Off the footpath, but not far enough: The e-scooter reform that stopped halfway

By Nick Ruane

Coroner Alexander Ho released his findings today into the death of Toben John Hunt, 23, who fell from a Lime scooter on Westhaven Drive, Auckland, in September 2019 – believed to be New Zealand’s first e-scooter-related death.

He wasn’t wearing a helmet, was nearly four times over the adult legal alcohol driving limit with cannabis also detected, and died of head injuries four days later. The coroner couldn’t determine the precise cause of the fall, and a big part of why is evidential: about three hours after the crash Lime remotely disabled the scooter, collected it, and dismantled it at its warehouse, testing components itself – before police could inspect it.

The coroner said that in a serious crash it would have been “plainly preferable” for the scooter to remain at the scene, and that it will never be known whether the missing inquiries might have shed light on the cause. He has referred to Auckland Council and NZTA the question of requiring preservation of scooters involved in serious accidents, which Lime says it would support as an industry-wide standard. Auckland Lime scooter death: Evidence gaps mean cause of Toben Hunt’s fatal accident may never be known – NZ Herald +5

That evidential-preservation point is arguably the most significant regulatory takeaway from the case – a private operator controlled the physical evidence in a fatal crash investigation, with no legal requirement to preserve it.

The e-scooter safety record and ACC claims

The trajectory is steep and worsening:

From October 2018 to October 2022, ACC received 10,577 e-scooter claims and paid out $30.1 million. By 2024, the annual payout had jumped almost 50% to nearly $15 million, with 3,400 new claims – enough that the then Transport Minister said he’d review the rules. ACC paid out almost $16 million in 2025, up about 10% on the year prior, and over $1.2 million in January 2026 alone. ACC claims for e-scooter accidents top $30m | Otago Daily Times Online News +2

The demographic pattern matters. New claims for under-25s rose 85% between 2022 and 2025, and claims from 10-to-14-year-olds tripled from 203 to 605 over that period. Under-25s now make up about half of all new claims in early 2026.

Emergency physician Dr Stuart Dalziel says hospitals are seeing rising injury numbers – around 4,000 people injured last year, averaging about ten a day. Soft tissue injuries are most common, followed by lacerations, then fractures and dislocations, and Dalziel has called for compulsory helmets, a public safety campaign, and separating scooters from other road users. E-scooter injuries on the rise, young people most affected | RNZ +3

For context, though: cycling claims over the equivalent 2018–2022 period totalled about $411 million versus $30 million for e-scooters, so per-mode the picture is more nuanced than the headlines suggest. Otago Daily Times

Why scooters are on the footpath in the first place

The legal architecture is a bit of a cobbled-together set of rules and declarations in secondary legislation.

E-scooters are governed by the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, plus a declaration NZTA issued under section 168A of the Land Transport Act 1998 stating that e-scooters with a maximum power output of 300W are not motor vehicles. That declaration is what puts them on footpaths – because they’re legally a “wheeled recreational device” rather than a vehicle, they’re exempt from registration, licensing, and the footpath prohibition that applies to motor vehicles and cycles. The declaration has been extended twice; the current one, issued in September 2023, expires in 2028. RNZ

Now here is where I have to declare a personal interest in this piece. For years I have advocated and spoken against e-scooters being allowed on the footpath, in my role as Chair of the AAG in Wellington.

In the later part of my term, I discovered that the reason that all that advocacy made no difference was the;

Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, plus a declaration NZTA issued under section 168A of the Land Transport Act 1998 stating that e-scooters with a maximum power output of 300W are not motor vehicles

Because of that Rule, Local Councils stayed out of anything to do with removing e-scooters from the footpath, because they had no tools to get e-scooters off the footpath, because central government had already implemented a rule that effectively tied their hands.

This Rule, implemented by NZTA created a perverse outcome: e-scooters can be used on the footpath or the road, but not in designated cycle lanes that are part of the road designed for the sole use of cyclists.

So a device travelling at 25km/h has been legally required to share space with pedestrians while being banned from the infrastructure actually built for vehicles moving at that speed. NZ Transport Agency

The disability community has fought this from the start – DPA, Blind Citizens NZ, and Living Streets Aotearoa campaigned for Waka Kotahi not to renew the declaration, arguing disabled people, older people, and children are at particular risk, and that blind, deafblind and low vision people face serious risk both from being hit and from tripping over discarded scooters.

Waka Kotahi’s own review found the greatest risk is to riders themselves, but also that a substantial number of pedestrians feel anxious or stressed sharing footpaths with them – 38% of the general public survey reported feeling unsafe or very unsafe sharing footpaths. It renewed the declaration anyway. Give us back our footpaths! | OurActionStation +2

The legislative change around e-scooters – and it’s already happening

This is the key update: the cycle lane change has been confirmed and is coming into force this year.

The Government consulted on a “Lane Use Package” from 25 February to 25 March 2026 as part of its Land Transport Rules Reform Programme, which included allowing e-scooters to use cycle lanes, allowing children up to 12 to ride bikes on footpaths, and a mandatory 1–1.5 metre passing gap for cyclists and horse riders.

Transport Minister Chris Bishop confirmed the package on 2 July after consultation drew feedback from more than 6,000 people. The rules are expected to be finalised through Orders in Council and in force before the end of 2026. Fixing the basics of NZ’s transport rules | Beehive.govt.nz +3

On mechanism: no primary legislation is needed. Because the restriction sits in the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, it’s amendable by Order in Council under the rule-making powers of the Land Transport Act – which is why it can move this fast. The Government has explicitly framed getting riders off footpaths and into cycle lanes as one way it hopes to bring the injury numbers down. NEWS WIRE

The gap that remains

Here’s the critical caveat from an advocacy perspective: the change permits cycle lane use — it doesn’t require it, and it doesn’t remove scooters from footpaths. Footpath riding remains fully legal. So the reform delivers what riders and operators wanted (more legal space) without delivering what DPA, Blind Citizens NZ, and Living Streets have been asking for since 2019 (footpaths for feet).

National MP Catherine Wedd, who campaigned for the change, has said that where a cycle lane exists riders should take it instead of footpaths — but “should” isn’t “must” in the confirmed package. ERide Hub

The unresolved policy questions are:

• whether cycle lane use should be mandatory where a lane exists (the model Blind Low Vision NZ and the World Blind Union advocate — micro-mobility devices only on cycle paths or the road, never on footpaths);
• whether helmets should be compulsory (currently only recommended);
• the 300W declaration (definition of a motor vehicle) renewal decision looming in 2028;
• and now, from the Hunt findings, mandatory evidence preservation after serious crashes.

There’s also a persistent data problem – there’s no specific ACC data on disabled people injured by e-scooters, despite documented testimonies of people being hit or hospitalised, which weakens the evidence base for the pedestrian-safety side of the argument.