Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
051226-03.1
STUDY STUDY SESSION MEMORANDUM 3.1 TO: Town Council May 12, 2026 SUBJECT: E-Bike Safety – Local Ordinance Considerations BACKGROUND This item was originally scheduled for the March 10, 2026 Town Council Study Session, but was not heard due to a technology error that resulted in an incorrect meeting time posting. This report has been updated and is re-presented here. In the interim, staff received public correspondence, which is addressed in this report. Danville, like many communities, has experienced an increase in youth-related reckless behavior involving higher-powered e-bikes and e-scooters in shared public spaces. Safety concerns include excessive speeds, modified or throttle-equipped devices, inconsistent helmet use, and conflicts with pedestrians, cyclists, and motorist. The California Vehicle Code governs these devices, and local authority is limited due to state preemption, with narrow pilot exceptions granted to Marin and San Diego Counties provided through AB 1778 and AB 2234, respectively. 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. Framing the Issue – Danville’s Experience It is important to clarify that the issue before the Council is not about those who ride e- bikes responsibly. And Danville recognizes that e-bikes remain a valuable mobility option and are supported as such. Rather, Danville’s experience reflects a more specific condition: A mismatch between the speed capability of the device and the developmental readiness of the most prevalent riders. E-Bike Local Ordinance Considerations 2 May 12, 2026 In Danville, many youth riders are operating devices - some higher-powered, some fully legal - at speeds beyond what they are ready or trained to safely manage. These behaviors occur across shared community spaces, including streets, parks, ball fields, trails, sidewalks, and neighborhood areas - creating friction with pedestrians and vehicles, increasing the likelihood of conflict and injury. This distinction is important, as it informs both the nature of the safety concern and the effectiveness of potential responses. Local Actions to Date 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. 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 E-Bike Local Ordinance Considerations 3 May 12, 2026 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 business district 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. 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 Transportation Institute findings described below, 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 Study,” Attachment C). The study found that e-bike injuries are increasing annually. While nationwide injuries from conventional bicycles still exceed those from e-bikes, in certain areas - including Marin County - reported e-bike incidents now surpass those involving traditional bicycles. At the same time, the study notes that most bicycle-related incidents statewide involve adults. This is consistent with Danville’s experience. In 2025, of the 18 reported E-Bike Local Ordinance Considerations 4 May 12, 2026 bicycle-related collisions, 5 involved e-bikes. Among the conventional (non-e-bike) incidents, the average rider age was approximately 70 years old. However, the Mineta Study also highlights that some communities are experiencing higher rates of youth involvement in crashes. While Danville has not yet experienced any serious e-bike-related injury collisions, both law enforcement and staff have observed a growing pattern of near misses involving youth riders across a range of settings - from parks and trails to neighborhood streets. These observations are further supported by resident reports describing similar close-call situations. Taken together, these conditions present a nuanced but important picture. The data does not indicate a current pattern of widespread injury in Danville; however, the observed behavior - particularly among younger, less experienced riders operating higher-speed devices - reflects an emerging risk profile consistent with trends identified elsewhere. Accordingly, while current local conditions do not warrant alarm, they do support advancing preventative measures at the state level, where clearer standards and consistent regulations can more effectively address risks that extend across jurisdictions. The study further found that the United States’ regulatory framework is atypical internationally. None of the countries reviewed use the U.S. three-class system, and most apply lower power and speed thresholds. By comparison, the U.S. permits significantly higher wattage and assisted speed limits (Table 1). Table 1. Excerpted table from the Mineta Report, page 46. E-Bike Local Ordinance Considerations 5 May 12, 2026 The report also notes that neither federal nor California law clearly specifies whether the 750-watt limit refers to continuous or peak power. Because peak power output can be significantly higher, clarifying that the limit applies to peak power would create a stricter standard and reduce the likelihood that devices function more like lightweight motorcycles than traditional bicycles. 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 John Muir Health’s alert emphasizes the clinical severity observed in emergency rooms and the Mineta Study takes a more measured academic tone, 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. Local Context and Response to Public Comments Since the original posting of this report, staff has received public correspondence raising several recurring themes. The following clarifications are provided to help inform Council discussion. Bike Infrastructure as a Solution Some bicycle advocacy groups have surmised that the lack of “high-quality bicycle infrastructure” - particularly physically protected Class IV bikeways - is a core reason for Danville’s e-bike safety challenges. The Town concurs that high-quality bicycle infrastructure is an important component of its long-term mobility strategy and has continued investing accordingly. Since adoption of the Bicycle Master Plan in 2022, Danville has invested approximately $1.436 million in bicycle and pedestrian improvements. Additional upcoming investments include the $7.4 million Diablo Road Multi-Use Trail, $428,000 in raised crossings along the Iron Horse Trail, and enhanced bicycle and pedestrian detection capabilities as part of a $2.2 million traffic signal modernization project. The Town has also applied for a $600,000 Active Transportation Program (ATP) grant to install buffered bike lanes along its longest major arterial roadway. E-Bike Local Ordinance Considerations 6 May 12, 2026 However, the primary challenge observed in Danville is not simply a lack of facilities, but that many youth riders are operating devices (some higher-powered, some fully legal) at speeds beyond what they are ready or trained to safely manage. These behaviors occur across all types of streets, and many of those are neighborhood streets where Class IV bikeways are often infeasible due to driveway density and right-of-way constraints. More importantly, these behaviors are not confined to roadways. Youth riders are frequently observed in parks, on athletic fields, and through neighborhood spaces - areas where protected bikeways cannot reasonably be constructed. Therefore, while infrastructure is an important part of the solution, it does not fully align with how these devices are currently used across Danville. In 2025, the vast majority (over 81%) of the Town’s 18 bicycle-related collisions occurred outside of major arterials, where Class IV bikeways would be most feasible to construct. Infrastructure does remain an important component of a broader mobility strategy, but it does not fully address the core issue of rider readiness and reckless behavior in shared