Police actions examined after electric scooter collision leaves rider with head injury – Metropolitan Police Service, July 2025

Two officers on routine patrol in a marked police car noticed a man travelling on an electric scooter. Their suspicions were raised as the man was wearing a puffer jacket and balaclava despite it being a warm, sunny day. The officers were aware that electric scooters were often involved in criminal activity such as drug dealing and robberies and could not be insured for use on the public highway. This meant the officers suspected the driver did not have valid insurance.

The rider turned into a road and the police officers turned their car around to follow. The rider travelled towards the officers, mounting the pavement behind a parked van.

One of the officers left the police car on foot and ran towards the pavement to the front of the van. The rider, travelling at speed, approached the officer head on. The officer stretched his arms out in front of him and collided with the rider, who came off their scooter, sustaining a serious head injury. The officers called an ambulance, and two more officers arrived to help with first aid.

We received a death or serious injury referral from the force and decided to independently investigate the nature and extent of police contact with the rider, including the actions of officers, the first aid provided, and whether the officers acted in line with policy and procedure.

We also examined several complaints including whether the officers treated him differently because of his disability, that his injury was avoidable, and that officers failed to consider his welfare. We collected CCTV evidence from nearby properties, relevant transmissions over police airwaves, footage from the police car’s mobile video system, and officers’ body worn video footage. We took statements from the officers involved, as well as witnesses. We also obtained statements from a Metropolitan Police Service subject matter expert on electric scooters, as well as a medical consultant about the first aid the rider received.

We concluded there was no indication that a person serving with the police committed a criminal offence or behaved in a manner to justify disciplinary proceedings.

We found there was a lawful policing reason to try to stop the rider, and officers were authorised to use necessary and proportionate force to do so. We found that footage supported the officers’ view that the rider was travelling towards them at speed, and a collision of some sort was more than likely to occur. Officers tried to control the impact, and their actions were reasonable and proportionate, doing what they instinctively thought was necessary when faced with the immediate possibility of collision and harm.

We found officers were unaware of the man’s disability, and the service provided by the police was acceptable.

We carefully considered whether there were any learning opportunities arising from the investigation. We make learning recommendations to improve policing and public confidence in the police complaints system and prevent a recurrence of similar incidents.

We did not identify any organisational learning in this case.