I follow a lot of bicycle legislation in California, and this bill is no different. In short, this bill – if it passes as-is – would create the new category of “eMotos” for things that today are otherwise grouped together with the broad class that is motorcycles (CVC 400). This categorization would exist alongside other categories such as “mopeds/motorized bicycle” (CVC 406), “bicycle” (CVC 231), and “electric bicycle” (CVC 312.5). Yeah, it’s kinda confusing, all these similar names.
Under California law, an electric bicycle is a subset of bicycle, and are “devices” rather than “vehicles”. This makes them distinct from trailers and specifically “motor vehicles”, which includes automobiles and motorcycles. Strangely enough, a moped (aka motorized bicycle; which is different than an ebike) is also a “device”, making it not subject to motor vehicle insurance requirements. I’ve written about mopeds before.
With that in mind, a new category that carves out “electric two-wheeled device built on a bicycle infrastructure that does not have pedals” serves to lessen the registration burden. Without this bill, a Surron-like eMoto is either a motorcycle with insurance and full registration requirements, or an off-highway dirt bike subject to annual OHV registration tags. The new eMoto category would likely be akin to moped plates, which are a one-time fee to obtain but helps in identifying and recovering if stolen. Note: fully-registered automobiles and motorcycles, plus mopeds with plates, do not need separate OHV tags to use OHV facilities.
The status quo is that most eMotos today are probably being ridden on-street without registration, or off-highway at places like state OHV parks but they’re being cited for not having OHV tags. This bill does nothing for the first issue, but resolves the second issue. People can, should, and do buy eMotos for them or their children to ride off-highway, and the law should support recreation like that. We have numerous OHV parks for exactly this purpose.
A different comment suggested that this bill attempts to address on-street use of illegal ebikes. That is wrong, and the bill’s text is quite clear about that. Machines that are outside the definition of ebikes are automatically motorcycles, and thus are illegal on-street or off-highway when ridden without registration. This bill addresses the latter.
Without this bill, a Surron-like eMoto is either a motorcycle with insurance and full registration requirements
I wish. Since the Surron and its ilk lack street legal VINs and also EPA certification (which is nonsensical, I know), most states simply refuse to allow you to plate them or operate them on public roads regardless of whether or not you’re willing to treat it as a motorcycle with insurance and a license, etc. Certainly on a Federal level and probably in most/all states, they’re not actually legally motorcycles.
But all 50 states will still blithely let you register a 49cc two stroke scooter and you can go belching blue smoke down the road at 23 MPH just as you please.
I can only say that I’ve seen Surron bikes with California motorcycle plates, so it must be possible. Then again, this is a state with a tremendous number of electric and other non-gasoline, non-diesel vehicles, so my guess is that the DMV is very used to the idea that something might not require a liquid fuel. It might be a easy as a form that certifies under penalty of perjury about the fuel type.
My understanding of federal law is that it doesn’t do much to affect whether a state can issue registration for a particular machine/vehicle (they usually can), but it does impact: 1) the ability to even import such a thing into the USA, and 2) whether other states will honor reciprocal operation when out-of-state.
What you’ve built is a smiles-per-hour machine. :)
In all seriousness, over 750 W but less than 4 kW, and over 20 MPH but less than 30 MPH, that might be registerable as a moped in California. You can even eschew the pedals, as electric mopeds don’t need them here. There’s a process for getting a randomly-assigned VIN and one-time plates, and the rider needs an M1 or M2 license.
But such a machine is, on its face, not unlawful in California.
I follow a lot of bicycle legislation in California, and this bill is no different. In short, this bill – if it passes as-is – would create the new category of “eMotos” for things that today are otherwise grouped together with the broad class that is motorcycles (CVC 400). This categorization would exist alongside other categories such as “mopeds/motorized bicycle” (CVC 406), “bicycle” (CVC 231), and “electric bicycle” (CVC 312.5). Yeah, it’s kinda confusing, all these similar names.
Under California law, an electric bicycle is a subset of bicycle, and are “devices” rather than “vehicles”. This makes them distinct from trailers and specifically “motor vehicles”, which includes automobiles and motorcycles. Strangely enough, a moped (aka motorized bicycle; which is different than an ebike) is also a “device”, making it not subject to motor vehicle insurance requirements. I’ve written about mopeds before.
With that in mind, a new category that carves out “electric two-wheeled device built on a bicycle infrastructure that does not have pedals” serves to lessen the registration burden. Without this bill, a Surron-like eMoto is either a motorcycle with insurance and full registration requirements, or an off-highway dirt bike subject to annual OHV registration tags. The new eMoto category would likely be akin to moped plates, which are a one-time fee to obtain but helps in identifying and recovering if stolen. Note: fully-registered automobiles and motorcycles, plus mopeds with plates, do not need separate OHV tags to use OHV facilities.
The status quo is that most eMotos today are probably being ridden on-street without registration, or off-highway at places like state OHV parks but they’re being cited for not having OHV tags. This bill does nothing for the first issue, but resolves the second issue. People can, should, and do buy eMotos for them or their children to ride off-highway, and the law should support recreation like that. We have numerous OHV parks for exactly this purpose.
A different comment suggested that this bill attempts to address on-street use of illegal ebikes. That is wrong, and the bill’s text is quite clear about that. Machines that are outside the definition of ebikes are automatically motorcycles, and thus are illegal on-street or off-highway when ridden without registration. This bill addresses the latter.
I wish. Since the Surron and its ilk lack street legal VINs and also EPA certification (which is nonsensical, I know), most states simply refuse to allow you to plate them or operate them on public roads regardless of whether or not you’re willing to treat it as a motorcycle with insurance and a license, etc. Certainly on a Federal level and probably in most/all states, they’re not actually legally motorcycles.
But all 50 states will still blithely let you register a 49cc two stroke scooter and you can go belching blue smoke down the road at 23 MPH just as you please.
This is breathtakingly stupid.
I can only say that I’ve seen Surron bikes with California motorcycle plates, so it must be possible. Then again, this is a state with a tremendous number of electric and other non-gasoline, non-diesel vehicles, so my guess is that the DMV is very used to the idea that something might not require a liquid fuel. It might be a easy as a form that certifies under penalty of perjury about the fuel type.
My understanding of federal law is that it doesn’t do much to affect whether a state can issue registration for a particular machine/vehicle (they usually can), but it does impact: 1) the ability to even import such a thing into the USA, and 2) whether other states will honor reciprocal operation when out-of-state.
Yeah it does nothing to help the Gray area of E-Bike. I tried to comment earlier but it was long and boring.
By definitions (without these clarifications) these Surrons are already NOT E-Bikes (so must be a dirt bike Offroad vehicle of some sort)
BUT
I have a Schwinn meridian with a 1200watt motor that can hit 30+mph with no pedal assist… BUT it still has working pedals… What is that?
(IF a cop asks… I have no fucking clue… I just bought the cocksucker on amazon) ;)
MORE than 750Watt motor = NOT an E-Bike (gray area)
more than 20MPH without assistance = NOT an E-Bike (gray area)
What is this MONSTER I have built?!!
What you’ve built is a smiles-per-hour machine. :)
In all seriousness, over 750 W but less than 4 kW, and over 20 MPH but less than 30 MPH, that might be registerable as a moped in California. You can even eschew the pedals, as electric mopeds don’t need them here. There’s a process for getting a randomly-assigned VIN and one-time plates, and the rider needs an M1 or M2 license.
But such a machine is, on its face, not unlawful in California.
Dentists love this guy!