California’s 2026 electric bicycle (e-bike) regulations address a growing transportation trend that is raising serious safety issues. The new laws classify and define e-bikes, while mandating authenticity and safety requirements, aiming to stem the rising number of injuries and flow of aftermarket-modified e-bikes into the marketplace.
While new e-bike safety laws expand the compliance obligations for manufacturers, retailers, and parents, they also reveal enforcement gaps that may increase liability rather than reduce risk.
This article explores the new laws and the work ahead for government, policymakers, and the community.
California’s E-Bike Classification Structure
California law (CVC 312.5) defines an electric bicycle as one with fully operable pedals and an electric motor rated at 750 watts or less. The state classifies e-bikes into three classes:
Class 1: Pedal-assisted only, with a top-assisted speed of 20 mph
Class 2: Throttle-enabled, with a top speed of 20 mph
Class 3: Pedal-assisted only, with a top-assisted speed of 28 mph
Classification determines where e-bike riders may legally operate their vehicles and who may ride them. For example, class 3 e-bike operators must be at least 16 years old and are permitted on roadways and bike lanes, but not on multi-use paths or trails. Class 1 and 2 e-bike riders of any age may ride on bike paths, trails, and bike lanes.
All Class 3 riders and Class 1 or 2 e-bike riders under 17 must wear helmets, and no class allows e-bike passengers.
Defining e-bikes, as distinct from motorless or motorized bicycles, draws a clear line between e-bikes and other modes of transportation. The clarification is crucial for informational and foundational means for purchasers, for corresponding legislation, and for law enforcement.
Recent Laws Affecting E-Bike Safety
Certification and Labeling Requirements (SB 1271)
California Senate Bill SB 1271 clarifies the maximum power and speed for e-bikes, distinguishing them from faster electric motor-driven cycles. It specifies that an e-bike has an “electric motor with continuous rated mechanical power of not more than 750 watts.” The word “continuous” targets classification loopholes for e-bikes that surge beyond the classification speed limit, even briefly.
Motorbikes, such as mopeds, motor scooters, and motorcycles, require licenses, registration, and road-use restrictions. The e-bike motor output and classifications keep them within the purview of bicycle legislation and enforcement.
The bill also requires new e-bike certification by reputable testing laboratories, evidenced by permanently affixed labels or logos that authenticate the e-bike’s classification and verify its compliance with applicable standards (UL 2849 for the electrical system and UL 2271 for batteries). Under this bill, manufacturers and sellers must verify the safety certification of e-bikes and e-bike components by producing test reports upon request.
The bill offers a viable effort to standardize and regulate the quality and safety of new e-bikes. Still, it may affect manufacturers’ and retailers’ compliance workflows with additional record-retention duties and audit and inspection requirements.
Battery Safety Certification (Effective January 1, 2026)
After January 1, 2026, e-bike batteries must be certified and labeled by an authorized safety testing laboratory, such as UL. Certification aims to reduce increasing incidences of lithium battery fires reported by agencies, primarily the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)—about 208 in 39 states between 2021 and 2022, and 31 more recently—especially in e-bikes and e-scooters.
New safety standards implicitly aim to remove non-standard products from the market and place the burden of doing so on manufacturers. The Class 3 age restriction places the onus on retailers to comply, with a penalty of $250 at sale for each violation.
Potential supply-chain disruptions from uncertified components and CPSC recalls pose challenges for enforcement authority coordination.
Visibility and Helmet Compliance Measures (AB 544)
Assembly Bill 544 requires e-bikes to have rear reflectors and red lights when in use to improve visibility and reduce accidents. Additionally, the bill allows minors to complete sanctioned e-bike safety courses to clear helmet violation citations after they provide proof of a proper helmet.
This bill, along with the other safety and certification bills, gives local cities and counties discretion to regulate e-bike use. Some municipalities are likely to enact stricter ordinances than others, creating a patchwork of local rules that may vary from city to city, obligating riders to know disparate local laws and raising issues of enforcement discretion and conflicting city rules.
Parental Liability and Enforcement Considerations
One new California law (California Vehicle Code (CVC) § 14607) authorizes citations to parents or guardians for certain e-bike violations committed by their minor children. The statute may motivate parents of minors to oversee their children’s e-bike riding and become aware of the legal equipment and safety requirements.
Additionally, prosecutors may invoke the child endangerment statute, California Penal Code §273a(a). In specific circumstances, the definition of child endangerment may apply to a parent or guardian who willfully allows a minor to ride a known illegal or unsafe e-bike. It is a crime for those entrusted to the care of children to endanger a child’s life or risk serious bodily harm to them. And though the provision is not specifically for e-bikes, prosecutors may consider filing criminal charges when appropriate.
Violating the new e-bike laws can result in fines, fix-it tickets, impoundment fees, or minor safety courses.
These new e-bike laws raise questions about how parents can make the right e-bike choices for their children and stay reasonably informed and compliant to avoid liability, given that e-bike mislabeling and after-sale modifications are increasingly common.
