« September 2006 | Main | November 2006 »
Finally, I have found the link to the Road Traffic Act / Law.
http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/cgi-bin/cgi_retrieve.pl?actno=REVED-276&doctitle=ROAD%20TRAFFIC%20ACT%0a&date=latest&method=part&sl=1
* This is to be used as a form or edcation to educate the people reading this blog of the traffic laws of Singapore & not to be used to look for loopholes.
About 1 week or so ago, one of the actors was accused of DUI.
http://bikers_b.blogs.friendster.com/a_bikers_life/2006/10/high_profile_ac.html
The strange is that after that, there wasn't much talk of it any more... I wonder why.
Sometimes I really wonder what we get in the media... how complete of true it is.
Anyway the point of today's post is not on that matter but on another DUI.
*Alittle reminder,
Driving Under the Influence of alcohol or an illicit
substance - any substance, licit or illicit, if it impairs the driving
function
www.addiction-rehabilitation.com/glossary.html
A third or subsequent DUI (over .1% alcohol) is a
felony. DUI is driving under the influence, not necessarily "drunk". A
person who is DUI and negligently kills or seriously injures someone is
guilty of the felony of "aggravated DUI".
www.msda9.com/grandjury/gjterms.htm
I wonder what's gonna happen to this case. Is this gonna be another 1 time only news?
Meaning that we are most prob not gonna hear about this case any more? I mean even the one that involved the Actor + DUI + Hit & Run has well... "died down".
Sometimes I really wonder what's gonna happen if another VIP / VIP's wife / family gets involved in an accident. Well... history has it that not long after an accident of like that happened, the authorties were... eerrmmmm... more careful about speeding "heavy vehicles".
Well, that did not last too.
Sigh...
Anyway, I do sincerely hope & pray that the concerned authorties will be more consistant on managing such matters and issues.
Gasohol is a mixture of gasoline and alcohol (mostly ethanol). Historically, the use of such a blend dates back as early as 1920s, and has been promoted on and off. Its primary intention is to reduce the consumption (import) of gasoline.
Today, in many countries, the use of gasohol is promoted or even mandated (notably Brazil). In Thailand, the first gasohol appeared on the market in 2001 and has been steadily promoted. The Thai Government, with its usual top-down approach, has set a rather aggressive schedule to replace all conventional gasoline with gasohol. At the time of writing, no other neighboring countries (Burma, Laos, Cambodia, Malaysia and Singapore) produce gasohol.
Regular 95 gasoline is to be completely replaced with gasohol 95 by January 2007, and is already increasingly difficult to find at gas stations. Regular 91 gasoline is allowed to survive some more years, but to be replaced with gasohol 91 by 2012.
At the moment, both gasohol 95 and gasohol 91 contain 10% ethanol (E10), but this proportion is announced to be increased in the near future.
2. How does it affect?
a. loss of power and mileage
b. damage to the fuel system
Got your attention yet??
Read more here
http://www.geocities.com/bkkriders/gasohol.html
More details here.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-gasohol.html
I am not too sure how true this is but I got this email from some friends.
So... Dun quote me.
:)
Price increase without further notice.
Speeding:
Exceeding 1 - 20km/h = $130 + 4 demerit points.
Exceeding 21 - 30km/h = $150 + 6 demerit points.
Exceeding 31 - 40km/h = $180 + 8 demerit points.
Exceeding 41 - 50km/h = >$200 + 12 demerit points + Court.
Exceeding 51 - 60km/h = >$200 + 18 demerit points + Court.
Exceeding >61km/h = >$200 + 24 demerit points + Court.
If you want to be hero and fight the court case yourself, and you lose,
you pay the court charges yourself, which will add up to your
fine. I guess the court charges is at least $200 and above.
Careless driving = $150 + 6 demerit Points.
Inconsiderate Driving = $170 + 9 Demerit Points + Court.
Dangerous Driving = >$200 + 24 Demerit Points + Court + Vehicle Compounded.
Illegal Racing = >$200 + Vehicle Confiscate + Court.
Fail to put Seat Belt = $120 + 3 demerit points.
