Debated in Parliament on 5 Aug 2019.
Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to deliver this Statement on behalf of the Minister for Transport.
Yes, proceed, please.
Mr Speaker, we in MOT are deeply concerned about the risks posed by motorised personal mobility devices, or PMDs for short.
We are aware that this is a hot topic on the ground. We hear it from our residents; we hear it from many Members of this House. All have expressed concern over the irresponsible use of PMDs, which has caused a lot of trouble. Reckless PMD riders have become a menace on the ground, causing alarm on our public paths. People are worried about whether our elderly parents or young children will be able to avoid speeding PMD users. Speedsters have also illegally modified their devices to travel at very high speed, without fear for their own lives and the danger they put others in. Residents are also worried that their houses would be affected should their neighbour’s PMD catch fire. Such irresponsible behaviour is unacceptable and cannot be tolerated.
At the same time, we are mindful that tens of thousands of Singaporeans have adopted PMDs and benefited daily from their usage. The vast majority of them use PMDs responsibly. Through the course of my various engagements, fellow Singaporeans have related to me stories of Singaporeans who have saved time and costs by using PMDs as a transport option, older Singaporeans with mobility challenges who have found newfound freedom with personal mobility aids, and Singaporeans who have improved their livelihoods through new employment opportunities.
Let me just share with Members the story of Mr Low Joo Kek, who is 62 years old this year. Mr Low used to get around on a bicycle, but with age, this has become a bit more challenging for him. Two years ago, Mr Low started riding an e-scooter, which he finds is a convenient way to travel. He uses his e-scooter to run errands near his home in Sengkang, do weekend patrols with the Waterways Watch Society where he volunteers and even visit his brother in Bedok. For Mr Low, his e-scooter helps him stay active and connected, and has since become a way of life for him.
There are also thousands of Singaporeans who use PMDs to improve their livelihoods. Mr Hafidz is one of them. He had to give up his earlier job due to health reasons and doing food delivery is now his lifeline. As the eldest son in his family, working as a food delivery PMD rider allows Mr Hafidz to provide for himself and his elderly parents, who are no longer working. When I met him last week at a dialogue session, he shared with me that his goal is simply to ride safely with his loved ones in mind.
Mr Low and Mr Hafidz are only two of the many Singaporeans who have benefited from the introduction of PMDs. Even Singaporeans who do not ride PMDs benefit from the convenient services provided by riders who use PMDs to deliver food to their doorsteps.
Because we were aware of the potential negative effects and also benefits, we conducted an extensive public consultation exercise to solicit views from a wide range of key stakeholders back in 2015 and 2016. It was led by Senior Parliamentary Secretary Assoc Prof Faishal and his Active Mobility Advisory Panel (AMAP). Members of the House will remember our thorough debate on all these issues when the Active Mobility Bill was tabled in January 2017.
On balance, the House decided to allow PMDs to enter Singapore as they are fundamentally a cheap, convenient and environmentally friendly alternative to cars and motorcycles for short trips. They can play an important role in our vision for a car-lite society. Members wisely emphasised the need for regulations, enforcement, public education and, wherever suitable, infrastructure enhancement. Upon AMAP’s recommendation, we put in place a comprehensive framework of regulations on device criteria and user behaviour through the Active Mobility Act. The Act commenced on 1 May 2018.
Mr Speaker, we now have a year of experience regulating PMDs. The risks and disamenities have become clearer. There have been 228 reported accidents involving PMDs on public paths in 2017 and 2018. There were 52 PMD-related fires reported in 2018. The number was 49 in the first half of this year. The growing number of fires is indeed worrying. I have often asked myself whether we would be better off banning PMDs whenever I read of accidents involving PMDs. However, I remember the call to ban bicycles from footpaths several years ago. After intensive public education efforts and infrastructure improvements, there is now a greater acceptance of bicycles in Singapore. Similarly, a PMD is just a machine. It is the rider who decides whether it is beneficial or detrimental to lives. I am confident that Singaporeans can be taught to use PMDs responsibly, as they have with bicycles. I am confident that we can bring about the safe sharing of paths with PMDs. But, with hindsight of experience, we should add new regulatory measures to enhance safety. I will focus on two key areas – fire safety and path safety.
First, how can we further enhance fire safety?
In September 2018, LTA announced UL2272 as a mandatory requirement for PMDs. The UL2272 standard improves safety against fire and electrical hazards significantly, by requiring the devices to pass a stringent set of tests conducted by accredited testing centres under extreme physical conditions. To date, we are still the only country in the world to impose such a rigorous fire safety requirement for e-scooters. Thus far, all PMD-related fire incidents have involved non-UL2272 certified devices and may have involved inappropriate charging practices, such as the use of incompatible chargers, overloading of sockets or charging near flammable materials.
We could have simply banned non-UL2272 certified PMDs. But retailers and users who had just bought such PMDs pleaded for some grace period. That is why we imposed the requirement for PMD retailers to sell only UL2272-certified devices from 1 July 2019, while users could only ride certified devices from 1 January 2021 onwards.
Even with this grace period, many retailers complained bitterly about the adverse impact on their businesses. Users were also unhappy about having to give up devices that were still usable and having to pay significantly more for a UL2272-certified PMD. These negative sentiments were widely covered in the media. However, given the recent spate of PMD-related fires, LTA will take two further steps to address the situation.
We will bring forward by six months, the deadline for compliance with the UL2272 requirement, to 1 July 2020.
As many Singaporeans rely on PMDs for their livelihoods and their commuting needs, we think this is the earliest reasonable deadline. This will also give retailers time to bring in sufficient stock of UL2272-certified devices.
We will also introduce a mandatory inspection regime for registered e-scooters from 1 April 2020 onwards. LTA will be scheduling all e-scooters which were earlier registered and self-declared UL2272-certified for inspection. LTA will henceforth require all new e-scooters to pass inspections for UL2272 certification and width, weight and device speed before they can be registered.
Some PMD users are concerned about the costs of switching out their non UL2272-certified devices. While I understand their worries, we seek their understanding and support for this necessary move.
