The San Francisco Bicycle Coalition weighed in with a pointed response, arguing that the state should be making it easier, not harder, to own and use e-bikes. Their senior organizer echoed the sentiment shared by many riders: the real confusion and danger comes from people not being able to tell the difference between a legal e-bike and an electric moped, not from the bikes themselves.
Brett Thurber, co-owner of a San Francisco e-bike shop, raised a practical industry concern about AB 1557. Restricting California’s speed limits below what manufacturers currently build for the U.S. market could push companies to skip California customers entirely, shrinking the supply available to local shops and consumers.
Whole lot of ford lobbyists here ig. bikes shouldnt be regulated. Period. I gurantee the next strategy of the car lobby is to just regulate alternatives into the ground. Oh you want a cheap vehicle to get around? That will be 1000 dollars registration, insurance, inspection, fees, and 80 hours of waiting in lines and making phone calls (we’re only open on tuesday 9am to 11 am btw). No thank you, keep cycling free.
Meh, Bikes up to 25km/h don’t require anything here. Anything faster needs a license plate and has stricter rules (like having to wear a helmet, needing a driving license, …)
I don’t mind drawing the line somewhere. Up to a certain point the speeds just become much more dangerous for everyone possibly involved.
I just don’t see anything wrong with the current regulation on class 1 and 2 ebikes. Casual cyclists on an analog bike can already achieve speeds of 20 mph, at least for a short time. In fact, those speeds are often essential in certain situations in car centric towns/cities. As someone that used to commute by bike in the city, at times I’d have felt safer if I could have gone a little faster.
Class 1 isn’t getting licenses.
Class 3 isn’t slowed down.
Great headline, I wonder why people are confused about if the e-bike they buy is illegal or not.
Take that fake Fred!
E-bike as a category is too wide and varied for this to be worthwhile.
Read the article, please.
Class 1 e-bikes stay without license.
Class 2 and 3 get licenses,
Class 1 and 2 are slowed down to 16 mph (25kmh), currently 20 mph (32 kmh)
Class 1 is analogous to EU pedelecs - you need to pedal for assist. Class 2 has a throttle instead. Class 3 is for higher speeds and children are not allowed to drive them.
What further category do you want?
As mentioned in another thread on the topic, the proposed rules essentially bring the e-bike rules in California in line with the rules in Europe.
I don’t think energy should be wasted being against this
Just because europe is overregulated doesnt mean its good for other places to be.
Licensing bikes will only hurt people that can’t get a license. The issue is infrastructure and enforcement, neither of which are helped solely by adding licensing.
Pedelecs that stop providing power at 25 km/h are still not going to be licensed under the proposed rules - in line with EU rules on the matter.
E-bikes with a throttle are really just stealth motorcycles, and it’s reasonable to treat them as such.
I have an ebike with a throttle, I only use the throttle to break inertia for the first 2 seconds and then I only peddle. It is nothing like a motorcycle. I would immediately stop using an ebike if it was treated as one. I ride safely, never exceeding 20 mph on flats and slow way down for pedestrians while getting passed by mamil’s going 30 mph in unsafe conditions. I use bike infrastructure entirely, 50% of which is separated from traffic and ride 1500 miles a year commuting. There is no reason for me to be punished because some dirtbag on an e-dirtbike is being described as an ebike.
With a pedelec, you would get the power boost when pushing on the pedals, and you could turn it off if you’re not into the assist. With regards to speed, it only assists up to 25 km/h, after that it’s all leg power adding additional speed.
Fundamentally, if you ride the way you do, then there’s basically no limitations under pedelec rules, so you should really welcome them - they only limit people using their throttle-supplied bikes in a less safe manner.
I’m 9 miles from work. My goal is to have an easy ride were I show up without sweating. I put assist on medium and keep the ride easy. Using the throttle to break inertia at every stop is absolutely a part of that, as is being able to go at a fast enough pace were I’m not peddling for the better part of an hour. We are not Europe, we are far more spread out in the usa. The consequence of regulation will be people like me returning to a far more dangerous form of transportation. To me that’s not progress: trying to lessen danger by increasing danger astronomically.
