Electric scooters and bikes - The Sustainability Management Wiki

Authors: Judith Lüske, Svea Thaden
Edited by: –
Last updated: May 17, 2026

Executive summary

Electric scooters (e-scooters) and electric bicycles (e-bikes) are increasingly important components of sustainable urban mobility. They offer flexible, low-emission transport options that can replace short car trips, reduce congestion, and support climate goals. Technological advances, particularly in battery systems and electric motors, have improved performance, reduced costs, and expanded market adoption.

From an economic perspective, micromobility markets are growing rapidly. Cost reductions—especially in battery technology—are making these solutions more accessible. Organizations can benefit from lower operating costs compared to conventional vehicles, particularly in urban logistics and commuting applications. Sharing systems further enhance accessibility and enable last-mile connectivity.

Ecologically, electric two-wheelers reduce operational emissions significantly, especially when powered by renewable energy. However, their overall environmental impact depends on lifecycle considerations, including battery production, resource use, and end-of-life management. Effective recycling and circular economy practices are therefore critical to maximize sustainability benefits.

Socially, e-bikes and e-scooters improve accessibility by reducing physical barriers to mobility and supporting diverse user groups. They contribute to public health by encouraging physical activity but also introduce safety challenges, particularly in mixed-traffic environments. Equity issues remain, as access and infrastructure are often unevenly distributed.

For organizations, successful implementation requires structured planning. Key steps include defining use cases, selecting appropriate vehicle types, evaluating total cost of ownership, and establishing infrastructure, maintenance, and safety protocols. Continuous monitoring through key performance indicators supports optimization over time.

Policy and regulatory frameworks play a critical role in shaping adoption. Effective governance balances innovation with safety, infrastructure design, and equitable access. When supported by well-designed policies and infrastructure, micromobility can significantly contribute to sustainable transportation systems.

1 Description and history

The transition towards sustainable travelling methods is a crucial part of a net-zero emission future, as the transport sector is one major emitter of greenhouse gas emissions.¹ E-bikes and e-scooters can assist this transition, especially for shorter distances.² E-bikes are two-wheeled vehicles, which have an electric motor and can be differentiated into two groups by the type of torque generation. Pedelecs are very similar to bicycles, as they also have pedals. The torque applied by the driver’s pedalling is then assisted by an electric motor.³ They will be referred to as e-bikes in this article. The second type are pedal-less two wheelers, similar to mopeds but with an electric motor.⁴^,⁵ They will be referred to as e-scooters. This chapter is about the basic concept of e-bikes and e-scooters, their functionality and their history.

The motor of a pedelec is accompanied by a power source, torque and speed sensors, as well as a control unit which unites all components and serves as the brain of an e-bike.⁴^,⁶ Usually the amount of the electrical support is set by the driver on a user interface on the handlebars, who can decide how much physical effort they want to invest.⁴^,⁷ There are two main types of motors for e-bikes. In-wheel mounted hub motors are located at the front or rear wheels axis. They require low maintenance, are affordable and are harder to distinguish from unmotorized bicycles. They are common for most types of pedelecs.⁴ The other motor type is a mid-drive system, where the motor is located near the pedalling axis. Usually, brushless direct current motors are used. The motor is connected to the bike’s gears, which is why the motor is allowed to have more optimal output speeds than in-wheel mounted motors.⁸ There is more space available for larger motors, allowing more torque to be generated more efficiently. This type of motor is often installed in mountain pedelecs.⁴

E-Scooters are similar to pedelecs in terms of having a battery, an electric motor and a controller. Additionally, they have a throttle usually located at the handlebar, which makes the e-scooter accelerate if it is activated. Starting from a stand-still situation, some e-scooters need the rider to push off the ground to get started, while other e-scooters can accelerate entirely by themselves.⁹

Figure 1 presents a comparison of selected electric micromobility vehicle types, outlining their technical characteristics, typical assisted speeds, regulatory classification in the European Union, and associated rules and safety requirements.¹⁰^,¹¹^,¹²

Figure 1: Taxonomy box

The first ideas of e-scooters and e-bikes were developed in the 1880s in France and the US respectively. In France, a pedal-less three wheeler with an electric motor was designed, where the throttle was controlled by a hand lever system. In contrast, the battery powered idea from the US was already similar to today’s pedelecs, as it had a rear in-wheel mounted hub motor and a battery connected to the frame.¹³ In the 20th century, companies such as Philips/EMI and Simplex, Panasonic and SANYO Electric Co., Ltd. designed and produced electric two-wheelers, but these products were not commercially successful.¹⁴^,¹⁵^,¹⁶ Due to advancing technologies, especially in terms of battery and motor technology, they became more attractive only after the early 2000s, as the power output and range increased. Mass production and modular design made e-bikes easier to produce and therefore cheaper for the customers.⁵ Up until 2017, the yearly sales of e-bikes in Europe and North America has grown to 2,2 and 0,3 million units respectively. This number continued rising in the following years, reaching 5,6 and 0,8 million units respectively. In China, over 30 million e-bikes are sold annually.¹⁷ The number of e-scooter rentals has increased worldwide after their introduction in 2017.¹⁸^,¹⁹ In 2019, 39 million rentals were recorded. Until 2023, the rentals more than doubled, reaching over 91 million.¹⁸ Today, various pedelec types for different tasks like mountain biking, sports or daily commutes are part of the mainstream e-bike market.¹³ Their maximum speed is usually between 25 and 45 km/h, not restricted by technology but by policies in the respective country. The range of an e-bike is highly dependent on the type, capacity and age of the battery. In 2007, the expected range of an e-bike was about 20-30 kilometers.⁸ Due to improved technology, modern e-bikes offer greater range. Nowadays, trips of over 55 km can be performed easily.¹⁷ E-scooters can have very different appearances. Some are similar to motorized scooters, include a seat and have a bulkier appearance. On the other side of the spectrum, e-scooters are built like a larger version of children’s scooters with a slim frame and without a seat.⁵^,²⁰

E-bikes are typically heavier than conventional bicycles due to the additional motor and battery components. While conventional bicycles usually weigh around 7–10 kg, e-bikes commonly weigh between 18 and 30 kg. E-scooters are generally lighter but still heavier than non-motorized scooters, with typical weights ranging from 10 to 20 kg depending on battery capacity and motor power.²¹^,²² The charging duration depends on parameters like the type of battery, the state of charge, and the type of charging device. A complete charging process usually takes about 2 to 8 hours.²³ In terms of e-scooters, the consequences of rental service will be focused on.

2 Economic performance

E-bikes and e-scooters account for one of the fastest growing segments of transport market with China holding a market share of about 90% of global e-bike sales as on 2012.⁵ In this chapter, three important key points with respect to the economics of e-bikes have been covered to understand how the cost have evolved over time, pricing trends across different countries, growth trajectory, employment, consumer preferences, and cost comparison with its counterparts.

2.1 Technology cost trends

The global electric scooter market has experienced significant growth in recent years. The market size was estimated at USD 41,78 Mrd. in 2024 and is projected to reach approximately USD 98,96 Mrd. by 2033, corresponding to a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of about 9.6 %.²⁴ Recent data show that e-bike prices vary significantly between regions. In China basic electric bicycles typically cost around 2,000-3,000 RMB (260,00-390,00 EUR), while in European countries prices often reach several thousand euros depending on quality and specifications.²⁵ So in Germany the average retail price of an e-bike was about 2,650 EUR in 2024.²⁶ With rapid growth potential, improvement in manufacturing technologies, and economic of scale, there should be a reduction in cost incurred to manufacture the e-bikes and e-scooters. Batteries account for about 30 – 40% cost of the e-scooters.²⁷ The global average price of lithium-ion battery packs decreased from approximately USD 151/kWh in 2022 to about USD 108/kWh in 2025, representing a decline of roughly 28,5 %. This continuing downward trend in battery costs is driven by factors such as expanded production capacity, increased competition, and the adoption of lower-cost chemistries like lithium-iron-phosphate (LFP). The decline in battery prices is expected to reduce manufacturing costs for electric micromobility vehicles, such as e-scooters, as batteries make up a substantial portion of total production costs.²⁸

Over the years, e-scooters have become more affordable in most parts of the world, and especially in China, it has seen a 30% decline in the price from 1999 to 2005.²⁹ But in the same period, the prices in Germany and the Netherlands haven’t reacted that much to the declining production cost, because of introduction of new technologies which increased pricing, like LED lighting, lithium-ion battery and disk braking system.³⁰ The total user costs, i.e. the sum of costs for purchase, maintenance, and use of e-bikes and larger electric two-wheelers are higher than those for bicycles and public transportation, but lower than conventionally powered two-wheelers.³ Even though e-scooters have a high upfront cost mainly due to expensive battery packs, their operational costs are significantly lower with less to very minimal maintenance cost. When measured on a cost-per-kilometre basis, over their lifetime e-scooter, can have a lower cost per kilometre particularly in high-mileage urban scenarios when compared with traditional two wheelers or even public transports.²⁷

2.2 Industry development

With ever-growing demand to manufacture electric two wheelers, the manufacturers are expanding production capacity using automated factories. For example Ola Electric’s Future Factory in India now produces hundreds of thousands of units annually.³¹ Global e-scooter and e-bike sales have reached 50 million units in 2022, up from 30 million in 2019. And India has seen a 45% Year over Year growth due to state and central government subsidies giving up to USD 200 incentive per scooter.³² Currently the production hub for manufacturing of electric two wheelers is dominated by China with 75% of market share, followed by India with 15% and EU with 8% market share. Employment in China’s e-scooter sector exceeds over 500,000 employees, with major hub in Zhejiang and Tianjin.³³

Investments in startups and large manufacturer’s research and development departments promote electric two wheelers market to a large extent. While entering the market, startups often leverage advanced battery technologies and innovative business models such as battery leasing and subscription-based services to capture market share. With increasing competition with a greater number of competitors, continuous technological innovation to improve the range and performance of the vehicle with reduction in pricing is necessary.³⁴ To achieve lower cost per kilometre, manufacturers need to adopt advanced design methodologies in reducing component counts and enhancing energy efficiency.³⁵

2.3 Sharing concepts

E-scooter sharing first emerged in the US in 2017 and subsequently spread worldwide.³⁶ Today, micromobility sharing for e-bikes and e-scooters is operated by providers such as Lime and Dott and is part of urban mobility systems in many cities.³⁷^,³⁸

Sharing systems typically consist of fleets of identical bicycles or e-scooters that are made available in public spaces.³⁹ In dock-based systems, users must pick up and return vehicles at specific stations. In dockless or “free-floating” systems, vehicles can be parked flexibly within the service area, for example in designated areas on sidewalks or at bike racks.⁴⁰ This works because the vehicles have self-locking mechanisms.⁴¹

Shared micromobility services, including e-bikes and e-scooters, have a significant impact on users’ travel decisions and mobility behavior. E-scooters in particular have great potential to replace short journeys on public transport, especially when transfers or longer walks would otherwise be necessary.⁴² Shared e-scooter services usually follow a pricing model consisting of a fixed unlocking fee and a per-minute rate. In many cities, users pay approximately USD 1 to unlock the vehicle and around USD 0,15–0,30 per minute of use, although prices vary depending on the city and operator.⁴³

Sharing systems can be an important “last mile” solution, improving access to public transport. Studies show that such systems improve accessibility to workplaces, especially in central urban areas, while the effects diminish in peripheral areas.⁴⁴ At the same time, sharing models can optimize transport flows and contribute to reducing CO₂ emissions. In this context, they are often considered part of the smart economy and intelligent urban mobility systems.⁴⁵

