Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
031026-03.2
STUDY STUDY SESSION MEMORANDUM 3.2 TO: Town Council March 10, 2026 SUBJECT: E-Bike Safety – Local Ordinance Considerations BACKGROUND Like many communities nationwide, Danville has experienced an increase in youth- related reckless behavior involving higher-powered e-bikes and e-scooters in shared public spaces. Specific safety concerns include excessive speeds on shared-use paths, increased use of throttle-equipped “e-moto” style devices, aftermarket speed modifications, inconsistent helmet use, and unsafe riding behavior that creates conflicts among pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists. The California Vehicle Code governs the classification and operation of these devices. Local jurisdictions are largely pre-empted from imposing additional age limits, licensing requirements, or equipment standards. With limited pilot authority granted to Marin and San Diego Counties under AB 1778 and AB 2234, respectively, cities otherwise remain constrained in their ability to regulate beyond state law. This memorandum outlines the Town’s response to date, Commission input, relevant statewide findings and proposed legislation, enforcement considerations, and policy options for Council discussion. DISCUSSION While the legal framework governing e-bike classification and operation is established at the state level, the practical impacts are experienced locally. As a result, the Town has implemented a coordinated E-Bike Safety Action Plan over the past year within Danville’s limited local regulatory authority, including: •Launch of the “Not My Kid” public education campaign targeting parents and youth. •Coordinated with the San Ramon Valley Unified School District to deploy the education campaign and safety messaging. •Continued enforcement of reckless riding behavior, including impoundment. •Convening a Regional E-Bike Safety Working Group to align local strategies. •Engagement with John Muir Health to better understand injury trends. E-Bike Local Ordinance Considerations 2 March 10, 2026 Together, these efforts emphasize education and behavior-based enforcement while positioning the Town to participate in broader regional and legislative discussions. Commission Review In response to community concerns, the Town Council adopted Ordinance No. 2024-07 prohibiting e-bikes and motorized scooters on sidewalks in business districts. As concerns persisted, on July 8, 2025, the Council directed the Parks, Recreation & Arts Commission (PRAC) and the Bicycle Advisory Commission (BAC) to evaluate whether additional updates to the Parks Ordinance and Municipal Code are warranted beyond the existing commercial district restrictions. During their discussions, both Commissions heard from the Danville Police Chief, who shared that enforcement is difficult. Officers cannot readily determine rider age, device classification, or compliance from a distance, often when multiple riders are traveling in a group at speed. Modified devices are even more difficult to visually identify. As such, both Commissions focused their deliberations on the clarity and practical enforceability of any proposed local restrictions. •Parks, Recreation & Arts Commission (PRAC) Following discussion at its July 9, August 13, and September 10, 2025 meetings, PRAC recommends restricting e-bikes and e-scooters to paved trails only and establishing a 15 mph speed limit within Town parks, consistent with the posted limit on the Iron Horse Trail. The Commission emphasized protecting landscaped areas and athletic fields, reducing user conflicts, and adopting clear, enforceable standards within areas under the Town’s control. •Bicycle Advisory Commission (BAC) At its July 28 and September 25, 2025 meetings, the BAC reviewed whether to expand existing downtown sidewalk restrictions into residential areas. Commissioners expressed differing perspectives, including concerns about pedestrian safety and enforceability, as well as the potential for redirecting young riders onto higher-speed roadways and creating new safety risks. Ultimately, after much deliberation, the Commission recommended maintaining the current Municipal Code language, which already prohibits operating any vehicle, including e-bikes, on sidewalks in a manner that endangers pedestrians or property. E-Bike Local Ordinance Considerations 3 March 10, 2026 Statewide Research and Clinical Context John Muir Health Alert In December 2025, John Muir Health’s Trauma Center issued an urgent safety alert reporting a sharp rise in e-bike and e-scooter injuries (Attachment B). Over the past year, the trauma team treated twice as many related injuries as the prior year, including pedestrians struck by riders. Physicians reported that many neurological and orthopedic injuries more closely resemble motorcycle trauma than traditional bicycle crashes. Teenagers, particularly boys, and seniors were among the most affected groups. Consistent with the Mineta findings, head injuries were the most common, and helmet use among injured riders remained low. Mineta Transportation Institute Around the same time, the Mineta Transportation Institute released a statewide report titled Exploring Electric Bicycle Safety Performance Data and Policy Options for California (“Mineta Report,” Attachment C). The report found that e-bike injuries are increasing annually. While nationwide injuries from conventional bicycles still exceed those from e-bikes, in certain areas, including New York City, Orange County, and Marin County, reported e-bike incidents now surpass conventional bicycle incidents. Head injuries are the most common type of injury, and helmet use among injured riders remains low. Approximately three out of four injured riders are male. Over a five-year period, adults ages 18 to 34 experienced the highest number of injuries, while minors experienced the fastest growth rate in 2024. The report also concluded that the United States’ regulatory framework is atypical internationally. None of the countries reviewed use the U.S. three-class system, and most set lower power and speed thresholds for devices that may be operated without a driver’s license. By comparison, the U.S. permits significantly higher wattage and assisted speed limit (Table 1). E-Bike Local Ordinance Considerations 4 March 10, 2026 Table 1. Excerpted table from the Mineta Report, page 46. The report also notes that neither federal nor California law clearly specifies whether the 750-watt limit refers to continuous power or peak power. Continuous power is the sustained output of a motor, while peak power reflects short bursts used for acceleration or hill climbing. Because peak output can be significantly higher, clarifying that the 750- watt cap applies to peak power would create a stricter limit and reduce the likelihood that a device functions more like a lightweight motorcycle than a traditional bicycle. Lastly, consistent with Danville’s experience, the report also identified enforcement challenges caused by unclear device classifications and the difficulty of visually distinguishing compliant e-bikes from modified or higher-powered devices. Common Themes While the Mineta Report takes a more measured academic tone and John Muir Health’s alert emphasizes the clinical severity observed in emergency rooms, both documents align on three core points: 1. E-bike related injuries are increasing. 2.Higher speeds and modified devices increase the severity of injuries. 3.Clearer device definitions (especially as it relates to maximum output) and consistent standards are needed to support enforcement and policymaking. E-Bike Local Ordinance Considerations 5 March 10, 2026 2026 State Legislative Update In response to rising injury trends, municipal feedback from communities such as Danville, and the policy gaps identified in the Mineta Report, a number of e-bike safety related bills (some are spot bills) were introduced during the 2026 legislative session. •AB 1569 (Davies): Requires safety training for students who park e-bikes on K–12 school campuses. The Town is soliciting input from the School District to inform refinements to the bill to avoid creating an unfunded mandate. •AB 1942 (Bauer-Kahan) would require Class 2 and Class 3 e-bikes to be registered with the Department of Motor Vehicles and display a special license plate. The bill reflects the Mineta Report’s recommendations to update California’s classification framework to increase accountability for higher-speed, throttle-equipped devices. Visible and readily observable identifiers could also assist with enforcement. •AB 1557 (Papan): Clarifies that a legal e-bike must have fully operable pedals and a motor capped at 750 watts of peak power. Because peak power governs short bursts of acceleration, this creates a stricter cap and reduces the likelihood that a device functions more like a lightweight motorcycle. •AB 1614 (Dixon): Requires permanent, designated seating for each rider and passenger, with the