Tag Archive for: SB 1167

SB 1167: Comparable States and the Road Ahead

/by

SB 1167, CalBike’s cosponsored bill drawing a clear line between legal e-bikes and high-powered electric devices marketed as e-bikes, joins a growing effort to protect consumers across many states in recent years. The next phase will test enforcement, public understanding, and our commitment to bicycle access for these newly emerging devices we want to safely integrate into active transportation networks. Other states offer useful lessons for what comes next. Their policies show three patterns: substantial overlap in consumer protections, convergence toward a more complete approach to safety, and barriers that legislation alone will leave unresolved.

When SB 1167 was proceeding through the legislature, CalBike was guided by a simple truth for what consumers in California can expect: “Parents should be able to shop for an e-bike without having to investigate whether the product lives up to its description,” said CalBike Executive Director Kendra Ramsey. Misleading marketing shifts responsibility onto people who often have little reason to know the details of vehicle law. A buyer may assume that a device advertised as an e-bike can use a bike lane or a shared path. That assumption can leave a family with a device that has different operating requirements and cannot legally be used as intended.

Across the country, we see varying legislation on e-bikes aimed at who can ride and where. As SB 1167 gets put into practice, it joins other similar legislation across the nation affecting the e-bike marketplace. Among these efforts there is significant overlap, and we are likely to see diverging approaches to enforcement in the coming years. 

PreviousNext
123456

Images from State E-Bike Traffic Safety Landscape 2026 NCSL Presentation

Similarities in putting onus on retailers

Similar to California’s SB 1167, Colorado’s HB25-1197, signed in 2025, treats misleading e-bike marketing as a deceptive trade practice. It also recognizes a practical distinction: a bicycle can offer several modes that each stay within legal e-bike classes, while a device designed to exceed those classes presents a different legal question.

Like-minded Minnesota’s 2024 consumer protection law requires written information about an e-bike’s motor power, speed, and class before purchase. It also addresses misleading class labels and advertising for devices outside the legal e-bike definition. Utah’s 2024 law similarly addresses advertising, disclosures, and devices with multiple operating modes. Connecticut’s 2025 legislation requires disclosures before sale and in advertising when a seller uses e-bike terminology for a device outside the definition.

Among these states we see a consensus in outlook: the businesses designing, importing, advertising, and selling these products should be accountable for accurately explaining them.

Where approaches may be similar but begin to diverge

Among the states we reviewed, several have adopted detailed protections covering multiple parts of e-bike ownership, including batteries and safety incident data reporting.

Delaware: a documented sales process backed by consumer protection law. Its 2026 law requires clear advertising disclosures for covered higher-powered devices, a written disclosure before purchase, the buyer’s signature, and retention of that record for at least three years. Violations are considered unlawful business practices. The law also prohibits misleading claims about access to bicycle facilities and adds vehicle categories to public crash reporting. The retained records give officials something concrete to examine when investigating a sale.

New York: safety requirements spanning purchase, use, and emergency response. A package enacted in 2024 combines battery manufacturing standards, operating manuals, charging warnings, and traffic-law notices with crash reporting requirements. It also directs state agencies to maintain safety resources and provide training materials for first responders. The traffic notice must be printed in English and the state’s two most common non-English languages. 

Hawaiʻi: buyer education built into the purchase. Act 259, enacted in July 2026, requires permanent labels identifying an e-bike’s class, top assisted speed, and motor wattage, along with a booklet or pamphlet explaining state riding laws. 

The convergence is in how these protections fit together: a buyer gets accurate information, a product meets the applicable safety requirements, public agencies have defined responsibilities, and crash records identify the devices involved. This will provide researchers with a legible base from which to discern what safety measures are the most appropriate. 

Where barriers remain: enforcement, confusion, and access

Colorado offers California’s most immediate implementation lesson in the form of an unresolved concern. In August 2026, more than a year after its law was signed, 49 organizations and community leaders asked the attorney general to enforce it. Their letter reported continued misleading marketing, particularly online, and called for investigations, a consumer alert, and coordinated enforcement.

It offers a clear warning for California: passage needs to be followed by attention to what buyers actually encounter in the marketplace.

California seems to have avoided the most burdensome barrier — a policy response that makes legal e-bikes harder to use. New Jersey’s current requirements extend licensing and registration to low-speed pedal-assist bicycles. Its Motor Vehicle Commission explicitly exempts that category from insurance requirements. Even with that exemption, licensing and registration create administrative hurdles for people choosing a bicycle for everyday transportation.

