Electric Scooters & Road Safety Crimes

The offences committed with electric scooters and Personal Mobility Vehicles (PMV) constitute one of the most recently evolving areas of road criminal law, and also one of the most widely misunderstood. The legal interest protected by Arts. 379 to 385 CP is the collective safety of traffic, but those offences require the instrument to be a "motor vehicle or moped". Following RD 970/2020, the General Vehicle Regulations define the VMP as a single-seat vehicle propelled exclusively by electric motors that cannot exceed a design speed of 25 km/h, and Dictamen 2/2021 of the Road Safety Prosecutor describes its criminal prosecution as the instrument of a road offence as improper. In practice, with a compliant VMP both a positive alcohol reading and a refusal to be tested are dealt with through the administrative route of the Traffic Act, and lower-court case law overwhelmingly acquits.

The dividing line is drawn by the machine's actual technical characteristics, not by the label under which it was sold. Where the vehicle exceeds the VMP parameters — a design speed above the regulatory limit, greater power, or the seat and configuration of a moped, in fact falling within the unregistered L1e category — it ceases to be a VMP and the courts treat it as a moped or motor vehicle. The full catalogue then applies: driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs (Art. 379.2 CP), made out with readings above 0.60 mg/l in exhaled air or 1.2 g/l in blood, or with any reading where effective influence is established; refusal to submit to testing (Art. 383 CP) as a standalone offence of disobedience; and driving without a licence (Art. 384 CP). Criminally relevant speeding (Art. 379.1) remains practically inapplicable given the technical limitations of these machines. Whatever the category of the vehicle, accidents causing personal injury engage Arts. 142 (reckless homicide) and 152 (reckless injury), which do not require a motor vehicle.

The consequences divide according to that classification. With a compliant VMP, the response is an administrative penalty: a fine of 500 euros for riding over the permitted alcohol limit, rising to 1,000 euros where the reading doubles the permitted limit or the rider is a repeat offender, and also 1,000 euros for refusing to submit to testing. There is no criminal record and no driving ban. With a machine outside the parameters, by contrast, the ordinary road-offence penalties apply: drink- or drug-driving carries three to six months' imprisonment, or a fine of six to twelve months, or community service of thirty-one to ninety days, alongside a driving ban of one to four years; refusal to be tested carries six months to one year's imprisonment and a ban of one to four years. It is essential to underline that the licence withdrawal imposed by sentence affects all motor vehicles: it equally disqualifies the rider from driving cars, motorcycles and mopeds for the period set by the sentencing court.

The technical defence requires an exhaustive analysis of the elements of the offence. First, and above all, the classification of the vehicle: establishing, through the manufacturer's technical specification, the type-approval documents and, where necessary, expert evidence, that the machine cannot exceed 25 km/h by design and does not have the characteristics of a moped closes the criminal route altogether. Second, the validity of the breathalyser or drug test: we contest calibration of the device, compliance with the interval between readings, the salivary chain of custody and observance of the right to a counter-test. Third, the fit of the reckless driving offence: Art. 380 requires concrete danger to life or physical integrity, not mere abstract danger; given the low kinetic mass of these machines the objective dangerousness may not reach the required threshold. Fourth, the negotiation of a substitute penalty through community service or a fine, avoiding prison and minimising the impact on the driving licence. And on the administrative side, the appeal against the sanctioning file: identification of the rider, service of the notice, time limits and the validity of the test itself.

Recent forensic practice shows two parallel realities: a high volume of administrative sanctioning files for alcohol and drugs on scooters, and a trickle of criminal cases that succeed only where the prosecution establishes that the machine fell outside the VMP parameters. The Provincial Courts overwhelmingly acquit where the vehicle seized is a compliant VMP, and convict where the technical evidence shows otherwise. That is why the first battle in any such case is the classification of the machine. At Alonso Sala, with over fifteen years of experience in road safety offences, we intervene from legal assistance at the police station, controlling the testing procedure, preparing the defensive strategy in fast-track trials and, when appropriate, articulating the most favourable plea that minimizes both the custodial sentence and the impact on the driving license.