The Micromobility Oversight and Vulnerability Evaluation (MOVE) Act directs the Secretary of Transportation, through NHTSA, to study how personal and platform-based micromobility devices and “high speed personal transportation devices” affect injuries and deaths, prioritizing impacts on children and young adults. Based on that study NHTSA must publish best practices for nonmotorized road users, build a mobility education program that includes specified consumer disclosures, and incorporate the Safe System Approach into those materials.
The Act also amends the definition of National Priority Safety Programs in 23 U.S.C. §405 to add “nonmotorized road user safety with respect to emerging micromobility technology issues,” and sets statutory definitions for micromobility technology and high speed personal transportation devices (including a >750-watt or >20 mph threshold). The bill is implementation‑oriented: it creates a federal study and communications mandate rather than new equipment standards or federal licensing requirements, but it formalizes what information NHTSA must collect and publish — a practical lever for states, cities, manufacturers, and platforms to follow.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires NHTSA to conduct a focused study of crash outcomes involving micromobility and high‑speed personal devices, reviewing device type, motor power, speed, infrastructure type, and whether motor vehicles were involved. It then obligates NHTSA to translate findings into best practices and a national mobility education program that includes specific consumer disclosures and integrates the Safe System Approach.
Who It Affects
Manufacturers and rental platforms that supply electric scooters, electric bicycles, and other micromobility devices will face new federal labeling and disclosure expectations; state and local transportation agencies and safety educators will receive federally produced best practices and materials; NHTSA and DOT shoulder the study and program development responsibilities.
Why It Matters
This bill creates the first explicit statutory pathway for NHTSA to treat micromobility as a national safety priority and to standardize consumer information about device speed, modifiability, and legal classifications — potentially shaping state rules, municipal fleet policies, and product design choices without creating direct federal equipment mandates.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The MOVE Act orders NHTSA to study how small electric and human‑powered vehicles affect road safety, with special attention to children and young adults. The study must dig into crash reports and look specifically at what type of device was involved, the device’s motor power and speed, the roadway or infrastructure context, and whether motor vehicles were part of the crash.
That focused data review is the foundation for the bill’s downstream requirements.
Using the study’s findings, NHTSA must create best practices for nonmotorized road users that are differentiated by device type, motor power, maximum motor‑only speed, and relevant state laws (for example, age limits or helmet rules). NHTSA must also develop a mobility education program for the public that includes those best practices plus consumer information: motor‑only maximum speed, whether the device can be easily modified to exceed 20 mph, whether it is a class 1 or class 2 e‑bike, and summaries of state law variations.The bill requires NHTSA to incorporate the Safe System Approach — a holistic framework that anticipates human error and aligns vehicle, road, speed, and post‑crash response strategies — into the best practices and education materials.
Separately, it amends federal highway safety grant language (23 U.S.C. §405) to list ‘‘nonmotorized road user safety with respect to emerging micromobility technology issues’’ among National Priority Safety Programs, signaling that micromobility safety can qualify for federal attention and funding. Finally, the Act defines key terms: micromobility devices (≤20 mph motor‑only) and high speed personal transportation devices (>750 watts or >20 mph), creating clear thresholds for which rules and disclosures apply.
The Five Things You Need to Know
NHTSA must analyze crash data by device type, motor power, motor‑only speed, infrastructure type, and whether motor vehicles were involved, with a focus on children and young adults.
The Secretary must develop best practices and a national mobility education program that include device‑specific guidance and consumer disclosures about maximum motor‑only speed and modifiability.
The bill requires NHTSA to state whether a device is easily modifiable to exceed 20 mph and to identify class 1 vs. class 2 e‑bikes in consumer materials.
It amends 23 U.S.C. §405(g)(5)(C) to add ‘‘nonmotorized road user safety with respect to emerging micromobility technology issues’’ to the list of National Priority Safety Programs.
The statute defines a ‘‘high speed personal transportation device’’ as one with an electric motor over 750 watts or a motor‑only maximum speed greater than 20 mph, and defines ‘‘micromobility technology’’ as devices primarily for short trips with motor‑only max speed of 20 mph or less.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Gives the bill its name: the Micromobility Oversight and Vulnerability Evaluation (MOVE) Act. This is a formal naming provision with no operative effect, but it signals congressional intent to frame the measure as oversight and vulnerability evaluation rather than equipment regulation.
Findings on vulnerable road users
States that vulnerable road users are disproportionately represented in highway injuries and deaths and that little is known about micromobility safety impacts. Practically, these findings justify the study mandate and can be cited by agencies and grant programs when prioritizing micromobility interventions or research funding.
NHTSA study requirements
Directs the Secretary, via NHTSA, to conduct a study on how personal and platform‑based micromobility technologies and high‑speed devices affect injuries and deaths, prioritizing children and young adults. The practical implication is that NHTSA must assemble and analyze crash data across device types and speeds and may need to coordinate with states, localities, platforms, and hospitals to obtain granular incident reports and exposure data.
Develop best practices and a national mobility education program
Mandates that NHTSA convert study findings into best practices and consumer education that are segmented by device characteristics (device type, motor power, motor‑only speed) and that explicitly provide consumer information on speed, modifiability, e‑bike class, and relevant state laws. This creates an expectation that manufacturers and platforms will reference federal materials in product descriptions, safety labeling, and rider onboarding; it also supplies jurisdictions with a ready‑made curriculum for public outreach.
Add micromobility to national safety priorities and set statutory definitions
Amends 23 U.S.C. §405(g)(5)(C) to include nonmotorized road user safety for emerging micromobility issues among National Priority Safety Programs, thereby aligning federal highway safety grant priorities with the statute’s focus. Provides statutory definitions for ‘‘high speed personal transportation device’’ (>750 watts or >20 mph) and ‘‘micromobility technology’’ (primarily short‑distance devices with ≤20 mph motor‑only max), establishing the thresholds that trigger the bill’s disclosure and program requirements.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Transportation across all five countries.
Explore Transportation in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Children and young adults: the study prioritizes their safety data and generates targeted education and best practices that can reduce exposure to high‑risk scenarios and inform guardians and schools.
- State and local transportation agencies and safety educators: they gain federally developed best practices, curriculum content, and an evidentiary basis for local rules and infrastructure planning without needing to build materials from scratch.
- Road safety researchers and public health officials: the mandated data review and definitional clarity create a clearer analytic framework and consistent device categories for future studies and grant applications.
- Municipalities and transit agencies running shared micromobility programs: they receive consumer disclosure templates and safety guidance that can be incorporated into operator agreements and rider onboarding.
- Responsible manufacturers and platform operators: clearer federal guidance on disclosures and classifications reduces regulatory uncertainty and creates opportunities to market compliant design and safety features.
Who Bears the Cost
- NHTSA and DOT: they must allocate staff time and budget to gather crash data, perform analyses, and develop education programs — a resource burden without an appropriation in the bill.
- Manufacturers and micromobility platforms: while the bill does not mandate product redesign, it requires consumer disclosures that may necessitate new labeling, marketing changes, and technical assessments about modifiability and motor ratings.
- State and local agencies: the federal best practices may prompt jurisdictions to revise local laws, enforcement priorities, or infrastructure investments, imposing planning and implementation costs.
- Data providers (hospitals, police departments, fleet operators): supplying the granular crash and exposure data NHTSA needs may require new reporting workflows or data‑sharing agreements.
- Small device makers and aftermarket modifiers: being identified as easily modifiable to exceed 20 mph could create market pressure, liability exposure, or the need to add tamper‑resistant features.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between establishing a federal, evidence‑based baseline for micromobility safety (through study, definitions, and education) and preserving local flexibility and market innovation. The bill pushes NHTSA into a coordinating, information‑providing role that can reduce uncertainty, but by stopping short of equipment standards or federal licensing it leaves many safety decisions to states, cities, manufacturers, and platforms — creating a gap between federal guidance and on‑the‑ground regulation that can frustrate both safety advocates and industry innovators.
Several implementation questions are left unresolved. The bill mandates a study and education program but does not appropriate funds or set a deadline, leaving outcomes dependent on NHTSA’s prioritization and available budget.
The study requires detailed crash and exposure data (device type, motor power, motor‑only speed, infrastructure), yet existing crash reporting systems and medical record coding rarely capture that level of device detail; NHTSA may need to negotiate new data fields with states, hospitals, or private platforms, which will slow results and produce nonuniform datasets.
The consumer disclosure requirements raise enforcement and feasibility issues. The statute asks NHTSA to report whether a device is ‘‘easily modified’’ to exceed 20 mph and to identify e‑bike class; neither attribute has a standardized testing or certification pathway today.
Manufacturers and platforms may dispute NHTSA’s assessments, and absent a federal labeling or certification regime, the disclosures will be advisory unless states or private actors adopt them into contracts, sales rules, or procurement specifications. Finally, adding micromobility to National Priority Safety Programs signals funding intent but does not guarantee grants; states seeking federal safety funds will still face competitive processes and matching requirements.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.