SINGAPORE — A lorry driver accused of hitting a cyclist who had damaged his side mirror said in court that there was a language barrier between the two of them, and that he drove off because he thought they had resolved the matter amicably.

Teo Seng Tiong, 58, has claimed trial over the incident that happened along Pasir Ris Drive 3 on Dec 22, 2018. It was captured in a video taken from a nearby vehicle and went viral after it was released on social media.

Teo has been charged with causing hurt to the cyclist Eric Cheung Hoyu, a 35-year-old British national, in a rash act endangering human life, and failing to file a police report within 24 hours of the accident.

Teo told the court on Thursday (Sept 26) that when he alighted from his lorry, he saw Mr Cheung dashing towards him while shouting an expletive.

“I thought he was a Caucasian, and I don’t know how to speak English and didn’t know how to communicate with him,” Teo said in Mandarin through a translator.

Teo added that he tried to speak to Mr Cheung in Mandarin and a bit of Hokkien, but the latter did not appear to understand.

Under questioning from his lawyer, Mr Chia Boon Teck, Teo said that Mr Cheung kept talking about his bicycle.

“I was worried that he was saying that I had damaged his bicycle and he wanted me to compensate him for it,” Teo said.

Teo claimed that when he inspected the bicycle, it was not damaged and that only the chain had fallen off.

When asked how he communicated this to Mr Cheung, Teo said: “I spoke to him in my own way. I told him (in English), ‘This one drop-drop only. Can put back. And not spoilt and not damaged’.”

Teo said he tried asking Mr Cheung about the lorry's damaged mirror, but claimed that he did not understand what the British national was saying.

When he tried to exchange personal particulars with Mr Cheung, Teo said the cyclist declined because he was not carrying an identification card with him.

Teo then took out his mobile phone with the intention of recording the incident, but was unable to do so because the younger man had snatched the phone from him and turned it off.

THOUGHT THE MATTER WAS RESOLVED

An argument ensued between the men, and Teo told Mr Cheung and his fellow cyclist Nigel William Harper to call the police if they wanted to.

Eventually, Mr Cheung returned the phone to Teo by placing it in the older man’s pocket.

“He even patted my shoulder, and I thought he meant forget (about the matter). So I was more assured.”

Teo said he drove off at this point, adding that he did not realise Mr Harper had already called the police and taken a photograph of the lorry’s licence plate.

Responding to questions from Mr Chia about why he did not call the police “there and then”, Teo said he thought Mr Cheung was fine. He added that he had also consulted a friend, who told him that he could leave if there was no damage.

'UNABLE TO TELL' DIRECTION OF CRUSHING SOUND

Cross-examined by Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Gabriel Choong, the driver maintained that he had “swerved instinctively” towards the direction of the cyclists because he thought he had made contact with a taxi to his right after hearing a “crushing sound”.

Teo had said he heard a taxi honking to his right at about the same time as the crushing sound, which turned out to be Mr Cheung hitting the lorry's left side mirror.

DPP Choong repeatedly suggested to Teo that if he was able to hear a taxi honking him on his right, he should have been able to tell that someone had hit his mirror on the left, and to not have swerved in that direction.

Teo, who appeared exasperated at this line of questioning, explained that he was not able to differentiate which direction the sound had come from as his windows “were not shut” and the sound came “suddenly”.

Responding to a suggestion by the prosecution that he was the kind of driver who would overtake other road users slower than him, Teo responded: “If you are behind a slow vehicle, would you not overtake it?”

DECLINED OFFERS TO HAVE WOUNDS DRESSED

The court also heard evidence from Ms Parminder Kaur Gill, the crew leader of the Singapore Civil Defence Force ambulance that was at the scene that day.

Ms Kaur said that although Mr Cheung had suffered “some redness on his left elbow, and redness and abrasion on his left knee”, he declined offers to have his wounds dressed by the paramedics.

She said that he had also refused to be taken to the hospital because he had “something on and wanted to go first”.

The paramedic said that Mr Cheung was quite persistent in wishing to leave and they relented because the police had yet to arrive.

The court will deliver its verdict on Nov 13. Teo remains out on bail of S$5,000.

If convicted of causing hurt by performing a rash act, he could be jailed for up to a year and fined up to $5,000.

First-time offenders convicted of failing to report an accident to the police within 24 hours can be jailed for up to three months or fined up to $1,000 or both. He may also be disqualified from driving.

For his part in the incident, Mr Cheung was sentenced to a S$2,800 fine in April.