Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Micromobility Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee adopts technical changes to two bikeway/moto bills; serious injury testimony prompts calls for clearer laws
Summary
The committee adopted a technical amendment to a bill defining high-powered 'motos' (HF 37 85) and an A1 amendment narrowing a bicycle yellow-light stop rule (HF 37 74); HF 37 85 was laid over after a victim described life-altering injuries from a moto collision.
Lawmakers on the Transportation Finance and Policy Committee on March 11 considered a pair of bills aimed at clarifying rules for electric two-wheeled vehicles and bicycle traffic behavior.
Representative Tom to tell (author) said HF 37 85 seeks to define and regulate powerful electric "motos" that fall above the statutory e-bike power thresholds and have caused enforcement confusion. During his presentation he played body-camera footage of an incident intended to show how enforcement and classification failures can lead to harm.
Janet Stock, a victim of such a crash, testified about severe, lasting injuries. "I was out on a walk on the sidewalk when I was struck from behind by a moto traveling at approximately 25 to 30 miles an hour," Stock said, describing brain surgery, permanent sensory loss and denied insurance coverage because the vehicle type was not clearly defined in statute. She urged the committee to close the legal and insurance gap.
A technical A1 amendment to HF 37 85 was adopted to align the bill with existing statutory language and allow further technical work with industry and safety advocates. Committee members heard support from the Bicycle Alliance of Minnesota and technical concerns from the Motorcycle Industry Council; industry witnesses requested electrical-safety certification language and minor technical clarifications for later inclusion.
Representative Mary Francis Clarity introduced HF 37 74 on bicycle performance at yellow signals. After consultation with bicycle advocates and local officials, the A1 amendment narrowed the requirement so it applies only to dedicated bikeways and bicycle-specific traffic signals (not shared lanes), a change supporters said improves safety without creating dangerous unexpected stops in mixed traffic. That amendment was adopted and the bill was laid over.
Both bills were left open for further technical refinement and fiscal review; no final committee-level policy change was enacted beyond adopting the technical amendments and laying the measures over.
