1. Introduction
The proliferation of various light vehicles that are being used for private or shared use has made micromobility a revolution in transportation and urban mobility [
1]. Theoretically, micromobility constitutes all passenger trips of less than 8 km (5 miles), which account for as much as 50 to 60 percent of today’s total passenger miles travelled in China, European Union, and United States [
2]. Micromobility devices can be both human-powered or assisted by electricity [
3]. The powered micromobility devices comprising electric scooters or e-scooters, e-bikes, hoverboards, electric unicycles, and e-skateboards have recently become popular. They can solve problems of urbanisation such as congestion and environmental pollution, and are particularly helpful in solving the first-mile and the last mile-problem (
ibid.). Due to the electric motor in powered micromobility devices, there are no tailpipe emissions, unlike other transportation modes that use thermic motors [
4]. There is a clear advantage for micromobility devices in efficiency, productivity, and saving travel time compared to alternative means of transport which is crucial for building sustainable forms of transport [
5]. However, the risks of using them have also manifested in many countries where such devices have been adopted.
There is growing literature on the implications of these devices, especially e-scooters. There have been studies on the risks from the use of e-scooters [
6] and the varied nature of injuries [
7,
8,
9,
10,
11,
12]. There have particularly been safety issues like fractures, head injuries, and soft tissue injuries from accidents involving micromobility devices [
6,
12,
13,
14]. Issues surrounding Privacy and liability have also been cited in the use of micromobility devices offered, particularly by e-scooter sharing companies [
15,
16]. Thus, regulating these devices has proven to be a challenging task for governments [
3]. Managing the technological risks of these devices is imperative to understand their differential benefits amongst segments of the society, uncertainty in policymaking, and drawbacks in policy responses to policy problems [
17]. A comprehensive study of a specific case can through light on these issues, enabling jurisdictions that are likely to adopt these devices or already have, to learn from the existing policy responses.
The case of Singapore is interesting to study the governance of powered micromobility devices. In a bid to make Singapore ‘car-lite’, a slew of initiatives took place to encourage and make their adoption easier. Singapore remained one of the countries to embrace the devices at a time when some cities in the world like New York, Tokyo, and London had a partial or total ban [
18]. However, as the situation evolved in Singapore, regulations were imposed to deal with the risks related to adopting these devices, and they were finally banned from footpaths in April 2020. This article evaluates the governance of technological risks of powered micromobility devices in Singapore. It addresses two major research questions—first, what were the technological risks in adopting powered micromobility devices in Singapore? Second, how did the government manage those risks? By undertaking a traditional literature review and using the Factiva database, we describe the evolution in the regulatory landscape of powered micromobility devices in Singapore. We use the insights from this to analyse the risks of adopting these devices and the mix of governing strategies used by the government.
This article is structured as follows.
Section 2 describes the methodology and presents a background of micromobility devices with reasons for Singapore being an appropriate case to study governing strategies of micromobility devices.
Section 3 presents an in-depth case description.
Section 4 explains the risks identified with the operation of the devices and presents a discussion of the governing strategies to overcome the risks.
Section 5 discusses the findings.
Section 6 proposes the following policy recommendations for adoption of powered micromobility devices: (i) adoption of control-oriented, toleration-oriented, and adaptation-oriented governing strategies, (ii) strengthening infrastructure and policy capacity, (iii) inclusive participatory policymaking and (iv) government stewardship for a holistic approach to resolve problems. We conclude with
Section 7.
2. Methodology, Background, and Motivation
We followed three steps for this case study research: first, for the background on micromobility devices, we searched SCOPUS and Google Scholar by using specific keywords. For a background on micromobility devices, we used the keywords in
Table 1.
Second, we gleaned through newspaper articles for information on micromobility devices in Singapore. To do this, we used Factiva and used the search string—“PMDs OR e-scooters OR electric scooters AND Singapore” to collect newspaper articles from January 2016 to March 2021. A total of 2419 articles were provided by Factiva for this search string (see
Figure 1 for the details about the number of articles). The large number of articles in 2019 indicates the focus on powered micromobility devices when a slew of regulations was undertaken. The newspaper articles were scrutinized for process tracing which helped in providing a timeline of events related to micromobility devices in Singapore. A detailed reading of newspaper articles enabled a description of the events, policy intentions of the government, dynamics between actors, and policy instruments used. Based on secondary research, a case description in chronological order is elaborated for the period of analysis.
