Debated in Parliament on 10 Jan 2017.
Order for Second Reading read.
Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I would first like to thank Parliamentary Secretary Assoc Prof Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim for chairing the Active Mobility Advisory Panel, and all panel members for their persistent contributions.
The Panel spent many months last year consulting the public on ways in which pedestrians, cyclists and users of personal mobility devices (PMDs) can safely share public paths. They proposed a set of rules and code of conduct that strike a good balance between the diverse needs. The Government had accepted the Panel's recommendations in full, and the Active Mobility Bill now seeks to grant the LTA the powers to implement them.
Cycling and PMDs have become more popular, not just with the young and active, but even among older Singaporeans as it improves their ability to get around. This is a positive development, as active mobility is a key pillar of our vision for transport in Singapore.
Cycling and the use of PMDs are convenient and efficient ways for covering short distances, including first and last mile connections to bus interchanges or MRT stations. They are essential to Singapore's transition to car-lite mobility, centred on public transport. Cycling is also emissions-free, and contributes to a cleaner and healthier living environment.
But with the increasing popularity of bicycles and PMDs, some members of the public have understandably expressed concerns about the safety of pedestrians. Over the past year, several Members of the House have also asked thoughtful questions and raised helpful suggestions on this issue.
There is not a shadow of doubt that pedestrian safety is paramount. The Panel made it clear that active mobility must be supported by a culture of graciousness and consideration for the safety of others. The experience of many cities, such as Copenhagen, Amsterdam and Tokyo, attests to this; and our aspiration must be to develop a similar culture of graciousness and consideration for everyone who shares the use of public paths.
We are still some distance away from attaining the desirable level of graciousness and consideration. More regularly than we would like, we hear feedback about recklessness by cyclists and PMD users. As it stands today, I am afraid the burden lies more with cyclists and PMD users to demonstrate that the vast majority of them can be relied upon to be safety-conscious and responsible users of public paths. I am glad that there is a growing fraternity within this group that is determined to do so.
However, as with all cultural norms, I am realistic that it may take several years before we get to a new balance, where the different users of public paths can happily co-exist with one another. Our approach must therefore take this into account.
We should not ban bicycles and PMDs on footpaths because of the benefits they bring, but we must also act to reduce friction between the different users. Therefore, we will continue to build more dedicated cycling paths where possible, and at the same time, establish a set of rules and norms for cyclists and PMD users when sharing footpaths with pedestrians. At the same time, to shape a new culture of graciousness, we will need to educate and enforce actively.
With this context, let me elaborate on the key provisions in the Bill.
First, the Bill will set out clearly where bicycles, PMDs and power-assisted bicycles (PABs) can be used. Clauses 6 to 8 empower LTA to define and declare what constitutes a public path where the provisions of this Bill will apply. In general, all paths in Singapore will be covered by the Bill, except private land, restricted areas such as military camps and Jurong Island, and areas where access is ticketed, such as the Singapore Zoo and Sentosa. The use of bicycles, PMDs and PABs in these areas will continue to be regulated by their respective land-owners or managers.
Clauses 15 to 18 outline the types of devices that are permitted on public paths. The first category of public paths are "footpaths". The regulations will specify that bicycles and PMDs, which are allowed on footpaths, must travel below 15km/h, similar to an average person's running speed. PABs will, however, not be allowed on footpaths, as they pose a greater danger to pedestrians.
The second category of public paths includes today's dedicated and shared cycling paths, and park connectors. These are collectively defined as "shared paths" under the Bill. We will allow bicycles, PMDs and PABs on these shared paths. We will also permit a slightly higher speed limit of 25km/h. These shared paths will be clearly demarcated by signs and markings.
The third category of paths are "pedestrian-only paths". This refers to paths which are not suitable for cycling nor the use of PMDs and PABs. Examples include elevated bridges with low railing heights or steep ramps, such as pedestrian overhead bridges. This will be made clear through "No Riding" signs.
These are the key rules to regulate the types of devices allowed on public paths. A person who flouts these rules will be liable upon conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000, or to imprisonment not exceeding three months, or both.
In addition, the regulations will specify the criteria for bicycles and PMDs that are permitted for use on public paths. They must not weigh more than 20kg, be wider than 70cm, or have a maximum device speed exceeding 25km/h, to be considered compliant. PABs are already required to satisfy a more detailed set of requirements under the Road Traffic Act. Clause 19 of the Bill prohibits the use of non-compliant devices on public paths. Those who contravene this rule will be liable upon conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000, or to imprisonment not exceeding three months, or both.
Next, the Active Mobility Bill will allow LTA to apply more stringent penalties for cyclists and users of PMDs and PABs who are caught riding in an unsafe or reckless manner. Clauses 21 and 22 impose steep penalties upon conviction, which include a fine not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment not exceeding six months, or both.
In addition, clause 23 makes it an offence if a cyclist, PMD user or PAB rider does not stop to render assistance in an accident. Those found contravening this rule will be liable upon conviction to a fine not exceeding $3,000 or to imprisonment not exceeding 12 months, or both. These penalties will be in addition to the existing penalty under the Penal Code for causing hurt to others by a rash act.
We will also regulate the sale of devices and take stronger enforcement action against sellers of non-compliant devices. Clauses 30 and 32, together with related amendments to the Road Traffic Act, ban the display and advertisement of non-compliant devices. Clause 34 prohibits the sale of non-compliant devices for use on public paths, while clause 35 makes it an offence to modify devices in a manner that makes them non-compliant. These offences come with hefty penalties. Sellers found displaying or advertising a non-compliant PMD will be liable upon conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000, or to imprisonment not exceeding three months, or both. Those found selling non-compliant devices or illegally modifying PMDs will be liable upon conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000, or to imprisonment not exceeding three months, or both.
The Bill will grant LTA stronger and more expansive enforcement powers, for better deterrence and enforcement against errant users and sellers of non-compliant devices.
LTA has already been deploying Active Mobility Enforcement Officers to educate the public on the rules and norms in the Bill. When the Bill is passed, LTA officers will be able to also issue notices of offence to, and prosecute offenders.
To improve the effectiveness of enforcement, Clause 44 will allow LTA enforcement officers to enter and inspect businesses suspected of committing offences, such as illegally modifying devices and selling non-compliant devices. Clauses 50 and 51 empower LTA to seize and forfeit non-compliant devices.
Clauses 45 to 49 will grant LTA enforcement officers other powers to allow them to carry out their duties effectively. These include, but are not limited to powers to remove obstructions from public paths; to examine bicycles, PMDs and PABs; to demand information for identification of suspected offenders; and to arrest persons who refuse to cooperate.
LTA's enforcement efforts will be supported by NParks and Traffic Police. Clause 39 empowers LTA to appoint employees of other public authorities, such as NParks, as public path wardens, who will then have the same powers to carry out enforcement in parks and along park connectors.
Education is equally important if we are to build up a culture of safety and graciousness. LTA has enlisted the help of Active Mobility Patrol Volunteers from the community and grassroots in this regard. The volunteers can also serve as useful "eyes" to detect errant behaviour. Hence, clause 41 grants limited powers to the volunteers, to allow them to obtain personal particulars from suspected offenders, to advise them to stop engaging in offending conduct, and to document evidence. The volunteers will, however, not be given more intrusive powers, such as to inspect, seize and forfeit devices, nor powers of arrest.
Clause 55(2)(b) will empower LTA, with the approval of the Public Prosecutor, to require offenders of compoundable offences to attend LTA's Safe Cycling Programme before they are allowed to compound the offences. Offenders who fail to complete the Programme will be charged in court.
We will make a few amendments to related Acts. The Road Traffic Act will be amended to prohibit the use of PMDs on public roads, for the safety of the riders and other motorists.
We will also be making amendments to the subsidiary legislation under the Road Traffic Act to mandate the registration of PABs, which are more prone to illegal modification and have a greater potential to cause serious injury. Every PAB used on public roads and public paths will henceforth be required to carry a registration plate and be registered to an owner.
In summary, Mdm Speaker, this Bill empowers LTA to regulate the sale and use of bicycles, PMDs and PABs on public paths. It will allow us to safeguard the safety of pedestrians even as we encourage active mobility.
Our aim is to shape a culture where there is gracious and considerate sharing of public paths. While cultural norms take time to develop, we can support their formation through appropriate rules and enforcement. We will continue to monitor the situation on the ground and evolve these rules as necessary to promote active mobility in support of a car-lite Singapore. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.
Question proposed.
Mdm Speaker, the Active Mobility Bill is an important piece of legislation that will allow us to take another positive step towards achieving the vision of a car-lite Singapore.
Our Government has worked hard to achieve a sustainable public transportation system that is affordable, convenient and efficient for Singaporeans. Active Mobility, which includes walking, cycling and the use of Personal Mobility Devices (PMDs) will support this system.
The Active Mobility Bill seeks to regulate the use of PMDs and it is imperative that this is done. There are however, two questions which I wish to raise.
One, is the regulation contained in the Active Mobility Bill sufficient to protect the safety and well-being of other pathway users? Secondly, can we do more for unwitting victims of accidents involving PMDs who suffer personal injury as a result?
Mdm Speaker, the Active Mobility Bill is a comprehensive one. It includes regulation which prohibits modifications of PMDs beyond what is allowed by law, speeding offences, dangerous and/or reckless riding offences and also mandates that users of PMDs do not leave the scene in the case of an accident and render assistance. To a large degree, these mirror those regulations for motor vehicles codified under the Road Traffic Act.
The question, as I alluded to earlier, is whether more can and should be done to protect the safety and well-being of other pathway users. I would respectfully argue in the affirmative.
First, unlike drivers of motor vehicles, PMD users will not be licensed. There is no minimum age requirement for PMD users and they are not required to attain any minimum level of competency before being allowed to operate PMDs. This means that PMD users in Singapore are likely to vary greatly in terms of maturity and competency levels when operating PMDs.
Second, Singapore is ranked as one of the densest cities in the world. Our residential towns or suburban areas, which centre around high-rise public housing, accentuates this. This is unlike other cities who may have dense city centres but less dense suburban residential areas. It is also important to note that our dense residential towns are also where more vulnerable classes of Singaporeans, such as the less mobile elderly and young children, are likely to share pathways with PMD users.
Third, the aim of the Active Mobility Bill is to encourage more Singaporeans to consider the use of PMDs as an alternative to driving. If this vision succeeds, we would expect a significant increase in PMD users on our pathways from the numbers we see now.
Such increased numbers, coupled with varying competency levels of PMD users raises the risk factors and the likelihood of unfortunate accidents involving PMDs.
