SBS Transit: She claws driver till he BLEEDS .

[westwest2]

Yah then I'll be penalized for paying cash (pay more). And if I'm a student and they **** up, I'll have to pay adult fare + cash, paying even more too.

whats wrong with paying adult fare?

 

[Godzilla Invades]

SBS/TL is a commercial entity, not a government body. The conferring of authority is only as good as the contract. The popular misconception is that once it is written on some paper/notice or captured in some T&C, you are automatically have no choice but to comply. If everyone thinks that way, there is no need for civil suits in courts anymore. Everyone can just enforce their contractual rights unilaterally.



If you were referring to me (which I would appreciate a direct reference rather than "someone" for easier clarification), I just like to clarify that I am not doubting the authority conferred by TransitLink TO their bus captains. I am raising a possibility that a customer has an option to refuse to allow confiscation if indeed they think they are right to do so. See the analogy on defective goods and A & B above. If you are not referring to me, then just ignore this.

If at the end of the day, you still think SBS has the right to confiscate your card and you do not wish to explore the option of not allow confiscation when you know you are right, thats your choice. I am merely highlighting an additional option to those who may want to consider using it, rather than the more violent alternatives of wrestling with the bus captain or to fight with the bus captain.

There is a clear difference between a statutory right (e.g. something prescribed by statute such that if you do or don't do something, you are liable criminally) and a contractual right (where enforcement of such rights need to be done by the courts, and not unilaterally).

P.S. All of the above is merely my personal point of view for the purposes of discussion and sharing in this thread only - feel free to rebutt with substantive arguments or discussions if you have an alternative viewpoint.

If the bus captain refuse you let you off, then wait and be patience about it. You do not need to be so hot headed and start abusing the bus driver who is patience enough not to cause any accident. We know you know the LAW very well and is well versed with what you are saying.

From a layman's point, I would like to ask ask you a very simple question. Taking into consideration she has the right to sue him for confiscating her card......

"Does the woman (the abuser)have the right to taunt/abuse/attack/scratch the victim (The Bus Captain) when the bus is moving with passengers lives is at stake? Does she?

I am pretty sure she still have the opportunity to get off the bus if she wants to right? She can then lodge her complain to the relevent authorities because her card was confiscated without her consent. She really do not need to attack the bus driver at all right? Plus on top of that, the bus captain did not lay his hand on her nor he abuse her with any words which might have provoke her to attack the bus driver.

I hope you can explain to most of us as looking at the current situation, do you think the attacker is still innocent (innocent until proven guilty). What would you do if you are the victim (the bus driver) who suddenly was attack by a woman because she thinks you are robbing her rights?

 

[westwest2]

If the bus captain refuse you let you off, then wait and be patience about it. You do not need to be so hot headed and start abusing the bus driver who is patience enough not to cause any accident. We know you know the LAW very well and is well versed with what you are saying.

From a layman's point, I would like to ask ask you a very simple question. Taking into consideration she has the right to sue him for confiscating her card......

"Does the woman (the abuser)have the right to taunt/abuse/attack/scratch the victim (The Bus Captain) when the bus is moving with passengers lives is at stake? Does she?

I am pretty sure she still have the opportunity to get off the bus if she wants to right? She can then lodge her complain to the relevent authorities because her card was confiscated without her consent. She really do not need to attack the bus driver at all right? Plus on top of that, the bus captain did not lay his hand on her nor he abuse her with any words which might have provoke her to attack the bus driver.

I hope you can explain to most of us as looking at the current situation, do you think the attacker is still innocent (innocent until proven guilty). What would you do if you are the victim (the bus driver) who suddenly was attack by a woman because she thinks you are robbing her rights?

can you say it in a legal point of view?

 

[Godzilla Invades]

can you say it in a legal point of view?

I wish I could say it in a legal point of view but that is my question to vince since he knows legal rights better than I am. So I would love to know where we stand if anyone do attack us if we are bus drivers.

 

[yqt]

Just read through all the pages.

