Mr. Speaker, the Land Transport and Related Matters Bill introduces significant changes to our transport landscape. A key shift in this Bill is the reclassification of what we currently know as Personal Mobility Aids, or PMAs. The Bill replaces this term with a new legal category: Mobility Vehicles. This category encompasses both motorised wheelchairs and mobility scooters. I will speak briefly on ERP 2.0, and for the rest of my speech I will focus on the regime changes for these Mobility Vehicles and raise several concerns relating to public education, enforcement, and riding culture in Singapore.
ERP 2.0 and Data Protection Mr. Speaker, the shift to ERP 2.0 brings with it a significant change in how vehicle movement data is collected and used. Under Clause 81, a document certified by the Registrar containing transaction and location data from ERP 2.0 devices will be admissible as evidence in court. This marks a departure from the privacy-centric design of ERP 1.0.
As noted in a Straits Times article on 16 April 1993, the Registry of Vehicles explicitly chose a system using pre-paid smart cards so that “all the information is in the card and not with the authorities managing the system.”¹ While the old In-Vehicle Units (IU) kept trip data local, the new On-Board Units (OBU) enable continuous central logging.
Can the Minister clarify what specific technical encryption and anonymization protocols are applied to data transmitted from the OBU to the central server? Furthermore, what are the legal safeguards to prevent this data from being accessed by other agencies for purposes entirely unrelated to road pricing?
Consistent Enforcement and Public Education Mr. Speaker, I have spoken in this House many times, since the 13th Parliament, on the urgent need for consistent enforcement and robust public education for all Active Mobility Devices. This includes bicycles, Power-Assisted Bikes (PABs), PMDs, and of course PABs or Mobility Vehicles. Yet on a daily basis, we still witness widespread disregard for road safety: cyclists and PAB users not keeping left, beating red lights, riding without helmets, or using footpaths with little regard for pedestrians.
This is notwithstanding statistics revealed by Traffic Police yesterday of 650 summons issued to errant cyclists in the first half of 2025 (https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/about-650-singapore-cyclists-get-summonses-for-violating-traffic-rules-in-last-6-months-of-2025?ref=latest-headlines). How many cyclists or e-bike riders are aware that it is an offence riding on the right side of a motor vehicle unless they are overtaking or about to make a right turn? It is not uncommon to see riders not riding on the left lanes. Are users of rental bikes made aware that helmets must be worn when riding on the roads?
The human cost is evident. In December, a 71-year-old lady was severely injured by an e-bike while exiting Pasir Ris Mall, requiring jaw reconstruction.² In January, another lady in her sixties suffered torn ligaments and fractures after being knocked down while crossing the road.³ In November last year, MOS Baey Yam Keng himself was bumped into by a female cyclist travelling in the wrong direction.⁴
Such incidents underscore a poor riding culture rooted in years of inadequate public education and enforcement—points I have raised repeatedly since 2017.⁵
I am reminded of the Road Safety Park at East Coast, launched in the 1980s. Its objective was ambitious: to introduce road safety as a way of life. By its 20th year, more than one million students in Singapore had passed through its gates to participate in traffic games.⁶ They role-played as pedestrians and drivers to internalize road courtesy. This was a society-wide effort that instilled safety consciousness through practical engagement.
To truly change our riding culture, we must move beyond static signage to immersive learning. The Road Safety Park’s success in the early years shows that when we have the will to invest, we can shape an entire generation's behaviour. Yet, authorities cite limited resources. Recently, MOS Baey Yam Keng reiterated that LTA will do its best within constraints.⁷ But Mr. Speaker, there should be a greater political will to invest in the resources needed for a safer riding culture and for safer footpaths?
Changes to the PMA Regime
Yet even as enforcement resources remain limited, this Bill introduces more rules and changes for PMAs, implementing the certificate of medical need requirement, imposing dimension limits and reducing the speed limit for mobility scooters from 10 km/h to 6 km/h. It also mandates the registration for PMAs. While these measures directly address concerns regarding the misuse of mobility scooters by able bodied individuals, speeding and the use of oversized devices, I am again concerned about the practical execution of the measures designed in this bill, given the inability to significantly improve safe use and riding culture for different forms of active mobility devices so far. How will LTA ensure non-compliant mobility scooters are not used after 2028 or unauthorised riders do not continue with their use after the passing of this Bill?
The same gap worries me about Clause 84 to 91, regarding the proposed banning of non-UL2272 e-scooters or PMDs. In a September 2025 PQ reply, Minister Shanmugam said that 187 fires in HDB estates were caused by active mobility devices—46% by PMDs, 42% for PABs, and 12% for PMAs (now Mobility Vehicles)⁸.
It is disturbing that 5 years after PMDs or e-scooters were banned from mainstream use except on park connectors, they are still the main cause of fires for all active mobility devices; one can imagine how many more are kept in homes and continue to be used. It is also reflective at least to some extent of the effectiveness of past enforcement efforts in curbing non-compliant use.
On 20 November 2025, an island-wide operation targeted non-compliant devices⁹. What measures were taken for units where occupants were not home? Five years after the "ban", PMDs remain a primary fire risk. How will the offence of keeping these be enforced on a regular basis? Will there be regular door-to-door inspections?
Could the Ministry consider concentrating officers in a specific zone for a sustained period for intensive enforcement? This would send a strategic message rather than spreading our limited resources too thinly.
