Land Transport (Enforcement Measures) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

2.06 pm

The Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Lam Pin Min) (for the Minister for Transport): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Transport, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

LTA undertakes a very wide range of functions which have grown over time. Among others, LTA regulates public transport operators, develops and maintains our road and path networks, regulates vehicles and devices used on our roads and public paths, and enforces against a wide range of transport-related offences.

LTA is also faced with a constantly changing transport landscape. In particular, the increased use of active mobility in recent years has required LTA to step up its enforcement efforts to strike the right balance between promoting active mobility and ensuring the safety of other users of public paths and roads.

The Land Transport (Enforcement Measures) Bill (LTEM Bill) therefore amends seven different land transport-related Acts to strengthen LTA's enforcement capacity and enhance safety on our public paths and roads. These seven Acts are: (i) the Active Mobility Act (AMA), (ii) the Bus Services Industry Act (BSIA), (iii) the Land Transport Authority of Singapore Act (LTA Act), (iv) the Parking Places Act (PPA), (v) the Rapid Transit Systems Act (RTSA), (vi) the Road Traffic Act (RTA), and (vii) the Street Works Act (SWA).

This Bill has five main components:

The first enhances our laws to improve active mobility safety, including introducing a PMD registration regime.

The second augments LTA's enforcement capacity by empowering outsourced enforcement officers to exercise certain powers of LTA officers, in particular for certain active mobility offences.

The third increases the penalties for persons who cause damage to public streets.

The fourth facilitates LTA's efforts to serve notices electronically; and lastly, the Bill makes miscellaneous amendments to update provisions in the various Acts.

Let me explain each of these changes in turn.

The first set of amendments enhances our laws to improve active mobility safety. Active mobility, which includes walking, cycling, and the use of personal mobility devices (PMDs) and personal mobility aids (PMAs), has brought benefits and additional transport options to many Singaporeans. Some individuals use PMDs to take on food or package delivery jobs, while the elderly and those with walking difficulties use PMAs to get around more easily.

The AMA came into force in May this year. This laid down the framework of path-sharing rules and regulations, such as where devices can be used and what speed limits they have to adhere to. This was based on the recommendations made by the Active Mobility Advisory Panel (AMAP) in 2016 after extensive public consultation.

There are many responsible device users and cyclists who watch out for other path users, ride at safe speeds, and dismount and push their devices at crowded areas and at traffic junctions. We have also undertaken many efforts to educate and encourage safe riding practices. Since February 2018, there have been some 9,000 participants in the Safe Riding Programme.

Unfortunately, there are still reckless and inconsiderate riders who endanger the safety of others. Much concern has been expressed, including by Members of this House, about the increase in the number of accidents on public paths. To address this, LTA has stepped up its enforcement efforts since last year and has detected over 1,300 offences since May 2018. Several riders who have caused hurt in accidents have also been charged and sentenced in Court.

To further support effective enforcement against reckless behaviour on public paths, I had earlier announced that LTA will be introducing a registration regime for electric scooters (e-scooters) at AMAP’s recommendation. Clause 11 of the Bill thus introduces a new Part 3A to the AMA, consisting of new sections 28A to 28G, which lays out the legislative framework for a PMD registration regime.

The registration regime will help instil a greater sense of responsibility among owners and users of PMDs, deter reckless riding behaviour and facilitate the identification of errant users.

The new Part 3A make registration mandatory for the types of PMDs that the Minister prescribes in subsidiary legislation. As recommended by AMAP, we will start with the mandatory registration of e-scooters, which are motorised PMDs with handle-bars. It will be an offence to ride, or to cause or permit to ride, an unregistered e-scooter on public paths, knowing that, or reckless as to whether, the e-scooter is unregistered.

The applicant will be required to provide his personal particulars which will be stored in a register. This will facilitate the tracing of the person responsible when investigating offences involving a particular e-scooter. The applicant will also be required to declare that his e-scooter is compliant with the width, weight and maximum motorised speed restrictions for PMDs. This will ensure that only compliant e-scooters are ridden on our public paths. It will be an offence to make a false declaration during the registration process.

Once an e-scooter is registered, the registrant will be issued with a registration mark containing a unique registration number assigned to the e-scooter. The registrant will also be required to make and affix an identification mark, in the form of a sticker, prominently on the e-scooter. Under the new section 20A of the AMA, it will be an offence to ride the e-scooter on public paths without displaying the registration mark or identification sticker. This will make e-scooters more easily identifiable to enforcement officers and to the general public.

The new section 59A in the AMA also introduces a rebuttable presumption regime for certain active mobility offences. This is similar to the provisions under the RTA for driver-related traffic offences. If the individual owner of a bicycle, power-assisted bicycle, PMD, motorised wheelchair or mobility scooter fails to provide enforcement officers with information about the rider after a certain offence involving that device has been committed, the owner will be presumed to have been the rider who committed the offence. The owner can rebut this presumption by proving that he was not the rider at the time of the offence, such as by showing proof that he was then overseas. This reinforces the duty of owners to ensure the responsible use of their devices, and to assist with the administration of justice.

The Bill also makes amendments to the regulatory regime for motorised PMAs, that is, motorised wheelchairs and mobility scooters. PMAs enable the elderly and individuals with walking difficulties to move around. In recognition of this need, today’s law imposes fewer restrictions on PMAs. For example, there are currently no restrictions on the width, weight and device speed for motorised PMAs, and they are allowed to be ridden on pedestrian-only paths.

Unfortunately, some people have tried to take advantage of this. Irresponsible retailers have been falsely advertising non-compliant PMDs, such as overweight e-scooters with seats, as mobility scooters to circumvent our PMD regulations. This is despite the fact that these non-compliant PMDs are not designed to meet the usual specifications of mobility scooters, which have seats with back support and substantial footrests as their purpose is to carry individuals who are unable to walk or have walking difficulties. In addition to irresponsible retailers, some able-bodied users are also using PMAs to circumvent the restrictions on PMDs. This problem will likely worsen if left unchecked.

We have therefore accepted AMAP's recommendation to impose a maximum device speed limit of 10km/h on motorised PMAs. This will reduce the incentive for able-bodied users to switch to motorised PMAs, and safeguard the use of such devices for those who have genuine needs.

At the same time, this 10km/h device speed limit will not significantly impact genuine users. Most of the PMAs available today already comply with this speed limit. LTA will work closely with retailers, hospitals and voluntary welfare organisations to help PMA users adjust to the regulation.

To implement this, the Bill amends section 2 of the AMA to introduce a definition of a "non-compliant mobility vehicle" as a mobility scooter or motorised wheelchair that does not comply with regulations as to the construction of the device. The Bill also amends the AMA to prohibit the use of non-compliant mobility vehicles on public paths, and to prohibit the sale of such devices by retailers for use on public paths. This is similar to the treatment of non-compliant PMDs.

Apart from improving safety on public paths, we are also concerned about the issue of fire safety. There have been more than 80 fire incidents involving motorised PMDs since 2016. These pose serious public safety concerns.

Currently, many of the motorised PMDs sold in Singapore do not conform to any reliable safety standard. LTA has studied the safety standards available today, and determined that the UL2272 standard is suitable for application for motorised PMDs in Singapore. UL2272 is developed by an independent US certification company. Conformity with the standard under UL2272 can significantly improve the safety of motorised PMDs against fire and electrical hazards.

For public safety, we intend to require all motorised PMDs intended for use on public paths to conform to the UL2272 standard. We intend to prohibit retailers from selling motorised PMDs which are not UL2272 compliant from July 2019 onwards. Existing owners of motorised PMDs which are not UL2272 compliant can continue to use their devices until end-2020. Clause 4 of the Bill introduces a new section 19(3) into the AMA to allow the stipulation of such a grace period of usage. The use of motorised PMDs that are not UL2272 compliant on public paths will be illegal from January 2021 onwards.

To facilitate the introduction of UL2272 as a technical standard for motorised PMDs, Clause 35 introduces a new section 67A into the AMA. This allows LTA to refer to external technical standards without having to reproduce the text of the external material as part of the rule in Singapore. We will then prescribe the requirement for motorised PMDs to comply with the UL2272 standard as a device criterion under the Active Mobility Regulations.

Meanwhile, we strongly encourage owners of motorised PMDs to switch to UL2272-compliant devices as soon as possible in order to minimise the fire risk of their devices. When purchasing PMDs, consumers should try to buy from reputable sources and look out for fire safety standards. Consumers should also avoid overcharging batteries, modifying their PMDs or tampering with the electrical components of the PMDs.

The second set of amendments will strengthen LTA’s enforcement capacity.

Today, LTA has a team of over 50 Active Mobility Enforcement Officers and cross-trained officers who enforce against errant active mobility users and indiscriminate bicycle parking across the island. However, LTA’s active mobility enforcement demands have grown tremendously over the past few years, and will continue to rise as active mobility becomes more popular.

To meet LTA’s increasing enforcement needs, Clause 39 introduces new sections 11, 11A and 11B to the LTA Act to allow LTA to appoint outsourced enforcement officers (OEOs) to exercise limited enforcement powers. LTA will be able to contract suitable individuals to exercise limited enforcement powers against selected offences such as indiscriminate parking of bicycles. Another example is that the OEOs are conferred the power to examine vehicles used on public paths to ensure compliance with the AMA.

The Bill demarcates what powers these OEOs can exercise. In addition, the Chief Executive of LTA will have to explicitly authorise which of the OEOs can exercise which of these powers. The Chief Executive of LTA will also have the power to specify where and when these OEOs can exercise these powers. The Bill expressly prohibits an OEO from exercising any power of arrest. It also requires them to be in uniform and show their identification cards when exercising their powers.

The third group of amendments increases penalties for persons who damage public streets.

There have been several major oil spills and collisions between over-height vehicles and overhead structures such as pedestrian overhead bridges in recent years. These endanger the safety of road users, disrupt traffic, and incur high repair costs.

Under the SWA today, it is an offence to cause damage to public streets wilfully, but it is not an offence if the action in question is reckless or negligent. To deter such behaviour, clause 74 of the Bill changes sections 33 and 34 of the SWA in two ways:

First, it will be an offence to recklessly or negligently engage in conduct causing damage, with a penalty of up to $50,000 and/or imprisonment up to six months.

Second, the maximum fine for intentionally engaging in conduct causing damage is correspondingly increased from $10,000 to $100,000. There is no change to the maximum jail term of six months.

