When was the last time you heard of a parliamentary inquiry into the road rules for cars in Australia? They’re not common.
But it’s a different story when it comes to e-bikes and e-scooters. These devices have become very popular, very quickly. But their rapid uptake has challenged regulators over where they should be ridden, who should be allowed to use them and how fast they can travel.
While the two devices serve similar purposes, they have often been treated differently under Australian road rules.
Authorities in Queensland and NSW have seized hundreds of non-compliant ebikes including devices with motors exceeding legal power limits or modified to travel at speeds beyond those permitted under e-bike regulations. Rising injury rates have fuelled public backlash. At times, this has prompted crackdowns or bans, such as the City of Melbourne’s 2024 decision to ban rental e-scooters, while continuing to allow rental e-bikes.
To find out what Australians actually think about e-bikes and e-scooters, we surveyed more than 2,000 people. As our new research shows, they gave some surprising answers.
How do we make good regulations?
When it comes to cars, there are internationally accepted regulatory standards supported by the World Health Organization. These draw on decades of research into how to make driving safer.
But we don’t have similarly well-established standards for e-bikes and e-scooters, because there’s not yet a large enough body of evidence to draw on.
As a result, public opinion carries considerable weight. A public vote in Paris in 2023 led to a ban on shared rental e-scooters.
Hundreds of people have made submissions to these inquiries, acting as a form of public opinion. But because it takes time and effort to put together a submission, it’s likely people with strong views are overrepresented.
The risk here is that policymakers may channel what they think the public wants – while actual public opinion may be more nuanced.
In 2024, the City of Melbourne banned e-scooter rental schemes. But rental e-bikes are still allowed.William West/AFP via Getty
What does the public actually want?
To find out what Australians actually think about e-bikes and e-scooters, we surveyed 2,052 Australians. We wanted to know how they felt about these devices and which regulations they support.
We also wanted to know whether their attitudes differed between the two devices, and how easily those attitudes could be influenced.
We divided respondents into four equal groups. One group answered questions about e-bikes and another answered identical questions about e-scooters.
These responses showed Australians don’t view e-bikes and e-scooters all that differently. Neither had a clear advantage in public acceptance.
We showed respondents a series of fictional images depicting potentially annoying or unsafe situations, such as an e-bike or e-scooter obstructing a wheelchair user. Neither device consistently generated greater negative feelings.
We asked what level of regulation people would back for e-bikes and e-scooters, using a scale from 0 (strongly oppose) to 10 (strongly support).
The two devices received very similar ratings.
Support for outright bans was quite weak, averaging 5.0 out of ten for e-bikes and 4.8 for e-scooters. Banning them from public transport also attracted relatively weak support.
What Australians did favour was targeted regulations. Heavy fines for improper or illegal use received the strongest support, averaging 7.9 for e-bikes and 7.8 for e-scooters. Restrictions on riders under 16 followed closely, at 7.6 and 7.5.
For the other half of our respondents, we repeated the survey – with one important difference. Before answering, respondents were exposed to ten negative news headlines about the device they were being asked to evaluate.
These covered reports on issues such as rider injuries or deaths, pedestrian collisions, footpath obstruction, rule-breaking or battery fires.
Exposure to negative headlines was associated with a fall in favourable attitudes towards both devices. But the effect was significantly stronger for e-scooters.
The best way to regulate e-bikes and e-scooters isn’t yet clear.Steve Waters/Getty
Why does this matter?
Around Australia, stricter rules often apply to e-scooters rather than e-bikes.
In NSW, compliant e-bikes are permitted on public roads and paths, while privately owned e-scooters are not.
In Victoria, e-scooter riders must be at least 16, but there is no equivalent minimum age for compliant e-bikes.
We don’t know why these differences exist. One reason might be because e-bikes resemble bicycles, a well-established transport form with their own advocacy groups.
But as our research shows, Australians don’t distinguish much between the two devices when it comes to public acceptance or regulations.
New evidence from the United States and Europe also suggests both devices have very similar safety risks.
We will need a bigger evidence base before we can authoritatively say what good regulations look like for e-bikes, e-scooters and other types of e-mobility. But this overseas evidence suggests a case for removing some distinctions between e-bikes and e-scooters in Australian laws.
Which way forward?
Ultimately, the best foundation for e-mobility regulation is empirical evidence, not public opinion.
After all, authorities didn’t set the legal blood alcohol limits for drivers by asking people their views. These limits are informed by decades of research.
It will take time to build the same body of evidence for e-bikes and e-scooters. While we wait, public opinion can help inform the decisions policymakers make.
What our survey shows is that public opinion is often more nuanced than some recent regulatory responses, such as outright bans. If we’re going to rely on public opinion, it’s important we capture what the broader public actually think.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
President has taken an axe to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, stalling climate research on and response to extreme weather events
Sweeping cuts to the premier US climate agency under Donald Trump have severely hampered the country’s capacity to forecast, research and respond to extreme weather events, former government officials and scientists have warned, as the US faces a cascade of hazards fueled by a potentially historic El Niño this winter.
