E-Bikes Archives - Page 3 of 3

Media Guide: How to Report on Collisions Involving E-bikes

August 21, 2023/by Jared Sanchez

“Teens Are Dying on E-Bikes. Should California Regulate Them?” This recent New York Times headline exemplifies a disturbing trend in reporting on e-bike safety. Headlines like this imply that e-bikes are lethal (not motor vehicle drivers colliding with people on e-bikes) and perpetuate the dehumanization of people who ride bikes and make invisible the role of traffic violence perpetrated by motor vehicles.

To combat what is, at its core, anti-bike sentiment, we look at examples of reporting on micromobility, good and bad, and provide suggestions for more accurate and balanced coverage of e-bike safety. We hope this guide will assist journalists and help the rest of us become more savvy news consumers.

Collisions are not accidents

One of the most basic tenets of reporting on traffic injuries and fatalities is that most traffic collisions are not accidents. An accident is something beyond the parties’ control that can’t be avoided. For example, a tree toppling onto a car is an unfortunate accident.

Yet even the New York Times, the most respected paper in the US, included this sentence in the article cited above: “Several teenagers, in California, Oregon and other places, have died recently in e-bike accidents….”

The first mistake here is the word “accidents.” These were fatal collisions between people riding e-bikes and people driving cars. The second mistake is labeling them “e-bike accidents,” which shows implicit bias against e-bikes and places the blame on bike riders for these collisions. Reporting like this makes the true danger (bikes sharing roadways that lack sufficient infrastructure with speeding cars and trucks) invisible.

A more accurate way to write this sentence would be: “Several teenage e-bike riders in California, Oregon, and other places have died recently after being struck by motor vehicles.” That doesn’t assign blame for the collision, but it includes both parties involved and leaves open the possibility that e-bikes are not the proximate cause of these tragedies.

Matt Richtel’s recent series of articles about the menace of e-bikes in the New York Times is beautifully deconstructed by Streetsblog’s recent article about how to spot bad bike reporting. In one piece, he says, “But the recent deaths of several teenage riders have raised concerns about the safety of some types of vehicles, and about whether they legally qualify as e-bikes.” The “vehicles” in this sentence are e-bikes, which is odd because the vehicles that led to recent deaths have all been cars or trucks.

Once again, this renders the role of motor vehicles invisible and ignores the need for infrastructure investment, placing the blame for fatalities on the deceased riders and exonerating the system that led to their deaths. It’s also hard not to see the hysteria about e-bikes as hypocritical when we accept tens of thousands of deaths by car annually as the cost of modern transportation.

Don’t paint e-bike riders as reckless thrill seekers

Recent e-bike rhetoric has borrowed an old anti-bike trope. People riding e-bikes are reckless! They don’t care about their safety or anyone else’s—especially teenagers! It’s similar to the way some have long demonized all bike riders as crazy and lawless.

The truth is, most e-bike riders, like most bike riders, ride cautiously, knowing their vulnerability on roads shared with heavy, fast-moving cars and trucks. In riding safely, sometimes people on bikes do things people driving cars aren’t expecting, such as take the lane. Of course, some bike riders make unsafe choices on the road at times, as do some car drivers. But implying that all e-bike riders (or even all teen riders) are reckless is incorrect and biased reporting.

A quote from the New York Times piece shows this bias: “In the span of a few days, two teenage boys riding electric bicycles had collided with cars.” From reading this, you might assume the e-bike riders rode recklessly, but that is not the case.

One of the boys referred to in that sentence was Brodee Champlain-Kingman, whom witnesses described as following the rules of the road and “doing everything right.” He was rear-ended by a van. It’s hard to understand how that could be described as him colliding with a car. In the other instance, the person interviewed about the collision didn’t witness it but found the bike rider under the wheels of the car. While we don’t know who was at fault, it sounds as if the car struck the bicyclist, not the other way around.

Let’s rewrite this sentence for clarity: “In the span of a few days, two teenagers were struck by cars, and one later died from their injuries.”

10News gets it almost right in its account of the same incident: “Brodee Champlain-Kingman was riding his electric bike north on South El Camino Real when he tried to make a left turn onto Santa Fe Avenue. He was hit by a work van.” Change that to “the driver of a work van,” and it’s an accurate and fair description of the crash.

Be skeptical of official sources

ABC7 headlines a piece on those scary, scary e-bikes with a statement attributed to Huntington Beach police: “E-bikes pose dangers to novice users.” While all vehicles are more challenging for novices, especially cars, this headline makes it sound like e-bikes are dangerous speed machines that riders can’t control.

A little factual information might be helpful here. Yes, people are able to ride faster on an e-bike than they could on a regular bike, but the most common e-bikes top out at 20 mph, a speed that a fast road biker can easily surpass. People still generally ride e-bikes slower than most people drive their cars, even on narrow streets. If someone on an e-bike has a solo crash, they may get more injured than they would on a standard bike because of the greater weight of the bike. A person on an e-bike has no more defense against a 2-ton vehicle than any other vulnerable road user (people biking, walking, on scooters, etc.).

A more accurate way to say this might be: “Riding on roadways lacking safe bike infrastructure poses a danger to novice and expert bicycle and e-bike riders.”

Another account of the crash that killed Champlain-Kingman, this one from NBC7 in San Diego, includes this sentence: “The San Diego Sheriff’s Department said he rode into the path of a work van, was hit and was taken to the hospital where he later died.”

