WestCycle’s response to the Ride Safe report: 2025 Parliamentary Inquiry into eRideable and e-bike safety

That the State Government mandate data sharing in a consistent manner for commercial operators of shared schemes under contract with local government authorities.

WestCycle Response

We support this recommendation. Share scheme operators already collect comprehensive real-time data on trip routes, speeds, device compliance, and rider behaviour. Mandating consistent data sharing across all operators is a logical and low-cost step that builds directly on existing capability.

Commercial operators benefit from access to public infrastructure and from operating within a regulatory framework that enables their business. Contributing data is a reasonable expectation in return, and one that serves the broader goal of building a mature, evidence-based transport system. All datasets should be published on the Data WA platform, consistent with Western Australia’s Whole of Government Open Data Policy.

That the Minister for Transport take steps to ensure that data collection and dissemination is incorporated into the national regulatory framework which is currently being developed.

WestCycle Response

We support this recommendation and welcome the committee’s thorough treatment of data gaps in Chapter 3. The findings closely reflect concerns WestCycle raised in our submission, particularly the absence of a consistent framework for collecting and reporting eRideable and e-bike incident data, and the consequences of that absence for evidence-based policy.

The committee was right to identify data collection as a foundational issue. Without reliable data on injuries, crashes, device types, and rider behaviour, it is not possible to accurately target safety interventions, plan infrastructure investment, or evaluate whether regulatory changes are having the intended effect. Several other recommendations in this report, including those addressing infrastructure, penalties, and device classification, will be weakened without the data to underpin them.

Incorporating data collection and dissemination into the national regulatory framework also supports the State and Commonwealth’s commitments under the National Road Safety Strategy and the Western Australia Road Safety Action Plan 2024-2026, both of which identify improving road safety data as a priority. This recommendation is therefore not a minor procedural step. It is a prerequisite for good policy. We urge the Government to pursue this actively as the national framework is developed. All resulting data should be published on the Data WA platform, consistent with the State’s Whole of Government Open Data Policy.

As a priority, that the State Government investigate and fund the development of a whole-of-government reporting system which captures data on e-bikes and e-rideables.

WestCycle Response

We support this recommendation and consider it one of the most important in the report. Without a whole-of-government reporting system, it is not possible to make evidence-based decisions about infrastructure, regulation, or enforcement. We urge the Government to treat this as a genuine priority.

We do have concerns about some of the findings that led to it. Several findings imply that compliant e-bikes are riskier than traditional bicycles. The evidence does not support this. E-bikes meeting the EN15194 standard use the same infrastructure and travel at similar speeds as traditional bicycles. The safety concerns raised in this report relate primarily to illegal, high-powered devices that should not be classified alongside compliant e-bikes. Conflating the two risks disproportionate regulation of a low-risk, high-benefit device.

E-bike data should be collected as a distinct subset within the bicycle category, not treated as a separate vehicle class. We also recommend that improvements to data collection for traditional bicycles be included alongside e-bikes and eRideables.

Accurate data collection also depends on consistent knowledge among first responders, emergency department staff, and other medical personnel about device classifications. At present, the distinction between a pedal bike, a compliant e-bike, and an illegal high-powered device is not consistently captured in trauma data, and minor injuries are believed to be widely underreported. The whole-of-government reporting system should include clear definitions and standardised recording protocols across all agencies involved in data collection, from police through to hospitals.

That the State Government require electric mobility devices in WA to be fitted with an Acoustic Vehicle Alerting System (AVAS), as is now required under the Australian Design Rules for electric vehicles sold in Australia. The State Government should also advocate for this requirement to be included in future national standards for personal mobility devices, in line with requirements for other electric vehicles.

WestCycle Response

We do not support this recommendation. E-rideables, e-bikes, and bicycles are already required to have a bell or horn. The more effective approach to protecting pedestrians is separated infrastructure, lower vehicle speeds, and good street design, not additional noise requirements on devices that already travel at similar speeds to traditional bicycles.

