E-bikes and e-scooters in the UK: New research challenges safety assumptions
Recent research from Chalmers University of Technology has fundamentally challenged prevailing assumptions about micromobility safety.
The study, analysing crash data from seven European cities, including Cambridge, Kettering, Liverpool and Northampton, found that e-bikes present eight times higher crash risk than e-scooters when measured per distance travelled.
This finding directly contradicts widespread public perception and previous research that consistently identified e-scooters as more dangerous. The study analysed 686 e-scooter crashes against 35 e-bike incidents, with the higher absolute number reflecting greater e-scooter usage rather than inherent danger.
This evidence emerges as cities make critical micromobility decisions. Following Paris's ban on rental e-scooters and English councils opting out of trial renewals, the future of e-scooter rentals looked unfavourable. These regulatory decisions, often driven by safety concerns this research suggests may be misplaced, create an ironic situation where the apparently more dangerous transport mode faces fewer restrictions.
The findings add complexity to ongoing micromobility concerns that prompted the government's Product Safety and Metrology Bill in response to battery fire incidents. However, this crash data suggests policy focus may have been misdirected, with e-bikes potentially warranting greater scrutiny despite receiving less regulatory attention.
What does this mean for insurers?
These findings underscore the importance for insurers to carefully review their policy wordings to ensure coverage aligns with their intentions, particularly regarding whether e-scooters fall under motor vehicle definitions or existing exclusions.
The study's revelation that e-bikes present eight times higher crash risk than e-scooters fundamentally challenges current risk assessments, suggesting insurers may have been systematically under-pricing e-bike exposure whilst potentially overcharging for e-scooter coverage, particularly significant for commercial policies covering delivery operations where e-bike usage has expanded considerably without corresponding risk recognition.
Contents
- Insurance Insights: The Word, September 2025
- What does the new offence under the ECCTA 2023 mean for corporate accountability and insurers?
- Exploring bi-directional charging: The future of EV technology
- Marine insurers face coverage uncertainty as GPS spoofing incidents rise
- The insurance industry’s battle with jargon: The fight continues
- Insurance wordings simplification receives international innovation award
- London shopfront vandalism: Rising criminal damage and insurance implications for retailers
Tim Johnson
Partner
tim.johnson@brownejacobson.com
+44 (0)115 976 6557
Related expertise
You may be interested in
Legal Update
E-bikes and e-scooters in the UK: New research challenges safety assumptions
Legal Update
Marine insurers face coverage uncertainty as GPS spoofing incidents rise
Legal Update - Consumer Duty
The insurance industry’s battle with jargon: The fight continues
Legal Update - Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act
What does the new offence under the ECCTA 2023 mean for corporate accountability and insurers?
Legal Update
London shopfront vandalism: Rising criminal damage and insurance implications for retailers
Legal Update
Exploring bi-directional charging: The future of EV technology
Legal Update
'Silent AI': The risk of unintended consequences for MGAs
Legal Update
Flooded with doubt: Court assesses fraud allegations in Malhotra Leisure
Legal Update
When frozen pipes crack legal certainty: Land Energy Girvan v Aspen Insurance
Legal Update
Another look at the meaning 'property damage': Capral Ltd v Insurance Australia
Legal Update
Questions insurers should be asking about their clients' AI usage
Legal Update
The Arbitration Act 2025: What does it mean for insurers?
Legal Update
Template binder update: Profit commission clauses
Legal Update - The Word
The Word, August 2025
Legal Update - The Word
The Word, July 2025
Legal Update
Weight loss drug safety study: Implications for insurers
Legal Update
The Lloyd’s Market Association’s General Sanctions Financial Crime Documentation Clause
Legal Update - The Word
The Word, June 2025
Opinion
AI: An unknown risk for life insurers
Legal Update
As FOS frustration grows, a judicial review offers hope
Legal Update
Fires caused by lithium-ion batteries on the rise
Opinion
Silent AI threat to insurers: Don’t leave it to chance
Legal Update
Dual insurance: Are your wordings up to scratch?
Legal Update
National inquiry into child grooming: What does this mean for insurers?
Legal Update - The Word
The Word, May 2025
Legal Update
PFAS exclusions: Are your exclusions robust enough?
Legal Update
AI hallucinations cover launched in first wave of new insurance products for AI
Legal Update
Exploring the impact of recent attacks on UK retailers and the future of cyber insurance
Legal Update
How accurate are your IPIDs?
Legal Update
Artificial intelligence: Accountability and opportunities in the insurance sphere
Legal Update
Makin v QBE: A first look at the impact of Scotland Gas v QBE in England and Wales
Legal Update
Is AI regulation making it more difficult for insurers to price risks?
Legal Update
The impact of Martyn’s Law for insurers
Legal Update
The Contracts of Insurance Act 2024 in New Zealand: What will this mean for insurers?
Legal Update
Insurance as a force for good: Protecting domestic violence victims
Legal Update - Consumer Duty
Redefining standards: A spotlight on Which?'s call for fairer insurance definitions
Legal Update - Consumer Duty
Improving outcomes for vulnerable customers: Insights and recommendations from the FCA
Legal Update
Scrapping of no-fault evictions: What it means for Insurers
Legal Update
Lonham Group Ltd v Scotbeef Ltd: Distinguishing representations and warranties
