New California law makes crystal clear which electric bikes are now ‘illegal’
California has led the nation in electric bicycle adoption, helping more people than ever before switch away from cars and toward smaller and more efficient transportation alternatives. However, the proliferation of electric bicycles has also led to a major uptick in higher-power models that have flaunted established e-bike laws, often being used on public roads and bike paths to the chagrin of many local residents.
A new law that came into effect this week has now further clarified which electric bicycles are street-legal and which fall afoul of regulations.
The legislation is meant to address the growing number of high-powered electric bikes, many of which use traditional electric bicycle components but are capable of achieving speeds and power levels that give them performance closer to mopeds and light motorcycles.
This phenomenon has led to a heavily charged debate around the colloquial term “e-bike” and the regulatory term “electric bicycle”. The main question has become whether increasing the power and speed of such bikes pushes them outside the realm of bicycles and into the class of mopeds and motorcycles. That distinction is important since the legal classification of “electric bicycle” provides for such bikes to be used in the widest possible areas, including on public roads and in bike paths, as well as negates the need to tag, title, or insure electric bicycles.
SB No. 1271 was signed into law last year and came into effect on January 1, 2015. The bill covered several new e-bike regulations, including fire safety regulations and requirements for third-party safety certifications that will come into effect over the next few years, as well as a further tightening of the three-class e-bike system to limit which electric bicycles can include hand throttles.
However, near the end of the new legislation is a three-line section that clearly outlines which vehicles are not considered to be “electric bicycles” under California law.
The following vehicles are not electric bicycles under this code and shall not be advertised, sold, offered for sale, or labeled as electric bicycles:
(1) A vehicle with two or three wheels powered by an electric motor that is intended by the manufacturer to be modifiable to attain a speed greater than 20 miles per hour on motor power alone or to attain more than 750 watts of power.
(2) A vehicle that is modified to attain a speed greater than 20 miles per hour on motor power alone or to have motor power of more than 750 watts.
(3) A vehicle that is modified to have its operable pedals removed.
The three points are used to exclude vehicles from the legal definition of an electric bicycle in California. This wouldn’t necessarily make these vehicles “illegal” per se, as they could still be sold, purchased, and ridden in California, simply not as “electric bicycles”. However, they could be illegal to use on public roads or in bike paths, where prohibited or not properly registered.
This not only impacts how such vehicles could be marketed, but also where and how they could be ridden. Powerful e-bikes that now fall outside the regulatory term “electric bicycles” could still be used off-road on private property or where allowed, and could potentially be ridden on public roads if properly registered as mopeds or motorcycles, though that would also require the e-bikes to meet the regulations for such vehicle classes.
Provision 1: E-bikes designed to be unlocked for higher power or throttle speeds
The first provision covered in the new law copied above applies to e-bikes designed by the manufacturer to be user-modifiable to go faster than 20 mph (32 km/h) on motor power alone (i.e. by use of a hand throttle that requires no pedaling input), or to provide more than 750 watts of power. To be clear: This does not make e-bikes that travel over 20 mph illegal (they can still travel up to 28 mph on pedal assist) but rather targets those that can achieve such speeds on throttle alone.
Most electric bicycles in the US, even those capable of traveling at speeds over 20 mph, ship in what is known as Class 2 mode, which includes having a software-limited top speed of 20 mph on throttle and/or pedal assist. However, it is common for many electric bicycles to be easily “unlocked” by the user, which often requires just a few seconds of changing settings in the bike’s digital display. This unlocking often allows riders to travel faster on pedal assist, usually up to 28 mph (45 km/h), and on some occasions unlocks that faster speed on throttle-only riding too.
Most of the mainstream electric bicycle brands in the US still limit throttle-only speeds to 20 mph, even when the e-bike is “unlocked” by the user, meaning they would not fall afoul of the new law based on higher speed pedal assist functionality. However, several brands do allow higher speed throttle riding above 20 mph, and these e-bikes would no longer be classified as electric bicycles in California, even when in their locked state with a 20 mph speed limiter. As the law is written, those e-bikes can not be considered electric bicycles in California because they are designed to be unlockable to higher speeds than 20 mph on throttle-only.
Additionally, any e-bike that can be unlocked to offer higher than 750W (one horsepower) will now also fall outside the confines of electric bicycles in California. This regulation, based on power instead of speed, is in effect a much wider net that will likely catch many – if not most- of the electric bicycles currently on the road. There has long been a 750W limit for e-bikes in the US, but this has traditionally been treated as a continuous power limit. The peak power of such e-bikes is usually higher, often landing in the 900-1,300W range. The new California law removes the word “continuous” from the regulation, meaning motors that are capable of briefly exceeding the 750W motor (i.e. most 750W motors), will now fall outside of electric bicycle regulations.
Provision 2: E-bikes modified for higher power or throttle speeds
While the first provision above ruled that any e-bikes intended to be unlocked for throttle-enabled speeds of over 20 mph or to provide more than 750W of power are no longer classified as electric bicycles, the second provision covers e-bikes that are modified to those parameters even without being intended for such modification.
