Protect the Promise of E-Bikes

Human brains are tricky; our evolution has primed us to notice novel things and categorize them separately from other more common things we have seen for years. This was helpful for our primordial cousins to quickly identify snakes, but less so for crafting thoughtful policies on bikes, and their more novel cousins, e-bikes. So with the increased adoption of e-bikes in the past decade, the alarm has often been disproportionate to the effect of the devices. At CalBike, we see enormous potential for mode shift away from cars into e-bikes (and even other electric devices) if the policy frameworks are in place to ensure safety for riders and road users alongside clarity for vehicle drivers. 

Electric bicycles are already clearly defined under state law. A legal e-bike in California has a motor of no more than 750 watts and falls into one of three classes with defined speed limits. These guardrails were not accidental. They were designed to integrate e-bikes into bike lanes, trails, and communities in a way that expands mobility without transforming bicycles into motorcycles.

But increasingly, high-powered electric devices, often marketed interchangeably as “e-bikes” despite more accurately being “e-motos,” are being sold as if they are ordinary e-bikes. Many exceed the 750-watt cap. Some are capable of motorcycle-level speeds and acceleration. Yet they are advertised to families and young riders under the same label as Class 1, 2, and 3 electric bicycles.

That erosion of clarity is the real problem.

The imperative in 2026 is to protect legitimate e-bikes by enforcing honest labeling. Here’s how we are planning to pursue these goals:

SB 1167 

SB 1167, introduced by Senator Catherine Blakespear, and co-sponsored by our friends at People for Bikes, SAFE (Streets are For Everyone), and Streets For All, addresses it directly. The bill does not redefine e-bikes. It does not restrict legitimate models. It simply reaffirms the existing legal definition and makes it illegal to market electric motorcycles, mopeds, or other higher-powered devices as “e-bikes.” Violations would be treated as false advertising under California’s consumer protection laws. Sellers of electric mopeds and motor-driven cycles would be required to clearly disclose that these are motor vehicles subject to licensing, registration, helmet, and insurance requirements.

In other words, SB 1167 draws a bright legal line where one already exists — and insists we respect it.

That clarity is crucial — research from the Mineta Transportation Institute has found that standard e-bikes operate within a distinct safety profile compared to higher-powered devices. When faster, heavier electric devices are mislabeled and ridden in bike lanes or on school campuses, the backlash rarely distinguishes between categories. The political response tends to lump everything together. The risk is not just confusion; it is overcorrection.

District Attorney & Attorney General Action

Legislation alone, however, is not enough. Existing consumer protection laws already prohibit deceptive marketing, and they should be enforced now. That is why CalBike and partners like the Marin County Bicycle Coalition have launched the “Public Safety First” call to action, urging district attorneys and the California attorney general to investigate, and when warranted, bring enforcement actions against manufacturers and retailers that are marketing high-speed electric motorcycles as unregulated “e-bikes.” This is not a symbolic gesture. It is a recognition that some of these devices are unregistrable motor vehicles lacking required safety equipment, yet they are being sold online and in storefronts without meaningful oversight, often to young riders. Schools and local law enforcement are reporting real strain. If a vehicle requires licensing, registration, and insurance, it should be labeled and regulated accordingly. Enforcing the law as written protects consumers, preserves the integrity of legitimate e-bikes, and prevents the kind of backlash that leads to sweeping and misguided restrictions. You can sign on in support here.

AB 1942 

At the same time, we are skeptical of AB 1942 as currently written, introduced by Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, which would require Class 2 and Class 3 e-bikes to be registered with the DMV and display license plates. Registering bicycles is not a targeted response to mislabeled electric motorcycles. 

More importantly, it does not address the central safety crisis on our roads. Traffic fatalities in California continue to rise, and the overwhelming drivers of that trend are speeding and oversized automobiles. If lawmakers are serious about protecting children, seniors, and families, the most effective tools remain the ones we have known for decades: safer street design and protected infrastructure.

This and other e-bike legislation not listed here can be seen on our Legislative Watch page.

The Exit Ramp from Car Dependence

E-bikes are not the source of California’s traffic violence crisis. They are, in many ways, one of the exits from it. They make it possible for a parent to replace a car trip. They give a teenager mobility without requiring a two-ton vehicle. They extend the range of older adults who might otherwise be isolated. That is closer to structural change than a fringe benefit or novel gadget, but only if we allow it to scale.

If we can stay disciplined about this framework, California can lead here by building a transportation system that is safer, cleaner, and more humane than the one we inherited.