Assembly Transportation Committee

Try one more time. Hold on. There we go. All right. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I want to start by thanking the committee and committee staff for working on this issue with our office. AB 1614 is a common sense measure that prohibits piggybacking on bikes and e-bikes on a Class 1 bikeway. SB 527 from 2009, Mr. Kehoe, prohibited a person from operating a bicycle on a highway if that person was riding other than upon or astride a permanent and regular seat attached to the bicycle, unless the bicycle was designed by the manufacturer to be ridden without a seat. Existing law also prohibits the operator of a bike from allowing another person to ride as a passenger on a highway unless there is a separate seat attached. However, under existing law, this prohibition is currently limited to a highway and does not apply to bicycles ridden on a Class 1 bikeway. The increased speed and accessibility of e-bikes have consistently led to higher rates of injury, with an increasing number of injuries occurring when riders piggyback. With multiple riders, the driver can be more easily distracted and or lose control, causing serious injuries such as multiple open long bone fractures, concussions, and brain bleeds to all riders. Sadly, many of these injuries are life-changing. Rady Children's Hospital in San Diego has created a bike safety program as a result of the overwhelming number of e-bike-related injuries, including those due to multiple passengers on a single bike. They advise riders to, quote, never share the seat with a friend or ride on the handlebars. Only one person should be on a bike at a time. It's easy to lose balance or suddenly swerve into traffic when riding with a passenger, end quote. Additionally, e-bike frames and braking systems are manufactured to support a certain amount of weight. By adding a second rider, the structural and mechanical integrity of the bike can be compromised. AB 1614 creates consistency with existing law and improves the safety of all riders, pedestrians, and drivers. The bill is sponsored by the California Orthopedic Association and has received support from the California Association of Bicycling Organizations the Automobile Club of Southern California Automobile Club of Northern California Nevada and Utah the City of Newport Beach the City of Irvine the City of Carlsbad the City of Los Alamitos City of Laguna de Gale City of Huntington Beach Town of Hillsborough the League of California Cities With me today I have Ryan Spencer on behalf of the bill sponsors the California Orthopedic Association and Dr Francois Lalonde of Rady Children Hospital pediatric orthopedic surgeon in Orange County. Thank you.

Good afternoon. As stated, I'm Dr. Francois Lalonde. I'm a pediatric orthopedic surgeon at Rady Children's Hospital in Orange County, which is a busy Level 1 trauma center. And just a few words briefly. This year, we had the unfortunate event of piggybacker dying at the scene, and the driver was severely injured. So we're seeing firsthand, you know, the major trauma and life-altering events that can happen. We feel that there's other factors that are beyond what's been discussed, including this could be a last-minute decision for the piggyback rider to ride, you know, on the bicycle. They may not have a helmet. They may not have a bike of their own. They may not be aware of the speeds that these bikes go. They're not, you know, in a good position on a bicycle to brace themselves. There's an impact. This was an e-bike versus a car accident at high speed. and they often will get launched well beyond the bicycle because they're not aware of what's going on on the road in front of them. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Carlin Shelby on behalf of the cities of Irvine, Danville, Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, and San Ramon. Very strong support. Thank you.

I read it up the town on behalf of triple a Northern California and support. Madam chair members,

Angela Hill with the California medical association and support. Thank you.

Now I'm on. Good afternoon, chair and members. Jeannie Ward-Waller representing People for Bikes. Apologies for our late letter, and thank you for hearing the bill. People for Bikes is the national advocate and trade association for U.S. manufacturers, suppliers, and distributors of bicycle products, including low-speed electric bikes. While we share the goal of improving safety for all PATH users, we are concerned that AB 1614 unnecessarily expands existing bicycle operation requirements to Class I trails in a way that could risk creating new barriers to safe and accessible riding. By prohibiting common low-risk behaviors, the bill could criminalize everyday use, particularly among youth, families, lower-income riders who rely on bicycles for transportation and recreation. We don't believe these changes will meaningfully improve safety outcomes and instead could increase the likelihood of unnecessary law enforcement interactions on shared paths California has been a national leader in promoting bicycling as a safe practical and inclusive mode of transportation and we worry that AB 1614 runs counter to those goals So we urge a no vote on AB 1614.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just listening to this, I live, you know, my district is South Orange County in North San Diego, and I would say this is probably the number one topic if I ask anyone in any community. and I can tell you that I've watched kids with three people, three kids on a bike before, and probably under the age of 10. And I'm just a little concerned about how it would actually affect, because to me, if you have one rider, that's one less injury you're having. And so to me, that would be a safer route. And again, they aren't aware. They're underage. And I can tell you that a lot of the parents don't even know how fast these bikes go. So that's really, for me, it's education, and I know we're trying to bring parents into education, but I think this is a really good start, and I would ask to – I'm going to support it, and I would ask to be co-author on it.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Matt Broad here on behalf of Teamsters California. Yeah, just wanted to say we're in strong support of AB2193. It's a common sense measure that creates and restores parity. What goes for human beings should go for autonomous vehicle. A couple of years ago, there was a bill by former Assemblymember Ting, AB1777, that dealt with the issue of how do we properly enforce against autonomous vehicles. And that bill kind of came up with a notice of noncompliance that police officers could assign to a vehicle, an AV, that made a mistake. We thought at the time continue to think that that was a mistake and that no police officer in their right mind was going to take the time to do a notice of noncompliance if there was no financial penalty there. And so I think that bill takes us – this bill takes us back to sort of restore that issue. and going forward, the only thing I think that can make this bill even better is just thinking about the issue of compounding penalties. So for example, when a Teamster member or myself or any of you get multiple tickets, you can have points on your license, which can affect your ability to have a license in the long term. I think there's probably some wisdom in thinking about that for an autonomous vehicle manufacturer where you may not have the same driver, but you have the software system malfunctioning across multiple vehicles. And with that, I think this bill is a great start, and we're happy to support it. Thank you.

