CCMinutes - 06/14/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman said she would like to see an ordinance that included a number of optional provisions, including provisions addressing the noise issue, on-street use of motor-assisted scooters, and other salient issues as they arose in the council's discussion. She wanted to hear more from the public, noting that she had not heard from any constituent objecting to the use of motor-assisted scooters in bike lanes on the streets. Ms. Taylor and Mr. Kelly accepted Ms. Bettman's suggestion as a friendly amendment. Ms. Bettman said that the violations of a possible ordinance did not have to be a higher enforcement priority than other violations. As long as people know there is an ordinance and they could receive a ticket, she believed it would have some effect as a deterrent. Mr. Pap6 did not oppose looking at the issue of motor-assisted scooters but did not want the council to limit its consideration of noise issues, for example, to such vehicles alone. He also pointed out that some bicycles were motorized, and he was capable of bringing his own non-motorized bicycle up to 20 to 25 miles per hour on a bicycle path. Mr. Pap6 suggested if the community had a problem with vehicles speeding on bicycle paths, perhaps speed limits on bicycle paths were needed. Mr. Pap6 opposed banning motor-assisted scooters from on-street bicycle lanes as he thought that was where they appropriately belonged. Ms. Solomon agreed with Mr. Pap& She expressed concern about what seemed to be anti-scooter sentiment, pointing out that the council frequently discussed the need to reduce vehicle miles traveled in the community, and motor-assisted scooters were an alternate transportation form that could help accomplish that. She also noted Sgt. Schulz's remarks that the vehicles were here to stay. Ms. Solomon wanted the council to be able to provide for the use of motor-assisted scooters in the community, and advocated for taking a more %an do" attitude toward their use. Mr. Kelly said he had heard from enough constituents to believe there were gaps in the State law that should be addressed. He concurred with Ms. Bettman that the council needed options to consider. He did not think any councilor was expressing opposition to motor-assisted scooters as such, but rather the council was concerned about the impacts and the compatibility of such vehicles with other City path uses. He said that he received complaints about the gas-powered scooters more than about the electric-powered scooters and suggested that staff might want to distinguish between the two types when it considered options. He noted that State law distinguished between motor-assisted scooters and motor-assisted bicycles, and he thought those devices were very different from motor-assisted scooters in terms of their noise and pollution impact. Mr. Kelly requested that staff return with a draft ordinance that did not restrict the ability of people to use motorized devices for basic mobility due to a disability. Speaking to Ms. Solomon's remarks, Mr. Kelly said he walked and bicycled frequently on the City's paths, and was not anti-scooter when the scooter was on a roadway, but when he was out for a quiet walk having such a vehicle coming up behind him at 20 miles per hour was not a pleasant experience. Ms. Nathanson said if scooters became a popular alternative form of commuting, that could be a good thing. However, she acknowledged that residents were increasingly unhappy with the competition for use of the City's multi-use paths. Ms. Nathanson did not want to create an ordinance that made distinctions based on the characteristics of the vehicle involved, and advocated for a focus on impact. She pointed out that the MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 14, 2004 Page 9 Work Session