California: AB-1096 to classify an "electric bicycle"

Folks:

About a year ago I posted that the California State Legislature was considering a bill to classify an electric bicycle (e-bike).

http://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=59103

That bill was truncated in committee and most of the changes it proposed did not become law. This year Assembly Bill 1096 (AB-1096) has been introduced to classify e-bikes under law.

Even though this is an international forum, I believe this bill will be of interest to other USians, or other jurisdictions, especially those that have poorly-defined regulations with respect to e-bikes. The saying "As California goes, so goes the rest of the nation.", may be appropriate here.

E-bikes currently fall under regulations for "motorized bicycles" (CVC 406). That law is outdated, incomplete, and reflects neither the current reality of e-bikes that are or will soon be offered commercially nor where many e-bikers, especially newcomers to the activity, will initially ride their e-bikes.

Although AB-1096 as currently amended is not quite what I would have written, it is much improved over last year's effort.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1096

The Good:

1) E-bikes are classified as bicycles under law (CVC 21200), except where otherwise regulated. E-bikes no longer fall under CVC 406 and are no longer treated as "motorized bicycles". This allows e-bikes to be ridden on recreational trails and paths by default instead of being banned by default. This is the most critical and positive change to the current law.

2) No weight limit.

The Not So Bad:

1) Motor power limit has been reduced from 1000 watts to 750 watts. Although the proposed changes do not specify input or output power, I suspect "brake power" (output) is intended, not input power.

2) No throttle use is allowed for Class 1 or Class 3 e-bikes. Throttle use up to a low speed should be allowed for Class 1 or Class 3 e-bikes to assist when starting on an incline, or to help riders who suffer physical infirmity that makes an initial push-off physically difficult. I am told by those closer to the process that disallowing throttles on Class 1 and Class 3 e-bikes was critical to getting buy-in from other stakeholders but that low-speed throttle use could be added as an amendment later.

3) Riders of Class 3 e-bikes must be age 14 or older.

4) Riders of Class 3 e-bikes must wear a bicycle helmet (ASTM or CPSC standard).

5) Class 3 e-bike top assisted speed is limited to 28 mph (45 kph). Since mopeds are limited to 30 mph (48 kph), I guess they can't have e-bikes that go faster. I'd prefer a higher top speed, but I can live with this.

My objections to this bill are far outweighed by the positive change of classifying e-bikes as bicycles instead of motorized bicycles as the former designation allows their operators to ride upon trails and paths.

If you live in California and you wish to support this bill, it may be helpful to send a message to your local Assembly member. It's probably best not to send quibbles. Too many of those, and the bill may die as it did last year, leaving us with the current inadequate law on e-bikes.

Contact Page for AB-1096 Author, David Chiu:
https://lcmspubcontact.lc.ca.gov/PublicLCMS/ContactPopup.php?district=AD17

Contact Page for Transportation Committee Chair, Jim Frazier:
https://lcmspubcontact.lc.ca.gov/PublicLCMS/ContactPopup.php?district=AD11

Find your Assembly Member Page:
http://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov/

No throttle would kill me. Some days I can pedal, others I can't. Pedelec sucks for me.

Hope they get that amended, or at least the cops ignore it. Even those that are fit and healthy can sometimes use a throttle to get going on a steep hill.

But you are right, classifying as bicycle by default, well worth it.

dogman dan said:

No throttle would kill me. Some days I can pedal, others I can't. Pedelec sucks for me.

Hope they get that amended, or at least the cops ignore it. Even those that are fit and healthy can sometimes use a throttle to get going on a steep hill.

But you are right, classifying as bicycle by default, well worth it.

Click to expand...

Hi dogman:

Class 2 e-bikes (legacy e-bikes) are allowed throttle use up to 20 mph.

If this bill passes, then all classes of e-bikes will be treated the same initially. I suspect, though, that in the future we may see regulation such that only certain classes of e-bikes will be allowed to use a particular facility and that the creation of these classes is a first step toward that end.

