As cities struggle with the rapid growth of electric bicycles and other battery-powered vehicles, public officials are being asked how to regulate these devices. Too often, the answers begin with helmets, education, and parental responsibility.

Those issues matter. But they are not the central issue.

The real question is not whether electric transportation devices are good or bad, or even whether they are bicycles. It is how they fit into public spaces designed for people moving at human speed.

The city council is considering a proposed ordinance addressing electric transportation devices. It includes helmet requirements for riders under 18 and penalties for parents who knowingly allow minors to ride without helmets.

Few would oppose efforts to reduce injuries among young riders. If a helmet prevents a serious head injury, that is unquestionably beneficial.

But a helmet ordinance is not a transportation policy. It is an injury-reduction policy.

The distinction matters.

Share

Helmet requirements address what happens after a crash. They do not address the conditions that contribute to crashes, near misses, or conflicts among riders, pedestrians, and other users of public space.

Sidewalks, park trails and shared-use paths are now places where pedestrians, joggers, traditional cyclists, mobility device users and electric vehicle users regularly interact. Those interactions involve speed, weight, acceleration, visibility, and enforcement. None of those issues are solved by a helmet.

Police Chief Murchland told council that the city’s focus is on “education and ensuring the safety of everybody.” That is a sensible objective.

Education can help riders understand the rules, encourage responsible behavior, and increase risk awareness. Council member Kelley Stocker raised practical questions about speed awareness, noting that not all riders have speedometers. Murchland responded that some devices, such as Class 3 e-bikes, require a speedometer, while riders of other devices can purchase one separately.

Those discussions are worthwhile, but education alone cannot solve a classification problem.

Nor should schools be expected to do so.

During the council discussion, some suggested that schools could help educate students about safe e-bike operation. Schools can support public awareness, but teachers already face substantial demands in meeting educational standards and curriculum requirements. Transportation policy belongs primarily to the institutions that regulate public space.

The city’s proposed ordinance introduces a new category, a Personal Transportation Device (PTD). At first glance, that seems like a logical response to rapidly changing technology. Traditional categories such as bicycle, scooter, and motor vehicle no longer neatly describe every device found on streets and trails.

But the proposed category is so broad that it risks creating a new problem.

A mobility scooter operated by a senior citizen at walking speed is fundamentally different from a high-performance electric bicycle capable of sustained travel at 28 mph. One provides mobility and independence for people with physical limitations. The other is a transportation vehicle capable of covering significant distances at speeds that can create conflicts with pedestrians and other trail users.

During council testimony, the police chief also referenced electric devices capable of reaching speeds approaching 50 mph. Whether those vehicles fit the technical definition of a Class 3 e-bike is not the most important point.

The important point is that machines operating at walking speed and machines capable of speeds approaching city traffic should not be treated as members of the same regulatory family.

The proposed PTD category acknowledges the changing nature of transportation technology. What it does not fully address is that public safety depends more on behavior than labels.

Pedestrians do not experience transportation devices as defined by law. They experience them in terms of speed, weight, acceleration, stopping distance, and the consequences of a collision.

A traditional bicycle moving 10 mph presents one set of risks. A heavier electric vehicle moving 28 mph presents another. A machine capable of even higher speeds presents yet another.

Public policy should reflect those differences.

The city should not classify vehicles primarily by appearance, marketing language, or whether a machine happens to have pedals attached. Policymakers should ask practical questions: How fast can the vehicle travel? How much does it weigh? Can it operate without pedaling? How quickly does it accelerate? Where is it intended to be used?

Those characteristics have a far greater impact on public safety than the device’s name.

The discussion also raises an enforcement problem.

Even carefully crafted classifications are meaningless if they cannot be enforced. The city does not maintain a dedicated park police force, and regular police officers already handle a broad range of responsibilities, many of which involve urgent public-safety concerns.

It is difficult to imagine officers devoting substantial time to monitoring trail use, helmet compliance, speed violations, and device classifications while also responding to more serious calls for service.

This challenge extends beyond e-bikes.

The city recently adopted regulations restricting park use to permit holders. Whether the issue involves permits, trail safety, or electric transportation devices, the same question remains: how will these rules be enforced?

An ordinance without a realistic enforcement strategy risks becoming little more than a statement of good intentions.

If city leaders believe parks and trails require greater oversight, Parks and Recreation should consider a more active role. Dedicated park rangers or park enforcement personnel could focus on trail safety, visitor education, permit compliance, and park regulations.

Such an approach would likely be more effective than expecting an already stretched police department to absorb yet another responsibility.

Ultimately, the debate over e-bikes and other electric transportation devices is not primarily about technology or helmets. It is about preserving the safety and character of public space.

The city’s goal should not be to discourage innovation. Electric transportation offers real benefits for commuters, older adults, and people with limited mobility. But those benefits should not prevent an honest discussion about where different types of vehicles belong and how they should interact with pedestrians.

A mobility scooter traveling at walking speed should not automatically be treated the same as a high-speed electric vehicle. A recreational trail should not be treated the same as a traffic lane. And a pedestrian should not have to guess whether the machine approaching from behind behaves like a bicycle or like a motorcycle.

The proposed ordinance is a useful beginning because it recognizes that transportation technology is changing. The next step is recognizing that behavior matters more than labels.

If public safety is truly the objective, regulations must be based on how vehicles operate, not what they are called. Speed, weight and behavior — not marketing labels — determine risk. Until policy reflects that reality, the city will be regulating names rather than solving the problem.

Share

Because this post is public, you’re encouraged to share it on social media.

Subscribe now

The Westerville News is a reader-supported publication by Gary Gardiner, a lifelong journalist who believes hyper-local reporting is the future of news. This publication focuses exclusively on Westerville—its local news, influence on Central Ohio, and how surrounding areas shape the community.

Reader funding, including subscribers, protects editorial independence, so coverage is guided by journalists rather than owners or corporate profit goals. It also reduces pressure to chase clicks, letting the newsroom focus on stories worth readers’ time. And it helps keep the site accessible to everyone, including people who can’t pay or live in places where a free press is under threat.

Explore more hyper-local reporting by subscribing to The Hilliard Beacon, Civic Capacity, Marysville Matters, The Ohio Roundtable, Shelby News Reporter, This Week in Toledo, and Into the Morning by Krista Steele.

The Story We Choose to Forget Shapes What We Become

Cities don’t always hold onto themselves. Growth often demands forgetting. But in Westerville, memory still has weight.

The city’s landscape carries the shape of what came before. Farms that became neighborhoods. Trails that trace old rail lines. Names that outlast the people who gave them. Here, the fut…

Read more