









































October 2020 Volume  5 Issue 1

ELECTRIC SCOOTERS (E-SCOOTERS):
ASSESSING THE THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY 

Amber R. Comer PhD, JD1,2,4, Nate Apathy PhD3, Carly Waite1, Zoe Bestmann JD Candidate4, Jacob 
Bradshaw JD Candidate4, Emily Burchfield JD Candidate4, Brittany Harmon JD Candidate4, 

Rebekah Legg JD Candidate4, Star Meyer JD Candidate4, Patrick O’Brien JD Candidate4, Micha 
Sabec JD Candidate4, Jami Sayeed JD Candidate4, Alexis Weaver JD Candidate4, Lynn D’Cruz PT1, 
Stephanie Bartlett PT1, McKenzi Marchand1, Isabel Zepeda1, Katelyn Endri1, John T. Finnell MD2,5, 

Shaun Grannis MD, MS2,5, Ross D. Silverman JD3,4, Peter J. Embi MD, MS2,5

1

1. Indiana University School of Health and Human Sciences
2. Regenstrief Institute 
3. Indiana University Fairbanks School of Public Health 
4. Indiana University McKinney School of Law 
5. Indiana University School of Medicine 

Abstract

Objective: To determine self-reported incidences of health and safety hazards among persons 
who ride rentable electric scooters (e-scooters), knowledge of e-scooter laws, and attitudes and 
perceptions of the health and safety of e-scooter usage. 

Methods: A cross-sectional survey of n= 561 e-scooter riders and non-riders was conducted during 
June of 2019. 

Results: Almost half of respondents (44%) report that e-scooters pose a threat to the health and 
safety of riders. Riders and non-riders disagree regarding the hazards that e-scooters pose to 
pedestrians. Among riders, 15% report crashing or falling off an e-scooter. Only 2.5% of e-scooter 
riders self-report that they always wear a helmet while riding. 

Conclusions: E-scooter riders report substantial rates of harmful behavior and injuries. Knowledge 
of e-scooter laws is limited, and e-scooters introduce threats to the health and safety of riders, 
pedestrians on sidewalks, and automobile drivers. Enhanced public health interventions are needed 
to educate about potential health risks and laws associated with e-scooter use and to ensure health 
in all policies. Additionally, greater consideration should be given to public health, safety, and injury 
prevention when passing relevant state and local e-scooter laws. 



Electric Scooters Comer et al.

2

Background
Seemingly overnight, rentable electric 
motorized scooters (e-scooters) appeared in 
cities around the country. In addition to creating 
a new form of transportation, they introduce 
new public health and safety concerns and the 
need for new laws and regulations (Choron & 
Sakran, 2019). Currently, more than 50 cities 
in the United States allow the use of e-scooters 
(Bird, n.d.a; Lime, n.d.). Although some cities 
considered banning e-scooters, those that have 
approved their use since September of 2017, 
have passed regulations banning e-scooters 
from sidewalks, setting parameters for the times 
that e-scooters may be used, and extending 
“operating while intoxicated” laws to include 
e-scooters (Hawkins, 2019b; Hawkins, 2019c; 
May & Hill, 2018; May, 2019; Renki, 2019; Sikka 
et al., 2019). The goals of e-scooter regulations 
are to protect the health and safety of e-scooter 
riders as well as non-riders, such as pedestrians 
and drivers. However, questions arise as to 
whether these initial regulatory attempts 
substantively respond to the novel morbidity 
and mortality risks associated with e-scooter 
proliferation and use. 
 
In Portland, Oregon, a pilot of rentable 
e-scooters resulted in 176 e-scooter accidents 
resulting in emergency department (ED) visits 
during the six-month trial period (Portland 
Bureau of Transportation, 2019). Additionally, 
in Portland, the bureau of transportation 
reported a high number of complaints related 
to e-scooter riding on sidewalks with 3% of all 
injuries during the pilot program deriving from 
collisions with pedestrians (Portland Bureau of 
Transportation, 2019). A study in Los Angeles, 
California reported 249 ED visits related to 
e-scooter use during a one-year period, and Salt 
Lake City, Utah reported 50 e-scooter-related 
injuries over a 5-month period in 2018 (Badeau 
et al., 2019; Trivedi et al., 2019). Individuals 
renting e-scooters from at least one prominent 

