Fine or jail for rash cycling should act as a deterrent: Judge

SINGAPORE — Noting the growing number of cyclists on pedestrian pavements, a High Court judge said sentences meted out for “rash cycling” offences should start at close to the maximum fine of S$2,500 or a short jail term. Such a punishment, said Justice Chan Seng Onn, will deter potential offenders and “prevent such rash cycling offences from becoming prevalent”. He added that this starting point may be calibrated upwards if they are found to have no deterrent effect. “I am of the view that the need for a deterrent sentence in relation to ‘rash cycling’ means that the custodial threshold ... will be crossed in many cases, where the ‘clang of the prison gates’ awaits such offenders,” he said.

The judge’s comments came in his written judgment made public yesterday (Oct 14) in an unprecedented appeal launched by prosecutors to reduce the sentence of a cyclist who had knocked into an elderly pedestrian on a pavement, causing her arm fractures. Justice Chan allowed the appeal and cut Lim Choon Teck’s eight-week jail term to three weeks last month.

Citing statistics from Parliament to show more cyclists taking to the pavements, the judge noted that the number of summonses issued to errant cyclists cycling on pavements has grown at a compound annual growth rate of about 21 per cent from 2009 to 2013.

During a parliamentary sitting in March this year, the need for “urgent attention” to make pedestrian paths safer for all users in the face of cyclists taking to the pavements was also highlighted, the judge added.

Justice Chan said a “hefty” fine should generally be reserved for cases where the victim sustains minor or no injuries and when the offender pleads guilty at the first reasonable opportunity. Otherwise, the jail term imposed on a “rash cycling” offender will be set based on three factors: The degree of rashness, the extent of injury or harm suffered by the victim, and whether the offender pleads guilty at the first reasonable opportunity.

The judge elaborated that the degree of rashness is largely a derivative of the type, size and weight of the vehicle; the actual speed of travel; and the pedestrian density on the pavement at the time of the offence. Accidents involving motorised-bicycles, therefore, would generally invite heavier sentences. In Lim’s case, Justice Chan noted that as this is the first case of this nature, “it may well be inappropriate to start off by immediately setting a very heavy deterrent sentence of long imprisonment as a benchmark and make an example of the respondent in the process”. He added: “It would be prudent to take measured steps and watch how it pans out.”

On how he arrived at the three-week sentence, Justice Chan said he took into account that Lim’s view of the victim approaching the pavement was blocked by a board at the bus stop. He also noted that Lim was riding a non-motorised bicycle, which would be travelling at a slower speed and pose less danger to pedestrians.

The judge agreed with prosecutors’ argument that Lim’s original sentence was manifestly excessive, citing the three-week jail term given to a driver who drove off when a security guard had placed a wheel clamp in front of his vehicle. Part of the wheel clamp broke off and caused the guard to suffer some bruises.

Through this appeal, Justice Chan added, the public prosecutor had advanced public interest by helping ensure offenders are appropriately punished and the correct sentencing benchmarks are also set within the overall sentencing framework.