Bill would legalize and define motorized scooters on Montana roads; committee heard safety, helmet and lighting questions

Representative Neil Durham introduced House Bill 588 to the Senate Transportation Committee to create a statutory definition for “motorized scooters” and to authorize their regulated use on Montana roadways.

The bill would define a motorized scooter as a vehicle without a seat that may be propelled solely or in part by human power or by an independent power source, with a power capability that “may not be capable of propelling the speed or device at a speed exceeding 30 miles per hour on a level surface.” Durham told the committee his intent is to place motorized scooters in the same regulatory class as bicycles and mopeds so law enforcement would have explicit authority to allow or curtail their use.

Durham said much of the bill is definitional and pointed committee members to the sections where the definition appears. He described common rental-style stand‑on scooters and single‑wheel personal devices, and told the committee the bill would permit their operation on public highways when authorized by statute.

Committee members focused questions on safety equipment and enforcement. Senator Fern asked whether devices should be visible from the rear at night; Durham supported adding a requirement for a rear taillight or reflector and said he would welcome an amendment to strengthen lamp requirements. Durham also proposed amending Montana’s helmet statute (61‑9‑417, as referenced during the hearing) to include motorized scooters and some types of electric bicycles to require helmets for minors consistent with the existing helmet age threshold.

Rob Stapley, rail transit and planning division administrator with the Montana Department of Transportation, was present to answer technical questions. Stapley confirmed the department oversees alternative transportation modes including bicycles and scooters and said he was available for committee questions but did not propose additional substantive changes.

Senators asked whether registration or licensing fees would apply; Durham said the intent was that motorized scooters would fall into the same registration classification as bicycles and mopeds, which currently carries no registration fee. Senators also asked whether specific device types such as Segway‑style or single‑wheel devices were covered; Durham said the definition could be clarified to list wheel counts but he did not consider that necessary for the bill's intent and that an amendment addressing those concerns would not adversely affect the measure.

The bill text would also limit sidewalk or bicycle‑path motorized operation to human propulsion only, to prevent higher‑speed motorized use on sidewalks. Durham told the committee he has an amendment under preparation to include motor scooters in additional sections of statute on page 9 of the bill text and that the amendment would be available for executive action after engrossment.

No proponents or opponents appeared in the room; Durham and Stapley answered committee questions. The committee did not take a final vote on HB 588 during this hearing; an amendment was reported as being prepared and the sponsor asked the committee to consider it when the bill is scheduled for executive action.

Next steps: Durham said an amendment would be available for executive action on the bill; the committee left the item pending that amendment and potential executive action at a later date.