LTA retains the option of suing for the full cost of repair.

The fourth set of amendments facilitates LTA’s efforts to serve notices electronically.

With advances in technology, many transactions and notifications can now be done via electronic means like email and SMS. In line with our Smart Nation and Digital Government strategies, the Bill amends the various land-transport Acts to allow LTA to serve notices through electronic means, instead of solely through hard-copy letters. This will simplify the notification process and enable faster response by the recipients. LTA will obtain the person’s consent, whether express or implied, for the use of the electronic mode of service before issuing electronic notices to the person.

To facilitate this, LTA will also expand the use of its Vehicle Registration and Licensing System (VRLS), which currently allows persons to submit RTA applications and documents electronically to LTA, and allows LTA to serve RTA notices electronically through the system. New sections 43 and 43A of the LTA Act will expand the scope of VRLS to cover applications, documents and notices under all land transport legislation administered by LTA.

The final set of amendments are miscellaneous amendments to update provisions in certain Acts or to bring them in line with other Acts.

Mr Speaker, this Bill will make LTA more effective in enforcing, managing and regulating the transport system. This will provide a better and safer transport landscape for all Singaporeans.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

2.24 pm

Mr Ang Hin Kee (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill. With easier access to rental bicycles and personal mobility devices (PMDs) that the Minister has spoken about, people are finding it more convenient to move around. I agree with him that many users are responsible. But, we too know of incidents whereby pedestrians were knocked down by cyclists or PMD users who were reckless; or fires which occurred due to overheating of batteries while these devices were being charged.

It is important for device owners and users to exercise greater responsibility and ensure safety of others beyond the convenience of themselves. So, beyond the recommendations made by the Active Mobility Advisory Panel such as reducing speed limits or wearing of helmets by cyclists, I have four suggestions to make.

Firstly, infrastructure. Sir, our residential estates are densely built up with inter-connected roads and narrow footpaths. The challenge is how to best redesign existing lanes or add on new ones to accommodate all types of users. It also includes erecting more signages and clearer warning signs where it is either prohibited to use certain devices or where restrictions exist. In this regard, I am pleased that at least in Ang Mo Kio Town, we have received support from the MND to improve our town. We will be adding more dedicated lanes for cyclists and PMD users; we will be able to install clearer and standardised signages, expand existing footpaths as well as cater for more parking facilities. I hope that soon more such improvements will be made across the Island.

In this year’s Committee of Supply (COS) Debate, I also asked MOT to speed up the Silver Zone implementation so that more estates with elderly residents can have additional traffic-calming measures. I am glad that the roads around the two markets in my constituency will soon be revamped to be Silver Zones, and similarly, I hope MOT can implement more Silver Zones in more older estates sooner.

With better designed roads and pavements, more traffic-calming features, clearer signages; I think, one part of the equation to have a safer and more pleasant commute for everybody will be in place.

Secondly, what about insurance and protection? Early, the Senior Minister of State spoke about the increased number of people who were involved in accidents whereby users of PMDs, electric-bikes and so on, were the main cause of accidents.

It is currently not mandatory for PMD users to buy insurance although back in 2016, a local insurance firm launched a first-of-its-kind insurance plan that covered accidental deaths, permanent disabilities, medical expenses against injuries and third-party liabilities for that accident when riding, mounting or dismounting a bicycle or PMD. PMD users, especially frequent daily users such as, those who use it to deliver food, couriers, should take out such insurance.

On the other hand, many households are likely to be cycling or using PMDs only on a recreational basis, or infrequently. Hence, to make such insurance plans more affordable and flexible may be the way to go. So, I hope that the AMAP can work with the insurance companies to design more flexible insurance packages and coverage so that more users, whether the regular users who use them for their work or the recreational users who use them for the family, can find it easier to buy such insurance. It will be particularly important for users to be insured so that if there is an unfortunate incident of accident, the coverage can allow claims to be made from the insurance.

Thirdly, earlier we heard about enforcement against errant users and retailers. Accidents involving PMD users or bike-cyclists sometimes can involve minor injuries, at times serious injuries, and even deaths. LTA has been issuing advisories, summons, to many cyclists and PMD users for unsafe riding. I think I want to commend them for their greater and more visible enforcement actions. It has helped to highlight the importance of having people who obey and have proper riding behaviour, rather than those who are errant in their behaviour.

On the other hand, we also hear of efforts against errants retailers of PMDs and Power Assisted Bicycles (PABs) who are not compliant. I think such operations by the LTA and the Traffic Police are important and should be encouraged.

Similarly, I would like to call upon LTA to offer a listing of more than just reputable sources of retailers – a listing to which all users can go through, knowing that any items that are sold will be those that are compliant. So beyond reputable sources, I hope the Senior Minister of State can work with MOT or LTA to give a listing to assure all consumers that any devices that they purchase in Singapore will be compliant. This will enable our users to have peace of mind knowing that they have bought from retailers in Singapore who have complied with all the rules and regulations.

Finally, on educating users and general public, the Safe Riding Programme is a useful approach to education not only the young but the old and all users. I think this programme can work closer with the Traffic Police who similarly have other related programmes. If both agencies can partner and pool their resources togther, I am quite sure the 9,000 or more users or commuters who will learn and benefit from such safe riding programmes will multiple-fold in a shorter time period.

Sir, for a car-lite society to take off, we need pedestrians, cyclists, PMD users and drivers to have the right mindset when sharing public spaces, pavements and roads. So, beyond legislation and enforcement measures, what is of utmost importance is for every pedestrian, driver or PMD user to be more considerate to other users while adhering to the rules and regulations of our roads.

2.30 pm

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, earlier this year, an elderly gentleman by the name Wu Kher said to me that our regime for safe cycling has declined, pointing to the fact that in the earlier years, it was mandatory for bicycle owners to register their bicycles.

The irony of what this elderly man had said was not lost on me at all. Last year, electric bikes, otherwise knowns in our statutes as power-assisted bicycles or PABs, are required to be registered and every legal e-bike must have a number plate. Today, we are asked to pass a Bill requiring ownership of PMDs to be registered. I hope it will encourage all owners to adopt a more responsible and safe usage of their PMDs, though the extent to it remains to be seen.

I read from the Explanatory Statement to the Bill that if the registration of a registrable PMD or PAB has been cancelled, the person last registered will be treated as the owner. This seems to differ from vehicle registration and it seems to be at odds with property law principles. If the previous registered owner sells the PMD to another person, who registered it under his name, but for some reason, the registration was cancelled, it would be odd and illogical for the previous owner to be regarded as the owner again by virtue of this law alone. He would have been paid a fair price by the new owner or buyer. It may also not be fair if such previous owner has to bear any legal consequences arising from the use of the PMD which has nothing to do with him.

Also, assuming that a person has sold his PMD to another person, can the owner deregister himself unilaterally and after that legally, he would have nothing to do with what the new owner does with the PMD? Or does the owner have to make sure that the new owner registers himself? Which would not seem to be practicable again.

I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State to clarify the exact position under this provision.

Next, this Bill seems to have put the presumptive onus and burden of proof on owners in respect of their devices' technical compliance with the requirements of the law. May I ask the Senior Minister of State what recourse is available for owners who have purchased their devices from errant sellers who have wilfully misrepresented the device specifications? Also, are there any agencies or appointed operators or even fact-checking websites or apps which owners can approach to seek verification of technical compliance of their devices prior to purchase?

This Bill does not consider providing an age restriction to the use of PMDs. Two months ago, I filed a Parliamentary Question on this. But MOT has rejected my suggestion for the use of PMDs to be restricted to those who are 18 and above. May I ask the Senior Minister of State, in practice, how differently does the law treat an under-aged PMD owner or user in breach of any existing provisions of the Active Mobility Act, and of the Bill today? Does or will the under-aged offender receive the same punishment as an adult offender?

The Bill makes it an offence under the Road Traffic Act to drive a motorised wheelchair or mobility scooter on the road. While the illegal use of PMDs on roads may have grabbed all the media attention, the use of motorised wheelchair or mobility scooters on roads is not an infrequent occurrence. During the Committee of Supply debates in 2016, I said in my MOT cut, and I quote, "for the suggested ban on use of PMAs on roads to work effectively and reasonably, there must be user-friendly pavements on every road, otherwise, such a ban will not be practical or fair." Personality Mobility Aids or PMAs were previously the preferred legislative synonyms for motorised wheelchairs or mobility scooters.

Two years down the road, I still see motorised wheelchairs or mobility scooters on the roads. Near where I live, there is an elderly uncle who often rides his mobility scooter on the roads. He rides ever so slowly along the road as I wait patiently behind him in my car or sliding to the left to let him pass by. I feel so stressed for him, while he rides by calmly and oblivious to the risks which I see.

While I agree that motorised wheelchairs or mobility scooters should not be allowed on roads for safety reasons, I am quite concerned that many times, such users may be forced to use the roads because of the lack of access or constraints in access on supposed pavements or footpaths along the road. We should also take care that when there are roadworks or curb-side works, access must not be limited or be blocked at all. Will contractors be required by authorities to provide alternative off-road access for motorised wheelchairs or mobility scooters?

I would also like to ask the Government that in the case where a motorised wheelchair or mobility scooter user can prove that he was forced to access a road because the pavement or footpath has been obstructed in any way, will that be a complete defence and will he be let off?

And finally, what are the authorities' efforts to ensure that access on footpath or pavement remains unobstructed?

Mr Speaker, I had previously said in Parliament that we need to create a culture of legal, safe and considerate use of bicycles and PMDs, and consistent enforcement and adequate public education are two key elements required for creating such a culture. The Active Mobility Advisory Panel has recommended to reduce the speed limit for bicycles and PMDs on footpaths from 15 km/h to 10 km/h. this proposal has received much negative response from cyclists. As a cyclist, I can understand why cyclists feel that 10 km/h may be too slow for many cyclists. But let us not also forget that until recently, the law did not even allow bicycles on footpaths. But for the fact that this law was never adequately enforced, just as we still often see many cyclists continue to cycle against the traffic or beating the red light.