The argument for AVAS also overstates its effectiveness. Pedestrians may not hear any approaching vehicle due to hearing loss, headphones, wind, or ambient traffic noise. Mandating AVAS would not reliably address this risk. The Australian Design Rule specification for AVAS is also complex and falls outside EN15194 specifications for e-bikes, meaning compliance would reduce the range of devices available in Australia and increase costs for consumers. WestCycle’s community survey in January 2026 found that less than 29% of respondents supported making AVAS compulsory.

For the proposed new category of faster devices (25-45 km/h), acoustic warning requirements may warrant separate consideration given these devices would operate at higher speeds in traffic. That consideration should not extend to devices in the up-to-25 km/h category.

That the Minister for Road Safety address the current gaps in counselling support for road safety incidents funded out of the Road Trauma Trust Account. Provision should be made to include people impacted by e-rideable and e-bike trauma, regardless of where the incident occurs or how the device is captured by licencing and registration requirements.

WestCycle Response

We support this recommendation. People who experience trauma as a result of e-rideable or e-bike incidents deserve access to counselling support regardless of where the incident occurred or how their device is captured by licensing and registration requirements. The current gap is an anomaly that should be addressed.

We recommend that traditional bicycle incidents be included within the scope of this extension. The Road Trauma Trust Account should support all active transport users who experience serious trauma, not only those involved in incidents with motor vehicles.

That the State Government determine and designate dismount zones that could include Protected Entertainment Precincts.

WestCycle Response

We partly support this recommendation. Dismount zones are appropriate in areas of very high pedestrian traffic, and there is a clear case for State Government to designate them in areas under its direct control, such as Elizabeth Quay. However, dismount zones will not achieve their intended outcomes if there is no safe alternative route for riders. Prohibition without a viable alternative simply shifts the problem elsewhere.

The most effective way to reduce conflict between riders and pedestrians is to give riders somewhere safe to go. Under current State law, eRideables cannot be used on streets with a median island or centre line markings, regardless of the speed limit. This means a rider cannot legally use Oxford Street in Leederville even in the 30 km/h section, despite it being a low-speed environment well suited to e-rideable use. Allowing eRideables on all streets up to 50 km/h, as recommended by the Road Safety Commission, would enable riders to use the carriageway rather than footpaths and shared paths, reducing the circumstances in which dismount zones are needed in the first place. Where dismount zones are established, geofencing should be the primary enforcement mechanism for shared scheme devices.

That the State Government empower local governments to declare other areas as dismount zones.

WestCycle Response

We support the use of dismount zones in high-pedestrian areas. For shared scheme operators, geofencing already provides an effective and reliable mechanism for enforcing them, managing speed limits, and directing parking. Mandatory geofencing requirements for all shared scheme operators should be included in the policy framework recommended under Recommendation 1.

Addressing pedestrian and rider conflict in entertainment precincts also requires giving riders a viable alternative to footpaths. Under current road rules, eRideables cannot legally ride on streets with a dividing line or median strip, even where speed limits are low. This forces riders onto footpaths in the very areas where conflict with pedestrians is most acute. Allowing eRideables on all streets up to 50 km/h, as recommended by the Road Safety Commission, would give riders a legal and safer option, reducing pressure on footpaths and the need for dismount zones over time.

That the State Government prioritise the development of dedicated eRideable infrastructure, and work with local government authorities to develop a state-wide strategy for funding and implementation. This could be undertaken in alignment with the WA Bicycle Network Plan and incorporated into development of the new WA Active Travel Strategy.

WestCycle Response

We support this recommendation. The alignment with the WA Bicycle Network Plan and the WA Active Travel Strategy is welcome, though we note the Active Travel Strategy has not yet been published. Finalising and resourcing that strategy should be an early priority for the Government, and the infrastructure investment called for in this recommendation should be reflected in it.

The current funding available to local governments for active transport infrastructure is not sufficient to deliver the step-change in infrastructure that the committee’s findings identify as necessary. Additional dedicated funding will be needed, and giving local governments greater flexibility to direct road funding toward active transport outcomes would allow councils to respond to local needs more effectively.

Fully separated infrastructure is expensive, takes time, and requires space that is not always available. Lowering the default speed limit in built-up areas, reducing through traffic on local streets, and reallocating carriageway space to active transport users can be implemented more quickly and at far lower cost, with meaningful safety benefits.

