Thursday 26 March 2015

[Straits Times] My point

Loophole lets drivers escape accident liability

ON THE afternoon of Chinese New Year Eve, I was driving along the Ayer Rajah Expressway near Clementi when a driver rammed into the left side of my car from behind.

No one was hurt and the entire event was captured by my in-car camera.

My car insurer, NTUC Income, advised me to file a third-party claim report, which I did on the second day of Chinese New Year. I proceeded to ask my workshop to do a third-party insurance claim to have my car repaired.

Three weeks passed but my workshop could not proceed with the repair as the other insurer, AXA, had yet to accept the claim. AXA's reason was that the third party had yet to file an accident report.

Can a driver evade liability by merely not filing an accident report? If so, there is a serious loophole in car insurance here.

What other avenues are open to drivers like me?

Choy Zin Shee





Polyclinic bill higher than GPs'

RECENTLY, I was notified by the Traffic Police that I had to undergo a medical examination before my 65th birthday, in order to validate my driving licence.

I found that the medical check-up would cost $30.80 at a polyclinic, but just $20 and $26 at two of my family doctors.

Why are polyclinic charges so much higher than those at a private clinic?

Anthony Ng Seet Boo





Why charge for simple eye tests offered free elsewhere?

I SOUGHT consultation with eye doctors at Tan Tock Seng Hospital (TTSH) and managed to get a referral to seek a second opinion from the Singapore National Eye Centre (SNEC).

At the SNEC, I noticed a $10 fee was imposed (before subsidy) for pre-consultation evaluation tests - a visual acuity test using an eye chart and measurement of intraocular pressure.

TTSH does not charge for these simple tests, which are also rendered free by some optical shops that have ocular tonometry devices.

A friend of mine had an eye consultation at National University Hospital, and no fee was charged for these simple tests, so why does SNEC impose a charge for them?

Lee Soh Hong (Miss)





Extend platforms to accommodate longer trains

OVERCROWDING is the main reason molestation can take place in trains ("Women-only cabins not practical in Singapore"; March 12).

When the MRT system started about 25 years ago, there were only two lines - North-South and East-West. But now, there are many more lines, with even more to come, more trains and higher ridership.

The current six-car trains can carry up to only 1,200 passengers. Eight-car ones can carry up to 1,600 passengers.

Upgrading to these longer trains can help ease overcrowding. The existing platforms should also be extended to accommodate these longer trains.

When I was in Bangkok in 2006, I saw that their train platforms were already longer than the length of their trains. Clearly, this demonstrates planning for the future to accommodate more commuters.

Singapore should do the same and plan ahead and upgrade infrastructure to ease overcrowding.

Ong Hwee Eng