community spaces. More Enforcement as a Solution Some public comments suggest that increased enforcement - including stationing officers at school bike corrals or at gateways to parks - would meaningfully address the issue. While that may appear reasonable, it should be noted that the Town already conducts targeted enforcement near schools and parks, with limited effectiveness. Field experience in Danville and elsewhere also point to the fact that enforcement alone has limitations and can sometimes create unintended consequences. Youth riders will often flee from officers, escalating risks not only to themselves but also to pedestrians, motorists, and the broader public within the vicinity. Simply increasing citations for youth also presents broader challenges. A heavily enforcement-focused strategy can undermine community trust, run counter to the Town’s community policing approach, and escalate confrontations with parents - reducing the opportunity to build the understanding and buy-in that are critical to influencing youth behavior. Suggestions to station officers at school bike corrals also present practical and legal limitations. School campuses are not Town-owned property and require coordination with the School District. Such deployments - both at schools and parks - would also be resource-intensive. More importantly, a citation-focused presence risks creating an adversarial environment rather than reinforcing education and shared responsibility. E-Bike Local Ordinance Considerations 7 May 12, 2026 Fundamentally, the core challenge is not a lack of enforcement effort, but a lack of clarity. Many devices appear similar but differ significantly in performance and legal classification, limiting consistent enforcement and early intervention before unsafe behavior results in injury. Suitability of Sidewalks Some public comments express that typical 4- to 5-foot sidewalks are not suitable for shared use with higher-speed devices and, as such, should be limited to pedestrian use. However, the policy question before the Council is not whether sidewalks are ideal for such use, but how to manage real-world behavior across imperfect options. The Bicycle Advisory Commission (BAC) carefully considered whether expanding a residential sidewalk prohibition would improve overall safety and—after extensive deliberation—concluded that doing so would primarily shift, rather than solve, the underlying issue by moving youth riders from sidewalks into vehicle travel lanes, where interactions with vehicles present a substantially higher-severity risk. In this context, the Commission recognized that sidewalk conflicts are a symptom of the broader issue in Danville, not the root cause: younger and less experienced riders operating devices at speeds beyond what they are ready or trained to safely manage. If the Town’s overarching objective is safety, redirecting those riders from sidewalks into streets with moving vehicles does not necessarily create a safer overall outcome. Accordingly, the BAC recommendation reflects a comparative safety judgment: while conflicts between e-bikes and pedestrians are a concern, conflicts between e-bikes and vehicles carry a significantly greater likelihood of serious injury. The goal, therefore, is not to eliminate all risk in a single setting, but to reduce overall system risk. Given this tradeoff, and the Town’s limited authority to regulate rider qualifications or device capabilities, the BAC supported maintaining the current behavior-based standard, which allows for enforcement of unsafe riding regardless of location. This approach prioritizes overall risk reduction across the transportation system. 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 were introduced during the 2026 legislative session, including: •AB 1569 (Davies): Requires the State Department of Education, in consultation with the Department of Highway Patrol, to develop a standardized safety and training program for students in grades 7-12. E-Bike Local Ordinance Considerations 8 May 12, 2026 •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 recommendations to increase accountability for higher-speed, throttle-equipped devices and could improve enforcement through visible identifiers. Danville supported the legislation and testified before the Assembly Transportation Committee. •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 to reduce unsafe multi-rider practices and falls. •AB 2284 (Dixon): Directs the Office of the Attorney General, in partnership with biking 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 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. 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: E-Bike Local Ordinance Considerations 9 May 12, 2026 •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 Review and Contributions by: Robert Ewing City Attorney Attachments: A – E-Bike Concerns, Authority, and Actions B – Public Comments C – John Muir Health Trauma Center Safety Alert D – 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 (Dixon) – Requires permanent, designated seating for each rider and passenger. AB 2346 (Wilson) – 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 (Wilson) – Establishes a prima facie 5 mph sidewalk speed limit. AB 1942 (Bauer-Kahan) – DMV registration & visible plate. 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 (Bauer-Kahan) – Registration for Class 2 & 3. SB 1167 (Blakespear) – Strengthens enforcement against mislabeling motor-driven cycles such as e-bikes. On May 7, 2026, at 9:58ௗAM, Anne Elliott <aelliott311@icloud.com> wrote: ***CAUTION*** THIS EMAIL WAS NOT SENT FROM DANVILLE STAFF This email originated from outside of the Town of Danville and was not sent from a Town Staff member! Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Arnerich, I will be unable to attend the meeting on May 12. Please share my comments with the Council members. RE: Electric bikes, scooters Please adopt an ordinance that prohibits all motorized bikes and scooters on all sidewalks in Danville. In recent years there has been an increase in the number of motorized bikes (e-bikes), scooters (e-scooters), and skateboards. Younger people are operating them without the maturity to be safe or considerate. Several times I have been passed by an e-bikes on the sidewalk off or around Greenbrook Drive and around Osage Park The very young e-bike riders were going faster than the automobiles on the street. I did not hear them coming. I was startled and could have easily lost my balance and fallen off the sidewalk into the road. I could have been hit. The Town of Danville Website states these motorized devices are not allowed on the sidewalk in any business district. In my opinion bikes, scooters, skateboards, in fact all devices powered by a motor (electric or fuel) belong ON THE STREET, NOT on ANY sidewalks or paths in Danville. If a child is old enough to ride a motorized bike, they are certainly old enough to ride in the street. ATTACHMENT B The current regulations are not enough to keep pedestrians safe. At the very least, e- bikes should NEVER be allowed on any sidewalks or walking paths. Danville has spent a lot of money and effort accommodating bikers with green bike lanes, please put an equal effort into keeping pedestrians safe from e-bikes. Be proactive, don’t wait for someone to be serious injured or killed. Keep the bikes on the street and the pedestrians on the sidewalks and paths. Thank you. Sincerely, Anne Elliott 1368 Brookside Drive Danville, CA 94526 From: Anne Elliott <aelliott311@icloud.com> Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2026 9:55:24 AM To: Mark Belotz <mbelotz@danville.ca.gov> Subject: E-bike study session May 12 ***CAUTION*** THIS EMAIL WAS NOT SENT FROM DANVILLE STAFF This email originated from outside of the Town of Danville and was not sent from a Town Staff member! Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Belotz, I will be unable to attend the meeting on May 12. Please share my comments with the Council members. RE: Electric bikes, scooters Please adopt an ordinance that prohibits all motorized bikes and scooters on all sidewalks in Danville. In recent years there has been an increase in the number of motorized bikes (e-bikes), scooters (e-scooters), and skateboards. Younger people are operating them without the maturity to be safe or considerate. Several times I have been passed by an e-bikes on the sidewalk off or around Greenbrook Drive and around Osage Park The very young e-bike riders were going faster than the automobiles on the street. I did not hear them coming. I was startled and could have easily lost my balance and fallen off the sidewalk into the road. I could have been hit. The Town of Danville Website states these motorized devices are not allowed on the sidewalk in any business district. In my opinion bikes, scooters, skateboards, in fact all devices powered by a motor (electric or fuel) belong ON THE STREET, NOT on ANY sidewalks or paths in Danville. If a child is old enough to ride a motorized bike, they are certainly old enough to ride in the street. The current regulations are not enough to keep pedestrians safe. At the very least, e- bikes should NEVER be allowed on any sidewalks or walking paths. Danville has spent a lot of money and effort accommodating bikers with green bike lanes, please put an equal effort into keeping pedestrians safe from e-bikes. Be proactive, don’t wait for someone to be serious injured or killed. Keep the bikes on the street and the pedestrians on the sidewalks and paths. Thank you. Sincerely, Anne Elliott 1368 Brookside Drive Danville, CA 94526 From:ALAN KALIN To:Mark Belotz; Karen Stepper; Renee Morgan; Newell Arnerich; Robert Storer Cc:Rob Ewing Subject:Article on E-Bike Safety and Needed Sidewalk Protections Date:Monday, March 16, 2026 8:30:44 AM***CAUTION*** THIS EMAIL WAS NOT SENT FROM DANVILLE STAFFThis email originated from outside of the Town of Danville and was not sent from a Town Staff member! Do not click onlinks or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Danville Town Council Members, I am sharing this newspaper article because it reinforces many of the safety concerns Danville is already facing regarding e-bikes and higher-powered electric devices. The article explains that many of the devices being used by youth are not truly legal e-bikes, but are more like e-mopeds or e-motos capable of much higher speeds. It also highlights the growing confusion for parents, schools, and law enforcement, and the need for clearer policies and stronger accountability. Danville should respond by taking clear local action where it has authority. Most importantly, the Town should prohibit e-bikes and e-motos from operating on sidewalks in order to better protect pedestrians, seniors, young children, and people with disabilities. Sidewalks are intended for walking, not for motorized travel at speeds that can cause serious injury. The Town should also adopt clear definitions, post visible signage, and support enforcement measures that make the rules understandable and practical. I believe this article provides timely and relevant support for stronger action by Danville to address a growing public safety risk before a preventable tragedy occurs. Opinion: E-bikes are here to stay. Now it’s time for our safety laws to catch up. Best Regards, Alan Alan Kalin COL, U.S. Army (Ret.) President Mount Diablo Cyclists (MountDiabloCyclists.org) Co-Chair Danville Safety Advocates (BikeDanville.org) 2023 James Oberstar Award “Excellence in Bicycle Advocacy” 2023 Contra Costa County "Bike Champion of the Year" 2023 California Outdoors Hall of Fame Opinion: E-bikes are here to stay. Now it’s time for our safety laws to ... They can be a great transportation option. But lawmakers, schoolsand parents must ensure they don’t move faster... From: Robert Prinz <robert@bikeeastbay.org> Sent: Monday, March 9, 2026 7:41 PM To: Marie Sunseri <cityclerk@danville.ca.gov> Subject: Danville Town Council 3/10/2026 meeting - public comment ***CAUTION*** THIS EMAIL WAS NOT SENT FROM DANVILLE STAFF This email originated from outside of the Town of Danville and was not sent from a Town Staff member! Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello, This is a public comment on behalf of Bike East Bay for the Danville Town Council 3/10/2026 meeting agenda item "3.2 E-Bike Safety – Local Ordinance Considerations". While we appreciate the staff report references to the Mineta study "Exploring Electric Bicycle Safety Performance Data and Policy Options for California" published in December, the summarizations provided in the staff report about the study leave out important details. The Mineta study is very well researched and includes critical caveats about a significant lack of e-bike safety data available. Per the FARS data from the NHTSA referenced in the report, for example, 7% of fatal crashes with motor vehicles in 2022-23 were people on e-devices compared to 50% on pedal bikes. But for 43% of fatal crashes there was no data on whether it was an e-device or pedal bike. And for the 7% of e-device crashes it is unknown whether it was a legal e-bike compared to an electric motorcycle or some other out-of-class device which exceeds the speed and power limits required for Class 1, 2, or 3 e-bikes and isn't street legal anywhere. The study also acknowledges that e-bike mileage data does not exist, so we can’t know the level of risk based on exposure. As a result of the lack of data, it is not possible to say with confidence whether legal e-bikes are significantly more dangerous than pedal bikes. The Mineta study includes specific recommendations for additional data tracking that is needed in order to answer more of these questions. _________________________________________________________ I highly encourage decision makers involved in these discussions to read the study itself to help inform their positions and actions, especially the "safety findings" section on pages 7 to 11, and the "opportunities to improve safety" on pages 11 and 12: https://transweb.sjsu.edu/sites/default/files/2423-Agrawal-Electric-Bicycle-Safety-Data- Policy.pdf The safety findings section notes that "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%)." The study then identifies that the increased hospitalizations are likely due to the popularity of e-bikes with seniors, who are more vulnerable to severe injuries in crash incidents. One of the primary recommendations the study provides for mitigating these dangers is for jurisdictions to "produce high-quality bicycle infrastructure", including physically protected Class IV bikeways and quick-build projects. However, Danville has built zero Class IV bikeways to date and did not recommend any via its 2021 bike plan update, compared to nearly 150 built throughout other East Bay communities so far. As a result, Danville's low-stress bikeway network is made up primarily of a limited number of multi-use trails. This has increased crowding and put users more in conflict, contributing to the problem that the town is now attempting to mitigate. Bike East Bay represents more than 40 jurisdictions across the East Bay, and the experiences and perceptions of e-bikes changes drastically between these communities. To date, the most complaints we are hearing about e-bikes are from the places that have done the least with regard to on-street protected bikeways construction. Instead of only focusing on regulatory and enforcement actions, we call on Danville to consider the impact that the built environment has on these issues, and consider ways that the town can proactively reduce conflicts and encourage safe riding behavior by providing