What the future holds

The varying state approaches also strengthen the case for federal clarification. Under current federal consumer-product safety law, the definition of a low-speed electric bicycle includes a motor of less than 750 watts, without specifying whether that refers to peak or continuous power. Those measurements describe different capabilities and do not encompass all two-wheeled devices we see on the roads today.

Earlier this year, Amazon’s marketplace carried listings advertising devices capable of traveling more than 40 mph as “e-bikes,” well beyond California’s legal e-bike speed limits. In May, Amazon said it had removed identified listings and was reviewing similar products for compliance. SB 1167 establishes a clear mandate across the marketplace, making this voluntary action by Amazon the required simple standard. Beginning January 1, 2027, manufacturers and sellers must accurately identify their products and provide required disclosures. Devices outside the legal e-bike definition cannot be marketed as e-bikes. 

That is the victory: these protections will be mandatory. California must now follow through by checking listings and retail practices and enforcing the law when sellers violate it.

2026 Legislative Recap: A Signature Bill, and More Forward Progress

/by

 

CalBike secured a major victory for people who bike in 2026 with the signing of SB 1167, our co-sponsored e-bike consumer protection bill. The law protects legitimate Class 1, 2, and 3 e-bikes by requiring high-powered electric devices outside those definitions to be accurately identified and disclosed to consumers. Together, our supporters and coalition partners helped turn a clear demand into law: people deserve to know what they’re buying, and California’s legal e-bikes deserve protection. Read more about that legislation in last week’s press release.

Across our many priorities, CalBike faced a steep climb in the California Legislature, with hard-won progress under threat, new proposals that would have had negative effects for people who bike, and bills that undermined the e-bike marketplace as a whole. Defending the freedom to ride and access to safe networks is a central part of our work. Together with our supporters and partners, we helped stop three bills that would have imposed new restrictions on legal e-bikes, while advancing legislation to build safer, better-connected communities. Those victories reflect the power of people who bike speaking up together, and supporters like you made them possible.

Bad e-bike bills stopped in their tracks

In the early months of 2026, we were continually hearing about new challenges to legal e-bikes. Each proposal seemed to bring another restriction: DMV registration, license plates, lower assisted-speed limits. Taken together, they threatened to roll back California’s progress toward making bicycling a practical, accessible option for more people. Just as e-bikes were opening that possibility to more families, commuters, and older adults, lawmakers were proposing new obstacles to riding.

CalBike mobilized against these measures, making the case that California should protect and expand access to legal e-bikes. Three bills we opposed failed to advance:

  • AB 1557 (Papan) would have lowered the maximum assisted speed of Class 1 and Class 2 e-bikes to 16 mph.
  • AB 1942 (Bauer-Kahan) would have required DMV registration and special license plates for Class 2 and Class 3 e-bikes.
  • SB 956 (Choi) would have allowed an Orange County pilot program requiring e-bike license plates.

Stopping harmful legislation is a substantial victory. These proposals could have added paperwork, expense, and a patchwork of local requirements to a transportation option California should be making more accessible. Their defeat protected the practical benefits that bring people to e-bikes in the first place: the ability to carry children, climb hills, travel farther, and leave the car at home. Because advocates like you spoke up, these barriers will not become law this year.

Moving the ATP funding conversation in the right direction

A safe route to school or a reliable connection to transit depends on public investment. This year, CalBike helped move California toward a better approach to choosing, funding, and completing those projects.

Governor Newsom signed AB 2168 (Wicks), CalBike’s sponsored legislation strengthening the Active Transportation Program. The law prioritizes walking and biking connections to transit, encourages coordination with other state transportation investments, and establishes progressive penalties for agencies that repeatedly fail to use awarded funds promptly. Together, these changes can help limited funding deliver more useful, connected networks.

The funding challenge remains. Better program rules need to be matched by increased investment sufficient to build the safe routes communities are asking for. AB 2168 gives us a stronger foundation for that continuing work.

Protecting investments already made was another priority. SB 569 (Blakespear), CalBike’s Preserving Safe Bikeways bill, did not advance this year. The bill would have required that proposals to remove or modify any bikeway built with general fund dollars maintain the safety, mobility, and accessibility of the facility. Even though the bill did not advance, the Legislature incorporated its central protection into a separate budget bill for Santa Fe Drive in Encinitas, protecting that project from removal without a safe alternative. That limited step establishes a principle CalBike will continue pressing statewide: public investments in safe bikeways should endure.

