Search the Community

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/new-mandatory-minimum-jail-sentences-among-proposed-amendments-11506954 New mandatory minimum jail sentences among proposed amendments to Road Traffic Act In the first reading of the Bill, the Ministry of Home Affairs laid out new penalties and tighter regulatory frameworks to deter irresponsible driving. By Cindy Co 06 May 2019 02:52PM(Updated: 06 May 2019 03:44PM) Share this content Bookmark SINGAPORE: New Mandatory Minimum Sentences (MMS) will be imposed on the most serious irresponsible driving offences in an amendment to the Road Traffic Act introduced in Parliament on Monday (May 6). These minimum sentences will meted out to offenders who show “egregious driving behaviour” and “cause death or injuries with long-lasting impact on the victim”. The amendments will also introduce two classes of irresponsible driving offences that the MMS will be applied to​​​​​​​: Dangerous driving and careless driving. The two categories will roughly correspond to the Rash Act and Negligent Act in the Penal Code. In effect, the MMS will be meted out to drivers charged for dangerous driving causing death and dangerous driving causing grievous hurt. For dangerous driving causing death, first time offenders will face up to eight years in jail, with an MMS of two years. Second time offenders will face a minimum mandatory jail term of four years, with up to 15 years' imprisonment. As for first time offenders charged with dangerous driving causing grievous hurt, they will be subject to one year MMS, and face up to five years in jail. Second-time offenders on the above charge will face a two-year minimum jail sentence, with up to 10 years' imprisonment. There will also be add-on maximum penalties for dangerous and careless driving offences, should the motorist have committed the offence while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or failed to provide a specimen for analysis. A person found guilty of dangerous driving while causing death while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or failed to provide a specimen for analysis, will face up to 10 years in jail with a minimum sentence of three years if he is a first-time offender. A second-time offender for the above charge will face up to 19 years in jail, with a six-year MMS. A person found guilty of dangerous driving while causing grievous hurt while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or failed to provide a specimen for analysis, will face up to six years in jail with a minimum sentence of 18 months if he is a first-time offender. He will also be subject to a fine ranging from S$2,000 to S$10,000. A second-time offender for the above charge will face up to 12 years in jail, with a three-year MMS as well as a fine ranging from S$5,000 to S$20,000. These changes come in the wake of an observed increase in irresponsible and reckless driving by the Traffic Police, with the number of summonses issued to motorists increased from 152,700 in 2015 to 181,000 in 2018. In addition, the Traffic Police has also noted that the penalties for irresponsible driving in Singapore are less severe than in other jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom, Australia, Hong Kong and Malaysia. The current maximum imprisonment term for causing death by dangerous driving in Singapore is imprisonment of up to five years, while other jurisdictions have a maximum penalty of up to 10 or 14 years. The MMS is part of enhanced criminal penalties included in the new amendments to deter irresponsible driving. UP TO THREE YEARS' JAIL FOR DRIVING WITHOUT A LICENCE Under the amendments, the penalties for driving under disqualification, suspension and driving without a licence will also be enhanced. The biggest change are the proposed amendments to penalties for driving without a licence. Currently, first time offenders will face up to three months imprisonment and a S$1,000 fine, while second time offenders will face up to six months imprisonment and S$2,000 fine. The enhanced penalties will mean that those driving without a licence will face up to three years imprisonment and an S$10,000 fine for their first offence, and a six-year imprisonment and an S$20,000 fine for their second offence. READ: Motorists to face harsher penalties for serious offences as MHA reviews traffic laws TIGHTENING REGULATORY REGIMES The Traffic Police will now give motorists four weeks to file their appeals for licence suspension and revocation when they have exceeded the maximum allowable demerit points. After the four weeks, the Traffic Police will have the power to suspend or revoke the licence, even if an appeal is underway. “This is to prevent motorists from filing multiple appeals in order to delay the start of the suspension or revocation,” said the Traffic Police. In addition, for motorists who have accumulated five or more suspensions, the period of suspension will be increased from a maximum of three years to five years. Compounded sentences will also take effect, where the courts will be able to take into account a motorist’s driving history in dealing out sentences. “A motorist’s driving record is a useful indicator of his driving behaviour,” said the Traffic Police, when explaining the rationale for proposed change. ACCIDENTS INVOLVING ANIMALS Under the new amendments to the Road Traffic Act, the definition of "animals" will also change. Currently, motorists are only required to stop, contact the owner and render assistance for certain species of animals, such as horses, cattle, pigs, goats and dogs. The Traffic Police has now expanded the definition to include all species of animals. Motorists would now be required to stop - providing it is safe to do so - the vehicle if he has “reasonable ground to believe that the animal involved in the accident has an owner or that the presence of the injured or dead animal on the road may pose a hazard to other road users”, said the Traffic Police. PUBLIC FEEDBACK The Ministry of Home Affairs noted broad public support for the proposed amendments to the Road Traffic Act, through a series of public consultations conducted between February and March this year. In response to concerns that motorists would be held liable for accidents caused by victims, such as pedestrians, cyclists or PMD riders, the Traffic Police provided assurances that they would take into account the motorist’s driving behaviour. “When assessing whether a motorist should be held liable for an accident, Traffic Police will consider whether the motorist had been driving safely. “In addition, if the victim had engaged in risk-taking behaviour and violated traffic rules, Traffic Police will take the necessary enforcement action against him." Source: CNA/cc(rw)