more dedicated and supportive bike infrastructure. _________________________________________________________ In total, the Mineta study provides a list of 14 recommended policy actions for legislators to consider on the state level. Unfortunately most of the proposed legislation introduced this year, including Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan's AB 1942, does not follow any of the study's recommendations. The positive exceptions include Senator Blakespear's SB 1167 to crack down on the manufacturers and distributors of illegal e-devices, following several of the recommended policy actions from the Mineta study. This bill was developed in coordination with and has the support of the California Bicycle Coalition. Assemblymember Papan's AB 1557 to reinforce legal e-bike motor power caps at 750 watts also follows recommendations from the Mineta study. We encourage the Town Council to support Senator Blakespear's SB 1167 and Assemblymember Papan's AB 1557, and to either oppose or take no position on the remainder of the proposed state legislation. We also again extend an invitation to collaborate with us proactively on any future policy, enforcement, education, or infrastructure actions related to bicycling or e-bike safety. Bike East Bay has been working on these issues since 1972 and has very collaborative relationships with other jurisdictions resulting in positive outcomes with regard to bike rider access and traffic safety. Thank you, Robert Prinz | Advocacy Director Pronouns: he/him Mail: PO Box 1736 Oakland, CA 94604 Office: 466 Water Street Oakland, CA 94607 P: (510) 845-7433 x5 | E: Robert@BikeEastBay.org ************ This correspondence was received pr ior to the March 10, 2026 Study Session. From:Tai Williams To:Amanda Levine; Kristine Meidberg Subject:FW: DANVILLE RISK ASSESSMENT SIDEWALK OPERATION OF ELECTRIC BICYCLES AND HIGH-POWERED ELECTRIC MOTORCYCLES Date:Friday, May 8, 2026 12:34:17 PM Attachments:Danville Risk Assessment Sidewalk Operation of Electric Bicycles and High-Powered Electric Motorcycles (February 1, 2026).pdf Tai J. Williams Town Manager Town of Danville | 500 La Gonda Way | Danville, CA 94526 (925) 314-3302 | f (925) 838-0548 twilliams@danville.ca.gov | www.danville.ca.gov From: ALAN KALIN <alankalin@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, February 9, 2026 7:30 AM To: Tai Williams <twilliams@danville.ca.gov> Cc: Diane Friedmann <dfriedmann@danville.ca.gov>; Allan Shields <ashields@danville.ca.gov>; Dave Casteel <dcasteel@danville.ca.gov>; Thomas Rossberg <trossberg@danville.ca.gov> Subject: DANVILLE RISK ASSESSMENT SIDEWALK OPERATION OF ELECTRIC BICYCLES AND HIGH- POWERED ELECTRIC MOTORCYCLES ***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 recognizethe sender and know the content is safe. Good morning Tai, I wanted to share a recently completed Risk Assessment prepared by Danville Safety Advocates regarding the operation of e-bikes and high- powered electric motorcycles on Danville sidewalks. The report evaluates safety, engineering standards, enforcement clarity, and municipal risk, and offers recommended actions related to signage, policy alignment, and public education. It is intended to support staff and Council in considering practical, defensible approaches to addressing a growing and foreseeable safety issue. Thank you for taking the time to review this material. I appreciate your leadership in helping guide a thoughtful and balanced path forward. Best Regards, Alan Alan Kalin COL, US Army (Ret.) President Mount Diablo Cyclists (MountDiabloCyclists.org) Co-Chair Danville Safety Advocates (BikeDanville.org) 2023 James Oberstar Award “Excellence in Bicycle Advocacy” 2023 Contra Costa County "Bike Champion of the Year" 2023 California Outdoors Hall of Fame Danville Risk Assessment Sidewalk Operation of Electric Bicycles and High-Powered Electric Motorcycles (Photo: E-Moto sidewalk collision, San Ramon Valley Blvd., Danville) (Photo: E-moto on sidewalk, Brookside Drive, Danville) Prepared For: Danville Town Council and Staff Prepared by: Danville Safety Advocates Date: February 1, 2026 2 RECOMMENDED ACTION Adopt policy direction to prohibit the operation of electric bicycles and high-powered electric motorcycles on sidewalks narrower than eight (8) feet, and direct staff to implement signage, public education, and enforcement measures consistent with this policy. (Photo: E-Moto on the sidewalk, San Ramon Valley Blvd., Danville) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Risk Assessment evaluates the engineering, safety, operational, and legal risks associated with the operation of electric bicycles (e-bikes) and high-powered, throttle-controlled electric motorcycles (“e-motos”) on sidewalks within the Town of Danville. E-motos are not bicycles. Many exceed statutory e-bike definitions due to 750 watts of motor power and throttle-only propulsion above 20–30+ mph. National transportation authorities— including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), and the National Association o f City Transportation Officials (NACTO)— consistently classify sidewalks narrower than eight feet as pedestrian -only facilities. While Danville Municipal Code §31-17.2 establishes a minimum sidewalk width of four feet, this requirement reflects a construction standard rather than a safe operating width for shared use with motorized vehicles. When narrow sidewalks are combined with frequent driveways, limited lateral clearance, landscaping obstructions, and constrained sight lines, operation of e-bikes and e-motos creates a foreseeable risk of collisions involving pedestrians, motorists, and riders. These risks are materially amplified when vehicles capable of operating at 20–30+ miles per hour are used in spaces designed for pedestrian travel speeds . Between 2020 and 2025, Danville recorded 45 pedestrian-vehicle collisions involving 47 pedestrians, resulting in 41 injuries and one fatality. More than 93 percent of these collisions caused injury or death, most commonly at sidewalks, driveways, trail crossings, and intersections where right-of-way violations, turning vehicles, and limited sight distance were present. 3 A disproportionate share of injured pedestrians were children and seniors, who together accounted for more than 50 percent of injured victims. As high-speed e-bikes and e-motos increasingly operate in these same pedestrian spaces, future collisions are statistically foreseeable and are likely to increase in both frequency and severity without corrective action. Field observations, youth vehicle inventories conducted within the San Ramon Valley Unified School District, community complaints, and documented near-miss events indicate that high-powered electric motorcycles are now routinely operated on residential sidewalks, ADA curb ramps, park pathways, and other pedestrian-only facilities within Danville. These vehicles are functionally distinct from bicycles. Many exceed statutory e -bike definitions based on motor power, throttle-only propulsion, and achievable speed, and lack the equipment, registration, insurance, and operating authority required of motor vehicles. Their presence on pedestrian infrastructure introduces conditions consistent with the statutory elements of a “dangerous condition of public property” under California Government Code §§830–835.4, including foreseeability and notice. Independent, peer-reviewed research further supports these conclusions. The Mineta Transportation Institute’s (MTI) legislatively commissioned study, Project 2423 - Exploring Electric Bicycle Safety Performance Data and Policy Options for California (December 2025) documents that “many bicycle-shaped electric vehicles currently in use do not meet the statutory definition of an electric bicycle,” including devices that exceed 750 watts of motor power or are