对ERP2.0车载收费系统反馈意见的回应（3）

议长先生：又有三位议员想提出补充质询。我重复我早些时候的提醒：对于提出补充问题的人，请简短提问；同样，对于那些回应者，请保持简短的回复。请只提出一项补充质询。有请严燕松先生。

严燕松先生（阿裕尼集选区议员）：谢谢议长先生。徐部长先生，LTA（陆交局）在制定ERP 2.0规范时是否考虑了智能手机的广泛可用性？如果是，为什么没有采取智能手机优先的方法？

徐部长，使用智能手机而不是笨重的OBU可以节省大量的安装工作量、硬件成本和长期维护成本。部长是否准备下令重新设计ERP 2.0的系统，使其首先实现移动化？需要明确的是，我并不是说像部长刚才所说的那样，将手机作为第二选择。我说的是将其作为默认选项。

其次，我知道目前还没有实施按距离收费计划，但考虑到按距离收费是这一新系统的关键原因之一，它的实施似乎是不可避免的。我的问题是，政府是否考虑过按距离收费对那些以开车为生的人（包括出租车司机、网约车司机、送货司机和快递员）的重大成本影响。

徐芳达部长：议长先生，关于严燕松先生提出的第二项质询，我认为他不应操之过急。我在COS（供应委员会）演讲中说过，我们正在考虑将按距离收费作为一种可能的选择，我们需要进一步研究。在我的COS演讲中，我也承认存在影响不同利益相关方群体的权衡。因此，我们在进行这项审查时需要非常谨慎和慎重。

我想我在刚才的主要答复中，并没有如严燕松先生所说，认为这是必然的结果。因此，我要敦促严燕松先生不要夸大这一点。ERP 2.0给我们的是，如果我们愿意，可以选择按距离收费，在这样做的过程中，我们当然需要考虑对不同用户群体的影响，以及总体上对社会的好处是什么。

议长先生，关于第一个问题提到的智能手机的应用，我们不止一次地研究过这个问题，而且与不同的利益相关者群体进行了多次讨论。这取决于你想用智能手机做什么。如果您想使用智能手机显示信息，我们允许。这并非不可行的。当然，这是可行的。我们已经研究了这个方案，如果人们愿意，我们将允许他们不使用显示屏，使用智能手机或车载显示屏。这是一个选项。

不过，智能手机是随身携带的东西。它没有固定在车辆上。出于ERP的目的，无论是按距离收费还是其他类型的收费，我们都需要一个固定在车辆上的设备，这样您就可以知道车辆在哪里，也不会对设备是否正常工作产生争议。

议长先生，还有第二个考虑因素，即数据传输的安全性。因为OBU是单向传输信息的，而手机则是双向传输。而手机，取决于你使用的型号、软件和安装的应用程序，我认为你无法保证数据安全和系统安全，包括防篡改。

因此，出于所有这些原因，智能手机系统将无法实现我们希望通过ERP 2.0实现的所有功能。但当然，我认为作为与处理单元和天线集成的一部分，使用智能手机取代触摸屏显示器是有可能的。

RESPONSE TO FEEDBACK ON ROLL-OUT OF ERP 2.0 ON-BOARD UNIT FOR VEHICLES（3）

Mr Speaker: I see three more Members who want to ask supplementary questions. I repeat my earlier reminders: for those asking, keep your supplementary questions short; and likewise, for those responding, keep your replies short. And limit it to one supplementary question, please. Mr Gerald Giam.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Thank you, Sir. Sir, did LTA considered the widespread availability of smartphones when developing the specifications for ERP 2.0 and if so, why was the mobile first approach not taken?

Sir, using a smartphone instead of an unwieldy OBU could save a tremendous amount of installation effort, hardware cost and long-term maintenance costs. Is the Minister prepared to order a system redesign of the ERP 2.0 to make it mobile first? And to be clear, I do not mean providing the mobile phone as an as a secondary option, like what the Minister had just said. I am talking about making it a default option.

And secondly, I understand that there are no immediate plans to implement distance-based charging, but given that distance-based charging is one of the key reasons for this new system – its implementation seems inevitable. My question is, has the Government considered the significant cost impact that distance-based charging will have on those who drive for a living, including taxi drivers, private hire drivers, and delivery drivers and riders.

Mr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, I think on the second question from Mr Giam, he should not jump the gun. I have said in my COS speech that we are looking at distance-based charging as a possible option that we need to study further. In my COS speech, I also acknowledge that there are trade-offs affecting different groups of stakeholders. Therefore, we need to be quite careful and deliberate in how we go about with this review.

I think that in my main reply, I did not suggest anything that this is an inevitable outcome, as what Mr Giam mentioned. So, I will urge Mr Giam not to overstate the point. What ERP 2.0 gives us is the option to do distance-based charging if we wish to do so, and if in the process of doing that, certainly we need to consider the impact on different groups of users and, overall, what is the benefit to society.

Sir, on the first question on smartphones, we have looked at this, not just once, but several times and with different groups of stakeholders. It depends on what you want to use a smartphone for. If you want to use a smartphone for displaying the information, we are allowing that. It is not something that would be unworkable. Certainly, it is feasible. We have studied that option, and we are going to allow people to opt out of the display and to use a smartphone or their in-vehicle display, if they wish to. That is an option.

However, because your smartphone is something that you carry with you. It is not secured to the vehicle. We need, for the purposes of ERP – whether it is distance-based or other types of usage-based charging – you need a device that is secured to the vehicle so that you know where the vehicle is and there is no dispute about whether the device is functioning or not.

There is also a second consideration, Sir, which is the security of the data transmission. Because the OBU is designed to transmit the information one-way, whereas a phone, you would have two-way transmission. And a phone, depending on the model that you use and the software, and the apps that you install, I do not think you can be assured of the same level of data security and systems security, including against tampering.

So, for all those reasons, a smartphone system would not be able to fulfil all the features and functionalities of what we want to achieve with ERP 2.0. But certainly, I think as part of integrating with the processing unit and the antenna, the use of a smartphone to replace the touch-screen display is a possibility.

Mr Speaker: We are only at Question No 8, so I will allow one last supplementary question. Mr Louis Chua.

Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Thank you, Speaker. Just one quick supplementary question for the Minister. I note the Minister's explanation about temperature being the reason why we cannot have the one-piece design on cars, but I just wanted to confirm that this new OBU actually meets the minimum grade force standard of the Automotive Electronics Council Q100 requirements for reliable operations in Singapore's climate.

Mr Chee Hong Tat: Sir, LTA has done a series of tests to ensure that the OBU was able to function if it is installed properly in our weather, in our climate. So, not just to look at the temperature, that is one factor, but also to take into account safety aspects. So, for example, if there is going to be an accident, we did crash tests as well, to make sure that the OBU, if it is installed properly, according to the proper procedure, will not pose a safety risk to the motorist and passenger.

So, it is quite a comprehensive set of tests that has been done to take care of the different aspects, but what we need to continue to do is to work with our partners and with stakeholders, including motorists, mechanics, our service ambassadors, to continue to find ways in which we can improve the user experience and allow more value to be delivered to motorists with this capabilities of the ERP 2.0 system.

Beyond what I have shared earlier, there could be more functionalities that could be possible and we remain open to good ideas from our stakeholders on how we can maximise this value for motorists, through the capabilities and functionalities of ERP 2.0.

相关阅读

精选视频

直播预告