Shared e-scooters and gender equity Learning from women's perceptions and experiences
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
MAY 2022
Shared e-scooters
and gender equity
Learning from
women’s
perceptions and
experiences
DR HEBBA HADDAD / NICK SANDERSON / JOE GOODMAN
VOI.COM
Contents Foreword 3 Survey 11 Recommendations 20 Jo Field, President of Women in Transport Gender Equity Commission 12 Knowledge and understanding 20 Jack Samler, General Manager of Findings 14 Accessing services 20 Voi Technology, UK and Ireland Perceived benefits and disadvantages Understanding laws and regulations 21 Executive summary 5 of riding shared e-scooters 14 Learning to ride 21 Overview 5 Quick, convenient and easy, but only sometimes 14 A lack of spaces to learn and practice 21 Key findings 5 E-scooters can enhance personal safety, Peer support 21 Recommendations 6 but also feelings of vulnerability 15 Persistent risk taking 22 Summary of findings 6 Alternative to public transport during Recommendations 23 Perceived benefits and disadvantages the pandemic 16 Service design 23 of riding shared e-scooters 6 Contrasting views on physical activity – whether Service features 23 Perceptions of shared e-scooter riders 6 travelling for health or to avoid effort 16 Docking locations 23 Knowledge and understanding 7 Cost 16 Technological issues 24 Service design 7 Perceptions of shared e-scooter riders 16 Problematic “safety” features 25 Perceptions of infrastructure 8 Positive 16 E-Scooter design 26 Introduction 9 Helmet wearing and rule-abiding 16 Recommendations 26 Context 9 Professionals with purpose 17 Perceptions of infrastructure 27 About this report 9 Negative 17 Riding spaces 27 Research aims and methods 11 Non-identification 17 First-time riding 29 Research aims 11 Transgressive riding usurps purpose 18 Recommendations 29 Methods 11 Forming perceptions as a pedestrian 18 Limitations and future directions 31 Focus groups 11 Conflating private and shared e-scooters 19 Recommendations 31 SHARED E-SCOOTERS AND GENDER EQUITY 2
Foreword
I am delighted that our Chief Executive at Women in expertise of Women in Transport in creating a deeper
Transport, Sonya Byers, chaired the Commission that understanding of all the issues and nuances associated
led the development of a suite of robust recommen- with this inequity in ridership.
dations featured throughout the report. The experts This is the first in-depth research to include a Gen-
on the Commission showed the gap between where der Equity Commission and it has been crucial to both
we are now and where we need to be to help stem the me and Voi that this research not only focused on our
trends of inequity in e-scooter ridership. own customers but also on the micromobility indus-
try generally, in order to create an objective overview
IT IS NOW up to decision-makers in industry and gov- of how women really feel about e-scooter usage. This
ernment to act on these recommendations. While data and honest feedback provides a valuable addition
there are deep-rooted challenges to women’s safety to our larger roadmap towards inclusive micromobility.
and independent mobility, there are also quick fixes Transport is rarely perceived as an industry that
Jo Field – President of Women in Transport policymakers and operators can make. This should be evokes an emotional response, yet this research proves
and Chief Executive of JFG Communications looked upon as an opportunity. Early interventions will that this is not the case. Women want and deserve to
maximise women’s opportunities to benefit from this feel safe while travelling; they want transport to fit with
The transport industry has an urgent task on its transport mode, to move freely and safely around our their lifestyles; and they seek reassurance that their
hands to address the underrepresentation of women towns and cities. Addressing the barriers to equitable needs, interests and fears are heard by micromobility
across the sector. Change is happening, but slowly. e-scooter use will also help overcome barriers to gen- operators.
While women are more likely to be absent from de- der equity across the urban realm.
cision-making roles in the industry, research like this THE RESULTS and recommendations from this research
ensures women’s voices are heard. will inform and inspire us and, hopefully, many others
The gender gap in shared e-scooter use deserves in the industry. Across the board, from physical design
considerable attention from the micromobility sec- to service design, marketing to safety training, we will
tor, and anyone else concerned with gender equity in use this data to create strategic and practical change.
transport and the urban realm. This research suggests It’s important that we don’t just talk the talk but start to
many reasons for that gap by illuminating the thoughts deliver on long standing societal issues.
and views of women, which have yet to receive suffi- In addition, sharing the data and recommendations
cient attention in this area. Jack Samler – General Manager of of this research will also greatly support our collabora-
The challenge for the sector and governments now Voi Technology, UK and Ireland tion with councils and communities to achieve a truly
is translating the perspectives of women into action at inclusive product and service design. By sharing the
a local and national level. This process has been aided The rapid growth of the micromobility market has high- research and incorporating it into our strategies and
by the first Gender Equity Commission for shared lighted the gender gap not only in e-scooter ridership design, we also aim to amplify women’s voices so that
e-scooters, set up specifically to translate the findings but also in the transport industry as a whole. This type we can continue to develop this industry sustainably
of this research into recommendations. of research will be vital in addressing this. I applaud the and equally.
