IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i21p14303-d960564.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

E-Scooter Presence in Urban Areas: Are Consistent Rules, Paying Attention and Smooth Infrastructure Enough for Safety?

Author

Listed:
  • Matteo della Mura

    (Kinematica s.r.l., 40128 Bologna, Italy)

  • Serena Failla

    (Kinematica s.r.l., 40128 Bologna, Italy)

  • Nicolò Gori

    (Kinematica s.r.l., 40128 Bologna, Italy)

  • Alfonso Micucci

    (Department of Civil, Chemical, Environmental and Material Engineering (DICAM), University of Bologna, 40136 Bologna, Italy)

  • Filippo Paganelli

    (Department of Civil, Chemical, Environmental and Material Engineering (DICAM), University of Bologna, 40136 Bologna, Italy)

Abstract

Electric micromobility represents a sustainable mobility option for specific classes of users and distance thresholds. Had this mobility solution been integrated into a comprehensive mobility framework from the beginning, it would have expanded the coverage and accessibility of urban transit services. Instead, slow and incoherent regulation has established a contrast between enthusiastic users (who consider electric micromobility vehicles “fun” and “easy to use”) and recalcitrant public opinion (wherein electric micromobility vehicles are deemed “unsafe” and “dangerous”). Beyond the few attempts made by transport experts to assess the capability of e-scooters to become a sound mobility option (through mobility surveys, pattern analysis, fleet and routing problems), safety and infrastructure design should be developed in a consistent way in order to guarantee a balanced transport setting. With respect to this challenge, a methodology framework is proposed to address the increasing proliferation of micromobility in the context of a coherent transport system. Special attention is devoted to those aspects that have received less attention from the scientific community, namely infrastructure and safe interactions at intersections. The similarities and differences between e-scooters and bikes, chosen in this study as the representative of traditional soft mobility modes, have been taken into consideration. To support the proposed approach, tests investigating e-scooter performance and the perception of both the modes at safety-critical nodes (such as intersections) under different conditions are presented, and the methodology can be applied to a variety of urban scales. The results can be adopted by local authorities, transport companies and e-mobility providers to optimize infrastructure and increase the number and quality of available mobility options.

