After the Road Traffic Act was revised in 2021, users filed a constitutional complaint arguing it was unconstitutional to require a driver's license to use personal mobility devices (PM) such as electric scooters, but the Constitutional Court ruled the law constitutional.
The Constitutional Court said on the 22nd that on the 18th it dismissed and rejected, in a unanimous decision by all justices, a case seeking a constitutional review of Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act filed by users of personal mobility devices.
In the past, there were no special restrictions on using electric scooters. However, as shared e-scooters spread and accidents occurred frequently, regulations were introduced. Under the revised Road Traffic Act, which took effect in May 2021, only those age 16 and older with a moped license or driver's license may operate them. Wearing protective gear (a helmet) was also mandated.
Then, in Aug. of the same year, five people including a person surnamed Kang, who attended a university law school (law school), filed a constitutional complaint. They said that provisions of the revised Road Traffic Act punishing unlicensed driving and mandating protective gear violate the general freedom of action and the right to equality.
Kang and others argued that, considering the maximum speed (25 kph) of personal mobility devices and the weight of the device, the operational risk is significantly lower than that of automobiles. They also said that to ensure driver safety, alternatives include lowering the maximum speed of e-scooters to 20 kph or requiring completion of safety training before operation.
The Constitutional Court first dismissed the petitions of four people including Kang on the grounds that they had obtained driver's licenses before the revised Road Traffic Act took effect and therefore were not restricted in their fundamental rights by the licensing provision. It rejected the petition of a person surnamed Cha, who does not have a driver's license.
The court said of personal mobility devices, "They can accelerate quickly up to a maximum speed of 25 kph, lack safety devices to protect the driver, and have a light body," adding, "The likelihood of accidents is high, and when accidents occur, the extent of injury to users is significantly great." It found that the provision requiring a driver's license to use e-scooters is not an excessive restriction.
Regarding the provision mandating protective gear, it said, "Due to their structural characteristics, personal mobility devices have a high risk of falls or overturning depending on road conditions," adding, "According to related statistics, there are many cases of severe head injuries, and the fatality rate is quite high." It said that mandating the wearing of protective gear to protect human life cannot be seen as exceeding the scope of legislative discretion.