Why Our Crossings Feel Unsafe And How We Can Fix It
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 suffers more serious consequences.
In a 2016 Court of Appeal ruling [1], a pedestrian was hit at a traffic light-controlled crossing even though he had the green signal. The court decided he was 15 per cent responsible because he did not check traffic again after stepping past the centre divider.
In legal terms, 15 per cent may seem small.
In practical terms, the message was powerful: even if you follow the signal, you may still be considered partly responsible if you are injured.
Contrary to the 2016 case, an earlier ruling in 1993 [2] had stressed that even when a pedestrian makes a mistake, a driver still has a duty to keep a proper lookout and try to avoid a collision.
Over time, the balance appears to have shifted. The crossing no longer feels like a place where safety is presumed. It feels like a space where risk is shared.
What the Numbers Tell Us
According to figures reported by The Straits Times, road traffic fatalities in Singapore reached a 10-year high of 149 deaths in 2025. Injuries also rose from 9,342 in 2024 to 9,955 in 2025.
Most troubling, deaths among elderly pedestrians more than doubled in a single year.
Police reports often cite familiar causes: drivers failing to keep a proper lookout, running red lights, or speeding.
Yet public messaging continues to emphasise that pedestrians must stay alert and never assume drivers have seen them.
Of course, pedestrians should stay alert. But if someone is elderly, moving slowly, and crossing with the green man, should they bear part of the burden when a driver breaks the rules?
That is the question many people are quietly asking.
How Messaging Shapes Behaviour
Messages matter because they influence behaviour.
Quote Sundaresh Menon Chief Justice in the 2016 Court of Appeal case [3]:
The result of the ruling today is that pedestrians will no longer be able to take comfort in the fact that they are crossing at a point controlled by a police officer or by traffic lights. They will have to safeguard themselves in precisely the same manner in such circumstances as if they were jaywalking.
When people believe crossings are not fully protected spaces, they hesitate. You see pedestrians stepping forward and then pulling back. You see drivers inching forward into zebra crossings. You hear comments suggesting that if someone was hit, they must not have been careful enough.
When responsibility is described as evenly shared, the greater duty carried by drivers can become blurred.
That is not about blaming drivers as individuals. Most drivers want to be safe. It is about recognising that the person controlling a heavy, fast-moving machine carries a higher level of responsibility simply because of the harm that machine can cause.
Restoring Confidence at Crossings
What would it look like to restore crossings as genuinely safe spaces?
First, we can clarify the principle.
If a pedestrian crosses correctly at a proper crossing with a green signal, and a driver runs a red light or speeds through a red light, the default position should be clear: responsibility rests primarily with the driver. Courts and compensation frameworks should reflect that principle plainly.
Second, we can reinforce behaviour through design and enforcement.
Drivers approaching any zebra or traffic light-controlled crossing should travel at a speed that allows them to stop fully if someone steps onto the road. In higher-risk areas such as Silver Zones, raised crossings and targeted enforcement can help ensure that speeds are low enough to prevent serious injury.
Third, we can adjust the tone of public messaging.
Instead of placing equal weight on every road user in every situation, campaigns can acknowledge a simple hierarchy: those who operate motor vehicles carry the primary duty to protect those on foot at crossings.
That does not remove pedestrians' personal responsibility. It simply recognises physical reality.
Who Is the System Meant to Protect?
Singapore is widely regarded as a safe city. But when fatalities rise, and older pedestrians are increasingly affected, we should pause.
A road crossing should not feel like a gamble.
It should be the one place where a grandparent holding a child’s hand can step forward with confidence when the signal turns green.
Rebuilding that confidence does not require radical change. It requires clarity.
Clarity in law.
Clarity in enforcement.
Clarity in public messaging.
Above all, clarity about who carries the greater responsibility when harm occurs.
If we can restore that principle, then the simple act of crossing the road with the green man can feel the way it was always meant to feel,
Safe.
Author: Francis Chu
President, Safety for Active Mobility Users (SAMU)
This article was developed with the assistance of AI-based language tools. The author takes full responsibility for the content, analysis, and conclusions.
Reference:
[1] Straits Times 2016-03-19
[2] Ng Weng Cheong v Soh Oh Loo (1993), the Court of Appeal
[3] COURT OF APPEAL Asnah Bte Ab Rahman v Li Jianlin [2016] SGCA 16
Comments
Post a Comment