This is a much smaller category of e-bikes and is usually indicative of custom or DIY builds. Most e-bikes capable of operating at performance levels now ruled outside of electric bicycle classification have simply been reprogrammed using the manufacturer’s own modifiable settings menu on the e-bike. But some riders use other methods to increase their e-bike’s power, such as by swapping out motors or controllers with faster and more powerful alternatives.
The second provision in the law targets these types of e-bikes, which weren’t intended to have been modified for higher speeds and power levels, but have been customized to do so anyway.
Provision 3: No pedals, no bicycle
The third provision simply clarifies the pedal rule: In order to be considered an electric bicycle, an e-bike must have functional pedals.
That doesn’t mean that if an e-bike has pedals that it is automatically considered to be an electric bicycle, but only that a lack of such pedals nullifies its status as an electric bicycle under the new regulations.
This has long been the case, but is simply further clarified in the new legislation to cover e-bikes that once had functional pedals that have since been removed.
The new legislation’s definitions of electric bicycles don’t mark a major shift for California, which has long used the three-class e-bike system. However, it does signify a clamping down on e-bikes that flaunt those regulations by more clearly codifying their out-of-class status and removing their ability to pass as electric bicycles, legally speaking.
Riders of Sur Ron-style e-bikes, including Talarias and other models that function more like light dirt bikes, have long known that their bikes were not legally classified as electric bicycles. But now, many of the more traditional-looking electric bikes, including from some fairly well-known manufacturers, are likely to find themselves on the wrong side of the law. This will be especially true in cases where the e-bikes are otherwise designed to appear and function like typical electric bicycles, yet are capable of reaching 28 mph speeds on throttle only.
What do you think of the new regulations for e-bikes in California? Let’s hear your thoughts in the comment section below.
tlv
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Environment
Tesla admits it would ‘suffer financial harm’ if its self-driving crash data becomes public
Tesla is caught in a legal fight in which it admitted that it would “suffer financial harm” if its self-driving crash data would becomes public, but it’s not for the reason you are thinking.
Tha automaker is currently in a legal battle against The Washington Post, who is requesting data regarding Tesla crashes related to its ADAS systems (Autopilot and Full Self-Driving).
The U.S. National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) requires automakers to report all crashes that involved ADAS systems.
Tesla crashes represent the vast majorities of crashes reported to NHTSA, but we don’t have much data on those crashes because, as we previously reported, Tesla abuses NHTSA’s confidential policies to have most of the data related to the crashes redacted.
The Post is suing Tesla and NHTSA to have them disclose the data.
In a new filing, Tesla argued that it “would suffer financial and economic harm if the requested information is disclosed.”
Tesla claims that competitors could use the data to assess Tesla’s progress with ADAS systems:
For the reasons explained in Tesla’s opening motion and the Eddie Gates Declaration, the disclosure of the requested information could foreseeably result in various types of harms to Tesla. Public release of ADAS hardware and software versions will allow competitors to, among other things, assess the efficacy of a given version of hardware or software; calculate the number of crashes per the different software and hardware systems, and draw conclusions as to Tesla’s rate of progress.
The automaker cited Eddie Gates, Director for Field Reliability Engineering at Tesla, to support its argument.
Gates wrote:
(a) see the processes by which Tesla identifies and examines crash incidents; (b) gain insights into how Tesla learns and evolves through data collection; (c) track the pace of improvement in ADAS features over time; (d) draw conclusions as to the effectiveness of one ADAS version over another; (e) draw conclusions about or attempt to copy Tesla’s internal processes; (f) reveal how and in what circumstances Tesla gathers and learns from telematic or other data relating to crash events; (g) provide insights into how Tesla’s software and vehicle technology works; and (h) ascertain the strength and weaknesses of Tesla’s features and use that knowledge to build or improve their own features and systems.
In short, Tesla’s argument for not making public details of its vehicles crashing while its Autopilot and Full Self-Driving is that competitors could potentially improve their own systems by learning which versions of Tesla’s systems are involve in more crashes than others.
Lawyers for the Washingtop Post counter the argument by pointing out that the version of Tesla’s ADAS software and hardware can’t be kept private, considering the drivers themselves have access to that information within their own vehicles.
Electrek’s Take
Let’s be real. If the information is disclosed, the only real change is that the public would gain a better understanding of crashes involving Tesla Autopilot and Full Self-Driving. That’s it.
Now, if that happens, there are a few things that could ensue, like more media reports on Tesla crashes, people involved in those crashes using the data in legal actions against Tesla, and yes, potentially competitors using the data to gain a better understanding of its system, but that wouldn’t be my top worry.
Even if they did that, it would only mean that the NTSHA crash reporting would result in making ADAS systems safer. Isn’t that the goal?
