In late 2024, the New South Wales (NSW) Government unveiled an E-mobility Action Plan, outlining a pathway towards legalising e-scooters [1]. The move comes amid growing public uptake and media attention on e-scooters: more than one million NSW residents have ridden an e-scooter, there are nearly half a million privately owned devices in homes across the state, and yet only 22% of people know that riding private e-scooters on public roads remains illegal.

It is timely to consider the impacts of this e-scooter legalisation decision. Legalising private e-scooters will likely increase their visibility and usage, which in turn may shape public attitudes and influence councils’ willingness to adopt or expand shared e-scooter programs in the future. While wider exposure to e-scooters might build public support [2-4]; it could also fuel concerns about safety [5, 6]. It is likely that demand for shared e-scooters may also shift, as some current or recent users of shared services transition to personal ownership while others continue to value the convenience of shared services where they exist. These shifts will inevitably affect how operators manage their fleets and business models. International examples can provide insights on this matter. Paris introduced shared e-scooters in 2018 and legalised private ones a year later [7]. In 2023, shared services were discontinued following public controversy and a referendum [8]. While this outcome reflected a unique blend of policy, politics, and urban context, the presence of private e-scooters arguably softened the transition away from shared schemes for existing users. NSW should pay close attention to how cities have managed similar transitions—both the successes and pitfalls.

A critical dimension of this policy change lies in its implications for transport equity and social inclusion. Micromobility devices, often promoted as a “sustainable mode” of transport, particularly for first- and last-mile connections, holds promise. But does it benefit or disadvantage everyone equally? Evaluating the shared e-scooter trial in NSW showed the rider profile was typical of e-scooter use worldwide: mainly male, aged between young and middle adulthood, with middle to high income. Most trips were made for leisure rather than for commuting to work or study. These findings raise important questions about whether e-scooters serve the broader public effectively. Barriers to equitable access for a broader cross-section of the population are varied and complex. They may include concerns about personal safety, service availability and quality, digital and technological barriers (e.g., lack of access to smartphones or digital banking), and inadequate infrastructure. The list is long. If we want e-scooters to become a useful part of the NSW transport system in the long term, many of these obstacles must be considered. Otherwise, the NSW Government risks introducing a service that further excludes already disadvantaged populations, delivering benefits only to a limited segment of the population.

On the positive side, e-scooters may offer a glimpse into a more sustainable transport future for NSW. The state’s urban environments have long been shaped by car-centric planning, resulting in cities that are heavily reliant on private vehicles. In Sydney, steep topography has limited the success of shared bike programs, while shared e-bikes, though offering some advantages, have yet to achieve widespread adoption. Personal cycling for commuting also remains relatively uncommon, hindered by safety concerns, inadequate infrastructure, and long travel distances. Within this context, e-scooters especially when legalised and better integrated into the transport network could help bridge an important mobility gap. Their low physical effort, small footprint, and operational flexibility make them a promising option for short urban trips, particularly in areas poorly served by public transport.

Currently, it is not clear if there will be more shared e-scooter schemes in the near future in NSW. To avoid confusion for the public, applying uniform regulations to both private and shared e-scooters is an attractive option. It simplifies enforcement, ensures consistent safety standards, and promotes fairness. However, important differences in use cases, accountability, and operational models warrant a more nuanced regulatory approach. A hybrid model common in places like New York City [9] may be more appropriate. Core safety rules (e.g. helmet use, speed limits, riding zones) could apply universally, while operational requirements (e.g. parking management, fleet caps) are tailored by ownership type. NSW already employs this blended approach with other micromobility devices. Privately owned and shared e-bikes are covered by the same legal classification, but shared schemes are subject to additional operational rules [10]. A similar framework could guide e-scooter regulation: consistent where possible, differentiated where necessary.

Ultimately, e-scooter legalisation must be guided by broader urban mobility goals: improving access, reducing emissions, and promoting safety. As NSW embarks on this new mobility chapter, it will be important to ensure that policy design reflects not just technical and legal considerations, but also social and spatial equity.

References

[1] Transport for NSW, "E-scooters kick toward legalisation in NSW,"  vol. 2024, ed, 2024.

[2] R. L. Sanders, M. Branion-Calles, and T. A. Nelson, "To scoot or not to scoot: Findings from a recent survey about the benefits and barriers of using E-scooters for riders and non-riders," (in English), Transp. Res. Pt. A-Policy Pract., Article vol. 139, pp. 217-227, Sep 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.tra.2020.07.009.

[3] O. James, J. I. Swiderski, J. Hicks, D. Teoman, and R. Buehler, "Pedestrians and E-Scooters: An Initial Look at E-Scooter Parking and Perceptions by Riders and Non-Riders," Sustainability, vol. 11, no. 20, p. 5591, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/20/5591.

[4] S. Greaves, M. Beck, G. Rose, and M. Crane, "Public views on legalising e-scooters: Insights from a Sydney case study," (in English), Transp. Res. Pt. A-Policy Pract., Article vol. 192, p. 15, Feb 2025, Art no. 104364, doi: 10.1016/j.tra.2024.104364.

[5] Y. T. Zhang, J. D. Nelson, and C. Mulley, "Learning from the evidence: Insights for regulating e-scooters," (in English), Transport Policy, Article vol. 151, pp. 63-74, Jun 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2024.04.001.

[6] E. G. P. Sexton et al., "Shared e-scooter rider safety behaviour and injury outcomes: a review of studies in the United States," Transp. Rev., pp. 1-23, 2023, doi: 10.1080/01441647.2023.2219838.

[7] L. Chadwick. "France introduces new regulations on electric scooters." https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2019/10/26/france-introduces-new-regulations-on-electric-scooters (accessed 6 March, 2025).

[8] K. Dickinson, "What Went Wrong with the Paris Referendum On E-Scooters?,"  vol. 2025, ed, 2025.

[9] Carrion, "2023 Guide to Electric Scooter Laws in NYC,"  vol. 2025, ed, 2023.

[10] Transport for NSW, "E-bikes,"  vol. 2025, ed, 2025.