CCMinutes - 06/14/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

council could not anticipate all the rapid technological advances that might occur in such vehicles. Where possible, she wanted to focus on what the council was attempting to achieve. Mr. Poling supported the motion because he wanted to open up a dialogue on the subject. He believed the focus of the City's effort needed to be on education and enforcement, particularly education of parents given the scooters were heavily used by children, frequently without helmets. He said the draft ordinance should be broad enough to encompass devices such as motor-powered skateboards. He agreed with Ms. Nathanson about the need to focus on impact. He said there were legitimate reasons for the use of the scooters, and a discussion about that needed to occur. Mr. Meisner supported the motion, which he considered sufficiently broad to address the issue that had been raised. He believed the noise issue needed to be addressed more broadly; he pointed out the City's noise ordinance addressed structural noise but not vehicular noise. He thought that was a gap, and called for a ~noise ordinance with teeth." He looked forward to the options presented to the council. Mayor Torrey determined from Sgt. Schulz that the minimum age for the use of such scooters was 16, and the parent was liable for the violation of allowing the minor to operate the vehicle. The penalty for the violation averaged $90. Failure to wear a helmet was $25. Mayor Torrey asked if the City was liable for a collision that occurred on its multi-use paths between the rider of an uninsured scooter and another individual. Ms. Bishop believed that the rider or parent of the rider would have liability. Speaking to Mr. Meisner's comments, Sgt. Schulz noted that there were some statutes that address noise from vehicles but they were specific to motor vehicles and did not include motor scooters. Ms. Taylor said she was also concerned about the safety of pedestrians. Ms. Solomon determined from Ms. Bishop that the only community she was aware of that had passed laws limiting scooters on paths was Corvallis. A Portland representative indicated to her that Portland had not experienced any issues with them yet. Mr. Pap~ emphasized the need to focus on outcomes and to act broadly. He determined from the maker of the motion and the second that the motion did not preclude consideration of other motorized vehicles, such as motorized skateboards. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 14, 2004 Page 10 Work Session