SHARED E-SCOOTERS AND GENDER EQUITY 3
SHARED E-SCOOTERS AND GENDER EQUITY 4
1. Executive summary
1.1 Overview Key findings ingly caught out and faced with difficult situations.
The findings indicate that women encounter a range of “If I don't know exactly what I should and shouldn't
Shared e-scooters are a new micromobility option with barriers and few enablers to riding shared e-scooters be doing […] At least when I was cycling I could say
the potential to transform how we move around towns in the UK. Their experiences provide lessons to inform I have absolutely the right to be in the road – with
and cities. But as ridership numbers have picked up, a a more inclusive future for shared e-scooters in Eng- e-scooters I don't have the knowledge that would
trend has emerged: women are less likely than men to land and other jurisdictions. give me the confidence to support this.” (Focus
ride them. For shared e-scooters to reach their poten- Group 1, Non-rider Group, Never ridden)
tial, there needs to be gender equity. There is very little The built environment was broadly viewed as
specific research exploring why the gender imbalance hostile – with roads considered dangerous and Both the services offered and the way e-scoot-
exists and how we can move towards a more equitable drivers unsympathetic or actively aggressive. Over ers are physically designed had elements likely to
future. three-quarters of all survey respondents (79%) felt prevent women from riding them where they might
This research report was undertaken with the aim of that not feeling safe due to infrastructure was a be helpful. E-scooters are heavy to manoeuvre and
better understanding women’s perceptions of shared barrier to not using shared e-scooters (more). cannot carry much, while the mere fact of having to
e-scooters, and to identify possible solutions to the “When I have to scoot in the same lanes as cars I'm use one’s phone, faulty or frustrating technology,
gender imbalance in ridership. frequently beeped at and shouted at when I know and local authority-imposed restrictions can im-
In November 2021, we ran five focus groups to ex- I'm not doing anything wrong.” (Focus Group 5, pinge on women’s sense of safety and limit inde-
plore women’s perceptions in depth. This was followed Mixed Group, Very regularly) pendent riding after dark.
by a survey that was live for two weeks in January 2022, “It can take quite a long time [to unlock] and some-
with the aim of quantifying some of the themes that It is not easy to learn or understand how and where times you can feel a little bit unsafe when it's dark
emerged from the focus groups. Findings from both to ride e-scooters with a complicated patchwork or you're in quite an isolated spot, kind of stood on
data collection stages were shared with the first ever of regulations, private providers and a lack of safe the roadside.” (Focus Group 4, Regular rider Group,
Gender Equity Commission for Shared E-scooters. spaces and environments for women to learn. Fairly regularly)
Assembled specifically for this project, the Commis- Most riders cited learning for the first time with
sion helped devise recommendations for operators their peers, while most non-riders wanted a park Those who had never ridden generally character-
and policy-makers about how greater equity in shared or car-free space to learn. While most participants ised e-scooter riders as being young and male.
e-scooter ridership could be achieved. felt they understood the law, some non-riders de- Often they did not want to be among a perceived
scribed a bewilderment and fear of being unknow- minority of women riders, or engage in what they
SHARED E-SCOOTERS AND GENDER EQUITY 5
viewed primarily as a transgressive activity. offer more openly accessible, public training ses- 1.2 Summary of findings
“It needs to be a scenario like someone commuting sions for shared e-scooters in trial areas.
to work, something I can relate to. The only time 5. E-scooter operators should consider an inclusive Perceived benefits and disadvantages of riding
I think I see people using them is for fun, playing design approach to e-scooters and shared servic- shared e-scooters
around with their mates or getting up to no good. es that better accommodate different potential While convenience was highlighted as a crucial perk,
Those aren’t scenarios that attract me.” (Focus riders’ needs and use-cases. e-scooters were seen as inappropriate for uses and
Group 1, Non-rider Group, Never ridden) 6. Local authorities and e-scooter operators should journeys more likely to be taken by women. Nonethe-
collaborate to ensure women’s transport needs less, there is a plurality of differing views on the same
Recommendations and experiences inform the development of issues, highlighting the need to understand the dispa-
An overarching recommendation is for the micromo- e-scooter regulation and services in specific areas, rate needs and perspectives of all women.
bility sector as a whole to become active in its efforts particularly the location of parking docks and de-
to end violence towards women and girls, working with velopment of infrastructure. Varying aspects of convenience were cited as the
national and local governments and partner agencies 7. Local authorities and e-scooter operators should most beneficial aspect of riding e-scooters, for in-
to challenge cultures of acceptance. Alongside this, collaborate to ensure local environments and stance speed, ability to ride spontaneously, or their
local authority and micromobility operator staffing and cultures support night-time safety for women, for ease of use.
decision-making must strive to better represent the example, ensuring public spaces are sufficiently lit, Certain contexts and preferences are more likely
diverse communities they serve. and providing bystander awareness and education to affect women mitigated against convenience
These overarching recommendations have rele- to help prevent violence and harassment of women in many instances, including while caregiving or
vance for each of the ten recommendations below, and girls. wearing more ‘feminine’ clothing.
based on specific findings and devised in consultation 8. Local and national governments should place the Many participants saw carrying additional safety
with the Gender Equity Commission. development of infrastructure and reallocation of equipment, such as a helmet or additional lights,
road-space in our cities at the heart of their mobili- as necessary but inconvenient – while riders who
1. Government(s) should provide clarity and ty frameworks, and at the top of their wider trans- opted not to, identified a trade-off between safety
certainty over laws around both shared and port, environmental and public health agendas. and convenience.
private e-scooters. 9. A ‘gold standard’ for ridership monitoring should Decisions to ride e-scooters would be assessed
2. Local authorities should provide clear, posi- be established, and adhered to by local govern- on perception of risk to personal safety after dark.
tive communications about the status of shared ment, national government and e-scooter opera- Perspectives of the safety merits of riding e-scoot-
e-scooters in their regions and which providers are tors. ers at night, versus walking, differed – some felt it
available. 10. E-scooter operators should report gender disag- ‘faster’ and safer than alternatives, others saw it as
3. Local authorities and e-scooter operators should gregated annual ridership figures, including the more exposing to danger.
foster the development of social infrastructure to gender gap.
support the safe uptake of shared e-scooter riding, Perceptions of shared e-scooter riders
such as peer-to-peer support. Non-riders’ perceptions of who, why and how people
4. Local authorities and e-scooter operators should ride helped inform their thoughts around e-scoot-
SHARED E-SCOOTERS AND GENDER EQUITY 6
ers, with those identifying with riders they saw more Knowledge and understanding ride e-scooters with someone they know. Riders
likely to ride them, while those considering riding the Knowing how to access services, understanding described having to be persistent and committed
domain of ‘others’ less likely. For non-riders, the nature the regulations, and being confident in how to ride to riding, despite nerve-wracking or scary experi-
of others’ riding (i.e. responsible versus transgressive) e-scooters are key factors determining ridership. There ences.
