More Measures to Step Up PMD Safety

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport in light of continuing serious casualties caused by PMDs (a) whether the Government will review the viability of PMD use in Singapore under existing regulations; (b) whether the Government intends to introduce new measures to ensure safe use of PMDs; and (c) whether the Government will consider mandatory safe-riding certification courses with disqualification rights under the law like other classes of motorists.

Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Transport (a) how many physical and online retailers have agreed to stop selling e-scooters or PMDs that are non-compliant with the UL2272 standard; (b) what are the measures that LTA has taken to detect physical and online retailers that continue to advertise or sell PMDs that are non-compliant with the UL2272 standard; and (c) what are the punitive measures that LTA can adopt to act against such errant retailers.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry will increase the number of enforcement teams to actively enforce the rules on the use of PMDs on shared footpaths.

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked ask the Minister for Transport (a) what are the measures in place to deter the sale and supply of non-compliant PMDs in Singapore by online suppliers, whether local or overseas based; and (b) whether the Ministry has asked Singapore Customs to help detect and prevent non-compliant PMDs from being brought into Singapore by any supplier or individual.

In February 2017, we debated at length in this House and passed the Active Mobility Bill to regulate the use of active mobility devices on public paths and to support active mobility. Prior to this, motorised personal mobility devices (PMDs) were not allowed on footpaths. There are more than 5,500 km of footpaths islandwide, almost double the 3,500 km of roads. The convenience of being able to use these devices on footpaths for first-and-last-mile commutes, as well as for food delivery services, contributed to their popularity and a sharp increase in their population to close to 100,000 today.

Over the last two years, we have put in great efforts to promote the safe use of motorised PMDs. We legislated compliance standards for the devices and their proper usage. We mandated an e-scooter registration regime. Working closely with the Active Mobility Advisory Panel, we introduced a Safe Riding Programme and reduced speed limits on footpaths. We stepped up enforcement and through the MyTransport.SG mobile application, obtained regular public feedback on errant users and hotspots.

Despite significant efforts, we continue to encounter errant riders who use non-compliant devices and ride dangerously. We catch an average of about 370 offenders per month. The number of accidents involving motorised PMDs continues to rise. There have been more severe accidents and even a fatal one involving a cyclist in September. Many riders have themselves suffered severe injuries, including a few who lost their lives.

Singaporeans and several Members of Parliament have called for harsher measures against errant riders. Others have demanded that motorised PMDs be fitted with tamper-proof GPS trackers. Unfortunately, this will affect their circuitry, making them non-compliant to the UL2272 standard.

As more accidents occur, the calls for a total ban on PMD usage get louder.

We are not alone in having to revisit existing rules governing the use of motorised PMDs. Last week, France announced that it would no longer allow the riding of e-scooters on its pavements. This followed hundreds of e-scooter-related incidents, including several deaths.

Cities have allowed the use of such devices on footpaths as they are non-pollutive, inexpensive and, if properly used, convenient for short intra-town travels. We expected the co-sharing of footpaths to be challenging but were hopeful that with public education, PMD users would be gracious and responsible. Unfortunately, this was not to be.

Like France, Japan and many other countries, we have decided to prohibit the use of e-scooters from all footpaths. This will take effect from tomorrow. To allow time for users to adjust, we will provide an advisory period until 31 December 2019. From 1 January 2020, we will carry out strict enforcement and those caught riding an e-scooter on footpaths will be liable for a fine up to $2,000 and/or jail up to three months.

This ban from footpaths will not apply to those with mobility challenges who ride personal mobility aids like motorised wheelchairs and mobility scooters. The ban will also not apply to bicycles.

We are aware that the banning of e-scooter usage on footpaths will impact food delivery riders who rely on them for work. We understand from the major food delivery companies that their deliveries are largely done by motorcycles and delivery vehicles. Less than 30% of Deliveroo and FoodPanda's riders use e-scooters. LTA will work with the food delivery companies to allow as many of their delivery riders to switch to motorcycles or bicycles.

This move is not a complete ban of e-scooters in Singapore. We will continue to allow them on dedicated cycling paths. We are stepping up the construction of such cycling paths to provide clear separation between pedestrians and e-scooters, as in Ang Mo Kio and Tampines Town. LTA will be adding dedicated cycling paths in towns such as Woodlands, Toa Payoh and Choa Chu Kang. Overall, we will extend the network of dedicated cycling paths from about 440 km today to 750 km, latest by 2025.

