E-Bike Accountability Act legislation announcement tomorrow

[Scott Mace]

Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, joined by Walnut Creek Mayor Kevin
Wilk and Dr. Craig De Vinney, announces the E-Bike Accountability
Act—legislation requiring registration and license plates for Class 2
and Class 3 e-bikes to strengthen safety and accountability across
California.

Scheduled for Feb. 13, 2026, to be broadcast live on YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYDpYwbs1o4

Scott Mace

[clint.sandusky]

Scott,

This legislation will do NOTHING for safety!!!

This overregulation, like the State of New Jersey, will just add to: 

• Confusion
• Community and cycling industry outrage -- including bike shops going out of business
• Non-compliance
• DMV administrative burdens
• Enforcement good luck
• Some revenue for the broke state?

Note: The New Jersey (Class 3) motorized bicycle law from 2019 (registration, at least) has still not been implemented.

Clint Sandusky

Sent from my Galaxy

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/c461c9d3-bcf7-4119-a693-5c82885e7af0%40wiredmuse.com.

[Damian Kevitt]

Damian with Streets Are For Everyone here. We are working on a much better bill in coordination with People for Bikes, CalBike, and Streets For All. It will be dropping soon. The author is Sen Blakespear. I'll keep you posted when it does drop. 

We will also be raising our definite concerns about Asm. Bauer-Kahan's bill and, if not addressed, opposing it. 

Best, Damian 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/698ea0c8.170a0220.3581a7.ff53%40mx.google.com.

[Scott Mace]

Now let's see how much of this BS the California mass media decides to run without questioning.

I'm not optimistic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYDpYwbs1o4

Scott Mace

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/698ea0c8.170a0220.3581a7.ff53%40mx.google.com.

[clint.sandusky]

Scott,

After watching the announcement (yikes!!!) just now, we certainly have our work cut out for us -- including educating the assemblymember and mayor as to what a legally compliant electric bicycle is (CVC 312.5) and what they were talking about the whole time - E-Motors! (CVC 436.1)!

I believe this new proposed bill/law will do NOTHING for safety!!! This perhaps well-intended but overregulation will just add to:

• Confusion for everyone

• Community and cycling industry outrage -- including bike shops going out of business
• Non-compliance

• DMV administrative and law enforcement burdens
• Varying enforcement between cities

Note: The 2019 New Jersey (Class 3) motorized‑bicycle law -- at least the registration requirement -- still hasn’t been implemented, according to what I heard from Paul Mickiewicz of Program Manager of The New Jersey Bike & Walk Coalition. This raises the old question: is a law really a law if it’s never enforced?

On the law enforcement side, enforcement of this proposed new, confusing, and restrictive bill/law will ultimately depend on each individual law enforcement agency. I hesitate to even call it an “e‑bike accountability act,” since they primarily focused on electric motorcycles (CVC 436.1) and other types of electric vehicles (CVC 312.5 (d)). How aggressively it’s enforced will come down to the direction given by each city council, which in turn will reflect the concerns and pressure they hear from their residents. In practice, there are really only two ways enforcement can play out:

Option 1: Officers can use the provisions of this new law as the primary basis -- meaning probable cause -- for initiating a traffic enforcement stop.

Option 2 (and the approach most likely to avoid community and media backlash, and beyond): Officers treat these new provisions as secondary violations, citing them only after stopping someone for a clear primary offense, such as running a stop sign.

Respectfully,

Clint

[Alan Wachtel]

You can see the bill here: AB 1942. 

~ Alan

[Lucas Kurlan]

I do get the reasoning behind this, though. There are hit and runs with these e-bikes and pedestrians where they can't figure out who was riding the bike.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/698fdbf8.050a0220.128677.7977%40mx.google.com.

[Damian Kevitt]

The Mineta Report on e-bikes and e-motos gives some very interesting data on safety, crash data, and a lot more. The number of reported collisions between eibkes and pedestrians is very low. A key finding (which we as advocates have known for several years now) is there is no differentiation in the crash data between legal Class I, II and III bicycles and illegal e-motos so it's hard to say what types are or aren't safe and so it's very easy to target everything that looks like a bicycle with an electric motor because there's no difference in the data between a crash wtih a 250W motor, a 500W motor, a 750W motor and a 2000W or 3000W motor "ebike". 