The recent change in law allowing bicycles on footpaths also coincided with the proliferation of PMDs. The poor cycling culture coupled by the lack of enforcement by authorities over the years meant that we need to create from scratch a new culture of safe and considerate use of bicycles and PMDs. This has proven to be a huge challenge. We need to engender this culture not just amongst cyclists and PMD users, but also pedestrians and other footpath users. For example, how do we get people walking on footpaths or Connectors to keep left or keep a proper look-out for other users? Public education is therefore paramount for all. Are we doing enough to educate everyone and not just cyclists and PMD users? The Active Mobility Act allows different usage of different paths by different types of bicycles or mobility devices. However, how many people are actually aware of the restrictions for each type of bicycles and mobility devices, and who and what is allowed on which paths?

I am not just referring to cyclists or mobility device owners. Walk around an HDB estate or a public park, and try asking residents or park users what are the new rules under the Active Mobility Act, and who and what is allowed on which paths? We should not be surprised to find out that many still do not know the answers. When new rules requiring members of the public to make changes to their behaviour in public, authorities have to make sure that information reach members of the public and indeed different types of path users through various means. It should never just be assumed that people must be taken to know the rule change without ensuring that the communication had been successfully done.

I will give a few examples. More than half year ago, a park connector near my home had its lines re-drawn between Kembangan MRT station and the East Coast Parkway by Marine Terrace. Most parts of the park connector had a line drawn across one-third of the path. At certain intervals along the connector, on the narrow side, there is a diagram of a person walking, painted in yellow on the path. The wider side of the path is marked with the initials PCN. Before these new lines and markings were added, most people and cyclists kept left when heading one way or the other along the connector. Since the re-drawing of lines, some who walk along the connector try to stay on the narrower part of the connector. But this part is really narrow and cannot accommodate more than two persons walking abreast. The keep left practice seems to have been abandoned by many and there is often a spill-over to the PCN part when people walked past each other in the opposite direction. Meanwhile, many continue to walk on the PCN part, including some with their pet dogs or strollers. Cyclists and PMD users are left wading through the traffic on both sides of the line, frequently unsafely, and not always through any fault of their own, depending on the traffic flow of those walking or jogging.

So, what is actually the appropriate way for the different users to use the park connector with the lines drawn in this way? To makes things worse or more confusing, between 20 m and 100 m before a road crossing, the lines and the markings completely disappear. So, what are people supposed to do when the markings disappear? Pretend that there is an invisible line and similar markings? Or we go back to keeping left? If a change is expected for such a short distance, it can be pretty chaotic too.

More importantly, how do the authorities educate the public and ensure that people get used to using such paths according to the law and in a safe and predictable manner? Since the lines and markings were first painted, I have been looking out for advisories to the public placed along the connector. I have yet to see one.

Adopting an attitude of ignorance of the law may not be an excuse, it is not going to make things better and safer for all. Those in charge will only be kidding themselves if they do.

Last month, I filed a Parliamentary Question (PQ) to the Minister for Transport asking whether any action is taken to ensure that owners of bicycles with handle-bars exceeding 700 mm length are made aware that such bicycles are not allowed on footpaths and walkways, and whether owners are given reasonable opportunity to change the handle-bars without their bicycles being impounded immediately when they are found on footpaths or walkways. I filed the PQ after some cyclist wrote to me, citing that many are still unaware of the rule change. In the Minister's answer to my PQ, Mr Khaw said amongst other things that the width limit of 700 mm has been widely publicised by LTA since 2016 through numerous platforms including videos, posters, banners, and that LTA also works with retailers, interest groups and active mobility patrol volunteers to reach out to the public about this width limit. Participants in the Safe Riding Programme developed by LTA and the Singapore Road Safety Council are also informed of this width limit.

It sounds good but has enough been done? Why are people still surprised to hear the rule change, and worse still, had their bicycles confiscated without knowing the rule change? Besides the cyclists and mobility device owners who must know the changes in law, the pedestrians and other users of footpaths must also know. This will in turn enable everyone to assert their rights, promote mutual respect and consideration between different users and hopefully, in the process, with time, bring about this change and culture. I hope the Government will consider enhancing its efforts in public education beyond its current efforts to reach out to cyclists and PMD users.

Mr Speaker, I would like to continue in Mandarin please.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, in the past two and a half years, there has been various debates in Parliament on the issue of the regulation of PMDs, electric bikes and other bicycles, as well as the introduction of shared use of footpaths by bicycles and PMDs We passed the Active Mobility Act in January 2017 which came into force earlier this year. Today we are back here again with yet more amendments to existing statutes mostly relating to the regulation of PMDs and bicycles as well as shared use of footpaths.

In recent years, as PMDs become more popular, there have been more news about accidents involving errant riders on roads and footpaths. Today, what we are debating is whether we should make registration mandatory for PMD owners. Earlier this year, an elderly man told me that he feels that the cycling regime is not as safe as before. What he meant was, in the earlier years, bicycle owners must register their bicycles. Perhaps some of still may still remember what the licence plates look like.

I have spoken before in Parliament that creating a safe riding culture for PMD users and cyclists is very important. I also mentioned that we should do it through two methods. The first is through consistent enforcement of the law, and the second is through adequate public education.

To encourage citizens to abide by the law, enforcement must be as consistent as possible so that people understand that they will not get away easily with any infraction.

Because we currently have different regulations targeting the different types of PMDs and bicycles, it is important to educate the various types of device users. Is the current scope of public education enough to cover riders of all ages?

We now run some public education courses, such as the safe riding courses organised by LTA and Singapore Road Safety Council. However, if riders are unwilling or not required to attend these courses, can they still receive the safe-riding messages?

Besides targeting riders, public education should also target pedestrians and footpath users. Our public education must be extensive, so that regardless of age, race and culture, all will have access and not just limited to those who wish to know about these messages.

Many elderly people are terrified of getting into accidents with PMDs while they are walking along the void decks or walkways. But how many people actually know what are the requirements prescribed by the law, for example, what devices are allowed to be used on which surfaces, what are the speed limits? Besides online information on the requirements of Active Mobility statutes, are such information given out at exhibitions and courses alone? Are such information given out in hard copies to every household? Are such literature in Chinese, Malay and Tamil in addition to being in English? I feel that there is still much for us to do to achieve a safe riding culture where there is a culture of safe and considerate use of PMDs and bicycles.

(In English): Mr Speaker, notwithstanding the concerns that I have raised, I support this Bill.

2.46 pm

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill. It is indeed regrettable that in our effort to improve the mobility of residents and encourage people to enjoy the outdoors without relying on the use of traditional transport like motor cars and other petrol or diesel vehicles. We are today confronted with another set of problems.

The issues that confront us is clearly placed into two categories. First, it is the lack of civic mindedness on the part of those who use these new generation mobility devices; and, two, it is the lack of strategic and forward planning on the part of the transport authorities in allowing the owners of these personal mobility devices free-reign to the public pathways and pedestrians walkways.

I feel compelled to say this of the authorities as I read the Bill which states "REGISTRATION OF REGISTRABLE PERSONAL MOBILITY DEVICES - Purpose of this Part 528A".

The purpose of this Part is to provide for the registration of personal mobility devices – (a) to enable the use of personal mobility devices on public paths to be regulated for reasons of safety and law enforcement. Yes, we should have thought of safety long before these 20-40 kg missiles go crashing into innocent pedestrians.

Now, we are constantly playing catch-up though I would say it is better than turning a blind eye or a deaf ear to the public outcry for protection against those who use their PMD recklessly.

Many residents told me that it is no longer safe to walk in Singapore. They say that they can be knocked down by PMD, bicycles anytime, anywhere. Are we too hasty to be car-lite when the mindset of our people and the infrastructure is not ready?

The Active Mobility Act seems to favour cyclists and PMD users. Why do I say that? At areas where there is high pedestrian traffic and narrow passageway, I am sure you will agree with me that it is near impossible to have both cyclists and pedestrians to co-exist. Hence, in Nee Soon South, we put up "Dismount and Push" or "No Cycling" signages, and this is to remind cyclists to refrain from cycling through these narrow passages. From time to time, there is joint enforcement action by Police and Town Council, and this is to ensure the safety of our residents in common spaces.

Recently, one resident challenged our enforcement action when he was issued with a ticket. He said he worked in LTA and he is in Active Mobility Team, and he knows that all these "No Cycling" signages are no longer legal, no longer applicable. In short, what Town Council is doing is "Tak Pa Kai". My question is: does this Active Mobility Team member like him understand the ground? Does he care about the need on the ground? Or is he more interested to push through the Act and encourage cycling at all costs?

I hope my favourite Minister can review the Act and put in place more equitable law for public safety. I think we should have heavier penalties for offenders who ride recklessly and cause serious injury to the victims. I do not think the proposed fine of $2,000, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both under section 28(3) is adequate. The penalties must have a stronger bite to wake up the would-be offenders. Also, I would like to ask: whether the Minister will consider imposing a ban for those who cause the victims to suffer serious debilitating permanent injury or death? I ask this because the victims cannot seek any compensation for the medical treatment and the continued expenses that would be incurred in looking after someone who becomes an invalid, or to be compensated for loss of a loved one.

Given that accidents involving e-scooters or PMDs can cause serious injuries to pedestrians, what is the reason for the delay in the implementation of liability insurance? How can the registration of PMDs help the victims in accidents in the claim for compensation?

Another area we need to look into is the need to take enforcement action against shops or anyone selling these PMDs, which do not comply with the new regulations or which perform illegal modifications on these devices. A strong enforcement action must be done to swoop on these outlets, some of whom may still be holding stocks of devices which do not comply with the law, and some operate out of HDB flats.

Another area that I want to raise is what about those who use their handphones when they are riding on their PMDs? Would action be taken against them? I have seen on several occasions riders looking at their handphones while they cruised down the pathways. This is another reckless behaviour that can result in an accident.

I would also like to point out that there are elderly people on their motorised wheelchairs whom I have seen watching video clips while riding on pathways. Again, this must be put to a stop. Should a pillion rider be allowed on PMD at all? The weight of one or more persons may undermine the effectiveness of the PMD braking system. Will the Minister restrict this pillion riding?

Quite often, I see very young kids, barely six to eight years old, riding as pillions on PMDs. Should we not protect these young kids? And I think it is also timely to remind all PMD users, as well as drivers of motor vehicles that they should observe the traffic rules and take precaution when on the road, at traffic light junctions, or near pedestrian crossings. This also applies to pedestrians. They should not take for granted that the other party knows or will do what you think they would do to give way, or to have right of way. Road safety and precaution must be practised by everyone.

