Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
16 Venessa Garza 3-3
10 .04.045. -Regulation of operation and use of motor assisted scooters, mopeds and similar motorized cles. A. Definitions. When used in this Section, the following words and phrases shall have the respective meanings ascribed to them: "Child" means any person under 16 years of age . "Daytime hours" means the time period beginning at sunrise and ending at sunset. "Electric bicycle " means a bicycle that: A. Is designed to be propelled by an electric motor, exclusively or in combination with the application of hu r.1an power; B. Cannot attain a speed of more than 20 miles per hour; and C. Does not exceed a weight of 100 pounds. "Golf cart" means a motor vehicle designed by the manufacturer primarily for transporting persons on a golf course. "Helmet" means properly fitted protective headgear that is not structurally damaged and that conforms to the standards of the American National Standards Institute, the American Society for Testing and Materials, the Snell Memorial Foundation or any federal agency having regulatory jurisdiction over bicycle helmets, as applicable at the time of the manufacture of the helmet. "Moped" means a motor-driven cycle that cannot attain a speed in one mile of more than 30 miles per hour and the engine of which : A. Cannot produce more than two-brake horsepower; and B. If an internal combustion engine, has a piston displacement of 50 cubic centimeters or less and connects to a power drive system that does not require the operator to shift gears . "M otor assisted scooter" shall have the same meaning assigned by Chapter 551, Texas Transportation Code, as ~ may be amen dey nd includes self-propelled devices with at least two wheels in contact with the ground during operation; a braking system capable of stopping the device under typical operating conditions; a gas or electric motor 40 cubic centimeters or less; a deck designed to allow a person to stand or sit while operating the device; and the ab i lity to be propelled by human power alone. "Motorized vehicle " for purposes of this section, shall include self-propelled devices with two or more wheels in contact with the ground during operation , a braking system capable of stopping the device under typical operating conditions, a gas or electric motor more than 40 cubic centimeters; and a seat. "Neighborhood electric vehicles" means a vehicle subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety stand ; (49 CFR § 571.500). "Parent" means the natural or adoptive parent or court-appointed guardian or conservator of a child . "Personal assistive mobility device" means a two non-tandem wheeled device designed for transporting one person that is self balancing and propelled by an electric propulsion system with an average power of 750 watts or one horsepower. "Pocket bike" or "mini motorbike" means a self-propelled vehicle that is equipped with an electric motor or internal combustion engine having a piston displacement of less than 50 cubic centimeters, is designed to propel itself with not more than two wheels in contact with the ground, has a seat or saddle for the use o the operator, is not designed for use on a highway, and is ineligible for a certificate of title under state law. The term does not include a moped or motorcycle; an electric bicycle or motor driven cycle as defined by Section 541.201 of the Texas Transportation Code; a motorized mobility device as defined by Section 552.009 of the Texas Transportation Code; an electric personal assistive mobility device as defined by Section 551.201 of the Texas Transportation Code; or a neighborhood electric vehicle. "Public street " means the paved or improved surface of a public street, road, or alley . "Wearing a he lmet" means that the person has a helmet fastened securely to his/her head with the straps of the helmet securely tightened in the manner prescribed by the manufacturer to provide maximum protection . B. Restrictions and prohibition for motor assisted scooters, mopeds and similar motorized vehicles. 1. Locations of use. a. Hike and bike trails; City parks. i. It shall be unlawful for a person to operate a motor assisted scooter, moped, pocket bike or minimotorbike, neighborhood electric vehicle, golf cart or similar motorized vehicle on any designated "hike and bike" path or trail. ii . It shall be unlawful for a person to operate a motor assisted scooter, moped, pocket bike or minimotorbike, neighborhood electric vehicle, golf cart or similar motorized vehicle "off-road" or "off-trail" in City parks. iii. City-owned vehicles are excepted from this section. iv . This section does not prohibit the use of a personal assistive mobility device or electric bicycle on a hike and bike trail or "off-road" or "off-trail" in City parks. v. This section does not prohibit the use of golf carts on paths designated for the use of golf carts . b . Sidewalks. i. It shall be unlawfu l for a person to operate a golf cart, motor assisted scooter, moped, pocket bike or min i motorbike, or neighborhood electric vehicle on a sidewalk. ii. This section does not prohibit the use of a electric bicycle or personal assistive I mobility device on a sidewalk . c. Path designated for the exclusive operation of bicycles. i. It shall be unlawful for a person to operate a golf cart, neighborhood electric vehicle, pocket bike or mini motor bike, or moped on a path designated for the exclusive operation of bicycles. ii. This section does not prohibit the operation of an electric bicycle, motor assisted scooter, or personal assistive mobility devices on a path designated for the exclusive operation of bicycles. d . Public street. i. It shall be unlawful for a person to operate a neighborhood electric vehicle on a public street for "Vhich the posted speed limit is more than 35 miles per hour. A neighborhood electric vehicle may cross a public street at an intersection where the road or street has a posted speed limit of 35 miles per hour or more. ii. It shall be unlawful for a person to operate a motor assisted scooter, pocket bike or minimotorbike on a public street regardless of the speed limit. iii . This section does not prohibit the use of a moped or electric bicycle on a public street regardless of the speed limit. iv . This section does not prohibit the use of a personal assistive mobility device on a public street provided that such use is in accordance with the provisions of the Texas TransportJtion Code pertaining to such operation. v. This section does not prohibit the use of a golf cart on a public street if: (1) The operation of the golf cart occurs in the daytime, as defined by Transportation Code Section 541.401; and (2) The operation : (A) Does not exceed a distance of two miles from the point of origin to the destination if driven to and from a golf course; or (B) Occurs entirely within a master planned community with a uniform set of restrictive covenants that has had a plat approved by the City. e. Additional rules applicable to operation by a child. It shall be unlawful for a child to operate a moped, electric bicycle, or neighborhood electric vehicle on any public street or highway as follows: i. After daytime hours; or ii. At any time where the posted speed limit is more than 30 miles per hour. 2 . Liability of parent. It shall be unlawful for a parent to knowingly or unknowingly allow a child to operate or ride a motor assisted scooter, moped, electric bicycle, or neighborhood electric vehicle in violation of Sections 10.04.045 B.1.a., b. or c. 3. Helmet r equired on child. a: It shall be unlawful for any child to operate or ride a moped, electric bicycle, or neig h borhood electri c vehicle on a public street or highway at any time unless the child is wea r ing a helmet. b . It shall be unlawful for a parent to knowingly or unknowingly allow or permit a child to operate or ride a moped, electric bicycle, or neighborhood electric vehicle on a public street or highway at any time unless the child is wearing a helmet. C. Penalty. It sh all be unlawful for any person to violate any provis i on of this Section, and any person violating or failing to comply with any provision of th is ordinance shall be fined, upon conviction, n ot less than $1 .00 nor more than $500 .00, and a separate offense shall be deemed committed upon each day during or on which a violation occurs or continues . (Ord . No . 2006-103, § 3) CHAPTER 12-2. -MICRO-MOBILITY DEVICES AND BICYCLES . ARTICLE 1. -GENERAL PROVISIONS . § 12-2-1 -DEF INITIONS . In this chapter: (1) CHILD means a per~·'Jn younger than 18 years of age who has not been married or had the disabilities of minority removed for general purposes. (2) DIRECTOR means the directo r of the Austin Transportation Department. (3) BICYCLIST means a person operating a bicycle . (4) PARENT means the natural or adoptive parent or court-appointed guard i an or conservator of a child . (5) RIDER means a person operating a bicycle or a micro-mobility device. (6) SHARED MICRO-MOBILITY SERVICE means a publicly offered transportation service that enables a person to obtain short-term access to a micro-mobility device on an as-needed basis. Source: 1992 Code Secti on 16-8-1; Ord. 031204 -13; Ord. 031211 -11 ; Ord. No.20190523-059, Pt. 6, 5-3-19. § 12-2-2 -APPLICABILITY . This chapter applies when a rider operates a micro-mobility device or bicyc le on a street or sidewalk. Source: 1992 Code Section 16-8-2 (CJ; Ord. 031204-13; Ord. 031211-11 ; Ord. No .20190523-059, Pt. 7, 5-3-19. ARTICLE 2. -MICRO-MOBILITY DEVICE AND BICYCLE TRAFFIC REGULATIONS . Footnotes : ---(15302_T12CH002_1) --- Editor's note-Ord. No . 20190523-059 , Pt. 8, effective Ma y 3, 2019 , amended Chapter 12-2, Article 2 title to read as herein set out. Formerly, such title pertained to Bicycle Traffic Regulations . § 12-2-11 -APPLICABILITY OF VEHICLE TRAFFIC RULES . A r i der shall comply with the requirements of this title i mposed on a driver of a vehicle, to the extent that the requirements may be applied to operati on of a m i cro-mobility device or bicycle . l ource: 1992 Code Section 16-8-20; Ord. 031204-13; Ord. 031211-11 ; Ord. No.20190523-059, Pt. 9, 5-3-19 . § 12-2-12 -OBEDIENCE TO TRAFFIC -CONTROL DEVICES. -- (A) A rider shall obey the i nstruction of official traffic signals, signs, and other traffic-cont rol devices applicable t vehicles, unless otherwise directed by a police officer. (B) Unless a bike lane is specifically designated otherwise, a rider travelling in a bike lane may not travel in the opposite direction of adjacen t motor vehicles in the roadway . (C) A rider shall obey traffic signs that prohibit a r ight, left, or "U" turn , except when the rider dismounts from the micro-mobil ity device or bicycle to make the turn . A rider who dismounts shall obey regulations applicable to pedestrians . Source : 1992 Code Section 16-8-21 ; Ord. 031204-13,· Ord. 031211-11 ; Ord. No .20190523-059. Pt. 9, 5-3-19. § 12-2-13 -USE OF SIDEWA LKS . (A) Except as provided in Subsections (B) and (C), a person may ride a micro-mobility device or b icycle on a sidewalk i n a reasonab le and prudent manner. (B) Riders shall yield to pedestria ns on sidewalks and in cross walks . (C) Riders shall operate on sidewa lk s in a manner consistent with the Americans With Disabilities Act and that does not endanger or hinder the movement of persons with limited mobility or other sidewalk users. Source: 1992 Code Section 16-8-22; Ord. 031204-13; Ord. 031211 -11 ; Ord. 20060727-016,· Ord. No.20190523-059, Pt. 10, 5 -3 -1 9. § 12-2-14-EXITING FROM ALLEY, DRIVEWAY, OR BUILDING . A rider exiting from an alley, driveway, or building shall yield the right-of-w ay to a pedestrian on a sidewalk or sidewalk area, or to a veh icle on a roadway . Source: 1992 Code Secti on 16-8-23; Ord. 031204-13; Ord. 03121 1-11; Ord. No.201 9 0523-059, Pt. 9, 5 -3-1 9. § 12-2-15 -PARKING . (A) A person shall not park a micro-mobility device or bicycle : (1) in a manner that obstructs pedestrian or veh icle traffic; (2) i n a space designated as a veh icle parking place or between two designated vehicle parking p laces, unless otherwise ma rk ed; (3) in a man n er that obstr ucts transit stops, shelters , or platforms; (4) on any part of an accessibil ity ramp for persons with disab iliti es , or in any manner that would restrict the movement of persons with disabilities; (5) in designated and marked special use zones, including, but not limited to, commercial service zones, passeng er loading zones, customer service zones and valet zones; (6) in a manner that obstructs fire suppression appurtenances, building entryways , exits, or veh icular driveways ; (7) on or near railroad or li ght rail tracks or crossings ; (8) in a manner that obstructs street furniture that pedestrians access, including, but not limited to, benche parking pay stations; or (9) on any private property without the permission of the owner. (8) A person shall not attach or secure a micro-mobility device or bicycle to public or private property in a manner that may damage, impair, or render the property unusable. (C) A person shall park a micro-mobility device or bicycle : (1) in designated spaces marked for such use; (2) in a manner which does not obstruct a roadway, path, sidewalk, crosswalk, or other pedestrian-way; (3) in a manner which does not obstruct building entrances, exits, fire exits, delivery areas, or alleyways; (4) in a manner which does not obstruct travel and movement in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act; or (5) in a manner which does not trespass on or obstruct private property, unless authorized by owner. Source: 7992 Code Section 76-8-24; Ord. 037204-73; Ord. 031211-71; Ord. No.20790523-059, Pt. 11, 5-3-19. § 12 -2-1 6 -RIDING RESTRICTIONS. (A) Except as otherwise directed by a traffic-control device or a police officer, a rider shall ride in accordance with state law. (8) A rider shall not operate a micro-mobility device or bicycle between vehicles traveling or stand i ng in the same direction within marked lanes of a roadway or contrary to established traffic control devices. Source: 1992 Code Section 16-8-25; Ord. 031204-13; Ord. 031211-11; Ord. No.20190523-059, Pt. 12, 5-3-19. § 12-2-17 -RIDING ON RESTRICTED OR PROHIBITED STREETS . A rider may not operate a micro-mobility device or bicycle on a street or sidewalk where riding is prohibited or on a street during the hours that riding is prohibited on the street. Source: 1992 Code Section 16-8-26; Ord. 037204-13; Ord. 031211-11; Ord. No.20190523-059, Pt. 12, 5-3-19. § 12-2-18-RIDER DUTIES. A rider who causes injury to a person or damage to property shall immediately stop the micro-mobility device or bicycle and: (A) Provide any injured person reasonable assistance; (B) Give the injured person or owner of damaged property the rider's name, address, and phone number; and (C) If the damaged property is unattended, the rider must leave in a conspicuous place, or secure ly attached in a visible way to the property, a written notice with the rider's name, address, and phone number. Source: Ord . No. 20190523-059 , Pt. 13, 5-3-19 . ARTICLE 3. -SAFETY EQUIPMENT. Footnotes: ---(15302_T12CH002_2) --- Editor's note-. Ord. No . 20190523-059 . Pt. 14 , effective May 3, 2019 , amended Chapter 12-2, Article 3 title to read as herein set out. Formerly, such title pertained to Bicycle Helmets. § 12-2-31 -HELMET REQUIRED. (A) Except as permitted by Section 12-2-33 (Health Condition Exemption) a child may not operate or ride a micro-mobility device or a bicycle, sidecar, trailer, child carrier, seat, or other device attached to a micro- mobility device or bicycle unless the child is wearing a helmet. (B) Except as permi tted by Section 12-2-33 (Health Condition Exemption) a parent may not permit a ch ild to operate or ride a micro-mobility device or a bicycle, sidecar, trailer, child carrier seat, or other device attached to a micro-mobility device or bicycle unless the child is wearing a helmet. (C) Under this se cti on, a helmet must (1) be properly fitted and securely fastened to the child's h~ad with the straps securely tightened ; (2) not be structurally damaged; and (3) conform to the standards of the United States Product Safety Commission . Source: 1992 Code Secti ons 16-8-1 and 16-8-40; Ord. 031204-13; Ord. 031211-11; Ord. No.20190523-059, Pt. 15, 5-3- 19. § 12-2-32 -APPROVAL OF STANDARDS. The city council approves the bicycle helmet standards promulgated by the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission . Source: 1992 Code SectioQ 16-8-43; Ord. 031204-13; Ord. 031211-11; Ord. No.20190523-059, Pt. 15, 5-3-19. § 12-2-33 -HEALTH CON DI TION EXEMPTION . (A) A child is not required to wear a helmet if the child has in its immed iate possession a health exemption identification prescribed by this section. (B) The city ma nager shall provide a health exemption identification to a child with a written statement: (1) from a li censed physician that states the child's health condition and explains why the condition prevents the child from wearing a helmet; and (2) that is approved by the Austin-Travis County Health and Human Services Department. (C) The city manager shall establish procedures to implement this section. Source: 1992 Code Section 16-8-45; Ord. 031204-13; Ord. 031211-11. § 12 -2-34 -MULTIPLE RIDERS PROHIBITED. A rider may not operate a micro-m obility device or bicycle with another rider or occupant, unless the device or bicycle is specifically manufactured and des igned to accommodate multiple riders . Source : Ord . No . 20190523-059, Pt. 16, 5-3-19 . Editor's note-Ord . No . 20190523-059 , Pt. 16, adopted May 3, 2019, repealed the former§ 12-2 -34, and enacted a new§ 12-2-34 as set out herein . The former§ 12-2-34 pertained to sale of a bicycle and derived from 1992 Code Section 16-8-41 (A); Ord . 031204-13; Ord. 031211 -11. § 12 -2-35 -RESERVED . Editor's note-Ord . No. 20190523-059 , Pt. 17, adopted May 3, 2019, repealed § 12-2-35, which pertained to lease of a bicycle and derived from 1992 Code Section 16-8-41; Ord. 031204-13; Ord . 031211 -1 1. § 12-2-36 -PENAL TY; ENFORCEMENT . (A) A person commits an offense if the person performs an act prohib ited by this article or fails to perform an act required by this article. (8) A culpable mental state is not required for the commission of an offense under this article . (C) A separate offense is committed each time an offense occurs . (D) Prosecution for an offense under this article does not prevent the use of other enforcement remedies or procedures applicable to the person charged with the conduct or involved in the offense . (E) An offense under this article is a Class C misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed: (1) $20 on a first conviction; and (2) $40 on a subsequent conviction. (F) The municipal court may dismiss a charge against a person for an offense under Section 12 -2-31 (Helmet Required) on receiving proof that the defendant acquired a helmet for the child who was operating or r iding a micro-mobility device or bicycle in violation of Section 12-2-31 (Helmet Required) on or before the 30th day after the citation was issued. (G ) To promote the use of helmets, the city counc i l encourages the municipal court to consider deferred dispos itions under Article 45 .051 (Suspension of Sentence and Defe rral of Final Disposition) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure where appropriate . (H) A police officer or officer designated by the Director may iss ue a citation for any violation of this ordinance . Source: 1992 Code Sections 16-8-2 (A) and (8), and 16-8-42; Ord. 031204-13; Ord. 031211 -11 ; Ord. No.20190523-059. t. 18, 5-3-19. § 12-2-37 -CIVIL ACTIONS. (A) The city council adopts this article to encourage safety through the use of helmets and through the promotion of educational effort s. (B) The city counc i l does not intend this article to be used in a manner to prejudice a person , child, or parent in a civil action arising out of an accident. The council encourages construction of this article accordingly. Source: 1992 Code Sectio n 16-8-44,· Ord. 031204 -13; Ord. 031 2 11 -11 ; Ord. No.20190523-059, Pt. 19, 5-3-19. ORDINANCE NO. 2021-36 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MARCOS, TEXAS AMENDING CHAPTER 82, ARTICLE 9 OF THE SAN MARCOS CITY CODE-"BY EXEMPTING-MOTOR-ASSISTED SCOOTERS PROVIDED BY A COMMERCIAL SCOOTER COMPANY UNDER THE TERMS OF A LICENSE AGREEMENT APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL --FROM THE PROHIBl'l'ION AGAINST COMMERCIALLY OWNED SCOOTERS ON PUBLie-PROPERTY, STREETS AND SIDEWALKS IN THE CITY; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ANY CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR PENALTIES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. RECITALS: The City Council hereby finds and determines that the adoption of this ordinance is in the interest of the public health, welfare and safety. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MARCOS, TEXAS: SECTION 1. The Recitals are incorporated into this ordinance by reference as findings of fact for all purposes. SECTION 2. Chapter 82 , Traffic and Vehicles , of the San Marcos City Code , Article 9, Motor-Assisted Scooters Owned or Operated by Private Scooter Companies, is amended as set fo1ih below. Added text is indicated by underlining. Deleted text is indicated by underlining. ARTICLE 9. MOTOR-ASSISTED SCOOTERS OWNED OR OPERA TED BY SCOOTER COMPANIES. Sec. 82.295. Purpose. This article is established to enhance public safety by restricting the widescale placer.1ent and use of motor-assisted scooters owned by scooter companies within certain public areas of the city and on city-owned property. Sec. 82.296. Applicability. This article does not apply to: (1) A moped or motorcycle ; (2 ) A motor-assisted bicycle; - (3) A motorized mobility device designe d for transportation of persons with physical disabilities as defined under V .T .C.A., Transportation Code,§ 552A.0101; eF ( 4) A motor-assisted scooter autho1ized u nder a pilot program app roved l2Y the city"'".;.m:.. (5) A motor-assisted scooter authorized under terms of a written license 2fil:eement with a scooter company ap proved by the city council. Sec . 82.297. Defi nitions. Impoundment or impound as used in this article means removal by the city of a motor-assisted scooter to a temporary storage location or designated impound facility. Motor-assisted scooter means a self-propelled device with at least two wheels in contact with the ground during operation, a braking system capable of stopping the device under typical operating conditions; a gas or electric motor not exceed ing 40 cubic centimeters; a deck designed to allow a person to stand or sit while operating the device; and the ability to be propelled by human power alone. Scooter company means any person, business organization or entity that operates a scooter sharing business or service by which motor-assisted scooters are made available to the public for sh01t-term use or rental. Sec. 82.298 . Offenses. (a) Placement on public property prohibited. It is an offense for any scooter company, or any employee, contractor, agent or other representative acting on behalf of a scooter company, to abandon, place, or leave behind any motor- assisted scooter on any public property, public park (including natural areas and open spaces), public sidewalk, public way, public street, or public highway within the city, or on any city-owned property located outside the corporate limits of the city. A violation of this subsection is a misdemeanor offense punishable by a fine up to $2,000 .00 . (b) Use prohibited. It is an offense for any person to operate a motor- assisted scooter that is owned, controlled, or managed by, or on beh alf of, a scooter company on any public property, public park (including natural areas and open spaces), public sidewalk, public way , public street, or public highway within the city, or on any city-owned property located outside th e corporat(' limits of the city. A vio lation of this subsection is a misdemeanor offense punishable by a fine up to $50.00. ( c) Each violation under this section constitutes a separate offense. Sec. 82.299. Impoundment. (a) The city may impound any motor-assisted scooter owned, controlled, or managed by , or on behalf of, a scooter company found unattended on any public prope11y , public park (including natural areas and open spaces), public sidewalk, public way , public street , or highway within the city and on any city-owned property located outside the corporate limits of the city in violation of section 82 .298(a). (b) The city will attempt to provide notice of any impoundment to the scooter company, or agent of the scooter company, responsible for the motor- assisted scooter, as disclosed by the contact or other identifying information on the motor-assisted scooter. The notice may be attempted by telephone, electronic mail, U.S. mail , hand-delivery or publication, in the city's discretion. The notice shall outline the impoundment and redemption process , including the requirement to pay impoundment fees. If the scooter company responsible for the impounded motor- assisted scooter, or any employee, contractor, agent or other representative acting on behalf of the scooter company, contacts the city about an impounded motor- assisted scooter before notice of the impoundment is sent by the city, such contact shall be deemed notice of the impoundment. If the city is unable to readily identify the owner or other pai1y responsible for the impounded motor-assisted scooter, then notice of the impoundment need not be provided. ( c) Each motor-assisted scooter impounded under this section shall be subject to an impoundment fee of $50.00 per day impounded . SECTION 3. In codifying the changes authorized by thi s ordinance, paragraphs, sections and subsections may be renumbered and reformatted as appropriate consistent with the numbering and formatting of the San Marcos City Code . SECTION 4. If any word, phrase, clause, sentence, or paragraph of this ordinance is held to be unconstitutional or invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the other provisions of this ordinance will continue in force if they can be given effect without the invalid portion. SECTION 5. All ordinances and resolutions or parts of ordinances or resolutions in conflict with this ordinam.:e are repealed. SECTION 6. This ordinance will take effect after its passage, approval and adoption on second reading. PASSED AND APPROVED on first reading on May 4 , 2021. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on second reading on May 18 , 2021. ~~ Mayor Attest: Approved : r-v 'arvi .J r c:L---~ mm @ cook · · nterim City Clerk t 3/2/22 , 9 :44 AM 1 Sec. 25-1. -Definitions. Wctco Waco , TX Code of Ordinances F'or the purposes of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them by this section: Alley shall mean land dedicated to public use and devoted to secondary access to lots. Bicycle sha ll mean a device that a person may r ide and that is propelled by human power and has two tandem wheels at least one of which is more than 14 inches in diameter. It also includes a device that has more than two wheels and is designed for use by a person with reduced mobility (such as an adaptive or accessible bicycle). Boat trailer shall mean a trailer [or] semi-trailer which is designed and constructed to carry a sailboat, motorboat or other vessel used upon any body of water. Bus shall mean every motor vehicle designed for carrying more than 15 passengers and used for the transportation of persons, and every motor vehicle other than a taxicab, designed and used for the transportation of persons for compensation. Commercial motor vehicle shall mean a motor vehicle, other than a motorcycle, designed or used primarily to transport property. The term includes a passenger car reconstructed and used primarily for del ivery purposes. The term does not include a passenger car used to del iver the United States mail. Digging out shall mean the practice of starting any motor vehicle from a standing position by applying a sudden burst of power, recognized by spinning rear wheels and noise of tires on the surface of the roadway . This practice may also be characterized by the term "burning off." Driveway, private, shall mean any entrance or exit over the sidewalk or sidewalk area of any street affording a means of ingress or egress for vehicles to or from any private property. Electric bicycle, or £-bike, shall mean a bicycle designed to be propelled by an electr ic motor, exclusively or i n combinat ion with the application of human power, that cannot attain a speed of more than 20 miles per hour without the application of human power and does not exceed a weight of 100 pounds. Electric scooter, or £-scooter, or motor-assisted scooter, shall mean a self-propelled device with : at least two wheels in contact with the ground during operation; a braking system capable of stopping the device under typical operating conditions; a gas or electric motor not exceeding 40 cubic centimeters; a deck designed to allow a person to stand or sit while operating the device; the ability to be propelled by human power alone; and does not include a pocket bike or a mini motorbike as defined by Texas Transportation Code§ 551 .351. Farm tractor shall mean every motor vehicle designed and used primarily as a farm implement for drawing plows, mowing machines and other implements of husbandry. 1/5 312122 , 9 :44 AM Waco , TX Code of Ordin ances House trailer shall mean a trailer or semi-trailer which is designed, constructed and equipped as a \ dwelling place, living abode or sleeping place (either permanently or temporarily) and is equipped for us~ as a conveyance on streets and highways , and shall include those vehicles commonly known as recreational vehicles . Implement of husbandry shall mean every vehicle designed and adapted for use as a farm implement, machinery or tool as used in tilling the soil, but shall not include any passenger car or truck. Loading zone shall mean that portion of any roadway set apart, marked and numbered for the sole use of the public as a place for loading or unloading passengers, merchandise or other cargo. Motor home shall mean every vehicle designed and constructed as a dwelling place, living abode or sleeping place (either permanently or temporarily) and equipped for use as a conveyance on streets and highways. Motor vehicle shall mean a self-propelled vehicle or a vehicle that is propelled by electric power from overhead trolley wires . The term does not include an electric bicycle or any other transportation device, as defined in this section, or an electric personal assistive mobility device as defined by V.T.C.A., Transportation Code§ 551.201. No parking zone shall mean a space on the roadway adjacent to the curb, marked by official signs, in which no vehicle may be parked. Park, parking shall mean the standing of a vehicle, whether occupied or not, other than temporarily for the purpose of and while actually engaged in load ing or unloading merchandise or passengers. Parking stall or parking space shall mean that portion or section of a roadway adjacent to the curbing or edge, set apart, marked and bounded by lines painted or marked upon the surface of the roadway and extending into the roadway for the use of parking vehicles ; or that port ion of any alley marked by official signs showing such space to be a parking zone. Pole trailer shall mean every veh icle without motive power designed to be drawn by another vehicle and attached to the towing vehicle by means of a reach, or pole, or by being boomed or otherwise secured to the towing vehicle, and ordinarily used for transporting long or irregular ly shaped loads such as poles, pipes or structural members capable, generally, of sustaining themselves as beams between the supporting connections. Semitrailer shall mean every veh icle without motive power, other than pole trailer, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by a motor vehicle and so constructed that some part of its weight and that of its load rests upon or is carried by another vehicle. Shared mobility device shall mean a transportation device that is accessed by an on-demand portal (smartphone application, membership card, website, or similar method) and is part of a shared mobility system . 215 • 312122 , 9 :44 AM Waco , TX Code of Ordinances Shared mobility system shall mean a network or system of shared mobility devices or shared mobility activities, placed in the public right-of-way, public area, or on private property, and made available for rent in short-time increments. Shared-use path shall mean a path that is outside of a roadway and physically separated from motor vehicle traffic, and intended for use by bicyclists, pedestrians, and other authorized transportation devices as defined in this section. It is differentiated from a sidewalk, which is designed for preferential or exclusive use by pedestrians. Special mobile equipment shall mean every vehicle not designed or used primarily for the transportation of persons or property and only incidentally operated or moved over a highway, included but not limited to ditch digging apparatus, well-boring apparatus and road construction and maintenance machinery such as asphalt spreaders, bituminous mixers, bucket loaders, tractors other than truck tractors, ditchers, leveling graders, finishing machines, motor graders, road rollers, scarifies, earth moving carryalls and scrapers, power shovels and draglines, and self-propelled cranes and earth moving equipment. The term does not include house trailers, dump trucks, truck mounted transit mixers, cranes or shovels or other vehicles designed for the transportation of persons or property to which machinery has been attached. Street or highwayshall mean the entire width between the boundary lines of every way publicly maintained when any part thereof is open to the use of the public for purpose of vehicular and pedestrian travel. A street or highway shall be for primary public access to lots . Traffic engineer shall mean the director of engineering, who shall perform the duties and functions of the city traffic engineer unless the position of city traffic engineer is not vacant. Transportation device shall mean a device or structure that is human-powered or motor-powered (with a motor not exceeding 40 cubic centimeters) and that is used to carry person(s) and/or thing(s) from place to place. Examples include, but are not limited to, bicycles, electric bicycles, electric scooters, motor-assisted scooters, hand cycles, unicycles, and motor-driven cycles. Trailer shall mean every vehicle without motive power, other than a pole trailer, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by a motor vehicle and so constructed that no part of its weight rests upon the towing vehicle . Truck tractor shall mean every motor vehicle designed and used primarily for drawing other vehicles and not so constructed as to carry a load other than a part of the weight of the vehicle and load so drawn. U-turn shall mean the turning or causing the turning of a vehicle, so that when such turn is completed such vehicle will be headed in the opposite direction from that in which it was headed before such turning was begun, whether or not such vehicle is pulled into a driveway or any space beyond the curbline of the street. 315 312122 , 9:44 AM Waco , TX Code of Ordinances Vehicle sha l l mean every device, in, upon or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a street, except devices used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks. Whenever any words and phrases used in this chapter are not defined in this chapter, but are defined in the state laws regu lating the operation of vehicles, any such definition therein shall be deemed to apply to such words and phrases used in this chapter. (Code 1967, § 34-1; Ord. No . 2001-47, § 2, 7-3-01; Ord. No. 2014 -296,~, 6-3-14; Ord. No. 2016-292, § 1, 4- 19-16; Ord. No. 2019-287, § 1, 4-30-19) Cross reference-Definitions and rules of construction generally, § 1-2 . State Law reference-Definitions, Vernon's Ann. Civ . St. art. 6701 d, §§ 1-20L. ARTICLE XII. -TRANSPORTATION DEVICES AND SHARED MOBILITY DEVICES Footnotes : ---(11) --- Editor's note-Ord. No. 2019-287 , § 3, adopted April 30, 2019, changed the title of Art. XII from "Bicycles" to "Transportation Devices and Shared Mobility Devices". State Law reference-Authority of city to regulate operation of bicycles, Vernon's Ann. Civ. St. art. 6701d, § 27(a)(7); bicycles, Vernon's Ann . Civ. St. art. 6701d, § 178 et seq. Sec. 25-296. -Parental responsibility relative to chapter provisions. The parent of any child or the guardian of any ward shall not authorize or knowingly permit any such child or ward to violate any of the provisions of this article. (Code 1967, § 10-2) Sec. 25-297. -Parking. Except as permitted by a written agreement with the city concerning shared mobility devices or shared mobility activities, no person shall park a transportation device or shared mobility device upon a street other than upon the roadway against the curb or upon the sidewalk in a rack to support the transportation device or shared mobility device, or against a building, in such a manner as to afford the least obstruction to pedestrian traffic. (Code 1967, § 10-12; Ord. No. 2018-673, § 2, 7-17-18; Ord . No. 2019-287, § 3, 4-30-19) Sec. 25-298. -Riding on sidewalks . 415 ,I 3121'2 2 , 9 :44 AM Waco, TX Code of Ordinances No person shall ride a transportation device or shared mobility device upon a sidewalk within a business district. No person 12 or more years of age shall ride a transportation device or a shared mobility device upon any sidewalk in any district. (Code 1967, § 10-13; Ord. No. 2019-287 , § 3, 4-30-19) Sec. 25-299. -Shared mobility device activities. It shall be unlawful for a person that provides shared mobility devices on a short-term basis in exchange for compensation to place or allow to be placed any shared mobility device in the city's right-of-way or on city-owned property without an agreement with the city authorizing such use of the city's right-of-way or city-owned property. (Ord. No. 2018-673, § 2, 7-17-18; Ord. No. 2019-287, § 3, 4-30-19) Sec. 25-300. -Riding on shared-use paths. Tra nspo rtation devices and shared mobility devices may be operated on shared-use paths. When riding on a shared-use path, users of transportation devices and shared mobil ity devices must always yield the right of way to pedestrians. (Ord. No. 2019-287 , § 3, 4 -30-19) Secs. 25-301-25-315 . -Reserved. 515 •· 31112 2 , 4 :55 PM Laredo , TX Code of Ord ina nces ARTICLE VI. -DOCKLESS VEHICLES ... ec. 32-326 . -Definitions . (a) As used in thi s article , the following defin itions shall apply: Bicycle equipped with GPS means a device that a person may ride and that is propelled by human power and has two (2) tandem wheels at least one (1) of which is more than fourteen (14) inches in diameter, which has a global pos itioning system (GPS) to determ ine the geographic location of the b icycle. Director means the director of the department designated by the city manager to enforce and administer this article and i ncludes representatives, agents, or department employees designated by the director. Dockless veh i cle means a bicycle equipped with GPS, an electric bicycle, or an motor-assisted scooter, pursuant to the definitions set forth in V.T.C.A. Texas Transportation Code,§§ 541 .201 and 551 .351, that is available for use for a fee . Electric bicycle means a bicycle that: (1) Is designed to be propelled by an electric motor, exclusively or in combination with the application of human power; (2) Cannot attain a speed of more than twenty (20) miles per hour w ithout the appl ication of human power; and (3) Does not exceed a weight of one hundred (100) pounds. Fl eet manager means the person responsible for the daily operations of a dockless vehicle service, who must be based in the city. Motor-assisted scooter means a se lf-propelled device , not includ i ng a pocket bike or minimotorbike, with: (1) At least two (2) wheels i n contact with the ground during operation; (2) A braking system capable of stopping the device under typical operating conditions; (3) A gas or electric motor not exceeding forty (40) cubic centimeters; (4) A deck des igned to allow a person to stand or sit while operating the device; and (5) The ability to be propelled by human power alone . Operator means an ind ividual or company that has been issued an operating authority permit under this article . Person means an individual , partnership, corporation , company, association or other legal entity. Rebalance means moving dockless vehicles from an area of low demand to an area of high demand. (b) This article does not apply to a moped or motorcycle; a motorized mob i lity device (V .T.C.A. Texas Transportation Code§ 542 .009); an electric personal assistive mobility device (V .T.C.A. Te xas Transportation Code§ 551 .201 ); or a neighborhood electric dev ice (V .T.C.A. Texas Transportation Code§ 551 .301 ). ,Ord . No . 2019-0 -019, § 1, 2 -4 -19) Sec. 32 -327 . -Operating authority permit required. 1 JO 3/1/22, 4 :55 PM Laredo , TX Code ot urainances A person commits an offense if, within the city, he operates, or causes qr-permits the operation of, a dockless vehicle " .,,. l .,,, service without a valid operating permit issued under this article . (Ord. No . 2019-0-019, § 1, 2-4-19) Sec. 32-328 . -Application for operating authority permit. (a) To obtain an o perating authority permit, a person shall make application in the manner prescribed by the director, and pay any applicable fees, prior to the operation of a service providing dockless vehicles for compensation . The applicant must be the person who will own, control, or operate the proposed dockless vehicle program . (b) The applicat ion must contain the following, including any additional i nformation and requirements established by the director: (1) The business name, street address, mailing address , email address and telephone number of the applicant; (2) A non-refundable semi-annual business permit fee of five hundred dollars ($500 .00); (3) A non -refundable semi-annual permit fee of ten dollars ($10.00) for each dockless vehicle which is to be operated within the city limits; (4) The form of business of the applicant and, if the business is a corporation or association, a copy of the documents establishing the business and the name and address of each perso'n with a t~enty (20) percent or greater ownership interest in the business; (5) The verified signature of the applicant; (6) The address of the fixed fac i lities to be used in the operation, if any, and the address of the applicant's corporate headquarters, if d ifferent from the address of the fixed facilities; (7) The name, telephone number and email address of the fleet manager. Any change in this information must be reported to the director within twenty-four (24) hours of the change; (8) A telephone number for the public to report improperly parked vehicles and othe r violations, wh ich must be posted on each dockless vehicle; (9) Documen t ary evidence from an insurance company indicating that such insurance company has bound itself to provide the applicant with the liability insurance required by this article ; (10) Documentary evidence of payment of ad valorem taxes on property within the city, if any, to be used in connect ion with the operation of the proposed dockless vehicle program; (11) Documentary evidence from a bonding or insurance company or a bank indicating that the bon d ing or insurance company or bank has bound itself to provide the applicant with the performance bond or irrevocable letter of credit required by this article; (12) The number and types of dockless vehicles to be operated; and (13) An agreement to indemnify the city. (c) Except as provided in subsection (b)(7), an applicant or operator shall notify the director, in the manner prescribed by the director, with i n ten (10) days of any change in the information contained in the application for an operat i ng permit. If the information reported to the director includes an increase in the number of 2/9 ... 311122 , 4:55 PM Laredo , TX Code of Ordinances dockless vehicles, any additional fees due must be submitted to the director simultaneously with the change in information . (d) An operating permit expires six (6) months from the date it is issued . An applicant may renew an operating permit following the process in this section. (e) An operating permit is non-transferrable. This regu latio n should not be construed to impede the continuing use of trade names . (Ord . No. 2019-0-019, § 1, 2-4-19) Sec. 32-329 . -Issuance, renewal, suspension and revocation of operating permits . (a) The director shall refuse to issue or renew an operating permit if the applicant: (1) Does not meet the requirements in the permit application, including failing to meet any requirements established by the director; (2) Intentionally or knowingly makes a false statement as to a material matter in an application for an operating permit; or (3) Has been convicted twice within a 12-month period for a violation of this article, or has had an operating permit agreement revoked within two (2) years of the date of application . (b) If the director determines that an operating permit should be denied, the director shall notify the applicant or operator in writing that the application is denied and include in the notice the specific reason or reasons for denial and a statement informing the applicant or operator of the right to, and the process for, appeal of the decision . (c) The director shall revoke an operating permit if the director determines that the operator has : (1) Made a false statement as to a material matter in the application concerning the operating permit; (2) Failed to maintain insurance required by this article; (3) Operated, or caused or permitted the operation of, a dockless vehicle service during a period of time when the operating permit was suspended ; (4) Operated dockless vehicles in excess of the number authorized by the operating permit; or (5) Failed to pay a fee required by this article . (d) Revocation for continuing violations. The director sha ll revoke an operating permit if a cause of suspension occurs and the operator has been previously suspended twice within the preceding six (6) months. (e) After revocation of an operating permit, an operator is not eligible for another permit for a period of up to two (2) years, depending on the severity of the violation resulting in the revocation . (f) The director may suspend an operating permit if the director determines that: (1) The operator failed to comply with a request to remove a dockless vehicle or a request to rebalance dockless vehicles issued by the director within the time specified in the order; or (2) A performance bond or irrevocable letter of credit required by th is article is cancelled . (g) Suspension of an operating permit does not affect the expiration date of the permit. (h) Appeals. Any person whose application for an operating permit, or renewal of an operating permit, is denied by the director, or an operator whose operating permit has been revoked or suspended by the director, may 3/1/22 , 4 :55 PM Laredo , TX Code of Ordinances file an appeal w ith the director, who shall forward the notice of appeal with the city manager or the ci t y manager's des ignee, for appointment of an independent hearing officer to preside over the appeal : (1) The hearing officer shall conduct a hearing on the matter within thirty (30) days of the request for the hearing unless one (1) of the parties requests a continuance for good cause; (2) Every person who appeals shall have the right to appear in person or thro ugh an attorney; (3) Every person who testifies at a hearing shall testify under oath, the person who appealed and the city have the right to produce evidence, and subpoena and call witnesses ; and (4) The burden of proof is on the city by a preponderance of the evidence that the decision of the director should be u pheld ; (5) The hearing officer shall render a decision within thirty (30) days of the conclus ion of the hearing; (6) The hearing officer shall have the sole authority for upholding or overruling the action of the director which was appealed; (7) The decision of the hearing officer shall be fina l. (Ord . No. 2019-0-019, § 1, 2-4-19) Sec. 32-330. -Operation, parking, and required equipment of motor-assisted scooters, electric bicycles, and bicycles equipped with GPS. (a) Operation of motor-assisted scooters: (1) Riders must always yield to pedestrians. (2) Riders must use bike lanes when available. (3) In the absence of a bike lane , riders may ride on streets which have a speed limit of thirty-five (35) miles per hour or less, and on sidewalks, including sidewalks adjacent to ro ads wh ich have a speed limit over thirty-five (35) miles per hour. (4) Riders m u st obey all state and city traffic laws and ordinance applicable to the operator of any other vehicle, except those prov isions of laws and ordinances which , by their very nature, can have not applicat io n. (5) If ridden on a sidewalk, riders must ma in tain a distance of two (2) feet from all pedestrians . (6) Riders may not ride on trails , creek ways, plazas and in parks . Public streets and sidewalks that intersect parks an d plazas may be ridden upon. (7) The person operating or in control of must be at least eighteen (18) years of age. (8) Riders may not have any passengers. Only one (1) person may be on the vehicle when it is being operated . (9) Riders may not use a portable wireless communication device while operating a vehicle . (10) The wearing of a helmet is encouraged but not required . (b) Operation of electric bicycles, and bicycles equipped with GPS: (1) Riders must always yield to pedestrians. (2) Riders may not ride on sidewalks, and must use bike lanes when available . 4/9 311122 , 4 :55 PM Laredo , TX Code of Ordinances (3) Riders must obey all state and city traffic laws and ordinance applicable to the ope rat or of any other vehic le those prov isi ons of la ·Ns and ordinances which, by their very nature, can have not application . (4) For electric bicycles, the person operat ing or in control must be at least eighteen (18) years of age . (5) Riders may not use a portable wireless communication device wh ile operating a vehicle. (6) The wearing of a helmet is encouraged but not required . (c) Parking of motor-assisted scooters, electric bicycles and bicycles equipped with GPS: (1) Dock/ess vehicles may not be parked on streets, except in areas designated by the director by paint, decals or signs. (2) Dockless vehicles may not be parked in a manner that would impose a threat to public safety or security. (3) Dockless vehicles may be parked upright on sidewalks in a manner that does not impede the normal and reasonable pedestria n access on a sidewalk, or in any manner that would reduce the minimum clear width of a sidewalk to less than three (3) feet, except as prohibited below in subsection (4). (4) These veh icles may not be parked on sidewalks at the following locations : a. Dockless vehicles may not be parked in any way that blocks : 1. Transit stops, shelters, or platforms . 2. Passenger loading zones or valet parking serv ic e areas . 3. Buildings entryways. 4. Veh icu lar driveways . b . Within eight (8) feet of railroad or light rail tracks or crossings . c. Within eight (8) feet of commercial or pedestrian loading zones , or disabled parking zones . d. Within four (4) feet of street fixtures that require pedestrian access, including, but not limited to, benches , parking pay stations and transit information signs . e. Within eight (8) feet of curb ramps, entryways and driveways. f . Within eight (8) feet of a building entrance . g. On trails, creek ways, plazas and parks . (5) The director may identify designated dockless vehicle parki ng zones . Subject to advance approval of the director, an operator may indicate virtual dockless parking areas with paint or decals where appropriate in order to guide riders to preferred parking zo nes in order to assist with orderly parking of dockless vehicles throughout the city . (d) Requ ired equipment of motor-assisted scooters, electric bicycles and bicycles equipped with GPS : (1) Dockless veh icles may not be operated at nighttime unless the veh icle is equipped with : a. A lamp on the front of the vehicle that emits a white light visible from a distance of at least five hundred (500) feet in front of the vehicle; and b. A red reflector that is visible when directly in front of lawful upper beams of motor vehicle headlamps from all distances from fifty (50) to three hundred (300) feet to the rear of the vehicle, or a lamp that emits a red ligh t visible from a distance of five hundred (500) feet to the rear of the vehicle. (2) These vehicles may not be operated without a working bell, horn, or other sound mechanism . 3/1/22 , 4 :55 PM Laredo , TX Code of Ordina nces (3) Each unit shall prominently display the name of the operator, the i r current contact information, a unique se number. (4) Dockless vehicles shall be equipped with an on -board GPS unit or equivalent that can report the location of a unit at any time for the purposes of use, recovery, repair, and data collection . (Ord . No. 2019-0-019, § 1, 2-4-19) Sec. 32-331 . -Dockless veh icle operations . (a) Each dockless vehicle permitted under this article must display the emblem of the operator, a unique i9entification num ber, and a 24-hour telephone number for customers and citizens to report safety concerns, make complaints, ask questions, or request a dockless vehicles be relocated. (b) The fleet manage r, or a designated representative, shall be available by the phone number provided on the application, seven (7) days a week between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m . to accept calls from the director. (c) Operators shall not attach any person property (other than dockless vehicles), fixtu res, or structures to the public right-of-way without the separate written permission of the director. Any permission to place items in the public right-of-way must be incorporated into the permit. (d) Operators shall provide the director electronic access to the current li st of dockless vehicles available for rent in the city, which includes the un ique identification number of each vehicle . (e) Operators shall educate customers regarding the law applicable to riding, operating, and parking a dockless vehicle. A perm it holder's application must provide informat ion notifying the user that: (1) The use of helmets is encouraged for the safety of the drivers; (2) The legal parking of dockless vehicles ; (3) The legal operation of dockless vehicles , inclu ding the duty to yield to pedestrians; (4) For motor-assisted scoote rs and electric bicycles, the areas where r iding and parking are prohibited . (f) Notices of vio lations or broken veh icles : (1) Oper~tor s shall have one (1) hour after receiving notice of violat ion, from any source, to correct violations for a dockless vehicle being parked in an area prohibited unde r this article; for other violations the operator has two (2) hours after receiving notice to correct the v iolation; (2) Operato rs are .r equired to lock vehicles reported as broken,· from any source, and must remove the vehicle w ithin two (2) hours; (3) After the t i me for correct i ng a violation has expi red, the city may rem ove and impound a veh icle that is parked i n violation of this article or broken . The operator must pay th e city a fee of fifty dollars ($50 .00) to obta in the r eturn of each im pounded vehicle . (Ord . No. 2019 -0 -019 , § 1, 2-4-19) Sec. 32 -3 32 . -Data sharing. Operators shall cooperate with the city in the collection and analysis of aggregate data concerning its operat ions : (a) Operators shall provide a monthly report to the director of the maximum number of permitted vehicles in use by riders at any time in the prev ious week; and 619 311122 , 4:55 PM Laredo, TX Code of Ordinances (b) Operators shall provide a monthly report to the director that includes : (1) The total number of rides the prev ious month; (2) The total number of vehicles in service for the previous month; (3) The average number of rides per veh icle per day; (4) Anonymized aggregated data taken by the operator's dock less vehicles in the form of heat maps showing routes, trends, origins, and destinations; and (5) Anonym ized trip data taken by the operator's dockless vehicles that includes the origin and destination, trip duration, trip duration, distance and date and time of trip . (c) Operators shall prov ide such other reports at the director's request. (d) Operators found to be submitting incomplete or inaccurate data, such as underrepresenting the total number of units in service, shall have their operating permit revoked. (Ord. No . 2019-0-019, § 1, 2-4-19) Sec. 32-333 . -Insurance requirements . (a) An operator shall procure and keep in full force and effect no less that the insu rance coverage required by this section through a policy or policies written by an insurance company that: (1) Is authorized to do business in the State of Texas; (2) Is acceptable to the city; and (3) Does not violate the ownership and operational control prohibition described in this section. (b) The insured provisions of the policy must name the city and its office rs and employees as additional insureds, and the coverage provisi o ns must provide coverage for any loss or damage that may arise to any person or property by reason of the operation of a dockless vehicle . (c) An operator shall maintain the following insurance coverages: (1) The commercial general liability insurance must provide sing le limits of liab ility for bodily injury (including death) and property damage of $1 million for each occurrence, with a two million dollar ($2,000.000.00) annua l aggregate. (2) If an operator will utilize motor vehicles in its operations, the business automotive liability insurance must cover owned, hired, and non-owned vehicles, with a combined single limit for bodily injury (including death) and property damage of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000 .00) per occurrence . (3) Worker's compensation insurance with statutory limits. (4) Employer's liability insurance with the following minim um limits for bodily injury by: a. Accident, five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000 .00) per each accident; and b. Disease , five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000 .00) per employee with a per policy aggregate of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000.00). (d) Insurance required under this article must: (1) Include a cancellation provision in which the insurance company is required to notify the director in writing not fewer than thirty (30) days before cancel lin g the insurance policy (for a reason other than non- 3/1/22 , 4 :55 PM Laredo, TX Code of Ordinances payment) or before making a reduction in coverage; (2) Include a cancellation provision in which the insurance company is required to notify the director in writing not fewer than ten (10) days before cancelling for non-payment; (3) Cover all d ockless vehicles during the times that the vehicles are deployed or operating in fu r therance of the operator's business; (4) Include a provision requiring the insurance company to pay every covered claim on a first-dollar basis ; (5) Require notice to the director if the policy is cancelled or if there is a reduction in coverage; and (6) Comply wi t h all applicable federal, state, and local laws . (e) No person who has a twenty (20) percent or greater ownership interest in the operator may have an interest in the insurance company. (f) An operator may not be self-insured . (g) Any insurance policy required by t his article must be on file with the city within forty-five (45) days of the issuance of the initial operating authority permit, and thereafter within forty-f ive (45) days of the exp i ration or termination of a previously issued policy. (Ord . No. 2019-0-019, § 1, 2-4-19) Sec. 32-334. -Performance bond or irrevocable letter of credit. Before iss uance of an operating authority permit, the operator shall give the director a perfo rmance bond o r an irrevocable letter of cre d it approved as to form by the city attorney. (a) A bonding or insurance company authorized to do business in the State ofTexas and acceptable to the city must issue the performance bond. A bank authorized to do business in the State of Texas and acceptable to the city must issue the irrevocable letter of credit. (b) The performance bond or irrevocable letter of credit must list the operator as ~he principal and be payable to the city . (c) The performance bond or irrevocable letter of credit must remain in effect for the duration of the operating authority permit. (d) The , amount of the performance bond or irrevocable letter of cred it must be at least ten thousa n d dollars ($10,000 .00). (e) Cancellat ion of the performance bond or irrevocable letter of credit does not release the operator from the obligat ion to meet all requirements of this article and the operating authority permit. If the performance bond or irrevocable letter of credit is cancelled, the operating authority permit shall be suspended on the date of cancellation and the operator shall immediate ly cease operations until the operator provides the director with a replacement performance bond or irrevocable letter of credit that meets th e requirements of this article . (f) The city may draw aga inst the performance bond or irrevocable letter of credit or pursue any other available remedy to recover damages, fees , fines, or penalties due from the operator for violation of any provisio n of this article or the operating authority permit. (Ord. No . 2019-0-019 , § 1, 2-4-19) 819 311122 , 4 :55 PM Laredo, TX Code of Ordinances Sec. 32-335. -Enforcement. (a) The director or designee may, with or without notice, inspect any dockless vehicle operating under this article to determine whether the dockless vehicle complies with this article, rules and regulations established under this article, or other applicable laws . (b) The director or designee shall enforce this article . Upon observing a violation of this article or the rules or regulations established by the director, the director shall take necessary action to ensure effective regulation of dockless veh ic les . (Ord . No . 2019-0-019 , § 1, 2-4-19) Sec. 32-336. -Criminal offenses . (a) A person commits an offense if the person violates a provision of this article. (b) A culpable mental state is not required for the commission of an offense under this article unless the . provision defining the conduct expressly requires a culpable mental state . (c) A separate offense is committed each day in which an offense occurs. (d) Prosecution for an offense under subsection (a) does not prevent the use of other enforcement remedies or procedures app li cable to the person charged with or the conduct invo lved in the offense . (e) Any person who violates any of the provisions of this article shall be guilty of a Class C misdemeanor and upon adjudicat ion or conviction thereof shall be fined in an amount not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500 .00) for each offense . (Ord . No. 2019-0-019, § 1, 2-4-19) 919 10/1 •~ . 5 :2 6 PM Bryan , TX Code of Ordinances ...;, ' DIVISION 3. -ffA RED ACTIV E RANS E!ORIAIIOt-.1 S"f ec. 106-186. -Definitions . The following words, terms a11d phrases, when used in this article, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Bicycle or bike means a vehicle that a person may ride that is propelled by human power, typically has two or three wheels in tandem, a steering handle, one or two seats, and pedals by which the vehicle is propelled. Customer means a person who rents or otherwise uses a small vehicle from a shared active transportation system licensee. Director means the director of the department designated by the city manager to enforce and administer this article and includes represeritatives, agents, or department employees designated by the director. License or license agreement means a license issued by the city pursuant to this article for a licensee to operate a shared active transportation system . The form of the license shall be a license agreement setting forth the terms and restrictions for the operation of a shared active transportation system within the city. Licensee is any corporation, firm, joint venture, limited liability company, partnership, person, or other organized entity that operates a shared active transportation system, whether for profit or not for profit. Motorized scooter means a vehicle that is steered by a steering handle, designed to be stood upon by speed hour on a level surface; and s_e wlJe:ei di:am:..e_ten.:otten ·ache s ra es . Also as defined by State of Texas as an "electric personal assistive mobility device" in Chapter 551 of the Texas Transportation Code "Operation of Bicycles, Mopeds, and Play Vehicles". Operate means, when used in direct reference to a small vehicle, to use the small vehicle for transportation, which includes but is not limited to parking . When used in direct reference to a SATS it means to allow or enable small vehicles to be operated within city limits as a part of the SATS . Public right-of-way means public land within the city in which the public, the city, or the state owns a property interest and which includes areas open for use by the public for vehicle or pedestrian travel. Shared active transportation system (SATS) means a business that provides one or more small vehicles for short-term rentals for point ~o point trips where, by design of the permittee, the small vehicles are intended to be parked in a vehicle operating area, whether or not connected to a dedicated docking station, when not rented by a customer. 1/3 10 /13/21 , 5:26 PM Bryan , TX Code of Ordinances Small vehicle means docked or dockless bicycle, electric assisted bicycle, scooters, e-scooters, motorized ... scooters, skateboards, or other small wheeled vehicles designed specifically for shared-use rented by a permittee to customers through a SATS. Vehicle operating area means the right of way (for all small vehicles) where operation of a small vehicle is authorized by its license agreement. (Ord. No. 2317, § 2, 12-11-2018; Ord . No . 2321, § 2, 1-8-2019) Sec. 106-187. -General authority and duty of director. The director shall implement and enforce this article and may by written order establish such rules or regulations, consisten t with this article and state or federal law, as he or she determines are necessa ry to discharge the director's duty under, or to affect the policy of, this article. (Ord. No. 2317, § 2, 12-11-2018; Ord. No. 2321, § 2, 1-8 -2019) Sec. 106-188 . -License for operating authority. (a) License required. (1) No person may operate a shared active transportation system in the city limits who does not have a valid license from the city . (2) Licenses may be issued for a period of up to 12 months, although licenses for pilot programs may be issued for shorter periods. A license expires one year from the date it is issued unless a license provides for an earlier expiration . (3) The director is authorized to write terms and conditions in license agreements, in a form approved by the city attorney, as appropriate to effectuate this article, preserve public health and safety, regulate publ i c rights of way within the city and preserve city property. (4) Licenses are non-exclusive within the city and may include different terms between different companies, technologies, and/or vehicle operating areas. (5) Licenses are non-transferable. (b) Application for license. (1) To obtain a license, a person shall make application in the manner prescribed by the director. The applicant must be the person who will own, control or operate the shared active transport system. (2) An app l icant shall file with the director an application on a form prescribed by the director and pay a fee as established by the city . (3) Any changes to the information provided in the license application must be reported to the directo r, in the manner prescribed by the director, within ten days . (c) Appeal of denial, revocation or suspension of license. An applicant or licensee, as the case may 2/3 10/h -5 :26 PM ,.t Bryan . TX Code of Ordinan ces be , has the right to appeal a denial, revocation or suspension of license to the city manager or his or her designee (which shall not be the director) by submitting a written appeal to the city secretary not more than five business days after the notice of denial is issued or the effective date of the revocation or suspension . The city manager or designee will hear the appeal and issue a written finding not more than 20 business days after the written appeal was delivered to the city secretary . (Ord. No. 2317, § 2, 12 -11-2018; Ord. No . 2321, § 2, 1-8-2019) Sec. 106 -189. -Violations; penalties . (a) it shall be unlawful for a person to operate a shared active transportati on system in violation of the license agreement. Each term of the license agreement that is violated shall be a separate violation under this article . (b) It shall be a violation for a customer to operate a small vehicle in a manner prohibited by this article. (Ord . No. 2317, § 2, 12 -11-2018; Ord . No. 2321, § 2, 1-8-2019) 3 12122 , 1026 AM ~+ f O .r B"tmp, TX Code of Ocd;o'"oo' ARTICLE 12.14 -MOTOR-ASSISTED SCOOTERS, ELECTRIC BICYCLES, AND BICYCLES EQUIPPED WITH GPS Sec. 12.14.001 -Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this article, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Bicycle equipped with GPS means a device that a person may ride and that is propelled by human power and has two (2) tandem wheels, at least one of which is more than fourteen (14) inches in diameter, which has a global positioning system (GPS) to determine the geographic location of the bicycle. Director means the director of the department designated by the city manager to enforce and administer this article and includes representatives, agents or department employees designated by the director. Dockless vehicle means an electric bicycle, or a motor assisted scooter that is available for use for a fee. Electric bicycle means an electric bicycle as defined in V.T.C.A. Transportation Code§ 664.001 (as may be amended). ( Fleet manager means the person responsible for the daily operations of a dockless vehicle service. Geofencing means the use of GPS technology to create a virtual geographic boundary, enabling software to trigger a response when a dockless vehicle enters or leaves a particular area. Motor-assisted scooter means a motor-assisted scooter as defined in V.T.C.A. Transportation Code§ @)(as may be amended). Permit agreement means the written agreement between the city and a person for an operating permit which authorizes the operation of a service providing dockless vehicles for compensation. The permit agreement may be part of a pilot program, as stipulated in the app l ication form. Permit holder means the person who owns the operation if a sole proprietorship, or the person who has been designated as managing the operation if any other entity, of a service providing dockless vehicles for compensation. Person means an individual, partnership, corporation, company, association, or other legal entity. Pilot program means an initial small-scale preliminary study conducted to evaluate the operation of dockless vehicles in the city. Rider means a person operating a motor-assisted scooter, an electric bicycle, or a bicycle equipped with a GPS. 1/9 312122 , 10 :26 AM Bastrop , TX Code of Ordinances, • j •· ~ .. This artic le does not apply to a moped or motorcycle; a motorized mobi'lity device (V .T.C.A., Transportatio n Code§ 542 .009); an electric personal assistive mobility device, such as electric wheelchairs or other medical mobility de v ices (V .T.C.A., Transportation Code§ 551.201 ); a neighborhood electric vehicle (V.T.C.A., Transportation Code§ 551 .301 ); or a golf cart or al l-terrain vehicle (V.T .C.A., Transportation Code§ 551.401). (Ord. No . 2021-06, § 2(Att. A), 6-22-21) Sec. 12.14.002 -Operation and parking of motor-assisted scooters, electric bicycles, and b icycles equipped with GPS . (a) Operation of motor-assisted scooters. (1) Riders must always yield to pedestrians. (2) Riders may ride on streets which have a speed limit of thirty-five (35) miles per hour or less . Riders must obey all state and city traffic laws. (3) Riders operating or in control must be at least sixteen (16) years of age. (4) Riders may not have any passengers. On ly one person may be on the scooter when it is being operated. (5) The wearing of a helmet is encouraged , but not required . (6) It is unlawful for a rider to operate a motor-assisted scooter under the influence of alcohol or drugs. (7) It is unlawfu l for a rider to use a portable wireless communication device while operating a vehicle . (b) Operation of electric bicycles, and bicycles equipped with GPS. (1) Riders must always yield to pedestrians. (2) Riders may not ride on sidewalks. (3) Riders must obey state and city traffic laws . (4) Riders operating or in control must be at least sixteen (16) years of age. (5) It is unlawful for a rider to use a portable wireless communicat ion device while operating a bicycle. (6) The wearing of a helmet is encouraged, but not required . (7) It is unlawfu l for a rider to operate an electric bicycle under the infl uence of alcohol or drugs. (c) Parking of motor-assisted scooters, electric bicycles, and bicycles equipped with GPS. (1) It is unlawful for riders to park dockless vehicles on streets, except in areas designated by the city by paint, decals, o r signs . (2) Riders of dock less vehicles may park dockless veh i cles upright on sidewalks in a manner that 219 312122 , 10:26 AM Bastrop , T X Code of Ordinances does not impede the normal and reasonable pedestrian access on a sidewalk, or in any manner that would reduce the minimum clear width of a sidewalk to less than four (4) feet. (3) Riders of dockless vehicles may not park dockless vehicles in a manner that blocks any American with Disabilities Act ("ADA") access to sidewalks or streets . (4) It is unlawful for a rider to park a dockless vehicle on sidewalks at the following locations: a. Within eight (8) feet of commercial or pedestrian loading zones, or disabled parking zones. b. Within four (4) feet of street fixtures that require pedestrian access, includ i ng, but not limited to, benches. c. Within eight (8) feet of curb ramps, entryways and driveways. d. With in eight (8) feet of a building entrance. e. On trails, creek ways, including in any city park. (5) It is unlawful for a rider to park, other than momentarily, a dockless vehicle within seventy- five (75) feet of the Colorado River . (O rd. No. 2021-06, § 2(Att. A), 6-22-21) Sec. 12.14.003 -Colliding with pedestrians on sidewalk. No person , while riding a motor-assisted scooter, electric b i cycle, or bicycle equipped with a GPS, upon any sidewalk of the city, shall collide with any pedestrian, or cause any pedestrian to leave the sidewalk to avo i d a collis i on with such vehicle . (Ord. No . 2021 -06, § 2(Att. A), 6-22-21) Sec. 12.14.004 -Required equipment of motor-assisted scooters, electric bicycles . (a) Riders may not operate motor-assisted scooters or electric bicycles at nighttime unless the vehicle is equipped with : (1) A lamp on the front of the vehicle that emits a white light visible from a distance of a least five hundred (500) feet in front of the vehicle; and (2) A red reflector that is visible when directly in front of lawful upper beams of motor veh icle headlamps from all distances from fifty (50) to three hundred (300) feet to the rear of the vehicle, or a lamp that emits a red light visible from a distance of five hundred (500) feet to the rear of the vehicle. (b) Riders may not operate motor-assisted scooters o r electric bicycles without a working bell , horn , or other sound mechanism . (c) Riders may not operate dockless vehicles between the hou r s of 11 :00 p .m . and 6:00 a.m., and 319 312122 , 10 :26 AM Bastrop , TX Code of Ordinances permit holders shall make dockless vehicles inoperable during these hours . (Ord. No. 2021-06, § 2(Att. A), 6-22-21) Sec. 12.14.005 -Dockles s vehicle for hire permit agreements . (a) A person must register and obtain a permit agreement from the city, and pay any applicable fees, prior to providing a dockless vehicle for any compensation, includ ing, but not limited to, any money, thing of value , payment, consideration, donation, gratuity, or profit. (b) The city reserves the right to implement a pilot program, as defined in the city's application form. (c) To obtain a permit agreement, a person must submit an application to the city on a form provided by the City Secretary for that purpose. The applicat ion must contain the following, including any additional information requested for motor-assisted scooters or electric bicycles requirements established by the city: (1) The business name, street address, mailing address, email address, and telephone number of the applicant, with the addressing being in the city limits or within one hour response time of the city limits; (2) A non -refundable annual business permit fee of five hundred dollars ($500.00); (3) A non-refundable annual permit fee of fifty dollars ($50 .00) for each dockless vehicle which is to be operated within the city limits; (4) The name, phone number and email address of the fleet manager. Any change in this information must be reported to the City Secretary within twenty-four (24) hours of the change; (5) A phone number for the public to report improperly parked vehicles and other violations, which must be posted on each dockless vehicle; (6) The address of the fixed facilities to be used in the operation, if any, and the address of the applicant's headquarters, if different from the address of the fixed facilities ; (7) Documentary evidence from an insurance company indicating that such insurance company has bound itself to provide the applicant with the liability insu rance required by this article; (8) Documentary evidence of payment of ad valorem taxes on property within the city, if any, to be used i n connection with the operation of the proposed dockless vehicle program; (9) Documentary evidence from a bonding or insurance company or a bank indicating that the bonding or insurance company or bank has bound itself to provide the applicant with the performance or irrevocable letter of credit required by this article; (10) The number and the types of dockless vehicles to be operated; and (11) An agreement to indemnify the city. (d) A permit agreement expires twel ve (12) months from the date it is issued. An ap plicant may 4/9 312122, 10:26 AM Bastrop, TX Code of Ordinan ces renew a permit agreement following the process in this section. (e) A permit agreement is non-transferrable. This regulation should not be construed to impede the continuing use of trade names. (Ord. No. 2021-06, § 2(Att. A), 6-22-21) Sec. 12.14.006 -Issuance, renewal, suspension and revocation of permit agreements . (a) The city shall refuse to issue or renew a permit agreement if the applicant: (1) Does not meet the requirements in the permit application, including failing to meet any requirements established by the city; (2) Intentionally or knowingly makes a false statement as to a material matter in an application for a permit agreement; or (3) Has been convicted twice within a 12 -month period for a violation of this article or has had a permit agreement revoked, by any other local government, within two (2) years of the date of application. (b) If the city determines that a permit agreement should be denied, the city shall notify the applicant or operator in writing that the application is denied and include in the notice the specific reason or reasons for denial and a statement informing the applicant or operator of the right to, and the process fo r, appeal of the decision. (c) The city shall revoke a permit agreement if the city determines that the permit holder has : (1) Made a false statement as to a material matter in the application concerning the operating authority permit; (2) Failed to maintain the insurance required by this article; (3) Operated dockless vehicles in excess of the number authorized by the permit agreement; or (4 ) Failed to pay a fee required by this article. (d) After revocation of an operating author ity permit, an operator is not eligible for another permit for a period of up to two (2) years, depending on the severity of the violation resulting in the revocation . (e) Any person whose application for a permit agreement or renewal of a permit agreement is denied by the city, or an operator whose permit agreement has been revoked or suspended by the city, may file an appeal with the city, who shall forward the notice of appeal with the City Manager or the City Manager's designee, for appointment of an independent hearings offi cer to preside over the appeal: (1) The hearings officer shall conduct a hearing on the matter within thirty (30) days of the request for the hearing unless one of the parties requests a continuance for good cause . a. Every person who appeals shall have the right to appear in person or through an 519 312122, 10:26 AM Bastrop , TX Code of Ordinances attorney; b. Every person who tes t ifies at a hearing shall testify under oath, the person who appealed and the city have the r ight to produce evidence, and subpoena and call witnesses; and c. The burden of proof is on the city by a preponderance of the evidence that the decision of the city should be upheld . (2) The hearings officer shall render a decision within thirty (30) days of the conclusion of the hearing. (3) The hearings officer shall have the sole authority for uphold i ng or overruling the action of the city which was appealed. (4) The decision of the hearings officer shall be final. (Ord . No. 2021-06 , § 2(Att. A), 6-22-21) Sec. 12.14.007 -Dockless vehicle operations. (a) Permit holders shall display on each dockless vehicle permitted under this article the emblem of the permit holder, a unique identification number, and a 24-hour phone number for customers and citizens to report safety concerns, make complaints, ask questions, or request a dockless vehicle be relocated. (b) The fleet manager, or a designated representative, shall be ava i lable by the phone number provided on the application, seven (7) days a week between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m . to accept calls from the city. (c) Permit holders shall not attach any personal property (other than dockless vehicles), fixtures, or structures to the public right-of-way without the separate written permission of the city. Any permission to place items in t he public right-of-way must be incorporated into the permit. (d) Permit holders shall provide the city electron ic access to the current list of dockless vehicles available for rent in the city, which includes the unique ident ific at ion number for each vehicle. (e) Permit holders shall educate customers regarding the law appl icable to riding, operating, and parking a dockless vehicle . A permit holder's application must provide information notifying the user that: (1) The use of helmets is encouraged for the safety of the drivers . (2) The legal parking of dockless vehicles . (3) The legal operation of dockless vehicles, inclu ding the duty to yield to pedestrians. (4) The areas where riding and parking are prohibited . (f) Notices of violations or broken vehicles: (1) Permit holders shall have one hour after receiving notice of a violation, from any source, to 6/9 ·312122, 10:26 AM Bastrop , TX Code of Ordinances correct violations for a dockless vehicle being parked in an area prohibited under this article or that has been thrown in the riverbanks of the Colorado River; for other violations the permit holder has two (2) hours after receiving notice to correct the violation. (2) Permit holders are required to lock vehicles reported as broken, from any source, and must remove the vehicle within two (2) hours. (3) After the time for correcting a violation has expired, the city may remove and impound a vehicle that is parked in violation of this article or broken. The permit holder must pay the city a fee of fifty dollars ($50.00) to obtain the return of each vehicle impounded . (4) City staff, and other persons authorized by city staff, may remove dockless vehicles parked in prohibited areas, dockless vehicles blocking ADA facilities, or dockless vehicles located within areas identified consistent with section 12.14.002 in violation of this article, or that are identified as broken, immediately and without notice of violation to a permit holder, in which case the city may not impose an impound fee. (5) Permit holders are required to use geofencing or other means to locate dockless vehicles that are located near the riverbanks of the Colorado River, or have been thrown into the water. (6) Notwithstanding the above, the city has the authority to identify areas where vehicles must be removed to accommodate special events, construction, and maintenance work performed by the downtown public improvement district. The city shall have the authority to establish the time for any required removal and any subsequent deployment. (O r d . No. 2021-06, § 2(Att. A), 6-22-21) Sec. 12.14.008-Insurance. (a) A permit holder shall procure and keep in full force and effect insurance coverage in accordance with this section, through a policy or policies written by an insurance company that: (1) Is authorized to do business in the State of Te x as; (2) Is acceptable to the city; and (3) Does not violate the ownership or operational control prohibition described in this section . (b) The insured provisions of the policy must name the city and its officers and employees as additional insureds, and the coverage provisions must provide coverage for any loss or damage that may arise to any person or property by reason of the operation of a dockless vehicle . (c) A permit holder shall maintain, at a minimum, the following insurance coverages: (1) The commercial general liability insurance must provide single limits of liability for bodily injury (including death) and property damage of one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) for each occurrence, with a two million dollars ($2,000,000.00) annual aggregate. (2) If a permit holder will utilize motor vehicles in its operations, the business automotive liability 719 3121 22 , 10 :26 AM Bastrop , TX Code of Ord inances insurance must cover owned, hired, and non-owned vehicles, with a combined single limit for bodily injury (including death) and property damage of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000 .00) per occurrence. (3) Worker's compensation insurance with statutory limits. (4) Employer 's liability insurance with the fol lowing minimum limits for bodily injury by: a. Accident, five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000.00) per each accident; and b. Disease , five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000 .00) per employee with a per policy aggregate of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000 .00). (d) Insurance required under this article must: (1) In clude a cancellation provision in which the insurance company is required to notify the city in writing not fewer than t hirty (30) days before cancelling the insurance policy (for a reason other than non -payment) or before making a reduction in coverage; (2) Include a cancel lation provision in which the insurance company is required to notify the city in writ ing not fewer than t en (10) days before cancelling for non -payment; (3) Cover a l l dockless vehicles during the times that the veh icles are deployed or operating in furtherance of the permit holder's business; (4) Include a provision requ iring the insurance company to pay every covered claim on a fi rst- dollar basis; (5) Require notice to the city if the policy is cancelled or if there is a reduction in coverage; and (6) Comply with all applicab le federal, state, and local laws . (e) No person who has a twenty (20) percen t or greater ownersh ip interest in the permit holder may have an interest in the insurance company. (f) A permit holder may not be self-insured. (g) Any insurance policy required by this article must be on file with and approved by the city prior to the issuance of a permit agreement and must rema i n in effect during the term of the permit agreement. (Ord . No . 2021-06, § 2(Att. A), 6-22-21) Sec. 12.14.009 -Indemn ification. (a) Nothing in t his article shall be construed as an assumption of liability by the city for any in j uries (including d eath) to perso ns, pets, or propert y which may result from the operation of a dockless vehicle, motor-assisted scooter, electric bicycle, or bicycle equipped with a GPS, by an authorized driver; and (b) It is expressly understood and agreed that a permit holder is and shall be deemed to be an 819 3/2/22 , 10 :26 AM Bastrop , TX Code of Ordinances independent contractor and the permit holder is responsible to all parties for its respective acts or omissions, and that city shall in no way be responsib le, therefore. (Ord. No. 2021-06. § 2(Att. A), 6-22-21) Sec. 12.14.01 O -Enforcement. (a) The city shall enforce this article. (b) Upon observing a violation of this article, the city shall take all necessary actions to ensure effective regulation of dockless vehicles. (c) The city may, with or without notice, inspect any dockless vehicle operating under this arti cle to determine whether the dockless vehicle complies with this article and other applicable laws. (Ord . No . 2021-06. § 2(Att. A), 6-22-21) Sec. 12.14.011 -Criminal offenses . (a) A person commits an offense if, within the city, the person operates or causes or permits the operation of a dockless vehicle service without a valid permit agreement issued under this article . (b) A person commits an offense if the person violates a provision of this article . (c) A culpable mental state is not required for the commission of an offense under this article . A separate offense is committed each day in which an offense occurs. (d) Prosecution for an offense under this article does not prevent the use of other enforcement remedies or procedures applicable to the person charged with the conduct or involved in the offense. (e) Any person who violates any of the provisions of this article shall be guilty of a Class C Misdemeanor and upon adjudication or conviction thereof shall be fined in an amount not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500.00) for each offense. (Ord . No . 2021-06, § 2(Att. A), 6-2 2-21) 9/9 7/1/2021 Galveston , TX Code of Ordinances Sec. 34-230. -Electronic share systems. (a) Definitions. As used in this article, the following words and terms shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, unless the context of their usage clearly indicates another meaning: Docked bicycle means a bicycle which is procured for temporary use by means of a membership in a system, or by paying with a credit or debit card or other electronic payment, sponsored by a vendor offering bicycles for temporary use which are obtained from a bicycle station and which must be returned to the same or different bicycle station placed by the vendor. Docked bicycle station means a location from which a bicycle may be obtained, or to which a bicycle may be returned, where the bicycles not in use are docked in a bicycle dock. Docked bicycle share system means a bicycle sharing system in which bicycles are made available for shared use on a short terms basis by a vendor who collects a fee either by selling memberships which allow access to the bicycles of through electronic payment from a credit card, debit card, or other digital application which allows for funds to be transferred to the vendor or the vendor's designee. Dockless vehicle means a bicycle, an electric bicycle, or an electric motor-assisted scooter, a moped, a motor driven cycle, pursuant to the definitions set forth in Texas Transportation Code, Sections 541 .201 and 551 .351, that can be located and unlocked using a smartphone app or similar means . Dockless vehicles are not stored in a particular mechanism of the vendor, but are left unattended until a citizen unlocks them by making a payment. Dockless vehicle share system means a system or service in which dockless vehicles are made available for shared use on a short-term basis. Generally, customers use a smartphone app to find the location of and unlock available vehicles. When not in use, the dockless vehicles can be parked anywhere and are immobilized using technology, or may be parked within a defined space at a bike rack or along the sidewalk. Electronic share system means any system which is either a docked bicycle share system or a dockless vehicle share system. Electronic share system vehicle means any vehicle that is obtained for temporary use from an operator of an electronic share system. Operator means a corporation, firm, joint venture, Limited Liability Company, partnership, person, or other organized entity that operates or manages an electronic share system. Rent means [to] allow the temporary use of an electronic share system vehicle through acceptance of a payment by any means or by reason of a membership in the electronic share system Rented unit means a bicycle, an electric bicycle, or an electric motor-assisted scooter, a moped, a motor driven cycle rented by the user from a person or entity in the business of renting them . (b) Electronic share syst:ms prohibited wi thout a p ermit. It shall be unlawful for an operator to 1/2 7/1/2021 Galveston , TX Code of Ordinances establish an electronic share system in the city; make available for use upon the public rights-of- way including public streets and sidewalks in the city electronic share system vehicles without a permit from the city; or actually rent electronic share system vehicle without a permit from the city. (c) Live transactions excluded. This article does not apply to the rental of a rental unit by a user from a vendor who conducts the rental transaction through a live representative from a fixed place of business and requires the return of the unit to the place from which it was rented. (d) Criminal penalties. Any violat ions of section 34-209(b) shall be punishable as a Class C misdemeanor offense punishable as follows by a fine of not less than five hundred dollars ($500 .00). Each rental of an electronic share system vehicle is a separate offense. Each day a violation cont i nues shall constitute a separate offense. (e) Unpermitted electronic share system vehicle seizure. Any unpermitted unattended electronic share system vehicle found within the city may be seized by the city and impounded; the vehicle will be released to the operator of the electronic share system upc., the payment of a two hundred-dollar administrat iv e fee plus a storage fee of twenty-five dollars ($25 .00) per day . (f) Civil remedi es . The city may also enfo r ce section 34-209(b) by seeking injunctive relief in a court of competent jurisdiction to enjoin operation of an unpermitted electronic share system . (g) Permits. Th is section reserved . (Ord . No . 18-066 , § 2, 9-13-18) Editor's note-Ord. No . 18-066 , § 2, adopted Sept. 13, 2018, enacted provisions designated as § 34-209, however, in order to allow for reserved sections preceding this article, said provisions have been redesignated as§ 34-230 at the discretion of the editor. 212 # 3/2/22 .'8 :31 AM Tallahassee , FL Code of Ordinances DIVISION 6. -SHARED MICRO-MOBILITY DEVICE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM Footnotes : ---(4) --- Editor's not~ Ord. No . 20-0-09AA , §§ 2-11 , adopted April 8, 2020, amended division 6 in its entirety to read as herein set out. Formerly, division 6 pertained to the dockless shared motorized scooter pilot program , and derived from Ord. No . 19-0-1 SAA, s; 2, adopted June 19 , 2019 . Sec. 17-600. -Purpose and applicability. The purpose of this d ivision is to permit and regulate a shared m icro-mobi li ty device transportation program in the city. The provisions of this division shall apply to the shared m icro-mobility device transportation program. For the purpose of this div ision, the applicant, managing agent or vendor, and owner shall be jointly and severally liable for complying with the provisions of this division, the operating agreement and permit. (Ord . No. 20 -0-09AA, § 3, 4-8-2020) Sec. 17 -601. -Definitions. For purposes of this division , the following words and phrases, when used i n this division shall, have the meanings respectively ascribed to them in this section . The definitions in F.S . ch . 316 apply to this division and are hereby incorporated by reference . Geofencing means the use of GPS or RFID technology to create a virtual geographic boundary, enabl i ng software to trigger a response when a shan:d micro-mobility device enters or leaves a particular area . Motorized scooter shall have the meaning ascribed to it in F.S . § 316.003, as amended . "Motorized scooter(s)" are further defined as a vehicle that is powered by a motor, designed to transport only one person, with or w ithout a seat or saddle for the use of the rider, which is designed to travel on not more than three wheels and which is not capable of propelling the vehicle at a speed greater than 20 miles per hour on level ground. Pedestrian means people utilizing sidewalks, sidewalk area or rights-of-way on foot and shall include people us in g wheelchairs or other ADA-compliant devices . Rebalancing means the process by which shared micro-mobility devices are redistributed to ensure their availability throughout a service area and to prevent excessive buildup of shared micro-mobility devices at locations throughout the city . Relocate or relocating or removal means the process by which the city moves the device and either secures it at a designated location for the vendor to retrieve after payment of applicable fines and/or penalties or places the device at a proper distribution point. Motorized bicycle means a bicycle propelled by a combination of human power and an electric helper motor capable of propelling the vehicle at a speed of not more than 20 miles per hour on level ground, having two tandem wheels, and including any device generally recognized as a bicycle though equipped with two front or two rear 1/8 3/2/22 , 8 :31 AM Tallahassee , FL Code of Ordinances wheels, or as otherwise defined by Florida law. Rights-of-way means land in which the city owns the fee or has an easement or property interest devoted to or required for use as a transportation facility and may lawfully grant access pursuant to applicable law, and includes the surface, the air space over the surface and the area below the surface of such rights-of-way. Service area means the geographical area within the city where the vendor is authorized to offer shared micro- mobility devices for its users/customers as defined by the operating agreement and permit. Shared micro-mobility device ("device ") means any motorized transportation device made available for private use by reservation through an online application, website, software, or other lawful means for point-to-point trips and which is not capable of traveling at a speed greater than 20 miles per hour on level ground . This term includes _motorized scooters. bicy cles and motorized bicycles a; defined_{F.S . ch. 316 . t his definition does not include an owner of a motorized scooter, bicycle or motorized bicycle which is solely used for private transportation by its owner or pedicabs. Shared micro-mobility device program ("program'') means a program generally, in which shared micro-mobility devices are made available for shared use or rent to individuals on a short-term basis for a price or fee . Sidewalk means that portion of a street between the curb line, or the lateral line, of a roadway and the ad j acent property lines, intended for use by pedestrians. Sidewalk area(s) includes trail in the area of a sidewalk, as well as the sidewalk and may also be a median strip or a strip of vegetation, grass or bushes or trees or street furniture or a combination of these between the curb line of the roadway and the adjacent property. User means a person who uses a digital network, or applicable software or other lawful means, in order to obtain a micro-mobility device from a vendor. Vendor means any ent ity that owns, ope r ates, redistributes, or rebalances shared micro-mobility devices within the city. (Ord. No. 20-0-09AA, § 4 , 4-8-2020) Sec. 17-602 . -Establishment and criteria for a shared micro-mobility devices program on public rights -of-way. (a) The city hereby establishes a program for the operation of devices w ith in bike lanes, if available, on roads and on sidewalks and sidewalk areas within the city limits. (b) Devices shall not be operated in the city unless a vendor has entered into a fully executed operating license agreement and permit ("operating agreement and permit") with the city. The city manager is authorized to d evelop the criteria, terms and conditions of the program and the operating agreement and permit, and to execute, the operating agreement and permit and any other documents related to the program. The vendor shall comply with all terms and conditions contained in the operating agreement and permit. (c) If two or more devices from the same company or vendor, without a valid operating agreement and permit with the city, are found at a particular location within the city, it will be presumed that they have 2/8 ~ 312122 :8 :31 AM Tallahassee , FL Code of Ordinances been deployed by that company or vendor, and it will be presumed the company or vendor is in violation of this division and the devices are subject to removal by the city and applicable fines and penalties . (d) A vendor shall apply to participate in the program by responding to the request for qualifications issued by the city. (e) No more than the total number of devices authorized by the city manager will be permitted to operate within the city during the program. Devices that are impounded or removed by the city shall count towards the maximum permitted devices authorized within the city . (f) Pr ior to deploying devices, a vendor, authorized to participate in the city's program, shall be required to remit any and all applicable permit, and operating fees, as set forth in the operating agreement and permit to ass ist with offsetting costs to the city related to the administration and enforcement of this divis ion and the program, the construction and maintenance of device park in g, and any other improvements or studies that benefit device operations in the city . (g) Upon expiration of the µrogram, vendors will not be permitted to operate within the city and shall immediately cease operations and, w ithin two business days of the expiration of the program, vendors shall remove all devices from the city, unless otherwise directed by the city commission. Failure to remove all devices within the two business day timeframe, may result in the city removing the devices and the vendor having to pay appl icable fees to recover the devices from the city in accordance with this divis ion . (Ord . No . 20 -0 -09AA, § 5, 4-8-2020) Sec. 17-603. -Operation of a shared micro-mobility device program -vendor's responsibilit ies and obligations; device specifications . (a) A vendor in the program is responsible for maintenance of each device . Devices must be well -maintained and in good operating condition at all times and must be built to withstand the effect of weather and constant use . (b) Devices shall be restricted to a maximum speed of 15 miles per hour on level surface within the city . (c) Each device shall prominently display the vendor's company name and contact information , including a toll-free telephone number; in addition to this contact information, the vendor may provide the vendor's uniform resource locator (URL) or provide a code to download the vendor's mobile application . (d) Vendors must comply with all applicable local, state and federal regulations and laws. (e) Vendors must provide to the city an emergency preparedness plan that deta i ls where the micro-mobility dev ice(s) will be located and the amount of time it will take to secure all micro-mobility device(s) once a trop ical storm or hurricane warning has been issued by the National Weather Service . The vendor must promptly secure , al l micro-mobility device(s) within 12 hours of an active tropical storm warning or hurricane warning issued by the National Weather Service. Following the tropical storm or hurricane, the city will notify the vendor when, and where, it is safe to r edistribute the micro-mobility device(s) within the city. (f) Micro -mobility device(s) that are inoperable/damaged, improperly parked, blocking ADA accessibility or 318 3/2/22 , 8 :31 AM Tallahassee , FL Code of Ordinances do not comply with this division must be removed by the vendor within o n e hour of the complaint. An inoperable or damaged micro-mobility device is one that has non-functioning features or is missing components. Micro-mobility device(s) that is not removed within this timeframe is subject to removal by the city and any applicable fees, code enforcement fines, or penalties . (g) Vendors shall provide the city with data as required in the operating agreement and permit. (h) W ithin 90 days after issuance of t he operation agreement and permit, al l vendors shall distribute a customer satisfaction survey, the summary and raw results of wh ich shall be provided to the city upon request by the city. (i) Vendors must provide details on how users can utilize the device without a smartphone. U) Vendors must rebalance the devices by 8:00 a.m . EST daily based on th 2 use within each service area as defined by the operating agreement and permit to prevent excessive buildup of units in certain locations. (k) The vendor's mobile application and website must inform users of how to safely and lega lly operate and park a device . The vendor's mobile application and website must provide information notifying a user that: (1) Unless otherwise prohibited, devices may be operated on streets, sidewalks, sidewalk areas in a manner similar to bicycles ; (2) Devices are to be operated at the user's own risk, and no representation is being made by the city as to the condition of the any st r eet, sidewalk, or sidewa l k area ; (3) Devices shall at all times yield to pedestrians and shall g ive an audible signal before overtaking and passing such pedestrian; and (4) The use of helmets while operating a device is strongly encouraged . (I) The vendor's mobile application must clearly direct users to customer support mechanisms, including but not limited to phone numbers or websites . The vendor must provide a staffed , toll-free customer serv ice line which must provide support 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. (m) The vendor must provide a direct customer service or operations staff contact to city department staff. (n) All devices shall comply with the lighting standards set forth in F.S . § 316 .2065(7), as may be amended or revised, which requires a reflective front white light visible from a distance of at least 500 feet and a reflective rear red light visible from a distance of at least 600 feet. (o) All devices shall be equipped w ith GPS, cell phone or a comparable techno logy for the purpose of tracking. (p) If app l icable, all device(s) must include a k ickstand capab le of keeping the unit upright when not in use. (q) The only signage allowed on a device is to identify the vendor. Third-party advertising is not allowed on any device. (r) The city manager, at their discretion, may create geofenced areas where the device shall not be utilized or parked . The vendor must have the technology available to promptly implement these requirements upon request. (s) The city manager, at the i r discretion, may create designated parking zones (i .e., bike corrals) i n cert ain 4/8 31212 ?, 8 :31 AM Tallahassee , FL Code of Ord inances areas where the device shall be parked. (t) Each vendor must be a business organization authorized to do business in the State of Florida and maintain active organizational status with the Florida Division of Corporations. (u) Each vendor must dilige.1tly monitor the locations of its devices to ensure compliance with American with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements relating to public accessibility to sidewalks, buildings and other such public facilities. The toll free telephone number or email address to notify a vendor of a device that is parked or located in such a manner as to violate ADA requirements must be prominently displayed on each device . Within one hour upon such notification, the vendor shall remove or relocate the device to an area that is in compliance with the ADA, this division and the operation agreement and permit. (Ord . No. 20-0-09AA, § 6, 4-8-2020) Sec. 17-604. -Operation and parking of a device. (a) The riding and operatinp, of devices is permissible upon all streets, bike lanes , if applicable, sidewalks, sidewalk areas and other areas a bicycle may legal ly travel, located within city limits, except where prohibited by official posting or geofencing or as designated in this division or the operating agreement and permit. (b) A user of a motorized scooter has all the rights and duties applicable to the rider of a bicycle under F.S . § 316 .2065 , except the duties imposed by F.S . § 316 .2065(2), (3)(b) and (3)(c), which by their nature do not apply to motorized scooters. (c) Devices shall be restricted to a maximum speed of 15 miles per hour. (d) A user operat i ng a device upon and along a sidewalk, sidewalk area, or across a roadway upon and along a crosswalk, has all the rights and duties applicable to a bicyclist under the same circumstances and shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian and shall give an audible signal before overtaking and passing such pedestrian. (e) A user operating a device must comply with all applicable local, state and federal laws. (f) A person under the age of 16 may not operate or ride upon a motorized bicycle. (g) Use of public sidewalks for parking device(s) must not: (1) Adversely affect the streets or sidewalks; (2) Inhibit pedestrian movement; (3) Inhibit the ingress and egress of vehicles parked on-or off-street; (4) Create conditions which are a threat to public safety and security; (5) Prevent a m i nimum four-foot pedestrian clear path; (6) Impede access to existing docking stations, if applicable; (7) Impede loading zones, handicap accessible parking zone or other facilities specifically designated for handicap accessibility, on-street parking spots, curb ramps, business or residential entryways, driveways, travel lanes, bicycle lanes or be within 15 feet of a fire hydrant; (8) Violate Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility requirements; 518 312122 , 8 :31 AM Tallahassee, FL Code of Ordinances (9) Block or impede vehicula r driveways or building entrances. (Ord . No . 20-0-09M, § 7, 4-8-2020) Sec. 17-605. -Removal or relocating by the city. (a) Any device that is inoperable/damaged, improperly parked, blocking ADA accessibility, non-compliant with this divis ion or the operating agreement and permit, or are left unattended on public property, inc luding streets, sidewalks, sidewalk areas, rights-of-way and parks, may be removed or relocated by the city. A device is not considered unattended or improperly parked if it is secured in a designated parking area, or rack (if applicable), parked correctly or in another location or device intended for the purpose of securing such devices. (b) A device that is displayed, offered, made available for rent in the city by a vendor without a valid operating agreement and permit with the city is subject to removal by the city and will be subject to applicable removal fines as specified in this division. (c) The city may, but is not obligated, to remove or relocate a micro-mobility device that is in violation of this division. A vendor shall pay a $75 .00 fee per device that is removed or relocated by the city. A device will be released to the vendor after all applicable impoundment fees have been paid . Any device that remains unclaimed with the city for five days is subject to sale pursuant to the procedures for abandoned or lost property set forth in F.S. § 705.103, or by any other method allowed by the laws of the State of Florida. (Ord. No. 20-0-09M, § 8, 4-8-2020) Sec. 17-606. -Operation of a shared micro-mobility device program-enforcement, fines and penalties . (a) The city reserves the right to revoke any operating agreement and permit, if there is a violation of this division, the operating agreement and permit, public health, safety or general welfare, or for other good and sufficient cause as determined by the city manager's sole discretion. (b) Violations of this division shall be enforced as non-criminal infractions of city ordinances. (c) Violations of operating a device without a valid fully executed operating agreement and permit, shall be fined $250 .00 per day for an initial offense, and $500 .00 per day for any repeat offenses within 30 days of the last offense by the same vendor. Each day of non-compliance shall be a separate offense. (d) Violations of th is division or of the operating agreement and permit shall be fined at $100.00 per device per day for an initial offense, and $200 .00 per device per day for any repeat offenses within 30 days of the last same offense by the same vendor. Each day of non-compliance shall be a separate offense . (e) The vendor may also be subject to other applicable code enforcement fines . (f) A vendor is subject, at the discretion of the city manager, to a fleet size red uction or total operating agreement and permit revocation if the violations of the regulations set forth in this division are not addressed in a timely manner, or the vendor, or their agent or subcontractors, submit inaccurate or fraudulent data. (g) In the event of violation fines or fees being assessed as specified herein or an operating agreement and permit revocation, the city manager, or designee, shall provide written notice of the violation fines or .. 618 J. ~/2122 ,•8 :31 AM Tallahassee , FL Code of Ord inances revocation via cert ified mail. informing the vendor of the vio lation fines, fees or revocation . (Ord. No. 20-0-09AA, § 9, 4-8 -2020) Sec. 17 -607 . -Appeal rights . (a) Vendors who have been subject to imposition of violation fines pursuant to section 17-606 or an operating agreement and permit revocation may appeal the imposition of violation fines or the revocation. Should a vendor seek an appeal from the imposition of violation fines or the operating agreement and permit revocation, the vendor shall furnish notice of such request for appeal to the city code enforcement division no later than ten business days, after the date of mailing, of the certified letter informing the vendor of the imposition of violation fines or revocation of the operating agreement and permit. (b) Upon receipt of a request for appeal, a hearing shall be scheduled and conducted by the code magistrate in accordance with the authority and hearing procedures set forth in the City Code of General Ordinances, chaP-ter 2. The hearing shall be conducted at the next regu lar meeting date of the code magistrate or other regular meeting date of the code magistrate as agreed between the city and the vendor. (c) Findings of fact shall be based upon a preponderance of the evidence and shall be based exclusively on the evidence of record and on matters officially recognized. (d) The code magistrate shall render a final order within 30 calendar days after the hearing concludes, unless the parties waive the time requirement. The fina l order sha ll contain written findings of fact. conclusions of law, and a recommendation to approve, approve with conditions or deny the decision subject to appeal. A copy of the final order shall be provided to the part ies by certified mail or, upon mutual agreement of the parties, by e lectronic communicat ion . (e) A vendor may challenge the final order by a petition for review filed in accordance with Florida law in the circuit court no later than 30 days following rendition of the final decision . (Ord . No . 20-0-09AA, § 10 , 4-8-2020) Sec. 17-608. -Indemnification and insurance . (a) As a condition of the operating agreement and permit, the vendor agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and defend the city, its representatives, employees, and elected and appointed officials, from and against all ADA accessibility and any and all liability, claims, damages, suits, losses, and expenses of any kind, including reasonable attorney's fees and costs for appeal , associated with or arising out of, or from the operating agreement ard permit, the use of right-of-way or city-owned property for operations or arising from any negligent act, omission or error of the vendor, owner or, managing agent, its agents or employees or from failure of the vendor, its agents or employees, to comply with each and every requirement of this division, the operating agreement and permit or with any other federal, state, or local traffic law or any combination of same. (b) Prior to commencing operation in the program, the vendor shall provide and maintain such public liability 718 3/2122 , 8 :31 AM Tallahassee , FL Code of Ordinances ' ' .\ insurance, property damage insurance and other specified coverages in amounts as determined by the city treasurer-clerk's risk management department, and contained in the operating agreement and permit, necessary to protect the city its representatives, employees, and elected and appointed officials, from all claims and damage to p r operty or bodily injury, including death, which may arise from any aspect of the pilot program or its operation. (c) A vendor shall include language in their user agreement that requ i res, to the fullest extent permitt ed by law, the user t o fully release, indemnify and hold harmless the city. (d) In addition to the requirements set forth herein, the vendor shall provide any additional insurance coverages in the specified amounts and comply with any revised indemnification provision specified in the operating agreement and permit. (e) The vendor shall provide proof of all required insurance prior to receiving a fully executed operati ng agreement and permit. (Ord . No . 20-0-09AA, § 11 , 4-8-2020) 8/8 -~ ' • 312122 , 10:23 A M https:/ /e xport.am legal. com /a pi /export-requ estsf7 c97b0dc-8023-4137-87 c8-b306ac2dda63/download/ ARTICLE X . .. DOC~ESS·VEHICLE PERMIT. SEC. 43-157. DEFINITIONS . In this article : (1) DIRECTOR means the director of the department designated by the city manager to enforce and administer this article and includes representatives , agents, or department employees designated by the director. (2) OO CKt:E SS VEHICLE means a bicycle , an electric bicycle, or a electric motor-assisted scooter, pursuant to the definitions set forth in Texas Transportation Code, Sections _ . an ~1.351 , that can be located and unlocke d using a smartphone app. (3) OPERATOR means an individual or company that has been issued an operating authority permit under this article. (4) REBALANCE means moving dockless vehicles from an area of low demand to an area of high demand. (5) RESIDENTIAL AREA means a residential district as define d in Section 51A-2.102 , "Definitions," of the Dallas Development Co d e, or a planned deve lopment district or conservation district with residential base zonmg . (Ord . 30936) SEC. 43-158. GENERAL AUTHORITY AND DUTY OF DIRECTOR. The director shall implement and enforce this article an d may by written order establish such rules or regulations , consistent with this article and state or federal law , as he d etermines are necessary to discharge his duty und er, or to affect the policy of, this article , including but not limited to , rules or regulations on .h_ours of operation, slow zones , and areas where riding dockless vehicles is prohibited . The director may contract with vendors to assist with data co ll ection and analysis and to co ll ect an d store dockless vehicles deployed or parked in violation of this chapter. (Ord. Nos . 30936; 31479) SEC. 43-159. ESTABLISHMENT OF RULES AND REGULATIONS. (a) Before adop ting , amending, or abo lishing a rule, the director sh all hold a public hearing on the proposal. (b ) The director shall fix the time an d place of the hearing and, in addition to notice required under the Open Meetings Act (Chap ter 551 , Texas Government Co de), as amended , sh all notify each operator and such other persons as the director determines are interested in the subject matter of the hearing. ( c) After the public hearing, the director shall notify all operators and other interested persons of the director's action and shall post an order adopting, amending , or abo lishing a ru le on the official bulletin board in city h all for a period o f not fewer than 10 days . The ord er becomes effective immediately upon expiration of the posting period. (Ord . 30936) SEC. 43-160. OPERATING AUTHORITY PERMIT. A person commits an offense if, within the city, he operates , or cau ses or permits the operation of, a dockless vehicle service without a vali d operating authority p ermit issued un der this article . (Ord . 30936) SEC. 43-161 . APPLICATION FOR OPERATING AUTHORITY PERMIT. (a) To obtain an operating authority permit, a person shall make ap plication in the manner prescrib ed by the director. The applicant must be the person who will own, contro l, or operate the proposed dockless vehicle program. (b) An applicant shall file w ith the director a verified app lication statement, to be accompanie d by a non - refundable application fee, containing th e following: https ://export .am legal .com /api/export-re qu ests /7 c97 b0dc-80 23-4137 -87 c8-b306a c2dda63/dow n loa d/ 1/9 312122 , 10:23 AM https ://export.amlega I .com /api/export-requests/7 c97b0d c-8023-4137-87 c8-b306ac2dda63/download/ (1) the form of business of the applicant and, if the business is a corporation or association, a copy of the documents establ ishing the bu siness and the name and address of each person wi th a 20 percent or greater ownership interest in the business; · ' (2) the verified signature of the applicant; (3) the address of the fixe d facilities to be used in the operation, if any, and th e address of the applicant's corporate headquarters, if different from the address of th e fixe d faci lities; (4) the name of the person designated by the applicant to receive on behalf of the applicant any future notices sent by the city to the operator, and that person's contact information, including a mailing address, telephone number, and email or o ther electronic address; (5) documentary evidence from an insurance company indicating that such insurance company has bound itself to provide the applicant with the liability insurance required by this article; ( 6) documentary evidence of payment of ad valorem taxes on property within the city, if any, to be used in connection with the operation of the proposed dockless vehicle program; (7) documentary ev idence from a bonding or insurance company or a bank ind icating that the bonding or insurance company or bank has bound itself to provide the applicant with the performance bond or irrevocable letter of credit required by this article ; (8) the numb er and types of dockless vehicles to be operated; and (9) an agreement to indemnify the city. ( c) An operating auth ority permit may be renewed following the process in this section . ( d) The initial application for an operating authority permit must be accompanied by an application fee of $2 ,000 and the appropriate vehicle fee as specified in Section 43-172. Applications to renew an operating authority permit must be accompanied by an application fee of $1 ,000 and the appropriate vehicle fee as specified in Section 43-172. (Ord.-Nos . 3093€; 31479) · • SEC. 43-162 . CHANGES TO INFORMATION IN OPERATING AUTHORITY APPLICATION . (a) Any changes to the information provided in the operating authority permit ap plication must be reported to the director, in the manner prescribed by the director, within 10 days of the change. (b) If the information reported to the director under this section includes an increase in the number of dockless vehicles, any additional vehicle fees due under Section 43-172 must be submitted to the director simultaneously with the change in information. (Ord. 30936) SEC. 43-163. EXPIRATION OF OPERATING AUTHORITY PERMIT. An operating authority permit expires one year from the date it is issued. (Ord. 30936) SEC. 43-164 . REFUSAL TO ISSUE OR RENEW OPERATING AUTHORITY PERMIT. (a) The director shall refuse to issue or renew an operating authority permit if the applicant: (1) intentionally or knowing ly makes a fa lse statement as to a material matter in an application for a permit or permit renewal; or (2) has been convicted twice within a 12-month period for a vio lation of this article regarding the deployment of a dockless vehicle or the rebalancing or removal of a dockless vehicle, or a rule or regulation adopted under this article regarding the dep loyment of a dockless veh icle or the re b a lancing or removal of a dockless vehicle, or has had an operating authority permit revoked within two years of the date of app lication. https:/ /export.am legal .com/api/export-requests/7 c97b0dc-8023-4137-87 c8-b306ac2dda63/down load/ 219 ., " • 312122 , 10 :23 AM https://export.amlegal .com/api/export-requests/7 c97b0dc-8023-4137-87 c8-b306ac2dda63/download/ (b) If the director determines that a permit should be denied, the director shall notify the applicant or operator in writing that the application is denied and include in the notice the specific reason or reasons for denial and a statement informing the applicant or operator of the right to , and the process for, appeal of the decision . (Ord. 30936) SEC. 43-165 . SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF OPERAT ING AUTHORITY PERMIT. (a) Su sP-ension. The following regulations apply to the suspension of an operating authority permit: (1) The director may suspend an operating authority permit if the director d etermines that: (A) the operator failed to comply with a request to remove a dockless vehicle or a request to rebalance dockless vehicles issued by the director within the time specified in the order; or (B) a performance bond or irrevocable letter of credit required by this article is cancelled. (2) Suspension of an operating authority permit does not affect the expiration date of the permit. (b) Revocation. The following regulations apply to the revocation of an operating authority permit: (1) The director shall revoke an operating authority permit if the director determines that the operator has : (A) made a false statement as to a material matter in the application concerning the operating authority permit; (B) failed to maintain the insurance required by this article ; (C) operated dockless vehicles that were not authorized by the operating authority permit; or (D) failed to pay a fee required by this article . (2) After revocation of an operating authority permit, an operator is not eligible for another permit for a period of up to two years, depending on the severity of the violation resulting in the revocation . (Ord. 30936) SEC . 43-166 . APPEALS . Any person whose application for an operating authority permit, or renewal of an operating authority permit, is denied by the director, or an operator whose operating authority permit has been revoked or suspended by the director, may file an appeal with the permit and license appeal board in accordance with Section 2-96, "Appeals From Actions of Department Directors ," of this code. (Ord. 30936) SEC. 43-167. NONTRANSFERABILITY. An operating authority permit is not transferable . This regulation sh ould not be construed to impede the continuing use of trade names . (Ord. 30936) SEC . 