17.G.
8/11/2026 10:54:28 AM Page 6 of 20
14. Conduct Traffic Safety educational presentation(s) with an effort to reach community members. Note: Presentation(s) may include topics such as distracted driving, DUI, speed, bicycle and pedestrian safety, seat belts and child passenger safety.
2 15. Participate in highly visible collaborative DUI Enforcement operations. 1
16. Send law enforcement personnel to DUI Checkpoint Planning and Management training.
1 3. METHOD OF PROCEDURE
A. Phase 1 – Program Preparation (1st Quarter of Grant Year) • The department will develop operational plans to implement the “best practice” strategies outlined in the objectives section.
• Conduct all training needed to implement the program, in the first quarter. • Purchase all grant related supplies and materials to implement the program, in the first quarter. • Items with a unit cost of $5,000 more (including tax and shipping) must comply with the Buy America Act.
• In order to develop/maintain the “DUI BOLOs,” research will be conducted to identify repeat DUI offenders with a suspended or revoked license as a result of DUI convictions. The DUI BOLO may include the driver’s name, last known address, DOB, description, current license status, and the number of times suspended or revoked for DUI. DUI BOLOs should be updated and distributed to traffic and patrol officers at least monthly. • Implementation of the STEP grant activities will be accomplished by deploying personnel at high crash locations.
Media Requirements
Issue a news release approved by the OTS PIO announcing the kick-off of the grant by December 31 and after the grant is signed and executed, but no sooner than October 1, the start of the grant year. The kick-off release must be approved by the OTS PIO. If you are unable to meet the December 31 deadline to issue a kick-off press release, communicate the reasons to your OTS grant coordinator and OTS PIO.
B. Phase 2 – Program Operations (Throughout Grant Year) Media Requirements
The following requirements are for all grant-related activities:
• Send all media advisories, alerts, videos, graphics, artwork, posters, radio/PSA/video scripts, storyboards, digital and/or print educational materials for grant-related activities to the OTS PIO at [email protected] for approval and copy your OTS grant coordinator. Optimum lead time would be 7 days before the scheduled release but at least 3 business days prior to the scheduled release date for review and approval is appreciated.
• Send all PowerPoint presentations, online presentations and trainings for grant-related activities to the OTS PIO at [email protected] for approval and copy your OTS grant coordinator. Certified training courses are EXEMPT from the approval process.
• The OTS PIO is responsible for the approval of the design and content of materials. The agency understands OTS PIO approval is not authorizing approval of budget expenditure or cost. Any cost approvals must come from the OTS grant coordinator. • Pre-approval is not required when using any OTS-supplied template for media advisories, news releases, social media graphics, videos or posts, or any other OTS-supplied educational material.
However, copy the OTS PIO at [email protected] and your OTS grant coordinator when any material is distributed to the media and public, such as a news release, educational material, or link to social media post.
• If an OTS-supplied template, educational material, social media graphic, post or video is substantially changed, the changes shall be sent to the OTS PIO at [email protected] for approval and copy your OTS grant coordinator.
• News releases, social media posts and alerts on platforms such as NextDoor and Nixle reporting immediate and time-sensitive grant activities (e.g. enforcement operations, day of event highlights or announcements, event invites) are EXEMPT from the OTS PIO approval process.
The OTS PIO and your OTS grant coordinator should still be notified when the grant-related activity is happening (e.g. car seat checks, bicycle rodeos, community presentations, DUI checkpoints, etc.).
17.G.
8/11/2026 10:54:28 AM Page 7 of 20
• Enforcement activities such as warrant and probation sweeps, court stings, etc. that are embargoed or could impact operations by publicizing in advance are EXEMPT from the PIO approval process. However, announcements and results of activities should still be copied to the OTS PIO at [email protected] and your OTS grant coordinator with the embargoed date and time or with “INTERNAL ONLY: DO NOT RELEASE” message in subject line of email. • Any earned or paid media campaigns for TV, radio, digital or social media that are part of a specific grant objective, using OTS grant funds, or designed and developed using contractual services by a subgrantee, requires prior approval.
• Social media posts highlighting state or national traffic safety campaigns (Distracted Driving Month, Motorcycle Safety Awareness Month, etc.), enforcement operations (DUI checkpoints, etc.), or any other grant-related activity such as Bicycle rodeos, presentations, or events, are highly encouraged but do not require prior approval.
• Submit a draft or rough-cut of all digital, printed, recorded or video material (brochures, posters, scripts, artwork, trailer graphics, digital graphics, social posts connected to an earned or paid media campaign grant objective) to the OTS PIO at [email protected] and copy your OTS grant coordinator for approval prior to the production or duplication. • Use the following standard language in all press, media, and printed materials, space permitting:
Funding for this program was provided by a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety, through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. • Space permitting, include the OTS logo on all grant-funded print materials, graphics and paid or earned social media campaign grant objective; consult the OTS PIO and copy your OTS grant coordinator for specifics, format-appropriate logos, or if space does not permit the use of the OTS logo.
• Email the OTS PIO at [email protected] and copy your OTS grant coordinator at least 21 days in advance, or when first confirmed, a short description of any significant grant-related traffic safety event or program, particularly events that are highly publicized beforehand with anticipated media coverage so the OTS has sufficient notice to arrange for attendance and/or participation in the event. If unable to attend, email the OTS PIO at [email protected] and your OTS grant coordinator brief highlights and/or results, including any media coverage (broadcast, digital, print) of the event within 7 days following significant grant-related event or program. The OTS PIO and your OTS grant coordinator should still be notified in advance when the grant-related activity is happening (e.g. car seat checks, bicycle rodeos, community presentations, DUI checkpoints, etc.).
• Any news releases, work plans, scripts, storyboards, artwork, graphics, videos or any educational or informational materials that received OTS PIO approval in a prior grant year must be resubmitted for approval in the current grant year.
• For additional guidance, refer to the OTS Grants Materials Approval Process Guidelines and FAQs .
• Email the OTS PIO at [email protected] or your OTS grant coordinator for consultation when changes from any of the above requirements might be warranted.
C. Phase 3 – Data Collection & Reporting (Throughout Grant Year)
1. Prepare and submit grant claim invoices (due January 30, April 30, July 30, and October 30)
2. Prepare and submit Quarterly Performance Reports (QPR) (due January 30, April 30, July 30, and October 30)
• Collect and report quarterly, appropriate data that supports the progress of goals and objectives. • Provide a brief list of activity conducted, procurement of grant-funded items, and significant media activities. Include status of grant-funded personnel, status of contracts, challenges, or special accomplishments.
• Provide a brief summary of quarterly accomplishments and explanations for objectives not completed or plans for upcoming activities.
• Collect, analyze and report statistical data relating to the grant goals and objectives.
4. METHOD OF EVALUATION
Using the data compiled during the grant, the Grant Director will complete the “Final Evaluation” section in the fourth/final Quarterly Performance Report (QPR). The Final Evaluation should provide a brief summary
17.G.
8/11/2026 10:54:28 AM Page 8 of 20
of the grant’s accomplishments, challenges and significant activities. This narrative should also include whether goals and objectives were met, exceeded, or an explanation of why objectives were not completed.
5. ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT
This program has full administrative support, and every effort will be made to continue the grant activities after grant conclusion.
17.G.
8/11/2026 10:54:28 AM Page 9 of 20
State of California – Office of Traffic Safety
GRANT AGREEMENT
Schedule B
GRANT NUMBER
PT27075
FUND NUMBER CATALOG
NUMBER (CFDA)
FUND DESCRIPTION TOTAL AMOUNT
164ID-27 20.608 Minimum Penalties for Repeat
Offenders for Driving While
Intoxicated
$66,000.00
402PT-27 20.600 State and Community Highway
Safety
$20,000.00
405e DDA-27 20.616 Distracted Driving Awareness $6,000.00
COST CATEGORY FUND
NUMBER
UNIT COST OR
RATE
UNITS TOTAL COST TO
GRANT
A. PERSONNEL COSTS
Straight Time
$0.00
Overtime
DUI/DL Checkpoints 164ID-27 $11,000.00 3 $33,000.00
DUI Saturation Patrols 164ID-27 $1,730.24 13 $22,493.00 Collaborative DUI Enforcement 164ID-27 $2,595.36 1 $2,595.00 Benefits - 164ID OT @ 9.35% 164ID-27 $58,088.48 1 $5,431.00 Traffic Enforcement 402PT-27 $1,730.24 5 $8,651.00
Motorcycle Safety Enforcement 402PT-27 $1,730.24 1 $1,730.00 Pedestrian and Bicycle Enforcement 402PT-27 $2,595.36 2 $5,191.00 Benefits - 402PT OT @ 9.35% 402PT-27 $15,572.16 1 $1,456.00 Distracted Driving 405e DDA-
27 $1,829.00 3 $5,487.00
Benefits - 405e OT @ 9.35% 405e DDA-
27 $5,487.00 1 $513.00
Category Sub-Total $86,547.00
B. TRAVEL EXPENSES
In State Travel 402PT-27 $2,971.84 1 $2,972.00
$0.00
Category Sub-Total $2,972.00
C. CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
$0.00
Category Sub-Total $0.00
D. EQUIPMENT
$0.00
Category Sub-Total $0.00
E. OTHER DIRECT COSTS
DUI Checkpoint Supplies 164ID-27 $2,481.25 1 $2,481.00
Category Sub-Total $2,481.00
F. INDIRECT COSTS
$0.00
Category Sub-Total $0.00
GRANT TOTAL $92,000.00
17.G.
8/11/2026 10:54:28 AM Page 10 of 20
17.G.
8/11/2026 10:54:28 AM Page 11 of 20
State of California – Office of Traffic Safety
GRANT AGREEMENT
Schedule B-1
GRANT NUMBER
PT27075
BUDGET NARRATIVE
PERSONNEL COSTS
DUI/DL Checkpoints - Overtime for grant funded law enforcement operations conducted by appropriate department personnel.
DUI Saturation Patrols - Overtime for grant funded law enforcement operations conducted by appropriate department personnel.
Collaborative DUI Enforcement - Overtime for grant funded Collaborative DUI Enforcement operations conducted by appropriate department personnel
Benefits - 164ID OT @ 9.35% - Claimed amounts must reflect actual benefit costs for overtime hours charged to the grant.
Total Benefits: 9.35%
Traffic Enforcement - Overtime for grant funded law enforcement operations conducted by appropriate department personnel.
Motorcycle Safety Enforcement - Overtime for grant funded law enforcement operations conducted by appropriate department personnel.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Enforcement - Overtime for grant funded law enforcement operations conducted by appropriate department personnel.
Benefits - 402PT OT @ 9.35% - Claimed amounts must reflect actual benefit costs for overtime hours charged to the grant.
Total Benefits: 9.35%
Distracted Driving - Overtime for grant funded law enforcement operations conducted by appropriate department personnel.
Benefits - 405e OT @ 9.35% - Claimed amounts must reflect actual benefit costs for overtime hours charged to the grant.
Total Benefits: 9.35%
TRAVEL EXPENSES
In State Travel - Costs are included for appropriate staff to attend conferences and training events supporting the grant goals and objectives and/or traffic safety. Local mileage for grant activities and meetings is included. Anticipated travel may include the OTS Traffic Safety Law Enforcement Forum, OTS Traffic Safety Summit, GHSA Annual Meeting in Anaheim. All conferences, seminars or training not specifically identified in the Budget Narrative must be approved by OTS. All travel claimed must be at the agency approved rate. Per Diem may not be claimed for meals provided at conferences when registration fees are paid with OTS grant funds.
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
-
EQUIPMENT
-
OTHER DIRECT COSTS
DUI Checkpoint Supplies - On-scene supplies needed to conduct sobriety checkpoints. Costs may include 28" traffic cones, MUTCD compliant traffic signs, MUTCD compliant high visibility vests (maximum of 10), traffic counters (maximum of 2), generator, gas for generators, lighting, reflective banners, electronic flares, PAS Device Supplies, PAS Calibration Supplies, heater, propane for heaters, fan, anti-fatigue mats, and canopies. Additional items may be purchased if approved by OTS. The cost of food and beverages will not be reimbursed.
INDIRECT COSTS
-
STATEMENTS/DISCLAIMERS
There will be no program income generated from this grant.
17.G.
8/11/2026 10:54:28 AM Page 12 of 20
Salaries may include wages, salaries, special compensations, or authorized absences such as annual leave and sick leave provided the cost for the individual employee is (a) reasonable for the services rendered, and (b) follows an appointment made in accordance with state or local laws and rules and meets federal requirements.
Any non-grant funded vacancies created by reassignment to a grant-funded position must be filled at the expense of the grantee agency.
Nothing in this agreement shall be interpreted as a requirement, formal or informal, that a particular law enforcement officer issue a specified or predetermined number of citations in pursuance of the goals and objectives here under.
The OTS grant funded activities must be separate from other grant funded program activities and maintained under separate accounting tracking codes (example: the same DUI checkpoint may not be funded by both the CHP Cannabis Tax Fund and the OTS).
Benefits for personnel costs can only be applied to straight time or overtime hours charged to the grant.
17.G.
8/11/2026 10:54:28 AM Page 13 of 20
Appendix A to Part 1300—Certifications and Assurances for Highway Safety Grants (23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 or Section 1906, Public Law 109-59, as amended by Section 25024, Public Law 117- 58)
The officials named on the grant agreement, certify by way of signature on the grant agreement signature page, that the Grantee Agency complies with all applicable Federal statutes, regulations, and directives and State rules, guidelines, policies, and laws in effect with respect to the periods for which it receives grant funding.
Applicable provisions include, but are not limited to, the following:
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
The State will comply with applicable statutes and regulations, including but not limited to:
• 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4—Highway Safety Act of 1966, as amended; • Sec. 1906, Public Law 109-59, as amended by Sec. 25024, Public Law 117-58; • 23 CFR part 1300—Uniform Procedures for State Highway Safety Grant Programs; • 2 CFR part 200—Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards;
• 2 CFR part 1201—Department of Transportation, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards.
NONDISCRIMINATION
(applies to subrecipients as well as States)
The State highway safety agency [and its subrecipients] will comply with all Federal statutes and implementing regulations relating to nondiscrimination (“Federal Nondiscrimination Authorities”). These include but are not limited to:
• Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq., 78 stat. 252), (prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin);
• 49 CFR part 21 (entitled Non-discrimination in Federally -Assisted Programs of the Department of Transportation—Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964); • 28 CFR 50.3 (U.S. Department of Justice Guidelines for Enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964);
• The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, (42 U.S.C. 4601), (prohibits unfair treatment of persons displaced or whose property has been acquired because of Federal or Federal-aid programs and projects);
• Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973, (23 U.S.C. 324 et seq.), and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended (20 U.S.C. 1681-1683 and 1685-1686) (prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex);
• Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, (29 U.S.C. 794 et seq.), as amended, (prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability) and 49 CFR part 27; • The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 6101 et seq.), (prohibits discrimination on the basis of age);
• The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, (Pub. L. 100-209), (broadens scope, coverage, and applicability of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, by expanding the definition of the terms “programs or activities” to include all of the programs or activities of the
Federal aid recipients, subrecipients and contractors, whether such programs or activities are Federally- funded or not);
• Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. 12131-12189) (prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in the operation of public entities, public and private transportation systems, places of public accommodation, and certain testing) and 49 CFR parts 37 and 38
State of California – Office of Traffic Safety
GRANT AGREEMENT
Exhibit A
GRANT NUMBER
PT27075
17.G.
8/11/2026 10:54:28 AM Page 14 of 20
The preceding statutory and regulatory cites hereinafter are referred to as the “Acts” and “Regulations,” respectively.
GENERAL ASSURANCES
In accordance with the Acts, the Regulations, and other pertinent directives, circulars, policy, memoranda, and/or guidance, the Recipient hereby gives assurance that it will promptly take any measures necessary to ensure that:
“No person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity, for which the Recipient receives Federal financial assistance from DOT, including NHTSA.”
The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 clarified the original intent of Congress, with respect to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other non-discrimination requirements (the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973), by restoring the broad, institutional-wide scope and coverage of these nondiscrimination statutes and requirements to include all programs and activities of the Recipient, so long as any portion of the program is Federally assisted.
SPECIFIC ASSURANCES
More specifically, and without limiting the above general Assurance, the Recipient agrees with and gives the following Assurances with respect to its Federally assisted Highway Safety Grant Program:
1. The Recipient agrees that each “activity,” “facility,” or “program,” as defined in 49 CFR part 21 will be (with regard to an “activity”) facilitated, or will be (with regard to a “facility”) operated, or will be (with regard to a “program”) conducted in compliance with all requirements imposed by, or pursuant to the Acts and the Regulations.
2. The Recipient will insert the following notification in all solicitations for bids, Requests For Proposals for work, or material subject to the Acts and the Regulations made in connection with all Highway Safety Grant Programs and, in adapted form, in all proposals for negotiated agreements regardless of funding source:
“The [name of Recipient], in accordance with the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 252, 42 U.S.C 2000d to 2000d-4) and the Regulations, hereby notifies all bidders that it will affirmatively ensure that in any contract entered into pursuant to this advertisement, disadvantaged business enterprises will be afforded full and fair opportunity to submit bids in response to this invitation and will not be discriminated against on the grounds of race, color, or national origin in consideration for an award.”
3. The Recipient will insert the clauses of appendix A and E of this Assurance (also referred to as DOT order 1050.2A) [1] in every contract or agreement subject to the Acts and the Regulations.
4. The Recipient will insert the clauses of appendix B of DOT Order 1050.2A, as a covenant running with the land, in any deed from the United States effecting or recording a transfer of real property, structures, use, or improvements thereon or interest therein to a Recipient.
5. That where the Recipient receives Federal financial assistance to construct a facility, or part of a facility, the Assurance will extend to the entire facility and facilities operated in connection therewith.
6. That where the Recipient receives Federal financial assistance in the form of, or for the acquisition of, real property or an interest in real property, the Assurance will extend to rights to space on, over, or under such property.
7. That the Recipient will include the clauses set forth in appendix C and appendix D of this DOT Order 1050.2A, as a covenant running with the land, in any future deeds, leases, licenses, permits, or similar instruments entered into by the Recipient with other parties:
a. for the subsequent transfer of real property acquired or improved under the applicable activity, project, or program; and
b. for the construction or use of, or access to, space on, over, or under real property acquired or improved under the applicable activity, project, or program.
8. That this Assurance obligates the Recipient for the period during which Federal financial assistance is extended to the program, except where the Federal financial assistance is to provide, or is in the
17.G.
8/11/2026 10:54:28 AM Page 15 of 20
form of, personal property, or real property, or interest therein, or structures or improvements thereon, in which case the Assurance obligates the Recipient, or any transferee for the longer of the following periods:
a. the period during which the property is used for a purpose for which the Federal financial assistance is extended, or for another purpose involving the provision of similar services or benefits; or
b. the period during which the Recipient retains ownership or possession of the property.
9. The Recipient will provide for such methods of administration for the program as are found by the Secretary of Transportation or the official to whom he/she delegates specific authority to give reasonable guarantee that it, other recipients, sub-recipients, sub- grantees, contractors, subcontractors, consultants, transferees, successors in interest, and other participants of Federal financial assistance under such program will comply with all requirements imposed or pursuant to the Acts, the Regulations, and this Assurance.
10. The Recipient agrees that the United States has a right to seek judicial enforcement with regard to any matter arising under the Acts, the Regulations, and this Assurance.
By signing this ASSURANCE, the State highway safety agency also agrees to comply (and require any sub- recipients, sub-grantees, contractors, successors, transferees, and/or assignees to comply) with all applicable provisions governing NHTSA's access to records, accounts, documents, information, facilities, and staff. You also recognize that you must comply with any program or compliance reviews, and/or complaint investigations conducted by NHTSA. You must keep records, reports, and submit the material for review upon request to NHTSA, or its designee in a timely, complete, and accurate way. Additionally, you must comply with all other reporting, data collection, and evaluation requirements, as prescribed by law or detailed in program guidance.
The State highway safety agency gives this ASSURANCE in consideration of and for obtaining any Federal grants, loans, contracts, agreements, property, and/or discounts, or other Federal-aid and Federal financial assistance extended after the date hereof to the recipients by the U.S. Department of Transportation under the Highway Safety Grant Program. This ASSURANCE is binding on the State highway safety agency, other recipients, sub-recipients, sub-grantees, contractors, subcontractors and their subcontractors', transferees, successors in interest, and any other participants in the Highway Safety Grant Program. The person(s) signing below is/are authorized to sign this ASSURANCE on behalf of the Recipient.
THE DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE ACT OF 1988 (41 U.S.C. 8103)
The Subgrantee will provide a drug-free workplace by:
a. Publishing a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in the grantee's workplace, and specifying the actions that will be taken against employees for violation of such prohibition; b. Establishing a drug-free awareness program to inform employees about:
1. The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace;
2. The grantee's policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace;
3. Any available drug counseling, rehabilitation, and employee assistance programs;
4. The penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug violations occurring in the workplace;
5. Making it a requirement that each employee engaged in the performance of the grant be given a copy of the statement required by paragraph (a); c. Notifying the employee in the statement required by paragraph (a) that, as a condition of employment under the grant, the employee will—
1. Abide by the terms of the statement;
2. Notify the employer of any criminal drug statute conviction for a violation occurring in the workplace no later than five days after such conviction; d. Notifying the agency within ten days after receiving notice under subparagraph (c)(2) from an employee or otherwise receiving actual notice of such conviction; e. Taking one of the following actions, within 30 days of receiving notice under subparagraph (c)(2), with respect to any employee who is so convicted—
1. Taking appropriate personnel action against such an employee, up to and including termination;
2. Requiring such employee to participate satisfactorily in a drug abuse assistance or
17.G.
8/11/2026 10:54:28 AM Page 16 of 20
rehabilitation program approved for such purposes by a Federal, State, or local health, law enforcement, or other appropriate agency;
f. Making a good faith effort to continue to maintain a drug-free workplace through implementation of all of the paragraphs above.
POLITICAL ACTIVITY (HATCH ACT)
(applies to subrecipients as well as States)
The State will comply with provisions of the Hatch Act (5 U.S.C. 1501-1508), which limits the political activities of employees whose principal employment activities are funded in whole or in part with Federal funds.
CERTIFICATION REGARDING FEDERAL LOBBYING
(applies to subrecipients as well as States)
CERTIFICATION FOR CONTRACTS, GRANTS, LOANS, AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS
The undersigned certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that:
1. No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement;
2. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, “Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying,” in accordance with its instructions;
3. The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all sub-awards at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under grant, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly.
This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by section 1352, title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure.
RESTRICTION ON STATE LOBBYING
(applies to subrecipients as well as States)
None of the funds under this program will be used for any activity specifically designed to urge or influence a State or local legislator to favor or oppose the adoption of any specific legislative proposal pending before any State or local legislative body. Such activities include both direct and indirect (e.g., “grassroots”) lobbying activities, with one exception. This does not preclude a State official whose salary is supported with NHTSA funds from engaging in direct communications with State or local legislative officials, in accordance with customary State practice, even if such communications urge legislative officials to favor or oppose the adoption of a specific pending legislative proposal.
CERTIFICATION REGARDING DEBARMENT AND SUSPENSION
(applies to subrecipients as well as States)
INSTRUCTIONS FOR PRIMARY TIER PARTICIPANT CERTIFICATION (STATES)
17.G.
8/11/2026 10:54:28 AM Page 17 of 20
1. By signing and submitting this proposal, the prospective primary tier participant is providing the certification set out below and agrees to comply with the requirements of 2 CFR parts 180 and 1200.
2. The inability of a person to provide the certification required below will not necessarily result in denial of participation in this covered transaction. The prospective primary tier participant shall submit an explanation of why it cannot provide the certification set out below. The certification or explanation will be considered in connection with the department or agency's determination whether to enter into this transaction. However, failure of the prospective primary tier participant to furnish a certification or an explanation shall disqualify such person from participation in this transaction.
3. The certification in this clause is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when the department or agency determined to enter into this transaction. If it is later determined that the prospective primary tier participant knowingly rendered an erroneous certification, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal Government, the department or agency may terminate this transaction for cause or default or may pursue suspension or debarment.
4. The prospective primary tier participant shall provide immediate written notice to the department or agency to which this proposal is submitted if at any time the prospective primary tier participant learns its certification was erroneous when submitted or has become erroneous by reason of changed circumstances.
5. The terms covered transaction, civil judgment, debarment, suspension, ineligible, participant, person, principal, and voluntarily excluded, as used in this clause, are defined in 2 CFR parts 180 and 1200. You may contact the department or agency to which this proposal is being submitted for assistance in obtaining a copy of those regulations.
6. The prospective primary tier participant agrees by submitting this proposal that, should the proposed covered transaction be entered into, it shall not knowingly enter into any lower tier covered transaction with a person who is proposed for debarment under 48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4, debarred, suspended, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this covered transaction, unless authorized by the department or agency entering into this transaction.
7. The prospective primary tier participant further agrees by submitting this proposal that it will include the clause titled “Instructions for Lower Tier Participant Certification” including the “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion—Lower Tier Covered Transaction,” provided by the department or agency entering into this covered transaction, without modification, in all lower tier covered transactions and in all solicitations for lower tier covered transactions and will require lower tier participants to comply with 2 CFR parts 180 and 1200.
8. A participant in a covered transaction may rely upon a certification of a prospective participant in a lower tier covered transaction that it is not proposed for debarment under 48 CFR part 9, subpart
9.4, debarred, suspended, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from the covered transaction, unless it knows that the certification is erroneous. A participant is responsible for ensuring that its principals are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise ineligible to participate in covered transactions. To verify the eligibility of its principals, as well as the eligibility of any prospective lower tier participants, each participant may, but is not required to, check the System for Award Management Exclusions website
( https://www.sam.gov/).
9. Nothing contained in the foregoing shall be construed to require establishment of a system of records in order to render in good faith the certification required by this clause. The knowledge and information of a participant is not required to exceed that which is normally possessed by a prudent person in the ordinary course of business dealings.
10. Except for transactions authorized under paragraph 6 of these instructions, if a participant in a covered transaction knowingly enters into a lower tier covered transaction with a person who is proposed for debarment under 48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4, suspended, debarred, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal Government, the department or agency may terminate the transaction for cause or default.
CERTIFICATION REGARDING DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION, AND OTHER RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS—PRIMARY TIER
COVERED TRANSACTIONS
1. The prospective primary tier participant certifies to the best of its knowledge and belief, that it and
17.G.
8/11/2026 10:54:28 AM Page 18 of 20
its principals:
a. Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participating in covered transactions by any Federal department or agency;
b. Have not within a three-year period preceding this proposal been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against them for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (Federal, State, or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; violation of Federal or State antitrust statutes or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, or receiving stolen property; c. Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a governmental entity (Federal, State, or local) with commission of any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph (1)(b) of this certification; and d. Have not within a three-year period preceding this application/proposal had one or more public transactions (Federal, State, or local) terminated for cause or default.
2. Where the prospective primary tier participant is unable to certify to any of the Statements in this certification, such prospective participant shall attach an explanation to this proposal.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR LOWER TIER PARTICIPANT CERTIFICATION
1. By signing and submitting this proposal, the prospective lower tier participant is providing the certification set out below and agrees to comply with the requirements of 2 CFR parts 180 and 1200.
2. The certification in this clause is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was entered into. If it is later determined that the prospective lower tier participant knowingly rendered an erroneous certification, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal Government, the department or agency with which this transaction originated may pursue available remedies, including suspension or debarment.
3. The prospective lower tier participant shall provide immediate written notice to the person to which this proposal is submitted if at any time the prospective lower tier participant learns that its certification was erroneous when submitted or has become erroneous by reason of changed circumstances.
4. The terms covered transaction, civil judgment, debarment, suspension, ineligible, participant, person, principal, and voluntarily excluded, as used in this clause, are defined in 2 CFR parts 180 and 1200. You may contact the person to whom this proposal is submitted for assistance in obtaining a copy of those regulations.
5. The prospective lower tier participant agrees by submitting this proposal that, should the proposed covered transaction be entered into, it shall not knowingly enter into any lower tier covered transaction with a person who is proposed for debarment under 48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4, debarred, suspended, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this covered transaction, unless authorized by the department or agency with which this transaction originated.
6. The prospective lower tier participant further agrees by submitting this proposal that it will include the clause titled “Instructions for Lower Tier Participant Certification” including the “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion—Lower Tier Covered Transaction,” without modification, in all lower tier covered transactions and in all solicitations for lower tier covered transactions and will require lower tier participants to comply with 2 CFR parts 180 and 1200.
7. A participant in a covered transaction may rely upon a certification of a prospective participant in a lower tier covered transaction that it is not proposed for debarment under 48 CFR part 9, subpart
9.4, debarred, suspended, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from the covered transaction, unless it knows that the certification is erroneous. A participant is responsible for ensuring that its principals are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise ineligible to participate in covered transactions. To verify the eligibility of its principals, as well as the eligibility of any prospective lower tier participants, each participant may, but is not required to, check the System for Award Management Exclusions website
( https://www.sam.gov/).
8. Nothing contained in the foregoing shall be construed to require establishment of a system of
17.G.
8/11/2026 10:54:28 AM Page 19 of 20
records in order to render in good faith the certification required by this clause. The knowledge and information of a participant is not required to exceed that which is normally possessed by a prudent person in the ordinary course of business dealings.
