New Federal E-Bike Legislation March 2026

[stompandgo]

I think that the only saving grace for MA not doing bans so far is that they shelled out for a massive voucher program the past two years that subsidized e-bike sales for low income residents that had no other means of transportation. Thousands were sold on my tax dollars dime. It cost the shop money in the end.

It would be quite embarrassing if they were banned from the safest places to ride them.

That said, the politicians in this state are some of the stupidest in the nation. No decision they make would surprise me.

 

[Ken M]

There was once a law that cars were required to have a flagger walk 1/8 mile ahead of the automobile to warn people of the approaching vehicle

That was a "use" law - an example of when a state does something stupid like the 3-class legislation (this was not a "use" law). For interstate commerce we need federal definitions for what is legal for sale in all 50 states (HR727 did that for low power electric bikes but also established that they were just another type of bike...not a motor vehicle so long as compliant). These are two mutually exclusive things that is causing much of the confusion. HR727 (what defines a "low speed electric bike" for the CPSC) is very basic and established that under motor power alone the speed was limited to 20mph (that did not mean that level of assist could not continue to avoid the cut-off that the EU pushed). It did not distinguish between pedal assist or throttle because they guy that wrote it was smart enough to know that would have zero merit (no safety merit, no real performance merit).

You have been dealing with state "use" regulations. Somehow states are thinking a Surron with pedals is a compliant ebike and they are not. When they think that they want to ban them but they are not even compliant LSEBs so a separate product all together anyway.

 

[Chargeride]

Theres an awful lot of misinformation, misconceptions and purposeful ignorance.
The only thing preventing complete lockdown is climate change.
Its not a good look to be clamping down on zero emission ,personal low speed transport.
Speed is relative, I have got used to 16mph, and tbh in such a small country as mine its a good idea to slow to see its endless hidden history.

Millions of people, myself included walk around the countryside at 3mph, an ebike is powered to 5X that speed.

10X downhill

 

[Ken M]

10X downhill

Yes....10X downhill is easy to do without a motor or even pedaling which is why the 28-30mph top assist makes a little sense as an ebike would not really exceed a speed commonly achieved on traditional bikes. Going downhill is also when a lot of accidents happen...maybe the largest %.

 

[David42000]

Because what we have doesn't work. It has no teeth, it is unenforceable and it was written 24 years ago for a couple thousand brushed hub motor ebikes, with 24V sealed lead acid batteries.

Have a heart, if not common sense. The new law will not eliminate your 20mph throttle ebike. The new law will eliminate the sale of emotos.

These stories are an everyday occurrence. We can either have reasonable laws or they will ban ebikes entirely.

Yearly deaths from bicycles: 1000+
Yearly deaths from e-bikes/e-motos: 93.
Why isn't the news about all the bicycle deaths? Becasue that is old hat and no-one is going to tune in to hear about the Bicycle "crisis." Somethinbg new, dangerous and scary! Oh my! I'll help the local station out with their ratings, for sure!
This is irrational animus toward a new technology.

 

[David42000]

Honestly not nearly as bad as it could be, given lawmakers general lack of knowledge about technical details. Some sort of legal backlash has been inevitable for a while now (at least IMO) given the proliferation of emotos. For the most part its just nationalizing the 3 class system that is the current standard in a lot of states (including mine) so it doesn't look to change much to people in those states. The provision that has the most potential to upend the market is point 4 in the draft bill, which prohibits the sale of any ebike that can be configured to increase max speed or motor power beyond the federal definition, at least if its labeled or marketed as an ebike. Will be interesting to see how the emoto sellers work around that if it comes into effect.

PFB is right that there is a patchwork of laws. There is not a near-nationwide "standard." There are 1000+ bicycle deaths per year and only 93 deaths per year on e-bikes. "e-motos" is an ill-defined category. There is no crisis here, but because bikes are old hat an electric bicycles are a relatively new technology, electric bike stories get the clicks and the T.V. ratings stories about bike deaths don't.

Back in 2014 there were basically two buckets: States that conformed with federal law at a 1000 watt (continuous) cap (slightly less stringent, perhaps, for more efficient motors) and states that refused, and classified e-bikes as motor vehicles instead. All PFB did was create a different, and more confusing, patchwork.

Like I have said previously, I recognize the reasons you support 3 class and agree to an extent. Something similar would be good, if it weren't vague and keeping the only part of 15 USC 2085 (Ken's HB 727) that is, in fact outdated. That's the "less than 750 watts" part, because the market was not saturated with 750 watt motors at that time. Dr. Currie did not consider 750 watt motors and reject them in favor of a cutoff at "less than 750 watts." The proliferation of the 750 watt motor was a reaction to the law, rather than the law being a reaction to 750 watt motors. He was an electric light vehicle enthusiast and wanted people out of their cars as solutions to smog and traffic density.

