Draft e-bike and scooter rules split council and draw safety concerns from residents

Bexley City Council · November 12, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Council reviewed an ordinance to update local rules for bicycles, electric bikes and motorized personal mobility devices. Public commenters urged pedestrian-speed sidewalk access for children, clearer class distinctions and less burdensome inspection requirements. Council left the item for further edits and third reading.

Bexley — Council members on Tuesday discussed a proposed ordinance (27-25) that would revise several sections of the municipal code to address electric bicycles, scooters and personal mobility devices on sidewalks, parks and school grounds.

Councilor Markham introduced the draft amendments, which aim to provide clearer operational rules and an education-first enforcement approach. Members debated whether pedal-assisted e-bikes used without motor assist should be treated as traditional bicycles for sidewalk access; one councilor proposed an explicit exception allowing pedal-only operation on sidewalks where safe.

Multiple residents and councilors raised safety and equity concerns. A public commenter recommended distinguishing among class 1 (pedal-assist), class 2 (throttle) and class 3 e-bikes and removing age restrictions for pedal-assist bicycles so children could use them for routine trips. Another resident urged allowing sidewalk operation at pedestrian speeds to reduce dangerous interactions on narrow streets and suggested the city focus enforcement on motor vehicles rather than personal mobility devices. Commenters also questioned whether the ordinance’s proposed city inspection and mandatory training requirements were unnecessarily burdensome for devices that meet federal safety standards.

Council members suggested amendments and asked staff to clarify enforcement mechanics (for example, how officers would determine whether a motor was engaged). The item remains under discussion and was scheduled for additional consideration on third reading.