Regulatory Gaps and Ongoing Safety Risks
While safety certification and true class identification laws are practical safeguards, they do not fully address significant gaps.
E-bike modifications, misclassifications, rentals, and resales
Speciality bike shops or individuals may modify batteries, motors, or software to increase e-bike power and speed, essentially turning them into motorbikes in violation of state and local laws. These companies may then market these uncertified motorbikes as e-bikes with misrepresented classifications.
SB 1271 certification applies only to new bikes, not used ones, and only becomes effective for rentals in 2028, leaving a gap for evading regulation.
Manufacturers (responsible for certification, labeling, and potential recalls) and retailers (responsible for point-of-sale age verification) risk penalties for non-compliance under the new laws. As such, state legislators might explore higher penalties or laws that criminally and civilly penalize willful violators of the new rules through fraud or deceit.
Limited enforcement resources to police e-bike violations
E-bike law-enforcement challenges include insufficient resources to ensure that manufacturers, retailers, and riders comply with local and state rules. Thus, the new law enlists parental enforcement assistance.
The gaps that allow minors on purportedly Class 2 or 3 e-bikes to ride high-speed bikes capable of exceeding 30 mph underscore the gravity of non-compliance. As such, minors and their families are implicitly both co-enforcers and benefactors of e-bike safety efforts.
Medical organizations, such as the American College of Surgeons (ACS), recognize e-bike injuries as a growing concern, as they are more common and severe than traditional bicycle injuries. The organization’s June 6, 2022, “Statement on Electric Bicycle Safety and Injury Prevention” advocates for evidence-based policy to address the over 20,000 annual e-bike injuries and supports increased enforcement at all levels of government.
The ACS’s findings list head injuries as increasingly common in e-bike accidents, noting that more than half of injured riders were not wearing helmets. These and other statistics inform its recommendations for stricter equipment, classification, and helmet laws, among others. The report associates modified high-speed e-bikes with the poorest outcomes.
Policy Considerations Moving Forward
Extended education programs
In the future, policymakers might consider other ways to bolster e-bike safety. Measures to consider include e-bike education campaigns in schools for parents and students. Raising awareness of e-bike dangers and educating on safe riding practices, relevant laws, and verification of classification may reduce mistaken purchases, accidents, and infractions.
Expanded citation authority may affect parental purchasing and supervision decisions, especially regarding uncertified used e-bikes.
Increased inspection authority and enforcement resources
The CPSC regulates e-bike safety and manufacturer certification compliance. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulates e-bikes and other motorbikes for safety and registration compliance.
Forthcoming legislation might expand funding, authority, and regulations to enable national and local authorities to enforce e-bike misclassifications and curb unlawful abuses through increased inspections and citations.
Municipalities are likely to favor sharing the enforcement burdens with federal and state regulatory agencies.
Uniform injury and accident reporting systems
Uniform reporting systems that document accidents, injuries, and deaths nationwide can inform policy and assist lawmakers in developing new regulations that target statistically identified gaps with data-informed solutions.
Registering, licensing, and insuring e-bikes
Some local governments believe e-bike registration and licensing would help law enforcement efforts to trace non-conforming e-bikes. However, e-bike advocacy groups oppose additional restrictions, citing fears of overregulation and instead focusing on environmental and other benefits of e-bikes.
Potentially, treating California Class 2 and 3 e-bikes like motor-driven vehicles may help raise parental respect for and awareness of e-bike dangers and distribute financial liability risk to specific riders and cars.
However, while rider safety courses, registration, and insurance address enforcement, education, and safety issues, they also risk undermining the advantages of e-bikes for minors, unlicensed drivers, and families.
Potential age minimums for Class 2 e-bikes
Finally, other legislative considerations might include amending the California Vehicle Code to set a minimum age of 16 for all Class 2 e-bikes to reduce serious accidents involving younger riders.
Lawmakers might also consider whether raising the minimum age for Class 2 e-bikes would align with national gradual driver licensing frameworks, though such changes would raise equity and access concerns.
Lawmakers face the challenge of striking a balance between safety and the benefits of e-bikes. Working families rely on affordable, eco-friendly transportation for their minor children to attend school, work, and after-school activities. A minimum age requirement could eliminate many e-bike riders, financially dismantling working parents’ work-life balance.
Conclusion
California’s new e-bike legal laws are a calculated response to growing safety risks arising from the rapidly expanding popularity and production of e-bikes. Codified e-bike classifications, certification, and labeling requirements, and greater parental responsibility represent a concerted effort to combat modification, misclassification, and injury trends affecting minors. Concurrently, enforcement, after-sales modifications, and secondary markets pose challenges for regulators in this emerging e-bike landscape.
As families become more dependent on the convenience and freedom e-bikes offer, lawmakers will continue to address protections for minors and unlawful industry practices. California’s measured approach demonstrates both the benefits and constraints of negotiating safety concerns and access to practical transportation choices within legal frameworks.