was the key factor shaping perceptions and determin- was a perception of an information vacuum and lack
ing what ‘legitimate’ service use would look like. of official endorsement by government (contrasted Service design
with other transport modes and bicycle hire schemes). Various features of the service excluded some or
Positive perceptions of e-scooter riders included Better communication and social infrastructure are key reduced others’ confidence in use, particularly at
the perception that they were keeping others safe to overcoming some of these barriers. night-time, including poorly located docking stations,
(identified by respectful riding or helmet-wearing) technological issues and even road safety features,
or they had a ‘legitimate’ trip purpose associated Many non-riders said they feel overwhelmed when while aspects of e-scooter design were considered to
with a clear social value e.g. a young professional multiple operators exist in one region, and lack exclude women.
commuter, or a parent with kids. confidence in how or where to start riding. Many
Riders were commonly negatively characterised as felt local authorities and operators have failed Riders making new journeys described a fear of
young men riding transgressively. to communicate with the public about these docking locations being unavailable or inacces-
Negative perceptions of how people ride (i.e. schemes, leaving this information vacuum to be sible, and of not being able to find a scooter (or
transgressively or anti-socially) was often enough filled with, often negative, media reports. alternative option) for the return leg of a journey.
for non-riders to de-legitimise the perceived trip Many non-riders expressed feeling bewildered at The quality of docking stations were viewed as
purpose, or fail to consider it altogether. Experi- the laws and rules of e-scooter riding, particularly problematic in some instances, regardless of geo-
ences of being a pedestrian contributed heavily to lacking confidence in their knowledge of where graphical convenience, for instance, concerns over
forming perceptions of e-scooters as transgressive. they are allowed to be ridden. Many described physical accessibility and night-time safety, given
Non-riders often did not recognise the leisure a fear of being unknowingly caught-out in the poorly lit, low visibility or ‘exposed’ locations.
value of riding and considered leisure to be a less ‘wrong’ place at the ‘wrong’ time. Technological issues – such as poor signal, a slow
legitimate reason for riding than functional rea- Many non-riders express uncertainty about phone, low battery, bugs in the app or finding a
sons. Indeed, perceived leisure riding was often how they could go about learning how to ride working scooter – were found to reduce confi-
associated with antisocial riding. But this meant e-scooters, through fear of attempting to do so dence in the service among riders, shaping the way
many failed to view shared e-scooter riding as an independently. Dedicated training sessions in a people use the service.
enjoyable way to make a functional journey, some- controlled environment were viewed as invalua- Features designed to improve safety of riders
thing reported by riders. ble. Many said local authorities had a role to play and other members of the public – such as speed
There was an indication throughout the focus in training, and building trust in local operators by restrictions, slow zones and non-operation hours
groups that non-riders conflated private and providing official endorsement. – were viewed as creating safety issues for wom-
shared e-scooters. 92% of irregular and 99% of Riders often reported learning and gaining confi- en in certain situations, particularly at night when
regular riders said they could tell the difference, dence from their peers, in a social setting. 63% of scooters are de-powered.
whereas this figure was just 59% for non-riders. all survey respondents said they would or did first The physical design of e-scooters was often viewed
SHARED E-SCOOTERS AND GENDER EQUITY 7
as not catering for the needs of women and other Over three-quarters of all survey respondents Some participants perceived existing protected
groups. Reasons included the perceived inability (79%) felt that not feeling safe on roads due to traf- cycle lanes as unsuitable for e-scooters in their cur-
to safely carry a bag that is not a rucksack and the fic and a lack of infrastructure was a barrier to not rent form – be that due to space-sharing or surface
weight of e-scooters making them difficult to move using shared e-scooters (more). quality – or to being designed primarily for bicycles.
manually. Across all ridership groups, women perceived a Suitable segregated spaces were viewed as es-
lack of appropriate space to ride e-scooters safely pecially critical for first-time riding. Non-riders
Perceptions of infrastructure and comfortably. The carriageway was generalised surveyed mostly identified parks as their preferred
Infrastructure was cited as a key factor, heavily inform- as unsafe and drivers seen as unwelcoming, if not location for first-time riding, but this was evidently
ing ridership. The carriageway was considered unsafe hostile, particularly towards women on e-scooters. not a viable option for first-time riders who most
due to road danger and driver attitudes, while protect- Participants said drivers should be educated on commonly reported riding for the first time on
ed cycle lanes were generally considered too sparse e-scooters and pointed to the dual responsibility roads, possibly reflecting restrictions on riding
and sometimes unsuitable. of government(s) and operators to communicate in parks.
with the public.
SHARED E-SCOOTERS AND GENDER EQUITY 8
2. Introduction
2.1 Context in shared e-scooter ridership is vital to inform poli- our methodological approach in itself a constituent el-
cy-makers at national and local levels, as well as shared ement of the third pillar cited by 6t – ‘mobility justice’, or
Shared e-scooters are a new mobility option that could e-scooter operators, about how to ensure policy and the equitable ability of all to shape policy and services.
help provide better mobility for all. When replacing car operational design helps achieve greater equity.
travel or supporting car-free lifestyles, they can aid in
reducing congestion, improving air quality and lower- 2.2 About this report
ing C02 emissions. But a pattern of gender imbalance is
emerging in the ridership of shared e-scooters. In Paris, The purpose of this research was to provide insight into
for instance, 6t found that two thirds (66%) of dockless why a gender imbalance exists in shared e-scooter rid-
e-scooter riders were male. This gendered dimension
1
ership, and offer solutions to the problem of inequity to
of ridership echoes long-existing trends in the other inform decision-making at a local and national level by
areas of transport, such as with cycling and walking. 2
governments and e-scooter operators alike.