While the reporter has plausible deniability because they’re repeating a statement from the sheriff, it’s irresponsible to repeat a statement that heavily blames the bike rider, as if he recklessly “rode into the path” of the van. Again, we know that he was aware of safe bike riding practices and did what he was supposed to do.

This statement implies that the van owns the road in front of it (“the path of the van”), rather than the van driver having a responsibility to not run into other road users. In addition, the use of passive voice (“was hit”) reinforces the inevitability of this collision.

The sheriff’s statement removes agency from the van driver and places the blame squarely on the bike rider: He rode into the path of a van and was hit. It’s part of a larger trend of treating traffic violence as a crime without a perpetrator, a force of nature. The bike rider is mentioned but not the van driver, removing culpability from the human behind the wheel to drive cautiously, look out for vulnerable road users, or even brake in time.

This framing also renders the role of infrastructure invisible. Why was the bike rider forced “into the path” of a motor vehicle? Probably because he was trying to get somewhere on his bike, and that required him to mix with fast-moving motor vehicle traffic.

The way we talk about traffic violence bolsters our society’s “cars will be cars” attitude, one that accepts roadway deaths as inevitable. A better way to report on this might be: “The San Diego Sheriff’s Department said the driver of a work van hit him, and he was taken to the hospital where he later died of his injuries.”

Take the time to get the facts straight

In one of its pieces on Brodee Champlain-Kingman’s death, NBC7 includes this informational nugget: “The state of California does have some laws regarding e-bikes, including a minimum age of 16 years old for anyone riding an e-bike that can go over 28 miles per hour.” Unfortunately, this is incorrect. Class III e-bikes are restricted to riders at least 16 years old, but they have a maximum speed of 28 mph. California’s e-bike classifications top out at 20 mph (Class I and II) and 28 mph, information easily accessible from the DMV.

Even government agencies sometimes mangle the truth in their rush to paint e-bikes as dangerous. A 2022 National Transportation Safety Board report that, while rightly highlighting the need for better data collection to determine the number of collisions involving micromobility devices, is chock full of misstatements. For example, the report says, “In fact, a study conducted using data from 180 University of California, Los Angeles, outpatient clinics, found that e-bikes may have a higher rate of fatalities than motorcycles and cars (Kimon and others 2022).” The only thing correct in this sentence is the name of the primary author and the number of clinics whose data were surveyed. The cited study is of e-scooter injuries, not e-bikes, and the abstract concludes: “Our observed e-scooter injury rate is likely an underestimate, but is similar to that previously reported for motorcycles. However, the comparative severity of injuries is unknown.” And injury rate is a percentage based on mode share, not an absolute number. In absolute numbers, cars are the biggest menace to pedestrians, bike riders, other cars, and often themselves.

Here are the facts:

More people ride e-bikes now, so more bike-involved crashes involve someone on an e-bike.
Deaths of vulnerable road users have risen over the past several years. The proximate cause of most of those deaths was collision with a motor vehicle. The largest increase has been in pedestrian deaths.
Occasionally, someone on a bicycle or e-bike hits a pedestrian and injures or kills them. These incidents are so rare that it’s impossible to determine trends.

Stories that got it right

There are, unfortunately, many more examples of how to get it wrong when reporting on e-bike safety. But there are also reporters and news outlets that get it right. Here are a few positive examples of reporting on bike and scooter collisions.

NBC Bay Area. Headline: “Electric Bike Rider Killed in Crash With Tesla in Fremont.” The first sentence repeats this basic information. No mention of an “accident,” and both parties to the crash are cited.
The Coast News Group, reporting on the death of Christine Embree in Carlsbad. Despite calling the crash an “e-bike death” in the headline, the article states: “The city is reeling after a Carlsbad woman riding an e-bike with her 16-month-old child was struck and killed by a vehicle….”
KPBS reporting on Embree’s death. This article mentions the need for “safer roads” in the headline, includes the fact that the victim’s husband complained to the city about speeding in their neighborhood just weeks earlier, and has perspective from the San Diego County Bicycle Coalition. It also includes this description of the incident, in a quote from Embree’s husband: “Never in a million years did I think three weeks later, my wife, would be hit by a 42-year-old female who lived in the neighborhood traveling approximately 40 miles an hour and blew a stop sign.” That clarity in describing the driver and her actions should be a model for reporting, when the information is available.
The Delmar Times did a deep dive into the data on collisions involving bike riders to find the data behind Carlsbad’s 2022 declaration of emergency around e-bikes. While the piece doesn’t question police attribution of fault, it provides a trove of data and data visualizations, something we’d like to see more of as discussions around e-bike safety evolve.
ABC7 Los Angeles offers a model for how to write a headline about a crash between a motor vehicle driver and a bike rider.

