Board hears data and safety concerns, continues proposed county ordinance on high‑powered e‑bikes

Supervisors at the San Mateo County Board meeting on March 10 continued a contentious proposal that would give local authorities new tools to address high‑powered, modified electric bikes and other e‑conveyances after weeks of community input and a day of testimony from trauma surgeons, school leaders and sheriff’s deputies.

The draft ordinance, sponsored by Supervisors Noelia Corzo (as Board President had the meeting preside), Jackie Spear and Supervisor Mueller, would restate existing state rules for electric bicycles and add local prohibitions where state law leaves gaps, including an explicit ban on operating an e‑conveyance “in an unsafe manner,” restrictions on sidewalk use in some circumstances, administrative fines with a diversion option, and authority to impound unregistered, modified high‑speed devices.

“An increasing number of people, especially teens, have been severely injured or killed while riding electric devices we call ebikes,” Supervisor Spear told the board in opening remarks, calling the trend “a public health crisis” and urging a uniform county approach that cities could adopt.

County Attorney John Niblin described the draft as an attempt to fill local enforcement gaps without preempting state law. The ordinance defines multiple classes of e‑conveyances, describes examples of unsafe operation (stunts, wheelies, traveling in a manner that endangers others), and lays out enforcement options including civil fines that escalate for repeat violations and an administrative diversion alternative for minors.

Motor Deputy Larson of the sheriff’s office told the board deputies already encounter high‑speed devices and, where state code permits, can remove and tow them. “Any e‑conveyance that is going faster than 20 mph that is specifically propelled by a throttle only … we have the ability to just tow it on site,” he said, describing field practice distinguishing legal class‑legal ebikes from illegally modified “e‑moto” style machines.

Medical testimony underscored the concern. Trauma surgeon John Ma summarized a literature review and hospital case series showing a pattern of severe injuries tied to higher‑speed electric vehicles: “The injury pattern is associated with severe neurosurgical, maxillofacial, orthopedic injuries with a greater need for hospitalization, the need for surgery, ICU stay, and death,” he said, urging caution about high‑power devices on local roads.

School leaders also described localized effects at arrival and dismissal times. Menlo Park City School District Superintendent Kristen Gracia said a district policy banning throttle‑powered e‑bikes and emotos from campus led to “a significant reduction. In fact, we have zero throttle ebikes on our campus and zero emotos.” She and other educators told the board many children and parents lack a clear understanding of which devices are street‑legal and which can be easily modified into dangerous, unregistered machines.

Advocacy groups and some city officials urged caution. Representatives from regional cycling organizations and city bicycle and pedestrian advisory committees urged the board to avoid blanket bans that could push safe, low‑speed devices into traffic lanes or that would criminalize lawful micromobility. Several speakers recommended clearer, mileage‑based standards for sidewalk access, and asked the county to coordinate with cities and the county public health department.

Supervisors asked for clarifications and for more outreach before any final action. Concerns included the ordinance’s sidewalk rules, how enforcement would distinguish legal class‑rated e‑bikes from illegal high‑power conversions, and whether diversion programs and educational outreach should be in place before citations or impoundments would be used. Supervisor Canipa and others urged explicit data collection so the county can better quantify incidents by jurisdiction and vehicle type.

After more than an hour of back‑and‑forth and extensive public comment, the board agreed to continue the item for additional technical refinements and stakeholder outreach. Supervisors said they expect staff to return with clarified definitions distinguishing class‑legal e‑bikes from modified e‑motos, a proposal for diversion and education (for minors and adults), and options for a limited pilot (Supervisor Mueller indicated interest in piloting the approach in an unincorporated district) before bringing a revised draft back for consideration.

Next steps: staff will work with county counsel, the sheriff’s office, county public health and school partners, and city stakeholders to revise language on sidewalk use, unsafe operation, diversion criteria and enforcement mechanics; the board scheduled no final vote and left the ordinance open for revision and further community input.