Latest news with #RoadTrafficAct1961
International Business Times
5 hours ago
- International Business Times
Singapore Lorry Driver, 55, Charged for Causing S$1.4M Damage in CTE Tunnel Crash
A 55-year-old man will be charged in court on Wednesday, July 30, for driving a heavy motor vehicle that collided with a building or structure, as well as driving a heavy motor vehicle over 4.5 meters in height without police escort. This comes after the man's lorry with a crane attachment damaged parts of the Central Expressway (CTE) tunnel last year. The Singapore Police Force (SPF) said that they were alerted to the collision on November 8, 2024, around noon, when the vehicle entered the slip road along Cairnhill Road into the CTE tunnel. Investigations revealed that the driver was driving a lorry with a raised crane boom when the crane boom collided with the height limit barrier and the tunnel while entering the slip road along Cairnhill Road into the CTE tunnel. SPF said in a statement, "The collision caused extensive damage to the height limit barrier and the mechanical and electrical units of the tunnel, amounting to about $1.4 million in damages. The driver was placed under arrest on the same day for the offences of driving a heavy motor vehicle which collided into any building or structure and driving a heavy motor vehicle exceeding 4.5 meters in height without police escort. This is his second time committing both offences." Under Section 65A of the Road Traffic Act of 1961, driving a heavy motor vehicle and colliding with any building or structure is punishable by a fine of up to S$5,000, a maximum jail sentence of two years, or both. If this is the second or subsequent conviction, the maximum penalty is S$10,000, a maximum jail sentence of up to five years, or both. Additionally, offenders may be prohibited from operating any kind of vehicle. "The offence of driving a heavy vehicle with overall height exceeding 4.5m without police escort under Section 79(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 carries a mandatory jail term between one and three years, and a fine up to S$2,000; and in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, a mandatory jail term between two and five years, and a fine up to S$5,000," added SPF. Police reminded owners and operators of large motor vehicles taller than 4.5 meters that they need police or auxiliary police escorts. "Drivers should plan their routes carefully to avoid height-restricted roads and structures. The Traffic Police take a serious view of such offences as they compromise road infrastructure and endanger other road users," said police. "Firm action will be taken against motorists who fail to obtain the necessary escorts or cause damage to buildings and structures."
The Australian
20 hours ago
- The Australian
Viral parking trick could land Aussies in jail, lawyer warns
Australians are being warned against a viral parking trick that can lead to serious consequences. A law expert is warning motorists of the significant penalties that come with a growing trend that sees people wiping away chalk-marked tyres from parked vehicles. Council parking rangers often use chalk to determine if a driver has overstayed in a timed parking space. However, this deceptive tactic is becoming increasingly common for avoiding parking fines. Criminal lawyer Avinash Singh from Astor Legal is warning of potential fines and even imprisonment after a TikTok video with over a million views showed footage of someone dousing water on chalk-marked car tyres. A viral TikTok shows someone dousing water on chalk-marked tyres. Picture: wxirua/TikTok MORE: 'Like Tinder': Huge problem with Aussie cars While some online users praised the act, Avinash Singh says anyone caught in the act opens themselves up to fines worth over $750 or a penalty of up to 25 years imprisonment. 'Removing chalk off a tyre could be seen as attempting to pervert the course of justice. This is because the removal of chalk would hinder a parking ranger from carrying out their duties and prevent them from issuing a fine,' Avinash said. A city ranger giving parking infringement notices to street parked cars. Picture: NCA NewsWire / James Gourley Although there isn't a national law against removing chalk, each state and territory has specific regulations concerning the interference with official enforcement tools. In South Australia, the practice of removing chalk has become so widespread that the state has applied a specific law addressing the removal of chalk. 'In South Australia, a specific law had to be introduced due to how common removing chalk became,' Avinash said. Under Section 174AB of the Road Traffic Act 1961, it states it's an offence to remove a parking inspector's chalk from a vehicle. The maximum fine for this is $750. In New South Wales, the act could fall under Section 319 of the Crimes Act 1900, which addresses attempts to pervert the course of justice, carrying a penalty of up to 14 years imprisonment. MORE: 'Truly impressive': Australia's Westworld unveiled A viral TikTok shows someone dousing water on chalk-marked tyres. Picture: wxirua/TikTok A viral TikTok shows someone dousing water on chalk-marked tyres. Picture: wxirua/TikTok Similarly, in Queensland and Western Australia, attempting to obstruct justice under their respective Criminal Codes can result in up to 7 years imprisonment. While in Victoria, the common law offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice can lead to a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment. While law experts and council officers aren't amused, there are legal defences motorists can use if they are caught removing chalk marks. Avinash explains further that the most common legal defence if an offender is caught is proving that they were not the person who removed the chalk. A city ranger is seen putting a parking fine on a car. Picture: NewsWire / Jenny Evans MORE: 'Words are f***': China's Aus turf war explodes 'A parking ranger would need to witness you removing the chalk or have some sort of video or CCTV footage showing you removing the chalk. 'Without this, they could not prove that another person had removed the chalk, and the charge would be dismissed.' Avinash also explains that if a driver has been issued a parking fine, they can contest it and request evidence that they were timed correctly. 'This is usually in the form of timestamped photos that a parking ranger has taken,' Avinash said. James Chung Digital Content Creator James is a Digital Content Creator at and is part of the News Corp Australia's digital real estate team. His previous experience includes working for Sky News Australia.
News.com.au
21 hours ago
- News.com.au
Viral parking trick could land Aussies in jail
Australians are being warned against a viral parking trick that can lead to serious consequences. A law expert is warning motorists of the significant penalties that come with a growing trend that sees people wiping away chalk-marked tyres from parked vehicles. Council parking rangers often use chalk to determine if a driver has overstayed in a timed parking space. However, this deceptive tactic is becoming increasingly common for avoiding parking fines. Criminal lawyer Avinash Singh from Astor Legal is warning of potential fines and even imprisonment after a TikTok video with over a million views showed footage of someone dousing water on chalk-marked car tyres. While some online users praised the act, Avinash Singh says anyone caught in the act opens themselves up to fines worth over $750 or a penalty of up to 25 years imprisonment. 'Removing chalk off a tyre could be seen as attempting to pervert the course of justice. This is because the removal of chalk would hinder a parking ranger from carrying out their duties and prevent them from issuing a fine,' Avinash said. Although there isn't a national law against removing chalk, each state and territory has specific regulations concerning the interference with official enforcement tools. In South Australia, the practice of removing chalk has become so widespread that the state has applied a specific law addressing the removal of chalk. 'In South Australia, a specific law had to be introduced due to how common removing chalk became,' Avinash said. Under Section 174AB of the Road Traffic Act 1961, it states it's an offence to remove a parking inspector's chalk from a vehicle. The maximum fine for this is $750. In New South Wales, the act could fall under Section 319 of the Crimes Act 1900, which addresses attempts to pervert the course of justice, carrying a penalty of up to 14 years imprisonment. Similarly, in Queensland and Western Australia, attempting to obstruct justice under their respective Criminal Codes can result in up to 7 years imprisonment. While in Victoria, the common law offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice can lead to a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment. While law experts and council officers aren't amused, there are legal defences motorists can use if they are caught removing chalk marks. Avinash explains further that the most common legal defence if an offender is caught is proving that they were not the person who removed the chalk. 'A parking ranger would need to witness you removing the chalk or have some sort of video or CCTV footage showing you removing the chalk. 'Without this, they could not prove that another person had removed the chalk, and the charge would be dismissed.' Avinash also explains that if a driver has been issued a parking fine, they can contest it and request evidence that they were timed correctly. 'This is usually in the form of timestamped photos that a parking ranger has taken,' Avinash said.
9 News
2 days ago
- Automotive
- 9 News
Why you should never remove chalk marks from your parked car
Your web browser is no longer supported. To improve your experience update it here A criminal lawyer is warning Australians about the potential consequences of removing chalk marks from their tyres before a parking inspection is complete. A recent TikTok depicting an individual removing chalk marks from multiple car tyres has gone viral and sparked online conversation. But Avinash Singh, from Astor Lega has warned of the potential consequences of the act. "Removing chalk off a tyre could be seen as attempting to pervert the course of justice. This is because the removal of chalk would hinder a parking ranger from carrying out their duties and prevent them from issuing a fine," he said. The video sparked debate, with Singh criticising the video, the comment section was flooded with people showing support for the stunt. In NSW, Section 319 Crimes Act 1900 makes it an offence to do any act or omission intending in any way to pervert the court of justice. Chalk mark on car tyre from parking inspectors ( South Australia is the only state that has a specific law that addresses this issue due to the issue becoming so widespread. Section 174AB of the Road Traffic Act 1961 makes it an offence to remove a parking inspector's chalk from a vehicle. The maximum fine this offense can carry is a $750 fine. "If a driver finds that a fine has been issued, they can contest the fine and ask for evidence that they were timed correctly. This is usually in the form of timestamped photos that a parking ranger has taken," says Singh. parking national Cars Fines driving Australia TikTok CONTACT US
Sunday World
22-07-2025
- Sunday World
Drunk driver from Wexford who couldn't remember how he ended up in Co Donegal is jailed
Father-of-four Martin O'Brien appeared before Letterkenny District Court in Co Donegal charged with a number of offences A Co Wexford man who couldn't remember how he ended up drunk behind the wheel of a car at the other end of the country has been jailed for a total of eight months and put off the road for 10 years. Father-of-four Martin O'Brien appeared before Letterkenny District Court in Co Donegal charged with a number of offences. It comes after an incident on June 24th last when a member of the public reported a car being driven in an erratic manner in Letterkenny. Garda Sergeant Jim Collins told the court that O'Brien has 95 previous convictions and outlined the charges against the 43-year-old. The offences include public order, theft, dangerous driving and driving without insurance for which O'Brien had served some time in prison. Sgt Collins said Gardai received an anonymous call from a member of the public on the day after they saw a silver Vauxhall car being driven "all over the road" at Ballyraine in Letterkenny. The driver, a Martin O'Brien, of The Elms, Park Avenue, Gorey, Co Wexford, was arrested and brought to Letterkenny Garda Station. When in custody, Gardai discovered that O'Brien was not the owner of the car, he was not insured to drive the car and he also tested positive for alcohol. O'Brien was charged that at Lidl Carpark,Ballyraine, Letterkenny, Co. Donegal a public place in the said District Court Area of Letterkenny district no 1, while being a specified person as defined in section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 2010 as amended by section 9 of the Road Traffic (No. 2) Act 2011, did drive a mechanically propelled vehicle while there was present in your body a quantity of alcohol such that, within 3 hours after so driving, the concentration of alcohol in your blood did exceed a concentration of 20 milligrams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood, to wit 124 milligrams. The charge was Contrary to section 4(2)(b) & 4(5) of the Road Traffic Act 2010. He was also charged that on the same date and location he did unlawfully use a mechanically propelled vehicle without the consent of the owner or without other lawful authority. The charge was Contrary to Section 112 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961, (as amended by Section 65 of the Road Traffic Act, 1968, and as amended by Section 18 of the Road Traffic Act, 2006). O'Brien was also charged on the same date and place was the user of a mechanically propelled vehicle, such vehicle being one for which neither a vehicle insurer nor an exempted person would be liable for injury caused by the negligent use of said vehicle at that time and for which there was not then in force an approved policy of insurance as required by Part VI of the Road Traffic Act, 1961, as amended by Part VI of the Road Traffic Act, 1968, as amended. That charge was Contrary to Section 56(1) & (3) Road Traffic Act 1961 as amended by Section 18 of the Road Traffic Act, 2006. Solicitor for the accused, Mr Robert Ryan, told the court that his client had a long addiction to heroin and had been on a methadone programme when he previously came out of prison. He had turned to alcohol since but Mr Ryan said his client presented as a very different man from when he was arrested. He said O'Brien had suffered a number of tragedies in his life but was trying to get his life back on the straight and narrow. He added that on the day in question, O'Brien had little or no memory of the incidents and doesn't even know how he ended up in Co Donegal. The accused had put up his hands to the charges and now wanted to put them behind him. Judge Eiteain Cunningham sentenced O'Brien to a total of eight months in prison and also banned him from holding a driving licence for ten years. Stock image News in 90 Seconds - July 22nd
