Tech
Rented e-bicycles present more danger than e-scooters in cities, study reveals
E-scooters have often been identified as more dangerous than e-bikes, but that picture changes when they are compared on equal terms. A recently published study from Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden, shows, in fact, that the crash risk is eight times higher for e-bikes than for e-scooters, calculated based on the trip distance with rental vehicles in cities.
This surprising result provides a better basis for cities to make decisions on how much to facilitate different types of micromobility. The paper is published in the Journal of Safety Research.
“Previous studies have often compared apples with oranges,” says Marco Dozza, Full Professor in Active Safety and Road-User Behavior at Chalmers. “They have lumped together e-bicycles with ordinary bicycles, and haven’t taken into account where, how and how much these vehicles are used—or whether they are rented or privately owned. When we took all these factors into account, we found that e-scooterists actually have a lower rate of crashes than e-cyclists.”
GPS data contributed to equitable comparison
The study is based on a unique data set from trips using rented e-bicycles and e-scooters in seven European cities: Gävle in Sweden, Berlin and Düsseldorf in Germany, and the U.K. cities of Cambridge, Kettering, Liverpool and Northampton.
The researchers analyzed 686 crashes involving e-scooterists and 35 involving e-cyclists. The high number of crashes involving e-scooters reflects that they were used much more frequently than e-bicycles. But their crash risk was actually much lower—regardless of whether the risk was calculated on the basis of the number, duration, or distance of the trips.
“When we calculated using trip distance, it turned out that e-cyclists were eight times more likely to have a crash than e-scooterists. It’s a result that surprised us,” says Dozza.
This is the first time that a study of this kind has been able to compare micromobility in such a detailed and equitable way, and from so many countries and cities. A key to being able to do the study in this way was the use of GPS data. This made it possible to measure what is termed “exposure”—which refers to how much a vehicle is actually used—with greater precision than previously.
All vehicles in the study were rented and used in city centers, which makes the comparison more equitable than previous studies that have often mixed together urban and rural settings, or mixed rented vehicles with privately owned vehicles.
Safety of e-scooters grossly underestimated
Despite their results, the researchers stress that they should not be seen as definitive proof that e-scooters are safer than e-bicycles. Uncertainties remain, such as under-reporting of crashes and differences in the way these vehicles are used.
“But what we can say is that previous studies have grossly underestimated the safety of e-scooters in relation to e-bicycles,” says Dozza. “This in turn could have consequences for how cities regulate and plan micromobility. In some cities, attempts are being made to steer micromobility towards e-bicycles, which are considered to be better because previous research has created the idea that all types of cycling are safer than all types of e-scootering,” he adds.
“Now that it turns out that isn’t correct, decision-makers may need to think again. The results might also affect consumers’ decisions if they have rented e-bicycles instead of e-scooters because they believed it’s safer,” he says.
According to the researchers, future analyses of crash risk should always include GPS data and precise information about how the vehicles are used. They would also like to see additional comparable data sets from other parts of the world; in particular, data sets that include more e-bicycle journeys in order to improve statistical reliability.
“With more detailed data, we can make better decisions about transport for the future. And to achieve that, it’s important that we compare apples with apples,” says Dozza.
More about the research
The study only compares e-scooters with e-bicycles, unlike previous studies where e-bicycles and ordinary bicycles were lumped together in the same group. It is also the first study to also include several other important factors in the comparison: ownership, geographical location, usage, and exposure.
- Only rented vehicles were included in the study.
- The locations were limited to highly urbanized city centers using geofencing.
- Usage type was further controlled by comparing e-scooters and e-bicycles from the same rental company.
- Exposure was investigated using three different measures: number, duration, and distance of the trips.
The difference in crash risk between these vehicle types was greatest when trip distance was used as the measure for exposure, when the crash risk was 8.3 times higher for e-bicycles than for e-scooters. But even when using the other two measures for exposure, the crash risk was considerably higher for e-bicycles.
The data in the study comes from GPS data from trips with rented e-scooters and e-bicycles in seven European cities in the years 2022–2023 and includes a total of 686 reported crashes with e-scooters and 35 with e-bicycles. Despite the low number of crashes with e-bicycles, the results of the study are statistically significant when the data from all the cities was weighed together.
