Following our November 2024 article on the legal gaps surrounding e-scooter use, this update examines how the NSW Legislative Council’s recent report on the use of e-scooters, e-bikes and related mobility options proposes to reshape the regulatory landscape for e-mobility devices, including e-scooters and e-bikes.
What are the biggest concerns around e-bikes and e-scooters?
The biggest public concerns regarding e-bikes and e-scooters relate to safety, where they can be used (roads, shared pathways or footpaths), lack of infrastructure, challenges in enforcement of rules and regulations, and the absence of insurance coverage.
The nature of e-mobility devices is such that they do not meet the safety requirements of a road vehicle, but are capable of fast speeds, presenting a risk to pedestrian safety. This is exacerbated by easy modifications to e-bikes and similar devices after the point of sale to increase speed capacity, so even if they sit within the category of a ‘permitted e-bike’ at point of sale, they can quickly become an impermissible vehicle. There are already countless articles and videos available online demonstrating how these devices can be modified without much technical expertise or specialised equipment. For some e-bikes, modifying the speed limiter is as simple as toggling an option in the device’s settings.
Compounding this issue is the lack of suitable infrastructure. Many areas are not equipped with dedicated, interconnected cycling networks that safely separate e-mobility users from pedestrians and vehicles. Where such infrastructure does exist, it often contains gaps that force users onto roads or pedestrian spaces, increasing the likelihood of conflict and injury.
E-bikes also make popular gifts for children, which has led to significant enforcement issues. For example, in NSW permitted e-bikes are treated similarly to bicycles and can be legally used on footpaths by anyone under 16 years old. If they use the device with non-permitted modifications, fail to keep to the left, exceed the speed limit or do not give way to pedestrians, the only penalty is confiscation of the device, which rarely occurs in practice. Such users rarely carry identification, and it is the parents of underage riders who are deemed responsible.
Similar factors have resulted in serious injuries among e-mobility users in Queensland, as highlighted by a June 2025 study of emergency department presentations at Sunshine Coast Hospital, which across 2023 and 2024 recorded 176 cases, with a very young median age of 14 years old. In 36% of cases, the user had exceeded 25km/h, and in 42% of cases, helmet use was absent. In terms of severity of injuries caused, 37% of cases involved fractures, 18% required CT scans and 11% involved life-threatening or potentially life-threatening injuries.1
E-mobility devices are widely used in the food delivery sector, an area of work particularly popular among people on temporary visas - including international students, working holiday makers, and those on bridging visas.2 This raises concerns, particularly when delivery workers may lack a clear understanding of local traffic regulations, while also working under pressure to complete deliveries quickly. These factors can increase safety risks for both the riders and pedestrians. Although delivery platforms typically require users to agree to terms that include compliance with local laws, much of the responsibility for safe and lawful operation ultimately falls on the individual delivery workers.
There is no insurance scheme or licensing associated with e-mobility devices at present. A person using an e-bike on the road who is injured by a motor vehicle can lodge a claim against the driver’s CTP insurer. Even if some information identifying the motor vehicle is missing, an injured person may have the option of claiming against the Nominal Defendant.
However, if a pedestrian is injured by an e-bike, no equivalent compensation scheme exists. Unlike motor vehicle accidents, there is no CTP-style framework to support injured pedestrians in seeking redress, leaving them potentially without recourse for financial recovery.
Shared e-mobility programs
Shared e-mobility programs raise similar problems, but also come with significant advantages over privately owned e-mobility devices:
- Tamper resistance: Shared devices are difficult to modify, reducing the risk of users bypassing speed or safety limitations set by the operator.
- Built-in compliance features: GPS and onboard technology can be used to enforce speed limits, helmet use, and even disable the device in areas where e-scooters are not permitted.
- Insurance coverage: Program operators are more likely to hold public liability insurance, offering greater protection in the event of an incident.
How are e-bikes and e-scooters currently treated under NSW law?
Currently, privately owned e-scooters are illegal for use in public spaces, with the exception of designated ‘trial zones’ established in conjunction with specific local government areas to test public e-scooter use.
E-bikes are broadly treated like other bicycles, but must fall within one of two permitted categories, which are characterised by maximum motor wattage, speed capacity and weight. One of these e-bike categories, PAPCs (Power-Assisted Pedal Cycles) is limited by a maximum motor wattage of 200 watts, while the other, EPACs (Electronically Power-Assisted Cycles) is designed to gradually cut off motor assistance when users cycle above 6km/h, and cut off entirely if the e-bike reaches 25km/h.
Like ordinary bicycles, e-bikes can be used on roads and shared paths but are not permitted on footpaths - except by cyclists under 16 years of age (and their supervisors), who are permitted to ride on footpaths.
How do the NSW recommendations impact use of privately-owned e-scooters and e-mobility devices?
The first recommendation of the NSW Legislative Council seeks to overhaul the blanket ban on e-scooters and integrate both e-scooters and e-bikes into the state’s transport system.