e-scooter vendor (Bird) may self-report 
accidents through their proprietary mobile 
application. A safety report issued by Bird found 
that their users’ self-reported accidents via 
their app at a rate of one injury per 27,000 miles 
ridden on their e-scooters (Bird, 2019). The 
most comprehensive examination of e-scooter 
injuries undertaken to date was conducted by 
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
(CDC) in collaboration with the Austin, Texas 
Public Health Department (Austin Public Health, 
2019). Examining both Emergency Services 
(EMS) and ED visits over a three-month period 
in 2018, this study reported a total of 192 injuries 
resulting in a clinical visit. Of those injured, two 
people were non-riders injured by an e-scooter, 
and nearly half of those injured sustained a head 
injury (Hawkins, 2019a). Similar to the CDC 
study, a recent study published in the Journal 
of American Medical Association (JAMA) found 
that head injuries were sustained by 40% of 
those injured in an e-scooter accident (Trivedi 
et al., 2019). In addition to reports of injuries, a 
survey conducted in San Antonio, Texas found 
that respondents had concerns about e-scooter 
safety (City of San Antonio, 2019). 

Although there have been several studies 
reporting injuries related to e-scooter use, and 
one white paper produced by the city of San 
Antonio exploring attitudes of citizens toward 
scooters, there have been no studies published 
assessing the public’s knowledge, attitudes and 
perceptions of the health and safety of e-scooter 
use. In order to ensure health in all policies 
and pass meaningful policies and regulations 
which support public health and safety, it is 
important to identify the public’s perception 
of e-scooter health and safety risks, as well as 
their knowledge of existing e-scooter laws. This 
study is the first to report e-scooter rider self-
reported incidents of health and safety hazards 
associated with e-scooter use, knowledge 
of e-scooter laws, and the public’s attitudes 



Electric Scooters Comer et al.

3

and perceptions of health and safety issues 
associated with e-scooter usage. The results of 
this study will help inform health in all policies. 
 
Methods
A cross-sectional survey of both e-scooter riders 
and non-riders was conducted in Indianapolis, 
Indiana during June 2019 to determine attitudes 
and perceptions of the health and safety of 
scooter usage among both e-scooter riders and 
non-riders.

Survey Design
The survey was designed from a review of 
the available literature and was reviewed for 
both content and face validity. Feedback was 
obtained from community members regarding 
question clarity, word choice, missing items, 
and overall length. The survey was pretested 
for content validity with possible survey 
participants. The survey was designed to 
measure: 1) self-reported incidences of health 
and safety hazards associated with e-scooter 
usage; 2) knowledge of local e-scooter laws; and 
3) the attitudes and perceptions of the health 
and safety issues related to e-scooter usage. 
The survey prompted participants to self-
report information using the responses of yes, 
no, or unsure. The Indiana University-Purdue 
University Indianapolis (IUPUI) Institutional 
Review Board Approved this survey.

Survey Sample
Participants located in the downtown area of 
Indianapolis, Indiana, who were 18 years of 
age or older and able to read and write English 
were included in this study. Participants under 
18 years of age were excluded because they 
are prohibited from renting e-scooters due to 
minimum age requirements.  

Survey Administration
Individuals located in downtown Indianapolis, 
Indiana during the week of June 10 – 17th 

2019, were asked to participate in this survey. 
The downtown area with heavy foot traffic 
was selected for survey distribution because 
e-scooters are primarily available in this 
location of the city. Potential participants were 
a convenience sample who were approached by 
research assistants and asked if they would like 
to participate in the survey. Study participants 
were not offered an incentive for participation. 
Completed surveys were entered and stored in 
REDCap electronic data capture (Harris et al., 
2009). 

Statistical Analysis 
Descriptive statistical analysis was performed 
to determine participant self-reported use 
of scooters, scooter safety, knowledge of 
laws pertaining to e-scooter use in the city, 
and attitudes and perceptions of the health 
and safety of scooter use. Chi-squares were 
performed to determine differences between 
persons who identified that they have ever 
ridden an e-scooter (riders) and persons 
who identified that they have never ridden 
an e-scooter (non-riders). All analyses were 
performed using R statistical software and the 
RStudio development environment (R Core 
Team, 2014; RStudio, 2015). 