Despite their advantages, high purchase costs for private vehicles can be a barrier to sustainable micromobility. At the same time, paradoxically, ownership of a private bicycle can also be a barrier to using e-bike sharing systems, as potential users see no additional need for them.⁴⁶

2.4 Standards and interoperability

Standardization and interoperability are becoming increasingly important for the efficient and sustainable integration of e-scooters and e-bikes into urban mobility systems. Technical standards for connectors, battery packs, and communication interfaces are intended to ensure that batteries, chargers, and vehicles from different manufacturers are compatible.⁴⁷

At the same time, open data standards and APIs for fleet management are emerging in the field of shared micromobility, enabling the integration of vehicle data, location information, and battery status into digital platforms, thereby making maintenance, rebalancing, and operational control more efficient.⁴⁸ Digital platforms are used to integrate e-scooters and e-bikes into local urban transport systems. It can be integrated into the local road and transport system via an API (application programming interface). GPS, RFID, IoT, and API are used for seamless digital integration. The GPS-based location monitoring system works in conjunction with geo-fencing technology.⁴⁹

At the same time, battery swapping systems are being developed as an alternative energy infrastructure, allowing empty batteries to be quickly replaced with fully charged ones. This reduces vehicle downtime and facilitates the operation of large shared fleets, but requires standardization of the batteries used among the various providers.³⁹^,⁵⁰ In practice, batteries can be collected by service teams and replaced on site, for example, allowing vehicles to remain in service and avoiding long charging times. In addition, research and standardization initiatives are working to develop common standards for replaceable batteries in light electric vehicles to facilitate the scaling of such systems and promote sustainable micromobility solutions.⁵⁰

2.5 Market dynamics

End users’ expectation on the need to buy an e-bike or e-scooter varies drastically but some of the most common motivating factors to invest in them are increased speed, reduced physical exertion 5 and subsidies.³² Apart from that, urban congestion, growing environmental concerns, improvements of health through physical activity and lowering local air pollution are some of the other main but indirect factors in adoption of e-bikes and e-scooters, that are mostly relevant in densely populated cities.⁵¹ The number of people who are using an e-scooter or who are willing to replace other transportation methods is rising, which leads to a gradual increase in market share.⁵²

Electric two wheelers are becoming a preferred option for last mile connectivity and delivery services in the logistics and transportation industry. With most of the company aiming to reduce their carbon footprint by minimising the CO₂ emission. Giants like Amazon and many e-commerce and quick commerce startups are opting for electric two wheelers.⁵³

2.6 Supply-chain and end-of-life

The main driver of rising demand for lithium and cobalt is the rapid development of electromobility (the “EV revolution”). At the same time, the production of these raw materials is highly concentrated geographically: eight countries produce the majority of the raw materials, with Chile, Australia, and China together accounting for around 85% of global production.⁵⁴

The life cycle of batteries, depicted in Figure 1, faces numerous challenges: from raw material extraction to production, use, and disposal. Effective management is therefore required across all phases, from material procurement to use and recycling.⁵⁵

The supply chain for electric vehicle batteries poses numerous environmental, economic, and political challenges. Particularly problematic are the environmental impacts of raw material extraction, production, and disposal, which can involve significant interference with ecosystems and pollution of soil, water, and air. At the same time, there is a growing shortage of critical raw materials such as lithium and cobalt, whose extraction is highly concentrated and resource-intensive. Another problem is inadequate recycling methods and low recovery rates for valuable materials, which result in the loss of valuable resources and additional environmental pollution. In addition, there are dependencies in global supply chains that can become unstable due to geopolitical conflicts, trade restrictions, or sharp price fluctuations. The high energy intensity of battery production also leads to considerable CO₂ emissions and poses a further challenge to the sustainability of electric mobility. Finally, unclear or inadequate political and regulatory frameworks in many regions make it difficult to consistently implement sustainable production, recycling, and circular economy strategies.⁵⁵

Existing recycling systems for electric vehicle batteries are still underdeveloped, which could lead to environmental problems and material shortages in the long-term.⁴⁷ With the increasing number of electric vehicles, the number of batteries reaching the end of their first life cycle is also rising. However, these batteries often still have 75–80% of their original capacity and can therefore be reused in less energy-intensive applications, such as stationary energy storage.⁵⁶

Even though technology continues to improve and lifespans are getting longer (for example, an e-scooter from 2020 with a 12-month lifespan can last twice as long as a model from 2018), political frameworks play an important role in promoting the circular economy and recycling.⁵⁷ The EU Battery Regulation, for example, stipulates that 65% of the average battery weight must be recycled since January 1, 2026. In addition, from July 2026, e-scooter batteries must be designed in such a way that they can be repaired by independent specialists (“right to repair”).⁵⁸

2.7 Risks of lithium-ion batteries in organizations

The increasing use of lithium ion batteries in e-bikes and e-scooters introduces a number of safety challenges that organizations must take seriously. These challenges arise mainly from the high energy density of lithium ion cells and the failure mechanisms that can occur when they are exposed to unfavorable conditions. Because these batteries store a large amount of electrical energy in a compact system, they are well suited for lightweight electric mobility, but this same characteristic also increases the consequences of battery damage or improper charging.⁵⁹ Research on battery safety repeatedly shows that thermal runaway events can occur when cells are mechanically damaged, exposed to high temperatures, or charged with incompatible equipment, which underlines the importance of proper handling.⁶⁰

To mitigate these risks, organizations operating fleets of electric two-wheelers must ensure that vehicles and battery systems comply with recognized safety standards and that charging infrastructure follows manufacturer specifications. This includes not only the technical certification of the batteries but also the correct installation and use of charging equipment. Battery management systems and certified chargers are essential for monitoring temperature, voltage, and current during charging processes, helping to prevent conditions that may lead to overheating or battery degradation.⁶¹ Research on electric vehicle batteries shows that proper battery management and clearly defined charging protocols significantly reduce the likelihood of system failures and improve long-term operational safety.⁶⁰ For organizations, this means that technical safeguards and standardized procedures are not optional but form the foundation of safe fleet operation.

In organizational settings, charging areas should be designed to minimize safety risks associated with high-capacity battery systems. Dedicated charging locations with appropriate ventilation, monitoring systems, and fire safety measures can help detect anomalies early and reduce potential hazards. As electric mobility expands, safe charging infrastructure and battery monitoring systems become increasingly important components of fleet management, especially when multiple vehicles are charged simultaneously.⁶²

Training and operational guidelines for users are also essential. Research on e-bike adoption highlights that user awareness and clear operational rules contribute to safer vehicle use and reduce misuse of electric mobility systems.⁵ Training programs should therefore include basic battery inspection procedures, correct charging practices, and awareness of warning signs such as unusual heat generation or physical damage. When users understand these aspects, the overall safety of the fleet improves significantly.

Finally, organizations should implement structured end-of-life procedures for batteries. Lithium ion batteries contain valuable metals such as lithium, cobalt, and nickel, but they also require specialized recycling processes to prevent environmental contamination. Effective recycling systems and responsible disposal practices are therefore necessary to recover critical materials and reduce environmental impacts associated with battery production.⁵⁹^,⁶³ This ensures that battery management extends beyond daily operation and includes responsible handling at the end of the battery’s lifecycle.

2.8 Implementation playbook for organizations

To successfully integrate e-bikes and e-scooters into organizational operations, a structured step-by-step approach is essential. Organizations implementing micromobility fleets must consider operational requirements, infrastructure needs, and long-term cost efficiency. Previous research highlights that systematic planning is necessary to ensure that micromobility systems operate efficiently and meet organisational needs.⁶⁴ Without such planning, fleets often fail to reach their intended potential.

1. Define use cases

The first step is to define the organizational use cases for e-bikes and e-scooters. Common applications include commuter programs that encourage employees to replace car trips with e-bikes, campus mobility for large corporate or university sites, and last-mile logistics for goods delivery in urban areas. Clearly defining these use cases helps organizations identify suitable vehicle types and operational requirements.⁵ Research on micromobility integration also shows that defining mobility purposes in advance is essential for aligning fleet design with mobility demand and infrastructure conditions.⁶⁵ When organizations skip this step, mismatches between vehicle capabilities and actual needs often occur.

2. Select vehicle types and performance classes

Once the use cases have been identified, organizations must select appropriate vehicle types and performance classes. For commuting purposes, pedelecs are commonly used due to their balance of speed, efficiency, and accessibility. In contrast, cargo e-bikes are increasingly used for logistics applications where goods must be transported within urban areas. Selecting appropriate vehicle specifications requires considering factors such as battery capacity, expected range, durability, and legal speed limits.⁶⁶ Studies reviewing e-bike adoption also highlight the importance of matching vehicle performance to the intended operational context.⁵ This ensures that vehicles can reliably meet daily usage demands.

3. Compare total cost of ownership (TCO)

An important step in fleet implementation is evaluating the total cost of ownership (TCO) of micromobility vehicles compared with alternative transportation modes. TCO calculations should include purchase costs, maintenance, charging expenses, battery replacement, and operational management. Research on shared micromobility systems indicates that although acquisition costs may initially appear high, operational costs per kilometer are typically lower than those of conventional motor vehicles, particularly in urban environments.⁶⁴ Furthermore, broader analyses of micromobility systems emphasize that cost advantages often arise through reduced fuel expenses and lower maintenance requirements.¹⁹ This makes micromobility an attractive option for organizations seeking long-term efficiency.

4. Plan safe parking, locking, and charging infrastructure

Infrastructure planning is another critical component of micromobility implementation. Organizations must ensure that vehicles can be safely parked, securely locked, and conveniently charged. Providing designated parking areas helps reduce sidewalk clutter and conflicts with pedestrians while improving accessibility for users.⁶⁴ In addition, integrating charging infrastructure with existing mobility hubs or transport facilities can significantly improve operational efficiency and accessibility for users.⁶⁵ Well-designed infrastructure also reduces the likelihood of misuse or improper storage.

5. Establish operational rules

Clear operational rules are necessary to ensure the safe and efficient use of micromobility fleets. Organizations often define guidelines regarding speed limits, helmet use, riding areas, and vehicle access permissions. Such rules help ensure compliance with local regulations and reduce accident risks. Research on the governance of micromobility systems emphasizes that clear regulatory frameworks and operational policies are essential for integrating e-scooters and e-bikes safely into urban transport systems.¹⁹ In addition, previous studies on e-bike adoption highlight the importance of clear usage guidelines to promote safe riding behavior.⁵ These rules also help create a shared understanding among users.

6. Define maintenance and lifetime goals

Maintaining the operational reliability of micromobility fleets requires regular inspections and preventive maintenance. Organizations should implement structured maintenance schedules that include battery monitoring, tire and brake inspections, and general technical checks. Studies examining e-bike ownership patterns emphasize that regular maintenance is critical for maintaining safety and performance throughout the vehicle lifecycle.⁶⁶ Furthermore, establishing expected vehicle lifetimes can help organizations plan replacement cycles and manage long-term operational costs.⁶⁴ This ensures that fleets remain functional and cost-effective over time.

7. Track key performance indicators (KPIs)

Finally, organizations should track key performance indicators (KPIs) to evaluate the effectiveness of their micromobility programs. Typical indicators include vehicle utilization rates, the number of car trips replaced, emission reductions, accident rates, and operational cost per kilometer. Monitoring these indicators enables organizations to assess the environmental and economic benefits of micromobility initiatives.⁶⁵ Continuous evaluation also supports strategic adjustments and helps improve long-term fleet management strategies.¹⁹ Over time, this data-driven approach helps refine operations and ensures that the fleet continues to meet organizational goals.