AMAP Chairman Assoc Prof Faishal and I recently met with food delivery riders to see how they will be impacted by these proposed new measures and how we can help cushion the impact on them.
The food delivery companies have tied up with PMD operators to offer PMD rentals for food delivery riders. They have also announced their commitment to help their riders convert to, or rent, UL2272-certified devices. LTA will work with food delivery companies to offer more attractive rates for PMD rentals. From LTA’s engagement with retailers, we are also aware that they will bring in more UL2272-certified PMDs with higher capacity and longer range very soon.
I strongly encourage and urge all users and owners of the non UL2272-certified PMDs to switch them out as soon as possible. They can be a fire risk if you still keep and charge them at home. These devices should be properly and safely disposed of, as soon as possible. We will provide support to PMD users who come forth to dispose of their non UL2272-certified PMDs. We are studying ways to encourage Singaporeans to come forth and dispose of their non UL2272-certified devices early. More details will be announced later. LTA is also working with NEA to ensure safe and convenient disposal of non UL2272-certified devices.
I wish to remind PMD users that UL2272-certified PMDs come with electrical system safety features to reduce the risk of fires. UL2272 automatically cuts off battery charging once the battery is fully charged, thus avoiding overcharging which is a cause of fire. For this reason, modifying the electrical system of a UL2272-certified device will invalidate the certification. Users should not try to modify devices which are already UL2272-certified or add battery packs, as this could affect the circuitry and device safety. Device owners should instead approach their retailer or an authorised agent who is familiar with the approved battery model for that device model for battery replacements, so as not to void the UL2272 certification.
While UL2272 is a rigorous standard, users still have a part to play by adopting safe charging practices. They should avoid charging already-full batteries, and regularly check batteries for damage or deformity. They should only use original power adaptors, which should be affixed with Enterprise Singapore’s Safety Mark. Users should never leave their devices unattended when charging. In particular, devices should not be left to charge overnight.
LTA will work with SCDF to strengthen educational campaigns and outreach programmes on UL2272 certification and safe charging practices for residential, industrial and commercial buildings.
We will also crack down on illegal modifications of PMDs. Individuals caught doing so will be liable for a fine and/or jail term.
Let me now address path safety. Our strategy covers infrastructure enhancement, enforcement and education.
The first aspect pertains to infrastructure. Today, we have 90,000 registered e-scooters. We expect the number to grow as more Singaporeans take up the opportunities afforded by this new mobility option.
To meet growing needs, we will expand our active mobility infrastructure improvement plans, and expedite them in hotspots where accidents often occur. We are setting aside a fund to tackle such hotspots, by making appropriate improvements such as widening footpaths, installing clear warning signs, and installing speed regulating strips on the paths to slow down PMD users. These efforts are estimated to cost us $50 million to implement over the next few years. We will work with local MPs and residents to identify the infrastructure improvements to tackle specific hotspots in each of your constituency.
Two months ago, we had a discussion in this House on whether PMDs should be banned from HDB void decks and corridors, where there are many blind spots which cannot be overcome through infrastructure improvements. At that time, I said that Town Councils could set and enforce their own rules on PMD usage at void decks. After further discussions, 15 Town Councils have decided to ban the usage of PMDs in void decks and common corridors.
In addition, some Town Councils have also told us about the high accident risk at crowded town centres and neighbourhood centres where the paths are lined with shops. As pedestrians can walk in all different directions, there is a potentially higher risk of accidents, compared to a linear footpath. To address this risk, LTA will work with relevant Town Councils to conduct a three-month trial to designate pedestrian-only zones (POZs) where riders must dismount and push their PMDs. We will try out POZs at the town centres in Ang Mo Kio, Bedok, Bukit Batok and Khatib, and at a neighbourhood centre in Tampines. So, we are actually selecting five trial sites. We will consult the local Members of Parliament on the specific details. If the concept of the POZ proves useful, we will roll it out to other towns island-wide.
As a further step, LTA has also started a trial to implement School Zone markings along footpaths outside some schools. These include speed regulating strips, “SLOW” markings and enhanced visual cues on the ground to remind PMD users to slow down and watch out for other path users, especially young children. We have completed works at the first trial site at Fern Green Primary School. We will expand this to four other schools which include Fengshan Primary, Jiemin Primary, Rivervale Primary and Yishun Secondary School by next month.
Apart from localised infrastructure enhancements, we work closely with local Members of Parliament to develop active mobility infrastructure at the township level.
Ang Mo Kio is an example of what every town can look forward to. Ang Mo Kio is our first “Walking and Cycling Town”. When the cycling-path network is completed in 2022, it will span 20 km, connecting homes safely and seamlessly to the MRT station, bus interchange and AMK Hub. These cycling paths will be located along almost all of the main roads in Ang Mo Kio. They will have pedestrian and cyclist friendly features such as pedestrian-priority zones near bus stops, a distinctive red colouring for the cycling paths, and cycling ramps.
There are four stretches where it is necessary to build cycling paths for connectivity, but where the sidewalks are not wide enough. These four stretches are at Ang Mo Kio Streets 22, 41, 43 and 61. To ensure a safe and well-connected network of cycling paths, we will reclaim road space to build the cycling paths at these four stretches. This will be done by reducing the width of roads or taking back an entire road lane. This is necessary for safety and connectivity.
The works at Ang Mo Kio will be completed over the next three years. We will progressively implement similar plans in other HDB towns, and I seek Members' and fellow Singaporeans’ patience and support.
At the national level, there are now 440 km of cycling paths in Singapore. This is not enough to support first-mile-last-mile commutes. We will expand the cycling path network to 750 km by 2025 and triple our cycling network by 2030. This will require us to reclaim some existing car lanes. In new precincts such as Kampong Bugis, Tengah and Woodlands North Coast, LTA plans to build cycling paths on both sides of the road. New cycling paths may also be added to private residential estates and industrial estates.
Infrastructure alone is not enough. We also need to have a comprehensive enforcement and education strategy to encourage responsible riding and deter errant riding. Let me share what we are doing by way of enforcement.
