Flower Mound council tables proposed micro-mobility ordinance after debate on helmets, lights and enforcement

The Flower Mound Town Council on April 21 tabled consideration of a proposed micro-mobility ordinance after more than two hours of public discussion and council debate.

The ordinance, presented by staff member JP, would have restricted operation of motor-assisted scooters, electric skateboards and similar "micro mobility devices" on town public ways; required helmets for children under 14; limited device speeds; and imposed fines for violations. JP opened the item by telling council, "I am here tonight to, talk about potential excuse me Micro Mobility ordinance, which is before you tonight." The council ultimately voted 5-0 to table the measure and asked staff to return with a revised draft at a future meeting.

Why it matters: Councilmembers said they wanted a simpler, more enforceable ordinance that focused on helmet requirements for young riders and clear, observable safety violations officers could address. Several members said detailed equipment standards or broad prohibitions (for example banning adult use on sidewalks at night) were overly complex and risked making normal behavior unlawful.

Key points from the debate: Staff’s draft would have made it unlawful to operate micro-mobility devices on public property where the speed limit exceeds 35 mph, limited device top-assisted speed to 28 mph, prohibited use of hand-held devices and headphones while operating, and required children (under 14) to wear helmets. The draft also referenced safety equipment requirements from the Texas Transportation Code. Council members objected to portions of section 58‑75 that would have, for example, barred adults from operating devices at night even if they had headlights and reflectors; Brynn, the town attorney, confirmed those illumination requirements were taken from state law.

Council direction to staff: Council asked staff to pare back the draft to a shorter, clearer ordinance emphasizing helmets for children and safety equipment at night (headlight and rear reflector consistent with the Transportation Code), to include bicycle rules consistently where appropriate, and to remove or rework hard‑to‑enforce provisions (for example, a broad inclement‑weather prohibition and complex device‑construction requirements). Council also asked staff to add language allowing a first‑offense educational safety course (designed by police) in lieu of the fine, and to consider an implementation date so residents have time to comply.

Enforcement and education: Police Chief Coulon said officers could design and run a safety class similar to bicycle‑safety programs; council asked that the course be substantive (more than 10 minutes), offered multiple times and that the ordinance allow the first‑offense education option. Chief Coulon told council officers would use discretion and that warnings would be the typical first response.

Outcome and next steps: A motion to table the item carried unanimously. Staff will return with a revised draft reflecting council direction (helmets for under‑14 riders, consistent rules for bicycles and micro‑mobility for headphones and handheld devices, clearer night‑use language tied to Transportation Code safety equipment, and option for an educational class in lieu of a first‑offense fine). Council requested the revised ordinance return at the next regular meeting if possible.