43-168 . OPERATIONS . (a) Each operator shall provide dockless vehicles to accommodate a wide range of users. (b) Each dockless vehicle permitted under this article must display the emblem of the operator along with a unique identification number. ( c) Dockless vehicles must not display third party advertising. ( d) Dockless vehicles must meet all requirements of l ocal, state, and federal law. Bicycles must meet the safety standards outlined in ISO 43 .150 -Cycles, Subsection 4210, as amended . ( e) Dockless vehicles must b e high quality and sturdily built to withstand the effects of weather and constant use for five years . (f) Dockless vehicles must be well maintained and in good riding condition. https ://export .am lega l.com /ap i/export-requests /7 c97b0dc-8023-4137 -87 c8-b306ac2dda63/down load/ 319 I 3/2/22 , 10:23 AM https ://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/7 c97b0dc-8023-4137-87 c8-b306ac2dda63/download / (g) Each dock.less vehicle permitted under this article must be equipped with active global positioning system technology and display a unique identification number with characters no less than one inch in height per character. (h) Spoken word alarm systems are prohibited on dock.less vehicles. (i) Operators shall maintain a staffed operations center. (j) Operators shall maintain a 24-hour customer service number posted on each dock.less vehicle for customers and citizens to report safety concerns, make complaints, ask questions, or request a dock.less vehicle be relocated. (k) Operators shall rebalance dock.less vehicles at least once per week. (1) Operators shall provide the director with contact information for someone who can rebalance and relocate dock.less vehicles. The operator shall rebalance or relocate dock.less vehicles within two hours of receiving notification on weekdays between 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p .m . (excluding holidays) and within 12 hours of receiving notice at all other times . An operator shall notify the director within 24 hours of a change of contact information. (m) An operator shall remove any inoperable dock.less vehicle, or a dock.less vehicle that is not safe to operate, from the right-of-way within 24 hours of notice from the director. A dockless vehicle removed from the right-of-way in accordance with this subsection must be repaired before it is returned to revenue service . (n) An operator shall provide the director with special access, via the operator's app or other device, to immediately unlock and remove dock.less vehicles that are blocking access to city property or the public right- of-way. ( o) The director may remove a dock.less vehicle from city property or the right-of-way that is parked in violation of this article after notification in accordance with Section 43-169(1). Any dock.less vehicle the director removes from city property or the public right-of-way for a parking violation or retrieves from a stream, lake , fountain, or other body of water will be disposed of in accordance with Division 2, "Sale of Unclaimed and Surplus Property," of Article IV, "Purchasing," of Chapter 2 , "Administration," of the Dallas City Code , as amended, if not collected by the operator after notification . The operator shall pay the director a fee of $50, a daily storage fee of $25 after a dock.less vehicle has been stored for more than 48 hours , and reimburse the city for any expenses under subsection (p) of this section before the dockless vehicle may be collected. A dock.less vehicle either in the director's custody under this subsection, or disposed of under Chapter 2 , counts against the number of dockless vehicles an operator may deploy under an operating authority permit. (p) If the city incurs any costs addressing or abating any violations of this article, or incurs any costs of repair or maintenance of public property, the operator shall reimburse the city for the costs within 30 days of receiving written notice from the director. ( q) An operator shall not place or attach any personal property (other than dock.less vehicles), fixtures , or structures in the public right-of-way without the separate written permission of the director. Any permission to place items in the public right-of-way must be incorporated into the permit. (r) An operator shall not adversely affect the property of any third parties during the use of city property or the public right-of-way. (s) An operator shall engage in community outreach and promote safety awareness in collaboration with the city, including educating customers regarding the law applicable to riding, operating, and parking a dock.less vehicle. An operator shall periodically provide riders with promotional safety gear such as helmets. An operator's mobile application must provide information notifying the user that: (1) minors must wear helmets while riding a bicycle as required by Section 9-8, "Bicycle Helmet Required," of the Dallas City Code and while riding a motor assisted scooter as required by Section 28-41.1.1, https ://export.amlegal .com /api/export-requests/7 c97b0dc-8023-4137 -87 c8-b306ac2dda63/down load / 4 /9 1 \ , 312122, 10:23 AM https ://export .a mlega I .com/api/export-req uests/7 c97b0dc-8023-4137-87 c8-b306ac2dda63/down load/ "Restrictions on the Use of Motor Assisted Scooters , Pocket Bikes, and Minimotorbikes ," of the Dallas City Code; (2) dockless vehicles must be parked legally and properly ; (3 ) bicyclists and motor assisted scooters must yield to pedestrians on sidewalks and trails ; (4) bicycles may not be ridden on sidewalks within the central business district per Section 9-1 , "Applicability of Traffic Regulations to Bicycle Riders," of the Dallas City Code; ( 5) motor assisted scooters may not be ridden on sidewalks within city per Section 28-41.1 .1 of the Dallas City Code; ( 6) motor assisted scooters may not be ridden at certain locations during the times specified by a rule or regulation established in accordance with Sections 43-158 and 43-159; and (7) motor assisted scooters must comply with the speed limits specified in Section 28-41.1.1 of the Dallas City Code. (t) Operators shall provide a cash option for riders to unlock dockless vehicles. (Ord. Nos.30936; 31479) SEC. 43 -169 . DOCKLESS VEHICLE PARKING , DEPLOYM ENT, AND OPERATION . (a) Dockless vehicles may not be parked in a manner that would impede normal and reasonable pedestrian access on a sidewalk or in any manner that would reduce the minimum clear width of a sidewalk to less than 36 inches. (b) Dockless vehicles may not be parked in a manner that would impede vehicular traffic on a street or alley. ( c) Dockless vehicles may not be parked in a manner that would impose a threat to public safety or security. ( d) Dockless vehicles may not be parked on a public street without specific permission from the director . (e) Dockless vehicles may not be deployed on a block where the sidewalk is less than 36 inches in width, or on a block that does not have sidewalks unless a docking zone is safely created for this block. The director may determine other blocks where deploying dockless vehicles is prohibited. (f) Dockless vehicles must be deployed on a sidewalk or other hard surface, at a bicycle rack, or at a city- owned location. Dockless vehicles may only be deployed on private property with the permission of the property owner. (g) Dockless vehicles must stand upright while parked. (h) Dockless vehicles may not be parked in a visibility triangle as defined in Section 51A-4.602, "Fence, Screening and Visual Obstruction Regulations ," of the Dallas Development Code . (i) Dockless vehicles may not be parked within five fee t of a crosswalk or curb ramp, unless given specific permission by the director. Dockless vehicles must be parked in a manner to provide a 20 foot clear zone around transit stops , shelters, or platforms . (j) Dockless vehicles may not be parked in a way that blocks : ( 1) Transit stops, shelters, or platforms. (2) Commercial loading zones. (3) Railroad or light rail tracks or crossings. ( 4) Passenger loading zones or valet parking service areas. ( 5) Disabled parking zones. https ://ex port.amlegal. com /api/export-requests/7 c97b0dc-8023-4137 -87 c8-b306ac2d da63/down lo ad / 519 312122 , 10:23 AM https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/7 c97b0dc-8023-4137-87 c8-b306ac2dda63/download/ (6) Street furniture that requires pedestrian access (for example, benches or parking pay stations). (7) Building entryways. (8) Vehicular driveways. (k) Dockless vehicles parked along multi-use trails may only be parked at trailheads or other areas identified by the director. (1) Dockless vehicles that are parked in an incorrect manner must be re-parked or removed by the operator within two hours ofreceiving notice from the director between 5:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. (midnight) on a daily basis. (m) A dockless vehicle that is parked in a residential area may remain in the same location for up to 48 hours as long as it is parked in accordance with this section. An operator shall relocate or rebalance a dockless vehicle parked in a residential area after receiving a citizen request or complaint in accordance with the timeframes specified in Section 43-169(1). (n) The director may remove and store any dockless vehicle that is left unutilized at the same location for five or more consecutive days . (1) The operator is responsible for the costs ofremoval and storage in accordance with Section 43-168(0). (2) The director shall invoice the operator for the cost of removal and storage. (3) Any dockless vehicle that remains unclaimed with the city for 30 days is subject to sale in accordance with Division 2, "Sale of Unclaimed and Surplus Property," of Article IV, "Purchasing," of Chapter 2, "Administration," of the Dallas City Code, as amended. ( o) The director may identify designated dockless vehicle parking zones. Subject to advance approval of the director, an operator may indicate virtual dockless vehicle parking areas with paint or decals where appropriate in order to guide riders to preferred parking zones in order to assist with orderly parking of dockless vehicles throughout the city. (p) Every person riding a dockless vehicle upon the streets of the city shall be subject to provisions of all laws and ordinances applicable to the operator of any other vehicle, except those provisions of laws and ordinances which, by their very nature , can have no application. ( q) Any person riding a dockless vehicle upon a sidewalk shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian and shall give audible signal before overtaking and passing such pedestrian. (r) A person commits an offense if the person rides a dockless vehicle in violation of time of day or locational restrictions established by rule or regulation in accordance with Sections 43-158 and 43-159. (s) Operators shall employ geofencing to comply with any time of day or location restrictions on the operation of motor assisted scooters established by rule or regulation in accordance with Sections 43-158 and 43-159. (Ord. Nos . 30936 ; 31479) SEC . 43 -170 . INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS . (a) An operator shall procure and keep in full force and effect no less than the insurance coverage required by this section through a policy or policies written by an insurance company that: (1) is authorized to do business in the State of Texas ; (2) is acceptable to the city; and (3) does not violate the ownership or operational control prohibition described in Subsection (e) of this section. https://export.am legal.com /api/export-requests/7 c97b0dc-8023-4137 -87 c8-b306ac2dda63/down load / 619 ' ... , 3/2/22 , 10:23 AM https ://export.amlegal.com/api/export-req uestsnc97b0dc-8023-4137-87c8-b306ac2dda63/download/ (b) The insured provisions of the policy must name the city and its officers and employees as additional insureds, and the coverage provisions must provide coverage for any loss or damage that may arise to any person or property by reason of the operation of a dockless vehicle. (c) An operator shall maintain the following insurance coverages : (1) The commercial general liability insurance must provide single limits of liability for bodily injury (including death) and property damage of $1 mi ll ion for each occurrence, with a $2 million annual aggregate. (2) If an operator will utilize motor vehicles in its operations, the business automotive liability insurance must cover owned, hired, and non-owned vehicles, with a combined single limit for bodily injury (including death) and property damage of $500 ,000 per occurrence . (3) Worker's compensation insurance with statutory limits. ( 4) Employer's liability insurance with the following minimum limits for bodily injury by: (A) accident, $500,000 per each accident; and (B) disease, $500,000 per employee with a per policy aggregate of $500,000. ( 5) Cyber/technology network liability and risk insurance , inclusive of information security and privacy with minimum limits of $1 million per claim. ( d) Insurance required under this article must: (1) include a cancellation provision in which the insurance company is required to notify the director in writing not fewer than 30 days before cancelling the insurance policy (for a reason other than non-payment) or before making a re duction in coverage; (2) include a cancellation provision in which the insurance company is required to notify the director in writing not fewer than 10 days before cancelling for non-payment; (3) include an endorsement to waive subrogation in favor of the city and its officers and employees for bodily injury (including death), property damage, or any other loss . (4) cover all dockless vehicles during the times that the vehicles are deployed or operating in furtherance of the operator's business; (5) include a provision requiring the insurance company to pay every covered claim on a first-dollar basis ; ( 6) require notice to the director if the policy is cancelled or if there is a reduction in coverage; and (7) comply with all applicable federal , state, and local laws. (e) No person who has a 20 percent or greater ownership interest in the operator may have an interest in the msurance company. (f) An operator may not be self-insured. (g) Any insurance policy required by this article must be on file wi th the city within 45 days of the issuance of the initial operating authority permit, and thereafter within 45 days of the expiration or termination of a previously issued policy. (Ord. Nos . 30936; 31479) SEC. 43-171 . DATA SHARING . (a) An operator shall comply with the mobility data specification (MDS) standard and cooperate with the city in the collection and analysis of aggregated data concerning its operations. (b) An operator shall provide live M D S data to city data vendors. City data vendors shall supply the director a daily report of aggregated data for the previous 24 hours. City data vendors shall not supply the director with https ://export .am legal .com /api/export-requestsn c97b0dc-8023-4137 -87 c8-b306ac2dda63/dow n load/ 719 312122 , 10:23 AM https ://export .amlega I .com/api/export-requestsn c97b0dc-8023-4137-87 c8-b306ac2dda63/download/ live MDS data . The director may request aggregated data from data vendors at other times when necess ary for law enforcement and o ther emergencies. (c) An operator shall provide other reports at the director's request. (Ord. Nos . 30936; 31479) SEC. 43-172. VEHICLE FEE AND RIDE FEE . (a) An operator shall pay an annual vehicle fee of $35 for each permitted dockless vehicle with $5 from the annual vehicle fee d edicated to equity programs. (b) An operator shall pay a right-of-way rental fee of $0.20 for each ride a customer takes on a dockless vehicle. (c) The director may establish a program, subject to city counci l approval, to re bate or waive fees under this section in order to encourage equity in the distribution of dockless vehicles thro ughout the city. (d) City council must review the fees in this article by January 25, 2021. (Ord. Nos. 30936; 31479) SEC. 43-173 . PERFORMANCE BOND OR IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT. Before issuance of an operating authority permit, the operator shall give the director a performance bond or an irrevocable letter of credit approved as to form by the city attorney. (1) A bonding or insurance company authorized to do business in the State of Texas and acceptable to the city must issue the performance bond. A bank authorized to do business in the State of Texas and acceptable to the city must issue the irrevocable letter of credit. (2) The performance bond or irrevocable letter of credit must list the operator as principal and be payable to the city. (3) The performance bond or irrevocable letter of credit must remain in effect for the duration of the operating authority permit. ( 4) The amount of the performance bond or irrevocable letter of credit must be at least $10,000. (5) Cancellation of the performance bond or irrevocable letter of credit does not release the operator from the obligation to meet all requirements of this article and the operating authority permit. If the performance bond or irrevocable letter of credit is cancelled, the operating authority permit shall be su spended on the date of cancellation and the op erator shall immediately cease operations until the operator provides the director with a replacement performance bond or irrevocable letter of credit that meets the requirements of this article. (6) The city may draw against the performance bond or irrevocable letter of credit or pursue any other available remedy to recover damages, fees, fines, or penalties due from the operator for violation of any provision of this article or the operating authority permit. (Ord. 30936) SEC . 43-174 . ENFORCEMENT. (a) The director may, with or without notice, inspect any dockless vehicle operating under this article to determine whether the dockless vehicle complies with this article, rules and reg ul ations established under this article, or other applicable laws . (b) The director shall enforce this article. Upon observing a violation of this article or the rules or regulations established by the director, the director shall take necessary action to ensure effective regulation of dockless vehicles. The director has authority to issue citations for violations of this division including moving violations. (Ord. Nos. 30936; 31479) SEC. 43-175 . CRIMINAL OFFENSES. (a) A person commits an offense if he violates or attempts to vio late a provision of this article, or a rule or regulation established by the director under this article , that is applicable to a person. A culpable mental state is https ://export.am legal .com/api/e xpo rt-requestsn c97b0dc-8023-4137-87 c8-b306ac2dda63/download / 8/9 ._ 'J /2/22 , 10:23 AM https://e xport.amlegal .com/api/export-req uestsf7 c97b0dc-8023-4137-87 c8-b306ac2dda63/download/ not required for the commission of an offense under this article unless the provision defining the conduct expressly requires a culpable mental state . A separate offense is committed each day in which an offense occurs. (b ) Prosecution for an offense under Subsection (a) does not prevent the use of other enforcement remedies or procedures applicable to the person charged with or the conduct invo lved in the offense. (Ord. 30936) https://export .amlegal .com /a pi/export-requestsf7 c97b0dc-8023-4137 -87 c8-b306ac2dda63/down lo ad / 9/9 San Antonio , T X Code of Ord inances ARTICLE XIX . -MOTOR-ASSISTED SCOOTERS, ELECTRIC BICYCLES, AND BICYCLES EQUIPPED WITH GPS Sec. 19-660. -Definitions and exclusions. (a) As used in this article : (1) Bicycle equipped with GPS means a device that a person may ride and that is propelled by human power and has two (2) tandem wheels at least one of which is more than fourteen (14) inches in diameter, which has a global positioning system (GPS) to determine the geographic location of the bicycle . (2) Director means the director of the department designated by the city manager to enforce and administer this article and includes representatives, agents, or department employees designated by the director. (3) Dockless vehicle means a bicycle equipped with GPS, an electric bicycle, or a motor assisted scooter that is available for use for a fee; (4) Electric bicycle means a bicycle that: a. Is designed to be propelled by an electric motor, exclusively or in combination with the application of human power; b. Cannot attain a speed of more than twenty (20) miles per hour without the application of human power; and c. Does not exceed a weight of one hundred (100) pounds. (5) Fleet manager means the person responsible for the daily operations of a dockless vehicle service, who must be based in the city. (6) Motor-assisted scooter means a self-propelled device, not including a pocket bike or m i ni--motorbike, with: a. At least two (2) wheels in contact with the ground during operation; b. A braking system capable of stopping the device under typical operating conditions; c. A gas or electric motor not exceeding forty (40) cubic centimeters; d. A deck designed to allow a person to stand or sit while operating the device; and e. The ability to be propelled by human power alone. (7) Permit agreement means the written agreement between the city and a person for an operati ng permit which authorizes the operation of a service providing dockless vehicles for compensation . (8) Permit holder means the person who owns the operation if a sole proprietorship, or the person who has been designated as managing the operation if any other entity, of a service 1/8 312i 22, 9 :50 AM San Antonio , TX Code of Orqi nanoes • providing dockless vehicles for compensation . . \. (9) Person means an individual, partnership, corporation, company, association or other legal entity. (b) This article does not apply to a moped or motorcycle; a motorized mobility device (Transportation Code Section 542.009); an electric personal assistive mobility device (Transportation Code Section 551 .201; or a neighborhood e l ectric vehicle (Transportation Code Section 551.301 ). (Ord . No. 2018-10-11-0803, § 1, 10-11 -18) Sec. 19-661 . -Operation, parking, and required equipment of motor-assisted scooters, electric bicycles, and bicycles equipped with GPS. (a) Operation of motor-assisted scooters: (1) Riders must always yield to pedestrians. (2) Riders must use bike lanes when available. (3) In the absence of a bike lane, riders may ride on streets which have a speed limitof thirty-five (35) miles per hour or less. Riders must obey all state and city traffic laws. (4) Riding on sidewalks is prohibited . (5) Riders may not ride on trails, creek ways, plazas and in parks, including but not lim ited to the Riverwalk, Alamo Plaza, La Villita, Main Plaza and Market Square. Public streets that intersect parks and plazas may be ridden upon . (6) The person operating or in control must be at least sixteen (16) years of age. (7) Riders may not have any passengers . Only one person may be on the vehicle when it is being operated. (8) Riders may not use a portable wireless communication device while operating a vehicle . (9) The wearing of a helmet is encouraged but not required . (b) Operation of electric bicycles , and bicycles equipped with GPS: (1) Riders must always yield to pedestrians. (2) Riders may not ride on sidewalks, and must use bike lanes when available . (3) Riders must obey state and city traffic laws . (4) For electric bicycles, the person operating or in control must be at least sixteen (16) years of age. (6) Riders may not use a portable wireless communication device while operating a vehicle. (7) The wearing of a helmet is encouraged but not required. (c) Parking of motor-assisted scooters, electric bicycles and bicycles equipped with GPS: (1) These vehicles may not be parked on streets, except in areas designated by the director by 2/8 San Antonio , T X Code of Ordinances paint, decals or signs . (2) These vehicles may be parked upright on sidewalks in a manner that does not impede the normal and reasonable pedestrian access on a sidewalk, or in any manner that would reduce the minimum clear width of a sidewalk to less than three (3) feet, except as prohibited below in subsection (2). (3) These vehicles may not be parked on sidewalks at the following locations: a. In the area beginning at a bus stop flag pole, continuing back fifteen (15) feet in the direction from which buss es arrive, for the full width of the sidewalk; b. Within eight (8) feet of commercial or pedestrian loading zones , or disabled parking zones; c. Within four (4) feet of street fixtures that require pedestrian access, including but not limited to benches, parking pay stations and transit information signs; d. Within five (5) feet of curb ramps, entryways and driveways, meaning within five (5) feet of the slope change that signifies the start of the curb ramp, entryway or driveway; e. Within eight (8) feet of a building entrance; f. On trails, creek ways, plazas and parks, including but not limited to the Riverwalk, Alamo Plaza, La Villita, Main Plaza and Market Square. g. In a space reserved for a swell cycle, or any other docking station for shared bicycles. (d) Required equipment of motor-assisted scooters, electric bicycles and bicycles equipped with GPS: (1) These vehicles may not be operated at nighttime unless the vehicle is equipped with : a. A lamp on the front of the vehicle that emits a white light visible from a distance of a least five hundred (500) feet in front of the vehicle; and b. A red reflector that is visible when directly in front of lawful upper beams of motor vehicle headlamps from all distances from fifty (50) to three hundred (300) feet to the rear of the vehicle, or a lamp that emits a red light visible from a distance of five hundred (500) feet to the rear of the vehicle. (2) These vehicles may not be operated without a working bell, horn, or other sound mechanism . (Ord. No . 2018-10-11-0803 , § 1, 10-11-18; Ord. No. 2019-02 -14-0111 , § 1, 2-14-19; Ord. No. 2019-05 -30-0426 , § 4, 5-30 -19 ; Ord. No. 2019-12-12-1028 , § 4, 12 -12-19) Sec. 19-662 . -Dockless vehicle for hire permit agreements. (a) A person must register and obtain a permit agreement from the city, and pay any applicable fees, prior to providing a dockless vehicle to for any compensation, including but not limited to any money, thing of value, payment, consideration, donation, gratuity or profit. 3/8 3 12i 22 , 9 :50 AM San Antonio , TX Code of Ord inances (b) Reserved . (c) Reserved . (d) Reserved. (e) A permit agreement is non-transferrable . This regulation should not be construed to impede the continuing use of trade names. (Ord. No . 2018-10-11-0803. § 1, 10-11-18; Ord. No. 2019-12-12-1028, § 4, 12-12-19) Sec. 19-663. -Issuance, renewal , suspension and revocation of permit agreements. (a) The director shall refuse to issue or renew a permit agreement if the applicant: (1) Does not meet the requirements in the permit application, including failing to meet any requirements established by the director; (2) Intentionally or knowingly makes a false statement as to a material matter in an application for a pe r mit agreement; or (3) Has been convicted twice within a 12-month period for a violation of this article, or has had a permit agreement revoked within two (2) years of the date of application. (b) If the director determines that a permit agreement should be denied , the director shall notify the applicant or operator in writing that the application is denied and include in the notice the specific reason or reasons for denial and a statement informing the applicant or operator of the right to, and the process for, appeal of the decision . (c) The directo r shall revoke a permit agreement if the director determines that the permit holder has: (1) Made a false statement as to a material matter in the application concerning the operating authori t y permit; (2) Failed to maintain the insurance required by this article; (3) Operated dockless veh ic les in excess of the number authorized by the permit agreement; or (4) Failed to pay a fee required by this article. (d) After revocation of an operating authority permit, an operator is not eligible for another permit for a period of up to two (2) years, depending on the severity of the violation resulting in the revocation . (e) Reserved. (Ord. No. 2018-10-11-0803, § 1, 10 -11 -18 ; Ord . No . 2019 -12-12-1028, § 4, 12-12-19) Sec. 19-664. -Dockless vehicle operations. (a) Each dockless vehicle perm itted under this article must display the emblem of the permit holder, 4/8 3/2122 , 9 :50 AM San Antonio , T X Code of Ordinances a unique identification number, and a 24-hour phone number for customers and citizens to report safety concerns, make complaints, ask questions, or request a dockless vehicle be relocated . (b) The fleet manager, or a designated representative, shall be available by the phone number provided on the application, seven (7) days a week between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m . to accept calls from the director. (c) Permit holders shall not attach any personal property (other than dockless vehicles), fixtures, or structures to the public right-of-way without the separate written permission of the director. Any permission to place items in the public right-of-way must be incorporated into the permit. (d) Permit holders shall provide the director electronic access to the current list of dockless vehicles available for rent in the city, which includes the unique identification number for each vehicle. (e) Permit holders shall educate customers regarding the law applicable to riding, operating, and parking a dockless vehicle. A permit holder's application must provide information notifying the user that: (1) The use of helmets is encouraged for the safety of the drivers; (2) The legal parking of dockless vehicles; (3) The legal operation of dockless vehicles, including the duty to yield to pedestrians. (4) For motor-assisted scooters and electric bicycles, the areas where riding and parking are prohibited. (f) Notices of violations or broken vehicles : (1) Permit holders shall have one (1) hour after receiving notice of a violation, including scenarios where ADA accessibility is impacted (parking within thirty-six (36) inches of an ADA ramp, or blocking an ADA ramp), from any source, to correct violations for a dockless vehicle being parked in prohibited area under this article; for other violations the permit holder has two (2) hours after receiving notice to correct the violation. (2) Permit holders are required to lock vehicles reported as broken, from any source, and must remove the vehicle within two (2) hours. (3) After the time for correcting a violation has expired, the city may remove and impound a vehicle that is parked in violation of this article or broken. The permit holder must pay the city a fee of one hundred dollars ($100.00) to obtain the return of each vehicle impounded. (4) City staff, and other persons authorized by city staff, including but not limited to Centro San Antonio and any other identified partners, may remove dockless vehicles parked in prohibited areas, dockless vehicles blocking ADA facilities, or dockless vehicles located within areas 5/8 . 3/2/22 , 9 :50 AM San Antonio , TX Code of Ordinances identified consistent with section 19 -664(h), in violation of this article, or that are identified as broken, imm ediately and without notice of violation to a permit holder, in which case the city may not impose an impound fee . (g) Permit holders shall cooperate with the city in the collection and analysis of aggregate data concerning its operations: (1) Permit holders shall provi de a monthly report to the director of the maximum number of permitted vehic les in use by riders at any time in the previous week; and (2) Perm it holders shall provide a monthly report to the director that includes : a. The total number of rides the previous month; b. The total number of vehicles in service for the previous month; c. The average number of rides per veh i cle per day; d . Anonymized aggregated data taken by the permit holder's dockless vehicles in the form of hea t maps showing routes, trends, origins, and destina tions; and e. Anonymized trip data taken by the permit holder's dockless vehicles that includes the origin and destina tion, trip duration, distance and date and time of trip. (3) Permit holders shall provide such other reports at the director's request. (h) Notwithstanding the above, the director has the authority to identify areas where vehicles must be removed to accommodate special events, construction, and maintenance work performed by the downtown public improvement district. The director shall have the authority to establish the time for any required removal and any subsequent deployment. (Ord. No. 2018-10-11-0803, § 1, 10-11-18; Ord. No . 2019-02-14-0111 , § 1, 2-14-19; Ord . No. 2019-12-12 -1028 , § 4, 12-1 2-19) Sec. 19-665. -Insurance . (a) A permit holder sha ll procure and keep in full force and effect the insurance coverage required by the executed permit agreement between the city and permit holder. (b) Insurance required under th i s article must be consistent with requirements established by written permit agreement between the city and permit holder. (c) No person who has a twenty (20) percent or greater ownership interest in the permit holder may have an interest in the insurance company. (d) A permit holder may not be se lf-insured. (e) Any insurance policy required by this article must be on file with and approved by the city prior to the issuance of a permit agreement, must remain in effect during the term of the permit agreement. 618 San Antonio, TX Code of Ordinar,C'es (Ord. No. 2018-10-11-0803 . § 1, 10-11-18; Ord. No . 2019-12 -12 -1028, § 4, 12-12-19) Sec. 19-666. -Indemnification. (a) Permit holder covenants and agrees to fully indemnify, defend and hold harmless, the city and the elected officials, employees, officers, directors, volunteers and representatives of the city, individually and collectively, from and against any and all costs , claims, liens, damages, losses , expenses, fees, fines, penalties, proceedings, actions, demands, causes of action, liability and suits of any kind and nature, including but not limited to, personal or bodily injury, death and property damage (collectively "CLAIMS"), made upon the city directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or related to permit holder's violation of this contract, including any violation attributable to any agent, officer, director, representative, employee, consultant or subcontractor of permit holder, and their respective officers, agents employees, directors and representatives while in the exercise of the rights or performance of the duties under this contract. The indemnity provided for in this paragraph shall not apply to any liability resulting from the negligence or intentional misconduct of city, its officers or employees. In the event permit holder and city are found jointly liable by a court of competent jurisdiction, liability shall be apportioned comparatively in accordance with the laws for the State of Texas, without, however, waiving any governmental im mun ity available to the city under Texas law and without waiving any defenses of the parties under Texas law. (b) The provisions of this indemnity are solely for the benefit of the parties hereto and not intended to create or grant any rights, contractual or otherwise, to any other person or entity. The parties shall advise each other in writing within 24 hours of any claim or demand against either party that it reasonably believes are covered by permit holder's indemnity obligations hereunder. The city shall have the right, at its option and at its own expense, to participate in such defense without relieving perm it holder of any of its obligations under this paragraph . (c) Defense counsel permit holder shall retain the right to select defense counsel in fulfilling its obligation hereunder to defend and indemnify city, unless such right is expressly waived by permit holde r in writing. City shall also have the right, at its option, to be represented by advisory counsel of its own selection and at its own expense . (d) Employee litigation. In any and all claims against any party indemnified hereunder by any employee of permit holder, any subcontractor, anyone directly or indirectly employed by any of them or anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable, the indemnification obligation herein provided shall not be limited in any way by any limitation on the amount or type of damages, compensation or benefits payable by or for permit holder or any subcontractor under worker's compensation or other employee benefit acts . (e) It is expressly understood and agreed that permit holder is and shall be deemed to be an 7 /8 312122 . 9 :50 AM ~(\ Mon\() San Antonio , TX Code of Ordinances indepenaent contractor and permit holder responsible to all parties for its respective acts or omissions and that city shall in no way be responsible therefor. (Ord. No. 2018-10-11-0803 , § 1, 10-11-18) Sec. 19-667. -Enforcement. (a) The director shall enforce this article. (b) Upon observing a violation of this article, the director shall take necessary action to ensure effective regulation of dockless vehicles . (c) The director may, with or without notice, inspect any dockless vehicle operating under this article to determine whether the dockless vehicle complies with this article and other applicable laws . (Ord . No. 2018-10-11-0803, § 1, 10-11-18) Sec. 19-668. -Criminal offenses . (a) A person commits an offense if, within the city, the person operates or causes or permits the operation of a dockless vehicle service without a valid permit agreement issued under this article. (b) A person commits an offense if the person violates or attempts to violate a provision of this article. (c) A culpable mental state is not required for the commission of an offense under this article. A separate offense is committed each day in which an offense occurs. (d) Prosecution for an offense under this article does not prevent the use of other enforcement remedies or procedures applicable to the person charged with the conduct or involved in the offense . (e) Any person who violates any of the provisions of this article shall be guilty of a Class C misdemeanor and upon adjudication or conviction thereof shall be fined in an amount not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500 .00) for each offense. (Ord. No. 2018-10-11-0803, § 1, 10-11-18) Sec. 19-669. -Inconsistent city code provisions. This article controls over any previously enacted ordinance or provision of the City Code of San Antonio, Texas, to the extent there is any conflict, including but not limited to sections 19-286, 19-294 and 29-20 . (Ord. No. 2018-10-11 -0803, § 1, 10-11-18) 8/8 15 .08 .150 -Shared mobility devices . A. Definitions . For purposes of this section, the following terms have the following defin itions . 1. "Di rector " means the person designated by the city manager in charge of overseeing the enforcement of this section . 2. "Electric personal assistive mobility device" means a two non -tandem wheeled device designed for transporting one person that is self-balancing and propelled by an electr ic propuls ion system with an average power of seven hundred fifty watts or one horsepower. 3. "Non -personally identifiable information" or "non-Pll " means data or information that is anonymous. 4. "Person" means a natural person as well as any entity or organization formed under the laws of any st ate in the United States or abroad . 5. "Permit" means a permit issued by the director under this section . 6. "Public right-of-way" means any portion of a street o r sidewalk dedicated to the City of El Paso for the use of the public. 7. "Risk manager" mea'1s the person designated by the city manager as such. 8. "Shared use mobil ity device(s)" means a motor driven , or non-motor driven , bicycle, scooter, electric personal assistive mobility device, or other similar dev ice made available by a person to the public for rent regardless of whether a fee is charged for the rental of such device . The defin ition applies regardless of whether the shared use mobility device is dock less or must be returned to a docking stat ion. B. Prohib it ion . A person shall not place a shared use mobility device on the public right-of-way without obtaining a permit under this section of the El Paso City Code. A pe r son who obtains a permit under this sect ion shall abide by all requirements prescr i bed under th is section as well as all regulations adopted by the director under the authority granted to the director under this section. C. Permit. A person who wants to place a shared use mobility device on the public right-of-way shall apply for a permit o n an application form as required by the director. The director shall issue a permit to a person that complies with requirements of this section and any regulations adopted by the director pursuant to this section. The director shall not issue a permit to a person that does not comply with the requirements of this section or any regulations adopted by the director pursuant to this section . A person is not eligible to apply for a permit for one year following a revocation of a permit under this section . Unless terminated earlier as provided under this section, all permits issued under this section expire Janua ry 31, 2022 regardless of the date such permit is iss u ed . No permit shall be issued to a person owing ad valorem taxes to the city or who has defaulted on an agreement with the city within five years preced i ng the application for a permit under this section . Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, a permit may only be issued to a person who owns the shared use mobility devices for which the permit is requested . All application forms and documents under th is section must be executed by the owner of the! shared use mob il ity devices . Nothing in the section prohibits city counc i l from amending this section to change the expiration date of all permits. D. Regulations and Authority of DirectQr . The director is authorized to perform the following: 1. Adopt, amend, and repeal regulatio ns for the use, deployment, operation, hours of operation, maintena disposal of batteries, customer service, terms of use, public education, identification, contact informatio personnel, equipment, speed limits, placement and parking, proof of ownership, timeframes for compli< advertisement, redistribution, and removal of shared use mobil ity devices . The director is also authori- amend, and repeal regulations regarding the collection of non-personally identifiable information data i1 but not limited to, the use and sharing of data with the City of El Paso. The city shall only use this inform the purposes of evaluating public transportation improvements, other public improvements, and public The city may release such non-Pl I pursuant to any request made under the Texas Public Information Act 2. Establish an application form to ensure that all require ments of this section, and any regulations adopted by the director pursuant to this section, are met. 3. Establish and modify boundaries within the City of El Paso for placement of shared use mob i lity devices . 4. Establish l imits on the number and deployment of shared use mobility devices allowed within the boundaries established by the director. The director shall cons ider all factors , including but not limited to, the need or demand of shared use mobility devices within the boundaries established by the director. The director may request in the application form any relevant data necessary to allow the director to evaluate requests to increase the number of shared use mobility devices allowed under a permit. 5. Requi r e applicants to show proof of compliance with provisions of this section or regulations adopted by the director. 6. Prohibit the placement, or r equire the immediate removal, of shared use mobility devices in certain areas of the city to accommodate any events or construction taking place on the public right-of-way or address any emergencies that require emergency traffic control. 7. Deny a permit for failure to comply w ith this section or the regulat ions adopted by the director under this sect ion . The director may deny a permit for up to one year following a pe r son's failure to comply with this section or the regulati ons adopted by the directo r under this section . 8. Revoke a permit after three violations by a person of any requirements under this section or the regulations adopted by the director under this section . Notwithstanding anyth i ng to the contrary, the director shall revoke a permit after the first failure by a person to comply with the requirements of subsections P. and G. below. 9. Deny or revoke a permit upon discovery of any false information submitted by a person under this section . 10. Remove any shared use mobility devices placed on the public right-of-way in violation of this section or any regulation adopted by the director under this section . The director shall assess all costs incurred by the city to the owner of the shared use mobility device. E. Proof of Ow n ership . A person sha ll submit proof of ownership for all shared use mobility devices under a permit. F. Insurance Requirements . The risk manager shall establish the coverages and amounts of insurance that .. _ "' will be required to obtain a permit under this section. A person applying for a permit shall submit, with the application, a copy of the following documents showing proof of compliance with the coverages and amounts established by the risk manager: a certificate of ins urance and a complete insurance policy with all endorsements. A person shall maintain the coverages and amounts of insurance as established by the risk manager for the duration of the permit. A person shall add the City of El Paso as an additional insured to all insurance ;:>0licies under this section . G. Indemnification and Release Requirements . Prior to obtaining a permit, a pe rso n applying for a permit shall agree in writing to an indemnification and release agreement in the form approved by the city's risk manager after revie w by the city attorney's office . Refusa l to indemnify the city, as required under the indemnification and release agreement, will resu lt in a revocation of a permit and future denial of a permit under this section. H. Bond Requirements. The risk manager shall establish bond or irrevocable letter of credit requirements to cover the following: any damages by the public right-of-way caused by a shared use mobility device , costs of removing from the public right-of-way a shared use mobility device, and costs of storing and disposing of any shared use mobility devices . A person shall comply with the bond requirements or irrevocable letter of credit requirements established in this section for the duration of a permit. I. Fees Charged to Customers. A person holding a permit under th is section shall clearly communicate rates to customers prior to the use of a device by any person. J. Maintenance and Charging. A person shall not perform maintenance on any shared use mobility device or charge any shared use mobility device on a public right-of-way . K. Non -Transferability. Perm its issued under this section are not transferable . L. No Property Rights. A permit does not grant any person an exclusive right to any portion of the right-of- way . M. Enforcement. The director, a code enforcement officer, and/or a City of El Paso police officer are authorized to enforce the provisions of this section and the regulations adopted by the director under this section. A person authorized to enforce this section is authorized to remove/relocate shared use mobility devices that are left unattended in a manner that threatens the public safety or welfare . A person authorized to enforce this section is also authorized to requ ire a person using a shared use mobility device to remove/relocate a shared use mobility device that is left in a manner that threatens the publ ic safety or welfare. N. Termination. Any permits issued under this section may be terminated by city council for a public pu rpose as determined by city council. This provision does not limi t the authority of the director under this section. 0 . Fees and Costs. City council may establish fees related to this section in the annual budget resolution, including but not limited to fees for the use of the public right-of-way, fees for processing claims, and fees for impo undment of a shared use mobility device, as may be perm itted by law . In addition, the city council may establish fees sufficient to cover the costs of processing claims related to shared use mobility devices rece ived by the city . A person applying for a permit, holding a permit, or appealing a denial or revocation of a permit under this section shall pay the fees in the amounts provided in the annual budget resolution adopted by city council. P. Damages by Shared Use Mobili t y Device . A person shall be responsible for the costs incurred by the city in repairing any damages to the public right-of-way or any other property owned by the City of El Paso caused by a shared use mobility device owned by the person or by the use of a shared use mobility device owned by the person regardless of who the user of the shared use mobility device is at the time the damage was caused . The ci t y, at its sole discretion, may elect to repair any damage caused by a shared use mobility device and asses the costs to the owner of the shared use mobility device. The owner of a shared use mobility who receives an invoice from the city under this section shall pay the invoice within thirty calendar days of receiving the invoice . The director shall revoke the permit of a person who fails to comply with the requirements of this provision. Q . Appeal. A person may appeal the denial or revocation of a permit under this section by submitting an appeal request in writing to the city manager, or designee, and paying the required appeal fee w ithin fifteen calendar days of an action to deny or revoke a permit. The city manager, or designee, shall hold a hearing within thirty calendar days of receiving an appeal request and appeal fee . The city manager, or designee, shall review the denial of a permit or revocation of a permit for compliance with the requirements of this section and the regulations adopted by the directc:r under this section . A decision by the city manager, or designee, is final. A person may also appeal the assessment of any damages under subsection P. above in the same manner as described herein provided that prior to the appeal hearing the person pays the invoice assessed under subsection P. R. Headings. All headings in this section are for reference purposes only and do not control the meaning of any provisio n under this section . S. Penalty . A person who violates a provision under this section may be subject to any and all of the following : 1 . A perso n who violates any provision under this section shall be found guilty of a Class C misdemeanor and pun ished by a fine not to exceed five hundred dollars . Each day a person fails to comply with the provisions of this section constitutes a separate offense . 2. A perso n that violates any provision under this section may have a permit denied or revoked . 3. A perso n that violates any provision under this section may have the person 's share use mobility devices removed by the city from the public right-of-way. Such removal shall be at the sole expense of the person owning the shared use mobility device and the city may employ any methods allowed under law to recover the expenses of removing from the public ri ght-of-way and storing a removed shared use mobility device . A person shall pay all expenses incurred by the city in the removal of a shared use mobility device before the city releases the shared use mobility device to the person . Any shared u se mobility devices that remain unclaimed for a period of thirty calendar days following removal from the public right-of-way shall be disposed of in accord c1nce to applicable law . T. Abatement. Nothing in this sec t ion limits the City of El Paso's r ight to abate an unlawful obstruct ion or use of a publ ic right-of-way. The city may remove from the public right-of-way any items unlawfully placed ;. • on the pub lic right-of-way and dispose of such item, including by sale, after thirty calendar days of notification to the owner or following a reasonable, but unsuccessful, attempt to locate the owner of such item . The city is entitled to retain any proceeds of a sale d isposing of an item in order to cover the costs incurred by the city for removal and storage of such item . U. Not Appl icable. This section does not apply to the follow i ng : a person , or government entity, placing a shared use mob i lity device on the public right-of-way pursuant to a valid perm it o r authorization issued under any other section of the El Paso City Code; or a government ent ity placing a shared use mob i lity device on the public right-of-way pursuant to an interlocal or other similar agreement with the City of El Paso . A permit under this section does not authorize a person to place or operate a shared use mobility device on private property or property owned or controlled by any other governmental entity, school district, or institution of higher education, including but not limited to the Un iversity of Texas at El Paso . (Ord . No. 18899, § 1, 1-8-2019; Ord . No . 19012, § 1, 1-21-2020; Ord . No. 19134 , § 1, 1-19-2021) ORDINANCE NO. Oi J 406 AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A LICENSE TO THE CAMINO REAL REGIONAL MOBILITY AUTHORITY, A REGIONAL MOBILITY AUTHORITY CREATED AND OPERATING PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 370 OF THE TEXAS TRANSPORTATION CODE, TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION, INSTALLATION, MAINTENANCE, USE AND REPAIR OF BICYCLE SHARE FACILITIES ON CERTAIN PUBLIC PROPERTIES, INCLUDING PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY IN THE CITY OF EL PASO, EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS. WHEREAS, the public health , safety and welfare will be enhanced by the implementation of a Bike Share Program whereby system subscribers have access to rent public bicycles on a short-term basis for use within the City through self-service kiosk locations; and WHEREAS, on July 15, 2013 the City of El Paso , Texas ("City '), the El Paso Metropolitan Organization ( 'MPO"), and the Camino Real Regional Mobility Authority (' CRRMA"), hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Parties," entered into an Interlocal Agreement for the purpose of the funding and development of a Bike Share Program in El Paso, whereby the City and MPO would provide partial funding for the program and the CRRMA would administer such program· and WHEREAS, the bicycle sharing experience of the general public will be enhanced by the installation of bike share infrastructure on readily accessible public property including the public right-of-way; and WHEREAS, the CRRMA wishes to begin the installation and operation of bicycle share infrastructure on City-owned property, including the right-of-way; and WHEREAS, Section 15.08.120 of the El Paso City Code requires the issuance of a special privilege license, approved by the City Council , for surface encroachments of the public right-of-way not specifically defined by said section; and WHEREAS, City Code Section J 5.08.120(F)(5) authorizes the City Council to waive or reduce the established fee for Special Privilege Licenses for items located within a Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone ("TIRZ"), and furthermore, this License serves a municipal purpose of providing recreational activities, and clean and provides alternate transportation methods and Council wishes to set the fee to zero for this License , some of which is located within a TIRZ, and all of which serves a municipal purpose. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL PASO: 018 406 ORDINANCE NO.---''"_ .... _ .. .;;...~-...;;..· __ #435435_3 / 15 -1007-1451 / CRRMA Bikesharc License KLH-K NESV201S-00013 I LI.) SECTION 1. DESCRIPTION The City of El Paso (hereinafter called "City") hereby grants a License (hereinafter called "License") to the Camino Real Regional Mobility Authority (hereinafter called 'Grantee) to administer a Bicycle Share Program (hereinafter called "Program") for the construction, installation, maintenance, use and repair of Bicycle Share Stations (hereinafter called ' Station") on certain City-owned properties, including certain public rights-of-way within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City. SECTION 2. LICENSE AREA The subsurface and surface rights granted herein on certain City-owned properties, including along portions of rights-of-way are located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of El Paso, El Paso County, Texas (hereinafter referred to as "License Area"). SECTION 3. USE OF PROPERTY This License is granted solely for the encroachment onto City-owned property, including the right-of-way for the construction installation, maintenance , use and repair of bicycle share stations in connection with the Program. This License shall not permit or be construed to permit any other private use of City-owned property, including the right-of-way , that impairs its function . Except as provided herein, Grantee shall not construct any additional improvements, or make any additions or alterations on, above or below the City owned property or right-of-way without prior written consent of the El Paso City Council. Stations located within the City ri ghts-of-way shall comply with all terms and conditions of El Paso City Code section 15.08 .120 . SECTION 4. AUTHORIZATION TO ALLOW USE OF PUBLIC PROPERTY AND RIGHT-OF-WAY The City Manager or designee is authorized but not required to allow the installation of Stations on City-owned property, including the right-of-way by the Grantee but in no case shall the authorization granted by this section require the City Manager, or designee, to allow the installation of Stations in locations that the City Manager or designee <..eems not suitable for the installation of such infrastructure. A. Criteria for the Location of Stations (1) The City Manager or designee shall consider whether a Station interferes with the visibility needs of drivers . (2) The City Manager or designee shall consider whether a Station unreasonably interferes with the flow of pedestrian traffic, taking into consideration the queuing areas for adjacent businesses, the size of the Station and the width of the sidewalk. ORDINANCE NO. __ (_ .. _J_,_~--~-8_ #435435_3 / 15-1007-1451 / CRRMA Bi kes har e License .KLH-K NESV2015-00013 2 (3) Stations placed on sidewalks shall: (a) Require a minimum of five (5) feet of clear pedestrian clearance and bicycle access behind a docked bicycle tire, although a larger clear width is preferable when possible. (b) Require a minimum set back of two (2) feet from the curb face for car clearance if placed where on-street parking is permitted. (4) Stations placed on street shall: (a) Require a minimum set back of six (6) inches from the curb . (b) Require a safe hit post placed a minimum of four (4) feet from both of the short ends of the Station. (c) Require placement on streets with a posted traffic speed of no more than thirty (30) miles per hour. ( d) Not be located in bus zones or loading zones . (5) The Station shall be set back a minimum of five (5) feet from the back edge of a crosswalk and where possible , should be set back a minimum of four (4) feet from any driveways or other curb cuts. (6) The Station shall not obstruct access to public utilities, including manhole covers, water meters , electrical cabinets, and vent grates. (7) The Station sha!\ not impede access to transit stops and shelters, or paid parking kiosks/meters. B. Procedure for Station Location and Relocation Approval (I) It shall be unlawful to install or maintain a Station on City-owned property, including the right-of-way, except as pennitted by the City Manager or designee through a signed endorsement of the location. (2) All Stations on City-owned property, including right-of-way shall be installed, operated and maintained by the Grantee in conformity with the criteria listed under Subsection A of this Section . (3) Before a location for Station can be endorsed , the Grantee must submit design plans, which should be accompanied by photographs and any other supporting documents deemed necessary, to the City Manager or designee for approval. ORDINANCE NO. __ ·O _t _~-~ O __ '&_ .. _ #435435_3/ 15-1007-1451 /CRRMABike hare Li cense KLH-K NESV2015-00013 3 (4) In addition, the Grantee shall provide proof that notice of the proposed location of the Station has been issued to the property owner, property manager, and/or tenant (hereinafter called "Affected Person(s)") whose property abuts the proposed location. (a) Such notice shall be provided on a fonn prescribed by the City Manager or designee cont aining a space where the Affected Person(s) may indicate whether he or she opposes the location and why. (b) The City Manager or designee shall consider any comments received from the affected person(s) and consider those comments in making a decision. (5) All Station locations, including Station relocations, shall include an administrative review and comment by affected City departments and regional agencies, which will make recommendations for approval or denial of the request prior to the endorsement of the location by the City Manager or designee. SECTION S. REGULATION OF CONSTRUCTION The work done by the Grantee in installation , replacing, repairing , reconstructing, or maintaining the Stations shall be subject to and governed by all laws , rules and regulations of the City and State of Texas, Federal Communications Commission , and the U.S. Government that are applicable to the construction of the Stations. Work done in connection with the construction, installation, repair and maintenance o f s uch facilit ies is subject to the continuing police power of the City. ln the event that the Grantee desires to reconstruct , repair , maintain , or replace the Stations ~uilt hereunder, the Grantee shall obtain all applicable pennits required by the City. Where proposed, any excavation or trenching and other construction in the License Area shall be so carried out as to interfere as little as practical with the surface use of the License Area in accordance with any lawful and reasonable direction given by or und e r the authority of the governing body of the City under the police and regulatory powers necessary to provide for public con venience. The Grantee covenants and agre es that the Grantee shall , at the Grantee 's own expense , repair all water lines , stonn and sanitary sewer lines, service lines and water meters owned by the City that the Grantee , the Grantee 's employees , contractors agents or assigns damage so that such repair of the water lines, stonn and sanitary sewer lines and water meters shall comply with the approval of the City. The City shall have the power at any time to order and require the Grantee to remove and abate any portion of the License Area that is dangerous to life or property. Should the Grantee, after notice, fail or refuse to comply within a reasonable time , the City shall have the power to remove or abate the same , at the expense of the Grantee . In the event City removes or abate s the License Area as provided herein , the Grantee shall not be compensated for the loss of the License Area, or revenues associated with the area , nor shall the City be liable to the Grantee for any direct, indirect or consequential damages due to the removal or abatement of the License Area . ORDINANCE NO. __ (_J-.-.1_J ..... 4 ..... ·· Q_(_~ _ #435435 _3 1 15-1007-1451 / CRRMA Bikeshare License KLH-K NESV201S-00013 4 SECTION 6. TERM This Special Privilege License shall be permanent from the date of execution and does not require renewal. SECTION 7. WORK DONE BY OTHERS Throughout the term of this License, the City expressly reserves the right to install, repair, or reconstruct the City right-of-way and property used or occupied by Grantee, any streets or alleys and all ancillary public uses, usual and customary in connection with streets and alleys, expressly including but not limited to, drainage facilities and structures. The City reserves the right subject to further conditions described in this paragraph, to lay and permit to be laid, utility lines including , but not limited to, storm and sanitary sewer, gas, water, and other pipelines or cable~, and to do and permit to be done , any underground and overhead installation or improvement that may be deemed necessary or proper by the governing body of the City in, across, along, over or under the License Area occupied by Grantee, and to change any curb or sidewalk or the street grade of any street. The City shall notify Grantee of work to be performed as herein described. The City shall not be liable to Grantee for any damage resulting there from, nor shall the City be liable to Grantee for any damages arising out of the performance of any work by the City, its contractors or subcontractors, not willfully and unnecessarily occasioned; provided, however, nothing herein shall relieve any other persons or entities from liability for damage to the License Area. If the City requires Grantee to alter, change , adapt, remove, or relocate the Stations due to imminent public safety concerns, or because of changes in the grade of the License Area or in the location or manner of constructing a water pipe , sewer pipe or other underground or aboveground pipes owned by the City, Grantee shaJI make the alterations or changes as soon as practicable when ordere<.~ in writing by the City without claim for reimbursement or damages against the City. If these requirements impose a financiaJ hardship upon Grantee, Grantee shall have the right to present alternative proposals for the City's consideration . If the City requires Grantee to remove, alter, change, adapt or relocate the Stations or any portion thereof to enable any other entity or person, except the City, to use , or to use with greater convenience, the License Area, Grantee shall not be required to make such changes until such other entity or person shall have undertaken with solvent bond, to reimburse Grantee for any loss and expense which will be caused by or arise out of such removal, alteration, change, adaptation or conformance of the Stations; provided, however, the City shall not be responsible nor liable for such reimbursement. SECTION 8. RESERVATION OF SURF ACE, SUBSURFACE, AND AIRSPACE RIGHTS The City reserves the right to use the surface or subsurface or airspace within the License Area for any public purposes aJlowed by law and deemed necessary by the City and to do or permit to be done any work in connection therewith which may be deemed necessary or proper by the City on, across, along, under or over said License Area occupied by Grantee provided such use does not interfere with Grantee's use of the License Area . Whenever by reason of said work in ORDINANCE NO. 0 l ··~·4'(s'tJ,"' _: NESV2015-00013 #435435_3 / 15-1007-1451 / CRRMA Bikcshare License KLH-K s connection with said purposes it shall be deemed necessary by the City to alter, change, adapt, conform or relocate portions of the Stations such alteration or change or relocation shall be made by Grantee when ordered in writing by the City Manager or designee without any claim for reimbursement or damages against the City. SECTION 9. CONSIDERATION As consideration for this Special Privilege License, the Grantee agrees to provide the general public access to the Program, which provides a benefit to the residents and visitors of the City by connecting to and extending the City's fixed route transit system, decreasing barriers to active transportation, takes a step closer to a bicycle friendly City, provides health, environmental and recreation benefits, enhances adjacent City parks and recreation activities and facilities, and provides community attractiveness for residents and visitors to the City. Additionally, for Special Privilege Licenses or Permits located within a Tax Increment Zone (' TIRZ"), the City Code allows Counil to reduce or waive the fees and several of the Stations wilJ be located within a TIRZ. SECTION 10. INSURANCE Prior to commencement of any future construction, repairs or maintenance operations during the term of this License, Grantee shall provide the City with a certificate of insurance and shall maintain such insurance in effect during the tenn of this License. The City shall 1'e named as an additional insured on all of the Grantee's insurance policies that are required by this License. Failure to maintain insurance shall be a material breach of this License and a basis for termination of this License by the City. Grantee shall be responsible and liable for any damages, including mechanic's and materialmen's liens, caused or arising out of or in connection with Grantee's Permitted Use of the City-owned property, including right-of-way. Grantee and its agents contractors, subcontractors, employees, invitees, or licensees, before construction, installation, maintenance or repair of Stations on City- owned property, including right-of-way shall obtain and maintain the following insurance during the term of this License: A. Commercial General Liability. Grantee, at its sole cost and expense shall provide and keep in force for the benefit of Grantee with the City as an additional insured, comprehensive general liability insurance in an amount not less than One Million and no/100 Dollars ($1,000,000.00) for bodi ly injury to one person for each occurrence, Two Million and no/I 00 Dollars ($2,000,000.00) for bodily injuries to more than one person arising out of each occurrence and Five Hundred Thousand and no/100 Dollars ($500,000.00) for property damage arising out of each occurrence, or in amounts equal to the maximum liability for damages for municipalities for claims arising under governmental functions, provided for under the Texas Tort Claims Act, whichever is greater. ORDINANCE NO. Q l 8L{O(o #435435 _3 / l 5-1007-1451 / CRRMA Bikeshare Licen e KLH-K NESV2015-00013 6 B. Automobile Liability. Grantee, at its sole cost and expense shall provide and keep in force for the benefit of Grantee with the City as an additional insured, automobile liability insurance covering allowed, non-owned , and hired vehicles used by Grantee for all operations with a minimum limit of One Million and no/100 Dollars ($1 000 ,000 .00) combined single limit per accident for bodily injwy and property damage. The policy or policies shall include a waiver of subrogation with respect to the City. Loading and unloading of any motor vehicle must be covered by endorsement to the automobile liability policy or policies. C. Workers' Compensation Insurance. Grantee has no employees as of the execution of this License; however, in the event Grantee shall retain one or more employees. Grantee shall obtain and maintain throughout the remainder of the tenn of this License Workers ' Compensation and Employers Liability coverage with limits consistent with statutory benefits outlined in the Texas Workers ' Compensati0n Act and minimum policy limits for employers liability of One Million and no/100 Dollars ($1,000,000.00) bodily injury each accident , One Million and no/100 Dollars ($1,000,000.00) bodily injwy by disease each employee. Upon Grantee's retention of one or more emp loyees, the following endorsements shall be added to the policy: (1) A Waiver of Subrogation in favor of the City; and (2) A thirty (30) day Notice of Cancellation/Material Change in favor of the City All policies of insurance required herein shall be in a fonn and with a company or companies reasonably satisfactory to the City and shall name the City as an additional insured. Each such policy shall provide that such policy may not be materially changed (e.g., coverage limits reduced below the minimum specified in this License) or otherwise materially altered , or canceled by the insurer during its term without first giving at least thirty (30) days written notice to the City. Policies or certificates of valid policies of insurance with required coverages shall be delivered to the City Manager or designee prior to construction installation , maintenance or repair of Stations by Grantee or Grantee's representative on City-owned property, including right-of-way and all required coverages must be in full force and effect throughout the term of this License. The provisions of this Section shall survive the tenn of this License Agreement. If Grantee contracts with a third party to operate the Program, such third party shall provide the insurance required herein. SECTION 11. RISK ALLOCATION A. No Indemnification The parties expressly agree that neither party shall have the right to seek indemnification or contribution from the other party for any losses , costs, expenses, or damages directly or indirectly arising, in whole or part , from this License. ORDINANCE NO. O\ i '-f Q <C1 #435435_3 / I 5-1007-145 I / CRRMA Bikesharc License KLH-K NESV2015-00013 7 B. Governmental Function. The parties expressly agree that, in all things relating to this License, the parties are each performing a governmental function , as defined by the Texas Tort Claims Act. Neither party waives any immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act. The parties further expressly agree that every act or omission of the City or Grantee, which in any way pertains to or arises out of this License, falls within the definition of governmental function. The parties also agree that Grantee is entering into this Agreement as part of its mission to provide mobility services. C. Exclusion of Incidental and Consequential Damages. Independent of, servable from , and to be enforced independently of any other enforceable or unenforceable provision of this License, neither party shall be liable to the other party (nor to any person claiming rights derived from such party 's rights) for incidental, consequential, special , punitive, or exemplary damages of any kind -including lost profits, loss of business, or other economic damage, and further including injury to property mental and emotional distress -as a result of breach of any term of this License, regardless of whether the party was advised had other reason to know, or in the fact knew of the possibility thereof. D. Maximum Aggregate Liability. Independent of, severable from , and to be enforced independently of any other enforceable or unenforceable provision of this License, IN NO EVENT SHALL THE CITY AGREGA TE LIABILITY TO GRANTEE {INCLUDING LIABILITY TO ANY PERSON OR PERSONS WHOSE CLAIM OR CLAIMS ARE BASED ON OR DERIVED FROM A RIGHT OR RIGHTS CLAIMED BY GRANTEE}, WITH RESP ECT TO ANY AND ALL CLAIMS AT ANY AND ALL TIMES ARISING FROM OR RELATED TO THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS LICENSE, IN CONTRACT, TORT, OR OTHERWISE EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF CONSIDERATION AC T UALLY PAID BY THE GRANTEE UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE. E. Intentional Risk Allocation. Grantee and the City each acknowledge that the provisions of this License were negotiated to reflect an informed voluntary allocation between them of all risks {both known and unknown) associated with the transactions associated with this License. The disclaimers and limitations in this License are intended to limit the circumstances of liability . The remedy limitations, and the limitations of liability, are separately intended to limit the forms of relief available to the parties. F . Grantee shall endeavor to require that any entity retained to operate the Program in whole or in part ("third party operator") shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Grantee, its officers, age nts, servants and employees, including the City, from and against any and all costs, claims, liens, damages, losses, expenses (including but not limited to attorneys' fees and costs), fees, fines, penalties, proceedings, demands, causes of action, liability and suits of any kind and nature, including but not limited to, personal injury or death or property damage, arising out of, resulting from or related to the third party operator's activities under this License, including any act or omission by the Grantee, the Grantee's agents, employees or subcontractors. This indemnification shall apoly even where such activities described above involve the negligence or allegations of negligence on the part of the Grantee or the City, their respective officers. agents or ORDINANCE NO. 0 \ CV '-C.O (e #435435 _3 1 15-1 007-1451 / CRRMA Bikes har e Lice nse KLH-K NESV2015-00013 8 employees. The City will not be responsible for any loss of or damage to the Grantee's property from any cause. SECTION 12. RIGHTS IN THE EVENT OF ABANDONMENT As an express condition of this License, and not as a mere covenant, in the event Grantee abandons any Station or a portion thereof or ceases to use any Station for the purposes enumerated herein for any period of six (6) months or longer, other than the time elapsing between the effective date of this license and the completion of construction of the Stations, this License shall automatically tenninate, free and clear of any right, title, or interest in Grantee without the necessity of any notice to Grantee or any re-entry by the City. SECTION 13. CANCELLATION Grantee shall have the oi-tion to terminate this Li cense at any time upon giving the City written notice thirty (30) days in advance of such termination. In a ddition , the City shall have the option to cancel and tenninate this License for failure of Grantee to comply with any material provision or requirement contained in this License after thirty (30) days written notice to Grantee. However, if said breach or failure to comply cannot be reasonably cured within thirty (30) days , if Grantee shall proceed promptly to cure the same with due diligence, the time for curing such failure to comply shall be extended for such period of time as may be deemed reasonably necessary by the City to complete such curing unless such breach involves public safety. The City shall have the option to terminate this License at any time upon giving the Grantee written notice thirty (30) days in advance of such termination , at no cost to the City and may take possession of the City owned property or right-of-way. All rights of the Grantee for the City owned property or right-of-way ~hall then be terminated. Upon termination of this License, Grantee shal l remove Grantee 's Stations located in the License Area at no cost to the City. Grantee shall restore the License Area to the reasonable satisfaction of the City Engineer and in accordance with City specifications, at Grantee sown cost and expense . Any such restoration shall be subject to the reasonable approval of the City. If the Grantee fails to restore the License Area as required herein the City may at its option restore the License Area and charge such costs to Grantee who shall be responsible for payment of such repair and restoration costs. SECTION 14. RECORDS The El Paso City Council and the El Paso City Manager or designee shall be kept fully informed by Grantee as to matters pertaining in any way to Grantee's exercise of Grantee's rights under this License, including the construction, replacement recon struction maintenance, and repair of the Stations within the License Area. Obtaining all applicable Ci ty permits shall be deemed sufficient to ORDINANCE NO. 0 l Cil c..{o to #435435_3 / 15 -1007-1451 /CRRMA Bikeshare Lic ense KLH-K NESV2015-00013 9 keep such parties informed. Grantee shall keep complete and accurate maps, construction drawings , and specifications describing the location of the structure(s) within the City owned property or right- of-way . The City shall have the right , at reasonable times to inspect such maps , construction drawings, and specifications. SECTION 15. NOTICE Any notice or communication required in the administration of this Licen.;e shall be sent in writing by prepaid certi fi ed mail , return receipt requested , to the following addresses : CITY : With copy to : GRANTEE: City of El Paso Attn : City Manager P.O. Box 1890 El Paso , Texas 79950-1890 City of El Paso Attn : Planning & Inspections Department 811 Texas Avenue El Paso, Texas 7990 I Camino Real Regional Mobility Authority Attn : Executive Director 300 North Campbell Street, 2nd Floor El Paso , Texas 7990 l or to such other addresses as Grantee may designate from time to time by written notice as required in this paragraph. SECTION 16. ASSIGNMENT The rights granted by this License inure to th e benefit of the Grantee , and any parent, subsidiary, or successor enti ty now or hereafter existing. The rights shall not be assignable without the express advanced wr itten consent of the El Paso City Manager . SECTION 17. LEASING OR DEDICATION OF FACILITIES Grantee , without the advanced written consent of the El Paso City Manager or designee , shall not lease the License Area to an y non-grantee person or entity . SECTION 18. ADMINISTRATION OF LICENSE The El Paso City Manager or designee is the principal City official responsible for the administration of this License . Grantee recognizes that questions regarding the interpretation or application of this License shall be referred to the El Paso City Manager or designee . ORDINANCE NO. 0 \ i '-i_ () ~ #435 435 _3 I 15-1007-145 I I CRRMA Bikcshare Lic ense KLH-K NESV2015-00013 10 SECTION 19. NO PROPERTY RIGHTS Nothing herein shall grant any real property in terest to the Grantee nor give rise to any vested right in the Grantee, Grari tee's assigns or succe ssors in interest, none of whom shall have a cause of action for damages upon revocation or termination of this License in accordance with the terms herein. SECTION 20. LIENS AND ENCUMBRANCES To the extent permitted by law, Grantee shall defend and indemnify the City against any liability and loss of any type arising from any lien or encumbrance on the License Area that arises or is alleged to have arisen from Grantee's use of the Licensed Area. SECTION 21. RIGHT OF ENTRY AND INSPECTION The City's authorized representative shall have the right to enter upon the Licensed Area at all reasonable times for the purpose of inspecting the same and determining compliance with the terms of this License. SECTION 22. LAWS AND ORDINANCES Grantee shall comply with all statutes, laws , codes and ordinances applicable to Grantee's construction, repair, renovation , alteration or use of the License Area . SECTION 23. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This document contains all of the agreements between the parties and may not be modified, except by an agreement in writing signed by both parties . SECTION 24. SEVERABILITY Every provision of this License is intended to be severable. If any term or provision hereof is illegal or invalid for any reason whatsoever, such illegality shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this License. SECTION 25. LAWS GOVERNINGNENUE The laws of the State of Texas shall govern the validity, performances, and enforcement of this License and if legal action is necessary to enforce it, exclusive venue shall be in El Paso County, Texas. SECTION 26. RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS This License is subject to all rights-of-way, easements, dedications , restrictions , reservations and other encumbrances of record and running with the land . l f, at any t ime during the initial term of ORDINANCE NO. 0 \ 8 4 0 (,, NESV201S-00013 #435435 _3 / 15-1007-1 451 / CRRMA Bikesh are Li ce ns e KLH-K 11 this License, or any extension thereof, any such rights-of-way, easements, dedications, restrictions, reservations and other encumbrances of record and running with the land, preclude , interrupt or interfere with Grantee's use of the License Area, Grantee shall have the right to terminate this License upon giving the City prior written notice of its intent to do so. SECTION 27. EFFECTIVE DA TE The effective date of this License shall be the date last entered below. ADOPTED this rs""" day of A vs vs+ , 2015. WITNESS THE FOLLOWING SIGNATURES AND SEALS APPROVED AS TO FORM: ~ Assistant City Attorney Oscar Leeser Mayor Larry F ichols , Director Planning & Inspections Department ......, c::::> v:; ·~-, ' .r- .l> :& \f! .. CD ORDINANCE NO. 0\ ~L(O~ NESV2015-00013 #435435 _3 / 15-1007-1451 / CRRMA Bikcshare License KLH-K 12 . -__, -< (') I rT1 ::u ~ c ,,, -u -f ACCEPTANCE The above instrument, with all conditions thereof, is hereby accepted this I gt( day of ~ ,2015. GRA TEE: Camino Real Regional Mobility Authority (CRRMA) B~~ L~ts Executive Director ACKNOWLEDGMENT THESTATEOFTEXAS ) ) COUNTY OF EL PASO ) This instrument is acknowledged before me on this ~ day of ~..d: , 2015, by Raymond L. Telles, as Executive Director of the Camino Real Region~ility Authority. ® DOLORES M. JENKINS , NOTARY PU1KJC in.,... tor 1111 81111 °' r .... -COIM/tlioll ..... 04·25-2018 ORDINANCE NO. 0 ( ~ ~() (p Notary's Printed or Typed Name l)d,zp();J' My Commission Expires #435435 _3 / tS-1007-1451 I CRRMA Bikeshare License KLH·K NESV201S-00013 13 ' 211 ' .... 'T521 g ,. .· ~. 1l 3/1/22 , 4 :53 PM ARTICLE VII. -BICYCLES Footnotes: ---(7) --- Plano , TX Code of Ordinances State Law reference-Authority of city to regulate operation of bicycles, Vernon's Ann. Civ. St., art. 6701d, § 27(a)(7); bicycles generally, Vernon's Ann. Civ. St., art. 6701d, § 178 et seq. Sec. 12 -156 . -Parents and guardians not to authorize or permit violations of article . The parent of any m i nor child and the guardian of any ward shall not authorize or knowingly permit such child or ward to violate any of the provisions of this article. (Ord . of 7-13 -64 , § 16-12-2) State Law reference-Similar provisions, Vernon's Ann. Civ. St., art. 6701 d, § 178 . Sec. 12-157 . -lmpoundment of bicycles used in violation of article . The chief is hereby authorized and empowered to impound for a period not to exceed thirty (30) days any bicycle used in violation of any of the provisions of this article or in violation of any of the ordinances of the city regulating traffic, so far as they are applicable. The impounding of a bicycle shall not preclude the imposition of any other penalty provided for such violation. (Ord. of7-13-64, § 16-12-16) Sec. 12-158. -Application of article. The regulations contained in this article shall apply whenever any bicycle is operated upon any street or highway or in any park or public place. (Ord . of 7-13-64, § 16 -1 2-1) State Law reference-Effect of state regulations, Vernon's Ann . Civ. St., art. 6701 d, § 178. Sec. 12-159. -Application of traffic regulations to riders . Every person operating a bicycle shall be subject to the provisions of the traffic ordinances of the city and of the statutes of the state applicable to the drivers of motor vehicles except as to special regulations in the tatutes and this article and except as to those provisions of such ordinances and statutes which by their nature can have no appl ication . (Ord. of 7-13 -64, § 16-12 -14) --- 1 /!'i 3/1/22 , 4:53 PM Plano , TX Code of Ordinances •• t:.., Sec. 12-160. -Drivers to obey traffic-control devices. .. t ·- Any person operating a bicycle sha ll obey the directions of official traffic signals, signs and other control devices applicable to other vehicles, unless otherwise directed by a police officer, and shall obey direction signs relative to turns permitted, unless such person dismounts from the bicycle, in which event he sh all then obey the regulations app licable to pedestrians. (Ord . of 7-13-64, § 16-12 -15) Sec. 12 -161 . -Brake. Every bicycle shall be equipped with a brake which will enable the operator to make the braked wheels skid on dry, level, clean pavement. (Ord. of 7-13-64, § 16-12-3) State Law reference-Bicycle brake, Vernon's Ann . Civ . St., art. 6701 d, § 184. Sec. 12-162. -Lamp and reflector. Every bicycle, whe n in use from one-half (Y2 ) hour after sunset to one -half (Y2) hour before sunrise , shall be equipped with a lamp on the front which shall emit a white light visible from a distance of at least five hundred (500) feet to the front and with a red reflector on the rear of a type approved by the state department of public safety which shall be visible from all distances from fifty (50·) feet to three hun d red (300) feet to the rear when directly in front of lawful upper beams of head lamps on a motor vehicle . A lamp emitting a red light vi si ble from a distance of five hundred (500) feet to the rear may be used in addition to the red reflector. (Ord. of 7-13-64, § 16-12-4) State Law reference-Bicycle lamps, Vernon's Ann. Civ . St., art. 6701 d, § 184. Sec. 12-163 . -Excess riders prohibited. No bicycle shall be used to carry more persons at one time than the number for which it is designed or equipped . (Ord. of 7-13-64, § 16 -12-5) Sec. 12-164. -Speed . No person shall ride a bicycle at a speed greater than is reasonable and proper, having regard to the safety of the rider and others . 215 ,J 3/1/22 , 4:53 PM Plano , TX Code of Ordin ance s (Ord. of 7-13-64, § 16 -12-7) ec. 12-165 . -Riding beside other bicycles . Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall not ride more than two (2) abreast except on paths or part of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles . Persons riding two (2) abreast shall not impede the normal and reasonable flow of traffic on the roadway. If persons are riding two (2) abreast on a laned roadway, they must ride in a single lane. (Ord . of 7-13 -64, § 16-12 -8) Sec. 12-166. -Riding on roadways and bicycle paths . (a) Except as provided by subsection (c) of this section, a person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at less than the speed of the other traffic on the roadway at that time shall ride as near as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway, except when : (1) The person is overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction; (2) The person is preparing for a left turn at an intersection or onto a private road or driveway; or (3) Conditions on the roadway, including fixed or moving objects, parked or moving veh icles, pedestrians, ani ma ls, surface hazards , or substandard w idth lanes, make it unsafe to ride next to the right curb or edge of the roadway. (b) For the purpose of subsection (a) of this section, a substandard width lane is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to travel in the lane safely side by side. (c) A person operating a bicycle on a one -way roadway with two (2) or more marked traffic lanes may ride as near as practicable to the left curb or edge of the roadway. (Ord. of7-13 -64, § 16 -1 2-9) Sec. 12-167 . -Ca rrying articles . No person operating a bicycle shall carry any package, bundle or article which prevents the operator from keeping at least one (1) hand upon the handlebars . (Ord . of 7-13 -64, § 16 -12-10) Sec. 12 -1 68 . -Parking. No person shall park any bicycle in any street, highway or park, or upon any .sidewalk, in such manner as to interfere w ~th the sa ~ty or movement of pedestrians or vehicular traffic. . . ~ . . -. .. . (Ord . of7-13-64, § 16-12-1 1) 3/1/22 , 4 :53 PM Plano , TX Code of Ordinances r Sec. 12-169. -Riding on sidewalks and other specified areas. (a) Except as may be authorized by a special event permit, it shall be an offense for any person to use, ride, propel, or operate a bicycle on any public sidewalk, walkway, architectural feature, wall, plaza, steps, or railing within the following identified places as defined in section 14-7: (1) Downtown District. (2) Memorial Park that serves as a veteran's memorial. (3) Legacy.Town Center District, specifically public sidewalks adjacent to commercial businesses. This subsection shall not apply to any authorized city employee while performing official duties or any person who walks a bicycle in the above-referenced areas . The conduct prohibited in the above-referenced areas shall not apply to shared use paths as defined in section 14-7. (Ord. of 7-13-64, § 16-12-12; Ord. No . 98-5-19, § I, 5-26-98; Ord. No. 2002-6-10, § I, 6-10-02; Ord. No. 2016-8- 16, §§ I, II, 8-22-16) Sec. 12-170. -Trick riding. No rider of a bicycle shall remove both hands from the handlebars or his feet from the pedals while riding or practice any trick, fancy or acrobatic riding in any public roadway. (Ord. of 7-13-64, § 16-12-13) Sec. 12-171 . -Comprehensive bikeway plan approved . (a) The comprehensive bikeway plan and the recommendations having been reviewed by the city council and found to be acceptable and in the best interest of the city are hereby in all things approved. (b) The city staff, parks and recreation board and city council will proceed with implementing the comprehensive bikeway plan. (Res. No. 85-3-11(R), §§I, 11, 3-19-85) Sec. 12-172. -Bike-share permits . (a) It shall be an offense for a company or person that provides bicycles or scooters on a short-term basis in exchange for compensation to place bicycles or scooters in the city's right-of-way without a bike-share permjJ:. (b) e_ermjts .oia y be issued and amended by the director of engineerin_g. or his ~esignee4of the City of Plano and shall regulate the use of the city's right-of-way to allow sufficient access for 4/5 .J ... 3/1/22 , 4 :53 PM Plano, TX Code of Ordinances pedestrians, comply with the American 's with Disabilities Act. ensure no significant adverse effect on the property rights of third parties, and avoid creating conditions that are a threat to public health and safety. (Ord . No . 2018-2-6, §I, 2-26-18; Ord . No . 2018 -11 -1, §I, 11 -12 -18) Secs . 12-173-12-190. -Reserved . 5/5 .. Chapter 23 SCOOTER AND BICYCLE SHARI NG* Sec. 23-1. Scope. This chapter governs the operation of scooter and bicycle sharing business operations, both dock le ss and with docks , in the public right-of-way. Scooter sharing or bicycle sharing shall not be considered an itinerant business as regulated by the Land Development Code. Scooters and bicycles under this chapter sh all not be co n sidered to be vehicles for hire under chapter 31 . This chapter does not app ly to a moped, motorcycle or a motorized mobility device under Texas Transportation Code chapter 542. This chapter does not apply to an e lectric personal assistive mobility device , a neighborhood electric ve hicl e, or a golf cart und er Texas Transportation Code chapter 551. (Ord. No . 13-2019 , pt. I (Exh . A), 2-28-19) Sec. 23-2. Definitions. As used in this chapter: Bicycle . Every device propelled by human or electric power upon which any person may ride, having two (2) or more wheels , any of which is over fourteen (14) inches in diameter. Bicycle sharing. The renting c•f a bicycle(s) on a short-term basis generally in exchange for compensation. Hom e zones . Zones designated by the city manager, which shall be identified on a map to be made available in the office of the city secretary, wherein vendor shall use the city right-of-way on a nonexclusive basis , solely for the purpose of placement of scooters and bicycles for rental. Operator. Any person operating, riding on, or using a scooter or bicycle for rental. Scoot er . Every device propelled by human or electric power upon which any person may ride , having a narrow · footboard mounted between two (2) or more wheels with an upright steering h andle attached to the front wheel. Scooter sharing. The renting of a scooter(s) on a short-term basis genera lly in exchange for compensation. Vendor . Any person or entity that distributes scooters and bicycles for rental. (Ord. No. 13-2019, pt. l (Exh . A), 2-28-19) Sec. 23-3. Vendor permit required. (a) It shall be an offense for a vendor that provides scooters and bicycles for the purpose of scooter sharin g or bicycl e sharing to place scooters and bicycles in the city's right-of-way , or other city property, without a bicycle or scooter share permit obtain ed from and authorized by the office of the city secretary. (b) To obtain an operating authority permit, a person shall make application to the city secretary in the manner prescribed by the city manager. The applicant must be the person who wi ll own , control, or operate the proposed scooter or bicycle sharing business. (c) An applicant s hall file with the c ity secretary a verified applicat ion statement, to be accompanied by a nonrefundable permit fee, containing the following : - (1) The fom1 of business of the applicant and , ifthe business is a corporation or association , a copy of the documents establishing the business and the name and address of each person with a 20 percent or greater ownership interest in the business ; (2) The verified signature of the applicant; (3) The address of the fixed facilities to be used in the business , if any, and the address of the appl icant's corporate headquarters, if different from the address of the fixed facilities ; (4) The name of the person designated by the applicant to receive on behalfofthe applicant any future notices sent by the city to the operator, arid that person's contact information, including a mailing address, telephone number, and email or other electronic address; (5) Certificate of insurance naming the city as an additional insured as required by section 23-4; (6) Documentary ev idence of payment of ad valorem taxes on property within the city, if any, to be used in connection with the operation of the proposed scooter or bicycle sharing business; (7) The number and types of scooters or bicycles to be operated ; (8) A permit agreement including indemnification to the city; and (9) A copy of a current contract with one or more institutions of higher education within the city limits which the applicant provides scooter and/or bicycle sharing services . (d) A permit issued under this section shall be valid, unless otherwise revoked, for a period of twenty-four (24) months from the date of issuance. A pennit may be renewed for additional twelve ( 12) month periods following the process in this section. (e) The pennit fee shall be set forth and established in the fee ordinance. (Ord. No. 13-2019, pt. I (Exh. A), 2-28-19) Sec. 23-4. Insurance. (a) A permit holder shall procure and keep in full force and effect no less than the insurance coverage required by this section through a policy or policies written by insurance company that is authorized to do business in the state and is acceptable to the city. (b) The insured provisions of the po l icy must name the city as an additional insured, and the coverage provisions must provide coverage for any loss or damage that may arise to any person or property by reason of the operation of a scooter or bicycle. (c) A permit holder shall maintain the following insurance coverages: ( 1) The commercial general liability insurance must provide single limits ofliability for bodily injury (including death) and property damage of one million dollars ($1 ,000 ,000 .00) for each occurrence, with a two million dollars ($2 ,000,000 .00) annual aggregate . (2) If a permit holder will utilize motor vehicles in its operations , the business automotive liability insurance must cover owned, hired , and nonowned vehicles , with a combined single limit for bodily mJury (including death) and property damage of five hundred thousand dollars ($500 ,000.00) per occurrence. (3) Worker's compensation insurance with statutory limits. (4) Employer's liability insurance w ith the following minimum limits for bodily injury by: (A) Accident, five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000 .00) per each accident ; and (B) Di sease, five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000 .00) per employee with a per policy aggregate of five hundred thousand do ll ars ($500,000.00). (d) Insurance required under this chapter must: (!) Include a cance ll ation provision in which the insurance company is required to notify the city secretary in writing not fewer than thirty (30) days before canceling the insurance policy (for a reason other than nonpayment) or before making a reduction in coverage; (2) Include a cancellation provision in which the insurance company is required to notify the city secretary in writing not fewer than ten (I 0) days before cance lin g for nonpayment; (3) Cover all scooters or bicycles during the times that the vehicles are deployed or operating in furtherance of the pennit holder's business; (4) Include a rirovision requiring the insurance company to pay every covered claim on a first-dollar basis ; (5) Require notice to the city secretary ifthe policy is cance ll ed or ifthere is a reduction in coverage ; and (6) Comply with a ll app li cable federal , state, and local laws. (e) o person who has a twenty (20) percent or greater ownership interest in the permit holder may have an interest in the insurance company. (f) A permit holder may not be self-insured . (g) Any insurance policy required by this chapter must be on file with and approved by the city prior to the issuance of a permit agreement, and must remain in effect during the term of the permit agreement. (Ord . No . 13-2019, pt. l(Exh . A), 2-28-19) Sec. 23-5. Permit denial and revocation. The city secretary may determine that a vendor's pennit should be denied or revoked for the reasons set forth below . The city secretary shall provide written notice of the denial or revocation of a pem1it to the vendor, detailing the reason for the denial or revocation of the pennit, and a statement informing the vendor of its right to appeal the denial or revocation of its pennit to the city manager. (I) Denial of permit. The application shall be denied , and no permit shall be issued, if the city finds that: (A) Any statement made in the application is incomplete, inaccurate, misleading, or fa lse; or (B) The vendor has not comp li ed with this chapter or ha s had a history of noncompliance with the provisions of this cha pter. (2) Revocation of permit. The city may revoke a permit due to vendor's failure to comply with permit requirements , this chapter, or any ap pli cable federal , state, or local law or regulation. Permits may also be revoked for one or more of the following reasons: (A) Any statement made in the applicatio n is inaccurate, misleading or false ; (B) Failure to maintain insurance as required by this chapter; (C) Operation of scooters and bicycles that are not authorized by the permit; or in a manner not authorized by this chapter; (D) Po sing an unreasonab le risk to the health, safety and welfare of the general public; or (E) Nonpayment of permit fee owed city in accordance with this chapter. (Ord. No. 13-2019 , pt. 1 (Exh. A), 2-28-19) Sec. 23-6. Appeal of denial or revocation of permit. (a) If the city secretary determines that grounds exist for the denial or revocation of a permit under this chapter, the applicant or pennittee shall be notified of such denial or revocation in writing by certified mail, stating the reasons for denial or revocation , the effective date , and that the applicant or permittee has the right to appeal. (b) The denial or revocation of a permit may be appealed to the city manager by filing written notice of appeal within ten ( 10) business days of receipt of the denial or revocation with the city manager's office. The notice of appeal should contain all infonnation on which the city manager can make a decision . (c) The city manager sha ll issue a decision on the denial or revocation in writing~ ithin five (5) business days of receipt of the written notice of appeal. (d) Jfno appeal is filed within 10 business days , the decision of the city secretary becomes final and unappealable . (Ord. No. 13-2019, pt. l(Exh . A), 2-28-19) Sec. 23-7. Home zo nes. The city council authorizes the city manager to create, modify , or remove home zones for scooter and/or bicycle sharin g within the city. Vend ors shall not operate a scooter or bicycle share service in areas of the city not designated as a home zone. If no home zones have been established by the city manager, th e home zones shall be: (1) The area within one mile of any institution of higher learning which the vendor has a contract to provide scooter and/or bike sharing services ; and (2) With in the central business district area map on file with the city secretary. (Ord. No. 13-2019, pt. l(Exh. A), 2-28-19) Sec. 23 -8. Operation of scooter s and bicycles permitted in accord a n ce with t hi s ch a pter. (a) Scooters and bicycles may not be parked in a manner that would impede normal and reasonable pedestrian access on a sidewalk or in any manner that would reduce the minimum clear width of a sidewalk to less than 48 inches. (b) Scooters and bicycles may not be parked in a manner that would impede vehicular traffic on a street or alley. (c) Scooters and bicycles may not be parked in a manner that would impose a threat to public safety or security . (d) Scooters and bicycles may not be parked on a public street. (e) Scooters and bicycles may not be deployed on a block where the sidewalk is less than 96 inches in width , or on a block that does not have sidewalks. The city manager may detennine other blocks where deploying scooters and bicycles is prohibited. (f) Scooters and bicycles must be deployed on a sidewalk or other hard s urface, at a bicycle rack, or at a city-owned location . Scooters and bicycles may only be deployed on private property with the express permission of the property owner. (g) Scooters and bicycles must stand upright while parked. (h) Scooters and bicycles may not be parked within five feet of a crosswalk or curb ramp , unless given specific permission by the city manager. (i) Scooters and bicycles may not be parked in a way that blocks : (I) Transit stops, shelters , or platforms . (2) Commercial loading zones. (3) Railroad or light rail tracks or crossings. (4) Passenger loading zones or valet parking service areas . (5) Disabled parking zones. (6) Street furniture that requires pedestrian access (for examp le, benches or parking pay stations). (7) Building entryways. (8) Vehicular driveways . (j) Scooters and bicycles that are parked in an incorrect manner must be re-parked or removed by the operator. (k) Scooters and bicycles that are parked outside of a home zone , may remain in the same location for up to 24 hours as long as they are parked in accordance with this section. (I) The city may remove and store any bicycle or scooter that is left parked outside of the home zone for more than 24 hours . (I) Vendor is responsible for the costs ofremoval and storage . (2) The cit y shall in voice vendor for the cost of removal and storage. (3) Any bicyc le or scooter th at ha s been removed and is uncl aimed for more than 30 d ays shall be co me th e property of the city. (m) Every p erson ridin g a bi cycle or scooter upon th e streets of th e city shall be subject to provisions of all laws and ordinances applicabl e to th e o perato r of any other vehicle , except those pro visions oflaws and ordinances which, by their very nature, can have no appli cat ion ; pro v ided , ho wever, it shall not b e unlawful to ride a bicycle or scoo ter on a public s idewalk. (O rd . No. 13-201 9 , pt. l(Exh . A), 2-28-19) Sec. 23-9. Criminal offenses. (a) A perso n commits an offense if, wi thin th e city, th e person operates or causes or p ennits the operation of a scooter or bicycle sharing servic e without a valid p em1 it issued und er this chapter. (b) A perso n comm it s an offense ifthe person v iol ate s or attempts to violate a provision of thi s chapter. (c) A culpable mental state is not required for the commission of an offen se under thi s chapter. A separate offense is co mmitted each day in which an offense occurs. (d) Pro sec uti on for an offense under thi s ch apter doe s not prevent th e use of other enforcement remedies or procedures applicable to the person charged with the co nduct or in vo lved in the offense. (e) Any p erson w ho violates any of the provisions of thi s chapter shall be guilty ofa class C mi sdemeanor and upon adjudi cation or conviction th ereof shall be fined in an an10unt not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500.00) for each o ffen se. (Ord . No. 13-20 19 , pt. l(Exh . A), 2-28-19) .. • Introductio n With a surge of new personal transportation devices coming to market, some integrated into shared ride systems (such as bikeshare programs}, there is a need to establish a common vocabulary for these options, and provide basic information about how these devices are classified and regulated. This info brief provides an overview of powered forms of micromobility and compares features of micromobility with a spectrum of other traditional and emerging forms of transportation. It references and builds upon micromobility definitions created by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), a standards -developing organization and professional associat ion. Powered micromobility devices, some t imes called personal e-mobility devices, share three common characteristics: • Motorized: They can either be fully motorized (capable of movement without human power) or motor -assisted, in which the rider provides some human -powered propulsion (such as by pedaling or kicki ng). They usually i nvolve a battery -powered electric motor but may also be capable of using another energy source, such as gasoline. • Low speed: Most micromobility devices are designed to trav el at or below 20 miles per hour (MPH}, and some devices may operate at or be regulated to even lower speeds, such as 8 MPH or less, to be compatible wi t h sidewalk use. According t o SAE definitions, the top travel speed for micro mobility devices is 30 MPH or less. • Small size : The weight, width, height, and length of a device all contribute to defining size . For most micromobility devices, a standard width is three feet or less, fitting within the standard bike lane or sidewalk width, and the weight is typically less than 100 pounds. By SAE's definition , all micromobility devices weigh less than 500 pounds and fall w ithin one of four weight categor ies. Cities or other jurisdictio ns can define the weight and width limitations for different types of roadway facilities. This info brief specifically focuses on micromobility devices used for personal transportation on paved roads, sidewalks, and paths, and does not cover devices used for vocational purposes and commercial goods/services delivery or for off- road or air-based travel. While pedestrians and bicyclists -including those using nonmotorized bikeshare bikes -might share similar characteristics (such as small size and low travel speed speed) as well as use the same facilities where micromobility devices are operated, they are already well-defined by most regulatory, roadway design , and injury reporting frameworks and are therefore not included i n this info brief. Sim i larly, motorized wheelchairs and personal mobility devices used by people with disabilities already have a standard legal defi nition and injury reporting mechanism and are therefore not considered 11 micromobility , 11 though they are shown in Table 2 as a related dev ice . Related Terms Dockless Dockless devices are those that do not require a parking station i n order to pick up or return the device. Shared-use Shared-use devices are those that are part of a rental system, rather than personally owned. Electric-assist This term is often used interchangeably with the terms "power assist, 11 "pedal assist" or 11 pedelec" to indicate that an electric powered motor is providing power to supplement human propulsion of a device; it can also be used to define throttle-assisted dev ices (such as Class 2 e-bikes). See Table 1 for more detail. • .,. Categories of Micromobil ity Devices The following table provides examples and key characteristics of common micromobility devices. Table 1: Common micromobility devices Electric standing or sitting scooters (e scooters) Electric bicycles (e -bikes) Class 1 Pedal assist (pedalec) Class 2 Throttle assist Shared: Bird , Lime, Shared: Lime, Mobike , Owned: Several bike brands (less common than Class 1 and 3) and many others Oto , Pace, Spin, and many others Owned: Inboard Glider, Segway 9Bot Typically < 50 lbs Si ngle rider Ele ctric moto r typ ically < 750 w atts 20 MPH or less ; some cit i es apply add itional speed restrictions Varies by place ;3 some cities restrict in crowded places Co nsumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), for personally owned devices 4 Owned: Most majo r bike brands ; multiple passenger versions include Organ i c Transit (ELF) and Yuba Typ ically < 100 lbs ; Typically < 100 lbs multipl e passenger vers ions near 200 l bs Usually a sing le ri der; some Typically designed cargo e-bikes or bike cars for single riders designed for multiple riders Elect ric motor typically < 750 watts /20 MPH or less Varies by place ;3 usually allowed on bike transportat ion facilities A nd paths CPSC (only for personally owned devices) Electric motor typically < 750 watts , 20 MPH or less Varies by place;3 usually allowed on bike transportation facilit ies and paths CPSC (only for personally owned devices) Class 3 Pedal assist (pedalec) at higher speed Owned: Several major brands; multiple passenger vers i ons include Better Bike (PEBL), and Podride Other 1 Owned: Boosted, Inboard, Mellow Boards, Metroboard Typically < 100 lbs ; < 50 lbs mult iple passenger ver sions near 200 lbs Usually a si ngle rider ; some designed for multiple riders Electric moto r t ypically < 750 w atts personally owned devices) Single rider Electric motor typically < 750 wa tts Most are 20 MPH or less though some can go up to 30 MPH Varies by pl ace 3 CPSC (only for persona ll y owned devices) Other Related Transportation Modes Table 2 shows other forms of travel that may share similar features or operating space with micromobility but do not technically meet the definition of micromobility and may be subject to different regulatory standards. Table 2: Devices that may be related to, but outside of, the micromobility classification. Mobility scooter Drive, Pride Medical, Rascal 200-400 lbs Single rider Battery powered motor 4-12MPH Sidewalks and trails; allowed on recreational trails for nonmotorized use for people who have mobility impairments Food and Drug Administration (as a medical device) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Golf cart Polaris, Yamaha 500 -1100 lbs Multiple riders Moped I Scooter, < 50 cc 5 Tomos, Vespa 200 -250 lbs 1-2 riders Motorcycle I Scooter, > 50 cc Harley, Honda, Yamaha 250 -500 lbs 1-2 riders 36 or 48-volt batteries or Electric or gas (50cc or Electric or gas powered gas powered (2 or 4 stroke less) producing under 2 engine) HP; may require pedal start 20 MPH or less Golf courses, and in -street and on trails in some communities; usually not allowed on recreational trails for nonmotorized use CPSC (considered sports equipment) 30 MPH or less In-street only; usually not allowed on recreational Regulated by posted speed limit only In -street only; usually not allowed on recreational trails for nonmotorized use trails for nonmotorized use OMV; some require license, OMV; most require license, registration, or insurance registration, and insurance Additional Resource s PBIC Micromobility Resource Collection contains a curated and regularly updated set of links to key research, resources, case studies, policy briefs, and webinars on the topic of micromobility. Powered Micromobility Committee of the SAE, Standard J3194, A Taxonomy and Classification of Powered Micromobility Vehicles, provides a set of definitions and a classification that can be used by regulators to standardize descriptions of micromobility devices (for either shared or personal use). How and Where Should I Ride This Thing? "Rules of The Road" for Personal Transportation Devices summarizes and evaluates existing personal transportation device regulations across hundreds of jurisdictions and provides recommendat ions for State-level regulations. Framework for Considering Motorized Use on Nonmotorized Trails and Pedestrian Walkways provides guidance for permitting e-bikes on nonmotorized paths . Note : this framework does not apply to trails funded under the Recreational Trails Program (RTP). Under the current RTP, any device with a motor, except for a motorized wheelcha i r, is defined as motorized. PeopleForBikes shares up-to-date information on Federal and locale-bike policies as well as resources fore -bike retailers and people interested in electric mounta i n bikes. State Electric Bicycle Laws - A Legislative Primer offers in-depth discussion of the legal regulations that pertain toe -bikes. The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) F2641 -15 Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Recreational Powered Scooters and Pocket Bikes and ASTM F2642 - 15 Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Safety Instructions and Labeling for Recreational Powered provide voluntary standards for micromobility products, including scooters and pocket bikes. Underwriters Laboratory (UL) often develops "Outline of Investigations" prior to the development of a voluntary standard, which typically serve as the initial draft of any subsequent voluntary standard . Please see the UL 2272 Standard for Electrical Systems for Personal E-Mobility Devices and the UL 2849 Outline of Investigation for Electric Bicycles, Electrically Power Assisted Cycles, Electric Scooters, and Electric Motorcycles . Notations 1 Th is category includes e-sk ateboards; e-skates; e-boards or other self -ba lancing devices (sometimes called hoverboards or balance wheels). 1 Speed intended for usage by manufacturer; this may be regulated by State or local ordinances and may differ from actual operating speeds or modifications made by the device us er. 3 In some circumstances , paths may have restrictions based on the Federal or State regulations, or the source of funding . These restrictions are often marked at th e entrance to the facility, but not always . 4 CPSC is a reg ulatory bod y that identifies if a product is safe to sell in the U.S. under the Consumer Product Safety Act. It does not regulate who can purchase a devi ce or where or when dev ices can be legally ridden . 5 Moped/scooter/motorcycle definitions are highly variable by State . For examp le, in North Carolina, there is no separate category for scooter; "scooters" may be mopeds or motorcycl es depending on engine capacity. These devices and motorcycles are often regulated at the Federal level through the Consumer Product Safety Commission, although they are not regulated by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). Still, States may define and regu late them at the State level and enforce regulations through the Department of Motor Vehicles (OMV) or othe r mechanism. • • --..-PJ:;f ~ i~Yl) ·-.u> "'"'~I .... -I ~ ·~1.....,1 '.'1 '*'-+....,,~' ~~ ~...,,~opts -- . 17-J ~ -5-Z , /) ·~n'#?~~~ *--xo7 ?/ ~ ~s ~·J I "rJ., :1 ' . . r~Xl<; ... " -z 'Z rYl /_5'1,1-e ~11~q<>M~~V\/ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I : • I I I I 1n •! ; ... , I ; "• ,., ,- 1· . . ... " v; "'! ~ . I ' • .. ? . ' I. . ' ' \ I ... , ,-, --;~ .; j' , . ~ "' . ;, ' 1~ -. . ,. . ~ < ~~ -') .. .... r > \- ,,, . .. , ~ . , " ' 71 .) (:. ~ ~ I • j ...... ~Aa ' . . I I I I I . I I I I I I I I . I I 1 J. I I I 1 ARTICLE XIII SHARED MICRO MOBILITY Sec. 8-810. Applicability. This Article applies to all shared micromobility systems, their operators and any customer or person using those shared systems. Sec. 8-811. Definitions. The following words , terms and phrases , when used in this article, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section , except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Abandonment means an operator ceases operation and does not remove their micromobility device inventory and associated equipment. Customer means a person who rents or otherwise uses a micromobility device from a shared system. Geo-fence platform means an interactive web application or other tool that includes a map with real-time device location data for the City to effectively regulate and make informed decisions about micromobility devices in the City's public spaces. Geo-fence wne means a defined geographic service area that utilizes Global Positioning System (GPS) or similar location-based technology and registers when a shared micromobility device enters or leaves such designated area and in which the operator is allowed to conduct certain activities as set forth in this Article. Lock-to parking means a built-in or attached locking system for securing a micromobility device to a bicycle rack or operator designated parking area. Micromobility device means a bicycle , an electric bicycle , or a motor-assisted scooter as defined or may be amended in the Texas Transportation Code Chapters 541 , 664 , and 551 and designed for personal micromobility that is part of a shared micromobility system equipped with GPS or comparable technology capable of providing real-time location data. Operator means a corporation, firm, joint venture , limited liability company, partnership, person , or other organized entity operating or desiring to operate a shared micromobility system. Operator designated parking area means parking installed by the operator that accommodates lock-to parking and receives approval from the City before being installed. Parking hub means an area within a geo-fence zone that an operator maintains a minimum amount of micromobility devices. Public right-of-way means public land acquired by reservation , dedication , prescription , deed, or condemnation and intended for use by the public as a street, alley , or other public way . Page I of9 Shared micromob;Jity system or shared system means a publicly offered shared transportation service enabling a person to obtain short-term access to a micromobility devices on an as-needed basis. This does not include an owner of a micromobility device which is solely used for private transportation by its owner or pedicabs. Sec. 8-812. Permit Required. (a) Permit. Operators and shared systems are required to obtain a permit before operating a shared system. (b) Permit Term. Permits are issued for a 12-months , unles s expressly provided otherwise in this Article. (c) Applicable Laws. Shared systems, operators and customers must operate according to the terms and conditions of a City permit, this Article and any other applicable laws. Sec. 8-813. Permit application. An operator must submit a permit application or for permit renewal application and shall not operate a shared system until the permit or permit renewal is approved by the City. The permit or permit renewal application shall contain the following: (a) The name and form of business of the operator; (b) The name, phone number, and business street address and mailing address if different of the operator and operator's agent for service of legal process , if different ; ( c) The name, phone number, cell phone number, and street address of the local representative of the operator to the City avai I able and authorized to act on behalf of the operator; ( d) Size and location of fleet; (e) A photographic image or visual representation of each type of micromobility device to be deployed as part of operator's shared system ; (f) A description of an internet-enabled mobile device application to be used by customers to register membership to locate , use, pay for , lock , and unlock each micromobility device ; (g) The proposed geo-fence zones , including any area in which an operator plans to expand its shared system during the permit period; (h) An operations plan as required by this Article; (i) Proof of current coverage of insurance as required by this Article; U) Payment of a permit fee in the amount applicable to the operator as specified in this Article ; (k) The provision of any other information reasonably requested by the City in making its determination ; and (I) An escrow account as required by this Article. Sec. 8-814. Granting, renewing permit and permit terms. (a) Granting or renewing permits. A shared system can only be operated with a City permit. (b) Permit terms. The City may identify geo-fence zones within which an operator may conduct certain activities and such other reasonable terms as are necessary to ensure the public health, safety, and welfare of the general public. Page 2 of9 Sec. 8-815. Permit denial and revocation. (a) A permit application , permit or permit renewal application is denied and no permit is issued or a permit may be revoked ifthe City finds that: I. Any statement made in the application is incomplete , inaccurate, misleading , or false ; 2. The operator, its partners, officers, owners, and other principals have not paid to the City :\II fees due under thi s Article; 3. The operator has otherwise not complied with this Article or has had a history of noncompliance with the provisions of this Article ; 4. Poor customer response or service; 5 . Posing an unreasonable risk to the health , safety and welfare of the general public ; 6. Having a history of violating one or more requirements of this Article ; 7. Nonpayment for monies owed City in accordance with this Article ; or to operator's failure to comply with its permit , this Article, or any applicable federal , state, or local law or regulation . (b) Notice of permit denial or revocation. The City shall provide the operator written notice within ten days of permit denial or revocation. The notice shall state the reason(s) for the decision and inform the operator of its right to appeal the decision in writing including by when and to whom it must be delivered. Sec. 8-816. Appeal of pt.rm it denial or revocation. (a) Written Appeal. An operator may appeal the revocation , denial or permit terms to the City Manager or designee if the operator requests an appeal in writing and delivers it to the City Manager or designee not more than ten business days after receiving notice of the action. (b) Hearing. The City Manager or designee shall act as the appeal hearing officer and shall conduct a hearing as soon as practicable or within five business days of receipt of notice of appeal. The hearing officer shall give the appealing party an opportunity to present information and to make argument on its behalf. The hearing officer may affirm , modify or reverse all or part of the action being appealed. lf operator is in non-compliance with this Article or other applicable law , the hearing officer may give the operator an opportunity to correct the violation. (c) Final Decision. The hearing officer 's decision is rendered in writing to operator and as soon as practicable or within five business days of the hearing . The hearing officer's decision is final. Sec. 8-817. Shared system operating requirements. Shared system operators shall do the following: (a) Customer communication. Provide an application for customers to notify the operator of a safety or maintenance issue , including a telephone number, web address , and email address that must be properly established , maintained and available 24 hours a day ; (b) Information affixed on each micromobility device. Affix on each micromobility device the following: I. Operator contact information including the web site address ; 2. Operator's customer service contact information and how to report incorrectly parked micromobility devices, safety concerns, complaints, or question s; Page 3 of9 3 . A clearly visible name, logo, trademark, or other operator identifying information; and 4. A unique identification consisting of number or letters or both for each deployed micromobility device. (c) Customer notification. Notify customers via a web site or mobile device application the following information: 1. Customers are encouraged to wear helmets; 2 . Customers must follow a ll traffic la ws ; 3 . Customers must properly park in compliance with this Article and applicable laws ; and 4 . That the City is not responsible for educating customers regarding laws related to micromobility devices. Neither is the City responsible for educating customers on how to ride or operate a micromobility device. ( d) Staffing. Maintain sufficient staffing levels who are able and competent to relocate or rebalance all micromobility devices on a regular basis and as needed by the City. Staff must be ab le and competent in handling local issues, including timely removals, installation or r.iaintenance of equipment a nd other issues arising pursuant to this Article requiring lo cal action on the part of the operator; (e) Contact information to City. Provide to City contact information for operator's staff responsible for the relocating or rebalancing micromobility devices, and the handling of all local issues as they arise , including removals , installation or maintenance of equipment, and other issues aris in g pursuant to this Article requiring local action on the part of the operator ; (f) Repairs. Assume responsibility for costs and all ob li gations associated with properly maintaining its micromobility devices in good , safe operat in g condition , including fixing , repairing, or correcting each micromobility device that is considered inoperable, unsafe , or otherwise in violation of the standards under this Artic le before re-deployment back into service ; (g) Repair and reimbursement of City costs. Be responsible for repair and payment of actual costs of repair to public infrastructure damaged by the use of operator's micromobility devices , including reimbursement to the City if the City makes repairs and including payment of costs incurred by the City to remove or store micromobility devices that are improperly parked or otherwise are required to be removed from the public right-of-way or other areas pursuant to this Article . Payment shall be due within 30 days of written notice by City to the operator ; (h) Permit information change. Keep at a ll times any permit information current and accurate. Changes in any permit information , including geo-fence zones, size of fleet , change of inventory of fleet , change of address , contact person , or any other information must be approved by the City by requesting an amendment to the permit before instituting such change ; (i) Geo-fence zones . Operate and conduct business within a geo-fence zone approved by the City and defined as follows: 1. Texas A&M University (TAMU) geo-fence zone : An area identified in partnersfip w ith T AMU and their contracted operator of choice generally including areas surrounding the TAMU campus . Page 4 of9 2. Other geo-fence zones: Areas outside of the TAMU geo-fence zone and within areas that are defined in partnership with the City and the operator. These areas typically include higher concentrations of commercial , multi-family and single- family land uses. 3. The City has final and sole discretion on geo-fence zone locations . 4. The operator must provide a geo-fence platform for City use that must be kept operational at all times when operating within the City; U) Operations plan. Develop and provide a plan to ensure the orderly conduct of the system as a whole and which addresses all traffic , safety , public nuisance , and aesthetic issues including: I. Maintenance and inspection schedules of each micromobility device, recovery and repair of unsafe or inoperable devices before redeployment ; and 2. Education of customers on the safe use of each micromobility device, knowledge of compliance of all applicable laws and proper parking ; (k) Escrow account. Provide $5,000.00 in cash for the City to hold in escrow for the permit term to cover the City's direct costs due to violations of the permit, this Article and any other applicable laws. If the escrow account drops below $500.00 the operator shall provide additional cash to the City to raise the amount back to $5 ,000.00 ; (I) Inoperable or unsafe micromobility devices. Remove inoperable or unsafe devices from service within 24 hours after notice from a customer, the City , or any third party. Such devices shall be repaired before returned to service; (m) Use of latest technology. Use and employ the latest technology reasonably available to carrying out its shared system operations, including enhancements to safety , accountability , and precision of location of micromobility devices ; (n) Operations center. Maintain a staffed operations center located within the City ; and (o) Rebalancing. Proactively monitor and rebalance micromobility devices to ensure their availability thruughout the geo-fence zone. At a minimum this includes rebalancing when micromobility devices have been in the same location for 5 or more consecutive days , when three fourths of available parking is occupied , or upon request of the City. Sec. 8-818. Safety. (a) All micromobility devices must comply with safety standards established by the Consumer Product Safety Commission and all other federal , state , and city safety standards. (b) Bicycle standards. All bicycles must meet the following: 1. Code of Federal Regulations , Title 16 , Chapter II , Subchapter C , Part 1512 - Requirements for Bicycles, as may be amended; 2. International Standards Organization 43.150 -Cycles, subsection 4210, as may be amended; and 3. Texas Transportation Code Section 551 .104 as may be amended, regulating the safety equipment of bicycles. (c) Signage. All operators shall have visible language on City approved signs in designated parking areas or other appropriate places notifying the customer that: 1. Helmet use is encouraged while riding ; 2. Customers shall yield to pedestrians on sidewalks; and Page 5 of9 3 . Customers when operating on a road must follow the rules of the road as one would in a motor vehicle. (d) Micromobility device speed. The speed of any micromobility device may not exceed 15 miles per hour. The operator must install a governor or some type of device to not allow the micromobility device 's speed to exceed 15 miles per hour. Upon request of the City , operators may be required to employ speed reductions below 15 miles per hour in specified areas to ensure safety . Sec. 8-819. Parking. (a) Parking hubs. Parking hubs may be required or requested where demand exists to create a system that users can rely on and expect micromobility devices when needed . (b) Lock-to parking. Provide micromobility devices that have a built-in or attached locking system for customers to secure the device . Customers must park and lock all micromobility devices to: I. A bicycle rack ; or 2. An operator designated parking area ; and 3. Only within the operator 's geo-fence zone. (c) Improper parking. Micromobility devices shall not be parked adjacent to or within: 1. Transit zones , including bus stops and shelters ; 2. Loading zones; 3. ADA handicap parking zones; 4. Street furniture; 5. Curb ramps ; 6 . E ntryways and driveways ; 7 . Within the visibility triangle at intersections ; 8 . Railroad tracks and crossings ; 9 . Streets, light poles, utility poles, traffic signs , traffic signals, benches, tables , trash receptables or any other publicly owned property , structure or facility , unless parking at an approved rack for parking. 