Dublin council moves micromobility code forward, debates helmet requirement for youth

Dublin city staff presented draft code changes on Feb. 23 to regulate micromobility devices — including e‑scooters, e‑bikes and rental fleets — and brought council a choice on helmet policy ahead of a March 9 second reading.

Jeanne Willis, city staff, described updates that clarify device definitions, fleet rules and parental‑responsibility language and said the revisions remove an earlier blanket helmet requirement to match state law and simplify enforcement. Joe Batchelor, an attorney with Frost Brown Todd Gibbons who assisted drafting the code, outlined three options for council: (1) keep fleet rental restrictions and no new helmet mandate, (2) adopt a helmet age aligning to state‑law rental rules (16), or (3) require helmets for selected device types or ages.

Batchelor said staff removed a prior helmet mandate but were asked to revisit the issue because of resident feedback. Willis told council the city’s community survey — conducted late last year with about 320 respondents — showed nearly 90% of respondents supported a helmet requirement for youth under 18. "Overwhelmingly, our residents supported that," Willis said.

Council members probed enforceability and whether rental agreements for private vendors already limit rentals to older users. "Vendors we choose to operate the fleets can't rent to someone under the age of 18," Council Member Keeler said, noting industry practice and existing operator agreements. Staff confirmed state law prevents renting to anyone under 16 and most fleet providers set a practical 18‑plus rental age in their user agreements.

Several members said an age‑limited requirement would be clearer. "I like the second option…it aligns with state law," Vice Mayor Kathy DeRosa said, adding that it avoids creating a conflict with vendor rental policies. Doctor Lam advocated a public‑health approach and favored a 16‑and‑under rule, citing the risk of preventable head injuries among younger riders.

Opponents warned about enforcement practicality. One council member said a city ordinance without meaningful enforcement mechanisms would be "muddying the waters" and might have limited effect; others said existing helmet‑distribution programs could help address affordability concerns.

Staff said they would revise the code and return for second reading and public hearing on March 9, 2026 with recommended language reflecting council direction. The draft also retains other technical clarifications — for example, removing an obsolete three‑foot rule that state law now phrases as "as far right as practicable" — and adds clarifications about miniature motorcycle definitions and fleet management.