The bicycle industry asked federal regulators to stop treating 60-mph e-motos like e-bikes

PeopleForBikes, the bicycle industry’s leading trade association, has asked the Consumer Product Safety Commission to give electric dirt bikes that reach 50 to 60 mph their own federal definition. Commuter e-bikes, by comparison, run roughly 20 to 28 mph. Electrek reported the proposal on Nov. 9.

Save more, waste less: The Cool Down’s newsletter sends smart, simple changes that help you and the planet in your everyday life.

Subscribe to The Cool Down →

We may earn a commission if you sign up.

The group’s argument rests on a simple observation about the market. Machines built like motorcycles are routinely listed, advertised and counted in crash data under the same “e-bike” label as pedal-assist bicycles, and the association says that blurring hurts both buyers and the legitimate bicycle trade.

The e-moto definition PeopleForBikes wants added

According to Bicycle Retailer and Industry News, PeopleForBikes general counsel Matt Moore delivered the recommendations at a Consumer Product Safety Commission public hearing in October. The group wants the existing federal definition of a low-speed electric bicycle left in place, so that legal e-bikes stay clearly separated from higher-powered motorized vehicles, and then wants a second, distinct definition created for e-motos that can reach 60 mph.

Moore put the distinction plainly. “E-bikes and e-motos are fundamentally different products, and federal safety regulations need to reflect that distinction,” he said, adding that high-powered electric dirt bikes marketed as e-bikes confuse consumers and put the credibility of genuine e-bikes at risk.

Electrek’s account of the testimony, written by Micah Toll, adds a point about statistics. Toll argues that “e-bike” is a loose everyday word while “electric bicycle” has a specific regulatory meaning, and that injury and crash tallies frequently attribute e-moto accidents to e-bikes, which makes bicycles look more dangerous than they are. Keeping the two categories apart in federal rules would, in that view, clean up the data as well as the shelf labels.

Electrical standards, conversion kits and the NHTSA request

The proposal goes beyond naming. PeopleForBikes asked for mandatory electrical safety standards covering off-road e-motos, which fall under the commission’s jurisdiction but are not reached by the electrical standards that apply to e-bikes. It also asked for closer scrutiny of conversion kits that turn an ordinary bicycle into a motorized vehicle operating beyond what the frame was designed to handle. On enforcement, the group asked the commission and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to coordinate against e-motos that evade federal requirements. Dividing responsibility between two agencies is the practical reason a clean definition matters: a vehicle that is not a low-speed bicycle drifts toward road-vehicle rules, and one that is sold as a bicycle can slip between both agencies.

The lithium-ion battery rule that frames the hearing

The testimony arrived in the middle of a larger rulemaking. The commission published a notice for an Oct. 21 hearing, held from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. Eastern, to take oral comments on its proposed safety standard for lithium-ion batteries. Presenters had to submit their text and register by Oct. 15, and the remarks became part of the rulemaking record. Acting Chairman Peter Feldman framed the battery proposal in a June 22 statement that cited thermal runaway, fires and explosions, and voiced concern about persistent quality and compliance problems with imported batteries. PeopleForBikes told the commission it supports stronger battery standards but urged the agency to gather more supporting data and adopt existing UL standards without modification.

Other witnesses at the hearing included the National Bicycle Dealers Association, whose executive director, Heather Mason, said the group strongly supports mandatory federal standards for lithium-ion batteries and electrical systems and backs standards built on UL 2849. UL Solutions, Consumer Reports and the International Association of Fire Chiefs also testified, according to Bicycle Retailer.

Bicycle Retailer also placed the testimony against a state-level backdrop. New Jersey enacted a law in January 2026 requiring licenses, registration and insurance for e-bike riders, which took effect in June, and the dealers’ association and a consulting group told the publication that it has led dozens of New Jersey bike shops to close. For an industry already absorbing rules written with fast, heavy machines in mind, a federal line between bicycles and e-motos is a way to keep the next round of regulation from landing on the shops that sell pedal-assist bikes to commuters and families.

Earlier PeopleForBikes comments and what remains open

The e-moto concern is not new for the group. In a May 2024 comment on the commission’s advance notice of proposed rulemaking, which asked about mechanical hazards, regulatory alternatives, economic impacts and whether voluntary standards are adequate, PeopleForBikes already flagged mobility products marketed as e-bikes that sit outside the federal definition, along with the three-class e-bike system and international harmonization. What the commission will do is unsettled. Neither the hearing notice nor Feldman’s statement commits the agency to a separate e-moto definition, and the battery standard itself is still a proposal. Electrek’s June reporting on how the proposed rule could change e-bikes in the United States shows how much depends on the final text.

This article was produced with the assistance of AI and reviewed by Morning Overview editors prior to publication.

Save more, waste less: Subscribe to The Cool Down →

We may earn a commission if you sign up.