Results
In total, 561 individuals were asked to participate 
in the survey, 329 of those approached agreed 
to participate, and 232 declined participation 
(59% response rate). Survey participants 
represented roughly equal numbers of males 
(n=163, 49%) and females (n=161, 50%) (Table 
1). The mean age of survey respondents was 32 
years of age (C.I. 13.6). The majority of survey 
takers were white (n=228, 70%), and 21% 
(n=68) of survey respondents were current 
college students. The proportion of scooter 
riders versus non-riders was equal, with 50% 
of participants (n=162) self-reporting that they 
have ridden a scooter (scooter riders). Among 



Electric Scooters Comer et al.

4

scooter riders, 34% (n= 54) reported only 
using an e-scooter once, 15% (n=23) reported 
using an e-scooter once per year, 30% (n=49) 
reported using an e-scooter once per month, 
17% (n=27) reported using an e-scooter once 

All Survey Takers
n=329
n (%)

Scooter Riders
n=163
n (%)

Non-Scooter Riders
n=164
n (%)

p-value

Age, years (mean, sd) 32.1 (13.6) 27.9 (10.5) 36.1 (15.1) < 0.001

Gender

   Male 163 (48.9) 91 (55.8) 72 (43.9) 

   Female 161 (49.5) 68 (41.7) 91 (55.5) 

   Prefer not to answer 5 (1.5) 4 (2.5) 1 (0.6)

Race 0.313

   White 228 (69.5) 99 (63.9) 122 (74.8)

   Black 42 (12.8) 22 (14.2) 20 (12.3)

   Other 48 (14.6) 30 (18.4) 18 (11.0)

   Prefer not to answer 10 (3.0) 7 (4.3) 3 (1.8)

College Student 68 (20.9) 44 (27.3) 24 (14.7) 0.008

   Undergraduate* 31 (45.6) 21 (47.7) 10 (41.7) 0.745

   Graduate* 37 (54.4) 23 (52.3) 14 (58.3)

College Faculty or Staff 32 (9.9) 14 (8.8) 18 (11.1) 0.602

Ever used a motorized 
scooter

163 (49.8) --- ---

Frequency of scooter use

   Has only used once --- 54 (33.5) ---

   Once per year --- 23 (14.8) ---

   Once per month --- 49 (30.4) ---

   Once per week --- 27 (16.8) ---

   Once per day --- 5 (3.1) ---

   More than once per day --- 3 (1.9) ---

per week, 3% (n=5) reported using an e-scooter 
once per day, and 2% (n=3) reported using an 
e-scooter more than once per day. E-scooter 
riders are younger on average (p<0.001) and 
more likely to be college students (p=0.008) 

Table 1. Demographics

*Percentages are of IUPUI student respondents



Electric Scooters Comer et al.

5

Table 2. Self-reported Scooter Safety

than non-riders. 
Among e-scooter riders, 15% (n=24) self-report 
that they have fallen off or crashed a scooter 
(Table 2). Of those participants who had fallen 
off or crashed a scooter, 46% (n=11) report 
having sustained an injury from the crash, and 
36% (n=4) of those who sustained an injury 
report having sought medical treatment for the 
injury. Only 2.5% (n=4) of scooter riders self-
report that they sometimes or always wear a 
helmet while riding a scooter, although 38% 
(n=62) report that they would wear a helmet if 
it was provided at no cost, and only 19% (n=31) 
reporting that they knew helmets could be 
acquired for free through scooter companies. 

