Why Micromobility Affects More Than the Rider: A Community Safety Issue
April 28, 2026
Micromobility devices—especially e‑scooters—are often presented as convenient, modern, and fun. But when these devices enter school zones and neighborhoods, the risks extend to anyone nearby, especially children, including those whose parents never gave permission for them to ride. This makes micromobility not simply a personal choice, but a community safety issue.
Universities across Pennsylvania have already recognized that e‑scooters pose unacceptable risks. Villanova University does not allow e‑scooters anywhere on campus due to injuries, and Penn State University Police issued a campus‑wide enforcement action after multiple injury incidents, directing students to leave e‑scooters at home after Spring Break.⁷ ⁸
If universities cannot allow these devices because of injuries among adults, then K–12 schools — supervising children — have an even stronger obligation to establish clear rules and enforcement.
Design Limitations That Create Predictable Risks
E‑scooter risks are not primarily caused by speed or rider behavior. They are caused by design limitations that make these devices inherently unstable on real‑world surfaces:
- small wheels
- high center of gravity
- no suspension
- low tire volume
- high load per wheel
- unregulated mechanical design
These factors create predictable, repeatable hazards that children cannot reliably manage.
These same engineering limitations are why universities have prohibited or restricted e‑scooters. Villanova’s ban cites safety risks and injury incidents, and Penn State’s enforcement action confirms that even adults were being injured on campus.⁷ ⁸ If adults are being injured on controlled university campuses, children in K–12 environments face even greater danger.
Small‑Wheel Instability -a Known Engineering Problem
University‑based mechanical engineering research confirms that small wheels behave differently—and more dangerously—than larger wheels when encountering real‑world surface defects.
A multibody dynamics study from Transilvania University of Brașov and the University of Oradea shows that small wheels experience:
- higher impact forces
- greater vertical displacement
- steeper impact angles
- increased destabilizing moments
- a higher likelihood of dropping into potholes¹
A second engineering study published in Materials (Basel) demonstrates that wheel rims experience:
- high stress concentrations
- accelerated crack growth
- structural fatigue under repeated impacts²
Explained simply by Go Grava: “Small wheels fall deeper into cracks and potholes… On real roads—broken pavement, expansion joints, curb seams, and storm debris—small wheels are simply more vulnerable.”³ Levy Electric also confirms: “Electric scooters are particularly vulnerable with small 8 to 9‑inch wheels… they tend to fall into cracks, and hitting a large pothole… can end in an immediate crash.”⁴ Bike paths across PA have been observed to have storm grates. Also water may pool on sides of road causing low to ground electrical components to go under water when riding. While most scooters are water-resistant, they are not waterproof. Deep puddles can cause short circuits causing instant failure.
These engineering realities are the same reasons Villanova and Penn State prohibit e‑scooters. If adults are being injured because of these mechanical limitations, children are at even greater risk.
Lack of U.S. Safety Standards for E‑Scooters
Unlike bicycles, cars, or motorcycles, stand‑up e‑scooters have no federal mechanical safety standards.
There are no requirements for:
- braking distance
- stability
- structural integrity
- wheel performance
- suspension
- visibility or lighting
- age labeling
- crashworthiness testing
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission confirms that scooters are sold without any federal mechanical safety requirements.⁵
Universities cite this lack of safety standards as part of their justification for bans. If unregulated devices are causing injuries among adults on college campuses, they are unquestionably too risky for children in K–12 schools — especially without a district‑wide policy and enforcement framework.
These Risks Extend to Other Children and the Community
Children routinely:
- share scooters
- ride without helmets
- ride near younger students
- ride in parking lots and bus lanes
- ride during arrival and dismissal
This exposes children and others on the sidewalk who never agreed to the risk.
Universities have documented that even adults share devices, ride unpredictably, and cause injuries to themselves and others.⁷ ⁸ K–12 students — who lack adult judgment and physical maturity — are at far greater risk, and the children around them are exposed to hazards they never agreed to. I recently meet a Penn State graduate who stated she was happy about the recent ban because her room mate was hit and injured by an e-scooter at Penn State.
Schools inherit responsibility for managing these predictable hazards because the riding occurs on or near school property, during school‑supervised times, and around younger students.