It is vital for all people to be able to benefit from There is a paucity of existing literature exploring
better, more sustainable mobility – both new and old. the gender imbalance in shared e-scooter ridership,
And addressing equity issues in shared e-scooters at particularly in Europe, and even more so in the UK. Al-
1
6t (2021) Micromobility for All. A roadmap towards
this early stage will provide lessons and help address though the overlaps with cycling have become steadily
inclusive micromobility: Intermediate report
broader inequities in transport and the public realm. apparent, e-scooters should be considered separately 2
Sustrans (2018) Inclusive City Cycling – Women: Reduc-
At the time of writing, UK e-scooter regulations are and warrant distinctive research.4 Promisingly, this is ing the gender gap
in limbo. Shared e-scooters are publicly available in beginning to happen.5 This report will add depth to this 3
PACTS (2022) The Safety of Private E-scooters in the UK
certain trial areas in England only, but their long-term nascent field of research. 4
Full literature review of micromobility in 6t (2021) Micro-
future remains uncertain. The Department for Trans- A number of reports have emerged recently offer- mobility for All. A roadmap towards inclusive micromo-
port intends to publish an evaluation of those trials ing frameworks of how equity in (micro)mobility can be bility: Intermediate report
5
Tier (2022), How making micromobility safer for women
in late 2022. Privately owned e-scooters can be sold reached.6 The current project has been informed by the
can achieve safer cities for everyone
legally, but are currently illegal on public highways, with paper published by French organisation 6t, Micromo- 6
See: 6t (2021) Micromobility for All; Arup & Urban
many organisations urging the Government to take bility for All. Our research focuses on two of their three Transport Group (2022) Equitable Future Mobility: En-
action on private e-scooter ridership – through regula- pillars of enhancing equity in e-scooter ridership: ac- suring a just transition to net zero transport; ITF (2021)
tion or otherwise – as a matter of urgency. 3
cessibility (equitable access to services) and capability Micromobility, Equity and Sustainability: Summary and
Deeper insight into the emerging gender disparity (equitable capability to use services). We considered Conclusions, ITF Roundtable Reports, No. 185
SHARED E-SCOOTERS AND GENDER EQUITY 9SHARED E-SCOOTERS AND GENDER EQUITY 10
3. Research aims and methods
3.1 Research aims three broader groups: Non-riders, Irregular riders, and Microsoft Teams during November 2021. Two focus
Regular riders. See Table 1. groups were comprised of non-riders, one of irregular
The specific research objectives were to: riders, one of regular riders and a mixed group. 31 par-
Table 1: Ridership groupings ticipants in total took part.
Better understand women’s perspectives and
understandings of shared e-scooters, including Survey
issues, challenges and barriers to riding Ridership frequency Grouping 499 valid survey responses were received to a survey
Understand how those perspectives differ of 40 closed answer questions and one open answer
Never Non-rider
across rider groups question.
Understand how those perspectives inform Once Irregular rider
ridership Table 2: Survey respondent rider groupings collapsed
A few times
Identify possible solutions to perceived issues,
challenges and barriers About once a month Regular rider
Fairly regularly (every week or Frequency Frequency Percent
3.2 Methods most weeks)
Never ridden 56 11.2
Very regularly (several times
Data was collected in two ways: a series of virtual focus Irregular riders 255 51.1
per week)
groups and an online survey. For both methods, partic-
Every day Regular riders 188 37.7
ipants were recruited via email and social media pro-
motion. Emails were delivered to the Women in Trans- Total 499 100
port professional network and to a group of Voi riders
who had opted to receive information about research The final stage of the project was the formation of
projects. Social media posts were also shared by both a Gender Equity Commission of experts, whom re-
organisations, as well as the organisation conducting searchers consulted to devise recommendations
the research, JFG Communications. based on the research findings.
Participants were screened according to how often,
if at all, they rode e-scooters. For logistical and analyt- Focus groups
ical purposes, these subcategories were grouped into Five focus groups lasting one hour each were held on
SHARED E-SCOOTERS AND GENDER EQUITY 11Gender Equity Commission
A Commission was assembled to help devise recom-
mendations based on the findings of the focus groups
and survey. These recommendations are featured
throughout the report. Commission members were
experts drawn from a range of relevant fields and
comprised of:
Sonya Byers Hira Ali Dr Leslie Kern Jazmin Burgess Ellie Wooldridge
CEO of Women in Transport Author, Executive Leadership and Associate Professor of Geography Deputy Director of the Inclusive Human Insights Team Lead at
(Chair) Career Coach, Campaigner for and Environment and Director of Climate Action programme at Connected Places Catapult
gender and racial equality Women’s and Gender Studies at C40 Cities
Mount Allison University, Canada
Bronwen Thornton Ruth White Sandra Witzel Wei-Shiuen Ng Christine Hemphill
CEO of Walk21 Foundation Team Manager, Place, CMO and Board Director, Advisor on Sustainable Transport Founder and Managing Director
Environment and Heritage, SkedGo and Global Outreach on the of Open Inclusion
Edinburgh City Council International Transport Forum
SHARED E-SCOOTERS AND GENDER EQUITY 12SHARED E-SCOOTERS AND GENDER EQUITY 13
4. Findings
WE PRESENT THE findings from the focus groups and ience in certain contexts – for instance, while escorting Quick, convenient and easy, but only sometimes
survey thematically, outlining perceptions and ex- or caring for children, or wearing 'feminine’ clothing. Varying aspects of convenience were cited as the most
ploring how these perceptions inform ridership. In Other benefits were similarly viewed in a different light beneficial aspect of riding e-scooters during focus
the first section we consider what are perceived to be depending on context and personal viewpoint. groups, for instance speed, ability to ride spontaneously,
the benefits and disadvantages of shared e-scooters. These findings reveal how e-scooters are viewed or the ease of use of the service – echoed in the survey.
4.2 looks at participants’ perceptions of who, why and and can be seen as inappropriate in certain contexts Nonetheless, shared e-scooters were viewed as in-
how shared e-scooters are being ridden. In the third and likely to affect women. Nonetheless, there is a plu- convenient in many scenarios. For example, women are
section, we discuss participants’ knowledge and un- rality of differing views on the same issues, highlighting more likely than men to occupy a caregiving role and
derstanding of shared e-scooter services, surrounding the importance of operators and regulators approach- participants saw e-scooters as being impractical for
regulations and how to ride an e-scooter. 4.4 explores ing gender equity with a view to better understanding the related journeys, such as escorting children or car-
different aspects of service design, from docking the disparate needs and perspectives of women. rying shopping. Participants also said e-scooters were
locations and slow zones to the physical design of the
scooters. Finally, we discuss participants’ perceptions
Figure 1: Perceived main benefits of shared e-scooters (% All respondents)
of infrastructure and the built environment.
