BOSTON — The Massachusetts House of Representatives recently passed a new economic development bill, which included legislation led by Rep. Jim Arciero to regulate e-bikes, scooters, mopeds and other modern modes of transportation.
House Bill H.5562, a $561 million economic development bond bill known as An Act Relative to Economic Development in the Commonwealth, passed with overwhelming support from House lawmakers, receiving 148 votes to 2.
If signed into law, the bill would modernize Massachusetts’ transportation laws by creating the first comprehensive framework to regulate micromobility devices (including e-bikes, scooters and mopeds) in the state, by establishing statewide safety standards and operational rules for the use of these devices. The bill would also make strategic investments to strengthen the state economy through housing, workforce development, innovation and small business growth.
“Micromobility has become an important part of how people commute, recreate and connect with their communities across Massachusetts, but our laws have not kept pace with this rapidly evolving mode of transportation,” said Arciero, who serves as House Chair of the Joint Committee on Transportation.
“This legislation establishes a clear, common-sense framework that supports innovation while prioritizing the safety of pedestrians, riders and other vulnerable users. It provides the clarity our communities have been asking for and lays the foundation for a safer transportation network across the Commonwealth.”
According to Arciero, the micromobility legislation was created following recommendations from the Special Commission on Micromobility to establish a statewide regulatory framework. The Commission was created in 2024 after the approval of an economic development law examining the growing use of micromobility devices. Arciero served on the Commission alongside transportation officials, public safety leaders, municipal representatives, industry stakeholders and advocates, who conducted a year-long review on micromobility regulation across the state, before they issued a final report in January.
The new legislation classifies micromobility devices using their maximum manufactured speed. Below are the different classifications:
- Speed Tier 0 (Up to 20 mph): Includes traditional bicycles, Class 1 and Class 2 e-bikes, mobility aid devices such as powered wheelchairs and other powered micromobility devices with a maximum speed of 20 mph.
- Speed Tier 1 (20–30 mph): Includes Class 3 e-bikes, electric scooters, hoverboards, electric skateboards and mopeds with a maximum manufactured speed of up to 30 mph.
- Speed Tier 2 (31–40 mph): Includes higher-speed powered micromobility devices and limited-use motorcycles with a maximum manufactured speed between 31 and 40 mph.
- Speed Tier 3 (Over 40 mph): Includes motorcycles and other motorized vehicles capable of traveling above 40 mph.
These classifications will determine where each device can operate, as well as establish safety requirements and provide a consistent framework for future regulations as new micromobility technology continues to grow across the state.
The legislation establishes a minimum operating age of 16 for powered micromobility devices and requires the use of helmets for operators and passengers riding higher-speed devices.
According to Arciero, the House decided to include these new regulations in the legislation as a result of a growing number of serious injuries involving micromobility devices, especially among children.
“We heard compelling testimony from pediatric trauma physicians, parents, municipal leaders and public safety officials about the increasing number of preventable injuries associated with these devices,” said Arciero. “The House’s addition of a minimum operating age reflects our commitment to protecting children while ensuring these devices can continue to serve as a safe and reliable transportation option.”
Additionally, the legislation establishes a statewide working group made up of transportation officials, public safety professionals, municipal leaders and industry experts, who will develop recommendations on registration, licensing, insurance, education, crash data collection and additional safety standards. This group will help ensure the state’s micromobility regulations will continue to grow with the evolving technology.
“Transportation is constantly evolving, and our responsibility as policymakers is to ensure our laws evolve alongside it,” said Arciero. “This legislation provides the framework we need today, while giving Massachusetts the flexibility to respond to future innovations. It is an important first step toward creating a safer transportation system that works for everyone who shares our roads, bike lanes, sidewalks and shared-use paths.”
Having been approved by the House, the bill will now head to the Massachusetts Senate for further consideration.
One Response
Jim Arciero votes along with all but 5 democrats and no republicans against what 72% of the voters of the Commonwealth past on November 5, 2025, explicitly authorizing the state auditor to audit the accounts, programs, activities, and functions of ALL departments ,offices, commissions, institutions and activities of the state legislature and any authorities or districts created by the state legislature. What are you hiding?