Re: throttle prohibition for Classes 1 and 3. It seems a trivial point to us in this forum, yet this was a sticking point to get buy-in from the non e-biker stakeholders to accept our riding e-bikes on dedicated bicycle and multi-use facilities (trails, paths, bridges, etc.). With this go-round e-bikers who use a throttle and do not pedal or who have difficulty starting due to physical ailments must conform to Class 2 regulations. This view will likely change in the future, esp. as those same stakeholders get older and see the benefit of having a throttle available, if only for use up to some low speed limit.

The double standard with respect to motor vehicles is hard to ignore. You don't see the state requiring what would be a trivial software modification on a new car sold in state to cap the maximum speed at 70 mph, the highest maximum speed limit in the state. If a healthier population were the goal, the addition of pedals to automobiles that require the operator to produce pedal power in proportion to the the car's motor power might improve public health more than regulating throttle use on e-bikes.

International readers might be amused to observe that biking in the US is seen primarily as a sport activity, not a transportation activity. The operator of a bicycle or vehicle granted bicycle privileges is expected to "earn" the privilege to use those facilities.

"Exercise is good for you," goes the refrain. And use of what is ostensibly an exercise machine that reduces or removes physical exercise from the activity is "unhealthy", "unwholesome", "cheating", or just plain "wrong", even if that use creates no additional hazard for others. An e-biker using a bicycle facility must be seen to be exerting some effort to be deemed acceptable if not virtuous.

If exercise weren't an objective--so the thinking goes--the operator would simply travel in or upon his motorized throne (e.g. motor vehicle), like everyone else. Note: Everyone in the US is expected to own or have ready access to at least one motor vehicle.

In spite of the throttle restrictions I recommend we support this bill, then work to amend it later.

Just design your bike to look like other regular bikes. If it blends in then you have little to worry about. I ride by police all the time. They look and say cool.

Thanks for the update on the legal definition and use of ebikes.

Class 3 ebike is treated the same as a motorized bike on where it can be ridden - they can not be ridden on hiking, horse trails, etc. Class 1 and 2 ebike can ride on these trails except where local jurisdictions have enacted additional restrictions, no different than today. There are plenty of hiking trails in my area on water district and parks that state no bicycles, so ebikes will continue to be banned.

Two issues I have are the limitation on power of 750 watts and class 3 having no throttle. The power limit is no surprise and still quite generous than many other jurisdictions and irrelevant to all those who are running higher power ebikes. The pedal throttle is a pain but realistically I doubt any officer would even know there are three classes of ebikes and that class 3 is not supposed to be powered by a throttle. If you were even questioned, just say it is the ebrake function implemented by regenerative power reversing power from the wheel back into the battery. Sling a few more tech terms and move onto another topic.

As homebuilders, we would not need any labelling but one could affix a professional quality label stating "proper" specifications.

I'm going to write in to allow 1000 watts and throttle on class 3. Can only help.

lester12483 said:

...... I ride by police all the time. They look and say cool.

Click to expand...

Mostly I don't think they know what that are looking at. Just the same, when I see the police I act like I am pedaling anyway even though the motor is doing all the work.

mrbill said:

dogman dan said:

No throttle would kill me. Some days I can pedal, others I can't. Pedelec sucks for me.

Hope they get that amended, or at least the cops ignore it. Even those that are fit and healthy can sometimes use a throttle to get going on a steep hill.

But you are right, classifying as bicycle by default, well worth it.

Click to expand...

"Exercise is good for you," goes the refrain. And use of what is ostensibly an exercise machine that reduces or removes physical exercise from the activity is "unhealthy", "unwholesome", "cheating", or just plain "wrong", even if that use creates no additional hazard for others. An e-biker using a bicycle facility must be seen to be exerting some effort to be deemed acceptable if not virtuous.

If exercise weren't an objective--so the thinking goes--the operator would simply travel in or upon his motorized throne (e.g. motor vehicle), like everyone else. Note: Everyone in the US is expected to own or have ready access to at least one motor vehicle.

Click to expand...