9. Except for transactions authorized under paragraph 5 of these instructions, if a participant in a covered transaction knowingly enters into a lower tier covered transaction with a person who is proposed for debarment under 48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4, suspended, debarred, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal Government, the department or agency with which this transaction originated may pursue available remedies, including suspension or debarment.
CERTIFICATION REGARDING DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION, INELIGIBILITY AND VOLUNTARY EXCLUSION—LOWER TIER
COVERED TRANSACTIONS
1. The prospective lower tier participant certifies, by submission of this proposal, that neither it nor its principals is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participating in covered transactions by any Federal department or agency.
2. Where the prospective lower tier participant is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification, such prospective participant shall attach an explanation to this proposal.
BUY AMERICA
(applies to subrecipients as well as States)
The State and each subrecipient will comply with the Buy America requirement (23 U.S.C. 313) when purchasing items using Federal funds. Buy America requires a State, or subrecipient, to purchase with Federal funds only steel, iron and manufactured products produced in the United States, unless the Secretary of Transportation determines that such domestically produced items would be inconsistent with the public interest, that such materials are not reasonably available and of a satisfactory quality, or that inclusion of domestic materials will increase the cost of the overall project contract by more than 25 percent. In order to use Federal funds to purchase foreign produced items, the State must submit a waiver request that provides an adequate basis and justification for approval by the Secretary of Transportation.
CERTIFICATION ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST
(applies to subrecipients as well as States)
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
No employee, officer, or agent of a State or its subrecipient who is authorized in an official capacity to negotiate, make, accept, or approve, or to take part in negotiating, making, accepting, or approving any subaward, including contracts or subcontracts, in connection with this grant shall have, directly or indirectly, any financial or personal interest in any such subaward. Such a financial or personal interest would arise when the employee, officer, or agent, any member of his or her immediate family, his or her partner, or an organization which employs or is about to employ any of the parties indicated herein, has a financial or personal interest in or a tangible personal benefit from an entity considered for a subaward. Based on this policy:
1. The recipient shall maintain a written code or standards of conduct that provide for disciplinary actions to be applied for violations of such standards by officers, employees, or agents. a. The code or standards shall provide that the recipient's officers, employees, or agents may neither solicit nor accept gratuities, favors, or anything of monetary value from present or potential subawardees, including contractors or parties to subcontracts. b. The code or standards shall establish penalties, sanctions, or other disciplinary actions for violations, as permitted by State or local law or regulations.
2. The recipient shall maintain responsibility to enforce the requirements of the written code or standards of conduct.
DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS
17.G.
8/11/2026 10:54:28 AM Page 20 of 20
No State or its subrecipient, including its officers, employees, or agents, shall perform or continue to perform under a grant or cooperative agreement, whose objectivity may be impaired because of any related past, present, or currently planned interest, financial or otherwise, in organizations regulated by NHTSA or in organizations whose interests may be substantially affected by NHTSA activities. Based on this policy:
1. The recipient shall disclose any conflict of interest identified as soon as reasonably possible, making an immediate and full disclosure in writing to NHTSA. The disclosure shall include a description of the action which the recipient has taken or proposes to take to avoid or mitigate such conflict.
2. NHTSA will review the disclosure and may require additional relevant information from the recipient.
If a conflict of interest is found to exist, NHTSA may (a) terminate the award, or (b) determine that it is otherwise in the best interest of NHTSA to continue the award and include appropriate provisions to mitigate or avoid such conflict.
3. Conflicts of interest that require disclosure include all past, present, or currently planned organizational, financial, contractual, or other interest(s) with an organization regulated by NHTSA or with an organization whose interests may be substantially affected by NHTSA activities, and which are related to this award. The interest(s) that require disclosure include those of any recipient, affiliate, proposed consultant, proposed subcontractor, and key personnel of any of the above. Past interest shall be limited to within one year of the date of award. Key personnel shall include any person owning more than a 20 percent interest in a recipient, and the officers, employees or agents of a recipient who are responsible for making a decision or taking an action under an award where the decision or action can have an economic or other impact on the interests of a regulated or affected organization.
PROHIBITION ON USING GRANT FUNDS TO CHECK FOR HELMET USAGE (applies to subrecipients as well as States)
The State and each subrecipient will not use 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 grant funds for programs to check helmet usage or to create checkpoints that specifically target motorcyclists.
POLICY ON SEAT BELT USE
In accordance with Executive Order 13043, Increasing Seat Belt Use in the United States, dated April 16, 1997, the Grantee is encouraged to adopt and enforce on-the-job seat belt use policies and programs for its employees when operating company-owned, rented, or personally-owned vehicles. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for providing leadership and guidance in support of this Presidential initiative. For information and resources on traffic safety programs and policies for employers, please contact the Network of Employers for Traffic Safety (NETS), a public-private partnership dedicated to improving the traffic safety practices of employers and employees. You can download information on seat belt programs, costs of motor vehicle crashes to employers, and other traffic safety initiatives at www.trafficsafety.org. The NHTSA website ( www.nhtsa.gov) also provides information on statistics, campaigns, and program evaluations and references.
POLICY ON BANNING TEXT MESSAGING WHILE DRIVING
In accordance with Executive Order 13513, Federal Leadership On Reducing Text Messaging While Driving, and DOT Order 3902.10, Text Messaging While Driving, States are encouraged to adopt and enforce workplace safety policies to decrease crashes caused by distracted driving, including policies to ban text messaging while driving company-owned or rented vehicles, Government-owned, leased or rented vehicles, or privately-owned vehicles when on official Government business or when performing any work on or behalf of the Government. States are also encouraged to conduct workplace safety initiatives in a manner commensurate with the size of the business, such as establishment of new rules and programs or re- evaluation of existing programs to prohibit text messaging while driving, and education, awareness, and other outreach to employees about the safety risks associated with texting while driving.
17.G.
City of Hemet
City Council Meeting
STAFF REPORT
Meeting: City Council Meeting - Sep 22 2026
Department: Administration
Submitted by: Noah Rau, Interim City Manager
Brenda Chavez, Executive Assistant;
☐ Receive and File ☒ Consent Calendar ☐ Business Item ☐ Public Hearing
TITLE:
A Resolution Supporting Proposition 1, the Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
It is respectfully recommended that the City Council adopt the following resolution:
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-167 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA, SUPPORTING PROPOSITION 1: THE VETERANS AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING BOND ACT OF 2026 SUBJECT TO THE LOCAL-CONTROL AND CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL SAFEGUARDS STATED IN THE RESOLUTION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Proposition 1 would authorize $11.25 billion in State general obligation bonds: $10 billion for housing programs repaid from the State General Fund and $1.25 billion for veterans’ farm and home loans repaid through participating veterans’ loan payments. The measure would fund affordable and supportive housing, homeownership assistance, housing preservation, farmworker and tribal housing, student and youth housing, and housing-related infrastructure.
The proposed resolution is consistent with the City’s 2024–26 Legislative Platform because it supports efforts to obtain outside resources for local needs while expressly preserving local authority over land use, project approvals, infrastructure priorities, expenditures, and acceptance of funding.
Adoption of the resolution would not authorize a specific project or financial commitment; actions requiring City Council approval would return separately to the Council.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:
The Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026 is a measure placed on the November 3, 2026 ballot by the Legislature that would replenish existing housing programs for the development, preservation, and rehabilitation of affordable housing projects. Additionally, the measure would provide funding to support the development of youth and veteran housing and promote
17.H.
homeownership in California. Here are the specific funding allocations proposed in the ballot measure:
$5.1 billion to the Multifamily Housing Program.
$1.25 billion to provide farm and home aid for veterans under the Veterans’ Farm and Home Purchase Act of 1974.
$1.15 billion to the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Fund, to be used for supportive housing. Up to 15% shall be used to assist in the acquisition, conversion, or rehabilitation of interim housing to permanent housing.
$750 million to the Portfolio Reinvestment Program to preserve existing affordable housing projects.
$600 million to the CalHome Program.
$500 million to the Home Purchase Assistance Fund for home purchase assistance programs. $500 million for the Infill Infrastructure Grant Program to assist in the construction and rehabilitation of infrastructure to support high-density, affordable, and mixed-income housing in infill locations.
$450 million to the Joe Serna, Jr. Farmworker Housing Grant Fund to support housing for agricultural employees and their families.
$350 million for new affordable student housing projects. $200 million to fund the acquisition and rehabilitation of unrestricted housing units and attach long-term affordability restrictions on housing units.
$200 million to the Affordable Housing Innovation Fund to assist local housing trust funds in developing, owning, lending, or investing in affordable housing. $200 million to the Tribal Housing Grant Program to help tribes rebuild and reconstitute their communities.
$150 million for youth housing defined as housing for current or former foster youth, homeless minors or youth, or youth at risk of homelessness.
The official ballot materials include a proponents’ argument stating that the measure would assist working families, veterans, people with disabilities, and seniors; help prevent homelessness; expand homeownership opportunities; and provide accountability and transparency. These statements reflect the proponents’ campaign position and are not findings of the City. No opposition argument was submitted for inclusion in the State voter information guide.
DISCUSSION:
The State uses general obligation bonds to finance up-front program costs and repays the principal and interest over time. Proposition 1 consists of a $10 billion housing bond repaid by the State General Fund and a separate $1.25 billion veterans’ housing bond repaid through veterans’ loan payments
According to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, Proposition 1 could subsidize as many as 40,000 multifamily rental units, approximately 1,200 university student beds, and approximately 2,500 farmworker housing units. The measure could also assist as many as 40,000 households, including approximately 2,100 veterans, with homeownership.
The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that repayment of the $10 billion housing bond would cost the State General Fund approximately $500 million to $600 million annually for about 25 years.
Proposition 1 does not itself impose a new tax, but its housing portion would create a long-term State
17.H.
General Fund obligation. The $1.25 billion veterans’ bond is expected to be repaid through participating veterans’ loan payments.
The City’s adopted 2024–26 Legislative Platform supports seeking State and federal resources that address community needs and emphasizes the preservation of local authority. Proposition 1 may create funding opportunities relevant to Hemet; however, the proposed resolution does not approve a housing project, land-use entitlement, expenditure, financial commitment, or acceptance of funds.
Those decisions remain subject to applicable law and the City’s approval processes.
Full text of measure: Bill Text - SB-417 The Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026.
LAO Analysis: Proposition 1 [Ballot]
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
none
STRATEGIC PLAN INTEGRATION:
GOAL FOUR: PARTNERSHIP & COLLABORATION
To pursue partnerships that will increase the opportunities available to the community, including our businesses, unemployed, and youth populations.
Objective 1: Develop concepts and programs to increase opportunities for youth recreation.
Objective 2: Develop concepts and programs to enhance the quality of life services.
Objective 3: Develop programs to offer support to the community's businesses
FISCAL IMPACT:
Adoption of the resolution has no direct fiscal impact on the City. Proposition 1 would authorize a $10 billion housing bond supported by the State General Fund, which the Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates would cost approximately $500 million to $600 million annually for about 25 years. The separate $1.25 billion veterans’ housing bond is expected to be repaid through participating veterans’ loan payments. Any future City application for or acceptance of funding would be considered separately through the applicable City approval and budget processes.
ALTERNATIVE(S):
The City Council may decline to support Proposition 1 or may further modify the resolution. The revised resolution already includes express provisions preserving local land-use and fiscal authority and requiring separate Council consideration of future actions that require Council approval.
ATTACHMENT(S):
Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 2026-167
17.H.
CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2026-167 1
11111
22222
33333
44444
55555
66666
77777
88888
99999
1010101010
1111111111
1212121212
1313131313
1414141414
1515151515
1616161616
1717171717
1818181818
1919191919
2020202020
2121212121
2222222222
2323232323
2424242424
2525252525
2626262626
2727272727
2828282828
CITY OF HEMET
HEMET, CALIFORNIA
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-167
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA, SUPPORTING PROPOSITION
1: THE VETERANS AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING BOND
ACT OF 2026 SUBJECT TO THE LOCAL-CONTROL AND
CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL SAFEGUARDS STATED IN
THE RESOLUTION
The City Council of the City of Hemet, California (hereafter referred to as the “City Council”) does resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, the City of Hemet's adopted 2024–26 Legislative Platform supports efforts to secure state and federal resources that address local community needs while preserving the City's authority over local land use, development, and fiscal decisions; and
WHEREAS, Proposition 1, the Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026, will appear on the November 3, 2026, statewide ballot and would authorize $11.25 billion in state general obligation bonds, consisting of $10 billion for housing programs and $1.25 billion for veterans’ farm and home loans; and WHEREAS, Proposition 1 would provide funding for existing affordable and supportive housing, homeownership, housing preservation, farmworker and tribal housing, student and youth housing, and housing-related infrastructure programs; and
17.H.
CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2026-167 2
11111
22222
33333
44444
55555
66666
77777
88888
99999
1010101010
1111111111
1212121212
1313131313
1414141414
1515151515
1616161616
1717171717
1818181818
1919191919
2020202020
2121212121
2222222222
2323232323
2424242424
2525252525
2626262626
2727272727
2828282828
WHEREAS,the measure includes funding that may be available to local governments and housing organizations for eligible housing, infrastructure, rehabilitation, preservation, and homeownership activities; and WHEREAS, $1.25 billion of the measure would support veterans’ farm and home loans and would be repaid through payments made by participating veterans; and WHEREAS, the Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that the housing programs could subsidize as many as 40,000 multifamily rental units, provide approximately 1,200 student beds, and assist as many as 40,000 households, including approximately 2,100 veterans, with homeownership; and
WHEREAS, Proposition 1 does not itself impose a new tax; however, the State General Fund would repay the $10 billion housing portion, with estimated annual costs of approximately $500 million to $600 million for about 25 years; and WHEREAS, any City application for, acceptance of, or expenditure of Proposition 1 funding would remain subject to applicable program requirements, law, and City approval processes; and
WHEREAS, the City Council supports the availability of additional housing resources while maintaining that decisions concerning local land use, zoning, project approval, infrastructure priorities, and the expenditure or acceptance of funds by the City should remain subject to local decision-making and applicable law; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that supporting Proposition 1, subject to the local-control principles stated in this Resolution, is consistent with the City’s adopted Legislative that opportunities funding expand Platform and benefit may Hemet residents.
17.H.
CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2026-167 3
11111
22222
33333
44444
55555
66666
77777
88888
99999
1010101010
1111111111
1212121212
1313131313
1414141414
1515151515
1616161616
1717171717
1818181818
1919191919
2020202020
2121212121
2222222222
2323232323
2424242424
2525252525
2626262626
2727272727
2828282828
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HEMET FINDS, DETERMINES, ORDERS AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council hereby supports Proposition 1, the Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026, subject to the local-control and City Council approval safeguards stated in this Resolution.
SECTION 2.The City Manager, or designee, is authorized to monitor implementation of Proposition 1 and evaluate grant, loan, infrastructure, homeownership, and other funding opportunities that may benefit the City of Hemet and its residents, consistent with the City’s adopted Legislative Platform and local priorities.
SECTION 3. Nothing in this Resolution shall be construed as authorizing any specific housing project, land use entitlement, expenditure, financial commitment, or acceptance of grant or loan funding. Any such action requiring City Council approval shall be presented separately to the City Council for consideration
17.H.
CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2026-167 4
11111
22222
33333
44444
55555
66666
77777
88888
99999
1010101010
1111111111
1212121212
1313131313
1414141414
1515151515
1616161616
1717171717
1818181818
1919191919
2020202020
2121212121
2222222222
2323232323
2424242424
2525252525
2626262626
2727272727
2828282828
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 22 nd day of September 2026.
___________________________
Linda Krupa, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
________________________ __________________________
Steven Graham Pacifico, City Attorney Rosalia A. Butler, MMC, City Clerk
17.H.
CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2026-167 5
11111
22222
33333
44444
55555
66666
77777
88888
99999
1010101010
1111111111
1212121212
1313131313
1414141414
1515151515
1616161616
1717171717
1818181818
1919191919
2020202020
2121212121
2222222222
2323232323
2424242424
2525252525
2626262626
2727272727
2828282828
State of California )
County of Riverside )
City of Hemet )
I, Rosalia A. Butler, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Hemet, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Hemet City Council on the 22 nd day of September 2026, and was passed by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members:
NOES: Council Members:
ABSTAIN: Council Members:
ABSENT: Council Members:
_____________________________
Rosalia A. Butler, MMC, City Clerk
17.H.
City of Hemet
City Council Meeting
STAFF REPORT
Meeting: City Council Meeting - Sep 22 2026
Department: Administration
Submitted by: Noah Rau, Interim City Manager
Elodie Klug, Deputy City Clerk;
☐ Receive and File ☒ Consent Calendar ☐ Business Item ☐ Public Hearing
TITLE:
Consideration of Appointment to the Hemet Public Library Board of Trustees
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
It is respectfully recommended that the City Council:
Appoint candidate Rebecca Teague to fill the remaining term of Seat One, expiring on June 30, 2029, for the Hemet Public Library Board of Trustees.
DISCUSSION:
Council Member Howard-Clark has selected Rebecca Teague as the appointee to fill Seat One and is recommending this candidate for the City Council's approval to fill the scheduled vacancy on the Hemet Public Library Board of Trustees, with a term remaining until June 30, 2029.
STRATEGIC PLAN INTEGRATION:
GOAL FOUR: PARTNERSHIP & COLLABORATION
To pursue partnerships that will increase the opportunities available to the community, including our businesses, unemployed, and youth populations.
Objective 2: Develop concepts and programs to enhance the quality of life services.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No Fiscal Impact.
ALTERNATIVE(S):
17.I.
Do not appoint the current recommended applicant to the Hemet Public Library Board of Trustees and direct the City Clerk to continue to solicit applications.
ATTACHMENT(S):
Attachment No. 1 - Ordinance 2005-1732
Attachment No. 2 - Teague, Rebecca_07302026_Redacted
Attachment No. 3 - Amado, Ramon_10292025_Redacted
Attachment No. 4 - Johnston, Rebecca_01222026_Redacted
Attachment No. 5 - Seaton, Noah_07282026_Redacted
17.I.
ORDINANCE NO. 1732
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA,
AMENDING SECTION 2- 164 AND SECTION 2- 165 OF THE HEMET
MUNICIPAL CODE TO MODIFY RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR
MEMBERS OF BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND COMMITTEES OF
THE CITY OF HEMET
RECITALS
Whereas, the City Council of the City of Hemet (" City Council") previously adopted OrdinanceNo. 1662addingSections2-164and2-165to Article 2 of the HemetMunicipal Code thereby establishing certain residency requirements for boards, commissions, and committees of the City of Hemetandpermittingnot morethantwo personswho residein the City' s sphereof influence or who own a business in the City to serve on such boards, commissions, and committees; and,
Whereas, the City Council has reviewed the operation and implementation of these requirements and has determined that these provisions could be construed to permit persons living outsideof both the City's boundariesandthe City's sphereof influenceto serveon the City's boards, commissions, and committeeswhich are in contraryto the intent of the City Council; and,
Whereas, the additions and deletions to Sections 2- 164 and 2- 165 are shown on attachment " A" to this Ordinance for reference.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HEMET,
CALIFORNIA, ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 2- 164 of the Hemet Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 2-164. Residency for Quorum
For the purpose of determining the presence of a quorum, all boards, commissions, and committees established under this Code, or as may otherwise be established by the City Council, shall count only one voting member who residesoutsideof theCity' sboundaries, but within theCity' ssphereof influence, toward the number of persons constituting a quorum under the requirements RN # 4833- 3924- 4032 vl - I-
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 1732
17.I.
established for such board, commission, or committee in this code or their respective by- laws.
SECTION 2. Section 2-165 is hereby addedto the Hemet Municipal Code as follows:
Sec. 2-165. Residency for Membership
a) All voting membersof any board, commission or committee established under this code shall, at the time of appointment and continuing thereafter for their term of service, meet one of the following criteria:
1) the individual is a current resident of the City of Hemet who has lived in the City of Hemet for at least one year immediately prior to the individual' s appointment to the board, commission or committee; or
2) the individual is a current resident of the City of Hemet' s sphere of influence who has lived in the City of Hemet or in the City of Hemet' s sphereof influence for at least one year immediately prior to the individual' s appointment to the board, commission or committee.
b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision (a) of this section, no board, commission, or committee established under this code shall have more than two 2) voting members who areresidentsof the City of Hemet' s sphereof influence.
SECTION 3. If any part of this Ordinance is held to be invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining partsof this Ordinance, andthe Council hereby declaresit would have passedthe remainder of this Ordinance if suchinvalid portion thereof had been deleted.
SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall be introduced at least five ( 5) days prior to the Council meeting at which this Ordinance is to be adopted. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to cause this Ordinance to be published within fifteen ( 15) days after its passage in a newspaper of general circulation and circulated within the City on accordance with Government Code Section 36933( a) or, to cause this Ordinance to be published in the manner required by law usingthe alternativesummaryandpastingprocedureauthorizedunderGovernmentCode Section 39633( c).
RN 44833- 3924- 4032 vi - 2-
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 1732
17.I.
Introduced at the regular meeting of February 8, 2005
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 22°dday of February, 2005.
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Step4 Clayton, City Qjrk Eric S. Vail, City Attorney
RN # 4833- 39244032 v1 _ 3_
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 1732
17.I.
State of California )
County of Riverside )
City of Hemet )
I, SarahMcComas, DeputyCity Clerk of the City of Hemet, do herebycertify thatthe foregoing Ordinance is the actual Ordinance adopted by the City Council and was introduced at a regular meetingof the City Council on the 8"' day of February, 2005 and finally passedat a regular meetingof theCity Councilonthe22' dayof February, 2005, by thefollowing vote:
AYES: Council Members Christie, Searl and VanArsdale, Vice Mayor Lowe and Mayor Meadows
NOES:
ABSENT:
Sarah McComas
Deputy City Clerk
RIV # 4833- 3924- 4032 vi _ 4_
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 1732
17.I.
ATTACHMENT " A"
Amendments to Section 2- 164 of the Hemet Municipal Code. Additions are depicted in bold underlined text; deletions are depicted in strikeout.
Sec. 2-164. Residency for Quorum
For the purpose of determining the presence of a quorum, A4allboards, commissions, and committees established under this Code, or as may otherwise be established by the City Council, shall not detertninethe presenceof a quo,mri in aceordaneewith die requixerrmits established fbi such board, eonmiission; ot connnittee in thiseode or their respective by-laws, count only one voting member who resides outside of the City' s boundaries, but within the City' s sphere of influence, toward the number of persons constituting a quorum under the requirements established for such board, commission, or committee in this Code or their respective by- laws. tuiless at least tvvo of the voting meirrbeis of that body who are present and being comited toward the of the Oty of Hemet.
Amendments to Section 2- 165 of the Hemet Municipal Code. Additions are depicted in bold underlined text; deletions are depicted in strikeout.
Sec. 2- 165. Residency for Membership
a) All voting members of any board, commission or committee established under this code shall, at the time of appointment and continuing thereafter for their term of service, meet one of the following criteria:
1) the individual is a current resident of the City of Hemet who has lived in the City of Hemet for at least one year immediately prior to the individual' s appointment to the board, commission or committee; or
2) the individual is a current resident of the City of Hemet' s sphereof influence who has lived in the City of Hemet or in the City of Hemet' s sphereof influence for at least one year immediately prior to the individual' s appointment to the board, commission or committee.;
RIV 44833- 3924- 4032 v1 5-
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 1732
17.I.
b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision ( a) of this section, no board, commission, or committee established under this code shall have more than two voting memberswho are residentsof the City of Hemet's sphereof influence, of the om= of a btisinessqtudifying under subdivision ( a)(3) of this seefion.
RN 84833- 3924- 4032 vi - 6-
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 1732
17.I.
THE PRESS -ENTERPRISE
Corona - Norco Independent, Elsinore Sun - Tribune,
Hemet News, Menifee Valley News,
Rancho News, Sun City News, Valley Times
3512 Fourteenth Street
Riverside CA 92501- 3878
951- 763- 3411
951- 763- 3410 FAX
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
2010, 2015. 5 C. C. P.)
PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF
LE -City -
Ad Desc.: ORDINANCE NO 1732
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of
the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen
years and not a parry to or interested in the above
entitled matter. I am an authorized representative of
THE. HEMET NEWS, a newspaper of general circu-
lation, printed and published weekly in the city of
Hemet, County of Riverside, and which newspaper
has been adjudicated a newspaper of general circu-
lation by the Superior Court of the County of River-
side, State of California, under date of October 10,
1927, Case Number 17137; that the notice, of which
the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in
each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and
not in any supplementthereof on the following dates,
to wit:
03- 01- 05
I Certify (or declare) under penaltyof perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date: Mar. 1, 2005
At: Riversid , Cali rnia A
HEMET, CITY OF
445 E FLORIDA AVE
HEMET CA 92543
Ad #: 6589481
PO #:
Agency #:
Ad Copy:
CITY OF HEMET
ORDINANCE NO 1732
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on February 22, 2005 the
Ciry Council of the City of Hemet adopted Ordinance No 1732, an led:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HELMET,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 2- 164 AND
SECTION 2- 165 OF THE HEMET MUNICIPAL
CODE TO MODIFY RESIDENCY REQUIRE-
MENTS FOR MEMBERS OF BOARDS, COMMIS-
SIONS, AND COMMITTEES OF THE CITY OF
HEMET'
This Ordinance deletes a provision in the Municipal Code Sec- tions 2. 164 and 2. 165pemni ting a business owners who lives outsidethe city and sphereof influenceto serveone City Board or Commission.
A certified copyof the full text of Ordinance No. 173Z is avail- able for review in the Office of the City Clerk, City of Hemet, 445 E. Florida Avenue, Hemet.
to
StephenCSCrk
17.I.
THE PRESS -ENTERPRISE
Corona - Norco Independent, Elsinore Sun -Tribune,
Hemet News, Menifee Valley News,
RanchoNews, Sun City News, ValleyTimes
3512 Fourteenth Street
Riverside CA 92501- 3878
951- 763- 3411
951- 763- 3410 FAX
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
2010, 2015. 5 C. C. P.)
PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF
LE -City
Ad Desc.: Ordinance Bill No. 05- 012
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of
the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to or interested in the above
entitled matter. I am an authorized representative of
THE HEMET NEWS, a newspaper of general circu-
lation, printed and published weekly in the city of
Hemet, County of Riverside, and which newspaper
has been adjudicated a newspaper of general circu-
lation by the Superior Court of the County of River-
side, State of California, under date of October 10,
1927, Case Number 17137; that the notice, of which
the annexedis a printedcopy, has been publishedin
each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and
not in any supplementthereof on the followingdates,
to wit:
02- 16- 05
I Certify ( or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true nd correct.
Date: Feb. , 200
At: River ' e. Cal' orni i/
HEMET, CITY OF
445 E FLORIDA AVE
HEMET CA 92543
Ad #: 6556576
PO #:
Agency #:
Ad Copy:
CITY OF HEMET
ORDINANCE BILL NO 05-012
NOTICE ISHEREBY GIVEN thoton FebruaryB 2005the Gly
Council of the City of Hemet introduced Ordinance Bill No 05- 012, entMed:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
HEMET, CALSFORNIA. AMENDINGSEC.
TION 2-164 AND SECTION 2- 165 OF THE
HEMET MUNICIPAL CODE TO MODIFY
RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR
MEMBERS OF BOARDS, COMMISSIONS,
AND COMMITTEES OF THE CITY OF
HEMEP
This Ordinance, if adopted, deletes a provision in TheMunicipal Code Sections2-164and 2.165yemtiMg a businessowners
who lives outside the city and sphere of irdluenceto serveon o City Board or Commission. This Ordinancewill be considered for adoptionon Tuesday, February 22 2005at 7:00 p.m. at the Regular City CouncilMeeting.
A certified copy ofthe full text of OrdinanceBill No. 05-012 is availablefor reviewin the Office of the CityClerk, Cityof Hemet 445 E. Florida Avenue, Hemet.
yvI1
StephenCityaClerk
2n6
17.I.
Print
Hemet Public Library Board of Trustees - 3 Year Term
The Library Board consists of five members appointed by the City Council for three year terms. It meets on the 3rd Friday of each month at 10:00 a.m. Responsibilities are statutory and include setting policy on the operation and services of the Library. The Board advises the City Council on the budgetary needs of the Library, its services, and other related matters.
Measure U Citizen Oversight Committee - 2 Year Term
In accordance with Hemet City Ordinance No. 1918, the Measure U Citizen Oversight Committee consists of 7 members appointed by the city council to serve two (2) year terms. The purpose of the committee is to independently review and advise upon the City’s proposed expenditures of Measure U Funds as well as the actual expenditures of Measure U Funds and review of the annual audit conducted of Measure U Funds as required by the Ordinance. The Committee is advisory only and reports its comments directly to the City Council. Eligible community members must reside within the city limits or the sphere of influence or own a business having its primary offices located within the city limits. A majority (4 or more) of the committee members shall be residents of the City of Hemet.
Mobile Home Rent Review Commission - 3 Year Term
Established by Ordinance No. 772, an initiative of the voters of the City of Hemet, this Commission meets by request only and with duties as outlined in the Hemet Municipal Code. It consists of five members appointed by the City Council to 3 year terms. The Commission shall be made up of one mobile home park owner, one mobile home park tenant and three “at large” residents who do not live in mobile home parks.
