Cyclists and PMD’ians – watch out!

Recently, the Singapore High Court (SGHC), agreeing with Singapore Magistrate Court (SGMC), developed common law to criminalize a cyclist who collided with a pedestrian in a no cycling zone.[1] This law could be said to be timely before more similar or more serious consequence of the aforesaid collision occurring not just with bicycle, but with idiosyncratically personal mobility devices (PMDs) as well.

Prior to the above accident, SGHC set out three categories and their presumptive sentencing ranges in an earlier road accident between a car and a motorcycle.[2] The ranges are:[3]

Category 1:

where there is lesser harm and lower culpability – the presumptive sentence is a fine;

Category 2:

where there is greater harm and lower culpability, or lesser harm and higher culpability – the presumptive sentencing range is one to two weeks’ imprisonment; and

Category 3:

where there is greater harm and higher culpability – the presumptive sentencing range is more than two weeks’ imprisonment.

The SGMC sentenced the cyclist to two weeks’ imprisonment basis category 2 above. The cyclist appealed to SGHC for category 1 but was not successful.

In the present case, the cyclist rode into the market during morning hour and collided with an elderly lady. She knowingly cycled in a narrow and confined area that prohibited cycling.[4] In a market, especially during the morning hour, except if the market is closed for periodic washing and cleaning, human traffic density is indisputably high. Notwithstanding the latter, pedestrians in the market will not expect cycling activity there, let alone needing to have precautionary mindset to watch out for cyclist while marketing. No one, except wheelchair bound person, is excusable for not walking in a market, apart from laziness.[5] With the ‘floodgate of PMDs’ fully opened, it is only the matter of time that collision between PMDs and pedestrians occurs within the similar compound.[6]

This common law is a good deterrence and warning to errant cyclists and PMDs users. As the SGMC noted, there has been no negligible number of accidents caused by errant cyclists and PMDs users.[7] The latter shall take extra care when they are in shared spaces, more so when they are in spaces that they are prohibited from being in, like the market in the present case.

Warning

The SGMC agreed with the prosecution that a measure of general deterrence needed to be factored into the sentence.[8] The SGHC reiterated that shared spaces, whether roads or pavements, require most of all consideration and courtesy between all users.[9] Despite the present case precedence, the SGHC is pessimistic of the non-requirement of a pavement collisions sentencing framework.[10] SGHC therefore warned that where injuries do arise due to the rider’s fault, the courts will likely take a stern view and impose custodial sentences (imprisonment), which may be higher than what has been imposed in the present case.[11]

Conclusion

Albeit a good law, it may not be able to deter errant riders because court cases aforesaid are usually not used to share during Government’s campaign to educate cyclists and PMDs users regarding the appropriateness of cycling and PMDs using at allowable paths and spaces. For example, how many Singaporeans know that they are blameworthy if they do not exercise duty of care towards themselves while using the pedestrian crossing [that is] in their favour?[12]

See Appendix for LTA guides.