Village reviews regulation, education after rise in low‑speed e‑scooter and e‑bike use

Village board members heard a staff presentation on state laws governing low‑speed electric scooters and electric bicycles, efforts the village has taken to educate youth and parents, and enforcement challenges posed by modifiable e‑bike systems.

The issue matters because dozens of riders in the village are minors and officials said the devices can pose safety risks; staff described outreach efforts with District 35 schools and regional law enforcement to reduce unsafe riding while acknowledging legal and practical limits on citation and enforcement.

Staff told the board that under the state law governing low‑speed electric scooters, those scooters “are defined as not traveling any in excess of 10 miles per hour,” and that operators must be 18 or older to ride on public roadways. The presentation said low‑speed electric bicycles are grouped into three classes, all limited to no more than 750 watts of motor power: class 1 assists pedaling up to 20 mph, class 2 allows throttle‑only operation, and class 3 provides assisted speeds up to 28 mph with a minimum operator age of 16 for class 3. The presentation described the two separate state laws as taking effect in 2018 for e‑bikes and “effective January 1” for low‑speed scooters, per the memo staff provided to the board.

Staff described local measures focusing on education rather than enforcement. Those measures include coordinated messaging with District 35 (via Dr. Wang), distribution of flyers to students and parents placed on bike racks while school was in session, social media and e‑news posts, foot patrols by officers at known congregation points such as the Red Hen and a Walgreens, and a bike safety program aimed at younger children. The presenter said initial checks showed a decrease in downtown scooter use after the outreach, while noting that the summer school break may also reduce downtown activity.

Presenters and police chiefs from neighboring communities were discussed as models. Deerfield’s ordinance was described as defining a broad “motor‑driven vehicle” category, prohibiting operation by anyone under 18 without a driver’s license, and giving law enforcement clearer authority to address unsafe operation. Highland Park’s ordinance was described as allowing enforcement on some adjacent private property with the property owner’s permission, banning use on some bike trails, and including an adult accountability provision that permits citation of parents for minors’ violations. Northbrook, Lake Forest, Glen Ellyn and Evanston were mentioned as still considering or having differing approaches.

Speakers stressed enforcement limits. Staff noted that many e‑bikes can be electronically reprogrammed (sometimes by Bluetooth) to operate at higher speeds than their labeled class and that aftermarket stickers can mislabel bikes; reliable enforcement, the presentation said, could require seizing a device and testing it. The presenter recounted a recent crash involving a 15‑year‑old riding what the presenter called an electric motorcycle; the bike’s data log showed it had been driven over 60 miles earlier that day. The presenter also referenced, before their appointment, a separate fatal bicycle crash in which a bicyclist was struck by a vehicle.

Board members discussed whether to pursue a local ordinance like Deerfield’s or continue with education-first efforts. Some trustees said they favored exploring local regulatory options that would give officers clearer authority to hold minors — and potentially parents — accountable; others emphasized sticking with education to avoid criminalizing minors. No ordinance vote or formal regulatory change occurred during the discussion.

The board did not take formal action at the meeting. Staff said they would continue outreach and training for public safety and remain in contact with regional partners; board members asked staff to return with options and additional information on enforcement implications and possible ordinance language for future consideration.

The village presentation and the surrounding‑municipality examples will return to the board’s agenda if trustees request draft ordinance language or further study.