Lorry causes S$1.4 million of damages to CTE tunnel ceiling: Driver, a Chinese national, 56, gets 13 months’ jail & S$1,000 fine

A 56-year-old Chinese national was sentenced to 13 months’ jail and fined S$1,000 after driving an over-height lorry with a high crane affixed to it and hitting the Central Expressway (CTE) tunnel ceiling.

He was also disqualified from holding all classes of driving licences for 24 months.

Lai Daohong (transliterated) pleaded guilty to two charges under the Road Traffic Act on Jul. 13, Lianhe Zaobao reported.

Incident

The incident occurred on Nov. 8, 2024, at about 12:10pm, at the CTE entrance along Cairnhill Road towards the Seletar Expressway (SLE).

In a video circulated online, the crane attached to the truck first struck a tree branch

It then hit a height restriction bar before striking the CTE tunnel entrance.

The ceiling became visibly damaged with hanging exposed wires visible.

The road was reportedly closed for about 10 hours, and repair costs amounted to about S$1.45 million.

Failure

According to court documents, the driver failed to check if the crane had been lowered before driving the truck.

At about 11:50am to 12:10pm on the day of the incident, he travelled approximately 3.1km along Nassim Road, Tanglin Road, Orchard Road, Pit Building Road, and Cairnhill Road before hitting the tunnel entrance.

The height limit for the tunnel was 4.5m.

After noticing he had struck the tunnel ceiling, he stopped the truck and lowered the crane.

He was then arrested for illegally driving a heavy motor vehicle over a height of 4.5m without being escorted by a police officer or an auxiliary police officer.

According to the Land Transport Authority (LTA), the slip road only reopened at about 10:35pm on the same day, following recovery works.

Second conviction

The driver had previously been fined S$3,500 and disqualified from driving for nine months on Jan. 25, 2017, for driving a heavy vehicle that struck a building or structure.

This is his second conviction for a similar offence.

The prosecution argued that drivers of heavy vehicles ought to exercise greater caution.

They cited the damage caused, such as cables in the tunnel ceiling coming loose, and the substantial repair costs.

The prosecution further argued that this caused traffic congestion in the tunnel at the time.

While no one was injured, they cited the incident’s high-risk nature and the inconvenience caused to other motorists.

The accused reportedly said through an interpreter that an alarm had malfunctioned at the time of the incident.

He claimed that if the warning sound had gone off, he would not have forgotten to lower the crane.

The prosecution argued that the heavy vehicle driver did not merely make a momentary error, but had failed to notice that the crane was not lowered throughout the entire journey.

They also said he did not mention the alarm malfunction during the investigation, and even if the alarm was not working as usual, it was his duty to check it before driving.

Given his prior similar record, the driver should have been all the more aware of the need to do so.

The defence lawyers stated that he stopped his vehicle after the incident, cooperated with the investigations, and expressed remorse.

The accused was apparently his family's sole breadwinner, it was argued.