The recommendations produced by the research
team in consultation with the Commission feature at the
end of their relevant sections throughout the report.
4.1 Perceived benefits and disadvantag-
es of riding shared e-scooters
This section looks at how the participants perceived
the benefits and disadvantages of riding shared
e-scooters. While convenience was perceived as the
chief benefit of riding shared e-scooters, other bene-
fits were cited including cost and safety. Nonetheless,
many factors were thought to mitigate against conven-
SHARED E-SCOOTERS AND GENDER EQUITY 14not designed to be ridden in certain items of clothing er lights, whether or not you wear high vis in certain understood that women use a variety of methods to
more likely to be worn by women. situations.” (Focus Group 1, Non-rider Group, Nev- manage risk to their personal safety after dark, such
er ridden) as avoiding a particular route, place or mode of travel.
“It goes back to practicalities, because taking “For me, the whole point of me using a scooter is Decisions to ride e-scooters would be assessed based
young children to school with bags and PE kits the convenience of it. The ability to hop on, hop off. on the perception of risk to personal safety. Some said
alongside using an e-scooter is just not that practi- I'm going to use it to go to the pub and things like being faster than walking pace meant it was a reason-
cal for me.” (Focus Group 1, Non-rider Group, Never that. I don't want to be carrying around a helmet. I able way to travel at night, while others said their rela-
ridden) know obviously how it would be a good safety pre- tively low speed (compared to cycling or driving) made
“Shoe wise I would feel unsafe if I was in heels. You caution, but it would be too inconvenient to carry a them feel vulnerable. For example,
would want to have trainers or something, a fairly helmet.” (Focus Group 4, Regular rider Group, Fairly
decent shoe so you could put your foot down on regularly) “I think a big benefit I’ve found about them as a
the ground if you needed to stop. There's a lot of woman is as a safe mode of transport home, so it’s
factors that would prohibit me from even consid- Of the overall survey sample (all rider types), 65% a good way of getting home that I can afford as
ering it as an option.” (Focus Group 1, Non-rider felt that a barrier to using shared e-scooters was not opposed to an Uber or something, 'cause at Liver-
Group, Never ridden) wanting to carry personal safety equipment, while 25% pool at the moment you can't really walk anywhere
"Sometimes going on an e-scooter, if I want to wear disagreed. at night on your own. So like getting to the gym
a dress, it's not really that practical... I will have to Weather also plays a role in shaping women’s views and things, it’s definitely like a good, safe mode of
take a pair of shorts or something." (Focus Group 5, of when it is appropriate to ride an e-scooter. Where a transport.” (Focus Group 3, Irregular rider Group, A
Mixed rider Group, Fairly regularly) main benefit of shared e-scooters is the ability to ride few times)
them spontaneously or ad hoc, evidently riders are un- “I think my main thing is the safety in terms of es-
This connects to the view shared by many partici- likely to prepare for changes in weather in the same way pecially at night, feeling really exposed being on a
pants – particularly non-riders – that they would need regular cycling, walking or driving commuters might do: scooter, like I said before. So although you can go
to make adequate personal preparations in order to a fair speed, if there's someone who's on a bicycle,
ride e-scooters, such as changing outfit or carrying “I suppose the only other time I might not use it as who can cycle really fast or someone in a car and
personal safety equipment, that would then reduce the like if the weather is not that great. If it is really cold you're on your own, not from a collision point of
convenience of using an e-scooter service. Indeed, or really wet, I probably would avoid it. But other- view, just from being quite exposed to potentially
there was a shared sense by many non-riders and some wise, I'd use it quite often.” (Focus Group 4, Regular being attacked or something. It's something that
riders of having to take personal responsibility for ridder Group, Fairly regularly) I often have in my mind.” (Focus Group 4, Regular
one’s safety rather than trusting operators to supply rider Group, Fairly regularly)
what is appropriate. Some riders suggested they had E-scooters can enhance personal safety, but also
to make a trade-off between safety and convenience. feelings of vulnerability Many of these views were contextualised with experi-
It should be noted that, like walking, cycling or taking ences that depended on other factors, such as the lo-
“There's a lot of personal safety concerns that I public transport, e-scooters were considered inher- cation of docking, the busyness of streets, the impact
think are a huge risk without having helmets, prop- ently vulnerable to victimisation for women. It is well of ‘slow-zones,’ or the reliability of the scooter or app,
SHARED E-SCOOTERS AND GENDER EQUITY 15which are discussed in 4.4. When asked to comment on Fairly regularly) ential charges (for example, concessions or discounts
their confidence in hiring an e-scooter, 90% of overall “I don’t want to get on a scooter or a taxi or what- for certain riders, trips or times of day).
survey respondents agreed (strongly) that they were ever because I want the exercise.” (Focus Group 1,
confident to do so in the day-time, compared to 64% Never ridden, Non-rider) 4.2 Perceptions of shared
saying they (would) feel confident at night time. e-scooter riders
Cost
Alternative to public transport during the pandemic The relative cost of a shared e-scooter versus alter- This section is framed around the positive and nega-
One perceived personal safety benefit of e-scooters natives is likely to be highly context dependent. Some tive perceptions of riders held by non-riders. As well
was their ability to function as an alternative to crowd- participants reported the financial benefits of e-scoot- as (non)identification with riders’ personal charac-
ed public transport during the Covid-19 pandemic. er riding particularly when compared to private cars of teristics (e.g. age, gender) these positive or negative
buses, for instance: perceptions of why and how people rode fed into an
“It made me feel safer not having to share the tube overall idea of what constitutes ‘legitimate’ or ‘illegiti-
or the bus with a number of people.” (Focus Group “If people don't have access to a car or they can’t mate’ reasons and ways of riding, setting the parame-
3, Irregular rider Group, Once) afford to use the bus 'cause bus passes are quite ters of if and how non-riders might consider riding.
