This rule is like friendship, easier made than kept.
I did not have a GPS system embedded into my brain. To locate the nearest taxi stand within the CBD (Central Business Dictrict) one day was beyond me, as a tourist to Singapore.
As I try to negotiate with the taxi driver to drop me off at the building I intended to go to, I was told to alight only at the designated taxi stand. Polite as he was, he was helpless as rules restricting taxis picking up and dropping off passengers within the CBD area kicked in on 1 March 2008. In order to get to my destination, I was told to walk 100m against traffic flow and turn left at the junction. Next, make a right turn and stop in front of the traffic lights, cross the street, keep on walking and turn left about 50m away. It was raining heavily. I had no choice but to walk in the rain. Bl** Hel*. The taxi driver ended his instructions with “God bless and good luck.”
In the name of “safety”, rules are preventing taxi drivers from swerving across lanes and stopping abruptly as and when they like to pick up passengers. Yet, the latest update offered by the Gahmen is that the elderly, the disabled people and those with heavy luggage would be exempted from this rule. So, does it mean to say that these group of people, should they risk their lives to board/alight a taxi and should they get knocked down and die, the ultimate verdict is “you asked for it” (pardon the pun here). If safety is the main reason, why compromise? Why allow exemptions in the name of safety?
Isn’t it about time to educate taxi drivers the cause and consequences of their actions when they stop anywhere they like within the CBD? Sometimes, passengers are the ones at fault who desire to stop abruptly. Educate the passengers too.
If the argument put forth really is safety, well, taxi drivers outside the CBD are still allowed to pick up and drop off passengers along the way. Does it imply that, in the name of safety, the lives of motorists outside CBD are worthless?
While in Taipei, I have no problem hailing a taxi from the roadside. It certainly does not cause inconvenience to other motorists. Afterall, sharp-eyed humans are well trained and give way to one another, coupled with a wave of the hand as a kind gesture. This situation will not be possible without “practise”.
Say, for fear of a child choking and hence restricting him from eating fishball is but a foolish decision. You are taking away the opportunity for him to learn. The child grows up not knowing how a fishball tastes like, more so the “appropriate” ways of chewing it so as not to be choked. By imposing a rule to stop eating fishball, you are taking away a learning opportunity to learn, and this is exactly the situation as it is now.
I do have in mind some suggestions, if not modifications to the current rule kicked in since 1 March. However, I don’t think I want to elaborate on this. White is still not my favourite working attire.
In conclusion, people who are chauffeur-driven and/or with private transport (as opposed to public) do not make rational assessment with regards to public transport system. Prove me wrong, please?
Gosh, anyhow write a piece of diary also end up in about 560 words, sianz.
Regards.
I did not have a GPS system embedded into my brain. To locate the nearest taxi stand within the CBD (Central Business Dictrict) one day was beyond me, as a tourist to Singapore.
As I try to negotiate with the taxi driver to drop me off at the building I intended to go to, I was told to alight only at the designated taxi stand. Polite as he was, he was helpless as rules restricting taxis picking up and dropping off passengers within the CBD area kicked in on 1 March 2008. In order to get to my destination, I was told to walk 100m against traffic flow and turn left at the junction. Next, make a right turn and stop in front of the traffic lights, cross the street, keep on walking and turn left about 50m away. It was raining heavily. I had no choice but to walk in the rain. Bl** Hel*. The taxi driver ended his instructions with “God bless and good luck.”
In the name of “safety”, rules are preventing taxi drivers from swerving across lanes and stopping abruptly as and when they like to pick up passengers. Yet, the latest update offered by the Gahmen is that the elderly, the disabled people and those with heavy luggage would be exempted from this rule. So, does it mean to say that these group of people, should they risk their lives to board/alight a taxi and should they get knocked down and die, the ultimate verdict is “you asked for it” (pardon the pun here). If safety is the main reason, why compromise? Why allow exemptions in the name of safety?
Isn’t it about time to educate taxi drivers the cause and consequences of their actions when they stop anywhere they like within the CBD? Sometimes, passengers are the ones at fault who desire to stop abruptly. Educate the passengers too.
If the argument put forth really is safety, well, taxi drivers outside the CBD are still allowed to pick up and drop off passengers along the way. Does it imply that, in the name of safety, the lives of motorists outside CBD are worthless?
While in Taipei, I have no problem hailing a taxi from the roadside. It certainly does not cause inconvenience to other motorists. Afterall, sharp-eyed humans are well trained and give way to one another, coupled with a wave of the hand as a kind gesture. This situation will not be possible without “practise”.
Say, for fear of a child choking and hence restricting him from eating fishball is but a foolish decision. You are taking away the opportunity for him to learn. The child grows up not knowing how a fishball tastes like, more so the “appropriate” ways of chewing it so as not to be choked. By imposing a rule to stop eating fishball, you are taking away a learning opportunity to learn, and this is exactly the situation as it is now.
I do have in mind some suggestions, if not modifications to the current rule kicked in since 1 March. However, I don’t think I want to elaborate on this. White is still not my favourite working attire.
In conclusion, people who are chauffeur-driven and/or with private transport (as opposed to public) do not make rational assessment with regards to public transport system. Prove me wrong, please?
Gosh, anyhow write a piece of diary also end up in about 560 words, sianz.
Regards.
RSS Feed (xml)
1 comment:
hope u and ur frd enjoyed the dialogue earlier ;)
m.m
Post a Comment