Integrating Micromobility into Canada’s Transportation System: Emerging Safety Challenges and Engineering Considerations – The Canadian Association of Road Safety Professionals (CARSP)

By: Essam Dabbour, Ph.D., RSP1, F.ITE, P.Eng.

Abstract

Micromobility refers to a mode of transportation involving lightweight personal transportation devices. Traditionally, bicycles were the only widely recognized form of micromobility; however, in recent years, several factors have contributed to the emergence of other innovative types of micromobility devices. These include electric bicycles, electric kick scooters, electric skateboards, and electric mopeds. Millions of Canadians now find micromobility a practical, affordable, and environmentally sustainable mode of transportation for short urban trips and for bridging the distance between their origin or destination points and the nearest public transit stops. However, with the rapid growth of micromobility, there is an urgent need to update infrastructure, policies, and engineering practice to safely accommodate that growth. This article reviews how micromobility is defined in the transportation literature, examines the factors driving its growth, and lays out a framework for safely integrating it into the Canadian transportation system. The article defines five safety principles that should guide the work ahead: compatibility, predictability, consistency, risk-based decision-making, and rider protection. The article also suggests that no single operating environment is suitable for all micromobility devices and that a risk-based approach should be used to select an appropriate operating environment for each class of micromobility device, rather than regulating each emerging device individually.

Introduction

Over the past decade, a new generation of lightweight vehicles has emerged on Canadian roads, as well as on most other roads around the world. Electric bicycles, electric kick scooters, and similar devices are changing how people cover short distances in a manner that is convenient, affordable, and more environmentally sustainable.

The rapid growth in micromobility has been driven by several factors, including continued urbanization, worsening traffic congestion, increasing investment in active transportation, the rising cost of vehicle ownership, growing environmental awareness, and ongoing improvements in battery technology. Recognizing the potential benefits of micromobility, several municipalities in Canada are now offering shared micromobility programs, especially for electric kick scooters. Furthermore, many transit users also rely on micromobility to bridge the distance between their origin or destination points and the nearest public transit stops. Therefore, micromobility has the potential to reduce reliance on private vehicles.

Despite the obvious benefits of micromobility, there are several challenges that must be carefully considered to allow for safe integration into the transportation system. Several questions must be answered, such as where micromobility devices should operate, how they should share space with other road users, and whether existing design standards and regulations can accommodate this new class of road users. Answering these questions requires cooperative efforts by policymakers, road safety professionals, transportation agencies, and law enforcement agencies. This article attempts to establish the principles that should guide safe integration of micromobility into Canada's transportation network.

What Is Micromobility?

A discussion of micromobility should begin with an agreed-upon definition. The International Transport Forum and SAE International generally describe micromobility as a category of lightweight transportation devices intended primarily for relatively short trips. Conventional bicycles, electrically assisted bicycles, electric kick scooters, cargo e-bikes, electric skateboards, and self-balancing personal mobility devices all fall within this broad concept (International Transport Forum, 2024; SAE International J3194).

The Transportation Association of Canada uses the more specific term ‘shared micromobility’ to refer to “small and lightweight human- or electric powered transportation devices, such as bikes, e-bikes, or e-scooters that are rented through a mobile app or kiosk and used on an as needed basis for short trips, typically up to one hour” (Transportation Association of Canada, 2025).

Therefore, for the purposes of this article, micromobility devices may be broadly defined as devices that:

are lightweight;
operate at speeds that generally range between those of pedestrians and motor vehicles; and
are propelled by human power, electricity, or a combination of both.

Canada's Micromobility Revolution

Better batteries, lighter materials and more efficient electric propulsion have accelerated the adoption of micromobility across Canada. For many road users, micromobility is simply the most affordable and practical way to travel while also satisfying larger environmental and public health goals (International Transport Forum, 2024).

A key question is where micromobility should fit within Canada's transportation system. Micromobility occupies a position somewhere between walking, cycling, and motorized transportation. Therefore, micromobility creates unique interactions among pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists that the system was never intended to handle. Potential risks arising from those interactions must be thoroughly evaluated in order to create a framework for integrating micromobility into the transportation system while advancing innovation and ensuring safety for all road users.

Why Micromobility Presents a New Challenge

Traditionally, transportation engineering has considered pedestrians, cyclists, and motor vehicles as three distinct modes, each with well-understood operating characteristics. However, many emerging micromobility devices do not fit neatly within these traditional categories. Although conventional bicycles are among the earliest recognized forms of micromobility, other devices have substantially different operating characteristics. For example, electric kick scooters and electric skateboards are generally lighter than conventional bicycles and may operate at speeds that are between those typically associated with walking and those typically associated with cycling. Conversely, electric bicycles and other larger micromobility devices may have greater mass and attain higher operating speeds, bringing some of their characteristics closer to those associated with motor vehicles.

