The Tampa City Council unanimously voted down a controversial ordinance that would have established 10 mph speed limits on city trails, following extensive public opposition and calls for a more comprehensive approach to trail s afety.WATCH: Tampa City Council unanimously rejects ordinance aimed at limiting bikes on trails like Riverwalk Tampa City Council unanimously rejects ordinance for limiting bikes on trailsThe proposed ordinance, which passed its second reading at a recent council meeting, aimed to address growing safety concerns in popular areas such as the Riverwalk and the Bayshore Boulevard trail. However, after hearing from numerous community members and organizations, council members opted to kill the legislation and schedule public workshops for April.The Proposed OrdinanceThe ordinance, developed by city legal staff in consultation with the Tampa Police Department, sought to address three primary safety issues on multimodal trails throughout the city.First, the legislation would have included electric bikes and other electronic vehicles under existing regulations, ensuring they were subject to the same rules as traditional bicycles. Second, it would have required large groups of cyclists to ride no more than two abreast to allow pedestrians and other trail users adequate space. Third, it would have prohibited "tricks and wheelies" that officials said were creating dangerous conditions and leading to collisions with pedestrians.The ordinance would have established a 10 mph speed limit on all city park trails, representing an increase from the current 5 mph guideline on the Riverwalk but a decrease from the existing 15 mph limit on other trails. Violations would have carried a $75 fine for first-time offenders.Carl Brody from the city's legal department explained that the ordinance was designed to give law enforcement tools to address public safety concerns while maintaining the trails' designation as multimodal paths."The purpose of this is to give law enforcement the tools to be able to address the public safety issue," Brody said. "We know there are problems out on the river walk. You've received the complaints. Tampa Connect has received the complaints, and TPD has observed these dangerous conditions."The city had planned an extensive 90-day education period before enforcement would begin, during which violations would result in warnings rather than citations. The communications department was prepared to launch a comprehensive outreach campaign, including social media, school visits, and community engagement. Community OppositionThe ordinance faced significant opposition from a diverse coalition of community members and organizations who argued it was overly broad and would disproportionately impact certain groups.Connie Burton, a community advocate and NAACP member, strongly opposed the proposal, citing concerns about its potential impact on young people and families. She worried the ordinance would create financial barriers that could prevent families from enjoying the Riverwalk and referenced past policies that she said had disproportionately affected certain communities."We do not agree to the point of it being utilized as an ordinance, as a financial finding fine that can then deter young people families from enjoying the river walk," Burton said. "We have had history with good intention policies, starting off with, you know, people needed special instruments on their bicycle, led to federal investigation of biking while black."Burton specifically referenced the current mayor's previous role as police chief when similar policies were implemented, expressing concern about repeating historical patterns."It was under this administration, when the mayor was chief of police, that it started. Now as the mayor of the city of Tampa, we have some great concerns with this ordinance under her administration," Burton said.Audrey Everett, a planning and transportation intern at the Downtown Tampa Partnership, supported addressing safety concerns but advocated for design-based solutions rather than relying primarily on enforcement. She emphasized that Tampa's current infrastructure forces many cyclists onto mixed-use trails because they lack safe alternatives."Our current infrastructure in the city of Tampa is inadequate for safe biking and walking, and so a lot of people who are just trying to bike, either to get from point A to point B or recreationally, are going on to these mixed modal trails, because it's where they feel safest," Everett said.Everett argued that expanding protected bike lanes would help alleviate conflicts by giving faster cyclists dedicated space separate from pedestrian areas. She also stressed the importance of intelligent trail design that naturally controls traffic flow and speeds."The research really does show that one of the best things that we can do is expand our protected bike lanes, because that helps alleviate these trails from those speedier users who now have a protected and safe way to get to where they want to go," Everett said.A major concern raised by Everett was the lack of comprehensive data on bicycle-related incidents. She noted that current record-keeping doesn't distinguish