SINGAPORE: When bus driver Muhammad Naz Farihin travelled on an autonomous vehicle as part of a trial in Punggol this year, he was surprised by how closely it resembled a ride with a human driver.
“I was actually very impressed, if you were to close your eyes and mind your own business, have a conversation, you won’t actually realise the vehicle was autonomous,” said the 29-year-old.
The driver from private bus company A&S Transit said the vehicle responded quickly and decisively to other road users, pedestrians and obstacles.
“The best way to describe this is that they are as good as a (probation) plate driver making judgments on the roads. They’re learning and preparing,” he said.
CNA Games
Show More Show Less
But while the technology impressed him, Mr Naz is not worried that autonomous vehicles will replace his job any time soon.
In his seven years on the road, he has encountered too many situations where a human touch was essential, and he remains convinced that technology cannot yet replace it.
“As a bus captain, you are more customer-oriented; you have to address a wide diversity of passengers you serve, be it the elderly, the young, or those that require special assistance,” he said.
“This is something a driverless vehicle will not be able to handle.”
Mr Naz is not alone in wondering how quickly autonomous vehicle (AV) technology can become part of everyday life in Singapore.
Mr Muhammad Naz Farihin in Woodlands on May 13, 2026. (Photo: CNA/Mak Jia Kee)
Acting Transport Minister Jeffrey Siow said in an interview last year that there would be a “really big push” for AVs, with many expected to ply the roads in five years.
As part of this, passenger trials began in Punggol earlier this year, with Grab and ComfortDelGro deploying autonomous shuttles. Grab’s AV rides were opened to the public in April.
Grab said in response to queries from CNA that its autonomous shuttles, developed by AV company WeRide, have provided more than 3,800 passenger rides. ComfortDelGro said 700 passengers have experienced by-invite rides on its AVs, developed by Pony.ai.
In the second half of 2026, self-driving buses will be trialled on two public bus routes in Marina Bay and one-north – services 400 and 191, respectively. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) will purchase six autonomous buses to start, and they will operate alongside existing buses for an initial period of three years.
But even with the will to make AVs a reality, can the technology truly take off? It has been 12 years since Singapore’s first AV trials for public rides started.
Transport infrastructure experts said many questions remain unanswered, including whether AVs can reliably mimic human decisions on the road.
Legal experts said there are also unresolved questions over who should be held liable in an accident involving an AV.
The Ministry of Transport (MOT) said earlier this month that it is seeking industry and public feedback on the legal framework for autonomous vehicles.
Then there is the question of social acceptance: whether the behaviour of other drivers and pedestrians will evolve as more AVs ply the roads, and whether this is possible in Singapore, given concerns over worsening road culture.
With these hurdles, when will Singapore reach a point where AV buses and shuttles become a common sight?
Mr Siow said earlier this year that it would be “some time yet before we see mass deployment of autonomous passenger vehicles on our roads”.
While countries such as the US and China have led the deployment of AVs beyond the trial stage, there are fewer than 7,000 such AVs in the world, a "tiny fraction" of the total vehicle population in Singapore, he added.
Experts said AV technology, legal regulations and attitudes towards the nascent technology will eventually catch up. But the bigger question is whether the cost of deploying AVs can be justified if they are meant to replace human drivers.
“AVs could easily be widespread if we are willing to accept that they don’t run with the same economies as human drivers in the near term,” said transport economist Walter Theseira from the Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS).
“If we are expecting it to be cheaper to operate than a human driver, that is something that I think no one can predict with a great deal of certainty how and when that would occur.”
LTA told CNA that Singapore is well-positioned to facilitate AV deployment, given its comprehensive and well-maintained road network.
“Prior to operating on public roads, AVs are required to demonstrate the capability to safely navigate Singapore’s road network via a closed-circuit test,” said an LTA spokesperson.
“Subsequently, when operating on public roads, there will be a safety operator on board the AV as an additional safeguard to ensure safety for other road users.”
LTA added that the AVs may progress to driverless operations without safety operators, only after clearing the necessary readiness assessments.
However, when it comes to driving a bus, many nuances cannot be easily replicated by technology, private bus operators said.
Mr Lionel Lee, director of private bus company Westpoint Transit, said AVs are not yet at the level where they can make decisions on the fly, such as rerouting when there is an accident.
Another scenario is when a passenger injures themself or needs medical assistance on board. “Without a human there, they will not be attended to,” he said.
He acknowledged that such situations could be managed through remote monitoring – for example, by having a human operator at a central location change the route, or by deploying employees to attend to passengers.
“But then you are doubling down on resources to cover where AV tech is not able to provide for,” he said.
Mr Dexter Ang, marketing manager of A&S Transit, said drivers often have to react to information given on the ground, such as locating places based on human descriptions.