Thank you. Now moving on to members of the public who would like to add on their support, name, affiliation, and position, please. Oh, wait. Let's get the mic turned on.

Thank you. Now moving on to opposition. We don't have any registered on file, but I would like to give an opportunity for members of the public who would like to note their opposition to this bill to please come forward. Now would be an appropriate time to do so with your name, affiliation, and position. Seeing none, moving now to members of the committee. Are there any comments, questions, or concerns? All right. Seeing none, just noting we are still operating as a subcommittee, so encouraging members of this committee to report to duty so we can establish a quorum. With that, I'd like to thank you, Assemblymember, for bringing this forward and accepting the committee amendments. I, too, was concerned when AB 1777 was amended to only require a notice of noncompliance to be issued to an AV company and that penalties associated with such notice were unspecified. And so I appreciate your work to clear up when an AV company should be held criminally liable under our vehicle code. And thank you once again for working with the committee to be able to get the language right. And so I'm supporting your bill today and at an appropriate time we'll ask for a motion and a second, but I will give you an opportunity to close. I really appreciate your comment and I want to thank all the committee staff for working with our office. And I continue to continue to work on this issue to address all the concerns that you may have in the future. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you so much. All right. With that, we will moving on to the next author who is present. And so we're moving on to item number eight, AB 2629, and that is Chen. You, Assemblymember, you can begin at your convenience. Okay. Make sure you turn that mic on. Will do, Madam Chair. Thank you so much for your time, and I want to thank your staff for their extensive work on this bill. They did an incredible job. AB 2629 will prohibit business partners that provide online vehicle registration services from charging excessive fees for the same services offered directly by the DMV by establishing a reasonable cap to prevent Californians from being price gouged. The Business Partner Automation Program authorizes DMV to contract private business partners to provide electronic registration and titling services to process registrations for the public, along with several other vehicle-related interactions. Currently, many partners impersonate the DMV website and use fine print disclosures to clarify their affiliation. With these unclear disclosure permitting throughout BPA business partners, registration services website, Californians pay excessive fees for registration services that can be found on the DMV website at no additional cost. As there is no cap on what these businesses partners can charge, many do have exorbitant hidden fees that price gouged customers and cost Californians billions of dollars in unnecessary fees. our bill would prohibit business partners that handle online and vehicle registration services from charging more than 5% above the fees that DMV charges for the same service. Our bill is narrow in scope and helps protect consumers from being tricked into paying more than is necessary I very happy to have with us today people who testify Mr Har Robert Harrell here on behalf of the Consumer Federation of California and Aline Peterson, also a consumer.

Thank you.

Thank you. I'm now looking for any members of the public who would like to also lend their support to this bill. Now would be an appropriate time to come forward with name, affiliation, and position. Seeing none, we'll move on to opposition testimony. As I understand it, we do have registered opposition.

GOOD AFTERNOON MADAM CHAIR AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS MY NAME IS BRANDON BURNT I the CEO of CarRegistration a family business in Elk Grove California with dozens of employees We respectfully oppose AB 2629. At its core, the bill imposes a strict 5% cap on additional fees that licensed registration service providers can charge for services also offered by the DMV. While that may sound reasonable on paper, in practice it would fundamentally undermine the business partner automation program. Private partners like us do far more process than process simple DMV transactions. We help Californians navigate complex, time-consuming, and often confusing situations every day. That includes out-of-state transfers with missing documentation, registration holds tied to compliance issues, title corrections, and other transactions that often require multiple steps and significant guidance. In many cases, our customers are not just looking for a transaction. They're looking for help. They want to speak with someone, walk through the issue, and get it resolved correctly. That is especially true for elderly Californians and others who cannot easily spend hours waiting in line or making repeated trips to the field offices. This is an important point. The problem that this bill is trying to address is exactly the kind of gap our services help solve. But at these rates, it's simply not economically workable to operate a California business that provides that level of support, staffing, compliance oversight, customer care, regardless of whether the transaction begins online. Our company alone averages over 3,000 calls per month. Over time, we have served millions of Californians and completed millions of transactions with only a very small number of complaints. That record reflects the value of service we provide and the trust customers place in us. We have also generated more than $16 million in revenue for the DMV, and a portion of those funds support DMV system improvements. So this is not a system we are taking from. It is a system we are helping sustain. The policy issue here is straightforward. This bill reduces service capacity without reducing demand. It weakens a proven public-private partnership with replacing the value that partnerships provide. The real-world impact will be fewer service options for Californians, more pressure on DMV field offices, longer waiter times, and greater frustration in the public. It also puts California jobs and small businesses at risk. This is not just about convenience. It's about access, efficiency, and preserving a working system that serves millions of Californians. And for this reason, we respectfully urge a no vote on AB 2629. Okay, thank you. You gave a little extra time because I did give the gentleman 16 seconds. You got 18 seconds beyond two minutes, so we were trying to be fair. With that, I'm going to look to members of the audience who would like to register their opposition as well. Name, affiliation, and position. Hi, good afternoon, Chair and Members. I'm Meg Snyder with Axiom Advisors here on behalf of ETAGs. Align our comments with Samba in opposition. Thank you. Thank you. Before I come to committee for questions, comments, and concerns, we now have a quorum. Thank you, Assemblymember Papin. All right. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. Wilson. Here. Wilson here. Davies. Here. Davies here. Aguiar Currie. Aguiar Currie present. Aarons. Carrillo. Carrillo present. Harabedian Hart Hoover Jackson Jackson here Lackey Macedo happen happen here Ransom Ransom here Rogers Rogers here Sharpe Collins Sharpe Collins here Ward all right we have a quorum with that I'm bringing it back to committee for any questions comments or concerns on this bill Assemblymember Ransom.

