Equipment & Safety
Introduction
Cities need to be sure shared micromobility vehicles are safe for riders and residents.
Many micromobility companies are creating new vehicle types, many of which are still in their earliest product development cycles. And, many of the vehicles being used today haven’t been specifically designed for heavy use in a shared capacity. It’s critical to ensure these vehicles are physically able withstand the rigors of operating every day, and in a shared capacity, which often places a greater strain on equipment than typical consumer use.
It’s also critical as these vehicles have the necessary safety and visibility equipment and are inspected and maintained regularly to ensure rider safety. Making sure these vehicles are safe—and communicating clearly with the public about how cities and operators go about this—will be a crucial component of creating safe operating conditions to foster their increased adoption among all residents.
National Standards
All local governments developing shared micromobility policies should include these general provisions to ensure that their regulations address these issues similarly across communities.
-
1
National Vehicle Safety Standards Compliance
Cities should make sure vehicles meet national safety standards such as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and should provide data back to federal regulators to inform and help update these standards.
-
2
State And Local Safety Standards
In addition to national safety standards established by the CPSC, vehicles should comply with any state or local safety standards.
-
3
State Vehicle Classification
Various states have vehicle classifications that could cover some of these shared vehicles. It's important for cities to understand what those classifications are in their state, whether or not these vehicles are regulated by them, and if there additional requirements by the state that need to be accounted for in local policies such as helmet laws, safety equipment or operational restrictions. Cities should explore if the absence of an applicable definition enables the city to create a classification on the local level with accompanying operating rules.
-
4
Inspection And Maintenance
Cities should require and set the frequency that operators conduct regular inspection and maintenance of vehicles that accounts for both normal wear and tear as well as vandalism or other atypical events to ensure their safety. Cities should also require auditable record-keeping by operators of their inspections and maintenance operations.
-
5
Visibility Equipment
Vehicles should have daytime running front and rear lights that are visible from 300ft under normal conditions.
-
6
Vehicle ID
Cities should require that each vehicle have a unique ID number to identify and track vehicles as necessary.
-
7
Maximum Speed
A maximum speed should be set for these vehicles (i.e. scooters at 15mph & Class 3 e-bikes at 28mph.) Electric bikes with pedal assist should shut off at 15 mph. It should be noted, that some local governments have created differential speed limits for areas such as highly traveled corridors or those with high pedestrian activity.
-
8
Theft And Alert System
While not necessary, requiring a tip over sensor or alert system can help operators determine if the vehicle isn't upright and potentially creating problems. This sensor can also provide valuable data to cities to help them refine parking and storage options.
-
9
Remotely Disable Vehicle
Companies should have the ability to remotely disable vehicles as necessary. Cities should set out specific conditions for when providers should disable vehicles and when the city can request the deactivation of a vehicle.
-
10
On Vehicle GPS
Cities should require all company vehicles to have an active and working GPS device to track vehicles at all times. This GPS unit should report the vehicle's location at least every 90 seconds.
Policy Sections
Helmet Requirements
Cities have the option to require helmet use to further advocate for user safety.
Cities Establish Their Own Helmet Requirements, Separate From State Laws
Pro
Allows cities to create separate helmet policies by vehicle type; create standards that match up best with particular needs or concerns.
Con
Difficult to enforce, especially among users who spontaneously chose to take a shared micromobility vehicle; places burden on consumer; creates potential barrier for entry among lower-income individuals who may not be able to afford a helmet; confusing for users who are traveling across vehicle types.
Require Companies to Provide Helmets To Users
Pro
Leverages operator resources to assist in ensuring users have helmet access; improves safety for all users on all trips.
Con
Cost of providing helmets could prove burdensome and too expensive for companies; logistically challenging for companies to provide helmets for users; increases company liability if helmets aren't effective.
Case Study
Santa Monica, CA
Santa Monica requires operators to provide regular helmet distribution. Operators participate in events with helmet distribution, as well as partnering with local brick-and-mortar establishments for free helmet distribution. Santa Monica's Shared Mobility Device Pilot Program Administrative Regulations
Recommendations
With a general lack of dedicated, protected infrastructure for active transportation and micromobility users across the country while riding, helmet use should be strongly encouraged for all vehicle types.
Cities should also partner with operators on distribution, education and compliance initiatives to make helmets easier to access and more likely to be used.
User Requirements
Like any other vehicle, shared micromobility vehicles can be unsafe if operated carelessly or improperly. Cities should create specific requirements to clarify who is eligible to operate these vehicles in order to ensure their safety and the safety of their users and other road users.
State Issued Identification
Pro
Ensures riders are old enough to be eligible to operate a car and are familiar with rules of the road and basic road safety; creates simplified process for ticketing violators.
Con
Limits the total number of users, potentially limiting the scaling of scooter systems; could create system where users are able to use bikes but not scooters; services could be beneficial to younger users who are most likely to use; likely to exclude lower-income and vulnerable users as they have lower rates of having state issued identification.
Case Study
Los Angeles, CA
Los Angeles restricts usage to customers that are a minimum of 18 years old with a Driver’s License. Los Angeles' Dockless On-Demand Personal Mobility Conditional Permit
Age Limit
Pro
Allows young adults to use vehicles; creates access to school, jobs and other services, furthering the potentially positive impact of these vehicles.
Con
Creates safety and liability risk if open to people too young to operate safely and responsibly; any age restriction limits total number of users, potentially limiting the scale of scooter system and the mobility options for young adults and children going to and from school or other activities; difficult to enforce age requirement without driver's license requirement.
Case Study
Various
Durham's ordinance states that persons operating motorized scooters must be at least 16 years old and wear a helmet. Durham's Shared Active Transportation Ordinance
Los Angeles restricts usage to customers that are a minimum of 18 years old with a Driver’s License. Los Angeles' Dockless On-Demand Personal Mobility Conditional Permit
No Requirements
Pro
Allows young adults to ride vehicles; creates access to school, jobs and other services, furthering the potentially positive impact of these vehicles.
Con
Puts children and young adults, the companies, and possibly the city at risk if they are too young to operate safely and responsibly; no mechanism for prohibiting operation among users that are far too young to safely operate scooter.
Recommendations
Given the safety implications, cities have expressed a concern about minors or individuals who do not understand basic rules of the road operating these vehicles. Cities should follow age requirements prescribed by state vehicle codes for each device type, or if none exist at the state level, the cities should create specific requirements for who can use these vehicles as policies vary by operator.
While these requirements do not need to be as strict as a state issued identification, as this may limit responsible younger riders as well as individuals who may not be able to attain a state issued identification, but can safely operate these vehicles. Cities could also consider requiring parental permission to allow minors to use these services.