LTA has significantly stepped up enforcement against errant riders. Since May 2019, we have more than doubled our enforcement resources. We will continue to ramp up and will enlarge the enforcement team to about 200 by the end of this year. This will be supplemented by crowd-source feedback through LTA's recently-launched "Report PMD/PAB Incident" function in the MyTransport.SG app.
Since May 2018, LTA officers have detected over 4,900 active mobility offences and impounded over 2,100 non-compliant devices.
Currently, our enforcement efforts are manpower-intensive. We are therefore leveraging on technology to expand our enforcement reach. LTA has just started on an 18-month trial of mobile closed circuit televisions (CCTVs) at hotspot locations to determine the effectiveness of video analytics software and radar technology in detecting offences such as speeding. This provides an additional layer of deterrence.
We take a tough stance against retailers who display or sell non-compliant devices, as well as those who provide illegal device modification services. To date, LTA has taken action against 12 PMD retailers. It is essential to tackle non-compliant devices at the source. We will not tolerate such behaviour and we will deal with them firmly and with the full brunt of the law.
Some Members also asked whether our penalties are adequate. The laws allow for a range of penalties, ranging from composition sums, forfeiture of non-compliant devices, to fine and jail terms for serious cases. This ensures that the punishment is proportionate to the crime. In February 2019, the Courts ruled in a landmark case, sentencing a reckless PMD rider to seven weeks' jail for knocking down a pedestrian and causing grievous hurt. This will serve as a precedent for future cases. We are closely monitoring whether our penalty regime is effective at deterring errant riding behaviour. We will enhance penalties if necessary.
I have also asked Assoc Prof Faishal and AMAP to study the issue of insurance and compensation in the event of active mobility-related incidents. AMAP will submit its recommendations to the Government later this year after consulting the relevant stakeholders. We will likely start off by requiring PMD-sharing operators to have third-party liability insurance.
Meanwhile, major food delivery companies like Deliveroo and GrabFood are already providing third-party liability insurance for their riders. FoodPanda also announced this morning that they will be doing so starting from next month. AMAP and LTA are also working together with insurance companies to come up with more affordable products for individuals and encouraging individuals to purchase insurance.
Finally, we will keep up the intensity of our educational efforts. LTA has brought the Safe Riding Programme (SRP) to local communities and schools, with about 600 sessions conducted over the last three months alone. As of June 2019, over 57,000 people have participated in the SRP. We will continue to work with the community to develop a gracious and safe path sharing culture. This includes over 1,000 volunteers who regularly patrol and share safe riding practices with their community. Such educational efforts are key to a fundamental shift in how all path users behave, and will help us to maximise the usage of our paths in a safe manner.
Mr Speaker, we promote active mobility because it is good for Singaporeans. As our population ages, it is important to promote active ageing. Regular exercise is an important part of active ageing. This is why we promote Walk, Cycle, Ride as a preferred mode of transport for short distances within our residential estates. For some Singaporeans, motorised PMDs offer an added option. We hope Singaporeans will be able to accept their usage on our footpaths; but this requires PMD users to behave themselves. It is for their own safety as well as the safety of others.
We have had a year of experience regulating PMDs. It has not been a all smooth sailing and we did not expect any new tool’s introduction to be a rosy journey. But the experience has helped us to review our regulatory measures and to see how they can be tightened to further enhance safety.
As with any new technology, our regulatory regime has to be nimble and responsive. We will get the new measures in place quickly. And we will continue to monitor their effectiveness. And we remain ready to introduce new or better measures, if necessary. Safety is always our paramount concern. And we will not fail Singaporeans in safeguarding their lives and welfare.
Singapore is actually not alone in having to grapple with PMDs. I thank Members of this House for their suggestions and continued support. I am also grateful to AMAP for their wise counsel and unceasing efforts. Above all, I seek Singaporeans' support and understanding that we are committed to doing our utmost. I am confident that we will be able to make active mobility safe and relevant for Singaporeans. Thank you.
Mr Sitoh Yih Pin.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I thank the Senior Minister of State for the Statement. The Senior Minister of State mentioned about the new deadlines of April and July 2020. Whilst this is a welcomed move, it is still eight to 11 months away. Given the high numbers of fires involving PMDs recently, is there anything else that MOT can do to mitigate these things that are happening?
I would like to thank Mr Sitoh for the clarification and also for his continual support as the Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) Transport Chairman. MOT is very mindful of the fire safety concerns about PMDs and we have studied this issue very, very carefully and consulted various stakeholders for the decision to bring forward the deadline for complying with the UL2272 standard by six months as well as for the mandatory inspection regime from 1 April 2020.
We understand that many Singaporeans rely on PMDs for their livelihoods and their commuting needs, such as the stories of Mr Hafidz and Mr Low that I have shared. And we understand that if we were to ban non-UL2272 certified devices immediately, that would definitely impose a lot of hardship and inconvenience to many Singaporeans. Our discussion with some of the PMD retailers, especially with the PMD Retailers Association of Singapore has also confirmed that 1 July 2020 is a reasonable timeline as it gives retailers sufficient time to bring in UL2272-certified devices so that you can have a smooth replacement scheme.
So, in the meantime, what we can do is that we will continue to encourage non-UL2272 certified device owners to switch to compliant ones as soon as possible. And, at the same time, we also understand that many of the causes of PMD-related fires can be attributed to other factors, such as improper charging practices, the use of incompatible chargers or adapters. And, as such, LTA will be working very closely with SCDF to step up fire safety education on PMDs.
Just to remind Members of the House as well as all Singaporeans, we can actually minimise the risk of fire by avoiding overcharging the batteries, like I mentioned before. We should avoid illegally modifying the devices and also avoid tampering with the electrical components or leaving the devices unattended when charging. And, if possible, please do not leave your PMD to charge overnight because there is a tendency for the device to overheat if you overcharge it excessively beyond what is required. Owners should also check that the batteries are in good condition, look for any damages or deformities that may give an indication that the battery may not be safe to continue to be used. And we should also make sure that original power adapters affixed with the Enterprise Singapore Safety Mark are used to charge the devices.