His company’s bus drivers, who primarily transport workers between dormitories and construction sites, often face unforeseen circumstances such as inclement weather, forcing last-minute changes to pick-up points, as well as roads that are not reflected on maps.
“At the moment, (the industry) is still quite human-dependent,” he said.
Associate Professor Theseira said that even on set routes, such as public bus services, there are complexities that are best handled by human drivers for now.
In Singapore, most bus stops have dedicated bays for buses to pull in. But a common situation arises when the bay is not long enough to accommodate several buses arriving at the same time.
“We all know that human bus drivers alternate between practices like, if they're at a certain point, they won't open the doors and let anybody on board, but at a certain point, they will,” he said. “All these things have to be regularised for the (AV) system.”
Such nuances in operating vehicles in public are partly why it has taken so long for AVs to gain traction, even though trials around the world began earlier this century, he added.
“It's not actually a Singapore problem, it's a global problem, and the global problem really has to do with the fact that the early advances in AV technology proved to be illusory,” he said.
While technological breakthroughs in the early 2010s showed that it was feasible for autonomous vehicles to be on public roads, the leap from that to replacing a human driver has yet to be fully bridged.
“The challenge is, can they do it to a level necessary to do everything we expect a human driver to do?” he said.
“Stuff like all your lane change manoeuvres, or picking up passages and so on, that is where it starts to be a lot more troublesome … that’s the problem that has stymied everybody.”
Associate Professor Raymond Ong, a transport infrastructure researcher at the National University of Singapore (NUS), agreed that protocols may have to be put in place for AVs to handle “edge events”.
These include situations such as illegal parking, jaywalking, sudden lane changes and the need to yield to emergency vehicles.
An autonomous shuttle operated by Grab. (Photo: CNA/Erin Liam)
Transport platforms Grab and ComfortDelGro said they will use feedback from their AV trials and public roll-out to improve passenger experience and safety.
A Grab spokesperson said feedback through post-ride surveys has been positive, with more than 95 per cent of riders saying they would recommend the service to others.
“To further enhance the passenger experience, we are working closely with the LTA and community partners to review and explore suggestions,” said Grab.
“These range from enhancing audio-visual cues for safer boarding to providing more direct and faster connections between pick-up locations and drop-off points.”
Grab added that it is focused on improving passenger experience by ensuring the technology is safe, comfortable and intuitive.
“By understanding how people interact with the service today, we can ensure that future services are centred on community trust and ease of use,” the spokesperson said.
Mr Michael Huang, ComfortDelGro’s head of Singapore’s point-to-point mobility business, said that 99 per cent of its by-invite passengers said they would ride the autonomous shuttle again.
One improvement the company has made is an audio guide to explain the autonomous shuttle’s key features and route.
“Such improvements play an important role in building long-term confidence and acceptance of autonomous vehicles,” said Mr Huang.
LTA said that the pilot deployment of AVs on public bus services 400 and 191 will provide it with data to determine whether enhancements to infrastructure, such as pick-up and drop-off points, would be needed to improve accessibility and commuter experience.
One of ComfortDelGro's self-driving vehicles in Punggol. (Photo: Facebook/Land Transport Authority)
Ultimately, cost will determine whether AVs succeed or stall, experts said.
AV adoption has accelerated globally in recent years because deployment costs have fallen, said Assoc Prof Ong.
“During the past 10 to 13 years, the technology has increased exponentially, and when technology increases exponentially, the costs actually drop, making it a more viable solution, and that’s how things started to change,” he said.
Assoc Prof Theseira said that making AVs more widespread will require significant spending on research and development manpower, as well as operational needs such as sensors and monitoring how AVs behave in different environments.
He said: “The big question mark, I think in the industry, is actually how big are all of these costs and which parts of them can be cut, and how reliably can we cut them?”
The benefit of hiring human drivers is that the cost is predictable, he added.
“With AVs, I think the problem is nobody right now can tell you with confidence what this cost is,” he said.
Mr Siow has said that the proliferation of AVs could help address the manpower crunch in the public transport sector.
Assoc Prof Theseira said this could justify the costs associated with early AV deployment.
“In Singapore's case, because our human drivers are expensive, and because we have limited availability of them, we might well decide to basically subsidise deployment at an earlier stage, compared to some other places,” he said.
Singapore’s legal framework for AVs is still underdeveloped, experts said.
Questions such as how liability should be apportioned in an accident and how system failures can be identified remain unanswered.
Singapore amended the Road Traffic Act in 2017 to allow corporations to conduct AV trials.
Since then, no new laws have been passed for AVs used outside trials or designated zones, although the government-led review that began this month is expected to kickstart potential changes.
As more AVs are rolled out, either on a trial basis or for public ridership, the question of liability in an accident has become more pressing.
