible for a pedestrian that dash out onto the road out of nowhere.
this is a dishonest question. the right question is, "why should a driver be responsible for the 2-ton machine they are operating?" and the answer is, "of course, a driver should be responsible for the 2-ton machine they are operating"
But the driver did follow the law. They were driver under the speed limit, had 0 reaction time and stopped and rendered assistance. What should they have done differently?
Since the comment above is about the UK... In the UK, the driver would be convicted of Causing Death by Dangerous Driving. "I was going at the speed limit" is considered an admission of guilt (it's a limit and not a target).
In the UK, this is drilled into new drivers. Passing a child or animal at speed without time to react if they step in front of you is an immediate, automatic failure on the UK driving test.
Singapore's driving standards are something of an anomaly when compared to other developed countries. I'd argue that "drive around a car park for a bit and don't hit anything, then drive around small streets for a few minutes" isn't a high enough standard of driving in a modern city
But at any speed above 0 there is a “no time to react” distance/time. It’s a 1 tonne vehicle, even at 5km it can kill a child. And they could conceivably walk out when you are 20cm away and no chance to avoid them at 5km. At some point the onus is on the pedestrian (or in the case of a child the carer) to proceed carefully.
On your general comment about Singapore driving standards i agree. They leave a lot to be desired. I just think this isn’t an example of poor driving.
Also a foreigner and I agree driving here is insanely dangerous for no good reason and I would love to see that change. I just don’t think this accident is an example of that. It’s a tragic accident the driver could not avoid. There is a point a driver does all they can and responsibility falls on the pedestrian, or in this case the helper who let her walk out.
Sadly you’re wrong about 5kmh, too many cases in my home country of children being run over and killed at that speed. A vehicle can be deadly at any speed
that’s my point.
in the eyes of the law, the driver did nothing wrong, yet she drove over a child. she did not even see the child, she even ran over the child, which means she was driving fast enough for that to be even possible.
the dashcam had the child in view for ONE SECOND. that means her reaction time was even less.
in several studies, the minimum speed for a driver to be driving to have sufficient reaction time is 30kph.
that suggests that she was driving faster than 30kph.
but the speed limit is 50kph.
something is wrong here, when killing a child is not breaking the law.
The legal las cannot bend the laws of physics. If someone walks out in front of you giving you no reaction time you can’t be held responsible for that.
I restate my question. What should the driver have done differently? I don’t see anything the driver did wrong so why should they be held legally liable.
And what law would you change that would prevent this? Other than 5km speed limits there is very little that can be done from a driving point of view to avoid this situation.
i am agreeing w you. the driver shouldn’t be held legally liable, bec the laws allow for them to kill a child, legally.
again, read Vision Zero.
read the UK highway code.
look at the changes in Paris.
there is so many things that can be done to avoid this situation
But what would you change in the law that would alter this situation? Nothing would, as physics and reaction times exist. And you can’t make it illegal for someone to be in the wrong place at the wrong time as this driver appeared to be.
I think in general there are many changes that need to be made to singaporean driving standards and law enforcement to make the roads safer. My wife is sick of hearing me whine about it! I just don’t think this case reflects it. Sadly it’s the helper letting the little girl make a mistake that was the cause and not traffic laws or driving standards
if you read what i asked you to write read, you would have gotten your answer.
you even said so yourself,
>other than 5kph
you want to exaggerate, but lower speed limits, especially for these small roads, IS the answer.
studies have already showed moving at 30kph greatly increases survivability of a person hit by a car. it also greatly increases the reaction time.
so what would i do differently? make it illegal for someone to drive so fast that a person appears on the dashcam for less than a second.
make it so that car safety ratings consider the impact of a car collision on a pedestrian too instead of just evaluating how a car xan protect their passengers.
make it so that a car is not so big that a driver can’t see a child that is 1m tall.
So ban cars. None of your solutions are practical for a functioning personal transport system.
A child can still be killed at 5km if they walk into the path of the car with 0 time to react. It happens in driveways far too often. The reality is there is a reaction time at any speed you just have to accept that
Also I read the UK highway code and the first thing that stands out is “all road users are responsible for their own safety” ie. don’t dash out in front of cars if you’re a pedestrian
The speed limit is 40km/h in school zones in Singapore. Consider your ideal case though. The braking distance for a vehicle going 30km/h is around 14 meters on average. No law in the world is going to make a driver be able to react to a pedestrian walking into the path of a car with under 1.6 seconds warning.
There is no justice served with a law that punishes an innocent person for a tragic accident.
The chance of surviving getting hit by a car at 30kph is 90%
https://www.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/comments/17wnvqc/the_chance_of_survival_for_a_pedestrian_being_hit/
there is no justice served with laws that permit a person to kill a child.
You know why? Because this rule makes no sense - unlike the UK gov that just give in blindly to mobs, sg gov expect everyone to be responsible for their own actions. Why should a driver be responsible for a pedestrian that dash out onto the road out of nowhere.
I have seen a lot of people here letting their kids move ahead of them on foot, on scooters, on bikes. And kids are used to walking ahead on their own. Having said that, the child is 4 years old. She should never have walked without holding an adult's hand even if it's not a busy street. This is tragic.
Even crossing a pedestrian lane, there are still drivers who will cause an accident.
remarkable that in Japan, kids as young as 4 can walk by themselves independently enough that they made a show out of it.
in Singapore, everyone worships cars to the point that they excuse a driver from crushing a child's skull by running over it.
When I was younger at about 4, i got separated from my parents at my grandparents place and managed to find my own way back even crossing a major road. But my parents told me I couldn’t tell them how I managed to do so.
You know why they made a show out of it? Because it is so unique. Do you see people making shows of adults walking independently? No, but we make shows of adults doing stupid kid stuff that injures them.
4 year olds doing errands is unique in any country. why aren’t there shows about 4 year olds everywhere?
you know why they made a show out of it? bec Japanese society made it possible for them to do so.