capable of operating above 20 miles per hour on motor power alone, yet are “marketed and perceived as ‘e-bikes’ despite exceeding legal limits.” The report further finds increasing use of higher-powered electric vehicles by minors, including documented observations at Danville middle schools, establishing clear foreseeability and notice. (See Risk Assessment for San Ramon Valley Unified School District, January 5, 2026) (Photo: Mineta Transportation Institute’s (MTI) Project 2423 - Exploring Electric Bicycle Safety Performance Data and Policy Options for California, December 2025, Figure 16. “Electric devices parked at Diablo Vista Middle School in Danville, California” - page #62) MTI Project 2423 also concludes that “motor-vehicle crashes are a factor in many injuries and most fatalities” involving electric bicycles and that enforcement based on class stickers, labels, 4 or software settings is unreliable. These findings support location-based rules prohibiting e-bike and e-moto operation on pedestrian sidewalks as the safest and most legally defensible approach for the Town of Danville. Although Danville has prohibited e-bikes on sidewalks within the downtown business district since July 2024, the absence of visible signage or transition warnings at key entry points creates avoidable fair-notice and enforcement risks. Enforcement without clear public notice may weaken citation defensibility and increase procedural and liability exposure. Prohibiting e-bikes and e-motos from sidewalks does not reduce mobility – it improves safety by eliminating a documented pedestrian hazard and directing riders to facilities designed for interaction with motor vehicles. (Photo: E-Moto (Tuttio - capable of 37mph) on sidewalk Greenbrook Dr Danville) To ensure this transition improves safety, sidewalk prohibitions must be paired with affirmative measures, including updating the Danville Master Bicycle Plan and adopting a Vision Zero Plan to explicitly address e-bikes and e-motos, clarify lawful operating locations, and align facility design with vehicle speed and mass. When combined with clear signage, continuous bike-lane markings, balanced enforcement, and public education, these actions provide a safe, predictable, and legally defensible framework for e-bike and e-moto operation in bike lanes and streets. This report concludes that continued allowance of motorized vehicle operation on narrow sidewalks presents a high likelihood of serious injury and a high level of municipal liability exposure. Recommended Immediate Actions 1. Prohibit e-bikes and e-motos on sidewalks narrower than eight feet. 2. Install “Pedestrians Only – No Motorized Vehicles” signage on sidewalks serving residential corridors and the downtown business district. 3. Enforce existing sidewalk prohibition through education, warnings, and citations as appropriate. 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Recommended Action Executive Summary 1. Introduction 2. Overall Risk Rating 2.1 Likelihood of Injury – High 2.2 Severity of Injury – High to Catastrophic 2.3 Town Liability Exposure – High 2.4 Overall Municipal Risk – High 3. Legal & Liability Risk Assessment 3.1 Governing Law – California Government Code §§830–835.4 3.2 Application to Danville 3.3 Litigation Scenarios 3.4 Financial and Reputational Exposure 3.5 Statewide Policy Context 4. Engineering Compliance Assessment 4.1 Key Findings from Applicable Standards 4.2 Engineering Conclusion 5. Why Sidewalk Riding Increases Vehicle Collisions 5.1 Cyclists on Sidewalks Fall Outside Driver Expectation and Sight Lines 5.2 Driveways Create Repeated, Uncontrolled Conflict Points 5.3 Sidewalk Riders Enter Intersections at Unexpected Angles and Speeds 5.4 Excessive Speed Exacerbates Crash Severity 5.5 Sidewalks Are Not Designed for the Maneuverability of Electric Vehicles 5.6 National Research Confirms Sidewalk Riding Is More Dangerous 5.7 Danville’s Environment Magnifies All Risks 6. Safety Risk Analysis 6.1 Injury Mechanism and Impact Severity 6.2 High-Risk Conflict Zones 7. Law Enforcement Clarity and Officer Discretion 7.1 Clear Visual Identification of Unlawful Activity 7.2 Improved Officer Discretion and Graduated Enforcement 7.3 Reduced Conflict, Increased Voluntary Compliance 7.4 Alignment with Traffic Safety and Collision Prevention Goals 7.5 Legal Defensibility and Officer Protection 7.6 Net Benefit to Danville Police Operations 8. Safety, Enforcement, and Liability Benefits of Prohibiting Sidewalk Riding 8.1 Improved Safety for Pedestrians 8.2 Improved Safety for E-Bike Riders 8.3 Improved Safety for E-Motos 8.4 Improved Safety for Motorists 8.5 Improved Enforcement Clarity and Effectiveness 8.6 Reduced Municipal Liability 9. Risk Mitigation Recommendations 10. Conclusion 6 1. INTRODUCTION This Risk Assessment analyzes the engineering, operational, safety, and legal risks created by the current use of e-bikes and e-motos on Danville’s residential sidewalks. It is based on field observations, SRVUSD youth e-moto inventory data, national engineering guidance, legal review, and extensive community documentation of near-miss events. (See “E-Moto" Safety Assessment – San Ramon Valley Unified School District, November 1, 2025) The objective is to provide Town Council with a clear, evidence-supported basis for establishing defensible, consistent, and safety-focused policies. 2. OVERALL RISK RATING The Overall Municipal Risk is rated High because all core risk components align at the upper end of accepted public-agency risk thresholds. 2.1 Likelihood of Injury – High The probability of injury is high because sidewalk environments are not designed for powered vehicles operating at motorcycle speeds. Documented conditions—limited sightlines, frequent driveway crossings, pedestrian density, and mixed-age users—create repeated and predictable conflict points. The continued presence of e-bikes and e-motos in these spaces makes injury foreseeable, not hypothetical. 2.2 Severity of Injury – High to Catastrophic When incidents occur, the potential consequences are severe. The combined speed, mass, and acceleration of e-bikes and especially e-motos significantly increase impact forces compared to traditional bicycles. Injuries to pedestrians—particularly children, seniors, and persons with disabilities—can reasonably include fractures, traumatic brain injury, permanent disability, or death. This places severity squarely in the high to catastrophic range. (Photos: Danville resident hit and injured by E-Moto while walking on the sidewalk in front of Revel restaurant, Hartz Ave, Danville) 7 2.3 Town Liability Exposure – High Municipal liability is elevated due to foreseeability, knowledge, and control. The Town is aware of sidewalk riding behavior, has adopted ordinances restricting it in certain areas, yet has not consistently provided visible notice, engineering controls, or uniform enforcement. Under California Government Code §§830–835.4, failure to address a known hazardous condition—or to adequately warn the public—creates substantial exposure to claims alleging dangerous condition of public property. 2.4 Overall Municipal Risk – High Because the likelihood of injury is high, the potential severity is extreme, and legal exposure is significant, the cumulative risk to the Town is High. This level of risk exceeds what is typically considered acceptable for municipal operations and requires prompt corrective action, including clear policy alignment, visible signage, enforceable rules, and infrastructure that directs electric mobility devices to appropriate facilities. 