Singapore turbulent flight: Aussie survivor’s desperate plea

[MangoKorat]

2 hours ago, Trip Hop said:

 

You can quote all you like from solicitors' websites as they are just touting for business and will take on any case providing someone else is picking up the bill.  The reality is far from this though and if you do not agree, excepting the recent incidents where doors have blown off etc,  simply quote me say 5 incidents in the last 10 years whereby passengers have successfully sued an airline for injuries that have occurred on board.  Now considering the amount of flights worldwide per day, the subsequent probability of accidents and the amount of information that is stored on the web, this should not be too much of a task if everything is as you say?

 

The bottom line contrary to your beliefs is that an airline will fight tooth and nail incurring financial cost far in excess of settling any individual claim quite simply because if it admits liability and precedence is set, it will open the flood gates to future claims and cost them far more in the long run.  Even if someone did win and set precedence, don't be surprised if the airlines as a collective appealed the ruling due to it opening up the possibility of action against all of them,  As previously said, quote me 5 incidents where people have successfully sued?

Jeez, you will simply say anything - even when proven wrong.

 

That 'solicitors website' contains text lifted directly from the convention - such as this which is also on the Airlines Trade Body, IATA's website:

 

Liability of the Carrier and Extent of Compensation for Damage
Article 17 — Death and Injury of Passengers — Damage to Baggage
1. The carrier is liable for damage sustained in case of death or bodily injury of a passenger upon
condition only that the accident which caused the death or injury took place on board the aircraft or
in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking.

 

THAT IS THE ENTIRE CONDITION AS PER THE CONVENTION

 

https://www.iata.org/contentassets/fb1137ff561a4819a2d38f3db7308758/mc99-full-text.pdf

 

And this from the webpage itself:

 

The Montreal Convention 1999 (MC99) establishes airline liability in the case of death or injury to passengers, as well as in cases of delay, damage or loss of baggage and cargo. It unifies all of the different international treaty regimes covering airline liability that had developed haphazardly since 1929. MC99 is designed to be a single, universal treaty to govern airline liability around the world.

 

https://www.iata.org/en/programs/passenger/mc99/

 

If you think that I have nothing better to do than seek out details of compensation payments for you to come back and argue with that - you are fooling yourself. Been there, done that with several AN members in the past - I have more to do with my life.  I stand by all that I've said.

 

I have quoted from the actual rules whereas you make statements that allude to be from the rules then conveniently forget that when its shown that the rules state the opposite. Remember you said that the Montreal Convention was written in such a way that a claimant would have to 'undoubtably prove negligence' - as I have shown you, the actual convention shows that negligence DOES NOT have to be proved. Note Article 17 section 1 which very concisely deals with that and establishes liability in one simple paragraph.

 

I'm happy that the rules are in place and that passengers are covered by both the Montreal Treaty and individual country laws. I am also happy that eventually, every single passenger on the Singapore Airline's flight will receive full and adequate compensation.  I would not be at all surprised if Singapore releases a statement shortly to the effect that they will cover the hospital bills in Bangok.

 

I will say this though - in many cases passengers haven't had to sue.  Major crashes are often taken over by a country's authorities who either order compensation to be be paid or negotiate it with the airline on behalf of passengers.

 

Why don't you do the search - starting with Boeing and the Lion Air 737 Max that crashed (and yes, I'm aware that Boeing haven't finished paying yet).

 

Similar with the Boeing/Ethiopian Airlines 737 max crash.

 

Boeing are about to find themselves back in court, in part for failing to fully complete the compensation they previously agreed to.

 

Just waiting for you to come back and say 'thought so' in reply to my refusal to waste my time seeking out details of settlements. 

[MangoKorat]

Just remember this - the Singapore Airlines incident relates to just one death and several injuries - the amount of compensation due will be relatively small.

 

Singapore Airlines have a superb reputation - a failure to adequately compensate victims would probably cost them far more in terms of that reputation than it would to settle.

[MangoKorat]

It never fails to amaze me that some members here think they know more than legal experts in the field - a few quotes from a Daily Mail Report:

 

'Passengers injured when extreme turbulence hit a Singapore Airlines flight on Tuesday could receive huge compensation payouts of US$150,000 due to an international treaty.