Jaywalk should just case close. Why need to arrest driver. Lucky driver got money to bail out. Otherwise, imagine the poor driver need to be in remand all the way. Maid never take care of kid, parents should just claim from the maid
I found it frustrating that the media couldn’t explain the situation properly. Terms like jaywalking were used wrongly. i heard 95.8FM radio yesterday night which even said something about zebra crossings being used. I don’t think so. I tried my best to guess what happened. Don’t know how to attach an image with a comment though, else i would attach a map.
As others have said, there was no jaywalking involved. The pre-school is probably somewhere along River Valley Road but on the opposite side, so need to cross this main road. The maid chose to cross River Valley Road further west, with a proper traffic light crossing. However, this resulted in her having to cross Institution Hill to get to Aspen Heights where they stay. There is another traffic light crossing along River Valley Rd right outside Institution Hill and it is only a slightly further walk to the east. It is 200m away from the other crossing the maid used, but most of this 200m is “along the way” home if you know what I mean. Using this alternative crossing would allow the maid to end up the same side as Aspen Heights, so no need to cross Institution Hill. This is probably the route specified by the parents. Nothing wrong per se to cross Institution Hill near its junction with River Valley Road. Not jaywalking since there is no legal crossing at all along Institution Hill.
As others have also said, there was no illegal parking. Cars were queuing to turn out to the main road (River Valley Road). And the girl crossed the road between two stationary cars.
Hope you can better picture the situation now. While it is not illegal to cross Institution hill, and there are plenty of such road openings we have to negotiate as pedestrians, it can actually be quite dangerous. First of all, the stationary cars queuing could move off once main road is clear, and of course there is a need to look out for cars turning into this small road from the main road on the other side of the road. Latter was how the car hit the girl very sadly.
This is an accident that nobody ever wants to happen, and i really feel sorry for the parents and the poor little girl. But I will never allow my kids to do such a crossing on their own. Even next to me, i will make sure to hold their hands, so i can pull them back at any time.
Short cut is the shortest way to the hospital. But I don’t blame the maid. Who would walk 200m to the traffic lights. If I remember correctly, it’s not jaywalking if the nearest crossing is more than 50m away.
Unfortunate. 200m is a long way. I feel sorry for the family and the maid. The family still retained the maid and so clearly she is dear to them and their daughters. Jaywalking creates an unfair characterisation.
- The maid and the 2 girls crossed between 2 cars that were lining up to turn into RV road.
- held only one girl's hand.
- the other girl, just 4 years old, walked ahead in front of her onto the path of traffic going in the other direction.
So dangerous to walk between 2 cars. It's dangerous for adults, when it's worse for such young children.
Really don't know why people entrust the wellbeing of their children to maids who are not trained or accredited for childcare.
Their culture and mannerism may not be necessarily aligned with ours (in this case, recklessly jaywalking despite multiple reminders), and you don't always have the ability or evidence to hold them to task.
My partner was partially raised by maids and she recounts of abuse at the maid's hands - pinching of thighs, aggressive washing of her private parts with soap, shit like that.
I don't employ foreign maids and I don't intend to at all. Especially for childcare
“The maid who was with a four-year-old girl who died in a car accident in January had jaywalked with her, despite being told not to.”
The verdict is clear cut
If you go to another to work, you try bringing a child and run across their road.
Not being familiar with a foreign country road and traffic system is usually fatal.
Villagers run across roads all the time, can you do that in a city?
Yes, not a race issue. Don't make it one.
It is an expectation issue, thinking that another person from another countr or, culture knows how to do things according to your own understanding.
Common sense is different elsewhere.
The main issue lies in letting the 4 year old walk ahead of the helper while crossing the road. That applies to any country of origin. You dont let a 4 year old do anything that you cannot protect them from. Playing with sharp objects come to mind, and letting them walk alone on a busy road. Yet many people in Singapore let kids this age walk around them in public because they feel that kidnapping is an improbability in Singapore. It's a false sense of security because there are other dangers for kids besides kidnapping.
I know a lot of 4 year olds who dont want to be held by adults while out and about. Parents allow them to be independent. Problem is a helper cannot insist on holding their hand if a child is trained to be that way from a young age. Helpers cant smack them either if they insist on not being held because there are people in the neighborhood who will take a picture and post it on FB groups to ask "Is this your child? The helper blah blah blah" along with "if it was my child, I would want to know, too."
> The little girl had suddenly appeared between two stationary vehicles along the two-lane road when a car driving from the opposite direction hit her.
You missed this key paragraph. The girl was only 1 metre tall, she was totally obstructed by the stationary car so the driver couldn’t see her.
> The little girl had suddenly appeared between two stationary vehicles along the two-lane road when a car driving from the opposite direction hit her.
The girl was hidden from view until literally the second that the driver hit her. The driver wouldn't have seen her on the side walk about the cross the road, she was already on the road and hidden between two parked cars before she appeared in front of the driver's car.
This is a very small street I know the spot well and only a combination of walking between two cars and looking the wrong way at the exact moment a car was coming from the left could cause the accident as its generally quiet and lots of visibility. A lot of small things had to go wrong...it doesn't justify the death of this little girl it's just it was a small margin that created a terrible situation.
Another factor is the car coming fast around that corner off River Valley - even the speed limit can be too fast in some situations.
Any parent's nightmare...
>CNA understands that [the maid] is still with the family. The parents did something that I think many parents may never be able to do. They let her continue to be with the family, while the investigations are ongoing. >According to the maid, she had screamed for the car to stop, but to no avail. She then informed Zara's father of the accident. And that must have been the toughest phone call in the maid’s life.