Just to share my views

1) the girl is wrong in her reaction. She needs to be taught a lesson.
2) the bus driver is right not to react to her attacks
3) the owner of the ez link card is EZLink, not the holder of the card. This is a contractual agreedment both parties entered into when you purchase the card from them.
4) the agent/bus driver have a contractual right to retain the card.
5) the card holder have a contractual obligation to return the card upon request.
6) you can chose not to return the card and the bus driver don't have the statutory right to demand that you return the card.
7) if you chose not to return the card, EZLink have to go to court just to recover the card from you. But they may sue you for breaking a contractual agreedment.
8) except the police, no one have the statutory right to demand you hand over anything.
9) If you chose not to return the card and wants to get down from the bus, the bus driver have to allow you to do so. Failling to do so will put himself and the bus operator at risk of wrongful confinement as, up till that point, it's just his suspicion that you have done something wrong but it's not proven yet.
10) the right to restrain or confine is a statutory right given to the police. Those with contractual rights, don't have the right to restrain or confine. If the do restrain or confine, they better be sure they can prove to a judge that they have solid grounds to restrain or confine ie the 6 points in post #111.

No one here is saying that the girl is right.

What vince123123 is trying to state here is the contractual rights of EZLink, which they have, and the statutory right which they don't have, but is trying to give the general impression to the public that they have, in his opinion.

I think it's good to have a healty debate on this and we can try to gain some different prospective.

What we chose to do is our decision but we should try to keep ourself informed of possible differing opinions and not be lead blindly by what we read in the press. Of course, just like reading the papers, we need to exercise our own judgement with what we read here as well.

 

[westwest2]

Just read through all the pages.

Just to share my views

1) the girl is wrong in her reaction. She needs to be taught a lesson.
2) the bus driver is right not to react to her attacks
3) the owner of the ez link card is EZLink, not the holder of the card. This is a contractual agreedment both parties entered into when you purchase the card from them.
4) the agent/bus driver have a contractual right to retain the card.
5) the card holder have a contractual obligation to return the card upon request.
6) you can chose not to return the card and the bus driver don't have the statutory right to demand that you return the card.
7) if you chose not to return the card, EZLink have to go to court just to recover the card from you. But the can sue you for breaking a contractual agreedment.
8) except the police, no one have the statutory right to demand you hand over anything.
9) If you chose not to return the card and wants to get down from the bus, the bus driver have to allow you to do so. Failling to do so will put himself and the bus operator at risk of wrongful confinement as up till that point, it's just his suspicion that you have done something wrong but it's not proven yet.
10) the right to restrain or confinr is a statutory right given to the police. Those with contractual rights, don't have the right to restrain or confine. If the do restrain or confine, they better be sure they can prove to a judge that they have solid grounds to restrain or confine ie the 6 points in post #111.

No one here is saying that the girl is right.

What vince123123 is trying to state here is the contractual rights of EZLink, which they have, and the statutory right which they don't have, but is trying to give the general impression to the public that they have, in his opinion.

I think it's good to have a healty debate on this and we can try to gain some different prospective.

What we chose to do is our decision but we should try to keep ourself inform of possible differing opinions and not be lead blindly by what we read in the press. Of course, just like reading the papers, we need to exercise our own judgement with what we read here as well.

good one there...

 

[yqt]

Just something which came to mind:

1) The bus driver ask for her card.
She gave it to him, willingly ( he did not force it out of her hand ).
When he said he need to retain the card and she refuse, must he return her the card?
The bus driver don't have the statutory right to demand she return the card and he did not do that. She gave him the card, upon request.
Once the card is in his hands, does he need to return it to her when she ask for it? The card is after all the property of EZLink and he's an agent of EZLink who have a contractual right to hold on to it, a right she agreed to when she bought the card.

2) Have the tables been turn once she hand over the card to the bus driver? Turned in a sense that the bus driver now have a contractual right not return the card to her and she don't have a statutory right to demand it back. After all, she's not the owner of the card and whatever rights she have to the card is contractual and is govened by the contract, which in turn favours EZLink.

