- Topic
- Safety and urban mobility
- Shared mobility
- Walking and cycling
- Country
- Europe-wide
- Resource type
- Case study
Shared e-scooters have rapidly become part of the urban mobility mix across Europe, offering a low-emission and flexible option for short trips while also raising concerns around safety, parking and public space management. This case study compares how four major European capitals, Paris, Berlin, Stockholm and Brussels, have responded to these challenges, illustrating a full spectrum of governance approaches: from Paris’s restrictive ban following rising accidents and public dissatisfaction, to Berlin’s ongoing efforts to regulate and integrate shared scooters, to Stockholm’s structured and enabling permit-based model, and Brussels’ data-driven management strategy. Together, these examples show how different political, legal and spatial contexts shape cities’ ability to balance innovation with safety and public space protection.
Across all four cities, common themes emerge:
- the need for clearer national regulation,
- consistent enforcement,
- dedicated or well-managed parking solutions,
- better integration with public transport, and
- attention to equity and safety.
Insights from the shared micromobility operator Dott (active in Paris, Berlin and Brussels) reinforce these themes, showing the importance of safe infrastructure, MaaS integration and long-term planning. The comparison shows that shared e-scooters can contribute meaningfully to sustainable mobility when supported by coherent governance, adequate infrastructure and constructive partnerships between cities and operators. However, they can also lead cities to face specific challenges around safety, street clutter and user behaviour.
Context
Shared e-scooters have expanded rapidly across European cities over the past five years, emerging as a flexible, low-emission mobility option for short urban trips that complements walking, cycling and use of public transport. Their arrival has coincided with broader policy goals to reduce congestion, improve air quality and expand sustainable transport choices. At the same time, cities have faced increasing pressure to address challenges, including parking clutter, safety concerns, regulatory uncertainty and incorrect or inappropriate user behaviour. The response of cities has varied, reflecting differences in political priorities, spatial constraints and institutional capacities.
This case study examines how the four European capitals of Paris (FR), Berlin (DE), Stockholm (SE) and Brussels (BE) have responded to the opportunities and challenges posed by shared e-scooter systems, illustrating a spectrum of governance approaches ranging from restrictive to more open approaches. Paris progressively tightened regulations before introducing a citywide ban following high accident rates and strong public opposition. Berlin has sought to manage shared e-scooters through structured oversight within the constraints of a limited national legal framework. Stockholm has developed a locally tailored, permit-based model, in the absence of national guidance, while Brussels has implemented a regional, data-driven approach to monitor and manage shared micromobility services. Together, these cases provide a comparative lens on how different regulatory choices shape the integration of shared e-scooter systems into urban mobility systems, and their impact on public space, safety and sustainable transport outcomes.
Actions & Results
European cities are actively reshaping how shared e-scooters operate in public space through a wide range of governance approaches, from bans and strict caps to permit systems and data-driven coordination. The experience of Paris, Berlin, Stockholm and Brussels show how specific regulatory choices translate into distinct operational, safety and public-space outcomes
Paris: from progressive regulation to a citywide ban
Paris has implemented the most restrictive approach. Following years of rising accidents, parking misuse and public frustration, the city held a referendum in 2023 that led to the complete removal of shared e-scooters. The removal of shared fleets led to an immediate reduction in street clutter and fewer conflicts related to footway obstruction, easing enforcement pressures for the city. At the same time, travel behaviour adjusted rather than disappearing: demand shifted towards other shared modes, particularly shared bicycles, indicating continued appetite for flexible micromobility options. The city’s current focus is on managing remaining micromobility services through designated parking zones, strengthened enforcement and public space occupation agreements.
Despite the removal of shared fleets in Paris, private e-scooter ownership in France remains among the highest in Europe. Recent industry data [1] indicates that approximately 615,000 e-scooters were sold in France in 2024, following around 678,000 sales in 2023. Lower-cost models continue to dominate the market, reflecting the accessibility of e-scooters for everyday mobility, but also highlighting potential issues with the safety of such vehicles. Although these figures do not distinguish between shared-fleet and private purchases, they highlight the continued prevalence of privately owned e-scooters in French cities. This is an important factor that shapes user behaviour and reinforces the need for public-space management and enforcement tools that extend beyond shared-operator regulation.
Berlin: incremental integration within a constrained legal framework
Berlin is moving toward a more structured integration of shared e-scooters despite national regulatory ambiguities. The city is developing a long-term sharing strategy that includes the rollout of a network of dedicated parking stations over the coming decade. Current measures focus on operator cooperation, geofencing, designated parking areas and requirements for precise tracking technologies. These have improved oversight and parking compliance. Data-sharing agreements with operators, alongside integration into MaaS platforms such as Jelbi, have improved service visibility and supported multimodal journeys, particularly for commuting.