Another question I would like to raise is: if there will be an age limit to allow a person to register a PMD? In the case of a driver’s licence, anyone aged 65 years and above needs to go for medical check-up to get a licence. Will this apply to those using PMDs in the interest of the public? In fact, it may be important for the riders to be sure they are able to manage their PMD or motorised wheelchair for their own safety, especially if they have weak eyesight, or are on medication which can impair their judgement or cause drowsiness.

Recently, there was one accident. The rider rode the PMD down a flight of staircase and injured himself. When he was sent to hospital, it was found that actually he has dementia.

Next, I would like to ask under section 28D – the Authority may cancel the registration of a registrable personal mobility device if (a) the Authority is satisfied that the personal mobility device:

(i) has ceased to be used on any footpath or shared path in Singapore;

(ii) has become wholly unfit for further use.

Can the Minister clarify how will the authorities determine if a device has ceased to be used on any footpath? Is it the onus of the owner to declare that he does not intend to use it outside his house and so he can sort of "hang up" his PMD? Secondly, can the Minister clarify when will the authorities know if the device is "wholly unfit for further use"? After all, the device is not subject to any annual inspection?

Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): It is said that better late than never. I am pleased that, finally, we will have laws to regulate these PMDs.

However, I think we need stiffer laws in several areas. For example, is the current fine of $2,000 enough to deter dangerous behaviours? Using handphones on a PMD should be treated as the same as using phones while driving, and should be banned.

Allowing a pillion rider on the PMD will cause higher impact on pedestrians in an accident. If the pillion rider is a child, the child's life could also be endangered.

In addition, the health condition and age of the PMD rider, and how well the PMD is being maintained, are areas that the Government is not checking regularly. I hope our laws can take these into consideration.

Earlier, it seemed that we had rushed to allow these PMDs on roads without considering that our infrastructure is not yet ready, and this has posed danger to pedestrians. Even the current Bill has areas that are not covered. I hope the Government can amend as soon as possible to keep our pedestrians safe.

(In English): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir.

2.58 pm

Assoc Prof Randolph Tan (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sir, this is an important Bill that recognises the need to update and improve enforcement measures relating to land transport usage.

Most notably, a large part of this Bill is related to the Active Mobility Act, which only came into force earlier this year. This is a positive sign, I believe, of the Government’s commitment to being responsive to the evolving challenges in this new area of land transport management.

Since the Active Mobility Act was passed last year, the challenges associated with the regulation of the use of bicycles and PMDs have become even more noticeable, sharpening public debate on both sides. It is very difficult not to encounter such devices in public spaces, regardless of whether one is travelling as a pedestrian, a driver or a public transport user. This brings up the question of whether the impact of the use of such devices, as well as bicycles, power-assisted bicycles (PABs) and PMDs on the majority of road users has been a positive or negative one, and whether the way we manage the use of these so-transport alternatives is on a sustainable path. There is little arguing that the movement to encourage Active Mobility has tremendous potential. And it is a worthwhile attempt to work towards the ultimate goal to promote more effective last-mile connectivity and reduce our heavy dependence on private car usage as a nation.

Despite the best of intentions, however, Sir, one of the most intractable problems we face as a nation with a heavy dependence on cars, is not the cars themselves, but the negative habits associated with heavy car usage.

These habits are familiar ones – indiscriminate parking, a lack of consideration for other road users, a refusal to adhere to rules and regulations about road use, dangerous driving, a refusal to give way, and the list goes on. These habits are not caused by the cars themselves. I have no doubt that they can just as easily, if not already, become grafted onto any forms of transport alternative, and the problems will not only persist, but grow.

Sir, what this Bill gives, a hint of already is that the challenges of enforcement of rules and regulations aimed at keeping PMDs and other devices safe for all road users are non-trivial.

At the same time, the cost of enforcement, including the outsourcing the policing work, is going to rise, as the rules are made more intricate. My understanding, Sir, is that PMDs and similar devices are meant to promote last-mile connectivity, but it seems clear that a lot of the issues that we see arise precisely because some users choose these devices as their main and preferred mode of transport.

The two are very different. Given our space constraints, the rise of PMDs and similar devices as the primary mode for making a full journey from point to point means that they have become the alternative to what had earlier been to the main modes of transport. This convenience to these individuals comes at a cost to other road users.

With this in mind, Sir, what I am concerned about is whether there has been a clear analysis of the costs and benefits involved, whether there is any reliable study into how the majority of road users have been impacted, and whether these changes are desirable. Even with the enforcement updates contained in this Bill, it is not clear if they will be up to addressing the increasingly complex challenges associated with changing usage patterns of PMDs and similar devices. It is not difficult to observe these changes and some of them cause tremendous concern. Let me just cite a few.

At any time during the night at various parts of the island, it is now not uncommon to observe groups of riders, many of them young, gathering in their helmets and e-scooters, often smoking with their electronic devices ever-ready, decked out for what appears to be long journeys in convoys that stretch and proceed at speeds that would be uncomfortably high to any pedestrian out for a night stroll. Even if these large groups of users were mostly confined to footpaths, it is hard for drivers not to notice them when they go against the flow of traffic, because of the glare of their bright headlights. Many of these groups seem to be quite uncompromising in their lack of desire to give way, as many reported incidents already show.

There is another phenomenon that I had already noticed and which I asked the hon Minister for Transport about, in an earlier Parliamentary Question at a previous Sitting. And this is a habit which appears to be becoming increasingly prevalent and which the hon Member Er Dr Lee Bee Wah earlier alluded to. This is the carrying of pillion riders. Although the Minister already clarified that the carrying of pillion riders is not prohibited under current regulations, the question as to whether it is safe for PMDs to be used to carry pillions and how it affects other road users, especially elderly and vulnerable pedestrians, cannot be dissociated from the way PMDs are currently being used.

Who will be responsible if children being ferried as pillion riders are hurt when a rider misjudges the stopping distance of his extra load, for instance?

Thus, I would like to urge the Ministry to continue to look into these enforcement issues early and to ensure that a framework that all users can benefit from in a manageable, yet cost-effective way for enforcement, becomes available earlier on.

3.04 pm

Mr Zainal Sapari (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Speaker, I support the Land Transport (Enforcement Measures) Bill. In particular, I welcome the greater regulation in the use of PMDs in Singapore in a manner that will ultimately benefit both commuters and pedestrians where safety is concerned.

In a report by The Straits Times, there were 19 reported cases of accidents involving PMDs, bicycles or electric bikes on public paths. In 2016, the figure increased to 42 and went up to 128 last year. These accidents, even if it is not fatal, can still result in serious injury as I have seen in PMD accidents that happened in my constituency. One fatal or serious accident would be one accident too many.

An accident is an experience that would be very traumatising for those involved, but further issues like compensation and civil lawsuits can further complicate the situation. Just like my parliamentary colleague, hon Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, I would like to urge the Government to consider mandating users to possess a personal liability insurance which would be tied to the registration of their PMD.

Already in Japan, Osaka City and Nagoya City require bicycle riders to have liability insurance as a condition for riding in the city. I believe this issue of having PMD users to have a liability insurance should be studied, and we could model after Japan's practice, considering Japan is far ahead in possessing a "riding culture" amongst its many commuters.

Even with the recent proposals to cut speed limit of PMD users using footpath from 15 km/hour to 10 km/hour, there has been a lot of scepticisms on its effectiveness due to challenges in enforcement and the difficulty for an average PMD user to be able to gauge its speed.

As such, accidents involving PMD users can still result in serious injuries. Broken bones may require expensive surgeries. Accidentally brushing against a car can incur thousands of dollars in compensation for repair costs. Given the younger profile of several PMD users in Singapore, an attempt to recoup thousands of dollars in damages would pose a heavy financial burden for both victim and accused, not to mention the costs involved in pursuing recourse, such as civil lawsuits.

As such, mandating personal liability insurance would not only provide better liability coverage for PMD users, but victims of accidents are able to seek proper recourse to claim their damages. Using a PMD in the presence of other pedestrians entails certain responsibilities, and I strongly believe that having a personal liability insurance is one of them.

I would go further to suggest leveraging on technology to notify users of the need to renew their insurance together with their PMD registrations annually, if such liability insurance is made mandatory. Insurance companies can tier their premium for such liability insurance depending on the risks involved in insuring different age groups.

Mr Speaker, in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]: I support the Land Transport (Enforcement Measures) Bill, particularly amendments that will be made to the Active Mobility Act. However, I would like to urge the Government to take the opportunity from this amendment to mandate the purchase of personal accident insurance coverage for users of PMDs. This is important to ensure that those who are involved in PMD accidents, particularly pedestrians, can make the necessary compensation claims for their injuries. The purchase of personal accident insurance for the usage of PMDs was introduced in several cities in Japan, and we can learn from their experience in this issue to create a safer environment for both PMD users and pedestrians.

(In English): PMDs may be a key feature in our active mobility landscape and I do not deny their value in providing alternative commuting methods for Singaporeans. However, as with the introduction of all new cultures that come with technological advancement, proper care must be taken so that we can have a greater peace of mind for all Singaporeans that share the same space. Singapore may be small, but I dare say we are not so small that we cannot cultivate a proper, responsible riding culture here as well, like those that are found in other countries.

3.09 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I rise in support of this Bill which updates the regime governing mobility vehicles and introduces a new registration requirement for certain PMDs. Mobility vehicles are sustainable alternatives that have evolved to meet the transport needs of an urban environment. When used responsibly and safely, they provide greater convenience, promote public transportation by providing first- and last-mile connections, and are themselves a form of recreation.

How the different users navigate and share public spaces in land-scarce Singapore can be a significant source of friction. Mobility vehicles are perceived as competing with pedestrians for space and posing threats to pedestrian safety. My residents regularly provide feedback about these dangers and want the Government to do more to protect residents and pedestrians. My residents also regularly see me when they get fined and say the Government is enforcing too much and needs to relax a bit when it comes to mobility vehicles. They feel there are too many restrictions.

We need to find a middle ground. As Gavin Chan highlighted to me on Facebook, we should think about longer term social norms we want to inculcate for public path and road use, whilst addressing short term pain points through legislative reforms and refinements. This should be done with the participation of all users.

To this end, I note and welcome incremental, consultative, and education-based approach the Government is taking in its regulation of mobility devices. Many of these amendments are based on observations from the implementation of the Active Mobility Act (AMA), which came into effect this year. The AMA Panel has also been very active, just recently releasing their second recommendation report. I am thus supportive of these amendments, which are based on extensive consultations, and I have just a number of clarifications to make.