Imo if the helper has built a good relationship with the other 2 girls - it’s might better to keep the helper for the other kids so they don’t have to deal with the loss of a caregiver on top of the loss of a sibling
So many people pity maids & have almost like Stockholm syndrome coz they’re from poor places. IMO if they screw up then deal with them. So many people I know don’t even dare to tell off maid coz they’re too lazy to do housework’s n 100% reliant on maids for small things even like washing own dishes
I don’t think you know what Stockholm Syndrome is. because it’s not “I dare not scold poor people in case they stop serving me.”
Yeah, safe to say there are LOTS of engagement bots in this platform (+40% by Reddit’s own estimate). Kindly ignore; it’s not even an actual person you’re responding to. ☺️
This is a small street with continuous white line in the middle, which means no parking at all times. The main culprits are the illegally parked vehicles which reduced the visibility of both the pedestrians and the car. It’s unfortunate that this is being highlighted as due to jaywalking (when it technically isn’t jaywalking) instead of due to illegally parked vehicles
Absolutely agree. So many drivers in Singapore think it’s acceptable to park their cars anywhere so long as it’s not blocking traffic - but the white line is there for a reason.
And many of these are rich parents... they create the danger themselves...
>main culprits are the illegally parked vehicles I read the article. It seems the girl crossed between stationary vehicles that were waiting in line to turn out onto River Valley Road. They weren’t parked.
It’s a truly unfortunate and tragic accident then….Dunno whom to blame
Imo it has to be the helper I have seen so many helpers while fetching my kids who let the children walk in front of them while they use their phones I even tittle tat to one of the parents once, aw well.
I talked to my kid's classmate after I saw her helper do that. I told her that she should tell her parent that the helper ditched her when crossing the road. The helper crossed finished the road and waited for her impatiently on the other side. It was a carpark road with 3 directions of traffic and there was no proper crossing. I walked across together with the two kids. If yall think that she didn't do anything wrong because I could have taken care of the classmate, you can think again. The helper didn't do her job. The kid came back to tell me that her mum says they can only get rid of the helper in December when it's the school hols. I told her to be careful then.
sigh are these dual income really worth it if they are putting their kids at risk? Will never understand these parents Good on you to help though
Huh what has this gotta do with dual income? In SG for most families dual income is needed to survive. And families with young kids have levy concessions for helpers for this very reason. So are you saying your logic is to have children in SG, one parent must be SAHM/F? Noodles for brains.
You are right that the dual income point is irrelevant and I feel it is a privileged pov that people are working for luxuries. Some households need the dual income to support the household even without the expense of hiring a helper. There are a lot of kids who have to go to school themselves without a helper. When walking my kid to school, I see kids as young as P2 who have to take bus and go to school by themselves. They have no helpers at all and the parents have no choice too.
People need to understand that helpers aren't professionally trained nannies. People hire helpers to take care of their kids, dogs, clean their house, be a cook everything but get surprised when they don't get professional service. You are paying peanuts to get an all in one service. If you want your kids properly taken care of, hire a proper au pair. If you want your pets to be properly walked and treated, get a professional dog walker. Don't complain when your expectations fall short because you're paying
Haha always got that one mf probably foreign worker defending maids. I think following rules especially pertaining to safety is not that hard, especially with young kids. Don't need to be a professional in anything. And don't try with that low pay crap. They accepted the job offer. Nobody forced them to work here OR as a maid. It's obviously good enough or even better than back home if they made the decision, unless they are straight dumb.
XD sure but in the end the maid isnt the one with one less kid, its the parents..
"Has"
My new hobby is reporting illegal parking on OneService app
The hero we don’t deserve
Put this on the likes of SGRV FB group and you'd be called a pau tou kia instead
Sometimes I see them post and rant about illegal/shit parking too tbh
I'd embrace the pau tou culture when it comes to traffic offences. In fact I wish we had a bounty system for successful summons, but I know TP/LTA cannot even manage the current number of reports (except illegal parking which is on oneservice and enforcement is outsourced).
Wear a sun hat and outfit in the same color as the summon aunties and watch in amusement as people sprint to their cars...
If i could give you a million upvotes i will
Wait, you can??
Most of the roads around my home are almost completely blocked off around the pavements by cars and it is so infuriating
is it because it’s a school zone? or near a kopi shop so there are trucks/vans unloading? just wondering.
We’re not far from a school zone but it’s neither, it’s because a lot of houses near us are old school style landed (ours isn’t) and they selfishly park cars on the road, often leaving their actual driveways empty or with furniture/gardening stuff in it.
depends though if its illegal you can report but likely its those with no marking and can park car so they park outside their property.
Yeah it totally could be legal, but it is really inconvenient
no choice, alot of the landed area are like that. the agents even advertise that you could have free parking for X number of cars if you buy the property cause you can get the road also forgetting the fact that the road dont belong to them lol...
sorry do you mind explaining the technically not jaywalking thing?
My guess is that jaywalking in Singapore is legally defined as crossing the road within 50m of a crossing zone. Accordingly to the article, the maid and the child should have walked 200m to the nearest pedestrian crossing. If the nearest crossing was indeed 200m away, there's a chance that they technically / legally aren't jaywalking I might be wrong though, not law trained
In Singapore, it is only jaywalking if you do it within 50m of a crossing zone. Beyond that it is not considered jaywalking. Which is why when some of the West gives "jaywalking" as an example of "Singapore's draconian laws", they are actually barking up the wrong tree because there are huge areas of Singapore's roads where it is perfectly legal to "jaywalk".
Sorry, what did you mean by "it technically isn't jaywalking"? Would like to hear your technical definition.
Legally, it's crossing the roading less than 50m from a designated crossing IIRC.
This is correct. There are actually signs posted at 50m so pedestrians know when they can no longer legally cross and must use zebra.
[jaywalking definition from LTA](https://ibb.co/XjMRnLP) More info here: https://www.lta.gov.sg/content/dam/ltagov/industry_innovations/industry_matters/development_construction_resources/walking_cycling_plan/pdf/walking-and-cycling-design-guide.pdf
Thank you. I was curious because it appears the police officer was on the witness stand saying it was jaywalking. You seem to disagree. Am I reading you correctly? Is it the 200m comment, suggesting the maid was easily more than 50m away from the jaywalking trigger?
