Traffic Safety Commission

Agenda

1. Call To Order: 7:00 Pm
2. Approval Of Last Meeting Minutes (August 2026)
3. Call For Additional Agenda Items
4. Citizen Concerns
5. County E-Bike Code Discussion (see attachment)
6. Conversation: Future of Community Engagement (read homework)
7. Project Updates
   1. Carl:  crash report and project updates
   2. Rob:  report on campaigns (attachments)
8. Adjournment

County contacts:

• Rob Sadowsky – office: 503.742.4776; cell 503.679.7375
• Carl Olson – office 503-742-4684; cell 971-235-3260

E-Bike Ordinance Draft

Ordinance No. _______

An Ordinance Amending Chapter ** of the Clackamas County Code to Add Chapter ***** Regulating the Operation of Electric Assisted Bicycles, Electric Micromobility Devices, and Vehicles Manufactured for Off-Road Use

WHEREAS, the Board seeks to promote public safety and ensure the safe use of public streets, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, pathways, parks, and other public property; and;

WHEREAS, increased use of electric assisted bicycles and electric micromobility devices has resulted in higher speeds, unsafe operation, and conflicts within shared public spaces; and

WHEREAS, the County desires to align local regulations with the Oregon Vehicle Code while establishing reasonable local regulations and enforcement discretion.

Now, therefore, the Board of Commissioners of Clackamas County ordains as follows:

Section 1. Title 7 of the Clackamas County Code is amended to add Chapter 7.08 Regulating the operation of electric assisted bicycles and electric micromobility devices.

ADOPTED this _____ day of ________, 2026.

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

________________________
Chair

________________________
Recording Secretary

PBAC E-Bike Ordinance Letter Draft

September 1, 2026

Board of County Commissioners
Clackamas County
2051 Kaen Road
Oregon City, Oregon 97045 
Subject: E-Bike Ordinance

Dear Board of County Commissioners: 

The Clackamas County Pedestrian and Bikeway Advisory Committee (PBAC) is a 14-member citizen public advisory committee that assists in the development of bicycle and pedestrian plans and advises on matters relating to active transportation. PBAC has been in existence since the mid-1990’s.  We are writing to comment on the draft ordinance titled Regulating the Operation of Electric Assisted Bicycles, electric Mobility Devices, and Vehicles Manufactured for Off-Road Use (a.k.a the E-Bike Ordinance). 

E-bikes offer many benefits. First, there are significant health benefits. Although the motor provides assistance, riders still pedal and must put forth effort to engage the motor.  For many people, an e-bike strikes a balance between the health benefits of cycling and the convenience of motorized transport, making it a practical option for commuting to work, recreation, and running errands.  E-bikes make cycling possible for people who may struggle with conventional bikes, including older adults; people recovering from injuries or have a medical condition; and riders with low fitness levels.  E-bikes are environmentally friendly; they help to reduce traffic congestion and pollution from tailpipe emissions. 

E-Bikes have been around since at least the 1990’s. However, only recently have people expressed safety concerns.  This appears to coincide with the emergence of E-motos on county roads.  The term e-moto refers to devices that exceed the Class 1-3 e-bike legal limits.  E-bikes and e-motos are often used interchangeably creating confusion during media reporting and inaccurate accident statistical analysis. E-bikes and e-motos are very different and should be treated differently and regulated separately. 

PBAC has reviewed and discussed the draft E-Bike ordinance at our September 1, 2026 meeting. At this meeting PBAC made a motion to submit the below comments to the BCC for consideration.  The motion passed unanimously. 

1. Page 1: In second “whereas” delete “electric assisted bicycles” and replace with “Vehicle Manufactured for Off-Road Use”. 

   Reason: There is no accurate, credible or reliable evidence to suggest that the increased use of Class 1-3 e-bikes has led to unsafe operation and/or conflicts with shared public spaces. PBAC believes unsafe operation is attributable to illegal “Vehicles Manufactured for Off-Road Use.”  

2. Section 7.08.10.A Purpose: Delete “electric assisted bicycles” and replace with “Vehicle Manufactured for Off-Road Use.”

   Reason: We believe legal e-bike use should be supported in Clackamas County; not discouraged. The problem we are seeing on our roads is an e-moto problem (a.k.a. “Vehicle Manufactured for Off-Road Use”); not an e-bike problem.  E-motos are off-road style devices that exceed the legal Class 1-3 e-bike limits. County resources should be directed toward e-bike education; not regulation which has no  realistic enforcement mechanism. Ordinances directed at e-bike users would likely dissuade people interested in trying bicycling for transportation and health reasons. Such an ordinance also does not support mode shift policy away from single occupancy vehicle, which can help combat climate change and the wildfires we see ravishing this state every year. 

3. Section 7.08.11.E. Vehicle Manufactured for Off-Road Use definition: Under subsection b – replace 24 mph with 28 mph. Add “e-motos” definition to subsection c. 

   Reason: 24 mph seems randomly selected or is a typo. Federal and Oregon law limits e-bike motor speed to 28 mph. Regarding e-moto comment: this is commonly used in the industry to refer to “devices” that exceed Class 1-3 e-bikes limits. 

4. Section 7.08.20. General Operating Regulations. Subsection b – add exception for situations where parallel bike facility does not exist. 

   Reason: As written, the draft ordinance bans legal e-bikes from sidewalks.  Instead of a blanket ban, there should be allowances for circumstances when there is no parallel bike facility . 

5. Section 7.08.20.D General Operating Regulations.– Delete this section in its entirety. 

   Reason: These regulations are already in vehicle code. If the section is not deleted, the words “or near” the roadway should be deleted. “Near the roadway” implies that if there is a bike lane somewhere near a road that does not have a bicycle lane or bicycle path, riding on roadway without a bike facility is illegal. 

6. Section 7.08.20. E a-b General Operating Regulations.  Delete Subsections E. a-b in their entirety.   

   Reason: Audible warnings often startle people causing them to panic and move into pathway of rider.  Audible warnings are often not heard.  In short, audible warnings can be counterproductive. Moreover, this subsection is not enforceable.  Education would be more effective here, not a new unenforceable regulation. 

7. Section 7.08.30. Reckless or Careless Operation.  Delete Subsections c in its entirety.   

   Reason: Not enforceable.