Highland Park council moves toward permitting class 1–3 e‑bikes, targets high‑powered 'e‑motos' for stricter rules

Highland Park — Police and staff told the Committee of the Whole on Oct. 6 that most local complaints about electric bicycles and scooters this summer involved high‑powered devices and juveniles, and the council provided direction to draft an ordinance that would keep class 1–3 e‑bikes broadly permitted while imposing stricter limits on higher‑powered “e‑motos.”

The council heard a police presentation that distinguished state‑defined class 1, 2 and 3 e‑bikes from mopeds, electric motorcycles and high‑powered scooters the police refer to as “e‑motos.” Sergeant Saldana, who led the briefing, described the classes and said the department’s recommendation is to treat those high‑powered devices differently, requiring registration, VINs and insurance and, when applicable, M‑ or L‑class driver’s licenses.

"These devices ... typically go in excess sometimes well in excess of 30 miles an hour," Sergeant Saldana said, arguing that registration and other vehicle‑style requirements are appropriate for those machines.

Why it matters: Staff said inconsistent municipal and state rules leave riders uncertain about where particular devices are allowed and complicate enforcement. Police presented local enforcement figures to show the magnitude and demographics of the problem: from June 1 to Sept. 29 there were 63 calls for service related to e‑bikes/scooters, 43 recorded stops (some contacts involved multiple people), 6 citations and 37 warnings. Forty‑four of the 63 contacts involved juveniles aged 12–17, with 12–13‑year‑olds the most frequent group, the presentation said.

Council members questioned technical details and trade‑offs. Several council members said they were sympathetic to keeping class 1–3 e‑bikes available for older or disabled residents who rely on pedal‑assist technology, but worried about safety where paths are narrow or shared with pedestrians. Council member Ross summarized that the data “supports our assertion that the large percentage of these issues relates to juveniles,” and urged targeted policy and education.

Enforcement and practical limits: Presenters and the city manager told the council it is legally possible to distinguish between classes in the ordinance but practically difficult to identify class markings in passing. Manager Newkirk and police leaders said the city has focused on education first, and noted the state already prohibits speed‑modification of e‑bikes. SROs and school staff have been engaged to push educational messages to students and families in District 112.

Council direction and next steps: The mayor pro tem conducted a straw poll on four points: permitting class 1–3 e‑bikes wherever bicycles are allowed (majority supported), waiving a driver’s‑license requirement (majority supported), creating enforceable speed limits (majority opposed), and allowing e‑bikes on all paths (council split). Staff was asked to prepare a formal ordinance reflecting the council’s feedback and to expand communication and education efforts before a formal council vote.

No final ordinance was adopted at the meeting; staff said the draft ordinance will return to a future city council agenda for a formal vote.