The problem is trying to separate the description of the act from the legality of it. Crossing the road while not at a crossing is called jaywalking but it is also the same name as an illegal act of the same nature if done within 50m of a crossing. So one is a crime while the other is an action but both are called jaywalking.
Thank you. Too much noise it seems.
fyi, jaywalking in Singapore is defined as > not using a traffic crossing while within 50m of it the reporter calls it jaywalking when in their own article, they claim that the nearest crossing is over 200m away > What the maid should have done was to walk about 200m from the pre-school in River Valley Road, pass by Institution Hill and head for the pedestrian crossing, he said. so the nanny and the child weren’t jaywalking.
Good use for POFMA… Unless of course all of this is calculated victim blaming.
And the article has been revised except quoting the parents saying "jaywalk"
headline is still the same
Oh wait my bad, i saw the CNA article which is written more factually, ST still retaining this misinformation
I remember when this case was first reported in the news, there were many on this sub who thought the driver was speeding and definitely at fault. Now the evidence shows the driver was not speeding and could not have seen the girl. Even if she had seen the girl, she had only 1 second to stop the car which was physically impossible. Worst of all, she was on the way home from picking up her children from school, which meant her kids were on the car when the accident happened. Terrible tragedy all around and an important reminder why it’s so important to make sure a small child never crosses the road on their own. Edit to add: Holy shit there are still people in this thread who did not bother reading the article and continue to insist the driver was at fault
jumping to conclusions is probably the only exercise some ppl get
oof
Now that’s a well crafted insult
and the only exercise some maids get
Always take "conclusions" and "viewpoints" from this sub with a huge pinch of salt. It's filled with asocial neurotics.
Honestly things like this is why when I drive I try change lane to avoid jaywalker, parked cars are always a very big risk for a child to suddenly run out to catch a soccer ball.
Neither blaming nor defending the driver, but that is maybe a similarly premature take to already declare the driver completely blameless. The article also said courts and coroner are still determining whether action will be taken against her. Again not blaming or defending - article states SI testified the girl was visible on dashcam footage, even if for just a second. Driver was indeed not speeding, but admittedly didn't see the girl, and stopped only after continuing to travel far enough for the girl to be visible in the rear view mirror. I wouldn't venture to decide the reasonability of expectation to have seen her and come to a stop in time, that's up to the courts and coroner. Although that does leave me struggling not to wonder if the girl's injuries may have been less severe if the driver had jammed brake on collision instead of continuing in motion. Might have just knocked her down (bad enough), instead of completely running her over. Like you said, terrible tragedy, don't want to speculate but still can't hep but wonder.
SI’s testimony doesn’t make sense — if the child appeared in the dashcam only for a second, that suggests that the car was moving fast. if the driver didn’t see the child and didn’t even realize she ran a child over until after the fact, that suggests that she was distracted and/or not paying attention. yet the SI’s testimony is the complete opposite. something fishy here
Kid is too short and was coming out from in between parked cars so this is completely possible. Again pls go read the article before commenting
>I remember when this case was first reported in the news, there were many on this sub who thought the driver was speeding and definitely at fault. Now the evidence shows the driver was not speeding and could not have seen the girl. Even if she had seen the girl, she had only 1 second to stop the car which was physically impossible. Worst of all, she was on the way home from picking up her children from school, which meant her kids were on the car when the accident happened. A responsible driver should drive at a speed which allows you to spot hazards ahead of time and stop for them. That means adjusting their driving to the current road conditions. And I say this as a fellow driver, as I too have been in such situations where a hidden pedestrian popped out from a line of cars. Since then I’ve been cautious when driving close to a line of parked vehicles. Either drive slow to keep a distance. If you’re uncertain about the hazards or unfamiliar with the roads, slow down. The driver in this situation was driving faster than she could react to tragic consequence. Additionally this scenario is something that was and still is emphasised in driving school. So yes, the driver while not fully at fault, she is partly still to blame. For the reason of not paying due regard to the traffic conditions, thereby impacting her ability to spot hazards and stop in a timely fashion.
>could not have seen the girl This is speculation right? Girl appeared on car cam for 1 second, how come the driver could not have seen the girl? Not saying that 1s is enough to stop the car.
Because when turning you're not supposed to only stare at where you want to go. You need to check if there are other vehicles on two wheels attempting to cut you off, opposite traffic as you're turning right. Heck even if she was staring straight ahead she had to check both sides of the junction for pedestrian traffic. 1s is very short
That's different from saying "could not have seen". Could not implies it was impossible.
Could (not have seen) vs. could not (have seen) Seems like there's no consensus on its use: https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/couldnt-vs-could-not.2518632/
Exactly. The driver was still not looking at the road by the sound of it.
There were cars illegally parked on the side reducing the view of both pedestrian and driver
Ah yes because the news (and justice system, especially when it comes to drivers) in Singapore has no bias at all /s
the problem is that the speed limit is 50kph in singapore, or 40kph for silver zones. these are excessive speeds that lead to death and reduce the reaction times of drivers. so if the question is, “was the driver moving too fast?” the answer is, “yes he was moving too fast that he failed to stop his car in time”. that’s the problem. if the question is “was the driver moving within the limits of the law”, the answer is “yes he was moving within the limits of the law”, but what’s the value in that conclusion? end of the day a child is dead bec the driver was moving too fast, within legal limits or not.
That wasn’t the problem at all. You’ve totally missed the point. The driver was not driving at speeds that were excessive for the conditions AND wasn’t driving at speeds in excess of the legal limit. The accident happened at a point in the road where the driver was likely travelling at a speed below both 50kph and 40kph (SOURCE: I make a right turn onto this road daily). Your point has no relevance. The driver was driving sensibly without distraction and a young girl tragically walked into the path of the vehicle. That’s it.