“We couldn't have too many people on buses be- expensive, [shared e-scooters are] another way Across rider groups, those who identified more with
cause of Corona so it was a way of keeping people for them to be able to get out and about.” (Focus the people they saw riding e-scooters were more likely
off the buses and yet not being in cars polluting.” Group 1, Non-rider Group, Never ridden) to ride e-scooters. Conversely, those that saw e-scoot-
(Focus Group 2, Non-user Group, Never ridden) “By the time you park [your car], the cost of that ac- ers as being predominantly the domain of ‘others’ –
tually you offset all of that, and I think it's just a lot whether being ridden by people not perceived to be
Contrasting views on physical activity – whether trav- more economical to do it on the scooter. So I may like them, not riding for the same reasons they would,
elling for health or to avoid effort take out a day pass and use it then and just zoom or being ridden transgressively – were less likely to
Similarly, there were contrasting views on the merits of around and it's great, providing there's the avail- ride them. For non-riders, the nature of others’ riding
e-scooters regarding physical activity. For some, it was ability there.” (Focus Group 5, Mixed Group, Fairly (i.e. responsible or transgressive) was the key factor
a helpful way of avoiding exertion, particularly when regularly) shaping perceptions and determining what ‘legitimate’
compared to cycling or walking. However, others felt service use might look like.
the lack of physical activity was a downside. However, nearly half (45%) of the overall survey re- Without intervention from operators and poli-
spondents felt that shared e-scooters are expensive cy-makers, a lack of suitable, identifiable role models
“I first used them with my partner. We just popped and this is a barrier to using them (more). 41% did not risks the perpetuation of these emerging trends of
into town. It was quite a hot day so we didn't want think this is a barrier. 14% neither agreed nor disagreed ridership.
to walk all the way.” (Focus Group 5, Mixed group, with this. The mixed views in the survey likely reflect the
Fairly regularly) variety of instances and places in which e-scooters are 4.2.1 Positive
“I kind of thought why am I ever going to cycle to used and the participant’s relative budgets. Future re-
work and get all hot and sweaty from all the hills search could consider exploring cost across different Helmet wearing and rule-abiding
ever again.” (Focus Group 4, Regular rider group, socio-economic groups, locations and views on differ- Positive perceptions of how e-scooters were ridden
SHARED E-SCOOTERS AND GENDER EQUITY 16were primarily associated with safety. Not only did this the ways in which non-riders might see themselves “It’s more than seeing women in adverts using
mean following the rules of the road, but perceived riding. them, it’s women on the street using them as well…
legitimate riding was closely equated with helmet because I just feel like I don't want to be the first
wearing – people taking adequate safety precau- “Those are the types of people that I've seen on [woman] to do it. (Focus Group 1, Non-rider Group,
tions for themselves were more likely to be viewed as them. Students, people who work.” (Focus Group 2, Never)
respectful road users. This perception was reflected Non-rider Group, Never ridden) “It doesn't make much difference if it's men or
by riders themselves, one of whom said they expected “I think the other group is professionals. Particu- women, but I would want it to be grownups rather
helmet-wearing to be a signal to other road users that larly people who are like moving in the city during than kids.” (Focus Group 1, Non-rider Group, Never)
they are a responsible rider. rush hour as a form of trip chaining.” (Focus Group
2, Non-rider Group, Never ridden) The proportion who agreed that ‘they see people like
“I've seen other people who have their own private “I would use an electric scooter as a sort of last mile me’ riding e-scooters rose from 27% among those who
ones who ride on the road and follow the rules and bit of my journey. So probably between home and had never ridden one, to 70% among regular riders.
wear helmets and all that kind of good stuff, but I the train station.” (Focus Group 1, Non-rider Group,
find with these trials people are just... It's a bit of Never ridden) Leisure means less legitimate
a Wild West scenario.” (Focus Group 2, Non-rider Non-rider focus group participants were unlikely to
Group, Never ridden) 4.2.2 Negative identify with those who they perceived to be riding
“But I think [e-scooters are a good thing] certainly e-scooters for non-functional or leisure purposes. For
when people are sensible on them – I see a lot of Non-identification example:
people wearing helmets and things as well on them Perceptions of who rides e-scooters were fairly similar
which is good.” (Focus Group 4, Regular Group, across all five focus groups – riders were characterised “It needs to be a scenario like someone commuting
Fairly regularly) as young men. For instance, to work, something I can relate to. The only time
“I've got [a] helmet on and I'm doing all the right I think I see people using them is for fun, playing
things, and I'm having grown men and people from “I think here it's even younger than 50. I'd say most around with their mates or getting up to no good.
trucks and things just shouting at me.” (Focus of it is under 35s.” (Focus Group 2, Non-rider Those aren't scenarios that attract me.” (Focus
Group 5, Mixed Group, Very regularly) Group, Never ridden) Group 1, Non-rider Group, Never ridden)
“I can see that people that tend to use the scoot-
Professionals with purpose ers, it does look to be mainly male and I would say Indeed, many non-riders’ disregard of the leisure value
Other positive perceptions of riders were connected it's mainly people in their 30s and below.” (Focus of e-scooters meant they often failed to recognise that
to the perceived purpose of their trips, e.g. a young Group 3, Irregular rider Group, A few times) a functional trip could also double up as an enjoyable
professional commuter, or a student getting from A to leisure activity. Many riders reported the blurring of
B. This was particularly true for non-riders, with those For some non-riders, their inability to identify with leisure and function:
perceived as legitimate riders perceived to have readily riders created a barrier to riding. But many implied they
recognisable social roles. In turn, these perceptions of could be encouraged to try e-scooters if they saw role “I use it just to get from A to B. Not commuting: it's
legitimate travel – commuting, A to B travel – informed models they identified with. only if I need to get to somewhere fairly local that
SHARED E-SCOOTERS AND GENDER EQUITY 17Figure 2: "I see people 'like me' (in terms of e.g. gender, age) using e-scooters." Transgressive riding usurps purpose
Among non-riders, the perceived nature of how others
were riding was often enough to shape or de-legitimise
the perceived trip purpose, or fail to consider it alto-
% Regular riders
gether. In particular, the line between riding for leisure
and riding transgressively or without care was often per-
% Irregular riders
ceived to be blurred, and the archetypal young male rider
was often bound up with associations of transgression.