// BALLOT QUESTIONS, MA ACTION
MA House Passes “Transparency” Bill With Zero Transparency
06/08/2026
|
Miles Grant
Less than 24 hours after it was publicly released, with no public hearing and no public testimony, the Massachusetts House of Representatives passed H.5469, “An Act Promoting Transparency and Public Access in State Government.” It passed by a vote of 125-28.
Advocates of the statewide public records ballot initiative currently advancing toward the November 2026 ballot expressed serious concerns about both the process used to advance the legislation and key provisions of the bill itself.
The ballot initiative would end Massachusetts’ status as one of the least transparent states in the nation by requiring both the Legislature and the Governor’s Office to comply with the same public records law that already applies to state agencies and municipal governments. Massachusetts remains the only state where the legislative, executive and judicial branches all claim exemption from public records law.
The ballot initiative covers both the Governor’s Office and the Legislature. In contrast, H.5469 moves only the Governor’s Office under the current public records law. For the legislature, it sets up an alternative process and creates a limited list of records from the Legislature to be considered public, rather than a presumption of public access unless exempted.
Below is a statement from Danielle Allen, Founder and Convening Chair of the Coalition for Healthy Democracy:
“It’s hard to have confidence in any transparency and good-government legislation that is introduced and voted on within 24 hours, with no public review, testimony or legislative hearing. The Legislature spent the last year promoting new transparency reforms focused on public participation, notice and accountability, yet this bill was unveiled and rushed to a vote before the public had any meaningful opportunity to review or comment on it.
While we are continuing to analyze the bill’s details, and do appreciate the legislature’s engagement on this important matter, the initial review raises serious concerns about both the process and the substance. The people of Massachusetts deserve transparency legislation that is developed transparently.
It is difficult to trust that House leadership is committed to openness and accountability when a proposal of this magnitude is advanced without independent input or public debate. That is why we remain committed to supporting the ballot initiative for public records reform, which would apply the public records law to both the Governor’s Office and the Legislature, just as it applies to other public bodies across Massachusetts.
The people of Massachusetts should not have to rely on politicians to decide what records they are allowed to see. The ballot initiative establishes a simple principle: government records should be public unless a specific exemption applies. That is the transparency and accountability Massachusetts voters deserve from their elected leaders.”
Below is a statement from John Griffin, Executive Director of Partners In Democracy MA Action:
“The people of Massachusetts deserve a higher level of transparency from their state government. This bill was released and voted on in less than a business day, with no public hearing or comment. The process itself lacked transparency. We would welcome a truly collaborative conversation with legislators on this crucial topic—but that is not the standard set by House leadership with this legislation. We continue to support the proposed ballot question to bring the Legislature and Governor’s Office under the state’s Public Records Law.”
Below is a statement of Scotia Hille, Executive Director of Act on Mass:
“When legislators write their own ‘transparency’ rules, behind closed doors, without public input, the result is exactly what you’d expect: a bill that protects them more than it informs us. H.5469 doesn’t bring the Legislature under the public records law – it creates a special carve-out so they never have to. Massachusetts voters have showed again and again that they care deeply about accountability from our government: they won’t be fooled by this transparency theater.”
Below is a statement from John Lippitt, Progressive Democrats of Massachusetts Leadership Team:
“Progressive Democrats of Massachusetts (PDM) is appalled that House leaders would force a vote on any significant bill with barely 24 hours for representatives to review the bill. It’s deeply ironic that the House is talking about addressing transparency concerns in such a non-transparent manner. This is disrespectful of legislators and the public. It is undemocratic and, even more troubling, is that apparently this measure will be slipped into a financial bill as an outside section.
The bill’s restrictions on the availability of judicial review and enforcement of public records issues, as well as the grant of review authority to the legislature itself, are deeply disturbing and contrary to appropriate checks and balances. Needless to say, this is all very different from the treatment of municipal and other entities subject to the public records laws.
PDM is disappointed in the House’s quick vote in support of this measure and urges the Senate to oppose it. We support full application of the state’s public records law to the legislature, as it applies to municipal governments and as is called for in the proposed November ballot question.”
arrow left BACK TO NEWSROOM
Share: