Challenges & Potential Solutions

There are a number of challenges involved in integrating and maintaining e-scooter systems. Some of these challenges are discussed below, with potential solutions for each.

Data Privacy

There is a growing concern about how personal data can be used, and what it means to have data privacy. For shared micromobility, the data can provide specific information about where a trip starts and ends, how long the trip took, and what time of day a trip occurred. Location data is especially sensitive. These data can provide information that reveal personal information about the users’ travel patterns. For this reason, the U.S. Supreme Court recognizes the privacy interest associated with location data, therefore protected by the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement. While these data are de-identified, they can be easily re-identified. Specific concerns include the possibility of data leaks and hacks, but also law enforcement’s access to personal data. On the other hand, for cities these data are necessary for planning, to understand the usage of shared mobility.

 

POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS

 

With the introduction of the Mobility Data Specification, the Los Angeles Department of Transportation began collecting a considerable amount of data beyond what was being collected in the Global Bikeshare Feed Specification. Los Angeles, CA Portland, OR, and Seattle, WA have protocols around the collection, protection, and sharing of information as well as their digital rights of way. Data standards should include data accessibility, data license (ensure it’s available for public use), data quality and timeliness. Further, guiding principles for establishing data exchanges include conditions for use, data management policies, and data dashboards. The City of Portland Bureau of Transportation is a founding member of the Open Mobility Foundation (OMF) to engage in conversation regarding mobility data and data privacy. This has allowed them to engage with stakeholders regarding best-practices for managing and protecting mobility data. Detailed aggregation methods are described in the City of Portland Bureau of Transportation 2019 E-Scooter Findings Report. Additional guidance can be found in NACTO Policy 2019, Managing Mobility Data.

Equity

Equity refers to a representation of fairness in the benefits and burdens in society. Many inherent barriers exist to transportation equity, including geographic/spatial, temporal, economic/financial, psychological, and social (described below). While micromobility can ameliorate the overall inequities in transportation, there are inequities within how, and to whom, shared micromobility is provided. Many cities have equity goals and require providers to offer equity programs, but unfortunately the goals are often not met. For instance, in Chicago, IL, providers consistently failed to meet rebalancing requirements involving priority areas which were based on disadvantaged communities, and Los Angeles, CA found that fleet cap incentives and reduced fees were not sufficient to induce providers to deploy in disadvantaged communities.

Spatial equity refers to physical distance. Long distances often exist between transit stops, sometimes in hostile environments, making walking challenging, which can decrease the opportunities people have access to. Temporal barriers refer to the ability to make spontaneous trips or time sensitive travel. Many types of public and shared transportation are not available 24 hours a day, significantly limiting transit opportunities, which is a potential opportunity for e-scooters to fill a current gap. Economic/financial position is a barrier to transportation for many people. Transit may be subsidized, but the cost can still be insurmountable for some. Physiological and social inequities, including cognitive conditions that make some transportation options challenging are also of concern. These are not only specific disabilities but also may be related to age, physical fitness or capabilities, and willingness to risk injury. Some social or cultural contexts make comfort with shared micromobility less likely, including histories of discrimination, and lack of trust in institutions that provide and support shared micromobility, or a minority language or culture.

 

POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS

 

The majority of cities surveyed offered some form of financial equity initiatives, including discounted fares or membership options, flexible payment options, cash access or options for the unbanked, access for those with digital impoverishment (having to use a smart phone with high speed data), combined bikeshare and transit passes; however, as stated in the report from people who are eligible for programs often do not know that they are available to them and some systems for receiving assistance may be difficult to navigate. One solution that is to introduce price capping for trips that begin/end in an equity zone.
It may be helpful to use socially appropriate outreach to appropriately communicate with members of a community. In some cases, deployment of multilingual communication in written and spoken materials can help communities reach a larger segment of the population.
While scooters may be accessible to a different population than traditional bicycles, many people are still unable to use them. Different types of scooters may be leveraged to reach a wider audience. After identifying that “not everyone is physically able to ride an e-scooter” as a 2018 pilot concern, the City of Portland Bureau of Transportation is offering priority in the permitting process to providers offering seated e-scooters.

