ROAD TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 3.09 pm

The Minister for Home Affairs and Second Minister for Law (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, the main purpose of the amendments is to achieve the objective of reducing the number of accidents on our roads, to ensure smoother and safer traffic flow and to improve traffic safety management.

The main amendments on which I will touch are:

(a) measures to require learner motor-cycle riders not to learn on public roads;

(b) measures against drunken driving; and,

(c) increasing the maximum compoundable fines for traffic offences.

The context in which these measures should be viewed, Sir, are the fact that the road accident rate has been rising steadily from 1978 to 1984. There were 278 road deaths in 1978 compared to 327 in 1984. The number of vehicles on our roads has been increasing at the rate of 6-7% each year. The Traffic Police therefore embarked on a comprehensive programme to reduce the number of accidents and to ensure a smoother flow as well as a safer traffic flow.

Members will recall that these measures included the following:

Restructuring of the demerit system for errant drivers as well as Fixed Penalty Scheme for traffic violations. Secondly, we introduced the Japanese method of training and re-training of drivers. Thirdly, the riding and driving tests were also upgraded to improve the standard of riding motorcycles and driving on our roads.

Publicity and education programmes on road safety were stepped up as well. Enforcement action, though not always popular but necessary, also was intensified.

Let me now deal with the first measure, that of requiring learner motorcycle riders not to learn on public roads.

Sir, there are 135,000 motorcycles in Singapore. They constitute 27.6% of all motor vehicles. In 1984, motorcyclists involved in fatal accidents accounted for 35.5% of road accident fatalities. Motorcyclists with provisional driving licences (PDLs) are more prone to accidents than motorcyclists with qualified driving licences (QDLs). 23 learner riders were killed and 827 others injured in accidents last year alone.

A major problem, of course, has been that the motorcyclists hitherto are allowed to learn by riding on public roads by trial and error. They needed only to pass the Highway Code Test and attend a half-day Pre-PDL course before they were given a PDL which gave them full freedom to ride on public roads, which, of course, is unsatisfactory, as inadequately trained PDL riders constitute a danger to themselves and to other road users. In other countries like Japan, PDL riders are not allowed on public roads.

In view of the high rate of accidents involving PDL riders, all unqualified riders will not be allowed on public roads when the Act comes into operation. Only riders with qualified driving licences will be allowed on public roads. Malaysian learner riders will also be subject to the same rule. In this connection, Sir, the Traffic Police also have stopped renewing existing PDLs or issuing new PDLs from April 1985.

In order to give PDL riders enough time to obtain their QDLs, more than 1 1/2 years' notice was given for this measure. The Traffic Police also made arrangements for these 'L' riders to have more opportunities to go for these tests. From December 1984, arrangements were made for the 'L' riders to ballot for vacant testing slots. Tests were also conducted during the weekends. With the additional facilities, tests conducted per month increased from 5,000 to 8,000. A sample survey showed that, on the average, a PDL rider who turned up for the tests had taken three to four tests.

The Motor Traders' Association in conjunction with the Traffic Police had also conducted free lessons to assist 'L' riders to pass their tests. The pass rates have improved from 16.6% in the first quarter of 1984 to 27.7% in the corresponding period of 1985.

When learner riders will no longer be allowed on public roads, they will have to undergo the training at an approved riding circuit to attain a sufficiently high standard in the theory and practice of handling and riding a motorcycle. Following this and on successful passing of the riding tests, they will receive their Class 11 QDL for motorcycles. The first riding circuit at Ang Mo Kio has already commenced operations.

Let me now turn to the other measures concerning drunken driving. With regard to drunken driving, Sir, we intend to introduce the use of breathalysers, and further, to make the level of blood alcohol content more stringent. The number of serious and fatal accidents involving drivers and motorcycle riders while under the influence of alcohol has been increasing. Between 1975 and 1978, there was only an average of 79 cases per year of drivers who had committed traffic violations under the influence of alcohol. This number rose to 126 cases per year for the period 1979 to 1982 and 129 cases per year for the period 1982 to 1984.

As regards the breathalyser, Sir, presently, when a driver is suspected to be under the influence of alcohol, he will be brought to a hospital for blood and urine tests. This is a troublesome as well as an unpopular procedure - both for the individual and the Police, It is, therefore, proposed that the breathalyser, which is a simple equipment which can indicate the level of alcohol in a person's blood through a breath test, be used as a screening device for suspected drunken drivers.

