Many are mis-using such devices as COE-free motorbikes.
The Straits Times published this letter on Feb 6th:
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)
While the letter presents a compelling argument for protecting vulnerable pedestrians, its logic relies on several oversimplifications and legal misinterpretations. I challenge the idea that the burden of safety should fall solely on riders, here are three strong counterpoints:
1. The “False Equivalence” Between PMAs and Vehicles
The author equates Personal Mobility Aids (PMAs) with “faster, heavier vehicles,” but the new regulations actually eliminate this disparity. By capping PMA speeds at 6kmh – which is a brisk walking pace – the “physics” argument regarding “greater harm” is significantly weakened.
The Logic Flaw: At 6kmh, a PMA has roughly the same kinetic energy as a jogging human.
The Argument: If a device moves at human walking speed, it no longer functions as a “vehicle” in the traditional sense; it is a mobility extension of a person. Expecting a motorized wheelchair user to carry 100% of the liability for an accident occurring at walking speed is disproportionate and fails to account for the fact that a pedestrian can also cause a collision through sudden, erratic movement.
2. Misinterpretation of “Contributory Negligence”
The letter cites a 2015 Court of Appeal judgment (where a pedestrian was 15% liable) as evidence of a flawed system. However, this is a misunderstanding of how liability works in a functional society.
The Logic Flaw: The author suggests that “shared responsibility” is a sign of weakness in the law, whereas it is actually a pillar of predictability.
The Argument: Absolute liability (presuming the rider is always at fault) creates a “moral hazard.” If pedestrians are told they have zero responsibility to be aware of their surroundings, it encourages reckless behavior — such as stepping blindly into a path while looking at a phone. Total immunity for one party does not make paths safer; it makes them more chaotic because one group stops practicing basic self-preservation.
3. Practical Unenforceability and the “Presumption of Guilt”
The author proposes a “hierarchy of responsibility” where the rider is presumed liable unless they can prove “gross negligence” by the pedestrian. This flips the standard legal principle of “innocent until proven guilty” on its head.
The Logic Flaw: This creates an impossible evidentiary burden on the rider.
The Argument: Most PMA users are the elderly or those with physical disabilities — the very “vulnerable” group the author claims to protect. Requiring an 80-year-old on a scooter to provide forensic proof or witness testimony to “prove” they weren’t at fault in a sudden collision is a heavy legal and cognitive burden. A “guilty until proven innocent” framework would likely discourage the disabled from leaving their homes, defeating the purpose of PMAs entirely.