Forum: Burden of safety must fall on riders, not pedestrians

The recent announcement regarding stricter personal mobility aid (PMA) regulations – requiring medical certification and reducing the speed limit to 6kmh – marks yet another chapter in attempts to manage active mobility (Parliament passes Bill that paves the way for ERP 2 and stricter mobility scooter rules, Feb 4).

While these measures are necessary to curb the misuse of mobility scooters by able-bodied individuals, they are symptomatic of a recurring cycle. In 2019, we banned e-scooters on footpaths because the hope for “gracious and responsible” sharing failed. Today, we are plugging a new loophole that allows users to migrate to PMAs to circumvent those bans.

This game of regulatory “whack-a-mole” suggests that our fundamental safety philosophy – anchored in “shared responsibility” – is flawed. The Annual Road Traffic Situation 2024 report paints a grim picture: traffic fatalities rose to 142, and speeding violations surged by a staggering 64.8 per cent. These numbers indicate that expecting vulnerable road users to “share” the burden of safety with faster, heavier vehicles is ineffective.

In practice, “shared responsibility” often devolves into “might is right”. Our current code of conduct places a cognitive burden on the most vulnerable, advising pedestrians to “stay alert” and “refrain from using mobile communication devices” even on footpaths.

This mindset was reinforced by a 2015 Court of Appeal judgment, where a pedestrian with the right of way was found 15 per cent liable for a collision. By telling pedestrians they must “stop and look” while telling drivers they should merely “slow down”, we codified a system where the weak must yield to the strong.

The authorities should consider a “hierarchy of responsibility” framework where the party capable of inflicting the greater harm bears the greater responsibility. On a shared path, the burden of safety must rest primarily on the cyclist or device user. Riders should be presumed liable for a collision unless they can prove the pedestrian acted with gross negligence.

This is not about penalising active mobility; it is about physics. If riders carry the burden of liability, they will naturally moderate their speed. Currently, riders often travel at speeds where they cannot stop in time, and subsequently blame the pedestrian for being “unpredictable”.

To protect our ageing population and break the cycle of accidents and bans, the law must explicitly protect the weak from the strong.

Francis Chu Wa
President
Safety for Active Mobility Users (SAMU)