Existing law defines an electric bicycle and classifies electric bicycles into 3 classes with different restrictions. Under existing law, a class 1 electric bicycle is a bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling and ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour. Under existing law, a class 2 electric bicycle is a bicycle equipped with a motor that may be used exclusively to propel the bicycle and is not capable of providing assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour. Under existing law, a class 3 electric bicycle is a bicycle equipped with a speedometer and a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 28 miles per hour. Existing law prohibits a person under 16 years of age from operating a class 3 electric bicycle.

This bill, the San Mateo Electric Bicycle Safety Pilot Program, would, until January 1, 2031, authorize a local authority within the County of San Mateo, or the County of San Mateo in unincorporated areas, to adopt an ordinance or resolution that would prohibit a person under 12 years of age from operating a class 1 or 2 electric bicycle. For the first 60 days following the adoption of an ordinance or resolution for this purpose, the bill would make a violation of the ordinance or resolution punishable by a warning notice. After 60 days, the bill would make a violation of the ordinance or resolution punishable by a fine of $25, except as specified. This bill would make a parent or legal guardian with control or custody of an unemancipated minor who violates the ordinance or resolution jointly and severally liable with the minor for the amount of the fine imposed. The bill would, if an ordinance or resolution is adopted, require the county to, by January 1, 2030, submit a report to the Legislature that includes, among other things, the total number of traffic stops initiated for a violation of the ordinance or resolution, the results of those traffic stops, and the actions taken by a peace officer during a traffic stop, as specified. The bill would require a local authority or county to administer a public information campaign for at least 30 calendar days prior to the enactment of the ordinance or resolution, as specified.

Existing law defines an electric bicycle and classifies electric bicycles into 3 classes with different restrictions. Under existing law, a class 1 electric bicycle is a bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling and ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour. Under existing law, a class 2 electric bicycle is a bicycle equipped with a motor that may be used exclusively to propel the bicycle and is not capable of providing assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour. Under existing law, a class 3 electric bicycle is a bicycle equipped with a speedometer and a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 28 miles per hour. Existing law prohibits a person under 16 years of age from operating a class 3 electric bicycle.

This bill, the San Mateo Electric Bicycle Safety Pilot Program, would, until January 1, 2031, authorize a local authority within the County of San Mateo, or the County of San Mateo in unincorporated areas, to adopt an ordinance or resolution that would prohibit a person under 12 years of age from operating a class 1 or 2 electric bicycle. For the first 60 days following the adoption of an ordinance or resolution for this purpose, the bill would make a violation of the ordinance or resolution punishable by a warning notice. After 60 days, the bill would make a violation of the ordinance or resolution punishable by a fine of $25, except as specified. This bill would make a parent or legal guardian with control or custody of an unemancipated minor who violates the ordinance or resolution jointly and severally liable with the minor for the amount of the fine imposed. The bill would, if an ordinance or resolution is adopted, require the county to, by January 1, 2030, submit a report to the Legislature that includes, among other things, the total number of traffic stops initiated for a violation of the ordinance or resolution, the results of those traffic stops, and the actions taken by a peace officer during a traffic stop, as specified. The bill would require a local authority or county to administer a public information campaign for at least 30 calendar days prior to the enactment of the ordinance or resolution, as specified.

Existing law defines an electric bicycle and classifies electric bicycles into 3 classes with different restrictions. Under existing law, a class 1 electric bicycle is a bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling and ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour. Under existing law, a class 2 electric bicycle is a bicycle equipped with a motor that may be used exclusively to propel the bicycle and is not capable of providing assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour. Under existing law, a class 3 electric bicycle is a bicycle equipped with a speedometer and a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 28 miles per hour. Existing law prohibits a person under 16 years of age from operating a class 3 electric bicycle.

This bill, the San Mateo Electric Bicycle Safety Pilot Program, would, until January 1, 2031, authorize a local authority within the County of San Mateo, or the County of San Mateo in unincorporated areas, to adopt an ordinance or resolution that would prohibit a person under 12 years of age from operating a class 1 or 2 electric bicycle. For the first 60 days following the adoption of an ordinance or resolution for this purpose, the bill would make a violation of the ordinance or resolution punishable by a warning notice. After 60 days, the bill would make a violation of the ordinance or resolution punishable by a fine of $25, except as specified. This bill would make a parent or legal guardian with control or custody of an unemancipated minor who violates the ordinance or resolution jointly and severally liable with the minor for the amount of the fine imposed. The bill would, if an ordinance or resolution is adopted, require the county to, by January 1, 2030, submit a report to the Legislature that includes, among other things, the total number of traffic stops initiated for a violation of the ordinance or resolution, the results of those traffic stops, and the actions taken by a peace officer during a traffic stop, as specified. The bill would require a local authority or county to administer a public information campaign for at least 30 calendar days prior to the enactment of the ordinance or resolution, as specified.

Existing law defines an electric bicycle and classifies electric bicycles into 3 classes with different restrictions. Under existing law, a class 1 electric bicycle is a bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling and ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour. Under existing law, a class 2 electric bicycle is a bicycle equipped with a motor that may be used exclusively to propel the bicycle and is not capable of providing assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour. Under existing law, a class 3 electric bicycle is a bicycle equipped with a speedometer and a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 28 miles per hour. Existing law prohibits a person under 16 years of age from operating a class 3 electric bicycle.

This bill, the San Mateo Electric Bicycle Safety Pilot Program, would, until January 1, 2031, authorize a local authority within the County of San Mateo, or the County of San Mateo in unincorporated areas, to adopt an ordinance or resolution that would prohibit a person under 12 years of age from operating a class 1 or 2 electric bicycle. For the first 60 days following the adoption of an ordinance or resolution for this purpose, the bill would make a violation of the ordinance or resolution punishable by a warning notice. After 60 days, the bill would make a violation of the ordinance or resolution punishable by a fine of $25, except as specified. This bill would make a parent or legal guardian with control or custody of an unemancipated minor who violates the ordinance or resolution jointly and severally liable with the minor for the amount of the fine imposed. The bill would, if an ordinance or resolution is adopted, require the county to, by January 1, 2030, submit a report to the Legislature that includes, among other things, the total number of traffic stops initiated for a violation of the ordinance or resolution, the results of those traffic stops, and the actions taken by a peace officer during a traffic stop, as specified. The bill would require a local authority or county to administer a public information campaign for at least 30 calendar days prior to the enactment of the ordinance or resolution, as specified.

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 2595

Author:(Papan)

As Amended Ver:June 15, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Establishes an electric bicycle enforcement pilot program in the County of San Mateo allowing the county or local authorities to prohibit a person under 12 years of age from operating a class 1 or class 2 electric bicycle until January 1, 2031. Requires a report submitted to the Legislature by January 1, 2030 that details enforcement of the ordinance and changes, if any, in electric bicycle collisions and injuries.

Senate Amendments

1. Authorize a person to take a related bicycle safety course if one is available, instead of the California Highway Patrol (CHP) course, in lieu of paying the fine.
2. Require a local authority within San Mateo County to hold a public meeting to review and consider the substance of a report issued under the San Diego Electric Bicycle Safety Program within 90 days of the public release of the report.

COMMENTS

More than half of all trips made in the United States are shorter than three miles. To cover these distances, e-bikes are surging in popularity, evolving from recreational devices into genuine car replacements. The speed of these devices, coupled with the reduced physical strain they require, makes them a convenient, low-cost choice for short-range commuting. Furthermore, with average prices ranging from $1,000 to $3,500, e-bikes offer a significantly more affordable alternative to traditional motor vehicles. Their expanded use supports California's environmental goals while potentially reducing traffic-related injuries and fatalities—which claimed over 4,400 lives in the state in 2024.

The lack of licensing and insurance requirements has further fueled this proliferation. In fact, e-bikes are now outselling electric cars: according to Kelley Blue Book, while 800,000 electric cars were purchased in the U.S. in 2022, e-bike imports reached 1.1 million. Projections indicate U.S. sales could reach 6.4 million units by 2025 due to rising demand. A 2024 survey by the Mineta Transportation Institute (MTI) found that 16% of U.S. adults had ridden an e-bike in the previous year, with 6% riding weekly. Additionally, the North American Bikeshare and Scootershare Association (NABSA) reported that riders logged 59 million trips on 76,000 shared e-bikes in 2024.

Growth in e-bike use has been accompanied by a rise in e-bike-related injuries and frustration from communities about potentially dangerous use of these devices. A new wave of high-speed electric motors has entered the California market, often exceeding the speed capabilities originally intended by California law. In response to the rising number of hospitalizations across the state, several bills have been introduced this year to address safety and regulation.

Meeting California's environmental goals. In California, the transportation sector is the leading contributor of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and is responsible for about 40% of the state's emissions with light-duty passenger vehicles being the single leading contributor. The Legislature has set several goals to reduce greenhouse (GHG) emissions and address climate change. The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 [AB 32 (Nunez), Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006] and subsequent companion legislation SB 32 (Pavley), Chapter 249, Statutes of 2016, requires California to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 40% below the 1990 level by 2030.

Reducing the number of miles people drive every day will have a significant impact on reducing GHG emissions. Providing alternative modes of transportation such as public transit, e-bikes, or other shared ride approaches could significantly reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in California. California has targeted a 15% reduction in VMT by 2050 as part of its larger strategy to reduce GHG emissions by 80% from 1990 levels by 2050.

In the 2023 study titled "Impacts of E-bike Ownership on Travel Behavior: Evidence from three Northern California rebate programs," researchers from UC Davis found that e-bike ownership leads to a measurable reduction in vehicle use. E-bike owners reported replacing one to three car trips per week with an e-bike, diverting between 12 and 44 kilograms of CO2 per month, or roughly equivalent to not burning five gallons of gasoline or the total emissions produced by running an average refrigerator for four months. If one million Californians (roughly 3% of the population) used e-bikes at the "high end" rate of this study, the state would reduce emissions by 528,000 metric tons of CO2 per year, The equivalent of taking 125,000 gas-powered cars off the road entirely.

Electric bicycle safety. As electric bicycle popularity has gone up, so have injuries. In 2023, the Legislature passed SB 381 (Min), Chapter 869, which directed the Mineta Transpiration Institute (MTI) at San Jose State University to study electric bicycles and the safety of riders and pedestrians.

MTI released the report Exploring Electric Bicycle Safety Performance Policy Options for California in December of 2025. That report provided a comprehensive review of how California and other states and countries regulate electric bicycles, a review of the electric bicycle safety literature, and strategies that the state could adopt to promote the safe use of electric bicycles.

According to the report, "In 2023, a total of 461,062 patients were treated at California hospitals with transportation-related injuries. Only 4,757 patients were identified as electric bicycle riders. Thus, electric bicycle riders comprised just 1% of all patients with transportation-related injury. Comparatively, 44,039 patients were identified as conventional bicycle riders, or 10% of all transportation-related patients. Overall, there were more than 9 times more injured conventional bicycle riders than injured electric bicycle riders. By far the most patients were injured in motor vehicle incidents: 62%."