% Never ridden
0% 25% 50% 75%
“It does seem like the users of them are young
Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree people who are using them as a toy, rather than...
you don't see people using them in the way that I
am using them, so that's why I am put off ever using
them.” (Focus Group 1, Non-rider Group, Never
Figure 3: "A barrier is the extent to which I see pople 'like me' (e.g. age, gender) using e-scooters."
ridden)
“Young males driving around on them, potentially a
bit intimidating and not really taking care of them.”
(Focus Group 1, Non-rider Group, Never ridden)
% Regular riders
“Young males with ASBOs!” (Focus Group 1,
Non-rider Group, Never ridden)
% Irregular riders
Non-riders’ narrower perspective of ‘legitimate’ riding
is reflected in the survey findings. Only half (50%) of
% Never ridden
non-riders said they saw people riding e-scooters
for the same reasons they would, contrasting 78% of
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree
irregular and 90% of regular riders. These focus group
findings suggest this divergence reflects perceptions
of how, as well as why, e-scooters are ridden.
walking would be too far or take too long to do. I “To be honest, like most of my friends and partner Forming perceptions as a pedestrian
enjoy it so it's fun while I do it as long as I'm not in use scooters. So if we're going out or meeting in We found that experiences of being a pedestrian went
too much traffic, but my main reason is just to get town for example, it's just easier – everyone can a long way to forming these perceptions of e-scooter
from A to B.” (Focus Group 3, Irregular rider Group, jump on a scooter, and it's good fun as well.” (Focus riders as transgressive, and directly contributed to
A few times) Group 4, Regular Group, Fairly regularly) some participants’ hesitance to ride them. Those con-
SHARED E-SCOOTERS AND GENDER EQUITY 18Figure 4: "A barrier is that I see them as a nuisance, intimidating or anti-social ceptions of shared e-scooters. There was an indication
and don’t want to be associated with that." throughout the focus groups that non-riders viewed
A barrier is that I see them as a nuisance, intimidating or anti-social and don’t want to be associated with that ‘e-scooters’ as a whole – conflating private and shared.
Indeed, during a focus group, one irregular rider even
showed an awareness that their negative perceptions
% Regular riders may be fuelled by those using private e-scooters, but
said this did not play into their thinking:
“I do also see a lot of people breaking traffic rules
% Irregular riders
with them… going through traffic lights at cross-
roads and not being very sensible on them. That's
more on the non-rented ones I'd say, but I do
% Never ridden associate [e-scooters] with people just, you know,
ignoring all rules and not being very safe.” (Focus
Group 3, Irregular rider Group, A few times)
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree The survey asked participants if they could confidently
tell the difference between private and shared scoot-
ers. 92% of irregular and 99% of regular riders said they
could tell the difference – whereas this figure was just
sidered a public nuisance were also often associated not everybody wears helmets.” (Focus Group 2, 59% for non-riders. Perceptions of private e-scoot-
with shirking personal safety precautions. Non-rider Group, Never ridden) ers (which have different regulations, accountability
mechanisms, safety precautions and speeds) thus alter
“There's definitely a place outside my house that When asked if a barrier to riding is not wanting to be a people’s perceptions of shared e-scooters, particularly
they zip by so fast on the pavement that you feel nuisance, intimidating or anti-social, 57% of non-riders among non-riders.
like you're going to be knocked over, and also you said they agreed, compared to just 13% and 6% of irreg- New regulations, providing a clear legal framework
feel like you're going to be mugged a lot of the ular and regular riders respectively. This demonstrates for e-scooter ownership and use in the law, highway
time, people come right up by you.” (Focus Group 1, a clear dividing line between riders and non-riders code and in the ‘rules of the road’ was seen as critical to
Non-rider Group, Never ridden) when it comes to perceptions of transgressive riding, address concerns over e-scooters as a whole.
“I find them really menacing on the pavement. My and the value placed on those perceptions.
perception of them is they are quite threatening… “Someone said earlier it's the Wild West. There's
I don’t want to be threatening to people.” (Focus Conflating private and shared e-scooters no control and there's no rules or regulation and
Group 1, Non-rider Group, Never ridden) Focus group participants indicated shared e-scooter I'm seeing a lot more of them now. Personally, I'm
“Not everybody follows the rules of the road and riders are not entirely responsible for the negative per- conscious when I'm crossing the road, because
SHARED E-SCOOTERS AND GENDER EQUITY 19even when it says red I still wait for the scooter to 4.3 Knowledge and understanding London all the time - it felt like it was worthwhile
stop 'cause they don't stop. Because all of a sudden investing the time to know how to use it… I don't
the scooters have become bikes - when the light This section considers how knowledge and under- know what the benefits or disadvantages of each
changes to red. So they kind of go on the pavement standing of shared e-scooters informs ridership. It [shared e-scooter operator] would be.” (Focus
to just kind of navigate their way through, so there's highlights issues resulting from a complicated legal Group 1, Non-rider Group, Never ridden)
a risk there, and I think we do need laws to protect framework, limited training opportunities and a per-
us.” (Focus Group 2, Non-rider focus group, Never ceived lack of official endorsement – creating a sense Some participants suggested the arrival of shared
ridden) of bewilderment and even alienation among non-rid- e-scooters without sufficient engagement or commu-
ers. This contributed to fears of being confronted for nications from operators or local authorities left them
4.2.3 Recommendations being in the ‘wrong’ place, on the ‘wrong’ scooter, or confused about their status. Many said this information
simply being put in a position of vulnerability to other vacuum had been filled by the media, often reporting
1. Government(s) should provide clarity and certainty road users. Riders illuminate these barriers to entry, on incidents resulting in injury, which has contributed
over laws around both shared and private e-scooters. outlining the reliance shared e-scooter trials present- to negative perceptions of e-scooters as transgressive
The findings demonstrate a perceived lack of clear pri- ly have on peer support and feelings of risk-taking to and high-risk.
