Careless driving in Singapore is an offence of driving below a standard. It refers to the standard and not that because there is an accident.

Section 65 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (the “RTA“) contains two limbs of prohibited driving, three offences graded by the harm caused, four sets of penalties and two disqualification provisions.

 

Section 65(1) contains two limbs

Section 65(1) of the RTA provides that a person must not drive a motor vehicle on a road:

  1. without due care and attention; or
  2. without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road.

In Chen Song v Public Prosecutor and other appeals [2024] SGHC 129 (“Chen Song“) at [49], the High Court referred to “both limbs of the offence of careless driving (ie, driving without due care and attention and driving without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road)”.

Beyond recognising that there are two limbs, there is very little judicial guidance on what each one means. Neither limb is defined in the RTA. When the Act was amended in 2019, the Minister for Home Affairs stated in Parliament that “the definitions of Dangerous Driving and Careless Driving are currently in the RTA. We will maintain the current definitions”, a passage quoted in Chen Song at [53]. Parliament therefore chose to leave the expressions as they stood, without defining them.

Our lack of a defined standard is in contrast to England. England legislated a test for its equivalent offence, namely the standard of a competent and careful driver. Singapore did not. To date, there appears to be no decision that defines the standard under section 65(1)(a), and none that explains what distinguishes it from section 65(1)(b).

Nor do the limbs appear to be applied in practice as though they described different conduct. In Chen Song at [2], four of the five appellants had been charged under section 65(1)(a) and one under section 65(1)(b), and the court dealt with all of them under a single sentencing framework without drawing any distinction between the limbs.

 

An accident does not by itself prove the offence

A charge of careless driving in Singapore requires proof that the driving fell below the required standard. Because section 65 penalises a manner of driving rather than an outcome, the fact of a collision is not itself proof that the offence was committed.

A related from Chen Song at [132]. The court observed that lower courts had wrongly treated conduct as showing a high degree of carelessness “even though the offending acts were manifestations of the basic elements of the careless driving offence“, giving as examples a failure to keep a safe distance from the vehicle in front and a failure to take proper care when changing lanes. This confirms that failing to keep a proper lookout is the offence itself.

 

Section 65(1) no longer creates the offence by itself

Under the version in force before 12 June 2025, section 65(1) itself created the offence. It said that the person “shall be guilty of an offence“.

That is no longer the position. Section 65(1) is now a pure prohibition. The offences are created by the three subsections that follow, each defined by the harm caused:

  1. Section 65(2) of the RTA, where death is caused to another person.
  2. Section 65(3) of the RTA, where grievous hurt is caused.
  3. Section 65(4) of the RTA, where hurt is caused.

Where no injury is caused at all, there is no offence under subsections (2) to (4). The driver is instead dealt with under the general penalty in section 65(5) of the RTA, which applies to anybody who contravenes section 65(1).

 

The penalties sit in sections 65(5) to 65(8)

The penalty subsections run in the order base offence, death, grievous hurt, hurt. For a first offender who is neither a repeat offender nor a serious offender, the penalties are:

  1. Section 65(5)(a), no injury: a fine of up to $1,500 or imprisonment of up to 6 months, or both.
  2. Section 65(6)(a), death: a fine of up to $10,000 or imprisonment of up to 3 years, or both.
  3. Section 65(7)(a), grievous hurt: a fine of up to $5,000 or imprisonment of up to 2 years, or both.
  4. Section 65(8)(a), hurt: a fine of up to $2,500 or imprisonment of up to 12 months, or both.

 

The medical report, and not the driving, selects the subsection

Section 64(16) of the RTA applies by its own terms “in this section and section 65“. It defines “hurt” as having the meaning given by section 319 of the Penal Code 1871, and defines “grievous“, in relation to hurt, as having the meaning given by section 320 of the Penal Code 1871, except paragraph (aa).

Paragraph (aa) of section 320 of the Penal Code 1871 is death. Death is separately graded under sections 65(2) and 65(6) of the RTA, so it has to be carved out of the definition of grievous hurt, otherwise the two tiers would collapse into each other.

The list in section 320 is closed. It opens with the words “the following kinds of hurt only are designated as ‘grievous’“. What matters most in road traffic work is paragraph (g), which is “fracture or dislocation of a bone“.

A broken wrist in a motorcycle collision is therefore grievous hurt, and the charge moves from section 65(4) to section 65(3) of the RTA, with the maximum penalty rising from twelve months to two years. The driving is identical either way. The X-ray decides.

 

Disqualification moved to sections 65(9) and 65(10)

Section 65(9) of the RTA sets out the cases in which the court must order a minimum period of disqualification unless it finds special reasons to order otherwise. Section 65(10) of the RTA sets out the cases in which the court must order disqualification for life, again subject to special reasons.

Both provisions are now keyed almost entirely to repeat offenders, serious offenders and serious repeat offenders. Section 65(9) contains no entry at all for a first-time offender under section 65(6)(a), (7)(a) or (8)(a).

