How reasonable are E-Mobility rules in QLD?

If suitable rules are a necessary condition of safety, do the existing rules stack up as reasonable and appropriate?

Source: Electric Bikes | StreetSmarts - Queensland Government

When you read Queensland’s current road rules side-by-side, a puzzle jumps out:

• To ride an e-scooter / PMD in Queensland you must be:

  • 16+ to ride on your own, or

  • 12–15 and directly supervised by an adult, and

  • under 12: not permitted at all. Source: Queensland Government, Rules for personal mobility devices – https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/rules/wheeled-devices/personal-mobility-devices

• To ride a legal e-bike (≤250 W, pedal assist to 25 km/h) in Queensland:

  • There is no minimum age in law, no specific supervision requirement, and no licence or registration. Sources: E-bike rules in Queensland – https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/rules/wheeled-devices/electric-bicycle-rules and StreetSmarts Electric Bikes – https://streetsmarts.initiatives.qld.gov.au/electric-bikes/

So an 11-year-old may not legally ride an e-scooter on the path, even if supervised by a parent, but could ride a 25 km/h-assisted e-bike on the same route with no specific supervision requirement.

On the face of it, that doesn’t feel like a perfectly “reasonable” line.

Are E-Bikes safe for children, while E-Scooters are not?

If we’re genuinely evidence-driven, a few things follow:

• Both e-scooters and e-bikes can be fatal for children, even on paths and at speeds within current legal limits.

• The risk is dramatically amplified by illegal devices and non-compliant behaviours, modifications, excessive speed, lack of helmets, and developmental factors (judgment, impulse control) in young riders.

• The current situation – no age floor for e-bikes, a floor with supervision for scooters – is challenging to defend purely on risk grounds.

So what might “reasonable rules” look like?

Consider a thought experiment in reasonable rule-making:

1. Reasonable rules should be coherent.

   • If two device types can travel at similar speeds, carry similar kinetic energy, and are used in the same spaces by the same kids, why do they have different legal criteria for children?

   • Is there enough real-world difference between a 25 km/h e-bike and a 25 km/h e-scooter to justify one being allowed for primary school children and the other being prohibited?

2. Reasonable rules should align with risk.

   • Is it reasonable to treat children on e-bikes as inherently “safe” while treating children on e-scooters as inherently “unsafe”.

   • Are children under 16 years of age safer on an E-Bike than an E-Scooter?

   • Does this comparison change when compared with a 16-year-old who can ride either?

3. Reasonable rules don’t have to move in the most permissive direction.

   • The evidence and commentary around injury patterns and child development do not support relaxing e-scooter age rules. If anything, it justifies keeping, or even strengthening, the current minimums.

   • The more logical direction, if we aim for consistency and child safety, is to tighten e-bike rules – for example, adopting QFCC’s recommendation of 16+ for both e-scooters and e-bikes or a staged/graduated approach.

4. Reasonable rules should be explainable to parents and kids.

   • Right now, a parent might reasonably ask:

     “Why can my 11-year-old ride an e-bike on the same path where they’re banned from using an e-scooter?”

   • If the only honest answer is “because that’s how the categories evolved in the legislation”, we probably haven’t reached a stable, legitimate rule set.