urbazon/GettyWhen was the last time you heard of a parliamentary inquiry into the road rules for cars in Australia? They’re not common. But it’s a different story when it comes to e-bikes and e-scooters. These devices have become very popular, very quickly. But their rapid uptake has challenged regulators over where they should be ridden, who should be allowed to use them and how fast they can travel. While the two devices serve similar purposes, they have often been treated differently under Australian road rules.Authorities in Queensland and NSW have seized hundreds of non-compliant ebikes including devices with motors exceeding legal power limits or modified to travel at speeds beyond those permitted under e-bike regulations. Rising injury rates have fuelled public backlash. At times, this has prompted crackdowns or bans, such as the City of Melbourne’s 2024 decision to ban rental e-scooters, while continuing to allow rental e-bikes. To find out what Australians actually think about e-bikes and e-scooters, we surveyed more than 2,000 people. As our new research shows, they gave some surprising answers. How do we make good regulations?When it comes to cars, there are internationally accepted regulatory standards supported by the World Health Organization. These draw on decades of research into how to make driving safer. But we don’t have similarly well-established standards for e-bikes and e-scooters, because there’s not yet a large enough body of evidence to draw on.As a result, public opinion carries considerable weight. A public vote in Paris in 2023 led to a ban on shared rental e-scooters.In Australia, regulation has often been contentious, reactive or ad hoc. Over the past two years, New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia have held public inquiries into e-bikes and e-scooters. Hundreds of people have made submissions to these inquiries, acting as a form of public opinion. But because it takes time and effort to put together a submission, it’s likely people with strong views are overrepresented. The risk here is that policymakers may channel what they think the public wants – while actual public opinion may be more nuanced. In 2024, the City of Melbourne banned e-scooter rental schemes. But rental e-bikes are still allowed. William West/AFP via Getty What does the public actually want?To find out what Australians actually think about e-bikes and e-scooters, we surveyed 2,052 Australians. We wanted to know how they felt about these devices and which regulations they support.We also wanted to know whether their attitudes differed between the two devices, and how easily those attitudes could be influenced.We divided respondents into four equal groups. One group answered questions about e-bikes and another answered identical questions about e-scooters.These responses showed Australians don’t view e-bikes and e-scooters all that differently. Neither had a clear advantage in public acceptance.We showed respondents a series of fictional images depicting potentially annoying or unsafe situations, such as an e-bike or e-scooter obstructing a wheelchair user. Neither device consistently generated greater negative feelings. We asked what level of regulation people would back for e-bikes and e-scooters, using a scale from 0 (strongly oppose) to 10 (strongly support).The two devices received very similar ratings.Support for outright bans was quite weak, averaging 5.0 out of ten for e-bikes and 4.8 for e-scooters. Banning them from public transport also attracted relatively weak support.What Australians did favour was targeted regulations. Heavy fines for improper or illegal use received the strongest support, averaging 7.9 for e-bikes and 7.8 for e-scooters. Restrictions on riders under 16 followed closely, at 7.6 and 7.5.For the other half of our respondents, we repeated the survey – with one important difference. Before answering, respondents were exposed to ten negative news headlines about the device they were being asked to evaluate.These covered reports on issues such as rider injuries or deaths, pedestrian collisions, footpath obstruction, rule-breaking or battery fires. Exposure to negative headlines was associated with a fall in favourable attitudes towards both devices. But the effect was significantly stronger for e-scooters. The best way to regulate e-bikes and e-scooters isn’t yet clear. Steve Waters/Getty Why does this matter?Around Australia, stricter rules often apply to e-scooters rather than e-bikes. In NSW, compliant e-bikes are permitted on public roads and paths, while privately owned e-scooters are not. In Victoria, e-scooter riders must be at least 16, but there is no equivalent minimum age for compliant e-bikes.We don’t know why these differences exist. One reason might be because e-bikes resemble bicycles, a well-established transport form with their own advocacy groups. But as our research shows, Australians don’t distinguish much between the two devices when it comes to public acceptance or regulations.New evidence from the United States and Europe also suggests both devices have very similar safety risks.We will need a bigger evidence base before we can authoritatively say what good regulations look like for e-bikes, e-scooters and other types of e-mobility. But this overseas evidence suggests a case for removing some distinctions between e-bikes and e-scooters in Australian laws.Which way forward?Ultimately, the best foundation for e-mobility regulation is empirical evidence, not public opinion.After all, authorities didn’t set the legal blood alcohol limits for drivers by asking people their views. These limits are informed by decades of research.It will take time to build the same body of evidence for e-bikes and e-scooters. While we wait, public opinion can help inform the decisions policymakers make. What our survey shows is that public opinion is often more nuanced than some recent regulatory responses, such as outright bans. If we’re going to rely on public opinion, it’s important we capture what the broader public actually think.The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.