How Micromobility affects Safety

Safety is a paramount concern - and barrier to more use - for people who want to travel by bike or scooter, motorized or not. Street connectivity and dedicated bike routes offer some of the strongest safety protections for micromobility users [1]. In places without protected infrastructure for active transportation, where cars compete for the road with all other vehicle types, the most vulnerable travelers are the people outside of automobiles. To avoid the dangers of the road, scooter users and cyclists sometimes resort to traveling on sidewalks, which in turn can create conflicts with pedestrians.Younger riders (under 18 years old) are most likely to injure themselves riding scooters [2], while pedestrians who are older adults and children are particularly at risk of sustaining injuries in sidewalk collisions [3]. Experience with micromobility, too, can impact rider behavior and safety. Regular cyclists, for example, are more likely to take longer detours to avoid dangerous routes than infrequent cyclists [4].

Payment structures may also affect how safely people use a shared mobility service. When users pay per minute, rather than by distance, they may choose to speed and compromise road safety [5]. A global study of bikeshare programs found that, in cities with bikeshare programs, bikeshare users were less likely than private cyclists to sustain fatal or severe injuries [6]. However, bikeshare users were less likely than private cyclists to wear helmets [7].

Infrastructure policies to improve road safety for micromobility users may involve establishing separate travel networks for automobiles and micromobility, or, when users share the roads, designing streets that slow motorized traffic and thus reduce the severity of crashes [8].

References

  1. Y. Yang, X. Wu, P. Zhou, Z. Gou, and Y. Lu, “Towards a cycling-friendly city: An updated review of the associations between built environment and cycling behaviors (2007–2017),” J. Transp. Health, vol. 14, p. 100613, Sep. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.jth.2019.100613.

  2. T. K. Trivedi et al., “Injuries associated with standing electric scooter use,” JAMA Netw. Open, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. e187381–e187381, 2019.

  3. N. Sikka, C. Vila, M. Stratton, M. Ghassemi, and A. Pourmand, “Sharing the sidewalk: A case of E-scooter related pedestrian injury,” Am. J. Emerg. Med., vol. 37, no. 9, p. 1807. e5-1807. e7, 2019.

  4. N. R. Shah and C. R. Cherry, “Different safety awareness and route choice between frequent and infrequent bicyclists: findings from revealed preference study using bikeshare data,” Transp. Res. Rec., vol. 2675, no. 11, pp. 269–279, 2021.

  5. D. Milakis, L. Gedhardt, D. Ehebrecht, and B. Lenz, “Is micro-mobility sustainable? An overview of implications for accessibility, air pollution, safety, physical activity and subjective wellbeing,” in Handbook of Sustainable Transport, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2020, pp. 180–189. Accessed: Mar. 19, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.elgaronline.com/display/edcoll/9781789900460/9781789900460.00030.xml

  6. E. Fishman and P. Schepers, “Global bike share: What the data tells us about road safety,” J. Safety Res., vol. 56, pp. 41–45, 2016.

  7. E. Fishman, “Bikeshare: A review of recent literature,” Transp. Rev., vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 92–113, 2016.

  8. F. Wegman, F. Zhang, and A. Dijkstra, “How to make more cycling good for road safety?,” Accid. Anal. Prev., vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 19–29, Jan. 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2010.11.010.

Related Literature Reviews

See Literature Reviews on Micromobility

See Literature Reviews on Safety

Note: Mobility COE research partners conducted this literature review in Spring of 2024 based on research available at the time. Unless otherwise noted, this content has not been updated to reflect newer research.