OCPS trustees weigh helmet rules, permits and bans after staff study of e-bikes and e-scooters

Orange County Public Schools trustees spent a lengthy work‑session discussion weighing how to respond to a surge in student use of electric scooters and e‑bikes, after staff told the Board that ‘‘approximately almost 12,000 students across the district ride bikes or scooters to school.’’

Superintendent Dr. Vasquez and Joe Silvestri, senior director for Safety and Emergency Management, presented results of a November principal survey that found 23% of schools do not require students to walk devices on campus and, among schools that do have that rule, about half have no enforcement system. Silvestri also reviewed other Florida districts’ approaches and recent local ordinances, and recommended steps including online student training, device registration with parental acknowledgment and permit stickers, adding a walk‑your‑device requirement in the student code of conduct, signage, and removing Class 3 micro‑mobility devices and e‑motorcycles from campuses.

Why it matters: Board members framed the item as a student safety issue that also raises questions about implementation and who is best placed to enforce rules. Several trustees said the district lacks personnel to monitor compliance at scale, and general counsel warned trustees that adopting voluntary requirements without the capacity to enforce them could create legal duties and liability.

Board members voiced a range of proposals. Member Gallo recounted watching groups of students ‘‘in about a 10 minute time frame, I saw 25 people on scooters. Not 1 of them had a helmet on,’’ and urged at minimum a clear helmet message, signage and parent notification. Dr. Vasquez described an option discussed in cabinet: charge a small annual fee (example cited in discussion: $10) that would be paired with a required safety course and issuance of a permit/tag that could be revoked for noncompliance. General counsel Palmerini cautioned that policy language would need substantial revision to cover nontraditional motorized devices and that unenforced policies can create liability if the district is seen to have assumed a duty.

Several trustees urged coordination with local government and health partners rather than placing the entire enforcement burden on schools. Member Bird said she favors a more aggressive approach, potentially banning devices on campus, and recommended partnering with AdventHealth and Orlando Health to lead public education; others proposed limiting campus use to students 16 and older (license or permit required) to simplify enforcement. Multiple members suggested piloting the FDOT‑aligned training through MetroPlan Orlando’s e‑bike education pilot; staff said they are identifying up to 500 students (one middle and one high school) to test the curriculum and pre/post assessments.

Staff also flagged practical issues: many existing bike racks were designed for traditional bicycles and may not accommodate larger e‑bikes, and principals reported enforcement capacity varies widely by school. Chief analyst Pacheco provided a top‑10 list from the survey (examples cited by staff: Timber Creek ~1,200; Water Springs ~850; Innovation Middle ~664; Lake Nona High ~300), with staff noting the survey was a one‑day snapshot.

Next steps: Trustees did not reach consensus on a single policy. Chair Jacobs directed continued data collection (including normalizing accident counts by school size), further work with the multi‑jurisdiction task force, and participation in a May 19 Board of County Commissioners meeting where the task force will present recommendations. Staff were asked to return with more detailed data, implementation options and cost estimates (for signage, racks, pilot logistics and potential enforcement mechanisms).

The Board meeting provided no formal vote or adoption of policy; members agreed to follow the May 19 county task‑force briefing and to continue refining proposals that balance student safety with enforceability and resource limits.