So, these are some of the practical advice I would give Singaporeans while we await the implementation of the new deadline.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. We have been discussing many of these PMD-related safety issues for the past one to two years. The situation is not getting any better. Every time I have a dialogue, I get a earful from my residents saying how dangerous it is to walk on these footpaths because the PMDs just come up behind them silently. So, with these measures, is MOT or LTA simply being reactive rather than trying to pre-empt the problem? I understand some countries have already banned PMDs from footpaths. Has LTA considered banning these PMDs from footpaths until our infrastructure is improved?
Last month, I filed a question about park connectors and asked why NParks are not prepared to draw lines demarcating areas for pedestrians from those for PMDs. But NParks said no, they are not prepared to do so. And that adds to the complication because pedestrians do not know for sure – if I run left, I get knocked; I run right, I also get knocked down. So, really, this situation is quite urgent and safety should be paramount. Would MOT really consider banning PMDs until our infrastructure is improved?
The other question I have for the Senior Minister of State is: can we take stiffer action against retailers that sell non-compliant batteries or PMDs. If they just get fined, they make it all back from selling such non-compliant batteries and PMDs. Let us give them a heftier punishment, even send them to jail if necessary, so that everyone will know the importance of compliance.
I would like to thank Mr Lim for the many supplementary questions. In fact, we had various discussions on these issues on PMD safety over the past one to two years. And MOT really appreciates all the feedback given by Members of House. And if we look at some of these measures that we have come up with, it shows that we are listening, we know the concerns on the ground and we will not hesitate to take necessary action whenever appropriate.
But I also like to remind all Members that the reason why we promote active mobility is because we believe that it is good for Singaporeans and Singapore. And that it helps with our vision of a car-lite society. And as with introduction of any new technology, our regulatory regime has to be nimble and responsive, like I mentioned in my Ministerial Statement, and that we will have to evolve with the needs according to the situation and feedback on the ground. And I also would like to reiterate that safety is of paramount importance and we will take all feedback seriously.
Thus far, Singapore remains the only country that has implemented the UL2272 standard for e-scooters and this had been a bold and decisive move, in September 2018, to deal with the potential issues of fire safety. We are also the first country to introduce a mandatory registration as well as, soon, a mandatory inspection regime for PMDs with regard to the weight, width, motorised speed as well as the UL2272 requirements.
The Member has also rightly pointed out that, could we have banned PMD use, right from the beginning or even at this point in time, until all the infrastructure is ready. We could have taken the path of least resistance at the beginning to completely ban PMDs on pavements and shared paths. But I think we debated in the House during the introduction of the Active Mobility Bill that, taking all things into consideration, PMDs still have a role to play in providing active mobility options as well as providing first- and last-mile connectivity. And if we had banned PMD use on pathways, what it actually means is that we would have just pushed PMDs onto the roads, which would likely lead to more fatalities because of the higher speed of buses, cars and lorries travelling on the same road.
Instead what we have done is to implement a very comprehensive regime to ensure that PMDs are used in a safe and responsible manner. With that, I want to urge Singaporeans to continue to work with us in making active mobility a safe and relevant option for everyone.
And with regards to the Member's questions on enforcement on some of these errant retailers who are irresponsibly selling devices that are non-compliant, LTA will definitely take a very close watch and will not hesitate to take tough actions against them.
Also, with regards to the question on PCN shared paths, currently, we are working with all the relevant agencies to see how we can enhance safety of PMD use on shared paths. We will also be working with local advisers to see how we can have infrastructure enhancement to tackle some of these issues on the ground.
Sir, I have three clarifications for the Senior Minister of State. First, will the Ministry consider licensing PMDs so as to manage the growth of PMDs in Singapore and also to make it compulsory for the PMD riders to attend to a safe riding course? Second, can the Ministry also consider reducing the speed limit on the approved PMD paths, especially those shared paths with pedestrians? And third, the Town Councils welcome the five trial sites which LTA has identified in terms of designating them as pedestrian-only zones. We hope that the study will help us to better understand the behaviour of PMDs in these town centres. The Town Councils have plans to ban PMDs at all common property unless it is approved by the Town Council or LTA.
I would like to thank Dr Teo Ho Pin for those supplementary questions. In fact, we have started the mandatory registration of PMDs and we have only started that recently so I would urge everyone to give it some time for it to take effect.
At the same time, we also strongly encourage all riders to go through the Safe Riding Programme (SRP) which I have mentioned earlier, and to date we have more than 57,000 individuals who have already attended the SRP. To encourage the take up of SRP, we have made it completely free-of-charge. It is fully subsidised for the first two years till December 2019. So, if you know of anyone who has not gone for the course, please encourage them to do so while it is free-of-charge. We will continue to also work with active mobility interest groups, schools, companies, especially food-delivery companies, to encourage all their cyclists and PMD riders to attend the SRP.
As to the speed limit of devices on various paths, AMAP has recently recommended to MOT to reduce the speed limit of active mobility devices, including bicycles, on footpaths –from 15 km/h to 10 km/h, and 25 km/h along shared paths. So far, we have received some feedback similar to what Dr Teo Ho Pin has shared as to whether these could be reduced further. I have asked Assoc Prof Faishal, together with his AMAP team, to look at some of these suggestions. Hopefully, they will be able to come back with some recommendations by the end of this year.
As to the five trial sites, I would like to thank Dr Teo Ho Pin for agreeing to coordinate the efforts of implementing the trials in the five selected Town Councils. In fact, initially, we wanted to hold this trial over six months. After discussing with the Town Council Chairmen, we have decided to bring it down to three months because we want to know its effectiveness more quickly. And if it is proven to be effective, we will extend it to all the different towns island-wide where necessary.