A British grandfather died and 71 were treated for injuries after the flight from London Heathrow to Singapore was shaken by clear air turbulence and forced to make an emergency landing in Bangkok.

Now lawyers have said that even if the carrier is not found to have been negligent, those with injury claims could be in line for substantial sums of money.'

'Under the Montreal Convention, if injured passengers file a lawsuit for an injury they were not to blame for, the airline cannot contest damages up to around $150,000 under 'strict liability'.

But the figure is often far higher depending on financial losses and where the claim is being made from, and is often difficult for airline firms to avoid.'

'If the injured party or the family of the deceased suffer losses greater than [$150,000], the airline is only able to avoid paying for the entire compensation if they can prove the accident was not caused by their negligence or was caused by a third party,' according to law firm Irwin Mitchell.

'However, proving this can be very difficult for the airline so larger compensation awards are common.'

California attorney Mike Danko, who represents passengers, said the airline could try to limit their liability by showing the passenger bore some of the fault for the injury, such as by ignoring warnings to wear a seat belt.

The size of damages often comes down to the country where the case is filed and how the legal system assesses the amount of compensation.

'First and foremost what is the jurisdiction where you can bring a claim and how do they value injury claims,' said Daniel Rose, a New York attorney with Kreindler & Kreindler, which represents passengers.

For example, US juries have awarded passengers more than $1 million for the emotional trauma of severe turbulence, while many courts in other countries award far less if anything for similar emotional distress.

The Montreal Convention sets out various rules for determining where a claim can be brought, which can depend on the destination, where the ticket was purchased and the residence of the passenger.'

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13447485/Injured-Singapore-Airlines-passengers-compensation-international-convention-firm-negligent-deadly-turbulence-flight-experts.html

Edited May 24 by MangoKorat

[Lorry]

2 hours ago, terryofcrete said:

And one on the baby changing board and a net on the ceiling over the aisles to catch you when you hit the roof to stop you falling back down to the floor, which will be made of memory foam ..of course !

2 airbags for every passenger: one for falling up (hitting the ceiling), one for falling down again

 

[tandor]

15 hours ago, bob smith said:

the horrible cultural trait of saving face rearing it's ugly head once again...

 

absolutely disgraceful behavior.

 

bob.

the hospital have protocols and they were followed..patient medical care first..i applaud them.

[it is what it is]

16 hours ago, PJ71 said:

I'd be surprised if there's compensation, it's recommended on each flight to keep your seatbelt on once seat, it's mentioned in the PA.

 

Harsh as this may sound, they 'chose' not to.

 

It appears people that did have their seatbelts on received much less minor injuries.

 

i get it that some passengers may be out of their seat going to the toilet, and the staff were working, but it's common knowledge that turbulence can occur at anytime and unexpectedly, that's why passengers are always recommended to wear seat belts all the time - it's not difficult or uncomfortable and very sensible. harsh as it sounds, anyone ignoring this excellent practical advice is surely guilty of contributory negligence.

[BigStar]

12 hours ago, KannikaP said:

They're not all Ladies these days. 

 

You can worry more about the guys if that's your thing.

[bob smith]

10 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Verily, if there ever existed a remark that cast a dazzling spotlight upon the sheer paucity of a poster's intellectual prowess, this comment must assuredly be it....   

 

stop trying to act smart, richard.

 

it just makes you look daft!

 

bob.

[Darksidedude]

22 hours ago, bob smith said:

sounds like hell.

 

I hope all those who were injured on board are fully compensated by the airline.

 

Flying in 2024 isn't as safe as it used to be!

 

bob.

nothing to do with safe flying some turbulence cannot be detected CAT for one, people need to always have their seat belts on when seated that's it

[sidneybear]

21 hours ago, PJ71 said:

I'd be surprised if there's compensation, it's recommended on each flight to keep your seatbelt on once seat, it's mentioned in the PA.

 

Harsh as this may sound, they 'chose' not to.

 

It appears people that did have their seatbelts on received much less minor injuries.

True. Seatbelts would have reduced the chance of injury. 

 

I'm not sure why people here believe that this is the fault of Singapore Airlines. Turbulence happens as a risk of flying. Airlines tell us to wear seatbelts to reduce the risk of injury from severe turbulence. 

[PJ71]

3 hours ago, bob smith said:

stop trying to act smart, richard.

