Riding only with license

[GuiNNeSS]

So if its driving without permission. The owner can siam his/her licence ganna kantong?

Edited February 9, 2011 by ViciousKitty74

[GuiNNeSS]

LOL, I am not people hor.

 

I am just forgetful.

 

Like I usually forget about people who owed me apologies, that disappeared. And I always forget, that such people, will still come out once in a while to bit those that forgot about them every few years or so.

 

Must be my karma, when I owed people and never cleared my debt every new year.

[innocenti]

so what happen to tom??

[ah_tee]

you guys are damn funny pple

 

wannabe forever remains as wannabe

 

 

i have highlighted in bold for you incase you dunno wad u r reading

 

theft of vehicle and drivin without consent is 2 different offences

 

 

pls dont ask me to introduce the IO to you, i dont want to embarrass myself

 

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT

(CHAPTER 276)

 

[45/99]

 

 

Taking of motor vehicle without owner’s consent

96. —(1) Every person who takes and drives away any motor vehicle without having either the consent of the owner thereof or other lawful authority shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months.

 

(2) If the accused satisfies the court that he acted in the reasonable belief that he had lawful authority or in the reasonable belief that the owner would, in the circumstances of the case, have given his consent if he had been asked therefor, the accused shall not be convicted of the offence under subsection (1).

 

(3) If on the trial of any person for the theft of a motor vehicle the court is of opinion that the accused was not guilty of theft but was guilty of an offence under this section, the court may convict the accused under this section.

 

 

 

 

Ah tee arh,

 

you are finally back arh?

 

So what is that classification? Can point it out to me properly? Because I flip, flipped & even flayed that little traffic offence book of mine from 11 years ago, still cannot find that classification. Was that particular law just part of the 20 years TPIO SOP or part of the Singapore gahment gazetted law that was shunted to a corner of TP side for this purpose of classifying 'driving without permission'?

 

Can intro me that IO? I love learning from really experienced people.

[ah_tee]

see above post

 

 

iirc tp dont serve a law for driving without permission. it's chargeable under civil court under theft. thus pls clarify what u mean of the difference.

 

edit: there's a few classification of theft under civil law, although none write in b/w saying driving without permission, but they are the same meaning; acquiring/utilizing a property not belonging to u=stealing/theft or whatever u call it. thus like vicious said below, pls clarify what u mean n under which law.

[arthur_chan]

see above post

 

thanks for the clarification.

[GuiNNeSS]

you guys are damn funny pple

 

wannabe forever remains as wannabe

 

 

i have highlighted in bold for you incase you dunno wad u r reading

 

theft of vehicle and drivin without consent is 2 different offences

 

 

pls dont ask me to introduce the IO to you, i dont want to embarrass myself

 

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT

(CHAPTER 276)

 

[45/99]

 

 

Taking of motor vehicle without owner’s consent

96. —(1) Every person who takes and drives away any motor vehicle without having either the consent of the owner thereof or other lawful authority shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months.

 

(2) If the accused satisfies the court that he acted in the reasonable belief that he had lawful authority or in the reasonable belief that the owner would, in the circumstances of the case, have given his consent if he had been asked therefor, the accused shall not be convicted of the offence under subsection (1).

 

(3) If on the trial of any person for the theft of a motor vehicle the court is of opinion that the accused was not guilty of theft but was guilty of an offence under this section, the court may convict the accused under this section.

 

Your IO of 20 years is not the court dearie.

 

And I still didnt think your position is any different from a wannabe, who suggest hat taking without permission is not stealing. Your only explanation so far, is of how the court can lower the charge for 'driving without permission' provided the court agrees to believe the accuse is not guilty of such a stealing offence.

 

This charge, do not absolve the owner of the bike, to knowingly allow the offender to ride his/her bike without insurance.

 

Or was I misleading the rest again, with your er hem.....advising about who is right or wrong?

[GuiNNeSS]

And for ah_tee's IO qualification for this charge.

 

One scenerio is that. The offender was a subrider. Prior agreement with the owner to ride the bike. Or that renewal of insurance, the subrider was not added in automatically.

 

And that information was not conveyed to the subrider. Then there is the belief that the subrider had no intention to steal, but was riding without permission.

 

But if the TPIO want to act blur and spare the offender. It can be twisted to suit their needs to mislead the court that this clause can work.

 

I can understand why the ah_tee will not introduce his friend. Its going to be embraressing, when this issue is bought up for open discussion.

[GuiNNeSS]

Taking without permission, is Theft. Its stealing. (Should I emphasise on the fullstop?)

 

Your friend never ganna charge for stealing. Then be thankful. Remember to pray to god, allah & whichever deities you & your friend subscribed to, that the IO neglected that portion and saved the owner of the bike. (IOs nowadays, so much younger and lazier to throw the book at such offenders. Tsk..tsk....)

 

((must maintian my image as someone vicious.))

 

Must be your friend ganna ah_tee's TPIO. Got thank heaven, earth, god, allah and dieties yet? Or should thank him/her instead. Such a life saver.

[kimmeng]

both goodgamed.

[ah_tee]

if you read my post carefully i have never pass judgement on this topic, the final judgement still lies with the judge

 

i am jus telling you "driving without consent" and "theft" is 2 different offences because you mention

 

driving without consent = theft

 

the former may not warrant a jail term. i have also neber said other than these offences the person cannot be charged with riding w/o insurance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your IO of 20 years is not the court dearie.

 

And I still didnt think your position is any different from a wannabe, who suggest hat taking without permission is not stealing. Your only explanation so far, is of how the court can lower the charge for 'driving without permission' provided the court agrees to believe the accuse is not guilty of such a stealing offence.

 

This charge, do not absolve the owner of the bike, to knowingly allow the offender to ride his/her bike without insurance.

 

Or was I misleading the rest again, with your er hem.....advising about who is right or wrong?

[GuiNNeSS]

won't kena stealing, can say e.g 'take w/o permission, owner left keys on the key also."

 

my friend nvr got kena charge for stealing only w/o insurance.

 

Taking without permission, is Theft. Its stealing. (Should I emphasise on the fullstop?)

 

Your friend never ganna charge for stealing. Then be thankful. Remember to pray to god, allah & whichever deities you & your friend subscribed to, that the IO neglected that portion and saved the owner of the bike. (IOs nowadays, so much younger and lazier to throw the book at such offenders. Tsk..tsk....)

 

((must maintian my image as someone vicious.))

 

Please know what you are talking about before misleading the rest.

 

 

there is a classification of driving a vehicle without permission but it does not amounts to stealing.

 

 

i clarified this with a IO who served in TP for 20yrs

 

 

if you read my post carefully i have never pass judgement on this topic, the final judgement still lies with the judge

 

i am jus telling you "driving without consent" and "theft" is 2 different offences because you mention

 

driving without consent = theft

 

the former may not warrant a jail term. i have also neber said other than these offences the person cannot be charged with riding w/o insurance.

 

Wahhh......your idea of of yourself not having passed judgement, is very fuzzy leh.

 

if you read my/the posts carefully before you talk about misleading the rest, we might be more inclined to believe that you werent judgmental.

 

BTW, the "driving without consent" might not warrant a jail term, the theft does portion is.

 

Since you can quote nicely the legal statues on that above, how about checking with that TPIO of 20 years again, to advise, that when he allows the 'driving/riding without permission & insurance.

 

Does it means the owner gets off Scots free for knowinging allowing the offender to do that. (If want to check, check throughly mah.....so half pail of water effort is very wannabe leh.)

 

 

I already gave some scenerios to go with your statues. Might be nice when you can at least correct my misleading the rest properly too with better scenerios for the newbies here.

 

 

We also nber say that you say that person cannot be charged with riding w/o insurance what....we were trying to talk about stealing being whatever bigger law then traffic laws.....but if you rather suggest that we are arguing only on your persumptions that we are wannabes and damn funny about it.....we really will appreciate your input to help us be funnier.

Edited February 12, 2011 by ViciousKitty74
my bold & italics didnt show up properly to emphasis my sarcastics

[ah_tee]

Wahhh......your idea of of yourself not having passed judgement, is very fuzzy leh.

 

if you read my/the posts carefully before you talk about misleading the rest, we might be more inclined to believe that you werent judgmental.

 

BTW, the "driving without consent" might not warrant a jail term, the theft does portion is.

 

Since you can quote nicely the legal statues on that above, how about checking with that TPIO of 20 years again, to advise, that when he allows the 'driving/riding without permission & insurance.

 

Does it means the owner gets off Scots free for knowinging allowing the offender to do that. (If want to check, check throughly mah.....so half pail of water effort is very wannabe leh.)

