Bicycles and Micro-Mobility Devices Policy: Your Feedback Matters
Since October 2024, UND has operated under an interim policy governing the on-campus use of bicycles and micro-mobility devices (MMDs) (lightweight battery-powered devices such as e-scooters, e-skateboards, e-bikes, hoverboards). The interim policy banned the use and storage of electric MMDs in campus buildings and residences.
Driving that ban was the legitimate risk of fire from the lithium-ion batteries used to power these devices. These batteries are known for their potential to overheat and cause catastrophic fires though the normal charging process and especially when mishandled. These battery fires could endanger lives and result in severe property damage. We take these risks seriously, which led to the interim policy and now to the adoption of new, tighter restrictions on MMDs. While we recognize the convenience that MMDs offer to individuals, our concerns for the safety and well-being of our campus community are primary.
New notable policy provisions include:
- Personally owned MMDs (e.g., e-scooters, e-skateboards, e-bikes, hoverboards) are prohibited on university property.
- MMDs provided by shared-use mobility companies (e.g., Bird) are permitted on university property.
- The charging and storage of any MMD in university buildings or in/on university-owned/leased property is prohibited.
UND remains committed to providing effective forms of mobility and commuter access to the campus through our regular bus service and the expansion of parking lots for the fall semester.
These policy changes will go into effect August 1, 2025.
Why This Policy Matters
The primary goal of this policy is to reduce safety hazards, prevent property damage, and ensure compliance with fire safety regulations. The lithium-ion batteries often found in MMDs are known for their potential to overheat and cause catastrophic fires though the normal charging process and especially when mishandled. Fires of this nature could endanger lives and result in severe property damage. The policy will also reduce the risk to our many UND students living in off-campus residences.
Shared-use mobility companies—such as Bird—regulate, inspect, service and maintain MMDs off-campus. This mitigates the most severe lithium-ion battery risks associated with on-campus MMD use. This information helped inform UND’s decision to prohibit personally owned MMDs while allowing shared-use MMDs to continue operating on campus.
Seeking Your Input
This policy has been carefully crafted with the safety and convenience of the university community in mind. However, UND recognizes the importance of your feedback before implementation. Faculty, staff and students are encouraged to review the policy and share their thoughts during the two-week campus comment period.
The feedback period will be open April 9-22. During this time, submit your comments and suggestions online. Feedback will be considered before finalizing the policy.
Comments
What does this policy have to do with (non-electric) bicycles. Misleading title for policy and the policy has nothing to do with bicycles. I disagree that this policy was “carefully crafted”.
Thank you for your comment. Policy content focuses on bicycles and electric micro-mobility devices. Please review the full document for additional details relating to the use and proper storage of bicycles as defined in the policy. A link to the draft policy can be found on the policy comment webpage: https://campus.und.edu/operations/policy-office/comment.html.
I know how helpful MMD’s are for students, faculty and staff with long commutes, tight schedules, or accessibility needs. These devices are a smart, sustainable alternative to driving, and that’s something we should be encouraging, not limiting. Rather than restricting e-bike and other MMD presence, perhaps requiring personal MMD registration with the UND Department of Public Safety is a good start. In addition, educating these users at the time of registration about proper use on campus.
Thank you for your feedback.
At this time, the current technology behind personal motorized mobility devices (MMDs) does not meet the university’s safety standards. As a result, these devices are not permitted on campus. We continue to see multiple policy violations each month, with personal MMDs being found inside university buildings.
Should future advancements improve the safety of these devices, the university may revisit and revise this policy. In the meantime, rental scooters are available through a private company (subject to availability), and you are always welcome to ride a human-powered bicycle to campus.
We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and appreciate you reaching out.
This was submitted at https://campus.und.edu/operations/policy-office/comment.html, too.
