Harnessing Technology for Better Road Safety Outcomes in Singapore

ADJOURNMENT MOTION

The Deputy Leader of the House (Mr Zaqy Mohamad): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That Parliament do now adjourn."

Question proposed.

Harnessing Technology for Better Road Safety Outcomes in Singapore

Mr Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.

5.36 pm

Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, in the 1970s, as a boy growing up at the JTC flats at 14th mile, Sembawang, my best friend then was my neighbour, Mani. He was living in the flat right above mine. He was several years older than me.

To me, he was the elder brother I never had. We had always played together almost immediately after we returned from school. He taught me how to ride the bicycle and we played chess together, too.

We went on many a cycling trip together, such as to the nearby beach at 15th mile, the cinema along Canberra Road or the public swimming pool at Deptford Road. Those were, indeed, carefree days.

Mani passed away around the early 1990s in a road traffic accident. It happened shortly after he got married. He was riding a motorbike then. It was a double tragedy for the family as his pillion rider, his grandfather, died in the same accident, too.

For the first three months of this year alone, there are 19 people like my friend Mani, and two, like his grandfather, the pillion rider. This is a much higher figure, compared to the corresponding period in the previous two years. I will discuss this worrying trend later in my speech.

Families of the victims of road accidents who die or suffer crippling injuries would also have to bear the pain and consequences of road traffic accidents permanently.

The unfortunate reality is that, every year, there are a significant number of road traffic fatalities and serious injuries here and elsewhere. Globally, about 1.35 million people are killed on roads across the world every year. The number of serious injuries amounts to between 20 and 50 million annually.

Such incidents carry major economic impact, too. Based on a 2019 research paper entitled "The Global Macroeconomic Burden of Road Injuries: Estimates and Projections for 166 countries" published in The Lancet, both fatal and non-fatal injuries are estimated to cost the world US$1.6 trillion for the period 2015-2030.

Lives have intrinsic and economic value, both of which are lost in accidents. But it is not realistic to think about totally eradicating road accidents. This is a point that Lord Sumption, the famous former UK Law Lord, put across pithily in his Reith Lecture in 2019. He said, "Think about road accidents. They are, by far, the largest source of accidental, physical injury in this country. We could almost completely eliminate them by reviving the Locomotive Act of 1865 which limited the speed of motorised vehicles to four miles an hour in the country and two miles per hour in towns. Today, we allow faster speeds than that, although we know for certain that it will mean many more people being killed or injured, and we do this because total safety would be too inconvenient. So, eliminating risk is not an absolute value, it is a question of degree."

Sir, if it is a question of degree, then I think there is a case for Singapore to strive to achieve lower rates of fatalities and serious injuries arising from road accidents.

Singapore's roads are relatively safe when a comparison is done on a country-by-country basis. Based on WHO figures, Singapore's road traffic fatality rate per 100,000 population, or RTF rate, for 2019 was reported at 2.09, which was amongst the lowest in the world. It continues to be so.

But the picture becomes a little different when we compare our RTF rates with several metropolitan cities in advanced countries.

Consider Hong Kong. Looking at its 2018-2022 figures, it has about 800,000 vehicles on its roads. That translates to roughly about 200,000 less than ours for the same period. We have slightly under one million vehicles on our roads. Hong Kong's resident population is, however, higher than ours at 7.4 million. In comparison, our resident population is about two million smaller.

The average RTF rate per 100,000 population for Hong Kong for the period 2018-2022 is 1.43. In comparison, ours is 1.92 for the same period.

Next, let us look at London. London has more motor vehicles and a much bigger population. In 2022, London has 2.6 million registered vehicles. Its population is about 8.8 million. In 2022, 101 people were killed on London roads. This leads to an RTF rate per 100,000 population of 1.15. Ours is 1.92 in 2022.

Finally, I come to Tokyo. Tokyo's metropolitan area is amongst the most densely populated cities in the world with a population of 37 million as at 2022. However, it has only about three million vehicles comparatively. The 2022 RTF rate for Tokyo was reported as 0.94 which is much lower than ours at 1.92 in 2022.

Man for man, Singapore loses more lives than Hong Kong, London and Tokyo. We, however, compare favourably with cities, such as Seoul City, which had an RTF rate of 2.18, compared to our 1.46 in 2020, and New York, which had an RTF rate of 2.87, compared to our 1.92 in 2022.

I fully appreciate that the vehicle mix in each of the cities is different from Singapore's. However, the short point I am making is that, notwithstanding the limitations of my research, it is reasonable to infer that whilst we have done relatively well in terms of ensuring a high level of road safety on our roads, there remains room for improvement.