vate e-scooter laws has resulted in a grey area in which overcome fears and unknowns.
women were not confident of the legality and their “One of the reasons they haven’t worked is that
appropriate use. Their association with bad behaviour 4.3.2 Accessing services there’s not been much of a media campaign. With
and transgressive riding – which seems to be associ- Boris Bikes, they were everywhere and everyone knew
ated with private e-scooters – also put many off riding Some non-riders said they were confused and over- about them - all over buses and online. E-scooters
shared e-scooters. whelmed by the multitude of operators existing in have popped up and people are like 'Oh, these are a
It is for the overall public benefit to properly regu- one region. Some participants were unsure of which thing now'. Don't really know anything about them.”
late the private e-scooter market, which appears to be providers were ‘legal’ or how or where they would (Focus Group 1, Non-rider Group, Never ridden)
contributing to poor safety for riders, safety concerns start, or get information on where to start, particularly “The first time I heard about [e-scooters] was when
for pedestrians, and negative views towards e-scooters those who had not yet used any shared e-scooter ser- that lady was knocked down in Battersea and that
– potentially restricting uptake. In determining appro- vice. This patchwork was compared to the supposed really stuck with me.” (Focus Group 1, Non-rider
priate regulations, an extensive equality impact assess- simplicity of authority-run or endorsed city-wide Group, Never ridden)
ment and wide-reaching public consultation should bike-sharing schemes. For example:
take place in advance of introducing regulations. When asked in the survey, the majority (54%) of
Certainty over both private and shared e-scoot- “Just the downloading the app thing. I wouldn’t even non-riders agreed that a barrier to riding shared
er status and regulation is also important to unlock know what companies are doing it. I see different e-scooters was a lack of understanding of individual
resource and investment in monitoring and addressing ones all the time, so I wouldn't even know where to schemes and how to use them, whereas 30% of irreg-
emerging gender imbalances at a local government start if I wanted to be proactive and get set up with ular riders and 22% of regular riders agreed this was a
and operator level. it.” (Focus Group 1, Non-rider Group, Never ridden) barrier to (more) use.
“With Boris Bikes you knew they were across
SHARED E-SCOOTERS AND GENDER EQUITY 204.3.2 Understanding laws and regulations Indeed, results from the survey indicate that 54% of doing that, but in a controlled environment, yes.”
non-rider participants said understanding of laws and (Focus Group 2, Non-rider Group, Never ridden)
In many instances, a lack of understanding of shared regulations surrounding e-scooters was a barrier to “A lot of the barriers that we are coming up with
e-scooter services stretched to a poor understanding (more) e-scooter riding, compared to 23% and 19% of could be covered in training schemes – how you
of the wider regulatory landscape around e-scooters irregular and regular riders respectively. The sizeable ride them, laws about where you can ride them,
as a whole, for example, where they are allowed to be minorities from regular and irregular riders nonethe- how you dock them, how you pay for them, how to
ridden. For some participants, they were aware laws less illustrate that many riders ride despite carrying use the app. It would overcome a lot of people's
and regulations existed, but were not confident in their uncertainty over regulations. initial inertia to using them if there was a training
knowledge of them and felt a sense of bewilderment course you could go on before you used one.” (Fo-
towards e-scooters as a whole. 4.3.3 Learning to ride cus Group 1, Non-rider Group, Never ridden)
Others anticipated confrontation with road users,
reflecting issues deriving from perceived infrastructural Riders and non-riders alike described feeling uncertain Many non-riders also said that local authorities should
shortcomings (see 4.5). about how to ride e-scooters or lacking confidence in play more of a visible role promoting schemes and
their abilities, despite riding them. A lack of suitable training programmes. Many focus group participants
"I genuinely don't know what the rules and regula- spaces for practice or training was cited as a key limit- showed concern over e-scooter companies being
tions are… It's very confusing for everyone I feel if ing factor, while social learning and persistence were chiefly responsible for training, safety and accessibility
you have different rules for rental and non-rental posited as ways of overcoming uncertainty. of services – the apparent absence of local authorities
ones. Like bikes – they're allowed where they're suggesting they were not for the greater good of the
allowed, I would find it very confusing if there were A lack of spaces to learn and practice local area.
different rules for different types." (Focus Group 1, Many non-riders expressed a lack of confidence in
Non-rider Group, Never ridden) being able to ride e-scooters – they were quick to point “I think they are quite focused on active people who
“Having cycled in London for quite a while, I don't out their fear of personal injury and embarrassment. are quite confident, because if they weren’t there
know if this is the same for everyone, but you get This was often expressed in a need for training or prac- would be more training sessions beforehand offered
challenged a lot, saying 'you shouldn't be here' or tice sessions in a dedicated ‘safe’ setting. A further by the local councils. So they do seem to be quite
commenting on your cycling. So that's a fear for reflection of the common perception that inadequate particular for a certain group that might not be the
me, because if I don't know exactly what I should spaces or infrastructure exist to encourage independ- majority.” (Focus Group 1, Non-riders, Never ridden)
and shouldn't be doing I don't want to get involved ent first-time riding (see 4.5). Knowledge-based and
in it because I can't defend my position. At least practical challenges were suggested to help overcome Peer support
when I was cycling I could say I have absolutely the a lack of confidence, e.g. through formal training. People who ride shared e-scooters said a lack of formal
right to be in the road... with e-scooters I don't training opportunities were often overcome by learn-
have the knowledge that it would give me the con- “It would have to be in a controlled environment ing or gaining confidence from their peers in a social
fidence to support this.” (Focus Group 1, Non-rider like a park. Where I can just embarrass myself with- setting. Informal training and peer-led support appears
Group, Never ridden) out breaking my neck. It's never gonna be on the key to building confidence in using the service and
road. That's no good. I'm probably more terrified of one’s riding ability.
SHARED E-SCOOTERS AND GENDER EQUITY 21You can also read
