ROAD TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 2.58 pm

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Chua Sian Chin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Recently there has been an increasing number of incidents of heavy vehicles with high leads colliding with our pedestrian overhead bridges. Between late September and December last year, there were three such incidents and one near-miss.

On 23rd September, 1983, a motortrailer carrying piling machinery hit the bottom part of a pedestrian overhead bridge along Upper Thomson Road. The impact dented the vital framework and caused a crack in the pavement it the side between the bridge's two supporting concrete pillars. The incident was given wide publicity by our newspapers with prominent headlines and pictures. The driver was subsequently charged in court for inconsiderate driving under the Road Traffic Act and for carrying a load of excessive height under the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Rules. He was fined $350 for the first offence and $200 for the second offence.

Following upon the incident, the Traffic Police on 7th October, 1983, issued a warning to all operators and contractors that court action will be taken against those who do not take out permits to carry loads above 3.2 metros in height from the road and for false declaration of the height. Despite the warning and the wide publicity given to the dangers posed to the public, the second incident occurred on 23rd October, 1983, when a motor-trailer carrying a cylindrical bulk failed to clear an overhead bridge along Marymount Road. Investigations by the Traffic Police ascertained that the owner of the motor-trailer had given false information with regard to the height of the trailer when he applied for a permit from the relevant authority. The owner was convicted under section 177 of the Penal Code and was fined $750. Again the incident was given publicity by all our newspapers which drew attention to the dangers posed to public safety by such irresponsible behaviour on the part of drivers and owners of heavy vehicles.

Despite that, a third incident happened on 8th November, 1983. An empty oil tanker mounted on a lorry hit a pedestrian overhead bridge along Paya Lebar Road. One of the two bottom chords of the bridge which provide structural support to it was damaged. The driver has been charged in court. The case is still pending.

The Traffic Police also stepped up their checks on heavy vehicles carrying high loads and booking those which exceeded he height limit and had no permit. However, all these measures again went unheeded. In yet another incident on 26th December, 1983, a prime-mover conveying a front-end loader hit a pedestrian bridge at Upper Serangoon Road. This bridge was so badly damaged that it had to be dismantled. The total cost of the damage came to about $200,000 comprising installation of a new bridge and expenses incurred in dismantling the damaged bridge. After the incident, the driver ran away. Police investigation is still proceeding on this case.

It is clear that some drivers and owners of motor vehicles which carry loads of excessive height are not concerned with the dangers that they pose and the damage that they could cause with their irresponsible behaviour. It is also evident that the present penalties provided under our existing legislations are insufficient to deter such behaviour.

It was fortuitous and fortunate that no one was hurt in all the four incidents I have recounted. However, we cannot rely on such good fortune and allow pedestrians to be constantly exposed to such risks until somebody has been hurt. Overhead bridges are built to enable pedestrians to cross roads safely and we have mounted campaigns to encourage everybody to use them. There are now some 200 overhead pedestrian bridges in Singapore, most of which are situated close to schools. In the event of a vehicle with a high load hitting a pedestrian overhead bridge at a time when school children and other pedestrians are crossing the bridge, it could result in a great. loss of lives and injury to many people. Such a disaster would surpass the cable car tragedy manifold.

The recklessness of some inconsiderate drivers and owners must be curbed without delay. It would be too late to punish them after the harm is done. In view of the grave danger to public safety, it is necessary to provide for strict deterrent measures and heavy penalties to prevent the occurrence of another incident of a vehicle with a high load hitting a pedestrian overhead bridge.

This Bill therefore seeks to make it a specific offence for any heavy motor vehicle, whose overall height including any load carried thereon exceeds 3.2 metres, to travel on our roads without a permit authorising the journey and route to be taken; or where a permit has been obtained, the vehicle exceeds the stated height or the vehicle takes a different route. The penalty for a first offence will be a fine not exceeding $2,000 and a mandatory imprisonment term of between one and three years. Upon conviction the court shall order the accused to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for a period of not less than 12 months from the date of his release from prison. The penalty for a second or subsequent offence will be both a fine not exceeding $5,000 and an imprisonment term of between two and five years. Disqualification on a second or subsequent conviction will be for a period of not less than two years effective from the date of his release from prison. The fines and imprisonment will also extend to whoever is in charge of the heavy motor vehicle or cause it to be driven on the road.

The Bill further provides mandatory imprisonment of up to six months and 13 fine not exceeding $1,000 for the offence of giving false information in connection with the overall height of a vehicle in applying for a police permit.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Eric Cheong Yuen Chee (Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the introduction of this Bill. I would like to take this opportunity to raise two points. The first is on the Bill where penalties are only provided for the driver of the vehicle and nowhere is there the provision to penalize the owner of such a vehicle. Sir, as you may be aware, sometimes the drivers of these heavy motor vehicles drive such vehicles under duress or pressure from their owners. So I would have thought that there would be a corresponding penalty for owners as well as drivers of these heavy motor vehicles.

Whilst on this subject, I would also like to ask the Hon. Minister for Home Affairs whether he will also consider reviewing the deterrent penalty against owners or drivers of heavy motor vehicles for illegal parking. Sir, as,we are aware, heavy motor vehicles attract a higher rate of road tax for reasons of their length and width. Penalties for illegal parking are at present uniform, between $20 and $30 depending on the nature of the offence, which is manifestly inadequate. It is obvious that a heavy motor vehicle like a trailer occupies more road space than a motor car, maybe three or four times the road space of an ordinary motor car; thus causing more serious obstruction which can cause more serious accident. I hope the Hon. Minister will consider this suggestion.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, with regard to the first point, what about the owner? The Member for Toa Payoh wants the owner also to be responsible. In fact, I have already explained that we have a provision in the amendment to the law that any person who caused such a vehicle to be driven on the road is equally guilty and will be charged under this section. Therefore, the question of the owner being responsible has already been taken care of in the Amendment Bill.

As far as parking offence committed by the drivers of heavy vehicles is concerned, the Member for Toa Payoh wants a heavier penalty to be imposed on them. Well, we will consider the matter.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House,

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Chua Sian Chin].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.