Planning Commission - 4 Year Term
Created in accordance with the provisions of the State Planning Act, the Commission consists of five members appointed by the City Council to serve four-year terms. The Commission meets on the first and third Tuesdays of the month at 6:00 p.m.
Application for Appointment to Volunteer
Commissions/Boards/Committees
Advisory Body Application - Submission #2058
Date Submitted: 7/30/2026
17.I.
17.I.
17.I.
Additional Information:
As a nearly lifelong resident of the Hemet Valley, I have a deep appreciation for the community that has shaped my life and career. Serving on the Hemet Public Library Board of Trustees would be a meaningful opportunity to give back to a community that has given so much to me and my family.
I believe our public library is one of the Valley's most valuable public institutions. It is far more than a place to borrow books. It provides access to knowledge, technology, educational resources, and lifelong learning while serving as a welcoming space for residents of every age and background. For many individuals and families, the library is a gateway to opportunity, discovery, and connection. Its impact extends across our entire Valley by supporting literacy, lifelong learning, workforce development, and civic engagement.
Throughout my 22-year career in California public higher education, I have been entrusted with responsibilities that require thoughtful analysis, sound judgment, fiscal stewardship, and collaborative leadership. I have extensive experience evaluating complex issues, developing policy recommendations, and balancing competing priorities while keeping the public interest at the forefront. Those experiences have reinforced the importance of preparation, organization, integrity, and transparency in every decision.
In addition to my professional leadership experience, I have served on volunteer boards and understand the responsibility that comes with representing the interests of a community. I have also spent much of my career working in direct partnership with an elected governing board, preparing agenda items, developing policy recommendations, presenting complex issues, advising trustees, and supporting informed decision-making. These experiences have provided me with a strong understanding of effective governance and the importance of maintaining the distinct roles of policy-making and administration while fostering collaborative and respectful working relationships.
If appointed, I would approach this role with a commitment to being thoroughly prepared, carefully reviewing all available information, listening thoughtfully to diverse perspectives, and making recommendations that are fair, objective, and in the best interest of our community. I believe public trust is earned through integrity, accountability, and consistent stewardship of public resources, and I would be honored to uphold those principles as a member of the Library Board.
Serving on the Hemet Public Library Board of Trustees would allow me to combine my professional experience with my personal commitment to this community. It would be a privilege to help ensure that generations of Hemet residents continue to have access to a library that inspires curiosity, expands opportunity, and enriches the quality of life throughout our Valley.
The City Council would like more information about your interest in serving on an Advisory Body.
Please indicate your comments and views relative to the subject matter of the Advisory Body (ies) for which you are applying:
Read Carefully - Complete Section A or B then SIGN
I understand that, if I am appointed to an Advisory Body, I will be required to comply with: the City’s Ethics Policy, Advisory Body Policies and Conflict of Interest Code; applicable provisions of the Political Reform Act including filing financial interest disclosure statements (Form 700); and applicable provisions of the Brown Act; and that I must complete state-mandated ethics training and sexual harassment prevention training courses. I understand that, while City staff will make a good faith effort to educate me regarding these requirements, I am responsible for my conduct as an Advisory Member. I understand that all Advisory Body Members serve at the pleasure of the City Council and may be removed from office due to poor attendance, unacceptable conduct, or for any other reason. I understand that Advisory Body members are volunteers, are not City employees, and do not receive benefits or protections other than workers’ compensation in case of injury in the course of duty. I understand that this is a public document, and that information contained within it may be provided to the public upon request. In regard to the online availability of my information, I declare the following:
17.I.
If I am appointed, I authorize the City to post the following contact information (check applicable below) on its website. I understand that other websites not controlled by the City may provide link A.1
Cell Phone
Personal Email
Home Phone
Business Email Address
Work Phone
A.2
Further, if my home address and telephone number are otherwise non-disclosable under the California Public Records Act (California Government Code 6250 et seq.), I understand that by agreeing to the release of the informaiton above, this informaiton may be provided by the City in response to a request made under the Public Records Act.
If I am appointed, I do not authorize the City to post my contact informaiton on its website. The City may however, disclose on the internet and in all other venues that fact that I serve on a City Ad B.
Date of Submission* Applicants Signature*
Rebecca Teague
Type your full name.
7/30/2026
12:45 PM
17.I.
17.I.
Vice President of Student Services • June 2021- July 2026 MT. SAN JACINTO COLLEGE, CA
Serve as a member of the Superintendent/President’s Executive Cabinet, advising executive leadership and governing board on organizational priorities, policy development, strategic initiatives, budget planning, legislative issues, risk management, and institutional operations. Plan, organize, direct, and evaluate an effective comprehensive Student Services Program that supports student access, equity, and success.
• Provide executive leadership and strategic direction for the Student Services Division (90+ staff), advancing student access, equity, success, and institutional effectiveness in alignment with the College's mission and DEIA principles.
• Analyze the operational and fiscal impacts of state legislation, budget proposals, and regulatory changes, advising executive leadership and the Board of Trustees on implementation strategies, institutional risk, and policy implications.
• Led institution-wide implementation of major California Community College initiatives and legislative reforms, including enrollment, financial aid, student success, and equity policies, ensuring organizational readiness, regulatory compliance, and continuous improvement. • Interpret and operationalize California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office regulations, state directives, and federal requirements, developing institutional policies, administrative procedures, and implementation plans that aligned with legal and regulatory expectations. • Prepare executive analyses, policy recommendations, and Board agenda items for the Board of Trustees, translating complex legislative and regulatory issues into strategic guidance that informed governance and executive decision making.
• Represent the College in statewide professional organizations, regional collaboratives, and Chancellor's Office initiatives, building partnerships, sharing best practices, and advancing institutional priorities through cross-sector collaboration.
• Collaborate with statewide associations, regional partners, and the California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office to interpret emerging legislation, implement statewide initiatives, and communicate policy changes affecting institutional operations and student success. • Collaborate with regional external partners and stakeholders to strengthen dual enrollment, K–12 partnerships and workforce development
• Direct division-wide budget development, categorical funding, fiscal planning, and capital and facilities projects.
Executive Dean, Institutional Effectiveness and Strategic Initiatives • February 2020 – May 2021 MT. SAN JACINTO COLLEGE, CA
Provide executive leadership and strategic counsel to advance the Superintendent/President's organizational priorities through institutional planning, policy implementation, executive initiatives, and operational-wide change management. Led cross-functional initiatives that strengthened institutional performance, guided organizational redesign, improved operational effectiveness, and supported executive decision making through strategic analysis, stakeholder collaboration, and data-informed planning.
• Advise the Superintendent/President and Executive Cabinet on institutional strategy, organizational effectiveness, policy development, and executive priorities. • Direct collegewide strategic initiatives, executive projects, and organizational change efforts that advance institutional goals.
• Lead the development and implementation of the College's Strategic Equity Plan, aligning institutional priorities with measurable performance outcomes.
• Provide executive leadership for institutional planning, effectiveness, assessment, accreditation, and continuous quality improvement.
• Develop executive communications, Board presentations, strategic reports, and policy briefings supporting executive leadership, governing boards, and public stakeholders.
17.I.
• Collaborate with senior leadership to develop organizational policies, governance structures, and operational improvements.
• Integrate data analytics and performance metrics into strategic planning, resource allocation, and executive decision making.
• Serve as the College's primary liaison with the California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office and regional partners.
• Supervise professional staff, manage resources, and oversee institutional reporting supporting executive leadership.
Dean of Institutional Effectiveness, Planning, Research and Grants • July 2015 – January 2020 MT. SAN JACINTO COLLEGE, CA
Provide executive leadership for institutional planning, organizational performance, strategic analysis, accreditation, research and grant development that informed executive decision-making and long-range institutional priorities.
• Lead districtwide resource development and strategic innovation initiatives that advance executive priorities, strengthen organizational capacity, and position the College to secure public and private investment. • Direct institutional research, data analytics, and evaluation to inform strategic planning, resource allocation, policy development, accreditation, and executive decision making. • Oversee the development, implementation, and assessment of the College Strategic Plan, institutional priorities, and key performance indicators.
• Design and implement comprehensive research, data collection, and reporting systems that support operational and strategic planning.
• Identify, secure, and manage federal, state, and private grant opportunities, including proposal development, compliance, budget oversight, and post-award administration. • Prepare executive reports, presentations, and institutional analyses for the Superintendent/President, Executive Cabinet, Board of Trustees, and external agencies. • Supervise professional staff and provide leadership in project management, organizational effectiveness, and cross-functional collaboration.
Associate Dean, Planning, Institutional Effectiveness, and Grants • February 2011 – June 2015 MT. SAN JACINTO COLLEGE, CA
Provide leadership for institutional planning, strategic analysis, research, and organizational effectiveness initiatives supporting executive decision-making and institutional priorities.
• Lead institutional planning, effectiveness, and continuous improvement initiatives aligned with strategic priorities and accreditation standards.
• Conduct institutional research, data analysis, and special studies to inform planning, resource allocation, and executive decision making.
• Facilitate cross-functional planning initiatives related to academic programs, student services, equity, technology, facilities, and organizational development. • Identify, develop, and manage federal, state, and private grant opportunities, including proposal development, compliance, budget oversight, and post-award administration. • Prepare executive reports, presentations, and institutional analyses for the Superintendent/President, Executive Cabinet, Board of Trustees, and external agencies. • Lead collaborative planning processes and provide guidance to faculty, staff, and administrators on strategic planning, institutional effectiveness, and grant management.
17.I.
Director of Grant Development • June 2007 – January 2011 MT. SAN JACINTO COLLEGE, CA
Coordinate all college grant development and management efforts and processes including the establishment and implementation of new or revised policies, procedures, and practices. Provide ongoing grants management and administration support to successfully funded grants, assisting in development, analysis, verification, and timely submission of mandatory grant reports, and resolving project management issues.
• Direct institutional grant development and administration, ensuring compliance with federal, state, and local regulations and funding requirements.
• Research, identify, and secure competitive public and private funding opportunities aligned with institutional priorities.
• Develop and implement grant policies, procedures, tracking systems, and compliance processes to support effective grant management and accountability.
• Provide technical assistance and training to administrators, faculty, and staff on grant development, budgeting, implementation, and post-award administration. • Coordinate collegewide grant planning, project implementation, evaluation, and performance reporting to maximize program outcomes.
• Conduct research and program analyses to support strategic planning, categorical programs, and continuous improvement initiatives.
• Manage institutional grant reporting, tracking databases, funding calendars, and communications with funding agencies.
Grants Writer • March 2004 - May 2007
MT. SAN JACINTO COLLEGE, CA
Responsible for planning, preparing, submitting, and monitoring external grant applications to appropriate agencies to support student success and institutional capacity building. Provide college-wide leadership in researching, writing, receiving, budgeting, and managing the grants process at MSJC.
• Research and identify federal, state, and private funding opportunities that support institutional priorities and strategic initiatives.
• Lead grant planning and facilitate collaborative proposal development with faculty, administrators, and staff. • Develop competitive grant applications, including narrative development, data analysis, budget preparation, and submission.
• Monitor grant compliance, reporting, and documentation to ensure adherence to funding agency requirements and audit standards.
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Senior Director of Programs and Services • September 2000 – February 2004 AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION OF ORANGE COUNTY, Santa Ana, CA
• Responsible for providing oversight to coordinate and manage all American Lung Association programs and initiatives consisting of over 75 community volunteers. • Lead strategic community health programs and partnerships with K–12 districts, healthcare providers, and community organizations to advance organizational mission and impact. • Secure philanthropic support through corporate, foundation, and individual fundraising, including grant development, sponsorships, and special events.
• Direct program operations, project management, evaluation, and continuous improvement initiatives. • Recruit, supervise, and develop staff and volunteers while cultivating strong relationships with board members, healthcare partners, donors, and community stakeholders.
17.I.
ACCREDITATION LEADERSHIP AND SERVICE
Accreditation Liaison Officer (ALO) • January 2007 – June 2025 MT. SAN JACINTO COLLEGE, CA
Act as point of contact for the ACCJC to maintain institutional records of accreditation activities and leading/organizing institutional responses to Eligibility Requirements, Accreditation Standards and Commission policy requirements.
• Serve as the College's primary liaison to the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC), ensuring ongoing compliance with accreditation standards, policies, and reporting requirements. • Lead institutional accreditation planning, self-evaluation, substantive change proposals, annual reporting, and continuous quality improvement initiatives.
• Advise executive leadership and campus constituents on accreditation, institutional effectiveness, and quality assurance while fostering a culture of continuous improvement. • Coordinate accreditation communications, documentation, and evidence management to support institutional compliance and successful accreditation outcomes.
• Serve as an ACCJC Peer Review Team Member for multiple California community colleges, contributing to comprehensive institutional accreditation evaluations - Merced College (Fall 2023); Long Beach City College (Spring 2022); Imperial Valley College (Spring 2019); Barstow Community College (Spring 2012)
GRANTS AND FUNDING
Pursued and secured new resource streams to support student success totaling approximately $30 million in grant funding for Mt. San Jacinto College since 2004. Grants below are illustrative of funded projects:
• Culturally Responsive Best Practices Teaching Pedagogy Grant (2023 - $300,000) • Native American Student Support Services Program Grant (2023 - $600,000) • US Department of Education Title V Hispanic-Serving Institutions Education Grant - 2021 - $2.6 million, 2015 - $2.6 million, 2010 - $2.8 million
• US Department of Education TRIO - Upward Bound Grant (2019 - $1.2 million) • US Department of Education TRIO - Talent Search Grant (2020 - $1.2 million) • CCCCO Improving Online CTE Pathways Grant (2019 - $500,000) • US Department of Education Title V Hispanic Serving Institutions STEM Grant (2011 – $4.2 million) • US Department of Agriculture Title V Hispanic Serving Education Grant (2006 - $250,000) • Acted as Project Director for both the Title V Hispanic Serving Institutions Education Grant (2015) and Title V Hispanic Serving Institution STEM Grant (2011)
PARTICIPATORY GOVERNANCE LEADERSHIP AND SERVICE
• Accreditation Steering Committee, Chair
• Student Success Support and Services Implementation
Team, Administrative Chair
• Latinx President’s Advisory Group, Tri-Chair
• College Council, Member
• Budget Committee, Member
• Institutional Planning Committee, Member
• Student Success Committee, Member
• LGBTQ+ Task Force, Member
• Latinx and Indigenous Alliance, Member
• Puente Program, Mentor
• Inclusion, Diversity, Equity and Accessibility
Implementation Team, Member
• Professional Development Committee, Resource
• President, Classified Senate (2006-2007)
• Member, Classified Senate (2005-2007)
17.I.
PUBLIC SECTOR LEADERSHIP HIGHLIGHTS
• 22 years of executive leadership within California public higher education • Executive Cabinet member advising governing board and Superintendent/President • Advised executive leadership and governing board on implementation of state legislation, regulatory requirements, and public policy
• Represented the College before regional, statewide, and public-sector organizations to advance institutional priorities
• Led three comprehensive strategic planning cycles
• Served as Accreditation Liaison Officer for 18 years
• Directed complex institutional operations serving over 17,000 students across four campuses within a public institution serving a 1,700 square mile region of western Riverside County • Directed executive crisis response to complex organizational challenges involving COVID-19, enrollment fraud, regulatory compliance, facilities planning, financial aid modernization and institutional risk management
• Secured more than $30 million in competitive public funding • Developed Board policies and administrative procedures • Managed multimillion-dollar operational and grant budgets • Led cross-functional teams of administrators, faculty, classified professionals, and external stakeholders • Built strategic partnerships across education, government, nonprofit, healthcare, and business sectors.
PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
• Board Member, Alliance for Hispanic Serving Institution Educators (2018 -2020) • Member, Pass Economic Development Agency (2019-2020)
• Member, Alliance for Hispanic Serving Institution Educators (2018 – Present) • Member, Chief Student Services Officers Association (2021 – 2026) • Member, Chief Student Services Officers – Region IV (2021 – 2026) • Member, Research, Planning and Development Group for California Community Colleges (2011 – Present) • Member, Council for Resource Development (2003 – 2010)
EDUCATION
California State University, Dominguez Hills, Carson CA -- Master of Public Administration
University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), Los Angeles, CA - Bachelor of Arts, English (Cum Laude)
TRAINING AND CERTIFICATIONS
• MSJC President’s Leadership Academy
• Alliance for Hispanic Serving Institution Educators (AHSIE) Grantsmanship and Project Managers Institute • Center for Organizational Responsibility and Advancement (CORA) - Supporting Men of Color • USC Community College Equity Institute
• Franklin Covey - Leading at the Speed of Trust
• Asilomar Leadership Skills Seminar
• United Way - Multi-Ethnic Leadership Institute
17.I.
Print
Hemet Public Library Board of Trustees - 3 Year Term
The Library Board consists of five members appointed by the City Council for three year terms. It meets on the 3rd Friday of each month at 10:00 a.m. Responsibilities are statutory and include setting policy on the operation and services of the Library. The Board advises the City Council on the budgetary needs of the Library, its services, and other related matters.
Measure U Citizen Oversight Committee - 2 Year Term
In accordance with Hemet City Ordinance No. 1918, the Measure U Citizen Oversight Committee consists of 7 members appointed by the city council to serve two (2) year terms. The purpose of the committee is to independently review and advise upon the City’s proposed expenditures of Measure U Funds as well as the actual expenditures of Measure U Funds and review of the annual audit conducted of Measure U Funds as required by the Ordinance. The Committee is advisory only and reports its comments directly to the City Council. Eligible community members must reside within the city limits or the sphere of influence or own a business having its primary offices located within the city limits. A majority (4 or more) of the committee members shall be residents of the City of Hemet.
Mobile Home Rent Review Commission - 3 Year Term
Established by Ordinance No. 772, an initiative of the voters of the City of Hemet, this Commission meets by request only and with duties as outlined in the Hemet Municipal Code. It consists of five members appointed by the City Council to 3 year terms. The Commission shall be made up of one mobile home park owner, one mobile home park tenant and three “at large” residents who do not live in mobile home parks.
Planning Commission - 4 Year Term
Created in accordance with the provisions of the State Planning Act, the Commission consists of five members appointed by the City Council to serve four-year terms. The Commission meets on the first and third Tuesdays of the month at 6:00 p.m.
Application for Appointment to Volunteer
Commissions/Boards/Committees
Advisory Body Application - Submission #1905
Date Submitted: 10/29/2025
17.I.
17.I.
17.I.
Read Carefully - Complete Section A or B then SIGN
I understand that, if I am appointed to an Advisory Body, I will be required to comply with: the City’s Ethics Policy, Advisory Body Policies and Conflict of Interest Code; applicable provisions of the Political Reform Act including filing financial interest disclosure statements (Form 700); and applicable provisions of the Brown Act; and that I must complete state-mandated ethics training and sexual harassment prevention training courses. I understand that, while City staff will make a good faith effort to educate me regarding these requirements, I am responsible for my conduct as an Advisory Member. I understand that all Advisory Body Members serve at the pleasure of the City Council and may be removed from office due to poor attendance, unacceptable conduct, or for any other reason. I understand that Advisory Body members are volunteers, are not City employees, and do not receive benefits or protections other than workers’ compensation in case of injury in the course of duty. I understand that this is a public document, and that information contained within it may be provided to the public upon request. In regard to the online availability of my information, I declare the following:
If I am appointed, I authorize the City to post the following contact information (check applicable below) on its website. I understand that other websites not controlled by the City may provide link A.1
Cell Phone
Personal Email
Home Phone
Business Email Address
Work Phone
A.2
Further, if my home address and telephone number are otherwise non-disclosable under the California Public Records Act (California Government Code 6250 et seq.), I understand that by agreeing to the release of the informaiton above, this informaiton may be provided by the City in response to a request made under the Public Records Act.
If I am appointed, I do not authorize the City to post my contact informaiton on its website. The City may however, disclose on the internet and in all other venues that fact that I serve on a City Ad B.
Date of Submission* Applicants Signature*
Ramon Amado
Type your full name.
10/29/2025
02:00 PM
17.I.
Print
Hemet Public Library Board of Trustees - 3 Year Term
The Library Board consists of five members appointed by the City Council for three year terms. It meets on the 3rd Friday of each month at 10:00 a.m. Responsibilities are statutory and include setting policy on the operation and services of the Library. The Board advises the City Council on the budgetary needs of the Library, its services, and other related matters.
Measure U Citizen Oversight Committee - 2 Year Term
In accordance with Hemet City Ordinance No. 1918, the Measure U Citizen Oversight Committee consists of 7 members appointed by the city council to serve two (2) year terms. The purpose of the committee is to independently review and advise upon the City’s proposed expenditures of Measure U Funds as well as the actual expenditures of Measure U Funds and review of the annual audit conducted of Measure U Funds as required by the Ordinance. The Committee is advisory only and reports its comments directly to the City Council. Eligible community members must reside within the city limits or the sphere of influence or own a business having its primary offices located within the city limits. A majority (4 or more) of the committee members shall be residents of the City of Hemet.
Mobile Home Rent Review Commission - 3 Year Term
Established by Ordinance No. 772, an initiative of the voters of the City of Hemet, this Commission meets by request only and with duties as outlined in the Hemet Municipal Code. It consists of five members appointed by the City Council to 3 year terms. The Commission shall be made up of one mobile home park owner, one mobile home park tenant and three “at large” residents who do not live in mobile home parks.
Planning Commission - 4 Year Term
Created in accordance with the provisions of the State Planning Act, the Commission consists of five members appointed by the City Council to serve four-year terms. The Commission meets on the first and third Tuesdays of the month at 6:00 p.m.
Application for Appointment to Volunteer
Commissions/Boards/Committees
Advisory Body Application - Submission #1975
Date Submitted: 1/22/2026
17.I.
17.I.
17.I.
Read Carefully - Complete Section A or B then SIGN
I understand that, if I am appointed to an Advisory Body, I will be required to comply with: the City’s Ethics Policy, Advisory Body Policies and Conflict of Interest Code; applicable provisions of the Political Reform Act including filing financial interest disclosure statements (Form 700); and applicable provisions of the Brown Act; and that I must complete state-mandated ethics training and sexual harassment prevention training courses. I understand that, while City staff will make a good faith effort to educate me regarding these requirements, I am responsible for my conduct as an Advisory Member. I understand that all Advisory Body Members serve at the pleasure of the City Council and may be removed from office due to poor attendance, unacceptable conduct, or for any other reason. I understand that Advisory Body members are volunteers, are not City employees, and do not receive benefits or protections other than workers’ compensation in case of injury in the course of duty. I understand that this is a public document, and that information contained within it may be provided to the public upon request. In regard to the online availability of my information, I declare the following:
If I am appointed, I authorize the City to post the following contact information (check applicable below) on its website. I understand that other websites not controlled by the City may provide link A.1
Cell Phone
Personal Email
Home Phone
Business Email Address
Work Phone
A.2
Further, if my home address and telephone number are otherwise non-disclosable under the California Public Records Act (California Government Code 6250 et seq.), I understand that by agreeing to the release of the informaiton above, this informaiton may be provided by the City in response to a request made under the Public Records Act.
If I am appointed, I do not authorize the City to post my contact informaiton on its website. The City may however, disclose on the internet and in all other venues that fact that I serve on a City Ad B.
Date of Submission* Applicants Signature*
REBECCA HALEY JOHNSTON
Type your full name.
1/22/2026
12:00 PM
17.I.
RECESVED
JUL282025
CityatHemetCityClerk‘s;Olilcl:
CityofHemet
ApplicationforAppointmenttoV olunteerCommissions/Boarats/Committees Thankyouforyourinterestinservingyourcommunity.InterestedapplicantsareencouragedtocontacttheCityClerk'sOf?ceformoreinformationaboutthebenefitsandresponsibilitiesofAdvisoryBodyservice.Applicationswillbekepton?leforoneyear,duringwhichtimetheapplicantwillbegiventheopportunitytointerviewforanyopeningforwhichtheapplicantiseligible CityClerk'sof?ce(951)7652316
— 445E.FloridaAvenue,Hemet,CA92543
1, CONTACTINFORMATION:
Cityiemiu Z M65NameandAddressofBusiness(ifapplymgasbusinessowner) HomePhone:*MobilePhone'
'
PersonalEmal ress:iWorkPho.WorkEmailAddress
2.APPLYINGFOR(MARKONEORMORE):Applicantsareencouragedtoapplyfornomorethan2AdvisoryBodiesbestsuitingtheirskillsandinterests.Ifapplyingformultiplebodies.pleaserankthoseinorderofpreference"i"beingmostpreferred.Quali?cationsformembership:Meetoneofthefollowingcriteria,1)TheindividualiscurrentresidentoftheCitywhohaslivedinthecityforatleastoneyearimmediatelypriortotheindivrdual'sappointmenttotheboard.commissionorcommittee;or2)CurrentresidentattheCityofHemet's"Sphereofinfluence”whohaslivedinthecityorinthecity'ssphereofin?uenceforatleastoneyearimmediatelypriortotheindividual’sappointmenttotheboard.commissionorcommittee.Seeattachedforspeci?cquali?cations.El PlanningCommission R HemetPublicLibraryBoardEl MeasureUCitizenOversightCommitteeEl MobileHomeRentRevlewCommission
3. QUALIFICATIONS:YouareencouragedtoattacharesumeorotheradditionaldocumentationthatmaybeofinteresttotheCityCouncilintheirevaluationofyamapplication.AreyouaCityresident?MYes,itofyears ElNo.areyouaresidentoftheSphereofIn?uence?lI: Yes ElNo‘ RelevantExperience(employment,communityorganizations,etc.)(Attachgagesifdesirodl f ham/ban[LWee/u?uMimiiii/.140Libraryjihad—J
20H.j?éfmfen/6and”; 5/m57%Ive/endsof?u.
i , . 1/ A4,542?f mum”?wSplit/Hails(a[mmm#2:M
bookSib?‘v
AdvisoryBodyExperience(bodyandagency):-f,9[ryamti'[40%bL/MU559/20]Current Ten-nzFrcm9/)// to fé?wfPrevious: Term.From 7 to
17.I.
4. ADDITIONALINFORMATION:TheCityCouncilwouldlikemoreinformationaboutyourinterestinsewingonanAdvisoryBody.PleaseindicateyourcommentsandviewsrelativetothesubjectmatteroftheAdvisoryBody(ies)forwhichyouareapplying:Attachpagesifdesired.) :l’liaJ/Z/ztlwm/S(Jami/edWM7112?ow]2
'
?y?/5?zzA/b?t.'I/h?KIM/V£446”;?uZMWa/z/If/W3.AmfmM:Hp??tc/M/Wewry/z4 4'5gym/?m[2#520751?rémremmesfi‘i‘WWr/MM"(b(1/Ma, dammit/'17flu/5hivIa/émm?m/Kim/”‘77Amt}.
5. SIGNATURE:READCAREFULLY7lunderstandthat,iiIamappointedtoanAdvisoryBody.Iwillberequiredtocomplywith:TheCity'sEthicsPolicy,AdvisoryBodyPoliciesandCon?ictofInterestCode;applicableprovisionsoithePoliticalReformActincludingfilingfinancialinterestdisclosurestatements(Form700);andapplicableprovisionsoftheBrownAct;andthatImustcompletestate-mandatedethicstrainingandsexualharassmentpreventiontrainingcourses.Iunderstandthat,whileCitystaffwillmakeagoodfaithefforttoeducatemeregardingtheserequirements,iamresponsibleformyconductasanAdvisoryMember.IunderstandthatallAdvisoryBodyMembersserveatthepleasureoftheCityCouncilandmayberemovedfromofficeduetopoorattendance.unacceptableconduct,orforanyotherreason.
IunderstandthatAdvisoryBodymembersarevolunteers,arenotCityemployees,anddonotreceivebene?tsorprotectionsotherthanworkers’compensationincaseofinjuryinthecourseofduty.Iunderstandthatthisisapublicdocument,andthatinformationcontainedwithinitmaybeprovidedtothepublicuponrequest.Inregardtotheonlineavailabilityofmyinformation,Ideclarethefollowing:
A.IfIamappointed.IauthorizetheCitytopostthefollowingcontactintormation[checkapplicablebelow)onitswebsiteIunderstandthatotherwebsitesnotcontrolledbytheCitymayprovidelinkstoaCitywebpagethathasmypersonalinformationonit,IalsoauthorizetheCitytoupdatemypersonalcontactinformationonitswebsiteifmycontactinformationchanges.
CellPhone [3'HomePhone |:| WorkPhonePersonalEmailaddress |:| BusinessEmailaddress Further,ifmyhomeaddressandtelephonenumberareotherwisenon-disclosableundertheCaliforniaPublicRecordsAct(CaliforniaGovernmentCode6250etseq.),Iunderstandthatbyagreeingtothereleaseoftheinformationabove.thisinformationmaybeprovidedbytheCityinresponsetoarequestmadeunder thePublicRecordsAct.
OR
B. IfIamappointed,IdonotauthorizetheCitytopostmycontactinformationonItswebsite.TheCitymayhowever,discloseontheinternetandinallothervenuesthatfactthatIserveonaCityAdvisoryBody.
I nApplicantsSignature:#Date [j2046’
ForOt?ceUseOnly.AssignedtoCommission/Committeel?oard:ElPlanningCommission ElLibraryBoard [I EvidenceofHarrietResident |:| MobileHomeRentReviewCommlssionElMeasureUCommittee ClEvidenceSphereofln?uenoe) StaffInitials:ExpirationofTerm:
17.I.