intent is to prevent unsafe multi-rider practices and reduces falls. •AB 2284 (Dixon): Directs the Department of Motor Vehicles, in partnership with nonprofit organizations, to publish and maintain a public list of electric bicycles and related products that do not comply with statutory labeling or advertising requirements, improving consumer transparency. •AB 2346 (Wilson): Requires new Class 1 and Class 2 e-bikes to include a speedometer, integrated lighting, and written disclosures of e-bike laws at the point of sale. The bill also authorizes specified speed limits and civil penalties for noncompliant manufacturers and distributors. •SB 956 (Choi): A spot bill expressing legislative intent to draft additional legislation relating to electric bicycles. •SB 1167 (Blakespear): Expands prohibitions against advertising or labeling noncompliant motor-driven cycles or mopeds as electric bicycles and classifies such conduct as misleading advertising under state law. Collectively, these measures signal that e-bike regulation in California is at a turning point, with growing momentum toward clearer standards and stronger accountability. E-Bike Local Ordinance Considerations 6 March 10, 2026 RECOMMENDATION As shown in the attached matrix (Attachment A), many of the Town’s concerns involve areas governed by state law. In those areas, statewide action offers the greatest opportunity to improve clarity and enforceability. The Town’s strongest authority lies in regulating behavior within its parks and on Town-controlled infrastructure (sidewalks). As such, the most effective municipal actions are those that are clear, objective, and enforceable within existing legal authority. The following recommendations are presented for Council consideration within this framework of pending state legislation and existing local authority: •Advance the PRAC recommendation to (1) restrict e-bikes and e-scooters to paved pathways within Town parks; and (2) establish a 15 mph speed limit in parks and on multi-use trails, where the Town has clear authority and enforceability is practical. This would require an amendment to the Parks Ordinance. •Defer expansion of residential sidewalk prohibitions, consistent with BAC discussion, pending greater clarity from the 2026 legislative session. •Formally support pending state legislation that enhances youth safety, clarifies device definitions, improves accountability for higher-speed devices, and strengthens enforceability. •Continue regional coordination and legislative advocacy and return to Council with updates as state legislation advances. Prepared by: Tai J. Williams Town Manager Attachments: A – E-Bike Concerns, Authority, and Actions B – John Muir Health Trauma Center Safety Alert C – Mineta Transportation Institute Report (Executive Summary) Attachment A – E-Bike Safety Concerns, Authority and Actions Area of Concern Local Actions (within existing authority) State Actions (pending, subject to change) A. Rider Behavior & Conduct Reckless riding on roadways: Running red lights, wrong-way riding, weaving in traffic, double riding, riding at night without lights, riding with multiple passengers on a single e-bike. Enforced vehicle code provisions; deployed targeted patrols in hot spots; impounded illegal devices when appropriate. Developed and implemented the “Not My Kid” education campaign, distributing information on all Town platforms and SRVUSD communications channels. AB 1614 – Requires permanent, designated seating for each rider and passenger. AB 2346 – Requires speedometers and integrated lighting on new Class 1 and 2 e-bikes; sets default speed limits for sidewalks and certain bikeway. B. Safety in Shared Public Spaces Excessive speed in parks and trails: High speed riding on Iron Horse Trail, Osage Park, playground-adjacent paths. Deployed targeted patrols. PRAC recommended amending the Parks Ordinance to restrict e-bikes to paved trails, establish a 15 mph speed limit, and enhance signage. No new state legislation required for park-level regulation. Conflicts on residential sidewalks: Creates conflicts with pedestrians, particularly seniors and young children. Current Municipal Code prohibits riding in a manner that endangers pedestrians or property. Town has authority to expand sidewalk prohibitions, if deemed necessary and appropriate. AB 2346 – Establishes a prima facie 5 mph sidewalk speed limit. AB 1942 – DMV registration & visible plate (proposed). While not directly addressing sidewalks, registration may limit youth use of higher-powered devices. C. Age Related Concerns Youth operating higher-powered throttle devices: Calls for age limits based on concerns that certain devices require greater roadway judgment and awareness. No local authority to impose age limits. Town actions have focused on public education campaigns. AB 1569 (Davies) – Safety training tied to campus parking (proposed). AB 1942 (Bauer-Kahan) – License registration for Class 2 & 3. AB 2346 – Prohibits riders under 16 from exceeding 15 mph unless holding an instruction permit. D. Device Classification & Modifications Modified devices exceeding legal speed limits: Online unlocking tutorials; devices clocked above 35 mph; difficulty visually identifying modified bikes. No local authority to regulate manufacturing standards. AB 1557 (Papan) – Clarifies 750- watt peak cap (proposed). AB 2284 (Dixon) – Requires DMV to publish a list of non-compliant electric bicycles and products. ATTACHMENT A Area of Concern Local Actions (within existing authority) State Actions (pending, subject to change) SB 1167 (Blakespear) – Expands prohibitions on falsely advertising or labeling non-compliant devices. Higher-powered devices functioning like motorcycles: Devices that operate more like mopeds or lightweight motorcycles than traditional bicycles No local authority to redefine device classifications. AB 1942 – Registration for Class 2 & 3 (proposed). SB 1167 – Strengthens enforcement against mislabeling motor-driven cycles such as e-bikes. From:Sharon Jenkins Cc:Sharon Jenkins; Marievita Lowe; Lennore Merz Subject:John Muir Health – Urgent Safety Alert: Alarming Rise in E-Bike and E-Scooter Injuries Date:Tuesday, December 16, 2025 7:10:48 AM***CAUTION*** THIS EMAIL WAS NOT SENT FROM DANVILLE STAFFThis email originated from outside of the Town of Danville and was not sent from aTown Staff member! Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize thesender and know the content is safe. A Message from John Muir Health’s Trauma Center As the Trauma Center for Contra Costa County and parts of Solano County for nearly 40 years, rapid diagnosis and treatment of traumatic injuries is only part of what our team provides to the community. We are committed to injury prevention by providing information to help people of all ages make smarter and safer decisions. Electric bicycles (e-bikes) and e-scooters are increasingly popular modes of transportation and recreation, especially in the Bay Area, but their popularity is leading to serious and sometimes fatal injuries. Over the past year, our trauma team has treated double the number of injuries to e-bike and e-scooter riders, as well as pedestrians hit by them, compared to the previous year. This is an alarming trend. The types of neurological and orthopedic injuries sustained are much closer to those often associated with motorcycle accidents than to those on non-motorized bicycles. Some e- bikes can travel up to 28 miles per hour and even faster with simple modifications that make it easy to exceed the manufacturer’s speed restrictions. With faster speeds comes more severe collisions and the likelihood of serious or fatal injuries. The most prominent age groups suffering these injuries are seniors and teenagers, primarily teenage boys. What John Muir Health’s Trauma Center is seeing mirrors trends from around the country. According to the American College of Surgeons: More than 20,000 people are injured while riding e-bikes annually with approximately 3,000 requiring hospitalization, and this is likely underreported. The rate of e-bike injuries is increasing annually. Head injuries occur most frequently, and only a third of injured patients were wearing helmets. What Everyone Should Know Everyone who currently rides or has a family member who rides an e-bike or e-scooter should be aware of the risks and how to safely operate one. This includes: Knowing the different classes of e-bikes (1-3) and the safety requirements associated with each class. By law, children under 16 may not operate a Class 3 e-bike. Knowing the rules of the road for e-bikes, regular bikes, e-scooters, cars and motorcycles, including where bikes and scooters can be ridden. Rules may differ depending on the city and county. ATTACHMENT B Wearing a proper helmet. The helmet must be fitted and worn properly and should reflect the class of e-bike being ridden. Remember, e-bike head injuries are much closer to those seen in motorcycle accidents. Parents should know what kind of e-bike or