10 . Passenger loading zones or valet parking service areas ; and 11. A place where the City determines poses an unreasonable risk to the health , safety , and welfare of the general public. ( d) Block faces. City reserves the right to determine certain block faces where parking is prohibited ; (e) Remove or relocate. Relocate or remove from the public right-of-way or anywhere within the Cit> each any micro-mobility device that is illegally parked , inoperable , unsafe , abandoned , or in violation of this Article or any other applicable law: I. Within two hours of when operator becomes aware of or receives notice between 6 :00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., seven days per week; and 2. Within 12 hours of when operator becomes aware of or receives notice during all other times. Page 6 of9 Sec. 8-820. Survey, records, and data sharing. Operators are required to report monthly information to the City regarding their operations, fleet , and membership. The goal of these reports is to better understand how the entire shared system is utilized and to better inform future policy changes. Operators will w0rk with the City to provide the following information on their operations in the City: (a) Number of micromobility devices in their shared system ; (b) Origin and destination data ; (c) Usage (total trips , per timeframe , per location , per micromobility device); (d) Total number of customers and miles traveled ; ( e) Customer survey and general demographics (if avai I able); (t) Reported repairs, collisions ; (g) Removal or relocation data including response times and locations; and (h) Any other data determined by City as necessary to ensure compliance with this Article and with applicable law. Sec. 8-821. Relocation, removal or impoundment. The City has the right to relocate , remove, or impound any obstruction or encumbrance caused by micromobility devices anytime one may pose a risk to the health, safety and welfare of the public or anytime a micromobility device is illegally parked, abandoned , or is otherwise located in violation of this Article or any other applicable law . If the City relocates , removes , or impounds any micromobility devices the operator may be assessed a fee. Sec. 8-822. Indemnity. By making application for a permit, the operator, its assigns , successors , and representatives agree to and shall defend , indemnify , release , and hold the City , its agents , employees, officers, volunteers, and legal representatives harmless for all claims , causes of action, liabilities , fines , and expenses, including , without limitation, attorneys' fees , court costs, and all other defense costs and interests for injury, death , damage , or loss to personal or real property sustained in connection with or incidental to the activity related to operating a shared system in the City and as authorized by the permit. Sec. 8-823. Insurance. The following types of insurance must be procured and maintained by Operator: (a) Commercial general liability with minimum limits of liability per occurrence of $1,000,000.00 with $2,000,000.00 general aggregate. I. Policy shall be written by a licensed carrier authorized to do business in Texas, rated A:YI or better under the current A. M. Best Key Rating Guide. 2. Policy shall be endorsed to name the City of College Station as an additional insured, with a waiver of subrogation rights and "primary and non-contributory" language with regard to any self-insurance or insurance the City may have or obtain. 3. Policy shall not exclude: personal and advertising liability , contractual liability (for the indemnity provided herein), products/completed operations ; independent contracts. (b) Business automobile liability. I . Policy sl.all be written by a licensed carrier authorized to do business in Texas rated A:VI or better under the current A. M. Best Key Rating Guide. Page 7 of9 2. Policy shall name the City of College Station as an additional insured , with a waiver of subrogation rights and "primary and non-contributory" language with regard to any self-insurance or insurance the City may have or obtain. 3. Minimum combined sing le limit of liability of$1 ,000 ,000.00 for bodily injury and property damage. 4. Coverage sha ll include any autos , owned autos, leased or rented autos , non-owned autos and hired autos. (c) Workers' Compensation Insurance. I. Statutory limits required. 2 . Emp lo yer's liability minimum limits of liability of $1,000,000 .00 for each accident1 ~ac h disease/each employee. 3 . "Texas Waiver of Our Right to Recover From Others Endorsement, WC 42 03 04." 4. Texas must appear in Item 3A of the Workers' Compensation coverage or Item 3C must contain the following: "Al l States except those listed in Item 3A and the States ofNV, ND , OH , WA , WV, and WY." (d) Cyber Liability. Minimum limits of $5 ,000,000 for third party losses. Coverage must include the following: I. Enterprise Security Event Liability 2. Payment Card Industry-Data Security Standards (PCI-DSS) Fines 3 . Privacy Regulation 4 . Media Liability 5 . Crisis Management Expense 6. Fraud Response Expense 7. Public Relations Expense 8. Forensic and Legal Expense Includes PCI Re-Certification Services 9. Extortion Loss I 0. Ransom ware Loss 11. Soc ial Engineering Fraud Loss 12. Telecommunications Theft Loss 13. Extortion Threat Reward Reimbursement Expense 14. Bricking Coverage 15. Cryptojacking Coverage 16. Invoice Manipulation 17. Mitigation Expense 18 . Reputational Loss 19. Cyber First Party Coverages Proof of Loss 20. Business Interruption -Service Disruption 21. Business Interruption -Service Failure 22. Business Interruption -System Disruption 23. Business Interruption -System Fai lure 24 . Data Recovery Expense 25 . Business Interruption Coverages Proof of Loss (e) Operator shall provide the C it y with evidence of required coverage on the most current State of Texas Department of In surance-approved form. Carrier may be an eligible non- admitted insurer in the State of Texas. Page 8 of9 (f) Policies sha ll not be canceled , non-renewed , suspended or reduced in limits of liability until the City has received 30 days' written notice of such change. Should policies lapse or expire, the permit shall automatically be suspended and operator shall discontinue its shared system within the City. Such perm it suspension shall be in effect until operator provides City with evidence of a replacement policy. If operator fails to provide evidence of replacement po li cies acceptab le to the City within five busines s days following the policy lapse , tht: perm it shall terminate automatically . Sec. 8-824. Fees and costs. (a) The following fees are established and may be assessed by the City in the amount set forth in Section 2-117 : 1. Permit application fee. 2. Permit renewal fee. 3. Removal , impoundment or rel ocation fee. 4. Abandonment fee . Sec. 8-825. Violation; penalties. It shall be unlawful for an operator or person to operate, maintain or conduct a shared system without a permit, and without comp lying with all of the provisions of this Article or any other Jaw. Page 9 of9 I • The Complete Electric Bike Buyer's Guide by Boris & Yevgeniy Mordkovich -\·1 · c· ) .. · t.<-E 1_· .. ··.· RiLECTRIC BICYCLES Second Edition 2019 Copyright © 2015, 2019 by EVELO, Inc. All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be repro - duced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review or scholarly journal. First Printing: 2015 ISBN 978 -0-578-17266-8 EVELO Electric Bicycles 175 Varic k Street, Fl 4 New York , New York www.evelo.com TABLE OF CONTENTS Getting Started: An Introduction to Electric Bikes ............................................. 7 What Makes an Electric Bike Unique? ................................................................ l 0 Why Choose an Electric Bike? ............................................................................. 16 Which Type of Electric Bike Do I Need? .............................................................. 20 The Nuts and Bolts: Understanding How Electric Bikes Work ...................... 23 How Much Do Electric Bikes Cost? ...................................................... 32 Should I Buy an Electric Bike or Convert My Existing Bike? .................. 38 Preparing to Buy an Electric Bike ..................................................................... ..41 Electric Bikes: Pros and Cons ............................................................................ ..47 Conclusion : The Future of Electric Bike Transportation ................................. 51 Appendix A: Transporting Electric Bikes .......................................................... 53 About the Authors .................................................................................................. 56 BASIC OVERVIEW An electric bicycle is, first and foremost, a bicycle. It uses the same designs, ge- ometries, and components as any other bicycle, but also includes an added elec - tric motor. This is fueled by a rechargeable battery, which gives riders an extra boost of power and ultimately provides a smoother, more convenient, and less strenuous cycling experience . By eliminating many of the obstacles that keep people from cycling-obstacles such as headwinds, steep hills, and bike com - mutes that leave riders tired, messy, and sweaty-electric bikes help make the freedom, exhilaration, and satisfaction of cycling available and accessible to a wide range of potential cyclists. The idea of creating an electric bike has intrigued cyclists since the late 1800s, when several American inventors experimented with the possibility of combin- ing the potential power of electric motors with the simple mechanics of the bi- cycle. It wasn't until the technological advancements of the 20th and 21st cen - turies, however, that this idea finally became a viable reality. With lightweight motors, high efficiency rechargeable batteries, smoothly shifting drivetrains, and 7 huge advances in bicycle components, today's electric bikes provide a way for cyclists o f all ages, fitness levels, and physical needs to enjoy the benefits of cy- cling, whether it's a leisure ride, a workout, or part of a daily commute. For many, electric bikes are an attractive alternative to both conventional bicy- cles and traditional automobiles, providing an environmentally friendly, fun, effi- cient, and convenient way to travel. THE GLOBAL POPULARITY OF ELECTRIC BIKES Electric bicycles are becoming increasingly popular throughout the world, as more and more people look for efficient, affordable, and eco-friendly modes of • transportation. In recent years, electric bike use has skyrocketed in Asia, most notably in China, which has established itself as the world leader in electric bike use . There are now an estimated 200 million electric bikes in China, with millions more added every year.1 The explosive expansion of electric bikes in China has helped spur similar growth in other parts of the world . In Europe-the second largest market for electric bikes-electric bicycle use has been steadily on the rise. In 2006, there were approximately 98,000 electric bikes sold throughout Europe. A decade lat- er, this number had risen to almost 1.7 million in annual sales.2 1 "Nation plans tougher safety standards fo r e-bikes in new guideline;· Gl obal Times , http ://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1085108.shtml. Accessed 3 January 2019 . 2 "Number of electric bicycles sold in the European Union (EU) from 2006 to 2016;' Statista, https://www.statista .com/statistics/397765/electric-bicyc l e-sales-in-the-european- union-e u/. Accessed 3 January 2019. 8 Electric bikes are also gaining increasing popularity in the United States, where ebike sales rose sharply from about 70,000 in 2011 to over 263,000 in 2017 3, and the growth is likely to continue accelerating. The dramatic improvements in electric bicycle technologies and capabilities, as well as the rapid growth in the popularity of electric bicycles in recent years, have all made the prospects of owning and riding an electric bike particularly exciting. Whether they're used by people looking for a low impact way to get back into shape, older cyclists seeking a more accessible way to enjoy leisurely bike rides, urban professionals attempting to simplify their daily commutes, en- vironmentally conscious travelers hoping to decrease their emissions footprints, or anyone in between, it seems increasingly likely that "electric-assisted bicycles will change how people think about bikes:'4 3 "Report: U.S. e-bike sales doubled i n last year: Bicycle Retailer, http ://www. bicycle.retailer.com/stud i es-reports/2 013/08/12/report-us-e-b i ke-sa les- dou bled-last-year. Accessed 3 January 2019. "Number of USA electric bike importers jumps 340% year -on-year, suggests industry analyst~ Cycling Industry News, https ://cycling industry. news/nu m ber-of-usa-electric-b i ke-i m porters-ju m ps -440- yea r-o ri-year-suggests -i nd ustry-a na l yst/. Accessed 3 January 2019. 4 "An Elect r ic Boost for Bicyclists;· T he New York Times. 9 For many people, the thing that makes an electric bike particularly intriguing and exciting is its status as a unique type of hybrid vehicle, effectively straddling the worlds of leg-powered bicycles and motor-powered vehicles. This combina- tion helps make the electric bike especially helpful, appealing, and accessible to a diverse range of riders. While electric bikes share many similarities with both conventional bicycles and motorized two-wheeled vehicles, they are ultimately in a class of their own. In this section, we'll explore more thoroughly just what it is that makes an electric bike unique, especially when compared to other types of vehicles. ELECTRIC BIKES VS. CONVENTIONAL BICYCLES As mentioned in the Introduction, electric bikes are, in the most basic and sim- ple sense, defined as bicycles with the added feature of an Jectric motor. It is this motor that makes an electric bike different from all conventional icycles, and it is also the feature that enables electric bikes to offer users a different type of riding experience than t hat of a conventional bicycle. 10 Electric bikes are built in one of two ways: they are either designed specifical- ly as electric bikes and feature built-in electric components, or they are conven - tional bicycles that have been converted through some sort of modification. In either case, there are many similarities between electric bicycles and conven- tional bicycles. Many ebikes feature commonly used bicycle components such as standard-sized wheels, tubes, stems, handlebars, forks, seats, and multi-geared drivetrains comprised of standard-sized cranks, pedals, chains, and derailleurs. Other components, like tires and brakes, are usually ebike-specific in order to ac- commodate the additional loads and wear. This makes it relatively easy to find replacement parts and to make basic repairs. It also makes the transition from a conventional bicycle to an electric bicycle smooth, natural, and effortless-it is, in the end, simply riding a bike, but now, with the added benefit of power on demand. The purpose of adding a motor to an electric bike is to give riders an additional source of power. Most electric bikes allow riders to control when the motor kicks in and how much power it provides . This makes possible a wide scope of riding options ranging from fully leg-powered pedaling, a combination of pedaling and motor assistance, and fully motorized riding , allowing the cyclist to fine tune their riding experience to meet their specific needs and demands. With an elec- tric bike, for example, elderly or inexperienced cyclists can confidently head out on rides knowing that if the terrain becomes too difficult, or if they start feeling tired or worn out, they can rely on the .motor to help them get back home. Sim - ilarly, an electric bike can be helpful to a person trying to get back into shape, allowing them to gradually transition from lighter, primarily motor-assisted workouts to more intensive workouts that rely less and less on motor-generat- ed power. Urban commuters might also use the motor to help them pedal up hills without breaking a sweat, so they can arrive at the office clean and ready to work. Along with providing a specifically tailored riding experience, the added com- ponents of an electric bike also introduce some differences from conventional bicycles in terms of overall cost and specifications. Electric bikes tend to be more 11 expensive than their conventiona l counterparts, thanks to the extra components included on an electric bike. They also tend to be heavier and bu l kier, which can mean that transporting an electric bike can become more d ifficult than trans - porting a conventional bike. The added weight and bulk of an electric bike also means that pedaling it without any motor assistance may be more challenging than pedaling a lighter we i ght, more conventiona l bicycle. In the end, both conventional and electric bikes have p ros and cons to them . If you're looking for a bike that offers powe r-on -demand and can make it easier to ride further and more frequently, an e lect r ic bike may be a good choice for you. ELE CTRIC BIKES VS . MOTORIZED SCOOTERS Electric bikes are sometimes confused with motorized scooters, mopeds, and small motorcycles, and while each of these represents a different type of motor- ized two-whee led vehicle, there are some key differences betw een them that need to be highlighted. The primary features making electric bikes unique from all other motorized two -wheeled vehicles are : 12 Pedals. -A s discussed above, the electric bike's status as both bicycle and motorized vehi- cle is really what makes it such a unique way to get around. The fact that an elec- tric bike has pedals that can be used either exclusively or in combination with the motor is one of the things that makes electric bikes different from motorized scooters, or motorcycles, all of which have no pedals and are powered exclusive- ly by motors. Speed and Power. Typically, the motors used on electric bicycles are less powerful than the motors used on motorized scooters, mopeds, or other similar vehicles. In the United States, the majority of electric bikes utilize motors that generate between 250 and 750 watts, and that have a maximum speed of around 20 mph when being used in motor-only mode (of course, an electric bike can go faster than 20 mph depending on how hard the rider is pedaling). Motorized scooters and mopeds, on the other hand, travel around 30 mph and utilize more powerful motors. These distinctions in speed and motor capability have a direct impact on the le- gal statuses of these different vehicles, which brings us to the final key difference between electric bikes and other motorized two-wheeled vehicles. Legal Status. In general, the federal definition of an electric bike is more similar to a conven- tional bicycle than a motorized scooter, moped, or motorcycle. That means that in most cases, an electric bike can be ridden in bike lanes, on bike paths, and can be locked up to bike racks as if it were a regular bicycle. In most cases, riders are not required to have a driver's license to operate an electric bike and are not re- quired to obtain any special licensing or registration for their electric bikes. Con- versely, motorized scooters, mopeds, and motorcycles are all generally classified as motor vehicles that require a driver's license, registration, and are allowed only on the street. It's important to note, however, that the specific laws, rules, and guidelines governing electric bike use may vary across states and munici- palities. Before you begin riding an electric bike, it's a good idea to check out the laws in your specific location. 13 ELECTRIC BIKES VS. CARS Electric bikes represent a possible alternative to traveling by car, especially for those who live in urban settings or who might be looking for a different way to travel shorter and more frequently traveled routes. Obviously, cars can travel at much higher speeds and are capable of covering much larger distances than electric bikes, but as a means of traveling across smaller distances and at slower speeds, e lectric bikes offer a few unique possibilities. Leg-Powered Transportation. Electric bikes offer the unique possibility of combining some level of physical ac - tivity with your day-to -day transportation, helping contribute to a more active and fit lifestyle. 1. Eco-Friendly Travel. Since electric bikes use small, highly efficient, rechargeable electric batteries instead of gasoline, rid i ng an electric bike can be an environ - mentally frien dly way to t ravel, reducing fossil fuel consumption and helping to decrease pollution from automobile emissions. 2. Cheaper Travel. Electric bikes can help riders cut back on the amount of money 14 spent on gasoline and overall upkeep-in general, electric bikes are much cheap- er to repair than cars, and replacement parts tend to be cheaper as well. 3.Easy Urban Commuting. For urban commuters, an electric bike may p rovide a more convenient way to travel, allowing riders to use bike lanes instead of waiting in traffic, lock up at bike racks instead of paying expensive parking fees , and al- lowing for the additional flexibility of walking the bike on the sidewalk or using it in tandem with public transportation. With many urban environments gridlocked during rush hour, commuting by ebike can often times be faster than driving.5 When compared to other commonly used vehicles, the electric bike clearly occu- pies a unique position as a vehicle that is simultaneously people-powered and motorized . The combination of a conventional bicycle drivetrain and a recharge- able electric motor makes electric bikes particularly flex i ble, accessible, and capa- ble of being tailored to the specific needs, demands, and lifestyles of its unique riders. 5 "Data From Millions Of Smartphone Journeys Proves Cyclists Faster In Cities Than Cars And Motorbikes;· Forbes, https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2018/11/07 /data-from-millions-of-smart- p hone-j ou rneys-proves-cycli sts-faster-i n -cities-tha n-ca rs-and-motorbikes/. Accessed 3 January 2019 . 15 There are a number of reasons why a cyclist-whether beginner, expert, or somewhere in between-might choose to ride an electric bike. This section will cover three of the most important factors to keep in mind when deciding whether or not an electric bike is right for you. ELECTRIC BIKES SA VE TIME AND MONEY Increasingly, people around the world are turning to electric bikes as an effective so l ution for their day-to-day transportation needs, which might include such trips as commuting to and from work or school, grocery shopping, short errands, or going out for social events. Using an electric bike for this type of daily travel can help riders save time and money in a number of ways, including the following: • Electric bikes allow riders to save time by using bike lanes and paths in- stead of sitting in traffic in a car or waiting for public transportation . • Locking an electric bike to a bike rack immediately in front of your desti- nation is faster, cheaper, and more convenient than parking a car in expen - 16 .. sive, crowded parking lots that may or may not be located close to your actual destination. • Depending on where you live, electric bikes may help you save money by allowing you to avoid tolls or other car-related fees. • Recharging an electric bike battery is significantly cheaper than filling a car with gasoline or paying to use public transportation. • The costs of repairs and general upkeep for an electric bike are far less than the costs of maintaining and repairing a car. • On average, an electric bike allows you to go much further for much less money than any other form of transportation. In fact, one study found that an electric bike can travel as far as 500 miles on just $1-roughly 100 times further than a car or public transportation, and 35 times further than a hy- brid car.6 ELECTRIC BIKES CONTRIBUTE TO A HEAL THY LIFESTYLE Whether it's used as a vehicle for your daily commute or more specifically as a means of working out, an electric bike helps contribute to a more fit, active, and well-balanced lifestyle. Introducing an electric bike into your regular travel transforms your daily com- mutes into an opportunity for some light physical activity and a chance to catch some fresh air. Electric bikes are particularly well suited for daily commuting since the motor assistance helps eliminate challenges such as steep hills and headwinds, and creates a smoother, less demanding cycling experience. By us- 6 "The Power of $1 for Transportation;· EVELO, https://www.evelo.com/blog/power-1/. Accessed 3 January 2019. 17 ing an electric bike, commuters no longer have to worry about arriving at their destination feeling tired, sweaty, or worn out-the bike's motor takes care of the overly strenuous portions of the ride while still allowing you to mix some physi- cal exercise into your daily routine. Along with using an electric bike for day-to-day transportation, many cyclists use electric bikes specifically as a means of working out and becoming more fit. Electric bikes offer riders a high degree of control over the level of physical exer- tion required to ride, making them particularly helpful for anybody who would like to become more fit, but who may need to gradually and carefully ease into increased physical activity. Electric bikes, therefore, may provide an especially helpful way to exercise for those who fall into the following categories: • recovering from an injury or illness. • looking for a low-impact workout. • elderly cyclists. • people who are new to working out. • returning to physical activity after a prolonged period of inactivity. ELECTRIC BIKES ARE ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY The third main reason why people choose to ride electric bikes is the compara- tively small environmental impact they make. Most immediately, the fact that electric bikes require no gasoline or oil, emit no pollution while being operated, and require only a small amount of electricity to recharge a battery make electric bikes an attractive option for environmentally conscious travelers. In fact, the small environmental footprint of electric bikes has gained increasing attention in recent years as researchers from a variety of fields begin studying the ways these bikes might fit into efforts to make cities and communities more eco-friendly and sustainable. An article published by Scientific Amer ican, for ex- ample, reports that "transportation experts say ebikes-along with electric cars, light-rail trains and more pedestrian-friendly cities-could become one of the pri - 18 mary drivers of cleaner air and reduced global greenhouse emissions across much of the urbanized world:'7 The same source also noted that "the bicycle is an enor- mously efficient vehicle " and that ebikes emit ten times less carbon dioxide when compared to an electric car, once electricity sources are taken into account. CONCLUSION While there are any number of reasons that a particular cyclist might choose to r ide an electric bike, three of the most important ones to take into consideration are the ways that electric bikes can help save time and money, the ways they h elp contribute to a healthier lifestyle, and the fact that they represent an en - vironmentally friendly mode of transportation . At the end of the day, however, many cyclists choose electric bikes simply because they're fun to ride. Perhaps one of the most important reasons for choosing an electric bike, then, is that they make it possible for people of all ages, skills, fitness levels, and abilities to enjoy the pure pleasure of riding a bike. 7 "Can E-Bikes Displa.i;:e Cars?" Scientific American, http://www.scientificamerican. com/article/can-ebikes-displace-cars/ Accessed 3 January 2019. 19 Now that you have a better sense for what makes electric bikes unique and why people around the world are increasingly turning to them as their vehicle of choice, it's time to start focusing more on the bikes themselves -how they work, how they're designed, and what they're capable of. This section will outline some of the specific details that make one electric bike different from another so that you can eventually select the electric bike that's right for you. ELECTRIC BIKE CLASSIFICATIONS Currently, electric bikes fall into three broad classes, and while these categories have been created largely as a way of helping lawmakers figure out how to ap- proach the growing influx of electric bikes, they also provide a nice way of sorting electric bikes according to factors such as speed and power. The three primary classes of electric bikes are: \ Class 1: Pedal Assist -Pedal assist electric bikes, also commonly referred to as "pedelecs;' are equipped with electric motors that only work while the bike is be- ing pedaled, and that are activated by some sort of pedal action sensor designed ---- 20 to detect when the bike is being used. In the United States, pedelecs are limited to 20 mph and cannot use motors that exceed 750 watts. Most pedal assist ebikes allow riders to select the degree of power provided by the motor, enabling them to tailor the performance of the bike to fit their specif- ic needs and geographies. A rider may adjust her level of motor assistance, for example, going from low to high and back to low again, as her commute to the grocery store carries her initially across flat ground, up a hill, and then back onto flat ground again. Pedelecs are good, flexible electric bikes perfect for all-around use, and are a par- ticularly good option for those seeking the convenience and experience of a bi- cycle, but who know they'll be using a relatively high degree of motor assistance every time they ride . Class 2: Power on Demand -The key difference between power on demand elec - tric bikes and pedal assist electric bikes is that power on demand bikes allow rid- ers to activate and control the motor, regardless of whether or not they're actually pedaling. Most power on demand bikes give riders full control of the motor by using a throttle, button, or trigger located on the handlebars; some models may also include a pedal activator as well. As with pedelecs, power on demand bikes are limited to 20 mph and 750 watt motors . • Power on demand bikes tend to offer an especially wide range of riding options since riders can choose precisely if and when the motor kicks in, as well as how much power it provides when it is in use. Cyclists using this type of bike can go anywhere from fully human-powered pedaling to fully motor-powered riding, and anywhere in between . For this reason, power on demand bikes generally give riders more control over their riding experience than any other type of electric bike. Perfectly straddling the worlds of conventional bicycles and motorized vehicles, power on demand bikes are an ideal option for those who want the best of both worlds. They are very often the electric bike of choice for people who are looking 21 for a way t o ease into cycling, or who are interested in a way to control and grad- ually increase or decrease their level of physical exerc ise while riding. Power on demand bikes are also great for the all -around generalist, making it possible to go on a physically strenuous bike ride one day and then a quick and easy commute the next, all on a single vehicle . Class 3: Speed Pedelecs -Speed pedelecs, sometimes called "S-pedelecs ;' are very similar to normal pedelecs in terms of their basic operation, with the important distinction that speed pedelecs make it possible for riders to combine the power of their legs with the power of the motor to achieve speeds greater than 28 mph. S-pedelecs lack a throttle but can be equipped with a motor rated at up to 750 watts for pedal assist purposes only. Obviously, speed pedelecs are the best option for riders interested in achieving higher speeds than those typically generated by most electric bikes . However, it's a good idea to double check the laws in your specific location before using a speed pedelec since some jurisdictions view the faster-traveling s-pedelecs as full scale motor vehicles requiring special registration and a driver's license. In some places , s-pedelecs are restricted from bike lanes and paths, while regular pedelecs and power on demand bikes are not. When attempting to figure out which type of electric bike is right for you, it's important to think about just what it is you 're trying to get out of your cycling experience. Are you looking for a low-impact way to get back into shape? Are you trying to find a bike that will allow you keep up with your grandchildren or a faster-cycling partner? Will your bike be used primarily for leisure or fo r p ractical everyday needs such as running errands and making daily commutes to and from work? Do you want the option of a physically challenging bike ride, or are you specifically looking for an affordable, easy to use, fully motorized mode of trans - portatio n? Will you be spending a lot of time riding up and down steep hills? Will you regu larly be facing headwinds or other obstacles? The answers to these questions, along with your understanding of the basic types of electric bikes currently being built, will help point you in the right direction as you begin searching for the perfect electric bike. 22 While the electric motor is most definitely the defining feature of an electric bike, it cannot exist or operate on its own. Rather, it works in cooperation with a number of other important components, most notably, the battery and the bicy- cle 's drivetrain. In order for you to become an electric bike aficionado-ready to make a fully informed decision about which specific electric bike model will best meet your needs and objectives-it's important that you understand how these compo- nents work together as well as the various ways they're configured on an electric bike. This section will outline and describe the primary types of motors, batter- ies, and drivetrains currently used on electric bikes so that you can begin figur- ing out what your ideal electric bike might look like. MOTORS As mentioned throughout this guidebook, the motor is the single most important feature of an electric bike-it's what makes an electric bike an electric bike. Forth is reason, it is extremely helpful to become aware of the different types of electric bike motors currently available, and to have a sense forthe advantages and disad- vantages of each one. 23 Hub Motors-A hub motor is situated in the hub of one of the bike's wheels, pro- viding propulsion by spinn i ng whichever wheel to which it's attached. As electric bikes first began gaining popularity, these were the most frequently used type of motor, and while the increasingly widespread use of mid-drive motors is begin- ning to shift this trend, hub motors continue to be a dominant component in the electric bike industry.8 Hub motors are described primarily by whether they're located in the hub of the front wheel or the back wheel: front hub motors provide additional power directly to the front wheel while rear hub motors give extra torque to the rear wheel. Hub motors are generally a bit lower in power and torque, but their advantage is that they are less expensive to manufacture-which results in a less expensive bicycle. Front hu b motors create the sensation that the bike is being"pulled"forward. Because front hub motors don't impede in anyway the bike's drivetrain, riders can benefit from combining both the mechanical power generated by having mul- tiple gears on the rear wheel and the motorized power in the front wheel. Front hub motors are also quite easy to install and remove because they don't have to workaround cha ins, dera illeu rs, or cassettes, which also makes it relatively easy to perform repairs. On the oth er hand, front hub motors have a tendencyto"slip" or"spin out" since the bulk of the rider's weight is located behind the front wheel. Additionally, the extra torq ue introduced by front hub motors typically requires the use of more sturdy forks, rims, and spokes than may be usual. In contra st to front hub motors, rear hub motors"push"the bike forward , which often feels more natural to those accustomed to riding conventional bicycles, since they also generate power atthe rear wheel using a chain and gears. Similarly, 8 "Electric Bike Motor Comparison: Hub, Mid-Drive, & Friction Drive;· Electric Bike Re- port.com , https://electricbikereport.com/electric-bike-motor-comparison/ Accessed 3 January 2019. 24 because the bulk of the rider's weight is above the rear wheel, rear hub motors tend to spin out less often than front hub motors and, in certain riding conditions, can provide a smoother, more efficient riding experience. However, rear hub motors can be tricky to install or remove since they have to work around derailleurs, chains, and cassettes, which can also make it difficult to perform certain types of repairs . Despite the familiar feel of power being gener- ated atthe rear wheel, the added bulk of the rear hub motor can negatively affect the overall handling of the bike, making it a feel bit back-heavy. Finally, like their front hub counterparts, rear hub motors introduce extra torque to the rear wheel which means they should be used with particularly strong spokes and rims . Mid-Drive Motors-It's becoming more and more common to see mid-drive mo- tors in use on a variety of electric bike models, and for many riders, these motors provide an especially versatile, balanced, and powerful riding experience. Instead of being located in the hub of one of the wheels, mid-drive motors drive power to the bike's drivetrain, typically at the crankset. By directly powering the bike's cranks, mid-drive motors work in tight coordination with the bike's already existing gears, amplifying the mechanical advantage they provide. This becomes particularly helpful when it comes to climbing steep hills or navigating extended inclines. On th is type of terrain, mid-drive motors "can leverage the lower gears of the bike and keep their RP Ms in an efficient range without getting 'bogged down' like a hub motor:'9 In addition to efficiently complementing the bike's existing gears, mid-drive mo- tors often allow for more intuitive and user-friendly designs. Typically attached to the bike somewhere around the bottom bracket, mid-drive motors leave the huge majority of components untouched, which makes it easy to repair or replace parts as needed. Similarly, the placement of mid-drive motors means that the additional 9 "Electric Bike Motor Comparison: Hub, Mid-Drive, & Friction Drive;· Electric Bike Re- port.com, https://electricbikereport.com/electric-bike-motor-comparison/. Accessed 3 January 2019 . 25 weight introduced by the motor is located closer to the bike's natural center of gravity, creating a more natural riding sensation than hub motors. Lastly, having the moto r drive the crank allows some design flexibility for the rest of the bike, such as allowing the use of an internally-geared hub and/or a belt drive transmis- sion. With all that said, however, mid-drive motors typically use more proprietary drive- train components. Additionally, most mid-drive motors come only on complete electric b i kes, and in many cases are harder to use when attempting to convert a conventional bicycle to an electric bike. Lastly, the advantage of the mid-drive motor come at a premium as most electric bikes with this motor configuration are more expensive than the ones with the hub motor placement. HUB MOTORS Pros Most affordable option on the mar- ket today, due to its popularity and cheaper components Quick and easy way to convert a conventional bicycle to electric Front hub motors are relatively easy to put on and take off Front hub motors don't interfere with very many compo n ents, mak- ing maintenance and repairs fairly simple Cons 26 Rear wheel hubs can be difficult to put on and take off Rear wheel hubs can make it diffi- cult to repair or replace parts Tend to produce an unbalanced riding sensation (front hub mo- tors "pull" bike, rear hub motors "push" bike) Hub motors do not take advantage of gears; inefficient use of power Tend to spin out on hills or in slip- pery conditions Additional torque may damage spokes, rims, fork, or dropouts MID-DRIVE MOTORS Pros Cons Provides power directly to bike's drivetrain Works in coordination with bike's gears to maximize efficiency, speed, and power Located near the bike's center of gravity to provide natural riding sensation and smooth handling Doesn't interfere with other com- ponents; simple to perform repairs or maintenance BATTERIES More expensive than hub motors Harder to use for converting a con- ventional bicycle to electric May add wear and tear to bottom bracket, cranks, chains, derailleurs, or cassettes Batteries are, in many ways, the fundamental reason electric bikes have emerged as such promising vehicles in the 21st century. The highly efficient, relatively light- weight, and rechargeable batteries currently in use ensure that electric bikes have a reliable source of power that contributes to creating a more enjoyable and ef- fective riding experience. The evolution of batteries, especially over the course of the last couple decades, has had a direct impact on the evolution of electric bikes . According to Electric- Bike.com, "the turning point between electric bike 'history; and our modern era" of widely available and regularly used electric bikes is "the mass production of lithium batteries;' which resulted largely from the explosive growth of the com- puter industry.10 Once these lighter, more compact, more efficient, and more powerful rechargeable batteries became cheaper and more accessible, electric 10 "Electric Bike History, patents from the 1800's;' Electric Bike.com, https://www. electricbike.com/e-bike-patents-from-the-1800s/. Accessed 3 January 2019. 27 bike builders began using them to create more visually attractive, lighter, more reliable electric bikes . The prim ary consideration to make when looking at electric bike batteries is the range of the battery, wh i ch is typically described in terms of how many miles you can get out of a single charge. Obviously, the distance you can travel before hav - ing to recharge your battery depends on how much motor assistance you plan to use while riding. The more you pedal and the less you use the motor, the more miles you can get out of the battery. Conversely, if you use more motor assistance and pedal less, then you 'll get fewer miles out of your battery. In any case , though, today's electric bike batteries are efficient enough to provide any rider the power needed to make their bike rides fun, convenient, and productive. Today's high quality electric bike batteries should typically give you somewhere between 20 and 60 miles per charge, and they should be lightweight enough, and compact enough to blend in with the design of the bike-a good battery should not get in the way or in any way detract from your ability to ride comfortably. 28 DRIVETRAINS The third piece of componentry that you need to be aware of is the drivetrain . "Drivetrain " refers to a system-typically comprised of several smaller parts working together in tandem-that provides the power and torque necessary to turn the wheels of a vehicle . On most standard bicycles, the drivetrain is made up of the crankset, chain, and some sort of gear system , almost always attached to the rear wheel. Bikes use either a single gear or a multi-geared drivetrain to help convert the power required to turn the cranks into actual propulsion power. Electric bikes work in conjunction with already existing bicycle drivetrains, and while this means that there are typically fewer variables involved with elec - t r ic bike drivetrains than with other components like motors and batteries, you should still be familiar enough with them to make a well -informed decision when it comes time to select your own bike. Since electric bikes are focused on providing efficient, convenient, and accessible transportation, we'll focus only on multi-geared drivetrains, as these mechanisms play an important role in helping cyclists -whether riding an electric bike or a conventional bike -navigate hills and other obstacles . 29 Multiple Gears With Derailleur -Having been established as the go -to technolo - gy for conventional bicycles, derailleurs mechanically move the bike chain across a range of d ifferently size d gears that change the efficiency of each pedal stroke; some gears are better suited for climbing up hills while others are best for cruis - ing along level ground . Many electric bike motors work in coordination with al ready existing gears and derailleurs, allowing riders to shift through their gears to find the best efficiency for any g iven riding condition, while also utilizing the motor's power to provide an ultra sm ooth, convenie n t , and fun way to ride . Internal Gear Hubs -In contrast to drivetrains that use a derailleur to shift through a set of external gears attached to the rear wheel , internal gear hubs or transmissions feature a range of gears housed inside the hub of the rear wheel. Unlike the traditional multi-geared drivetrains, the internally geared hub trans - missions house the gearing inside a factory-sealed hub. This setup completely removes the need for a unsightly derailleur and allows for better shifting under load and while stopped . Instead of shifting from one gear to the next, cyclists using thi s type of drivetrain turn a knob located on the handlebars to increase or decrease the amount of l eg effort required to turn the cranks . Some internally geared hubs take it one step furthe r. The NuVinci CVT lacks a discrete number of gears and instead offers a virtually unlimited shifting . The NuVinci transmission even offers fully automatic shifting . When combined with a mid -drive electric moto r, the NuVinci drivetrain creates an electric bike that is especiall y flexible and that allows riders to fine tune and tailor their riding expe - rience to meet their specific needs, geographies, and riding styles. Electric bikes combine components and technologies from various industries and field s in exciting and i nnovative ways in order to produce a truly unique cy - cling experience. By becoming familiar with the basic components and technol- ogies that make electric bikes particularly efficient and convenient veh icles, you 30 empower yourself to choose the specific electric bike-equipped with the per- fect type of motor, battery, and drivetrain-to meet your cycling needs, expecta - tions, and goals. 31 'owMu(hDo .lectric Bikes CDst? · Now tha t you've become familiar with what electric bikes are, how they work, and why they're a unique and effective mode of transportation for many people throughout the world, you may be wondering what the actual costs are of buying, using, and maintaining an electric bike. This section will give you an overview of what these costs look like and will attempt to answer the questions people typi- cally have as they begin thinking about the possibility of buying their own electric bike. THE COST OF PURCHASING A NEW ELECTRIC BIKE Motor -The power and performance capabilities of an electric bike's motor play a key role in determining the overall cost of the bike-in general, the better the motor th e more expensive the bike. As discussed in the previous section, there are two main types of motors, hub motors and mid-drive motors. While both have their own distinct advantages and disadvantages, when it comes to a motor's price tag, power is the primary factor. Most standard electric bike motors come with a power rating of 250 watts and 32 typically go up from there to as high as 750 watts. Higher rated motors generate more power than those with lower ratings, and as a result provide a snappier, more responsive, more versatile motorized riding experience. Whether or not you need a more powerful motor depends primarily on the type of riding you're planning to do and the terrain on which you'll be riding. If you live in a city with a lot of steep hills, for example, and you need a motor that will propel you up hills quickly without having to pedal, then paying a bit more for a more powerful motor may be a good investment. Keep in mind, though, that the power output is not the only specification worth consideration . For example, a rear hub and a mid-drive motor can both be rated for 750 watt but have very different abilities to get you up a steep hill; that's be- cause a mid-drive motor will have a mechanical advantage and typically generate higher torque than a hub motor. Always pay attention to torque in additional to watts. Battery -Along with the power of the motor, the battery used to fuel an electric bike motor is a key factor in how expensive a particular bike is. Most electric bikes use lightweight, efficient, rechargeable lithium batteries, and the primary variable differentiating one battery from another is how many miles of riding a battery can provide before it needs to be recharged. As explained in chapter 5, the exact number of miles a rider gets out of a battery charge depends on a number of different variables such as the weight of the bike, the rider 's weight, whether or not there's a headwind, the number and steepness of the hills the bike is climbing , and the proportion of human -generated and mo- tor-generated power a rider uses. If, for example, a cyclist pedals for most of the ride and uses a low level of motor assistance, she'll get more miles out of her battery charge than she would if she uses the motor as the sole source of power throughout the entire ride. Similarly, a rider whose trip to the grocery store is en- tirely on flat ground will get more miles out of his battery then a rider who has to go up two steep hills to get to the store. 33 Since there are so many variables affecting the number of miles a battery can pro- vide, electric bike manufacturers and retailers usually describe batteries in terms of milea g e ranges that attempt to account for a variety of riding styles and condi- tions. A good quality electric bike battery should provide, on average, somewhere between 20 and 50 miles of riding per charge.In general, the more miles a battery can provide, the more expensive it will be, so before deciding which electric bike is right for you, it's important to consider the type of riding you plan on doing. Drivetrain -Just like a traditional bicycle, a basic electric bike configuration comes with a derailleur and mechanical gears. Upgrading to a mid-drive configuration creates room in the rear wheel for a more sophisticated transmission, like an in- ternally geared hub. An internally geared hub transmission is factory-sealed, requires less mainte- nance and has fewer components sticking out and at risk of being damaged. Of course, these benefits come at a premium and can add hundreds of dollars to a cost of an electric bike. Finally, the electric bike technology has evolved to the point where a fully auto- matic transmission is now a reality. Internally geared hubs, like the Enviolo Nu- Vinci, can be upgraded with automatic shifting controllers, removing the need to shift gea rs at all! Once again, these advanced features are more expensive than a regular derailleur or a standard internally geared hub. Bicycle Components -Because an electric bike is fundamentally a bicycle, the mix of all the other non-electric, non-motorized bicycle components used on an elec- tric bike is another important factor affecting the bike's overall cost. When you pay to upgrade bicycle components, you're generally paying for com- ponents that are lighter weight, that have greater strength and increased dura- bility, an d that work more effectively and efficiently than cheaper, lower quali- ty parts. High end dera i lleurs, for example, shift quicker and smoother, and are usually lighter weight and more sturdy than cheaper derailleurs. Likewise, more expensive suspension forks will generally be stronger, more rugged, and will re- 34 spend to changes in terrain more smoothly than cheaper suspension forks . As with everything else, the type of components you need on your electric bike depends largely on the kind of riding you plan to do. If you know you'll be using your electric bike exclusively on well -paved city streets to run errands and com - mute to work, then you probably don't need the same type of heavy, rugged parts a cyclist might need if he plans on using his electric bike for off-road riding or riding on rougher bike paths . In short, it's important to buy an electric bike with high quality components that match the type of riding you plan to do. This will ensure that your bike is reliable, efficient, and fun , and will also help limit the need for repairs. Materials -The fourth and final factor that affects how much an electric bike costs is the actual material used to build the frame. Low quality bike frames made out of heavier, less durable materials will generally be cheaper than higher quality bike frames, built from lighter, stronger, more durable metal alloys . It 's important to invest in a high quality bike frame since the frame is, quite literal - ly, the skeleton of the entire bike. Frames that are sturdy, reliable, and lightweight ultimately provide a better riding experience, giving you a bike that handles well, that's comfortable and responsive, and that you know you can depend on. THE COSTS OF USING AND MAINTAINING AN ELECTRIC BIKE After the upfront cost of purchasing an electric bike, there are some additional ongoing costs associated with regularly using and maintaining an electric bike . Fortunately, though, these costs are relat ively small compared to both the upfront cost of buying the bike and the cost of using other forms of transportation . The most frequently recurring cost of riding an electric bike is the cost of charging the battery. Interestingly, this is also the point at which electric bikes distinguish 35 themselves as a particularly affordable and efficient vehicle. In fact, multiple stud- ies have confirmed that electric bikes are the most cost-effective motorized vehi- cle currently available. To be more specific, one study reported that, on average, it costs roughly 8 cents to charge an electric bike battery. Given that most batteries get somewhere be - tween 20 and 40 miles per charge, that 's a total of 250 to 500 miles on just $1 worth of electricity.1 1 In a similar project, ElectricBikeReport.com determined that it costs between 0.0625 cents and 0.245 cents per mile to operate an electric bike, depending on the time of day a rider charges their battery.12 The other primary expense associated with using an electric b i ke is the cost of periodic repairs, which wi l l arise from time to time as parts wear out or break. For - tunately, since the huge majority of electric bike components are standard bicycle 11 "The Power of $1 for Transportation;· EVELO, https://www.evelo.com/blog/pow- er-1/. Accessed 3 January 2019. 12 "How Much Does it Cost to Charge Your Electric Bike?" Electric Bike Report.com, https://electricbikereport.com/how-much-does-it-cost-to-charge-your-electric-b i ke/. Accessed 3 January 2019. 36 parts, nearly all repairs can be performed at a local bike shop for a relatively low price. To put the cost of repairing an electric bike into perspective, think about how much it costs for even the most basic car repair-clearly, paying a local bike mechanic to replace worn out brake pads on your electric bike is noticeably more affordable than a comparable repair at a car garage. While riding an electric bike requires an upfront investment, the incredible cost- and fuel -effectiveness of using it pays out huge dividends in the long run . When the low cost of operating and maintaining an electric bike is combined with the convenience, pleasure, and ease of using an electric bike-whether it's as a vehi- cle for running errands and commuting, as part of a workout routine, as an acces- sible form of recreation and leisure, or something else entirely-it becomes obvi - ous why people around the world are relying more and more on electric bikes to meet their everyday transportation needs. 37 D While many people find it easiest and most convenient to simply buy a new electric bike, others might find it more appealing to convert their existing bi - cycles to electric by addi ng a motor and battery. This option has its own set of advantages and disadvan t ages, and ultimately, whether you convert your con - ventional b icycle or buy a complete electric bike depends on your unique needs, interests, and expectation s. In this chapter, we'll highl ight some of the best methods and products current- ly available for converting a conventional bicycle into an electric bike. We 'll also provide a brief discussion of the pros and cons of this type of conversion , espe- cially when compared to purchasing an electric bike. CONVERTING TO ELECTRIC By far the most commo n method for converting a conventional bicycle to an electric bike is to add a hub motor to either the front or the back wheel. This method is generally the easiest, most seamless way to make a conversion, as it leaves the huge majority of the original bike and its components intact-you're adding o n ly a new hub and some sort of controller, nothing else on the bike is affected. 38 The seeming simplicity of this type of modification can be a bit misleading, however, since making the change from a conventional hub to a motorized hub is actually a fairly complicated task. To begin with, taking apart and rebuilding wheels is always a challenging project, involving intensive work installing spokes and truing the completed wheel. Similarly, the extra weight of the motorized hub and the additional torque it will generate means that, in most cases, the en- tire wheel will need to be upgraded to include a rim and spokes sturdy enough to handle a motorized hub. In the end, you would end up with not only a new hub, but an entirely new wheel. Recognizing this, a number of manufacturers have begun building and selling all-in-one electric wheels, which combine the rim, spokes, motorized hub, and rechargeable battery into a single, self-contained unit. These all-in-one wheels generally come with some sort of control system that riders use to turn the mo- tor on and off, and to control how much assistance it provides. As with the hub motors discussed in chapter 5, the all-in-one electric wheel ei- ther replaces the front or the rear wheel on your existing bicycle. To use a typical electric wheel, simply take off your bike's original wheel, install the new wheel, and download an app that usually comes with the product and turns your smart- phone into a control panel. A good example of a rear all-in-one electric wheel is the Copenhagen Wheel. It uses a built-in 350 watt motor and a battery with a range of roughly 30 miles. The Copenhagen Wheel is designed to work with Shimano and SRAM drivetrains. An alternative to the rear setup is the front all-in-one electric wheel, which as one would expect, replaces the front wheel of your regular bike. There are a number of brands on the market today, including Electron and GeoOrbital, with motors in the 400-600 watt range and batteries that go 20-30 miles on a single charge. 39 THE PROS AND CONS: IS A CONVERSION RIGHT FOR ME? The two biggest advantages to converting the bike you already own are famil- iarity and cost: converting a conventional bike to electric allows you to continue using the bike you already know and love, and buying a conversion kit is generally going to be a cheaper option than buying a complete electric bike. On the other hand, though, there are some significant disadvantages to convert- ing a conventional bike, especially when compared to buying an electric bike. In the early days of electr ic bike manufacturing, a complete ebike was not that much different from a DIY conversion . Today, most manufacturers are building purpose-built frames to neatly house various electric bike components, like the battery, the controller, and in the case of the mid-drive configuration, the motor. A conversion will not be as smooth or efficient as a complete electric bike, which has seamlessly incorporated the motor, battery, and controls into every aspect of the bike 's design. Similarly, all-in-one wheels rely on hub motors, which tend to produce a less nat- ural and less efficient rid i ng experience. As discussed in chapter 5, adding a heavy motor to the front or the rear wheel without carefully considering the overall bal- ance is likely to result in an ebike that is difficult to ride and maneuver. Whether you decide to convert your existing bike or purchase a complete electric bike depends on what you're hoping to get out of your motor assisted bicycle. Either option will significantly increase what your bike is capable of, giving you a convenient, fun, fast, and affordable way to travel. In the end, though, while a conversion kit offers a quick and easy way to completely transform your bicycle, many riders have found t hat there's simply no way to replace the high level of performance provided by a complete electric bike, designed from the ground up to be a uniquely convenient, efficiently motorized hybrid vehicle. 40 At this point, you've become much more familiar with what electric bikes are, how they work, and why many people see them as a particularly appealing way to travel. Equipped with this foundation of knowledge, it may be time to start preparing to actually purchase an electric bike of your own. Below are some tips and pointers that will help you navigate the electric bike marketplace so you can find the right bike for you . WHERE TO BUY AN ELECTRIC BIKE Electric bikes have become much mo re widespread in the last several years and there are now more options than ever when it comes to purchasing one for yourself. If you are in a market for an electric bike, there are three types of places you can buy from -traditional bike shops, specialty electric bike shops or onl i ne direct-to-consumer brands. Let 's consider each one in turn. Traditional bike shops -While initially resistant to the idea of an electric bicy- cle , many bike shops now carry at least a few electric bike models from which to choose. The two big advantages of buying through a traditional brick-and -mor- tar shop is that they are local and you 4 1 can test ride one of their ebikes. On the other hand, the selection is likely to be limited, compared to othe r channels, the value is not always there, and the store associates are unlikely to have a deep knowledge of the components and the technology. Specialty electric bike shops -In response to the increased popularity of elec - tric bikes, there is also a small but steadily growing number of shops dedicated entirely to selling ebikes . If you're interested in checking out and purchasing an electric b i ke from a brick and mortar shop, this is a good option. An ebike store is likely to carry a much greater selection from many different brands and they'll have the knowledge and expertise needed to answer your questions. They 'll also be best equ i pped to deal with any repairs or warranty issues that may arise . The biggest drawback is a very limited availability of dedicated electric bike shops around the count ry. Major metropolitan areas are lucky to have one or maybe two electric bike sh ops, which means that if you rely solely on these bri ck and mortars, you'll have access to only a very small range of ebike options- you'll see only what that sto re happens to carry. Online direct-to-consume r brands -With most consumers now comfortable pur- chasing big ticket items online, the direct-to-consumer market for electric bikes is thriving . There are now many options to choose from and increased compe - tition between manufacturers has resulted in a better value for the consum- er than what you'll likely to find at a brick-and-mortar bike shop. In fact, some of the most successful ebike manufacturers in the U.S . are direct-to -consumer brands that sell primarily online. Of course , shopping online also has its disadvantages. One potential drawback to buyin g an electric bike online is the difficulty of test riding a bike before you buy it. While a brick and m ortar store makes it possible to immediately hop on a bike and give it a test ride, shopping on line requires that you contact the manu - facturer or retailer to see if they can arrange a way for you to test ride a bike. The other drawback is the paradox of choice. Shoppers can get overwhelmed with the multitude of brands, components and other options. In fact, that is the rea - 42 son we've put together this buyer's guide -to help you become a more educated consumer. THE DETAILS: WHAT YOU SHOULD ASK RE- TAILERS Whether you buy your electric bike online or from a brick and mortar retail - er, there are a number of important questions you need to ask to figure out if a particular ebike model is right for you . The familiarity with electric bikes you've gained by reading this guide will help you have meaningful conversations with ebike reta i lers since you'll go into these conversations with a strong foundation of knowledge already in place. This foundation will ultimately become the base from which you make your purchasing decisions. When you start talking to ebike retailers, here are the ten most important ques - tions you should ask: 1. Does the bike have a hub motor or a mid-drive motor? As discussed earli - e r, the two dominant ebike motor configurations are the rear hub and the mid- drive. The two types of motors are suited for different applications . The mid-drive motor generates significantly more torque, resulting in more pow- er to climb steep hills. The power also comes through the chain, resulting in a more natural feel. However, ebikes equipment with the mid-drive motor are usu- ally more expensive. The hub drive motor often has a comparable power output rating but does not benefit from the torque multiplication and gearing reduction of the mid-drive motor. As a result, the hub drive ebikes are typically less capable of climbing steep hills . That said, hub drive equipment electric bikes are more affordable and can be a good first ebike for a new owner. 2 . How powerful is the motor? The power of an ebike motor is described in terms of how many watts it generates; most electric bike motors fall somewhere 4 3 in the range of 250 -750 watts. In general, if you 're riding in an area that doesn't have a lot of steep hills, if you plan on using motor assistance sparingly, and if you weigh less than 200 pounds, a 250 or a 500 watt hub or mid-drive motor should be enough to give you a great riding experience. If, on the other hand, you'll be riding up a lot of steep hills, if you plan on using primarily motor assistance, or if you weigh over 200 pounds, a mid-drive motor in the 500 to 750 watt range is probably a good idea since it will provide the extra torque needed to quickly motor up hills and re - spond to changes in your riding conditions or needs. A hub motor, even with a 750 watt power output rating, might not generate enough torque to climb hills seamless ly. 3. What type of electric assistance does the bike provide? The main thing you want to know when asking this question is whether the bike offers electric as - sistance only while the pedals are being cranked or if it also offers a power on demand option . If you know there will be times when you want to stop pedaling and let the motor take over, then be sure the bike you 're looking at offers a full throttle mode. 4. What's the bike's maximum speed? In most places in the U.S., electric bikes cannot legally go faster t h an 20 mph, but beneath that threshold there is still some significant variance i n the speeds different ebikes can reach . The speed you need your e.lectric bike to travel depends on where you live, how quickly you'd like to ride, and how heavily you plan on using the bike's motor. In general, though, e-bikes capable of hitting the top legal speed of 20 mph prove to be the most convenient and helpful, allowing riders to run errands, complete commutes, and get from here to there as quickly and efficiently as possible . 5. How do riders engage and control the motor? Ebikes come with a variety of different mechanisms for engaging and controlling the motor, including sensors that gauge a rider's spee d or pedaling torque and then trigger the motor to re- spond accordingly, throttles or triggers that give riders manual control of the 44 motor, digital control panels, and any number of combinations of sensors, con- trollers, throttles, and triggers. Understanding exactly how any particular ebike engages the motor is an important factor in determining whether or not it will give you the kind of riding experience you're looking for. 6. What sort of drivetrain does the bike have? Effectively combining the me- chanical efficiency of the bike's drivetrain with the power and torque of its motor is one of the best ways to fully maximize the overall performance of an electric bike. You 'll want to know whether the bike is a single speed-which limits your ability to fine -tune your riding experience and may force you to rely more on the motor-or if it has multiple gears-which gives you a broader range of riding options and makes it easier to climb hills. You'll also want to know if the bike uses a derailleur to shift through gears or if it comes with an internal-gear hub like the NuVinci. Derailleurs require riders to have a good grasp of how to shift through gears to respond to changing ter- rains, while something like the Enviolo NuVinci transmission offers a more seam - less, intuitive approach to adjusting to changes in terrain, weather, or other fac- tors. 7. What type of battery does the ebike come with? Currently, lithium batteries are the lightest, most efficient, best batteries to use on electric bikes, so be sure the ebike you're looking at uses a high quality rechargeable lithium battery. 8. What's the battery's range? Once you know that the bike you're interested in uses a high quality lithium battery, it's important to figure out what the battery 's range is. In the electric bike industry, this is generally described in terms of how many miles a rider can go before needing to recharge the battery. The range of the battery you need depends on the type of riding you plan on doing. If you plan to use more motor power than pedal power, then you'll be us- ing your battery 's charge quicker and will therefore need a larger range . If you plan to pedal a lot and use the motor assistance only periodically, you can prob- ably use a battery with a smaller range . The length of your rides similarly impacts 45 the type of battery you need : if, for example, you have a long daily commute then you probably need a larger range than someone who only goes a few miles each day. In short, be sure the range of the ebike you're looking at will conveniently cover the distances you plan to travel. 9. How Long does it take to charge the battery? This information is helpful in figur- ing out more concretely what the actual experience of using an electric bike will be like. This will also help you figure out if a particular ebike model realistically tits your lifestyle and how well it meets your riding needs . 10. What sort of warranty does the ebike come with? One of the great things about riding an ebike is that the majority of repairs can be done quite easily using conven - tional bicycle parts by a mechanic at your local bike shop. However, because electric bikes also include their own unique components, most obviously the motor and bat- tery, it's a good idea to buy an ebike with a strong warranty-just in case anything goes wrong. Shoot for an ebike that comes w ith 3 to 4 -year comprehensive warranty. As electric bikes have proven their usefulness as incredibly efficient, convenient, quick, and fun vehicles for everything from leisurely rides with friends and family to daily commutes and weekly errands, they have become more widely available to consumers in the U.S. And while the number of brick and mortar ebike stores is still relatively small, there is already a huge variety of ebikes available on line. Regardle ss of where you end up buying your electric bike, it's important that you know the right questions to ask before making a purchase . Doing so will ensure that when you do finally buy your own ebike, you 're getting the one that best meets your unique needs, interests, and expectations. 46 As we begin wrapping up our discussion of electric bikes, it will be helpful to provide an overview of some of the most important information we've covered so far. To do this, Section 9 will summarize much of what you've read, bringing it all together into a comprehensive list of the pros and cons involved with own- ing an electric bike. As with everything else in this buyer's guide, this list will be helpful to you as you navigate the world of electric bicycles in search of the perfect bike. PROS Cheap transportation -Especially when compared to other types of transporta- tion, electric bikes are very clearly one of the cheapest ways to get around. With an electric bike, you don't need to worry about paying for any sort of special license or registration, you don't have to pay for parking, and the cost of recharg - ing a battery is immensely cheaper than both public transit fares and a tank of gas. Improved health -Using an electric bike as part of your regular travel is a great way to introduce some physical activity to your everyday routine, and can con- 47 tribute significantly to improved overall health. By using an electric bike, you guarantee yourself time and space to exercise your muscles, lungs, and heart while enjoying a bit of fresh air. Exercise that's right for you -Electric bikes can be especially empowering for those who would like to exercise more, but who have a health condition that lim- its the amount of physical activity they can perform. By controlling the amount of assistance they receive from the motor, ebike riders can tailor the difficulty level of their rides to meet their unique health and fitness needs. This can be es- pecially helpful to those with joint pain, exercise-induced asthma, heart or lung problems, or who are overweight. Enjoy time with friends and family-For many people, electric bikes make it pos- sible to spend more time having fun with friends and family members, allowing them to j oin in on recreational bike rides . If you're new to cycling or struggle keeping up, an electric bike may be the key to getting out more often to enjoy leisure rides with those you love. Travel further -The assistance provided by the electric motor enables ebike rid- ers to go further than they might otherwise be able to. The amount of effort required to cover 10 miles on a conventional bike, for example, can carry riders closer to 20 miles when combined with the power generated by an ebike motor. Sweat-free commutes -One of the biggest drawbacks to using a bicycle for your daily commutes is showing up at your destination hot, sweaty, and uncomfort- able. By using an electric bike, however, you can complete the exact same rides while exerting only a portion of the physical effort. Electric bikes make two- wheeled commuting a much more viable possibility for many people, letting riders enjoy all the benefits of commuting by bicycle while eliminating many of its messiest drawbacks. Tackle obstacles -The extra boost of power provided by an ebike's motor make it possibl e to zip up hills, plow through headwinds, and tackle any other obsta- cle you might encounter on a bike ride without wearing yourself out or getting 48 burned out. As a result, electric bikes provide a convenient, accessible, extremely enjoyable cycling experience to a wide and diverse range of riders . CONS Significant upfront investment -It's not uncommon for people learning about electric bikes for the first time to be surprised by the cost of an ebike, which typically ranges anywhere from $1,000 to $10,000. And while there's no getting around the fact that using an ebike requires a significant upfront investment, the good news is that once you've spent the money to purchase a high quality electric bike, there are relatively few expenses required to operate it. Similarly, the cost of purchasing an electric bike is actually not too bad when compared to what it costs to buy a car or even a high-end bicycle. Heavier than conventional bikes -Even after dramatic improvements in ebike technologies and components, electric bikes remain .noticeably heavier than conventional bicycles. This becomes a problem primarily when you're trying to transport the bike or when you're out on a ride and the battery dies. More specialized, complex parts -While the majority of ebike parts are stan - dard bicycle components that are easy to find, replace, and repair, there are also a handful of highly specialized components that are unique to ebikes. Because these parts tend to be a bit more complicated and can sometimes be harder to find, it can often be more difficult and more expensive to repair a specialized ebike component than a more conventional bicycle part. Confusing Legal status -Because electric bikes are still relatively new to the U.S., there can be a bit of confusion when it comes to the way they're viewed by the law. In general, electric bikes with a maximum speed of 20 mph and motors rat- ed at less than 750 watts are treated the same as any other bicycle, which means they can be ridden on bike paths and in bike lanes and don't require any special licensing or registration. There are some places, though, that have a different set of rules that may limit or change the way you're allowed to use your electric bike . 49 For this reason, it's always a good idea to check the rules in your specific city and state when riding an electric bike. The table below summarizes the primary advantages and disadvantages of us- ing an electric bike, giving you a quick, at a glance resource to use as you con- sider becoming an ebike owner: Pros Cons Cheap transportation Improved health Tailo r exercise to your needs Time with family and friends Increased range Sweat-free commute Tackle obstacles for easy ride FINAL THOUGHTS Expensive initial investment Heavier than conventional bicycles Specialized, complex parts Potentially confusing legal status Electric bikes can help riders of all ages, skills and physical abilities live more active lives but they are not perfect. Being aware of the ways that ebike use can be incredibly beneficial, as well as some of the challenges involved with buying and using an ebike, will make you a well-informed, savvy consumer, ready to make the best possible decision when it comes time to select and purchase an ebike of your own. As you make this decision, keep in mind that while there are certainly disad - vantages to owning and using an electric bike, it seems that many people have decided that the advantages of riding an ebike far outweigh any poten - tial drawbacks. Perhaps this is one reason why ebikes are fast becoming one of the most popular and widely used forms of transportation in the world today. 50 There has never been a more exciting time than now to become an electric bike owner. Having established itself as a hugely popular, effective, and important mode of transportation in countries around the world-most notably China and several nations throughout Europe-the electric bike is beginning to take off in the United States as well. The primary appeal of an electric bike is its unique ability to combine pedal pow- er with motor power, giving riders an unprecedented level of control over their riding experiences . By allowing riders to choose precisely how much power the motor will provide, ebikes have quickly become some of the most flexible and accessible vehicles in the world. Whether it's used to go on recreational rides with family or friends, as a way to get back into shape, or as a vehicle for completing your daily commutes, an elec- tric bike is the key to easy, comfortable, and convenient travel. AN UP-AND-COMING TECHNOLOGY By becoming an ebike owner in 2019 you place yourself at the forefront of a 5 1 transportation movement that's revolutionizing cycling, especially as it becomes increasingly important for Americans to find affordable, quick, easy, and con- venient ways to get arou n d . With a huge jump in ebike ownership in the last 7 years and plenty of room to grow, the U.S . electric bike market will continue to expand quickly. Some analysts predict that within 10-15 years, U.S. will become one of the largest electric bike markets in the world, with millions of ebikes sold each year.13 One of the key reasons for the rapid growth in ebike use is improved technol - ogy-as batteries and motors have become more efficient, durable, and light- weight, electric bikes have become increasingly viable vehicles for everyday trav- el. These i mprovements are also what make now such an opportune moment to become an ebike owner. With today's super efficient, lightweight components, an electric bike can empower you to travel conveniently and affordably, all while having a good time. CONCLUSION Now that you've completed this buyer's guide, you should have all the knowl- edge you need to make a smart and well -informed decision as to precisely which ebike is right for you. As you start looking at specific ebike models, talking to retailers, and figuring out which bike you should buy, be sure to keep in mind your specific needs, interests, and expectations. These should include the type of riding you want to do, your current health needs, your goals for getting an ebike, and what sort of terrain you'll be riding across . With all this in mind-and equipped with your expert knowledge -you can con- fidently d ive into the exciting, dynamic, and rapidly expanding world of electric bikes. Good luck and enjoy the ride! 13 "If an Electric Bike Is Ever Going to Hit It Big in the U.S., It's This One;· Nate Bert, Citylab, http://www.citylab.com/commute/2014/07 /if-an-electric-bike-is-ever-going-to-hit - it-big-in-the-us-its-this-one/375167 /.Accessed 3 January 2019. 52 1i ans ·. o .ing Elect i1c Bikes When trying to transport an ebike, weight, shape, and size are some of the most important factors that need to be taken into consideration. And while in the past it may have been difficult to find ways to transport an ebike, manufactur- ers and bike rack companies today are developing new transportation solutions in response to the rising popularity of electric bikes. Below we outline some of the best, most convenient methods currently available for transporting electric bikes. CAR RACKS There are three main types of car racks: roof racks, rear racks that strap onto the trunk or rear window, and hitch racks. When transporting electric bikes, it's best to use hitch racks, as these are typically the strongest and therefore the safest way to haul ebikes. Since whichever rack you'll eventually be using will be carry- ing a decent amount of weight-especially if you're hauling multiple ebikes at once-you should probably stick with racks that mount to the car using a 2 inch hitch, which is sturdier than the 1-% inch hitch size. 53 The next thing to think about is weight. Since many car racks are designed to hold and carry conventional bicycles, which are typically much lighter than ebikes, it's important that you pay attention to the weight capacity of a rack when figuring out which one to use. In general, go with racks that can hold at least 60-pound bikes. Most racks are made to hold more than one bike at a time, so be sure that if you're getting one of these it's rated to carry multiple 60-pound bikes. Today, it's becoming more common for rack manufacturers to sell racks built specifically for ebikes. But even if a rack isn't necessarily designed for ebike use, if you get one with the proper hitch size and weight capacity you should be fine. Here are two of the most popular racks currently available, both of which are good options for carrying electric bikes: Hollywood Racks Sport Rider SE2 (the HR1450E model is Hollywood's ebike spe- cific version of the popular Sport Rider SE2 rack) Ki.iat NV 2.0 Now, there are even good options for those considering an electric trike, which is obviously more difficult to transport. Hollywood now makes an sturdy, e-trike specific car rack (model HRT330) that can carry an electric trike up to 1 OOlbs and another ebike up to 80lbs . FOLDING E-BIKES Another possible method for transporting electric bikes is to use a folding ebike. Folding bicycles typically use some sort of hinged joint and quick release fasten- ers to allow riders to quickly change the bike between rideable size and collapsed transporting size. This type of ebike could be a good option if you know you'll be using your bike in conjunction with some other form of transportation-a train, boat or RV-or if you have very limited storage space at your home or office. Folding electric bike design has improved significantly over the last couple of years. Electric folders used to have an awkward frame design, tiny motors and a very limited range. Fortunately, this is no longer the case. Many of today's folding ebikes feature comfortable ergonomic frames, fully-integrated batteries and even powerful mid-drive motors on par with their full-size siblings. In other words, technology innovation has largely eliminated the necessary tradeoffs be- tween size and capabilities. 54 Whichever solution best suits your needs and lifestyle, the popularity of electric bikes means now there is a myriad of options when it comes to transporting your electric bike. So go ahead and take your new ebike on that road trip or bring it along in your RV to explore new areas you visit. 55 ABOUT Boris & Yevgeniy Mordkovich are co-founders of a Seattle-based electric bicycle company, EVELO . EVELO's mission is to make cycling more accessible for more people by removing barriers that keep people from getting on the bike -such as the fear of hi ll s, inconvenience of arriving to the destination sweaty, fitness levels and others. EVELO electric bikes are specifically designed to give you the freedom to enjoy a more active and healthier lifestyle. Start your journey today at evelo. com. Have questions about any topic covered (or not covered!) in this book? Send us an email at contact @evelo.com and you'll hear back from us in 24 hours or less! 56 -- l~tf -Leslie- ~\~ -Aru:.Grr~·. ~--1~. -p~- I :.'"· I ... .. -' ! T . -· 1-· i .,., / f'J l ) ' opo . . l3ll1d.. ~ -S.\,..,'4s o~ =>~ ,...: ~+ tv . ~~~~--~~--.-~~~~~~~-·~~v~~t~d~~~-.-.--_-~,~[sJ:: Je~,~~$~Ml~~ -13tfl.L 5~ ~ St -L~~~ 0\.-\ ~~.? \j$. ~ . ,. ,, ) , ... 1: .tL -~ I" ' < ,. 'b .,. I. I -< ... ' ,, r "' i ·' ~ ,• I' ' . .· , . ~ ., .. ,. l~ ~ {oolc. ~ I ~o-~ I~ • .. (, ~ ~ .-' --J> ~I . -SPl'h o(, · ,-+wats, . -> •l') ~ , 4:.. ,,,. . .. { ~ ... -. . I .. -r~ ! c f1 - -. 1 · ,1 .. I i , I ? < '· .,. ~.....,'VI 1.A4;t /"Vl.V ~ M > ~ ~ • $1 ~ 1~ . ~1'1110 T ~ l. .I 3 .. ... \* .. ·, f., ·-· I -· ;? ) .J -- I t,- ~ 1.;.l . ..,.. , .• ~j .. ,.,..,..~ ~· II c..vv;, -SoP · . ."\ \ r ~ ! ( - Cl 4-·cn?j. ··~ .:>_I W)~~'. ~"'~ ~ . . ...-1"1 "', <: a- ·qO-?-V r'>l ·c.,.qQ ~'")~~~~ ~'1 4'-VVl1:41? . . ~-ll\J~P ·~O\~ · ·rJf ~Q~ ~I .. 1"""4lf-Yl4Jd z ' 4 -'Y\i ~ -rrt 1 ·~5 I I 0 " I I ; -'· I I I I I I i • ' , :. r r - ' ' . - . •· " - r ' I . ; !' . ~ .. , ~· r r f . . :" '._:· ' ..,"Ii•. ~-· ~ , f -.J.1'. . " • • ) ' ... . .~ .. ;: -. c · : ) , 0 ' l (' ~ . -· I < ,, - ,\ -'f)ft _q ~Jl.l - ' \JI~ -~ Ll-'?)~O§ ~<1-j jl . W'f.14--:-0 ~01 /"'\/\ I ~ _?tis -r<"f ~ vvmns 11SYJJ;- n>-'i'.-iJ' ~ lOs~ 0 I> . r ~~, ·\ .. ' ., ' " ~ ,.. ..... ,_ ,-!; c- ·' " r:-": I f'.,.. '-· \; ,. ,/ "~. l \ii. .. , \ f"" r.' . -~ L,,; ,. ,.. , ~~ ~. , ~ rr r-" . ~ c ,. . ' ~_, .... \ .... "" r ,;,,. " ' r ... -' ~, I· ·-J ;.,. ··' . ..... '\ . I. '· ' )j .. ;\ ( J { ... "l-_ ..... - -l~· \ , J._ I.'., v·n~ < •'\ .., , ~'\ "" \.: ( . : t-<, I ' ' 'tr ... I I •· ·' . "· ... \ • .. '-'--· . ·\ ......~· · . ,, ' < •. .. ·-< . , ., {' ........ . . " • r ... :sr I; ~ ' ~ .. ~ ~-.. -i..--t ... !'-' ) r.. -I ..r rr ... Jc . ..... : "' .._.. ·1 _,...,.. ' ? . \:~· ... --!..':}~ ......... \ .. ~. (0 3 ~· ~c .s. I il-vl ~~ {P ~ ·,.,,~ -tk 11--0 ~; . f «- -I "/{ SM-ff-n~. o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ c)-J f>~ ti~ I I I I I c ~ ..... ) .. ' ) -· _,. l tl .. . .. I I I <..,. ,. .. . I ~ " , . '} "" ' i I I L. . ' '} -' I I ) ,,--, .. > {· I I 'J 1 I I I ,, ., I ., -.> ' -;-1 I " ' I . ' I I f \) I I I I I . I -· ) I I . . . - . / I I I I I I 7 " . " 11 I / .. .!"~ .. :.~- i- r>' I • I I f;nicrwtj 1 ~ r _?-115?1 /ri <i+~ · g 1/11/01 a~~~J Q - 0 C~~--~~M_o_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~-~ tJ"V\., S~-SY· Nt.W . -~ . j~UV{~op~~ sv~· 4W bl Ju.,-~~- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4~~'--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~h e,,v-J of-.5~~. -VI ,.oo •. ·f • -~-. l ., \ •' I/ .) ' " ... _,. --· ~ ,... r ~:? • I t I• ..: .. 7' ' 1 ,. ~ ;) ' .. F) G) ,,: ··f --· ,.. 4 i,. J. 10 i-'- I~ Dri..,.Btu0t-- WAJ~J N'lciiu{,oJ -llvbA€ .fty\.(L, ~lt--ihU\.l~ ... -e rlAi CM~ / lt:UVS · I * ~IAS.IWl!n ~~ I ~ b.\ ¥J/J I CJ I - .-Jsc~ () ='-·-- ' • I ., ... .,.. ~ '· "::;. ~ ... ' .1: ' i ( : . .,. ., ../ r -I ,.. ...\ l;;, ~· / l ' ·' ' " .. 1.; .,. ... P. , f. if' ' ~·-I v ... ;2. ~\. C) ~ ·20 ope-i- 2-~. 1-3 z,7 o~ opfb-- , c lA-t { l S tYlA.J~k_f. 1 ~" f· .. ~ - '• ~. ,. i ,,., -· '/ ~ f . .,..-"'· J ,, .. .:!, .-f ,.. -~-;: , )< t' -·' ) ....... I ,;. ,,, , I' .... ~--~ .. 1.-' ,.r ~ J . / ,,. -e .I. ~:..,. '· d ;~· ,J .> I :{ 1:·~ ~ ,.... ' ·-/,.- ,. ·> ·7 .-;: ,r !:.' ,, ,, .,.. ' . r, • t {I ,; )/·~· ... "" ... :,• . . ,.. " 1 r , v ,. "' '.!> ·'. '· ,. ·~ .... awttk -7 ·~ -AtiL. s~· o~~----4--~-============-~~~~~~~~~~~ S!<-~'-ti"--•' flt..---~· / .· (,. lF .... .,,. ,...._ ... ' I ' I <- , . ... , .. .... • r ' .~ ) ... • I ·- "I i ' ) •• -, I •' -.. .; -.-~S~u...,. w~ ~ 'F-1-f11\.>::. 3 Lu.L 2o2-0 ~ ~B~s ~ ~·~~o.f-f ----+------ 0 . : -~ l loop. 4/1 ~io . Z Z..5-: \}-fd.tt{LJ ~~-t--~~J--b~s t,Iss~ol(ho~ ----.,,,,,.. o...~ol .l "'-~c..t...1-,,.._~, I _Q ~ =-~~----==------! I -. . '" '· • ----_ ==t1==--4.) E..:.-· ~===~, ==== ~"·= ·.· ===·=-====== :I '~ ~/rh~ l-OU) -frv'.C-~~ ~ 0 'f hll~ ~ (,\} t:f~ 4/a ~ZAl-Z-V - P~'\ l ~<:l CTVi. u.f.. j ~ ~u_, ~eo~ ·,h~s r--•lvfl.yt-ti!,· ~ ?l~t-p wr.-1-J--~ ,~~(..(_., (1;..,!-,A IA JI I LMclM.dl~~ ~Ley:_. ~~ ep-os~.,. ' .... '3~b~ -e G-Ll~ . u ~~ ~·~IA~ ~ • --@> v '{g~ .. ~u-t.,, 1'11erb·d 1-h · -.J ~ £-f-f~ ~/3/-µ7A· ~ ~UUL~ 12.-/ 11 f~· -6Vt s~ ~~ .~ ~. (3s1~D --. \W ft'!.~ A " ... h~ ~Vt~~·~-~· S1'\l ~ ~~s: ~- c / 11 Ou--/ 80D ,j_J_, O,._e_ -/7.AJO - -cuk~·- ' { ., J , .•• J' --~'f~~od..L· - ~------il~-µ.x:,t-esn~ -eJ L~lc..; ~Sp~· -Sit~ -c~ ""~ . ' ·' . ;' ' ' •. ~ .. . .... '-~ _. !'. •/ . " ,i , . . ·t: . 1, -. . ' ----·· ;, •.' I• ' r') ,,....---- / /( ( , ~ s-coo'f-Vv ~ I ""' l) --l-0 cAL.-t6 )~:---\ l/ ~111 ~ -~9 A I .uiJ, ) - I 1 7 /t ~ vtU />i ~ k-owl-4t.. / A.S''~-\l)V'~ I -( .... ~ bVll~~v ~'"'{)~I ..... ~ ~ l 14 I . '"°''""" h II\ bYJA Ci\ t -'b'1kL ,, "---"""' a n~ ,,_ P-t~ 1fh.(i t2 ~ ~~ cM D~ I (.4-r,~. s;t~ ~c. O\)~ W1PH . '~""~ 5eJ. -c~ or/-~1u.wi.i,- orvl~-~ ·,"' snu.-e;t , /1~1 'h-lo'-'· . 1J01 Scoo~t( "°"0"1..( t;~b'e. 6'1/en~~74. c_~c1l-j~ '~-. ' -v ~S" -1 i-vpn--ovc.. ~cf.-t S' ~, hi ill -Lo -t::f Mpl--t ~~ ..-' iv-.. CJ.J" 6 .A~-' ~· - I ;~~~ Pr1~.- ty-.~i~~~ s~~-~~\· -r-Se.v J_ rr--lf'I' Lvv \l--t" t-a olt ~~.ar-~-. }Aht!J~ ~LJ~· 0 ·~ ' - M 5/ 14. - • e50l t>tl+t-- l{).,w • ~.-? I ,\ 'l ., '/ ,. .,. (, ! : r ~ .~ " .... ,; /. 1· ') ,• / . ( I , I - • ... . . I " \ ,. c 11 'I ( ( I . .,, --I 0 r; ' ' . .J ( ·- ,f' ~~,~~~~___:__~~~~--+/~~.__.__._·_~_-·,-/---T~~-C) I . I I . . \ ' '· I '°' . I , _/ ~......__,/ (j_ Q~\JYl.$ Wh~f ~&-{__ ,f ty.,IU(iA"'1ol;,,/rf'1 iS A//~~ kbilu.-5~ AN ~~ M.. pu'4 ~ d.wJc.t-; A// fl/"!~ 6Y1 ~lckw~cr? I r 0 I 0 I ""-'frv -'~ _. ~ -• -'">!<; •S 11' ~"11 I ·~~1~1~ -..--~ ~s -~~& If ._ I ·~<r7' /4-I ~ It' A ~~I?-, IJil~ I I ~J.dQ n. ~ ~_c I I I 'T?~ l ' . .... ~..c -tP'~ ft s~ °'-r1 ~5 ~I~ " • ~ "Y4I --. 0 ~' I . ~_.,,J ~y.. ly ·~ -t~ez. ( s+~.f>-41=-• ·5 ~¥tu~ls-11"-'-tL '1tl \M-Vl ...,.., 1~9 J rJ4/)} 19 rn1~~ OVf 6tJ -~YOO?ft. - NLuUt . - -, • - ' I .. ; ... ~ ·-' 'II • .., _, \ . ' . c· • ·' <. . ' ~~--~~~~~~~----~-·~--~~~~ --~~-J+-~~~~~~~~-rl"~~,~~-.--:=~~~~~ st. l -LM. i· 0 .. '. ~ [. ir '"''" .. •. ·~ t .. ''\.. ·, . \./~- ,_ <; "" .r~. . e I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . I I I I I b ' I I ---.... ; . ···'' ' I ·' . ~· J.,_. .. • ·-,v i )" ~. t' ' ... 11 \ .. . -, I r I " . I . . ? . .. . ·, ~ -) '. ~ .. . .. -~ - " .. ~ ' I• . . -i . ... i ' ·1 . i " .. ~ .-· ' I . ' '· ) . . • L., •• I _., -. . : ! ?--'" I . { ' . ! (:• < ... " ·- ' ,.,. . :1 ·' I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ]~ • 1 0 . , . r •. f\O (~ fm-d.odh .. n [{juf_fJS t - f It\. ~ ' . ' ~ ~-; 0 (o(;lL-~ \2-A-<AC:. V Y--ot-()L ~Vvvyi . \I~() ~ a ectu_ cc-.-'"'-OVt-M.ct_ t;, rrp OVt tz-vJ-h. p \) -~~vice_ l().,vJ s . ~es ~ b>-ft,,. J Y\~t ~ wh.vu- I ~~~-~~~ D~~.- ~~n.-· ~~~· d. e_~ ~ Pi~ VJ /d.J .sfvrJ-. l\PrJ-<.c~-~s~~ / I --------r-~~~~)' I lb~-f ~~ s-1 {~ t-fW-.. _ I 0 .. ~, ~.,. . . , ,,,,. ,.- ,. j ,. .. ... ~ ·, ".,. .... ~ ' --t ;,- 1_, t~ , } ~ '1 ,,... .. , "J "!. '. , ) / / Newsletters Webinars Events Magazine Papers FUTURESTRUCTURE Bastrop, Texas, Council Nears New Micromobility Rules If passed, the new ordinance would regulate electric bicycles and motor-assisted scooters that are rented for a fee, and not affect use of personal e-bikes or scooters or other vehicles like golf carts, mopeds or motorcycles. June 02 , 2021 • Cameron Dr ummond , Au st in American -Stat esman Shutterstock/Andriy Bilous {TNS) -The Bastrop City Council is poised to adopt a new ordinance to regulate electric bicycle, GPS-equipped bicycle and motor-assisted scooter services in the city. The City Council on May 25 voted 4-0 to approve the first reading of the ordinance, which would go into effect should it pass a second vote June 8. Only four members of the council were present during the May 25 meeting to vote on the ordinan c e. Council Member Bill Peterson was absent due to illness . ADVERTISEMENT The ordinance, as crafted by Police Chief Clint Nagy, defines how and where these modes of transportation can be used in the city, while also providing guidelines for companies tha t seek to provide electric bicycle, GPS-equipped bicycle or motor- assisted scooter services in Bastrop. During council discussion of the proposed ordinance, Mayor Connie Schroeder said having an ordinance in place to regulate electric bicycles and motor-assisted scooters was something she brought up to City Manager Paul Hofmann shortly after he joined the city last August. She said the need for the ordinance comes as The Art Institute of Austin prepares to welcome students to its new Main Street location and as people resume normal activities as new coronavirus cases and deaths decline. ADVERTISEMENT "It's not if the scooter businesses are coming, it's when," Schroeder said. "This is trying to put it out there for the conversations so that if we want those kinds of businesses to come, that they have a framework to operate within." The new ordinance would regulate electric bicycles and motor-assisted scooters that are rented for a fee, and not affect use of personal e-bikes or scooters or other vehicles like golf carts , mopeds or motorcycles. Chapter 551 of Texas Transportation Code regulates the use of electric bicycles and scooters, but it also guides what local governments can and can't regulate. Cities are allowed to regulate and control the operation of electric bicycles and motor-assisted scooters within a its legal boundaries and on its public streets and sidewalks, in an effort to ensure public safety. "The main purpose is to provide a convenient and safe means of travel by these devices by our citizens and also our visitors," Nagy said . "We want to make sure we protect those persons and public safety is a No. 1 priority. If we can meet that priority, we can meet the focus goal of council for multimobi l ity." WHAT'S IN THE RULES Riders of electric bicycles , GPS-equipped bicycles and motor-assisted scooters must yield to pedestrians , obey traffic laws and are encouraged, but not required, to wear helmets , according to the proposed ordinance. The ordinance also states that no passengers are permitted on the vehicles, the person operating the vehicle must be at least 16 years old and the vehicles can only operate on streets which have a posted speed limit of 35 mph or less. The motor-assisted scooters are allowed to operate on sidewalks , while the electric and GPS -equipped bicycles are not. Newly-elected Council Member Jimmy Crouch raised concerns about potential city liability for injuries sustained while riding a scooter on a city sidewalk, but City Attorney Alan Bojorquez said the only exception to the city's immunity that could occur on a publ ic sidewalk would be the result of a defect on the premises. "We're doing construction and we dig a hole . Well, then we have a duty to fence off that hole, put a sign around that hole, something like that. The fact the sidewalk may be in poor condition or it has worn does not itself create liability for the city," Bojorquez said , noting the same logic would apply to a pothole in the street. The proposed ordinance states it would be illegal for riders to park the vehicles on streets, except in areas designated by the city. .. Parking the vehicles upright on sidewalks would be allowed, as long as it doesn't impede pedestrian access or reduce the width of sidewalks to less than 3 feet. Additionally, parking the vehicles on a sidewalk would be illegal if done within 8 feet of commercial or pedestrian loading zones ; within 4 feet of street fixtures that require pedestrian access, like benches ; within 8 feet of curb ramps, entryways and driveways; within 8 feet of building entrances; or in a way that blocks access to sidewalks or streets as prohibited by the Americans with Disabilities Act. It would also be illegal to park the vehicles on trails or creek ways in any city park. For riders to be allowed to operate the vehicles at night, the ordinance calls for a front lamp capable of being seen from 500 feet away, a red reflector or a red lamp in the rear and a working bell, horn or other sound mechanism. The dockless vehicles wouldn't be allowed to be operated between 11 p.m . and 6 a.m., and the ordinance calls for permit holders -the companies operating the vehicle services -to make the vehicles inoperable during those hours . Nagy also explained to the council that usually an employee of the company or a subcontractor will gather the vehicles at night and charge them, before returning them to a predetermined staging area in the morning. Crouch initially said the vehicles should only be charged i n locations like a business or in a commercial zone, rather than in someone's home or in a residential neighborhood , but he later backed down from th is request. "I don't want to restrict anyone from making a profit or making a living," Crouch said . Nagy said that if someone charging the vehicles in a residential area were to create a nuisance while doing so, it would give the police department leverage to take action . People found in violation of the the ordinance could be charged with a Class C Misdemeanor and may face a fine up to $500 for each offense. SCOOTERS IN BASTROP In order for the vehicles to be allowed in Bastrop, a permit agreement must be registered for and obtained from the city. An application for the permit agreement would include a non-refundable $500 annual business permit fee as well as a non-refundable $50 annual permit fee for each dockless vehicle. The registration process would also require information on fleet management and the number of vehicles that would be brought to the city. Council Member Drusilla Rogers said she would like to see a limit placed on the number of scooters that could be brought into the city, as well as a limit on the number of scooter companies. Bojorquez said this could result in Bastrop entering into a competitive proposal process in the f uture to determine which companies can operate in the city. Schroeder used this as a springboard to stress the importance of thinking about where to create city-designated parking space for the vehicles. Potential parking options suggested during council discussion included behind the Art lnstitute's b u ilding at 921 Main St. and at the Bastrop Convention Center. Council Member Lyle Nelson initially expressed hesitancy at adopting the ordinance because of difficulties that other Central Texas cities, specifically San Marcos , have had regulating these vehicles , he said. In May 2020, the San Marcos City Council passed an ordin a nce prohibiting the placement and use of motor-assisted scooters owned by commercial scooter companies on public property, although the council has since shifted its stance on commercial scooters . . ' In September 2020, Texas State University and the city of San Marcos worked with Spin, a dockless scooter company, to deploy 200 scooters across the university's campus and in the city. In reassuring Nelson, Nagy said he consulted with the city attorney's office and modeled the ordinance on current best practices and other recent ordinances related to bicycles and scooters that "stand up ." "A lot of these ordinances have had to have been amended because it's such a new product and it can be difficult to manage," Nagy said. "But I think that we are ahead of the game on that." ©2021 Austin American-Statesman, Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Tags: Mlcromobllity FutureStructure Events About Webinars Papers Sponsored: Industry Q&As Adv~ i~ Industry Certification 1\lavigator Stay Up To Date Get smart with Gov Tech. Your guidi::> to tectrnoloqy i.-stall: & Jr a /" 'P ' c + SIGN UP FOR NEWSLETIERS GET THE M/\.GAZINE 02022 .ii.II t1gl1ts rcscrv2d. c.R('publ1c California Residents Do Not Se'l l'vly f)ersorkil lnforrnat1on Dockless Ve Program -Pro1= Rule Che Public October Michael Roe '- Department of Tr< c Notice Audio and Video Recording in Progress Please mute your microphone -----------------·------- • At the end of the presentation, vendor have registered to speak will be invitee followed by all other registered speakE and will be limited to 2 minutes. • For those who would like to submit writ · comment, please submit it to DDOT@DallasCityHall.com by October 2020. --·-----·- • Background on the Dockless Mobility Pr< • Dockless Mobility Program Concerns • Discussions with Operators and Stakeho l • Recommendations •Next Steps • Public Comment ---·----·------- • Beginning in June 2018, the City conducted a bike scooter pilot program called the Dockless Mobility F • On November 28, 2018, the City Council extended Dockless Mobility Program pilot for one year; In Nov 2019, the pilot was extended by the City Council fo additional 4 months to expire on March 31, 2020 • In March 2020, the City Council approved a revisec ordinance guiding the use of dockless vehicles. ·------------------------- • The City of Dallas had 4 approved vendors with a t< 9, 100 permitted units: • Bird (3,000 units) • Lime (3,000 units) • Ojo/Gotcha { 600 units) • Wheels (2,500 units) • All permits expired as of September 12, 2020 • The City does not currently have any restrictions on number of operators, or the number of units permitt • Approximately 5,000 units are available daily, mainl I 0 cat e d d 0 w n t 0 w n (Source: Populus Mobility Manager (free city dashboard, as of 8/27 /2020) • Top 5 Districts with most E-Scooter Units: • District 14: 2,830 units • District 2: 1,458 units • • District 6: 338 units • District 1 : 124 units • District 7: 98 units {Source: Populus Mobility Manager {free city dashboard, as of 8/27 /2020) ,,, -.. \· • Scooter data shows a 903 decrease in trips during the month of April 2020 (COVID-19 pandemic) as vendors removed vehicles from the streets • The City saw an increase of trips (713) from January 2020 to July 2020 for all scooter vendors combined. (Source: Populus Mobility Manager (free city dashboard, as of 8/27 /2020) M onth-Year ' 0 Jan-20 eb-20 Marr-20 Apri-20 May-20 Jun-20 Ju l -20 T otal Trips. _, ......... -.... --·-·-·---·--·--...... --·--·-·-·----·-.. --·-------......... , ____ _ 700 600 500 ~ 400 1--z ::::> 300 200 100 0 Average Scooter Trips Per Hour -Pre-COVID 6 17 60 6 602 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Hour of Day Vl +-' 8000 7000 6000 5000 ·c: 4000 ::::> 3000 2000 1000 0 '/I I I I! ii!! I ff I /I I I I/ iii!/! I!! I II I I 1 /////I I ';1I/ff1 /I I! lj'/ I! I I! f 1! ! ! I/',';' I I I/! I I I I/,! I I I/ 1' '// ~/ I!/ I I I I I I I I 1 / I' I ' ' ' I' I '' ! I' 1 I' ' !1 I! I I I ' ' ' !/!! /; l/J /////1/h11 /11111 !if/ !11~1!!1 ! //!!/I! ///I/Ii Average Scooter Trips Per Hour -Post-COVID 231 804 388 540 157 1144 37 3279349 282Ef 982 7293 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Hour of Day • Operating in restricted areas. • Since the establishment of the 5:00 AM to 9:0C operating time in Deep Ell um, City staff, busin 1 owners and residents have yet to see full corr by all vendors • After meeting with City staff, all vendors signe letter of acknowledgement and understandir the hours of operation on August 6, 2020. • The following weekend, City staff conductE roundup of scooters found to be operating compliance in Deep Ellum • Areas of concern: • Scooters are ridden on the sidewalk in pedestriar heavy areas like Deep Ellum, Central Business Dis1 and Uptown • Scooters are present in parks and on trails ----·---··-··--··-·--·····-·----·------- • Staff has met with the following Public lmprovemeni (PIDs) impacted by the scooter operations to discus related issues and to obtain their feedback: • Uptown Dallas, Inc. • Downtown Dallas, Inc. • Deep Ellum Foundation • Staff has also met with each vendor operating in th( Dallas: • Bird • Gotcha • Lime • Wheels ------------·---------·------- • Topics discussed include: • Adherence to the hours of operation • Underage riders • Identification numbers • Number of units deployed on one block • Enforcement and user education -----· --·----·---·--------------·--·----···--- • To address safety and compliance concerns, staff recommends the following steps by City Staff, in coordination with the PIDs: • Increase number of corrals • Vinyl stickers to educate against sidewalk riding • To address safety and compliance concerns, staff recommends the following steps by the vendors: • Ensure understanding of, and ability to comply 'A established hours of operation • Develop an equitable way to verify user age • Implement identification numbers on all scooters • Limit the number of units deployed on one block • Vendors participate in enforcement and user education • To address safety and compliance concerns, staff recommends the following rule changes: • Current hours of operation • 5:00 AM -12:00 AM (midnight) • Proposed rule change • 5:00 AM -9:00 PM • To address safety, ADA compliance, and overcrow concerns, staff recommends the following rule cha1 • Current number of units permitted to be deployed 1 block • No restriction • Proposed Rule Change • 8 units deployed per vendor (brand) per block fc (maximum) • City Council will be updated regarding the propose changes • The proposed rules will be pubHshed for 10 days • We will accept public comment for 10 days • Data RFP will be published • Temporary Permits will be revised to incorporate ch< and introduced for dockless vehicle reentry • Staff will continue to meet with vendors and stakeh< the development of a Request for Proposal to selec limited number of preferred vendors {early 2021) ----------·-- •I f/'•J l"/11':';! I /1/!•l/11 /, I! /! 11: I! I/ I/. Ii I I! Ii! lf'j'1'1u I/ 1f!iiiI1' !j~~~~/ 11/1///jli'' 111/1/1111m11tM1tf 111m1&11111ll!iffe1!~!1 • The moderator will call on each speaker to unm themselves • Each speaker will have 2 minutes to provide cor • Order of speakers: • Council Members • Dockless Vehicle Vendors • General Public Program -Pror: Rule Che Public October Michael Roe '- Department of Trc c 7 · D1•vt>loprr cn•dil up to 25% if drwlopt•r provi d r~ priva lt' park lancl a nd /or amrnili(•i; on thr i;itr 8 4/12/2022 Reco mme nda t io n s 10 12 :!I -P.1rk-.. ,rnd H1t11 ,1t11111 Ho,11d \pp10\E ,1 ... p11•-.1•11l1•d JO 21 21 -l'l.11111111~ .ind Zomn~ ( !llllllll ...... 11111 \pp10\t' ,1-. p1p-..1•1lft>tl · Affordable houl'in ~ e le me nl · I l i~h e r eredi 1 for priva 1e park 2 1 3 5 Current Park Zon e s P arkl a nd Dedicatio n Audit 20 19 · Fewest number of zo nes pe rmi ssib le · Elimination of distinctions Geogra ph ic Nexus • Will r es ide nts use fac iliti es wh ere reso urces are expen de d F ees "lff'!H ·Review a nd updato fees ever y five years • Upda te every fiv e yoars to coincid e with fees • Council can discount fee as desired, but actual ave rage cost shoul d be u sed --• Will inco r po ra te into fee calculation 2 4 6 Cn•dit for PriYatt> Facilitit>s D1J!l ::.;",, i . <l<'l'<'fOJ!J'l' nrn ·ir/es [ll'il'l l it' )(//'k l_cmrl u11rl l or a1111 •11it ies o · the site Zon es F ees Cre dits Proposed Zones Park."I wo ul d be llriva t(' and Cfrn only be u~d by rf'...:id C'nt..: w1th1n 1hf' ...:ubdiv i:.;io n J\dd1tional dC'ma nd by LhC' . ..:ubdivi...:ion i...: part ia ll y ofT...:e l by t i ll' pnva1,ci pa r k llf'l'l idC'nt...: wi ll ...:! ill u...:C' o1 he r park...: wit h in l lw w ne/cil.y ConC<"rn a:-1 11 rrlalf'...: lo futul"<' improve ment..: of park~ (pnva lC' and pul>li c) Saving:~ a.~ it r C'latC'~ l.o ma111t.C'm111 00 4/12/2022 1 Guidelines for Regulating Shared Mlcromoblllty 1. Regulating Shared Micromobility 5 a. What is Shared Micromob ility? ........................................................................................................................................................ 5 b. City Authority for Regulation .............................................................................................................................................................. 6 c. Opt ions for Regulation ........................................................................................................................................................................... 7 2. General Terms and Conditions 9 a . General Provisions ................................................................................................................................................................................ 10 b. Insurance , Bonds, and Fees ............................................................................................................................................................. 11 c. Enforcing Permit Terms ...................................................................................................................................................................... 12 3. Scope & Operations Insight 15 a. Fleet Size .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 16 b. Fleet Removal/Relocation ................................................................................................................................................................ 18 c. Rebalancing & Fleet Distri bution ................................................................................................................................................. 19 d . Equipment and Vehicle Maintenance ...................................................................................................................................... .20 e. Customer Service ................................................................................................................................................................................... 23 f. Staffing and Workforce Development ....................................................................................................................................... .24 g. Pricing ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 25 4. Public Engagement 27 ~~~~~~~~~~~~- a. Staffing & Events ................................................................................................................................................................................... 28 b. Outreach Materials & Campaigns .............................................................................................................................................. .28 c. Pricing & Discount Programs .......................................................................................................................................................... 29 5. Mobility Data & User Privacy -----~~ 31 6. Infrastructure 35 a. Shared Micromobility Parking ...................................................................................................................................................... 36 b. Providing Safe Place to Ride .......................................................................................................................................................... 40 c. Restricted/Limited Access Areas ................................................................................................................................................ 41 7. Current State of Practice 43 a. Vehicle Requirements ......................................................................................................................................................................... 44 b. Fleet Requirements .............................................................................................................................................................................. 45 c. Data Requirements ............................................................................................................................................................................... 48 d . Fees ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 49 e. Employment Requirements ............................................................................................................................................................. 51 f. Adapt ive Device Requirements ....................................................................................................................................................... 52 g. Disco u nted Pricing Programs ......................................................................................................................................................... 53 h . Multi -Language Requirements ..................................................................................................................................................... 54 i . Parking Requirements ......................................................................................................................................................................... 55 2 Cover credit: San Jose Guldellnea for Regulating Shared Mlcromoblllty About Developed for cities, by cities, this guidance outlines best practices for cities and public entit ies regu l ating and managing shared micromobility services on their streets. While many of the issues covered are applicable to all forms of shared micromobility, this document is explicitly meant to help cities establish guidelines for formal management of public-use mob ility options that are not managed through traditional procurement processes (the management mechanism for most docked bike share programs in North America). NACTO's Guidelines for Regulating Shared Micromobility was developed to reflect the wide variety of experiences that North American cities have had in regulating and managing shared micromobility. The recommendations presented in this document are the result of c ity experience , and have been endorsed by NACTO 's shared micro mobility working groups. The first version of these guidel i nes was published in July 2018, and subsequent updates are expected due to the fast-changing nature of the shared micromobility industry. Using this Guidance NACTO's Guidelines for Regulating Shared Micromobility is div ided i nto two broad sections: Best Practice Recommendations and Current State of the Practice. Best Practice Recommendations: • This guidance recommends regulations or policies that cities should include in their permits or require from their operators . By addressing these issues in a similar fashion across multiple jurisdictions, cities can create a level playing field for vendors and ensure a safer, more equitable experience for r iders. • At the same t i me, shared micromobility is still in its i nfancy and there are outstanding questions for which there is not yet a defined best practice . For these issues , this document provides a discussion guide, outlining options that cities may choose to take and context for future debate . Current State of Practice: • This section shows how different cities regulate shared micromobility systems, including by fleet size, customer service expectations , permit fees, service areas, and other areas where cities differ. 3 I Guidelines for Regulating Shared Mlcromoblllty Section 1 1.0 Regulating Shared Micromobility The rapid growth i n the nu mbe r of s hared m ic romobility tri ps and the in troduction of e-scooters has requ i red ci t ies to focus ne w attention on how best to regu l ate these new services i n order to achieve the best public outcomes. In 20 18 , users took 84 mi l lion tri ps on s hared b ikes and e-scoo t ers in t he Un ited States, more t han do u b le the number of t ri ps taken in 2017. Of these, 38 .5 million t ri ps were taken on s hared e-scooters , the newest vehicle type in the shared micromobility marketplace, requiring c ities to establish and adapt new oversight tools , metr ics, and pract ices. E-scooters, in particular, pose unique challenges and opportun ities as a new vehicle type, w ith emergi ng regulatory standards. What is shared micromobility? Sha red -use fleets of s ma ll , f u l ly or partially hu man -powered ve hicles suc h as bi kes , e-bi kes a nd e-scooters . Th ese veh ic les a re generally ren t ed through a m o bile app o r kiosk , are p icke d up and dro p pe d off in t he publi c r ight -of-way, a nd a re meant for s ho rt point-to-po in t trips. Bikes Credit: Tony Webster E-Bikes E-Scooters Credit: NACTO Credit: City of Orlando 5 Guidelines for Regulating Shared Mlcromoblllty Section 1 City Authority for Regulation Local government has both the authority and the responsibility to protect public health, safety, and welfare, and to ensure safe passage on and govern commerce in the public right-of-way. This responsibility, codified in city charters, state constitutions, and laws across North America, is the basis of city authority to regulate and manage activity and commerce on public streets, including shared micromobility companies. To date, cities have taken vari ed approaches to managing shared micromob i lity on their streets and chosen to exercise their authority in different ways . 6 • Commerce on the public right-of-way: The small vehicles deployed by shared micromobility operators are commercial equipment. Though cash or credit payments are conducted through an app, the transaction is completed within the right-of-way. In most places , bus i ness cannot be conducted in the public right-of-way without an appropriate permit. Shared micromobility rentals should be regulated similarly to other businesses that operate in the public realm . • Public safety: Regulations on how small veh icles are permitted to be parked on public property typically fa l l under the general frame wo rk of public safety. If a munic i pality permits an operation- whether it be an ice cream stand, outdoor dining, or a parked bike/scooter-it can designate the area where the activity is permitted to be . • Existing contracts: Cities with existing contracts with operators to run loca l bike share systems may have exclusivity or other provis ions which limit the municipalities' ability to permit add itional operators of bike share to operate within the city. The specific language of the contract dictates how much the city has to do to actively discou r age these other operations and may range from simple notifications to removal of unauthorized bicycles . These contracts may or may not apply to other small vehicles such as e-scooters, one wheels, e-bikes , etc. depending on the contract language . Guldelln88 for Regulating Shared Mlcromoblllty Section 1 Options for Regulation Whi l e c ities typically use competitive b idding processes and requests for proposals to manage st ation - based b i ke share systems , most c ities use short term pilots and t i me -limited perm its to explore options for shared bikes and e-scooters i n their city in a controlled manner. • Permits: Per mi ts allow c it ies to i ntroduce regulat ory structu res in a fast er ti meframe than t radit ional procurement processes, while sti ll ensuring that equipment is deployed in a controlled , organi zed fashion. Per mits also provide a mechanism to articulate clear metrics for success and ex pans ion . Because pe r m its can be (relatively easily) revoked for non -compliance w ith perm it t erms , thi s regulatory mechanism provides opportunities for cities to work toward policy goals-like reducing d ri ve -alone trips or providing equitable d istribution of resources for historically underserved communities -through the establishment of clear performance standards. • Pilots & demonstrations: Some cities have also used short term pilots or demonstrations to s imilar ends. Like pe r m its, pilots provide critical i nsight i nto how shared micromob i lity sys t ems would operate on a full-scale , permanent basis within a c ity's local environment . The pilots or demonstrations are often followed by an assessment period where c ities ana lyze t he performance of t he systems on topics such as comp li ance, pub l ic perception , and the resources requ i red from a city to ma nage a sys t em . Lessons learned from pilots and demonstrations should be a key part of longer term permits or future co m petitive b idd i ng processes . Shared micromobil ityvehicles are inconsistently defined and regulated from state to state, often leaving serv ices i n a legal grey area. It is recommended t o check with your city law department t o understand how state law may impact how shared micromobility servic es may be uti lized or regulated in your state. Wh i le government s and companies may recogn iz e m u nicipal boundaries , use r s may not. Especially in areas w here multi p l e j urisdictions are close t oge t her, it is impo rtant to recogn ize that shared m icromobili t y vehicles will migrate across boundaries . Neighbor i ng cities should discuss and decide when regulat ions and regulatory st ructures need to be coordinated and when they can differ. 7 2.0 General Terms & Conditions Guidelines for Reguletlng Shared Mlcromoblllty Section 2 Municipal governments are vested with the authority to regulate the public right-of-way to ensure benefits for users, and non -users , of shared micro mobility systems. As these systems are operated by private com pani es us i ng public space, cities must clearly define and regulat e thei r expectations of these companies in order to maxi mize public benefit. In This Section Genera l Provisions ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 10 Insurance, Bonds & Fees .................................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Enforcing Perm it Ter ms ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 12 9 Guidelines for Regulating Shared Mlcromoblllty Section 2 Genera l Provisions Best Practice Recommendations j • Shared micromob ili ty services should be only allowed to operate in the publ ic r ight-of-way with legal permission (e .g. license, permit, contract) from the city or re levant local government. • The city should reserve the r ight to : Terminate permits at any time, for due cause, i nclu d ing causes not specified in t he regulatory agreement, and require the operator to remove their entire fleet of veh icles from city streets. Limit the numoer of com Qanies o erati ng (e .g. cap t he number of pe r mits or licenses issued, and/or issue exclusive contracts , permits, or licenses). [i m it the number of ve 1cle that any individual company can dep loy, on a per-permit basis. Pro lii oit SRe ci fic companies from operating rn the public r igh t-of -wa~ based o n conduct or pri or conduc (e .g. if a company deploys equipment p ri or to applying for a permit, license, or contract, or fails to comply with permit, contract, or license terms). • Cities shou l d li m it the duration of licenses and permits to a fixed t i me period (e.g. 6 -12 months) and req u ire all companies to re-apply for each renewal. Contracts developed as the result of competitive b idd in g processes may have a longer duratio n. Compa nies sho u ld be aware that c ities may update permit terms over time. • Cities s ou ld requ i re t hat operat ors provide written notice , at least 14 days before ceas i ng operat ions, if they are no longer willing or able to provide service in the city. Discussion Electric micromobility vehicles (e.g. e-scoot ers and e-bikes) are not legal in all states or jurisdictions. Si m ila r ly, rules for w here t hese vehicles can op erate in the r ight -of-way vary from state to state and city to c ity. In developing or permitti ng shared m icromobility programs , cities should check state and local laws to determine if shared micromob ili ty veh icles are legal and assess requireme nts for their use (geograp hi c area, operat in g speed, equ ip m ent requirements, etc.). Standards are still emerging to guide operato r policies or practices or to create a floo r for equipment standards . As such , c it ies may want to consider accreditatio n by, or conduct co d e violations recorde d by, national organi zations such as NABS A (US /Canada) or BikePlus (UK), in addition to examples and experiences in other North Ame ri can cities w he n issuing permits, licenses , or contracts. 10 Guidelines for Regulating Shared Mlcromoblllty Section 2 I nsu ranee, Bonds & Fees Best Practice Recommendations • Cities should require operators to remain in good standing (in compliance w ith the payment of all fees , fines, and adhering to all data reporting and other requirements) throughout the duration of the permit. Cf • If the c1!)' iliicurs any costs for addressing or abating any permit violations, including impound fees , costs to recover a vehicle from a waterway, or other ancillary costs, inc udmg re~a1r or maintenance of public prope , the operator shou l d reimburse the city for those costs within thirty days . J · ;· Cities should require operators to indemnify the c ity and hold appropriate i nsurance . Cit ies should require operators to ho l d in escrow sufficient funds to cover the cost of removing all equipment from the public right-of-way, to be used ifthe company ceases operations or is otherwise required by the c ity to remove equipment . Discussion Fees should reflect both direct and indirect program support as well as programming developed to support safe, equitable use of bike and scooter share. Before developing permit fees, consider staff costs on a per-hour bas is for both management (administration , evaluation, data analysis, coordination check-ins) and field operations (vehicle removal and impounding, field checks). Some c ities have also had success i n using per-vehicle assessment fees to create dedicated funding streams for other programming. Cities should consider how to best assess separate program fees. Application fees are usually a fixed cost for review and management of the permit and/or contract structure. Per-vehicle fees, hich could cover outreach activities and operat ions undertaken by the city, should be assessed based on total fleet size, and on an annual renewal and expansion basis . Cities have found success in billing on a quarterly basis. See "Current State of Practice" for examples of fee schedules. 11 Guidelines for Regulating Shared Mlcromoblllty Section 2 Enforcing Permit Terms Best Practice Recommendations • The city should reserve the right to suspend, revoke, and modify permits on any of the following grounds : j 12 Service being operated in a manner that constitutes a nuisance or is injurious to public health, safety, and welfare. Service being operated t hat violates any condition of the permit or city-approved application, plan, or applicable laws. The operator fails to pay any fines, penalties and fees, or damages lawfully assessed upon it. The operator fails to col lect its vehicles within 30 days of receiving written notice from the city of im poundment . Cities should allow operators to have a means to appeal permit den ials, modifications, or suspensions, such as by appealing to a hearing examiner within 30 days of being notified by the city of a modification or revocation of the operator's permit. Discussion Overseeing permit requirements typically requires cities to undertake both manual and digital compliance checks and to enforce requirements through clearly defined penalties for non-compliance. Some c ities have found success in the use of temporary permit suspensions (between 48-72 hours) and fleet size reductions in place of fines for non-compliance issues. For vehicles impou nded due to unaddressed, hazardous parking violations, some cities find that forbidding the company from picking up the vehicles from the impound location for 48 -72 hours is an effective way to correct operator compliance issues. Cities may want to establish a system for escalating penalties (e .g. the number or frequency of infractions) leading toward permit revocati on or other enforcement actions. City staff will need to clearly define performance measures in order to fully assess operator performance and compliance. These include : Compliance with restricted access/prohibited areas a Parking, distribution & rebalancing requirements tJ Maintenance/equipment standards C1 Customer service levels outreach 0 Data integrity O Fleet size O See further sections, as well as the "Current State of Practice" tables, for specific performance measures. Guidelines for Regulating Shared Mlcromoblllty Section 2 Credit: Austin Transportation Department 13 3.0 Scope & Operations Oversight Guidelines for Regulating Shared Mlcromoblllty Section 3 In ord er to meet defined city goals, c ities should exercise control over shared micromobility systems through the development of requirements for how these systems operate. In This Section Fleet Size ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 16 Fleet Removal/Relocation ................................................................................................................................................................................. 