I think we are all concerned about safety and as the use of PTDs has grown, I see the need for a policy. We are a campus that is also interested in sustainability. Using PTDs is a way for campus members to use alternative methods of transport. I think the policy in some places may unintentionally discourage sustainable transportation practices.
1.8--I don't see why all PTDs could not be walked through a campus building. If an employee bikes to work and chooses to secure their bike in their private office (since bike racks are not plentiful), why couldn't they walk said bike into their building? Or a scooter? I would ask the originators to consider changing 1.8 to state that all PTDs must be walked through campus buildings rather than singling out skateboards.
1.12--I don't see how this is enforceable. A student, staff, or employee bikes to work on a clear morning and by afternoon there is a pop-up rain shower. Must they walk their bike to the edge of campus in order to bike home? Perhaps a more general statement, earlier in the policy about “PTD users must exercise good judgment and use PTDs at their own risk" would eliminate the need for 1.12, 1.13 (and possible 1.10 unless you wanted to emphasize under the influence in which case a separate line would be needed). 1.10, 1.12, 1.13 seem loco parentis to me, especially when the policy applies to all campus members.
2.4, 2.5--Where/how will students charge their PTDs if they cannot do so on campus? I understand that there is some fire risk associated with charging these devices, but there are fire risks in charging other types of non-transport devices. Is the risk of fire greater with PTDs than with other devices?
4.1. While the policy applicability section states that this policy applies to all faculty, staff, and students, section 4.2.3 is a student-only penalty.
Commentor: Sharon McGee
Submitted on: 4/16/2025 11:20:23 AM
On behalf of:
Individual Staff
I appreciate the opportunity to review and contribute to this policy development.
1.7. Use on Campus Site-Furnishings – PTD use is prohibited on all Campus Site Furnishings, lawns, athletic fields, and courts.
It appears that there is conflict in this statement at 1.7 that personal transportation devices to include bicycles is prohibited from use on Campus Site Furnishings that include bike racks. Please reconsider further defining these terms and allowability for parking and securing personal transportation device at designated spaces on campus to accommodate and encourage alternate forms of commuting that provide many benefits to everyone on campus such as increased sustainability, lessening parking needs, and easing traffic congestion.
1.8. PTDs may not be used inside University buildings unless specifically permitted. PTDs (except skateboards) may not be walked through University buildings or facilities, except for direct access to and from designated storage facilities or approved spaces.
It is unclear in Section 1.8 when use would be specifically permitted inside University building and by whom. Will a list of specifically permitted uses and buildings be posted publicly somewhere, or will procedures to require specific permission be shared? Further, it is unclear why skateboards would be the only PTDs allowed to be walked through/carried through buildings. It seems that roller skates, small scooters, and other small devices could easily and safely be carried through building by users without disruption.
If there are buildings or facilities that have more users of these PTDs, consideration should be given to providing safe and secure storage similar to bike racks. Perhaps storage lockers could be provided as a means to accommodate and encourage these alternate forms of commuting, and this would prevent the need to carry or walk these PTDs through buildings and facilities if there are options to store and secure these PTDs.
1.10. Reckless behavior, including stunt riding, jumping or grinding on Campus Site Furnishings or handrails, weaving through pedestrian traffic, or use under the influence of drugs or alcohol, is strictly prohibited.
Section 1.10 appears to be unfair and inappropriately categorize many actions as reckless behavior. There are highly skilled individuals that can perform stunts on their skateboards, skates, bikes, etc. with due care and consideration for their surroundings and other persons. In fact, there are competitions and championships to reward and recognize stunt riding as it is a unique and skilled competitive sport, and it is completely unfair to categorize this as across the board reckless behavior. I encourage a more thoughtful approach to defining reckless behavior and allowable conduct while not insulting aspiring and accomplished stunt riding athletes that are dedicated to practicing this sport and honing their skills.
1.11. PTD operators will be responsible for any damage done to University facilities or grounds.
I wonder how Section 1.11 corresponds with other policies related to pedestrian, general campus users, and vehicle users' responsibility for damage done to University facilities and grounds. If it is not typical for pedestrians or car drivers, for example, to be held responsible for any damage done to University facilities or grounds or specified so explicitly in a policy in this way, it appears unnecessarily exclusionary to target only users of alternate forms of transportation in this way. I recommend reconsidering this approach and eliminating if it is already addressed appropriately in another code of conduct or general policy for campus users.
1.12. PTDs should not be used in poor weather conditions that impair visibility or control.
I wonder if this “should not” statement in Section 1.12 is to be construed as a “must not” wherein users could be cited in some way. If this is general guidance that will not be subject to any enforcement measures, I recommend removal from policy. It is not clear why bicycle commuters, for example, would be discouraged or prohibited to commuting to campus for work or class on rainy days, for example, when car drivers are undoubtedly not subject to this standard. All commuters and pedestrians should be subject to the same standards for exercising good judgment and safety when traveling in poor weather conditions.
1.13. PTD operators are strongly encouraged to use protective gear while riding.
If Section 1.13 is just a suggestion, I recommend removing from policy and instead using other means to promote health, safety and wellness guidelines on campus.
