My Bicycle Commuting - Foreigners not pleased about our traffic light system

At the Junction of Cluny and Napier road, two people, whom I guess are tourist from Hong Kong, were commenting on our traffic light system. Not happy about it though, expressing some confusions. (1 Nov 2013)

My Bicycle Commuting - Right turn signal spoiled or hand broken?

Why so impatient want to filter at that point, just a second before green. Didn't give signal. Watch longer, he just doesn't want to give signal on the next right turn! (24 Oct 2013)

My Bicycle Commuting - A driver on handphone

While waiting for the light at the junction of Holland Road and Avenue, I saw a lady driver talking on her handphone on her right hand while turning right into Holland Avenue. Too bad video quality is poor and I made the mistake turning the camera where headlights of other cars blind the picture. When will CSI technology become available at home?

Photo quality also poor. (21 Oct 2013)

Motorcyclist fined, banned for negligence

Motorcyclist fined, banned for negligence

Ha ha, this "needed a driving licence to continue working as a driver for a towing company" makes it more appropriate for him to be barred from driving any vehicle for five [or more] years.

- overtaking a bus on its left.
- did not see Mr Eang riding in front of him between the kerb and the bus.
- exceeded the speed limit.

This punishment will increase the chance of him being alive for the next 5 years.

Somebody asked Is riding a bicycle on the main road...

Is riding a bicycle on the main road dangerous to themselves and other fast moving vehicles?

and made the following comments:

I can understand that bicycle is very eco-friendly. But SG main roads are always very heavy around the clock. Even though there are special roads dedicated to bicycle riders but many riders still prefer to use the main roads and compete with the fast moving motor vehicles.

All the vehicle holders on the road must pay the road tax, why should there be an exception to the bicycle riders?

All motor-vehicle drivers who hug on the road will be summoned, but why should there be an exception given to the bicycle riders?

All the vehicle holders on the road have to go through high-way code and training before using the road, why should there be an exception given to the bicycle riders?

Do bicycle riders care about they are obstructing the traffic most of the time? Do they know that it is not only dangerous to the themselves but also to other motor vehicles trying to avoid them on the roads which are already very heavy?

My response:

Firstly, the question is not good

So, what if the law didn't state?

In this modern age, people are asking if this and that is legal or not. Is that the ultimate guideline for us to follow? Have we forgotten this thing called the conscience? By the way, are we to base our acts solely on the laws?

Things that are so obviously wrong that all the while nobody finds the need for such obvious things to be explicitly stated in the laws. Interestingly, when some raise the question asking if such obviously wrong thing is wrong, there are people who really try to answer the question. More surprisingly, such obviously wrong thing could be argued to be not wrong just because legal laws didn't say so!

Mind and body age mismatch

Just heard from wife some days ago that son's classmate is a boy who was abandoned by both his father and mother. We know of another boy in our neighborhood whose young parents were separated less than a year after married and he is raised by his paternal grandparents.

We are not social workers. I believe social workers have more to tell.

Physical body grows according to natural laws, while [spiritual] mind grows from life experiences and guidance from parents and elders. There is too much academic education for the brain, yet virtually no proper education for the mind.

Poor smokers

They are under bombardment. Increasing price/tax, uglier packaging, more non-smoking areas, etc. However, without similar efforts to encourage them to quit smoking, they end up smoking more in new places.

I noticed more of them are smoking while ... walking. By the logic why many places disallow smoking, when walking behind someone smoking along a narrow walkway, especially one with shelter, it is difficult to escape from the second hand smokes.

Recently, there is also second smokes in my bedroom late at night. Very likely it is from some smoker neighbor one or two floors down who smoke heavily.

Can we enforce smoker to use a filter, both for the exhale and the cigarette? Or wear a mask?

I most dislike are those who holds a lighted cigarette but not smoking it. This is pure pollution to environment, burning of money, and irritation to non-smokers.

My cycling in Singapore experiences - right of way

In many recent discussions about cycling on pavements, I have been leaving comments stressing the pedestrian right of way on pavements. I feel to deny cycling on pavements is impractical. However, it is important that pedestrians are the rightful users. Thus, both cyclists and pedestrians should clearly understand this and practice it.