The report found that electric bicycle-related injuries may result in slightly more hospitalizations than conventional bicycle incidents, specifically "In the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) injury dataset of U.S. hospital patients, electric bicycle patients were hospitalized at only a three-percentage point greater rate than conventional bicycle patients (16% vs. 13%). Also, that gap disappeared when making an apples-to apples comparison of only those injuries occurring on streets. Finally, while the California hospital data did show more electric bicycle than conventional bicycle hospitalizations, the difference was a relatively modest six percentage points (17% vs. 11%). Looking at just injuries that took place on streets, conventional bicycles and electric bicycles had virtually identical hospitalization rates (18% vs 17%, respectively)."

In addition, most of the people involved in electric bicycle incidents are adults. NEISS reported that one in five electric bicycle patients (20%) were minors, almost identical to their share of the U.S. population. In comparison, 43% of conventional bicycle patients were minors. Slightly over half of the electric bicycle patients (54%) were adults aged 18 to 49 years. Electric bicycle patients had the oldest median age (34 years), a full decade higher than conventional bicycles (24 years). Mopeds/power-assisted cycles have the second highest median age, 30 years.

Illegal e-bikes are likely the problem. Illegal e-bikes are electric bicycles that exceed 750 watts of motor power, have a top speed greater than 20 mph (for Class 1 and 2) or 28 mph (for Class 3), or lack fully operable pedals. These vehicles are generally legally classified as electric motorcycles or mopeds, requiring registration, insurance, and proper licensing.

The e-bike landscape today is very challenging because many of the e-bikes that are causing crashes and creating a perceived nuisance in communities are illegal and it is very difficult to determine if an e-bike is legal or illegal by simply looking at it. In addition, illegal e-bikes, while they can be a nuisance and dangerous may not be the highest priority of local law enforcement. As a result, passing legislation targeting electric bicycles is unlikely to address the problems caused by illegal devices.

As part of the Mineta Institute report, surveys were conducted at Marin and San Mateo County middle and high schools to see what types of devices children were riding. Those surveys found that 88% of the devices at Marin County Schools and 87% of the devices at San Mateo County Schools were bicycles with electric motors that did not meet the definition of an electric bicycle, suggesting a significant proliferation of illegal devices into the marketplace, particularly for devices marketed towards children.

This bill and the Mineta Report Recommendations. According to the Mineta Report, "In our exploration of state codes, we found that many states have adopted the same age minimum used by most of California (outside pilot projects areas, the requirement that Class 3 electric bicycles be at least 16 years old. However, a number of states have adopted slightly different approaches (Table 4). For example, some states set a different age minimum for Class 3 electric bicycles (e.g., 14 years in Tennessee), set age minimums for Class 1 and 2 electric bicycles, have no age minimums at all (e.g., Nevada), or require a minimum age for all electric bicycle classes (Hawaii). Also, a couple of states require younger riders to be supervised by an adult or guardian (Utah and Virginia)

Internationally, age minimums vary a great deal. For example, there is no age minimum in Germany and in some Australian states, but age minimums are 12 years in Victoria, Australia (if riders have demonstrated responsible riding skills) and Austria; 14 in France, Switzerland, and New Zealand; and 16 in the Netherlands, Singapore, and Japan. In Poland, there is no age minimum, but children under 10 must be supervised by an adult, a requirement similar to rules in Utah and Virginia."

The report does not make age requirement recommendations to the Legislature. However, it does make recommendations suggesting that high powered electric bicycles (those with greater than 250 continuous watts) should require some sort of driver's license similar to a moped.

Implementation of AB 2234 (Boerner): This bill expands the pilot program authorized under AB 2234 (Boerner), which authorized cities within San Diego County and the County itself to prohibit individuals under 12 from operating an electric bicycle. Insofar, the cities of Carlsbad, San Marcos, Chula Vista, Poway, San Marcos and Santee have implemented the pilot program. Solana Beach and Encinitas are still considering opting into the pilot program. As of the writing of this analysis, the city of San Diego's public safety committee has unanimously passed regulations to implement the pilot and is waiting final approval. The City of Imperial Beach opted not to participate in the pilot program, in part because of the law enforcement data the bill requires locals to report to the Legislature.

The San Diego pilot program authority sunsets on January 1, 2029, with a report due back to the legislature by January 1, 2028.

According to the Author

"AB 2595 will authorize San Mateo County and its local jurisdictions to enact a local ordinance to prohibit a person under 12 years of age from riding a class 1 or class 2 electric bicycle. I represent an area that has been devastated by two tragic incidents related to electric bicycles, resulting in the loss of a teenager and a young child. My constituents have made it clear that they are desperate to enact local rules similar to what previous legislation has authorized other counties to do. This bill will allow San Mateo County to confront urgent e-bike safety issues directly and enact locally tailored solutions to address safety concerns and prevent future tragedies in the community."

Arguments in Support

The City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, writing in support of this bill, argues "If successfully enacted, AB 2595 would give our local jurisdictions the ability to work through their local processes to potentially implement local rules prohibiting the use of Class I and II e-bikes if certain conditions are met. This bill does not establish a mandate that cities implement this rule and mirrors existing laws in San Diego and Marin Counties.

San Mateo has seen a rise in e-bikes on our streets, roads, and trails, many of them operated by youth who do not yet have a common understanding of the rules of the road, the power the bikes possess, or have the ability to adequately control them. These activities endanger the rider as well as pedestrians.

It is imperative that the Legislature give local agencies the tools to ensure e-bikes are safely operated in our communities and by riders who can safely operate them. Age restrictions for e-bikes can be a successful tool for local agencies to educate parents and children alike on the laws governing e-bikes and deter parents from purchasing e-bikes for younger riders who cannot operate them in a safe manner.

Arguments in Opposition

According to Streets for All, " While Streets For All shares the goal of improving safety for all road users, AB 2595 takes an ineffective and premature approach to addressing legitimate concerns. The Legislature has already authorized a similar e-bike pilot program in San Diego County, yet policymakers have not received sufficient data demonstrating whether that program has improved safety outcomes, changed rider behavior, or otherwise achieved its intended goals. Expanding this experimental approach to additional jurisdictions before evaluating the results of existing pilots undermines evidence-based policymaking. Rather than restricting access to a low-carbon transportation option based on unproven assumptions, the state should first assess the effectiveness of current pilot programs and prioritize education, training, and safe riding practices.

Streets For All supports education, training, and appropriate regulation to ensure the safe operation and wide adoption of e-bikes. But AB 2595 is a hasty response to public concerns over e-bikes, would contribute to a potential patchwork of widely varying local laws, and shows a highly objectionable impulse towards criminalization and over-policing."

FISCAL COMMENTS

This bill is keyed non fiscal by Legislative Counsel.

VOTES:

ASM TRANSPORTATION: 11-0-5

YES: Davies, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Carrillo, Hart, Hoover, Jackson, Lackey, Macedo, Papan, Rogers

ABS, ABST OR NV: Wilson, Ávila Farías, Harabedian, Ransom, Sharp-Collins

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 65-0-15

YES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Castillo, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Irwin, Jackson, Johnson, Kalra, Krell, Lackey, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Ward, Zbur, Rivas

ABS, ABST OR NV: Arambula, Bonta, Chen, Flora, Hart, Hoover, Lee, Petrie-Norris, Ransom, Celeste Rodriguez, Sharp-Collins, Valencia, Wallis, Wicks, Wilson

SENATE FLOOR: 36-1-3

YES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Choi, Cortese, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Pérez, Reyes, Richardson, Rubio, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Strickland, Umberg, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson

NO: Wiener

ABS, ABST OR NV: Dahle, Menjivar, Seyarto

UPDATED

VERSION: June 15, 2026

CONSULTANT: David Sforza / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093 FN: 0003730

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 2595

Author:(Papan)

As Amended Ver:June 15, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Establishes an electric bicycle enforcement pilot program in the County of San Mateo allowing the county or local authorities to prohibit a person under 12 years of age from operating a class 1 or class 2 electric bicycle until January 1, 2031. Requires a report submitted to the Legislature by January 1, 2030 that details enforcement of the ordinance and changes, if any, in electric bicycle collisions and injuries.

Senate Amendments

1. Authorize a person to take a related bicycle safety course if one is available, instead of the California Highway Patrol (CHP) course, in lieu of paying the fine.
2. Require a local authority within San Mateo County to hold a public meeting to review and consider the substance of a report issued under the San Diego Electric Bicycle Safety Program within 90 days of the public release of the report.

COMMENTS

More than half of all trips made in the United States are shorter than three miles. To cover these distances, e-bikes are surging in popularity, evolving from recreational devices into genuine car replacements. The speed of these devices, coupled with the reduced physical strain they require, makes them a convenient, low-cost choice for short-range commuting. Furthermore, with average prices ranging from $1,000 to $3,500, e-bikes offer a significantly more affordable alternative to traditional motor vehicles. Their expanded use supports California's environmental goals while potentially reducing traffic-related injuries and fatalities—which claimed over 4,400 lives in the state in 2024.

The lack of licensing and insurance requirements has further fueled this proliferation. In fact, e-bikes are now outselling electric cars: according to Kelley Blue Book, while 800,000 electric cars were purchased in the U.S. in 2022, e-bike imports reached 1.1 million. Projections indicate U.S. sales could reach 6.4 million units by 2025 due to rising demand. A 2024 survey by the Mineta Transportation Institute (MTI) found that 16% of U.S. adults had ridden an e-bike in the previous year, with 6% riding weekly. Additionally, the North American Bikeshare and Scootershare Association (NABSA) reported that riders logged 59 million trips on 76,000 shared e-bikes in 2024.

Growth in e-bike use has been accompanied by a rise in e-bike-related injuries and frustration from communities about potentially dangerous use of these devices. A new wave of high-speed electric motors has entered the California market, often exceeding the speed capabilities originally intended by California law. In response to the rising number of hospitalizations across the state, several bills have been introduced this year to address safety and regulation.

Meeting California's environmental goals. In California, the transportation sector is the leading contributor of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and is responsible for about 40% of the state's emissions with light-duty passenger vehicles being the single leading contributor. The Legislature has set several goals to reduce greenhouse (GHG) emissions and address climate change. The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 [AB 32 (Nunez), Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006] and subsequent companion legislation SB 32 (Pavley), Chapter 249, Statutes of 2016, requires California to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 40% below the 1990 level by 2030.

Reducing the number of miles people drive every day will have a significant impact on reducing GHG emissions. Providing alternative modes of transportation such as public transit, e-bikes, or other shared ride approaches could significantly reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in California. California has targeted a 15% reduction in VMT by 2050 as part of its larger strategy to reduce GHG emissions by 80% from 1990 levels by 2050.

In the 2023 study titled "Impacts of E-bike Ownership on Travel Behavior: Evidence from three Northern California rebate programs," researchers from UC Davis found that e-bike ownership leads to a measurable reduction in vehicle use. E-bike owners reported replacing one to three car trips per week with an e-bike, diverting between 12 and 44 kilograms of CO2 per month, or roughly equivalent to not burning five gallons of gasoline or the total emissions produced by running an average refrigerator for four months. If one million Californians (roughly 3% of the population) used e-bikes at the "high end" rate of this study, the state would reduce emissions by 528,000 metric tons of CO2 per year, The equivalent of taking 125,000 gas-powered cars off the road entirely.