There is no specific liability framework for AV-related accidents, so conventional negligence principles apply, said Mr Victor Chiew, a partner from the Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer Prolegis Alliance.
For instance, a safety driver may be held liable if they failed to properly supervise the system or did not take over when required, said Mr Chiew, whose practice includes autonomous vehicles, artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies.
“Where an accident stems from a system failure beyond their control, liability could fall under product liability principles – with courts drawing on LTA guidance where relevant.”
Product liability refers to the legal responsibility of manufacturers, distributors and sellers for harm caused by defective products.
The question of liability arose in January, when a self-driving vehicle operated by ComfortDelGro collided with a road divider while undergoing testing in Punggol.
There were no passengers on board and no one was hurt, but the company took a safety timeout before resuming the trial.
Mr Chiew said the current law does not allocate fault for fully driverless AVs, although existing regulations require liability insurance or a deposit of at least S$1.5 million (US$1.17 million) to compensate victims.
“The harder question is how fault is eventually apportioned – to the entity-in-charge of the AV system, fleet operators, safety operators, remote operators, or owners,” he said.
In the event of an AV malfunction causing an accident, questions arise over how to prove whether the cause was a hardware fault, such as a damaged sensor, or a software fault, like an internal algorithm using incorrect data.
Professor Hannah Yee-Fen Lim, an expert in technology law, said it would be “quite easy” to determine a hardware issue because the car can be physically inspected.
Software issues would be harder to determine.
“For example, it could have been the way the system was programmed, or it could have been the algorithm for the artificial intelligence systems, or it could have been incorrect datasets that were used to train the AV, or the datasets might have been inadequate or insufficient,” said Prof Lim.
She added that there are currently no legal requirements for AV developers to provide transparency on their systems, and that it is extremely difficult, “if not practically impossible”, for a claimant currently to discover where a software fault occurred.
She suggested that strict liability should be imposed on the organisation that manufactures the AVs, or if it is a fleet service, the organisation that deploys them.
This is because there are substantial issues and hurdles for claimants in obtaining technological and technical information required under the law for court proceedings, and there are also limited experts in both the technology and legal spheres who can decipher the evidence, she said.
What about “unavoidable crash” situations, such as an AV having to decide between hitting a pedestrian and endangering passengers in the car?
Prof Lim, who has written a book on how autonomous vehicles should be regulated, said such questions are “ridiculous” in nature, as AVs do not have a human brain.
“It does not make decisions like humans make decisions,” she said. “Many people, academics included, really have no idea how AI and AVs function and they introduce questions that are quite irrelevant, and do not reflect the workings of the technology.”
In unavoidable crash scenarios, a crash will happen regardless because they are, by nature, unavoidable, she said.
“For example, if a child or an animal suddenly jumps in front of a vehicle – whether an AV or one driven by a human being – by definition, it is an unavoidable crash, so all there is left to do is to hit the brakes,” she said.
“There is really no decision to be made.”
An on-demand autonomous shuttle bus during the official launch of a public trial run at Sentosa on Aug 20, 2019. (Photo: AFP/Roslan Rahman)
The insurer covering the WeRide Robobus used in the Resorts World Sentosa trials and Grab’s autonomous shuttle service in Punggol said AVs introduce fundamentally different risk categories compared with human-driven vehicles.
These include cyber risks, system regressions, technology-related risks and human-machine interaction risks, such as when the system is used by a safety operator.
“As a result, more granular data points and in-depth technical reviews are required to underwrite these risks,” said an Allianz spokesperson in response to queries from CNA.
“We are evolving our risk assessment and pricing models to address these considerations that go beyond traditional motor assumptions.”
Allianz added that it works closely and proactively with AV operators to understand and manage these emerging risks.
On how costs will be recovered from manufacturers or software providers in the event of technological malfunction, Allianz said claim recovery is an established practice and AV-related cases will follow the same principles.
“Additional coverages such as product liability or warranty protections may be required from manufacturers or software providers and this would form part of the recovery process,” the spokesperson said.
Product liability or warranty protections are legal mechanisms that protect consumers from faulty or dangerous goods.
As for whether the proliferation of AVs could lead to increased road safety and a reduction in insurance premiums, Allianz said accident frequency is expected to decline because onboard technology can “mitigate incidents associated with human error”.
“The severity differs completely from a standard vehicle given the presence of sophisticated sensors, high‑value components and complex systems that influence the cost of repairs and replacements,” the spokesperson added.
These factors, together with the evolution of liability frameworks, will influence insurance premiums.
“As real‑world data accumulates over time, Allianz Insurance Singapore will continue refining pricing models to ensure they remain fair, evidence‑based and aligned to actual risk,” it said.