Additionally, while rentable e-scooters are 
intended for use by individual riders, 30% 
(n=47) of scooter riders report that they have 
ridden with another person on the same scooter, 
and 65% (n=211) of all survey respondents 
(both scooter riders and non-riders) report 
having seen multiple people riding on the same 
scooter. On issues related to public safety, 
28% (n=90) of all respondents report seeing 
an unattended scooter parked on a handicap 
ramp and 72% (n=235) report seeing a scooter 
parked in a way that obstructs pedestrians 
or traffic. Almost half of all respondents 
(43%, n=140) reported having seen someone 
appearing to be intoxicated riding an e-scooter.

n (%)

Fallen off or crashed motorized scooter* 24 (14.8)

       Sustained injury from motorized scooter crash** 11 (45.8)

Sought medical treatment for injury (of those injured)** 4 (36.4)

Always or sometimes wears helmet while riding motorized scooter* 4 (2.5)

Would wear helmet if provided at no cost* 62 (38.3)

Knows that helmets are provided for free* 31 (19.3)

Ridden scooter with someone else* 47 (29.7)

Seen multiple people riding one scooter+ 211 (64.7)

Seen scooter parked on handicap ramp+ 90 (27.5)

Seen scooter parked in a way that obstructs pedestrians or traffic+ 235 (72.1)

Seen someone riding scooter while intoxicated+ 140 (43.1)

*Of self-reported scooter users
**Of self-reported scooter users who also reported a crash or fall
+Of all respondents



Electric Scooters Comer et al.

6

Among all survey respondents, 38% (n=121) did 
not know or were unsure if it was illegal to ride 
an e-scooter while intoxicated (35% of riders, 
n=56 and 40% of non-riders, n=65) (Table 3). 

All Survey Takers
n (%)

Scooter Riders
n (%)

Non-Scooter Riders
n (%)

p-value

Illegal to ride scooter while 
intoxicated

0.404

   Yes 205 (62.9) 106 (65.4) 97 (59.9)

   Unsure 97 (29.8) 43 (26.5) 54 (33.3)

   No 24 (7.4) 13 (8.0) 11 (6.8)

Illegal to ride scooter on 
the sidewalk

< 0.001

   Yes 153 (47.4) 93 (57.8) 60 (37.5)

   Unsure 108 (33.4) 36 (22.4) 70 (43.8)

   No 62 (19.2) 32 (19.9) 30 (18.8)

Illegal to ride scooter in the 
street

0.003

   Yes 34 (10.5) 15 (9.3) 19 (11.9)

   Unsure 100 (31.0) 37 (22.8) 61 (38.4)

   No 189 (58.5) 110 (67.9) 79 (49.7)

Table 3. Motorized Scooters and the Law

Less than half of respondents knew that it was 
illegal under local law to ride an e-scooter on the 
sidewalk (42% of riders and 63% of non- riders). 
Additionally, 42% of all respondents did not 
know or were unsure whether it was legal to ride 
an e-scooter in the street (32% of riders and 
51% of non-riders).

More than half of respondents either agreed 
(44%, n=142) or were unsure (14%, n=46) 
whether motorized scooters pose a threat to the 
health and safety of the people who ride them 
(Table 4). There was no statistical difference 

between scooter riders and non-scooter riders 
(p=.052). More than half (60%, n=194) of all 
participants report that e-scooters pose a threat 
to the health and safety of people walking on 
the sidewalk, with non-scooter riders being 

statistically more likely to report e-scooters as a 
threat on sidewalks (p<0.001). Forty-six percent 
(n=150) of all participants report that e-scooters 
pose a threat to the health and safety of people 
who are driving in their cars. Forty-eight percent 
(n=158) of participants believe that more people 
should use scooters to get around the nearby 
college campus or the city of Indianapolis, with 
scooter riders being statistically more likely 
to agree with the statement that more people 
should use scooters (p<0.001). The majority 
of participants (68%, n=220) do not think that 
e-scooter use should be banned from the city or 



Electric Scooters Comer et al.

7

All Survey 
Takers
n (%)

Scooter 
Riders
n (%)

Non-Scooter 
Riders
n (%)

p-value

Motorized scooters pose a threat to the health 
and safety of the people who ride them 

   Yes 142 (43.7) 61 (38.1) 81 (49.7)

   No 137 (42.2) 78 (48.8) 58 (35.6)

   Unsure 46 (14.2) 21 (13.1) 24 (14.7)

Motorized scooters pose a threat to the health 
and safety of people walking on the sidewalk 

< 0.001

   Yes 194 (59.7) 75 (46.6) 118 (72.4)

   No 99 (30.5) 64 (39.8) 35 (21.5)

   Unsure 32 (9.8) 22 (13.7) 10 (6.1)