City of Hemet
City Council Meeting
STAFF REPORT
Meeting: City Council Meeting - Sep 22 2026
Department: Administration
Submitted by: Noah Rau, Interim City Manager
Rosalia A. Butler, City Clerk;
☐ Receive and File ☒ Consent Calendar ☐ Business Item ☐ Public Hearing
TITLE:
Conflict of Intertest Code Biennial Notice Required by the Political Reform Act
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
It is respectfully recommended that the City Council approve and file the 2026 Local Agency Biennial Notice.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The attached Biennial Notice (Attachment No. 1) is to inform the City Council that the City’s adopted Conflict-of-Interest Code (“Code”) requires amendments. 2026 is designated as a “code-review” year. A City Council report will be brought back with the recommended changes at a later date.
DISCUSSION:
As required by the Political Reform Act: Government Code Section 87306 (a) Every agency shall amend its Conflict of Interest Code, subject to the provisions of Section 87303, when change is necessitated by changed circumstances, including the creation of new positions which must be designated pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 87302 and relevant changes in the duties assigned to existing positions. Amendments or revisions shall be submitted to the code reviewing body within 90 days after the changed circumstances necessitating the amendments have become apparent.
STRATEGIC PLAN INTEGRATION:
N/A
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact to this action.
17.J.
ATTACHMENT(S):
Attachment No. 1 - 2026 Biennial Notice
17.J.
www.fppc.ca.gov
FPPC Advice: [email protected] (866.275.3772)
2026 Local Agency Biennial Notice
Name of Agency:
Mailing Address:
Contact Person: Phone No.
Email: Alternate Email:
Accurate disclosure is essential to monitor whether officials have conflicts of interest and to help ensure public The trust review examines current programs to in government. biennial ensure that the agency’s code includes disclosure by those agency officials who make or participate in making governmental decisions.
This agency has reviewed its conflict of interest code and has determined that (check one BOX):
An amendment is required. The following amendments are necessary:
(Check all that apply.)
Include new positions
Revise disclosure categories
Revise the titles of existing positions
Delete titles of positions that have been abolished and/or positions that no longer make or participate in making governmental decisions
Other (describe)
The code is currently under review by the code reviewing body.
No amendment is required. (If your code is over five years old, amendments may be necessary.)
Verification (to be completed if no amendment is required)
This agency’s code accurately designates all positions that make or participate in the making of governmental decisions. The accurately requires disclosure assigned to those positions that all investments, business positions, interests in real property, and sources of income that may foreseeably be affected materially by the decisions thos made by e holding designated positions are reported. provisions The code all includes other required by Government Code Section 87302.
__________________________________________ _________________________ Signature of Chief Executive Officer Date
notice this must agencies All complete and return or approved code was your how of regardless recently amended. Please return this notice no later than October 1, 2026, or by the date specified by your agency, if earlier, to:
(PLACE RETURN ADDRESS OF CODE REVIEWING BODY HERE)
PLEASE DO NOT RETURN THIS FORM TO THE FPPC.
17.J.
City of Hemet
City Council Meeting
STAFF REPORT
Meeting: City Council Meeting - Sep 22 2026
Department: City Attorney
Submitted by: Noah Rau, Interim City Manager
Steven Graham, City Attorney;
☐ Receive and File ☐ Consent Calendar ☒ Business Item ☐ Public Hearing
TITLE:
Request for City Council Policy Direction Regarding Potential Development and Adoption of an Electric Bicycle Ordinance
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
It is respectfully recommended that the City Council:
1. Receive this report and public comment concerning potential benefits and areas of concern associated with electric bicycle use;
2. Provide direction on the five policy questions presented under Requested Policy Direction below; and
3. Direct staff to seek Hemet Youth Council and other community input, develop a proposed policy and ordinance consistent with Council direction, complete City Attorney and Police Department review, and return with the proposed ordinance, supporting analysis, fiscal impacts, and implementation plan for Council consideration of introduction and subsequent adoption.
This meeting would establish the Council’s policy priorities. No ordinance is presented for introduction or adoption. Council direction would guide subsequent drafting and review.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council has an opportunity to consider how Hemet should support lawful electric bicycle use while addressing pedestrian safety, unsafe riding, and the operation of vehicles that do not qualify as electric bicycles. The central policy question is how to combine education, enforcement, and appropriate local rules to protect public safety while preserving useful transportation and recreation options. Staff recommends identifying the desired outcomes before preparing ordinance language.
Understanding the devices. California defines an electric bicycle as a bicycle equipped with fully operable pedals and an electric motor that does not exceed 750 watts. Class 1 provides pedal assistance that ceases at 20 mph. Class 2 may propel the bicycle without pedaling, but motor assistance ceases at 20 mph. Class 3 provides pedal assistance that ceases at 28 mph and requires a speedometer. Class 1 and Class 3 bicycles may have motor-only start assistance or a walk mode up to 3.7 mph.
18.A.
A Class 3 operator must be at least 16. Operators and passengers on Class 3 e-bikes must wear qualifying helmets on the public facilities specified by state law. Riders and passengers under 18 are also subject to the general bicycle helmet requirements.
A product’s marketing name does not determine its legal classification. State law excludes specified modified or manufacturer-modifiable devices from the e-bike definition. Off-highway electric motorcycles are a separate category subject to off-highway vehicle requirements.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:
The following benefits warrant consideration alongside safety concerns:
Transportation and affordability. Electric assistance can make longer bicycle trips more practical.
Replacing suitable automobile trips can reduce transportation costs and vehicle emissions. These are stated objectives of California’s e-bike transportation policy but the extent of any benefit in Hemet would depend on actual travel behavior.
Access and recreation. Electric assistance can expand cycling opportunities for people who find conventional cycling physically difficult and can support recreational riding and physical activity.
These benefits vary with the rider, equipment, and amount of pedaling.
Areas of concern. Safety concerns include collisions with motor vehicles, conflicts with pedestrians, unsafe speeds and turns, rider control, and equipment compliance. California research identifies speed and turning violations as relevant collision factors. CHP also identifies damaged or improperly charged lithium-ion batteries as a potential fire hazard.
National safety evidence. CPSC’s April 2026 report (Attachment 1) estimates 59,200 e-bike-related emergency department visits in the United States in 2024. These are national injury estimates, not counts of police-reported traffic collisions. The report also identifies 310 reported e-bike-associated fatalities during 2017–2024, involving several hazards, including fires. That figure is not solely roadway fatalities or a complete mortality census. In CPSC’s weighted 2024 follow-up study, 47% involved speeds below 20 mph, 15% involved 20 mph or more, and 38% had unspecified speed. The findings were based on 88 completed e-bike investigations and do not establish the speed distribution of ordinary riders. CPSC revised its hospital sample and retrospectively adjusted earlier estimates; historical figures should be compared within the same report series. Missing speed information limits conclusions about speed-related risk.
California safety evidence. A study published in 2026 analyzed California police-reported collision records from 2018–2024 (Attachment 2). It identified 4,035 e-bike collisions and 58,332 conventional bicycle collisions. Riders aged 14 or younger represented 15.6% of the e-bike group. Unsafe speed was recorded as a primary or contributing rider violation in 11.2% of e-bike collisions, compared with
7.1% of conventional bicycle collisions. These percentages describe the study’s collision records, not all riders.
California legislative history and recent updates. The principal enacted measures and pending proposals relevant to this discussion are summarized below. Enactment, effective dates, and later operative deadlines are distinct.
18.A.
AB 1096 of 2015. The core framework took effect January 1, 2016, establishing the three e-bike classes and Class 3 age and helmet provisions. Classification labeling began January 1, 2017.
AB 1909 of 2022. Relevant access changes took effect January 1, 2023. The measure removed the former statewide Class 3 restriction on specified bicycle facilities, retained identified trail-regulation authority, and prohibited mandatory local bicycle licensing.
AB 1946 of 2022. The measure required CHP to develop statewide e-bike safety training by September 1, 2023. CHP now provides training resources.
SB 381 of 2023. The measure directed research on e-bike safety and policy. The resulting Mineta Transportation Institute study, published in December 2025, addresses regulation, data quality, infrastructure, and education.
AB 1774 of 2024. Effective January 1, 2025, the measure clarified that speed modifications must leave the device within the legal e-bike definition and prohibited selling devices that modify speed capability beyond that definition.
SB 1271 of 2024. Classification changes took effect January 1, 2025, with product-safety provisions phased into 2026 and 2028. The measure revised classification and modification provisions and established battery, charging, testing, and labeling requirements. Rental requirements have a later operative date.
AB 1778 and AB 2234 of 2024. Effective January 1, 2025, the measures authorized specified local age restrictions in Marin and San Diego counties; Marin’s pilot also addresses Class 2 helmets. The pilots sunset January 1, 2029. These geographic authorizations do not extend to Hemet.
AB 544 of 2025. Effective January 1, 2026, the measure requires an e-bike rear red reflector or qualifying rear light with reflector during all hours and addresses specialized e-bike education for specified minor helmet citations.
SB 586 of 2025. Effective January 1, 2026, the measure defines off-highway electric motorcycles and confirms their treatment under off-highway vehicle requirements.
AB 875 of 2025. Effective January 1, 2026, the measure adds specified vehicle-removal authority and provisions governing costs and release.
AB 1569 of 2026. Approved August 27, 2026, and generally effective January 1, 2027, the measure requires a standardized state e-bike safety program for grades 7–12 by March 1, 2028. Its final language encourages local training demonstrations but it does not impose a universal student licensing requirement.
Pending legislation. As of the September 17, 2026 the official histories show the following measures presented to the Governor without a recorded approval or veto.
AB 2346. The measure would establish a 10 mph prima facie sidewalk speed limit, authorize specified local bicycle-path and multiuse-trail speed limits, and add equipment and seller-disclosure provisions. Its proposed equipment requirements include a January 1, 2029 implementation date.
These are not current requirements.
18.A.
SB 1167. The measure would revise vehicle classifications, labeling and consumer disclosures, collision-report information, and removal authority. Some provisions depend on enactment of AB 2346.
AB 2595. The measure would establish a San Mateo County pilot. That proposed geographic authority would not apply to Hemet.
DISCUSSION:
Staff requests direction on the five questions below. Each concerns a policy choice for the City Council. Legal language, technical standards, individual signs, fine amounts, and administrative procedures would be developed through subsequent staff work and appropriate review. The Council may select the recommended options, modify them, or direct another approach.
Overall approach and scope. Should staff develop a targeted e-bike safety ordinance alongside education and enforcement, or initially rely on existing laws and evaluate whether additional regulation is necessary?
Option A. Evaluate a comprehensive mobility-device ordinance, with separate legal analysis for each device category. (Suggested by staff.)
Option B. Begin with education and existing-law enforcement only, followed by an evaluation of whether additional regulation is needed.
Option C. Prepare targeted local provisions addressing demonstrated gaps, while preserving lawful transportation access and clearly distinguishing e-bikes from other electric vehicles.
Sidewalks and pedestrian areas. Should proposed restrictions focus on identified pedestrian conflict areas or apply more broadly to sidewalks throughout the City?
Option A. Evaluate a general sidewalk riding prohibition with legally appropriate exceptions. (Suggested by staff.)
Option B. Evaluate targeted dismount or restricted-riding areas based on pedestrian activity, visibility, collision information, and available alternative routes. Preserve disability access. Staff would return with proposed locations, supporting evidence, and the legal basis.
Option C. Retain access while emphasizing enforceable conduct rules.
Parks and trails. Should lawful e-bike access generally be preserved on suitable routes, with restrictions based on facility conditions, or limited to specifically designated routes?
Option A. Preserve access on suitable routes and evaluate restrictions where pedestrian, equestrian, environmental, or facility conditions warrant them. (Suggested by staff.)
Option B. Establish a designated-route approach.
18.A.
Option C. Evaluate class-specific restrictions where authorized and supported by evidence.
Staff would identify facility ownership and classification before recommending particular restrictions under any option.
Education and enforcement philosophy. Should implementation emphasize education and correction for eligible initial violations, with escalating responses for repeated or serious conduct?
Option A. Emphasize enforcement at implementation, supported by advance public education.
Council direction would establish priorities; staff and the City Attorney would determine lawful citation, diversion, and enforcement procedures. (Suggested by staff.)
Option B. Use an education-first approach for most violations coupled with proportionate enforcement for dangerous behavior and repeat violations. Include riders, parents, motorists, schools, and retailers in outreach.
Vehicle removal and cost recovery. Should staff develop procedures implementing existing state- authorized vehicle removal and evaluate recovery of eligible costs?
Option A. Prepare a framework addressing notice, review rights, safe storage, release, and authorized education conditions. Return with actual cost estimates. (Suggested by staff.)
Option B. Defer additional local procedures pending operational analysis.
Option C. Evaluate absorbing eligible administrative costs rather than recovering them from affected owners. No fee amount, removal expansion, or storage contract would be approved through this direction.
STRATEGIC PLAN INTEGRATION:
GOAL ONE: QUALITY OF LIFE:
To ensure that Hemet is safe, clean, attractive and comfortable for all who live, work, and visit.
Objective 1: Enhance the visual appearance of the community to make it attractive and reduce blight.
Objective 2: Explore and implement homelessness solutions for the City of Hemet.
Objective 3: Increase Public Safety visibility and response.
GOAL THREE: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
To connect and participate in a constant dialogue between members of the community, City staff, and elected officials to promote togetherness and positivity.
Objective 1: Deliver messaging to the Community that connects, is consistent, and relevant.
Objective 2: Increase transparency for the public.
Objective 3: Increase the community's pride within the City.
GOAL FIVE: ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
To identify the work needed inside the City organization to effectively provide services to the community and ensure financial stability.
Objective 1: Operate in a financially sustainable manner.
Objective 2: Evaluate existing practices to ensure continuity with industry best practices.
Objective 3: Provide Council with policies that are consistent while lessening liabilities.
Objective 4: Increase employee retention by training and creating a positive workplace.
Objective 5: Streamline fire prevention coordination efforts.
18.A.
ATTACHMENT(S):
Attachment 1 - CPSC Report
Attachment 2 - CA Study
18.A.
•
Micromobility Products-Related
Deaths, Injuries, and Hazard
Patterns: 2017–2024
April 2026
James Tark
Directorate for Epidemiology
Division of Hazard Analysis
This report was prepared by the CPSC staff.
It has not been reviewed or approved by,
and may not necessarily reflect the views of,
the Commission.
18.A.
Micromobility-Related Deaths, Injuries, and Hazard Patterns | April 2026 | cpsc.gov 2 Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 4 Reported Fatalities ................................................................................................................. 4 Emergency Department (ED) - Treated Injury Estimates ........................................................ 5 Special Study on E-scooter Injuries ........................................................................................ 5 Special Study on E-bike Injuries ............................................................................................. 6 Associated Hazard Patterns ................................................................................................... 6 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 8 I. Reported Fatalities Associated with Micromobility Products ............................................ 9 Table 1.1: Number of Reported Fatalities Associated with Micromobility Product Type and Year ......................................................................................................................................10 Table 1.2: Number of Reported Fatalities Associated with Micromobility Product Type and Sex (2017–2024 Total) ..........................................................................................................10
Table 1.3: Reported Fatalities Associated with Micromobility Product Type and Age Group (2017–2024 Total) .................................................................................................................11
Table 1.4: Reported Fatalities Associated with Micromobility Product Type and Associated Hazards (2017–2024 Total) ...................................................................................................13
II. National Injury Estimates ...................................................................................................13 Figure 2.1: Estimated ED Visits Associated with Micromobility Products by Year ..................14 Figure 2.2: Distribution of Estimated ED Visits Associated with Micromobility by Product Type and Sex (2017–2024 Total) ...................................................................................................15 Figure 2.3: Distribution of Estimated ED Visits Associated with Micromobility by Product Type and Age Group (2017–2024 Total) Compared to U.S. Population Age Distribution ...............16 Figure 2.4: Distribution of Estimated ED Visits Associated with Micromobility Product Type and Location of Injury (2017–2024 Total) ..............................................................................17
Figure 2.5: Distribution of Estimated ED Visits Associated with Micromobility Product Type and Month of Injury (2017–2024 Total) ..................................................................................18
III-A. Special Study on E-Scooter Injuries .............................................................................19 Table 3a1: Scooter Products: NEISS Product Code vs. Verified Scooter Product (2024) ......20 Table 3a.2: Completed E-Scooter Investigations by Powered vs. Unspecified Scooter (2024) ..............................................................................................................................................20 Table 3a.3: Distribution of Estimated Injuries on Rental Status (2024) ..................................21 Table 3a.4: Distribution of Estimated Injuries on How Victim Was Injured (2024) ..................21 Table 3a.5: Distribution of Estimated Injuries on Type of Riding Surface (2024) ....................22
18.A.
Micromobility-Related Deaths, Injuries, and Hazard Patterns | April 2026 | cpsc.gov 3 Table 3a.6: Distribution of Estimated Injuries on Visibility (2024) ...........................................22 Table 3a.7: Distribution of Estimated Injuries on Rider Distraction (2024) ..............................22 Table 3a.8: Distribution of Estimated Injuries on Rider Baggage (2024) ................................23 Table 3a.9: Distribution of Estimated Injuries on Safety Equipment (2024) ............................23 III-B. Special Study on E-bike Injuries ...................................................................................24 Table 3b.1: Bicycle Products: NEISS Product Code vs. Verified Bicycle Product (2024) .......25 Table 3b.2: Completed E-bike Investigations on E-bike vs. Unspecified Bicycle (2024) .........25 Table 3b.3: Distribution of Estimated Injuries on Rental Status (2024) ..................................26 Table 3b.4: Distribution of Estimated Injuries on Type of Riding Surface (2024) ....................26 Table 3b.5: Distribution of Estimated Injuries on How Victim Was Injured (2024) ..................26 Table 3b.6: Distribution of Estimated Injuries on Lane Type (2024) .......................................27 Table 3b.7: Distribution of Estimated Injuries on Motor Vehicle Accident (2024) ....................27 Table 3b.8: Distribution of Estimated Injuries on Accident Location at Intersection (2024) .....28 Table 3b.9: Distribution of Estimated Injuries on Visibility (2024) ...........................................28 Table 3b.10: Distribution of Estimated Injuries on Surface Level (2024) ................................28 Table 3b.11: Distribution of Estimated Injuries on Rider Distraction (2024) ............................29 Table 3b.12: Distribution of Estimated Injuries on Rider Baggage (2024) ..............................29 Table 3b.13: Distribution of Estimated Injuries on Safety Equipment (2024) ..........................30 Table 3b.14: Distribution of Estimated Injuries on Travelling Speed (2024) ...........................30 IV. Hazard Patterns Based on In-Depth Investigation Review .............................................30 Table 4.1: In-Depth Investigations of Micromobility Products and Associated Hazards (2017– 2024 Total) ............................................................................................................................33 References ..............................................................................................................................35 Appendix A ..............................................................................................................................36 Methodology ..........................................................................................................................36 Appendix B ..............................................................................................................................39 Summary of Annual Injury Estimates and Trend Analysis ......................................................39 Appendix C: Special Study Survey Questionnaire for E-scooters ......................................41 Appendix D: Special Study Survey Questionnaire for E-bikes ............................................45
18.A.
Micromobility-Related Deaths, Injuries, and Hazard Patterns | April 2026 | cpsc.gov 4 Executive Summary
In this report, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) staff presents the latest available statistics on injury estimates, fatalities, and hazard patterns associated with three micromobility products: e-scooters (including rental e-scooters), self-balancing scooters (also commonly referred to as hoverboards), and e-bikes. Injury and fatality data come from CPSC’s National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) and Consumer Product Safety Risk Management System (CPSRMS). The timeframe covered is 2017 through 2024. This report includes data presented in the previous annual report, Micromobility Products-Related Deaths Injuries and Hazard Patterns 2017-2023
1 and adds the 2024 data and the findings from two
2024 special studies of e-scooter and e-bike-related injuries. For micromobility-related fatalities, staff notes that, due to delays in death certificate reporting, the number of reported fatalities may change in the future.
Key data and findings of this report are summarized below.
Reported Fatalities2
• All Micromobility Products
• CPSC staff is aware of 533 fatalities from 2017 through 2024. • The number of fatalities has been increasing steadily from 5 in 2017 to 135 in 2024.
• E-Scooters
• CPSC staff is aware of 206 fatalities from 2017 through 2024. • Motor vehicle accidents and control issues were the top hazards associated with e- scooter fatalities.
• Out of the 206 fatalities, 15 were associated with 11 incidents of lithium-ion battery- related fires.
• Self-balancing scooters
• CPSC staff is aware of 17 fatalities from 2017 through 2024.
1 The report, Micromobility Products-Related Deaths Injuries and Hazard Patterns 2017-2023 can be found at:
https://cpsc.gov/Research--Statistics/Sports--Recreation/Micromobility-Products-Related-Deaths-Injuries-and-Hazard- Patterns-2017%E2%80%932023
2 Reporting for 2023-2024 is ongoing. Counts may change in future reports.
18.A.
Micromobility-Related Deaths, Injuries, and Hazard Patterns | April 2026 | cpsc.gov 5 • Of the 17 fatalities, 11 were associated with 5 incidents of lithium-ion battery-related fires.
• E-Bikes
• CPSC staff is aware of 310 fatalities from 2017 through 2024. • Motor vehicle accidents and control issues were the top hazards associated with e- bike fatalities.
• Out of the 310 fatalities, 19 were associated with 13 incidents of lithium-ion battery- related fires.
Emergency Department (ED) - Treated Injury Estimates
• All Micromobility Products: There were an estimated total of 698,500 ED visits from 2017 through 2024;
• E-Scooters: There were an estimated total of 380,000 ED visits from 2017 through 2024;
• Self-balancing scooters: There were an estimated total of 163,300 ED visits from 2017 through 2024;
• E-Bikes: There were an estimated total of 155,200 ED visits from 2017 through 2024.
Special Study on E-scooter Injuries
• CPSC staff successfully followed up on 173 e-scooter NEISS injury cases that occurred in 2024 through investigations.
• Rental e-scooters accounted for 35 percent of the e-scooter-related ED visits in the special study.
• Fifty-four percent of the injuries occurred on paved roads and 32 percent on paved sidewalks.
• Twenty percent of the victims reported that visibility issues may have contributed to the accidents; Of these 15,700 injuries where it was reportedly dark/difficult to see, 9,200 (58%) were wearing blinking lights/headlamps or reflective vests. • Eleven percent of the victims reported that a source of distraction, such as a cell phone or loud music, while riding the e-scooter may have contributed to the accidents.
• Thirty-two percent of the injured were carrying or holding something while riding the e-scooter.
18.A.
Micromobility-Related Deaths, Injuries, and Hazard Patterns | April 2026 | cpsc.gov 6 • Eighteen percent of the riders were wearing a helmet; forty-four percent reported wearing other safety equipment but not a helmet; thirty-seven percent did not report helmet use.
Special Study on E-bike Injuries
• CPSC staff successfully followed up on 88 e-bike NEISS injury cases that occurred in 2024 through investigations.
• Rental e-bikes accounted for 11 percent of the e-bike-related ED visits in the special study.
• Fifty-eight percent of the injuries occurred on paved roads. • Twenty-four percent of the injuries were associated with motor vehicle accidents. • Ten percent of the victims reported that visibility issues may have contributed to the accidents; of these 5,900 injuries where it was reportedly dark/difficult to see, 2,600 (44%) were wearing blinking lights/headlamps or reflective vests. • Twenty-five percent of the injuries occurred on unlevel (uphill or downhill) surfaces. • Three percent of the victims reported that a source of distraction, such as a cell phone or loud music, while riding the e-bike may have contributed to the accidents. • Thirty-eight percent of the injured were carrying or holding something while riding the e-bike.
• Forty percent of the riders were wearing a helmet; forty-six percent reported wearing other safety equipment but not a helmet; fourteen percent did not report any of the safety equipment at the time of the incident.
• Fifteen percent of the riders were travelling at a speed of 20 mph or higher when the accident happened.
Associated Hazard Patterns
In addition to the 2024 special studies of e-scooter and e-bike incidents that were reported through NEISS, CPSC Field staff completed 531 follow-up in-depth investigations (IDIs) related to all micromobility products, based on reports of incidents in CPSC’s Consumer Product Safety Risk Management System (CPSRMS) 3 that occurred from 2017 through 2024. Of the 531 completed investigations, 189 involved an e-scooter, 197 involved a self-balancing scooter, and 145 involved an e-bike. The investigations based on CPSRMS reports were in addition to the 2024 special studies of e-scooter and e-bike incidents that were reported through NEISS. The following summarizes highlights of the 531 IDIs:
3 Reports in CPSRMS come from various sources, including consumer complaints, news clips, state/local authorities, medical examiners, death certificates from the states, manufacturers, and retailers, among others.
18.A.
Micromobility-Related Deaths, Injuries, and Hazard Patterns | April 2026 | cpsc.gov 7 • E-Scooters
• One hundred eighty-nine of the investigated incidents involved an e-scooter. • Fire hazards were the most common problem reported, accounting for 88 of the 189 investigated incidents.
• Brake problems were associated with 40 of the investigated incidents.
• Self-balancing scooters
• Field staff investigated 197 incidents associated with self-balancing scooters. • The top two most common problems reported were fire hazards with 173, followed by 21 other electrical hazards.
• E-Bikes
• CPSC staff reviewed 145 completed investigation reports on e-bikes. • The top two most common problems reported were fire hazards with 106, followed by miscellaneous product-related issues with 26.
18.A.
Micromobility-Related Deaths, Injuries, and Hazard Patterns | April 2026 | cpsc.gov 8 Introduction
The use of micromobility products, particularly e-scooters and e-bikes, has increased in recent years with advancements in battery technology and the growing popularity of commercial ride- sharing services. Consumers may rent commercial e-scooters and e-bikes or purchase their own micromobility products. These products are popular with consumers because they are a convenient, cost-effective mode of transportation for short-distance travel. In addition, no motor vehicle license is required to operate them.
This report summarizes the deaths, injuries, and hazards associated with the use of micromobility products, based on data from CPSC epidemiological databases from 2017 through 2024. Data from 2024 were added to the data from 2017 through 2023 previously presented in the 2024 annual report on micromobility products.4 In addition, this report summarizes findings from two special follow-up studies of emergency department-treated injuries involving e-scooters and e-bikes in 2024. The micromobility products covered in this report are as follows:
• electric scooters (e-scooters: electric-powered, motorized standing scooters), including ride-sharing rental e-scooters;
• self-balancing scooters; and
• low-speed electric bicycles (or e-bikes), defined in section 38 of the Consumer Product Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2085 as a two- or three-wheeled vehicle with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts (1 h.p.), whose maximum speed on a paved, level surface, when powered solely by such a motor while ridden by an operator who weighs 170 pounds, is less than 20 mph.
Electric unicycles, three-wheeled e-scooters, non-electric kick scooters, gas-powered scooters, mobility scooters, mopeds, motorized carts, and other seated motorized scooters are not in scope for this report.
The first section of this report presents the fatalities reported to CPSC for micromobility products. This is followed by a section on the national injury estimates in the following order:
overall micromobility, e-scooters, self-balancing scooters, and e-bikes. The individual injury estimates for rental e-scooters are not presented in this report due to small sample sizes, high coefficients of variation (CV), and limitations in NEISS5 data possibly leading to undercounts because of the unavailability of sufficient information to identify the product as a rental. This is followed by a section on the special study of e-scooter-related injuries. The special study section is followed by a section on the hazard patterns, where analyses are presented for overall micromobility, e-scooters (rental e-scooter statistics in parentheses), self-balancing scooters, and e-bikes. Lastly, Appendix A describes staff’s methodology, including the process for data extraction, scope determination, and discussion of the raking methodology. Appendix B
4 As CPSC revised the NEISS sample in 2024 adjusted weights were applied to 2017-2023 data to ensure comparability. Consequently, 2017-2023 estimates reported here differ from last year’s report, Micromobility Products-Related Deaths Injuries and Hazard Patterns 2017-2023, which can be found at: https://cpsc.gov/Research- -Statistics/Sports--Recreation/Micromobility-Products-Related-Deaths-Injuries-and-Hazard-Patterns- 2017%E2%80%932023
5 See https://www.cpsc.gov/Research--Statistics/NEISS-Injury-Data.
18.A.
Micromobility-Related Deaths, Injuries, and Hazard Patterns | April 2026 | cpsc.gov 9 presents additional details about the injury estimates. Appendices C and D list the questions used in the follow-up studies of NEISS on e-scooter and e-bike related injuries treated, respectively.
The fatality statistics, as well as the hazard pattern review staff presents in this report, are based on incidents reported to CPSC through the CPSC’s Consumer Product Safety Risk Management System (CPSRMS). See Appendix A for the codes and keywords used in the database searches. Reports in CPSRMS come from various sources, including consumer complaints, news clips, state/local authorities, medical examiners, death certificates from state governments, manufacturers, and retailers, among others. Staff considers the data in CPSRMS to be anecdotal and not nationally representative. Moreover, data collection is ongoing, and staff considers the later years’ data to be incomplete. Specifically, for death statistics, which rely on death certificates reported by state governments, staff observes a lag of up to two years from the time of the death to the time of reporting to the CPSC. As such, the data included in this report (especially from 2023 through 2024) are likely incomplete. Each incident report contains a product code that identifies the type of product involved as well as information about the location of the incident (state and city), the individual(s) involved or injured (age and sex), and a narrative description.