Senior Minister of State Mrs Josephine Teo had said in her reply to various Parliamentary Questions raised by Members on 10 October 2016 that "the careless behaviour of a small minority of users has caused accidents and led to some members of the public to oppose their (the PMDs) proliferation. It would be unfortunate if we allowed the careless behaviour of this small minority to prevent the larger majority of responsible and considerate cyclists and PMD users from enjoying the benefits of such travel modes".
I agree with the Senior Minister of State. I do not suggest that PMDs be banned.
However, as the situational context is likely to cause the number of unfortunate accidents involving PMDs to rise, I ask if we can do more. Can we consider imposing a mandatory minimum age for the use of PMDs? Or at least vary the age limits for different types of PMDs depending on the technical requirements of operation?
Can penalties for recalcitrant or repeat offenders be increased to serve as a deterrent to irresponsible PMD users? Is it feasible to impose a ban on such recalcitrant or repeat offenders from using PMDs in the future?
These suggestions are not meant as a criticism of the Active Mobility Bill but an illustration on the possibility of doing more.
As the Bill stands, the proposed regulation is robust and sufficiently addresses our current situational needs. However, as the use of PMDs proliferate and our situational needs change, we must ensure that we do more to protect the safety and well-being of responsible and considerate PMD users and pedestrians alike.
Mdm Speaker, perhaps the most controversial aspect of allowing PMDs on our pathways is the lack of a mandatory compensatory scheme for innocent victims involving PMDs who suffer personal injury.
Mdm Ang Liu Kiow is an unfortunate example of this, as reported in The Straits Times. Mdm Ang was allegedly hit by a 17-year-old e-scooter rider and sustained serious head injuries in September last year. Fortunately for Mdm Ang and her family, she has since recovered well enough to return home. This is extremely heart-warming news and I am sure this House will join me in wishing Mdm Ang a full and complete recovery from her injuries.
But Mdm Ang's gradual recovery from her injuries comes with significant financial and medical costs. In this case, Mdm Ang is a housewife while her husband is the breadwinner for the family. What if the accident victim was the sole breadwinner of his or her family? Financial aid and social welfare can only go so far.
Keeping this in mind, our injury compensation scheme must therefore be a robust one. One that can adequately and fairly compensate accident victims who suffer personal injuries. This is true for Motor Vehicles. For Motor Vehicles, we have the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks and Compensation) Act. The Act makes it mandatory for all Motor Vehicles to have compulsory third-party insurance. In cases where it is a hit and run or if there is no insurer concerned, where there is no identifiable insurer, the Motor Insurance Bureau (MIB) steps in by arrangement to bridge the gap.
In other words, motor accident victims who suffer personal injury are fully assured of receiving some form of compensation for their personal injuries. This offers consolation and financial protection to families, especially when it is the breadwinners who are involved in an unfortunate and tragic motor accident.
We do not have similar protection for accident victims involving PMDs. On this issue, several Members of this House, myself included, have asked if a similar form of third-party insurance could be mandated for PMD users.
Senior Minister of State Mrs Josephine Teo had in her oral reply in Parliament on 10 October 2016 replied that it will be "too onerous and costly for the vast majority of cyclists and PMD users who behave responsibly and safely". She further added that "pedestrians in Singapore who are injured in accidents can obtain compensation by initiating civil lawsuits or through private settlements".
Madam, on this issue, I will have to respectfully disagree with the Senor Minister of State. If the intention is to proliferate the use of PMDs in conjunction with the Public Transportation System to reduce our reliance on cars, this will mean that the use of PMDs is likely to increase significantly as more Singaporeans learn and accept the use of PMDs as an alternative mode of transport. If this happens, our pathways are likely to get more crowded with PMD users and more accidents involving PMDs may happen.
Commencing a civil suit costs money. This is not something that every individual or family can afford. Even if a civil suit is won, there are instances where a plaintiff could only obtain a paper judgement when the defendant has no means to pay the sum awarded by the court.
Further, it is not unforeseeable to surmise that "hit and run" cases involving PMD users could potentially be higher than motor vehicles. Motor vehicles are large and carry licence plates which can be identified by witnesses of motor accidents. Irresponsible and reckless PMD users could hit other PMD users or pedestrians and run off before anyone can react.
This could potentially leave us with many unwitting accident victims involving PMDs with no recourse to seek compensation for any personal injury suffered.
Madam, the factors that led us to conceive the compensation regime for Motor Vehicles do not differ when applied to PMDs. As such, I am of the humble and respectful view that effort and cost should not be the impediments for the provision of a compensation scheme for PMD accident victims.
If indeed, that the provision of third-party insurance is too onerous and costly on PMD users, perhaps a fund, not unlike how MIB deals with Motor Vehicles, could be set up to compensate victims who have no recourse to seek the compensation they need.
This will need further in depth discussions and consideration, but it is definitely an issue that needs to be urgently addressed as the use of PMDs become more and more prevalent in Singapore. Mdm Speaker, I support this Bill.
Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. A Bill dedicated to ensuring active mobility through the increased use of bicycles, e-scooters and other personal mobility devices is indeed timely. Setting out the regulations on the speed and weight of the vehicles as well as where they can be used have all been addressed quite thoroughly.
At the heart of this Bill is the safety of the users and just as importantly, the pedestrians. Let us bear in mind that walking and running to a destination are also part of our national drive to promote active mobility while reducing our carbon footprint.
The Bill also addresses the conditions for the future development of dedicated travel paths on public and private land, in tandem with the Ministry's intention to create a more conducive landscape for multiple modes of travel and transportation, where walking, jogging, cycling, driving and various forms of public transport complement one another, providing a wide range of alternatives for reaching destinations; all the while encouraging healthy active lifestyles.
Mdm Speaker, allow me to speak in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Unfortunately, accidents do happen and more can and should be done to make it easier for victims to report and also allow the police to apprehend and punish the culprits.
Unlike cars, personal mobility devices (PMDs) do not have identifiable numbers or tags and if the culprits are determined to evade responsibilities, it would be very difficult to identify them.
I hope that the Ministry will continue to think of ways to ensure that such devices are easily identified and visibly tagged. Currently, the idea of licensing and even tagging them with mini-In-Vehicle-Units, like for cars, have been rejected based on the reasons that it is costly and not practical. However, without doing so, in reality, it would be very difficult to apprehend the culprits.
Some are afraid that there could be fraud such as the use of fake licensing tags. However in fact, vehicles also face the same problem. It is not so difficult to change the licencing plate of a vehicle.
(In English): Mdm Speaker, back to English.
Secondly, I hope that the Ministry would re-consider requiring such equipment to be sold with packaged personal accident insurance, and require such insurance to be tagged to the equipment and kept updated as long as they are in use. This will ensure that victims can at least be assured of compensation in the event of injury or death, encouraging the users to report the accidents as well.
With increased usage, the number of accidents will increase. Currently, the Ministry does not compile the number and nature of accidents involving such equipment which occur on pavements and elsewhere, except those that occur on the roads. We should educate the public that with this Bill, such reports can and should be made at police stations, as users of PMDs are legally bound to assist victims and report any accidents. Such data will allow the Government to keep track of accident patterns and provide useful information on how to improve upon regulations and road designs.
Next, I urge the Ministry to consider improving road and pathways designs to protect all users better, separating riders from pedestrians wherever possible, as we go forward to ensure greater safety for all. This has already been done in certain segments of New York City. The design can be done in such a way that discourages mobility devices from encroaching upon the space for pedestrians. Walkways could be slightly raised and made a little uneven, such that it poses little difference to pedestrians but is bumpy for those on riding devices.
Last, I hope the Ministry would consider providing community volunteers with light, wearable video equipment to make it easier for them to carry out their jobs. This would be helpful for them as they are on the ground daily and can nip any problem in the bud earlier and faster. I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill.
Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Active Mobility Bill. With the recent fatal accidents involving motor vehicles and users of e-scooters and power-assisted bicycles, it is crucial to put in place legislative guidelines to better govern the usage of these new transportation devices. As more favour the use of such PMDs and PABs to get to their destinations, there is a pressing need for authorities to adopt a firm approach to create a safe and responsible active mobility culture in Singapore. Even with legislation, other road users will also need to be more vigilant to safeguard their personal safety, and to look out for others.
Like many members of the public, I am concerned about the safety of pedestrians who share their paths with PMD users. Will there be an increase in the number of enforcement officers deployed island-wide and over a sustained period?
There is a current ban on PABs on park connectors. With the speed limit of e-bikes capped at 25km/h, I would like to seek clarification from the Minister if this would mean that these LTA-compliant e-bikes will be allowed on park connectors, so that it is easier for riders to get from point A to point B, as compared to riding on the roads? If this is so, I would like to suggest then for NParks and LTA to explore ways to better monitor the park connectors, such as through the installation of CCTV cameras. Footages from these CCTVs can help facilitate investigations in the event of an accident. This would also serve to safeguard the interests of all park users.
Faced with land constraints, particularly in mature estates, it would be a challenge to carve out shared paths to accommodate both pedestrians and users of PMDs. Existing pavements are relatively narrow. It is essential that shared paths are neither too narrow nor too steep to ensure safety and ample space for every user. Would the LTA stipulate guidelines on the minimum width and maximum gradient of shared paths?
I have spoken about the need to protect pedestrians. There is also a need to educate PMD and PAB users on how to keep themselves safe. This is especially important for PAB users who are allowed to ride on public roads. Other road users, such as car drivers and motorcyclists, need to pass theory and practical tests to gain the necessary safety knowledge before they are allowed on the roads. For their personal safety, would the LTA consider mandating for PAB users to undergo a basic safety course as a prerequisite to registering their PABs?
We can also do more to ensure the physical safety of PMD and PAB users. Currently, only cyclists and PAB users are encouraged to wear helmets. I would like to urge the Ministry to consider making it compulsory for all cyclists, PAB and PMD users to wear helmets. This is especially in view of the recent death of 23-year-old Mr Sam Koh who died of a serious head injury after falling off his electric scooter in March last year. Proper use of a helmet could help mitigate serious head injuries in the event of an accident.
Residents have told me of near misses involving fast moving PMDs on shared paths. It would be helpful if these PMDs can be made more visible to other path users, particularly in low light conditions. Would the LTA consider mandatory installation of front and rear lights for all motorised PMDs?
My colleague Mr Sitoh had brought up the same case: in September last year, 53-year-old housewife Madam Ang Liu Kiow was hit by an electric scooter. She had to undergo two major operations, a lengthy hospital stay and hefty medical bills. I would like to echo what Mr Sitoh had elaborated in detail. I think besides the option of launching into a civil suit against the PMD user, which can pose an additional financial strain on the injured party, will the Ministry look into mandatory insurance coverage for PMD/PAB users or establishing a structured compensation framework for such accident victims?
