E-bike panic distracts California from legitimate discussions | Opinion

As electric bicycles become increasingly common on California’s streets, trails and bike paths, public concern about safety has also grown. That concern deserves serious attention, but meaningful solutions depend on understanding what the data actually shows.

One of the biggest challenges facing policymakers, researchers and advocates is that many crash and injury datasets do not clearly distinguish between legal e-bikes and electric motorcycles — often called “e-motos.”

Legal e-bikes, as defined in the California Vehicle Code, must have operable cranks and pedals and must not have a motor that exceeds 750 watts. Class one and two e-bikes have a maximum motor-assisted speed of 20 miles per hour. Class three e-bikes are limited to a maximum speed of 28 miles per hour, and riders must be 16 years of age or older and wear a helmet at all times.

E-motos, by comparison, exceed these speed limits and motor specifications, and they may come with foot pegs instead of cranks and pedals. These bike-shaped devices do not meet the legal requirements to be an e-bike. E-motos are sold under the provision that they are for off-road use only.

Hospitals, law enforcement agencies and researchers frequently rely on inconsistent reporting systems that make it difficult to determine exactly what type of device was involved in a collision or injury.

A recent Sacramento Bee article on rising e-bike and e-moto injuries highlights this problem. While the story raises important questions, it also illustrates why California’s e-bike debate must be grounded in accurate definitions and complete data.

The Mineta Transportation Institute, a nationally recognized transportation research center based at San José State University, repeatedly warns readers about the limitations of existing datasets and notes that many devices commonly classified as e-bikes do not meet California’s legal definition of an e-bike.

More importantly, the report places e-bike incidents in context by comparing crashes involving e-bikes to electric scooters and conventional bicycles. That broader perspective is often missing from public discussions that focus on raw injury numbers without considering exposure, ridership growth or relative risk.

Context matters because e-bikes are the only significant growth segment in the bicycle industry. As more people choose e-bikes for transportation and recreation, it is expected that incident numbers will increase. The more important question is whether the rate of risks-per-trip is increasing, not simply whether more people are riding.

Law enforcement officials are beginning to recognize the distinction between legal e-bikes and higher-powered devices. Sacramento County Sherrif’s Department Sgt. Jeremy Day recently noted that his department sees the most problems with electric motorcycles, followed by electric scooters, while “the least issues that we see are with e-bicycles.”

That distinction is critical because much of the public concern attributed to e-bikes actually involves electric motorcycles being marketed, sold and operated as e-bikes. It is easy for consumers, parents and policymakers to confuse e-motos with legal e-bikes. If California is concerned about illegal e-motos appearing on trails and bike paths, understanding how those devices enter the marketplace is just as important as examining rider behavior.

Sacramento faces a far larger transportation safety challenge that receives far less attention. Because the region’s transportation system remains overwhelmingly car-centric, pedestrians, runners, wheelchair users, cyclists and e-bike riders are often forced to compete for limited space on trails and shared-use paths. The answer is not to discourage e-bike use. The answer is to build safer and more abundant infrastructure that accommodates everyone.

Legal e-bikes reduce transportation costs, expand mobility for people who cannot or choose not to drive, reduce traffic congestion, improve air quality and help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If California is serious about meeting its climate goals and reducing car dependency, it should be encouraging responsible e-bike use rather than creating barriers to adoption.

One way California can hold retailers accountable for the marketing and sale of illegal e-motos is by passing Assembly Bill 1167, authored by Sen. Catherine Blakespear, D-Encinitas, which proposes to do just that. The bill clarifies how electric motorcycle-style devices fit within existing vehicle classifications and helps close regulatory gaps written for an era when motorcycles and mopeds were assumed to have internal-combustion engines.

California deserves a serious conversation about transportation safety, and that conversation must begin with accurate definitions, complete data and an honest assessment of risk.

Rob Youngren is the e-bike program manager for the Sacramento Area Bicycle Advocates.