Staff’s national estimates of injuries are based on injury data collected by CPSC’s NEISS, which is a nationally representative stratified probability sample of hospitals in the United States and its territories. Each injury report contains a product code that identifies the type of product involved; information on the injured victim’s sex, age, diagnosis, disposition, body part injured; and a brief narrative description of the injury. Each injury in the sample represents an estimated number of injuries that staff projects nationally.
CPSC staff conducted two special follow-up studies of NEISS on e-scooter and e-bike-related injuries treated in hospital emergency departments between January 1, 2024 and December 31, 2024. These investigations were completed through telephone interviews and self-administered online surveys of injured victims to learn more about how the injury occurred, the type of injury, the scooter type involved, the characteristics of the rider/victim, and the incident scenario.
I. Reported Fatalities Associated with
Micromobility Products
CPSC staff is aware of 533 fatalities related to micromobility products that occurred in the United States during the 8-year timeframe, 2017 through 2024. Some of the characteristics of these reported fatalities are summarized in the tables below. Due to delays in death certificate reporting, staff expects the number of reported fatalities for these years to change in future reports. Compared to the last annual report6, there are 160 additional fatalities—135 in 2024 and an additional 25 added retroactively for preceding years. Out of the 160 fatalities, 115 e- bikes, 44 e-scooters, and 1 self-balancing scooter-related fatalities were reported.
6 Number of rental scooters have been amended to account for all e-scooters rented from e-scooter rental companies. In addition, one fatality involving e-scooter in 2022 have been reclassified as e-bike.
18.A.
Micromobility-Related Deaths, Injuries, and Hazard Patterns | April 2026 | cpsc.gov 10 Table 1.1 shows the fatality data for micromobility products by incident year from 2017 to 2024.
While data reporting is ongoing, as of the writing of this report, e-scooter-related fatalities represent 206 (14 were rental e-scooter-related) out of 533 (39 percent) total fatalities. E-bikes account for 310 (58 percent) of total fatalities, increasing substantially during the 8-year timeframe. CPSC staff is aware of 17 fatalities involving self-balancing scooters during the same period.
Table 1.1: Number of Reported Fatalities Associated with Micromobility Product Type and Year
Year All Micromobility E-Scooter (Rental E-
scooter)
Self-balancing
scooter E-Bike
2017 5 1 4 0
2018 11 5 (2) 0 6
2019 31 25 (7) 0 6
2020 36 16 (3) 2 18
2021 83 40 (1) 8 35
2022 95 35 (1) 3 57
2023 137 46 (0) 0 91
2024 135 38 (0) 0 97
Total 533 206 (14) 17 310
Note: Reporting for 2023-2024 is ongoing. Counts may change in future reports.
Source: CPSRMS, NEISS, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 2017-2024.
Among the 533 micromobility-related fatalities, 422 were male decedents, 86 were females, and sex was unknown for the remaining 25 decedents. Male fatalities associated with e-scooters (162, including 14 rental e-scooter fatalities, out of 206), and e-bikes (254 out of 310) represented 79 and 82 percent respectively, whereas of the 17 self-balancing scooter-related fatality victims, 11 were females. The distribution of decedents by product type by sex distribution is presented in Table 1.2.
Table 1.2: Number of Reported Fatalities Associated with Micromobility Product Type and Sex (2017–2024 Total)
Sex All Micromobility E-Scooter (Rental E-
scooter)
Self-balancing
scooter E-Bike
Male 422 162 (12) 6 254
Female 86 28 (2) 11 47
Unknown 25 16 0 9
Total 533 206 (14) 17 310
Note: Reporting for 2023-2024 is ongoing. Counts may change in future reports.
Source: CPSRMS, NEISS, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 2017-2024.
Table 1.3 presents the fatality data for micromobility by product type and age group of the deceased from 2017 to 2024, in reference to each group’s average share of the U.S. population in those 8 years, 2017–2024. Four hundred seventy-two out of 533 total reported micromobility fatalities provided age information. Of these 472 fatalities, 156 (33 percent) were 25-44 years old, which was disproportionately high compared to its proportion in the general U.S. population (27 percent). Of the 156 fatalities in the 25-44 age group, 70 accidents involved e-scooters, 83
18.A.
Micromobility-Related Deaths, Injuries, and Hazard Patterns | April 2026 | cpsc.gov 11 e-bikes, and 3 self-balancing scooters. Of the 92 fatalities within the 65 and older age group, 75 (82 percent) involved e-bikes.
Table 1.3: Reported Fatalities Associated with Micromobility Product Type and Age Group (2017–2024 Total)
Age Group U.S.
Population
All
Micromobility
E-Scooter (Rental
E-scooter)
Self-
balancing
scooter
E-Bike
Under 5 6% 5 2 (0) 3 0
5–14 12% 20 9 (0) 5 6
15-24 13% 71 37 (5) 2 32
25-44 27% 156 70 (5) 3 83
45-64 25% 128 41 (1) 2 85
65 and older 17% 92 15 (0) 2 75
Unknown N/A 61 32 (3) 0 29
Total 100% 533 206 (14) 17 310
Note: Reporting for 2023-2024 is ongoing. Counts may change in future reports.
Source: CPSRMS, NEISS, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 2017-2024.
Table 1.4 shows the data for micromobility-related fatalities by product and hazard types. Out of the 533 fatalities reported to CPSC staff, 207 (14 rental e-scooters) deaths involved e-scooters, 17 involved self-balancing scooters, and e-bikes accounted for 311 of these deaths.
E-Scooters (Including Rental E-Scooters)
Staff’s review of the 206 e-scooter related fatalities shows the following hazards:
• Motor vehicle accidents were the leading cause of death associated with e-scooters.
Out of the 206 fatalities reported to CPSC staff, 140 deaths (including 13 on rental e- scooters) involved motor vehicle accidents (e.g., collision with parked or moving cars, SUVs, buses, or trucks).
• Twenty (including a rental e-scooter) e-scooter fatalities were due to control issues.
Control issues led to crashing into a fixed object and striking pavement or road curbs.
• Fifteen fatalities were associated with e-scooter battery-related fires. In all 15 fatalities, batteries that powered scooters sparked the fire. • Accidents involving pedestrians resulted in 6 fatalities; all 6 decedents were struck by e-scooter riders.
• Other hazards accounted for 2 fatalities which were associated with intoxication, including one which involved a crash with a commuter train while riding the e-scooter and the other in an incident in which an intoxicated rider fell from the e-scooter. • Unspecified falls accounted for 21 e-scooter-related fatalities; staff does not have sufficient scenario-specific information to determine what caused the falls.
Self-balancing scooters
18.A.
Micromobility-Related Deaths, Injuries, and Hazard Patterns | April 2026 | cpsc.gov 12 Staff’s review of the 17 self-balancing scooter-related fatalities shows the following hazards:
• Eleven fatalities were associated with self-balancing scooter-related fires, where 4 deaths involved flame eruptions while charging the self-balancing scooters, and the other 7 deaths have no information.
• Two deaths were caused by motor vehicle accidents. In separate incidents, 2 self-balancing scooter riders were struck by vehicles.
• Unknown falls accounted for 4 self-balancing scooter-related fatalities; staff does not have sufficient scenario-specific information to determine what caused the falls.
E-Bikes
Staff’s review of the 310 e-bike related fatalities shows the following hazards:
• Collisions with moving or parked motor vehicles were the leading cause of death associated with e-bikes, accounting for 170 reported deaths. • Sixty-one e-bike fatalities were due to control issues, such as crashing into other fixed objects (i.e., gate, sign, post, barricade, railing, dumpster, median, fence) or striking road curbs.
• Nineteen fatalities were associated with lithium-ion battery-related fires, where 7 deaths were associated with homemade battery packs or bike repair shops, 2 involved flame eruptions while charging the e-bikes, and one where the e-bike had fallen into the water; the other 8 deaths have no charging information. • Accidents involving pedestrians resulted in 19 fatalities; 13 pedestrians were struck by e-bikes and died from blunt impact/fall, and 5 e-bike riders were killed due to blunt impact caused when they struck other bike riders or pedestrians.
One e-bike passenger fell to the ground after collision with bicycle. • Other hazards include 2 fatalities associated with bike component failures (a malfunctioning chain and a front wheel coming loose while riding) and 3 e-bike riders who were intoxicated at the time of the accident. • One fatality was due to the rider hitting a speed bump and becoming airborne before crash-landing on the pavement.
• Unknown falls accounted for 35 e-bike-related fatalities, but staff does not have sufficient scenario-specific information to determine what caused the falls.
18.A.
Micromobility-Related Deaths, Injuries, and Hazard Patterns | April 2026 | cpsc.gov 13 Table 1.4: Reported Fatalities Associated with Micromobility Product Type and Associated Hazards (2017–2024 Total)
Hazard Pattern All Micromobility E-Scooter (Rental E-
scooter)
Self-
balancing
scooter
E-bike
Motor vehicle accident 312 140 (13) 2 170
Control issues 81 20 (1) 0 61
Fire hazards 45 15 11 19
Pedestrian accident 25 6 0 19
Pavement 3 2 0 1
Other 7 2 0 5
Unspecified falls 60 21 4 35
Total 533 206 (14) 17 310
Note: Reporting for 2021-2023 is ongoing. Counts may change in future reports.
Source: CPSRMS, NEISS, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 2017-2024.
II. National Injury Estimates
Staff estimates 698,500 injuries related to all micromobility products were treated in U.S. emergency departments over the 8-year period 2017 through 2024. The annual estimates for 2025 are not available until NEISS data for 2025 are finalized in the spring of 2026. The estimated ED visits associated with micromobility products increased from 37,300 in 2017 to 149,100 in 2024, which is statistically significant (p-value < 0.01).
In 2024, CPSC revised the sample for NEISS to ensure it remains a nationally representative sample of hospitals. In order to make older data comparable to 2024 estimates, adjusted weights have been retroactively applied to pre-2024 data. As such, estimates for those years presented here and in future reports will differ from those presented in reports from 2023 or earlier.
Products
Figure 2.1 shows the national annual estimates of ED-treated micromobility injuries and product types from 2017 through 2024. Staff estimates that 380,000 injuries related to e-scooters were treated from 2017 through 2024. The 2024 ED-treated injury estimate of 79,300 for e-scooters reflects an overall increase of 68,800 from the 2017 estimate, which is statistically significant (p- value < 0.01). For year-over-year increases, the following consecutive years were statistically significant: 2018 to 2019 (p-value: 0.02) and 2020 to 2021 (p-value: < 0.01).
The annual estimated ED visits for rental e-scooters from 2017 through 2024 do not meet minimum requirement for reporting. Some information on rental e-scooters is provided in the special study discussed later in this report.
Staff estimates 163,300 ED-treated visits for self-balancing scooters from 2017 through 2024.
The 2024 ED-treated injury estimate of 10,600 for self-balancing scooters reflects an overall decrease of 12,300 from the 2017 estimate, which is statistically significant (p-value: < 0.01).
18.A.
Micromobility-Related Deaths, Injuries, and Hazard Patterns | April 2026 | cpsc.gov 14 For year-over-year declines, the following consecutive years were statistically significant: 2018 to 2019 (p-value: 0.04), 2020 to 2021 (p-value: 0.03) and 2021 to 2022 (p-value: < 0.01).
Staff estimates 155,200 ED-treated visits for e-bikes from 2017 through 2024. Of the 155,200 ED visits, the 2024 ED-treated injury estimate of 59,200 accounts for 38 percent while reflecting an increase of 52,900 ED visits from the annualized average estimate between 2017 through 2021 of 6,300, which is statistically significant (p-value < 0.01) and indicates a sharp rise in the popularity of e-bikes in recent years. For year-over-year increases, the consecutive years 2022 to 2023 were statistically significant (p-value: < 0.01). Staff determined that the annual estimated ED visits for e-bikes did not meet the reporting criteria for 2017 through 2021 due to high coefficients of variation. The 2017-2021 annualized average estimate is used to represent ED visits for e-bikes between 2017 through 2021 in Figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1: Estimated ED Visits Associated with Micromobility Products by Year
Source: NEISS, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 2017-2024. *E-bike estimates are part of micromobility estimates. Data points for 2017 through 2021 are represented by the average for 2017-2021 as an intermediate dotted line since they do not meet the reporting criteria for NEISS. **E-scooter data point for 2020 is included with a C.V. of 0.34.
Sex
Figure 2.2 shows the distributions of estimated micromobility-related injuries by product type and sex. Males experienced a higher percentage of micromobility-related, ED-treated injuries in e-scooters (65 percent) and e-bikes (78 percent) during the 8-year period. In contrast, females had a higher percentage (55 percent) of self-balancing scooter-related, ED-treated injuries. 0 20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Estimated ED Visits
Year
E-Scooter** Self-Balancing Scooter E-Bike* All Micromobility
18.A.
Micromobility-Related Deaths, Injuries, and Hazard Patterns | April 2026 | cpsc.gov 15 Figure 2.2: Distribution of Estimated ED Visits Associated with Micromobility by Product Type and Sex (2017–2024 Total)
Source: NEISS, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 2017-2024.
Age Groups
Figure 2.3 shows the distribution of estimated micromobility-related injuries by age from 2017 through 2024, versus that age group’s share of the U.S. population distribution during that time.
Staff obtained the population by age data from the U.S. Census Bureau,7 corresponding to the average of 8 years, 2017–2024. The distributions of estimated injuries sustained by the 15-to-24 and 25-to-44 age groups were 26 percent and 40 percent, respectively, for e-scooters. These distributions were disproportionately high compared to their proportions in the general U.S. population (13 percent and 27 percent, respectively). Similarly, the percentage of estimated self- balancing scooter-related injuries for the 5-to-14 age group (68 percent) was disproportionately high, compared to its proportion in the general U.S. population (12 percent). The percentage of estimated e-bike related injuries for the 65-and-over age group (10 percent) was disproportionately high compared to other micromobility product types (2 percent for e-scooters and 1 percent for self-balancing scooters).
7 See Index of /programs-surveys/popest/datasets.
63% 65%
45%
78%
37% 35%
55%
22%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
All Micromobility E-Scooter Self-Balancing
Scooter
E-Bike
Percentage of Estimated ED
Visits
Male Female
18.A.
Micromobility-Related Deaths, Injuries, and Hazard Patterns | April 2026 | cpsc.gov 16 Figure 2.3: Distribution of Estimated ED Visits Associated with Micromobility by Product Type and Age Group (2017–2024 Total) Compared to U.S. Population Age Distribution
Source: NEISS, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 2017-2024.
Location of Injury
Figure 2.4 presents the proportions of injuries associated with micromobility products by product type and location of injury. A large proportion (42 percent for e-scooters, 51 percent for self- balancing scooters, 36 percent for e-bikes, and 43 percent overall) of estimated injuries occurred at unknown locations. For the known locations, the injuries associated with e-scooters and e-bikes occurred most frequently on streets or highways (39 percent and 52 percent, respectively), whereas the self-balancing scooter-related injuries occurred most frequently at home (36 percent).
17%
4% 2% 1%
10%
25%
16% 15%
6%
27%
27%
33% 40%
14%
35%
13%
20%
26%
7%
19%
12% 27%
16%
68%
8%6% 2% 1% 4% 1%
Census All Micromobility E-Scooter Self-Balancing
Scooter
E-Bike
Percentage of Estimated ED Visits
Micromobility Product Type vs. Census
Age 65 and over 45–64 25–44 15–24 5–14 Under 5
18.A.
Micromobility-Related Deaths, Injuries, and Hazard Patterns | April 2026 | cpsc.gov 17 Figure 2.4: Distribution of Estimated ED Visits Associated with Micromobility Product Type and Location of Injury (2017–2024 Total)
Source: NEISS, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 2017-2024.
Time of Year
Figure 2.5 illustrates the monthly percentage distribution of the estimated emergency visits by micromobility product type. If the distribution of ED visits were to follow the discrete uniform distribution,8 the expected monthly ED visits would be around 8 percent. The months of June through September had the largest percentages for both e-scooter (11-13%) and e-bike (11- 13%) ED visits whereas December and January had the largest percentages for self-balancing scooter-related ED visits (13-15%).
8 The discrete uniform distribution is a symmetric probability distribution, where all 365 days are equally likely to be observed. Under that distribution, every month has a probability between 7.7 percent and 8.5 percent. 43% 42%
51%
36%
12%
5%
36%
2%
34%
39%
6%
52%
9% 12% 4% 8%
<1% <1% <1% <1%2% 1% 3% 2%
All Micromobility E-Scooter Self-Balancing Scooter E-Bike Percentage of Estimated ED Visits
Not recorded Home
Street or Highway Other public property
School Place of recreation or sports
18.A.
Micromobility-Related Deaths, Injuries, and Hazard Patterns | April 2026 | cpsc.gov 18 Figure 2.5: Distribution of Estimated ED Visits Associated with Micromobility Product Type and Month of Injury (2017–2024 Total)
Source: NEISS, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 2017-2024.
Other Characteristics
The remaining characteristics, which do not vary much by product type, are as follows:
• Fractures, followed by contusions/abrasions, are the two most common diagnoses. • The most frequently injured body parts9 are the upper and lower limbs, as well as the head and neck.
• Overall, 86 percent of the injured are treated and released from the EDs. About 10 percent are treated and admitted or transferred to another hospital. Disposition of the remaining 4 percent of injuries included “left without being seen,” “held for observation,” or resulted in fatalities.
9 Body parts were grouped. For example, all body parts that would generally be considered a part of the lower limb (e.g., toe, foot, ankle, knee, and leg) were grouped as “lower limb.” 6% 3%
13%
4%
4% 4%
6%
4%
6% 6%
9%
5%
8% 8%
9%
7%
9% 10%
8%
9%
10% 11%
7%
11%
12% 13%
8%
12%
11% 13% 7%
13%
11% 12%
7% 12%
8% 9%
5%
10%
6% 6%
5%
8%
7% 4%
15%
6%
All Micromobility E-Scooter Self-Balancing Scooter E-Bike Percentage of Estimated ED Visits
Dec
Nov
Oct
Sep
Aug
Jul
Jun
May
Apr
Mar
Feb
Jan
18.A.
Micromobility-Related Deaths, Injuries, and Hazard Patterns | April 2026 | cpsc.gov 19 III-A. Special Study on E-Scooter Injuries
In response to the changing characteristics of markets for micromobility devices, CPSC revised the set of product codes used to describe scooters and powered self-balancing scooters beginning in 2020. Previously, two product codes 1329 (Scooters, unpowered) and 5042 (Scooters/skateboards, powered) were used to capture scooters and powered skateboards.
However, this pair of codes created confusion for coding incidents and emergency department visits that only described a “scooter” without indicating whether the scooter was powered or unpowered. In 2020, the set was replaced with 5022 (Scooters, powered), 5023 (Scooters, unpowered), 5024 (Scooters, unspecified), and 5025 (Self-balancing scooters, and powered skateboards). To obtain more detailed information about the scooters associated with emergency department visits, CPSC staff initiated a series of special studies of scooter-related injuries, which continued through 2024.
This section focuses on the special study results for incidents from January 1, 2024 through December 31, 2024. More than 2,451 injury cases, coded as 5022 (Scooters, Powered) and 5024 (Scooters, Unspecified) were followed up on through a survey questionnaire to obtain additional information on the scooter type involved, how the injury occurred, the type of injury, the characteristics of the rider/victim, and the incident scenario. Of the 2,451 cases contacted, 173 responses were deemed in-scope as e-scooters. These 173 e-scooter-related injuries from the special study were included as part of the 2024 estimate of 79,300 e-scooter injuries seen in emergency departments. In the investigations, information was requested directly from the victim (or the victim’s parent, if the victim was a minor) about the type of scooter involved, where the scooter was obtained, and how the injury occurred. Importantly, the results showed 16 of the 31 incidents identified as ‘Scooters, unspecified’ were powered scooters that otherwise would have been excluded from product code 5022. Recalibrating the weights for these cases (by taking the sample distribution into account), the 16 injury cases were added to all completed survey responses for injuries under product code 5022 (Scooters, powered).
Scooter Types
Table 3a.1 shows the number of respondents by verified scooter type and the corresponding NEISS product code in the special study. The respondents were asked a series of questions related to scooter type and different components. They were asked to provide information on the power source, whether it was an assisted mobility scooter, moped, motorcycle, or scooter that requires a registration or license. In addition, the respondents were asked if their scooter had steering handles and side-by-side wheels, as opposed to wheels that are one in front of the other. Of the 225 completed follow-up investigations on scooter-related incidents, 77 percent were e-scooters (173 out of 225), 9 percent were related to kick scooters, and the remaining 14 percent were other types of micromobility products. Of the 173 follow-up, e-scooter-related incidents, 91 percent were originally coded as powered scooters (157 out of 173), and 9 percent were coded as unspecified scooters (16 out of 173).
10 10 The 16 unspecified scooters have been included in the calculation of national injury estimates.
18.A.
Micromobility-Related Deaths, Injuries, and Hazard Patterns | April 2026 | cpsc.gov 20 Table 3a1: Scooter Products: NEISS Product Code vs. Verified Scooter Product (2024) Verified Product Overall Powered
Scooter (5022)
Unspecified
Scooter (5024)
Other Product
Codes
Kick (unpowered) Scooter 20 7 13 0
Mobility Scooter 7 7 0 0
Moped 4 3 1 0
Self-balancing scooter 1 0 0 1
E-Scooter 173 157 16 0
Gas powered scooter 2 2 0 0
Other/missing 18 15 1 2
Total 225 191 31 3
Source: NEISS, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 2024.
Based on responses from the special study survey questions V3 – V8. See Appendix C for details.
Table 3a.2 shows the response rate for e-scooter investigations by Overall, Powered, and Unspecified Scooter. Staff selected 2,451 cases from 2024 for investigation, of which 173 were completed and determined to be in scope, and 2,278 were either incomplete or out of scope.
For the findings to be generalizable to all those injured, raking ratio estimation was implemented to create adjusted weights for e-scooters to reduce non-response bias in the sample distributions due to response-rate differences by sex, stratum (hospital size), and age. These benchmarked weights were used to produce the national estimates from the special study survey. See Appendix A for additional details.
Table 3a.2: Completed E-Scooter Investigations by Powered vs. Unspecified Scooter (2024)
Investigation Overall Percent Powered
Scooter (5022) Percent Unspecified
Scooter (5024) Percent
Completed Investigation 173 7% 157 12% 16 64%
Incomplete/Out of Scope 2,278 93% 1,137 88% 9 36%
Total Assigned 2,451 100% 1,294 100% 25 100%
Source: NEISS, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 2024.
Estimated Injuries - Scenario-Specific Characteristics
In the remainder of this section, staff summarizes the 173 e-scooter cases from the follow-up investigations. They are descriptive of the portion that participated in the special study.
Additionally, respondents did not respond to every question posed to them; as such, in the tables below, the “Unspecified” row was included to base all percentages on the total of 79,300 estimated injuries in 2024.
18.A.
Micromobility-Related Deaths, Injuries, and Hazard Patterns | April 2026 | cpsc.gov 21 Table 3a.3 shows the distribution of the estimated ED injuries based on the rental status of the e-scooter. Rental e-scooters accounted for 35 percent of the estimated injuries, while non-rental and unspecified e-scooters accounted for 65 percent.
Table 3a.3: Distribution of Estimated Injuries on Rental Status (2024) Rental vs Non-rental N Estimated ED-treated
Injuries+ Percent
Rental 54 27,400 35% Non-rental/Unspecified 119 51,800 65%
Total 173 79,300 100%
Source: NEISS, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 2024.
Based on the responses from special study survey question: S1 Which of the following best describes the scooter? Rental, Owned by victim, Borrowed, Other, Don’t know.
+Injury estimates are rounded to the nearest 100 and may not sum to totals due to rounding. Percentages are calculated from the unrounded estimates.
Table 3a.4 shows the distribution of the estimated ED injuries while the victim was either riding an e-scooter or was struck by an e-scooter. Ninety-three percent of the injuries occurred to e- scooter riders.
Table 3a.4: Distribution of Estimated Injuries on How Victim Was Injured (2024) Riding/Struck by
Scooter N Estimated ED-treated Injuries+ Percent
Riding the scooter 161 73,600 93% Struck by scooter 4 * *
Other/Unspecified 8 4,600 6%
Total 173 79,300 100%
Source: NEISS, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 2024.
Based on the responses from special study survey question: V10 You/the victim were/was: Riding the scooter; Struck by scooter; Other.
+Injury estimates are rounded to the nearest 100 and may not sum to totals due to rounding. Percentages are calculated from the unrounded estimates.
*The reporting criteria for NEISS require that the estimated number of injuries be 1,200 or higher.
Table 3a.5 shows the distribution of the ED visits based on the type of surface. Paved roads accounted for 54 percent of the estimated injuries and paved sidewalks accounted for 32 percent.
18.A.
Micromobility-Related Deaths, Injuries, and Hazard Patterns | April 2026 | cpsc.gov 22 Table 3a.5: Distribution of Estimated Injuries on Type of Riding Surface (2024) Type of Surface N Estimated ED-treated Injuries+ Percent Paved road 95 43,000 54% Paved sidewalk 56 25,300 32%
Driveway 2 * *
Other 18 9,300 12%
Unspecified 5 2,200 3%
Total 173 79,300 100%
Source: NEISS, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 2024.
Based on the special study survey question: A3 What type of surface were you/the victim on? +Injury estimates are rounded to the nearest 100 and may not sum to totals due to rounding. Percentages are calculated from the unrounded estimates; column values may not add up to column totals due to rounding or because some riders may have ridden e-scooter on more than one surface type. *The reporting criteria for NEISS require that the estimated number of injuries be 1,200 or higher.
Table 3a.6 shows the distribution of the injuries by responses on visibility (whether it was dark or difficult to see while riding the scooter). Twenty percent of the victims responded that it was dark or difficult to see.
Table 3a.6: Distribution of Estimated Injuries on Visibility (2024) Visibility Issues N Estimated ED-treated Injuries+ Percent Yes 31 15,700 20%
No 138 61,900 78%
Unspecified 4 1,700 2%
Total 173 79,300 100%
Source: NEISS, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 2024.
Based on the special study survey question: A5 Was it dark or difficult to see? +Injury estimates are rounded to the nearest 100 and may not sum to totals due to rounding. Percentages are calculated from the unrounded estimates.
Table 3a.7 shows the percentage breakout of the ED-treated injuries based on source of distraction, such as cell phones or loud music, while riding the scooter. A source of distraction accounted for 11 percent of total injuries.
Table 3a.7: Distribution of Estimated Injuries on Rider Distraction (2024) Distraction N Estimated ED-treated Injuries+ Percent
Yes 13 8,600 11%
No 154 68,200 86%
Unspecified 6 2,500 3%
Total 173 79,300 100%
Source: NEISS, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 2024.
Based on responses to the special study survey question: A6 Was there anything else occurring at the time of the accident such as music, cell phone interference, or loud music? +Injury estimates are rounded to the nearest 100 and may not sum to totals due to rounding. Percentages are calculated from the unrounded estimates.
18.A.
Micromobility-Related Deaths, Injuries, and Hazard Patterns | April 2026 | cpsc.gov 23 Table 3a.8 shows the percentage of ED-treated injuries based on whether the rider was carrying/holding something (e.g., bag, purse, or backpack) in their hands while riding the scooter. Of the 79,300 estimated injuries, 32 percent of the injured were carrying or holding something while riding the scooter.
Table 3a.8: Distribution of Estimated Injuries on Rider Baggage (2024) Carrying/holding something N Estimated ED-treated Injuries+ Percent Yes 55 25,400 32%
No 103 45,900 58%
Unspecified 15 8,000 10%
Total 173 79,300 100%
Source: NEISS, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 2024.
Based on responses to the special study survey question: A8 Were/was you/the victim carrying or holding something such as a bag, purse, or backpack (in your hands)?
+Injury estimates are rounded to the nearest 100 and may not sum to totals due to rounding. Percentages are calculated from the unrounded estimates.
Table 3a.9 shows the percentage of ED-treated injuries by usage of safety equipment such as a helmet, blinking lights, head lamp, knee pads, elbow pads, or reflective vest while riding the scooter. Because riders may use more than one type of safety equipment, these rows do not add up to the total. Of the 79,300 estimated injuries, the rider was wearing a helmet while riding the e-scooter 18 percent of the time, had blinking lights or head lamp 49 percent of the time, was wearing knee/elbow pads 2 percent of the time, and none of the above/unspecified represented 37 percent of responses. Out of 15,700 injuries due to "It was dark/difficult to see," 9,200 (58%) were wearing blinking lights/headlamps or reflective vests.
Table 3a.9: Distribution of Estimated Injuries on Safety Equipment (2024) Safety Equipment N Estimated ED-treated Injuries+ Percent Helmet 36 14,800 18%
Blinking Lights/Head lamp 84 39,000 49%
Reflective vest 7 2,900 3%
Knee/elbow/wrist pads 3 1,900 2%
Other 7 3,400 4%
None of the above/
Unspecified
64 28,900 37%
Total 173 79,300 100%
Source: NEISS, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 2024.
Based on responses from the special study survey question: S10/12 I'm going to read a list of safety equipment that riders might wear. Please tell me if the rider was wearing any of these at the time of the incident.
Riders may use more than one type of safety equipment; as such, columns may exceed the total. +Injury estimates are rounded to the nearest 100. Percentages are calculated from the unrounded estimates.
18.A.