[author note: this topic was previously discussed at 'New Rules : Giving Way to Buses Coming Out From Bus Stop.' (Dec2008)] Mandatory Give Way to Buses Scheme Is Mr Lui Tuck Yew crazy to bend the law to suit his convenience as Minister of Transport? [Source: OneMotoring: 'Mandatory Give Way to Buses Scheme''] [Source: She claims she's a "victim" of new give-way-to-bus rule] Yes, public transport (buses) is Singapore are slow and sucks "Mrs Teo said bus speeds have gone down from 19.1kmh in 2007 to 17.8kmh, as ridership went up from 2.9 million per day to 3.45 million per day in the same time." ['Bus hubs currently the priority and good progress made: Josephine Teo': (TDY18Jan2012)], and in fact, transport by bicycle for journeys 30km and up might average 25.750kmh. [source: 'road-bike.co.uk'] Rather than the drawing up of more bus lanes, it seems that the MOT is getting lazy and thus enacting some confusing stop gap measures like the ridiculous mandatory Give Way to Buses Scheme (GWTBS)- a scheme whose logic if not legality remains both contradictory if not perplexing. It is in fact perhaps oxymoronic that the good Minister now says that the slow speed of buses exiting bus is due to the fast and continuous movement of other vehicular traffic on Singapore roads, since in stationary traffic conditions yellow boxes to provide for 'reserved' space so that exiting buses ALWAYS have right of way. [Dunearn-Newton Rd- bus bay with typical yellow box pict]. Wouldn't the provision of better public transport services cause fewer Singaporeans to demand travel by private car or taxi?- a largely carbon and road use intense mode of private transportation. Isn't the revolving door [wiki] effect of buses entering bus bays the occasion for buses to exit just the same since a bus awaiting entry to a bus bay effectively blocks off all oncoming traffic by virtue of its size? (that is if Minister Lui is adamant about saving bus-lanes painting costs). Mr Lui as Rear Admiral used to be Chief of Navy; with a cannon in front and torpedoes beneath, everyone gave way to the Admiral's ship. But road vehicular traffic is not the same, emergency vehicles get stuck in traffic jams just the same- nobody moves. Everyone needs space on the little land designated for road use: bus lanes besides allowing cyclist free passage (cycling is good for exercise (save govt healthcare costs) and good for the environment (low impact on global warming)) also allow emergency public vehicles free passage to conduct to their rightful roles, even during the heaviest traffic periods on all days. Emergency public vehicles stuck in jams remain a stain upon the efficiency that the PAP boasts its credentials by. The start stop driving by vehicles on the left lane caused by ambiguity as to whether a bus is indeed leaving the bus bay is also another cause for accidents occurring, if not a compromise in time and energy efficiency as drivers operate their brakes with unnecessary intensity. This adds to pollution if not frustration of driving on Singapore roads; foreign talents holding international driving licenses also cannot be expected to understand this paradoxical local law as it is international convention for vehicles along minor roads (bays etc) to give way to vehicles along major roads (e.g. trunk roads): wouldn't an accident due to this legal paradox result in more jams created by unnecessary traffic accidents? One side issue would be that the Minister is being unnecessary cruel to cyclist and motorcyclist in the enaction of the GWTBS law is that the poor rider/ pillion is then expected to breath in the diesel fumes of the exiting bus: not a pleasant experience nor a safe one- considering that the car driver behind might not be able to break in time, having not considered about the need to stop to give way to the exiting bus and result in the poor rider being crushed in-between- another tragic road fatality. Mr Lui's salary is one that mirrors the elite of the elite in Singapore [pict]. Surely being elite is not about just making more money? Don't the people of Singapore demand more than just hare brained stop gap measures in managing public transport and road use in hyper-efficient Singapore? Not everybody can afford a maid [pict link], nor the privilege of private transportation in Singapore [Saw Phiak Hua empress pict]. More for public transport, safer transport for motorcycles and bicycles. Good Minister, Thank you and have a nice day. References: Above: Dunearn-Newton Rd bus bay- yellow box pict. [pict source: Singapore's defense burden - Something no maid can carry] [pict source] - STOMP 29Aug09: “I gave way to bus -- and got rammed from behind”, [link] - STOMP 19Aug09: “I am one of many 'victims' unfairly fined $130 under new 'give way to bus' rule”, [link] [link] [img source]

