Without question, one of the most rapidly evolving challenges facing local law enforcement today is the proliferation of micromobility devices throughout our transportation system. Electric scooters, electric bicycles, electric skateboards, electric unicycles, and a growing assortment of emerging devices have become increasingly common on roadways, sidewalks, and multi-use paths throughout Midwestern communities. Many of these devices can exceed 30 mph, blurring the line between traditional recreational equipment and motor vehicles. As their popularity continues to grow, so too does the complexity of safely integrating them into transportation networks that were never specifically designed for these devices.

The resulting public safety concerns extend far beyond the devices themselves. Micromobility users routinely interact with vulnerable road users (VRUs), including pedestrians, runners, and traditional bicyclists, while also sharing space with motor vehicle traffic. These interactions create new opportunities for conflict and increase the likelihood of crashes involving users whose level of protection is often limited to a helmet, if they are wearing one at all. Compounding the issue is a complex patchwork of state statutes, local ordinances, and inconsistent definitions that frequently leave both riders and law enforcement officers uncertain about where these devices may operate and under what rules they may operate. The result is yet another high-profile transportation safety issue that communities increasingly expect law enforcement to address.

Beyond the obvious safety concerns, law enforcement executives must also navigate the competing expectations of residents, elected officials, transportation planners, business owners, and micromobility users themselves. This is not an issue that can be characterized as an 80/20 problem where the overwhelming majority of stakeholders agree on both the problem and the solution. In many communities, opinions are sharply divided. Supporters view micromobility devices as affordable, efficient, and environmentally friendly transportation options that reduce congestion and expand mobility. Opponents view the same devices as a growing threat to public safety, quality of life, and the orderly movement of traffic.

As the prevalence of these devices has increased, law enforcement has encountered another familiar challenge associated with emerging technologies: the gap between innovation and regulation. New devices often appear on the market months or years before legislators and policymakers can establish clear legal frameworks governing their use. During this period, officers are frequently left to interpret statutes that were never intended to address the technology at hand, while communities demand action in response to rising crashes, complaints, and highly visible quality-of-life concerns. This dynamic creates growing public frustration and contributes to the perception that those charged with protecting public safety are failing to respond, even when the underlying legal and policy frameworks remain unsettled.

Transportation within the United States is a complex system, generally defined as a system composed of many components that interact with one another. This extends beyond the traditional interactions that come to mind, such as vehicles, roadways, and traffic control devices, and includes less obvious influences such as roadway safety culture, infrastructure design, public policy, and legislation. While micromobility is often viewed solely as an enforcement challenge, doing so ignores the interconnected nature of transportation systems and the numerous actors that influence roadway behavior and safety outcomes.

When viewed through the lens of complex systems theory, the issue of micromobility quickly falls into the category of a wicked problem.

A wicked problem is not a term dreamed up by some resident of the U.S. Northeast, but rather a concept within complex systems theory used to describe problems that possess several defining characteristics:

• No agreed-upon definition of the problem

• No single correct or linear solution

• Multiple stakeholders with competing interests

• Solutions that often create new problems

• Conditions that continuously evolve and change

Wicked problems are common in transportation, and micromobility is simply the latest example of how a complex system can produce issues that defy traditional problem-solving approaches.

The first indication that micromobility qualifies as a wicked problem is the lack of consensus regarding what the actual problem is. Ask a police chief, transportation planner, elected official, pedestrian advocate, bicycle enthusiast, parent, or micromobility user to define the issue, and you are likely to receive several different answers.

For some, the problem is reckless operation and a lack of accountability among riders. For others, the problem is insufficient infrastructure designed to accommodate emerging forms of transportation safely. Some view the issue as a failure of legislation to keep pace with technology, while others see it as an enforcement problem resulting from inconsistent application of existing laws. If stakeholders cannot agree on the nature of the problem, it becomes exceedingly difficult to reach consensus on a solution.

Similarly, there is little agreement regarding what success should look like. Should law enforcement increase enforcement efforts? Should communities invest in additional bicycle and micromobility infrastructure? Should manufacturers be subject to stricter regulations? Should communities restrict or ban certain devices altogether? Each proposed solution is supported by some stakeholders and opposed by others.

Complicating matters further is the reality that interventions within complex systems rarely produce isolated outcomes. Actions taken to address one aspect of the problem frequently create unintended consequences elsewhere.

For example, increased enforcement directed at sidewalk riding may successfully reduce conflicts between micromobility users and pedestrians. However, it may also push riders into traffic lanes where they are exposed to greater risk from motor vehicles. Restricting certain devices may reduce complaints, but simultaneously eliminate a transportation option relied upon by some community members. Expanding access to micromobility may increase mobility and reduce vehicle trips, but also increase conflicts between users and other roadway occupants.

