Why we keep spending millions on bollards whilst accidents keep rising

Developers need to stop treating bollards as an afterthought. 

Here's something that should bother every developer in Singapore: we've spent millions installing 18,000 safety bollards at bus stops since 2018.

We've upgraded 100 signalised junctions with protective barriers by 2025. And traffic accidents causing injuries and fatalities? Up 7.4% in the first nine months of this year, from 5,368 to 5,765. 

We're throwing money at the problem, and it's getting worse.

The real reason developers hate bollards
Let me be blunt. Most property developers see bollards as ugly. They clash with architectural vision. They make retail entrances look like fortresses. Nobody wants industrial barriers ruining the street appeal of an $500m mixed-use development.

I get it. I've had these conversations. But here's what that thinking misses: the same distracted drivers crashing into bus stops are also mounting kerbs at shopping streets, office lobbies, and residential pick-up points. Your aesthetic concerns mean nothing when someone's killed in your car park, and you're explaining to lawyers why you skipped the bollards.

We tell ourselves accidents happen elsewhere. Not at our properties. And then they do, and suddenly nobody remembers that the bollards were cut from the budget because they "didn't fit the design language."

We've mistaken activity for progress
Singapore has installed thousands of bollards, so we think we've handled it. We haven't. What we've done is create a checklist mentality, put bollards at government-identified hotspots, tick the box, and move on. 

Meanwhile, the actual problem keeps evolving. Vehicle ownership hasn't dropped. Drivers are getting more distracted, with phones, touchscreens, and entertainment systems. 

Our developments keep getting denser, putting more pedestrians closer to more vehicles. And let's be honest about enforcement: it's not keeping pace.

Installing bollards at 100 junctions while distracted driving becomes more normalised is like bailing water from a boat without plugging the leak.

What the industry needs to do differently
Acting Minister for Transport Jeffrey Siow just launched a public consultation for the 2040 Land Transport Master Plan (LTMP). Meaning? More connectivity, more mixed-use density, more pedestrian-vehicle interfaces. This is coming whether we like it or not. 

So what do we do? 

Developers need to stop treating bollards as an afterthought. Build them into the design from day one. Yes, they need to stop vehicles up to 7,500 kg; that's not negotiable. But modern materials and better spatial planning can reduce how much they stick out. The firms that figure this out first will win projects from clients who've watched the news and don't want to be the next headline. 

This isn't just about new projects. Many existing buildings in Singapore remain vulnerable, with railings that need to be reassessed. As recent articles have shown, people are driving into drains, and many areas along roads remain unprotected. Safety barriers shouldn't be treated as mere architectural elements - they serve a critical purpose in keeping the public safe.

Building owners should bring in security consultants early, not after the architect has already drawn everything up. Match the protection to actual risk, not just whatever the generic compliance checklist says. 

In addition, construction firms need to stop treating safety infrastructure like an add-on. Fragmented procurement, where bollards get value-engineered at the last minute, costs more and works worse. Integrate it from the start. 

And industry associations need to share what actually works. Right now, every firm is figuring this out on its own, making the same expensive mistakes. We can do better.

The choice we're actually making
The question isn't whether Singapore needs more bollards. Look at the accident statistics, clearly we do. The question is whether our industry will keep resisting them because they're not pretty enough. 

Every property without adequate protection is a liability waiting to happen. Yes, bollards treat symptoms rather than causes. Yes, we should be addressing distracted driving and enforcement at the source. But until that happens, and it's not happening fast, this infrastructure is necessary. 

I've been in this industry long enough to know how these conversations go. "It won't happen here." "The insurance covers it." "Let's wait and see what others do." And then a vehicle crashes through a storefront or a pickup zone, and suddenly everyone's pointing fingers. 

This reactive mindset shows up in other ways too: "If they delay, we'll just get them to extend the timeline - it's their fault for delaying." Or "This isn't my problem - make them fix it later since they're the ones who caused the delay." This finger-pointing mentality persists until an actual incident occurs, and by then, it's too late. 

Bollards aren't aesthetic nuisances. They're business decisions about acceptable risk. The property sector needs to start treating them that way.