I have some clarifications on the scope and implementation of the PMD registration requirement under the new Part 3A. Firstly, can the Minister clarify whether the provisions relating to registration contemplates a corporate body or company being an owner of a PMD on the register? Would it be possible, for instance, for a food delivery company to own a fleet of PMDs?

Next, can the Minister clarify whether there is an obligation on the registered responsible person to update the register upon a change of ownership or when the PMD ceases to be used? Further, can the Authority refuse registration of a PMD on the basis that the applicant had previously been convicted of mobility vehicle-related offences?

I also understand that the obligations of an owner of a PMD or PAB continue even after cancelling their registration, as the person last registered will be treated as the owner under the definition of "owner" if the registration has been cancelled. How can owners safeguard themselves against continuing liability for offences relating to a PMD or PAB, even after cancelling their registration?

Next, enforcement powers under sections 41, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 and 50 have been extended to outsourced enforcement officers. Can the Minister clarify whether enforcement powers exercised by these outsourced enforcement officers, public path wardens and volunteer path wardens are public powers that would be similarly amenable to judicial review?

Next, clause 27 amends the current section 53(2) of the Active Mobility Act to remove the requirement to make reasonable inquiry to locate the owner of a vehicle before disposing it. Can the Minister clarify the rationale for removing this requirement? Has this requirement been proven to be too onerous for LTA?

Given the new registration requirement for PMDs, it would surely be easier to locate the owner for this class of mobility vehicles. Also, the reasonable inquiry requirement might have provided a counter-balance to the expansion of the power of disposal now conferred on outsourced enforcement officers under the new section 50 of the Active Mobility Act.

Lastly, clause 3 amends section 18 of the Active Mobility Act, which includes the use of PMDs on footpaths. I support these amendments. Last year, Minister Khaw responded to a Parliamentary Question stating that footpaths in Singapore are wide enough to accommodate both pedestrians and cyclists at the same time. He stated that most of the country's footpaths are at least 1.5 metres wide, while footpaths near town centres and MRT stations are generally wider, between 2.4 metres and 3.6 metres.

In his response, Minister Khaw considered that such width is sufficient to accommodate both pedestrians and cyclists. Given that mobility devices are now permitted up to a width of 0.7 m, this leaves barely enough space when two mobility devices pass each other on a footpath that is 1.5 m wide. It needs about 0.1 m.

Thus, beyond these amendments, is the Ministry reviewing the minimum width of existing and new footpaths? Further, can the Minister provide an update on any works it has undertaken to widen footpaths that might be too narrow to safely accommodate both pedestrians and mobility vehicles?

Sir, clarifications notwithstanding, I stand in support of this Bill and the wider efforts to promote harmonious and safe use of our public paths by all.

3.15 pm

Ms K Thanaletchimi (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand in support of the Bill. In general, the amendments in the first part of the Act aimed to expand the restrictions to include mobility vehicles and motorised wheelchair, ban on all shared paths and footpath, increase accountability through registration and empower outsourced enforcement. These four areas are critical to help reduce the incidence of accidents involving PMDs, PABs, mobility vehicles and motorised wheelchairs. Nevertheless, the amendments are in line with the overall goal of encouraging more Singaporeans to adopt an active lifestyle by encouraging more alternative forms of transport in their daily commute.

On the amendments on section 41, clause 20, sufficient information ought to be circulated to the public to inform them of the conferment of power on outsourced enforcement officers. It is important that the public know and recognise the authority given to Active Mobility Patrol (AMP) and Public Path Wardens (PPW) to facilitate law enforcement. One of the difficulties faced by such volunteers was convincing people of their authority despite having LTA card. Quite a handful of cyclists and riders of PMDs do not believe that the AMP volunteers have the power to stop them. This is worrying. Recognising such authority is pivotal for the officers to carry out their jobs without fear and prejudice. Additionally, information on how to recognise and distinguish between what classifies as a PMD, PAB, or motorised wheelchair should be stepped up, to encourage awareness among the public on what is allowed for acceptable use. Public education is imperative. Sellers too need to be educated and are required to provide and display such information in a reasonably visible manner when one purchases such device.

On the amendments on section 67(2) in clause 34, the minimum age for a person to be registered should be thoroughly reviewed in tandem with evidenced based data. For example, we should look at the demographics of the individuals that were involved in accidents and then peg the pseudo legal age. We should also note that the requirement for critical judgement when riding the PMDs is no less than that required of a driver.

Food for thought to be considered. While it is a straightforward solution to ban PMDs on shared paths and footpaths, we should question the impact on people who rely on PMDs to commute to work or use it for work, such as in the case of some food delivery personnel. Additionally, we also must take special care to ensure that these new regulations do not affect users of PABs and motorised wheelchairs, which rely on these vehicles as their primary mobility aid. Instead of banning it altogether, we can consider a system where PMDs can be used on footpath during off-peak hours where human traffic flow is minimal, to minimise disruption to users with legitimate needs and uses.

In conclusion, the amendments and Bills focused extensively on fines and penalties. Moving forward, could we also consider looking towards an incentive-based scheme or system that rewards people who conform to these rules and regulations and have a clean record? To put things in perspective, instead of giving summons when one has erred, an incentive-based system could be the situation where upon registration of the mobility vehicle, a lump sum disguised as tax is collected. Upon end of every work year, should individual not err, the lump sum will be returned to that individual. Perhaps, this may invoke a healthier habit of keeping safe and conforming to the rules, rather than people trying to evade punishments.

Sir, with this, I support the Bill. Thank you.

3.19 pm

Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, the reckless users of PMDs continue to be a major public safety concern, posing risks to road users and pedestrians alike. I have witnessed some of these riders myself, speeding on their e-scooters on the road without consideration for other road users and motorists, risking their own lives and the safety of others.

Enforcement remains key. Due to the prevalence of PMDs and the wide areas of coverage, we need more enforcement officers on the ground to monitor users and ensure compliance. Hence, I welcome the introduction of outsourced enforcement officers in this Bill, which I think will be very useful and helpful for the very labour intensive task of enforcement.

We should complement and augment the efforts of our manpower resources with technology aids, such as street cameras, other high-tech devices and artificial intelligence (AI) to deter reckless users. I would like to ask the Minister if we will be tapping on technological innovations to monitor how shared paths are used and to deter all these reckless PMD riders. Besides speeding and inconsiderate riding, some riders actually break the law by using unauthorised PMDs. One of the common reasons given by such users who were caught was that they had always presumed that it was the sellers’ responsibility to ensure compliance of the devices with LTA’s regulations.

Hence, I would like to ask how LTA is going to enforce strict compliance from sellers, including online sales, so that only authorised dealers or models are imported into Singapore. This Bill will require that all e-scooters are registered and they have to display the registration mark. Does this mean that the Government intends to inspect all models available in the Singapore market? Will the process of certification of approved models also include testing of the batteries and their level of safety in the view of the number of fires due to e-scooters with substandard batteries?

Moving forward, we have to reach out to PMD users and potential users to educate them on considerate and safe riding, how to do so, the new regulations and the consequences of violating the law, including the impact on those they injure or kill, the fines and potential civil liabilities. They should also learn from where and how to buy approved PMDs. Would the Ministry share with us what other public educational measures will be implemented to reach out to all individuals and households?

Mr Speaker, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): In the past few years, accidents caused by reckless riders of PMDs have been increasing. I have personally seen, at several occasions, youngsters riding e-scooters recklessly, posing risks to road users. My residents have also given me feedback about this.

The new regulations that this Bill will implement will help improve the current situation. Firstly, all PMDs must be registered and display the registration label. As a result, the number of non-compliant ones should be greatly reduced. However, I am still worried that the Government cannot ban all illegal PMDs, so I would like to ask the Minister if there is any countermeasure.

Secondly, the authorities will be able to outsource enforcement, which will help supervise usage of PMDs and ensure that they comply with regulations. Since enforcement work is very labour-intensive, I suggest that the Government adopts more high-tech auxiliary equipment, including artificial intelligence to improve the efficiency of supervision. To make our shared paths safer, it is not a one-night process. I hope that the Government can launch more public education programmes to teach riders how to use PMDs on shared paths safely and politely. I support this Bill.

3.25 pm

Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, the increasing use of PMDs, especially among the younger crowd, has been both a boon and a bane. For the users, the devices reduce walking effort and time significantly, but the black sheep amongst them have caused injury to pedestrians, many of which go unreported.

I note with alarm the rapid increase in the number of reported accidents involving PMDs, bicycles or e-bikes on public paths from 19 cases in 2015, to 42 in 2016, and 128 in 2017. Hence, the amendments are timely. They will allow the LTA to outsource enforcement to boost the team of officers and ensure compliance with the Active Mobility Act. We will need more enforcement officers in order to have sufficient deterrent effect against errant PMD users and cyclists. So far, the enforcement has been a bit of a hit-and-miss. It is not easy to catch errant ones as there are so many users and they are everywhere, even riding their devices along common corridors and void decks of our HDB blocks, shopping malls, hawker centres, and even community centres and MRT stations.

In my constituency, we have many elderly residents who have been complaining to me about all the near-misses they have experienced. Near the Bukit Merah View Market and Food Centre, there is a short cut to access a housing estate and many PMD users zip around and through the food centre. The situation is so bad that even the stallholders complain to me. When the e-scooter users are advised not to use them in the market, some of them become aggressive. There is a palpable sense of entitlement and to them, pedestrians are obstacles which should move out of the way at the sound of their bells, if they bother to ring them.

It is unfortunate that residents no longer feel safe on shared paths. Gone are the days of leisurely walks on park connectors. One has to be perpetually on the lookout and “look-over”, that is, look over your shoulder if you do not want to be knocked down. My seniors tell me that they feel tense when they go on walks. They feel even more tense when they bring their grandchildren out. They are aware that their eyesight and hearing are no longer as good and their reactions are slower. They worry about their ability to protect the young ones in the prams and keep active toddlers out of the way of cyclists and e-scooter riders who can appear very suddenly.

Some senior citizens ask me why the Government is promoting the use of PMDs. Should we not be walking more? Allowing the proliferation of PMDs seems to go against our current drive to promote a healthy lifestyle. Many of us will remember the National Steps Challenge, which encourages the average Singaporean to walk 10,000 steps a day. Even for non-PMD users, reaching 5,000 steps is already quite difficult to achieve. For PMD users, the number of steps would definitely be far lower. I ask the Government to reconsider our stand on the use of PMDs in the context of national health and the potential disease burden.

Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): Personal mobility devices are becoming more common. In the past two years, the accidents caused by the black sheep amongst them have caused many people to be seriously injured and even unconscious, making many of us feel very angry and upset.

In my constituency, many senior citizens complained to me that they were almost knocked down by personal mobility devices. These riders are ubiquitous, in the corridors and void decks of HDB flats, department stores, food courts, and even community centres and subway stations.

In the hawker centres in my area, there are often PMD riders going through and around. Many of them are young people and ride very fast. The situation is very bad, even the stall owners complained to me. If someone try to dissuade them, some riders will become fierce in their reaction. For them, it is a given that pedestrians should always give way to them.

Unfortunately, our pedestrians no longer feel safe in sharing walkways. The old folks tell me that when they walk, they always feel very nervous, and they take every step with great apprehension.

Some older people also asked me why the Government is promoting the use of personal mobility devices. Is this not going against our healthy lifestyle movement? I ask the Government to re-examine the role of personal mobility devices, taking into account national health care and future disease burdens.

(In English): Sir, I would like to propose that we strengthen enforcement on the ground substantially. The relative lack of enforcement relative to the number of PMD users is a weak link and must be addressed. Repeat offenders must be banned from using such devices and we must have effective ways of ensuring that they comply with such bans. To ensure that we do not penalise the good riders, we can consider installing microchips with GPS in PMDs so that we have a way of tracking the usage of such devices.

I am very pleased that the Bill will make it compulsory for all e-scooters to be registered and higher fire safety standards will be introduced for motorised PMDs. There have been regular incidents involving e-scooters and many of my residents are very worried that, one day, a neighbour’s PMD will lead to fires which will engulf their homes.

Sir, safety is paramount for our residents, and while I urge for even more stringent measures to regulate PMDs, I appreciate the measures taken in the Bill which are steps in the right direction. I support the Bill.

3.31 pm

Ms Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong): Mr Speaker, I would like to focus my comments on the amendments to the Active Mobility Act 2017. The Active Mobility Act is an important piece of legislation that has allowed our society to take another positive step towards achieving the vision of a car-lite Singapore, with a sustainable public transportation system that is affordable, convenient and efficient for Singaporeans.

Personal mobility devices, power-assisted bicycles and bicycles have enabled Singaporeans, young and old, to get around with ease, improving first- and last-mile connectivity. The little to no emissions also lead to a cleaner and healthier living environment. However, pedestrians, cyclists and users of PMDs and PABs with differing needs are now using public paths that were predominantly used by pedestrians. It is, therefore, critical that a good balance is struck between the diverse needs of the various users.

The Active Mobility Act paved some way towards regulating the conduct of the different users of the public paths. However, months after the enactment of the Act, there is still much buzz on the ground about the issues faced by various path users. This proposed Bill, which brings with it more specific legislation, is, therefore, important. I would like to make some brief comments on them and revisit some of the issues raised during the last debate on the Active Mobility Bill.

The mandatory registration of certain personal mobility devices is a welcome enhancement. I note that starting with e-scooters, such process ensures that the devices are safe before they are used on the public path system. This allows for some monitoring of the mobility devices and vehicles that populate our paths. I would like to seek clarification on whether an inspection process at reasonable intervals, annually or biennially, is envisioned. These inspections may be useful to ensure continued compliance with the regulations.

There are also proposed amendments to sections 30-34 of the Act to extend the scope of the ban on display, requirement to issue warning notices, advertisement and sale of non-compliant devices and vehicles. I note that during the last debate in this House before the Active Mobility Bill was passed, there were some discussions regarding online sales and the challenges of enforcing these provisions on those sales. I note the Ministry’s position during the debate. I also note that this legislation relates to conduct in the course of business and does not currently seem to cover individuals who advertise their products through social media or through platforms like Carousell. I would like to seek clarification on this. If it does not cover individual sellers and those who carry out sales online, would the Ministry consider extending these provisions to address such sales?

There were also some discussions previously on compulsory insurance for riders of mobility devices or vehicles. I would like to revisit this point again. I believe that if personal mobility devices and mobility vehicles are here to stay, we may want to reconsider setting up requirements for compulsory insurance by the owners and riders. In 2017, it was reported there were 128 accidents involving PMDs on public paths. When such accidents take place, they inadvertently result in injuries and property damage. However, currently, the riders and users of PMDs or mobility vehicles are unlikely to be insured. If they are found to personally liable for the damages and do not have funds to cover payment for compensation or injuries and damages, the injured pedestrian may be left out in the cold. Compulsory insurance is, therefore, protection for both the rider and the injured pedestrian. It is also likely that the claims for personal injury and property damage are likely to be of small quantum and the current process and cost of filing a civil claim for personal injury could be prohibitive in nature. It might be useful to consider if personal injury claims below $ 20,000 can be decided at the Small Claims Tribunal. In any case, it would be prudent, as part of the education, for PMD users to be informed of insurance available.

Active Mobility is a lifestyle choice and it must be supported by a culture of graciousness and considerate behaviour on the part of all users of public paths. All path users, be it the cyclists, PMD or PAB users or pedestrians, have a part to play to create a safe mobility culture in Singapore. I note that there had been some grouses on the ground from riders regarding the rules on modification and speed limits. I believe there would be continued efforts in educating the public about the need to be safe on the public paths so that they may appreciate the importance of these legislation and work together to build a positive culture within our community.

Mr Speaker, notwithstanding my comments, I support the Bill.

3.36 pm

Miss Cheng Li Hui (Tampines): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. There are currently two major groups of PMD users – the leisure users and the people who need them as a tool for their daily work. Most commonly seen on the streets are food delivery persons. The current proposed registration regime requiring all users to affix an identification mark prominently on their device is the first step towards striking down errant users and penalising them for their reckless riding habits and behaviour. The feedback I have heard from my residents is that it is often the food delivery riders who speed and ride more recklessly. It might be because they are remunerated on a per-trip basis.

I would, therefore, like to suggest that the food delivery service providers also play their part in taking responsibilities towards the riding culture of their representatives. For example, they should provide third-party liability insurance for their riders. We know that incidents caused by PMDs can be fatal or cause very serious injuries. The victims' medical bills can run high. Therefore, mandating some form of insurance coverage for users who utilise PMDs as a tool for work is beneficial for all stakeholders. Delivery service providers should also take charge of their riders and incentivise or penalise them according to their track records. It is the basic right of everyone to feel safe on our footpaths. Every injury or fatality caused by PMDs is unnecessary and avoidable. I, therefore, support measures to enhance enforcement capabilities. Of course, we ideally hope to live in a society where everyone is a considerate and gracious road and path users. But the current state of affairs is such that more enforcement is needed to curb errant PMD users and improve the safety of our footpaths.

Mr Speaker, safety issues regarding PMDs are not confined to the pathways. We have seen frequent cases of PMD-related fires and there was such a fire case in ward just last month. The mattress caught fire from the battery which was charging. Fortunately, the residents were home and put the fire out and no one was injured. On the ground, we have been advising residents not to overcharge devices or leave them charging overnight. We need to do more to educate good safety and user habits.

Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding my suggestions, this Bill is a step in the right direction and I support it.

3.39 pm

Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill. With the increase in disamenities arising from the explosive growth of Personal Mobility Devices (PMDs) and the introduction of bicycle sharing into our land transport landscape, it is timely that we make the necessary amendments to our laws to tighten enforcement and safeguard public interest. We need to ensure a safe and harmonious sharing of public amenities, such as roads and pathways, for our people. However, I would like to seek some clarifications and I have some suggestions for the Ministry to consider.

First, Mr Speaker, I broadly agree with the intent of outsourcing enforcement actions. The new laws can only be effective if they are supported by sustained enforcement actions. The outsourced enforcement officers can be an important supplementary force when it comes to enforcement, as it would not be prudent for the LTA to employ hundreds more enforcement officers. It is, therefore, important that these officers be adequately trained as an authorised representative of LTA as they represent Government authority when carrying out their duties. Under section 11(1)(d) of the proposed amendments to the LTA Act, Outsourced Enforcement Officers “must have suitable qualifications or experience”. I would like to clarify what would constitute “suitable qualification or experience” that the LTA has deemed suitable for this job.

Mr Speaker, LTA rolled out the Volunteer Public Path Wardens Programme last year to build up a core group of volunteers with enforcement powers and cultivate good riding habits through the community. Was this programme successful? What lessons have LTA learnt from the programme? I am of the view that Volunteer Wardens and the Outsourced Enforcement Officers can, and should complement each other in keeping our shared pathways safe for all users. That said, will the LTA also consider using technology to reduce the reliance on manpower for enforcement? For example, having a common fleet management system to track and monitor the use of all active mobility devices could better aid in the deployment of the limited ground resources.

On the topic of PMDs, I note that the Ministry has recently accepted the Active Mobility Advisory Panel’s recommendations to require cyclists and PMD users to stop at road crossings and look out for vehicles before resuming their journeys. I welcome this move, as between 2016 and 2018, 80% of accidents involving PMDs were due to PMD collisions with vehicles. Videos of PMDs speeding across crossings, even when the traffic lights were not in their favour, have been widely circulated on social media. However, if the proposed measure to stop and look out for vehicles at road crossings fails to yield a reduction in the number of accidents at such road crossings, would the Ministry consider introducing rules to mandate dismounting the PMD at road and zebra crossings?

Mr Speaker, the active enforcement of safety rules must be done together with adequate and proper training of PMD users, including young users, to prevent avoidable accidents. Much like how we would be required to pass a test before being allowed to drive a motor vehicle, would the LTA consider making training mandatory for PMD users? For a start, to minimise costs and administrative work, training could be conducted online, with users taking a quiz to ensure that they have sufficient safety knowledge prior to registration and riding of a PMD.

Alternatively, introducing signs, such as “stop and look out for oncoming traffic” at suitable road crossings could potentially help in reminding PMD users to take ownership to ride safely and work towards the safe sharing of pathways for the people around them.

Mr Speaker, there is an average of three accidents a month involving pedestrians and PMD users. Some of the pedestrians involved in these accidents had suffered very serious injuries. This begs the question on whether third-party liability insurance should be made mandatory for PMD users. The virtue of mandatory insurance would ensure that victims would get a justified amount of compensation and the offending PMD users would not escape the consequences of their action. Adopting a similar liability and compensation framework as per motor vehicles could go a long way in ensuring that the victims would not be overly burdened by medical expenses in the event of a serious accident.

