April 1, 2026
Dear Mayor Lorraine and San Mateo City Council:
On behalf of Move San Mateo and its hundreds of members, we are writing to provide input on the City’s 2026 Legislative Platform , especially as it relates to safer streets.
E-Bike Legislation
The rise of e-bikes represents the most significant shift in urban mobility in a generation, transforming the bicycle from perceived tool of leisure into an egalitarian instrument for daily transportation. By neutralizing traditional barriers like hills, long distances, and physical exertion, e-bikes have invited a vast and diverse segment of the population—including seniors, parents, and commuters—to choose two wheels over four.
Within our own community, the sheer volume of residents already utilizing e-bikes for school runs, grocery trips, and commuting is a testament to their utility and popularity. These vehicles offer a clear path toward a more sustainable and less congested future, delivering less congestion, cleaner air, parking relief, and more social streets.
Electric bicycles sales in the U.S. continue to out-pace electric cars and trucks. Of course, with increasing e-bike penetration we have seen an increase in crashes on our streets. We thank the Council for entertaining state legislation that can address this important issue.
Nevertheless, we worry that many proposals around e-bike legislation are based on fear instead of data and will not deliver greater traffic safety for our community.
Here are some initial thoughts:
● Lack of data - Per the Mineta Transportation Institute’s Exploring Electric Bicycle Safety Performance Data and Policy Options for California report (commissioned by the State
of California), data on crashes involving e-bikes does not exist. We have limited understanding:
○ Is the recent rise in e-bike crashes simply due to increasing e-bike adoption and miles ridden?
○ Are most e-bike crashes due to bad drivers and unsafe streets (an issue that we have been bringing to Council for several years)?
○ Are there educational efforts that have had a measured impact? ○ How old are e-bike collision victims?
○ Have e-bike regulations so far been successful in achieving their goals? ○ What is the safety impact of fewer kids riding bikes and more kids driving cars? ● Our streets aren’t safe - Pedestrians and traditional cyclists are dying at record levels; thus, it isn’t surprising that e-bike riders are dying, too. In the past decade, there have been 26,000 (reported) crashes in San Mateo County. This has resulted in 328 deaths and 1,944 serious injuries. Fatalities are rising nationally, especially for pedestrians and cyclists, due to distracted driving, impaired driving, speeding, and other unsafe driver behavior. San Mateo has yet to install the protected bike lanes necessary for kids to ride safely on our streets. According to the Mineta Institute, the number of e-bike crashes is miniscule compared to crashes involving cars, pedestrians, and traditional bicycles. ● E-motos vs. e-bikes - While many casually say this is an “e-bike” issue, experts point out that existing data indicates that e-motos are the true problem. “E-moto” is a term used to describe higher powered, poorly regulated, and (largely) off-road devices that are illegal to operate on California roads. (E-bikes are lower powered, well regulated, and legal on our streets.) Per the Mineta report, over 87% of devices on the campuses of San Mateo middle and high schools are e-motos, not e-bikes. (Many teens are attracted to the motorcycle-ish looks and power of e-motos instead of the traditional look of many e-bikes.) Thus, it is not surprising that well publicized crashes involve e-motos, not e-bikes - 16-year-old in Half Moon Bay , 17-year-old in Walnut Creek , and 15-year-old in Petaluma . Note that many news outlets have mislabeled these crashes as involving e-bikes, leading to much of the current confusion. Note that very few of the bills discussed involve e-motos.
● Existing laws can work, but we lack sufficient enforcement - Many of the current challenges can be addressed with existing laws. Again, most e-motos are illegal on City streets. Helmets are required for Class I and II e-bike riders under 18 and for Class III riders of all ages. The California Vehicle Code already prohibits unsafe operation of all vehicles on the road, including e-bikes. Reflectors and/or lights are required on all e-bikes. Sadly, enforcement of dangerous road violations by all users is infrequent due to a lack of Traffic cops on our streets (due to hiring difficulties and prioritization of other policing actions).
● Parents don’t know what they are buying - Most parents who purchase e-motos for their children don’t understand what they are buying. State laws fail to protect parents from manufacturers and retailers who promote dangerous e-motos as safe e-bikes. We have started to educate the public on this nuance, but it will take time to influence sales of new devices. Hopefully, if parents purchase safer, lower powered devices we will not see as many crashes.
● Conflicting proposals - There are a plethora of proposals pending at the state and local level. It is important that we take a smart approach to avoid conflicting regulations.
We also don’t want to create local laws that simply restate state laws, which are in flux. ● Kids operate safely - It is likely that the majority of e-bike riders are riding legal devices in a safe manner. Many kids are being unfairly villainized. In the crash that killed 4-year-old Ayden Fang on a sidewalk in Burlingame, the young e-bike riders have faced blame even though the Police indicated that they were riding legally and that the 19-year-old SUV driver was at fault for driving onto the sidewalk and into a restaurant.
Given the positive impacts of e-bikes, we should make sure not to punish safe and legal riders/devices given the negative actions of a few.
● Equity - Many who ride e-bikes on our streets are lower income, people of color. Many cannot afford the skyrocketing cost of buying and maintaining a car ($50,000 + $10,000/year). Many lower income parents get their kids e-bikes as they don’t have the time and money to drive their kids to and from school. Fines are a regressive, blunt force tool. In addition, further enforcement could result in inequitable application across racial groups; this already occurs for jaywalking and bike riders. ● Hurt selves - While every e-bike crash is regrettable, there are few (if any) reports of people on e-bikes hurting others. When we create more laws around e-bikes, we are asking our overstretched Police Departments to increase enforcement against e-bike riders, even though they primarily endanger themselves. This means they have less time available to enforce laws that protect community members from those who callously choose to drive drunk, distracted, or above the speed limit. In our opinion, the primary responsibility of law enforcement is to protect the public from bad actors (not from ourselves).
● E-bikes are necessary for meeting our City goals - Per David Hunt’s email to Council, San Mateo is pursuing General Plan 2040 goals that depend on mode shift away from single-occupancy vehicles. E-bikes are central to that vision. Policies that make compliant e-bikes more expensive, more complicated to own, or harder to sell in California would undermine those efforts and limit access to affordable, low-carbon transportation, especially for lower-income residents who benefit most. ● Consult the experts - We encourage the City to consult experts on this complex topic.
The Mineta Institute has proposed a list of suggested reforms. Various BPACs in the County have already studied the issue. (BTW, why doesn’t the City have a BPAC?) In addition, Move San Mateo includes several e-bike owners and experts and understands the needs and pain points of San Mateo residents who own e-bikes.
Thus, here are our recommendations on the e-bike bills mentioned in today’s packet:
● AB 2595 - We do not agree with the “Support” recommendation. The problem is unsafe riding and overpowered e-motos, not e-bikes. Some Class I and II e-bikes are low powered and should not be age restricted. This Class II bike has only a 100W motor and maxes out at 9 mph. Parents should be able to determine whether it is safe for their kids to ride such bikes.
● AB 1557 - While we agree with the goal of eliminating the “peak power loophole”, this bill would have unintended consequences. The power restrictions could make some cargo bikes illegal. Cargo bikes need additional power given their weight (for carrying multiple small kids or cargo). Note that moms and dads ride cargo bikes, not kids. Also, the decrease in max speed, from a reasonable 20 mph, might discourage many who hope to replace their cars for medium-range commutes.
● AB 1614 - We endorse safe riding on Class I paths, regardless of the device. On our roads, we don’t ban cars with top speeds of 200 mph; instead, we limit their operation.
We should do the same on our paths. There is no reason to prohibit safe riding on two wheels.
● AB 1942 - We vehemently oppose registration and license plates for any e-bikes. This will create unnecessary bureaucracy. Voters will be irate that they bought a bike which was legal but now are being asked to register it, at additional cost. It will increase barriers to riding, especially for those who are undocumented and rely on e-bikes to get around safely at low cost. We do not need Police pulling over kids on bikes because they haven’t got an updated registration sticker.
● AB 2284 - We agree with the intent of this bill - helping law enforcement identify illegal e-motos (not e-bikes). Nevertheless, we don’t believe that this will be effective. It will be difficult to maintain this list with hundreds of manufacturers releasing multiple new products each year. Perhaps SMPD should weigh in on how they currently make this determination and whether this would be helpful.
● AB 2346 - Requiring speedometers will increase costs for consumers. We also believe that the current 20 mph max speed for Class I and II are OK. We do like, however, the 5 mph speed limit on sidewalks (when pedestrians are present) as opposed to an outright ban on safe sidewalk riding, as proposed by the County. ● SB 1167 - We support this bill as it will attack the primary problem on the market - deceptive marketing of high powered e-motos to confused consumers. The manufacturers (and regulators) are largely to blame for the proliferation of dangerous, illegal devices. Let’s go after them instead of those who ride safe e-bikes in a responsible manner.