 

it just makes you look daft!

 

bob.

That's what he does and like you say, often looks like a fool.

 

Thus, he should stop doing it.

[TroubleandGrumpy]

16 hours ago, dirtybirty said:

Always if I can in cattle class I will lie across seats and sleep but ALWAYS have the middle seat belt around me outside blanket so visible to cabin crew 

Smart thinking that - good idea.

[TroubleandGrumpy]

16 hours ago, willr said:

Why should laying down across the seats be banned,I have been flying to and from work and home, international,I purchase extra seats so I can lay down and sleep after nightshift for 6 hour flight, And I can still have my seat belt on.

As I said -  Many people take them off and lay down across other seats - that should be banned too.   

If you can do that while keeping the seatbelt on, then OK by me - but most I see take them off and leave them off - including the wife who I make put it back on. I wont have that problem now 🙂 

[Trip Hop]

14 hours ago, MangoKorat said:

Jeez, you will simply say anything - even when proven wrong.

 

That 'solicitors website' contains text lifted directly from the convention - such as this which is also on the Airlines Trade Body, IATA's website:

 

Liability of the Carrier and Extent of Compensation for Damage
Article 17 — Death and Injury of Passengers — Damage to Baggage
1. The carrier is liable for damage sustained in case of death or bodily injury of a passenger upon
condition only that the accident which caused the death or injury took place on board the aircraft or
in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking.

 

THAT IS THE ENTIRE CONDITION AS PER THE CONVENTION

 

https://www.iata.org/contentassets/fb1137ff561a4819a2d38f3db7308758/mc99-full-text.pdf

 

And this from the webpage itself:

 

The Montreal Convention 1999 (MC99) establishes airline liability in the case of death or injury to passengers, as well as in cases of delay, damage or loss of baggage and cargo. It unifies all of the different international treaty regimes covering airline liability that had developed haphazardly since 1929. MC99 is designed to be a single, universal treaty to govern airline liability around the world.

 

https://www.iata.org/en/programs/passenger/mc99/

 

If you think that I have nothing better to do than seek out details of compensation payments for you to come back and argue with that - you are fooling yourself. Been there, done that with several AN members in the past - I have more to do with my life.  I stand by all that I've said.

 

I have quoted from the actual rules whereas you make statements that allude to be from the rules then conveniently forget that when its shown that the rules state the opposite. Remember you said that the Montreal Convention was written in such a way that a claimant would have to 'undoubtably prove negligence' - as I have shown you, the actual convention shows that negligence DOES NOT have to be proved. Note Article 17 section 1 which very concisely deals with that and establishes liability in one simple paragraph.

 

I'm happy that the rules are in place and that passengers are covered by both the Montreal Treaty and individual country laws. I am also happy that eventually, every single passenger on the Singapore Airline's flight will receive full and adequate compensation.  I would not be at all surprised if Singapore releases a statement shortly to the effect that they will cover the hospital bills in Bangok.

 

I will say this though - in many cases passengers haven't had to sue.  Major crashes are often taken over by a country's authorities who either order compensation to be be paid or negotiate it with the airline on behalf of passengers.

 

Why don't you do the search - starting with Boeing and the Lion Air 737 Max that crashed (and yes, I'm aware that Boeing haven't finished paying yet).

 

Similar with the Boeing/Ethiopian Airlines 737 max crash.

 

Boeing are about to find themselves back in court, in part for failing to fully complete the compensation they previously agreed to.

 

Just waiting for you to come back and say 'thought so' in reply to my refusal to waste my time seeking out details of settlements. 

 

But you have the time to search out details of the Montreal Convention and solicitors who quote the same whilst touting for business?

 

Since when  has Boeing been an airline?  You're talking about manufacturing faults here which are a totally different issue.

 

It appears that rather than admit that things might not be as straight forward as you claim, you're trying to divert away from my simple request for you to substantiate the same?

 

Even out of court settlements make the news, even though the exact details do not.

[DrPhibes]

On 5/24/2024 at 12:55 PM, KannikaP said:

Air turbulence has been here since God created the Heavens and the Earth.

So Act of God = no insurance payout. 

Global warming, man made or not, is going to create more unpredictable violent weather as time goes by.  The heat engine of the planet is ratcheting up.