And I can answer that for you, Assemblymember Chen. Excuse me. As was noted, this was in our committee last year was 1% and we amended it to 5%. I know I understand that, but I want to know, like, technically, I understand that we amended it to five, but how do we decide that five was a number that was appropriate to charge folks to do this particular service?

Assemblymember, thank you so much for the question. Like Madam Chair, I said early on one, as you said before, that this is a bill that we incorporated from Assemblymember Matt Haney. So that was part of the disclosure scheme process from one percent to five percent. I will say that discussions that we have currently in opposition is clearly specifically faced on the cap rate of what that percentage would be appropriate. And that right now is a discussion that is ongoing. Truth be told, I am confident that this is something that we can resolve as we move forward in the committee process. Additionally, I would also say that the bill has been amended to a point where it's specifically just for registration and loan, which means some of the concerns that the opposition had, be it issues with immigration or ICE or language, is severely diminished based on that. But also we'll defer to my witness testimony in terms of some of the percentage numbers for some more technical answering. If Mr. Robert Farrell would please answer that.

I understand that and I don't disagree with that. I'm just curious as to the 5%. And the reason for my question is sometimes people will choose that they want to not deal with DMV and also I've seen if your registration is late, there's sometimes that you cannot go through the DMV website and for convenience you may want to use another service But given that the registration amount declines from year to year as your value of your car changes et cetera so 5 when your car is brand new is going to be different than 5 when your car is older So I want to know how did we land on 5%?

Thank you. That's all I wanted to know. I appreciate that. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and colleagues. I am here to present Assembly Bill 2046. AB2046, AB2046 will expand consumer choice by providing Californians with more access to cleaner, more affordable fuel options. Californians, as we know, consistently pay more at the pump than drivers in other states. And families are continuing to face growing uncertainty as gas prices spike due to international conflicts and in-state refinery closures. AB 2046 allows E85, a fuel blend consisting of ethanol and gasoline, which is a less carbon-intensive fuel option and typically costs less per gallon than regular gasoline to be accessed by drivers. For many Californians, especially commuters like those in my district, using this fuel is a simple, practical way to save money. However, E85 is not accessible to many California drivers as California is currently the only state that prohibits the use of E85 conversion kits, which is a proven technology allowing vehicles to operate on E85 gasoline. AB 2046 would allow US EPA approved E85 conversion kits to operate within the state of California. In doing so, we will give families more flexibility at the pump instead of being locked into higher fuel cost options as they are today. With all of that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. And we have a couple of witnesses here to provide testimony. We have Alessandra Mayasco, the Senior Director of Government Affairs with the California Fuels and Convenience Alliance. And we have Mr. Jeff Wilkinson, the Manager of Government Policy and Regulatory Affairs at Pearson Fuels. And I'm going to turn it over to Alessandra.

Thank you, members and chair. Again, it's my pleasure to bring this bill. E85 is already available in California. We already have flex fuel vehicles in California. All throughout gas stations, you'll see the yellow gas pumps. And now more than ever, we need to make sure that Californians have alternatives to the high price of gasoline. So I'm really proud to bring AB 2046, which champions affordability at a time when Californians are feeling it the most. This is about common sense and affordability and solving the crisis and providing needed relief for families across California. So, again, thank you for all of the wonderful questions and the support. And with that, I ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair members. My name is Dr. Francois Lalonde. I'm a pediatric orthopedic surgeon from Rady Children's Hospital in Orange County, a level one trauma center, speaking in support of AB 2046 on behalf of the co-sponsors of the California Orthopedic Association and the California Medical Association. From a clinical perspective, we are seeing a sharp rise in serious, life-threatening e-bike injuries among children. At our Level 1 Trauma Centre, this is no longer occasional. We are treating more high-energy trauma than ever before in this population. In fact, e-bike injuries are now the number one cause of major trauma injuries presenting to our busy emergency department. These are not simple falls. These are high traumas open fractures multiple concurrent upper and lower extremity fractures per patient concussions brain bleeds severe facial trauma and multi injuries that can permanently alter a child life The key issue is the speed of the devices, combined with inexperience and lack of clear safety standards. We're also seeing particularly dangerous behavior where children are riding these e-bikes at high speed without helmets, without securing the chin strap, which significantly increases the risk of loss of control and severe injury to all riders. Furthermore, during the past few months, we have treated children with multiple injuries resulting from e-bike to e-bike collisions on paths and from e-bikes colliding with pedestrians at crosswalks. The data confirms what we are seeing in the operating room. At our recent annual National American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons meeting in March 2026 in New Orleans, it was reported there was a greater than 300% increase in e-bike accidents among kids between 2019 and 2023, with injuries often much more severe than traditional bicycle accidents. of increasing numbers of pediatric e-bike accidents continues to grow year to year. AB 2346 is a targeted, common-sense response. It establishes clear safety expectations around speed for our young children, equipment, and consumer awareness, while allowing local communities to adopt additional protections where needed. From a physician's standpoint, these are practical, preventive measures that directly address the root cause of these injuries we are treating every day. I respectfully urge your A vote. Thank you.

