Quora Answer: Should Singapore Have Banned PMDs on Footpaths?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Recently, Singapore’s LTA banned PMDs on pedestrian paths.  Overnight, many delivery riders lost their jobs.  Do you think such unprecedented move by the government is justified?”

We should also note that they are banned from pedestrian paths.  They are not banned outright.  There is a reasonable argument for the banning of personal mobility devices from these places.  There were a state of injuries, and even deaths.  Considering we are an ageing state, this is a great concern.  There was seen to be widespread public support for some sort of action, and enforcement was not seen to be effective.  To claim this is unprecedented is hyperbole.  Singapore previously banned the import, and sale of chewing gum.  The discussion is on whether it is justified.

On the other hand, it does seem a knee jerk reaction from the government, not the Land Transport Authority.  The LTA is an organ of state.  They cannot unilaterally enact such a ban.  Whilst it is understandable when the public are emotional, and prone to hysteria, we should rightly expect better from our politicians.  I, personally, would have like a more considered approach.

Firstly, they failed to consider the wider consequences.  It is understandable that there is concern for safety, and there were incidents which were given undue publicity by the local press.  However, it would have been better to have commissioned a study to look at the number of irresponsible users versus total number of users.  If we applied this logic to cars, a few accidents in the course of a week would have lead to a ban on cars at certain places, which would be rightfully deemed illogical.

Secondly, they should have looked at the demographic of the users, whether leisure or economic, and the impact of any act of legislation.  This is part of social engineering.  It is obvious that the people behind this ban only looked at one aspect, and neglected to consider the economic impact on the lower socioeconomic strata.

Finally, based on that study, it would have been more prudent to gradually tighten regulations and restrictions.  This gives people time to adjust, and does not greatly impact one demographic.  One reasonable recourse would be to put in place a licensing regime, with a mandatory safety training, and implement a demerit system.  This disincentivises certain behaviours, and not penalises everybody.

The government could also consider relooking the walkways and connectors, in cognisance of an ageing society, and the eventual greater use of mobility devices of al assorts, whether motorised wheelchairs, electrical bicycles, and motorised scooters.  We cannot stop the march of progress, and the change of human behaviour.  Instead, we should look to be ahead of the curve, and invest in the infrastructure to accommodate it.

Overall, this was a kneejerk, emotive act.  The government has been caught out by the backlash from certain demographics, and Members of Parliament have been forced to defend an ill-thought out act.  Since the nature of the government is that it cannot be seen to “lose face”, admit an embarrassing mistake, they will stick with it for a while, and the figure a way out that does not look like they backtracked.