E-bikes have become one of those topics that can light up a neighborhood Facebook page in minutes, and FOX 10 Phoenix reporter Taylor Wirtz says Gilbert is a perfect example of that.
In her report, she notes that if you scroll through local Gilbert groups right now, you’ll likely find a steady stream of posts about teenagers weaving through traffic, riding in big packs, and acting like the road belongs to them.
Instead of responding the old-fashioned way – sirens, squad cars, and a risky chase – Wirtz explains that Gilbert Police are shifting the whole approach. The department is deploying drones to locate and monitor reckless riders from above, then directing officers on the ground to make contact in a safer, slower way.
It’s a modern answer to a modern headache, and it’s also a sign of how fast “everyday policing” is changing. You can argue about e-bikes all day, but when some of them can hit highway-adjacent speeds, the conversation stops being just annoying and starts becoming genuinely dangerous.
Why E-Bikes Became A Safety Fight
Wirtz frames e-bikes as both popular and controversial, and she makes it clear why. Gilbert, she says, has a lot of teenagers and a lot of e-bikes, which might sound harmless until you factor in the speed.
Officer Travis Sheppard of the Gilbert Police Department tells Wirtz that some e-bikes can reach 50 to 60 miles per hour, and that number changes the stakes in a big way.
Sheppard explains that when you place that kind of speed onto a regular roadway—mixed with cars, pedestrians, and the everyday chaos of traffic—it stops feeling like kids goofing off. He describes it as scary, especially when judgment and decision-making aren’t exactly at their best.
And that part matters, because the e-bike argument often gets stuck in a loop: some people treat it like harmless recreation, others treat it like a rolling threat. Wirtz’s report lands somewhere in the middle, suggesting the real problem isn’t e-bikes existing, but what happens when speed, confidence, and crowds collide.
Sheppard adds another layer when he talks about tragedies. He tells Wirtz that too many e-bike-related serious injuries and deaths are preventable, and that the hardest moments for officers are delivering the kind of news no family should ever hear.
That’s the point where the drone plan starts to make sense. If police believe the risk is real, then the question becomes how to intervene without making it worse.
“Track And Guide, Not Chase”
The heart of Wirtz’s report is Gilbert Police’s new philosophy, and Sheppard sums it up with a phrase that sounds simple but carries a lot of meaning: “track and guide, not chase.”
He explains to Wirtz that drones give officers eyes in the sky, letting them pinpoint where riders are and guide ground units to them without turning the situation into a dangerous pursuit.
This is one of those ideas that feels obvious once you hear it, but it’s only obvious because we’re used to seeing drones everywhere now. Ten years ago, “police drones” would have sounded like sci-fi. Now it’s being pitched as the safer alternative to a squad car trying to keep up with a fast-moving teenager on a lightweight bike.
Wirtz describes how drones can help in group situations, which seems to be one of the biggest recurring issues. Sheppard explains that when teens group up, decision-making tends to go out the window, and the sheer volume of riders can turn a street into a moving problem.
Instead of trying to pick up the whole group from behind, Sheppard tells Wirtz that the drone can identify specific riders, follow them as they peel away, and guide officers to where they stop, hide, or “bed down.” That phrase is striking, because it suggests the department is thinking of it like managing a moving crowd rather than chasing a single suspect.
From a safety perspective, the approach is hard to argue with. High-speed chases are dangerous in cars; they’re arguably even more unpredictable with e-bikes, where a rider can cut between vehicles, jump curbs, or dart onto sidewalks in a second.
The drone strategy is essentially saying: let’s slow the situation down and remove that chase pressure.
Sheppard also tells Wirtz the drone approach prevents what officers call “pushing somebody,” meaning pushing a rider into taking even riskier actions out of panic. That’s a real dynamic in any pursuit: once a person feels hunted, they do dumb things faster.
How The Drone Program Works In Real Time
Wirtz’s report focuses on e-bikes, but she also explains the drones are part of something broader: “Drones as First Responders,” a pilot-style program where drones can be dispatched quickly to an unfolding call.
Lieutenant Geoff Soderman of the Gilbert Police Department gives Wirtz a more technical view of what this looks like. He explains that as calls come in, drones can fly out and get on scene early, gathering “actionable intelligence” before patrol units even arrive. In other words, instead of officers driving in blind, the drone can show what’s happening, who’s there, and what the risks are.