Mdm Speaker, strict enforcement must go hand in hand with education. I would like to call for strict enforcement to be taken against errant users, retailers and modifiers who modify the devices to make them non-compliant. I would also like to propose that the Bill expands its legislative powers to make it an offence for an online retailer to sell non-compliant devices. Currently, the Bill makes it an offence for a retailer to sell or display non-compliant personal mobility devices within a shop's premises. However, the Bill makes no specific mention of online retailers, which are a popular point-of-sale for such non-compliant devices.
I would also like to urge the Ministry to consider mandating the installation of registration plates on all PABs as this can act as a prominent identifier to help enforcement officers identify the PAB and facilitate tracing of the PAB owner in the event of an accident.
Finally, I would like to commend the volunteers under the Active Mobility Patrol Scheme, who volunteer their time to educate others on how they can share paths in a gracious and responsible manner. I would like to ask the Minister to elaborate on what enforcement powers, if any, would these volunteers have. Also, are there any lessons from NEA's Community Volunteer Programme which can be useful to improve the Active Mobility Patrol Scheme?
In conclusion, I concur with the views of many that there is a limit to what legislation can achieve in creating a safer environment for all users. What matters most is how an individual behaves when using their PMD or PAB. Legislation is only a first step towards creating public awareness on what is right and wrong, with legal penalties serving to deter reckless behaviour. The responsibility of creating safer roads and pathways lies with every individual. With that, Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill.
Madam, the Active Mobility Bill provides for a new legal regime for use of public paths by bicycles and other personal mobility devices. Today, I would like to touch on three issues relating to cycling and mobility issues in Singapore. They are cycling culture, political will and public education.
Cycling culture. Cycling has been one of my favourite past times since I was in school. Having lived near the East Coast Park for years, I spent many happy moments on the cycling paths of East Coast Park. As the park became more and more crowded in the weekends over the years, I have been avoiding cycling in the park itself.
Why do I avoid cycling in East Coast Park? I think it has become unsafe over the years. Many cyclists do not obey the direction signs or keep a proper lookout for pedestrians or other cyclists. Many pedestrians walk on or across the cycling paths without caring for the safety of cyclists. Many cyclists cycle on the footpaths. I have seen accidents in the park over the years, accidents that can be avoided if we had the right cycling culture.
Madam, the cycling culture in East Coast Park reflects the cycling culture nationally. We should improve our cycling culture. Although most cyclists comply with the law and have good cycling habits, some of the following acts are still carried out by a minority of cyclists on an everyday basis. When I say cyclists, I also include electric bikes and PMD users. And the examples are when on roads beating red lights or cycling against the traffic, and on public paths and park connectors, cycling at high speed, not keeping left and not giving way, thus creating risk of accident with pedestrians or other users.
When I was at university in England, my second hand road bike was my main form of transport. Even in those years in early 1990s, the law required everyone to cycle on the roads, not on footpaths or pavements, and to keep left when cycling. When it was dark, everyone had to use a standard set of white front lights and red rear lights. Everyone seemed to follow the law and practice. In the first few weeks at university, I learnt a very important lesson about cycling culture. I mistakenly got onto a footpath and was roundly told off by an elderly lady.
What is positive about such an environment? Everybody knows what to expect about cycling and cyclists. A pedestrian will not expect to meet a cyclist coming his way except when dismounted. A motorist will not expect to see a cyclist cycling against the traffic. There is certainty and importantly, this breeds mutual respect between all users and I believe that, in turn, promotes a better and safer environment for cyclists and cycling and road users. This is important for Singapore because cycling is not going to go away or bicycles be banned from the roads and e-scooters, PMDs and e-bikes are all here to stay. The Government has talked about bicycles being an important element for the final mile connectivity. Having a safe and good cycling culture will definitely promote that.
Political will. Madam, to improve our cycling culture, the Government must have the political will to do so. Around 10 years ago, I remember there was at one time a flurry of complaints in the newspapers about non enforcement against errant cyclists. Cyclists cycling on the wrong side of the road or beating red lights were already common occurrences then. I remember once the authorities replied to say that they had inadequate resources to address the problem. Lack of resources might well be the given reason but it looked to me that this issue was not a priority then and there was no will to deal with the problems at that time. So, the effect is that the can is kicked down the road.
We missed a great opportunity to solve the problem back then in the mid-2000s. In those days, the only people who seemed to have broken the law were elderly cyclists. But after that, there was a huge influx of foreign workers and this meant a huge increase in the number of people using bicycles and many also followed the cycling culture: ignored the road safety rules because of lax enforcement.
And then from the late 2000s, with the increase in white collar foreign labour, we also saw many of them taking up recreational road cycling at the same time as many Singaporeans. So, the number of bicycles on the road have continued to increase in the last 10 over years. Then came e-bikes. Many people who use them regard them as a cheap and unlicensed substitute for scooters and motorcycles. And finally, we have e-scooters or PMDs in the last two to three years. In November 2016, the Straits Times reported monthly sale of e-scooters hit 400. We have been hearing of accidents involving power assisted bikes for a while and lately accidents involving e-scooters. I think it is now harder to improve our cycling culture.
I know the LTA is now trying harder to carry out enforcement actions and put out regular advisories or publicity about their actions on their Facebook. LTA also have volunteers to do the messaging for the new cycling rules. We will have public path wardens. I really appreciate all that and hope that we are finally moving in the right direction. I can imagine the authorities will need a lot of resources. But when will the day come when we do not see the acts that I talked about on a daily or regular basis? It will depend on the resolve of the Government.
Madam, I support the provisions in this Bill. This Bill signifies an intention on the part of the Government to reset the safety parameters and promote safe cycling culture, in light of new mobility devices. I note the severe punishments imposed for various breaches and I am in support as I feel that people have to understand the importance of riding safely and being considerate to other road users. It will be down to the consistent enforcement efforts of LTA to make the new regulations work.
I understand that the Government is going to create different regimes for different footpaths, some can be used by bicycles and e-scooters, some only for pedestrians, and e-bikes will not be allowed on footpaths but will now be allowed on park connectors, although I have seen e-bikes on footpaths and park connectors for many years! What are the Government's plans to ensure that members of the public will be able to adapt to the new signages without any confusion? I can imagine that there will be much public education required.
On this note, let me talk about public education. For many years, the Government has been talking about having public education on safety in cycling. This Bill may still be inadequate without regular and strict enforcement together with effective public education. May I call on the Government to go beyond the existing efforts in public education? This is particularly important if we are not going to be able to require compulsory third-party insurance for bicycles, e-bikes and PMD users.
Madam, recently when I visited an early education school, I was amused to see a whole row of skate scooters and bicycles lined up by the entrance. Go to any public parks during the weekends, and we can see many children using bicycles and skate scooters. It is important that we engender in our young children the culture of safe and considerate riding when they start riding.
The Government should consider having appropriate lessons on cycling culture and road safety. Will the Government consider upgrading the syllabus of the Road Safety Park to include lessons incorporating new mobility devices covered in this Bill, particularly e-scooters, PMDs and e-bikes? Will our Safe Cycling Programme, which is being introduced, be incorporated into our school syllabus like in New South Wales, Australia, where they have incorporated road safety programme into their primary and secondary school syllabus?
Clarifications. Madam, section 20 of the Bill allows for excepted use of non-compliant PMDs. May I ask the Senior Minister of State to clarify what is the intent of section 20 and give us examples of when excepted use of non-compliant PMDs are allowed?
Madam, during the Committee of Supply debates last year, I asked whether owners of existing unauthorised e-bikes, which may technically be able to comply with the new proposed rules, be given the chance, at least on a one-off basis, to apply for authorisation and registration. I would like to know whether the Government will allow this.
I also mentioned that throttle may be more suitable for some users as they do not need some strength to pedal and "kick in" the electric power required in current authorised models. I have said that control of speed by throttle is more precise and as long as the maximum speed of the bike is limited, the throttle does not make the bike unsafe.
So, is the Government going to allow the use of throttle? And if throttle is a no-no for e-bikes because of safety issues, how does the Government reconcile that with its position on e-scooters? We have seen many e-scooters going at high speeds on the roads and get into accidents on the road or on footpaths. I have read from media reports that some had a speed as high as 80km/h.
In conclusion, I support this Bill and hope that it will enhance our cycling culture and promote safe and considerate use of public paths for all users.
Mdm Speaker, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, I support this Bill. The Government encourages more people to use bicycles and other PMDs in order to build a car-lite society and offer Singaporeans more mobility choices.
If this were to be successful, we need legislation to list down what are the appropriate behaviours of PMD users and the rules by which retailers must abide when selling or modifying PMDs .
Next, we need to create a good environment for walking and suitable facilities. For example, the designated bicycle lanes in Ang Mo Kio, the redesigned wider lanes along Bencoolen Road, and additional bicycle parking facilities, will make things easier and safer for pedestrians and PMD users.
More importantly, pedestrians, PMD users and drivers need to have the right mindset in terms of sharing the road with one another. This cannot be done by legislation alone. I have four suggestions for MOT's consideration.
First, the operators need to be more responsible. The importers should not only import up-to-standard PMDs, but also introduce PMDs with more safety features.
The retailers should also proactively teach the customers how to use PMDs properly. They can consider collaborating with certain groups to teach buyers how to use their PMDs safely.
How about repair service providers? They can consider recording, or taking photos of the repair work details. The MOT can also recommend repair companies that uphold a high safety standard to people who require repair services.
Second, the scope of enforcement should also be more comprehensive. The Bill has listed down unlawful behaviours of PMD users, such as using Power Assisted Bicycle (PAB) as an e-scooter and illegal modifications, which could jeopardize the safety of others.
The design and speed limits of some roads in industrial zones and highways may not be suitable for co-use by bicycles or PABs. Can we tighten rules with regard to the usage of these roads? Perhaps we can put up more noticeable signs or ban bicycles or PABs from using these roads?
I have seen a mother taking her child to school on a PMD. Although it is convenient, we should not allow it because of safety reasons. If possible, we should have rules such as only one passenger is allowed and that both should also wear appropriate protective gear, like a helmet.
Third, we should have appropriate facilities for PMDs. To encourage more people to use public transport and the PMDs, we must improve our road design, display appropriate signs or create designated lanes for PMDs.
Earlier, some Members mentioned that, when it comes to road design, we can have traffic calming measures such as narrowing the road and creating roundabouts to limit car speed and improve road safety.
Starting from last month, foldable bikes and other PMDs can be taken into the MRT and buses. This is a very good news. Perhaps for the next stage, we can consider setting up designated MRT cars for people to board and alight the train. This way, they will not affect other passengers.
I have seen some coffee-shops providing charging facilities for customers to charge their devices. I am also glad to see new MRT stations have more bicycles and PAB parking facilities. The LTA is also gradually expanding the parking facilities at existing MRT stations.
