Blog

We will cover the main points of the state’s bill, HB 2021, below. First and foremost, this legislation would formally define the three-class e-bike system in Hawaii.

Following the widely-accepted definitions in PeopleForBikes’ Model Legislation, Class 1 e-bikes would offer pedal-assist up to 20 miles per hour. Class 2 e-bikes could be self-propelled via a throttle up to 20 mph. Class 3 e-bikes would offer pedal-assist up to 28 mph and be equipped with a speedometer. The bill would require an e-bike to have operable pedals and a motor of no more than 750 watts.

HB 2021 would also define “high speed electric devices” as having motors over 750 watts and being capable of speeds exceeding 28 mph. It would ban these devices from public roadways, bike lanes, bike facilities, sidewalks, and other public areas. Class 1, 2, and 3 e-bikes, however, could be used on sidewalks with a maximum speed of 10 mph.

Continuing with age requirements, the bill would raise the minimum age for unsupervised operation of Class 2 and Class 3 e-bikes from 15 to 16, allowing younger riders to use e-bikes when accompanied by a parent, guardian, or other adult. Anyone under 18 would need to wear a helmet when operating a bicycle on streets, bike paths, or other public property.

Among the bill’s most unique measures is the establishment of “safe riding behavior” requirements for e-bike riders. E-bikes would generally need to be operated with all wheels on the ground, with the rider facing forward and seated normally. Stunts such as wheelies, riding on handlebars, standing or kneeling on the seat, and other reckless maneuvers would be prohibited on public roads.

Additionally, e-bike manufacturers and sellers would need to add labels showing the bike’s class, top motor-assisted speed, and motor wattage. Any sellers shipping to Hawaii, including those operating online, would need to disclose whether a model is legal for public roads, sidewalks, or bike lanes. If bike makers or retailers violate these requirements, the state Department of Transportation could fine them up to $500 per infraction.

The bill would also keep e-bikes subject to Hawaii’s existing permanent registration requirement and $30 registration fee, though registered bikes would not need insurance. Those without registration would be prohibited from operating an e-bike on a public road, sidewalk, or bike path. Those who fail to comply could receive a citation or temporary impoundment of their bike.

The bill also cracks down on the use of high-speed electric devices by students. Electric motorcycles and similar devices with “ghost pedals” would be prohibited on all public K–12 campuses. Following the previous provisions for registration, public high schools could require county registration and decals for e-bikes brought onto campus.

As of April 24th, the bill was in conference committee, where members recommended it pass with amendments.

Our Take:
This bill is the latest in a series of sweeping legislative changes affecting e-bikes and higher-powered e-motos. More and more states are aiming to better divide and define these groups of devices for the sake of safety. The trend was prompted by an increasing wave of complaints, accidents, and injuries related to e-motos and their reckless use by young riders.

We support Hawaii’s efforts to encourage safety and create new definitions for various types of mobility devices. We do not, however, support the push for e-bikes following the 3-Class system to be registered, since this treats them more like cars and less like bicycles. It makes much more sense for e-motos and other high-power devices to require registration, since they are more likely to be traveling at high speeds around automobile traffic.

Following in the wake of similar motor power increases from brands like Specialized and Amflow, riders with Bosch’s Performance Line CX and CX-R mid-drives have access to the Performance Update 2.0 starting on May 4th. With this OTA update, users can increase their torque output to 120 Nm and raise support to 600% in Race, Turbo, eMTB+, Cargo, and Auto modes through the Bosch Flow app.

In contrast with some of its competitors’ approaches, Bosch says the goal of this update is not simply to make the motor more powerful all the time. Instead, the software is designed to recognize challenging moments and deliver short bursts of peak support only when needed.

This situation-specific power delivery will be enabled when riders encounter steep or technical terrain. Bosch expects that it should help preserve the pre-update range and reduce drivetrain wear by allowing the system to return to a more efficient level after the more demanding section is behind.

