Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Micro Mobility Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Police present draft ordinance to regulate e‑bikes, scooters and other micromobility devices; council seeks revisions and education plan
Summary
Belmont police presented a draft Chapter 75 ordinance to align local code with North Carolina law and set operating rules for micromobility devices, e‑bikes, motorized scooters and mopeds. Council asked for simplification, enforcement/education plans and additional review; the ordinance will return for further consideration in August.
City police presented a draft ordinance that would amend Belmont City Code Chapter 75 to regulate electric‑assisted bicycles (ebikes), motor‑driven bicycles, motorized scooters, and smaller micromobility devices (hoverboards, electric skateboards and similar devices).
Lindsay, who presented the proposal on behalf of the police department, told council the ordinance’s goals are to align the code with North Carolina law, provide consistent operating rules so residents know where and how devices may be used, protect pedestrians and maintain ADA accessibility. "The goal is to establish clear rules that improve public safety while remaining consistent with North Carolina law," Lindsay said.
The draft distinguishes device classes and links those classes to state speed thresholds: micromobility devices are limited to 15 mph, electric‑assisted bicycles and motorized scooters to 20 mph, mopeds to 30 mph. The ordinance includes a downtown "dismount" zone limiting sidewalk use in the core, provisions requiring lamps for certain devices operated after sunset, and a framework for impoundment and fines. Presenters said enforcement would focus on education first, with gradual enforcement and public outreach.
Council members raised practical and equity questions: how to differentiate devices in the field, how to address modified ebikes that exceed their factory speed, whether to require permits or a voluntary registry, and what age limits the city can impose. Several council members said the largest immediate concern is modified motor‑driven bicycles used by minors and that enforcement resources are limited.
Lindsay and police staff proposed an education phase (for example, an initial month of outreach and signage) before active enforcement and said they would research permitting options for higher‑powered devices. Council and staff discussed examples of enforcement action, impoundment procedures and parental responsibility provisions available under state law.
Council members asked staff to simplify the draft where possible, consider examples from other towns, and return with a redline/blueline version. The item was presented for information and discussion; council did not vote to adopt the ordinance at this meeting but indicated a desire to present a revised draft at the August meeting/workshop and to develop a public‑education timeline.