Crossing Double White lines = $130 + 4 points.
Phone and Drive = $200 + 12 demerit point + Phone Confiscated.
Do not hold your hp in your hand when you drive even with loud speaker or ear
piece.
Drink Driving = Up to $5000 Fine And, or jail Term + License Suspended + Court.
For first offence.
2nd time offence = Jail term + Fine + Court.
Making an illegal U Turn when there's no U Turn sign =$70.
Fail to Signal when changing lanes = $70.
Driving at night without headlights or taillights switch on after 7pm =$30.
No Number Plate = $70.
Obstructed Number Plate = $70.
Obscured Number Plate = $70.
Number Plate Of Unapproved Type = $70.
As for Demerit Point system:
Let's say you have 0 points on 1st January 2005, and you committed The
offence of Failing to Put on Seat Belt. So now, you will have 3
demerit points and this will last for 1 Year. If during this 1 year you
have no demerit points offence at all, your 3 demerit points will be gone on
1/1/2006.
But, if during this one year, From 1/1/2005 - 1/1/2006, you committed
Another offence with demerit points, your very first offence will be extended
for another year until 1/1/2007.
Here's the link to the Limster's Blogg.
http://limsters.blogspot.com/
Another important FAQ that many bikers will wanna know.
Actually, it's close to the rules for cars as well... it's the tinting.
But dunno why now a dayz, many cars seems to have really really dark windows?? A VIP perhaps?
Also why are VIPs allowed to have such dark windows on their cars anyway? Did they need to apply for "special" lisences for that? Or are they "excused"???
Anyway, here are some details on Visor tint rules for SG.
| Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) for Visor Legislation | |
| 1. | Do I have to wear a clear tint visor at night? / Can I continue to wear my tinted visor at night if it's within the regulations? |
You can use any helmet with visor of at least 70% light transmittance at any time. |
|
| 2. | How about coloured tints? Or full face helmets? |
Coloured tinted visors are fine if they meet the 70% light transmittance. Full face helmets must also meet the requirements. However visors with reflective surfaces are not allowed. |
|
| 3. | Does the change in law mean I have to buy a new helmet or change my visor? |
No, you can continue to use your current helmet, if it meets the requirement of having at least 70% light transmittance. |
|
| 4. | I just bought a new helmet with some tint; how do I know if the visor is within the law regulations? |
You may check with the retailer whom you bought the helmet from. All retailers must also comply with the law. |
|
| 5. | Can I get a refund if the helmet I bought is not within the regulations? |
You would have to check with the shop that sold the helmet. Nonetheless, it is an offence for the retailer to sell any helmet that is unapproved. You may provide the particulars of the retailer to Traffic Police for investigation pertaining to the sale of unapproved helmets. |
|
| 6. | Is TP checking the suppliers to ensure that the helmets they bring in, and which we subsequently buy, are within the law regulations? |
TP will conduct spot checks on the retailers if information is received of an illegal sale. Any retailer found flouting the law would be charged in court. |
|
| 7. | Does the officer have to bring my helmet to LTA inspection centre if my visor is suspected of flouting the new rule? |
No, the officer will be able to determine on the spot the light transmittance of the visor using a tint meter. |
|
| 8. | Who are the stakeholders TP had discussions with on the review? |
A Working Group comprising stakeholders, specific users and interest groups1 was set up in February 2003 to review the requirements for the motorcycle visors. There was also a public consultation on the revised requirements for the visor and eventual approval by the General Engineering and Safety Standards Committee (GESSC) to amend the SS9:1992. 1 Stakeholders - The Working Group was chaired by Prof Chin Hoong Chor of NUS. SPRING; Traffic Police Department, Criminal Investigation Department, Operations Department; Land Transport Authority; specific users such as Storm Riders and Harley Owners Group; interest groups - National Safety Council, Automobile Association of Singapore, Singapore Motor Cycle Trade Association, Ministry of Health, Singapore Safety Driving Centre, Comfort Driving Centre and Bukit Batok Driving Centre, NUS and the Ergonomics Society of Singapore. |
|
| 9. | Would it be safe for the riders and other road users? Or when they wear them at night? |
The lifting of the ban on tinted visors was decided after a lengthy review process which determined that the 70% light transmittance for visors is safe for both day and night riding and will not impede the riders' views thereby posing danger to other road users. |
|
| 10. | Can I wear sunglasses while wearing an approved version of the tinted visor? |
Sunglasses worn together with the approved visor is ok. This is also the current position for motorcyclists as well as for motorcar drivers. In situations where it's dark/dimly lit, riders are expected to remove the sunglasses. The standard for the new visor is deemed clear enough for universal (including night) use. | |
I tried to do a search for a list of rules & regulations for Singapore's traffic do's and don'ts...