Anyone care to comment?

 

[Godzilla Invades]

Just read through all the pages.

Just to share my views

1) the girl is wrong in her reaction. She needs to be taught a lesson.
2) the bus driver is right not to react to her attacks
3) the owner of the ez link card is EZLink, not the holder of the card. This is a contractual agreedment both parties entered into when you purchase the card from them.
4) the agent/bus driver have a contractual right to retain the card.
5) the card holder have a contractual obligation to return the card upon request.
6) you can chose not to return the card and the bus driver don't have the statutory right to demand that you return the card.
7) if you chose not to return the card, EZLink have to go to court just to recover the card from you. But they may sue you for breaking a contractual agreedment.
8) except the police, no one have the statutory right to demand you hand over anything.
9) If you chose not to return the card and wants to get down from the bus, the bus driver have to allow you to do so. Failling to do so will put himself and the bus operator at risk of wrongful confinement as, up till that point, it's just his suspicion that you have done something wrong but it's not proven yet.
10) the right to restrain or confine is a statutory right given to the police. Those with contractual rights, don't have the right to restrain or confine. If the do restrain or confine, they better be sure they can prove to a judge that they have solid grounds to restrain or confine ie the 6 points in post #111.

No one here is saying that the girl is right.

What vince123123 is trying to state here is the contractual rights of EZLink, which they have, and the statutory right which they don't have, but is trying to give the general impression to the public that they have, in his opinion.

I think it's good to have a healty debate on this and we can try to gain some different prospective.

What we chose to do is our decision but we should try to keep ourself informed of possible differing opinions and not be lead blindly by what we read in the press. Of course, just like reading the papers, we need to exercise our own judgement with what we read here as well.

That is what I am getting at. What is vince123123 trying to tell us? Most of us are common people who knows nuts about Civil Rights and so on. While it is nice of him to share with us about Civil Rights Law but he does not make it clear enough for us to understand what he is trying to tell us.

 

[westwest2]

That is what I am getting at. What is vince123123 trying to tell us? Most of us are common people who knows nuts about Civil Rights and so on. While it is nice of him to share with us about Civil Rights Law but he does not make it clear enough for us to understand what he is trying to tell us.

he have been very clear in his words already...his words are easily understandable...you are not reading hard enough...there is always the internet if you want to know more about your civil laws...the ans is all there...

 

[vince123123]

If the bus captain refuse you let you off, then wait and be patience about it. You do not need to be so hot headed and start abusing the bus driver who is patience enough not to cause any accident. We know you know the LAW very well and is well versed with what you are saying.

From a layman's point, I would like to ask ask you a very simple question. Taking into consideration she has the right to sue him for confiscating her card......

"Does the woman (the abuser)have the right to taunt/abuse/attack/scratch the victim (The Bus Captain) when the bus is moving with passengers lives is at stake? Does she?

I am pretty sure she still have the opportunity to get off the bus if she wants to right? She can then lodge her complain to the relevent authorities because her card was confiscated without her consent. She really do not need to attack the bus driver at all right? Plus on top of that, the bus captain did not lay his hand on her nor he abuse her with any words which might have provoke her to attack the bus driver.

I hope you can explain to most of us as looking at the current situation, do you think the attacker is still innocent (innocent until proven guilty). What would you do if you are the victim (the bus driver) who suddenly was attack by a woman because she thinks you are robbing her rights?

Godzilla, I think you have misinterpreted what I was trying to say, and in the process, tried to insert some personal snipes at me.

That said, I'll read it as just a misunderstanding and reiterate my position again.

I have not, and am not saying that the girl is correct. I believe I said in an earlier post that my comments are of general application when customers and bus drivers get into disputes over Ez Link Card and are not in response to the specific incident of the most recent matter.

I do not believe the girl is right, and in trying to enforce her own rights, committed criminal offences at the same time - just as in the same way, the bus driver, may commit criminal offences when he tries to enforce contractual rights on behalf of his employer.