CNA tried both Grab’s WeRide and ComfortDelGro’s Pony.ai autonomous vehicles.
This journalist found the rides smooth, with the vehicles navigating lane changes, road obstacles such as construction works, and potential hazards without causing alarm to passengers.
The safety drivers on the rides kept a lookout for potential hazards, but did not interfere with the vehicles’ manoeuvres.
Safety appeared to be paramount. At one traffic crossing, for instance, the AV had the right of way but slowed down when it detected a cyclist riding towards the crossing.
The cyclist stopped short of the crossing, before the vehicle continued through it.
Speaking to fellow passengers after one of the rides, they found it safe and smooth.
“It drives better than a human, because humans, sometimes the way they drive, you will feel nauseous because of the braking, so this is quite smooth,” said Mr Alex Tay, who is in his 60s.
He booked a public ride on Grab’s WeRide out of curiosity and to see whether the technology could be applied to his logistics business, which faces a shortage of drivers.
Asked if he would feel at ease without a safety driver on board, Mr Tay said he would feel safer with one.
“Frankly speaking, technology and electronic things will break down maybe once in a while,” he said. “A driver can jam the brakes and do something when there is an emergency, but without a driver, how will the technology respond?”
A screen in Grab's WeRide autonomous shuttle shows passengers the proximity of other vehicles, pedestrians and road obstacles as the shuttle is in operation. (Photo: CNA/Justin Ong)
Such questions from the public are likely to become more common as the AV roll-out intensifies and the need for safety drivers comes under scrutiny.
There will also be friction with other motorists and pedestrians.
Assoc Prof Theseira said there could be a future where drivers and pedestrians take AVs’ safety protocols for granted. For instance, AVs could be designed to keep a safe distance from the vehicle in front of them.
“Programming them to drive safer like this would probably also mean that other drivers on the road would realise that (they) can always cut in front of them,” he said.
“The good thing is that, yes, this is actually intended according to traffic code, but then the bad thing is you also don't want people to push it … and it would lead to unsafe situations.”
Another fundamental question is whether AVs should behave entirely like human drivers, who do not always adhere strictly to traffic rules such as speed limits and stop signs.
Assoc Prof Theseira gave the example of how cars usually overtake other vehicles.
“Everybody understands that to overtake, you probably need to exceed the speed limit,” he said. “But if you hardcode (an AV) to not exceed the speed limit, everybody behind is going to get super (angry).”
Similar issues will arise when it comes to pedestrians, he added.
When AVs are first rolled out, pedestrians may be wary of them, as they may not be confident that the vehicles will stop at a zebra crossing, for instance.
He said: “The problem is eventually, (pedestrians) might realise, wow, this one will just hit the brakes and avoid me, so why should I care?
“We can’t have a situation where people basically push their luck with it just because they know that it is better at responding to them than humans are.”
Assoc Prof Ong said the solution is simply for motorists and pedestrians to adhere to traffic rules, the same way AVs would.
“AV behaviour is actually very consistent, and they may initially be more cautious, so every human driver should still behave as a good driver – basic road safety must be observed,” he said.
“Pedestrians should also be expected to follow basic rules, so if you are crossing a road, observe the traffic light, look left and right before crossing, and don’t assume that the vehicle will stop for you.”
On the point of safety and public acceptance, LTA said that it is paramount that AV operators meet stringent technical and operational safety requirements before they can progress to driverless operations.
“These include demonstrating safe and reliable performance over a sufficient distance on actual deployment routes without safety operator intervention, and the ability to handle safely a wide range of traffic scenarios within the authorised geo-fenced area,” LTA’s spokesperson said.
“Second, we need to build public confidence in the safety of AVs by encouraging as many Singaporeans as possible to experience AV rides.”
LTA added that there is no need for other road users to treat AVs any differently from human-driven vehicles.
“Statistics from overseas deployments indicate that AVs are safer than human drivers,” its spokesperson added.
Mr Muhammad Naz Farihin on a bus in Woodlands on May 13, 2026. (Photo: CNA/Mak Jia Kee)
Nevertheless, Mr Naz believes that dealing with other road users will remain a huge challenge for AVs, especially in Singapore, where some drivers have “very poor” discipline on the road.
He said some drivers he has seen on the road are “fuelled by ego” and have “attempted to disturb” his vehicle before.
“That’s one thing AVs won’t be able to predict,” he said. “Even I myself won’t know if I will have a good day or bad day on the roads.”
Experience accumulated over years on the road helps drivers navigate such complex situations, he added.
While this experience could eventually be incorporated into technology, the millennial does not think he will see AVs fully replace human bus drivers in his lifetime.
“Speaking on behalf of senior drivers, you can’t just pass down 30 years of experience to a robot,” he said.
Continue reading...
