People for Bikes: Progress on Ebike Laws in the US

[Jeremy McCreary]

Since the bill doesn't affect existing bike owners...

The language I've seen implies this, but is it explicitly stated?

And if so, exactly which bikes get grandfathered in? Hopefully not the Surron types.

 

[Nvreloader]

In everything I have read so far, there is NO Grandfather cause, only the Jan 26 date for bikes, battery's, and chargers, I can't find anything on repairing etc.
After Jan 26, if and when anything goes wrong with the bike, battery or charger, you are SOL, about the only thing to do repair it your self or put it in the dumpster, unless all of the items have the cert stamp.
ymmv

 

[mschwett]

In everything I have read so far, there is NO Grandfather cause, only the Jan 26 date for bikes, battery's, and chargers, I can't find anything on repairing etc.
After Jan 26, if and when anything goes wrong with the bike, battery or charger, you are SOL, about the only thing to do repair it your self or put it in the dumpster, unless all of the items have the cert stamp.
ymmv

did you actually read the thing? this seems like fear mongering based on nothing that’s in the actual legislation. maybe i’m missing something?!?

each of the provisions of 26301 starts “A person shall not distribute, sell, lease, or offer for sale or lease an electric bicycle unless….”

i see nothing changing the definition of an electric bicycle to require said certification nor any other changes to the vehicle code related to batteries. the rental clause in 26301 is even more lenient, allowing until 2028 to get certified batteries. it also very specifically excludes second hand sale.

this seems like a big nothingburger unless

1) you have a vested interest in selling bikes with potentially shitty batteries in california in 2026
2) you want to ride an e-bike on public streets with continuous rated mechanical power >750w
3) you want to ride >20mph without pedaling

 

[Jeremy McCreary]

Did a little searching in the text of S 1271 as signed.

The string "750" never appears with any qualifier like continuous or rated or mechanical. Always just "750 watts of power", as others have noted.

The string "power" appears 48 times, mostly as "powered". The term "power" is never explicitly defined.

The string "repair" never appears, so repair prospects after 2025 would seem to be a gray area.

The string "existing" only appears as "existing law".

The strings "grandfather", "legacy", and "exempt" never appear.

 

[6zfshdb]

still not sure how/why. are you saying it’s going to be really hard to test/certify a battery?

the majority of the population of california lives nowhere near (like hundreds of miles from) the border. i don’t think people from san francisco or los angeles are hitting up LBS in reno and las vegas!

unless you mean san diego and tijuana

I'm not saying it will be difficult for a lab to test a battery or bike, I just don't think many of the cheap imports will pass.

I was mostly joking, but personally, I did drive 3 hours to buy my bike since there were no dealers in my area.

 

[6zfshdb]

The language I've seen implies this, but is it explicitly stated?

And if so, exactly which bikes get grandfathered in? Hopefully not the Surron types.

Politicians become quite unpopular when they try to legislate away someone's property, or their ability to use it. Surron's, as well as "class 4" e-bikes, are already illegal to ride in many locations and no law to date has successfully stopped it. Perhaps this bill will stimulate law enforcement to step up enforcement. I won't hold my breath though.

 

[Dewey]

The history of the bill text shows the change occurred after June 26, and before August 22.

Bill text as of June 26, 2024
312.5. (a) An “electric bicycle” is a bicycle equipped with fully operable pedals and an electric motor with continuous rated mechanical power of not more than 750 watts.

Revised bill text as of August 22, 2024
312.5. (a) An “electric bicycle” is a bicycle equipped with fully operable pedals and an electric motor that does not exceed 750 watts of power.

 

[mschwett]

The history of the bill text shows the change occurred after June 26, and before August 22.

Bill text as of June 26, 2024
312.5. (a) An “electric bicycle” is a bicycle equipped with fully operable pedals and an electric motor with continuous rated mechanical power of not more than 750 watts.

Revised bill text as of August 22, 2024
312.5. (a) An “electric bicycle” is a bicycle equipped with fully operable pedals and an electric motor that does not exceed 750 watts of power.

aha!! the version i saw on legiscan was not current.

nonetheless, there is absolutely nothing which defines an electric bicycle as having a certified/tested battery. it simply says, over and over again, that you cannot SELL a vehicle with an uncertified battery in 2026, or rent one in 2028.

nobody is legislating anyone’s property out of existence.

 

[m@Robertson]

@Dewey has it pinpointed. You guys focusing on the battery issue are right too... it only affects the sales and rental industries (albeit *profoundly* with the implication that any bike rental outfit will have to literally trash their existing fleet by Jan 1 2026).