I cannot seem to find any...
Well, if you know where I can get a copy of one, please let me know or email / comment me. Thanx.
Anyway I came accross this useful link on using mobile phones while driving. So, I am doing these car drivers a favour rather than playing cop (Please see previous posts).
:D
Extracted from site. SPF aka Singapore Police Force.
| Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) On Handphone Driving? | |
| Background | |
Handphone driving is an inconsiderate and dangerous act that poses a threat to other road-users. It distracts the drivers and reduces their ability to control their vehicles and react to changes in road situations. In the late 1990s, with the proliferation of handphones in Singapore , a corresponding increase in the number of drivers using their handphones while driving was observed. This raised concerns among other road users. The legislation prohibiting handphone driving (Section 65B of RTA) was then introduced in 1999. To ensure that the legislation only applies to drivers who blatantly disregard the safety of other road users by using their handphones while driving, 3 conditions were stipulated. For the offence of handphone driving to stand, ALL the following 3 conditions must be fulfilled: (a) the vehicle is in motion; and (b) the driver is holding on to the handphone with one hand; and (c) the driver is communicating with any person with that handphone. [Para 2(c) includes making phone calls, paging for someone, receiving a call by pressing the keypad, and reading, writing or sending SMS.] The purpose of setting the three conditions is to ensure that drivers who have no intention to commit handphone driving will not be caught by ambiguous rules. For example, a driver who simply holds a mobile phone but is not using it to communicate while driving will not have committed an offence of handphone driving . However , if by doing so, the driver loses attention on the roads and fails to maintain proper control of his vehicle, he will still have committed an offence of driving without due care or reasonable consideration. Similarly, the spirit of the law is such that the driver who uses his handphone is only a menace to other road users if his vehicle is moving. Hence, drivers who use their handphones while their vehicles are stationary will not be caught by this rule. In short, Traffic Police do not take action against motorists for handphone driving simply because there is a handphone on the passenger seat or beside the driver. Traffic Police will only take action when our observations show that all the three conditions for the offence of handphone driving are concurrently present. Below is a list of most commonly asked questions, along with the answers to each of them, to facilitate public's understanding on this matter. If you require clarification, you may email us at SPF_Feedback_TP@spf.gov.sg
|
|
| 1. | Why did Traffic Police enforce against handphone driving? |
Handphone driving is an inconsiderate and dangerous act that poses a threat to other road-users. The act of using one hand to hold the handphone to communicate while driving distracts the drivers and reduces their ability to control their vehicles and react to changes in road situations In the late 90s, when the use of handphones became popular in Singapore , we noted a corresponding increase in the number of drivers using their handphones while driving. This raised concerns among other road users. The specific provision against handphone driving (Section 65B of RTA) was then introduced in 1999. |
|
| 2. | What constitute handphone driving? |
To ensure that only drivers who blatantly disregard the safety of other road users by using their mobile phone while driving, 3 clear conditions were stipulated. For the offence of handphone driving to stand, ALL the following 3 conditions must be fulfilled: (a) the vehicle is in motion; and (b) the driver is holding on to the handphone with one hand; and (c) the driver is communicating with any person with that handphone. [Para 2(c) includes making phone calls, paging for someone, receiving a call by pressing the keypad, reading, writing or sending of SMS.] The purpose of setting the 3 conditions is to ensure that drivers who have no intention to commit handphone driving will not be caught by ambiguous rules. For example, a driver who simply holds a mobile phone but is not using it to communicate while driving will not have committed an offence of handphone driving. However if by doing so, the driver loses attention on the roads and fails to