After synthesising the information about the micromobility landscape in Singapore, we analyse the case by identifying the technological risks and use the framework of [
16] to explain the governing strategies used by the government in Singapore to overcome the risks arising from the adoption of micromobility devices.
The definition of micromobility is broad at the moment as the devices that can be classified under micromobility are still evolving and cannot be limited to a certain type of vehicle [
3]. The International Transport Forum identifies micromobility as the use of micro-vehicles that are defined as vehicles with a weight of more than 350 kg and a design speed of a maximum of 45 km/h [
1]. While there is no international classification of micro-vehicles, the SAE International defines a powered micromobility vehicle as a wheeled vehicle that must (1) be fully or partially powered, (2) have a curb weight less than or equal to 227 kg and (3) have a top speed less than or equal to 48 km/h [
19] (see
Supplementary material A Figure S1 for a visual depiction of powered micromobility devices). The SAE International was also known as the Society of Automotive Engineers and is an association based in the United States that develops standards and is a professional association for engineers in different industries. Powered bicycles, powered standing scooters, powered seated scooters, powered self-balanced boards, and powered skates are the various types of powered micromobility vehicles designed for one person except when designed for more, with an electric or combustion power source (
ibid).
Motor vehicles in Singapore comprise car and station wagons, taxis, motorcycles and scooters, goods vehicles (for light goods, heavy goods, goods and passengers) and buses. In 2020, taxis, buses, and private hire cars made up for 11 per cent of all motor vehicles, while motorcycles and scooters, goods and other vehicles, and cars had a share of 15 percent, 17 percent, and 58 percent, respectively [
20]. In Singapore, regulations related to powered micromobility devices are handled by the Land Transport Authority (LTA). LTA is the statutory board in the Ministry of Transport responsible for planning, designing, building, and maintaining the land transport system and related infrastructure in Singapore [
21]. Micromobility devices are classified within active mobility devices in Singapore. LTA considers the following as active mobility devices: bicycles, power-assisted bicycles, or e-bikes, motorised and non-motorised personal mobility devices (PMDs) like kick-scooters, electric scooters, hoverboards, unicycles, etc., and personal mobility aids (PMAs) [
22]. In this article, we focus on the powered active mobility devices only. The rationale for this is twofold. First, powered micromobility devices like e-scooters and e-bikes are being used extensively worldwide [
3,
20,
21]. In Singapore, from the 100,000 registered e-scooters, there were 7000 registrations from food delivery riders of three major companies—Deliveroo, GrabFood and Foodpanda [
23]. Second, due to their prevalence, bike-sharing and e-scooter sharing companies have also proliferated. In Singapore, with initial permission for a few companies to operate in specified areas, 14 companies finally applied for a sandbox licensing framework. However, the licensing regime was cancelled after the ban on the operation of PMDs on footpaths.
The case study approach is suitable for the research questions in this study [
24]. To study how the governance of risks arising from the adoption of powered micromobility devices, Singapore is an appropriate case due to the following reasons that satisfy the requirements of case selection: first, micromobility devices became popular in Singapore way before in other countries and the Singapore government was pro-active in monitoring the risks over time; second, powered micromobility devices are a practical alternative to cars for short distances in Singapore where the priority of the government has been to encourage ’walk-cycle-ride’ modes of transport to make the transportation system car-lite; and third, in the hot and humid weather of Singapore, powered micromobility devices are a convenient mode of transport not requiring much physical exertion by the rider, in addition to the population being technology-friendly. This makes the case novel and prominently discussed in the literature related to micromobility, fulfilling the case selection criteria by [
25]. The Land Transport Master Plan advisory panel (LTMP) proposed in 2019 emphasised the goal of Singapore to become a 45-min city by 2040, which translates to 90 per cent of the peak-hour trips by foot, cycle, or shared transport to be no more than 45 min [
26]. Since PMDs would play a crucial role in achieving this goal, the LTA focused on creating a regulatory framework for the safe use of active mobility devices [
27].