“I was actually very impressed, if you were to close your eyes and mind your own business, have a conversation, you won’t actually realise the vehicle was autonomous,” said the 29-year-old.
The driver from private bus company A&S Transit said the vehicle responded quickly and decisively to other road users, pedestrians and obstacles.
“The best way to describe this is that they are as good as a (probation) plate driver making judgments on the roads. They’re learning and preparing,” he said.
CNA Games
Show More Show Less
But while the technology impressed him, Mr Naz is not worried that autonomous vehicles will replace his job any time soon.
In his seven years on the road, he has encountered too many situations where a human touch was essential, and he remains convinced that technology cannot yet replace it.
“As a bus captain, you are more customer-oriented; you have to address a wide diversity of passengers you serve, be it the elderly, the young, or those that require special assistance,” he said.
“This is something a driverless vehicle will not be able to handle.”
Mr Naz is not alone in wondering how quickly autonomous vehicle (AV) technology can become part of everyday life in Singapore.
Mr Muhammad Naz Farihin in Woodlands on May 13, 2026. (Photo: CNA/Mak Jia Kee)
Acting Transport Minister Jeffrey Siow said in an interview last year that there would be a “really big push” for AVs, with many expected to ply the roads in five years.
As part of this, passenger trials began in Punggol earlier this year, with Grab and ComfortDelGro deploying autonomous shuttles. Grab’s AV rides were opened to the public in April.
Grab said in response to queries from CNA that its autonomous shuttles, developed by AV company WeRide, have provided more than 3,800 passenger rides. ComfortDelGro said 700 passengers have experienced by-invite rides on its AVs, developed by Pony.ai.
In the second half of 2026, self-driving buses will be trialled on two public bus routes in Marina Bay and one-north – services 400 and 191, respectively. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) will purchase six autonomous buses to start, and they will operate alongside existing buses for an initial period of three years.
But even with the will to make AVs a reality, can the technology truly take off? It has been 12 years since Singapore’s first AV trials for public rides started.
Transport infrastructure experts said many questions remain unanswered, including whether AVs can reliably mimic human decisions on the road.
Legal experts said there are also unresolved questions over who should be held liable in an accident involving an AV.
The Ministry of Transport (MOT) said earlier this month that it is seeking industry and public feedback on the legal framework for autonomous vehicles.
Then there is the question of social acceptance: whether the behaviour of other drivers and pedestrians will evolve as more AVs ply the roads, and whether this is possible in Singapore, given concerns over worsening road culture.
With these hurdles, when will Singapore reach a point where AV buses and shuttles become a common sight?
Mr Siow said earlier this year that it would be “some time yet before we see mass deployment of autonomous passenger vehicles on our roads”.
While countries such as the US and China have led the deployment of AVs beyond the trial stage, there are fewer than 7,000 such AVs in the world, a "tiny fraction" of the total vehicle population in Singapore, he added.
Experts said AV technology, legal regulations and attitudes towards the nascent technology will eventually catch up. But the bigger question is whether the cost of deploying AVs can be justified if they are meant to replace human drivers.
“AVs could easily be widespread if we are willing to accept that they don’t run with the same economies as human drivers in the near term,” said transport economist Walter Theseira from the Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS).
“If we are expecting it to be cheaper to operate than a human driver, that is something that I think no one can predict with a great deal of certainty how and when that would occur.”
TECHNOLOGICAL GAPS
LTA told CNA that Singapore is well-positioned to facilitate AV deployment, given its comprehensive and well-maintained road network.
“Prior to operating on public roads, AVs are required to demonstrate the capability to safely navigate Singapore’s road network via a closed-circuit test,” said an LTA spokesperson.
“Subsequently, when operating on public roads, there will be a safety operator on board the AV as an additional safeguard to ensure safety for other road users.”
LTA added that the AVs may progress to driverless operations without safety operators, only after clearing the necessary readiness assessments.
However, when it comes to driving a bus, many nuances cannot be easily replicated by technology, private bus operators said.
Mr Lionel Lee, director of private bus company Westpoint Transit, said AVs are not yet at the level where they can make decisions on the fly, such as rerouting when there is an accident.
Another scenario is when a passenger injures themself or needs medical assistance on board. “Without a human there, they will not be attended to,” he said.
He acknowledged that such situations could be managed through remote monitoring – for example, by having a human operator at a central location change the route, or by deploying employees to attend to passengers.
“But then you are doubling down on resources to cover where AV tech is not able to provide for,” he said.
Mr Dexter Ang, marketing manager of A&S Transit, said drivers often have to react to information given on the ground, such as locating places based on human descriptions.
His company’s bus drivers, who primarily transport workers between dormitories and construction sites, often face unforeseen circumstances such as inclement weather, forcing last-minute changes to pick-up points, as well as roads that are not reflected on maps.