Sir, what precipitated my decision to file this speech is the alarming fatality figures for motorcyclists and pillion riders in the first quarter of 2023, compared to the same period in 2022 and 2021.

As we all recognise, motorcyclists and pillion riders are amongst the most vulnerable road users. Between 2018 and 2022, motorcyclists and pillion riders accounted for 50.7% of road traffic fatalities.

I filed a Parliamentary Question (PQ) that came up for answer in May 2023 concerning fatalities amongst motorcyclists and pillion riders. The answers revealed that the fatality figure for the first quarter this year is double that of the corresponding figure in the same period for 2022 and 2021.

In an article in a Straits Times dated 7 May 2023, Mr Bernard Tay, Chairman of the Singapore Road Safety Council, was reported as saying, "The figure is alarming, but it needs to be analysed further to understand the number better."

I fully agree with Mr Tay's suggestion and would respectfully commend it to the Government for its consideration.

Anecdotally, I have received feedback from my residents in Bukit Batok on the matter, too. Mr Hairul, aged 32, is an Auxiliary Police Officer who is deployed at Changi Prison Complex. He travels to and fro his workplace via motorcycle. He told me he has noticed an uptick of motorcyclists weaving in and out of traffic at great speed and without signalling early. He also noticed a higher number of drivers who are using their mobile phones while driving and not being conscious of blind spots when making turns.

There are many amongst us who are concerned about the safety of delivery motorcycle riders who have a high cognitive tax on them each day on the road, including the need to look at mobile phone apps and the stresses from wanting to make as many delivery trips as possible.

The Police, in its statement, stated that the causes for the uptick include motorcyclists failing to maintain a proper control of their bikes, not keeping a proper lookout and disobeying traffic light signals.

Sir, the Government needs to act decisively to arrest this worrying trend. I do appreciate that the Government has already been taking active steps to enhance road safety over the years. For instance, just within a space of three years between 2019 and 2021, the Road Traffic Act was amended twice with a suite of measures, including the enhancing of criminal sanctions, to deter irresponsible driving and improve road safety. These amendments received broad support from hon Members of this House.

To my knowledge, Traffic Police has been actively enforcing these provisions against offending motorists, especially against those who are caught speeding and beating red lights. These are often cited as the top two reasons for accidents. The officers of Traffic Police deserve our full support in their enforcement efforts.

The hon Minister for Home Affairs, in answer to my PQ, also highlighted that the Traffic Police, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and the Singapore Road Safety Council have implemented various initiatives to strengthen road safety awareness amongst road users. Indeed, the Minister's three-pronged approach of making our roads safer through education, engagement and enforcement has much to commend for itself.

LTA has also taken several important steps to make our roads safer for us. For instance, pursuant to a PQ that I filed in 2022, the hon Minister informed that the introduction of the non-discretionary Red Amber Green (RAG) right-turn signals at junctions where there is a higher risk of accidents has reduced instances of accidents by 40%. That is commendable.

LTA also has other initiatives, such as setting up Silver Zones, appropriate road markings, lighted road studs, integrated pedestrian countdown timers and signs. All these moves, cumulatively, are in the right direction.

Notwithstanding, I believe there is scope for greater room for the use of technology to compensate for human error and inattention. We need to harness safety technology to move the needle more aggressively so as to reduce death and serious injuries on our roads.

Over the years, there have been great strides taken in technological developments to improve the safety features found in vehicles.

Beyond the standard seatbelts, airbags and Anti-lock Braking System (ABS), we now have access to safety technology in the form of blind-spot warning systems; rear cross traffic alerts; automatic emergency braking and pedestrian detection systems; lane keep assists; and adaptive cruise controls. I would add that these technologies are not new technologies that would have to be test-bedded to check for reliability. These technologies have long reached a steady state.

Do these crash avoidance technologies result in fewer collisions and save lives? Based on my research, the answer is yes. In a 2019 article entitled "Net-societal and net-private benefits of some existing vehicle crash avoidance technologies", it was estimated that just three technologies, namely, blind-spot monitoring, lane departure warning and forward-collision warning for all light-duty passenger vehicles in the US would have collectively prevented up to 1.6 million crashes a year, including 7,200 fatal crashes. The crash prevention costs savings, according to the same article, if the technologies were mandated throughout the light-duty vehicle fleet, based on certain assumptions, would be up to US$264 billion.

The ASEAN NCAP, which stands for New Car Assessment Programme, is a body dedicated to elevate vehicle safety standards and encourage a market for safer vehicles in the region. It opined that if all cars are equipped with blind-spot detection and visualisation technologies, it is expected that 37% of collisions, especially with motorcycles, can be avoided.