I would like to stress that the breathalyser will be used only for screening because in other countries, the breathalyser readings can be used in court as evidence. In New Zealand and France, for example, the result of the breath test alone can be used in prosecuting drunken drivers, although the suspect has the right to ask for a blood test. In other countries, there are variations. In England, the results of breath tests can only be used as evidence in addition to the blood or urine tests. In Japan, a confirmatory blood test is necessary in order to convict a drunken driver in court.

However, we are proposing to use the breathalysers for screening suspected drunken drivers only. Where the reading on the breathalyser exceeds the legal prescribed limit, the driver will be brought to hospital for confirmatory blood and urine tests. In other words, with the breathalysers, the Traffic Police will have an easy-to-use screening device to detect drunken drivers and the law will therefore have to be amended for this purpose.

I will now move on to the maximum level of blood alcohol content. In Singa- pore, the law prescribes the highest permissible level of alcohol in blood at 110 milligrams (mg) of alcohol in 100 millilitres (ml) of blood which is not as strict as the limits imposed in other countries. Many developed countries, such as the United Kingdom, Germany and France, adopt the limit of 80 mg/100 ml. In Japan, the limit is even stricter at 50 mg/100 ml. In the United States, the limit is 60 mg/100 ml in all except two of the states. Evidence has shown that many drivers would show impairment of driving skill when their blood alcohol content level reaches 30 to 50 mg per 100 ml; at blood alcohol levels of 50 to 100 mg per 100 ml, the driving skills of most individuals will certainly be adversely affected and deteriorate rapidly, even in the case of a hardened drinker or an experienced driver. Amending the legal blood alcohol content level from the existing 110 mg/100 ml to 80 mg/100 ml will serve to deter motorists from driving if they consume alcohol excessively.

May I turn now to the third main amendment, Sir, which is to increase the maximum amount to which traffic offences could be compounded to $200. There are several reasons for this. First, the present amount of $50, which has been in the law since 1966, is unrealistic. Secondly, under the Fixed Penalty System which was introduced in 1982, traffic violations were grouped into four categories according to the severity of the offence. Fixed fines ranging from $20 to $50 were imposed. Today, the amount of $50 for certain of the more serious offences, such as careless driving and failing to give way to ambulances and fire engines, is inadequate to serve as a deterrent. Some of the more serious offences are therefore not compounded. Because the maximum compoundable fine is $50, offenders of these more serious offences, such as inconsiderate driving, speeding far in excess of road or vehicle speed limit, are brought to court where they are given more serious sentences,

With the maximum compoundable fine for traffic offences raised to $200, most road offences could be compounded by the Traffic Police instead of being referred to the court. The list of compoundable offences can also be adjusted and more realistic composition fines set. Only the more serious offences will be referred to the courts.

Let me stress, Sir, that traffic offenders will, even after this amendment, still pay composition fines of $50 or less for most offences. However, with this amendment, we will be able to consider a more rational approach, such as drawing a line between offences that result in accidents and those that do not, when penalizing offenders. At present, they are pegged at the same level.

Also, at present, moving offences committed by drivers of heavy vehicles are given equal treatment as those committed by light vehicles. Heavy vehicles, by virtue of their size and construction, pose greater potential danger to other road users if not handled properly and carefully. Statistics have shown that heavy vehicles are about four times as prone to accidents than lighter vehicles. In some countries like Japan, the traffic authorities have taken cognizance of this fact and higher fines are imposed on heavy vehicles. We are considering doing likewise.

The new maximum will also enable the Traffic Police to offer composition for some offences which are at present referred to court because of the $50 limit which is deemed to be inadequate.

Sir, the other amendments, which are referred to in the Explanatory Statement, are really intended to remove inconsistencies in the existing law or to facilitate smoother administration of the law or are of a technical nature.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Eric Cheong Yuen Chee (Toa Payoh): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, earlier this year I had raised in this House the need to impose stiffer penalties for drivers who commit traffic offences which resulted in serious accidents. The Amendment Bill to the Road Traffic Act, as I understand, is to provide greater supportive measures to the Traffic Police to further improve traffic management and enforcement action on errant and recalcitrant drivers.