AB 1942 was written contrary to the key findings of the Mineta Report, and we (SAFE, SFA, Calbike, and People for Bikes) have contacted the author's office to discuss this and how the bill could be modified to be more useful to improve safety without unduly hindering those safely riding legal electric bicycles. 

Even if we can't get it modified, it's unlikely to make it past the policy committee because it goes against the Mineta Report, which was commissioned by the CA State Legislature and is considered the current best data on the subject. And even if it does get past the policy committee, it is still likely DOA as it won't get past the Appropriations Committee. 99% sure that DMV will say that, despite a $4 license fee, this won't be enough to offset the cost to start the program and administer it. DMV loves to kill bills because of the cost. I've had several great bills killed by DMV because they could cost as little as $100,000 to implement, even if it would save millions of dollars because of lives saved in the long run. 

We will have our bill language out very soon, and we are happy to drop it here for discussion and feedback when it comes out. 

Best, Damian 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/CACNxSYP92RSSD54yeL70rXCv1mJm2g%3DFO%2Bq3ecWn99D2KOwV7w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jim Baross]

Another perspective.

Jim Baross

CABO President

---------- Forwarded message ---------

From: Heather Mason <hea...@nbda.com>
Date: Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 11:41 AM
Subject: Re: "E-Bike Accountability Act" legislation announcement by CA Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, Feb. 13th
To: Ash Lovell <a...@peopleforbikes.org>, Clint Sandusky <clint.s...@gmail.com>
Cc: Megan Schmidt <me...@nbda.com>, Jay Townley <j...@humanpoweredsolutions.com>, Mike Fritz <mike...@humanpoweredsolutions.com>, Beth Black <bellemon...@gmail.com>, Alison Dewey <ali...@bikeleague.org>, John Allen <jsa...@bikexprt.com>, Keri Caffrey <keri...@gmail.com>, Larry Pizzi <La...@pedego.com>, Jim Baross <jimb...@gmail.com>

  Hi Ash and all, 

Thank you for sharing the talking points and for the continued work to address unsafe high-speed electric devices. We strongly agree that e-motos and out-of-class products misrepresented as e-bikes are the real issue and should be regulated as motor vehicles.

From the NBDA perspective, our primary concern is protecting legitimate bicycles, specifically Class 1 and Class 2 products, and ensuring they remain clearly and defensibly outside the scope of motor vehicle regulation. In our view, the so-called “Class” framework is also what initially put the bicycle industry in a difficult position. Attempting to defend access and usage by walking through class definitions has proven confusing to policymakers and the public, and increasingly ineffective.

What is defensible and logical is grounding policy in the federal definition of a bicycle as established by the CPSC under 16 CFR 1512.2. That definition provides a clear, nationally recognized foundation that distinguishes bicycles from motor vehicles in a way that is far easier to explain and justify than nuanced class distinctions.

We also believe the deferment of Class 3 regulation, and leaving its treatment to individual jurisdictions, was a mistake. That approach has directly contributed to the fragmented landscape we are now trying to navigate. Without a clear, understandable distinction between Class 1 and Class 2 bicycles and all out-of-class products (including e-motos), public sentiment will continue to move toward broad, uniform restrictions on all e-bikes. Anything less risks solving nothing while harming safe, compliant bicycle use.

While we understand the decision to set aside the bicycle definition and Class 3 in the current draft policy discussion, we are concerned this will make it increasingly difficult to keep bicycles, as defined in 16 CFR 1512.2, out of the proposed California legislation altogether. That outcome would have serious unintended consequences for specialty retailers, riders, and communities that rely on bicycles as accessible transportation.

Looking ahead, we would like to see some coordinated effort among stakeholders to have Class 3 formally acknowledged and incorporated into the federal definition of an e-bike. This is, in our view, the safest route to providing optimal protection for Class 3 products while ensuring clarity for policymakers and the public.

NBDA strongly supports efforts that:

• Clearly protect Class 1 and Class 2 bicycles as bicycles

• Draw a bright, enforceable line between bicycles and out-of-class electric devices

• Regulate e-motos and high-powered electric vehicles as motor vehicles, not bicycles

• Work toward federal recognition of Class 3 e-bikes as part of a unified, defensible framework

We appreciate the opportunity to stay engaged in this discussion and would welcome continued collaboration to ensure the result is both workable and sustainable for retailers, riders, and policymakers alike.

Best regards,

 

Heather Mason 
Executive Director, National Bicycle Dealers Association
 

Phone: 949-540-8020 | Email: hea...@NBDA.com
Web: www.NBDA.com
3972 Barranca Pkwy, Ste J-423, Irvine, CA 92606

Are you an NBDA Member? 

Please provide your feedback on Membership via this short survey.

 

 

From: Ash Lovell <a...@peopleforbikes.org>
Date: Friday, February 13, 2026 at 4:07 PM
To: Clint Sandusky <clint.s...@gmail.com>
Cc: Heather Mason <hea...@nbda.com>, Megan Schmidt <me...@nbda.com>, Jay Townley <j...@humanpoweredsolutions.com>, Mike Fritz <mike...@humanpoweredsolutions.com>, Beth Black <bellemon...@gmail.com>, Alison Dewey <ali...@bikeleague.org>, John Allen <jsa...@bikexprt.com>, Keri Caffrey <keri...@gmail.com>, Larry Pizzi <La...@pedego.com>, Jim Baross <jimb...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: "E-Bike Accountability Act" legislation announcement by CA Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, Feb. 13th

Hi All,

Please see the talking points that we have shared with our lobbying group in CA below:

PeopleForBikes shares concerns about unsafe, high-speed electric devices operating on public roads and bike infrastructure, particularly those marketed to youth. However, this proposal regulates low-speed electric bicycles instead of addressing the real issue, high-powered electric motorcycles (“e-motos”) being misrepresented as e-bikes. This is a missed opportunity and over regulates safe, compliant e-bikes.

• PeopleForBikes opposes registration and license plate requirements for e-bikes.
  The three-class system was developed to clearly define low-speed electric bicycles as bicycles, not motor vehicles, and to ensure they are regulated similarly to traditional bikes. Legal e-bikes are already subject to strict limits on motor power, speed, battery safety, and where they may be operated.

• Imposing registration and license plate requirements will not meaningfully improve safety. E-bikes are lighter and slower than motor vehicles, and crashes are far less severe. This proposal distracts from the primary source of traffic fatalities, which are large, fast motor vehicles, while risking unintended consequences, including discouraging e-bike use and shifting trips back to cars.

• Registration requirements would also increase costs and barriers for riders who rely on e-bikes as affordable transportation, disproportionately impacting lower-income communities and potentially increasing unnecessary enforcement interactions.

• Additionally, further regulating Class 2 and 3 e-bikes will not address youth misuse. Many of the devices causing concern exceed legal e-bike limits and are not e-bikes at all.

If the Legislature’s goal is to address safety and youth access, the focus should be on e-motos rather than e-bikes.

A better approach is to regulate high-powered e-motos as motor vehicles

• Clarify that any device exceeding 750 watts or 20 mph on motor power alone, or designed to be modified to do so, is not an electric bicycle and cannot be sold or labeled as one

• Treat high-speed electric devices as motor vehicles subject to registration, license plates, operator licensing, and insurance requirements

• If registration is warranted, it should apply to motor vehicles, not bicycles.

PeopleForBikes and a coalition of advocates is actively working on legislation to address high speed mobility devices while preserving legal low speed e-bikes. We invite Assembly Member Bauer Kahan to be a part of this effort and are happy to meet on this issue. 

Thanks all,

Ash

On Fri, Feb 13, 2026 at 10:33 AM Clinton Sandusky <clint.s...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello Ash,

Thanks for the quick reply, information, and efforts!