 

 

I already gave some scenerios to go with your statues. Might be nice when you can at least correct my misleading the rest properly too with better scenerios for the newbies here.

 

 

We also nber say that you say that person cannot be charged with riding w/o insurance what....we were trying to talk about stealing being whatever bigger law then traffic laws.....but if you rather suggest that we are arguing only on your persumptions that we are wannabes and damn funny about it.....we really will appreciate your input to help us be funnier.

 

 

i think u still dont understand

 

the only point to bring over to you,

 

that theft and riding without consent is 2 offences and what you said earlier is wrong.

 

 

i am not discussing with you abt any other things.

 

why does that become judgemental on my part ?

[GuiNNeSS]

i think u still dont understand

 

the only point to bring over to you,

 

that theft and riding without consent is 2 offences and what you said earlier is wrong.

 

 

i am not discussing with you abt any other things.

 

why does that become judgemental on my part ?

 

i tink u still donch understand.

 

the point i try to brin over 2 u, is that i know its different. u were wrong to suggest we dont noe the difference.

 

There should be enough scenerios up there, for the rest to know and judge who knows the difference while you keep emphasising you know better (because we are wannabes and farny people while you are not judgemental.) while we do not understand you.

[arthur_chan]

if you read my post carefully i have never pass judgement on this topic, the final judgement still lies with the judge

 

i am jus telling you "driving without consent" and "theft" is 2 different offences because you mention

 

driving without consent = theft

 

the former may not warrant a jail term. i have also neber said other than these offences the person cannot be charged with riding w/o insurance.

 

to a common nobody like me, driving without consent = theft. wheather jail term or not or whatever charge the judge throws, to layman like us; that guy stole my car. we will never say: that guy drive my car without consent.

[koxie]

sorry abit off topic here.But i got a question.Let say my friend want to get a cls2A bike,but he only got an cls2B lience.Is it possiable that he can buy the cls2A bike,menaing his insurence,COE,road tax all will be running but he cant ride the bike yet.The bike will be put as non-ridable.

[arthur_chan]

sorry abit off topic here.But i got a question.Let say my friend want to get a cls2A bike,but he only got an cls2B lience.Is it possiable that he can buy the cls2A bike,menaing his insurence,COE,road tax all will be running but he cant ride the bike yet.The bike will be put as non-ridable.

 

u can buy a bike even if u dont have lic, however it's not advisable, the temptation will always be there.

iirc, a bike laid off dont have to pay for insurance n road tax, but must register with lta it's laid off.

[koxie]

u can buy a bike even if u dont have lic, however it's not advisable, the temptation will always be there.

iirc, a bike laid off dont have to pay for insurance n road tax, but must register with lta it's laid off.

 

hmm,but if the shop say must pay for insurence n road tax,but it will be as non-ridable.Then when u got your lience pay $20-$30 for paperwork to make it ridable agin.Is it true?

[arthur_chan]

hmm,but if the shop say must pay for insurence n road tax,but it will be as non-ridable.Then when u got your lience pay $20-$30 for paperwork to make it ridable agin.Is it true?

 

the shop is assuming u're riding it off. tell them u're laying it off, check with LTA about lay off procedure.

btw u cant ride off the bike after u got from shop, u got to tow it, u'll always be tempted to ride the piece of equipment collection dust, u'have been warned.

[koxie]

the shop is assuming u're riding it off. tell them u're laying it off, check with LTA about lay off procedure.

btw u cant ride off the bike after u got from shop, u got to tow it, u'll always be tempted to ride the piece of equipment collection dust, u'have been warned.

 

oh that mena i still need to lay up the bike ar?No worries,i got other mean of transport. =)

[arthur_chan]

oh that mena i still need to lay up the bike ar?No worries,i got other mean of transport. =)

 

what u expect, u dont have the lic for that class n still want the bike.

[koxie]

But no lience can be the owner of the bike?

[arthur_chan]

But no lience can be the owner of the bike?

 

frankly i'm not sure, awaiting some pros to prove me wrong also

however i heard some ppl like ur case & it's possible to get a bike, even those still attending lessons.

[GuiNNeSS]

But no lience can be the owner of the bike?

 

Yes. Yep. Correct.

[haoKR]

But no lience can be the owner of the bike?

 

can

just tell e shop u layup,v easy 1

no nid pay rd tax,insurance

 

just buy season parking cn le