A few supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State. I think first, we recognise the advantages that PMDs bring to society and they can create jobs as well. I think by and large, we have no problems with many of the users who use PMDs responsibly. The problem, as we know, is always with a small group of PMD users who flout the rules and also retailers who flout the rules. So, my first supplementary question to Senior Minister of State concerns individual users who flout the rules, who do not know how to use it and endanger the lives, whether they use it on the roads or on the pathways. We know so many cases where there are injuries, near misses and it is very difficult, much as we like, in terms of enforcement, how do we report them. My residents have told me that even if they want to, they do not know how. The users zoom past them and there is no time to take a photo and all that. So, I think we need to – while the rules are there, the rules are no good if it is not enforced. So, can we think of ways where we either step up enforcement through technology, through more people, I am not sure how, I am sure the fraction – it is a small fraction of the number of people we have to do this enforcement compared to the number of users that are on the road. So that is my first question: how can we step up enforcement against irresponsible users, regardless whether they are using on the road or on the pathways until – because we cannot fix them as what Mr Lim has asked for.
Second question: I also echo the concern about retailers who are outrightly selling things which they should not. For them, I think stiffer action needs to be taken. There should not be any two ways about it and we should be firm, we should be hard and should send the right message across to both retailers and irresponsible users.
I thank Mr Seah for those two supplementary questions. The first one is on the small group of irresponsible users. I totally agree with him that the majority of PMD users are responsible. Right now, we have 90,000 people who have registered PMDs in our database, and we know that only a small number of them are irresponsible. How can we then enhance our enforcement actions against this small group of people? Having said that, we do not want to ban the use of PMD just because of this small group of irresponsible users, while affecting the rest who are responsible.
LTA has started what we call a "crowdsourcing application". I think Members would have read in the papers about the "Report PMD/PAB Incident" function within the MyTransport.SG application. This will allow any Singaporean to take a picture of any errant riders that they may encounter. I understand its limitation. We will review and monitor the reports that are received from this application. Whenever possible, we will take enforcement action against the errant rider. At the same time, we also understand that sometimes it may be difficult to identify the irresponsible user just through a picture taken using the app. But this will also give us good information on some of these areas that are potentially hotspots and then we can step up enforcement actions, whether physically or otherwise, at these places.
I have also mentioned in my Ministerial Statement that we will be increasing the number of enforcement officers or AMEOs, up to about 200 by end of this year. And I believe, with more manpower, we will be able to do more. In fact, LTA has stepped up enforcement actions to the extent that almost on a daily basis, you will see that LTA has been putting up postings on its Facebook about some of these errant riders being summoned and some of these non-compliant devices being impounded. At the same time, we will also see how we can harness technology in our enforcement efforts, one of which I have explained in my Statement, which is piloting the use of mobile CCTVs at certain hotspots and see how we can use video analytics for the enforcement actions.
As to the Member's second clarification on errant retailers, yes, indeed, I share the same sentiment that we should really get tough on some of these irresponsible retailers. Like I mentioned in my previous reply, we will not hesitate to take very stiff actions against some of these errant retailers.
First of all, I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for including Khatib Centre as one of the five piloted sites for POZs. In fact, Khatib Centre has been POZed long before – until, until Active Mobility Act came into force. And I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State to work closely with the local Member of Parliament. I have a lot more POZs in Nee Soon South that I would like to work with MOT on. It is not just in Khatib Centre; covered linkways as well.
I have three supplementary questions.
Just now, Senior of State mentioned that there are 90,000 PMDs registered so far. Out of the 90,000, how many are non-complying? From now until July, that is 11 months. If the number is huge, a lot of us will have nightmares. We would still have to worry about have to run in the middle of the night.
The second question, from 1 April, compulsory inspection before they can register PMD: is that a one-off inspection or will there be subsequent inspections? Because after that they can do modifications as well.
And the third question is that for those between 400 metres from MRT train stations, where you have covered linkways, those are the areas that normally, we received a lot of feedback of near accidents. So, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether the infrastructure that he mentioned, the funding that he mentioned, will it be carried out for all the covered linkways between the 400 metres.
And I am glad to hear about using technology. Recently, I have a meeting with Singtel. In fact, they shared with me that they have the technology, they can give us data on who is the top violator, at what time it passed way, at what speed it went by. So, I hope that MOT can choose my area to be one of those piloted as well.
First of all, let me just thank Er Dr Lee Bee Wah for supporting us in this effort. In fact, I must give credit to Er Dr Lee Bee Wah for the idea of POZs in town centres and neighbourhood centres. I visited Khatib Town Centre together with Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and she showed me some of the challenges on the ground. Through some of the feedback from Er Dr Lee as well as residents and other Town Council Chairmen and Advisors, we have, therefore, decided to implement and introduce these trials of POZs at the five selected town and neighbourhood centres. But, of course, if it proves to be very useful and if we receive very good feedback from Advisors as well as residents, we will implement the POZs island-wide to other town areas which Advisors have identified as potential hotspots.
As to her clarification on the number of non-compliant PMDs, to date, we have 90,000 PMDs registered in our database, of which 10% have been declared to be UL2272-certified. So, we are looking at 90% of these devices that are non-compliant at this point in time. Therefore, it is one of the reasons why we have decided to bring forward the deadline for UL2272-certified devices to be used on the ground by only six months, rather than immediately. There is necessary for the retailers to have sufficient time to bring in the certified devices for the replacement.
At the same time, we are also implementing this mandatory inspection regime from 1 April 2020. This will allow us, first of all, to verify that, indeed, some of this so-called self-declared certified PMDs are really certified to the UL2272 standard. Subsequently, what happens is that only PMDs that have been certified by our authorised inspection centres to be compliant, will be allowed to be registered.
Whether this is going to be a one-off inspection or a periodic inspection, currently, we are discussing internally. If Members understand the lifespan of a PMD, it is probably going to just last about two to three years. If we do have a regular inspection regime, whether that is going to be, first of all, necessary; secondly, whether it is going to be cost-effective. Having said that, like I have shared, we are still discussing internally and if necessary, we may put this as a requirement.
On the last clarification on the crowded covered linkways and whether we are able to use the $50 million fund that will be set up, the answer is yes. We will work with local Advisors to identify some of these hotspots and make the necessary infrastructure enhancements.