The emphasis is on recognising these devices as legitimate modes of transport and working out how to implement their use in a safe and manageable manner. However, this recommendation does not go into detail regarding implementation, beyond goal setting for responsibility allocation between authorities.
How do the recommendations impact pedestrians?
There are three main kinds of pedestrian-accessible paths in NSW: footpaths, ‘shared paths’, and ‘shared zones’. As the name suggests, footpaths are reserved for pedestrians, with an exception for cyclists who are under the age of 16, and their supervisors.
Shared paths are designated for common use by pedestrians and bicycle riders, including e-bike users riding a ‘permitted’ e-bike. Shared zones are accessible to road vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians alike, and typically have a 10km/h speed limit. Despite the word ‘shared’, pedestrians have ultimate right of way on both shared paths and shared zones.
The Final Report of the inquiry into the Use of e-scooters, e-bikes and related mobility options3 made 34 recommendations. Recommendations 8 and 23 propose to alter the areas accessible to e-mobility devices by allowing e-mobility devices on footpaths at speeds of up to 15km/h. This would effectively merge the functions of footpaths and shared paths.
E-micromobility users would still be required to give way to pedestrians at all times, but whether (and how) this would be enforced remains to be seen. Given the difficulty of enforcing existing laws, as well as the sparse nature of dedicated infrastructure for e-micromobility (and for cyclists generally), this recommendation may have no practical effect. This recommendation is likely to spark considerable concern among pedestrians, especially in the context of Australia’s aging population, and those with disabilities restricting mobility or hearing (given the very quiet approach of e-bikes).
How do the recommendations impact motorists?
In an attempt to have road vehicles safely share the road with e-mobility devices, under Recommendation 20, local road speed limits would be reduced from 50km/h to 40km/h, and to 30km/h around city centres, high streets, schools, childcare centres, playgrounds, universities and health care centres.
This may feel to motorists as though cyclists and e-mobility users are ‘double-dipping’ in terms of concessions received from other members of the public: all footpaths would effectively become shared paths, but at the same time, motorists would be expected to accommodate cyclists and e-mobility users to a further degree. This is a public policy issue beyond the scope of this article.
What about shared e-mobility operators?
Recommendation 3 proposes that shared e-mobility devices be managed under a common regulatory scheme across the metropolitan area, rather than being handled by individual local councils. This would make regulation more practical, since e-mobility devices are often used across council lines where inconsistent rules may cause confusion.
Recommendation 4 also puts forward mandatory data sharing requirements for shared e-mobility operators, an important recommendation and a prerequisite to the development of effective regulation. This ties in with the approach of the trial zones for the use of shared e-scooters, which have enabled data collection surrounding e-scooter use, and the risks involved, in a safer and more controlled way.
Recommendation 31 requires shared scheme operators to ensure that users are aware of basic road rules and safe riding practices. This is in addition to Recommendation 29, that the NSW Government ‘explore options for an online road rules and safety knowledge test for e-mobility device users targeted at those under the age of 16 years’.
The regulatory advantage of shared e-mobility devices is that their technology can be developed to ensure better compliance with local regulations when compared to privately-owned e-mobility devices. For example, shared e-scooter and e-bike operators could use an app which enables or prevents the use of its devices subject to that user providing both age verification and proof of road rules and general safety knowledge. Indeed, such a knowledge requirement could well be implemented into the Service NSW app, which can already hold a copy of credentials such as a driver’s and other licences.
Insurance
As with infrastructure, working out the specifics and complexities of any compulsory insurance scheme for this area likely will take considerable time. Recommendation 33 does suggest ‘[t]hat the NSW Government investigate, as a matter of urgency, potential settings to create a viable model for e-mobility insurance, including compulsory insurance for owners/riders’.
Conclusion
The proposed e-mobility reforms in New South Wales present a promising step forward in integrating e-scooters and e-bikes into the state's transport system. Notably, the recommendations to consolidate local council rules and enhance data sharing aim to streamline regulations and improve the management of e-mobility devices across different jurisdictions. If implemented, these measures are likely to facilitate a more cohesive and efficient regulatory framework, benefiting both users and authorities.
However, there are significant concerns, especially in the proposal to allow e-micromobility devices on footpaths at speeds up to 15km/h. Without adequate infrastructure or compulsory insurance for e-mobility devices, pedestrians and others may be left physically and financially vulnerable in the event of an accident.
1 Clanfield, Matthew and Isabelle Sharman, ‘Breaking Bones and the Rules: An Audit of Paediatric e-Scooter Trauma in a Regional Queensland Hospital’ [3 June 2025] Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 100245
2 Wang, Yiwu, Food Delivery Riders Survey (24 January 2020) Transport Workers’ Union
3 Report No 25 - Portfolio Committee No. 6 - Transport and the Arts - Use of e-scooters e-bikes and related mobility options (PDF)
