I appreciate the effort to modernize our bicycle ordinance, but I’d like to raise concerns about Sections 301.04, 373.10, and 373.101(C). Section 301.04 does not clearly define how e-assist bikes should be classified. Defining e-bikes by the Ohio Class 1–3 system allows safety rules to be tailored to speed and operating behavior rather than assumptions based on appearance. Section 373.10 also lacks clarity regarding e-bikes and prohibits bicycles “wider than customary two-wheeled bicycles.” While the goal appears to be protecting pedestrian comfort, this wording unintentionally targets cargo bikes, box bikes, bicycles with trailers, and adaptive bikes — all legitimate and increasingly common mobility devices used by families transporting children, residents carrying goods without a car, and people with mobility or balance limitations who cannot ride a standard bicycle. Many of these individuals rely on electric assist, making clear definitions and permitted locations especially important. Additionally, Section 373.101(C) appears to prohibit adults from operating “mobility devices” on shared-use paths, which, if interpreted to include e-bikes or adaptive cycles, would exclude users who rely on the safest, lowest-stress facilities. This contradicts the purpose of shared-use paths: to provide safe, inclusive, low-stress travel for people of all ages and abilities. Rather than regulating by width or assist technology — both ambiguous and difficult to enforce — I respectfully suggest a behavior-based approach focused on safe operation: yielding to pedestrians at all times, slower speeds in constrained areas, audible signals when passing, and dismounting when crowded. This maintains pedestrian safety while supporting families, older adults, and disabled riders who depend on these devices for everyday, sustainable transportation. Thank you for considering refinements that keep the ordinance inclusive and aligned with best practices.