A half-baked "solution"

An excerpt from a News Release:

From 31 July 2019, members of public who encounter errant
Personal Mobility Device (PMD) or Power-Assisted Bicycle (PAB) users
who are speeding, riding recklessly, or seen in locations
they are not permitted in (e.g. Pedestrian Overhead Bridges)
can report the incident directly to the Land Transport Authority (LTA)
via the MyTransport.SG mobile application.

Feedback providers should, as far as possible, try to record
the identification numbers of the devices and details of their
sightings such as the date, time and location.


I'll reiterate:
"...try to record the identification numbers of the devices".

Even on LTA's Facebook page, it shows that the only way pedestrians
can capture the identification number is when the rider poses IN FRONT of them:

Fact is, we report an accident AFTER we got hit.
By then, all we can see is the BACK of the fleeing rider.

Meanwhile, in Japan...

A head scratcher

Each time LTA posts an entry on their Faceboook page
proclaiming how many errant PMD riders they have intercepted,
there will be people who respond like so:

What I don't understand is, why are they praising LTA
(and why there are others who THUMBS UP those praises)?

It was LTA which allowed PMDs on walkways in the first place,
which led to...

How could you praise someone who puts your life at risk?

The only "Good Job" LTA has done is not allowing
shared e-scooters on public land. Yet.

It is already a struggle to contain the current PMD mayhem.
To open the shared e-scooter floodgates would be an unwise move.

(Note: I have nothing against PMDs. But I have major issues
with errant riders. I was nearly hit by a Grabfood delivery guy
speeding on his e-scooter on July 13, 2019.)

It's no crime. Or is it?

Residents who report the antics of a nuisance neighbour
to the police are always left helpless.

This is because according to the police,
intentional harassment, noise pollution and mischief
are non-arrestable offences.

I guess it all lies with the intent:
One is mischief, the other is a threat.

But then again, what if the loanshark claims that
his is also an act of mischief?