[KannikaP]

2 minutes ago, DrPhibes said:

Global warming, man made or not, is going to create more unpredictable violent weather as time goes by.  The heat engine of the planet is ratcheting up.

Maybe it is in 'HIS' plan to get rid of us all and start again. 

[Senior Player]

An almost identical incident happened in 2017 when an Aeroflot flight from Moscow to Bangkok hit a patch of severe turbulence resulting in 27 passengers being injured. "The reasons behind the injures were that some of the passengers had not had their seatbelts fastened," Aeroflot said in a statement. I'm surprised no news outlet has mentioned it. 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-39771637

 

Then there was another incident in 2016 when a flight from Abu Dhabi was about 45 minutes away from Jakarta on Wednesday before the turbulence hit. More than 30 people were injured. In a statement, the airline said 22 people had been "treated by paramedics for minor injuries at the airport. Nine other passengers have been taken to a local hospital". 

 

There's an interesting info box called "What causes turbulence?" at the foot of the same BBC story and it states the list is long. According to the US Federal Aviation Administration, turbulence can be caused by:

• air movement not normally seen
• atmospheric pressure
• jet streams
• air around mountains
• cold or warm weather fronts
• thunderstorms

It goes on to say: "Turbulence can be hard to predict, and the injuries it causes cannot always be prevented by wearing seatbelts. In-air turbulence is the leading cause of injury on US flights, the FAA says. Most turbulence accidents happen at 30,000 ft (9,000m) or above.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-36209833

 

Personally, I've flown that same route as the Singapore airlines flight many times before and there's ALWAYS severe turbulence over that same location in the Andaman Sea just prior to crossing the coastline of Myanmar. Numerous pilots have ALWAYS insisted on the passengers wearing their seatbelts at this juncture, especially after the previous incidents. 

[nauseus]

21 hours ago, Keeps said:

Why would the airlines 3rd party insurance pick up the tab if there was no negligence on the airlines part? I'm sure their Insurers would have something to say about this 'open cheque book' approach. Perhaps, there was some negligence - would certainly need to be proven though. The airline might be suffering some large payouts from their own (deep) pockets at their own discretion.

 

Would the airlines' 3rd party insurance pick up the tab if there WAS negligence?

 

The insurers will have something to say but will probably wait for at least a preliminary incident report first - like everyone else should.

 

Whatever, I expect that SQ will honour it's legal and moral obligations.

 

 

[nauseus]

15 hours ago, Lorry said:

2 airbags for every passenger: one for falling up (hitting the ceiling), one for falling down again

 

 

Well in this case it seems that's exactly what was required!

[Keeps]

1 minute ago, nauseus said:

 

Would the airlines' 3rd party insurance pick up the tab if there WAS negligence?

 

The insurers will have something to say but will probably wait for at least a preliminary incident report first - like everyone else should.

 

Whatever, I expect that SQ will honour it's legal and moral obligations.

 

 

Yes it would if negligence could be proven. That is the main essence in having Public Liability insurance.

 

I agree that regardless of negligence, the airline will honour it's obligations. If they didn't, the bad press could be very damaging.

[MangoKorat]

3 hours ago, Trip Hop said:

Since when  has Boeing been an airline?  You're talking about manufacturing faults here which are a totally different issue

The Airlines in each case, were also sued. In terms of the airline, it matters not whether its a fault, negligence or weather - The Montreal Convention - as I have now posted twice - establishes that the airline is liable. In those cases, I believe it was the US government that instructed Boeing to settle.  Had that not been the case, the way the law works would be that the passengers or rather their relatives sue the airline and in turn the airline sues the manufacturer.

 

3 hours ago, Trip Hop said:

It appears that rather than admit that things might not be as straight forward as you claim, you're trying to divert away from my simple request for you to substantiate the same?

 Two things on that. 1. I have never said its totally straight forward and I have no doubt that some airlines will 'try it on' - at the end of the day, they are liable and will have to pay. The convention is clear on that. As per your request, I will tell you one more time. I have had this with members on here many times - you search out evidence and proof and they still want to fight - so I won't waste my time.  I have however, provided 2 such cases - the Lion Air and Eithiopian examples.  Don't tell me that's entirely different - its not, in just about every case, the airline is liable - as established in Section 17.