Suggested Citation

  • Matteo della Mura & Serena Failla & Nicolò Gori & Alfonso Micucci & Filippo Paganelli, 2022. "E-Scooter Presence in Urban Areas: Are Consistent Rules, Paying Attention and Smooth Infrastructure Enough for Safety?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-36, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:21:p:14303-:d:960564
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/21/14303/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/21/14303/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Currie, Graham & Delbosc, Alexa, 2011. "Exploring the trip chaining behaviour of public transport users in Melbourne," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 204-210, January.
    2. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    3. Molin, Eric & Mokhtarian, Patricia & Kroesen, Maarten, 2016. "Multimodal travel groups and attitudes: A latent class cluster analysis of Dutch travelers," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 14-29.
    4. Jensen, Mette, 1999. "Passion and heart in transport -- a sociological analysis on transport behaviour," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 19-33, January.
    5. Miriam Pirra & Sofia Kalakou & Angela Carboni & Mariana Costa & Marco Diana & Ana Rita Lynce, 2021. "A Preliminary Analysis on Gender Aspects in Transport Systems and Mobility Services: Presentation of a Survey Design," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-20, March.
    6. Vittorio Astarita & Ciro Caliendo & Vincenzo Pasquale Giofrè & Isidoro Russo, 2020. "Surrogate Safety Measures from Traffic Simulation: Validation of Safety Indicators with Intersection Traffic Crash Data," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-21, August.
    7. Ralph Buehler & John Pucher & Regine Gerike & Thomas Götschi, 2017. "Reducing car dependence in the heart of Europe: lessons from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(1), pages 4-28, January.
    8. Delmelle, Eric M. & Delmelle, Elizabeth Cahill, 2012. "Exploring spatio-temporal commuting patterns in a university environment," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 1-9.
    9. Marco Diana & Patricia Mokhtarian, 2009. "Grouping travelers on the basis of their different car and transit levels of use," Transportation, Springer, vol. 36(4), pages 455-467, July.
    10. Sungyop Kim & Gudmundur Ulfarsson, 2008. "Curbing automobile use for sustainable transportation: analysis of mode choice on short home-based trips," Transportation, Springer, vol. 35(6), pages 723-737, November.
    11. Şimşekoğlu, Özlem & Nordfjærn, Trond & Rundmo, Torbjørn, 2015. "The role of attitudes, transport priorities, and car use habit for travel mode use and intentions to use public transportation in an urban Norwegian public," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 113-120.
    12. Kate Hynes & Jie Ma & Cheng Yuan, 2019. "Transport infrastructure investments and competition for FDI," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 66(4), pages 511-526, September.
    13. ., 2017. "The Global Transport Infrastructure System," Chapters, in: Global Infrastructure Networks, chapter 3, pages 55-107, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. She, Zhen-Yu & Qing Sun, & Ma, Jia-Jun & Xie, Bai-Chen, 2017. "What are the barriers to widespread adoption of battery electric vehicles? A survey of public perception in Tianjin, China," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 29-40.
    15. Mattioli, Giulio & Anable, Jillian & Vrotsou, Katerina, 2016. "Car dependent practices: Findings from a sequence pattern mining study of UK time use data," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 56-72.
    16. Parkin, John & Rotheram, Jonathon, 2010. "Design speeds and acceleration characteristics of bicycle traffic for use in planning, design and appraisal," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 335-341, September.
    17. Postorino, Maria Nadia & Mantecchini, Luca & Paganelli, Filippo, 2019. "Improving taxi-out operations at city airports to reduce CO2 emissions," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 167-176.
    18. Médard de Chardon, Cyrille, 2019. "The contradictions of bike-share benefits, purposes and outcomes," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 401-419.
    19. Yang, Hongtai & Huo, Jinghai & Bao, Yongxing & Li, Xuan & Yang, Linchuan & Cherry, Christopher R., 2021. "Impact of e-scooter sharing on bike sharing in Chicago," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 23-36.
    20. Margarita Martínez-Díaz & Francesc Soriguera & Ignacio Pérez, 2018. "Technology: A Necessary but Not Sufficient Condition for Future Personal Mobility," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-24, November.
    21. Kager, R. & Bertolini, L. & Te Brömmelstroet, M., 2016. "Characterisation of and reflections on the synergy of bicycles and public transport," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 208-219.
    22. Zhou, Jiangping, 2012. "Sustainable commute in a car-dominant city: Factors affecting alternative mode choices among university students," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(7), pages 1013-1029.
    23. Shelat, Sanmay & Huisman, Raymond & van Oort, Niels, 2018. "Analysing the trip and user characteristics of the combined bicycle and transit mode," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 68-76.
    24. Keila González-Gómez & María Castro, 2019. "Evaluating Pedestrians’ Safety on Urban Intersections: A Visibility Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-16, November.
    25. De Vos, Jonas, 2018. "Do people travel with their preferred travel mode? Analysing the extent of travel mode dissonance and its effect on travel satisfaction," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 261-274.