3 Ecological performance

Electric two wheelers are widely considered as an eco-friendly alternative to conventional vehicles, but their actual ecological impact requires in-depth analysis from raw material extraction and production, through use, to end-of-life disposal. Studies show that e-scooters produce 50-70% lesser emissions per kilometre than fuel powered scooters when charged with renewable energy.³ In this chapter, the ecological performance across electric two wheeler’s lifecycle is summarised, focusing on carbon footprint, energy consumption, resource use and temporal improvements, and its environmental impact on urban congestion and noise pollution are highlighted.

3.1 Life cycle assessment (LCA)

Electric two wheelers exhibit a higher production phase environmental impact, largely due to the manufacturing processes of batteries and other specialised components. The environmental impacts of electric two wheelers have shifted from vehicle use to vehicle production, end-of-life treatment, and electricity generation.³ For instance, e-bikes charged with renewable energy have a carbon footprint of 5–10 g CO₂/km, compared to 20–30 g CO₂/km when charged with coal-based electricity.⁶¹

Additionally, it was observed that the impact is relatively small for e-bikes and larger for e-scooters, based on their respective vehicle dimensions. This disparity can be attributed to a greater quantity of energy required to produce the battery system for larger vehicles, resulting in increased CO₂ emissions and energy consumption during production.⁶² In contrast to conventional two wheelers, the utilisation of electric scooters during their operational phase has been demonstrated to have a significantly reduced environmental impact. The primary benefit of electric scooters is the increased energy efficiency of electric motors and the absence of tailpipe emissions. When operated with electricity from a mix of renewable or low-carbon sources, electric scooters produce significantly less operational CO₂ emissions compared to fossil-fuel-based vehicles.⁶¹ Following the operational phase, electric two-wheelers have a lower environmental impact due to their simpler design and smaller material quantities. The effective recycling and recovery of the materials from batteries significantly minimizes the effects, maintaining resource depletion and residual emissions at a minimum compared to the more complicated end-of-life processes for larger vehicles. However, due to their compact size and lightweight nature, the fate of e-bike batteries is more difficult to predict, and it is probable that a lower percentage of these batteries will be recycled when compared to electric car batteries. This represents a significant challenge for researchers and policymakers.⁶² Especially rental e-scooters suffer from short lifespans, as they receive rough treatment by the users. Therefore, the operational phase is relatively short in comparison to other transportation methods, which increases the average resources used and greenhouse gases emitted per kilometre.⁶⁷

3.2 Energy consumption and resource use

Energy consumption accounts for a fundamental factor in assessing the environmental efficacy of electric transportation. Electric cars consume about 0,623 MJ/km, i.e., 0,173kWh/km in their lifetime operation, and approximately 0,133 kWh/km is consumed effectively by the wheels, thereby indicating energy interactions associated with their operation.⁶¹ For a comparison, electric bikes achieve an energy efficiency of approximately 0,012 kWh/km, showing their significantly less energy consumption in comparison to conventional vehicles.⁶² These findings point to the benefit of electric two wheelers, with consequent lower overall energy requirement.

One of the challenges that has been foreseen and is currently being anticipated is that of a bottleneck in lithium resources, i.e. a shortage of lithium in the market in which batteries are manufactured. This shortage has the potential to result in a delay of 2-3 years in the growth of the e-scooter sector by 2030.⁶⁸ Over exploitation of resource for the extraction of critical materials such as lithium and cobalt has been identified as a significant environmental concern, given its association with water pollution and habitat destruction.⁵⁹

3.3 Temporal improvements

Electric scooters can exhibit relatively high emissions during the production stage, primarily due to battery manufacturing and specialised electronic components. Battery production alone can account for approximately 30–40% of the total life-cycle emissions of electric vehicles. When production emissions are distributed across the expected vehicle lifetime, studies estimate values of approximately 87–95 g CO₂-equivalent per kilometre. These figures refer only to the manufacturing phase and therefore do not represent the overall environmental performance. However, electric vehicles offer tremendous advantages throughout their lifespan. For example, the European average electricity mix leads to a decrease of 20–24% of total greenhouse gas emissions relative to petrol-fuelled cars and a decrease of 10–14% relative to diesel-fuelled cars during their 150,000-kilometer life. Electric bicycles, having a very modest energy consumption, emit only about 0,3 tonnes of greenhouse gases during use. The continual improvement in battery technology, as seen in the recent publications of the International Energy Agency, should further mitigate these environmental effects.³² This improvement includes increased energy densities, more efficient recycling procedures, and a power supply from renewable energies that is progressively cleaner. Although electric vehicles are expected to retain greater non-greenhouse gas effects, including human toxicity associated with metal extraction, continued advances in sustainable production processes, minimization through design, and efficient energy management are projected to improve their environmental advantages relative to traditional internal combustion engine vehicles.⁶¹^,⁶²

3.4 Urban congestion and noise pollution

Electric two wheelers have also been found to considerably enhance land use efficiency in cities. The reason being that they have much lower spatial requirements for parking and operating activity than motor vehicles.⁶⁹ Since an average car parking space is 5 meters long and 2,30 meters wide, approximately 18 e-scooters and six to eight e-bikes can fit into a parking space when placed neatly in two rows next to each other, depending on vehicle size and parking configuration.⁷⁰^,⁷¹ Micromobility is one of the solutions for decongesting cities while simultaneously opening valuable land to green space or other. Research indicated that a substitution of 10% of automobile trips using e-bikes in cities can lead to a reduction in parking demand by 15–20%.⁷² The comparison of space efficiency and throughput between cycle lanes and car lanes has been examined empirically, and the findings show clear differences in how effectively each type of lane can move people in urban settings. A study demonstrates that a 1-meter-wide cycle lane can transport between 55% and 80% of the person throughput of a standard 3-meter-wide car lane when looking at absolute capacity per lane.⁷³ This means that while car lanes may carry more people in total numbers, cycle lanes still perform remarkably well given their much smaller width, making them inherently more space-efficient. Moreover, when throughput is assessed relative to the amount of road space used, the efficiency advantage of cycle lanes becomes even more pronounced. So cycle lanes are between 164% and 239% more efficient than car lanes when measured per meter of road width. In practical terms, a 1-meter-wide cycle lane moves significantly more people per meter of street space than a car lane. This highlights the superior spatial efficiency of cycling infrastructure, particularly in dense urban areas where road space is limited and highly contested.⁷³ These differences in spatial efficiency for both parking and road space are illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Comparison of parking space efficiency and lane capacity between cars and micromobility vehicles (e-bikes and e-scooters)

For example, e-scooters can replace 20–30% of short car trips in cities, thereby resulting in a significant decrease in road occupancy.³ On the environmental front, the decreased demand for parking infrastructure translates into a decrease in the demand for asphalt and concrete, which both carry high carbon emissions. A typical surface car parking space, including access lanes and maneuvering space, requires approximately 25–30 m² of paved area.⁷⁴ Life-cycle assessments of asphalt pavements estimate emissions of roughly 8–20 kg CO₂e per m² of paved surface.⁷⁵ Based on these values, the construction of a single surface parking space can generate approximately 0,2–0,6 tonnes of CO₂e, depending on pavement thickness and material composition. In contrast, parking facilities for micromobility vehicles such as e-scooters require significantly less space and construction material, resulting in a lower construction-related carbon footprint.

With the use of e-bikes and e-scooters within city limits unintentionally achieved a tremendous reduction in noise pollution relative to the conventional internal combustion engine vehicles. Noise levels from electric two wheelers run in a normal range of 50–60 decibels (dB), compared to 70–85 dB for petrol scooters and automobiles.³ Electric micromobility vehicles such as e-scooters and e-bikes can contribute to lower urban noise levels, as electric vehicles generally produce less propulsion noise than vehicles with internal combustion engines, particularly at low speeds.³²^,⁷⁶

3.5 Climate and weather resilience

Weather conditions have a significant influence on the use of micromobility services. Low temperatures, wind, and rain reduce both the frequency of use and the distance and duration of trips made by e-scooters and bicycles. Overall, weather conditions have a negative impact on the use of e-scooters, as unfavorable weather conditions reduce the attractiveness and safety of their use. This can make it more difficult to maintain a light and energy-efficient form of mobility.⁷⁷

Electric scooters currently have only limited specific safety features. This can compromise rider safety, especially in difficult weather conditions. In winter in particular, reduced traction and slippery roads significantly increase the risk of accidents.⁷⁸

Slippery surfaces are considered one of the most important factors in accidents involving e-scooters. In addition, the higher weight due to the motor and battery, as well as higher speeds, lead to longer braking distances, which are further extended on wet or frozen roads.⁷⁹

Studies show that vehicle handling and visibility should be improved, for example through additional reflective elements or standard turn signals. Larger wheels could also improve the stability and safety of e-scooters.⁸⁰ Further design improvements are possible in terms of vehicle size, component quality, lighting, batteries, and operating systems. Another form of adaptation is the use of protective equipment, such as helmets or high-visibility clothing, to increase road safety.⁷⁹

Regular maintenance is crucial to prevent technical defects such as brake failure, damaged pedals, or wheel problems. Predictive maintenance can help extend the service life of scooters; privately used vehicles are often serviced more regularly than shared scooters.⁵⁷

4 Social impact

In comparison to usual, unmotorized bicycles, electrical support makes biking more inclusive overall, because topographic and physical issues are overcome more easily. In regions with environmental resistances like strong winds and hills and mountains, e-bikes are more feasible for everyday use.²^,⁸¹ The social impact of electric two-wheelers is closely related to the different user groups that adopt these vehicles for everyday mobility.

4.1 User groups and accessibility of electric two-wheelers

In contrast to purely mechanical bicycles, electric assistance broadens accessibility by helping riders overcome physical and topographical obstacles. E-bikes allow riders to maintain speed with less physical effort and therefore reduce many of the barriers associated with traditional cycling.⁵^,⁸² This makes them particularly suitable for everyday mobility in regions with challenging conditions such as strong winds, hills or mountainous terrain. The motor support can compensate for fatigue and age-related physical limitations, which increases the attractiveness of cycling for people with lower physical fitness. This applies to both daily commutes and longer leisure trips, as the risk of exhaustion during the ride is significantly reduced. The fear of getting stranded mid-trip due to fatigue, often cited as a barrier to cycling, can be mitigated by the reliability of electric assistance.⁸³

Studies also show that e-bikes can increase overall cycling activity, since riders are able to travel longer distances and maintain higher speeds with less effort.⁵ Able-bodied individuals may also increase their cycling frequency when using e-bikes, as travel time is an important factor influencing the choice of transport mode.⁸⁴ Consequently, e-bikes may encourage a broader range of people to adopt cycling as a practical and efficient means of transport.