As for the fire safety concerns, we have brought forward the deadline for compliance with the UL2272 standard to 1 July next year. We will also be introducing a regular inspection regime to ensure compliance. Out of the 100,000 registered e-scooters, at least 80,000 are non-UL2272 certified and cannot be used on public paths come 1 July 2020. Of the remaining 20%, those which fail our inspection regime will likewise not be allowed to be used on public paths. This will effectively reduce the population of e-scooters on public paths significantly. We are offering owners of non-compliant e-scooters an incentive of $100 if they dispose of their non-compliant devices early. Since the roll-out of the scheme on 23 September 2019 to 31 October 2019, more than 4,800 e-scooters have been disposed. We have decided to extend the early disposal incentive scheme from 30 November to 31 December 2019. We strongly urge the owners of non-compliant e-scooters to dispose their devices early to protect themselves and their neighbours from unnecessary fire risks.

Members asked about the sale of non-UL2272 certified devices. Since 1 July 2019, it has been an offence for retailers to display, advertise, or sell non-UL2272 certified PMDs for use on public paths in Singapore. Those convicted may be liable to a fine up to $5,000 and/or jail up to three months for the first offence. To date, 12 retailers have been caught and dealt with by the law. We are considering raising the penalties to root out such irresponsible acts. LTA is also studying upstream measures, including import controls, to stem the inflow of non-compliant PMDs into Singapore.

Finally, given the safety concerns of motorised PMD usage on footpaths, we have decided not to accept any new application for PMD-sharing licences. As for the existing applications, we will issue a safety directive and LTA will reject them.

Mr Speaker, this ban of e-scooters from footpaths is a difficult decision. But it is a necessary step for pedestrians to feel safe again on public paths, while still allowing e-scooters to grow in tandem with cycling path infrastructure. We hope to have Members’ understanding and support for this new policy.

Speaker, I want to thank the Senior Minister of State for making the announcement. I think many people will welcome that ban on shared footpaths. But the Senior Minister of State has not answered my question because an announcement that a ban will take place would still need to be enforced. So, may I ask whether the Ministry will consider increasing the number of enforcement teams, so that we can actively enforce the rules, especially now that the rules are that you are going to ban these PMDs on the shared footpaths? Will MOT do that and by how many? Because now that you are going to ban the use of PMDs on shared footpaths, I would expect that your enforcement should be stepped up.

I would like to thank Mr Lim for the clarification. Yes, indeed, we will be increasing the number of Active Mobility Enforcement Officers (AMEOs), up to 200 by the end of this year. In addition to the AMEOs, we are also forming more Active Mobility Patrol teams within the community. We will be working with the various constituencies to form as many Active Mobility Patrol teams as possible, so that they can also help in the public education of PMD users.

At the same time, we also have what we call "Blue-Rangers" who are LTA officers who volunteer to take up the added responsibility of going round to educate PMD users on the various rules and regulations, as well as to remind them that from tomorrow onwards, it will be illegal to ride PMDs on footpaths.

Thank you, Speaker. May I ask the Senior Minister of State in respect of part (c) of my Question No 8, "whether the Government will consider mandatory safe-riding certification courses with disqualification rights"? Would the Government be still considering this?

In respect of the calls for age limit, both by the Active Mobility Panel as well as in my previous Parliamentary Question, will the Government consider an age limit for riders riding PMDs? I will also be grateful if the Senior Minister of State can answer Question No 11. Thank you.

I would like to thank Mr Dennis Tan for those supplementary questions. With regard to his question on whether there should be any mandatory safe-riding certification courses, I would like to share with the House that the Active Mobility Advisory Panel (AMAP) has recently submitted their recommendations on certain aspects of active mobility and one of which includes a mandatory theory test, which is slightly different from the safe-riding certification. But I think that may be a good step forward because by having a mandatory theory test, this will remind them of some of the various new rules and regulations on PMD usage, as well as some of the safety measures that they should adopt when using PMDs. We do not think that a safe-riding certification course will be necessary at this point in time because riding a PMD is very different from operating a motorcycle or, for that matter, a motor vehicle. It is actually much easier to do so. The question is whether the PMD user will exercise their due diligence and responsibility in riding the device in a safe manner.

As to the age limit, similarly, AMAP has also recommended that the age limit be brought down to 16 years. LTA, together with MOT, will be studying some of these recommendations by AMAP and we will make the necessary announcement later on.

As to the last clarification on the sale and supply of non-compliant PMDs, I have mentioned in my reply that from 1 July 2019, retailers are already not allowed to sell or even advertise non-compliant PMDs. At the same time, we are also moving upstream to look at how we can impose an import control of such non-compliant PMDs, so that we do not see such non-complaint PMDs being marketed in Singapore. We are working together with the necessary Government agencies to see how we can go about doing that.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for the comprehensive reply. I have three supplementary questions.

The first question is you have mentioned that 12 retailers were caught for flouting the rules. Of these 12 retailers, how many are physical retailers and how many are online retailers?

