I am nuts

On traffic wardens

There has been a recent spate of letters to the ST forums regarding the outsourcing of the responsibility of dishing out traffic offences to the public to private companies. People have complained of getting more summons, the writer that started it all claims to have kena 5 tickets in one month, despite having a clean record for over 40 years. Interesting... haha..

I'm not too sure of the situation nowadays, since I've not driving anymore. I do remember that I was always often booked for certain offences, mainly parking related. I did appeal a couple of them, which I felt was unjustified, for example, there was once I was booked for not displaying my parking coupon CLEARLY even though I left it as I always did just beside the ERP sensor. Appeals were never successful, I almost always got a similar template reply that honestly, is full of bureaucratic crap that if decipered successfully, failed to make any real sense.

I have always wondered a few questions. For example, in my above mentioned case, where the offence is that the coupon is not displayed clearly, how do you define clear? Is there a standardised location where one must display it? What if the warden has poor eyesight? Are there any proofs, for example, the warden should take down a picture of the situation so that if the driver wants to dispute the matter, they can handle it in a clear and just manner, instead of simply one man's word against another's? I did display a valid coupon after all, and I dispute the fact that it was not displayed clearly, but once again, there is no clear definition of 'clear', and it basically ended up between my word against the warden's, neither side having actual proof, yet I ended up on the losing end as I still have to pay up my fine after my failed appeal, otherwise I would have to end up in court.

I recalled an incident some time ago, also in the ST forum, where a member of the public wrote in to comment that he/she witnessed a police officer using his mobile phone without a hands-free set while driving, and listed the time of the offence, as well as the car plate number of the vehicle. The reply from the SPF was that, after investigation, the officer confirmed he was at the place and in the vehicle, but denied that he was using his phone, and the member of public that witness the incident was invited to contact the SPF to pursue the matter. I'm not sure what happened next but I would believe that the writer would most probably choose not to pursue the matter on their own time and the officer will probably get off scott free IF he was guilty as charged. To me, it seems like a public servant's statement is given precedence over the public. Imagine if you receive a summon that you have been spotted taking a car while driving without using a hands-free set at a given time and place, with your car plate number. You admitted being there, in your car, but denied that you have been using your phone. What do you think is the likely outcome?

Labels: police, singapore, summons, tickets, traffic, wardens

posted by Nutcracker @ 1:43 pm