Tips for fair and accurate reporting on collisions involving e-bikes

Many reporters can and do get it right when reporting on e-bike safety. Here are some tips for accurate reporting on e-bike safety and bike-involved collisions:

Talk to bike coalitions and advocates from safe streets advocates, not just car drivers. Consult with organizations like the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals, which have committed to helping reduce bias in crash reporting. If you’re not sure who to call, call us at CalBike and we’ll help!
Look for evidence. Don’t conflate anecdotal accounts with a huge rise in collisions due to e-bikes.
Don’t rely on law enforcement to provide the full picture of a collision. Information on the size of the vehicle, the roadway conditions (especially in a bikeway), and actions taken (or not taken) by drivers is often absent from these accounts.
Don’t take official data about the parties responsible for accidents at face value. Police attribution of blame in crashes may be skewed by anti-bike bias, especially in collisions involving bike riders under 18.
Compare data on fatalities among all vulnerable road users to find trends and potential causes. For example, the rate of pedestrians killed by cars is rising faster than the rate of people killed while riding bikes. That points to other culprits, such as distracted driving and new car and truck designs that are more lethal to vulnerable road users.
Unless the situation appears to involve equipment failure or a solo crash with injuries, don’t imply the e-bike is responsible for the injuries due to the speed of the bike. No vulnerable road user will fare well when tangling with a motor vehicle, whether they are riding an e-bike or not.
Don’t imply that a “car hit a bike.” Unless it’s a self-driving car, a person was behind the wheel, and they’re responsible for the safe operation of their vehicle. Include the driver in the story.
When missing or inadequate infrastructure plays a role in conflicts between people on bikes and people in cars, call that out.

CalBike Response to New York Times E-Bikes Article

August 11, 2023/by Jared Sanchez

Matt Richtel’s July 29, 2023, New York Times article on the “dangers” of e-bikes draws exactly the wrong conclusions from the tragic death of an Encinitas, CA, teen (who, the article admits, “did everything right”) killed by a driver in a van. This irresponsible piece suggests electric bicycles are responsible for increased collisions between e-bike riders and people driving cars.

The truth is traffic violence is accelerating: 55% more bike riders were killed by cars in 2021 than in 2010. So we do have a crisis on our streets. But restricting e-bike use won’t solve it.

The real culprit in cities like Encinitas and Carlsbad (where two bicyclists were killed by cars a few months after Carlsbad declared an e-bike emergency in 2022), which have failed to provide safe infrastructure for people on bikes.

Bicycles of all kinds are here to stay and are critical to combating climate change. Cities and states must move quickly to create roadways where people who get around using all modes of transportation can share the road safely.

Talking Back to Bikelash

July 24, 2023/by Kevin Claxton

At CalBike, we hear it all: Bike riders get in the way of car drivers. We should get off the road. Why are we promoting dangerous behavior, like the Safety Stop?

If only those crazy bicyclists wouldn’t…

We’re sure you hear variations of this, too, ranging from rude (uninformed comments from acquaintances) to downright scary (threats hurled from the window of a two-ton vehicle). As more people are using bikes for fun and transportation since the pandemic, particularly with the rise in popularity of e-bikes, bikelash (a backlash against the popularity of bike riding) has gotten noisier.

We’ve been thinking about how to respond to some of the more common comments from people who are hostile to biking or simply misguided. Here are a few suggestions for talking back to bikelash.

General principles: Bike riders and car drivers are not enemies

A while back, The War on Cars podcast had sex advice columnist Dan Savage on as a guest. In drawing parallels between the campaign for marriage equality and the movement for safe streets, Savage highlighted the importance of straight allies in winning gay marriage.

“Drivers are cyclists sometimes, and almost all cyclists are passengers sometimes. And we need to blur those lines just like we blurred the lines between queer people and straight people by convincing them that, like, we’re right there. We’re in your workplace, in your family, in your community, on your block, and maybe getting on with us is gonna be better, not just for us, but for you, too.”
Dan Savage on The War on Cars Podcast, November 15, 2022

Protected bike lanes have been shown to reduce fatalities for people in all modes of transportation, including people in cars. Everyone is a pedestrian for at least some space of time during the day, even if it’s just walking from their car to the door. We all want safe streets where we don’t have to live in fear that our children or grandparents might be struck by a car without warning.

It’s easy to be angry at people in cars, especially if a careless or spiteful driver has menaced you (something that has happened to many of us at one time or another). But bike riders are in the minority, and our success in winning acceptance and support for the infrastructure we need to make biking safe relies on support from people who aren’t bike riders (yet).

That sets the stage as we consider how to respond to people who complain about bike riders, on and off the road.

Responses to bike naysayers

Here are some of the more common negative things we hear about people on bikes and some responses to pivot to a more productive conversation (or at least respond constructively).

Bikes should get off the road.

People driving cars get stuck behind lots of things, most commonly other cars in traffic jams, road construction, etc. However, driving behind a slower-moving bike seems to generate an extra level of frustration in some drivers.

How to respond:

To a driver who honks and yells, wave and smile!
Don’t engage in a situation on the street that’s getting heated. You don’t want to be dead right.
When discussing with a friend after the fact, ask them to look at their clock when they get stuck behind a bike and look again when they are able to drive faster. The short duration of the slowdown may help put it in perspective.

The War on Cars had a discussion on whether to confront drivers that offers more perspectives on this topic.

Bikes should get off the sidewalk.

Bike riding on the sidewalk isn’t ideal, but on busy roadways with no bike lane, the sidewalk may be the only safe space where a bike can pass. Sidewalk riding can close gaps in bike networks and allow people to get to destinations that aren’t adjacent to bike facilities, like protected lanes or off-road trails free from traffic.