Ryan Spencer on behalf of the California Orthopedic Association, proud co-sponsors of the measure. Thank you.

Carlin Shelby on behalf of the cities of Irvine and Santa Barbara in strong support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Kelly McMillan on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics, California, and the Children's Specialty Care Coalition in support.

All right, we're now going to have opposition witnesses come forth, please. And again, two minutes each, please. Thank you. Good afternoon again, vice chair and members.

Thank you. Good afternoon, members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Kendra Ramsey. I'm the executive director of the California Bicycle Coalition. We are the voice of the everyday bicyclist in the state capitol. I will also say that I'm a proud owner of a class one legal e-bike, which I ride with my three-year-old almost every day. I want to echo Jeannie's comments on the difference between legal e-bikes and illegal e-motos and that being a big issue that's been discussed here today. I do appreciate the issue being safety with this bill. However, we do also have the position of oppose unless amended. The issue that CalBike chiefly has with the bill at the moment is that establishing a speed limit for people riding bicycles based on age can be highly problematic. Establishing a speed limit for people riding bicycles, firstly, is unnecessary because people riding bicycles do have to follow posted speed limits. And establishing a speed limit based on age can create problematic conditions for children who could be subject to interactions with police that are unnecessary and potentially unwarranted based on their physical appearance. We all know that it can be very difficult to tell how old a child or an adult is based on how they look, and our children may be having interactions with police based on how they are potentially riding their bicycle based on how they look. And in some communities, this may cause interactions with police that could be detrimental. So that is a big concern that we have. We do appreciate some previous amendments to the bill that alleviated our other concerns, so really appreciate that work. We also, you know, do want to state that while these crashes involving children are tragic and we would like to see them prevented, we do know that the recently released legislatively requested study on safety for e-bikes did not find that there's evidence that there are. There is a higher likelihood of children to be involved in e-bike collisions. It is actually more likely for adults to be involved and that we would really like to see this component of speed limits to be removed Thank you very much for your time All right Thank you We're going to move it to public testimony. Me too. In opposition. Vice Chair, a bit of a tweener position. Mark Vuksovich on behalf of Streets for All. We have some concerns that persist on the ability of the rider to comply with some provisions of the bill and some concerns about the effects on small businesses with the fine penalty, but are really supportive of the light and speedometer requirements. And I think the amendments have moved the direction of the bill in a really supportive and positive direction. So thank you. We're going to close public testimony and move this over to comments from our members. Assemblymember Ahrens. Oh, no? I just wanted to – Go ahead, Assemblymember. I wanted to see if the author would be able to respond to the comments about how speed limits based on age can be a problem for children, but then also now going into the racial profiling conversation. So I just wanted to hear from the sponsor and from the assembly member in regards to what opposition is bringing forth. AMY GOODMAN, Okay, thank you for that question. And I appreciate the concern brought up from opposition in regard to that. You know, I'm chair emeritus for the Black Caucus. And one of the things that we've talked about quite a bit in the Black Caucus is criminal justice reform and recognizing that there's a lot to do in this space and recognizing our interactions, especially for people of color with police, have not been positive. that whether it's riding a bicycle, walking down the street, being in a car, you can be pulled over for all kind of random reasons, whether law—you know, related to breaking the law or not. And so that's always top of mind and concern to me. At the same time, we have to balance safety. And at the same time, we have to balance accountability, where if you're doing something wrong, then the police should be interacting with you. And then we have to do a better job of training our police to be sure that they can be effective in all situations and treat people fairly in all situations, no matter what they look like, how they're dressed, the color of their skin, that they can say this person is doing something they shouldn't be doing just because they're not—not should be doing that, not something that's some outside characteristics. And so we've been really mindful of that in the Black Caucus and doing that in a balanced and fair way. And so as I look through this bill, I consider us doing the same thing of being fair and balanced and recognizing that children of a certain age should not be driving or riding in legal motorcycle—I mean motorcycles—legal electric vehicles or electric bicycles beyond 15 miles per hour. They couldn't do it in a regular bicycle. And if they get to those speeds, it's very dangerous. And you reminder, these children don't know the rules of the roads. They're not required to. Right. And so we want to make sure they're doing it in a safe way. I'll look to our police chief to talk about those types of interactions and the work that I know the Police Chiefs Association has done to try to reduce racial profiling. Thank you for the question. I think I would acknowledge that enforcement related to this bill might not be absolutely perfect, but I do believe that age-based restrictions are common in traffic safety. We see them in helmet laws and in other areas. And they can serve an important deterrent and educational function. And the intent is not to constantly go out and issue citations here. It's to establish safer operations. norms for younger riders who may lack the experience in that judgment. And we support kind of pairing this provision with some of the other elements of the bill, the speedometer and the lighting and the public education, which would hopefully direct and point towards compliance and improve clarity. And I'll note through the vice chair, there are a number, as was noted from the testimony, There are a number of e-bike bills or legislation this year, and I would look at this bill as in the concert of all of those as a comprehensive package. There was another note from opposition that I just want to clarify, and it was that it was more likely for adults to be involved in an alter or incident than children. And I don't believe that to be true. And so I want to give an opportunity, if the vice chair will allow, for Dr. Lalonde to address that. Certainly. Please go ahead. Thank you. For those on the front lines, there's a disconnect with that comment as well. I think we have presented the statistics from the AOS, American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, 300% increase from 2019 to 2023. And it's our number one cause of trauma, major trauma at our level one trauma center out in Orange County. If you talk to policemen, EMT, those of us that are on the front lines, there's a disconnect with that comment. And I would challenge that comment because we're seeing the opposite. We're seeing it's the kids that are coming in and just increasing month after month, year after year. Okay. Thank you. Let's let me remember Pappen. Hi. Okay. Well, thank you all so much for your testimony and the efforts here. My question – I have a question and comment. So the question relates to the disclosure requirements. What is the medium by which those have to occur? Is it in writing? And if it's in writing, is it through something that's on a sheet of paper or does it come electronically? What are you envisioning? So I believe it's in writing at the purchase of the bill. I mean purchase of the bill, purchase of the bike along with the bike. Is it on a piece of paper? Yes, I believe so. And I think it can reference a place to look at it electronically, like how you currently can see when you get your warranty. You can see that, but there might be a reference to an electronic place where it's more detail and additional information. I believe we allow that. And when do you anticipate that to take effect, the requiring of the disclosures? I believe at the time of the bill. I don't think there's a delay. If I remember, there's not a delay on this. And so at the time, January 1, 2027. Okay. Yeah, I didn't see one. And that will be. those will be law-specific at that moment in time, fair to say. In other words, they could be peculiar to California and no other state. Right. Okay. Yes. And that's fine. I don't have an issue with it. I needed some clarification. So as you know, I have an e-bike bill, and I thank the doctor for his testimony, and I would add, you know, it certainly amplifies or illustrates the urgency. I would add that children are dying in my community. Okay. I happen to come from a community where there's lots of tech, lots of tech money. Orange County is probably not a whole lot different. And they're early adopters of electric devices. And their kids are riding in ways that would blow your mind. So it is amplified in my community. The bill is timely. Yes, we have a lot of bills in the legislature. and I just cannot emphasize enough the urgency that is out there. And I recognize that the opposition may want some consistency My community cannot wait Cannot wait End of story Assemblymember Hoover. Thank you. So a few questions. I'm going to start with the opposition, if I could. Just a couple, I guess, technical questions. Are there traditional bikes that can go over 20 miles an hour? at this point or is that some speeds that we do see on on on roads you're talking about traditional pedal yeah just don't have motors yes certainly yeah especially think of going downhill or sure sure um and then just according to your understanding of the bill do these speed limits that are proposed in the bill uh that could be imposed at the 20 mile per hour limit apply to all bikes or just e-bikes on under the current language and i guess i could ask you or the author of that, but yeah. I don't have the bill in front of me. I believe e-bikes. I don't know if you have. Can you repeat the question? I was referencing something that was noted earlier. So the speed limit provisions, not the sidewalk, but the local government limits that could be imposed, are they, let's see what's. So the, if you look at section two. Do they apply to all bikes or just e-bikes? Sorry. It applies to all bikes. It's on a bicycle path. And so it applies to all bikes. It says a local authority may set a speed limit on a bicycle path of 15 or 20 miles per hour, subject to subdivision C. And then it talks about some restrictions around certain zones and things of that nature. And then for a multi-use trail, 10, 15, or 20 miles per hour. Okay. And under current law, how does this differ from current law? So current law, they can go the speed limit of the road? Is that obviously a trail, Multi-use trail would be different. But if I recall correctly, current law, there's no speed limit at all on a bicycle path. So you can go as fast as you – your legs can take you or your motor can take you. Sure. OK. And that's to the opposition's point. That's a legal bike or e-moto. Right. Which is not a legal bike. OK. For this testimony. So, yeah. So just looking here, I mean, I will say I have some concerns. There's a lot in this bill that I like. that I think, you know, I think over time you might be able to get me there on the speedometers and the, you know, bike manufacturer requirements. I do think that some of that's a little broad, but I do understand the purpose behind that. And I do think in some ways retailers and manufacturers need to have a little more responsibility when it comes to e-bike usage in California. 100% agree with you on the 10-mile-per-hour on sidewalks and the prohibiting kids under 16 from riding certain levels of e-bikes. I think where I'm really struggling is this 20-mile-per-hour speed limit on a bike path, which potentially could be on a road, right? I mean, the slowest speed limit on most roads in California are 25 miles per hour. I imagine there's a lot of bicyclists that are going above 20 miles per hour without an e-bike. And so I guess my question is, why 20 miles per hour? And is there any— Can you clarify? Did you say that because you can go 20 miles per hour on a road? Are you concerned about a limit on a road? Correct. 20 miles per hour seems very slow to me It only on a bicycle path or a multi path that they are allowed to set this limit Remember you giving the authority for the locals to set the limit Otherwise, there's no limit. Right. Correct. But I'm saying when we're saying a bicycle path, right, we're talking about a bicycle path connected to a roadway. Am I? No. No. You're talking about a bike lane? Okay. So that is where the challenge is then. Okay. So you're saying – so these would all be non-road bike? I think versions of sidewalks. Okay. So with that in mind, so you're saying – so bike lanes would continue to be operated by the road rules of the road. Yes. Is that a correct interpretation of your bill? Not touching biking lanes. Okay. So on the road – so a biking lane is a part of the road, so we are not touching the road. Okay. So if you go to off the road and you're on a version of a sidewalk or – and when I say sidewalk, it could be concrete or gravel, but – so a designated bicycle path or a multi-use path. Multi-use trail. Yes, a multi-use trail. Those separate, distinct things from a road, then that's what we're talking about. So essentially under your bill – and sorry, apologies because I do want – this is helping clarify things for me. essentially a local government could set a speed limit for any bike at as low as 10 miles per hour on a multi-use trail is that am i reading that correctly yes a sidewalk is a multi-use trail or a bike path yes a bike's path but if it's a bike path it's 15 or 20 so not the low 10 miles So we have – so I live in Sassoon City. Along Highway 12, we have a trail that's pretty wide enough. I'm trying to remember the class now that it is. But it's a Marsh Creek Trail. So that is considered a multi-use trail. So that could go down in 10. And you see regularly seniors on it, mothers and fathers, but families pushing strollers, people walking their dogs. And so in theory, Sassoon City could say on that trail that's regularly used by all those people that you could only go 10 miles per hour. Okay. Or they cannot do anything at all. Correct. What is the fastest legal e-bike at this point? I mean I don't know if there is a limit, but I know there's a distinction between illegal and legal. 