Karnataka’s Active Mobility Bill

---

Karnataka’s draft Active Mobility Bill 2022 aims to create safer, more equitable streets for pedestrians and cyclists. But does it fully address all key challenges? From clarifying definitions to ensuring public participation, this feedback highlights vital gaps and opportunities. Will this bill set a new national standard for active mobility?

These comments were submitted to DULT, Karnataka, in response to their call for comments on the draft Active Mobility Bill 2022.

The bill is a very positive step and shows the intent towards a sustainable and active mobility future. It has provided a legal framework for delineating equitable space on urban streets to all users. We hope that the forthcoming legislation with widespread inputs from public and other stakeholders will meet its objective and intent. We also hope that DULT will seek diverse inputs on the relevant elements that stem from the bill, such as the code of conduct, rules, audits, and other standards and guidelines. There are not many legislations which talk about pedestrians and cyclists the way this bill does. We wish them all the best in bringing it to the form of a legislated act soon.

Nagrika’s suggestions cover areas on definitions, institutional roles for implementing the various clauses and bodies, and areas for increasing citizen participation. Our specific comments are as follows:

1. Right of Way

The following table has mapped the various kinds of modes and the various kinds of streets as mentioned in the bill. Based on the same, DULT may look at the various sections such that there is consistency in the right of way for various modes across various streets as per the bill.

Source: Nagrika

a. Permitted Micro-Mobility modes on Cycle Tracks and Shared Paths

Section 27 states, “...the permitted active micro-mobility modes shall use the cycle tracks or shared paths.” However, the definition of cycle tracks in section 2 (h) says that these tracks will be used only by bicycles, and the bicycles are defined in section 2 (c) as those ‘solely propelled by human power delivered through pedals’. Hence, definitionally, this excludes micro-mobility modes. The same is also true for shared paths as defined in section 2 (ff). Hence, the definition of cycle tracks and shared paths may include ‘permitted micro mobility modes’. For example:

“Cycle track shall mean a part of a street or a dedicated space designed and constructed for the use of bicycles and permitted micro-mobility devices and over which a right of way exists for a cyclist and riders of permitted micro-mobility devices.”

b. Streets vs Urban Streets

Section 28 states, “Only those micro-mobility vehicles that are approved by the State Level Agency shall be used either as a personal mode or in a shared mobility system on urban streets.” However, there is no definition of urban streets in the act. The act defines ‘Streets’ in Section 2 (ll), and it includes footpaths. Hence, it is not clear if approved micro-mobility modes will be allowed on the footpaths.

c. Mobility Scooter

In Section 2 (x) (iii), the definition of pedestrians includes mobility scooters at the speed of 10 km/h. Mobility scooters may be replaced with ‘permitted micro-mobility devices under Section 28’.

2. Definition of Micro-Mobility Devices

The present definition of micro-mobility devices in Section 2(u) refers to them as “those electric vehicles with a maximum speed of 25 kilometres per hour (km/h) and their equipped motor shall have a thirty-minute power less than 250 watts”. Though the definition also refers to rule 126 of CMV rules, it doesn't clarify if all the conditions as per the rules (which include limits on unladen weight and fitting of brakes, etc.) are also applicable to micro-mobility devices in this Act. The same may be clarified in the definition, or the definition could directly refer to G.S.R. 291 (E) for defining these devices.

3. Definition of Urban Streets

Bill refers to ‘urban streets’ in multiple places, including Section (5) on people-centric design; Section (15) on slow streets; Section 11(1) on Development of Footpaths; and so on. However, it doesn’t seem to have a definition of urban streets, though it defines streets in Section 2(ll). The bill may rephrase 2(ll) from street to urban street. Accordingly, some of the references to ‘streets’ in the bill can be changed to ‘urban streets’ (e.g. Section (7) on New streets to be complete).

4. Inventory of Streets 

The Act seems to be unclear on how the initial inventory of the streets and missing links will be created and who will be responsible for it in relation to the implementation of this bill. Section (16) does refer to the auditing and mapping of pedestrian and cycling infrastructure but not of the streets. Hence, a section may be inserted in Chapter II which can say:

The relevant authority of every city shall make and keep updated a list of the streets within the municipal area of all the urban streets which are to be constructed or maintained under the various sections of this Act.

5. Identifying of streets to be developed with Footpaths and Cycling Tracks

Section (4) and (6) mention that the ULB will be responsible for designing and maintaining urban streets, but it is not clear how this identification will be linked with various sections (such as Section 11, 12) which specify the development of footpaths and cycle tracks. Hence, such sections could include a reference to the new section about list of streets mentioned above.

6. Bicycle Crossings

Section 2(d) defines bicycle crossing as exclusively for bicyclists. Section 13 (1) however refers to pedestrian and bicycle crossing. The Act may include a common definition of crossings for bicycles and pedestrians or clarify if there are exclusive bicycle crossings.

7. Child using a Tricycle as Pedestrian

Section 2 x (v) includes ‘a child using a tricycle’ as a pedestrian. It may be replaced with ‘a child using a tricycle and accompanied by an adult pedestrian’.