CalBike-supported transportation planning and funding legislation passed this year:

  • AB 1923 (Soria) clears the way for a Fresno County transportation funding initiative to appear on the November 2026 ballot, giving voters a say in the future of local transportation investment.
  • SB 1087 (Cabaldon) revises how state transportation funding programs align with regional transportation and climate plans, while moving sustainable communities strategies to an eight-year cycle with progress reports every four years.
  • SB 1423 (Stern) requires the state to develop a public platform of standardized mapping data to support infrastructure planning and land use.

Stalled Progress on Safety

Some notable safety priorities failed to advance. AB 2276 (Soria) would have required intelligent speed assistance for those caught speeding repeatedly. AB 2560 (Schultz) would have put the goals of California’s Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure into statute, strengthening the connection between transportation spending and climate commitments.

CalBike-supported safety legislation passed this year:

  • AB 1685 (Lackey) strengthens driver-record penalties for gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, assigning three violation points and keeping those conviction records available for 10 years. Its provisions take effect in 2031.
  • AB 1687 (Lackey) establishes a six-year loss of driving privileges for drivers who cause injury while intoxicated and have four or more qualifying prior convictions within 10 years, with a restricted-license pathway and ignition-interlock requirements beginning 2031.
  • SB 1279 (L. Gonzalez) is a specific provision for Long Beach to install two speed safety cameras on Pacific Coast Highway, expanding the pilot program to address dangerous speeding on a corridor with a disproportionate share of traffic deaths.
  • AB 1837 (M. Gonzalez) extends transit agencies’ authority to use cameras to enforce parking and stopping violations in transit-only lanes and at transit stops until January 1, 2034.

CalBike’s supporters and partners help keep that agenda moving. Every message to a legislator, every local campaign for a safer street, and every contribution strengthens our ability to turn the promise of a more bikeable California into everyday routes people can trust.

Press Release: Governor Newsom Signs SB 1167 to Protect E-Bike Consumers

/by

Governor Newsom Signs SB 1167 to Protect E-Bike Consumers

 

CalBike-co-sponsored law draws a clear line between legal e-bikes and high-powered electric devices marketed as e-bikes

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

SACRAMENTO — The California Bicycle Coalition today celebrated Governor Gavin Newsom’s signing of SB 1167, authored by Senator Catherine Blakespear and co-sponsored by CalBike, PeopleForBikes, Streets Are For Everyone, and Streets For All. The new law strengthens consumer protections by clarifying what can legally be sold and marketed as an electric bicycle in California. It protects legitimate Class 1, 2, and 3 e-bikes while requiring high-powered electric devices outside those definitions to be accurately identified and disclosed to consumers.

E-bikes are helping Californians get to work, take children to school, and replace everyday car trips. But a rapidly changing electric mobility market has made it harder for consumers to distinguish legal e-bikes from devices that exceed California’s power and speed limits.

“Parents should be able to shop for an e-bike without having to investigate whether the product lives up to its description,” said Kendra Ramsey, Executive Director of CalBike. “When high-powered devices are sold as e-bikes, families can end up buying something very different from what they intended. SB 1167 puts responsibility on sellers to represent their products honestly and helps protect public confidence in legal e-bikes.”

The confusion resulting from lagging marketplace regulation has had real world consequences for safety on California streets. Families may purchase a device believing it can be used wherever bicycles are allowed, only to discover that it falls outside California’s e-bike rules. Misleading marketing also complicates efforts to understand safety concerns and develop policies that address the devices involved.

SB 1167 addresses these problems by:

  • Protecting California’s legal e-bike definitions, including established power and speed limits for Class 1, 2, and 3 e-bikes.
  • Strengthening truthful marketing requirements so devices outside the legal definition cannot be advertised, labeled, or sold as e-bikes.
  • Improving labeling and disclosures so consumers have clearer information about what they are purchasing.
  • Strengthening battery and electrical safety requirements for high-powered electric devices.
  • Improving crash and injury data by requiring incident reports to record available classification and labeling information.

CalBike thanks Senator Blakespear for her leadership, its fellow co-sponsors for their partnership, and Governor Newsom for signing these consumer protections into law.