For years we have glossed over the one watt difference as insignificant. What happens when heavy enforcement falls on Group 2 and Group 3 states when there is not just federal "less than" law AND a bright line emoto cutoff law at "More than 750 watts?" All of a sudden that one watt is incredibly important.

This is the current patchwork problem: People in 17 states will suddenly have illegal 750 watt bikes with stickers on them saying so. Will they rush out and buy new "compliant" e-bikes boosting the profits of the compnaies that control the PFB board? Or will they walk away in disgust at the shell game? THAT is what will happen, if SAFE SPEEDS and E-moto bills pass.

It wasn't very long ago that PFB assured us they were only clarifying the law, and they also said numerous times they had no interest in regulating "e-motos," which we may all have different mental concepts of. I'm certainly never going to consider a one watt discrepancy to be the difference between a bicycle and a motorcycle.

Grouping	Description	States
Group 1: "Less Than" (Blind)	Adopted PFB "less than" (and nearly all 3 class) language verbatim; 750W sticker is prima facie non-compliant.	AL, AZ, AR, CT, FL, ID, IL, IA, KS, LA, ME, MD, MS, MO, NH, NJ, NM, NY, ND, OH, SD, TN, TX, VT, VA, WV, WI, WY
Group 2: "No More Than"	Inclusive ceiling; "no more than" 750W. This reflects legislative consideration of the popularity of 750 watt motors.	CA, CO, DE, GA, HI, MA, MI, MN, NV, NC, OK, PA, SC, UT, WA
Group 3: "Averaging"	Vague "averaging" power definitions;	IN, NE
Group 4: Outliers	Rely on legacy/mechanical definitions; One (Oregon) is the most compliant with fed. law of all the states in this group. w/ a 1000 watt ceiling AK and KY have no special e-bike law at all.	AK, KY, MT, OR, RI

PFB caused this. They could have avoided it by recognizing that the 750 watt motor came into being as an industry and consumer favorite as a result of 15 USC 2085. Read correctly, Dr. Currie left wiggle room (becasue no two bikes are ever exactly alike) for manufacturer testing between 1 h.p. (745.7 mechanical watts) and "less than" 750 mechanical watts. He didn't eliminate 750 watts precisely because he thought the 750 watt motor was too powerful. The 750 watt motor wasn't a thing yet. PFB kept the "less than 750 watts" and divorced it from the standard "1 h.p." that indicates the ~750 is mechanical. Recognition of the mechanical standard results in 900-1000 watts continuous electrical necessary to produce ~1 h.p. at the shaft. A large number of states used to have a 1000 watt law in recognition of the federal standard. The rest had failed to reclassify e-bikes as bicycles. PFB could have targeted only those states like Alaska and now like New Jersey that kept calling electric bikes motor vehicles in defiance of federal law and had them conform with the state level standard of 1000 watts continuous. Instead they substituted something much vaguer and entirely different.

You don't accidentally do something like this. It is very purposeful. It's activist creep and market manipulation.

You note correctly that we are an unpopular group politically and have no clout. Once this plan is completed, and the e-bike returns to a niche market for the wealthy and the hard core enthusiast, you'll find that even less clout is much worse than the clout possible now if we all focus on saving the e-bike instead of squabbling over 3 class or 15 USC 2085. When 15 USC 2085 is gone, we are in a deep pile of nasty stuff.

 

[RunForTheHills]

Yearly deaths from bicycles: 1000+
Yearly deaths from e-bikes/e-motos: 93.
Why isn't the news about all the bicycle deaths? Becasue that is old hat and no-one is going to tune in to hear about the Bicycle "crisis." Somethinbg new, dangerous and scary! Oh my! I'll help the local station out with their ratings, for sure!
This is irrational animus toward a new technology.

Because approximately 96% of all fatal bicycle accidents in the United States involve a collision with an automobile or other motor vehicle. Cars are the cause of most bicycle fatalities and nobody wants to ban cars.

 

[David42000]

Because approximately 96% of all fatal bicycle accidents in the United States involve a collision with an automobile or other motor vehicle. Cars are the cause of most bicycle fatalities and nobody wants to ban cars.