If I am in the right, I wont want to subject myself to letting my card be confiscated, so that I can bear all the trouble of complaining and getting my card back. At the end of the day, why should I bear the burden for someone else's mistake and why should I go to the time and effort to help someone else enforce his own rights? If you wish to adopt this approach, it is certainly your prerogative.

I think you should read what yqt has said (quoted below) - it provides a good summary of what I am trying to say, as well as the approach and reason why I am sharing my point of view (last paragraphs). I only regret that I may not have said it in such a clear fashion as he did given that I was trying to be comprehensive and providing substantive discussion.

Just read through all the pages.

Just to share my views

1) the girl is wrong in her reaction. She needs to be taught a lesson.
2) the bus driver is right not to react to her attacks
3) the owner of the ez link card is EZLink, not the holder of the card. This is a contractual agreedment both parties entered into when you purchase the card from them.
4) the agent/bus driver have a contractual right to retain the card.
5) the card holder have a contractual obligation to return the card upon request.
6) you can chose not to return the card and the bus driver don't have the statutory right to demand that you return the card.
7) if you chose not to return the card, EZLink have to go to court just to recover the card from you. But they may sue you for breaking a contractual agreedment.
8) except the police, no one have the statutory right to demand you hand over anything.
9) If you chose not to return the card and wants to get down from the bus, the bus driver have to allow you to do so. Failling to do so will put himself and the bus operator at risk of wrongful confinement as, up till that point, it's just his suspicion that you have done something wrong but it's not proven yet.
10) the right to restrain or confine is a statutory right given to the police. Those with contractual rights, don't have the right to restrain or confine. If the do restrain or confine, they better be sure they can prove to a judge that they have solid grounds to restrain or confine ie the 6 points in post #111.

No one here is saying that the girl is right.

What vince123123 is trying to state here is the contractual rights of EZLink, which they have, and the statutory right which they don't have, but is trying to give the general impression to the public that they have, in his opinion.

I think it's good to have a healty debate on this and we can try to gain some different prospective.

What we chose to do is our decision but we should try to keep ourself informed of possible differing opinions and not be lead blindly by what we read in the press. Of course, just like reading the papers, we need to exercise our own judgement with what we read here as well .

Just something which came to mind:

1) The bus driver ask for her card.
She gave it to him, willingly ( he did not force it out of her hand ).
When he said he need to retain the card and she refuse, must he return her the card?
The bus driver don't have the statutory right to demand she return the card and he did not do that. She gave him the card, upon request.
Once the card is in his hands, does he need to return it to her when she ask for it? The card is after all the property of EZLink and he's an agent of EZLink who have a contractual right to hold on to it, a right she agreed to when she bought the card.

2) Have the tables been turn once she hand over the card to the bus driver? Turned in a sense that the bus driver now have a contractual right not return the card to her and she don't have a statutory right to demand it back. After all, she's not the owner of the card and whatever rights she have to the card is contractual and is govened by the contract, which in turn favours EZLink.

Anyone care to comment?

YQT - I have contemplated the exact situation you have brought up when writing my POV, but as you may have noticed, I have not commented on this situation because it is indeed more complicated that the first situation (where the customer has not yet handed over the card). Now that you have specifically brought it up, I'll try to share what I think of it.

I am not 100% sure of the answer, but lets use an analogy as the starting point. If someone walks up to me and asks to borrow my mobile phone, and after using it, refuses to give it back to me, then he has committed a criminal offence.

However, this does not entitle me to bash him up just to get back my phone, in the same way, the customer cannot and should not resort to violence to get back the card. In the phone example, the best way would be to call the police to arrest him for the offence, and perhaps try to get some public passersby to assist in detaining him until then.

For the bus driver situation, it gets more problematic as now, you will have to explain to policemen on the ground the difference between contractual rights and statutory rights (and as we can see even in this thread, this is easily confused). It will then result in a lot of time spent and effort spent just to get things sorted out, even if ultimately you are in the right.