Yeah when I feel off my snowboard and power drived my knee into some hard ice last winter I couldn't pedal properly for 2 months and I felt like an idiot trying to ride my bike one legged on my PAS only bike with no throttle, I could of put it on but I just couldn't be bothered, thats me stuck between a rock and a crazy place in my mind.
Did make me think about folks that can't pedal period on ebikes, so if you are still allowed to use throttle up to 20mph thats still a pretty good deal if you ask me compared to the rest of the world. Seems like you yanks in the USA have enough public pressure on all sides of government to get things done pretty well.
I mean in Australia we had to shut down our local car industry because the AU dollar is to high to compete with the rest of the world but I can casually watch USA news and see all sorts of folk other already saying USD is too high even after printing 1 trillion dollars and its unamerican to have to put up with it etc just action action action being taking on everywhere.

windtrader said:

Thanks for the update on the legal definition and use of ebikes.

Class 3 ebike is treated the same as a motorized bike on where it can be ridden - they can not be ridden on hiking, horse trails, etc. Class 1 and 2 ebike can ride on these trails except where local jurisdictions have enacted additional restrictions, no different than today. There are plenty of hiking trails in my area on water district and parks that state no bicycles, so ebikes will continue to be banned.

Two issues I have are the limitation on power of 750 watts and class 3 having no throttle. The power limit is no surprise and still quite generous than many other jurisdictions and irrelevant to all those who are running higher power ebikes. The pedal throttle is a pain but realistically I doubt any officer would even know there are three classes of ebikes and that class 3 is not supposed to be powered by a throttle. If you were even questioned, just say it is the ebrake function implemented by regenerative power reversing power from the wheel back into the battery. Sling a few more tech terms and move onto another topic.

As homebuilders, we would not need any labelling but one could affix a professional quality label stating "proper" specifications.

I'm going to write in to allow 1000 watts and throttle on class 3. Can only help.

Click to expand...

I was going to reply asking where you saw that Class 3 e-bikes are banned by default from bicycle trails and paths, but I see now that the bill has been amended since I started this thread. This is a work in progress!

I'm not too surprised, though slightly disappointed, that Class 3 e-bikes are banned (continue to be banned) from bicycle trails and paths. Although it should be obvious, Class 1 and Class 2 e-bikes will be permitted only on trails for which bicycling is legal (unless banned by local ordinance), not all trails and paths.

Since Class 3 e-bikes are banned from trails and paths I see no reason why throttle use should be denied on these e-bikes.

TheBeastie said:

Seems like you yanks in the USA have enough public pressure on all sides of government to get things done pretty well.

Click to expand...

E-biking lobbying efforts consist primarily of the 'big' e-bike manufacturers (Currie, Bosch, Shimano, etc.) to the extent that a change in law improves their business interests, and to a much lesser extent whatever communication we homebuilders send to our representatives.

We do have a mostly sympathetic ear at the California Bicycle Coalition who take a transportation cyclist's perspective and are generally positive toward e-bikes as defined in this bill. Other more recreationally-oriented bicycling organizations have mixed positions. In particular, there is much heated discussion in IMBA over whether e-bikes should be allowed on mountain bike trails.

The "pro" argument claims that allowing e-bikes allows older folks with physical limitations to continue the sport, that it attracts new people, and that it does not place significant additional wear on the trails. The "con" argument runs along the lines of "Why should they benefit from the years of lobbying we've done to get these trails open for us?" and seeks to limit access to newcomers, claiming that there are already too many people on the trails as it is, and generally frowns on the idea of motorized assistance of any kind on wilderness trails open to bicycles.

I'm not too surprised, though slightly disappointed, that Class 3 e-bikes are banned (continue to be banned) from bicycle trails and paths. Although it should be obvious, Class 1 and Class 2 e-bikes will be permitted only on trails for which bicycling is legal (unless banned by local ordinance), not all trails and paths.

Since Class 3 e-bikes are banned from trails and paths I see no reason why throttle use should be denied on these e-bikes.

Click to expand...

From a number of years ahead, the class 3 exclusion will rarely become any issue while actually riding. It would be a rare officer who knows anything more than looking for a bike on a banned trail. If legal to ride on non-banned trail, nobody is going to get fined because of riding with a class 3 vs class 1/2 bike.