 

 

Inconsistent Regulations

Abutting jurisdictions with different regulations can be problematic for riders and bystanders because they make it difficult to know what to expect. For instance, if one jurisdiction allows sidewalk riding, but the neighboring one does not, riders may inadvertently break the law. Pedestrians too could be at increased risk of collision if they are not aware that e-scooter riders may be on sidewalks. This is also a concern for drivers since regulations often differ in terms of street riding. Further, the inconsistent rules from city to city can create a confusing regulatory landscape. Consistent information for bystanders is key to public safety and perceptions, and knowledge of statutes and regulations can be a challenge since they vary from state to state and locality to locality.

 

POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS

 

Regulation harmonization refers to an approach bringing uniformity of regulations/policies between two or more political jurisdictions. Harmonization can occur at various levels of government. There are regulations at the city, county and state level, and there can be differing rules in abutting jurisdictions, which can be confusing for both riders and bystanders. Areas with abutting jurisdictions often have similarities, but invariably there will also be differences between the wants and needs of their populations. It is important that all cities sharing boundaries be aligned in terms of public communications oversight, data standards, and small vehicle standards for shared-use contexts. Federal, state, and local regulations and policies all governing not only micromobility but transportation in general, lead to a complex legislative structure.
Treating the relationships with micromobility providers as meaningful community partnerships rather than just contracts with service providers can improve the relationship between the community and providers. As the e-scooter industry grows, it will be able to better meet transportation goals, shifting their relationship from regulation to partnership. One way of doing this is by limiting the number of providers. Another method to facilitate partnerships is to develop a vision for the role of micromobility as part of achieving broader transportation goals. It is important to remember that e-scooters and other micromobility do not operate in a vacuum, but rather coexist with other transportation infrastructure users. While mutually beneficial partnerships are built on trust, verification may also be a necessary component.

Safety

Safety is one of the most serious issues in micromobility, for both riders and bystanders. Some of the main safety issues include helmet usage, novice riders, and rider impairment (described below). Fatality information from the Collaborative Sciences Center for Road Safety at University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center shows that most of e-scooter fatalities recorded since 2016 occurred on the roadway, and the majority involved motor vehicles and many of the fatalities occurred between 6pm and 6am.

Helmet usage is a contentious issue in the cycling community, and this carries over into the domain of other micromobility. Many believe that the best way to increase safety for micromobility is through higher adoption (the “safety in numbers effect”), and that forcing helmet usage can decrease ridership. Another reason for dockless e-scooters popularity is their on-demand availability – a rider doesn’t necessarily need to plan ahead to use them. However, this makes helmet usage less likely, especially since they are not provided with the devices.

While many of the studies evaluated here do not provide specific data about the experience levels of riders who experienced crashes, Austin Public Health identified lack of experience as a significant problem and reported one-third of the accident victims they interviewed being first-time riders, and 63% had ridden 9 or fewer times.

Rider impairment may be a significant factor in e-scooter accidents, but it is difficult to assess the frequency because it is often self-reported. In an accident study from Austin Public Health in Texas, 29% of injured participants reported that they had alcohol in the preceding 12 hours. Similarly, a study in Salt Lake City, UT found 16% of the incidents involved alcohol intoxication, again based on self-reported data. However, in a study based on screenings rather than self-report, researchers found 48% of injured participants tested positive for alcohol (over legal limit >80 mg/dL), 52% for other illicit substances.

While there are safety issues, it is important to note that there are safety issues with any type of transportation. As with other modes of transportation, micromobility safety statistics should be considered in context and only compared in a standardized way.

 

POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS

While there is debate on whether helmets should be mandated, helmet use has been shown to decrease the occurrence of traumatic brain injuries in other domains, including motorcycles, bicycles, and skateboards. Lack of helmet use is especially concerning given that many e-scooter injury patients suffer head and neck injuries. Helmets are mandated for e-scooters in few cities (e.g. Seattle, WA and Portland, OR). While some researchers advocate for laws mandating helmet use to increase safety, organizations such as CalBike suggest that mandating helmets is a barrier to use for shared systems, and these mandates themselves may not result in higher helmet use. In the cycling domain, advocates usually oppose mandating helmets since it potentially limits access. Encouraging helmet use through such mechanisms as helmet giveaways and educational campaigns is likely to be more productive.
Like any other type of mobility, micromobility devices are more dangerous at higher speeds. However, unlike other modes of transportation, micromobility device speed can be controlled by the provider. Further, it is possible to set different speeds for different areas using geofencing, which uses GPS, RFID, and/or Wi-Fi signals to automatically trigger a device behavior such as speed reduction. Most of the cities surveyed capped speeds at 10-15 mph, and some also capped sidewalk speeds at a lower speed (generally 6 mph).
Riders cannot follow the rules if they do not know what they are. Unfortunately, people often do not choose to fully pay attention to materials provided to them, making the accessibility of these materials crucial. Having clear, simple messages can also be helpful. For instance, the Los Angeles Department of Transportation purchased space on buses and bus shelters to deliver the “Take the Friendly Road” campaign message. Educating the public is often a difficult proposition, and gaps continue to exist. Research into how best to reach riders and bystanders, and how best to communicate with them in meaningful ways, would be beneficial in this effort.