About the California Bicycle Coalition

The California Bicycle Coalition advocates for equitable, inclusive, and prosperous communities where bicycling helps enable all Californians to lead healthy and joyful lives.

 

Press Release: SB 1167 Clears California Legislature, Heads to Governor Newsom

/by

CalBike-backed consumer protection bill draws a clear line between legal e-bikes and high-powered electric devices marketed as e-bikes

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

SACRAMENTO — The California Bicycle Coalition today celebrated the final legislative passage of SB 1167, authored by Senator Catherine Blakespear and co-sponsored by CalBike, PeopleForBikes, Streets For All, and Streets Are For Everyone. The bill now heads to Governor Gavin Newsom for his signature.

SB 1167 strengthens consumer protections by making clear what can legally be sold and marketed as an electric bicycle in California. The legislation protects legitimate Class 1, 2, and 3 e-bikes while requiring high-powered electric devices that fall outside those definitions to be accurately identified and disclosed to consumers.

“Consumers should know exactly what they’re buying, and products should be honestly represented,” Ramsey said. “SB 1167 draws a clear line around legal e-bikes and protects their role as one of California’s most promising transportation options. In a rapidly changing market, we should address the devices causing confusion rather than pile new restrictions onto people riding legal e-bikes.”

California law defines an electric bicycle as a bicycle with operable pedals and a motor of no more than 750 watts, with additional speed limits governing Class 1, 2, and 3 e-bikes. But the rapidly changing electric mobility market has made those distinctions increasingly difficult for consumers to navigate.

High-powered devices capable of exceeding legal e-bike power and speed limits are increasingly advertised using e-bike terminology, including in marketing aimed at young people. That confusion can leave families unaware that the device they are purchasing falls beyond California’s e-bike rules.

SB 1167 addresses that problem by:

  • Protecting California’s legal e-bike definitions, including the 750-watt power limit and established Class 1, 2, and 3 speed limits.
  • Strengthening truthful marketing requirements so devices that fall outside the legal definition cannot be advertised, labeled, or sold as e-bikes.
  • Improving labeling and disclosure requirements so consumers have clearer information about the type of electric device they are purchasing.
  • Strengthening battery and electrical safety requirements for high-powered electric devices.
  • Improving crash and injury data by requiring incident reports to record available classification and labeling information, helping California better understand which types of devices are involved.

SB 1167 previously passed the Senate 37-0 and advanced through the Assembly Transportation Committee and Assembly Appropriations Committee without a single opposing vote.

CalBike urges Governor Newsom to sign SB 1167 into law.

About the California Bicycle Coalition

The California Bicycle Coalition advocates for equitable, inclusive, and prosperous communities where bicycling helps enable all Californians to lead healthy and joyful lives.

 

Caltrans’ State Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update Work Begins

/by

The State Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (SBPP) is Caltrans’ statewide policy plan for walking and bicycling. Caltrans has started work on a new plan, with a final version expected in 2028. It sits under the larger California Transportation Plan, alongside statewide plans for rail, freight, aviation, and other parts of the transportation system. The current SBPP will update Toward an Active California, the plan Caltrans adopted in 2017, which was the first plan of its kind in California.

Caltrans says the new plan will identify the major needs, challenges, and opportunities facing people who walk and bike. It will then lay out a set of actions for the agency to carry out. It is important to note that the SBPP will not contain a statewide list of infrastructure projects. A bike lane, safer intersection, or improved highway crossing does not need to be named in the plan to move forward. Those projects are generally developed through Caltrans districts, local governments, regional agencies, funding programs, maintenance work, and other parts of the project delivery process.

The work of designing local roadways is a matter of implementation. What we are seeing here is high-level planning. 

What does the plan mean?

At its best, the SBPP can set clearer expectations for how Caltrans approaches walking and bicycling throughout California.

The 2017 plan helped kick off a round of district-level active transportation plans that started mapping out where people need safer places to walk and bike along the state highway system. The new update has a chance to build on that work, along with more recent shifts at Caltrans like the updated Complete Streets Director’s Policy, new design flexibility in Design Information Bulletin 94, and ongoing efforts to put SB 960 (the Complete Streets bill) into practice.

It could also address problems that advocates raised repeatedly by the public during Caltrans’ kickoff webinar, held on July 30, 2026: gaps in bicycle networks, unsafe freeway crossings, poor maintenance, slow project approvals, inadequate funding, weak connections to transit, and engineering practices that continue to place traffic flow ahead of safety.