Electric bicycle safety. As electric bicycle popularity has gone up, so have injuries. In 2023, the Legislature passed SB 381 (Min), Chapter 869, which directed the Mineta Transpiration Institute (MTI) at San Jose State University to study electric bicycles and the safety of riders and pedestrians.

MTI released the report Exploring Electric Bicycle Safety Performance Policy Options for California in December of 2025. That report provided a comprehensive review of how California and other states and countries regulate electric bicycles, a review of the electric bicycle safety literature, and strategies that the state could adopt to promote the safe use of electric bicycles.

According to the report, "In 2023, a total of 461,062 patients were treated at California hospitals with transportation-related injuries. Only 4,757 patients were identified as electric bicycle riders. Thus, electric bicycle riders comprised just 1% of all patients with transportation-related injury. Comparatively, 44,039 patients were identified as conventional bicycle riders, or 10% of all transportation-related patients. Overall, there were more than 9 times more injured conventional bicycle riders than injured electric bicycle riders. By far the most patients were injured in motor vehicle incidents: 62%."

The report found that electric bicycle-related injuries may result in slightly more hospitalizations than conventional bicycle incidents, specifically "In the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) injury dataset of U.S. hospital patients, electric bicycle patients were hospitalized at only a three-percentage point greater rate than conventional bicycle patients (16% vs. 13%). Also, that gap disappeared when making an apples-to apples comparison of only those injuries occurring on streets. Finally, while the California hospital data did show more electric bicycle than conventional bicycle hospitalizations, the difference was a relatively modest six percentage points (17% vs. 11%). Looking at just injuries that took place on streets, conventional bicycles and electric bicycles had virtually identical hospitalization rates (18% vs 17%, respectively)."

In addition, most of the people involved in electric bicycle incidents are adults. NEISS reported that one in five electric bicycle patients (20%) were minors, almost identical to their share of the U.S. population. In comparison, 43% of conventional bicycle patients were minors. Slightly over half of the electric bicycle patients (54%) were adults aged 18 to 49 years. Electric bicycle patients had the oldest median age (34 years), a full decade higher than conventional bicycles (24 years). Mopeds/power-assisted cycles have the second highest median age, 30 years.

Illegal e-bikes are likely the problem. Illegal e-bikes are electric bicycles that exceed 750 watts of motor power, have a top speed greater than 20 mph (for Class 1 and 2) or 28 mph (for Class 3), or lack fully operable pedals. These vehicles are generally legally classified as electric motorcycles or mopeds, requiring registration, insurance, and proper licensing.

The e-bike landscape today is very challenging because many of the e-bikes that are causing crashes and creating a perceived nuisance in communities are illegal and it is very difficult to determine if an e-bike is legal or illegal by simply looking at it. In addition, illegal e-bikes, while they can be a nuisance and dangerous may not be the highest priority of local law enforcement. As a result, passing legislation targeting electric bicycles is unlikely to address the problems caused by illegal devices.

As part of the Mineta Institute report, surveys were conducted at Marin and San Mateo County middle and high schools to see what types of devices children were riding. Those surveys found that 88% of the devices at Marin County Schools and 87% of the devices at San Mateo County Schools were bicycles with electric motors that did not meet the definition of an electric bicycle, suggesting a significant proliferation of illegal devices into the marketplace, particularly for devices marketed towards children.

This bill and the Mineta Report Recommendations. According to the Mineta Report, "In our exploration of state codes, we found that many states have adopted the same age minimum used by most of California (outside pilot projects areas, the requirement that Class 3 electric bicycles be at least 16 years old. However, a number of states have adopted slightly different approaches (Table 4). For example, some states set a different age minimum for Class 3 electric bicycles (e.g., 14 years in Tennessee), set age minimums for Class 1 and 2 electric bicycles, have no age minimums at all (e.g., Nevada), or require a minimum age for all electric bicycle classes (Hawaii). Also, a couple of states require younger riders to be supervised by an adult or guardian (Utah and Virginia)

Internationally, age minimums vary a great deal. For example, there is no age minimum in Germany and in some Australian states, but age minimums are 12 years in Victoria, Australia (if riders have demonstrated responsible riding skills) and Austria; 14 in France, Switzerland, and New Zealand; and 16 in the Netherlands, Singapore, and Japan. In Poland, there is no age minimum, but children under 10 must be supervised by an adult, a requirement similar to rules in Utah and Virginia."

The report does not make age requirement recommendations to the Legislature. However, it does make recommendations suggesting that high powered electric bicycles (those with greater than 250 continuous watts) should require some sort of driver's license similar to a moped.

Implementation of AB 2234 (Boerner): This bill expands the pilot program authorized under AB 2234 (Boerner), which authorized cities within San Diego County and the County itself to prohibit individuals under 12 from operating an electric bicycle. Insofar, the cities of Carlsbad, San Marcos, Chula Vista, Poway, San Marcos and Santee have implemented the pilot program. Solana Beach and Encinitas are still considering opting into the pilot program. As of the writing of this analysis, the city of San Diego's public safety committee has unanimously passed regulations to implement the pilot and is waiting final approval. The City of Imperial Beach opted not to participate in the pilot program, in part because of the law enforcement data the bill requires locals to report to the Legislature.

The San Diego pilot program authority sunsets on January 1, 2029, with a report due back to the legislature by January 1, 2028.

According to the Author

"AB 2595 will authorize San Mateo County and its local jurisdictions to enact a local ordinance to prohibit a person under 12 years of age from riding a class 1 or class 2 electric bicycle. I represent an area that has been devastated by two tragic incidents related to electric bicycles, resulting in the loss of a teenager and a young child. My constituents have made it clear that they are desperate to enact local rules similar to what previous legislation has authorized other counties to do. This bill will allow San Mateo County to confront urgent e-bike safety issues directly and enact locally tailored solutions to address safety concerns and prevent future tragedies in the community."

Arguments in Support

The City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, writing in support of this bill, argues "If successfully enacted, AB 2595 would give our local jurisdictions the ability to work through their local processes to potentially implement local rules prohibiting the use of Class I and II e-bikes if certain conditions are met. This bill does not establish a mandate that cities implement this rule and mirrors existing laws in San Diego and Marin Counties.

San Mateo has seen a rise in e-bikes on our streets, roads, and trails, many of them operated by youth who do not yet have a common understanding of the rules of the road, the power the bikes possess, or have the ability to adequately control them. These activities endanger the rider as well as pedestrians.

It is imperative that the Legislature give local agencies the tools to ensure e-bikes are safely operated in our communities and by riders who can safely operate them. Age restrictions for e-bikes can be a successful tool for local agencies to educate parents and children alike on the laws governing e-bikes and deter parents from purchasing e-bikes for younger riders who cannot operate them in a safe manner.

Arguments in Opposition

According to Streets for All, " While Streets For All shares the goal of improving safety for all road users, AB 2595 takes an ineffective and premature approach to addressing legitimate concerns. The Legislature has already authorized a similar e-bike pilot program in San Diego County, yet policymakers have not received sufficient data demonstrating whether that program has improved safety outcomes, changed rider behavior, or otherwise achieved its intended goals. Expanding this experimental approach to additional jurisdictions before evaluating the results of existing pilots undermines evidence-based policymaking. Rather than restricting access to a low-carbon transportation option based on unproven assumptions, the state should first assess the effectiveness of current pilot programs and prioritize education, training, and safe riding practices.

Streets For All supports education, training, and appropriate regulation to ensure the safe operation and wide adoption of e-bikes. But AB 2595 is a hasty response to public concerns over e-bikes, would contribute to a potential patchwork of widely varying local laws, and shows a highly objectionable impulse towards criminalization and over-policing."

FISCAL COMMENTS

This bill is keyed non fiscal by Legislative Counsel.

VOTES:

ASM TRANSPORTATION: 11-0-5

YES: Davies, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Carrillo, Hart, Hoover, Jackson, Lackey, Macedo, Papan, Rogers

ABS, ABST OR NV: Wilson, Ávila Farías, Harabedian, Ransom, Sharp-Collins

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 65-0-15

YES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Castillo, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Irwin, Jackson, Johnson, Kalra, Krell, Lackey, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Ward, Zbur, Rivas

ABS, ABST OR NV: Arambula, Bonta, Chen, Flora, Hart, Hoover, Lee, Petrie-Norris, Ransom, Celeste Rodriguez, Sharp-Collins, Valencia, Wallis, Wicks, Wilson

UPDATED

VERSION: June 15, 2026

CONSULTANT: David Sforza / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093 FN: 0003730

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 2595

Author: Papan (D)

Amended: 6/15/26 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE: 10-0, 6/23/26

AYES: Cortese, Strickland, Archuleta, Arreguín, Blakespear, Dahle, Gonzalez, Grayson, Richardson, Valladares

NO VOTE RECORDED: Menjivar, Seyarto, Wiener

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 65-0, 5/7/26 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: San Mateo Electric Bicycle Safety Pilot Program

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill establishes an electric bicycle (e-bike) enforcement pilot program in the County of San Mateo allowing the county or local authorities to prohibit a person under 12 years of age from operating a class 1 or class 2 electric bicycle until January 1, 2031.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Defines an e-bike as a bicycle equipped with fully operational pedals and an electric motor that is not physically capable of exceeding 750 watts of power. (Vehicle Code (VEH) § 312.5)
2. Defines a class 1 e-bike as a bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, that is not capable of exclusively propelling the bicycle, that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour (mph), and is not capable of providing assistance to reach speeds greater than 20 miles per hour. (VEH § 312.5)
3. Defines a class 2 e-bike as a bicycle equipped with a motor that may be used exclusively to propel the bicycle, and that is not capable of providing assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 mph. (VEH § 312.5)
4. Defines a class 3 e-bike as a bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, that is not capable of exclusively propelling the bicycle, and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 28 mph. (VEH § 312.5)
5. Prohibits a person from tampering with or modifying an e-bike to change the speed capability of the bicycle unless the modification keeps within the existing speed allowances of an e-bike. (VEH § 24016)
6. Prohibits a person from selling a product, device or application that can modify the speed capability of an e-bike such that it no longer meets the definition of an e-bike. (VEH § 24016)
7. Authorizes a peace officer to impound a vehicle that does not meet the definition of an electric bicycle and is both powered by an electric motor capable of exclusively propelling the vehicle in excess of 20 mph on a highway and is being operated without a license to operate that vehicle, or a person operating a vehicle that is a class 2 e-bike and is not 16 years of age. (VEH § 22651.08)
8. Authorizes a local authority in San Diego or San Diego County in incorporated areas to prohibit a person under the age of 12 from riding an e-bike. (VEH § 21214.7)
9. Authorizes a local authority in Marin County or Marin County in incorporated areas to prohibit a person under the age of 16 from riding a class 2 e-bike and to require all users of a class-2 electric bicycle to wear a helmet. (VEH § 21214.5)

This bill:

