Common objections, answered

These are the eight questions PEVRA is asked most often by legislative staff. Each answer says what the record shows and, where PEVRA is giving an opinion rather than reporting a source, says that too.

git c35aac7

“Aren’t these just motor vehicles?”

In many codes today, yes — by elimination, not by anyone’s decision. A code defines a handful of light-vehicle classes by shape, a one-wheeled device matches none of them, and it falls to the residual class: the catch-all every vehicle code keeps for whatever it did not otherwise describe.

A 'motor vehicle' is a vehicle that is self-propelled.

CVC § 415(a) ("motor vehicle" — the residual class)Tier C — secondary source; context only, never supports a verdictThe source prints no date of its own

The catch-all class, in one sentence. Nothing in it describes a shape, so anything self-propelled that no other class caught lands here.

The consequence is not a fine. It is that the device would have to be registered, titled and insured as a motor vehicle — which it cannot be, because it does not meet the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (the federal build rules, from lights and mirrors to a vehicle identification number, that a car or a motorcycle must satisfy before it can be sold or registered). There is no compliant way to ride it. That is what PEVRA means by a drafting accident: nobody chose this outcome, the definitions arrived at it.

“Why not use the e-scooter definition we already have?”

Because those definitions were written by describing a picture, and the picture has parts that all have to be true at the same time.

A device weighing less than 100 pounds, with 2 or 3 wheels, handlebars, and a floorboard that can be stood upon while riding, that is solely powered by an electric motor and human power, and whose maximum speed, with or without human propulsion, is no more than 10 miles per hour.

625 ILCS 5/1-140.11 (definition of "low-speed electric scooter")Tier C — secondary source; context only, never supports a verdictThe source prints no date of its ownThis publisher blocks automated readers — a steward must open it in a browser.

The shape test, in one clause: two or three wheels, handlebars and a floorboard, all three required at once.

A one-wheeled device has one wheel, no handlebars and no floorboard. It fails three of that clause’s tests at once. Widening the class therefore means either amending each shape test or replacing them with function tests — what the device does and how fast, rather than what it looks like — which is what the definition template does.

“Has anyone actually written a one-wheel clause?”

Yes. One has been in force in the United States since 2015.

a self-balancing device with one wheel designed to transport only one person by an electric propulsion system with an average power of two thousand watts (two and two-thirds horsepower) having a maximum speed on a paved level surface, when powered solely by such a propulsion system, of less than twenty miles per hour

RCW 46.04.1695 ("Electric personal assistive mobility device") — the one-wheel clauseTier C — secondary source; context only, never supports a verdictThe source prints no date of its own

A single-wheel clause in force in a US statute since 2015 — the language a drafter can lift rather than invent.

A second approach removes the question rather than answering it, by saying the wheel count is not part of the test at all.

every vehicle, regardless of the number of its wheels in contact with the ground, that (i) is designed to allow an operator to sit or stand, (ii) has no manufacturer-issued vehicle identification number, (iii) is powered in whole or in part by an electric motor, (iv) weighs less than 100 pounds, and (v) has a speed of no more than 20 miles per hour on a paved level surface when powered solely by the electric motor

Va. Code § 46.2-100 (definition of "motorized skateboard or scooter")Tier C — secondary source; context only, never supports a verdictLaw as of 2026-08-28

The other approach: a definition that puts the wheel count outside the test altogether.

Every quotation on this page carries a tier C badge. Tier C means PEVRA read the text from the publisher’s own site through an automated sweep and no steward has since opened it in a browser. Every quotation on this site says which tier it is, so a drafter knows exactly how far the evidence has been taken.

“Shouldn’t riders be licensed?”

This is a policy question rather than a records question, so what follows is PEVRA’s position and not a citation. PEVRA holds that no license should be required to operate below 30 mph (48 km/h). A driving license tests a person’s ability to drive a car. It measures nothing about riding a 30-pound device at bicycle speed, and its practical effect is to move the youngest and poorest riders off the path and into traffic, or off the device entirely.

One example on file is Queensland: from 2026-08-31, a rider of a personal mobility device there must be 16 and hold a driver license. PEVRA’s calendar entry for it links the Queensland government’s own page, and the Queensland page holds whatever PEVRA’s database has recorded so far.

“Why not just cap the speed inside the device?”

Also a policy question, and PEVRA’s most-argued position: no speed cap built into the device, and support for every rider speed limit a jurisdiction sets, facility by facility.

The reasoning is that a rider who cannot accelerate cannot get out of the way. A device locked at a low top speed is a device that cannot leave a lane when a car changes into it. Speed belongs to the rider and to the place — walking pace where people walk, bicycle pace on a bicycle path, traffic pace on a road — and it is enforceable there, the same way it is enforced for every other vehicle.

“Sidewalks are for people walking.”

They are, and PEVRA’s position is that the speed should fit the prevailing use of the space: walking pace where people walk. That is a speed rule rather than a device ban, and some codes are already written that way. PEVRA’s database records Santa Fe’s ordinance as permitting sidewalk riding unless a sign prohibits it, at 10 mph or under, with a duty to yield to people on foot — recorded, not verified: no steward has yet checked that entry against the official text, and the Santa Fe page says so on its face.

The distinction matters because a device ban and a speed rule fail differently. A speed rule that is broken is enforced against the rider who broke it. A device ban is enforced against everyone who owns one, including the ones who were riding at walking pace.

“What about battery fires?”

A real problem, and a separate one. Battery safety is a product-certification question — what a cell has to pass before it can be sold — and it is answered by the standards regime and the agency that runs it, not by a traffic definition. Writing a fire concern into a traffic code produces a rule that reaches a rider and never touches a manufacturer.

PEVRA follows the federal rulemaking on this on the action calendar, with the official document behind each entry. Where PEVRA has itself filed on one of those dockets, the calendar entry is where that filing is stated and separately accounted for; this page reports what the record says and nothing more.

“Nobody registers these. How would anything be enforced?”

The same way bicycle rules are enforced: against the rider, at the moment, for the thing they did. Registration is not what makes a speed limit enforceable; a limit is enforced against a rider, not against a plate, and bicycle rules are enforced there anyway. Every model template on this site is written so that the operating rules attach to conduct rather than to a registration number.

Where PEVRA stands, in three positions

1. Licensing. No licence should be required to operate below 30 mph (48 km/h). Held since 2026-08-28.
2. Device speed caps. Devices should never carry a built-in speed cap. PEVRA supports every rider speed limit a jurisdiction sets, by facility: rider limits yes, device limits no. Held since 2026-08-28.
3. Where EUCs belong. EUCs belong on all roads, bike paths and sidewalks, at a speed appropriate to and limited by the prevailing use of the space. Held since 2026-08-28.

This page is education. It reports what sources say and states what PEVRA holds; it asks nothing of the reader. The templates · How a campaign works · Look up a place

This page is legal information, not legal advice, and is not a substitute for the advice of an attorney. Nothing here should be construed as an attempt to offer or render a legal opinion or otherwise engage in the practice of law. PEVRA does not warrant that this information is complete or accurate and disclaims all liability for any loss caused by errors or omissions. Laws change; check the 'as of' date and the official source linked on every claim.