A statewide plan can (potentially) be a powerful tool: it can give people inside and outside Caltrans a shared reference point when things aren’t working the way they should. Advocates can point to it. Local agencies can align with it. Staff within different Caltrans districts can use it to make the case for doing things differently.

In the best case, it becomes a kind of internal compass, nudging the agency to update outdated guidance and clear away the procedural barriers that slow beneficial projects down. 

Will the SBPP produce projects in my community?

In short: not directly. The adoption of the plan will not automatically fund or construct a protected bikeway in your neighborhood. It will not replace the work required from a Caltrans district, city, county, regional transportation agency, or community organization to advance a specific project. For many of us, this is obviously a frustrating answer. People across California have already spent years attending meetings, submitting comments, and asking for basic safety improvements. 

During the kickoff webinar, several participants asked some version of the same question: Why does California keep producing plans while dangerous conditions remain unchanged? This is a well-founded question, but the SBPP is not what is preventing or permitting individual projects moving forward, and abandoning the policy process would not make those projects appear faster. Planning and implementation happen in different parts of Caltrans, and the work on the statewide plan does not stop districts or local agencies from delivering projects.

How can I participate?

The plan is still at the beginning of a two-year process, which means the public has time to shape it. Caltrans’ SBPP website includes a Participate tab where you can submit comments, respond to surveys, sign up for updates, and follow future webinars and public-review opportunities. Input from CalBike supporters like you can help shape the future of Caltrans policy. Of note, participants in the July 30 kickoff webinar did not feel the platform or method of engagement offered an opportunity to provide substantive feedback; CalBike will be addressing this issue to Caltrans and seeking improvements for future webinar opportunities. 

CalBike’s Focus

A strong SBPP in our eyes is a plan that turns California’s stated commitment to walking and bicycling into consistent decisions throughout Caltrans.

That means an agency that defaults to stronger safety standards, complete networks, better connections to transit, meaningful funding commitments, transparent tracking, and fewer excuses when Caltrans has an opportunity to improve a street. This kind of steady policy work helped CalBike win passage of SB 960, the Complete Streets Bill, in 2024. That law carries a simple idea: Caltrans should plan for everyone who uses the state highway system. The SBPP is another chance to embed that idea deeper into the agency. While this plan will not transform a street overnight, if done well, it can help make safe bicycling an ordinary part of how California plans, funds, and builds.

Press Release: CalBike Applauds Assembly Transportation Committee Passage of SB 1167

/by

Legislation draws a clear line between electric bicycles and illegal high-powered electric motorcycles.

SACRAMENTO — The California Bicycle Coalition today applauded the Assembly Transportation Committee’s passage of SB 1167, authored by Senator Catherine S. Blakespear and co-sponsored by CalBike, PeopleForBikes, Streets For All, and Streets Are For Everyone.

SB 1167 strengthens consumer protections and clarifies the classifications of high-powered electric devices in California. The bill makes it clear that electric vehicles too powerful or fast to meet the legal definition of an e-bike must not be marketed or sold as e-bikes.

By advancing SB 1167, the Assembly Transportation Committee recognized the need for a practical distinction between legal e-bikes and higher-powered electric devices. The bill now moves to Assembly Appropriations after passing the committee by a vote of 15-0.

“Today’s vote is an important step toward protecting consumers, families, and the future of legal e-bikes in California,” said Kendra Ramsey, Executive Director of CalBike. “Californians deserve to know what they are buying. SB 1167 preserves access to safe, legal e-bikes while creating a clear and lawful path for faster devices that belong in a different regulatory category.”

Electric bicycles are already defined under state and federal law as having no more than 750 watts of power and maximum speeds of 20 mph on throttle or 28 mph when pedal assisted. Yet increasingly, higher-powered electric motorcycles, commonly called e-motos, are being marketed and sold as e-bikes, creating confusion for families, regulators, retailers, and riders.

SB 1167 protects the integrity of the e-bike category by:

  • Reaffirming the legal definition of an electric bicycle, including the 750-watt cap and Class 1, 2, and 3 speed limits.
  • Cracking down on deceptive marketing that allows electric motorcycles, mopeds, or other higher-powered vehicles to be advertised or sold as electric bicycles.
  • Requiring clear disclosure when a vehicle does not meet the e-bike definition and may be subject to registration, licensing, helmet, and insurance requirements.
  • Modernizing vehicle code language to clarify classifications for high-powered devices masquerading as e-bikes.