3. LEGAL & LIABILITY RISK ASSESSMENT 3.1 Governing Law – California Government Code §§830–835.4 A municipality can be held liable when: 1. A dangerous condition exists 2. The risk is foreseeable 3. The agency has actual or constructive notice 4. The agency fails to take reasonable corrective action 3.2 Application to Danville The Town now has field data, resident complaints, near-miss documentation, e-moto inventory data, photographic and video evidence, and this Risk Assessment Report to support the satisfaction of all four of the above criteria. MTI Project 2423 independently corroborates the Town’s actual and constructive notice of the hazard identified in this Risk Assessment. The report states that devices “capable of operating above 20 miles per hour on motor power alone or exceeding 750 watts are not electric bicycles under California law,” yet remain widely available and commonly used. School-based observations summarized in the report found that “only 12 percent of electric two-wheelers observed at middle schools qualified as Class 1 –3 electric bicycles, while 88 percent were higher-powered devices,” including documented observations at Diablo Vista Middle School in Danville. 8 (Table 8 below: Mineta Transportation Institute’s Project 2423 - Exploring Electric Bicycle Safety Performance Data and Policy Options for California, December 2025, page #65) This level of documentation establishes foreseeability, knowledge, and notice of a known hazardous condition and supports the conclusion that continued allowance of motorized vehicles on pedestrian sidewalks exposes the Town to liability under California Government Code §§830–835.4 absent reasonable corrective action. 3.3 Litigation Scenarios The most likely scenarios that could lead to litigation against the Town of Danville include: • A pedestrian struck on a sidewalk by an e-bike or e-moto rider • A motorist hitting a sidewalk e-bike or e-moto rider • Severe injury involving an unlicensed youth e-moto operator 3.4 Financial and Reputational Exposure Potential impacts to the Town of Danville include: • Multi-million-dollar settlements • Increased insurance premiums • Mandatory retrofits • Reputational harm to the Town • Significant litigation expenses 9 3.5 Statewide Policy Context California cities with sidewalk e-bike and e-moto bans include Danville (business district), Berkeley, Oakland, San Francisco, Mill Valley, El Cerrito, Napa, Vacaville, San Luis Obispo, Pacific Grove, Gonzales, Watsonville, Folsom, San Jacinto, Lompoc, and others. (Photo: E-Motos on sidewalk, Hartz Ave, Danville) 4. ENGINEERING COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT 4.1 Key Findings from Applicable Standards • California Department of Transportation Highway Design Manual: 5 ft is the minimum pedestrian-only width; not intended for bikes or motorized vehicles. • California Department of Transportation Complete Streets Guide (2023): Shared facilities require wider, unobstructed space. • Federal Highway Administration, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Official, and National Association of City Transportation Officials: Shared-use paths must be 8–12 ft wide; sidewalks are pedestrian-only zones. 4.2 Engineering Conclusion Danville’s 4–5 ft sidewalks do not meet any recognized standard for shared use. Permitting e- bikes/e-motos on these sidewalks constitutes a foreseeable engineering hazard. 5. WHY SIDEWALK RIDING INCREASES VEHICLE COLLISIONS 5.1 Cyclists on Sidewalks Fall Outside Driver Expectation and Sight Lines Drivers are trained and conditioned to look for bicycles in the roadway, not on sidewalks . A rider on a sidewalk may travel too close to fences, hedges, mailboxes, and parked cars—features that severely restrict sight lines. 10 When a driver exits a driveway or turns at an intersection, they have difficulty seeing an approaching cyclist, leaving insufficient reaction time to avoid a collision when the cyclist is traveling at an unsafe speed. (Photo below: E-Moto on sidewalk, Hartz Ave. Danville) 5.2 Driveways Create Repeated, Uncontrolled Conflict Points Danville’s residential blocks contain dozens of driveways, each functioning as an uncontrolled intersection. Drivers backing out prioritize looking toward the street—not down the sidewalk. Forward-moving drivers prioritize looking for gaps in vehicular traffic, not fast sidewalk riders. The combination of landscaping, fences, walls, and parked vehicles can create blind spots that multiply collision probability. 5.3 Sidewalk Riders Enter Intersections at Unexpected Angles and Speeds E-bike and e-moto riding produces two high-risk crash scenarios: • Right-Hook Collision: A driver turning right is overtaken by a fast sidewalk rider approaching on their near-right. • Left-Cross Collision: involving a counter-flow cyclist is a highly dangerous scenario where a vehicle driver making a left turn collides with a cyclist approaching from the wrong direction of traffic flow. This crash dynamic significantly increases risk because the cyclist is traveling outside the driver's normal scan patterns and expected lines of sight. A driver scanning for cars misses a rider approaching from the far sidewalk at 20 – 30 mph. 11 5.4 Excessive Speed Exacerbates Crash Severity Pedestrians travel under 4 mph. E-bikes and e-motos commonly travel 20–35 mph. The closing speed during driveway or intersection conflicts often exceeds 30 –40 mph, leaving minimal reaction time. Combined with the weight of e-motos (80–100+ pounds), collisions produce high kinetic-energy impacts. 5.5 Sidewalks Are Not Designed for the Maneuverability of Electric Vehicles Sidewalks assume predictable, low-speed pedestrian movement. They are not designed for: • High-speed passing maneuvers • Long stopping distances • Conflicting mergers at ADA ramps This mismatch between design speed and operating speed is a reliable predictor of collisions. (See video documentation of e-moto operation on sidewalks and park paths) 5.6 National Research Confirms Sidewalk Riding Is More Dangerous Studies from FHWA, AASHTO, IIHS, and NACTO consistently find that sidewalk cyclists are 1.8 to 4.5 times more likely to be involved in motor-vehicle collisions than roadway cyclists. Locations where visibility problems are exacerbated. MTI Project 2423 reinforces this collision analysis, concluding that “motor-vehicle conflicts are a contributing factor in many electric-bicycle injuries and the majority of fatalities.” The report further cautions that “the actual share of electric-bicycle injuries involving motor vehicles is without question higher than what is reported” due to incomplete mechanism-of- injury data. It is important to note that many cyclist–pedestrian collisions and near-miss incidents occurring on sidewalks are never reported to police. In Danville, these events are frequently 12 described or documented by residents on neighborhood platforms such as Nextdoor, indicating that official collision statistics likely underrepresent the true scope of sidewalk conflict. These findings directly support the conclusion that sidewalk riding —particularly at driveways and intersections where driver expectation and sight lines are constrained —creates predictable, high-severity collision risks and materially increases the likelihood of serious or fatal injury. (Photo below: E-Moto in crosswalk, Hartz Ave, Danville) 5.7 Danville’s Environment Magnifies All Risks Between 2020 and 2025, Danville recorded 45 pedestrian-vehicle collisions involving 47 pedestrians, resulting in 41 injuries and one fatality. More than 93 percent of these collisions caused injury or death, most commonly at sidewalks, driveways, trail crossings, and intersections where right-of-way violations, turning vehicles, and limited sight distance were present. A disproportionate share of injured pedestrians were children and seniors, who together accounted for more than 50 percent of injured victims. As high-speed e-bikes and e-motos increasingly operate in these same pedestrian spaces, future collisions are statistically foreseeable and are likely to increase in both frequency and severity without corrective action. The Town’s built form includes: • 4–5 ft sidewalks • Dense landscaping in certain residential areas • Curved neighborhood streets • Heavy driveway concentration • Multi-lane arterials with high turning volumes These factors collectively increase the likelihood of severe or fatal injuries when e-bikes or e-motos operate on sidewalks. 