Cyclists banned from footpaths: Rule change sparks debate over safety, design and enforcement

A new rule banning cyclists from using pedestrian-only footpaths has sparked a wave of reactions online, stirring debate about infrastructure readiness, enforcement challenges and the balance between safety and accessibility.

Effective July 1, cyclists must now stick to designated cycling paths or roads. Those caught riding on pedestrian-only footpaths face a fine of up to $2,000, a jail term of up to three months, or both.

The Land Transport Authority (LTA) said the rule aims to protect pedestrians, especially the elderly and young children. Some, however, feel the move misses the point.

Dr Jason Burtt, 45, an assistant professor of sociology at Trinity Western University, paid to promote a post on X (formerly Twitter) sharing his concerns about the policy.

He told The New Paper that the current design of shared paths has always felt precarious.

"I love to run, walk and bike with my kids on the park connectors," he said. "But when paths are shared, it becomes dangerous. Bikes and PMDs move at a completely different speed and mindset from pedestrians."

He argued that safety hinges on better design and infrastructure, not just regulation. "You shouldn't expect cyclists and pedestrians to share unprotected paths. If safety is the goal, build barriers, add planters, or install proper dividers. Cities like Vancouver have done it, and it works."

Dr Burtt added that Singapore's own Land Transport Master Plan 2040 envisions a "20-minute town" with walking and cycling as preferred transport modes. "But that won't happen if cyclists have to dodge pedestrians constantly, or risk jail for riding on the wrong path."

His post, later shared on Reddit, ignited a lively thread of frustration and confusion.

One Redditor wrote: "He's not wrong. For these systems to work, there needs to be consistent public education. Too often, pedestrians occupy the entire lane without consideration."

Another user pointed out the lack of clarity. "The footpath I walk on daily just turned red overnight. There were no signs to explain that it's now a cycling lane."

Ms Toh, 20, who cycles to work, said the new rule defeats the purpose of cycling for convenience. "Some pavements have shared lanes, some don't, and some aren't labelled at all. Am I supposed to cross the road just to use a cycling path on the other side?"

She also highlighted issues of crowding that undermine the system. "In the morning, bus stops are packed, and people spill onto the cycling lanes. I have to swerve onto the pedestrian path just to overtake. What's the point?"

Fellow cyclist Mr Kyaw, 21, called the rule "ridiculous", comparing it to Singapore's chewing gum and jaywalking bans. "It'll be one of those laws no one really follows."

Others pointed to the contradiction in promoting a "car-lite" society while tightening restrictions on cyclists.

"You can't have a car-lite society by demonising the very people trying to cycle to work," said one Reddit user.

Still, some agreed that better behaviour was needed. "We managed to get most people to keep left on escalators. Why not apply that same civic-mindedness to paths?" asked one user.

In a statement earlier this year, LTA said the change was part of efforts to make active mobility safer, especially for the elderly and children. Cyclists can continue using shared paths and cycling tracks within the extensive Park Connector Network.

But the recurring sentiment from riders and pedestrians alike is clear: until infrastructure catches up - with clearer markings, physical dividers and better education - cyclists and pedestrians appear destined to continue clashing, both online and on the ground.