1. Authorizes a local authority within the County of San Mateo, or the County of San Mateo in unincorporated areas, to, by ordinance or resolution, prohibit a person under 12 years of age from operating a class 1 or class 2 e-bike.
2. Requires the local authority or County of San Mateo to administer a public information campaign for at least 30 days prior to the enactment of the ordinance or resolution including public announcements in major media outlets.
3. Requires the local authority or County to only issue warning notices for the first 60 days after passage of the ordinance or resolution. After 60 days, requires the violation of the infraction of these ordinances or resolutions to be punishable by a fine of $25 or completion of the California Highway Patrol (CHP) electric bicycle safety and training program or a related electric bicycle safety course, if one is available as prescribed by authorities in the local jurisdiction.
4. Requires, if such an ordinance or resolution is adopted, San Mateo County to submit a report to the Legislature by January 1, 2030, that includes:
   1. The total number of traffic stops initiated for violations;
   2. The result of the traffic stops, including whether a warning or citation was issued, property was seized, or an arrest was made;
   3. The number of times a person was stopped for allegedly operating a class 1 or class 2 electric bicycle while under the age of 12 but was found to be over the age limit;
   4. A description of any warning or violation citation issued;
   5. If an arrest or stop was made, the offense cited by the officer for the arrest and the perceived race or ethnicity, gender, and approximate age of the person stopped, based on the observation of the initiating peace officer;
   6. The actions taken by a peace officer during a traffic stop including:
      1. Whether the officer asked for consent to search the person and if consent was provided;
      2. Whether the officer searched the person or their property and the basis for any search and the type of contraband or evidence discovered;
      3. Whether the officer seized any property and, if so the type of property that was seized and the basis for seizing it;
      4. The number of times a person opted to complete, and did complete, the training course in lieu of paying the fine; and,
      5. The number of times that a person under 12 years of age was operating an electric bicycle and was involved in a crash that resulted in a permanent, serious injury or a fatality in the six months prior to the adoption of the ordinance or resolution, the cause of the crash, and the class of the electric bicycle that was being operated at the time of the crash, as well as the same information in the time after the adoption of the ordinance or resolution.
5. Requires a local authority that adopts such an ordinance before the date upon which the report required under the San Diego Electric Bicycle Safety Pilot Program is publicly released to hold a public meeting to review and consider the substance of that report within 90 days of the public release of the report.
6. Requires a local authority proposing to adopt such an ordinance on and after the date upon which the report required under the San Diego Electric Bicycle Safety Pilot Program is publicly released to review and consider the substance of that report at a public hearing on the proposed ordinance or resolution.

Comments

Purpose of this bill. According to the author, “AB 2595 will authorize San Mateo County and its local jurisdictions to enact a local ordinance to prohibit a person under 12 years of age from riding a class 1 or class 2 electric bicycle. I represent an area that has been devastated by two tragic incidents related to electric bicycles, resulting in the loss of a teenager and a young child. My constituents have made it clear that they are desperate to enact local rules similar to what previous legislation has authorized other counties to do. This bill will allow San Mateo County to confront urgent e-bike safety issues directly and enact locally tailored solutions to address safety concerns and prevent future tragedies in the community.”

What’s an e-bike? Electric bicycles, or e-bikes, typically look similar to regular bicycles but include an electric motor and battery. In California, e-bikes must be equipped with fully operable pedals and an electric motor that does not exceed 750 watts of power. E-bikes fall into the following classifications based on their technical specifications:

• Class 1 provide assistance only while being pedaled and only at speeds under 20 mph.
• Class 2 provide power assistance up to 20 mph, but have a throttle that allows the rider to engage the motor without pedaling.
• Class 3 provide assistance only while being pedaled at speeds under 28 mph. Class 3 e-bikes may only be ridden by people who are 16 years old or older. All class 3 riders must wear a helmet.

A device that is capable of going faster than 20 mph using a throttle alone, or faster than 28 mph with pedal assist, is not an e-bike under California law.

Benefits of e-bikes. Shifting trips from personal vehicles to active transportation is a key strategy for achieving the state’s environmental goals. E-bikes are an increasingly popular tool to reduce car travel, particularly given that more than half of all trips in the United States are under three miles. Research indicates that even modest use can have significant impacts—for example, riding a bicycle once per day can reduce an individual’s transportation emissions by up to 67%, and surveys show many e-bike users purchase them as a substitute for a car. Evidence also shows that e-bikes are used by a diverse range of individuals, including children, older adults, and people with disabilities who may be unable to drive or use a conventional bicycle. In addition to expanding mobility, e‑bikes present an opportunity to address persistent transportation challenges, including vehicle traffic injuries and fatalities, transportation-related emissions, and roadway congestion.

Growing concerns with e-bikes and other devices. Californians have seen a surge of news coverage in recent years about the dangers of e-bikes. Additionally, many places where conventional bicycles were common have experienced a proliferation of e-bikes, such as schools, coastal communities, and bike trails. The rapid growth in the visibility of faster devices has resulted in a swift backlash against e-bikes across the country, including calls for increased restrictions and, in some cases, bans. However, many of the reported incidents may not have involved a legal e-bike.

The Mineta Transportation Institute (MTI) at San Jose State University released a report commissioned by the California Legislature titled: Exploring Electric Bicycle Safety Performance Data and Policy Options for California. The report found, “many devices marketed in California as electric bicycles have much higher motor power and/or faster motor-assisted speed than the law allows. While nobody knows how many of these illegal electric bicycles are on the road, the percentage might be quite high. Counts of electric two-wheelers parked at a dozen northern California middle and high schools found that almost 90% may not meet the standards for legal electric bicycles. Some of these devices have as much as eight times more power than legal limits.”

San Diego County pilot. There are two ongoing legislatively authorized pilots with age prohibitions for people allowed to ride e-bikes. AB 2234 (Boerner, Chapter 823, Statutes of 2024) authorized cities within San Diego County and the county of San Diego to prohibit a person under the age of 12 from riding a class 1 or 2 electric bicycle. AB 1778 (Connolly, Chapter 1005, Statutes of 2024) authorized cities in Marin and the county of Marin to prohibit persons under 16 from riding a class 2 electric bicycle and require everyone riding a class 2 electric bicycle to wear a helmet. This bill mirrors the provisions of the San Deigo County pilot program.

At least six cities in San Diego County have utilized the pilot program to prohibit the use of e-bikes by children under 12 years old. For example, the City of Carlsbad’s ordinance took effect on March 26, 2026, starting with a 60-day warning period.^[1] Per AB 2234 (Boerner, 2024), a violation is an infraction punishable by a fine of $25, but a child can take CHP’s online e-bike safety course to waive the citation. AB 2234 took effect in 2025, requires a report be submitted to the Legislature on January 1, 2028, evaluating program, and sunsets the authorization on January 1, 2029.

This bill brings San Diego County’s pilot to San Mateo County. Under this bill, San Mateo County and the cities within the county would be able to pass ordinances mirroring those in San Diego County setting a 12-year-old age requirement for riding an e-bike. Current state law already prohibits anyone under the age of 16 from operating a class 3 e-bike, but sets no age restriction on class 1 or class 2 e-bikes. Each local jurisdiction would need to pass an ordinance or resolution to impose the new age restriction. This bill would require local authorities that pass e-bike age restrictions before the release of the San Diego Electric Bicycle Safety Pilot Program report to hold a public meeting on the results of the report 90 days after its release. If a local authority adopts an ordinance after the release of the report, the ordinance must include a consideration of San Diego County’s report. Lastly, this bill requires San Mateo County to submit a comprehensive report to the Legislature on the implementation of the pilot program.

Implementation considerations. While the pilot program provides local flexibility, it may raise implementation challenges. San Mateo County has 20 incorporated cities, each of which may, or may not, adopt an e-bike ordinance under this bill—in addition to a county ordinance affecting unincorporated county areas. Many of these cities have porous borders and a bicyclist could easily pass through three or more cities on one ride, particularly on an e-bike which is well suited for traveling longer distances. It is possible that the cities in San Mateo County will take a piecemeal approach to passing ordinances authorized under this bill, as has been done in San Diego County. In this case, a child riding a class 1 e‑bike could legally be riding in one city and then, minutes later, face citation in another city. Furthermore, an e-bike rider traveling from adjacent Santa Clara or San Francisco Counties may be unaware of differing local ordinances and thus cited.

Related/Prior Legislation

AB 2234 (Boerner, Chapter 823, Statutes of 2024) – Authorized cities within San Diego County and the county of San Diego to prohibit a person under the age of 12 from riding a class 1 or 2 electric bicycle.

AB 1778 (Connolly, Chapter 1005, Statutes of 2024) – Authorized cities in Marin and the county of Marin to prohibit persons under 16 from riding a class 2 electric bicycle and require everyone riding a class 2 electric bicycle to wear a helmet.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 6/24/26)

California Medical Association
California Orthopedic Association
City Council Member, City of San Carlos
City of Foster City
City of Redwood City
City of San Bruno
City of San Mateo
City/county Association of Governments of San Mateo County
Consumer Attorneys of California

OPPOSITION: (Verified 6/24/26)

Streets for All

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: Writing in support, City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County states, “[i]f successfully enacted, AB 2595 would give our local jurisdictions the ability to work through their local processes to potentially implement local rules prohibiting the use of Class I and II e-bikes if certain conditions are met. This bill does not establish a mandate that cities implement this rule and mirrors existing laws in San Diego and Marin Counties.

“San Mateo has seen a rise in e-bikes on our streets, roads, and trails, many of them operated by youth who do not yet have a common understanding of the rules of the road, the power the bikes possess, or the ability to adequately control heavier Class II e-bikes.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: Writing in opposition, Streets for All states, “[w]hile Streets For All shares the goal of improving safety for all road users, AB 2595 takes an ineffective and premature approach to addressing legitimate concerns. The Legislature has already authorized a similar e-bike pilot program in San Diego County, yet policymakers have not received sufficient data demonstrating whether that program has improved safety outcomes, changed rider behavior, or otherwise achieved its intended goals. Expanding this experimental approach to additional jurisdictions before evaluating the results of existing pilots undermines evidence-based policymaking. Rather than restricting access to a low-carbon transportation option based on unproven assumptions, the state should first assess the effectiveness of current pilot programs and prioritize education, training, and safe riding practices.”

