Most aghast (Part 2)

Yes, I am so aghast (see previous post below) that I have sent the email below to the Traffic Police. (No, I am not very free - it's just that I have finished my work and am waiting for counterparties/clients to revert.)

===================

"Dear Sirs

I refer to the road traffic incident reported in The New Paper on 29 April 2008. A copy of the relevant article is attached for your reference.

It was reported in the article that the driver had been penalised with only a fine of S$200 and 9 demerit points. Based on the penalties described, I have inferred that he was charged with an offence under Section 65 of the Road Traffic Act (Cap. 276) ("RTA"), and that the offence had been compounded under Section 135 of the RTA, as permitted under Rule 2(a) of the Road Traffic (Composition of Offences) Rules (Cap. 276, Section 135(2)) ("Rule 2(a)").

I have witnessed on numerous occasions similar incidents where a motorist jams his brakes before an ERP gantry, presumably to insert his cashcard. On each occasion, the vehicles behind the errant driver have had to similarly jam their brakes, narrowly avoiding an accident in each case. In these cases, accidents were avoided not because the errant drivers' actions were not dangerous enough, but only by reason of the alertness of the drivers behind them.

Given the aggravating factors in the reported case, where an innocent woman had sustained serious injuries (as defined in Section 47D of the RTA) by reason of the dangerous manner in which Mr Lim had driven his vehicle, a penalty of S$200 fine and 9 demerit points is merely a slap on the wrist, which may have no lasting consequence on Mr Lim, or any impact at all.

For public policy reasons, such as the deterrence of such dangerous behaviour, it is important for the Traffic Police to send a strong signal to the public that stopping suddenly before an ERP gantry (or anywhere along an expressway for no good reason) cannot be tolerated on our roads. This is especially when the LTA had specially reduced the penalty for passing through an ERP gantry without a valid cashcard inserted to a mere S$10 administration fee (which is reduced further to S$8 if paid electronically).

While the prosecutorial discretion lies entirely in the hands of the Traffic Police and the AGC, it is my respectful opinion that an injustice has been done in this case, and that subsequent offenders who cause accidents by jamming their brakes before an ERP gantry should be dealt with more severely.

In particular, using Mr Lim as an example, he should have been charged under Section 64(1) of the RTA, for driving in a manner which is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the nature, condition and use of the road, and the amount of traffic which is actually at the time, or which might reasonably be expected to be, on the road. Not only does this carry a higher penalty than Section 65 of the RTA, it is also not compoundable under Section 135 of the RTA (see Rule 2(a)). In addition, the court would have had discretion to disqualify Mr Lim from driving, under Section 42(1) of the RTA. A mere 9 demerit points (for Section 65) is unlikely to have a big impact on Mr Lim, if at all.

At the very least, the charge under Section 65 should not have been compounded under Section 135 of the RTA (composition is discretionary, not mandatory).

With the light penalty imposed on Mr Lim and his obvious lack of remorse (which is also an aggravating factor), it is likely that he would not hesitate to repeat the offence if he happens to forget his cashcard again. The light penalty is also an unfortunate signal to Miss Tiong and her family that her injuries were not sufficient to constitute an aggravating factor.

I hope that in light of the above feedback, the Traffic Police may exercise its prosecutorial discretion to reflect the gravity of the consequences and other aggravating factors in subsequent cases.

Best regards"