For a delivery or cleaning robot, first identify the legal category of the device and each part of its route. Roads and public paths lead to different legal frameworks.
Targeted check: 9 September 2026. SSO displayed current texts as at 10 September 2026. This covers selected rules, not a complete audit of Singapore operations.
Which route should you check?
This decision tree uses sources checked on 9 September 2026. Open the branch matching the route’s legal status. Assess each segment of a mixed route separately.
Device or space not yet classified
Result: insufficient information to select the legal route. First verify the device category, the legal status of each segment and the map boundaries. An ordinary label such as “robot” or “walkway” is insufficient.
Road
Trial of technology or a vehicle → check approved trial. Use of the vehicle → check approved special use. These are distinct authorisations under rules 4–7.
Result: a verified route to the relevant authorisation. Before operation, identify the specified person and check the grant and conditions of authorisation, insurance and operational duties. This tree does not grant permission.
Public path / footpath
Is this AIDEN or QuikCat named in the verified order, with a matching individual, area, purpose and date?
Yes: check every condition in the applicable branch of paragraphs 3–6 and the common conditions in paragraph 7, including insurance. The result can only be an exemption from AMA section 16(1)(b) within that scope.
No or unknown: authorisation under these two orders is not established. Check another valid exemption or the relevant process with LTA. This does not mean another regime cannot exist.
Robosweeper or another robot: do not automatically apply the AIDEN and QuikCat exemptions. Bill 21/2026 is pending; the proposed sandbox is not an effective operational authorisation. Scope of the proposal →
1. Identify the space
Roads
The Road Traffic (Autonomous Motor Vehicles) Rules 2017 distinguish an approved trial from an approved special use. For operation involving activation of the autonomous system, rule 4 requires the relevant authorisation. Rules 5–7 address applications and decisions; rule 9 enables conditions. Rules 2017, rr. 2, 4–9.
Public paths
The Active Mobility Act 2017 ties a public path to a declaration under section 6. An ordinary description as a walkway or land ownership alone is insufficient. LTA describes an exemption application process for AV deployment on public paths. The specific route and conditions require assessment with the responsible authority. AMA, ss. 2, 6, 66 · LTA — AVs on public paths.
2. Check the device and responsible person
The AMA includes certain robotic machines within motor vehicles. A PMD is built to transport people; a delivery robot is not automatically a PMD. A mechanised sweeper must, by definition, be incapable of driving itself, so it should not be equated with an autonomous robosweeper. In the road regime, the specified person holds the relevant authorisation and is not automatically the driver or remote operator. AMA, s. 2 · Rules 2017, r. 2.
3. From exemptions to the proposed sandbox
AMA section 66 allows exemptions for a person or class of persons, generally or in a particular case, subject to conditions. The power is therefore not limited to individual cases. Individual orders do not establish general permission for every robot.
Bill 21/2026 — pending. Clause 6 proposes a more systematic framework for approved trials, approved special uses and approved testbeds on public paths. Proposed section 23N(5) sets a sunset of 30 September 2031. Clause 58 proposes extending the road sandbox to 31 December 2028. First reading took place on 8 September 2026; these proposals are not effective operational authorisations.
S 374/2026 and S 533/2026 are verified including their Schedule maps. Their specific conditions are set out in the scenario below.
Practical scenario: a delivery robot on a footpath
The starting point is two specific exemptions. They do not authorise another robot, person, purpose or a route outside the Schedule. Verification of the text does not establish an operator’s compliance.
Purpose: Transporting things to a resident within the specified area or facilitating communication with such a resident through remote communications technology. · paras. 2, 7(a)
Before initiation: the company-authorised individual must ensure the robot is programmed for a speed not exceeding 6 km/h and for continuous front and rear lighting whenever in motion. · para. 3
QuikCat · S 533/2026
Loop Spoke & Hub Pte. Ltd. · Ang Mo Kio Avenue 1
In force, both dates inclusive: – · para. 1(2)
Purpose: Delivery services on a specified public path. Paragraph 2 limits this term to footpaths within the boundary in the Schedule. · paras. 2, 7(a)
Before initiation: the company-authorised individual must ensure the robot is programmed for a speed not exceeding 2.5 km/h and for continuous front and rear lighting whenever in motion. · para. 3
Before operation
Match the device and individual. Check the robot defined in paragraph 2 and the individual’s authorisation by the relevant company under paragraph 3, 4, 5 or 6. The exemption is not granted to every robot in that category.
Compare the route with the map. Both orders cover specified footpaths within the black boundary in the Schedule. The street name does not mean an exemption for the whole street. This does not establish authorisation to enter a road.
Check the date, purpose and settings. Read paragraphs 1–3 and 7(a) together. The 6 km/h versus 2.5 km/h distinction is a condition of these particular exemptions, not a general Singapore speed limit for robots.
Identify the monitoring and takeover arrangement. Paragraph 4 distinguishes X, who takes manual control, from Y, who monitors remotely and gives instructions. Both require the relevant company authorisation. Takeover is on Y’s instruction or necessitated by autonomous-system failure or another emergency requiring immediate action. Paragraph 5 concerns an authorised remote monitor who takes control; paragraph 6 concerns an authorised individual following the robot. Under paragraphs 5 and 6, takeover must be necessitated by that failure or emergency.
Check insurance and every common condition. Every branch in paragraphs 3–6 requires paragraph 7 to be satisfied. Insurance must be in force during use for the specified purpose, covering liability for death, bodily injury and property damage caused by or arising from the robot’s use. The risk must be assumed by an insurer lawfully carrying on insurance business in Singapore when the policy is issued.
Resulting scope: if the conditions are satisfied, AMA section 16(1)(b) does not apply to the specified individual. Other legal obligations do not automatically disappear. These two orders do not govern general robosweeper deployment.
If the route enters a road: road-regime duties
The following rules concern the specified person for an approved trial or approved special use under the Road Traffic (Autonomous Motor Vehicles) Rules 2017. They are not automatically imported into AMA exemptions.
Insurance and conditional security deposit · rr. 14–15
Insurance must be arranged before the start and remain in force throughout the authorisation and extensions. If reasonable efforts to obtain insurance fail, the Authority may allow a deposit of at least SGD 1.5 million. This is not an operator’s unilateral choice.
Technical condition · r. 16
The vehicle, accessories, sensors and equipment must remain in good condition and the autonomous system must function properly so that harm or damage is not caused or likely.
Data recorder · r. 17
It must operate whenever the vehicle is used, including when the autonomous system is inactive. Data must be retained in the specified digital format for at least three years from recording, must not be edited and must be supplied or relayed on written notice. Paragraph 4 specifies data including location, speed, mode and operator overrides.
Trial or use records · r. 18
Records enable evaluation of the trial or use and demonstrate compliance. They must be current, available for inspection and retained at least three years after authorisation expiry or cancellation, or longer as directed. This retention period differs from that for recorder data.
Incidents and subsequent tests · rr. 19–20
Autonomous-system malfunctions and accidents involving death, bodily injury or property damage must be notified within the time and in the manner required by the Authority. Rule 19 does not set a universal 24-hour deadline. Written notice under rule 20 can require production of vehicles or equipment and testing for the specified purposes.
Use in the Route to operation
Work through: device → legal status of the route → trial or use → applicant and authority → authorisation conditions. Assess each segment of a mixed route. Singapore is a comparative example; Slovak requirements are determined from Slovak sources.
