Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill

Mdm Speaker, I thank the Members for their queries and suggestions. Let me try to address the many queries in turn, grouped into: AVs, private hire cars and, finally, enforcement.

Mr Sitoh Yih Pin, Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Azmoon Ahmad raised pertinent issues about AVs. As we all noted, AV technology is not yet mature. During trials, accidents are to be expected. The LTA has put in place a robust regulatory framework for AV trials to minimise the possibility of accidents.

First, AVs must demonstrate basic roadworthiness and capabilities by passing a safety assessment, before they can even be trialled on the roads.

Second, AVs developers must have robust accident mitigation plans for the trials, including having a safety driver who is trained to swiftly take control of the AV, whenever necessary. In answer to Mr Dennis Tan, these drivers have a Class 3 licence and they have no demerit points. This need for a safety driver can be waived after the AV developers have proven the competency of their AVs to LTA's full satisfaction of navigating our infrastructure and roads.

Third, trials are allowed to start only on lightly used roads like the one we have at one-north. When the AVs are able to demonstrate higher competencies, they will be allowed to trial in more complex environments, including some of our public roads. The proposed RTA provisions will give LTA the flexibility to impose additional requirements or amend requirements, as the need arises, because, in many of these trials, there may be unforeseen circumstances. Therefore, giving LTA the flexibility is the sensible thing to do.

Mr Sitoh Yih Pin, Mr Dennis Tan, Mr Azmoon Ahmad and Mr Melvin Yong asked about the legal implications and many potential liability issues when AVs are involved in road accidents. Mr Henry Kwek also asked if the insurance industry is being consulted.

LTA is studying these complex issues, together with representatives from the AV, motor, legal and insurance industries, and this is part of the work set up under MOT's Committee on Autonomous Road Transport for Singapore. This is an 18-member strong Committee comprising senior members in Singapore public agencies, public sector and some global organisations. So, it is quite an experienced Committee. In the meantime, LTA has been discussing these issues with foreign counterparts that have also similar test-beds.

On liability, the traditional basis of claims for negligence may not work so well − as Mr Dennis Tan has said − where there is no driver in control of a vehicle. When presented with novel technologies, Courts often try to draw analogies to legal constructs for other existing technologies.

In the case of AVs, the Courts have autopilot systems for airplanes and autopilot navigational systems for maritime vessels, and product liability law to draw references from. As with accidents involving human-driven vehicles, it is likely that issues of liability for AVs will be resolved through proof of fault and existing common law. We will require all test AVs to log travel data to facilitate accident investigations and liability claims.

But having said this, these are early days yet. A lot of detailed studies will have to be done, including the point raised by Mr Dennis Tan on the future framework, whether this class of vehicles requires licensing. I think this will be an area to be studied.

Mr Azmoon Ahmad and Mr Melvin Yong asked about the issue of certification. Indeed, this is the reason LTA, together with JTC Corp, in partnership with NTU, have started a Centre for Excellence for Testing and Research of Autonomous Vehicles. This organisation called CETRAN will spearhead the development of AV testing requirements.

Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked if our road and public transport network can accommodate AVs. A key requirement of the trials initiated by LTA is that the AVs can operate on our existing roads with minimal supporting structure. Globally, the industry is also gearing towards such infrastructure-light AVs. So, the short answer is yes, the trials will guide the AVs towards infrastructure-light modifications.

Mr Melvin Yong asked what the penalties are for AV trial participants who do not buy the appropriate insurance or fail to place the stipulated security deposit with LTA. Companies or individuals which do not or fail to do so will not be issued a test licence to conduct AV trials.

Mr Melvin Yong asked if LTA would consider mandating that trial data be transmitted real-time to LTA's Intelligent Transport System Centre. Currently, the answer is that trial participants are not required to do so, but I take that point and we are already requiring LTA to get this system set up for real-time transmission in the longer term for all the AV trials.

Mr Melvin Yong also asked if AVs would be subjected to COE should there be an increase in AVs being trialled on our roads. In the longer term, when AV technology is mature and deployed widely in public, there does not seem to be any reason why we should exempt them from our COE system. But again, these are early days. We will review the policy at an appropriate point in time.

Mr Louis Ng asked about the rationale for the maximum penalty of $5,000 for first-time offenders who obstruct AVs during trials. We have set a relatively high bar to deter acts of interference, some of which could cause the AV to behave in a way that endangers the safety of other road users. Five thousand dollars is the maximum penalty for the offence and the Courts will be able to calibrate the actual fine to the severity of the circumstances and consequences of any offence or accident.

