Andrew Wright is the Communications Director for the California Bicycle Coalition (CalBike).
California’s e-bike debate often begins with restrictions: Who should be allowed to ride? Where should they ride? Should throttles be permitted?
The California Bicycle Coalition — under its educational arm, the California Mobility Fund — convened the California Independent Electric Mobility Council in 2025, bringing together representatives from government agencies, public health, research, local advocacy and safety organizations, and the electric mobility industry. Meeting over a six-month period, members examined California’s e-bike classifications, emerging devices, age restrictions, education, enforcement, and consumer protection.
The report describes a complicated and rapidly changing market but says the Council found little disagreement about the fundamental value of legal e-bikes.
“The climate, public health, and equity case for expanding electric mobility is strong enough that the Council treated it as background consensus rather than something that needed relitigating,” says Kevin Claxton of CalBike.
E-bikes can make longer trips, hills, cargo hauling, and riding with children possible for people who might not otherwise use a bicycle. They also provide an affordable transportation option for Californians who cannot drive or do not have access to a car.
The report finds that California’s three-class e-bike system is functional, though poorly understood outside of professional policy circles. The larger problem is the growing number of faster and more powerful electric devices that fall outside those classes while being sold or marketed as e-bikes. That failure of translation has consequences at every stage of the debate. A parent shopping online may see a product advertised as an e-bike without any clear indication that it falls outside of California’s legal classes. A reporter covering a collision may use “e-bike” as a catch-all term even if it is actually a much faster device. An officer at the roadside may have little more than the device’s appearance to determine what the rider is operating. By the time residents bring their concerns to a city council, several distinct types of devices and behaviors have often been collapsed into a single category. The resulting policy can end up restricting legal e-bikes instead of addressing the faster, unregulated devices that often prompt the concern.
The Council’s discussion of throttles illustrates why simple distinctions can fall apart under scrutiny, and the characteristic that is easiest to observe is not necessarily the characteristic that matters most.
From the report’s section on “The Throttle Question”:
For law enforcement, throttle is the clearest field indicator; it’s something an officer can actually observe and act on. But the regulatory picture is messier. Federal law preempts states from banning throttles on e-bikes, and the line between pedal-assist and throttle is blurring as new devices enter the market.
“Class 2 throttle bikes also drew a more nuanced response than their reputation might suggest: several participants noted that throttle is precisely what makes e-bikes accessible for hauling cargo, for riders with physical limitations, and for people new to cycling, a genuine access benefit that gets lost when throttle becomes shorthand for the problem.”
The same complexity surfaced in the discussion of age restrictions. Council members saw more promise in education programs and approaches that account for a device’s performance rather than imposing one age cutoff across every e-bike class.
The Council’s work suggests a policy direction: preserve access to legal e-bikes and focus state action on the faster, more powerful devices that fall outside of California’s existing e-bike framework. The Council did not resolve every question around electric mobility, and the technology will continue to evolve. But its starting point offers California a sound way forward: e-bikes belong, consumers deserve accurate information, and policy should address the devices actually creating the regulatory gap.
From Findings to Legislation
Senate Bill 1167 — authored by Senator Catherine Blakespear and cosponsored by CalBike, PeopleForBikes, Streets For All, and Streets Are For Everyone — picks up this approach. The bill would give consumers clearer information about what they are buying and establish a lawful regulatory path for devices that exceed the limits of a legal e-bike.
“Californians deserve clarity when they walk into a bike shop or order online,” said Kendra Ramsey, Executive Director of CalBike. “SB 1167 protects access to safe, legal e-bikes while creating a clear and lawful path for faster devices that belong in a different regulatory category. This is about consumer protection and public safety, not restricting responsible riders.”
Author
About The Author
