The Santa Fe adoption — an ordinance-level definition and a carve-out that may not bite

A rider in a city whose state definition is broken is not out of options. Where a municipality runs its own uniform traffic ordinance — a traffic code the city itself writes and can amend, distinct from state law — the residual (leftover, catch-all) "motor vehicle" class in that ordinance is a local definition, and a council can amend it.

Santa Fe tried exactly that in 2023, in three moves: it amended the local "motor vehicle" definition to name an exception for electric bicycles and electric unicycles, it wrote a definition of its own with a motor-power ceiling and a speed ceiling, and it applied the existing bicycle operating rules to the device rather than writing new ones.

There is a flaw in the first move worth naming plainly, because this page will not repeat the mistake. Santa Fe's amended definition, quoted on this page, states the "motor vehicle" class in two connected parts: one covering any self-propelled vehicle, and a second covering any vehicle powered by battery-stored electricity, with the exclusion for these devices written into only that second part, not the first. An electric unicycle is, on a plain reading, self-propelled — so the first part alone already appears to catch it as a motor vehicle, and the exclusion in the second part is never reached. Santa Fe's intent is unambiguous from the ordinance's own title, quoted on this page, so the practical outcome is very likely the one the city meant. But this page does not say the device was "expressly excluded" by that wording, because a careful reading shows the exclusion does not plainly reach the first part of the definition. Section 1 of this template repairs that: instead of copying Santa Fe's own two-part wording, it adds a single closing sentence that excludes the device from the definition as a whole, regardless of which part would otherwise describe it.

The third move — applying the existing bicycle rules rather than writing new ones — is worth copying on its own merits. A city that writes fresh operating rules for one device gets an argument about every clause; a city that says "the bicycle rules apply" gets an argument about nothing, because those rules are already settled locally.

Section 1. The definition of "Motor Vehicle" in [§ ___] is amended by adding a new final
sentence:

    The term "Motor Vehicle" does not include an electric bicycle or an electric unicycle,
    regardless of which part of this definition would otherwise describe the device.

Section 2. [§ ___] is added:

    "Electric unicycle" means a self-balancing device with one wheel that is designed to
    carry only one rider and is propelled by an electric motor.

    [Adopt Santa Fe's motor-power and speed ceiling, quoted on this page from UTO
    § 12-1-86.5, or substitute this jurisdiction's own wattage and speed figures.]

Section 3. Every provision of this chapter applicable to a bicycle applies to an
electric unicycle, including the rules on sidewalks, lamps, brakes and speed.

Section 1 is the load-bearing one. Without it, sections 2 and 3 leave the device defined and also still a motor vehicle, which is worse than where it started. It is written as an added final sentence rather than as a copy of Santa Fe's own two-part wording, precisely because that two-part wording is the flaw described above — an appended, unconditional exclusion reaches both halves of the definition at once.

The one-wheel phrasing in Section 2 follows a form also found in Washington's RCW 46.04.1695, quoted on the Arizona patch template at /act/model-law/arizona-patch, and in similar language across several state electric personal assistive mobility device definitions. It is PEVRA's own paraphrase, not a quotation of Washington's text; the motor-power and speed ceiling that follows it is Santa Fe's own choice of numbers, quoted on this page rather than retyped, so a correction to the citation stays a correction to this page too.

The wattage and speed figures Section 2 points to are a classification boundary: they decide whether a device counts as an "electric unicycle" or falls back into "motor vehicle," not a limit the device itself must obey while it is being ridden. PEVRA's own position opposes a mandated built-in device speed cap and supports a rider speed limit set separately, by facility.

A city considering this should check first whether its state preempts local traffic regulation — whether state law overrides or forecloses a city's own rule on the same subject. The question usually turns on "home rule" — extra self-governing authority some cities hold and others do not — and Illinois is the state PEVRA watches most closely on this. PEVRA has not recorded a preemption clause for any state; a drafter has to look this up for their own state before filing.

Santa Fe's own ordinance text was read from the city's adoption PDF rather than opened in a browser by a steward, so the quotes below sit at tier C — PEVRA's lowest source-confidence rating, for text read by an automated pass rather than checked by a person — until a steward confirms them. A drafter should confirm them before filing.