Mr Sitoh Yih Pin, Mr Thomas Chua, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Mr Henry Kwek raised concerns that the advent of new technologies like AVs and private hire cars may disrupt the livelihood of Singaporeans. This is something that we are equally concerned about. But as we have all said, rather than impeding the adoption of these technologies, which are beneficial to all Singaporeans, we should focus our efforts on helping our transport workforce adapt to these inevitable disruptions over a 10- to 15-year timeframe. Together with our unions and companies, we can help our drivers upgrade their skills and perhaps take on higher value and better paying jobs. And I am equally happy, like Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, that companies are coming out with novel rental schemes, including dual shifts and hourly rates, so that taxi drivers can be helped with their earnings.

Next, let me address Members' questions on private hire cars. Several Members spoke about levelling the playing field between taxis and private hire cars.

Mr Melvin Yong asked if we will impose Quality of Service standards on private hire car operators. Mr Louis Ng would like a Code of Conduct to be imposed on private hire car drivers. Mr Ang Hin Kee suggested that we impose a licensing fee on private hire car booking service operators.

We take issues related to the safety of commuters very seriously. This is why we will be requiring private hire car drivers to obtain a vocational licence. And when we do so, this vocational licence framework will impose on private hire car drivers the same demerit point system that is currently applied across the taxi drivers today. Private hire car drivers will also have to abide, under this framework, to similar Conduct Rules as taxi drivers − cleanliness, dressing and all those. As we are not planning to license private hire car booking service operators for now, there will be no licencing fees. This light-touch approach allows the industry, which is still evolving, to continue to innovate and benefit commuters, but also, at the same time, ensures commuter safety. I believe this is an appropriate approach for now, but we will continue to monitor closely and adjust as needed.

Mr Yee Chia Hsing asked whether we can allow taxi companies to convert part of their taxi fleets to private hire cars and if we will limit the losses which operators, such as Uber and Grab, can incur. The role of Government is to put in place an appropriate regulatory framework for businesses to operate. I do not believe and we should not be taking on the responsibility for their profits or losses as a Government. Operators must make their own business decisions and the market will impose the necessary discipline over a period of time.

As for the conversion of taxis to private hire cars, taxi companies today enjoy some concessions which are not applicable to private hire cars. For example, taxi companies today pay the Prevailing Quota Premium (PQP) for Category A vehicles for all their taxis, despite the fact that many of the taxis belong to Category B of the COE system. Therefore, it would not be right to allow taxi companies to enjoy these concessions on the one hand and then, later, re-registering the vehicle as a private hire car.

Mr Louis Ng asked why private hire cars must adhere to the child seat rule but taxis need not. The child seat rule is imposed on all vehicles for safety reasons. But the Government has allowed a concession for taxis for practicality reasons, as taxis can be street hailed, and it would be quite unreasonable to expect all taxi drivers to ensure that their taxis come equipped with booster seats and child restraints at all times, or to turn away street hail passengers with children.

Private hire cars (PHCs), on the other hand, are pre-booked and passengers can indicate if they require booster seats or child restraints when making the booking. The Government's exemption of taxis from the child seat rule is the outcome of trying to balance between practicality on the one hand and safety on the other. Having said this, I do take your point that an argument can, indeed, be made to similarly exempt private hire cars from the child seat rule. But for now, we have decided to err on the side of ensuring the safety of child passengers on PHCs.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah expressed concern over congestion at taxi stands. Our intent is for taxi stands to remain solely for the use of taxis. This is also in line with our intent to keep the street hail market solely for taxis.

Mdm Speaker, these discussions on various aspects of taxi and PHC services also illustrate that while the two serve similar markets, there are key differences not only in how we regulate them, but the concessions available to them. Hence, in discussing a level playing field, we need to recognise that it would have to be in the total context of not just regulations, but also concessions.

Mr Ang Kin Kee raised two questions on the general suspension order. First, whether LTA will permanently disallow a PHC booking service provider who has received multiple suspension orders from operating its services.

The suspension order, including the possibility of multiple orders, is a significant regulatory threat which we believe will be sufficient to make service providers take the rules seriously. We will consider stronger regulation if and when necessary.

Second, Mr Ang asked if LTA will set up a feedback channel to update and inform commuters when a particular PHC booking service operator has been suspended. LTA will ensure that sufficient notice and publicity to both drivers and commuters are given before a suspension order commences. LTA will study the best channels to do so.

Mr Dennis Tan asked if such a suspension order may be too harsh given that PHC booking service providers are operating somewhat differently from the taxi industry. But I would like to assure him that this actually commensurates with the powers that LTA has over other transport service providers today.