A first offender convicted of causing death or grievous hurt by careless driving no longer faces a mandatory minimum disqualification under section 65 of the RTA. The court’s discretionary power under section 42(1) of the RTA remains available, and allows the court to disqualify an offender convicted of an offence in connection with the driving of a motor vehicle “for life or for any period that the court thinks fit”. Note that section 42(1) is expressly made subject to any provision of the Act providing otherwise, by section 42(2), so it operates as the residual power where section 65 does not itself prescribe a disqualification.

Note also the difference in wording between the two disqualification provisions in section 65. Under section 65(9), special reasons allow the court either to decline to disqualify altogether or to order a shorter period. Under section 65(10), special reasons allow the court only to order a period shorter than life. It cannot decline to disqualify.

 

Special reasons are narrowly construed

Where a mandatory minimum does bite, the only route around it is a finding of special reasons, and the threshold is high.

In Lee Shin Nan v Public Prosecutor [2023] SGHC 354 (“Lee Shin Nan“) at [76], the High Court restated the established position that special reasons are extenuating or pressing circumstances which relate to the offence itself and not to the offender, and that they should be narrowly construed as exceptional circumstances. The court cited Public Prosecutor v Balasubramaniam [1992] 1 SLR(R) 88 at [21] and Roland Joseph George John v Public Prosecutor [1995] 3 SLR(R) 562 at [5].

At [79], the court distilled a unifying principle: special reasons will generally be found only if the court is satisfied that the offender drove in circumstances that reasonably suggest that it was necessary to do so in order to avoid other likely and serious harm or danger, and that there was no reasonable alternative way to achieve that end. That principle was expressed with respect to section 67(2A) of the RTA, which concerns drink driving, so its application to a section 65 disqualification is an extension rather than a direct holding.

The earlier authority is to the same effect. In Muhammad Faizal bin Rahim v Public Prosecutor [2012] 1 SLR 116 at [31], the High Court described the interpretation of special reasons as “a narrow one which can only be satisfied in exceptional circumstances peculiar to the offence”, citing a medical emergency as an example, and requiring the offender to show that there was no alternative but to drive and that every reasonable alternative had been explored.

 

Careless driving and dangerous driving are different in kind, not in degree

Section 64 of the RTA is the reckless or dangerous driving provision, and it is structured similarly. A prohibition in subsection (1), offence-creating subsections (2) to (4) graded by harm, and penalty subsections (5) to (8).

The relationship between the two sections is not one of degree. In Chen Song at [115], the High Court held that sections 64 and 65 of the RTA “provide for discrete offences“, and that adopting the language used in Hue An Li at [34] to [36], “the distinction between careless driving and dangerous driving is a dichotomous difference in kind, rather than a non-dichotomous difference of degree. They are separate offences which warrant different starting points for sentencing.”

As to when does one apply over the other, the guidance remains Parliamentary rather than judicial. In Chen Song at [53], the Minister identified three main considerations, among others, for differentiating the two on a case-by-case basis: whether the manner of driving predictably puts other road users at risk and causes them to be unable to react in time; whether the motorist drove even though he should have known he was not in a condition to drive safely; and whether the road situation required extra care which the motorist did not take.

The difference in punishment is quite large. Careless driving causing death carries a maximum of three years’ imprisonment under section 65(6)(a) of the RTA, with a fine available as an alternative. Dangerous driving causing death carries a maximum of eight years under section 64(6)(a) of the RTA, and that provision prescribes imprisonment only. The same collision, the same victim, the same fatal outcome, and the punishment more than doubles.

 

Repeat offender, serious offender and serious repeat offender are three different things

These three labels drive the enhanced penalties in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of each penalty subsection, and they are frequently confused.

A repeat offender, under section 65(11) of the RTA, is broadly a person previously convicted of an offence under section 64 or 65, or under their predecessors, or of certain Penal Code offences involving the use of a motor vehicle. There is also a separate limb directed at persistent speeding, which turns on prior convictions under section 63(4) of the RTA where the speed limit was exceeded by more than 40 kilometres per hour.

A serious offender, under section 64(16) of the RTA, is a person convicted of an offence under section 67 (i.e., drink driving) or section 70(4) in addition to the section 65 offence, arising out of the same driving.

A serious repeat offender is a serious offender who has also been convicted on at least one earlier occasion of a specified offence.

Paragraphs (c) and (d) apply in addition to paragraph (a) or (b), and not instead of them. A serious offender is punished under the base tier and then again under the serious offender tier.

 

What section 65 does not do

Section 65 creates an offence of driving below a standard, not an offence of being involved in a collision. A driver who drives properly and is struck by somebody else has committed no offence under section 65, however severe the outcome.

Section 65 does not permit the court to look past the harm actually caused. The subsection is selected by the injury. A driver whose momentary lapse happens to break a pedestrian’s wrist is liable under section 65(3), while an identical lapse causing bruising falls under section 65(4). The same conduct can fall under different provisions.

 

Yours sincerely,

Daryl