On March 6, 2026, Life Electric Vehicles finalized its $13.2 million purchase of Rad Power Bikes, or $14.9 million when liabilities are accounted for, ushering in a new chapter for the brand. The immediate plans are to resume operations, expand the retail footprint, and support existing Rad customers.

In a GeekWire interview discussing the future of Rad, new owner Rob Provost outlined potentially major changes to the company’s operations, including a desire to bring product assembly stateside.

Parts would still be sourced globally, as most major electronics continue to come from Asia, but bike assembly would move to a proposed 100,000-square-foot facility in the central U.S. The idea is that this would allow for a Foreign Trade Zone structure to help offset tariff burdens, which was one of the major factors in Rad’s downfall under previous ownership.

Other stated goals include improving distribution and logistics, expanding retail stores in key areas, establishing a battery replacement program—one of the final nails in the coffin before the bankruptcy sale—and more.

Our Take: Few brands have the name recognition Rad does across the e-bike landscape, so it’s encouraging to hear the new ownership has both short- and long-term plans for getting the brand back on track.

That said, this won’t be as easy as flipping a switch. Rad has endured plenty of rough headlines over the last few years, so winning customers back will take time and real effort.

The long-term goals are especially interesting. We’ve seen other companies aim for heavier stateside involvement in production, but with mixed results at best. If Rad can pull it off in a way that helps it better withstand the tariffs and logistical issues that contributed to its bankruptcy, then great—but for now, it still has an uphill climb ahead.

Juiced Bikes was one of the early standout names in the American e-bike scene. The company built a reputation around a certain cool factor, thanks to its moped-inspired designs, while several of its models became known for fast speeds and distinct styling.

Like many other companies over the last couple of years, tariffs greatly hurt the bottom line, and some mismanagement eventually caught up with the brand as sales slowed, leading to bankruptcy and a sale. Juiced was later acquired by Lectric E-Bikes co-founders Levi Conlow and Robby Deziel.

This past week, Juiced’s website started showing signs of life, with a return date teased for Spring 2026.

While there are still few concrete details about what the comeback will entail, teaser images of familiar-looking Juiced models suggest the brand will be sticking close to its roots. Moto-inspired designs, large bench seats, BMX handlebars, and 20×4” fat tires all appear to be part of the formula.

Austin Gomes is also prominently featured as the new general manager. He brings notable experience, having led the design of Lectric’s XP4, which Lectric has called America’s best-selling e-bike.

Our Take: We couldn’t be much more excited about this. Juiced was an icon, and we’re happy to see it make a comeback. Lectric’s owners have shown strong business instincts in turning Lectric into a powerhouse, so there’s reason to believe they can iron out many of the logistical issues that held Juiced back in the past. On top of that, having a proven designer helping lead the charge for whatever the next generation of Juiced bikes looks like feels like another win.

Juiced was never necessarily about having the best specs on paper or the smoothest ride around. It was, as the kids say, a “vibe.” The bikes were fast, fun, and the kind of thing you’d see someone riding and immediately feel a little FOMO over.

Needless to say, we’ve got high hopes and expect to see some interesting things from Juiced again soon.

• Have we tested many e-bikes that do solar charging like the Mokwheel models?.
• Is the new Ride1Up Vorsa FT a good thing with a similar platform with tweaks to fit needs?
• Should Velotric make cargo bikes again?.
• The JackRabbit XG, Urtopia Carbon Fold 2, Trek FX+1 and other lightweight bikes for climbing hills. .
• Would banning throttles on multi-use paths be a fair compromise instead of an outright ban?

One of the most recognizable names in longtail cargo bikes, Xtracycle, just introduced the new Swoop ASM, or Automatic Smile Machine. It’s a mid-drive family hauler that comes fully kitted with the accessories you actually need for carrying passengers right out of the box.

Key features include:

• Shimano EP6 mid-drive, with Class 1 or Class 3 configurations available
• 630Wh Shimano battery, rated for up to 60 miles of range
• Shimano Di2 electronic shifting with Auto Shift mode (it can downshift for you when you come to a stop, which is a lifesaver if you forget when the bike is loaded)
• Mixed wheel setup for stability: 24” front / 20” rear
• Dropper seatpost
• Hooptie kid carrier / handrails
• Front rack
• MIK HD rear rack
• Wheel skirts
• Passenger footrests
• Wide-angle lighting
• Xtracycle also lists a broad range of add-ons, baskets, and crates, plus a lifetime frame warranty and local professional assembly available.