This problem becomes further exacerbated by the fact that by contract, the EzLink company, as you pointed out, owns the card in the first place. Now, can someone be accused of stealing something of which he is the owner for? This is again yet another complication thrown in the mix. I doubt there's any clear answer until the courts issue a decision on such a complicated affair.

In short, the best way when in doubt, and when you are sure you are not using a stolen card/fraudulent card etc, is still not to hand over your card, to prevent yourself from all these headaches and complications.

 

[yqt]

That is what I am getting at. What is vince123123 trying to tell us? Most of us are common people who knows nuts about Civil Rights and so on. While it is nice of him to share with us about Civil Rights Law but he does not make it clear enough for us to understand what he is trying to tell us.

Maybe you're reading too fast :bsmilie::bsmilie:

 

[Godzilla Invades]

Just something which came to mind:

1) The bus driver ask for her card.
She gave it to him, willingly ( he did not force it out of her hand ).
When he said he need to retain the card and she refuse, must he return her the card?
The bus driver don't have the statutory right to demand she return the card and he did not do that. She gave him the card, upon request.
Once the card is in his hands, does he need to return it to her when she ask for it? The card is after all the property of EZLink and he's an agent of EZLink who have a contractual right to hold on to it, a right she agreed to when she bought the card.

2) Have the tables been turn once she hand over the card to the bus driver? Turned in a sense that the bus driver now have a contractual right not return the card to her and she don't have a statutory right to demand it back. After all, she's not the owner of the card and whatever rights she have to the card is contractual and is govened by the contract, which in turn favours EZLink.

Anyone care to comment?

My answer will still be the same. The woman is definately wrong from the start when she started abusing the bus driver and attacking him. Just put yourself in the driver's seat. If you are the bus driver, what would you do?

 

[Godzilla Invades]

Maybe you're reading too fast :bsmilie::bsmilie:

Yeah so fast until I do not understand. Maybe I am just one of those slow ones......to fully understand his words:sweat:

 

[vince123123]

Yes he is indeed reading too fast, even when I bolded and highlighted your text, in red and underlined no less....still he's going on and on about the woman and the attack....

Maybe you're reading too fast :bsmilie::bsmilie:

My answer will still be the same. The woman is definately wrong from the start when she started abusing the bus driver and attacking him. Just put yourself in the driver's seat. If you are the bus driver, what would you do?

Godizlla, please read my post at #130 and YQt's post at 125 again and see if you still dont' undersatnd what we are trying to say. We did not say that the woman is right.

 

[Godzilla Invades]

Yes he is indeed reading too fast, even when I bolded and highlighted your text, in red and underlined no less....still he's going on and on about the woman and the attack....





Godizlla, please read my post at #130 and YQt's post at 125 again and see if you still dont' undersatnd what we are trying to say. We did not say that the woman is right.

Yeah call me sillly but what were you trying to tell us on your post no.2?

 

[microcosm]

what can she be sued for?

Dunno leh... maybe like what they do in SPCA... animals that bites or claws (attacks humans) out of aggression should be put to sleep or undergo hormonal treatment. She sure reminds me of an aggressive cat out of control. She should be neutered too, bad genes should not be allowed to reproduce...

Maybe for the sake of CS members, before she attacks another bus driver, we should get her made up (some gothic make up) and nice costume (like Catwoman) and then organise a TFCD for her. That at least would make a better discussion topic here in CS. (ok, I am getting out of control here... ROFL).

But seriously...

For whatever that is worth... I believe 上梁不正下梁歪, her parents take part of the blame for having a daughter that has no 家教. Children do not grow up by simply given material needs, they need more love and family time together. This is a social problem that parents need to look into to prevent it happening to our children.

 

[Godzilla Invades]

Godzilla, I think you have misinterpreted what I was trying to say, and in the process, tried to insert some personal snipes at me.

That said, I'll read it as just a misunderstanding and reiterate my position again.

I have not, and am not saying that the girl is correct. I believe I said in an earlier post that my comments are of general application when customers and bus drivers get into disputes over Ez Link Card and are not in response to the specific incident of the most recent matter.

