Elderly woman killed after GetGo car ploughs into night market stall
SINGAPORE: A car from the car-sharing platform GetGo ploughed into a night market stall along Circuit Road late on Friday night (Jul 11), killing a 66-year-old woman.
Photos shared by the SG Road Vigilante Facebook page show the car had rammed deep into the stall, with metal frames, tarpaulins, and produce thrown across the ground. Stalls nearby also appeared to have been damaged in the impact.
The police said they were alerted to the incident at around 11:45 p.m. near 52A Circuit Road. The driver, a 40-year-old man, was arrested for dangerous driving causing death. Police also confirmed that he was driving without a driver's license or insurance coverage at the time of the crash.
Singapore Civil Defence Force paramedics pronounced the woman dead on the spot.
Investigations are ongoing. document.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded", () => { const trigger = document.getElementById("ads-trigger"); if ('IntersectionObserver' in window && trigger) { const observer = new IntersectionObserver((entries, observer) => { entries.forEach(entry => { if (entry.isIntersecting) { lazyLoader(); // You should define lazyLoader() elsewhere or inline here observer.unobserve(entry.target); // Run once } }); }, { rootMargin: '800px', threshold: 0.1 }); observer.observe(trigger); } else { // Fallback setTimeout(lazyLoader, 3000); } });
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Independent Singapore
an hour ago
- Independent Singapore
Woman trailed to Pilates class by stranger with phone, netizens debate legality
SINGAPORE: In a current viral Reddit post, a young woman narrated a troubling happenstance: a man she didn't know and had never seen before trailed her all the way to her Pilates class, with a camera phone in hand, purportedly taking photos of her. She labelled him as a 'pervert,' distressed by the fact that even in a public space, she felt anything but safe. But the story didn't end with her embarrassment. In the comment section of that Reddit post, there was a torrent not just of empathy, but of piercing discussions, legal opinions, and painful truths about how people navigate shared spaces in the era of smartphones. 'It's legal – but is it right?' A repeated theme from netizens was this: taking photos of people in public, while scary, isn't prohibited. 'As vile or repulsive as one may find it, taking photos of others in a public space is not an offence,' one user said. 'It's a big stretch to prove harassment.' Legally speaking, they're correct. In most territories, the right to privacy doesn't cover public situations. If someone's out in the open, photos can be taken of them, whether they're aware of it or not, or if they are comfortable with it. That reality was unsettling to many readers, particularly in a situation where a woman feels followed and objectified. 'Imagine you're just using your phone and someone thinks your angle looks suspicious—and suddenly people pin you down,' another commenter remarked, alluding to that the man in question was confronted physically. 'Those guys are lucky they didn't get charged.' When behaviour crosses a line However, others were quick to point out that there's a difference between taking a photo in a leisurely manner and following someone around. 'This is textbook stalking,' a commenter stressed. 'Nobody should be alarmed if they had their photo taken by a stranger in public. But if that stranger starts following them around, anybody would feel threatened.' There certainly is a key difference. While the law might not plainly outline this grey zone, informally and ethically speaking, the responses were far more unified. Trailing someone for a long period alters a permissible act into one of danger. One user even questioned why the man hadn't been detained, saying that constant following could be viewed as aggravation and harassment in many other legal systems. Freedom of expression or lack of respect? Another aspect of the conversation spun around clothes and permission, a theme as old as the public decorum dispute itself. Some contended that if a woman is donning form-fitting clothes in public, she tacitly invites attention. 'The same liberty that allows you to dress how you want,' one person claimed, 'also extends to others being able to photograph you.' Another commenter chimed in, 'If you don't think your outfit is too sexual, then the photos of it shouldn't be either.' But many discussants were quick to call this reasoning defective and risky. The notion that someone's clothing choices one way or another reduce their right to feel safe is a fragment of a bigger societal problem, one that has long beleaguered discussions about consent. 'There's a difference between looking and leering, between existing and stalking,' one netizen snapped. 'Not her fault, but…' – A troubling perspective As anticipated in situations like this, some remarks faintly deviated into victim-blaming. One user wrote: 'Not blaming her for her dressing or anything, but it's not an offence to take pictures. So, I don't get what she's so upset about.' Another weighed in, 'If this keeps happening to her, maybe she's unlucky—or maybe she's drawing attention with how she dresses.' Such views, while often outlined as concern or reason, echo a societal inclination to place responsibility on women to foil wicked actions from others, instead of holding the wrongdoers liable. The bigger picture This Reddit thread mirrors more than just one person's bad day. It's a picture of a society grappling with the restrictions of what is legal and what is decent, amidst the changing standards of a digital world. Yes, public spaces are shared, and yes, people have the right to take pictures of what they see. But when the camera lens turns into an instrument for terrorisation, or when people feel panic-stricken rather than observed, the conversation needs to shift.
