Scranton might ban electric bicycles and motor-propelled scooters, skateboards and hoverboards in city parks and on sidewalks downtown and in other business districts.

The reason for such a ban is to improve public safety. The generally silent motor vehicles have grown in use, zipping along at high speeds on sidewalks and other walkways and representing a potential danger for collisions with pedestrians, according to legislation proposed by Scranton Mayor Paige Cognetti.

Scranton City Council on Tuesday unanimously introduced two ordinances from the mayor that together would achieve the ban. The ordinances would create definitions of e-bikes and other electric-motor devices, and ban them in all of the city’s nearly three dozen parks, as well as ban them on sidewalks in business districts.

The new rules are needed because city codes do not address newer types of e-bikes that have an electric-assist motor. Such devices “are capable of speeds and weights that can pose serious risks to pedestrian safety, cause property damage and interfere with the safe and intended use of sidewalks, parks, playgrounds, recreational areas and trails, particularly where they are operated at high speeds in areas used by pedestrians,” according to the proposed legislation.

The proposed ban would not apply to people with disabilities who use power-driven mobility devices, nor to law enforcement, emergency responders or city employees using such devices in their official duties, according to the legislation.

Details of proposed ban

Some of the details of the proposed ban include:

• E-bikes and similar devices could still be used on sidewalks that are not in city business districts; and also could be used in streets and in bike lanes on streets that are in business districts, but with certain conditions. The conditions include: operation as close as possible to a right-hand curb; no more than two e-bikes operated side by side; no clinging or attaching to another moving vehicle; no passengers on a handlebar, frame or mud guard; a light, reflectors, horn or bell would be required; and a siren or whistle would be prohibited.

• One ordinance would amend a chapter in the city code on bicycles to instead say “bicycles and motorized devices;” and “to define and regulate electric bicycles, electric personal assistive mobility devices and other motorized devices;” and the other ordinance would prohibit the motor-assisted devices in parks. Each ordinance creates different provisions on penalties and enforcement.

• The new regulations would prohibit on city property any motorized device capable under motor power alone of reaching a speed greater than 20 mph. The rules also would require helmets to be worn when using such devices, and for users to yield the right-of-way to pedestrians and give an audible signal before overtaking and passing a pedestrian. Enforcement could be done by city police, code enforcement or other authorized personnel.

• One ordinance provides for a penalty of between $50 and $300 per violation. The ordinance that prohibits the use of the devices in parks carries a maximum fine of $600 and costs, or if the monetary penalty is not paid, then up to 30 days of imprisonment. Asked why there are two sets of penalties, city Business Administrator Eileen Cipriani said, “Because they are two separate chapters of the City Code, each with its own penalty structure. The difference isn’t that the same conduct is punished two ways, it reflects which chapter of the Code the violation falls under. A violation of the park rules is penalized under the parks chapter’s $600 framework; a violation of the general operating rules (sidewalks, streets, equipment, age, etc.) is penalized under Chapter 175’s $50–$300 framework. Both carry the same 30-day default-of-costs provision.”

• A prohibition on children under the age of 16 applies to electric-assist bicycles (e-bikes) specifically, and mirrors the state rule that already bars children under 16 years old from operating e-bikes anywhere, Cipriani said. Similarly, the city’s proposal applies state helmet rules citywide, and would not create a new broader city helmet requirement for adult riders.

Questions raised

At Tuesday’s council meeting, council voted 5-0 — with council President Tom Schuster, Patrick Flynn, Sean McAndrew, Mark McAndrew and Jessica Rothchild in favor — on the introduction of the two ordinances, according to an Electric City Television simulcast and video of the meeting posted on YouTube. Council members and a resident raised questions about the proposed ban.

Joan Hodowanitz, a downtown resident and pedestrian, said she is glad to see the action being taken but thinks the parameters of a ban and its enforcement need to be spelled out more clearly.

“It’s not that the ordinances are bad. I think they need a lot of rework and clarification before you go forward with them,” Hodowanitz said.

Mark McAndrew said, “I’m thrilled we’re finally identifying e-bikes and putting a name to it, but I agree with Joan — we’ve got to get it right.”

Schuster noted the proposed ban would not apply throughout much of the neighborhoods, but that’s where most of the complaints about e-bikes have been raised.

“We need to explore that a little further to see if we can expand that out,” Schuster said of geographic limits of the proposed ban.

The ordinances likely would come back before council at the next weekly meeting Tuesday at 6:30 p.m. at City Hall. An ordinance typically is enacted via three separate readings and votes of council taken at three consecutive weekly meetings. Council also can suspend rules and move up either or both of the latter two votes, and can also table legislation once it’s introduced or advanced, for further review.

Administration expounds on proposal

Other questions posed by the newspaper and answers from Cipriani included:

• Outside of the downtown, what are the other business districts where the proposed e-bike ban would take effect, specifically which streets and blocks? “Whether a given stretch is a ‘business district’ is determined block by block by the actual buildings and land use there, not by a fixed list. Downtown plainly qualifies,” Cipriani said. “Commercial segments of corridors like Cedar Avenue, Pittston Avenue, North and South Main Avenues, and South Washington Avenue would qualify where they meet the 300-feet-of-frontage test, but purely residential stretches of those same avenues would not.”

• Does the proposed ban on riding the e-devices on sidewalks in business districts mean they can be used in the streets in those areas? “Correct. In a business district, a person may not operate a bicycle or e-bike on the sidewalk unless official traffic-control devices permit it (or a usable bicycle-only lane is provided adjacent to the sidewalk),” Cipriani said. “Riders are expected to use the street/roadway instead, subject to the ordinary rules of the road and the operating rules in Chapter 175 (riding near the right-hand curb, no more than two abreast, lights at night, etc.). The street remains available to bicycles and e-bikes, but a higher-powered motorized device capable of more than 20 mph under motor power alone is separately barred from “City Property,” which includes sidewalks (though not the street itself).”

• Could people still ride e-bikes and similar devices on sidewalks in neighborhoods and/or in the streets in those locations, which are not parks or business districts? “Yes, for bicycles and e-bikes,” Cipriani said. “Outside of business districts, bicycles and electric-assist bicycles may be operated on sidewalks anywhere in the city, and they may be ridden in the streets as well. Two conditions still apply everywhere: 1) On any sidewalk or shared path, the rider must yield to pedestrians and give an audible signal before passing; 2) A motorized device capable of more than 20 mph (motor-only) may not be used on sidewalks or other city property, even in a neighborhood. The one place these devices are flatly off-limits is parks, playgrounds, recreational areas, trails, and footpaths, where motorized devices are prohibited under both ordinances (subject to the exceptions for police, emergency responders, on-duty City staff, and disability mobility devices).”

E-bikes recently banned in Nay Aug Park

The administration’s e-bike ban proposal to council comes after the Scranton Municipal Recreation Authority, which primarily oversees Nay Aug Park, banned e-bikes there Sept. 9. The recreation authority’s ban did not spur the city’s broader two ordinances, which were initiated by the mayor, Cipriani said.

Authority Chairwoman Barb O’Malley said the authority had heard concerns from the public about e-bikes in Nay Aug Park.

“It was brought before our board on Aug. 6. We had heard a lot of complaints from people on safety issues,” O’Malley said, noting she also has experienced a close-call with an e-bike. “I almost got whacked. You know how they’re quiet, you don’t even hear them.”

While the recreation authority voted for the ban, how enforcement would occur remained at the crux of the matter, O’Malley said. The mayor’s proposal pending before council for a ban in all parks would cover Nay Aug Park and resolve any question of enforcement.

“We welcome it. I think we all just want people to be safe,” O’Malley said.