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 65-0, 5/7/26

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Castillo, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Irwin, Jackson, Johnson, Kalra, Krell, Lackey, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Ward, Zbur, Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Arambula, Bonta, Chen, Flora, Hart, Hoover, Lee, Petrie-Norris, Ransom, Celeste Rodriguez, Sharp-Collins, Valencia, Wallis, Wicks, Wilson

Prepared by: Isabelle LaSalle / TRANS. / (916) 651-4121

6/26/26 13:09:15

**** END ****

1. City of Carlsbad Ordinance NO. CS-509 639071050624900000 ↑

SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION

Senator Dave Cortese, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: Hearing Date: 6/23/2026

SUBJECT:

DIGEST: This bill establishes an electric bicycle (e-bike) enforcement pilot program in the County of San Mateo allowing the county or local authorities to prohibit a person under 12 years of age from operating a class 1 or class 2 electric bicycle until January 1, 2031.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Defines an e-bike as a bicycle equipped with fully operational pedals and an electric motor that is not physically capable of exceeding 750 watts of power. (Vehicle Code (VEH) 312.5)
2. Defines a class 1 e-bike as a bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, that is not capable of exclusively propelling the bicycle, that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour (mph), and is not capable of providing assistance to reach speeds greater than 20 miles per hour. (VEH 312.5)
3. Defines a class 2 e-bike as a bicycle equipped with a motor that may be used exclusively to propel the bicycle, and that is not capable of providing assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 mph. (VEH 312.5)
4. Defines a class 3 e-bike as a bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, that is not capable of exclusively propelling the bicycle, and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 28 mph. (VEH 312.5)
5. Prohibits a person from tampering with or modifying an e-bike to change the speed capability of the bicycle unless the modification keeps within the existing speed allowances of an e-bike. (VEH 24016)
6. Prohibits a person from selling a product, device or application that can modify the speed capability of an e-bike such that it no longer meets the definition of an e-bike. (VEH 24016)
7. Authorizes a peace officer to impound a vehicle that does not meet the definition of an electric bicycle and is both powered by an electric motor capable of exclusively propelling the vehicle in excess of 20 mph on a highway and is being operated without a license to operate that vehicle, or a person operating a vehicle that is a class 2 e-bike and is not 16 years of age. (VEH 22651.08)
8. Authorizes a local authority in San Diego or San Diego County in incorporated areas to prohibit a person under the age of 12 from riding an e-bike. (VEH 21214.7)
9. Authorizes a local authority in Marin County or Marin County in incorporated areas to prohibit a person under the age of 16 from riding a class 2 e-bike and to require all users of a class-2 electric bicycle to wear a helmet. (VEH 21214.5)

This bill:

1. Authorizes a local authority within the County of San Mateo, or the County of San Mateo in unincorporated areas, to, by ordinance or resolution, prohibit a person under 12 years of age from operating a class 1 or class 2 e-bike.
2. Requires the local authority or County of San Mateo to administer a public information campaign for at least 30 days prior to the enactment of the ordinance or resolution including public announcements in major media outlets.
3. Requires the local authority or County to only issue warning notices for the first 60 days after passage of the ordinance or resolution. After 60 days, requires the violation of the infraction of these ordinances or resolutions to be punishable by a fine of $25 or completion of the California Highway Patrol (CHP) electric bicycle safety and training program.
4. Requires, if such an ordinance or resolution is adopted, San Mateo County to submit a report to the Legislature by January 1, 2030, that includes:
   1. The total number of traffic stops initiated for violations;
   2. The result of the traffic stops, including whether a warning or citation was issued, property was seized, or an arrest was made;
   3. The number of times a person was stopped for allegedly operating a class 1 or class 2 electric bicycle while under the age of 12 but was found to be over the age limit;
   4. A description of any warning or violation citation issued;
   5. If an arrest or stop was made, the offense cited by the officer for the arrest and the perceived race or ethnicity, gender, and approximate age of the person stopped, based on the observation of the initiating peace officer;
   6. The actions taken by a peace officer during a traffic stop including:
      1. Whether the officer asked for consent to search the person and if consent was provided;
      2. Whether the officer searched the person or their property and the basis for any search and the type of contraband or evidence discovered;
      3. Whether the officer seized any property and, if so the type of property that was seized and the basis for seizing it;
      4. The number of times a person opted to complete, and did complete, the training course in lieu of paying the fine; and,
      5. The number of times that a person under 12 years of age was operating an electric bicycle and was involved in a crash that resulted in a permanent, serious injury or a fatality in the six months prior to the adoption of the ordinance or resolution, the cause of the crash, and the class of the electric bicycle that was being operated at the time of the crash, as well as the same information in the time after the adoption of the ordinance or resolution.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose of the bill. According to the author, “AB 2595 will authorize San Mateo County and its local jurisdictions to enact a local ordinance to prohibit a person under 12 years of age from riding a class 1 or class 2 electric bicycle. I represent an area that has been devastated by two tragic incidents related to electric bicycles, resulting in the loss of a teenager and a young child. My constituents have made it clear that they are desperate to enact local rules similar to what previous legislation has authorized other counties to do. This bill will allow San Mateo County to confront urgent e-bike safety issues directly and enact locally tailored solutions to address safety concerns and prevent future tragedies in the community.”
2. What’s an e-bike? Electric bicycles, or e-bikes, typically look similar to regular bicycles but include an electric motor and battery. In California, e-bikes must be equipped with fully operable pedals and an electric motor that does not exceed 750 watts of power. E-bikes fall into the following classifications based on their technical specifications:
   1. Class 1 provide assistance only while being pedaled and only at speeds under 20 mph.
   2. Class 2 provide power assistance up to 20 mph, but have a throttle that allows the rider to engage the motor without pedaling.
   3. Class 3 provide assistance only while being pedaled at speeds under 28 mph. Class 3 e-bikes may only be ridden by people who are 16 years old or older. All class 3 riders must wear a helmet.

A device that is capable of going faster than 20 mph using a throttle alone, or faster than 28 mph with pedal assist, is not an e-bike under California law.

1. Benefits of e-bikes. Shifting trips from personal vehicles to active transportation is a key strategy for achieving the state’s environmental goals. E-bikes are an increasingly popular tool to reduce car travel, particularly given that more than half of all trips in the United States are under three miles. Research indicates that even modest use can have significant impacts—for example, riding a bicycle once per day can reduce an individual’s transportation emissions by up to 67%, and surveys show many e-bike users purchase them as a substitute for a car. Evidence also shows that e-bikes are used by a diverse range of individuals, including children, older adults, and people with disabilities who may be unable to drive or use a conventional bicycle. In addition to expanding mobility, e‑bikes present an opportunity to address persistent transportation challenges, including vehicle traffic injuries and fatalities, transportation-related emissions, and roadway congestion.
2. Growing concerns with e-bikes and other devices. Californians have seen a surge of news coverage in recent years about the dangers of e-bikes. Additionally, many places where conventional bicycles were common have experienced a proliferation of e-bikes, such as schools, coastal communities, and bike trails. The rapid growth in the visibility of faster devices has resulted in a swift backlash against e-bikes across the country, including calls for increased restrictions and, in some cases, bans. However, many of the reported incidents may not have involved a legal e-bike.

The Mineta Transportation Institute (MTI) at San Jose State University released a report commissioned by the California Legislature titled: Exploring Electric Bicycle Safety Performance Data and Policy Options for California. The report found, “many devices marketed in California as electric bicycles have much higher motor power and/or faster motor-assisted speed than the law allows. While nobody knows how many of these illegal electric bicycles are on the road, the percentage might be quite high. Counts of electric two-wheelers parked at a dozen northern California middle and high schools found that almost 90% may not meet the standards for legal electric bicycles. Some of these devices have as much as eight times more power than legal limits.”

In April of this year, California Attorney General Rob Bonta along with Bay Area District Attorneys issued a consumer alert to manufacturers, retailers, consumers, and parents stating that, “two-wheeled vehicles that go over 28 miles per hour with pedal assistance or 20 miles per hour with throttle assistance are not e-bikes — under California law, they are mopeds or motorcycles and require additional licensing and age requirements to operate and sell. Importantly, modifying an e-bike to exceed the speed or power limits mentioned above is dangerous, may transform the e-bike into a motorcycle or moped under California law, and may be a crime if riders do not have appropriate licenses.”^[1] In response, Amazon announced it will no longer allow sales of certain e-bike-like devices in California that can go faster than state speed limits.^[2]

1. Snapshot of crash data for kids on e-bikes. A 2026 study from the University of California, San Diego titled E-Bike Orthopaedic Injuries Amongst Pediatric and Adolescent Patients at a Level 1 Trauma Center found that injuries in San Diego among e-bike riders under 18 rose by 300% from 2019 to 2023.^[3] Researchers conducted a retrospective review of 338 e-bike and traditional bicycle trauma activations at a pediatric Level I trauma center in San Diego between 2017 and 2023. Patients were categorized by mode of transportation, and researchers evaluated demographic characteristics, injury mechanisms, helmet use, intensive care unit admissions, and socioeconomic factors. The study found that compared with traditional bicycle riders, e-bike riders were more likely to sustain extremity injuries and fractures, and patients tended to be older and from more socioeconomically advantaged backgrounds. In contrast, riders involved in traditional bicycle crashes were less likely to wear helmets and more likely to suffer head injuries. These findings suggest that while traditional bicycle crashes continue to pose significant risks for head trauma, the rapid growth of e-bike use among youth is contributing to an increasing number of serious orthopedic injuries. It is unclear to what extent, if any, the study differentiated legal e-bikes, and illegal, overpowered devices.

The MTI study reported that, “[m]ost people involved in electric bicycle incidents are adults, although some local data points to particularly high rates of children in crashes. Also, the medical experts we interviewed are concerned older adults are more likely than children or younger adults to suffer serious medical consequences from crashes. In the national NEISS [National Electronic Injury Surveillance System] dataset, seniors had the highest rates of both hospitalizations and head injuries.”^[4] Of the nine devices MTI studied with NEISS data, patients with e-bike-related injuries had the oldest median age (34) and second lowest share of patients who were minors (20%).

1. San Diego County pilot. There are two ongoing legislatively authorized pilots with age prohibitions for people allowed to ride e-bikes. AB 2234 (Boerner, Chapter 823, Statutes of 2024) authorized cities within San Diego County and the county of San Diego to prohibit a person under the age of 12 from riding a class 1 or 2 electric bicycle. AB 1778 (Connolly, Chapter 1005, Statutes of 2024) authorized cities in Marin and the county of Marin to prohibit persons under 16 from riding a class 2 electric bicycle and require everyone riding a class 2 electric bicycle to wear a helmet. This bill mirrors the provisions of the San Deigo County pilot program.

At least six cities in San Diego County have utilized the pilot program to prohibit the use of e-bikes by children under 12 years old. For example, the City of Carlsbad’s ordinance took effect on March 26, 2026, starting with a 60-day warning period.^[5] Per AB 2234 (Boerner, 2024), a violation is an infraction punishable by a fine of $25, but a child can take CHP’s online e-bike safety course to waive the citation. AB 2234 took effect in 2025, requires a report be submitted to the Legislature on January 1, 2028, evaluating program, and sunsets the authorization on January 1, 2029. The committee may wish to consider whether it is premature to expand the pilot program before the results of the existing programs are released.