Death Penalty Abolition Forum at Substation on 6th March -- Call for Support Dear friends, The mandatory death penalty in Singapore is an archaic and draconian law that requires review and eventual abolition. To highlight this issue, fellow NUS Law School students will be holding a forum on the mandatory death penalty at the Substation from 2pm this Saturday, 6th March. Renowned lawyer and activist, M Ravi, currently defending death row inmate, Yong Vui Kong, will be providing first-hand insights on why the mandatory death penalty should be abolished and how to call for this change. Please help spread the message around for a clear show of support for the forum. Say No to the MDP. http://forums.vr-zone.com/chit-chatting/57...ll-support.html

Surprised this was not discussed in MCF since we have Ferrari and Maserati in the picture. I have "donated" many times to top up the shortfall as failure, according to my kids, is not an option. Donation should be voluntary and best effort, think MOE should not allow schools to hide behind this get out of your comfort zone argument. https://doc-0s-6s-docs.googleusercontent.com/docs/securesc/ha0ro937gcuc7l7deffksulhg5h7mbp1/tnse3eibc1hrk6sr0l3q5ttv96hogj26/1429056000000/00863412894456763530/*/0B92zAtVEUwlmcHdvMnc1aml3UGZKcWhKMWNYLUVmVU1SYnNN?e=download

Simple question, people.

*BREAKING* Singapore has concluded its death penalty review. Penalty holds but is no longer mandatory for certain drug trafficking and murder offences. Courts can order life imprisonment instead sauce: CNA facebook page.

More and more of these night drivers who got special night vision it seems. Never on headlights I feel manufacturers should have in the cars the autolights as a premanent fixture. MEaning, no on/off switch. When it detects a certain level of darkness, the lights come on automatically. Case in point. Mercedes has no on switch for the lights. I cannot switch off the lights as the only option I have it so turn on the lights on a bright day. Else, get in the car, the lights come on automatically. This would really be a boon. However, still feel some wisecrack, 'want to save bulbs' idiot will go workshop disable...knn Your thoughts?

Who gives a shiat about giving way to buses at those mandatory give-way boxes? song: snsd-lazygirl

Do you think it should be mandatory for bicycles on the road to have head lights and tail lights as well as helmets? Cause I drive along pasir panjang road regularly and notice that there are many bicycles along the road w/o any lights. Some at least have some reflectors, others have nothing as all. IF the bicycles are black and they are wearing dark colour shirt, its difficult to spot them from a distance. Worse, some are even riding against traffic! In the past, I believe bicycles are not exactly common on the road. But now, I notice that there are more and more bicycles on the road and most do not have any proper lighting of any kind. The cyclists also have no protection of any kind (not even a basic bicycle helmet). Thus if they get in accident, they are going to have serious injuries to their heads. Perhaps, its time to have some form of regulations for cyclists in order to make the road safer for them as well as us.