The committee’s report identified the need for safer environments for eRideable users but did not recommend the most effective and immediately available intervention. The Road Safety Commission has recommended that eRideables be permitted on all roads with a speed limit of up to 50 km/h. WestCycle supports this recommendation and urges the Government to act on it. Allowing eRideable users onto appropriate streets would reduce conflict with pedestrians without requiring any capital expenditure and should not wait on the development of a broader infrastructure strategy.

That the State Government, as a priority, undertake a study to: identify where e-rideable and e-bike conflicts occur; collect data on trip origins and destinations, peak times of use, and device and user profiles; identify where current infrastructure could be re-purposed for e-mobility use. This study should inform development of a state-wide strategy for the provision of dedicated infrastructure for electric mobility devices, in line with existing strategies and plans, as outlined in Recommendation 9.

WestCycle Response

We support this recommendation. Research into where conflicts occur, how infrastructure is used, and where existing assets could be repurposed will provide a stronger evidence base for investment decisions. That research must proceed alongside infrastructure delivery, not as a precondition for it. The evidence already available is sufficient to justify action now, and delay would be costly.

Re-purposing existing infrastructure should include converting narrow, paint-only cycle lanes into barrier-protected lanes and, where appropriate, reallocating car lanes to create dedicated micromobility corridors. These interventions can improve safety and capacity for all riders, including e-bike and eRideable users, without waiting for new infrastructure to be built.

That the State Government continues to advocate for Commonwealth-led reform, including the development of national standards for all personal mobility devices which are enforced at importation.

WestCycle Response

We strongly support this recommendation. Preventing dangerous, non-compliant devices from entering the Australian market is the most effective intervention available to government, and the one most likely to produce lasting safety improvements. Addressing the problem at the border is more efficient than attempting to enforce compliance after non-compliant devices are already in circulation.

The current situation, in which personal mobility devices can be imported without formal approval or compliance with a recognised standard, has created significant enforcement challenges for state and territory governments. It has also allowed cheaper, lower-quality devices, including batteries with a higher fire risk, to reach consumers who may not be aware they are purchasing something that does not meet the specifications required for legal use.

WestCycle has advocated for national standards enforced at importation as a core element of any effective regulatory framework. We welcome that this work is now being led by the WA Transport Minister through the national regulatory process, and we encourage the State Government to continue pressing for an outcome that is both comprehensive and timely.

That the State Government undertake a review of state legislation governing the classification of eRideables and e-bikes with a view to redefining them under a new vehicle category. This should be done in a way that facilitates the collection of data for reporting purposes.

WestCycle Response

We partly support this recommendation but do not support including e-bikes in a new vehicle category.

The Commonwealth has reinstated EN15194 (the European standard for e-bikes) as the design specification. E-bikes that comply with this specification should remain under existing bicycle legislation. They are not significantly different from standard bicycles and do not require separate laws.

We agree a review of the current e-rideable “up-to-25 km/h” category could be undertaken. This could include increasing the weight limit and maximum length to align with share-system e-scooters.

A review of heavier and faster electric mobility devices with the possible of creating a new 25 to 45 km/h category of device is covered in Recommendation 16 below. WestCycle generally supports the new category.

We also recommend a review of the traditional bicycle category to ensure cargo bikes and electric cargo bikes are supported. The European standard EN17860 for electric cargo bikes expands on EN15194 to cover the engineering requirements of the heavier bikes.

That the State Government update the definition of e-rideable in line with the recommended review of current classifications (see Recommendation 18) ensuring consistency in the regulation of privately owned and shared scheme e-rideables.

WestCycle Response

We partly support this recommendation. We welcome a review of the eRideable class to improve consistency, including maximum weight and length and greater national alignment, and we support aligning the specifications of privately owned eRideables with share system e-scooters. Share scheme devices require greater durability and safety features for intensive use, and aligning privately owned device specifications with those standards would remove this inconsistency while ensuring all users have access to appropriately designed equipment. However, we do not support introducing registration for the up-to-25 km/h eRideable class, as proposed in Recommendation 18.

That the State Government advocate that the Commonwealth Government include anti-tampering mechanisms in vehicle design standards for personal mobility devices, mandated at the point of manufacture and enforced on importation.