What really matters is the changed definition of what an ebike is. 750w 'continuous rated' was a nebulous definition (by necessity) and the new hard 750w limit coupled to saying anything that exceeds this hard limit is not an ebike (and no there is no grandfather clause)... that affects damn near every ebike legally sold in the state, and severely restricts California-legal power for manufactured bikes versus all-other-states. Limits it so much that a 250w-EU-spec bike may be more powerful, in fact.

IF it is not ignored, it will for example decimate the cargo bike industry. We'll have to see if this provision is ignored or enforced. If the latter the effect could be apocalyptic. A lot of us sat back and shook our heads when NYPD set up roadblocks and confiscated ebikes wholesale, demanding stiff fines to release the bikes (so they could confiscate them again) on a regular basis. That is now an option to law enforcement in California.

 

[Dewey]

Implications of SB 1271 redefining what is considered an "electric bicycle" in California, include:

• Safety: Owners of 750w "continuous rated" e-bikes, who purchased say a Class 1 or 2 bike and ride on bicycle infrastructure, now own a bike that falls outside the "electric bicycle" definition whereby they are "allowed wherever regular bikes are allowed unless a sign specifically prohibits electric bicycles", (source: CalBike).
• Liability: e-bike insurance policies will need to change to continue coverage.
• Vulnerable road user ordinances: issued at City or County level, often include wording covering pedestrians and bicycles, may be affected when riding anything no longer considered an Electric Bicycle under the revised state vehicle code. Again with collision insurance implications.
• Classification under state vehicle code: if not an electric bicycle, but not a motorized bicycle or moped, the state vehicle code would need to be revised again. Again with collision insurance implications.

On top of Matt's observation that most e-bikes in retailers inventory are no longer an "electric bicycle".

 

[mschwett]

@Dewey has it pinpointed. You guys focusing on the battery issue are right too... it only affects the sales and rental industries (albeit *profoundly* with the implication that any bike rental outfit will have to literally trash their existing fleet by Jan 1 2026).
…

the rental restrictions start 2028, not 2026.

 

[Chargeride]

Implications of SB 1271 redefining what is considered an "electric bicycle" in California, include:

• Safety: Owners of 750w "continuous rated" e-bikes, who purchased say a Class 1 or 2 bike and ride on bicycle infrastructure, now own a bike that falls outside the "electric bicycle" definition whereby they are "allowed wherever regular bikes are allowed unless a sign specifically prohibits electric bicycles", (source: CalBike).
• Liability: e-bike insurance policies will need to change to continue coverage.
• Vulnerable road user ordinances: issued at City or County level, often include wording covering pedestrians and bicycles, may be affected when riding anything no longer considered an Electric Bicycle under the revised state vehicle code. Again with collision insurance implications.
• Classification under state vehicle code: if not an electric bicycle, but not a motorized bicycle or moped, the state vehicle code would need to be revised again. Again with collision insurance implications.

On top of Matt's observation that most e-bikes in retailers inventory are no longer an "electric bicycle".

Well thats that cleared up.

 

[Jeremy McCreary]

Not a lawyer, but my wife's a professional at reading, analyzing, and tracking the evolution of complex regulatory legislation. She overheard this morning's long conversation with a legislative analyst at my CA assemblyperson's office regarding SB 1271. (Will post about that later.)

And while waiting patiently to talk to me about something else, she did her thing on SB 1271 and the underlying CA Vehicle Code (VEH). Regarding the 750W limit, she went straight back to the current VEH definition of an ebike (underlining mine):

312.5. (a) An “electric bicycle” is a bicycle equipped with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts.​

So from the beginning, no mention of exactly what kind of watts we're talking about beyond a wattage that's ostensibly a property of the motor itself.

Granted, we're still left to face all the slop surrounding motor power ratings. But to me, this makes the max electrical power available from the controller irrelevant. That's a property of the controller-battery combo, and these are physical components usually separate from the motor.

Now fast forward to SB 1271 as signed, wherein the VEH definition of an ebike is revised very slightly to read...

312.5. (a) An “electric bicycle” is a bicycle equipped with fully operable pedals and an electric motor that does not exceed 750 watts of power.​

The only difference is that a motor of exactly 750W is no longer disqualifying. The wattage is still a property of the motor, and we're really no worse off on the 750W limit than we were before.

SB 1271 originally sought to tighten up the kind of motor wattage in question by specifying continuous rated mechanical power. However laudable, wife says that proposed changes like this usually die when they start blocking agreement on bigger issues. And the clear focus of SB 1271 is on electrical safety, not motor power.

