People are hopping on e-bikes and e-scooters in greater numbers than ever. But the local council in Melbourne has now banned shared e-bikes from operating in the city. This is the latest in a string of rushed decisions to oust shared e-mobility from the Victorian capital.
Spinifex is an opinion column. If you would like to contribute, contact us to ask for a detailed brief.
oBike left Melbourne in 2018, and the blue bikes followed it out in 2019. And in 2024, a snap decision removed shared Neuron and Lime e-scooters from the city.
Yet e-bikes and e-scooters are not unwanted here. Since January 2025, Melbournians have made 553 e-bike trips a day. In 2024, when e-scooters were banned, Melbourne had the highest demand in the country.
Clearly, e-mobility fills a transport gap. Melbourne has a classic hub-and-spoke public transport model that connects suburbs to the city centre, while links from suburb to suburb are poor. Hence e-mobility’s value. Melbourne’s cycle of failed e-mobility sharing schemes leaves a transport chasm in the heart of the city.
What’s the problem?
Typical complaints around shared e-mobility include blocked footpaths, accessibility, uncontrolled dumping, and costs to ratepayers. These concerns are legit. But poor outcomes are not inevitable. They reflect decisions about parking, infrastructure, regulation, and transport integration.
Visible misconduct is not typical behaviour. News reports understandably focus on a bike blocking a wheelchair user, the rider without a helmet, or the device dumped in the river. These incidents matter. But the vast majority of trips occur without incident and attract no attention.
A recent study in Brisbane observed nearly 19,000 e-scooter riders. On roads and cycling infrastructure, 82 per cent complied with the speed limit, and 83 per cent wore helmets. Speed compliance was highest on separated cycle tracks. Compliance was weaker on footpaths (legal in Queensland). Another study in Brisbane also found that 81 per cent of shared bike users wear helmets.
Parking complaints also need context: a US study found 25 per cent of motor vehicles impeded access, compared with less than 2 per cent for e-scooters and e-bikes.
What’s to be done?
No shared e-mobility scheme will succeed, regardless of the provider, unless governments support it, create space for it, and integrate it properly into the transport system.
Infrastructure does not merely accommodate behaviour; it changes it. Asking riders to behave safely while giving them no safe or obvious place to ride or park is poor transport policy.
Shared e-mobility should not be viewed only as a competitor to public transport. Properly integrated, e-bikes and e-scooters can be the public mobility glue that makes the transport system seamless.
If we keep dropping shared e-bikes and e-scooters into streets and calling it a trial, cities will keep rediscovering failure. Plan them as part of the transport system, and they can become something far less newsworthy – and far more valuable: ordinary, reliable, equitable, and sustainable transport for residents and visitors.
Responsibility must be shared between governments, riders, and providers.
Riders should be responsible, and held accountable, for lawful riding and unobstructed parking.
Operators should be responsible for rapid retrieval, device maintenance, parking verification and data-sharing. They should face financial penalties when they fail to meet their responsibilities.
Governments should be responsible for safe infrastructure, designated parking, transport integration and consistent regulation.
Good practice examples
Among state capitals, Brisbane has the only consolidated local government. Queensland’s capital demonstrates what can happen when cities work with providers instead of focusing only on enforcement. Its dedicated e-mobility parking hubs keep devices off footpaths and more reliable to find for users. At one train station, hub rebalancing and discounted trips increased use, providing easier access to public transport and reducing dependence on station car parking.
Elsewhere, fragmented council rules and short trials create uncertainty for operators, disincentivising investment and discouraging users. However, New South Wales has moved to statewide regulation of shared schemes, reducing the burden on providers and local councils while retaining council control over operating areas, parking and no-go zones. As a result, $6.6m in funding from the state government is being allocated to councils to build dedicated parking. Victoria and other states should do the same.
Overseas cities further show there is a practical middle ground between unmanaged devices and outright bans. The London City Council has collaborated with a provider to create more than 3250 e-bike parking bays in the city. Paris permits free-floating shared bikes to park only in designated spaces.
The central lesson is that shared e-mobility must be planned and governed as part of the transport system.
Both authors have received research funding from the Australian Research Council, the Australian Urban Research Infrastructure Network, the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads, iMOVE Australia Cooperative Research Centre, and Brisbane City Council, and in-kind support from Lime.
Hire e-mobility systems will never succeed when operators and legislators disregard pedestrian safety. Operators should prove they obey the law and protect pedestrians by thoroughly prosecuting badly behaved customers, but they refuse to do so because that would reduce their customer numbers and profits. Hire e-mobility systems can only profit while being allowed to abuse pedestrians. Require enforcement of pedestrian rights and their profitability collapses. They refuse to enforce their own rules because they know they have no control over badly behaved customers. This article is dishonest and disingenuous in claiming that bad outcomes are the result of bad infrastructure. The real cause of bad outcomes is bad customer behaviour. Current e-mobility customers are among the most selfish, anti-social and entitled people in society.