This story is part of Worthington Pulse's coverage of the October 5 City Council meeting. Start with the October 5 meeting recap.
Worthington City Council did not vote on its proposed e-bike and e-scooter rules at the October 5 meeting. After a public hearing and nearly two hours of discussion, council voted to postpone the ordinance (Ordinance 31-2026) until Nov. 2 so staff can draft language for several ideas that came up during the meeting. The biggest is a rider-education class that could let younger riders use the devices legally. Council members also asked about a longer legal passing distance for cars, new sidewalk rules, and how enforcement would be tracked.
As introduced, the ordinance sets a minimum age of 14 for e-scooters and many e-bikes, requires helmets for minors, and limits sidewalk speeds to 8 mph. Staff asked council to adopt two small changes made since the introduction in response to public comment, mostly to clarify definitions. Council did not take up those amendments, and City Manager Robyn Stewart said she was not comfortable writing new language on the fly. The postponement passed on a voice vote.
The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board's request
Two members of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board, Ryan Hughes and Rebecca Green, told council the board supports the goal of the ordinance but thinks an age limit alone falls short. "Age alone does not confer that safety," Hughes said. The board asked for two things: a city-supported rider-education program, modeled on one in Bexley, and a pathway for riders under 14 to use e-bikes and e-scooters legally after completing it. "Maturity and responsibility don't suddenly arrive on a 14-year-old's birthday," Hughes said.
Green said the approach fits the city's character: "the Worthington way is education forward, it's community building forward". She handed council copies of a Bexley parent guide. The board offered to help design a program and said it could run a periodic group ride to teach parents and kids together.
Stewart said staff has not yet framed what such a class would look like, and that the ordinance as written has no exception to the age minimum, so the code would need to change. Asked about cost, Stewart said the biggest expense would likely be staff time, including overtime, while supplies would be modest, and she offered to bring back a framework for council to review. One council member said the city is facing a deficit with flat income tax revenue and wanted to understand the cost before committing. Others suggested charging families a fee, as the city does for some recreation classes, or offering an online version to cut staff costs. Stewart said an online course would need a way to verify a child had actually completed it.
Where council members landed
Council did not vote on any of the ideas below. After several members spoke, Assistant Law Director Addison Spriggs summarized what she had heard and asked for correction, and staff will draft language for the points that drew support.
A rider class for ages 12 to 16. The version with the most support would let riders as young as 12 use Class 1 e-bikes after taking a city class. Class 2 e-bikes would start at 14, also with the class, and Class 3 would stay at the state minimum of 16. Anyone could take the class voluntarily. Several members wanted the same 12-to-16 class for e-scooters and said the ages could be adjusted later.
The guidance members cited pointed both ways. City Engineer John Moorehead noted that Ohio bars riders under 16 from renting scooters, and that most scooters can reach 20 to 25 mph unless they are speed-limited. One member said Nationwide Children's Hospital's guidance allows Class 1 e-bikes from age 12 with training. Another pointed to American Academy of Pediatrics concerns about scooter riders under 16.
A longer passing distance for cars. Council President Rachael Dorothy said the draft puts duties on riders but none on drivers, and proposed a minimum passing distance of five feet; the state minimum is three. City legal staff said state law is a floor the city can exceed. Several members also asked that driver education be part of any city outreach.
Helmets for minors. Council members who weighed in supported keeping the helmet requirement for minors. Pratt said he had dropped his earlier push for helmets at all ages because trails cross into Dublin and Columbus, and a patchwork would confuse riders.
Sidewalks. This was the least settled question. Pratt said he remains uncomfortable with e-bikes and scooters on sidewalks and would prefer a general ban with exceptions where the road is more dangerous. Another member worried that a ban would push middle schoolers onto the five lanes around Wilson Bridge Road. Ideas included requiring riders to dismount around pedestrians, allowing sidewalk riding only with the motor disengaged, which Hilliard has done, and approving sidewalk riding only on designated streets, which is Bexley's approach. Several members said they did not know whether disengaging the motor is practical on heavy e-bikes. Staff will bring back information on that question.
Scooter visibility. A council member said scooter rear reflectors sit so low that riders are hard to see at night, and asked about reflectors or lights at waist or chest level. Staff said they would explore it.
Schools. Council members asked how the city might partner with Worthington Schools on education. Stewart said the district would likely welcome general safety messaging, but that city-specific rules are harder to communicate because Worthington is only about a quarter of the district's population. A council member later put the share of students who live in the city proper at 23%.
Stay connected to what's happening in Worthington, Ohio.
Enforcement and tracking
Stewart relayed that Interim Police Chief Jeff Kubasek, who was out of town, expects officers to focus on education and warnings for 60 to 90 days after any new rule takes effect before moving to enforcement. She said roughly 80% of officers' interactions with motorists end in education or a warning rather than a ticket. Citations are tracked, she said, but she was unsure whether warnings are; Spriggs said dispatch logs a stop, but the outcome of an education-only encounter is not necessarily recorded. Council President Dorothy asked staff to find out how warnings and citations would be documented, whether stops would be captured on body-worn cameras, and what data would be collected, as it is for other traffic stops. Another member asked about the body camera policy as well. Stewart said she would follow up.
Law Director Tom Lindsey said a diversion program would run through Mayor's Court and the police department rather than in the ordinance, as an alternative to prosecution. "Neither the police nor the law department are looking to prosecute, particularly as far as juveniles, these offenses," he said. Under the diversion approach, he said, the goal would be education, with a mechanism for people who decline or fail to comply.
A council member also said the Ohio chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics runs a "Put A Lid On It" grant that helps communities buy helmets, with an application deadline in early 2027, and asked staff to note it.
What residents said
Five residents spoke, in addition to the two advisory board members. Their views split. One opposed helmet requirements for traditional bicycles and age limits for Class 1 and Class 2 e-bikes, citing national cycling advocacy groups, and urged council to leave those decisions to parents. A second speaker agreed that helmet laws for ordinary bikes go too far and worried about diverting a 10-year-old to Mayor's Court. Another asked how a rider or a pedestrian could tell whether an e-bike was above 8 mph when many have no speedometer, and suggested requiring riders to turn off the motor or walk around pedestrians. One supported a minimum age and helmets for riders under 18. A late speaker urged council to consider a trial period or delayed start so education is in place first.
What's next
Staff plans to bring a revised ordinance back Nov. 2. Stewart said council can vote then if members like what they see, or postpone again. She suggested that date because the third meeting in October already has a full agenda and staff needs time to work through the education program. A council member asked when the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board next meets, in hopes of getting its input on the education piece; the answer was Oct. 26.
This is one of 2 Worthington Pulse stories from the October 5 city council meeting recap.