Outside of Surrons and other e-dirtbikes, the hysteria over ebikes is mostly car propaganda. Do anything to paint all forms of alternative transportation as dangerous, and get people back into cars (the most dangerous of all). As long as cars are the most viable form of transportation, any additional regulation on class I, II, or III ebikes will only result in decreased usage, and increased driving (which is far far more dangerous). Furthermore, you are also glossing over the fact that people already own these ebikes, and replacing them is not cheap. To me this is not seeing the forrest for the trees.
In an ideal world were we had sensible zoning and transportation infrastructure I might agree with you. But in the sad reality we have, regulations on basic ebikes will make things far far worse.
My goal is to have an easy ride were I show up without sweating. I put assist on medium and keep the ride easy.
People on pedelecs typically do not break a sweat, unless they are exceeding the assisted speed, since so little effort is needed to be put in, in order to get 250w of help.
Using the throttle to break inertia at every stop is absolutely a part of that, as is being able to go at a fast enough pace were I’m not peddling for the better part of an hour.
Breaking inertia on a pedelec, despite them not having a throttle, is very easy, since the 250w of assistance. Also, wouldn’t you be closer to half an hour than an hour if you’re frequently riding at 20 mph?
We are not Europe, we are far more spread out in the usa.
I thought this kind of thing was only repeated by anti-transit/anti-cycling infrastructure people, but here we are. I’m not sure what makes you think a 9 mile commute would be an impossibility in Europe - that’s the distance I used to commute back where I lived before, and I live in Europe.
The consequence of regulation will be people like me returning to a far more dangerous form of transportation.
If you’re insisting that you’re going to switch to a car if you can’t have a throttle on your ebike, that’s your decision to make.
If you’re insisting that you’re going to switch to a car if you can’t have a throttle on your ebike, that’s your decision to make.
Not just a throttle but at least 20 mph allowable. Realistically the more time it takes out of my day the less likely I am to do it. I used myself as an illustration, the point wasn’t about me, its to point out that regulations that cause people to walk away from biking make us all less safe. Your supporting regulation on ideological grounds while ignoring the likelihood of negative real world outcomes. If your goal is to make society safer, this accomplishes the opposite.
Just because you don’t murder people doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have laws against it.
What an obnoxious comparison, I bike exactly because I would rather not kill or be killed with a car.
It’s an analogy. A basic literary tool to show you that your premise is flawed. I’m not literally calling you a murderer, I’m showing you how laws function as a basic concept for governing groups of people.
Maybe I’m in the minority here, but I think that e-bikes should be speed-limited when operating under power. They’re motor vehicles, even if the motor is electric and the vehicle is a bike frame.
Anything going above 20mph has no business being in a bike lane.
I’ve clocked 40 mph coming down a mountain with just gravity and my leg power.
But that’s why bike lanes don’t make sense. We need space for passing.
I’ve got good news for you. That’s already the case. E bikes already have a class system: I, II, and III. Class I is only allowed 20mph with pedal assest. Class II is allowed 20mph with pedal assist or a throttle. Class III is allowed 20mph with throttle and 28mph with pedal assist. Typically in America only up to Class II is allowed on bike paths. Anything beyond those capabilities is treated like a dirt bike/motorcycle; it’s only supposed to ridden off road or plated to ride on the road.
The problem is this is dang near impossible to enforce. How many police are on the bike paths? How many people know these regulations?
yeah; I think the current system is overall pretty reasonable. the issue is really enforcement
And other countries don’t use that class system either. UK to ride as an ebike needs to be 15mph pedal assist only and motor can’t be over 250w. Anything else would be considered a motorcycle and require registration and insurance, also can’t use bike lanes.
Not sure if there are many electric bikes with pedals that are sold as motorcycles.
That’s really low speed. That feels like over reach, but that’s from my American perspective I suppose.
It’s likely a very slight underestimate. The EN-15194 standard comes out of the EU but has basically become the international standard definition of “safe, legal, ebike”. It requires the motor to cut out at 25 km/h and have no more than 250 W.
It’s about the speed that someone pottering about on a Dutch style bike is probably going, though it’s quite slow for a road bike. The 250 W limit is the bigger problem. It’s fine in the Netherlands, but for people in hillier countries it makes e-cargo bikes rather inaccessible.
That’s 15.5mph, not far off. That makes the ebike barely worth it.