Mr Dennis Tan.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. First, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State to answer my Parliamentary Question Nos 9 and 10. I have two supplementary questions. One relates to the issue of safe riding courses, would the Government consider making it compulsory for all users of PMD to attend safe riding courses? The Senior Minister of State mentioned that, at the moment, there are about over 90,000 e-scooters that have been registered and I wonder whether the Government has an estimation of how many e-scooters that have been imported and sold in Singapore that have not been registered so far. We can just well imagine that the figure is definitely greater than 90,000 and of all the e-scooters that have been used, surely, there are a lot of the e-scooters that have been used by more than one owner, that is, one scooter may be used by a few people in the family.
Secondly, still on the issue of public education, I think I have spoken about this in the past. I believe that to create a culture of safe riding, it will also involve putting the public information on the rules and on the etiquette to the users, that is, to PMD users, as well as to other park users or path users, who may not actively seek out such information, so they may not go to the LTA Facebook; they may not access certain areas where PMD users may, or go and sign up for safe riding courses. And this is clearly relevant. For example, a lot of elderly people, they may not access these Facebook sites for example and they are using the footpaths in our towns on an everyday basis. How do we ensure, for example, the simple etiquette that has always been talked about – that we should keep left, whether it is a PMD user, bicycle or pedestrian? How many persons actually consciously walk on a footpath or on a connector knowing that you keep left for safety —
Please keep the question short.
— and being considerate. Thank you.
I would like to thank the Member for those very pertinent questions. Maybe just allow me to answer his Parliamentary Questions on PMD-sharing in private premises. Under the Parking Places Act, operators are required to obtain a licence to offer dockless PMD-sharing services if users of PMDs may end PMD rentals in a public space – meaning outside private premises. This is to prevent indiscriminate parking of shared devices.
However, the licensing regime currently does not cover PMD-sharing operators who deploy their devices solely on private land. At present, PMDs belonging to commercial shared services, operating from private land are allowed to travel on public paths so long as the rental does not end in a public place. We are watching this very closely, especially for PMD-sharing operators who flout this rule, and we will take action against them.
From 1 July 2019, it is an offence under the Active Mobility Act for companies to sell or lease non UL2272-certified PMDs for use on public paths. This even includes operators who offer PMD-sharing services from private premises. What this means is that, all rental PMDs must be UL2272-certified, with no exception.
Our licensing regime under the Parking Places Act requires PMD sharing licensees to procure as well as maintain third party liability insurance. This does not apply to those operating solely on private land.
I hope this answers the two Parliamentary Questions that the Member had filed.
The Member also asked about whether we have any information on the number of devices that are not registered so far. Unfortunately, we do not have information even though registration has been mandatory since 1 July this year. As long as they are not registered, e-scooters cannot be used on public paths. I encourage owners of such unregistered devices either to quickly register them, or if not, they should dispose these devices in a safe and responsible manner.
As to mandatory education on safe riding, we have also asked ourselves whether we should make it mandatory for all PMD users, but we concluded that at this point in time, it may not be necessary to do so. Instead, like I mentioned in my reply to Dr Teo, we encourage all riders to go through the Safe Riding Programme (SRP). We have even fully subsidised SRP for all users if they want to take part in this process, up to December 2019. We will continue to work with all the various interest groups to encourage people to take part in the SRP.
We have also published a Code of Conduct for PMD users and this was actually suggested by the AMAP. This provides PMD users some guidelines on some of the things that they should do when riding a PMD responsibly. I also reckon that, sometimes, many of our elderly residents may not be aware of some of these rules and etiquette when using a public path. Therefore, we have also engaged the community to help us in this public education effort, through the Active Mobility Patrol (AMP) teams that are currently present in more than 60 constituencies. I also want to encourage constituencies which do not have an AMP to please sign up for the AMP. LTA will work closely with Members to educate PMD users as well as your residents on the safe use of PMDs and pathways.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I applaud the announcement by the hon Senior Minister of State Dr Lam to bring forward the amnesty period for the use of non-compliant PMDs from end 2020 to 1 July 2020. This is the concern I had in the Parliamentary Question that I filed for answer in today's session. I have three supplementary questions.
The first is in relation to the spike in the fire incidents. As Senior Minister of State Dr Lam mentioned, last year, we had 52 PMD related fires, and this year, from January to July, we already had 49 fires. As the Members of the House may recall, Dr Lam made an announcement in this House in September 2018 about the new standards. Following that, retailers of PMDs dumped prices from $600 to about $200 to $300. I believe, this may have resulted in people buying these non-compliant PMDs. I am not sure whether there is a correlation between this dumping and the higher incident of fires involving PMDs.
I am also concerned, whether or not these PMDs are fit for purpose. Even though you charged the PMDs properly, they could still be fire hazards. I wonder whether the Ministry could provide services to such PMD users to see whether their PMDs are fit for purpose.
The second question is in relation to the mandatory inspection date of 1 April 2020. Given that only 10% of PMDs are compliant now and given that the amnesty ends on the 1 July 2020, I would imagine that a good percentage of PMDs would fail the inspection, come 1 April 2020. What would be the status of such PMD users?
Finally, given that there is still a high number of non-compliant PMDs after 1 July 2020, I wonder whether steps could be taken to prevent a secondary market of non-compliant PMDs in Singapore; perhaps we could consider providing value for scrapping such non-compliant PMDs.
I would like to thank Mr Murali for those supplementary questions. Indeed, it is of a great concern to LTA and MOT, when we read of the statistics for PMD-related fires. Like he rightly mentioned, in 2018, we had 52 cases and just the first half of this year, we had 49 cases. But if you look at the same period comparing the first half of 2019 with the first half of 2018 , it is actually a three-fold increase.
This can likely be attributed to the increase in the population of PMDs in Singapore. When we first started one or two years ago, our rough estimate was about maybe 20,000 to 30,000 devices in Singapore. This has increased to 90,000 since we implemented the mandatory registration requirement.
As to the 90% of the non-compliant PMDs, we will, like I have mentioned before, encourage owners to quickly change out to the UL2272-certified PMDs as soon as possible. If not, then we will want to remind PMD owners on some of the safe practices when it comes to the charging of the non-UL2272 certified devices, which I had already elaborated earlier.