The company is also adding a new Live Data Interface that can pair with third-party GPS bike computers. Garmin is Bosch’s first partner, but fitness watches, smart glasses, helmets, apps, and other products from other brands might also work with this technology in the future.

Right now, certain Garmin Edge cycling computers can connect to Bosch-equipped e-bikes via Bluetooth. At the time of writing, supported Garmin models include the Edge 550, 850, and 1050. The Edge 540, 840, 1040, and Edge MTB are also compatible, with integration available through Garmin’s public Beta program.

Once an Edge is connected, the Garmin display will show essential e-bike data, including rider power, cadence, and speed. Other metrics, such as total distance, battery charge percentage, remaining range, and the status of Bosch’s eBike Lock theft protection feature can also be seen.
When implemented, a smart Range feature will be able to show estimated remaining distance based on the rider’s planned course.

By allowing its systems to pair with Garmin devices (and those from other brands), Bosch aims to give more flexibility to its users. It allows Bosch-equipped e-bikes to use the rider’s preferred digital setups instead of forcing them to use only its proprietary hardware or the Flow app. It is also more economical, as it doesn’t require a separate power meter to be added.

Additionally, Bosch announced a few upcoming features and products. Later this year, it will release a 12A charger capable of charging three times faster than its current 4A chargers. The brand claims its ultra-fast charger will be able to charge a PowerTube 800 battery to 50% in just an hour. The device should be available toward the end of 2026.

At around the midpoint of this year, riders will also be able to adjust the length of the overrun of the Extended Boost feature with some motors. The overrun for each riding mode will be able to be customized separately in the eBike Flow app, providing up to 2.2 yards of extra power for overcoming technical sections with enough room for only a partial pedal stroke.

Finally, a Drivetrain Tensioner feature will soon be available for the Performance Line CX and CX-R motors. which will improve motor response for improved control and performance in technical sections when in eMTB+ and Race modes.

Our Take:
While Bosch has, relatively firmly, placed itself on the side of delivering natural-feeling pedal assist that doesn’t entirely supplant rider effort, the Performance Update 2.0 seems to be the company’s way of acknowledging consumer demand for more power.

We’re curious to experience the updated programming to see how the power delivery feels. Having experienced high-torque motors from Bosch’s rivals, the 120 Nm maximum sounds promising—as does the Garmin integration, Drivetrain Tensioner feature, and customization for Extended Boost.

Bosch’s continued development and commitment to the refinement of its products shows why the brand is a staple among high-end e-bikes. As demand for higher power output grows, there now seem to be two camps: one in favor of pushing limits and another that prefers a more conservative approach. The Performance Update 2.0 seems to be a way to stand in one camp while perhaps luring riders from the other.

This partnership between Tern and BikeInsure is a multi-year agreement designed to give Tern customers easier access to dedicated e-bike insurance. Considering that electric bikes are often excluded from homeowners and auto insurance policies, owners without standalone insurance may be left without meaningful protection for their high-value e-bikes.

While Tern has an excellent warranty that accompanies its products, the program is also meant to fill a gap that standard manufacturer warranties do not cover. A warranty may cover defects in materials or workmanship, but it typically does not cover theft or accidental damage—both things that are covered under BikeInsure’s plans.

Steve Boyd, Tern’s GM in North America, said, “Electric bikes represent a meaningful investment, and customers want clarity on how to protect that investment from unexpected events. Our collaboration with BikeInsure simplifies that decision with a two-minute enrollment for a dedicated electric bike insurance solution covering new and previously purchased Tern e-bikes, including valued non-stock accessories. This approach allows Tern customers to enjoy their bikes with greater peace of mind and ride with confidence.”

Since BikeInsure’s coverage is a standalone policy, claims are handled directly through the company, and therefore, do not affect a rider’s homeowners or renters insurance policy. The company claims to have a streamlined claims process that can help customers repair or replace their bike quickly after a covered loss. Additionally, its deductibles are reportedly low, though we expect that will vary depending on the bike in question.