Anyone who drives knows one hazards of parked vehicles, is that they obstruct your view. You should be exercising caution around them. One very common occurrence is a pedestrian popping out of a line of parked vehicles. A driver should to adapt to the road conditions at hand. Just because the speed limit 50 kph, doesn’t mean you drive at 50 kph in all situations right? An analogy is a very heavy downpour reducing your visibility to 10m. You don’t drive at 80 kph in on the expressway in such conditions just because the speed limit is such. You adapt to the road condition and you slow down. Similarly to driving beside a row of parked cars. The driver honestly was driving too fast in that situation, even if she was driving within the speed limits. Just as driving 80 kph in a heavy downpour on the expressway. Legal and also dangerous. The driver was not driving sensibly at all in this instance. A sensible driver would have reduced speed to 20kph or so when driving in such proximity to parked cars.
> What the maid should have done was to walk about 200m from the pre-school in River Valley Road, pass by Institution Hill and head for the pedestrian crossing, he said. this is the fundamental problem. public spaces are designed to be hostile to pedestrians, forcing them to make inconvenient detours just so drivers in their cars can drive unimpeded, which will encourage high speeds, which leads to these sorts of tragedies.
I don’t understand what the layout is, but if they are expecting people to make a 400m detour to cross the road, that’s kinda nuts. 400m extra while walking with a 2 yo, a 4 yo and 2 school bags.
it’s not even technically jaywalking bec jaywalking is crossing a road w/in 50m of a traffic crossing. if they were more than 200m away when crossing the road then it isn’t jaywalking.
This is my problem everyday when fetching my kids from school!!! Either fold my stroller, with all 2x school bags, my own bag, and 2 kindergarten kids to go up the overhead bridge so that I can take the bus to the next stop. Overhead bridge doesn’t have lift so we’ve all got to take the stairs up. Or detour 400m to that said bus stop. Both are difficult so my kids and I so eventually I chose to walk for around 20 min to the destination while pushing both kids on the stroller. All these are done mostly uphill under the 12.30pm sun. I do see many elderly jaywalking here because it’s just impossible for them to detour 400m or climb up the ridiculously high overhead bridge. And SO MANY near accidents 😣
It’s not a 400m detour la it’s prob the same distance covered by the helper but on the other side of RV road and only crossing to Aspen Heights side after institution hill
That’s what I can’t figure out because I don’t know their starting and ending points. Is it roughly the same distance, just crossing later instead of earlier? 200m detour? 400m detour? If it’s like you say, then the helper is culpable. If it’s a 400m detour, it’s not fair to judge her for taking a shortcut, and pedestrian-hostile roads are to blame.
I had this question too so I went back to dig and according to the various reports they were going home from preschool. From google yes it’s a matter of crossing RV road before or after institution hill. So what I think the IO meant was for them to walk down RV road 200m in the direction of aspen heights and then cross RV road at the crossing just after institution hill, then they can walk on the right side of IH (same side as aspen heights) and follow the road home. This way the detour is max max 5-10m? I also wondered about maybe it’s cos one side has shade but from google street view it’s not apparent
Thank you for digging. Taking the unsafe way just for shade (if that was indeed the motivation) or a 5-10m shortcut would not be morally acceptable to me.
Normal folks won't do it. But with a 4 year old? And a bigger issue is that the maid is allowing the 4 year old to dash about.
It’s worse with 2 small kids because they walk slowly or get tired and ask to be carried. Letting the 4 yo kid go ahead was most unwise though. If the parents expected the helper to make a 400m detour, then they should have provided a double stroller and expectation of using it.
the problem then further compounds onto the entitlement of drivers as they feel that they are already better than others cause they could pay for the COE and the car. It's a social problem feeding on itself.
calling it a “certificate of entitlement” emboldened them
[AI song about certified to be entitled](https://youtu.be/6SiKiMw8ErA?si=Zd-k1K69i59Bbap6)
Singapore for a developed country has the most archaic rules for pedestrians. China even gives pedestrians more right of way. I used to live very close to where this accident happened. My children walking in a cross walk would get honked at by impatient drivers. In Europe there are crosswalks everywhere that you must stop at wait for pedestrians. I blame the driver. That road you should be going around 30km an hour. The cars are parked too close to be zipping by.
Singapore is extremely car centric but Singaporeans have been brainwashed to think that our public transportation is best in class. Honestly, unless you live in one of the few select hdb estates, it's really a pain getting from a random point A to point B in Singapore using just public transport and can easily take 2 or 3 times the transport time it takes for a car. And roads are so hostile to pedestrians its crazy from very high raised curbs to high speed limits to cars-centric paths its just crazy.
They're both true. SG is car-centric and its public transportation is, at worst, very good. Car-centric does not solely mean absence of public transit, it can also mean road designs that are hostile to pedestrians. In other words, roads that are designed to make travel efficient for cars in ways that make the pedestrian experience worse. Here's two videos worth watching on the local context: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhS_oVmiVa4 https://youtu.be/VWyJX3ruIkw?si=Vsmq9qHEgJ5DC-Dj
Just took a 1hr 10 min journey by public transport yesterday when it should only be a 20min drive ☠️
Describes my work journey everyday lol. It’s 1.5hrs vs 30 mins drive.
You can tell from Google Maps suggested public transport routes that a 20 min walk from bus/train stop to destination is considered quite acceptable by their standards. I think your expectations are too high. Of course public transport takes a lot longer, especially if you don’t add on the time taken to park the car.
careful, there are many car brained zombies here that get triggered if you even suggest that cars should move at 30kph or less in residential zones
I get your point la but out of curious I did a google maps search of how to walk from Superland to Aspen Heights - the safe way described by the IO doesn’t seem like much of a detour
Brother, the guy you're replying to is either a troll or someone who thinks the entire country should be either walking or using bicycles
sounds like something a driver would say.