However, the absence of a strong national regulatory framework continues to limit the city’s enforcement powers and long-term certainty. Legal disputes and ongoing concerns around accessibility and public-space use illustrate the constraints cities face when local ambitions outpace national legislation.
Stockholm: permit-based control and operational certainty
Stockholm has introduced one of the most comprehensive operational frameworks among European cities. In the absence of national guidelines, the city created a bi-annual permit system that includes a citywide fleet cap of 12,000 vehicles, clearly defined parking rules and a relocation-fee mechanism for incorrectly parked scooters. This establishes clear responsibilities for operators and greater predictability for city authorities. Parking zones, often painted on footways or integrated into existing cycle racks, prioritise pedestrian safety and efficient use of public space.
These measures have improved oversight and supported the integration of shared e-scooters into Stockholm’s broader active-mobility strategy. However, parking violations remain a persistent issue, and the lack of national regulation continues to constrain the city’s flexibility. Still, Stockholm’s approach demonstrates how well-defined, locally developed rules can support the safe and orderly integration of shared micromobility into active mobility strategies.
Brussels: regional coordination and data-driven management
Brussels has adopted a supportive, region-wide and data-driven approach. Under the Good Move mobility plan, the regional administration has implemented mandatory parking zones, a unified micromobility data framework and coordinated rules across multiple municipalities. These measures aim to improve public space management and guide operator behaviour within a complex multi-jurisdictional region. However, the reliance on data provided by operators constitutes an important limitation.
Cross-cutting outcomes
Across all cities, shared e-scooter systems have shown potential to complement public transport, particularly in Berlin and Stockholm, where operators report significant shares of trips linked to commuting and multimodal journeys. Common challenges persist, particularly around safety, parking compliance and regulatory clarity, but the study demonstrates that structured governance, data-informed decision-making and collaboration with operators can significantly improve outcomes and support the contribution of shared e-scooters to sustainable urban mobility.
Challenges, opportunities and transferability
The experiences of Paris, Berlin, Stockholm and Brussels reveal several common challenges in managing shared e-scooter systems. Parking compliance remains one of the most persistent issues. Despite the introduction of dedicated parking zones and relocation-fee systems, both Stockholm and Berlin continue to face difficulties in ensuring that users park responsibly. In Paris, widespread parking misuse contributed to public dissatisfaction and was a significant factor in the decision to remove shared scooters entirely.
Another major challenge across all cities is the lack of clear or comprehensive national regulatory frameworks, which limits local authorities’ ability to adapt rules, enforce standards or respond quickly to emerging problems. This is particularly apparent in Berlin, where legal constraints shape what the city can regulate, and in Stockholm, where permits are issued under police ordinance rather than directly by the municipality. “Safety concerns also remain central, particularly in Paris, where rising accident numbers and conflicts with pedestrians were key factors prior to the ban. In Berlin, accessibility concerns, which were highlighted by legal challenges from disability organisations, have also shaped the debate around shared e-scooters.
At the same time, shared e-scooters present meaningful opportunities for urban mobility. Operator data from Dott shows that a large share of trips support commuting and frequently connect with public transport, reinforcing the role of shared e-scooters in multimodal travel. The experience of cities in this area further illustrates the potential: Stockholm’s structured permit system demonstrates how local rules can support predictable operations, while Berlin’s integration of e-scooters into MaaS platforms improves accessibility and transparency. Based on existing documentation, Brussels’ data-driven approach highlights the value of coordinated monitoring across jurisdictions. Taken together, these city and operator perspectives suggest that, when supported by clear governance, reliable infrastructure and effective cooperation, shared e-scooters can contribute to decarbonisation, first- and last-mile access and sustainable urban mobility
The lessons from these cities are highly transferable. Across Europe, cities of different sizes and governance structures face similar issues around parking management, safety, enforcement and integration with public transport. Paris illustrates the risks associated with rapid market growth in the absence of early regulatory frameworks and sustained public acceptance. Berlin and Stockholm show how structured rules, data-sharing and long-term planning can enable shared e-scooters to operate more safely and predictably. Brussels demonstrates the value of regional coordination and shared data standards in complex municipal environments. While each city’s approach reflects its local context, the tools they use are broadly applicable and can be adapted to different policy environments. Cities considering or refining shared e-scooter services can draw on these lessons to design governance models that balance innovation with safety, accessibility and public trust.
In depth
https://datastore.smart-mobility-lab.com/en/thematiques/micromobility-market-sales-2023/?utm_
2024_Electromobility_and_Road-Safety_SOLUTIONSplus
20230502_POLIS_WG-GI_3_Individual-Escooters
2025_POLIS_Careful-what-you-wish-for
Author: Sara Mecatti
Views and opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not reflect those of the European Commission.
Photo credits © Cloudy Design, DimaBerlin, Gautier Normand, Renisons