Typical user groups of electric two-wheelers vary depending on the vehicle type. E-bikes are often used by commuters and older riders, as electric assistance reduces physical strain and makes cycling accessible to people with age-related or health-related limitations.⁵^,⁸⁴ In contrast, shared e-scooters are predominantly used by younger urban residents. Research indicates that frequent e-scooter users are mainly young adults, often students or early-career professionals, with relatively high mobility needs.⁸⁵^,¹⁵^,⁸⁶

Beyond commuters and students, electric two-wheelers are also used by tourists and delivery workers in urban environments. Their flexibility and efficiency over short distances make them particularly attractive for urban mobility and last-mile transport. Observed user behaviour strongly depends on the local infrastructure and context of the scientific study. They have large regional variations.⁵

4.2 Walking

Shared e-scooters are observed to have a replacement effect on various travel methods. There is a minor reduction of shared and private bike usage and a bigger reduction of travelling by foot, as between 30 and 60 percent of e-scooter trips replace walking trips.⁸⁷

4.3 Public transport

E-bikes and e-scooters are observed to have two different effects on public transport. On one hand, e-bikes and e-scooters motivate to replace public transport commutes, as they offer a convenient alternative. They therefore slightly decrease the public transport utilisation. In regions with particularly good public transport infrastructure, the share of replacement increases, as e-bikes and e-scooters offer door-to-door travel. On the other hand, e-bikes and e-scooters and public transport can complement each other, when the e-bike or e-scooter is taken onto public transport.²^,⁸⁷ As rented e-scooters can be left behind after usage, they are also used as the connection from home to the public transport network. They also encourage one-way trips where the way back is done by using public transport. E-scooter rental services often are more expensive than public transport, which is why they are rarely used by public transport users for daily commutes.⁸⁷

4.4 Car

There are benefits of taking an e-bike instead of the car in certain situations. Navigating through narrow streets and finding a parking spot in densely populated areas is generally easier, as the e-bike and e-scooters take up less space and avoid parking fees.² Several studies show that electric micromobility, particularly e-bikes and e-scooters, can replace trips that would otherwise be made by car. E-bikes replace a substantial share of car trips, especially for medium-distance urban travel, with around 43% of trips and 63% of travelled distance substituting car use.⁸⁸ International reviews report similar values, estimating that 35-50% of e-bike trips replace car journeys 111 . E-scooters show much lower substitution rates. Only about 11% of trips replace car travel, while most substitute walking, cycling or public transport.⁸⁹ This is largely due to their shorter average trip lengths of roughly 1 to 2 kilometres, whereas e-bikes are often used for longer journeys that more closely resemble typical car travel distances.

Many households which own a car but not an e-bike, use the car as their first travelling option. E.g. e-bike rental is rarely considered, available or affordable. The introduction of e-bikes into households leads to a reduction of unmotorized bike use, they are partly replaced with e-bikes. In households with both a car and an e-bike, the e-bike is used more frequently, leading to a reduction of car trips. Especially in places where public transport is poorly implemented, e-bikes and e-scooters replace more car trips, as public transport is a bad alternative. In the sense of safety of undecided residents is increased, they might be motivated to choose the e-bike instead of the car in the future.⁸¹ When travelling longer distances or transporting heavy loads, the car is more practical and remains the preferred vehicle.²

4.5 Public health

The main parameter of public health in combination of an increased (e-)biking activity is a positive impact on the riders, as their cardiovascular systems are strengthened.³^,⁸¹ This applies basically to people of all genders and ages, but it is especially beneficial for elderly people, as they can stay active more easily. In an environment where internal combustion engine car trips are replaced by electric vehicles, the negative impacts of air pollution are reduced. As the major amount is emitted by motor vehicles, the concentration of e.g. fine particles and harmful gases is reduced. On the other hand, an increased respiratory rate in comparison to car drivers lead to a bigger exposure of bikers to the increased air pollution in busy streets. Additionally, the safety issues listed below have a slight negative impact on the overall health.⁸¹

4.6 Equity and workforce considerations

E-scooters and e-bikes must be socially as well as environmentally sustainable. The social discourse on the electric mobility transformation often focuses on technological and environmental benefits, while issues of social inclusion and the redesign of existing mobility systems are often given less consideration.⁹⁰ At the same time, micromobility services can be a cost-effective mobility solution for citizens and tourists, thereby contributing to the overall improvement of urban mobility.⁴⁹

Research shows that access to shared e-scooters and e-bikes is often lower in lower-income neighborhoods, while higher-income users benefit disproportionately. This can increase existing social inequalities in urban mobility. Cost remains a key barrier for owning an electric vehicle: high purchase costs often limit access to electric vehicles to wealthier segments of the population.⁹¹ Infrastructure distribution is also uneven: in many countries, charging infrastructure is concentrated in affluent urban centers, while lower-income or rural regions experience so-called “charging deserts”.⁹⁰^,⁴⁷ In addition, many charging systems do not sufficiently take into account the needs of people with disabilities, older people, or digitally less connected groups.⁹² Sharing-systems for electric scooters or bikes can improve general accessibility to workplaces, especially in central urban areas. However, the positive effects diminish along transport corridors towards peripheral areas.⁴⁴

Targeted measures are needed to improve access for lower-income users and employees. Policy instruments such as purchase premiums or employer subsidies for certified electrically assisted vehicles can facilitate acquisition.⁷⁶

Similarly, subsidized or affordable insurance offers can reduce financial barriers.⁹⁰ Better charging and parking infrastructure, especially near workplaces and lower-income residential areas, can also contribute to more equitable use. Both physical docking stations (e.g., interoperable stations such as Swiftmile) and virtual parking zones with self-locking systems can be used to enable orderly and accessible parking.⁴¹

For employees, especially those working in platform and delivery services, safe battery replacement, maintenance programs, multilingual safety training and binding labor standards can improve working conditions and reduce risks.⁸⁰

Safety aspects are particularly relevant, as studies show that the risk of accidents is significantly higher for e-scooters than for bicycles – about four times higher in terms of kilometers traveled and even about five times higher in terms of serious injuries.⁹³

Against the backdrop of these challenges, inequalities in the introduction of electric mobility can be addressed at various levels – for example, through regulation, infrastructure planning, and subsidy programs.⁹⁰

4.7 Safety issues e-bikes

As the urban environment is introduced to e-bikes, new safety issues arise. With electrical support, the average biking speed is 2 to 9 km/h higher than without. Which means, that the speed difference to pedestrians is increased. In regions where the pathways of e-bikes and pedestrians meet, a source of conflict emerges.⁸⁴ In regions where car travelling is replaced by e-bikes, the maximum travel speed decreases, which is beneficial in case of an accident. The reduced speed is accompanied by a mass reduction, if an e-bike is part of an accident instead of a car. This makes the impact less violent, as less total energy is involved.⁸¹

4.8 Safety issues e-scooters

Because driving a shared e-scooter on the walkway instead on the street is popular and makes the drivers feel safe, a conflict zone emerges when the higher speed e-scooters meet the comparatively slow pedestrians. This leads to accidents and severe injuries, especially for the involved pedestrians.⁸⁷ In accidents with shared e-scooters in Hamburg, Germany, the riders are more often under the influence of alcohol than in bicycle accidents. Also, e-scooter accidents are observed to be more severe than bicycle accidents, as a larger share of the injuries are inflicted to the head or the face. Immediate treatment is required more often.⁹⁴

4.9 Solutions

These safety issues can be dampened by an additional, artificial noise emitted by the e-bike and e-scooter. This would make the environment more aware of the quickly approaching vehicle. But the most important step to increase safety are separated lanes for pedestrians and bikes respectively, as they get rid of a potential conflict zone.⁸⁴^,⁸⁷ Intoxication by alcohol should be avoided and the severity of an accident from the e-bike and e-scooter driver’s perspective is reduced a lot by wearing a helmet.⁹⁴ As the society and especially car drivers get used to faster bikes and an overall increase in biking, general awareness is arising. This can be concluded from the bike accident rate, which is not linearly proportional to the increase of bike users.³

5 Political and legal aspects

The growing popularity of e-scooters and e-bikes has prompted governments to implement policies that address safety, accessibility and integration into cities. This chapter examines current safety regulations and the political and legal aspects of governance, focusing on policy framework, the effectiveness of regulations and global perspectives on e-scooter usage.

5.1 Safety regulations from the user’s perspective

Globally, there are different regulations from a user’s perspective, with the goal to enable a safe journey for all road users. They vary, depending on the respective region.

As already mentioned, the safety risks increase with higher driving speeds, when driving on the pathway and when the driver is under the influence of alcohol. In most parts of Europe, motors of e-bikes are allowed to have a maximum power of 250 W and a maximum assisted speed of 25 km/h. Asides from that, e-bikes are treated like bicycles without a need for a license or insurance. In certain regions, there is a helmet obligation or recommendation.⁹⁵

The velocity of rental e-scooters is limited to 20 or 25 km/h in a lot of European countries. In pedestrian areas, they either are allowed to be used at walking speeds or are completely prohibited. Two riders on one rental e-scooter and the influence of alcohol are forbidden in some European countries. A helmet is mandatory in a few of the European countries and recommended in others.⁹⁶ In China, low-speed electric two-wheelers such as e-bikes are typically limited to a maximum speed of 25 km/h, with motor assistance cutting off above this speed. Current national standards allow a motor power of up to 400 W, and many cities like Shanghai require vehicle registration and license plates for legal road use. Helmet use is often mandatory under local traffic regulations, although enforcement and specific rules may vary between regions.⁹⁷ In the U.S., many states like Arizona or New York enforce helmet requirements for riders under.²⁷ In some states, such as Ohio and Oregon, a helmet must always be worn. Speed limits also vary from state to state, ranging from 15 mph to 35 mph which corresponds to approximately 24 to 56 km/h in the metric system.⁹⁸^,⁹⁹. Additionally, zoning laws for charging stations serve to define public spaces and allow for the efficient distribution of essential infrastructure.⁹⁹ These regulations not only improve passenger and pedestrian safety, but also increase the overall efficiency of micromobility systems, thus offering a balanced viewpoint regarding innovation and public welfare.

5.2 Policy frameworks

Subsidy schemes have been one of the key reasons for accelerating the adoption of electric scooters and bikes, few such examples are China’s e-bike subsidies, the EU’s Cycle Logistics project and India’s FAME programme. In China, subsidies have directly increased consumer demand for e-scooters, while indirectly reducing urban congestion and environmental pollution.¹⁰⁰ Similarly, the EU’s incentives for bicycle logistics have promoted environmentally friendly last-mile delivery solutions.¹⁰¹ Meanwhile, India’s FAME policy has encouraged market development and the expansion of complementary infrastructures, such as charging stations.¹⁰² These developments highlight the power of subsidies to promote good environmental and mobility outcomes.

5.3 Key design elements for safety and acceptance of micromobility

The safety and overall acceptance of e-bikes and e-scooters are strongly shaped by the design of appropriate urban infrastructure. A substantial body of research shows that continuous, well-connected, and protected cycling infrastructure significantly improves perceived safety and increases people’s willingness to adopt cycling and other micromobility modes.⁵^,⁸¹ In particular, physically separated bike lanes help reduce direct interactions with motor vehicles, which are often the source of conflicts and near-miss situations. Such protected lanes are consistently associated with higher cycling rates and improved safety outcomes in urban environments.⁵ Studies on micromobility systems further emphasize that high-quality cycling infrastructure is not just beneficial but a key enabling factor for the successful integration of emerging micromobility modes into existing transport systems.⁶⁵

Figure 3: Relationship between protected bicycle lane infrastructure (km per 100,000 population) and cycling safety measured by accidents per million kilometers in selected European cities.

