Paylaşımlı Elektrikli Skuterlerde Güvenlik Algısı: Risk Algısı Teorisi Perspektifi

Yıl 2025, Sayı: 57, 55 - 70, 30.08.2025

Rukiye Gizem Öztaş Karlı

https://doi.org/10.52642/susbed.1617445

Öz

Günümüzde mikromobilite araçları, kent içi ulaşımda önemli bir alternatif haline gelmiştir. Ancak e-skuter kullanımındaki bu artış, özellikle trafik yoğunluğunun ve yetersiz altyapının riskleri artırdığı kentsel ortamlarda kullanıcı güvenliğine ilişkin endişeleri de beraberinde getirmiştir. Bu çalışma, Türkiye'nin en büyük ve en karmaşık kentsel ortamlarından biri olan İstanbul'daki paylaşımlı elektrikli skuter kullanıcılarının güvenlik algılarını anlamayı ve bu algılara dayalı olarak geliştirdikleri stratejileri incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Çalışmanın teorik temeli, bireylerin risk algılarının yalnızca objektif tehlikelere göre değil, kişisel deneyimlere, çevresel koşullara ve sosyal bağlama göre de şekillendiğini öne süren Risk Algısı Teorisine dayanmaktadır. Katılımcı gözlem yöntemi ile toplanan veriler, tematik analiz yöntemiyle incelenmiş ve güvenlik tehditleri, güvenlik stratejileri, kullanıcı deneyimleri, altyapı ve çevresel faktörler ile teknolojik sorunlar olmak üzere beş ana tema belirlenmiştir. Özellikle trafik, altyapı eksiklikleri ve teknolojik arızalar gibi faktörlerin kullanıcıların güvenlik algılarını olumsuz etkilediği gözlemlenmiştir. Araştırmanın bulguları, paylaşımlı e-skuter kullanıcılarının hız kontrolü, güvenli rotalar seçme gibi stratejiler geliştirerek risk algılarını yönetmeye çalıştığını ortaya koymuştur. Sonuç olarak, mikromobilite sistemlerinin daha güvenli hale getirilmesi için altyapı iyileştirmeleri, teknolojik geliştirmeler ve kullanıcı eğitimleri gibi öneriler sunulmuştur. Bu çalışma, paylaşımlı e-skuter kullanımının güvenlik açısından değerlendirilmesine katkı sağlayarak, şehir plancıları ve politika yapıcılar için önemli ipuçları sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

E-skuter , İstanbul , Katılımcı Gözlem , Risk Algısı Teorisi

Perception of Safety in Shared Electric Scooters: A Risk Perception Theory Perspective

Öz

Today, micromobility vehicles have become an important alternative in urban transport. However, this increase in the use of e-scooters has also brought concerns about user safety, especially in urban environments where traffic density and inadequate infrastructure increase risks. This study aims to understand the safety perceptions of shared electric scooter users in Istanbul, one of the largest and most complex urban environments in Turkey, and to examine the strategies they develop based on these perceptions. The theoretical basis of the study is based on Risk Perception Theory, which suggests that individuals' risk perceptions are shaped not only by objective hazards but also by personal experiences, environmental conditions and social context. The data collected by participant observation method was analysed by thematic analysis method and five main themes were identified: security threats, security strategies, user experiences, infrastructure and environmental factors and technological problems. In particular, it was observed that factors such as traffic, infrastructure deficiencies and technological failures negatively affect users' perceptions of security. The findings of the study revealed that shared e-skuter users try to manage their risk perceptions by developing strategies such as speed control and choosing safe routes. As a result, recommendations such as infrastructure improvements, technological improvements and user trainings are presented to make micromobility systems safer. This study contributes to the evaluation of shared e-scooter use in terms of safety and provides important clues for urban planners and policy makers.

Anahtar Kelimeler

E-scooter , Istanbul , Participant Observation , Risk Perception Theory

Kaynakça

• Abduljabbar, R. L., Liyanage, S., & Dia, H. (2021). The role of micro-mobility in shaping sustainable cities: A systematic literature review. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 92, 102734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102734
• Aizpuru, M., Farley, K. X., Rojas, J. C., Crawford, R. S., Moore, T. J., & Wagner, E. R. (2019). Motorized scooter injuries in the era of scooter-shares: A review of the national electronic surveillance system. The American Journal of Emergency Medicine, 37(6), 1133–1138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2019.03.049
• Almannaa, M. H., Alsahhaf, F. A., Ashqar, H. I., Elhenawy, M., Masoud, M., & Rakotonirainy, A. (2021). Perception Analysis of E-Scooter Riders and Non-Riders in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Survey Outputs. Sustainability, 13(2), 863. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020863
• Arikan Öztürk, E., Karaçor, F., & Bayirtepe, H. (2024). The characteristics of e-scooter accidents reported by police in Türkiye. Traffic Injury Prevention, 25(8), 1089–1097. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2024.2363478
• Beck, S., Barker, L., Chan, A., & Stanbridge, S. (2020). Emergency department impact following the introduction of an electric scooter sharing service. Emergency Medicine Australasia, 32(3), 409–415. https://doi.org/10.1111/1742-6723.13419
• Bianchi, A., Gallina, S., Cianflone, F., Tafuri, A., Cerruto, M. A., & Antonelli, A. (2022). E-scooter accidents: A rising cause of kidney injury. Urologia Journal, 89(4), 506–510. https://doi.org/10.1177/03915603211037611
• Bickerstaff, K., & Walker, G. (2001). Public understandings of air pollution: The ‘localisation’ of environmental risk. Global Environmental Change, 11(2), 133–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-3780(00)00063-7
• Bieliński, T., & Ważna, A. (2020). Electric Scooter Sharing and Bike Sharing User Behaviour and Characteristics. Sustainability, 12(22), 9640. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229640
• Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development. SAGE.
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
• Burt, N., & Ahmed, Z. (2023). E-scooter attitudes and risk-taking behaviours: An international systematic literature review and survey responses in the West Midlands, United Kingdom. Frontiers in Public Health, 11, 1277378. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1277378
• Cloud, C., Heß, S., & Kasinger, J. (2022). Do shared e-scooter services cause traffic accidents? Evidence from six European countries (Version 2). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2209.06870
• CPSC. (2023). E-scooter ve e-bisiklet yaralanmaları arttı: 2022'de yaralanmalar yaklaşık %21 arttı. https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/2024/E-Scooter-and-E-Bike-Injuries-Soar-2022-Injuries-Increased-Nearly-21
• Della Mura, M., Failla, S., Gori, N., Micucci, A., & Paganelli, F. (2022). E-Scooter Presence in Urban Areas: Are Consistent Rules, Paying Attention and Smooth Infrastructure Enough for Safety? Sustainability, 14(21), 14303. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114303
• DeWalt, K. M., & DeWalt, B. R. (2011). Participant Observation: A guide for Fieldworkers. Rowman & Littlefield.
• Edel, F., Wassmer, S., & Kern, M. (2021). Potential Analysis of E-Scooters for Commuting Paths. World Electric Vehicle Journal, 12(2), 56. https://doi.org/10.3390/wevj12020056
• English, K. C., Allen, J. R., Rix, K., Zane, D. F., Ziebell, C. M., Brown, C. V. R., & Brown, L. H. (2020). The characteristics of dockless electric rental scooter-related injuries in a large U.S. city. Traffic Injury Prevention, 21(7), 476–481. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2020.1804059
• Genc Yavuz, B., Zengin Temel, T., Satilmis, D., Güven, R., & Çolak, Ş. (2022). Analysis of electric scooter injuries admitted to the emergency service. Irish Journal of Medical Science (1971 -), 191(2), 915–918. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-021-02628-w
• Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203793206
• Glenn, J., Bluth, M., Christianson, M., Pressley, J., Taylor, A., Macfarlane, G. S., & Chaney, R. A. (2020). Considering the Potential Health Impacts of Electric Scooters: An Analysis of User Reported Behaviors in Provo, Utah. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(17), 6344. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17176344
• Huang, F.-H. (2022). Influence of Reduced Air Pollution Source Emission Information on User Behavioural Intention Towards E-Scooter Products. Promet - Traffic&Transportation, 34(1), 53–67. https://doi.org/10.7307/ptt.v34i1.3762
• Jafari, A., & Liu, Y.-C. (2024). Pedestrians’ safety using projected time-to-collision to electric scooters. Nature Communications, 15(1), 5701. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-50049-x
• Janikian, G. S., Caird, J. K., Hagel, B., & Reay, G. (2024). A scoping review of E-scooter safety: Delightful urban slalom or injury epidemic? Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 101, 33–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2023.12.015
• Jiao, J., Bai, S., & Choi, S. J. (2021). Understanding E-Scooter Incidents Patterns in Street Network Perspective: A Case Study of Travis County, Texas. Sustainability, 13(19), 10583. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910583
• Kayaalp, M. E., Kilic, N. C., Kandemir, I., Bayhan, M., & Eceviz, E. (2023). Electric scooter-associated orthopedic injuries cause long absence from work, regret and are emerging as a major cause of hip fractures in young individuals: A comprehensive study from a regional trauma center in a densely populated urban setting. European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery, 49(6), 2505–2513. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-023-02322-9
• Kazemzadeh, K., Haghani, M., & Sprei, F. (2023). Electric scooter safety: An integrative review of evidence from transport and medical research domains. Sustainable Cities and Society, 89, 104313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.104313
• Kleinertz, H., Volk, A., Dalos, D., Rutkowski, R., Frosch, K.-H., & Thiesen, D. M. (2023). Risk factors and injury patterns of e-scooter associated injuries in Germany. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 706. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-25448-z
• Kültür, Y., Tütüncü, M., & Ulutaş, S. (2023). Using e-scooters: An easy way to get home or a nightmare? An orthopedic perspective on e-scooter accidents. Turkish Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery, 1158–1166. https://doi.org/10.14744/tjtes.2023.35848
• Mayhew, L. J., & Bergin, C. (2019). Impact of e‐scooter injuries on Emergency Department imaging. Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology, 63(4), 461–466. https://doi.org/10.1111/1754-9485.12889
• McGuinness, M., Tiong, Y., & Bhagvan, S. (2021). Shared electric scooter injuries admitted to Auckland City Hospital: A comparative review one year after their introduction. 1530(134), 21–29.
• Mehranfar, V., & Jones, C. (2024). Exploring implications and current practices in e-scooter safety: A systematic review. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 107, 321–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2024.09.004
• Mitchell, G., Tsao, H., Randell, T., Marks, J., & Mackay, P. (2019). Impact of electric scooters to a tertiary emergency department: 8‐week review after implementation of a scooter share scheme. Emergency Medicine Australasia, 31(6), 930–934. https://doi.org/10.1111/1742-6723.13356
• Moftakhar, T., Wanzel, M., Vojcsik, A., Kralinger, F., Mousavi, M., Hajdu, S., Aldrian, S., & Starlinger, J. (2021). Incidence and severity of electric scooter related injuries after introduction of an urban rental programme in Vienna: A retrospective multicentre study. Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, 141(7), 1207–1213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-020-03589-y
• Namiri, N. K., Lee, A. W., Amend, G. M., Vargo, J., & Breyer, B. N. (2023). Impact of alcohol and drug use on bicycle and electric scooter injuries and hospital admissions in the United States. Trauma, 25(1), 53–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/14604086211044353
• Niemann, M., Braun, K. F., Otto, E., Tiefenbrunner, M., Wüster, J., Stöckle, U., Ahmad, S. S., Märdian, S., & Graef, F. (2023). Dangers of e-mobility: A systematic review and meta-analysis of sustained injury patterns and injury severity. Safety Science, 167, 106283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2023.106283
• Nikiforiadis, A., Paschalidis, E., Stamatiadis, N., Raptopoulou, A., Kostareli, A., & Basbas, S. (2021). Analysis of attitudes and engagement of shared e-scooter users. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 94, 102790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102790
• Pazzini, M., Cameli, L., Lantieri, C., Vignali, V., Dondi, G., & Jonsson, T. (2022). New Micromobility Means of Transport: An Analysis of E-Scooter Users’ Behaviour in Trondheim. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(12), 7374. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19127374
• Pourfalatoun, S., Ahmed, J., & Miller, E. E. (2023). Shared Electric Scooter Users and Non-Users: Perceptions on Safety, Adoption and Risk. Sustainability, 15(11), 9045. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15119045
• Raubenheimer, K., Szeliga, K., Manara, J. R., Fatovich, D. M., Plant, J. G. A., & Blakeney, W. G. (2023). Incidence, Management, and Hospital Costs of Orthopaedic Injuries of E-Scooter Riders in Western Australia. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 12(20), 6591. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12206591
• Reck, D. J., Haitao, H., Guidon, S., & Axhausen, K. W. (2021). Explaining shared micromobility usage, competition and mode choice by modelling empirical data from Zurich, Switzerland. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 124, 102947. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2020.102947
• Sanders, R. L., & Nelson, T. A. (2023). Results From a Campus Population Survey of Near Misses, Crashes, and Falls While E-Scooting, Walking, and Bicycling. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2677(2), 479–489. https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981221107010
• Santacreu, A., Yannis, G., de Saint Leon, O., & Crist, P. (2020). Safe Micromobility. International Transport Forum, Corporate Partnership Board Report, https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/safe-micromobility_1.pdf
• Schoettle, B., & Sivak, M. (2014). Public Opinion About Self-Driving Vehicles in China, India, Japan, the U.S., the U.K., and Australia. University of Michigan, Transportation Research Institute.
• Serra, G. F., Fernandes, F. A. O., Noronha, E., & De Sousa, R. J. A. (2021). Head protection in electric micromobility: A critical review, recommendations, and future trends. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 163, 106430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2021.106430
• Shaheen, S., & Cohen, A. (2019). Micromobility Policy Toolkit: Docked and Dockless Bike and Scooter Sharing. https://doi.org/10.7922/G2TH8JW7
• Sheikh, M., Islam, A., Kroeker, N., Walia, H., Koger, K., Lang, E., Sedor, A., & VandenBerg, S. D. (2022). Electric scooter related injuries in Calgary emergency departments. Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine, 24(7), 735–741. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43678-022-00378-x
• Shichman, I., Shaked, O., Factor, S., Elbaz, E., & Khoury, A. (2021). Epidemiology of Fractures Sustained During Electric Scooter Accidents: A Retrospective Review of 563 Cases. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 103(12), 1125–1131. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.20.01746
• Siebert, F. W., Ringhand, M., Englert, F., Hoffknecht, M., Edwards, T., & Rötting, M. (2021). Braking bad – Ergonomic design and implications for the safe use of shared E-scooters. Safety Science, 140, 105294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2021.105294
• Sievert, K., Roen, M., Craig, C. M., & Morris, N. L. (2023). A Survey of Electric-Scooter Riders’ Route Choice, Safety Perception, and Helmet Use. Sustainability, 15(8), 6609. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086609
• Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of Risk. Science, 236(4799), 280–285. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3563507
• Speak, A., Taratula-Lyons, M., Clayton, W., & Shergold, I. (2023). Scooter Stories: User and Non-User Experiences of a Shared E-Scooter Trial. Active Travel Studies, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.16997/ats.1195
• Spradley, J. (1980). Participant observation. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
• Störmann, P., Klug, A., Nau, C., Verboket, R. D., Leiblein, M., Müller, D., Schweigkofler, U., Hoffmann, R., Marzi, I., & Lustenberger, T. (2020). Characteristics and Injury Patterns in Electric-Scooter Related Accidents—A Prospective Two-Center Report from Germany. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 9(5), 1569. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9051569
• Tischler, E. H., Krasnyanskiy, B., Kong, R. M., Tracey, O., Tsai, S. H. L., & Suneja, N. (2023). E-scooter use continues to rev up fracture diagnoses and hospital admissions compared to other modes of transportation. Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics and Trauma, 40, 102164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcot.2023.102164
• Tuncer, S., Laurier, E., Brown, B., & Licoppe, C. (2020). Notes on the practices and appearances of e-scooter users in public space. Journal of Transport Geography, 85, 102702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2020.102702
• Uluk, D., Lindner, T., Dahne, M., Bickelmayer, J. W., Beyer, K., Slagman, A., Jahn, F., Willy, C., Möckel, M., & Gerlach, U. A. (2022). E-scooter incidents in Berlin: An evaluation of risk factors and injury patterns. Emergency Medicine Journal, 39(4), 295–300. https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2020-210268
• Useche, S. A., Gonzalez-Marin, A., Faus, M., & Alonso, F. (2022). Environmentally friendly, but behaviorally complex? A systematic review of e-scooter riders’ psychosocial risk features. PLOS ONE, 17(5), e0268960. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268960
• Ventsislavova, P., Baguley, T., Antonio, J., & Byrne, D. (2024). E-scooters: Still the new kid on the transport block. Assessing e-scooter legislation knowledge and illegal riding behaviour. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 195, 107390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2023.107390
• Yan Kai, N., Haworth, N., & Schramm, A. (2024). Understanding nonuse of mandatory e-scooter helmets. Traffic Injury Prevention, 25(5), 757–764. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2024.2335677