6. SAFETY RISK ANALYSIS 6.1 Injury Mechanism and Impact Severity 13 • Pedestrians: ~3 mph • E-motos: 20–35 mph At these closing speeds, reaction time is insufficient for both riders and motorists. FHWA crash - severity data show: • 20 mph impact: ~25% severe injury, ~10% fatality • At 30 mph, pedestrians—especially older adults—face a >50% likelihood of severe injury or worse. 6.2 High-Risk Conflict Zones The most hazardous areas include: • Driveways • Intersections • ADA ramps • School routes 7. LAW ENFORCEMENT CLARITY AND OFFICER DISCRETION Adoption of a clear, uniformly applied prohibition on e-bike and e-moto operation on sidewalks narrower than eight feet—supported by standardized signage—provides the Danville Police Department with a simple, objective, and defensible enforcement framework. This clarity significantly improves officers’ ability to identify unlawful behavior, educate riders, issue warnings, and, when necessary, issue citations—while preserving professional discretion and minimizing unnecessary conflict. 7.1 Clear Visual Identification of Unlawful Activity Under the recommended policy, officers no longer need to determine motor wattage, top speed, software settings, or manufacturer classifications in the field. The observable conduct — motorized vehicle operation on a pedestrian sidewalk—becomes the enforceable violation. This allows officers to quickly and confidently identify unlawful e-moto and e-bike use based on location and behavior, rather than technical specifications that are difficult to verify roadside. MTI Project 2423 establishes that device-based enforcement is unreliable in practice. The report documents that “looking at class stickers was insufficient” to determine legality and that class- identification stickers are “easily purchased and sometimes inaccurately applied.” It further notes that “third-party applications may enable speed and power unlocking even when manufacturer-installed controls are present.” As a result, enforcement frameworks based on observable conduct and operating location—rather than technical device specifications—provide clearer standards for officers, reduce disputes, improve officer safety, and strengthen citation defensibility. High-powered, throttle-controlled electric motorcycles (“e-motos”) are visually distinct from traditional bicycles and are readily recognizable by officers due to their size, frame geometry, suspension, tire width, and motorized components. 14 The recommended approach eliminates ambiguity and reduces disputes over vehicle classification during enforcement encounters. 7.2 Improved Officer Discretion and Graduated Enforcement A clearly posted sidewalk prohibition enhances—not restricts—officer discretion. With an unambiguous baseline rule in place, officers retain full authority to apply professional judgment based on context, age of the rider, speed, behavior, and location. This enables a graduated enforcement model that prioritizes safety and education while retaining citation authority when warranted. Officers may: • Stop and educate first-time or unaware riders • Issue warnings where appropriate • Cite repeat offenders or high-risk conduct • Address parental responsibility when minors are involved Clear, unambiguous rules empower officers to intervene early—before a collision occurs— rather than waiting until behavior escalates into a dangerous event. 7.3 Reduced Conflict, Increased Voluntary Compliance Visible signage and uniform rules substantially reduce rider confusion and enforcement friction. When expectations are clearly communicated at sidewalk entry points, downtown transitions, and trail interfaces (including the Iron Horse Trail), officers can reference posted notice rather than engage in prolonged explanations or disputes. This “inform-before-enforce” approach: • Strengthens citation defensibility • Reduces confrontational encounters • Improves community trust in policing • Encourages voluntary compliance through education . Officers are no longer placed in the position of enforcing an unposted or inconsistently understood rule, which currently exposes both officers and the Town to fairness and due-process concerns. 7.4 Alignment with Traffic Safety and Collision Prevention Goals By discouraging sidewalk riding, the policy directly supports collision prevention and traffic safety objectives. Officers are empowered to redirect riders to lawful locations where motorists expect bicyclists and sight lines are designed for mixed traffic. This proactive enforcement role allows police to address known high-risk behaviors— particularly high-speed e-moto operation—before injuries occur. 15 7.5 Legal Defensibility and Officer Protection A clearly defined and well-signed prohibition protects officers as well as the Town. Enforcement actions taken under a plainly articulated ordinance are more defensible in court, reduce complaints, and protect officers from claims of selective or arbitrary enforcement. This framework provides officers with confidence that their actions are supported by clear law, public notice, and established safety standards. 7.6 Net Benefit to Danville Police Operations In summary, the recommended sidewalk policy: • Simplifies field enforcement • Enhances officer discretion • Reduces ambiguity and confrontation • Improves public understanding and compliance • Supports proactive safety policing • Strengthens legal defensibility Rather than creating new enforcement burdens, the policy gives Danville Police a clear, fair, and safety-oriented tool to address a rapidly escalating risk—allowing officers to educate first, warn when appropriate, and cite, when necessary, all while prioritizing pedestrian safety and collision prevention. 8. SAFETY, ENFORCEMENT, AND LIABILITY BENEFITS OF PROHIBITING SIDEWALK RIDING Prohibiting e-bikes and e-motos from sidewalks—when paired with clear, affirmative measures supporting lawful street and bike-lane riding—improves safety for pedestrians, riders, and motorists, strengthens enforcement clarity, and materially reduces municipal liability. This approach aligns facility use with design intent, operating speeds, and driver expectations, thereby reducing conflict points rather than displacing risk. 8.1 Improved Safety for Pedestrians. Sidewalks are designed for walking speeds and predictable pedestrian movements. Allowing motorized vehicles capable of 20–35+ mph on these facilities creates unavoidable high-energy conflicts at driveways, ADA curb ramps, school frontages, and commercial areas. Prohibiting sidewalk riding restores sidewalks as pedestrian-only facilities, directly reducing the likelihood and severity of pedestrian injuries and eliminating a documented hazardous condition. 8.2 Improved Safety for E-Bike Riders E-bike riders are safest when operating where motorists expect them to be—within bike lanes and travel lanes. Clear sidewalk prohibitions reduce unsafe sidewalk-to-street weaving, improve sight lines, clarify right-of-way, and lower the risk of vehicle-bicycle collisions. Updating the Danville Master Bicycle Plan provides consistent guidance regarding lawful operating locations, improving predictability and rider compliance. 16 8.3 Improved Safety for E-Motos High-powered, throttle-controlled e-motos present the greatest risk when operated in pedestrian environments. Relocating these vehicles to streets and appropriate facilities places them in environments with greater sight distance, traffic control, and predictable interactions. This significantly reduces blind driveway conflicts and lowers the risk of severe injury to riders themselves, many of whom are minors. 