Soderman tells Wirtz the department found drones were getting to scenes faster than patrol – he cites a 35% faster arrival rate, along with drones getting there about five to six minutes sooner. If you’ve ever waited five minutes during a tense moment, you know that’s not a small difference.
He also argues drones keep officers safer by reducing the need to rush into unknown situations. He acknowledges danger is part of the job, but says if you can mitigate risk, the drones help do that.
Wirtz gives examples that make the technology feel less like a toy and more like a tool. Soderman tells her drones have helped locate an armed suspect hiding from police using thermal imaging, allowing officers to “dictate the time and the terrain,” and ideally reduce the chance force is needed.
He also describes a case involving a person threatening to hurt themselves, where the drone could see there was no firearm or knife, which helped officers de-escalate with clearer information.
That’s a huge point, because it’s easy to think of drones as enforcement tools, but here they’re also being used as a reality check – confirming what is and isn’t present before emotions and assumptions take over.
Soderman sums it up in a line that feels like the motto of modern public safety: more information leads to better decision-making. It’s hard to disagree with that, even if you’re skeptical of surveillance creeping into everyday life.
The Tradeoffs People Are Going To Argue About
Wirtz’s report is mostly about safety, but it naturally raises a question that a lot of communities are going to wrestle with: at what point does “eyes in the sky” start feeling like constant monitoring? Even if the goal is to prevent crashes and tragedies, some people will hear “drones” and immediately think privacy, overreach, or mission creep.
And honestly, that concern isn’t automatically irrational. New tools tend to expand in use once they’re proven useful. Today it’s e-bikes and emergencies; tomorrow it could be protests, minor ordinances, or things that feel a lot less justified.
That’s why transparency matters, and why departments that adopt this technology should be prepared to explain how it’s used, when it’s used, and what limits exist.
At the same time, the practical argument is strong. Sheppard’s “track and guide” concept sounds like an attempt to de-escalate policing itself, which is not what people usually associate with law enforcement technology. Instead of escalating into a chase, they’re literally saying: we want to slow everything down.
There’s also a parenting angle here that doesn’t get said outright, but hangs over the whole story. Teens riding fast e-bikes aren’t just annoying the neighborhood – they’re putting themselves at risk in a way that can become permanent in seconds.
If drones help police intervene without turning it into a chaotic chase, that’s a win for everyone who doesn’t want to see a kid get hurt over a dumb decision made at speed.
What Comes Next For Gilbert’s “Safety From The Sky”
Wirtz ends by noting Gilbert Police aren’t limiting drone deployment to e-bikes, and the department clearly sees the program as a larger public safety strategy.
With Soderman describing drones as first responders and Sheppard emphasizing the safety benefit of avoiding pursuits, it’s obvious this is being positioned as a long-term shift, not a short-lived experiment.
In the short term, the e-bike crackdown will probably be measured in practical outcomes: fewer collisions, fewer injuries, fewer calls about huge packs of riders doing reckless things in traffic. If those numbers improve, more departments will copy the model, because that’s how policing trends spread – one pilot program at a time.
Long-term, the bigger question is whether communities accept the tradeoff: more aerial tracking in exchange for less dangerous ground enforcement. Wirtz’s reporting suggests Gilbert Police believe it’s the safer path, and Sheppard’s comments make it sound like they’re trying to avoid creating bigger problems while solving the one right in front of them.
If you’ve got a town full of teenagers on fast e-bikes, doing nothing isn’t an option, but chasing them through streets full of cars and pedestrians isn’t much of an option either.
In that sense, “track and guide” might be the most realistic middle ground – firm enough to enforce rules, but controlled enough to avoid turning one reckless ride into a tragedy.
Mark grew up in the heart of Texas, where tornadoes and extreme weather were a part of life. His early experiences sparked a fascination with emergency preparedness and homesteading. A father of three, Mark is dedicated to teaching families how to be self-sufficient, with a focus on food storage, DIY projects, and energy independence. His writing empowers everyday people to take small steps toward greater self-reliance without feeling overwhelmed.