18 Rebalanc i ng & Fleet Redistribution ............................................................................................................................................................. 19 Equipment & Vehicle Maintenance .............................................................................................................................................................. 20 Customer Serv ice ................................................................................................................................................................................................... .23 Staffing & Workforce Development ............................................................................................................................................................. 24 Pricing. .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .25 15 Guidelines for Regulating Shared Mlcromobllity Section 3 Fleet Size Regulating fleet size both supports a robust availability of vehicles, while also ensuring cities have the appropriate capacity and resources to oversee shared micromobility systems. Best Practice Recommendations • The city should reserve the right to : Requ i re a minimum and a max imum number of vehicles that are available for public use . Require operators to deploy a share or an absolute number of vehicles that meet certain vehicle types (e .g. a minimum number of vehicles or X% of the fleet be electric, lock-to, or adaptive). Revoke permits if the operator does not deploy a minimum number of vehicles within a certain time (e.g. 90 days) of the issuance of their permit. Increase and decrease the total number of vehicles permitted per operator, either as part of dynamic fleet caps or to reflect c ity priorities. • The numbe r of permitted vehicles and the service area for each operator must be approved in writing by the city prior to the o_Rerator implementing an changes. • Operators cannot have below the permitted minimum fleet size, or have above the maximum permitted fleet size unless approved by city staff in writing. Credit: NACTO 16 Guidelines for Regulating Shared Mlcromoblllty Section 3 Discussion The definition of "fleet size" varies across operators and across systems. Cities should ensure that permits and evaluation metrics include a clear, measurable definition of"fleet size ." In particular, cities should clarify how they will determine what vehicles are included in the count of the total allowed fleet, (i .e. does the count include vehicles that are i noperable, damaged, unsafe, or in maintenance, or only vehicles that are currently available for use in the public right -of-way). In determining the fleet size , cities should conduct their own analysis, based on city-identified goals and metrics (e .g. population, size and density of deployment area(s). and/or fleet sizes in comparable c ities) to determine what is appropriate. Many operators prefer dynamic fleet caps which allow them to increase or decrease the total number of vehicles they provide based on performance metrics (like rides er vehicle 12 er day) or to reflect compliance with permit terms. Examples include : • Rides/vehicle/day measured over an identified time frame: If an operator meets r/v/d , they are permitted to increase their fleet size by X #or X%. If an operator fails to meet performance measures , the allowed fleet size decreases. • Rides/vehicle/day originating or ending in city-identified targeted service areas : If an operator meets/exceeds performance standards for available vehicles in areas that have poor t ransit access and/or low rates of car ownership they are permitted to increase their fleet size by X# or X%. If an operator fails to meet performance measures, the allowed fleet size decreases . • Strategies that address barriers to use: Operators may increase fleet size by X# or X% for meeting provisions for unbanked populations, or providing adaptive vehicles . • Strategies that encourage preferred parking or riding behaviors : If an operator demonstrates actions to meet the city's goals for parking and use, they are permitted to increase their fleet size by X# or X%. • Permit compliance : Cities could adjust the allowed fleet size to reflect compliance infractions , measured in number of infractions per established timeframe. 17 Guidelines for Regulating Shared Mlcromoblllty Section 3 Fleet Removal/Relocation Ino perable, damaged , un safe, irretrievable, and improperly parked vehicles can pose operational, access i bility, and safety co ncerns for users of the pu blic right-of-way. In establis hin g timelines for equipment removal, cities s hould prioritize safe access and operation of the pu bl ic r ight-of-way w ithout p laci ng a n undue or u n rea li stic burd en on t he operator. Best Practice Recommendations • Cit"es should require that ope rat ors, within a set t im e period : j • Remove inoperable, damaged, or unsafe veh icles from the public right-of-wa . 0 Recover vehicles t hat are irretrievable by the general pub li c (e.g. veh icles in waterw_ay s , 1n restricted or difficult to access areas, etc.). Dispose of eciuipment if the company ceases ope[ations. • Citie s shou l d reserve t he right to move, remove , a nd permanent ly dis pose of ve hicles at the operator's / ex pense when the c it y finds it necessary to remove equipme nt from public s pace (e .g. because the o pe rator has not res pond ed i n a req u ired timeframe, o r ifthe equip ment poses a pu b l ic safety r isk). • Cities shou l d requ i re operators to develop emergency management plans to add ress fleet removals 7 and other issues in t he case of severe weather (e .g . ..Qlizztmfs, floods , hurricanes etc.) and other eme rg encies . Such pla ns must be coord inated and filed with t he city's emerge ncy department or other a p pro p r iate city age nc ies . 1J • Cities shou l d require operators to develop deployment/parking.op erations p lan s for spec ial events (e .g. 7 ma ratho ns, events, pa rades, film shoots) a nd ro utine street mai ntenance (e.g. s now and trash removal). • Cit ies s hould requ i re operators to d em onstrate that they can re motely lock veh icles that are reported or bel ieved to be ino perable, unti l the vehicles are removed, re paired, and placed back i nto public se rvi ce . Credit: NACTO Credit: Elvert Barnes 18 Guidelines for Regulating Shared Mlcromoblllty Section 3 ebalancing 8l Eleet Redistribution Vehicle rebalancing ensures access to vehicles , limits overcrowd i ng on sidewalks, and can help achieve city-i dentified goals, such as "first/last-mile" connectivity and equita ble access to veh icles in designated areas . Best Practice Recommendations CJ Cit i es slioula re uire operators to reoalance vehicles within the permitted service arey.. • Cities should regu ire operators to monitor distribution of vehicles according to parameters estaolis ed by the ci (e.g. dashboard service). • Cities should require operators to submit a service plan outlining how they will deQlOY, and maintain a specified number of vehicles or% of fleet at li1gh-pri0rity locations as identified oy the city. • Tn e--c ityshould reserve the rigfit to suspend operating permit if tfie o erator does ot comply w,ith rebalancing requ i rement within specified timeframes. Discussion Cities and operators may have different goals for rebalancing. Wh en it comes to fleet d istribution and rebalancing, cities and operators have similar but not perfectly aligned goals . Bot h want to max imi ze the number of trips to provide people with mobility options. However, c ities may want to ensure that shared mobility services focus on transit stations or are provided in all ne ighborhoods whereas companies may want to maxi mize revenu es by focusing on central busine ss d istr icts, downtowns, and entertainment areas Many cities have instituted rebalane ·ng policies tliat require companies to rebalance their fleets-to underserved neighl:)Q~f:loods either at the beginning or throughout the day. Total system rebalancing is complicated by the fact that most cities have multiple companies operating in the same areas at the same times. In their efforts to grow market share, companies may want to oversaturate key areas with their brand, beyond what is re quired to support i mmediate demand. This can lead to overcrowding on sidewalks and at parking corrals. To address this, some c ities have establ ished a maximum density requ i rement for shared veh icles (e .g. X vehi cles per compa ny parked on any single block face measuring up to X feet unless otherwise advised by city staff). See "Current State of Practice" for additional information. 19 0 Guidelines for Regulating Shared Mlcromoblllty Section 3 Equipment & Vehicle Maintenance Due to the nature of their public and often high utilization rates, shared vehicles must be robustly designed for shared use, and maintained to a higher safety standard than bikes and e-scooters meant for personal use. Cities have found equipment safety to be an item of concern . Best Practice Recommendations General: • Cities should require that operators develop, and share with the city, their operations plans. At a minimum, operations plans should include detailed information about equipment maintenance and inspection schedules, repair, safe battery handling practices, and staffing and training. Key provisions include: Operators must conduct full maintenance checks on each vehicle in their fleet , once a month at minimum . Operators should conduct weekly on -street checks on all heavi ly-used vehicles (as determined by the city), and repair/replace components as needed on an ongoing basis. Operators should provide a signed certification for all maintenance actions. Operators must keep a record of maintenance activities, including but not limited to vehicle identification number and maintenance performed, to be sent to the city on a monthly basis . • Cities shou ld require that operators immediately inform the city of any incidents withe-scooters i n public or private space , i ncluding but not limited to : crashes, struct ural i ntegrity issues , fires, tampering, damaged/leaking batteries, and electrical/charging issues . j To ensure rapid and appropriate responses to local issues, cities should require that operators hire locally-stationed staff to implement their operations plan, oversee and manage operations, coordinate engageme nt efforts, and coord i nate with the city. Operators must provide the city with the name and contact phone number for a senior-level local staff person who can liaise w ith the c ity at any time (24/7) to address operational issues. Equipment Standards: • All vehicles must comply with safety standards established by the Consumer Product Safety Commission and all other federal , state, and city safety standards : 20 Fore-bikes/electric-ass ist bikes , refer to CPSC Public Law "107 -319" (low speed electric b icycles) for maximum engine wattage . Note that these standards are evolv i ng. Fore-scooters, refer to CPSC in Public Law "107 -319" for we ight bearing standards. Note that these standards are evolving. Al l vehicles must be certified as safe to operate under any applicable standard by Underwriters Laboratories (UL) or an equivalent safety rat i ng agency. Guidelines for Regulating Shared Mlcromoblllty Section 3 • The maximum motor assist speed fore-scooters should be no greater than 15 mph, and 20 mph for Class 1 e-bikes. Cities should reserve the right to require that operators rest rict vehicle speeds to lower than 15 mph, either in specific areas or as a general rule for operations . J . A unique identifier number should be prominently displayed on both sides of each vehicle. CJ · Each vehicle should be equipped with on -board GPS, capable of provid ing real-time location data. 0 • All vehicles s hould have equ i pment meeting all local and state specifications, includ i ng bu t not li mited to brakes, reflectors and lighting as set forth in relevant state codes . • The city retains the right to suspend/terminate an operator's permit for equipment safety concerns. Batteries: • Cities must require operators to detail battery sa f ety practices, including: How operators will charge, store, and dispose of batteries, including timelines for disposal and contracts in place for disposal. The operator's prior incidents involving battery tampering and procedures for preventing any future incidents of battery tampering. Information about the battery management systems the operator uses, including where this information is stored and the level of information about battery health that the operator is receiving. How the operator identifies at-risk vehicles and how the operator responds to these identified risks. • Cities should require operators to share materials and/or describe the process for instructing subcontractors on the collect ion and charging of e-scooters . Issue Reporting & Mitigation: • In the case of an immediate equipment safety issue of lim ited spread, cities should require operators to turn off the vehicle upon notification of a safety hazard , then remove the vehicle from service. • In the case of an immediate equipment safety issue of unknown scale, cities should require operators to immediately disable all potentially affected veh icles upon notification, then remove veh icles from city streets within 24 hours until further investigation can be completed. Relaunch must be approved by the city. • Customers must be provided with specified mechanisms (phone number, email, app feature) to notify the operator that there is a safety or maintenance issues with their veh icle . 2 1 Guidelines for Regulating Shared Mlcromoblllty Section 3 22 Discussion To date, e-scooters have been largely regulated as personal consumer products, not a s shared- use f leet vehicles. As such , th ere are few equ i pment standards for features such as wheel si ze, center of gravity, p latform si ze, acceleration and brak i ng in te rface , and lights. In add ition , there ha ve been some report s of spontaneous battery combusti on from e-scooters and e-bikes. Preliminary reports show a higher injury and fatality rate for scooter share t ri ps than bike share t r ips. Some injuries may be caused by pavement quality comb i ned with the geomet ric characterist ics of current scooter models: Most consumer bikes , and all shared -use b i kes in the U.S., have whee l s t hat are 26 inches or la rger and most fold in g b ike models have wheel si zes of 16 or 20 i nches. In compar ison , current shared scooter mode l s have wheels m easuring between 8 and 10 inches . The sma ller wheel s iz e may make pavement i r regu la ri ties more dangerous to scooter r id ers tha n they typ ically are to b i ke riders . Credit: Vax Customer Service Guidelines for Regulating Shared Mlcromoblllty Section 3 Customer serv ice should be managed by operators , but reg u lated by ci ti es . Issues t hat the customer service ope rator should be p repared to ad d ress include : troubleshooting techn ical and operational issues, res ponding t o complaints a nd re q uests, outreach, and providing information about the service, price, and other quest ion s. Best Practice Recommendations • In additio n to a customer serv ice hotline, c it ies should requ ire operators to esta blish a customer service center to res pon d to customer co ncerns , an d at a min i mum provide : Pr ic i ng information, cash access and d isco u nt membe rs hi p services Account trou b leshooting and information on policies an d terms and cond itions for use Ways to report unsafe operations • The customer service center must be op e n a nd prov id e real -time c ust omer support by phone , on line , and i n-person during hours as required by the city. • The customer serv ice center must be capable of acce pt ing calls/re-routed info r mation from exist ing c ity custom er serv ice centers , suc h as a 31 1 or equ ivale nt service. • Cit ies should require operators to be staffed to recei ve and respo nd to feedback in multiple l anguages as specified by the city. • Cit ies s ho uld require o perators to provid e the city w it h monthly repo rts of all corre spon dence recei ved t hrough t heir custome r service hotli ne, contact emai l , and non -emergency hot l i ne (if appl icable). Mont hly re ports sh ou ld include telep ho ne wa it times , email res ponse times an d a description of the nature of each in qu i ry. issues. Discussion Immediate complaint resolution must be balanced with overall system needs. Cit ies an d operators may hav e d ifferent goals and items of concern. Cities , i n particu lar, may have a lower t oleran ce for reports of damaged equipment or ve h icles block ing sidewalks. Most cities require mini m um of 1 and a maximum of 2 hours for operato rs to com ply w ith complai nts related to impro perly parke d vehicles . Cities shou ld reserve th e r ight to re qu i re more rapid res po nse t imes to address urge nt safety issues . To improve the quality of service, many larger markets require shared micro mobility providers to establish operations and customer service centers within city limits. Thi s ensures that operators can mo re rea d ily meet their operationa l res ponsibi li t ies and better u nderstand loca l con di ti on s. In add iti on , to s u pp ort partners h i ps withi n the loca l pu blic , com pa n ies sho uld cons id er renting space in ex isting community locatio ns, such as community development corporations, YMCA's, etc. 23 Guidelines for Regulating Shared Mlcromoblllty Section 3 Staffing & Workforce Development Appropriate staffing is required of operators to ensure optimal operations, accountability, and continued adherence to permit requirements. Best Practice Recommendations • Cities should require operators t o comply with all local, state and federal workplace safety and wage requirements. • Cities should require local/regional vendor staffing, at a minimum, to consist of the following roles. In smaller markets, some of these roles can be fulfilled by the same person : General manager Local fleet operations manager Local public outreach manager A 24 hour contact person or persons, if different from above . • Cities should require operators to show that they have made efforts to hire locally and hire from outside of the city/region only when all reasonable efforts to hire locally (care er fairs , etc.) have been exhausted . 24 Discussion Local community groups can be a great resource to find and train staff to manage , operate, and mainta in shared micromobility systems. Cities should also consider providing incentives for specific contracting goals, such as M/WBE, returning citizens, veterans, community groups, and use of W2 employees (vs. ind ependent contractors). Cities have indicated that shared micromobility companies have high turnover rates for operations and city government liaison staff. At the same time, reports have surfaced about poor working conditions for front-line independent contractors. The extensive use of "gig- economy" workers by the newer shared micromobility companies, especially for recharg i ng jobs , should be carefully monitored to ensure that equipment is being appropriately maintained and working conditions are fair and safe. Guidelines for Regulating Shared Mlcromoblllty Section 3 Pricing While the price of privately-operated shared micromobility services is largely up to the operator, cities have an interest in ensuring that customers receive adequate and appropriate information about prices, price changes, and available discounts. In addition, cities have an interest in ensuring that shared micromobility services are available to people with lower incomes. Best Practice Recommendations • Cities should require that: Operators offer income-based discounted payment plans that waive any applicable service deposits to customers at or below an income specified by the city. Operators provide two-month advance notification of upcoming user price increases. Operators develop a cash-based payment program . • Operators should use enrollment in social support programs (SNAP, WIC, public housing, etc.) as acceptable income verification proxies for discounted rates and memberships. Discussion To encourage operators to provide discounted pricing and payment options, some cities report success in using incentives (e .g. fleet size increase) for operators that increase sign-ups and ridership for users with lower incomes . Some operators have had success in developing partnerships with local direct-service community groups to drive enrollment. In addition, using in- person operations centers can facilitate the management of in quiries related to d iscounted rates, cash acceptance, and reloadable prepaid fare card options. 25 i I 4.0 Public Engagement Guidelines for Regulating Shared Mlcromoblllty Sectlon4 Public engagement has a vital role in the adoption of new mobility systems. Introducing or expanding shared micromobility options provides cities with opportunities to support necessary programing that can increase ridership and help meet mobility needs. Public engagement is resource-intensive , and cities often have limited ability to conduct robust public engagement processes . For shared micromobility to thrive, operators must share the task of developing and implementing all activities and materials related to the safety, use, and promotion of bike and scooter share . In This Section Staffing & Events ................................................................................................................................................................................................... .28 Outreach Materials & Campaigns ................................................................................................................................................................. 28 Pricing & Discount Programs ........................................................................................................................................................................... 29 27 Guldellnas for Regulating Shared Mlcromoblllty Section 4 Staffing & Events Public events, demonstrations, and learn-to-ride classes are key components of strong public engagement. Events can help teach people how shared m icromobility services work and can inform planning and implementation decision-making. Best Practice Recommendations • Cities should require that companies develop and share with the c ity outreach and engagement plans . The plans should outline how the company will communicate on an ongoing basis with the public about their product and how to use it . Th is should i nclude, but not be limited to, discounted rates and non- smartphone payment options, pricing changes, safety, system planning and expansion, and operational changes . • Cities should require that operat ors hire staff to coordinate, run , and support c ity-initiated engagement and rider education efforts, including but not limited to fairs, festivals , and neighborhood meetings. • Cities should require that operat ors develop or support in -person pop-up safety demonstrations at a frequency and in locations determined appropriate by the city, with that frequency re -assessed with each fleet expansion . Outreach Materials & Campaigns Intentionally diverse and expans ive communication campaigns are key to ex panding the reach of i nformation to prospective riders and non-riders alike. Best Practice Recommendations • Cities shou l d require that operators develop outreach and education campaigns as requested by the city and support/promote city-i nitiated campaigns. Outreach and education campaigns should be sure to engage pedestrians, people with disabilities, and older adults. • All public-facing communicat ions (websites, marketing, social media) should be in all languages required by the city. 28 Pricing & Discount Programs Guidelines for Regulating Shared Mlcromoblllty Section 4 Affordability is a basic component in addressing barriers to use for shared micromobility. Ensuring equitable access requires accommodations that expand access for people w ith lower incomes . Best Practice Recommendations • All fees and costs (including penalties), the system's terms of service , and user instructions should be easily accessible to the public, both online and printed . Print materials should be distributed at a frequency and i n target areas specified by the city. • Information on income -based discounts, and cash -access programs should be heav i ly advertised and eas i ly accessible both in-app and on line . Discussion Shared micromobility system work best when they are planned with rather than for communities. Public engagement should be dynamic, i ntentional , and iterative. To address longstanding structural inequities, cities and operators should develop engagement programm i ng that meets the needs of d isadvantaged popu l ations fi rst, as those solutions can most often be extrapolated to the population at large. Effective public engagement can often reveal localized circumstances that could impede or enhance the success of shared m icromobility systems. Strong public engagement planning for shared m icromobility i ncludes ensu r ing sufficient resources for management , outreach , marketing, and education. Public engagement must be at the fore of shared micromobility advocacy, planning, implementation and operations . Refer to NACTO's Strategies for Engaging Community, and to the Better Bike Share Partnership for additional resources . 29 BaltScoolarRe. •• Lime ~ • ""ee"" - Bird Lyft Citi Bike • • • • • • • Guidelines for Regulating Shared Mlcromobltlty Section 5 5.0 Mobility Data & User Privacy Cities need access to the data generated by shared micromobility and other mobility service providers . This information ensures that city governments can effectively regulate and make informed decisions about what is happening on the public right -of-way and how it might impact safety, health, equity, environmental outcomes, and the distribution of people and resources. Best Practice Recommendations • Cit ies should require that operators provide trip data at a level of deta il and frequency that allows them to accurately determine permit compliance, evaluate system performance and impact, and answer other planning, research , regulatory, and compliance questions . • Cities should rese rve the right to : Specify new data formats and requirements as new technology is developed . Share data with third-party researcher/organizat ion to fulfill planning , research, regulatory, or compliance needs. Hi re a third party to perform security audit at any time the city determines an audit is warranted . Request aggregated reports on system use, compliance, and other aspects of operations (e .g. parking complaints , crashes , damaged or lost small vehicles). Suspend/revoke permits of operators found to be submitting i ncomplete or inaccurate data, such as under or over-representing the total number of units in service. Require that companies send an opt-in user survey to all users for cities to better understand the users of a system for planning purposes. Restrict operators from collecting personal data related to race, gender, religion , or age, except for survey data collected on an opt-in bas is and for a public purpose expressly set forth by the city. Restrict operators from instituting retroactive changes to privacy policies or terms of use. 31 Guidelines for Regulating Shared Mlcromoblllty Section 5 • Cities sho u ld require operators to develop , implement , and share a privacy policy that complies with relevant state and federal laws/acts. At a minimum, this policy should include: Recognition that trip data can become personally identifiab le i nformation, especially when combined with other data sources , and should be treated as such in policy and practice . Defined limitations on collection, storage, or usage of any personal data or personally identifiable information of program participants to the satisfaction of the city. Protocols for who has access to data and what to do in the case of data breech . Pro t ocols for records retention in full accordance with loca l and state policies. • Cit ies should require operators t o prove that they are in compliance w ith contractual requirements, industry standards, and laws regarding data pr ivacy and consumer data protection . • Cities should require operators t o make its policies, procedures and practices regard i ng data security available to the city upon reques t . • Cities should require that companies make real-time available vehicle location data ava i lable to the public for use i n creat i ng apps that are not affiliated wi t h the compan ies or the city. 32 Discussion Most cities use a combination of data formats and tools to gather and analyze data provided by shared micromobility companies. The two most commonly specified data formats are the General Bikeshare Feed (GBFS) and Mobility Data Specification (MOS). Data produced v ia the MOS feed can be run through the SharedStreets Mobility Metrics plugin, or through a similar tool , in order to aggregate data to protect personal privacy while ensuring data quality for analysis and regulation . For mo re i nformation: • MOS -Open Mobility Foundation • GBFS -NABSA SharedStreets Mobility Metrics plugin -SharedStreets With the rise of shared micromobilty and app-enabled ride-hail services, cities and operators must grapple with important questions about data privacy. To address this, city transportation departments are coordinating with their legal departments to develop or updat e protocols for how to handle, store and protect data. In particular, ensuring that geosp at ial trip data is treated as personally identifiable information (Pll) is an essent ial part of best practice data manage m ent. Guidelines for Regulating Shared Mlcromoblllty Section 5 Discussion (continued) Shared m icro mobility services provide opportunities for cities to gather information about how and why people move around a city that can be used for service planning or to inform policy decisions. In planning for and permitting shared micromobility services, cities should ex plore options fo r gathering information through on line and phone user su rv eys and in - person intercept surveys . If possible, surveys should be conducted during t he pre-launch and pilot periods , as well as during full operation to best understand how shared micromobility services are used and identify other trends in how residents move around the city. To conduct statistically rigorous surveys, many cities have found success in collaborating w ith local i nstitutions such as loca l health departments. Cit ies can also gain add it iona l insights by coord i nating their survey questions with those asked in other cities to benchmark their results an d generate a clearer picture of shared micromo bility use. -. ____ .. _____ .. --·------·-----.----·--fil::::Z-::.:..:::-.r.7..:.::.-·-------=-~~-=.=:::=-=-~-=="" ------------~ ----··------·----.. _____________ _ ·----~-----·I .. __ .. ___________ _. -·--.. ---------------.---. -----------------------.. ------·-- aMOutl QO(:UM:{l(f Refer to NACTO's Man a gin g Mobility Data for addi tional information and resources . For ad ditional information on surveying, check out NACTO's Inte rcept Survey Too lkit. 33 Guidelines for Regulating Shared Mlcromoblllty Section& 6.0 Infrastructure Infrastructure is essential for shared micromobility t o succeed as a viable t ransportat io n opti o n. Cities must bu i ld out b i ke lane networks that encou rage and protect ri d e rs . They must also dec ide where i n the r igh t -of-way shared micromobility vehicles should be parked and what locking requ i rements are approp ri at e for their c ity. Work i ng with companies, c ities must develop ways to clearly arti culate information about where t o ride and park to t he public to ensure that shared micromobilit y vehicles do not impede people using the s idewalk , esp ec ia l ly peop le w ith d isab i lities . Fi nally, c ities and companies m ust determi ne how to clea rly iden t ify and commu ni cate to t he public places where riding sha re d microm o bi l ity vehi cles is restrict ed or banned . In This Section Shared M icromob i l ity Parking. ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3 6 Provid in g Safe Places to Ride .......................................................................................................................................................................... 40 Res tricted/Lim ited Access Areas .................................................................................................................................................................. 4 1 35 Guidelines for Regulating Shared Mlcromoblllty Section 6 Shared M icromobility Parking In permitting shared m icromob i lity companies to operate in the public right-of-way, cities must decide w he re is appropriate for compan ies and custome rs to leave t hei r veh icles . Increas in gly, cities an d operators are strikin g a balance by encouraging c ustomers to use "corrals" o r d es ignated s hared micromobility parking zones in high volu me or crowded areas, but also allowing users to drop off vehicles i n the furniture zone of si dewa l ks . Des ignating locations provides cities and operators more contro l over the start and end location of veh icles, increases predictabi l ity for users and non-use rs alike , and redu ces encroachment in the publi c ri ght-of-way. In Street Option Seattle Washington D.C. '., .. a )I ,• . .,.. ._~,, -~~---t€.,,. }'- --,, I ' -· ,,;/ -. Credit : Seattle D<Jr Credit: NACTO In Street Co rral Docking Po i nts 36 Seattle I Painted Corral with Racks Sidewalk Option Guidelines for Regulating Shered Mlcromoblllty Section 6 Orlando, FL Credit: Elvert Barnes Credit: City of Orlando Painted Sidewalk Atlanta Credit: NACTO Marked Location on Sidewalk 37 Guidelines for Regulating Shared Mlcromoblllty Section 6 Best Practice Recommendations General: • Cities should requ i re that operat ors develop and share with the city a pa r k i ng management plan that outlines ve h icle parking strategies and priorities. At a minimum , th is plan s hould describe how the operator w i ll: Deploy geofencing capabilities (if app li cable). Communicate with customers about appropriate parking locations. Detect and move improperly parked vehicles and respond to city requests . Staff rebalancing services and train staff to ensure that veh ides are parked correctly • Operators should have a means of commun icating w ith the user when a scooter has been parked in a non-perm itted area . The communication to the user should be sent electronically at the end of the ride . Corrals & Designated Parking Areas: • At the city's request, operators must geofence special parking zones , spec ial events , and other locations in their app within 48 hours of notice. • Corrals shou l d be marked w ith neutral, non -branded , or universal-branded signage to best inform customers of where vehicles should be parked . • In determ ini ng appropriate parking locations , most ci ties use the follow i ng guidelines : Vehicles should not be parked with i n 5'-15' of a crosswalk or curb ramp . Vehicles parked on s id ewalks may only be parked in the street furniture zone , unless otherwise permitted by the city. A minimum 6' clear path is required for all sidewalk corral locations. • If using bike racks or other lock-to equipment, cities should ensure that shared m icromob i l ityvehicles do not rest ri ct parking options for peop l e using personal bikes and e-scooters. • Cities shou l d reserve the right to approve all corral or designated parki ng locations and pl ans. 38 Refer to NACTO's Bike Share Station Siting Guide for additional i nformation and resources . Guidelines for Regulating Shared Mlcromoblllty Section 6 Discussion Shared micromobility corrals and "stations" strike a balance between ease-of-use and predictability. While dockless services were i nitially developed to allow customers to pick up or drop off veh icles anywhere , cities and operators have increasingly shifted toward corral- based systems which encourage customers to pick up and drop off vehicles from designated areas on t he sidewalk or in the parking lane . While not every location needs designated shared micromob i lity parking, corrals and designated areas are particularly i mportant i n h igher volume or crowded areas where many tri ps start and end and where sidewalk space is at a premium . When provided , customers often do not have to use the corrals, but operators must rebalance vehicles to those locations. Corrals and designated parking areas can be demarcat ed with signage, planters, or flex i ble delineato r s t o increase vis i bility and provide protection from moving vehicles . Cities may have to allocate staff time to identify locations and conduct necessary outreach with commun ities. The parking lane or street space (e.g. daylighted areas, curb extensions etc.) is the best place for designated shared micromobility parking. La r ge numbers of shared micromobility vehicles on the sidewalk can block accessible travel paths and can prohibit safe movement for people with visual disabilities, people using wheelchairs and other wheeled vehicles , and people maneuvering strollers. The Seattle Department ofTransportation and Rooted i n Rights have developed a video to explain proper bike share parking to maintain access i bility for people with d isabilities. In addition , i n many cities, riding on the s idewalk is illegal ; prov iding s idewalk parking can confuse customers about where they are allowed to ride . Geofencing is an emerging technology, and is currently limited in its accuracy. Providers should conti nue to expeditiously develop more accurate GPS as a core part of system tracking. In the meanti me, geofencing is not sufficient to be solely used to enforce or verify proper parking by users . Most geofencing technologies use GPS , which as currently installed in most shared mobility devices is accurate to within 5-10 feet, making it more useful in delineating where bike and scooter use is prohibited or restricted (such as in speed) for larger areas such as beach boardwalks , popular shared -use paths, spec ific streets, campuses, or parks. To date, there has been no success with prohibiting b i ke and scoot er use on smaller footprints such as sidewalks . Refer to NACTO's Designing for All Ages & Abilities for additional resources on building safe places to ride . 39 Guidelines for Regulating Shared Mlcromoblllty Section 6 Providin g Safe Place to Ride To f u lly realize t he pote nt ial of shared micromobility, cities m ust redesign the i r streets so that everyone has a safe, low -stress network of places to ride. Poor or inadequate infrastructure leads to i ncreased injuries and fatalities. In places without cle a rly marked, safe places to ride, riders often report feeling safer riding on the sidewalk even though sidewalk r id i ng is often illegal. Best Practice Recommendations • Cities should deve lop a legal and operational mechanism to direct perm it fees to city infrastructure projects, such as bui lding protected bike lanes or shared -use paths . • Cit ies should conve ne to discuss how street design standard s may need to change to accommodate a w ider array of l ow -to-moderate speed micromobility vehicles . • Cities shou l d prioritize the d ev el opment of bikeways that are safe and comfortable fo r users of all age s and a bilities. 40 Discussion The rap id adoption of shared micromobi lity serv ices , 84 mi l lion t r i ps i n 20 18 alone , means t hat ci t ies may have to speed up implementation timelines for building high -quality bike infrast ruct ure and cons ider how rising volumes will impact des ign specifications . In particular, enginee r s, planners and designers will need to consider what k i nds of veh icles be long in bike la nes , and what factors (e.g. speed , rate of accelerat ion , maneuverabi l ity), should help determ i ne what is allowed where. Guidelines for Regulating Shared Mlcromoblllty Section 6 Restricted/Limited Access Areas Some cities have areas where shared micromobility services may not operate or where vehicles must move at slower speeds to ensure safety. Best Practice Recommendations • Cities should identify and define areas where shared micromobility services should be non-electric only, or otherwise restricted in operation (not allowed, or restricted in speed). • Operators must comply with geofencing requests to proh ibit vehicle use in locations or during events as identified by the city. (Note geofencing technology limitations, as detailed on page 39). • Cities should require t hat operators limit speeds to appropriate levels . Operators must employ speed reductions in high-pedestrian, high -utilization and prohibited spaces upon request from the city. Unrestricted : 15 mph Slow zone: 5-12 mph Non-electric vehicle : 0-3 mph Prohibited spaces : User must walk vehicle • Operators should be required to include an in-app explanation of geofencing (both area designations and the process that is initiated if a user enters a restricted area). • Cities should provide operators with shapefiles to indicate geofenced borders in order to ensure compliance and accurate communication across operators. 41 7.0 Current State of Practice In This Section Guidelines for Regulating Shared Mlcromoblllty Sectlon7 Vehic le Requirements ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 44 Fleet Requiremen ts ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 45 Data Requirements ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 48 Fe es ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 49 Employment Requirements .............................................................................................................................................................................. 51 Adap tive Device Requiremen t s ....................................................................................................................................................................... 5 2 Discounted Pric i ng Programs .......................................................................................................................................................................... 53 Mult i-Language Requirements ....................................................................................................................................................................... 54 Par ki ng Requ i re m ents .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 55 43 Guidelines for Regulating Shared Mlcromoblllty Section 7 Vehicle Requirements City Max Vehicles Permitted Austin 500 per company for the initial release Baltimore 1,000 -2,000 per applicant Bellevue 200 e-bikes Charlotte N/A Chicago 2,500 -3,500 citywide Denver 500 per operator fore -bikes 350 per operator fore -scooters, etc Durham 600 e-scooters 1,200 bikes/e-bikes Ft. Lauderdale 500 per company for the initial release Los Angeles 3,000 per applicant Oakland N/A Santa Monica 3,000 total citywide Seattle 20,000 Washi ngton D.C . 600 per permit type (bike or scooter) with quarterly performance based increases ranging from 0-300 44 Speed Maximum 20 mph fore -scooters and e-bikes Citywide:15 mph Reduced: 8 mph 20 mph Class 1 + 2 e-bikes 28 mph Class 3 e-bi kes 15 mph fore-scooters 20 mph fore -bikes 15 mph N/A N/A N/A 15 mph 15 mph fore-scooters 15 mph fore-scooters 20 mph fore-bikes 15 mph 10 mph fore -scooter 20 mph fore-bikes City Austin Baltimore Bellevue Charlotte Guidelines for Regulating Shared Mlcromoblllty Section 7 Fleet Requirements Fleet Size Distribution Max#of Adjustments Requirements Companies If average r/v/d falls below 2, Operators are licensed 10 a portion of the fleet may be to operate in Austin's required to be relocated. If downtown Austin project r/v/d is 3 or higher, increments coordination zone with of 250 additional vehicles may supplemental licenses to be deployed .. provide additional units in areas outside of this area. The Director may require a reduction in a licensee's total number of units based on the overall number of units concentrated within a specific area. Based on requirement No more than 12 vehicles N/A compliance, utilization, and per Block Face, except performance. as may be permitted to accommodate a special event. If more than 35% of fleet is located in any one zone, permit holder must redistribute vehicles. Based on requirement Minimum allowed service N/A compliance. area defined; citywide distribution incentivized. Operators must rebalance to designated bike hubs. 50% of fleet or more at Activity Centers, 10% at Bus Stops, 15% in Neighborhoods. A dynamic cap based on N/A N/A average number of r/v/d, requirement compliance and performance. 45 Guidelines for Regulating Shared Mlcromoblllty Section 7 Fleet Requirements City Fleet Size Distribution Adjustments Requirements Chicago Based on requirement Daily 5 a.m. rebalancing compliance, utilization, and requirement. Must have at performance. least 25% of scooters in Priority Sub Area 1 and at least 25% of its scooters in Priority Sub-Area 2, distributed proportionately at the beginning of each day. Denver Based on requirement Vehicles that are part of the compliance, utilization, and "opportunity area" fleet will performance. be required to be rebalanced back to designated opportunity areas at least once per day. Durham Based on requirement Atleast 20% of devices compliance , utilization, and within designated census performance. tracts. Ft. Lauderdale Up to 250 additional vehicles N/A after 30 days of service subject to approval. Los Angeles An additional 2,500 scooters N/A allowed in non -San Fernando valley disadvantaged communities. 5,000 allowed in the San Fernando Valley disadvantaged communities. 46 Max#of Companies N/A 5 N/A N/A N/A City Oakland Santa Monica Seattle Washington D.C. Guidelines for Regulating Shered Mlcromoblllty Section 7 Fleet Requirements Fleet Size Distribution Max#of Adjustments Requirements Companies Based on requirement Over 50% of scooters must N/A compliance, utilization, and be deployed in defined performance. Communities of Concern . Can increase the fleet size for Maximum of 1/3 of total N/A achieving 3 r/v/d (e-bikes) or 4 vehicles may be in the r/v/d (scooters). downtown district. Vendors who deploy adaptive Minimum of 10% of vehicles 10 cycles receive application available across three equity preference and could get a focus areas. bonus of up to 1,000 extra devices. Based on requirement Minimum of 6 vehicles 10 per compliance, utilization, and available in each ward vehicle type performance. Increases of up (at 6 AM each day). to 25% per quarter may be allowed at DDOT's discretion. Permit holder may request fleet expansion above twenty- five percent (25%) but not more than fifty percent (50%) for demonstrated exceptional performance. 47 Guidelines for Regulating Shared Mlcromoblllty Section 7 Data Requirements City Data Reporting Methods Austin Austin Dockless API Baltimore Publicly available API MDS compatible API Bellevue MDS compatible API GBFS compatible API Third-party analyst via API Charlotte Monthly Reports MDS compatible API Chicago MDS compatible API GBFS compatible API Denver API Monthly Reports Durham Third party provider Ft. Lauderdale Monthly data report Los Angeles MDS compatible API Oakland Publicly available (GBFS) API MDS compatible API GBFS compatible API Santa Monica MDS compatible API GBFS compatible API Weekly and Monthly Reports Seattle MDS compatible API Washington D.C. DC Dockless Data API 48 City Application/ Per Device Permit Fee Fee Austin N/A $60 Baltimore TBD TBD Bellevue $226 permit N/A application fee $6,855 annual ROW lease fee Chicago $250 $120 Denver $150 N/A application $15,000 permit fee Durham $1,000 $100 application a-scooters $500 renewal $50 e-bikes Ft. $150 $10 Lauderdale application $100 annual permit Fees Per Trip Fee N/A $0.10 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Guidelines for Regulating Shared Mlcromoblllty Section 7 Performance Relocation/ Bond Removal $1 OD/device Invoice the companies $10,000 $220 for fi rst 5 scooters seized at one time, $44 per additional seized scooter; $220 for fi rst 3 e-bikes seized at one t i me, $73 per additional seized e-bike; $15 per day for each group (up to 5 scooters 3 e-bikes) for storage $10,000 Cost recovery N/A $100 per scooter $20 bikes/$30 N/A a-scooters $10,000 $50 $80/vehicle $75 + $50 per day for storage 49 Guidelines for Regulating Shared Mlcromoblllty Section 7 . City Application/ Per Device Fee Permit Fee Los Angeles $20 ,000 $130 $39in disadvantaged communities Oakland $2,500 $64 app li cation $30,000 permit fee Santa $20,000 $130+ Monica $1/day Seattle N/A $50 Washington $75 $60 (pro-rated D.C. app li cation by month) and tech nology $250 initial permit fee $100 annual fee 50 Fees Per Trip Performance Relocation/ Fee Bond Removal N/A $80/vehicle Reimburse the City and storage fees $0.10 N/A $50 + $140 when per hour for parked confiscation or left standing in a metered zone during hours of operation N/A N/A N/A $10,000 Cost recovery N/A $10,000 All costs from bond City Chicago Oakland Seattle Washington D.C. Guidelines for Regulating Shared Mlcromoblllty Section 7 Employee Requirements Requirement Vendors are encouraged to include in their hiring plan steps they will take to identify, train, and employ local residents that have been historically disadvantaged in participating in the local economy. Vendors are also encouraged to have specific contracting goals for minority and women- owned businesses including, but is not limited to, the creation of local workforce development and training programs, and the establishment of partnerships with local workforce development and training programs or organizations. (d) Vendors are encouraged to hire: (i) 75% of their staff from Chicago; and (ii) at least 30% of their staff from job training placement programs operating in Chicago. Vendors are required to inlcude a hiring and labor plan, including number of full time employees and contract employees expected to be employed in Oakland. If charging or servicing of Scooters is contracted to a third parties, Operators must take steps to prevent conflicts between contractors seeking to charge or service scooters. The vendor shall compensate all employees consistent with Seattle's minimum-wage laws in SMC Chapter 14.19. The vendor shall comply with all local, state, and federal workplace safety requirements. When applying, operators must specify how they will advance skills training for staff and contractors, and how operators will make efforts to hire a local workforce. 51 Guidelines for Regulati ng Shared Micromobility Section 7 Adaptive Device Requirements City Requirement Baltimore Adaptive vehicles are not counted towards the maximum number of allowed vehicles Bellevue Incentive (choice of fee reduction or fleet bonus) to provide adaptive devices equal to 5 percent of total fleet. Los Angeles No minimum fleet size for fleets consisting solely of nonelectric adaptive bikes. Operators with a less than 50% electric fleet must reserve a minimum of 1% of their fleet size for adaptive bicycles Oakland Operators must provide Adaptive Scooters for persons with disabilities. The total percentage of Adaptive Scooters shall be based on expected need, performance, and usage. If the operator is unable to deploy Adaptive Scooters at the time of permit issuance, they must submit a plan to do so, within 3 months. Seattle Permit fees are used to partner with existing providers to increase adaptive cycling access. Operators are strongly encouraged to deploy adaptive cycles as part of their fleets with a bonus of +1,000 vehicles as incentive. 52 City Baltimore Chicago Oakland Seattle Washington D.C. Guidelines for Regulating Shared Mlcromoblllty Section 7 Discounted Pricing Programs Requirement Low-income plan required. Variable pricing only allowed if proven to increase equity. Operators are required to provide programs for nonsmartphone and cash - based access Operators are required to provide a discounted plan equivalent to $5/year (unlimited 30 minutes trips) for users with low income and implement a marketing and targeted outreach plan . Cash payment and non -smartphone access options are also required. If an operator's fleet is majority electric, the operator must provide d i scounted access at no more than $1.50 per hour. Operator must also provide cash and non -smartphone payment options. Operator are required to provide a low-income customer plan that waives vehicle deposit fees and provides unlimited trips under 30 minutes. Operator must also provide cash and nonsmartphone payment options. 53 Guidelines for Regulating Shared Mlcromobillty Section 7 Multi-Language Requirements City Requirement Baltimore 5 requi red languages for company website and 24-hour customer service line. Bellevue 6 requi red non-English languages for company website and mobile app Chicago 6 requi red languages for 24-hour customer service line. Oakland At a mi ni mum 2 required languages for company website, call center and mobile application. Santa Monica Customer support service in multiple languages is preferred. Seattle 8 requi red languages for marketing materials, rider education signage, required disclosures to riders and all required contact methods. Washington D.C. Operators are encouraged to maintain a multilingual website. 54 • I I City Austin Bellevue Chicago Denver Oakland Santa Monica Seattle Guidelines for Regulating Shared Mlcromoblllty Section 7 Parking Requirements Requirement Dockless bikes and scooters may only be parked in the furniture zone, at a bike rack, or in a painted corral. Out-of-Hub Parking Penalty -$1 per trip ended outside of bike hubs beyond the monthly target percentage allowed. Operators must use photo and geofencing technology to ensure parking compliance. Operators must require customers who rent scooters with a smartphone to send photos of their properly-parked scooters at the end of the trip. Operators are required to install and maintain painted dockless parking zones at a rate of up to 1 zone per 10 permitted fleet vehicles. Operators must propose a minimum of 1 designated scooter parking area per 15 permitted scooters. Lock-to scooters are also permitted. Scooters may be parked in the furniture zone, painted corrals, or at bike racks. There are additional geofenced restrictions. Bikes may be parked in the furniture zone, at a bike rack, or in a bike share parking area. Permit fees used to build designed parking areas, and vendors required to mark these in-app. 55 • -. . ClimateWorks FOUNDATION • Geo Fence Zone Plan for Cities & Bike Share What is a Geo Fence Zone Plan ? Definitions : A Geo Fence Zone can be defined as : 'A zone defined by GPS or RFID , that registers when a mobile device like a bicycle enters or leaves that zone.' A Geo Fence Platform controlled by the city helps to qu ickly and effectively manage connected devices like shared bicycles in the city's pub lic space . A 'Geo Fence Zone Plan for Cities & Bi ke Share' wil l serve both the city and its citizens and it will not only regulate the use of shared bicycles but also the fun ctioning conditions fo r the operc. :ors . How can cities use Geo Fencing? 'Bv setting up Geo Fence Zones , a city creates digital infrastruc t ure that enables it to enforce regulati on of its public space Geo Fence Zones and Bike Share The leading idea behind "Geo Fencing for cities" is leaving control over public space with the elected representatives of the city . A prime example of this is the bike sharing revolution , which is currently in full swing . Millions of bi cycles are flooding the streets of countless cities around the world while the c ompanies behind it are thousands of kilometers away . Cities have no real say in this . A Geo Fence platform controlled by the city would enable the city to set clear rules for one or more Bike Sharing operators that t~ ? city allows to work in the city . Also , it would provide the city with an e asy way to monitor and enforce these rules . Any e xtra Bike Sharing operator that also wants to enter the city would have to connect and adhere to the rules set by the city and enforced via the platform . Below is an example of how cities can use a Geo Fence platform for Bike Sharing . For this e xample the X.bik e platform was used . Step 1: Building a plan City representatives will formulate their needs and best practices in t e rms of Bike Sharing; they may attract external consultants and the software provider. The plan they make a ims to integrate the bike share offer in the local cycling planning and marketing campaigns . This will result in a specific Bike Sharing plan for the city . The plan will include pricing , locations , regulations , goals , milestones , quality standards , service level , bike types/design , and general structure . Step 2: Creating the platform The software provider will create all applicable Geo Fence Zones and prepare the platform to adhere to all rules set in the plan ; they also setup monitoring and reporting formats and procedures . Rules are not set in stone and can be altered instantly. All Geo Fence Zones and their rules can be changed in a matter of minutes . If new insights gained by the city require a different approach to Bike Sharing in the future , the platform can then be quickly and easily adjusted . Step 3 : Finding the right operators Once the platform has been molded in accordance with the plan set by the city an operator for the Bike Sharing system must be found . There is no limit to the number of operators. For instance , there can be one operator for re another for e -bikes a third one f i ht he Xbike platform can also provide in all necessary hardware that operators would need (bicycles , GPS locks) and they ca n then select and work with a local Step 4: Implementation After finding the right operators for the city, the implementation phase starts . One of the largest benefits for the users of the Bike Sh a ring sch e me is that , no matter how many operators there are, they will all be connected to one a . This means that a user can i e rom any operator on the entire platform with just one app; even in other cities , as long as they are on the same software platform,. In this step promotion and close monitoring is -Key to making the Bike Sharing scheme a success . Step 5 : Monitoring , adjusting and optimizing Once the Bike Sharing scheme is operational , the city will get a Dashboard with all the tools needed to monitor the system as closely as the city wants. The city will work with the software provider and the local mobility e xperts to make sure problems are proactively sol ved and to optimize the system according to real- time data provided by the active scheme . At any time the city can decide to ma ke a djustment to the scheme if the city whishes so . Conclusion City in control at no cost There are many benefits for a c ity to work with a Geo Fen ce Bike Sh a ring Platform offered by X.bike . Foremost , it en s ur e s that the city is in control at all times and it allows for easy adjustments . City owns data gathered Also , it provides a city with all the information to effectively monitor the sc heme and also provides the data to be used for ot her mobility optimizations . The city owns the data . No cost for ci ty And the cost? None for the city . The e x ploitation of the system should suffice all cost involved , apart from the cost of the city's own staff and the cost of the city 's external consultants . App works in other cities/countries If and when in a city the app is connected to the X. Bike platform the same app will work in other cities where they work with the X. Bike platform . It can become a national app . Contact: Mario Gualdi, lsinnova: mgualdi@is i nnova .org Pascal van den Noort, Velo Mondi al: operations@velomondial.net Multiple benefits Geo Fencing can provide a city with multiple other benefits bes ides optimizi ng and regulation Bike Sharing . Other possible uses for Geo Fencing: Use Mobility management Orone management Fleet management Human resource management Compliance management Marketing Asset management Law enforcement Home automation Example Commercial an d public vehicle access ma na gement and enforcement, public transport fleet managemen t , parking management and enforcement (including loading are as , disabled areas), congest ion ch arg ing A sporting event can use geo-fencing to create a temporary no-fly zone that prevents drones from crossing a defined perimeter. Geo -fencing can alert a dispatcher when a truck driver breaks from his route . An employee's smart card will send an alert to sec urity if the employee attempts to enter an unauthorized , geo-fenced area. Ne twork lo gs can record geo-fence cross in gs to document the proper use of de vices and their compliance with establis hed policies . A small business can text an opt-i n custo mer a coupon code when the customer's Smartpho ne enters a defined geographical area. A network administrator can set up alerts so when a hospital-owned iPad leaves the hospital grounds , the adminis trator can monitor t he device's location and lock i t down to prevent it from being used. An ankle bracelet can alert authorities if an individual under house arrest leaves the premises . When the homeow ner's Smartphone leaves the home's geo-fenced pe rimeter, the thermostat lowers itself to a pre-defi ned temperature . ... VELOCITTA www velo-citta eu Bike Share Ordinance Proposed Ordinance Amendments Overv iew Background on Bike Share Ordinance adopted in July 2018 in response to TAMU bikeshare program • Requires a permit to operate • Dockless • Doesn't allow electric scooters or other electronic modes of transportation • TAMU o OFO (#of units); timeframe o Veoride -current operator(# of units); timeframe; trip data o Change to a lock-to or docked system with locks on bikes o Introduced "Cosmos" -electric bikes • BlueDuck -electric scooters Current Conditions Since the formation of the ordinance there has been a lot more interest in micromoblity-small, lightweight devices Include -bicycles, scooters Definitions • Bicycle Areas of Conce rn Recommendatio ns • BPG Board -August 3rd Next Steps • Ordinance Amendment Amendments 1. Title -from "Dockless Bike Share Program " to "Shared Micromobility Program" 2. Type -Docked vs . Dockless a. Defin ition : 3. "Bicycle" to "Device" \ ' 6/28/2021 Are E-Scooters Suitable for UK Roads? The Pothole Test for Safe Scooter Design I Swifty Scooters • (/) 0 g (/cart) 5,11ill11 .® J(~ 0 g (/cart) (/) JOURNAL Are E-Scoo t ers Suitable for UK Roads? The Pothole Test for Safe Scooter Design By Camilla lftakhar 1 1 comment (lblogsljournal/e -scooter-safety-and-design#comments) The UK remains one of the last regions in the world to legalise e-scooters , but why? The Department for Transport are particularly conce~ned over their safety as there have been studies in the US that have revealed somewhat alarming results . But what is the cause of these injuries? I sco0+ ~11 +h~ +:~~ ~~ ~ .. C' ••• :~+ .. ~~...i :+ _ feels safe and fun. The difference is that these statistics are taken from If there is anything you can't find, please feel free to who use different hardware, a more compact design with an 8" whee l, wt h message us ere . 16" WNeeUse cookies to i mprove your experience on our website . By brows111lJ u 11~ vvt:u~ru:::, yvu alJ' t:t: lu vu1 ~se of cookies . Can scooter safety be imP.rove u t"Y u ~ si~1 ~z. -"[j''(j'j"lT-Info https ://swiftyscooters .com/b logs/journal/e-scooter-safety-and-design 1/12 6/28/2021 Are E-Scooters Su itab le for UK Roads? The Pothole Test for Safe Scooter Design I Swifty Scooters With this in mind we decided to measure the geome.f the most popular 8 inch wheeled e-scooter aed (/) Jl O (/cart) compared against our 16 inch wheeled scooters. •• We also decided to perform a simple simulation by riding both scooters over a pothole . This report explores which design features define a safe and road worthy scooter. READ MORE: How Safe Are Electric Scooters? Reality Check! (https :! lswiftyscooters.comlblogsljournal/how- safe-are-electric-scooters-reality-check) We are conducting this simulation because we believe adults riding small whe~I scooters that are poorly designed, could cause a hazard when ridden on the UK 's roads. In a recent report (US 2018) by the Public Health and Transportation Department in Aust in Texas, in association with the CDC it was reported that 20 individuals per 100,000 trips were injured . Cars or other motorised veh i cles factored into 16 % in juries . The remaining 84 % of injuries were caused by the rider losing control for one reason or another. We believe that the geometry and design of these small wheel scooters are a large part of the cause of these accidents, and that safety can be improved through design. Choosing the size of P.Othole for our test A pothole is a depress ion or wear in the road, and are common hazards for cyclists in the UK . After a quick internet search, we discovered that most potholes are repaired (within 7-28 days) if they are deeper than 40- 50mm (depending on the council). However, most shallower potholes can remain unrepai red for a long period of time. Therefore we decided to design our test using a pothole 50mm deep and 300mm wide as our control. We have ignored some factors, for example, rider ability, the weather and third-party influences like other vehicles . Wheel Size -Is big _ger better? In this study we are comparing a 16" wheeled scooter and an 8" wheeled e-scooter. The 8" wheeled e-scooter iq the most common form factor currently on the market . If there is anything you can't find, please feel free to Figures 1.0, 1.1, 2.0 and 2.1 demonstrate the critical angles and dimensio1 message us here . . We.use coaokies to imdnr ove v.our exoerience on our webs1·te . By brows1 11':! u 11::. vvt:u::.1 Lt:, yvu a':!' t:t: Lu vu1 s1mulirnon an suggeste ·trajectory atter impacting a potn9 e. 0 use of cookies . N GOT IT More i nfo ns https://swiftyscooters .com/blogs /jo urnal/e-scooter-safety-and-design 2/12 6 /28/2021 Are E-Scooters Suitable for UK Roads? The Pothole Test for Safe Scooter Design I Swifty Scooters 231m. Headtub (/) g 0 (/cart) Positive Deck Drop 88mm below wheel axis Figure 1.0 16 inch wheel Swifty Scooter Negative Deck Drop 28mm above wheel axis ----~==-=---=-=----· 28 to footplate Deck centre of footplate 524mm 17 • : Grip angle to vertical Wheel axe l centre line ~ 53 mm trail I & 18 mm rake I ., 976mm wheel base : ... 196mm Headtube , to footplate Grip angle to vertical Wheel axe l centre line If there is anyth i ng you can't find, please feel free to Figure 2.0 , centre offootpla1 message us here . We L4mcbok4xe9i'to improve you r: experience on our ;;vebsit~2il3111t»rows111 ~·u 11::. vvc:u::.1Lt::, yuu a':i' c:c: Lu uu1 scooter ; use of cookies . 0 1 793mm wheel base N "" GOT IT More info https ://swiftyscooters .com/b lo gs /journal/e-scooter-safety-and-design ns 3/12 6/28/2021 Are E-Scooters Suitable for UK Roads? The Pothole Test for Safe Scooter Desi gn J Swifty Scooters Figure 1.1 16 inch wheel Swifty Scooter colliding with a 50mm x 300mm pothole Figure 2.1 8 inch wheel scooter colliding with a 50mm x 300mm pothole GOT IT https://swiftyscooters .com/b logs/journal/e-scooter-safety-and-design • ' ,, ,, \ ' \ '' (/) Jl 'g0 (/cart) ,, ·~--~~-~ 1 _J--<; ' \ Suggested trajectory after impact \ 14° Grip angle \, 'r-• to vertical 300 Pneumatic tyre , hub spoke , rim & with crump le zone Grip angle to vert ical 300 More info / / Suggested trajectory after im pact If there is anything you can't find , please feel free to message us here . Sil 1y u 11;:, vvt:u;:,1 Lt:, yvu ay1 t:t: LV vu1 .., ~ Solid tyre , solid wheel & no crumple zone 0 ns 4/12 . 6/28/2021 Are E-Scooters Suitable for UK Roads? The Pothole Test for Safe Scooter Design I Swifty Scooters • (/) Q 'g0 (/cart) This simulation does not take into account weather conditions , rider ability or other external factors that might affect the outcome. So for wheel size, the bigger the better! But it's more complex than that , the larger wheels allow for other design e lements t hat collectively make the 16" scooter is far more stable than an 8" scooter. Let's examine those critical design elements. Handling and Control -Head angle, rake and trail Bicycle geometry and engineering is a very well researched and studied topic. Principles such as trail, wheel offset, headtube angle , rake, wheelbase, wheel size etc are all taken into account when a stable and comfortable ride is desirable . It is common practice that a bicycle trail is no less than 50mm . It is the fork rake and headtube ang l e that creates trail. The 16" scooter shown in Fig. 1.0 has a trai l of 53mm, this is within the recommended threshold of 50-70mm recognised by bicycle engineers . The larger trail provides a geometry that delivers stable handling and straight line of travel. The compact design of the 8" scooter onl y provides 22mm trail [Fig. 2.0] which will feel very twitchy to steer, and therefore harder to control. This trail is a result of small wheel size, poor headtube angle and negligible rake. When r iding over the pothole [fig 1.1 and 2.1] the 8" scooter will be difficult to control , even by an experienced rider. Stabilit y -Wheelbase The dimensions for the wheelbase , centre of footplate and headtube-to-footplate are all greater on the 16" scooter [Fig 1.0 and 2.0]. This results in the rider 's weight being further back from the front wheel. When the rider experiences the front wheel impact of the pothole [Fig 1.1], the energy transferred to the rider is less sudden and greatly reduced . The shorter wheelbase of the 8" scooter means the rider's weight is further forwards and close to the front whee l at the point of impact. This results in a greater sudden i mpact and higher energy transfer to the rider. This makes the 8" scooter harder to control. Again the smaller wheel and the geometry of the more com pc.ct design will be harder to control. If there is anyth ing you Steady Manoeuvres -Deck DroP.. can't find, please feel free to message us here. DedWfr~.~s:~meBIStlmfffle'ffl ~~~~R~@llltf:l~r~ia~1&Ycl1f@rffi!1M~qrn: uFmeLEJeVK1:1 Rllleq~PS'C-O-Oter has a positive deck drop of +88mm [Fig 1.0] wheY~~s0{hceo&,k~~~·oter has a negative deck drop of -28 2.0] ). A positive deck drop (i.e below the ce11tr§dlfft bEtWEff&tr'Wtiand back axe I) is desirable as it lo V'l(t_"""~-. https ://swiftyscooters.com/b logs /journal/e-scooter-safety-and-design 5/12 6/28/2021 Are E-Scooters Suitable for UK Roads? The Pothole Test for Safe Scooter Design I Swifty Scooters (/) T2 D (/cart) rider's centre of gravity. This is a factor that is impolt when a rider is mano~u vrin g or trying to avoidcPn obstacle . A negative deck drop or high centre of gra drives less for ce i nto the tyres on tur~ tha rra low centre of gravity. A we ll designed scoote r maintains suitable deck drop , and also ground clearance -a critical measurement in scooter design, and another advantage of the 16" wheel. Th i s is particularly important when it comes to avoiding a pothole or other obstacles in the road. Product Longevity -CrumP.le zones and tyres The 16 " scooter in Fig .1.0 has pneumatic t yres and bicycle spec wheels (hub, spoke and rim). The 8" scooter in Fig 2 .0 has solid rubber tyres and solid wheels . The hub, spo ke , rim and tyre des ign of a bicycle wheel is easily ser vice d , mainta ined and rep laced. It's also designed to absorb energy under impact and crumple in extreme cases . Pneumatic tyres also help to absorb energy and provide the most suitable way to create traction and grip. A ty r e always creates a flat spot when it comes into co ntact w it h the ground, this i s varying dependent on wheel size, tyre design and tyre pressure . This flat area effectively creates the gr i p needed to securely drive forwards , bank, turn and brake with confidence . Small wheels that are sol i d with no rim or spokes , fitted with a solid t y res have the opposite effect. they produce poor contact with the ground and reduced performance when driving forwards , banking , turning and braking . Trajectory after imP.act The simulated trajecto r y after impact as shown in figure 1.1and2.1 demonstrates a catastrophic result for the 8" scooter and substantially lowe r risk fo r the 16 inch scooter. The combination of poor geometry, short wheelbase , negative deck drop and soli d small wheels would suggest that under impact. the front wheel of the 8 inch scooter wou ld stop suddenly. It is unlikely that the front wheel would roll out of the pothole . One must also consider the 8" scooter grip-angle -to-vertical dimension (7 degrees) shown i n figure 2.1 . This is half that of the 16" scooter figure 1.1 (14 degrees). This increases the likelihood of the 8" scooter and rider being propelled forward ove r the handlebars when colliding with the pothole . If there is anyth i ng you can't find , please feel free to When you consider the com bina tion of poor braking (mechanical and ele message us here . com\..N§~yEU§€!PWtlie i ITTij~~tftilf@Oflg:flavWf!mi}~~Yl 10ffi'v'5~~1BTP9rYYWe:>Deiil!!YS'mBHmYIR 1over an obstacle like a pothole woul d present a high -H§R Rtt~r°cff ~~·n 8" scoote r . GOT IT More info https ://swiftyscooters .com/blogs/jou rnal /e-scooter-safety-and-d esign 6/12 . 6/28/2021 Are E-Scooters Suitable for UK Roads? The Pothole Test for Safe Scooter Design I Swifty Scooters (/) 0 o (/cart) By comparison, when the 16" scooter shown in fig 1 .•. kes the pothole edge it is probable that the lar~r pneumatic tyre would deform under impact, cushio the blow, and promoting the wheel tofuft up and over the edge of the pothole . The low"r centre of gravity, larger headtube angle, greater trail and larger bicycle spec wheel and pneumatic tyres are all factors that would help support this result and conclude that this would be a low-risk event to the rider. Conclusion It is our opinion that wheel size is the critical factor when designing a scooter that provides a safe and comfortable ride and that is roadworthy. It is also worth mentioning as a private company we are not the only manufacturer who makes scooters with larger wheels, and we have no claim to this wheel size. However, we are in a situation where scooter market is dominated by small-wheeled scooters because the price and compact des i gn is appea ling to consumers . Id In 2020 Swifty Scooters will celebrate its 10-year anniversary, so when it comes to scooters we know a thing or two about scooter design engineering but most importantly safety. Many of the new e-scooter sharing operators generally speaking excel when it comes to their connectivity, mobile sharing platforms and logistical operations. However, the choice of hardware (scooter supplier) must evolve to be safer and more suitable for road conditions and for novice riders. Historically, the majority of scooter-share operators have bought OEM products from the largest scooter manufacturer in the world, Ninebot. Ninebot is a Chinese conglomerate producing over a million scooters a year and supplying a large proportion of the scooter sharing platforms. Many of the early scooter sharing operators were in such a rush to deploy and scale that they simply didn't consider the predicament of road suitability that we now are facing. There are some who are investing in improving their hardware, but they all seem to pursue similar geometry, design and wheel size. This is driven only by price and plentiful supply. The P.Ublic P.erceP.tion of the small-wheeled scooter form factor Scooter-share operators have scaled so fast that the compact form factor has become the common public perception of what a scooter shruld look like. Many of our customers have expressed that they wished they had known about larger wheeled scooters before purchasing a smal l-wh 1 If there is anything you customers have unfortunately been injured as a re sult of lo sing control c can't find , please feel free to electric and kick-scooter) and have been suddenly thrown to the ground . message us here. We use cookies to improve your experience on our website . By brows 111y u 11;:, vvt::u;:,1Lt::, yuu ay1 t::t:: LU UUI GOT IT More info N use of cookies. e nvacy • Term s https://swiftyscooters .com/blogs/journal/e-scooter-safety-and-design 7/12 6/28/2021 Are E-Scooters Suitable for UK Roads? The Pothole Test for Safe Scooter Design I Swifty Scooters (/) 0 'tj (/cart) At Swifty Scooters we take rider safety and rider ex·· nee very serious ly . w,~ design , engineer and 0 manufacture all our products to our own specificati . his has taken years of research and developrn'ent and is the reason why we believe our vehicles are the winning form factor. For a safe and stable adult scooter, our testing has proven that you must have 16 inch wheels as standard , whether it be electric or kick-powered. When it comes to regulat io n, we would li k e to propose changes that support a larger wheel size in order to suit variable road conditions. It's also important to note that as a company we welcome other manufacturers to take heed of this study. Our mission at Swifty Scooters is to encourage more people to choose lightwe ight, active and electric transportation . We are ex periencing a transport revolution , where a variety of small, light and electric new vehicle types are emerging. Scooters are just one type among many that wi l l need space on our roads in the future . There is clear public demand for scooters and we believe the UK has a great opportunity to lead on this front when it comes to scooter legislation. The UK's legacy for transport innovat i on could extend into the future by setting a new gold standard in safety and legislation to support the adopt i on of light energy-efficient vehicles. SwaP.P.ing car miles for scooter miles -the evidence We are very proud of our customers for pu t ting in lots of scooter miles to date! Acco rding to a recent questionnaire, we estimate that our users have clocked up 6,900 ,000 miles since we started our company. That's 277 times around the world on a scooter! Our study revealed that 40 % of these scooter miles were replacing car journeys, others were used to make public transport more accessible by speeding up the 'last-mile'. Find out more about how swapping car miles for scooter miles saves C02 in our recent blog : READ MORE : UK Transpo rt C02: One way to cut your carbon footprint in 2019 ( ht t ps: I I swiftyscoote rs. co ml b I ogs/ j o u rna I/ cut-your-ca rbon-fo at print) f "# II ® If there is anything you can't find, please feel free to message us here. We use cookies to i mprove your experience on our website . By brow s1111:J u 11;:. vvt::u;:.m:, yuu a1:J1 t::t:: Lu uu1 < PREVIOUS POST (IBLOGS/JOURNAL/HtlW-~Att'~-ELECTRIC-SCOOTERS-REALITY NEXT GOT IT More info https ://swiftyscooters .com/blogs/journal/e-scooter-safety-an d-design 8/12 ' 6/28/2021 Are E-Scooters Suitable for UK Roads? The Pothole Test for Safe Scooter Design I Swifty Scooters ONE THOUGHT ON "ARE E-SCOOTE.UITASLE FOR UK ROADS?£!H ~o (/cart} POTHOLE TEST FOR SAFE SCOOTER'lr£SIGN" Andres says: anuary 8, 2020 at 09 :58am (/blogs/journal/e-scooter-safety-and-design#61094461483) Great w rite up . I agree , the small wheels on t h e rental scooters make them rather dangerous to ride . Although I am a huge fan of their service, the scooters t hemselves give me an x iety. One bad crack and I'll go flying. That's why I like the swifty scooter, because they have a much more stable and safer ride . I watched your podcast about the engineering behin d the design of the swifty scooter. Your observations are right i n which the rental scooters are f id gety because of their high center of gravity and vertical stem . LEAVE A REPLY Your emai l address wil l not be published. Required fields are marked * Comment * Name * If there is anything you can't find, please feel free to E . * message us here. mai1Je use cookies to improve your experience on our website . By b rows111y u 11::i vvt::u::illt:, yuu ay1 t::t:: Lu uu1 use of cookies. GOT IT More i nfo https ://swiftyscooters .com/blogs/journal/e-scooter-safety-and-design 9/12 6/28/2021 Are E-Scooters Suitable for UK Roads? The Pothole Test for Safe Scooter Design I Swifty Scooters POST COMMENT • {/) 0 "'g {/cart) SEARCH Search for posts CATEGORIES All Journals {/biogs/journa l/) News and Events {/biogs/journal/tagged /news-and-events) The Swifty Pod cast {/blogs/journal/tagged/The-Swifty-Podcast) Swifty Fitness {/blogs/journal/tagged/The-Swifty-Podcast) Adult Scooters {/blogs/journal/tagged/Swifty-Fitness) Commuting Scooters {/biogs/j ourna l/tagged/commuting-scooters ) Fitness Scooters {/biog s/journal/tagged/fit ness -scooters) Adventure Scooters {/biogs/journal/tagged/adventure-scooters) Kids Scooters {/biogs/j ourna l/tagged /kids-scooters) Electric Scooters {/b iogs/j ournal/tagge d/electric-scooters) Ambassadors {/biogs/journal/tagged/ambassadors) Collaborations {/biogs/journal/tagged/collaborations) Scooter Adventures{/ biogs/journal/tagged/scooter-adventures) Featured {/biogs/journal/tagged/featured) RECENT POSTS {I b logs/ j o u rna l/top-exe rci ses-resi stance-bands) TOP EXERCISES FOR RESISTANCE BANDS (IBLOGS/JOURNAL/TOP-EXERCISES-RESISTANCE-BANDS) Ju n 16 , 2021 (I b logs/ j ou rna I/ad u lt -scooter-accesso ri es) ADULT SCOOTERS -WHAT ACCESSORIES DO I NEED? (IBLOGS/JOURNAL/ADULT-SCOOTER-ACCESSORIES) SEARCH Ma y 25 , 2021 If there is anything you can't find , please feel free to • (/biogs/journal/massage-ba ll) • J HOW '[0 USE A MASSAGE BALL -TOP EXERCISES AND TIPS l/BLOGS/JOURNA~ message us here. e use cookies to improve your experience on our weos1te . l:)y orows1111:J u 11::i vvcu::i1lt::, yuu al:!' cc lu uu1 Ma y 12 ' 2021 use of cookies. I':::\ (iblogs/jou rnal/swifty-podcast··2'l;&Hf m ble-~Af le info ~~· https ://swiftyscooters .com/b lo gs/jo urnal/e-scooter-safety-and-design 10/12 ~ . • 6/28/2021 Are E-Scooters Suitable for UK Roads? The Pothole Test for Safe Scooter Design I Swifty Scooters THE SWIFTY PODCAST #20 -BJJ, BRAND BUILDING AND MASTERINWUR CRAFT WITH MATT BENYON OF SCRAMBLE (IBLOGS/JOURNAL/SWIFTY-PODCAST-20-SCRAMBLE-BJJ) ~ (/) ll g 0 (/cart) May 07 , 2021 (I blogs/jou rnal/ swih:y-f itness-scramble) SWIFTY FITNESS X SCRAMBLE SPECIAL EDITION BALANCE BOARD AND DOUBLE-UPS (/BLOGS/JOURNAL/SWIFTY-FITNESS- SCRAMBLE) Ap r 29, 2021 INSTAGRAM @ View all (I /i nstagram.com/swiftyscooters} Excellent UK & International SHOP Get inspired (/pages/get-inspired) Special Editions (/collections/special-editions) Service & Customise (/collections/service- customise) Fleet for Business (/pages/swifty-fleets) SUPPORT Assembly Guides (/pages/assembly-guides) FAQs (/pages/faqs) Payment (/pages/payment) Shipping & Delivery (/pages/shipp ing-delivery) f W®@a INFORMATION Stockists (/pages/Stockists) Warranty (/pages/warranty) Cook ies & Privacy (/pages/cookies-privacy) Terms & Conditions (/pages/terms-conditions) Pay Later with Klarna. (/pages/klarna-faqs) ABOUT SWIFTY Our Story(/pages/our-story) Archive (/collections/archive) Ambassadors( If there is anything you Affil iate Progr• can't find , please feel free to Returns R-Refunds l/.oa.ae.s/returns-ref.unrls) r.ontact lJs l!oi. message us here . vve use cooK1es TD 1mµrove your exµeriehce on our wer>s1te. Hyl5rtiw::;111y u 11;:, vv1:::u;:,1 Lt, yuu ay11:::1::: Lu uu1 use of cookies . ~ SIGN UP TO RECEIVE NEWS AND EXCLU:;~,~ PRO:::li~:S! ~~ https ://swiftyscooters.com/blogs/journal/e-scooter-safety-and-design 11/12 6/28/2021 SIGN UP Are E-Scooters Su itable for UK Roads? The Pothole Test for Safe Scooter Design I Swifty Scooters • (/) Jl . g 0 (/cart) © 2021 Swifty Scooters Ltd . All Rights Reserved . If there is anything you can't find, please feel free to message us here . We use cookies to i mprove your experience on our website . By brows1111.J u 11;:, vv~u;:,1Lt:, yuu al.Ji~~ lu uu1 use of cookies. e GOT IT More info nvac y · Term s https ://swiftyscooters .com/blogs /journal/e-scooter-safety-and -design 12/12 4 Speed City: San Marcos, TX Name: MOTOR-ASSISTED SCOOTERS OWNED OR OPERATED BY SCOOTER COMPANIES. (https://library.municode.com/tx/san marcos/ordinances/code of ordinances?nodeld=1092396 ) "A motor-assisted scooter authorized under terms of a written license agreement with a scooter company approved by the city council." City: San Antonio, TX Name: MOTOR-ASSISTED SCOOTERS, ELECTRIC BICYCLES, AND BICYCLES EQUIPPED WITH GPS https://library.municode.c"m/txfsan antonio/codes/code of ordinances?nodeld=PTllCO CH19MOV ETR ARTXIXMOSISCELBIBIEQGP S19-6610PPAREEQMOSISCELBIBIEQGP ~1n Definition ~ " Electr ic bicycle means a bicycle that:a.ls designed to be propelled by an electric motor, exclusively or in combinat ion with the application of human power;b.Cannot attain a speed of more than twenty (20) miles per hour without the application of human power; andc .Does not exceed a weight of one hundred (100) pounds ." City: Bryan, TX Name: SHARED ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM https://library.municode.com/tx/bryan/codes/code of ordinances?nodeld=PTllCOOR CH106STSIOT PUPL ARTVPURl-W DIV3SHACTRSY ~in Definition~ "Motorized scooter means a vehicle that is steered by a steering handle , designed to be stood upon by the licensee while the vehicle is in operation, and powered by a motor capable of propelling the vehicle at a speed no greater than 20 miles per hour on a level surface ; and whose wheels have diameters of ten inches or less . Also as defined by State of Texas as an "electric personal assistive mobility device " i n Chapter 551 of the Texas Transportation Code "Operation of Bicycles, Mopeds, and Play Vehicles"." City: Waco, TX Name: In Folder " Electric Bicycle, or E-Bike, shall mean a Bicycle designed to be propelled by an electric motor, exclusively or in combination with the application of human power, that cannot attain a speed of more than 20 miles per hour without the application of human power and does not exceed a weight of 100 pounds ." City: Georgetown , TX Name: REGULATION OF OPERATION AND USE OF MOTOR ASSISTED SCOOTERS, MOPEDS AND SIMILAR MOTORIZED VEHICLES. Title 10 -VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC I Code of Ordinances I Georgetown, TX I Municode Library "Electric bicycle" means a bicycle that : A. Is designed to be propelled by an electric motor, exclusively or in combination with the application of human power. B. Cannot attain a speed of more than 20 miles per hour; and C. Does not exceed a weight of 100 pounds." City: El Paso, TX Name: SHARED MOBILITY DEVICES 15 .08 .150 -Shared mobility devices . I Code of Ordinances I El Paso, TX I Municode Library Permit authorized by City Manager City: Austin, TX Name : MICRO -MOBILITY DEVICES AND BICYCLES . CHAPTER 12-2 . -MICRO-MOBILITY DEVICES AND BICYCLES . I Code of Ordinances I Austin, TX I Municode Libr ary Speed regulated Administratively City: Plano, TX Name: Bike-share permits ARTICLE VII. -BICYCLES I Code of Ordinances I Plano , TX I Municode Library Permit issued by director of engineering City: Abilene, TX Name: SCOOTER AND BICYCLE SHARING Chapter 23 SCOOTER AND BICYCLE SHARING I Code of Ordinances I Abilene, TX I Municode Library Speed not mentioned City: Laredo TX Name: DOCKLESS VEHICLES ARTICLE VI. -DOCKLESS VEHICLES I Code of Ordinances I Laredo, TX I Municode Library " Electric bicycle means a bicycle that: (1) Is designed to be propelled by an electric motor, exclusively or in combination with the application of human power; (2) Cannot attain a speed of more than twenty (20) miles per hour without the application of human power; and (3) Does not exceed a weight of one hundred (100) pounds." City: Davis, California Name: BICYCLE-SHARING BUSINESSES AND REGULATIONS (https://gcode.us/codes/davis/view.php?topic=6-6 05-6 05 170&frames=on ) "Bicycle -share bicycles that are electric bicycles as defined in California Vehicle Code Section 312.5 shall be equipped with software or other mechanisms to prevent the motor from providing assistance when the bicycle's speed exceeds fifteen miles per hour." City: Fayetteville, Arkansas Name: ELECTRIC MOTORIZED SCOOTERS AND SCOOTER-SHARE PROGRAMS (https://librarv.municode.com/ar/fayetteville/codes/code of ordinances?nodeld=CD ORD TITVllTRCO CH75ELMOSCSCARPR ARTllREAPSCARPRSCAROP 75.llOPSCARPR ) "(K)For all shared scooters used the max imum motor-assist speed for licensed units shall be fifteen (15) mph , when ridden in the street environment." City: Boulder Colorado Name: SHARED ELECTRIC SCOOTERS https://librarv.municode.com/co/boulder/codes/municipal code?nodeld=TIT4LIPE CH34SHELSC Bicycle : "The shared bicycle shall be equipped w ith software to prevent the motor from prov iding assistance when the bicycle's speed exceeds twenty miles per hour and that can respond to reduced speed requirements in areas defined pursuant to rules issued by the city manager under this chapter." Scooter: "(e)The shared electric scooter shall be equipped with software that can respond to reduced speed requirements in areas defined pursuant to rules issued by the city manager under th is chapter." City: Columbia, MO Name: N/A ARTICLE VII. -CYCLES I Code of Ordinances I Columbia, MO I Municode Library Regulated through a license agreement outside of ordinance. City: Norman, OK Name: n/a City: Denton, TX Name: n/a City: Frisco, TX Name: n/a City: Tallahassee, FL Name: SHARED MICRO-MOBILITY DEVICE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM DI VISION 6. -SHARED M IC RO-MOBILITY DEVICE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM I Code of Ordinances I Tallahassee, FL I Municode Library "Devices sha ll be r estricted to a maximum speed of 15 miles per hou r on level surfa ce with in the ci t y ." "Shared micro -mobility device ("device") means any motorized transportation device made available for private use by reservation through an online appl ication, website, software, or other lawful means for point-to-point trips and which is not capable of traveling at a speed greater than 20 miles per hour on level ground . This term includes motorized scooters, bicycles and motorized bicycles as defined i n F.S. ch . 316 . This definition does not include an owner of a motorized scooter, bicycle or motorized bicycle which is solely used for private transportation by its owner or pedicabs ." .... ' I \; "Motorized bicycle means a bicycle propelled by a combination of human power and an electric helper motor capable of propelling the vehicle at a speed of not more than 20 miles per hour on level ground, having two tandem wheels, and including any device generally recognized as a bicycle though equipped with two front or two rear wheels, or as otherwise defined by Florida law." City: Baton Rouge, LA Name: SHARED MOBILITY DEVICES CHAPTER 24. -SHARED MOBILITY DEVICES I Code of Ordinances I Baton Rouge, East Baton Rouge Parish, LA I Municode Library Speed not mentioned City: Forth Worth , TX Name: , Cobb County Geo rgia https://library.municode .com/ga/cobb county/codes/code of ordinances?nodeld=PTIOFCOCOCOGE C H118TRVE ARTVllBISHIN DIV2AP S118-352AP&showChanges=true Lock-to bike share parking means parking which requires that shareable bikes be locked to a fixed object for permanent parking. Cobb County requires the lock-to-bike parking for all shareable bikes. Sec. 118-357. -Parking. (a) For station-based operators, stations should be located primarily within the public right-of- way and the trails. Stations may also be located on other public property, including parks, parking lots/garages, events venues, etc., or be located on private property, provided that the property owne r contractually agrees to allow 2417 public access to the bike share station. The operators m ust work with the county to identify the desired area(s) and station(s) spacing for each implementation phase, including ongoing system refinement. (b) For permanent parking, lock-to bike share parking is requir ed . Bikes must be parked in the parking stations operated by the same operator, with use of that operator's parking racks, corrals, poles, or other designated parking areas for bikes. Chicago , II https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes /chicago/latest/chicago il/0-0-0-2695378 "Lock -to sc ooter" means a scooter which has a mechanism that enables the scooter to be locked to a fixed physical object when a scooter user ends a scooter trip. Under "Scooter Sharing license -in vestigation & issuance (6) The applicant 's ability to reduce danger and i nconvenience to non-riders caused by scooters and rider behavior, including, but not limited to, the applicant's ability to deploy lock-to scooters and to imp lement a sidewalk riding detection technology on their entire fleet; San Fran cisco 1. Language about abandoned bikes San Marcos Sec. 82.298. -Offenses. SHARE LINK TO SECTIONPRINT SECTIONDOWNLOAD CDOCXl OF SECTIONSEMAIL SECTIO N CO M PARE VERSIONS (a) lacement on public property prohibited. It is an offense for any scooter company, or an mployee, contractor, agent or other representative acting on behalf of a scooter company o abandon, place, or leave behind any motor-assisted scooter on any public property, publi park (including natural areas and open spaces), public sidewalk, public way, public street, o public high w ay within the city, o r on an y city-owned property located outside the corporat imits of th e city. A v iolation of this subsection is a misdemeanor offense unishable b a fin u to $2,000.00 (b) Use prohibited. It is an ofhnse for any person to operate a moto r-assisted scooter that is owned, controlled, or managed by , or on behalf of, a scooter company on any public property, public park (i nclud i ng natural areas and open spaces), public sidewalk, public way, public street, or public highway within the city, or on any city-owned prope rty located outs ide the corporate limits of the city. A violation of t his subsect ion is a m isdemeano r offense punishable by a fine up to $50.00 . (c) Each violation under th is section constitutes a separate offense . 1. Dockless Bi keshare Program to Shared Micromobility 2. Language to allow electric modes a. Added laws and definit ions related to elect ric b icycles and electric scoote rs b . Defi ned all as Micromob i lity devi ces in clud i ng bicycle s 3. Lock -to sys t em -r-crr ~~<z:.h. b°1 I~~ 4 . Speed ../ 5 . Geofen ce zone s - 6 . Rebalan ce 7 . Platform for multiple operators? - 8 . Parking ? Require th at they add additiona l park i ng if needed? ...--International Transport Forum CPB Corporate Partnership Board Safe Micromobility Corporate Partnership Board Report Safe l\llicromobility l ' Corporate Partnership Board Report ',) The International Transport Forum The In terna tiona l Transport Forum is an intergovernmental organ isation w ith 60 member countries. It acts as a think tan k for transport policy and organises the Annual Summ it of transport ministers. ITF is the only global body that covers all transport modes. The ITF is politically autonomous and administratively integ ra ted with the OECD . The ITF works for transpo rt policies that improve peoples ' lives . Our m1ss1on is to foster a deeper understanding of the role of transport in econom ic growth , environmental sustainability and social i nclusion and to ra ise the public profile of transport policy . The ITF organises global dialogue for better transport. We act as a platform for discussion and pre - negotiation of policy is sues across all transport modes . We ana lyse trends, share knowledge and promote exchange among transport decision -makers and civ il society. The ITF's Annual Summit is the world's largest gathering of transport ministers and the leading global platform for dialogue on transport policy. The Members of the Forum are : Albania, Armenia, Argentina, Australia , Austria, Azerbaijan , Belaru s, Belg ium, Bosnia and Herzegov ina, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile , China (People's Republic of), Croat ia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Eston ia, Finlan d, France , Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Icela nd , Ind ia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Korea, Latvia, Liechtenste i n, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta , Mexico, Repub lic of Moldova, Montenegro, Morocco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, North Macedonia, Norway, Po land , Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia, Slova k Republic , Slovenia, Spain, Sweden , Switzerland, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Arab Em irates , the United Kingdom and the United States. About the Corporate Partnership Board The Corporate Partnership Board (CPB) is the International Tran sport Forum 's platform for engaging with the private sector and enriching global transport policy discussion with a busine ss perspective. The members of the ITF Corporate Partnership Board are : AB InBev, Airbu s, Alstom, Aramco, Bird, Bosch , Cruise, ExxonMobil , Grin , Iberdrola, lncheon International Airport , Kakao Mobi li ty, Kapsch TrafficCom, Kyyti Group, Latvian Railway s, Michelin, NXP, Penta Secur ity, PTV Gro up, RATP Group, The Renault- Nissan-Mitsubishi Alliance, Siemens, SNCF , Spea Engineering, Total, Toyota , Uber, Valeo, Volvo Cars , Volvo Group and Waymo. Disclaimer Funding for this work has been provided by the ITF Corporate Partnership Board. Thi s report is published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the ITF . It has not been sub ject to the scrutiny of ITF or OECD me mber countries and does not necessarily reflect their official views or those of the membe rs of the Corporate Partnership Board . ACK NOWL EDGEMENTS Acknowledgements The principal author of this report is Alexandre Santacreu of the Internationa l Transport Forum (ITF}. Substantial contributions came from George Yannis (National Technical University of Athens}, Ombline de Saint Leon (ITF) and Phil ippe Cr ist (ITF). The author is thankful for information and thoughts shared by Ann ie Chang (SAE International}, Marko Dozza (Chalmers Univers ity}, Tina Gehlert (German Insurance As sociation }, Catherine Perez (Public Health Agency of Barce lona), Adria Gomi la (City of Barcelona), Sophie Hamada (lnserm}, Jean-Louis Martin (lfsttar}, Pernille Eh lers (Danish Road Safety Council}, Candida Castro (University of Granada}, Urs Wa lter (Swiss Federal Roads Offi ce}, Vaughn Allan (In st itute for Sensible Transport}, Adr iana Jakovce vic (Buenos Aires City Government}, Alexis Merkling and Antonin Noni s (French Insu ranc e Federation), Valentin Lowen stein (Dekra) and AXA. The report also draws on contributions and discussions dur i ng an expert's workshop, organised 18 October 2019 in Lisbon. The ITF wishes to thank Deputy Mayor Miguel Gaspar, Pedro Homem de Gouveia, Vasco Mora, Cristina Rocha and Pedro Machado for hosting this event. Workshop participants are lis ted in Ann ex E. At the International Transport Forum, credits go to Stephen Per kins and Sharon Masterson for contributions to the workshop and reviewing of the document. Sokob Challener supported the proj ect and Hilary Gabor iau edited the draft. Special thanks go to the members of the ITF Safer City Streets networ k for the i r contributions and for he lpi ng to deve lop a better understan ding of urban road safe ty cha ll enges . The work for this report wa s carr ie d out in the context of a proj ect initiated and funded by the ITF 's Corporate Partnership Board (CPB). CPB proj ects are designed to enrich policy di scussi on w ith a busines s perspective. The y are launched in areas where CPB member compan i es identify an emerging is sue i n transport po l icy or an innovation challenge to th e transpo rt system . Led by the ITF, work is carr ied out in a collaborative fashion in worki ng groups consisting of CPB member companies, external experts and ITF staff. The authors wi sh to thank the members of the Corporate Partnership Board in volved in thi s project: Bi rd , Bosch , Grin, lnch eon A i rport, Kapsch Tr afficCom AG, Michelin, PTV Group, Toyota and Uber. The project wa s managed by Alexandre Santa cre u and Philippe Crist . Sharo n Ma sterson manages the Corporate Partne rship Board and its activ ities. SAFE MICROMOB ILITY © OECD/ITF 2020 3 '' TABLE OF CONTEN TS Table of contents Glossary ............................................................................................................................................... 7 Executive summary ........................................................................................................................... 10 What is micromobility? ...................................................................................................................... 13 Micromobility definition and class ifi cat ion ................................................................................... 14 International ve hicle class ification systems .................................................................................. 15 Oth er efforts to class ify micromob i li ty .......................................................................................... 17 How safe are micromobility trips? ..................................................................................................... 20 Le ssons from fatality data ............................................................................................................. 20 Lessons from i njury data ............................................................................................................... 24 Safety thro ugh mode shift ............................................................................................................. 29 Data collec tion : Why do it and how to improve it.. ....................................................................... 33 Safe vehicles and operations ............................................................................................................. 36 Ve hicle desi gn ............................................................................................................................... 37 Typ e approval and tech ni cal inspections .............................. :: ...................................................... 41 Shared fleet op erations: Be st pract ice in maintenance, recharging and redis t rib uti on ................ 46 Safe road users .................................................................................................................................. 48 Experience, training and education: W ill micromob i lity become safer over time? ....................... 48 Th e regulato ry quest ions .............................................................................................................. 54 Ped estrian protection .................................................................................................................... 59 Safe infrastructure ............................................................................................................................. 62 Rethinking cycling fac ili ties ............................................................................................................ 64 Can cy cling facili ties accommodate al l types of micro-ve hicles? .................................................. 66 Collect data to id entify dangerous locations ................................................................................. 68 Finding the right regulatory balance .................................................................................................. 70 Veh icle types: En sur ing regulat ions are proportionate to public health and safety impacts ........ 71 Pot ential for se lf-regu lation .......................................................................................................... 73 Notes ................................................................................................................................................. 75 References ........................................................................................................................................ 76 Annex A. Standing e-scooter fatality details ....................................................................................... 89 Annex B. Vehicle involvement in fatal crashes ................................................................................... 91 Annex C. Micromobility safety research priorities: Survey results ...................................................... 92 Annex D. Summary of vehicle requirements in European regulation No. 168/2013 .......................... 94 Annex E. List of Workshop participants ............................................................................................. 95 4 SAFE MICR OMOB ILITY © OECD/ITF 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS Figures Figure 1. Proposed micromobility definition and classification .......................................................... 15 Figure 2. Types of powered micromobility vehicles as defined by SAE.. ............................................. 18 Figure 3 . NUMO's framework for mapping vehicle characteristics with policy requirements ............ 19 Figure 4 . Fatalities in collisions involvi ng a given user group .............................................................. 20 Figure 5 . Vehicle occupant fatalities by third party i nvolvement ....................................................... 21 Figure 6. Population density and land areas of cities from the ITF Safer City Streets database .......... 23 Figure 7. Number of crashes reported by riders of two standing e-scooter companies ..................... 28 Figure 8. Number of fatalities in coll isions involving a given user group in selected cities, 2011-15 ... 29 Figure 9. Poster to assist medical staff with the coding of micromobility inj uries .............................. 33 Figure 10. Taxonomy adopted by police and public health departments in San Francisco ................. 34 Figure 11. German vehicle dynamics testing elements ...................................................................... 42 Figure 12. Cargo bi ke used in maintenance and battery swap operations ......................................... 46 Figure 13. Contractors or "juicers" use private vehicles to collect and recharge e-scooters .............. 47 Figure 14. In-a pp taxi passenger alerts for the safe opening of car doors near bikes ......................... 51 Figure 15. Screen captures from online traffic school RidelikeVoila .................................................. 53 Figure 16. In Europe, Germany has the most cities with shared standing e-scooters ......................... 54 Figure 17. E-scooter identification plate in Europe ............................................................................ 60 Figure 18. Design standard for identification stickers in Singapore .................................................... 61 Figure 19. Bicycle Network Analysis of New York City by PeopleForBikes .......................................... 64 Figure 20. Road surface damage and illegal parking at a bus stop ..................................................... 65 Figure 21. Desired i nfrastructure improvements, responses from a Bird Rider Survey ...................... 66 Figure 22. Micromobility safety resea rch priorities: Survey results .................................................... 93 T abl es Table 1. Standing e-scooter injury studies comparison ...................................................................... 24 Table 2. Rider injury rates per billion trips ......................................................................................... 27 Table 3. Mode shift reported by shared standing e-scooter users ..................................................... 31 Table 4 . Approval requirements for powered cycles and two-wheel mopeds i n Europe .................... 44 SAFE MICROMOBILITY © OECD/ITF 20 20 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table 5. Requirements for bicycles and slow e-bikes in the United States ......................................... 45 Table 6. Details of e-scooter related deaths, May 2018 to end October 2019 ................................... 89 Table 7. Vehicle involvement in fatal crashes .................................................................................... 91 Table 8. Number of survey responses by type of organisation ... _ ...................................................... 92 l"able 9. Summary of vehicle requirements in European regulat k>n No. 168/2013 ............................ 94 Boxes Box 1. The ITF Safer City Streets network .......................................................................................... 23 Box 2. German product testing .......................................................................................................... 42 Box 3. Teaching cycling skills in schools ............................................................................................. 50 Box 4. Where speed pedelecs are classified as bicycles ..................................................................... 52 Box 5. Online e-scooter traffic school by VOi ..................................................................................... 53 Box 6. Current situat ion of electric scooters in Germany ................................................................... 55 Box 7. New terms to describe a micromobility infrastructure? .......................................................... 63 6 SAFE MICROMOBILITY © OECD/ITF 2020 GLOSSARY Glossary This report proposes a g lossary of terms to reflect some global ly understood language and d efinitions regarding vehicle types . It does not seek to present legal terms and regu lations from specific countries . Micromobility Personal transportation using devices and vehicles weigh ing up to 350 kg and whose power supply, if any, is gradually reduced and cut off at a given speed li m it wh ich is no higher tha n 45 km/h . Micromobility includes the use of exclusively human-powe red vehicles, such as bi cycles, skates, skateboards and kick-scooters. Micro-vehicle De vice or vehicle used for micromobi l ity (see micromobility). Powered (adj.) (Synonym : motorised ) Qualifies a ve hicle which can be propelled without human energy input. Throttle- controlled or self-balancing micro-vehicles can be described as powered. Bicycles and pedal-assisted bicycles do not qualify as powered . Motor vehicle In the context of th is report, a motor vehicle is a moped, motorcycle, car, van, truc k, bus or coach . Motor soooter Vehicle shape or "form factor" found across different veh icle classes that consists of a low platform between the back and front wheels . Motor scooters can be legal ly classified as mopeds or motorcycles depending on their power and speed. Powered two-wheeler A class of motor vehicle which include s mopeds and motorcycles. It includes both petrol -powered and electric models . Motorcycle Powered street vehicle, with two to three wheels and a seat, designed to reach speeds grea t er than 45 km/h. Moped Powered street vehicle, with two to three wheels and a seat, sometimes equipped with pedals . When powered by interna l combustion engine , its capacity is typically limited to SO cc. Max im um vehicle speed depends on national regulations but is typically limited to 45 km/h. Number plates are imposed in some countries and on some classes of mopeds . SAFE MICROMOB ILITY © OECD /ITF 2020 7 GLOSSARY Bicyde (Synonym: bike , cyde ) A road vehicle t hat has two or more wheels and is general ly propel led by the muscu lar energy of the persons on that vehicle , in part icu lar by means of a pedal system, lever or han dle (e .g. bicycles, tricycles, quad r icycles and invalid carriages). Included are cycles w ith a supportive power unit (e .g. e-bikes, pedelecs). E-bike (Synonym : electric bicycle ) A type of bicycle w ith a supportive power unit, providing peda l ass istance o r fully th rottle-controlled propell in g force. Pedal assisted bicycle A type of e-bike which only provides assistance when the user is pedalling . It includes models of var ious power output levels, such as pede lecs and speed- pedelecs. Pedelec (Synonym: slow e-bike ) A type of pedal-assisted bicycle where the electric power cuts off when the vehicl e rea che s approximatively 25 km/h (exact limit depends on lo ca l regul ation s). Speed-pedelec (Synonym: fast e-bike ) A type of pedal-assisted bicycle where the electric power cuts off when the vehicle reaches approximately 45 km/h (exact limit depends on local regula t ions). Mobility scooter Electr ica lly powered vehicle spec ific ally designed for people with restricted mobili ty, t ypical ly those w ho are elderly or di sa bled . The t erm sco oter is used in refe rence to the flat vehicle frame and the foot platform . Standing scooter (Synonym : kick scooter, push scooter ) Human-powered street ve hicle with a hand lebar, deck, and wheels propelled by a r ider push i ng off the ground . M ode ls exist with two, three or four whee ls. Standing scoote r s can be dist i nguished from skateboa rds by the presence of a centra l control col umn and a set of handlebars . E-scooter (Syno nym : Standing Electric Scooter ) A stand-up or seated scoo ter that can be pro pel led by the electric motor itself, irrespecti ve of the user kicking . Skateboard Board with four wheels on two axles , prope l led by the user kicking against the ground. 8 8 SAFE MIC ROM OBILITY © OECD/ITF 2020 Electric skateboard (e-skateboard) Skateboard w ith ele ctric battery, motor, and wireless remote controller. Self-balancing (adj.) Qualifies a number of electrically powered micro-vehicles whose upright position is maintained by the stabilising effect of an electric motor. Such micro-vehicles can have one or more wheels posi t ioned on a single axle. Motion is controlled by the direction in which the rider leans, but can be controlled by hand in the case of electric wheelchairs . Only a minority of self-balancing vehicles come equipped with a cen t ral column and a handlebar. Hoverboard (Synonym : self-balancing board ) Self-balanc ing micro-vehicle consisting of two motorised wheels connected to a pair of articu lat ed pads on which the rider places t heir feet. The rider contro ls t he speed by lean i ng fo rwards or backwards, and d irection of travel by twisting the pads. Onewheel Self-balancing e lectric personal transporter, on which the user stands and places feet perpendicular to the direction of travel, on front and back platforms. Electric unicycle (abbre viated: EUC) Self-balancing electric pe rsonal transporter with a single wheel. The rider controls the speed by lean ing forwards or backwards , and stee rs by twisting the un it using their feet. Some dual -wheel mode ls exi st, but the principle remains that of a single axle device, used w it h feet in the direction of tra vel and placed either side of the wheel(s ). Electric skates (e-skates) Skates with electric battery and motor, control led by t he user lean i ng forward or backward or using a remote controller. Skates Pair of boots with a set of whee ls fi xed t o th e bottom . SAF E M ICROMOBILITY © OECD/ITF 202 0 GLO SS ARY 8 -=:::::; @ 9 ~1 EXECUTIV E SUMMA RY -' Executive summary What we did This report examines the traffic safety of pedal cycles , electrica ll y ass isted cycles and electrically powered personal mob ility devices such as e-scooters, whether owned or shared, in an urban conte xt. In a fast- evo lving urban tra nsport env i ronment, micromobility is cha nging how people move on a dai ly basis. Thi s br in gs new and urgent cha ll enges for national policymakers and city officials . The report proposes a framework to define m icromobility which inc lud es all the above vehic les and sugge st s certain limits on mass and speed to classify them. It also compares the safety of powered standing scooters (e-scooters) to that of bicycles, mopeds and motorcycles . The report defines m icromobil ity as the use of vehicles with a mass of less than 350 kg and a design speed of 45 km /h or less . This definit ion limits the kinetic energy of such micro-vehicle s to 27 kJ, one hundred times les s than the kinetic energy reached by a compact car at top speed. The report classifies micro-vehicles into four types based on their speed and mass : Type A micro-veh icl es have a mass of up to 35 kg and their power supply (if any) is electronica ll y li m ited so the vehicle speed does not exceed 25 km/h (15 .5 mph). Many bicycles, e-bikes, e-scooters and self-ba lancing vehicles fall into thi s category. Other types of micro-vehicles have a higher mass (Type B) or speed (Type C) or both higher mass and higher speed (Type D). The ana lys is draws on the results of a workshop attende ~: by 40 partic i pants from 15 countries i n October 2019. What we found A trip by car or by motorcycle in a dense urban area is much more lik ely to resu lt in the death of a road user -thi s includes pedestrians -than a trip by a Type A micro-vehicle . A modal shift from motor vehicle s towards Type A micro-veh icles can thus make a city safer . A shift from walking to Ty pe A m icro- vehicles wou ld have the opposite effect. The very limited available data reveals similarities and differences between e-scooters and bicycle s in terms of risks . A road fatality is not significantly more li kely whe n us i ng a shared stand i ng e-scooter rather t han a bicycle . The r isk of an emergency department v isit for an e-scooter r ider is similar to that for cycli sts. Two stud ies , however, found 'tn Fisk er hospi a isati on G e 1g er w1 Fi e-scoo ers , wl'.iich calls for furthe r i nvestigation . Strategi cally, Type A micromob ili ty could improve traffic safety by reducing the n u mber of car and motorcycle trips in a city. It can increase the catchment area of pub li c transport by allow i ng wider acces s to stations . It can also offer a conven ient door-to-door transport solution. Not least, it can support existing susta in able mobility polic ies by increasing demand for a safe and connected network of cycle path s, facilitating construction -a process that ma y otherwise be slow and po l itica ll y controversial. 10 SA FE M ICR OM OBILl1Y © OECD/ITF 2020 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY E-scooter safety, in particu lar, will likely improve once users learn to navigate urban traffic and car drivers become accustomed to novel forms of mobility. Safety will also improve as governments put in place safe cycling infrastructure and targeted safety regulatio ns for micro-vehicles and shared mobility operations. Cons iderab le regul atory cha lle nges exist due to the rapid pace of innovation in micro-vehicle design. What we recommend Allocate protecte d space for micromobility and keep pedestrians safe Where pedestrians do not feel safe on sidewalks , the number of people walking will decline . Th e use of micro-vehicles on sidewa lk s should be banned or subject to a low, enforced speed limit. Au thorit ies should create a protect ed and connected network for micro mobili ty, either by calming traffic or by redistrib uting space to ph ysically prot ected lanes for micro-vehicles. This network should be more attractive tha n sidewa lk s; design guidelines for wide and protected cycling infra structure should be developed. For its rapid, low-cost development, light separation on busy streets and traffic f iltering on residential street s are proven techniques . Speed limits for all motor veh icles should be no higher than 30 km/h where motorised vehicles and vulnerable road users share the same space . To make micromobility safe, focus on motor vehicles Motor ve hi cles are i nvo lv ed in about 80% of crashes that resul t in the deat h of bicycle o r e-scooter r id ers. The no velty of e-scooters should not distract from focus ing on known so l ution s to red uce the risk imposed on all vulnera ble road use r s by motor vehicles . Authorities at all leve ls shou ld intensify their efforts to address risky driver behaviour including speeding, distracted driving and driving under the influence of alcohol. They should impose safe speed limits . They should require safe motor vehicle des igns th at inc lude both act ive and . passive safety solut ions . Relevant active safety features include inte lligent speed as si stance (ava il able on all new cars in Europe from 2022) and autonomous emergency braking (AEB). AEB shou ld be ab le to reliably identify all types of micro-vehicles. Regulate low-speed e-scooters and e-bikes as bicycles, higher-speed micro -vehicles as mopeds If regulated wel l, micro mob i li ty can support broader policy goals including sustainability, efficiency, inclusiveness and public health. To encourage it, re latively ligh t bicycle regu lati ons shou l d apply to al l forms of low-speed, low-mass (Type A) micro -vehic les . Moreover, a simple set of ru les for all is more lik ely to be understood and adhe r ed to, faci li tating enforcement, signage and parking restr iction s. Powered micro-veh icles with a ma xi mum speed of 45 km /h should be regulated as mopeds. Derogations for high-speed pedal-assisted e-b ikes should be based mainly on their potentia l to contribute to public health goals by increasing phys ical act ivity . Throttle-assist bicycles should not be elig ible . Where faster micro-v eh ic le s (types C and D) are allowed on cycl ing facilit ies, reg ulation s should ensure that riders adopt lower speeds in order not to undermine the perception of safety amo ng people of all ages and abilities cyc li ng at a slowe r pa ce . Collect data on micro-vehicle trips and crashes Relat ively li tt le is known about the safety performan ce of d iffere nt m icro -vehic le types and models , about the role of var ious crash fac t ors , and about wh ich counter-measures would be most effective. s a cl:i on era 6i it¥ sa e.by' :equi r:e_s a_ccu e sh data to be co llected by the pol ice and health serv ices, and trip data to be collected by governments through operators , travel surveys and on-street observation. Col lecting this data should be a priority for road safe ty agencies . SA FE MICRO M OBILITY © OECD/ITF 2020 11 EXECUTIVE SUMMA RY Proactively manage the safety performance of street networks Authorit ies should pr ioritise proactive crash prevention on the street network. Many shared micro- vehicles are eq uip ped with motion sensors and live pos itioning v ia GPS . These systems can yield useful data on potho les , falls and close-calls to map the places where crashes are most likely to happen . Authorities and operators should work together to exploit these sources of information. Governments should also monitor damage to the road network, improving preventive maintenance to quickly repair potholes and other damage that create risks for users of micro-veh icles. Include micromobility in training for road users Authorities should ensure that car, bus and truck drivers are trained to avoid crashes w ith micro-vehicle riders. Relevant training should be mandatory for obtaining a drivi ng license. Cycle training should be part of the sc ho ol curriculum so that chi ldren acquire the skills to safely navigate a micro-vehic le in traffic. All adults should have access to affordab le micromobility safety train i ng . All training programmes should be regu larly evaluated for the ir effectiveness and revi sed according ly . Tackle drunk driving and speeding across all vehicle types Governments should define and enforce limits on speed and alcohol and drug use among all traffic participants . This includes motor vehic le drivers and micromobi lity users. Shared micromobility operators should review their pricing mec hani sms to ensure these do not encourage risk taking. By -the -minute rental can be an incentive to speed or to ignore traffic rule s. Compan ies should therefore reduce minute-based charging and compensate with alternatives . The se could i nclude a fixed -amount tri p charge , a distance -based charge or a membership fee. Improve micro-vehicle design Manufacturers of micro -vehicle s should seek to enhance stab ility and road gri p. Solut ions could be found in pneumatic tyres, larger wheel size and frame geometry, but also in areas yet to be explored. Regulators sho ul d consider imposing indicator lights on powered micro-vehicles control led by switches on the handlebar. On shared m icro-vehicles, brake cables should be protected from acc idental damage and vandalism . Reduce wider risks associated with shared micromobility operations Many shared micromob i lity services rely on vans for repositioning or recha rging e-scooters or bicycles. Operators should m i ni mise the vehicle-kilometres driven by these support vans in order to reduce the additional risk imposed on all road users. Using removable or higher capacity batteries and plug-in docks offer so lutions to reduce the need for col lect in g vehic les for recharging . Cities should all ocate space for on-street micro-v eh icle parking in the proximity of delivery bays so that support vehicles can park safely . 