I do not believe the girl is right, and in trying to enforce her own rights, committed criminal offences at the same time - just as in the same way, the bus driver, may commit criminal offences when he tries to enforce contractual rights on behalf of his employer.

If I am in the right, I wont want to subject myself to letting my card be confiscated, so that I can bear all the trouble of complaining and getting my card back. At the end of the day, why should I bear the burden for someone else's mistake and why should I go to the time and effort to help someone else enforce his own rights? If you wish to adopt this approach, it is certainly your prerogative.

I think you should read what yqt has said (quoted below) - it provides a good summary of what I am trying to say, as well as the approach and reason why I am sharing my point of view (last paragraphs). I only regret that I may not have said it in such a clear fashion as he did given that I was trying to be comprehensive and providing substantive discussion.






YQT - I have contemplated the exact situation you have brought up when writing my POV, but as you may have noticed, I have not commented on this situation because it is indeed more complicated that the first situation (where the customer has not yet handed over the card). Now that you have specifically brought it up, I'll try to share what I think of it.

I am not 100% sure of the answer, but lets use an analogy as the starting point. If someone walks up to me and asks to borrow my mobile phone, and after using it, refuses to give it back to me, then he has committed a criminal offence.

However, this does not entitle me to bash him up just to get back my phone, in the same way, the customer cannot and should not resort to violence to get back the card. In the phone example, the best way would be to call the police to arrest him for the offence, and perhaps try to get some public passersby to assist in detaining him until then.

For the bus driver situation, it gets more problematic as now, you will have to explain to policemen on the ground the difference between contractual rights and statutory rights (and as we can see even in this thread, this is easily confused). It will then result in a lot of time spent and effort spent just to get things sorted out, even if ultimately you are in the right.

This problem becomes further exacerbated by the fact that by contract, the EzLink company, as you pointed out, owns the card in the first place. Now, can someone be accused of stealing something of which he is the owner for? This is again yet another complication thrown in the mix. I doubt there's any clear answer until the courts issue a decision on such a complicated affair.

In short, the best way when in doubt, and when you are sure you are not using a stolen card/fraudulent card etc, is still not to hand over your card, to prevent yourself from all these headaches and complications.

Your this post seems to be much more clear cut (comparable to post no.2) I can understand where you stand from your point of view as a person who knows more about law than some of us here.

Thanks for the enlightenment.:thumbsup:

 

[Godzilla Invades]

Dunno leh... maybe like what they do in SPCA... animals that bites or claws (attacks humans) out of aggression should be put to sleep or undergo hormonal treatment. She sure reminds me of an aggressive cat out of control. She should be neutered too, bad genes should not be allowed to reproduce...

Maybe for the sake of CS members, before she attacks another bus driver, we should get her made up (some gothic make up) and nice costume (like Catwoman) and then organise a TFCD for her. That at least would make a better discussion topic here in CS. (ok, I am getting out of control here... ROFL).

But seriously...

For whatever that is worth... I believe 上梁不正下梁歪, her parents take part of the blame for having a daughter that has no 家教. Children do not grow up by simply given material needs, they need more love and family time together. This is a social problem that parents need to look into to prevent it happening to our children.

Yeah make sure you organize well hor.:sticktong

 

[microcosm]

Yes he is indeed reading too fast, even when I bolded and highlighted your text, in red and underlined no less....still he's going on and on about the woman and the attack....





Godizlla, please read my post at #130 and YQt's post at 125 again and see if you still dont' undersatnd what we are trying to say. We did not say that the woman is right.

Yeah call me sillly but what were you trying to tell us on your post no.2?

Interesting too, to see how legal experts and socialogists have ignored this thread and making it into yet another flame thread... We should start another forum for Kopitiam call ClubFLAME. It would suit the needs of the folks in here better, don't you think? :bsmilie:

 

[microcosm]

Yeah make sure you organize well hor.:sticktong

Thank you, I am doing pretty fine.

I will personally put my son to sleep if he does go out of line... LOL.