Communicating with Riders:

  • Easily digestible printed materials such as posters, fliers, hang tags popular for illustrating dos and don’ts • In app training with verification (such as a short quiz)
  • Require information on the provider’s website
  • Provide information on the devices
  • On street messaging indicating where to (and where not to) ride

Communicating with Bystanders:

  • Community/neighborhood events
  • Discuss micromobility in driver education programs
  • Micromobility providers can hire and deploy existing community members
  • Train law enforcement on rules and how they should be enforced
  • Public service announcements
When considering the implementation or expansion of micromobility programs, it is necessary to consider whether current infrastructure is adequate for all users in the transportation environment. Many riders have reported that they would feel safer riding in streets if bike lanes were present. Separating transportation modes may be the most effective way to reduce the risk of accidents. Unfortunately, dedicated protected infrastructure is not widely available, and current U.S. surface transportation funding law does not include dedicated funding for micromobility. A further financial constraint is that fees collected by these programs are often inadequate to cover administrative costs or the costs of educating riders and other road users on how to interact.
When comparing micromobility accidents to other modes, it is important to look at normalized measures. For instance, these could be measures of accidents per 1,000 miles; per 1,000 trips; or per 1,000 people. Of these, crashes per mile may provide the most consistent measure and is easiest to compare to other modes of transportation, but more research is needed to fully understand how to best standardize and report these data.

Parking

Since shared e-scooters are generally deployed in high population density environments, their parking locations can be problematic. Urban space in particular tends to be at a premium. Adding space for micromobility parking, including e-scooters and bicycles, can be challenging. This is especially problematic for users with disabilities, who often cannot move the devices. The proliferation of scooters can potentially conflict with cities’ obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits discrimination and ensures equal opportunity regardless of disabilities. Under this act, cities are responsible for ensuring the rights-of-way are readily accessible and useable by people with disabilities.

 

POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS

 

Lock-to systems are locks connected to micromobility devices that allow riders to lock them to infrastructure features. This solution can reduce sidewalk obstruction, dumping, and vandalism, but also has its drawbacks. Further retrofitting scooters to add the necessary capabilities could cost millions of dollars, which would be difficult given the current market climate. This could cause other problems because the bike rack space being used by the scooters would no longer be available to cyclists.
Parking corrals are clearly marked designated parking scooter zones. They are typically marked by using pavement decals or paint, making them a low-cost method for curb-space management. They can be implemented on the sidewalk or in the street itself. This solution is attractive to scooter providers because it also gives them a designated area for deployment. However, unlike lock-to systems, parking corrals do not protect devices from dumping and vandalism.

Rule Awareness and Compliance

It is important for e-scooter riders and bystanders to be aware of the norms, rules and regulations guiding use, so they can adjust their expectations and behaviors accordingly. However, in the case of e-scooter bystanders, people do not often seek out information about rules and regulations that do not apply to them directly. Even in the case of the riders, to whom the rules do apply, they may not fully read or understand the information provided by e-scooter providers or local government. Further, sometimes even people who know the rules choose not to follow them.

 

POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS

Community engagement can be facilitated through various methods, including community education, community meetings, and user and rider surveys. In their guide for engaging with communities, the National Association of City Transportation Officials Better Bikeshare Partnership recommended these strategies:
  • Actively look for opportunities to engage with people in ways that are clear, convenient, and accessible to them
  • Recognize many people do not attend meetings, and will be missed
  • Oversample in key communities to combat historic inequities and avoid missing vulnerable populations
  • During planning, ensure that the public understands how decisions will be made regarding system coverage and resource placement
  • Use ambassador programs to leverage existing relationships with community members, and provide a deeper understanding of community wants and needs
  • Employ within the neighborhoods that the systems serve, youth training, workforce development programs, and focus on under-employed populations to facilitate long-term community investment
  • Marketing campaigns should be inclusive and include multilingual ads and outlets
Riders cannot follow the rules if they do not know what they are. Unfortunately, people often do not choose to fully pay attention to materials provided to them, making the accessibility of these materials crucial. Having clear, simple messages can also be helpful. For instance, the Los Angeles Department of Transportation purchased space on buses and bus shelters to deliver the “Take the Friendly Road” campaign message. Educating the public is often a difficult proposition, and gaps continue to exist. Research into how best to reach riders and bystanders, and how best to communicate with them in meaningful ways, would be beneficial in this effort.