maintain proper control of his vehicle, he will still have committed an offence of driving without due care or reasonable consideration. Similarly, the spirit of the law is such that the driver who uses his handphone is only a menace to other road users if his vehicle is moving. As such, drivers who use their handphone while the vehicle is stationary should not be caught by this rule. In short, Traffic Police do not take action against motorists for handphone driving simply because there is a handphone on the passenger seat or beside the driver. Traffic Police will only take actions when our observations show that all the three conditions for the offence of handphone driving are concurrently present. |
|
| 3. | What is Traffic Police's advice to motorists with handphones in their cars? |
Because of the seriousness of the offence, Traffic Police urges all handphone users to make use of handsfree sets to answer their calls while driving. [Note: The use of handsfree is permitted provided the driver does not hold on to the handphone or the handsfree kit itself.] Alternatively, motorists who wish to use their handphones could also ask their passenger to make or receive a call on their behalf. If travelling alone, motorists should drive to a carpark before making the call. |
|
| 4. | What are the penalties for handphone driving? |
With effect from 1 July 2000 , all handphone driving offenders will be prosecuted in court, regardless of whether the motorist is a first-timer or repeat offender. A first-timer convicted of phone and drive offence shall be liable to 12 demerit points and a maximum fine of up to $1000/- or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or both. He/She may also be disqualified from driving. The offender's handphone and SIM card will be seized to facilitate investigation. These may be forfeited by the court upon conviction. |
|
| 5. | Examples of Handphone Driving: |
Scenario A (Paging for someone) Page for someone, with or without earpiece, using one hand to hold on to the mobile phone while driving. Scenario B (SMS/MMS message) Writing, Sending, and Reading SMS/MMS messages from someone, with or without earpiece, using one hand to hold on to the mobile phone while driving. Scenario C (Making a Call) Making a call, with or without earpiece, by pressing the keypads and was holding handphone in one hand while driving. Scenario D (Receiving a Call) Receiving a call, with or without earpiece, by pressing the keypads and was holding handphone in one hand while driving. | |
From http://www.sgstoc.org/index.php?showtopic=986&hl=
Aka
STOC Singapore's Chapter
-----------------------------
The Post
-----------------------------
Are Harley Davidson bikes put to noise test?
EVERY
time a Harley Davidson motor cycle passes by, it generates a deafening
noise much louder than the piling machine at a construction site.
If piling machines are subjected to strict noise regulations, why are the Harley Davidson bikes exempted?
The high decibels from a Harley Davidson bike may cause hearing impairment.
If cars in Singapore have to pass an emission test, shouldn't the noise level of Harley Davidson motor cycles be tested too?
Kevin Chan Kok Yong
From ST Forum Sept 29, 2006 Fri
-----------------
The Answer
-----------------
All m-cycles have to pass noise test
I REFER to Mr Kevin Chan Kok Yong's letter, 'Are Harley Davidson bikes put to noise test?' (ST, Sept 29).
All
new motorcycles, including the Harley Davidson models, are required to
meet noise-emission standards before they are registered for use on
Singapore roads.
In addition, in-use motorcycles are required to pass a noise-emission test during their mandatory periodic inspections.
Notwithstanding
the above, there have been cases where motorcyclists modified their
exhaust pipes illegally, thereby generating noise levels exceeding the
permitted standard.
The National Environment Agency (NEA) has
been working closely with the Land Transport Authority to conduct
regular blitzes against noisy motorcycles/vehicles on the road. Fines
are imposed on owners of motorcycles with noisy or illegally modified
exhaust systems.
We thank Mr Chan for his concern for the
environment. If he comes across any Harley Davidson which he thinks is
excessively noisy, we would appreciate it if he calls our NEA hotline
on 1800-CALL NEA (1800-2255 632) to provide us with the details.
Joseph Hui
Head, Pollution Control Department
National Environment Agency
From ST Forum Oct 7, 2006
--------------------------
If I remember correctly, the fine for modded pipes.