From the start of his second term, the president has taken aim at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa), slashing staff levels, canceling contracts and grants, and shutting down databases and research laboratories. The agency that has long been considered a global crown jewel in climate science and forecasting has lost roughly 20% of its staff since January 2025.
Emissions from exported oil would not count against carbon budget, insiders say – reasoning likely to draw dismay from climate campaigners
The giant Rosebank oilfield can be approved without breaching the UK’s emission targets, according to government insiders, in a boost to those in the cabinet who are pushing for it to be given the go-ahead.
Protesters gather outside Parliament House in Brisbane to oppose the fracking of the Lake Eyre Basin. Malcolm Paterson
Before the High Court handed down its recent controversial decision on the proposed expansion of a New South Wales coal mine, many environmentalists were bracing for a loss. Time and again, courts have given coal and gas projects the green light over environmental concerns.
But not this time. With a split three-two judgement, the court ruled the approval for the Mount Pleasant mine expansion invalid, declaring that NSW planning authorities failed to properly consider the overseas emissions the project would generate.
The win capped a four-year campaign by a community group from NSW’s Upper Hunter region. However, the decision goes beyond this one mine, directly affecting the 17 other coal proposals in the NSW planning pipeline.
But it was not all good news. Critics argue the NSW government is trying to bypass the court ruling by pledging to change the law to allow the mining company to keep producing coal at its expanded rate of 16.5 million tonnes a year until 2032.
This begs the question: was this outcome a win or not?
Partial wins are the norm
It’s tempting to see environmental campaigns as wins or losses: either a mine is stopped or it isn’t, a law is passed or it isn’t.
Our latest research suggests most campaigns end up somewhere in between.
Our new study is the first to measure what an entire environmental movement achieves. We screened more than 3,700 environmental groups to build a database of 2,139 named campaigns, dating back to the 1960s.
For each campaign, we recorded the goal, the target and when it began and ended. We then checked published evidence, such as government decisions and news reports, to see whether each goal was fully achieved, partly achieved or not achieved at all.
Partial success was the most common outcome. Almost two thirds (62.5%) of the campaigns made at least some progress towards their goal. Only one in five fully achieved it.
However, the campaign to end native forest logging in Victoria shows these partial wins can add up. Beginning with anti-woodchipping activism in the early 1990s, campaigners won protections one forest at a time, from the rugged Wongungarra Valley to the rainforests of the Otways.
In 2023, the government announced native timber harvesting in state forests would end the following year, citing ongoing “litigation processes and increasingly severe bushfires” as the main reasons for its decision.
No single win ended native logging. Thirty years of partial gains eventually did.
Several people hold signs critiquing the climate costs of fossil fuel projects.Malcolm Paterson
Campaigns come in every shape and size. Some aim for a single, concrete decision, like the demand to ban dumping dredge spoil – organic matter removed during dredging, including sand, soil and debris – in the Great Barrier Reef.
Our research suggests there are two key factors that influence if a campaign achieves its main goal.
Clear and specific goals
Campaigns against mines and fossil fuel projects usually name a specific goal, such as ending fracking in Queensland’s Lake Eyre basin, so their outcomes are easy to measure. We could measure the success of 93% of the mining campaigns studied.
In contrast, sustainability campaigns often set broad goals, such as helping residents save energy. But a win that can’t be clearly measured is much harder to celebrate.
Examples of clear, specific goals for a conservation campaign are the protection of a specific forest or the declaration of a new national park.
Among the campaigns we could verify, 78% of conservation campaigns achieved at least some success, compared with 66% of climate campaigns. This was largely because climate campaigns more often pursue systemic goals, such as cutting national emissions by 75% before 2030. Such sweeping goals are difficult to achieve, with only 17% of verifiable climate campaigns achieving their goal in full.
Campaigns aimed at banks were the most successful of those we studied, with 28 of 30 achieving some success.
For example, NAB stopped lending to Whitehaven Coal after campaigners put pressure on the bank by dropping into local NAB branches, sending emails and making phone calls.
Campaigns targeting superannuation funds, such as the pressure on HESTA to divest from fossil fuels, did nearly as well, with 16 of 19 achieving some success.
Campaigns aimed at politicians fared worse. Only 39% achieved their goal in part or in full, compared with 56% of campaigns aimed at government bodies such as departments, agencies or councils.
The world faces a triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution. Environmental campaigns offer communities a way to come together and demand change.
But such change requires more of us to get involved. Research shows people are more likely to act when they believe action works. That’s why it’s crucial to celebrate every win, no matter how small or incremental.
The Mount Pleasant decision reminds us what a well-designed environmental campaign looks like: a clear goal, a specific decision to challenge and a community willing to stay the course. No single campaign will solve the planetary crisis. But win by win, even partial ones, environmental campaigners are proving change is possible.
Two women advocate for environmental action.Malcolm Paterson
Robyn Gulliver has consulted to Greenpeace Australia Pacific, Climate Action Network Australia and the Great Barrier Reef Foundation. She has received funding from the Climate Social Science Network. She is affiliated with The Commons Social Change Library, Comms Declare, Communities for Climate Compensation, Influence Tracker, Research Advocacy Network and Climate Club Queensland.
Tracy Schultz does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
