The use of electrical bicycles has significantly increased at a pace not likely anticipated by community association boards. A board that has never addressed a complaint about bicycle use now hears about riders speeding down the entrance drive and a near miss on the walkway between the clubhouse and the pool. The natural response is to adopt a rule, and in many communities that is the right response. A rule adopted in haste, however, may exceed the board’s authority, improperly describe the device or vehicle causing the problem, or expose the association to a fair housing complaint. A board that understands those risks before it acts can adopt a rule that addresses safety concerns and holds up if challenged.
What Michigan Law Provides
Michigan adopted a three-class framework for electric bicycles. MCL 257.13e. A device qualifies as an electric bicycle only if it has a seat or saddle, fully operative pedals, and an electric motor of not more than 750 watts. The motor on a class 1 electric bicycle assists only while the rider is pedaling and stops assisting at 20 miles per hour. The motor on a class 2 electric bicycle can propel the bicycle whether or not the rider is pedaling, typically by throttle, and is also capped at 20 miles per hour. The motor on a class 3 electric bicycle assists only while the rider is pedaling and stops assisting at 28 miles per hour. Manufacturers must label each electric bicycle with its class, top assisted speed, and motor wattage. MCL 257.662a. A class 1, 2, or 3 electric bicycle is regulated as a bicycle, and Michigan does not require an operator’s license, registration, or insurance to ride one.
Equally important is what is not an electric bicycle. A device is not an electric bicycle if its motor has been modified so that it no longer meets the above section 13e criteria, or if the motor exceeds 750 watts. MCL 257.662a. Many of the fastest devices now appearing in Michigan communities fall in that category and, depending on their capability, are subject instead to the requirements applicable to mopeds or motor vehicles. Regarding licensing, if the device qualifies as a moped, the operator must hold either a valid operator’s or chauffeur’s license or a special restricted moped license, available to individuals age 15 and older. MCL 257.312a. If the device instead meets the definition of a motorcycle or other motor vehicle, the operator needs a standard operator’s license with the appropriate endorsement.
The classification matters to a board because a rule drafted around the phrase “e-bike” may miss the very devices generating the complaints. Boards should draft by statutory class and by capability, not by the label on the box.
Where the Association’s Rulemaking Authority Comes From
In a condominium, administration is governed by the master deed and bylaws, which may contain provisions “[a]s are deemed appropriate for the administration of the condominium project not inconsistent with this act or any other applicable laws.” MCL 559.156(a). The Condominium Act also specifies that each co-owner, tenant, and non-co-owner occupant “shall comply with the master deed, bylaws, and rules and regulations of the condominium project and this act.” MCL 559.165. Bylaws commonly authorize rules governing use of the common elements, which supports a rule addressing speed, the areas in which devices may be operated, and where they may be parked and charged.
In a non-condominium association, such as a subdivision association or homeowners association, the authority can only come from the recorded declaration and covenants, supplemented by the articles of incorporation, the bylaws, and the Michigan Nonprofit Corporation Act, MCL 450.2101 et seq. Without that express authority, the board of a non-condominium association cannot impose rules on owners.
Fair Housing Implications
A board’s rulemaking authority, however vested, is not unlimited. As noted above, the Condominium Act conditions bylaw provisions on consistency with other applicable laws, and the fair housing statutes are among them. Because complaints about e-bikes on association property so often involve young riders, a common drafting instinct is an age-based restriction. That type of restriction is also the one most likely to violate those statutes.
The federal Fair Housing Act, 42 USC 3601 et seq. (FHA), prohibits discrimination in housing-related activities based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, and familial status. Familial status protects households that include a child under 18. The FHA applies to condominium associations and non-condominium associations alike, and it reaches not only the sale or lease of a home but also the rules an association adopts for its shared spaces. A rule that singles out young riders, whether by prohibiting anyone under 16 from operating an e-bike on association property or by requiring that riders under 14 be supervised, treats households with children less favorably than adult-only households. Federal courts have held rules of that kind unlawful.
Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act provides similar protection, prohibiting housing discrimination based on familial status and age and voiding restrictions on the use of real property on those grounds. MCL 37.2502; MCL 37.2505.
Legal exposure is worth taking seriously. A facially discriminatory rule can support a claim by an aggrieved resident or an administrative complaint, and the association may face damages, injunctive relief requiring the rule’s repeal, and an award of attorney fees, with defense costs incurred well before any of that is resolved. A rule drafted around the capability of the device rather than the age of the rider addresses the same conduct without that exposure, and it has the added advantage of reaching the adult riders whose devices are often the fastest.
Drafting a Defensible Rule
A well-drafted e-bike rule regulates behavior, ability, and equipment rather than age or family makeup, and it can address nearly every legitimate safety concern without mentioning how old the rider is.
Speed. Post a limit that applies to every wheeled device on the drives and walks.
Location. Identify where operation is not allowed, such as sidewalks and walking paths. “Electric bicycles may not be operated on the walking paths” accomplishes the goal without reference to who is riding.
Equipment. Consider prohibiting the operation of devices that fall outside the statutory definition of an electric bicycle. That language reaches the modified and over-750-watt machines that may be the subject of most complaints.
Parking and charging. Designate where devices may be parked and restrict charging in common area locations where a battery fire would put the building or other residents at risk.
Control of the device. Language along the lines of “operators must maintain control of the device at all times and must yield to pedestrians” regulates the activity that actually creates the risk.
Enforcement matters as much as drafting. A facially neutral rule enforced only against households with children presents the same problem under a different label. Enforce an e-bike restriction as you would any other governing document provision, and document what is done.
Takeaway
Electric bicycles are not going away, and neither are the complaints. The board’s job is not to decide whether they belong in the community, but to manage the risk they create using the authority the governing documents actually confer. A rule that targets speed, location, and equipment rather than the age of the rider, and that is enforced consistently, protects residents without handing anyone a fair housing claim. Before adopting or enforcing a restriction, confirm what your master deed, bylaws, or declaration permit, and consult legal counsel.