Figure 3 illustrates the relationship between the availability of protected cycling infrastructure and cycling safety in selected European cities. The horizontal axis shows the number of kilometers of protected bike lanes per one million inhabitants, while the vertical axis displays the number of cycling accidents per million kilometers traveled. Cities with extensive and well-developed cycling networks, such as Amsterdam and Copenhagen, exhibit noticeably lower accident rates compared to cities with more limited infrastructure, including London or Brussels.¹⁰³^,¹⁰⁴^,¹⁰⁵^,¹⁰⁶ Berlin falls between these two groups, reflecting its intermediate level of cycling infrastructure and corresponding accident rates.¹⁰⁷^,¹⁰⁸ Overall, the comparison suggests that more comprehensive protected cycling networks are associated with improved safety outcomes for cyclists, reinforcing earlier findings that increased bicycle traffic combined with high-quality infrastructure can contribute to safer road environments.¹⁰⁷

Another crucial element is the design of intersections, which remain among the most common locations for accidents involving cyclists and scooter riders. Research on cycling safety shows that many conflicts occur where turning motor vehicles intersect with bicycle traffic, highlighting the importance of infrastructure that clearly separates traffic flows and reduces ambiguity for all road users.¹⁹ Measures such as improved sight lines, spatial separation of turning movements, and protected intersection layouts can therefore play a major role in reducing accident risks. These design strategies also contribute to a higher sense of security among cyclists and other vulnerable road users, which in turn supports broader adoption.¹⁰⁹

Urban transport policies often introduce speed-regulated zones to reduce accident severity and improve safety in areas with high pedestrian activity. Lower urban speed limits are associated with a significant reduction in injury severity during collisions involving vulnerable road users such as cyclists.¹⁰⁹ Furthermore, research on electric bicycle usage suggests that managing speed differences between different transport modes is an important factor for maintaining safe mixed-traffic environments.⁶⁶ Traffic-calming strategies such as reduced speed limits, shared-space concepts, or redesigned street layouts therefore play an important role in improving safety conditions for micromobility users and pedestrians alike.

In dense urban environments, cities must also provide clearly designated parking spaces for e-bikes and e-scooters to prevent sidewalk obstruction and conflicts with pedestrians. Studies on shared micromobility systems show that structured parking management and designated parking areas help reduce disorderly parking behavior and improve the operational efficiency of shared mobility services.⁶⁴ Providing accessible and well-organized parking infrastructure is therefore an important element for maintaining public acceptance of micromobility systems and minimizing negative impacts on pedestrian space.

Finally, wayfinding systems and spatial integration with public transport hubs are essential for enabling seamless multimodal travel. Integrating e-bike and e-scooter services with metro stations, bus stops, or railway stations improves first- and last-mile connectivity and encourages the combined use of micromobility and public transport.⁶⁵ Such multimodal integration is widely recognized as an important strategy for promoting sustainable urban mobility and reducing reliance on private car travel.⁵ When micromobility is easy to navigate and well-connected to public transport, it becomes a more attractive option for everyday travel.

5.4 Pros and cons of policies

Electric two-wheeler policies, particularly for e-scooters, offer energy-efficient alternatives to cars, reducing congestion and emissions within cities for short distances. This is in alignment with efforts to address traffic and air pollution problems. Furthermore, by addressing the “first-mile/last-mile” transportation challenge, these policies enhance the accessibility of public transportation and promote multimodal transportation systems. For instance, the dockless e-scooter sharing schemes that have been implemented in city centres, such as Brisbane, have been successful in reducing car reliance, with a total of 8,4 million trips being completed since 2018, leading to a decrease in emissions.¹⁹ Furthermore, during crisis periods such as the global pandemic of 2020, e-scooters have also provided a socially distanced mode of transport, thereby easing pressure on overcrowded transit systems. When coupled with speed limits and dedicated infrastructure (e.g., bicycle lanes), such policies are congruent with climate objectives and enhance green urban transitions.¹¹⁰

However, e-scooter use has also been associated with spatial conflict and safety issues, as their users compete with pedestrians and cyclists for sidewalk and road space, resulting in accidents and public dissatisfaction.¹¹⁰ In cities such as Los Angeles and Paris, irresponsible behaviour, including speeding and unlawful parking, has resulted in injuries and regulatory challenges. Initial ad hoc policy responses in these cities have further compounded these problems. Permissive legislation pertaining to helmet wearing, speed limits, and licensing requirements further complicates enforcement, resulting in cities grappling with a dilemma between promoting innovation and prioritising safety. In the absence of infrastructure rejuvenation and user education, the deployment of e-scooters is likely to exacerbate existing urban disparities and generate only negligible systemic change.¹⁹

It is imperative that a strategic emphasis on safety, equitable access, and complementarity to public transport is placed to ensure the potential of e-scooters as a sustainable mobility option is realised.

5.5 Global variations

Throughout many cities around the world, the regulatory framework approaches to electric scooters are highly variable. Some cities have chosen to prohibit e-scooters to address safety hazards and reducing urban traffic congestion. Cities experience issues such as the risk posed to pedestrian safety and the implementing speed limits have found that complete bans are an effective short-term solution.¹¹¹ These constraints are most common in instances where the rapid adoption of emerging technologies precedes the time taken for creation of comprehensive regulatory frameworks, thereby underscoring public safety and urban stability.

On the other hand, many cities have welcomed electric scooters as a means of replacement their existing public transportation networks.⁶⁴ Berlin and Singapore provide good case studies of among the cities that have adopted adaptive regulatory frameworks integrating micromobility into multimodal transportation systems with the objective to enhance the last-mile connectivity and promote sustainable urban mobility.⁶⁵ Through establishing designated charging areas, imposing standardized speed limits and helmet use requirements, these cities have successfully improved safety while also leveraging e-scooters to decrease traffic congestion and lower carbon emissions.¹⁹ This policy constitutes a holistic policy model that simultaneously deals with mobility needs and environmental concerns, providing an international benchmark for good governance in the micromobility sector.¹¹²