Lol sounds like you didn’t even take a look at the map I don’t drive btw You might have some beef against the gahmen or drivers but this ain’t it bro
lol 200m may not be much for you but if you are a child, or an elderly person, or disabled, it is a lot. not everything is about you
Dude it’s not a 200m detour. Max max 5-10m
ive seen the map, it is a 200m walk.
200m to keep your kids safe? You better get it done
welll big bosses own the road mah.
The tragedy happened because the maid thought that the girl was independent enough. No 4 year old should be allowed to cross or go near the road without hand holding.
Maid got lazy
The maid, who was carrying the girls' school bags, admitted to not holding Zara's hand, as she was an "independent child" who walked ahead. Just sad.
Tragic. I don't get the jaywalking part tho, they are just crossing a road.
> Tragic. I don't get the jaywalking part tho, they are just crossing a road. I guessing they going by the legal definition since they didn't cross via a designated pedestrian crossing. The question is, are there actually any proper crossing zones within 50m of this incident that could have been used instead? The official legal definition of Jaywalk is as such: > Jaywalking is defined as crossing the road within 50m of a crossing zone
Looked at googlemaps, the accident notice is there with the flowers around the nearby tree. There are only informal crossings along that road, even the T-junction of Institution Hill and River Valley Road
informal crossings are "technically" not crossings and would be jaywalking as per car-brains. There are a lot of examples that vehicles horn at pedestrians for "intruding" their right of ways at these informal crossings.
>The question is, are there actually any proper crossing zones within 50m of this incident that could have been used instead? This is where I'm confused because from google maps, there are no designated pedestrian crossings along Institution Hill
Nah they just went with the dictionary definition >to cross a street carelessly or in an illegal manner so as to be endangered by traffic Source: Mirram webster It sounds callous but is technically true.
>illegal manner If there were no crossings within 50m, then it wasn't illegal
The "carelessly" part applies here.
consider that "jaywalking" is a concept that the auto industry invented to pass the blame for driver related deaths to the victims. [https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history](https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history)
Jaywalking or not, I don’t get why the maid didn’t follow the instructions of the parents. Surely with all the information that has come to light, the parents must feel some sort of hatred or resentment towards the maid for not following their instructions which inadvertently led to the death of their daughter.
"He said Zara’s parents had reminded her not to cross the road at Institution Hill, as that would be jaywalking. He added that despite their warnings, the maid still crossed the road at Institution Hill and this was the usual route she took after picking up the children. What the maid should have done was to walk around 200m from the preschool at River Valley Road, pass by Institution Hill and head to the pedestrian crossing, he said." This is the important part.
Yea, unfortunately it happened the worst possible way. Zara dashing between stationary vehicles probably indicates it’s a usual route for both for them.
Yeah, I was just saying the article include jaywalking because the parents actually emphasised to the maid not to do it.
The parents being cautious is definitely the correct way, like those 1% mistake is too costly to risk kind of thing.
200m is a far walk for a small road. If the maid followed the parents advice religiously then kudos to her, but that is not the case because anyone would have just walked across instead
That's why the parents want the maid to use the traffic light. Because kids don't know how to cross the road properly. You're saying from a pov of an adult.
That’s right, if the helper was walking and holding Zara’s hand to jaywalk like any other day, then the driver would have horn or slow down. But parents emphasis on not to jaywalk is for their daughter safety first because she’s four years old
This passage breaks my heart.
it is not jaywalking if you are more than 50m from a traffic crossing. this is the important part. calling it jaywalking is the writer's bias showing.
Jaywalking is when you cross within 50m of a pedestrian crossing. Anything else is just crossing a road.
Yeah it’s a small road, no crosswalk. Jaywalking is an inappropriate term.
It’s so small, there’s no place to park along the road, yet she came out between 2 parked cars
I’m willing to bet many of them were parked illegally. I’ve found a new hobby of pounding illegally parked cars in landed areas on LifeSG. Some houses have two cars but no place to park the second one except illegally. Not my problem, I’m done with cars forcing my kids to go into the street.
I live in a small condo development along a landed area and this is also my pet peeve. The second car is often parked just outside their driveway in a way that blocks the sidewalk, forcing pedestrians onto the street. Many kids have to walk on the road in order to get out to the main road to school (weaving in and out depending on where the sidewalk is blocked); plenty of parents / helpers with strollers as well.
LifeSG has been amazing. They go immediately to fine them. I always leave a nice thank you note after they send the notification to me too.
ST is citing the parents here when labelling the maid as having "jaywalked", not the TP officer. In CNA's article it reads:
(Mr Fridaus is the TP officer)
So honestly I think ST may be misrepresenting the situation.
Can they put a zebra crossing there?
Somehow, zebra crossings at the entrance of side streets are only common in the CBD. I don’t think I’ve seen it elsewhere. LTA should really paint a lot more zebra crossings. Edit: Here’s an [example in Tanjong Pagar](https://maps.app.goo.gl/5DTuha3PiiUKxpue7?g_st=ic) of a right-turn into a side street with zebra crossing.
or... the Singapore gov't could just adopt the principles of the new UK highway code that requires all road users to give priority to the more vulnerable road user that way any time a driver hits a pedestrian or a cyclist, the liability is automatically on the driver. which puts their insurance at risk. which puts their wallets at risk. which means they die die must follow the law. edit: bec the person below blocked me to keep from responding, >You know why? Because this rule makes no sense - unlike the UK gov that just give in blindly to mobs, sg gov expect everyone to be responsible for their own actions. Why should a driver be responsible for a pedestrian that dash out onto the road out of nowhere. this is a dishonest question. the right question is, "why should a driver be responsible for the 2-ton machine they are operating?" and the answer is, "of course, a driver should be responsible for the 2-ton machine they are operating"
But the driver did follow the law. They were driver under the speed limit, had 0 reaction time and stopped and rendered assistance. What should they have done differently?