How to respond:

A common walking speed is about 3 mph. Bike riders commonly travel at around 10 mph. If the Sidewalk Riding Bill (AB 825), which CalBike supports, passes, bikes will be limited to no more than 10 mph on sidewalks and required to defer to pedestrians. The danger to pedestrians from bikes on sidewalks is much smaller than the danger to bike riders from potential collisions with speeding cars.
We need more protected bike lanes and bike paths and lower speed limits. Then there would be little or no need for bikes to share the sidewalk. Until then, sidewalk riding is essential to bike safety.
There may be a few people who ride unsafely on the sidewalk, which is understandably scary. Sidewalks are safe spaces from car traffic. Imagine having to walk along the edge of a street full of speeding motorists without the protection of a curb — that’s what we ask bike riders to do when we don’t allow sidewalk riding in areas without bike facilities.

Bikes are a menace on shared-use paths.

There will always be a minority of rude or careless people using any mode of transportation. Most of us have seen car drivers blow through red lights or stop signs, fail to stop for pedestrians in crosswalks, menace other drivers or vulnerable road users with their vehicles, and so on. That doesn’t excuse bike riders who ride too fast or too close to walkers on shared paths, but we suspect that happens way less frequently than close encounters with cars.

How to respond:

Let the person know that you always ride carefully around pedestrians and that you don’t hold them personally responsible for poor path-sharing etiquette you witnessed from someone else.
If paths are too crowded, that community probably needs more recreational paths, including bike-only paths where people who want to ride faster can have the space to do so. In the meantime, we should all watch out for each other.

Conventional bikes are okay, but e-bikes are a menace.

As e-bikes have become more popular, an e-bike panic has begun to circulate. Much of the anti-bike rhetoric from past years now focuses on e-bikes (while non-electric bikes are suddenly just fine). This has led to measures that will deter new riders and a broader adoption of bicycling, such as a recently introduced bill (AB 530) that would require e-bike riders to get licenses.

How to respond:

E-bikes are bikes. Repeat: e-bikes are bikes. They aren’t scooters or mopeds or motorcycles. They handle pretty much just like any other bicycle but with an electric assist to supplement the rider’s energy with battery power.
Most e-bikes (Class 1 and 2) don’t engage faster than 20 mph. Road bikes can easily go that fast without motors, and most e-bike riders don’t operate their bikes at top speed all the time. So e-bikes aren’t significantly faster than classic bikes.
The average e-bike is heavier than a standard bike. Because of this, most e-bikes have beefy brakes so they can stop quickly. But an e-bike is much lighter than a moped or motorcycle. E-bikes are still bikes.
Bicycle safety classes are terrific. We hope they will become more available and more riders of all kinds of bikes will take them. But no safety class or e-bike license can save a bike rider’s life if they’re hit by a speeding or careless car or truck driver. The best thing to protect people on bikes from being hit is better infrastructure, such as protected bike lanes, protected intersections, and traffic calming measures to prevent speeding. Infrastructure changes take time, but they can happen much more quickly than they currently do in California. If we made a commitment and allocated the funding to back that commitment, we could have roads that reduced deaths for all users in less than a decade. Let’s work toward that future!

Bike riders are at fault in at least half of bike/car collisions.

Accident statistics from police investigations of collisions between bikes and cars reinforce the trope of “those crazy bicyclists!”

How to respond:

People in cars often say, “The bike came out of nowhere” when they hit someone. That doesn’t necessarily mean the bike rider was irresponsible; it might mean the driver of a vehicle that weighs thousands of pounds wasn’t turning their head, scanning the roadway, or accounting for their blind spots.
Police have a “windshield perspective” because most patrol officers spend their days behind the wheel of a car. Bias toward motor vehicles and a lack of awareness of what constitutes safe cycling can skew collision reports. The determination of fault in car/bike crashes is unreliable at best and biased at worst.
We need better driver education to share the road safely with people walking and biking.

Nobody bikes anyway. Why should we build bike lanes?

A common pushback to building bike infrastructure is that bike lanes serve too few people, so bikes don’t deserve to have precious road space allocated to them.

How to respond:

Just as motor vehicles rarely drive on roads that aren’t built yet, people can’t ride in bike lanes that don’t exist. In cities like Amsterdam and Copenhagen, more than 50% of trips are made by bike because those cities have made biking convenient and safe.
Bike lanes make all road users safer. Studies have shown that, on streets with protected bike lanes, fatalities go down for people biking, walking, and traveling by car. A bike lane could save your life!
Nobody will be forced to stop driving, but creating infrastructure that makes it safer and more convenient to bike, walk, and take transit gives people more options, allowing those who don’t want to or can’t drive to get around more easily. That means more space on the streets for those who need or choose to drive.

People don’t want to ride bikes.

When bike advocates offer biking as one part of the solution to climate change, some people scoff at the idea that enough people would want to get around by bike to make a difference.

How to respond:

Many people enjoy swimming, but they probably wouldn’t be enthusiastic about swimming in shark-infested waters. Our unsafe streets are a deterrent to trying biking. There are many people who fall into the “interested but concerned” category: They don’t ride now because of safety but would try it if they felt they could ride without risk.
When was the last time you were on a bike? It’s fun! Come on a ride with me!

For more on how to respond to bike naysayers, see Momentum Magazine’s bikelash tips.

How do you talk back to people who don’t see the value of biking? Share your tips with us on Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram.