CNA
2 hours ago
- CNA
Man gets jail for pushing drunk stranger into Singapore River; victim later found dead
SINGAPORE: A man was sentenced to just under three years' jail on Wednesday (Jul 16) for pushing a drunk man, who fell into the Singapore River and drowned. Legha Pawan, a 22-year-old Indian national, was given 35 months' jail. He pleaded guilty to one count of voluntarily causing hurt to Jasbir Singh, 33, where the hurt caused turned out to be grievous hurt in the form of death. The charge had been downgraded from an earlier charge of causing death by a rash act. A second charge was taken into consideration. The court heard that Legha, a student, lived in Woodlands with several housemates. On the evening of Jun 30 last year, Legha and his housemates left their flat for an evening out at Clarke Quay. They bought six cans of beer, some cigarettes and snacks and sat down at the steps near the riverside, in the vicinity of Paradox Singapore Merchant Court Hotel and Clarke Quay Central mall. They spent the next few hours chatting and consuming alcohol, with Legha drinking two cans of beer. They were joined by other acquaintances along the way. Sometime before 10pm, an argument broke out among Legha's friends. An intoxicated Legha pulled the hair of one of his friends and was pulled away by another friend to prevent any escalation of the situation. The group then dispersed. Meanwhile, the victim was walking along the riverbank around 10.10pm. Mr Singh, a construction worker, was married and had two young children back in India who depended on him financially. He had begun drinking heavily about two or three months before the incident, after his mother died. He was not acquainted with Legha, and he stopped and hugged a lamp post near the area where Legha had been spending time with his friends. At about 10.30pm, Legha returned to the spot alone and approached Mr Singh. This immediately drew the attention of a couple nearby, who were wary of Legha after recognising him from the earlier disturbance. Initially, Legha spoke quietly to Mr Singh and made no body contact. Mr Singh stood near the edge of the river bank, with his back to the river. Legha knew that Mr Singh was very intoxicated, the court heard. Suddenly, for no apparent reason, Legha pushed Mr Singh on his chest with both hands. Mr Singh fell backwards, rolled down the steps and fell into the Singapore River. Witnessing this, the nearby couple shouted. Mr Singh quickly became submerged in the water and did not resurface. The couple alerted the police, while Legha left the scene. The Singapore Civil Defence Force Disaster Assistance Rescue Team (DART) went down to the scene and assembled a diving team, which took turns canvassing the waters for periods of 30 to 45 minutes each. Initially, there was no sign of Mr Singh, save for a single white slipper that belonged to him. His body was found on the riverbed only at around 2am on Jul 1, 2024. He was pronounced dead soon after. An autopsy determined his cause of death to be drowning, and external injuries including a bruise to the back of his neck and a laceration on the back of his head were found. A toxicology report found an amount of ethanol in Mr Singh's blood which was indicative of a high level of intoxication, the court heard. After pushing Mr Singh, Legha removed his shirt to avoid police detection and took a train back to his home, where he called his unwitting housemate to meet him with his backpack at a different block. He did this intending to evade arrest, the court heard. Legha returned to his flat only at around 8am on Jul 1, 2024 and was promptly arrested. During investigations, he claimed that it was Mr Singh who first grabbed his bangle and damaged it. He claimed that he managed to free both his hands only after a short struggle, and got upset when Mr Singh used vulgarities against his mother. However, police investigations revealed no objective evidence supporting his claim. The prosecution said Legha knew that the victim was intoxicated. It was "reasonably foreseeable" that the push would cause grievous hurt, said Deputy Public Prosecutor Jheong Siew Yin. She pointed out aggravating factors, including the fact that Legha was intoxicated, his act was unprovoked, and that he fled the scene without helping the victim. Defence lawyer Simran Kaur Sandhu sought 30 months' jail instead, saying both her client and the deceased were intoxicated. She highlighted that no weapon was used, and the push was "a generic push" not intended to target vulnerable points.