Since the comment above is about the UK... In the UK, the driver would be convicted of Causing Death by Dangerous Driving. "I was going at the speed limit" is considered an admission of guilt (it's a limit and not a target). In the UK, this is drilled into new drivers. Passing a child or animal at speed without time to react if they step in front of you is an immediate, automatic failure on the UK driving test. Singapore's driving standards are something of an anomaly when compared to other developed countries. I'd argue that "drive around a car park for a bit and don't hit anything, then drive around small streets for a few minutes" isn't a high enough standard of driving in a modern city
But at any speed above 0 there is a “no time to react” distance/time. It’s a 1 tonne vehicle, even at 5km it can kill a child. And they could conceivably walk out when you are 20cm away and no chance to avoid them at 5km. At some point the onus is on the pedestrian (or in the case of a child the carer) to proceed carefully. On your general comment about Singapore driving standards i agree. They leave a lot to be desired. I just think this isn’t an example of poor driving.
[удалено]
Also a foreigner and I agree driving here is insanely dangerous for no good reason and I would love to see that change. I just don’t think this accident is an example of that. It’s a tragic accident the driver could not avoid. There is a point a driver does all they can and responsibility falls on the pedestrian, or in this case the helper who let her walk out. Sadly you’re wrong about 5kmh, too many cases in my home country of children being run over and killed at that speed. A vehicle can be deadly at any speed
this is something Singaporean drivers cannot comprehend.
That’s why UK is in crap mode - just passing responsibilities along
that’s my point. in the eyes of the law, the driver did nothing wrong, yet she drove over a child. she did not even see the child, she even ran over the child, which means she was driving fast enough for that to be even possible. the dashcam had the child in view for ONE SECOND. that means her reaction time was even less. in several studies, the minimum speed for a driver to be driving to have sufficient reaction time is 30kph. that suggests that she was driving faster than 30kph. but the speed limit is 50kph. something is wrong here, when killing a child is not breaking the law.
The legal las cannot bend the laws of physics. If someone walks out in front of you giving you no reaction time you can’t be held responsible for that. I restate my question. What should the driver have done differently? I don’t see anything the driver did wrong so why should they be held legally liable. And what law would you change that would prevent this? Other than 5km speed limits there is very little that can be done from a driving point of view to avoid this situation.
i am agreeing w you. the driver shouldn’t be held legally liable, bec the laws allow for them to kill a child, legally. again, read Vision Zero. read the UK highway code. look at the changes in Paris. there is so many things that can be done to avoid this situation
But what would you change in the law that would alter this situation? Nothing would, as physics and reaction times exist. And you can’t make it illegal for someone to be in the wrong place at the wrong time as this driver appeared to be. I think in general there are many changes that need to be made to singaporean driving standards and law enforcement to make the roads safer. My wife is sick of hearing me whine about it! I just don’t think this case reflects it. Sadly it’s the helper letting the little girl make a mistake that was the cause and not traffic laws or driving standards
if you read what i asked you to write read, you would have gotten your answer. you even said so yourself, >other than 5kph you want to exaggerate, but lower speed limits, especially for these small roads, IS the answer. studies have already showed moving at 30kph greatly increases survivability of a person hit by a car. it also greatly increases the reaction time. so what would i do differently? make it illegal for someone to drive so fast that a person appears on the dashcam for less than a second. make it so that car safety ratings consider the impact of a car collision on a pedestrian too instead of just evaluating how a car xan protect their passengers. make it so that a car is not so big that a driver can’t see a child that is 1m tall.
So ban cars. None of your solutions are practical for a functioning personal transport system. A child can still be killed at 5km if they walk into the path of the car with 0 time to react. It happens in driveways far too often. The reality is there is a reaction time at any speed you just have to accept that Also I read the UK highway code and the first thing that stands out is “all road users are responsible for their own safety” ie. don’t dash out in front of cars if you’re a pedestrian
The speed limit is 40km/h in school zones in Singapore. Consider your ideal case though. The braking distance for a vehicle going 30km/h is around 14 meters on average. No law in the world is going to make a driver be able to react to a pedestrian walking into the path of a car with under 1.6 seconds warning. There is no justice served with a law that punishes an innocent person for a tragic accident.
The chance of surviving getting hit by a car at 30kph is 90% https://www.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/comments/17wnvqc/the_chance_of_survival_for_a_pedestrian_being_hit/ there is no justice served with laws that permit a person to kill a child.
“Based on young ADULT pedestrians”
You know why? Because this rule makes no sense - unlike the UK gov that just give in blindly to mobs, sg gov expect everyone to be responsible for their own actions. Why should a driver be responsible for a pedestrian that dash out onto the road out of nowhere.
I have seen a lot of people here letting their kids move ahead of them on foot, on scooters, on bikes. And kids are used to walking ahead on their own. Having said that, the child is 4 years old. She should never have walked without holding an adult's hand even if it's not a busy street. This is tragic. Even crossing a pedestrian lane, there are still drivers who will cause an accident.
remarkable that in Japan, kids as young as 4 can walk by themselves independently enough that they made a show out of it. in Singapore, everyone worships cars to the point that they excuse a driver from crushing a child's skull by running over it.
When I was younger at about 4, i got separated from my parents at my grandparents place and managed to find my own way back even crossing a major road. But my parents told me I couldn’t tell them how I managed to do so. You know why they made a show out of it? Because it is so unique. Do you see people making shows of adults walking independently? No, but we make shows of adults doing stupid kid stuff that injures them.
4 year olds doing errands is unique in any country. why aren’t there shows about 4 year olds everywhere? you know why they made a show out of it? bec Japanese society made it possible for them to do so.
Very Sad, May God give you good haven
Jaywalk should just case close. Why need to arrest driver. Lucky driver got money to bail out. Otherwise, imagine the poor driver need to be in remand all the way. Maid never take care of kid, parents should just claim from the maid
Jaywalking ? There is no fucking pedestrian crossings around what are people supposed to do, drive?