Motorized scooters pose a threat to the health 
and safety of people who are driving in their 
cars

0.011

   Yes 150 (46.2) 62 (38.5) 87 (53.4)

   No 150 (46.2) 88 (54.7) 62 (38.0)

   Unsure 25 (7.7) 11 (6.8) 14 (8.6)

Motorized scooters make you look hip or cool 0.076

   Yes 65 (20.0) 40 (24.8) 25 (15.4)

   No 202 (62.2) 91 (56.5) 109 (67.3)

   Unsure 58 (17.8) 30 (18.6) 28 (17.3)

More people should use motorized scooters 
to get around IUPUI campus or the City of 
Indianapolis 

< 0.001

   Yes 158 (48.3) 102 (63.0) 55 (33.7)

   No 90 (27.5) 23 (14.2) 67 (41.1)

   Unsure 79 (24.2) 37 (22.8) 41 (25.2)

Motorized scooters should be banned from the 
IUPUI Campus or from the City of Indianapolis < 0.001

   Yes 54 (16.6) 17 (10.5) 37 (22.8)

   No 220 (67.5) 130 (80.2) 88 (54.3)

   Unsure 52 (16.0) 15 (9.3) 37 (22.8)

Table 4. Attitudes and Perceptions of the health and safety of motorized scooters



Electric Scooters Comer et al.

8

the college campus.
Discussion
Our findings illustrate that e-scooters may 
pose a threat to the health and safety of not 
only those who ride them, but also to persons 
who are walking on the sidewalk or driving cars. 
One reason that e-scooters may pose a danger 
to those who ride them is that riders are not 
wearing helmets. Only 2.5% of people who ride 
e-scooters report always or sometimes wearing 
a helmet. Prior studies have found that head 
injuries are one of the most prevalent injuries 
for e-scooter riders (Trivedi et al., 2019). Given 
the danger of head injury associated with not 
wearing a helmet and the lack of self-reported 
helmet use among e-scooter riders, public 
health interventions are needed to increase 
helmet usage on e-scooters. One possible 
public health intervention which is being 
offered by scooter companies is to provide 
free helmets to scooter riders (Bird, n.d.a). 
Although scooter companies offer free helmets 
to riders, this intervention may merely work to 
mitigate risk, as only 38% of e-scooter users 
report that they would not wear a helmet, 
even though it is recommended by the scooter 
company and even if it were provided at no 
cost. Additionally, only 19% of participants 
knew that free helmets were being offered by 
the e-scooter manufacturer. Due to the risk of 
injury associated with not wearing a helmet, 
public health interventions need to be pursued 
to increase the use of helmets among e-scooter 
riders. 

The lack of knowledge of the laws pertaining to 
e-scooter use is another reason why e-scooters 
may pose a threat to public health and safety. 
Among e-scooter riders and non-riders alike, 
almost half of all people do not know that it is 
illegal to ride an e-scooter while intoxicated, or 
that it is illegal locally to ride an e-scooter on the 
sidewalk. Evidence shows that riding e-scooters 
on the sidewalk can result in pedestrian injury 

(Sikka et al., 2019). This is concerning, in part 
because only 47% of e-scooter riders believe 
that riding an e-scooter on the sidewalk poses a 
threat to the health and safety of people walking 
on the sidewalk, whereas the vast majority of 
non-riders (72%) believe riding e-scooters 
on the sidewalk poses a threat to pedestrian 
health and safety. This gap suggests that 
e-scooter riders do not appreciate the threat 
to health and safety that their actions pose 
to those around them. A lack of knowledge or 
insight into the dangers of riding e-scooters 
on the sidewalk may lead to more reckless and 
improper e-scooter use, in part because they 
do not believe that their behavior threatens 
pedestrian health and safety. The results of this 
study suggest that e-scooter riders may be 
more inclined to ride on the sidewalk because 
they believe riding e-scooters in the street is 
dangerous. One way to combat this issue may 
be to encourage e-scooter riders and align 
related e-scooter policies, toward using scooters 
in bike lanes, rather than ride on the sidewalk or 
in the street. The e-scooter company Bird had 
recently pledged to pay cities to build bike lanes 
in order to keep e-scooter riders off of sidewalks 
(Schmitt, 2018). Both e-scooter rider and 
pedestrian safety need to be considered when 
developing laws, ordinances, and infrastructure 
within cities that allow e-scooter use.  

