IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v192y2025ics0965856424004129.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public views on legalising e-scooters: Insights from a Sydney case study

Author

Listed:
  • Greaves, Stephen
  • Beck, Matthew
  • Rose, Geoff
  • Crane, Melanie

Abstract

In common with much of the world, e-scooters − stand-up scooters powered by an electric battery − have emerged onto the urban landscape in Australia promising a practical, greener and ‘fun’ form of personal mobility. However, this promise has unleashed a ‘Pandora’s box’ of legislative challenges with convoluted rules and catch-up regulations around the e-scooters themselves, where they are allowed, and who can use them. Currently, little is known about public views on e-scooters and whether current policies are meeting expectations particularly in jurisdictions where e-scooter use is severely restricted or illegal. Drawing on a survey of 1,522 residents of Greater Sydney, where use of e-scooters on public infrastructure is largely outlawed but ownership and use are growing, half of Sydneysiders indicate support for legalising e-scooters, with one-quarter opposed and one-quarter unsure. Support is marginally higher for private e-scooters, with less negativity toward them than shared e-scooters. Levels of disagreement around where they should be allowed are highest for main roads and footpaths, while levels of agreement are strongest for bicycle paths and to a lesser extent shared paths and low-speed roads, although both attract significant opposition, reflecting the ‘contested’ nature of such spaces. Strong support for helmets, insurance, licencing, and registration points toward treating them more as motorcycles/mopeds than bicycles. Support is marginal for allowing them on public transport. Market segmentation analysis unpicks some of the underlying factors around these heterogenous views, which seem to be strongly linked to age, exposure to e-scooters, perceptions of the local environment and residential location within Greater Sydney. The paper calls for a dialogue to begin around framing regulations for e-scooters and other forms of micro-mobility that not only support the advancement of sustainable transport but do so in a way which responds to public concerns and needs.

Suggested Citation

  • Greaves, Stephen & Beck, Matthew & Rose, Geoff & Crane, Melanie, 2025. "Public views on legalising e-scooters: Insights from a Sydney case study," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:192:y:2025:i:c:s0965856424004129
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2024.104364
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856424004129
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tra.2024.104364?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    --->

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hugo Badia & Erik Jenelius, 2023. "Shared e-scooter micromobility: review of use patterns, perceptions and environmental impacts," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(5), pages 811-837, September.
    2. Zhang, Yuting & Nelson, John D. & Mulley, Corinne, 2024. "Learning from the evidence: Insights for regulating e-scooters," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 63-74.
    3. Standen, Christopher & Greaves, Stephen & Collins, Andrew T. & Crane, Melanie & Rissel, Chris, 2019. "The value of slow travel: Economic appraisal of cycling projects using the logsum measure of consumer surplus," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 255-268.
    4. Riggs, William & Kawashima, Matt & Batstone, David, 2021. "Exploring best practice for municipal e-scooter policy in the United States," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 18-27.
    5. Button, Kenneth & Frye, Hailey & Reaves, David, 2020. "Economic regulation and E-scooter networks in the USA," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. repec:hal:wpaper:hal-04017908 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Sobrino, Natalia & Gonzalez, Juan Nicolas & Vassallo, Jose Manuel & Baeza, Maria de los Angeles, 2023. "Regulation of shared electric kick scooters in urban areas: Key drivers from expert stakeholders," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 1-18.
    3. Tyndall, Justin, 2022. "Complementarity of dockless mircomobility and rail transit," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    4. Paulsen, Mads & Rich, Jeppe, 2023. "Societally optimal expansion of bicycle networks," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    5. Mai, Nhat Chi, 2022. "Behavioural Economics Assignment: Business Consumer Decision-Making & Consumer Surplus," OSF Preprints 4jrc8, Center for Open Science.
    6. Abouelela, Mohamed & Durán-Rodas, David & Antoniou, Constantinos, 2024. "Do we all need shared E-scooters? An accessibility-centered spatial equity evaluation approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    7. Rémy Le Boennec & Frédéric Salladarré, 2023. "Investigating the use of privately-owned micromobility modes for commuting in four European countries," Post-Print hal-04296400, HAL.
    8. Ghasri, Milad & Ardeshiri, Ali & Zhang, Xiang & Waller, S. Travis, 2024. "Analysing preferences for integrated micromobility and public transport systems: A hierarchical latent class approach considering taste heterogeneity and attribute non-attendance," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    9. Aarhaug, Jørgen & Fearnley, Nils & Hartveit, Knut Johannes Liland & Johnsson, Espen, 2023. "Price and competition in emerging shared e-scooter markets," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    10. Hakan İnaç, 2023. "Micro-Mobility Sharing System Accident Case Analysis by Statistical Machine Learning Algorithms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-31, January.
    11. Draženko Glavić & Marina Milenković & Aleksandar Trifunović & Igor Jokanović & Jelica Komarica, 2023. "Influence of Dockless Shared E-Scooters on Urban Mobility: WTP and Modal Shift," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-17, June.
    12. Bergantino, Angela Stefania & Gardelli, Alessandro, 2024. "The contribution of e-scooters services to urban transport resilience," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    13. Paul Hurlet & Ouassim Manout & Azise Oumar Diallo, 2024. "Policy implications of shared e-scooter parking regulation: an agent-based approach," Post-Print hal-04422427, HAL.
    14. Zoi Christoforou & Anastasios Kallianiotis & Nadir Farhi, 2025. "Design, Development, and Validation of Driving Simulators for Enhancing the Safety and Sustainability of Electric Microvehicles," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(7), pages 1-22, April.
    15. Tang, Justin Hayse Chiwing G. & Liu, Junbei & Chen, Anthony & Wang, Bobin & Zhuge, Chengxiang & Yang, Xiong, 2025. "Exploring the potential adoption of Mobility-as-a-Service in Beijing: A spatial agent-based model," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).
    16. Nikiforiadis, Andreas & Paschalidis, Evangelos & Stamatiadis, Nikiforos & Paloka, Ntonata & Tsekoura, Eleni & Basbas, Socrates, 2023. "E-scooters and other mode trip chaining: Preferences and attitudes of university students," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    17. Wookjae Yang & Reid Ewing, 2025. "Examining the nonlinear effects of neighborhood housing + transportation affordability on shared dockless e-scooter trips using machine learning approach," Transportation, Springer, vol. 52(3), pages 1039-1057, June.
    18. Levent Çallı & Büşra Alma Çallı, 2024. "Value‐centric analysis of user adoption for sustainable urban micro‐mobility transportation through shared e‐scooter services," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(6), pages 6408-6433, December.
    19. Asplund, Disa & Pyddoke, Roger, 2021. "Optimal pricing of car use in a small city: A case study of Uppsala," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 88-103.
    20. Bretones, Alexandra & Marquet, Oriol, 2022. "Sociopsychological factors associated with the adoption and usage of electric micromobility. A literature review," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 230-249.
    21. Shah, Nitesh R. & Ziedan, Abubakr & Brakewood, Candace & Cherry, Christopher R., 2023. "Shared e-scooter service providers with large fleet size have a competitive advantage: Findings from e-scooter demand and supply analysis of Nashville, Tennessee," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:192:y:2025:i:c:s0965856424004129. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/547/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.