Pricing starts at $4499, but they’re offering a $500 launch discount

Our take: This looks like a genuinely well-thought-out package. The Auto Shift and dropper post are both smart, practical choices for a bike that’s going to be doing lots of stop-and-go riding with kids onboard, especially when you’re trying to get stable at a stop and put a foot down confidently while perhaps forgetting to shift along the way.

I’m 6’1” with long legs, getting a foot or two feet down is something I take for granted. My wife cites this as a reason she doesn’t cycle as much, and is hesitant to try a cargo bike in case she can’t support bike weight + two kids on the back with sure footing underneath. The dropper post could change a lot of minds and open up possibilities for more people if they feel they’ll be able to operate the whole ride more confidently.

On Feb 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not allow the president to impose tariffs. Since then, numerous companies’ legal teams have been suing to recoup what they paid in tariffs. Several cycling names are joining that growing list, including: Trek, Specialized, Shimano, Marin, Ibis, Bell Sports, Quality Bicycle Products (QBP), Yakima, and Tern. Retailers and adjacent outdoor brands are also involved, including REI, Patagonia, and Helly Hansen.

The suits are similar in nature, listing either the US government, Office of the President, and Customs and Border Protection as defendants in the suits, amongst other affiliated names.

Government officials have indicated legal action won’t be necessary to resolve tariffs; however, legal counsels suggest it could expedite the process for brands willing to pay for the legal fees.

Our Take: As far as the cycling industry goes, the tariff saga has been harmful. Many brands closed citing tariff pressures, several saw downturns in profits, and customers paid unnecessary increases on products when brands’ margins forced their hand, and prices were increased—the whole thing was just a mess.

Hopefully, with the Supreme Court’s ruling, brands can expect some stability. The damage is done; hopefully, some recovered costs can help, but this was a wildly unnecessary burden that did all harm and no good.

In October 2025, Guardian Bikes along with aluminum trade groups, proposed adding bike frames to a list of products subject to a 50% aluminum and steel tariff list. This is under Section 232 law.

Now that the government cannot impose IEEPA tariffs, routes like this for collecting tariff revenue represent a more prominent threat to the cycling industry.

PeopleForBikes is said to be “actively pushing back against the proposed inclusion of bicycle and e-bike HTS codes under Section 232 tariffs. In the coming weeks, the Commerce Department will decide which products will be added under the latest round of tariff inclusion requests.”

The comment period is now closed, but reportedly over 600 comments came from cycling industry types opposing the inclusion of frames being added to that list. Now, the advocacy group is urging people to contact their local representatives to let them know the ways this will harm business and affect the cycling community at large.

Our Take: We strongly oppose to what Guardian is doing here. You can get a deeper breakdown of what they’re doing here. The short version is: They make their own frames instead of importing them. They’re one of the few larger-scale manufacturing options that exist in the States. That’s commendable, but their posturing to impose tariffs on all other bike frames benefits nobody but themselves. Guardian alone can’t satisfy all aluminum and steel bike frame needs, especially since the majority of what they sell is to kids. Factories for manufacturing can’t be set up quickly, so this seems like a way to hinder rival brands and force their prices up while keeping their own costs controlled. Consumers will just end up footing the bill, and bike sales will slow, which is bad for the industry as a whole.

PeopleForBikes is right to raise the alarm here; this is potentially the next thing to kick the industry if bikes and e-bikes are rocked by the full force of what the Section 232 tariffs could mean.

Two high-population states are considering bills that would require e-bikes to be registered and display a plate.

In California, Assembly Bill 1942 (AB 1942) would require Class 2 and Class 3 e-bikes to be registered with the DMV and to display a special license plate mounted on the rear of the bike, visible and legible at all times.

In New York, Senate bill S2599A ( referred to as “Priscilla’s Law”) would require bicycles with electric assist to be registered and issued a number plate by the state, but the current language is targeted to a city of one million or more.

The aim of the goals is safety-focused. Advocates say it will help identify and crack down on repeat offenders who behave recklessly. Opponents feel this is bureaucracy that will harm those who already follow the rules, and it fails to address the larger culprits of e-motos that masquerade as e-bikes and that travel at excessively high speeds beyond the Class definition of e-bikes.

