Researchers have investigated the safety of electric cycles (e-cycles) and electric scooters (e-scooters) in urban settings across seven European cities. Their study, published in the Journal of Safety Research, compared injury rates between the two modes while considering factors such as vehicle type, location, exposure, and usage patterns.
Image Credit: Mariana Serdynska/Shutterstock.com
The findings highlighted that e-cycling may pose a higher risk of injury than e-scootering, challenging the perception that e-scooters are more dangerous. This research provides policymakers and urban planners valuable insights to improve micromobility safety.
The Rise and Regulation of Micromobility
The rise of dockless micromobility services, primarily e-scooters and e-bikes, has transformed urban transportation by offering low-emission, space-efficient alternatives to conventional vehicles. However, their rapid adoption has raised safety concerns, with some studies reporting e-scooter crash rates up to ten times higher than those for bicycles. Municipalities have responded with regulations, often based on incomplete data.
Despite being grouped under similar regulatory frameworks and policies, e-scooters and e-bikes differ in terms of design and usage patterns, highlighting the need for comprehensive safety assessments. Understanding these differences is crucial for developing evidence-based policies and promoting the responsible use of micromobility systems.
Comparing the Safety of E-Cycles and E-Scooters
To address gaps in the literature, researchers conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study using data from July 2022 to August 2023. They collected data from a single micromobility-sharing company operating in seven European cities: Gävle (Sweden), Berlin and Düsseldorf (Germany), and Cambridge, Liverpool, Kettering, and Northampton (United Kingdom). The analysis focused on rental e-scooters and e-bicycles to ensure consistency.
They used geofencing technology to standardize geographical exposure by restricting vehicle movement to predefined urban areas. High-resolution global positioning system (GPS) data captured detailed trip metrics, enabling the calculation of three exposure-based crash rates: per 100,000 trips, per 1,000 hours, and per 10,000 kilometers traveled.
The study included severe crashes that caused injuries but excluded hardware-related incidents to maintain data integrity. Users self-reported crash data, and researchers employed mixed-effects models to account for variability across different locations/cities.
Findings: Injury Risk Patterns and Statistical Outcomes
The analysis recorded 686 e-scooter crashes and 35 e-cyclist crashes that resulted in injuries. Although e-scooterists showed higher crashes, exposure-adjusted results indicated that e-cyclists faced significantly higher injury risks. For example, the crash rate per 100,000 trips for e-cyclists was five times higher than for e-scooterists.
In Cambridge, the rates were 22.72 for e-cyclists versus 10.86 for e-scooterists, while in Liverpool, the difference was even greater (35.23 compared to 7.57). Average trip characteristics varied: e-scooter trips were longer in distance (1.93 km vs. 1.80 km) but shorter in duration (9.08 minutes vs. 12.26 minutes) compared to e-cyclist trips.
The incidence-rate ratio (IRR) for crashes per trip was 0.19 (p < 0.001), indicating that e-scooterists were roughly five times less likely to be injured compared to e-cyclists. When analyzed by distance traveled, the IRR dropped to 0.12 (p < 0.001), suggesting a tenfold lower risk for e-scooterists. These trends were consistent across most cities, with notably low IRRs in Gävle (0.09) and Kettering (0.17). The only exceptions were Berlin and Düsseldorf, where no e-cyclist crashes were reported, preventing comparative analysis.
Practical Applications for Urban Mobility
This research has significant implications for urban mobility and transportation policy. By demonstrating that e-scooters may not be as risky as previously assumed, the findings challenge narratives that justify stricter regulations for e-scooter use. Policymakers can use these insights to design safer infrastructure and promote responsible rider behavior.
For stakeholders in clean technology and sustainability, the results strengthen the case for integrating e-scooters into low-emission urban transport systems. Their relatively lower exposure-adjusted injury rates, combined with their ability to reduce congestion and emissions, make them a valuable component of sustainable mobility strategies.
Conclusion and Future Directions
While the study challenges existing assumptions about e-scooter safety, it also acknowledges several limitations. The reliance on self-reported crash data introduces potential reporting biases, though the absence of incentives to misreport likely mitigates this concern. The relatively small sample size for e-cyclist crashes, along with the exclusion of privately owned vehicles, constrains the generalizability of the findings.
Future work should expand the geography beyond Europe and include larger datasets for e-bicycle trips to increase statistical power. Addressing underreporting in crash data will be crucial to obtaining a more comprehensive understanding of micromobility safety. Investigating behavioral factors, infrastructure design, and mixed-traffic conditions will be key to better understanding their impact on crash risks. Examining post-crash injury severity and demographic similarities between rider groups will further refine risk analysis.
The study provides strong evidence that e-scooterists may face lower crash risks than e-cyclists when controlling for location, usage, and exposure. These findings challenge the perception that e-scooters are more dangerous, offering a robust framework for reassessing policies.
The research underscores the importance of developing evidence-based regulations and infrastructure that support safe and sustainable micromobility systems in urban environments.
Journal Reference
Pai, R, R., & Dozza, M. (2025). Is e-cycling safer than e-scootering? Comparing injury risk across Europe when vehicle-type, location, exposure, usage, and ownership are controlled. Journal of Safety Research, 94 (469-472). DOI: 10.1016/j.jsr.2025.06.015, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022437525000878?via%3Dihub
Disclaimer: The views expressed here are those of the author expressed in their private capacity and do not necessarily represent the views of AZoM.com Limited T/A AZoNetwork the owner and operator of this website. This disclaimer forms part of the Terms and conditions of use of this website.