8. Specific reference to Urban Design

The Act will be able to achieve its objectives of safety, accessibility and connectivity by appropriate urban design principles. While the Act refers to people-centric design of urban streets in Section (5), it is not clear who has the institutional responsibility for the same. The Act may refer to appropriate agencies/guidelines in this section or cross-reference Section (41) and it may read as follows:

Urban streets shall be designed to prioritise mobility of people of all ages and abilities over mobility of vehicles as per the Standards and Guidelines formulated through Section (41). The width of lanes for the movement of private vehicles shall be fixed after the provision of footpaths, cycle tracks or shared paths of adequate width for the movement of people by walking or by cycles and by public transport, where it is available.

9. Electric Bicycles

The electric bicycle definition seems to be redundant and can be included within the Micro Mobility modes Section (2)(u).

10. Bicycle Parking

Chapter XVI has section on penalizing if the provisions of the Act are not adhered to. However within the Act, there seems to be no clause which refers to proper parking of bicycles on footpaths, cycle tracks or shared paths. Such a clause may be inserted in Chapter XI – Rights and Responsibilities of Pedestrians and Cyclists in the form of a section on Parking of Cycles.

11. Managing Trees

References to standards and guidelines for managing trees, if they are present on proposed footpaths, cycle tracks or shared paths, may be included in the Act.

12. Timelines

The bill doesn’t refer to a sequence or timeline for the implementation of the various provisions. Depending on the time horizon that is expected from the various other aspects referred to in the bill (for example, the CMP to be prepared within two years, assessment of pedestrian and cycling facilities to be done within one year of the bill), either the bill or the subsequent rules could suggest a phase-wise implementation of the act. For example, the act could be implemented ward-wise.

13. Institutional Responsibility

We noticed that some of the sections in the bill seem to not clearly assign an institutional responsibility to an appropriate agency. DULT can consider assigning it to relevant agencies based on the existing roles or roles envisaged under the Act. They are listed below:

• (3) Preparation of CMP

• (5) Urban streets shall be designed to prioritise mobility of people of all ages and abilities over mobility of vehicles. The width of lanes for the movement of private vehicles shall be fixed after the provision of footpaths, cycle tracks or shared paths of adequate width for the movement of people by walking or by cycles and by public transport, where it is available

• (6)(2) Creation and maintenance of walking and cycling paths through parks and along lake bunds

• (13) Planning of pedestrian under- and over-bridges

• (15) Designation of slow streets

• (18) Properties adjoining footpaths/cycle track/shared path shall be provided access from the footpath; Kerb ramps shall be mandatorily provided on footpaths

• (20) Amenities like benches, shared micro mobility or cycle parking facilities drinking water fountains

• (23) Construction activities not to obstruct footpaths, Cycle tracks and Shared paths

• (43) Inclusion of code of conduct in school curriculum

  
  

14. Public Inputs on an ongoing basis

The bill may benefit from public inputs. Apart from seeking public inputs to the draft, it may be beneficial if DULT appoints a committee with representation from various stakeholders who could deliberate on the various aspects of the bill and who could also seek public inputs on various aspects such as usage of various paths, fees and penalties, roles and responsibilities of voluntary mobility wardens and so on. A survey may be useful to gather public inputs on some of these parameters.

Additionally, there is scope in the bill as well as subsequent rules that may follow to allow for public input to be incorporated. Some such processes include:

• Survey and discussion for identifying the paths based on existing amenities, infrastructure and relative densities of movement (for example, of street vendors)

• Public inputs for developing new streets or filling missing links

• Audits can be done using public volunteers

• Location of PBS hubs: utilities such as benches/street furniture can include public inputs through GIS based applications

• Public representatives can be included in walking inspections and audits as well for assessing pedestrian infrastructure and cycling facilities yearly (under Section (16))

• Designation of Pedestrianized Streets or Zones and Slow Streets (under section (14) and (15)) can be done on the basis of citizen’s survey/engagement

15. Public Disclosure

Since DULT has been pioneering in mainstreaming public and active modes of mobility, it will be great if it also sets an example for other similar agencies in doing voluntary disclosure of information which can be used by citizens, especially the information which will get created due to this bill. Some such examples are:

• a)  Condition of pedestrian and cycling infrastructure

• b)  Record of walking inspections of pedestrian and cycling infrastructure (section (17) already mandates the ULBs to keep these records in physical and digital format)

• c)  Results of the Surveys done to include public inputs

  
  

16. Pilot Exercise

Before actual implementation, there could be some pilot experiential sessions to get live feedback and understanding of the way various users interact on the footpaths, cycling tracks and shared paths.

Why are we submitting this feedback?

Our feedback is in the spirit of constructive feedback, which can strengthen the bill. We believe that even though this is a state-level bill for Karnataka, it has the potential to create groundbreaking legislation for India and even other countries. Other states and countries could refer to this legislation to find ways in which they can provide equitable spaces to all users, including users of active mobility modes. We wanted to bring attention to the perspective of the common citizen in the context of this creative legislation.

We have read this bill with the perspective of a common citizen of India who is looking at this bill as a hope for providing pedestrians and cyclists a dignified space on our streets as well as creating a template of citizen-informed legislation.