The reset of the power limit to 750w is still quite general and if the big global bike OEMs are driving the wording, then it makes a lot of sense for them to have a limit around 750 to minimize bad events and bad press coming from a lot more ebikes sharing the roads and trails. Even us here at ES know it is pretty stupid to allow a 5kw ebike on a trail shared with all sorts of other foot traffic. maybe not a big deal now as the numbers are low but you can imagine if every walmart lines line 3kw MTB for $999. It will be mayhem on the trails!

And in fact the argument is to allow old folks on bike trails with a boost from a motor, then the same logic applies that 250 is plenty

windtrader said:

The reset of the power limit to 750w is still quite general and if the big global bike OEMs are driving the wording, then it makes a lot of sense for them to have a limit around 750 to minimize bad events and bad press coming from a lot more ebikes sharing the roads and trails.

Click to expand...

I suspect the 750 watt limit is due to the Federal definition of a low-speed electric bicycle, the basis for which is also the current California State definition and proposed Class 2 definition:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/2085

As you point out it's hard to argue that one needs more than 750 watts on an electric bicycle given the other limitations on speed and where it can be ridden.

It would be a rare officer who knows anything more than looking for a bike on a banned trail.

Click to expand...

It wouldn't be too difficult to stop a suspect riding too fast to examine his classification sticker.

But, in practice, getting even one class of e-bike allowed on bicycle trails and paths is a big win as it gives all e-bikes a legitimacy that they do not currently enjoy.

No matter what class of e-bike one rides, the best strategy as always is to ride courteously, comply with the posted speed limit (which on most trails in my area is 15mph or less) and where circumstances require, to make an appearance of pedaling.

But, in practice, getting even one class of e-bike allowed on bicycle trails and paths is a big win as it gives all e-bikes a legitimacy that they do not currently enjoy.

Click to expand...

There are rules in the regional parks here that state no MOTORIZED vehicles but bicycles are allowed.

The new wording basically treats ebikes equal to pedal bikes and also a new vehicle class and no longer a motorized bicycle.

The more this sinks in the ruling has tremendous upside for access to trails and paths. This is really huge and it is going to take some time for the public at large to understand the implications. And that can be a few years as ebikes are still quite rare. Then again, it may not take long before enough dumbass riders start zooming past and knocking down pedestrians.

It appears we are on the same bus as the big bike OEMS on this issue as they need more access to be able to scale up the ebike revolution.

This does appear to be progress in a number of ways. It is a bit of a loss, before we had 1000w, but that is a fairly small difference from 750.

The new rules would allow the new "class 3" 28 mph ebike to operate in the bike lane alongside a highway, which is part of my commute, and a useful upgrade from the 20 mph allowed before. But a throttle should be allowed, no reason not to.

However climbing the 15% grade (also part of my commute), a 750 watt ebike will only make 7 mph, which is not too useful for commuting and creates a lot of unsafe traffic flowing past the rider since there is no bike lane there. To travel at 20 mph on this 15% grade with a 330 pound bike, rider and gear requires about 2500 watts (from ebikes.ca sim). 28 mph requires about 4KW.

So the power levels are out of sync with the speeds and reality. In fact, it appears that 750W is insufficient to propel a 330 pound mountain bike setup to 28 mph even on a flat surface, it requires about 850W to do so. So to make a 28 mph ebike that is legally running 750 watts will require a recumbent or a road bike and lycra.

I wish they would stick to speed limits and not try to legislate power limits. The gradient and load capacity needs of riders vary a great deal (especially with cargo and hills), and the power needed to accomplish the job changes accordingly. A 30 mph moped is allowed 4 brake horsepower, or about 3000 watts. A class 3 eBike needs about 2500 watts to make 28 mph on a modest gradient and would only make 20 mph on a 15% grade, which is not the steepest grade encountered in my area. Speed is easy to measure from a distance, or automatically whereas power is not simple to measure.

Is there ANYONE ELSE on this list that would like to see an elimination of the max. wattage requirement from the bill wording? 750W does NOT move my electric-assist tricycle; it weighs over 200lbs! It is not a racecar and does not even accelerate as fast as a car and the assist still tops out at 20mph. These vehicles require about 1500W to 3000W depending upon the terrain and cargo they are carrying. For you purists out there, that's still about 936mpg, converted to car standards. My tricycle has seriously REPLACED my car for short urban trips where I'm carrying less than 500lbs...which is most of the time. Imagine if more car owners had access to this option....