In the overall active mobility ecosystem, PMD retailers play a crucial role as a gatekeeper of compliant models into the market. Section 32 of the Active Mobility Act acknowledges this, and the Bill makes further refinements on what the retailer can advertise. However, the regulations seem to place the emphasis solely on physical brick-and-mortar retail shops which, presumably, are easier to enforce against. But what about online retailers selling non-compliant devices?

Some weeks back, The Straits Times featured a story about an online seller operating out of a HDB flat in Yishun and he had more than 40 e-scooters stocked up in the 4-room HDB flat. In the article, a buyer commented that his e-scooter battery bought from this online retailer became faulty after just 10 days, while a neighbour was worried about the possibility of a fire breaking out in this "home warehouse". I too share the same worries. We have already seen an increasing number of cases where PMDs, presumably non-compliant ones, had caught fire when their batteries were charging. I urge the Ministry to put in place measures to block the online sale of such non-compliant PMDs.

Mr Speaker, the strict rules governing PMDs have seen some unscrupulous retailers turning to selling motorised wheelchairs as PMDs to circumvent these restrictions. Motorised wheelchairs are meant for use by the disabled and the elderly. These motorised wheelchairs can be costly to purchase, particularly for those with severe conditions and have financial constraints. Expanding the Active Mobility Act to govern these motorised wheelchairs could therefore have a negative impact on the most disadvantaged within our society. I would like to ask the Minister, how many of the current models of motorised wheelchairs would be considered as non-compliant, and if the LTA would have an appeal board to evaluate and grant exemptions on a case-to-case basis or deserving cases.

Mr Speaker, incidents that damage road infrastructure and cause massive disruptions to our road transport network often come with high costs. Besides the large repair bill, there is significant impact to work productivity and economic opportunities. I therefore support the Bill's proposal to increase the maximum fine for intentionally causing significant damage, from $10,000 today to $100,000. However, this sum can be minor especially if charged against big companies. I would like to ask if the Ministry would consider an option to impose a multiple factor in the penalty for large corporations, so that we can better deter such incidents from happening.

In conclusion, as a former police officer, I deeply understand the challenges faced in enforcement work. It is not easy. Where possible, we should embrace Smart enforcement and reduce our reliance on manpower. Educating our growing number of PMD users through some form of mandatory training would also go a long way in ensuring that safety remains a key priority even as the PMD users are scooting about Singapore. With that, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Dr Lam.

3.48 pm

Dr Lam Pin Min: Mr Speaker, I thank the Members for their queries, suggestions and support for the Bill. Let me first address Members' concerns about active mobility in general before moving on to the specifics of the Bill.

Several Members of the House have emphasised the importance of safety on public paths – I cannot agree more. When the Active Mobility Advisory Panel (AMAP) released its recommendations on measures to enhance path safety in end-August and when the Government announced our acceptance of the recommendations in early September, we similarly heard many comments about path safety, with some members of the public advocating for personal mobility devices (PMDs) to be completely banned from public paths.

Mr Speaker, to address Assoc Prof Randolph Tan's question, our view is that active mobility has brought benefits to many Singaporeans. It provides more first-last mile options, and complements the more traditional modes of transport. Active mobility devices provide new mobility options to those with walking difficulties and relatively cheap and convenient options for commuting or even for the purpose of work. Many Members of the House, including Mr Zainal Sapari, Mr Louis Ng and Ms Rahayu Mahzam, have acknowledged these benefits.

Rather than banning these devices, we should strike a balance to allow us to harness the potential of active mobility while mitigating the disamenities. We have therefore put in place a system of rules and regulations to govern the usage of devices on public paths. Each measure should not be seen in isolation. We also complement these with strict enforcement efforts, widespread education measures and infrastructural improvements where we can.

We recently accepted AMAP's recommendations to further improve the safety of path-sharing. This includes mandating the registration of e-scooters, implementing a device speed limit of 10km/h on personal mobility aids (PMAs), mandating helmets for active mobility device users on roads, and mandating "stop and look" at traffic crossings.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Mr Zainal Sapari, Ms Rahayu Mahzam, and Mr Melvin Yong called for third-party liability insurance to be made mandatory. AMAP had considered the impact of this on the diverse group of active mobility users, and determined that it was ultimately more important to prevent accidents from happening in the first place. We agree with the Panel and will instead strengthen regulations to safeguard the safety of path users. With regard to Ms Rahayu Mahzam's suggestion of tapping on the Small Claims Tribunal for personal injury claims up to $20,000, we understand that the Tribunal does not hear personal injury claims. Instead, we have accepted the Panel's recommendation to raise awareness of, and accessibility to, existing avenues of seeking compensation, such as working with the Singapore Mediation Centre on making mediation more readily accessible.

As Mr Ang Hin Kee and Miss Cheng Li Hui have suggested, we will continue to strongly encourage and promote the take-up of third party liability insurance, focusing on large employers of active mobility device users such as food delivery companies. Some companies, such as Deliveroo, already provide insurance for their riders and we encourage all other companies to do so as well.

Miss Cheng Li Hui pointed out that food delivery companies also need to play their part to ensure their riders ride safely. We agree – this is part of their duty under the Workplace Safety and Health Act. The Ministry of Manpower, LTA and the Traffic Police have issued a joint circular to delivery companies with concrete suggestions of steps they can take. Delivery companies should monitor the riding behaviour of their riders, for instance, by providing an avenue for public reporting, and also train and educate their riders on the active mobility regulations and safe riding behaviours.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Ms Joan Pereira also spoke about increasing penalties for riders who cause serious injury to victims. Under the Active Mobility Act, individuals who ride recklessly can face up to $5,000 in fines and up to six months' imprisonment. Those who cause grievous hurt can face even higher penalties under the Penal Code – in the case of a rider riding rashly, he can face up to $10,000 in fines and up to four years' imprisonment. To answer Mr Dennis Tan's query, the criminal justice system has different mechanisms for dealing with offenders who are under the age of 21.

I thank Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Assoc Prof Randolph Tan and Ms Thanaletchimi for raising other potential areas for review, including pillion riders, handphone restrictions and an incentive-based system to encourage safe riding. While these issues lie outside the scope of this Bill, I assure Members that we work closely with AMAP to continually review our active mobility rules and regulations, and we will take these suggestions into account when discussing the key areas of review with AMAP. I would also like to reassure Mr Melvin Yong that we will certainly monitor the situation after AMAP's recommendations are implemented, and review the measures as necessary, depending on the prevailing situation.

I would like to assure Ms Joan Pereira and Miss Cheng Li Hui that we also undertake strong enforcement efforts. LTA's team of 50 Active Mobility Enforcement Officers (AMEOs) have issued over 3,000 advisories for unsafe riding on paths. With enhanced enforcement powers under the AMA since May 2018, LTA has stepped up its enforcement efforts and has detected over 1,300 active mobility offences between 1 May and 15 August 2018. The measures in this Bill, including the PMD registration regime and the empowerment of outsourced enforcement officers, will further strengthen our enforcement efforts.

I thank Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Mr Melvin Yong for their suggestions to adopt technology in our enforcement efforts. LTA is conducting a trial to study the effectiveness of mobile close circuit televisions (CCTVs) in identifying and reducing errant riding behaviours along public paths. We will continue to explore how technology can enhance and complement our enforcement efforts, so as to allow us to be effective while being manpower-lean.

We enforce strictly against retailers in Singapore that sell non-compliant devices for use on public paths. LTA recently conducted an enforcement blitz against 18 retailers, and seized a total of 18 PMDs and two power-assisted bicycles (PABs) for non-compliance. We agree with Er Dr Lee Bee Wah on the need to continue to enforce against such errant retailers and will continue to take a strong enforcement stance towards them. We also wish to inform Ms Thanaletchimi that LTA can require retailers to display notices about the different types of devices and the relevant device criteria at their premises. To address Mr Dennis Tan's concern, members of the public are encouraged to report retailers who wilfully misrepresent the device specifications to LTA and we will not hesitate to take firm action against such retailers.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Ms Rahayu Mahzam and Mr Melvin Yong have asked about online retailers of PMDs. Where feasible, LTA engages online marketplace operators to remove postings of non-compliant devices, most of which are agreeable to doing so. However, some online retailers are based overseas which limits our ability to enforce against them. Ultimately, PMD users must also exercise caution and take personal responsibility in choosing the device to buy and ride on public paths. It is in the consumers' interest to check that the devices they buy comply with the device criteria. Non-compliant devices will not be allowed to be registered, and those used on public paths will be confiscated.

We will continue to monitor the situation, including studying Mr Ang Hin Kee and Mr Dennis Tan's suggestions to raise public awareness of the legitimate retailers who sell compliant devices and of the popular device models which comply with our device criteria.

As Mr Ang Hin Kee, Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Ms Rahayu Mahzam have highlighted, educational efforts are important to cultivate a culture of safe and gracious path sharing. We have rolled out several public education outreach initiatives along with the Safe Riding Programme (SRP) for active mobility users. As I earlier mentioned, over 9,000 riders have gone through the SRP since it was launched in February this year. Delivery riders, such as those from Deliveroo, have also attended the programme. We encourage all active mobility device users to attend the SRP to learn and practise safe riding behaviours.

Let me also reassure Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Melvin Yong that we will continue to do our utmost to educate active mobility interest groups, schools, and the migrant worker community on safe riding. It is probably not necessary at the moment to have mandatory training, but we will certainly expand our outreach and engagement efforts to all members of the public.

Our active mobility infrastructure also helps to safeguard the safety of path users. I would like to reassure Mr Melvin Yong that we have already started implementing measures such as appropriate signs reminding active mobility device users to slow down or watch out for traffic. We will continue to do so. Mr Louis Ng asked about the width of footpaths. New footpaths with no adjacent cycling paths will now be 1.8 metres wide, wider than the previous minimum width of 1.5 metres. Apart from this, we are building dedicated cycling infrastructure where possible, and introducing pedestrian priority zones (PPZ) at locations along cycling paths with potentially high pedestrian-cyclist interactions. We will continue to improve our infrastructure island-wide, but these will take time to implement.

I would also like to thank Er Dr Lee Bee Wah for the clarification on an example of disallowing the use of PMDs in Town Council areas. I would be happy to get more details from her on the case and advise her accordingly. But it will be sufficient for me to remind Members of the House that the Active Mobility Act serves to ensure that all public paths are made available for the use of active mobility users, and that rules are applied consistently so that users will not be confused with different rules at different areas.