Section 4.2. appears to need to be revised to add “for students” given that the violation noted in 4.2.3 would only apply to students. If this section applies to all users regardless of student status, each level of offense should appropriately correlate across all users.
If ETSU Parking Services is responsible for parking enforcement, it is unclear why these particular vehicles (PTDs) would be subject ETSU Campus Police enforcement and citation instead of having the parking manual address allowable parking and citation violations.
I recommend adding information to procedures for filing lost/stolen reports as noted in this policy and for checking with ETSU Campus Police to see if they removed/relocated/confiscated a PTD as outlined in this policy as well as how to recover the lost/stolen/confiscated property and any associated costs.
Commentor: Katie Sellers
Submitted on: 4/11/2025 1:29:47 PM
On behalf of:
Individual Staff
Thanks to the team working on development of this policy.
1.7: In the Defined Terms section, “Campus Site Furnishings” is defined as including bike racks. In 1.7 PTD use is prohibited on Campus-Site Furnishings. Point of clarification that using the bike rack for its purpose is not contraindicated by the phrasing of this section.
1.9: What is the meaning of “pedestrian-only zones”—can that be defined and an example provided? In a sense the Boulevard Commons might be considered a pedestrian-only zone. This needs clarification. Also, bicycles are considered vehicles when operating on roads and should have access to drive through parking garages.
1.12: Bike commuters may commute rain or shine. How is it determined whether the weather is poor enough to impair visibility or control? (Does 1.12 preclude bike commuters from riding on rainy days?)
1.14.4: If “site-furnishings” here is meant as the defined term “Campus Site Furnishings” please note that definition currently includes bike racks. Also, there are insufficient bike racks in key areas of campus. If 1.14.4 is implemented without adding bicycle parking infrastructure, it will discourage bicycle commuting.
Commentor: Emily Goepel
Submitted on: 4/10/2025 3:12:29 PM
On behalf of:
Individual Staff
1.9. Bicycles are allowed to use the roads as cars. Why are the not allowed to be used in the parking garage? An exception should be added for bicycles so they can drive through the parking garage.
1.14.4. I suggest removal of this title. Bike rack infrastructure is inadequate in multiple areas around campus. For example Nicks Hall has a single bike rack area supporting parking for 4 bicycles total. The bike rack is frequently full. The building itself has over 300 rooms, and I would estimate over 500 daily users easily. If the bike rack is full how am I supposed to secure my bicycle and abide by this policy. Previously I would do the logical thing and secure it in an out of the way spot that is secure, doesn't impede access or egress, and doesn't damage the campus site furnishings. I don't want my lock cut and my personal property “removed immediately” because the bike rack was full again.
I think we are all concerned about safety and as the use of PTDs has grown, I see the need for a policy. We are a campus that is also interested in sustainability. Using PTDs is a way for campus members to use alternative methods of transport. I think the policy in some places may unintentionally discourage sustainable transportation practices.
1.8--I don't see why all PTDs could not be walked through a campus building. If an employee bikes to work and chooses to secure their bike in their private office (since bike racks are not plentiful), why couldn't they walk said bike into their building? Or a scooter? I would ask the originators to consider changing 1.8 to state that all PTDs must be walked through campus buildings rather than singling out skateboards.
1.12--I don't see how this is enforceable. A student, staff, or employee bikes to work on a clear morning and by afternoon there is a pop-up rain shower. Must they walk their bike to the edge of campus in order to bike home? Perhaps a more general statement, earlier in the policy about “PTD users must exercise good judgment and use PTDs at their own risk" would eliminate the need for 1.12, 1.13 (and possible 1.10 unless you wanted to emphasize under the influence in which case a separate line would be needed). 1.10, 1.12, 1.13 seem loco parentis to me, especially when the policy applies to all campus members.
2.4, 2.5--Where/how will students charge their PTDs if they cannot do so on campus? I understand that there is some fire risk associated with charging these devices, but there are fire risks in charging other types of non-transport devices. Is the risk of fire greater with PTDs than with other devices?
4.1. While the policy applicability section states that this policy applies to all faculty, staff, and students, section 4.2.3 is a student-only penalty.
I appreciate the opportunity to review and contribute to this policy development.
1.7. Use on Campus Site-Furnishings – PTD use is prohibited on all Campus Site Furnishings, lawns, athletic fields, and courts.
It appears that there is conflict in this statement at 1.7 that personal transportation devices to include bicycles is prohibited from use on Campus Site Furnishings that include bike racks. Please reconsider further defining these terms and allowability for parking and securing personal transportation device at designated spaces on campus to accommodate and encourage alternate forms of commuting that provide many benefits to everyone on campus such as increased sustainability, lessening parking needs, and easing traffic congestion.
1.8. PTDs may not be used inside University buildings unless specifically permitted. PTDs (except skateboards) may not be walked through University buildings or facilities, except for direct access to and from designated storage facilities or approved spaces.