5. Discussion
The case of the regulation of powered micromobility devices in Singapore brings various insights about the dilemmas faced in the governance of new transportation technologies and the approaches to manage them. The case description of the adoption of devices in Singapore introduces the policy process of regulating a novel technology and the impact of new forms of transport on policymaking, especially policy formulation and implementation. Our analysis through the case study reveals that the government initially took time to ’wait and watch’ while adopting light control and then turning to heavy control governing strategy before finally banning the use of PMDs on public paths. Since the idea of defining micromobility devices is still evolving, the government kept re-working the ambiguities in classifying the devices as well (for instance clarifying the size and weight dimensions for the operation of PMDs and PMAs). The majority of the regulations were focused on e-scooters due to their widespread use in the city-state and the accidents involving them. The case study suggests that a combination of governing strategies and an adaptation-oriented strategy would be relevant to deal with the diverse risks of adopting this new transportation technology. Singapore was able to adopt this stance through policy learning and drawing lessons.
The safety concerns were key in driving the decisions about control-oriented governing strategy. The establishment of the AMAP provided a platform for the stakeholders to express their viewpoints about powered PMDs and assisted the government in framing regulations. With every round of reports submitted by the AMAP, there were more regulations introduced. Some major changes in legislation occurred between 2018 and 2019 when there was a focus on rules not only for the PMD users but also for pedestrians by introducing a code of conduct. The introduction of mandatory registration of e-scooters was to ensure ownership of the devices and the availability of information of the user in case of accidents. In addition, to tackle fire accidents, the UL2272 standard was introduced, and later the government also established a task force comprising of a collaboration of different agencies to control fire-related incidents. The turning point in the case of governing the devices in Singapore was the death of a woman hit by an e-scooter rider in September 2019. There had been 6 deaths recorded involving PMD riders and pedestrians between January 2017 and September 2019 [
106]. Eventually, this led to a ban on e-scooters on footpaths, which was later extended to all PMDs with the amendments in the AMA in 2020.
With the safety of users and pedestrians being of prime importance, the government also sought to nudge the stakeholders to make behavioural changes and adapt to the adoption of powered micromobility devices. The use of campaigns, programs for safe riding, code of conduct for pedestrians and employment of enforcement officers were key steps taken. While safety issues were addressed to a great extent, the liability risks were not completely addressed. There was a move from no regulation on insurance to optional third-party insurance provided by businesses for their employees and further making this mandatory. However, for individual PMD users, there was no legislation notified on buying insurance though there were proposals to purchase third party insurance mandatory [
107]. Insurance-related to micromobility devices is complicated due to the ambiguity in coverage. The coverage would not be clear if an accident occurs involving an e-scooter user resulting in an injury to a pedestrian or damage of private property [
108]. Perhaps the issue of liability would become important when e-scooter sharing companies start to operate in Singapore. The Shared Mobility Enterprises (Control and Licensing) Bill was introduced to cater for licensing of micromobility sharing businesses in April 2021. While it does seem that the government is not opposed to the idea of revisiting regulations and continuing operations of powered micromobility devices, the liability issues need to be clarified beforehand. Unlike in other contexts where privacy risks of e-scooters were cited when e-scooter sharing companies collected data of the users who hired the devices, this was not a cause of concern in Singapore.
The lack of proper infrastructure for active mobility devices, including powered micromobility devices has also been a cause for concern in Singapore [
109]. Initially, PMDs were allowed on roads when the government followed a no-response strategy. However, after they were allowed only on footpaths, the incidence of accidents and congestion on footpaths increased. As part of the ’car-lite’ vision in Singapore, cycling networks have been proposed and micromobility devices would be allowed on those; however, there has been no talk about exclusive paths for powered micromobility devices. With the development of a future mobility innovation research centre in Singapore by Hyundai and the introduction of a prototype of a foldable e-scooter that can be carried in the trunk of a car for last-mile transportation, there is wide scope for adoption of e-scooters [
110].
The case also brings to light the diverse stakeholders in the adoption of powered micromobility devices. This is important to consider the varied incentives, benefits, and drawbacks of specific policy regulations implemented. The dependence of food delivery riders on powered micromobility devices and their concerns after the ban on e-scooters was one of the major risks in the case of Singapore. With the uproar due to the concerns of the stakeholders, the government conducted meetings with them to listen to the concerns. The grant for a switch to e-bikes and the help extended for alternative jobs due to loss of employment was a key prevention-oriented governing strategy. However, the retailers’ concerns remained due to the unsold stock of the devices after the sudden ban announced by the government. To streamline the variety of devices that would be allowed in Singapore, the government has introduced a regulation to control the imports of powered micromobility devices. Introduced as a result of policy learning, this will help to nip the problem in the bud by having only compliant devices in the market. However, this does leave room for modifications on the devices to be done in Singapore and importing parts of mobility devices for assembly.
Minimising hurt, injury or loss of human life is a key principle of government policies [
111]. Given the uncertainties and safety risks, the LTA imposed a ban on PMDs from roads and footpaths after carefully monitoring the consequences of the regulations. This prevention-oriented strategy indicates the risk avoidance stance of the government to prohibit new technology and the associated risks [
16]. While such a governing strategy would prevent capitalising on the benefits of powered micromobility devices, a phased deployment while ensuring safety would enable the adoption of the devices. The next section lists actionable policy recommendations.
7. Conclusions
The in-depth case study of Singapore presents the potential risks and dangers of adopting powered micromobility devices. We find that the government managed the major risks of safety, liability, privacy and cybersecurity, and the risk of switching to a new transportation mode. They adopted five strategies—no response, control-oriented, prevention-oriented, toleration-oriented, and adaptation-oriented, sometimes even combining strategies to manage the risks. The insights from the evolving risks and lessons from governing strategies in Singapore could guide other countries in adopting powered micromobility devices.
Singapore has executed the governing strategies in a cautious and controlled yet proactive way. The infrastructure capacity for micromobility devices is being developed by extending the cycling networks as part of their vision to reach 700 km by 2030. The case is helpful for policymakers to address similar risks of powered micromobility devices. While it is tricky to handle novel technologies in transportation, the government in Singapore has put safety as the foremost intent in regulating the devices. A bottom-up approach to resolve the problems arising with time was followed to pacify the concerns of all stakeholders. The formation of AMAP comprising a diverse set of people is indicative of that.
7.1. Limitations of Research
While a ban was imposed on the use of powered micromobility devices, the government is still working its way through the various issues by proposing regulations oriented towards introducing the devices in the country again. This study is based on desk-based research, surveys and interviews with officials would throw light on the perceptions of the public and feedback from officials. There are some caveats to the external validity of the findings of this study. The success of implementing the governing strategies to tackle the challenges arising from the adoption of powered micromobility devices is due to Singapore’s unique characteristics. The unique elements are the geography, jurisdictions, the nature of parliamentary government that is a majority rule by one political party, and governance structure that is not multi-level unlike large countries [
32].
7.2. Future Research
To lift the ban and kickstart the adoption of powered micromobility devices in full swing, in Singapore, the government will have to improve the existing infrastructure and take a more anticipatory stance of policymaking. The case study shows that the government has already been able to identify and even manage the risks of these devices. However, few hurdles to the safe adoption of these devices still remain. The need for a clear liability regime and inclusiveness in participatory policymaking would be useful in safely adopting powered micromobility devices.
The governance lessons from the case of managing risks from powered PMDs, due to its unique feature of being a city-state and political characteristics, can provide insightful policy guidance and policy learning for jurisdictions that have already adopted or will adopt powered micromobility devices. Since a one size fits all approach will not be appropriate, policymakers must consider the unique features of Singapore before implementing similar legislation. Future work on the regulation of powered micromobility devices could involve examining the risks from adopting and governing strategies implemented in varied jurisdictions.