Now, there are more people who go out on bicycles or PMDs, to work, school or shopping malls. Some of my residents use their PMD to go to the CC to exercise or attend class. However, it is not convenient for them to bring these devices into their classroom and they cannot leave their PMDs outside with peace of mind. I will have some transparent storage cabinets installed at Cheng Shan Community Centre and increase bicycle parking spaces. This will make it more convenient for my residents.
In order to have more such facilities, we need facilitation from MOT. If MOT can help shopping malls and other places to convert some parking spaces into parking storage facilities for bicycles, PABs and PMDs, it will make things more convenient for their users.
The fourth and the last suggestion is to increase safety awareness. We are all very familiar with the Highway Code. The Code is akin to a road usage guideline, listing down the proper behaviour of a road user to prevent accidents from happening.
As PMD users increase, we not only need to educate drivers of the importance of safe-driving, we must also pay attention to PMD users. Although currently, the latter do not need to pass any driving test, it will be beneficial for them if they could attend online learning and test. Similarly, the government can also consider amending the teaching materials and include important information with regard to PMDs into the Highway Code, thus improving drivers' safety awareness of PMD users. This can increase our overall sense of safety.
Ultimately, I hope to see that every pedestrian, every PMD user and every driver is willing to share our limited space by being considerate and courteous to others, as well as abiding by the rules. On top of that, if we also have appropriate facilities, then our travelling speed may become slower, but accidents will become less, and everyone's journey will be more pleasant and convenient.
Thank you, Mdm Speaker, for allowing me to participate in this debate.
Madam, there is little to disagree with the spirit of the proposed Act. By embracing the needs of a whole range of road users, and its vision of promoting healthy and environmentally-friendly alternatives for road usage, allowing connectivity to the public transport network and gradually reducing our heavy dependence on motor vehicles, I strongly support this Bill, although I feel that there are certain aspects of it that require a clearer thought about.
Clause 3 of the Bill clearly identifies the aims of the new Act. These are all laudable aims. Supporting developments that promote cycling, walking and the use of public transport will be a major push in Singapore's growth as a liveable city. However, in order to ensure that the aims set out in the Act are met, I think it would also be important to consider whether the various purposes are compatible, whether they are realistic in a land-scarce city-state like ours and also whether they are achievable in practice without a major revamp of our public transport infrastructure in terms of the design, as well as of our sidewalks and pathways.
The basic reason why this issue arises at all is because we are a space-constrained country. Limited space must be shared, but the rules for sharing cannot be assumed to always be known. Unlike motor vehicle usage on roadways, sharing of active mobility devices is not as natural as it appears because it depends on factors about a range of usage patterns and pathway conditions that are actually much more varied and on roads.
One key issue in this matter is user behaviour. As a result of the exceptions contained in clauses such as clause 15(2)(a), would there be an increase in PMD users going onto roads meant for motor vehicles, such as flyovers, especially when these offer a convenient means of crossing expressways? Would this not endanger both the users of PMDs, bicycles and PABs who do this, as well as motor vehicles who unexpectedly encounter them?
Another clause that I want to ask about is clause 16(2), which refers explicitly to footpaths. What I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State is: whether she could clarify if it applies to the following related situations.
When cyclists and PMD users switch between pedestrian walkways and roadways, their actions become unpredictable to other users. This lack of predictability ends up increasing the danger to everyone. Cyclists and PMD users also stray into bus lanes during restricted hours. What are the rules in such cases?
The speeds of various users vary greatly on our roads and our pathways, and are much less subject to regulation when they are on shared pathways. A young child riding a bicycle is very different from an adult speeding and expecting others to give way to him. Older pedestrians who experience issues with mobility, often feel a need to get out into the open and move around, but those of us who have older dependents, know that we worry more about them. Do we have to worry now about their safety in the face of the increasingly intense usage by new classes of PMDs?
What I would like to urge is more in-depth study into the consequences of having a new class of users on our roads and pathways, whose usage habits are different yet overlap with those of existing classes of users.
Madam, while PMDs, bicycles and PABs may be slower than heavier motorised vehicles, it is also true that they are also slower to stop, and may require an entirely new set of rules for other road users to react to them, if they demand their right of way.
If incidents increase and arguments about right of way become more prevalent, will we be seeing a call for more directional signs on pedestrian pathways, such as those used on roads for heavier vehicles? A proliferation of signages will only spawn a new set of challenges.
Right of way where pathways intersect with driveways could lead to increased chances of dispute and accidents.
The proposed Act allows for the appointment of public path wardens, as set out in clause 39. A public path warden's role would involve determining whether violations of clauses 15(2)(a), 15(2)(b), 18(1)(b) have occurred. Is this realistic? We should already be familiar with the challenges that are likely to be involved in such cases, especially because of the experiences of parking and road traffic wardens.
In fact, judging by the types of situations that traffic wardens could be required to react to, it would not be unreasonable to predict that their roles could be much more challenging, and therefore that they should require more training.
In addition to making quick decisions about whether the technical specifications of PMBs and PABs are prescribed or banned, a public path warden would also need to have skills in dealing with the public in situations where argumentation is much more likely to arise.
Given the expectations of such enforcers, where are we going to get a supply of such skilled personnel? Will public path wardens also be required to deal with problems arising from inappropriate design of PMDs, such as the effect their headlights have on drivers of other motor vehicles? The headlights on PMDs could affect the vision of other drivers at night, especially when they travel in opposite directions.
Madam, in conclusion, I would like to return to the point I made at the beginning of this speech, which is really how to ensure that the various purposes set out in the Act are compatible and not at odds with one another.
If PMDs end up taking over footpaths, pedestrians will end up getting crowded out. Will pedestrians, therefore, ultimately, be the ones suffering as a result? If there is a conflict between the two, which one should we prioritise ‒ pedestrian comfort or the habits of PMD users?
Mdm Speaker, this Bill aims to regulate the use of public paths in response to the popularity of PMDs like e-scooters and unicycles, hoverboards and power-assisted bicycles.
While the evolution and the use of such devices have been rapid, there is no doubt that a set of easily understandable rules needs to be implemented to govern the use of such devices for the safety of all. While I am supportive of this Bill and its objectives, I seek a few clarifications with regard to some of the clauses of the Bill and will raise them in chronological order.
On clause 2, the intention of using the noun "pedestrian" in the Bill appears to separate fast-moving individuals from those who are slower so that the pedestrian-only path is in some ways protected from bicycles or other vehicles. But in day-to-day life, this may cause confusion, especially when skateboards are classified as PMDs while people on inline or roller-skates are classified as pedestrians. People on inline or roller-skates can move fairly quickly, and potentially cause harm to other pedestrians as well. How did the Ministry settle on the definition of who is a pedestrian and who is not?
Under clause 15, a potential jail term for riding on pedestrian-only paths appears excessive, especially if reasonable judgment has been exercised to ensure that the path is clear of pedestrians and the rider is not speeding or riding recklessly, for example, late at night or in places where there is less human traffic. While this may be a matter of judgment and the Ministry wishes to be unambiguous about the seriousness of such violations or to facilitate uncomplicated interpretation, would not a more incremental legislative approach, starting with fines only, represent a more communicative and educative policy-making exercise so as to allow people to understand the rules more and to allow a passage of time to pass before Parliament determines whether or not to review the sentences, based on ground feedback? Such an incremental approach could also assist to reinforce a safety culture involving PABs and PMDs over time.
Clauses 26 and 27 state that the proprietor or occupier of any land can be required to install and maintain signages at their cost and they will be guilty of an offence if they are not compliant. Would it not be administratively more efficient for the relevant authorities, specifically LTA and NParks, for example, to bear the cost of erecting and maintaining signages? This would also be administratively convenient as there would be a clear standardisation of such signs. If proprietors or occupiers have to purchase signages from officially-approved agents, would it not be better to have the relevant authorities just take charge instead?
Clause 30 states that any person or business selling non-compliant PMDs "must ensure that no customer or member of the public can see any non-compliant PMD from inside or outside of the premises" or they could be jailed, for example. Would it not be enough for businesses to remind customers about which models are compliant or not before the purchase, which is provided for in the warning notices specified in clause 30? Anecdotally, the legality of models is a big concern for people looking to buy PMDs. It would appear excessive to potentially jail sellers for failing to keep non-compliant PMDs out of the sight of customers. The same concerns are relevant for clause 31, which calls for a fine and/or jail term for advertising non-compliant PMDs. If this is indeed a serious concern, can the Minister share why it would not be a better idea to just restrict the import of non-compliant PMDs altogether, tackling the problem upstream, rather than having to deal with the problem at the retail level?
Clause 33 states that a person shall be guilty of an offence if, at the time of sale, "the person knows that or is reckless as to whether or not the buyer intends to ride the PMD on a public road". This clause sounds practically unwieldy. If the clause would cover sales at any premises or place, so it can be assumed that it would cover private individuals selling their used PMDs on Carousell, for example. How would the Ministry determine whether or not a seller is "reckless" as to the buyer's intentions to ride the PMD on a public road? Is failure to ask the buyer specifically if he or she intends to ride it on a public road considered an offence? If the buyer says no but rides on the road anyway, is the seller guilty of an offence because he or she did not question the buyer further?
Clause 33 also states that it is not a defence for the accused to prove that warning notices were displayed in accordance with clause 31. If so, what would constitute a defence, short of a written agreement or an agreement that is captured on video? How many buyers or sellers would do this? Is the implementation realistic or practicable?
To conclude, Mdm Speaker, this Bill seeks to govern the behaviour of individuals who use PMDs and PABs. Members would be aware that not just Singaporeans but many foreigners, especially those who live and work near industrial estates, also use such devices. One key challenge would be to educate a large and transient foreign worker community of these norms. As with any transient group, the effort would have to be a continuous one.
The effectiveness of this legislation on the ground will be directly correlated to the amount of effort that is put in to educate all users, Singaporeans and foreigners alike, of the codes of conduct that can be issued by the Minister under clause 24 of this Bill. This is not just the Government's role or the Government's job, but, of course, it is the job of all users.
Mdm Speaker, my request for clarifications notwithstanding, I support the Bill.
Mdm Speaker, in September last year, I visited the family involved in the e-scooter accident at Pasir Ris which left the victim unconscious for two months. It was heart-wrenching to witness the family's trauma from nearly losing a loved one to an accident which could have been avoided. I believe, if you could see the family, then you could understand the rationale and intent of introducing what we are introducing in this Bill. Sadly, that was not the last accident involving users of PMD, despite all the public education that was mounted. The following month, three electric bicycle riders were involved in an accident with a container truck, resulting in two deaths and leaving one injured. I could not imagine the trauma the family must have faced. More recently, in November last year, a 62-year-old e-biker died after an accident with a tipper truck at Cecil Street.