1. This bill brings San Diego County’s pilot to San Mateo County. Under this bill, San Mateo County and the cities within the county would be able to pass ordinances mirroring those in San Diego County setting a 12-year-old age requirement for riding an e-bike. Current state law already prohibits anyone under the age of 16 from operating a class 3 e-bike, but sets no age restriction on class 1 or class 2 e-bikes. Each local jurisdiction would need to pass an ordinance or resolution to impose the new age restriction. This bill would require local authorities that pass e-bike age restrictions before the release of the San Diego Electric Bicycle Safety Pilot Program report to hold a public meeting on the results of the report 90 days after its release. If a local authority adopts an ordinance after the release of the report, the ordinance must include a consideration of San Diego County’s report.
2. Implementation challenges. While the pilot program provides local flexibility, it may raise implementation challenges. San Mateo County has 20 incorporated cities, each of which may, or may not, adopt an e-bike ordinance under this bill—in addition to a county ordinance affecting unincorporated county areas. Many of these cities have porous borders and a bicyclist could easily pass through three or more cities on one ride, particularly on an e-bike which is well suited for longer distances. It is possible that the cities in San Mateo County will take a piecemeal approach to passing ordinances authorized under this bill, as has been done in San Diego County. In this case, a child riding a class 1 e‑bike could legally be riding in one city and then, minutes later, face citation in another city. Furthermore, an e-bike rider traveling from adjacent Santa Clara or San Francisco Counties may be unaware of differing local ordinances and thus cited.
3. Reporting requirements. This bill requires San Mateo County to submit a report to the Legislature by January 1, 2030, on implementation and enforcement activities. The report must include the number and outcomes of related traffic stops, details on warnings, citations, arrests, and property seizures, demographic information on individuals stopped, and data on searches conducted during enforcement actions. It must also report the number of individuals who completed a training course in lieu of paying a fine and evaluate safety impacts by comparing crashes involving operators under age 12 before and after implementation, including crash causes and the class of electric bicycle involved.

Related/previous Legislation:

AB 2234 (Boerner, Chapter 823, Statutes of 2024) – Authorized cities within San Diego County and the county of San Diego to prohibit a person under the age of 12 from riding a class 1 or 2 electric bicycle.

AB 1778 (Connolly, Chapter 1005, Statutes of 2024) – Authorized cities in Marin and the county of Marin to prohibit persons under 16 from riding a class 2 electric bicycle and require everyone riding a class 2 electric bicycle to wear a helmet.

SB 1167 (Blakespear, 2026) – Revises the definitions of e-bikes, motor-driven cycles, and mopeds, and updates labeling and disclosure requirements for manufacturers and sellers of these devices. It also expands prohibitions on false advertising related to e-bikes. The bill additionally establishes new operational and safety requirements, as specified, expands reckless driving provisions to include bicycles, and imposes additional reporting requirements on law enforcement. This bill is currently in the Assembly Transportation Committee.

AB 2346 (Wilson, 2026) – Establishes new speed restrictions for certain ages of e‑bike riders and locations. Requires e-bikes to be equipped with speedometers and lights, and imposes new disclosure requirements on manufacturers and sellers, with civil penalties for violations. It also authorizes local jurisdictions to set speed limits on bicycle paths and trails. This bill is currently in the Senate Transportation Committee.

AB 1569 (Davies, 2026) – Requires, on or before March 1, 2028, the State Department of Education, in consultation with CHP, to develop a standardized e‑bike safety and training program for pupils in grades 7 to 12, and would encourage local educational agencies and parent organizations to offer training demonstrations to pupils and parents. This bill is currently in the Senate Transportation Committee.

AB 875 (Muratsuchi, Chapter 168, Statutes of 2025) – This bill authorized a peace officer to either impound a bicycle with an electric motor capable of going speeds greater than what is permitted by an e-bike or a class 3 e-bike if the person operating it is under the age of 16.

SB 381 (Min, Chapter 869, Statutes of 2023) – This bill required MTI at San Jose State University, in consultation with relevant stakeholders, to conduct a study on electric bicycles and the safety of riders and pedestrians by January 1, 2026.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on Wednesday, June 17, 2026.)

SUPPORT:

California Medical Association (CMA)

California Orthopedic Association

City Council Member, City of San Carlos

City of Foster City

City of Redwood City

City of San Bruno

City of San Mateo

City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County

OPPOSITION:

Streets for All

-- END --

1. Too Fast, Too Furious: Attorney General Bonta, California District Attorneys Issue Consumer Alert on E-Bike Safety, Legal Requirements | State of California - Department of Justice - Office of the Attorney General ↑

2. Amazon says it won't sell e-bikes in California that exceed state speed limits amid rise in deadly crashes - ABC7 San Francisco ↑

3. E-bike injuries among youth surge over 300% as micromobility market expand - AAOS 2026 Annual Meeting Press Kit ↑

4. Exploring Electric Bicycle Safety Performance Data and Policy Options for California ↑

5. City of Carlsbad Ordinance NO. CS-509 639071050624900000 ↑

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 2595

Author:(Papan)

As Introduced Ver:February 20, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Establishes an electric bicycle enforcement pilot program in the County of San Mateo allowing the county or local authorities to prohibit a person under 12 years of age from operating a class 1 or class 2 electric bicycle until January 1, 2031. Requires a report submitted to the Legislature by January 1, 2030 that details enforcement of the ordinance and changes, if any, in electric bicycle collisions and injuries.

Major Provisions

1. Authorizes a local authority within the County of San Mateo, or the County of San Mateo in unincorporated areas, to, by ordinance or resolution, prohibit a person under 12 years of age from operating a class 1 or class 2 e-bike.
2. Requires the local authority or County of San Mateo to administer a public information campaign for at least 30 days prior to the enactment of the ordinance or resolution including public announcements in major media outlets.
3. Requires the local authority or County to only issue warning notices for the first 60 days after passage of the ordinance or resolution. After 60 days requires the violation of the infraction of these ordinances or resolutions to be punishable by a fine of $25 ($193 with bail and penalty schedule) or completion of the CHP electric bicycle safety and training program.
4. Requires, if such an ordinance or resolution is adopted, San Mateo County to submit a report to the Legislature by January 1, 2030.

COMMENTS

More than half of all trips made in the United States are shorter than three miles. To cover these distances, e-bikes are surging in popularity, evolving from recreational devices into genuine car replacements. The speed of these devices, coupled with the reduced physical strain they require, makes them a convenient, low-cost choice for short-range commuting. Furthermore, with average prices ranging from $1,000 to $3,500, e-bikes offer a significantly more affordable alternative to traditional motor vehicles. Their expanded use supports California's environmental goals while potentially reducing traffic-related injuries and fatalities—which claimed over 4,400 lives in the state in 2024.

The lack of licensing and insurance requirements has further fueled this proliferation. In fact, e-bikes are now outselling electric cars: according to Kelley Blue Book, while 800,000 electric cars were purchased in the U.S. in 2022, e-bike imports reached 1.1 million. Projections indicate U.S. sales could reach 6.4 million units by 2025 due to rising demand. A 2024 survey by the Mineta Transportation Institute (MTI) found that 16% of U.S. adults had ridden an e-bike in the previous year, with 6% riding weekly. Additionally, the North American Bikeshare and Scootershare Association (NABSA) reported that riders logged 59 million trips on 76,000 shared e-bikes in 2024.

Growth in e-bike use has been accompanied by a rise in e-bike-related injuries and frustration from communities about potentially dangerous use of these devices. A new wave of high-speed electric motors has entered the California market, often exceeding the speed capabilities originally intended by California law. In response to the rising number of hospitalizations across the state, several bills have been introduced this year to address safety and regulation.

Meeting California's environmental goals. In California, the transportation sector is the leading contributor of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and is responsible for about 40% of the state's emissions with light-duty passenger vehicles being the single leading contributor. The Legislature has set several goals to reduce greenhouse (GHG) emissions and address climate change. The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 [AB 32 (Nunez), Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006] and subsequent companion legislation SB 32 (Pavley), Chapter 249, Statutes of 2016, requires California to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 40% below the 1990 level by 2030.

Reducing the number of miles people drive every day will have a significant impact on reducing GHG emissions. Providing alternative modes of transportation such as public transit, e-bikes, or other shared ride approaches could significantly reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in California. California has targeted a 15% reduction in VMT by 2050 as part of its larger strategy to reduce GHG emissions by 80% from 1990 levels by 2050.

In the 2023 study titled "Impacts of E-bike Ownership on Travel Behavior: Evidence from three Northern California rebate programs," researchers from UC Davis found that e-bike ownership leads to a measurable reduction in vehicle use. E-bike owners reported replacing one to three car trips per week with an e-bike, diverting between 12 and 44 kilograms of CO2 per month, or roughly equivalent to not burning five gallons of gasoline or the total emissions produced by running an average refrigerator for four months. If 1 million Californians (roughly 3% of the population) used e-bikes at the "high end" rate of this study, the state would reduce emissions by 528,000 metric tons of CO2 per year, The equivalent of taking 125,000 gas-powered cars off the road entirely.

Electric bicycle safety. As electric bicycle popularity has gone up, so have injuries. In 2023, the Legislature passed SB 381 (Min), Chapter 869, which directed the MTI at San Jose State University to study electric bicycles and the safety of riders and pedestrians.

MTI released the report Exploring Electric Bicycle Safety Performance Policy Options for California in December of 2025. That report provided a comprehensive review of how California and other states and countries regulate electric bicycles, a review of the electric bicycle safety literature, and strategies that the state could adopt to promote the safe use of electric bicycles.

According to the report, "In 2023, a total of 461,062 patients were treated at California hospitals with transportation-related injuries. Only 4,757 patients were identified as electric bicycle riders. Thus, electric bicycle riders comprised just 1% of all patients with transportation-related injury. Comparatively, 44,039 patients were identified as conventional bicycle riders, or 10% of all transportation-related patients. Overall, there were more than 9 times more injured conventional bicycle riders than injured electric bicycle riders. By far the most patients were injured in motor vehicle incidents: 62%."

The report found that electric bicycle-related injuries may result in slightly more hospitalizations than conventional bicycle incidents, specifically "In the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) injury dataset of U.S. hospital patients, electric bicycle patients were hospitalized at only a three-percentage point greater rate than conventional bicycle patients (16% vs. 13%). Also, that gap disappeared when making an apples-to apples comparison of only those injuries occurring on streets. Finally, while the California hospital data did show more electric bicycle than conventional bicycle hospitalizations, the difference was a relatively modest six percentage points (17% vs. 11%). Looking at just injuries that took place on streets, conventional bicycles and electric bicycles had virtually identical hospitalization rates (18% vs 17%, respectively)."

In addition, most of the people involved in electric bicycle incidents are adults. NEISS reported that one in five electric bicycle patients (20%) were minors, almost identical to their share of the U.S. population. In comparison, 43% of conventional bicycle patients were minors. Slightly over half of the electric bicycle patients (54%) were adults aged 18 to 49 years. Electric bicycle patients had the oldest median age (34 years), a full decade higher than conventional bicycles (24 years). Mopeds/power-assisted cycles have the second highest median age, 30 years.

Illegal e-bikes are likely the problem. Illegal e-bikes are electric bicycles that exceed 750 watts of motor power, have a top speed greater than 20 mph (for Class 1 and 2) or 28 mph (for Class 3), or lack fully operable pedals. These vehicles are generally legally classified as electric motorcycles or mopeds, requiring registration, insurance, and proper licensing.

The e-bike landscape today is very challenging because many of the e-bikes that are causing crashes and creating a perceived nuisance in communities are illegal and it is very difficult to determine if an e-bike is legal or illegal by simply looking at it. In addition, illegal e-bikes, while they can be a nuisance and dangerous may not be the highest priority of local law enforcement. As a result, passing legislation targeting electric bicycles is unlikely to address the problems caused by illegal devices.