between e-bikes, traditional bicycles, and motorcycles, making it difficult to understand the scope and nature of safety issues."Over the past few years, when we've had crashes and incidences with E bikes and pedestrians, we are not distinguishing between E bikes, bikes and motorcycles, which is a big issue," Everett said. "So we need to know where are these issues actually occurring, why are they happening, and when are they happening, so that we can better address them."Christine Acosta with Walk Bike Tampa called the ordinance "overreaching" and argued it would have negative impacts on all city park trails, not just high-traffic areas like the Riverwalk."This ordinance was not that. It was overreaching. It would have negative ramifications in all city park trails," Acosta said.Acosta stressed the need for community engagement and education as fundamental components of any future safety initiative."We need community engagement, so we can determine what the best practices are, globally, within the nation, and specifically for Tampa," Acosta said. Support for Stricter EnforcementHowever, the ordinance also had supporters, particularly among pedestrians who frequent the trails and have experienced safety concerns firsthand.Karen Hogan, who walks the Riverwalk daily, described feeling unsafe due to reckless cycling behavior, particularly cyclists performing wheelies and riding at excessive speeds."They drive like maniacs. They're way too fast, and they think they own the river walk," Hogan said. "The biggest problem is the kids that try and ride on a wheelie, you know, only on their back wheel, and they're unsteady, and they rock around, and they lose control, and they hit people."Hogan said she knows of two people who have been hospitalized due to bicycle-related incidents on the Riverwalk and expressed frustration with cyclists who respond aggressively when confronted about unsafe behavior."You yell at them, and they'll come back and they'll cuss you out, or they'll throw things at you," Hogan said.Council Deliberation and DecisionCouncilwoman Lynn Hurtak opened the discussion by acknowledging the community concerns and proposing an alternative approach. She says she tested the proposed speed limits herself."Kelly and I, who are not like Tour de France type folk, we had, we had computers. We had everything with us, clothes to change into. We average six and a half miles an hour on the river walk, just going at a leisurely pace," Hurtak said, noting this was above the current 5 mph guideline but below the proposed 10 mph limit.Hurtak emphasized that, because the Riverwalk was built with federal funds, it is legally designated as a multimodal path and cannot be entirely excluded to bicycles."Since this Riverwalk was paid for with federal funds, it is a multi-use path. We cannot take bikes off of the river walk legally," Hurtak said.Councilman Guido Maniscalco questioned whether the city could implement the planned educational campaign without the ordinance, suggesting that communication and outreach might address many issues without requiring enforcement mechanisms."Can't we move forward with this educational component and go out to the schools and perhaps just by talking and communicating, we can improve the situation without going straight to the ordinance," Maniscalco asked.Legal staff responded that education efforts would be more effective with clear regulations to reference, and that some individuals who create safety hazards are already aware their behavior is dangerous, but continue because there are no consequences.Corporal Flanagan from the Tampa Police Department explained that officers have been providing warnings and education for years, but lack enforcement tools when individuals refuse to modify dangerous behavior."We've been warning and communicating with people for years on this issue, and that is our goal, is to educate. What we experience after that, though, is that the problem continues with a few, and we have no reasonable means to enforce the actual problem at that point," Flanagan said.Councilmembers also questioned whether the city had comprehensive data on bicycle-related complaints and incidents, noting the importance of having baseline information to measure the effectiveness of any interventions.The Vote and Next StepsAfter extensive discussion, Hurtak made a motion to deny the ordinance and to schedule a workshop for April 23, with additional public meetings held beforehand."I want it rewritten significantly enough, after hearing from the public," Hurtak said.The motion received unanimous support from all council members present, effectively killing the current proposal.Hurtak explained that April 23 is the first available workshop date and committed to working with staff and Tampa Police Department to organize interim public meetings for additional community input.The decision means the current ordinance is dead, but council members made clear they intend to address trail safety concerns through a more comprehensive public engagement process. Any future legislation would need to start over with a first reading of entirely new language developed through the workshop process. ...read more read less