750 watts. So a level 3 e-bike is 28 miles per hour, okay? Okay. And then you'll be riding on this. You can do the exercise yourself. You can be in your car at 40 miles per hour, and there's an e-bike passing you or traveling in the same – that e-motor. I like that terminology. So that would be an illegal. Correct. But right now it's muddied. You know, like you don't know – as physicians and surgeons, we don't know which families are allowing their kids to be on e-bikes in the classes, which we respect, or e-motors. We're seeing a lot of e-motors injuries. Which are not legal. Correct. Which are not legal. Yeah. But if you they've done audits and I wish I could remember which school it was that we were just talking about recently, but they've done audits at bikes at schools. And the majority of the bikes were illegal bikes, not even allowed in California. Ninety percent. Ninety. It was in San Mateo County and Marin County. That's a bunch of schools, middle school. Assemblymember Pappins District. Why? She's talking about the urgency of this and other bills, including hers. Yeah. So and I and I actually agree with the urgency. We're having similar challenges in my district. I think my challenge is sort of this distinction, right, between legal and illegal, because to me, 28 miles per hour is not very fast, especially on a bike. Go ahead Sorry I just want to echo what we seen recently because the further you go along this you know e history uh reminding you that we seen e hit e on trails and the e-bike taking off like a hit and run we've seen e-bike hitting pedestrians at crosswalks so that's why i think this is important because i think like the strollers and the elderly people they're they're starting to get hit by these e-motors yeah well and and that's why i say i do fully support the, you know, provision relating to sidewalks specifically. I think that's an important provision. Um, I think my challenge is typically on these trails that are more designed for, uh, you know, bicycles, for example, right. Where, um, and then, and then again, you know, requiring 16 year olds and younger from using these 28 mile per hour bikes, absolutely. But to me, when you're on a bicycle, you're going 28 miles per hour at the max. Um, you know, that's, that's not, that's not really much faster than you can go on a traditional bike. if you're going downhill. So I think that's where I'm struggling with. It's particularly these provisions relating to the bike pass and the multi-use trails. I'll try to keep an open mind as the bill moves forward. Not sure where I'm going to be at today, but I do think that there's a lot in here that needs to happen. And so I am hopeful that we're able to, you know, come to some sort of agreement on that. And I'll keep an eye on the bill. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Member Ransom Thank you Thank you Madam Chair for bringing this bill I'll try not to be redundant to things that have already been said I think what stands out to me Is the importance that we have to Share the sidewalks and share And folks that are on these bicycles Or you know whether they're E-bikes or regular bikes have to share And we need to make sure that It's safe so that's what I appreciate Most about this bill especially since We could not have known years ago the technology would get us here today, but now we're starting to see just, you know, these bikes are everywhere. The e-bikes, the kids get together. They kind of do street takeovers in my community where they like literally won't even let the cars go by. And they're going really fast, but, and I appreciate that. So we do need to figure out a way that we can all coexist together. I also want to just point out, I guess, the difference versus a distinction when we're talking about the e-moto versus the e-bikes, I really feel like this gives us an opportunity to catch the folks who are on the illegal bikes because we do have the opportunity to put a safety regulation as far as the speed limit on there. And if it happens to be a person on an e-moto versus an e-bike, well, now we've caught that person. We now have a better opportunity because we now have a standard for what we expect to see on our sidewalks, on our bike pathways, in any way that would endanger others. So I just want to say that I think this makes a lot of sense based on what we are experiencing, how we are experiencing e-bikes right now. This makes a lot of sense for the safety of everyone. So thank you for bringing the bill. Thank you. I appreciate those comments and noting, you know, just want to pinpoint something you said about it being a shared pathway, whether it's a bicycle path or a multi-use path, it is a shared pathway. And so these are, we're giving the authority to the locals to be able to determine speed limits, and that has to go through a public process. So if a speed limit is not needed for that particular pathway, you would see an objection rise up from the people who live in that community that we don't need a speed limit there. But then where there is needed for a speed limit, the community would rise up and say there needs to be a speed limit. Because whether you're on a multi-use, where there's children and seniors and, you know, dogs and things like that, or a bicycle path, there are other bicycles that maybe aren't e-bikes, right? Right. We know that e-bikes can go faster, they're heavier, and so when they're involved in a collision, it could be pretty devastating, as the doctor has noted. Dr. Lamone? Sorry, Lamone. Just briefly, something was alluded by a chairperson, Wilson, is how heavy these bikes are. I just want the committee members to understand how heavy these bikes are. We're seeing injuries in three-year-olds where the bike is just parked at the beach and falls on the child or falls on your foot. Instead of having one fracture, there's like multiple. So these bikes are very heavy, let alone when they fall on you and when they hit you at high speeds. That's the member of Jackson. This is a very interesting time being in the legislature due to technology and how fast things are moving because we're in uncharted territory. And so it's kind of like we're trying to experiment with public policy as we're trying to keep up with technology and all the variations. Probably many of these parents have no clue whether these things are legal or illegal sometimes. All they know is my kid says, I want this one. But I also think that one of our biggest problems that I've noticed as a legislature is that we continue to make the perfect the enemy of the good and that we are seeing people dying. We're seeing children dying, particularly with whether they're legal or illegal. I would assume that they're a little bit of both. But not to do anything, I'm not sure if