The designation of footpaths is inconsistent in different housing estates and even within the same town. Examples of this include Simei, Tampines and Bedok housing estates.
From a practical point of view, why is the footpath for pedestrians designated on the outer lane while the cycling lane is the inner lane? The pedestrian is "sandwiched" between the actual road with traffic and the cycling lane. When a pedestrian walks out of the pathway, he would have to watch out for speeding cyclists.
But if the footpath is designated on the inner lane, pedestrians would be able to walk out from or into the pathways safely.
In the evenings, with dim road lamps, the pedestrian is at the mercy of cyclists, some of whom do not use headlights or bells. Do we need to witness an accident before we realise the impractical and unsuitable designations of the lanes?
Painting the no-e-scooter markings on the ground is also ridiculous, as the rider would have entered the lane before realising that he is on forbidden ground. Why not put up vertical reflective signs instead?
Can the authorities repaint the lanes before it is too late?
Christony Lau Pet Keong