Addressing Mechanical Failure in Heavy Vehicles Leading to Fatal Accidents

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That Parliament do now adjourn."

Question proposed.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Members of this House may remember an accident that happened in March last year, where a wheel that became dislodged from a trailer truck travelling along the Kranji Expressway (KJE) bounced across the road divider to the other side and struck a motorcyclist travelling in the opposite direction. He died at the scene.

The runaway wheel also narrowly missed another motorcyclist as it tumbled across the road. It was sheer luck that others did not come into contact with this wheel and suffer the consequences. That motorcyclist was the late Mr Slemat Rakisan. He was 57 years old. I knew Mr Slemat. We were fellow community leaders serving together in Jurong Group Representation Constituency (GRC). He was a well-loved gentleman. The hon Minister and Grassroots Advisor of Yuhua grassroots organisations (GROs), Ms Grace Fu, in her eulogy posting, described him as a "humble and compassionate leader" who also brought much laughter with his Tom Jones and Elvis Presley impersonations. I met him just the weekend before he died at a community music event. The randomness of the accident leading to his death remains disconcerting.

Just three months after the KJE accident, there was yet another instance of a loose wheel coming off a Malaysian-registered truck, this time, on the West Coast Highway. This rolled across the lanes and smashed into a car travelling in the opposite direction. Thankfully, the driver of the car only suffered a minor injury to his right ear.

Wheels come off the vehicles as a result of mechanical failures. These unfortunate accidents illustrate how mechanical failure in heavy vehicles often lead to accidents that may cause serious injuries or fatalities. Regrettably, these two are not the only instances of accidents involving mechanical failure in heavy vehicles. In July last year, a private bus driver realised the brakes of the bus had failed and, to avoid a collision with the stationary cars in his path, he mounted a kerb intending to manoeuvre his vehicle into a nearby tree for a controlled crash. Unfortunately, he hit a woman cycling home from work along a footway. She died at the scene. It was determined by the Coroner after an inquiry that the brake failure was due to a missing drain valve component, which led to the bus having no braking ability whatsoever.

In such fatal accidents caused by mechanical failure, as opposed to driver negligence or recklessness, these are often ruled as misadventures and there is little that the authorities can presently do to impose criminal liability for the accidents, although civil remedies, such as insurance claims, remain available. This state of affairs is, with respect, unsatisfactory because the parties responsible for maintaining the critical component parts of the heavy vehicles that failed, escape criminal liability for causing the accidents.

I respectfully suggest that the Government consider imposing liability on the owners and operators of the heavy vehicles to hold them to account for accidents arising from mechanical failure that may be obviated through proper maintenance.

It is well-known that a significant number of fatal accidents involve heavy vehicles. In a joint circular issued by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) and the Singapore Police Force, it was noted that there was an increasing trend of fatal and injury accidents involving heavy vehicles, from 816 such accidents in 2013 to 877 in 2015.

In the workplace context, the figures of fatal accidents involving heavy vehicles are also concerning. In September 2017, Minister of State for Manpower, Mr Sam Tan, highlighted that in 2016, 22 workers were involved in fatal accidents caused by moving vehicles. This was a 47% increase from 2014. He also highlighted that in the first half of 2017, there were 379 injuries and seven fatalities caused by vehicle-related incidents. This led to the implementation of new workplace vehicle safety initiatives, which is very welcomed.

It appears that there are no publicly available studies which has been done to ascertain how many of these accidents involved mechanical failure. What is clear is that such accidents do happen, whether in Singapore or overseas. In the 2015 Major Accident Investigation Report conducted by the Australian National Truck Accident Research Centre, it was stated that mechanical failures accounted for 5% of crash incidents in Australia, with tyre failure accounting for 72% of losses attributable to mechanical fault. In the US, federal statistics show that mechanical failure plays a role in 12% of all motor vehicle accidents.

Common types of mechanical failures include malfunctioning brakes, faulty steering systems, faulty headlights or taillights, and tyre and wheel issues, such as worn tyres and overtightened wheel bolts.

Under our current system, there are three separate regimes that deal with different aspects of road safety involving heavy vehicles.

On one end, the Traffic Police's focus is on the culpability of the driver, such as for reckless or negligent driving, under the Road Traffic Act or, sometimes, the Penal Code. This would cover accidents caused by the behaviour of drivers of heavy vehicles, such as speeding and red-running. However, whilst it is an offence under the Road Traffic Act for a person who causes a heavy motor vehicle to collide with any buildings or structures, there is no specific offence under the Act which attributes responsibility of the owners and operators of heavy vehicles for road traffic accidents caused by mechanical failure that is preventable.

Let me illustrate this through a recent case.

Last year, a public bus driver was acquitted of the offence of rash driving. He was accused of driving above the speed limit whilst negotiating a bend along the slip road of Bukit Timah Expressway into Dairy Farm Road. The bus crashed. A passenger was killed and another was injured. The driver testified that he experienced brake problems and, in his words, "engine runaway" which caused the bus to accelerate on its own.

The prosecution's expert witness testified that he found an air leak in one of the bus' air pipes which could have affected the brake efficiency, but he could not conduct a brake efficiency test due to the damage the bus sustained in the crash.

The learned District Judge accepted the driver's defence and acquitted him.

What is evident from the case is that there was no focus on the bus company to ascertain whether it had properly maintained the brake system of the bus. This is understandable because of the current legislation.