we can really say we're doing our job by doing nothing because it wasn't perfect enough. And I assume that we might need to make some changes. I was on my local traffic safety commission when I was just a, you know, volunteer in the community, and we had these type of local discussions. But what's good about this bill is that it gives locals, localities, those type of discussions to have because it may not be appropriate for us to try to make all of those because we don't know the particular trail. We don't know the particular park. We don't know the particular street, right? And so those are more localized. We're just giving local people the authority to make these decisions as they see fit to protect their children and their community. And so I would just want to make sure that we're setting the context a little bit more and making sure that we're not drifting off into different places. But the end of the day is when we see people being hurt, we have a job to try to find ways to do it. And for us to continue to try to find ways why we shouldn't do something when people are dying, I think we need to make sure that we're having a little bit more reflection on that. Thank you. I appreciate those comments. Thank you for bringing the bill forward. I've had quite a few people from the police and sheriffs come by and talk to me about this bill. I remember when I was running for a campaign, I had young kids asking me, what's my job? It was really easy. It's about safety. I have to take care of my community. I have to make sure it's safe. And it really worries me because I've seen these bikes I pull out of my car, out of the driveway. I've got all those little things that say a car is coming by. It doesn't tell me that I've got a young person on an e-bike flying by me. When people are on bicycles they think they more cautious because most people are at least in my neighborhood a lot of them are older But nevertheless is that what I have seen in the past couple months I feel sorry for the police officers because they don have a really clear direction on what is a correct motorbike or whatever. I really feel bad that this is all about education. You know, why people cannot follow the rules and know what it says, it drives me nuts. So when I have a young man right in my intersection, and without a blink of an eye, he ran it, and I missed him by inches because he's young. He doesn't know the rules. Oh, I'm invincible. So I really like the bill. I'm obviously going to support it. And I don't know. I wish that you could put urgency on it because we cannot wait much longer. Thank you. Appreciate those comments. Members, any more comments? I'd just like to finish up obviously dealing with the e-bikes when COVID came up that's basically when the bikes came up which was great the e-bikes, great family activity and so forth but like we said is the rules of the road and I can tell you on Saturday in one of the cities that I represent they had 200 kids basically took over the streets and these are streets where it's 50 miles an hour zigzagging back and forth and the danger is half of them not wearing helmets. And so, at least it is, you have technology. And unfortunately, with technology, we have to find out what it does, the good and the bad. And then we're always behind in trying to figure out how do we deal with public safety. So, I mean, I support this. And something I just want to bring up is with law enforcement, I think that's the other part we're missing is how can we help you? How are you supposed to enforce something when you don't know if a child's 16 or 13 or if that bike is going, you know, 30 miles an hour or 15 miles an hour? And you can't just pull them over. We've seen them. They take off. And so this also is such a parental responsibility. And we've got to get parents involved where I do know that some of the cities that we have, they have certifications where if the child's under 16, the parent has to be at that certification. It's not just a test where you can take online tests, which would be easy enough to cheat if you're just doing this. They're also having to do kind of a mobile test like we do when we drive. How do we help with that to be able to make you be able to actually enforce it? And we can't have separate groups coming out here. So I completely support the bill. We've got to start making parents responsible and finding the parents if their child isn't obeying the regulations, not to mention half these parents have never been on a bike before. They didn't even know how fast they went, which we found out with all the injuries. So I completely support this bill, but I would just like to say is how can we help? We need to get a statewide certification and make it to that point. Sounds good. I look to the – do you want to provide any comments? Absolutely. Thank you for the question. You guys are all right, and everyone's kind of touched on it. There's a significant amount of challenges. We're dealing with oftentimes 10-, 12-year-olds that simply just don't have the judgment. They don't understand the rules of the road. And what we're doing is we're being reactive, waiting for that irresponsible behavior. And then if we do do enforcement at that point, now we're hoping for compliance, and it creates a few other layers. And we spend a lot of time talking about legal e-bikes and e-motos, And then we haven't even really touched on the fact that oftentimes these legal e-bikes can be easily modified after watching a TikTok video or so And now they operating at a level that is unsafe yet again And so to answer your question I would say that anytime we can really point to equipment and this bill does that to a certain extent by working with our manufacturers and dialing back the capabilities of that technology, I think is a very safe and responsible way of trying to address this issue. All right. Thank you. Seeing no more questions, Assemblymember Hoover? Yes. What penalties does this allow for – what is the enforcement that this will change for law enforcement as a result of the bill? Well, on the – they can get cited for breaking the speed limit. It doesn't have a point on your record like a driver's license would, but you can be cited. And then there's a second provision related to the disclosure that Assemblywoman Pappen was asking about. There is a – and I think it was also noted from opposition, the penalty provision. For the manufacturers. Yes, and so they are required to have a disclosure, and then in the bill it talks about it being at least in 12.5, and it gives you the exact language that you have to stay. And if you don't disclose, then you could be liable to up to $15,000 charge as a manufacturer or retailer if you don't have that statement. But for law enforcement on the ground, how does this change from the status quo in terms of is it going to give you more tools? So you cannot currently cite is what you're saying under – The status quo. Go ahead. I mean, if it exceeds, well, go ahead. I'll just say that right now we have to treat e-bikes consistent with our traditional bicycles. And there's some challenges related to it. So this will further the needle in the right direction. More tools in the toolbox. Okay, got it. Thank you. All right. Seeing no more comments or questions, if you'd like to close. Thank you.

All right. We're going to go ahead and call roll. I'm sorry. Do I have a motion? So moved. Second. Thank you. AB 2346, the motion is due passed to the Judiciary Committee. Wilson? Wilson aye Davies Aye Davies aye Aguiar Aye Aguiar aye Ahrens Carrillo Harabedian Hart Hart, aye. Hoover, aye. Jackson, aye. Lackey, aye. Macito, aye. Pappin, aye. Ransom, aye. Rogers, Sharp-Collins, aye. Ward, Ward, aye. We have 12 votes. All right. That moves the bill. We'll go back on those that haven't been able to vote on the previous bills. Who are we missing? Who are we missing? All right, we're going to go to, we're going to do one pass through and wait a moment to do another pass through. But I wanted to make sure that members who've been here get a chance to leave out. And so we had five bills on our consent calendar. Madam Secretary, can you call the roll for the remaining members? Consent calendar. Ahrens? Yes. Ahrens, aye. Carabedian? Hart? Hart, aye. Hoover? Aye. Hoover, aye. Lackey? Aye. Lackey, aye. Macedo? Aye. Macedo, aye. Ward? Ward, aye. I have 15. That bill has 15 votes. We'll leave the wall open for members to add on. Going from the beginning for items heard in the committee today, file item 1, AB 1614, Dixon. AB 1614, the motion was due passed to the Appropriations Committee. Ahrens? Aye. Ahrens, aye. Harabedian? Hart? Hart? Hart, aye. Hoover? Hoover, aye. Lackey? Aye. Lackey, aye. Macedo? Macedo, aye. Ward? Ward, aye. That bill has 15 votes. We'll leave it open for members to be able to add on. File item number 5, AB 29, I'm sorry, 2193, Ta. AB 2193, the motion was due pass as amended to the Committee on Communications and Conveyance. Aarons? Aye. Aarons, aye. Parabedian? Hart? Hart, aye. Hoover? Hoover, aye. Lackey? Aye. Lackey, aye. Macedo? Macedo, aye. Ward? Ward, aye. All right. That bill has 15 votes. We'll hold it open for members to add on. Moving on to file item number eight, AB 2629, Chen. AB 2629, the motion do pass to appropriations. Arins? Aye. Arins, aye. Harabedian? Aye. Harabedian, aye. Hart? Hart, aye. Hoover? Hoover, aye. Lackey? Aye. Lackey, aye. Macedo? Macedo, aye. Ward? Ward, aye. Ransom, your vote. Changing from not voting to aye. That bill has 16 votes and is out, right? That's all of us. That bill has 16 votes and is out. Moving on to file item 9, ABT. 46 ransom a be 2046 the motion do pass to appropriations harabedian harabedian i heart heart i hoover hoover i lackey i lackey i macedo cito i rogers rogers ward ward i that's 15. that bill has 15 votes we'll hold it open for members to add on Moving on to file item 10, AB 2346, Wilson. AB 2346, do pass to the Judiciary Committee. Aarons. Aye. Aarons, aye. Carrillo. Carabedian. Aye. Carabedian, aye. Rogers. That bill has 14 votes. We'll hold the roll open for members to add on. Going back to the top, file item, I'm sorry, the consent calendar. There's five items. Madam Secretary? Harabedian. Harabedian, aye. That bill, those bills have 16 votes. It is now out of committee. Moving on to file item one, AB 1614, Dixon? Harabedian. Harabedian, aye. 16. That bill has 16 votes. It's now out of committee. Moving on to file item number five, AB2193, Ta. Harabedian. Harabedian, aye. That bill has now 16 votes. I think that goes, we have two members who are absent, and so we will check to see if they're returning before we close out the other bills. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you Thank you. All right, we're going to go ahead and call roll-up for AB 2046, ransom. File item 9, AB 2046. The motion is due past to appropriations. Rogers. Rogers, aye. All right, we're going to go to AB2346, Wilson. The motion was due passed to the Judiciary Committee. Carrillo? Rogers? Aye. Rogers, aye. 15. Thank you. Okay. Okay, great. That ends our session. Thank you. Thank you.