HELMET (HEaLth iMpact of E-bikes and e-scooTers) study: Data collection methods and information gathered for the evaluation of the introduction of share-hire schemes

<ns7:p>Background This study aimed to collect and summarise information on e-bike and e-scooter use in areas with and without e-bike (EB) and e-bike plus e-scooter (EB+ES) combined share-hire schemes. Methods This study employed a repeated cross-sectional design. An online survey asking questions about demographics, travel, and health was completed by people in August and September 2023 before the schemes were launched in Bristol (EB+ES) and Leeds (EB), with Bradford and Sheffield as control sites. A resurvey was conducted at the same sites one year later, but also in Bath (EB+ES) and Plymouth (EB). We also interviewed eight e-bike and e-scooter users and non-users in Bristol (n=4) and Leeds (n=4). Results Following data cleaning, 3771 remained in the baseline sample and 5370 remained in the resurvey sample. The majority of participants reported having never used an e-bike (baseline: 61%; resurvey: 69%) or e-scooter (baseline: 77%; resurvey: 84%). At baseline, the most common e-bike access route was the use of their own e-bike (45%), with access via a share-hire scheme lower at 25%. In the resurvey sample, access levels were similar via a share-hire scheme (38%) and personal e-bikes (36%). The most common e-scooter access route was a share-hire scheme (baseline: 60%; resurvey: 74%). The most common weekly e-bike and e-scooter destinations were leisure/leisure venues, followed by work/education and shopping/errands. Half said they would not use an e-bike scheme and 63% indicated they would not use an e-scooter scheme. Potential users were willing to walk ~500 m to access an e-bike/e-scooter. Interviewees generally supported share-hire schemes, seeing them as a good addition to the wider transport offer, but with more support for e-bikes and reservations around e-scooters. Conclusions These data will be important for a later evaluation of EB and EB+ES share-hire schemes on public health, social, economic, and environmental factors.</ns7:p>

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
NIHR Open Research
Published
2025-08-14
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.13857.2
Primary Topic
Transportation and Mobility Innovations
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

HELMET (HEaLth iMpact of E-bikes and e-scooTers) study: Data collection methods and information gathered for the evaluation of the introduction of share-hire schemes

Tim Jones, Ben Spencer, Ruth Salway, Roland Roberts et al.
NIHR Open Research
Transportation and Mobility Innovations
article

HELMET (HEaLth iMpact of E-bikes and e-scooTers) study: Data collection methods and information gathered for the evaluation of the introduction of share-hire schemes

Tim Jones, Ben Spencer, Ruth Salway, Roland Roberts, James Garbutt, Russell Jago, Ian Philips, Sabina Sanghera, Frank de Vocht, Miranda Elaine Glynis Armstrong, Lester C. Welch
article en

Abstract

<ns7:p>Background This study aimed to collect and summarise information on e-bike and e-scooter use in areas with and without e-bike (EB) and e-bike plus e-scooter (EB+ES) combined share-hire schemes. Methods This study employed a repeated cross-sectional design. An online survey asking questions about demographics, travel, and health was completed by people in August and September 2023 before the schemes were launched in Bristol (EB+ES) and Leeds (EB), with Bradford and Sheffield as control sites. A resurvey was conducted at the same sites one year later, but also in Bath (EB+ES) and Plymouth (EB). We also interviewed eight e-bike and e-scooter users and non-users in Bristol (n=4) and Leeds (n=4). Results Following data cleaning, 3771 remained in the baseline sample and 5370 remained in the resurvey sample. The majority of participants reported having never used an e-bike (baseline: 61%; resurvey: 69%) or e-scooter (baseline: 77%; resurvey: 84%). At baseline, the most common e-bike access route was the use of their own e-bike (45%), with access via a share-hire scheme lower at 25%. In the resurvey sample, access levels were similar via a share-hire scheme (38%) and personal e-bikes (36%). The most common e-scooter access route was a share-hire scheme (baseline: 60%; resurvey: 74%). The most common weekly e-bike and e-scooter destinations were leisure/leisure venues, followed by work/education and shopping/errands. Half said they would not use an e-bike scheme and 63% indicated they would not use an e-scooter scheme. Potential users were willing to walk ~500 m to access an e-bike/e-scooter. Interviewees generally supported share-hire schemes, seeing them as a good addition to the wider transport offer, but with more support for e-bikes and reservations around e-scooters. Conclusions These data will be important for a later evaluation of EB and EB+ES share-hire schemes on public health, social, economic, and environmental factors.</ns7:p>

NIHR Open ResearchVol. 5
Oxford Brookes University (GB), University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust (GB), At Bristol (GB), Department for Transport (GB), University of Bristol (GB), NIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre (GB)
NIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, National Institute for Health and Care Research, Department of Health and Social Care, Imperial College London, Public Health Research Programme, National Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration West
Openalex Percentile: Top 77%
Transportation and Mobility Innovations
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.