 

Enough already.

Edited May 25 by MangoKorat

[MangoKorat]

29 minutes ago, Keeps said:

I agree that regardless of negligence, the airline will honour it's obligations. If they didn't, the bad press could be very damaging.

Yes indeed. However, negligence doesn't have to be proved.

[MangoKorat]

21 hours ago, Trip Hop said:

simply quote me say 5 incidents in the last 10 years whereby passengers have successfully sued an airline for injuries that have occurred on board. 

Let's turn this around:

 

I have shown you that Section 17 of the Montreal Convention establishes and airline's liability.

 

I have shown you that IATA recognises the Montreal Convention

 

Singapore Airlines are an IATA member coded as SQ

 

Singapore as a country has ratified the Montreal Convention.

 

Can YOU tell me of 5 cases in the last 10 years where an airline (IATA Member & Country Ratification) has won a compensation claim for injury or death where they have failed to establish fault on the part of the passenger?

[GroveHillWanderer]

On 5/24/2024 at 4:17 PM, dddave said:

It's emerging that the plunge started just as the pilots, using autopilot, started descent for Bangkok.  This is awfully close to the profile of the other 737 incidents that grounded the entire fleet for 2 years and caused at least two flights to crash. 

 

This is incorrect in just so many ways. As others have already pointed out, the plane had not "started descent for Bangkok" - it was going to Singapore, not Bangkok. In the case of the two 737 Max 8 crashes, the flights were climbing after take-off, not starting their descent, so it doesn't fit the profile and finally, this wasn't a 737 Max 8, it was a 777, a model which doesn't have the MCAS system that caused the two crashes you reference.

[steven100]

I can understand their frustration and anger,  but if you were seated with the seatbelt on you would not have been injured and certainly not thrown around.

 

I can understand the hospital & airline not wanting the media attention as it will be all anger with questions and questions.  The reason the airline is not saying to much is because they will be discussing the accident with their legal department to ascertain whether or not they can be liable or not liable.   

 

Singapore airlines is one of the best airlines in the world and this is no reflection on their aircraft, crew, food or service.  It was an unfortunate accident that could happen to any airline.

 

I seriously doubt there will be any compensation coming .....  " the devil is in the details "

[Trip Hop]

22 hours ago, MangoKorat said:

Let's turn this around:

 

I have shown you that Section 17 of the Montreal Convention establishes and airline's liability.

 

I have shown you that IATA recognises the Montreal Convention

 

Singapore Airlines are an IATA member coded as SQ

 

Singapore as a country has ratified the Montreal Convention.

 

Can YOU tell me of 5 cases in the last 10 years where an airline (IATA Member & Country Ratification) has won a compensation claim for injury or death where they have failed to establish fault on the part of the passenger?

 

Rather than answer my original request for you to name 5 occurrences in the last 10 years of where a passenger has successfully sued an airline for injury, you are still using deflection tactics as a means not to answer this.  Most probably because you will really struggle to find such occurrences and just don't want to admit this?  You have stated that you don't have the time to search for this information but again you have found the time to search for plenty of other and quote.  Strange this?

 

Another simple question for you?  Do you know someone on a fairly personal basis, e.g. work colleague, friend etc that has actually tried to put a claim in against an airline for injury?

 

I do and as said, it is far from as straight forward as what you believe and portray, regardless of what you may read and quote.

 

Let's leave it at that as you are far from the Oracle that you think you are.  If you contend this, just stop the deflection tactics and answer my original request?  I'm an honourable guy, will hold my hands up when wrong and even apologise if you prove so.  Let's see if you are cut from the same cloth?

[MangoKorat]

15 minutes ago, Trip Hop said:

Rather than answer my original request for you to name 5 occurrences in the last 10 years of where a passenger has successfully sued an airline for injury, you are still using deflection tactics as a means not to answer this.

Not deflection at all. I have explained why I won't reply on 3 separate occasions.

 

17 minutes ago, Trip Hop said:

Let's leave it at that as you are far from the Oracle that you think you are.

I have never thought I am any form of 'Oracle'. I have simply provided the rules - the rules that both countries and airlines agree to through ratification/membership.

 

I have never said it would be straightforward - airlines/insurers can and do try their best to wriggle in the hope that claimants will settle. I am fully aware that these court cases can go on for years. However, ultimately they are goverened by the rules and the rules are very clear. 