Consequently, micromobility encompasses devices with substantially different mass, speed, size, stability, and braking characteristics. This diversity presents a new engineering challenge because a transportation environment suitable for one category of micromobility device may not necessarily be appropriate for another. Safe integration of micromobility into the transportation system therefore requires a thorough understanding of how the unique operating characteristics of different devices shape user behaviour and where potential conflicts between micromobility users and other road users are likely to arise (International Transport Forum, 2024).

Compatibility: The Foundation for Safe Integration

The first principle that should be considered is compatibility. The safety and efficiency of transportation facilities are generally maximized when users have reasonably compatible operating speeds, vehicle characteristics, and expectations. Consequently, the choice of operating environment should reflect the unique physical characteristics and capabilities of micromobility devices. For example, a lightweight device travelling at speeds comparable to those of bicycles is generally more compatible with cycling infrastructure than with pedestrian sidewalks, whereas a device operating at approximately walking speed may reasonably share pedestrian space, provided that appropriate operating conditions and safety controls are in place (Jafari & Liu, 2024; Trivedi et al., 2019).

Predictability and Driver Expectancy

In addition to compatibility, road users must be able to reasonably anticipate the actions of others. Driver expectancy is a well-established human factors principle describing how drivers continuously estimate the arrival time and likely behaviour of pedestrians, cyclists, and other road users when making decisions such as whether to proceed through an intersection, turn across a sidewalk, or accept a gap in traffic. At driveways and pedestrian crossings, drivers generally expect pedestrians to approach at approximately walking speed. When a micromobility user enters these conflict areas at a speed substantially higher than that of a typical pedestrian, the driver's expectations may no longer match reality. This mismatch reduces the time available for both the driver and the micromobility user to perceive, assess, and respond to the developing conflict, increasing the likelihood of a collision even when neither party has acted carelessly.

Human factors, including driver expectancy, have long been recognized as important considerations in the design of transportation systems. As micromobility continues to expand, driver expectancy should likewise become an important consideration when determining where different classes of micromobility devices should operate and appropriate operating speeds within those shared environments.

Consistency: Where Should Micromobility Operate?

Consistency requires that similar classes of micromobility devices be subject to similar operating principles across jurisdictions while allowing sufficient flexibility to accommodate local conditions. Determining the most appropriate operating environment is therefore an important element of achieving that consistency. Unlike conventional bicycles or other traditional transportation modes, micromobility covers a diverse range of transportation devices with substantially different operating characteristics. Some devices closely resemble conventional bicycles in terms of mass, speed, braking, and handling characteristics. However, other micromobility devices have considerably larger or smaller masses than bicycles or may attain speeds that are substantially higher or lower than those attained by bicycles. Consequently, applying one operating rule to all micromobility devices may not always be an optimally safe solution.

Consistency should always be considered when determining where different categories of micromobility devices should operate. Some micromobility devices may share sidewalks with pedestrians, others may use cycling facilities, while heavier and more powerful devices may operate within traffic lanes alongside motor vehicles. Therefore, considering the diversity of micromobility devices, there is unlikely to be a single operating environment that safely accommodates every category of micromobility device.

Risk-Based Decision-Making

Transportation agencies should adopt a risk-based approach in which the operating environment is selected according to the characteristics of each class of micromobility devices. Important considerations include maximum operating speed, mass, stability, braking capability, wheel diameter, rider conspicuity, and the manner in which the device interacts with other road users. Collectively, these characteristics influence both the likelihood of conflicts and the severity of injuries should a collision occur.

From an engineering perspective, the objective is to maximize compatibility among users sharing the same transportation facility. Devices with operating characteristics comparable to bicycles are generally more suitable for use on cycling facilities than on sidewalks, whereas lower-speed devices operating at approximately walking speed may be able to safely share pedestrian space under carefully controlled conditions. Conversely, higher-speed or heavier micromobility devices may be more appropriately accommodated on traffic lanes where their operating characteristics more closely resemble those of motor vehicles.

Importantly, a risk-based approach does not require regulators to develop separate legislation for every new micromobility device introduced into the market. Instead, new technologies can be evaluated according to their operating characteristics and assigned to an appropriate risk category within an existing regulatory framework. The objective should not be to identify a single operating environment for all micromobility devices, but rather to ensure that each class of devices operates in an environment where its characteristics are reasonably compatible with those of surrounding road users. Such an approach would improve safety, reduce conflicts, simplify regulation, and provide a flexible framework capable of accommodating future technological advances without requiring frequent legislative amendments (International Transport Forum, 2024).

Rider Protection: Reducing Injury Severity

Unlike occupants of motor vehicles, micromobility users have virtually no structural protection during a collision or fall. Consequently, the human body itself absorbs most of the impact energy, making riders particularly vulnerable to head injuries, fractures, and other serious trauma. This vulnerability applies not only to collisions involving motor vehicles, but also to single-device incidents resulting from loss of control or pavement defects, as well as conflicts with pedestrians, cyclists, or fixed roadside objects.