E-Bike Work Group Report Back: April 26, 2023

May 12, 2023/by Laura McCamy

On April 26, 2023, CARB held another well-attended work group meeting to gather feedback on the details of its Electric Bicycle Incentive Project. One of the major takeaways is that the statewide program launch is pushed back yet again: Most Californians won’t be able to apply for a voucher until at least the third quarter of 2023.

Here’s what else we learned at the meeting. We’ve included the video and presentation below, in case you want to learn more.

New details about program implementation

As it has throughout the process, CARB has taken feedback from prior work groups and revised the program based on stakeholder input. For example, recipients can now use part of their incentives to purchase safety gear. The only gear listed was helmets, and CARB specifically excluded lights, reflective gear, and racks. The program requires eligible bikes to come with lights (most e-bikes have built-in lights), so that makes sense. However, based on feedback, we’re hopeful that cargo racks will also be an allowed expense. CalBike would like to see locks included, since a secure lock for an e-bike can be costly.

Participants will have 30 days to purchase a bike and redeem their vouchers and may ask for a one-time extension if they need more time. CalBike is advocating for extending that 30-day window, since researching and buying an e-bike is often a lengthy process.

Vouchers will be limited to one per person, but there is no household limit. Participants will be required to own the bike for at least one year.

Here are some of the other details we learned.

What do we know about the e-bike incentive application process?

We still don’t have all the details about the application process. CARB promises that a guide will be available online ahead of program launch so people interested in participating will have time to prepare.

CARB did share an outline of the application process as they envision it currently. Applicants would submit proof of income and residency, choose the bike they want to buy, take a 90-minute online bike safety and environmental class, then find out if they qualify for a voucher.

CalBike strongly objects to the process as currently outlined, and we have sent a letter to CARB detailing our recommendations. Our concerns include:

It will be hard to choose a bike without confirmation of the voucher amount because the person won’t know how much money they will need to come up with to complete the purchase.
While CalBike supports e-bike safety education and is excited for the resource being developed as part of this program, we feel that education should be a resource, and that any requirement of a lengthy class may serve as a barrier to many trying to access the incentives. We particularly object to requiring participants to sit through any content that isn’t directly related to safe operation and storage of an e-bike.
Requiring two extra steps before applications are vetted will further disadvantage applicants with the least time and/or access to a computer.
Because many Californians are more comfortable in a language other than English and those languages are diverse, an education component will inevitably exclude many potential participants. For comparison, the US Census is conducted in 12 languages in California.

We plan to meet with CARB to discuss these issues, and we’re hopeful that advocacy and lessons from the soft launch will lead to a better application process.

June soft launch

The first phase of the program will be a soft launch in June. With a budget of $300,000, the soft launch will provide 20-40 incentives to applicants in each of four communities that have been historically underserved by CARB programs:

Barrio Logan, San Diego
Fresno
Bayview Hunters Point, San Francisco
California Native Tribal Governments

The soft launch will allow CARB and the administrator to test systems and get feedback on what works and doesn’t work before opening the program statewide.

When will the statewide program launch?

We don’t know exactly when California’s incentives will become available. However, we have heard that the soft launch is expected to take at least two months. Expect a full launch sometime in the fall, after CARB and the administrator have worked out glitches in the application process.

We realize this program has taken an excruciatingly long time to come online. Another reality check: Demand may far exceed the number of incentives available. If you’d like help to purchase an e-bike, check out this list of local programs.

Is anyone already in line to receive an e-bike voucher?

Several people who spoke at the April meeting shared that they had submitted an application for an e-bike voucher last year and wanted to know if they were in line for an incentive. CARB clarified that no one is in line for a voucher yet. Everyone will need to apply once the window opens, later this year.

We don’t know if there will be another work group before the soft launch in June or before the statewide program launch. If you sign up for our email list, we’ll let you know about future meetings and any other information on the status of the program and the application process.

CARB Presentation

Federal E-Bike Rebate Back on the Table

March 21, 2023/by Laura McCamy

Electric cars are eligible for a federal tax rebate, but electric bikes are not. A federal e-bike rebate provision didn’t make it into the final version of the climate and infrastructure bill, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. But Congressman Jimmy Panetta, who represents District 19 along California’s central coast, today introduced the Electric Bicycle Incentive Kickstart for the Environment (E-BIKE) Act.

The E-BIKE Act would provide a refundable federal income tax rebate of up to 30% of the cost of buying an e-bike, capped at $1,500. The rebate would be available to people earning up to $150,000 for single people, up to $300,000 for a two-person household. Because it’s a refundable tax credit, people who owe less in tax than the amount of the incentive will get a check for the difference and income-qualified applicants may be able to take the rebate as a point of sale discount.

CalBike strongly supports this legislation, as do many of our allies, including the League of American Bicyclists, which has long advocated for a measure like this. “The League knows life is better for everyone when more people ride bikes, and we know e-bikes make biking a more accessible and easier option for more Americans,” said Bill Nesper, the League’s executive director. “We’re encouraged by congressional leadership on the E-BIKE Act, a bill that, if passed, will enable Americans to fight climate change and improve public health through the simple act of bicycling.”

Use the League’s action tool to email your representatives and tell them to support the E-BIKE Act.