Each intervention changes the system, often in ways that are difficult to predict.

This reality presents a unique challenge for law enforcement leaders. Traditional enforcement models are largely built upon the assumption that undesirable behavior can be corrected through education, enforcement, and deterrence. While those tools remain important, wicked problems challenge the notion that enforcement alone can produce a lasting solution.

Unlike speeding, impaired driving, or seat belt compliance, micromobility is not simply a matter of enforcing a clearly defined set of rules. Officers routinely encounter devices that blur the line between bicycles, motor vehicles, and recreational equipment. Statutory definitions often struggle to keep pace with technological innovation. Local ordinances may conflict with state regulations or fail to address emerging devices altogether. As a result, officers are frequently asked not only to enforce the law, but also to interpret and apply laws that were never designed with these technologies in mind. This places law enforcement in a difficult position. Agencies are often expected to solve a problem they do not fully control.

Police can influence rider behavior. They can provide education, conduct enforcement, collect data, and engage with community stakeholders. However, they cannot directly control infrastructure design, product development, legislative action, market demand, or the broader transportation culture that shapes how people move through a community. Those factors remain outside the direct authority, yet they play a significant role in determining safety outcomes.

Recognizing micromobility as a wicked problem does not mean that law enforcement is powerless. Quite the opposite. It suggests that agencies should view their role differently.

Rather than serving as the sole solution to the problem, law enforcement should be viewed as one component within a larger transportation safety ecosystem. Officers are uniquely positioned to identify emerging trends, document crash patterns, collect valuable operational data, and provide insight into how laws and policies function in practice. Police executives can also serve as important partners in discussions involving transportation planners, legislators, engineers, schools, and community organizations.

Perhaps most importantly, recognizing the complexity of the issue allows agencies to establish realistic expectations regarding outcomes. Success may not be measured by the elimination of complaints or the complete eradication of crashes. Instead, success may involve improving collaboration among stakeholders, enhancing public understanding of applicable laws, identifying infrastructure deficiencies, and implementing balanced enforcement strategies that support broader transportation safety goals.

Recent legislative developments in Illinois further demonstrate how transportation systems adapt over time in response to emerging challenges. Senate Bill 3336, which is likely to take effect in 2027, represents one of the most significant attempts to date to establish a comprehensive statewide framework governing micromobility devices. Among other changes, the legislation creates new statutory definitions for electric micromobility devices, electric skateboards, electric unicycles, and high-speed electric scooters. It establishes operational requirements and restrictions for each device category.

Perhaps most importantly, from an enforcement perspective, the legislation seeks to create greater consistency across Illinois by limiting local governments, including home rule communities, from regulating electric micromobility devices and certain related vehicle classifications in a manner inconsistent with state law. For years, officers have been forced to navigate a patchwork of local ordinances, municipal restrictions, and varying definitions from one jurisdiction to the next. This inconsistency has often created confusion not only among law enforcement officers but also among riders and the general public. Under the proposed framework, many of these operational rules would be standardized across the state.

The legislation also provides much-needed clarity on what constitutes an electric micromobility device and what falls into other regulatory categories, such as low-speed electric bicycles, motor-driven cycles, and other motor vehicles. This distinction is particularly important because many devices encountered by law enforcement have historically occupied a gray area between bicycles and motor vehicles, making enforcement and public education difficult.

While these changes are likely to improve consistency and reduce confusion, they do not eliminate the underlying complexity of the issue. Questions regarding infrastructure, rider behavior, public acceptance, technological innovation, and resource allocation will remain. In many respects, Senate Bill 3336 demonstrates that the transportation system is adapting to the emergence of micromobility. It is a significant step forward, but like many responses to wicked problems, it should be viewed as an evolution of the system rather than a final solution.

Micromobility is unlikely to disappear. If anything, emerging transportation technologies will continue to evolve and become more prevalent in communities throughout the Midwest and across the nation. As they do, law enforcement leaders will increasingly find themselves operating within complex systems where traditional enforcement strategies alone are insufficient.

The challenge facing modern law enforcement is not simply enforcing micromobility laws. The challenge is understanding how enforcement fits within a larger system of engineering, education, policy, technology, and human behavior. Viewed through that lens, micromobility is not merely a traffic enforcement issue. It is a wicked problem, and addressing it will require the collaborative efforts of all stakeholders who share responsibility for transportation safety.