In Europe, they have gone one step further. From 2022, all motor vehicles, including trucks, buses, vans and cars, will have to be compulsorily equipped with safety features that include intelligent speed assistance – basically, this works as speed limiters; reversing detection system; advanced driver distraction warning system; emergency stop signals; reversing detection systems; event data recorders; and accurate tyre pressure monitoring.

With respect to safety features in motorcycles, it seemed to me that, whilst there are a number of safety features that have been implemented arising from technological advances, they are not as widely adopted as compared to motor vehicles. They include ABS for motorcycles; combined braking systems to engage front and rear brakes at the same time; and traction and stability controls.

In March 2023, the European Transport Safety Council called on EU countries to introduce ABS for all motorcycles, including those under 125 cubic centimetres (cc). Whether its recommendation will be implemented though is not certain. Calls have been made in several countries, including Malaysia, to introduce speed limiters on motorcycles.

What is the downside to mandating the use of safety technology in our vehicles? Well, one significant downside is cost. I acknowledge that. We need to balance this against costs savings arising from crash prevention, as I highlighted. Also, we cannot put a price to the saving of lives and avoiding of crippling injuries.

Furthermore, I had occasion to speak to several motor vehicle insurance underwriters who informed me that the presence of safety features in motor vehicles are factors that are taken into account when assessing the premiums payable even though the weight placed on such factors differ from insurer to insurer.

This is not a perceived advantage. It is already happening. There are a number of insurance companies in Singapore offering to discount motorists' premiums by 4% just by installing dashcams in their cars.

Also, I noted in a 2020 article issued by McKinsey & Company that when regulators make safety features mandatory, like in the case in Europe, the market will react to make these features commoditised over time. If that is indeed the case, the costs will, over time, moderate downwards.

Finally, I note that, thanks to the PARF rebate and COE system, Singapore has a relatively young vehicle population. For example, 37.2% of cars on Singapore roads were registered within the past five years. I, therefore, anticipate that a good number of these vehicles would already be installed with important safety features that l spoke about earlier as standard fare. The cost consequences should these safety features be mandated may not be as significant, as what would be more likely to happen is a standardisation of technologies amongst the cars.

This may not be so for buses though. Based on my calculations, only 22% of buses are five years old or younger. Hence, I acknowledge that the cost consequence of making it mandatory for these heavy vehicles to carry mandated safety features may be higher.

Having regard to the developments that I have outlined, I would like to make a case for LTA to consider mandating the incorporation and use of safety technologies that have an established record of being able to reduce collisions in all our vehicles.

With respect, I think our regulations mandating safety features in vehicles are somewhat behind the curve. We have, in my opinion, only a small raft of regulations mandating use of safety technologies in our vehicles. We have regulations mandating the use of seat belts, for example. More recently, in the discussion on safety in workers' transportation, it was announced that all lorries with a maximum laden weight exceeding 3,500 kilogrammes will be required to be equipped with speed limiters. We can do more.

Mr Speaker, as I have pointed out earlier, there are proven technologies that we can consider adopting as regulatory fiat in our vehicles. They will add slightly to the cost and we can take an incremental approach to their introduction. But overall, I think it is a small price to pay to reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads.

Borrowing the words from Emily Dickenson's poem, "My friend Mani did not want to stop for Death, but Death, unkindly, stopped for him." There can be far fewer such hard stops if we all resolve to improve the safety requirements for all our modern-day carriages, be they bikes, cars, buses or lorries.

Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Amy Khor.

5.53 pm

The Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member for the Adjournment Motion and sharing his personal experiences and convictions with this House. As road users, I am certain Members in this House would be able to relate to the issues raised.

Our goal is to have safer roads for all. This is an ongoing journey that requires collective effort from every road user.

The Member has rightly pointed out that technology can be an enabler for improving road safety outcomes in Singapore. Let me assure the Member that this is, indeed, what LTA has done over the years.

For heavy vehicles, LTA has mandated blind-spot mirrors and allowed the use of camera devices to cover blind-spot areas in 2015. The Traffic Police (TP) has also made it mandatory for such vehicles to install speed limiters, as the Member has said.

For vehicles, apart from motorcycles, LTA has allowed the use of camera monitor systems in lieu of conventional rear-view mirrors from 2021.

For public buses, they have progressively been fitted with safety features, such as the Driver Anti-Fatigue System to monitor the bus captain's fatigue level and the Collision Warning System to alert the bus captain on impending collisions. In fact, for the Collision Warning System, 79% of the public bus fleets are already fitted with that.

These measures help make our roads safer. And while the measures target larger vehicles, they also protect other road users, such as motorcyclists, cyclists and pedestrians.

