Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the E Bike Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Matthews commissioners ask staff to rewrite e-bike ordinance after safety and enforcement debate
Summary
After a detailed presentation on device definitions and enforcement options, the board requested staff to revise a Davidson‑modeled draft e-bike ordinance — focusing on education, age thresholds, and enforceability — and return for further consideration in August; no vote was taken.
Senior planner Nadeen Bennett reviewed a draft ordinance intended to regulate electric bikes, mopeds and similar devices and said the draft largely mirrors Davidson’s model while reflecting North Carolina requirements. She told the board that, under state guidance, an e-bike is typically limited to about 750 watts, must have pedals and is limited to 20 mph; mopeds are defined under 30 mph and may require registration and insurance; motorcycles exceed 30 mph and require a motorcycle endorsement and helmet.
"If it's going over 20 mph, it's a moped or a motorcycle," Bennett said, showing examples of advertised devices that exceed the 20 mph threshold and stressing that many parents unknowingly buy higher‑powered machines for their children. She urged a strong educational campaign to help residents distinguish true e-bikes from modified motorcycles.
The board’s discussion focused on where different devices should be allowed, whether speed limits can be enforced on greenways and sidewalks, how to write a clear age threshold, and what penalties and enforcement tools to include. Several commissioners said they preferred an education-first approach before strict enforcement. Commissioner Kerry Lamson warned that a broadly prohibitive ordinance could “punish the whole town” and urged careful tailoring so responsible riders are not unduly restricted.
A police representative explained officer discretion and the draft penalty approach: "First offense is a warning; second time is $100, and anytime after that is $200," and encouraged an ordinance that preserves enforcement discretion during an initial education period.
Town Attorney Daniel Peterson recommended stating an education-and-review policy outside the ordinance (a policy statement rather than a codified sunset) so the council can revisit the rules as technology and usage evolve.
Rather than adopt the Davidson text verbatim, the board asked staff to "massage" the draft to match Matthews’ local needs, consider clearer age definitions and enforcement language, strengthen public education, and return with a revised ordinance for further consideration at the second meeting in August. No formal action or vote was taken on the ordinance at the June 22 meeting.
What happens next: staff will incorporate commissioner feedback into a revised draft and present it to the board at a later meeting for further debate and possible adoption.