Despite these accidents, the reality now is that we will see increasing users of these PMDs. Modernisation in technology has expanded transport options for commuters and usage of PMDs. These modes are also rapidly picking up in popularity. I believe that it is high time that this Bill was introduced for these commuters who choose to adopt alternative modes of transport, be it for cost-savings, physical disability, convenience or even environmental considerations, to ensure that we create a living space safe for all to use.
Several other countries have successfully implemented active mobility initiatives and there are several good models available for us to adopt, and even improve upon. That said, there are two areas that I would like to address, namely, safety and administration.
Mdm Speaker, to promote safety, this Bill has made it clear the penalties for errant and irresponsible users and sellers of PMDs. While some may prefer the education route to promote mutual understanding between different road users, penalties to errant and irresponsible parties are necessary to enforce the right behaviour.
First, for the personal safety of PMD users, I would like to call for the mandatory donning of basic protective gear while using PMDs.
Second, I also suggest to expand the law to ban the use of bicycles, including electric bicycles, on the main road, to those under 18 years of age. Younger PMD users must use the shared footpaths or dedicated cycling tracks, and must refrain from using the main roads.
Third, while motorists are required to pass their Highway Code, such a requirement does not exist for PMD users who ride on the main road. Unfamiliarity with road signs among PMD users may increase the risk of them being involved in accidents. Hence, the Government may want to consider making it compulsory for PMD users to have basic Highway Code knowledge.
Fourth, I would also like the Government to consider raising the penalties for PMD users for riding under the influence of alcohol. Riding under the influence of alcohol is extremely dangerous not just for the rider, but for fellow motorists and pedestrians as well.
Finally, in terms of enhancing a safe environment for all, I would like the Government to consider enforcing a compulsory road etiquette course for PMD users with repeated offences. This is practised in Japan where PMD users with repeated offences are required to attend a road etiquette course or risk stiff fines. Madam, may I continue in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, I believe it is timely to introduce the Active Mobility Bill. Despite campaigns and education efforts to promote responsible behaviour among users of Personal Mobility Devices (PMDs), we are still seeing families losing their loved ones in tragic accidents involving PMD users, especially e-scooters and electric bicycles.
I give my strong support for the provisions in this Bill to impose penalties on irresponsible PMD users and sellers.
Mdm Speaker, I foresee that with the increasing feasibility of power-assisted mobility devices, there is a higher likelihood of accidents that may involve users for Personal Mobility Devices and pedestrians.
Therefore, once again, I lobby for the Government to make insurance mandatory for users of Personal Mobility Devices. By having insurance coverage available, it will help ensure that due compensations can be made without significant financial strains to all the parties involved.
(In English): Mdm Speaker, the Active Mobility Bill is a big undertaking, and I am positive that it holds great merit in making Singapore a much more liveable city for everyone. With proper attitudes and complementary infrastructure, active mobility will be a great boon for our residents who wish to take up these alternative modes of transport to ease them in their daily lives. I support the Bill.
Mdm Speaker, Active Mobility is an area of critical importance, not just from the definition of public paths and regulation of its use; it represents essential links that affect people's daily lives and tends to be one where moral grounds and empathy dictate more emotive responses should any incidents arise.
Recently, there had been more news and reported cases as awareness was raised about such mobility devices and the easy access to recording tools have helped some victims gain their much needed justice. Noting the stiffer penalty meted on some earlier cases, some people may be cautious, but it does not allay the fears many would have, especially those who once were the underserved victims.
As the Ministry continues to fine-tune the Act, I support for three areas to be constantly reviewed: (a) education strategies; (b) enforcement; and (c) planning and design of shared spaces.
On education strategies, studies have shown that human behaviours can be influenced by repeating certain actions and many of the behavioural traits can be changed through mind share and more effectively captured at a young age. I recalled in my growing years, we were exposed to many campaigns, from Singa Lion − the Singapore Kindness Movement, Teamy Bee − efficient, productive workforce to Sharity elephant and so on and so forth. In each campaign, it was not simply the mascot or the songs that we remembered. It was the inculcating of the key messages and the actions that we undertook in and out of the classes that remained with us as useful values in life.
As part of raising awareness in the education campaign, I support those aspects concerning the road safety and use of public shared spaces to be widely broadcasted. The campaign must be done at multiple fronts, not only in schools, and to be continued for a period of time, especially when there are new rulings in place. Everyone in the community must eventually have a sense of responsibility in using all the shared spaces and know the right from wrong without being told or trolled on social media. Thus, over time, our behaviours and unwritten rules should reflect the way we can co-exist harmoniously and safely with considerate thoughts for others.
In line with educating the users, I would like to ask the Minister whether the users of bicycles and PABs − as also mentioned by my fellow colleague Mr Zainal Sapari − who do not already possess a valid vehicle driving licence, should they be asked to take theory tests to understand the Road Traffic Codes in order for them to use the public roads safely? This is a fundamental question when we look at the necessity for more enforcement and also the safety of the road users.
Typically, users of these PMDs or bicycles do not have the appropriate protective gears and alarms for signalling or even notifying others when in danger. Chances of them appearing at risky positions to the vehicles and with little room to manoeuvre are high. They will unintentionally end up endangering themselves and the nearby vehicles if they do not know who has the right of way on public roads.
Since clause 3 sets out the purpose of the Bill, one of which is to enhance connectivity by supporting development that promotes walking and cycling and patronage of our public transport, then I would say understanding the road conditions, when not to take risks, and how to be a better road user are important knowledge for these users to acquire.
Second, on enforcement. Regulations and enforcements are necessary measures for rules to be upheld and in cases where disputes are most likely to occur between independent parties. However, there can never be sufficient ground enforcement if the penalties are not steep to deter the act of an offence or the location and number of offences is widespread, thus making it hard to capture these offences.
On this note, I would like to seek a few clarifications from the Minister.
One, under clause 23, if an accident occurs and there is no party present as it is a hit-and-run incident, what type of supporting evidence is the victim supposed to provide when lodging or making a police report? If the police investigations do not reveal any new findings or is unable to identify the offender, how can the victims be compensated?
Two, under clause 33, if the sale of PMDs is performed online and one-off transaction, not wholesale, would the seller be liable as he or she would not know if the buyer intends to ride the PMD on public road? Also, to what extent is the seller required to put up warning notices for the online sale that is in accordance to clause 31.
Three, for the volunteer public path wardens, what level of training will be given to them to assist them on their job and how can they be protected when they are handling the cases on the ground?
Four, apart from fines and imprisonment for repeat offenders, would the Ministry consider having the offender contribute certain number of hours to community service similar to the Corrective Work Order for those who litter?
Five, I understand that some PMDs are designed with speed limit detectors, and as a safety measure, its maximum limit would be capped within the specified range as set out by LTA. My question is how can we ensure that the safety limit trigger continues to be functional over time and would LTA consider reducing the speed for paths when the users are travelling in downhill motions?
On the last area, planning and design of shared spaces. In many estates and public spaces, we have increasingly seen many bollards and boards being put up to prevent all these fast-moving bicycles and PMDs from knocking into pedestrians. Not only are they unsightly, they are not completely effective at some junctions and it also pose a challenge for those users that are on wheelchairs or those with baby strollers as they have to move around all these obstacles. As such, I would urge LTA to consider defining some specific areas as pedestrian-only paths where it may have larger impact on safety of users at shared public spaces. Some of the areas are, namely, overhead bridges, pathway immediately leading to lift landings, paths directly beside the HDB void deck, vicinity near children's playground and childcare facilities.
Moving forward, there are more cycling networks planned to be added to connect our housing estates to major traffic nodes. This will undoubtedly provide relief to both cyclists and pedestrians. However, widening of footpaths brings along its joy and also sorrows. For those older, mature estates, the existence of trees make it difficult for any potential widening thus resulting in some of the cycling routes being shorter than others. Where it is possible to widen, the challenge comes on enforcement as bicycles and motorbikes begin to encroach on some of the open spaces for short-term parking. So, what more can be done in this area?
I am happy that just now the Senior Minister of State has mentioned that there will be clear demarcation to indicate the separation between the pedestrian and cyclist path. This would be most welcome, especially when it needs to do strict enforcement.
Mdm Speaker, I welcome the Bill as it is essential for the safety of everyone as we move towards better connectivity around Singapore. Thus, I hope that some of the suggestions could be looked into and I seek feedback on the clarifications that I put across.
Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. Madam, the 15 PAP Town Councils support this Bill to promote walking, cycling and connectivity of our public transport system. We also support the various measures proposed to promote and ensure the safety of users of public paths.
This Bill will set out the legal framework and code of conduct for all users of public paths to minimise conflicts among the users, and support our nation's drive to have a car- lite society.
Madam, the 15 PAP Town Councils manage thousands of footpaths in our respective HDB towns. These footpaths including covered footpaths are mainly common property of the Town Councils. The Town Councils are responsible to maintain these footpaths, and enforce by-laws to ensure the safe use of these footpaths.
Every year, the 15 Town Councils receive about 200 complaints from our residents related to bicycles, power-assisted bikes and Personal Mobility Devices. These complaints include: (a) speeding and reckless riding, (b) illegal parking of bicycles, and (c) disputes among users of footpaths.
Madam, I wish to highlight three concerns regarding the implementation of the Active Mobility Act.
First, classification of public paths. Clause 6 of the Bill declares and classifies public paths into three types, namely, pedestrian-only path, footpath, and shared path for different types of users. The definitions of pedestrians, riders and various types of footpaths are quite confusing.
It may be easier for the public to understand if we just classify public paths into walking path, cycling path and walk-and-cycle path. Walking path shall allow users to walk, move on motorised and non-motorised wheelchairs, ride mobility scooters or PMDs, pull trolleys or skates. While cycling paths are for riders using bicycles or power-assisted bicycles.
To avoid confusion, we need to clearly mark walking and cycling paths with footprints or bicycle prints respectively at regular intervals. Signages must also be clearly displayed at the beginning, ending and cross junctions of public paths.
I wish to clarify with the Senior Minister of State regarding the ownership and responsibility of those declared public paths within a town. Are the Town Councils supposed to transfer ownership of those paths which are declared as public paths to LTA for management?
If not, who will be responsible to maintain and enforce the use of these declared public paths in the town? Who will take up the public liability insurance for the public paths? Madam, the maintenance and enforcement of public paths will entail additional expenditure if undertaken by the Town Councils.
Second, enforcement. Madam, to ensure the safety of all users of public paths, we must adopt a comprehensive approach to educate the users and conduct regular enforcement to reduce accidents and injuries. CCTVs can be installed at high-risk locations to regulate the use of all public paths. Mobile CCTVs can also be deployed to facilitate enforcement efforts on reckless riders.
I would propose that LTA set up a 24-hour hotline to follow up on feedback from the users. In addition, LTA should deploy enforcement teams in every constituency to educate and instil discipline among users of public paths. To facilitate enforcement, LTA should consider registering all riders, bicycles and PABs.