 

[mschwett]

....that affects damn near every ebike legally sold in the state, and severely restricts California-legal power for manufactured bikes versus all-other-states. Limits it so much that a 250w-EU-spec bike may be more powerful, in fact.

is that really true? i've had three e-bikes, purchased in california, none exceeded 750w peak power. looking around it seems that the "full power" bikes from major brands are also all under the limit, often using bosch motors, but sometimes hub drives, sometimes brose, etc: gazelle (c380+ 600w), specialized (vado 5.0 560w), trek (allant +7s 600w), even some cargo bikes (globe haul st 700w)

no doubt there are many much higher power bikes. but i think your "damn near every" is hyperbole at best.

 

[Nvreloader]

"On Friday 9/27/24 California Gov Newsom signed SB 1271"

mschwett​

I was going by the info posted here,
Which you can read here:

SB 1271: Electric bicycles, powered mobility devices, and storage batteries. | Digital Democracy

Digital Democracy overview of bill SB 1271: Electric bicycles, powered mobility devices, and storage batteries.

digitaldemocracy.calmatters.org

"mschwett"
"this seems like a big nothing burger unless,
1) you have a vested interest in selling bikes with potentially shitty batteries in california in 2026
2) you want to ride an e-bike on public streets with continuous rated mechanical power >750w
3) you want to ride >20mph without pedaling"

I don't give a damn what CA does as long as it stays on their side of the fence...
ymmv

 

[mschwett]

Not a lawyer, but my wife's a professional at reading, analyzing, and tracking the evolution of complex regulatory legislation. She overheard this morning's long conversation with a legislative analyst at my CA assemblyperson's office regarding SB 1271. (Will post about that later.)

And while waiting patiently to talk to me about something else, she did her thing on SB 1271 and the underlying CA Vehicle Code (VEH). Regarding the 750W limit, she went straight back to the current VEH definition of an ebike (underlining mine):

312.5. (a) An “electric bicycle” is a bicycle equipped with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts.​

So from the beginning, no mention of exactly what kind of watts we're talking about beyond a wattage that's ostensibly a property of the motor itself.

Granted, we're still left to face all the slop surrounding motor power ratings. But to me, this makes the max electrical power available from the controller irrelevant. That's a property of the controller, a physical component usually separate from the motor.

Now fast forward to SB 1271 as signed, wherein the definition of an ebike is revised very slightly to read...

312.5. (a) An “electric bicycle” is a bicycle equipped with fully operable pedals and an electric motor that does not exceed 750 watts of power.​

The only difference is that a motor of exactly 750W is no longer disqualifying. The wattage is still a property of the motor, and we're really no worse off on this limit than we were before.

SB 1271 originally sought to tighten up the kind of motor wattage in question by specifying continuous rated mechanical power. Wife says that proposed changes like this usually die when they start blocking agreement on bigger issues, however reasonable. And the clear focus of SB 1271 is on electrical safety, not motor power.

that's a very useful analysis. people jumped to the conclusion that because the original version of 1271 clarified "continuous mechanical power" the final version represented a change from the current law. but in fact there's still no definition of what a "motor of (less than) 750 watts of power." means. iirc the EU definition actually specifies some heat thresholds, or something in defining what "nominal" means?

 

[mschwett]

mschwett​

I was going by the info posted here,
Which you can read here:

SB 1271: Electric bicycles, powered mobility devices, and storage batteries. | Digital Democracy

Digital Democracy overview of bill SB 1271: Electric bicycles, powered mobility devices, and storage batteries.

digitaldemocracy.calmatters.org

"mschwett"
"this seems like a big nothing burger unless,
1) you have a vested interest in selling bikes with potentially shitty batteries in california in 2026
2) you want to ride an e-bike on public streets with continuous rated mechanical power >750w
3) you want to ride >20mph without pedaling"

I don't give a damn what CA does as long as it stays on their side of the fence...
ymmv

apparently you care enough about it (for whatever reason) to mis-state (intentionally or otherwise) the actual content of the law.

it says nothing about repairing bikes. no restrictions. no "grandfather" clause needed because the ONLY thing the law does is prevent you from SELLING bikes and batteries without certification starting in 2026.

After Jan 26, if and when anything goes wrong with the bike, battery or charger, you are SOL, about the only thing to do repair it your self or put it in the dumpster, unless all of the items have the cert stamp.

again, this is absolutely not true. show us the section of the final version of the bill which states that you cannot repair an e-bike which originally came with an uncertified battery? yes - the new battery will have to be certified. but that's the entire purpose of the law and there is absolutely no reason batteries shouldn't be or couldn't be certified for any bike on the market. the language also makes it clear that it's ok to certify either just a battery, or the whole system.

 

[tomjasz]

I ride what I ride, "mind your own damn business."