“At the moment, (the industry) is still quite human-dependent,” he said.
Associate Professor Theseira said that even on set routes, such as public bus services, there are complexities that are best handled by human drivers for now.
In Singapore, most bus stops have dedicated bays for buses to pull in. But a common situation arises when the bay is not long enough to accommodate several buses arriving at the same time.
“We all know that human bus drivers alternate between practices like, if they're at a certain point, they won't open the doors and let anybody on board, but at a certain point, they will,” he said. “All these things have to be regularised for the (AV) system.”
Such nuances in operating vehicles in public are partly why it has taken so long for AVs to gain traction, even though trials around the world began earlier this century, he added.
“It's not actually a Singapore problem, it's a global problem, and the global problem really has to do with the fact that the early advances in AV technology proved to be illusory,” he said.
While technological breakthroughs in the early 2010s showed that it was feasible for autonomous vehicles to be on public roads, the leap from that to replacing a human driver has yet to be fully bridged.
“The challenge is, can they do it to a level necessary to do everything we expect a human driver to do?” he said.
“Stuff like all your lane change manoeuvres, or picking up passages and so on, that is where it starts to be a lot more troublesome … that’s the problem that has stymied everybody.”
Associate Professor Raymond Ong, a transport infrastructure researcher at the National University of Singapore (NUS), agreed that protocols may have to be put in place for AVs to handle “edge events”.
These include situations such as illegal parking, jaywalking, sudden lane changes and the need to yield to emergency vehicles.
An autonomous shuttle operated by Grab. (Photo: CNA/Erin Liam)
Transport platforms Grab and ComfortDelGro said they will use feedback from their AV trials and public roll-out to improve passenger experience and safety.
A Grab spokesperson said feedback through post-ride surveys has been positive, with more than 95 per cent of riders saying they would recommend the service to others.
“To further enhance the passenger experience, we are working closely with the LTA and community partners to review and explore suggestions,” said Grab.
“These range from enhancing audio-visual cues for safer boarding to providing more direct and faster connections between pick-up locations and drop-off points.”
Grab added that it is focused on improving passenger experience by ensuring the technology is safe, comfortable and intuitive.
“By understanding how people interact with the service today, we can ensure that future services are centred on community trust and ease of use,” the spokesperson said.
Mr Michael Huang, ComfortDelGro’s head of Singapore’s point-to-point mobility business, said that 99 per cent of its by-invite passengers said they would ride the autonomous shuttle again.
One improvement the company has made is an audio guide to explain the autonomous shuttle’s key features and route.
“Such improvements play an important role in building long-term confidence and acceptance of autonomous vehicles,” said Mr Huang.
LTA said that the pilot deployment of AVs on public bus services 400 and 191 will provide it with data to determine whether enhancements to infrastructure, such as pick-up and drop-off points, would be needed to improve accessibility and commuter experience.
One of ComfortDelGro's self-driving vehicles in Punggol. (Photo: Facebook/Land Transport Authority)
THE PROBLEM WITH COST
Ultimately, cost will determine whether AVs succeed or stall, experts said.
AV adoption has accelerated globally in recent years because deployment costs have fallen, said Assoc Prof Ong.
“During the past 10 to 13 years, the technology has increased exponentially, and when technology increases exponentially, the costs actually drop, making it a more viable solution, and that’s how things started to change,” he said.
Assoc Prof Theseira said that making AVs more widespread will require significant spending on research and development manpower, as well as operational needs such as sensors and monitoring how AVs behave in different environments.
He said: “The big question mark, I think in the industry, is actually how big are all of these costs and which parts of them can be cut, and how reliably can we cut them?”
The benefit of hiring human drivers is that the cost is predictable, he added.
“With AVs, I think the problem is nobody right now can tell you with confidence what this cost is,” he said.
Mr Siow has said that the proliferation of AVs could help address the manpower crunch in the public transport sector.
Assoc Prof Theseira said this could justify the costs associated with early AV deployment.
“In Singapore's case, because our human drivers are expensive, and because we have limited availability of them, we might well decide to basically subsidise deployment at an earlier stage, compared to some other places,” he said.
Related:
LEGAL ISSUES
Singapore’s legal framework for AVs is still underdeveloped, experts said.
Questions such as how liability should be apportioned in an accident and how system failures can be identified remain unanswered.
Singapore amended the Road Traffic Act in 2017 to allow corporations to conduct AV trials.
Since then, no new laws have been passed for AVs used outside trials or designated zones, although the government-led review that began this month is expected to kickstart potential changes.
As more AVs are rolled out, either on a trial basis or for public ridership, the question of liability in an accident has become more pressing.