Another issue with fidelity of the law which 
may pose a threat to the health and safety of 
e-scooter riders is the lack of knowledge that 
it is illegal to ride a scooter while intoxicated. 
Operating While Intoxicated (OWI) laws 
apply to e-scooters, and riding an e-scooter 
while intoxicated may result in the same 
penalties as operating other motor vehicles 
while intoxicated. Lack of knowledge of the 
law may result in people riding e-scooters 
while intoxicated based on a belief that riding 
an e-scooter offers a “safer” alternative to 



Electric Scooters Comer et al.

9

driving while intoxicated. Such unawareness is 
concerning because intoxication while riding 
e-scooters has been linked to severe injuries in 
other studies (Trivedi et al., 2019). The lack of 
knowledge of both the legality and danger of 
operating an e-scooter while intoxicated suggest 
that public health education interventions 
should be developed to inform the public of 
these risks. Additionally, steps should be taken 
to enforce the current e-scooter laws in order to 
protect the safety and health of the public.

This study has several limitations. First, this 
study was conducted in one city and may not be 
representative of the attitudes, perceptions and 
experiences of those in other cities related to 
e-scooter use. Second, participants represented 
a convenience sample and were asked to self-
report information, such as the number of 
times they have ridden an e-scooter, which 
may introduce bias in the responses. Third, 
this study sought to measure the attitudes 
and perceptions of participants at one point 
in time. It is possible that the responses given 
by participants may change over time as 
Indianapolis’ approach to e-scooter regulation 
evolves. Lastly, it is possible that the questions 
about personal safety and e-scooter use could 
have influenced answers to the subsequent 
section on e-scooter laws. Although further 
studies are needed to gain a more in-depth 
understanding of the health and safety hazards 
associated with e-scooter use, this study is the 
first to explore rider and non-rider perceptions 
of the risks posed by e-scooters. 

Conclusion
This study finds e-scooters may pose a threat 

to the health and safety of the people who ride 
them, to people on the sidewalk, and people in 
their cars. When considering health in setting 
policies, the results of this study indicate three 
things: 1) That riders are engaging in unsafe 
behaviors and are being harmed on e-scooters; 
2) That despite the risks posed by e-scooters, 
riders are willing to accept them; and 3) That 
knowledge of e-scooter laws and safe scooter 
practices is lacking and needs attention. 
These findings are concerning from a public 
health perspective as a significant share of 
riders engage in risky behaviors when riding 
e-scooters, such as riding without wearing 
a helmet, riding with multiple people on one 
scooter, and riding e-scooters while intoxicated. 
These risky behaviors have been found to result 
in severe injury, such as head injuries in other 
studies. In our study, 15% of scooter riders 
report falling off or crashing their scooter, with 
36% of injury-causing crashes requiring medical 
attention. These findings are of additional 
concern because Indianapolis has recently 
approved two more e-scooter vendors, Lyft and 
Jump, to bring more rentable e-scooters into 
the city, although the timelines for e-scooter 
deployment has not yet been decided. 
To reduce the risk to public health and safety, 
we recommend increasing public health 
interventions to educate e-scooter riders about 
safe and defensive e-scooter use, potential 
health and safety risks (to riders and non-riders) 
associated with e-scooter use, as well as the 
specifics of local laws and policies. Additionally, 
stakeholders such as city and state law makers 
need to consider the threat to public health as 
well as the safety of e-scooter riders, non-riders 
using local sidewalks, and drivers when passing 
relevant laws.



Electric Scooters Comer et al.

10

References

Austin Public Health. (2019). Dockless electric scooter-related injuries study. Retrieved from https://www.
austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Health/Epidemiology/APH_Dockless_Electric_Scooter_
Study_5-2-19.pdf.

