Comment by Ryanmf | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Ryanmf | Hacker News Reader

Given Singapore's reputation of exacting harsh penalties for what many would consider minor offenses, I expected to find that performing an illegal U-Turn there would result in some outrageous fine or even jail time, which would account for the strict adherence to the rule by their citizens. However, an illegal U-Turn in Singapore will cost you $70 SGD, or approximately $50 USD. [1]

In contrast, here in California there are a variety of fines for U-Turns, depending on context, but the most common ("at Controlled Intersection," "in Business District," "in Residential District," "Near Fire Station," "on Highway Without Unobstructed View") will all run you over $200, and over $250 if you intend to go to traffic school. [2]

Of course, this doesn't address the myriad other "offenses" in Singapore which may result in steep fines, jail time, caning, or worse, and how those collectively influence the public's adherence to the law. But a little unexpected and interesting nonetheless.

[1] http://www.singapore-drivers.com/index.php?option=com_conten... (This same list of fines is posted verbatim on a number of other sites, but I couldn't find a more official source. This article on the Singapore Police Force site has some interesting info, but nothing specific about fines for U-Turns: http://driving-in-singapore.spf.gov.sg/services/Driving_in_S...)

[2] California Uniform Bail and Penalty Schedules, January 2010 edition. http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/reference/documents/2010_jcbail...., P. 33.

Not nearly as many Singaporeans drive, though, and a pretty substantial proportion of the cars on the street are taxis. So, given that taxi drivers are generally good drivers but prone to the occasional stunt to get a passenger somewhere on time, this could just be pragmatic, where the government isn't interested in punishing the taxi drivers that keep the city running smoothly.

Also, Singaporeans are better trained than Californians, so less of a deterrent is needed.

And, U.S. traffic laws and fines seem decidedly optimized for raising money for the local city government, rather than the safety or convenience of drivers or pedestrians, whereas Singapore has a more monolithic and paternalistic government which can raise the money it needs through other means.

That all seems sensible to me. Although having established that:

1. the penalty for performing an illegal u-turn in Singapore isn't as harsh as penalties for the same act in America, and perhaps other western nations as well,

2. that penalty seems especially lenient in comparison to laws in Singapore that punish more severely behavior that many Westerners would have trouble considering a crime at all (i.e. chewing gum in public or carrying a durian on the metro),

3. regardless of the penalty, the average Singaporean is unlikely to be affected by the law, as they are more inclined to ride in taxis or other forms of public transportation,

this analogy doesn't seem very apt. Is it just the cute acronym that caused this expression to stick? Or the imagery of making a u-turn being representative of rebelling against the "path" as prescribed by authority figures? Maybe Sim Wong Hoo is just popular and knows how to be catchy?

There are a great many draconian laws in Singapore which cause its citizens to be unwilling to act without governmental approval. This certainly has some endemic effect on their societal norms as well. I would argue that this has less to do with Singaporeans being risk-averse and more to do with the fact that on the other side of many of those laws a government official is waiting to beat them with a stick. Except, of course, in the case of illegal u-turns.

I will admit that having not read Chaotic Thoughts from the Old Millenium I cannot say whether or not the analogy is more clearly defined and/or convincing in the original text.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com