e-scooter they are buying for their child and make clear that the speed of the bike or scooter should not be modified. Parents should also review e-bike and e-scooter safety along with local laws with their child. The American Academy of Pediatrics advises against children under 16 operating or riding on e-bikes or e-scooters. Safety Resources There are several resources available to learn about the right type of e-bike for you or your family member. They all reinforce the importance of helmets and other safety equipment, and how to operate an e-bike safely. These include: Electric Bike Safety and Training Course (developed by the California Highway Patrol) rise.articulate.com/share/yB3Hip8AYzOGdY0dqnd42mQ3k0c6Jza1#/ California’s Electric Bicycle Law - 511contracosta.org/wp- content/uploads/2021/11/ebike_laws.pdf Walnut Creek Police Department Safety Tips and Rules of the Road - www.walnutcreekpdca.gov/i-want-to/stay-safe/bicycle-safety To avoid traumatic injury, young people in our community need help developing safe habits and learning how to make good decisions. Operating an e-bike or e-scooter safely is no different than knowing how to safely operate any other motorized vehicle. We want to see people riding safely and responsibly, not showing up in our emergency department’s trauma room. Sharon Quesada Jenkins, MPA Director, Government Affairs and External Relations 1400 Treat Boulevard, Suite 300 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 (925) 941-4031 office (925) 324-9903 cell sharon.jenkins@johnmuirhealth.com Would you like to receive the John Muir Health Newsletter? Click here. For assistance, please contact: Mayra Aviles (925) 952.2837 mayra.aviles@johnmuirhealth.com Exploring Electric Bicycle Safety Performance Data and Policy Options for California Asha Weinstein Agrawal, PhD Kevin Fang. PhD CSU TRANSPORTATION CONSORTIUM Project 2423 December 2025 transweb.sjsu.edu/csutcATTACHMENT C A publication of Mineta Transportation Institute Created by Congress in 1991 College of Business San José State University San José, CA 95192-0219 REPORT 25-37 EXPLORING ELECTRIC BICYCLE SAFETY PERFORMANCE DATA AND POLICY OPTIONS FOR CALIFORNIA Asha Weinstein Agrawal, PhD Kevin Fang. PhD December 2025 TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 1.Report No.2.Government Accession No.3.Recipient’s Catalog No. 4.Title and Subtitle 5.Report Date 6.Performing Organization Code 7.Authors 8.Performing Organization Report 9.Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. 11.Contract or Grant No. 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13.Type of Report and Period Covered 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplemental Notes 16. Abstract 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement 19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) 190 25-37 Exploring Electric Bicycle Safety Performance Data and Policy Options for California Asha Weinstein Agrawal, PhD https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2328-0263 Kevin Fang, PhD https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3765-158X December 2025 CA-MTI-2423 SB1-SJAUX_2023-26 Mineta Transportation Institute College of Business San José State University State of California SB1 2017/2018 Trustees of the California State University Sponsored Programs Administration 401 Golden Shore, 5th Long Beach, CA 90802 Final Report UnclassifiedUnclassified No restrictions. This document is available to the public through The National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161 electric bicycles; crashes; policy, legislation, and regulation; traffic safety education; product safety This study was conducted as directed by California Senate Bill 381 (2023), which called for research to help policymakers develop effective laws and policy to support the twin goals of expanding electric bicycle use and protecting the safety of electric bicycle riders and other road users. The three major strands of findings presented in this report are (1) a review of how California and other states (and countries) regulate electric bicycle use, (2) a review of the electric bicycle safety literature, including original analysis of primary data on crashes, injuries, and deaths, and (3) strategies that the state could adopt to promote the safe use of electric bicycles. The strategies discussed include revising the way the California Vehicle Code defines and regulates electric bicycles, opportunities for improving electric bicycle safety data quality and analysis, building safe infrastructure for electric bicycling, and public education on electric bicycle rules of the road and safe riding practices. 10.31979/mti.2025.2423 Mineta Transportation Institute College of Business San José State University San José, CA 95192-0219 Tel: (408) 924-7560 Fax: (408) 924-7565 Email: mineta-institute@sjsu.edu transweb.sjsu.edu by Mineta Transportation Institute All rights reserved 10.31979/mti.2025.2423 Copyright © 2025 121925 Mineta Transportation Institute iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors alone are responsible for all content in this report, but we are deeply grateful to the dozens of people who contributed to the effort. We were assisted by many talented student research assistants who worked on data collection and/or analysis: Adam Azevedo, Cornell University; Lily Cella, UC Davis; Harman Chahal, University of Pennsylvania; Carlos Tellez Chavez, Sonoma State University; Hunter Dennis, Sonoma State University; Amir Ghanbari, University of Iowa; Alex Hickey, Sonoma State University; Truc (Amelia) Le, San José State University; Anya Kothari, The Menlo School; Kevin Pham, San José State University; and Spencer Snook, Sonoma State University. We also offer deep thanks to the many professionals who helped, whether as interviewees, answering questions, pointing us to data sources, introducing us to other experts, or commenting on draft materials: Ipsita Banerjee, PhD, UC Berkeley SafeTREC; Jim Baross, California Association of Bicycling Organizations; Vaughn Barry, PhD, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Alyssa Begley, Caltrans; Beth Black, American Bicycling Education Association and The Bellemont Project; John Brazil, Mark Thomas; Clarrissa Cabansagan, Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition; Keri Caffrey, American Bicycle Education Association and CyclingSavvy; Rachel Carpenter, California State Transportation Agency; Joshua Cohen, Cohen Law Partners; Paige Colburn-Hargis, Scripps Memorial Hospital La Jolla -Trauma Services; Matt Cuddy, PhD, U.S. DOT Volpe National Transportation Systems Center; Manual DeLeon, California Senate Transportation Committee; Jay Doucet, MD, UC San Diego Health; Stephanie Dougherty, California Office of Traffic Safety; Lieutenant David Fawson, California Highway Patrol; Evan Fern, Office of California Senator Dave Cortese; Christian Filbrun, Office of California Assemblymember Tasha Boerner; Gwen Froh, Marin County Bicycle Coalition; Laura F. Goodman, MD, Children’s Hospital of Orange County; Captain Darren Greene, California Highway Patrol; Dorian Grilley, Bicycle Alliance of Minnesota; Jhosseline Guardado, Office of California State Senator Dave Min; Melinda Hanson, Brightside Strategies; Katherine J. Harmon, PhD, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Eduardo Hernandez, Hawaii Bicycle League; John Humm, PhD, National Transportation Safety Board; Ria Hutabarat Lo, PhD, City of Mountain View; Stephanie Jenson, California Emergency Nurses Association, and Inland Valley Hospital; Alan Kalin, Danville Safety Advocates; Jason Kligier, City of Santa Monica; Tarrell Kullaway, City of San Anselmo and Marin County Bicycle Coalition; Isabel LaSalle, California Senate Transportation Committee; Susan Lindsey, Caltrans; Liza Lutzger, UC Berkeley SafeTREC; John Maa, MD, Chinese Hospital (San Francisco) and American College of Surgeons; Ramses Madou, City of San Jose; Nadia Mahallati, Office of California Senator Catherine S. Blakespear; Kevin Mann, US Acute Care Solutions; Silvia Casorrán Martos, European Cyclists’ Federation and Red de Ciudades y Territorios por la Bicicleta (Spain); Ken McLeod, League of American Bicyclists; Bob Mittelstaedt, E-Bike Access (Marin County); Matt Moore, PeopleForBikes; Susie Murphy, San Diego Mountain Biking Association and California Mountain Biking Coalition; Roman Novoselov, Amazon; Angela Olson, Minnesota Bicycle Alliance; Mar-y-sol Pasquiers, MPH, CPH, California Department of Public Health; LeeAnn Prebil, PhD, Marin County; Brittany Rawlinson, PhD, National Transportation Safety Board; Anne Richman, Transportation Authority of Mineta Transportation Institute vAcknowledgments Marin; Jared Sanchez, CalBike; Steven Sheffield, Bosch eBike Systems; Clint Sandusky, Riverside Community College District Police Department (retired); Nathan Schmidt, City of Carlsbad; Tejus Shankar, Lyft; Daniel Soto, Sonoma State University; Talia Smith, County of Marin; Calvin Thigpen, Lime; Marc Vukcevich, Streets for All; Hannah Walter, Caltrans; Warren Wells, Marin County Bicycle Coalition; Karen Wiener, The New Wheel; Chris Wilson, Lime; Mighk Wilson, MetroPlan Orlando; and Jun Zhao. Finally, we thank the Mineta Transportation Institute for funding the project and their staff for project support. Mineta Transportation Institute vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 1 E.1. Introduction 1 E.2. Study methods 2 E.3. When is an “electric bicycle” an electric bicycle? 