There is no specific liability framework for AV-related accidents, so conventional negligence principles apply, said Mr Victor Chiew, a partner from the Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer Prolegis Alliance.
For instance, a safety driver may be held liable if they failed to properly supervise the system or did not take over when required, said Mr Chiew, whose practice includes autonomous vehicles, artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies.
“Where an accident stems from a system failure beyond their control, liability could fall under product liability principles – with courts drawing on LTA guidance where relevant.”
Product liability refers to the legal responsibility of manufacturers, distributors and sellers for harm caused by defective products.
The question of liability arose in January, when a self-driving vehicle operated by ComfortDelGro collided with a road divider while undergoing testing in Punggol.
There were no passengers on board and no one was hurt, but the company took a safety timeout before resuming the trial.
Mr Chiew said the current law does not allocate fault for fully driverless AVs, although existing regulations require liability insurance or a deposit of at least S$1.5 million (US$1.17 million) to compensate victims.
“The harder question is how fault is eventually apportioned – to the entity-in-charge of the AV system, fleet operators, safety operators, remote operators, or owners,” he said.
In the event of an AV malfunction causing an accident, questions arise over how to prove whether the cause was a hardware fault, such as a damaged sensor, or a software fault, like an internal algorithm using incorrect data.
Professor Hannah Yee-Fen Lim, an expert in technology law, said it would be “quite easy” to determine a hardware issue because the car can be physically inspected.
Software issues would be harder to determine.
“For example, it could have been the way the system was programmed, or it could have been the algorithm for the artificial intelligence systems, or it could have been incorrect datasets that were used to train the AV, or the datasets might have been inadequate or insufficient,” said Prof Lim.
She added that there are currently no legal requirements for AV developers to provide transparency on their systems, and that it is extremely difficult, “if not practically impossible”, for a claimant currently to discover where a software fault occurred.
She suggested that strict liability should be imposed on the organisation that manufactures the AVs, or if it is a fleet service, the organisation that deploys them.
This is because there are substantial issues and hurdles for claimants in obtaining technological and technical information required under the law for court proceedings, and there are also limited experts in both the technology and legal spheres who can decipher the evidence, she said.
What about “unavoidable crash” situations, such as an AV having to decide between hitting a pedestrian and endangering passengers in the car?
Prof Lim, who has written a book on how autonomous vehicles should be regulated, said such questions are “ridiculous” in nature, as AVs do not have a human brain.
“It does not make decisions like humans make decisions,” she said. “Many people, academics included, really have no idea how AI and AVs function and they introduce questions that are quite irrelevant, and do not reflect the workings of the technology.”
In unavoidable crash scenarios, a crash will happen regardless because they are, by nature, unavoidable, she said.
“For example, if a child or an animal suddenly jumps in front of a vehicle – whether an AV or one driven by a human being – by definition, it is an unavoidable crash, so all there is left to do is to hit the brakes,” she said.
“There is really no decision to be made.”
An on-demand autonomous shuttle bus during the official launch of a public trial run at Sentosa on Aug 20, 2019. (Photo: AFP/Roslan Rahman)
WHAT ABOUT INSURANCE?
The insurer covering the WeRide Robobus used in the Resorts World Sentosa trials and Grab’s autonomous shuttle service in Punggol said AVs introduce fundamentally different risk categories compared with human-driven vehicles.
These include cyber risks, system regressions, technology-related risks and human-machine interaction risks, such as when the system is used by a safety operator.
“As a result, more granular data points and in-depth technical reviews are required to underwrite these risks,” said an Allianz spokesperson in response to queries from CNA.
“We are evolving our risk assessment and pricing models to address these considerations that go beyond traditional motor assumptions.”
Allianz added that it works closely and proactively with AV operators to understand and manage these emerging risks.
On how costs will be recovered from manufacturers or software providers in the event of technological malfunction, Allianz said claim recovery is an established practice and AV-related cases will follow the same principles.
“Additional coverages such as product liability or warranty protections may be required from manufacturers or software providers and this would form part of the recovery process,” the spokesperson said.
Product liability or warranty protections are legal mechanisms that protect consumers from faulty or dangerous goods.
As for whether the proliferation of AVs could lead to increased road safety and a reduction in insurance premiums, Allianz said accident frequency is expected to decline because onboard technology can “mitigate incidents associated with human error”.
“The severity differs completely from a standard vehicle given the presence of sophisticated sensors, high‑value components and complex systems that influence the cost of repairs and replacements,” the spokesperson added.
These factors, together with the evolution of liability frameworks, will influence insurance premiums.
“As real‑world data accumulates over time, Allianz Insurance Singapore will continue refining pricing models to ensure they remain fair, evidence‑based and aligned to actual risk,” it said.
