Riding only with license

[koxie]

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.

 

haha bro your words like arrow,very piercing.

[koxie]

Yes. Yep. Correct.

 

oh okie..Thanks alot! =)

[arthur_chan]

haha bro your words like arrow,very piercing.

 

of cos, this type of qn must pierce, there's a lot of example like ur case where the owner gets into trouble.

[Lexanez]

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.

 

Hmm, prove me wrong but isn't the one is bold already highlighted "Without Owner's Consent"? Might want to check this piece of news' out.

 

Man sentenced to jail, fine for stealing motorcycles and riding them without license

 

A 23-year old man has been sentenced to three years’ jail and fined 4,000 dollars for stealing five motorcycles which he rode without a license.

 

Shukur Hashim stole the first motorcycle on 28th September this year.

 

The owner had left it at a multi-storey car park at 406A Admiralty Drive at around 830 am that day.

 

Shukur was there about 4 hours later and managed to start it after inserting a pair of scissors into the ignition.

 

Shukur stole four more motorcycles between 29th September and 25th October this year.

 

Only this time, he had accomplices to act as lookouts.

 

The motorcycles were taken from car parks in Yishun, Margaret Drive and Woodlands.

 

On 27th October, police officers arrested one of the accomplices who was in possession of one of the stolen motorcycles.

 

With the information gathered from him, officers managed to nabbed Shukur and another accomplice.

 

For theft of motor vehicles, those convicted can be jailed for up to seven years.

 

Either way, it is both an offence and chargeable under the law and you will have a record. The difference being the maximum sentence. However, ah tee is right that under the Law, these 2 are of different offence.

 

Problem here is that, if someone were to ride off your bike while you were, lets say, pumping petrol. Would you yell "HEY, COME BACK! YOU ARE RIDING MY BIKE WITHOUT MY CONSENT!" or "OIEEEEE, !@#!$%@%$^, STEAL MY BIKE, I MAKE SURE YOU DIE!!". Usage of words aside but I believe you'll use "steal" instead of "without consent" right?

 

Of course, you would try to get him convict under "Theft of Motor Vehicles" instead of "Taking of motor vehicle without owner’s consent" and would curse and swear if he gotten charge under "Taking of motor vehicle without owner’s consent".

I rest my case.

 

Anyway, why would such questions "Is it possible to own a bike without licence?" be asked? If it is out of curiosity, that would be a naive question.

 

I mean, it would like asking "Eh, possible own a car without a licence?" or to put it in perspective, "Possible to take Public transport without paying?".

 

It has already been known to the world of students and graduates of the class "2B" that to have a licence, an riding insurance and a valid road tax are the prerequisites to owning a Motorcycle. Unless of course, you are applying to lay-up for whatever reason that is.

 

Technically speaking, if you own something, you will use it but if you own something but don't use it, what difference does it have with junk?

Edited February 12, 2011 by Lexanez

[ChaoPuzzy1968]

Theft

378. Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft.

Explanation 1.—A thing so long as it is attached to the earth, not being movable property, is not the subject of theft; but it becomes capable of being the subject of theft as soon as it is severed from the earth.

Explanation 2.—A moving, effected by the same act which effects the severance, may be a theft.

Explanation 3.—A person is said to cause a thing to move by removing an obstacle which prevented it from moving, or by separating it from any other thing, as well as by actually moving it.

Explanation 4.—A person, who by any means causes an animal to move, is said to move that animal, and to move everything which in consequence of the motion so caused is moved by that animal.

Explanation 5.—The consent mentioned in the definition may be express or implied, and may be given either by the person in possession, or by any person having for that purpose authority either express or implied.

Illustrations

 

(a) A cuts down a tree on Z’s ground, with the intention of dishonestly taking the tree out of Z’s possession without Z’s consent. Here, as soon as A has severed the tree, in order to such taking, he has committed theft.

(b) A puts a bait for dogs in his pocket, and thus induces Z’s dog to follow it. Here, if A’s intention be dishonestly to take the dog out of Z’s possession without Z’s consent, A has committed theft as soon as Z’s dog has begun to follow A.

© [Deleted by Act 51 of 2007]

(d) A, being Z’s servant and entrusted by Z with the care of Z’s plate, dishonestly runs away with the plate without Z’s consent. A has committed theft.

(e) Z, going on a journey, entrusts his plate to A, the keeper of a warehouse, till Z shall return. A carries the plate to a goldsmith and sells it. Here the plate was not in Z’s possession. It could not, therefore, be taken out of Z’s possession, and A has not committed theft, though he may have committed criminal breach of trust.

(f) A finds a ring belonging to Z on a table in the house which Z occupies. Here the ring is in Z’s possession, and if A dishonestly removes it, A commits theft.

(g) A finds a ring lying on the high road, not in the possession of any person. A by taking it commits no theft, though he may commit criminal misappropriation of property.

(h) A sees a ring belonging to Z lying on a table in Z’s house. Not venturing to misappropriate the ring immediately for fear of search and detection, A hides the ring in a place where it is highly improbable that it will ever be found by Z, with the intention of taking the ring from the hiding place and selling it when the loss is forgotten. Here A, at the time of first moving the ring, commits theft.

(i) A delivers his watch to Z, a jeweller, to be regulated. Z carries it to his shop. A, not owing to the jeweller any debt for which the jeweller might lawfully detain the watch as a security, enters the shop openly, takes his watch by force out of Z’s hand, and carries it away. Here A, though he may have committed criminal trespass and assault, has not committed theft, inasmuch as what he did was not done dishonestly.