Badeau, A., Carman, C., Newman, M., Steenblik, J., Carlson, M., Madsen, T. (2019). Emergency department 
visits for electric scooter-related injuries after introduction of an urban rental program. American 
Journal of Emergency Medicine. doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2019.05.003

Bird. (2019). A look at e-scooter safety: Examining risks, reviewing responsibilities, and prioritizing 
prevention. Retrieved from https://www.bird.co/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Bird-Safety-Report-
April-2019-3.pdf.

Bird. (n.d.a). How can I order a free helmet? Retrieved from https://help.bird.co/hc/en-us/
articles/360004339712-How-can-I-order-a-free-helmet-.

Bird. (n.d.b). Our cities – bird. Retrieved from https://www.bird.co/map/.
Choron, R.L., Sakran, J.V. (2019). The integration of electric scooters: Useful technology or public health 

problem? American Journal of Public Health, 109(4), 555-556. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2019.304955
City of San Antonio. (2019). Dockless vehicle community engagement report. Retrieved from https://www.

sanantonio.gov/portals/0/files/ccdo/dockless%20vehicle%20community%20engagement%20
report%20-%20may%202019.pdf?ver=2019-05-23-141425-113. Accessed August 1, 2019.

Giacomini, S. (2019). Clever system could turn your helmet into the key of your scooter. RideApart. 
Retrieved from https://www.rideapart.com/articles/334276/honda-patent-helmet-unlock-escooter/.

Harris, P.A., Taylor, R., Thielke, R., Payne, J., Gonzalez, N., Conde, J.G. (2009). Research electronic data 
capture (REDCap) – A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational 
research informatics support. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 42(2), 377-381. doi:10.1016/j.
jbi.2008.08.010. 

Hawkins, A.J. (2019a). Electric scooter use results in 20 injuries per 100,000 trips, CDC finds. The Verge. 
Retrieved from https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/2/18526813/scooter-electric-injury-austin-cdc-
study-head-helmet.

Hawkins, A.J. (2019b). Nashville is banning electric scooters after a man was killed. The Verge. Retrieved 
from https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/21/18701299/nashville-electric-scooter-ban-man-killed.

Hawkins, A.J. (2019c). US cities are joining forces to figure out what the hell to do with all these scooters. 
The Verge. Retrieved from https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/25/18715977/electric-scooter-sharing-
cities-us-bird.

Lime. (n.d.). Lime locations. Retrieved from https://www.li.me/locations.
May, E., Hill, C. (2018). After more than 20 injuries in September, scooter rule enforcement begins in 

Indianapolis. The Indianapolis Star. Retrieved from https://www.indystar.com/story/news/2018/10/05/
bird-lime-scooters-indianapolis-safety-enforcement-spotlight/1419495002/.

May, E. (2019). Why you may see fewer scooters in Downtown Indianapolis this summer. The Indianapolis 
Star. Retrieved from https://www.indystar.com/story/news/2019/05/01/scooters-indianapolis-bird-
lime-spin-lyft-could-face-new-rules-limiting-cap-geographic/3277666002/.

Portland Bureau of Transportation. (2019). 2018 e-scooter findings report. Retrieved from https://www.
portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/709719.

R Core Team. (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation 
for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/.

Renki, M. (2019). Scooter madness. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.
com/2019/06/17/opinion/electric-scooters-nashville.html.

RStudio Team. (2015). RStudio: Integrated development for R. Boston, MA: RStudio, Inc. Retrieved from 
http://www.rstudio.com/.

