Micro-mobility use, such as electric scooters (e-scooters), offers convenience and environmental benefits (Christoforou et al., 2021; Vestri, 2021) and it has increased over the last five years following the introduction of shared e-scooter schemes in the United States in 2017 (Christoforou et al., 2021 ). Following the introduction of shared e-scooters there has been an observed increase in the number of people choosing to use personal devices (Haworth et al., 2021). E-scooters are typically used more for transport (Sanders et al., 2020), often replacing active travel modes than motor vehicle use (Sanders et al., 2020) although that is location-dependent (Wang et al., 2022). The use of shared and personal e-scooters is primarily associated with travel time and money savings, as well as the enjoyability of the transport mode (Christoforou et al., 2021 ). Perceived lack of safety has been shown to influence consumer acceptance (Kopplin et al., 2021). E-scooter riders have been shown to be at risk of trauma to the head and extremities (Bauer et al., 2020), although little is known about the events leading to trauma (e.g., fall as a result of rough terrain, collision with a vehicle). Protective equipment can reduce the risk of incidents (e.g., improving visibility of vulnerable road users) or lessen the risk of injury (e.g., helmets). Generally, little is known regarding the use of helmets and other protective equipment by e-scooter riders, except when injuries occur. Trauma studies have reported low ( 4.4%; Trivedi et al., 2019) to moderate (46%; Mitchell et al., 2019) use of helmets. While the majority of e-scooter presentations occur during evenings (Vemon et al., 2020), little is known about the use of reflective equipment by scooter riders. The aim of this paper is to explore factors that influence the use of protective equipment, including helmets and reflective equipment, by e-scooter riders. [From: Introduction]

The rise of micromobility, most notably electric standing scooters (e-scooters), has resulted in new challenges for traffic planning and road safety. One such issue is the fact that in most European countries, e-scooter users are obliged to ride their vehicle on cycling infrastructure and thereby share this infrastructure with bicyclists. This increases the use of and, subsequently, demand for bicycle lanes, which is an obvious challenge for transport planning. However, for adequate planning and construction of cycling infrastructure, information on route choice behavior of bicyclists and e-scooter users and its influencing factors is necessary. While research on bicyclists' route choice is well advanced, research on e-scooter riders is still in its infancy. For bicyclists, the presence of bicycle facilities, traffic volume, and travel time are among others particularly important for route choice. However, the question arises whether this also applies to e-scooter riders as vehicle dynamics are different and riders are, at least for now, less skilled due to lack of training and exposition. In order to fill this research gap, we aimed to analyze the determinants for route choice of e-scooter users in comparison to bicyclists in a field study. [from Introduction]

With rapidly increasing e-scooter usage in the United States [1], a growing number of studies aim to understand the safety aspect of these emerging modes. The existing literature has a limited understanding of time-of-day and seasonal patterns of e-scooter crashes. While many e-scooter safety policies are based on the number of crashes [2, 3], accounting for exposure provides a measure of risk to inform effective preventive strategies [4]. This study focuses on motor-vehicle involved crashes since they constitute the most severe and fatal injuries. We compared daytime and nighttime motor-vehicle involved e-scooter crashes and combined them with micromobility trip data to generate exposure variables and estimate crash risk. The key research question of this paper is as follows: 1. Are crashes or crash rates disproportionately higher at night than in the day? [From: Introduction]

Mobility has changed in recent years in cities worldwide, th.anks to tb.e strong rise in vehicles of micromobility. Bicycle riding is the most widespread micromobility transport mode, followed by stand-up electric scooters (e-scooters). This increase in its use has also led to an increase in related crashes. Both cyclists and e-scooter riders are vulnerable road users and are lik.ely to sustain severe injuries in crashes, especially with motor vehicles. The crashes consequences involving cyclists and other micromobility users have already investigated using numerical simulation software, such as MADYMO and PC-Crash. Most of them have been focused on bicycles and electric bicycles, whereas only few of tbem have analyzed e-scooter crashes consequences. Posirisuk: et al. [1] carried out a computational prediction ofhead-ground impact k:inematics :in e-scooter falls. Ptak et al. [2] analyzed the e-scooter user kinematics after a crash against SUV when the e-scooter chives into the sidefront of tbe vehicle, a side B-pillar crash and a frontal impact initiated by tbe e-scooter to tbe front-end of the vehicle. However, they did not study the consequ.ences of a car to e-scooter side impact crashes. Xu et al. [3] did study these crashes but considering electric self-balancing scooters that are less widespread than e-scooters. Current study focuses on the consequences of a car to micromobility user (cyclist and e-scooter rider) side impact crashes. The analysis is based on numerical simulations with PC-Crash software.

Micromobility has a direct impact on the urban area, since it tries to make cities more liveable, o:ffering an alternative transport option that contributes to reduce air and noise pollution. Additionally, it promotes intennodality, promotes money savings, reduces parking space and helps to avoid road congestion in cities that have their own lanes for the use of micromobility vehicles such as bicycles, stand-up e-scooters (escooters) and other personal mobility vehicles (PMVs). In Spain, micromobility has significantly increased in recent years, through the increase in the supply and demand for bicycles and other PMVs, mainly e-scooters. There are many reasons that have motivated users to prioritize the bicycle and the other PMVs over other means of tra.nsport. In addition to the growing concern for health and the environment, the COVID-19 pandemic has also driven the growth in the use ofthe different PMVs in 2020. Accordmg to data from Global Public Transport Report, published by the mobility application Moovit, 31 % of Spanianis have used bicycles, scooters or e-scooters in 2020, increasing their use by 7% since 2019. However, in parallel and because of the increase in PMVs exposure, the number of crashes involving users of these vehicles has also increased in recent years. For this reason, among road safety researchers, interest and concern for the study of this kind of crashes have also increased The aim of this research is to characterize the crashes in Spain in which at least one PMV (bicycle, e-scooter or other PMV) is involved between the years 2016 and 2020.