Third, disputes resolution. Madam, with more people walking and cycling on public paths, there will be more cases of conflict among the users. To avoid disputes among users, I would propose that LTA build more dedicated and separate cycling paths connecting to MRT stations, town centres and various amenities in the town.
By separating walking and cycling paths, both pedestrians and cyclists will enjoy safer use of public paths.
Madam, I propose that LTA be the lead agency to resolve disputes among different users of public paths. This will enable LTA to gather feedback and understand the concerns of the users. In this way, more effective measures can be taken to fine-tune the Act in future to promote walking and cycling in Singapore.
Thank you, Mdm Speaker. As I was preparing for this speech, I was reminded of a production that I did years ago. I looked at the effect of high-speed motor cars on human and social psychology. To borrow the words of an English novelist, JG Ballard, "I think the 20th century reaches its highest expression on the highway. Everything is there: the speed and violence of our age; the strange love affair with the machine, with its own death."
My apologies to start a new year and my speech with such a grim image, but I do think that both walking and cycling would really provide a good antidote to a society that is driven by speed to a point where civility, a lot of times, is ignored and lost.
Hence, I think this Bill is a good step towards a cultural shift in our mobility choices by protecting the safety of all users of pathways.
However, I would like to express my concern on the structural and spatial design of existing and future pathways that might frustrate some of the purposes of this Bill.
First, under clauses 15 and 16 of the Bill, an individual may ride on a pedestrian-only path or footpath under limited circumstances. My concern is that existing pedestrian-only paths and footpaths might not be wide enough to accommodate such usage, thereby leading to accidents.
Furthermore, even though various vehicles are generally banned from such paths, accidents might also occur when narrow paths are utilised both by pedestrians as well as users pushing prams, strollers, trolleys or users who are in wheelchairs.
I hope the Ministry would consider widening existing paths and ensure that future paths in new estates are wide enough to accommodate users with various needs.
Second, it is worthwhile to invest in smart, protective and functional design for future pedestrian, foot and shared paths and to enhance existing pathways with safety conditions.
Mdm Speaker, it appears that most of the shared paths, especially those in the more mature estates are not segregated by physical barriers. These shared paths are usually demarcated by a visual line between the pedestrian path and the path for cyclists.
We should also not forget that the existing shared paths are bi-directional. Yet existing shared paths are only segregated between different users, that is, pedestrians and cyclists. Not only does that mean that there is a narrower pathway for cyclists and riders of mobility vehicles, moving bi-directionally, they must also be mindful of other pedestrians also moving bi-directionally, using the same path.
Further, without a physical barrier that segregates pedestrians from other cyclists and riders of mobility vehicles, there is a tendency to stray into each other's lane, either because of personal convenience or in situations where the shared path is particularly crowded or when visibility is low at night. I am sure many of us have encountered such situations, or have ourselves been guilty of walking or cycling along paths not meant for such purposes.
Without physical segregated paths ways for different kinds of users as well as segregation of pathways per direction, it is surely a receipe for accidents to occur. There are clearly safety risks we take when we try to shoehorn different and sometimes competing needs into the same design solution. It is largely for such reasons that countries like the Netherlands builds separate pathways for cyclists and pedestrians.
Mdm Speaker, a segregated path not only would mitigate the risk of such accidents from occurring but also serves as a signal to pedestrians or cyclists that should they utilise paths not meant for their traveling purpose, they bear the risk of an accident occurring. Moreover, such segregated pathways might be able to accommodate higher volumes of users and as such, it is a more efficient use of space than non-segregated shared paths.
The Government has signalled its intention to move towards a car-lite society, with an on-going effort to transform Ang Mo Kio into a model for walking and cycling town. So, this Bill is a good opportunity for us to rethink our urban and estate and planning and redesign our existing paths so that we can achieve a culture shift in our mobility choice with the assurance of safety and transport efficacy.
Just one last point on the issue of design. I hope that the Ministry is looking at reinforcing existing pathways to ensure that the surfaces of such pathways would better cushion against the impact of a fall.
I also hope that the Minister can shed some light on what is being done to enhance existing pedestrian, foot and shared paths to ensure the path is safe for all users, as well as how the Government ensures regular maintenance, proper illuminations and repairs works of these paths.
I now turn to the issue of conflict management. Conflicts are but a natural consequence of human interaction. Mdm Speaker, I must imagine that when so many different users moving at vastly different speeds are sharing the same spaces, disputes, especially arising from accidents, are bound to occur. What I am concerned about is how we seek to resolve such disputes that arises from the shared use of these paths which affects people from all walks of life.
Mdm Speaker, in a reply by the Senior Minister of State for Transport Josephine Teo to a Parliamentary Question on Measures to Promote Safe Sharing of Paths, I quote, "pedestrians in Singapore who are injured in accident can obtain compensation by initiating civil lawsuits or through private settlements. If the offender is prosecuted and convicted in criminal court, the court will consider if compensation to the victim should be paid."
With respect, it is cold comfort and unfair to the victim to have to spend considerable amounts to be compensated for his or her medical bills and have to wait for a significant period before he or she can obtain such compensation. Similarly, there are disputes that might be better resolved out-of-court.
I note that this Bill does not contemplate alternative forms of dispute resolution, but hope that the Ministry might look into providing a cost-efficient mode of dispute resolution, such as through mandated mediation or third-party negotiations for dispute arising out of the use of shared paths.
Similarly, I hope that the Ministry can look into making insurance for personal devices more affordable so that more users can sign up for such insurance. I take the point which the Senior Minister of State has made about it being too onerous to make it mandatory for users of Personal Mobility Devices or cyclists to purchase insurance.
However, having such insurance not only protects the user but the third party who have been injured by the act of the user as such parties may receive compensation from the insurer of the user. It would reduce the need for victims to go to court to obtain compensation. I would advocate that a culture of mediating dispute arising from the use of shared paths will be better than depending on the courts.
I have a few points of clarifications before I end.
First of all, I see some practical difficulties with clauses 23(1) of the Bill, which imposes a series of duties on the driver of the vehicle to comply with as far as circumstances permit, in the event that an accident occurs.
As we all know, when an accident occurs, it might cause the involved party to be in a state of panic and shock such that he or she might not be able to react or properly respond to what has just occurred. It is not clear from the Bill whether such drivers in such state of shock should face prosecution under this clause should he or she not comply with the series of duties provided under this clause.
Further, clause 23(1)(b) provides that the driver must, as far as circumstances permit immediately render such assistance as he or she can. I am worried that there might be situations where the driver's assistance puts the injured party in a worse situation or further exacerbate his or her injuries. For the safety of those involved in the event of an accident, I hope that the Ministry can re-consider the necessity of this clause.
Second, under clause 6 of the Bill, a public path may be declared over any private land that is subject to an access agreement in favour of the Authority for the purposes of this Act. Can the Senior Minister of State clarify what liabilities and responsibilities would such owners owe to involved parties when an accident occurs after such private land have been declared as a public path? Who would be responsible for maintaining such private land that has been declared as a public path thereafter?
Also under clause 26 of the Bill, the Authority may give an order to any proprietor or occupier of any land requiring them to install, erect or relocate way-finding signs at the proprietor or occupier's own costs. I think this was also reflected by our colleague Dr Teo. Similarly, under clause 27, such proprietor or occupier has a duty to maintain such way-finding signs at their own cost. I am puzzled as to why the cost of doing so is not borne by the Authority when such signs are for the benefit of the public at large?
The final point that I seek some clarification on is as to what constitutes an act that "obstructs the use of public path". Given that it is a criminal offence, clarity on what conduct constitutes obstructions would be necessary so that users are aware what and avoid acting in a manner that would run afoul of the law.
Madam, as there appears to be an increasing conflict between pedestrians and users of bicycles, Personal Mobility Devices (PMDs) and Power-assisted Bicycles (PADs), it is timely that we start to regulate the use of public paths. While I stand in support of the Bill, I have several concerns to raise.
Can the Senior Minister of State clarify the criteria used for classifying public paths? Will members of the public be able to appeal for the re-classification of public paths? Will the Ministry be monitoring the amount of conflicts on a public path and reviewing the classification? And if so, how often will such reviews be conducted?
I note that bicycles will be allowed on footpaths, shared paths and the road. I remain concerned about allowing bicycles on public paths as I have no doubt that accidents will occur and of course, have already occurred numerous times.
At my last Meet-the-People session, I met a resident who was knocked down from the back by a bicycle. The cyclist did stop and said sorry but immediately rode off, leaving her with a fractured wrist.
I am especially concerned about children using the public paths. They would be more difficult to spot by the cyclists, and accidents will probably result in more serious injuries and they would be more difficult to avoid as their movements are more erratic as they are often playing on the paths. Of course, we can say that parents have to control their children but we know that in reality, this might not be possible at all times.
I do appreciate that we have set speed limits but how will a user of a conventional bicycle know what speed he or she is travelling at? I also appreciate that we have a new team to enforce these new regulations but with a vast amount of public paths, we all know that enforcement will be limited as we simply cannot be everywhere at all times. Can the Senior Minister of State provide further details on how we will keep the public path safe for pedestrians beyond setting a maximum speed limit, unladen weight and width? For example, will it be possible to make it mandatory for all riders to install and switch on their headlights at night on their bicycles, PMDs and PABs especially since the probability of an accident increases when it is dark?
Can we also consider making it compulsory for riders of bicycles, PMDs and PABs to dismount and push their bicycles, PMDs and PABs at crowded areas, for example, near bus stops? Even if the riders keep to the speed limits at these areas, it is unlikely to prevent accidents. It would be much safer for all users if they dismount and push.
Can the Senior Minister of State also clarify if the rules will or can apply to walkways in front of shops and along HDB void decks, lift lobbies and staircases? A resident wrote to me recently; allow me to read out her concerns:
"I would like to highlight that there have been increasing number of people using bicycles, e-scooters and hover-boards at the walkway along the shops opposite my place. Is there any way to put up signs to advise these riders to dismount front their mobile vehicles when they are at the walkway.
Despite the walk way getting very crowded, there are riders who disregard the safety of pedestrians walking along the shops. They continue to ride on their mobile vehicles to squeeze through the crowd instead of dismounting and pushing their vehicles. I am sure many pedestrians including me have to keep watching our backs as we walk."
Next, can the Senior Minister of State clarify, with regards to clause 30, why we are not criminalising one-off sale of non-complaint PMDs and also by wholesale? It would seem like we are creating a loophole in this piece of legislation.
