Two people are hurt at the same Burbank intersection on the same afternoon. One was on a pedal-assist bike from a bike shop. The other was on something bought online that looks almost identical, has a throttle, and does 38 mph. To the driver who hit them, and to most witnesses, they were both on bicycles. Legally they are not remotely the same, and that difference will shape everything that follows: who needed a license, whose insurance responds, and how much fault gets argued onto the injured rider.
Electric bikes and standing scooters have gone from novelty to ordinary traffic across Los Angeles County in a few short years, and the law governing them sits in several statutes that do not agree with each other in any intuitive way. If you were hurt on one, or hit by someone on one, the first question is not what happened. It is what the device actually was.
What California actually counts as an electric bicycle
The definition lives in Vehicle Code section 312.5[1]. An electric bicycle is a bicycle with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of no more than 750 watts. Within that, there are three classes:
- Class 1: pedal assist only, motor assistance stops at 20 mph, no throttle
- Class 2: throttle permitted, motor assistance stops at 20 mph
- Class 3: pedal assist only, assistance stops at 28 mph, speedometer required, rider must be at least 16
The consequential part is what falls outside. A device with a motor above 750 watts, or one that will push past those speeds, or one with no working pedals, is not an electric bicycle in California no matter what the listing called it or what the sticker on the frame says.
Riders of compliant e-bikes are expressly exempted from the driver license, registration, license plate and financial responsibility provisions of the Vehicle Code, and e-bikes are expressly not motor vehicles[2]. That exemption is the whole reason e-bikes are attractive, and it is also the reason the insurance picture after a crash is so awkward.
Helmets follow two overlapping rules. Any rider under 18 must wear a bicycle helmet on any class. On a Class 3, every operator and passenger must wear one regardless of age[3].
Standing scooters follow a completely different rulebook
People assume scooters are governed like e-bikes, only smaller. The opposite is closer to true. A motorized scooter under section 407.5[4] is a device with handlebars and a floorboard designed to be stood on, powered by an electric motor. From there the rules diverge sharply from bicycles.
Riding one requires a valid driver license or an instruction permit[5]. That single requirement surprises nearly everyone, and it is the opposite of the e-bike position, where no license is needed at all. The speed cap is 15 mph on any highway or bikeway. Sidewalk riding is prohibited, passengers are prohibited, and helmets are required for riders under 18 but not for adults. The DMV sets out the differences between these categories[6] in its own guidance, and they are worth reading before assuming anything.
So the same rider, on the same street, with the same injuries, occupies a different legal position depending on whether they were standing on a scooter or sitting on an e-bike. A 15 year old on a Class 1 e-bike is riding lawfully with a helmet. The same 15 year old on a rented scooter is riding without the license the statute requires, and an insurer will make something of that.
When the thing you were riding was legally a motorcycle
This is where serious cases go sideways.
If the device exceeds 750 watts, or does more than 28 mph under power, or has no functional pedals, it drops out of the e-bike definition and lands in another category entirely. Depending on its characteristics, that is a motorized bicycle or moped[7], or a motor-driven cycle, or a motorcycle. Those are motor vehicles. They require registration and they require the right class of license: an M1 for a motorcycle, and an M1 or M2 for a moped or motor-driven cycle. A standard Class C license does not cover any of them.
A rider who did not know any of this has usually been riding for months without registration, without the right license, and without insurance covering the device, because nobody told them they needed any of it. The retailer called it an e-bike. The box called it an e-bike. It arrived with a Class 2 sticker on the frame.
The state has been working on the sale side of this problem. Legislation in 2024 tightened how motor power is measured and added battery certification standards, along with restrictions on selling Class 3 devices to anyone under 16[8]. A companion measure barred the sale of products designed to modify an e-bike’s speed capability[9]. Those measures address the market. They do nothing for the person who bought a non-compliant device two years ago and is riding it to work today.
Modification matters just as much as manufacture. Unlocking a speed limiter, fitting a bigger motor or removing the pedals can take a lawful Class 2 e-bike out of the definition entirely. The rider usually experiences that as a small upgrade. Legally, it changes what they are operating.
The insurance gap nobody explains at the point of sale
Because a compliant e-bike is not a motor vehicle, it sits in an uncomfortable space between policies, and the details vary enough between insurers that the only reliable answer comes from reading the actual policy.