I don't see how a wattage limit really accurately reflects the 'power output' or 'acceleration' or 'risk factor' of an electric-assist vehicle, and it certainly doesn't talk about the stopping power, which seems to me to be more important than the 'go-ing' power. I mean, we're talking about 2-4hp; compare that to a Kawasaki Ninja at 200hp! An electric trolling motor uses about 2.5hp!

I'm going to be talking to my representative, Rob Bonta, soon, hopefully tomorrow, regarding how electric-assist cargotrikes can be represented in the law. For one, a mid-drive motor is going to offer a different 'power' experience than a 'hub motor.' Does anybody else here have talking point that I can use, or want to be involved in a mini-movement to get this issue re-considered in CA State Assembly?

Now's your chance!!

Segue Fischlin, Frankentrikes, Oakland, CA.

Certainly for class III the limit is too low, most bikes can't make 28 mph with 750W. Mopeds are 30mph and 3kw, so perhaps it should be:

class I 750W
class II 1000W
class III 2000W

or something along those lines.

sfiii said:

Is there ANYONE ELSE on this list that would like to see an elimination of the max. wattage requirement from the bill wording?

Click to expand...

I'll bet most e-bike home builders who live in California would like to see the wattage limit removed. But, it's not going to happen.

AB-1096 has been introduced to allow riders of the most common type of turn-key commercial electric bicycle to legally use bicycle infrastructure (trails, bridges, and paths) from which they are currently banned by default, and to encourage more bicycle and e-bicycle use in general.

Much work went into mollifying constituencies who have thwarted previous similar legislative efforts and who take a purist stance on allowing infrastructure access to anything with a motor. Taking a Calvinist view these folks even frown on throttles, since by riding a bicycle equipped with one its operator can avoid the virtues of pedaling. Fortunately, throttles are allowed on existing e-bikes, and so they have been grandfathered as "Class 2" e-bikes under the new law.

I urged throttle use on Class 1 and Class 3 e-bikes at least up to some minimum speed (e.g. 5 mph) to allow easier starts with heavy loads, on hills, or by operators with physical limitations but was told that introducing such nuance at this point would probably kill the bill. (I did point out one error in an earlier version of the bill that would have required a Class M2 driver license endorsement for any "bicycle with a motor". I see now in the latest version of the bill that an exception has been made for an electric bicycle.)

As cargo e-bikes gain popularity, and esp. as an increasing number of commercial cargo e-bikes become available and their manufacturers show a willingness to hire lobbyists to prompt amending the law, we may see a push to allow a higher power limit, perhaps in exchange for a lower speed limit, for these e-bikes.

One can take some small comfort that the power limit, although specified as neither input (drawn from battery) nor output (at the wheel), could be interpreted as "brake" power (output). It would not be a stretch for an e-bike operator to claim that the legal power limit as read, for example, off a Cycle Analyst is 1000 watts.

No more laws, please. Thanks.

I thought class II and III were throttle, when did that change? Perhaps I misread it before. Crazy to not allow throttle on III. But laws rarely make sense. Sounds like the regs have been bought by a few manufacturers to suit them.

Alan B said:

I thought class II and III were throttle, when did that change? Perhaps I misread it before. Crazy to not allow throttle on III. But laws rarely make sense. Sounds like the regs have been bought by a few manufacturers to suit them.

Click to expand...

Class 3 never allowed throttle. Only Class 2.

Sausage making. In the end money talks.

Unfortunately it is all recreation, not transportation. It is driven by the hobbyists not the folks trying to get to work, or the store, and bring home a week's groceries.

But perhaps this will help, or perhaps it will be used to educate the police. It will probably make the recreational cyclists more angry at the DIY bikes than they already are.

I was under the impression that the whole law was written and supported by manufacturers; Pedego supposedly had a different bill, but eventually decided to go along with the others. Moot point in my area since I've never seen enforcement and don't expect any for years.

It is all for their sales. Too bad wider considerations don't get folded in.

The current version as updated in committee this week adds a few refinements (i.e closed loopholes) that makes it more difficult for DIY folks.