Lastly, I note that the Government had accepted in full the recommendations submitted by the Active Mobility Advisory Panel in March 2016. I welcome the Government's move to include stakeholders in policy-making − in this case, 14 representatives from seniors and grassroots leaders to PMD users and cyclists. This is reminiscent of the Animal Welfare Legislation Review Committee, which I was a part of. I look forward to more of such review and advisory committees being set up to ensure that the policies we enact are by the people and for the people. Madam, the above comments notwithstanding, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mdm Speaker, alternative modes of transport benefit Singapore. They help reduce our carbon footprint and shift Singapore towards a car-lite society. They also empower many Singaporeans to go about their chores and carry out their jobs and they also connect us better with nature.
While we want to encourage the use of such devices, more structure has to be in place for their usage. As such, I would like to make three suggestions.
First, it will be great if we can put in place more infrastructure for our mobility devices. LTA aims to transform all HDB estates into cycling towns by 2030. However, funding limitations prevent a more shared paths beyond the key roads. If there is budget room for it, could MOF provide LTA with more funding, especially for HDB towns which have a higher traffic density? I am asking this for all towns but just towns which have higher density.
Second, in private estates with many seniors, public paths need to be adapted to the usage of Personal Mobility Devices and Power-assisted Bicycles. This helps our seniors reach out to key amenities. I hope LTA can allocate a small dedicated budget for such purposes.
In my constituency, Kebun Baru, there is a landed precinct called Teachers Estates. Many retired teachers and residents are giving up their cars as they grow older. Yet, they have difficulty accessing key amenities, especially given the hilly terrain that they live in. They will be deeply appreciative if LTA can adapt footpaths to overcome the hilly terrains, and perhaps create one or two small rain-shelters on their way to key amenities. Again, I am not asking for a large sum but just small sums to examine the link between specific estates with ageing population and key locations.
Secondly, we can do more to raise awareness in the community. The new devices are fairly new to Singapore, and it is necessary for the public to understand how to use them to their own benefit and not to endanger themselves or pedestrians.
To achieve that, we can do a few things. One, include the Active Mobility framework to driver's education because I think the drivers should know how mobility devices and users work as well. Two, work with the Road Safety Council, and cover this topic during excursions to our Road Safety Park for younger riders. Three, advertise in cinemas which will reach out to more younger people. And fourth, engage in merging social media platforms such as Mothership or even SGAG.
Third of all, I think we should also ensure affordable devices are available while we push for stronger safety standards. For example, LTA recently tightened the device standards to exclude PABs with throttles so as to improve public safety. But for a period of time, there was difficulty in finding affordable alternatives that fit the tightened standards.
So, I strongly urge LTA to prioritise identifying and approving affordable PABs and PMDs that meets our device criteria, so that they can quickly benefit our people and our seniors. It would also be good if LTA can publish the entire approved list of devices online.
While LTA moves from throttle to throttle-less, what happens is that the ones available on the market are largely China-made ones. And now, they are excluded. For a brief moment of time, they were being excluded from being purchased. The consumers were suddenly left with buying much more expensive PABs. I know LTA is working hard to identify and approve the lower cost ones from other parts of the world, but I hope that LTA can do more and move quickly to approve those.
Finally, we want to encourage users of mobility devices, but certain penalties include a fine and or imprisonment which appears very serious. Can LTA elaborate on the circumstances that will usually entail a jail sentence?
In conclusion, the Active Mobility Bill will benefit riders and pedestrians. To allow us to tap on the Bill's full potential, we will need to create more infrastructure, raise awareness, and ensure safe but affordable options. I stand in support of the Bill.
Mdm Speaker, I thank Members for their helpful suggestions and support of the Bill. There has been more than a dozen Members who have spoken and it will take me a bit of time to respond to as many of the questions that had been raised as possible. So, I hope that Members will bear with me.
A common concern voiced by Members is the need to protect users of public paths against dangerous conduct by a minority of reckless users. At the same time, Members acknowledge the many benefits when bicycles and PMDs are used responsibly. We should therefore aim to strike a balance with rules which offer good protection and yet enable the vast majority of responsible cyclists and PMD users to continue riding on public paths.
This Bill gives legal effect to an initial set of rules that aims to do just that. I stress that it is an initial set of rules. As they are implemented and with the benefit of experience, they can be refined in the future. In that spirit, I would like to share our present views on Members' suggestions.
Mr Sitoh Yih Pin and other Members asked if we can do more to ensure that victims involved in accidents are assured of compensation. Mr Sitoh, together with Mr Zainal Sapari, Mr Melvin Yong and Ms Joan Pereira suggested mandating third-party insurance.
I understand Members' concerns. Let me say that every accident is one too many and our hearts really go out to the victims when they meet with such unfortunate circumstances. Mr Zainal Sapari shared with us the heart-wrenching circumstances of his resident.
In accidents involving serious injuries and damages, like Mdm Ang's case, the Police will investigate. That is a commitment. If a cyclist or PMD user is found to be at fault, he may be prosecuted and the court will consider if compensation should be paid, in addition to all the other penalties that the perpetrator will be liable for. By laying down the rules and code of conduct for cyclists and PMD users, this Bill will facilitate the court process.
In addition, we encourage frequent cyclists and PMD users to buy third-party insurance which is already available in the market. For now, such insurance will not be mandatory. This recognises the fact that there is a broad range of cyclists and PMD users − from those who cycle long distances daily, to those who use it occasionally for short errands; from very young children and working people, to seniors; and from the more affluent, to the less well-off who see cycling as an affordable means of getting around.
Insurance comes at some cost − not an insignificant amount − and it is not clear right now who should be targeted for mandatory insurance. Cities with a strong culture of active mobility, such as Amsterdam and Copenhagen, likewise do not mandate insurance, but instead focus on cultivating safe and responsible behaviours.
Miss Cheryl Chan asked what pedestrians can do in hit-and-run accidents, if there are no witnesses present. Pedestrians should note down the description of the device and the user and make a Police report as soon as possible, so that the Police can investigate. To deter hit-and-run accidents, we have also made it an offence if a cyclist, PMD user or PAB user fails to stop and render assistance and report the accident to the Police. It is a serious offence. Convicted offenders are liable to a fine of up to $3,000, or imprisonment up to 12 months, or both. It is a serious offence; that is why there is a possibility of a jail term.
Let me turn now to infrastructure. Mr Melvin Yong asked whether we will stipulate guidelines on the minimum width of public paths. New footpaths will be at least 1.8m wide, an increase from today's 1.5m. The network of dedicated cycling paths, which we all acknowledge is really the ideal, will nearly double to 700km. These will be around 2m wide for intra-town paths and 2.5m for inter-town paths.
It will take time, but we will certainly look into expanding the network of cycling paths and widened footpaths, and also the options available in private or mature estates, which Mr Henry Kwek and Mr Kok Heng Leun recommended, together with "ride-calming" measures which Mr Ang Hin Kee suggested. The Bill will also give LTA the necessary powers to remove obstructions from our public paths to make sure that pedestrians, cyclists and users of PABs and PMDs are able to use the widened paths fully, an issue which Miss Cheryl Chan raised.
Mr Kok had asked what is meant by obstructions. Basically, things that are left there that would cause users of the paths to have to try and, in Hokkien, we say "siam" (get out of the way). If you make people "siam", you are causing an obstruction; I think we can understand that.
Dr Teo Ho Pin asked how the Bill will affect Town Councils, since public paths include common property managed by Town Councils. Town Councils will continue to maintain these paths; there is no change to this. As the lead agency for active mobility, LTA will enforce against offences on public paths including those within Town Councils' common property, to ensure that the application of the rules is consistent and minimise confusion. We accept that this will be our responsibility. Dr Teo will appreciate that this is not an easy task; LTA will engage Town Councils to see how their by-laws can be aligned with this Bill, and also how Town Councils and LTA can work together to strengthen enforcement.
In the same way, LTA cannot compel private land owners to allow paths of their land to become public paths, unless they agree to do so. This was a clarification sought by Mr Kok Heng Leun. If however the private land owners enter into an access agreement with LTA and allow part of their private land to be converted into public paths, they like Town Councils, still retain the responsibility for maintenance and liability. It is dependent on whether they agree with this arrangement. They have a say in this matter.
Mr Louis Ng, Mr Ang Hin Kee and Dr Teo Ho Pin commented on the classification of public paths. We have categorised the various types of paths based on their design. Cycling paths, park connectors and shared paths are wider. The use of bicycles, PMDs and PABs will therefore be allowed, and these will be marked clearly at regular intervals and at cross junctions. As Mr Melvin Yong noted, this will enhance safety for the riders.
All other paths will be considered footpaths, where bicycles and PMDs are allowed but not PABs, and the speed limit is lower at 15 km/h. Which I had mentioned earlier. It is roughly how fast you can run. That is quite a useful gauge.
There will also be certain locations where cycling and the use of PMDs and PABs are unsafe and banned, and riders must dismount, such as pedestrian overhead bridges and elevated bridges with low railing heights or steep ramps. These will be marked by signs at the entrances and exits of the bridges.
To address Assoc Prof Randolph Tan's query, these rules must be followed strictly and exceptions are only allowed when it is unsafe or impossible to do so, for example, if there are obstructions on the paths which riders are supposed to use but you have to "siam".
Miss Cheryl Chan will be pleased to know that pedestrians, wheelchairs and mobility scooters will be allowed on all types of public paths, to ensure that they have the maximum freedom and connectivity. To avoid confusing the public, we do not expect to make significant changes to the way paths are classified, but we will closely monitor accident statistics and public feedback, and adjust the classification of certain locations if necessary.
Let me turn now to a clarification sought by Mr Pritam Singh. Skates are relatively small and unlike skate scooters which are larger. They have less potential to cause injury. Therefore, pedestrians wearing skates can use pedestrian-only paths.
Members have also suggested how some of the regulations can be further tightened. Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked if there could be a minimum age limit for users of PMDs or have varying age limits for different types of PMDs, while Mr Zainal Sapari suggested an age criteria for riding PABs on roads.
During patrols conducted in the last few months, LTA has stopped several hundred errant cyclists and PMD users. The offenders come from all age groups and it is now clear that safety-consciousness is not a matter of age. It is therefore important to focus on education and enforcement, to ensure that all PMD users, regardless of age, are aware of the rules and use PMDs in a safe manner. In this regard, I agree that we should start teaching safe cycling and good riding habits from a young age. We must start when they are young and they are just learning for the first time. Which is why students are one of our key target groups for LTA's Safe Cycling Programme.
Mr Zainal Sapari and Mr Melvin Yong suggested that the Bill require active mobility users to wear protective gear. The law already requires PAB users to wear helmets when riding on roads, because of the speed at which these motorised devices can travel and the higher level of danger when interacting with cars and heavy transport. PMDs are not allowed on roads, and so the same consideration does not apply. When cycling or riding on paths where it is relatively safer, the use of helmets is not mandatory but certainly recommended in the code of conduct.
