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.
PayPal Inc. co-founder and Affirm’s CEO Max Levchin on center stage during day one of Collision 2019 at Enercare Center in Toronto, Canada.
Vaughn Ridley | Sportsfile | Getty Images
Affirm, the online lender founded by Max Levchin, expanded beyond credit and entered the debit market four years ago with a card that let users pay over time. Now the company is making it possible for banks to offer that service to their customers.
Affirm, which pioneered the buy now, pay later business (BNPL), has partnered with FIS in a deal that will allow the fintech company to offer the pay-over-time service to its banking clients and their millions of individual customers.
Any bank that partners with FIS will be able to provide its own version of the Affirm Card, which launched in 2021, without asking customers to adopt a new piece of plastic. Consumers can access Affirm’s biweekly and monthly installment plans and have the money automatically deducted from their checking account.
There are approximately 230 million debit card users in the U.S., according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. BNPL services have traditionally been tied to credit cards or standalone financing products, rather than to debit offerings.
“Consumers today are looking for innovative and user-friendly experiences that give them flexibility and control over their money,” Jim Johnson, co-president of banking solutions at FIS, said in the press release. Affirm’s offering can help banks “offer more competitive, differentiated services through their own banking channels,” he said.
Affirm has over 335,000 merchants in its network, ranging from travel booking sites and concert ticket providers to jewelry stores and electronics providers. By bringing BNPL into the debit world, Affirm aims to provide consumers more alternatives to credit.
In its earnings report last week, Affirm reported better-than-expected quarterly revenue and posted a surprise profit from the holiday period. The stock rocketed 22% after the announcement.
Affirm’s active consumer base grew 23% year over year to 21 million users. The Affirm Card nowhas 1.7 million active users, up more than 136% from the year-ago quarter. Card volume has more than doubled.
In June, Affirm and Apple announced plans for U.S. Apple Pay users on iPhones and iPads to be able to apply for loans directly through Affirm.
The BP logo is displayed outside a petrol station near Warminster in Wiltshire, England, on Aug. 15, 2022.
Matt Cardy | Getty Images News | Getty Images
British oil major BP on Tuesday posted a sharp drop in fourth-quarter profit on weaker refining margins, announcing a $1.75 billion share buyback and a pledge to “fundamentally” reset its strategy.
The energy firm posted underlying replacement cost profit (RC profit) — used as a proxy for net profit — at $1.169 billion in the fourth quarter, compared with $2.99 billion in the same period of last year and with an analyst forecast of $1.2 billion, according to a LSEG poll.
The company attributed its quarterly 48% drop in RC profit to “weaker realized refining margins, higher impact from turnaround activity, seasonally lower customer volumes and fuels margins and higher other businesses & corporate underlying charge.”
BP’s net debt hit just shy of $23 billion in the fourth quarter, increasing 10% year-on-year. Capital expenditure (capex) hit $3.7 billion in the October-December period, a steep drop from the $4.7 billion of fourth quarter 2024.
Despite this, the embattled energy company launched a $1.75 billion share buyback for the fourth quarter, with a dividend per ordinary share of $0.08. Analysts had previously questioned whether BP would slow down its share repurchases to reconcile its balance sheet.
“BP has guided to buybacks of $1.75bn to 1Q results, although no guidance is given beyond this. We had expected a cut to a lower run-rate with results, although there was some uncertainty whether the reduction in buyback would be given with the CMD or results. We continue to expect BP to reduce its buyback programme,” RBC analysts said Tuesday.
In its business breakdown, BP noted a 15% year-on-year drop in the RC profit performance of its gas & low carbon energy to $1.84 billion, despite a sharp recovery from $1 billion in the previous quarter.Oil production and operations jumped 37% on an annual basis, while the company flagged an overall “weak” contribution from its oil trading division following weaker refining margins.
BP shares were little changed following the results, down just 0.13% at 08:40 a.m. London time.
Reset
In a statement accompanying the results, CEO Murray Auchincloss said the company has been “reshaping” its portfolio with a “strong progress” in cutting costs and a planned further overhaul ahead.
“We now plan to fundamentally reset our strategy and drive further improvements in performance, all in service of growing cash flow and returns. It will be a new direction for bp,” he said.
Oil majors have weathered a turn in tide over the past year, as crude prices retreated after initial support following Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine and Western and G7 sanctions against Moscow’s barrels. In a January trading update, BP flagged higher corporate costs, lower fourth-quarter realized refining margins and one-off charges linked to its bio-ethanol acquisition.
BP has broadly underperformed its peers, with shares falling roughly 9% over the last year to the end of last week — compared with 6% gains for Shell. The stock gained ground on Monday, following weekend reports that activist investor Elliott Management has built a stake in the struggling oil major, fueling speculation that the influential hedge fund could pressure the energy company to shift gears on its core oil and gas businesses.
Speculation has otherwise long mounted over whether BP could become a takeover target – though the company’s £74-billion size could pose a challenge for suitors.
BP has sought to turn its fortunes through a major restructuring that included a downsize in leadership amid Auchincloss’ efforts to deliver at least $2 billion of cash savings by the end of 2026. In January, the firm expanded its cost-cutting drive to cut 4,700 of roles and last week revealed it is seeking buyers for its Ruhr Oel GmbH German refinery assets. But concerns linger over the clarity of BP’s strategic direction amid its sprawling green energy ambitions — with the company due to supply its next strategic update on Feb. 26.
On today’s wheelin’ and dealin’ episode of Quick Charge, we take a look at a $9,140 deal on a 2025 Nissan LEAF*** in Chicago, things you can do with a robotic lawnmower, and talk about the tough times Tesla is experiencing while its CEO asks if you’ve seen Kyle.
We’ve also got some fresh new additions to our list of 0% interest EV and PHEV financing offers, a hot new commercial electric van heading to market, and an industry icon reaches a new, multibillion dollar threshold of ZEV funding. All this and more – enjoy!
New episodes of Quick Charge are recorded, usually, Monday through Thursday (and sometimes Sunday). We’ll be posting bonus audio content from time to time as well, so be sure to follow and subscribe so you don’t miss a minute of Electrek’s high-voltage daily news.
Got news? Let us know! Drop us a line at tips@electrek.co. You can also rate us on Apple Podcasts and Spotify, or recommend us in Overcast to help more people discover the show.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.