Commentary: Misuse of PMAs is rampant, but take care to punish reckless riders and not legitimate users

SINGAPORE: Earlier this year, a viral video captured a family of five – two adults and three children – riding a single mobility scooter on a public road outside Anchorpoint mall. 
The video drew widespread criticism online, with many saying that such misuse of personal mobility aids (PMAs) by the able-bodied have become commonplace. They lamented that delivery riders seeking to bypass regulations on other transport modes are frequent culprits too. 
While mobility scooters provide independence to many seniors and disabled individuals, their misuse by those without mobility issues isn’t just about public nuisances – it poses a serious risk.
PMA-related accidents are becoming more frequent, with nine off-road cases recorded in the first half of 2024 alone, compared with 16 such accidents in all of 2023. Legitimate users, reliant on others to use PMAs safely around them, are exposed to danger when misusers treat mobility scooters as if they are go-karts. 
Errant riders have also tainted the public image of PMAs, causing some to view them largely as a bane. If unchecked, such stigma could spur backlash against PMAs’ very presence in public spaces.
How can we ensure PMAs do not become an endangerment to public safety, without hindering accessibility to such aids for those with genuine mobility difficulties?
There are mainly three types of PMAs: Manual wheelchairs, motorised wheelchairs and mobility scooters. Out of these, mobility scooters are in the spotlight for growing concern over their increasing misuse by able-bodied persons, as observed by the Active Mobility Advisory Panel in 2023. 
New Ministry of Transport rules, effective 2025, mandate that individuals seeking to use mobility scooters be certified by doctors to have health or physical conditions requiring their use.
Answering parliamentary questions on Sep 10, 2024, Minister for Transport Chee Hong Tat said the authorities have collaborated with healthcare providers, government agencies, and welfare groups to streamline the medical certification process for mobility scooter users. The focus is on making the system more user-friendly for those who truly need mobility aids while also preventing unnecessary strain on healthcare facilities. 
Safety too is being stepped up, with the maximum allowed speed of PMAs being lowered from 10kmh currently to 6kmh. This figure takes reference from normal walking speeds and will still allow PMA users to cross roads safely, just as pedestrians do. 
Size restrictions for PMAs used on public paths will also be aligned with existing dimensional limits for PMAs on public transport (70cm width, 120cm length, 150cm height, 300kg weight limit), with exceptions granted on a case-by-case basis for users with certified medical needs.
Aside from the new regulations, it’s worth considering if enforcement against those who use PMAs without legitimate need or reckless PMA users should also be stepped up in terms of frequency and visibility. More regular patrols and speed traps could be implemented, especially in areas with heavy PMA traffic such as neighbourhood centres, parks and shopping districts. 
Closed-circuit cameras deployed in these hotspots can leverage video analytics to automatically detect and flag violations. Well-publicised enforcement blitzes would send an unequivocal deterrent message.
Rigorous upstream import controls and inspections of retailers (both physical and online) are also key to choking non-compliant supply, backed by stiffer penalties such as licence revocations for selling mobility scooters to those without disability. Tracking devices and systems enabling remote monitoring and mandatory speed limiters could greatly facilitate enforcement. Such trackers could be installed during the initial registration process of PMAs with the Land Transport Authority. 
Public education is also paramount. Many users may be unaware their PMA usage is improper, or puts others at risk. Food delivery companies, for example, must proactively steer able-bodied delivery riders towards making food deliveries on bicycles instead. 
When it comes to indoor spaces, navigating a mobility scooter through crowded, narrow corridors with high foot traffic still presents dangers, even at slower speeds. Accidental collisions can easily result in injuries, especially for more vulnerable shoppers and patrons like young children and the elderly. 
Some argue that malls should just ban PMAs outright. However, this would unacceptably exclude disabled people and seniors from shopping centres, which are hubs of economic and social activity for all. The right to patronise shops, meet with friends and live an engaged life cannot be restricted only to the able-bodied. 
Additional innovative solutions need to be pioneered to enable safer sharing of interior spaces between PMAs and pedestrians.  
Some that merit investigation: Compulsory low-speed zones with stricter limits, separate designated lanes, go-slow checkpoints, and more spacious pathways. A leaf could be taken out of Funan’s book, with its 200m indoor cycling path. These malls could also be explicitly designated as PMA-friendly. 
Built-in speed limiters for motorised PMAs could also have further speed dampening settings that automatically kick in when indoors – we already have the technology to make this work. However, this would also require extensive infrastructure in all indoor spaces to be effective.
A simple low-tech option would be to require PMA users to manually switch their device to an “indoor mode” with a lower speed limit when entering a building – but the effectiveness of this would be dependent on user compliance and initiative. 
The significant momentum of heavy mobility scooters makes collisions uniquely hazardous. For victims, the costs of medical treatment and repairs can be financially ruinous. Many PMA users, often from lower-income groups like the elderly, may lack the means to pay out of pocket. 
Mandating liability insurance would guarantee compensation for those harmed. Compulsory coverage could also spur more responsible riding behaviour by PMA users. The risk of future premium hikes or policy voidance for unsafe conduct could deter reckless practices such as speeding. 
Crucially, liability protection for PMA users themselves could also forestall potential public calls for draconian bans on these devices. Mandatory policies may help preserve access for the disabled by mitigating the fallout for victims and the uninsured. 
However, this would place additional financial burden on lower-income PMA users. 
To mitigate this, the government could consider providing need-based subsidies or allowing the costs to be paid through small instalments or MediSave. Means-tested coverage for disabled PMA users should be pegged significantly lower than regular vehicles, reflecting their lower usage and risk exposure.
The abuse and misuse of PMAs must be comprehensively addressed – but any enforcement and education drive must be careful not to impede the disabled. 
Nevertheless, rules and regulations are merely a complement to building a more gracious and accommodating social culture. 
PMA riders need to recognise that their choice of mobility aid comes with responsibilities. Public education campaigns should emphasise not just the rules, but the rationale – to protect access for the disabled and safety for everyone. 
Ben Chester Cheong is a law lecturer and MOE-START Scholar at the Singapore University of Social Sciences, and a practising lawyer at RHTLaw Asia LLP.