BikeInsure offers plans for many new and previously-purchased Tern e-bikes, allowing riders who already rely on the company’s folding or cargo e-bikes to get coverage. Signup is designed to be fast and simple; those interested can get more information through the Bike Insurance page on Tern’s website.

Our Take:
While we don’t support e-bike insurance being made mandatory (this is a separate issue), we’ve received a variety of questions and comments from readers and viewers who are interested in getting coverage. After all, an e-bike is an investment that most riders would be upset to lose. Plans such as those from BikeInsure could offer peace of mind for many consumers.

Considering that Tern’s products are often relatively high in cost, it makes sense for the brand to partner with an insurance company that can offer plans to owners of its premium e-bikes. It’s encouraging to hear that BikeInsure is putting a focus on the user-friendliness of its application and claims process. We hope to hear that the company follows through on providing a useful, affordable, and easy solution for e-bike insurance.

RUX, a maker of soft, weatherproof storage bags and containers, sent us their small Cooler Cube to try out. This cooler/lunchbox can fit food and/or beverages—up to a full 6-pack—keeping them cool and dry until the end of your ride.

The cooler uses a dry-bag design and durable construction, and is made of nylon fabric coated with heavy duty polyurethane. It also uses memory foam to create an insulating barrier and protective layer for the goods stored inside. This construction allows it to pack flat when needed while effectively keeping its contents cool and protected.

• Carries 5L
• Four can fit into a 25L RUX Cooler Bag or RUX Bag
• Measures 8.6 x 6.3 x 6.3 in
• Features multiple lash points for various ways of mounting it or tying it down
• Compatible with a shoulder strap or silicone straps to wrap around a handlebar
• Available in 4 colors
• Costs around $80

• How can I ensure a bike’s reliability, longevity, and serviceability?
• Why do we sometimes review products that fall outside the traditional three-class system?
• What city e-bike is best for a rider seeking low weight, a throttle, integrated tech, and at least 25 miles of range?
• How does the Velotric Tempo compare to the Velotric Breeze 1?

Riese & Müller, the German maker of premium urban and cargo e-bikes, has announced it will fully withdraw from the US market on July 31st of this year. The company first paused US shipments back in August 2025 due to tariff volatility, specifically a 50% tariff on steel used in e-bikes.

While that particular tariff has since been removed, the damage to long-term planning was already done. R&M cited “persistently challenging and increasingly volatile market conditions” as the driving force behind the decision. Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are not affected by the decision.

The US withdrawal will be structured to protect existing dealers and customers. Dealers will retain access to components, technical documentation, and support after sales end, and all warranty obligations will be honored. Orders can still be placed through July 31st, after which remaining dealer inventory will sell until it’s gone.

Our Take:
From our point of view, this decision is not a surprise, though it is disheartening. After last August’s pause in imports, the writing was on the wall for Riese & Müller. Tariff whiplash makes it nearly impossible for foreign brands to plan inventory, pricing, or distribution with any confidence.

R&M follows a similar path to Stromer, who made comparable statements before their own US exit. While the two companies are different, our staff’s experiences and difficulties in trying to source Stromer parts leads us to urge caution with any Riese & Müller purchases.

California has two separate bills moving simultaneously through its legislative process. AB 1557 would drop Class 1 and 2 e-bike speed limits from 20 mph to 16 mph and cap motors at 250W nominal, a dramatic reduction from the current 750W limit. Cargo e-bikes, however, would get an exception, still allowing motors up to 750W.

Additionally, the bill would make it illegal for manufacturers and retailers to make or sell e-bikes with motors that can exceed 750W. Companies that break this law could be punished with a fine of up to $15,000 with their first offense—and up to $50,000 for each future violation.

Current law prevents riders younger than 16 from using Class 3 e-bikes, but this bill would prevent kids in this age group from using any e-bikes that exceed 250W nominal.
Supporters of this bill are mainly medical groups and some cities, while opponents include most bicycle advocacy groups and retailers. The bill passed unanimously in California’s State Assembly and is now moving on to be heard by the Judiciary and Appropriations Committees.

Meanwhile, California’s SB 1167 aims to clarify e-bike and moped definitions. It prevents vehicles with motors exceeding 750W, throttle speeds above 20 mph, pedal assist that exceeds 28 mph, or the ability (as intended by the manufacturer) to be modified to do any of these things from being advertised, sold, or labeled as an e-bike.

The bill also replaces the definition of a motorized bicycle, now referring to them as mopeds. By the included definitions, a moped is considered a two- or three-wheeled vehicle with strict motor power limitations (4 brake horsepower). They are also specified as being designed for highway use, with speeds not exceeding 30 mph.

A third change is the addition of electric motors to the definition of a “motor-driven cycle.” These vehicles now include those with motors under 3,750W that produce up to 5 brake horsepower.
This bill was introduced by California Senator Catherine Blakespear and was developed in conjunction with PeopleForBikes, CalBike, and other industry-related groups. At this time, SB 1167 passed in the California Senate Transportation Committee, and now moves to the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee for consideration.

Our Take:
With a bill in Minnesota similar to SB 1167 currently in the works, we find California’s approach to be cleaner and more respectful to current e-bike classifications. E-bikes and e-motos need separate definitions that respect lawful users, makers, and sellers of each product—not laws that hamper one type in an effort to curb the other.

It is somewhat perplexing, however, that the two CA bills are moving simultaneously through the state’s legislative process with such different—and seemingly contradictory—approaches.

To be clear, we do not support the restrictions put forth by AB 1557. While similar to current EU regulations, the enactment of this bill could decimate e-bike use in California, make similar restrictions in other states more likely, and make it much more difficult for manufacturers to make and sell e-bikes that meet varying restrictions in different states.

In Illinois, SB 3336 would require riders of e-bikes and e-motos capable of exceeding 28 mph to carry a driver’s license, registration, title, and insurance. Class 1 and 2 e-bikes would remain largely unchanged, though riders would need to be at least 15.

Additionally, the bill would require other mobility devices, such as electric scooters, skateboards, and unicycles, to be limited to 28 miles per hour on roads, paths, and sidewalks. It would mandate that riders of these devices be at least 16 years old.

This bill was created by the Illinois Secretary of State Alexi Giannoulias as part of his Ride Safe, Ride Smart, Ride Ready campaign. The operation seeks to update the state’s laws and improve education and training around micromobility.

Giannoulias commented about the bill, saying, “As these devices become faster, heavier and more powerful, our laws must keep pace to protect riders and the public.This initiative closes dangerous regulatory gaps, creates uniformity across Illinois communities and ensures riders understand the responsibilities that come with high-speed electric devices. We’re replacing a confusing patchwork of local rules with clear statewide standards that prioritize safety.”

As of the writing of this post, the bill passed the Senate unanimously in a 54-0 vote, and is now headed to the House for consideration. If enacted, the law would go into effect on January 1, 2027. Importantly, e-bikes and e-motos purchased before that date would be exempt from the title requirement.

Our Take:
While this bill’s proposed action is relatively sudden and strong, the move to require users of high-speed e-bikes and e-motos to carry insurance, registration, etc. makes sense. After all, these products are different from, and potentially more dangerous than, e-bikes restricted to the Class 1, 2, and 3 limits of 20 and 28 mph, respectively.

Ultimately, the range of different e-bike-related bills currently being considered in various states underscores the need for a unified approach to their regulation. Federal definitions and laws governing e-bikes and e-motos would make it easier for brands to make and sell their products, while giving consumers some relief in knowing that the products they buy are legal in their areas.

It’s no secret, E-bikes are heavy. That’s just the reality, and it’s why vehicle racks that aren’t rated for e-bikes aren’t a good solution when you’re trying to load more than one or two of them. The VelociRAX 6 Max was built with that problem in mind; it hauls up to six bikes using a roll-in, roll-out system that eliminates lifting (almost) entirely.

