Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ebike Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Dearborn Heights council studies e-bike ordinance, registration and enforcement options
Summary
Corporation counsel presented a draft ordinance aligning city code with the Michigan Vehicle Code and proposing a visible registration system for e-bikes and similar devices; councilmembers raised concerns about enforcement, age limits, sidewalk restrictions, and whether registration would improve safety or merely generate revenue.
Corporation counsel Gary presented a proposed ordinance in a Dearborn Heights council study session that would adopt provisions of the Michigan Vehicle Code and replace obsolete city bicycle rules, and would create a local registration program for electric bicycles and similar devices.
The draft, submitted in two formatted versions, aims to mirror state law on where bicycles and e-bikes may operate, and adds a local registration/tagging system (compared in the presentation to mid-20th-century bicycle tags) so devices can be more easily identified by officers. Gary cautioned the council that state law preemption limits what the city may regulate and that an outright local prohibition on e-bikes likely would be challenged under current Michigan statutes.
Councilmembers pressed on enforcement and safety. One councilmember described seeing a modified, high-speed vehicle and questioned whether reckless e-bike or scooter operators could be prosecuted without police-witnessed incidents or video evidence; counsel and the chief said existing traffic offenses (such as reckless operation) can apply but that practical enforcement may be limited without corroborating evidence. The chief said visible registration that must be displayed on a device could give officers “a little bit more teeth” to stop and follow up on violations.
Members repeatedly asked whether the city can ban e-bikes from sidewalks and from certain streets. Gary noted the draft mirrors state provisions that require bicycle operators to yield to pedestrians on sidewalks and crosswalks and that state law largely governs where e-bikes may be used. The police chief clarified legal classifications: e-bikes and bicycles may share roadways with posted speed limits up to 45 mph, while e-scooters — classified as skateboards under state law — are limited to roads with speed limits of 25 mph or lower.
The council debated policy options the draft could include: minimum age limits (14 was cited in the discussion), helmet requirements, impoundment and storage fees for unregistered devices, visible registration stickers, and stiffer fines. Members voiced skepticism that registration alone would substantially improve safety, with one member calling the draft “weak” and urging stronger deterrents; Gary and others said many of those measures could be drafted into ordinance language but must be consistent with state law and with legal standards for seizure and impoundment.
The discussion also flagged devices not yet fully covered in the draft — golf carts, go-karts and mopeds — and asked staff to add provisions for lights, headlights and other technical details. The chief and counsel said some enforcement tools (for example, impoundment or seizure) would need explicit ordinance language and must respect constitutional limits on taking property without probable cause.
Rather than move directly to adoption, the council asked members to submit written comments to counsel and asked Gary to revise the draft. Councilmembers recommended returning the ordinance to a future study session and then to a first reading after drafting additions such as age limits, helmet requirements, impoundment language, registration visibility and clarifications for golf carts and scooters. The item was set aside for further study; no formal vote on ordinance adoption took place at the study session.
