By CJ Lindor
Late last week, the agenda for the coming week’s Transportation Committee was released, which will be focused on the issue of E-Bikes and E-motos. We are glad to see that BikeMN’s E-moto bill (SF4186) is coming before the committee. This helps to clarify the requirements for devices that are too-fast and/or too-powerful to be treated as E-bikes and should be referred to as “E-motos” — the short version is these are considered Motor Vehicles, and should not be used on public roads unless they are registered, driven by a licensed driver, and follow all the rules of the road.
We were surprised to learn about 2 additional bills – SF3236 and SF3280 – that would create new requirements for E-bike riders. BikeMN will be opposing both bills, and is encouraging members to share testimony about these bills. (Testimony can be shared in writing in advance, or live during the committee hearing either in-person, or remotely via Zoom. Here is the direction for providing testimony for the Senate: If you wish to offer testimony in this hearing, please contact the committee administrator at beth.ethier@mnsenate.gov before 9:00am on Wednesday, April 8.) Below is an excerpt from the letter than BikeMN sent to the bills author, Senator Ann Johnson Stewart (45, DFL).
Hello Senator Johnson Stewart,
We just learned this week about 2 bills are planned to be heard at the next Senate Transportation committee on Wednesday April 8th regarding e-bike safety, specifically the U18 helmet requirement and allowing local speed limit ordinances for ebikes. It might not surprise you to know that BikeMn is not supportive of either policy. BikeMn supports policies that improve road safety and/or equitable access, but we don’t believe either of these proposals are likely to accomplish this, and may cause unintended harms.
I can provide a brief explanation of our position on each issue (below), but the main thing I would ask for is an opportunity to meet with you about these issues before the hearing on Wednesday afternoon, to understand the issues you’re attempting to address and discuss our ideas on the optimal ways the state might seek to address these, from our perspective.
I noted with interest that the committee hearing will open with a Presentation (from Mndot and/or DPS?) on the recently completed Youth e-Bike Safety study. As you surely saw, this report “recommends 26 actions to enhance e-bike safety and equitable mobility for youth” across 7 distinct Strategies. I was part of the working group that helped to study this issue and generate the report. The study included a literature review, a peer review, a review of crash injuries, and stakeholder interviews. Neither the helmet requirement nor the speed limit ordinances were among the specific actions recommended by the study, and if there is data or examples to support these policies, they were not identified through any of the thorough review processes.
On the issue of mandatory helmet laws in particular, BikeMn strongly encourages voluntary use of helmets as an effective layer of safety, and supports effective interventions to increase helmet usage including education and helmet giveaways. With regards to enforcement of mandatory helmet laws, I would first direct your attention to this paragraph from page 8 of the report (emphasis added):
While safety risks related to e-bikes do exist, they must be contextualized in order to appropriately mitigate risk while allowing safe and equitable mobility. Data shows that youth are far more likely to be injured or killed in motor vehicle crashes than bicycle or e-bike crashes. Trends and data emphasize the need to ensure safe riding practices, appropriate driving and riding speeds, sharing the road and trails, wearing safety gear, and obeying traffic laws. However, over-regulation can have unintended negative consequences, such as biased enforcement, and can create undue burden on youth, their families, and public safety agencies. Well-designed roadways with complementary educational practices are effective for ensuring a safe transportation system, including for youth e-bike riders
In general, enforcement as a mechanism for changing behaviors is known to have a limited impact that is limited to the specific time and location of a given campaign, and persists at most up to two weeks. Compared to other interventions, it’s one of the least effective at creating lasting change. Moreover, as noted by the national League of American Bicyclists, “Bills like this might not seem harmful but could have serious equity and justice implications and simply haven’t been found to be effective in increasing helmet use.” BikeMn also wants people to wear helmets more often, but trying to accomplish this through punitive enforcement is not an effective means to achieve this goal, and creates harm for communities.
I think that the issue that both these bills are attempting to address is the dangerous behaviors observed of often unlicensed operators on electric-motorcycles driving erratically in traffic. BikeMn absolutely agrees that this is a problem that needs to be addressed. I have heard law enforcement officers talk about the need for additional enforcement options to address this, because the existing laws about age restrictions, equipment requirements, or traffic rules do not give them enough options to initiate an enforcement action. At a town hall in Wayzata on the issue of e-bikes, several officers specifically proposed local helmet ordinances that would give them a pretext to initiate a stop of someone they suspect is under age 15 and/or riding an illegal (unregistered) electric motorcycle. BikeMn strongly opposes any laws used as a pretext for stopping a person walking or biking to investigate other issues if that person is otherwise not breaking any laws or causing potential danger to themself or others.
BikeMN remains committed to ensuring the our roads are as safe as possible for people walking, biking, and rolling, and supports effective interventions to increase safe and responsible behaviors. While we believe that the goals of SF3236 and SF3280 are aligned with these priorities, we don’t believe these will lead to equitable nor effective outcomes, and are likely to create unintended harm for community members. We would appreciate an opportunity to discuss further about how to best support the goals of responsible riding and traffic safety without ineffective inequitable punitive regulation.
Minnesota is a national leader in forward-thinking transportation policy — and that didn’t happen by chance. For over 17 years, BikeMN has been at the table, fight after fight, shaping a future where biking, walking, and rolling is safe, accessible, and valued. That work is funded by members like you. Join as a sustaining supporter today at bikemn.org/join — $5 or $10 a month helps ensure Minnesota stays ahead. We all move forward together.