More information:
Rahul Rajendra Pai et al, Is e-cycling safer than e-scootering? Comparing injury risk across Europe when vehicle-type, location, exposure, usage, and ownership are controlled, Journal of Safety Research (2025). DOI: 10.1016/j.jsr.2025.06.015
Citation:
Rented e-bicycles present more danger than e-scooters in cities, study reveals (2025, September 12)
retrieved 12 September 2025
from https://techxplore.com/news/2025-09-rented-bicycles-danger-scooters-cities.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no
part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
Tech
Anthropic Supply-Chain-Risk Designation Halted by Judge
Anthropic won a preliminary injunction barring the US Department of Defense from labeling it a supply-chain risk, potentially clearing the way for customers to resume working with the company. The ruling on Thursday by Rita Lin, a federal district judge in San Francisco, is a symbolic setback for the Pentagon and a significant boost for the generative AI company as it tries to preserve its business and reputation.
“Defendants’ designation of Anthropic as a ‘supply chain risk’ is likely both contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious,” Lin wrote in justifying the temporary relief. “The Department of War provides no legitimate basis to infer from Anthropic’s forthright insistence on usage restrictions that it might become a saboteur.”
Anthropic and the Pentagon did not immediately respond to requests to comment on the ruling.
The Department of Defense, which under Trump calls itself the Department of War, has relied on Anthropic’s Claude AI tools for writing sensitive documents and analyzing classified data over the past couple of years. But this month, it began pulling the plug on Claude after determining that Anthropic could not be trusted. Pentagon officials cited numerous instances in which Anthropic allegedly placed or sought to put usage restrictions on its technology that the Trump administration found unnecessary.
The administration ultimately issued several directives, including designating the company a supply-chain risk, which have had the effect of slowly halting Claude usage across the federal government and hurting Anthropic’s sales and public reputation. The company filed two lawsuits challenging the sanctions as unconstitutional. In a hearing on Tuesday, Lin said the government had appeared to illegally “cripple” and “punish” Anthropic.
Lin’s ruling on Thursday “restores the status quo” to February 27, before the directives were issued. “It does not bar any defendant from taking any lawful action that would have been available to it” on that date, she wrote. “For example, this order does not require the Department of War to use Anthropic’s products or services and does not prevent the Department of War from transitioning to other artificial intelligence providers, so long as those actions are consistent with applicable regulations, statutes, and constitutional provisions.”
The ruling suggests the Pentagon and other federal agencies are still free to cancel deals with Anthropic and ask contractors that integrate Claude into their own tools to stop doing so, but without citing the supply-chain-risk designation as the basis.
The immediate impact is unclear because Lin’s order won’t take effect for a week. And a federal appeals court in Washington, DC, has yet to rule on the second lawsuit Anthropic filed, which focuses on a different law under which the company was also barred from providing software to the military.
But Anthropic could use Lin’s ruling to demonstrate to some customers concerned about working with an industry pariah that the law may be on its side in the long run. Lin has not set a schedule to make a final ruling.
Tech
How Trump’s Plot to Grab Iran’s Nuclear Fuel Would Actually Work
President Donald Trump and top defense officials are reportedly weighing whether to send ground troops to Iran in order to retrieve the country’s highly enriched uranium. However, the administration has shared little information about which troops would be deployed, how they would retrieve the nuclear material, or where the material would go next.
“People are going to have to go and get it,” secretary of state Marco Rubio said at a congressional briefing earlier this month, referring to the possible operation.
There are some indications that an operation is close on the horizon. On Tuesday, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Pentagon has imminent plans to deploy 3,000 brigade combat troops to the Middle East. (At the time of writing, the order has not been made.) The troops would come from the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division, which specializes in “joint forcible entry operations.” On Wednesday, Iran’s government rejected Trump’s 15-point plan to end the war, and White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said that the president “is prepared to unleash hell” in Iran if a peace deal is not reached—a plan some lawmakers have reportedly expressed concern about.
Drawing from publicly available intelligence and their own experience, two experts outlined the likely contours of a ground operation targeting nuclear sites. They tell WIRED that any version of a ground operation would be incredibly complicated and pose a huge risk to the lives of American troops.
“I personally think a ground operation using special forces supported by a larger force is extremely, extremely risky and ultimately infeasible,” Spencer Faragasso, a senior research fellow at the Institute for Science and International Security, tells WIRED.
Nuclear Ambitions
Any version of the operation would likely take several weeks and involve simultaneous actions at multiple target locations that aren’t in close proximity to each other, the experts say. Jonathan Hackett, a former operations specialist for the Marines and the Defense Intelligence Agency, tells WIRED that as many as 10 locations could be targeted: the Isfahan, Arak, and Darkhovin research reactors; the Natanz, Fordow, and Parchin enrichment facilities; the Saghand, Chine, and Yazd mines; and the Bushehr power plant.
