Safety for Active Mobility Users

Singapore does not lack enforcement. The question is whether enforcement, speed policy, and road design are working together as a fail-safe system. Singapore recorded 149 road deaths in 2025 — the fourth consecutive year of rising fatalities and a 10-year high. The policy response has been familiar: more speed cameras, higher fines, and public education campaigns urging road users to be more careful. These measures are not without value. Enforcement and education influence behaviour and signal social norms. But evidence from Singapore and other global cities suggests a crucial distinction: Enforcement changes behaviour temporarily. Road design and speed policy change behaviour permanently. The cities that have successfully reduced road deaths over long periods did not choose one or the other. They combined enforcement, lower speeds, and safer street design — but they placed the greatest emphasis on the measures that work continuously, not intermittently. Eight cities, one consistent pa...

If you are an older pedestrian in Singapore, or a parent holding a child’s hand, you may have noticed something unsettling. The very place where the law tells you to cross, the designated pedestrian crossing, no longer feels completely safe. You wait for the green man. You look left and right. You step forward because the signal says you can. Yet you still feel the need to scan every approaching car, just in case a driver does not stop. That feeling is not irrational. It reflects a deeper shift in how we think about responsibility on our roads. And it is worth asking whether that shift has gone too far. The Rise of “Shared Responsibility” For years, public messaging has emphasised that road safety is everyone’s responsibility. Drivers, pedestrians, cyclists, riders. All must be careful. On the surface, that sounds reasonable. But it also smooths over an uncomfortable fact: a car can cause far greater harm than a person on foot. When something goes wrong, the pedestrian almost always su...