WestCycle Response

We support this recommendation. Anti-tampering is already a requirement under EN15194 for e-bikes, and a similar requirement exists under EN17128, the European standard for Personal Light Electric Vehicles, which covers e-scooters and similar devices. Australia should consider adopting EN17128 as the basis for eRideable standards, which would bring anti-tampering requirements and a range of other manufacturing safety provisions into the regulatory framework without the need to develop new standards from scratch.

That the State Government ensure that device modifications are prohibited by law under anti-tampering provisions. This should include a penalty for retailers who provide advice on, or otherwise assist in, device modification.

WestCycle Response

We support this recommendation. Device modification is one of the primary ways compliant devices are rendered unsafe and non-compliant, and prohibiting it by law addresses a genuine gap in the current regulatory framework. Penalties for retailers who advise on or assist with modification are equally important: liability should sit with those who facilitate unsafe behaviour, not only those who carry it out.

This recommendation complements Recommendation 14 on anti-tampering requirements at the point of manufacture. Together, they address the problem at both ends: preventing devices from being built or sold in a way that makes modification easy, and penalising those who assist with modification after the fact. A WestCycle community survey conducted in January 2026 found that 70% of respondents supported this recommendation.

That the State Government revise the classifications of e-mobility devices, providing for a category which can travel between 25 km/h to 45 km/hr with the following qualifications: electric mobility devices on which the rider stands are not permitted; use on footpaths and shared paths is not permitted; their design includes mandated safety features.

WestCycle Response

We support this recommendation. Creating a new 25 to 45 km/h device category would provide a legal pathway for higher-powered devices that are currently unregulated, reduce the enforcement burden, and give users greater clarity about what is and is not permitted. The approach is broadly consistent with how mopeds are treated as a distinct category within the motorcycle class.

We do not consider a seated rider requirement to be necessary if other mandated safety features are included in the device design.

That the State Government mandate compliance labelling for all personal mobility devices, consistent with any developments at the national level relating to vehicle, product and/or information standards and regulation. Compliance labels should be affixed to all devices and be highly visible. It should be an offence to remove them, with appropriate penalties prescribed for non-compliance.

WestCycle Response

We support compliance labelling for all personal mobility devices. Labelling should align with national standards and, where applicable, with the relevant device standard: EN15194 for e-bikes and EN17128 for eRideables and other personal light electric vehicles.

Compliance labelling should be meaningful. It should be an offence to use or sell a non-compliant device, with penalties applying to users and retailers alike. The obligation to ensure only compliant devices reach consumers should sit with importers and retailers, not be displaced onto individual users through a registration requirement.

There are already a large number of devices in use across Western Australia, and import reform alone cannot address this. A voluntary compliance pathway would give existing owners a way to demonstrate that their device meets the required standard, whether for their own confidence or for safe second-hand sales, though the practical mechanism for such a scheme would need to be developed in consultation with industry. Creating a mandatory registration system to achieve this outcome would impose significant administrative costs on the State while doing little to prevent non-compliant devices from being used.

That the State Government, when reviewing the current classification of e-rideables and e-bikes, also investigate commensurate licencing and registration requirements for each category of device: For devices speed-limited to 25 km/h — minimal, one off, registration at point of sale to log device compliance and ownership details. For faster and heavier devices able to travel up to 45 km/h — registration of the device and licencing of the owner, with access to compulsory third-party insurance (CTP) cover.

WestCycle Response

We consider that this recommendation should be assessed in two parts: (1) devices speed-limited to 25 km/h and e-bikes with power assistance that cuts out at 25 km/h; (2) devices able to travel up to 45 km/h.

Part 1: Devices up to 25 km/h

We do not support registration for eRideables speed-limited to 25 km/h. We also do not support registration for e-bikes with power assistance cutting out at 25 km/h. E-bikes meeting EN15194 travel at similar speeds to unpowered bicycles.

Registration would create a significant barrier to participation and would disproportionately affect people on lower incomes who rely on these devices for affordable transport. Our survey showed 77% of e-bike users and 61% of e-rideable users oppose registration for compliant devices.

In addition to creating an expensive new administration burden for the State, registration would not address the problem of illegal devices. It would burden legal users while doing nothing about the fast, non-compliant motorcycles causing the most serious safety concerns. The Committee’s own findings show that most serious incidents involve illegally modified or non-compliant devices, not legal eRideables or e-bikes.

Part 2: Devices 25-45 km/h

We agree that registration and licensing could be considered for faster, heavier devices that fit into a new vehicle category, as described in Recommendation 16.

Note: The reference to Recommendation 14 in Recommendation 18 appears to be an error. Recommendation 14 refers to anti-tampering measures, not compliance labelling, which is in Recommendation 17.

That the State Government consider how compulsory third-party insurance might cover electric mobility devices under a revised classification structure (see Recommendation 18).

WestCycle Response

Compulsory third-party insurance should only apply to the new category of faster, heavier devices if that is created.

For eRideables up to 25 km/h and e-bikes, the State Government should consider how to ensure people who are injured are covered, but not via compulsory third-party insurance.

eRideables and e-bikes in the up-to-25 km/h category are similar to standard bicycles and should be treated the same way. Compulsory third-party insurance would be equivalent to registration, and we do not consider this appropriate for these devices.

We do not require pedestrians to have compulsory third-party insurance to walk our streets. The same principle should apply to people using smaller mobility aids such as bicycles and electric powered devices with low-speed capability.

RECOMMENDATION 20

That the Minister for Road Safety review the helmet standard for eRideables with a view to requiring a standard that is more suitable for eRideables.

WestCycle Response

We
do not consider that a review is required. The current helmet standard is
adequate for devices travelling at 25 km/h, and the legal requirement for eRideable
helmets should remain the same as for bicycles or e-bikes.

Requiring
heavier helmets, such as full-face helmets as suggested in some report
findings, would add cost and complexity without addressing the main causes of
serious injury: vehicle speeds and inadequate infrastructure. Helmets protect
individuals in a crash, but they do not prevent crashes. Lower speed limits and
separated paths are more effective in this regard.

Full-face
helmets would also be difficult for e-scooter share systems to provide,
reducing the viability of share schemes in Western Australia. New Zealand
considered similar issues and decided not to make helmets compulsory when
e-scooters were legalised, prioritising participation levels.

Our
survey showed 50% of respondents oppose requiring full-face or motorcycle
helmets for eRideable users, with only 30.4% in support.

In reviewing the regulatory framework governing eRideables,
the State Government should ensure that speed limiting technology is mandated
in vehicle design standards for eRideables. The State Government should also
advocate for its inclusion in national standards when they are developed by the
Commonwealth.

WestCycle Response

We support speed limiting of eRideables to 25 km/h and for this to be included in national standards.

That the State Government initiate a consultation process with children and young people to better understand the underlying factors influencing their use of eRideables and e-bikes. This should be undertaken with a view to implementing effective strategies to encourage compliance and safe riding within this cohort. It should also seek to understand how legislative changes enacted as a result of recommendations made in this report might impact children and young people.

WestCycle Response

We welcome further investigation into how people under 16 use eRideables and e-bikes. Young people and their parents clearly want mobility options that include these devices. We encourage this consultation to proceed in parallel with implementation of other recommendations that do not require further study.

That the Minister for Road Safety ensure that eRideables are removed from legislative provisions under the Road Traffic Code 2000 which apply to riding under the influence of alcohol and drugs, allowing them to be treated consistently as a motor vehicle under the Road Traffic Act 1974.

WestCycle Response

We support applying drink and drug laws consistently across all vehicles. We note it is already an offence to ride any vehicle (including eRideables, e-bikes, or traditional bicycles) while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

That the Minister for Road Safety, as part of the review of current penalties (see Recommendation 26) include provisions which mean that if a person under the age of 16 is apprehended riding an eRideable or e-bike, liability rests with the registered owner with appropriate penalties prescribed.

WestCycle Response

We have concerns about this recommendation. We agree that parents and caregivers bear responsibility for the devices they purchase for young people, and that accountability for unsafe use by under-16s should rest with adults. However, linking this liability to registration is not workable in practice. Devices change hands frequently, often without any formal record, making it difficult to establish who the registered owner is at the time of an offence and costly to prosecute.

Existing legislation already provides mechanisms to hold parents accountable where they have failed to exercise proper supervision of a child. Rather than creating a new registration-linked liability, we recommend that existing laws be used and that enforcement agencies be resourced to apply them. The more effective long-term approach is to address the systemic causes: ensuring non-compliant devices cannot be freely sold, investing in safe infrastructure, and supporting education programs like WeRideAble that reach young people before problems occur.

That the Minister for Road Safety review and increase current penalties for eRideable offences to reflect the increase in eRideable use and the risks associated with non-compliance. Where appropriate, penalties should be aligned with similar offences in other jurisdictions. Under a future regulatory framework these penalties should be aligned with the regulation of all electric mobility devices.

WestCycle Response

Evidence suggests that higher penalties alone do not achieve the desired compliance outcomes. Penalties that target individuals do not address the underlying causes of unsafe behaviour: inadequate infrastructure, confusing laws, and streets designed primarily for motor vehicles.

We consider that penalties should be proportionate to the harm posed.

That the Minister for Road Safety work with other relevant portfolios to roll out a high-profile road safety media campaign on eRideable road rules, safety risks, and rider courtesy. Visuals should include showing how severe injuries can result when laws are not followed.

WestCycle Response

We support this recommendation. A well-designed public education campaign has an important role to play in improving safety for eRideable users and the broader community. The campaign should address both rider behaviour and driver behaviour around people on bikes and eRideables, and should be funded alongside infrastructure improvements.

As mentioned previously, our position is that education is most effective when it sits within a broader hierarchy of action. WestCycle considers that the priority should first be preventing dangerous devices from entering the market, second creating safer places to ride, third investing in education, and enforcement as a last resort. A campaign that asks people to ride safe while non-compliant devices remain freely available and safe infrastructure remains limited is unlikely to achieve meaningful reductions in injury.

That the State Government boost funding for the delivery of eRideable education across all schools in Western Australia, including continued and expanded delivery of the WeRideAble program.

WestCycle Response

We support this recommendation. Education is valuable, though it is most effective when paired with safe infrastructure and lower vehicle speeds. Teaching children to ride safely works best when there are safe places for them to apply what they learn.

We recommend the State also review what age students receive WeRideAble training to ensure it reaches young people before they start using these devices.

That the State Government incorporate eRideable and e-bike awareness into school programs such as Keys4Life, the Drive Safe handbook, and the driver’s licence theory test in Western Australia.

WestCycle Response

We support the inclusion of eRideable and e-bike awareness in driver training, including differences in where eRideables can be used compared with bikes, and that e-bike regulations and use are the same as for standard bicycles. More detailed information about the minimum safe passing distance laws also needs to be included in all programs. Expanding the driving licence theory tests, including heavy vehicle, with more hazard perception questions relating to interaction with eRideables and bicycles (including e-bikes).

That the State Government consider implementing a rider skill test as part of any future registration and licencing requirements for electric mobility devices.

WestCycle Response

We support providing optional skill training for eRideable users and e-bike riders but not as a legal requirement for devices in the up-to-25 km/h category. WestCycle is already delivering skills training in collaboration with local governments.

As described in our response to Recommendation 18, we do not support registration for eRideables speed-limited to 25 km/h. We also do not support registration for e-bikes with power assistance cutting out at 25 km/h. These e-bikes, meeting the EN15194 standard, travel at similar speeds to unpowered bicycles.

We also do not support licences being a legal requirement for people riding e-bikes or eRideables in this low-speed category.

For the proposed new category of faster devices (25-45 km/h), a skills component may be appropriate as part of licensing requirements.

That the State Government provide ongoing education including by way of public awareness campaigns on lithium-ion battery safety. This should include: the importance of buying quality and compliant devices; undertaking certified repairs; installing suitable smoke alarms; avoiding direct sunlight when storing electric powered devices.

WestCycle Response

We support this recommendation. Battery safety education should cover correct charging, storage, and disposal. Ensuring e-bikes comply with the EN15194 standard and eRideables with the EN17128 standard will be an important part of applying the recommendation.

Department of Transport and Major Infrastructure produced guidance for State Government agencies to safely manage staff devices on site. This should be more widely distributed and publicised.

That the State Government, as part of delivering all recommended education initiatives and training programs, ensure that they are regularly evaluated to measure effectiveness.

WestCycle Response

We support this recommendation. Evaluation should measure both safety outcomes and participation levels.

That the State Government provide publicly available rider training programs for eRideables, including an online training course on the theory of eRideable road rules and safety.

WestCycle Response

We support this recommendation. It should also include practical training programs for e-bikes and traditional bicycles.

That the State Government amend consumer protection legislation to mandate certain responsibilities for retailers at the point of sale, including: ensure proof of compliance with current standards; check the buyer is over 16; provide prescribed information such as warnings about the risks and penalties for modifications.

WestCycle Response

We support this recommendation. Point-of-sale obligations for retailers are an important complement to import standards: even where national standards are enforced at the border, retailers remain the last line of defence before a device reaches a consumer. Requiring proof of compliance, age checks, and information about modification risks addresses each of these functions and places accountability where it belongs.

Many eRideables are purchased online from retailers in other states or directly from overseas. State-level point-of-sale obligations will have limited reach if they can be easily circumvented by buying online. We recommend that the State Government advocate for a national approach to point-of-sale requirements, consistent with the national regulatory framework being developed through the Infrastructure and Transport Ministers Meeting process.

eRideables

• Fast track implementation of the Road Safety Action Plan 2024-2026 (Road Safety Commission, 2024) and the recommendations from the Review of the eRideable Road Rules (Road Safety Commission, 2025).
• Create guidelines for local governments that maximise safety and community benefit of e-scooter hire schemes
• Change the road rules so eRideables can be used on all 50kph streets (as recommended in the Review of the eRideable Road Rules)
• Make it easier and quicker for local governments to set safer speed limits in activity centres, entertainment precincts and other areas with high place value
• Enforce existing laws related to illegal devices, and work with other states to lobby for federal changes to import regulations to limit the availability of high powered and poor-quality devices.
• Require retailers to take responsibility at point of sale for ensuring devices are legal and safe, and consumers are aware of what they are purchasing.
• Invest the appropriate level of resources in developing clear processes for high quality data collection, analysis and publications.

E-bikes

• Ensure all official communications and government statements use accurate, regulation-defined terms that clearly distinguish e-bikes from electric motorcycles and eRideables.
• Update WA regulations to reference EN15194 without a date limit, remove the “up to 250W” wording from the definition, and remove the obsolete 200W “pedelec” category.
• Add EN17404 (electric mountain bikes) and EN17860 (cargo bikes) to WA regulations
• Provide a throttle exemption for disabled riders who cannot use pedal-assist.
• Require mandatory EN15194 compliance labelling on all e-bikes at point of sale, including continuous rated power output.
• Require retailers to understand and communicate legal requirements for e-bike use, including age restrictions and where devices can be ridden.
• Lobby the federal government to require mandatory evidence of EN15194 compliance before e-bikes can be imported into Australia.
• Ban the sale of non-compliant high-powered devices as e-bikes, including where sellers use “private use only” disclaimers.
• Create a new classification for higher-powered devices — with appropriate licensing and CTP insurance — to move illegal electric motorcycles into legitimate regulatory categories.
• Oppose licensing or registration requirements for EN15194-compliant e-bikes.
• Adopt a battery passport system to ensure only compliant lithium-ion batteries are sold, and oppose bans on compliant e-bikes from public transport.
• Apply the share scheme governance recommendations from WestCycle’s eRideables submission equally to e-bike share schemes.

WestCycle statement

10 March 2026

WestCycle responds to the Ride Safe report and WA Government position on it

By WestCycle CEO Wayne Bradshaw

“We strongly support the WA Government’s call for the Commonwealth to close national regulatory gaps, especially regarding import controls, tampering, and device classifications to prevent unsafe and overpowered devices entering the country in the first place.”

WestCycle welcomes the Western Australian Government’s proactive response to the Ride Safe report and its commitment to improving the safety, regulation, and community integration of e-bikes and eRideables across Western Australia. The Government’s support or in-principle support for 32 of the report’s 33 recommendations represents an important milestone in recognising that e-mobility is now an essential and growing part of our transport system.

As the peak body representing Western Australia’s riding community, we are particularly encouraged to see a clear national leadership role emerging from WA. The Government’s push for stronger national device standards and classifications aligns directly with the recommendations and positions WestCycle put forward during the Inquiry, including addressing the supply of dangerous devices, creating safer places to ride, investing in education, and boosting enforcement efforts.

Alignment with WestCycle’s key positions

The Government’s position reflects several core priorities WestCycle outlined in our eRideable and e-bike Inquiry submissions and formal response to its findings and recommendations:

1. Safer, higher quality devices through national standards

Stronger requirements for device performance, safety features, imports and retailer compliance are essential steps WestCycle has long advocated for. These standards help ensure that only safe, compliant devices are available for public use.

2. Better, safer infrastructure for all riders

The Government’s backing of more and better spaces for riders directly aligns with our emphasis on the urgent need to close WA’s infrastructure gap. Safe path networks, intersection treatments, and lower speeds on local streets are among the most effective ways to reduce conflict and protect pedestrians and riders – including measures we continue to advocate for.

3. Expanded education across all communities and schools

We are particularly pleased to see the commitment to expanded education programs, building on initiatives such as WestCycle and the Road Safety Commission’s own WeRideAble program. Education remains one of the most effective tools for improving rider behaviour and community safety, a view strongly supported in WestCycle’s rider survey and formal response to the Committee.

4. Clearer rules supported by evidence-based enforcement

WestCycle supports evidence-based enforcement that targets genuinely dangerous behaviour without penalising responsible riders using compliant devices for transport, recreation, and commuting. We acknowledge the importance of WA Police having tools to address antisocial and high-risk use, while ensuring these approaches sit alongside education and infrastructure – not in place of them.

Areas requiring continued focus

While we broadly support the Government’s direction, we reiterate several concerns outlined in our detailed response to the Ride Safe report:

• No Registration of compliant devices

Our community overwhelmingly opposes registration for compliant eRideables and e-bikes, and we welcome the Government’s recognition that e-mobility devices should be treated, “in the same manner as (non-motorised) bicycles.”

Registration would create cost and administrative burdens without evidence of safety benefit, and risks discouraging active transport uptake. We welcome continued dialogue with Government to ensure that any future regulatory changes are proportionate, evidence-based, and community supported.

• The need for speed management and safer streets

Lower traffic speeds on local streets remain one of the simplest and most cost effective ways to protect pedestrians and riders – not only eRideable users, but also riders and vulnerable road users more broadly. We continue to work with Government to progress this proven road safety measure.

• Fast tracking already identified actions

Our position remains that several safety measures endorsed both in the Road Safety Action Plan and the Review of eRideable Road Rules should be accelerated to meet the community need for safer streets and paths.

A shared path forward

The WA Government’s announcement confirms that Western Australia is ready to lead the nation in establishing a modern, consistent, and safety focused e-mobility framework. We strongly support the WA Government’s call for the Commonwealth to close national regulatory gaps, especially regarding import controls, tampering, and device classifications to prevent unsafe and overpowered devices entering the country in the first place.

WestCycle stands ready to collaborate with Government, industry, and community partners to ensure that these reforms deliver safer streets, better infrastructure, and an environment where people of all ages and abilities can confidently choose active, sustainable transport.

E-bikes and eRideables are here to stay. With the right mix of regulation, infrastructure, education and enforcement, they can safely deliver enormous benefits to our community – from young people gaining independence, to older riders staying active, to families choosing healthier, more sustainable ways to travel. WestCycle is committed to ensuring these opportunities are realised for every Western Australian.

To arrange interviews contact:

Shane Starling

WestCycle Communications Manager

Phone: 0492 897 199

Email: shane.starling@westcycle.org.au

About WestCycle

WestCycle is the peak non-profit body for riding throughout Western Australia and a representative voice for all riders, including eRideable users. Our dedicated team strives to develop, promote and enact positive change state-wide around active transport.

Acknowledgement of country

WestCycle acknowledges the traditional custodians of the lands where we work and live and pay our respects to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Elders past, present and emerging.