In addition, we do not support the current County of San Mateo model ordinance in its initial form. We hope that the next iteration addresses the following issues:
● Sidewalk riding - The ordinance bans all e-bike sidewalk riding, even in locations where roads are fast and dangerous and lack safe bike infrastructure. We should not be requiring kids to ride in these dangerous conditions. We discourage sidewalk riding when possible, but prefer that we regulate speeds on the sidewalk, depending on the conditions (i.e., in the same manner that we regulate cars on the road). ● Restating of state laws - We recommend that the County ordinance not restate current state law for emphasis. State law is in flux and we don’t want to restate laws that may soon change.
● Unsafe operation - Again, state law already prohibits unsafe operation of all road vehicles. Redefining this will cause confusion and additional complexity. ● Penalties - The fines of up to $500 are too high and punitive. Distracted drivers face fines of only $20 for their first offense, even though distracted driving kills thousands of other road users every year. The diversion program could be beneficial but there are few details here.
● Serial numbers - Tampering with, destroying, or mutilating serial numbers is already illegal.
Finally, in the interests of safer streets, we encourage the City to endorse other state legislation that will have an even greater impact on safety, especially for those who walk or ride traditional bikes:
● AB 1837 (Gonzalez) - Support - This bill would improve policing of illegal parking in bike (and transit) lanes. This is a major danger and frustration for people who bike and enforcement is currently very difficult due to staffing issues and the need for rapid response.
● AB 2276 (Soria) - Support - This bill would require convicted super speeders to install intelligent speed systems on their cars.
● AB 2560 (Schultz) - Support - This bill would codify the Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure (CAPTI) goals into statute. It would align transportation funding with California’s climate goals and ensure that infrastructure projects prioritize reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT).
Thank you very much for considering our input and please let us know if you would like to discuss it in person.
Sincerely,
Mike Swire, Max Mautner, Allison Felder, and Seema Patel Co-Leads of Move San Mateo
1 Martin McTaggart
From: David Hunt
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2026 9:06 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: E-bike safety bills
San Mateo City Council,
I am writing to urge you not to pass resolutions in support of AB 1557 or AB 1942 at your upcoming April 1, 2026 state legislative update.
While I share the goal of improving e-bike safety both of these bills target the wrong problem. They impose new burdens on legal, low-speed electric bicycles while doing nothing to address the illegal, overpowered devices that actually pose the greatest safety concerns.
AB 1557 would redefine the electric bicycle power standard in a way that conflicts with existing federal law and the framework used by nearly every other state, creating confusion for manufacturers, retailers, and consumers without meaningfully improving safety.
AB 1942 would require DMV registration and license plates for Class 2 and Class 3 e-bikes. This would cover the vast majority of legal e-bikes on the road, adding bureaucratic friction and cost to what is currently one of the most accessible and affordable forms of clean transportation. The bill's own author has described it as targeting devices that "go 60 or 70 mph,” [1] but by definition, Class 2 and Class 3 e- bikes are limited to 20 and 28 mph respectively. The bill as written does not reach the illegal high-speed devices the author has described. It reaches everyday commuter and family e-bikes instead.
The real safety problem is well documented. The Mineta Transportation Institute's 2025 report found that nearly 90% of electric two-wheelers parked at Northern California middle and high schools may not meet legal e-bike standards, with some devices delivering up to eight times the legal power limit [2]. Neither AB 1557 nor AB 1942 addresses these illegal devices. The answer is enforcement of existing law and clearer e-moto classifications, not new registration schemes and redefined standards that burden law- abiding riders.
San Mateo is pursuing General Plan 2040 goals that depend on mode shift away from single-occupancy vehicles. E-bikes are central to that vision. Policies that make compliant e-bikes more expensive, more complicated to own, or harder to sell in California would undermine those efforts and limit access to affordable, low-carbon transportation, especially for lower-income residents who benefit most.
Organizations including CalBike, Bike East Bay, People for Bikes, and the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition have raised serious concerns about these bills. I urge the Council to listen to those voices and withhold support for AB 1557 and AB 1942. Instead, I encourage the Council to advocate for policies that directly address the real safety challenges: better enforcement against illegal e- motos, consumer protection and
education against misleading marketing, and most importantly continued investment in the safe infrastructure that makes cycling viable for everyone.
Thanks,
David Hunt
Hayward Park resident
[1] https://electrek.co/2026/02/19/new-california-bill-to-require-license-plates-for-electric-bikes/
[2] https://transweb.sjsu.edu/sites/default/files/2423-Agrawal-Electric-Bicycle-Safety-Data-Policy.pdf