I suggest cyclists should not overtake pedestrians ... if there is likelihood that they may suddenly act in a way that results in near accident or near collision. However, I am very against the use of bell and similar tools that portray the impression of asking pedestrians to give way. Thus, cyclists on pavement should accept the fate to be blocked by pedestrians.

I suggest pedestrians should not be afraid and act suddenly to give way. I find it dangerous because such sudden actions are likely to cause accidents, e.g. spraining ankles. As a cyclist myself, I am more afraid of pedestrians then I am afraid of cyclists when I am a pedestrian. Cyclists are likely to sustain more injuries, more difficult to maneuver, and no matter what, it is the cyclists at fault legally speaking.

Wanna be asked 4 questions per week?

I was "cheated" about S$20 by this, and many others were being cheated too! Beware! Here are their "fine" print:

*This is a Wixawin trivia game promoted by TMG B.V. Wixawin is not affiliated with, sponsored by or endorsed by any of the listed products or retailers. Trademarks, service marks, logos, (including, without limitation, the individual names of products and retailers) are the property of their respective owners. | This is an ongoing subscription quiz service until user quits. | This service operates according to the Singapore code of practice for SMS services. | By sending an SMS to 72233, you acknowledge that you have read and understood the ‘Terms & Conditions’ and agree to be bound by these 'Terms & Conditions'. | To stop service? text STOP to 72233. | Subscription: you will receive 3 SMS questions per week, S$4 per SMS question received. | Competition ends 31-12-'08. | Age: 18+ only – obtain bill payer's permission. | Helpdesk: 6571 3999 | Technical Service Provider: Sybase 365 Pte Ltd.

Who with a right mind in the universe would ... want to pay S$4 to receive SMS??? Regardless did you participate in their quiz or not. Might as well go and buy ToTo! Betting S$16 per week.

Thus, if this is according to the Singapore code of practice for SMS services, then there is a serious flaw in the code of practice!!!

False sense of security

Hey, I am not alone to think that bike lanes are dangerous. The false sense of security exists in many different contexts. Some that I am more aware of are ... :

a) Bicycle helmet and other protective gears. These provide some protection IF one falls, AND in a way that these gears can protect. Furthermore, some protection probably only lessen the injury, but injury is still likely or even worse than just injured. The idea of ZERO fall is under emphasized. Regardless of any protective gears worn, the minimal goal is to have ZERO fall. I recommend those who still can fall on bicycle path DON'T cycle on the road.

b) Pedestrian crossings. Most pedestrians I noticed over rely on traffic signals. Once the green man appear, they started crossing. They are putting their lives on the trust that all approaching vehicles are driven by alert and qualified drivers. It does matter IF an accident occured AND the pedestrian is alive to sue the driver. The idea of ZERO accident and safety is under emphasized, compared to the legal rights. Regardless of whether one has the right of way or not, the minimal goal is ZERO accident. I always check the green light, instead of the green man, as the on coming traffic will be blocked by traffic from the other direction. I don't just watch out for cars when crossing roads, but I would also observe if the the driver notices me and has intention to slow down.

c) Condoms. I have mentioned this in many other posts on abstinence. Safer sex practices are giving many the wrong impression that extra-marital sex is OK. The idea of abstinence and ZERO extra-marital sex are under emphasized. Extra-marital sex is a very irresponsible attempt to potentially create a new life without a family, i.e. creating ophans. Thus, going for abortion in these cases is worse as it kills the ophan, while the culprits escape. Sounds like hit and run to me.

Witness protection - alternative to undercover?

The USA Network's new original series In Plain Sight (Pilot - Episode Premiere: June 1, 2008) is about the highly secretive Federal Witness Protection Program (WITSEC). Simply put, U.S. Marshal Mary Shannon protects and helps witnesses to start anew. However, homicide detective Bobby D disgust for the branch of law enforcement that ... puts known criminals back on the street.

A character that I can relate to is Mary's partner Marshall Mann, specifically about knowing a little bit about everything. I am not the kind of person who goes into a subject deeply to understand it thoroughly. Rather, I would prefer to know just enough of a subject but knows about more subjects.

Coming back to the story, is putting known criminals back on the street OK? Probably not. However, I see WITSEC as an alternative to sending in under-covers, risking and wasting the life of otherwise good law enforcers.

The Vacuum Law

I attended the talk on 22 Feb, "HINDUISM REDISCOVERED: A Religion in Vogue" by Vivekacharya Pavan Choudary, CEO, Vygon India.