Heather Mason from the National Bicycle Dealers Association would be the appropriate contact to share talking points with. I would also highly suggest collaborating with my organization (the other statewide bicycle advocacy organization) CABO | California Association of Bicycling Organizations. Jim Baross - CABO President, CyclingSavvy Instructor, League LCI and Coach (former League Board Member) was cc'd. Your lobbyist probably knows our highly respected lobbyist's, the Lombardos.

As far as the e-moto concern, listed below is what I recently shared with fellow bicycling colleagues in California and beyond:

2026 and parts of 2025 are going to be an interesting and challenging year for conventional but certainly electric bicycles (laws, usage, education)! New CA laws going into effect, like:

• Bill Text - AB-875 Vehicle removal. - a good tool for law enforcement.
• Bill Text - SB-586 Off-highway electric motorcycles. - finally! Defines for the first time OHEMs. Note: From what know, illegal electric motorcycles -- like Sur-Rons I believe -- do not have VINs (PINs or other identifiers) so they cannot be registered as OHEMs in at least California.
• Bill Text - SB-1271 Electric bicycles, powered mobility devices, and storage batteries. - various sections operative 2025, 2026, or 2028
• California Code, VEH 312.5. - effective January 1, 2025: A NEW Subsection (d) which states:

(d) The following vehicles are not electric bicycles under this code and shall not be advertised, sold, offered for sale, or labeled as electric bicycles:

(1) A vehicle with two or three wheels powered by an electric motor that is intended by the manufacturer to be modifiable to attain a speed greater than 20 miles per hour on motor power alone or to attain more than 750 watts of power.

(2) A vehicle that is modified to attain a speed greater than 20 miles per hour on motor power alone or to have motor power of more than 750 watts.

(3) A vehicle that is modified to have its operable pedals removed.

Note: Unfortunately, this leaves a big gap between legal electric bicycles (CVC 312.5) and now off-highway electric motorcycles (CVC 436.1)! Therefore, WHAT type of electric "vehicle" are they?

Clint Sandusky
Riverside (CA) Community College District PD (cpl., ret.)
CA POST-certified Bicycle Patrol Instructor (30 yrs.)
Cycling in Traffic Expert & Educator
E-Bike Expert, Educator, Instructor, Author & Consultant
CABO, District 8 Rep.
(951) 906-1468

On Fri, Feb 13, 2026 at 9:16 AM Ash Lovell <a...@peopleforbikes.org> wrote:

Hi Clint and all,

Thanks for flagging, we heard about this from our CA lobbyist this morning.

We are already working with our lobbyist, CalBike, SAFE and SFA in CA to push back against the bill. We're drafting talking points that explain why PFB and our partners oppose license/registration and our recommendations instead. I’m happy to share those talking points with this group when they’re ready.

We're also working with Sen. Blakespear's office (who is intro'ing the model e-moto legislation) to push for her (our) solution instead of this new bill.

I'll keep you posted as we learn more.

Best,

Ash

Ash Lovell, Ph.D.

Vice President of Government Relations

PeopleForBikes

P.O. Box 2359 / Boulder, CO 80306

MOBILE: 720.425.5730

PeopleForBikes.org

On Fri, Feb 13, 2026 at 9:02 AM Clinton Sandusky <clint.s...@gmail.com> wrote:

Good morning, everyone,

Here we go again (the New Jersey effect?!)!

Based on information received from a colleague with our CABO | California Association of Bicycling Organizations, CA Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, joined by Walnut Creek Mayor Kevin Wilk and Dr. Craig De Vinney, will announce the E-Bike Accountability Act legislation requiring registration and license plates for Class 2 and Class 3 e-bikes to strengthen safety and accountability across California.

Scheduled for Feb. 13, 2026, at 2:30 p.m. (PST) to be broadcast live on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYDpYwbs1o4

As of the date/time of this email, the bill has not yet been introduced, as shown below:

Clint Sandusky

--

Ash Lovell, Ph.D.

Vice President of Government Relations

PeopleForBikes

P.O. Box 2359 / Boulder, CO 80306

MOBILE: 720.425.5730

PeopleForBikes.org