As a general pattern: an auto liability policy is written around motor vehicles, so it frequently will not respond when an e-bike rider injures someone else. Homeowners or renters liability coverage sometimes will, though many policies contain their own exclusions for motorized conveyances. Riders often discover which situation applies to them only after they have hurt somebody.
Coming from the other direction, the picture is better than people fear. Uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage on your own auto policy generally follows you as a person rather than attaching to a particular car, so it can reach you when you are struck while riding. If a driver hits you on your e-bike and leaves, or turns out to carry nothing, your own policy is frequently the most important one in the case even though your car was parked at home.
Where the device turns out to have been a moped or motorcycle rather than an e-bike, coverage gets harder rather than easier. Policies commonly exclude vehicles that were required to be registered and were not, or that were operated without the proper license class. An injured rider can find themselves outside their own coverage for a reason that has nothing to do with how the crash happened.
How helmets, sidewalks and modifications become fault arguments
California applies pure comparative negligence, which means a rider who was partly at fault has their recovery reduced by that percentage rather than eliminated. Being partly responsible does not end a claim in this state. It does change its value, and the defense will work hard on that percentage.
The arguments arrive in a predictable order. Whether a helmet was worn, and whether one was legally required. Whether the rider was on a sidewalk where scooters are not permitted. Whether a Class 3 rider was under 16. Whether the device had been modified beyond its class. Whether it carried the rear reflector or light that has been required during all hours of operation since the start of 2026[10], rather than only after dark as the previous rule had it.
Two things are worth separating here. A statutory violation by the rider is relevant to comparative fault, but it does not establish that the violation caused the crash. A rider without a helmet who is rear ended at a light did not cause the collision by not wearing one, though the argument may still be made about the head injury specifically. Insurers routinely blur that distinction, and it is worth not conceding it early.
Riding in Burbank and across Los Angeles County
State law is only the first layer. Local authorities and public agencies can adopt their own rules restricting where these devices may be used, and California State Parks and transit agencies have their own authority over paths and trails. The result is that the same Class 2 e-bike can be lawful on a street, restricted on a particular path, and banned outright on a campus a mile away.
The conditions that produce these crashes are ordinary Los Angeles County conditions. Riders moving at 20 to 28 mph share space designed either for 12 mph bicycles or for cars. Drivers turning right across a bike lane misjudge closing speed, because an e-bike arrives considerably faster than the bicycle the driver’s instincts were calibrated for. Doors open on Magnolia Boulevard and Olive Avenue. Scooters are left where they finish a trip, sometimes across a sidewalk. Riders come off badly in all of it, because there is nothing between them and the road.
Speed misjudgment deserves particular attention in these cases. A driver who says the rider “came out of nowhere” is often describing a genuine perceptual failure rather than inventing an excuse, and reconstructing actual approach speed from the device’s class and capability can be the difference between a disputed liability case and a clear one.
What is changing, and what is about to
This area is moving quickly enough that anything written about it needs a date on it.
The all-hours rear visibility requirement took effect on January 1, 2026, along with the battery certification provisions and the restriction on selling Class 3 devices to minors. In August 2026 the Governor signed legislation directing the Department of Education, working with the CHP, to develop a standardized e-bike safety and training program for students in grades 7 through 12[11].
The more significant measure is still pending. Senate Bill 1167[12] would draw a sharper statutory line between genuine e-bikes and the high-powered devices being marketed as e-bikes, reclassifying the faster machines as mopeds or motor-driven cycles, requiring accurate labeling, and making it false advertising to sell one as an e-bike. Sellers would have to tell buyers that the device requires registration and a license. It passed the Assembly 77 to 0 and cleared the Senate on concurrence 40 to 0 in late August 2026[13], and as this is written it is on the Governor’s desk awaiting action.
If it is signed, the buying experience gets considerably more honest. It will not retroactively fix the legal position of anyone already riding a non-compliant device, which is the population most likely to be seriously hurt. The Governor’s deadline falls at the end of September 2026, so the outcome[14] is worth confirming before treating anything above as settled.
