Riverwoods board debates e-bikes and e-scooters, opts to follow Illinois law and emphasize public education

The Village Board held an extended discussion about motorized personal vehicles — class 1–3 e-bikes, stand-up e-scooters and faster "e-motos" — but did not adopt a new local ordinance. Staff and trustees described conflicting local rules across neighboring municipalities, enforcement challenges and safety concerns, and the board directed staff to default to Illinois state law for the time being and to develop public education materials.

Attorney Hoovard (with assistance from Trustee Trevino) reviewed Illinois definitions and regulatory context: Class 1 and 2 e-bikes have electrical assist that cuts out at 20 mph (class 1) or provide throttle (class 2), class 3 e-bikes are limited to 28 mph and require a rider be 16 or older under state law; low-speed stand-up e-scooters are regulated differently and require riders to be 18 on streets unless the municipality authorizes otherwise; higher-speed scooters remain subject to local regulation. Staff noted that high-powered e-bikes (often called "e-motos") exceed the 750-watt/low-speed thresholds and may be classified as motor-driven cycles under state law, which triggers licensing and equipment requirements similar to motorcycles.

Chief Dana reported five complaints to police since January 1 involving e-bikes or motorized bikes; officers arrived and the riders were gone on arrival. He said officers will minimally return juveniles to parents and may cite operators depending on circumstances. Trustee Jamerson described a near-miss on Blackthorn Road involving two juveniles riding at an estimated 20–25 mph; trustees debated enforceability because riders often are gone before officers arrive.

Multiple board members said neighboring villages are taking varied approaches (some follow state law, some have local restrictions on paths or downtown areas, some impound vehicles or fine parents for unsupervised juveniles). Director Vasquez and others said municipalities are pressing state legislators for guidance to avoid a patchwork of local rules. The board concluded there was not an immediate consensus to adopt a local ordinance at this meeting; instead members agreed to default to state law enforcement, produce newsletter guidance for residents clarifying state rules and local expectations, and monitor incident reports and neighboring jurisdictions' actions before deciding on any ordinance.