Because the consequences of collisions can be severe, even at relatively moderate operating speeds, rider protection should form an important component of a comprehensive micromobility safety strategy. Appropriate protective equipment and safety systems can significantly reduce injury severity while improving rider conspicuity, particularly during darkness or adverse weather conditions. At a minimum, protective equipment and safety systems should include helmets, front and rear lights, reflectors, reflective clothing, and effective braking systems. Research has consistently shown that helmet use substantially reduces the risk of serious head injuries among cyclists (Olivier & Creighton, 2017), and similar benefits are expected for many categories of micromobility users.

However, protective equipment should not be viewed as a substitute for safer transportation systems. Rather, it should complement compatible operating environments, appropriate operating speeds, sound infrastructure design, and evidence-based regulations. Consistent with the Safe System approach, improving micromobility safety requires multiple complementary layers of protection that work together to reduce both the likelihood of a collision and the severity of injuries when one occurs.

Learning from Canadian Practice

Canadian jurisdictions have adopted a variety of approaches to regulating micromobility, particularly electric kick scooters. Rather than viewing these differences simply as regulatory inconsistencies, they can be considered practical case studies that illustrate how engineering, policy, technology, and local context influence the safe integration of micromobility into existing transportation systems.

For example, Ontario’s pilot program for electric kick scooters sets common baseline requirements for rider age, equipment, and operating characteristics (O. Reg. 389/19). However, participating municipalities retain flexibility to determine where micromobility devices are allowed to be operated. The City of Ottawa, for example, identified certain operating zones and local speed restrictions (City of Ottawa, 2026), while the City of Toronto has opted out entirely (City of Toronto, 2026). British Columbia follows a similar model, with province-wide requirements (Government of British Columbia, 2026) and local discretion over whether and where devices can operate (City of Vancouver, 2026). These examples demonstrate that common provincial principles can coexist with appropriate municipal flexibility, allowing local governments to respond to differences in infrastructure, traffic conditions, and community needs while maintaining a consistent regulatory foundation.

Canadian shared micromobility programs also demonstrate how emerging technologies can complement engineering and enforcement rather than replace them. Shared micromobility fleets in Calgary (City of Calgary, 2026) and Edmonton (City of Edmonton, 2026) provide useful examples in which geofencing can automatically slow devices down in sensitive areas, keep them out of prohibited zones altogether, and help keep parking orderly. Although these technologies provide valuable operational tools, they cannot compensate for incompatible operating environments, inadequate infrastructure, or inconsistent regulations. Instead, they should be viewed as one component of a broader Safe System approach that combines engineering, education, enforcement, and policy.

Collectively, these Canadian examples reinforce the five principles discussed throughout this article. They demonstrate that successful integration depends not only on regulation, but also on achieving compatibility among users, promoting predictable interactions, maintaining reasonable consistency across jurisdictions, adopting a risk-based approach that reflects the operating characteristics of different classes of micromobility devices, and establishing appropriate requirements for rider protection.

Infrastructure and Asset Management

The continued growth of micromobility will likely require municipalities to re-evaluate how transportation infrastructure is planned, designed, inspected, maintained, and rehabilitated. Many Canadian roads, cycling facilities, sidewalks, and multi-use pathways were originally designed to accommodate pedestrians, bicycles, and motor vehicles. However, some categories of micromobility devices have operating characteristics that make them more vulnerable to infrastructure deficiencies than conventional bicycles or motor vehicles.

As a traffic safety expert and forensic engineer, I have investigated several micromobility collisions in which small wheels contributed to the rider's loss of control when encountering surface irregularities. Compared with motor vehicles and even conventional bicycles, certain micromobility devices can be less capable of traversing surface irregularities, including potholes, cracks, surface discontinuities, pavement joints, utility covers, drainage grates, bridge deck joints, and temporary construction plates.

Consequently, transportation agencies should consider the unique operating characteristics of micromobility when developing inspection programs, prioritizing maintenance activities, evaluating existing cycling and pedestrian facilities, and updating future design and maintenance standards for transportation infrastructure. As micromobility becomes more common, transportation agencies may also need to reconsider how surface deficiencies are identified and prioritized during routine inspections, recognizing that defects posing little concern for motor vehicles may present substantially greater risks to certain micromobility devices. Adopting this approach will help ensure that transportation infrastructure continues to safely accommodate an increasingly diverse transportation system while reducing infrastructure-related safety risks and supporting the safe integration of micromobility into Canada's transportation system.