Each tire basket supports up to 100 lbs, the total rack capacity is 300 lbs, and it handles wheels from 20-29 inches with tires up to 3 inches wide. So whether you’re mixing e-bikes with kids’ analog bikes for a family trip or hauling a group of riders to a trailhead, it’s likely going to cover the load. It mounts to a 2-inch Class 3 hitch, locks with a keyed hitch pin, and includes a garage-mount bracket for home storage.

There are a few things to know going in. The rack itself weighs 98 lbs, and getting it back to vertical when fully loaded with e-bikes can be difficult, but leaving the last bike off until it’s upright makes it manageable. Fender compatibility is also an issue right now, which is worth noting given how many commuter and cargo e-bikes run fenders.

Otherwise, the 6 Max’s no-lift loading is the headline feature; it’s built to match the demands of carrying large and heavy e-bikes. At the time of writing, it runs $1,179.

• How should I store my bike and care for my battery in winter?
• Which of the best folding e-bikes are the most comfortable and easiest to pedal without power?
• Would we be more likely to recommend the Aventon Aventure M or one of Aventon’s Level 4 models (the rear-hub REC or mid-drive ADV) to a rider looking to handle city riding, steep hills, and some off-roading?

The 3-class framework was designed for bicycles with electric motors – not motorcycles with pedals. Under federal and state definitions, a legal e-bike cannot exceed 750 watts of motor power, and it cannot travel faster than 20 mph on motor power alone. Those are the lines that separate a bicycle from a motor vehicle.

This framework took years of industry advocacy to build, and it gave the modern e-bike market its legal legitimacy.

Unfortunately, a growing category of products is blowing past both.

Machines weighing well over 100 pounds, powered by 5,000-watt motors, and capable of hitting 40 or 50 mph, are being marketed and sold online as E-bikes. Manufacturers exploit a straightforward loophole: attach a pair of functionally useless pedals to a dirt bike frame, and the vehicle can technically be classified as a bicycle. “That’s not innovation,” Dr. Lovell said. “That’s regulatory laundering.”

For years, the industry referred to these products as “out-of-class E-bikes” – a term Lovell acknowledged never really landed with the public. Last year, PeopleForBikes began promoting the term “eMoto” as a cleaner, more intuitive label for these vehicles. The definition, she said, is simple: if a vehicle exceeds 20 mph on throttle alone, or is powered by a motor larger than 750 watts, it belongs in the moped or motorcycle category.

There are two main categories of bikes that tend to push speed limits beyond what is legal: e-moped style E-bikes, and electric dirt bikes like Surrons.

At Electric Bike Report, we believe the distinction between these two styles of bikes is important so legislatures can create effective legislation to properly govern both styles of bikes.

Moped-Style E-Bikes

Moped-style E-bikes are designed to look like cafe racers, a very popular style of motorcycle from the 1960’s:

When you look at a Super73, you see the resemblance:

These moped-style or cafe racer style E-bikes are incredibly popular with teenagers. The bikes look cool, and they are fun to ride. Some brands follow the Class 3 guidelines and limit the speeds of these bikes to 20 mph on throttle and 28 mph while pedaling (although to be honest, pedaling this style of bike is not fun).

However, many brands that sell this style of bike notoriously allow riders to unlock the bike via an app or code, allowing them to speed beyond the allowed limits of a class 2 or 3 e-bike. Some brands require the consumer to verify / sign a waiver stating that they will be riding these vehicles off-road and aren’t subject to state regulations. This waiver may protect the brand’s backside legally; however, these waivers don’t help keep unlocked E-motos off public sidewalks and trails designated for E-bikes.

Given that these bikes could go faster than 28 mph, we naturally see people riding faster than 28 mph. Many of these riders are not licensed to drive a car and have very little to no understanding of how to operate a vehicle safely on the road. But, their parents bought them the E-moped because the bike shop told them they were buying and E-bike.

