Injury data from Queensland hospitals shows a sustained rise in e‑mobility‑related harm, with emergency departments reporting more presentations linked to devices such as e‑scooters over the past three years. The pattern is drawing attention from insurers to local changes in claim frequency and injury severity, particularly among younger riders.
The Queensland Injury Surveillance Unit (QISU) reports that about 2,000 people presented to emergency departments across the state in 2025 with injuries associated with e‑mobility devices, including e‑scooters. That compares with 1,626 presentations in 2024 and 1,380 in 2023, indicating a year‑on‑year increase in recorded cases. QISU collects injury information from around 36 hospitals and estimates its database represents roughly 25% to 30% of all emergency department injury presentations in Queensland. On that basis, the total number of e‑mobility‑related injuries in the state is likely to be higher than the figures captured in the database.
RACQ head of public policy Dr. Michael Kane said the trend underlines the need for a policy response involving multiple agencies. “Queensland’s e-mobility crisis has reached tipping point. At least 2,000 Queenslanders were admitted to hospital in 2025 due to e-mobility injuries, but as emphasised during the inquiry last year, these figures represent real individuals whose lives have been upended,” Kane said. Submissions to a Queensland parliamentary inquiry into e‑mobility safety have described serious injuries from collisions between e‑scooters and pedestrians or cyclists, including spinal trauma, long hospital stays, and extended rehabilitation following impacts at relatively high speed. For insurers operating in Queensland, the combination of rising emergency presentations and severe case examples points to increasing claim frequency and potentially higher injury costs across compulsory third‑party, personal accident, and public liability portfolios.
RACQ, Bicycle Queensland, and Queensland Walks are jointly asking the parliamentary committee to support a set of reforms covering enforcement, retail controls, infrastructure, data collection, and hire operations in the state. Measures proposed include stronger enforcement against illegal or modified high‑powered e‑devices, clearer legal definitions of compliant e‑bikes and e‑scooters, and additional powers for Queensland Police Service staff and authorised transport officers. The groups have called for powers to impound illegal devices and introduce extra helmet requirements for stand‑up scooters.
On the supply side, the organisations are seeking limits on the sale of e‑mopeds and e‑motorbikes to licensed dealers, with expanded powers for the Office of Fair Trading to act against non‑compliant or irresponsible retailers. They also want state authorities to work with the Commonwealth to tighten import controls so only standards‑compliant products enter Australia. Infrastructure and operational changes suggested include ongoing investment in higher‑quality footpaths, separated bike lanes, and shared paths to reduce conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists, and e‑mobility users. The groups have also proposed changes to e‑scooter hire schemes, such as dedicated parking funded by operator revenue, technology‑based compliance tools (including AI‑enabled systems), a transition toward sit‑down shared scooters, and greater transparency on safety and regulatory performance.
Stakeholders are further recommending improved reporting of crashes and hospital admissions across all hospitals, supported by a public‑facing data dashboard and statewide education programs on safer e‑mobility use. “Without these reforms, Queensland will continue to see preventable tragedies,” Kane said. For insurers, clearer device categories, more defined enforcement powers, and more consistent data could reduce uncertainty around coverage triggers, exclusions, and liability allocation in claims involving e‑mobility devices.
Separate academic research is adding detail on the risk profile for young e‑scooter riders, with Queensland again featuring prominently. University of Melbourne associate professor Milad Haghani has assembled a national dataset of fatal e‑scooter incidents based on Australian media reports from Jan. 1, 2020, to July 1, 2025. Through this review, he identified 37 fatal e‑scooter incidents nationally, with 13 involving riders under 18. Children therefore accounted for more than one‑third of the deaths in the dataset, a share higher than their proportion of the overall population. “My recent research shows one in three fatal e-scooter crashes in Australia involved a rider under the age of 18, a significant over-representation relative to this group’s share of the population,” Haghani said in a 2025 analysis.
More than half of the child fatalities in his dataset occurred in Queensland. He links that pattern to early adoption of shared e‑micromobility in the state, relatively permissive e‑scooter rules for children – allowing riders from age 12 with supervision – and climatic conditions that support longer riding seasons, which together increase exposure. A Queensland parliamentary report on e‑mobility safety is due in the first half of 2026. Any recommendations on age thresholds, device classifications, infrastructure funding, or operator obligations are expected to have implications for how insurers view risk segmentation, age‑based underwriting, aggregations of risk, and risk‑management strategies around e‑scooter use.
Haghani has also examined the e‑bike segment, which shares several risk features with e‑scooters but falls under a different regulatory definition. Under Australian law, e‑bikes are generally defined as pedal‑assisted bicycles with electric motors capped at 250 watts and 25 km/h. In practice, many e‑bikes involved in recent crashes appear to exceed those limits, including bikes modified using conversion kits or online instructions. There is currently no national minimum legal age for e‑bike riders in Australia. Shared mobility operators such as Lime and Beam apply their own minimum ages, typically between 16 and 18 depending on the city and service. Australia also lacks a dedicated national system for recording e‑bike fatalities, leaving a data gap for regulators and insurers when assessing patterns, severity and longer‑term trends.
International research cited by Haghani indicates that e‑bike riders have a higher fatal crash risk than conventional cyclists. Studies from the US and Israel have found that children using e‑bikes are more likely to sustain serious injuries, experience loss of consciousness, and be involved in crashes with motor vehicles than children on traditional bicycles. Experimental work has shown that younger riders, especially those aged 16 to 18, tend to detect developing hazards later than adults, with hazard perception improving with age and riding experience. For insurers, these findings raise practical questions around how modified or non‑compliant devices are treated under home, contents, motor, and liability policies. They also point to potential pressure on personal accident and income protection covers where younger riders suffer traumatic brain or orthopaedic injuries and require long periods of rehabilitation.
Research from insurer AAMI, released in January 2026, indicates that many Australian drivers are uneasy about e‑bikes and e‑scooters in and around school zones. According to the findings, 70% of surveyed drivers opposed their use in school zones, often citing speed, visibility, and children’s knowledge of road rules as key concerns. The research also found that 39% supported banning e‑bikes and e‑scooters from school zones entirely, where they are already prohibited for under‑16s in most states. Several schools in Queensland, Victoria, and Western Australia have introduced bans on e‑bikes and e‑scooters on school grounds from the start of the 2026 school year, adding a local layer to existing state‑based rules.
The AAMI survey also highlighted driver behaviour. One in five respondents admitted to unintentionally speeding through a school zone after missing signage, and nearly one in 10 said they had deliberately exceeded school‑zone speed limits when they did not see children nearby. More than a third reported confusion about school‑zone timings, speed limits, and signs, while 13% said they had been distracted by their phone while driving through or queuing in “Stop, Drop and Go” areas.
When asked what might improve safety, more than 90% of respondents supported mandatory helmet use for all riders, with “no helmet, no ride, no exceptions.” Almost three‑quarters favoured enforced lower speed modes or settings on e‑mobility devices, and 58% said children should be limited to bike paths or shared paths rather than riding on roads with motor traffic. A significant minority indicated that no changes would make them comfortable with children riding e‑bikes or e‑scooters.
For Australian general insurers, underwriting agencies, and brokers, the combination of Queensland hospital data, stakeholder submissions, academic work, and consumer research is shaping how e‑mobility risk is understood, particularly for younger riders and activity near schools. These developments are likely to inform product design, risk appetite, pricing assumptions, and risk‑management measures across household, motor, personal accident, school, and public liability business as regulatory settings and infrastructure for e‑mobility continue to change.
