Start with facts
Track the actual incident: location, speed, pedestrian context, injury severity, device type, citation status, infrastructure design, and whether existing law was enforced.
Accidents are real. Panic policy is still bad policy.
When a pedestrian is hurt, the answer cannot be denial from riders or lazy calls to ban an entire transportation category. The answer is classification, enforceable speed rules, insurance pathways, crash reporting, and penalties for reckless operation.
Separate bad conduct from lawful access
Reckless riders should face consequences. Responsible riders should have a legal way to ride, insure, register, train, and comply.
Make regulation usable
Rules that cannot be followed become informal bans. Cities need speed zones, pedestrian-area restrictions, lighting rules, right-of-way rules, and realistic compliance paths.
The public record already shows the problem.
The advocacy angle is not pretending collisions never happen. It is showing that a broad ban is the least intelligent response to a specific safety problem.
The problem is conflict at crossings, sidewalks, and shared corridors.
A serious incident deserves a serious safety response: slower zones near pedestrians, visible yielding rules, crash reporting, and liability coverage. That is different from pretending every responsible rider should disappear.
San Francisco
Great Highway pedestrian collision
Reported July 2026. Mission Local reported that a woman crossing the closed Great Highway at Lawton Street was struck by an electric unicycle and taken to the hospital with non-life-threatening injuries. Bystanders reported a stroller, child, dog, and grandmother were present. A witness said the rider estimated he was traveling about 25 mph.
Policy lesson
This is exactly where regulation should be specific.
Shared pedestrian corridors need clear right-of-way rules, reduced speed near crossings, visible enforcement, incident reporting, and liability coverage options. A ban skips the hard work and leaves cities with the same conflicts under a different label.
Cities are missing the private-rider data.
Most cities do not register privately owned scooters, electric skateboards, EUCs, or e-bikes. That means official dashboards often count shared rental fleets while private EUC riders are invisible until a crash, complaint, or ban proposal hits the news.
Strategic blind spot
If EUCs are not counted, they get regulated by anecdote.
The campaign database exists to fix that gap: collect rider locations, incident facts, lawful-use stories, insurance interest, local rules, citations, and legal impacts before policymakers decide the only available data point is a headline.
Shared vehicle type
San Francisco
Austin
Stand-up electric scooters
Up to 6,500
Up to 6,700
Electric bikes
2,366
Up to 180
Electric skateboards
0 reported
0 reported
Electric unicycles
0 reported
0 reported
Tracked electric total
8,866
6,880
Strategic read: the “0 reported” entries do not mean zero private EUCs exist. They mean private ownership is not being counted the same way shared rental fleets are counted. That is exactly why a rider-built evidence database matters.