12 SA FE M ICROM OB ILI TY © OECD/ITF 2020 W HAT IS M ICROMOBI Ll1Y? Wha t is micromobility? Micromobi li ty is an amb iguous term associated with a rapidly evolving range of li ght vehicles that are increasing ly populating st reets across the globe. "Micro-vehic les" seem to be released daily, fo r private or shared use , to more easily navigate congested city streets. The breadt h of t heir popu lar ity was perhaps u nforeseen but is well illustrated by the expansion of shared e-bike and e-scooter co m pani ~s. The term mi cromob i lity also includes priv ately-owned veh icles in ve nted over a century ago: convent iona l bicycles, kick scooters and even powered standing scooters (Gibson, 19 15) and powered skates (Scienti fi c Am erican, 1906). The term micromobility was popularised by Horace Dediu, an American indust ry analyst and i nvestor. It emerged around 2016 w ith connected bicy cle , scooter and mo ped sharing se rv ices. According to Dediu (2019), t he term "micro" can refer to the vehicles used, which are typically less th an 500 kg, but also to the sho rt -d istance trips t hat can be fun, cheap and conven ient. Th is report exa mi nes other attempts to define and class ify micromob ility, and proposes a framework that m ight faci l itate the elabo r ation of safety reg ul ations . M icromob ili t y appears to be here to stay . The portable elect r ic power revolu ti o n that started with the creation of t he lithium-ion battery in 199 1, made possible by the d evelopmen t of light-weight, powe r ed vehicles. Such micro-vehicles have a low environmental impact, with little noise and zero tailpipe em iss ions . Their light we ight suggests a smaller carbon footprint over the veh icle life cycle when compare d t o other vehicle types, a questio n that is under in vestigation by th e IT F (forthcoming a). Bicycles and other huma n-powered m icro-vehic les provide add it ional public hea lt h benefits by keeping the popu lat ion physically active . Smalle r vehicles also consume less of the city's most valuab le resource, space . For all these reasons, micromobi li ty is attractive to individ uals and policy m akers alike . Who uses micromobility? The majority of cycl ists in car-oriente d cit ies are you ng to middle -aged ma les. In bic ycle-fr iendly cities, however, cycling is inclusive with a larger share of wo m en, children and seniors (Garra r d et al ., 2012). Th e use of standing e-scooters in shared fl eets may fo ll ow the same pattern but may also be affected by t he cost of such services. The City of Santa Monica (20 19a) collected data on shared elec tri c scooters an d bikes operated by pri vate companies in a pilot test. It found that the early adopters were predom in antly male (67%) and aged 25-34 (64%), with hig her-than-average income distributio n. Data collected in Washington D.C., however, suggests that shared micromo bi lity delivers new o ptions to comm u nit ies that have been traditionally underserved , and that the adoptioo of shared m icromob ility was higher amongst b lack and African-Amer ica n res ide nts (Clewlow , 2018). The safety performance of micro -veh ic les and shared micromo b ility services is the focus of intense med ia at te nti on . Count ri es and cities have started to adapt t he ir road safety r egulations to include micromo bility , leading to sometimes d ivergent rules. In France an d Germany "pe rsonal mobil ity d evices" were i ntegra t ed in to traffic regulations in 20 19, requiring micro-vehicles users to ride on cycl in g facilit ies when they exist (JORF, 20 19; BMV I, 2019). In Portugal, kick-scoo t ers and e-scoo t er s have bee n subject to the same traffic regulat ions as bikes and e-bikes since 2013. Co nversely, in South Korea micro-veh icles are requ ired t o follow the same regulat ion as cars and are not g iven access to bike lanes (RTA, 2006). In SAFE MICROMOBILl1Y © OECD/ITF 2020 13 W HAT IS M ICROM OBILI TY? the United Ki ngdom and Ireland , motorised micro -vehicles are simply excluded from public roads unt il definit ions of vehicles permitted for use on the road are updated to include them . This report examines how micro-vehicles can best be c lassified and approved for on-street use . Should they be licenced on a technology-specific basis or on a more general mass, power and speed basis? Where should they be allowed to operate? Will infrastructure need to be adapted to allow for their safe use? Wh ich traffic safety requirements should national and local authorities place on shared micromobility operators? This report proposes regulating micromobility in a way that is adapted to the indeterminate boundaries of the sector. Innovat ion in vehicle design will undoubtedly bri ng new device types. Wi ll pol icy makers have to revise their road safety regulations each t i me a new type of m icro-vehicle appears on the market? Instead, this report offers a set of rules for defining and class ifying micromobility vehicles based on safety cr iteria, and a framework for sharing street space and pro t ecting road users from crash risks coherent with overa ll policy for promoting more sustainab le mob ility. Micromobility definition and classification This report propo ses to define micromobility as the use of micro -vehicles : vehicles w ith a mass of no more t han 350 kilog r ams (771 pounds) and a de si gn speed no h igher tha n 45 km/h. Thi s defin it ion limits the vehicle 's kinetic e nergy to 27 kJ, which is one hundred tim es less than the kinetic energy reached by a compact car at top speed. Speed and weight together determine the ki netic energy of a vehicle, which correlate s with the ri sk of fatal or ser ious injuries (Khorasani -Zavareh et al., 2015). Thi s de fi nition includes human-powered and electrically-ass isted vehicle s, such as b icy cles , e-bi kes , skates and kick scooters . The broad definit ion includes vehicle s much heav ier and faster than a bicycle . Most experts do not think that bike lanes should accommodate 350 kg powered vehic les with a speed capacity of 45 km /h. As an illu stration of thi s debate, countries are unable to reach a consensus on where to place speed pedelecs. The broad defin ition used in this report is not intended to prescribe which vehic les are allowed onto bike lanes . Author ities shou ld acknowledge that the micro-vehic le spectrum is wide and heterogeneous, and consider the risks and value of different vehicles to society when regulating them . This repo rt propose s to classify micro-veh icles as follows: • Micro-veh icle s can be class ified primar i ly according to their maximum speed (Figure 1). Type A and Type B micro -vehic les inc lude human-powered veh icles such as bicyc les, as well as vehicles whose power supp ly cuts off at 25 km /h . Many bicycle s, e-b ikes , e-scooters and self-balancing vehicles would fall into this category . The threshold of 25 km/h is known to separate the ma in categories of e-bikes in Europe . Up to 25 km/h, e-b i ke s are gene r all y considered and regula t ed as bicycle s. When the i r design speed is beyond 25 km /h and up to 45 km/h, e-bikes are often excluded from bike lanes and subject to further safety regu lat ion (Santacreu, 2018). • Micro-veh icl es can be further class ified by weight, with a threshold of 35 kg , beyond which regu lators could impose more safety requ irements . Ve hicle weight has indeed an influence on ki netic energy and brak ing systems . We ight can also be seen as a proxy for the capacity to transport additiona l passenger s and goods . Micro-veh icles are pol y morph ic devices that do not share a common form factor. They cannot be defined by the number of wheels , nor by the riding posit ion , which ca n be seated or standing. Micro- 14 SA FE M ICROM OBILITY © OECD/I TF 2020 W HAT IS MICRO MOBILITY? vehicles may be powered by muscu l ar energy, electric batterie s, a fuel tank or a combination of these . Defining m i cro-vehicles by a speci fi c power source is, the r efore , of little value. In the process of regulat i ng micro-vehicles, however, it is worth account i ng for the physical act ivity which the vehicle requires to operate . Unpowered and ped al-assisted vehicles ha ve a positive impact on pub li c health through physical activity w hi ch thrott le-powered vehicles do not, everything else bei ng equal. Figure 1. Proposed micromobility definition and classification Type A Type B unpowered or powered up to 25 km/h (16 mph) <35 kg (77 lb) 35 -350 kg (77 -770 lb) Type C Type D powered with top speed between 25-45 km/h (16-28 mph) <35 kg (77 lb) 35 -350 kg (77 -770 lb) International vehicle classification systems Definitions, classifications and regulatory frameworks for micromobility vary across the world . Bicycles are the smalle st vehicle in most countries ' classifications . Conse quent ly , a range of micro-veh i cles -such as standing e-scooters , e-skateboards and self-ba lancing veh icles -are exclude d from classifications. In some cases, they are class ified as toys , hence not allowed to circulate in public streets . As a temporary solution, Korea classified these devices with cars . Authorities in Singapore d ec ided to create a new vehicle category called "persona l mobi lity device" (PMD). In lig ht of the obvious i nternationa l i mpact of micro-vehicles and the diffi culty in defining and categorising them, there coul d be value in shaping an internat ionall y recognised classification system for them . SAFE MICRO MOBILI TY © OECD/ITF 2020 15 WHAT IS M ICRO M OBILI TY? Micromobility in Europe European Un ion regulation N°168/2013 established the L-category vehicles as a reference for member countries . L-category veh icle s are powered two-, three-and four-wheel vehicles. The category uses power, power source, speed, length , width and height as classification criteria. Some types of m icro-vehic le s can be mapped to the Lle category called "light two-whee l powered vehicle ": • Lle-A powered cycle: electric bicycle equipped with au xiliary propulsion with a maximum speed of 25 km/h and a net power between 250 watts and 1 000 watts . Th is category includes low- powered throttle only electric bikes. • Lle-B two-wheel moped: any two-wheel vehicle with a maximum design speed of more than 25 km/h and up to 45 km/h and a net power of up to 4 000 watts. It includes speed-pedelecs, though most speed-pede lecs have a power of 500-750 watts. Other micro-ve hicles are left outside the Lle category, most notably: • human-powered vehicles, such as bicycles, skates and kick scooters • pede lecs , defined as bicycles with pedal assistance up to 25 km/h and with an auxiliary electric moto r hav ing a max im um cont in uous rated power of up to 250 watts. • self-balanc i ng vehic les and vehicles not equipped with a seat (ie. standing scooters). The United Nations Economic and Soc ial Council published t he Consolidated Resolution on the Construction of Vehicles, which inc lud ed a vehicle classification system and safety standards that are now used as internat iona l references. The World Forum for Harm onizatio n of Vehicle Regulations allows open discussions among policy makers. This leads to the co nstruction of a shared reference across countr ies , even if it st ill excludes the large part of micro-vehic les cited above (UNECE, 2017). Micromobility in the United States c a e-b i es a -s oo e e g e o · aID 1¥ regula t ed at state level State-by-state legislation is being passed wh ich distinguishes e-scooters and e-b ik es from mopeds and ot her motor vehicles , thus enabling the use of bike la nes, and avoid ing requirements for licencing and registration (NCS L, 2019). For the use of e-scooters, some states impose a m i nimum age of 8, 12, 16 or 18, some only require the use of helmets, and others have set both a minimum age and a helmet requirement. State-specific speed limits fore-scooters range from 20 km/h (12.5 mph) to 32 km /h (20 mph) (Sikka et al., 2019). For the use of e-bikes , state regulations typica ll y impose that an e-bike falls within one of the following three classes: • Class 1 electric bicycle : a bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedalling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 mph (32 km /h). • Class 2 electr ic bicycle : a bicycle equipped with a motor that may be used exc lusively to propel the bicycle , and that is not capable of provid i ng assistance when the b icyc le reaches the speed of 20 mph (32 km/h). 16 SA FE M ICROMO BILITY © OECD/ITF 2020 WHAT IS MICROMOB ILITY? • Class 3 electric bicycle : a bicycle equipped with a motor t hat provides assistance onl y when the rider is pedall i ng, and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicyc le reaches the speed of 28 mp h (45 km/h) and is equipped with a speedometer. Micromobility in Asia In People's Republic of Ch i na, electr ic bicycles are classified as bic ycles . The latest regulation stipu lates that elec tri c bi cycles must have working pedals, with a maximum design spee d not exceeding 25 km/h, weight (inc l uding battery) up to 55 kg, motor powe r up to 400 W , and battery vo ltage up to 48 V (Large, 2019). Singapore created a new category of vehicle called the "personal mobility de v ice" (PMD). E-scooters fall within t his ca t egory. It d ifferentiates PM D from cars, but also from b icycles and e-bi kes (SLA, 20 19). In Korea, all power-driven vehicles are considered as motor vehic les (KMVSS, 20 19}. However, there is no specific classificat ion to categorise the different vehicle types. Aut horities are currently using the UNECE regulation and safety re q uirements as a reference (UNECE, 2019). Micromobility in Latin America Lat i n American countries classify micro-vehicles according to the speed they can develop through assistance or propulsion engines, according to experts . In Mexico City, the traffic regulations clea rl y define t hat any ve hi cle capable of autonomously developing a max i mum of 30 km/h is a non-motorised vehicle. Any veh i cle t hat exceeds 30 km/h is a motorised vehicle that needs a licence plate, registration and must follow the common rules applicable to cars. In Colombia, a vehicle ty pe exists for pedal -assisted e-bikes with a motor power of up to 300 W, a weight of up t o 35 kg and w it h a maximum d esign speed not excee din g 25 km/h (MDT, 2017}. PMD s were defined as a new vehicle category, just as they were in Singapore . They are defined as e lectrical motorised individual vehicles with one or more wheels , a minimum design speed of 6 km/h and maximum design speed of 25 km/h (DGT, 2019). According to this definition, PMDs include e-scooters, e-bikes, e-skateboards, o n e-wheels and more micro-vehicle forms, insofar as they respect the limit applied t o t he design spee d . Other efforts to classify micromobility SAE International is a U.S.-based , globally act ive professiona l association and standards developing organisation for engineering professionals in various industries. The i r taxonomy can be used by authorities at the local and national level to develop policy that is compatible with their policy objectives and with the i nfrastructure available . SAE Interna t ional publis hed the J3194r" Standa r d defining powered micromobility as a category of powered vehicles that can be classified according t o four main criteria (SAE , 2019}: • vehicle weight of up to 227 kg (500 lb) • ve hicle w idth of up t o 1.5 m (5 ft) • top speed of up to 48 km/h (30 mph) • power source by an electric motor or a combust io n engine. SAFE MICROMOBILITY © OECD/ITF 2020 17 .. .. WHAT IS MICROMO BILITY ? The (t radema r ked) J3194 standard dist inguis hed si x types of powe r ed micro-ve hi cles : powered bicycle , powered sta nd i ng scoote r , powered seated scooter, powe r ed se lf-balancing board, powered non-se lf- ba lancing board, and powered skates . It on ly i nclude s vehicles that are primar il y designed to transport peop le and to be used on paved roadways and paths. Figure 2. Types of powered micromobility vehicles as defined by SAE ............................................................ -............. , .................................................................... ., .................... _ .............................................. , .................... -......................................... ., .................................................... _____ ~ _____ ........................................................... , ............................................ _ ................ . Cen ter column Seat Operable iJWals Floorboard I root pegs Selt-balancJng> So u rce: SAE (20 19). Powered Bicycle y y y Possi ble N Powered Standing Powered Seate1d Scooter Scooter y y N y N N y y N N Powered setr-Bal anclng Board Possi ble N N y y Powered Non-Seit-Balancing Board N N N y N POWQrQd Skates N N N y PossJb le It excludes sole ly human -p owered veh icles like traditiona l bike s. However, it dist i ngu ishes between three classes of e-b ikes: • Class 1: pedal assist (or "class 1 e-bikes", "pede lec s", "low-s peed , pedal-assisted e-bike") • Class 2 : throttle on demand (or "class 2 e-bikes", "low-speed, throttle-ass isted e-bike") • Class 3: speed pedelec (or "class 3 e-b i ke", "s peed pede lec" an d "speed pedal -assisted e-bike"). 18 SAFE M ICROMOB ILITY © OECD/ITF 2020 WHAT IS MICROM OBILllY? Figure 3. NUMO's framework for mapping vehicle characteristics with policy requirements Weight Sedentary lifestyle -.., Emiss ions Top speed Space occupied Source : adapted from NU MO (2020). Weigh t Sedentary li festyle Emissions Top speed J -pace occupied An alternative vehicle cl assification focuses on the vehicle's t op speed, we ight, em1ss1o ns, spatial footprint and health foo t print (a function of the physical activ ity input) nor mali sed by the vehicle's passenger capaci t y. This approach is being formalised by the New Urban Mobility Alliance (NUMO): a g lobal alliance organisat ion consisting of partners inc lu d ing cities, NGOs and compan ies from diverse sectors . This approach he lps policy makers link these "vehicle profi les" with spec ific require m ents and regulations (e.g . space allocation, data, p r icing, li cencing). It pro poses to use r adar charts (F igure 3) to represent vehicle characteristics : the farther from the centre, the more require m ents needed. SAFE MICROMOBILllY © OECD/ITF 2020 19 . ' .. HOW SAFE ARE MICROMOBILITY TRIPS? How safe are micromobility trips? A trip by car or by motorcycle in a dense urban area is more likely to resul t in a traffi c fata li ty than a trip by micro-vehicle of Type A. Th is section provides evidence of that and seeks to measure the mode shift achieved by new micromobi lity solutions. A trip 6y snar ea sta nding e-scooter is no more like ly t han a b ic ycl e trip to result in a road tra ffi c deat h. Tne risk o f hospital admiss ion may be hi gne r on e-scooters, but there have been too few studies to draw fir m conclusions. Thi s section provides information on casualties and trips, and compares the safety of e-scooters with that of other modes . Lessons from fatality data The deta iled and compre hensive reporting of fatal crashes delivers precious insights. The ITF typically uses t raffic deat h figures to compare cycling safety across various countries {Santacreu , 2018) and cities (IT F, 2019a). Pol ice crash datasets identify bicyc le casua lt ies but do not identify stand in g e-scooter casualties as yet, at leas t in most countries . Thi s report draws in formation from 38 med ia repo rts of standing e-scoo ter fatalities, up until end-October 2019 (Anne x A). This section examines the risk imposed on pedestrians, the risk imposed by motor vehicl es, and the risk experienced by riders of standing e-scoo ters. Pedestrian fatalities are rare Pedestr ians represent less th an one in ten fata li ties in crashes invo lving standing e-scooters . Research for this report found that only two such fatalities occurred in the world throug h October 2019 . Both crashes involved private ly owned e-scooters, accord ing to one expert, ne ith er of whic h was equipped w ith a speed limiter. Similarly, in crashes involving bicycle s, pedest rians represent no more than one in ten fatalities. Overa ll, riders them se lves represent o ver 90% of fatalities in crashes invol ving Typ e A m icro- vehic les (a category wh ich i ncludes bicycl es and low-speed standing e-scooters). Figure 4 . Fatalities in collis ions involving a given user group • Fatalitie s w ithin user group • Fatal it ies in other user groups Standing e-scooter Pedal cycle Motorcycle o r moped Passenger car 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Sources: Stand ing e-scooter d ata from m edia r eports com pil ed by the ITF (Annex A), crash matrices collected from th e ITF Safer City Streets network in Bogota, Inner London, Paris, Rome and Milan for va riou s time period s (A nnex B). 20 SAFE MICROMOBILITY © OECD/ITF 2020 HOW SA FE AR E MICROMO BILI TY TRIPS? In compar ison, car occupants represent less than 40% of fatalities in crashes involv i ng passenger cars (Figure 4). Th e majority of v ictims killed in crashes involving a car are found in other, more v ul ne r ab le user gro up s. This find ing refl ects the impa ct of the re latively highe r mass , sp eed an d drive r p rotection found o n passenger ca rs. Pub li c debate around sidewalk p rotection and m icromo bi lit y r ider accountabilit y is leg itimate but shou ld not distract policy makers from the ma in sources of danger in the urban en v ironment. Most fatal crashes involve a heavier vehicle Over 80% of cycl ist an d e-scooter rider deaths resu lt from crashes w ith heavi e r veh icles (F igure 5). In comparison , car occupants are more likely to be ki ll ed in cras h es whe r e no other motor veh icle is involved . Th is once aga in reflects the h ig her speed of th ese ve hic les, even in u rb an area s where th is data wa s co llec t ed . Figure 5 . Vehicle occup ant fa t alit ies by t hird pa rty invol vemen t •Fatalit ies in cra shes invol vi ng motor veh icle s •Fatal ities in cra shes invo lv i ng no moto r ve hicle St and in g e-scooter Peda l cycle Moto rcy cle or m oped Passe nger ca r 0 % 20 % 40% 60% 80% 100% Sou rce s : Stand ing e-scooter d ata from media r eports compil ed by the ITF (An n ex A), cra sh m atrice s co ll ec t ed f r om t he ITF Safer City Streets net work in Bogota, Inn er Londo n, Paris, Rome a nd Mil an f o r va ri o us tim e pe r io ds (Ann ex B). Several caveats should be borne in mind when interpreting these figures : • not all fatalities ar e reported i n t he medi a, especially as t he novelty as pe ct of e-scoo t e rs fades • some med ia re ports lack clarity with regards to the ex act e-scooter type (with/without seat , shared /private) • t h ree med ia reports lack clar ity on the role of thi rd part ies in t he cr as h, in which case t he ITF ass u med a mo t o r vehicle w as involved . Fa t ality risk : Similar results for cycle and e-scooter trips The risk o f being killed on a shared standing e-scooter trip is no different from that of being killed on an average b icy cle trip, and substantially lower than on an average motorcycle t rip. In high-and middle- income cou ntries , one bicy cle rider is killed in every 10 m illion bicycle t rips on average . This fi gure prov ides the reader with an orde r of magn itude but hides dramat ic d ifferences between countr ies and SAFE MICROMO BILITY © OECO/ITF 2020 21 .. HOW SA FE AR E MICR OMOBI LI TY TRIP S? cities . Shared e-scooters belong to Type A in the micro-vehicle classificat ion proposed here. This report cou ld not find data to assess the safety of e-scooters reac hing higher speeds (Type C). Three people were killed in the United States on shared standing e-scooters in 2018, acco rdi ng to media reports, for an estimated 38.5 million trips (NACTO, 2019a). Worldwide, one of the most popular e-scooter companies, Lime, reported its first 100 million rides on 16 September 2019 . Of these, industry experts assume that over 90 million are e-scooter rides, the rest being bike-share rides . Over the same period of time, the media reported nine fatalities among Lime e-scooter riders (Anne x A). The risk for Li me riders is therefore estimated at fewer than 100 fatal ities per billion trips. Another e-scooter company, Bird, reported their first 50 million rides in August 2019 (Sco ot, 2019), at a time when five of their riders had died i n crashes according to media reports, a number confirmed by the company. Available figures for shared e-scooter risk range between 78 and 100 fatalities per billion trips . This ra nge should be considered an order of magnitude. It s precision is limited by the number of fatalities wh ich , in terms of stat ist ical robustness, should be considered as small. Cycling risk across cities ranges between 21 and 257 fata liti es per billion trips. Figures come from the ITF Safer City Streets network and database (Box 1) and are consistent with othe r research (Bassil et al., 20 15). Motorcyc les and mopeds together are called powered two-wheelers (PTW). Ridi ng a PTW in cities comes with a risk of fatality rang in g between 132 and 1164 per billi on trips. Th e ris k of being killed in a PTW trip is at least two ti mes higher than in a cycle tr ip , according to the information the ITF collected for both modes in eight d ifferent cities . The compar ison between e-scooters, bicycles and other modes is delicate, due to th e absence of data in a comparable global samp le of cities. In deed, previous ITF research revealed great differences in risk across countr ies and citi es. Cycling risk in the United Sta t es was found to be six times higher than in Northern European coun t ries (Santacreu, 2018). City -leve l data collected through the ITF Safer City Streets network (Box 1) sho wed that the same difference in cyc ling risk (a factor of six) is observed between Ber lin (with 21 fatalities per billion t r ip s) and New York City (1 28 fatalit ies per billion trips). The risk analys is per unit distance travelled, as opposed to t he ana lysis per ride, would be marginal ly less favourable toe-scooter riders, due to a lower average trip distance . E-scooter sharing companies provide a wide range of estimates for average trip distances . This can reflec t specific loca l circumstances but can also raise doubt s on the reliability of trip distance data . Distances could be very sensitive to GPS sampling rates and signa l noise, and be severe ly under-estimated if derived from start and end points alone . Lim ited st udies have not ye t managed to assess the risks of riding an e-bike . Riding a Clas s 1 e-b ike , known as a pe d e lec and lim ited to 25 km/h, does not appear to be more dangerous than riding a bicycle, on ce trip distances and age are controlled for (Schepers , Klein Wolt and Fishman, 2018). More studies sh ou ld in v est iga te the risk of fatality on e-bikes . Research protocols shou ld control for t he number of oder riders and for the tr ip distances, often higher withe-b i ke riders. 22 SA FE M ICRO M OBILITY © OECD/ITF 2020 HOW SAFE ARE MICROMOBILl1Y TRIPS? Box 1. The ITF Safer City Streets network The ITF Safer City Streets initiative is a platform for road safety experts working at city level to share their experience and develop a global traffic safety database . It is funded by the FIA and shaped on the national-level permanent working group of the ITF called the International Road Traffic Safety Ana lysis and Data group (IRTAD). Over 40 cities have joined the ITF Safer City Streets network, and its database includes over 70 urban areas. In Figure 6, the bubble size represents the population of urban areas found in the database. Some are defined by an administrative boundary, and others are defined by commuting flows. The latter are called functiona l urban areas (FUAs ): they tend to occupy a larger land area and have lower popu lat ion density. The plot revea ls t he diversity of situations : • land area varies from 80 km 2 (The Hague) to over 9 000 km 2 (Vienna FUA) • population varies from 400 000 (Zu rich) to over 12 mi llion (Lo ndon FUA) • population density varies from 130 people per km 2 (Graz FUA) to over 21000 per km 2 (Paris City). Figure 6. Population density and land areas of cities from the ITF Safer City Streets database "'E ..lo<: 25 600 ~ 6400 c. .?;- 'iii c: G.J "C c: 0 +:: IQ 3 c. 0 0... 1600 400 ParisCitv Bubb le size= popu lat ion -------(laj ----------------------------------------------------------------· \!£f New York City The Hague @.-=-~ ---:JD --g -~ ___ Ji#c;x --- Lisbon O () ~ 0 0 Riga @ Greater London ZUrich 0 Portsmouth FUA ------------------------------;Jf>~-- 00~@@ ~ -------------------------------------------~-----~.---- 50 200 800 Land area in km 2 0 O'tD®@ 0 GrazFUA Q 3 200 Melbourne 12 800 The network enabled the ITF to collect data on casualties and trips for each mode of transport, and calculate the risk of being killed per trip for each mode, making the compar ison possible between e-scooter, bicycle and motorcycle fatal ity numbers . Members of the network provided responses to the ITF survey on micromobility safety research priorities (Anne x C) and participated in the CPB workshop that informed this report . Source: ITF (2019a). SAFE MICROMOBILl1Y © OECD/ITF 2020 23 .. HOW SAFE ARE MICROMOBILITY TRIPS? Lessons from injury data The ITF identified eight published studies shedd ing light on cras h circumstances and injury severity following standing e-scooter crashes (Table 1). This sec ti on draws conclusions from the studies and compares e-scooter with cyc lin g and motorcycle injury data where available. Table 1. Standing e-scooter injury studies comparison Ref. Area Sample E-scooter Non-Helmet Male Motor Admitted riders riders use vehicle to involved hospital [1] Austin, Texas , United States ED/ EMS 190 2 0.5% 55 % 16% 14% patients [2] Portland, Orego n, ED 174 2 14% United States patients [3] Baltimore, Maryland , ED 63 75% 23% United States patients [4] Auckland, New Zealand ED 244 2 56% 2% 31% patients [5] Santa Mon ica, California, ED 228 21 4.4 % 59% 9% 6% United States patients [5] Santa Monica, California, On-street 193 5.7% United States survey [6 ] San Francisco, Ca li fornia, Pol ice 28 4 7% 78 % United States i njury data [6] San Francisco, California, Trauma 8 1 25% 100% 50% United States patients [7] San Diego, Californ ia, Trauma 103 2.0% 65% Un ited States patients [8] Santa Mon ica, California, Police 122 9 47% United States collision data Notes : ED: emerg e ncy department; EMS: emergency medical services; E-scooter: standing e-scooter. Sources: [1] Austin Public Hea lth (2019); [2] PBOT (2019) an d Multnomah County Health Department (2019); [3] Baltimore City (2019); [4 ] Bekhit et al. (2020); [5 ] Trivedi et al. (2019); [6] VZSFIPR Collaborative (2019a); [7] Kobayashi et al. (2019); [8] City of Santa Monica (2019b). Serious e-scooter crashes often involve motor vehicles Studies have acknowledged that the involvement of moto r vehic les in e-scooter crashes is broadly proportional to injury severity (VZSFIPR Collaborative, 2019a). Between 2% and 23% of emergency department (ED) pat ients involved in e-scooter crashes declare that a motor vehicle was involved . Among e-scooter trauma patients , however, half dec lare that a motor veh icle was i nvolved. Cyclists experience simi lar outcomes: crashes invo lvin g motor vehicles result in more se v ere in juries (Cripton et al., 2015). - Among hospita l-reported bicycle crashes in Sweden , only 13% involved a moto r vehic le (Rizzi, Stigson and Krafft, 2013). In the Netherlands, motor veh icles were involved in 22% of bicycle injuries scoring 2+ on the Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale (Weijermars et al., 20 16 ). Collisions with motor veh icles accounted fo r 34% of hospi tal-reported cyclist injuries in Vancouver and Toronto (Cripton et al., 2015). 24 SAFE MICROMOBILITY © OECD/ITF 2020 HOW SAFE ARE MICROMO BILITY TRIPS? The analys is of non-fatal crash factors in this section is essentia ll y based on hospital data d ue to the limita t ions of po lice data. Police tend to over-est imate motor ve hi cle involveme nt i n bicycle cr ashes for at leas t t w o r easons : 1 ) bic y cle crashes a nd single bicycle crashes, in particular, are rare ly reported t o t he police and 2) some co untri es exclude sing le b icyc le crashes fro m the scope of po li ce data co ll ection. Reporting of bicycle cras hes to the po lice was found to be as low as 10% in t he Rh one regio n ( Blaizot et al., 2012} and 15% in England (Aldred , 2018}. Pedestrian injuries: Rare or under-reported Non-riders, mainly pedestrians , represent between 1% and 14% of standing e-scooter rela t ed injuries, averaging 4% across all st udies . A ma j or caveat is the like ly unde r -reporting of injuries, a phe nomenon that ma y be greatest among pedestria ns. Thei r injuries ma y be t r eated as fa ll s and , as such, lie outside the tra dit io nal scope of traffic safety da t a (Bekhit et al., 202 0). Police data fro m Santa Mo ni ca found pedestria ns t o be involve d in 7% of shared m i cromobility co lli sio ns (City of San t a Monica 2019 b}. One of the stud ies listed i n Tab le 1 explicitly excluded patients aged 55 and o lder on the grounds that mobility scooter injuries may be m isinterpreted as standing e-scooter injuries. Such a protocol should be avoided because it may exclude a number of pedestrian injuries genuinely involving e-scooters. Serious pedestr ian injuries in collisions with cyclists are also rare, especia ll y when compared to injuries susta ined by pedestrians from collisions w ith motor vehicles (O'Herne and Oxley , 2019 ). In 2016, 11 pedes t r ians were se ri o usly injured i n Germa ny in collisions with pedelecs , whilst more t han 7 000 were se ri o usly injured in co ll isions wi th cars (Santacreu, 2018 ). Adjusting fo r fl eet size, a car is nea r ly 50 t imes m o r e likely to be l inked with a serious pedestrian inju ry. Helmet use is rare Helmet use was rare among standing e-scooter riders across all studie s, ranging from 0 .5% to 25%, averaging 4%. Trivedi et al. (2019) condu cted a field survey of helmet use and found no sign ificant difference between fie ld observat ions and ED patient stated he lmet use (p=0.53 from a Chi-square test). The lowe r use of helmets among riders of shared bikes and share d standing e-scooters is doc um ented by Hawort h and Sch r amm (20 19) and well underst ood : it can be expla i ne d to some ex t e nt by the spontaneo us nature of shared -vehic le use. A 2019 survey of standing e-scooter riders i n Brussels demonstrated that 47% of r iders of privatel y owned vehicles always used a he lmet, as opposed to 7% of shared-vehicle r iders (Lefrancq , 2019). E-scooter r iders seem less likely than cyclists to wear a helmet. This is observed for both shared and private vehicle use in Brisbane , where helmet use is obligatory for all age groups and r ideab le devices. (Haworth and Schramm, 2019) Male riders suffer most injuries The pro po rti on of ma le riders is consis t ent ly above 50% across all e-scooter injury studies . The average across all stu die s is 62%. Among trauma patients, whose injuries are more se v er e, the proport ion of ma le riders is hi gher, although not in a statistically significant manner (p>0 .05 from a Chi-square test). The over-representat ion of ma les in injury statistics is consistent with r idership data from e-scooter sharing companies (City of Santa Monica , 2019a} but may also reflect the h igher occurrence of risky behav io ur by male riders. SA FE M ICROM OBILITY © OECD/ITF 20 20 25 . ' HOW SA FE ARE MI CROM OBI LITY TRI PS? The share of male riders in stand i ng e-scooter fatalities (86%, or 30 out of 35) is significantly higher (p<0.01) than their share amon g ED patients (59%). The higher severity of injuries sustained by men is not specific to the use of e-scooters but already observed across al l vehicle types. In Eng land, Fele ke et al. (2018) use d t he Nationa l Travel Survey to reveal t hat fatality rates for wa lking , cycling and driving were higher for males than females , controlling for distances travelled. Road surface conditions In Aust in, Texas, half of e-scooter ED patients reported that road surface conditions contributed to their crash (Austin Pu bl ic Health, 2019). In St Louis , Missouri, more than half of the patients said road conditions caused their falls (Petrin, 2019). In France, road surface conditions were mentioned by 40% of shared standing e-scooters users who had experienced a crash . The weather wa s mentioned by 25%, essentia ll y reflecting the negative effect of wet weather on handling (6t-bureau de recherche, 2019a). Future researc h on e-scooter injuries and crash circumstances should apply the same protoco l on bicycle injuries so that crash fac to rs can be compared and vulnerability to road surface condition can be understood . The influence of vehicle design, including wheel size , on crash risk is discussed in this report's chapter on vehicle safety. E-scooter injury risk Standing e-scoo ter i nju ry rates range from 8] t 251 ED visits pe million trig_s. These injuri es are of various seve r ity levels, however, with approximately one in ten r equiring hospital admission. In comparison, the 2009 cycli ng i nj u ry rate in the United States can be es ti mated a 10to180 ED visits per million trips . An alternative way to quantify injury risk consists of counting the number of people admitted to a hospital bed. The ITF collated estimates for hospital admission rates for various modes of transport (Table 2): • share d standing e-scooters: 29 per million trips in Aust in , Texas (United States) and 62 in Auckland (New Zealand) • bicycles: five to ten per million trips in the United States, four in France and one to two in Germany • motorcycles and mopeds , together called powered two-wheelers : 28 per million trips in France . Bicycle and standing e-scooter risks are broadly similar in terms of fatalit ies and ED vis its, but seem to differ in terms of hospital admissions. The safety performance of e-scooters in comparison with other transport modes remains a topic where evidence is weak . Further invest igation is essential for at least two reasons : • No stu dy has yet compared th e in jury rates per trip across e-scooter ride rs and cyclists usi ng a consistent protocol, over the same observation area and timeframe. This is illustrated in Tabl e 2. This is important because hospital practices may vary from p lace to place, even within the same country. Practice may differ on whether casualties should be admitted to hospita l for observation , especially if head injuries are suspected (ITF, 2011). • Studies conducted in 2018 reflect the safety performance of a new vehicle type in its first few months of operations. They may not reflect gradual improvements in vehicle des ign and in user skills that have occurred since then. 26 SA FE M ICROM OBILITY © OECD/IT F 2020 HOW SAFE ARE M ICROMOB ILITY TRIPS? The hospital admissio n rate of e-scooter r ide rs should not be asses sed on two studies alone. It is essent ial t hat more res earch is conducted . Table 2. Rider injury rates per billion trips Ref. City, Ti me Stand ing e-scooter Bicycle Powered two-wheeler Inju ri es (ED vis its) per billion t ri ps 1 Austi n, Te xas, United Sta tes 203 000 2018 2 Baltimore, Mary land , United States 87 000 20 18-2019 3 Portland, Oregon , United States 25 1 000 20 18 10 Auck la nd, New Zea lan d 200 000 2018-2019 4 Uni ted States 110 000 2009 to 180 000 Inju ri es (h ospita l adm iss ions) per billion trips 1 Aus t in, Texas, Un ited St ates 29 000 2018 10 Auck land, New Zea land 62 000 2018-2019 5 Ge rm any 1000 2008-2009 to 2 000 6 Rhone, Fran ce 4 000 28 000 2005-2006 7 Toronto, Canada circa 1 000 2008 -2012 4 Un ited States 5 000 2009 to 9 000 5 United State s 6 000 2008 -200 9 to 10 000 Injuries (MAIS3+) per billi on t ri ps 8 Barce lona, Spain 100 515 20 12 -2014 8 M el bourne , Au stra li a 2 000 20 11 -2015 to 3 200 6 Rhone, Fr ance 1920 1450 2005 -2006 9 Sweden 600 20 11 -2015 to 1000 Notes: The term "powered two -wheeler " refers to motorcycles and mo p eds, as per the Glossary. Where a data so u rce provid es a cycling i njury rate per k il ometre , t h e ITF calcu l ated a low-and a h ig h -risk estimates, per trip, assuming t h e average bicycle t r ip distance is betwee n three and five ki lometres. So u rce: [1 ] Austin Publ ic Health (2019); [2] Baltimo r e City (2019); [3] PBOT (2019); [4] CDC WISQARS (2019); [5] Buehler and Pucher (2017); [6] Blai zo t et al. (2013); [7] Bassi l et a l. (2015); [8] ITF Safer City Streets data b ase ; [9 ] MA I S3 + from ITF IRTAD database, exposure from Castro, Kahlmeier and Gotsch i (2018); [10] Bekhit et a l. (2020 ). Injury severity shoul d be mea su r ed usi ng a globally agreed medical assessment sta ndard . The International Tr anspo rt For um p roposes to define a serious i nju ry as one scoring 3+ on a globa lly accepted trau ma scale used by medical p rofess ional s: the Ma xi m um Abbrev iated In jury Scale (MAIS). It SAF E M ICROMOBILITY © OECD/ITF 20 20 27 HO W SA FE ARE MICRO MOBILITY TRI PS? provides an objective and reliable bas is for data collection and i nternational comparisons (ITF , 2011). The injury score is determined at the hospital with the help of a deta iled classification key . The score ranges from one to six. Injuries classified as three and above (or 3+) on the MAIS sca le are the most serious injuries and ones that involve significant or long-term consequences and costs . The European Commission adopted MAIS3+ as the defin it ion of a ser ious inju ry in 2013 (European Commis sion, 2015). None of the studies reported on the number of ser iously injured e-scooter patients using the MAIS scale , but data exists for other modes. In terms of MAIS3+ per m i llion trips, cycling is safer than riding a motorcycle or moped in Barcelona , but not as safe as riding a motorcyc le or moped in the Rhone reg ion . This aga in shows the d ifficulty of drawing conclu si ons from lim ited stud ies. It also shows the need to agree on common standards for estimating MAIS scores acro ss the world . Comparab i lity is indeed comprom ised by the number of different methods used acros s countries (We ijermars et al., 2018). E-scooter crash reports and insurance claims data E-scooter sharing companies collect crash data from riders, but such data should be interpreted w it h care . Only a fraction of users repo rt the i r crashes to the company (Baltimo re City, 2019 ; Bird , 2019). Bird reported 37 crashes per million rides (Bird, 2019) whi le Tie r, operating in Europe, where crash ri sks are lower than in other markets, reported 25 cra shes per million rides (Lunden, 2019). Th e ITF collected time serie s from two other e-scooter companies and combined the data to show a decrea sing trend over time (Figu re 7). Thi s trend may ex pla in why some 2018 f igures were significantly higher. In San Francisco , for instance, 200 inc idents were reported per million rides in 2018 (VZSF IPR Co ll aborative, 2019a). Fiftee n co lli sions were reported to the police in Sant a Monica for every m illi on shared micromobility 1 t r ip (City of Santa Mon ica , 2019b). Th is re latively low figu r e is cons istent with the known under-reporting of cycling crashes t o the police. Figure 7. Number of crashes reported by riders of tw o standing e-scooter companie s 200 000 '3. 180 000 ·;:::: ..,, c 160 000 .'2 :.0 140 000 ...._ Q) 0.. 120 000 Vl Q) ii 100 000 ~ u -0 80 000 Q) t 8. 60 000 Q) er: 40 000 20 000 0 00 00 ,--i ,--i 0 0 N N 0. ..,, Q) u Vl 0 00 00 en en ,--i ,--i ,--i ,--i 0 0 0 0 N N N N > u c ..0 0 Q) "' Q) z 0 ~ LL Source: ITF elab o ration, based on data from two companies. 28 en en en en en en ,--i ,--i ,--i ,--i ,--i ,--i 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N ...._ ...._ > c :J tlO "' 0. "' :::J :::J 2 <{ 2 <{ SAFE MICROMOB ILITY © OECD /ITF 2020 HOW SAFE ARE MICROMOBILITY TRIPS? In New Ze aland , the Acci d ent Compensa t ion Co r porat ion (ACC ) delivered seve r al insigh t s. It found e-scoo t er in j ury claims for m ales and fe m ales we re eve n ly sp l it at 50% each {Insuran ce Bu sine ss, 2019). In Auck land , it also fo und t hat about 50 t i mes less ins u ran ce clai m s are ma de fore -scooter cra shes t han for fa ll s2 . In surance data al so reveale d t he total m edical cost of all sha r ed e-scooter inj uri es i n t he Auckland r egion . Di vided by the numbe r of shar ed e-scoo t er trips 3, th is cost represe nts bet ween USO 0.6 0 and USO 0 .70 p er tri p (Bekhi t et al., 2020). Safety through mode shift Ca r crashes cau se four t o seven times more dea th s among vu l nerab l e road users than among vehicle occupaots . Th is inform atio n comes fro m th e anal ysis of cr as h matrices i n Bogota, Co lo mb ia; Par is, France; and inner London , United Ki ngdom. It in dicates t hat car occup ants in dense urban ar eas re pr ese nt a greater r isk t o other road use rs than t o the m selv es as a group. (ITF , 2019a) In co m paris o n, the t ot al n u m ber of th i rd parties kil led i n co ll isions wit he-scoote r s or with bicycles is no mo r e th an 10% of the t otal n umber of fatal ities in coll i sio ns invo lv ing e-scooters o r bicycles. To co mp ar e t he traffic safety impact of di ffer ent mod es an d assess the be nefi ts of mod al sh ift , the co ncep t of ri sk is esse ntial. Fatality r isk is co mput ed as the t otal number of fa ta li t ies invo lvi ng each m o de, di v ided by t he numb er of trips, kilomet res o r hours t r avelle d with eac h mod e. Fi gure 8 shows t he t otal fa t ality risk as th e su m of the ri sk t o o neself and th e risk imposed on othe rs. In th ese t wo compo ne nts of risk, the latt er has yet t o be inves t igated in more cit ies . For thi s r eason, resu lts shou ld be seen as in d icative, represe nting only an o r der of m agni t ude . (IT F, 20 19a} Figure 8. Number of fatalities in collisions involving a given user group in selected cities, 2011 -15 (per passe nge r t r i p in th is use r group) Motorcycle or moped Pedestrian Pedal cycle Passenger car Bu s 0 Fatalitie s per bi lli on pass enger-trips (orde r of mag ni tude ) 50 100 •Fata lities within user g r oup •Fatalities in other user groups 350 400 450 Note: Fi gures f or standi ng e-scooters an d slo w e-bi ke s are not ava ilable but a re th o ug ht to be similar to fig u r es f o r peda l cyc les. Fatalit ie s, trips a nd t ra vel distan ces fro m Auckland, Ba r ce lona , Berlin, Gr eate r Lond o n , Pari s Area. Cr as h matr ices from Bog ota, I nn er Londo n , and Par is . So ur ce : ITF (201 9a). Largest fatality risk for trips by motorcycle or moped Figur e 8 sugg ests that rid i ng a motorcy cle or moped is associa t ed w ith over 11 t i m es more fa ta l it ies than r id ing a b icy cle in urban ar eas, contro l l i ng for t he number of t r ip s. This ta kes into acco unt fat ali ti es among bo t h r iders an d pedestrians. M otorcy cles and mopeds t ogether ma ke u p the powe red two- wheele r (PT W) category, as pe r the Glossary . SAFE MICROMOBILITY © OECD/ITF 2020 29 .. HOW SAFE ARE MICROMOBILITY TRIPS? Cycl i ng is second on ly to wal ki ng in imposing the smallest fatality ris k on other road use r . People experience a higher risk to themselves when they cycle in comparison to when they travel by bus or car. Tr ips by car and PTW impose a greater overa ll fatality risk than a trip that is walked, cycled or travelled by bus . Thi s analysis of fatality risk suggests that a modal shift away from cars and motorcycles could de liver significant road safety benefits in dense urban areas, not to mention wider public health benefits linked with physical activity and air quality. Some see a regulatory failure in the extremely high risk that PTW riders experience and impose on third parties. Current transformations in urban mobility create an opportunity to better regulate vehicle use and eliminate speeds which are incompatib le w ith the vision of eradicating deaths and serious injuries in traffic. Economists have calculated that PTWs generate much higher external costs than other transport modes per passenger kilometre, due to their poor safety and noise performance (Schroten et al., 2019). The number of fatalities is likely to increase in places where powered micromobi li ty is unregulated and allowed to reach the sort of speeds adopted by PTW riders. Regu lators need to learn from mistakes of the past and mak e sure that micromobility does not ruin the efforts made elsewhere towards t he elimination of road traffic deaths . Fast e-b ik es , with assistance up to 45 km/h, can reach the speed of mopeds. As such , t he y are a particular road safety concern and were discussed in a recent ITF roundtable (Sant acreu, 2018). Their speed may be too high for cycling facilities. Other road users may also under-estimate the speed of a fast e-bike, as it looks like a conventional bicycle. Most countries therefore apply additional regulations on fast e-bikes, in comparison to convent ional bicyc les, such as helmet use and liabi lity insurance . However, among fast e-b ike s, those wh ich are pedal assisted, do provide some health benefits. For this reason, they are often subject to a lighter regulation t han mopeds , suc h as access to some of the bicy cle network. Because fast e-bikes look like bicycles , they are practically immune to on-street identification and enforcement. Researchers and policy makers should develop so lutio ns to limit the speed of fast e- bikes where relevant and to ensure specific regulations are observed by riders . Substituti ng for cars, ta x is and motorcycles Can micromob ili ty help mitigate the danger of motor veh icle traffic by spurr i ng a mode shift from private cars , ta x is and motorcycles? Potentia ll y, yes. Two -thirds of car t rips made by London residents cou ld be cycled in under 20 minutes (GLA , 2015). In a survey of shared bike and shared e-scooter users in Santa Monica, California, a majority of respondents rep orted driving less often. A majority also reported ride hailing less often (City of Santa Monica , 2019a). In Portland, Oregon, 34% of shared e-scooter users said they would have driven a personal car (19 %) or hailed a taxi , Uber or Lyft (15%) if they had not taken an e-scooter for their most recent trip (PBOT, 2018). The free-floating mode l has dramatically increased the popular ity of micromobility . Among free-floating b i ke share users , 40% had never used a bicycle before (6t-bu re au de recherche, 2016). In Port land, 78% of people using shared e-scooters had never used the local bike-share system before (PBOT, 2018). Thi s suggests that diverse forms of micromobility can complement each other, appeal to different user groups, and together contri bute to reducing the mode share of cars, ta xis and motorcycles. Some jurisdictions (e.g. Korea and New South Wales) requ ire users of shared e-scooter systems to possess a valid motorcycle or driving licence. The effect of such a po licy on mode shift and safety is unclear and could be the focus of future research . Where this pol icy is motivated by the need to identify i ndiv iduals, other forms of identificat ion should be accepted for shared micromobility to deliver its full 30 SAFE MICRO MOB ILITY © OECD/ITF 2020 HOW SAFE ARE MICROMOBILITY TRIPS? strategic potent ial. Where this po licy is motivated by the need to ensure kno w ledge of road traffic rules, other solut ions should be envisaged, wh ich include chi ld and adu lt road safety and micromobility training. One could also argue that driver lic encing requirements should be p ro portional to t he speed and mass of a veh ic le . The same requ i rements would apply, t hen, to e-scoote rs and e-bikes if their speeds we r e capped at t he same le ve l. Table 3 . Mode shift reported by shared standing e-scooter users Ref. Location Mode Mode shift from car/taxi trips 1 Paris , Lyon and Marsei lle, France e-scooter, Lime 8% 7 Pa ri s, Fran ce e-scooter, Dott 10% 2 Li sbon, Portugal e-scooter, Lime 21 % 3 Austin, Texas, United States e-scooter, Bird 22% 2 Auckland , New Zealand e-scoote r, Lime 22% 4 Auc kland , Hutt Valley, Christch urch , Dunedi n, e-scooter 23% New Zealan d 3 Atla nta, Geo rgia, United States e-scooter, Bird 28 % 2 Seatt le, Washington, Un ited States e-scooter, Lime 30% 3 Denve r, Colorado, Un ited States e-scooter, Bird 32% 3 Los Angel es, California, Un ited States e-scooter, Bird 32% 3 Phoenix, Arizona, United States e-scooter, Bi rd 33% 5 Portland, Oregon, United States e-sc ooter (residents and commuters) 34% 2 Atlanta, Georgia , Un ited States e-scooter, Lime 37% 2 Austin, Te xas, United States e-scooter, Lime 40 % 2 Ka nsa s City , Missou ri , United States e-scooter, Li me 40% 2 Los An geles, California, United States e-scooter, Li me 40% 5 Po rt land , Oregon, Un it ed States e-scooter (visito rs) 48% 6 Santa M onica, Ca lifornia, United States e-scooter and bike share 50% Notes : Mo d e s h ift r efers to the mode (the survey only allows for a single ch oice) which w ou ld have been chosen for the most recent e-scooter trip would an e-scooter not have been avai la b le. Results from surveys a ll owing mu lti pl e c h oices are not re p resented here. So u rces: [1 ] 6t-bureau de rech erche (2019a ); [2 ] Lime (2019); [3] Bi rd (2019 ); [4] Fitt and Curl 201 9 ; [5 ] PB OT (2018); [6 ] City of Santa Mon ica (2019a); [7 ] 6t-bu reau de r echerche (20 19c). Table 3 re veals t he propo rt ion of shared st anding e-scooter trips wh ich are reported to replace a car or taxi trip. Thi s proport ion range s 8% to 50 %, with lowest figures observed in Europe and New Zealand, and hig hest figures observed i n the United States. This most li ke ly reflec ts the varying levels of ca r use across the world . In a city with very low car use , it is only natural that a very small fraction of e-s coo ter trips replace car trips. SAFE MICROMOBILITY © OECO/ITF 2020 31 '· HOW SAFE ARE MICROMOBILl1Y TRIPS? the last e-scooter trip they made, specifically because of their phys ical condition. (6t-bureau de recherche , 2019a) However smal l the figures are in European cities, shared vehicles could have a greater impact on car-use than is sugges ted by the relatively lo w mode shift figures observed : • Among users of shared standing e-scooters in France , 12% declare that the service has changed their use of the private car, despite only 4% declaring that their last e-scooter trip would have been done by car (6t-bureau de recherche , 2019a). • Likewise, 14% of French users of shared mopeds declare that the service ha s changed their use of the private car , despite only 3% declar ing that their last moped trip would have been done by car (6t-bureau de recherche, 2019b). • Whilst 44% of local users would have walked to take their last trip if an e-scooter had not been availab le, only 6% of users walked less overall since they started using e-scooters. • Whilst 30% would have used public tran sport, only 6% use public tran sport le ss often . • In 44% of trips, only one leg of the return journey was made on an e-scooter. When this happens, the other leg is made on public transport 62% of the time . How can greater mode shift be achieved? Could more people cycle? A survey of nine Europe an cities revea led that a et ·s tlle liigge tad -<:¥cling o e ue ly (De Ceunynck et al., 2019). In London, for example, dense traffic and the fear of being invo lved in a collision are by far the main barriers mentioned by non -cyclists (Transport for London , 2015). Improving traffic safety is esse ntial to un lockin g a modal shift towards cycling. The same princip le is likel y to apply to the use of e-scooters and other forms of micromobility. Cycling, and micromobility more broadly, can feed into public transport and solve the first-and last-mile prob lem. It is l ikely to support public transport ridership on routes with an attractive commercial speed (e .g. rail , light r ail and bus rapid transit) or on routes serving areas wit h poor walkabil ity. In San Francisco , a survey revea led that 39% of e-scooter trips were made in connect ion with pub li c transit (Lime, 2018). Public t rans port is the safest trave l mode by far, and cities shou ld promote using micromobi lity to connect with these services. Road deaths could be avoided if such inter-moda l trips replaced those by car, ta xi, moped or motorcycle. M icromobility can provide users with access to rail links that may be further afield but allow for direct transport to their destination, minimising the use of cars and boosting the capacity of a public transport system, which is often constra i ned by bottlenecks at interchanges (Veryard and Perk ins, 2018). 32 SAFE MICROMOBILl1Y © OECD/ITF 2020 HOW SAFE ARE MICROMOBILITY TRIPS? Data collection: Why do it and how to improve it All jurisd ict ions should update their police and hospital data collection systems so as to identify micromob ility crashes and precise vehicle types . Some authorities will choose to up date their forms and coding systems •, others wi ll promote the use of well-defined keywords (figures 9 and 10) in free text fields . Whichever solution is used , mobi li ty scooters that aid persons with lim ited mobility shou ld not be categorised with power-scooters or standing scoo t ers . Since 2018, Fr ench police ha ve been us in g revised data collect ion tools that identify powe r ed personal mobility dev ices. This category is separate from bicycles and slow e-bikes, facili tating the analysis and interpretatio n of micromo b i li ty crash data . Figure 9 . Poster to assist medical staff with the coding of micromobility injuries e-Scooters Keyword for Chief Complaint: e-scooter + Brand Other Devices (B ird , Gotcha, Jump, Lime. Spin, Razor, etc.} Keywords for Chief Complaint: e-skateboard, e-hoverboard, Segway®, e-unicycle NOT considered e-scooters These devices are not considered e-scooters and have their own set of ICD-10-CM codes. Source: adapted from CSCRS (2019). • -mobility -~ f:J~ scooters ·~ ~~ mopeds ' .,.,~ .., motor~ ~,, Kooters I Ke ywords fo r e-scooter use can be searched in police or patient data ; this is the protocol used in most studies presented in Tab le 3. It is a flexib le and resi li ent solution in the fast-evo lvi ng mobility lands cape, where new form s of micro-vehicle ar e yet to come . However, it r equires training for health professionals so that the ri ght keywords are used . The use of text m i ning software capa bl e of correcti ng spell ing mistakes is r ecommende d . There is a clear need for nat ional and international guidelines for t he consistent and comparab le capture of m i cro-vehicle types acros s police and health data systems over time . Pub li c health professionals and statistica l autho rities shou ld work together to revise and expa nd codes that descr i be precisel y which vehicles are involved in injuries. The most commonly used vehicle classif ica ti on is the International Class ifi cat ion of Disease ICD-10. Yet the dive rsity and novelty of m icro -vehicles have resulted in a lack of standardisat ion in both pract ice and gu idance on how to captu r e injuries assoc iated with micro-vehicles in medical r ecords. (VZS FIPR Collaborative, 2019b) SAFE MICROMOBILITY © OECO/ITF 2020 33 •, HOW SAFE ARE MICROMOBI Ll 1Y TRIPS? Researchers at CSCRS (20 19) propose t o revise IC D-10 t o in clude new codes fore-scoote rs and pr event the confusion of vehic les in m edical da t asets. Th ey propose guidance for med ica l p rofessionals to adopt (Figu re 9). Po li ce and p ubli c health casualty databases should also accommodate information on the shared or private owne rship of the ve hi cle and on the name of t he shared micromob ility company if appl icable. This is to enab le l inkages with trip data that is availab le from each company, and because trip data is l ikely less ava ilabl e for private ly owned vehicles. Tr ip data is essential to assess and mon itor the level of risk associated w it h the use of a service or vehicle type. Go vern ments should collect t rip nu mbers and durat ions from sha red micromobi lity companies and survey the popula tion to assess the use of pri va tely owned vehicle s. Hou seho ld travel su rvey q uestionnaires have to acknowledge the popularity of new vehic le types and be revised sim ilarly to po l ice and hosp ital forms. Figure 10. Taxonomy adopted by police and public health departments in San Francisco Electric skateboard Hoverboard, electric unicycle, other electrically motorized board Segway-type vehicle Source : VZSFI PR Collaborative (2019b). A consistent minimum se t of information sho uld be reported in all e-scooter safety publications; thi s inc lud es pedes tri an injuries, motor vehicles i nvo lv ed and overnight ho spital admission. Additional data on alcohol and drug testing methods and results, age, gender, and injury severity accord in g to international medi ca l stan dards wou ld also be helpfu l. 34 SAFE MICROMOB ILl1Y © OECD /ITF 2020 HOW SAFE ARE M ICROMOBILITY TRIP S? There is indeed little value in a data col lection effort ded icated solely to e-scooters , since their crash typo logy severity and rate should be compared with that of other modes . Comparing e-scooter in cidents with a samp le of bicycle crashes or injuries wou ld provide prec ious insight into t he specificity -if any -of e-scooter safety . This cou ld support investigations into the stab i lity of each vehicle type and into the effect of rider exper ience. What is needed is a comprehensive data collection effort from both the police and hospital services. The reporting of in j uries by body reg io n was proposed in some studies but these lacked comparability . Public health profess ionals should harmonise their report ing of injuries by body region and sever ity . SAFE MICROMOBILITY © OECD/ITF 2020 35 SAF E VEHICLES AND OPER ATIONS Safe vehicles and operations The Safe System approach to road safety was e laborated in Sweden and in the Netherlands i n the 1990s . It is based on the idea that death and serious in j ury in road collisions are not an inevitable price to pay for mobility. The Safe System approach accepts that people make mistakes and acknowledges that co lli sions will continue to occur, but it aims to ensure that such mistake s do not resu lt in fatalities or serious injuries . Better veh icle construction , i mproved road infrast ructure and lower speeds can al l contr i bute to redu cing the impact of crashes, and better data can he lp us to understand and avoid future crashes. The responsibility for the Safe System is shared in a coordinated manner across the public and pr ivate sectors. Its application is close ly monitored to assess resu lts and, if necessary , review measures, tak in g into account experience , new data and new techno logies. (ITF 2019b) In a Safe System approach to micromobility, vehicle design should play a significant role . Th is section h ighlights the des ign elements wh ich are most important and discusses the regulatory solutions towards safe ve hi cles . Riders of stand in g e-scooters largely injure themselves in falls . For t hi s reason , ve hicle stability is a design pr iority. The stability of a micro-vehicle is influenced by a number of design factors inc l uding whee l size, tyre design, frame geometry, weight di stribu t ion and the pre sence of a seat and handlebar. Pedestrian protection is also a de sign priority. Vehicle mass is an important factor he re. Technology may offer solutio ns to prevent sidewalk riding and to lim it spee d in pedestrian areas . Most e-scooter fata li t ies involve heavier ve hicle s. This naturally leads to several recomm endations: • Micro-veh icl es shou ld be v isi ble in traffic . Regulators sho u ld acknowledge that different vehicle form factors w ill come w it h d ifferent design so luti ons for l ights and reflectors . • Heavier vehicles (ie. cars and tru cks) shou ld meet higher active and pass ive sa f ety standards. Occasiona lly, riders are i njured by hardware fa il ure. This ra ises the q uestion of type approval, and which m icro-vehicle approva l and in spect ion system would be re levant and proport ionate to the ri sks . In the ar ea of shared micromobi lity, des ign and operationa l que sti ons are linked : • A heavier battery means le ss frequent rechargin g; a swappable battery means lighter recha rgin g operations . The use of vans in rec harging and redi st r i bution tasks has potentia l ly negat ive imp acts on traffic safety. This section wi l l hig hlight some of them . • Share d vehicle fleet s, particularly exposed to harsh weat her and vanda l ism , may require higher design standards than privately owned micro-veh icles . For example , remote diag nosis of faulty equipment and th e protect ion of brake cables would be i mportant steps towards safer vehicles. 36 SAFE MICROMOBILITY © OECD/ITF 2020 SAFE VEHICLES AND OPER ATI ON S Vehicle design The des ign of brakes, whee ls, tyres and suspension attracted a h igh priority score in a survey ci rculated among industry experts and experts from the IT F Safer City Streets network (Anne x 3). This section covers these aspects and explores other questions, such as the benefits of having a seat or a handlebar, and the need to improve the design of motor vehicles. Braking systems Industry experts prioritise reliable braking systems over performance improveme nts. They did not express a particular urge to see anti-lock braking systems (ABS) installed on all micro-vehicles. Regulators should nonetheless envisage this techno logy on heavier and faste r micro-vehicles (types B, C and D), and regulatory al ignment with m otorcycles and mopeds. Some regulators impose two independent braking systems on pedal cycles. This rule can be transpo sed to e-scooters without d ifficulty . However, other vehicle form factors exist w here it is not physically possible to have two independent braking systems. Should this rule be appl ied to self-balanc i ng micro- vehicles, t hey would become illegal. Dialogue with users and w ith the in dus t ry would help define an alternative set of rules for the approval and inspect ion of self-ba lancing devices. Imposing two independent braking systems on those vehicles above a certain mass (types Band D) could be justified by the higher li kelihood that these vehicles will carry a numb er of passenger s or a significant cargo load . The case fo r regulation is reinforce d by the ab i lity of heavier micro-veh icles to carry more than two ch i ldren , raising the stakes of brake failure . For braking systems to be reliable , companies operating share d fleets of micro-vehicles should protect brake cables from vanda lism . The use of fully-enclosed and tamper-proof brake cables is recommended by NACTO (2018). Minimum performance requirements should be specified and tested during veh icle approval. These could be expressed in terms of outcome (e.g. ave rage deceleration), under specific speed, load and gradient conditions. Regu lators could seek to simplify vehicle approval by align i ng procedures for micro- veh icles o f t ypes A and B with those ap pl icable toe-b ikes, and p rocedures for types C and D -vehicles with a higher speed -with those applicable to mopeds. Bells and other acoustic alerting systems An acoust ic alerting dev ice, such as a be l l, is mandated on pedal cycles in the vast majority of countries that partic i pate in the permanent working group of the ITF on road traffic safety, known as IRTAD ' (Yann is et al., 2019). Micro-vehicles with a handlebar could easily be equipped with a bell. Other vehicles, such as electric skatebo ards and self-balancing devices, could be sold with a handheld acoustic device or a remote control. But the regulatory approach should be relat iv el y simple as these systems are of little interest t o police and industry experts and regulation for them li ke ly unenforced . A significant number of bell s on shared standing e-scooters in Paris are damaged, possibly due to frequent and rough hand l ing of vehicles during charging and redistribution operations. A bell should be designed to withstand the potent ial vandalism and lac k of care in a shared veh icle's operating l ife. Some e-scooter companies pro pose a pote nt ia lly more robust rotat in g bell integ r ated into the hand lebar. Others propose replacing the relat ively fragile mechanical bell by an electron ic sound activated by a button (Loritz , 2019). SAFE MICROMOBILITY © OECD/ITF 2020 37 SAFE VEHIC LES AND OPER ATIONS Visibility The analysis of e-scooter crashes to date re veals that a significant proportion of rider deaths occur in night-time crashes . Lights and reflectors are mandatory on pedal cycles in t he vast majority of ITF IRT AD countries (Yannis et al., 2019). Some countries also im pose the use of reflective vests in certain conditions. As part of a Safe System approach, however, it seems more appropriate to request re flective material from vehicle designers rather than from end-users. Not on ly are humans known for disregarding the rules, they are even more likely to do so when engaging in spontaneous trips on shared micro-vehicles . This report considers that t he use of reflective accessories is a matter of personal choice, whereas vehicle equipment must provide sufficient v isibili ty at all times . When regu lating for m icro-ve hicle visibility, policy makers should acknowledge that different vehicle forms will come w ith diffe r ent des ign solutions for li ghts and re fl ectors . Some micro-vehicles have lim ited space for reflective surfaces. Skateboards, skates and electric unicycles, for example, are very sma ll in size, wh ereas branding on shared veh icles can reduce the space availab le for reflectors. Regulators shou ld impose clear specif ica tion s for minimum reflective surfaces. For example, they cou ld speci f y the minimum amount of light that should be reflect ed by the micro-vehicle from any angl e wi t hout stip ulating if those refl ectors shou ld be p laced on th e whee l or the pedal. The use of reflect ive paint could become mo r e w idespread , as we ll. Weight Veh icle weight, along with speed, contributes to the kinetic energy of a veh icle and to the severity of in juries in the case of a co lli sion with a pedestrian . In Paris, motorcyc les and mopeds are in volved i n 20 % of pede strian fata li t ies . With a sim ilar traffic volume , pedal cycles are in vo lv ed i n just 4 % of pedestr ian fata lit ies . For this reason, it is natural to impose greater safety regu lat ions on heavier vehicle s. First generations of shared electric standing scooters were typ ically below 20 kg. As new generations are produced more robustly to withstand shared outdoor operations, to carry larger batteries and to prevent casual vanda li sm, typical vehicle weight is now over 20 kg . The im pact of micro-vehi cle weight on pedestrian sa fety shou ld be investigated. Wheels and tyres Road condition is men t ioned as a crash factor by most indi viduals injured in e lectric standing scooter crashes . Regu lators may specify road-handl ing tests or prefer to specify design characterist ics , or combine both option s. Veh icles with sma ll whee ls ar e more likely to crash on poor ly mainta in ed roads. Th is is the reason why e-scooter companies propose vehicles with greater whee l size as they update their fleets . Paine (2001) conducted a ser ies of tests comparing the road hand lin g of severa l models of bic ycles and standing scooters. These tests revea led t hat scooters (motorised and human -powered) are less stab le and contro ll able than bicycles. Scooters are more susceptib le to road irregularities . Sudden falls sideways into t he path of pass in g cars are more likely on scooters th an on b icycles. Paine states, "there do not appear to be any ways to significantly improve the design of scooters to i ncrease their sta bility at higher speed s." This may have as mu ch to do with centre of gravity, wheel caster effects or geometric effects, as wheel siz e. Authorities cou ld nonethe less en v isage imposing a minimum whee l size . 38 SAFE MICRO M OBILITY © OECD/ITF 2020 SAFE VEHI CLE S AND OPERATIONS Industry experts believe that pneumatic tyres offer a better road gr i p than so li d tyres . Regulation in Amsterdam requires that standing electric scooters be equipped with pneumatic tyres (Abend, 2019). Regulators m ay choose to specify a number of tests that micro-vehicles must pas s in differen t operat i ng cond itions before being used on the roads. In Germany, for example, standing scooters must pass a series of obstacles which inclu de vertical curbs (Box 2). Handlebars and turn indicators Cyclists make hand gestures to signal turn s and stops. German regulation sta te s that anyone riding a small electric vehicle must announce a change of direction with a hand signal unle ss turn ind icators are available . However, most first-time users, and a significant portion of regular users, keep both hands on the handlebar of an e-scooter at all times, not making any signa l at all. This could be for various reasons, such as a lack of stability and the need to keep one hand on the throttle. Manufacturers and regulators should, therefore, consider the case for having indicator lights on stand ing e-scooters . The German Association of Vehicle Testing Serv ices suggests revising regulat ions for stand ing e-scooters, requiring that they be equipped with turn indica to rs (VdTUV, 2019). One could imagine using foot signals as an alternative to hand gestures and i ndicator lights. Such an approach, however, comes with a significant risk of being misunderstood . Electric skateboards, skates and most self-balancing micro -vehicles have no handlebar. Their safety performance is largely undocumented . They are not exposed to some of the safety challenges observed with e-scoo t ers because the learning phase for the user is longer. Th is eliminates touristic use and user over-confidence from which e-scooters suffer. The French regu la tion on powered micro-mobi li ty has legalised their use, which can facil itate a robust assessment of the ir safety performance over time . The presence of hand lebars on micro -ve hi cles may well have an effect on safe ty, positive or negative . This report makes severa l hypotheses for researchers to investigate : • handlebars may facilitate emergency braking • handlebars may facilitate the rapid fami liar isation with t he vehicle (a reason why all shared micro-vehicles have handlebars) • handlebars may impede the use of hand gestures to signal turns and stops (gestures may destabil ise the rider, cause the loss of throttle pressure or cause the loss or braking capac ity) • handl ebars may contribute to injuries to the face and e lb ows in falls where hands cou ld have better absorbed the crash -landing. Seats The height from wh ich a human body falls can make the injury outcome worse . The height of the foot platform on a standing micro-vehicle may also de te rmine which bod y parts come into contact with which motor vehicle parts in the event of a col li sion . Certain safety benefits may der ive from hav ing a seat on an electric scooter because : 1} seating can lower t he rider's centre of gravity, in comparison to a standing scooter and 2) sea ting may help th e rid er make hand signals without losing control. Future research shou ld investigate differences in risk between seated and stand ing scooters, everything else being equal. Should seated e-scooters be regulated as mopeds? This report suggests that factors such as mass and speed should determine the relevant safety regulations . The presence of a seat, of wh ich the impact on SA FE MICRO M OBILITY © OECD/ITF 2020 39 SA FE VEHICLES AN D OPER ATIONS safety performance is yet unknown , is best ignored in safety regulations -especially since a seat is removable on some models. Assistance systems Industry experts are working to develop innovative assistance systems to enhance micromobility safety . Sidewalk riding is a priority safety concern for 70% of traffic safety experts, according to an ITF survey (Annex C). Potential solutions are pedestrian detection cameras mounted on micro-vehicles , and autonomous braking. However, autonomous brakes on vehicles without a restraint system put the rider at risk of being thrown from the vehicle . What is needed is a system to prevent sidewalk use where it is not allowed . Stability contro l solutions would be most welcome, be it mec hanical, or e lectronic. Mechanical stabilisation for the e-scooter market shou ld draw from over a century of pedal cycle design development. Some bicycles have a spring connecting the front fork to the frame to provide a progressive torque that tends to steer the bicycle straight ahead. This is especial ly common on cargo bikes and other bikes designed to carry loads over the front wheel. Most bicycles also have an angle and a bend -called fork rake -in the front fork, which contributes to stabilising the vehicle. Last, the gyroscopic effect is the tendency of a rotating body to keep its axis of rotation stable. The size and mass of the wheels greatly contribute to the gyroscopic stabilisation. E-scooter manufacturers should explore the safety benefits of larger wheels, fork rake and steering stabilisation. Electronic stabilisation cou ld strengthen the steering resistance at h igher speeds and apply a corrective steering input when a fall is predicted. This could facilitate the use of hand signa ls on standing electric scooters . A prototype has been developed and fitted on a bicycle by TU Delft (2019). In the longer term, pedal cyc les and scooters may become fall-proof thanks to such steering ass istance . Car desi g n Whilst the focus of this report is on micro-vehicles, vehicle safety considerations shou ld not overlook the significant improvements which are needed in the design of heavier vehicles. This section considers both active safety (to prevent a crash) and passive safety (to mitigate the severity of a crash). Intelligent speed as sistance (ISA) is an active safety system helping drivers adhere to posted speed limits . ISA will be imposed on new cars sold in Europe from 2022 and there is potential for this to become a global standard. Autonomous vehicles must not be allowed to drive over the legal speed limit. Imposing strict speed limits on m icro-vehicles would be disproportionate if limits applicable to heavier and faster vehicles were not strictly enforced . Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB) is another active safety system, designed to avoid crashes caused by late braking or braking with i nsufficient force . AEB involves a set of sensors on the vehicle which detect crit ical situations and apply ful l braking force autonomous ly, independently of the driver. As micromobility gains popularity, AEB should evolve to re liably detect all types of micro-veh icles. As for ISA, AEB will be mandatory for all new vehicles in the EU by 2022. Cooperat ive Intelligent Transport Systems, or C-ITS , offer wireless solutions for vehicles to exchange trusted messages and cooperate with other veh icles , road infrastructure and other road users. Those messages are often time-critical and safety-related . Micro-veh icles could use C-ITS to broadcast the ir position and reduce crash risk . However, it is a matter of principle that collision avoidance systems should detect all road users, whether they are equ i pped with a transponder or not, for fa irness reasons (ITF , 2019b). There is still value in a scenario where all shared m icro-vehicles come equ ipped with a 40 SA FE MI CROMOB ILITY © OECD /ITF 2020 SAFE VEHI CLES AND OPERATIONS transponder and signal their pre sence to heavy veh icles in their surroundings. By doing so, shared micro- vehicle fleets could literal ly train existing collision avoidance systems, calibrati ng sensor sensitivity, and reducing the number of fa lse negative detections . In the area of C-ITS, governments could incentivise the use of best-pract ice technology to co llect data from on-board vehicle sensors and learn about places where crashes are most likely to happen . Hig hway authorities could broadcast the position of r isky locations in rea l t i me where feasible. Car sensors could identify potholes alon g their route. Now more than ever, there is scope for car manufacturers to share pothole data with local government on a permanent basis. Passive safety im provements in ca rs should also be considered , especially in countries where governments are aiming for a shift towards more walking, cycl ing and micro-vehicle use . Cars come equipped w ith an increasing number of airbags, yet in most models , no airbag is protecting vulnerable road users from the consequences of a crash. Foot platforms on standing micro-vehicles provide the riders w ith elevated height. This may cause radical changes to which veh icle parts come into contact with which body parts in a collision w ith a motor vehicle. Research should, therefore, examine whether and how cars ' passive safety regulations need to be updated. Such regulat ions have traditionally prescribed some energy -absorb i ng materials on bonnets and windscreens. Assumpt ions on pedestrian height may need to be revised or broadened . Type approval and technical inspections Product safety is an essential part of market access regulation in many countries, even more so when products can be used as veh ic les on pub li c roads . Where such regulations exist and apply to motor- scooters and bicycles, what do they require? Are they applicable on new forms of micro -vehic les? Regulators should cons ider the benefit of align ing the requirements placed on micro-veh icles with existing frameworks : • Cou ld most requirements placed on Type A micro-veh icles be aligned with those applicable to b icycles and slow e-bikes? Considering the low kinetic energy of these vehicles , one could indeed argue that a formal type approval would be unnecessarily burde nsome and might slow innovation . • Cou ld most requ i rements placed on Type C and Type D micro-vehicles be aligned with those app licable to moped s? Shared mobility companies should not send a vehicle to landfi ll when one part is broken : they should recycle components and upgrade parts . An ITF report will explore this aspect as it proposes to assess and compare t he life cycle carbon footprints of several mobility solutions {ITF, forthcoming a). Increasingly, shared m icromobility veh icles are designed to be modular, not just for their batteries but for every other principal component group (wheels , electronics, body, etc .). Will type approva l regulations cope w ith or discourage such solutions? When a vehicle recombines various components, which homologation permit will it display? Regulators should anticipate these quest ions as they develop their approval procedure. Type approval policies should leave some room for outcome-based certification . In this sense, the German test on braking performance and obstacle crossing is a positive development (Box 2). SAFE MICRO MOBILITY © OECD/ITF 2020 41 " SAF E VEHICLES AND OPERATIONS Box 2. German prod uct testing In the European Union, personal light electric vehicles such as standing e-scooters fall outside of the scope of the Type Approval Regulation (EU) No. 168/2013 for two-or three-wheel vehicles and quadricycles. This is because self-balancing veh icles and vehicles without a seat are explicitly excluded . Instead, vehicle approva l can be regulated at a nationa l leve l. The German r egu l ation known as eKFV specifies the type-approval requirements applicable to electric personal mob ili ty devices . Maximum speed and braking performance are tested on tracks. The min i mum brak ing performance is set to 3.5 m/s2 . Vehicle dynamics are also tested by riding over specific vertical elements (represented in Figure 11) at maximum speed without loss of contro l. Figure 11. German vehicle dynam ics testing elements Note: "Auffahrstufe" can be translated as "step". By the end of October 2019, 29 vehicle types were approved and permits were delivered by the Federa l Motor Transport Authority (KBA), as listed o n t h e KBA webs ite. Ap p roved smal l electric vehicles have a factory plate showing (a) manufacturer, (b) type and (c) permit number. So urce : BMVI (2019). The type-app roval process and safety requireme nts applicab le to ligh t vehicles can differ b etwee n countries but also within a country, as observed acros s the United States . A global harmonisation wa s proposed by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe , which is today used by most countries as a refe rence (UNECE, 2017). European regulations and directives A l l micro-vehicle manufacturers have the minimum lega l obligation to comply wi t h the General Product Safety Directive (GPSD) 2001/95/EC and Directi ve 2006/42/EC on Machi ne ry (B ike Europe, 2017a). The GPSD is not specifical ly oriented to vehic les , for wh ich applicable safety rules are de si gned at a national level , but it establishes general community-level safety st anda r d s for any product placed on the market. 42 SAFE MICROMOBILITY © OECD/ITF 2020 SAFE VEHICLES AND OPERATIONS The Machinery Directive is not specific to vehic les, either, but inclu des re levant health and safety requirements, nonetheless. Regulation 168/2013 defines a type-approval process for light-powered vehicles, covering a number of areas includ in g safety, construction and environmental performance (Annex D). It applies to : • all Lle-B category vehicles : these are two-wheel mopeds and "spee d pedelecs ", which are defined as vehic les with a max imum design speed of up to 45 km/h, with a continuous rated power assistance of 250-4 000 W (though most have 500-750 W} • some Lle-A category vehicle s: light two-wheel-powered vehicles with a cont inuous rated power assistance of 250-1000 W. Regulat ion 168/2013 does not apply, however, to devices such as pedelecs li m ited to 250 W and 35 km/h, sel f -balancing vehicles, electric un icycles or e-scooters, for which approval is managed at a national level. European safety requirements exist nonetheless for t hese devices (Tab le 4): • The European Par li ament and t he Council of the Europea n Union developed directives on the use of certain hazardous substances, the waste of electric equipme nt, the electromagnetic compatibility and the voltage limits . • The European Comm ittee fo r Standardization (CEN) defined voluntary safety standards, such as EN 50604 for removable lith i um -ion battery systems. It also proposed EN 15194 as an adapted standard for Electr ically Power Assisted Cycles (EPAC), wh ich is now a glob al standard (ISO, 2020). CEN is currently deve lop ing a standard for personal light elect ri c ve hicles (PLEV ) that are not, as of the writing of this report, subject to type-approval for on-roa d use. It will defin e safety re qui rements and adapted test methods (CEN, 2019}. However, EN 15194 and EN 50604 remain voluntary standards. In most member states manufacturers are under no legal ob li gat ion to comply with the m . Only a few member states made these st andard s comp ul sory, t he United Kingdom and France amo ng them . In the European Union, a vehicle manufacturer can make an application for type approval in any member state. Through a principle of mutual recognit ion, the approval given in one country becomes va lid throughout the European Union without the need for further t ests . The certificate of conformity is delivered by a national type-approval authority. This authority can have in-house testing fac il it ies, such as the German Federal Motor Transport Authority (KBA) and the Netherlands Vehicle Authority (RDW}. In most cases, however, it designates technical services such as Dekra to test prototypes on its behalf. Self- certification by manufacturers is also possible . In all cases , the nat ional type-a pp roval authority ensures that the tests are done correctly and remains the only structure entitled to deliver the type approval (European Commission, 201 9a}. Light powered vehicles are excluded from periodic technical in spections (PTI ) in Europe. Directive 2014/45/E U set minim um emissions and safety standards for vehicles that are currently in operation. It applies only for vehic le s with a minimum des ign speed of 45 km/h . This remains unchanged since the last ITF repo rt on improving safety for motorcycle, scooter and moped riders (ITF, 2015). The European Commission (2019b} published a study on the inclusion of two-or three-wheel vehicles in the scope of the periodic roadworthiness testing . The stud y considers the impact of introducing inspection of mopeds in some Spanish r egions between 2007 and 2010 . The cos t benefit analysis shows a very stro ng relationsh ip between the in troduction of PTI for m opeds in Spain and reduct io n in the number of crashes. W ith that in mind, a complete motorised veh icle inspection is recommended. It SA FE M ICROMOBI LITY © OECD /IT F 20 20 43 " .. SAFE VEHIC LES AND OPER ATI ON S includes all inspection areas set out by Directive 2014/45/EU, with the less rigorous periodicities corresponding to the analysed countries : • mopeds : first inspection after three years, subsequent inspections every two years • motorcycles: first in spection after four years, subsequent inspections every two yea rs . Table 4 . Approval requirements for powered cycles and two-wheel mopeds in Europe Reference Title Power assisted Ue-A category Ue-8 category bikes, up to vehicles up to vehicles up to 250Wand lOOOWand 4000Wand 25 km/h 25 km/h 45 km/h Regulation Approval and market surveillance of two-x x 168/2013 or three-whee l vehicles and quadr icycl es Regulation Environmental and propulsion unit x x 134/2014 performance requirements Regulati o n Vehic le functional safety requirements x x 3/2014 Regulation Vehicle construction and general x x 44/2014 req u irements Regulati o n Administrative pro vision x x 901/2014 Directive Genera l product safety {GPSD) x x x 2001 /95/EC Dir ecti ve Ma chine ry x 2006/42/EC Directive Battery Directive {BD) x x x 2006/66/EC Dire cti ve Re strict ion of the use of certain x 2011 /65 /EC ha za rd ous subst an ce s {RoHS ) Directive Waste of elec trical and electroni c x 2012 /19/EU equipment (WEEE) Directi ve 20 14/30 El ec tromagnetic compat ibi li ty (EMC) x Directive Voltage limits (VLD) x 2014/35 /EU EN 15194 {2009) Electrically Power As sisted Cycle s {EPAC) x standard EN 50604 (2016) Secondary li thium batteries for lig ht x standard electric vehicle app li cat ions Regulation in the United States In th e Un ited States, the Federal Government regulates vehicles through federal agencies. The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) handles co nsumer products, such as bicycles, and its pu rvi ew is li mited only to the manufacturing and first sale of consumer pro du cts. Bicycles that fail any of the req uirements are banned for sale under the Federa l Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA , 2019). The Nationa l Highway Transportation Safety Adm inistration (NHTSA) ha ndl es motor veh icles , and its purview is li mited primarily to safety requirements of motor veh icl es . Through adm i nistering the Fe dera l Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), NHTSA is able to impose requiremen t s on the design, construction, 44 SA FE MIC ROMOBI LITY © OECD/ITF 2020 SAFE VEHICL ES AND OPERATIONS performance, and durability of motor vehicles. However, each state has the possibility to govern the licencing and use of consumer products and motor vehicles insofar as they do not enact laws that reduce safety standards se t by the federal agencies (NITC, 2014). In 2002, the US Congress established requirements for low-speed electric bicycles with Public Law 107 -319, which amended the Consumer Product Safety Act. These vehicles are defined as "two-or three-wheeled vehicles with fully operable pedals and an electr ic motor of less than 750 watts (1 hp), whose maximum speed on a paved level surface, when powered solely by such a motor while ridden by an operator who weighs 170 pound s, is less than 20 mph (32 km/h)." It also differentiates low speed- electric bicycles from motor vehicles . (Public Law 107-319, 2002) In 2005, NHTSA addressed the apparent incongruence between a motor veh icle and a low-speed electric bicycle for safety reasons. It followed CPSC orientation and did not consider low-speed electric bicycles as motor vehicles . Thus, NHTSA defers to CPSC to regulate these products (NITC, 2014). Table 5 . Requireme nts for bicycle s and slow e-bikes in t he United States Federa l Regulation Requirements §1512.5 Bra king system §1512.6 Steering system §15 12.7 Pedal s §15 12.8 Drive chain §15 12 .9 Protective guard s §1512.10 Requirements for tyres §1512 .11 Wheel s §1512.12 Wheel hubs §1512.13 Front fo rk §1512.14 Fork and frame assembly §1512 .15 Sea t §1512.16 Reflectors Source: CPSC (2019). All powered vehicles that exceed 750 watts and a ma ximum self-propelled speed of 32 km/h are considered as "motor vehicles" and must comply with additiona l requirements that are found in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (NHTSA, 2013). The federal defi nition of motor vehicles and e-bikes does is not necessarily adopted by state and local governments. They have the power to authorise veh icular registrat ion and licencing, which leads to different implementations (NITC , 2014). States and local governments also define vehicles and operational ru les individually, resulting i n local conte xt-specific polic ies that are often incompatible w ith neighbouring jurisdictions. There is no federal requirement for technica l inspections of motor vehicles in the United States. Only a l i mited number of states require safety inspection. NHTSA (2017) created vehicle in use inspection standards, which set inspect ion criteria for several vehicle systems . SAFE M ICR OM OBI LITY © OECD/IT F 2020 45 •, SAFE VEH ICL ES AND OPERATIONS Shared fleet operations: Best practice in maintenance, recharging and redistribution The operation of shared fleets of micro-vehicles comes w ith specif ic road safety challenges and op portunities whi ch are no t found with privately owned de vices . Maintenance is a particular challenge cons ider ing the intense and outdoor use of the vehicles, not to mention vand ali sm . Damaged vehicles could be a hazard, which is why most ap p-based micromobility companies encourage their users to check if t he brakes work befo re t aking a rid e. Self -diagnos is is an area where rapid progress is anticipated : vehicles wil l be able t o identify faults as they occur and re m otely cal l for a remedial in tervention, thu s preventing injuries due to fau lty equipment. Users also ha ve a role to play in diagnosing unsafe ve hi cles. Sha r ed micromobi li ty companies shou ld enquire feedback at the end of each ride. A natural market pressure exists to make the feedback proces s qu ick and pa inl ess to the user, at the risk of limi t ing its capability to diagnose veh icle problem s. More use sho uld be made of voice recognition software for this reason . Staff inspections are also part of t he solution , helpful to d iagnose problems on various piece s of equ ipment suc h as bells or lights. The positive aspect of electr ic shared micromobility is the regular handl i ng by dedicated staff employed fo r the r echarging of batteries . Last but not least, regulators should comm ission regular ind epende nt surveys of shared fleet conditions . Maintenance operations are often cond ucted using ded icated vans, a solut ion which comes with added congestion , po llution and crash risk for the city. Instead , some companies use cargo -bike s for maintenance t asks, address ing all three negative impact s. Dockless mi cromob ility company JUMP uses cargo bik es (Figure 12) in Pari s, Berl i n, Brussels and five other cities 6 , to transport e-bi ke batteries to swa p out in the fie ld (JUMP , 20 19). Ot her operators integrating electric cargo-bikes or other electric vehicles in their operations include VO i and Datt. Figure 12 . Cargo bike used in maintenance and battery swap operat ions Source: Uber. The recharg i ng and rebalancing of micro-vehic le fleets also comes with negat ive impacts . Van or pickup tr uck rotations are not ne utral in terms of road safety (Fig ure 13). Mi cromobility companies shou ld take ownership of the safety performance of the staff and contracto rs involved in this operation . In line with their image of innovators , companies should deploy tec hn ology solutions towards safe and eco-driving. 46 SA FE MIC ROM OBILITY © OECD /IT F 2020 SAFE VEHICLE S AND OPERATIONS One way to improve road safety is by creating parking hubs for micromob i lity vehicles in dense urban environments. This would provide a localised point of co ll ect for rechargers who m ight otherwise be distracted drivers as they searched the streets for scattered vehicles. Figure 13. Contractors or "juic ers" use pr ivate ve hi cles to collect and recharge e-scooters © Alexandre Santacreu Some companies may re ly on bicycle trailers to collect, recharge and reba lance the ir shared micro - vehicle fleet throughout the city (Maus, 2016). This method mitigates the im pact a van could have but still has an impact on the safety and level of service of the cycling netwo rk, as vehicle s and trailers used for rebalancing can obstruct a bike lane as they stop to load and unload . When a city paints or build s a parking hub, consideration should be given to where the rebalancing vehicle will park . Local government and shared micromobility companies should work togethe r to identify the most suitable locations for the parking of micro-vehicles . Some cities have implemented on-street park i ng zones for shared micromob ility. In the United States, the City of Santa Monica (2019b } ins talled 107 parking and pick -up zones, helping to organise rider parking and manage service provide r fleet deployment. It uses geofencing techniques to enforce the use of parking zones . Many industry experts are in favour of the idea of requiring riders of shared dockless micro-vehicles to park their vehicles in ded ica ted zones. Not only would it reduce clutter on the urban landscape and tripping hazards for pedestrians , it would also facilitate fleet operations. Could operators deploy a shared dockless micromobility mode l w ithout collateral vehicle movement? This could be envisaged considering several opportunities : • Dynami c pricing could encourage people to make greater use of veh icles where their concent r ation is excessive . • Sufficiently sized fleets and storage capacity could eliminate the need for rebalancing . • Swappable batteries could be exchanged using a network of battery banks or local business partners . In this case, the rider benefits from a credit on the cost of the ride . • Swappable batteries could be exchanged by maintenance staff on cargo bike s. • Vehic les could be plugged into charging docks in a hybrid model, offering both free-floating and dock -based options to the user. • Higher capacity batteries could reduce the need for recharg in g. SAFE MICROMOBILITY © OECD/ITF 2020 47 SA FE ROAD USERS Safe road users E-scooter ri ders impaired by alcohol or rid ing on sidewa lks captured med ia attention in 2019 . Tho se topics attracted a high priority score in a survey circulated among industry experts and experts from t he Safer City Streets network (Anne x C). The survey revea led high expectations that training may reduce the elevated crash risk observed among novice e-scooter riders. Training may indeed help users to better contro l their vehicle and to better integrate themselves in the traffi c system. "Tra inin g peop le how to rid e in traffic" is seen as a top or high priority by over 60% of respondents , which is where synergies could be envisaged with cycle training . "Updating the classic road safety educat ion " attracts a similar sco re and could be interpreted as the need to revise driver train in g, a point which this report ex plores further below . "Applying the Safe System principles to micromobility" is a top priority for 30 % of the 49 survey respondents. As a resul t , the ass umpt ion should be that people wil l always make mistakes, no matter how much training or experience they accumulate (ITF, 2016). For this reason, th is chapter on behaviour ca n only deliver part of the solution to address micromo bili ty safety quest ions . Safe vehicles and a safe infrastructure are indispensable components of a Safe System . Education and raising awareness can complement bu t must never substitute for other, more effective measures (Polis, 2019). Experience, training and education : Will micromobility become safer over time? The rapid growth of the e-scooter sharing system is fuelled, at least in part, by a tra vel demand previously unmet : that of a population which does not feel confiden t enough to cycle and often lacks the sk ill s to do so safely. In countries where very few people cycle, e-scooters are helping the population benefit from a new transport mode that is comparab le in both perfo rmance and convenience to a bicycle . What is the impact of novice riders suddenly engaging in the traffic environment? The lack of experience with micromobility has two dimens ions: 1) people may not be familiar with new vehi cle types such as e-scooters or e-bikes and 2) peo p le may not be familiar with the traffic rules and with techniques for anticipating dangers and staying safe. Governments at all le vels should seek to address the second point by providing training to all chi ldren . Examp les of cycle training in schools exist and are documented in Box 3. Governments should also make cycle train ing available to adu lts . Training co u ld be ada pted and expanded to include other forms of micromobility incl uding, but not limited to, stand ing e-scooters. Howev er, one could argue that cyc le tra inin g would be sufficient to provide a core se t of skills ap plicabl e to the use of all micro-veh icles in traffic, and that cycle training al so helps people lead health ie r, phy sically active lives . The risk of inju ry could be hig hest during a person's first few e-scooter rides . In Au stin, Texas, 33% of e-scooter rider in jurys occurred during the user's first rid e and 63% during the first nine rides (Austin Pub lic Health, 2019). The interpretation of such figures is difficult, however, due t o the lack of data on 48 SAFE MICRO MOBI Ll1Y © OECD/ITF 2020 SAF E RO AD USERS how much experience the average rider ha s acquired, since most people had made very few rides at the t ime of the study . In a city where e-scooters were recently introdu ced, or where tourist ic use is important, it is mathematical ly inevitab le that most people who are injured will be injured on the ir first few rides . Experience affects behaviour and risk Youth and lack of experience have a co mpoun d effect on crash risk. This was observed among novice car drivers: the crash rate of olde r novice drivers is lower tha n that of youn ger ones (Curry et al., 2017). Drivers between 16-24 years old are hig hly over-represented in crash statistics, with risks that are two to three times higher than t hose of more experienced drivers . They are more oft en involved in single- vehicle crashes, in night-t ime crashes and in crashes involving "loss of control" or "high speeds". Underlying factors contributing to this risk for young drivers are immaturity, lack of experience, impairment, and lifestyles associate d with their age and gender. Young drivers engage more frequently in high-risk situations such as night-time driving and driving older cars with fewe r safety features (European Commission , 2015). Driver expe ri ence can be expressed i n terms of cumulated mileage and time since obtaining a licence; it affects both vehicle contro l sk ills and more comp lex cognitive ski lls, such as information processing skills, self-calibration, hazard and risk perception, and safety-related mot ivat ion or attitudes (Harrison, 1999). Lack of driving experience, in terms of mileage , affects vehicle manoeuvrin g, increasing the tendency to commit operative errors and the probability of being involved in near miss crashes. Lack of exper ience also causes the failure to detect and recogni se latent hazards in roads and traffic situat ions (Harrison, 1999}. Moreover, experience enhan ces v isual search strategies and increases cognitive skills, which are more in fluential t han the lack of veh ic le control (Deery, 1999; Underwood , 2007}. Ex pe rience continues to play a ro le even many y ears after obtaining the driving licence. A study in Brazil confirmed that the longer professional truck drivers had been driv ing, the lower the reported invo lvement in crashes and near-misses, regardless of age (Girotto et al., 2016). It could be assumed that ac r oss all transport mode s, exper ienced drivers are more likely to anticipate conflicts and avoid crashes. Liu, Hosk ing and Lenne (2009} investiga ted the differences between haz ard percept ion abilities of experienced and novice powered two-wheeler (PTW} riders . They found that novice riders are ove rcon fident about the ir abilities and fai l to percei ve hazards as well as experienced riders. Other research studies have shown that experienced riders respond faster to hazards than ine x perienced ones (Hosking, Liu and Bayly, 2010}. Another study investigating risk awareness abilities among different populations of motorcyc li sts concluded tha t cognitive abilities in both hazard detection and situational criticality assessment depend on and are improved with riding exper ience (Be llet and Banet, 2012). A more recent study assessed the impact of experience and advanced train i ng on rider behaviour us ing a motorcycle simulator; the re sults sugges ted that advanced tra ining has proven beneficia l over more experience (Crun dall et al., 2014}. Research should be cond ucted to examine if some of the experience acquired with one vehicle type , such as a bicycle, may be tran sfera ble to another, such as an e-scooter. Such a finding wou ld re-affirm the benefi t of conduct ing cycle t raining in schools . Research has already found that car driving experience cont ri butes positive ly t o the safety of PTW riders (Lardell i-Claret et al., 2005}. Likewise, e-bike riders with car d riving experience were statistically less likely to be involved in at -fau lt crashes (Yao and Wu , 2012 ). Tran sferab ili ty is , however, limited in other areas . One study found that pedal cycling SAFE MICRO MOBI LITY © OECD/ITF 2020 49 .. ,• SAFE RO AD US ERS experience was not associated with differences in drivers' attentio n toward pedal cycles (Robbins and Chapman , 2018). The role of training Driver or rider train i ng is a common road safety strategy and solution for increasing road safety, regardless of road user experience. In road safety literature the terms "train ing" and "education" are often used interchangeably . Before a policy is defined for e-scooter training, much can and should be learned from other modes. For instance, motorised mobility scooter user train ing proved positive and reduced confl icts with pedestrians (Toosizadeh et al., 2014). Box 3. Teaching cycling skills in schools Providing cycling lessons at a young age could help to decrease the number of road crashes involving cyclists. These lessons cou ld include traffic rules and on-street riding skills and could lead to a change in children 's road safety culture. In 2009, the European Un ion initiated the Life Cycle project, a kindergarten cycling programme that was adopted in the Austrian city of Graz and in Ljubljana, Slovenia. (Kollinger, Rzewnicki and Fismer, 2011). There are other examples of cycling training programmes for children throughout the world. The Netherlands is a world leader in terms of high cycl in g participation and low crash risk per kilometre cycled (Santacreu, 2018). Each year, 200 000 children across the Netherlands participate in the national Verkeersexamen, or "traffic test". Following an in-class theory sess ion, the 12-year-o lds undertake a practica l exam on the streets of their city, designed to familiarise them with various real -life traffic situations. Upon successful completion of the 5-km bicycle ride -evaluated by parent volunteers -the students receive a personalised diploma. This test and the diploma it confers is a rite of passage for every Dutch child starting secondary school. 1 England has several training programmes to promote safe biking. "Bikeabil ity" is a cycle training programme funded by the Department of Transport. Registered local Bikeabil ity providers organise and conduct the trainings, which take place predominantl y in schoo ls (Bikeability, 2019). "Bike it Plus London" is a behaviour change programme for schools that was de veloped by Sustrans (United Kingdom's leading sustainable transport charity ) in partnership with Transport for London . It involves students, staff, parents and the wider school community (S ustrans, 2019). In New Zealand, the NZ Transport Agency and Accident Compensation Corporation have collaborated in the development of a national cycling education system called "BikeReady". This system is based on gi v ing people the skills they need at the right time in their life -from learning bike handling skills in primary schoo l to learning road ru les and how to ride on-road when they are ready (NZ Transport Agency, 2019}. In Australia, the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (DPTI) runs the successful "Way2Go Bike Ed Program" in primary schools. This programme is funded and managed by the DPTI and provides bicycle educat ion for primary education students aged 9-13 years (Way2Go, 2019).8 Graduated driver licencing (GDL) programmes and a probationary licence have been progressively in t roduced in several countr ies worldwide since the ear ly 1970s. Their aim was to reduce fatal crashes and high-risk behaviours among teen drivers. GDL is a licencing system designed to provide learners with driving experience and sk ills gradual ly over time in low-risk environments . Imp lementat ion of GDL 50 SAFE MICR OM OBILl1Y © OECD/ITF 2020 SA FE RO AD USERS training has resulted in a 22% reduction of crashes among 16-year-old and 6% in 17-18-year-old drivers (Zhu et al., 2013). Most formal pre-licence training (FPLT) focuses on procedura l sk ill s relating to vehicle control. It covers many formats , including professional driving instruction , school-based driver education, etc. Regarding the effect of FPLT, it can be measured as a difference in driving performance between drivers who did not comp lete the same training . Overall , FPLT based on mandato ry d r iver ed ucation or computerised tra ining focused on cognitive driving skills is effective in improv ing novice drivers' road safety (Hay , Etienne and Paire-Ficout, 2017). Early trained drivers have better speed adaptation ski lls and enhanced lateral and long itudinal vehic le control tha n traditional ly trained ones (F r eydier, Berthelon and Bastien -Toniazzo, 2016). The safety of micromobi lity depends at least as much on driver training for motor vehicle users as on micro-vehicle rider training . As demonstrated earlier, fatal micromobility crashes typically invo lve cars or trucks . A core element of driver training could require motor vehicle drivers to spend time cycl i ng in traffic. Another element could consist of adopting safety habi t s such as the "Dutch reach", which prevents drivers from opening a car door into the path of a perso n cycl ing . Police services need also to be tra i ned to place prio ri ty on the enforcement of moving offences by drivers of motor vehic les . Passing distances and safe headways, for instance, should be better enforced . Figure 14 . ln -app taxi passenger alerts for the safe opening of car doors near bikes So urce: Ub e r . ...... 10:10 AM II UBER now Drop off along bike route Look for people on b ikes before opening the door. 9 28l Lillie Road * How's your ride going? Arrival io:11a m Add or change Rate or tip Uber has begun using th ei r smartphone app to alert their passengers to the presence of bike lanes . When a trip's arrival po i nt is located close to a bike lane (or to a bus lane where bikes can ride), the passenger receives a notification on their phone 500 metres before the arrival point. These bike lane alerts (Fig ure 14) are in tended to promote awareness among passengers of the surrounding micro- vehicle traffic, and avoid collisions . They are li ve in 200 cities across the world. They illu strate the vast SA FE M ICRO MOBILI TY © OECD/IT F 2020 51 .. SAFE RO AD USERS potential for smartphone app s to ca r ry safety -rele vant messages or even training that can include v ideo and v irtua l-reality . Ideally, drivers training should be required during the dr iv ing li cencing process, when people obtain their licence for the first time, and aga in in the course of a driver's lifetime. Rider licencing and age limits In count r ies where moped use is regulated, riders must see k a licence which is only available from a specific age . European countries, for instance, impose moped riders to hold a licence of type "AM" which is obtained after formal training. Most European countries allow the use of mopeds from the age of 16, but other countries choose to impose a lower min imum age : 14 in Estonia , France , Hungary, Italy, Latv ia and Po land; and 15 in Austria , Czech Republic, Finland, Lithuan ia, Slovak Repub lic, Slovenia and Spain. Riding a bi cycle, however, does not require a licence. Pedal as sisted bicycles limited to 25 km /h by des ign are treated like bicycles i n European countries . Pedal assisted cycles reaching higher speeds, and b icyc les providing power w ithout the need to peda l, are genera ll y con sidered as mopeds and require the same licence and minimum age . Some countries, however, choose to facilitate the use of speed -pedelecs as described in Box 4 . This ra ises the question of powered micro -veh icles : shou ld they be regulated as bicycles or as mopeds? Thi s report designates speed as the primary factor in traffic safety by far. Therefore, the slowest micro - vehicle s (types A and B) should be accessible to people without a licence , and a moped -type licence cou ld be required for the use of faster micro-vehicle s (types C and D). Rider li cenc i ng for the use of powered micro -veh icles wou ld give a competitive advantage to bicycles, which could be just ified by public health considerations . Powered micro -vehicles do not provide the same leve ls of phys ical activity and health benefits which bicycles and pedal -assist bicycles provide . To obta in a moped drivi ng licence in Germany, drivers are required to complete si x 90-minute training sessions of theory in the driving school and one 90 -minute session of practica l training. This is followed by a pu re ly theoretica l test of 20 questions . This could be us'eful for younger e-scooter use r s who have neither a car nor a motorcycle licence . (VdTUV, 2019 ) Box 4. Where speed pede lecs are classifi ed as bicycles Speed pedelecs are electrically assisted peda l cycles with a top speed of up to 45 km/h. In many countries , they are classified as mopeds and often banned from cycling facilities, but are often regulated with a lighter touch than mopeds. In Denmark, for example, speed pedelecs are allowed on cycle paths. The Danish Parliament decided that, as of 1 Ju ly 2018, users operating speed pede lecs need only to have turned 15 and to wear a bicycle helmet. The licence and number-plate requirements were lifted . Switzerland was among the first countries in Europe to facilitate the use of speed pedelecs as an alternative to the common 25 km/h pedelecs found in the European Union and the rest of the world . They are categorised as mopeds and must be used on bicycle infrastructure, where conflicts are reported to occur. Riders of speed pede lecs must be at least 14 years o ld, ha ve a moped rider licence and wear b icycle helmets . 52 SAFE MICROMOBILITY © OECD/ITF 2020 SAF E ROAD USERS Shared micromobility compan i es invest in training E-scooter sharing companies should provide substantial help to people who are not familiar with the vehicles or the ru les of the road. Standing e-scooter companies are already investing significantly in user training. They recognise that the innovati ve vehicle types they offer attract people who have no previous experience with cycling fac ilities or low-speed road use. Micro-ve hicles do not benefit from decades-or centuries-old social norms that have defined a place and priority rules for each road user in cities. Box 5. Online e-scooter traffic schoo l by VOi E-scooter company Voi developed an on line training platform "RidelikeVoila". The tra i ning was inspired by the theory tests required for a drivi ng licence and presented as an illustrated qu iz. Users are encouraged to take the training to rece ive credits for f ut ure rides . Figure 15 . Screen captures from online traffic school RideLikeVoila Source: At t efo rs (2019). E-scooter company Bird hosted more than one hundred ed ucational events called "s.h.a.r.e. Safe Streets" in 2019 . The company provided tips for safe and responsible riding through their website and smartphone app which now include virtual rea li ty v ideo s. Lime, another e-scooter company, allocated over USD 3 mi llion for marketing, outreach, and education, and gave away more tha n 250 000 helmets is SAFE MICROMOBILITY © OECD/ITF 2020 53 SAFE ROAD US ERS its campaign "Respect the Ride", which encouraged respons i ble r idi ng and parking (Hawkins, 2019). In Berlin, Lime o rganised several free training even t s called "First Ride Academy". Customers of shared micromobility compa ni es all re ly on smart pho nes to lo cate and unlock vehicles . Smartphones could become an effective so lution for providing r ider training . This is an opportunity which the Swedish e-scooter compa ny VOi explored through an a pp-based traffic school (Box 5). Some moto r-scooter shar ing compa ni es offer free lessons. Small (20 19) high lights a 30-minute hands-on training offe r ed by a co mp any cal led Revel in Washington D.C. It incl udes lessons in lane pos itio ning (teach in g ride rs how to be seen by other motorists an d to avoid car doo rs) and emergency braking . It seeks to moderate behav io ur with lessons such as "It's not if you fal l. .. it's when yo u fall." The regulatory questions Th is section examines th e role of governments in defining and e nforcing requ irements regard i ng road user behav iours, such as speed and alcohol and he lmet use . Germany is amo ng t he countries that have developed regulations t o fr ame the use of e-scooters . Since es tabli shing this new legal framework in Jun e 2019, Germany has become t he European country w ith the most cit ies served by shared standing e-scoote r s {Figure 16). Thi s r eport, therefore, make s seve ra l mentions of the German regulations , which are summar ised in Bo x 6 . Figure 16. In Europe, Germany has the most cities with shared standing e-scooters Be rlin -VOi Not e : Data as of 30-Sept-2019. Bubble si ze represents the number of active e -scoo ter companies, trip traces are es tim ated from trip start and end po i nt, as extra ct ed from each compa ny's appl ica ti o n program interface (API). Source: Civity (2019). Alcohol and drugs Governments sho ul d define and enforce alcoho l and drug regu lations across al l road user groups. Addressing alcoho l and drug use among traffic participa nts requires a systemic approach , as the problem is not specific to m icromobility. Several e-scooter riders ha ve already been killed by impaired mot or vehicle drivers. 54 SAFE MICROMOB ILITY © OECD/ITF 2020 SAFE ROAD USERS Box 6. Current situatio n of electr ic scooters in Germany Stand ing e-scooters have been allowed on German roads since 15 June 2019 . The Federa l government enacted the Ord inanc e on the Participation of Small Electric Vehicles in Road Traffic, known as eKFV. Whilst e-scooters are now classified as motor vehicles, not all rights and obligations of motor vehicles apply. For example , r ide rs do not have to be licenced and they do not have to wear a helmet. However, riders must: • hold valid liability insurance • respect the same alcohol limits as motor vehicle drivers • be at least 14 years of age • use cycle infrastructure where available (and the road if no such infras tructure exists) • stay off footpaths. Standing e-s coote rs must meet certain technical specifications. They must : • ha ve a steering and ho ld ing rod • not exceed 0.70 metres in width, 1.40 metres in height and 2.00 metres in length • not exceed 55 kg (without rider) • have a design speed of at least 6 km/h but not exceed 20 km/h • have a power limitation of 500 watts (1 400 watts for self-balancing vehicles) • comply with minimum technical requirements for lig htning, braking (they must have two independent brakes), etc. Manufacturers are re quired to apply for a general operating permit from the Federal Motor Transport Authority (KBA) for their vehicles . It took some t im e for a significant number of dev ices to obtain the permit; interested buyers had difficulty find ing models with the appropriate permits . Retailers continued to se ll models without them. Users who ignore the regulations outline d in the Ordinance are subject to fines. Anyone who moves a standing e-scooter w ithout a general operating licence, for example, may be fined EUR 70. The penalty for driving without an insurance sticker is EUR 40. Source: BMVI (2019). The share of road deaths wh ich are alcohol-related is est imated at over 20% globa lly (ITF , 2018) and around 25% in Europe (Ca li ne scu and Adminaite, 2018). E-scooter injury ana lysis in the US cities of Santa Monica and San Diego suggest a strong correlation between alcohol consum ption and cras h severity. Among ED e-scoote r patients in Santa Monica, 5% were alcoho l intoxicated (Trivedi et al., 2019). In comparison, a higher prevalence of alcohol impa irment was found among trauma pa tients in San Diego: at least 38% had a blood alcohol leve l over 80 mg/d l , and the median among those intoxicated pat ients was 199 mg/dl (Kobayashi et al., 2019). Pol ice services should aim for a systematic alcohol test in g of every road user actively invo lved in a fatal or serious crash . If syste matic alcoho l testing is not possib le, a statistical protocol should be defined so to SAFE MICROMOB ILI TY © OECD/IT F 2020 55 SAFE ROAD USERS estimate the true number of alcohol-related crashes (ITF, 2018). As part of a campaign of roadside or post-crash alcohol tests, drug tests should not be neglected. Most OECD countries have defined a Blood Alcoho l Content limit (BAC) for cyc lists . BAC limit for cyc ling is higher than for driving in both Austria (0 .8%0) and Germany (l.6%0), but lower i n Slovenia (0 %o). In other countries, the same BAC limit applies to peop le cycling and driving motor vehicles (Yannis et al., 2019). Regulato rs should specify and enforce BAC limits applicable to people cycling and riding micro-vehicles. Ne ither the limits nor the intensity of the enforcement should be set in a way that encourages the use of faster heav ier veh icles among people impaired . Repeated enforcement campa igns targeted on micromobility in car-dependent communities could indeed backfire. The alignment of BAC limits across all modes would arguably prevent confusion, facilitate education campaigns and increase compliance . The alignment of BAC penalty levels across all modes is another debate . Some roundtable participants noted that impaired r ide rs of Type A micro-veh ic les are mainly a danger to themselves, comparable to intox icated pedestrians. The risk they impose on third parties is incomparable with that which a drunk drive r would impose. Where penalties exist for pub lic intox ications , these could apply to both pedestrians and Type A micro-vehicle riders. Industry experts have reported that smartphone apps can measure the level of intoxication through in- app tests that measure reaction time and accuracy. If regulators were to i mpose such tests, they should target high-risk places and times and apply them to other forms of shared micromobility. However, it seems necessary to broaden roadside alcohol and drug testing to all road user type s. The idea is to show that all modes are exposed to the same leve l of enforcement, avo iding the r isk that people drive when drunk because they believe police resources to be primari ly focussed one-scooter riders. Lime is reportedly working on the detection of impa ired r iding. Motion sensors found on e-scooters could indeed be trained to detect excessive wobbling and slow the vehi cle down (Hawkins, 2019). This techn ology may also detect tandem riding and deter it through a reduced speed. The issue of drug use should not be om itted in road safety policies . A roadside survey in the United States indicated that illicit drugs are used by 5 .8% of weekend drivers (Lacey et al. 2009). Among e-scooter trauma patients in San Diego, at least 31% were intoxicated with il legal substances, primar ily cannabis, met hamphetamine and amphetamines (Kobayashi et al., 2019). Some cities have discussed the idea of a night-t im e curfew fore-scooters, due to the alleged higher risk of riding an e-scooter by night. This policy may seem disproportionate, as it prevents the lawful utilisation of a vehicle type wh ich, for many people, represents a prec ious addit ion to the transport mix . Exact crash rate s by hour should be monitored by al l means in each city. In add ition, authorities should inten sify education and enforcement campaigns so as to reach all road users . Personal protective equipment Po licy makers should mandate and enforce the use of he lmets on micro-vehicles travelling above a certain speed. On low-speed micro-vehic les, most countries choose not to impose he l met use. Shared micromobility companies should nonetheless contin u e promoting the use of helmets, as helmets are known to mitigate the severity of head injuries in some crash types. A majority of countries in the world encourage but do not r equire adu lts to wear a helmet when they cycle . The nuance between encouraging and requiring is :f mportant: a number of experts think that mandatory helmet laws reduce the popularity of cycling and reduce its positive effect on public health. The pos itive hea lth impact of bikes and e-bikes -due to physica l activity -indeed far outweighs the risk 56 SAFE MICROMOBILITY © OECD/ITF 2020 SAF E RO AD USERS of in jury or death (Santacreu, 2018). There is no evidence as of yet that the phys ica l activity invo lv ed in the operatio n of an e-scooter provides hea lth benefits . However, were car trips re pl aced bye-scooters, e-scooters would have the potential to vastly improve community he a lth by removi n g noise, air pol l ution and road danger sources from the streets. Riders of shared micro-vehic les are less li kely to wear a helmet tha n riders who own a micro-vehicle (Haworth and Schramm, 2019) and more likely to be deterred by mandatory he lmet laws. This is demonstrated i n countries with mandatory bicycle helmet laws, like Australia, where public bike share systems have very low ridership. Regu lators should be conscious of the impact of mandatory helmet laws on ridership and therefore on mode shift. Where e-scoot er and othe r micro-vehicles are limited i n speed to 20 or 25 km/h, many countries choose not to req uire adults to w ear a helmet, alt hough they do enco urage he l me t u se. This is the case in France, Ge rman y, Denma rk and Portugal. Roadside helmet enforce m ent is difficu lt due to th e sim il ar appearance of slow and fast e-b i kes . Enforcement would be easier if faster micro-vehicle models (types C and D) could be visually separated from slower models . Regulators have imposed an identification plate on fast e-bikes, which is only he lp ful until th e owner chooses to remove it. Regu lat ions could a lso impose overs ized or recognisable design features on faster v ehicles. The challenge comes in finding a ba lance betw een a tampe r-proof solution (re qu iring the vehic le frame to be des igned specificall y to match these requirements), and a more market-friendly one . E-scoo t er companies have been very active in th e area of he l met promotion . Some gave away free helmets; Bird and Lime together distrib uted over 300 000 helmet s globally. Oth er compa n ies gave discounts to u sers on the helmet model of their cho ice . However, h e l met owners hip and helmet use are different things . Many t rips on shared micro -vehicles are spontaneous , unplanned, and users are less likely to carry a helmet (Haworth and Schramm, 2019). To maximise the actual use of helmets, nu dges and rewards may be the way forward . Bird int roduced a reward system for users ta king a photograph of themselves, a selfie, wea r ing a helmet at th e end of a ride (Leka sh, 2019). A sim ilar camera-base d artificial inte lli gence system is use d by micro mobi lity company VeoR ide to r eward peop le wearing he lm ets. Speed An essent ia l aspect of managing the safety of micromobility is setting and enforcing the speed limit applicable to standing e-scooters and other electric m i cro-vehi cles. Gene r ally, France , Portugal, Queensland, Singapore and Spain have imposed a 25 km/h speed limit on e-scooters . Thi s corresponds to the 15 mph limit imposed in Los An geles and recommended by NACTO (2018) and a lig ns the top sp eed of an e-scooter with that of a pe dele c in the Euro pean Union . Denmark, Germ any and Sweden have a 20 km/h (or 12 mph) spee d l imit fore-scoo t ers. City autho rit ies of Par is (Fran ce), Calgary and Edmonton (Canada), Abu Dhab i (U nited Arab Em irates) and Den ver (United States) have im posed the same speed limitation on shared e-scooters. Where e-scooters are allowed on sidewalks in France , their spee d is lim ited to walking speed. In the city of Singapore, e-scooters had been limited to 10 km/h on sidewalks, but were completely banned from operating on them as of January 2020 . SA FE MICROMOB ILITY © OECD/ITF 2020 57 SAFE ROAD US ER S It is probably best left up to each city to assess its current infrastructure, road user behaviour and rider experience to determine a su itable speed li mit for powered micro-vehicles. Some would oppose a 20 km /h speed limit on the bas is that this would make powered micromobi lity slower than cycl ing , creating conflicts. However, Allen (1998) reports that a majority of the free-flow bicycle speed observat ions are between 12 km/h and 20 km/h. Several studies support Allen 's findings on average speeds. Greibe and Buch (2016) observed an average speed of 21.6 km/h in Denmark . Bernardi and Rupi (2015) found an average speed of between 15 and 22 km/h in Italy, depend ing on survey location. Researchers observ ed a mean speed of 14.8 km/h for regu lar bikes and 21 .9 km/h for e lectric mopeds in Kumming, China (Lin et al ., 2008) and later found lower values of 13.5 and 17 .1 in Hangzhou, Ch in a (Xu et al., 2015). Whilst a 20 km /h speed lim it does not make powered micro-vehicles slower than the average person cycling, it cou ld still create conflicts . This is due to the g r eater perfo rm ance of those m icro -vehicles when accelerat ing, in comparison to a person cycling . It is common to see shared e-scooters accelerating faster than pedal cycle s from standstill but travelling slower -if capped at 20 km/h -than many cycl ists between junctions . This generates a number of potentially dangero us overtaking manoeuvres and could be avoided if powered mi cro-veh icle acceleration was e lectronically li mited or if they cou ld reach higher speed s. The rationale for allow in g speeds up to 25 km/h or beyond is to make micro-veh icles competitive with cars, address i ng car-dependence and the external costs on the environment and public health that come w ith it. As previously me nt ioned , a fundamental traffic safety benefit of m icro mob ility is the potentia l it has to reduce the number of car trips. Average car speeds are already we ll below 25 km /h in dense cit ies at peak hour. If micromobility is limited to a 25 km /h maximum to protect users from death thro ugh collision with mot or vehicles, it would be on ly log ical t o limit cars to the same spee d . A sing le speed limit for all i n mi xed -use streets would be eas ier to enforce and make traffic more homogenou s. Furt her research might cast light on the shape of t h e ri sk curve: is there a speed beyond wh ich the chances of se r ious i njuries ri se expo nentia ll y? Th e pay-per-m in ute method is an in centive t o adopt speeds which are not appropriate w ith respect to the rider's immediate en v ironment (Polis, 2019). It is also an incen tive to make d angerous manoe uvr es, such as r un nin g red lights, and to adopt inconsiderate beha vi our, such as fa i lure to yield to pedestrians . Vehicle s for hire should reduce their reliance on time in the i r pricing sy stem . Thi s could be by add ing a charge for di stance trave ll ed , or a charge per trip, or a m onth ly sub scription. Thi s cou ld be by stopping the clock for up to 90 seconds when the vehicle is not moving, presumably stopped at a red li ght or giving way to pedestrians. This shou ld app ly on munic ip al bike-share systems and dockless e-scooter and bike-share systems . This should also apply to motor-scooter sharing and car-sha rin g schemes. There is ev idence that nudges can be used to ma ke people drive more safely (Ch oudhary et al., 2019). Future research shou ld in vestigate if results are transferable to micromobility r iders . Current ly, the "MeBeSafe" Eu ropean project (Twisk and De Hair-Buijssen , 2017) is focussing on enhanc in g safety for cyclist s, car drivers and truckers , with an innovat ive in-vehic le ADAS and on-road in frastructure. Governments and enforcement technology providers shou ld work together and d evelop a speed control t ool capable of capturi ng (a) speed, (b) accelerat ion and (c) the presence or absence of pedalling . This is to en sure throttle ass isted e-bikes are no t used where th ey shou ld not be . Regulators may require a downhi ll speed limiter on e-scooters, a feature that some companies like VO i have equipped their ve hi cles w it h. At least one fatality li st ed in An ne x A invol ved a loss of control when 58 SAFE MI CRO MOB ILITY © OECD/ITF 2020 SAFE ROAD USERS riding do w nhill (Bellido , 2019). Roads on the steepest hills are off-limits to e-scooters in some cities , including San Francisco, to prevent crashes through loss of contro l. Pedestrian protection Pedestrian safety is negatively impacted where m icro-veh icles are used and parked on sidewalks . Wheelchair users and the blind are particularly affected . In their m ost recent report, the City of Santa Monica (2019b} found that "these user behaviours contribute to pedestrian disco mfort and are currently infeasib le to eliminate through field enforcement due to dispersion and ongoing movemen t of the devices." The use of sidewalks by micro-vehicle riders is mo r e li kely in areas where a safe cycling infrastruct ure is lacking, as discussed in t he next chapter . Yet moto r vehi cles represe nt a much grea t er fata lity r isk to pe d es tri ans, both in abso lute terms and per unit of ve hi cle travel (ITF, 201 9a}. Policies r educing speeds in u r ban areas shou ld be considere d , as they will preven t t r affic deaths i n all user grou ps and especially among pedestrians. Governments should plan for all moto r vehicles (inc luding cars, ride-sourcing and parcel d e li very vehicles ) to adopt strict speed limits inside geo -fences, learning from the experience acquired withe-scooter co m panies . E-scooter compan ies Lime, Jump and Bird are working to develop solutions t o detect and prevent sidewalk r id ing . Vehicle sensor data would assess vehicle position and road co ndit ions during t he trip to determ ine w hen a user is r id ing on t he si d ewa lk. Upon detectio n, the company could trigger real-time on -ve h icle ale rts and a poss ibl e penal t y system . (Marschall, 2018; Ju mp, 2019 ; Bitte rs, 2020} Various tec hn o log ies could be used or combined for the detection of sidewalk ri d i ng . Experts have noted t he prospec t of five -centimetre GPS accuracy and SG posit ion i ng, but the technolog ies that wou ld support these are not yet d eployed. Wit h current tec h nology, and d ue to GPS sig nal being obstructed in urban canyo ns, GPS positioning simply is not precise enough, at leas t at present. This is true even when us ing Hybrid Posit ion i ng Systems that combine, for instance, GP S w ith WiFi-based positioning . Some cities repo rt that partnerships are being forged with un iversities to develop t echnologies ca pable of restricting sidewa lk riding (City of Santa Monica, 2019b). Irish start -up Luna is d eve loping GP S signal processing t echnologies t o d eliver cen t imetre-leve l precision and support the operational needs of micromob ility companies (T aylor, 2019). Test ing sho ul d reveal if th e so lution wo rk s in urban ca nyo ns and whe n the ve h icle is in motio n. Compu t er vis ion may be used to detect sidewalk r iding on share d micro -vehic les . Companies are also working on so lutions to detect sidewalk riding using vi deo cameras (Sil icon Can als, 2019). In the longer term, veh icles may be able to detect sidewalks and pedestrians an d li m it vehicle speed accord i ngly. Geofences A geofence is a set of lines , defined by geog r aphic co -ordinates, t hat de li mit an area whe r e specia l regulatio ns ap p ly. This is an example of algo rit h m ic governance : a m achine -rea dab le regulat io n th at can be pushe d st raight from t he street managemen t authority t o the back-o ffice of shared mobili ty companies. Geofences can restrict speed, access and parking, r ed ucing pedest r ian d iscomfort and injury risk . They fo r m a flexible so lution and are w idely used . That said , authorities should bear in mind that shared micromobility ridership can be negatively affected by constraints impose d by geofences . Examples of cities applying an 8 km/h speed limit geofence inc lude the US city of Santa Monica and the French cities of Lyon and Par is. The goa l is to limit the speed of e-scooters in pedestrian areas . In Paris, SA FE M ICRO MOBILI TY © OECD/ITF 20 20 59 SA FE ROAD US ER S the 8 km/h speed limit app li es also on streets where t r affic speed lim it is 20 km/h , giving a competit ive advantage to pe ople cycl ing or us ing other modes of transport . Cities shou ld ta ke full advantage of geofences to re duce spee d in pedestrian areas , and potentially du rin g spec ial mass partic ipation eve nts. Speed regulations should also apply on shared e-bikes, whereby power assistance would be cut-off when the speed limi t is reache d. Regulations should ensure that all operators face the same requiremen t s and implement them in the same way. Where such limits are applied today there is often a patchwork of diffe rent implementation , prompt ing users to switch operator. Needless to say, intell igent speed adaptation of this kind is most relevant for heavier and faster vehicles such as automobi le s, buses and trucks . Figure 17. E-scooter identification plate in Europe © Ale x andre Santa creu Geofences are powerful tools to manage shared fl eets of micro-ve hicl es, but are not (yet) applicable to privately owned m icro-veh icles . Some cities may wis h to limit the spe ed of all mi cro-veh icles in spec ific areas. Man ufa ct urers of m icro -vehic les sho uld de ve lop a solutio n to he lp riders comp ly w ith r elevant speed limits . Riders of privately owned veh icles may indeed benefit from some help, as they cross a number of geo-fences and travel across d ifferent mu nic ip ali t ies where different speed limits may apply. Intelligent speed assistance, discussed ear lier, is a sim ilar so lut ion for cars . Since many micro-vehicles are already connected to a smartphone app , adding a speed management so lution does not seem a difficult step to take . Such a tec hn ology would be part icularly relevant for the management of faster e-b ikes when they enter urban areas . Visible on-street signage and enforcement of speed limits may contr ibute to a faster uptake of such a t echnology. Number plates and enforcement It is difficu lt to enforce sidewalk bans because of the lack of ident ifiable features on micro-vehicles and the ease with which ride rs can disappear quickly. Th is is why some countr ies, such as Singapore and Jap an , impose an identification plate on m icro-veh icles . Germany im poses a vi sible insurance sticker on e-scooters in a format that can help iden t ify a vehicle at a distance . In Singapore, th e Land Tr ansport Authority (LTA) introduced a new function to its smartphone app for members of the public to report inconsiderate use of m ic r o-vehi cles. In only one month, members of the 60 SAFE M IC ROMOBILITY © OECD/ITF 2020 SAF E ROAD USERS public filed 270 reports (Toh, 2019). Already in 2017, the LTA had a team of 24 active mobility enforcement officers working to deter reckless rid ing of e-scooters, bicycles and e-bikes (Zhaki, 2017). It increased its efforts in 2019 and se ized 400 illegal devices in a th r ee-month perio d (Cheng, 20 19). Illegal devices inc lud e those exceed i ng the 20-kg weight limit imposed o n e-scooters (Qis hi n, 2019). Figure 18. Design standard for identification stickers in Singapore Need to Regj$ter Des ign 1 vertical 5 5 5 A B --...