Evaluating Effectiveness of Enforcement on Pedestrian-only Paths and Cycling Lanes

Mr Speaker, my answer for Question No 9 in today's Order Paper will also address a related question filed by Dr Charlene Chen1 for a subsequent Sitting.

Path marking and signs are used to demarcate cycling paths, shared paths and pedestrian-only paths (POPs). Dedicated cycling paths are distinctly coated in red with a width of two metres, sufficient for two cyclists to pass. Where space is a constraint, shared paths are used. This allows both cyclists and pedestrians to share the path, typically at a width of 2.5 metres.

Clear logos and wordings guide users at areas of potential interaction between pedestrians and cyclists, and to signal transitions between POPs and shared paths.

To enhance pedestrian safety, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) works with relevant agencies to implement additional safety measures, such as installation of convex mirrors at locations with line-of-sight issues, additional lighting and trimming of overgrown hedges that narrow the paths.

LTA conducts education campaigns and community engagement programmes regularly to promote gracious path sharing and safe behaviour. Since August 2024, LTA’s active mobility enforcement officers have been on the ground to educate users on the safe use of the segregated paths, ahead of the commencement of the POP rule on 1 July 2025.

Enforcement officers conduct regular patrols to ensure adherence to the path segregation of cycling paths and POPs. LTA conducts more checks at hotspots with frequent instances of errant riding behaviour, based on feedback received. Warnings and subsequently, fines are given to those who intentionally disobey the rule, especially those who endanger others with errant riding behaviour.

I thank the Minister of State for his response. I have three supplementary questions pertaining to enforcement. One, how is the Ministry working with enforcement officers to ensure consistent and proportionate enforcement of cycling and pedestrian path rules, including when to issue warnings versus fines? And what does the Minister of State think of licensing cyclists and their vehicles?

My second question is about recourse when pedestrians are injured by cyclists or personal mobility device riders on footpaths or even overhead bridges, what processes are in place to ensure victims receive prompt support and recourse, and whether the Ministry is reviewing ways to strengthen this safety net?

And the last question is on engagement, whether the Ministry has actively engaged on things like path design, safety hotspots and enforcement, and whether it has plans to expand public education campaigns to emphasise shared responsibility?

The enforcement officers will do their best to ensure that there is a consistent approach to look out for errant behaviour and to mete out the necessary penalties or advisories. In the case of POPs, it is relatively new since July 2025. So, the rule is that cyclists or riders are not supposed to go on POPs. But if there are instances, for example, where the cyclist or rider needs to temporarily overtake a slow-moving cyclist on the cycling path and then venture for that instance on the POP, that will not be counted as an offence, because that is understandable as long as he does it in a safe manner, by looking out for other users of the POP.

But when it is obvious that the cyclist or rider is blatantly riding on POPs, without safe regard for other users, over extended distances, then that definitely will be an offence, and the enforcement officers will issue fines. In fact, since 1 July 2025, about five fines have been issued for such errant riders.

On the recourse, under the Active Mobility Act, when accidents happen, the cyclist or rider are supposed to stop and render assistance. In cases where the riders are performing work-related rides, like doing delivery, they are also required to have third-party liability insurance, so that would also cater for any claims for injury.

On licensing riders or cyclists and vehicles or bicycles, many years ago, Singapore does require registration of bicycles, but it has become a very laborious exercise because bicycles are passed down within families, from people to people, and it becomes an administrative hassle to have to update, not only for the authorities, but for owners of bicycles. We also take reference from practices and learnings from other countries in the world. Therefore, we have stopped that.

It is also not easy to license riders because riders span a spectrum of different ages, from the very young to the very old. So, we focus on educational campaigns and rules for riding behaviour. That is more sustainable and we will keep on promoting that to ensure a safe riding landscape for Singaporeans.

The Member had a last question about getting feedback on the ground. Yes, we continue to do that, on how better to design our paths, our cycling infrastructure. So, we will continue our engagements with advisors, grassroots leaders and other community groups. In terms of education programmes, we look at schools, community groups and we also do regular engagements with delivery platforms to ensure that the riders are up to date with the rules and exercise due consideration when they ride.