Why Micromobility Creates Serious Challenges for Schools, Townships, and Police
School Administrators: The Only Adults With Real‑Time Authority
Schools, most which also have video monitoring, can:
- set rules
- supervise students,
- intervene immediately
- restrict riding on campus
Townships and police cannot supervise children on school grounds. Schools can. Universities enforce bans because education alone is not enough. They required policy + enforcement due to injuries. K–12 schools must do the same. Schools also face liability when children ride into traffic from school grounds.
Police Departments: High Risk, Limited Tools
Police cannot:
- safely pursue scooter riders
- block a child with a patrol car
- physically stop a rider
- enforce school rules without school action
Scooters can maneuver through sidewalks, parking lots, and between cars—areas where police cannot safely intervene. When police work with schools, as done at universities, it was determined that policy + enforcement were necessary. K–12 schools must adopt similar protective measures.
Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Addresses This Shared Responsibility
SRTS is a federally supported framework requiring schools and municipalities to collaborate on:
- Education
- Encouragement
- Engineering
- Enforcement
- Evaluation
Micromobility directly affects all five pillars.
Education
SRTS requires schools to provide evidence‑based safety education. Universities already educate adults about micromobility risks. K–12 schools must educate children—who are far more vulnerable.
Encouragement
SRTS encourages walking and biking, not motorized riding. Scooters increase risk for walkers and cyclists.
Engineering
SRTS infrastructure is designed for pedestrians and bicycles—not motorized devices. Universities cite infrastructure mismatch as a reason for bans.
Enforcement
Police cannot pursue scooter riders. Townships cannot enforce rules on school grounds. Universities enforce bans because enforcement is essential due to injuries. K–12 schools must enforce rules for the same reason.
Evaluation
SRTS requires schools to evaluate safety risks. Micromobility injuries are rising and must be included in SRTS assessments.⁶
If universities must educate and enforce for adults due to injuries, then K–12 schools — responsible for children — have an even stronger obligation under SRTS to establish clear policies, communicate expectations, and enforce rules consistently in cooperation with the community and local police.
Evidence Table
Transportation inequity
| Topic | Fact | Evidence / Reference |
|---|---|---|
| Who uses them for transportation | Older teens and adults, not young children | Johns Hopkins study; police statements |
| Young children | Use them for recreation, not necessity | LehighValleyNews article |
| Lower‑income families | More likely to rely on micromobility for actual transportation | Johns Hopkins Children’s Center study |
| Wealthier families | Use cars, adult drivers, rides, avoiding micromobility risks | Transportation research |
| Inequity | Marketing pushes risky devices toward families with fewer alternatives | Marketing patterns + injury data |
Conclusion: A Shared Responsibility
Universities across Pennsylvania have already determined that e‑scooters are unsafe for adults. They ban them, educate students, and enforce strict rules because of injuries. If adults require education, enforcement, and campus‑wide bans due to injuries, then children in K–12 schools require even stronger protections — and SRTS provides the framework for schools to implement them.
Micromobility safety is not optional. It is a shared responsibility, and schools are the only entity with the authority and proximity to manage it in real time. #Saferoutes to school #communitysafety
If your school is looking for help for an assembly or a draft policy based on Villanova’s policy
Footnotes
1. Radu, A. I., Tolea, A. B., Trușcă, D. D., Ispas, N., & Năstăsoiu, M. (2023). Development of a multibody model used to study the impact between a vehicle wheel and a pothole. Retrieved from https://www.mdpi.com
2. Montassir, S., Moustabchir, H., El Khalfi, A., Vlase, S., & Scutaru, M. L. (2024). Numerical study of crack prediction and growth in automotive wheel rims. Materials (Basel). Retrieved from https://www.mdpi.com
3. Go Grava Adventure Corporation. (2024). Why e‑scooter tires and tubes fail faster than bike tires. Retrieved from https://gograva.com/blogs/guides/why-e-scooter-tires-fail-faster
4. Levy Electric. (2024). Troubleshooting electric scooter wheel problems: A step‑by‑step guide. Retrieved from https://www.levyelectric.com/resources/troubleshooting-electric-scooter-wheel-problems-a-step-by-step-guide
5. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. (2023). Micromobility safety reports and public filings. Retrieved from https://www.cpsc.gov
6. Federal Highway Administration. (2023). Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Program Guidance. Retrieved from https://www.fhwa.dot.gov
7. Villanova University. (2024). Campus Micromobility Ban — Public Safety Policy. Retrieved from https://www1.villanova.edu
8. Penn State University Police. (2024). Micromobility Enforcement Action and Student Conduct Referral Notice. Retrieved from https://police.psu.edu