Related:
SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE
CNA tried both Grab’s WeRide and ComfortDelGro’s Pony.ai autonomous vehicles.
This journalist found the rides smooth, with the vehicles navigating lane changes, road obstacles such as construction works, and potential hazards without causing alarm to passengers.
The safety drivers on the rides kept a lookout for potential hazards, but did not interfere with the vehicles’ manoeuvres.
Safety appeared to be paramount. At one traffic crossing, for instance, the AV had the right of way but slowed down when it detected a cyclist riding towards the crossing.
The cyclist stopped short of the crossing, before the vehicle continued through it.
Speaking to fellow passengers after one of the rides, they found it safe and smooth.
“It drives better than a human, because humans, sometimes the way they drive, you will feel nauseous because of the braking, so this is quite smooth,” said Mr Alex Tay, who is in his 60s.
He booked a public ride on Grab’s WeRide out of curiosity and to see whether the technology could be applied to his logistics business, which faces a shortage of drivers.
Asked if he would feel at ease without a safety driver on board, Mr Tay said he would feel safer with one.
“Frankly speaking, technology and electronic things will break down maybe once in a while,” he said. “A driver can jam the brakes and do something when there is an emergency, but without a driver, how will the technology respond?”
A screen in Grab's WeRide autonomous shuttle shows passengers the proximity of other vehicles, pedestrians and road obstacles as the shuttle is in operation. (Photo: CNA/Justin Ong)
Such questions from the public are likely to become more common as the AV roll-out intensifies and the need for safety drivers comes under scrutiny.
There will also be friction with other motorists and pedestrians.
Assoc Prof Theseira said there could be a future where drivers and pedestrians take AVs’ safety protocols for granted. For instance, AVs could be designed to keep a safe distance from the vehicle in front of them.
“Programming them to drive safer like this would probably also mean that other drivers on the road would realise that (they) can always cut in front of them,” he said.
“The good thing is that, yes, this is actually intended according to traffic code, but then the bad thing is you also don't want people to push it … and it would lead to unsafe situations.”
Another fundamental question is whether AVs should behave entirely like human drivers, who do not always adhere strictly to traffic rules such as speed limits and stop signs.
Assoc Prof Theseira gave the example of how cars usually overtake other vehicles.
“Everybody understands that to overtake, you probably need to exceed the speed limit,” he said. “But if you hardcode (an AV) to not exceed the speed limit, everybody behind is going to get super (angry).”
Similar issues will arise when it comes to pedestrians, he added.
When AVs are first rolled out, pedestrians may be wary of them, as they may not be confident that the vehicles will stop at a zebra crossing, for instance.
He said: “The problem is eventually, (pedestrians) might realise, wow, this one will just hit the brakes and avoid me, so why should I care?
“We can’t have a situation where people basically push their luck with it just because they know that it is better at responding to them than humans are.”
Assoc Prof Ong said the solution is simply for motorists and pedestrians to adhere to traffic rules, the same way AVs would.
“AV behaviour is actually very consistent, and they may initially be more cautious, so every human driver should still behave as a good driver – basic road safety must be observed,” he said.
“Pedestrians should also be expected to follow basic rules, so if you are crossing a road, observe the traffic light, look left and right before crossing, and don’t assume that the vehicle will stop for you.”
On the point of safety and public acceptance, LTA said that it is paramount that AV operators meet stringent technical and operational safety requirements before they can progress to driverless operations.
“These include demonstrating safe and reliable performance over a sufficient distance on actual deployment routes without safety operator intervention, and the ability to handle safely a wide range of traffic scenarios within the authorised geo-fenced area,” LTA’s spokesperson said.
“Second, we need to build public confidence in the safety of AVs by encouraging as many Singaporeans as possible to experience AV rides.”
LTA added that there is no need for other road users to treat AVs any differently from human-driven vehicles.
“Statistics from overseas deployments indicate that AVs are safer than human drivers,” its spokesperson added.
Mr Muhammad Naz Farihin on a bus in Woodlands on May 13, 2026. (Photo: CNA/Mak Jia Kee)
Nevertheless, Mr Naz believes that dealing with other road users will remain a huge challenge for AVs, especially in Singapore, where some drivers have “very poor” discipline on the road.
He said some drivers he has seen on the road are “fuelled by ego” and have “attempted to disturb” his vehicle before.
“That’s one thing AVs won’t be able to predict,” he said. “Even I myself won’t know if I will have a good day or bad day on the roads.”
Experience accumulated over years on the road helps drivers navigate such complex situations, he added.
While this experience could eventually be incorporated into technology, the millennial does not think he will see AVs fully replace human bus drivers in his lifetime.
“Speaking on behalf of senior drivers, you can’t just pass down 30 years of experience to a robot,” he said.
Continue reading...