Overdue Updates to Peachtree City’s Transportation Ordinances

In Fall, 2024, the Peachtree City Mayor and Council appointed the Transportation Advisory Group (TAG) members after passing an ordinance establishing the group with the original intention that engaged residents who represent various shared-use path users including runners, cyclists, parents of teenagers, the elderly, and others who could tackle problems and provide advice on transportation issues.

Council Clint Holland was the driving council member behind TAG as transportation is a personal passion of his, and I appreciate his vision.

I’m a member of TAG, and recently we recommended many overdue updates to the two main ordinances that affect transportation, Chapters 70 and 78. The focus of the updates was the shared-use path system, and I’m proud of the work TAG did because we did it as a team working with city staff. It is a testament to our collective efforts that Mayor and Council asked for very few changes upon initial review.

The update I’m most proud of may seem minor to most, but it is a big deal to anyone who has ever walked or run on the paths.

The addition is, “Pedestrians may elect to travel on the left side or right side of the path considering path conditions and safety. Pedestrians and the disabled always have the right-of-way regardless of direction of travel.”

This means when running, if I encounter a blind turn that cart drivers like to round off, I can freely but cautiously move to the other side of the path to increase my visibility and space cushion.

The previous version of the ordinance stated that “normal rules of the road apply,” but this was confusing because the paths are not normal roads.

I always treated the paths like two-lane roads and walked (or ran in my case) on the left, against traffic. Even with two-way traffic, the paths are not considered two-lane roads, which is very nuanced. Georgia code requires walking against traffic on a two-lane road when no sidewalk or shoulder is available. On any other road, you may walk against or with traffic, as dangerous as that sounds.

This means per the previous ordinance wording, the correct place to walk was on the right.

During a TAG public comment period, a resident who has trained dogs indicated that the proper location for walking a dog is on the left of walker, but that would put the dog in the flow of traffic when the pedestrian is on the right side of the path. Now the walker and his dogs are safer.

The updated ordinance defines a lot of micromobility vehicles: all-terrain vehicle, adaptive cycle, dirt-bike, electric bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, electric scooter, eMoto, go-cart, miniature on-road vehicle, and many more, and it defines which are allowed and not allowed on the path system.

TAG received some public comments after Mayor and Council passed the ordinance update and it was featured in Mondays with the Mayor. The comment was along the lines of it is not necessary to define all the various micromobility devices, and we could have simply indicated maximum speed, weight, and size and put requirements on operator behavior.

On one hand, this is absolutely correct, and I understand the sentiment. On the other hand, simplicity in this case is not warranted. The reason for calling out the classes of e-bike or defining an eMoto, for example, is to align with Georgia state law, to ease enforcement, and create legal defensibility.

The new ordinance defines eMoto as “mean[ing] a high-performance electric motorized cycle, with either footpads or pedals, designed by the manufacturer for highway use and which exceeds the Georgia Code electric assisted bicycle classifications. Those cycles not street-legal and registered as motorcycles shall be categorized as off-highway vehicles.”

Motorcycles have never been allowed on the paths so I’m unsure why anyone thought that an electric-powered motorcycle is acceptable. Police enforcement is easy for an eMoto because the definition is clear: it looks like a motorcycle, and it’s electric so it’s not allowed. A judge can look at the definition also and use it as a basis for a decision.

If the police always must rely on the fallback of going faster than 20 mph, then enforcement is more difficult. In court an eMoto owner can claim it is simply an electric bicycle- witnessed by the fact that some have non-functioning or minimally functional pedals, but pedals are not sufficient to make it an electric bicycle.

Certainly, new electric-powered micromobility devices will appear in the future, but this is not a reason to define none of them.

One of the biggest sources of resident complaints to TAG has been the eMotos zipping around the paths, and I’m motivated to improve path safety to protect the elderly couple or young couple with a baby stroller out for a walk who have to worry about irresponsible cart drivers or operators of now-prohibited vehicles zipping around them giving very little space and no verbal warning.

The last addition to the ordinance that was clearly needed was the requirement to file a police report when any vehicle on the paths crashes with other users causing personal injury or property damage including City property. This may have existed in some form in the ordinances, but now it is spelled out. This means that leaving the scene of a collision now has consequences.

Again, I’m very proud of what the TAG members accomplished. With clear rules now in place, the next step is ensuring consistent enforcement and public education so every resident whether on foot, on a bike, or in a cart can enjoy the paths safely.