SINGAPORE: The ban on bicycles and non-motorised wheeled vehicles from pedestrian-only paths is now in full effect. Errant riders face a fine of up to S$2,000 (US$1,560), a jail term of up to three months, or both.
While the rule aims to protect pedestrians, especially the elderly and children, some cyclists have expressed frustration. They point out that pedestrians often stray into bike lanes, creating confusion and risk for everyone. If cyclists get fined for using the wrong path, why not pedestrians?
This debate touches on more than just regulation. It reflects a deeper issue: Weak social norms around using public paths, especially when those spaces are getting more crowded and complex.
Singapore is known for using regulation and enforcement to influence behaviour, be it tray return fines or anti-littering patrols. The active mobility space is no different.
Over the past few years, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) has introduced clear rules: Cyclists and personal mobility device (PMD) users can only use cycling paths and park connectors; e-scooters are banned from footpaths; and pedestrians have right of way on shared paths.
Yet we continue to see friction between riders and pedestrians. Why? Because rules are only one part of the equation. What is missing is a shared understanding of how to behave in public, not from fear of being fined, but a sense of responsibility to others.
In cities like Amsterdam or Tokyo, strong social norms guide how people use shared infrastructure. Cyclists slow down when approaching pedestrians. People rarely block pathways or walk in cycling zones. These behaviours are not driven by regulation, but by deeply ingrained expectations of consideration and awareness.
In contrast, etiquette on Singapore’s shared paths is often overlooked. It is not uncommon to see pedestrians walking abreast on shared paths, delivery riders weaving through foot traffic, or joggers and dog walkers occupying designated cycling lanes. The default response is often: “There should be a rule about this.”
But do we really want to regulate every possible interaction? Relying solely on punitive measures is not only impractical – it is also unsustainable.
The real opportunity lies in strengthening our civic-mindedness. Whether you are a cyclist or a pedestrian, public space is shared space. Graciousness is not just a nicety; it is essential for everyone’s safety.
It encompasses simple but powerful actions: keeping left unless overtaking, ringing a bell before passing, slowing down near crowded areas and avoiding sudden changes in direction.
These are not hard to do. What is hard is making them habitual in a context where we often expect infrastructure or enforcement to do the work for us.
Graciousness also means acknowledging the diversity of users. A shared path may be used by a teenager on a bicycle, a senior using a personal mobility aid, a parent pushing a stroller, or a food delivery rider trying to make a living. Observing etiquette will accommodate all these realities, not prioritising one group’s convenience over another’s.
To move beyond fines, we must invest in deliberate norm-building. The LTA has educated the public about conduct on shared paths through initiatives such as the Confidence on Wheels programme and Active Mobility Community Ambassadors.
Public campaigns and posters on shared paths have also been launched. While these are good starting points, we can foster a culture of shared responsibility through other community-led efforts.
For instance, residents, schools and businesses can get involved in placing signage or murals that promote shared path etiquette, such as “Keep Left” or “Ring Before You Pass”. This participatory approach builds a sense of ownership and makes the messages more visible and relevant to the local context.
Instead of relying on authorities to lay down the law, the goal should be to co-create a civic culture where graciousness becomes the norm, not the exception. When people know what to expect from others, and what is expected of them, behaviour improves naturally.
Better behaviour must be supported by better infrastructure. Conflicts often emerge not from malice, but from ambiguity.
Pathways that are too narrow, poorly demarcated zones, or inconsistent signage can lead to confusion even among well-meaning users. We could expand the use of coloured paths, clear pictograms and better lighting to guide all users.
In high-conflict areas, physical separators, such as planter buffers, may help prevent path-crossing without making the space feel unwelcoming or rigid. These have to be balanced against the reality that space comes at a premium in our city.
Design can also guide behaviour passively. For example, slight elevation changes between walking and cycling lanes can signal a boundary without the need for barriers. Wider shared paths in parks and residential areas can accommodate mixed users more safely.
Another promising approach is to design “slow zones” at junctions or crowded segments using textured surfaces or even pavement art, encouraging all to be more mindful of their surroundings and to proceed with caution.
Ultimately, this is not a debate about whether cyclists or pedestrians are more at fault. It’s about how we all contribute to a safer and more respectful mobility culture.
Singapore has made admirable progress in promoting active mobility, with a growing network of cycling paths and a car-lite vision that aligns with planetary health.
But infrastructure and regulation can only take us so far. To become a city where walking, cycling, and other personal mobility options thrive, we must build a stronger culture of empathy, awareness and personal responsibility.
Whether walking your dog, rushing to meet a friend on your bike, or going to the market on a PMA, we all want the same thing: to get to our destination safely. Let us not “fine” our way toward that vision – let us build it together.
Dr Samuel Chng is Research Assistant Professor and heads the Urban Psychology Lab at Lee Kuan Yew Centre for Innovative Cities, Singapore University of Technology and Design.
Continue reading...