The Land Transport Authority (LTA) enforces the periodic vehicle inspection regime as well as the requirements under the Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Construction and Use) Rules which lay down the specifications for critical component parts. The objective is to minimise vehicular breakdown and road accidents.

With the exception of omni-buses, which are inspected every six months, trailers, goods vehicles and all other buses are subject to mandatory inspection only once a year if the vehicle is less than 10 years old, and once every six months if the vehicle is more than 10 years old.

In the intervening period between inspections, there always remains the probability that vehicles are driven without proper maintenance as recommended by the vehicle manufacturers until just before the inspection.

This is a moral hazard that must be addressed.

Whilst non-compliance of these rules per se give rise to regulatory offences, there is currently no provision that pins liability for non-compliance of the rules giving rise to the fatal accidents. In other words, these rules operate independently. LTA does not routinely open an investigation to identify the responsible party behind the mechanical failure leading to the fatal accident.

Finally, MOM has oversight over workplace safety, including vehicle-related accidents which lead to workplace fatalities. For example, the Workplace Health and Safety Regulations stipulate that it is the duty of the owner of any vehicle used in a worksite to ensure that the vehicle is of good construction and is roadworthy.

It was recently reported in June 2018 that one out of every three deaths in the workplace last year was caused by a vehicular incident, making it the No 1 cause of workplace deaths last year. To address this issue, MOM has launched the new Drive Safe Work Safe campaign to raise awareness about good vehicular safety practices and is also trialling the use of devices that track and monitor the speed of heavy vehicles.

Whilst the Workplace Health and Safety Act allows MOM to prosecute errant employers for safety lapses leading to injuries to workers, the Act is focused on addressing the safety, health and welfare of persons at work in workplaces. It does not go so far as to cover situations where such vehicle-related safety lapses cause injury or death to members of the public.

To illustrate, the late Mr Slemat’s accident case does not constitute a workplace incident as he was not a worker. However, if the driver of the trailer truck was injured, then it would be a workplace incident.

As may be evident from the above outline, there is a gap in that, practically speaking, under the current regime, there may be no further investigation if mechanical failure or malfunction had caused the accident since this would likely be beyond the ambit of the Road Traffic Act and the Workplace Health and Safety Act.

In the joint MOM and Police circular I mentioned earlier, as well as in the Workplace Safety and Health Guidelines, it was recommended that, firstly, heavy vehicle owners should implement a regime for the maintenance of all vehicles in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations on the basis that a well-maintained vehicle is more likely to work better and last longer. Secondly, a daily pre-operational check is also recommended as a simple and useful way to spot potential risks or defects before the vehicles are operated. However, the limitation lies in the fact that these recommendations remain as non-mandatory guidelines, and there is presently no applicable provision that triggers an investigation and prosecution of owners and operators for not complying with the same.

It is time for us to close these gaps, such as to mandate compliance with the manufacturer's maintenance schedule, the keeping of maintenance records and/or the conduct of daily pre-operational checks. These records will serve as a "treasure trove" for investigators of fatal accidents looking into whether or not the owners and operators have contributed to the accident by not properly maintaining their heavy vehicles.

The imposition of criminal liability on owners and operators of heavy vehicles for mechanical failures of critical component parts leading to fatal accidents would serve as a deterrence against skimping on the proper checks that should be conducted on heavy vehicles and reduce the incidents of such fatal accidents.

In this regard, I wish to highlight three practical points for consideration by the Government.

It is important for the regulations to cover not just owners but operators. This is because it is not unusual for individuals to own heavy vehicles, such as cement mixers and tipper trucks. These individuals then support operators, which tend to be the big companies, in activities, such as construction and logistics. Practically, it is these operators who will have the greatest influence over the maintenance standards of vehicles used in their operations.

From a liability viewpoint, it should suffice if the mechanical failure, as a result of lack of maintenance, played a contributory factor, as opposed to the effective factor, that led to the fatal accident. Otherwise, we may create a loophole for errant owners and operators of heavy vehicles to take advantage of.

Finally, I suggest that provisions be introduced that make it easier to impute liability on corporate bodies for negligent and intentional acts of its employees for not maintaining the critical component parts that led to mechanical failure and contributed to the cause of the fatal accidents. Without such provisions, it will be difficult to impose criminal liability on corporations and, consequently, there may be not a sufficient motivation to change the corporate culture within the corporations to ensure strict compliance with the maintenance regimes.

Apart from this, we may also wish to consider incentivising companies to leverage technology to deal with issues of maintenance, for example, the provision of a technology fund to assist in implementing fleet management systems that are able to track maintenance records and alert the owner when a vehicle is due for a periodic inspection in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendation.

Properly maintained heavy vehicles are more likely to work better and last longer. Hence, the interests of owners and operators of heavy vehicles should be aligned with this initiative.

Sir, please allow me to conclude. Heavy vehicle owners and operators play an important role in ensuring that no other road user will be imperiled as a result of mechanical failure in critical component parts due to lack of maintenance. The legislation must be updated to reflect this plain fact.

Ironically, “Selamat” means “Safe” in Malay. When Mr Slemat died, the road was not safe for him. After his death, I do hope that the measures that I have proposed, once implemented, will make the road safer for road users who may otherwise fall victim to accidents caused by mechanical failure.