Mdm Speaker, with your permission, I would like to get the Clerks to help distribute a set of infographics that we have prepared that show what the code of conduct looks like.
Mdm Speaker : Yes, please. [ Copies of the document were handed out to hon Members ]
What I am distributing an infographic that shows the regulations as well as the Code of Conduct when reading on paths as well as on roads. Mr Louis Ng and Mr Melvin Yong asked whether cyclists, PMD users and PAB users must be equipped with lights during hours of darkness. This is already a requirement under the law for bicycles and PABs, and will be extended to PMDs. So, if I could refer Members to the second page where the title says "When riding on paths (proposed regulations)". If you look at the top right picture, it says "switch on front white lights and rear red lights in the dark". Now, when is it dark? We have to apply our judgement.
Mr Ang Hin Kee suggested that we ban the use of bicycles and PABs on certain roads with high speed limits and heavy vehicular traffic. This is a sensible suggestion. We already prohibit cycling on expressways and on certain roads where there are safety concerns, such as the Fort Canning Road tunnel. Naturally, this rule should be extended to PABs as well. To address Assoc Prof Randolph Tan's concern, the existing regulations also require cyclists and PAB users riding on the roads to signal their intentions in time to give other road users enough time to react. This is already a requirement.
Ms Joan Pereira and Dr Teo Ho Pin asked if we could extend mandatory registration to more types of devices, to facilitate investigations. We will be requiring all PABs to be registered and carry registration plates, as they are more prone to illegal modification to achieve high speeds on roads. We will monitor the situation, and if justified, consider extending registration to all motorised devices.
Mr Henry Kwek and Miss Cheryl Chan as well as Mr Pritam Singh sought clarifications regarding the regulations for sellers of non-compliant devices. I should first point out that clause 34 clearly bans the sale of non-compliant devices for use on public paths, and this provision applies to all commercial sales, which Mr Ang Hin Kee supports.
As Mr Ang correctly points out, sellers have a duty to educate buyers. Clauses 33 and 34 therefore require sellers to prove they have advised buyers accordingly. This is part of their duty to educate the public.
The objective of clause 30, which makes it an offence to openly display non-compliant PMDs, is to target those who attempt to retail such devices directly to consumers. It does not apply to one-off sales, such as the sale of a second-hand device from one individual to another, or wholesale trade, as devices sold through these channels may not be intended for use on our public paths.
Clause 20, which Mr Dennis Tan sought clarification on, gives the Government flexibility to accept certain devices from the roads if they merit exception as new models emerge. We have no plans to do so but the flexibility is there.
There was a question: why do we not simply ban the importation of non-compliant devices? I can understand that our instinct is to say, just ban it; make it easier, straightforward. But firstly, there is no reason to ban the use of such non-compliant devices on private property on private land. It is not likely that many people will do so but if indeed, there are people who want to do that, there is no reason to ban it. Furthermore, it would impede international trade. It may be excessive, it may be hard to even pass muster with the trade agreements that we are a part of.
Miss Cheryl Chan and Mr Melvin Yong asked whether our regulations apply to online sellers. Let me be very clear that online retailers are subject to the same rules, but also acknowledge that there are practical challenges in enforcing against them, especially those that are not based in Singapore. Nevertheless, we will enforce strictly against the users of non-compliant devices on public paths. Those found using non-compliant devices on public paths are liable upon conviction to a fine of up to $5,000, or three months of imprisonment, or both. Non-compliant devices are also liable to seizure and forfeiture. The harsh penalties serve as a deterrence against buying these devices, whether from online or brick-and-mortar shops. For consistency and protection of all path users, we cannot offer a one-off amnesty to existing non-compliant devices. I hope Mr Dennis Tan can support such a stand.
Clauses 26 and 27, the intention is really not to impose cost but to share responsibility and ensure that private developers as well as building owners take ownership of the signages and the way-finding. In addition, they are quite similar to existing requirements that BCA and URA imposes. So, there is nothing very new about it.
Many Members, including Mr Dennis Tan, have called for strong enforcement, and asked how LTA plans to step it up. LTA's enforcement officers target hotspot areas, such as near crowded bus-stops and traffic junctions, where there is high interaction between pedestrians, cyclists and PMD users. LTA officers are also deployed in response to public feedback about problem areas.
Currently, we have a team of 16 Active Mobility Enforcement Officers and this will be increased progressively. To complement their efforts, LTA will examine how best to deploy technologies such as speed guns and CCTV cameras. Our officers will also be supported by more than 600 volunteers from the grassroots, whose enforcement powers include documenting photo and video evidence and obtaining personal particulars from suspected offenders. These volunteers will be trained on the scope of their enforcement powers, how to record evidence, as well as key communication skills, which Assoc Prof Randolph Tan spoke about, such as how to engage errant cyclists and PMD users and educate the public about safe behaviour while riding on public paths.
Mr Zainal Sapari suggested imposing harsh penalties for active mobility users riding under the influence of alcohol. Let me be absolutely clear − we have zero tolerance towards such irresponsible behaviour. Users found cycling or using PMDs and PABs under the influence of alcohol on public paths will be charged for reckless riding, and are liable upon conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or imprisonment up to six months, or both.
Mr Sitoh Yih Pin suggested imposing higher penalties for recalcitrant offenders for deterrence. We agree and the Bill stipulates significantly higher penalties for repeat offenders. For example, those caught repeatedly for speeding on public paths are liable to a fine not exceeding $2,000 or imprisonment of up to six months, or both. This is twice the penalty for first-time offenders.
While Mr Henry Kwek commented that imprisonment may be a harsh punishment, in some cases, this may be justified, as the offences could lead to injury or even death. The courts will decide on the sentencing based on the facts of the case. In addition to on-road accidents, we will also keep track of off-road accidents, to better study trends and make adjustments to the rules and penalties as necessary.
Mr Louis Ng asked how cyclists, PMD users and PAB users would know their speeds. They can purchase a speedometer for their devices, or download free or low-cost mobile apps that function speedometers. Some devices also come pre-installed with speedometers. But I should add that if in the first place they did not buy a non-compliant device, the risk of violating the speed limits is low. Notwithstanding the speed limits, cyclists, PMD users and PAB users should always put safety first; they should make it a habit to be cautious especially in crowded areas, and dismount whenever and wherever necessary. They will do well to remember Mr Kok reminded us earlier − his comments about civility.
Several Members asked whether we should require users of motorised devices to attend compulsory road safety courses and to educate active mobility users on basic road safety. This is a good suggestion. We will introduce the Safe Cycling Programme this year to educate cyclists and PMD users on safe practices, proper use of active mobility infrastructure, and the new rules and code of conduct. Offenders of compoundable offences, such as reckless riding, may also be required to attend the Safe Cycling Programme as one of the conditions of composition.
Miss Cheryl Chan and Mr Dennis Tan suggested that the Government steps up and sustain our education efforts. We agree and we have introduced many initiatives to educate the public about safety. For example, LTA launched the Safe Riders Campaign in April 2016 to raise awareness about safe and gracious sharing of paths. It has conducted engagement sessions with community leaders, retailers and interest groups, so that they can help spread the safe riding message.
Following the passing of the Bill, the rules will be publicised widely through easy-to-understand infographics, which I distributed earlier, and disseminated through newspaper advertisements, social media, as well as pamphlets and posters. LTA is also working closely with major PMD retailers to educate consumers. Mr Henry Kwek helpfully suggested a number of mass media and social media platforms to publicise our messages. We will explore these options.
We have also enlisted the help of volunteers under our Active Mobility Patrol scheme, who have been patrolling neighbourhoods to spread the message of safety. We already have the support of 37 constituencies and one NGO who together have rallied some 600 volunteers. I hope to count on your support to expand these efforts.
Before closing, I will briefly respond in Mandarin to comments made by Mr Ang Hin Kee.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Ang Hin Kee has raised several valuable suggestions. We should indeed regulate importers and retailers of PABs and PMDs strictly; and we should punish those retailers that sell non-compliant devices and workshops that illegally modify devices to ensure that motorised devices used in Singapore meet our safety standards. We treat all sellers equally; however, it is more challenging to enforce against overseas online retailers. Nevertheless, we will mete out stiff penalties to those who buy non-compliant devices and use them on public paths in Singapore, as deterrence.
We should also step up on our plans to build more public infrastructure so that it will be more convenient for users to park, use and store their devices. In the next few years, LTA will build more bicycle parking lots island-wide. At present, we do not have storage facilities specifically designed for PMDs. However, PMDs tend to be small and light, and most users carry them around. With the number of PMD users increasing and more varieties of PMDs becoming available, we will consider adding appropriate storage facilities for them.
Besides this, Mr Ang Hin Kee also stressed the importance of increasing safety awareness among the public. I fully agree with this and I urge all Members to help spread the message of our new rules and regulations, and encourage more residents to join our team of active mobility volunteers.
I thank all Members for supporting this Bill. In the next few years, MOT and LTA will closely monitor the increasing usage of active mobility devices, and continuously refine our rules and regulations based on public feedback.
(In English): This Bill seeks to ensure that safety on our public paths is not compromised, even as we encourage active mobility. I would like to thank Members for their constructive feedback and valuable suggestions. We will keep an open mind and continue to review our rules.
As I noted earlier, this is unlikely to be the final set of regulations for active mobility. Parliamentary Secretary Assoc Prof Faishal Ibrahim has kindly agreed to continue to lead the Active Mobility Advisory Panel. He has told me that he is keen for the Panel to look further into the many thoughtful suggestions raised by Members today and other members of the public. I wish to thank him and the Panel members in advance, and look forward to hearing their recommendations for improvement in good time.
Over time, I believe we can build a stronger culture of safety and graciousness. It will not happen overnight but with determination and a willingness to adjust the rules, the benefits of active mobility can become widely available for all Singaporeans to enjoy. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.
The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mrs Josephine Teo].
Bill considered in Committee.
[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]
The citation year "2016" will be changed to "2017", as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.
Clauses 1 to 52 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 53 −
The Chairman : Clause 53. There are two amendments standing on the Order Paper Supplement. Senior Minister of State.
Mdm Speaker, I beg to move the amendments* standing in my name, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.
*The amendments read as follows:
"In page 57, line 31: to leave out '(2)', and insert '(3)'.
"In page 58, line 6: to leave out '(2)', and insert '(3)'."
Amendments agreed to.
Clause 53, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 54 to 60 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 61 −
The Chairman : Clause 61. Senior Minister of State.
Mdm Speaker, I beg to move the amendment* standing in my name, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.
*The amendment reads as follows:
"In page 64, line 30: to leave out 'of' where it secondly occurs, and insert 'or'".
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 61, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 62 to 72 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill reported with amendments; read a Third time and passed.
PAPERCUTS