Micromobility-Related Deaths, Injuries, and Hazard Patterns | April 2026 | cpsc.gov 24 III-B. Special Study on E-bike Injuries
In response to the changing characteristics of markets for e-bike, CPSC revised the set of product codes used to describe bikes and powered bikes beginning in 2024. Previously the product code 3215 (powered bicycles) was used to capture e-bikes and mopeds. However, this product code created a conundrum for incidents and emergency department visits that only described an “unspecified bicycle” or a “motorized bicycle” without indicating whether the bicycle was battery powered. In 2024, the set was replaced with 5045 (e-bikes) and 5046 (bicycles, powered). To obtain more detailed information about bicycles associated with emergency department visits, CPSC staff initiated a series of special studies of bike-related injuries, which continued through 2024.
This section focuses on the special study results for incidents from January 1, 2024 through December 31, 2024. More than 2,010 injury cases, coded as 5045 (Bicycles, Powered) and 5040 (Bicycles) were followed up via questionnaire to obtain additional information on the bicycle type involved, how the injury occurred, the type of injury, the characteristics of the rider/victim, and the incident scenario. Of the 2,010 cases contacted, 88 responses were deemed in-scope as e-bikes. Of these 88 e-bike cases, 53 were originally coded as non- powered bicycles but were, in fact, e-bikes. Recalibrating the weights for these cases (by taking the survey response rate into account), the 53 injury cases were added to all completed survey responses for injuries under product code 5045 (Bicycles, powered). The e-bike-related injuries (sample size = 88) from the special study, which otherwise would have been excluded from product code 5045, were included as part of the 2024 estimate of 59,200 e-scooter injuries seen in emergency departments. In the investigations, information was requested directly from the victim (or the victim’s parent, if the victim was a minor) about the type of bicycle involved, where the bicycle was obtained, and how the injury occurred.
Bicycle Types
Table 3b.1 shows the number of respondents by verified bicycle type and the corresponding NEISS product code in the special study. The respondents were asked a series of questions related to bicycle type and different components. They were asked to provide information on the power source, whether it was a moped, a motorcycle, or a gas-powered bicycle. In addition, the respondents were asked if their bicycle had pedals. Of the 435 completed follow-up investigations on bicycle-related incidents, 20 percent were e-bikes (88 out of 435), 70 percent were related to unpowered bicycles (304 out of 435), 1 percent were related to moped/gas- powered motorcycles (6 out of 435), and the remaining 9 percent were unspecified. Of the 88 follow-up, e-bike-related incidents, 40 percent were originally coded as powered e-bikes (35 out of 88), and 60 percent were coded as unspecified bicycles (53 out of 88).11
11 The 53 unspecified bicycles have been included in the calculation of national injury estimates.
18.A.
Micromobility-Related Deaths, Injuries, and Hazard Patterns | April 2026 | cpsc.gov 25 Table 3b.1: Bicycle Products: NEISS Product Code vs. Verified Bicycle Product (2024) Verified Product Overall Powered
Bicycle (5045)
Unspecified
Bicycle (5040)
Other Product
Codes
E-bike 88 35 53 0
Unpowered bicycle 304 1 287 16
Moped/Gas-powered
motorcycle
6 1 5 0
Unspecified 37 0 33 4
Total 435 37 378 20
Source: NEISS, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 2024.
Based on responses from the special study survey questions V3 – V7. See Appendix C for details.
Table 3b.2 shows the response rate for e-bike investigations by Overall, E-bike (5045), and Bicycles (5040). Staff selected 2,010 cases from 2023 for investigation, of which 88 were completed and determined to be in scope, and 1,922 were either incomplete or out of scope.
For the findings to be generalizable to all those injured, raking ratio estimation was implemented to create adjusted weights to reduce non-response bias in the sample distributions due to response-rate differences in sex, stratum (hospital size), and age. These benchmarked weights were used to produce the national estimates from the special study survey. See Appendix A for additional details.
Table 3b.2: Completed E-bike Investigations on E-bike vs. Unspecified Bicycle (2024) Investigation Overall Percent E-bike
(5045) Percent Bicycles
(5040) Percent
Completed Investigation 88 4% 35 95% 53 14%
Incomplete/Out of Scope 1,922 96% 2 5% 325 86%
Total Assigned 2,010 100% 37 100% 378 100%
Source: NEISS, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 2024.
Estimated Injuries - Scenario-Specific Characteristics
In the remainder of this section, staff summarizes the 88 e-bike cases from the follow-up investigations. They are descriptive of the portion that participated in the special study.
Additionally, respondents did not respond to every question posed to them; as such, in the tables below, the “Unspecified” row was included to base all percentages on the total of 59,200 estimated injuries in 2024.
Table 3b.3 shows the distribution of the estimated ED injuries based on the rental status of the e-bike. Rental e-bikes accounted for 11 percent, while non-rental e-bikes and unspecified rental status combined accounted for 89 percent.
18.A.
Micromobility-Related Deaths, Injuries, and Hazard Patterns | April 2026 | cpsc.gov 26 Table 3b.3: Distribution of Estimated Injuries on Rental Status (2024) Rental vs Non-rental N Estimated ED-treated
Injuries+ Percent
Rental 9 6,300 11% Non-rental/Unspecified 79 52,900 89%
Total 88 59,200 100%
Source: NEISS, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 2024.
Based on the responses from special study survey question: S1 Which of the following best describes the bicycle? Rental, Owned by victim, Borrowed, Other, Don’t know.
+Injury estimates are rounded to the nearest 100 and may not sum to totals due to rounding. Percentages are calculated from the unrounded estimates.
Table 3b.4 shows the distribution of the ED visits based on the type of surface. Paved roads accounted for 58 percent and paved sidewalks for 19 percent.
Table 3b.4: Distribution of Estimated Injuries on Type of Riding Surface (2024) Type of Surface N Estimated ED-treated Injuries+ Percent Paved road 49 34,300 58% Paved sidewalk 18 11,400 19%
Other 9 5,800 10%
Unspecified 12 7,800 13%
Total 88 59,200 100%
Source: NEISS, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 2024.
Based on the special study survey question: A3 What type of surface were you/the victim on? +Injury estimates are rounded to the nearest 100 and may not sum to totals due to rounding. Percentages are calculated from the unrounded estimates; column values may not add up to column totals due to rounding or because some riders may have ridden e-bike on more than one surface type.
Table 3b.5 shows the distribution of the estimated ED injuries while the victim was either riding the e-bike or was struck by the e-bike. Fifty-two percent of the injuries occurred to riders of the e-bike.
Table 3b.5: Distribution of Estimated Injuries on How Victim Was Injured (2024) Riding/Struck by
Scooter N Estimated ED-treated Injuries+ Percent
Riding the bicycle 45 31,100 52%
Struck by bicycle 13 9,000 15%
Other/Unspecified 30 19,100 32%
Total 88 59,200 100%
Source: NEISS, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 2024.
Based on the responses from special study survey question: A4a Were you or was the victim riding on a road? Yes, No.
+Injury estimates are rounded to the nearest 100 and may not sum to totals due to rounding. Percentages are calculated from the unrounded estimates.
18.A.
Micromobility-Related Deaths, Injuries, and Hazard Patterns | April 2026 | cpsc.gov 27 Table 3b.6 shows the distribution of the estimated ED injuries while the victim was on the shoulder of the road, in a bike lane, or in a lane that cars use. Eighteen percent of the injuries occurred on the car lane.
Table 3b.6: Distribution of Estimated Injuries on Lane Type (2024) Lane type N Estimated ED-treated Injuries+ Percent
Shoulder 10 8,400 14%
Bike lane 14 8,600 14%
Car lane 16 10,400 18%
Unspecified 43 28,100 48%
Other 5 3,800 6%
Total 88 59,200 100%
Source: NEISS, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 2024.
Based on the responses from special study survey question: A4b Were you on the shoulder of the road, in a bike lane, or in a lane that cars use? Shoulder, Bike lane, Car lane. +Injury estimates are rounded to the nearest 100 and may not sum to totals due to rounding. Percentages are calculated from the unrounded estimates.
Table 3b.7 shows the distribution of the estimated ED injuries by responses whether the accident involved a motor vehicle. Twenty-four percent of the victims responded that the accident involved a motor vehicle.
Table 3b.7: Distribution of Estimated Injuries on Motor Vehicle Accident (2024) Motor vehicle accident N Estimated ED-treated Injuries+ Percent Yes 21 14,300 24%
No 37 25,800 44%
Unspecified 30 19,100 32%
Total 88 59,200 100%
Source: NEISS, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 2024.
Based on the special study survey question: A4c Did the accident involve a motor vehicle? +Injury estimates are rounded to the nearest 100 and may not sum to totals due to rounding. Percentages are calculated from the unrounded estimates.
Table 3b.8 shows the distribution of the estimated ED injuries where the accident happened at an intersection. Seventeen percent of the victims responded that the accident happened at an intersection.
18.A.
Micromobility-Related Deaths, Injuries, and Hazard Patterns | April 2026 | cpsc.gov 28 Table 3b.8: Distribution of Estimated Injuries on Accident Location at Intersection (2024)
Intersection N Estimated ED-treated Injuries+ Percent
Yes 15 10,200 17%
No 6 4,100 7%
Unspecified 67 45,000 76%
Total 88 59,200 100%
Source: NEISS, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 2024.
Based on the special study survey question: A4d Did the accident happen at an intersection? +Injury estimates are rounded to the nearest 100 and may not sum to totals due to rounding. Percentages are calculated from the unrounded estimates.
Table 3b.9 shows the distribution of the estimated ED injuries by responses to whether the accident involved visibility issues. Ten percent of the victims responded that the accident occurred when visibility was an issue, such as being dark or difficult to see.
Table 3b.9: Distribution of Estimated Injuries on Visibility (2024) Visibility Issues N Estimated ED-treated Injuries+ Percent Yes 10 5,900 10%
No 67 46,600 79%
Unspecified 11 6,800 11%
Total 88 59,200 100%
Source: NEISS, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 2024.
Based on the special study survey question: A5 Was it dark or difficult to see? +Injury estimates are rounded to the nearest 100 and may not sum to totals due to rounding. Percentages are calculated from the unrounded estimates.
Table 3b.10 shows the percentage breakout of the ED-treated injuries based on different surface levels, such as uphill, downhill, or on a fairly level surface, while riding the e-bike. Riding uphill or downhill accounted for 5 and 20 percent of total injuries, respectively.
Table 3b.10: Distribution of Estimated Injuries on Surface Level (2024) Surface level N Estimated ED-treated Injuries+ Percent
Uphill 4 2,900 5%
Downhill 16 12,000 20%
Fairly level surface 57 37,600 64%
Unspecified 11 6,800 11%
Total 88 59,200 100%
Source: NEISS, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 2024.
Based on responses to the special study survey question: A6 Was the bicycle travelling uphill, downhill, or was it on a fairly level surface?
+Injury estimates are rounded to the nearest 100 and may not sum to totals due to rounding. Percentages are calculated from the unrounded estimates.
18.A.
Micromobility-Related Deaths, Injuries, and Hazard Patterns | April 2026 | cpsc.gov 29 Table 3b.11 shows the percentage of ED-treated injuries based on whether the rider was dealing with distractions at the time of the accident, such as a cell phone or loud music. Of the 59,200 estimated injuries with a response to this question, 3 percent of the injured involved rider distraction while riding the scooter.
Table 3b.11: Distribution of Estimated Injuries on Rider Distraction (2024) Distraction N Estimated ED-treated Injuries+ Percent
Yes 3 1,700 3%
No 71 48,600 82%
Unspecified 14 8,900 15%
Total 88 59,200 100%
Source: NEISS, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 2024.
Based on responses to the special study survey question: A7 Was there anything else occurring at the time of the accident such as cell phone interference or loud music? +Injury estimates are rounded to the nearest 100 and may not sum to totals due to rounding. Percentages are calculated from the unrounded estimates.
Table 3b.12 shows the percentage of ED-treated injuries based on whether the rider was carrying/holding something (e.g., bag, purse, or backpack) in their hands while riding the e-bike.
Of the 59,200 estimated injuries with a response to this question, 38 percent of the injured were carrying or holding something while riding the e-bike.
Table 3b.12: Distribution of Estimated Injuries on Rider Baggage (2024) Carrying/holding something N Estimated ED-treated Injuries+ Percent Yes 33 22,600 38%
No 44 29,900 50%
Unspecified 11 6,800 11%
Total 88 59,200 100%
Source: NEISS, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 2024.
Based on responses to the special study survey question: A8 Were/was you/the victim carrying or holding something such as a bag, purse, or backpack (in your hands)?
+Injury estimates are rounded to the nearest 100 and may not sum to totals due to rounding. Percentages are calculated from the unrounded estimates.
Table 3b.13 shows the percentage of ED-treated injuries by usage of safety equipment such as a helmet, blinking lights, head lamp, knee pads, elbow pads, or reflective vest while riding the scooter. Because riders may use more than one type of safety equipment these rows do not add up to the total. Of the 59,200 estimated injuries, the rider was wearing a helmet while riding the e-bike 40 percent of the time, had blinking lights or head lamp 75 percent of the time, was wearing a reflective vest 16 percent of the time, and none of the above/unspecified represented
18.A.
Micromobility-Related Deaths, Injuries, and Hazard Patterns | April 2026 | cpsc.gov 30 14 percent of responses. Out of 5,900 injuries due to "It was dark/difficult to see," 2,600 (44%) were wearing blinking lights/headlamps.
Table 3b.13: Distribution of Estimated Injuries on Safety Equipment (2024) Safety Equipment N Estimated ED-treated Injuries+ Percent Helmet 34 23,600 40%
Blinking Lights/Head lamp 64 44,700 75%
Reflective vest 10 9,200 16%
Other 5 3,600 6%
None of the above/
Unspecified 16 8,500 14%
Total 88 59,200 100%
Source: NEISS, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 2024.
Based on responses from the special study survey question: S10 I'm going to read a list of safety equipment that riders might wear. Please tell me if the rider was wearing any of these at the time of the incident.
Riders may use more than one type of safety equipment; as such, columns may exceed the total. +Injury estimates are rounded to the nearest 100. Percentages are calculated from the unrounded estimates. *The reporting criteria for NEISS require that the estimated number of injuries be 1,200 or higher.
Table 3b.14 shows the percentage of ED-treated injuries based on the speed at which the e- bike was travelling when the accident happened. Of the 59,200 estimated injuries, 47 percent of the injured were travelling under 20 mph, 15 percent were travelling at 20 mph or more, and the remaining 38 percent did not specify their travelling speed when the accident happened.
Table 3b.14: Distribution of Estimated Injuries on Travelling Speed (2024) Travelling speed N Estimated ED-treated Injuries+ Percent Under 20 mph 40 27,900 47%
20 mph or more 15 8,600 15%
Unspecified 33 22,800 38%
Total 88 59,200 100%
Source: NEISS, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 2024.
Based on responses to the special study survey question: S12 The speed at which the bicycle was travelling when the accident occurred in miles per hour.
+Injury estimates are rounded to the nearest 100 and may not sum to totals due to rounding. Percentages are calculated from the unrounded estimates.
IV. Hazard Patterns Based on In-Depth
Investigation Review
Given that the narratives available in NEISS focus on the injury sustained rather than on the circumstances leading to the injury, and the death reports only cover the fatalities reported, CPSC staff evaluated the available in-depth investigations for a more comprehensive look at how incidents happened. Based on reports of incidents in CPSRMS that occurred between
18.A.
Micromobility-Related Deaths, Injuries, and Hazard Patterns | April 2026 | cpsc.gov 31 2017 and 2024, CPSC field staff completed 531 follow-up in-depth investigations related to all micromobility products. The 531 follow-up in-depth investigations includes the 48 fatalities that have been discussed in the fatality section above. Of the 531 completed investigations, 189 involved an e-scooter (33 of the 189 were rental e-scooters); 197 involved a self-balancing scooter; and 145 involved an e-bike (including 2 incidents at bike shops). This does not necessarily reflect the current prevalence of incidents related to micromobility products in the CPSRMS database. Staff initiated many more in-depth investigations that could not be completed due to product unavailability or unwillingness of consumers to cooperate and provide product and injury information. Data collection is ongoing, and staff expects the numbers to change in future reports. Staff discusses the types of products and the reported hazards associated with each of the 531 investigations below.
E-Scooters (Including Rental E-Scooters)
Of the 189 e-scooter-related incidents that were investigated, at least 33 were rental e-scooters.
Staff’s review of the 189 in-depth investigations shows the following hazards:
• Fire hazard was reported in 88 of the 189 incidents, which mostly occurred while charging or just after charging the e-scooter completed (51 out of 88) and was accompanied by popping sounds, burning smells, battery sparks, explosions, or fires; in 16 separate incidents, the e-scooter battery sparked and caught spontaneous fire while the product was in a resting, non-charging state; an additional 5 incidents occurred while riding the e-scooter, with victims observing the battery emitting smoke, melting, catching on fire, or sparking; 3 incidents were associated with having issues with the scooter and then opening it up to expose the battery connections for a possible fix via battery reset or replacement; in 2 cases, hazards were related to faulty electrical wiring or the e-scooter had been plugged into an extension cord; in 1 case, a victim powered on the e-scooter and it caught fire; in another case, the e-scooter was submerged in water, causing battery cells to explode; and no other hazard information is available for the remaining 9 incidents. • Brake problems were associated with 40 of the reported incidents. The investigations show that brakes not engaging at all, sporadically engaging, or engaging excessively following a delay resulted in 37 of the 40 reported incidents. In one other case, the complainant reported that the brake cable was not properly attached to the adjustment bracket on the handlebar grip. The remaining 2 incidents happened to the same consumer; other than an email message indicating mechanical brake failures, the consumer did not share any additional scenario- specific detail.
• Multiple product-related issues such as brakes malfunctioning, throttles getting stuck, control panels catching fire, wobbliness, and sudden acceleration were reported in 9 incidents. In one of these 9 incidents, the rider went over a bump, which seemed to mark the onset of throttle and brake problems. • Loss of Control, environmental factors, and unknown factors played a role in 9 incidents. The users lost control of the e-scooters in 5 cases after hitting a pothole, hitting/coming off a curb, or while being chased by an aggressive dog. In one incident, the user hydroplaned, lost control, and crashed. Staff has insufficient
18.A.
Micromobility-Related Deaths, Injuries, and Hazard Patterns | April 2026 | cpsc.gov 32 information to determine why the users in the remaining 3 incidents went through an intersection against a red light or a stop sign, causing a collision with other motor vehicles that had the right-of-way.
• Miscellaneous product-related issues such as the footboard breaking or the handlebar, steering column, or front wheel detaching at the bottom part of the bar were reported in 28 incidents.
• Unexpected power loss caused the rider(s) to tip over or get thrown off in 9 reported incidents. In one of the 9 incidents the rider was going downhill, and the e- scooter lost power when it went over a curb.
• Other electrical issues were associated with 6 incidents. In one incident, a wheel began spinning on its own while the e-scooter was unattended. In 3 separate incidents, the accelerator of an e-scooter apparently got stuck in the acceleration position.
Self-balancing scooters
A review of the 197 in-depth investigations of self-balancing scooters showed the following hazards:
• Fire was the most common hazard identified with self-balancing scooters, accounting for 173 of the 197 reports. The reports describe fire (sometimes after an explosion), smoke, or sparks emanating from the product; some reports describe the product overheating or melting. One hundred five of the 173 fire/thermal incidents occurred when the self-balancing scooter was being charged or had just completed charging; an additional 20 reported that the incidents occurred during use; another 17 self-balancing scooter incidents occurred while the battery was in a resting, non- charging state; aftermarket battery chargers were reported in at least 10 of the incidents; 8 of the incidents transpired shortly after the product was powered on; in 6 different self-balancing scooter incidents, victims reported sparks or fire when the consumer attempted to reset, remove, or replace the battery because it was not charging. Staff had no scenario-specific information for the 7 remaining incidents. • Other electrical hazards were identified in 21 of the 191 investigated incidents.
These included the self-balancing scooter spinning out of control at high speed; spinning in circles/one side; or failing to shut off, causing riders to jump off device, be thrown off, or crash into fixed objects.
• Miscellaneous product-related issues resulted in 3 of the 191 investigated incidents. In all 3 cases, the self-balancing scooter vibrated excessively, throwing off the rider. Uneven weight distribution may have contributed to at least 2 of these incidents.
E-Bikes
CPSC staff reviewed 145 completed investigation reports for e-bikes.
18.A.
Micromobility-Related Deaths, Injuries, and Hazard Patterns | April 2026 | cpsc.gov 33 • Fire hazard was identified in 106 of the 145 e-bike incidents. Sixty-two out of 106 reports describe fires that started while the e-bike was charging (including at least 4 incidents reporting aftermarket battery packs/chargers); an additional 13 incidents occurred while the battery was in an idle, non-charging state; another 4 incidents happened during use; 5 incidents (including 2 incidents at bike shops) were associated with product maintenance such as removing and replacing the battery; in 3 reports, incidents transpired shortly after the product was powered on; in 5 other cases, hazards were related to faulty electrical wiring or overloading an extension cord; and, lastly, staff has insufficient information to determine whether the lithium- ion battery was being charged or being removed from the e-bike for the remaining 14 incidents.
• Miscellaneous product-related issues, such as pedals, tires, wheels, and other structural integrity/design defect issues, were reported in 26 cases. Out of the 26, 11 reports were associated with pedals suddenly coming loose/separating from the crank of the e-bike while riding; 7 out of 26 cases reported tire issues, such as ruptured tires, exploded/blown out tires, or cracked tires; an additional 5 of the 26 cases reported the front wheel detached or suddenly stopped without warning. In the other 3 cases, at least one of the following issues were reported: the frame collapsed, white powder formed around the battery terminals, the bike was shaky and wobblily, or the pin in the handlebars prevented making a left turn. • Brake issues were reported in 5 incidents. Reports describe brakes malfunctioned/stopped working in 4 of the cases; the fifth report describes the owner of the e-bike needing to “tighten” the brakes repeatedly until, on the day of the incident, the brakes failed completely.
• Multiple product-related issues were identified in 3 incidents as the consumers stated that they experienced multiple component issues, missing, or defective parts such as chains, throttles, battery charger, or lights; tire deflation; or brake cables causing falls or potential risk of injuries.
• Other electrical hazards were reported in 4 incidents. For example, 1 report describes the rear wheel suddenly engaging and the e-bike starting to move without notice.
Table 4.1 summarizes the hazards associated with the use of the various micromobility products as determined by the accidents investigated.
Table 4.1: In-Depth Investigations of Micromobility Products and Associated Hazards (2017–2024 Total)
Hazard All
Micromobility
E-Scooter (Rental
E-scooter)
Self-
balancing
scooter
E-Bike
Fire Hazard 367 88 (2) 173 106
Brake Problem 45 40 (16) 0 5
Unexpected Power Loss 9 9 (5) 0 0
Other Electrical Hazard 31 6 (0) 21 4
18.A.
Micromobility-Related Deaths, Injuries, and Hazard Patterns | April 2026 | cpsc.gov 34 Misc. Product-Related Issues 57 28 (3) 3 26
Control/Environmental/Unknown
Factor
10 9 (4) 0 1
Multiple Product-Related Issues 12 9 (3) 0 3
Total 531 189 (33) 197 145
Source: CPSC In-Depth Investigation File from CPSRMS, 2017-2024.
18.A.
Micromobility-Related Deaths, Injuries, and Hazard Patterns | April 2026 | cpsc.gov 35 References
lzreal, D., Hoaglin, D. C., & Battaglia, M. P. (n.d.). A SAS Macro for Balancing a Weighted Sample. Retrieved October 2010, from Abt Associates Inc.: https://www.abtassociates.com.
Lee, Douglas, “Safety Concerns Associated with Micromobility Products” U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, March 2020. Online at https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Report-on- Micromobility-Products_FINAL-to-Commission.pdf?THHIorYXAZ.KiZnobh1o7.7.lN9nNCLo.
NEISS sample design: https://www.cpsc.gov/Research--Statistics/NEISS-Injury-Data.
Schellong, Daniel, Sadek, Philipp, Schaetzberger, Carsten, and Barrack, Tyler, “The Promise and Pitfalls of E-Scooter Sharing”, May 2019. Online at:
https://www.bcg.com/publications/2019/promise-pitfalls-e-scooter-sharing.aspx.
Schroeder, Tom, “Trend Analysis of NEISS Data”, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, February 2000.
Schroeder, Tom, and Ault, Kimberly (2001), “The NEISS Sample (Design and Implementation), 1997 to Present” U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, June 2001. Online at:
https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/pdfs/blk_media_2001d011-6b6.pdf.
Tark, James, “Micromobility Products-Related Deaths, Injuries, and Hazard Patterns 2017- 2023” U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, October 2024. Online at https://cpsc.gov/Research--Statistics/Sports--Recreation/Micromobility-Products-Related- Deaths-Injuries-and-Hazard-Patterns-2017%E2%80%932023
U.S. Census Bureau https://www.census.gov/
The Monthly Postcensal Resident Population counts can be found at:
Index of /programs-surveys/popest/datasets
18.A.
Micromobility-Related Deaths, Injuries, and Hazard Patterns | April 2026 | cpsc.gov 36 Appendix A
Methodology
CPSC staff queried epidemiology data from NEISS and CPSRMS. Staff reviewed query results to include only the incidents related to micromobility products.
Date of Data Extraction: 5/6/2025
Incident Dates or Treatment Dates: 1/1/17-12/31/24
Product codes and narrative descriptions
E-scooter:
• Product codes: 5042 (Scooters/skateboards, powered) in 2017-2019, 5022 (Scooters, Powered) from 2020 onwards, and 5024 (Scooters, Unspecified) as part of the 2020 through 2024 Special studies.
• For the years: 2020 through 2024, 200 injury cases, originally coded as 5024 were identified to be e-scooters following investigations through the special study. These 200 cases were added to all injury cases coded under 5022.
• Narrative/Text contains any of the following: “electric scooter,” “e-scooter,” “stand up scooter,” “standup scooter,” “motorized scooter,” “power scooter,” “dockless scooter,” “rental scooter,” “scooter sharing,” any brand known to be rental e-scooters and other variant spellings.
• For CPSRMS data, searched brand and manufacturer fields when their information were available to identify in-scope products.
Self-balancing scooter:
• Product code: 5042 (Scooters/skateboards, powered) in 2017-2019 and 5025 (Self- balancing scooters and powered skateboards) from 2020 onwards. • Narrative/Text contains any of the following: “self-balancing scooter,” “self-balancing scooter,” and other varied spellings.
• For CPSRMS data, searched brand and manufacturer fields when their information were available to identify in-scope products.
E-bike:
• Product code: 3215 (Mopeds or power-assisted cycles) in 2017-2024 and 5045 (Electric power-assisted pedal bicycles) from 2024 onwards, 5040 (Bicycles) as part of the 2024 Special study.
• For the year: 2024, 53 injury cases, originally coded as 5040 were identified to be e- bikes following investigations through the special study. These 53 cases were added to all injury cases coded under 5045.
18.A.
Micromobility-Related Deaths, Injuries, and Hazard Patterns | April 2026 | cpsc.gov 37 • Narrative/Text contains any of the following: “electric bike,” “e-bike,” “electric bicycle,” “e- bicycle,” “power (assisted) bike,” “power (assisted) bicycle,” “battery-operated bike,” “battery-operated bicycle,” and other varied spellings. • For CPSRMS data, searched brands and manufacturer fields when their information was available to identify in-scope products.
For this report, an incident was deemed out of scope if any of the following criteria were satisfied:
• not electric or battery-powered
• not two-wheeled
• seated scooters
• mopeds, motorcycle
• mobility scooter/wheelchair
• powered skateboards
• any brand names that are not associated with micromobility products • incidents occurred outside of the U.S.
For CPSRMS data, CPSC staff consolidated multiple reports that pertain to a single incident as one incident prior to analysis.
Raking Methodology and Raked Injury Estimate
This section summarizes the techniques implemented in this study to handle nonresponse and to generate estimates of injuries. A unit nonresponse occurs when an assigned (sampled) subject cannot be reached or refuses to participate. In this case, no information is collected from the subject. In calculating the number of emergency department-treated, e-scooter-related injuries based on the results of this study, the biggest area of concern is unit nonresponse.
A popular method of dealing with unit nonresponse is raking, also known as "raking ratio estimation" or "sample balancing." This method uses an iterative proportional fitting algorithm to adjust weights to known population marginal totals to handle unit nonresponse within the survey. Further information can be found in Tu and Garland (2012).
From January 1, 2024, to December 31, 2024, CPSC staff conducted two sets of special study for injuries related to the E-scooters (NEISS product codes 5022 [Scooters, powered] and 5024 [Scooters, unspecified]) and E-bikes (NEISS product codes 5045 [Electric power-assisted pedal bicycles] and 5040 [Bicycles or accessories]). The product code 5022 (5045 for E-bikes) is used when an emergency department-treated injury is reported to have been associated with an e- scooter/e-bike, whereas the product code 5024 (5040 for bicycles) is used when a specific type of scooter/bicycle is unknown. Any injury in the specified timeframe that had a corresponding product code of either 5022 or 5024 for scooters and 5045 or 5040 for bicycles were assigned for a follow-up survey. Many surveys were not completed due to missing contact information for the victim, inability to contact a victim that had contact information available, or a victim's refusal to participate. Raking was implemented to handle this type of nonresponse. The weights recorded for nonresponding subjects are distributed among the subjects with completed
18.A.
