The Electric Trike’s False Promise of Universal Accessibility

Cities continue to struggle with the challenges of shared micromobility, and Veo’s latest offering, the Rover, has been touted as a game-changer for accessibility. However, beneath its sleek design and AI-powered features lies a more complex reality that raises questions about who this technology is truly designed for.

The Rover’s three-wheeled design and self-balancing capabilities make it an attractive option for those with mobility impairments or older riders who may struggle with traditional two-wheelers. Veo has partnered with disability advocates and organizations like the Disability Mobility Initiative and Parkinson’s Foundation, suggesting a genuine commitment to inclusivity. Alexander Keating, Veo’s vice president of policy and partnerships, notes that “the expectation is that your local bus or transit provider will offer accessible options for those who are in wheelchairs or can’t use certain products.” This implies that Veo may be playing catch-up with existing infrastructure rather than pushing the boundaries of innovation.

Veo’s accessibility features raise concerns about data collection practices. Keating assures that geolocation and ride details are anonymized, but it is unclear how this information will inform future expansion plans. Given Veo’s exclusive contract with Denver, which has effectively replaced rival companies Lime and Bird, there is a risk that the same issues plaguing other micromobility companies – lack of transparency around data collection and usage – may repeat themselves.

Veo’s marketing strategy relies on creating excitement and novelty around the Rover rather than addressing underlying accessibility needs. Keating notes he is “surprised by the response from people who have seen the Rover,” suggesting that the company still struggles to find its footing in this space. But what happens when initial hype wears off, and riders experience practical limitations? Will Veo adapt and respond to user feedback?

The Rover represents a missed opportunity for genuine innovation in micromobility. While electric tricycles have been available from companies like Lectric for some time now, Veo’s entry into this market feels more like a response to consumer trends than a bold new direction. Keating notes that “you would think… trikes are for kids or trikes are for someone older.” However, what if they’re actually for everyone – or at least, that’s the promise?

The reality is that Veo’s electric tricycle may not be as revolutionary as it seems. With its max speed of 10 miles per hour and cargo capacity of up to 100 pounds, it is more a product of existing market pressures rather than a genuinely innovative solution. Yet, there is something seductive about the idea of a self-balancing, AI-powered tricycle that can appeal to riders of all ages and abilities.

As cities continue to grapple with shared micromobility complexities, it’s essential to separate hype from reality. Veo’s Rover may be an attractive addition to Denver’s streets, but its accessibility claims are far more nuanced than they initially seem. Ultimately, this technology raises more questions than answers – and it’s up to us as a society to demand greater transparency, accountability, and innovation in the micromobility space.

The Rover is Veo’s attempt to capture the electric tricycle market, but it also presents an opportunity for us to re-examine our assumptions about accessibility and mobility. As Keating notes, “we want people to think it’s cool; that’s what gets them on it.” But what happens when novelty wears off, and riders are left with a product that may not meet their needs? It’s time for Veo – and the entire micromobility industry – to confront these questions head-on.