References

1
IEA. Energy Efficiency 2022. (2022).
2
Yin, A., Chen, X., Behrendt, F., Morris, A. & Liu, X. How electric bikes reduce car use: A dual-mode ownership perspective. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 133, 104304 (2024). https://doi.org:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2024.104304
3
Weiss, M., Dekker, P., Moro, A., Scholz, H. & Patel, M. K. On the electrification of road transportation – A review of the environmental, economic, and social performance of electric two-wheelers. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 41, 348-366 (2015). https://doi.org:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2015.09.007
4
Amplerbikes. How Do E-Bikes Work? All You Need to Know in a Nutshell, <https://amplerbikes.com/en/blog/how-e-bikes-work> (2023).
5
Fishman, E. & Cherry, C. E-bikes in the Mainstream: Reviewing a Decade of Research. Transport Reviews 36, 72-91 (2016). https://doi.org:10.1080/01441647.2015.1069907
6
Bolt. How do electric bikes work?, <https://bolt.eu/en/blog/how-do-electric-bikes-work/> (2024).
7
Schwinn. How Do Electric Bikes Work?, <https://www.schwinnbikes.com/blogs/compass/how-do-electric-bikes-work?srsltid=AfmBOors5CuxIEf-Z7yP7ucH2CiqL1sL75fqgtmRXf_hFSZUjkR-5cbu> (2025).
8
Terzić, M. V. & Mihić, D. S. Switched Reluctance Motor Design for a Mid-Drive E-Bike Application. Machines 10(2022).
9
Foley, D. How Do Electric Scooters Work?, <https://unagiscooters.com/scooter-articles/how-do-electric-scooters-work/?srsltid=AfmBOoqa-EnnVLTYqxdt0KZojRTH34M7zI1_oQYOLGhBFmPN6A0iPYLW> (2022).
10
Hardt, C. & Bogenberger, K. Usage of e-scooters in urban transport systems. Sustainability 13, 7361 (2021).
11
International Transport Forum. Safe Micromobility. OECD Publishing (2020).
12
European Parliament & Council. Regulation (EU) No 168/2013 on the approval and market surveillance of two- or three-wheel vehicles and quadricycles. Official Journal of the European Union (2013).
13
Harish Raaghav, S. S., Deepak, M. M. & Swathika, O. V. G. in Smart Grids as Cyber Physical Systems 123-147 (2024).
14
Simplon. History. SIMPLON. https://www.simplon.com/de/Über-Uns/History
15
Cao, J., Shen, D., Milakis, D. & van Wee, B. Shared micromobility and travel behaviour: A review of recent evidence. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 92, 102715 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102715
16
Panasonic. Company History. https://industry.panasonic.eu/company/history
17
Stewart, D. & Ramachandran, K. E-bikes merge into the fast lane, <https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/technology/smart-micromobility-e-bikes.html> (2022).
18
Statista. E-Scooter-sharing, <https://www.statista.com/outlook/mmo/shared-mobility/e-scooter-sharing/worldwide> (2025).
19
Gössling, S. Integrating e-scooters in urban transportation: Problems, policies, and the prospect of system change. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 79, 102230 (2020). https://doi.org:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102230
20
AIKE. Types of Electric Scooters: Differences and Characteristics, <https://rideaike.com/blog/types-of-electric-scooters/> (2022).
21
Leuenberger, M., Frischknecht, R., Jungbluth, N., Büsser, S. & Stucki, M. Life Cycle Assessment of Two Wheel Vehicles. ESU Services Ltd. (2010).
22
Sensors. Sensitivity of mass geometry parameters on e-scooter comfort: design guide. Sensors 24 (2024).
23
Raleigh. ELECTRIC BIKE MOTORS, <https://www.raleigh.co.uk/ie/en/electric-bike-knowledge/electric-bike-motors/> (2025).
24
Grand View Research. Electric Scooters Market Size, Share & Trends Analysis Report. (2024). https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/electric-scooters-market
25
EqualOcean. China’s E-bikes speeds into Europe: How overseas brands compete with Chinese manufacturers. (2023).
26
Zweirad-Industrie-Verband. Marktdaten Fahrräder und E-Bikes 2024. (2025).
27
Nykvist, B. & Nilsson, M. Rapidly falling costs of battery packs for electric vehicles. Nature Climate Change 5, 329-332 (2015). https://doi.org:10.1038/nclimate2564
28
BloombergNEF. Lithium-ion battery pack prices fall to 108 per kilowatt-hour despite rising metal prices. BloombergNEF (2025). https://about.bnef.com/insights/clean-transport/lithium-ion-battery-pack-prices-fall-to-108-per-kilowatt-hour-despite-rising-metal-prices-bloombergnef/
29
Weinert, J., Ogden, J., Sperling, D. & Burke, A. The future of electric two-wheelers and electric vehicles in China. Energy Policy 36, 2544-2555 (2008). https://doi.org:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.03.008
30
Dekker, P. ELECTRIFICATION OF ROAD TRANSPORT – AN ANALYSIS OF THE ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE OF ELECTRIC TWO-WHEELERS M.Sc. thesis, Utrecht University, (2013).
31
Electric, O. Making India the global epicentre of EV revolution, <https://www.olaelectric.com/about> (2024).
32
IEA. Global EV Outlook 2023. (Paris, 2023).
33
Ma, Q., Murshed, M. & Khan, Z. The nexuses between energy investments, technological innovations, emission taxes, and carbon emissions in China. Energy Policy 155, 112345 (2021). https://doi.org:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112345
34
Sulistyono, D. S., Yuniaristanto, Y., Sutopo, W. & Hisjam, M. Proposing Electric Motorcycle Adoption-Diffusion Model in Indonesia: A System Dynamics Approach. Jurnal Optimasi Sistem Industri (2021).
35
Korzilius, O., Borsboom, O., Hofman, T. & Salazar, M. in 2021 IEEE International Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference (ITSC). 1677-1684.
36
Yang, H. et al. Impact of e-scooter sharing on bike sharing in Chicago. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 154, (2021).
37
Lime. Electric Scooter. https://www.li.me/de-de/vehicles/scooter (2026).
38
Dott. Tier wird zu dott. https://ridedott.com/de/press-release/tier-wird-dott/ (2026).
39
MacArthur, J., Miller, J. & Swain, I. E-bike Lending Libraries: Trends and Practices in The United States. (2025).
40
Cherriots. Cherriots Shared Micromobility Feasibility Study. (2025).
41
Deutsches Institut für Urbanistik. Managing E-Scooter Rentals in German Cities: A Check-Up. (2020).
42
Cao, Z., Zhang, X., Chua, K., Yu, H. & Zhao, J. E-scooter sharing to serve short-distance transit trips: A Singapore case. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 147, (2021).
43
Coherent Market Insights. Shared Vehicle Market Analysis. Coherent Market Insights (2023). https://www.coherentmarketinsights.com/industry-reports/shared-vehicles-market
44
Hu, L., Liao, Y., Gao, K., Jin, S. & Precup, R.-E. Integration of e-scooter sharing with public transit on employment accessibility and equity. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 140, (2025).
45
Popova, Y. & Zagulova, D. Aspects of E-Scooter Sharing in the Smart City. informatics 9, (2022).
46
Bieliński, T. & Ważna, A. Electric Scooter Sharing and Bike Sharing User Behaviour and Characteristics. sustainability 12, (2020).
47
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank. Reuse and Recycling: Environmental Sustainability of Lithium-Ion Battery Energy Storage Systems. (2020).
48
Schumann, H.-H., Haitao, H. & Quddus, M. Passively generated big data for micro-mobility: State-of-the-art and future research directions. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 121, (2023).
49
Wanganoo, L., Shukla, V. & Mohan, V. Intelligent Micro‐Mobility E‐Scooter: Revolutionizing Urban Transport. in Trust-Based Communication Systems for Internet of Things Applications (eds Agrawal, P. et al.) (Wiley, Hoboken, 2022).
50
Van den Bossche, P., Mentens, A., Dotreppe, G. & Jacobs, V. A. Stan4SWAP: towards eﬀicient standards for Light Electric Vehicle Battery Swap. (2025).
51
Hafidza, L., Yuniaristanto, Y., Sutopo, W. & Hisjam, M. Evaluation of Driving Comparative Life Cycle Cost Assessment of Conventional and Electric Motorcycles in Indonesia: Monte Carlo Analysis. Jurnal Optimasi Sistem Industri 21, 55-65 (2022). https://doi.org:10.25077/josi.v21.n2.p55-65.2022
52
Cherry, C. & Cervero, R. Use characteristics and mode choice behavior of electric bike users in China. Transport Policy 14, 247-257 (2007). https://doi.org:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2007.02.005
53
Zuniga-Garcia, N., Tec, M., Scott, J. G. & Machemehl, R. B. Evaluation of e-scooters as transit last-mile solution. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 139, 103660 (2022). https://doi.org:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2022.103660
54
McKinsey&Company. Lithium and cobalt – a tale of two commodities. (2018).
55
Aishwarya, V. M., Ekren, B. Y., Singh, T. & Singh, V. Integrating sustainability across the lifecycle of electric vehicle batteries: Circular supply chain challenges, innovations, and global policy impacts. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 216, (2025).
56
Salek, F., Resalati, S., Babaie, M. & Henshall, P. A review of the technical challenges and solutions in maximising the potential use of second life batteries from electric vehicles. Batteries 10, (2024).
57
Severengiz, S., Schelte, N. & Bracke, S. Analysis of the environmental impact of e-scooter sharing services considering product liability characteristics and durability. Procedia CIRP 96, 181–188 (2021).
58
Verordnung (EU) 2023/1542 Des Europäischen Parlaments Und Des Rates Vom 12. Juli 2023 Über Batterien Und Altbatterien, Zur Änderung Der Richtlinie 2008/98/EG Und Der Verordnung (EU) 2019/1020 Und Zur Aufhebung Der Richtlinie 2006/66/EG. Regulation (EU) 2023/1542 (2023).
59
Olivetti, E. A., Ceder, G., Gaustad, G. G. & Fu, X. Lithium-Ion Battery Supply Chain Considerations: Analysis of Potential Bottlenecks in Critical Metals. Joule 1, 229-243 (2017).https://doi.org:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2017.08.019
60
Feng, X. et al. Thermal runaway mechanism of lithium-ion battery for electric vehicles: a review. Energy Storage Mater. 10, 246–267 (2018).
61
Hawkins, T., Singh, B., Majeau-Bettez, G. & Strømman, A. Comparative Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Conventional and Electric Vehicles. Journal of Industrial Ecology 17 (2013). https://doi.org:10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00532.x
62
Huang, Y., Jiang, L., Chen, H., Dave, K. & Parry, T. Comparative life cycle assessment of electric bikes for commuting in the UK. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 105, 103213 (2022). https://doi.org:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2022.103213
63
Harper, G. et al. Recycling lithium-ion batteries from electric vehicles. Nature 575, 75–86 (2019).
64
Shaheen, S. & Cohen, A. Shared Micromoblity Policy Toolkit: Docked and Dockless Bike and Scooter Sharing. (UC Berkeley: Transportation Sustainability Research Center, 2019).
65
Oeschger, G., Carroll, P. & Caulfield, B. Micromobility and public transport integration: The current state of knowledge. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 89, 102628 (2020). https://doi.org:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102628
66
MacArthur, J., Harpool, M., Scheppke, D. & Cherry, C. A North American survey of electric bicycle owners. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 65, 332–340 (2018).
67
Moreau, H. et al. Dockless E-Scooter: A Green Solution for Mobility? Comparative Case Study between Dockless E-Scooters, Displaced Transport, and Personal E-Scooters. Sustainability 12, 1803 (2020). https://doi.org:10.3390/su12051803
68
Transitionn, S. E. The Lithium Battery Bottleneck: How 3 SET100 Start-Ups Are Breathing New Life Into the Revolutionary Device, <https://www.startup-energy-transition.com/lithium-battery-bottleneck-3-set-startups/> (2023).
69
Barter, P. Two-wheeler parking can be very very space-efficient!, <https://www.reinventingparking.org/2013/08/two-wheeler-parking-can-be-very-very.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com> (2013).
70
Verkehrsverbund Rhein-Sieg GmbH. Parkbank statt Parkplatz. https://www.mobil.nrw/verbinden/blog/parkbank-statt-parkplatz.html (2026).
71
Nimrich, J. Platzangst? https://www.radfahren.de/service/stellplaetze-fahrrad-bahnhoefen-geschaeften/#:~:text=Sechs%20bis%20acht%20normale%20Fahrräder,als%20der%20Fahrbahnrand%20genutzt%20werden. (2024).
72
Shaheen, S., Zhang, H., Martin, E. & Guzman, S. China’s Hangzhou Public Bicycle. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2247, 33-41 (2011). https://doi.org:10.3141/2247-05
73
Calquin, D. & Tirachini, A. Comparison of the Person Flow on Cycle Tracks vs. Lanes for Motorized Vehicles.Transport Findings (2020). Empirical measurements from Santiago de Chile.
74
Shoup, D. The High Cost of Free Parking. (Routledge, 2011).
75
Stripple, H. Life cycle assessment of road construction. Swedish Environmental Research Institute (2001).
76
Bennett, C., MacArthur, J., Cherry, C. R. & Jones, L. R. Using E-Bike Purchase Incentive Programs to Expand the Market North American Trends and Recommended Practices. (2022).
77
Noland, R. B. Scootin’ in the rain: Does weather affect micromobility? Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 149, 114–123 (2021).
78
Rasool, A., Satsangee, G., Arickswamy, L. & Ashfaq, M. M. Winter-Safe Slip Prevention Rim for E-Scooter: Design to Production Lifecycle Analysis MDPI. Engineering Proceedings 76, (2024).
79
Ferguson, B. & Blandino, J. S. Shared Micromobility Vehicle Design and Safety. (2025) doi:https://doi.org/10.7922/G2H130DT.
80
Anke, J., Ringhand, M., Schackmann, D. & Petzold, T. How e-scooter riders navigate road safety hazards –Understanding the perceptions and strategies of regular riders. Journal of Cycling and Micromobility Research 4, (2025).
81
Götschi, T., Garrard, J. & Giles-Corti, B. Cycling as a Part of Daily Life: A Review of Health Perspectives. Transport Reviews 36, 45-71 (2016). https://doi.org:10.1080/01441647.2015.1057877
82
Bourne, J. E. et al. Health benefits of electrically assisted cycling: A systematic review. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 15, 116 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-018-0751-8
83
Buchanan, L. LIFE CYCLE. Inc. 39, 26-94 (2017).
84
Kazemzadeh, K. & Ronchi, E. From bike to electric bike level-of-service. Transport Reviews 42, 6-31 (2022). https://doi.org:10.1080/01441647.2021.1900450
85
Badia, H. & Jenelius, E. Shared e-scooter micromobility: A review of use patterns, usagedeterminants, and policy implications. Transp. Rev. 43 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2023.2171500
86
Laa, B. & Leth, U. Survey of e-scooter users in Vienna: Who they are and how they ride. J. Transp. Geogr. 89, 102874 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2020.102874
87
Wang, K. et al. What travel modes do shared e-scooters displace? A review of recent research findings. Transport reviews 43, 5-31 (2023). https://doi.org:10.1080/01441647.2021.2015639
88
Arning, K. & Kaths, H. Substitution effects of e-bikes in Germany. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation(2025).
89
Oostendorp, R. & Hardinghaus, M. Shared vs. private e-scooters: Same vehicle, different mode? Empirical evidence on e-scooter usage in Germany. Transport Research Arena (TRA) 2022 Conference Proceedings (2022).
90
Israel, F., Ettema, D. & van Lierop, D. Mechanisms with equity implications for the (non-) adoption of electric mobility in the early stage of the energy transition. Transport Reviews 44:3, 659–683 (2024).
91
Wood, J. & Jain, A. Raceways, rebates, and retrofits: an exploration of several American cities’ policies to facilitate electric vehicle purchase and usage. International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 13, 148–158 (2020).
92
United Nations Environment Programme. UNEP in 2021: Planetary Action: Climate, Nature, Chemicals & Pollution [Annual Report]. (2022).
93
Gebhardt, L. et al. E-Scooter – Potentiale, Herausforderungen und Implikationen für das Verkehrssystem: Abschlussbericht Kurzstudie E-Scooter. (2021).
94
Kleinertz, H. et al. Accident Mechanisms and Injury Patterns in E-Scooter Users–A Retrospective Analysis and Comparison With Cyclists. Dtsch Arztebl Int 118, 117-121 (2021). https://doi.org:10.3238/arztebl.m2021.0019
95
Riderz, V. E-Biking Across Europe: Decoding Laws & Regulations (2024), <https://www.voltriderz.com/european-e-bike-regulations/> (2024).
96
Germany, E. C. C. Country overview: E-scooter regulations in Europe, <https://www.evz.de/en/travelling-motor-vehicles/e-mobility/two-wheelers/e-scooter-regulations.html> (2023).
97
International Services Shanghai. How to register and ride an e-bike. https://english.shanghai.gov.cn/en-Transportation/20240110/cec99024bfdc4a27b5d00272822db5e5.html?u (2025).
98
Foley, D. Complete Guide to U.S. Electric Scooter Laws by State 2025, <https://unagiscooters.com/scooter-articles/electric-scooter-laws/> (2025).
99
LLC, L. Understanding the Laws Surrounding Electric Scooters, <https://www.levyelectric.com/resources/understanding-the-laws-surrounding-electric-scooters> (
100
Zuev, D., Tyfield, D. & Urry, J. Where is the politics? E-bike mobility in urban China and civilizational government11We are grateful to the UK’s Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) for funding this project (ES/K006002/1), 2013-17. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 30, 19-32 (2019). https://doi.org:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2018.07.002
101
Commission, E. Zero-emission urban freight logistics and last-mile delivery, <https://transport.ec.europa.eu/transport-themes/urban-transport/zero-emission-urban-freight-logistics-and-last-mile-delivery_en> (
102
ChargeMOD. India’s Electric Vehicle Journey: From FAME to PM E-DRIVE – Key Policies and Progress, <https://www.chargemod.com/blog/india-ev-policies-fame-pm-edrive1727265113EqK#:~:text=Launched%20in%202015%2C%20FAME%20focused,E%2DDRIVE%20scheme%20in%202024> (2024).
103
City of Copenhagen. The Bicycle Account 2022: Copenhagen – City of Cyclists. Technical and Environmental Administration, Copenhagen (2022). https://usercontent.one/wp/a21.dk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/the-bicycle-account-2022-_2420.pdf
104
Eurotunnel LeShuttle. See Amsterdam by Bicycle. https://www.leshuttle.com/uk-en/discover/traveller-guides/see-amsterdam-by-bicycle
105
Cycling Industry News. London cycling journeys rocket 43% in 6 years. https://cyclingindustry.news/london-cycling-journeys-rocket-43-in-6-years/
106
Next Mobility. 1,090 km of Cycling Infrastructure in Brussels: Company Guide. https://www.nextmobility.be/en/post/brussels-cycling-infrastructure-corporate-mobility/
107
Wuppertal Institute. More Bicycle Traffic Makes Roads Safer. Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy (2018). https://wupperinst.org/en/a/wi/a/s/ad/4338/
108
Senatsverwaltung für Mobilität, Verkehr, Klimaschutz und Umwelt Berlin. Radverkehrsplan. https://www.berlin.de/sen/uvk/mobilitaet-und-verkehr/verkehrsplanung/radverkehr/radverkehrsplan/
109
Aldred, R., Croft, J. & Goodman, A. Impacts of an active travel intervention with a cycling focus in outer London. J. Transp. Health 10, 293–301 (2018).
110
Babani, A. E-scooters – cities should embrace them, <https://theconversation.com/e-scooters-cities-should-embrace-them-131087> (2020).
111
Motors, V. Rules and Regulations of Electric Scooter in Different Countries, <https://www.voromotors.com/blogs/news/rules-and-regulations-of-electric-scooter-in-different-countries> (2019).
112
Cuca, B. in Computational Science and Its Applications – ICCSA 2020. (eds Osvaldo Gervasi et al.) 813-828 (Springer International Publishing).

