Saturday, November 23, 2013

WHY IS IT SO AFRAID OF THIS PAINTING ?


Sometimes, when children are frightened of ‘ghosts’, they will sleep with their blankets covering their heads.
Children’s minds are very simple. If the eyes cannot see by covering with blankets, then in their little minds, the ghosts would not appear. But if there is really ghosts ( a controversial topic), they would still be there no matter how the children cover their heads.
Recently, a Lithuanian artist drew a beautiful wall painting in Johor Baru



The painting actually depicts a scene that has always been in the minds of urbanites of Malaysia. Ask any Malaysian who stay in the cities what worry them most, the answer would invariably be the crime situation and security of their family.
I would like to thank the artist for putting up the painting, which can serve as a reminder for urbanites to be more careful when they go out.
It can also serve as a reminder to the law enforcement that they cannot be resting on their laurels.
I think many people share my views.
There are however reports that the authority is viewing this painting negatively. There are reports that the authority concerned wanted to remove the painting.
I hope they will reconsider.
I hope they will not be as simple minded as the children mentioned above.
The crime situation would not improve by removing the painting. The robbers would not just disappear. The crime situation can only be improved if the law enforcement is constantly reminded the need to protect the citizens from the threat as depicted in the painting. It can only be improved by increasing vigilance of both the people and the police.
Malaysia is now 56 years old. I think we should all be matured enough to look at ourselves satirically.
Sweeping all the dirt under the carpet will not solve any problems. It will only make the floor dirtier later.

Bookmark and Share

Monday, December 17, 2012

Motor Insurance Claim ~ Accident or Reckless Collision?

A collision but not an accident?

This is gonna be a landmark case for Singapore and maybe even for Malaysia.
If you had already forgotten about the recent May 12, 2012 accident where Mr. Ma Chi was alleged to had ran the red light and rammed into a taxi, which then hit a motorcycle – the accident left three, including Mr Ma, dead and two others injured…. try viewing this video for a refresh.



AXA Insurance Singapore, has now told Mr Ma Chi’s family that the crash on May 12 was a “collision” – not an accident, which obviously was to point out that Ma Chi had intended a collision rather than he having made a grievous mistake leading to the said accident. For the details please read the comments made in the recent Asia Insurance Review, which we had captured herein.
If you are aware that your action is certain to cause an accident then this is not an accident! It is just a collision or a calculated collision.

This part of the writeup or except was taken from asiainsurancereview.Dispute  leads to Singapore’s first such lawsuit…. The wife and mother who survive deceased Ferrari driver Ma Chi are taking the vehicle’s insurers to court after the companies say that they intend to withdraw coverage for the car crash in which Mr Ma died. The lawsuit is said to be the first such reported case in Singapore and is becoming a public interest issue as to how accidents are treated as “collisions”, under which an insurer can reject liability.

The Straits Times reported that AXA Singapore had told Mr Ma’s family that the crash on 12 May was a “collision”, not an accident. What this means in the insurance industry is that the driver was aware that his actions would cause an accident, thereby voiding the insurers’ liability to make a payout.However, Mr Ma’s family wants the High Court to reject this finding and are suing the insurers. The accident left three people, including Mr Ma, dead. He had allegedly run a red light, crashed into a taxi, which then hit a motorcycle. A pathologist’s report showed that he was not drunk at the time of the incident.
AXA first informed the Ma family of its decision last month. In the same month, the family had replied that they disagreed with AXA’s position. The insurer then responded by asking the family not to liquidate any of Mr Ma’s assets, and said the case should be arbitrated. AXA asked the family to supply a list of his other assets.
Mr Wendell Wong, lawyer for the Ma family, then filed a suit asking the High Court to rule that the crash was indeed an accident and not a “collision” as claimed by AXA. A pre-trial conference has been scheduled for next month. Mr Ma did not leave a will, but court documents show that he was covered under two insurance policies worth US$1 million and S$1.54 million (US$1.23 million) separately.