2 E.4. Regulations on operating electric bicycles 6 E.5. Safety findings 7 E.6. Opportunities for California to improve electric bicycle safety 11 1. Introduction 14 1.1 Electric bicycles: opportunities and safety challenges 14 1.2 Study methods 15 1.3 Report overview 17 2. What has Two Wheels, a Seat, and a Motor? The Wide Array of Powered, Bicycle-Shaped Conveyances 18 2.1 Electric bicycle technical components and mechanics 20 2.1.1 The controller 20 2.1.2 User controls 21 2.1.3 Batteries 21 2.1.4 Electric motors 22 2.1.5 Sensors 23 2.2 Federal definition of an electric bicycle 24 2.3 State definitions of electric bicycles 25 2.3.1 The three-class system that most states follow 25 2.3.2 California’s modified three-class system 26 2.3.3 Other variations seen in U.S. states 27 2.4 Product component and labeling specifications 27 2.4.1 Bicycle safety standards 28 2.4.2 Battery safety standards 28 2.4.3 Labeling requirements 28 2.5 Bicycle-shaped conveyances with more powerful motors and faster speeds than the three-class system allows 29 2.5.1 Marketing higher-power/higher-speed devices as off-road or all- terrain devices 31 2.5.2 Marketing higher-power devices as legal electric bicycles 31 Mineta Transportation Institute viiTable of Contents 2.5.3 Marketing devices easily switchable between a 750-watt maximum setting and more powerful settings as “electric bicycles” 34 2.5.4 Using third-party apps to unlock higher power and speed settings 35 2.5.5 Disclaimers that higher-power, higher-speed settings are for use off-road or on private property 37 2.6 Multiple-class devices 37 2.7 Motorized scooters 39 2.8 Gas-powered devices: motorcycles, motor-driven cycles, mopeds, and motorized bicycles 41 2.8.1 Federal definitions of motorcycles and motor-driven cycles 41 2.8.2 California definitions of motorcycles, motor-driven cycles, and motorized bicycles/mopeds 41 2.8.3 Would electric two-wheelers that are not electric bicycles be motorcycles, motor-driven cycles, or motorized bicycles/mopeds under California law? 42 2.9 California definitions of powered two-wheeled devices for off-road use 43 2.9.1 Off-highway motorcycles 43 2.9.2 Pocket bikes 44 2.10 A comparison with international approaches 45 2.10.1 Power and speed 45 2.10.2 Weight 47 2.10.3 Dimensions 47 3. Rules of the Road for Electric Bicycles 48 3.1 Critical context for understanding electric bicycle rules: knowing that nobody knows what the rules are 48 3.2 Rules for electric bicycles are defined in terms of other modes 49 3.3 Requirements for a driving license, device registration, number plate, and insurance 50 3.4 Age requirements 50 3.5 Helmet requirements 53 3.6 Rules for riding on sidewalks 54 3.7 Should electric bicycles that anyone can ride have the power of a human or a horse? 57 3.7.1 Human power vs. the motor power of a horse 57 3.7.2 Observed speeds of conventional bicycles and electric bicycles 60 Mineta Transportation Institute viiiTable of Contents 4. Data on Electric Bicycle Ownership and Use 61 4.1 Current ownership and ridership numbers 61 4.2 Device types 61 4.3 Growth in electric bicycle sales and ridership over time 65 5. Overview of Potential Electric Bicycle Safety Issues and Available Data to Research Safety 69 5.1 The safety risks associated with operating electric bicycles 69 5.1.1 Risks that electric bicycles share with other light modes 69 5.1.2 Conceptual reasons why electric bicycles may pose unique transportation safety risks 70 5.2 An overview of safety data sources and research 73 6. Data on Crashes 75 6.1 State-level crash data 75 6.1.1 California crash data 76 6.1.2 Oregon crash data 77 6.1.3 Maryland crash data 77 6.2 Local crash data: Orange County 78 7. Data on Injuries 79 7.1 Literature review findings 79 7.2 National emergency room injury data 81 7.2.1 Data and methods 81 7.2.2 Number of patients 83 7.2.3 Patient demographics 86 7.2.4 Injury location 88 7.2.5 Medical outcomes 89 7.2.6 Medical diagnoses 90 7.2.7 Activity of patients at time of injury 93 7.2.8 Motor vehicle collisions 95 7.3 California emergency room data 96 7.3.1 Data and methods 96 7.3.2 Number of patients with transportation-related injuries 97 7.3.3 Hospitalizations versus outpatient treatment 99 7.3.4 Cause of injury 100 7.4 Illinois emergency room data 102 7.5 Local injury data 104 Mineta Transportation Institute ixTable of Contents 7.5.1 New York City injury data 104 7.5.2 Injury data from Rady Children’s Health of Orange County, California 105 7.5.3 911 responses in Marin County, California 106 8. Data on Fatalities 108 8.1 Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) 108 8.1.1 About FARS data 108 8.1.2 FARS findings on electric bicycle fatalities 109 8.2 National emergency room data 113 8.3 Fatalities documented in news reports 114 8.3.1 Previous studies 114 8.3.2 Original search for news reports of fatalities involving electric bicycles 117 8.4 Local fatality data: New York City 121 9. Safety Findings Synthesis: What Does the Data Tell Us? 123 9.1 Critical limitations 123 9.1.1 Many “electric bicycle” incidents may not involve electric bicycles at all 123 9.1.2 The challenge of defining electric bicycles also complicates learning from safety studies conducted outside the U.S. 124 9.1.3 Incident data by device class is virtually non-existent 124 9.1.4 We don’t have the data needed to quantify the risk of incidents per trip, mile, or rider with any confidence 124 9.1.5 Evidence about the environmental and behavioral factors correlated with safety incidents is minimal and likely of low accuracy 125 9.2 Drawing safety conclusions from the limited information available 126 9.2.1 Electric bicycle incidents are less common than conventional bicycle incidents in most communities 126 9.2.2 Many but not all sources indicate that incidents involving electric bicycles have more severe outcomes than conventional bicycle and powered scooter incidents 128 9.2.3 Most people involved in electric bicycle incidents are adults 129 9.2.4 Motor vehicle crashes are a factor in many injuries and most fatalities 130 9.2.5 Men and boys sustain more than two-thirds of electric bicycle injuries and fatalities 131 9.2.6 Pedestrians and other bystanders struck by electric bicycles make up a small but measurable share of electric bicycle-related incidents 132 9.2.7 Data findings summary 132 9.3 Key gaps in the research topics addressed 133 Mineta Transportation Institute xTable of Contents 10. Opportunities for California to Improve Electric Bicycle Safety 134 10.1 Conceptual approach to the role for the State of California 136 10.2 Integrate work on electric bicycle policy with work on conventional bicycles and other forms of micromobility 136 10.3 Create staff positions to coordinate statewide micromobility programs and policies 137 10.4 Integrate electric bicycles into relevant state plans and programs 139 10.5 Produce high-quality bicycle infrastructure 140 10.6 Establish California’s own electric bicycle specifications and standards 140 10.7 Revise the California Vehicle Code to update electric bicycle classes and operating rules 145 10.7.1 Redefine electric bicycles into two categories: low-power devices regulated like conventional bicycles and high-power devices regulated like mopeds 145 10.7.2 Clarify the legal status of the many two-wheeled, electric-powered “bicycle-shaped devices” that do not fit into any device category in the California Vehicle Code 147 10.7.3 Other revisions to the rules for operating electric bicycles 148 10.8 Require sellers of all electric “bicycle-shaped devices” to disclose relevant state regulations to buyers 150 10.8.1 Require that sellers disclose the device type they are selling and laws on how that device may be used 150 10.8.2 Establish clear processes to enforce disclosure laws 152 10.9 Improve the organization and expression of California Vehicle Code laws related to electric bicycles 152 10.10 Provide materials to educate the public on electric bicycle rules and safe riding practices 153 10.10.1 Produce a plain-language handbook with electric bicycle rules of the road 154 10.10.2 Add electric bicycle content to DMV materials that educate motor vehicle operators 157 10.10.3 Develop electric bicycle safety education materials for different age groups 157 10.10.4 Offer electric bicycle training courses 158 10.10.5 Produce content for public service announcements 158 10.11 Support enforcement of rules for operating electric bicycles 158 10.11.1 Establish appropriate penalties for illegal operation of electric