“Faster and more powerful electric motorcycles are being marketed as e-bikes, which is dangerous to children and adults,” Senator Blakespear said. “SB 1167 makes clear to consumers whether they are buying an e-bike, which has defined limits for power and speed, or something else.”

Electric bicycles are transforming mobility across California, offering an affordable, low-carbon way to get around. They help people replace car trips, make longer rides possible, and expand access to bicycling for people who might not otherwise ride. Protecting that progress requires clear rules and honest marketing.

Protect the Promise of E-Bikes

/by

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.

Press Release: CalBike Co-Sponsors SB 1167 to Protect Consumers and Preserve Access to Legal E-Bikes

/by

Legislation draws a clear line between electric bicycles and illegal high-powered electric motorcycles (e-motos). 

SACRAMENTO — The California Bicycle Coalition (CalBike) today announced its co-sponsorship of SB 1167, introduced by Sen. Catherine S. Blakespear (D-Encinitas), legislation that strengthens consumer protections and clarifies the classifications of certain high-powered electric devices in California. SB 1167 makes it clear that electric vehicles too powerful or fast to meet the definition of an e-bike are not to be marketed or sold as e-bikes.

Electric bicycles are already clearly defined under state and federal law as having no more than 750 watts of power and maximum speeds of 20 mph on throttle or 28 mph when pedal assisted. Yet increasingly, higher-powered electric motorcycles, commonly called “e-motos,” are being marketed and sold as “e-bikes,” creating confusion for families and regulators as well as introducing new safety risks on public streets.

SB 1167 protects the integrity of the e-bike category by:

  • Reaffirming the legal definition of an electric bicycle, including the 750-watt cap and Class 1, 2, and 3 speed limits.
  • Cracking down on deceptive marketing, making it illegal to advertise or sell electric motorcycles, mopeds, or other higher-powered vehicles as electric bicycles.
  • Requiring clear disclosure when a vehicle does not meet the e-bike definition and is subject to registration, licensing, helmet, and insurance requirements.
  • Modernizing vehicle code language to clarify classifications for high-powered devices masquerading as e-bikes.

“Californians deserve clarity when they walk into a bike shop or order online,” said Kendra Ramsey, Executive Director of CalBike. “SB 1167 protects access to safe, legal e-bikes while creating a clear and lawful path for faster devices that belong in a different regulatory category. This is about consumer protection and public safety, not restricting responsible riders.”

“Faster and more powerful electric motorcycles are being marketed as e-bikes, which is dangerous to children and adults,” Sen. Blakespear said. “SB 1167 makes clear to consumers whether they are buying an e-bike, which has defined limits for power and speed, or something else.”

Electric bicycles are transforming mobility across California, offering an affordable, low-carbon way to get around. Research from the Mineta Transportation Institute has shown that e-bike ridership is growing rapidly across age groups and is expanding access to people who might not otherwise ride. Protecting that progress requires clear rules and honest marketing.

By closing gaps that have allowed high-powered devices to be misrepresented as bicycles, SB 1167 ensures that higher-speed electric motorcycles are regulated consistently with other motor vehicles, while preserving the promise of legitimate e-bikes as a clean, accessible transportation option.

For comment contact Kendra Ramsey, Executive Director kendra@calbike.org

SB 1167 is co-sponsored by CalBike, PeopleForBikes, Streets For All, and Streets Are For Everyone.

Follow a manual added link

Get Email Updates

Follow a manual added link

Join Calbike

About Us

Board
Careers
Contact Us
Financials & Governance
Local Partners
Privacy Policy
Staff
State & National Allies
Volunteer

Advocacy

California Bicycle Summit
E-Bike
Legislative Watch
Past and Present Projects
Report: Incomplete Streets
Sign On Letters

Resources

Maps & Routes
Crash Help and Legal Resources
Quick-Build Bikeway Design Guide
Report: Complete Streets
All Resources

Support

Ways to give
Become a Member
Donor Advised Funds
Donate a Car
Business Member

News

Blog
CalBike in the News
Press Releases

© California Bicycle Coalition 2026

1017 L Street #288
Sacramento, CA 95814
© California Bicycle Coalition 2026