The E-Mobility Debate: What Are the Key Considerations for Queensland's Future

Electric bikes and scooters are becoming a common sight on Queensland’s streets. Their rise sparks strong opinions: some call for outright bans, others for strict licensing, and many agree that current laws do not reflect reality on the ground. The Queensland Government’s ongoing Inquiry into E-Mobility, with findings expected in early 2026, aims to address many of the issues. This post explores some concerns to better understand the conflict around E-Mobility and possible future pathways.

What are the concerns of the Queensland Community?

A review of recent media articles discusses a range of issues on Queenslanders' minds.

• Rider injuries and deaths (especially children)

  • Sunshine Coast University Hospital recorded 176 child and teen e-scooter injuries in 2023–24, with ~10% life-threatening and many involving broken bones.

  • RBWH and state trauma data show thousands of e-mobility injury presentations, including severe head and facial trauma, and multiple deaths in mostly young adults.

  • Child deaths and serious harm in Queensland in 2024 are a specific focus of the Queensland Family and Child Commission.

• Non-compliance with existing rules

  • Qld Police report more than 3,700 infringement notices for PMDs in 2025 alone, over 60% for not wearing helmets.

  • A Gladstone school-zone blitz found that around 80% of devices checked were non-compliant (age limits, helmets, device legality).

  • Police and councils repeatedly highlight speeding, tandem riding, underage riders and riding on prohibited roads as common issues.

• Risk to pedestrians and shared-space conflict

  • Submissions from pedestrian advocates (e.g. Queensland Walks) prioritise pedestrian safety on footpaths and shared paths, as well as obstructive parking and clutter impacting people with disability, prams and older walkers.

  • Councils report complaints about riders “zooming” past pedestrians, especially in town centres and along tourist strips.

• Device standards, illegal high-powered e-bikes and fire risk

  • Bicycle Queensland and others distinguish between legal, low-powered devices and an influx of high-powered or modified e-bikes/e-motorbikes that function like motorbikes but are ridden on paths and without registration.

  • Qld Transport Minister and MPs have flagged lithium-ion battery fire risks and confusion over enforcement powers.

• Amenity, vandalism and “good order”

  • Councils (e.g. Bundaberg) point to unsafe behaviour, helmet vandalism, improper parking and littering with hire scooters, prompting new local rules and enforcement technologies.

  • Community surveys in Merri-bek (VIC) found stronger support for shared e-bikes than e-scooters, with more than 50% of respondents opposed to shared e-scooters and citing concerns about clutter and unsafe behaviour.

• Benefits: mobility, congestion and climate

  • Government and advocacy submissions emphasise that e-mobility provides first/last-mile connectivity, reduces congestion and supports mode shift away from cars.

  • Bicycle Queensland and others highlight that legal e-bikes and e-scooters support commuting, recreation and tourism, and contribute to emissions reduction and health benefits.

  • The Qld Parliamentary Inquiry’s own terms of reference explicitly balance benefits, safety risks, rules, enforcement, importation laws, battery fire risk, and stakeholder views.

Overall, safety (injury and death) is the dominant frame, with compliance/enforcement very close behind.

There are calls to ban these devices. Should we?

The media coverage is certainly enough to cause concern about safety. The communicty should rightly be outraged when young children are being harmed, or worse, as a consequence of these modern inventions. Is a ban necisary and sufficient to resolve the safetey concerns?

If these devices did not exist, it's a reaosnable argument that the injuries and saftey concerns around these devices would also not exist, nor could the benefits of these devices be realised. The media review noted community conversations are the benefits of E-Mobility devices, particularly for last mile connectivity, and low emission transport. Given the devices do exist here in Australia, a ban would be rather challenging to implement and enforce. Targeting specific saftey concerns and behaviours may be helfpul to balance the benefits and concerns.

A pediatric e-scooter study found that many injuries occured when riders were breaching the existing scooter rules, particularly relating to wearing of hemets, not doubling, not exceeding 25km/h on roads or 12km/h on footpaths. These injuries occured regardless of the rules against those berhaviours. Many injuries may have been preventable by following the existing rules and regulations. If the existing rules are not sufficient to reduce saftey conerns, is it reasonable to think additional rules are likely to be sufficient to make signficant change?

What are the existing rules around E-Mobility not working for safety?

The Queensland Government post rules for personal mobility devices (scooters) as well as electric bikes. As the pediatric study discusses non compliant behaviour being evident in many of the presentations relating to presentations to emergency.

Casual observers posting on related social media indicate countless experiences of non compliant behaviours. Psychological research suggests that merely having rules is not enough for reliable compliance. Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behaviour, outlines people voluntarily follow rules when they (1) view compliance positively, (2) believe that people important to them expect compliance, and (3) feel they are able to comply in practice. Tom Tyler’s work on procedural justice shows that compliance is highest when the rules and enforcing authorities are seen as legitimate and fair, so that people feel a moral obligation to obey, not just fear of punishment. Finally, Cialdini’s focus theory of normative conduct demonstrates that norms guide behaviour most strongly when they are relevant in the immediate context, for example through visible cues and role modelling.

With recent momentum in the media toward E-Mobility Safety and Police intervention, we may see the adherance to these rules modified, along with shifts in public opinion and legitimacy. Education and enforcement have been viewed as key criteria to adoption. Are the existing rules seen as fair and reasonable? Are they sufficient to curb the saftey concerns? Do they meet the needs of the community, and will they be seen by riders to be reflective of the attitudes of important others? These are questions deserving of more attention.