As part of the Mineta Institute report, surveys were conducted at Marin and San Mateo County middle and high schools to see what types of devices children were riding. Those surveys found that 88% of the devices at Marin County Schools and 87% of the devices at San Mateo County Schools were bicycles with electric motors that did not meet the definition of an electric bicycle, suggesting a significant proliferation of illegal devices into the marketplace, particularly for devices marketed towards children.

This bill and the Mineta Report Recommendations. According to the Mineta Report, "In our exploration of state codes, we found that many states have adopted the same age minimum used by most of California (outside pilot projects areas, the requirement that Class 3 electric bicycles be at least 16 years old. However, a number of states have adopted slightly different approaches (Table 4). For example, some states set a different age minimum for Class 3 electric bicycles (e.g., 14 years in Tennessee), set age minimums for Class 1 and 2 electric bicycles, have no age minimums at all (e.g., Nevada), or require a minimum age for all electric bicycle classes (Hawaii). Also, a couple of states require younger riders to be supervised by an adult or guardian (Utah and Virginia)

Internationally, age minimums vary a great deal. For example, there is no age minimum in Germany and in some Australian states, but age minimums are 12 years in Victoria, Australia (if riders have demonstrated responsible riding skills) and Austria; 14 in France, Switzerland, and New Zealand; and 16 in the Netherlands, Singapore, and Japan. In Poland, there is no age minimum, but children under 10 must be supervised by an adult, a requirement similar to rules in Utah and Virginia."

The report does not make age requirement recommendations to the Legislature. However, it does make recommendations suggesting that high powered electric bicycles (those with greater than 250 continuous watts) should require some sort of driver's license similar to a moped.

Implementation of AB 2234 (Boerner): This bill expands the pilot program authorized under AB 2234 (Boerner), which authorized cities within San Diego County and the County itself to prohibit individuals under 12 from operating an electric bicycle. Insofar, the cities of Carlsbad, San Marcos, Chula Vista, Poway, San Marcos and Santee have implemented the pilot program. Solana Beach and Encinitas are still considering opting into the pilot program. As of the writing of this analysis, the city of San Diego's public safety committee has unanimously passed regulations to implement the pilot and is waiting final approval. The City of Imperial Beach opted not to participate in the pilot program, in part because of the law enforcement data the bill requires locals to report to the Legislature.

The San Diego pilot program authority sunsets on January 1, 2029, with a report due back to the legislature by January 1, 2028.

According to the Author

"AB 2595 will authorize San Mateo County and its local jurisdictions to enact a local ordinance to prohibit a person under 12 years of age from riding a class 1 or class 2 electric bicycle. I represent an area that has been devastated by two tragic incidents related to electric bicycles, resulting in the loss of a teenager and a young child. My constituents have made it clear that they are desperate to enact local rules similar to what previous legislation has authorized other counties to do. This bill will allow San Mateo County to confront urgent e-bike safety issues directly and enact locally tailored solutions to address safety concerns and prevent future tragedies in the community."

Arguments in Support

The City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, writing in support of this bill, argues "If successfully enacted, AB 2595 would give our local jurisdictions the ability to work through their local processes to potentially implement local rules prohibiting the use of Class I and II e-bikes if certain conditions are met. This bill does not establish a mandate that cities implement this rule and mirrors existing laws in San Diego and Marin Counties.

San Mateo has seen a rise in e-bikes on our streets, roads, and trails, many of them operated by youth who do not yet have a common understanding of the rules of the road, the power the bikes possess, or have the ability to adequately control them. These activities endanger the rider as well as pedestrians. "

"It is imperative that the Legislature give local agencies the tools to ensure e-bikes are safely operated in our communities and by riders who can safely operate them. Age restrictions for e-bikes can be a successful tool for local agencies to educate parents and children alike on the laws governing e-bikes and deter parents from purchasing e-bikes for younger riders who cannot operate them in a safe manner."

Arguments in Opposition

None on file

FISCAL COMMENTS

This bill is keyed non-fiscal.

VOTES

ASM TRANSPORTATION: 11-0-5

YES: Davies, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Carrillo, Hart, Hoover, Jackson, Lackey, Macedo, Papan, Rogers

ABS, ABST OR NV: Wilson, Ávila Farías, Harabedian, Ransom, Sharp-Collins

UPDATED

VERSION: February 20, 2026

CONSULTANT: David Sforza / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093 FN: 0002434

Date of Hearing: April 20, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION

Lori D. Wilson, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2595 (

Author:Papan) – As Introduced Ver:February 20, 2026

SUBJECT: Vehicles: electric bicycles

SUMMARY: This bill establishes an electric bicycle enforcement pilot program in the County of San Mateo allowing the county or local authorities to prohibit a person under 12 years of age from operating a class 1 or class 2 electric bicycle until January 1, 2031. Requires a report submitted to the Legislature by January 1, 2030 that details enforcement of the ordinance and changes, if any, in electric bicycle collisions and injuries. Specifically, this bill:

1. Authorizes a local authority within the County of San Mateo, or the County of San Mateo in unincorporated areas, to, by ordinance or resolution, prohibit a person under 12 years of age from operating a class 1 or class 2 e-bike.
2. Requires the local authority or County of San Mateo to administer a public information campaign for at least 30 days prior to the enactment of the ordinance or resolution including public announcements in major media outlets.
3. Requires the local authority or County to only issue warning notices for the first 60 days after passage of the ordinance or resolution. After 60 days requires the violation of the infraction of these ordinances or resolutions to be punishable by a fine of $25 or completion of the CHP electric bicycle safety and training program.
4. Requires, if such an ordinance or resolution is adopted, San Mateo County to submit a report to the Legislature by January 1, 2030 that includes:
5. The total number of traffic stops initiated for violations;
6. The result of the traffic stops, including whether a warning or citation was issued, property was seized, or an arrest was made;
7. The number of times a person was stopped for allegedly operating a class 1 or class 2 electric bicycle while under the age of 12 but was found to be over the age limit;
8. A description of any warning or violation citation issued;
9. If an arrest or stop was made, the offense cited by the officer for the arrest and the perceived race or ethnicity, gender, and approximate age of the person stopped, based on the observation of the initiating peace officer;
10. The actions taken by a peace officer during a traffic stop including:
    • 1. Whether the officer asked for consent to search the person and if consent was provided;
      2. Whether the officer searched the person or their property and the basis for any search and the type of contraband or evidence discovered; and
      3. Whether the officer seized any property and, if so the type of property that was seized and the basis for seizing it.
11. The number of times a person opted to complete, and did complete, the training course in lieu of paying the fine; and,
12. The number of times that a person under 12 years of age was operating an electric bicycle and was involved in a crash that resulted in a permanent, serious injury or a fatality in the six months prior to the adoption of the ordinance or resolution, the cause of the crash, and the class of the electric bicycle that was being operated at the time of the crash, as well as the same information in the time after the adoption of the ordinance or resolution.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Defines an e-bike as a bicycle equipped with fully operational pedals and an electric motor that is not physically capable of exceeding 750 watts of power. (Vehicle Code (VEH) 312.5)
2. Defines a class 1 e-bike as a bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, that is not capable of exclusively propelling the bicycle, that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour (mph), and is not capable of providing assistance to reach speeds greater than 20 miles per hour. (VEH 312.5)
3. Defines a class 2 e-bike as a bicycle equipped with a motor that may be used exclusively to propel the bicycle, and that is not capable of providing assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 mph. (VEH 312.5)
4. Defines a class 3 electric bicycle as a bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, that is not capable of exclusively propelling the bicycle, and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 28 mph, and equipping with a speedometer. (VEH 312.5)
5. Prohibits a person from tampering with or modifying an electric bicycle as to change the speed capability of the bicycle unless the modification keeps within the existing speed allowances of an electric bicycle. (VEH 24016)
6. Prohibits a person from selling a product, device or application that can modify the speed capability of an electric bicycle such that it no longer meets the definition of an electric bicycle. (VEH 24016)
7. Authorizes a peace officer to impound a vehicle that does not meet the definition of an electric bicycle and is both powered by an electric motor capable of exclusively propelling the vehicle in excess of 20 mph on a highway and is being operated without a license to operate that vehicle, or a person operating a vehicle that is a class 2 electric bicycle and is not 16 years of age. (VEH 22651.08)
8. Authorizes a local authority in San Diego or San Diego County in incorporated areas to prohibit a person under the age of 12 from riding an electric bicycle. (VEH 21214.7)
9. Authorizes a local authority in Marin County or Marin County in incorporated areas to prohibit a person under the age of 16 from riding a class 2 electric bicycle and to require all users of a class-2 electric bicycle to wear a helmet. (VEH 21214.5)

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.

COMMENTS: More than half of all trips made in the United States are shorter than three miles. To cover these distances, e-bikes are surging in popularity, evolving from recreational devices into genuine car replacements. The speed of these devices, coupled with the reduced physical strain they require, makes them a convenient, low-cost choice for short-range commuting. Furthermore, with average prices ranging from $1,000 to $3,500, e-bikes offer a significantly more affordable alternative to traditional motor vehicles. Their expanded use supports California’s environmental goals while potentially reducing traffic-related injuries and fatalities—which claimed over 4,400 lives in the state in 2024.

The lack of licensing and insurance requirements has further fueled this proliferation. In fact, e-bikes are now outselling electric cars: according to Kelley Blue Book, while 800,000 electric cars were purchased in the U.S. in 2022, e-bike imports reached 1.1 million. Projections indicate U.S. sales could reach 6.4 million units by 2025 due to rising demand. A 2024 survey by the Mineta Transportation Institute (MTI) found that 16% of U.S. adults had ridden an e-bike in the previous year, with 6% riding weekly. Additionally, the North American Bikeshare and Scootershare Association (NABSA) reported that riders logged 59 million trips on 76,000 shared e-bikes in 2024.

Growth in e-bike use has been accompanied by a rise in e-bike-related injuries and frustration from communities about potentially dangerous use of these devices. A new wave of high-speed electric motors has entered the California market, often exceeding the speed capabilities originally intended by California law. In response to the rising number of hospitalizations across the state, several bills have been introduced this year to address safety and regulation.

Meeting California’s environmental goals. In California, the transportation sector is the leading contributor of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and is responsible for about 40% of the state’s emissions with light-duty passenger vehicles being the single leading contributor. The Legislature has set several goals to reduce greenhouse (GHG) emissions and address climate change. The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 [AB 32 (Nunez), Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006] and subsequent companion legislation SB 32 (Pavley), Chapter 249, Statutes of 2016, requires California to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 40% below the 1990 level by 2030.

Reducing the number of miles people drive every day will have a significant impact on reducing GHG emissions. Providing alternative modes of transportation such as public transit, e-bikes, or other shared ride approaches could significantly reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in California. California has targeted a 15% reduction in VMT by 2050 as part of its larger strategy to reduce GHG emissions by 80% from 1990 levels by 2050.

