Basket.

Posting now because the next time I'll be able to post on February 29th is 4 years later. Let us immortalise this special day, here and now.

Cyclists belong rightly to the road too

THE FORUM is abuzz on whether cyclists belong to the footpath or the road.

I am a cyclist and I cycle very often, clocking an average of 200km a week.

A 'footpath' is meant for pedestrians on foot. There should not even be an argument on this.

However, other road users should understand that cyclists belong to the road too.

I ride a 'road bike' and the tyres are made from material similar to car tyres. They are designed for 'road use'.

Most drivers think that we should cycle on the left side of the leftmost lane so that we will not obstruct the flow of traffic.

However, they do not understand that we have the right to filter into the second lane if we are doing a speed higher than a slow-moving lorry to overtake it. Sometimes our speed can go up to more than 60kmh and situations do force us to even filter into the third lane if the vehicles in the second lane slow down.

In a traffic jam, we also go in between vehicles like most motorcyclists do. Experienced cyclists do that because we know that we are always not 'visible' to drivers which makes us more vulnerable if we stop behind stationary vehicles.

We also do not travel along the left side of the first lane so that we will not be caught in between big lorries, buses or prime movers and the road kerb which can also side swipe us easily.

Our slim tyres can be caught easily by the grilles of the drain covers and flip us over.

Passengers alighting from their vehicles often do not check back and they catch us off-guard by suddenly opening the doors.

Novice cyclists who constantly keep to the left side of the road always crash in this kind of situation.

Drivers wear seat belts and motorcyclists wear helmets to protect themselves in case of accidents. We protect ourselves by riding in a safe 'line'.

I hope the authorities will look into this and educate the public that cyclists are legitimate road users too.

We do not belong to the double yellow lines drawn on the side of the road.


And here we see the very Singaporean over-inflated sense of entitlement on display yet again. Apparently, not only should cyclists be allowed to use the roads, they have a right to it. Assertive, aren't we. Well, you can take this idea and your completely graceless sense of entitlement and shove it.

As someone who drives, I loathe cyclists on roads. This is because the cyclists, even if they keep to the left lane (as would make sense, given that the left lane is the slow lane) often impede traffic. Some seem to expect vehicles to give way to them. I say, fuck that shit. If I could run cyclists down I would, and I would happily keep score. Fuck all of you and your slow-moving bicycles. Stay off the roads and on the fucking pavement, I don't need the obligation of keeping you alive while you keep me from getting to my destination in the most effective manner.

What is more, unlike other road users, cyclists do not need a licence to cycle on roads, do not need to pass any tests on road safety, and do not need to pay road tax. Very well, if they want to be legitimate road users, sure: make it mandatory to get a licence if you wish to cycle on the roads, mandatory to pass tests on road safety, and mandatory to pay a road tax. THEN cyclists can be legitimate road users. Until then, they are freeloaders, and often obnoxious freeloaders at that.

Till then, stay on the footpaths. Personally, as a pedestrian, I don't mind giving way to cyclists at all - that is, if they give me ample warning with their bells. I think this is very reasonable - and that requirements be set in place before cyclists are considered legitimate road users is a very reasonable idea too. It'll make our roads safer as well. You can't have your cake and eat it too, as this cheapskate up here is apparently looking to do. Want to be considered a vehicle? All owners of vehicles have licences, and all pay road tax. Follow suit, and you'll be considered a vehicle. Until then, stop putting your own life and the road records of other innocent road users on the line and stay off the goddamn roads.

Singapore wins bid for Youth Olympics

Cue much rejoicing over... nothing, really.

My reaction is: So? How is this a big deal?

It's like all the coverage on the A380 emphasising how SIA was the first to place orders for it. It was suggested by certain of my schoolmates last semester that this was something that brought glory to Singapore. The very idea, is, of course, utterly ludicrous. By that reasoning I would be covering myself in glory if a new and revolutionary brand of dishwashing liquid was made available at NTUC and I rushed to be the first customer to purchase it.

It's a similar case here. It's just the Youth Olympics - not the actual Olympic Games. There's little to get excited about.

If you're actually jumping for joy at this, please just take a moment and consider how insignificant an achievement it actually is. Then think about what a sad case this country really is if we have to leap at every tiny chance of so-called global glory.

Oh, and poor 2009-2010 NSFs: the amount of saikang that needs be done is going to be epic. My best wishes to those guys.

Time for healthy S'poreans to come forward and donate kidneys (ST Online Forum, Jan 31)

I WAS horrified to read the report, 'Kidney scam: Hospitals raided' (ST, Jan 29).

The report said that the authorities are probing an organ sale gang which had conducted 500 transplants in India.

It appears that poor labourers sell their kidneys to wealthy clients. A Singaporean friend of mine went to India to get an organ transplant because there was no 'waiting for a donor' and it was not even cheap. He returned home after the transplant, only to die two weeks later of kidney failure.

The Indian Health Minister, Mr Anbumani Ramadoss, is calling for a national organ transplant programme as it would reduce demand for illegal operations. At present, only close relatives are allowed to donate organs, after clearance by a government appointed committee.

In Singapore, we have in place the 'opt out/opt in' system. The National Kidney Foundation is doing a fine job for kidney patients. But it is time for healthy Singaporeans to come forward to donate one of their kidneys to those who need it. I know of a kidney patient who had a kidney transplant about 20 years ago, and when I last met him in 1997, he was lively and active.

Yes, Singaporeans are pretty impatient. They are not willing to wait for a donor kidney. So, they go overseas to seek and get a kidney transplant. I think this is foolhardy.


It just keeps getting better and better. This is truly one of the stupidest letters I have ever seen in any newspaper, excepting maybe the one about dogs I remember covering some months back. Here is someone actually suggesting that a perfectly healthy individual should check into a hospital one fine day, undergo painful major surgery to have one kidney removed, and have the kidney placed within someone else - a total stranger - who needs a working kidney. Completely without any other reason than helping out a - emphasis here - total stranger.

Our writer has obviously not given any serious thought to his suggestion. It is common knowledge that human beings need only one kidney to live on. However, lacking one kidney is compromising one's health, because if that kidney were to fail or run into serious difficulties, the person would be essentially screwed. The person, previously completely healthy, would also need to watch his diet and regulate his lifestyle because he now only has one kidney and he can't have it fail on him. All for helping out a complete stranger?

Additionally, surgery is not completely risk-free; there is always the chance of complications, possibly serious ones, developing. After surgery, a recuperation period is needed, during which the donor cannot work. What is he supposed to survive on?

Is this donor supposed to sacrifice his health, his livelihood and potentially even his life, just for a complete stranger?

I'm no saint, and no, I am not prepared at all, under any circumstances, to do anything of this sort, and expecting me or any right-minded person to be so prepared is expecting far too damn much.

If the author of this letter is serious about his ludicrous suggestion, let him be the first. And let him also give one leg, for we can survive with just one leg, and one arm, for we can survive with just one arm, and one eye, for we can survive with just one eye, and half his liver, because we don't need our entire liver. Until he is prepared to do all that, he should not shoot his mouth off with completely ridiculous suggestions that are impossible to implement.

And what, exactly, does it once again say of the Straits Times that it publishes letters of such abysmal standards?