Communicating with Riders:

  • Easily digestible printed materials such as posters, fliers, hang tags popular for illustrating dos and don’ts • In app training with verification (such as a short quiz)
  • Require information on the provider’s website
  • Provide information on the devices
  • On street messaging indicating where to (and where not to) ride

Communicating with Bystanders:

  • Community/neighborhood events
  • Discuss micromobility in driver education programs
  • Micromobility providers can hire and deploy existing community members
  • Train law enforcement on rules and how they should be enforced
  • Public service announcements
When considering the implementation or expansion of micromobility programs, it is necessary to consider whether current infrastructure is adequate for all users in the transportation environment. Many riders have reported that they would feel safer riding in streets if bike lanes were present. Separating transportation modes may be the most effective way to reduce the risk of accidents. Unfortunately, dedicated protected infrastructure is not widely available, and current U.S. surface transportation funding law does not include dedicated funding for micromobility. A further financial constraint is that fees collected by these programs are often inadequate to cover administrative costs or the costs of educating riders and other road users on how to interact.
When comparing micromobility accidents to other modes, it is important to look at normalized measures. For instance, these could be measures of accidents per 1,000 miles; per 1,000 trips; or per 1,000 people. Of these, crashes per mile may provide the most consistent measure and is easiest to compare to other modes of transportation, but more research is needed to fully understand how to best standardize and report these data.

Treating the relationships with micromobility providers as meaningful community partnerships rather than just contracts with service providers can improve the relationship between the community and providers. As the e-scooter industry grows, it will be able to better meet transportation goals, shifting their relationship from regulation to partnership. One way of doing this is by limiting the number of providers. Another method to facilitate partnerships is to develop a vision for the role of micromobility as part of achieving broader transportation goals. It is important to remember that e-scooters and other micromobility do not operate in a vacuum, but rather coexist with other transportation infrastructure users. While mutually beneficial partnerships are built on trust, verification may also be a necessary component.

Sidewalk Riding

One issue cities and counties contend with when developing their rules and ordinances is where people are allowed to ride e-scooters. This is also one of the most difficult in terms of bystander interaction since all of the spaces in the transportation infrastructure are shared between e-scooter riders and bystanders. These interactions can be confusing since the rules governing sidewalk riding vary by jurisdiction or even within the same jurisdictions. For instance, some cities allow sidewalk riding in the absence of bike lanes. However, even in areas where sidewalk riding is banned, lack of compliance is common and many riders use the sidewalk.

 

POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS

When considering the implementation or expansion of micromobility programs, it is necessary to consider whether current infrastructure is adequate for all users in the transportation environment. Many riders have reported that they would feel safer riding in streets if bike lanes were present. Separating transportation modes may be the most effective way to reduce the risk of accidents. Unfortunately, dedicated protected infrastructure is not widely available, and current U.S. surface transportation funding law does not include dedicated funding for micromobility. A further financial constraint is that fees collected by these programs are often inadequate to cover administrative costs or the costs of educating riders and other road users on how to interact.
Community engagement can be facilitated through various methods, including community education, community meetings, and user and rider surveys. In their guide for engaging with communities, the National Association of City Transportation Officials Better Bikeshare Partnership recommended these strategies:
  • Actively look for opportunities to engage with people in ways that are clear, convenient, and accessible to them
  • Recognize many people do not attend meetings, and will be missed and oversample in key communities to combat historic inequities and avoid missing vulnerable populations
  • During planning, ensure that the public understands how decisions will be made regarding system coverage and resource placement
  • Use ambassador programs to leverage existing relationships with community members, and provide a deeper understanding of community wants and needs
  • Employ within the neighborhoods that the systems serve, youth training, workforce development programs, and focus on under-employed populations to facilitate long-term community investment
  • Marketing campaigns should be inclusive and include multilingual ads and outlets
Like any other type of mobility, micromobility devices are more dangerous at higher speeds. However, unlike other modes of transportation, micromobility device speed can be controlled by the provider. Further, it is possible to set different speeds for different areas using geofencing, which uses GPS, RFID, and/or Wi-Fi signals to automatically trigger a device behavior such as speed reduction. Most of the cities surveyed capped speeds at 10-15 mph, and some also capped sidewalk speeds at a lower speed (generally 6 mph).
Riders cannot follow the rules if they do not know what they are. Unfortunately, people often do not choose to fully pay attention to materials provided to them, making the accessibility of these materials crucial. Having clear, simple messages can also be helpful. For instance, the Los Angeles Department of Transportation purchased space on buses and bus shelters to deliver the “Take the Friendly Road” campaign message. Educating the public is often a difficult proposition, and gaps continue to exist. Research into how best to reach riders and bystanders, and how best to communicate with them in meaningful ways, would be beneficial in this effort.