The second question is how does LTA or MOT detect those retailers that are flouting the rules? For the physical retailers, it will be easier, for the online retailers, it may be more difficult. Some of the online retailers may also be reselling their used PMDs, which are non-compliant with the UL2272 standard, on some of the platforms.

The third question is you mentioned that by end of the year, you will increase the enforcement team to 200 people. What is the current number now?

I would like to thank Mr Ang for those three supplementary questions. Out of those 12 retailers who were caught, all of them are physical retailers. I think Mr Ang will agree with me that it is very difficult to control or even prosecute online retailers because many of them are actually located outside Singapore.

But having said that, LTA works very closely with some of the major online retailers, for example, Lazada, to request that they put on the website some of the rules and regulations of PMD usage in Singapore, especially with respect to the device criteria allowed for sale in Singapore.

On the Member's third question on the number of Active Mobility Enforcement Officers (AMEOs), like I have mentioned, we will increase to 200. But offhand I do not have the exact numbers of AMEOs that we have right now, but I think it is in the region of 100-plus.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I have five supplementary questions.

The first question is, I would like to ask whether there will be any upgrading of the path in Nee Soon Town because the cycling path and the footpath side by side, they are the same colour, so whatever that you ban, I do not see that it will make any difference in Nee Soon Town.

The second question is, despite the ban on the footpath, will the Ministry consider mandatory licencing for PMD riders as well as insurance? Because as you beef up the infrastructure as we go along, the number will increase again.

The third question is, the registration number on the PMD, as I had mentioned in my question last month, it is too small and it is not visible at all at night. Will this part be looked into and reviewed?

The fourth question is, will the Ministry consider making speed limit installation compulsory, moving forward, for new PMDs?

Last but not least, I think it is a good move but the next question that the residents will be afraid of is bicycle. We do not have any registration numbers on the bicycles, so when it comes to accidents, there is no way that they can identify the cyclist. So, is the Ministry looking into this?

I would like to thank Er Dr Lee Bee Wah for the five supplementary questions. The very first is on upgrading the paths in Nee Soon South. In fact, we will be upgrading the paths in all the different towns in Singapore. Of course, we will be focusing on those where the use of active mobility is the highest and then we will try to do so for the rest of the towns as soon as possible. If there are any particular paths or areas where Er Dr Lee Bee Wah is concerned about, we can always look at it and see how we can tap on the funding that I have announced during the Ministerial Statement on improving certain hotspot areas, so that the risk of conflict can be minimised in those areas.

As to mandatory licencing of PMD users as well as mandatory third party liability insurance, at this point in time, we do not have the intention to do so. But we already have various regimes in place such as the mandatory registration of PMD device itself. We are also currently actively studying some of the recommendations put up by the Active Mobility Advisory Panel, one of which is the mandatory theory test. Like I have explained to Mr Dennis Tan, the intent is to inculcate safe riding habits amongst PMD users and at the same time, also to remind PMD users of some of the rules and regulations that are in place.

As to whether we should have mandatory third party liability insurance. We have been actively studying this issue. In fact, one of the recommendations that was put forth by AMAP is to have mandatory third party liability insurance for businesses, for example, food delivery companies. I am glad to say that we have engaged the three major food delivery companies and all of them have bought third party liability insurances for their PMD delivery personnel. We are also working with the insurance companies to see how we can bring down the price of the premium for such a product. At the same time, we also encourage all PMD users to consider purchasing third party liability insurance because it provides the necessary protection and peace of mind.

We also take back the Member's suggestion on the registration label for registered PMDs and we can work with LTA to see how we can make the font size more readable and easier to identify.

As to the Member's supplementary question on speed limiter installation for new PMDs, in fact, currently, all the new PMDs that are imported already have a speed limit of 25 km/h, which is the speed limit allowable on our cycling paths as well as our PCNs. With the implementation of the prohibition of e-scooter use on footpaths from tomorrow, there is no longer a need to limit these devices to 10 km/h. At the same time, if there are any illegal modifications of the speed limit of the PMDs, LTA will come down hard on these PMD users who illegally modify their devices.

As to bicycle registration, I think we have debated on this topic many years back in Parliament whether we should register cyclists. The decision then was not to because it will actually impede the take-up of active mobility, especially bicycles. At this point in time, many members of the public are supportive of the use of bicycles in their town as well as amongst the neighbourhood. The main concern now is that of PMD usage, especially those who are reckless and riding them dangerously. We will focus on the control of PMD use. The recent announcement on the ban on footpaths will be the right step forward.

Mr Speaker, I would like to ask one supplementary question. Will the Senior Minister of State consider extending an incentive for the disposal of compliant PMDs? I am asking this because although this decision will greatly improve pedestrian safety, it will also harm the value of all PMDs, even compliant ones. And if you get people to turn them in if they have no longer a use for them, it will reduce the risks of one using it and address any harm suffered by responsible owners of these PMDs.