That makes the ebike barely worth it
Eh, I wouldn’t go that far. As advocates very often say: ebikes aren’t for making you go faster, they’re for helping you go further. And the evidence bears that out: ebike riders do tend to ride further than regular bike riders do. They go about as fast as a casual cyclist usually will on the flat, and much faster up hills. It’s not about speed, it’s about convenience.
That said, I have advocated here in Queensland for increasing it from 25 to 32 km/h in the past, to bring it in line with America’s 20 mph. And more recently I used my submission to a parliamentary inquiry to suggest a 35 km/h limit for users with a licence (the context here being that the government is proposing a law which will restrict ebikes to 10 km/h on footpaths and shared paths—which make up over 90% of the things called “bike paths” in my city—as well as requiring a licence for all ebikes, even EN-15194 25 km/h ones). As a stronger cyclist, when on flat ground I tend to average about 30 km/h and can go above that for reasonable periods of time, and I don’t think it would be a safety risk for responsible adults to go just a hair faster than that.
But I really do want to emphasise that speed is not the primary advantage of an ebike, and it shouldn’t be seen as if it is.
You don’t live in the mountains, I presume?
The ebike benefit isn’t for going faster. It’s great for helping to climb mountains. 15.5 mph is FANTASTIC compared to walking up and pushing a bike
Which is why I use a regular bike, save on weight compared to hauling a useless motor and battery.
Ablest comment.
No it isn’t. I am talking about my personal choice and reasoning behind it. Stop looking to be offended.
If I am going over 15mph the motor and battery are a completely dead weight to comply with (stupid) UK laws. Even if you have a cargo bike going up hill it’s only allowed to be 250w too.
I’m used to them being limited to 25 kph (~15.5 mph) the high speed ones are considered mopeds with all their rules
Part of the issue is that the category of “ebike” is quite large. It really needs to be split into multiple subcategories for regulation.
For bikes intended to mix with pedestrians, you definitely need to limit speed and weight. Europe’s 250W, 25kph rules seem reasonable for this.
The problem most places have is the grey area between ebike and moped, particularly for cargo bikes. They are fast/heavy enough to be a risk to pedestrians, but not enough to be classed as motorbikes. They need some restrictions/licencing to keep pedestrian areas safe, but not so much that they get lumped in with cars.
You mean like into 3 classes of e-bikes? Like California already does? With these rules specifically applying to some of these classes and not to others, as it says in the article?
Like what do you want more? These rules would make Class 1 exactly like in the EU pedelecs (with more wattage).
Not only that. Pedestrian space is becoming more and more part of delivery services that use ebikes. I’m all for evs, but It starts to feel like an erosion of walkways.
Bicycles without motors aren’t allowed on sidewalks already. No new laws are needed.
We just need police to say “get in the road!”
That would instantly kill 80+% of bicycling for transportation in North America. I literally couldn’t even leave my house on my bike, and the pathway I use every day specifically designed for bicycle access to capmus would be useless, at it only connects to sidewalks.
You walk on the sidewalks with your bicycle. Because sidewalks are for pedestrians.
A person walking a bicycle is a pedestrian
Where I am its perfectly legal as long as you yield to all pedestrians.
In Germany, bicycle lanes are ending often without a reason. Delivery drivers don’t really care and use the pedestrian space. If there were better designated lanes for bicycles, it would be a lot simpler to keep them separated from pedestrian space.
Since E-bikes are a substitute for far more dangerous vehicles (cars), it only makes sense to address this once the danger of cars has been adequately addressed. Which we are light years away from in CA.
Putting more burdens on cyclists will just make more people drive. And driving is so so so much more dangerous than even the worst e-bike, this this very clearly makes people less safe.
Except e-bikes operate in many places that cars do not. Cars being an issue isn’t an excuse for anarchy everywhere else. I’ve seen plenty of people on e-bikes driving 30+ km/h down a public pathway in a park; you won’t see a car anywhere within 300 feet of this but it’s a clear danger to those in the area.
And I’d hardly call a speed limit for a bike a “burden,” and e-bikes have operated in a nebulous zone as mentioned above, they are motor vehicles.
Even if you had to get a plate and follow a speed limit, there are still a million reasons why people should get out of cars and onto bikes (e- or otherwise) to move themselves around.
