Great Highway and shared corridors
Any public path that mixes pedestrians, strollers, dogs, bikes, scooters, and EUCs needs slower passing, explicit yielding, and visible consequences for hit-and-run behavior.
San Francisco: Repair Trust Without Erasing EUCs
San Francisco is the proving ground. If the EUC community cannot answer pedestrian-safety concerns here, the argument will be written by fear, injury headlines, viral bad-rider footage, and people who think “ban it” is a complete transportation policy.
City strategy
Lead with pedestrian safety, then offer staff a usable framework.
The Great Highway conflict is not something to minimize. The serious answer is a corridor-specific safety framework: slow zones, yielding duties, visible accountability, crash reporting, rider outreach, and a private-rider data pilot. The goal is to make fair regulation easier for supervisors than a blanket ban and to make reckless riding harder to defend.
San Francisco pressure points
The public needs to see accountability
Anonymous high-speed riding near pedestrians is politically fatal. Faster devices need visible ID, liability coverage paths, and clear operating rules.
Do not regulate from one anecdote
San Francisco should collect actual device class, speed context, location, citations, injury severity, infrastructure, and whether existing laws were enforced.
Responsible-rider line
Pedestrian-first means specific behavior
Slow near people, kids, dogs, transit stops, crossings, and crowded promenades. Give wide passing room, stop when needed, and keep high-speed EUCs off crowded sidewalks.
Traffic behavior matters politically
Red-light running, wrong-way riding, surprise passes, and speed-flex videos hand opponents the story they need. San Francisco advocacy should defend responsible access while supporting consequences for reckless operation.
The San Francisco ask
Immediate guidance
No high-speed sidewalks or crowded promenades; slow at crossings; yield to pedestrians; wait at red lights; use lights after dark; stop after any collision; avoid reckless passing; preserve access while staff evaluates classification.
90-day pilot
Voluntary EUC registry, rider pledge, incident intake, insurance-interest survey, route-risk map, SFMTA/police/rider working group, and annual review before any permanent prohibition.
Class-based rules
Separate small low-speed wheels from heavy street-capable wheels. Use weight, speed, capability, location, lighting, and accountability to decide access instead of treating every EUC as the same device.
NYC as cautionary example
Dense streets with many devices show that rules on paper do not solve behavior unless enforcement, public education, rider ID, and clear legal routes are workable in daily street conditions.
What a supervisor can do next
Ask staff for classification review
Request a short memo on where EUCs fit under existing city and state micromobility rules, what behavior is already enforceable, and what compliance path responsible riders currently have.
Invite a rider/staff conversation
Before new restrictions are drafted, bring riders, pedestrian advocates, SFMTA staff, and public-safety stakeholders into the same room around concrete operating rules.
Public comment line
“San Francisco can protect pedestrians without banning responsible EUC riders. Please require slow zones, yielding, lighting, visible accountability, and incident reporting, then create a lawful compliance path for private riders before adopting any blanket restriction.”