According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Isfahan likely has the majority of the country’s 60 percent highly enriched uranium, which may be able to support a self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction, though weapon-grade material generally consists of 90 percent enriched uranium. Hackett says that the other two enrichment facilities may also have 60 percent highly enriched uranium, and that the power plant and all three research reactors may have 20 percent enriched uranium. Faragasso emphasizes that any such supplies deserve careful attention.
Hackett says that eight of the 10 sites—with the exception of Isfahan, which is likely intact underground, and “Pickaxe Mountain,” a relatively new enrichment facility near Natanz—were mostly or partially buried after last June’s air raids. Just before the war, Faragasso says, Iran backfilled the tunnel entrances to the Isfahan facility with dirt.
The riskiest version of a ground operation would involve American troops physically retrieving nuclear material. Hackett says that this material would be stored in the form of uranium hexafluoride gas inside “large cement vats.” Faragasso adds that it’s unclear how many of these vats may have been broken or damaged. At damaged sites, troops would have to bring excavators and heavy equipment capable of moving immense amounts of dirt to retrieve them
A comparatively less risky version of the operation would still necessitate ground troops, according to Hackett. However, it would primarily use air strikes to entomb nuclear material inside of their facilities. Ensuring that nuclear material is inaccessible in the short to medium term, Faragasso says, would entail destroying the entrances to underground facilities and ideally collapsing the facilities’ underground roofs.
Softening the Area
Hackett tells WIRED that based on his experience and all publicly available information, Trump’s negotiations with Iran are “probably a ruse” that buys time to move troops into place.
Hackett says that an operation would most likely begin with aerial bombardments in the areas surrounding the target sites. These bombers, he says, would likely be from the 82nd Airborne Division or the 11th or 31st Marine Expeditionary Units (MEU). The 11th MEU, a “rapid-response” force, and the 31st MEU, the only Marine unit continuously deployed abroad in strategic areas, have reportedly both been deployed to the Middle East.
Tech
Amazon’s Spring Sale Is So-So, but Cadence Capsules Are a Bright Spot
The WIRED Reviews Team has been covering Amazon’s Big Spring Sale since it began at on Wednesday, and the overall deals have been … not great, honestly. So far, we’ve found decent markdowns on vacuums, smart bird feeders, and even an air fryer we love, but I just saw that Cadence Capsules, those colorful magnetic containers you may have seen on your social media pages, are 20 percent off. (For reference, the last time I saw them on sale, they were a measly 9 percent off.)
If you’re not familiar, they allow you to decant your full-sized personal care products you use at home—from shampoo and sunscreen to serums and pills—into a labeled, modular system of hexagonal containers that are leak-proof, dishwasher safe, and stick together magnetically in your bag or on a countertop. No more jumbled, travel-sized toiletries and leaky, mismatched bottles and tubes.
Cadence Capsules have garnered some grumbling online for being overly heavy or leaking, but I’ve been using them regularly for about a year—I discuss decanting your daily-use products in my guide to How to Pack Your Beauty Routine for Travel—and haven’t experienced any leaks. They do add weight if you’re trying to travel super-light, and because they’re magnetic, they will also stick to other metal items in your toiletry bag, like bobby pins or other hair accessories. This can be annoying, especially if you’re already feeling chaotic or in a hurry.
Otherwise, Capsules are modular, convenient, and make you feel supremely organized—magnetic, interchangeable inserts for the lids come with permanent labels like “shampoo,” “conditioner,” “cleanser,” and “moisturizer.” Maybe you love this; maybe you don’t. But at least if you buy on Amazon, you can choose which label genre you get (Haircare, Bodycare, Skincare, Daily Routine). If this just isn’t your jam, the Cadence website offers a set of seven that allows you to customize the color and lid label of each Capsule, but that set is not currently on sale.
-
Fashion1 week agoSales at US apparel, clothing accessories stores up 4% YoY in Jan 2026
-
Entertainment1 week agoVal Kilmer revived 1 year after death through AI
-
Fashion1 week agoUS’ G-III Apparel’s FY26 sales fall 7% to $2.96 bn
-
Sports1 week agoMarch Madness 2026 – How to watch in SA, start time, schedule, TV channel for NCAA championship basketball tournament
-
Business1 week agoBrits cashing in jewellery as gold price hits record high
-
Fashion6 days agoChina’s textile & apparel exports surge 17% to $50 bn in Jan-Feb 2026
-
Business1 week agoWorld’s largest mining group names new chief executive
-
Fashion1 week agoSuez and Hormuz shut together, triggering global supply shock

