The German parliament has introduced legislation to align the liability of e-scooter rental operators with the legal standards applicable to motorized vehicles.

德國國會已推出立法，將電動滑板車租賃營運商的責任，與適用於機動車的法律標準接軌。

The proposed regulatory shift is predicated upon a significant escalation in casualty rates associated with small electric vehicles. Government data indicates that the number of individuals injured or deceased in such incidents increased from 5,535 in 2021 to approximately 12,000 in 2024, with the latter figure representing 4% of all traffic casualties. This statistical trend, coupled with the observation that rental users are frequently less experienced and more prone to pavement incursions than private owners, has necessitated a reassessment of the existing indemnity structures.

擬議的監管轉變是基於小型電動車相關傷亡率的顯著上升。政府數據顯示，此類事故中受傷或死亡的人數從 2021 年的 5,535 人增加到 2024 年的約 12,000 人，後者代表了所有交通傷亡人數的 4%。這一統計趨勢，加上租賃用戶通常較缺乏經驗且比私人所有者更容易侵入人行道，使得重新評估現有的賠償結構成為必要。

Historically, the burden of proof resided with the victim, who was required to establish the specific fault of the rider to secure compensation. The proposed legislation facilitates a transition toward strict liability for rental operators. Consequently, should a specific rider be unidentifiable, the operating entity shall be held responsible for damages. This provision extends to accidents resulting from the improper placement of vehicles on public footpaths, thereby mitigating the evidentiary difficulties previously encountered by claimants. While the law encompasses self-balancing vehicles and Segways, it explicitly excludes e-bikes, ride-on lawn mowers, and mobility aids for the impaired.

在歷史上，舉證責任在於受害者，其必須確立騎行者的特定過失才能獲得賠償。擬議的立法促進了租賃營運商向嚴格責任的轉型。因此，若無法識別特定騎行者，營運實體應對損害負責。此規定延伸至因在公共人行道上不當放置車輛而導致的事故，從而減輕申索人先前遇到的舉證困難。雖然該法涵蓋了自動平衡車與 Segway，但明確排除了電動單車、騎乘式除草機及身心障礙者的行動輔助設備。

Stakeholder positioning remains bifurcated. The administration, supported by consumer advocacy groups and a reported 67% of the electorate, asserts that commercial entities profiting from these services must internalize the associated risks. Conversely, the Shared Mobility lobbying group posits that the removal of the fault-based requirement may incentivize fraudulent claims and result in an unsustainable volume of litigation. They further contend that third-party interference often contributes to hazardous parking conditions, complicating the attribution of liability.

利益相關者的立場依然分歧。政府在消費者權益團體及據報 67% 選民的支持下，主張從這些服務中獲利的商業實體必須將相關風險內部化。相反，「共享出行」遊說團體認為，取消基於過失的要求可能會激發欺詐性索賠，並導致訴訟量達到不可持續的程度。他們進一步主張，第三方干擾經常導致危險的停車狀況，增加了責任歸屬的複雜性。

The legislation seeks to enhance victim compensation by shifting liability toward rental firms, coinciding with upcoming safety mandates for vehicle hardware and rider conduct.

該立法旨在透過將責任轉移至租賃公司來增加受害者的賠償，同時配合即將出台的車輛硬體與騎行行為安全指令。