“E-bikes are not just a fad for a select few, they are a legitimate and practical form of transportation that can help reduce our carbon emissions,” said Congressman Panetta. “My legislation will make it easier for more people from all socio-economic levels to own e-bikes and contribute to cutting our carbon output. By incentivizing the use of electric bicycles to replace car trips through a consumer tax credit, we can not only encourage more Americans to transition to greener modes of transportation but also help fight the climate crisis.”

CalBike’s policy director, Jared Sanchez, said, “The route the E-BIKE Act takes to encourage bike ridership and reducing carbon emissions is different from the program we helped shape in California, but the goals are the same. An income tax rebate will help many more Americans choose this healthy, economical mode of transportation.”

CalBike focuses most of our efforts on advocacy within California, but we’ll be supporting our national partners in helping to get this critical bill through Congress. We’ll let you know about opportunities to reach out to representatives and senators to support a federal rebate for e-bike purchases.

ActiveSGV Pioneers New Model for E-Bike Program

February 17, 2023/by Laura McCamy

Based in the San Gabriel Valley, local advocacy partner ActiveSGV has operated a unique e-bike program, GoSGV since the summer of 2022 and is rolling out new options in 2023.

Unlike many local e-bike programs, GoSGV doesn’t give subsidies for an e-bike purchase and, unlike San Diego’s Pe d al Ahead program, it doesn’t require users to log miles or ride a certain distance. We spoke with Jazmin Joyce, Special Programs Specialist with ActiveSGV, about how the program works and why its innovative approach could be a model for other local e-bike programs.

Small group, big plans

Started as a Facebook group a little more than a decade ago, ActiveSGV isn’t a big organization, but the savvy of its staff, board, and volunteers, and its willingness to take risks on innovative programs, have made it stand out. Its first e-bike program, launched in 2016, gave San Gabriel Valley residents $750 toward an e-bike purchase, and it was one of the first such programs in the U.S.

“What we do really well is partnerships,” Joyce says. The group looks for funding opportunities and tries to understand the needs of the community, then works to meet those needs. In the San Gabriel Valley, the bus system is spotty (especially since COVID), there aren’t a lot of accessible bike lanes, and cost is a barrier to riding a bicycle, especially an e-bike. “Transportation is a big barrier. We hear that all the time,” she says.

ActiveSGV decided to create an e-bike program because “people need to get to places that are far away,” Joyce says. “The e-bike is offering that opportunity to not just make it a recreational ride — to make it a useful ride.” With the region’s hilly terrain and hot summers, e-bikes are a natural fit for the group.

Share-to-own e-bikes

However, making e-bikes accessible is a big lift for a small group. So, while GoSGV has relied on grant funding to get started, it hopes that its unusual approach will make the program self-sustaining eventually.

Starting in 2018, GoSGV allowed people to try out bikes. It was originally operated by a private micromobility company. When private operators folded due to the pandemic, ActiveSGV stepped in to run it, with a vision for a program more suited to the needs of the region than docked, short-term rentals.

Under ActiveSGV’s stewardship, GoSGV rents e-bikes by the month, with reduced rates for low-income folks. The program offers a commuter bike and a bakfiets-style cargo bike with a basket in the front. The cargo bikes have been particularly popular, with people using them to take kids to school.

Since its relaunch in August 2022, the program has distributed over 200 bikes, and 23% of users have kept their bikes since the start of the program.

GoSGV gives people a low-cost way to try out life on an e-bike and figure out if it’s a good fit for them. “People really enjoyed the exposure to the e-bike, and they want to buy a bike for themselves because they enjoyed it,” Joyce says. At least five members have bought an e-bike as a result of their experience with the rental bike.

GoSGV also offers test-ride events to raise awareness about the program and give people a chance to try it out before committing to a monthly rental. “We’re able to connect with the community in a different way about bikes,” she says. The team hosts group bike rides, provides guidance and tips on safe riding and storage for new renters, and tries to respond to user questions quickly.

The program recently added a new twist: If a user rents a bike for 36 months, they can keep it as their own. At that point, the rental fees will have covered the purchase price of the bike, with the rider getting to pay for the purchase in small increments while having use of the e-bike.

A self-sustaining model for e-bike access

The funding to buy the e-bikes came through an ATP grant to the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments. At present, operational costs are covered by rental fees, donations, and grants, but Joyce believes the GoSGV model can become self-sustaining.

The group plans to expand the program to local university campuses and also hopes to expand its bike fleet, especially the cargo bikes, which are in such high demand that they are limited to a two-month rental.

“We want to create access and exposure to these types of bikes,” Joyce says. Many people hadn’t thought about buying an e-bike before. ActiveSGV builds bike culture, one bike at a time, through its GoSGV program.

How to apply for the program:

San Gabriel Valley residents can apply by submitting an application at GoSGV.com. Once you’re approved for the program, you can schedule a time to pick up your bike or have it delivered for a $45 delivery fee.

Electric Bicycle Incentive Work Group Meeting Report: 1/31/23

February 17, 2023/by Laura McCamy

The meeting of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Electric Bicycle Incentives Project work group on January 31, 2023, provided more information about program parameters and a robust discussion of details still being formulated. Here’s what you need to know.