- Design 2 Horizontal Design 3 12i2cD,I ~ l"1"1"1:1=1 l2c2a2 l Source: adapted from https: //sq .ca rouse II . com/p/ e-scooter-pmd -pl ate-n u mber-stickers-one-piece-8-dol la r s- i nclud in q -no rm al -ma il-more-th a n-5-pieces-no-m a iii nq-fees-self-co llect -6-d o l la rs -20778 5 154/. Most European countries require fast e-bikes to display an identification plate, simi lar to what is imposed on a moped. When it comes to preventing deaths and ser ious injuries, however, identification plates should not be seen as the silver bullet. Imposed on cars all over the world , num ber plates have failed to prevent an excess ive number of hit-and-r un crashes . In Be lgium and in the United Kingdom, over 10% of in j ury cras hes involve a hi t -and-run driver (Klu pp e ls, 2016). Po licies should ince ntivise the use of !ow- speed m icro-vehicles, and all ocate on-street space to micro-ve hi cles so they do not encroac h on sidewalks. SAF E MI CROMOB ILITY © OECD/ITF 20 20 61 SAFE IN FRASTR UCTURE Safe infrastructure Government can have the most significant imp act on traffic safety through in vestment in infrastructure and the adopt ion of sound design guidelines. Developing a safe network for micromobility has a positive and lasting impact on the safety of all road users, including pedestrians. For this reason, efforts at creating a safe network should be seen as complimentary to vehicle safety regulation and smart road user behaviour when responding to micromobility safety issues. An ITF report will investigate how the large-scale deployment of safe and connected micromobility infrastructure could impact travel and safety (ITF, forthcoming b). This report refers to spaces reserved for the movement of micro-vehicles as cycling infrastructure or cycling facilities. Box 7 reports on early efforts to name these spaces in less bicycle-specific language . Th is reports uses the term "protected cyc lin g facility" to designate all types of cyc lin g infrastructure benefitt i ng from physical protection, be it bollards, planters, parked vehicles, curb or other . Space is ava il able in cities to accommodate micromob ility, but the case must be made for the reallocation of surfaces currently occupied by motor vehicles. The demand for micromobility is an opportunity for local government to redistribute street space and to challenge outdated street design princip les wh ich gave priority to motor vehicles over people. Industry experts have expressed the need to act ively reduce how much space is dedicated to car traffic in cities, so that the mode shift to micromobility comes not only from walking and public transport, but from driving, too. The city of Atlanta , Georgia in the United States experienced three fatal e-scooter crashes in only three months in 2019 (Annex A), evidence of the lack of protected space for micromobility in the city . The city reacted wit h plans for a connected and protected cyc li ng network, including temporary barriers for rapid deployment (Abend, 2019). Over 80 % of e-scooter and bicycle fatalities involve heavier motor vehicles, making the case for greater protection. But why wait for fatal crashes to happen before react in g? Local governments and advocacy groups shou ld take advantage of the rise in e-scooter use to further support the case for faster development of better quality cycling infrastructure. The pol it ics of developing a protected cycling network often revo lv e around the same argument: "Why make space for cycling? Nobody cyc les here!" This is where micromobility has the strateg ic potential to support local governments, by creat in g a vi sibl e demand and by filling new sections of infrastructure as quickly as they open . (Polis, 2019) Industry experts support the re-allocation of space otherwise occupied by car parking or car traffic in places where space is scarce. The ITF notes that the shared nature of cycle tracks (accommodating both pedal cycles and powered micromobility veh icles) and their visib le use by a critical mass of people would facilitate the acceptance of such a reallocation. Phys ical protection from motor veh icles not only makes people feel safer riding b ikes and embracing micromobility in general, it can make the city safer for everyone. Pedestrian injuries fell by 22% along seven mi les of new ly protected bike lane installed between 2007 and 2010 in New York City (NYCDOT, 2014). Data from 12 ma jor US cities reveals that protected bicyc le facilities are associated with safer cit ies for all (Marshall and Ferenchak, 2019). 62 SAFE M IC RO MO BILI TY © OECD/I TF 2020 SAFE INFRASTRUCT URE Box 7. New terms to describe a micromobility infrastructure? The rise in use of light ind ividual mobility vehic les (i.e. micromobi lity) poses seve ral lo nger-te rm d esign challenges regarding road space and its allocation to different use r s and uses. Un derstanding of ho w, exactly, these wi ll evolve is limited at present; as of the writing of this report, the r e are no formal design guidelines for micromobility infrastructure beyond existing guidance for bicycle facilities, where these exist. Another report from t he ITF's Corporate Partnership Board (I TF, forthcoming b) addresses this but even in t he writing of the present report, it seems clear that the conflation of all micromobility infrastructu r e with the term 11 bicycle" infrastructure, is problematic at best and outdated at wo rst. This is especial ly t r ue where micromobility devices are as numerous as, o r even outnumber, bicycles . On the one ha nd, t here is both regulatory and popular clarity on w ha t constitutes 11 bicycle infrastructure" and alo ng wi t h this, conside r able investme nt in signage and icon og raphy; the bi cycle logo is universal and well-u nderstood. On the other hand, t h is signage and the fo cus on only one of several ligh t mobility devices ma y decreasingly reflect the diversity of potential use rs of these facili t ies . Th is may have safety implications when the focus on the operating characteristics of only one type of vehicle ma y lead to conflicts with others. The first efforts to name these spaces in less bicycle-specific language emerged in the Netherlands with the concept of living streets, 11 woonerf' in Dutch or 11encounter zones". The emphasis was on all modes conforming to the spee d and characteristics of pedestrians . The idea has since caught on in other countries. Th ese terms describe one specific type of infrastructure and, in mos t cases, everything else that is bui lt for light mobili t y references bicycles (e.g. bicyc le street s o r 11fietstraa t ", bicycle lanes, bicycle tracks, etc .). A new push to fin d a term for these spaces has emerged in North America, where the rise in micromobility has been most jarring -starting earlier than in other countries and with a higher and faster adopt ion rate -and where the implementation of safe bicycle fac ili ties (and cycling) has been relat ively low in comparison with several European countries. A number of terms have emerged -11 slow lanes", 11 m icromob ility lanes", 11third lanes", 11 BEST lanes" (Bikes Electric Scooter Transportation). One t erm, in particular, captures many of the speed and mass perfo rm ance characte ri stics that sho u ld define t hose fac ili t ies -the Lite In dividual Tra nsportation (LIT) lane. First used in Portland, Orego n and in Atlanta, Georgia, the te r m LIT lane has several permutations (e.g. Light versus Lit e) and an alternative meaning: Lo w Impact Transport lane. Th is term (or one that simi lar ly captures t h e divers ity of uses and users of these spaces) may gain in popularity in line with the increase in micromo b ility. It wi ll necessarily require a more forma l definition and specifications of the implicate d transport infrastructure. Authorities should antici pate t his. The use of e-scoo t ers is safer in cities most comm itted to cycling safety, accord ing to e-scooter company Bird, wh ich compared its reported crash rates with city safety scores deve loped by the organisation PeopleForB ikes (Bird, 2019). PeopleForBike s stud ied cycl ing networks in over 500 cities in Ca nada and the Un ited State s. Its Bicycle Network Analysis (BNA) measures the degree to which people can comfortab ly bike to the places they want to go . Only a truly connected low-stress cycle network (F ig ure 19) attracts a high BNA score . The organ isati on found significant di ffere nces in the quality of the cycling networks it studied. Its work could facilitate governments' researc h on the links between network quality and micro mobili ty upta ke and casualties. It could help governments identify where there is room for progress and where to take action. SAFE MICROMOBILITY © OECD/ITF 2020 63 ·I SAFE INFRASTRUCTURE Figure 19. Bicycle Network Analysis of New York City by PeopleForBikes Source: PeopleForBikes (2019). Where government fai ls to create a protected cycling environment, users may favour the safety of a private car or use faster micro-vehicles such as mopeds, capab le of merging with the flow of traffic. Moped users will no doubt seek to access cycling facil iti es where they exist, which creates conflict with the cycling community. Cycling facilities should remain a place where people of all ages and abilities feel comfortable and safe on a bicycle. Sidewalks are more often used by e-scooter riders where the streets are hostile and missing safe cycling infrastructure . In the course of a 120-day e-scooter pilot in 2018, the Port land Bureau of Transportation found lower rates of sidewalk riding on low-speed streets or those with dedicated space for non-motorised users . E-sco oter users ranked bi ke lanes as their preferred road type , and sidewalks last. (PBOT, 2019) Traffic calming and the provi sion of a visible network of cycling facilities are the most important actions towards preventing sidewalk riding, according to in dustry professionals. Sharing a sidewalk should on ly be considered a short-term last-resort solution before on-street faci liti es are developed. In many countr ies, especia ll y those with an ageing popu lation , there is a growing awareness of the need to preserve sidewalks for the near-exclusive use of pedestr ians. The fear of having to share sidewa l ks with powered vehicles deters some people, especia ll y o lder peop le, from their rightfu l use of public space (Cheng, 2019). Cons i dering the public health be ne fits of wa lkin g as a form of physical activity, the protection of sidewalks is ind eed a public health priority. Rethinking cycling facilities Riders of e-scooters appreciate the presence of protected and wider bike lanes (Figure 21). But are bike lanes and tracks fit for purpose? A d isc ussion with micromobility companies and government officials resulted in the recommendation that design guidelines should be revised : Wide bike lanes and tracks should no longer be seen as a lu xury, but as a requirement, to accommodate a growing number of users in safe conditions . 64 SAFE MICROMOBILITY © OECD/ITF 2020 SAFE INFRASTRUCTURE Speed humps, trans verse rumble strips and cobblestone sections installed along the cycle network need to be carefu ll y designed and safely passed by vehicles with small wheels and a short wheelbase. The most complex sit u ation will be on residential roads , where micromobi lity shares t he space with motor vehicles, an d where speed h umps are often deployed . This is an ar ea where research is needed. Speed cushions may be an alternative to speed humps but are not recommended on micromobility routes (TfL , 2016}. This is becau se: a) speed cushions can force riders to devia t e from their li ne and into the door- opening space of parked cars and b} speed cushions rarely have a significant speed-reducing effect on powered two-whee lers and on wider-based vehicles such as SUVs and delivery vehicles . Smooth and well-maintained road surfaces are important to people on bikes , even more so for people on micro-vehicles with smaller wheels. Bus lanes that are shared with micro-vehicles do not qualify as truly protected spaces. People do not feel safe sharing space with heav ier vehicles such as buses, taxis and motorcycles often using bus lanes. This poor percept ion of safety leads to sidewa lk riding, which most cit ies seek to avoid . Bus lanes are even worse for m icro-vehicles with sma ll er wheels : heavy veh icles inflict damage to the road surface (Figure 20) that exacerbates the risk of falling . Th is report, however, does not ca ll for the replacement of bus lanes by a micromobility infrastructure. Since both public transport and micromobility can replace private motor vehicle trips and make a city safer, they each deserve their own space . Legible intuitive routes, including efficient signage, should be offered to people who are new to micromobility and may be lack ing the experience of navigating cycl ing facilities . This includes t he careful design of ju nction la you t, so people know which position to adopt when making a turn. Figure 20. Road surface damage and illegal parking at a bus stop © Alexa ndre Santacreu Traffic calming and traffic volume reduction represent an alternative to cycle infrast ructure under certain conditions, as discussed by Santacreu (2018). Bike lanes make no sense in areas where traffic volume and speed reduct ion are already imposed , in 20 km/h zones or bike priority streets, for instance . Safe System princ iples impose a 30 km/h speed li mit in urban areas where vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians, SAFE MICROMOB ILI TY © OECD/ITF 2020 65 \. SAFE INFRASTRUCTURE are in contact with traffic. Th e 30 km/h limit should not, howeve r, be interpreted as a minimum speed, and lower speed limits sho u ld be envisaged where relevant. All ocating parking spots for micromobility near pedestrian cross ings cou ld pre vent crashes whilst addressing sidewalk clutter. Indus try experts often mention a technique called "d aylight ing", which consists of elimi nating car park in g at pedestrian cross in gs where the parked vehicles would interfere with the line of sight for pedestr ians or dri ve rs . Primarily inten ded to prevent pede str ian in juries, this techniq ue frees up space that could be allocated to the parking of micro-veh icles. Some cities have already repurposed no-parking zones near intersections, reserv ing them as parking zones for bike s and e-scooters , w hi ch have a lower profile and do not interfere with the lin e of sight. (N AC TO , 2018) Figure 21. Desired infrastructure improvements, responses from a Bird Rider Survey What city infrastructure improvements would make you feel more safe? (%of responses) 80% ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ . 60% ...... . 40% ...... . 20% ...... . 0% 61 % Protected bike la nes ..................... :?.?.% ............................................................................................................................................................. . Smoother pa vement Wider bike lanes Des ig nated Cit y staff t o cite e-scooter park in g bad park ing 3% Other Source: Bird (2019 ). Some cities make a point of not using sidewalks for the creation of micromobility park ing spots. Not only does this strengthen the statement that sidewalks must be for pedestrians, it also has a substantial road safety rationa le. First, sidewalk parking leads to side walk riding , simply to access and leave the locat ion. There is little hope t o enforce a sidewalk riding ban if parkin g is fou nd on the sidewalk . Second, leaving a sidewalk to join the stream of traffic is qua lified by some as a risky manoeuvre. Res earche rs are investigating thi s point. Can cycling facilities accommodate all types of micro-vehicles? Whe re sho uld people use micro-vehicles? Could all micro -vehicles share the same space? Responses depend on t he context. Most governments choose to ban mopeds and t he most powerful e-bikes from bike lanes and tracks. This is motivated by the need to offer a comfortable and safe environment for cycling at low speeds to people of all ages and abilities. Some jurisd ictions allow faster e-bikes on all cycling facilities so to ma ximise the potent ial for replacing car trips (Box 4). Some allow the use of mopeds on bicycle routes outside of built-up areas, where their speed is closer to bicycle speed than to car speed. In Amsterdam , the use of mopeds on cycling facilities was only recently banned, due to the air pollution they generated but also to the congestion they caused on the cycling net work (Boztas, 2019). 66 SAFE MICROMOBILITY © OECD/ITF 2020 SAFE INFRASTRUCTURE Speeds are relative ly consistent across Type A and Type B micro-vehicles, opening up the possibility of cycles , pedelecs , cargo bikes and e-scooters sharing the same space . Most people cycle at les s than 20 km/h. The city of Paris imposes a 20 km/h speed limit o n shared e-scooters while the German regulatory framework se t s a 20 km/h maximum speed for all e-scooters . Finally , the speed of a pedelec , whose power assistance stops at 25 km/h, is similar to that of a co nven tional bike, at least on flat ground (Santacreu, 2018}. Road authorit ies should design wider bike lanes and tracks so to accommodate a larger amount of more diverse users. The steady upta ke of cargo bikes is already putting pre ssure on cycling facilities in many countries, inclu ding cities in the Netherlands and Copenhagen. All sections, and uphill sections in particular, should allow room to overtake because of the speed differential between electric-and muscle -po wered vehicles, and between users of all ages and abilities. Many coun trie s are mandating the use of cycling fac iliti es by Type A powered micro-vehicles where such facilities exist. This is the case in France, where Type A micro-vehicles are now subject to most of the traffic management rules that apply to bicycles: where the manoeuvre is authorised by a dedicated street sign, they can give way on red signals or use both ways of a one-way street (Hiron , 2019). There is li ttle case for speci fying new r ul es for Type A micro-veh icl es which differ from those already applicable t o bikes and pedelecs . Rules should reflect the vehicle speed, more than its form factor . Legi slators should avoid forcing micro-vehicles to the near-side of the road, a position often avoided by experienced riders so as to mitigate several risks . Such r isks include "dooring" (collisions with car doors that are opened by car occupants who ha ve not checked for approaching micro-ve hi cle riders}, unsafe passing, and not being seen by other road users. French law mitigates the dooring risk as it enables all riders of Type A micro -vehicles to choose a safe distance from parked cars (Hiron, 2019). Policy makers should consider legislation which crea t es a safer and more pleasant micromobility experience: they could specify minimum passing di stances and should allow motor ve hicl es to cross a continuous white line when overta kin g a micro-vehi cle. More is yet to come in terms of bike lane utilisation . Wh ile urban logistic s on micro-vehicles is not in the scope of this report, governments should consider the needs of micro -logistics as they revise their national cycle infrastructure de sign gu id es. Governments shou ld develop a pol icy on autonomous delivery robots so to be proactive and mandate relevant regulat ions for the next inn ovations. Rapid and low-cost solut ion s exist to protect people cycling . Authorities should consider traffic calming to reduce speeds , and revised circulation plans to reduce traffic volume . Traffic filtering is one such solution, where motor vehicle acce ss to all address points is retained but driving through a residential area becomes impossible. On main urban roads, a technique called "light separation" offers a rapid and affordable solution to create a protected cycling network. This involves the use of modular pre-fabricated poles, planters, curbs and other modular devices, including some which are called "armadillos" and "areas". It has been used by the City of Seville to create a comprehensive, connected and protected network. With this t echnique, the cost of a protected cycling facility was estimated at EUR 100 000-250 000 per kilometre. This cost is several times lower than other forms of protection where , notab ly, dra inage reconfiguration is required. The technique is suitable for trials due to its flexibility and low cost . A heavier separation can replace the light protect ion once the trial ends, if t he speed and volume of motor vehicle traffic remain significant threats. (Deegan , 2018; Sa nta creu, 2018} SAFE MICROMOBILITY © OECD/ITF 2020 67 SAFE IN FRASTRUCT URE Collect data to identify dangerous locations Governments should identify dangerous locations by col lecting data from various sources . This includes , but is not limited to, police data. Ambulance and hospital data could provide a greater sample, as not all those injured choose to report the ir crash to the police. New sources of data should not be neg lected: they include direct user reports , surrogate safety data, and data from micromobility companies. Most e-scooter injuries re sult from falls, suggesting that road surfaces could be improved by design and through maintenance. Road authorities should start by separating the cycling network from streets or lanes used by heavy vehicles. Heavy goods vehi cles and buses are known to deteriorate both the road surface and the perception of safety. Road authorities should monitor damages on the road surfaces as they appear and develop, so to intervene early and maintain a safe road surface for micro-vehicle users . A number of techniques can be used in isolation or combination, including video analysis, accelerometer data and direct user feedback. Preventative mainte nance of road structure and surfaces not only make s riders safer, it also saves money by reducing the frequency of the most expensive structural repairs and extend i ng asset life . Separate , protected lane s dedicated solely to micro-vehicles would also save money. This is because motor vehicl es -particularly trucks and buses -are by far the main source of road damage . Protected bike lanes and tracks would require less structural maintenance. Instrumented v ehicles can patrol the netwo rk with a range of sensors , including la se r, ground-penetrating radar , cameras and LiDAR. Highly preci se but highly expens ive , thi s solution is rarely used in urban environments. Progress in machine learning can diagno se road damage from smartphone images taken by float i ng vehicles (RoadBotics, 2019). However, the question remains on which vehic les such se nsors could be attached , so as to make permanent monitoring possible without the congestion and cost associated with probe vehicle mileage . Sensors should be placed on vehicles involved in municipal service s and covering the entire street netwo rk at regul ar intervals . Examples of such fleets include municipal garbage collection vehicles and automatic number plate re cogni tion vehicles used for parking enforcement. Street sweeping veh icles could be the ideal monitor of the condition of off-st reet cycle tracks. There is arguably no better fleet than bicycles and micro-vehicles to collect data on road surface condit ions . Some companies collect accelerometer data during cycle rides to detect potholes (ITF , 2019b}. The technology could rely on dedicated equipment embedded into a bik e light, as tested by a company cal led See.Sense in Dublin and Manchester. The technology could take advantage of smartphone sensors , as proposed by a cycling navigation company called Geovelo. Accelerometer data may, however, miss the worst potholes for the simp le rea son that people w i ll swerve and avoid riding over them . It seems that every so lut ion has its lim itat ions and that vario us technologies can complement each other. Already present in all smartphones , inertial measurement units (IMU } should be found on all shared micro-vehicles and used to se nse potho les and report their preci se location to the relevant road authority. One could argue that know ledge of exact pothole location is not the main ba rr ier to repair, the lac k of financial resources for road maintenance being the fundamental problem. One can, however, see in damage reporting a first step towards a greater allocation of resources . Shared micro-vehic le companies should develop the capacity to automatically detect and report suspected crashes using motion sensors such as IMU s. A suspected crash in this context is identified by a sudden and brutal accelerat ion/deceleration observed on the vehicle when in motion . This would exclude cases where the vehic le topples over when idle . Surrogate safety me trics like this are used to 68 SAFE MICROMOBILITY © OECD/ITF 2020 SAFE INFRASTRUCTURE monitor the occurrence and sever ity of i ncidents . Th ey fo r m an essent ial part of a proactive approach to road safety, as discussed in an ear lier CP B report (ITF , 2019b). Calib ra tion and se lf-cal ibrat ion techniques have yet to be developed and m icromobility companies should take th e lead in this area . Would it be fair to im po se on shared micromob ilit y com pani es the repo rting of potholes an d suspected cras he s? The ne xt sect io n examines the question of a regulatory balance betwee n vehicle types . SAFE MICRO M OBILI TY © OECD/ITF 2020 69 FINDIN G THE RIGHT RE GULATO RY BAL ANCE Finding the right regulatory balance Powered m icromobility has the potential to change cities for t he better, reducing air pollut ion, co ngestion and road fatalit ies . Powered micromob ility does not, howe ver, bring all the physical activ ity benefits of human -powe red micromobility. Authorities must ba lance their regulatory approach across modes in order to reach their policy goals, both within the micromobility universe and beyond and adapt according to the local context. This section examines the trad e-o ffs between vehicle types, policy areas, and short-and long-term objectives. Thi s report seeks a balance between three key aspects of safety: safe infrastructure , safe vehicles and safe road users. Heavy regu lation of the latter, for instance , shoul d not distract from adding or upda ting infrastructu r e . A balance be tween local and nationa l regulation is important. Natural prerogatives of local government include the definition of low-speed zones and parking rules . Vehic le des ign, however, is best addressed at the national or international leve l, not least to promote compe titi on . Indee d, having common rules helps businesses develop and compete in a clear lega l framework . The idea, kno wn as the "subs id iarity principle" in th e European Union, is that issue s should be dealt wit h at the most local level that is consistent wi th their resolution . The short-te r m imperative of reacting to the surge in e-scooters in cities should be comp limented by a longer-term objective of setting future -proof regulat ions. Policy makers should be "proactive and strategic" in the management of micromobility, according to the Po lis network of cities and reg ions (Poli s, 2019). In a context of rapid change , t he most proactive approach to regu lat ion is one that not only addresses the ve hicle forms of today, but anticipates the forms to come. Flexible regulations prevent a race to the bottom whereby new entrants m ight modify form to bypass regu lat ion, compromising safety. Flexibil ity supp orts innova tion. Thi s is espec ially important when innova t ion may deliver safety benefits not yet imagined . What if the industry moved towards extra whee ls or seats intended to make e-scooters more stable? Novelty should be tested rather than banned . Fle xible regulations would support innovat ion and not have to be rev is ed each t ime a new form of ve hi cle hits the market. A ba lance shou ld be found between the urge to define deta iled regulat ions and the need to see those regulat ions adopted by the public, industry and pub li c author it ies, includ in g police forces . For thi s reason , this report encourages all stakeho lders to seek simpl ifi cation before adding regulatory layers. Th e regulat ion of stand ing e-scooters cou ld be ali gned , ful ly or mostly, on that of bicycle s and slow e- bike s. Simila rl y, the regulation of faster e-b ikes and faster micro-vehicles cou ld be ali gned on existing moped regu lat ions . Traffic police resource s have dec lin ed over the last decade in most countr ies . Would the police have the resources to enforce new mi cromob ili ty regu lations? An asymmetr ic focu s by t he po l ice to enforce new m icromobility regulations may neg lect the enforceme nt of riskier and more dangerous behaviours in other user groups. 70 SAFE M ICROM OBILITY © OECD/ITF 2020 FIND IN G THE RI GHT REGULATORY BALANCE Vehicle types: Ensuring regulations are proportionate to public health and safety impacts Where peop le choose to replace car trips with micromobility, they genera te a range of positive outcomes, from clean air to reduced co ngestion and better traffic safety. This is why a number of policy makers see a strateg ic value in and support the uptake of micromobility. Regulators need to find a balance between the regulations imposed on shared vehicles and privately owned vehicles. Indeed, the heavy regulation of shared micromob ili ty would encourage the alternative model which consists of private ownership . This model comes with some positive aspects but also with several drawbacks : owned veh icles share no data with local government, receive no geofence data on low-speed areas , and are unlikely to respect the same speed cap. Should the shared micromobility market d isappear because of over-regulation, one might witness the rise of private ly owned vehic les that do not adhere to speed limits . In Singapore , a person has alread y been killed by a high-speed, heavy - weight e-scooter (Cheryl and Toh, 2019). The speed of a Type A micro -vehicle should be comparable to the speed of a person cycling. Thi s is to encourage the ir use on the roadway and on cycling facilities where they exist , as opposed to their use on sidewalks. France and Germany have imposed 25 km /h and 20 km/h speed lim its re spectively on powered micro-vehicles of Type A (F igure 1). This makes these vehicles at le ast as fast as an average person cycling . One could argue that the 25 km/h limit applicable to the electric assistance on pedel ecs should also app ly to powered micro-vehicles . The argument will become stronger if consolidated evidence ind ica tes that Type A powered micro -vehicles are no more dangerous than pedelecs. Local government shou ld seek fair treatment of all powered micromobility modes when imposing specific access, parking or speed limits through geofences . If the speed of shared e-scooters is limited in a pedestrian area, shoul d not the speed of shared e-bikes be lim ited as well? A Safe System approach focusse s explicit ly on eliminating fata l and serious injuries . Considering that motor vehicles are involved in the overwhelming majority of fatal micromobi lity crashes , this report recommends tha t all stakeholders remain focussed on motor vehicles as a major source of danger. Discu ssio ns on e-s cooter vehicle design and rider beha viour should not d istract decis ion makers from mak ing progress on motor vehicle design and driver behav iou r . Thi s analys is does not make any assumption on the faults made by either partie s involved in a collision . In a Safe System approach, errors are accepted as part of human nature and stakeholders should envisage all relevant strategies to prevent human errors from result in g in fatal or serious injuries. Focu ss ing a road safety conversation on a very precise group of vu ln erab le road users naturally leads to a discussion on their risky behaviours. However, one should not lose sight of the sources of danger in road transport as a system . The behaviour of motor vehicle drivers should be p lac ed under greater scrutiny, with a particular focus on speed , distraction , intoxication and inexperi ence. Regulators are invited to consider such areas of inte rvention instead of dwelling on the helmet debate . Several po licy makers already see great strategic potential in deve lop ing low-speed micromobility (types A and B). It can improve traffic safety and deliver other positive outcomes through a reduction in the number of car trips . It can increase the catchment area of public transport systems , making those networks more attractive. It offers a competitive door-to-door transport solut ion , especially on short- distance trips, many of which are made by car . (Polis, 2019) The use of e-scooters and other forms of micromobility will become safer over time as people acqu i re new skills, regu lations are better targeted and a protected cycling network takes shape . Bu t what will be SAFE MICROMOB ILI TY © OECD/ITF 2020 71 FIND ING TH E RI GHT RE GULATO RY BALANC E the effect on the pub li c health cha ll enge of inactive life styles? A majority of adolescents (81%) in the world do not meet current physical activity guidelines (Guthold et al ., 2019). In high-income Western countries, 42% of adults do not meet recommended physical activ ity levels (Guthold et al ., 2018}. Type A micromobility makes a city safer where it contribut es to a reduction in moto rc ycle and car traffic, but powered m ic ro-vehicles require very little muscular input. Cycling, on the other hand, he lp s people live longer and healthier physically active li ves . Pedal assisted bicycles also require physical activity and can compete with motor ve hicl es in a wider range of conditions (longer distances, sharp gradients, hot weather, and various r id er fitness levels). All this supports the argument for regulating act ive modes a little more favourably than fully powered modes. Many walking trips are current ly replaced bye-scooter trips, whose ave ra ge length is about two kilometres, a distance which can be qualified as "walkable". If and when e-scooters are integrated in Maas platforms, some form of financial incentive shou ld r emain for people to wa lk short journeys . Governments should seek to ali gn micromobility regulation with exist in g regulation . This is unless current regulations on e-bikes and mopeds need be revised, in which case a comprehensive micromobility regulation can be elaborated . Safety regulation should be proportional to risks im posed on third parties and on riders themselves. There is st ill a lot to learn about micromobility before precise and comprehensive policy r ecommendat ions can be made. In times of i nnovation, gathering data and conducting research is at least as urgent as defining new regu lations . Micromobility data should be shared between operators, cities and academia so to facilitate research. Data sharing A balance also needs to be found in how much data is requested from shared mobility companies. The potential for data to support po li cy making is im mense, but data collection comes at a cost and should not give a compet it iv e advantage to traditional modes of transport from which very little data, if at all, is required. Data collection also comes with fundamenta l privacy protection quest ion s. Shared micromobi l ity data could support policy making in severa l ways: • Trip data can reveal potential demand for new public transport routes . • Trip destinations help ident ify demand for parking. Monitoring that demand can help cities prov id e adequate on-street space for micro-vehicles , as well as for the parking of vehicles used to maintain, recharge and rebalance the fleet. • Trip data can g ive an indication of the level of interchange with publ ic transport. • Trip routes can support the planning and maintenance of a cycling network. Such data can also be used to contro l for exposure in crash r isk i nvestigations. Detailed trip data can be invasive to users' privacy and difficult for lo cal governments to manage due to lim ited resources. A new business model has eme rged in response to this called data aggregator . Academic institutions and private third-party data aggregation companies such as Populus are heading this development. Another approach would be to move away from open and unrestricted (within the receiving pub li c authority) API feeds to API feeds whose access wou l d be more tight ly restricted alongs ide specific data use, retention and destruction protocols . Suc h protoco ls are the feature of many Mobil ity Data Specification (MDS) implementations such as that of Los Angeles (LADOT, 2019). 72 SAF E M ICRO MOBILITY © OECD/ITF 2020 FINDING THE RI GHT REGULATO RY BALANCE The European Union 's General Data Protection Regulation {GDPR) imposes that data sharing is carefully calibrated so to protect the privacy of i nd ividuals. An organisation mu st collect and process personal data for a specific and transparent purpose ("p urp ose limitation") and must co llect and process on ly the personal data that is necessa ry to fulfil that purpose ("data minimisation"). Data excha nge should not be a one-way protocol. Local government should co nsider which data and regulation could be pushed instantaneously towards the back-office of micromob ility companies in a mach i ne-readable format {ITF, 2019c). Data shared by local government could in clude the geofences governing the operation of e-scooters , their parking and the low-speed zones. Data standards exist to support such two-way information exchanges. MOS is the mos t widely known and used of such standards . More than 80 cities across th e globe have implemented MOS, inclu din g Chicago, Los Angeles, Seatt le and Santa Mon ica {NACTO, 2019b; City of Santa Monica, 2019b) in the United States. Li sbon, Portugal was among the first European cities to impose MOS on shared mobili ty operators. MOS has evolved from an earlier standard designed specifically for bicycle sharing app li cat io ns : the General Bikeshare Feed Specification (GBFS). Man y other cities use GBFS or the GBFS component of MOS for micromobility companies to report to loca l government. The point of several cities sharing t he same data standard is to save on resources that would otherwise be wasted in duplicated efforts, both on the government and on the industry side . Telematics enable the tracking of virtually al l delivery vehicles and personnel in citi es, from cycle cour ier to trucks. The same is true for taxis and private hire vehicles. Imposing requirements on shared micro - vehicles wh ich are not imposed on more traditional traffic participants could be seen as unfair, but cou ld also set a precedent and fac ilitate the collect ion of data from an increa si ng number of modes . The collection of micromobility data could transform the management of urban transportation . (Polis , 2019) Potential for self-regulati on Not all road safety solut ions are popular. One can expect little pub li c enthusiasm for a lower speed limit for new r id ers in a shared powered micromobility sys t em , for exa mpl e. This idea could be descr ib ed as a graduate d speed limit system for nov ice rid ers, but might best be presented as a loya lty reward system . Such a measure wou ld on ly work if it was applied acros s all operators i n a given city, either with an industry charter or with lo cal government regulation. Measures like ly to affect the revenues of micromobility companies may not be implemented unless imposed across all operators . For example : • a graduated speed lim it applied on the fi rst rides of a new user • lower ma xi mum speed when double riding is detected or suspected • in-app alcohol testing 9 before late-night rentals around bars • pric i ng structures t hat do not e ncourage speeding and red li ght violations. Insurance companies: What is their role? Third-party liability insurance covers the damages inflicted on third part ies , such as pedestrians . Such insurance is mandatory for motor vehicles in most jurisd ictions . For bicycles , the contractual frameworks and regulations vary across countries, as there is no one -size-fits-all so lution . What matters is that no pedestrian is left without coverage for the injuries they sustain. SAFE MICROMO BILI TY © OECD/ITF 2020 73 FINDIN G THE RIGHT REGU LATO RY BAL ANCE Should individ ua l owners of micro-vehicles contract third party li ability insurance? This requirement exists in French and German regu lations on e-scooters. Yet most peop le are unaware of the legal requ iremen t to insure an e-scooter, according to a survey conducted in France in late 2018 (Chabrier, 2019). In Germany, e-scooter ride rs must display an insurance sticker, which could both facilitate enforcement and raise awareness. Other countries , such as Spain, do not require Type A e-scooter r iders to be insured. When updating the ir reg ulations , authorities should seek so lut ions for the full compensation of pedestrian injury costs which do not discourage the use of Type A micro-vehicles. Authorities should clarify wh ich vehicle types must come with third-party liability insurance . They must decide if every person cycling must be in sured, tak in g into account the extent to which such a requirement might discourage the use of bicyc les . The same quest io n applies to the broader category of Type A micro-vehicles, considering the positive outcomes the ir use could deliver i n cities. In France , a typi cal household multi-risk insurance po li cy includes third party damag es occurring when a person is riding a bicycle or pedelec . In practical terms, this means virtually every person cyc li ng is covered without incurring the add it ional cost of a ded icated cont ract. On the other hand , people riding a powered micro-vehicle in Fran ce m ust hold a third party liability cover . The European Commission proposed that all powered vehicle s -inclu d i ng m icro-vehicles -sho uld have mandatory vehicle insu rance . However, the Eu ropean Pa rliamen t and the Council seem to hav e a different opin ion (still under discussion as of the writing of this paper) and will probably exclude pedelecs from the forth coming directive. This decision is likely to ha ve a positive effect on publ ic hea lth, making pede lecs more convenient and attractive than less "act ive " alternat ives, but creates a responsibility for natio nal governments to clarify how third party in juries wil l be covered. The maximum damage value which is covered in a micromobility insurance contract should be lower than that app li cable to motor ve hicle insurance cont r acts. This is due to the lower ma ss and kinetic energy of micro-vehicles. Shared micromobility companies should also contract a third party insurance policy , as imposed by the local governments in Montreal and Buenos Aires. This is an area where self-reg ulat ion may be observed in the long term . As ins urance companies co ll ect data to assess and compare th e risk of each sha red micromobi li ty service, a price sig nal could ultimate ly reward compa ni es investing in safe micro -vehicle s and in rider train ing. Shared micromobility may offer persona l in jury insurance coverage to their riders in addition to ob li gatory th ird party coverage . This may raise awareness of the r isk of injury, and may also create an in centive for shared micromobi li ty companies to invest in safe micro-vehicles and in r ider tra i ning. Ther e is a fledgling (but growing) number of insurance companies around the world that offer free driving lessons to their customers (e .g. in New Zea land and Ireland). Partnerships between insurance companies and micromobility compan ies could result in more tra i nin g for ride rs. 74 SAFE MICROMOBILITY © OECD/ITF 2020 NOTES Notes 1 The City of Sa nta Mon ica reports a single set of usage and collision statistics fo r e-bikes and e-scooters together. Over the data col lect io n per iod, e-scooters represented abou t 80% of the shared micromobility fleet. 2 In Auckland, Ne w Zea la nd , ACC said it received 22 e-scooter-related claims per week. Over the same period and also per week, it recorded 29 pu sh scooter cl aims, 19 skateboa rd claims , and 73 cyclist claims . In comparison , ACC reco rds 1 000 new cla ims for falls every week in the Auc kl and area (AC C online database). 3 Over 90% of inj uries occur when us ing sha red e-scoote rs, accord i ng to the observat ion of i nsurance data time series (Bek h it et al. 2020). 4 French po lice use revised data co llect ion tools since 2018 that identify powered personal mob ility devices. This category is sepa rate from bicyc les and slow e-bikes , fac ilitating t he analysis and interpretation of mic romobility crash data . 5 The International Road Traffic safety Analysis and Data group (IRTAD) is the permanent work i ng group for road safety of the Internat io nal Transport Fo r um . It brings together road safety experts from national road administrations, road safety research inst itutes, International Organisations , automobile assoc iations, insurance companies , car manufacturers and others. 6 The cit ies where Jump is doing this are (as of the wri t ing of t his report): Paris , France ; Lo ndon , Eng land ; Br ussels, Belgium ; Be rli n, Germany ; Rome , Ita ly; and t he US cit ies of Sa n Francisco , Ca li fornia; Denve r, Colorado ; and Los Angeles , California . The author is gratefu l to Ga rance Lefev re at Ube r for provid in g this in fo rma t ion . 7 The au t hor is gra teful to Chris Bruntlett of the Dutch Cycl i ng Embassy for providing the i nfo rmation on the Net her lands ' nationa l t raffic test. 8 The author is gratefu l to George Yannis of the National Technica l University of At he ns for provid i ng t he information on the training programmes in the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Aus t ralia . 9 Smartphone ap ps exist which claim to as ses s the user's psychomotor functions through a test lasting a few minutes . Degraded accuracy or react ion time co uld reveal that a user is unfit to drive or ride a vehicle . SAFE MICROMO BILITY © OECD/IT F 2020 75 REFERE NCES References 6t-bureau de recherche (2016}, Etude sur les impacts des services de velo en free-floating sur Jes mobilites ac tives , https://www.ademe.fr/etude-impacts-services-velos-free-floati ng-mobilites-actives. 6t-bureau de recherche (2019a), Usages et usagers de services de trottinettes electriques en free- float ing en Franc e, Juin 2019, https://www.ademe.fr/usages-usage r s-trottinettes-electriques-free- floating -fra nce. 6t-bureau de re cherche (2019b }, Enquete aupres des ut ili sateurs de Cityscoot a Par is, https ://6- t.co/e nq u ete-cityscoot/. 6t-bureau de rech erche (201 9c}, Enquete aup r es des ut il isateurs de trotti nettes en free-fl oati ng Dott a Paris , Novembre 2019, https:ij6-t.co /ut i lisateurs -trotti nettes -do tt/. Abend , L. (2019}, "Cyclists and E-Scooters are Clashing in the Battle for Europe 's Streets", http s://t im e.com /5659653/e -scooters-cycles -e urope/ (acce ssed on 03 February 2020}. ACC (2019), ACC on l ine database , https ://cat alogue .data .govt .nz/dataset/fall-data/re sou r ce/8f70c6b9 - 33ad-4a6b-9 08f-e7c 3cfbd82f8 (accessed on 03 February 2020 ). Acciaro , M . (2014}, "Real option analysis for env i ronmenta l compliance: LNG and emi ss io n control areas", Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 28, pp . 41-50, https://do i.org/ 10.1016/j.trd .2013 .12.007. AEA (2009}, "Cost Benefit Analysis to Support th e Impact Assessment accompanyi ng t he revision of Directive 1999/32/EC on th e Sulphur Content of certain Liquid Fue ls", with Assoc iation Aspen, IVL, TNO , Report to Eu ropean Commission, ED45756, Issue 3 . Albre cht, J. (2015 }, "Stake hol der involvement in develop in g LNG as ship fuel i n the Baltic Sea region", Unive rsity of Jyva sky la, http ://urn.fi/UR N:NBN :fi:jyu -201506012116. A ld red , R. (2018}, "Inequa li t ies in se lf-r eport road i njury ri sk in Br ita in : A new ana lysis of Nationa l Tra vel Survey data, focu sing on ped est r ian i njuries ", Journal of Tra nsport and Health, Vo l. 9, pp . 96-104. Allen , D. et al. (1 998}, "Operational Ana ly sis of Uni nterru pted Bicycle Fac ilities", Tran spo rtation Research Reco rd, pp. 29-36, doi: 10.3141/1636-05 . Attefors , M. (2019 ) Lar d ig trafikreglerna med VO i och fa en gratis aktur, https ://bub b la n. tekn i kv ecka n .com /t/la r-d ig-trafi kre glern a-med-voi-och-fa-en-grati s-a ktu r /2896 (ac cessed o n 03 February 2020). Austin Publ ic Health (2019}, Dockless Electric Scooter-re lated Injuries Study, http s:ijwww.au stin t exas.gov /s ites/default/fi les/files/Hea lth/Epidem io logy/APH Dockle ss Ele ctric Scoot er St ud y 5-2-19 .pd f (accessed on 03 February 2020). Bahk , E. (20 19}, "Electric scooter accidents on the rise", Th e Korea Time s, 6 December 2019, https ://m .koreat imes.co.kr/pages/art icle .asp?newsldx =277 033 (accessed 6 December 2019). Balt imore City (2019 }, Dockless Vehicle Pilot Progra m Evaluation Report, Department of Transportation, Balt imore City, http s:ljtra nsportatio n.bal timorecity.gov (acce ssed on 03 Fe bruary 2020). 76 SAFE M ICROM OB ILI TY © OECD/ITF 2020 RE FERENCES Bassil , K. et al. (20 15}, "Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety in Toronto ", https://www.researchgate .net/ publicat ion/28057635 2 Pedestria n and Cyclist Safety i n Toronto (accessed on 03 February 2020). Bekhit, M. N. Z., J. Le Fevre, C. J. Bergin (2020}, Regional healthcare costs and burden of injury assoc iated w ith electric scooters , Injury, Volume 51, Issue 2, 2020 , https ://doi .org/10.1016/j.injury.2019 .10.026 . Bellet, T. and A. Banet (2012}, "Towards a conceptual model of motorcycl ists' risk awarenes s: A comparative study of riding exper ience effect on hazard detection and situational criticality assessment", Accident Ana lysis and Prevention , Vol. 49, pp . 154-164, Elsevier Ltd, doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2011.10.007 . Bell ido, E. (2019}, Muere un frances de 15 anos par una ca fda en patinete en Oropesa -Toda Oropesa , http ://todoo ro pesa . com/suceso s/ mu e re-u n-fra n ces-d e-15 -a no s-por-u n a-ca id a-e n-pati nete -e n-oro pe sa. Bernardi, S. and F. Ru pi (2015}, "An Analysis of Bicy cle Travel Speed and Disturbances on Off-street and On -street Fac i lities ", Transportation Research Procedia, Vol. 5, pp. 82-94 . Bi ke Europe (2017a }, "Rules and reg ul at ions on electric cycle s in European Un ion", White paper, http :ljbike-eu.com .s 3-eu -centra l-1 .amazonaws .co m/app /uploads/2015/09/r ules -regulat io n-on -electri c- cycle s-in -the-europ ean -union -may-2017.pdf (accessed on 03 February 2020). Bike Europe (2017b}, "Revised EN 15194 E-Bike Safety Standard Imp lemented", https://www.bike- eu.com/laws -regu lati o ns/n ieuws/2017 /1 l/revised -en-15194 -e-bike -safety-sta ndard -i m pl e mented - 10132012 (accessed on 03 February 2020). Bikeability (2019}, https://bikeabi li ty.org.uk/ (accessed on 05 December 2019 ). Bird (2019}, "A Look ate-Scooter Safe t y : Examining risks, re v iewing responsibilities , and pr ioritizing prevention", https://www.b ird .co/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Bird-Safe ty-Report -Apr il-2 019 .pd f (ac cessed on 03 February 2020). Bitters, J. (2020}, "San Jose city, bu si ness leaders announce new 'Innovation Zone"', San Jose Spotlight, https://sanjosespot light .com /s an -jo se-city-busine ss-l eaders -announce-new -innovation -zo ne/ (accessed on 03 February 2020). Blaizot, S. et al. (2012), "Accidentalite a Velo et Exposit ion au Risque (AVER ) -Risque de traumatisme s routiers selon quatre types d'usagers", HAL Id : hal -00768484 , https://hal.a rchives-ouve rtes.fr/ha l- 00768484 (acce ssed on 03 February 2020). Blaizot, S. et al. (2013 ), "Injury inc idence rate s of cyclists compared to ped es trians, car occupants and powered two-whee ler riders , using a medical reg is try and mob il ity data , Rhone County, France", Accident Analysis and Prevention , Vol. 58 , pp . 35-45 , http s://do i.org/10 .1016/j.aap.2013 .0 4.018. BMVI (2019}, Verordnung uber d ie Te ilnahme van Elektro kleinstfahrzeugen am StrafSenverkehr (Ele ktrokleinstfah rz e uge-Verordnung -eKFV), https://www.ge setze-im -internet .de/e kf v/ BJNR0 75610019 .h tm l (accessed on 03 February 2020). Boztas , S. (2019), Unwelcome guests : moped riders protest as Amsterdam drives them from bike lanes , The Guardian, 4 -June -2019, www.theguardia n.com /citie s/2019/jun/04/unwelcome-guest s-moped - ri de rs-protest-a s-a mste rd am -drives -th em -from -b ik e-lane s Buehler, R. and J. Pucher (2017), "Trends in wal king and cycl ing safety: Recent evidence from h igh- income countries , with a focus on the United States and German y", American Jo u rnal of Public Health , Vol. 107 /2, pp . 281-287, do i : 10 .2105/AJPH .2016 .303546 . Ca li nescu , T. and D. Adminaite (20 18}, "Progress in reducing dri nk driving in Europe", European Transport Safety Council, https://etsc.eu/wp -content/up load s/r eport re ducin g drink d ri v i ng fina l.pdf. SAFE MICROMO BILI TY © OECD/IT F 2020 77 REFERE NC ES Castro , A, S. Kahlmeier and T. Gotschi (2018), "Exposure-adjusted Road Fatality Rates for Cycling and Walking in European Countries", Discussion Paper, International Transport Forum, Paris, https ://www.itf- oecd .org/s ites/ d efa u lt/fi I es/docs / exposure -adj usted -roa d-fata I ity-rates-cycl in g-wa I ki ng-e u rope. pdf. CDC WISQARS (2019), Web-based Injury Statistics Que ry and Reporting System, https://www.cdc.gov/i n ju ry/wisqa rs/index. htm I CEN (2016), "Light electric vehicles and self-balancing ve h icle", CEN/TC 354/WG 4, European Committee for Standard ization, https://standards.cen.eu /dyn /www/f?p=204 :22:0 ::::FSP ORG I D,FSP LANG ID:1199144 ,25&cs=159F5A57E039125FD59FFEC5C5DD066D9 (accessed on 2 December 2019). CEN (2019), "Work program 2020", European Committee for Standardization and European Committee for Electrotechn ical Standardization, https ://www .cencenelec.eu/News/Publications/Publications/CEN - CENE LEC WP 2020 EN .pdf (accessed on 29 January 2020). Cha brier, B. (2019}, NVEI : le devoir d 'information , chantier prioritaire, https ://www. a rgus d e lassu ranee .com /ass u ra nce-dom mages /a uto/nvei-le-devoi r-d-i nforma t ion -cha ntier- priorita ir e .140264. Chang, A (2019), "A M icro-Glossary on Micromobility", Medium, https ://m edium .com /@annieyjcha ng/a- m icro-g lo ss ary -o n-micromobility-e9f02b88fb49 (accessed 5 December 2019). Cheng , K. (2019), "The Big Read : Calls to ban PMDs mount as accidents pers ist -but is it the best opt ion?", Channel News Asia, http s://www.cha nn elnewsasia .com /news/s inga pore /ban-pmd -persona l- mobility-device-e-s cooter-accidents-s i ngapore-11568106 . Cherry , C. and J. MacArthur (2019), "E-bike safety. A review of Empirical European and North American Stud ies", White paper, prepared for PeopleForB ikes , https://peopleforbi kes.org /wp -content/uploads/ 2019 /10 /EbikeSa f ety-VFinal.pdf (accessed on 03 February 2020). Cheryl , T. and T. Toh (2019), E-scooter that knocked into cyclist in fatal Bedok accident should not have been used on public paths, The Straits Times, www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/e-s cooter-that- knocked -i nto-65 -yea r-o I d -cycl ist -i n-fata I-a cci dent-was -non Choudhary, V., M . Shunko, S. Netessine and S. Koo (2019), "Nudging Drivers to Safety : Evidence from a Field Ex periment", INSEAD Working Paper No . 2019 /52/TOM ., http://dx.do i.org /10.2139/ssrn .3491302. City of Santa Monica (2019a), Shared Mob il ity Devi ce Pi lot Program User Survey Results , http s ://www.smgov.net/u ploaded Fi I es /Depa rtments /PCD/Tra nsportation /Shared M obi I ity UserSu rveySu mmary 20190509 FINAL .PDF (accessed on 05 December 2019). City of Santa Moni ca (2019b),"Shared mobi lity pi lot program summary report", November 2019, https://www.smgov .n et/uploadedFiles/Department s/PCD/Tran sportation /SantaMonicaSharedMobilityEv aluation Final 110419.pdf (accessed 05 December 2019). Civity (2019), "E-Scooters in Germany : A data-driven contribut ion to the ongoing debate", http ://sco oters .civ ity.de /en (accessed on 03 February 2020). Clewlow, R. (2018), "DC is growing its dock less bi ke and scooter program : We partnered with them to evaluate how it's expand ing access in underserved communities", Medium , https ://m edium .com / populu s-a i/mea suring-equity-dockless-27c40af259f8 accessed on 03 February 2020). Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 3/2014 of 24 October 2013 supplementing Regu lat ion (EU) No 168/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to vehicle functional safety requirements for the approval of two-or three -wheel vehicle s and quadricycles, Official Journal of the 78 SA FE M ICR OM OBILITY © OECD/ITF 2020 REFERENCES European Union, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014R0003& from=EN (accessed on 03 February 2020). Com m iss ion Delegated Reg ul at ion (EU) No 44/2014 of 21 Nove mb e r 2013 supp le m en t ing Regu lat ion (EU) No 168/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council w ith regard to t he vehicle construction and general r equirements for the approval of two-or three-wheel vehicles and quadricycles, Official Journal of t h e European Union, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX: 32014R0044&from=EN (accessed on 03 February 2020). CPSC (2019), "Requiremen t s for bicycles", Electronic Code of Federa l Regulations, Ti t le 16, Chapter II , Subchapter C, Part 1512, https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=2d5c62bb5ac809e995f9207 b 7c375103&mc=true&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Titlel6/16cfr1512 main 02.tpl. Crip t on, P. et al. (2015), "Severity of urban cycling injuries and t he r e lationship w ith personal, trip, route and crash char acteristics: Analyses using four seve r ity metrics", BMJ Open , Vol. 5/1, doi : 10.1136/ bmjopen -20 14-006654 . Crundall, D. et al. (2014), "The role of experience and advanced train ing on performance in a motorcycle simu lator", Accident Ana lys is and Preven tion, Vol. 73, pp . 81 -90, Elsevier Ltd, do i : 10.1016/j .aap . 2014.08.009. CSCRS (2019), "Understand i ng micromobility safety behavior and standard izin g safety metrics for transportation system integ ration ", Collaborative Sciences Center fo r Road Safet y, https ://www. road sa fety. u nc.ed u/research/projects/2019r26/. Curry, A. et al. (2017), "Comparison of older and younger novice d r iver crash rates: Informing the need for extended Graduated Driver Licensing restrict ions", Accident Ana lysis and Prevention, Vol. 108, pp . 66 -73 , Elsevier Ltd, doi : 10.1016/j .aap .2017 .08 .015 . De Ceunynck, T. et al. (20 19), "Determinants and barr iers of walk in g, cycling and using Persona l e- Transporters: A survey in nine European cit ies", Conference of Euro pean Dire cto r s of Roads, https ://www.via s.be/pub lication s/ (ac cessed on 03 February 2020). Dediu , H. (20 19) "Where does the Word Micromobility come From?", Micromobi lit y industries, https ://m icromobi lity. io/b log/2019/8/1/w he r e-does-the-word-m icromobi lity-come-from (accessed on 26 Novem ber 2019). Deegan, B. (2018), "Light Protection of Cycle Lanes : Best Pract ic es", Discuss ion Paper , International Transport Forum, Paris , https ://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/d efa ult/files/docs/light-protection-cycle- la nes 2.pdf. Deery , H. (1 999), "Hazard and Risk Perception among Young Novice Drivers ", Jou rn al of Safety Research , Vol. 30/4, p p. 225-236, Else vi er Ltd, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4375(99)00018-3. DGT (2019), "Aclaraciones t ecn icas y criterios para la formulac i6n de denuncias de vehfculos ligeros propulsa d os par motores e lectricos ", l nstr uccion 2019/S-149 TV-108, Direccion General del tra ffi co , Ministerio de l Interior, http://www.dgt.es /Galer ias/seguridad-vial/normativa-legis lacion/otras- normas/normas-basicas/lntruccion-VMP-y-otros-vehiculos-ligeros.pdf (accessed o n 03 February 2020). Directive 200 1/95/EC of the Europea n Parliament and of the Council of 3 Decem ber 2001 on general product sa f ety, Official Jo urn al of the European Com m unities, https://eur-lex.euro pa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT /PDF /?uri=CELEX :32 001L0095&from=EN. SAFE MICROMO BILI TY © OECD/ITF 2020 79 REFEREN CES Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Counc il of 17 May 2006 on machinery, and amending Directive 95/16/EC (recast), Official Journal of the European Union, https://eur- lex .europa.eu/LexUriServ/Le xUriServ.do ?uri=OJ :L:2006: 157 :0024 :0086 :EN :PDF . Directive 2006/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators and repea ling Directive 91/157/EEC, Official Journal of the European Union, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN[TXT /PDF/?uri=CELEX: 32006L0066&from=FR . Directive 2009/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Counc il of 18 June 2009 on the safety of toys, Official Journal of the European Union, https://eur-lex.europa .eu/legal-content/EN[TXT/PDF /?uri=CELEX:32009L0048&from=EN. Directive 20 11 /65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 on the restriction of the use of certa in hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment, Official Journal of th e European Union, https ://eur-lex.eu ropa .eu/legal -conten t /EN[TXT /PDF /?uri=CELEX:32011L0065& from= FR. Directive 20 14/30/UE of th e European Parliament and of the Counc il of 26 February 2014 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating t o electromagnetic compatibility, Official Jo urnal of the European Union, https ://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal -content/EN[TXT /PDF/?uri= CELEX :32014L0030&from=FR . Directive 2014/35/EU of the European Parliament and of the Counci l of 26 February 2014 on the har monisat ion of the laws of the Member States relating to the making available on the market of electrical equ ipm ent designed for use within certain vo ltage limits, Official Journa l of the European Union, https :// eu r-lex . eu ropa .eu/lega 1-content/EN[TXT /P OF /?u ri=CE LEX:3 2014L0035&from=EN. Dire ctive 2014/45 /EU of the European Parliament and of the Counci l of 3 Apr il 2014 on periodic roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and t heir trai lers and repea ling Directive 2009/40/EC, Official Journ al of the European Union , https ://eur-lex.europa.eu/lega l-co ntent/EN[TXT /PDF/?ur i=CELEX: 32014L0045&from=EN . EC /134/2014, "Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 134/2014 of 16 December 2013 supp lement ing Regulation (EU) No 168/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to environmental and propulsion unit performance requirements and amending Annex V", Official Journ al of the European Union , https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal -content/EN{TXT /PDF/?u ri =CELEX : 32014R0134&from=EN . EN 15194 (2009), Safety standard adapted for Electrica ll y Power Assisted Cycles (EPAC), https ://shop . bsigrou p. com/ProductDeta i I ?p id =000000000030335500 EN 50604 (2016), Secondary lithium batteries for light e lectric veh icle appl icat ion s. General safety requirements and test methods . https://shop.bsigro up.com/ProductDetail/?pid=000000000030303915 European Commission (2015), "Serious In juries", European Road Safety Observatory, http :ij ec. e u ropa. eu/tra ns port/road safety/sites/road safety/files/ e rsosynt h es is2015- se r i o us in ju ri es25 en.pdf. European Commission {2019a), "FAQ: Type approval of vehicles", https ://ec.europa .eu/growth /sectors/ automot ive/technica l-harmon isation/fag-auto en (accessed on 02 Dec ember 2019). 80 SA FE M ICR OMOBILI TY © OECD/ITF 2020 REFERENCE S European Commission (2019b), "Study on the inclusion of light trailers and two-or three-wheel vehicles in the scope of the per iod ic roadworthiness testing", MOVE/C2/SER/2017-295-Sl 2.772857, Final report, European Com mission , https://c itain sp.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/LO.pdf. Feleke, R. et al . (2018), "Co m parat ive fata lity risk fo r different trave l m odes by age, sex, and depri vat ion ", Journal of Transport and Health , Vo l. 8, pp . 307-320, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth .2017 .08.007. Felton, R. (20 19), "Nat iona l Crash Data From E-Scooter Ride-Sha r e Companies Revealed for the First Time", Co nsum erReports .co m , https ://www.consume r reports.org/p roduct-sa f ety/nationa l-crash-data- from -e-scoo t e r-rid e-sha re-com pan ies-revea led-for-first-time/ ( 03 Fe b ruary 202 0 ). FHSA (2019), "Federal Hazardous Substances Act", Electronic Code of Federa l Reg ulations , Title 16, Part 1500 , US Government Publishing Office, https ://www.ecfr .gov/cgi-bin /text-id x ?SID= 7 ad 2f 4f d3ce5aa8107 effa4 1ac55a907 &mc=true&tpl=/ecf rbrowse/Tit le 16/16CI lsu bch a pC. tp I (accessed on 03 Febr uary 2020). Fitt, H. and A. Curl (2019), "E-scooter use in New Zealand: Ins ights around some frequently asked questions", Un iversity of Ca nterbury, http://h dl.handle .net /10092/1 6336 . Freydier, C., C. Berthelon and M . Bastien-Toniazzo (201 6), "Does ear ly training im prove driving ski lls of y oung nov ice French drive rs?", Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vo l. 96, pp . 228 -236, Elsevier Ltd , doi: 10.1016/j .aa p.2016 .07 .026 . Garrard, J., S. Handy and J. Dill (2012), Women and Cycling , pp 21 1-234 in City Cy cl ing, The MI T Pr ess, Cam b r idge, M A, https:ijm it pr es s.mit.edu/books/c ity-cycl ing Gibson, A. (1915) "Self-pro pelled vehicle", Patent registered with t he Un ited States Patent and Tradmark Office on Ju ly 25 , 1916, https://pdfp iw .uspto .gov /.piw?Docid=01192514 (accesse d on 5 December 20 19). Girotto, E. et al. (2016), "Pro fessional ex pe ri ence and traffic accide nts/near -m iss accidents am on g truck drivers", Acc id ent Analys is and Preventio n, Vol. 95 , pp . 299-304, doi: 10 .1016/j .aa p.2016 .07 .004. GLA (2015), "Health impacts of cars in London ", Greater London Authority, Lond on , htt ps ://www.london .gov .u k/sites /default/files/health impact of cars in londo n -se pt 2015 fina l O.pdf (accesse d on 0 3 February 20 20). Greibe , P. and T. Buch (20 16), "Capacity and Behaviour on One -way Cycle Tracks of Different Widths", Transportation Research Procedia , Vol. 15, pp. 122-136, https ://do i.org /10.1016/j.trpro.2016 .06.011 . Gut ho ld, R. et al. (2018), "W o rl dwide t r e nd s in insufficient physic al activity from 200 1 to 2016: a poo led anal ysis of 358 populatio n-based surveys w it h 1.9 m illi on part icipa nts", The Lance t, Vol . 6/10, DOI :https ://doi .o rg/10.1016/S2214-109X(18)30357-7. Gutho ld, R. et al. (2019), "Gl obal trends in insufficient physical ac ti v it y among adolescents : a pooled analysis of 298 popu latio n-based surveys w it h 1.6 mil lion partic ipants", The La ncet, Vol. 4/1 , pp . 23-35 , DOI : https ://doi .org/10 .10 16/S2352-4642 ( 19 )303 23-2 . Harrison, W. (1999), The ro le of experience in learning to drive : A theoretical discu ssion and an investigation of the expe riences of learne r drivers over a two-year period , Report no. 156, Monash U niv ersi ty Ac cident Rese arch Centre, Me lbourne, https://www.monash .edu / d ata/assets/ pdf fi le/000 5/216446/mua rc156 .pdf (accessed on 18 November 201 9). SAFE MICROMO BILITY © OECD/IT F 2020 81 REFEREN CES Hawkins, A. (2019), "Lime's electric scooters w ill be ab le to tell whe n you 're too drunk to ride", The Verge , https :ijwww.theverge .com/2019 I 4 /17 /1841112 7 /Ii me-brad-bao-electric-scooter-d run k- detectio n-vergecast (accessed on 04 February 2020). Haworth, N. and A. Schra mm (2019}, "Ill egal and r is ky riding of elec tri c scooters in Brisbane", Medical Journal of Aus tra lia , https://doi.org /10.5694/mja2.50275. Hay, M., V. Etienne and L. Paire-Ficout (2017), "Driver training and licensing: Formal pre-license tra in ing, graduated driver licensing and probation", European Road Safety Decis ion Support System, deve loped by the H2020 project SafetyCube, https://www.roadsafety-ds s.eu /assets/data/pdf /synopses/Driver training and Licensing forma l prelicense tra ini ng graduated driver licens i ng and proba tion 130620 17 .pd f (accessed on 21November2019}. Hiron , B. {2019), "La nouvel le reglementat ion pour les Engins de Deplacements Per sonnels motorises (EDP M )", Ce re ma, https ://www .cerem a. fr /fr /actua lites/nou ve l le -reglementation-engins -dep lacements- person nels (accessed on 04 February 2020). Hosk ing, S., C. Liu and M . Bayly {2010), "The visual search patterns and hazard responses of experienced and i nexperie nc ed motorcycle riders", Accident Analysis and Preve ntio n, Vo l. 42/1, pp. 196-202, Elsevier Ltd, https ://doi .o rg /10.1016/j.aap .2009 .07.023. In surance Busine ss {2019}, "E-scooter injuries cost ACC nearly $1.5 million ", Insurance Business Magaz ine, https://www.insurancebus in essmag .com /nz/news/breaking-ne ws/escooter-injuries -cost-acc - nearly-1-5-m illi on -170310.asp x (accessed on 03 February 2020). ISO {2020), "ISO 43 .150: Cycles, including the i r compone nts and systems", International Organization for Standardization, https://www.iso.org/ics/43.150/x/. IT F (2011), Reporting on Serious Road Traffic Casualties: Comb ining and using different data sources to improve understanding of non-fatal road traffic crashes, In ternatio nal Transport Forum , Paris , https ://www.itf-oecd.org/s ites/defau lt/files/docs/road-casualties-web.pdf. ITF {2015), Improving Safety for Motorcycle, Scooter and Moped Riders, ITF Research Reports, OECD Publ ishing, Par is, https :ijdoi .org/10.1787 /9789282107942 -en. ITF {2016), Zero Road Deaths and Serious Injuries: Leading a Paradigm Shift to a Safe System , OECD Publi shing, Paris, https ://doi .org/10.1787 /9789282108055-en. ITF {2018), Alcohol-Related Road Casualties in Offic ial Crash Statistics, I RTAD Research Report , Internationa l Tr ansport Foru m, Paris, https://www.itf-oecd .org/sites/default/files/docs/alcohol-related- road -c asu a lti es-offic ia 1-c rash-statistics. pdf. ITF {2019a), "Road Safety in European Cities : Performance Ind icators and Governance Solutions", Internat ion al Tra nsport For um Policy Papers, n° 67, OECD Publ ishin g, Paris, https://doi.org/ 10.1787 /ad4de8a1-en. ITF (2019b), New Directions for Data-Driven Transport Safety, Inte rn ational Transport Forum , Paris , https://www.itf-oecd .org/new-d irectio ns-data-drive n-transpo rt-safety-O. ITF (2019c), Governing Tran sport in the Algorithmic Age, In ternationa l Transport Forum , Paris, https ://www.it f-oecd.o rg /govern i ng-tra nsport-a lgorith m ic-age. ITF (forthcoming a), Good to Go? Assessing the Environmental Performance of New Mobility, Internationa l Tran spo rt Foru m, Paris . ITF {forthcoming b), Streets That Fit : Reallocating City Space, International Transport Forum , Paris. 82 SAFE MICROMOBILITY © OECD /ITF 2020 REFERENCES JORF (2019), "Decre t n° 2019 -108 2 du 23 octobre 2019 relati f a la reglemen t at ion de s eng in s de deplacement personnel", Journal Off iciel de la Republique Fran<;aise, JORF n°0249 du 25 octobre 2019 texte n° 19. Jump (2019), SFMTA Powered Scoote r Share Prog r am -Perm it App li cat ion , https://www.sfmta.com/sites/defaul t/fil es/r eports-and -documents/2019/09/jump.pdf Kluppels , L. (2016 ), "Beyond shame and guilt : What's inside a h it and run acc ident", Belgian Road Safety Institute, http ://traffic-psycho logy -in ternational .eu/wp-conten t /upload s/2016/01/Beyond -shame-and - g uil t .pdf (accessed on 04 February 20 20). KMVSS (2019), "Regulat ions for Performance and Safety Standards of Motor Vehicle and Vehicle Parts ", Korea Motor Vehicle Safety Standard s, https://ch e myca l.c om/news/18676dl d-7128 -4f81 -84de -e4f7a 9e5dad4/Revision of Korean Safety and Performance Regulations fo r Motor Vehicles and Part s Kobayashi, L. et al. (2019), "Thee-merging e-pidemic of e-scooters", Trauma Surgery and Acute Care Open , Vol. 4/1, doi : 10 .1136/tsaco-2019 -000337. Kollinger, C., R. Rzewnicki and R. Fismer (2011), "How to run a cyc li ng actio n", Life Cycle Implementation Manual , 3rd Edit ion , LIFE CYCLE is a project funded by the EU Public Hea lth Programme , FGM -Amor, http s ://ec. eu ropa . eu/transport/sit es/tra nspo rt/f i les/cy cl i ng -gu ida nee/I ife cy cl e imp lementation manual.pdf (accessed on 05 December 2019}. Lacey , J. et al. (2007), "Pilot test of new roadside survey methodology for impa i red driving", National Highway Traffic Saf ety Admin istrat ion , U.S. Department of Transpo rtat ion , ht tps://pdfs.semanticscholar. org/e53c/d b34e024606f304c96c3a8884f33 6a61bf c6. pdf? ga=2. 242491717 . 618539 787 .1580806958 - 1817 405654.1580 806958 . LADOT (2019}, "LADOT data prote ct ion principles", Los Angeles Department ofTran sportat ion , https ://la dot. io /wp -content/u pload s/2019/03 /2019 -04-12 Data -Protect ion -Pr i nciple s. pd f . pd f (acces sed on 04 February 2020). Larde lli -Clare t , P. et al. (2005}, "Driver dependent factors and the risk of causing a collis ion for two wheeled motor vehic les ", In jury Prevention, Vol. 11/4, pp . 225-231, doi : 10.1136/ip .2004 .006957 . Large (2019), "The electr ic bicycle is limit ed to speed of 25km/h and have an 11 -month transitio n period", Large .net, https://www.la rge .net/news/79u43mp .html (accessed on 06 December 2019}. Lefrancq , M. (2019}, "Shared freefloat ing m icromobility regulations and re sults of e-scooter users' survey (summer 2019}", presentation on behalf of Bru xelles Mob ili te for the ERSCharter Webinar, https :ijerscha rter.eu //sites/defa u lt/fil es/resources/presen t at ion martin I efra neg . pdf (accessed on 04 February 2020). Leka sh, S. (2019), "Bird hopes 'he lmet selfies ' will make r iders safer", Mashable, https :ijm ashable .com/ article/b ird-helmet-selfie -escooters-safety/?europe=true (accessed on 04 February 2020). Lime (2018), "San Francisco Scooter Use Su rvey Resu lts", https://www.li mebike.com/hubfs/Lime %20 San %20Franc isco %20Scooter%20Survey%20Find in gs .pd f (accessed on 04 February 2020). Lime (2019}, "Year End Report 2018", https ://www.li .me /hubf s/Lime Yea r-End %20Report 2018 .pdf (accessed on 04 Feb r uary 2020). Lin, S. et al. (2008 }, "Comparison Study on Ope r at i ng Speed s of Electric Bicy cl es and Bicycles : Experience from Field In vest igat ion in Kunm i ng , China", Transportation Research Record, Vol. 2048/1 , pp . 52-59, http s ://doi .org/10.3141/2048 -07. SAFE M ICROMO BILI TY © OECD/ITF 2020 83 REFERENCES Li u, C., S. Hosking and M. Lenne (2009), "Hazard perception abilities of experienced and novice motorcyclists: An interactive simulator exper iment", Transportation Research Pa rt F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 12/4, pp . 325-334, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2009.04.003. Lo ri tz, M . (2019), "We want our riders to feel li ke super heroes : Interv iew with Wind EMEA CEO Ed Sc h midt", EU-Startups, https ://www.eu-startups.com/2019 /10/we-wa nt-ou r-ride rs-to-feel-1 i ke - su perheroes-i nterview-with-wi nd-mob il ity-emea-ceo-ed-sch m idt/ (accessed on 04 February 2020). Lunden , I. (2019), "Berlin's Ti er Mobility scoops up $60M as its scoo t er-based transportat ion serv ice passes lOM ri des", TechCr u nch, https://techcrunch .com/2019/10/07 /berlins-tie r-mobility-scoops-up - 60m-for-its-scooter-based-transportation-service/ (accessed on 04 February 2020). M arschall, A. (2018), "Lime's new scooter is hardier, heav ier, and b uilt for life on th e st ree t s", Wired, ht tps://www.wired .com/story/lime-scooter-gen3-desig n/# (accesse d on 04 February 2020). Marshall, W. and N. Ferenchak (2019), "Why cit ies with high bicyc ling rates are sa f er for all road users", Journal of Transport and Health, Vo l. 13, https ://doi.org/10.1016/j .jt h.2019 .03.004 . M aus , J. (20 16), "Portland now using pedal-powered trikes to help re balance bike share stations", Bicycle I nsu ranee Por tl and , http://www. bicyclei nsu r a nceportla nd .com/24396/portla nd-now-usi ng -peda 1- powered -tri kes -to-hel p-reba lance -bike -share -stat ions (accessed o n 04 February 2020). MDT (2017), Resoluc i6n 160 de 2017 Ministerio de Transporte , Par la cual se reg lamenta el registro y la circulac i6n de las vehfcu los automoto r es tipo ciclomotor, tricimoto y cuadriciclo y se dictan otras d isposiciones, 2 Febrero 20 17, https://www.alcaldiabogota .gov.co/s isjur/normas/Norma1.jsp?i=68085. Multnomah County Hea lth Department (2019), Scoote r-related In ju ries in Mu ltn omah County July- November 20 18, https://www.portlandoregon.go v/tra nsportation/artic le/709715 NACTO (2018), "NACTO Pol icy 2018: Guide lin es for the Regulation and Management of Shar ed Act ive Transportat io n", Nationa l Associat ion of City Transportation Offic ials, https://nacto.org/wp-content/ uploads /2018/07 /NACTO -Shared-Active -Transportatio n-Guidelines .pdf (accessed on 04 Fe b ruary 2020). NACTO (20 19a), "Share d M icromobil ity in the U.S.: 20 18", Nationa l Associatio n of City Transportation Officials, https://nacto.org/shared-micromobility-2018/ (accessed o n 04 February 2020). NACTO (2019 b ), "Guide li nes for Regulating Shared Micromobility", Version 2, Nat ional Association of City Transportation Officials, ht tps ://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads /2019/09/NAC TO Shared Micromobility Guide li nes Web.pdf (accessed on 04 Februa ry 2020). NCS L (2019), "State Elect ri c Bicycle Laws: A Legislative Pr imer", Nat ion al Conference of State Leg is la tu res, http://www. n cs I. org/resea rch/tra ns po rtatio n/ state-el ectri c-b icy cl e-1 aws-a-1 egi s lative- p rimer. as px (accessed on 05 December 20 19). NHTSA (2013), "Motor Ve hi cle Safety", Ti tl e 49, United St ates Code, Chapter 301, U.S. Department of T ransportat io n, Nationa l Highway Traffic Safety Admi n is t ration, https ://www.n htsa .gov /sites /nhtsa . dot.gov/files/documents/motor veh icle safety unrelated uncodified provisions may2013 .pdf (accessed on 0 3 Decembe r 2019). N HT SA (20 17), "Part 570-in use inspection standards", Title 49 , su bt it le B, chapte r V, National Highway T raffic Safe t y Adm in istration , Code of Federal Regulati on s, https://www.govinfo.gov/conten t/pkg/CFR- 20 17-t it le49-vol6/xml/CFR-2017-tit le49-vol6-part570.xml (accessed o n 9 Decem ber 2019) 84 SA FE M ICROM OB ILl 1Y © OECD/IT F 2020 REFEREN CES NITC (2014), Regula tions of e-bikes in North America, Report NITC-RR-564, National Institute for Transporta t ion and Communities, https://ppm s.trec.pdx.edu/med ia/project files /NITC-RR- 564 Regulation s of E-Bikes in North America 1.pdf (accessed on 04 February 2020). Nobel Prize (2019), "Sc ientific background on Nobel Prize in Chemis t ry 2019: Lith ium -ion batteries", The Royal Swed ish Academy of Sciences , Stockholm, https://www.n obe l prize .org/uploads/2019/10/ advanced-chemistryprize2019 .pdf (accessed on 05 December 2019). NUMO (2020), "Vehicle profiles: A policy guidance tool by NUMO", webpage , https ://vehicle-profile- editor.netlify.com/ (accessed on 04 February 2020). NYCDOT (20 14), "Protected bicycle lanes in NYC", presentation, New York City Department of Transportat ion, http://www.nyc.gov/htm I/dot/down load s/pdf /2014 -09-03 -bicycle-path-data -a na lysis. pdf (accessed on 04 February 2020). NZ Transport Agency (2019), "Cycling education", https://www.nzta.govt.nz/wa lking-cycling-and-public - transport/cycl ing/cycling-education/ (accessed on 05 December 2019). O'Hern, S. and J. Oxley (2019), "Pedestri an injuries due to collisions w ith cyclists Melbourne, Australia", Accident Ana lysis and Prevention, Vol. 122, pp. 295-300, https://doi.org/10.1 016/j.aap .2018 .10.018. Paine , M. (2001), Analysis of relative safety performance of bicycles and scooters, report prepared for VecRoads, Vehicle Design and Research Pty Limited, http://mpa in esyd .com/filechute/scooter report dec01.PDF (accessed on 04 February 2020). PBOT (2018), "2018 E-Scoo t er Pilot User Survey Resu lts ", Portland Bur eau of Trans po rt ation, www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/700916. PBOT (2019), "2018 E-Scooter Findings Report", Portland Bureau of Tran sportatio n, www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/709719 . PeopleForBikes (2019), Bicycle Network Analysi s webpage, https://bna .peopleforbikes.org/#/. Petrin , K. (2019), "St. Louis begins rolling out safety updates for Bird, Spin and Lime scooters", St. Louis Public Radio, https ://news.st! pu bl icrad io.org/post/st-lou is-begins-ro l Ii ng -out-safety -u pd ates -bird -spin - a nd -1 i me-scooters#strea m/O . Polis (2019), "Macro managing micro mobility : Ta ki ng the long view on short trips", Discus sion Paper , Po I is, https://www.polisnetwork.eu/wp-content/u ploads/2019/11/Pol is-Pa per-Macroma nagi ng- M icroM obi I ity. pdf. Pu blic Law 107-319 (2002), "An act to amend the Consumer Product Safety Act to provide that low- speed elec tric bicy cles are consumer products subject to such Act", H.R. 727, U.S. Government Publishing Office, https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/PLAW-107publ319 /s ummary. Qishin, T. (2019), "Legali ty of e-scooters around the world", AsiaOne, https :ljwww.as iaone .c om/ digital/legality-e-scooters-around-wor ld (accessed on 04 February 20 20). Regulation (EU) No 168/2013 of the European Par liament and of th e Council of 15 January 2013 on the approva l and ma rket surve il lance of two-or three-wh eel vehic les and quadricycles, Official Journal of the European Unio n, https://eur-lex.europa .eu/LexUriServ/Le x U r iSe rv.do ?uri=OJ: L:2013 :060 :0052: 0128:EN:PDF. Rizzi , M ., H. Stigson and M . Krafft (2013), "Cyclist injuries leading to permanent medica l impairment in Sweden and th e effect of bicycle helmets", pre sented at the Internat ional Researc h Counci l on the SAFE M ICROMOBI LITY © OECD/IT F 20 20 85 REFERENCE S Biome chanics of Injury co nference on 11-13 September 2013 in Go t henburg, Sweden, http :ijwww.ircobi.org/word press/ down loads/i rc13/pdf files/ 46 . pdf. RoadBo tics (2019 ), "Nort h Hu ntingdon Township, Pennsy lvania: Case Study", https://www.roadbotics.com/north-huntingdon-township-case-study/ (accessed on 04 Februa ry 2020). Robbin s, C. and P. Chapman (2018), "Drivers' Visual Search Behav ior Toward Vu lnerable Road Users at Jun ct ions as a Function of Cycl ing Experience", Human Fa ctors, Vol. 60/7, pp. 889-901, https://doi.org/ 10.1177 /0018720818778960. RT A (2006}, Road Traffic Act n° 7969, Korea Legislation Research Ins t it ute, https://elaw.klri .re.kr/eng service/lawView .do?lang=ENG&hseq=906 (acce ssed 05 December 2019). Khorasani-Zava r eh, D. et al. (2015 ), "K in etic ene rgy management in road traffic i njury prevention: A call for actio n", Journ al of Injury and Vio le nce Research, Vo l. 7 /1, pp. 36-37, doi: 10 .5249 /j ivr.v7il.458 . SAE (2019) "J3194™ Stan dar d -Taxonomy and cla ssific at io n of powe r ed micromobility vehicles", htt ps://www.sae.org/stan dard s/conte nt/j3194 201911/. Santa creu, A. (2 018), "Cy cl ing Safety", Internatio nal Transport Foru m, Pari s, https://www.itf- oecd .org /sites/ defau lt/files/ docs/ cycli ng-safety-roundta bl e-su m ma ry 0 . pdf. Schepe rs , P., K. Klein Walt and E. Fishman (2018), "The Safety of E-Bik es in the Neth erlands", Discu ssion Paper , Internationa l Trans port Forum, Paris , https://www.itf-oecd .org/sites/defa ul t/files/docs/safety-e- bikes -the-neth erlands l.pdf. Schrote n, A. et al . (20 19}, "Susta inab le tran sport infrastruct ure charg in g an d internalisation of transpo rt externalities: Executive summary", Europ ea n Commissio n, Br usse ls , doi: 10.2832/246834. Scient ific Ame r ican (1906), Scientific American, Vol. 94/15 , Munn an d Co., Ne w York , https://arch ive .org/ details/scien tifi c-a merica n-1906-04 -14/mode/2 up . Scoot (2019), MTA Powered Scooter Share Permit Program, https://www .sfm t a.com/s ite s/defau lt/ files/reports-and -documen t s/2019/09/scoot.pdf . Sikka , N. et al. (2019) "S ha ring the sidewalk: A case of E-s cooter rela t ed pedes trian inju ry", The American Journal of Emergen cy Medicine, Vol. 37 /9, p p. 1807 .e5-1807.e7, https://do i.org/10.1016/j.ajem. 20 19 .06 .017 . Si li con Canals (2019), "I rish t elematics startup Lun a u nv e il s a sol ution for mass adoption of e-scooters", h ttps ://s i I ico n can a Is. com/ news/s t art u ps/i ri sh-te I em at i cs-st a rtu p-1 u n a-u nve i Is-a-so l uti on-for-mass- a do pt ion-of-e-scoote r /. SLA (2019), "Comp le te guide toe-scooter an d PMD laws for Singa pore riders", Sing apore Legal Advice, https://singa porel egaladv ice.com/law-arti cles/e-scooter-laws-s i ng apo re (accessed 06 December 20 19). Small , A. (20 19), "Who 's ready for the e le ct ri c moped mo ment?", City/a b, https://www.citylab.com/ tran sportation/2019/09/rev e l-electric-scooter-rental-r eview-moped-safety-tips-app/597367 /(acce sse d on 04 Febr uary 2020). Sustrans (2019), "Bike It Plus London", https://www.sustrans.org .uk /our-b log/pro jects/2 019 /lo ndon / bike-it-plus-lo nd on/ (accessed on 05 December 2019). SWOV (2019), "Fact shee t : Pede lecs and speed pedelecs", SWOV In st itute for Road Safe ty Research , https://www.swov.nl/en/facts-figures/factsheet/pedelecs-and-speed -pede lecs (accessed 06 December 2019). 86 SA FE MICROMOBILI TY © OECD/ITF 202 0 REFERENCES Taylor , C. (2019), "US electronic scooter operator to pilot Irish GPS technology11 , The Irish Times , https://www.irishtimes.co m/business/technology/us-electronic-scooter-operator-to-pilot-irish -gps- technology-1.4110870 (accessed on 04 Feb r uary 2020). TfL (2016), Lo ndon Cycling Design Standards, Chapter 3, Transpo rt for London, http://content.t fl .gov.uk/ lcds-cha pter3-streetsa ndspaces . pdf. Toh , T. (20 19), "270 reports of errant PMD and e-bike users received in a month t hrough LTA transport app 11 , The Straits Times, https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/270-reports-of-errant-pmd- and-e-bike-users-rece ived-in-a-month-through-lta accessed on 04 February 2020). Toosizadeh, N. et al. (2014), "Motorized mobility scooters: The use of t raining/in t ervention and technology fo r improving dri v ing skills in aging adults -A mini-rev iew", Gerontology, Vol. 60/4, pp. 357 -365, https://doi.org/10.1159/000356766 . Transport for London (2015), Attitudes towards cyc ling, Library re po rt, TfL n 051 10 , Transport for London , http ://content. tfl .gov. u k/atc-on Ii ne-a utu m n-2015-report. pdf . Trivedi, T. et al. (2019), "Injuries assoc iated with standing electric scooter use 11 , JAMA Network Open , Vol. 2/1, doi :l0.1001/jama networkopen.2018 .7381. TU Delft (2019), "Smart motor in handlebars prevents bicycles from falling over11 , De lft University of Technology, ht tps://www.t udelft.nl/en/2019/tu -delft/smart-motor-in -handlebars-p revents-bicycles- from -fal ling-over/ (accessed on 04 February 2020). Twisk, D. an d S. de Ha ir -Buij ssen (2017), "Me BeSafe : Developing and testing infrastr ucture and car based nudges to im p rove cyclist safety", presenta t ion at the 6th Annual Int ernational Cy cli ng Safety Conference , Ca lifornia , USA, 21 -22 September 2017 , https://icsc20 17.figshare.com/articles/MeBeSafe Infrastructure car based nudges to improve cyclist safety/5405257 (accessed on 04 February 2020). Underwood, G. (2007), "Visual attention and the transition from novice to advanced driver", Ergonomics , Vol. 50/8, pp. 1235-1249, https :ljdoi.org/10.1080/00140130701318707. UNECE (20 17), "Consolida t ed Resolut ion on the Cons t ruction of Vehicles (R .E.3)", Revision 6, ECE/TRA NS/WP.29/78/Rev.6, World Forum for Harmonization of Ve hi cle Regu lat ions, Un ited Nat ions Economic Com mission fo r Eur ope, https://www.unece .org/fi leadm in /DAM/trans/ma in/wp29/ wp29resolutions/ECE -TRANS -WP.29-78r6e.pdf (accessed 06 December 2019) .. UNECE (20 19 ), "World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regu lations on its 179th session", United Nations Economic Commiss ion for Europe, https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/ trans/doc/2019/wp29/ECE-TRANS-WP .29-1149e-final.pdf (accessed 06 Decembe r 2019). VdTUV (20 19), "E-Scooter brauchen Bli nker", https://www.vdtuev.de/news/E-Scooter-brauchen-Blinker (accessed o n 04 February 2020). Veryard , D. an d S. Perkins (2018), "Integrating Urban Public Transport Systems and Cycling", Disc ussion Paper, Inte rna tional Trans po rt Forum, Paris, https://www .itf-oecd.org/sites/defa u lt/files/docs/ i ntegrati ng-u r ba n-pu bl ic-tra nsport-systems -c ycli ng -rou ndtable-su m ma ry 0. pdf. VZSFIPR Collaborative (2019a), "E-scooter Collision and Injury Ana ly sis", Vision Zero SF Injury Prevention Research Co l laborative , San Francisco , https ://www.sfdph.org/dph/fi les/EHSdocs/PHES/Vis ionZero/E- Scooter Collision Injury 2019.pd f. VZSFIPR Collaborative (2019b), "A methodology for emerging mobilit y injury mon itoring in San Francisco, California uti lizing hospital t rauma records", Version 2.0, Vis ion Zero SF Injury Prevention Research SAFE MICROMOB ILI TY © OECD/ITF 2020 87 REFERENCES Collaborative , San Francisco, https://www.sfdph.org/dph/files/EHSdocs/PHES/VisionZero/Emerging Mobi li ty In jury Monitoring Methodology.pdf. Way2Go (2019), Way2Go Bike Ed webpage, https://www.dpti.sa.gov.au/Way2Go/bike ed (accessed on 05 December 2019). We ijermars, W . et al. (2018), "Burden of injury of serious road injuries in six EU countries ", Accident Analysis and Pre vention, Vol. 111, pp. 184-192, https ://doi .o rg/10.1016/j .aap.2017 .11.040 . Wei jermars, W ., N. Bos and H. Stipdonk {2016), "Health burden of serious road injuries in the Netherlands", Traffic Injury Prevention, Vol. 17/8, pp . 863-869 , doi: 10.1080/15389588.2016.1 157591. Xu, C. et al. {2015), "Modeling of spee d distribution for mixed bicycle traffic flow", Advances in Mechan ical Engineering , Vol. 7/11, p. 1-9, Sage, DOI : 10 .11 77/16878140156 16918 . Yann is, G. et al. (2019), "Impa ired cycling and crash invo lvement in OECD countries", presentation at the 9th International Congress on Transportation Research, Athens, Greece, 24-25 October 2019, https://www. n rso . ntu a .gr /geya n n is/w p-content/u pload s/pc34 7-20191CTR-Velivr f u 11 pa per v6. pdf. Yao, L. and C. Wu (2012), ''Traffic safety for electr ic bike riders in China: Att itudes, risk perception and aberrant riding behaviors", Transportation Research Record, Vol. 2314/1, pp. 49 -56 , https://doi.org/ 10.3141/2 314-07. Zhaki, A. (2017), "Suspect nabbed fore-bike hit-and -run that kill ed man , 78", The Straints Times, https ://www .stra its ti me s.com/singa pore/cou rts -cri me/suspect-n a bbed -for-e-bi ke -h it-and-run-that- ki l/ed-ma n-78 (ac cesse d on 04 February 2020). Zhu, M. et al. (20 13), "Graduated driver licensing and motor vehicle crashes involving teenage drivers : An exploratory age -s t ratified meta -analysis ", Injury Prevention, Vo l. 19/1, pp . 49-57 , http ://dx.do i.o rg / 10.1136/inj uryprev-2012-0404 7 4. 88 SAFE MICROMOBILITY © OECD/ITF 2020 ANNEX A. STANDING E-SCOOTER FATALITY DET AI LS Annex A. Standing e-scooter fatality details Table 6. Details of e-scooter related deaths, May 2018 to end October 2019 Crash date Country City Victim Age of Sex of Collision Motor vehicle is type victim victim with Involved 01May2019 Australia Brisbane e-scooter 50 male fall (Lime) 16 Ap ri l 2019 Belgi um Brus sels e-scooter 41 ma le fall 16 October Canada Vancouver e-scooter 34 male car y es 2019 12 April 2019 France Levallois-Perret pedestrian 81 male e-scoot er 10 June 2019 France Paris e-scooter 25 male van yes 09 August Fra nce velizy-e-scooter 30 male motorcycle yes 2019 Villacoublay, Pari s reg ion 01 September France Rei ms e-scooter 25 fem ale car yes 2019 (private) 29 September France Bethune area, e-scoote r 17 male car yes 2019 Hauts-de-(private) France regio n 20 Octobe r France Bordeaux e-scooter 25 male car hit and run 2019 (free- floating) 16 September New Zealand Auckland e-scooter 23 male fall 2019 (Lime) 26 April 2019 Singapore Singapore e-scoote r 39 fem ale bus yes 21 September Singapore Singapore cyclist 65 fema le e-scooter 2019 (private) 24 Septembe r Singapore Singapore e-scooter 30 male not known not known 2019 01 August Spa in Esp lugues de pedestrian 92 female e-scooter 2018 Llobregat, near Barcelona 08 Septem ber Spa in Niembro e-scooter 60 male fall 2018 (Asturias) (private) 09 October Spa in Sabadell e-scooter 40 female truck yes 2018 30 Apri l 2019 Spa i n Valencia e-scooter 20 male motorc ycle yes SAFE MICROMOBILITY © OECO /ITF 2020 89 ANNEX A. STANDI NG E-SCOOTER FATALITY DETAILS 27 June 2019 Spain Oropesa de! e-scooter 15 male fa l l Mar, Castellon (rental province shop) 01May2019 Sweden Helsingborg, e-scooter 27 ma le ca r yes north of Malmo (Vo i) 12 Jul y 2019 United Kingd om Lo ndon e-scooter 35 female truck yes (private) 22 Ma y 2018 United States NYC e-scoot er 7 male bus yes (private) 04 September United States Dallas e-scooter 24 male not known not known 2018 (Lime ) 23 Septembe r United States Wa shi ngton e-scoo ter 20 male car (SU V) yes 201 8 (Lime ) 01 December United States San Diego, e-scooter 26 ma le car yes 201 8 California (Bird) 01 Feb ruary United States Austin Texas e-scoo ter 21 male car yes 2019 (Li me) 01 March United States San Diego, e-scooter 53 male tree 2019 Ca lifornia (B i rd ) 15 March United States Santa Monica , e-scoo ter 41 male ca r hit and run 2019 Cal ifornia (pr ivate ) 13 Apri l 2019 United States Lo s Angeles e-scooter 31 male car I yes (Lime) picku p truck 23 Apr i l 2019 Un ited Stat es Tulsa, e-scooter 5 male ca r hit and run Oklahoma (Li me) 15 May 2019 United States Nashvi l le e-scooter 26 male car (SUV) yes Tennessee (Bird) 18 Ma y 2019 United States At lanta e-scooter 20 mal e ca r (SUV ) yes (Lim e) 20 June 2019 Un ited States Tampa e-scooter 33 ma le truc k yes (Lime) 20 June 2019 United State s San Diego, e-scooter 48 male e-scooter Cal ifo rn ia (Lime) 17 Jul y 2019 Un ited States Atlanta e-scooter 37 ma le bus yes (Bird) 27 Jul y 2019 United States Atlanta e-scooter 34 f emale not kn own yes (Bi r d) 04 August United States Denver e-s cooter 26 ma le car yes 2019 (Lyft ) 06 Augu st Un ite d States East Poi nt, near e-scoote r 45 male truck yes 2019 Atlanta (Jum p ) 09 October United States Spokane e-scooter 28 male car (SUV) hi t an d run 2019 (Lime) 27 October United States Boi se, Idaho e-scoote r 16 male tr uck yes 2019 (Li me) Note: unless o therwise s p ecified, a ll men tio n s of e-scooters refer to sta ndin g e-scooters . 90 SAFE M ICROMO BILITY © OECD/ITF 2020 ANNEX B. VEHICLE INVOLVEMENT IN FATAL CRASHES Annex B . Vehicle involvement in fatal crashes Table 7. Vehicle involvement in fatal crashes Fatalities In other Fatalities within Selected vehide Fatalities user groups user group (in City Dates type within user (in crashes lnvoMng crashes with no group the selected vehicle motor vehicle as type) crash opponent) Inner London 2013-2017 Passenger car 21 85 9 Inner London 2013-2017 Powe red two-60 15 wheeler 12 Inner London 2013-2017 Pedal cycle 37 6 2 Inner London 2013-2017 Bus 1 29 1 Pari s City 2013-2017 Pa ssenger car 12 87 5 Paris City 2013-2017 Powered two-70 19 wheele r 24 Paris City 2013-2017 Pedal cycle 14 5 3 Paris City 2013-2017 Bus 0 13 0 Bogota 2017 Pa ssenger car 25 167 11 Bogota 2017 Powered two-182 76 45 w heeler Bogota 2017 Pedal cycle 59 4 13 Bogota 2017 Bus 7 98 5 Rome 2013-2017 Pas senger car 233 235 109 Rome 2013-2017 Powered two-240 42 83 wheeler Rome 2013-2017 Pedal cycle 23 1 2 Rome 2013-2017 Bus 0 25 0 Milan 2013-2017 Passenger car 48 86 22 M i lan 2013-2017 Powered two-70 13 28 wheeler Milan 2013 -2017 Pedal cycle 21 1 5 Milan 2013-2017 Bus 0 7 0 World 2018-5 -Standing e-scooter 2019-10 36 3 7 Note: The term "powered two-wheeler" incl udes motorcycles and mopeds, as per the Glossary. Source: ITF Safer City Streets network. SAFE MICROMOBILITY © OECD/ITF 2020 91 ANNE X C. MICRO MOBILI TY SAFETY RESEARCH PRIORI TIE S: SUR VEY RESULTS Annex C. Micromobility safety research priorities: Survey results The ITF elabo r ated and circulated an online questionna ir e to ident ify research priorities for micromobility safety. A wide range of stakeholders responded from 9 October 2019 to 6 November 2019 . From the 49 re sponde nts, the majority represent government departments and government agencies. Remar kably, t he ITF co ll ected 17 respon ses from city-level government. Th is is thanks to the ITF Safer City Streets netwo rk, developed since 2016 to sha re experience on data -dr iven urban road safety po licies. Other respon ses reflected the position of private compan ies, non-governmenta l organ isations and academ ia, as presented on Table 8 . Table 8. Number of survey responses by type of organisation Type of organisation Number of survey responses Local government or agenc y 17 State-and nationa l-level government or agency 10 Corporate 10 Non-governmental 6 Academ ia 6 Total 49 Th e survey asked respondents to "identify the most i mportant question s for the ITF to investigate w it h regard s to the safety of personal mobi li ty veh icles suc h as e-scooters and e-bikes, be it private or shared veh icles." The survey asked respondents to set a p r iority level (lo w, medium, high or top) for each resea rch quest ion. Resu lts are presented in Figure 22 (over leaf). 92 SAFE MICROMOBILITY © OECD/ITF 2020 ANNEX C. MICROMOBILITY SAFETY RESEARC H PRI ORITIES : SURVEY RE SULTS Figure 22. Micromobility safety research priorities: Survey results •Top priority •High priority •Moderate priority Injury data collection methods (police, hospital, surveys, etc.) Im pact of maintenance, re-charging and redistri bution Insurance (personal injury, liability, etc.) Privacy protection Data sharing : format specification Data shar ing : scope and requirement Mode shift and its road safety impact Definition of micromobility, in the context of safety regu lations App lication of the Safe System principles to mi cromobility Updating the classic road sa fety education Tr aining people how to ride a powered micro-vehicle Training people how to ride in traffic Age limits on riders Gathering eviden ce on the le arning curve Mitigating the risks of the first few rides Pede stria n detection and autonomous braking Third-party insurance Fine-scale gee-fencing Sidewa lk parking Sidewa lk r iding and applica bl e speed limit Use of perso na l prot ection equipment Vehicle overload Wrong-way riding Alcoho l or drug intoxication Acou stic vehic le alerti ng systems Cooperat ive IT S and turning-assistance systems Use of reflective clothing De sign standard s for lights Infrastructure des ign/ Adapting the cycling infrastructure Geo-fencing to prevent access to unsafe locatio ns Collection of data on road surface conditions Collection of location data for all falls, cr ashes and injuries Maintenance ob ligations Anti-lock braking and electronic stabi li ty control systems Wheel size and stee ring dampening Design standards on brakes , whe els, tyres and suspension Ability to carry pa ssenge rs I sol utions to detect n umber of riders W et-wea ther ope ra tions Nigh t -time ope rations Graduated speed limit, as a function of rider experience Downhill speed limiter Throttle design Enforce ment Geo -fencing Maximum speed SAFE MICROMOBILITY © OECD/ITF 2020 0% 20% Low priority ' I - I I I ·- -~r I .1 I 40% 60% 1. I --- '---::: .-- -·--· ,-,_ -· ; __ ---·-· ·----- .I I I ·- r - ·1 --:= := .1 ·-= I - l ---= I ·---I .~: I - I I ·--·-I ·- .I - I ---------- ------- I _ ____: ·1 - --,_ 1= ·---- .-----· .I I .... I I I I -= ·---- I - ···-------- I I ·-...:: I ·- I 80% 100% 93 ANNEX D. SUMMARY OF VEHICLE REQUIREMENTS IN EUROPEAN REGULATIO N NO. 168/2013 Annex D. Summary of vehicle requirements in European regulation No. 168/2013 Table 9. Summary of vehicle requirements in European regulation No. 168/2013 Article Lle-A Lle-B Vehicle functional safety requirements ~1:: 22 aud ible warning dev ices x bra king, i ncluding anti-lock and combined brake systems x x electrica l safe t y x x manufacturer decla ration requirements regarding endu rance testi ng of funct ional safety x x systems, parts and equipment drive r-operated con trol s including iden t ifica t io n of contro ls, tell-tales and indicators x insta ll ation of lighting and light si gn alling devices, incl. automatic sw itch ing-on of lighting x x rearward vis i bility x seating position (sad dles and seats} x x stee r-ab i li ty, corneri ng properties and turn-ability x x installation of t yre s x x max imum continuous rated or net powe r and /o r vehicl e speed limitation by des ign x x ve hicle structure integrity x x Vehicle construction and general type approval requirements 20 anti-tampering measu res x x 25 arrangements for t ype-approva l procedu res x x 33 co nformity of producti on requiremen t s x x 18 device s to prevent unauthorised us e x x elec t romagnetic co mpat i bi l ity (EMC} x x masses and dimensio ns x x passenger handholds and foo t res t s x registration plate space x x repai r and ma intenance informa t io n x x stands x x Environmental and propulsion perfurmance requ irements 23 env ironm enta l test procedures re lated to exhaust emissio ns, evaporat ive emissions, x x & 24 gree nhou se gas em iss ions, fuel consump t ion and reference fuels; noise emissions max im um design vehicle speed, maximum torque, maximum continuous total eng in e power x x of propu lsion Source : EU Regulation 168/2013. 94 SAFE MICROMOBILITY © OECD /ITF 2020 ANNEXE. LIST OF WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS Annex E. List of Workshop participants Amos ALBERT, VP at Electr i cal Drives , Bosch, Germany Rachel ALDRED, Reader in Transport, University of Westminster, United Ki ngdom Mario ALVES, Secretary General, International Federation of Pedestr ians , Portuga l Suzanne ANDERSSON , Sen io r Adv is or, City of Gothenburg, Sweden George BEARD, Head of Consumer Research, Ultra Low Emission Vehicles, TRL, United Kingdom Wernher BRUCKS , Head Road Safety, City of Zurich , Switzerland Diego CANALES, Global Partnerships Manager, Populus, United States Christophe r CHERR Y, Professor, Un ive r sity of Tennessee, Un ited States Philippe CRIST, Internationa l Transport Forum (ITF) Eric DE KIEVIT, Programme Manager Road Safety, CROW , Netherlands Ombline DE SAINT LEON, ITF Haya DOUIDRI , Po l icy Affa irs Represe nta ti ve, Bi rd , Netherlands Mafalda FARMHOUSE , Arch itect, City of Lisbon, Portugal Miguel GASPAR, Deputy Mayor for Mobility and Safety, City of Lisbon, Portugal Richard GOEBELT , Director of the Division Automotive and Mobility, Verband der TUV e.V.(VdTUV), Germany Pedro GOUVEIA, Planning Team Leader, Lisbon 's Vision Zero Action Plan , City of Lisbon, Portugal Susanna HAUPTMANN, Policy Officer, Kapsch TafficCom AG, Austria Beno it HIRON, Head of Unit, Traffic Safety, Cerema , France Daniel KIM, Manager, International Re lations, lncheon Airport, Korea Dagmar KO HLER , Commun i cation s M anager and Road Safety Coord i nator, Polis , Be lg i um Takayuki KUSAJIMA , Genera l Manager, Toyota, Japan Jacqueline LACROI X, Head of Un it , DVR, Deutscher Verkehrssicher h eitsrat, Germany Darren LINDSEY , Lead on Safe Mob i lity, Michelin , France Valentin LOWENS T EIN , Senior Bu si ness Manager, Dekra , Germany Sharon MASTERSON , ITF Karsten MCFARLAND , Director New Mobility, PTV Group, Germany Christina MOE GJERDE , Strategy and Plann i ng Manager, Voi Technology AB , Sweden Vasco MORA, Adv isor to the Deputy Mayor, City of Lisbon , Portugal Carlo s Felipe PARDO , Senior Manager, Cit y Pilots, New Urban Mobi lity Al l iance , United State s SA FE MICRO M OBILI TY © OECD/IT F 2020 95 .f} I ' . . ANNEXE . LIST OF WORKSHOP PARTICIP ANTS Won PARK , Dire ctor, International Relations, lncheon Airport, Korea Luca PASCOTTO, Head of Roa d Safety and Global Advocacy, FIA, France Joao Nuno PEREIR A DOS REIS, Head of Public Affairs and Pub l ic Re lations, Circ, Portugal Stephen PERK INS , ITF Manuelle SALATHE , National Road Safety Observatory, Mini stry of Interior, France A lexandre SANTACREU, ITF Helen SMIRNOVA, Senior Executive Engineer, City of Dubl in, Ireland Vicente TORRES , Head of Mobility Po l icie s, Grow, Mexico George URSACHI, Research Analyst, Agilysis, United Kingdom Jame s WOODCOC K, Programme Lead Pub lic Hea lt h Modelling, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom Ceri WOOLSGROVE , Policy Officer, European Cyclists' Federati on, Belgiu m George YANN IS, Professor, Nationa l Technical University of Athens, Greece 96 SAFE MICROMOBI Ll1Y © OECD/IT F 2020 ~International Transport Forum Safe Micromobility This report examines the safety aspects associated with the increasing use of e-scooters and other forms of micromobility in cities. The rise of micromobility challenges existing regulations for urban traffic and forces policy makers to rethink them. The report considers a range of actions to make urban traffic with micromobility safe, including in street layout , vehicle design and vehicle operation , user education and enforcement of rules. It also asks whether a shift towards micromobility can have potential safety benefits. International Transport Forum 2 rue Andre Pascal F-75775 Paris Cedex 16 +33 (0)1 73 31 25 00 contact@itf -oecd .org www.itf-oecd .org OECD t ---1 r'n t Bw~-c &fytl._E ______ _ ~J.~F ~~· f- MlUWnrob -,l~· , -o~u., ~ ~lh-~~cl4 . - - _ p(~~ ,.f-o\11~_, s~~ - ~· po-€. LL J ,.f, ~ -A:-C vt ~~ kc.vv-e__ oc_~..{. . Ctrh~ VVt..ISjo('lU~ _ -l ~fs ~-5f'-eu$- sh.~ ~cAi..o """-06.1 l~ - 12e.J0A:k-~~~ A_c,.p~i!fs. --==~l~b()~~ - -r e.· .::::::::.:::::::----' -~· ~ck_. - l -' -- l ~-l ----- J Introduction Cities are increasingly looking at micromobility options to help meet their transportation, hea lth, and other goals. The term micromobi lity includes several classes of devices that are typ ically low speed (i .e., less than 20 miles per hour (MPH)) and lightweight (i .e., less than 100 pounds ) and are partially -or fully -motorized (Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center, 2019; Society of Automotive Engineers, 2019). These devices can be personally owned or part of a shared , or rented , fleet offered for public use . The most common shared micromobility systems involve electric bicycles (e -bikes) and electr ic scooters (e -scooters). The micromobility landscape has cha nged signifi cantly in recent years . Between 2016 and 2017, the number of bikeshare bi kes in the United States (U.S .) more than doubl ed from around 40,000 bikes to almost 100,000 bikes (Nationa l Association of City Transportation Officials, 2019b). This growth primari ly occurred in traditional bikeshare programs, in which bikes could be checked out and returned to designated stations or docks . At the same time, there has been enormous growth and an increa singly diverse number of micromobility opt ions . In 2017, the first dockless bikeshare sys t ems were launched in the U.S. and were quickly followed by dockless e-scooter systems . By the end of 2018, 85,000 e-scooters were available in about 100 U.S. cities, with approximately 38 .5 million trips taken on dockless e-scooters (National Association of City Transpo rtation Officials, 2019a). A new Bureau of Statistics (BTS) interact ive map released in 2019 shows that there are now nearly 300 bikeshare ore -scooter sharing systems in the U.S. As a significant portion of thee-scooter program growth has occurred in midsized cities, this Info Brief focuses on midsized cities' exper ience with and perspectives of e-scooters . The information was gathered through interviews with city staff from nine cities and covers both challenges and " opportunities that have emerged withe-scooter · adoption. Interv iews focused on experience with permitting and regulatory issues, potential safety concerns, and infrastructure design observations. It documents anecdota l evidence and noteworthy practices and identifies issues for future discussion . Study Methods The project team interviewed staff in nine cities (Figure 1 }, ranging in population from 50,000 to 880,000 (Table 1 ). All cities have e-scooter . programs and some also offer other micromobility options such as docked bikeshare, dockless bikeshare, and e-bikes . Cities selected for this study represent those with both new and more established programs and represent diverse geographies across the U.S . Table 1. Cities interviewed regarding e-scooter pro- grams. Columbus, Ohio 880,000 Charlotte, North Carolina 860,000 Portland, Oregon 650,000 Memphis, Tennessee 650,000 Tucson, Arizona 540,000 Spokane, Washington 220,000 Providence, Rhode Is land 180,000 South Bend, Indiana 100,000 Charlottesville , Vi rginia 50,000 Figure1. Map of cities interviewed. The interviews covered three main topics, each with several sub -topics (see Figure 2): 1. Safety What are the key safety concerns in each jurisdiction? Has the jurisdict ion conducted any safety analyses one -scooter crashes to date? Are there trends in crash types or in the locations where crashes are occurring? Are there efforts to standardize reporting or conduct more regular safety analyses? 2. Regulat i on and Permitting How is each jurisdiction permitting (or preparing to permit) e-scooters? If fees are being charged, how are they assessed and used? Are there new or emerging ideas relating toe -scooter permitting and regulation that balance the needs of the agency and the private sector? What are the most important considerations for cities preparing for e-scooters? 3 . Infrastructure Design Does the jurisdiction consider the physical dimensions and operating characteristics of e-scooters in its design of on -street infrastructure? To what extent does the jurisdiction's bike infrastructure appear to be compatible with and meeting the needs of people traveling by e-scooter? How are e-scooters considered in active transportation planning and network mapping and development? Figure 2. E-scooter i~terview subject areas. , Key Findings 1 . Safety Safety is a primary concern fore-scooter program staff and the public at large. The safety performance of e-scooter programs is informed by the increasing availability of information as more cities adopt e-scooter programs and share findings from pilot evaluations. Yet best practices are not well -established as many cities and research organizations are actively exploring the impacts of different regulatory and infrastructure approaches to improve safety . Generally, cities are interested in creating standardized reporting structures to allow for a better understanding of p~tential public health risks. They are also working with e-scooter providers to encourage education and rider training for safe rd evice operatioii...a ad _increased helmet use. Crash and Injury Data Identifying crashes that involve e-scooters can be challenging as there are no universally adopted standardized reporting mechanisms and vendor and police reporting generally under -represents e-scooter crashes . To date, emergency department data are regarded as the most comprehensive source of crash information and several cities are working with their local health departments and ~o·spi .tals to standardize reporting to more easily 1dent1fy e-scooter-involved injuries. For example , the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services distributed guidance statewide on ways to code micromobility-related injuries. The information was shared in the form of a poster to be displayed in clinical and administrative settings where e-scooter injuries are triaged , described, and coded . The poster (see Figure 3) has si nce been requested for use in several other jurisdictions. All interviewed cities had trouble tracking crash data from police reported sources . Th is is in part due to 1) underreporting (e.g ., if a crash is not reported to police or if it doesn 't meet the standards to be reported, such as injury or property damage above a certain leve l), and 2) misclassification of the crash (e .g., e-scooter crash gets classified as a motorcycle crash). To help address these issues , Charlotte, North Carolina provided guidance to their officers on how to document the role of e-scooters in the open text narrative field of th eir crash reporting form to help mof e consistently track and identify reported e -scoot~r crashes and comp.gre them J o other modes . Many cities reported wprki~ with local health departments and law enforcement agencies to share crash and injury data and improve ways to identify incidents. Several interviewees noted the challenges in comparing crash trends or injury rates across modes, given that even traditional modes of travel, such as walk i ng and bicycling , do not have comprehensive exposure data . For example, the number of trips, time spent, or distance traveled by mode is not consistently quantified ., - Safety Norms and Behaviors Some cities expressed concerns about low helmet usage among e-scooter riders. Recen t"studies have shown low rates of helmet use among injured riders and the rid ing population at 1·arge, with head injuries involved in 40 percent or more of e-scooter injuries seen in the emergerrcy department (Austin Public Health, 2019; Portland Bureau of Transportation, 2019 ; Trivedi et al., 2019). While helmets are an established method for preventing or mitigating head i njuries among bicyclists, the effectiveness of approaches to encourage more widespread helmet adoption, while maintaining ~h levels of participation in bicycling and scooting activities, are less established . - Among those interviewed, Spokane , Washington had a mandatory helmet requirement for both b icyclists and e-scooter riders . There was support, however, to remove the required helmet use for bikeshare bicyclists and shared e-scooters riders . The City revised the munic i pal code to exempt shared micromobility riders 18 years or older by stating an exemption of" application - based rental of electronically act ivated personal transportation devices." Cities also expressed concerns about where e-scooter riders were choosing to ride and to park their devices . In addition to considering ways to establish more clear places to ride and park through infrastructure, pa i nt, and signage enhancements (discussed i n following sections), most cities had some form of training or ambassador program and/or communications effort to help engage the public in adopting a safer and more considerate rid i ng culture (see Figure 4). 2. Regulation Policy and Permitting All interviewed cities identified a need to regulate e-scooter programs in a way that balances orderly use of the public right -of -way while maintaining private sector interest . This includes addressing policy gaps and creating a procurement or permitting process to allow e-scooter programs to operate. In response toe -scooter programs, several cities updated or were planning to update policies to better define e-scooters and their use in the public right-of-way . Additionally, all cities established expected service levels including vehicle minimums and maximums, operating speed thresholds, and incident response times . These pol icy updates were observed in Spokane, Washington . At the time of the city's e-scooter program implementation, the municipal code did not allow for sidewalk riding in the downtown area and also banned e-scooters and other low - speed devices in their 11 congestion area, 11 thus creating a situation where e-scooter riders could not legally travel in the downtown core. The City updated its municipal code to remove the ban within the congestion area, which now allows for e-scooter operation within the downtown core . For permitting, cities used several different procurement models, including request for proposals (RFP), sole source direct contracting, memoranda of understanding, and right-of- way perm it processes . Most cities first trialed e-scooters under a pilot program framework . They also created permit structures, used in combination with some form of procurement or applicat ion process, to allow evaluation and vendor approval. Many of the interviewed cities shared a preference to work with a small set of vendors to help build relationships and minimize staff time. Cities identified e-scooter fleet sizes that would ensure that the program provides enough utility (i.e ., density of devices sufficient to meet the demand) while managing the size of the program. Charlottesville, Virginia had originally set a maximum fleet size to ensure that the supply did not exceed demand and to allow for a slower pace of public e-scooter adoption. In retrospect, City officials there expressed concern that their original maximum fleet size projection was too conservative, and the program did not provide adequate coverage or density to serve the entire city . Fees Permit fees are generally not used to make a profit but rather to help pay for city staff time to oversee and monitor the program, offset any cost burdens associated with impounded vehicles , respond to community complaints, and support other activities related to the program . Although some of the cities did not initially charge fees during their pilot programs, by the time of the interviews, all cities had adopted a fee schedule to charge vendors for operating in the public right -of-way . All cities interviewed reported that they had underestimated the time required to implement and manage an e-scooter program . The staff time required to start an e-scooter program was typically rolled into existing staff duties, though a number of cities created new staff positions using permit and usage fees charged to the companies . A common fee structure was used by most cities, which was based on an initial permit fee and a per device fee. The initial permit fee ranged from several hundred to several thousand US dollars and was calculated by either estimating staff time to review and administer the program or by using an existing permitting fee schedule (i.e., Special Use of the Right -of-Way). The type of fee (i.e., application, per trip, per device, etc.) selected was usually related to the anticipated number of vendors, number of trips, and fleet size. The permit fee was collected when vendors submitted an application and ongoing operations fees were typically assessed and paid every month. Any required operations and maintenance reporting ran in parallel with the fee assessment on a monthly basis. Collected fees typically went into the city's general fund, or a separate fund was established for paying staff time and costs associated with overseeing the program. Fee structures were often tailored to i nfluence desired community transportation objectives. For example, Charlottesville, Virginia used fee revenues to install parking signs and pavement stencils to encourage more organized e-scooter parking. Variable fee structures were also observed . For instance, Charlotte, North Carolina employs a dynamic (parking) pricing model that charges higher fees in the downtown core and lower fees in low -density areas and adjacent to transit lines to encourage first-and last-mile transit use . In some cases, vendors were offered reduced fees for providing safety or infrastructure measures . Spokane , Washington reduced operator fees if companies provided helmets and/or designated parking areas. Additional resources on policies, regulatory approaches, and case studies can be found on PBIC's Micromobility webpage (National League of Cities, 2019; Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center, 2019; Transportation for America, 2019). Data Staff at interviewed cities noted that access to e-scooter program data is essential to managing the program and making planning decisions. Data standards have evolved rapidly as thee -scooter industry has developed. The cities interviewed encouraged the use of industry -standard data reporting formats, e.g., the Mobility Data Specification (MDS) (Los Angeles Department of Transportation, n.d.) and/or the Gene ral Bikeshare Feed Specification (GBFS) (North Ame rican Bikeshare Association (NABSA), n.d.), to ensure a usable data platform. Several cities used third - party platforms to streamline data provision and performance monitoring . The data requirements fore -scooter vendors are generally established at the start of the program implementation and included in the permit or memorandum of understanding (MOU). South Bend, Indiana, for example, was able to monitor performance via their single vendor's internal dashboard . Early on in their program implementation, some cities experienced data transparency issues where data was in different formats and the information requested was not standardized. To overcome this challenge, Tucson , Arizona partnered with the University of Arizona using a grant from National Institute of Transportation and Communities (NITC) to evaluate thee -scooter program . This partnership was created to allow the University of Arizona to process, aggregate, and analyze the vendors' data while protecting the public's personally identifiable information. The city also hired a third -party service to consolidate data from multiple vendors into an easy -to -use dashboard, which is the same strategy employed by Columbus, Ohio. For a more in -depth discussion one -scooter data issues, see this review of micromobility data policies (Remix, 2018). Equity Micromobility may improve access to transit, jobs, and other destinations and many cities see it as an opportun ity to improve mobility options in traditionally underserved and disconnected communities . Most vendors have strategies to meet equity program requirements that include cash payment options, discount programs, and access for users w ithout smartphones. During Portland, Oregon's f i rst pilot, each vendor was required to have at least 100 e-scooters per day in East Portland, to provide micromobility options to traditionally underserved parts of the community . After evaluation of the program, only one vendor complied (2018 E-Scooter Findings Report, Portland Bureau of Transportation, 2019). Portland, Oregon now requires that 15 percent of the e-scooter fleet is available in East Portland and each vendor has to propose a plan to regularly report the distribution of e-scooters. The City identified several new opportunities for equitable access at the end of the pilot program, one of which resulted in the City encouraging vendors to provide e-scooters with a seat as part of the second phase of the pilot, which was thought in particular to improve comfort for older adult users and those unable to tolerate standing for longer rides. Some cities require vendors to submit an "equity plan." For example, Providence, Rhode Island required e-scooter vendors to submit equity plans to demonstrate coverage in low-income and underserved communities. Cities acknowledged that plans alone, however, may not be enough to help reach equity goals and that performance measures , routine monitoring, enforcement structures, and broader public engagement may be needed to ensure that plans are sufficiently implemented. For a broader array of equity practices beyond midsize cities, see this brief on equity (Remix, 2018). Staff Time Although e-scooter programs are typically funded and operated by non-governmental operators, town or city agency staff time is needed to implement and oversee the program. The degree of municipal involvement varies depending on the amount of desired oversight but could include policy review and update, program and request for proposal (RFP) development, development and distribution of marketing and education materials, customer service, performance monitoring, and evaluation. Staff typically includes multiple departments, including public works, planning, Mayor's Office, health departments, and others. Regarding staff time, cities reported that they generally under-estimated the level of effort involved in setting up and managing the program. Tucson, Arizona Department of Transportation staff reported that they spent approximately 300 hours on the development of regulations and stakeholder engagement. Spokane, Washington hired a pedestrian and bike coordinator (in part) and partially supported this position using fees from thee-scooter program . Their duties include managing thee-scooter program . Partnerships Cities with micromobility programs often partner with other agencies, neighboring jurisdictions, universities, transit agencies, and Visitors Bureaus. These partnerships can help create regionally "Scooters are transformative." -Charlotte, North Carolina "Economics will drive their program . Working with a single vendor allows them to focus on working with us." -Spokane, Washington "Having fleet caps helped with public perception ." -Columbus, Ohio "It's taking more time than anticipated. Even then, many things are not happening." -Charlottesville, Virginia "We logged our hours so we know exactly how much time we spent." -Tucson, Arizona consistent programs as well as support promotions or educational or enforcement initiatives. For example, Spokane, Washington worked with their Visitors Bureau to create "scooter routes" that would help orient visitors to the City. In the cities with major universities, partnering experiences varied . For example, at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, e-scooters from the neighboring City of Charlottesville program are allowed on campus, whereas the University of Arizona has banned the use of Tucson, Arizona's e-scooters on campus . Ohio State University issued its own RFP for an e-scooter vendor, separate from the program in Columbus, Ohio . In Spokane, Washington, the City and Gonzaga University had each implemented an e-scooter program with separate regulations. Over time, the parties worked together with the same provider for regional consistency. Parking Most e-scooters are parked using wheel -lock technology. Wheel -lock (or dockless) systems tend to cause parking issues because there are no requirements to return e-scooters to a dedicated station . As a result, after use, riders may leave e-scooters in locations that are inappropriate or even hazardous to other road users . Several cities said that a majority of complaints they receive are related toe -scooter parking, on or near roads, sidewalks, and trails . To resolve this issue, cities and vendors are using certain techniques to encourage more organized parking behavior, including designating appropriate locations, painting or using signs to create new parki ng spaces (see Figure 5), or providing hard -copy or in -app educational materials to show users where to park e-scooters. Cities such as South Bend, Indiana have created parking areas using pavement stencils. Another strategy employed by most cities is to include parking and service level expectations as part of their regulations for and permits to vendors . Or, as in t he case Portland, Oregon, parking enforcement issues tickets to vendors, who then pass on the cost to the customer. Speed M anagement Most cities had to change existing po licies or set new policy to: define e-scooters as vehicles; determine appropriate operating space; and set maximum operating speeds within their local codes. Many cities initially set the maximum operating speed at 20 miles per hour and have since rolled back the maximum speed based on input from the community and safety experts . Memphis, Tennessee, for example , set a maximum operating speed of 15 MPH, but staff felt that a maximum speed of 12 MPH would be more appropriate and consistent with existing facility design for bicycles. Spokane, Washington reported working with their vendor to geofence (i .e., establish virtual perimeters along) the multi -use pathway through Riverfront Park, such that devices operating w ithin the zone were restricted to 7 MPH. 3. Infrastructure Design Design Policies about e-scooter usage and infrastructure design vary between cities. Cities generally first worked to define e-scooter operating space before considering infrastructure design . Several cities recognize that providing specific operating space fore-scooters would benefit all road users and cities are starting to consider e-scooters in their design and maintenance policies. Sometimes current infrastructure is not able to accommodate e-scooters, as reported by staff in Memphis, Tennessee, who noted that camera detection at signals has had difficulties detecting e-scooters . Most cities identified in-street bike facilities, with separation from traffic, as the preferred operating space fore-scooters. They also considered it appropriate fore -scooters to share space in dedicated bikeway infrastructure. Cities have come to expect sidewalk riding where separate infrastructure, such as separated bike lanes, is "We are fortunate to have some protected bike lanes downtown already ." -South Bend, Indiana "On streets with no bike lane, expect sidewalk riding." -Portland Bureau of Transportation, Oregon "Half of the complaints received are about parking." -Providence, Rhode Island not available . Lower maximum posted speeds for vehicles and established maximum speeds for e-scooter operations (or nearby drivers) may help reduce crash risk. Both cities interviewed and other literature sources have indicated that e-scooters are more sensitive to road conditions, specifically potholes, gravel, uneven pavement, sewer covers, grate, and ineffective ramps, and pavement maintenance is critical to prevent injuries. Most of the cities interviewed prefer e-scooter operation on the street and in bikeways, though some cit ies designate the sidewalk as the preferred operating space . Interviewees recognized that sidewalk riding will occur when on-street conditions are uncomfortable to the user . For instance, Providence, Rhode Island is considering pavement quality in its multimodal network build -out because e-scooters are sensitive to pavement conditions . Accessibility Accessibility has been a concern for cities developing e-scooter programs, and nearly all cities have included provisions to prohibit e-scooters from blocking sidewalk access for pedestrians, transit riders, and other users . Many cities reported concerns about e-scooters blocking sidewalks, and moreover, have received concerns from the disability advocacy community (including people using wheelchairs and assistive devices) about e-scooter company compliance with mobility requirements under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Cities have worked with vendors to try to create specific solutions . Vendors in Charlotte, North Carolina geofenced an area around the Association for the Blind in response to a request from the disability community. E-scooter parking is prohibited within areas adjacent to the building and near key transit stops used by people traveling to and from the Association for the Blind, to prevent tripping hazards . Discussion Guide The following questions are intended to serve as a discussion guide, fostering dialogue in midsized cities about the planning and management of e-scooter programs . Given the Local Context: What is an appropriate level of staffing? Program setup and ongoing oversight requires significant staff time, which may vary based on the number of micromobility vendors and other factors associated with the program . Cities will need to consider the resources available or needed, including from permit fees, to sufficiently cover the time and training of existing or newly-hired staff. What is the right type and amount of regulation? Regulation or a policy framework will be necessary to safely manage the public right -of-way , and existing policies may need to be updated to reflect new conditions. Critical policy elements to consider might include: peeds service area . • Considerations to address equity and other community or transportation goals. • Defining data reporting standards. • Defining a clear and transparent fee structure and appropriate methods to use fee payments to incentivize desired outcomes. How should vendors be selected? The process for vendor selection and number of vendors in any given community may vary. The selection process may involve considering factors such as : • How much staff time is needed/available to coordinate with each vendor or manage the data provided by each vendor? ·What level of service can the vendor provide? • How well does the vendor's services meet the needs of the community, and how will they adapt to input from the City? ·What is the vendor's track record in supporting safety education, community engagement, data to improve risk assessment, and responsiveness to incidents? How is e-scooter infrastructure and parking going to be planned and managed? The safety and ability to access facilities for all road users depends heavily on the quality of infrastructure provided. E-scooter program staff will need to devote attention to considering: ·Are designated parking areas needed? • Are vehicle speeds sufficiently low fore-scooters to operate in a shared street environment? • Are sidewalk and roadway pavemen t conditions of sufficient quality fore-scooter use? • Are there gaps in the connected bikeway network that need to be prioritized? • What do the data sources (including hospital, police, complaint, public engagement efforts) indicate are areas for safety concerns that need attention? Who are the key regional partners and how are they going to be engaged? Regional consistency with neighboring jurisdictions, university partners, major campuses (including medical and business parks), and others is important to providing a seamless user experience and to meet broader community goals . Key considerations include: • What other jurisd ict ions or partners should we be working with to determine regulations and permitting processes? • Are there partners who can assist with encouraging safe behaviors and norms regarding e-scooters? ·What traditionally underserved or disenfranchised voices need to have a seat at the table in decision -making around e-scooters? Conclusion The micromobility landscape is rapidly changing, cteating both challenges and opportunities for cit,ies of all sizes to offer more diverse ways to meet their transpo rtation and household needs. This Info Brief highl ights practices and emerging challenges identified in interviews with staff in nine midsized cities , focusing on issues relating to safety, regulation, and infrastructure design. Interviews with a limited number of cities is not a sufficient basis for creating best practice guidance . However , in a rapidly evolving field, it is still important to document anecdotal evidence of noteworthy practices, highlight areas that potentially merit future attention and research, and foster dialogue about the planning and management of e-scooter programs. References Austin Public Health . (2019, April). Dockless Electric Scooter -related Injuries Study. Retrieved September 18 , 2019. Los Angeles Department of Transportation. (n.d.). Mobility Data Specification . Retrieved September 18, 2019 . National Association of City Transportation Officials. (2019a , April 17). 84 Million Trips Taken on Shared Bikes and Scooters Across the U.S. in 2018 . Retrieved September 19, 2019 . National Association of City Transportation Officials. (2019b, April 17). Bike Share in the U.S.: 2017 . Retrieved September 19, 2019. National League of Cities. (2019 , April 15). Micromobility in Cities: A History and Policy Overview. Retrieved September 19, 2019 . North American Bikeshare Association (NABSA). (n.d.). General Bikeshare Feed Specification. Retrieved September 19, 2019. Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center. (2019). The basics of micromobility and related motorized dev ices for personal transport. Retrieved September 18, 2019 . Portland Bureau of Transportation. (2019, January 15). 2018 E-Scooter Findings'' Report . Retrieved September 18 , 2019. Remix (2018, November). Micromobility Policy Survey. Retrieved September 19, 2019 . I • Remix (2018, September). Micromobility's opportunity to serve the underserved edges. Retrieved September 23, 2019. Transit for America. (2019). Shared Micromobility Playbook . Retrieved September 19, 2019. Tr ivedi, T. K., Liu, C., Antonio, A. L. M., Wheaton, N., Kreger, V., Yap, A., ... Elmore, J. G. (2019). Injuries associated with stand i ng electric scooter use. JAMA Network Open, 2(1 ), e187381. doi : 10.1001/jamanetworkopen .2018 .7381 Powered Micromobility Committee of the SAE, Standard J3194, A Taxonomy and Classification of Powered Micromobility Vehicles , provides a set of definitions and a classification that can be used by regulators to standardize descriptions of micromobility devices (for eithe r shared or personal use). NACTO POLICY 2019 MANAGING MOBILITY DATA INTRODUCTION Managing city streets in the digital age requires leveraging and managing the unprecedented amount of data generated by new transportation technologies . The data streams contain vital information for proactive planning and policymaking, and essential regulation and oversight. The data generated by private mobility service companies operating in the public right-of-way must be available to municipalities in order to ensure planners and policy makers have the tools they need to build sustainable, equitable, accessible, and vibrant cities. In setting forth principles for managing mobility data, cities can help shape a fair, robust mobility marketplace and protect individual and customer privacy. A fundamental responsibility of city government is to ensure safe passage on public rights-of-way, protect public health, safety and welfare, and govern activity in the public streets. To fulfill this responsibility, city governments need access to information about what is happening in the public street and how it might impact safety, health, equity, environmental outcomes, and the distribution of people and resources . In addition, as regulators of commerce in the public realm, cities require access to data and information created by mobility services operating on the public street in order to appropriately manage, regulate, and permit their operations . To date, the central tension between cities and the private mobility and service companies operating in the public right-of-way has centered around access to information about how these services are used. Companies have a vested financial interest in limiting access to the data and information their services generate. At the same time, the rapid adoption of these services, and their impact on the street and its users, means that cities require access into data about how vehicles are operating in a city. For example, recent analyses of vehicle volumes in urban settings show that ride-hail companies increase driving, traffic congestion, and greenhouse gas emissions . These are significant negative externalities that local , state, and national governments need ; ull and robust data to understand and address . ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT As the volume of data created on the public right-of-way and exchanged between parties grows , cities and private transportation providers need a common framework for sharing, protecting, and managing data. Managing Mobility Data, a joint product of the National Association of City Transportation Officials and the International Municipal Lawyers Association, sets out principles and best practices for city agencies and private sector partners to share, protect, and manage data to meet transportation planning and regulatory goals in a secure and appropriate manner. While this document focuses mainly on the data generated by ride-hail and shared micromobility services, the data management principles can apply more broadly. This guidance is not intendeJ to be legal advice and practitioners should always verify that existing laws and statutes in their jurisdiction do not require additional considerations. DEFINING MOBILITY DATA The term "mobility data" describes information generated by activity, events, or transactions using digitally-enabled mobility devices or services. This data is frequently recorded as a series of points with latitude and longitude collected at regular intervals by devices such as smartphones, shared micromobility vehicles (shared bikes, e-bikes, scooters etc), on-board vehicle computers, or app- based navigation systems (e.g . Waze, GoogleMaps etc). Mobility data often has a temporal element, assigning time as well as location to each point. Depending on the device used to capture the data, other characteristics, such as the speed of travel, or who is making the trip, can be connected to each individual latitude/longitude point. Throughout this document, mobility data is often ref erred to as "geospatial trip data," "trip data," "geospatial mobility data," "geospatial data," and "bread-crumb ." • GPS Trace/ Breadcrumb Trail -The product of recording information about a trip by using a series of points with latitude and longitude collected at regular intervals by devices such as smartphones, bicycles, scooters, navigation systems, and vehicles. When mapped, a breadcrumb trail can show the path of travel of an individual and/or vehicle . GPS trace data may or may not have tempor al data associated with each point. • Individual Trip Records -For shared micromobility, ride-hail trips, and trips recorded in app- based navigation systems, a GPS trace record is created for each unique trip. This record typically includes start/end locations and times, route, and may include information tying that trip to a specific user account. Individual trip records are sometimes referred to colloquially as "raw" or "unprocess ed" data. "Anonymized" trip data is that which has individual identifiers removed. • Location Telemetry data -Any dat a that records the movements and sensor readings from a veh icle including location, direction, speed, brake/throttle p osition, et c. Fl eet operators may use vehicle telemetr y data to determine instances of dangerous driving such as harsh -b raking or excessive speedin g. Some shared micromobility providers report that t hey can use scooter telemetry data to determine if a scooter has been left in an upright vs tip ped over position. • Data Protection -Mechanisms for guarding against unauthorized arcess, including practices for preventing unauthorized entities from accessing data. Also includes methods for diminishing the usefulness of stolen data should a system be breached. • Verifiable Data Audit -Tools or practices that automatically and routinely capture, log, and report activity in a data set in order to ensure those accessing sensitive datasets are acting in an approved manner. r Cities require data from private vendors operating on city streets to ensure positive safety, equity, and mobility outcomes on streets and places in the public right-of- way. Cities should be clear about what they are aiming to evaluate when requirir g data from private companies. This may include, but is not limited to, questions related to planning, analysis, oversight, and enforcement. Cities should treat geospatial mobility data as they treat personally identifiable information (PII). It should be gathered, held, stored, and released in accordance with existing policies and practices for PII . Cities should prioritize open data standards and open formats in procurement and development decisions. Data sharing agreements should allow cities to own, transform, and share data without restriction (so long as standards for data protection are met). THE CHALLENGE OF MOBILITY DATA AND PRIVACY When it comes to sharing and managing mobility data, the challenge cities and their private sector partners face is how to reconcile two essential goals. Cities need access to data and information about how people move to develop and implement plans and policies that support positive outcomes for mobility, health, the environment, economic growth, equity, and sustainability. Companies and vendors need data to operate their businesses, collect payments , and optimize services. At the same time , the ability of an individual to think and move freely, without fear of undue surveillance, is the foundation of democratic society; both the public and private sectors must ensure that the privacy of individual people remains protected. This document places the twin goals of access and privacy along two intersecting continuum, rather than setting them up in opposition to each other. A positive outcome uses thoughtful tools and principles to ensure cities have more data from which to make decisions and policies, and individuals retain more privacy. Bad outcomes occur either when personal privacy is diminished whether or not governments have access to essential information, or when privacy is fully protected but governments have no access to the data needed to make informed decisions and policies. The goal of this document is to map out principles and best practices that guide cities and their privatt. sector partners . Managing Mobility Data charts a path that increases public agencies' access to data and information while strengthening privacy protections for individuals. WHEN IS MOBILITY DATA "PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION" (Pll)? Personally identifiable information (PII) is commonly thought to be limited to direct unique personal identifiers such as name, address, social security number, or credit card number. However, all data can become PII depending on how easily and accurately it can be tied to an individual. The U.S. government defines PII as "information that can be used to distinguish or trace an individual's identity, either alone or when combined with other personal or identifying information that is linked or linkable to a specific individual."1 Geospatial data is , or can become, PII in two ways: • Recognizable Travel Patterns -Even in anonymous datasets, people can be re-identified from their routine travel patterns -e.g . from home to work, school, stores, or religious institutions . The 2013 Scientific Report article , "Unique in the Crowd : the privacy bounds of human mobility" found that, in a dataset of i.5 million people over 6 months, and using location points triangulated from cellphone towers, "four spatio -temporal points are enough to uniquely identify 95 % of the individuals.'., Combined With Other Data -Geospatial mobility data can be combined with other data points to become PII (someti1aes referred to as indirect or linked PII). For example, taken by itself, a single geospatial data point like a ride-hail drop-off location is not PII . But, when combined with a phonebook or reverse address look-up service, that data becomes easily linkable to an individual person. For example, in 2014 , a researcher requested anonymized taxi geo-location data from NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission under freedom of information laws, mapped them using MapQuest, and was able identify the home addresses of people hailing taxis in front of the Hustler Club between midnight and 6am. Combining a home address with an address look-up website, Facebook and other sources, the researcher was able to find the "property value, ethnicity, relationship status, court records and even a profile picture!" of an individual patron.3 The small number of data points necessary to identify an individual from their travel patterns, the ubiquity of secondary data sets, and the ease with which they can be combined with geospatial trip data to form PII, all mean that both the public and private sector should treat geopspatial trip data as PII for collection, management, storage, and disseminatio n . When it comes to mobility, privacy is related to the degree to which an individual trip is synonymous with an individual person. For example, each dockless scooter trip is tied to an individual user and thus broadcasts specific, unique information about an individual person's behavior. Similarly, when passengers are in the car, an app-based ride-hail or autonomous vehicle trip is linked to an individual. Such data should be handled in accordance with city PII policies to ensure that individual privacy is protected while simultaneously ensuring that cities have the necessary information to achieve public policy goals and serve public needs. In contrast, ride-hail trips without a passenger, like "dead-heading" or circulating, or shared trips with fixed stops, do not reveal personally identifiable patterns and can be easily shared. 1 https://www gsa.gov /reference/gsa-pnvacy-program/rules-and-pol1cies-protecting-pi1-privacy-act 2 De Montojoye, Yves-Alexandre, and Cesar Hidalgo, Michael Verleysen, Vincent Blonde!. "Unique m the Crowd th2 pnrncy bounds of human mobility," Scientific Reports 3, Article tt 1376 (2013) Accessed via· https//wwwnature.c0m/a1ticies/s1epo1T/6 3 Atockar, "Riding With The Stars "'assenger Privacy in the NYC Taxicab Dataset." Neustar Research, SPplember 15, 701.';. Accessed via: https://research.neust.ar.biz/author/atockar/ ADDITIONAL CHALLENGES • Freedom of Information & Sunshine Laws -For cities, the challenge of protecting personal data takes on an additional dimension as cities are bound by freedom of information or disclosure laws . In complying with these laws , cities always exempt s~mple forms of PII (e .g. name, social security number, date of birth) from public disclosure . However, insufficient awareness of the ways that geospatial mobility data can be analyzed or combined with other information to li nk back to an individual means that mobility data may not always be protected from disclosure. As cities gather additional essential mobility data, they should work to educate lawmal<ers and city attorneys on the ease with which mobility data can become PII . • State Privacy Laws -Privacy law in the United States is not only regulated by the Federal Government, but also increasingly by the individual states. Each state may have its own definitions for PII as well as different standards for collection and protection of data, and theories of liability as a result of a breach of duty. The field of privacy law is in its infancy, mal<ing it imperative that local governments stay abreast of state and federal laws, privacy decisions , bills , and other potential legal obligations that may impact them. • Data Collection & Over-Collect i on -Private mobility companies face extreme challenges in properly protecting personal data. Unlike the majority of mobility t.:ata t hat cities need and request, the data that mobility, cellular, and phone companies gather from customers is highly and immediately personal. This includes names, credit card numbers , addresses, and phone numbers, in addition to a record of that person's location over time . As companies develop produ cts and gather mobility d ata, they should protect themselves and their customers by ensuring that they only gather what they need, obtain genuine, opt-in consent from users on how personal information will be used, stored, sold, or shared, and adopt and enforce best practices in data management and security. Even when collected after a genuine "opt-in", individual trip records should be stored for the minimum period needed. • Who Has Access to What -For all parties, the tension between access to data and privacy forces a necessary conversation around who needs to have what data and at what level. As security experts often note, different groups of people need access to different types and amounts of information based on their "need to know" in order to do their jobs. For example, a sensitive dataset for fire departments might show the exact locatior of essential utility lines or breal<er boxes whereas, in a public dataset, that information should be condensed to more general "no-dig" zones . Similarly, for mobility data, city staff responsible for street operations need to know about the volume of pick-up/drop-off activity at specific locations in order to adjust curbside regulations accordingly. However, in public release of pick-up/drop- off data, that information should be aggregated, based on population density and land use characteristics, to create a general picture without identifying a specific building or residence . In general, the degree of aggregation necessary to protect individual privacy increases as population density decreases . In addition, lower-density land uses, like residential, may require greater degrees of aggregation than commercial or mixed use, which generate more activity. • Potential Legal Challenges -U.S. privacy law is in its infancy with new laws and concerns developing frequently. Some states are fairly active in this area and the Federal Government is contemplating numerous versions of overarching data protection r~quirements . Current L • • • case law at the federal level mal<es it difficult to meet standing requirements .4 However, standing requirements may change as data protection becomes more complex. State laws and judicial decisions are at the forefront of easing standing requirements to allow for broadened claims of an injury in fact . Furthermore, well-established jurisprudence may be used in new, creative ways as a vehicle for a cause of action against a local government or a private company. For example, there may be potential liability under First Amendment jurisprudence though this theory of liability is largely untested. Adhering to appropriate anonymization practices and ensuring a local government does not collect more information than is needed is the best way to safeguard against potential legal challenges. Consumer protection law may allow actions against private companies by their customers for misuse of customer data, even when they have accepted Terms & Co n ditions that the companies require to use their services. Requests From Law Enforcement -Generally, the Third Party Doctrine does not recognize the privacy of v oluntarily s h ared information, but instead dictates that such information is not entitled to Fourth Amendment protections, meaning warrants are not required for law enforcement to request such informat ion. Items that fall under voluntarily shared information are too broad to identify completely, but does include information collected by scooter companies, wireless service providers , etc. However, in 2018 , the U.S . Supreme Court demonstrated a slight shift in their view on what information is entitled to Fourth Amendment protection in the landmark decision Carpenter v . United States , No . 16-402, 585 U.S ___ (2018). In this decision, the Court held that government acquisition of historical cell phone locational records is entitled to Fourth Amendment protection, t hus collection of such in formation requires a warrant. In that decision, Chief Justice Roberts , writing for the majority, explained in dicta that the increasing sophist ication of cellphone technology now "convey[s] to the wireless carrier not just diale d digits , but a detailed and comprehensive record of the person's movements" -and the ubiquity and effective necessity of such services in today's society lends itself to a holding granting Fourth Amendment protection law enforcement to access historical geolocation data in records from a cellphone company. Cities should pay close attention to the course this jurisprudence tal<es and adjust their policies accordingly. GDPR -The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is a European Union regulation aimed at protecting the data of EU citizens. A notable characteristic of the GDPR is that it applies extraterritorially with liabilit y attaching to the in dividual EU citizen, and not to a geographic location. For example, if an EU citizen visits the U.S . for a period of time, the GDPR still applies and an entity in the U.S . could be found liable under the GDPR. When soliciting data from transportation Oi:Jerators there are two options: either ensure that your locality is GDPR compliant, or only collect data from those who are not subject to the protections of the GDPR. CCPA -The California Consumer Privacy Act, slated to go into effect in 2020 , is a data privacy law requiring companies holding large volumes of personal information to disclose what they collect to their users . The law also empowers users to opt out of having their personal data sold and to sue companies in the event of an unauthorized breach of personal data. The CCPA sets a definition of PII as "any information that ident ified, relates to , describes , is capable of being associated with, or could reasonably be linked, directly, or indirectly, with a particular consumer or household." 4 See e.g. Clapper v. Amnesty International. 568 U.S. 398 (2013) {holding Amnesty International lacked standing to challenge§ 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act because their argument was based on the hypothetical future harm of bemg unable to maintain attorney-client privilege with then international clients due to government surveillance and wiretappmg pursuant to the Act). To best serve the public good and ensure safe passage, to protect public health a n d welfare , and to govern commerce in the public right-of-way and on private property, cities need access to the data generated by mobility service providers. This information ensures that city governments can make informed decisions about what is happening in the public street and how it might impact safety, health, equity, environmental outcomes , and the distribution of people and resources. Leg islative actions that limit the data that cities receive from private mobilicy service providers harm the public because they curtail local governments' ability to effectively manage local streets and address local concerns. For example, cities have a legitimate interest in dat a generated by ride- hail trips as this data will document compliance with laws and regulations, a n d can document negative externalities , such as increased traffic congestion and emissions. Cities cannot serve their constituents without good information to inform public policy. Require access to data from mobility services operating in the public right-of-way as a default requirement for operating in the public realm . Cities need a wide variety of data in order to make informed decisions and policies . • Use their authority to issue and enforce contractual agreements t 11 guide private sector actions and protect the public interest . Cities should strive to select vendors who collect, manage, and share data in a manner that aligns wit h city privacy policies . Where possible, cities should reinforce policy goals through rigorous enforcement of contractual terms . • Expand their internal capacity to analyze the data they receive and to confirm data quality. Develop or update strategic plans for managing mobility in a digital age to address data management, adequate training, and appropriate insurance coverage and safeguarding procedures . • Coordinate to create or adopt standardized, open data formats that level the playing field between companies and transportation providers by making expectations about information sharing and management more consistent and predicta1Jle across cities. Tools such as the Mobility Data Specification developed by the City of Los Angeles are one step toward a unified standard. Geospatial trip data can easily become PII . While cities have held and managed personally identifiable and other sensitive information for centuries, the volume of data and the ease with which geospatial data can now be gathered, combined, and analyzed is unprecedent ed. To protect the people they serve, cities should work to ensure that their policies and practices are updated to treat geospatial trip data as PII and that private operators follow good practice to protect the privacy of their customers. The responsibility for protecting privacy does not end with the public sector. In addition, as part of the terms for operating a bu~iness in the public right-of-way, companies must prove that they are responsible stewards and protectors of the data they gather. For example, companies could commit to retaining individual trip level data only for the duration of time necessary to carry out the legitimate mobility-related purposes of cities and private-sector partners. Treat geospatial mobility data as PII in policy and practice, and work with their legal departments to develop or update protocols for how they handle, store, and protect such data. Such protocols should include policies for handling public disclosure requests that recognize the private nature of mobility data. • Ensure that their data policies and practices are routi nely updated and, at a minimum, include modern digitdl security methods, protocols for storage, access, retention and deletion, data breach plans, and cybersecurity insurance. • Update data privacy and insurance policies to limit city liability. At a minimum, ensure that PII is redacted in all public records requests if possible under state law. • Require mobilit y companies and vendors to prove that they are i n compliance w ith contractual requirements, industry standards, and laws regarding data privacy and consumer data protection. These include, but are not limited to: modern digital security methods, protocols for storage, access, retention, and deletion, and data breach plans. • Coordinate with other cities to establish best practices for government and private companies to maintain individual trip records for the shortest time needed, for the purpose originally stated, and to apply, analyze, aggregate and anonymize mobility data. Good data management practice begins with being clear about what questions are being asked and what information is necessary to answer those questions. For both public and private sectors, preparatory work is essential to get the right data and to avoid capturing unnecessary data. While being mindful about the purpose of their data requests , cities have legitimate concerns about the accuracy of data provided by mobility companies . To address this uncertainty, many cities have requested a broad range of data because companies have been unwilling to provide additional data as new relevant queries occur. Mobility companies and third-party data companies also have the responsibility to be purposeful with the data they collect. In granting permits, contracts, or other regulatory agreements that allow operations in the public right-of-way, cities can ensure that mobility companies have user agreements or privacy policies that are explicit with customers about what data they will collect and how they will use it. • Be clear about what questions t hey are trying to answer and use those questions as a basis for data requests . Cities can reduce the likelihood of obtaining sensitive information by limiting what they collect to data that has a defined purpose. This , in turn, may limit liability for the protection, storage, and security of that data and reduce data management burdens. • Develop internal capacity to audit the data . Trained staff, capacity for spot checks, and data audit tools, such as verifiable data logs, can help cities ensure that the data they get is accurate and unedited without requesting excess information to verify it . Cities should preserve the right to commission third-party audits if they suspect dishonest or falsified data. When using third-party developed tools , cities should make sure they know their vendor and what their privacy policies are. • Ensure that their regulatory scheme and analysis tools allow them to retroactively request data should a new query or purpose develop. • Encourage and negotiate with mobility companies to update user agreements and request and receive consent for collecting and using personal information from their customers. For example, the EU's General Data P rotection Re~ulation identifies what genuine consent could look like, including: consent should be opt-in, not default; users should be allowed to accept or reject terms individually; consent agreements should identify third parties who mi~ht have access to the data; and companies should not requ ire consent as a precondition for service. Because U.S . and state law does not have such provisions , it may be beneficial to negotiate with mobility companies to achieve at least some of these goals . A wide variety of new services, standa rds , and format s are currently available to gather, manage, and a n alyze mob ility data. As cities look to use these tools or to develop their own, they should ensure t h at t hey can m ove fluidly b etween vendors and for m ats as necessary. Open data standards can help cities avoid getting locked in to specific p latforms or vendors and ensure that cities can continue to take advantage of new developments in the rapidly changing data and technology sector. In contrast, proprietary t ools can limit a city's ability to use data a p propriately, take advantage of new technologies , or shift to a new provider if p rices in cr ease or if the pro du ct fa il s t o meet the city's need. Open data standards, especially when combined wit h appropriate contract ter ms that govern use, can reduce the risk of "lock-in" and ensure that the public gets the best and most appropriate services . St a n dardize d formats m a ke it easier for cit ies to use d ata from m u lt iple sources . • Use open standards whenever possible . Preference for open stan dards should apply in both in-h ous e develo pment a n d procurement . • • Update procurement policies to prioritize open standards and standard formats in decision-making. Review privacy policies and data management practices of platforms and vendors to ensure appropriat e safeguards are in place to protect data. When a locality takes ownership of dat a, they are r esponsible for safeguarding and protecting that data. If a vend or or platform m isbeh aves , the lo ca lity m ay b e liable for giving them access to that data. Anot her w ay for cit ies to protect themselves is to maintain that the data is solely owned by the locality and to require appropriate safeguarding procedures for that data if such p roc edures d o n ot already exist within the provider itself. Limit liability by engaging in due diligence when selecting a vendor or platform for data management to ensure the protection of data the city will grant third parties' access to. PART II -PRINCIPLES IN PRACTICE Governance and Best Practices for Data Handling: As the volume of data created on the public right-of-way and exchanged between parties grows , cities must build out their policies, regulations, and provider agreements for ensuring that data is appropriately handled, used, stored, accessed, and disseminated. In particular, cities must ensure that they are up-to-date in their processes for oversight and direct handling of sensitive data, that their policies , regulations, and provider agreements are routinely updated to address new challenges, and that they have the capacity to grapple with tough questions , such as those surrounding privacy and access . As a baseline, examples of good practice for handing sensitive data include, but are not limited to : Storage Set limits on the amount of time that individual trip records are held and delete individual records once that time window has passed. In general , cities may choose to hold individual trip records for brief periods of time , for example until enough data can be gathered for processing or aggregation or until specific violations (e .g. a parking ticket) are addressed. Cities should minimize the amount of time that data is held in an unprocessed form. • Aggregate all geospatial data before committing it to permanent storage. Require companies and contractors to abide by industry best practices for records retention and storage. Never allow individual trip records to be saved outside of a secure database . Shari ng • Data should only be shared publicly in aggregate form . When aggregating data, cities should, at a minimum, consider population density, land use, and time span. Access Cities should preserve the right to share data with researchers and other jurisdictions for secondary uses in the public interest, provided that the researchers commit to following industry best practices for data storage, access, and retention. Within each agency, limit access to individual trip records and/or sensitive data. In general, only a small approved list of users should have access to individual records or sensitive datasets. • Routinely provide special training for personnel responsible for individual trip records on how to handle such data and best practices . Set rules for when and why individual records can be accessed. In general, access to individual trip records should only be granted for the purpose of managing data quality and for det ermining methods for aggregating data (to preserve anonymity) for proj~ct specific purposes. Oversight • Employ, regulate, and enforce IT best practices to monitor access to individual trip records/ sensitive data. At a minimum, all access and use of both individual records and aggregated data should be automatically captured, logged , and reported on a regular basis in order to ensure those accessing sensitive datasets are acting in an approved manner. Cities should establish frameworks for data management. These should cover managing data access , defining clear policies to limit the number of people who have access to sensitive data sets, restrictions on emailing or transmitting individual trip re cords , password and storage protocols , appropriate t raining for personnel handling data, etc . Data management is a rapidly evolv ing fi eld. Cities should create processes that include feedback loops for evaluation and review so that they can rapidly address emerging issues like cybersecurity and update their polic ie s and practices accordingly. Some cities and guidance bodies publish guidelines for data handli ng and risk management. These include: • Los Angeles • LA draft Data Prot ection Principles • National Cyber Security Centre Expanding Staff Capacity: Data is only as valuable as it is accurate. Cities should ensure that they are building internal staff capacity to assess and manage data, especially so that they can evaluate the quality of the data they receive from private vend ors . In addition to planner expertise to ensure cities are asking the right questions , and software expertise (e.g. GIS , SQL , Python/R, Tavascript , Spark, Hadoop, etc.) to handle analysis, cities should develop internal staff capacity around key skill or expertise areas such as statistics and basic auditing/fraud detection {applying Benford's or Zipf 's law to datasets). Data Aggregation: Appropriate data aggregation is the key tool for managing the balance between access and privacy. However, while there is general agreement that the data should be aggregated at a broader level as population oecreases (or in residential contexts or off-peak h ours), the exact thresholds (how many data points are needed per hour to ensure anonymity?) are not universally agreed upon. More city-foc used discussion is needed to develop guidelines arou nd spatial and temporal aggregations. While many cities have the internal capacity to design and develop data aggregation processes and thresholds , some third-party tools, especially those developed by non-profits or in open source, ca n be helpful. The SharedStreets Micromobility Data Processing Pipeline is one example of a city-guided, third-party, open data aggregation tool. Common Data Queries: Cities require mobility data to fulfill a variety of core responsibilities related to management and enhancement of the public right-of-way. Broadly speaking, these data needs can be bucketed into planning, analysis , oversight, and enforcement. Data can help unlock answers . In addition to fundamental fields li ke origin/destinat ion {O/D), speed, and route bread-crumbs, a v ..... riety of data points are needed, depending on the challenge the city aims to address. For example , information about ride-hail wait times or cancell ed/rejected trips can help answer questions about the equitable d istribution of for-hire transportation services . Similarly, information about the number of passengers in a ride-hail vehicle can aid in decisions about transit service operations or planning. Information about hard braking, speeds, or crashes are essential to reducing traffic fatalities and making city streets safer. EXAMPLES OF FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS PLANNING OVERSIGHT PLANNING EXAMPLES How many vehicles or people are using a given street or corridor? How does level of service diffe r across neighborhoods, times of day, or passenger ability level? Where are users starting and ending their trips? Which routes/streets are most commonly used by people on shared micromobility vehicles? OVERSIGHT EXAMPLES How does driver pay change based on trip type, location, and time of day? Where/when are there clusters of vehicles/ devices? When/where are t here not enough devices in an area? When/where are there too many? How many devices are on the street but unavailable due to a maintenance issue or low battery? Which parts of the city are ride-hail services and micromobility serving? Were dock less micromobility or ride -hail vehicles involved in crashes? ANALYSIS ENFORCEMENT ANALYSIS EXAMPLES How efficiently are ride-hail services using our streets? What share of total transportation emissions and local air pollution is coming from ride-hail services? How do vehicle utilization and pooling relate to congestion by geography? How do ride-hai l services and micromobility trips relate to existing transit services ? How much non-revenue VMT occurs on the street (e .g. Lyft/Uber deadheading or rebalancing dockless micromobility devices}? What is the right price for curb space? Are ride-hail drivers making enough money to cover expenses and earn a living wage? ENFORC EM ENT EXAMPLES Are shared micromobility companies accurately reflecting the status of their fleets or vehicles? W hen/where are people riding scooters on the sidewalk? How are shared micromobility companies rebalancing and maintaining the ir vehicles? Does service quality change in lower - income neighborhoods or among large concentrations of people of color? Cm•,.. Cc •UH~t· Si \'rl• 1:io. ,,_.,_~t.411...,.,.· File#: Type: File created : On agenda : Title: Sponsors : Indexes: Code sections : Attachments : I Date 18-0452 Ordinance 7/2/2018 7/12/2018 College Station, TX City Hall 1101 Texas Ave College Station , TX 77840 Legislation Details (With Text) Version : 2 Name : Status : In control: Final action : Presentation, possible action , and discussion regarding an ordinance amending chapter 8, "Businesses ," of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station , Texas , by adding article xiii "Dockless Bike Share Program"; providing a severability clause ; Consent Agenda City Council Regular Presentation , possible action , and discussion regarding an ordinance amending chapter 8, "Businesses ," of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station , Texas , by adding Article XIII "Dockless Bike Share Program"; providing a severability clause ; declaring a penalty ; and providing an effective date Aubrey Nettles Proposed Dockless Bike Share Ordinance Ver. Action By Action Result Presentat ion , possible action, and discussion regarding an ordinance amending chapter 8, "Businesses ," of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas , by adding Article XIII "Dock les s Bike Share Program"; providing a severability clause; declaring a penalty; and providing an effective date Relationship to Strategic Goals: (Select all that apply) • Good Governance • Neighborhood Integrity • Improving Mobility Recommendation(s): staff recommends approval of the ordinance Summary : Texas A&M University entered into an exclusive contract with the bike share company OFO for a bike share program in February of 2018. OFO launched their program in March with the introduction of 850 OFO bikes in College Station. TAMU and OFO plan to expand their fleet to 3,000 to 4,000 bikes for the fall semester. Based on feedback received from City Council at the workshop meeting on June 28th, staff is moving forward with an ordinance regulating dockless bike share. Budget & Financial Summary : Attachments: College Station , TX Page 1 of 2 Printed on 7/6/2018 powered by Legistar™ College Station, TX City Hall 1101 Texas Ave College Station , TX 77840 CITY Of COi.LEGE STATION Hr...,,.jTt:U.1 A6MU.i-.i17' Legislation Details (With Text) File#: Type: File created: On agenda: 18-0403 Report 6/13/2018 6/28/2018 Version: 1 Name: Status: In control: Final action: Presentation , possible action and discussion regarding dockless bike share regulations Agenda Ready City Council Workshop Title: Sponsors: Presentation , possible action , and discussion regarding dockless bike share regulations. Aubrey Nettles Indexes: Code sections: Attachments: I Date Ver. Action By Action Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding dockless bike share regulations. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding dockless bike share regulations . Relationship to Strategic Goals: Good governance Improving Mobility Neighborhood Integrity Result Background & Summary: Texas A&M University entered into an exclusive contract with the bike share company OFO for a bike share program in February of 2018 . OFO launched their program in March with the introduction of 850 OFO bikes in College Station. TAMU and OFO plan to expand their fleet to 3,000 to 4,000 bikes for the fall semester. Based on feedback received from City Council and citizens, staff has explored regulations for dockless bike share and have drafted an ordinance. We will be discussing the key components of the draft ordinance tonight. Budget & Financial Summary: N/ A Attachments: College Station . TX Page 1 of 1 Printed on 6/22/2018 powered by Legistar™ • Personal vs . Shared - o Where should changes to type and speed of personal microvehicles be placed in the City ordinance? - • Use term -Microvehicles -Laredo, Dallas, Bastrop, Galveston ---o-1JOeSTiie 'vehicle' definition in .the TIC affect this? C::::Micromobility v€f\.ieleO.Wt U ~ ~icle o Add definition for shared micromobility vehicle - o Can we add a microvehicle that isn't defined by Texas Transportation Code • "Shared micro-mobility device ("device") means any motorized transportation device made available for private use by reservation through an online application, website, software, or other lawful means for point-to-point trips and which is not capable of traveling at a speed greater than 20 miles per hour on level ground . This term includes motorized scooters, bicycles and motorized bicycles as defined in F.S. ch . 316 . This definition does not include an owner of a motorized scooter, bicycle o r motorized bicycle which is solely used for private transportation by its owner or pedicabs." • "Motorized bicycle means a bicycle propelled by a combination of human power and an electric helper motor capable of propelling the vehicle at a speed of not more than 20 miles per hour on level ground, having two tandem wheels, and including any device generally recognized as a bicycle though equipped with two front or two rear wheels, or as otherwise defined by Florida law." .. "fla langtIBge on • ~p d - 8-818 Speed -add on level surface J o Police -how to regulate on hills How to regulate self-propel portion? • • • Keep ome zones -aka . Parking- Lock -to-system language -add in 8-819 -Lock-to language needs to be added G Pilot -Midtown no longer an area -BlueDuck has left they decided to focus on other markets across the Southeastern US . 0 • Location -where a bike lane doesn't exist a sidewalk can be used . • Pilot program 8-814 -permit terms o Location o Or Permit terms -for City to decide • ~I - ~s. t-- - - I· D -----,_ -- ·~ I I' /' ., 1 -~ -r~ ) ~ I I I . I., B\ ""-~(,,-F;~ !, ..-1'~ \ { u. -3-4~ bflt¥.. -s~w\ltl<-5 ~ ,, I I ~~~li,i~ ~~t-. a@ ~o+ E~rn-@ -~e ef ~~ ~ -~ j~ .ij,J~o/C. '/t~/~'LL- t'J 15 17 19 Age nda Item #3.4 Proposed changes to the Bike Sh a r e Ord i nance Background •!• Veo ride -Current TAMU Op erat o r o Smee launch tn 2019: o Rides : 1,121,879 o Rlders :66,274 o Miles: 895,945 o Changed to a "lock-to" system o locksonbikes o End ride with bike locked to a bike rack or f1Ked obiect o Introduced electnc sit -down scooters (Cosmos) 1250 bibs 67Se-s.cooters Electric Micro-vehicles •:• Can be more attractive to people w ho might not want to use trad1t1onal 2 or 3-wheefers •:• bpands the area riders can easily travel without a car 0:• Potentially helps alleviate traff ic congestton •:• Veonde use - For the month of Sep1ember 202 1 (first12 days) ..... ... ... ... :,-.. -...... ..... .. .... ... " :: .. _ .. " -.. ... .. -.. .. ::: " -·~ ~· :: .. u ,._ -.. .. .. " ----... -.. -·--... u .. ---... ... "' ., -... -.. .. u --... M !t 16 18 20 Back groun d •:• Ordinance ad o pt ed in 20 18 in res ponse to TA MU bikes hare program o Requires an annual permit to operat e m the City for short-term bike rentals o Dockless (lock:ed and unlocked using a sm artphone app) o Currently doesn't allow electnc scoot ers or other electronic modes of transportation o P.equires a local team to manage program o Reqwres a geofence Micro mo bility •:• A range o f m1cro-'lehicles •:• Human -powered or electnc -!• Pnvately owned or shared •:• Typically low speed -less than 20 MPH •:• M1cromob11ity mcrea~s access and can replace cars for shorter tnps ..... ~~~lif .. ...,.. c..,. ...... Electric M icro-ve hi cles •:• Safe ty conce rn s o Parking • [);xkhm vs. [);xked or "lock to" o Wheel size o Determines sens 1tMty 10 road cond1hons (Potholes.1ravel, une'len pavement, etc..) Sm11U (7-8.S")vs. Large(l6-l8") Veonde1s 18 o Stand-up vs. sitdown • Determines ab1htv to balance based on center of 1ravity ~=d -- 10/12/2021 1 21 Electric Micro-vehicles •:• Safety concerns o Speed management • Vecmde -14 MPH; 7 MPH m slow nde zones o Location City wide vs speaf1e arus Streets, s1dewalk1 and shared-use paths T11us l•w only •llowJ t-stooten on roadswi1hlSMPHspeedorlas G'lb<i'~ 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 -::--~~~== ·-~-~--0 ..!L ---~--0 0 M&. ........ _..._ .... ...,_ ... ,.,.... ® 22 Ordinance Amendment 1. Allow electric micro-vehicles l. AU? 2. Onlv certain types? 1. Wheels1ze? 2. S1t-downor stand-up? 2. Other Safety components 1. Parking? 2. Speed? 3. Location? 10/12/2021 2 1 3 5 Bicycle , Pedestrian , and Greenways Advisory Board Meeting Oct o b!"r 19, 202ll Se pte mber 13 , 2021 What is a Comprehensive Plan? .,,,_ .. city-wld• direction Comprehensive Plan foc111ed plon nln~ Master Plans Dlshtct a. Nltlghborhood Plans Capffal Improvement Plan (CIP) Next 10 Evaluation Oeportmentol work programs & budgets Codes & Ordinances •Assessed plan im pl ementation / • Robu st pub lic input • 10-Year Evaluatio n & Appra isal Report Cfty Councn Strategic Pion 2 4 6 9/13/2021 Agenda Item #3 .3 10-Year Comprehensive Plan Update Planning Horizon ..,._ tOIOTIONt 2013 200 9 2014 Proposed Changes Comp re hensive Plan Chapters 5 & 6 ~ ""°"''° 2015 ' ~ ,,_ IVMl.MTIOM - 2019-20 2030 2018 2021 --~ Bicycle, Pe des t rian an d Greenways Mas t er Pl an M aps . "'---"'"""" ~ ... ·--ft ----... 1 Ti meline • Aug . 2 ·Sep . 3 -public input (open house s, wiki-maps & survey) • Aug . 2 -Bicycle , Pedest r ian, & Greenways Board (previewed proposed changes) • Sep . 13 -Bicycle , Pedestrian, & Greenways Board (for recommendat ion) • Sep . 14 -Parks & Recreation Board (for recommendation) • Sep . 16 -Plann ing & Zoning Commission (for recommendat ion) • Oct. 14 -City Council (for possible adoption) 7 ~-- . ·----· ... ,_ .. __ _ --------__ ,_ ···C.--- -~.....-..._ -c.--'"' ... ------ 9 11 ( ... ·: ', -~ ' ' .• L.' """----\. _ ... __ ___ ..,. __ --·----........ - ···C....--• -~-.. --~--(-.. --------~ 8 10 12 ~g=-----------•=:... i .. ( ?.:_=-·------ -~- 9/13/2021 1--=-l ' ... / 2 13 15 17 Agenda Item #3.4 Proposed changes to the Bike Share Ordinance Bac kg ro und •:• Veonde -Cur rent TA M U Operator o Smee launch in 2019: o Rides: 1,121.879 o R1ders:66,274 o Miles : 895,945 o Changed to a "lock-to" system o locksonb1kes o End ride with bike locked to a bike rack o Introduced electnc sit-dow n scooters (Cosmos) 1250bfkH 67Se·scooters 14 16 18 Next Steps • BPG Board Recommendation • Sep. 14 -Parks & Recreatio n Board (for recommendation) • Sep . 16 -Planning & Zon ing Commission (for recommendation) • Oct. 14 -Ci ty Council (for possible adoption) Back ground ·:· Ordinance ad opt ed 1n 2018 in response to TAMU b1keshare program o ReQuires an annual permit to operate m the City for short-term bike rentals o Dockless (locked and unlocked usmg a smartphone app) o Currently doesn't allow etectnc scooters or other electronic modes of transportation o Requires a local team to manage program o Requires a geofence M ic romobi I ity •:0 A range of micro-vehicles •:• Human-powered or electnc •!• Privately owned or shared •:• Typically low speed -less than 20 MPH ·:• M1cromob11ity increases access and can replace cars for shorter trips - 9/13/2021 3 Elect r ic Micro-v ehicles •:• Can be more attractive to people who m1sht not want to use trad1t1onal 2 °' 3-wheelers ·:• Expands the area nders can eaStly travel wtthout a car ·:• Potentially helps alleviate traffic congestion •!• Veonde use - For the month of September 202 1 (fi~t1Z days) -... ,,. ·~ ... :s-qp ---.... - - :: -.. u -·--... :: -... = -.. -u .. -.. :: .. --... -... u -"" .... LO .. _ --- - u -m -... .. tl !! ,,_ .... 19 sto~ -1-t<S i~(lvt . ..'. .r>ft~~ ..... 21 Elec t ric Mic ro -vehicles •!• Sa fety concerns o Speed management • Vwrtde 14 MPH; 7 MPH in slow nde zones o Location Otyw1devsspec1f1careas StrttU, stdewtilks and sha1ed-use pJirhs Te••s l1w only 1llows e-ito01~ on rotdSWl!h3SMPHspttdori.ss ~.~o o o ....!---.-.!-== 0 0 .... 0 0 0 --· .:.::"'--=:: -~---:.:..- ..!L ---·~--0 0 Agenda Item #3 .S Li ck Creek Greenway Trailhead and Park ing Lot 23~~~ /si+~ - 11 I < -fXtui\S'/ ~· -io·· l'l.. ~~~ - -tJ.J ·t-~- 1'+ ~t-t~ s~s - i-Electric Mi cro-ve hicle s wJ._.~,. ,..oS 20 ... p 10~-IA> -~ •!• Safety concerns o Parking r • Dock less vs. Docked or "Lock to" o Wheel size o Ottermines sens11Mty 10 road cond1t1ons (POthol~ • Small(7-8.5")vs.lar1e(l6-l8") • Veor1de is 18 o Stand-up vs. sitdown ' • Determines ability to balance based on center of 1ravity Ord i na nc e Ame ndme nt l. Requi re a "Lock to" System to con t inue more orderly use 2. Allow elec t ric m icro·vehicles l. AU? 2. Only certain 1ypes? 1. Basedonwheelstze 2. Stand-upvs.S1t-down 3. Other Sa fety components? l. Speed? 2. Location? 9/13/2021 4 I \ 25 27 Bicycle , Pedestrian , and Greenways Advisory Board Meeting S o,tobl'!r 19,32Q2Q eptemoer 1 , ZOZ 1 c.d ,,. ... ,, ...... : ....... 26 Agend a Item #3 .6 BPG related items on upcom i ng Council meetings 9/13/2021 5 This item is Staff in itiated based on changes that have occurred since the adoption of the Dockless Bikeshare ordinance .a11d to 1 etetoe direction from Council on potentially amending the ordinance . "511#-i s s~~1 . Joe Brummer -Regional General Manager for Veoride Ron Steedly Transportation Manager for TAMU Transportation Services Byron Prestridge -Alternative Transportation Program Coordinator for TAMU Transportatio n Services Peter Lange -Associate Vice President -Transportation Services Debbie Lollar -Executive Director -Transportation Services City of Bryan Blue Duck • Pi lot project -Nov 2019 6 months -passed mid pandemic (July , Aug , Sept) SO e-scooters • Update to Council i1 . Nov 2020 • Fu ll implementation Jan 2021for3 years -Now have 100 e-scooters • COB has a license agreement • • • Met and exceeded expectations Gen 3 model that weighs @ 6Slbs Located in downtown Bryan and Blinn campus Other opt ions : • focus on# of rides -can 't increase# of micro-vehicles unless each veh icle is used an average of three times each day • Donate $1 per vehicle per day to be given to city for use toward new bike infrastructu r e • Speed • Restrict hours of operation New Ordinance Name -Shared Micromobility Program Bikeshare Program History • Feb 2018 -Bikeshare Program started on -campus with OFO through Spring 2019 -850 bikes i nitially • June 2018 -Dockless bikeshare Program ord i nance • Fall 2019 -Veoride started • January 2020 -started lock-to requirement and changed geofence to on -campus only • Spring 2020 (March -Covid) • Fall 2021-Today • Veoride has been on campus 2 years -~-JP fe-f7 1 ~, 'OU )l~lN -d.,~? ~"f-+:'7 /M ~')\A.1¥J ' 1 2 3 Dockless Bike Share Regulations June 28, 2C18 Dockless Bike Share • Short-term rental for point-to- point trips Can be located and unlocked using a smartphone app • Users pay for the use of the b ike "•· through the smartphone app •• • Does not require a docking station e 0 ~ UHl OCk TAMU Bike Share Program • TAMU entered into exclusive contract w ith ofo February 2018 • 1 year agreeme nt w ith op ti onal renewal for an additional 4 ye ars • Launched Feb ruary 2018 with 850 bikes • Plans to expand to 3,000-4,000 bikes for fal l semester • 13,000 bike parking spaces on campus 4 5 6 7/23/2021 ofo • The "ofo " App • Cur re nt price :$.50/hr., $9 .95/month, $34.95/semester • Geo -fence -TAMU campus -North po int Crossing, Sterling Apartments, Park West • Point System-gamification -i nitial roll out and plans for fall semester • Local team • Report issues to ofobikes@tamu.edu ofo at TAMU ofo OFOBIKES MUST BE PARKED IN A BIKE RACK ofo Statistics 2/27 /18 -6/7 /18 • Over 15,000 people have signed up for ofo loca lly • Over 170,000 bike trips have been taken • Over 70 ,000 total miles have been biked • Around 2% of rides are non-compliant 8 1 ' 7 8 9 Comm un ity Impacts LocalRespo nse s inlexas • Dallas • Austin • Fort Worth • The Woodland s • Plano • University Par k • Houston • Denton Draft Ordinan ce Pe rmitting -Annual permit • Operating requirements -Customer & nonuser comm unication • Co ntact in fo rmation on bikes -Rebala ncing & rem ovals • Appropriate staffing -Repa i rs -Geo-fenc e zone s and Home zones Education -Safe ty -User sha ll yield to pedestri ans on sidewalks -Follow th e rul es of the roa d when o n street 10 11 12 Draft Ordinance Cont. Data sharing Insurance requirements Indemnification Parking guidelines -Must be parked upright -In a manner that does not impact vehicular or pedestrian traffic -Geo-fence zone -Re move or relocate • Wit hin 2 hours between 6 a.m.-6 p.m. • Within 12 hours during all other times Enforcement -Ci tation -Re move/rel ocate -l mpoundment Proposed Fee Structure »ooo U,toSSOClh -.... SllXlolM:e uoo ...... S250CVlOOD ---a-.i --..... ............ ~-.. -St:ZS-bh S5.000~ U,IDUDllh Decision Points • Move forward with ordinance? • Geofence Zone : -inclu de single family neighborhoods? • Fee Structure & Enforcement 7/23/2021 2 ' • 13 14 Next Steps • Adopt Ordinance • Public educat ion TAMU & ofo Representation • Peter Lange -As soci ate Vice President of Transportation Se r vices • Servando Espar za -ofo Head of Public Policy 7/23/2021 3 Venessa Garza From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Hi all. Mary Ann Powell Fr iday, July 2, 2021 12 :09 PM Aubrey Nettles; Venessa Garza ; Br ian W. Piscace k; Debb ie Eller ; Adam Falco; Lesl ie Whitten; Julie Caler; Amy Albright; Blaine Krauter; Kevin L. Ha r ris Bikes , eBikes, scooters. SUMMARY Scooter state law 1.pdf; EXCERPTS Stats Bikes eBikes & Scooters .pdf; SAMPLE Ord Galveston .pdf Attached please see a summary of some of the more relevant statutes re how cities may/may not regulate bikes eBikes and scooters (titled "SUMMARY"). For the more ambitious or curious, I've included entire statutes in doc titled, "EXCERPTS ." I included Galveston's ordinance only as an example of cities that make distinctions between "docked" and "dockless ." I am not suggesting we go this route, but include this as an FYI. Austin appears to generically regulate "micromobility." Again, I am not advocating one result or another. Rather, it demonstrates some options. If I've not included one or more people that I should've on this email , please forward to them. Have a safe and fun and cool weekend. Mary Ann Powell Deputy City Attorney City of College Station P.O. Box 9960 1101 Texas Ave . College Station, TX 77842 Direct : 979 .764.3521 Email: mpowell@cstx.gov CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This Communication is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information which is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under appl icable law. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, you are notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited. Sender requests a reply or notification by other immediate means of the mis-delivery. 1 Below are summaries of some laws that may impact how we choose to regulate bikes , ebikes , scooters , etc. I've attache :l complete statutes in some instances for those interested. References to statutes are to the Texas Transportation Code unless otherwise noted. I .DEFINITIONS A . "Bicycle": a) two wheels with at least one that 's 14 inches in diamete r;, or 3 wheels 2 of which are parallel and at least one that 's 14 inches in diameter ; OR b) any number of wheels used by person with disability. (§541.201) B. "Electric bicycle": is a bicycle equipped with a) fully operable pedals ; b) electric moto of 750 watts or less; and c) top assisted speed of28 mph. (aka "ebikes") "top assisted speed " means max speed at which motor ceases to propel bike or assist the rider. "Class I electric bicycle" i) has motor that assists rider only when rider is pedaling ; a · · top assisted speed of 20 mph. ' lass 2 lectric bicycle" iD has mo or assisting rider without pedaling; and ii) top as · edspeedof20mph. "Class 3 electric bicycle" i) has motor assisting rider only when pedaling ; and ii) top assisted speed greater than 20 mph but less than 28 mph. (§664.001) C. "Moped " a motor vehicle with rider 's saddle, max of 3 wheels , max speed of 30 mph , max of "5-brake horsepower" and 50 cubic centimeters or less internal combustion engine connecting to power drive without shifting gears. (§541.20 I) D. "Motor-assisted '5Cooter" : I) is something that is i) self-propelled ; ii) has at least 2 wheels , iii) gas or electric ; iv) rider stands or sits; and 5) ability to propel by human powe r alon e; and 2) does NOT include the following: minimotorbike , pocket bike 1 moped , motorcycle , ebike. (§ 551.351) E . "Motor Vehicle ": self-propelled vehicle but does NOT include eBikes. (§541.20 I) F. "Vehicle" is a device used to transport or draw persons or property on a highway. (§541 .20 I) 2. STATE LAWS AFFECTING HOW CITY REGULATES BIKES, EBIKES AND SCOOTERS A. Preemption: C iti es can 't ad o pt o rdin a nce t hat co nfli cts w ith Titl e 7 /S ubtitl e C Rul es of th e Road . However, Cities can adopt ordinances that are not conflictive . (§542.20 I , 542.202) -Registration: Cities are specifically allowed to require registering and licensing bikes and eBikes travelling on highways "under its [cities] jurisdiction" but otherwise are preempted from requiring registration of motor vehicles.(§§ 502.003; 542 .202(4)). -Safety Equipment: bikes , eBikes, mopeds , and scooters must have lights on front and rear if operated at night. (§551.104) B. Rules of Road for vehicles apply to bicycles , electric bicycles , mopeds and scooters when on a highway or bike path.(§551.10 I , 551.002 , 551 .352) C. Exception to following Rules of the Road for bicycles , ebikes , mopeds and scooters: You don 't have to follow the rules of the road i) when to apply a rule which by its nature would be nonsensical to apply; or ii) when statute specifically alters this rule for bicycles, ebikes or scooters(§§ 551.001 , 551.002 , 551.101 , 551.352) coaters: I ) Can o nl y o perate o n stre et for w hi ch s peed limit i 35 mph r less (altho ' can just cross road s with hi g her s peed limits at inte rsecti o n) 2) Cities may (i.e. have the option) to prohibit motor-assisted scooters on a highway , street or sidewalk (§551.352) E. Statutes specifically altering Rules of the Road for eBikes: I) Cities may NOT prohibit eBikes on highways nor prohibit eBikes anywhere a regular bike is allowed unless not open to motor vehicles and a natural tread is created without surface • materials. (§551.106) [MAP comment: second half of this is most likely result of special interest] 2) eBikes i) do not need to be registered ; ii) don 't need DL to operate; and iii) no need auto liability insurance; 3) Can 't operate unless motor disengages when stop pedaling or when apply brakes ; and 4) Need be minimum 15 yrs old if operate Class 3 electric bike . (§551.107) jL J~ 5) EBikes must be labeled re which class they are along with other info. (§664.002) A~ 6) Class 3 EBikes must have a speedometer. (§664 .004) Tex. Transp. Code§ 541.201 This document is cur rent through the 2021 Regular Session , 87th Legislature with the except ion of HB 4, HB 18 , HB 19, HB 29, HB 39, HB 72 , HB 79 , HB 80 , HB 133, HB 246, HB 295 , HB 368 , HB 385 , HB 465 , H 531, HB 547 , HB 549 , HB 558, HB 569 , HB 572, HB 619, HB 624 , HB 692, HB 700 , HB 769 , HB 792, HB 872, H 900 , HB 911, HB 929 , HB 954, HB 957 , HB 988 , HB 1069, HB 1154, HB 1172 , HB 1247, HB 1259, HB 1280 , HB 1321, HB 1371 , HB 1400 , HB 1423 , HB 1456 , HB 1480 , HB 1493, HB 1505, HB 1514 , HB 1516, HB 1518 , HB 1525 HB 1535 , HB 1540, HB 1545, HB 1558, HB 1560 , HB 1564, HB 1570, HB 1571 , HB 1589 , HB 1659, HB 1664 , B 1694, HB 1706, HB 1758, HB 1849, HB 1919, HB 1925, HB 1927, HB 1929 , HB 2056, HB 2058, HB 2063, B 2073 , HB 2080, HB 2090, HB 2106, HB 2110 , HB 2116 , HB 2201 , HB 2237 , HB 2283, HB 2287, HB 2315 , B 2352, HB 2361, HB 2416, HB 2462, HB 2483 , HB 2497 , HB 2519 , HB 2521 , HB 2533 , HB 2595 , HB 2607 , B 2622, HB 2633, HB 2658 , HB 2675, HB 2706 , HB 2708, HB 2728 , HB 2730, HB 2807 , HB 2831, HB 2850 , B 2857, HB 2896, HB 2911, HB 2924, HB 2926 , HB 3009 , HB 3026 , HB 3088 , HB 3107, HB 3115, HB 3121 , B 3140, HB 3157, HB 3212, HB 3217 , HB 3257 , HB 3261 , HB 3271, HB 3286, HB 3289 , HB 3319, HB 3324 , B 3363, HB 3375, HB 3433, HB 3456 , HB 3459, HB 3481 , HB 3489, HB 3510. HB 3512 , HB 3521 , HB 3530, B 3606, HB 3607 , HB 3610, HB 3617, HB 3630 , HB 3712 , HB 3720, HB 3752 , HB 3767 , HB 3774 , HB 3777, B 3800, HB 3807 , HB 3821, HB 3853, HB 3897 , HB 3898 , HB 3920, HB 3924, HB 3932, HB 3938 , HB 3961, B 4030 , HB 4124, HB 4279, HB 4293, HB 4294, HB 4346, HB 4368, HB 4374, HB 4472, HB 4474, HB 4477 , B 4492, HB 4509, HB 4544, HB 4555, HB 4580 , HB 4590 , HB 4604, HB 4605 , HB 4609 , HB 4612, HB 4617 , HB 4626, HB 4627 , HB 4638, HB 4645 , HB 4646 , HB 4651 , HB 4652 , HB 4658 , HB 4659, SB 3, SB 4, SB 13, SB nl 5, SB 19 , SB 20, SB 24 , SB 25, SB 30, SB 41 , SB 49, SB 50 , SB 63, SB 69, SB 73, SB 109 , SB 111, SB 112, SB 113 , SB 123, SB 153, SB 157, SB 179, SB 181 , SB 198, SB 199 , SB 202, SB 219 , SB 224 , SB 225, SB 226, SB 239, SB 248, I SB 286 , SB 288, SB 295, SB 312 , SB 313, SB 321, SB 398, SB 415, SB 452, SB 456, SB 476 , SB 598, SB 600 , I SB 611 , SB 615 , SB 623, SB 626 , SB 678, SB 696, SB 703, SB 705 , SB 709 , SB 713 , SB 741 , SB 760 , SB 766 , I SB 768, SB 776 , SB 790 , SB 799, SB 800 , SB 801 , SB 809, SB 827 , SB 855 , SB 876, SB 900, SB 90 1, SB 907 , SB 910 , SB 916, SB 938, SB 966 , SB 967, SB 968 , SB 969, SB 970, SB 993 , SB 1019, SB 1047, 1B 1056, SB 1059, SB 1061 , SB 1065, SB 1071 , SB 1088, SB 1094 , SB 1111 , SB 1123, SB 1125 , SB 1126, SB 1 32 , SB 1137, SB 1155, SB 1160 , SB 1164 , SB 1179, SB 1208 , SB 1227, SB 1232, SB 1244, SB 1267, SB 128 1, B 1296 , SB 1315, SB 1336, SB 1341 , SB 1351 , SB 1365, SB 1385 , SB 1438, SB 1480, SB 1490 , SB 1495, SB 1 31 , SB 1541, SB 1575, SB 1578 , SB 1580. se 1588, SB 1602 , SB 1615, SB 1648, SB 1679 , SB 1692 , SB 1696, B 1697 , SB 1704, SB 1716, SB 1780, SB 1817, SB 1831 , SB 1854, SB 1856, SB 1876, SB 1888, SB 1896, SB 1 ·00, SB 1917, SB 1919 , SB 1921 , SB 1923 , SB 1936 , SB 1942, SB 1949, SB 1984, SB 1997 , SB 2013 , SB 2016 , B 2038, SB 2050, SB 2054, SB 2066 , SB 2081, SB 2124, SB 2154 , SB 2158 , SB 2166, SB 2181, SB 2185 , SB 2 88, SB 2193 and SB 2212. Texas Statutes & Codes Annotated by LexlsNex/s® > Transportation Code > Ti tle 7 eh/c/es and Traffic (Subts. A -M) > Subtitle C Rules of the Road (Chs. 541-600) > Chapt r 541 Definitions (Subchs. A -E) > Subchapter C Vehicles, Rall Transportation, and Equip ent (§§ 541.201 -541.300) Notice I""' This section has more than one version with varying effective dates . Sec. 541.201. Vehicles. [Effective September 1, 2021] Mary Ann Powell Tex. Transp. Code§ 541 .201 In this subtitle : (1)"Authorized emergency vehicle" means: (A)a fire department or police vehicle; Page 2of11 (B)a public or private ambulance operated by a person who has been issued a licen e by the Department of State Health Services; (C)an emergency medical services vehicle : (i)authorized under an emergency medical services provider license issued by t e Department of State Health Services under Chapter 773, Health and Safety Code; and (ii)operating under a contract with an emergency services district that requires t e emergency medical services provider to respond to emergency calls with the vehicle; (D )a municipal department or public service corporation emergency vehicle that has een designated or authorized by the governing body of a municipality; (E)a county-owned or county-leased emergency management vehicle that has been (fl esignated or authorized by the commissioners court ; (F)a vehicle that has been designated by the department under Section 546.0065 ; 1 (G)a private vehicle of a volunteer firefighter or. a certified emergency medical servi s employee or vol unteer when responding to a fire alarm or medical emergency: (H)an industrial emergency response vehicle, including an industrial ambulance, when responding to an emergency, but only if the vehicle is operated in compliance with criteria in effebt September 1, 1989, and established by the predecessor of the Texas Industrial Emergency Servl ces Board of the State Firemen's and Fire Marshals' Association of Texas; (l)a vehicle of a blood bank or tissue bank, accredited or approved under the laws of his state or the Un ited States, when making emergency deliveries of blood, drugs, medicines, or rgans: (J)a vehicle used for law enforcement purposes that is owned or leased by a federal ovemmental entity; or (K)a private vehicle of an employee or volunteer of a county emergency managemen division in a county with a population of more than 46,500 and less than 48,000 that is designat authorized emergency vehicle by the commissioners court of that county. (2)"Bicycle" means a device , excluding a moped , that is capable of being ridden solely us ng human power and has either: (A)two tandem wheels at least one of which is more than 14 inches in diameter; (B)three wheels, two of which are in parallel , and at least one of thl three wheels is ore than 14 inches in diameter; or (C)any number of wheels and adaptive technology that allows the device to be ridde by a person with a disability. (3)"Bus" means: (A)a motor vehicle used to transport persons and designed to accommodate more th n 10 passengers, includ ing the operator; or (B)a motor vehicle, other than a taxicab, designed and used to transport persons for mpensation . (4)"Farm tractor" means a motor vehicle designed and used primarily as a farm impleme to draw an implement of husbandry, including a plow or a mowing machine. (S)"House trailer" means a trailer or semitrailer, other than a towable recreational vehicle, Mary Ann Powell '' Tex. Transp . Code§ 541.201 (A)is transportable on a highway in one or more sections; (B)is less than 4'; feet in length, excluding tow bar , while in the traveling mode; (C)is built on a permanent chassis; age 3of11 (D)is designed to be used as a dwelling or for commercial purposes if connected to r quired utilities; and (E)includes plumbing, heating, air-conditioning, and electrical systems. (6)"1mplement of husbandry" means: (A)a vehicle, other than a passenger car or truck, that is designed and adapted for us as a farm implement, machinery , or tool for tilling the soil; (B)a towed vehicle that transports to the field and spreads fertilizer or agricultural che icals; or (C)a motor vehicle designed and adapted to deliver feed to livestock. (7)"Light truck" means a truck, including a pickup truck , panel delivery truck , or carryall t manufacturer's rate~ carrying capacity of 2,000 pounds or less. (8)"Moped" means a motor vehicle that is equipped with a rider's saddle and designed to ave when propelled not more than three wheels on the ground, that cannot attain a speed in one mi e of more than 30 miles per hour, and the engine of which: (A)cannot produce more than five-brake horsepower; and 1 (B)if an internal combustion engine, has a piston displacement of 50 cubic centimeteJ; or less and connects to a power drive system that does not require the operator to shift gears . I (9)"Motorcycle" means a motor vehicle, other than a tractor or moped, that is equipped wi a rider 's saddle and designed to have when propelled not more than three wheels on the ground. (10)[Repealed.] (11)"Motor vehicle" means a self-propelled vehicle or a vehicle that is propelled by electri power from overhead trolley wires. The term does not include an electric bicycle or an electric person~I assistive mobility device, as d~fined by Section 551.201 . (11-a)"Multifunction school activity bus" means a motor vehicle that was manufactured in ompliance with the federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses in effect on the date of m nufacture other than the standards requiring the bus to display alternately flashing red lights and to e equipped with movable stop arms, and that is used to transport preprimary, primary, or secondary s udents on a school-related activity trip other than on routes to and from school. The term does not incl de a school bus, a school activity bus, a school-chartered bus, or a bus operated by a mass transit authority. (12)"Passenger car" means a motor vehicle , other than a motorcycle, used to transport pJrsons and designed to accommodate 10 or fewer passengers, including the operator. I (13)"Pole trailer" means a vehicle without motive power : (A)designed to be drawn by another vehicle and secured to the other vehicle by pole, reach, boom, or other security device; and (B)ordinarily useJ to transport a long or irregularly shaped load, including poles, pipe , or structural members, generally capable of sustaining themselves as beams between the support ng connections. (13-a)"Police vehicle" means a vehicle used by a peace officer, as defined by Article 2.12, Code of Criminal Procedure, for law enforcement purposes that: (A)is owned or leased by a governmental entity; Mary Ann Powell age 4of11 Tex. Transp. Code§ 541.201 (B)is owned or leased by the police department of a private institution of higher edu tion that commissions peace officers under Section 51 .212. Education Code; or (C)is : (i)a private vehicle owned or leased by the peace officer; and (ii)approved for use for law enforcement purposes by the head of the law enforc ment agency that employs the peace officer, or by that person's designee , provided that use o the private vehicle must, if applicable, comply with any rule adopted by the commissioners c urt of a county under Section 170.001. Local Government Code, and that the private veh cle may not be considered an authorized emergency vehicle for exemption purposes under S ction 228.054, 284.070, 366 .178, or 370.177, Transportation Code, unless the vehicle s marked . (14)"Road tractor" means a motor vehicle designed and used to draw another vehicle but not constructed to carry a load independently or a part of the weight of the other vehicle or its load. (1 S)"School activity bus " means a bus designed to accommodate more than 15 passeng rs, including the operator, that is owned, operated, rented, or leased by a school district, county schoo, open- enrollment charter school, regional education service center, or shared services arrange ent and that is used to transport public school students on a school-related activity trip, other than on utes to and from school. The term does not include a chartered bus, a bus operated by a mass transi authority, a school bus, or a multifunction school activity bus. (16)"School bus" means a motor vehicle that was manufactured in compliance with the fe · eral motor vehicle safety standards for school buses in effect on the date of manufacture and that is sed to transport pre-primary, primary, or secondary students on a route to or from school or on a\school- related activity trip other than on routes to and from school. The term dnes not include a school- chartered bus or a bus operated by a mass transit authority. I (17)"Semitrailer" means a vehicle with or without motive power, other than a pole trailer: (A)designed to be drawn by a motor vehicle and to transport persons or property; and (B)constructed so that part of the vehicle's weight and load rests on or is carried by a other veh icle. (18)"Special mobile equipment" means a vehicle that is not designed or used primarily to ansport persons or property and that is only incidentally operated on a highway. The term : (A)includes ditchdigging apparatus, well boring apparatus, and road construction and aintenance machinery, including an asphalt spreader, bituminous mixer, bucket loader, tractor ot er than a truck tractor, ditcher, levelling grader, finishing machine, motor grader, road roller, sea "tier, earth- moving carryall and scraper, power shovel or dragline, or self-propelled crane and ea -moving equ ipment; and (B)excludes a vehicle that is designed to transport persons or property and that has achinery attached, including a house trailer, dump truck, truck-mounted transit mixer, crane, an shovel. (19)"Towable recreational vehicle" means a nonmotorized vehicle that: (A)is designed : (i)to be towable by a motor vehicle; and (ii)for temporary human habitation for uses including recreational camping or sea onal use; (B)is permanently built on a single chassis ; (C)may contain one or more life-support systems; and Mary Ann Powell '' History Tex. Transp. Code§ 541.201 (D}may be used permanently or temporarily for advertising, selling, displaying, or pro oting merchandise or services, but is not used for transporting property for hire or for distri tion by a private carrier. (20)"Trailer" means a vehicle, other than a pole trailer, with or without motive power: (A)designed to be drawn by a motor vehicle and to transport persons or property; and (B}constructed so that no part of the vehicle's weight and load rests on the motor vehi le. (21tTruck" means a motor vehicle designed, used, or maintained primarily to transport pr party. (22)"Truck tractor" means a motor vehicle designed and used primarily to draw another v icle but not constructed to carry a load other than a part of the weight of the other vehicle and its load. (23}"Vehicle" means a device that can be used to transport or draw persons or property o a highway. The term does not include: (A)a device exclusively used on stationary rails or tracks; or (B)manufactured housing as that term is defined by Chapter 1201, Occupations Code (24)"Electric bicycle" has the meaning assigned by Section 664.001 . Enacted by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165 (S.B . 971), § 1. effective September 1, 1995; am. Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch.1020 (S.B. 343), § 1. effective September 1, 1997; am. Acts 1997, 75th Leg ., ch. 1438 (H.B. 3249), § ~. effective September 1, 1997; am. Acts 1999, 76th Leg ., ch. 663 (H .B. 385), § 1. effective June 18, 19 9; am. Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 797 (H.B. 1492), § l. effective September 1, 1999; am . Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 085 (H.B. 2204), § ~. effective September 1, 2001 ; am . Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch . 1276 (H.B . 3507), § 14A.833, ffective September 1, 2003; am. Acts 2003, 78th Leg ., ch . 1318 (H.B. 1997), § 2,, effective September 1, 2003 am. Acts 2005, 79th Leg .. ch. 558 (H .B. 1267), § l. effective September 1, 2005; am. Acts 2007, 80th Leg .. ch. 58 (S.B. 11 ), § 4.0o, effective September 1, 2007; am. Acts 2007, 80th Leg., ch . 923 (H .B. 3190), § 2,, effectiv September 1, 2007; am. Acts 2009, 81st Le~ .. ch. 1280 (H.B. 1831), § 1.20, effective September 1, 2009; am. Act 2013, 83rd Leg., ch . 17 (S.B. 223), § 1. effective May 10, 2013; am. Acts 2013 , 83rd Leg ., ch . 254 (H.B. 567), § effective June 14, 2013; am. Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., ch . 275 (H.B. 802), § 1. effective June 14, 2013; am. Acts 2 13, 83rd Leg., ch. 630 (S.B. 1917), § 1. effective June 14, 2013; Acts 2015. 84th Leg., ch . 78 (S.8. 971). § 1, e active September 1, 2015; Acts 2015. 84th Leg .. ch. 1230 (S.B . 1296), § 17.007, effective September 1, 201 Acts 2017. 85th Leg .. ch. 969 (S.B. 2076). § 25, effective September 1, 2017; Acts 2019 Both Le . ch. 485 H.B . 188 2, effective September 1, 2019; Acts 2019. Both Leg .. ch . 882 (H.B . 3171). §§ 1.07, 3.01(3), effective Sep ember 1, 2019; 2021, 87th Leg., H.B. 3665, § 1, effective September 1, 2021. Annotations LexisNexis® Notes Notes STATUTORY NOTES Revisor's Notes Mary Ann Powell age 6of11 Tex. Transp . Code§ 541.201 t 1 (1) Section 2(b), V .A.C.S. Article 6.701 d, defining the term "motor vehicle," refers to a vehicle prop lled by electric power from overhead trolley wires "but not operated upon rails ." The reference to operation on rails s omitted from the revised law as unnecessary because a vehicle is defined in the revised law to exclude a device e elusively used on stationary rails or tracks . (2) Section 2(d), V.A.C .S. Article 670 1d , in defining "authorized emergency vehicle," refers to "a bulances for which permits have been issued by the State Board of Health ." Chapter 372 , Acts of the 71st Legis ture, Regular Session, 1989, changed the regulatory scheme by replacing the requ irement of permits for am ulances to a requirement of licenses , issued by th e Texas Department of Health, for the operators of the am ulances. The revised law is drafted accordingly. Section 2(d), V.A.C.S. Article 6701d, also refers to an "incorporated city." The revised law omits "in rporated " and substitutes the term "municipality" for "city" for the reasons stated in Revisor's Note (1) under Seeton 541 .101 of this code . (3) Sections 2(j) and 166(a), V.A.C.S. Art icle 6701d, excludes from the definition of passenger car a otorcycle and a motor-driven cycle . The revised law om its the reference to motor-driven cycle because that term is eluded in the definition of motorcycle. (4) Section 2(k), V.A.C .S. Article 6701 d, defining the term "special mobile equipment," refers to "in luding but not limited to ." "[B]ut not limited to" is omitted as unnecessary because Section 311 .005 13 Governme t Code (Code Construction Act), which applies to th is chapter, and Section 312 .011(19). Government Code provide that "includes" and "including " are terms of enlargement and not of limitation and do not create a pr 1 umption that components not expressed are excluded . (5) Section 5(d), V.A.C .S. Article 6701d, defining the term "house trailer," refers to "streets and hiphways." The reference to "streets" is omitted from the revised law because "street" and "highway" have the same eaning . Section 5(d), V.A.C.S. Article 6701d , also refers to a "dwelling place" and a "living abode." The refer nee to "living abode" is omitted from the revised law because "living abode" is included within the meaning of "dwellt g place ." Amendment Notes 2005 amendment, substituted "predecessor of the Texas Industrial Emergency Services Boar " fo r "Texas Industrial Fire Training Board" in (1 )(E ). 2007 amendment, by ch . 258, added (1 3-a). 2007 amendment. by ch. 923, added (11-a); and added ", or a multifunction school activity bus" in (15 . 2009 amendment, added (1 )(G); deleted "of a governmental entity primarily" after "a veh icle " in th introductory language of (13-a); added (13-a)(A) through (13-a)(C); and made related changes . 2013 amendment. by ch. 254, substituted "Department of State Health Services" for "Texas Departm nt of Health " in (1)(B); added (1)(C); and redesignated former (1)(C) through (1)(G) as (1)(0) through (1)(H). 2013 amendment, by chs. 275 and 17 , substituted "Department of State Health Services" for "Texas apartment of Health " in (1 )(8); added (1 )(D); and redesignated former (1 )(D) through (1 )(G) as (1 )(E) through (1 )(H) 2013 amendment, by ch . 630, substituted "Department of State Health Services " for "Texas Departm nt of Health " in (1 )(B); added (1 )(H); and made related changes . 2015 amendment, by ch . 78, added the (6)(A) designation ; added (6)(8) and (6)(C); and made relate changes . 2015 amendment, by ch . 1236, redesignated the second former version of (1 )(D), as amended by A s 2013, 83rd Leg ., ch . 275, as (1 )(E); redesignated the second former version of (1 )(D), as amended by Acts 2013 , 3rd Leg ., ch . Mary Ann Powell '' Tex. Transp . Code§ 541.201 17 , as (1)(F); redesignated the second former version of (1)(E) through (1)(H), as amended by A s 2013, 83rd .Leg., ch. 254, as (1)(G) through (1)(J); and redesignated the second former version of (1)(H), as am nded by Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., ch . 630, as (1)('{). The 2019 amendment by H.B. 2188, § 2, rewrote (2), which formerly read : "'Bicycle' means a device that a person may ride and that is propelled by human power and has two tandem wheels at least one of which is more than 14 inches in diameter"; and rewrote (24), which formerly read : "'Electric bicycle' means a bicycle that: { ) is designed to be propelled by an electric motor, exclusively or in combination with the application of human pow r; (8) cannot attain a speed of more than 20 miles per hour without the application of human power; and (C) does not exceed a weight of 100 pounds." The 2019 amendment by H.B. 3171, § 1.07, substituted "motor vehicle that is equipped with a ride s saddle and designed to have when propelled not more than three wheels on the ground " for "motor-driven cycle " in the introductory language of (8); substituted "five-brake" for "two-brake" in (8)(A); added "or moped" i . (9); deleted former (10); and made a stylistic change . Case Notes Criminal Law & Procedure: Criminal Offenses: Miscellaneous Offenses: Fleeing & Eluding: lements Criminal Law & Procedure: Criminal Offenses: Vehicular Crimes: Driving Under the lnfluenc : General Overview Criminal Law & Procedure: Criminal Offenses: Vehicular Crimes: License Violations: Invalid Licenses Criminal Law & Procedure: Criminal Offenses: Vehicular Crimes: Traffic Regulation Violatio s: General Overview Criminal Law & Procedure: Search & Seizure: Warrantless Searches: Stop & Frisk: Reasona le Suspicion Criminal Law & Procedure ~ Appeals: Standards of Review: Substantial Evidence: Sufficienc of Evidence Governments: Local Governments: Home Rule Governments: Local Governments: Ordinances & Regulations Transportation Law: Private Vehicles Transportation Law: Private Vehicles: General Overview Transportation Law: Private Vehicles: Off Road Vehicles Transportation Law: Private Vehicles: Traffic Regulation: General Overview Criminal Law & Procedure: Cri.ninal Offenses: Miscellaneous Offenses: Fleeing & Eluding: Ele ents Sufficient evidence supported defendant's conviction for evading arrest with a vehicle because his i permissible use of an all terrain vehicle (ATV) did not render the transportation code's definition of "vehicle" i the Texas Transportation Code inapplicable or meaningless. His operation of the A TV showed that it could be used to transport persons on a highway ; and the Transportation Code confirmed an A TV's capability for such se on public Mary Ann Powell age 6of11 Tex. Transp. Code§ 541 .201 Criminal Law & Procedure: Criminal Offenses: Vehicular Crimes: Driving Under the Influence: eneral Overview Where defendant was stopped by police for speeding and charged under former Tex. Rev . Civ. tat. Ann. art. 6701d, § 166(a} (now Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 541.201), and additionally charged with driving w ile intoxicated, double jeopardy, in violation of Tex. Const. art. I, § 14, did not bar appellant's prosecution fo driving while intoxicated after defendant's speeding conviction because speeding and driving while intoxicated each required proof of an element that the other did not; neither was a lesser included offense of the other under Ti x. Code Crim . Proc. Ann. art. 37.09; nor was speeding an essential element of driving while intoxicated. Kannin v. State 816 S.W.2d 126. 1991 Tex. APP. LEXIS 1964 (Tex. App. Houston 14th Dist. Aug. 8, 1991, no writ). Criminal Law & Procedure: Criminal Offenses: Vehicular Crimes: License Violations: Invalid Li enses Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 521 .021, 521.025 apply to private motor vehicle operators and are n t restricted to operators of motor vehicles for hire ; the term "motor vehicle " means "a self-propelled vehicle" and t t definition is not confined to vehicles being driven for hire, pursuant to Tex . Transp. Code Ann. § 521 .001(b). for v. State No. 09-07-00493-CR No. 09-07-00494-CR No. 09-07-00495-CR 2009 Tex . A . LEXIS 718 Tex. A . Beaumont Feb. 4. 2009), pet. refd No. PD-0581 -09. 2009 Tex . Crim. App. LEXIS 1172 (Tex. Crim. App. Aug. 9. 2009), pet. refd No. PD-0580-09. 2009 Tex . Crim . App. LEXIS 1176 (Tex. Crim. App. Aug. 19, 2009)pet. dism'dlNo. PD-0580- 09 No. PD-0581-09 No. PD-0582-09 2009 Tex . Crim. A . Un ub. LEXIS 357 'Tex. Crim. A a 20 2009, pet. refd No. PD-0582-09. 2009 Tex . Crim . App. LEXIS 1100 (Tex . Crim . App. Aug. 19. 2009). Criminal Law & Procedure: Criminal Offenses: Vehicular Crimes : Traffic Regulation Violations: General Overview Officer's stop for traffic violations was valid, because defendant was observed committing a traffi violation by driving at a speed above the posted limit, and defendant failed to either change lanes or reduce his s eed when he approached the emergency vehicle. Castaneda v. State No. 13-07-337-CR 2008 Tex. A . LEXIS 2 01 Tex. A . Corpus Christi Apr. 10, 2008). Criminal Law & Procedure: Search & Seizure: Warrantless Searches: Stop & Frisk: Reasonable Suspicion In a case in which defendant was charged with driving while intoxicated under Tex . Penal Code Ann § 49.04, the trial court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress where defendant's traffic stop was not uni wful because a trooper had reasonable suspicion to conclude that defendant violated Tex . Transp . Code Ann. § 45. 157, and there was no merit to defendant's argument that the marked police car was not an authorized emer ency vehicle. Heard v. State. No . 09-06-462 CR. 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 1789 (Tex . APP. Beaumont Mar. 12. 2008). Criminal Law & Procedure: Appeals: Standards of Review: Substantial Evidence: Sufficiency o Sufficient evidence showed defendant drove a motor vehicle because (1) the definition of a motor Texas Transportation Code applied , and (2) an officer testified the officer observed defendant driving high rate of speed . Ri an v. State No . 04-18-00458-CR No. 04-18-00459-CR No . 04-18-00460- App. LEXIS 2856 (Tex. APP. San Antonio Apr. 10. 2019), pet. refd No. PD-0605-19 2019 Tex. Cri Mary Ann Powell '' Tex. Transp. Code§ 541.201 Governments: Local Governments: Home Rule City of Dallas bicycle helmet ordinance is not preempted by the Constitution or general laws of the S te of Texas. None of the statutes cited by an opponent of the ordinance, including Tex . Transp. Code Ann. §§ 1.201(2), (9), 547.002, 551.101-551.105, limited, with unmistakable clarity, a home-rule city's exercise of its pow rs to enact a bicycle helmet ordinance . State v. Portillo 314 S. W.3d 210 2010 Tex. A . LEXIS 3258 Tex. A . El Paso A r. 30, 2010, no pet.). Governments: Local Governments: Ordinances & Regulations City of Dallas bicycle helmet ordinance is not preempted by the Constitution or general laws of the Sate of Texas . None of the statutes cited by an opponent of the ordinance, including Tex . Transp . Code Ann. §§ 1.201(2), (9), 547.002 , 551 .101-551 .105, limit-..d, with unmistakable clarity, a home-rule city's exercise of its pow rs to enact a bicycle helmet ordinance. State v. Portillo 314 S. W.3d 210 2010 Tex . A . LEXIS 3258 Tex . A . El Paso A r. 30. 2010. no pet.). Transportation Law: Private Vehicles I Sufficient evidence showed defendant drove a motor vehicle because (1) the definition of a motor ehicle in the Texas Transportation Code applied, and (2) an officer testified the officer observed defendant driving high rate of speed. Ri an v. State No. 04-18-00458-CR No . 04-18-00459-CR No. 04-18-00460- App. LEXIS 2856 (Tex . App . San Antonio Apr. 10. 2019), pet. refd No. PD-0605-19 2019 Tex. Cri 917 (Tex. Crim. APP . Sept. 11. 2019), pet. refd No . PD-0603-19 2019 Tex. Crim. A . LEXIS 876 7i Sept. 11 . 2019), pet. refd No. PD-0604-19 2019 Tex . Crim. A . LEXIS 907 Tex . Crim. A . Se t. 1 Transportation Law: Private Vehicles: General Overview Term "vehicle" applied to both trucks and trailers in Tex . Transp. Code Ann. § 541 .201(23), and thu if the driver violated a statute by swerving his vehicle into a lane of oncoming traffic, he violated the statute egardless of whether he swerved his truck or his boat trailer. Crawford v. Tex . De 't of Pub . Safet No . 03-10-00 70-CV 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 4638 (Tex . App. Austin June 16. 2011). Appellant argued that the definition of vehicle in the charge improperly referenced the Occupations C de, but Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 38.04(c) stated that the term ~ehicle" had the same definition as under Tex. ransp . Code Ann.§ 541.201, and the definition of vehicle in the charge matched the definition in§ 541.201(23), w ich included a reference to the Occupations Code; thus, the definition tracked the relevant statute. Shi v. Stat No . 01-09- 00973-CR. 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 1976 (Tex. App. Houston 1st Dist. Mar. 17. 2011), pet. refd No. PD-0585-11 2011 Tex. Crim . App. LEXIS 1057 (Tex. Crim . App . Aug. 24, 2011). Transportation Law: Private Vehicles: Off Road Vehicles Sufficient evidence supported defendant's conviction for evading arrest with a vehicle because his i permissible use of an all terrain vehicle (ATV) did not render the transportation code's definition of "vehicle" n the Texas Transportation Code inapplicable or meaningless. His operation of the ATV showed that it could be used to transport persons on a highway; and the Transportation Code confirmed an ATV's capability for such se on public Mary Ann Powell Tex. Transp. Code§ 541.201 streets, roads, and highways. Thom son v. State No . 12-13-00264-CR 2014 Tex . A Tyler July 23. 2014). Transportation Law: Private Vehicles: Traffic Regulation: General Overview age 10of11 Officer's stop for traffic violations was valid, because defendant was observed committing a tra c violation by driving at a speed above the posted limit, and defendant failed to either change lanes or reduce his peed when he approached the emergency vehicle. Castaneda v. State No . 13-07-337-CR 2008 Tex. A . LEXIS 2 01 Tex . A . Corpus Christi Apr. 10. 2008). In a case in which defendant was charged with driving while intoxicated under Tex. Penal Code An . § 49.04, the trial court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress where defendant's traffic stop was not uni wful because a trooper had reasonable suspicion to conclude that defendant violated Tex . Transp . Code Ann. § 545.157, and there was no merit to defendant's argument that the marked police car was not an authorized emer ency vehicle. Heard v. State. No . 09-06-462 CR. 2008 Tex . App . LEXIS 1789 (Tex. App. Beaumont Mar. 12. 2008). Notes to Unpublished Decisions Criminal Law & Procedure: Criminal Offenses: Vehicular Crimes: License Violations: Revo ed & Suspended Licenses Criminal Law & Procedure: Criminal Offenses: Vehicular Crimes: License Violations: Revoked & Suspended Licenses Unpublished decision : While the statutory definitions may encompass commercial activities, they w re not lim ited solely to commercial endeavors. Perkins v. State No . 03-14-00733-CR 2016 Tex . A . LEXIS 17 0 Tex. A Austin Feb . 19, 2016), cert. denied , 137 S. Ct. 1070, 197 L. Ed. 2d 178, 2017 U.S. LEXIS 1108 (U.S. 017). Opinion Notes Attorney General Opinions Dual Use Tractor. A tractor used for farming and for on-road transportation of farm goods is a farm tractor. 1941 Tex. p. Att'y Gen. 0-3823. Vehicle is a Motorcycle. Vehicle is a Motorcycle. Chapters 501 and 502 of the Tex. Transp . Code Ann . govern the titling and registration of motor vehi les, including motorcycles. Depending on its des ign and characteristics , a vehicle may be a motorcycle und r subsection 521.001(a)(6-1), § 541 .201 , or§ 501.008 , each with its own specified seating requirements. Ave icle that is a motorcycle under§§ 521 .001 and 501 .008 may have a seat other than a saddle as specified in thos statutes. To qualify as a motorcycle under § 541 .20 1, a vehicle must be equipped with a rider's saddle, which is a at designed similarly to a horse saddle to be straddled by the rider. Whether a particular vehicle qualifies as a mot rcycle under §§ 501.008, 521.001 , or 541.201, or some other vehicle regulated in the Transportation Code, would d pend on the particular facts . 2020 Tex. Op. Att'y Gen . KP-0331 . Mary Ann Powell '' ge 11 of 11 Tex. Transp. Code§ 541.201 Research References & Practice Aids Treatises 4-60 Texas Torts and Remedies § 60.02, TORT CLAIMS AGAINST PUBLIC ENTITIES AND MPLOYEES, TEXAS TORT CLAIMS ACT, Scope of Liability , Texas Torts and Remedies. Practice Guides 19-293 Dorsaneo, Texas Litigation Guide § 293 .10, Pleadings in Personal Injury Litigation ( hs. 290-351), General Negligence Liability (Chs. 290-293), Coverage of Texas Tort Claims Act, Dorsaneo , Texas Li gation Guide. Hierarchy Notes: Tex. Transp. Code Title 7 Tex. Transp . Code Title 7. Subtil. C. Ch. 541 Texas Statutes & Codes Annotated by Lex isNexis® Copyright© 2021 Matthew Bender & Company , Inc . a member of the LexlsNexls Group . All rights reserved . End of Document Mary Ann Powell 541.201: (2) "Bicycle" means a device that a person may ride and that: (A) is capable of being ridden solely using human power; and (B) has two tandem wheels at least one of which is more than 14 inches in diameter. (9) "Motorcycle" means a motor vehicle, other than a tractor or moped, that is equipped with a rider's saddle and designed to have when propelled not more than three wheels on '[he ground. (11) "Motor vehicle" means a self-propelled vehicle or a vehicle that is propelled by electric p wer from overhead trolley wires . The term does not include an electric bicycle or an electric personal assistive mobility device, as defined by Section 551 .201 . I (23) "Vehicle" means a device that can be used to transport or draw persons or property on a highway. The term does not include: (A) a device exclusively used on stationary rails or tracks; or (B) manufactured housing as that term is defined by Chapter 1201, Occupations Co e . (24) "Electric bicycle" has the meaning assigned by Section 664.001 . (Sec. 664. 001. Definitions. In this chapter: (1) "Class 1 electric bicycle" means an electric bicycle : (A) equipped with a motor that assists the rider only when the rider is pedaling; and (BJ with a top assisted speed of 20 miles per hour or less . (2) "Class 2 electric bicycle" means an electric bicycle: (A) equipped with a motor that may be used to propel the bicycle without the pedaling of the ~ der; and (BJ with a top assisted speed of 20 miles per hour or less . (3) "Class 3 electric bicycle" means an electric bicycle: (A) equipped with a motor that assists the rider only when the rider is pedaling; and (BJ with a top assisted speed of more than 20 but less than 28 miles per hour. (4) "Electric bicycle" means a bicycle: (A) equipped with: (I) fully operable pedals; and (ii) an electric motor of fewer than 750 watts; and (BJ with a top assisted speed of 28 miles per hour or less . (SJ "Top assisted speed" means the speed at which the bicycle's motor ceases propelling the bi ycle or assisting the rider. ( .. Tex. Transp. Code§ 551.001 This document is current throLgh the 2021 Regular Session , 87th Legislature with the exception of B 4, HB 18, HB 19, HB 29, HB 39, HB 72, HB 79, HB 80, HB 133, HB 246, HB 295, HB 368, HB 385, HB 465, H 531, HB 547, HB 549, HB 558, HB 569, HB 572, HB 619, HB 624, HB 692, HB 700, HB 769, HB 792, HB 872, HB 900, HB 911, HB929, HB954, HB957, HB988, HB 1069, HB 1154, HB 1172, HB 1247, HB 1259, HB 1280, HB 1 21, HB 1371, HB 1400, HB 1423, HB 1456, HB 1480, HB 1493, HB 1505, HB 1514, HB 1516, HB 1518, HB 1525, B 1535, HB 1540, HB 1545, HB 1558, HB 1560, HB 1564, HB 1570, HB 1571, HB 1589, HB 1659, HB 1664, H 1694, HB 1706, HB 1758, HB 1849, HB 1919, HB 1925, HB 1927, HB 1929, HB 2056, HB 2058, HB 2063, H 2073, HB 2080, HB 2090, HB 2106, HB 2110, HB 2116, HB 2201, HB 2237, HB 2283, HB 2287, HB 2315, H 2352, HB 2361, HB 2416, HB 2462, HB 2483, HB 2497, HB 2519, HB 2521 , HB 2533, HB 2595, HB 2607 , H~ 2622, HB 2633, HB 2658, HB 2675, HB 2706, HB 2708, HB 2728, HB 2730, HB 2807, HB 2831, HB 2850, HB 2857, HB 2896, HB 2911, HB 2924, HB 2926, HB 3009, HB 3026, HB 3088, HB 3107, HB 3115, HB 3121, H~ 3140, HB 3157, HB 3212, HB 3217, HB 3257, HB 3261, HB 3271, HB 3286, HB 3289, HB 3319, HB 3324, H 3363, HB 3375, HB 3433, HB 3456, HB 3459, HB 3481, HB 3489, HB 3510. HB 3512, HB 3521, HB 3530, H 3606, HB 3607, HB 3610, HB 3617, HB 3630, HB 3712, HB 3720, HB 3752, HB 3767, HB 3774, HB 3777, H 3800, HB 3807, HB 3821, HB 3853, HB 3897, HB 3898, HB 3920, HB 3924, HB 3932, HB 3938, HB 3961, H 4030, HB 4124, HB 4279, HB 4293, HB 4294, HB 4346, HB 4368, HB 4374, HB 4472, HB 4474, HB 4477, H 4492, HB 4509, HB 4544, HB 4555, HB 4580, HB 4590, HB 4604, HB 4605, HB 4609, HB 4612, HB 4617, H 4626, HB 4627, HB 4638, HB 4645, HB 4646, HB 4651, HB 4652, HB 4658, HB 4659, SB 3, SB 4, SB 13, SB 1 , SB 19, SB 20, SB 24, SB 25, SB 30, SB 41, SB 49, SB 50, SB 63, SB 69, SB 73, SB 109, SB 111, SB 112, SB 13, SB 123, ~: ~:: ~: ~~~: ~: ~~:: ~: ;~~: ~: ;~~: ~: ;~~: ~: ~~~: ~: !~:: ~: !;~: ~: !;~: ~: !~:: ~: ;~:: ~: ~~~: SB 611 , SB 615, SB 623, SB 626, SB 678, SB 696, SB 703, SB 705, SB 709, SB 713, SB 741, SB 760, SB 766, SB 768, SB 776, SB 790, SB 799, SB 800, SB 801, SB 809, SB 827, SB 855, SB 876, SB 900, SB 9 1, SB 907, SB 910, SB 916, SB 938, SB 966, SB 967, SB 968, SB 969, SB 970, SB 993, SB 1019, SB 1047, S 1056, SB 1059, SB 1061, SB 1065, SB 1071, SB 1088, SB 1094, SB 1111, SB 1123, SB 1125, SB 1126, SB 11 2, SB 1137, SB 1155, SB 1160, SB 1164, SB 1179, SB 1208, SB 1227, SB 1232, SB 1244, SB 1267, SB 1281 , B 1296, SB 1315, SB 1336, SB 1341, SB 1351, SB 1365, SB 1385, SB 1438, SB 1480, SB 1490, SB 1495, SB 15 1, SB 1541, SB 1575, SB 1578, SB 1580, SB 1588, SB 1602, SB 1615, SB 1648, SB 1679, SB 1692, SB 1696, B 1697, SB 1704, SB 1716, SB 1780, SB 1817, SB 1831, SB 1854, SB 1856, SB 1876, SB 1888, SB 1896, SB 19 0, SB 1917, SB 1919, SB 1921, SB 1923, tB 1936, SB 1942, SB 1949, SB 1984, SB 1997, SB 2013, SB 2016, B 2038, SB 2050, SB 2054, SB 2066 , SB 2081, SB 2124, SB 2154, SB 2158, SB 2166, SB 2181,.SB 2185, SB 21 8, SB 2193 and SB 2212. Texas Statutes & Codes Annotated by LexlsNexls® > Transportation Code > Title 7 ehlcles and Traffic (Subts. A -M) > Subtitle C Rules of the Road (Chs. 541 -600) > Chapte 551 Operation of Bicycles and Mopeds, Goff Carts, and other Low-Powered Vehicles (Subc s. A -G) > Subchapter A Application of Chapter(§§ 551.001-551.100) Sec. 551.001. Applicability. Unless specifically provir ed otherwise, a provision of this chapter that applies to a person oper ting a bicycle applies only to a person operating a bicycle on: (1) a highway; or (2) a path set aside for the exclusive operation of bicycles. Mary Ann Powell Tex. Transp. Code§ 551.002 This document is current through the 2021 Regular Session , 87th Legislature with the exception of B 4, HB 18, HB 19, HB 29, HB 39, HB 72, HB 79, HB 80, HB 133 , HB 246, HB 295, HB 368, HB 385, HB 465, HB. 531, HB 547 , HB 549, HB 558 , HB 569, HB 572, HB 619, HB 624, HB 692 , HB 700, HB 769, HB 792, HB 872, HB~1 00, HB 911, HB 929, HB 954, HB 957, HB 988, HB 1069, HB 1154, HB 1172, HB 1247 , HB 1259, HB 1280, HB 1 21, HB 1371, HB 1400, HB 1423, HB 1456, HB 1480, HB 1493, HB 1505, HB 1514, HB 1516, H'3 1518, HB 1525, B 1535, HB 1540, HB 1545, HB 1558, HB 1560, HB 1564, HB 1570, HB 1571, HB 1589, HB 1659, HB 1664, H~ 1694, HB 1706, HB 1758, HB 1849, HB 1919 , HB 1925, HB 1927, HB 1929, HB 2056, HB 2058, HB 2063, HB 2073 , HB I 2080, HB 2090, HB 2106, HB 2110, HB 2116, HB 2201 , HB 2237, HB 2283, HB 2287 , HB 2315, HB 2352, HB I 2361, HB 2416, HB 2462, HB 2483, HB 2497, HB 2519 , HB 2521 , HB 2533 , HB 2595 , HB 2607 , H; 2622, HB 2633, HB 2658, HB 2675, HB 2706, HB 2708, HB 2728, HB 2730, HB 2807 , HB 2831, HB 2850 , H 2857, HB 2896, HB 2911 , HB 2924, HB 2926, HB 3009, HB 3026, HB 3088, HB 3107, HB 3115 , HB 3121 , H 3140, HB 3157, HB 3212 , HB 3217, HB 3257, HB 3261, HB 3271 , HB 3286, HB 3289, HB 3319 , HB 3324 , H 3363, HB 3375 , HB 3433 , HB 3456, HB 3459, HB 3481, HB 3489 , HB 3510. HB 3512, HB 3521 , HB 3530, H . 3606, HB 3607, HB 3610, HB 3617, HB 3630, HB 3712, HB 3720, HB 3752, HB 3767 , HB 3774, HB 3777, H 3800, HB 3807, HB 3821, HB 3853, HB 3897, HB 3898, HB 3920, HB 3924, HB 3932 , HB 3938, HB 3961, H 4030, HB 4124, HB 4279 , HB 4293, HB 4294, HB 4346, HB 4368, HB 4374, HB 4472 , HB 4474, HB 4477 , H 4492 , HB 4509, HB 4544 , HB 4555, HB 4580, HB 4590, HB 4604 , HB 4605, HB 4609 , HB 4612, HB 4617, H 4626, HB 4627, HB 4638, HB 4645, HB 4646, HB 4651, HB 4652, HB 4658, HB 4659 , SB 3, SB 4 , SB 13, SB 1 , SB 19, SB 20, SB 24, SB 25, SB 30, SB 41, SB 49, SB 50 , SB 63 , SB 69, SB 73, SB 109, SB 111, SB 112, SB 13, SB 123, SB 153, SB 157, SB 179, SB 181, SB 198, SB 199, SB 202, SB 219, SB 224, SB .225, SB 226, SB ~39, SB 248 , SB 286, SB 288, SB 295, SB 312, SB 313, SB 321, SB 398, SB 415, SB 452 , SB 456, SB 476, SB ~98, SB 600, SB 611, SB 615, SB 623, SB 626, SB 678 , SB 696, SB 703, SB 705, SB 709 , SB 713, SB 741, SB 1i60, SB 766, SB 768, SB 776, SB 790, SB 799, SB 800, SB 801 , SB 809, SB 827, SB 855, SB 876, SB 900, SB 901, SB 907 , SB 910, SB 916 , SB 938, SB 966, SB 967, SB 968, SB 969, SB 970, SB 993, SB 1019, SB 1047, S 1056, SB 1059, SB 1061, SB 1065, SB 1071, SB 1088, SB 1094, SB 1111, SB 1123, SB 1125, SB 1126, SB 11 2, SB 1137, SB 1155, SB 1160, SB 1164, SB 1179 , SB 1208, SB 1227, SB 1232, SB 1244, SB 1267, SB 1281, B 1296, SB 1315, SB 1336 , SB 1341, SB 1351 , SB 1365, SB 1385, SB 1438, SB 1480, SB 1490, SB 1495, SB 1 1, SB 1541, SB 1575, SB 1578, SB 1580, SB 1588, SB 1602, SB 1615, SB 1648, SB 1679, SB 1692, SB 1696, B 1697, SB 1704, SB 1716, SB 1780, SB 1817, SB 1831, SB 1854, SB 1856, SB 1876, SB 1888, SB 1896, SB 1900, SB 1917, SB 1919, SB 1921, SB 1923, SB 1936, SB 1942, SB 1949, SB 1984, SB 1997, SB2013, SB2016, B2038, SB 2050, SB 2054, SB 2066, SB 2081 , SB 2124 , SB 2154, SB 2158, SB 2166 , SB 2181, SB 2185, SB 2 88, SB 2193 and SB 2212. Texas Statutes & Codes Annotated by LexisNexls® > Transportation Code > Title 7 ehicles and Traffic (Subts. A -M) > Subtitle C Rules of the Road (Chs. 541 -600) > Chapte 551 Operation of Bicycles and Mopeds, Golf Carts, and other Low-Powered Vehicles (Subc s. A -G) > Subchapter A Application of Chapter(§§ 551.001-551.100) Sec. 551.002. Moped and Electric Bicycle Included. A provision of this subtitle applicable to a bicycle also applies to: (1) a moped, other than a provision that by its nature cannot apply to a moped; and (2) an electric bicycle, other than a provision that by its nature cannot apply to an electric icycle . Mary Ann Powell Tex. Transp. Code§ 551.101 This document is current through the 2021 Regular Session. 87th Legislature with the exception of B 4, HB 18 , HB 19, HB 29 , HB 39 , HB 72, H179, HB 80 , HB 133 , HB 246 , HB 295 , HB 368, HB 385 , HB 465 , HB 531, HB 547, HB 549 , HB 558 , HB 569 , HB 572 , HB 619 , HB 624 , HB 692 , HB 700, HB 769, HB 792 , HB 872, HB 1 00, HB 911, HB 929, HB 954, HB 957, HB 988 , HB 1069 , HB 1154 , HB 1172 , HB 1247, HB 1259, HB 1280, HB 1~21 , HB 1371 , HB 1400, HB 1423, HB 1456, HB 1480 , HB 1493, HB 1505, HB 1514 , HB 1516 , HB 1518 , HB 1525,iB 1535, HB 1540 , HB 1545, HB 1558, HB 1560, HB 1564 , HB 1570, HB 1571, HB 1589 , HB 1659, HB 1664, H · 1694, HB 1706, HB 1758, HB 1849 , HB 1919, HB 1925, HB 1927, HB 1929 , HB 2056 , HB 2058, HB 2063, H 2073, HB 2080, HB 2090, HB 2106 , HB 2110 , HB 2116 , HB 2201 , HB 2237 , HB 2283 , HB 2287, HB 2315, HB 2352 , HB I 2361 , HB 2416, HB 2462, HB 2483 , HB 2497 , HB 2519 , HB 2521 , HB 2533 , HB 2595, HB 2607 , HB 2622, HB I 2633 , HB 2658, HB 2675, HB 2706 , HB 2708 , HB 2728, HB 2730 , HB 2807, HB 2831, HB 2850 , H 2857 , HB 2896, HB 2911, HB 2924, HB 2926, HB 3009 , HB 3026, HB 3088 , HB 3107. HB 3115, HB 3121, H 3140, HB 3157, HB 3212, HB 3217 , HB 3257 , HB 3261 , HB 3271, HB 3286, HB 3289 , HB 3319 , HB 3324, H 3363, HB 3375 , HB 3433, HB 3456, HB 3459 , HB 3481 , HB 3489 , HB 3510. HB 3512, HB 3521, HB 3530 , H 3606 , HB 3607, HB 3610, HB 3617, HB 3630 , HB 3712, HB 3720 , HB 3752 , HB 3767 , HB 3774 , HB 3777 , H 3800, HB 3807, HB 3821, HB 3853, HB 3897 , HB 3898, HB 3920, HB 3924 , HB 3932 , HB 3938, HB 3961, H 4030 , HB 4124 , HB 4279, HB 4293, HB 4294, HB 4346, HB 4368, HB 4374, HB 4472, HB 4474, HB 4477 , H 4492, HB 4509 , HB 4544, HB 4555, HB 4580 , HB 4590, HB 4604 , HB 4605 , HB 4609 , HB 4612 , HB 4617 , H 4626, HB 4627 , HB 4638, HB 4645 , HB 4646 , HB 4651, HB 4652, HB 4658 , HB 4659, SB 3, SB 4, SB 13, SB 1 , SB 19, SB 20, SB 24, SB 25, SB 30 , SB 41 , SB 49, SB 50 , SB 63, SB 69 , SB 73, SB 109 , SB 111 , SB 112, SB 13, SB 123 , SB 153, SB 157, SB 179, SB 181, SB 198, SB 199, SB 202, SB 219 , SB 224 , SB 225, SB 226, SB 2 9, SB 248 , SB 286 , SB 288, SB 295, SB 312 , SB 313 , SB 321, SB 398, SB 415, SB 452, SB 456, SB 476, SB 5 8, SB 600 , SB 611, SB 615, SB 623 , SB 626 , SB 678, SB 696 , SB 703, SB 705, SB 709 , SB 713 , SB 741, SB 7 0, SB 766, SB 768, SB 776, SB 790, SB 799 , SB 800, SB 801, SB 809, SB 827 , SB 855 , SB 876, SB 900 , SB 9 1, SB 907, SB 910 , SB 916, SB 938, SB 966 , SB 967, SB 968 , SB 969 , SB 970, SB 993 , SB 1019, SB 1047, S 1056 , SB 1059, SB 1061 , SB 1065, SB 1071 , SB 1088, SB 1094 , SB 1111 , SB 1123, SB 1125, SB 1126, SB 11 2, SB 1137 , SB 1155, SB 1160, SB 1164, SB 1179, SB 1208 , SB 1227, SB 1232, SB 1244, SB 1267, SB 1281, 1296, SB 1315, SB 1336, SB 1341, SB 1351, SB 1365 , SB 1385 , SB 1438 , SB 1480 , SB 1490, SB 1495, SB 15 1, SB 1541 , SB 1575, SB 1578 , SB 1580, SB 1588, SB 1602, SB 1615, SB 1648, SB 1679 , SB 1692 , SB 1696, S 1697, SB 1704, SB 1716, SB 1780, SB 1817 , SB 1831 , SB 1854, SB 1856, SB 1876, SB 1888, SB 1896, SB 19 0, SB 1917, SB 1919, SB 1921 , SB 1923, SB 1936, SB 1942, SB 1949, SB 1984, SB 1997 , SB 2013, SB 2016, S 2038 , SB 2050, SB 2054, SB 2066, SB 2C31, SB 2124 , SB 2154, SB 2158, SB 2166, SB 2181, SB 2185 , SB 21 , SB 2193 and SB 2212 . Texas Statutes & Codes Annotated by LexlsNexls® > Transportation Code > Title 7 ehlcles and Traffic (Subts. A -M) > Subtitle C Rules of the Road (Chs. 641 -600) > Chapte 661 Operation of Bicycles and Mopeds, Golf Carts, and other Low-Powered Vehicles (Subc s. A -G) > Subchapter B Bicycles(§§ 661.101-661.200) Sec. 551.101. Rights and Duties. (a)A person operating a bicycle has the rights and dut ies applicable to a driver operating a vehicle nder this subtitle , unless: (1 )a prov ision of this chapter alte rs a right or duty; or (2)a right or duty applicable to a driver operating a vehic le cannot by its nature apply to a p rson operating a bicycle . (b)A parent of a child or a guardian of a ward may not knowingly permit the ch ild or ward to violate his subtitle. Mary Ann Powell Tex. Transp. Code§ 551.106 This document is current through the 2021 Regular Session , 87th Legislature with the exception of B 4 , HB 18, HB 19, HB 29, HB 39, HB 72 , HB 79 , HB 80, HB 133, HB 246, HB 295, HB 368, HB 385, HB 465 , H 531, HB 547 , HB 549 , HB 558 , HB 569, HB 572 , HB 619, HB 624 , HB 692, HB 700, HB 769 , HB 792, HB 872, HB ~00 , HB 911 , HB 929, HB 954 , HB 957, HB 988, HB 1069 , HB 1154 , HB 1172 , HB 1247, HB 1259, HB 1280, HB 1~1, HB 1371 , HB 1400, HB 1423, HB 1456, HB 1480, HB 1493, HB 1505, HB 1514, HB 1516, HJ 1518, HB 1525, B 1535, HB 1540, HB 1545, HB 1558, HB 1560, HB 1564, HB 1570, HB 1571, HB 1589, HB 1659, HB 1664, H 1694, HB 1706, HB 1758, HB 1849, HB 1919, HB 1925, HB 1927, HB 1929, HB 2056 , HB 2058, HB 2063, H~ 2073, HB 2080, HB 2090, HB 2106, HB 2110 , HB 2116 , HB 2201, HB 2237, HB 2283 , HB 2287, HB 2315, HB 2352, HB I 2361, HB 2416 , HB 2462, HB 2483 , HB 2497 , HB 2519 , HB 2521 , HB 2533 , HB 2595, HB 2607, H 2622 , HB 2633, HB 2658, HB 2675, HB 2706 , HB 2708, HB 2728, HB 2730, HB 2807, HB 2831, HB 2850, H 2857, HB 2896, HB 2911, HB 2924, HB 2926, HB 3009, HB 3026, HB 3088, HB 3107 , HB 3115, HB 3121 , H 3140, HB 3157, HB 3212 , HB 3217, HB 3257, HB 3261 , HB 3271 , HB 3286 , HB 3289, HB 3319, HB 3324 , H 3363 , HB 3375 , HB 3433 , HB 3456, HB 3459, HB 3481 , HB 3489, HB 3510 . HB 3512 , HB 3521 , HB 3530, H 3606 , HB 3607, HB 3610, HB 3617, HB 3630 , HB 3712 , HB 3720 , HB 3752 , HB 3767, HB 3774, HB 3777 , H 3800, HB 3807 , HB 3821, HB 3853 , HB 3897 , HB 3898 , HB 3920 , HB 3924, HB 3932 , HB 3938 , HB 3961 , H 4030, HB 4124, HB 4279 , HB 4293, HB 4294 , HB 4346, HB 4368, HB 4374 , HB 4472 , HB 4474 , HB 4477 , H 4492, HB 4509, HB 4544 , HB 4555, HB 4580, HB 4590 , HB 4604, HB 4605, HB 4609, HB 4612, HB 4617, H 4626, HB 4627, HB 4638, HB 4645, HB 4646 , HB 4651 , HB 4652 , HB 4658, HB 4659, SB 3, SB 4, SB 13, SB 1 , SB 19, SB 20, SB 24, SB 25 , SB 30, SB 41 , SB 49, SB 50, SB 63, SB 69, SB 73, SB 109, se 111, SB 112, SB 13 , SB 123, SB 153, SB 157, SB 179, SB 181 , SB 198, SB 199, SB 202 , SB 219, SB 224, SB 225 , SB 226 , SB 2j39. SB 248 , SB 286, SB 288, SB 295, SB 312 , SB 313, SB 321 , SB 398 , SB 415, SB 452 , SB 456, SB 476 , SB ~98, SB 600 , SB 611, SB 615 , SB 623, SB 626, SB 678, SB 696, SB 703 , SB 705, SB 709 , SB 713, SB 741 , SB 760 , SB 766 , SB 768, SB 776 , SB 790, SB 799 , SB 800, SB 801, SB 809, SB 827, SB 855 , SB 876, SB 900 , SB 9 1, SB 907, SB 910, SB 916, SB 938, SB 966, SB 967, SB 968, SB 969, SB 970, SB 993, SB 1019, SB 1047, S 1056, SB 1059, SB 1061 , SB 1065, SB 1071 , SB 1088, SB 1094, SB 1111, SB 1123, SB 1125, SB 1126, SB 11 2 , SB 1137, SB 1155, SB 1160, SB 1164, SB 1179, SB 1208, SB 1227, SB 1232, SB 1244, SB 1267, SB 1281 , B 1296, SB 1315, SB 1336, SB 1341, SB 1351 , SB 1365, SB 1385, SB 1438, SB 1480, SB 1490, SB 1495, SB 1 1, SB 1541 , SB 1575, SB 1578, SB 1580, SB 1588, SB 1602 , SB 1615 , SB 1648, SB 1679, SB 1692, SB 1696, B 1697, SB 1704, SB 1716, SB 1780, SB 1817, SB 1831, SB 1854, SB 1856, SB 1876, SB 1888, SB 1896, SB 19 0, SB 1917 , SB 1919, SB 1921 , SB 1923, SB 1936, SB 1942 , SB 1949, SB 1984, SB 1997 , SB 2013, SB 2016, B 2038, SB 2050, SB 2054, SB 2066 , SB 2081 , SB 2124 , SB 2154 , SB 2158, SB 2166 , SB 2181 , SB 2185, SB 2188, SB 2193 and SB 2212 . Texas Statutes & Codes Annotated by LexisNexis® > Transportation Code > Title 7 ehicles and Traffic (Subts. A -M) > Subtitle C Rules of the Road (Chs. 541 -600) > Chapte 551 Operation of Bicycles and Mopeds, Golf Carts, and other Low-Powered Vehicles (Subc s. A -G) > Subchapter 8 Bicycles(§§ 551.101-551.200) Sec. 551.106. Regulation of Bicycles by Department or Local Author ty. (a) The department or a local a uthority may not prohibit the operation of an electric bicycle: (1) on a h ighway that is used primarily by motor vehicles; or (2) in an area in which the operation of a nonelectric bicycle is permitted, unless the area i a path that: (A) is not open to motor vehicles ; and Mary Ann Powell ' . Page 3 of 3 Tex . Transp. Code§ 551.106 (B) has a natural surface tread made by clearing and grading the native soil without adding surfacing materials . (b) The department or a local authority may: (1) prohibit the operation of a bicycle on a sidewalk; and (2) establish speed limits for bicycles on paths set aside for the exclusive operation of bi~ycles and other paths on which bicycles may be operated. (c) The department may establish rules for the administration of this section if necessary . History Enacted by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch . 1085 (H.B . 2204), § 12, effective September 1, 2001 ; am. Acts ·'019 86th Leg .. ch . 485 <H.B. 2188), § 5, effective September 1, 2019. Annotations Notes Amendment Notes The 2019 amendment substituted "Regulation of Bicycles by Department or local Authority" for "Regulation of Electric Bicycles" in the section heading; and rewrote (a) through (c). Research References & Practice Aids Hierarchy Notes: Tex . Transp . Code Title 7 Tex. Transp. Code Title 7, Subti,. C. Ch . 551 Tex. Transp . Code Title 7, Subtit. C, Ch . 551, Subch . B Texas statutes & Codes Annotated by LexlsNexis® Copyright C 2021 Matthew Bender & Company , Inc . a member of the LexlsNexls Group . All rights reserved . En<! of Dorument Mary Ann Powell '. •. Tex. Transp. Code§ 551.107 This document is current through the 2021 Regular Session , 87th Legislature with the exception of HB 4, HB 18, HB 19, HB 29, HB 39, HB 72, HB 79 , HB 80 , HB 133, HB 246, HB 295 , HB 368 , HB 385, HB 465 , H 531 , HB 547, HB 549, HB 558 , HB 569, HB 572 , HB 619, HB 624 , HB 692, HB 700 , HB 769 , HB 792, HB 872 , H 900 , HB 911 , HB 929, HB 954 , HB 957, HB 988, HB 1069, HB 1154 , HB 1172, HB 1247, HB 1259, HB 1280 , HB 1 21, HB 1371 , HB 1400, HB 1423, HB 1456, HB 1480, HB 1493, HB 1505 , HB 1514, HB 1516 , H.3 1518, HB 1525, HB 1535 , HB 1540, HB 1545, HB 1558, HB 1560, HB 1564, HB 1570, HB 1571 , HB 1589, HB 1659, HB 1664, B 1694 , HB 1706, HB 1758 , HB 1849, HB 1919, HB 1925 , HB 1927 , HB 1929, HB 2056 , HB 2058, HB 2063, B 2073, HB 2080, HB 2090, HB 2106, HB 2110 , HB 2116, HB 2201, HB 2237, HB 2283, HB 2287 , HB 2315 , 2352, HB 2361 , HB 2416 , HB 2462, HB 2483 , HB 2497, HB 2519, HB 2521, HB 2533 , HB 2595 , HB 2607 , H 2622, HB 2633, HB 2658, HB 2675, HB 2706, HB 2708, HB 2728 , HB 2730, HB 2807 , HB 2831 , HB 2850 , H 2857, HB 2896, HB 2911 , HB 2924, HB 2926, HB 3009, HB 3026, HB 3088, HB 3107, HB 3115, HB 3121 , H 3140 , HB 3157, HB 3212, HB 3217, HB 3257, HB 3261, HB 3271, HB 3286, HB 3289, HB 3319, HB 3324 , H 3363 , HB 3375 , HB 3433, HB 3456, HB 3459, HB 3481, HB 3489 , HB 3510. HB 3512 , HB 3521 , HB 3530 , H 3606 , HB 3607, HB 3610 , HB 3617, HB 3630 , HB 3712, HB 3720 , HB 3752, HB 3767 , HB 3774 , HB 3777 , H 3800 , HB 3807, HB 382 1, HB 3853, HB 3897, HB 3898 , HB 3920 , HB 3924, HB 3932 , HB 3938, HB 3961 , H 4030, HB 4124, HB 4279, HB 4293, HB 4294 , HB 4346, HB 4368, HB 4374, HB 4472 , HB 4474, HB 4477, H 4492, HB 4509, HB 4544, HB 4555, HB 4580, HB 4590, HB 4604 , HB 4605, HB 4609 , HB 4612 , HB 4617, H 4626, HB 4627, HB 4638, HB 4645, HB 4646, HB 4651 , HB 4652 , HB 4658 , HB 4659 , SB 3, SB 4, SB 13, SB 5, SB 19, SB 20 , SB 24, SB 25 , SB 30 , SB 41 , SB 49 , SB 50 , SB 63, SB 69 , SB 73, SB 109, se 111, SB 112, SB 13 , SB 123, SB 153, SB 157, SB 179, SB 181 , SB 198, SB 199, SB 202, SB 219, SB 224 , SB 225 , SB 226, SB 39, SB 248 , SB 286, SB 288 , SB 295 , SB 312 , SB 313, SB 321, SB 398 , SB 415, SB 452 , SB 456, SB 476 , SB 98, SB 600 , SB 611, SB 615, SB 623, SB 626, SB 678, SB 696, SB 703 , SB 705, SB 709 , SB 713, SB 741 , SB 7:60 , SB 766, SB 768, SB 776 , SB 790, SB 799 , SB 800, SB 801 , SB 809 , SB 827, SB 855, SB 876 , SB 900 , SB 01 , SB 907 , SB 910, SB 916 , SB 938, SB 966 , SB 967 , SB 968 , SB 969, SB 970, SB 993 , SB 1019, SB 1047, S 1056, SB 1059, SB 1061, SB 1065, SB 1071 , SB 1088, SB 1094 , SB 1111 , SB 1123, SB 1125, SB 1126, SB 1132, SB 1137, SB 1155, SB 1160, SB 1164, SB 1179, SB 1208, SB 1227 , SB 1232, SB 1244, SB 1267, SB 1281 , B 1296 , SB 1315, SB 1336, SB 1341, SB 1351 , SB 1365, SB 1385, SB 1438, SB 1480, SB 1490, SB 1495, SB 1 31, SB 1541, SB 1575, SB 1578, SB 1580, SB 1588, SB 1602 , SB 1615, SB 1648, SB 1679 , SB 1692, SB 1696, B 1697, SB 1704, SB 1716, SB 1780, SB 1817, SB 1831, SB 1854, SB 1856, SB 1876, SB 1888, SB 1896, SB 19po. SB 1917, SB 1919, SB 1921 , SB 1923, SB 1936, SB 1942, SB 1949, SB 1984, SB 1997, SB 2013, SB 2016 , B 2038, SB 2050, SB 2054, SB 2066 , SB 2081 , SB 2124, SB 2154 , SB 2158, SB 2166 , SB 2181, SB 2185 , SB 2 88, SB 2193 and SB 2212. Texas Statutes & Codes Annotated by Lex/sNexls® > Transportation ..;ode > Title 7 eh/cles and Traffic (Subts. A -M) > Subtitle C Rules of the Road (Chs. 541 -600) > Chapte 551 Operation of Bicycles and Mopeds, Golf Carts, and other Low-Powered Vehicles (Subc s. A -G) > Subchapter B Bicycles(§§ 551.101-551.200) Notice I"" This section has more than one ve rsion w ith varying effective dates. Sec. 551.107. Operation of Electric Bicycle. Mary Ann Powell Page 2 of 2 Tex. Transp. Code§ 551.107 (a)Subtitles A, 8 , and D and Chapter 663 do not apply to the operation of an electric bicycle. (b}A person may not operate an electric bicycle unless the electric motor disengages or ceases function either: (1 )when the operator stops pedaling; or (2)when the brakes .Jre applied. (c)A person may not operate a Class 3 electric bicycle, as defined by Section 664.001, unless th person is at least 15 years of age. This subsection does not prohibit a person who is under 15 years of age fr m riding on a Class 3 bicycle as a passenger. History Acts 2019. 86th Leg .. ch . 485 (H.B . 2188). § 6, effective September 1, 2019. Annotations Research References & Practice Aids Hierarchy Notes: Tex. Trsnsp. Code Title 7 Tex. Trsnsp. Code Title 7. Subtit. C. Ch . 551 Tex . Trsnsp . Code Title 7, Subtit. C. Ch . 551. Subch. B Texas Statutes & Codes Annotated by LexisNexls® Copyright© 2021 Matthew Bender & Company, Inc . a member of the LexisNexis Group . All rights reserved. End of Document Mary Ann Powell •. TEXAS TRANSPORTATION CODE excerpts .... Sec. 551.351. Definitions. In this subchapter: .(1) "M(.)tor-Eis~is~~d .scootet: (A) means a self-propelled device with : (I) at least two wheels in contact with the ground during operation; (II) a braking system capable of stopping the dev ice under typical operating conditions ; (Ill) a gas or electric motor not exceeding 40 cubic centimeters; (Iv) a deck des igned to allow a person to stand or sit while operating the de ice; and (v) the ability to be propelled by human power alone ; and (B) does not inc lude a pocket bike or a minimotorbike . (2) "Pocket bike or minimotorbike " means a self-propelled vehicle that is equipped w~h an electric motor or internal combustion eng ine having a piston displacement of less than 50 cubic centimeters , is designed to propel itself with not more than two wheels in contabt with the ground, has a seat or saddle for the use of the operator, is not designed for use o a highway , and is ineligible for a certificate of title under Chapter 501 . The term does n t include: (A) a moped or motorcycle ; (B) an electric bicycle ; (C) a motorized mobility device , as defined by Section 552A.0101; (D) an electric personal assistive mob ili ty device , as defined by Section 551 .201 ; or (E) a neighborhood electric vehicle, as defined by Section 551 .301 . Sec. 551.352. Operation on Roadways or Sidewalks. (a) A motor~assisted scooter may be operated only on a street or highway for which the p sted speed limit is 35 miles per hour or less. The motor-assisted scooter may cross a road ors reet at an intersection where the road or street has a posted speed limit of more than 35 miles pe hour. (b) A county or municipality may prohibit.the qperation ofa .motor-assist~.g $.9QOt~(.o.n .~,s .~t. highway , or sidewalk if the governing body of the county or municipality determines that th proh ibition is necessary in the interest of safety . (c) The (DPS] q~partment .rnay .prohlbit;the 9R~f~~loo.:qf.a ·rn<>.tor-;:a~s.isteg _$c9o~~F on a hig way if it determines that the prohibition is necessary in the interest of safety . .. .. (d) A person ~Y <>.~rate ~.mQ~Or-:a~~i~t~~®91~r ~l!J ~P.~Jh $.f;l~_-ai:;Jc,f.!'t1PJ110~.i@X.*.§!V. . ~~@J!~oj~f ;l;>icy¢_t~~ or c>n a !>ld.ewaik: ~~~pJ:$_$.iO.ttl~f:W!$.~_ptoy!qe_i;(Jj}{;ffitj~~Q!:l';:~p 3~l§k>_n (?f;~r,~·u.t_t~i applJ~~I~ t<>.Jh~ _qP,ef.a,1i:)n !)j:~J~~~l~;_appUij~ ~t~rth~.-operat(oiJ ;-:pt a, m~t.9~!l!