Impact on Seniors and Infrastructure The reduction of the mobility scooter speed limit to 6 km/h raises some concerns and I have spoken on this in this house previously. The Government previously noted that this speed takes reference from walking speeds.¹⁰ However, a 40% drop in speed significantly increases travel time and exposure to the elements for seniors. Can the Minister clarify whether any studies were conducted on the impact of this reduction on the "travel range" of elderly users? Some of my residents, who use their PMAs to travel beyond their immediate neighbourhood, had provided feedback to me that the reduction in speed will increase the time they need to travel and ultimately reduce the distance they can travel within the time they have.
At the 2024 COS Debate, I have urged the Government in the run-up to the proposed changes in the PMA regime, to reconsider permitting seniors of at least aged 67 or 70 to be allowed to use mobility scooters, even in the absence of a formally diagnosed musculoskeletal or medical condition.¹¹ I am glad to hear that the government has decided to exempt seniors aged 70 and above from the certification regime. Mobility scooters do provide seniors with confidence to be out and about, which is a good thing. For these individuals, mobility scooters can be invaluable in maintaining mobility, independence, and quality of life during their golden years. Allowing broader access would empower seniors to remain active and engaged in community life, promoting both physical and mental well-being.
I would also like to suggest that the Ministry could explore expanding the capacity of occupational therapists in restructured hospitals to provide mobility scooters assessments and training. This would ensure that seniors and others with genuine mobility needs receive proper guidance on the safe and responsible use of these devices. Such a measure would not only enhance user safety but also foster greater confidence among the public in the appropriate use of mobility scooters.
Outreach to existing PMA users who have to discontinue use. I am also concerned about the impact on existing mobility scooters users who have to discontinue their existing use of mobility scooters. There are some parents who use their mobility scooters to ferry their young children or some seniors who ferry their spouses with mobility or health issues on their existing PMAs. These PMAs will not be authorised under this Bill due to their sizes. We must be sensitive to understand that some of these individuals have real transportation needs that, in their views, are not adequately met by the proposals in this Bill or what is otherwise available out there.
How will LTA reach out to them effectively on the law change and get them to understand the risks perceived by the authorities as posed by such devices on the users and fellow footpath users and to get their buy-in on the new law?
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I must again touch on the "last mile" problem for some users of mobility scooters. The law disallows PMAs from riding on the roads, presumably except when crossing roads.
In 2019 and 2020, I have raised in this house how narrow or blocked footpaths in private estates force PMA riders onto roads.¹²
In January 2023, I had asked in a PQ about statistics of enforcement against PMA riders who were caught on the road and the range of punishments imposed. MHA revealed that while notices were issued and fines (up to $2,000) were imposed, the number of formal prosecutions was relatively low, often handled through composition fines first. In another reply to my PQ in 2024, MHA also confirmed that enforcement against PMA users on roads had increased, with 10 users caught between January and August 2024 (compared to 4 in 2023).¹³
Mr Speaker, I do often see PMAs on the roads and this is not just in private estates or when they are merely crossing the road. I am surprised by the low statistics of enforcement cited. While I agree that it may not be safe for PMAs to use the road, I also recognise that our infrastructure needs to catch up to ensure that there is no reason for PMA riders to use the road.
Today, in 2026, we are slowing these seniors down even further to 6km/h. If we are going to enforce a strict 'walking pace' and a strict 'road ban,' the Government must first guarantee that the 'last mile' footpaths in our private estates are actually wide enough and clear enough to be used. For example, are the pavements free of obstacles and trees to allow free access. Otherwise, it is unfair and unsafe for our elderly PMA users.
If our seniors are forced to use the roads, they should not fear being prosecuted. On the other hand, from my conversations with many mobility scooters riders, it seems that many are still not even aware that it is illegal to use their mobility scooters on the road. This brings us to the same familiar problem of the need for more and better public education and adequate regular enforcement, as is the case for other active mobility devices which I touched on earlier. I would like to ask the minister to update the house on what public education measures it is intending with the passing of the bill and also to enhance its efforts to improve the riding culture for all AMD users, including mobility scooters.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I hope the Government will consider the proposals and suggestions I have made. Notwithstanding my concerns and reservations, I support the bill’s intent to improve safety, and better regulation. I urge the Ministry to ensure strong public education, effective enforcement, and thoughtful implementation so that we build a safer environment for all.
Endnotes
¹ The Straits Times, "Registry of Vehicles official explains ERP privacy design," 16 April 1993.
² The Straits Times, "Woman, 71, has jaw reconstruction surgery after PMD-related accident," December 2025.
³ Lianhe Zaobao, "Lady in her sixties suspected knocked down by bicycle," 17 January 2026.
⁴ AsiaOne, "Baey Yam Keng knocked down by bicycle crossing road," November 2025.
⁵ Hansard, Second Reading of the Active Mobility Bill, January 2017.
⁶ Remember Singapore, "Nostalgic Memories of East Coast's Road Safety Park," 27 July 2024.
⁷ Hansard, Oral Answer to Questions, 5 March 2025.
⁸ Hansard, Written Answer to PQ by Minister for Home Affairs, September 2025.
⁹ The Straits Times, "30 mobility devices seized by LTA to tackle rise in fires," 20 November 2025.
¹⁰ Hansard, Written Answer to PQ by Minister for Transport, 10 January 2024.
¹¹ Hansard, Committee of Supply Debate – Ministry of Transport, 2024.
¹² Hansard, Second Reading of the Active Mobility (Amendment No. 2) Bill, 2020.
¹³ Hansard, Written Answer to PQ by Minister for Home Affairs, 2024.