bicycles 159 10.12 Collect better data on safety incidents 160 10.12.1 Improve the quality of electric bicycle incident data already collected 160 Mineta Transportation Institute xiTable of Contents 10.12.2 Explore sources of data that have not been used extensively 164 10.13 Collect better data on electric bicycle use rates 165 10.14 Make data easy to access and analyze 166 10.14.1 Encourage hospitals, police departments, and other local entities to share detailed electric bicycle data 166 10.14.2 Create an electric bicycle data repository 167 10.14.3 Make it easy to extract electric bicycle data from publicly accessible data sets. 167 10.14.4 Facilitate data linkage across sources 167 10.14.5 Hold a conference to assemble and synthesize electric bicycle data from across California 167 10.15 Encourage more extensive analysis of electric bicycle safety data 168 11. Conclusion 169 References 170 Appendix A: Experts Interviewed 184 Appendix B: California Vehicle Code Sections 187 B.1. Definition of electric bicycles 187 B.2. A selection of rules of the road for electric bicycles 188 About the Authors 190 Mineta Transportation Institute xii LIST OF FIGURES 1. Examples of variety of two-wheeled electric-powered devices available in the market 19 2. Screenshot from the Bosch eBike Flow app showing riding modes (turbo, eco, etc.) 21 3. Google Shopping results for electric bicycle class sticker 29 4. Screenshot of webpage of The Mule e-bike by Bakcou highlighting off-road use 31 5. Selections from the FAQ section for the Lyric Graffiti advertising both a 20 mph (Class 2) top speed and 33+ mph top speed 32 6. Webpage for the Aipas M2 Pro Xterrain Ebike highlighting limited (Class 2) and “unlocked” higher-power/higher-speed settings 33 7. Screenshot of video on how to change power and speed settings on a device 33 8. Screenshots from the Bikee app and reviews 36 9. Product information from website for the Ford Mustang eBike 38 10. Lime Gen4 standing and seated e-scooter 39 11. Veo Cosmo S seated e-scooter 40 12. LimeBike (2025 model, left) and Lime Glider (right) 40 13. Example of off-highway vehicle (OHV) with California OHV registration green sticker 44 14. Comparison of power outputs from humans propelling conventional bicycles, legal electric bicycles, and horses 58 15. Segway Xyber Electric Bike power output and equivalent number of horses 59 16. Electric devices parked at Diablo Vista Middle School in Danville, California 62 17. Photograph of an illegal electric bicycle with fake “Class 2” sticker, parked at a school in San Mateo County 64 18. Number of electric bicycle sales in the U.S. from 2018 to 2022, as reported by the Light Electric Vehicle Association 66 Mineta Transportation Institute xiiiList of Figures 19.Number of electric bicycle sales in the United States from 2017 to 2023, as reported by Circana 66 20.Electric bicycle imports to the U.S., 2016 – 2024, as reported by eCycleElectric 67 21.California electric bicycle market size, 2022 – 2024, as reported by GM Insights 67 22.Millions of trips on shared electric bicycles, 2022 – 2024, as reported by the North American Bikeshare and Scootershare Association 68 23.Examples of bikeway obstructions 70 24.Screenshots from YouTube videos showing stunt riding 72 25.Patients per year by device type, 2020 – 2024 85 26.Electric bicycle injuries by age, by year, 2020 – 2024 87 27.Travel mode of California emergency room patients treated for injury in a transportation-related incident (2023)98 28.Hospitalization rate by mode (2023)99 29.Cause of injury for electric bicycle and conventional bicycle patients 101 30.Illinois emergency room patients treated for injury related to micromobility devices, 2021 – 2023 102 31.Number of electric and conventional bicycle trauma activation patients at Rady Children’s Hospital of Orange County, 2020 – 2025 106 32.Illustrating the implications of setting a standard of 750 watts of peak power versus 750 watts of continuous power 143 33.Advertisement for Soletan M-66X that describes a banana seat for 2 riders 144 Mineta Transportation Institute xiv LIST OF TABLES 1. Three-class electric bicycle categorization system adopted by California and most U.S. states 25 2. Examples of devices with motor power and speeds that exceed rules under the three-class system 30 3. Standards on speed and power in select countries for electric bicycles that can be operated without a driving license 46 4. Age minimums for electric bicycle operators in U.S. states 52 5. State rules on riding bicycles, electric bicycles, and electric scooters on sidewalks 55 6. Observed speeds of micromobility devices in Vancouver, Canada 60 7. Counts of two-wheeled devices at a sample of California middle and high schools 63 8. Counts of two-wheeled devices considered to be “out of class” at middle schools in the San Ramon Valley Unified School District 65 9. California crash data 76 10. Oregon crash data 77 11. Maryland crash data 78 12. Orange County crash data (January 1, 2024, to August 18, 2025) 78 13. Studies from outside the U.S. comparing the safety of electric bicycles with conventional bicycles 80 14. Studies from outside the U.S. comparing the safety of electric bicycles with electric (kick) scooters 81 15. Devices mentioned in this section and the corresponding NEISS product code(s) 83 16. Patients per year by device type, 2020 – 2024 84 17. Gender distribution of patients, 2020 – 2024 pooled data 86 18. Age distribution of patients, 2020 – 2024 pooled data 87 19. Percent of patients injured, by incident locations, 2020 – 2024 pooled data 88 Mineta Transportation Institute xvList of Tables 20. Why composition of patient age and location of injury, conventional bicycles and electric bicycles, known locations only (2020 – 2024 pooled data) 89 21. Share of patients hospitalized, by location, 2020 – 2024 pooled data 90 22. Share of patients hospitalized by age, street location injuries only, 2020 – 2024 pooled data 90 23. Share of patients with two injuries diagnosed, 2020 – 2024 pooled data 91 24. Selected injury diagnoses, 2020 – 2024 pooled data 91 25. Body part(s)a injured: percent of patients suffering injury, 2020 – 2024 pooled data 92 26. Share of patients with head injuries by injury location, 2020 – 2024 pooled data 92 27. Share of patients with head injuries by age, street location injuries, 2020 – 2024 pooled data 93 28. Activity of injured patients (2024) 94 29. Share of patients hospitalized by activity of injured patients (2024) 94 30. Immediate cause of injury, operators only (2024) 95 31. Share of patients hospitalized, by immediate cause of injury, operators only (2024) 95 32. Examples of ICD-10-CM codes for external causes of injuries involving transportation 97 33. Travel mode of California ER patients treated for injury in a transportation- related incident (2023) 98 34. Outpatient and hospitalization status by mode, 2023 100 35. Hospitalization rate by cause of injury 101 36. Share of children and teenagers (%) among Illinois ER patients (2021 – 2023) 103 37. Selected medical diagnoses among Illinois ER patients (% of patients) (2021 – 2023) 103 38. New York City traffic-related injuries by mode, portions of 2023, 2024, and 2025 105 Mineta Transportation Institute xviList of Tables 39.911 responses in Marin County, California, by age, 2023 – 2025 107 40.911 responses in Marin County, California, by gender, 2023 – 2025 107 41.Bicycle fatalities reported in FARS, by motorization status (2022 – 2023)109 42.Motorized and non-motorized bicycle fatalities reported in FARS in 2022 and 2023, by age 110 43.Motorized bicycle and bicycle fatalities reported in FARS in 2022 and 2023, by state 111 44.NEISS injury cases ending in a fatality 113 45.Share of fatal injury outcomes recorded in NEISS, by year 114 46.Electric bicycle and electric scooter fatalities identified by the NTSB, 2017 – 2021 115 47.Electric bicycle and electric scooter fatalities identified by the NTSB, by state, 2017 – 2021 116 48.Electric bicycle rider fatalities, by year, 2019 – 2025 118 49.Electric bicycle rider fatalities, by cause of crash (2019 – 2025 pooled data) 118 50.Electric bicycle rider fatalities, by state (2019 – 2025 pooled data)119 51.Electric bicycle rider fatalities, by age group (2019 – 2025 pooled data)119 52.Battery fire fatalities, by year (2019 – 2025 pooled data)120 53.New York City traffic-related fatalities by mode, for portions of 2023, 2024, and 2025 121 54.New York City: Ratio of traffic-related injuries to fatalities by mode, for portions of 2023, 2024, and 2025 122 55.Comparing the number of electric bicycle incidents to conventional bicycle incidents across multiple datasets 127 56.New York City traffic-related injuries and fatalities, by mode, for portions of 2023, 2024, and 2025 128 57.Hospitalization rates by mode: Comparing NEISS and California hospital data 129 Mineta Transportation Institute xviiList of Tables 58. Share of electric bicycle and conventional bicycles incidents among minor age groups across multiple