Of course. But that doesn't change the fact that this is whipped up hysteria. They won't ban cars, you're right. But there is a lot of incremental stuff that will wind up as registration, like collecting the accident statistics without fault or millions of miles driven like real traffic science demands. THEN the next step is require odometers and registration because registration is the data collection point.

 

[Ken M]

Well, it’s certainly time for an update. Like many things, though, I wonder if federal legislation will have teeth at the state level.

Anyway, I hope the rules become CLEAR and ENFORCEABLE as those are my criteria. I think questions of technology (like power, etc.) should be avoided, but I know they’ll complicate things. The rules should be speed based. Just my opinion.

The CPSC / Federal regulations are supposed to establish what is legal for sale in all 50 states. Almost everyone gets confused on this fact. The states are supposed to regulate "use" of what the feds have established as a compliant "low speed electric bicycle" defined by HR727. I get a ton of heat on this forum every time I point this out but it's the way the regulations are supposed to work. The 3-class system that People for Bikes pushed at the state level was a huge mistake but it was pushed by the auto industry to keep ebikes from being considered as transportation substitutes for cars.

 

[RunForTheHills]

Except that it doesn't keep ebikes from being considered as transportation substitutes for cars. Poor bicycle infrastructure and cultural mindsets do that. And the further you get from dense urban areas, the less practical bicycles become for transportation.

 

[Ken M]

Like I have said previously, I recognize the reasons you support 3 class and agree to an extent. Something similar would be good, if it weren't vague and keeping the only part of 15 USC 2085 (Ken's HB 727) that is, in fact outdated. That's the "less than 750 watts" part, because the market was not saturated with 750 watt motors at that time. Dr. Currie did not consider 750 watt motors and reject them in favor of a cutoff at "less than 750 watts." The proliferation of the 750 watt motor was a reaction to the law, rather than the law being a reaction to 750 watt motors. He was an electric light vehicle enthusiast and wanted people out of their cars as solutions to smog and traffic density.

We all need to understand what Dr. Currie really did with his multi-year effort to get HR727 passed. He move the legal purview for ebikes from the NHTSA (if a bike had a motor there were viewed the same as a motorcycle) to the CPSC, thus ebikes went into the 15 USC 2085 safety standards as a non-motorized bike. The NHTSA was explicit that "motor alone" speed could not exceed 20mph so Dr. Currie created some confusing text in HR727 that didn't establish a motor assist cut-off at 20mph but allowed the assist to sustain a 170lb rider on a level surface at 20mph to continue beyond 20mph. While no one interprets it that way, that is exactly what he intended (I've talked with the lawyer that worked with him all those years). The less than 750 is always interpreted as a power limit for the motor but it's only a motor rating which was very intentional as well. Dr. Currie wanted to allow peak power to be higher below 20mph which makes GREAT SENSE for cargo bikes and to ensure enough power to sustain 20mph up hills (about 1600W is required to sustain a 200lb rider up a 6 degree slope hill at 20mph). For an ebike to be a viable transportation solution this is important...it's not for ebikes to be good for recreation/leisure/fitness which is what most people think ebikes are supposed to be used for.

The biggest problem is the fact that people and lawmakers don't grasp that the CPSC is about interstate commerce - to define a product that can be sold in all 50 states. The states are supposed to only establish the "used" regulations for that product. People for Bikes certainly did not understand this when they took lobby money from the auto industry to push the 3 class legislation. The HR727 definition was intended to make a compliant "low speed electric bicycle" to be "use" regulated the same a bicycles have been regulated for 100 years. It made perfect sense and was simple!!!

 

[Ken M]

When 15 USC 2085 is gone, we are in a deep pile of nasty stuff.

Yes ... the original definition of a low speed electric bicycles in HR727 must be protected or we are in a deep pile of nasty regulatory capture to keep ebikes as only good for recreation/leisure/fitness solutions and not effective transportation solution as Dr. Currie intended. I get hammered for saying People for Bikes started this mess but they did. Why they don't ever address it publicly says a lot.

 

[BlackHand]

The idea that Bosch is trying to deter people from riding ebikes so they can sell more car parts is ludicrous on its face.

Bosch dominates the ebike market in Europe, where ebikes ARE considered a viable everyday transportation option. And the European car market is about the same size as the US car market.

Just look at their annual report: if anything the ebike division is overrepresented in the publication based on the relatively small $$ of the conglomerate's revenues. They clearly view electrification as the future and their mobility products as a core part of the company's future.

If you want to criticize Bosch for trying to shape regulations to make it easier for them to penetrate the US market and harder for Chinese brands, that's fine. But please stop the foolishness that they were protecting their spark plug sales or whatever.