 

On this particular ocassion, Singapore Airlines have far more to lose through making things difficult than it would cost them. I fully expect them to settle any claims very quickly and without argument.

 

I would not be at all surprised if they had not already agreed to pick up the tab for injured passengers.  Thai hospitals want to know who's paying at a very early stage.

[Trip Hop]

57 minutes ago, MangoKorat said:

Not deflection at all. I have explained why I won't reply on 3 separate occasions.

 

I have never thought I am any form of 'Oracle'. I have simply provided the rules - the rules that both countries and airlines agree to through ratification/membership.

 

I have never said it would be straightforward - airlines/insurers can and do try their best to wriggle in the hope that claimants will settle. I am fully aware that these court cases can go on for years. However, ultimately they are goverened by the rules and the rules are very clear. 

 

On this particular ocassion, Singapore Airlines have far more to lose through making things difficult than it would cost them. I fully expect them to settle any claims very quickly and without argument.

 

I would not be at all surprised if they had not already agreed to pick up the tab for injured passengers.  Thai hospitals want to know who's paying at a very early stage.

 

Let's turn this around:

 

I have shown you that Section 17 of the Montreal Convention establishes and airline's liability.

 

I have shown you that IATA recognises the Montreal Convention

 

Singapore Airlines are an IATA member coded as SQ

 

Singapore as a country has ratified the Montreal Convention.

 

Can YOU tell me of 5 cases in the last 10 years where an airline (IATA Member & Country Ratification) has won a compensation claim for injury or death where they have failed to establish fault on the part of the passenger?

 

Answering a question with a question and statements such as the first line of your reply posted above are text book examples of deflection.  So is your waffling about manufacturers' faults when we are talking airlines and your so called reasons for not just answering my request.

 

Let's be honest, you've already searched for the information that I requested and it can't be found.  I already knew this when I asked you but instead of just admitting this, you have continued to deflect.

 

Even if this incident is declared as an Act of God, I do believe that any of the injured passengers that were out of their seats with genuine excuse such as going to the toilet will be compensated by the airline.  Based on my former work colleague's experience though, I think that any such ones that were sat in their seats without their belts on or similar will face a much harder time.  One of the main considerations for any judge when ruling on liability/extent of liabilty is whether anything could have been done by the claimant to minimise/mitigate the same.  For the ones on this flight that were just sat with their belts not fastened, the answer is yes as they could have just simply fastened them as advised during the pre-flight briefing.

 

As previously said, the airline will do as much as it can for precedence not to be set as it will open the floodgates for future claims and cost them and every other airline far more in the future.  As for out of court settlements, my former work colleague wasn't looking for a US style payout, just a replacement flight and for them to cover the cost of his treatment plus a couple of hours lost wages for every time he was treated.  This didn't amount to a lot and the airline could have quite easily settled this before it even got into the hands of the solicitors but they chose not to and in the end it cost them far more in legal costs etc than if they had.

 

Don't be fooled that Singapore Airlines have far more to lose as most people with an ounce of common sense will see that it couldn't be avoided and will most probably just ensure that in the future their belts are fastened whenever in their seat.  Plus the demand for tickets will always be there if the price is right and if this was to happen in the future on any other airline, the way that it will be dealt with would be exactly the same.  As said previously, the airlines will stick together as not to open the floodgates and therefore there would be no benefit in boycotting Singapore Airlines as you will get exactly the same with every other one.

 

       

[MangoKorat]

2 hours ago, Trip Hop said:

Let's be honest, you've already searched for the information that I requested and it can't be found.  I already knew this when I asked you but instead of just admitting this, you have continued to deflect.

I most certainly have not.

 

As for the rest......twoddle but up to you.

[sabaiguy]

On 5/24/2024 at 1:52 PM, it is what it is said:

 

i get it that some passengers may be out of their seat going to the toilet, and the staff were working, but it's common knowledge that turbulence can occur at anytime and unexpectedly, that's why passengers are always recommended to wear seat belts all the time - it's not difficult or uncomfortable and very sensible. harsh as it sounds, anyone ignoring this excellent practical advice is surely guilty of contributory negligence.

recommended, not required.  It's also recommended or is that required to drive the speed limit