(j) If A owes money to Z for repairing the watch, and if Z retains the watch lawfully as a security for the debt, and A takes the watch out of Z’s possession, with the intention of depriving Z of the property as a security for his debt, he commits theft, inasmuch as he takes it dishonestly.

(k) Again, if A having pawned his watch to Z, takes it out of Z’s possession without Z’s consent, not having paid what he borrowed on the watch, he commits theft, though the watch is his own property, inasmuch as he takes it dishonestly.

(l) A takes an article belonging to Z out of Z’s possession, without Z’s consent, with the intention of keeping it until he obtains money from Z as a reward for its restoration. Here A takes dishonestly; A has therefore committed theft.

(m) A, being on friendly terms with Z, goes into Z’s library in Z’s absence and takes away a book, without Z’s express consent, for the purpose merely of reading it, and with the intention of returning it. Here, it is probable that A may have conceived that he had Z’s implied consent to use Z’s book. If this was A’s impression, A has not committed theft.

(n) A asks charity from Z’s wife. She gives A money, food and clothes, which A knows to belong to Z, her husband. Here, it is probable that A may conceive that Z’s wife is authorised to give away alms. If this was A’s impression, A has not committed theft.

(o) A is the paramour of Z’s wife. She gives A valuable property, which A knows to belong to her husband Z, and to be such property as she has no authority from Z to give. If A takes the property dishonestly, he commits theft.

(p) A in good faith, believing property belonging to Z to be A’s own property, takes that property out of B’s possession. Here, as A does not take dishonestly, he does not commit theft.

[51/2007]

[indian PC 1860, s. 378]

 

 

Punishment for theft of a motor vehicle

379A. —(1) Whoever commits theft of a motor vehicle or any component part of a motor vehicle shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 7 years, and shall also be liable to fine.

[23/84;51/2007]

(2) A person convicted of an offence under this section shall, unless the court for special reasons thinks fit to order otherwise, be disqualified for such period as the court may order from the date of his release from imprisonment from holding or obtaining a driving licence under the Road Traffic Act (Cap. 276).

[51/2007]

(3) In this section —

"component part" , in relation to a motor vehicle, means any component part attached to the motor vehicle, and includes any tyre, accessory or equipment attached to the motor vehicle;

"motor vehicle" means a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on roads, and includes a trailer drawn by a motor vehicle.

[51/2007]

 

ref http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/cgi-bin/cgi_legdisp.pl?actno=2008-REVED-224&date=20110115&method=whole&doctitle=

 

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.

(4) Any police officer may arrest without warrant any person reasonably suspected by him of having committed or of attempting to commit an offence under this section.

 

ref http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/cgi-bin/cgi_legdisp.pl?actno=2004-REVED-276&date=20110115&method=whole&doctitle=

 

normally it would be needful to establish to charge him

e under the penal code first or next under 95 of the rta

Edited February 12, 2011 by ChaoPuzzy1968

[ChaoPuzzy1968]

Duty to give information

81. —(1) Where the driver of a motor vehicle is alleged or is suspected to be guilty of an offence under this Act, the owner of the motor vehicle shall give such information as he may be required by a police officer or an employee of the Authority to give as to —

(a) the identity and address of the person who was driving the motor vehicle at or about the time of the alleged offence; and

(b) the driving licence held by that person,

and, if he fails to do so within 7 days of the date on which the information was required from him, he shall be guilty of an offence unless he proves, to the satisfaction of the court, that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained the information required.

(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1), where the owner of the motor vehicle is a company, a partnership or an unincorporated body, such owner shall not be deemed to have discharged the burden of proving that it could not, with reasonable diligence, have ascertained the information required under that subsection unless such owner also proves to the satisfaction of the court that —

 

 

owner n driver/rider can be two different entities......licience or no licience

 

ref http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/cgi-bin/cgi_legdisp.pl?actno=2004-REVED-276&date=20110115&method=whole&doctitle=

 

but imo

 

buy a bike first n keeping at home is like keep a willing naked woman in the bed n swearing you would'nt have sex...is just plain wrong, tho it sounds like a fantasy(it's not against the law)

[GuiNNeSS]

LOL, wah......finally, people who do their researches.

 

ah_tee was right to say these are 2 difference offences, but he was wrong to misread and tell me off that stealing is not theft.

 

And his TPIO of 20 years experience with TP, probably has neglected to inform him, that the charge of stealing may be lessen to the charge of 'driving without consent', depending on how the Prosecutors wants to throw the book at the offender.

 

And that when lessen to 'driving without consent'. Is the owner still liable if the orginal intention was to loan out the bike? And if that intention is correct. Should the owner be charged too and revoked his driving licence?

 

Should the prosecutors or the IO who are officers in the service of the public, has let them owners and offenders off, for endangering the lives, properties of the public with these kind of behaviours?

 

Granted, should there be serious injuries and deaths resulting from these kinda owner & rider offenders. They will throw the book at them. But in the event there wasnt, they opt for the easy penalties to spare the owners and riders.

 

And here, there are people to advise the abuse of such 'kindness'.

 

Basis of law, is intention. Means rea.

[bianchi]

Actually, now you can also layup your vehicle at a carpark, you just have to provide the carpark code while filling up the application form for the layup procedure, that's all.

 

And don't forget to get your season parking.

[bianchi]

Actually now you can layup at your carpark also. You just have to provide the carpark code when you fill up the layup application form.

 

And remember to get your season parking.

[ytiniffa]

GG no remake.

 

tom and jack can go back driving centre and take 2b again.

best solution is to say tom took jack's bike without permission. otherwise both confirm go back driving centre.