APBP Calls for Clear Rules Separating E-Bikes From E-Motos

The Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP) approved a policy statement calling for clearer definitions and regulations to distinguish electric bicycles (e-bikes) from higher-powered electric motorcycles, commonly known as e-motos. Approved by APBP’s Board of Directors on October 15, 2026, the statement supports expanding access to e-bikes and micromobility devices while addressing safety concerns associated with devices that exceed established bicycle speed, power, and weight limits.

E-bikes and micromobility devices, including e-scooters, expand access to cycling, support sustainable transportation networks, and provide public health benefits. However, some higher-powered electric devices resemble e-bikes and are marketed as such despite operating more like mopeds or motorcycles without meeting the safety or registration requirements applicable to those vehicles.

APBP maintains that e-bikes meeting applicable legal definitions should continue to be regulated as bicycles, without motor vehicle licensing, registration, or insurance requirements. Low-speed, low-weight micromobility devices should generally follow the same regulatory framework. Devices that exceed e-bike speed or power standards should be clearly distinguished from e-bikes and regulated separately.

The Problem

Shared-use paths, trails, and bikeways accommodate people traveling at different speeds. As vehicle speeds and weights increase, conflicts become more likely and crashes can have more severe consequences. High-speed passing and close interactions can also reduce people’s sense of safety and discourage use of shared facilities, particularly among children, older adults, and less experienced riders.

E-bikes and low-speed, low-weight micromobility devices are subject to established speed and power limits intended to maintain compatibility with other users. Research cited by APBP suggests that e-bike and e-scooter riders typically travel at average speeds only modestly different from conventional bicyclists. E-motos, however, can accelerate faster, reach substantially higher speeds, and weigh considerably more than traditional e-bikes.

APBP illustrates the difference with an example involving an e-moto and rider weighing a combined 350 pounds traveling at 35 mph, compared with an e-bike and rider weighing 200 pounds traveling at 20 mph. The e-moto combination has more than five times the kinetic energy.

Inconsistent regulations and misleading terminology make it difficult for consumers to understand a device’s legal classification, where it can be operated, who may use it, and which requirements apply. The confusion has also contributed to public concern and policy responses directed at legal e-bikes, potentially undermining their mobility, environmental, accessibility, and public health benefits.

Definitions

Defining E-Bikes

Federal law, under 15 U.S.C. § 2085, defines a low-speed electric bicycle as a consumer product rather than a motor vehicle when it has two or three wheels, fully operable pedals, and an electric motor producing less than 750 watts, or one horsepower. When powered solely by the motor and ridden by a 170-pound operator on a paved, level surface, its maximum speed must be less than 20 mph.

The federal statute preempts state product safety requirements for qualifying e-bikes that are more stringent than federal Consumer Product Safety Commission requirements. It does not preempt state definitions of e-bikes or state and local rules governing where and how they may be operated.

Most states recognize e-bikes as bicycles, regulate them as bicycles, and allow them to use bicycle infrastructure. APBP considers these rules important for preserving access to bicycle facilities and avoiding barriers associated with motor vehicle licensing, registration, and insurance.

The Three-Class System

Approximately 40 U.S. states have adopted the PeopleForBikes model legislation establishing three e-bike classes based on drive type and maximum assisted speed. Class 1 e-bikes provide pedal assistance up to 20 mph. Class 2 e-bikes can be throttle-controlled or pedal-assisted, also up to 20 mph. Class 3 e-bikes provide pedal assistance up to 28 mph. Some states permit throttle use up to 20 mph on Class 3 e-bikes.

Defining Low-Speed, Low-Weight Micromobility Devices

There is no single federal policy establishing a uniform classification and use framework for low-speed, low-weight micromobility devices. APBP says a clear federal definition would provide consistent rules, recognize access to bicycle facilities, and help prevent compliant devices from being subjected to motor vehicle requirements.

Oregon House Bill 4007, enacted in 2026, provides an example. It defines a powered micromobility device as designed to transport a person, equipped with a propulsion system, capable of a maximum speed of 28 mph, and weighing less than 100 pounds unloaded.

The definition excludes devices powered exclusively by human power, electric-assisted bicycles, electric personal assistive mobility devices, motor-assisted scooters, motorized wheelchairs, motorcycles, mopeds, and all-terrain vehicles. APBP states that devices fitting this definition should be regulated similarly to e-bikes because they do not present the same speed and weight concerns as e-motos.

E-Motos And Other Higher-Powered Devices

Powered devices exceeding applicable low-speed or low-weight thresholds should be treated as a category distinct from e-bikes and qualifying micromobility devices. E-motos often exceed 750 watts, can travel faster than 28 mph, and may reach 50 mph or more. They are typically throttle-controlled and may lack functional pedals. They also frequently weigh more than 100 pounds.

Although e-motos operate more like mopeds or electric motorcycles, they are not typically certified or registered as either and often do not meet the safety standards required for those vehicles. Many are nevertheless marketed, sold, and operated as e-bikes, allowing them to benefit from lighter bicycle regulations while potentially presenting greater risks to pedestrians, bicyclists, and their own riders.

Safe Devices

Existing safety frameworks cover bicycles, micromobility devices, and motor vehicles, but some e-motos fall outside these systems.

E-bikes meeting the federal definition are covered by the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s bicycle safety rule, 16 CFR Part 1512, which addresses mechanical and structural safety, including frames, brakes, and reflectors. Electrical safety standards include UL 2849 for e-bikes and UL 2272 for micromobility devices. These standards allow manufacturers to obtain independent certification through an accredited laboratory. New York City and California are among the jurisdictions beginning to require such certification before devices can be sold or rented.