SGD 500
Sorry, I have nothing against HD bikers but I have something against unfair treatment between bikers. Of why some bikers are allowed to "do certain" things, even during national events like, Chingay, National Day etc etc........
I am not sure this happened yesterday or a couple of days ago but one of SG's popular male actor was in an accident involving his Merc & another motorbike.
Why is this high profile?
Cos the actor was D.U.I. aka under the influence of alcohol.
Driving Under the Influence of alcohol or an illicit
substance - any substance, licit or illicit, if it impairs the driving
function
www.addiction-rehabilitation.com/glossary.html
A third or subsequent DUI (over .1% alcohol) is a
felony. DUI is driving under the influence, not necessarily "drunk". A
person who is DUI and negligently kills or seriously injures someone is
guilty of the felony of "aggravated DUI".
www.msda9.com/grandjury/gjterms.htm
So? Some may ask...
The actor did not stop after the accident. If I am not wrong, he was chased by someone 500m before he actually stopped.
I am just wondering 1st of all... What is he gonna say??
1. I just has 1 glass of wine / beer... (Well it's happened before)
2. I did not know I hit someone.
Is this acceptable?
DUI is one thing, but a possible Hit & Run?
Collision between a motor vehicle and another motor
vehicle, object or pedestrian, where the driver of the vehicle leaves
the scene of the accident without identifying himself/herself
www.lombard.ca/Glossary.htm
Hit and run is the act of hitting an object, such as a
pedestrian, parked car, or mailbox, with a vehicle and immediately
leaving the location of the incident. This act is considered illegal in
some places. The usual reason for the leaving of the scene is to evade
capture by the police, avoid exchanging insurance information, or
otherwise escape punishment.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hit_and_run_(vehicular)
DUI over the years has become a major offence in SG... Also since the last couple of other "high profile cases"...
I am really interested to see what is gonna happen to him.
1. For DUI
2. For hit & run
To see how "Fair" our country is to bikers.
SG is one of the few countries where bikers "SABO" one another...
Example...
I am blessed to have a sister-in-law who lets me use her car over the weekends.
(Her hubby has another car, before anyone starts thinking... she should... well... would you??)
Anyway, in order to use the car, I need to drive over to pick up the car... Meaning that I need to leave my bike over @ her place. (It's a common / shared multi story HDB car park)
Anyway, recently, the authorties decided to "convert" most of the bike lots into Season Parking only lots... Meaning that there are very few or little parking for non season bikes... Which happends to be alot... dun ask me why... sigh...
Anyway, I noticed that there is this lot that is a 1 lot only spot where chances of being... knocked by other bikes / car is minimal...
My parking coupons are alwayz torn away / stolen.
1 times... ok... maybe some kid...
2 times... this kid kinda irritating...
3 times... this is personal man.........
Then later I noticed that, there is usually 1 bike who will park there....
A Yellow Hayabusa with xxxx boxes...
How many of these are there?? prob only 1... Anyway... I have decided to censored the above with xxxx as I dun think I wanna persue this matter, I am not saying that it's by this bike's owner but chances are that it's may be, I juz need the evidence.
In the past I'd prob have taken things into my own hands... literally...
But the bike group that I am associated with... or have helped started... see things otherwise...
That will be ino another post... The STOC Singapore Chapter
Juz today, I noticed that my tyres are slightly deflated... is this the work of this guy?? I really do not know... Do I wanna find out...?? Should I?? Why??? Revenge?? What for??
Bikers should help one another... Not SABO / sabotage one another.
Being a biker in SG is tough enough without bikers snobbing each other.... Challenging one another... Sabotaging one another...
Anyway, I do not wish for this to happen to him but I know that God will watch my back.
21 If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat;
if he is thirsty, give him water to drink.
22 In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head,
and the LORD will reward you.
19Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay,"[a]says the Lord. 20On the contrary:
"If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head."[b] 21Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
Some people may say... this is wicked thought... Asking God to help us take revenge...
On the contrary... would anyone not be stumbled if the bible were to say... "Revenge is yours to take?" Would that then be Godly? Would that be in God's Character to be loving?
44But I tell you: Love your enemies[a] and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?
