BPAC discusses low‑speed vehicles, unclassified micromobility and town regulations

At its April 2025 Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee meeting, members discussed how low‑speed vehicles (LSVs) and an expanding array of unclassified micromobility devices should be treated on Nantucket roads and bike paths.

Committee members said the state definition of an LSV — a motor vehicle limited to about 25 miles per hour and prohibited from roads signed above 30 mph — allows LSVs on many streets in Nantucket’s thickly settled and 25 mph areas, but raised concerns about devices that are not yet classified by state regulators.

Mike, who presented Massachusetts regulations and a photograph of a recently purchased LSV, said, “the vehicle can go 25 miles an hour. It's prohibited to be on roads that are greater than 30 miles an hour.” He noted the vehicle felt like a golf cart in interior space and that users reported it blended with traffic where speed limits met state regulatory limits. The committee discussed that many LSVs being marketed conform to state registration standards, but that island residents may receive direct shipments of new or hybrid devices that do not clearly fit existing categories.

Members raised specific enforcement and design questions: whether larger, wider or multi‑row vehicles should be excluded from bike paths; whether signs should limit use to two‑wheel devices; and whether dimensional limits (width or headlight height) set by state standards would control oversized vehicles. A committee member noted state standards address items such as headlight height and maximum vehicle width for road use, and another recommended focusing path regulations on vehicle dimensions and speed rather than on brand names.

One member said they had already drafted language for Chapter 98 to prohibit certain vehicles on bike paths and suggested adding “or equivalent” to make the prohibition adaptable to new, similar devices. That member said they would circulate proposed language to the committee and town council contacts ahead of Town Meeting. There was no formal committee vote on regulatory changes at the meeting.

Committee members also discussed other emerging devices — motorized skateboards, cargo skateboards, motorized paddle boards and kite‑assisted boards — and stressed enforcement and signage would be challenging if the code attempted to list every prohibited device. Several members urged a rules approach based on speed, width and whether a device is classified as a bicycle under state law rather than attempting a long prohibition list.

Next steps cited during the meeting: the member who referenced Chapter 98 said they would add the recommended “or equivalent” language and circulate it for review; committee members flagged an eCargo bike webinar on May 15 and said they would monitor micromobility developments and return to the committee when draft language is ready for review.