It was interesting during the Q&A session, where he shared his wisdom in answering the questions. I would like to share some of them here.

Wisdoms from a talk by Vivekacharya Pavan Choudary -- Part 2

This is another meaningful story he told. As I can't remember every words, I am retelling it from the story I think I heard.

A farmer prayed to God and asked to be made wealthy. God agreed and assure him that his house will never be lack of grains. Indeed, he was happy to find that every morning he finds a full bag of grain no matter how much he has used up the day before.

However, he didn't feel that God has granted his wish, which was to be wealthy. He was actually a little angry that God is so stingy only making his bag of grain full at the beginning of each day. Year after year, as his family enjoyed the never empty bag of grain, deep in his heart he was always wondering why is God so stingy?

Finally, he passed away and met God. He asked about this life long question he had. God explains, I am not stingy, but rather, it was you who is stingy. ... How is this so? If you were to share most of your grains to others, just imagine only a mere 2% of them return you something, wouldn't you become very wealthy? Instead, you kept this blessing I gave you to yourself. Thus, the blessing didn't grow into bigger blessings.

He then brought up a recent case in real life. Somewhere in Canada a corn farmer has been winning awards for producing very good quality corns. When reporters ask him for his secrets recipe, his recipe is not any secret. He has always shared all his knowledge and know how about farming good quality corns to other farmers. Then, as everyone produces good corn, he is more motivated to do more research and study how to improve. As a result, he has been able to keep winning.

Below is an excerpt from a speech by Rev. Sun Myung Moon, God's Hope for Man given on October 20, 1973 in Washington, D.C.

---
Jesus came as a savior, but his teaching was, "... the Son of man came not to be served but to serve ..." ( Matt 20:28 ) Jesus taught that the greatest love in this universe is to give one's life for his enemy. The teaching of the Bible is contrary to the common rule of our worldly society. It is exactly the opposite of the way of this self-centered world. The Bible teaches complete giving and total sacrifice. "He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for my sake will find it." (Matt 10:39 ) It seems almost foolish to think seriously about living this way in man's evil society. But once you know God's principle, you discover that there is actually no wisdom greater than this.

Jesus Christ's teachings hit the very core of this fundamental truth. The more you give the more you receive. God rewards total giving with total love, and total sacrifice with total life. Giving creates room for God's love to enter The more room and the greater the vacuum created by your giving, the faster you will be filled by the flow of God's love.
---

Thus, share, what we've already been given, because the reason we were given these things is for us to share it out.

I would like to call this The Vacuum Law.

Part 1
Part 3

Singapore, winner of Youth Olympics 2010

In the report FACTBOX-Facts about Singapore, winner of Youth Olympics, there is this point mentioned:

"* Singapore is famous for its tight social controls and restrictions on the sale of chewing gum. Homosexuality is illegal and pornography is banned. Demonstrations are illegal, while public speaking and gatherings of more than four people require a permit. Reporters Without Borders' 2007 press freedom index ranked Singapore 141st out of 169 countries ... So what?, after Azerbajian and Sudan, reflecting restrictions on the media and arts."

These are what I would like Singapore to retain, which is something rightfully described by the slogan Uniquely Singapore! Majority of the media and arts is not doing service to the world. Restricting them is actually not enough. More need to be done to channel them in the better direction.

I find FACTBOX does not have a neutral stand about Singapore. Doesn't matter, since the fact is, Singapore has won the competition to host the first Youth Olympic in 2010! Congratulations! Also read about it in these reports, Olympics-IOC awards 2010 Youth Games to Singapore, and Singapore ecstatic at winning Youth Olympics bid.

Purpose of rules

When each rule is being formalized, it has clear purpose during the time that they were being set. However, circumstances change, and usually more rules are added, or rules are being enhanced to tackle these changes. Similarly, some rules may become obsolete, or doesn't correctly achieve the original purpose. However, due to less urgency to look into obsolete rules, many of these remain and create unnecessary restrictions.

E.g. the 1955 rules about no cycling on pedestrian paths here. Firstly, 1955 is more than half a century ago. Secondly, this nation was underdeveloped then and has been a developed nation for about a decade. Thirdly, the meaning of pedestrian path in 1955 is different from now in many new towns where pedestrian paths are much wider.