The fact that Tesla has gone out of its way to not release any data regarding its self-driving effort should be a real red flag to anyone interested in the effort.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Global energy investment is on track to hit a record $3.3 trillion in 2025, according to the new International Energy Agency’s (IEA) annual World Energy Investment report, even as the world navigates economic turbulence and rising geopolitical risks.
The lion’s share of that money – about $2.2 trillion – is heading toward clean technologies. That includes renewables, nuclear, grids, battery storage, low-emissions fuels, efficiency, and electrification. It’s twice the amount going into fossil fuels.
IEA executive director Fatih Birol says countries are working to insulate themselves from future shocks in the energy sector. “Amid the geopolitical and economic uncertainties that are clouding the outlook for the energy world, we see energy security coming through as a key driver of the growth in global investment.”
China has cemented its status as the world’s top energy investor, spending nearly as much as the US and EU combined. In 2015, it barely edged out the US. Today, it’s pulling far ahead, especially in clean energy. Over the past decade, China has boosted its share of global clean energy investment from 25% to nearly 33%, thanks to massive spending on solar, wind, hydro, nuclear, EVs, and batteries.
Solar is once again the star. Investment in both rooftop and utility-scale solar is expected to hit $450 billion this year, more than any other energy tech globally. Battery storage is also surging, projected to hit $65 billion in 2025. Nuclear is trending upward too, with capital flows rising 50% over five years to about $75 billion.
The global energy mix continues to shift. In 2015, fossil fuel investment outpaced electricity spending by 30%. But this year, electricity investments, which include generation, grids, and storage, are expected to be 50% higher than what’s being spent on oil, gas, and coal.
But not everything is trending in the right direction. Grid investments, at $400 billion a year, aren’t keeping up with the pace of new generation and electrification. That’s a red flag for electricity security. The IEA warns that grid spending needs to catch up fast, but bottlenecks like permitting delays and tight supply chains for cables and transformers are slowing progress.
China and India also continue to invest in coal. In 2024, China began construction on nearly 100 gigawatts of new coal-fired power plants, pushing global coal project approvals to their highest levels since 2015.
Meanwhile, oil investment is expected to dip 6% this year – the first drop since the COVID crash in 2020. That’s mostly due to less spending on US tight oil – oil extracted using fracking, which is processed into gasoline, diesel, and jet fuels. On the flip side, investment in liquefied natural gas (LNG) is booming, especially in the US, Qatar, and Canada. Between 2026 and 2028, LNG capacity is set to see its largest ever capacity growth.
One of the report’s most troubling takeaways: Africa is being left behind. Despite accounting for 20% of the world’s population, the continent attracts just 2% of global clean energy investment. Overall energy investment in Africa has fallen by a third in the past decade. The IEA says public finance needs to scale up fast to help unlock private capital and close the gap in developing economies.
The bottom line: Clean energy is surging, solar continues to lead, and China is dominating global spending. But if grid upgrades don’t catch up and the investment gap in the Global South isn’t closed, energy access and climate goals could fall behind.
Read more: 1 in 4 cars sold in 2025 will be EVs, and that’s just the beginning
If you live in an area that has frequent natural disaster events, and are interested in making your home more resilient to power outages, consider going solar and adding a battery storage system. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. They have hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisers to help you every step of the way. Get started here. –trusted affiliate link*
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Amazon is about to start testing humanoid robots for package delivery. The goal is for the robots to come out of the Rivian electric delivery vans and bring packages to your door.
Over 20,000 Rivian electric vans are currently used to deliver Amazon packages, and the number is expected to increase to 100,000 by the end of the decade.
For now, humans are driving them and delivering the packages to doors, but humanoid robots may soon handle the latter.
The Information released a new report revealing that Amazon has built a new facility to test humanoid robots in an environment mimicking deliveries in the real world:
As part of the project, Amazon is putting the finishing touches on a “humanoid park,” an indoor obstacle course at one of the company’s San Francisco offices where it will soon test such robots, this person said.
The online retailer reportedly has a Rivian electric delivery van on site to test robots as they come in and out of the van, bringing packages to customers’ doors.
“Amazon hopes humanoid robots will be able to hitch a ride in the back of Amazon’s electric Rivian vans and spring out to deliver packages.”
Amazon plans to test several different humanoid robots, but the report only mentions one from China-based Unitree.
Amazon has extensive experience utilizing autonomous robots in its operations, but this experience is primarily limited to purpose-built robots.
Its experience with humanoid robots is more limited, but the company has used humanoid robots from Agility Robotics:
The big difference is that these robots were used in Amazon’s own warehouses, which are closed environments.
This new test program is to test humanoid robots that will go into the real word to deliver packages to customers.
For now, Amazon plans to test them in its obstacle course, but “field trips” in the real world are already being discussed.
While the online retail giant plans to test several different humanoid robots, it is reportedly working on its own software to power them based DeepSeek-VL2, made by a China-based quant fund, and Qwen, made by China-based Alibaba.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business3 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway