Strategies for Mitigating the Injury Risks of Using Motorised Mobility Scooters

  • Selby CoxonEmail author
  • Jennie Oxley
Part of the Intelligent Systems Reference Library book series (ISRL, volume 167)


Transport is an important arbiter of engagement in society. Disability and functional limitations (cognitive and physical) associated with older age can make such participation challenging. The design and engineering community have been strident in recent decades to use technology to mitigate, as far as possible, the limitations imposed upon individuals as a consequence of the effects of ageing. This chapter explores one such assistive technology; the motorised mobility scooter (MMS) and in particular examines some contradictions and ambiguities associated with this increasingly popular form of mobility. For example, MMS are classified as pedestrians yet can travel at speeds of 10 km/h. They can look and perform similar to bigger motor scooters but are not permitted to travel in traffic lanes. These issues have significant implications upon the safety of the user and other pedestrians. From a review of the scientific literature and examination of injury data from the Australian experience, some implications are drawn for systems-based strategies engaging design, policy and regulation approaches to enhance the safety of this form of assistive technology. These approaches have potential benefits that may extent to other parts of the world where this form of mobility is also growing in popularity.


Mobility Disability Ageing Motorised mobility scooter Pedestrians Assistive technology Injury data 


  1. 1.
    Andersen, G.: Aging and vision: changes in function and performance from optics to perception. Wiley Interdisc. Rev. Cogn. Sci. 3(3), 403–410 (2015). Scholar
  2. 2.
    Murman, D.: The impact of age on cognition. Semin. Hear. 36(3), 111–121 (2015). Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nigam, Y., Knight, J., Bhattacharya, S., Bayer, A.: Physiological changes associated with aging and immobility. J. Aging Res. 2012. (2012)
  4. 4.
    Charlton, J., Koppel, S., Odell, M., et al.: Influence of Chronic Illness on Crash Involvement of Motor Vehicle Drivers. Monash University Accident Research Centre, Melbourne, Australia (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Marshall, S.: The role of reduced fitness to drive due to medical impairments in explaining crashes involving older drivers. Traffic Inj. Prev. 9(4), 291–298 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Naumann, R., Dellinger, A., Haileyesus, T., Ryan, G.: Older adult pedestrian injuries in the United States: causes and contributing circumstances. Int. J. Inj. Control Saf. Promot. 18(1), 65–73 (2011). Scholar
  7. 7.
    Oxley, J., O’Hern, S., Burtt, D., Rossiter, B.: Falling while walking: a hidden contributor to pedestrian injury. Accid. Anal. Prev. 114, 77–82 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Australian Bureau of Statistics: Population Projections, Australia, 2012 (base) to 2101. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra, ACT Australia (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    OECD: Ageing and Transport. Mobility Needs and Safety Issues. OECD Pubs., Paris, France (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), N. M. Services, CHOICE, EnableNSW, F. University: Mobility Scooter Usage and Safety Survey Report (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Oxley, J., Whelan, M.: It cannot be all about road safety: the benefits of prolonged mobility. Traffic Inj. Prev. Spec. Issue Older Road Users 9(4), 367–378 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Johnson, M., Rose, G., Oxley, J.: Motorised mobility scooters—understanding a growing transport mode for older Australians. In: Proceedings, Australasian Transport Research Forum, Brisbane, Australia, 2–4 Oct 2013Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Austroads: Operational impacts of alternative private passenger vehicles. Austroads Publication No. AP-R351/10. A. Ltd., Sydney (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
  15. 15.
    City of Melbourne: Resilient Melbourne Strategy. City of Melbourne's Future Melbourne Committee (2016)
  16. 16.
    Mortenson, B., Hoag, E., Higgins, R., et al.: Stakeholders’ perspectives related to the development of a scooter training program. Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. 11(4), 289–294 (2016)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    World Health Organisation: World Report on Ageing and Health. WHO Press, Geneva, Switzerland (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Art, Design and ArchitectureMonash UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.Monash University Accident Research CentreMonash UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations