The evolving framework for individual mobility aids and mandatory insurance
The debate surrounding individual mobility aids, including electric scooters, unicycles, and personal transporters, presses forward as authorities consider how these devices fit into the broader traffic system. Current practice allows operators of these vehicles to obtain a driving license after passing a knowledge-based traffic rules exam. This licensing step is intended to ensure drivers understand safe operation, road etiquette, and the responsibilities that come with using public roadways.
Beyond licensing, an additional layer affects users: the requirement to purchase OSAGO policies. These insurance policies are designed to compensate for damage in the event of an accident, adding ongoing training costs at driving schools and influencing the overall cost of becoming a mobile device operator. The aim is to create a clearer financial safety net for all road users and to ensure that those who operate mobility aids bear a predictable share of potential liability.
In this context, public figures and policymakers continually examine accident statistics to guide policy choices. For example, data cited by Yulia Mann, a member of the expert council of the Transport Commission of the State Duma of the Russian Federation, indicate that 1,344 accidents involving mobility aids were recorded in 2021. These figures cover incidents resulting in injuries and reflect only a portion of the overall picture. The consequences of such crashes included fatalities and numerous injuries, underscoring the seriousness of road safety considerations in this segment of traffic.
Given the risk landscape, some observers argue for imposing regulatory measures that would provide stronger oversight over scooters and other mobility aids. The core idea is to introduce certain levers that would require operators to hold valid licenses and to secure OSAGO coverage. Proponents believe that insurance requirements would strengthen accountability and align mobility aid users with other vehicle categories in terms of risk management.
Statements attributed to the news agency KP report that the possibility exists for OSAGO coverage to become mandatory for mobility aid operators in the near future. If enacted, the policy shift would align mobility aid users with other road participants, creating a uniform standard of financial responsibility in the event of accidents. This potential development is described as a step supported by advocates who see insurance as a key component of safer, more predictable road behavior for all users.
Under the anticipated framework, mobility aid drivers could be categorized within the risk group that insurance providers apply to motorcyclists and other vulnerable riders. Even as considerations continue, estimates suggest that a one-year OSAGO policy for these devices could run around two thousand rubles, a figure that aims to balance affordability with the need for adequate coverage. The potential coverage would address medical costs, property damage, and liability arising from incidents involving mobility aids, contributing to a more resilient transport ecosystem.
As policymakers weigh the merits of mandatory insurance for mobility aids, questions emerge about enforcement, eligibility, and the scope of required coverage. Stakeholders stress the importance of practical implementation that does not create unnecessary barriers to entry while ensuring that road users understand their obligations. The ultimate goal is to reduce the social and economic impact of crashes involving mobility aids by promoting safer operation, better risk management, and clearer accountability for all participants on shared roadways.
In the longer term, the regulatory landscape could see a progressive alignment of technology, safety training, and financial responsibility for mobility aids. The ongoing discussion reflects a broader effort to adapt traffic rules to evolving mobility options, with the intent of safeguarding public safety while preserving accessibility and convenience for individuals who rely on these devices for daily transportation.