IAB one solution of micromobility, e-scooters have become a trend in Germany. However, the concems about the safety of e-scooter riders, influence on pedestrians and the parking issues are growing. In 2020, 2,155 e-scooters involved personal injury accidents were recorded in Germany. The number rose to 5,502 in 2021 meaning an increase of 155.31 %. Compared to cyclists (incl. pedelec cyclists), the increasing rate of personal injury accidents in the same period decreased by 8.75 % [1, 2]. Against the background of accidents with e-scooters in cities, prior studies analysed severity and patterns of injuries caused by such accidents [3, 4]. In addition, comparisons are drawn to the consequences of accidents with other vehicles [5, 6]. Some studies also consider the risk of injuries in relation to the miles travelled [7]. The studies provide valuable findings but the approaches focus on the severe consequences of occurred accidents. At the same time, compared to bicycles, the centre of gravity of e-scooters is lower, they are more manoeuvrable and can still reach speeds of up to 20 km/h [8]. The question remains, if these vehicle characteristics are associated with different interaction behaviour. Hence, the aim of the present study is to reveal the riding behaviour profile in different contexts and investigate e-scooter riders' criticality in interaction behaviour compared with cyclists using surrogate safety measures. We aim to figure out if the interaction behaviour of the two modes differ and what the effects of potential differences are for safety considerations in the system of active mobility.

Against the background of an increasing number of cyclists sharing the infrastructure with an also rising number of e-scooter riders in Germany, the question of considerate coexistence among both modes of transportation, especially on shared infrastructure (on- or off-road) arises. In various contexts (e.g. work, education), studies have shown that social identity has an impact on how members of an ingroup ('us') and outgroup (''them') are perceived. These studies are based on social identity theory, which postulates members of the ingroup are more likely to be favored and members of the outgroup are more likely discriminated and stereotyped. This ingroup favorism or outgroup discrimination can refer to attitudes, cognition, and behavior. Initial research in the traffic context by, on which the present study builds, suggests that social identity also plays a role in traffic. Apart from that, research on social identity in traffic is scarce. The aim of the study is to determine whether the role as cyclist or e-scooter rider in traffic can serve as social identity, and subsequently whether ingroup-outgroup phenomena, such as ingroup favorism and effects of outgroup discrimination can be observed. [from Introduction]

The fast-growing market of powered micro-mobility, including electric bikes (e-bikes) and electric scooters (e-scooters), has introduced a paradigm shift in mobility across the world. These emerging transport modes have frequently been referred to as convenient mobility, having playfulness and transport functions. However, one of the main obstacles to the safe adoption of these transport modes is the safety issues related to their use. Based on the cycling literature, the interaction of vulnerable road users with each other could be classified based on the encounter directions. More specifically, passing is referred to as same-direction encounters, and meeting demonstrates opposite-direction encounters. Experiments and observations have been applied in this research domain for data collection, while interview setups are less conducted to explore users' opinions about their interactions. In this study, we conducted a series of semi-structured interviews and scrutinised e-bike and e-scooter users' safety issues in motorised and non-motorised facilities (e.g. shoulder lanes and sidewalks). [from Introduction]

E-scooters are a rather new mode of transport. Nevertheless, in recent years lots of studies have been published. Replaced modes and consequential environmental impacts as well as specific injury pattern are important topics. Regarding shape, speed and usage, e-scooters are most similar to bikes. As a consequence, by law e-scooters use the same road space or infrastructure than bikes do. Concurrently, in recent years we experience a boom of cycling in cities and a significant expansion of the bike infrastructure. Requirements and frequency of usage on the bike infrastructure are growing in cities caused by increasingly diverse cyclists. At the same time, the bike infrastructure is subject new requirements and additional pressure due to the implementation of e-scooters. In Germany, allowing e-scooters on bike infrastructure can be seen as a paradigm shift since for the first time a motorized vehicle is allowed to use the infrastructure. On this background, interrelation between e-scooters and active mobility (walking and cycling) are very important for the future use of the infrastructure and the ongoing transformation of urban mobility. Hence, we use a multi-method approach to investigate these potential conflicts and draw conclusions for regulation as well as improvement in the system.

Cycling and walking are typical forms of local locomotion. especially common in the urban environment. During the last five years, portable electric scooters were developed and quicldy gained popularity and, at the same time, generated previously unknown challenges associated with safety [1]. Their users compete with pedestrians and cyclists to occupy the same space [2], which may create conflicts and cause accidents. The balance between the safety of pedestrians and ES riders is still being sought [3], while the legislation process lags behind the rapid emergence and popularity of this new micromobility transportation mode [ 4, 5]. Tue aim of this research was a comparison of visual gaze behaviour of cyclists, electric scooter users, and pedestrians passing the same route stretch - a broad busy underpass in city centre. Visual interaction of the test participants with other road users was analysed to understand threats and risks for each of these modes of transport during selection of the path; speeds and behaviour during manoeuvres were also assessed. Differences in perception. depending on the utilized mode of transport, should bring better understanding of their specific needs and may support appropriate regulation. This research work could be considered as an extension of previous study when, in the similar way, behaviours of road-users utilizing a shared road were analysed [ 6]. [From: Introduction]