Find out what you were actually riding
In most injury cases the first question is how the collision happened. In these cases there is a question before that one, and it is answerable: what was the device, what class was it, had it been modified, and what does that mean for licensing, for fault and for which policies are in play. That determination shapes the entire claim, and it is not something a rider can usually settle by looking at the sticker on the frame.
The ordinary two year deadline for injury claims applies[15], and it is shorter where a public entity contributed to the crash through a road defect or a transit vehicle. Meanwhile the device itself is evidence. It should be preserved rather than repaired or discarded, because its motor rating, its firmware and any modifications are facts that will matter later.
At Djougourian Law Corporation we handle bicycle and micromobility injury claims across Los Angeles County, and these cases reward early work more than most, because the technical questions are answerable while the device is still intact. If you were hurt riding one, or hit by someone who was, there is no charge for a conversation about where you stand, and we work on a contingency fee, so there is no fee unless we recover compensation for you.
You can reach us at 818-530-0000 or through our contact page. You can also read more about how we approach bicycle collision claims and crashes involving motor vehicles.
Works Cited
- California Vehicle Code section 312.5, defining an electric bicycle as a bicycle with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of no more than 750 watts, and establishing the Class 1, Class 2 and Class 3 framework. Originally enacted by Assembly Bill 1096 (Chiu, 2015) and most recently amended by Senate Bill 1271 (Min, 2024).
- California Vehicle Code section 24016, providing at subdivision (b) that a person operating an electric bicycle is not subject to the provisions of the Vehicle Code relating to financial responsibility, driver’s licenses, registration and license plates, and that an electric bicycle is not a motor vehicle. Subdivision (d) prohibits tampering with an electric bicycle so as to change its speed capability unless it still meets the definition and the classification label is replaced. law.justia.com
- California Vehicle Code section 21212, requiring a properly fitted and fastened bicycle helmet for riders under 18, and section 21213, requiring that Class 3 operators and passengers wear a helmet regardless of age and that Class 3 operators be at least 16.
- California Vehicle Code section 407.5, defining a motorized scooter as a device with handlebars and a floorboard designed to be stood upon, powered by an electric motor.
- California Vehicle Code section 21235, governing the operation of motorized scooters, including the requirement of a valid driver license or instruction permit, the prohibition on sidewalk riding and on carrying passengers, and the helmet requirement for riders under 18; and section 22411, imposing a 15 mph speed limit.
- California Department of Motor Vehicles. Motorcycles, Mopeds, and Scooters. dmv.ca.gov
- California Vehicle Code section 406, defining a motorized bicycle or moped, a category of motor vehicle requiring registration and an appropriate driver license class.
- California Senate Bill 1271 (Min), Statutes of 2024, amending the electric bicycle definition, adding battery certification requirements, addressing how motor power is measured, and restricting the sale of Class 3 electric bicycles to persons under 16 effective January 1, 2026.
- California Assembly Bill 1774, Chapter 55, Statutes of 2024, prohibiting the sale of a product or device that modifies the speed capability of an electric bicycle such that it no longer meets the statutory definition.
- California Assembly Bill 544 (Davies), requiring an electric bicycle to carry a rear red reflector or a solid or flashing red light with a built-in reflector during all hours of operation rather than only during darkness. Effective January 1, 2026.
- California Assembly Bill 1569 (Davies), requiring the California Department of Education, in consultation with the California Highway Patrol, to develop a standardized electric bicycle safety and training program for students in grades 7 through 12. Approved by the Governor and filed with the Secretary of State on August 27, 2026.
- California Senate Bill 1167 (Blakespear), 2025 to 2026 Regular Session, Vehicles: electric bicycles. leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
- Office of Senator Catherine S. Blakespear. Bill to Improve E-Bike Consumer Protections Clears Legislature, Goes to Governor. August 28, 2026, reporting passage of Senate Bill 1167 by the Assembly 77 to 0 and the Senate on concurrence 40 to 0. sd38.senate.ca.gov
- California Assembly Committee on Transportation, bill analysis summarizing the existing electric bicycle statutory framework and the 2026 legislative proposals. atrn.assembly.ca.gov
- California Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1, establishing a two-year limitations period for actions for injury to or death of an individual caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another.
Statutory provisions and pending legislation described in this article were verified against primary sources on September 23, 2026. Senate Bill 1167 was awaiting the Governor’s action on that date and its status should be confirmed before relying on the description above.