Will there be a secondary market for non-compliant PMDs? I hope not, as least not in Singapore. The use of non-UL2272 certified devices on public paths will be illegal from 1 July 2020. If we do find anyone using such non-compliant devices, they will be taken to task.
I thank the Senior Minister of State. I have three questions.
The first is regarding the cost of the compulsory inspection. Would it be borne by the Government or the owners and would that be included in the fee for registration?
The second one is whether there is a de-registration procedure. After inspection, after, let us say, the battery's shelf life is gone and people are disposing of their PMDs, the PMDs might still be registered, but the PMDs are no longer in use. Another scenario, the PMDs might still continue to be used but modified with the registration. So, is there a de-registration process for PMDs?
Thirdly, regarding the UL2271 batteries, my understanding is that in some reports, there is some confusion with regard to UL2271 batteries that they can be used to replace batteries to make PMDs UL2272-compliant, like people buying UL2272 devices but then replacing the batteries with UL2271 batteries because they are of a higher quality, are more powerful and what not. Is this allowed or would this make it non-compliant?
I would like to thank Mr Goh for those supplementary questions. With regard to the cost of the inspection as well as the subsequent fee for registration when owners replace their PMDs, LTA is working out the details and will make the announcement soon.
As to deregistration, there is currently a process for PMD users to deregister their registered PMDs. And I would want to remind owners to do so because failure to deregister will not take away your responsibility of being the owner of the PMD device if it is being used illegally subsequently. So, there is currently a deregistration process in place. Please remember to deregister your PMD when you want to discard or stop using your PMD.
As to the last clarification on UL2271 and UL2272, I will have to check exactly whether they are compatible in terms of the certification. My understanding is that the device is certified to the UL2272 standard based on the battery and circuitry of the PMD. Any illegal modification or change to a different type of battery will actually render the UL2272 certification void. But I need to verify if UL2271 is, indeed, a compatible one. But I would encourage PMD users, if you need to change batteries, please go to a reputable retailer to have it changed. Do not do it yourself or through some black market retailers. Go to reputable ones to ensure that the certification will not be rendered void.
Mr Speaker, I have one supplementary question for the Senior Minister of State. Mr Speaker, on improving infrastructure to cope with the needs of PMD users, cyclists and pedestrians, I believe the Senior Minister of State mentioned just now about a pilot site in Ang Mo Kio where cycling tracks are signficantly being explored to be expanded. He actually mentioned that, if need be, a dedicated lane on the road would be set aside, if I heard him correctly. What I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State is whether the Government will consider, given the rising popularity of the use of PMDs and cycling, going back to the early years of Singapore where there was a dedicated cycling track on the road along with the vehicles but, obviously, doing it safely as part of the future LTA Transport Master Plan.
I would like to thank Ms Foo for the question. When we mentioned dedicated lanes for cycling, it is separate from the road itself. From our feedback and experience, and looking at what some other countries have been doing, locating the dedicated cycling path next to the road has its pros and cons. There is always the danger where the fast-moving vehicles on the road may pose a danger to the cyclist or PMD user. What we mentioned in Ang Mo Kio is that we will try to reclaim part of these roads so that we can make it as a footpath or dedicated cycling path, which is physically separated from the road itself. This is to ensure the safety of the slow-moving PMD users and the cyclists, as well as pedestrians.
Mr Speaker, I actually concur with the Member Mr Seah Kian Peng's comments earlier on enforcement. I just have two other supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State.
The first is whether we will consider mandating the licensing registration at the point of sale so that we are actually tackling both the retailers who have the onus or responsibility of sending the different products they are bringing in to Enterprise Singapore for that Safety Mark, but also to enable the users to know that what they are purchasing is of good quality or has already been certified.
Next, with regard to the use of technology, it is always possible with technology that we can mount gadgets on the PMD sets for sale since we are also asking the users to pay a licensing or registration fee. The main thing is that with technology it can help to track the speed of the individual PMDs so that we do not have to triple or quadruple the number of enforcers on the ground. The issue is very similar to that of high-rise littering or even pigeon-feeding. There can never be enough enforcers on the ground to help out with all this enforcement. With that technology, they can automatically trigger if there is any violation on the part of the PMD users.
Mr Speaker, indeed, some of these suggestions are very valid and good. Whether we want to mandate registration at the point of sale is something that we can look at. We are not saying that we will disallow the registration by the retailer on behalf of the buyer. It can be done. But I would also like to remind users to purchase UL2272-certified or compliant PMDs from reputable retailers. If you are going to buy PMDs online, then there is a risk that you may be purchasing something that has been falsely declared to be compliant but which actually may not be.
Secondly, on the use of technology, indeed, this is exactly what we plan to do. LTA is also embracing technology to see how we can enforce the responsible use of PMDs, such as, like I mentioned, the use of mobile CCTVs. Whenever there are new technologies that are available in the future, we will consider using such technology to enhance our enforcement action. But in the interim, I think it is necessary to have sufficient manpower on the ground, which is one of the many feedback that we have received from Advisors that, in the past, there were very few physical bodies on the ground to do the enforcement. Therefore, we have increased the number of manpower to tackle the root of the problem. But in the future, if we have technologies that can facilitate enforcement action, we will definitely deploy them.
Mr Speaker, I would like to pursue the issue of mandatory third-party insurance. Although several measures have since been implemented by the Ministry, I think we can all understand due to the sheer number of PMDs and the lack of sufficient enforcement resources on the ground, it is almost impossible and also impractical to police errant PMD users. When accidents happen, victims suffer, not only suffering the pain and inconvenience of injuries but having to foot large medical bills, not to mention the loss of earnings as well. Without insurance, it is difficult for the victims to seek appropriate compensation. Taking the errant PMD user to Court may be fruitless, not to mention the high cost of litigation which the victim can ill afford. A general search of the insurance market reveals that the premium for a basic third-party insurance policy, if made mandatory, may not be exorbitant. An indicative estimate may cost somewhere between $50 and $80 pa, depending on the potential volume of PMDs that we have. This would be an affordable price to pay to ensure proper and adequate compensation to victims of accidents involving PMDs as well as the fire risks from non-compliant devices.
