Two scooters side by side — Bird Two and Lime — with anthropometric overlay diagrams showing handlebar height vs. stature distribution curves. The key finding annotated: the handlebar height that serves the underserved male population without shifting the female experience.
Scooter Ergonomics
I have the data on who Bird and Lime actually designed their scooters for. The answer is: nobody who exists.
0.054%
Males served by Lime's 60cm handlebar span
1
Adjustment that moves the most users
2
Scooters assessed (Bird Two + Lime)
Real users
Anthropometric testing
Rideshare scooters are designed for a hypothetical average rider who does not exist in the actual population. Bird and Lime's current handlebar geometry assumes a stature range that underserves a significant portion of real users. The anthropometric data shows this — and it shows exactly where the highest-leverage intervention is.
My Role
Human factors researcher and analyst. Anthropometric assessment, statistical analysis, user testing protocol, ergonomic recommendation design. Team: Rob Stout + Michael + Julio.
Where judgment was required
The moments that shaped the product.
A stature distribution curve overlaid with the handlebar-optimal height range for Bird Two and Lime. The shaded region shows the user population currently served. The unshaded tails show who is outside the comfortable operating range.
Handlebar height vs. stature: the primary ergonomic variable
The research question was which ergonomic variable — handlebar height, deck width, brake placement, foot positioning — produced the most significant discomfort for the most users. The anthropometric analysis identified handlebar height relative to stature as the primary variable. Current scooter geometry assumes a rider height range that excludes a measurable portion of the actual user population. The exclusion is not distributed evenly across the population.
A shoulder breadth distribution for adult males with the Lime 60cm span marked as a vertical line. The vast majority of the distribution falls to the right of the line — outside the comfortable range. Annotation: '0.054% of males are within comfortable range of the current handlebar span.'
Lime's 60cm handlebar span fits 0.054% of males
The Lime handlebar span (60cm) was assessed against anthropometric data for shoulder breadth across the male population. The 60cm span falls outside the comfortable range for all but the smallest fraction of male riders. This is not a rounding error — it represents a design decision made without reference to the actual user population's anthropometry. The number 0.054% is not a critique of intent. It is a finding about what happens when ergonomics is not in the design brief.
A side-by-side stature distribution for male and female populations, with the current handlebar height range marked. An arrow showing the proposed adjustment. Annotation: 'Moving the handlebar here: large positive effect for underserved males, negligible effect on female experience.'
The one adjustment that improves things for millions without shifting the female experience
The key finding: raising handlebar height to serve the underserved male population (taller riders) does not meaningfully shift the ergonomic experience for female riders, because the female stature distribution is concentrated below the current handlebar height range. The intervention has asymmetric leverage — it substantially improves the experience for a large underserved group while leaving the already-served group essentially unchanged. This is a precision finding about where the design has the highest net impact.
Process
Bird Two vs. Lime: anthropometric assessment of both platforms.
Real user testing with anthropometric data across multiple dimensions.
Identified handlebar height vs. stature as primary ergonomic variable.
One adjustment: highest leverage, asymmetric benefit, lowest implementation cost.
What Shipped
0.054%
Males in Lime's comfortable handlebar range
2
Scooters assessed
1
Key intervention identified
Anthropometric assessment of Bird Two and Lime scooters against real user population data. Key finding: handlebar height relative to stature is the primary ergonomic variable. Lime's 60cm handlebar span is within comfortable range for 0.054% of the male population. The highest-leverage intervention — raising handlebar height — improves the experience for a significant underserved population without meaningfully shifting the female experience.
- Identified handlebar height vs. stature as primary ergonomic variable across both platforms
- Quantified Lime handlebar span: comfortable for 0.054% of the male population
- Isolated single highest-leverage intervention: asymmetric benefit, negligible tradeoff
- Real user testing with anthropometric measurement data across multiple ergonomic dimensions
What I Learned
Human factors research produces its most useful findings when you ask which intervention has the highest leverage — not which problem is most severe, but which fix moves the most people at the lowest cost. The handlebar height finding was the result of that question. There were other ergonomic gaps. This was the one where a single adjustment produces a large positive effect for an underserved group with no meaningful negative effect on the already-served group. That asymmetry is the finding. The 0.054% number is worth naming as a method lesson too: precise quantification of the current situation is what makes the recommendation credible. 'Many tall men are uncomfortable' is an observation. 'The current handlebar span fits 0.054% of the male population' is a design brief.
What this demonstrates
More Work
All projects →