Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Shared Mobility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
University Heights reviews shared e-bike/scooter data and pauses broader helmet mandate
Summary
City staff and police presented six-month and multi-year data on shared e-bikes and scooters; council members discussed two proposed ordinance versions requiring helmets and decided to hold further drafting to narrow scope to rentals and similar devices.
University Heights city staff and the police chief presented ridership and safety data on shared e-bikes and scooters and discussed proposed changes to the city's codified ordinance governing electric bicycles.
The most immediate points centered on county-run shared mobility data and a pair of proposed local ordinance changes that would require helmets for some classes of e-bikes. Chief of staff Brianna Bremer Fisher presented ridership and device information from the county program that serves University Heights along with Cleveland, East Cleveland, Cleveland Heights and South Euclid. She said the county report showed University Heights recorded 542 rides in 2025 through the third quarter and that the city has four county bike-share parking stations concentrated along the Cedar Road corridor (two at Cedar and Taylor, one by the library, and one near Whole Foods).
Chief of Police Rogers told the committee he and his staff reviewed police CAD entries since the city broadened geofencing and allowed rentals citywide in June 2023. Rogers said the department found 28 CAD entries over roughly two years and three months involving shared e-bikes or e-scooters, including six reports of riders falling (five involved juveniles), seven complaints about how riders were driving, three officer-initiated stops, and five traffic crashes in 2024 (two incidents included a minor injury and one a possible injury). Rogers said injuries recorded in the CAD system were classified as minor or possible injuries.
Why it matters: council members said they were balancing public-safety concerns about speed, underage operation and helmet use with practical limits on enforcement and how the county selects vendors.
Discussion of ordinance changes
Council member Marshall had prepared two draft ordinance options (version 1 and version 2) to amend the city's code (chapter cited in discussion as section 444.14) to require helmets for users of electric bicycles. Version 1 would prohibit anyone under 18 from operating or being a passenger on a class 1 or class 2 electric bicycle without a helmet meeting Consumer Product Safety Commission or ASTM standards; version 2 would extend a helmet requirement to riders of class 1, 2 and 3 electric bicycles.
Law Director (Mr. Bridal) and Chief Rogers advised the committee about state law limits. The law director noted that state law and long-standing motorcycle/vehicle sections restrict a municipality’s ability to require helmets for some adult motorized-vehicle operators; Chief Rogers and others warned that mandating helmets for adults on class 1 bikes would likely be difficult to enforce and could prevent adults from renting devices because rental programs require the renter be 18 or older. Council members also noted the county-managed procurement selects two vendors (Bird and Veo) for the five-city program, and staff said there was no indication the vendors intend to quit the program.
Committee direction and next steps
Committee members agreed to remove version 2 from consideration (the more expansive helmet requirement) and keep working on a narrower ordinance approach. Several council members and staff signaled they favored language that would apply to rental/shared mobility devices (the county program) or to clearly defined adult-capable scooters and bikes rather than attempting an across-the-board requirement that would capture toys or small personal devices.
No formal ordinance vote was taken at the meeting. The committee directed the law director to draft revised language that would clarify definitions (for example, distinguishing rental shared mobility devices and higher‑powered adult scooters from children’s toys) and to return the draft for further discussion. Chief Rogers said the department already runs outreach and helmet-reward programs in neighborhoods and that enforcement against juveniles raises procedural issues (juvenile vs. adult court and diversion options).
Ending
The committee asked staff to return with revised ordinance language focused on defined rental/shared devices and clearer device classifications and left both the helmet question and any scooter inclusion for further legal drafting and discussion.