Technology can only be implemented effectively after careful consideration of other factors, such as road design and user behaviour, as well as extensive industry engagement. For each change, many factors have to be assessed, including motorists' readiness to adapt to the new technology, the reliability of the new technology, cost effectiveness, as well as the impact on motorist behaviour with the adoption of new technology. These considerations apply to safety technology on all types of vehicles, including motorcycles.

In the case of motorcycles, advanced braking systems, such as Combined Braking System (CBS) and Anti-lock Braking System (ABS) that the Member mentioned in his speech, have increasingly been made available on smaller and larger engine capacity motorcycles respectively. LTA is aware of campaigns overseas to mandate ABS for all motorcycles, regardless of engine capacity and is studying the impact if we were to impose such requirements locally, based on the factors I cited earlier.

Besides vehicle technology, there are three other pillars in our ecosystem to improve road safety. These are road design, user behaviour and regulations and enforcement.

First, at the very core of road safety is road design. This is an iterative and ongoing effort by LTA as it regularly reviews traffic accident data to identify areas with higher accident rates. For these identified areas, LTA will conduct detailed investigations to assess the need for additional road safety measures. Where necessary, road improvements, such as traffic calming measures and signages, as well as road safety barriers, are introduced.

Beyond that, our road design is inclusive. It takes into account the demographic changes of nearby communities and incorporates the needs of the residents and stakeholders it serves. Members of this House would likely be familiar with Silver and School Zones, which serve to provide safer roads for our seniors and students in areas where these vulnerable groups are in higher proportion. Apart from implementing traffic calming measures, LTA implements a lower road speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour or 30 kilometres per hour in Silver Zones. With these improvements, the number of road accidents involving senior pedestrians has dropped by about 80% in completed Silver Zones.

We will continue to build on these efforts. At this year's Committee of Supply debate, I introduced the concept of Friendly Streets and announced that we will be piloting Friendly Streets at five locations.

This is an ambitious and meaningful endeavour, as we move from making specific zones safer, to making entire streets more pedestrian-friendly and we are doing so in two ways.

First, by changing the road infrastructure with various moves, such as road pinching, more crossings, lower speed limits, to make these roads safer for pedestrians.

Second, by bringing in the local community to give us feedback and work with us to make these roads more conducive and safer, not just for travel, but also for other daily activities.

That is why we call such streets Friendly Streets – friendly for all who use these streets – drivers, pedestrians, residents alike.

We have just started this journey, with pilots to be completed by 2025. Our resolve and end goals are clear. We want safer streets and safer journeys for all road users.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have covered road design, which is the hardware. But our goal is to improve road safety and that will not be complete without the software, which is road user behaviour.

To have safer and more gracious roads, we will need to have safer and more gracious behaviour by all road users, which include motorists, cyclists and pedestrians alike. TP works closely with the Singapore Road Safety Council to continually improve safety on our roads by inculcating good safety practices among all road users. TP also conducts weekly engagements with various groups and stakeholders.

In addition, TP leverages on technology, such as launching the compulsory simulator training since 2019 for new drivers to experience the top causes of accidents and practise defensive driving under a safe and controlled environment. This allows them to appreciate the dangers on the roads and be more situationally aware of blind spots when driving on the roads.

We could have the safest road designs and the best technology in our vehicles. But it is considerate, caring and gracious behaviour by all while using our roads that will improve our daily commutes and make them safer for everyone.

A third and critical component to improving our road safety is road regulations and enforcement. These are the traffic laws and rules that all road users must obey to ensure safe roads for all to use. And this is the basic framework and tenet to encourage compliance and deter misconduct. MHA amended the Road Traffic Act in 2019 and 2021 to enhance penalties against irresponsible driving and will continue to review them to strike a balance between deterrence and proportionality. Of course, enforcement plays an important role in ensuring compliance.

Enforcement takes place through the deployment of resources on the ground and with the use of technology. Besides the deployment of officers to conduct daily and targeted enforcement, TP adopts new technology to augment its enforcement efforts. For instance, mobile speed cameras were deployed to increase versatility of traffic enforcements at new locations. With the addition of 12 more red light cameras in 2020, there are now a total of 252 red light cameras in Singapore, up from 120 in 2015, to bolster islandwide enforcement.

In conclusion, for there to be sustained improvements in road safety, we will need all four pillars that contribute to a healthy and positive transport ecosystem to come together – Road Design, User Behaviour, Regulations and Enforcement, and Vehicle Technology.

I appreciate the Member’s suggestion and thank him once again for raising this Adjournment Motion. LTA will continue to monitor international technology trends, engage the industry and road users and push the envelope in adopting vehicle safety technologies.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn."

Adjourned accordingly at 6.02 pm.