California is panicking about e-bikes. Here are the key takeaways:
There are eight e-bike bills happening in Sacramento this year. Streets For All is sponsoring two of them, and fighting to either amend or oppose six more.
A 2025 report commissioned by the legislature recommended focusing policy solutions on cracking down on illegal e-motos—not legal e-bikes. Yet most of the proposed legislation does not follow recommendations from the report.
These bills together could accelerate adoption of affordable, climate-friendly micromobility and give an economic boost to California’s growing e-bike industry—or they could shut it down entirely and functionally outlaw most e-bikes.
Write to your legislator to share your support for protecting the legal e-bike industry and cracking down on illegal e-motos. Your personal story makes a difference!
California is in a panic about kids on e-bikes. A patchwork of legislation is taking shape in Sacramento to address perceived safety issues, which the state has not adequately documented. Some of the bills are good. But a number of proposed bills would actively harm a growing industry that’s helping Californians ditch their cars for more affordable two-wheeled electric vehicles.
Concerned Californians need only look to New Jersey for a preview of what could happen here. Last year, that state effectively banned e-bikes after their legislature passed a bill requiring license and insurance on all two-wheeled electric devices (insurance products that don’t even exist for e-bikes), despite objections from advocates and the bike industry.
The benefits of the micromobility boom are hard to overstate. E-bikes and scooters are giving teens back the freedom that cars–and more recently, screens–have taken from them. They’re freeing parents (mostly moms) from constantly shuttling kids around. For people who depend on personal transportation, like delivery workers, e-bikes are a faster, cheaper alternative to cars. And they replace car trips with zero-emission vehicles, improving traffic and reducing demand for parking.
Policymakers should be asking how to help this technology flourish while minimizing the harm to consumers. Instead, we’re seeing a flood of poorly constructed proposals that could have far-reaching consequences for the millions of Californians who ride two-wheeled vehicles for recreation, transportation, or anything in between.
Streets For All is fighting for sensible e-bike legislation this year in Sacramento. Here's a breakdown of what's happening.
The background: E-bikes and the experts
E-bikes refer to electric bicycles, legally classified as Class I, Class II, or Class III. They have pedals and motor limits on speed and power. Check out Calbike’s helpful guide to e-bike classification.
Many of the devices marketed to parents and kids as “e-bikes” are not actually street legal —they're closer to electric mopeds or motorcycles. They lack the required vehicle identification numbers, turn signals, and license plates, meaning they can't legally be ridden on public roads. They also require M1 (motorcycle) drivers licenses, which is not made clear to unsuspecting buyers.
The core safety concerns are really about these illegal “e-motos” which can go up to 50mph, and not traditional e-bikes. We believe the legislature should be targeting these devices, not the legal e-bike industry. We’re working with our partners at CalBike and Streets Are For Everyone to educate law enforcement–City Attorneys, District Attorneys, and even the Attorney General–on existing laws that can be enforced against the retailers and manufacturers of these illegal devices.
A new report published in December 2025 also makes the case that illegal e-motos are the primary cause of increasing injuries among people riding bikes. The report, published by the Mineta Transportation Institute at San Jose State (required by SB-381) makes a number of policy recommendations to the legislature. We believe that the legislature should be looking to its own commissioned report for policy solutions, including:
Clarify the difference between legal e-bikes and e-motos: Consider creating a legal pathway for high-powered electric devices by modifying the definition of mopeds to include them. With that change, high-powered electric devices would require extra safety equipment, such as turn-signals, and require riders to have a special M1 drivers license.
Update manufacturing standards: Clarify manufacturing standards to establish 750 watts as maximum peak power for legal electric bicycles.
Collect better data: Revise the procedures that medical staff and police officers use to report incidents involving two-wheeled electric devices to accurately distinguish legal electric bicycles from other two-wheeled electric devices.
Establish statewide standards: Minimize local variation in rules on riding electric bicycles so that the public can be reasonably expected to know what the rules are.
Build safe bicycle infrastructure: Expand safe bicycle infrastructure to respond to the finding that a majority of electric bicycle fatalities nationwide involve a crash with a motor vehicle.
With 8 bills about this issue in the legislature right now, California could either get it right this year, or hamstring the nascent e-bike industry, which is helping to reduce climate emissions and make transportation more affordable for everyone.