    26. Caterina Malandri & Luca Mantecchini & Filippo Paganelli & Maria Nadia Postorino, 2021. "Public Transport Network Vulnerability and Delay Distribution among Travelers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-14, August.
    27. Kent, Jennifer L., 2014. "Driving to save time or saving time to drive? The enduring appeal of the private car," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 103-115.
    28. Huo, Jinghai & Yang, Hongtai & Li, Chaojing & Zheng, Rong & Yang, Linchuan & Wen, Yi, 2021. "Influence of the built environment on E-scooter sharing ridership: A tale of five cities," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Shiva Pourfalatoun & Jubaer Ahmed & Erika E. Miller, 2023. "Shared Electric Scooter Users and Non-Users: Perceptions on Safety, Adoption and Risk," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-15, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Marco De Angelis & Luca Mantecchini & Luca Pietrantoni, 2021. "A Cluster Analysis of University Commuters: Attitudes, Personal Norms and Constraints, and Travel Satisfaction," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(9), pages 1-15, April.
    2. Klinger, Thomas, 2017. "Moving from monomodality to multimodality? Changes in mode choice of new residents," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 221-237.
    3. Samadzad, Mahdi & Nosratzadeh, Hossein & Karami, Hossein & Karami, Ali, 2023. "What are the factors affecting the adoption and use of electric scooter sharing systems from the end user's perspective?," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 70-82.
    4. Zhan, Guangjun & Yan, Xuedong & Zhu, Shanjiang & Wang, Yun, 2016. "Using hierarchical tree-based regression model to examine university student travel frequency and mode choice patterns in China," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 55-65.
    5. Ton, Danique & Arendsen, Koen & de Bruyn, Menno & Severens, Valerie & van Hagen, Mark & van Oort, Niels & Duives, Dorine, 2022. "Teleworking during COVID-19 in the Netherlands: Understanding behaviour, attitudes, and future intentions of train travellers," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 55-73.
    6. Ko, Joonho & Lee, Sugie & Byun, Miree, 2019. "Exploring factors associated with commute mode choice: An application of city-level general social survey data," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 36-46.
    7. Whalen, Kate E. & Páez, Antonio & Carrasco, Juan A., 2013. "Mode choice of university students commuting to school and the role of active travel," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 132-142.
    8. Bouscasse, H. & Bonnel, P., 2016. "Socio-psychological determinants of mode choice habits," Working Papers 2016-05, Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory (GAEL).
    9. Haustein, Sonja & Kroesen, Maarten, 2022. "Shifting to more sustainable mobility styles: A latent transition approach," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    10. Danique Ton & Lara-Britt Zomer & Florian Schneider & Sascha Hoogendoorn-Lanser & Dorine Duives & Oded Cats & Serge Hoogendoorn, 2020. "Latent classes of daily mobility patterns: the relationship with attitudes towards modes," Transportation, Springer, vol. 47(4), pages 1843-1866, August.
    11. Rico Krueger & Akshay Vij & Taha H. Rashidi, 2018. "Normative beliefs and modality styles: a latent class and latent variable model of travel behaviour," Transportation, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 789-825, May.
    12. Zahra Zarabi & Philippe Gerber & Sébastien Lord, 2019. "Travel Satisfaction vs. Life Satisfaction: A Weighted Decision-Making Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-28, September.
    13. Diana, Marco & Pronello, Cristina, 2010. "Traveler segmentation strategy with nominal variables through correspondence analysis," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 183-190, May.
    14. Verena Gruber & Ingrid Peignier & Charlotte Dubuc & Yann-Édouard Cayard & Elinora Pentcheva, 2021. "Analyse des motivations d’achat de camions légers au Canada," CIRANO Project Reports 2021rp-06, CIRANO.
    15. Aghaabbasi, Mahdi & Shekari, Zohreh Asadi & Shah, Muhammad Zaly & Olakunle, Oloruntobi & Armaghani, Danial Jahed & Moeinaddini, Mehdi, 2020. "Predicting the use frequency of ride-sourcing by off-campus university students through random forest and Bayesian network techniques," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 262-281.
    16. Özlem Şimşekoğlu & Trond Nordfjærn & Torbjørn Rundmo, 2017. "Predictors of car use habit strength in an urban Norwegian public," Transportation, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 575-588, May.
    17. Haiyan Zhu & Hongzhi Guan & Yan Han & Wanying Li, 2019. "A Study of Tourists’ Holiday Rush-Hour Avoidance Travel Behavior Considering Psychographic Segmentation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(13), pages 1-20, July.
    18. Jie Gao & Dick Ettema & Marco Helbich & Carlijn B. M. Kamphuis, 2019. "Travel mode attitudes, urban context, and demographics: do they interact differently for bicycle commuting and cycling for other purposes?," Transportation, Springer, vol. 46(6), pages 2441-2463, December.
    19. Radzimski, Adam & Dzięcielski, Michał, 2021. "Exploring the relationship between bike-sharing and public transport in Poznań, Poland," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 189-202.
    20. Hamid Mahmood Gelaidan & Abdullah Al-Swidi & Muhammad Haroon Hafeez, 2023. "Studying the Joint Effects of Perceived Service Quality, Perceived Benefits, and Environmental Concerns in Sustainable Travel Behavior: Extending the TPB," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-22, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:21:p:14303-:d:960564. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.