Sir, I would like to raise a few points for the Hon. Minister's consideration. Firstly, it is indeed heartening to observe that there is a significant drop in fatality rates for the first six months of this year. Although the fatality rates for motorcyclists have decreased substantially, I wonder whether it is due to stricter enforcement action or to the decrease in the number of PDL motorcyclists on the road, bearing in mind that the Traffic Police had stopped renewing or issuing new PDLs since lst April this year.1 also observed that there is no mention of whether there is any possibility of introducing separate lanes for motorcyclists as a further means of traffic control.

The next point I wish to touch on is a new source of road menace, ie, the mobile concrete mixers. Most of the drivers of these vehicles drive well in excess of the speed limit of 40 kmh, especially along major roads, like Bukit Timah and the PanIsland Expressway. Imagine the disastrous consequences if these vehicles were to meet with an accident. Years ago, we had the problem posed by drivers of sand lorries travelling along Tampines Road, Despite the stricter enforcement action taken by the Traffic Police, these drivers ignored traffic regulations with impunity. I suspect the wages of these drivers are based on the number of trips made between the source of supply and the construction sites. If this is the case, then we should consider other measures, like restricting the movement of these heavy vehicles to off-peak hours, to enable them to make more trips without resorting to speeding and also fixing of speed regulating governors on the vehicles, or even penalizing the owners of the vehicles should an accident occur.

With regard to serious traffic offences committed by drivers of foreign registered vehicles, I would like to find out from the Hon. Minister whether there are adequate measures to apprehend and penalize such errant drivers who are involved in serious traffic accidents.

There is also a clarification I would like to seek from the Hon. Minister on clause 8 which provides a definition for the size of a motor vehicle. It states that the vehicle should not exceed 4.0 metres. I am wondering whether we should not also consider looking at the width of a vehicle. In modern transportation, there are many vehicles which have a very much larger width than the older vehicles.

Sir, the last point I wish to make is the need to have more publicity in the mass media on serious traffic accidents and prosecution of offenders. This will help to bring home the point of the need for greater road safety.

Sir, I fully support the Amendment Bill.

Encik Zulkifli bin Mohammed (Eunos): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill moved by the Hon. Minister for Home Affairs.

It is beyond dispute that there is a close correlation between vehicle growth and accident rate. Although road death statistics are just beginning to come down, it is not an occasion to rejoice and be complacent. We should continue to be vigilant and endlessly strive to improve traffic management on our roads. This downward trend is still too early to confirm that current measures are adequate, bearing in mind that there could be a repeat of the high incidence of road deaths as was evidenced during 1978 to 1984 as given by the Minister.

Let us pause for a moment and cast our minds on our existing roads and expressways. Often times, we feel helpless seeing our thoroughfares being turned into racing circuits that send shivers down the spines of the more considerate and safety-conscious road users. Our traffic law enforcement officers cannot be around all the time. There is, therefore, a need for more stringent deterrents to be implemented to minimize traffic accidents and traffic violations.

The provision in the proposed Bill is not meant to unfairly penalize the motoring public. It is selective and discriminatory and it is directed only at those road users who are more prone or more likely to contribute to road accidents.

I welcome the assurance given by the Minister that the proposed Bill will still permit traffic offenders to pay composition fines of $50 or less for most offences, although the maximum compoundable fine will be raised to $200.

Sir, I view with deep concern at the alarming statistics disclosed by the Hon. Minister, in particular the high motor cyclist fatalities and increasing cases of drunken driving on our roads. We would be failing in our duty if we do not do more to make our roads safer for the public. I would like to appeal to the Ministry of Home Affairs that its officers, in enforcing these new measures, will exercise their utmost care and discretion when dealing with the motoring public.

On this note, Sir, I once again support the Bill.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in so far as this Bill takes measures to reduce the accidents on the roads and to increase the safety of other road users, we of course support the Bill. But whatever measures we take, Mr Deputy Speaker, should not be seen or construed as being discriminatory of any particular user or users of the roads. This is why I ask, by way of clarification more than anything else, the position of all the motor cyclists who at the moment hold provisional driving licences.

I see in a report that was published in the papers sometime in April of this year when the Police, I think, announced the decision to stop issuing PDLs, that there were about 21,000 holders of provisional driving licences. The report went on to give some figures of those who passed every week, and giving the maximum passes that the Police were hoping would result, there would still nevertheless be a balance of about 3,000 to 4,000.

Now, what will be their position when this law comes into force? This law, when it comes into force and if it penalizes those who are already in possession of provisional driving licences, would make it retroactive, That in itself is a bad principle. I would ask the Minister to consider whether it should be made retroactive for those who are in possession of valid PDLs at the time the law comes into force.