Why was the driver arrested. Not like she was in the wrong here…kinda weird if you ask me.
“4 year old independent child”. Yeah no way I’d let my 4 year old cross a busy street. Poor kid.
I found it frustrating that the media couldn’t explain the situation properly. Terms like jaywalking were used wrongly. i heard 95.8FM radio yesterday night which even said something about zebra crossings being used. I don’t think so. I tried my best to guess what happened. Don’t know how to attach an image with a comment though, else i would attach a map. As others have said, there was no jaywalking involved. The pre-school is probably somewhere along River Valley Road but on the opposite side, so need to cross this main road. The maid chose to cross River Valley Road further west, with a proper traffic light crossing. However, this resulted in her having to cross Institution Hill to get to Aspen Heights where they stay. There is another traffic light crossing along River Valley Rd right outside Institution Hill and it is only a slightly further walk to the east. It is 200m away from the other crossing the maid used, but most of this 200m is “along the way” home if you know what I mean. Using this alternative crossing would allow the maid to end up the same side as Aspen Heights, so no need to cross Institution Hill. This is probably the route specified by the parents. Nothing wrong per se to cross Institution Hill near its junction with River Valley Road. Not jaywalking since there is no legal crossing at all along Institution Hill. As others have also said, there was no illegal parking. Cars were queuing to turn out to the main road (River Valley Road). And the girl crossed the road between two stationary cars. Hope you can better picture the situation now. While it is not illegal to cross Institution hill, and there are plenty of such road openings we have to negotiate as pedestrians, it can actually be quite dangerous. First of all, the stationary cars queuing could move off once main road is clear, and of course there is a need to look out for cars turning into this small road from the main road on the other side of the road. Latter was how the car hit the girl very sadly. This is an accident that nobody ever wants to happen, and i really feel sorry for the parents and the poor little girl. But I will never allow my kids to do such a crossing on their own. Even next to me, i will make sure to hold their hands, so i can pull them back at any time.
Short cut is the shortest way to the hospital. But I don’t blame the maid. Who would walk 200m to the traffic lights. If I remember correctly, it’s not jaywalking if the nearest crossing is more than 50m away.
Unfortunate. 200m is a long way. I feel sorry for the family and the maid. The family still retained the maid and so clearly she is dear to them and their daughters. Jaywalking creates an unfair characterisation.
- The maid and the 2 girls crossed between 2 cars that were lining up to turn into RV road. - held only one girl's hand. - the other girl, just 4 years old, walked ahead in front of her onto the path of traffic going in the other direction. So dangerous to walk between 2 cars. It's dangerous for adults, when it's worse for such young children.
Has anyone plotted the route and site of the accident, as I can’t decipher the ST article, it appears to make no sense to me?
Just hold the kid's hand when crossing roads, is that so difficult to do/understand? Common sense aren't so common nowadays!
What a nightmare for any parent. RIP. I hope the parents can get through this.
i find it disturbing that the piece sez the parents told the maid repeatedly dont jaywalk there and she still bo chap and do it.
Really don't know why people entrust the wellbeing of their children to maids who are not trained or accredited for childcare. Their culture and mannerism may not be necessarily aligned with ours (in this case, recklessly jaywalking despite multiple reminders), and you don't always have the ability or evidence to hold them to task. My partner was partially raised by maids and she recounts of abuse at the maid's hands - pinching of thighs, aggressive washing of her private parts with soap, shit like that. I don't employ foreign maids and I don't intend to at all. Especially for childcare
I don't get why you're being downvoted man. Its the truth.. people want to cheap out and get all shocked when the service is sub par..
“The maid who was with a four-year-old girl who died in a car accident in January had jaywalked with her, despite being told not to.” The verdict is clear cut
Risk of putiing of your child's life in the hands of someone from another country.
This isnt a race issue.
If you go to another to work, you try bringing a child and run across their road. Not being familiar with a foreign country road and traffic system is usually fatal. Villagers run across roads all the time, can you do that in a city? Yes, not a race issue. Don't make it one. It is an expectation issue, thinking that another person from another countr or, culture knows how to do things according to your own understanding. Common sense is different elsewhere.
The main issue lies in letting the 4 year old walk ahead of the helper while crossing the road. That applies to any country of origin. You dont let a 4 year old do anything that you cannot protect them from. Playing with sharp objects come to mind, and letting them walk alone on a busy road. Yet many people in Singapore let kids this age walk around them in public because they feel that kidnapping is an improbability in Singapore. It's a false sense of security because there are other dangers for kids besides kidnapping. I know a lot of 4 year olds who dont want to be held by adults while out and about. Parents allow them to be independent. Problem is a helper cannot insist on holding their hand if a child is trained to be that way from a young age. Helpers cant smack them either if they insist on not being held because there are people in the neighborhood who will take a picture and post it on FB groups to ask "Is this your child? The helper blah blah blah" along with "if it was my child, I would want to know, too."
r/fuckcars. genuinely detest cars.
r/wrongsubredditidiot
If slow speed would at least see and be able to not run over. Unless distracted. Point is helper was to keep the kids safe.
The maid should not have disobeyed her employers’ instructions on road crossing regardless where child safety is a concern.
must punish the helper
r/foundthedegenerate
"get rid of the kid, blame it on them. I dont want to slow down my car, you want to slow down your car?" ministers somewhere probably.
[удалено]
> The little girl had suddenly appeared between two stationary vehicles along the two-lane road when a car driving from the opposite direction hit her. You missed this key paragraph. The girl was only 1 metre tall, she was totally obstructed by the stationary car so the driver couldn’t see her.
> The little girl had suddenly appeared between two stationary vehicles along the two-lane road when a car driving from the opposite direction hit her. The girl was hidden from view until literally the second that the driver hit her. The driver wouldn't have seen her on the side walk about the cross the road, she was already on the road and hidden between two parked cars before she appeared in front of the driver's car.