So, given the large number of non-compliant PMDs still in use out there – and we still have many more months to go – I urge the Ministry to seriously reconsider the introduction of mandatory insurance in the light of this real and imminent risk exposure.
I would like to thank Mr Melvin Yong for that recommendation. Indeed, we had discussed this issue on several occasions in previous parliamentary sittings. Having received many of this feedback, we have actually asked Senior Parliamentary Secretary Assoc Prof Faishal Ibrahim, together with his AMAP, to study this issue of insurance and compensation in the event of any active mobility-related incidents. They will submit their recommendations later this year, after consulting the various relevant stakeholders.
So, we are not precluding that possibility. But I would also want to say that, at this point in time, we will likely start off by requiring PMD-sharing operators to have mandatory third-party liability insurance. At the same time, I have also mentioned just now that the major food delivery companies, like Deliveroo, GrabFood and Food Panda, are and will be providing third-party liability insurance for their riders. So, this is one step in the correct direction. In the meantime, we are also working with the insurance companies to see whether we can come up with a more affordable plan for the individual users so that the cost of insurance will not be a great barrier for them to purchase one if they want to at this point in time. So, I hear your appeal and we will ask Assoc Prof Faishal to look into it.
Speaker, I have a clarification for the Senior Minister of State regarding retailers. I think earlier in his speech, he mentioned that action had been taken against a number of retailers for selling non-compliant devices. I think the number was around 12, if I heard him correctly. Could the Senior Minister of State clarify whether any of these retailers were actually online retailers?
I would like to thank Ms Sylvia Lim for the clarification. Indeed, there are 12 retailers that have been taken to task. But at this point in time, I do not have the exact information as to whether any of these are online retailers.
As to the Member's second question, yes, indeed, LTA has been working with online shopping platforms to collaborate on educating our consumers and retailers on the regulations pertaining to the sale and use of PMDs in Singapore and at the same time to remove any post of any false advertisements of compliant devices from their platforms. Like what Ms Sylvia Lim has rightly pointed out, we are cognisant of the fact that there are thousands of online shopping platforms out there, including Taobao, and many of them are actually based overseas outside Singapore. It may not be possible for us to work with every single online retailer. It is, therefore, important to have what we have just mentioned, the mandatory inspection regime, to ensure that our PMDs used on our paths meet our technical as well as safety requirements. We will also continue to raise public awareness and educate both current as well as future users that it is illegal to use non-compliant devices on our public paths.
Mr Speaker, Sir, two supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State. The first one, UL2272. We heard the statistics that the Senior Minister of State shared earlier. We assume that there are about 81,000 PMDs out there today which are non-UL2272 certified. While I do not think that 81,000 PMDs will spontaneously catch fire, if it is a safety concern, why would LTA not call for an immediate ban on its usage? We see this in other industries. In the car industry, even though it is just one or two accidents, Toyota has recalled 2.2 million cars before. Ikea – furniture malfunction – has recalled the entire range. For the food industry, even if it is not recalled internationally, when some food additives are found to be problematic, they are recalled in Singapore as well. So, if there is a safety concern, and we already see a significant number of fires that have resulted from improper usage or battery problems in the last two years, why do we not recall for that?
The second supplementary question has to do with licensing of the rider or permitting the rider. A couple of hon Members have already mentioned this. But just to name some jurisdictions. Israel requires a special permit for riders who do not already have a driver’s licence. New Zealand also requires a driver’s licence as in certain provinces in Canada. So, there are already jurisdictions that require licensing for riders. While we may not have to go that far, my understanding from the Senior Minister of State’s response earlier is "not at this point". But at what point do we start considering it? If we keep saying that it is not at this point and then two years down we will have to come back to the Parliament and have another Ministerial Statement on the issue. So, for the SRP would it not be permissible to make this compulsory and for attendance of the course, you are granted, say, a letter or permit that would allow you to ride or purchase a PMD?
I would like to thank Mr Alex Yam for the clarification. Indeed, non-UL2272 certified devices have been identified as one of the possible reasons why we have this spate of fire incidents recently. But we also understand that there are multiple factors that can lead to a fire incident. As such, while we understand that there is a call to ban the use of non-UL2272 certified devices immediately, we also are cognisant of the fact that there are many Singaporeans out there that rely on such devices, not only for their daily commuting, but also as a way to sustain their livelihood. So, we are quite careful in not doing that. But at the same time, we want to remind PMD users who are currently not using UL2272-certified devices to exercise caution, like what I have mentioned about the safety practices, in terms of charging. And if you are able to do that, then we will minimise the risks of fire incidents.
As to the Member's second clarification on the licensing of riders, at this point in time, we do not have the intention to do so, but let us bring this back to study and see whether this will be necessary in the future.
I would like to increase the speed of this topic. We will take a last question, Mr Ong Teng Koon.
I would like to ask the Minister a supplementary question. I have had a few PMD-related fire incidents in my ward over the past two years. Since then my residents have taken to charging their PMDs outside of their flats while attending to them. But this has also caused alarm and concern with their neighbours of potential fire incidents. I would like to ask the Minister what is the Ministry's position regarding the charging of PMD outside of one's flat? Is this legal or illegal?
We would like to clarify that it is not illegal to charge your PMD, whether it is inside your flat or outside. But what is necessary to know is that you are supposed to exercise the necessary precautions when you are charging your PMD. Please do not leave it to charge overnight; do not leave it to charge unattended; do exercise the precautions that we mentioned previously; make sure that you do regular inspections of your battery packs to make sure that they are not damaged; and at the same time, please use compatible chargers and Safety Mark labelled adapters.
But, if possible, I would encourage the PMD user to change out to a UL2272-certified device as soon as possible, not only just for your own safety but the safety of your neighbours as well.
Order. End of Ministerial Statement. Introduction of Government Bills. Minister for Law.
PAPERCUTS