California’s statewide e-bike program begins to take shape

Over the past few work group meetings, with excellent input from the public (including many of you), CARB has settled on these parameters for the e-bike incentive program:

To qualify, participants can make no more than 300% of the federal poverty level (FPL).
The base incentive will be $1,000.
Participants can get an additional $750 toward the purchase of a cargo bike or adaptive bike.
People whose income is below 225% of FPL or who live in a disadvantaged community can qualify for an additional $250, so the maximum incentive amount is $2,000.
Incentives can be applied toward sales tax, as well as the purchase price.
Incentives will be applied at the point of sale.
All three classes of e-bikes can qualify for incentives.
Used bikes will not be eligible.
Incentives can be used to buy e-bikes from local bike shops or online retailers with a business location in California.
Adaptive bikes can include tricycles. CARB plans to keep the definition of adaptive e-bikes as broad as possible.

The incentives will be first-come-first-served but with a hybrid model that reserves at least 50% of funding for priority applicants (those under 225% FPL or living in disadvantaged communities).

We also learned that the launch date, scheduled for Q1 of 2023, will be delayed until the second quarter, so look for the application window to open in April or later (no date set yet).

There will be another work group meeting, probably in March. We will give you more specific information about launch dates as soon as we have it.

CARB presentation

E-bike options still to be determined

The work group participants had a lot to say about the quality of e-bikes. Some are concerned that, if they buy one of the least expensive models available, the bike might break down, it might be hard to get parts to service it, and there might be an increased chance of battery fires. Several people expressed concerns about risks from improperly charging batteries.

CARB indicated an openness to allowing participants to use a portion of their incentives for gear such as helmets and locks, if the cost of the bike is less than the full incentive amount. Also, after discussion at the prior work group, the agency proposed requiring a minimum one-year warranty on electrical parts. The previous proposal had been two years, which would have disqualified some of the more affordable makes of e-bikes.

A CARB proposal that eligible bikes come with front and rear lights installed was not controversial. But requiring bikes to be assembled by the manufacturer at the manufacturer’s expense was hotly debated. Assembly is standard when buying bikes through a local retailer, but many e-bikes ordered online come with some assembly required. The program needs to balance the concern that people might get a bike they aren’t able to assemble against the need to include online retailers in the program and the fact that some communities don’t have a nearby bike shop.

People at the meeting expressed concern about education and training for participants, which will be discussed at a future work group. Other possible program parameters include priority for applicants with disabilities and a follow-up program to provide repair services to keep the bikes in good working condition.

As always, CalBike will continue to follow the development of this program and give you all the latest information. If you’re not already on our e-bike mailing list, you can sign up below.

Local E-Bike Incentives Provide More Options for Californians

January 17, 2023/by Laura McCamy

The rollout of California’s statewide e-bike incentive program is getting closer, but it’s still a few months away. If you’d like to buy an e-bike and need help to make your purchase, many local programs currently provide incentives, and new ones may come online soon.

We spoke with managers from two Bay Area agencies about the programs they administer. Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE) and 511 Contra Costa (511CC) have very different programs, and both have done follow-up surveys with participants, providing valuable insights about the successes and challenges of e-bike incentives.

Peninsula Clean Energy: Income-qualified e-bike vouchers

PCE started its E-Bikes for Everyone program in 2021 because “our end goal is zero transportation emissions by 2035,” according to Programs Manager Phillip Kobernick. Transportation is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, so he says PCE saw “potentially a lot of VMT reduction potential” in its e-bike voucher program.

In 2021, PCE offered $800 vouchers to residents in its service area (San Mateo County) with income at or below 400% of the federal poverty level. “It’s the most popular program we ever launched,” Kobernick says. The program had a $250,000 budget to provide 300 vouchers, and they were all claimed within four days after launch.

In 2022, PCE increased the rebate amount to $1,000, did more targeted outreach to slow the process, and gave out 239 vouchers.

Like the upcoming statewide incentive program, the PCE incentive is a point-of-sale voucher. It contracts with bike shops and sends qualified customers to buy bikes there. The buyer gets a discount in the amount of the voucher, and PCE pays the difference to the shop. Participants can also buy elsewhere (about half of the people in the program chose to do that) and get reimbursed after the purchase. The incentives cover up to 80% of the purchase price, so participants must pay for the remaining 20%.

There have been some glitches in the rollout. For example, about half the people awarded vouchers didn’t use them; follow-up surveys found that the main reasons were price, availability of the desired model, and inability to do a test ride. PCE offered unused vouchers to people on the waitlist, and funds that don’t get used roll into the program budget for the following year. And they discovered a couple of instances where a grantee tried to sell their voucher rather than use it themselves.

Despite the challenges, the program is meeting its goals. “It looks like, through our surveys, we are seeing a noticeable reduction in VMTs (vehicle miles traveled),” Kobernick says. About one-third of participants now say that an e-bike is their primary mode of transportation, and he estimates that they have reduced their VMT by 10% on average. He noted that most cities would jump at a chance to implement a program delivering a VMT reduction.

The PCE program has had a budget of $547,000 over two years and will offer another round of vouchers in 2023. In 2022, El Concilio provided support for completing applications, and PCE worked with the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition to provide group rides and classes to help people feel comfortable on their bikes.

How to apply for an E-Bikes for Everyone Voucher: The program is only open for a short period each year. Check their website for 2023 program information.

511 Contra Costa: E-bike rebates without income caps

The Electric Bicycle Rebate Program 511CC offers to Contra Costa County residents differs from both the PCE and statewide incentives in several ways:

It’s an after-purchase rebate rather than an up-front incentive.
All county residents are eligible for a rebate with no income caps.
The rebate amounts are much lower: $150 standard rebate; $300 rebate for people living at or below 400% of the federal poverty level.
The funds are available throughout the year on a rolling basis rather than during a short application window.

