La Mesa council delays vote on e‑bike safety pilot after extensive public comment

La Mesa councilmembers voted April 28 to pull an electric bicycle safety pilot ordinance for further review after extensive public comment and debate.

Supporters of postponing the item pointed to practical problems with age-based enforcement and urged more community input. Councilmember Suzuki moved to defer so "everybody on this dais can weigh in" and the item can return at a later meeting; the motion was seconded and passed as a direction to staff.

The ordinance — presented to council as a second reading — would have created a local pilot addressing electric-bicycle operation and safety, including age-related restrictions the staff report described as a potential tool. During the public-comment period several parents and residents said the proposal would punish families who use low‑speed, pedal‑assist (Class 1) e‑bikes to travel on La Mesa’s hills and to school. Cassie Knight, a lifelong La Mesa resident, said the measure "restricts the wrong group" and argued the city should target reckless behavior rather than age. Joseph Scribe and other commenters likewise described many children’s e‑bikes as low‑speed and urged investment in protected lanes and education.

Public safety officials and some councilmembers stressed safety concerns. A representative from Heartland Fire noted that injury severity rises with speed and that higher e‑bike speeds can increase the severity of crashes. A council supporter cited a recent report she said from a children's hospital showing a large rise in e‑bike crash counts; the speaker did not supply underlying data at the meeting. Councilmembers also questioned enforcement practicality — how officers could reliably determine a rider’s age in the field — and whether the city has resources to target speed or behavior consistently.

Councilmember Lothian said he preferred enforcement of existing reckless‑operation statutes rather than a new age ban, noting that reckless riding is already prohibited. Councilmember Suzuki said the motion to pull the item was intended to allow more parents and councilmembers to weigh in and to explore alternatives such as behavior‑based ordinances, education, and infrastructure improvements.

The council’s action was procedural: members directed staff to return the item at a future meeting (council indicated interest in scheduling it for the next meeting), rather than adopting or rejecting the pilot program itself.

What happens next: staff will bring the matter back to a future council meeting for further consideration and possible amendment, with additional community outreach and time for councilmembers to review alternatives discussed at the April 28 meeting.