~ t~re'd ~t~r. (e) A provision of t.,is title applicable to a motor vehicle does not apply to a motor-assist scooter. Tex. Transp. Code § 664.001 This document is current through the 2021 Regular Session , 87th Legis lature with the exception o HB 4 , HB 18, HB 19, HB 29, HB 39, HB 72 , HB 79 , HB 80 , HB 133, HB 246, HB 295, HB 368 , HB 385, HB 465 , H 531 , HB 54 7, HB 549, HB 558 , HB 569, HB 572 , HB 6 19, HB 624 , HB 692, HB 700, HB 769 , HE' 792 , HB 872 , H 900, HB 91 1, HB 929, HB 954 , HB 957, HB 988 , HB 1069, HB 1154, HB 1172, HB 1247, HB 1259, HB 1280, HB 1 21, HB 1371 , HB 1400, HB 1423 , HB 1456, HB 1480, HB 1493, HB 1505, HB 1514, HB 1516, HB 1518, HB 1525, HB 1535, HB 1540, HB 1545, H B 1558, HB 1560, HB 1564, HB 1570, HB 1571 , HB 1589, HB 1659, HB 1664, B 1694, HB 1706, HB 1758, HB 1849, HB 1919, HB 1925, HB 1927, HB 1929, HB 2056, HB 2058, HB 2063, B 2073, HB 2080, HB 2090 , HB 2106, HB 2110, HB 2116, HB 2201 , HB 2237, HB 2283 , HB 2287, HB 2315 , B 2352, HB 2361, HB 2416, HB 2462, HB 2483, HB 2497, HB 2519, HB 2521, HB 2533 , HB 2595, HB 2607 , H 2622, HB 2633, HB 2658, HB 2675 , HB 2706, HB 2708, HB 2728, HB 2730, HB 2807, HB 2831, HB 2850, H 2857, HB 2896 , HB 2911, HB 2924, HB 2926, HB 3009 , HB 3026, HB 3088, HB 3107, HB 3115, HB 3121 , H 3140, HB 3157 , HB 3212 , HB 3217, HB 3257, HB 3261 , HB 3271 , HB 3286 , HB 3289 , HB 3319 , HB 3324 , H 3363 , HB 3375, HB 3433 , HB 3456, HB 3459 , HB 3481 , HB 3489 , HB 3510. HB 3512 , HB 3521 , HB 3530 , H 3606, HB 3607, HB 3610 , HB 3617, HB 3630 , HB 3712, HB 3720, HB 3752 , HB 3767 , HB 3774 , HB 3777 , H 3800 , HB 3807, HB 3821 , HB 3853, HB 3897 , HB 3898, HB 3920 , HB 3924 , HB 3932 , HB 3938 , HB 3961 , H 4030 , HB 4124, HB 4279 , HB 4293, HB 4294 , HB 4346, HB 4368 , HB 4374, HB 4472 , HB 4474 , HB 4477, H 4492, HB 4509 , HB 4544, HB 4555, HB 4580 , HB 4590, HB 4604 , HB 4605, HB 4609 , HB 4612 , HB 4617, H 4626, HB 4627 , HB 4638, HB 4645 , HB 4646 , HB 4651 , HB 4652, HB 4658 , HB 4659 , SB 3, SB 4 , SB 13, SB 15, SB 19, SB 20, SB 24, SB 25 , SB 30, SB 41 , SB 49, SB 50, SB 63, SB 69, SB 73, SB.109, SB 111, SB 112, SB 13, SB 123, SB 153, SB 157, SB 179, SB 181 , SB 198 , SB 199, SB 202, SB 219, SB 224 , SB 225, SB 226, SB 9 , SB 248 , SB 286, SB 288, SB 295, SB 312 , SB 313, SB 321, SB 398 , SB 415, SB 452, SB 456, SB 476, SB 8 , SB 600, SB 611, SB 615, SB 623, SB 626, SB 678 , SB 696 , SB 703 , SB 705, SB 709 , SB 713 , SB 741 , SB 0, SB 766 , SB 768, SB 776, SB 790, SB 799, SB 800 , SB 801 , SB 809 , SB 827, SB 855 , SB 876, SB 900, SB 9 1, SB 907 , SB 910, SB 916 , SB 938, SB 966 , SB 967 , SB 968 , SB 969, SB 970 , SB 993, SB 1019, SB 1047, S 1056, SB 1059, SB 1061, SB 1065, SB 1071 , SB 1088, SB 1094, SB 1111, SB 1123, SB 1125, SB 1126, SB 11 2, SB 1137 , SB 1155, SB 1160, SB 1164, SB 1179, SB 1208, SB 1227, SB 1232, SB 1244, SB 1267, SB 1281, B 1296, SB 1315, SB 1336, SB 1341, SB 1351 , SB 1365, SB 1385, SB 1438, SB 1480, SB 1490, SB 1495, SB 15 1, SB 1541 , SB 1575, SB 1578, SB 1580, SB 1588, SB 1602, SB 1615, SB 1648, SB 1679, SB 1692, SB 1696, B 1697, SB 1704, SB 1716, SB 1780, SB 1817 , SB 1831, SB 1854, SB 1856, SB 1876, SB 1888, SB 1896, SB 19 0, SB 1917, SB 1919, SB 1921 , SB 1923, SB 1936, SB 1942, SB 1949, SB 1984, SB 1997, SB 2013, SB 2016 , S 2038, SB 2050, SB 2054, SB 2066, SB 2081 , SB 2124, SB 2154, SB 2158 , SB 2166, SB 2181, SB 2185 , SB 21 8, SB 2193 and SB 2212. Texas Statutes & Codes Annotated by LexisNexis® > Transportation Code > and Traffic (Subts. A -M) > Subtitle G Motorcycles,Off-Highway Vehicles, and Electrl Bicycles (Chs. 661 -680) > Chapter 664 Standards for Electric Bicycles (§§ 664.001 -664.004 Sec. 664.001. Definitions. In this chapte r: (1) "Class 1 electric bicycle" means an electric bicycle: (A) equipped with a motor that assists the rider only when the ride r is pedaling ; and (B) w ith a top assisted speed of 20 miles per hour or less. (2) 'Class 2 electric bicycle" means an electric bicycle: Mary Ann Powell ' . Page 3 of3 Tex. Transp . Code § 664.001 (A) equipped with a motor that may be used to propel the bicycle without the pedali g of the rider; and Annotations Notes (B) with a top assisted speed of 20 miles per hour or less. (3) "Class 3 electric bicycle" means an electric bicycle : (A) equipped with a motor that assists the rider only when the rider is pedaling; and (B) with a top a:ssisted speed of more than 20 but less than 28 miles per hour. (4) "Electric bicycle• means a bicycle: (A) equipped with : (i) fully operable pedals ; and (II) an electric motor of fewer than 750 watts ; and (B) with a top assisted speed of 28 miles per hour or less. (5) "Top assisted speed" means the speed at which the bicycle's motor ceases propelling the bicycle or assisting the rider. Appllcabllity Acts 2019. 86th Leg .. Ch 485 (HB 2188), § 9 provides : "Chapter 664, Transportation Code, as adde by this Act, applies only to an electric bicycle manufactured or sold on or after January 1, 2020". Research References & Practice Aids Hierarchy Notes: Tex . Transp . Code Title 7 Tex. Transp . Code Title 7. Subtit. G Texas Statutes & Codes Annotated by LexisNexls® Copyright C 2021 Matthew Bender & Company, Inc . a member Of the LexlsNexls Group . All rights reserved . End of Document Mary Ann Powell Tex. Transp. Code § 664.002 This document is current through the 2021 Regular Session, 87th Legislature with the exception o HB 4, HB 18 , HB 19, HB 29, HB 39, HB 72, HB 79 , HB 80, HB 133, HB 246, HB 295, HB 368, HB 385 , HB 465, H 531, HB 547, HB 549 , HB 558 , HB 569, HB 572 , HB 6 19, HB 624 , HB 692, HB 700, HB 769, HB 792, HB 872 , H 900, HB 911 , HB 929, HB 954 , HB 957, HB 988 , HB 1069, HB 1154 , HB 1172, HB 1247, HB 1259, HB 1280, HB 1 21 , HB 1371, HB 1400, HB 142 3, HB 1456, HB 1480, HB 1493, HB 1505, HB 1514, HB 1516, HB 1518, HB 1525, HB 1535 , HB 1540, HB 1545, HB 1558, HB 1560, HB 1564, HB 1570, HB 1571 , HB 1589, HB 1659, HB 1664, B 1694, HB 1706, HB 1758, HB 1849, HB 1919, HB 1925, HB 1927, HB 1929, HB 2056 , HB 2058 , HB 2063 , 2073, HB 2080, HB 2090, HB 2106, HB 2110, HB 2116, HB 2201 , HB 2237, HB 2283, HB 2287, HB 2315, H 2352 , HB 2361 , HB 2416, HB 2462, HB 2483 , HB 2497, HB 2519, HB 2521, HB 2533, HB 2595, HB 2607, H 2622, HB 2633, HB 2658, HB 2675, HB 2706, HB 2708, HB 2728, HB 2730, HB 2807, HB 2831 , HB 2850, H 2857 , HB 2896, HB 2911, HB 2924, HB 2926, HB 3009, HB 3026, HB 3088, HB 3107, HB 3115, HB 3121 , H 3140, HB 3157 , HB 3212 , HB 3217, HB 3257 , HB 3261, HB 3271 , HB 3286 , HB 3289 , HB 3319, HB 3324, H 3363 , HB 3375, HB 3433 , HB 3456, HB 3459 , HB 3481, HB 3489 , HB 3510 . HB 3512 , HB 3521 , HB 3530 , H 3606 , HB 3607 , HB 3610 , HB 3617, HB 3630 , HB 3712, HB 3720 , HB 3752, HB 3767 , HB 3774 , HB 3777 , H · 3800, HB 3807 , HB 3821 , HB 3853, HB 3897 , HB 3898, HB 3920 , HB 3924 , HB 3932, HB 3938 , HB 3961 , H 4030, HB 4124 , HB 4279, HB 4293, HB 4294 , HB 4346, HB 4368, HB 4374, HB 4472 , HB 4474 , HB 4477 , H 4492, HB 4509, HB 4544, HB 4555, HB 4580, HB 4590 , HB 4604, HB 4605, HB 4609 , HB 1612, HB 4617, H 4626, HB 4627 , HB 4638, HB 4645, HB 4646 , HB 4651 , HB 4652 , HB 4658, HB 4659 , SB 3, SB 4, SB 13, SB 1 , SB 19, SB 20, SB 24, SB 25 , SB 30, SB 41 , SB 49, SB 50, SB 63 , SB 69, SB 73, SB 109 , SB 111 , SB 112 , SB 13, SB 123, SB 153, SB 157, SB 179, SB 181 , SB 198, SB 199, SB 202, SB 219, SB 224, SB 225, SB 226 , SB 2 9 , SB 248 , SB 286 , SB 288, SB 295, SB 312, SB 313, SB 321, SB 398 , SB 415, SB 452, SB 456, SB 476 , SB 5 8, SB 600 , SB 611 , SB 615, SB 623, SB 626, SB 678 , SB 696 , SB 703, SB 705 , SB 709, SB 713, SB 741 , SB 7 0, SB 766 , SB 768, SB 776, SB 790, SB 799, SB 800 , SB 801 , SB 809 , SB 827 , SB 855, SB 876, SB 900, SB 9 1, SB 907 , SB 910, SB 916 , SB 938, SB 966 , SB 967, SB 968 , SB 969, SB 970 , SB 993 , SB 1019, SB 1047, S 1056 , SB 1059, SB 1061, SB 1065, SB 1071 , SB 1088, SB 1094, SB 1111 , SB 1123, SB 1125, SB 1126, SB 11 2 , SB 1137, SB 1155, SB 1160, SB 1164, SB 1179, SB 1208 , SB 1227, SB 1232, SB 1244, SB 1267, SB 1281 , S 1296, SB 1315, SB 1336, SB 1341, SB 1351 , SB 1365, SB 1385, SB 1438, SB 1480, SB 1490, SB 1495, SB 15 1, SB 1541 , SB 1575, SB 1578, SB 1580, SB 1588, SB 1602 , SB 1615, SB 1648, SB 1679, SB 1692, SB 1696, S · 1697, SB 1704, SB 1716, SB 1780, SB 1817, SB 1831, SB 1854, SB 1856, SB 1876, SB 1888, SB 1896, SB 19 0 , SB 1917, SB 1919, SB 192 1, SB 1923, SB 1936, SB 1942 , SB 1949, SB 1984, SB 1997, SB 2013, SB 2016, S 2038, SB 2050, SB 2054, SB 2066, SB 2081, SB 2124, SB 2154, SB 2158, SB 2166 , SB 2181 , SB 2185 , SB 21 8, SB 2193 and SB 2212. Texas Statutes & Codes Annotated by LexisNexis® > Transportation Code > Title 7 Vi hie/es and Traffic (Subts. A -M) > Subtitle G Motorcycles,Off-Highway Vehicles, and Electri Bicycles (Chs. 661 -680) > Chapter 664 Standards for Electric Bicycles (§§ 664.001 -664.004) Sec. 664.002. Labeling. (a) A person who manufactures or sells an electric bicycle shall apply a permanent label to the lectric bicycle in a prominent location that shows in Arial font in at least 9-point type: (1) whether the electric b icycle is a Class 1, Class 2 , or Class 3 electrir-bicycle; (2) the top assisted speed of the electric bicycle; and (3) the motor wattage of the electric bicycle. Mary Ann Powell . ' Page 3of3 Tex . Transp. Code § 664 .002 (b) A person who changes the motor-powered speed capability or engagement of an electri bicycle shall replace the label required by Subsection (a) to show accurate information about the electric icycle . Annotations Notes Applicability Acts 2019 . 86th Leg .. Ch 485 (HB 2188), § 9 provides : "Chapter 664, Transportation Code, as ad ed by this Act, applies only to an electric bicycle manufactured or sold on or after January 1, 2020·. Research References & Practice Aids Hierarchy Notes: Tex . Transp . Code Title 7 Tex . Transp . Code Title 7, Subtit. G Texas Statutes & Codes Annotated by LexisNexis® Copyright O 2021 Matthew Ben<!er & Company , Inc . a member of the LexlsNexis Group . All rights reserved . End or Dm·um c nt Mary Ann Powell Tex. Transp. Code § 664.004 This document is current through the 2021 Regular Session, 87th Legislature wit!' the exception o HB 4 , HB 18 , HB 19, HB 29, HB 39 , HB 72, HB 79, H B 80, HB 133, HB 246, HB 295, HB 368 , HB 385, HB 465, B 531, HB 547 , HB 549, HB 558 , HB 569, HB 572 , HB 619, HB 624 , HB 692, HB 700, HB 769, HB 792, HB 872, H 900, HB 911 , HB 929, HB 954 , HB 957, HB 988 , HB 1069, HB 1154, HB 1172, HB 1247, HB 1259, HB 1280, HB 321, HB 1371 , HB 1400, HB 1423, HB 1456, HB 1480, HB 1493, HB 1505, HB 1514, HB 1516, HB 1518, HB 152 , HB 1535 , HB 1540, HB 1545, HB 1558, HB 1560, HB 1564, HB 1570, HB 1571, HB 1589, HB 1659, HB 1664, B 1694, HB 1706, HB 1758, HB 1849, HB 1919, HB 1925, HB 1927, HB 1929, HB 2056 , HB 2058, HB 2063, B 2073, HB 2080, HB 2090, HB 2106, HB 2110, HB 2116, HB 2201 , HB 2237, HB 2283 , HB 2287, HB 2315, B 2352, HB 2361 , HB 2416, HB 2462, HB 2483, HB 2497, HB 2519, HB 2521 , HB 2533 , HB 2595, HB 2607, B 2622 , HB 2633, HB 2658, HB 2675, HB 2706, H B 2708, HB 2728, HB 2730, HB 2807, HB 2831, HB 2850, B 2857, HB 2896, HB 2911 , HB 2924 , HB 2926, H B 3009, HB 3026, HB 3088, HB 3107, HB 3115, HB 3121 , B 3140, HB 3157, HB 3212, HB 3217, HB 3257, H B 3261 , HB 3271 , HB 3286, HB 3289, HB 3319 , HB 3324, B 3363 , HB 3375, HB 3433 , HB 3456, HB 3459, HB 3481, HB 3489, HB 3510. HB 3512, HB 3521, HB 3530 , B 3606 , HB 3607, HB 3610 , HB 3617, HB 3630 , HB 3712 , HB 3720 , HB 3752, HB 3767 , HB 3774, HB 3777 , B 3800, HB 3807, HB 3821 , HB 3853, HB 3897 , HB 3898 , HB 3920, HB 3924, HB 3932 , HB 3938 , HB 3961 , B 4030, HB 4124, HB 4279 , HB 4293, HB 4294 , HB 4346, HB 4368 , HB 4374, HB 4472, HB 4474, HB 4477, B 4492 , HB 4509 , HB 4544 , HB 4555, HB 4580, HB 4590, HB 4604 , HB 4605, HB 4609, HB 4612, HB 4617, B 4626, HB 4627, HB 4638, HB 4645, HB 4646, HB 4651, HB 4652, HB 4658, HB 4659 , SB 3, SB 4 , SB 13, SB 5, SB 19, SB 20 , SB 24 , SB 25 , SB 30, SB 41 , SB 4 9, SB 50, SB 63, SB 69 , SB 73, SB 109, SB 111, SB 112, SB 113, SB 123, SB 153, SB 157, SB 179, SB 181 , SB 198, SB 199, SB 202, SB 219 , SB 224, SB 225, SB 226, SB 39, SB 248, SB 286, SB 288, SB 295, SB 312, SB 313 , SB 321, SB 398, SB 415, SB 452 , SB 456, SB 476 , SB 98 , SB600, SB 611, SB 615, SB 623, SB 626, SB 678 , SB 696 , SB 703, SB 705, SB 709, SB 713, SB 741 , SB 60 , SB 766, SB 768, SB 776, SB 790, SB 799, SB 800 , SB 801 , SB 809 , SB 827, sa 855, SB 876, SB 900 , SB 01, SB 907 , SB 910 , SB 916 , SB 938, SB 966 , SB 967 , SB 968 , SB 969 , SB 970, SB 993 , SB 1019, SB 1047, B 1056, SB 1059, SB 1061, SB 1065, SB 1071 , SB 1088, SB 1094, SB 1111, SB 1123, SB 1125, SB 1126, SB 1 32, SB 1137 , SB 1155, SB 1160, SB 1164, SB 1179, SB 1208, SB 1227 , SB 1232, SB 1244, SB 1267, SB 1281, B 1296, SB 1315, SB 1336, SB 1341 , SB 1351, SB 1365 , SB 1385, SB 1438, SB 1480, SB 1490, SB 1495, SB 1 31 , SB 1541 , SB 1575, SB 1578, SB 1580, SB 1588, SB 1602, SB 1615, SB 1648, SB 1679, SB 1692, SB 1696, B 1697, SB 1704, SB 1716, SB 1780, SB 1817, SB 1831, SB 1854, SB 1856, SB 1876, SB 1888, SB 1896, SB 1 00, SB 1917 , SB 1919, SB 1921 , SB 1923, SB 1936, SB 1942, SB 1949, SB 1984, SB 1997, sn 2013 , SB 2016, B 2038, SB 2050 , SB 2054 , SB 2066 , SB 2081 , SB 2124, SB 2154 , SB 2158 , SB 2166 , SB 2181, SB 2185, SB 2 88, SB 2193 and SB 2212 . Texas Statutes & Codes Annotated by LexisNexis® > Transportation Code > Title 7 ehicles and Traffic (Subts. A -M) > Subtitle G Motorcycles,Off-Highway Vehicles, and Elec ·c Bicycles (Chs. 661 -680) > Chapter 664 Standards for Electric Bicycles (§§ 664.001 -664.00 ~ Sec. 664.004. Speedometer. A person who manufactures or sells a Class 3 electric bicycle shall ensure that the bicycle is uipped with a speedometer. Annotations Notes Mary Ann Powell . '. 10 /12/21 , 10:46 AM Te xas E-Scooter Laws [Updated 2021] What Are the Most Common Accidents With Electric Scooters in Jexas? Electric scooter accidents can take many shapes and forms depending on the circumstances of the collision. E-scooters can get into collisions on sidewalks, bicycle paths and public roadways, depending on where the rider chose to rid.}. They can collide with many different things, including motorists and fixed objects. Based on available crash data, the most common accidents involving electric scooters in Texas are: 1. Vehicle-scooter collisions. Drivers are often distracted, inattentive or reckless behind the wheel, increasing the risk of a driver failing to see an electric scooter. In these collisions, the e-scooter rider is always at risk of more severe injuries. 2. Scooter-pedestrian collisions. Many e-scooter riders break the law by riding on sidewalks and ignoring pedestrian rights-of-way. This can result in collisions between scooters and pedestrians that can seriously injure both parties. 3. Defective e-scooter accidents. There have been several cases of electric scooters containing dangerous manufacturing or design defects. These defects can lead to malfunctions in transit that cause e-scooter accidents. 4. No-contact accidents. An electric scooter rider may have to swerve out of the way or drive off of the road to avoid a collision with a motorist. Although the two vehicles never touched, the motor vehicle driver could still be liable. 5. Fixed-object collisions. If an electric scooter rider fails to pay attention or take proper care in controlling the vehicle, he or she may collide with fixed objects, such as guardrails or parked vehicles. The type of electric scooter accident can determine important aspects of an injury claim, such as the liable party. A personal injury attorney in Dallas can help a victim investigate a crash to determine causation and fault, as well as gather key evidence. What Are the Most Common Injuries With Electric Scooters in Texas? E-scooter accidents are often physically and emotionally devastating for victims. They are similar to motorcycle accidents in that the rider can suffer catastrophic injuries due to a lack of protection in a collision with a motor vehicle, fixed object or the road. An injured e-scooter rider may have to spend thousands of dollars in medical care, including ongoing care for long-term injuries. Some of the most common injuries associated with electric scooter accidents in Texas are: • Broken bones • Dislocations • Soft-tissue injuries • Bruising and contusions • Road rash • Scarring and disfigurement • Traumatic brain injuries • Back, neck and spine injuries • Internal injuries • Permanent injuries • Emotional injuri es and PTSD • Wrongful death https ://www.injuryattorneyofda ll as .co m/what-are-the-e-scooter-laws-in-texas/ 1/2 10/13/21 , 5:40 PM I Scooter-sharing system -W ikiped ia WIKIPEDIA Scooter-sharing systelll A scooter-sharing system is a shared transport service in which electric motorized scooters (also referred to as e-scooters) are made available to use for short-term rentals. E-scooters are typically "dockless", meaning that they do not have a fixed home location and are dropped off and picked up from certain locations in the service area. Scooter-sharing systems work towards providing the public with a fast and convenient mode ot transport for last-mile mobility in urban areas. Due to the growing popularity of scooter-sharing, municipal governments have enforced regulations on e-scooters to increase rider and pedestrian safety while avoiding the accrual of vi sual pollution. Scooter-sharing systems are one of the least expensive and most popular micromobili~ options. [i] Contents Scooter-sharin indust!Y_ Rise of e-scooter indust Technolo y__ A[?_l2§. Anti-theft International exQansio~ Asia Euro e South America Harms Abandonment and illeg_9lQUmRing Rigbt-of-wa obstructio _Q_ and visual pollution ln·u and fatality__ Unsanitar conditions Res12onse a!Jd regulations Privac concerns Benefits Last-mile roblem and micromobility. Traffic Sustainabilit Em lo ment Electric char ers Mechanics https ://en .wiki pedia .org /wiki/Scooter-sharing_system Motorized scooters parked for use in Columbus, Ohio Rules printed on the deck of a Bird scooter 1/11 I U/ 1.J/£ I , O .Lf-U llVI Develo_pments and innovations Usabilit Compl iance Conservancy See also -- References Scooter-sharing industry Rise of e-scooter industry ::;cooter-snanng system -W1k1ped1a In 2012, Scoot Networks released a moped-style vehicle that provided a short-range rental of scooters.[2] In 2017, Bird and Lime introduced dockless electric kick ~cooters.[3] Since its launch in Santa Monica, California, United States, Bird expanded its services to over 100 cities and reached a valuation of 2 billion dollars in 2018.[3] In the same year, Lime amassed over 11.5 million rides.[3] Lyft and Uber, the largest ride-sharing companies in the U.S., introduced their own electric scooter sharing services in 2018.[4] By 2030, the global scooter market is expected to be valued at 300 billion to 500 billion dollars. [s] Technology Apps To rent a dockless e-scooter, users download a smartphone application . The application shows users a map of nearby e-scooters and enables them to unlock them. The application also includes a secure payment gateway such as PayPal. Scooters are equipped with built-in GPS chips and cellular connectivity which allows them to broadcast their location in real-time during a trip.[6] Through GPS and cellular tracking, companies can gather usage statistics, track which scooters are being used, and charge customers accordingly for the time spent per trip J 6J Anti-theft E-scooters have built-in features to prevent theft, and hacking. Hackers steal e-scooters and replace the existing hardware to convert the scooter for personal use.17J Users are only able to unlock and ride e-scooters by using a smartphone application; when a user has completed a trip, they use the app to lock the e-scooter and immobilize the wheels.[8 ] Bird and Lime e-sco0ters have built-in alarms that will trigger if someone attempts to move or tamper with an e-scooter without using the app to unlock it. [9] In response to the growing problem of scooter hacking, Lime claims it has developed custom scooter hardware that cannot be easily replaced with third-party parts.[?] International expansion As ia https ://en.wikiped ia .org /wiki/Scooter-sharing_system 2/11 10/13/21 , 5 :40 PM Scooter-sharing system -Wikiped ia ' The market for the Asian scooter-sharing industry is currently less than 4 percent of the North American market size.[10J Singaporean ride-sharing startups, Grab and Neuron Mobility, were the first movers in the Southeast-Asian e-scooter sector.[10J[5J Grab is valued at 10 billion dollars and currently only provides e-scooters from a singular location in Singapore)5J In 2018, Uber secured 27.5 percent of Grab's equity to compete in the Southeast-Asian market.[11J Neuron Mobility owns and operates the most expansive collection of e-scooters in Thailan4 and Singapore. [Q]_ Lime has selected Singapore as the headquarters for its operations in Asia and was the first foreign company permitted to provide e-scooters within the cityJ1 QJ[5J Starting in 2019, Bird and Lime have been working alongside Japanese traffic regulators and testing local markets to assess the viability of an expansion to Japan.[12 Europe Lime launched the first large-scale European expansion of scooter-sharing systems in Paris during June 2018.[13] By October 2018, Lime's app became the top-ranked travel application on Apple's App Store in France.[5] As of 2019, Lime provides scooter-sharing systems to more than 50 European cities including Paris, Berlin, London, Rome, Madrid, and Athens. [l4] Bird launched its own European market-development strategy in Paris in August 2018.[15] Bird's coverage has expanded to more than 20 major European municipalities.[16J Uber's Jump entered the European market in April 2019 through a test-launch in Madrid, Spain.[5] Within a 7-month window, expanded the accessibility of their service from Madrid to 10 of Europe's most populated urban centers.[17J European e-scooter start-ups, VOi Technology fro1n Sweden and Tier Mobility out of Germany, accrued 80 million dollars and 28 million dollars of funding respectively.[5] In 2020, Tier subsequently raised a further 250 million dollars, valuing the company at just under 1 billion dollars. [18 J Since 2017 Amsterdam-based Felyx is active in the Netherlands and since 2019 in Brussels. From 2017 to 2018 the number of shared e-scooters in Europe increased by nearly 200 percent.[19J The European demand for scooter-sharing systems is expected to grow 26 .2 percent annually through 2025.[l9] South America Until 2019, Brazilian startup, Yellow was the largest e-scooter service in South America. [5] The startup set the South American recorC: for an initial fundraising round at 63 million dollars of investment.[20J At the start of 2019, Yellow carried out a merger with the Mexican e-scooter service Grin to form the conglomerate Grow Mobility.[20J Grow Mobility is the largest scooter-sharing service in South America with 100,000 e-scooters and plans to double this coverage by the end of 2019.[2 oJ Other competitors in the South American market include Colombian e-scooter start-up Cosmic Go, and the multinational mobility service Movo headquartered in Spain. [5] Harms bandonment and illegal dumping Multnomah County Sheriffs Office divers dredged out 57 shared e-scooters such as Bird, Lime and Razor and bicycles out of the Willamette River in Portland, Oregon, United States, in June 2019.[~J https ://en .wik iped ia.org/wiki/Scooter-sharing_system 3/11 10/13/21 , 5:40 PM Scooter-sharing system -Wikipedia Right-of-way obstruction and visual pollution Visual pollution is a major concern caused by scooter-sharing in cities due to users illegally parking e- scooters on sidewalks, entryways, roads, and access points.[22] E-scooters that are incorrectly parked litter sidewalks and block pedestrian walkways.[2 3] Riding e-scooters on the sidewalk is discouraged because it disturbs pedestrians and poses a safety risk at high speeds. [2 4] The term "scooter rage" or "scooter war" descr ibes a movement by displeased city residents to Ulegall y dump e-scooters into waterways or bury them so that users are unable to find and rent them. l2 4J Injury and fatality There is limited information on the overall scale of injuries caused by electric scooters.[2 sl However, in a three-month study, 20 people were injured for every 100 ,000 ridesJ26J A close majority were head injuries, and of those cases, 15 percent were traumatic.[26] Broken bones; ligament, tendon, or nerve impairments, severe bleeding; and organ damage are other injuries experienced by electric scooter ridersJ26l Non-riders have also been a victim to electronic scooter injuries through collisions or tripping on the devices in the streets.[2 7] In the United States, 11 fatalities occurred between the start of 2018 to mid-2019. [28 ] Common times of accidents occur during work and rush hours. 33 percent of all injuries result on sidewalks and 55 percent occur on streets.[26] Several accidents involved cars and obstacles on the ground, like curbs, poles, or manhole covers.[26 ] Mechanical problems, such as failing brakes and wheels, and distract ed riders were other contributing factors for accidents.[26 ] 60 percent of injured people reported to have reviewed the training created by the electric scooter companies before riding.[26 ] The use of helmets could have reduced the number of traumatic brain injury cases, yet only 4 percent reported to have worn one.[28 ][26 ] Lime and Bird are redesigning the devices with sturdier brakes to help reduce the mechanical troubles of riding the scooters. [28 ] The companies have also been working alongside cities to d ev elop infrastructure, like bike lanes that will be safer for people to travel. [28 1 Unsanitary conditions Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, scooter companies have to make many changes to their business practices for a period of time. [2 9] Response and regulations Several United States cities have introduced regulations one-scooters and scooter-sharing companies to address safety co n cerns and the illegal dumping of e-scooters. In May 2018, shortly after the initial launch of e-scooters in San Francisco, the city issued a cease and desist order to Bird, Spin, and Lime after receiving about 1,900 complaints from residents regarding sidewalk congestion due to the illegal parking of e-scooters.[3o][3i] As of June 2018 , prospective scooter-sharing companies are required by the SFMTA to submit a business plan regarding safety concerns and sidewalk clutter to receive a permit to rent and own e-scooters.[3i] In August 2018, San Francisco awarded permits to Scoot Networks and Skip, allowing each company to launch 625 e-scooters to jumpstart a year-long pilot program. [3 2 ] https://en .wik iped ia .org /wiki/Scooter-sharing_system 4/11 10/13/21 , 5:40 PM Scooter-sharing system -Wik ipedia ' In August 2019, the Nashville Metro Council in Tennessee, United States, voted against a ban one- scooters in the city.[33 All seven scooter-sharing companies in the city will continue to operate until a selection process to allow a maximum of three companies to continue operations is finalized. [34][33] In the meantime, councilmembers approved legislation in July to cut existing scooter fleets in half, restrict hours of operation, and introduce no-ride and safe zonesJ33] Washington D.C.'s district ccuncil has proposed legislation to establish rules to define where e- scooters can be parked, enforce speed limits, and restrict hours of operation. [35] In September 2019, France banned the riding of e-scooters on sidewalks following an increase in accidents and sidewalk congestion; users who violate the ban will be fined 135 euros. [3 6] Singapore also banned e-scooters on sidewalks as of November 2019 after a rise in accidents including at least one fatality.[3 7] Violators will face a fine of 2000 Sin a ore dollars and/or up-to three months in jail.[37] In response to backlash from city regulators and lawmakers, scooter-sharing companies have launched initiatives that include charity, outreach to low-income communities, and infrastructure improvements.[3 8 ] Lime introduced a donation module on its app called Lime Hero so that customers can opt in to donate a portion of their ride fare to a nonprofit organization. [3 8 ] Lime also introduced Lime Access which grants qualifying low-income users a 50 percent discount to ride on its e-scooters and bikes. [39] Similarly, Bird waived its one dollar base ride fee for qualifying customers, who are only required to pay a 15 cent-per-mile fee.[4o] In addition, Bird is setting aside one dollar per day per scooter to help cities build and maintain bike lanes. [3 8 ] riva cy co nc ern s Scooter-sharing companies collect anonymous GPS and cellular-based data on customer rides; this data helps companies and cities plan for the building of new bike lanes and enforce program rules such as parking and allowed service area.[4 1] Cities require companies to share data that contains the precise details of when and where e-scooters are used. [4l] In November 2019, the Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT), in California, United States, temporarily suspended Uber subsidiary Jump's permit to rent e-scooters and bikes following Uber's failure to transmit real-time data detailing the start point, endpoint, and travel time on all rides as a part of the city's one-year pilot permit program.[ 2 J Uber, backed by several data privacy organizations , argues that the city's policy "constitutes government surveillance" and that little analysis is required to generate a precise log of an individual's movements.[4 2 ] LADOT said that the data is necessary to monitor which scooter-sharing companies are complying with the permit program's rules such as the number of scooters deployed and operation of scooters in prohibited areas.[4 2 ] LADOT does not collect specific data about users beyond trip details , but precise mobility data may contain personally identifiable information. [4l] In a 2013 study, researchers studied location information from cell towers hr 1.5 million individuals and were able to uniquely identify the mobility traces of 95 percent of individuals by using four data points. [ 3] Benefits https ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki /Scooter-sharing_system 5/11 10/13/21 , 5:40 PM Scooter-sharing sy stem -Wikipedia Last-mile problem and micromobility The last-mile problem is a publi c t ransportation dil emma regarding the difficulty of moving passengers from private residences to mass-transit centers i.e. bus stops, train stations, etc.[44] This spatial inefficiency forces passengers to use personal transportation (i.e. cars, motorcycles, etc.) in order to commute the short distance between transportation hubs and their homes . .1:951 The last-mile problem redu ces the intended benefits of public transport at ion: reduced carbon emissions, reduced traffic congest ion, and increased convenienceJ45l Micro-mobility options, provide a solution to the last-mile problem and are characterized as light-weight, communal, and designed for short-distance travel. (15] Scooter-sharing systems are one of the most heavily adopted micromobility services. [l] The ease of accessibility and intuitive usability of scooter-sharing systems will increase the adoption of public transportation and reduce the usage of personal vehicles. [44] Citizens may incur alternative feedback benefits such as increased access to job opportunities, reduced traffic congestion, and reduced air and noise pollution[46 ][47][5] Traffic Traffic congestion is amplified by the increased usage of personal-automobile transportation as a means of overcoming the last-mile problemJ45] 46 percent of all vehicle congestion in the United States can be attributed to drivers making trips within a three-mile radius, and over 60 percent of car trips fell within the micro-mobility range, 0-5 miles.[5][1] E-Scooters provide a means of subverting congestion and output higher speeds than the 9 mile per hour averap-e of automobile traffic within many major urban hubs.[4 8] At the individual level, the reduction of commute time is associated with an increase in economic mobility and advancement.[4 6] In t he United States alone, an estimated 87 billion dollars were lost to time spent waiting in traffic.[5] Micromobility Investor Oliver Bruce has asserted that 4 trillion miles of automobile travel globally can realistically be replaced with scooter- sharing and other micro-mobility alternatives.[45] As more drivers transition towards the adoption of scooter-sharing systems, personal-automobile traffic is reduced.[48] Sustainability E-scooters are powered by electricity and therefore have zero direct carbon emissions. The reduced carbon impact between personal automobiles and e-scooters has been a central tenant in the value propositions of market-leaders Bi rd and Lime.[49] E-scooters art more energy-efficient than alternative el ectric vehicle options; a scooter can travel twenty-times further than an electric automobile while consuming equal quantities of energy.[5] The ridership of e-scooters yields a neutral primary carbon footprint, but the production, distribution, and charging of e-scooters create a significant secondary carbon footprint.J:97][5o] In comparison to personal -automobiles and dockless e- bikes, dockless e-scooters have a smaller aggregate carbon footprint.[47] Buses , bicycles, and personal electric bipedal vehicles maintain smaller carbon-footprints than dockless e-scooters.[47] Industry leaders in the e-scooter sector have dedicated research and development efforts towards reducing the secondary carbon footprint. [49] Employment Electric chargers https ://en.wikipedia .org /wiki/Scooter-sharing_system 6/11 10/13/21 , 5:40 PM Scooter-sharing system .-Wikiped ia ' The ' scooter-sharing system introduced charging jobs that compensate people to find and charge scooters.[5l] Bird can approve workers after receiving personal, tax, and bank-account information.[5l] The process does not require a background check and attracts students and young professionals who want a flexible way to earn extra money.~!1 Companies even offer additional bonuses for missing or hard to find scooters; however, the incentives have backfired because some chargers intentionally hide the device to reap the extra cash.[5 11 Earnings depend on the device's charge and location , but often range from 5 dollars to 20 dollars.[5 2 ] Typically, scooters need half of a kilowatt-hour of electricity which costs about 5 cents.[53] Competition over collecting scooters escalated to criminal acts including impersonating company officials to retrieve hoarded scooters and stealing account information through Face book groups. [s;V Mechanics To sustain the condition of scooters, Bird hires three level of mechanics, Li, L2, and L3, to repair devices. [5 2 ] The most rudimentary level, Li focuses on minor repairs of brakes, tires, and throttles. [5 2 ] The amount of compensation depends on the extent of damage and generally ranges from 5 to 20 dollars.[5 2 ] Developments and innovations Usability ump has invested in improving the durability and safety of e-scooters by increasing the size of the vehicle and adding more-effective handbrakes J 5 J Bird has increased its vehicle size by up to 55 percent to make e-scooters last longer.[55] Lime has doubled the duration of its scooters' usable life through their own design changes.J49J Third-party software companies such as Maas have sought to ease access to e-scooters by developing mapping programs that compile adjacent micro-mobility options from multiple providersJ5 6 ] Compliance In 2018, Skip debuted the first dockless e-scooters attached with cameras taking periodic snapshots to monitor riding patterns, ensure that patrons are not riding on sidewalks, and confirm that vehicles are properly parked.[57] Skip released a second scooter in 2018 featuring a locking mechanism to reduce theft and encourage riders to use designated parking areas.[57] Working alongside municipalities since 2018, Bird has developed a, 'GovTech,' program that gives city governments visibility into Bird's usage data such as localized ridership or congestion.[55][5 81 Bird has also instituted geo-fences and geo-speed limits that limit the functionality of the scooters within prohibited spatial boundaries.(58 ] Bird has publicly advocated and provided funding for city governments to increase the number of bike lanes and improve upon the safety of existing routes.J55} onservancy Partnering with French green-energy provider, Planete Oui, has allowed Lime to convert the entirety of its charging infrastructure to be powered by renewable energy.[59][601 All non-battery materials in Lime's e-scooters are completely recycled for future production.[49] Both Bird and Lime have invested https ://en .w ikipedia .org /wiki/Scooter-sharing_system 7/11 1U /1;j/L1 , 5:4U 1-'M Scooter-sharing system -Wikipedia in carbon offset projects to mitigate the carbon impact of transportation and distributing e-, scooters. 49 Ts91 Jump and Skip have sought to reduce their secondary carbon footprint by introducing swappable batteries fore-scooters; swappable batteries minimize the role of sub-contracted chargers that collect scooters using carbon-emitting vehicles)s4J[57J See also • Micromobilit • Motorized scooter • Bicycle-sharing system References 1. Ajao, Adeyemi. "Electric Scooters And Micro-Mobilit : Here 's Eve~ You Need To Know" htt s://www.forbes.com/sites/adeyem l_ajao/2019/02/01 /everything-you-want-to-know-about-scooters-a nd-micro-mobili ty/). Forbes. Retrieved 2019-11-08. 2. ""ZiQ_car For Scooters" Startup Scoot Networks Launches To The Public In San Francisco" htt _jj_ social.techcrunch.com/2012/09/26/scoot-sf-launch/). TechCrunch. Retrieved 2019-11-09. 3. Hawkins, Andrew J. (2018-09-20). "The electric scooter craze is official! one ear old -what's next?" htt s://www.theverge.com/2018/9/20/17878676/electric-scooter-bird-lime-uber-lyf! . The Verge. Retrieved 2019-11-09. 4. "The Rise of the Electric Scooter lndust " htt s ://news.law.fordham.edu/'cfl/2018/12/02/the-rise- Qf-the-electric-scooter-industry/). Retrieved 2019-11-09. 5. "The Micromobi lity Revolution: How Bikes And Scooters Are Shaking Up Urb C!Q_ Transport Worldwide :__ https://www.cbinsights.com/research/report/micromobilit -revolution/[. CB Insights Research. Retrieved 2019-11-09. 6. MFIGUEROA (2019-01-08). "Micro-Mobili!Y: (ht~://www.ala.org/tools/future/trends/micromobilit ). Tools, Publications & Resources. Retrieved 2019-11-08. 7. Lekach, Sasha (13 December 2018). "E-scooters can be hacked . Here's what companies are doin about it" htt s://mashable.com/article/e-scooter-hacks-bird-lime/ . Mashable. Retrieved 2019-11-08. 8. Frazer, John. "How We're Solv ing The Shared Scooter Theft Problem" JbttQs://www.forbes.com/sit es/'ohnfrazer1 /2019/02/07 /how-were-solving-the-shared ::§cooter-thef!::Qroblem/ . Forbes. Retrieved 2019-11-08. 9. "LimeBike scooters have secret alarms built-in that blare loud noise;, and threats to call the olice, but the company says it's getting r id of them" (https://finance.yahoo.com/news/limebike-scooters-s ecret-alarms-bu ilt-195234779.html). finance.yahoo.com. Retrieved 2019-11-08. 10. Watts, Jake Maxwell (June 2019). "Asian Startu s Sera Over Shared Scooters" htt s ://www.ws·. com/articles/a ~ian-startups-scrap-over-shared-scooters-11559381401 . Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2019-11-08. 11. Singapore, Newley Purnell in New Delhi and P. R. Venkat in (26 March 2018). "Uber Sells Southeast Asia Business to Rival Grab" htt __?://www.wsj.com/articles/uber-sells-southeast-asia-b usiness-to-rival-grab-152202986~. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2019-11-08. 12. "US e-scooter giants set to road test sharing models in J~pan" (b.t!Ps://asia.nikkei.com/Business/S tartups/US-e-scooter-giants-set-to-road-test-sharing-models-in-Ja an). Nikkei Asian Review. Retrieved 2019-11-08. 13. "Lime launches electric scooters in Paris , targ_ets Euro e" https ://www.reuters.com/article/us-lime -aris-bike-share-idUSK~N1JHOPIS). Reuters. 2018-06-22. Retrieved 2019-11-08. https ://en .wik iped ia .org/wiki/S cooter-sha ring _system 8 /11 10 /13/21 , 5:40 PM Scooter-sharing system -Wik ipedia · · 14. i_ime. "Lime Locations" htt s://www.li.me/fr/locations . www.li.me (in French). Retrieved 2019-11-08. 15. GmbH, finanzen net. "Scooter unicorn Bird is now in Brussels as it s eeds u its international ex ansion Markets Insider" htt s://www.businessinsider.com/bird-scooters-are-now-in-brussels- 2018-9 . markets.businessinsider.com. Retrieved 2019-11-08. 16. "Ma " htt s://www.bird.co/ma I . Bird. Retrieved 2019-11-08. 18. "Tier Series C Fundraise" htt s://www.reuters.com/article/tier-mobility_-fundraisin -softbank-grouP-_ -idlNKBN27Q1 IA . Reuters. 10 November 2020. 19. "Euro e Electric Scooters and Motorc cles Market Size Two-Wheeler lndustr Report 2019 - 2025" htt s://www. smarketresearch.com/market-anal~is/euro _e-electric-scooters-and-motorc _ des-market . www.psmarketresearch.com. Retrieved 2019-11-08. 20. "Electric scooter startu Grin mer es with Brazil-based Yaj!q_w" (httQ://social.techcrunch.com/201 9/01/30/electric-scooter-startu -rin-mer es-with-brazil-based-ellow/ . TechCrunch. Retrieved 2019-11-08. 21. Fedschun, Travis (2019-06-27). "Ore on de12uties ull out 57 electric scooters, bikes out of Portland river" htt s://www.foxnews.com/us/ore on-deQuties-pull-out-57-electric-scooters-bikes-o ut-of-ortland-river . Fox News. Retrieved 2019-11-16. 22. Lekach, Sasha (17 April 2018). "E-scooters aren't gettin stolen, the real issue is sidewalk litter" htt s://mashable.com/2018/04/17/electric-scooi ers-sidewalk-litter/). Mashable. Retrieved 2019-11-08. 23. Kaplan, Samuel Burke anc.: Michael (2018-07-09). "The roduct is banned in some cities. The com an is valued at $2 billion" htt s://mone .cnnm m/2018/07/09/technolog_ /bird-valuation/ind ex.html _. CNNMoney. Retrieved 2019-11-08. ~4. "Electric scooters are i nitin new laws, liabilit concerns and even "scooter rage"" htt s://www.c bsnews.com/news/electric-scooter-backlash-leads-to-new-laws-and-scooter-ra e-·u1 -2019/ . www.cbsnews.com. Retrieved 2019-11-08. 25. Hamilton, Isobel Asher (2019-02-06). "Electri_g scooters were to blame for at least 1 ,500 inj~ries and deaths in the US last ear" httQs://www.businessinsider.com/minimum-of-1500-us-e-scooter-i njuries-in-2018-2019-2). Business Insider. Retrieved 2019-11-09. 26. Hawkins, Andrew J. (2019-05-02). "Electric scooter use results in 20 in·uries er 100,000 tri s, CDC finds" htt s://www.thever e.com/2019/5/2/185268_13{:;cooter::_electrJ_c-iQjury_-austin-cdc-ajudy -head-helmet . The Verge. Retrieved 2019-11-09. 27. Holder, Sarah (29 January 2019). "Electric Scooters Sent Nearl 250 Riders to L.A. Erner enc Rooms Last Year. Is That a Lot?" htt s://www.cit lab.com/trans ortation/2019/01/electric-scooter s-safet -statistics-in· u ries-bird-li me-ve99/581482/). Bloomberg. com. Retrieved 2019-11-09. 28. Bussewitz, Cathy. "The e-scooter boom has caused at least 11 deaths since _the beginning of 2018" (https://www.businessinsider.com/boom-in-electric-scooters-leads-to-more-injuries-fatalities -2019-6 . Business Insider. Retrieved 2019-11-09. 29. "Hel to rotect a ainst cor_g navirus" (https://www.rideneuron.com/h~l~tQ_-protect-agaJ!lst-coronav irus/}. 13 March 2020. 30. Keeling, Brock (2018-04-16). "SF issues cease and desist order for motorized scooters U date" htt s://sf.curbed.com/2018/4/16/17244850/scooters-cease-desist-san-francisco-letter-sto -motori zed . Curbed SF. Retrieved 2019-11-08. 31. Bendix, Aria (2018-10-16). "To led scooters, sidewalk riding, and illeg3I Qarking: Electric scooters have returned to San Francisco after bein banned" htt s://www.businessinsider.com/el ectric-scooters-return-to-sc...n-francisco-after-a-citywide-ban-2018-10 ). Business Insider. Retrieved 2019-11-08. https://en . wikiped ia .org /wiki/Scooter-sharing_ system 9/11 1U /1j/L 1 , b:4U t-'M ::>cooter-s haring system -Wiki pedia 32. Sandler, Rachel. "In two weeks , San Francisco will ban any COn:!rJanies rentin out shared, dockless scooters unless the have a ermit" htt s://www.businessinsider.com/san-francisco-ban -shared-dockless-scooters-2018-5). Business Insider. Retrieved 2019-11-08. 33. Jeong, Yihyun. :_Metro Council rejects electric scooter ban in Nashville" l_htt s://www.tennessean.c om/story/news/2019/08/20/nashville-rejects-ban-electric-~cooters-metro-council-vote/20g286900 1/. The Tennessean. Retrieved 2019-11-09. 34. "Electric scooters are i nitin new laws, liabilit concerns and even "scooter ra e"" htt s://www.c bsnews.com/r]_ews/electric-scooter-backlash-leads-to-new-laws-and ·Scooter-rage-·ul~-2019/}. www.cbsnews.com. Retrieved 2019-11-09. 35. Lazo, Luz. "O.C. ro osal aims to 'control' e-scooters" htt s://www.washin ton ost.com/trans ort ation/2019/06/25/dc-ro osal-aims-control-e-scooters/. Washington Post. Retrieved 2019-11-09. 36. Picheta, Rob (2019-05-04 ). "Paris bans e-scooters from sidewalks, citing rise in accidents" {htt s://www.cnn.com/travel/article/paris-electric-scoote~s-ban-iritl/index.html). CNN Travel. Retrieved 2019-11-09. 37. Westcott, Ben (2019-11-05). "Sin a ore bannin PMOs like e-scooters" htt s://www.cnn.com/trav el/article/singapore-e-scooter-ban-intl-hnk/index.html). CNN Travel. Retrieved 2019-11-09. 38. "Scooter companies are trying to rehabilitate their reputations as cities crack down" (_https ://www.t hever e.com/2018/8/23/17769768/scooter-re utation-rehab-lime-charit -bird . www.theverge.com. 2018-08-23 . Retrieved 2019-11-09. 39. Wodinsky, Shoshana (2018-08-09). "Lime expands its discount prorra ~for low-income bike and scooter riders" (https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/9/17670392/lime-scooter-bike-discount-low-inco me-ex and). The Verge. Retrieved 2019-11-09. 40. O'Kane, Sean (2018-07-19). "Scooter startu Bird will discount rides for eo le in low-income brackets" https ://www.theverge.com/2018/7 /19/17593182/bird-scooter-startu -discount-rides-low- income-t>rackets . The Verge . Retrieved 2019-11 -09. 41. Franklin-Hodge, Jascha (2018-10-08). "Bikes, scooters, and ersonal data: Protectin rivac while mana in micromobilit " htt s://medium.com/ 'th/bikes-scooters-and-ersonal-data-rotec tin -privac -while-managing-micromobility-3ee5651 bdf32). Medium. Retrieved 2019-11-09. 42. "L.A. sus ends Uber's permit to rent out electric scooters and bikes" (btt s ://www.latimes.com/cali fornia/sto /2019-11-04/los-an eles-sus ends-uber-·um -scooters-bikes-data-rivac . Los Angeles Times. 2019-11-04. Retrieved 2019-11-09. 43. de Montjoye, Yves-Alexandre; Hidalgo, Cesar A.; Verleysen, Michel; Blondel, Vincent 0. (2013- 03-25). "Unique in the Crowd: The privacy bounds of hum5m mobility" (htt[2s:l/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.go v/ mc/articles/PMC3607247). Scientific Reports. 3: 1376. Bibcode :2013NatSR. .. 3E13760 htt s:// ui .adsabs.harva rd.edu/abs/2013NatSR. .. 3E13760}. doi :10.1038/sreQ01376 htt s://doi.or /10.103 8%2Fsre 01376 . ISSN 2045-2322 htt s://www.worldcat.or /issn/2045-2322 . PMC 3607247 (htt s://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3607247). PMIO 23524645 htt s:// ubmed.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/23524645). 44. "How Micro Mobility Solves Multiple Problems in Congested Cities" ht_!Qs://maas-alliance.eu/how- micro-mobilit -solves-multi le-roblems-in-con ested-cities/ . MAAS-Alliance. 2018-07-17. Retrieved 2019-11-08. 45. "Micromobility is the future of urban transportation 1 Oeloitte Insights" htt(?s ://www2.deloitte.com/u s/en/insj_ghts/focus/future-of-mobility/micro-mobility-is-the-future-of-urban-trans ortation.htmJ). www2. deloitte. com. Retrieved 2019-11-08. 46. Bouchard, Mikayla (2015-05-07). "Transportation Emerge_~ as Cruciql to Esca in Povert " htt s://www.nytimes .com/2015/05/07/upshoUtransportation-emerges-as-crucial-to-esca in -overt .ht ml). The New York Times . ISSN 0362-4331 (https://www.worldcat.or /issn/0362-4331 _.Retrieved 2019-11-08. https ://en .wikiped ia .org/wiki/S cooter-shari ng_system 10/11 10/13/21 , 5:4 0 PM Scoote r-s ha ring system -W ik iped ia • '47. Hollingsworth, Joseph; Copeland, Brenna; Johnson, Jeremiah X. (August 2019). "Are e-scooters olluters? The environmental im acts of shared dockless electric scooters" (b.ttps://doi.org/10.108 8%2F1748-9326%2Fab2da8 . Environmental Research Letters. 14 (8): 084031. Bibcode :2019ERL .... 14h4031 H (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ERL .... 14h4031 H). doi :10.1088/1748-9326/ab2da8 htt s ://doi.or /10 .1088%2F1748-9326%2Fab2da8 . ISSN 1748- 9326 htt s ://www.worldcat.or /issn/17 48-9326 . ---- 48. "Sizin the micro mobilit market LMcKinsey" (_https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/automotive-a nd-assembl /our-insi hts/r11icromobilitys-15000-mile-checkl!P ). www.mckinsey.com. Retrieved 2019-11-08. 49. "Electric scooters: not so eco-friendly after all?" (https://phys.org/news/2019-07-electric-scooters-e cO-friendl .html . phys.org. Retrieved2019-11-08. 50. "Carbon Foot rint -Environmental Laws.com" htt s://environmental.laws.com/carbon-foot rint . Retrieved 2019 -11-08. 51. Lorenz, Taylor (2018-05-20). "Electric Scooter Charg_er Culture Is Out of Control" (ht_!Qs://www.the atlantic.com/technolo /archive/2018/05/char i~g-electric-scooters-is-a-cutthroat-busj ness/5607 4 71 . The Atlantic. Retrieved 2019-11-09. 52. Sisson, Patrick (2018-05-10). "Bird scooters : The Uber of electric scooters has a contract workforce too" htt s://la.curbed.com/2018/5/10/1733687 4/bird-electric-scooters-transit-char er-m -- -echainc . Curbed LA. Retrieved 2019-11-09. 53. lrfan, Umair (2018-08-27). "Electric scooters' sudden invasion of American cities , ex lained" htt s://www.vox.com/2018/8/27/17676670/electric-scooter-rental-bird-lime-ski -s in-cities . Vox. Retrieved 2019-11-09. 54. Smith, Chris (2019-06-13). "Uber unveils brand new Jump electric scooters and swap able batteries for bikes" htt s ://b r.com/2019/06/12/uber-·um -scooters-and-e-bikes-et-new-desi ns- and-batteriesl). BGR. Retrieved 2019-11-08. 55. Hawkins, Andrew J. (2018-09-24). "Bird's electric scooters are getting more rugged to handle heav use" htt s://www.theverge.coI_n/2018/9/24/17886390/bird-electric-scooter-share-ceo-travLs- vanderzanden _.The Verge. Retrieved 2019-11-08. 56. "The future of the micro-mobility indust " htt s://venturebeat.com/2018/06/09/wh -micro-mobilit -startu s-wont-survive-as-standalone-servicesQ . VentureBeat. 2018-06-09. Retrieved 2019-11-08. 57. "Ski unveils scooters with cameras and locks" (http://social.techcrunch.com/2018/12/18/s ~ -unv eils-scooters-with-locks-and-cameras/). TechCrunch. Retrieved 2019-11-08. 58. Bird. "Bird Announces New GovTech Products and Team; Cities Prima_ry Customer for New Offerin s" htt s://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/bird-announces-new-govtech-products-an d-team-cities-rima -customer-for-new-offerings-300704405.html). www.pmewswire.com. Ret rie ve d 20 19 -11-08. 59. Lim e. "Lime Green" htt ://v1 .Ii.me/lime-green). v1.li.me. Retrieved 2019-11-08. 60. Samuel, Sigal (2019-08-08). "We re ret to inform _ou that scooters aren't actuall ~good for the environment" htt s://www.vox.com/future-12erfec.!f 20 ~1 8181207 59062/electric-scooter-environ men t-climate-chan e-bird-lime . Vox. Retrieved 2019-11-08. tp ?title=Scooter-shari ng=system&old id= 1048320834" This page was last edited on 5 October 2021, at 11 :23 (UTC). Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By us ing this site , you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia ® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization . h ttn c:-1 /An wikinAri i;i nrn /wiki/Sr.nntP.r-sha rina svstem 11/11 NACTO Policy2018 Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation Version 1: July 2018 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Shared Active Transportation ........................................................................................................................................ _2 The Public Authority ............................................................................................................................................................... 4 Managing Shared Active Transportation .............................................................................................. 6 Policy areas w h er e all cities should be in alignment.. .................................................................................... 6 Oversight & Authority ........................................................................................................................................... -7 Data Standards ............................................................................................................................................................. 8 Small Ve hicle Standards for the Shared-Use Context.. ................................................................. 9 Policy areas w h ere issues should be evaluated at a local level... ........................................................ JO Small Ve hicle Parking ............................................................................................................................................ 11 Community Engagement and Equity Programs ............................................................................... 19 State of Practice ..................................................................................................................................................................... 21 Fleet Siz e and Service Area ............................................................................................................................................. 2 1 Small Vehicl e Distribution ............................................................................................................................................... 27 Fees and Pricing ....................................................................................................................................................................... 32 Equity Programming ........................................................................................................................................................... _36 Permit Overview .................................................................................................................................................................... -40 NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation I 1 -· Introduction Shared Active Transportation Over the past decade, Shared Active Transportation systems have become a common sight on North American public streets and rights-of-way, creating new mobility opportunities and changin g the way people move around their cities . To create these systems, citi es, local governments, and trusted civic partners (e.g. downt own alliances, community-based development organizations) have typically followed a careful, coordinated process; developing structured public-priv ate partnerships , vetting companies through competitive bidding, and managing and regulating systems through binding contracts, to ensure the best outcomes for th e public . Over the past decade, the long-term public-private-civic/non-profit partnerships developed for, by, and along with bike share syst ems in the U.S. have helped this new transportation option to thrive. In many places, this coordination b etween cities, operators, and other community stak eholders has allowed bike share practitioners to grapp le with complex issues around access and equity, expanding transportation options for low-income people, and focusing investments in co mmunities w ith histories of chronic disinvestm ent. Companies rent small, shared-use-specific, vehicles to the public from multiple locations within the right-of-way. To date, these small vehicles include: bikes, e-bikes, scooters, and e-scooters, but oth er vehicles may be under development. Typically, Shared Active Transportation small vehicles are stored in the public right-of-way. In the initial (a lso known as "station-based" or "docked") bike share systems, customers picked and returned bikes at stations placed strategically throughout the right-of-way and adjacent public and private property. In the new (also known as "dockless") systems, stations are eliminated, small vehicles can be picked up or left anywhere absent regulation, and small vehicle rental is faci litated through an app. As the technology advances, most companies are moving toward hybrid options, where systems can be station-based, o r dockless, or both depending on need. Shared Active Transportation -a network or system of small veh icles, placed in the public right-of-way and for rent in short time increments, that provides increased mobility options over short distances in urban areas Small Vehicles -bikes , scooters, e-bikes, e-scooters, and other small, wheeled vehicles designed specifically for shared-use and deployed by Shared Active Transportation companies NACTO Policy 20l8: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation I 2 ' . I ' ' I In January 2017, a new breed of Shared Active Transportation companies began operating on North American publi c streets and rights-of-way. Many of these companies initially launched absent contracts , permits , or business li censes, often completely independent of municipal knowledge, policy making, or existing partnerships and commu nity programs. In respo n se , cities h ave developed new permitting and li censing structures to manage them and to ensure that public needs stay at the forefront of new mobility adv ances. These companies and their operations typically differ from the initial systems in three ways: They are not selected by the municipality or approved civic partner via a competitive bidding process. They are not managed or regulated through a contract or legal partnersh ip agreement. To date they exclusiv ely use the "docl<less" technology model. This document provides guidance for cities and public entities as they look to manage and regulate Shared Active Transportation Companies that are not otherwise managed through competitive procurement processes or contracts. t focuses on cl earer and moreJ ormal manage m ent of p u blic-use mobility options that are not created under the aus12ices of a gublic enti . The regulatory focus of this document is not base d on the technology or the business plan. Rather, as businesse s operating on city streets , Shared Active Transportation Companies n e ed to be ov erseen and regulated by public entities when they are not otherwise managed through existing processes . The guidance is divided into broad categories: policy areas where cities should be in alignment and places where poli cy should be decided at a local level. In addition, this guidance provides a state of the practice overview for key issues such as determinin g allowab le fleet sizes , ensuring engagement and equity-foc u s programming, setting permit fees , and vehicle dist ribution . This overview is meant to provide an at-a-glance look at how different cities are approaching the same issues, providing cities with the best possible information as they decide how to manage and regulate Shared Active Transportation Companies in their jurisdictions. As the landscape of Shared Active Tr ansportation is rapidly changing, this document w ill be rev iewed and updated approximately 6 month s after release , and updated as n eeded after that. NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation I 3 The Public Authority Codified in city charters, state constitutions, and laws across North America, is the fundamental responsibility of cities and public entities to ensure safe passage on public rights-of-way, to protect public health, safety and welfare, and govern commerce in the public right-of-way and on private property. From this responsibility c omes government's authority to regulate and manage act ivity and commerce in the public street, such as Shared Active Transportation companies . If and w h y cities choose t o allow Shared Active Transportation companies to operate on their streets is a local decision. Some cities may find that all owing Shared Active Transport ation companies to operate in their jurisdictions in a managed-and orderly fashion meets and supports city goal& Others may equally conclude that, such companies impede or detract from local policy goals and should be limited or banned from op erating. In many places , cities have intentionally procured and promoted bike share systems as key tools in la rger sustainability and mobility plans, conceiving of bil<e share as part of a package of services provided to the publi c . In other places, bike share has been a stand-alone addition to the landscape , largely divorced from municipal mobility planning and policy. Demonstrations or pilots may prov ide useful information on how Shared Active Transportation can best serve a specific city but only if the city is expli cit about what it hopes to test and learn. As cities look to manage Sh ared Active Transportation, they need to be clear on where and when company goals align with public bene fits and t o carefully define the terms of success. In thinl<ing through regulation, incentive-based tools may become increasingly important to ensure that the public benefits . In particular, introducing or expanding Shared Active Transportation options provides cities with opportunities to develop, require , and fund necessary equity and engagement programing that .:can increase ridership and help meet mobility needs . For example , in St. Lo uis . companies can only expand past 2 500 bikes if they develop and implement a socia l equity plan and meet other ridership requirements. Many of the new er small ehicles n the Shared Active Transportation arena-e-bil<es , scooters, e-scooters-exist in a r egulatory grey area, regulated in a limited fashion on an individual or recreational level but not envisioned en masse or in an automated rental scen a rio . For example , rules are inconsistent from city to city on w h ere e-scooters or e-bil<es allowed to operate or even how they are defined. This murky equipment landscape further complicates regulation . Part of the success of bil<e share over the past d ecade has come from the high quali ty of bike sha're bil<es which need to meet different and often higher safety standards than bil<es developed for personal u se because they are intended for shared-use and remain in the public realm at all times (examples of shared-use equipment standards include: always-on front and rear lights that remain illuminated after the bil<e stops, or fully-enclosed and tamper-p roof bral<e cables). NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines fer the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation I 4 When and where governments choose to exercise their authority varies from city to city. However, the mechanisms for how and why cities can regulate generally fall into similar categories: Commerce on the public right-of-way The small vehicles deployed by Shared Active Transportation Companies are commercial equipment. In most places, business cannot be conducted in the public right-of-way without an appropriate p ermit. Though cash or credit payments are conducted through an app, the transaction is completed within the right-of-way. Shared Active Transportation rentals should be regulated similarly to other businesses. Zoning regulations In places where Shared Active Transportation companies propose to conduct some or all of their business from private property, local zoning may apply. M ost zoning c odes designate wha kinds of businesses are permitted where. There is wide variation in how local zoning codes are promulgated, so using zoning as a mechanism to regulate Shared Active Transportation Companies is a local decision. For example, in at least one community, publi c bil<:e share is explicitly defined and permitted in the zoning code but private bike share is not. Therefore, enting out bil<:es is not perm1 ea on private property, because it is not an allowed use under zoning. sedt~ ~,~ Regulating where small vehicles are permitted Regulations about how small vehicles are parked on public property also fall s under the general framewo rk o ealili a nd safety. If a municipality permits an oper ation - w h ether it be an ice cream stand, outdoor dining, or a parked bil<:e /scooter -it can designate the area where the activity is permitted to be. Existing Contracts Municipalities with existing contracts with vendors to run local bikeshare systems may have exclusivity or other provisions which limit the municipalities' ability to permit additional vendors/ operators of bil<:eshare to operate or do business within the municipality. The specific language of the contract dictates h ow much the municipality has to do to actively discourage these operations and may ran ge from simple notifications to r emoval of unauth orized bicycles. These contracts may or may not apply to other small vehicles such as scooters, one wheels, e-bikes or others depending on the contract language. NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Tiansportation I 5 Managing Shared Active Transportation Policy areas where all cities should be in alignment All cities and local governments should ensure that their contracts, permits, and licenses address the follow ing core issues in sub stantively similar ways in order to comprehensively m anage a n d protect the public right-of-w ay and provide a level playing field for this new and evolving industry. Oversight & Authority General Provisions Operatio ns Oversight Public Communications Oversight Data Standards Provision & Access Quality & Accuracy Privacy Small Vehicle Standards fo r the Shared-Use Context NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation I 6 Oversight & Authority General Provisions J l. Bike share companies and other mobility service providers are only allowed to operate in the public right-of-way with legal permission (e.g. lic ense, permit, contract) from the City or relevant local 0 government. 2. Cities should reserve the right to limit the number of companies operating (e.g. cap the number of permits or licenses issued, issue exclusive contracts, permits, or licenses). 3. Cities should reserve the right to revoke permits, lic enses, or contracts from specific companies (e .g. j when a company fails to comply with permit, contract, or license terms, or fails to meet national accreditation standards if applicable). 4.. Cities should reserve the right to prohibit specific companies from operating in the public-right-of- way based on conduct or prior conduct (e.g . when a company deploys equipment prior to applying for a permit, license or contract, or fails to comply w ith permit , contract, or license terms). 0 }· • Note: Cities may want to consider accreditation by, or conduct code violations recorded by, national organizations such as NABSA (US/Canada) or BilcePlus (UK), in addition to examples and experiences in other North American cities , when issuing permits, licenses, or contracts. Cit ies sh ould reserve the right to establish operating zones and fine companies for bikes and equipment found outside of those designated areas . 6 . Cities should limit the duration of licenses and permits to a fixed time period (e .g. 6-12 months) and require a ll companies to re-apply for each renewal. Contracts developed as the result of competitive bidding processes may have a longer duration. Companies should be aware that cities may update I permits terms over time . ?. Cities sh ould charge fees that accurately r eflect the cost of regulating , overseeing, and managing bilce share and assess penalties or recoup costs to the city for non-compliance with contract, license, or permit terms. (See State of Practice: Permit Fees Tabl e) 8. Cities should require companies to h old insurance and indemnify the city. O P/rations Oversight J I. Cities should require companies to remove small veh icles (e.g. damaged, abandoned, improperly placed et c) within co ntractuall y agreed-upon time frames and assess p enalties for failure to do so . 2 . Cities should require companies to co m e to agreement with the city on procedures and protocol for : • extreme weather (e .g. blizzards , hurricanes, fl oods) 0 ~ • emergencies (e.g. earthqualces, fires, etc) • special events (e .g. marathons, events , parades , film sh oots , etc) • maintenance (e .g. snow and trash removal) for small vehicl e parking zones. 3. Cities should require companies to provide 24-7 contact information (name, phone number, and / email) of a locally-based manager/operations staff with decision-malcing power who can respond to city requests , e m ergencies , and other issues at any time. ? /4· At the city's request, p rovide st a ffing and operations p lans. Public Communications Oversight 1. Require all companies to create and maintain a city-specific website and/or s ocial media p latform that explains the te rms of service , including user instructions, privacy policies , and all fees, co sts , penalties, and unexpected charges, in all languages required by the City. 2. Companies shall place a customer service contact phone number, answered 24 h ours a day, 7 days Q a week, on all sm all vehicles a n d other equipment (e.g . signage, racks etc), which connects the public to local management and operations teams. NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation I 7 Data Standards Companies ope rati ng in the public right of way must provide citi es and local governm ents w ith a ccurate, compl ete, and timely d ata about how Shared Active Tr a nsportation services are used and, i n an appropria tely anonymi zed fashion, who is ridi ng. Data Provision & Access Format: 1. At a minimum, all data should be provided to the city in the General Bike Share Feed Specificat ion (GBFS) format. In addition to GBFS, cities ensure that additional data fields that record small vehicle location are also required. Cities sh ould be aware that GBFS cannot measure maintenance status, small vehicle condition, or record customer complaint reports. In developing data standards and adding small vehicle field(s), cities should look to the data requirements created by Los Angeles , Chicago, and Washington DC. • Los Angeles: https: tfgithub .c om /CityOfLosAngeles/mobility-data-specification • Washington DC : To be released-contact DDOT directly . • Chicago: https://chicago.github.io /dockless-bikeshare-reporting-manual/ • GBFS: https: tfgithub.com/NABSA/gbfs 2 . Additionally, cities should retain the right to request aggregated reports on system use, compliance, and oth er aspects of operations (e.g . parking complaints, crashes, damaged or lost small vehicles). Cities should request the data in any reports to be provided in .csv, .exls, .exlsm, or similar format, in addition to the report format. 3. Cities shall require that companies make anonymized trip data available to the public for use in creating apps that are not affiliated w ith the companies or city. Process: 1 . All data shall be provided directly to the city, or to a city-approved 3rd party data aggregator such as Shared Streets, or university/academic institution. 2 . Cities should retain the right to require that companies send an opt-in user survey to all users and to prov ide input into survey questions . 3. At a minimu m, aggregated data shall be provided to the city on a weekly basis, or at a timeframe specified by the city. 4 . Cities should require companies to reta in all records in full accordance with local and state records r etention policies . Data Quality and Accuracy 1. In order to accurately convey small vehicle location, use patterns, and other information, all small vehicles shall ping, at a minimum every go seconds wh ile in use. 2. In order to ensure that small vehicle locations are known even when the small vehicle is not in use, all data shall be provided by GPS equipment that is affixed to the company's small vehicle (e.g . not customer phones). This does not include phone-based location services information, used by customers, to locate a small vehicle or track their own personal route . Data Privacy 1. All companies must ensure customer data privacy and that company policies are in accordance with city data privacy policies . 2. Cities should require companies to provide a clear, written justification for why they need access to each type of customer files (e.g. contacts, camera, photos, location, other apps etc.) NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation I 8 3. Customer s shall not be requir ed to sh are person a l data with 3rd parties (e .g. advertisers , investors etc.) in order to use the mobility services . 4. Customers shall not b e required to provide access to their co n tacts , cam era, photos , files and other private data to u se th e m obility service . Locat ion services may be required t o use th e service for the purp ose of locating n earby vehicles , but not for providing trip-level data. For camera and photo access , cities should encourage companies t o work with phone software companies to develop "o nly-op en-w h e n -app-is-run ning" option s . 5 . Companies must provid e cu stomer s w ith clear , promin ent n otifica tio n ab out what data will b e accessed (e.g . locatio n services , cam er a , contact s, photos etc .) and explain h ow and w hy data will be u sed. Notific ation must b e active (e.g . affirmative co n firmation -required t o continu e) and should not be buried in larger terms-of-service n otifications . 6. Customer s may opt-in (no t opt-out) t o p rovidin g access to their contact s, camera, photos, fil es, other p rivate data and 3rd party d ata sh a r ing. Small Vehicle Standards for the Shared-Use Context Co m panies must provide sma ll vehicles and oth er equip ment t h a t is safe fo r public use and developed for t he shared-u se context. 1. All small vehicles must comply with safety standards establi sh ed byG:::'td all oth er federal, state, and city safety stan dards: C7" • Fo r regular bikes, r efer to ISO 43 .150 · For e -bikes/electric-a ssist bikes, refer to CP SC Public Law 107-309 for Low Speed Electric Bic y cles for maximum engin e wattage. Please note that these standards are evolvin g. • Fo r scooters , r efer to CPSC in Publi c Law 10 7-309 for st a n dards around for weigh t bearing . Plea se not e that these standa rds are evolv ing. 2. In additio n to safety s t andards establish ed by t h e CPSC , co mpanies m ust provide small veh icles that meet s all state an d local safety standards . 3 . For a ll electric-assist sm a ll vehicles (e .g. e-bikes , e-scooter s), the maximu m m otor-a s sist spe ed shall be 15mph. 4. All small vehicles must h ave always-on fr ont a nd back ligh ts that are v is ibl e from a distan ce of at least 300 feet under normal atm osp h eric co n ditions at nigh t. Front and r ear lights must stay illuminated for at least go seconds after the bil<e has stopped. 5. All small vehicles must have, a n d cl early display, a unique, p er manent id ent ification numb er that is provided to th e city. 6 . Companies must e n sure that all small vehicles are inspected, m aintain e d , and/or replaced on a mutually agreed-upon sch edule w ith the city. 7-Companies have th e ab ility to rem ot ely lock-down individu a l sm a ll vehicles (e.g. when they are deemed/reported unsafe.) NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation I 9 Po li cy a reas where issues sho u ld be evaluated at a local leve l In developing regulatory frameworks for managing Shared Active Transportation on city streets, cities and municipalities should al so address key questions around space in the right-of-way and how to best provide engagement and equity focused programming. Reconciling these question in ways that best meets local needs and context is essential to the success of any Shared Active Transportation program. This section outlines current known strategies and provides examples that cities should consider in developing permits , licenses, contracts, and pilots . Small Vehicle Parking Locking Options Where in the Right of Way? How can space be provided or marked? Community Engagement and Equity Programs Discoun t Programs Engagement Programs NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation I 10 Small Vehicle Parldng Despite being "dockless;' allowing Shared Active Transportation companies and customers to leave small vehicles on public property requires cities and local governments to designate places where those small vehicles may be parked. In some cities, Shared Active Transportation parking is unrestricted or "free floating," meaning that customers can leave bikes and scooters anywhere . ~er cities, companies are required to tell th eir customers to only leave bikes and scooters-in th e curb strip or furnitur zone , a lthough enforcement abilities are limited. Most recentl a few ci · e r e uired~ all dockless bike share Bikes include a "lock-to" option in order to cr eate a more orderly system. ~ Currently, the li mitations of GPS and geo-fencing technologies means that there is not a comprehensive, remote/data-based way to enforce small vehicle parking locations . Typically, GPS can determine locations within about 5 '-10' but not to the finer d egree of accuracy needed for enforcement. Most cities re ly on reported problems and spot-checks to assess compliance. As geofencing technologies are improved and refined, it may be possible to use it to ensure parking locations . Locking Options Pros Small vehicles can be left anywhere which makes point to point trips easier . The program is simple to understand. Other considerations Cons Parked small veh icles can easily end up b locking sidewalks, driveways, crosswalks which can reduce space and impede access for pedestrians , especially people with disabilities. Reports of "clutter" can impact the image of the program. If small vehicles are often parked incorrectly and block accessible travel paths space and access in the publi c ROW, this may also open the government to potential lawsuits . NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation I 11 Pros Small vehicles can be left in most places which makes point to point trips easier. The program is relatively simple to understand. Cons Can be difficult to inform and explain to all customers where small vehicles can be left. Other considerations Pros Cannot enforce remotely or via data, must rely on reports or inspecti ons . Small vehicles are l eft in orderly fashion and do not block pedestrian access . Cons Small vehicle parking opportunities may be limited. U sing existing racks for shared-use small vehicles may limit ./ supply for personal bikes. Other considerations Cities may need to increase overall bike parking options, or require companies to provide small vehicle parking , in order to accommodate increased demand. NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation I 12 Where in the Right-of-Way? No matter how a city choses t o regulate parking for Shar ed Active Transportation small vehicles, they have many options for where that parking can go . Pros Kee p s small vehicles away from pedestrian movement and does not impact AIJA access . Can improve or preserve sightlines for crossings (especially if an area w h ere cars fr equently ill egall y p ark). When considered in light of traffic safety plans, on-street bike p arking can h elp to calm traffic (see NACTO : Bike Share Siting Guide) Cons May get pushback on actual or perceived removal of parking. If using fixed racks , co m panies and/or cities w ill need to develop maintenance agre ements with local/ private entities to address typical issues like trash and snow r emoval. Other considerations Many cities ch oose to demarcate on-street bike parking with signage, planters, or flex ible de lineator:s to increase visibility and provide some protection from moving veh icles . (See Corrals) NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation I 13 Pros People are used to racks on sidewalks. Does not take car parking. Cons Tal<es space away from pedestrians and can impede pedestrian and ADA access . Small vehicles can easily fall and begin to block the pedestrian clear path. Improper small vehicle parking, even by a few inch es, can significantly degrade pedestrian access . Many sidewalks are too narrow for provide bil<e parking and retain 6' pedestrian clear path. (see NACTO: Bil<e Share Siting Guide) Other considerations Bike parking on the sidewalk may encourage sidewalk riding, which is illegal for adults in many cities. A potential unintended consequence is that minor infractions, such as sidewalk riding , are often disproportionately enforced in communit ies of color. Companies will need to develop and actively publicize clear, multi-language instructions to explain to people which parts of the sidewalk are acceptable for small vehicle parking. E.g. many cities only allow small vehicles to park in the "furniture zone" (the portion of sidewalk between where people walk and the curb, often where you'll find other street signs, street furniture, trees , parking meters , etc.) but this concept is not widely understood. NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation I 14 How can space be provided or marked? P ro viding clarity around w h ere small vehicl es can or sh ould be le ft is essent ial to a successful program. Pros Inexp ensive and quick to in stall with in-house crews , can put m any throu gh out a city or d istrict. Unique/interesting sidewalk treatment that p rovides a n o p por tunity fo r bran ding and creativity. Offe r s some predict ability t o Shared Active Transportat ion systems . Multiple companies can and shoulcl shar e the same space. Cons Paint w ill wear out over t ime and boxes may b e less clearl y understood as sm all veh icle parking. May n ot fully address "clutter" issue as small vehicles are not locked t o anything and may easily fall over or be parked outside th e b ox. Some cit ies may find it challenging to align contractors for small jobs. If on th e sidewalk, boxes should only be co n s idered on wide sidewalks or places with very limited p edestrian a ctivity. Other considerations Since th ese w ill only be useful to Shared Active Transportation vehicles (as opposed to p er sonal b il<es or scooter s), cit ies may want t o require tha t t he co mpanies to pay the planning and materials associated w ith this treatment. Cities will have to allocate staff time t o identify l ocations and conduct necessary outreach with communities. Fo r s ignage, consider having a neutral color/design, or h aving multiple logos on each s ign. If requiring that small vehicles only be left in boxes and/or other designated areas, follow NACTO station density guidelines. NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation I 15 Pros Relatively inexpensive and quick to install with in-house crews, can put many throughout a city or district. Easy to understand as Shared Active Transportation parking and can serve as additional parking for personal bikes as well . Offers predictability. Multiple companies can and should share the same racks. Ensures that Shared Active Transportation vehicles do not impede pedestrian clear-path or sidewalk. Addresses "clutter" issue. Cons Typically takes parking (when placed in t h e street). Other considerations Cities should not repurpose existing bil<e corrals (and r acks) for Shared Active Transportation as that significantly limits bike parking availability for people using their own personal b il<es. Cities will have t o allocate staff time to identify locations and conduct necessary outreach with communities. Cities should consider rack costs when determining permit or license fees . Co m panies w ill need to guarantee maintenance or enter into a maintenance agreement with other private entity (typical issues include trash and snow removal). Cities using Street Corrals should ensure that maintenance respons ibilities are spelled out in permits and licenses. If requiring that small vehicles only be left in corrals and/or other designated areas, follow NACTO station density guidelines . NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared-Active Transportation I 16 Pros Relatively inexpensive and quick to install with in-house crews, can put many throughout a city or district. Easy to understand as Shared Active Transportation parking and can serve as additional parking for personal bikes as well . Offers p redict ability. Multiple co mpanies can and should share the same r acks. Addresses "clutter" issue. Cons Only viable on wide sidewalk s or places with very limited pedestrian activity. Other considerations Cities should not repurpose existing bil<e corrals (and racks) for Shared Active Tran sportation as that significantly limits bike p arking availability for people u sing their own p e r sonal bikes. Cities will have to allocate staff time to identify lo cations and conduct necessary outreach with communities. If racks are only meant for Shared Active Transportation vehicles (as opposed to personal bil<es or scooters), cities may want to require that the co mpanies pay for the planning and materials associated with this treatment. Cities should consider rack costs when determining permit or license fees. Fo r signage, co n sider having a n eutral color/design, or having multiple logos on each sign. If requiring that small vehicles only be left at racks and/or other designated areas, follow NACTO station density guidelines . NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulatior. and Management of Shared Active Transportation I 17 - Pros Requires no physical installation of equipment Provides some control over parking wh ere conflicts are likely t o occur (i .e . high pedestrian traffic areas, aesthetically-focused landmarks) Can easily designate large areas where small vehicles are not allowed (e .g., neighboring municipalities, campuses) Cons Accuracy is limited and insufficient to assess compliance on a street level. There have been n umerous issues reported with app and data accuracy -"gh ost" or missing bikes, more bikes than shown on th e app, bikes not where the app shows them to be etc. User must open app when ending ride to lo ok for geo-fen ced areas . Opening the app is not currently required to end the ride , so user may not do this. Does not address "clutter" concerns. Other considerations The accuracy limitations make geo-fencing a better tool for assessing neighborhood-level behavior, not exact street location. Companies must explain to users how and where geo-fencing is used (e.g ., via app notifications, in-app map, email/text notification, language on bikes, signage on streets) If requiring that small vehicles only be left at geo -fenced areas and/or other designated areas , follow NACTO station density guidelines . NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Trani;pcrtation I 18 Community Engagement and Equity Programs In order to meet the mobility needs of their residents, cities with Shared Active Transportation systems must also focus policies and programs that ensure that these transportation systems are understood and can be used by all. Today, most cities and local governments require Shared Active Transportation companies operating in the public right-of-way to participate in public engagement efforts and provide pricing options that address the needs of low-income residents. This focus on equity, and developing appropriate programs and policies , make it possible for Shared Active Transportation to provide real transportation options to all residents . Regardless of technology or operator, introducing or expanding Shared Active Transportation options provides cities with opportunities to develop , require , and fund necessary equity and engagement programing that can increase ridership and help meet mobility needs. In contract-based systems and those developed through competitive procurement processes, meaningful engagement programming can be achieved through contract language or agreements within a robust public-private partnership. In permit or license-based systems, milestones and incentives may be an effective mechanism. For example, the St. Louis permit does not allow Shared Active Transportation companies to expand their fleets unless certain equity-focused programming is developed and implemented. This section provides an overview of discount and engagement programs and policies that cities should consider as they manage Shared Active Transportation companies operating in their jurisdictions . More information is available in publications produced by the Better Bike Share Partnership. Discount Programs While there are many kinds of price discounts (e .g . student discounts, employee discounts etc.), equity- focused discounts are designed to reduce prices for low-income individuals . Verification of who is low-income may be done in a variety of ways but all require strong coordination between government and the private sector. Verification should be done in a fashion that is easy and fair (e .g. minimal steps, not subjective, does not tal<e longer than a few minutes) for both the applicant and administrator. Verification should not require individuals to share personal information via unsecure methods , such as sending personal information or docum ents via email. The presence of income-based discounts , and what information is needed to qualify for them should be clear, well publicized, and available in, at a minimum, all languages required by the city. NACTO PoHcy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Sha;ed Active Transportation I 19 Examples of Income-Based Discount Program Mechanisms: • Government Benefit ID {e .g . SNAP, TANF, WIC) Examples: Philadelphia Indego AccessPass Detroit MoGo AccessPass Metro-Boston Blue Bikes Income-Eligible Program SFMTA Muni Lifeline Transit Pass for GoBike • Proof of Public Housing residence Examples: New York and Tersev City Citi Bike NYCHA and TCHA discount • Community Development Credit Union membership Examples: Washington DC Capital Bike Share Bank on DC program NYC Citi Bike CDCU discount program • Discount code distribut ed via designated community groups or service provi ders Examples: Portland OR 's Biketown for All Capital Bikeshare Communitv Partners Program • In-person or phone verification Examples: Metro-Boston Blue Bikes Guided Enrollment Bav Area Ford GoBike Bike Share for All Program In addition to providing reduce fares, some station-based systems, such as Philadelphia's Indego Bike Share and Detroit's MoGo Bike Share h ave developed cash-payment options via PayNearMe to address disparities in credit card access. Some "dockless" systems have also developed a cash-payment option for their services but, to date, they require income verification processes that put customers' personal information at risk (e.g. require customers to email copies of t h eir photo ID, name, and proof of low income status, such as EBT card). For systems t hat rely on smartphones to locate and unlock bikes, cities may want to require companies to develop options for people who do not have smartphones. Engagement Programs A5 new mobility options emerge , cities may want to require companies to provide community engagement and education programming to offset the burden to the city of explaining what is going on. Cities should also ensure that education and engagement efforts are provided in all the languages commonly spoken in the area. Examples of education and engagement programming include: Company participation or attendance at public events and meetings Company participation or attendance at community-led events or gatherings Company participation or provision of bike education classes , distributed equitably throughout all neighborhoods Companies partner with job-training programs, youth programs M ultilingual mobil e app and/or other interfaces, as appli cable Companies pursue grants with municipal and/or non-profit organizations to develop ambassador programs NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation I 20 State of Practice Fleet Size and Service A rea In order to ensure that Shared Active Transportation Companies provide a reliable, convenient transportation option for citizens, cities should consider how many small vehicles should be made available. Unfortunately, Shared Active Transportation is still too new for there to be a set standard fo r determining the appropriate number. This section provides an at-a-glance look at how different cities are approaching fleet sizes as of early summer 2018. It will be updated and expanded into explicit guidance as this field develops. To date, cities have employed a variety of metrics to determine appropriate small vehicle flee t sizes, including bikes per 1,000 residents, b ikes per 100 residents, or total number of small vehicles that can be effectively managed by city staff. In determining flee t s izes and coverage areas, cities should consider what geographic areas they want to servi , what number of small vehicles would be necessary to provide a meaningful transportation service, and their internal staffing and oversight capacity. -In addition, many cities have developed permits that phase in Shared Active Transportation small vehicle flee ts , either over time to allow cities and companies to adjust (x bikes allowed in month one, y bikes allowed in month 2) or by requiring companies to meet basic service thresholds (e.g . 2 rides/bike/day, or development of community engagement programming) in order to expand. City Type Status Austin License Approved Min # Max# bikes/ bikes/ Company Company n/a 500 Phasing & Expansion Equity Programming Companies must begin with 500 n/a bikes. Can increase by increments of 1 250 bikes, upon City approval, if they operate outside of downtown core and the insurance bond is increased. Must reach 2 rbd per zo n e by August 1, 2018 or reduce fleet size. Notes Dockless units must l be able to be locked to I a fixed object or have a haptic (sensory) response indicating compliance ~ith parking regulations. NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation I 21 Phasing & Expansion Programming Com any Boulder Permit Approved 100 initial Fleet size may increase by 10-20% n/a "Lock To" bikes only (pilot) deploy-I on a quarterly basis if operator -must be (un)locked ment. meets key performance indicators. to a bil<e rack before I 150 if Demand based cap of each fleet at and after each use. e-bil<es or 2 r/b/d. adaptive bil<es are included in fleet. Ch arlotte Permit Approved 200 bil<eS 500 and/ CDOT will evaluate the ability n /a Should a permitted (pilot) and/or 50 or 300 to phase-in an expanded fleet operator chose to e-scoot- e-scoot-throughout the term of the pilot. deploy bil<es and ers ers e-scooters, they can have maximum fleet of 100 e-scooters. If a permitted operator only deploys e-scooters, they can have maximum fleet ~roved I n/;" of 300 e-scooters. Chicago Pilot 350 350 n/a Current wheel-lock (pilot) vendors -up to 50 bil<es for the duration of the pilot. Lock-to vendors -up to 350 bil<es for duration of I n /a --pilot. Dallas Ordi-I Pending /a I n/a n/a n/a nance -- NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation I 22 Min# Max# Phasing & Expansion Equity Notes bikes/ bikes/ I Programming Company Company Denver Pilot Approved n /a Up to 400 Possibility of scaling fleet size to be Bil<es/e-bil<es: Painted doddess (bikes/e-determined by the Department of operators can parking zones will bil<es) Public Works, based on utilization increase to be required to be Up to 250 data, performance and operational 500 if they installed and main- (e-scoot-outcomes. guarentee tained by permitted ers and that 100 will operators. others) stay within designated "opportunity areas.'' E-scooters/ other approved: operators can increase to 350 if they guarentee that 100 will stay within designated "opportunity areas.'' Durham Approved n /a n/a n /a n/a Operators allowed to I determine fleet size . at application. Direc- tor has right to limit if needed. NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation I 23 r City I Los Angeles Permit Pending Minneapolis Contract Approved -St. Paul Phasing & Expansion Company Company 500 3000 Companies must provide a minimum of 500 bikes within 4 weeks of permit issuance. Justification and ap p roval required for increase fleet size . 1,500 in I n /a Licensee must give City at least 2018 14 day written notice of any fleet size change. Can add 1,500 bikes in 2019, plus potential 1-for-1 replacement of docked bikes above and beyond that 1,soo. If performance targets are met, can add 1,500 in 2020 and 2021. Equity Programming Operators are allowed up to 2,500 additional vehicles in disadvantaged communities; operators may be allowed up to 5,000 additional vehicles in disadvantaged communities in the San Fernando Valley. n/a If fleet is 100% non- electric adaptive bikes, there is no minimum fleet size. If fleet is mixed (bikes , e-bikes, e-scooters + adaptive bikes), 500-vehicle minimum applies . At least 50% of fleet shall be e-bikes. NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation I 24 Phasing & Expansion Programming Company Com any New York Demon-Approved n /a n/a Bikes must be placed in 1 of 4 n/a n/a City stration (Demon-city-defined zones, companies are stration) limited to a specific zo n e. Palo Al t o Permit Approved 100 City n /a n/a n/a Manager to desig- nate Philadelphia n/a Pending n /a n/a n/a n/a n/a Sacramento Permit Approved n/a n/a Allowed through an exp ansion n/a n /a permit process (and fee) San Permit Approved n/a n/a The permit allows Jump t o roll n/a Permit requires Francisco out 250 e-bikes initially and 250 JUMP bikes to be more after nine months if the city locked to bike racks approves. (not signs) and no more than one bike per rack. Seattle Permit Approved 500 no cap Companies may provide up to 500 Fleets n/a bicycles first month of the pilot, over 2,000 l ,ooo second month of the pilot, bicycles must and 2,000 the third month. Beyond include Tier 1 3 months, companies can expand Priority Hire beyond 2,000 bil<es ass u ming all neighborhoods other requirements are met. in 20% or more of their service I area. NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation I 25 Max# Phasing & Expansion Equity Notes bikes/ Programming Company Company St. Louis Permit Approved 1 500 2,500 Companies may provide a With City n /a maximum of 750 bikes in month approval, one, then an increase of 350 each may go above month thereafter until the cap of 2,500 if rbd 2 ,500 is increasing and education and social equity plan is im lemented Washington Pilo t Approve d 50 00 n/a n/a n/a DC (pilot) NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation I 26 Small Vehicle Distribution In order to provide reliab le service, companies must ensure that small vehicles are appropriately distributed across the service area. There is not currently a regulatory standard for cities to use to ensure that companies provide a minimum level of service. This section provides an at- a-glance look at how different cities are approaching small vehicle distribution and rebalancing as of early summer 2018. It will be updated and expanded into explicit guidance as this field develops. To date, cities have employed a variety of metrics to determine how small vehicles are distributed throughout service areas. These include limiting the number of small vehicles/company that can be located on any block face equinn thats ve · es !;bat l:ia1le..noWn.ov:ed_in +day s e relocate , equiring that companies deploy more staff at peal< hours, defining geographic zones with maximum and minimum numbers of small vehicles, and requiring a certain number of percentage of the fleet that must be maintained in neighborhoods targeted for social equity needs. Because Shared Active Transportation small vehicles move around cities and app data is not fully reliable, distribution enforcement is difficult. Many cities have taken a manual, spot-check approach, tasking community advocates, staff, and interns to do "spot checks" on a regular weekly or monthly basis to count all the small vehicles and identify where they are on the app. Some cities also use customer or citizen complaints. Damaged or Stagnant Vehicles d" "b . ail bl f I bl hi 1 thi 0 Austin Approve Licensee must morutor istn ut1on o av a e perators must remove unsa e in opera eve c ewi n I vehicles according to the City parameters. City may 4 hours of notification. I reduce allowed # of vehicles based on the overall I number of vehicles concentrated within a specific area. Boulder I Approved I Operators must distribute bikes throughout the city -Operators must remove unsafe/inoperable vehicle within I specific locations are identified in City Manager Rules , 24 hours of notification by any means to the operator by which include transit stops. Operators shall relocate or any individual or entity. I rebalance shared bicycles within 2 hours of receiving a request from the city. Charlotte Approved I When deploying or rebalancing, operators shall not Operators must address improperly parked vehicles within I (pilot) place more than three bicycles and two e-scooters on a 2 hours of notification at all times. City has the right to I block face remove any and all such bil<es that are not remedied in accordance with the provisions outlined. Operators are I I responsible for all costs to the City for improper parking, bike removal, public safety or property damage. I NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation I 27 Chicago Dallas Denver Goal of redistribution is to ensure customers have reasonable and consistant access to vehicles 1 throughout the service area. Rebalancing must ensure that at least 15% of a vendor's fleet is available in each quarter of the pilot service area, according to the Equitable Distribution Map. Approved I City has created map with 3 zones to guide vehicle placement and distribution -City Core, Opportunity Areas, High Opportunity Areas. City Core -Operators can place vehicles in painted parking zones. Opportunity Areas -Operators participating in pilot incentive program must place bikes in these areas to meet incentive requirements and increase fleet size. High Opportunity Areas (subset of Opportunity Areas) -highest need areas; vehicles placed here will also meet incentive requirements for increased fleet size. Operators must "rebalance" vehicles back to transit and bus stops throughout the day and "reset" the vehicles back to these locations no later than 7AM daily. Operators participating in Opportunity Area incentive must relocate vehicles back to designated i,_ ____ __...._ ___ _..___,Opportuni!Y Areas at least once per day. Vendors are required to remedy any bil<es that are not parked lawfully or in accordance with the conditions attached to the issuance of the emerging business permit within 2 hours of the report, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The City has the right to remove any and all such bil<es that are not remedied in accordance with the provisions outlined. Vendors incur all costs to the City for improper parking, bike removal, public safety or property damage. Operators must remove unsafe/inoperable vehicle within I 24 hours of notification from the director. Vehicles in a residential areas may remain in the same location for up to 48 hours if correctly parked. Operators must remove vehicle parked in a residential area after receiving a citizen request or complaint within 2 hours weekdays 6AM - 6PM, and within 12 hours all other times. Operators must remove unsafe/inoperable vehicle within 24 hours of notification. Failure to do so may result in the revocation of a permit. NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation I 28 Durham Operators must remove unsafe/inoperable vehicle within 24 hours of notification. Vehicles must be repaired before being put back into service . Bicycles will not be parked in one location for more than 7 consecutive days. Operators must rebalance bikes daily and may not discriminate against low and moderate income residents. Operators must deploy and maintain a sufficient number of bicycles to satisfy customer demand within census tracts of low median income areas of the city as definded in ther permit and determined by the director. At least 20% of bilces will be located on a daily average in the following census tracts: (designated in permit). 1-~~~~-...,..-~~~-t ...... ~~ .... --"-~~ ....... ~~"'-~~~-~~ Los Angeles Minneapolis New York City Pending Approved n /a The goal of rebalancing is to maintain a reasonable minimum share of the fleet distributed throughout the City tal<ing into account residential density, employment d ensity, visitor activity level , and equity; The Public Works Director, in their sole discretion, may request Licensee to rebalance the distribution of the Bicycle Fl eet in specifi ed areas if deemed too dense or too sparse, or if doing so will help promote equitable access to and from t raditionally underserved areas within the City. Licensee will use best efforts t o com ly with such re uests within 24 hours. mpanies are restricted to one of 4 city defined es. Bilces must stay in designated service area. Operators must remove unsafe/inoperable vehicle within 24 hours of notification. Failure to do so may result in the revocation of a permit. Vehicles must be repaired before being put back into service. Operators must remove unsafe/inoperable vehicle within 24 hours of notification. Vehicles must be repaired before being put back into service. Bicycles will not be parked in one location for more than 7 consecutive days. n /a NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation I 29 Philadelphia Sacramento San Francisco Pending Approved Approved At no time shall more than fifty percent (50%) of a permittee's free-floating bicycles be located in the Downtown or California Avenue business districts, as defined in Exhibit A. Permittees shall provide City staff with a direct contact to a representative who is capable of rebalancing the locations of free -floating bicycles within the City of Palo Alto. n /a Applicants must submit a Rebalancing and Relocation Plan including how the provider will redistribute bicycles to high use areas within peal< operating hours Operator must monitor distribution of bicycles available to customers according to parameters required by the SFMTA. At a minimum, the density of bicycles in the designated service area shall not fall below at least 3 bicycles per square mile for more than 10 consecutive minutes between the hours of 6:00 am and 10:00 pm, 7 days a week. At least 20 % of overall bicycle availability shall be maintained within groups of census tracts designated as "communities of concern" (CoCs) by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, calculated by the total number of bicycles located in CoCs multiplied by the minutes they are available for hire between the hours of 6:00 am and 10:00 pm, divided by the total number of bicycles in service times minutes available throughout the service area. r Stagna nt Vehicles In the event a bicycle, electric-assist bicycle , and/or electric scooter is parked in one location for more than 72 hours without moving, it may be removed by City and taken to a City facility for storage at the expense of the Permittee. In the event a safety or maintenance issue is reported for a specific bicycle, that bicycle shall immediately be made unavailable to users and shall be removed within the timeframes provided herein and shall ~::::~:::::::~:::::.:~"""! ~ inoperable, improperly parked, not at a bil<e rack, or I blocking pedestrian acces within 2 hours of notification. Operators must remove unsafe/inoperable vehicle within 24 hours of notification. Vehicles must be repaired before being put back into service. NACTO Policy 2018: Gu idelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation I 30 Seattle St. Louis Washington DC Approved Approved Approved (pilot) Companies may not exceed 340 bikes/sq mile. Fleets geater than 2 ,000 bicycles must include Tier 1 Priority Hire neighborhoods in 20% or more of their service area. Operators will rebalance bikes to improve usage and spread/social equity outcomes. At least 20% of bikes will be located on a daily average in the Bil<e Share Social Equity and Inclusion Target Neighborhoods. At least 1.5% of bil<es will be located on a daily average in each of these neighborhood groupings. Permit holder will relocate dockless sharing vehicles to eliminate an over-concentration of docldess sharing vehicles within 2 hours if notified by the District of public access and safety concerns. Operators must remove unsafe/inoperable vehicle within 24 hours of noti fication. Bicycles will not be parked in one location for more than 7 consecutive days.Companies shall relocate or rebalance bikes within 2 hours of notification I from 6am-6pm on weekdays, and 10 hours of notification all other times. Operators must evaluate and/or remove any vehicle that is parked in one location for more than 7 consecutive days upon notice . If the vehicle is not removed by the Operator, the City may remove it and tal<e it to a City facility for storage at Operator's expense. Permit holder will remove improperly parked docldess sharing vehicles in accordance with local law and without prior notice from the District of Co lumbia, within 2 hours of notification, including notification. NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation I 31 Fees and Pricing Cities should ensure that the full cost of regulating and managing Shared Active Transportation companies is considered when setting fees. Cities may choose to waive aspects of the permit fee as applicable. Some permit fees may not be applicable when systems are developed a part of a formal public-private partnership, a city-initiated RFP or public process, or when other cost-sharing or equipment ownership or service agreements are in place. Cities typically incur the following costs in managing or regulating Shared Active Transportation: Administration & Oversight Costs Reviewing application Ensuring permit compliance Analyzing and assessing data Responding to public complaints City liability insurance Direct Costs Removing broken, damaged, and/or incorrectly parked small vehicles if the companies can't/won't Purchase and installation of physical infrastructure related to the system {e.g., racks , thermoplastic markings) Potential reduction of available bil<e racl<s for private bikes Loss of public right-of-way space, especially sidewall< space Planning and Engagement Planning Advertising/ outreach/ encouragement Assessing Compliance City Status Permit/ Application License Review Fee I Austin -----~I Approved I so so Per Bike I Fee so Performance I Relocation Bond /Removal I Required Infrastructure --t--- $100/bil<e All costs r n/a I ROW Permit Mainte-Duration nance & Repair Inlcudedin 6 months Performance ' Bond NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation I 32 Review Fee Mainte- nance & Repair Boulder s3,300 so SlOO so s8o/bike 1 space/bike Inlcluded Annual (Renewal: in the s1 ,800) Relocation/ Removal guarantee Charlotte Approved so so so so All costs n/a All costs Pilot ends (pilot) November 1, 2018 Chicago Approved s250 so s50 so so n /a Included in Pilot ends (pilot) Insurance November Policy l, 2018 Dallas Pending Sl,620 -s8o8 S21 Sl0 ,000 All costs n/a All costs 6 months s48,600 (Renewal +:--Fee: s404) I ~n 1 n/a t ---Denver Approved I $15,000 s15oper '7 s20 per Inlcuded in 1 year (pilot) I (bikes/e-perrrut bil<e/e-bikes Perfor-, Performance I bil<es) application I mance Bond Bond s15,ooo I s30 e-scoot- (e-scooters ers and other I and other) vehicles Durham Approved s250 $0 s10/bike so s5ojbike n /a All costs NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation I 33 Application Per Bike Performance Relocation Required License Review Fee Bond /Removal Infrastructure Fee Los Angeles Pending ssoo so sso sBo/Vehicle All costs at All costs All costs Annual city crew rate plus any ad- ditional ~Ora~:} pound fees I I -~ r s ~ n/a I n/a-jn/a Minneapolis Approved so so SS $0 I -St. Paul I New York Approved n /a n /a n/• I n/• n/a · n/a n/a Pilot ends City (pilot) September 2018 Palo Alto Approved so so so so so n/a n/a 12 months Philadelphia Pending n /a n /a n /a n /a n/a n/a n/a n/a Sacramento Approved s14,480 -n /a so $0 All costs 1.5 spaces/bil<e n/a Annual s28,440 (Renewal Fee: s12,380 - s26,340) NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation I 34 Review Mainte-Duration nance & Repair San $0 s4-s20/ so All costs irack/2 bikes s2 ,500/YT 18 months Francisco bike d e-(10 years) (Jan 2018- Fee: pending , June 2019) (~ee further $12,208 -on total permit fee $19,558 number dillili} (Renewal of bikes Fee: s9,725 -$17,704) Seattle Approved s146 s209jhr (est. s15/bike S8o/bike, All cost s at ! n /a n /a 12 months 8 hours) capped at city crew (see further Sl0,000 pay rate permit fee plus 15% dillili} St. Louis Approved s500 so s10/bike so All costs /a Cos ts Annual Washin gton App roved so so $0 so so n /a Pilot ends DC (pilot) August 31, 2018 NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation I 35 Equity Programming In order to meet the mobili ty needs of their resi dents, cities with Shared Active Transportation systems must also focus policies and programs that ensure that these transportation systems are understood and can be used by all. This includes developing permit or license requirements and programming to address: Outreach and engagement Financial access Employment Access and reliability (see Allowed Fleet Size and Small Vehicle Distribution tables) Chicago Employment n/a Vendors are encouraged to hire/ u se MWBE local firms, and provide a hiring plan. The hiring plan must also include planned work with workforce development programs. Financial Access Licensee shall offer an affordable non-smart phone option for any customer with an income level at or below 200% of the federal poverty guidelines. Vendors must provide a cash payment option. Outreach + Engagement -- Licensee shall prepare and implement a marketing and outreach plan at its own cost to promote the use of docldess mobility in neighborhoods currently underserved by dockless mobility options. Vendors are required to meet with monthly and provide reports to the Mayor's Office for People with Disabilities and other City of Chicago Staff. Vendors must educate dockless bil<e users on rules of the road and proper parking. Vendors shall implement a marketing and targeted community ou treach plan at it's own cost by distributing education and outreach materials to communities in the Pilot Area. Vendors must host one community event in the Pilot Area for education and outreach, and or present at local alderman's ward night. ._~~~~~ ..... ~~~~~~~~~~ .... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--"'-~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~-.A NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation I 36 Denver Durham n /a Los Angeles n/a Program applicants must submit a plan outlining how their services will be available to those without smart phones or those who are under-banked/un-banked. They must also submit information regarding the rate structures that will be offered to all users. This information should include any discount programs. All permitted bil<e share operators shall provide an option for users without a smart phone and or credit card to use the bil<e share system. Operators are required to provide I a non-smart phone and non-credit card option Operators will offer a one-year low-income customer plan that waives any bicycle/e-scooter deposit and offers an affordable cash payment option and unlimited trips under 30 minutes to any customer with an income level at or below 200% of the federal poverty guideline. n/a Permitted operators will be expected to participate in meetings with DPW staff. The meetings will discuss topics such as operations, usage, fleet size, community concerns, safety concerns and data reviews. Operators must attend meetings with surrounding municipalities and community-based organizations as stipulated by the City to introduce the operators to them and make these communities aware of the program and how it may affect the communities. NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation I 37 Employment ~~~~~~~r--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- N RM/Motivate must provide hiring goals for percentage of hours worked by people of color. The goal for each group should be at minimum proportional to the population in the service area. I Palo Alto I n/a San Francisco n/a NRM/Motivate will offer discounted memberships to lowincome individuals, non- smart-phone options such as integration with Go-To cards and cash options, geographically-based pricing capacity, and integration of other innovations as they become available . Permittee will offer a one-year plan that waives any program deposit and offers an affordable cash payment option and unlimited trips under 30 minutes to any customer with an income level at or below 200% of the federal poverty guidelines. Permittee will offer a one year low- income customer plan that waives any applicable bicycle deposit and offers an affordable cash payment option and unlimited trips under 30 minutes to any customer with an income level at or below 200% of the federal poverty guidelines. NRM/Motivate will use local ambassadors, community events, and group rides as part of their efforts to make bikeshare a resource.These programs will be evaluated annually, and representatives of local communities will I be consulted in an ongoing effort to improve ridership among communities of concern. Permittee will implement a marketing and targeted community outreach plan at its own cost or pay an in-lieu fee to the City of Palo Alto to provide these services and promote the use of shared mobility vehicles, particularly among low-income communities. Permittee will maintain a multilingual website with languages determined by the City of Palo Alto , call center, and mobile application that is available twenty- four hours a day, seven days a week. Permittee will implement a marketing and targeted outreach plan at its own cost or pay an in-lieu fee to the SFMTA to provide these services and promote the use of bike share citywide, particularly among low income communities. Permittee will maintain a multilingual website with languages determined by the SFMTA, call center, and app customer interface that is available twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation I 38 St. Louis Bike Share operators are required to have a non-smart phone option to use the bike share system. Bike Share operators are required to have a non-credit card option to use the bike sha~stem.:..,__ Bike Share operators must meet with surrounding municipalities to make them aware of our Bike Share program and how it may affect them. Bike Share Operators will attend an onsite meeting with the City of St. Louis staff to discuss the program ~ demo their bikes before a perm~ to be approved. NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation I 39 Permit Overview Austin Approved Boulder Approved ance Sunsets Ai:? 2020 Ch2rlQtt~ Approved U?~t) Pilot ends November 1, 2018 Chicago A~Jnoved (pilot) Pilot ends November 1, 2018 ~ ~ding_ Pilot ends Denver Approved (pilot) 1year Approved 1year Pending Annual Minn~<;gQlis -St . Paul Approved • n/a New Yor k Cit'. Approved (pilot) Pilot ends September 2018 PalQAltQ Approved n /a Philadelghia Pending n/a Sacramento Approved Annual San Fr<;n~iS~Q (Qik~) Approved 18 months (Jan 2018-June 2019) San Francisco (scooter) Approved 18 months (Jan 2018-June 2019) Seattle Approved 1year St. LQJJ,iS Approved Annual Approved (pilot) Pilot ends August 31, 2018 NACTO Policy 2018: Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation I 40 BETTER BIKE SHARE PARTNERSHIP This Guidance is made possible by the Better Bike Share Partnership . The Better Bike Share Partnership is a collaboration funded by The JPB Foundation to b u ild equitable and replicable bike share systems . The partners include The City of Philadelp hia, the Bicycle Coalition of Greater Philadelphia, the National Assoc ia tion of City Transportation Officials (NACT O) and the PeopleForBil<es Foundation. FYl..about Cosmos -can set speed limit; can 't leave the geofence; heavier than stand -up scooter COST- PEDAL BIKES $0.50/30 mins; $7 /day*; $20/month; $70/semester; $95/year THROTILE ASSIST BIKES $1 to unlock; $0 .25 per minute Other Veoride stats: • 136,405 rides o Cosmo was 58 % of the rides • Avg 1.8 miles/ride • Avg 10 .8 min/ride o Pedal bike was 42 % of the rides • Avg .66 mile/ride • Avg 15 .9 min/ride Wheel size -Small (7 -8 .5") vs . Large (16 -18"); Veoride is 18 Stand-up vs. sitdown -Determines ability to balance based on center of gravity W'Wi~ "10 Safety data - Austin -30% of scooter injuries riding too fast; 86 % losing control Company interest - • Glide • Lime • Bird Discuss later -Add redistribution/rebalancing language to ordinance -. • ' ' c 1, ~ ' £1~c,· Seo~- -12 11 ,,~ f'km W/ ]31rz..tL ., Br~ Avbu.ui . , i,r. ~-, ~~~- v 14~s~o.: lOO c{-h~ I ocd.~ -~ 'x.ul..t.~J, ~ ~1~~ ; btt~ 1~ · pc.~~~. I--~ piJuclvv ~ Vl.t~kt / de-p~...c).-io ~Si.S · w 0 ~ c;,L er p rv-... gt~ eCO'h,~ -cJ,..lrflt>;<-~ J....~ ~0-30~. -o~ ~ t, IS-~ -s~cJ.~ .~~~. I. '1.-1 I.., ~J<-~ ei..t..... -() (YUL. I¥ -sc.111-\ ~ lice-.~ 'ffuf-~ ~ p~n.-I ooo b1 ~-_,.. I • htxJ-~s: • ~-{_,~ S1ACCP'YJfJ_. ~ln.r~ -le-+ B~lth ~llLl(~. • i~P--<J-;~ ~~ok ~foa~ ., nDf-de>pl~ IV\ fk-cJo · ~ ~~ -p0wt~cl - ~ -1)-\...l~~c-t-4cLmp-RfP hl)U, ~ -YlL!Sfl~~ {JAbt,.1"-~P· hCvvt. t ~ ~~~ ~J ·N..~ (.~ ~C1'-· 1---f.~ -fi...ii-~ ' ~kb~· ~ ~~ytt,l_ V,V1d~~ -ne~cL ~ ~\)iv.:k A~ '-' ...., '-' ,, What is Bird? Bird is a last-mile electric vehicle sharing company dedicated to bringing affordable , environmentally friendly transportation solutions to communities across the world . Our mission is to partner with cities to build communities with fewer cars on the road . A city with fewer cars on the road greatly improves the health and safety of all of its residents . There would be a reduction in the serious dangers posed to pedestrians , a reduction in traffic congestion and noise pollution , and a reduction in the carbon emissions that threaten the health and longevity of families and children. BIRD Q ~ -llJ -- How Bird Works Through the Bird smartphone app , riders can see the closest Bi rd scooter on a map , unlock it , and ride directly to their desired destination . It costs $1 to start , then a per minl}te fee. @ • ' .... ' .... • ; I ' , .~... . -. . ~ '. ' .. " ~ Oon1 1.o.on .. dt•~ ... 0 L " eooo 000, •85,,. " 0 Riders are instructed to wear a helmet and to ride only in bike lanes and on the streets-riders are warned not to use sidewalks. At the end of the trip, riders are notified to park Birds out of public pathways and at bike racks or near public transit stops where available. Birds are available from about 7:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. every day. The scooters are conveniently dropped at their organized nest locations in the morning and the pick-up process begins after rush hour-all of which is done by our growing local community of chargers and mechanics . Each night, Birds are picked up for storage , charging , and any necessary repair. This helps keep riders safe and Birds in good condition . BIRD 2 Improving Your City's Environment According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the average passenger vehicle emits .89 lbs of C02 per mile. We are dedicated to 100% electric vehicle transportation and reducing reliance on gasoline powered cars that pollute our world with C02 , clog our streets, and result in approximately 40,000 deaths in America per year. Bird is singularly focused on making e-scooters the best transportation solution tor short trips, that can replace the 40% of car trips that are under 3 miles in the United States. In the communities we serve : • Bird rides are replacing car trips. The average Bird ride is 1.5 miles. The average person is willing to walk .25 to .5 miles to reach a destination . With the average Bird ride equalling 1.5 miles , that suggests that many Bird trips are already replacing car trips. • Birds offer a more efficient way to move people around city streets. You can move 7 ,500 people per hour in a protected bike lane, and approximately 1 ,000 vehicles per hour in an average car lane . • Birds let you reimagine public space. You can tit up to 20 Birds in a single parking space . Rides hare 1.0 Trips <3 miles= Car Trips Bird Replaces SM 0 10 20 30 Trip Distance (miles) After one year of operating, more than 14 million miles have been ridden on Birds around the world , which has prevented more than 12 million pounds of carbon emissions from entering the air. BIRD 3 12 million pounds of carbon emissions is equivalent to: BIRD Greenhouse Gas Emissions From 14,119,174 Miles driven by an average passenger vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions From C02 Emissions From ~o\ 1,234 Passenger vehicles driven for one year 13,337 Barrels of oil consumed 4 Economic Impact Our local fleet management teams are primarily employee-based , including Bird Watchers , Community Managers , Safety Ambassadors, and other full-time employees. Bird also works with a network of trained chargers and mechanics in the local markets where we operate . These individuals help collect Birds each evening for charging , providing a great source of supplemental income. For every 1 ,000 Birds in a city, it results in $2 .SM annual earnings received by Chargers, and 300 employmen t opportunities provided for contract workers . 1,000 Birds -- $2.SM Annual earnings received by Chargers 300 Employment opportunities 'BIRD Safety The safety of our riders and of the communities which we serve is of paramount importance . Safety is something we will never compromise or settle on. While Bird has already taken many tangible and actionable steps to assure compliance with local and state laws related to parking , riding , and roadway safety, we are continuously developing more effective enforcement , messaging tools , and strategies . Bird is committed to working collaboratively with city staff to identify and solve for concerns as they arise . Improving Safety Standards We are passionately committed to safe riding . We continue to improve our safety standards , and over the last year have voluntarily : • Provided more than 50 ,000 free helmets to our riders • Required all riders to scan their driver 's license to ensure riders are 18 or older • Implemented comprehensive rider safety campaigns and tutorials • Created the forward-thinking and inclusive Global Safety Advisory Board , led by David Strickland (former head of the NHTSA) Reporting Bird is developing a "community mode " in the app that will allow riders and non-riders to report bad riders directly to our customer support and safety team. If we identify individuals who have been reported three times , we will remove them from our network. We also believe in incentivizing good behavior so we will introduce a reward system for those who report bad actors and help us promote safe practices. / .J 1 .ho ·-_. •.cs •.. ·- ~ •l•O•T•O~ ~ HH•Oti x )< UH)OTIOC:I ••l OCIOIOI> BIRD 6 Shared Mobility Zones As part of Bird 's Save Our Sidewalks pledge , we are committed to helping fund infrastructure improvements to increase street and sidewalk safety. This could include the installation of shared mobility parking zones and parklets . By replacing one or two on-street parking spaces with a shared mobility parking zone , we can create highly visible multi-purpose areas where dockless shared-use bikes and scooters can be parked . The relatively small footprint of e-scooters allows us to work with the space to ensure that it could also be used like a traditional parklet , adding to public open space in more crowded urban areas . Less infrastructure-intensive park i ng zones can be delineated on sidewalks with decals or temporary paint outlines and geofencing that requires riders to end rides within these clearly-marked zones . BIRD 7 Education Rider Education We strive to enhance the safety of Bird ride rs by taking concrete steps to educate all riders on safe and responsible riding practices, includ i ng: • Providing clear instructions about safe practices on our veh icles • Before beginning their first ride , all Bird riders must first complete an in-app tutorial focused on safety and rider education • Utilizing online advertising and social media campaigns to promote safety and rider education • Hosting regular safety events to nurture strong community relations and engage at the local level to implement , enhance , and promote safe riding • Providing local businesses and city-run organizations with free helmets and education collateral to give away to the community Additionally, Bird explicitly instructs riders on the proper way to park their scooters -in the f urniture zone , not blocking access ramps, driveways , entrances , fire hydrants , benches , etc. -in the app , on our website , and through outbound communications (ema i l, push , and in-app notifications). At the end of every ride , riders are instructed to photograph their Bird to "verify proper parking ." The prompt also reminds them of proper parking etiquette . The photos are collected as a way to verify proper parking in the event of hazardous or improper parking being reported. The images also serve as verification that a particular rider has , in fact , mis-parked a Bird . This allows us to follow up with riders with further education . Repeat offenders can have their accounts suspended and , in some cases , terminated . Charger Education Bird works with a network of trained chargers in the local markets where we operate . These individuals collect Birds each evening for charging in exchange for anywhere from $3 to $20 per vehicle . Chargers can pick up as many Birds as they want on any given day, which can provide a great source of supplemental income . Bird employees work directly with Chargers in each market , and educate them on how to correctly place , pick-up and inspect Birds . We also provide in-app photos of "good" placements for every nest across our entire system to help guide chargers. BIRD / • • ····• 8 ' I Austin Dockless Mobility Pilot This spring, the city of Austin chose seven operators to participate in their dockless mobility pilot. On October 11 , 2018 , the Austin Mobility Committee provided the public with a performance update -here's what was uncovered: 1 Trips taken Vehicles Total trips per vehicle 2 Injuries Miles traveled Injuries per 10kmiles traveled People pref er scooters During the pilot program, on average each scooter was ridden 318 times, while each bike was only ridden 34 times. Scooters have a much higher utilization rate compared to bikes . BIKES/E-BIKES ~ SCOOTERS ..l RESULTS JL.1. 46,000 1,200,000 26 O mor e • X sc:ooter trips 1,350 3,771 2 ax more • scooters 34 318 9 4 X more trips • per vehicle Scooters are safer Despite traveling nearly 13x as many miles, there were half as many reported injuries on scooter rides compared to bike rides. The scooter injury data was collected through Austin Emergency Medical Services and analyzed by Austin Public Health. No deaths have been reported. BIKES/E-BIKES ~ SCOOTERS ' RESULTS JL.1. ....\ 81 37 112 asmany injuries reported on scooters 85,000 1,100,000 12 9X more m il es • traveled on scooters 9.5 0.3 9.2 more b ike i ~uri es per 1 k m ile s traveled Learn more at: httQ://www.austintexas .gov/edims/document.cfm?id =307564 BIRD Case Study: Portland, Oregon In October 2018, the Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT) published the results1 of a survey of their e-scooter pilot, providing a detailed look at the ways in which more than 4,500 scooter riders (including Portland residents and visitors) were using dock-free scooters over its 120-day pilot. Bringing in new r iders " aver" b ike Connecting to transit 27~ Have used an e - scooter to access public aru N&ver used the local b1 share system p rio r to the e scoot e r pilot Attr acting women riders 36:) Women riders Reducing car and rid e hailing congestion 34:) so;) Portlanders who would have d 11en. had tt.ey not take-n a !Cooter Providing fin ancial inclusion E-sc ooter rider s with . pcrsonol Oll'V'KJ~I incomas of ~50 . 000 or le.,. Portland visitors who would have driven. had they "ot taken a scooter In high d e mand More likely to use scooters if more were ave lable In the c ity 1-https·//www bts oov/browse-statjstjcal-products-aod-data/traosportatjoo-ecooomjc-treods/tet-20 17-chapter-6-household YLfrt'r-· ~- /T~s - - M1itio ·hA-0 bi I I(~~