8.4 Improved Safety for Motorists Motorists are trained to scan roadways—not sidewalks—for moving vehicles. Eliminating sidewalk riding reduces surprise conflicts at driveways and intersections , decreases last- second evasive maneuvers, and lowers the likelihood of severe “failure-to-see” collisions. Predictable rider placement improves reaction time and overall traffic safety. 8.5 Improved Enforcement Clarity and Effectiveness This approach provides substantial enforcement benefits for both officers and the public: •Objective, location-based enforcement: Officers may enforce based on observable conduct—motorized vehicle operation on a sidewalk—without determining motor wattage, speed capability, or manufacturer classification in the field. •Reduced disputes and selective-enforcement claims: Clear rules and visible signage improve public understanding, reduce confrontations, and strengthen citation defensibility. •Preserved officer discretion: Officers retain flexibility to educate first, issue warnings where appropriate, and cite repeat or reckless behavior. •Clear expectations for the public: Riders, parents, and motorists understand where devices may legally operate, reducing inadvertent violations. •Efficient use of police resources: Enforcement focuses on high-risk behavior and locations rather than technical classification disputes. •Updating the Danville Master Bicycle Plan embeds these enforcement principles into adopted policy, ensuring consistency across planning, policing, and public communication. 8.6 Reduced Municipal Liability From a risk-management perspective, this approach materially reduces liability by: •Eliminating a documented hazardous condition on pedestrian facilities •Aligning facility use with recognized engineering and safety standards •Demonstrating reasonable corrective action under California Government Code §§830– 835.4 •Improving due-process fairness and citation defensibility •Reducing exposure to severe injury claims, particularly involving pedestrians and minors This approach does not restrict mobility; it places each user where they are safest, most visible, and most predictable. 17 By restoring sidewalks to pedestrian use, directing e-bikes and e-motos to appropriate street facilities, clarifying expectations through planning and signage, and simplifying enforcement, the Town of Danville improves systemwide safety while significantly reducing avoidable legal and financial exposure. 9. RISK MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS To address a foreseeable and escalating risk to pedestrians, riders, and motorists, the Town should adopt the following actions to clarify lawful use, support consistent enforcement, and reduce municipal liability associated with e-bike and e-moto operation on sidewalks. (Photo below: E-Motos at local Middle School) 1.Prohibit motorized vehicles on sidewalks narrower than eight feet. (See Letter Signed by 50 Danville Resident) 2.Install standardized “Pedestrians Only – No E-bikes” signage. 3.Enforce existing sidewalk prohibition through education, warnings, and citations as appropriate. 4. Issue a Proclamation that strongly encourages parents to not allow children under the age of sixteen (16) to operate Class 2 throttle-assisted electric motorcycles (e-motos). (See Petition with 1,000 Signatures – Mostly Danville Residents) 5.Update the Town’s Master Bicycle Plan and adopt a Vision Zero Plan to formally address e-bikes and e-motos. 6.Implement a near-miss and actual collision reporting system for e-bikes and e-motos. 7.Conduct a semi-annual review of e-bike/e-moto versus vehicle collisions 10. CONCLUSION Danville’s residential sidewalks do not meet any engineering or safety standard for shared use with e-bikes or e-motos. Decades of national research, statewide legal precedent, and field data from Danville confirm that sidewalk riding significantly increases the likelihood of severe or fatal collisions. The Town now possesses clear documentation and actual notice of the hazard. Failure to act exposes the Town to avoidable injuries and significant liability under California law. The corrective actions identified in this report are reasonable, adopted in other municipalities, and legally defensible. Several California jurisdictions have already implemented sidewalk prohibitions for e-bikes and e-motos based on the same risks. (See list of cities below) 18 As confirmed by MTI Project 2423, the risks identified in this Risk Assessment are documented, foreseeable, and increasing, and clear, location-based prohibitions on e-bike and e- moto operation on pedestrian sidewalks constitute a reasonable, effective, and legally defensible corrective action for the Town of Danville. Danville Safety Advocates strongly urge the Town Council to adopt the recommendations herein without delay. We stand ready to support ordinance development, community education, and implementation of safety solutions. Alan Kalin, COL, U.S. Army (Ret.), President, Mount Diablo Cyclists (MountDiabloCyclists.org), Co-Chair, Danville Safety Advocates (BikeDanville.org) For more information and amazing E-moto videos visit Danville Safety Advocates (See Mineta Transportation Institute (MTI) Report "Exploring Electric Bicycle Safety Performance Data and Policy Options for California" Project 2423 -December 2025) (See Proposed San Ramon Valley Unified School District E-bike & E-moto Policy) (See TV News Story: 70 E-motos & 12 Bicycles at Stone Valley Middle School BicycleCorral) Listen to Alan Kalin & Bob Mittelstaedt Speaking at the San Ramon Valley Unified School District Board of Education Meeting (November 18, 2025) Partial list of California Cities that Prohibit e-bikes on sidewalks: Region / County City / Jurisdiction Scope of Sidewalk Ban Code Citation Contra Costa Danville Prohibited in business district Danville Muni Code §4-19.2 Alameda Berkeley Prohibited on all sidewalks Berkeley Muni Code §14.68.120– 130 Alameda Oakland Prohibited for adult- size bikes/e-bikes Oakland Muni Code §10.16.150 Napa Napa Prohibited near schools/stores/business buildings Napa Muni Code §10.64.020 Solano Vacaville Prohibited near schools/stores/business buildings Vacaville Muni Code §10.52.180 Marin Mill Valley Citywide prohibition Mill Valley Muni Code §10.04.140, §10.30 Contra Costa El Cerrito Citywide prohibition El Cerrito Muni Code §11.64.040(A) 19 San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo Citywide prohibition SLO Muni Code §10.72.100 Santa Cruz Santa Cruz Prohibited near commercial establishments Santa Cruz Muni Code §10.68.030 Santa Cruz Capitola No e-bikes on sidewalks; kids <10 only Capitola Muni Code §10.44.010– 030 Santa Cruz Watsonville Citywide prohibition Watsonville Muni Code §4-1.02 Monterey Pacific Grove Citywide prohibition PG Muni Code §16.32.080 Monterey Gonzales Citywide prohibition Gonzales Muni Code §10.52.130 Sacramento Folsom Citywide prohibition Folsom Muni Code §10.24.070 Riverside San Jacinto Citywide prohibition San Jacinto Muni Code §10.24.120 Santa Barbara Lompoc Citywide prohibition Lompoc Muni Code §10.52.130 The “e-motos” shown below were observed parked in bicycle corrals at local middle schools and are being operated on sidewalks and shared -use paths throughout Danville. . Tuttio-ICT (40+mph) Talaria (40+mph) Tuttio-Soleil01 (37mph)Movcan (37mph) 20 REVV 1 DRT ( 34mph) Pedal-Core (32mph) Ridestar Q20-Pro (32mph)Meelod-DK 300 (30mph) Ride1up (30mph) Super 73 (28mph) Cycrown-Cychunter (28mph)Volcan (28mph ) 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 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 11 3 8.3 Fatalities documented in news reports 11 4 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