To put matters in perspectives | AXA would have to pay those claims involving bodily injury or death to those third parties affected by Mr. Ma Chi’s action – that’s in accordance to the Road Transport Act of Singapore, and for Malaysian insurers this is no difference. After AXA has completed the necessary settlement, AXA has the legal rights to pursue a claim recovery from Ma Chi’s asset, thus the reason why AXA insisting that the family not to liquidate any of those assets…. In addition, if the AXA’s contention is allowed by the courts then claims made in respect of Ma Chi’s Personal Accident policies too may likely be affected.
I do not think I have much to comment on any indepth basis at this juncture; let’s wait for further outcome as the court case takes its natural course….
Some comments from the internet buzz that touch on Accident and Collision…. something you may be interested to read | An accident is a euphemism for collision. It makes normal people feel good about their irresponsible driving habits. In reality most accidents are really collisions. Most of world’s annual traffic fatalities are the results of collisions not accidents. A traffic accident is the result of some unforeseeable condition that reasonable human effort couldn’t prevent.
For example, eventhough the tractor-trailer was inspected, the mechanic had no way of knowing that there was an internal fracture on the trucks pitman arm, the pitman arm connects to the steering box and controls the steering of the truck. No reasonable human inspection could have revealed it. As a result, the truck was driving down a crowded interstate when the pitman arm failed. The truck careened off the road and into oncoming traffic striking several cars and causing five fatalities. This is an accident. In another example, John was traveling down a twisty section of roadway in a mountainous terrains. Jane’s car suffered a mechanical breakdown on a switchback of the same roadway. Jane had no way of getting her vehicle off the roadway. Jane was putting out road flares when John entered the switchback. John was driving at the posted speed limit for the turn when he struck Jane, killing her instantly. After a full police investigation, it was determined that both Jane and John had obeyed all traffic laws. It was a simple case of bad timing. If Jane had broken down thirty seconds sooner, she would have had her road flares deployed in time for John to see them.
“A traffic accident is the result of some unforeseeable condition that reasonable human effort couldn’t prevent… a traffic collision is usually the result of human pushing it beyond an acceptable limit”
A traffic collision is something that could have been avoided with reasonable human effort. For example, Edward was driving down an interstate road. He was in a hurry and travelling at excessive speed, 140 kmph. He was thinking about his upcoming freshman year at his University. He was also talking on his cell phone to his girlfriend that would be attending another University. He was taking sips from his coffee and searching for a CD when he failed to see that traffic in front had came to a halt at exit of the highway. Failing to stop, he rear ended Sarah. Sarah also had her three children along with her. Sarah also failed to maintain a safe distance between her and the car in front of her. She also failed to continuously check her rear view mirror. Since she was the last vehicle in the stopped traffic she could have avoided the collision by checking her rear view mirror for motorists that failed to see the stopped traffic. She also failed to maintain a safe distance between her and the car in front of her. Even if she had seen Edward failing to stop, she couldn’t have done anything because the car in front of her was blocking her path. As a result, Edward, Sarah, her five children, and three other motorists were killed in the fiery crash. In another example, Dan was struck and killed by a motorist last Friday. On a routine traffic stop, another vehicle with an inattentive driver bumped the vehicle next to him at high speed causing it to sideswipe the vehicle Dan had stopped. Dan was killed instantly.
This is the difference between collisions and accidents. Most of our traffic accidents are really collisions. I guess that it’s human’s way of guilt avoidance or that cars, despite their inherent dangers, have so commonplace that nobody even gives it a thought.
Well! That’s food for thought but let’s see what’s develop beyond.

Sunday, August 19, 2012

Thieves targeting tyres and other car parts


DIFFERENT kind of theft is taking place now and it does not involve the whole car, just the tyres and other parts.
The thieves are targeting car tyres, bumpers and insignias instead of the whole car because most are equipped with vehicle tracking devices, alarms and automatic fuel cut-off with Geo Fence Global Positioning System.
Selangor MCA Public Complaints Bureau deputy head Kelvin Chong said there was an increase in theft of tyres in Petaling Jaya and that the incidents usually occurred in the wee hours of the morning.
“The latest incidents were at Jalan 21/20 and Jalan 21/27. The two victims had parked their cars outside the main gates of their houses and were shocked to see the tyres and rims missing in the morning, at about 6am. The cars were being held up with bricks,” he said.
Chong said wheels with expensive rims were targeted by the thieves


Modus operandi: Chong showing how a pneumatic torque wrench is used to remove the nuts holding the wheel.

“These cost more than RM1,300 each and easy to remove. Within 90 seconds, thieves can remove two wheels with a cordless pneumatic torque wrench,” he added.
He said in most cases the thefts occurred between 3am to 5.30am and that some cases go unreported.

Bookmark and Share

Dinner and Keynote Address by H E Mr Abhisit Vejjajiva In Penang (Fighting Corruptions)




Bookmark and Share

Friday, August 17, 2012

Several luxury cars sold in the United States, including the top-selling Mercedes-Benz C-Class, scored poorly on a new frontal crash test designed to mimic what happens when a car hits another vehicle, utility pole or tree.

Of 11 midsize luxury or near-luxury vehicles built for the 2012 model year, only two - the Acura TL and Volvo S60 - earned "good" ratings in a small overlap frontal crash test, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety said on Tuesday.

The C-Class, Volkswagen's Audi A4 and Toyota Motor Co's Lexus ES 350 and Lexus IS earned an overall "poor" rating in the test.

Most cars are now built with safety cages that can handle head-on collisions and other crashes without crushing the driver and others inside the vehicle.

But small overlap crashes, involving only the small front corner of a vehicle, affect the outer edges of the car, which are less protected.

In those cases, the front wheel, suspension system and firewall bear the brunt of the crash, which can lead to serious leg and foot injuries.

The Institute's test showed that there was a high risk of foot or leg injury in five top-tier vehicles. In both the C-Class and the Lexus IS, the crash dummy's right foot was lodged under the brake pedal.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration currently does not test for these crashes, according to the Institute.

"Most automakers design their vehicles to ace our moderate overlap frontal test and NHTSA's full-width frontal test, but the problem of small overlap crashes hasn't been addressed," Institute President Adrian Lund said.

Small overlap crashes made up nearly a quarter of frontal crashes that caused serious injury or death, according to a 2009 study by the Institute, a non-profit supported by auto insurers.

Those models that fared the best in the test were the Acura TL built by Honda Motor Co and Volvo S60. Volvo is owned by China's Geely, parent of Geely Automotive Holdings Ltd.

One model, Nissan Motor Co's Infiniti G, earned an "acceptable."

Four models snagged a "marginal" score: the Acura TSX, the BMW 3 Series, Ford Motor Co's Lincoln MKZ and the Volkswagen CC.

In the test, part of the car's front end hit a 1.5-metre rigid barrier at 64kph.

The vehicles were rated in three areas: structural integrity, the effectiveness of the restraints and potential injuries.
Bookmark and Share
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...