Micromobility-Related Deaths, Injuries, and Hazard Patterns | April 2026 | cpsc.gov 38 surveys. That is, raking adjusts the weights of the completed surveys to compensate for the nonresponse.
To handle the nonresponse in this study via raking, sample distributions for e-scooters and e- bikes were adjusted by demographic variables such as sex, hospital size (stratum), and age (i.e. raking the sample against the marginal totals). The following variables had multiple-level responses and had to be collapsed into categories to limit the number of possible combinations to a manageable number: age, and stratum. Age was split into two age groups: “13 years old or younger” and “Over 13 years old”; and Stratum was grouped into “Very large and Children’s hospitals” and “Other hospitals.” Estimates for e-scooter-related, emergency department-treated injuries can be determined based on the information collected for each completed survey.
Raking uses the population marginal totals for all the aforementioned variables. For this study, the population marginal totals were generated through the NEISS database using the data known for all assigned cases for this special study survey. Using the corresponding weights, the population marginal totals can be obtained. The survey weights within the study were raked (adjusted) to match the population marginal totals for each variable. The raking macro (lzreal, Hoaglin, & Battaglia) was used to generate the raked weights.
18.A.
Micromobility-Related Deaths, Injuries, and Hazard Patterns | April 2026 | cpsc.gov 39 Appendix B
Summary of Annual Injury Estimates and Trend Analysis
Statistically significant year-to-year estimated ED visits:
All Micromobility Products
• For 2024, estimated ED visits were significantly higher than for any of the following years: 2017 (p-value: < 0.01), 2018 (p-value: < 0.01), 2019 (p-value: <
0.01), and 2020 (p-value: 0.01).
• For 2023, estimated ED visits were significantly higher than for any of the following years: 2017 (p-value: < 0.01), 2018 (p-value: < 0.01), 2019 (p-value: <
0.01), and 2020 (p-value: < 0.01).
• For 2022, estimated ED visits were significantly higher than for any of the following years: 2017 (p-value: < 0.01), 2018 (p-value: < 0.01), 2019 (p-value: <
0.01), 2020 (p-value: < 0.01), and 2021 (p-value: 0.02). • For 2021, estimated ED visits were significantly higher than for any of the following years: 2017 (p-value: < 0.01), 2018 (p-value: < 0.01), 2019 (p-value:
0.03), and 2020 (p-value: < 0.01).
• For 2020, estimated ED visits were significantly higher than for any of the following years: 2017 (p-value: < 0.01), 2018 (p-value: 0.05). • For 2019, estimated ED visits were significantly higher than for any of the following years: 2017 (p-value: 0.01) and 2018 (p-value: 0.05). • For 2018, estimated ED visits were significantly higher than for 2017 (p-value:
0.01).
E-Scooters
• For 2024, estimated ED visits were significantly higher than for any of the following years: 2017: (p-value: < 0.01) and 2018 (p-value: 0.01). • For 2023, estimated ED visits were significantly higher than for any of the following years: 2017: (p-value: < 0.01), 2018 (p-value: < 0.01). In addition, estimated ED visits were significantly lower than for 2022 (p-value: 0.03). • For 2022, estimated ED visits were significantly higher than for any of the following years: 2017 (p-value: < 0.01), 2018 (p-value: < 0.01), 2019 (p-value:
0.01), and 2020 (p-value: < 0.01).
• For 2021, estimated ED visits were significantly higher than for any of the following years: 2017 (p-value: < 0.01), 2018 (p-value: 0.01), and 2020 (p-value:
< 0.01).
• For 2020, estimated ED visits were significantly higher than for 2017 (p-value:
0.01).
• For 2019, estimated ED visits were significantly higher than for any of following years: 2017 (p-value: 0.02) and 2018 (p-value: 0.02).
Self-balancing scooters
18.A.
Micromobility-Related Deaths, Injuries, and Hazard Patterns | April 2026 | cpsc.gov 40 • For 2024, estimated ED visits were significantly lower than for any of the following years: 2017 (p-value: < 0.01), 2018 (p-value: < 0.01), 2019 (p-value: <
0.01), 2020 (p-value: < 0.01), and 2021 (p-value: < 0.01). • For 2023, estimated ED visits were significantly lower than for any of the following years: 2017 (p-value: < 0.01), 2018 (p-value: < 0.01), 2019 (p-value: <
0.01), 2020 (p-value: < 0.01), and 2021 (p-value: < 0.01). • For 2022, estimated ED visits were significantly lower than for any of the following years: 2017 (p-value: 0.04), 2018 (p-value: < 0.01), 2019 (p-value:
0.01), 2020 (p-value: < 0.01), and 2021 (p-value: < 0.01). • For 2021, estimated ED visits were significantly lower than for 2020 (p-value:
0.04).
• For 2020, estimated ED visits were significantly higher than for 2019 (p-value:
0.02).
• For 2019, estimated ED visits were significantly lower than for 2018 (p-value:
0.04).
E-bikes
• For 2024, estimated ED visits were significantly higher than any of the following years: 2017 (p-value: < 0.01), 2018 (p-value: < 0.01), 2019 (p-value: < 0.01), 2020 (p-value: < 0.01), 2021 (p-value: < 0.01), and 2022 (p-value: < 0.01). • For 2023, estimated ED visits were significantly higher than any of the following years: 2017 (p-value: < 0.01), 2018 (p-value: < 0.01), 2019 (p-value: < 0.01), 2020 (p-value: < 0.01), 2021 (p-value: < 0.01), and 2022 (p-value: < 0.01). • For 2022, estimated ED visits were significantly higher than any of the following years: 2017 (p-value: < 0.01), 2018 (p-value: < 0.01), 2019 (p-value: < 0.01), 2020 (p-value: < 0.01), and 2021 (p-value: < 0.01).
• For 2021, estimated ED visits were significantly higher than any of the following years: 2017 (p-value: < 0.01), 2018 (p-value: < 0.01), 2019 (p-value: < 0.01), and 2020 (p-value: < 0.01).
• For 2020, estimated ED visits were significantly higher than for 2018 (p-value:
0.04).
• For 2019, estimated ED visits were significantly higher than for 2018 (p-value:
0.02).
18.A.
Micromobility-Related Deaths, Injuries, and Hazard Patterns | April 2026 | cpsc.gov 41 Annual Injury Estimates, Corresponding Sample Sizes, and Coefficients of Variation by Product Type, 2017-2024
Year
All Micromobility E-Scooter Self-balancing
scooter E-Bike
N Est. ED
Visits C.V. N Est. ED
Visits C.V. N Est. ED
Visits C.V. N Est. ED
Visits C.V.
2017 935 37,300 0.15 185 10,600 0.25 683 22,900 0.14 67 * 0.334 2018 1,149 50,200 0.16 369 20,300 0.31 714 26,400 0.16 66 * 0.49 2019 1,561 66,900 0.19 761 39,100 0.33 664 22,200 0.18 136 * 0.37 2020 1,690 69,300 0.20 652 * 0.34 922 27,300 0.17 116 * 0.43 2021 2,030 97,500 0.21 946 61,200 0.30 794 23,300 0.21 290 * 0.37 2022 2,440 118,800 0.19 1,413 74,800 0.25 490 17,200 0.23 537 26,800 0.29 2023 2,506 109,400 0.18 1,308 58,400 0.25 374 13,400 0.18 824 37,600 0.23 2024 3,466 149,100 0.19 1,869 79,300 0.29 324 10,600 0.12 1,273 59,200 0.15 Total 15,777 698,500 0.15 7,503 380,000 0.22 4,965 163,300 0.16 3,309 155,200 0.19 Source: NEISS, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 2017-2024.
Due to weighting adjustments following a NEISS sampling change in 2024, estimates from 2023 rearward may differ from previous reports. Grey shaded cells in the table do not meet the NEISS reportability criteria. Reporting criteria for NEISS require that the estimated number of injuries be 1,200 or higher, the sample size be 20 or larger, and the coefficient of variation be less than 33 percent (C.V. less than 0.33 in table).
Appendix C: Special Study Survey Questionnaire
for E-scooters
Q1 The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) collects data through the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) on injuries treated in hospital emergency departments. CPSC conducts follow-up investigations with a small number of people to learn more about how the injury occurred. The results of these investigations will be used to determine if similar injuries can be prevented in the future.
Your participation in this survey is completely voluntary and your identity and answers will be strictly confidential. This survey will take between 10-15 minutes and data are used for statistical purposes only.
You should have received a letter with the following information needed to continue:
1. Investigation Task Number
2. Randomly generated password
To continue, you will have to enter the task number correctly below:
I1 CPSC would prefer that the person who answers this questionnaire is the actual person injured and treated in the hospital emergency department. If the injured person is under the age of 16, CPSC would prefer that a parent or guardian completes the questionnaire.
Was the injured person 16 years old or older?
18.A.
Micromobility-Related Deaths, Injuries, and Hazard Patterns | April 2026 | cpsc.gov 42 Note: If you are the injured person and are under 16, please ask your parent or guardian to complete the survey. If no one is available, it is okay to respond yourself. o Yes (1)
o No (2)
I2 According to our records from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System the injured person was seen on {injury date} in the emergency department at {hospital name} for an injury that involved a scooter. Is that correct?
o Yes (1)
o No (2)
o Don't know (3)
I3 What information is incorrect from the statement above? ○ Different date (1)
○ Different hospital (2)
○ (I/the victim) did not receive treatment in a hospital emergency department for a scooter injury (3)
I4 What is the correct date?
I5 Where did you/the victim receive treatment for your/their injury?
V1 Are you the:
o Injured person (1)
o Parent or guardian of injured person (2)
o Other (specify in next window) (3)
V2 Specify relationship:
V3 Was the scooter unpowered (e.g., a kick scooter or push scooter)? Note: Powered scooters have a power source like electric or gas. o Yes (1)
o No (2)
o Don't know (4)
V4 Was the scooter an assisted mobility scooter to help people with physical limitations? o Yes (1)
o No (2)
V5 Was the scooter a moped, motorcycle, or scooter that requires a registration or license? o Yes (1)
o No (2)
V6 Did the scooter have handles for steering?
Note: Handles for steering are distinct from handles used for balancing purposes. o Yes (8)
o No (9)
V7 If your scooter had only two wheels, were those wheels side-by-side?
Note: side-by-side wheels are distinct from wheels that are one in front of the other. Below is an example of side-by-side wheels.
o Yes (1)
o No (2)
18.A.
Micromobility-Related Deaths, Injuries, and Hazard Patterns | April 2026 | cpsc.gov 43 V8 What kind of power did the scooter run on?
o Gas (1)
o Electric (2)
o Other (specify in next window) (3)
V9 Specify.
V10 You/the victim were/was:
Interviewer instruction: If two scooters collided select "Riding the scooter." o Riding the scooter (1) o Struck by scooter (2) o Other (specify) (3)
V11 Specify.
A1 Please describe how the accident happened. That is, what were you/the victim doing just before, during, and just after the injury occurred? Please specify the location of the accident and any environmental factors; such as weather, temperature, and anything else that may have contributed to the accident.
A2 The following are specific questions about the incident that you may have already described. Please bear with us as you fill out the next set of questions.
A3 What type of surface were you/the victim on?
○ Paved Road (1)
○ Paved Sidewalk (2)
○ Gravel (3)
○ Grass (4)
○ Driveway (5)
○ Other (specify in next window) (6)
○ Don't know (7)
A4 Specify.
A5 Was it dark or difficult to see?
o Yes (1)
o No (2)
o Don't know (3)
A6 Was there anything else occurring at the time of the accident such as music, cell phone interference, or loud music?
o Yes (1)
o No (2)
o Don't know (3)
A7 Please specify the additional factors.
A8 Were/was you/the victim carrying or holding something such as a bag, purse, or backpack? o Yes (1)
o No (2)
o Don't know (3)
A9 What were/was you/the victim carrying?
A10 Which of the following best describes how you were injured? o Hit from the front (1)
o Hit from the side (2)
18.A.
Micromobility-Related Deaths, Injuries, and Hazard Patterns | April 2026 | cpsc.gov 44 o Hit from behind (3)
o Other (specify in next window) (4)
o Don't know (5)
A11 Specify.
A12 Was there any warning before you/the victim were/was hit? (ex. bell, shouting, or other noise) o Yes (1)
o No (2)
o Don't know (3)
S1 Which of the following best describes the scooter?
o Rental (1)
o Owned by victim (2)
o Borrowed (3)
o Other (specify in next window) (4)
o Don't know (5)
S2 Specify.
S3 Who was the scooter rented from?
S4 Do you know the brand and model names of the scooter or have a photo of the scooter involved in the injury?
o Yes (1)
o No (2)
S5 Specify brand
S6 Specify model
Note: if brand is known but model is not, enter unknown below
S7 If you are able, please upload a photo of the scooter.
S8 It is very important for us to know what brands are involved in these injuries. Would you be willing to go look at the scooter and record the brand name, model name, and take a photo of the scooter?
Note: You may also upload a pre-existing photo of the scooter if you have one. Select 'Yes' if you have a pre-existing photo.
o Yes (1)
o No (2)
S9 Specify brand
S10 Specify model
Note: if brand is known but model is not, enter unknown below
S11 If you are able, please upload a photo of the scooter.
S12 Were/was you/the victim wearing any of these at the time of the incident. (Select all that apply) ○ Helmet (1)
○ Knee pads (2)
○ Elbow pads (3)
18.A.
Micromobility-Related Deaths, Injuries, and Hazard Patterns | April 2026 | cpsc.gov 45 ○ Wrist pads (4)
○ Reflective vest (5)
○ Blinking lights/Head lamp (6)
○ Other (specify in next window) (7)
○ None of the above (8)
S13 Specify.
C1 Is there anything else about this accident or the scooter involved that you would like to share? o Yes (1)
o No (2)
C2 Explain.
C7 We may be interested in sending a CPSC investigator to your home to gather more information about how the accident occurred and take more detailed pictures of the scooter. This investigation would be set up at your convenience. May we have an investigator contact you by phone to setup a visit? o Yes (1)
o No (2)
C8 Please supply your phone number.
C9 When is a good time to call? (Check all that apply.) ○ Morning (1)
○ Afternoon (2)
○ Evening (3)
Appendix D: Special Study Survey Questionnaire
for E-bikes
Q1 The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) collects data through the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) on injuries treated in hospital emergency departments. CPSC conducts follow-up investigations with a small number of people to learn more about how the injury occurred. The results of these investigations will be used to determine if similar injuries can be prevented in the future.
Your participation in this survey is completely voluntary and your identity and answers will be strictly confidential. This survey will take between 10-15 minutes and data are used for statistical purposes only.
You should have received a letter with the following information needed to continue:
1. Investigation Task Number
2. Randomly generated password
To continue, you will have to enter the task number correctly below:
18.A.
Micromobility-Related Deaths, Injuries, and Hazard Patterns | April 2026 | cpsc.gov 46 I1 CPSC would prefer that the person who answers this questionnaire is the actual person injured and treated in the hospital emergency department. If the injured person is under the age of 16, CPSC would prefer that a parent or guardian completes the questionnaire.
Was the injured person 16 years old or older?
Note: If you are the injured person and are under 16, please ask your parent or guardian to complete the survey. If no one is available, it is okay to respond yourself. o Yes (1)
o No (2)
I2 According to our records from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System the injured person was seen on {injury date} in the emergency department at {hospital name} for an injury that involved a scooter. Is that correct?
o Yes (1)
o No (2)
o Don't know (3)
I3 What information is incorrect from the statement above? ○ Different date (1)
○ Different hospital (2)
○ (I/the victim) did not receive treatment in a hospital emergency department for a scooter injury (3)
I4 What is the correct date?
I5 Where did you/the victim receive treatment for your/their injury?
V1 Are you the:
o Injured person (1)
o Parent or guardian of injured person (2)
o Other (specify in next window) (3)
V2 Specify relationship:
V3 Was the bicycle unpowered?
Interviewer instruction: Powered bicycles have a power source like electric or gas o Yes (1)
o No (2)
o Don't know (4)
V4 Was the bicycle an electric powered bicycle?
o Yes (1)
o No (2)
V5 What was the wattage for the electric bicycle (electric bicycles usually range from 300 to 1000 watts)? Enter a number or "don't know."
o Yes (1)
o No (2)
V6 Was the bicycle a moped or motorcycle that is gas powered? o Yes (8)
o No (9)
18.A.
Micromobility-Related Deaths, Injuries, and Hazard Patterns | April 2026 | cpsc.gov 47 V7 Did the bicycle have pedals?
o Yes (1)
o No (2)
V9 You/the victim were/was:
o Riding the bicycle (1)
o Pedestrian struck by bicycle (2)
o Other (specify) (3)
Q21 Specify.
A1 Please describe how the accident happened. That is, what were you/the victim doing just before, during, and just after the injury occurred? Please specify the location of the accident and any environmental factors; such as weather, temperature, and anything else that may have contributed to the accident.
A2 Next, I am going to ask some specific questions about the incident that you may have already described. Please bear with us as we collect this information from you.
A3 What type of surface were you/the victim on?
○ Paved Road (1)
○ Paved Sidewalk (2)
○ Gravel (3)
○ Grass (4)
○ Driveway (5)
○ Other (specify in next window) (6)
A3a Specify.
A4a Were you/was the victim riding on a road?
o Yes (1)
o No (2)
A4b Were you on the shoulder of the road, in a bike lane, or in a lane that cars use? o Shoulder (1)
o Bike Lane (2)
o Car lane (3)
o Other (4)
A4c Did the accident involve a motor vehicle?
o Yes (1)
o No (2)
A4d Did the accident happen at an intersection?
o Yes (1)
o No (2)
A4e Did the motor vehicle run you/the victim over?
o Yes (1)
o No (2)
A5 Was it dark or difficult to see?
o Yes (1)
o No (2)
18.A.
Micromobility-Related Deaths, Injuries, and Hazard Patterns | April 2026 | cpsc.gov 48 A6 Was the bicycle travelling uphill, downhill, or was it on a fairly level surface? o Uphill (1)
o Downhill (2)
o Fairly level (3)
A7 Was there anything else occurring at the time of the accident such as cell phone interference or loud music?
o Yes (1)
o No (2)
o Don’t know (3)
A7a Please specify the additional factors?
A8
Were you/the victim carrying or holding something such as a bag, purse, or backpack ? o Yes (1)
o No (2)
o Don’t know (3)
A9 What were you carrying.
S1 Which of the following best describes the scooter?
o Rental (1)
o Owned by victim (2)
o Borrowed (3)
o Other (specify in next window) (4)
o Don't know (5)
S2 Specify.
S3 Who was the bicycle rented from?
S4 Do you know the brand and model names of the bicycle involved in the injury ? o Yes (1)
o No (2)
S5 Specify brand
S6 Specify model
Note: if brand is known but model is not, enter unknown below
Q66 If you are able, please upload a photo of the scooter.
S10 Below is a list of safety equipment that riders might wear. Please specify if the rider was wearing any of these at the time of the incident. (Select all that apply.) ○ Helmet (1)
○ Padding (such as knee pads, elbow pads, or wrist pads) (2) ○ Reflective vest (3)
○ Blinking lights/Head lamp (4)
○ Other (specify in next window) (5)
○ None of the above (6)
S11 Specify
18.A.
Micromobility-Related Deaths, Injuries, and Hazard Patterns | April 2026 | cpsc.gov 49 S12 Please estimate the speed at which the bicycle was travelling when the accident occurred in miles per hour, your best guess is OK.
S13 How tall are you/ was the victim when the accident occurred (in feet and inches)? If you don’t know, just provide your best estimate.
S14 What did you/did the victim weigh when the accident occurred (in pounds)? If you don’t know, just provide your best estimate.
A10 Which of the following best describes how you were injured? o Hit from the front (1)
o Hit from the side (2)
o Hit from the behind (3)
o Other (specify in next window) (4)
o Don't know (5)
S11 Specify
A12 Was there any warning before you/the victim were/was hit? (ex. bell, shouting, or other noise) ? o Yes (1)
o No (2)
o Don't know (3)
C1 Is there anything else about this accident or the bicycle involved that you would like me to know? o Yes (1)
o No (2)
C2 Explain
C7 We may be interested in sending a CPSC investigator to your home to gather more information about how the accident occurred and take more detailed pictures of the scooter. This investigation would be set up at your convenience. May we have an investigator contact you by phone to setup a visit? o Yes (1)
o No (2)
C8 Please supply your phone number.
C9 When is a good time to call? (Check all that apply.) ○ Morning (1)
○ Afternoon (2)
○ Evening (3)
18.A.
1 Austin J, et al. Trauma Surg Acute Care Open 2026;11:e002099. doi:10.1136/tsaco-2025-002099 Open access
An exponential increase in e- bike injuries in California John Austin ,1 Louis Perkins ,1 Laura N Haines ,1 Leslie Kobayashi,2 Allison E Berndtson ,1 Jessica L Weaver,1 Jarrett Santorelli,2 John Maa,3,4 Romeo C Ignacio,5,6 Sigrid Burruss,7 Amy E Liepert,1 Todd W Costantini ,8 Jay J Doucet 1
To cite: Austin J,
Perkins L, Haines LN, et al.
Trauma Surg Acute Care Open
2026;11:e002099.
► Additional supplemental
material is published online
only. To view, please visit the
journal online (https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1136/ tsaco- 2025-
002099).
1Department of Surgery,
University of California San
Diego, La Jolla, California, USA
2Division of Trauma, Surgical
Critical Care, Burns and Acute
Care Surgery, Department
of Surgery, University of
California San Diego, San Diego,
California, USA
3Department of Surgery,
MarinHealth Medical Center,
Greenbrae, California, USA
4Chinese Hospital of San
Francisco, San Francisco,
California, USA
5Division of Pediatric Surgery,
Department of Surgery,
University of California San
Diego, San Diego, California,
USA
6Rady Children’s Hospital San
Diego, San Diego, California,
USA
7University of California Irvine,
Irvine, California, USA
8Department of Surgery,
University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
Correspondence to
Dr Jay J Doucet; jdoucet@ ucsd.
edu
Received 24 September 2025
Accepted 29 May 2026
Original research
© Author(s) (or their
employer(s)) 2026. Re- use
permitted under CC BY- NC. No
commercial re- use. See rights
and permissions. Published by
BMJ Group.
ABSTRACT
Background Electric bicycle (e- bike) sales are growing exponentially worldwide. These vehicles are faster
and heavier, with younger riders using e- bikes more
frequently, reports of inconsistent helmet use, and
increased deaths and injuries. We hypothesized that
California has experienced significant annual increases in e- bike rider injuries and injury severity compared
with injured traditional bicyclists, using a transportation injury registry and geospatial mapping system, including socioeconomic factors.
Methods We conducted a retrospective analysis of the
California Highway Patrol Statewide Integrated Traffic
Records System (SWITRS) from 2018 to 2024, identifying
e- bike collisions through reporter coding and vehicle
brand names. We analyzed demographics, injury severity, fault status, traffic violations, and scene census tract Social Vulnerability Index (SVI). All non- e- bike traditional bicycle collisions served as the comparison group.
Results We identified 4035 e- bike and 58 332 bicycle
collisions. E- bike injuries increased sharply over the study period, from two incidents in 2018 to 1566 in
2024 (p<0.001), while bicycle collisions remained
stable. E- bike riders were younger (median 33 vs 36
years; p<0.001), with a significantly greater proportion aged ≤14 years (15.6% vs 10.2%). Moderate- to- severe
injuries were more common among e- bike riders (15.8%
vs 11.9%; p<0.001). Although overall mortality was
similar (2.0% vs 1.7%), a significant divergence emerged in 2024, with higher e- bike mortality (p=0.027) and a
significant interaction between year and vehicle type.
E- bike collisions demonstrated more unsafe speed and
improper turning violations and occurred in census tracts with lower social vulnerability. Spatial analysis showed tighter clustering of e- bike collisions relative to bicycles.
Conclusions E- bike injuries are rapidly increasing in
California and are associated with a higher severity
of injuries compared with traditional bicycles. Urgent
efforts are needed for targeted prevention, regulatory
alignment, and rider education.
Level of evidence Level III, retrospective case- control study.
INTRODUCTION
Electric bicycle (e- growing expo are bike) sales -
nentially worldwide, with a US$62 market billion
sales projected to reach in 2024, and global
US$113 billion by 2030. Sales of e- bikes in the USA
increased from 325 000 units in 2018 to 1.7 million
in 2024.1 2 There are reports of increasing numbers
and severity of injuries related to e- bikes, including among children. injuries 3–8 E- faster and are bikes
heavier than traditional bicycles, and are often used
by younger riders. Regulations for e- bikes vary
significantly across regions, with no national regu-
lation governing their labeling of speed capabilities.
Data on death and injury rates, comparisons of
e- bike injury severity with traditional bike injuries, and e- injury socioeconomic factors remain bike
sparse in the relevant literature, despite the rapid
growth in e- bike sales. Injury trends are largely
unknown, although there are several anecdotal
reports in the media. Deaths of children riding
e- bikes have focused media attention on e- bike
safety. These deaths have spurred advocacy and
legislative efforts in several states.8–10
We hypothesized that, using a transportation
injury registry and mapping system, California
experienced significant yearly increases in e- bike
rider collision deaths, injuries, and injury severity
from 2018 to 2024 compared with traditional
bicycle rider collisions. Differences between tradi-
e- and bicycles tional examined in also were bikes
the context of socioeconomic epidemiology. Finally,
we e- compared those locations with collision bike
of traditional bicycles using geospatial analysis
(GIS), with the hope of informing advocacy for
targeted prevention efforts.
METHODS
We conducted a retrospective study using the Cali-
fornia Highway Patrol (CHP) Statewide Integrated
T raffic Records System (SWITRS) covering the years
WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THIS TOPIC
⇒ Electric bicycle (e- bike) use is rapidly increasing
worldwide, with sales growing exponentially
in both Europe and North America. Previous
research has shown that injuries from e- bikes
tend to be more severe than those from
traditional bicycles due to higher speeds and
increased vehicle weight. Case series and
regional studies have highlighted a rising rate
of pediatric e- bike injuries, raising concern
among healthcare providers and policymakers.
However, earlier studies have often been
limited in scope, focusing on single hospitals,
short periods, or narrowly defined populations.
Standardized epidemiological data at the state
or national level, particularly those linked to
socioeconomic and geographic patterns, remain
scarce.
18.A.
2 Austin JAustin JAustin JAustin J, et al, et al, et al, et al. . . . Trauma Surg Acute Care OpenTrauma Surg Acute Care OpenTrauma Surg Acute Care OpenTrauma Surg Acute Care Open 2026; 2026; 2026; 2026;11111111:e002099. doi:10.1136/tsaco-2025-002099:e002099. doi:10.1136/tsaco-2025-002099:e002099. doi:10.1136/tsaco-2025-002099:e002099. doi:10.1136/tsaco-2025-002099 Open access
2018 to 2024. The SWITRS data and Codebook is available at https://tims.berkeley.edu/help/SWITRS.php. We identified all bicycle incidents using the “L—Bicycle” Incident Vehicle T ype.
We identified e- officer incidents based on reporting bike coding of e- brand and model names. bike Starting in vehicle 2021, if the code "91 – electric bicycle" was used in the "CHP Primary/T owing Vehicle" Party field, then these were also iden- tified as e- bikes. We identified possible brand and model names through intelli web and manual searches, and using artificial - gence tools, including ChatGPT. A copy of the syntax file used for the SWITRS text searches is available in the online supple- mental 1. used a comparison group of all non- We file e- bike bicycle injury incidents in SWITRS for the same period.
Demographic data, rider- mortality, at- traffic status, fault violations, and the Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) for the colli- sion site census tract were analyzed. The SVI, developed by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Agency for (ATSDR), T oxic Substances and Disease Registry designed to identify communities that is a composite measure may be more susceptible to adverse social, economic, and health outcomes in as natural disasters or of stressors face such the disease outbreaks. The SVI incorporates US Census data across four major domains: (1) socioeconomic status (eg, poverty, unemployment, income, educational attainment), (2) household composition and disability (eg, age, disability status, single- parent households), (3) minority status and language (eg, race/ethnicity and English proficiency), and (4) housing type and transporta - tion (eg, multi- access). unit structures, crowding, vehicle For each US Census tract, variables are ranked and aggregated into theme- specific and overall percentile scores, with higher values indicating greater social vulnerability. SVI has been widely used to assess community- level disparities and to guide resource allo- cation health and emergency preparedness. In this in public study, the overall SVI score for each census tract was calcu - lated from the American Community Survey and geolocation data from latitude- longitude scene geolocators provided by the T ransportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) developed by UC Berkeley SafeTREC, and map- merged in ArcGIS Pro 3.5.3 (esri, Redding, CA).
T o prevent type 1 errors from multiple comparisons over the 7- year period, we analyzed temporal trends in mortality between e- bike and traditional bicycle collisions using a generalized linear model (GLM). The year was modeled as a continuous predictor (treated as a linear trend), with group (e- bike vs bicycle) as a cate- gorical factor. We specified a binomial distribution with a logit link to account for the binary outcome, aggregated by year and group. The GLM model included main effects of group and year, along with their interaction term (group×year) to assess whether the rate of change over time differed between groups. Analyses were conducted in SPSS version 30 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY) using the GENLIN procedure.
