Brentwood committee reviews broad draft to regulate e-bikes, scooters and other motorized alternatives

The Brentwood Public Safety Committee on Jan. 7 opened a detailed review of a proposed ordinance to classify and restrict e-bikes, mini‑bikes, motorized scooters and other micro‑mobility devices, discussing age limits, helmet requirements, where devices may be used and potential penalties.

The draft separates pedal‑assist e‑bikes (classes 1–3) from other motorized alternative vehicles and proposes four main changes: age restrictions, location restrictions (distinguishing residential streets, main thoroughfares and paved multi‑use trails), mechanisms to hold parents responsible when minors operate devices illegally, and adjustments to fines. The committee asked the city attorney to provide an executive summary that maps the policy intent to specific draft sections.

Resident Stewart Clark, who said he has converted multiple bicycles to electric models, urged the committee to preserve access for riders who rely on independent throttles for safety, including tandem and adaptive trikes. "The throttle is very important from a safety standpoint because I've got two people on this bike, and they need to get the bike rolling," Clark said, and left informational materials with staff.

Another resident, Mark Abels, described frequent sightings of children riding powered bikes without helmets and urged stronger helmet requirements and parental oversight. "It's as crazy to ride a bike without a helmet whether it's an electric bike or a standard bike as it is to ride a motorcycle without a helmet," Abels said.

Committee members focused on two technical issues: whether a city helmet ordinance should mirror Missouri and St. Louis County requirements and how to define the age or licensure threshold that would restrict certain motorized alternatives. A committee member asked whether the helmet language in the draft is consistent with state and county law; staff said the proposed helmet rule would be the city's own ordinance and agreed to verify consistency with state law and neighboring municipalities.

Members also debated language that ties permitted operation of certain motorized alternatives to possession of a driver's license. Staff said the intent was to limit some devices for juveniles (and those without a license) on public streets, but members raised concerns about unintended consequences for adults who lack driving privileges.

The parks section drew particular scrutiny after members flagged contradictory wording that appeared to both permit devices on paved trails and prohibit some devices in city parks. Staff agreed to ask the city attorney to resolve the inconsistency and to "tweak the wording" so the ordinance's intent is clear. Committee members also requested an outreach plan: if the ordinance passes, the city would run a social media and parent outreach campaign and consider notifying the school district.

No formal vote was taken on the ordinance Jan. 7. The committee asked staff to request an executive summary from the city attorney that (1) explains how the draft addresses ADA and mobility‑device exemptions, helmet rules, park‑path distinctions and enforcement, and (2) compares Brentwood's approach with other municipalities. The item is expected to return to the committee for further review before any formal action by the Board of Aldermen.