A throttle-controlled, high-speed two-wheeler built for road use may legally qualify as a motorcycle or moped under the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s jurisdiction. Such vehicles should be self-certified to applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards before sale.

E-motos marketed as e-bikes may be neither classified nor certified as motorcycles or mopeds, while being too powerful to qualify for CPSC bicycle safety requirements or e-bike certification standards. They can therefore fall outside both bicycle and motor vehicle safety frameworks.

Recommendations

Address Misleading Marketing And Noncompliant Sales At The Source

APBP considers misleading e-moto marketing a consumer protection and marketplace accountability problem, not simply an enforcement issue. Buyers may not realize that a device marketed as an e-bike is legally a moped, motorcycle, or off-highway vehicle, potentially subject to registration, licensing, insurance, helmet, and operating-location requirements.

APBP supports prohibiting manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and online marketplaces from advertising, labeling, offering for sale, or selling a device as an e-bike unless it meets the applicable legal definition. Retailers should disclose maximum motor-assisted speed, motor power, electrical system and battery certification, legal classification, and relevant operating requirements.

Consumer protection agencies, attorneys general, and other enforcement authorities should be empowered to investigate noncompliant products and issue cease-and-desist or stop-sale orders. APBP recommends removing online listings, requiring corrective disclosures, imposing civil penalties for each noncompliant sale, and seeking injunctive relief for repeated or knowing violations. Online marketplaces should also implement reasonable procedures to verify compliance and prevent sellers from evading requirements through misleading product categories or terminology.

Enforcement should focus on sellers and the accuracy of the transaction rather than placing the primary burden on law enforcement officers or consumers who may have unknowingly purchased misclassified devices.

California’s SB 1167 prohibits certain devices from being advertised, sold, offered for sale, or labeled as electric bicycles if they exceed statutory e-bike criteria or are designed to be modified beyond those criteria. California also requires permanent labels identifying an e-bike’s classification, maximum assisted speed, and motor wattage.

New York City has directed online retailers to stop selling devices that exceed applicable legal limits. The city issued cease-and-desist orders to 42 online retailers and established potential penalties of up to $2,000 per illegal sale. Delaware’s Truth in E-Bike Marketing Act is another example of legislation addressing false advertising of high-powered motor vehicles as e-bikes or electric bikes.

APBP recommends that consumer disclosures and labeling requirements identify device specifications, applicable certifications, and legal obligations clearly, while ensuring that identified noncompliant listings are removed.

E-Bikes Are Bikes: Preserve Access And Reduce Barriers

APBP opposes applying motor vehicle licensing, registration, and insurance requirements to e-bikes that meet applicable legal definitions. The organization says these requirements create barriers to e-bike adoption and broader bicycle use, undermine equity gains made possible by bikeshare and e-bike programs, and can create pretexts for discriminatory enforcement. They also conflict with the intent of federal law, which classifies qualifying e-bikes as consumer products rather than motor vehicles.

APBP argues that policymakers should identify and regulate e-motos separately rather than burden riders of legal e-bikes with motor vehicle requirements.

Regulate Operations, Not Just Designs

Design-based rules can distinguish device categories, but they do not directly address behaviors that create conflicts on shared-use paths and other shared facilities. Speed, yielding, passing, and rider conduct can be important regardless of a device’s propulsion technology.

APBP recommends speed limits on shared-use paths for motorized and non-motorized users, yield requirements for faster users in mixed-use environments, and technologically enforced power-assisted speed caps where feasible. Geofencing for shared e-bike and e-scooter programs is one possible approach. Jurisdictions should also prohibit reckless operation, including excessive speed for conditions, unsafe passing, racing, and other dangerous behavior.

APBP says these operational rules can complement device regulations and adapt to new device designs and form factors.

Compliance Regulation

APBP says law enforcement agencies across the country are largely not equipped to identify e-motos or issue citations to their riders. The organization calls for retailer accountability, standardized and visible device markings, and law enforcement training on distinguishing e-bikes from e-motos.

Training should include identifying common modifications, such as snipped wires and tampered speed limiters, and enforcing applicable speed limits. APBP also recommends modification-resistant speed limiters and other technology-based measures that reduce violations without requiring constant active enforcement.

The Case For National Regulatory Consistency

The patchwork of state and local e-bike and e-moto regulations creates confusion for manufacturers, retailers, consumers, advocates, and law enforcement. APBP supports a national model regulatory framework for e-bikes that builds on and strengthens the PeopleForBikes three-class model.

The organization also calls for a national framework for micromobility devices that recognizes that devices meeting specified speed and weight thresholds, such as 20 or 28 mph and 100 pounds, should be regulated similarly to equivalent e-bikes rather than subjected to motor vehicle requirements.

E-motos should instead follow regulations equivalent to those governing comparable motor vehicles, such as mopeds or motorcycles. APBP also supports federal legislation clarifying the distinction between e-bikes and e-motos.

APBP Policy Statement Development And Member Participation

APBP developed the policy statement using widely available information and tools and sought comments on a draft from Policy Committee members. The Board of Directors approved the statement on October 15, 2026. Members can suggest changes by contacting the association’s executive director, Policy Committee chair, or a board member.

For more information, contact Lauren Santangelo, Executive Director, at lsantangelo@amrms.com.