Major brands like Super73 appear to be doing all they can to backtrack and limit their bikes to safe speeds. However, we continue to get requests by brands who want us to review their moped-style e-moto. These brands still openly flaunt their bikes’ abilities to be unlocked and go 30+ mph – it’s a great selling point for a lot of people who love to ride fast.

Because so many of these E-motos continue to have motors that exceed 750 watts and go faster than 28 mph, legislators often place these bikes right alongside more powerful E-motos, such as ones from Surron and Talaria.

The issues with classifying both styles as one is that the legal, class 2 or 3 E-mopeds get thrown out with the bathwater. This also presents certain challenges to law enforcement officers.

Currently, electric vehicles that propel riders beyond Class 2 and 3 speeds are in a legal grey zone that is often undefined and not governed by the CPSC or NITSA.

This loophole has created a challenge for law enforcement. When an e-Moto passes a police officer at 35 mph in a bike lane or on a sidewalk, the responding officer faces ambiguity – the vehicle may or may not have pedals, no license plate, and no obvious motor vehicle markings. Classification stickers, which are supposed to identify these products, are frequently absent or deliberately placed out of sight, under the seat or near the bottom bracket.

LaCarrell, representing the motorcycle industry, pointed out that the confusion cuts both ways. “At the scene of one incident they’ll say it’s a bicycle,” she noted. “The next incident – same type of unit – they’ll say it’s a motorcycle.” Both industries absorb injury and fatality statistics that don’t accurately reflect their own products.

In many jurisdictions, particularly in California, officers are effectively prohibited from pursuing riders on these vehicles. If a rider crashes during a chase, the resulting liability falls on the department. “So they just don’t respond,” LaCarrell said.

No community has felt the impact of this challenge more than Marin County, California. As a high-income area with many early adopters of E-bikes, it became an instructive – and cautionary – case study.

Kullaway, who serves as both executive director of the Marin County Bicycle Coalition and as an elected official in San Anselmo, described watching the problem unfold over five years. Early enthusiasm about E-bikes quickly gave way to a different reality. Middle schoolers were posting footage of themselves riding Super 73s standing up, hands off the handlebars, on main arterial roads. The local press started calling them “the E-bike gangs of San Anselmo.” Community meetings that were supposed to address infrastructure and other community issues had to instead focus their attention on E-motos. Standing-room crowds of parents had no idea what they had actually purchased for their kids – because they had been told something different at the point of sale.

The downstream consequences have been significant:

• Schools banned all E-bikes from campus because administrators couldn’t distinguish legal models from illegal ones. Campus audits claimed to find that 80 to 90% of the vehicles students were riding, all sold as E-bikes, were actually illegal E-motos. That number hasn’t changed meaningfully despite years of sustained education efforts. Furthermore, it’s difficult even for experts to recognize if a moped-style e-bike is an illegal e-moto based solely on looks. They have to power on the bike and check the actual settings and speeds.
• A community e-bike safety program was shut down after insurance providers dropped coverage. The liability exposure from E-motos showing up to classes made the program uninsurable.
• Infrastructure advocacy has been derailed. “Every time I go in and talk about creating better infrastructure,” Kullaway said, “the chorus is always: what are you going to do about kids on E-bikes?”

The media has compounded the problem. Kullaway described a New York Times story headlined “An E-Bike Almost Killed Her, and Now She’s Fighting for Regulation.” She had been interviewed for the piece and said the reporter did solid work. An editor added the headline at the last minute. The vehicle involved was an e-Moto, not an e-Bike. Kullaway stated that “[I] interview with live journalists, I have them repeat things back to me, I think they get it, and then the article ends up being wrong every single time.”

Part of the reason why journalists incorrectly classify E-motos as E-bikes is because the Associated Press doesn’t have a word the reporters can officially use for E-motos. Everything falls under the ‘e-bike’ umbrella.

