Update: Straits Times Forum Letter published on 2026-02-06
By SAMU (Safety for Active Mobility Users)
The recent news regarding Personal Mobility Aids (PMAs) likely gave many of us a sense of déjà vu.
From Q1 2026, mobility scooters will face a reduced speed limit of 6km/h and users will require medical certification. While these measures are necessary to curb the abuse of mobility aids by able-bodied users—a concern raised by many during public consultations—it feels like we have been here before.
In 2019, the authorities banned e-scooters on footpaths because the “hope” for gracious sharing had failed. Now, in 2026, we are plugging a new loophole where users simply migrated to mobility scooters to speed on walkways.
The recurring cycle suggests a deeper problem.
At SAMU, we believe the root cause isn’t just the specific device (be it an e-scooter, a PMA, or a bicycle); it is our fundamental safety philosophy of “Shared Responsibility”.
We have published a detailed analysis on Medium arguing why this model is failing, especially as we approach a “Silver Tsunami” where one in four Singaporeans will be elderly by 2030.
Read the full article here: [Link to Medium Article]
Why “Shared Responsibility” falls short
As we have discussed on this blog before regarding the 2018 AMAP recommendations, relying on “graciousness” is optimistic but legally toothless.
When you mix a 100kg motorised device (or a fast cyclist) with a frail senior on a narrow footpath, “sharing” the responsibility often creates a “Might is Right” dynamic. The current Code of Conduct advises pedestrians to “stay alert” and refrain from using mobile devices, effectively placing a cognitive burden on the vulnerable to dodge the powerful.
The statistics from 2024 are sobering:
• 142 road traffic fatalities (up from 136 in 2023).
• 64.8% surge in speeding violations.
• Elderly pedestrians remain disproportionately vulnerable.
A Better Way: Hierarchy of Responsibility & Protected Lanes
In our Medium piece, we advocate for two major shifts:
1. Legal: Adopting a “Hierarchy of Responsibility” (Presumed Liability). The party capable of doing greater harm must bear the greater burden of care. If a cyclist hits a pedestrian on a shared path, the cyclist should be presumed liable unless proven otherwise. This forces the faster user to slow down before a conflict arises.
2. Infrastructure: We need to stop squeezing fast active mobility users onto footpaths. We must reclaim road space for protected “Active Mobility Lanes”, similar to the “Barcelona Superblocks” concept referenced in the Land Transport Master Plan 2040.
We cannot “share” safety when the physics of a collision are so lopsided. It is time to protect the weak from the strong, rather than asking the weak to “watch out.”
[Read the full argument on Medium] and let us know your thoughts in the comments. Do you agree that we need a shift in liability laws?