I do not know whether I misheard the Minister or misunderstood him, but I understood him to say that, after the coming into force of this amendment, motor cyclists would be given their proper licences, ie, not provisional driving licences, after they had completed their course and passed the test. But I see that the amendment, clause 2, subclause (4), still talks about "a provisional licence to drive a motor cycle" being granted to those who have "completed a prescribed course of training to enable him to obtain a provisional licence." I suppose there must be an explanation for this. Is it still the intention to continue to issue provisional licences for motor cyclists?

Finally, may I ask whether, in relation to their numbers as compared to motor cars and other vehicles on the roads, the motor cyclists are responsible for a greater share of the accidents? One has to look at it in proportion to their numbers compared with the numbers of other motor vehicles.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, first, I wish to thank the speakers who have spoken on the Bill. The Member for Toa Payoh has raised several points. He has referred to certain press publicity of encouraging trends in the drop of fatalities, and whether we could, with confidence, attribute this to any particular reason. I for one would like to be more cautious and await further statistics for several more months before venturing a firm conclusion on whether there is a downward trend which we can attribute to any of the measures that have been taken. And I hope at a suitable date to give all the figures publicly.

As to his suggestion of separate lanes, this is a matter which is being looked into as part of the overall traffic safety improvement scheme. The point he made about heavy cement mixers is also taken. I think this is one of the types of vehicles with which we are concerned about, which leads us to think of special measures for heavy vehicles. Cement mixers, I am sure, will also be classified under the category of "heavy vehicle." One can easily imagine the different consequences if a light vehicle crashes into a crowded bus station and compare it to a cement mixer which also crashes into a crowded bus station.

As to the question of width, whether we should also have more stringent specificaions, is a matter I will take up with other departments because several departments are involved in this, including the Registry of Vehicles. As to publicity, I completely share his view that we ought to encourage and get the cooperation of the Press and Television to publicize the consequences of road accidents. I am glad to say that the Press and Television have indeed, from time to time, tried to assist us in driving this message home to the public, and I am confident that they will continue to perform this public interest message in the future.

With regard to the point made by the Member for Eu nos, I have taken note of his points, particularly his call for more vigilance to be taken against hell-riders. I can assure him that the implementation of the provisions will be done carefully as he has advocated.

I think the main point raised by the Member for Anson was that the measures which would disallow motor cyclists with PDL from going on the public roads after the commencement of operation of this Act would be unfair, that it is retroactive, and so on. I do not think I can agree with him that it is retroactive because nearly two years' notice has been given of this measure, and such ample notice was given precisely to enable them to take full advantage of the opportunities and facilities which we have provided for them to obtain the QDL. Just to give an example to the Member of the facilities which allowed so many to pass. At the end of 31st December, 1984, there were 17,678 "L" riders - persons in possession of PDLs. At the end of 31st July, 1985, there were only 7,013. In other words, during this period, more than 10,400 PDL holders took advantage of the facilities and got their QDLs. Now, as to the remaining figures, I do not think it is retroactive for them. If they were given repeated chances, some as many as three or four, and they still did not make it, the question is: do we want to put them on the road when they have failed to pass the test after three times? Do we want to put them on the public roads? Will it be safe for them and for other members of the public? This residual figure also includes an unknown quantity of persons who have taken provisional driving licences and have not reported for the test. In other words, there are many who have taken a PDL for a variety of reasons and may not even have ever ridden a motor cycle. That is the problem. I think the figures that I have given show that a vast majority have taken the opportunity provided to them and have passed.

The point raised by the Member concerning the drafting - I myself have had this checked with the draftsman, the Attorney-General's Chambers, and I am assured that clause 4 of section 36, as amended, although worded in that way, would have the effect that we intend, that is to say, after the commencement of the operation of the Act, we will not be issuing PDLs to any motor cycle riders. The Member for Anson also wanted certain figures of motor cyclist fatalities vis-a-vis other fatalities. I do not have those figures here, but if he wants, I can supply him those figures at a later date.

I believe I have covered all the points.

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. - [Prof. S. Jayakumarl.

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

Clauses 1 to 6 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 -

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

In page 3, line 18, to leave out "(a)", and insert"(b)".

Sir, this amendment is necessary because this was a typographical error.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 8 to 10 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported with an amendment; read a Third time and passed.