Many a times, ... in order not to have these restrictions, the regulatory bodies ignore such obsolete rules, but this gives the wrong impression that the regulatory bodies are powerless or all rules can be ignored.

Actually, the reason that triggered me to write this post is a recent interaction with PayPerPost. My post, Yummy citrus-marinated flame-grilled chicken, was first rejected due to their suspicion that the post before it, Accountable advertising is a sponsored post. Later, they give me the benefit of doubt on my statement that the latter post is not a sponsored post. However, I re-dated the post, which was a remedy action I queried about together in my statement to them, and they didn't warn me that it was not allowed. Sadly, that yummy post was rejected due to this.

I respect their rules, and their need to enforce it by rejecting my post. However, I believe it is clear that I do not have any intention to try to do something that the rule is there to prevent, which I've yet to figure out. I also believe that there isn't any harm done to anyone during the short period when my post was re-dated and again re-dated back to the original date.

This post is triggered by the above incident, but it is not directed to PayPerPost. Rules are good because there are clear and many of them can be enforced by computer. Yet, we are humans. We create rules for us to have guidelines, but not to absolutely follow them. When applying rules, we need to exercise our wisdom, which the computer still lack behind us a lot, to decide if an act is rightfully against the purpose of a certain rule.

PS: A realisation from this. PayPerPost's Customer Love really loves their customers, and bloggers/posties are not their customers, but suppliers.

Is it Karma?

I think Karma is real, but how to identify it?

I wasn't happy when I went out two days ago and these things happen:
1) It was raining heavily, so I brought umbrella, which is something I don't like to bring and use.
2) By the time the bus arrive, the rain has stopped, which means I could have ride my bicycle instead as I don't like to take feder bus.
3) For some good reason I guess, the driver is driving in a supper slow manner, while I had a tight schedule.
4) Good to have some stranger approach me with a "Happy New Year," but sorry to the person, I wasn't in good mood and was rushing off.
5) Went to an ATM machine, punched in all the necessary, and only to read on the screen "This machine cannot dispense cash now."

Thus, I forced myself out of the bad mood and the rest of the day was nice :)

It's real!

What is real? What is not real? Recently heard a speech suggesting that our sub-conscious mind cannot differentiate between real and unreal events. However, if an event occurred, then why is it unreal? Even if it is a dream. Instead of unreal, I would say outside the currently quite well scientifically described world. In other word, the religious world called it spiritual. Enjoy this fun commercial, although Karma may not be fun.

Getting un-lost

Yesterday my brother casually shared with me a teaching in buddhism: (roughly) Since even [buddhism] laws [that helps one to get enlightened] can be forgo, isn't it more forgoable for secular things which are non-laws. An analogy is in order to get from the current shore to the opposite enlightened shore, the teachings/laws that we follow/practice towards enlightenment are like the boat that bring us across to the enlightened shore. When we reach there, we will forgo the boat since we don't need it.

Relating to another question from a cousin that why some Christians say they cannot enter temples, while some like one of our aunt could? This idea comes to me:

Generally speaking, religions [not in their institutionalised manner] seek to help people who are lost in the secular/temporal world to become less lost or more un-lost. However, it seems to me that many, while becoming un-lost in the secular world, are getting lost in some particular religion institution that they are in. These are what many called the religious people.

I don't consider Jesus and Buddha as religious people. That's why they were unwelcome and kicked out by the religion institutions of their times.

Everything follow laws

Without laws, total flexibility is chaos.

Everything follow laws could be ideal, but attaining and remaining at ideal is bad (see Ideal is not ideal).

Setting down laws and rules is to paint the picture of the ideal state. The idea is to move towards the ideal, sometimes over, sometimes fall short. Having an idea of what the ideal is allow us to know how to be on the right track.

Flexibility is necessary as no set of laws can cater to all possible scenario. However, the necessity of flexibility on occassions does not imply everything don't need to follow laws. If the set of laws is lacking, it might be improved. If the scenario can be avoided in the future, then lessons be learnt to avoid such scenario.

What is bad?

Is death bad?
What about the death of an ant?
What about the death of a bacteria?
What about the death of a cell?

The above and many others are dying constantly. If they die at a slower rate, it is bad.

I say unnatural death is bad, but natural death is nature.