CNA
2 hours ago
- CNA
Air India crash rekindles debate over cockpit video recorders
SEATTLE: The deadly Air India crash last month has renewed a decades-old debate in the aviation industry over installing video cameras monitoring airline pilot actions to complement the cockpit voice and flight data recorders already used by accident investigators. One of the industry's most influential voices, International Air Transport Association (IATA) head Willie Walsh, a former airline pilot, said on Wednesday (Jul 16) in Singapore that there was a strong argument for video cameras to be installed in airliner cockpits to monitor pilot actions to complement voice and flight data recorders already used by accident investigators. Aviation experts have said a preliminary report from India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) raised questions over whether one of the pilots of Air India flight 171 cut off fuel to the Boeing 787's engines seconds after takeoff, leading to an irrecoverable situation. The crash in Ahmedabad, India, killed 241 of the 242 people aboard, as well as 19 people on the ground. As of now, "based on what little we know now, it's quite possible that a video recording, in addition to the voice recording, would significantly assist the investigators in conducting that investigation on the issue of mental health", Walsh said. Advocates for cockpit video cameras say the footage could fill in gaps left by the audio and data recorders, while opponents say concerns about privacy and misuse outweigh what they argue are marginal benefits for investigations. Video footage was "invaluable" to Australian crash investigators determining what led to the Robinson R66 helicopter breaking up in mid-air in 2023, killing the pilot, the only person aboard, according to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau's (ATSB) final report, which was released 18 days after the Air India crash. The video showed "the pilot was occupied with non-flying related tasks for much of this time, specifically, mobile phone use and the consumption of food and beverages", the report said. The ATSB commended Robinson Helicopters for providing factory-installed cameras and said it encouraged other manufacturers and owners to consider the ongoing safety benefits of similar devices. In 2000, United States National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Chairman Jim Hall urged the Federal Aviation Administration to require commercial airliners be equipped with cockpit image recorders. Hall's recommendation came in the wake of 1999's Egyptair Flight 990 crash, when the first officer intentionally crashed the Boeing 767, according to the NTSB, killing all 217 people on board. "In the balance between privacy and safety, the scale tips toward safety, unequivocally," air safety expert and former commercial airline pilot John Nance said. "Protecting the flying public is a sacred obligation." Another aviation safety expert, Anthony Brickhouse, said that as an accident investigator, he is in favour of cockpit video, but acknowledged that commercial pilots have real concerns. Video on Air India flight 171 "would have answered lots of questions", he said. Air India declined to comment. India's AAIB, which is expected to release a final report within a year of the crash under international rules, did not reply to a request for comment. PILOT OBJECTIONS US pilots' unions such as the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) and Allied Pilots Association (APA) say the voice and data recorders already provide enough information to determine the cause of a crash and that the cameras would be an invasion of privacy and could be misused. Calls for cockpit cameras are an understandable reaction to "the stress of not knowing what happened immediately after an accident", said APA spokesperson Dennis Tajer, an American Airlines pilot. "I can understand the initial reaction of the more information, the better", but investigators already have enough data to adequately determine an accident's cause, leaving no need for cameras, he said. To make flying safer, current safety systems should be enhanced to record higher-quality data, rather than adding video cameras, an ALPA spokesperson said. There are also concerns that the footage could be used by airlines for disciplinary actions or that the video could be leaked to the public after a crash, said John Cox, an aviation safety expert, retired airline pilot and former ALPA executive air safety chairman. A pilot's death being broadcast on "the 6 o'clock news is not something that the pilot's family should ever have to go through", he said. If confidentiality can be assured around the world, "I can see an argument" for installing cameras, Cox said. Cockpit voice recordings are typically kept confidential by investigators in favour of partial or full transcripts being released in final reports. Despite that, the International Federation of Air Line Pilots Associations said it was skeptical that confidentiality could ever be assured for cockpit videos. "Given the high demand for sensational pictures, IFALPA has absolutely no doubt that the protection of (airborne image recorder) data, which can include identifiable images of flight crewmembers, would not be ensured either," the organisation said in a statement.
