Statute Details
- Title: Highway (Revision) Code 2019
- Full Title: (Not provided in the extract)
- Act Code: RTA1961-244-2019
- Type: Subsidiary legislation (SL)
- Authorising Act: Road Traffic Act (Chapter 276), section 112
- Enacting instrument: SL 244/2019
- Commencement: 1 February 2019
- Status: Current version as at 27 Mar 2026 (per the extract)
- Legislative method: Revision/amendment of the Highway Code (R 11)
- Key amendments in the extract: Amendments to paragraphs 44A, 44B, 44C (deleted), 77, 82, and miscellaneous amendments to paragraphs 79(a), 80, and 83
What Is This Legislation About?
The Highway (Revision) Code 2019 is a Singapore subsidiary legislative instrument that revises the Highway Code. In practical terms, it updates the Code’s traffic guidance to better reflect the rights and expected conduct of different road users—especially those who are not traditional “motor vehicle” drivers.
Although the Highway Code is often described as “guidance”, it is issued under statutory authority and is intended to be used by road users and enforcement agencies as a reference for safe and orderly road behaviour. This revision focuses on two themes: (1) how certain cyclists and other micro-mobility users should approach pedestrian and bicycle crossings, and (2) who has the right of way on pedestrian crossings.
In particular, the amendments expand the Code’s coverage beyond pedestrians and motorists to include pedal cyclists, riders of power-assisted bicycles and personal mobility devices, and drivers of mobility scooters or motorised wheelchairs. The revision also clarifies speed expectations when crossing at designated crossing types.
What Are the Key Provisions?
1. Citation and commencement (Section 1)
The instrument is cited as the Highway (Revision) Code 2019 and comes into operation on 1 February 2019. For practitioners, the commencement date matters when assessing whether a particular incident occurred before or after the revision, and therefore which version of the Highway Code would have been in force at the relevant time.
2. Reframing the crossing-speed rule for cyclists and micro-mobility users (Sections 2–3)
The revision amends the heading to paragraph 44A and then replaces paragraphs 44B and 44C with a new paragraph 44B. The key substantive change is the introduction of a clear “crossing speed” requirement.
The substituted paragraph 44B provides that:
Pedal cyclists, riders of power-assisted bicycles or personal mobility devices, and drivers of mobility scooters or motorised wheelchairs should only cross a pedestrian crossing, bicycle crossing, zebra crossing or informal crossing, or the entrance or exit to a car park, at walking speed.
This is a significant behavioural rule. It does not merely advise “caution”; it imposes a specific speed standard—walking speed—for a defined set of non-motor vehicle road users when crossing at specified crossing locations. The locations listed are broad: pedestrian crossings, bicycle crossings, zebra crossings, informal crossings, and even the entrance or exit to a car park.
From a legal analysis perspective, the drafting is notable for its inclusion of multiple categories of road users. The rule is not limited to pedal cyclists; it extends to power-assisted bicycles and personal mobility devices, as well as mobility scooters and motorised wheelchairs. This suggests a policy intent to treat these users similarly when they interact with pedestrian crossing environments.
3. Right of way on pedestrian crossings (Section 4)
The revision deletes and substitutes paragraph 77, including its heading. The new paragraph 77 states that:
Pedestrians, pedal cyclists, riders of power-assisted bicycles or personal mobility devices, and drivers of mobility scooters or motorised wheelchairs have the right of way on pedestrian crossings.
This provision is central to the revision. It expressly grants “right of way” status on pedestrian crossings not only to pedestrians but also to the specified classes of cyclists and micro-mobility users.
For practitioners handling road-traffic disputes, this language is likely to be highly relevant to fault analysis. In many collision scenarios involving pedestrian crossings, the question is whether a vehicle (or another road user) failed to yield. By stating that these groups “have the right of way,” the Code provides a clear normative expectation that other road users—particularly drivers of motor vehicles—should yield.
It is also important that the provision is framed as a right on “pedestrian crossings” specifically, rather than on all crossings. This means the right-of-way rule is location-specific and should be applied with attention to the type of crossing involved.
4. Updating references to who is covered (Section 5)
Section 5 amends paragraph 82 by inserting additional categories of road users into two places:
- After the words “the pedestrian”, it inserts: “, pedal cyclist, rider of a power-assisted bicycle or personal mobility device, or driver of a mobility scooter or motorised wheelchair”.
- After the word “pedestrians”, it inserts: “, pedal cyclists, riders of power-assisted bicycles or personal mobility devices, and drivers of mobility scooters or motorised wheelchairs”.