In the 2023 study titled "Impacts of E-bike Ownership on Travel Behavior: Evidence from three Northern California rebate programs," researchers from UC Davis found that e-bike ownership leads to a measurable reduction in vehicle use. E-bike owners reported replacing one to three car trips per week with an e-bike, diverting between 12 and 44 kilograms of CO2 per month, or roughly equivalent to not burning five gallons of gasoline or the total emissions produced by running an average refrigerator for four months. If 1 million Californians (roughly 3% of the population) used e-bikes at the "high end" rate of this study, the state would reduce emissions by 528,000 metric tons of CO2 per year, The equivalent of taking 125,000 gas-powered cars off the road entirely.

Electric bicycle safety. As electric bicycle popularity has gone up, so have injuries. In 2023, the Legislature passed SB 381 (Min), Chapter 869, which directed the MTI at San Jose State University to study electric bicycles and the safety of riders and pedestrians.

MTI released the report Exploring Electric Bicycle Safety Performance Policy Options for California in December of 2025. That report provided a comprehensive review of how California and other states and countries regulate electric bicycles, a review of the electric bicycle safety literature, and strategies that the state could adopt to promote the safe use of electric bicycles.

According to the report, “In 2023, a total of 461,062 patients were treated at California hospitals with transportation-related injuries. Only 4,757 patients were identified as electric bicycle riders. Thus, electric bicycle riders comprised just 1% of all patients with transportation-related injury. Comparatively, 44,039 patients were identified as conventional bicycle riders, or 10% of all transportation-related patients. Overall, there were more than 9 times more injured conventional bicycle riders than injured electric bicycle riders. By far the most patients were injured in motor vehicle incidents: 62%.”

The report found that electric bicycle-related injuries may result in slightly more hospitalizations than conventional bicycle incidents, specifically “In the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) injury dataset of U.S. hospital patients, electric bicycle patients were hospitalized at only a three-percentage point greater rate than conventional bicycle patients (16% vs. 13%). Also, that gap disappeared when making an apples-to apples comparison of only those injuries occurring on streets. Finally, while the California hospital data did show more electric bicycle than conventional bicycle hospitalizations, the difference was a relatively modest six percentage points (17% vs. 11%). Looking at just injuries that took place on streets, conventional bicycles and electric bicycles had virtually identical hospitalization rates (18% vs 17%, respectively).”

In addition, most of the people involved in electric bicycle incidents are adults. NEISS reported that one in five electric bicycle patients (20%) were minors, almost identical to their share of the U.S. population. In comparison, 43% of conventional bicycle patients were minors. Slightly over half of the electric bicycle patients (54%) were adults aged 18 to 49 years. Electric bicycle patients had the oldest median age (34 years), a full decade higher than conventional bicycles (24 years). Mopeds/power-assisted cycles have the second highest median age, 30 years.

Most e-bike injuries are caused by the operators of the devices. According to NEISS data, 92% of patients were operating the device when injured, while 4% were bystanders. Bystanders struck by electric bicycles were hospitalized 12% of time, and bystanders struck by conventional bicycles were hospitalized 5% of the time.

The cause of the injuries while on an e-bikes was found to be nearly identical to the cause of injuries for riders of traditional bicycles. For e-bikes, 20% of injuries were caused by a collision with a motor vehicle, 4% were caused by a collision with another road user, and 51% were solo crashes. (The report notes that some of the solo crashes may have been caused by cyclists trying to avoid collisions with vehicles.) Twenty-five percent of the collisions were unspecified.

Illegal e-bikes are likely the problem. Illegal e-bikes are electric bicycles that exceed 750 watts of motor power, have a top speed greater than 20 mph (for Class 1 and 2) or 28 mph (for Class 3), or lack fully operable pedals. These vehicles are generally legally classified as electric motorcycles or mopeds, requiring registration, insurance, and proper licensing.

The e-bike landscape today is very challenging because many of the e-bikes that are causing crashes and creating a perceived nuisance in communities are illegal and it is very difficult to determine if an e-bike is legal or illegal by simply looking at it. In addition, illegal e-bikes, while they can be a nuisance and dangerous may not be the highest priority of local law enforcement. As a result, passing legislation targeting electric bicycles is unlikely to address the problems caused by illegal devices.

As part of the Mineta Institute report, surveys were conducted at Marin and San Mateo County middle and high schools to see what types of devices children were riding. Those surveys found that 88% of the devices at Marin County Schools and 87% of the devices at San Mateo County Schools were bicycles with electric motors that did not meet the definition of an electric bicycle, suggesting a significant proliferation of illegal devices into the marketplace, particularly for devices marketed towards children.

Legislative attempts to address electric bicycles and bicycle-shaped devices. The increased popularity of e-bikes and the rise of bicycle-shaped devices with electric motors has lead to an influx of legislation. Over the last several years this committee has heard many bills trying to address e-bike safety and curb the abuse of devices that look like an electric bicycle, but travel at speeds much greater than permitted by existing law.

State law prohibits people from modifying their e-bikes to operate at speeds greater than what is allowed. AB 1774 (Dixon), Chapter 55, Statutes of 2024 prohibited a person from selling a product or device that can modify the speed capability of an e-bike.  AB 545 (Davies), Chapter 37, Statutes of 2025 prohibited the sale of applications that can boost an electric bicycle’s speed greater than permitted by law. SB 1271 (Min), Chapter 891, Statutes of 2024 modifies the definition of an e-bike to make it clear that it cannot be capable of going greater than 20 miles per hour (class 1 or 2) or 28 miles per hour on pedal assist (class 3).  AB 965 (Dixon), Chapter 65, Statutes of 2025 prohibits the sale of a class 3 electric bicycle to a person under the age of 16.

AB 875 (Muratsuchi), Chapter 168, Statutes of 2025 Authorized a peace officer to remove a vehicle with fewer than four wheels that does not meet the definition of an e-bike and is powered by an electric motor capable of exclusively propelling the vehicle in excess of 20 mph and is being operated without a current vehicle registration or by an operator who is not licensed to operate the vehicle.

In addition, there are two ongoing legislatively authorized pilots with age prohibitions on persons allowed to ride e-bikes. AB 2234 (Boerner), Chapter 823, Statutes of 2024 authorized cities within San Diego County and the county of San Diego to prohibit a person under the age of 12 from riding a class 1 or 2 electric bicycle. AB 1778 (Connolly) authorized cities in Marin and the county of Marin to prohibit persons under 16 from riding a class 2 electric bicycle and require everyone riding a class 2 electric bicycle to wear a helmet.

This year at least nine bills have been introduced to address concerns surrounding electric bicycles and bicycle shaped devices with electric motors. AB 1942 (Bauer-Kahan) requires class 2 and 3 electric bicycles to have a license plate. AB 2284 (Dixon) requires the Attorney General’s office to create a list of devices that do not meet California’s specifications to be an electric bicycle. AB 2346 (Wilson) sets speed limits for electric bicycles and various equipment requirements. AB 2595 (Papan) expands the San Diego pilot program to San Mateo, prohibiting those under 12 years old from riding a class 1 or 2 electric bicycle. AB 1569 (Davies) requires students to pass an electric bicycle safety course from the CHP to park their bicycles at school.

SB 1167 (Blakespear) redefines motor driven cycle and mopeds, and creates disclosure requirements for selling such devices. SB 956 (Choi) authorizes local authorities to adopt and enforce speed limits, age requirements, and equipment requirements for electric bicycles.

This bill and the Mineta Report Recommendations. According to the Mineta Report, “In our exploration of state codes, we found that many states have adopted the same age minimum used by most of California (outside pilot projects areas, the requirement that Class 3 electric bicycles be at least 16 years old. However, a number of states have adopted slightly different approaches (Table 4). For example, some states set a different age minimum for Class 3 electric bicycles (e.g., 14 years in Tennessee), set age minimums for Class 1 and 2 electric bicycles, have no age minimums at all (e.g., Nevada), or require a minimum age for all electric bicycle classes (Hawaii). Also, a couple of states require younger riders to be supervised by an adult or guardian (Utah and Virginia)

Internationally, age minimums vary a great deal. For example, there is no age minimum in Germany and in some Australian states, but age minimums are 12 years in Victoria, Australia (if riders have demonstrated responsible riding skills) and Austria; 14 in France, Switzerland, and New Zealand; and 16 in the Netherlands, Singapore, and Japan. In Poland, there is no age minimum, but children under 10 must be supervised by an adult, a requirement similar to rules in Utah and Virginia.”

The report does not make age requirement recommendations to the Legislature. However, it does make recommendations suggesting that high powered electric bicycles (those with greater than 250 continuous watts) should require some sort of driver’s license similar to a moped, Under existing law, a person can get a learner’s permit to operate a moped at 15 and half.

Implementation of AB 2234 (Boerner): This bill expands the pilot program authorized under AB 2234 (Boerner), which authorized cities within San Diego County and the County itself to prohibit individuals under 12 from operating an electric bicycle. Insofar, the cities of Carlsbad, San Marcos, Chula Vista, Poway, San Marcos and Santee have implemented the pilot program. Solana Beach and Encinitas are still considering opting into the pilot program. As of the writing of this analysis, the city of San Diego’s public safety committee has unanimously passed regulations to implement the pilot and is waiting final approval. The City of Imperial Beach opted not to participate in the pilot program, in part because of the law enforcement data the bill requires locals to report to the Legislature.

The pilot program authority sunsets on January 1, 2029, with a report due back to the legislature by January 1, 2028.

Committee concerns: The Legislature is waiting to receive data back from the pilots AB 2234 (Boerner) and AB 1778 (Connolly) established. At the time the Legislature passed those bills, this committee raised concerns that both pilots were premature, and that we should wait for the recommendations from the Mineta Institute Report.

The Mineta Institute report ultimately did not make recommendations on prohibiting the use of electric bicycles based on age. Instead, it recommended collapsing electric bicycles into two categories: a low-speed electric bicycle and a high-speed electric bicycle. AB 1557 (Papan), currently before this committee, implements this recommendation by capping Class 1 and 2 e-bikes at 250 continuous watts at a maximum speed of 16 mph, in line with European standards. By capping class 1 and 2 e-bikes at those speeds and wattage, class 3 e-bikes effectively become the high-speed class recommendation in the Mineta Institute Report. All devices capable of speeds between 17 mph and 28 mph with a motor greater than 250 continuous watts would become class 3 electric bicycles. With this change comes the pre-existing age restriction of 16 years of age and a requirement for all users to wear a helmet when riding a class 3 electric bicycle.

AB 1557 has also subsequently been amended to explicitly prohibit people under 16 from riding an electric bicycle with a motor capable of exceeding 250 continuous watts. If AB 1557 were to become state law it would apply statewide and the need for expanding the San Diego pilot program to San Mateo would be unclear.

Moreover, it is unclear if restricting the age of an e-bike rider reduces electric bicycle injuries. Per the Mineta Report, nearly 90% of all bicycles with electric motors parked at San Mateo schools were already illegal for anyone to ride, let alone children. San Mateo may wish to enforce existing law, which as of January 1, 2026 authorizes them to impound such devices.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

City of San Bruno

City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County

Pranita Venkatesh, Mayor for the City of San Carlos

Town of Hillsborough

Fourteen Individuals

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: David Sforza / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093