Do you support the extension of the Mandatory Give Way to Buses Scheme to more locations to speed up bus travel? http://talk2lta.lta.gov.sg/HomePage?action....Home.QuickPoll Your vote is keep in strict confidential. Just take a look what had happen at our Legend. http://www.mycarforum.com/index.php?showtopic=2657873&hl He had was being involved in a traffic accident causing unnecessary delays to others. If that there wasn't any mandatory give way to buses scheme, he would not had stopped and being hit from behind. I believe that the accident had happen in a non-peak period thus traffic delays are manageable. However if that this accident happen in a peak period in a 3 lane road. Closure of 1 lane = less 33.3% efficient + merger of lane 3 to lane 2 causes other % less efficient + safety distance, braking and acceralations delays % less efficient + people looking at Porchse of 4 digits = more delays. And also ambulance to arrive = vehicle had not planned to travel to that destination = more space for another vehicle = delay yet again. Recovery vehicles & cleaning crew = more and more delays. If that the bus have no mandatory give way to buses scheme, bus driver had graciously "give way" to others = improving overall efficent = better flow for the next bus to arrive as well. Solved the bottle neck congestions & overall logistics.

What do you think of this idea. All cars much come with forward sensors. If you are keeping too close to the car in front of you, it will sound. Then you know you should slow down and keep a bigger distance.

I know mud flaps don't look nice on many cars. But do you think they should be mandatory for safety purpose? Cause when cars go over small debris on the road, it will send the debris flying. Mud flaps will be able to prevent that. I am sure many have already kan stone chips hitting their windscreen and body while travelling, esp on NSHW and perhaps local HWs.

Mandatory Give Way to Buses Scheme Extended to Four Bus Bays 1. From 27 June 2009, the LTA will introduce the Mandatory Give Way to Buses Scheme to four bus bays in the Choa Chu Kang area. 2. These bus bays are located along Choa Chu Kang Road (opposite the Phoenix LRT Station and Blk 26) and along Choa Chu Kang Drive (opposite Blk 209). They are the first bus bays to be added to since the scheme was piloted in December of last year at 22 bus bays along Bukit Batok East Avenue 3, Toh Tuck Road and Ang Mo Kio Avenue 8. 3. LTA's ongoing review of bus bays island-wide will identify more locations that are well suited to this scheme. As this scheme extends, more bus commuters can benefit from the faster travel time. 4. Prior to implementation, banners will be put up along Chua Chu Kang Drive and Chua Chu Kang Road to remind motorists they need to give way to buses exiting bus bays. Result of Pilot 5. Results from the pilot showed that the scheme is effective in reducing the amount of time buses spend trying to get out of bus bays. This in turn has improved overall bus speeds. Buses are now able to exit the bus bays faster with a time reduction of up to 73% in some cases. Bus journey times have also improved by up to 7%. 6. The Mandatory Give Way to Buses Scheme is one of a series of measures LTA is implementing to improve the speed and reliability of bus services under the Land Transport Master Plan announced in 2008. In December 2008, LTA completed the expansion of the bus lane scheme, increasing the coverage of full day bus lanes from 7.6km to 23km and normal bus lanes from 120km to 155km. 7. Please refer to Annex A for the locations of the new bus bays.

News Release National Environment Agency's Labelling Schemes On Fuel Efficiency To Start In April 09 Mandatory Fuel Economy Labeling Scheme Also from 1 April 2009, buyers of new passenger cars and light goods vehicles will be able to know how fuel efficient their vehicles are when the Mandatory Fuel Economy Labelling Scheme (FELS) comes into effect. Under the scheme, new passenger cars and light goods vehicles must carry a label indicating the amount of fuel needed by the vehicle to run 100 kilometres. With this information, car buyers can compare the fuel consumption of vehicles of similar engine capacity.

Dear Fellow MCFers, As I'll be driving up Genting this week, I'd like to seek advise here that will I get stopped by MY TP for not putting child seat for my boy. I m unable to do so because the seat will take up the space that an adult can sit. My wife will be seating behind with my boy in her arms n he is 2.5 yrs old. Pls advise me and if there's any tire guru here in Lite & Ez, please also look into my post in aftermkt Tires & Rims as I also need some advise there too. Many Thanks!