Opinion: Why ACT Laws haven’t kept pace with E-Scooters and E-Bikes

By MEJ Partner James Treloar

Electric mobility is here to stay. In Canberra, as in other major Australian centres, e-scooters and e-bikes have quickly shifted from novelty to everyday transport. They offer genuine benefits – convenience, affordability, reduced congestion, and a lower environmental footprint. For many people, particularly younger riders and those commuting short distances, they are a practical and cost-effective alternative to cars. But alongside those benefits sits an increasingly visible and troubling reality: when things go wrong, they can go very wrong – and the legal framework has not kept pace.

A recent incident reported in Sydney starkly illustrates the problem. A young woman suffered severe facial injuries after being struck by a high-powered e-bike ridden by children. The injuries required extensive dental surgery and left her facing tens of thousands of dollars in medical expenses, with no clear pathway to compensation. The rider was uninsured, the device unregistered, and there was no mechanism – such as the “nominal defendant” scheme that applies to motor vehicles—to step in and provide compensation.  That situation is not unique to New South Wales. The same structural gap exists here in the ACT. 

The Canberra context

Canberra has embraced e-mobility. Shared e-scooter schemes operate throughout the city, and privately owned e-bikes and scooters are now a common sight on shared paths, footpaths, and roads. The Territory’s infrastructure – wide paths, open spaces, and a strong cycling culture – makes it particularly suited to these devices.

However, those same features also create risk. Canberra’s shared paths are used by a wide mix of pedestrians: families with young children, older residents, runners, dog walkers, and cyclists. Increasingly, they are also shared with devices capable of travelling at significant speed, often with limited regulation and inconsistent enforcement.  The issue is not simply that accidents occur. It is that when they do, the consequences can be severe and the injured person may have no meaningful avenue for compensation.

The legal gap

 In the ACT, compulsory third-party (CTP) insurance applies to motor vehicle accidents in the majority of situations. If a pedestrian is injured by a car – insured or uninsured – there is a pathway to compensation, including through the nominal defendant scheme.

Electric scooters and most e-bikes fall outside that regime.   They are generally:

• not registrable;
• not subject to compulsory third-party insurance; and
• often operated by individuals who have no capacity to meet a substantial damages claim.

The result is a clear and concerning gap. An innocent pedestrian struck by a car has access to compensation. An innocent pedestrian struck by a high-speed e-bike or scooter may have none.  From a legal and policy perspective, that is difficult to justify.

The human consequences

In practice, the consequences of that gap are stark.  Where a rider is a minor – as is often the case – the prospect of recovering damages is limited. Even where liability can be established, there may be no insurance and no assets against which to enforce a judgment.  Where liability is unclear – for example, due to lack of CCTV or witnesses – the position becomes even more difficult.

 The result is that injured individuals may be left to fund:

• emergency treatment;
• ongoing medical care;
• rehabilitation;
• time off work; and
• long-term consequences such as permanent impairment or disfigurement.

That is not a theoretical concern. It is already occurring. 

Balancing benefit and risk

It is important to be clear: electric mobility devices are not the problem in themselves.  They provide real social and economic value. They reduce reliance on cars, ease congestion, and expand access to transport. For many Canberrans, they are a practical and environmentally responsible choice.  The objective should not be to restrict their use unnecessarily.  However, with that benefit must come a proportionate framework of responsibility and protection.

At present, that balance has not been struck.

The need for reform

There is a growing and credible call for reform in this area, particularly in relation to insurance.  A number of potential approaches could be considered:

1. Compulsory third-party insurance for certain devices
   Introducing a requirement for insurance – particularly for higher-powered e-bikes and privately owned scooters – would align responsibility with risk.
2. Extension of nominal defendant schemes
   Expanding existing frameworks so that injured pedestrians are not left without recourse, even where the rider is unidentified or uninsured.
3. Clear categorisation of devices
   Differentiating between low-speed, low-risk devices and higher-powered devices capable of causing significant harm, with regulation scaled accordingly.
4. Education and enforcement
   Ensuring riders – particularly younger users – understand road rules, shared path etiquette, and the risks associated with speed and inexperience.
5. Targeted infrastructure measures
   Including designated dismount zones and clearer separation between pedestrian and higher-speed traffic where appropriate.

These are not radical proposals. They reflect the same principles that underpin existing motor vehicle regulation: if a mode of transport carries a risk of causing harm, there should be a mechanism to protect those who are injured.

A question of fairness

At its core, this is a question of fairness.  If a person is injured through no fault of their own, there should be a reasonable pathway to compensation. That principle is well-established in Australian law and is reflected across multiple statutory schemes.

The current treatment of e-mobility incidents sits uneasily with that principle.  It creates a situation where two individuals, injured in otherwise comparable circumstances, are treated entirely differently depending on the type of device involved.

That inconsistency is difficult to defend. 

Looking ahead

Electric mobility will continue to grow. The trajectory is clear, and the benefits are substantial. Canberra, with its infrastructure and lifestyle, is likely to remain at the forefront of that shift.  The question is not whether these devices should be part of our transport landscape – they already are.

 The question is whether our legal and insurance frameworks will evolve quickly enough to ensure that, when accidents occur, the consequences are not borne solely by those least able to absorb them.

There is an opportunity here for thoughtful, balanced reform – one that supports innovation and sustainability while ensuring basic protections are in place.  Until that happens, there remains a real and ongoing risk that innocent people, injured in entirely preventable circumstances, will be left without the support they reasonably expect.

That is a gap worth closing.