On November 25, 2025, London City Council came within a single vote of banning electric kick-scooters (e-scooters). By a narrow 8–7 margin, councillors agreed to extend the pilot—but only for six months, despite city staff recommending a full year based on strong evidence.
City staff were clear: they observed very low levels of concern, with most riders behaving responsibly and using the infrastructure as designed. Yet several councillors were prepared to shut down the pilot before even waiting for an upcoming report. Climate Action London rightly asked: Why the rush to ban something your own experts say is working?
If the concern is truly about public safety, then we should be talking honestly—not selectively—about what actually puts Londoners at risk.
Cars are responsible for nearly all serious road harm
Cars are involved in 100% of fatal collisions in London. Every year, hundreds of people walking and cycling are hit by vehicles. These are only the reported cases (which it’s not an information easy to obtain in London); countless near misses and minor injuries never make it into our official statistics.
A quick search on any given day reveals a steady stream of serious collisions involving cars:
- Two people sent to hospital in a major crash
- A single-vehicle rollover in east London
- A stunt-driving crash that killed a local doctor
- Seven people hospitalized after an early-morning collision
This is not unusual. It is our status quo.
And yet, instead of addressing the mode of transportation causing almost all the harm, we are debating whether to ban devices that weigh a fraction of a car, move at a fraction of the speed, and have caused a tiny fraction of the injuries.
If we want safer streets, we need to focus on the real source of danger
Cities around the world have shown that improving safety means reducing car dominance. They’ve done it through:
- Safer street design—woonerfs, protected lanes
- Restrictions on car use—congestion charges, superblocks
- Car-free zones—city centres designed for people, not vehicles
London has barely begun this work. But instead of leading serious safety reform, we are spending time debating whether to ban e-scooters—a solution searching for a problem.
What does banning e-scooters actually achieve?
Almost nothing for safety. But quite a lot in other areas, and not in a good way.
City staff note that the e-scooter pilot has implications for the following strategic priorities:
- Reconciliation, Equity, Accessibility and Inclusion
- Safe London for Women, Girls, and Gender-Diverse and Trans People
- Wellbeing and Safety
- Economic Growth, Culture, and Prosperity
- Mobility and Transportation
- Climate Action and Sustainable Growth
- Well-Run City
But the report barely explains these links, and councillors did not discuss them. So let’s ask the questions that didn’t get asked:
- Who loses mobility if e-scooters are banned?
Low-income residents, students, shift workers, and people who cannot afford a car. - Does banning e-scooters worsen transport poverty?
Almost certainly yes. - What happens to emissions, congestion, and climate commitments?
They get worse, not better.
London has declared climate goals, transportation goals, and equity goals. Banning micromobility directly contradicts all of them.
If councillors are serious about safety, they must be serious about cars
The councillors who tried to kill the e-scooter pilot say they are motivated by safety. Let’s take them at their word—and ask them to apply that same concern to the vehicles that cause nearly all deaths and severe injuries on London’s streets.
If safety is the priority, then London needs:
- Better street design
- Slower vehicle speeds
- Safer alternatives to driving
- Policies that reduce unnecessary car trips
- Data transparency on collisions and near misses
E-scooters are not the threat. They are part of the solution.
London deserves a transportation system that protects people—not one that protects the status quo
Banning e-scooters would make London less fair, less sustainable, and less safe. The evidence is clear, the stakes are real, and the conversation should be honest.
To the public:
Demand policies that address the real sources of harm on our streets.
To councillors:
If you value safety, equity, affordability, climate action, and mobility, then support transportation modes that advance these goals—not eliminate them.
Thanks to Climate Action London for compiling essential information and making the underlying documents accessible. If you want to get weekly updates on Municipal issues and environmental related topics, consider signing up their newsletter.
Luis Patricio 