https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Health/Epidemiology/APH_Dockless_Electric_Scooter_Study_5-2-19.pdf.
https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Health/Epidemiology/APH_Dockless_Electric_Scooter_Study_5-2-19.pdf.
https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Health/Epidemiology/APH_Dockless_Electric_Scooter_Study_5-2-19.pdf.
https://www.bird.co/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Bird-Safety-Report-April-2019-3.pdf.
https://www.bird.co/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Bird-Safety-Report-April-2019-3.pdf.
https://help.bird.co/hc/en-us/articles/360004339712-How-can-I-order-a-free-helmet-. 
https://help.bird.co/hc/en-us/articles/360004339712-How-can-I-order-a-free-helmet-. 
https://www.bird.co/map/.
https://www.sanantonio.gov/portals/0/files/ccdo/dockless%20vehicle%20community%20engagement%20report%20-%20may%202019.pdf?ver=2019-05-23-141425-113. 
https://www.sanantonio.gov/portals/0/files/ccdo/dockless%20vehicle%20community%20engagement%20report%20-%20may%202019.pdf?ver=2019-05-23-141425-113. 
https://www.sanantonio.gov/portals/0/files/ccdo/dockless%20vehicle%20community%20engagement%20report%20-%20may%202019.pdf?ver=2019-05-23-141425-113. 
https://www.rideapart.com/articles/334276/honda-patent-helmet-unlock-escooter/.
https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/2/18526813/scooter-electric-injury-austin-cdc-study-head-helmet. 
https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/2/18526813/scooter-electric-injury-austin-cdc-study-head-helmet. 
https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/21/18701299/nashville-electric-scooter-ban-man-killed.
https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/25/18715977/electric-scooter-sharing-cities-us-bird. 
https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/25/18715977/electric-scooter-sharing-cities-us-bird. 
https://www.li.me/locations.
https://www.indystar.com/story/news/2018/10/05/bird-lime-scooters-indianapolis-safety-enforcement-spotlight/1419495002/. 
https://www.indystar.com/story/news/2018/10/05/bird-lime-scooters-indianapolis-safety-enforcement-spotlight/1419495002/. 
https://www.indystar.com/story/news/2019/05/01/scooters-indianapolis-bird-lime-spin-lyft-could-face-new-rules-limiting-cap-geographic/3277666002/
https://www.indystar.com/story/news/2019/05/01/scooters-indianapolis-bird-lime-spin-lyft-could-face-new-rules-limiting-cap-geographic/3277666002/
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/709719
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/709719
 http://www.R-project.org/
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/17/opinion/electric-scooters-nashville.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/17/opinion/electric-scooters-nashville.html
http://www.rstudio.com/


Electric Scooters Comer et al.

11

Schmitt, A. (2018). Scooter company Bird offers to pay cities to build bike lanes. StreetsBlogUSA. Retrieved 
from https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/08/02/scooter-company-bird-offers-to-pay-cities-to-build-bike-
lanes/.

Sikka, N., Vila, C., Stratton, M., Ghassemi, M., Pourmand, A. (2019). Sharing the sidewalk: A case of e-scooter 
related pedestrian injury. American Journal of Emergency Medicine. doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2019.06.017

Trivedi, T.K., Liu, C., Antonio, A.L.M., Wheaton, N., Kreger, V., Yap, A., Schriger, D., Elmore, J.G. (2019). 
Injuries associated with standing electric scooter use. JAMA Network Open, 2(1), e187381. doi:10.1001/
jamanetworkopen.2018.7381

CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Amber Comer, PhD, JD
Assistant Professor of Health Sciences
Indiana University
1050 Wishard Blvd. RG, 3034
(317) 278-1026
comer@iu.edu

CHIA Staff:

Editor-in-Chief 
Cynthia Stone, DrPH, RN, Professor, Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public Health, Indiana 
University-Purdue University Indianapolis

Journal Manager 
Angela Evertsen, BA, Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public Health, Indiana University-Purdue 
University Indianapolis

Chronicles of Health Impact Assessment Vol. 5 Issue 1 (2020) DOI: 10.18060/24194
© 2020 Author(s): Comer, A.; Apathy, N.; Waite, C.; Bestmann, Z.; Bradshaw, J.; Burchfield, 
E.; Harmon, B.; Legg, R.; Meyer, S.; O’Brien, P.; Sabec, M.; Sayeed, J.; Weaver, A.; D’Cruz, L.; 
Bartlett, S.; Marchand, M.; Zepeda, I.; Endris, K.; Finnell, J.; Grannis, S.; Silverman, R.; Embi, P.
       This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Conflict of Interest Statement: This project and resulting manuscript was not grant funded nor was 
it funded in any capacity as it resulted from a class research project conducted at Indiana University. 
None of the authors have any conflicts of interest. 

Financial Disclosure: There are no financial disclosures from any authors. 

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/08/02/scooter-company-bird-offers-to-pay-cities-to-build-bike-lanes/
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/08/02/scooter-company-bird-offers-to-pay-cities-to-build-bike-lanes/
mailto:comer%40iu.edu?subject=

