Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates audible-device amendment for e-bikes and scooters; amendment fails, ordinance adopted
Summary
Council members sparred over an amendment to require audible devices on electric bikes and scooters to aid people with disabilities. The amendment failed 5–8 after debate about feasibility, enforcement and noise; the broader ordinance updating e-bike/scooter rules then passed unanimously.
The City Council debated an amendment to a proposed ordinance updating rules for electric bicycles and scooters that would have required audible devices — a bell, horn or spoke-mounted noise maker — to warn pedestrians and assist people with visual impairments.
Council member Bedford, sponsor of the amendment, said the change was prompted by feedback from the citizens committee for disability and would improve safety for visually and mobility-impaired users. "All that we are asking is that same requirement is given to people with visual impairments so that they can also have some safety features," Bedford said.
Attorney Atterberry clarified that state law already requires an "audible signal" as a baseline and explained the amendment’s additional devices were a local policy choice. "This is ultimately a policy determination," Atterberry said, noting a possible minor legal risk if local language exceeds state law but that public health and safety considerations are valid.
Council members expressed a range of concerns. Some, including Council member Mandel and Council member Janssen, said the intent is worthy but that the measure may need broader public discussion and market research about available devices. Others, including Council member Weston and Council member Trost, said adding extra sound-producing devices could create noise complaints, particularly near residential trails.
When the council voted, the amendment to require the additional sound-producing devices failed 5–8. The council then considered the original updated ordinance language (which incorporates state-law baseline audible-signal requirements and other clarifications). After further discussion about trail definitions and park sidewalk language, the council adopted the underlying ordinance unanimously.
Council members said they expect continued public conversation about accessibility and enforcement, and some suggested the proposal could return in refined form after community feedback and technical review.