datasets 130 59. Share of injuries and fatalities involving a vehicle collision, across multiple datasets 131 60. Share of injuries and fatalities sustained by men/boys, across multiple datasets 132 61. Examples of key device standards and operating rules that California could establish for low-power vs high-power electric bicycles 147 Mineta Transportation Institute 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY E.1. INTRODUCTION This study was conducted as directed by California Senate Bill 381 (2023), which called for research to help policymakers develop effective laws and policy to support the twin goals of expanding electric bicycle use and protecting the safety of both electric bicycle riders and other road users. The three major strands of findings presented in the report are (1) a review of how California and other states (and countries) regulate electric bicycle use, (2) a review of the electric bicycle safety literature, including original analysis of primary data on crashes, injuries, and deaths, and (3) strategies that the state could adopt to promote the safe use of electric bicycles. The strategies discussed include revising the way the California Vehicle Code defines and regulates electric bicycles, opportunities for improving electric bicycle safety data quality and analysis, building safe infrastructure for electric bicycling, and public education on electric bicycle rules of the road and safe riding practices. The state has a strong incentive to create safe conditions for electric bicycle use because the devices offer substantial benefits to both individual riders and society at large. More than half of the trips people take in the U.S. are under three miles, a very reasonable distance to cover on an electric bicycle. For Californians who cannot or prefer not to drive a motor vehicle, electric bicycles offer a travel option that allows them to move around their communities easily, at the time of their choosing. Existing evidence points to a wide variety of people using electric bicycles for transportation, including children, older adults, and people with disabilities that prevent driving a vehicle or operating a conventional bicycle. And beyond these benefits to individual users, electric bicycles offer a valuable strategy to make significant inroads on some of California’s thorniest transportation challenges, including injuries and deaths from motor vehicle crashes, greenhouse gas and air pollutant emissions, and traffic congestion. While electric bicycles have many potential benefits, concern about electric bicycle safety has spiked in California—and nationally—as more and more crashes, injuries, and fatalities attributed to the devices are reported. Electric bicycle safety has become a popular story in the news media, and some local governments report regular demands for new restrictions on electric bicycles in response to sightings of reckless riding and reported crashes, injuries, and deaths. Amplifying the concern, law enforcement agencies and medical associations have issued statements warning about a rise in electric bicycle crashes and injuries. This study aims to inform the ongoing policy debate on electric bicycle safety policy by documenting both the known facts about electric bicycle safety incidents and the major gaps in information about the risks. In addition, to offer policymakers information that helps them to assess the relative seriousness of the problem, the report compares safety incidents for electric bicycles to incidents for other modes of travel, such as conventional bicycles and electric kick-scooters. Each injury or death is a unique tragedy, yet policymakers also need to understand the relative scale of the safety problem in order to make evidence-based judgements about appropriate policy. Understanding the extent of known safety risks can inform state decisions about investments to support safe electric bicycle, such as education and infrastructure, as well as possible restrictions on use of a travel mode that offers so many benefits to both users and society at large. Mineta Transportation Institute 2Executive Summary E.2. STUDY METHODS We collected data and insights related to electric vehicle safety through five research methods. Review of international electric bicycle safety literature: We reviewed existing studies from around the world to identify existing insight on electric bicycle safety. Original analysis of data on crashes, injuries, and deaths: We performed original analysis on datasets cataloging electric bicycle-related crashes, injuries, and fatalities. When available, we compared characteristics of electric bicycles with those of other travel modes. These sources range from local datasets to state-level and national-level datasets. Analysis of news and social media stories about electric bicycle fatalities: We searched for fatalities reported in news media articles and social media posts to explore the numbers of fatalities, personal characteristics of those who died, and cause of the crash. Review of laws that define electric bicycles and regulate their use: We reviewed the vehicle codes from all 50 states to determine the definitions and rules for operating electric bicycles, bicycles, other micromobility devices, and gas-powered two-wheeled devices like mopeds. We also looked more briefly at how other countries define and regulate electric bicycles. Expert interviews: We interviewed 44 experts in electric bicycle safety. The interviewees were selected to cover a wide range of perspectives, including public health and injury prevention, emergency medicine, law enforcement, transportation planning, bicycle advocacy, shared mobility companies, and bicycle retailers. E.3. WHEN IS AN “ELECTRIC BICYCLE” AN ELECTRIC BICYCLE? A fundamental yet deceptively complicated question that must be answered in order to understand electric bicycle safety, is: what, exactly, is an electric bicycle. Some devices that members of the public might describe as electric bicycles are not, in fact, electric bicycles as the term is defined in California law. Similarly, many retailers use terms like “e-bike” to describe devices that are not electric bicycles under California law. In California, as in most U.S. states, legal electric bicycles are bicycles with fully operable pedals and electric motors that do not exceed 750 watts of power (approximately one horsepower). Additionally, legal electric bicycles are divided into three “classes” that differ based on how the electric motor is activated and the speed above which the motor no longer supplies power (Table E.1). Class 1 and Class 3 electric bicycles are “pedal assist” electric bicycles, meaning that the motor only applies power while the rider is pedaling. Class 2 devices are “throttle” electric bicycles that riders can operate without pedaling, using a hand throttle. With respect to speeds, Class 1 and Class 2 electric bicycles must cease providing motor power above 20 mph. Class 3 electric bicycles must cease providing motor power above 28 mph. Mineta Transportation Institute 3Executive Summary Table E.1. Three-class electric bicycle categorization system adopted by California and most U.S. states Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Electric power is applied:Only when rider is pedaling When rider is pedaling or by hand throttle Only when rider is pedaling Speed above which power will no longer be applied 20 mph 20 mph 28 mph A critical complication is the presence in the market of electric two-wheelers that have motors which produce power in excess of 750 watts and reach speeds above 20 mph on motor power alone (Table E.2). These devices typically look like bicycles, and all have the words “bike” or “e-bike” in their product marketing material. Mineta Transportation Institute 4Executive Summary Table E.2. Examples of devices that exceed California’s three-class system limits for speed and power Model name Advertised motor power Has throttle Advertised top speed Lyric Graffit Electric Bike 1000 watts (continuous*) 2300 watts (peak)Yes 33+ mph Segway Xyber Electric Bike 3000 watts [1 battery] or 6000 watts [2 batteries] (continuous) Yes 35 mph Aipas M2 Pro Xterrain Bike 1800 watts (continuous/ peak not specified)Yes 36+ mph Freesky Warrior Pro M-530: Dual-motor all terrain ebike 2000 watts (continuous) 3500 watts (peak)Yes 38 mph Sources: https://lyriccycles.com/collections/electric-bikes/products/graffiti, https://store.segway.com/segway-ebike-xyber, https://aipasbike.com/products/aipas-m2-pro-xterrain-ebike, https://www.freeskycycle.com/collections/e-bikes/products/warrior-pro-m-530 Note: Peak power is the maximum power that the motor can ever generate. However, a motor cannot sustain this power level over an extended period. Continuous power is the power level that a motor can generate indefinitely. A motor’s continuous power is always much lower than its peak power. *The webpage for the Lyric Graffiti states two power levels. 