While the extract does not reproduce the full text of paragraph 82, the amendment indicates that paragraph 82 already contained rules or directions that referenced pedestrians. The revision expands those references so that the same rule applies to the additional road-user categories.
In legal practice, this kind of amendment matters because it can change the scope of obligations or expectations in a way that affects liability assessments. Even if the operative language of paragraph 82 is not shown here, the insertion confirms that the Code’s pedestrian-focused provisions are being extended to cyclists and micro-mobility users.
5. Miscellaneous amendments to other pedestrian-related paragraphs (Section 6)
Section 6 makes further amendments by inserting, immediately after the word “pedestrians” in paragraphs 79(a), 80 and 83, the same expanded list of road users. Again, the extract does not provide the full text of those paragraphs, but the pattern is consistent: where the Code previously addressed pedestrians, it now also addresses pedal cyclists, power-assisted bicycle riders, personal mobility device riders, and drivers of mobility scooters or motorised wheelchairs.
For a practitioner, the practical takeaway is that the revision is not isolated to paragraphs 44B and 77. It is part of a broader “alignment” of the Highway Code’s pedestrian-crossing and pedestrian-interaction rules to include micro-mobility users.
How Is This Legislation Structured?
The Highway (Revision) Code 2019 is structured as a short amending instrument with an enacting formula that lists discrete amendment actions. In the extract, the instrument contains six sections:
- Section 1: Citation and commencement.
- Section 2: Amendment of the heading to paragraph 44A.
- Section 3: Deletion of paragraphs 44B and 44C and substitution of a new paragraph 44B (crossing speed).
- Section 4: Deletion and substitution of paragraph 77 (right of way on pedestrian crossings).
- Section 5: Amendment of paragraph 82 by expanding references to additional road-user categories.
- Section 6: Miscellaneous amendments to paragraphs 79(a), 80, and 83 by inserting the expanded list of road users after “pedestrians”.
Substantively, the revision operates by modifying the existing Highway Code (R 11). It does not create a stand-alone code; instead, it updates specific paragraphs to reflect the intended policy changes.
Who Does This Legislation Apply To?
The Highway (Revision) Code 2019 applies to road users who are subject to the Highway Code’s guidance and expectations. The amendments explicitly identify the following categories as relevant to the revised provisions:
- Pedestrians
- Pedal cyclists
- Riders of power-assisted bicycles
- Riders of personal mobility devices
- Drivers of mobility scooters
- Drivers of motorised wheelchairs
In addition, while the extract does not expressly list motorists, the “right of way” language on pedestrian crossings necessarily affects motorists and other road users who must yield. In practice, the revision is most likely to be invoked in disputes involving collisions or near-misses at pedestrian crossings and similar crossing environments.
Because the revision is a statutory instrument issued under the Road Traffic Act, it is relevant to enforcement and to evidential arguments about what a reasonable road user should have done. The specific obligations are triggered by the type of crossing and the road-user category.
Why Is This Legislation Important?
This revision is important because it clarifies and expands the Highway Code’s treatment of micro-mobility users and mobility-impaired road users. By explicitly including these groups in both the “crossing speed” rule and the “right of way” rule, the Code reduces ambiguity about how different non-motor road users should behave in pedestrian crossing contexts.
The walking-speed requirement in paragraph 44B is particularly practical. It provides a concrete standard that can be used when assessing whether a cyclist or micro-mobility user approached a crossing too quickly. In accident reconstruction and witness evaluation, speed is often contested; a “walking speed” benchmark can assist in framing the issue.
The right-of-way statement in paragraph 77 is equally significant. It strengthens the position of pedestrians and the specified micro-mobility users on pedestrian crossings. For practitioners, this can influence liability analysis, contributory negligence arguments, and the interpretation of duty to yield. Even where a motorist may argue that the pedestrian or cyclist acted improperly, the Code’s explicit right-of-way language provides a strong counterpoint—subject always to the facts (for example, whether the crossing was properly used and whether the road user behaved in a way consistent with other safety rules in the Code).
Finally, the miscellaneous amendments to paragraphs 79(a), 80, 82, and 83 indicate that the revision is part of a broader integration of micro-mobility users into pedestrian-related rules. This matters because it suggests that the Code’s approach is systematic rather than ad hoc: practitioners should review the referenced paragraphs in full to understand the complete set of behavioural expectations.
Related Legislation
- Road Traffic Act (Chapter 276) — in particular, section 112 (authorising power to issue the Highway Code)
- Highway Code (R 11) — the principal instrument being revised by this Code
Source Documents
This article provides an overview of the Highway (Revision) Code 2019 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the official text for authoritative provisions.