I hope I have addressed the Members' concerns about active mobility safety. As with the introduction of any new mode of transport, it will take time for all user groups to adjust. As Mr Ang Hin Kee and Mr Louis Ng pointed out, ultimately, the key is for Singapore to develop a safe and gracious sharing culture for our public paths, where everyone plays a part in keeping our paths safe.

I will now move on to address the Members' questions on the Bill. I thank Members for their support of the e-scooter registration regime. As mentioned earlier, applicants will have to declare that their device is compliant with the device criteria upon registration. Ms Rahayu Mahzam had suggested undertaking measures to ensure continued compliance with the device criteria. We will consider appropriate measures and will continue to enforce against non-compliant devices found on public paths.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Mr Louis Ng asked about the parties that can register PMDs. Companies can own and register PMDs. We will take into account Er Dr Lee and Ms Thanaletchimi's feedback when deciding on the age for individuals who wish to register PMDs.

Mr Louis Ng asked whether LTA can refuse to register PMDs for individuals who were previously convicted of active mobility-related offences. However, prohibiting the individual from registering a PMD does not prevent them from riding PMDs that they rent or borrow. Instead, it is better to educate them on safe riding behaviours. This is why we have made it mandatory for reckless riders to attend the Safe Riding Programme before they may compound their offence.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked about circumstances in which PMDs can be deregistered. We expect the bulk of deregistrations to be due to applications by the registrant, and LTA de-registering non-compliant PMDs. Legislatively, we have also provided for deregistration if LTA is satisfied that the device has ceased to be used on any footpath or shared path, and if the device is wholly unfit for further use. This is intended to cover scenarios like a deceased person's next-of-kin applying to deregister a PMD with sufficient proof of disposal, or when the PMD has deteriorated and is no longer serviceable.

Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Louis Ng asked how registrants should deal with changes of ownership or when their PMDs cease to be used. If the registrant has sold his PMD to another person, he should apply to LTA to transfer the registration to the buyer. If the registrant has ceased to use the PMD, there is currently no legal obligation for him to deregister the PMD. However, it is in his interest to do so as he would otherwise continue to be held responsible for the PMD. LTA will facilitate this by reminding registrants to deregister their devices if they are no longer being used. Owners should also ensure that their PMDs are properly disposed of to prevent subsequent misuse. This will ensure that they do not face the situation of continuing liability that Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Louis Ng highlighted.

Mr Melvin Yong asked how the 10km/h device speed limit will impact genuine users of PMAs. We share his concern, too. This is why AMAP has consulted agencies involved in eldercare and with the disability community. We understand that occupational therapists do not generally recommend devices that travel above 10km/h for the patients' own safety. AMAP also found that the vast majority of PMAs available in the market today already comply with this device speed limit. Thus, genuine users of PMAs should have little difficulty in complying with the new criterion. For those users that may require more assistance to comply, we will explore what we can do to assist them.

Mr Dennis Tan also asked about whether PMA users would be allowed on roads if the footpaths are obstructed. It is not an offence for PMA or PMD users to ride on roads in such a situation, but they should travel along the road only for the distance necessary to avoid the obstruction.

Ms Joan Pereira, Miss Cheng Li Hui and Mr Melvin Yong expressed concern about fires caused by motorised PMDs. As earlier mentioned, we intend to require all motorised PMDs used on public paths to conform to the UL2272 standard. We intend to prohibit the sale of devices that do not comply with UL2272 from July 2019, and use of these devices on public paths from January 2021. I would also like to clarify with Mr Gan Thiam Poh that this is a separate initiative from the e-scooter registration regime. Devices will be certified according to UL's testing requirements.

I thank Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Ms Joan Pereira and Mr Melvin Yong for their support for the amendments relating to outsourced enforcement officers (OEOs). I would like to reassure Members that we have put in place many safeguards to prevent the abuse of powers. I have earlier mentioned the explicit authorisation that they will have to receive from the Chief Executive of LTA on the powers they can exercise. They have to be in uniform and display their identification card.

To address Ms Thanaletchimi’s concern, uniforms will make the OEOs more recognisable to the general public. We will also undertake publicity measures to ensure the public is aware of the powers conferred on the OEOs. To answer Mr Louis Ng’s question, OEOs are subject to broader checks and balances when exercising their statutory powers, including possible judicial review, as are other enforcement officers, such as the Police and LTA officers.

Mr Melvin Yong asked about the qualifications and training of OEOs. Suitable qualifications include the private security guard licence as well as relevant security industry certifications, such as WSQ qualifications. LTA will also ensure that the OEOs are suitably trained and have the necessary skillsets to carry out their functions safely and efficiently.

I would also like to clarify with Mr Louis Ng that the amendment to section 50 of the AMA provides OEOs with the power to seize vehicles which are connected with offences under the AMA, such as non-compliant PMDs. OEOs will not be granted powers of disposal under the AMA. Mr Louis Ng also asked why the Bill removes the need for LTA to locate the owner prior to disposing of a vehicle under section 53 of the AMA. This is because section 50 of the AMA already requires LTA to notify the owner, if known, of the seizure.

Mr Melvin Yong asked whether the proposed penalties for causing damage to road infrastructure are sufficient to deter companies. Apart from raising the fine for intentionally engaging in conduct causing damage from $10,000 to $100,000, LTA also retains the option of suing for the full cost of repairs.

Mr Speaker, I would like to thank all the Members who have spoken on this Bill and the many valuable suggestions and comments they have given. In summary, this Bill supports our vision for a better and safer transport system by enhancing LTA's enforcement and regulatory powers. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

4.08 pm

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Thank you, Sir. I have two clarifications. Just now, the Senior Minister of State talked about compensation via mediation and this is provided both parties agree to attend the mediation. My question is: what if one party refuses to attend the mediation or the end result of mediation is not satisfactory? What recourse does the injured party have, besides taking legal action?

Second question is, Nee Soon Town Council has our by-law where no cycling is allowed in open spaces and common areas. Can this continue to be implemented under the new Active Mobility Act (AMA) or otherwise?

Dr Lam Pin Min: I would like to thank Er Dr Lee Bee Wah for the two supplementary questions. On her first question on compensation avenues, currently there are three ways where the victim of accidents can seek compensation. The one which Er Dr Lee Bee Wah mentioned was through a private settlement via mediation. Of course, if the parties can reach an agreement, such an agreement can be enforced via a contract. The other possible avenue where victims can seek compensation is through civil action, that is, to pursue a civil claim. For this, the victim may have to initiate legal proceedings against the cyclist or the person who caused the injury. And if the court rules in favour of the victim, then the court will order the defendant to pay damages to the plaintiff. The last modality where victims can seek redress is to file a police report of the incident and the police will then carry out investigations to establish the cause and liability and, depending on the outcome of the investigation, the offender may be charged for offences like speeding or reckless riding under the AMA or for causing grievous hurt to others by a rash act under the Penal Code. If the offender is found guilty, then the court may also decide on the compensation amount that the injured person will receive.

On the second question on the town council by-laws, the Active Mobility Act applies to all public paths, including paths in town council areas. Therefore, town councils are not allowed to ban PMDs on paths or enforce any by-laws that defer from the provisions in the AMA. The AMA will take precedence. The only exception to this are void decks. Void decks are excluded from the AMA because they are not critical for connectivity and the safety concerns at void decks are also stronger because of the layout such as pillars. There may be many blind spots present. And for this, Town Councils can choose to enact their own by-laws relating to the use of active mobility devices in void decks. Like I have said, LTA will be happy to find out the details from Er Dr Lee Bee Wah on the incident or the example that she brought up, and we will work with the Town Council to see how we can better address some of the safety concerns in those areas mentioned by the Member.

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just a clarification to what the Senior Minister of State has just said about the right to commence action in court. Yes, there is such a right to commence action in court. But if the injuries are not very serious, the legal cost of commencing such an action may not be very worthwhile for parties to commence action in court. So, in effect, for many people who suffered injuries which are not very serious in such incidents, the right of recourse to the courts may well be just an academic one.

Dr Lam Pin Min: I would like to thank Mr Dennis Tan for that clarification. Indeed, he is right. Other than those avenues that I have mentioned, most importantly, we need to educate road users, path users as well as PMD users on the right etiquette to ride responsibly and safely. With that, we hope that such incidents or accidents can be minimised.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah: Thank you, Sir. I would like to reiterate. As I have mentioned in my speech, there are areas where there are very narrow passageways, not at the void decks. It could be between two coffeeshops or between two supermarkets. I think LTA should give town councils more leeway to manage the town council area. They know which are the areas that are dangerous and which are the areas that have high pedestrian traffic. I hope that LTA can amend the Active Mobility Act in this aspect so that the residents are safe at all times.

Dr Lam Pin Min: I thank Er Dr Lee Bee Wah for the comment and I agree with her that safety of the users is paramount. I have also mentioned that we will work with her to see how we can address some of these concerns. There can be other mitigating measures like making those vulnerable areas Pedestrian Priority Zones (PPZ) so that PMD users will exercise due diligence and caution when approaching such places and also, for road users or pathway users, to exercise caution as well to prevent potential incidents from happening. I take it that Er Dr Lee Bee Wah is very passionate about this issue and that she is very concerned about the safety of her residents and so are we; and we will work with her to see how we can best address these concerns.

Mr Speaker: Mr Zainal Sapari.

Mr Zainal Sapari: I think even with the best education, it only requires one irresponsible PMD user to cause an accident. If let us say, the amount of compensation is huge, even after taking a legal recourse, the PMD users might not be able to pay that kind of compensation due to financial difficulty. What recourse then would the accident victims have in such a situation?

Dr Lam Pin Min: I would like to thank Mr Zainal Sapari for the supplementary question. And, indeed, these are issues that LTA, together with MOT, do grapple with to see how we can best address them and, of course, one of the ways to address this issue is to encourage PMD users to purchase third party liability insurance. We will work with the General Insurance Association as well as insurance companies to explore ways to make third party insurance more affordable and more accessible. We are also considering whether we can include the option of bundling third party liability insurance into the sale of the PMDs so that when PMD users purchase their PMDs, it comes with third party liability insurance as well.

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. – [Dr Lam Pin Min].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.40 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.20 pm until 4.40 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.40 pm.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]