A guide to the 2026 e-bike bills in California
Bills Streets For All Supports
SB 1167 (Blakespear) - SPONSORED BILL
Co-sponsored by Streets For All, CalBike, SAFE, and People for Bikes, this omnibus bill directly addresses the e-moto problem. It defines what does not qualify as an e-bike, prohibits selling non-e-bikes as e-bikes, strengthens definitions for motor-driven cycles and mopeds, adds labeling requirements, improves crash reporting standards, and more. This bill will help ensure devices are labeled truthfully, and make it easier to identify when retailers and manufacturers are selling devices that are not street legal. Read our support letter here.
AB 2284 (Dixon) - SPONSORED BILL
Sponsored by Streets For All, this bill would make it easier to identify illegal e-motos on our roads. Specifically, it requires the Attorney General, in partnership with bike nonprofits, to publish a list of devices commonly perceived as e-bikes that don’t meet legal requirements. This gives school districts and law enforcement agencies a practical tool for determining whether a device is legal. Read our support letter here.
Bills we will support if they are amended
AB 1569 (Davies) - SFA WILL SUPPORT IF AMENDED
This bill requires K-12 students to complete e-bike safety training before parking e-bikes on campus, with exemptions for schools adopting prior policies. Streets For All is largely supportive of this policy, with one suggested amendment to limit the requirement to K-8 students. Read our support if amended letter here.
Bills we oppose unless amended
AB 1557 (Papan) - OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED
This bill proposes significant changes to the three-class e-bike framework: capping all e-bikes at 750 watts peak power, limiting Class 1 and 2 e-bikes to 16 mph and 250 continuous watts, and exempting e-bikes purchased before the implementation date only if they don't exceed 750 watts of peak power. Streets For All and our allies at CalBike and Streets Are For Everyone, have major concerns with this bill.
Our biggest objection: this bill doesn't address the real problem, which is e-motos. Some changes to the three-class framework are reasonable—clarifying the 750-watt peak limit and restricting continuous power—but we oppose reducing the Class 1 speed limit, failing to exempt all currently legal e-bikes owned by consumers, setting an implementation date that's too soon, and new wattage rules that would harm cargo e-bikes. The wattage limits could also render certain types of bicycles, including those provided by shared mobility services like Baywheels and Lime or hub-powered Class 2 bikes, largely unusable in hilly cities like San Francisco. The changes proposed in this bill would also disproportionately harm more affordable e-bikes at the lower end of the market, making access to e-bikes more expensive for those who can least afford it. Read our oppose-unless-amended letter here.
AB 2346 (Wilson) - OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED
This bill makes several changes to equipment and some more severe changes to usage for e-bikes. We support the equipment provisions, which would require headlights and speedometers on Class 1 and 2 e-bikes starting in 2029. But we oppose several usage restrictions: a 10 mph sidewalk speed limit (we favor a yield-to-pedestrians standard instead), a separate speed limit for riders under 16 (an enforcement nightmare that could lead to discriminatory enforcement practices), and a provision that allows localities to set their own speed limits on bike and multiuse paths. Read our oppose-unless-amended letter here.
Bills we oppose
AB 2595 (Papan) - OPPOSE
This bill would create a pilot program in San Mateo County, allowing jurisdictions to prohibit riders under 12 from operating Class 1 and 2 e-bikes. A similar pilot program was already authorized by the legislature in San Diego County in 2023. We believe parents are the proper arbiters to decide when an e-bike is right for their child’s maturity, their route to school, and their competence to ride a bike. The state’s role is to ensure the devices available to parents are safe and legal e-bikes. We oppose this pilot until results from the San Diego pilot are published.
AB 1942 (Bauer-Kahan) - OPPOSE
This bill would require registration of Class 2 and 3 e-bikes and mandate state-issued license plates. It does nothing to address e-motos and instead creates regulatory barriers for people riding fully legal devices. Read our opposition letter here.
SB 956 (Choi) - OPPOSE
This bill would allow Orange County to implement a license plate program for e-bikes. The bill does not provide funding to create the program, and would create an onerous requirement for both riders, many of whom would not be able to get a license plate, as well as law enforcement, who would be redirected to enforcing violations against vehicles that are not responsible for the vast majority of injuries and deaths on our roads. Read our opposition letter here.