I would like to thank Assoc Prof Walter Theseira for that supplementary question. I understand where the Member is coming from. The incentive scheme of $100 is meant for PMDs that are registered but non-compliant. The reason why we are doing so is because of the risk of fire and, therefore, we will not be extending this incentive to PMDs that are compliant because for PMDs that are compliant, they can still continue to use them on the cycling paths as well as the PCNs and we are not totally restricting its use altogether.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to applaud MOT's decision to ban the use of PMDs on footpaths. With the ban of using PMDs in void decks, this measure would largely address the safety concerns of residents. I also think that this represents an openness and willingness on the part of MOT to revisit issues when the circumstances warrant it and I think Members of this House should acknowledge that. It is also a matter of regret because the first decision to rely on the conduct of PMD users by self-regulating appears to be an experiment which somehow failed, but it is not a wrong decision in itself.

My supplementary question is in relation to enforcement in Pedestrian-only Zones (POZs). As I hear the hon Senior Minister of State, we have enforcement officers under the Active Mobility Act. The POZs are enforced by Town Councils and I wonder whether we could have enforcement officers appointed by the Town Councils to be also be given powers under the Active Mobility Act so that these officers can enforce seamlessly.

I would like to thank Mr Murali for those words of encouragement. It is a difficult decision to prohibit the use of PMDs on footpaths. When we first started debating on this topic in 2017, the collective decision then was to allow the use of PMDs on footpaths with the necessary mitigating measures in place, which we have done very thoroughly over the past two years. But at the same time, we understand that we should not push for connectivity at all costs. Public safety is still paramount and, looking at the current situation, it is not possible for the Government not to make a decisive decision. Therefore, the decision to prohibit the use of PMDs on footpaths.

As to the POZs, with this current announcement, we will be going back to the five pilot sites at the various Town Councils to work with the advisers to see whether they would like to proceed with the implementation of POZs. Because with the current ban of PMDs on footpaths, the danger posed by PMDs in such areas will be significantly reduced. Therefore, the question is whether we should continue with the POZs to prohibit the use of bicycles in these town centres. For those advisers who still want to continue with the implementation of POZs, LTA, together with MOT, will work very closely with the adviser to implement the POZs.

With regard to enforcement, I think we should adopt the attitude that we are in this together. The Town Council officers, together with the LTA enforcement officers, will try to make it as safe as possible for the pedestrians at the POZs.

Sir, while I support the Government's decision to ban PMDs on walkways, I am also a little concerned about how this will impact the food delivery businesses which do offer convenience to residents. So, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State how he sees this decision affecting the food delivery businesses and, more importantly, the PMD riders who are dependent on the PMDs to earn a living and whether there will be existing measures to help them to continue to have a way to do their business.

I would like to thank Mr Liang Eng Hwa for that supplementary question. I must say that we share the same concern when deliberating on this measure. We have been engaging the three major food delivery companies – Food Panda, Grab Food as well as Deliveroo. From our understanding, there are approximately about 7,000 food delivery riders using PMDs engaged by these three companies. We think that these 7,000 riders are probably the upper bound of the number of PMD users in this trade because many of them may register under the multiple companies.

We also understand from the food delivery companies that less than 30% of the deliveries are actually done using PMDs. Just to give Members rough statistics. For Food Panda, only about 12% of their food deliveries are done by PMDs, Deliveroo about 5%. We do not have the exact statistics from Grab Food. We are encouraging the food delivery companies and are working with them to see how we can convert as many of these PMD delivery personnel to either use motorcycles or bicycles because we do see that some of the companies do use bicycles for food delivery as well. For example, Food Panda has about 16% of their food deliveries done on bicycles.

For those workers who are unable to convert to either bicycles or motorcycles for whatever reasons, we will be working with the food delivery companies, together with Workforce Singapore, to assist them and see how we can look for alternative jobs for them.

Mr Speaker, this is pertaining to the enforcement of this new regulation. I understand from the Senior Minister of State that it will be challenging certainly to have an enforcement team to enforce this on the ground. Would the Government consider perhaps using technology and enhance technology in this area? For example, with a sufficient CCTV or camera network and perhaps more advanced recognition technology, would this be possible in the future to use such technology to identify those who break the law? Again, similar technology has been used in the enforcement of traffic regulations or even illegal parking along double yellow lines, for example.

I would like to thank Mr Darryl David for that supplementary question. The short answer is, yes, we will see how we can use technology to strengthen our enforcement capabilities. In fact, in previous parliamentary sittings, I had already shared that LTA is currently piloting the use of CCTVs for that purpose. At the same time, we have also implemented MyTransport.SG where the public can snap a picture of the errant rider and, if possible, try to identify the errant rider; if not, at least it will provide some information on where the possible hotspots are.