“Part of our overall goal of 511 Contra Costa is to reduce vehicle trips,” says Kirsten Riker, Project Manager for Advanced Mobility Group, which manages transportation demand management programs for 511CC. “It’s not designed for social equity. It’s designed to get people into other modes. This is a little extra carrot.”

Riker also manages a second program, Charge Up, that offers $500 rebates. Funded by a half-cent sales tax through the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, that incentive has income caps, and only residents of specific communities within the county can qualify. If someone applies for the 511CC rebate and could qualify for the higher incentive, their application is automatically forwarded to this program.

However, the primary goal of Riker’s work is reducing VMT and carbon emissions. “When we developed the program, we knew that you could go with a much higher amount and help fewer people,” Riker says. “We took the approach that less means more.”

Since it rolled out in 2020, the 511CC program has given out $162,000 for 888 rebates, with 23% going to low-income residents. The Charge Up program has given 64 rebates since it started in 2022.

The programs do extensive surveying to determine their effectiveness, and 90% of participants have responded. That data helps ensure that the e-bike rebates are achieving their goals. It will help local and statewide agencies deliver more effective e-bike programs in the future, with a report coming soon from a UC Davis researcher. For example, the 511CC initially had a price cap of $5,000 for eligible bikes, but now every e-bike qualifies for a rebate as long as it has pedals.

“$150 isn’t going to change the world,” Riker says, but she feels it creates “e-bike ambassadors” — people excited about riding who want to tell their friends and neighbors how stoked they are about their bikes. She adds, “For a lot of people, their e-bike has changed their life.”

“I feel like there’s a tipping point. At some point, everybody’s going to buy an EV because you’re going to have to,” she says. She notes that over half the bikes at Bike to Work Day in Contra Costa County in 2022 were e-bikes. She feels like getting people to experience the joy of biking on an electric bike is a great way to get people who have never biked to ride. “We’re not going after bicyclists. We’re going after drivers,” she says.

How to get a 511CC or Charge Up e-bike rebate: Any Contra Costa County resident can get a $150 after-purchase rebate. If you live in an equity priority community within the county and meet the income qualifications, you can apply for a $500 Charge Up rebate.

Of course, there are other local e-bike purchase incentives available. If you have a qualifying car to trade in, you could get up to $7,500 from your local air quality management district. And stay tuned for more information about California’s statewide e-bike purchase incentive program.

E-Bike Incentives Report: November 30, 2022, CARB Work Group Meeting

January 9, 2023/by Laura McCamy

The California Air Resources Board held a work group meeting to continue its discussion of the parameters of the Electric Bicycle Incentives Project on November 30, 2022. Around 150 people attended the Zoom workshop, including representatives from the e-bike industry, bicycle shop owners, nonprofits who work with potential voucher recipients, bicycle coalition leaders, and members of the public interested in the program.

Here are some highlights from the meeting, plus information CalBike learned about e-bike purchase incentives after following up with CARB staff.

More funding for implementation

At the work group, CARB announced that it has another $3 million for the program in addition to the $10 million allocated by the legislature. Program staffers anticipate that the extra funding will help augment their outreach. Hopefully, the extra money will free up more of the $10 million for incentives rather than administrative expenses. CalBike applauds CARB for finding the extra funding and demonstrating that the agency understands the value of the e-bike incentive program.

Lowered income eligibility limits, more discussion of eligible bikes

CARB staff confirmed to CalBike that two parameters for the program have been finalized: the income eligibility limits and which classes of e-bikes will be eligible for incentives.

In prior presentations, CARB proposed 400% of the federal poverty limit as the income cap for e-bike incentives. However, at the last work group, staff announced that the income limit will be lower: 300% of FPL to align the eligibility requirements for the e-bike program with those of other CARB clean vehicle programs, which will be lowered to 300% FPL in 2023.

In response to overwhelming support for allowing Class 3 e-bike models to be eligible for incentives, CARB will include all three classes of e-bikes in the program. However, manufacturers will have to apply for their models to be eligible for purchase with the vouchers.

In response to concerns about maintenance, to ensure that people who receive the vouchers have support to keep their bikes in good repair, CARB proposed requiring a manufacturer’s warranty of at least two years. That would eliminate Rad Power Bikes, which makes some of the most affordable e-bikes on the market because it only offers a one-year warranty. Commenters noted that more expensive bikes tend to have longer warranties, which might put this requirement at odds with the equity goals of the program.

A quick internet search found that many e-bike manufacturers offer a five-year warranty on the frame and fork and one year on other parts. Provisions to ensure bike quality and repairability will undoubtedly get further discussion at future work group meetings.

Next steps for California’s e-bike incentive program

CARB plans to hold another work group meeting in January to continue receiving input on program parameters. If you’re not already on CARB’s list and want to be notified about this and future e-bike meetings, sign up for CARB’s e-bike list. In the past, they sent meeting notifications to everyone interested in transportation electrification, but future notices will be sent only to the e-bike-specific list.

Of course, CalBike will also let you know about future e-bike meetings. You can sign up for our list at the bottom of this post.

Meeting presentation

Video of the 11/30/2022 meeting