To put this in context, as I think Mr Ang also mentioned just now, LTA has the power today to revoke or suspend the licences of taxi operators which do not comply with LTA's licensing conditions or directives. A general suspension order has the same effect as a licence suspension. Like a licence suspension or revocation, the general suspension order is also a power of last resort to be applied only if they are serious and repeated breaches on our rules. The affected PHC booking service provider will also be given ample opportunity to present its case to LTA.

Mr Dennis Tan also expressed concerns that it would not be fair for LTA to penalise all drivers affiliated to any particular PHC booking service because of the irresponsible action of a few. I would like to clarify that drivers affiliated with a PHC booking service provider who has been imposed with a general suspension order do not lose their vocation licences and they can continue to drive for other PHC booking service providers, just like taxi drivers.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked about the criteria for PHC Driver's Vocational Licence holders, such as nationality and minimum age.

There are no changes to the criteria announced last year. Non-Singapore citizens will be granted a PHC Drivers' Vocational Licence only if they are employees of chauffeured services companies. And as for a minimum age criterion, our view is that requiring PHC drivers to have a minimum driving experience of two years should be adequate to reasonably ensure passenger safety. And, the number of years of driving experience may, in fact, be more important than age. When the age was set at 30 for taxi drivers, it was meant to persuade drivers not to take this on early in their life as a permanent vocation.

Mr Ang Hin Kee suggested that the Government ensure that PHC drivers are free to switch platforms whenever they deem necessary.

Agreements between drivers and PHC booking service operators, including the possibility of switching to driving for other operators, should be left as a commercial decision, as per my answer to Mr Yee Chia Hsing. Let the market decide. Drivers are advised to carefully read the terms and conditions and ensure that they are fully aware of their rights and obligations, before signing up with an operator. Perhaps we could suugest that the National Private Hire Vehicles Association may wish to take this up with the various operators.

Mr Melvin Yong and Mr Louis Ng asked how we would regulate ride-sharing services, such as GrabHitch. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked how we would regulate what seems to be PHC services that ferry school children to and from school. I believe Er Dr Lee Bee Wah was referring to was Schoolber, which helps parents roster themselves to carpool to send their children to school using their own private cars.

I would like to clarify that GrabHitch and Schoolber are carpooling services, not to be confused with PHC services. Our regulations allow a driver to use private vehicles to give rides to others travelling to the same destination or in the same direction as himself and for the driver to collect a small fee on a cost-recovery basis, not for profit. This is different from PHC services, where the intent is for the drivers to provide rides as a source of income. Hence, we do not intend to regulate carpooling services. Commuters who are thinking of using such services should assess for themselves their own comfort with the services, in particular, service, including the Chihuahua case. Over-regulation of this budding initiative will most likely curtail the growth between private arrangements. If they are not comfortable with such safety issues or have reservations, they may want to use licensed taxis or PHC services or licensed school bus services, if they are really not comfortable with this pooling service.

Mr Sitoh Yih Pin commented that Power-assisted Bicycles (PABs) are similar to lower-powered motorcycles and called for compulsory road safety training for PAB users.

The new technical requirements for PABs, introduced last year, limit PABs to a maximum device speed of 25 km/h, which is roughly my cycling speed. The motor must also be cut off when the user is not pedalling. So, if there is no pedalling power, he really cannot get the vehicle to go faster. In our view, this is more akin to being a bicycle with power assistance. Thus, we have assessed that we do not need to mandate road safety training for PAB users. We will continue, of course, to work with the Traffic Police to educate PAB users on safe behaviour and practices, regardless of whether it is more like a motorcycle or more like a bicycle. Nevertheless, safety for them is important.

Mr Dennis Tan asked about seizure procedures and requirements. I did not quite get the full query, but I would try and answer to take in all the questions.

LTA has the power to seize PMDs and PABs as long as there are any behavioural offences, such as speeding and reckless driving. These are offences for seizure, including illegal modifications that do not meet what has been stipulated in terms of the width of the vehicle, the weight of the vehicle and the speed limits structurally placed on the vehicle. Any of these is a seizable offence.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah expressed concerns that illegally modified private hire cars could pose a danger to the safety of commuters. I fully agree with the Member. We take a very serious view of illegal modifications, whether it is of private hire cars or private cars. We will continue to ensure that motorists who illegally modify their vehicles are taken to task.

Before I conclude, Mdm Speaker, I just want to address Mr Azmoon's story about him going green. I applaud that. but the incentives to get more people like the Member to go green would be taken under other initiatives.

Mdm Speaker, in summary, this Bill seeks to update our regulations to cater to various innovations in the land transport sector, most notably the AV technology and private hire car services, while continuing to ensure the safety of the public. It is a balanced stance to ensure commuters' interest, drivers' welfare and business, as many of the Members have raised points about. With that, Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.