Communicating with Riders:

  • Easily digestible printed materials such as posters, fliers, hang tags popular for illustrating dos and don’ts • In app training with verification (such as a short quiz)
  • Require information on the provider’s website
  • Provide information on the devices
  • On street messaging indicating where to (and where not to) ride

Communicating with Bystanders:

  • Community/neighborhood events
  • Discuss micromobility in driver education programs
  • Micromobility providers can hire and deploy existing community members
  • Train law enforcement on rules and how they should be enforced
  • Public service announcements
When considering the implementation or expansion of micromobility programs, it is necessary to consider whether current infrastructure is adequate for all users in the transportation environment. Many riders have reported that they would feel safer riding in streets if bike lanes were present. Separating transportation modes may be the most effective way to reduce the risk of accidents. Unfortunately, dedicated protected infrastructure is not widely available, and current U.S. surface transportation funding law does not include dedicated funding for micromobility. A further financial constraint is that fees collected by these programs are often inadequate to cover administrative costs or the costs of educating riders and other road users on how to interact.
When comparing micromobility accidents to other modes, it is important to look at normalized measures. For instance, these could be measures of accidents per 1,000 miles; per 1,000 trips; or per 1,000 people. Of these, crashes per mile may provide the most consistent measure and is easiest to compare to other modes of transportation, but more research is needed to fully understand how to best standardize and report these data.

Vandalism

There have been a plethora of vandalism incidents against e-scooters – so many that an Instagram social media account called “Bird Graveyard” with over 70,000 followers that is “devoted to destroying rideshare scooters” was nominated for a 2021 Shorty Award, which honor the best of social media. Since its inception in June of 2018, the Bird Graveyard has displayed photos and videos submitted by users of such acts of vandalism as scooters on fire, in trash cans, in tangled piles, and in various bodies of water. While fans of the account find it amusing, this is not only problematic for scooter providers, but also for the bystanders and public. Environmental issues are created when the e-scooters are dumped in bodies of water as well as when they are set on fire. While e-scooter providers are generally responsible for retrieving the scooters from bodies of water within a specified amount of time, this can still be damaging for water quality. There is no remediation for the air quality damage caused by setting these devices on fire. Other forms of vandalism include cutting brake lines and throwing them off buildings, which can both pose serious risks to community members.

 

POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS

Lock-to systems are locks connected to micromobility devices that allow riders to lock them to infrastructure features. This solution can reduce sidewalk obstruction, dumping, and vandalism, but also has its drawbacks. Further retrofitting scooters to add the necessary capabilities could cost millions of dollars, which would be difficult given the current market climate. This could cause other problems because the bike rack space being used by the scooters would no longer be available to cyclists.
Community engagement can be facilitated through various methods, including community education, community meetings, and user and rider surveys. In their guide for engaging with communities, the National Association of City Transportation Officials Better Bikeshare Partnership recommended these strategies:

  • Actively look for opportunities to engage with people in ways that are clear, convenient, and accessible to them
  • Recognize many people do not attend meetings, and will be missed.
  • Oversample in key communities to combat historic inequities and avoid missing vulnerable populations
  • During planning, ensure that the public understands how decisions will be made regarding system coverage and resource placement
  • Use ambassador programs to leverage existing relationships with community members, and provide a deeper understanding of community wants and needs
  • Employ within the neighborhoods that the systems serve, youth training, workforce development programs, and focus on under-employed populations to facilitate long-term community investment
  • Marketing campaigns should be inclusive and include multilingual ads and outlets