A Coordinated Three-Level Governance Framework

The safe integration of micromobility into Canada's transportation system requires coordinated action among all three levels of government. While each level has distinct responsibilities, those responsibilities are complementary and should collectively support a consistent, risk-based framework for the safe integration of micromobility into Canada's transportation system.

The federal government is well positioned to establish minimum product safety requirements for micromobility devices, including manufacturing standards, electrical and battery safety requirements, lighting requirements, minimum braking performance requirements, and other equipment requirements. A consistent federal approach helps ensure that micromobility devices entering the Canadian market meet acceptable safety standards.

Provincial and territorial governments should establish common operating rules, including device classifications, rider eligibility, helmet requirements, operating speed limits, and other baseline safety requirements. Consistent provincial regulations provide road users with a clear understanding of their responsibilities while reducing unnecessary regulatory differences among municipalities.

Municipal governments play an equally important role by determining how micromobility is integrated into the local transportation network. Their responsibilities include identifying appropriate operating environments, regulating shared micromobility programs, establishing parking requirements, supporting public education and enforcement, and planning, designing, maintaining, rehabilitating, and managing transportation infrastructure to safely accommodate micromobility. Municipal governments can also serve as testing grounds for technological and operational innovations that may precede broader provincial or federal standards and provide evidence to inform their future development. The use of geofencing in shared micromobility programs in Calgary and Edmonton provides a useful example of this type of municipal innovation.

By working collaboratively within their respective areas of responsibility, all three levels of government can promote a transportation system that is consistent while remaining sufficiently adaptable to local conditions and community needs. Such an approach provides a common regulatory foundation while preserving the flexibility needed for municipalities to address differences in infrastructure, land use, traffic conditions, and community priorities. Regardless of the level of government involved, decisions should remain guided by the safety principles of compatibility, predictability, consistency, risk-based decision-making, and rider protection, as discussed in this article.

Conclusion

The rapid growth of micromobility in Canada is introducing unprecedented interactions among pedestrians, cyclists, motorists, and emerging transportation technologies. Successfully integrating these devices into Canada's transportation system will require coordinated efforts from policymakers, transportation agencies, road safety professionals, and law enforcement agencies. This article suggests that the safe integration of micromobility should be guided by five complementary safety principles, which are compatibility, predictability, consistency, risk-based decision-making, and rider protection. Together, these principles provide a practical framework for all three levels of government to coordinate their responsibilities while balancing safety, innovation, and sustainability. Ultimately, micromobility should be viewed not as a challenge to existing transportation systems, but as an opportunity to improve them by providing a mode of transportation that is convenient, affordable, flexible, and environmentally sustainable. Maximizing these benefits will require technology to complement—rather than replace—sound engineering, thoughtful regulation, effective education, and appropriate law enforcement. By embracing these principles, Canada can continue to support transportation innovation while preserving the safety, efficiency, and sustainability of its transportation system.

References

International Transport Forum (2024). Safer Micromobility.
International Transport Forum (2020). Safe Micromobility.
SAE International (2025): Taxonomy and Classification of Powered Micromobility Vehicles. DOI: 10.4271/J3194_202502.
Transportation Association of Canada (2025). Shared Micromobility Services in Canadian Communities. ISBN: 978-1-55187-725-9.
Jafari A., Liu Y.-C. (2024). Pedestrians' safety using projected time-to-collision to electric scooters. Nature Communications, 15:5701, DOI: 10.1038/s41467-024-50049-x.
Trivedi T.K. et al. (2019). Injuries Associated with Standing Electric Scooter Use. JAMA Network Open, 2(1), DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.7381.
Olivier J., and Creighton, P. (2017). Bicycle injuries and helmet use: a systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Epidemiology, 46(1). DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyw153.
Government of Ontario (2019). O. Reg. 389/19: Pilot Project – Electric Kick-Scooters.
City of Ottawa (2026). Personal e-scooters. Available online at (https://ottawa.ca/en/city-hall/creating-equal-inclusive-and-diverse-city/accessibility-city/transportation/e-scooters/personal-e-scooters).
City of Toronto (2026). Electric Scooters: Rules and Regulations. Available online at (https://www.toronto.ca/services-payments/streets-parking-transportation/transportation-projects/micromobility/electric-bicycles-e-bikes-e-scooters/).
Government of British Columbia (2026). Electric Kick Scooter Pilot Project. Available online at (https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/transportation/driving-and-cycling/cycling/personal-mobility-devices/scooter).
City of Vancouver (2026). E-scooters. Available online at (https://vancouver.ca/streets-transportation/electric-kick-scooters.aspx).
City of Calgary (2026). Shared Micromobility (e-Bikes and e-Scooters) Program. Available online at (https://www.calgary.ca/bike-walk-roll/electric-scooters.html).
City of Edmonton (2026). Shared Micromobility Program. Available online at (https://www.edmonton.ca/transportation/cycling_walking/bike-electric-scooter-sharing).