The Micromobility Safety Debate? Stats, Lies and Videotape…

The conversation around micromobility always sounds decisive: accidents are rising, scooters are dangerous, regulation must tighten. But that logic is flawed. Yes, injuries are increasing, but so is usage - dramatically. In dense cities, millions of rides are happening every month. So the real question isn’t whether accidents are going up, but what the risk per kilometer actually is. And that’s where the story falls apart.

Right now, everything gets grouped together:

• a rider falling alone

• a crash with a car

• a pedestrian collision

• a pothole incident

All labeled as “micromobility accidents.” That’s not insight, that’s noise. Without separating who was involved, where it happened, and why, the data tells us almost nothing about actual risk.

Context is missing, and it changes everything. Take infrastructure. Cities without proper bike lanes force riders into an impossible choice:

• ride on the road with cars

• ride on sidewalks with pedestrians

Both create friction. Both increase risk. So when accidents rise, what are we really seeing? A vehicle problem, or a city design problem?

At the same time, policy is moving faster than understanding. Cities are introducing speed limits, bans, fleet caps, and enforcement measures. Some of it makes sense. Much of it is reactive. Most of it is based on partial data and public pressure, not deep analysis. That leads to blunt decisions instead of smart ones.

The real question we should be asking is not whether micromobility is dangerous, but compared to what. Compared to cars, micromobility might already be safer per kilometer, or it might not. But without consistent, structured data, we’re simply guessing.

Micromobility is here to stay. It solves real problems like congestion, accessibility, and efficient urban movement. The real risk isn’t the vehicles. It’s making big decisions based on small, messy, and misleading data.

Fix the data - and the entire debate changes.