The E-Mobility Bill - Are We Solving the Right Problem?

Adrian Francis

Apr 10

4 min read

There’s a new e-mobility bill on the table in Queensland, and like most things in public policy, it’s trying to solve a real problem.

But here’s the question I keep coming back to:

Are we fixing safety… or just changing the rules?

Because those two things aren’t always the same.

The Real Issue: It’s Not Just the Rules. It’s Compliance

If we’re being honest, the current rules haven’t exactly delivered the safety outcomes we hoped for.

Not because they’re completely wrong, but because people aren’t following them.

Good policy isn’t just about what’s written — it’s about what people will actually do.

Licensing and Age Limits: Harsh… but Logical?

One of the headline changes is around age limits and licensing.

At first glance, it feels restrictive. It will impact people.

But then you look around and ask:

Who’s riding dangerously?
Who’s ignoring helmets, traffic lights, and basic road rules?

Anecdotally, a lot of that behaviour seems to come from users who would not meet the licence and age requirements.

So there’s a strong argument here:

If these are effectively entry-level vehicles, should we expect a basic level of training and accountability?

A licence:

means you’ve learned the road rules
allows penalties to be attached and enforced more effectively
sets a clear definition that these devices require a level of responsibility

It’s not hard to see how that could improve safety outcomes.

But there’s also a bigger philosophical question worth asking:

If we were designing this system from scratch today, knowing what we now know… where would we draw the lines?

Between:

a push bike
an e-bike
a e-scooter
a small engine moped

It’s not as simple as it used to be.

Speed Limits on Footpaths: One Rule for Every Path?

Now we get to the more controversial part: speed limits on footpaths and shared paths.

The proposed default? 10 km/h

On paper, it makes sense:

protect vulnerable pedestrians
slow things down where people mix

But here’s where things get interesting.

Are all pathways the same?

Let me give you two examples from Caloundra, about 1.5km apart.

The main street: busy, built-up, shops everywhere, pedestrians everywhere
An empty path alongside a busy road: wide, open, low traffic, next to a 100 km/h road

These are not the same environment.

So should they have the same rule?

What’s Safer: Slower… or Smarter?

In a dense area like the main street:

slower speeds (or even no riding) make perfect sense

But on a wide, open shared path with:

minimal or no pedestrians
no safe road alternative

Is forcing riders to 10 km/h actually safe?

Or are we:

pushing them onto dangerous roads
or creating more rules for people to ignore?

Safety isn’t just about speed — it’s about context.

A Different Way to Think About It

What if instead of a blanket rule, we flipped the approach?

Instead of:

“Everything is 10 km/h unless changed by local authorities”

What if we had:

“Normal operation limit applies, and high-risk areas are specifically signed with speed limits”

Maybe with a carve out for:

driveways
shopfronts
busy pedestrian zones

These are the real risk points, where people appear suddenly, and reaction time matters most.

Target those.

Leave the rest to common sense.

And What About Councils?

The Bill allows speed limits to be adjusted by signage, which sounds flexible.

But in reality, that means:

councils need funding
councils take on liability
councils face political pressure

And suddenly, a “flexible system” becomes:

A heavy burden shifted from the State to Local Government

Will councils realistically:

Review every path?
Install signage everywhere?
Take on the legal risk of increasing limits?

It’s a big ask.

Where’s the Data?

The Bill leans heavily on protecting vulnerable pedestrians, which is absolutely important.

But the data tells an interesting story:

Most injuries are to riders, not pedestrians
Evidence specific to pedestrian harm is less clear

So we have to ask:

Are we solving the biggest risk… or the easy one?

And if:

Licensing improves behaviour
Illegal devices are removed

Then:

How big is the remaining pedestrian risk, and do we need a blanket rule to address it?

Behaviour vs Speed

There’s another key point that often gets overlooked:

We already have laws against dangerous behaviour.

riding dangerously
failing to give way
unsafe operation

These don’t depend on speed limits, they depend on behaviour.

So the real question becomes:

Is the issue speed… or behaviour?

Because if it’s behaviour, then:

education
enforcement
and accountability

might be more effective than simply legislating speed limits.

The Bigger Picture: What Actually Improves Safety?

The Bill is trying to do something important:

improve safety
increase compliance
reduce harm

All good goals.

But to achieve that, the rules need to be:

logical
proportionate
grounded in real-world use

Because here’s the reality:

If a rule doesn’t make sense to a reasonable person,it’s unlikely to be followed by a reasonable person.

And when that happens:

enforcement drops
compliance drops
safety outcomes suffer

Isn't that where we are today?

So What’s the Answer?

The Bill is close . . . very close . . . to something that works.

A few refinements could make a big difference:

Target high-risk environments, not all environments
Focus on behaviour and compliance, not just speed
Support local decision-making, without overloading councils
Ensure infrastructure supports the outcomes we’re trying to create

If Councils are in control, they can invest where it makes the most sense, and the rules are aligned with safety, not just for the sake of making rules.

Final Thought

E-mobility isn’t going away.

So the goal should be to integrate it safely into how we move around our communities.

That means asking better questions:

Where is it actually dangerous?
What behaviour causes harm?
What will people realistically comply with?

Because in the end:

Good laws work because they make sense.