Neither proposal is final and is still working through its respective legislature. If passed, it would set a precedent for others to follow, as two of the most populous states in the nation.

Our Take: You’ll find no argument that we need safer streets, bike lanes, and multi-use paths. Much of that can be achieved through better infrastructure and education. Imposing forced registration will discourage e-bike adoption as a whole, which is problematic when you consider the transportation alternative it provides, the health benefits users get, and the good old-fashioned happiness that comes from feeling the wind in your face on a ride instead of staying at home or relying on cars.

Other laws, like California’s recent SB 1167, do more to clarify the differences between what is and what is not an e-bike. That would be a better way to do it, in our opinion. Let’s no longer allow overly powerful electric motos to pretend to be an e-bike just because they slap pedals on the machine. Those shouldn’t mix with cyclists and pedestrians, and are often the egregious offenders making the headlines. Registering these would be a good first step, then we can better discern how many e-bike riders are part of the problem with better labeling, before forcing bureaucracy on all e-bikers to register.

• Why does cadence matter when pedaling a mid-drive motor like on the Ramblas ADV? Isn’t it running a torque sensor?
• Help choosing between the Velotric Discover M, Discover 3, and Euphree City Robin X+.
• Is a coil fork worse than an air fork?
• Is the Pinion system on the Priority Skyline overly complicated? Why not just go with a classic chain and cassette? .
• How does one be a good citizen on the bike path?

A broad coalition of politicians, businesses, and advocacy groups sent a letter to Congress ahead of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act’s September 30 expiration. The letter urges lawmakers to maintain and increase funding for cycling and pedestrian projects in the next federal transportation package.

The signers include Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R–WV) and Rep. Sam Graves (R–MO), along with ranking members Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D–RI) and Rep. Rick Larsen (D–WA). The coalition also includes organizations such as American Trails, the League of American Bicyclists, PeopleForBikes, Rails to Trails Conservancy, and the Safe Routes Partnership.

Supporters say the letter is a proactive push to ensure that walking and biking investments don’t shrink after the current bill sunsets, particularly if federal priorities shift back toward a more vehicle- and bridge-centric approach. The coalition highlights recent progress in expanding multi-use trail networks nationwide, noting more than 42,500 miles of multi-use trails developed under the current initiative.

Our Take: E-bikes have helped a lot of people discover the benefits of cycling who might not have otherwise given it a shot. But access is only part of the equation. People also need to feel safe. Separated multi-use paths are a big deal for that, and they make riding feel more approachable for beginners, families, and anyone who simply doesn’t want to mix it up with traffic.

With more than 1,100 groups signing on, the message to Congress seems pretty clear: protected, connected places to walk and ride matter, and they’re worth continuing to fund.

Senate Bill 382 and House Bill 243 are moving through the Florida Legislature. Together, the bills aim to improve safety on shared multi-use paths and establish clearer expectations for how e-bikes interact with pedestrians. Under the proposals, riders would need to slow to 10 mph when they’re within roughly 50 feet of pedestrians, yield to them, and give an audible signal (such as a bell or verbal warning) before passing. The measures are framed as safeguards for crowded public spaces that weren’t originally designed with motor-assisted bicycles in mind.

The legislation would also direct law enforcement to more precisely record e-bike-related crashes and establish a task force to analyze e-bike accident data, rider behavior, and interactions with other path users, with an eye toward future regulation.

Supporters say the goal isn’t punishment, but clarity and improved safety where pedestrians and faster-moving riders share the same space. Critics argue the changes could be overly restrictive, or a sign of broader overreach to come.

The bills have not yet become law, but they have cleared early subcommittee stages with broad approval.

Our Take: We’ve been fairly critical of some recent e-bike legislation, but this one seems reasonable. A 10 mph speed when approaching and overtaking pedestrians is already best practice, and turning that expectation into law feels like a fair safety step for both riders and walkers.

The task force also makes sense. We’ve seen too much sloppy reporting that can’t tell a Surron from a Lectric XP, so improving crash reporting and creating a group that can actually study the data feels like a positive move, not a negative one.

• Is there a folding e-bike that comes with a hard case or other option for transportation and storage?
• Does a lightweight folding bike like the Urtopia Carbon Fold ST even need a rack to carry gear?
• Can you get a folding e-bike with BMX-style handlebars?
• How does the new Velotric Discover 3 compare to the old Discover 2?
• Help picking between the Discover 3, and the Nomad 2X.