While the rule aims to protect pedestrians, especially the elderly and children, some cyclists have expressed frustration. They point out that pedestrians often stray into bike lanes, creating confusion and risk for everyone. If cyclists get fined for using the wrong path, why not pedestrians?
This debate touches on more than just regulation. It reflects a deeper issue: Weak social norms around using public paths, especially when those spaces are getting more crowded and complex.
THE LIMITS OF RULES AND FINES
Singapore is known for using regulation and enforcement to influence behaviour, be it tray return fines or anti-littering patrols. The active mobility space is no different.
Over the past few years, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) has introduced clear rules: Cyclists and personal mobility device (PMD) users can only use cycling paths and park connectors; e-scooters are banned from footpaths; and pedestrians have right of way on shared paths.
Yet we continue to see friction between riders and pedestrians. Why? Because rules are only one part of the equation. What is missing is a shared understanding of how to behave in public, not from fear of being fined, but a sense of responsibility to others.
In cities like Amsterdam or Tokyo, strong social norms guide how people use shared infrastructure. Cyclists slow down when approaching pedestrians. People rarely block pathways or walk in cycling zones. These behaviours are not driven by regulation, but by deeply ingrained expectations of consideration and awareness.
In contrast, etiquette on Singapore’s shared paths is often overlooked. It is not uncommon to see pedestrians walking abreast on shared paths, delivery riders weaving through foot traffic, or joggers and dog walkers occupying designated cycling lanes. The default response is often: “There should be a rule about this.”
But do we really want to regulate every possible interaction? Relying solely on punitive measures is not only impractical – it is also unsustainable.
GRACIOUSNESS AS A CIVIC VALUE
The real opportunity lies in strengthening our civic-mindedness. Whether you are a cyclist or a pedestrian, public space is shared space. Graciousness is not just a nicety; it is essential for everyone’s safety.
It encompasses simple but powerful actions: keeping left unless overtaking, ringing a bell before passing, slowing down near crowded areas and avoiding sudden changes in direction.
These are not hard to do. What is hard is making them habitual in a context where we often expect infrastructure or enforcement to do the work for us.
Graciousness also means acknowledging the diversity of users. A shared path may be used by a teenager on a bicycle, a senior using a personal mobility aid, a parent pushing a stroller, or a food delivery rider trying to make a living. Observing etiquette will accommodate all these realities, not prioritising one group’s convenience over another’s.
EDUCATION BEFORE ENFORCEMENT
To move beyond fines, we must invest in deliberate norm-building. The LTA has educated the public about conduct on shared paths through initiatives such as the Confidence on Wheels programme and Active Mobility Community Ambassadors.
Public campaigns and posters on shared paths have also been launched. While these are good starting points, we can foster a culture of shared responsibility through other community-led efforts.
For instance, residents, schools and businesses can get involved in placing signage or murals that promote shared path etiquette, such as “Keep Left” or “Ring Before You Pass”. This participatory approach builds a sense of ownership and makes the messages more visible and relevant to the local context.
Instead of relying on authorities to lay down the law, the goal should be to co-create a civic culture where graciousness becomes the norm, not the exception. When people know what to expect from others, and what is expected of them, behaviour improves naturally.
Related:
INFRASTRUCTURE CAN PLAY A ROLE
Better behaviour must be supported by better infrastructure. Conflicts often emerge not from malice, but from ambiguity.
Pathways that are too narrow, poorly demarcated zones, or inconsistent signage can lead to confusion even among well-meaning users. We could expand the use of coloured paths, clear pictograms and better lighting to guide all users.
In high-conflict areas, physical separators, such as planter buffers, may help prevent path-crossing without making the space feel unwelcoming or rigid. These have to be balanced against the reality that space comes at a premium in our city.
Design can also guide behaviour passively. For example, slight elevation changes between walking and cycling lanes can signal a boundary without the need for barriers. Wider shared paths in parks and residential areas can accommodate mixed users more safely.
Another promising approach is to design “slow zones” at junctions or crowded segments using textured surfaces or even pavement art, encouraging all to be more mindful of their surroundings and to proceed with caution.
Related:
SHARED SPACES MEAN SHARED RESPONSIBILITIES
Ultimately, this is not a debate about whether cyclists or pedestrians are more at fault. It’s about how we all contribute to a safer and more respectful mobility culture.
Singapore has made admirable progress in promoting active mobility, with a growing network of cycling paths and a car-lite vision that aligns with planetary health.
But infrastructure and regulation can only take us so far. To become a city where walking, cycling, and other personal mobility options thrive, we must build a stronger culture of empathy, awareness and personal responsibility.
Whether walking your dog, rushing to meet a friend on your bike, or going to the market on a PMA, we all want the same thing: to get to our destination safely. Let us not “fine” our way toward that vision – let us build it together.
Dr Samuel Chng is Research Assistant Professor and heads the Urban Psychology Lab at Lee Kuan Yew Centre for Innovative Cities, Singapore University of Technology and Design.
Continue reading...