Littleton council seeks narrower e-bike rules, focusing on Class 3 bikes and e-motorcycles
Council members want clearer rules for higher-powered bikes, trail use, enforcement and parental responsibility, but no penalties, appeal procedures or return date have been finalized.
Littleton City Council directed staff Aug. 25 to narrow and clarify a proposed e-bike and e-motorcycle ordinance, focusing on higher-powered vehicles, trail use, enforcement and parental responsibility rather than broad new restrictions on ordinary Class 1 and Class 2 e-bikes.
The council took no final legislative action. The Aug. 25 council packet labels the ordinance as a draft, with its ordinance number, public-hearing date and vote fields blank.
Council members generally opposed additional city restrictions on Class 1 and Class 2 e-bikes, though they differed on whether some reported problems involve Class 2 bikes. They showed more support for addressing Class 3 bikes because of their speed and overlap in public perception with e-motorcycles.
The presentation described Class 3 e-bikes as pedal-assist bicycles that can provide assistance up to 28 mph and must have a speedometer. It categorized some larger vehicles as e-motos or mopeds and vehicles above 4,476 watts as electric motorcycles or dirt bikes requiring a motorcycle license.
Trail use and enforcement
Under the state-law summary in the presentation, Class 3 e-bikes may be ridden on roadways, while Class 1 and Class 2 e-bikes may be allowed on bike, multi-use and pedestrian paths. Local authorities can impose additional path restrictions, the presentation said. The draft does not establish a separate express trail ban for Class 3 e-bikes or e-motorcycles.
Trail use instead appears in proposed provisions on parental responsibility and the release of impounded bikes. Council members also discussed clearly prohibiting e-motorcycles on trails and addressing riders who cut through parks or open space, but those ideas remain subject to further drafting.
Police described trail enforcement as difficult because riders sometimes flee and pursuing them can endanger other users. During the public meeting discussion, police reported seven completed contacts involving e-bikes or e-motorcycles, along with more attempted stops in which riders fled. Staff said education and contact with parents would generally be preferable to citations or impoundment unless a rider’s conduct was careless or reckless.
Proposed parental penalties are not adopted
The draft would prohibit a parent or legal guardian from causing, permitting or knowingly allowing a minor under 18 to operate an electrical assisted bicycle on public property in violation of the Model Traffic Code or the proposed city section.
Council members discussed escalating parental penalties of $250 for a first offense, $500 for a second and $1,000 for a third. City legal staff indicated that a mandatory-fine structure could be drafted, but the schedule was only a proposal for further drafting and legal review. No fines, parental penalties or other provisions were adopted Aug. 25.
Impoundment and appeals
The draft would allow a commissioned police employee to impound an electrical assisted bicycle that is mechanically unsafe, lacks equipment required under the Model Traffic Code, or is being held as evidence of a crime or traffic matter.
For a bike held because of an unsafe condition or missing equipment, the draft would withhold release until the problem is corrected or city staff are satisfied it will not be operated on Littleton public property until the problem is fixed. Evidence-related property would be handled under a separate city-code provision.
Council members raised questions about notice, hearings and how an owner could challenge an impoundment. Staff said the revised ordinance should spell out an administrative process modeled on a tow hearing, allowing an owner to challenge whether the impoundment was lawful. The discussion did not establish a notice method, hearing deadline, burden of proof or other final appeal standards.
No return date set
Staff said it would revise the proposal, circulate it to council and interested community groups, and determine whether another study session was needed. If no study session was requested, staff said the draft could proceed to a first reading.
As of Aug. 27, the city’s official meeting listings did not identify a specific return date or agenda item for the revised proposal. The packet referred only to a subsequent City Council meeting.
The draft also would authorize South Suburban Park and Recreation District park rangers, on district-owned or managed property, to issue, execute and serve municipal-court process for alleged violations of the proposed e-bike section. That authority is not currently adopted. Staff said South Suburban had not yet been consulted, and it remained unclear whether rangers would use the authority or continue referring matters to police.