Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ebike Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Franklin leaders hear riders urge clearer e-bike rules, signage and education
Summary
Residents and e-bike advocates urged the Franklin board to clarify definitions distinguishing e-bikes from motorized scooters, to sign multi-use paths and to emphasize education, while aldermen pressed staff for targeted enforcement data and limited signage rather than broad bans.
A Franklin resident and members of the local e-bike community urged the Board of Mayor and Aldermen on Tuesday to tighten language in the city’s proposed e-bike ordinance and to use signage and public education rather than sweeping new restrictions.
Kathy Faulkner, who identified herself as a Franklin resident and e-bike owner, told the board she reviewed the draft remotely and asked the city to adopt the federal (and Tennessee) definitions for the three classes of e-bikes. “Too many residents are unaware that e‑motos do not meet any of the three classifications of e-bikes,” Faulkner said, warning that misclassification could push legitimate e-bike riders into the motorcycle code and prompt unintended citations.
Kim Harris, who said she has ridden e-bikes for 13 years and spoke for the local e-bike community, thanked the mayor and aldermen for not rushing new rules and urged education for retailers, emergency personnel and the public. “Whatever this looks like, education is a must,” Harris said, noting that class 1 and 2 riders typically average about 12–14 mph while class 3 riders average 22–25 mph and are primarily road commuters.
Why it matters: The board is updating local code to incorporate electric mobility devices. Residents told officials that unclear definitions — and confusion between e-bikes and faster, motorized e-motos — could criminalize common users and push low-speed riders onto high-speed streets if multi-use paths are restricted without adequate signage.
Board members and staff spent much of the discussion on where the new rules should allow each class of device to operate and who should enforce them. Staff noted the draft sets class 3 e-bikes to streets only and that helmet requirements are tiered: riders under 16 must wear helmets on class 1 and 2 e-bikes, while helmets are required for all riders of class 3. Several board members pressed staff to work with Parks and the city bike team on targeted signs to identify which multi‑use paths are open to e-bikes, rather than putting up a large number of new signs citywide.
One alderman asked staff for data on e-bike related police calls and enforcement outcomes to better tailor any restrictions; staff said it would pull available statistics. Other aldermen asked that the board revisit the rules in about a year to assess whether the policy, outreach and signage have reduced conflicts and unsafe behavior.
What was not decided: The session recorded public comment and detailed discussion but no formal vote on the ordinance. Staff said the PSA and a QR code already in circulation direct residents to more information and that the draft would be adjusted to clarify terminology and path signage as directed by the board.
Context and clarifications: Speakers repeatedly emphasized a distinction between e-bikes (the three-class federal/Tennessee framework) and e-motos (motorized scooters or mini‑motorcycles). Several speakers requested specific phrasing changes in sections that currently say only “bicycle,” to avoid implying the ordinance excludes or mislabels e-bikes.
Next steps: Staff will compile the board’s feedback on definitions, signage and enforcement and return with proposed clarifications; several board members asked staff to bring the item back for review in roughly a year to evaluate outcomes.