It is unclear in Section 1.8 when use would be specifically permitted inside University building and by whom. Will a list of specifically permitted uses and buildings be posted publicly somewhere, or will procedures to require specific permission be shared? Further, it is unclear why skateboards would be the only PTDs allowed to be walked through/carried through buildings. It seems that roller skates, small scooters, and other small devices could easily and safely be carried through building by users without disruption.
If there are buildings or facilities that have more users of these PTDs, consideration should be given to providing safe and secure storage similar to bike racks. Perhaps storage lockers could be provided as a means to accommodate and encourage these alternate forms of commuting, and this would prevent the need to carry or walk these PTDs through buildings and facilities if there are options to store and secure these PTDs.
1.10. Reckless behavior, including stunt riding, jumping or grinding on Campus Site Furnishings or handrails, weaving through pedestrian traffic, or use under the influence of drugs or alcohol, is strictly prohibited.
Section 1.10 appears to be unfair and inappropriately categorize many actions as reckless behavior. There are highly skilled individuals that can perform stunts on their skateboards, skates, bikes, etc. with due care and consideration for their surroundings and other persons. In fact, there are competitions and championships to reward and recognize stunt riding as it is a unique and skilled competitive sport, and it is completely unfair to categorize this as across the board reckless behavior. I encourage a more thoughtful approach to defining reckless behavior and allowable conduct while not insulting aspiring and accomplished stunt riding athletes that are dedicated to practicing this sport and honing their skills.
1.11. PTD operators will be responsible for any damage done to University facilities or grounds.
I wonder how Section 1.11 corresponds with other policies related to pedestrian, general campus users, and vehicle users' responsibility for damage done to University facilities and grounds. If it is not typical for pedestrians or car drivers, for example, to be held responsible for any damage done to University facilities or grounds or specified so explicitly in a policy in this way, it appears unnecessarily exclusionary to target only users of alternate forms of transportation in this way. I recommend reconsidering this approach and eliminating if it is already addressed appropriately in another code of conduct or general policy for campus users.
1.12. PTDs should not be used in poor weather conditions that impair visibility or control.
I wonder if this “should not” statement in Section 1.12 is to be construed as a “must not” wherein users could be cited in some way. If this is general guidance that will not be subject to any enforcement measures, I recommend removal from policy. It is not clear why bicycle commuters, for example, would be discouraged or prohibited to commuting to campus for work or class on rainy days, for example, when car drivers are undoubtedly not subject to this standard. All commuters and pedestrians should be subject to the same standards for exercising good judgment and safety when traveling in poor weather conditions.
1.13. PTD operators are strongly encouraged to use protective gear while riding.
If Section 1.13 is just a suggestion, I recommend removing from policy and instead using other means to promote health, safety and wellness guidelines on campus.
Section 4.2. appears to need to be revised to add “for students” given that the violation noted in 4.2.3 would only apply to students. If this section applies to all users regardless of student status, each level of offense should appropriately correlate across all users.
If ETSU Parking Services is responsible for parking enforcement, it is unclear why these particular vehicles (PTDs) would be subject ETSU Campus Police enforcement and citation instead of having the parking manual address allowable parking and citation violations.
I recommend adding information to procedures for filing lost/stolen reports as noted in this policy and for checking with ETSU Campus Police to see if they removed/relocated/confiscated a PTD as outlined in this policy as well as how to recover the lost/stolen/confiscated property and any associated costs.
Thanks to the team working on development of this policy.
1.7: In the Defined Terms section, “Campus Site Furnishings” is defined as including bike racks. In 1.7 PTD use is prohibited on Campus-Site Furnishings. Point of clarification that using the bike rack for its purpose is not contraindicated by the phrasing of this section.
1.9: What is the meaning of “pedestrian-only zones”—can that be defined and an example provided? In a sense the Boulevard Commons might be considered a pedestrian-only zone. This needs clarification. Also, bicycles are considered vehicles when operating on roads and should have access to drive through parking garages.
1.12: Bike commuters may commute rain or shine. How is it determined whether the weather is poor enough to impair visibility or control? (Does 1.12 preclude bike commuters from riding on rainy days?)
1.14.4: If “site-furnishings” here is meant as the defined term “Campus Site Furnishings” please note that definition currently includes bike racks. Also, there are insufficient bike racks in key areas of campus. If 1.14.4 is implemented without adding bicycle parking infrastructure, it will discourage bicycle commuting.
1.9. Bicycles are allowed to use the roads as cars. Why are the not allowed to be used in the parking garage? An exception should be added for bicycles so they can drive through the parking garage.
1.14.4. I suggest removal of this title. Bike rack infrastructure is inadequate in multiple areas around campus. For example Nicks Hall has a single bike rack area supporting parking for 4 bicycles total. The bike rack is frequently full. The building itself has over 300 rooms, and I would estimate over 500 daily users easily. If the bike rack is full how am I supposed to secure my bicycle and abide by this policy. Previously I would do the logical thing and secure it in an out of the way spot that is secure, doesn't impede access or egress, and doesn't damage the campus site furnishings. I don't want my lock cut and my personal property “removed immediately” because the bike rack was full again.