The bill would require a person riding an electric bicycle to comply with the above-described requirements relating to the operation of bicycles. The bill would prohibit persons under 16 years of age from operating a class 3 electric bicycle. The bill would also require persons operating, or riding upon, a class 3 electric bicycle to wear a helmet, as specified. The bill would prohibit the operation of a class 3 electric bicycle on specified paths, lanes, or trails, unless that operation is authorized by a local ordinance. The bill would also authorize a local authority or governing body to prohibit, by ordinance, the operation of class 1 or class 2 electric bicycles on specified paths or trails. The bill would prohibit a person from tampering with or modifying an electric bicycle to change its speed capability, unless he or she appropriately replaces the classification label. The bill would specify that a person operating an electric bicycle is not subject to financial responsibility, driver’s license, registration, or license plate requirements. The bill would also make conforming changes.

Click to expand...

Let's remember this is great progress and laws generally evolve incrementally. Let's celebrate that e-bikes are now separate and distinct from motorized bicycles and subject to less restrictions. Readers seem to have lost sight a primary objective was to enable e-bikes to ride on paths and sidewalks shared by walkers and not being forced onto auto surface streets. Again, a big win.

The wording and intent of the bill is not about restricting power although it does state wattage. The primary control is SPEED. This bill is a safety measure to allow comingling of e-bike and pedestrians off the roadway. 20 - 28 mph is generous to keep both bikers and pedestrians safe.

The major global bicycle OEMs are our friends here and our community would have zero chance of getting this legislation approved on our own. The benefit to the OEM folks is obvious and represents a new market for them. Personally, this is a very prudent step forward as it gets the public more comfortable with e-bikes in general and how well both walkers and bikers can co-exist.

ES represents a miniscule percentage of this emerging market and it would be quite damaging to the entire growth of ebike adoption to start reading about some dumb ass with many multi-Kw ebike running down pedestrians while jumping some curb at a crosswalk. A classic case of one bad apple...

No matter how the law could ever be written it will NOT cover the HP DIY ebikes some here design and build. One can register under motorized bicycle or moped but beyond that we are renegade riders, simple as that.

I strongly advise AGAINST any attempt to alter the course of this legislation at this time. Reviewing the overwhelming support by legislators, let's get this on the books. It is far better than what is in place today. And no reason to antagonize the bike OEMS, better to let us remain under the radar and not cause them problems dealing with bruising media about ebikes being dangerous.

CalBike is a state-wide bicycling advocacy group who have been a supporting effort behind the advancement of AB-1096 and to legalize e-bike operation on bicycle infrastructure statewide. They recently set up a survey on e-bike use and AB-1096. Those of you who live in California may wish to submit an entry.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1IHjwcNtndupGrsdq4irWRvpmAjFinYCRjodo6_6i1TU/viewform

mrbill said:

Alan B said:

I thought class II and III were throttle, when did that change? Perhaps I misread it before. Crazy to not allow throttle on III. But laws rarely make sense. Sounds like the regs have been bought by a few manufacturers to suit them.

Click to expand...

Class 3 never allowed throttle. Only Class 2.

Sausage making. In the end money talks.

Click to expand...

Upon further consideration I see that one could equip a Class 1 or Class 3 e-bike with a throttle and still be in compliance with Sec 312.5 as long as the throttle is operative only when the bike is pedaled.

The bill could be improved in the following ways:

1) Allow throttle use without pedaling up to some minimal speed (e.g. 5 mph) to allow starting on a hill or with a heavy load or by a rider with physical limitations (e.g. arthritis) that prevents or makes difficult placing high loads on the pedals, given that high initial torque is required to get started from a stop.

2) Allow throttle use on Class 3 e-bikes up to at least 20 mph (the speed limit for Class 2 e-bikes).

3) Create a fourth class of e-bike for cargo bikes, pedicabs, work-bikes, or other heavier bicycles that allow a higher power (e.g. 2-4 kw) in exchange for a lower speed limit (e.g. 15 mph).

But, adding these amendments to the bill now at this late stage would probably kill it for the current legislative session, and I prefer to see this bill pass than to endure another year being treated legally as a "motorized bicycle" under current law. These amendments could be introduced in a future legislative session.