2300 watts is specifically identified as peak power. The 1000-watt figure does not have a descriptor, but is implied to be continuous here. Mineta Transportation Institute 5Executive Summary One could look at higher-power devices such as those in Table 2 and conclude these are not legal electric bicycles. However, the manufacturers of some of these devices have historically claimed their devices are indeed legal electric bicycles, despite having motors more powerful than 750 watts and providing electric assistance above 20/28 mph. Manufacturers ship the devices to customers with software settings that limit the devices to 750 watts of power output and a maximum assisted speed of 20 or 28 mph. However, the manufacturers still advertise that the owners can change the settings to make the devices faster and more powerful. Some manufacturers have made the settings very easy to unlock, with just a simple change on the device’s control app or console. The State of California has tried to restrict such manufacturer behavior. Senate Bill 1271 (2024) added language declaring that devices where manufacturers intend for operators to be able to unlock higher power and higher speed settings do not qualify as “electric bicycles” in California, and cannot be sold, marketed, or labeled as such. In response, since 2024 some manufacturers have removed unlocking capabilities from their device control apps, but numerous third-party apps are still available that can unlock some devices. U.S. definitions for electric bicycles are very different from those seen abroad. Most notably, most other countries we explored have maximum power levels lower than the 750W allowed in the U.S. (Table E.3), as well as lower caps on assisted speeds. Table E.3. Standards on speed and power in select countries for electric bicycles that can be operated without a driving license County/ region Maximum watts Throttle permitted Maximum assisted speed Other United States 750 (federal limit) No: Class 1 and 3 Yes: Class 2 (most states) 20 or 28 mph (most states) Canada 500 (federal limit)Yes 20 mph (32 km/h) China 400 Yes 16 mph (25 km/h)Limits battery voltage New Zealand 300 Yes none Australia 250 (most states, but New South Wales permits 500) No 16 mph (25 km/h)Power output must progressively reduce as travel speed increases Japan 250 No 12 mph (20 km/h) Power assist ratio set at 2; power output must progressively reduce as travel speed increases European Union 250 No 16 mph (25 km/h)Power output must progressively reduce as travel speed increasesd Sources: See Table 3 in the main report. Note: Information about device definitions found online can sometimes be contradictory. Where possible, we cite information from official government sources. Some additional variances in standards may exist within a country across states, provinces, etc. Mineta Transportation Institute 6Executive Summary E.4. REGULATIONS ON OPERATING ELECTRIC BICYCLES California’s regulations on who may ride electric bicycles and the rules for operating them fall within the California Vehicle Code. We compared California rules to those in other states and countries. Vehicle codes in California and most states declare that for all three classes, “an electric bicycle is a bicycle,” a legal status that makes the U.S. a global outlier in how electric bicycles are regulated. Because California defines electric bicycles as bicycles, then except where otherwise specified, even the more powerful and faster Class 2 and Class 3 electric bicycles may follow the rules of the road for conventional bicycles. By contrast, most countries have a two-category system where lower-speed electric bicycles are legally equivalent to a bicycle but higher-speed devices are legally equivalent to a moped. Table E.4 presents an overview of California’s rules and compares these to those in other states and other countries. As previously mentioned, devices faster and more powerful than legal electric bicycles exist in the U.S. marketplace. If such devices are not legal electric bicycles, then they do not have the same rights and responsibilities as conventional bicycles. Higher-power devices potentially be street legal if they met the definitions of some other device types defined under California law, such as motorized bicycles/mopeds, motor-driven cycles, or motorcycles. This is unlikely to be true, however, because the devices typically do not meet safety standards for those faster devices. Many stakeholders (from government agencies, to safety advocates, to some in the mobility industry) believe that it is illegal to ride these higher-power devices on the street and that the devices therefore legal only on private property. Some manufacturers are aware of this interpretation and provide a disclaimer stating that their products are only legal for off-road use. Mineta Transportation Institute 7Executive Summary Table E.4. An overview of some key regulations related to electric bicycle use in California, other U.S. states, and other countries California Other states Other countries Driving license, device registration, number plates None required None required in any state, except that Hawaii requires devices be registered. For low-speed devices, most countries do not require these. For high-speed devices, most countries do require a driving license, device registration, and number plates. Age restrictions Anyone may ride a Class 1 or 2 device, but riders must be 16 to ride a Class 3 device. The state has also allowed Marin County and San Diego County to run pilots adding additional age restrictions. Considerable variation by state. Hawaii and Minnesota are the most restrictive, setting a minimum of 15 years to ride any electric bicycle. Two states with age minimums nevertheless allow younger riders if supervised by an adult or guardian. For low-speed devices, minimums vary considerably. A few countries have a minimum age for all riders. For example, Austria requires riders to be at least 12. One country allows any age if supervised by an adult. For high-speed devices, the minimum age is that for obtaining a driving license. Helmet requirements All Class 3 riders must wear a bicycle helmet. For Classes 1 and 2, helmets are required statewide only for riders under 18. A Marin County pilot requires helmets for all Class 2 riders. Considerable variation by state, including some with requirements for any age. Oregon and Pennsylvania permit no helmet only if this violates a person’s religious beliefs. For low-speed devices, there is considerable variation, but most countries do not require helmets at all. Some exceptions are that France requires helmets up to age 11, Italy and Sweden up to age 14, and Japan up to age 16. Most countries require moped-style helmets for anyone riding higher- power electric bicycles. Sidewalk riding Allowed unless prohibited by local ordinance. (This is indirectly implied, rather than directly stated.) Varies considerably. A few states entirely prohibit this, but most allow certain classes of electric bicycles, children, and/ or use in certain locations. Two states permit sidewalk riding only with the motor off. For high-speed devices, there is considerable variation. Some countries ban this entirely, but others permit it, at least in certain locations or for certain riders. E.5. SAFETY FINDINGS To understand the risks that electric bicycle riders may pose either to themselves or to others, we reviewed over 200 published research studies on electric bicycle safety and completed independent analysis of ten datasets reporting on safety incidents (Table E.5). Almost all research on electric bicycle safety outcomes relies on police crash reports, hospital medical records, or reported fatalities. Mineta Transportation Institute 8Executive Summary Table E.5. Primary data sources analyzed Source Type of incident Geography Timeframe California Crash Data System Crashes California 2017-2024 Oregon Crash Data Products Crashes Oregon 2022-2023 Maryland Crash Data Dashboard Crashes Maryland 2024 Orange County Sheriff’s Department Crashes Orange County, CA 2024-2025 National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS)Injuries and fatalities United States 2020-2024 California Health and Human Services Open Data Portal Injuries California 2023 New York City Police Department TrafficStat Injuries and fatalities New York City 2023-2025 Rady Children’s Health of Orange County Injuries (pediatric)Orange County, CA 2020-2025 Marin County Department of Health and HumanServices Injuries (911 responses)Marin County, CA 2023-2025 Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS)Fatalities United States 2022-2023 News media articles Fatalities United States 2019-2025 A serious limitation to the strength of evidence about electric bicycle safety performance presented below is that, as explained above, it is highly likely that many of the “electric bicycles” involved in crashes, injuries, and fatalities are not, in fact, legal electric bicycles. The best evidence to support this hypothesis comes from the observation data from several California schools, where only 12% of two-wheeled electric devices were actually legal electric bicycles as defined by the three-class electric bicycle system used in California. Therefore, we are certain that some fraction of the reported “electric bicycle” incidents have been incorrectly labeled as such, and this share may represent a very large fraction of all reported electric bicycle incidents. Electric bicycle incidents are less common than conventional bicycle incidents in most communities The number of incidents attributed to electric bicycles have risen over the last several years, and this notable increase in injuries and deaths clearly warrants careful policy attention. However, while incidents have risen, and often at a fast rate, it is important to consider the incident numbers in a broader context: there are still many more incidents related to conventional bicycles than electric bicycles in most of the data we looked at (Table E.6). This finding especially holds true for state and national data. That said, a few datasets we reviewed that came from local areas where electric bicycles are especially popular show the reverse: there are more reported electric bicycle incidents than conventional bicycle incidents. This data comes from New York City, as well as California’s Orange County and Marin County. Mineta Transportation Institute 9Executive Summary Table E.6. Comparing the number of electric bicycle incidents to conventional bicycle incidents across multiple datasets Data source Time period Electric/ motorized bicycle value Conventional bicycle value Ratio of conventional to electric bicycle values Crashes California – California Crash Data System 2024 961 10,372 10.8 Oregon – Oregon Crash Data Products 2023 60 537 9.0 Maryland – Maryland Automated Crash Reporting System 2024 178 640 3.6 Orange County, CA – Orange County Sherriff’s Department 2024 – August 2025 267 112 0.4 Injuries National hospital records – NEISS 2020 – 2024 3,179 54,115 17.0 2024 1,290 10,532 8.2 California Hospital Records – CHHS Open Data Portal 2023 4,757 44,039 9.3 Illinois hospital records – Shannon, et al. (2025)2021 – 2023 441 25,577 58.0 Pediatric trauma activations – Rady Children’s Hospital Orange County 2020 – October 2025 390 279 0.7 January – October 2025 165 27 0.2 EMS responses – Marin County, CA October 2023 – October 2025 159 412 2.6 New York City – NYPD TrafficStat Most of 2023, 2024, and 2025 565 3,014 5.3 Fatalities National hospital records – NEISS 2020 – 2024 2 75 37.5 2024 1 17 17.0 National – Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS)2022 - 2023 154 1,140 7.4 New York City – NYPD TrafficStat Most of 2023, 2024, and 2025 44 24 0.5 Mineta Transportation Institute 10Executive Summary Most data points to more severe outcomes in incidents involving electric bicycles than incidents involving conventional bicycles In terms of injury severity, most but not all of the published literature we reviewed and the multiple datasets we explored ourselves indicate that electric bicycle-related incidents typically have more severe outcomes than conventional bicycle incidents. The most striking example of this discrepancy in terms of U.S. data comes from New York City police crash report data. Since 2023, there have been nearly twice as many electric bicycle fatalities than conventional bicycle fatalities, despite there being fewer electric bicycle injuries than conventional bicycle injuries. Similarly, studies on electric bicycle safety from around the world usually report more severe outcomes from electric bicycle incidents. However, our independent analysis of two large datasets suggests a more mixed message on injury severity (Table E.7). In the NEISS injury dataset of U.S. hospital patients, electric bicycle patients were hospitalized at only a three-percentage point greater rate than conventional bicycle patients (16% vs. 13%). Also, that gap disappeared when making an apples-to- apples comparison of only those injuries occurring on streets. Finally, while the California hospital data did show more electric bicycle than conventional bicycle hospitalizations, the difference was a relatively modest six percentage points (17% vs. 11%). Table E.7. Share of injuries and fatalities involving a vehicle collision, across multiple datasets Data source Time period Electric bicycles Conventional bicycles Powered/ electric scooters Injuries NEISS (injuries to device operators)2024 31%24%24% California hospital data 2023 20%18%– Fatalities Search of news articles by NTSB (2022)2018 – 2020 57%–60% Search of news articles by Podsiad, Harmon, and Combs (2023) July 2022 – March 2023 83%–– Original search of news articles 2019 – July 2025 70%–– Mineta Transportation Institute 11Executive Summary Other safety findings Three other findings address factors that are particularly important to consider when identifying appropriate policy responses to safety concerns. • Age: Most people involved in electric bicycle incidents are adults, although some local data points to particularly high rates of children in crashes. Also, the medical experts we interviewed are concerned older adults are more likely than children or younger adults to suffer serious medical consequences from crashes. In the national NEISS dataset, seniors had the highest rates of both hospitalizations and head injuries. • Crash cause: Motor vehicle crashes are a factor in many injuries and most fatalities. • Bystander incidents: Pedestrians and other bystanders struck by electric bicycles make up a very small proportion of electric bicycle-related incidents—no more than 4% in either of the two datasets that reported this. E.6. OPPORTUNITIES FOR CALIFORNIA TO IMPROVE ELECTRIC BICYCLE SAFETY There are numerous steps that the State of California can take to support safe electric bicycle riding for all road users. Achieving that vision will require a large number of complementary actions that include educating all road users about electric bicycle rights and responsibilities, building safe biking infrastructure, re-considering how the California Vehicle Code defines and regulates use of electric bicycles, and improving data collection and analysis of electric bicycle related incidents to inform policy changes. Specific actions that the state can explore that we concluded are worthy of further exploration include: 1. Integrate work on electric bicycle policy with work on conventional bicycles and other forms of micromobility 2. Create staff positions to coordinate statewide micromobility programs and policies 3. Integrate electric bicycles into relevant state plans and programs 4. Produce high-quality bicycle infrastructure 5. Establish device specifications and standards for electric bicycles 6. Revise the California Vehicle Code to update electric bicycle classes and operating rules a. Redefine electric bicycles into two categories: low-power devices regulated like conventional bicycles and high-power devices regulated like mopeds Mineta Transportation Institute 12Executive Summary b.Clarify the legal status of the many two-wheeled, powered “bicycle-shaped devices” that do not fit into any device category in the California Vehicle Code c.Other revisions to the rules for operating electric bicycles 7.Require electric bicycle sellers to disclose relevant state regulations to buyers a.Require that sellers disclose the device type they are selling and laws on how that device may be used b.Establish clear processes to enforce disclosure laws 8.Improve the organization and expression of California Vehicle Code law related to electric bicycles 9.Provide materials to educate the public on electric bicycle rules and safe riding practices a.Produce a plain-language handbook with electric bicycle rules of the road b.Add electric bicycle content to DMV materials that educate motor vehicle operators c.Develop electric bicycle safety education materials for different age groups d.Offer electric bicycle training courses e.Produce content for public service announcements 10. Support enforcement of rules for operating electric bicycles a.Establish appropriate penalties for illegal operation of electric bicycles b.Provide guidance on how to store impounded electric bicycles 11.Collect better data on safety incidents a.Improve the quality of electric bicycle incident data already collected b.Explore sources of data that have not been used extensively 12. Collect better data on electric bicycle use rates 13. Make data easy to access and analyze a.Encourage hospitals, police departments, and other local entities to share detailed electric bicycle data Mineta Transportation Institute 13Executive Summary b.Create an electric bicycle data repository c.Make it easy to extract electric bicycle data in publicly accessible data sets d.Facilitate data linkage across sources e.Hold a conference to assemble and synthesize electric bicycle data from across California 14. Encourage more extensive analysis of electric bicycle safety data