1
IEA. Energy Efficiency 2022. (2022).
2
Yin, A., Chen, X., Behrendt, F., Morris, A. & Liu, X. How electric bikes reduce car use: A dual-mode ownership perspective. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 133, 104304 (2024). https://doi.org:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2024.104304
3
Weiss, M., Dekker, P., Moro, A., Scholz, H. & Patel, M. K. On the electrification of road transportation – A review of the environmental, economic, and social performance of electric two-wheelers. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 41, 348-366 (2015). https://doi.org:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2015.09.007
4
Amplerbikes. How Do E-Bikes Work? All You Need to Know in a Nutshell, <https://amplerbikes.com/en/blog/how-e-bikes-work> (2023).
5
Fishman, E. & Cherry, C. E-bikes in the Mainstream: Reviewing a Decade of Research. Transport Reviews 36, 72-91 (2016). https://doi.org:10.1080/01441647.2015.1069907
6
Bolt. How do electric bikes work?, <https://bolt.eu/en/blog/how-do-electric-bikes-work/> (2024).
7
Schwinn. How Do Electric Bikes Work?, <https://www.schwinnbikes.com/blogs/compass/how-do-electric-bikes-work?srsltid=AfmBOors5CuxIEf-Z7yP7ucH2CiqL1sL75fqgtmRXf_hFSZUjkR-5cbu> (2025).
8
Terzić, M. V. & Mihić, D. S. Switched Reluctance Motor Design for a Mid-Drive E-Bike Application. Machines 10(2022).
9
Foley, D. How Do Electric Scooters Work?, <https://unagiscooters.com/scooter-articles/how-do-electric-scooters-work/?srsltid=AfmBOoqa-EnnVLTYqxdt0KZojRTH34M7zI1_oQYOLGhBFmPN6A0iPYLW> (2022).
10
Hardt, C. & Bogenberger, K. Usage of e-scooters in urban transport systems. Sustainability 13, 7361 (2021).
11
International Transport Forum. Safe Micromobility. OECD Publishing (2020).
12
European Parliament & Council. Regulation (EU) No 168/2013 on the approval and market surveillance of two- or three-wheel vehicles and quadricycles. Official Journal of the European Union (2013).
13
Harish Raaghav, S. S., Deepak, M. M. & Swathika, O. V. G. in Smart Grids as Cyber Physical Systems 123-147 (2024).
14
Simplon. History. SIMPLON. https://www.simplon.com/de/Über-Uns/History
15
Cao, J., Shen, D., Milakis, D. & van Wee, B. Shared micromobility and travel behaviour: A review of recent evidence. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 92, 102715 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102715
16
Panasonic. Company History. https://industry.panasonic.eu/company/history
17
Stewart, D. & Ramachandran, K. E-bikes merge into the fast lane, <https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/technology/smart-micromobility-e-bikes.html> (2022).
18
Statista. E-Scooter-sharing, <https://www.statista.com/outlook/mmo/shared-mobility/e-scooter-sharing/worldwide> (2025).
19
Gössling, S. Integrating e-scooters in urban transportation: Problems, policies, and the prospect of system change. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 79, 102230 (2020). https://doi.org:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102230
20
AIKE. Types of Electric Scooters: Differences and Characteristics, <https://rideaike.com/blog/types-of-electric-scooters/> (2022).
21
Leuenberger, M., Frischknecht, R., Jungbluth, N., Büsser, S. & Stucki, M. Life Cycle Assessment of Two Wheel Vehicles. ESU Services Ltd. (2010).
22
Sensors. Sensitivity of mass geometry parameters on e-scooter comfort: design guide. Sensors 24 (2024).
23
Raleigh. ELECTRIC BIKE MOTORS, <https://www.raleigh.co.uk/ie/en/electric-bike-knowledge/electric-bike-motors/> (2025).
24
Grand View Research. Electric Scooters Market Size, Share & Trends Analysis Report. (2024). https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/electric-scooters-market
25
EqualOcean. China’s E-bikes speeds into Europe: How overseas brands compete with Chinese manufacturers. (2023).
26
Zweirad-Industrie-Verband. Marktdaten Fahrräder und E-Bikes 2024. (2025).
27
Nykvist, B. & Nilsson, M. Rapidly falling costs of battery packs for electric vehicles. Nature Climate Change 5, 329-332 (2015). https://doi.org:10.1038/nclimate2564
28
BloombergNEF. Lithium-ion battery pack prices fall to 108 per kilowatt-hour despite rising metal prices. BloombergNEF (2025). https://about.bnef.com/insights/clean-transport/lithium-ion-battery-pack-prices-fall-to-108-per-kilowatt-hour-despite-rising-metal-prices-bloombergnef/
29
Weinert, J., Ogden, J., Sperling, D. & Burke, A. The future of electric two-wheelers and electric vehicles in China. Energy Policy 36, 2544-2555 (2008). https://doi.org:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.03.008
30
Dekker, P. ELECTRIFICATION OF ROAD TRANSPORT – AN ANALYSIS OF THE ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE OF ELECTRIC TWO-WHEELERS M.Sc. thesis, Utrecht University, (2013).
31
Electric, O. Making India the global epicentre of EV revolution, <https://www.olaelectric.com/about> (2024).
32
IEA. Global EV Outlook 2023. (Paris, 2023).
33
Ma, Q., Murshed, M. & Khan, Z. The nexuses between energy investments, technological innovations, emission taxes, and carbon emissions in China. Energy Policy 155, 112345 (2021). https://doi.org:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112345
34
Sulistyono, D. S., Yuniaristanto, Y., Sutopo, W. & Hisjam, M. Proposing Electric Motorcycle Adoption-Diffusion Model in Indonesia: A System Dynamics Approach. Jurnal Optimasi Sistem Industri (2021).
35
Korzilius, O., Borsboom, O., Hofman, T. & Salazar, M. in 2021 IEEE International Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference (ITSC). 1677-1684.
36
Yang, H. et al. Impact of e-scooter sharing on bike sharing in Chicago. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 154, (2021).
37
Lime. Electric Scooter. https://www.li.me/de-de/vehicles/scooter (2026).
38
Dott. Tier wird zu dott. https://ridedott.com/de/press-release/tier-wird-dott/ (2026).
39
MacArthur, J., Miller, J. & Swain, I. E-bike Lending Libraries: Trends and Practices in The United States. (2025).
40
Cherriots. Cherriots Shared Micromobility Feasibility Study. (2025).
41
Deutsches Institut für Urbanistik. Managing E-Scooter Rentals in German Cities: A Check-Up. (2020).
42
Cao, Z., Zhang, X., Chua, K., Yu, H. & Zhao, J. E-scooter sharing to serve short-distance transit trips: A Singapore case. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 147, (2021).
43
Coherent Market Insights. Shared Vehicle Market Analysis. Coherent Market Insights (2023). https://www.coherentmarketinsights.com/industry-reports/shared-vehicles-market
44
Hu, L., Liao, Y., Gao, K., Jin, S. & Precup, R.-E. Integration of e-scooter sharing with public transit on employment accessibility and equity. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 140, (2025).
45
Popova, Y. & Zagulova, D. Aspects of E-Scooter Sharing in the Smart City. informatics 9, (2022).
46
Bieliński, T. & Ważna, A. Electric Scooter Sharing and Bike Sharing User Behaviour and Characteristics. sustainability 12, (2020).
47
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank. Reuse and Recycling: Environmental Sustainability of Lithium-Ion Battery Energy Storage Systems. (2020).
48
Schumann, H.-H., Haitao, H. & Quddus, M. Passively generated big data for micro-mobility: State-of-the-art and future research directions. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 121, (2023).
49
Wanganoo, L., Shukla, V. & Mohan, V. Intelligent Micro‐Mobility E‐Scooter: Revolutionizing Urban Transport. in Trust-Based Communication Systems for Internet of Things Applications (eds Agrawal, P. et al.) (Wiley, Hoboken, 2022).
50
Van den Bossche, P., Mentens, A., Dotreppe, G. & Jacobs, V. A. Stan4SWAP: towards eﬀicient standards for Light Electric Vehicle Battery Swap. (2025).
51
Hafidza, L., Yuniaristanto, Y., Sutopo, W. & Hisjam, M. Evaluation of Driving Comparative Life Cycle Cost Assessment of Conventional and Electric Motorcycles in Indonesia: Monte Carlo Analysis. Jurnal Optimasi Sistem Industri 21, 55-65 (2022). https://doi.org:10.25077/josi.v21.n2.p55-65.2022
52
Cherry, C. & Cervero, R. Use characteristics and mode choice behavior of electric bike users in China. Transport Policy 14, 247-257 (2007). https://doi.org:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2007.02.005
53
Zuniga-Garcia, N., Tec, M., Scott, J. G. & Machemehl, R. B. Evaluation of e-scooters as transit last-mile solution. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 139, 103660 (2022). https://doi.org:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2022.103660
54
McKinsey&Company. Lithium and cobalt – a tale of two commodities. (2018).
55
Aishwarya, V. M., Ekren, B. Y., Singh, T. & Singh, V. Integrating sustainability across the lifecycle of electric vehicle batteries: Circular supply chain challenges, innovations, and global policy impacts. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 216, (2025).
56
Salek, F., Resalati, S., Babaie, M. & Henshall, P. A review of the technical challenges and solutions in maximising the potential use of second life batteries from electric vehicles. Batteries 10, (2024).
57
Severengiz, S., Schelte, N. & Bracke, S. Analysis of the environmental impact of e-scooter sharing services considering product liability characteristics and durability. Procedia CIRP 96, 181–188 (2021).
58
Verordnung (EU) 2023/1542 Des Europäischen Parlaments Und Des Rates Vom 12. Juli 2023 Über Batterien Und Altbatterien, Zur Änderung Der Richtlinie 2008/98/EG Und Der Verordnung (EU) 2019/1020 Und Zur Aufhebung Der Richtlinie 2006/66/EG. Regulation (EU) 2023/1542 (2023).
59
Olivetti, E. A., Ceder, G., Gaustad, G. G. & Fu, X. Lithium-Ion Battery Supply Chain Considerations: Analysis of Potential Bottlenecks in Critical Metals. Joule 1, 229-243 (2017).https://doi.org:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2017.08.019
60
Feng, X. et al. Thermal runaway mechanism of lithium-ion battery for electric vehicles: a review. Energy Storage Mater. 10, 246–267 (2018).
61
Hawkins, T., Singh, B., Majeau-Bettez, G. & Strømman, A. Comparative Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Conventional and Electric Vehicles. Journal of Industrial Ecology 17 (2013). https://doi.org:10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00532.x
62
Huang, Y., Jiang, L., Chen, H., Dave, K. & Parry, T. Comparative life cycle assessment of electric bikes for commuting in the UK. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 105, 103213 (2022). https://doi.org:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2022.103213
63
Harper, G. et al. Recycling lithium-ion batteries from electric vehicles. Nature 575, 75–86 (2019).
64
Shaheen, S. & Cohen, A. Shared Micromoblity Policy Toolkit: Docked and Dockless Bike and Scooter Sharing. (UC Berkeley: Transportation Sustainability Research Center, 2019).
65
Oeschger, G., Carroll, P. & Caulfield, B. Micromobility and public transport integration: The current state of knowledge. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 89, 102628 (2020). https://doi.org:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102628
66
MacArthur, J., Harpool, M., Scheppke, D. & Cherry, C. A North American survey of electric bicycle owners. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 65, 332–340 (2018).
67
Moreau, H. et al. Dockless E-Scooter: A Green Solution for Mobility? Comparative Case Study between Dockless E-Scooters, Displaced Transport, and Personal E-Scooters. Sustainability 12, 1803 (2020). https://doi.org:10.3390/su12051803
68
Transitionn, S. E. The Lithium Battery Bottleneck: How 3 SET100 Start-Ups Are Breathing New Life Into the Revolutionary Device, <https://www.startup-energy-transition.com/lithium-battery-bottleneck-3-set-startups/> (2023).
69
Barter, P. Two-wheeler parking can be very very space-efficient!, <https://www.reinventingparking.org/2013/08/two-wheeler-parking-can-be-very-very.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com> (2013).
70
Verkehrsverbund Rhein-Sieg GmbH. Parkbank statt Parkplatz. https://www.mobil.nrw/verbinden/blog/parkbank-statt-parkplatz.html (2026).
71
Nimrich, J. Platzangst? https://www.radfahren.de/service/stellplaetze-fahrrad-bahnhoefen-geschaeften/#:~:text=Sechs%20bis%20acht%20normale%20Fahrräder,als%20der%20Fahrbahnrand%20genutzt%20werden. (2024).
72
Shaheen, S., Zhang, H., Martin, E. & Guzman, S. China’s Hangzhou Public Bicycle. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2247, 33-41 (2011). https://doi.org:10.3141/2247-05
73
Calquin, D. & Tirachini, A. Comparison of the Person Flow on Cycle Tracks vs. Lanes for Motorized Vehicles.Transport Findings (2020). Empirical measurements from Santiago de Chile.
74
Shoup, D. The High Cost of Free Parking. (Routledge, 2011).
75
Stripple, H. Life cycle assessment of road construction. Swedish Environmental Research Institute (2001).
76
Bennett, C., MacArthur, J., Cherry, C. R. & Jones, L. R. Using E-Bike Purchase Incentive Programs to Expand the Market North American Trends and Recommended Practices. (2022).
77
Noland, R. B. Scootin’ in the rain: Does weather affect micromobility? Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 149, 114–123 (2021).
78
Rasool, A., Satsangee, G., Arickswamy, L. & Ashfaq, M. M. Winter-Safe Slip Prevention Rim for E-Scooter: Design to Production Lifecycle Analysis MDPI. Engineering Proceedings 76, (2024).
79
Ferguson, B. & Blandino, J. S. Shared Micromobility Vehicle Design and Safety. (2025) doi:https://doi.org/10.7922/G2H130DT.
80
Anke, J., Ringhand, M., Schackmann, D. & Petzold, T. How e-scooter riders navigate road safety hazards –Understanding the perceptions and strategies of regular riders. Journal of Cycling and Micromobility Research 4, (2025).
81
Götschi, T., Garrard, J. & Giles-Corti, B. Cycling as a Part of Daily Life: A Review of Health Perspectives. Transport Reviews 36, 45-71 (2016). https://doi.org:10.1080/01441647.2015.1057877
82
Bourne, J. E. et al. Health benefits of electrically assisted cycling: A systematic review. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 15, 116 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-018-0751-8
83
Buchanan, L. LIFE CYCLE. Inc. 39, 26-94 (2017).
84
Kazemzadeh, K. & Ronchi, E. From bike to electric bike level-of-service. Transport Reviews 42, 6-31 (2022). https://doi.org:10.1080/01441647.2021.1900450
85
Badia, H. & Jenelius, E. Shared e-scooter micromobility: A review of use patterns, usagedeterminants, and policy implications. Transp. Rev. 43 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2023.2171500
86
Laa, B. & Leth, U. Survey of e-scooter users in Vienna: Who they are and how they ride. J. Transp. Geogr. 89, 102874 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2020.102874
87
Wang, K. et al. What travel modes do shared e-scooters displace? A review of recent research findings. Transport reviews 43, 5-31 (2023). https://doi.org:10.1080/01441647.2021.2015639
88
Arning, K. & Kaths, H. Substitution effects of e-bikes in Germany. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation(2025).
89
Oostendorp, R. & Hardinghaus, M. Shared vs. private e-scooters: Same vehicle, different mode? Empirical evidence on e-scooter usage in Germany. Transport Research Arena (TRA) 2022 Conference Proceedings (2022).
90
Israel, F., Ettema, D. & van Lierop, D. Mechanisms with equity implications for the (non-) adoption of electric mobility in the early stage of the energy transition. Transport Reviews 44:3, 659–683 (2024).
91
Wood, J. & Jain, A. Raceways, rebates, and retrofits: an exploration of several American cities’ policies to facilitate electric vehicle purchase and usage. International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 13, 148–158 (2020).
92
United Nations Environment Programme. UNEP in 2021: Planetary Action: Climate, Nature, Chemicals & Pollution [Annual Report]. (2022).
93
Gebhardt, L. et al. E-Scooter – Potentiale, Herausforderungen und Implikationen für das Verkehrssystem: Abschlussbericht Kurzstudie E-Scooter. (2021).
94
Kleinertz, H. et al. Accident Mechanisms and Injury Patterns in E-Scooter Users–A Retrospective Analysis and Comparison With Cyclists. Dtsch Arztebl Int 118, 117-121 (2021). https://doi.org:10.3238/arztebl.m2021.0019
95
Riderz, V. E-Biking Across Europe: Decoding Laws & Regulations (2024), <https://www.voltriderz.com/european-e-bike-regulations/> (2024).
96
Germany, E. C. C. Country overview: E-scooter regulations in Europe, <https://www.evz.de/en/travelling-motor-vehicles/e-mobility/two-wheelers/e-scooter-regulations.html> (2023).
97
International Services Shanghai. How to register and ride an e-bike. https://english.shanghai.gov.cn/en-Transportation/20240110/cec99024bfdc4a27b5d00272822db5e5.html?u (2025).
98
Foley, D. Complete Guide to U.S. Electric Scooter Laws by State 2025, <https://unagiscooters.com/scooter-articles/electric-scooter-laws/> (2025).
99
LLC, L. Understanding the Laws Surrounding Electric Scooters, <https://www.levyelectric.com/resources/understanding-the-laws-surrounding-electric-scooters> (
100
Zuev, D., Tyfield, D. & Urry, J. Where is the politics? E-bike mobility in urban China and civilizational government11We are grateful to the UK’s Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) for funding this project (ES/K006002/1), 2013-17. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 30, 19-32 (2019). https://doi.org:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2018.07.002
101
Commission, E. Zero-emission urban freight logistics and last-mile delivery, <https://transport.ec.europa.eu/transport-themes/urban-transport/zero-emission-urban-freight-logistics-and-last-mile-delivery_en> (
102
ChargeMOD. India’s Electric Vehicle Journey: From FAME to PM E-DRIVE – Key Policies and Progress, <https://www.chargemod.com/blog/india-ev-policies-fame-pm-edrive1727265113EqK#:~:text=Launched%20in%202015%2C%20FAME%20focused,E%2DDRIVE%20scheme%20in%202024> (2024).
103
City of Copenhagen. The Bicycle Account 2022: Copenhagen – City of Cyclists. Technical and Environmental Administration, Copenhagen (2022). https://usercontent.one/wp/a21.dk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/the-bicycle-account-2022-_2420.pdf
104
Eurotunnel LeShuttle. See Amsterdam by Bicycle. https://www.leshuttle.com/uk-en/discover/traveller-guides/see-amsterdam-by-bicycle
105
Cycling Industry News. London cycling journeys rocket 43% in 6 years. https://cyclingindustry.news/london-cycling-journeys-rocket-43-in-6-years/
106
Next Mobility. 1,090 km of Cycling Infrastructure in Brussels: Company Guide. https://www.nextmobility.be/en/post/brussels-cycling-infrastructure-corporate-mobility/
107
Wuppertal Institute. More Bicycle Traffic Makes Roads Safer. Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy (2018). https://wupperinst.org/en/a/wi/a/s/ad/4338/
108
Senatsverwaltung für Mobilität, Verkehr, Klimaschutz und Umwelt Berlin. Radverkehrsplan. https://www.berlin.de/sen/uvk/mobilitaet-und-verkehr/verkehrsplanung/radverkehr/radverkehrsplan/
109
Aldred, R., Croft, J. & Goodman, A. Impacts of an active travel intervention with a cycling focus in outer London. J. Transp. Health 10, 293–301 (2018).
110
Babani, A. E-scooters – cities should embrace them, <https://theconversation.com/e-scooters-cities-should-embrace-them-131087> (2020).
111
Motors, V. Rules and Regulations of Electric Scooter in Different Countries, <https://www.voromotors.com/blogs/news/rules-and-regulations-of-electric-scooter-in-different-countries> (2019).
112
Cuca, B. in Computational Science and Its Applications – ICCSA 2020. (eds Osvaldo Gervasi et al.) 813-828 (Springer International Publishing).