Vermont’s roads are seeing more crashes involving pedestrians, bike and e-bike riders, and e-moto riders. How these crashes get reported shapes how the public understands traffic violence, particularly who’s at risk and who’s responsible.

1. Say "crash," not "accident"

“Accident” implies an unpredictable event that no one could have prevented or been at fault for. Most crashes are not that. They result from specific, identifiable factors: speed, distraction, road design, failure to yield. “Crash” is a neutral, standard term used by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, VTrans, and newsrooms nationally.

2. Name the vehicle that caused the harm

A headline like “E-bike crash leaves woman seriously injured” can be read as though the e-bike caused the injury, when in fact the e-bike rider is the victim. That ambiguity does two things:

• It obscures the fact that a car was involved in the crash and reinforces a narrative that e-bikes are inherently dangerous, when the data on serious injury and death points overwhelmingly to motor vehicles.

• It centers the story on the victim’s choice of transportation rather than on the vehicle and driver behavior that caused the harm.

If a car driver hits someone walking or biking, the headline should say so plainly.

3. Get the vehicle type right: e-bike vs. e-moto

E-bikes are a legally defined class of electric devices in Vermont, with motors capped at 750 W, and top speed of 20 or 28 MPH depending on class. E-motos cover a broader, more powerful category of electric devices, generally treated as motor vehicles similar to a motorcycle. 

By incorrectly referring to an e-moto as an e-bike in a story, there is a real consequence of misidentifying which device actually needs to be the target of regulation. This incorrectly directs public concern towards safe and legal e-bikes.

E-motos are often falsely marketed online as e-bikes, causing further confusion. Vermont has no labeling requirement to distinguish them. Even investigators are still catching up on how to correctly identify these devices. The result: reporting conflates the two, unfairly implicating legal, lower-speed e-bike riders instead of informing the public about a faster, higher-risk class of vehicle. 

If you’re unsure which category a device falls into, a few clues might help:

• Was it a high-speed crash? E-bikes typically top out around 20 MPH.
• If photos are available, what brand or model is shown? Does the device look like a traditional bicycle, or more like a motorbike/dirt bike?

Until e-motos are better regulated, misidentifying a device without knowing its make and model will stay a real risk. When in doubt, describe it generally: “electric device” or “bike” rather than guessing.

A couple of examples

Published: “E-bike crash leaves woman seriously injured in Burlington”
The problem: reads as though the e-bike hit and seriously injured someone.

Better:
“Driver strikes woman on e-bike, leaves her seriously injured”
“Car crash leaves e-bike rider seriously injured”

Published: “Teen flown to hospital after e-bike crash in Swanton”
The problem: implies the device was a legal e-bike but in reality it was an e-moto, and leaves out that a car was involved.

Better:
“E-moto rider flown to hospital after car crash”
“E-moto, car crash in Swanton leaves teen injured”

Before you write the headline, ask:

• What road users were actually involved, and what struck what? Name that vehicle first.
• Do you know if it was an e-bike, an e-moto, or just that it was an electric device? Don’t classify it without enough information.
• Can the headline be read in a way that makes it sound like the victim caused the crash? If so, and that's not accurate, rewrite it.

Local Motion is readily available to assist the media in providing background information, comments, or assistance identifying the class of a device.