Cars being an issue isn’t an excuse for anarchy everywhere else.
This doesn’t really address the logic of what you’re responding to though, and it clearly is a justification. If people are deterred from using ebikes for transportation and therefore use cars instead, then the resulting harm is whatever difference there is between injuries/deaths caused by an ebike and injury/death caused by a car over the same time period, it hardly matters for that where they are using them.
And I’d hardly call a speed limit for a bike a “burden,”
Whatever you call it, if there is an effect where a registration requirement results in more driving than otherwise, that has to be taken into account.
I thought you’re gonna say 50kmph easily with a twist of a throttle but alas, it’s only 30kmph, which can be achieved easily for a period of time by an average cyclist on a roadbike.
But i do agree ebike that can do more than 30kmph with a throttle are a danger to the pedestrians, it’s already a moped, which is something people doesn’t seems to realise.
I’d be more for California physically limiting the speed of every vehicle sold in the state to 70 mph.
E-bikes are not a substitute for cars, they are a substitute for bikes crossing further with cars on the venn diagram; some find convenience and acceptability in that overlap, while others do not. I never took my mountain car off a sweet jump on a dirt path, but I used to on my bike. (Yes, despite my stance, I do own a bike)
What you call a burden, are the rules of civilization we all (try) to adhere to. You may not like them, but the end of flagrant disregard and selfishness is, by far, not a burden.
Is it really so hard to make a chip that cuts the motor off at a certain speed?
If such a law did pass, they would become so mass produced that they would only cost a few pennies to add.
Class 1, 2, and 3 ebikes already have speed limiters on them. There are just companies out there making electric mopeds / motorcycles with pedals and calling them bicycles.
Certified “didn’t read the article” moment, those things are already mandated in California.
It is already law in several EU countries but people just pay a guy who knows a guy to remove the limiter
I always hear this, but do they really?
The way you are describing it makes it seem like it happens on a very different scale to e-bike sales in general. Any source on how many people tune their bikes?
Yep. It is mainly an issue with a certain type of “e-bike”, namely so-called fat bikes, which are chunky low-ride bikes more resembling e-scooters, that have pedals mainly for show to circumvent rules. I don’t have exact numbers but it is estimated about half of them have the limiter removed and often a throttle in the handlebar installed. You can just order them from China or have it retrofitted and they go up to 45 kph.
For example, The Netherlands seized about 10k of them in 2024 alone.
They’re very dangerous as well. These numbers just show the cases where the ones who got injured were riders of a fat bike themselves, but often regular cyclists or pedestrians are hit by one of these and end up in the hospital.
Hold on, it does not say why those bikes were seized. It does not say anything on if they had no limiter, a thottle or if they were manufactured to go faster. But that is what I’m asking about, is the manufacturer/importer breaking the law or is it the consumer? Well, the consumer is either way for using it, but they could be just unaware. You know what I mean, it is different if you deliberately mess with the electronics to go faster.
The VVN spokesperson saying “the limiter can easily be removed” doesn’t convince me either, is that a huge problem or an edge case?
Is there any credible source on around half of fat-bikes have their limiters removed?
It kinda does. The roller benches they mention are the way they test it. If they go too fast they are illegal, either by not having the limiter in the first place or having it removed. Both happens, like I mentioned before.
This mentions they are fined €310 the first time and it is only seized the second time they get caught. So yeah, I’m pretty sure they know.
And here is the source for the more than half claim, although a small sample size.
My city just installed 15mph speed limits. I welcome regulation and citations for speeding e-bikes at 25-30mph. It’s for safety.
Funny how there’s vocal outcry when “rules for thee, not for me” breaks down.
How do non ebike cyclists know their speed? It’s easy to go above 15 mph on a push bike. And most push bikes don’t have speedometers
Any smartphone made in the past couple decades can track GPS and calculate speed. Easy enough.
I can cycle without a motor faster than 15mph, when cycling you don’t even know your speed.
Here they just go by if you are going faster than is safe for the conditions, it isn’t a specific speed but doing 25 in a busy street with pedestrians is probably considered dangerous. Would be illegal and almost certainly unenforced. Then again, cars speeding is rarely enforced either.
Dirtbikes have been regulated my whole life. How are these any different?