When lawmakers are inundated with constituent complaints about 40 mph “E-bikes” on sidewalks and bike paths, the policy response tends to be blunt rather than surgical.

New Jersey has emerged as the clearest example of what happens when legislatures act without drawing a distinction between E-motos and legitimate E-bikes. The state introduced sweeping policies that apply equally to both.

Kullaway described the consequence: “If you’re in New Jersey, and you are a mom on a cargo bike, with two kids on the back, you have to be registered, you have to have insurance, you have to have a license, and then each of you have to be wearing a motorcycle helmet.”

Under those requirements, a parent using a Class 1 cargo bike for the school run faces the same DMV obligations as a rider on a 500cc motorcycle. The panel’s position was uniform: that kind of blanket legislation does not solve the e-Moto problem. It eliminates the accessibility that makes legitimate E-bikes viable as a transportation and climate tool in the first place.

Kullaway noted that E-bikes are responsible globally for replacing at least one million barrels of oil emissions per day – a number that depends on continued, frictionless adoption.

The panel outlined a three-part strategy to move forward to increase consumer safety while also ensuring that license and registration are required for E-bikes across the nation – and made clear that none of the components work without the others:

• Legislation – draw a clear legal line between E-bikes and E-motos, and give law enforcement the tools to enforce it.
• Education – ensure the public, media, parents, and retailers understand the difference between an e-bike and an E-moto.
• Enforcement – equip officers with the clarity and legal authority to act when they encounter an out-of-class vehicle.

On the legislative front, Senator Blakespear’s SB 1167 was held up as the model. The bill does five things:

• Reconfirms the legal definition – any device with a motor exceeding 750 watts is not an e-bike.
• Requires point-of-sale disclosure – manufacturers and sellers must inform buyers when a vehicle doesn’t meet the e-bike definition.
• Closes the loophole – prohibits any two- or three-wheeled device capable of exceeding 20 mph on motor power alone from bypassing standard motor vehicle laws.
• Standardizes label placement – classification labels must appear visibly on the frame, where law enforcement and school officials can actually see them.
• Creates a reckless riding citation – gives law enforcement a practical enforcement tool that stops short of full DMV involvement.

Blakespear credited the bill’s traction to the industry’s willingness to self-regulate. “Part of the genius of this bill is that we’re saying we have to regulate ourselves and come up with these guidelines,” she said. “That kind of collaboration is what allows a bill like this to be successful.”

On education, Kullaway named a specific benchmark: getting the Associated Press to officially add “E-moto” to the AP Stylebook. Until journalists consistently use the correct term, she argued, the misidentification problem persists regardless of how much outreach the industry does. “Every time we educate people and they still use the word E-bike, I have less time to actually fight for safer streets and save lives.”

On enforcement, LaCarrell offered an alignment that surprised some in the room. The Motorcycle Industry Council, through its nonprofit arm the Motorcycle Safety Foundation, has already partnered with PeopleForBikes to launch a youth-focused e-bike education program. Her industry wants these vehicles properly classified and regulated. “I see this as the biggest opportunity we’ve been given in so long,” she said. “There are so many people out there riding two wheels. We need to educate them and figure out how to make this work.”

Dr. Lovell closed the session by drawing a direct line between the current moment and the industry’s past victories. “We have solved problems like this before,” she said. “We built the three-class system. We passed e-bike legislation across the country. We expanded trail access and transportation policy. And we did it by working together – brands, retailers, advocates, policymakers.”

California was the first state to adopt 3-class legislation. If SB 1167 fully passes, the panel argues it can serve as the first effective eMoto regulatory model – and other states will follow, just as they did before (since the panel, the bill passed the California Senate Committee and is now going to the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee for consideration).

The immediate ask from PeopleForBikes is straightforward: sign the letter of support for Senator Blakespear’s SB 1167. The industry built the framework that made the modern e-bike market possible. According to the leaders on that stage, protecting it will require the same unified effort that created it.