I can understand what is being attempted with the recent revision that bans MMDs on campus, but I think it is an excessive response. MMDs could still be allowed on campus and risk of fire reduced with modifications like (but not limited to)
– MMDs allowed at outside racks only
– MMDs allowed, but no battery charging on campus
– MMDs allowed, but only if batteries are removed when MMD is at a rack
– MMDs allowed, but only if inspected and tagged by UND if the battery meets certain manufacturing standards
It is unclear from this policy whether MMDs using batteries with different (non-lithium-ion) chemistry are allowed on campus.
MMDs are an important tool to reduce the number of cars on campus (benefiting everyone) and promote active lifestyles. Although disability accommodations may be requested, MMD use benefits many people who aren’t disabled.
Finally, here’s a specific example. A person commute to campus and charge my pedal-assist ebike battery at home. The battery is removed from the bike when it is locked up outside on campus. Does this bike count as an ebike if there is no battery on it? How will UND staff charged with impounding ebikes know whether a battery is present or not?
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughtful feedback and suggestions. We truly appreciate the perspective you’ve offered, especially in recognizing the value that micromobility devices (MMDs) like pedal-assist bikes can have in promoting sustainable transportation and active lifestyles on campus.
You’ve raised some excellent points regarding alternative safety measures. These ideas contribute meaningfully to the ongoing conversation around balancing safety with accessibility and sustainability.
Regarding your specific question: under the current policy, pedal-assist bicycles are considered MMDs and are precluded from campus even if the battery is removed. While this may seem strict, the policy was designed with an abundance of caution due to the risks associated with battery fires and enforcement limitations. We understand this raises concerns, especially for users who take every precaution, like charging at home and storing batteries separately.
Your question about how enforcement staff will distinguish between powered and unpowered bikes is also important. We are working to clarify these practical aspects of implementation and will ensure clear guidance is provided to both the community and enforcement personnel.
Please know that your feedback has been shared with the relevant teams, and we are committed to continuing the dialogue as we monitor the policy’s impact and explore future improvements.
Thanks again for contributing to this important discussion.
Since today is the final day for comments, I would like to add a few more words.
A recent Warwick Manufacturing Group safety report sheds light on the safety features present in manufactured e-bikes, which are designed to prevent fire risks. According to the report, extensive lab tests have demonstrated that high-quality batteries from e-bikes withstand extreme abuse without going into thermal runaway. These batteries possess well-designed safety circuits, sophisticated electronics, and both passive and active protection systems to ensure safety.
While I cannot definitively speak to the safety of e-scooters or very cheaply made MMDs, I would propose that the new policy considers the distinctions between e-scooters and e-bikes. Additionally, I would gladly offer assistance in designing a registration option to ensure that only high-quality devices are permitted on campus.
Lastly, I suggest the policy comment period be reopened once more during late summer or early fall. This timeframe feels more appropriate for gathering valuable input while users are active, rather than in the spring when there are very few around campus.
Thank You!
Reference:
https://www.cyclingelectric.com/in-depth/unprecedented-lab-testing-vindicates-e-bike-of-fire-risk-and-piles-pressure-on-conversion-kit-market
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/personal-light-electric-vehicle-plev-battery-safety-research/plev-battery-safety-research-executive-summary-and-conclusions
Thank you for taking the time to share this thoughtful and well-researched comment, especially on the final day of the feedback period. We appreciate your dedication to this issue and the valuable insights you’ve provided.
The Warwick Manufacturing Group report you referenced is an important contribution to the conversation. This kind of evidence-based input is extremely helpful as we continue to evaluate our policies with safety as the top priority.
Your suggestion to distinguish between e-scooters and high-quality e-bikes is well-taken, as is your offer to assist in developing a registration process that could allow for safer, certified devices. We’ll be sharing your suggestions with the policy owner for future consideration.
We also hear your concern about the timing of the comment period. Your recommendation to reopen the policy for further input is a thoughtful one, and it will be taken under advisement as we consider how best to engage the community going forward.
Thank you again for your constructive feedback and commitment to a safer, more sustainable campus.