SWITRS Victim Degree of Injury was used to determine injury severity. or reports use either the old SWITRS scale SWITRS the new scoring system based on the National Highway T raffic Safety Administration Model (NHTSA) Minimum Uniform
Crash Criteria (MMUCC) fifth edition, published in 2017. The MMUCC provides a standardized method for reporting traffic crashes, about vehicles, involved individuals, including details has a and the surrounding environment. As SWITRS mix of old and new injury scoring, we followed TIMS guidelines and merged new injury categories with old categories as follows:
► New category 5—"Suspected Serious Injury" was merged
with old category 2 – "Severe Injury".
► New category 6—"Suspected Minor Injury" was merged
with category 3 – "Other Visible Injury".
► New category 7—"Possible Injury" was merged with old
category 4 – "Complaint of Pain".
We used a GIS hotspot analysis tool in ArcGIS Pro to compare e- bike with traditional bicycle collision locations. Each mapped point represents SWITRS located via a collision location from TIMS. The analysis was performed using a fixed distance band of 500 m, which defined each feature’s neighborhood. The tool provides z- scores and p- values for each feature, classifying loca- tions as statistically significant hot spots (clusters of high values) or cold 95%, 99% of low values) at 90%, and spots (clusters confidence levels.
T o evaluate the level of agreement between the two hotspot analyses, hot reclassified we the outputs into three categories:
spots (p<0.05), cold spots (p<0.05), and non- significant areas.
The layers for traditional bicycle and e- bike collisions were over- laid on a standard spatial grid and each unit was assigned the classification groups Agreement between from both analyses. was measured using overall similarity (percent agreement) and Cohen’s κ, which adjusts for agreement expected by chance.
Analyses were conducted using complete case analysis; obser- vations with missing data were excluded from the relevant anal- yses (listwise deletion). No imputation was performed.
We generated GIS heat maps of e- bike and traditional bicycle collision locations in SWITRS using the TIMS geolocation data and the Kernel Density Estimation tool in ArcGIS Pro. The input data sites. point features consisted of representing collision density was calculated with a search radius of 500 Kernel m and an output cell size of 1 km. On the resulting raster surface,
WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS
⇒ This study offers the largest statewide epidemiological analysis of e- bike injuries to date, covering a 7- year period of rapid adoption in California. It shows a sharp and
statistically significant rise in e- bike injuries and deaths, both in absolute numbers and as a share of all cycling
injuries. Compared with traditional cyclists, e- bike riders are younger, incur more severe injuries, and are more often at fault, with notable violation patterns like unsafe speeds and improper turns. Notably, the study indicates that injuries are disproportionately centered among children aged ≤14 years, and occur more frequently in less socioeconomically deprived areas, suggesting that access and adoption patterns differ from those of traditional bicycle riders.
HOW THIS STUDY MIGHT AFFECT RESEARCH, PRACTICE, OR
POLICY
⇒ These findings emphasize urgent gaps in safety policies and injury prevention strategies for e- bike riders. For clinicians, the evidence highlights the need for proactive guidance, especially for parents of young riders, and for trauma systems to prepare for more serious injury patterns. For policymakers and advocates, the results bolster the case for standardizing e- bike classification and labeling, establishing minimum age limits, promoting helmet use, and investing in safer infrastructure such as protected lanes and school- zone speed limits. From a research standpoint, the study underscores the importance of combining traffic registry data with hospital and trauma data, and of assessing natural experiments as new policies roll out. Collectively, these actions could inform evidence- based measures to reduce injuries and fatalities as e- bike use continues to grow.
18.A.
3 Austin JAustin JAustin JAustin J, et al, et al, et al, et al. . . . Trauma Surg Acute Care OpenTrauma Surg Acute Care OpenTrauma Surg Acute Care OpenTrauma Surg Acute Care Open 2026; 2026; 2026; 2026;11111111:e002099. doi:10.1136/tsaco-2025-002099:e002099. doi:10.1136/tsaco-2025-002099:e002099. doi:10.1136/tsaco-2025-002099:e002099. doi:10.1136/tsaco-2025-002099 Open access
higher density values indicate locations with a greater concen- tration of weighted points. Separate heat maps were created for each group, enabling visual comparison of clustering patterns between groups.
Date was analyzed in SPSS, categorical data were analyzed by χ2 analysis, and continuous variables via t- test using two- sided tests with p<0.05 considered statistically significant. The study was deemed exempt from review by the UC San Diego Human Research Protections Program under Institutional Review Board number 809 179.
RESULTS
We identified 62 367 collision incidents in SWITRS from 2018 to 2024, of which 58 332 involved traditional bicycles and 4035 involved e- E- bikes. using identified were bikes code vehicle "91" only in 521 cases, from brand and/or model name only in 2756 cases, and from both sources in 758 cases. E- bike injuries increased from 2018 to 2024 (p<0.001), both in significantly numbers and as a proportion of all cyclist injuries during this period (p<0.001, figure 1), rising from two incidents in 2018 to 1566 in 2024. T raditional bicycle collisions appeared to be static or decreasing in numbers during the same period, from 10 to 7611 all injury collisions 628 in 2024. Among in 2018 from 2018 to 2024, e- bike riders were younger than bicyclists, with a median age of 33 years (IQR 17–53) versus 36 years (IQR 22–54) (p<0.001, table 1). A greater proportion of e- bike riders were ≤14 years old (15.6% vs 10.2%; p<0.001). A significant number of e- bike injuries occurred in riders aged ≤14 years, and the number of injured children is rising annually (figure 2). The age group with the highest number of e- bike injuries is those ≤14 years old, and this is proportionally and significantly higher than in traditional bicyclist collisions (figure 3, table 1).
Female of riders were in the minority and the proportion female riders was similar between groups (18.6% vs 18.1%; p=0.25). Moderate- to- severe injuries occurred more frequently among e- bike riders (15.8%) than bicyclists (11.9%; p<0.001).
E- bike riders were more often deemed at fault (58.4% vs 51.2%; p=0.036) and had a slightly higher prevalence of alcohol vs 1.2%; p=0.035). Collisions involving involvement (1.6% traditional bicycles occurred in census tracts with higher mean SVI percentile scores compared with those involving e- bikes (52% vs 45%; p<0.001).
Mortality was comparable overall (2.0% vs 1.7%; p=0.21), but in 2024 alone, e- bike riders had a slightly higher death rate (2.1% vs 1.4%; p=0.03). While the overall categorical difference in deaths across 7 years between e- bikes and traditional bicycles was not statistically significant, the number of e- bike deaths has been increasing annually, while bicyclist deaths remain relatively steady (figure 4). Looking at the difference between groups by single years, the death rate for e- bike users was higher than that of traditional bicyclists in 2024 (table 1 there ). In the GLM, was a significant main effect of year (Wald χ²=16.2, p<0.001), indicating an overall increasing temporal trend in deaths. The main effect of e- bike versus traditional bicycle was not signifi- cant over this period (Wald χ²=0.21, p=0.646). Notably, the e- bike group×year interaction was significant (Wald χ²=9.7, p=0.012), suggesting that trends over time differed between groups. Post- hoc estimated marginal means indicated that mortality was similar between groups during the first 6 years (all p>0.05) but diverged in the final year, with e- bikes showing higher odds of mortality compared with traditional bicycles (p=0.027). Follow- of up comparisons examining the effect e- bike versus traditional bicycle within each individual year did not reach significance after correction for multiple comparisons (all p>0.05). This suggests that while there is an overall pattern of group differences over the study period, these differences are not yet significant statistically year single to be enough in any detectable by the GLM.
Wrong- side- of- road infractions were the most frequent primary or contributing rider violations for both e- bike and traditional bicycle riders, occurring in 16.5% and 17.0% of collisions, respectively (p=0.06). Unsafe speed and improper among e- turning were significantly more common riders bike than traditional bicyclists (11.2% vs 7.1% and 9.5% vs 6.3%, Figure 1 California SWITRS (Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System) annual bicycle and e- bike injury events, 2018–2024.
18.A.
4 Austin JAustin JAustin JAustin J, et al, et al, et al, et al. . . . Trauma Surg Acute Care OpenTrauma Surg Acute Care OpenTrauma Surg Acute Care OpenTrauma Surg Acute Care Open 2026; 2026; 2026; 2026;11111111:e002099. doi:10.1136/tsaco-2025-002099:e002099. doi:10.1136/tsaco-2025-002099:e002099. doi:10.1136/tsaco-2025-002099:e002099. doi:10.1136/tsaco-2025-002099 Open access
respectively; both p<0.001), representing the most significant relative differences. In contrast, violations involving traffic lights or signals were less frequent among e- bike riders compared with traditional bicyclists (6.6% vs 8.0%, p=0.005). Right- of- way violations showed similar groups (7.3% proportions between vs 7.8%, p=0.41). Other specified violations were slightly less Table 1
All injury collisions, 2018–2024 E- bikes (n=4035)* Traditional bicycles (n=58 332)* P value Median age, years (IQR) 33 (17–53)
Missing: 6 (0.1%)
36 (22–54)
Missing: 313 (0.6%)
<0.001†
Age ≤14 years 630/4035 (15.6%)
Missing: 6 (0.1%)
5957/58 332 (10.2%)
Missing: 313 (0.6%)
<0.001†
Female 742/3998 (18.6%)
Missing: 37 (1%)
10 289/56 739 (18.1%)
Missing: 1593 (2.7%)
0.25 Moderate–severe SWITRS Injury Score 615/3340 (15.8%) Missing: 695 (17.2%)
6796/50 517 (11.9%)
Missing: 7815 (13.3%)
<0.001†
Death of rider—2018–2024 80/4035 (2.0%)
Missing: 0
1019/58 332 (1.7%)
Missing: 0
0.21 Death of rider—2024 only 34/1600 9 (2.1%)
Missing: 0
107/7718 (1.4%)
Missing: 0
0.03†
Rider at fault 2360/4035 (58.4%)
Missing: 11 (0.7%)
30 884/58 332 (52.9%)
Missing: 431 (1.4%)
0.0002†
Rider using alcohol 63/4035 (1.6%)
Missing: 0
689/58 332 (1.2%)
Missing: 0
0.035†
Scene Social Vulnerability Index, mean (SD) 45% (28)
Missing: 0
52% (29)
Missing: 0
<0.001†
Top 5 rider primary or contributing vehicular code violations** Wrong side of road 666/4035 (16.5%) 10437/58 332 (17.0%) 0.06 Unsafe speed 451/4035 (11.2%) 4164/58 332 (7.1%) <0.001† Improper turning 387/4035 (9.5%) 3688/58 332 (6.3%) <0.001† Traffic lights and signals violations 268/4035 (6.6%) 4648/58 332 (8.0%) 0.005† Automobile had right of way 298/4035 (7.3%) 4530/58 332 (7.8%) 0.41 Other violations 225/4035 (5.5%) 3822/58 332 (6.5%) 0.022† None/other driver 1616/4032 (42.5%) 23586/58 332 (46.3%) 0.75 Missing data 124 (3.0%) 3457 (5.9%) <0.001†
*Denominators vary due to missing data.
†P<0.05.
SWITRS, Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System.
Figure 2 California SWITRS (Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System) annual bicycle and e- bike injury and death events, under 18 years (dotted line) and total (solid line), 2018–2024.
18.A.
5 Austin JAustin JAustin JAustin J, et al, et al, et al, et al. . . . Trauma Surg Acute Care OpenTrauma Surg Acute Care OpenTrauma Surg Acute Care OpenTrauma Surg Acute Care Open 2026; 2026; 2026; 2026;11111111:e002099. doi:10.1136/tsaco-2025-002099:e002099. doi:10.1136/tsaco-2025-002099:e002099. doi:10.1136/tsaco-2025-002099:e002099. doi:10.1136/tsaco-2025-002099 Open access
common among e- bike riders (5.5% vs 6.5%, p=0.022). Overall, e- bike collisions demonstrated a higher proportion of speed and turning related violations, whereas traditional bicycle collisions showed modestly higher rates of signal and miscellaneous viola- tions (table 1).
Helmet- use patterns differed between e- bike and traditional bicycle victims across all ages and within the subgroup aged ≤14 years and younger (table 2). At every age, e- bike riders had lower documented helmet non- drivers use than traditional bicycle (25.4% vs 34.2%, p<0.0001), while helmet use was similar considerable groups (24.6% vs 22.1%). There were a between number of non- responsive entries: “Not required” occurred less often for e- bike than traditional bicycle victims (8.8% vs 12.9%), whereas was more frequently recorded for “none in vehicle” e- cases (4.5% vs 2.3%). Missing helmet- bike use information accounted for 16.1% of e- bike and 18.3% of traditional bicycle cases. Among victims aged ≤14 years, e- bike drivers again demonstrated lower helmet non- use rates than traditional bicycle drivers (18.1% vs 33.4%, p<0.0001), with similar proportions of documented helmet use (28.1% vs 29.0%). "Not required" entries common for e- less were than traditional bicycle bike victims (2.2% vs 7.3%), while "none in vehicle" was slightly more frequent for e- bikes (4.0% vs 2.9%). Missing data accounted for a larger share of e- bike incidents (39.8%) than traditional bicycle incidents (19.2%). While the differences in helmet use between groups are small, they are significant by χ 2 tests, if only posi- tive and negative use responses are included. However, the large amount of non- missing and data responsive helmet use limits confidence in such statistical testing.
The hotspot comparison showed that 61% of spatial units were classified identically between the two groups, indicating some overlap in collision locations. However, when accounting for agreement expected by chance, Cohen’s κ indicated only fair agreement (κ=0.28, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.36, p<0.001). Overall, the z- scores for e- bikes (mean z=5.2) indicated stronger clus- tering compared with traditional bicycle collisions (mean z=−1.4), suggesting that e- bike collisions are more tightly spatially clustered. In contrast, traditional bicycle collisions Figure 3 California SWITRS (Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System) bicycle and e- bike injury by age group, 2018–2024.
Figure 4 California SWITRS (Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System) annual bicycle and e- bike death- only events, 2018–2024.
18.A.
6 Austin JAustin JAustin JAustin J, et al, et al, et al, et al. . . . Trauma Surg Acute Care OpenTrauma Surg Acute Care OpenTrauma Surg Acute Care OpenTrauma Surg Acute Care Open 2026; 2026; 2026; 2026;11111111:e002099. doi:10.1136/tsaco-2025-002099:e002099. doi:10.1136/tsaco-2025-002099:e002099. doi:10.1136/tsaco-2025-002099:e002099. doi:10.1136/tsaco-2025-002099 Open access
are more randomly distributed. The heat maps for traditional bicycle collisions revealed the highest density of clustering in downtown and urban areas (ie, downtown San Francisco), while e- and areas more suburban in exhibited bikes tighter patterns smaller ‘bedroom’ communities (ie, Marin County). Heat map comparison for e- collisions for bicycle and bikes traditional the San Francisco Bay area is shown in figure 5A,B. Other area maps and a temporal animation of the regional heat maps can be found in online supplemental file 2.
DISCUSSION
This statewide analysis, conducted in California and the largest database study to date on e- bike injuries, reveals a sharp increase from 2018 to 2024 in both the total number of e- bike injuries and their proportion of all cyclist injuries. E- bike riders tend to be younger, sustain and are more often more severe injuries, at vehicle code fault than traditional bicyclists. E- bike injuries occur more frequently in areas with lower social vulnerability, indicating greater e- access and usage among less disad bike - vantaged socioeconomic groups. Overall, from 2018 to 2024, the death rate for e- bike- related collisions was not statistically different from that of traditional bicycles. However, in 2024, e- bike- related fatalities were slightly higher than those involving traditional bicycles, and there is a significant increasing trend of deaths from e- bike collisions over the study period.
Our findings align with previous reports documenting a
in e- global increase bike- related injuries and their greater severity compared with traditional bicycle injuries. 3–5 The Table 2
Victim helmet use reported* E- bikes Traditional bicycles P value All ages n=4035 n=58 332
Driver: helmet not used 1025 (25.4%) 20 002 (34.2%) <0.001† Driver: helmet used 996 (24.6%) 12 869 (22.1%)
Passenger: helmet not used 51 (1.3%) 711 (1.2%)
Passenger: helmet used 30 (0.74%) 308 (0.52%)
"Not required" only 357 (8.8%) 7574 (12.9%)
"None in vehicle" only 131 (4.5%) 1625 (2.3%)
Unknown 17 (0.42) 170 (0.29%)
Other 31 (0.76%) 30 (0.05%)
Missing data 648 (16.1%) 10 704 (18.3%)
Ages ≤14 n=630 n=5957
Driver: helmet not used 114 (18.1%) 1990 (33.4%) <0.001† Driver: helmet used 177 (28.1%) 1728 (29.0%)
Passenger: helmet not used 3 (0.5%) 87 (1.46%)
Passenger: helmet used 1 (0.15%) 50 (0.84%)
"Not required" only 14 (2.2%) 432 (7.3%)
"None in vehicle" only 25 (4.0%) 172 (2.9%)
Unknown 0 (0) 37 (0.62%)
Other 2 (3.1%) 10 (0.16%)
Missing data 251 (39.8%) 1144 (19.2%)
*Percentages do not add to 100% due to multiple riders, rounding. †P<0.05, excluding ‘Not required’, ‘None in vehicle’, Unknown, Other, and Missing data.
Figure 5 Heat map comparison for bicycle and e- bike collisions in the San Francisco Bay Area. Additional city maps and animations are given in online supplemental file 3. SVI, Social Vulnerability Index.
18.A.
7 Austin JAustin JAustin JAustin J, et al, et al, et al, et al. . . . Trauma Surg Acute Care OpenTrauma Surg Acute Care OpenTrauma Surg Acute Care OpenTrauma Surg Acute Care Open 2026; 2026; 2026; 2026;11111111:e002099. doi:10.1136/tsaco-2025-002099:e002099. doi:10.1136/tsaco-2025-002099:e002099. doi:10.1136/tsaco-2025-002099:e002099. doi:10.1136/tsaco-2025-002099 Open access
disproportionate representation of children aged ≤14 years among e- bike injuries concurs with earlier pediatric case series that highlight the vulnerability of younger riders. 6 The higher at- fault rate and rates of unsafe speed and improper turning violations support prior research findings indicating that the higher speeds and motorized operation patterns of e- bikes elevate the risk of injury crashes. Additionally, the observation that e- bike collisions are concentrated in less disadvantaged census tracts diverges from our earlier SWITRS and trauma registry- matching studies on traditional bicycle injury epidemi- ology, which reported a greater bicycle injury burden in deprived neighborhoods.11 This discrepancy may be attributable to the higher purchase costs and early adoption trends associated with e- bikes, and this geospatial pattern should be considered when developing advocacy and policy measures for e- bike safety.
The literature suggests helmet use among e- bike riders may be lower than that among traditional bike riders. 12 In Cali- fornia, helmet use is required based on rider age and the class of e- bike (Class III, pedal assist until the e- bike reaches 28 mph).
According to California Vehicle Code (CVC) §21212, anyone under 18 riding a bicycle, e- bike, or e- scooter must wear a helmet.
Helmet use is mandatory for both drivers and passengers. Adults (≥18 years) must wear a helmet when riding a Class III e- bike; helmet use among adults is otherwise voluntary. While SWITRS provides only a limited evaluation of helmet use in e- bike and traditional bicycle collisions, we believe this evidence shows that helmets were likely worn by only a minority of victims, including children. Overall, e- riders showed slightly higher helmet bike use rates than bicyclists, likely because more were <18 years old, possibly due to the helmet requirement for Class III e- bikes, or possibly because of better helmet availability in less disadvan- taged SVI census tracts.
Younger riders may perceive less risk when using micro- mobility devices (ie, e- bikes, e- scooters, e- skateboards, etc). 13 The higher speeds and new interactions with other vehicles on the road can lead to more severe injuries and higher- energy colli- sions.3 14 The capabilities of e- bikes may be surprising to other vehicle drivers. T rauma surgeons were among the first to recog- nize the increased risk of injury posed by new micromobility devices.
Surgeon advocacy should continue urging policymakers
to harmonize e- requirements, classification and labeling bike thereby improving enforcement and raising parental and public awareness of e- bike speed capabilities. Educational initiatives targeting young riders and parents, promoting helmet use, and infrastructure improvements (such as speed- limited bike lanes and school safety zones) could help reduce risks. Our data may also support ongoing legislative efforts in California and across the country to better regulate e- bike use, including setting minimum age limits and safety standards. California State e- bike vouchers currently used to encourage micromobility purchases should also be tied to safety education, avoid sponsoring models with trivi- ally easy upgrades to Class III e- bike speeds, and provide support for affordable helmet purchases. The authors have collected interventions to improve e- bike safety used in advocacy efforts in California and elsewhere in Box 1. Several of these interven- tions are incorporated into a bipartisan Congressional bill, H.R. 5265, "The Safe RIDE Act", introduced in September 2025.15 Several interpreting considered when limitations should be our findings. SWITRS only records vehicle collisions reported by law enforcement; incidents not involving a police report are excluded. This includes many solo accidents off highways or public roadways, and cases not requiring ambulance acti - vation, regardless of hospitalization or disability outcomes.
Box 1
Suggested surgeon advocacy targets for the reduction of e- bike- related injuries and deaths.
1. Rider age and licensing
Minimum age laws: set clear age thresholds for riding
different e- bike classes (eg, 14+ for Class I/II, 16+ for Class III).
Graduated licensing: require younger riders to complete an online or in- person safety course before operating higher- speed e- bikes.
Parental consent: mandate parental consent for minors
purchasing or registering e- bikes.
2. Training and education
Mandatory safety education: include e- bike modules in
driver’s education or school health curricula.
Community programs: fund school or community- based
e- bike skills training (helmet fitting, braking, speed management).
Retailer responsibility: require bike shops to provide safety information and demonstrations at the point of sale.
3. Equipment and vehicle standards
Helmet laws: require helmets for all riders (or at least under 18, or for higher- speed Class 3 bikes).
Speed regulation: standardize maximum assisted speeds (20 mph for Class 1/2, 28 mph for Class 3).
Safety labeling: mandate clear labeling of e- bike class, power and speed capability on frames.
Lighting and reflectors: require daytime running lights, reflectors, or integrated visibility features.
Battery/fire safety: adopt UL 2849/2271 certification
requirements for e- bike batteries to reduce fire risk.
4. Road use and infrastructure
Pathway rules: define where each e- bike class may operate (bike lanes, shared- use paths, or roadways).
Speed- limited zones: allow municipalities to impose lower speed caps in dense urban areas or on shared paths.
Dedicated infrastructure: invest in protected bike lanes and low- speed networks that accommodate e- bike traffic.
5. Enforcement and accountability
At- fault tracking: require police crash reports to distinguish e- bike classes and violations.
Insurance/registration (debated): consider registration or liability coverage for higher- speed e- bikes.
Retail compliance: enforce penalties for retailers who
mislabel or sell non- compliant e- bikes.
6. Data and research
Crash reporting standards: ensure e- bike involvement is a distinct variable in police and hospital records (such as SWITRS).
Exposure data: fund travel surveys to track e- bike miles traveled.
Evaluation mandates: require health/safety impact studies before expanding e- bike subsidy or voucher programs.
7. Public health and equity
Subsidy conditions: tie e- bike voucher or rebate programs to completion of a safety course or helmet purchase.
Equity focus: ensure safety interventions reach both high- income and low- income communities.
School zone protections: establish rules for e- bike use near schools, including speed caps or dismount zones.
Continued
18.A.
8 Austin JAustin JAustin JAustin J, et al, et al, et al, et al. . . . Trauma Surg Acute Care OpenTrauma Surg Acute Care OpenTrauma Surg Acute Care OpenTrauma Surg Acute Care Open 2026; 2026; 2026; 2026;11111111:e002099. doi:10.1136/tsaco-2025-002099:e002099. doi:10.1136/tsaco-2025-002099:e002099. doi:10.1136/tsaco-2025-002099:e002099. doi:10.1136/tsaco-2025-002099 Open access
Misclassification may occur due to incomplete reporting of e- bike brand model information, as well as missing, uncommon, and or misspelled e- bike names. Variations in reporting and coding across different police jurisdictions, along with increased awareness of e- bike collisions, may contribute to temporal and geographical inconsistencies in the data. Exposure data, such as miles traveled and trips taken, were unavailable. This limita - tion prevents the owner per rider, of injury rates calculation - ship years, or per mile. Deaths occurring later in hospitalization may not be captured. Injury severity was assessed using police- reported categories rather than clinical assessments, such as the injury severity score. Reporting of e- bike incidents in SWITRS was not standardized because e- vehicle codes ("91") are bike inconsistently used. Instead, reporters often used the "Primary/ T owing Vehicles" field as a secondary method to facilitate e- bike coding, both before and after the 2021 addition of the "91" vehicle code. If the reporting officer failed to use an e- bike brand or model name or a "91" code starting in 2021, then that e- bike case would appear to be a traditional bicycle case, which would weaken our comparison. Coding issues have precluded us from making micromo comparison of overall statewide broader, a - bility injury events, such as e- scooter injuries, as SWITRS does not have a single discrete code for e- scooters. Micromobility injury trends must be studied at the county or hospital level by merging trauma registry data with SWITRS. T racking micromo- bility injuries in this way has led to successful advocacy efforts in reducing preventable injuries.15 16 Future versions of SWITRS are expected to have improved micromobility incident coding as these modes of transportation become increasingly common in California. Another limitation is that we cannot stratify the SWITRS data by manufacturers’ e- bike classifications, nor do we know whether the bikes were modified in any way. An emerging concern is the recent appearance of "out- of- class" higher- power e- bikes with high- power batteries and motors. These are sold online, equipped with motors exceeding 750 W , and possibly capable of speeds over 62 mph/100 km/h.17–19 “E- motos" or light electric, “dirt bike” motorcycles with 2 kW to 12 kW power, are not street legal but are often sold alongside e- bikes, and these may be visually mistaken for e- bikes and not be accurately identi- fied by reporting agencies. Increasingly, there is a limitation that anything bicycle- shaped and electric identified as an e- bike, may not necessarily be a Class I–III e- bike. Finally, causal inference is limited by the study’s observational, retrospective design.
Further research is needed to study e- bike crash biomechanics, helmet use compliance, and the long- term outcomes for injured riders, especially to among pediatric populations. It is crucial include specific fields for micromobility devices, such as e- bikes and e- motos, in SWITRS. Connecting SWITRS data with hospital and trauma registry records could enhance injury severity evalu- ations, as well as analyses of mortality, disability, and costs. The authors are already working on such a project. Natural experi- ments following new policies, like speed limiters and mandatory labeling, their effects on injury patterns. We will could assess keep advocating at the state and federal government levels for policies aimed at reducing deaths and injuries caused by new micromobility technologies.
CONCLUSION
E- bike injuries are increasing rapidly in California, especially among children, and are associated with inadequate helmet use, higher injury severity, and distinctive traffic violation patterns. A significant trend of increased deaths in e- bike collisions in Cali- fornia, compared with bicyclist collisions, has emerged. There are significant differences in age, neighborhoods, and socioeco- nomics between e- bike and traditional bicycle injury collisions.
Coordinated legislation, regulations, youth and parent educa- tion, and infrastructure improvements may be needed to reduce e- bike- related injuries and deaths. T rauma surgeons and their allies’ advocacy with policymakers will be crucial to ensure the successful adoption of evidence- based policy measures.
Contributors JA, JJD designed this study. JA, JM, JJD searched the literature. JJD collected the data. JA, JM, JJD analyzed the data. All authors participated in data interpretation and manuscript preparation. JJD is acting as the guarantor. ChatGPT was used to identify additional brand names and model names of electric bicycles (e- bikes) sold in the United States in addition to e- bike names already found in the SWITRS database and those found through Google search queries. The syntax file used for SWITRS e- bike names generated by manual, Google, and ChatGPT searches is attached in supplemental files.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not- for- profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent for publication Not applicable.
Ethics approval The collection and analysis of survey data included in this article are classified as an exempt activity as defined by the University of California, San Diego Institutional Review Board.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data availability statement Data are available upon reasonable request.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer- reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.
Open access This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY- NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non- commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non- commercial. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
ORCID iDs
John Austin https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6394-7520
Louis Perkins https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3136-5104
Laura N Haines https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4088-2418
Allison E Berndtson https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7299-453X Todd W Costantini https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0215-5327 Jay J Doucet https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9617-001X
REFERENCES
1 United States Department of Energy. FOTW #1321, December 18, 2023: e- bike sales in the United States exceeded one million in 2022. Available: https://www.energy. gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1321-december-18-2023-e-bike-sales-united-states- exceeded-one-million [Accessed 10 Oct 2023].
2 eCycle Electric. How big is the USA e- bike market in 2024- 25? 2025. Available:
https://www.ecycleelectric.com/blog/2025/2/12/how-big-is-the-usa-e-bike-market-in- 2024-25 [Accessed 01 Jul 2025].
3 Shannon B, Ni N, Ehsani J, Friedman LS. Injuries From Electric Bikes and Scooters:
Illinois, U.S., 2021- 2023. Am J Prev Med 2025;69:108065. 4 Locke AR, Koehne NH, Ramey MD, Corvi JJ, Alley AA, Yendluri A, Song J, Namiri NK, Enabulele O, Waterman BR, et al. The rise in electric biking (E- bike) injuries:
Box 1 Continued
Framing: frame policies as injury prevention, not restriction.
Emphasize shared responsibility (riders, drivers, cities).
Highlight that e- bikes still offer net health and environmental benefits.