Provo advisory committee discusses e‑scooters, e‑bikes and enforcement challenges

Provo technical and mobility advisors on Feb. 2025 reviewed a multi‑part briefing on micromobility — including shared e‑scooter operator data, police enforcement guidance and private‑sector observations about faster electric dirt bikes — and discussed public education, sidewalk rules and where different devices are legally allowed to operate.

The committee heard a summary of 2024 usage data from the shared‑device operator Bird (presented by city staff citing Bird’s data), including a reported 53 complaints received by the operator in 2024 with an average two‑hour response time, and an average trip length of about 1.5 miles. Staff said the service shows year‑round ridership across Provo, not just near Brigham Young University (BYU), and estimated roughly 3,000 distinct users based on the dataset presented.

Committee members said those numbers show micromobility is a significant element of the city’s traffic and pedestrian environment. “It is truly used all throughout Provo,” a committee member said while pointing to a heat map showing trips reaching the airport and neighborhoods beyond campus. Members asked staff to share the operator’s materials publicly, including a short enforcement “cheat sheet” prepared by the police department.

Provo police described how existing state and local rules apply to different devices. Officers summarized the limits cited in Utah code and Provo City code as they interpret them: shared e‑scooters and electric‑assist bicycles generally align with a 2,000‑watt, 20‑mph upper bound for classification, 10 mph maximum on sidewalks, a 15 mph maximum on the River Trail, and where sidewalks are restricted downtown (Center Street/University Avenue reduced‑pedestrian area) those devices are limited by the city code’s pedestrian‑only provisions.

Speakers warned about a growing presence of higher‑powered electric dirt bikes and other off‑road devices that exceed e‑bike definitions and may require vehicle registration, insurance and licensing if they meet motorcycle characteristics. A local retailer described market shifts toward heavier, faster “dirt‑bike” style electric vehicles that in many cases do not meet the legal definitions for e‑bikes or mopeds.

Enforcement staff said the most commonly enforced violations are failure to yield to pedestrians on sidewalks and unsafe operation near pedestrians, and that citation practices remain discretionary (education, warning or citation). Police noted limited capacity for broad enforcement and expected complaint volumes to rise with warmer weather, especially along the Provo River Trail.

Committee members and staff discussed several near‑term responses: public education about helmet use and device classifications; posting the police department’s quick reference card on the city website and via city social channels; clarifying which sidewalks are legally restricted and adding maps where possible; and promoting place‑appropriate naming (for example, “multiuse” or “micromobility” lanes instead of only “bike lanes”) when building new facilities so public expectations match design.

Members also discussed longer‑term actions including better separated bike/multiuse infrastructure and station area planning to reduce conflicts. Staff recommended distributing the police cheat sheet and operator contact information publicly before spring, and committee members volunteered to provide feedback on educational materials.

The discussion closed after multiple members urged that public outreach and clearer signage be prioritized before warmer weather increases ridership and reported conflicts.