California AB 1774 Bans E-Bike Speed Mod Kits

This "article" has the hallmarks of badly-written AI slop. It is wrong that the law prohibits all speed modifications, it is wrong that an out-of-spec ebike automatically becomes a motor vehicle, it is wrong that modifying ebikes became illegal starting with this bill.

AB 1774 is quite simple, in that it added a blurb to an existing paragraph and added a new paragraph. This is the entirety of the operative changes, with the new stuff in bold:

(d) A person shall not tamper with or modify an electric bicycle described in subdivision (a) of Section 312.5 so as to change the speed capability of the bicycle, unless the bicycle continues to meet the definition of an electric bicycle under subdivision (a) of Section 312.5 and the person appropriately replaces the label indicating the classification required in subdivision (c) of Section 312.5.

(e) A person shall not sell a product or device that can modify the speed capability of an electric bicycle such that it no longer meets the definition of an electric bicycle under subdivision (a) of Section 312.5.

At large, it was already illegal for an end-user to modify their ebike beyond its classification. If they do and introduce the bike to a public road, the act of modification is an infraction, punishable by a fine. If a rider is pulled over for an out-of-spec ebike, the charge depends on whether this two-wheeler could fall into the "moped" category (which isn't legally a motor vehicle) or if it would be a motorcycle, which is definitely a motor vehicle.

Not having moped plates -- probably an infraction, plus maybe DMV late fees -- will be a lot less bad than failure to register a motorcycle, failure to keep proof of insurance, riding without a license, and so many other charges.

Before this law applied, the existing law could punish end-users caught riding, and could punish vendors that sold out-of-spec ebikes. But the law couldn't punish the vendors of devices solely designed to allow such modifications. So they changed the law to do exactly that. Today, any device that is sold for that explicit purpose, and is capable of taking a lawful ebike beyond the three-claas system, cannot be sold in California, with penalties on the seller.

Caveat: this new law is unclear on "multi use" devices. What if the only device needed is a UART to USB interface? This law only bans hardware, so wouldn't prohibit open-source software that writes commands to "unlock" an ebike to overspeed.

Caveat: a device is banned if it has any possibility of exceeding the three-class system. If the device can allow raising the speed above 28 MPH (45 kph), that is automatically banned. That is to say, a lawful device must stop after modifying an ebike to the max specs of class 3.

Caveat: the sale of modification devices is illegal, but not giving away or building such devices. FOSS hardware may one day exist to do this, and a tinkerer could legally build their own. Of course, actually doing the modification is still illegal per the older laws. But the point stands that only the for-money trade of these devices is what's prohibited, not their possession.

The article mentions none of this, and seems to have been generated by an LLM seeking to summarize the entire section CVC 24016, most of which is unchanged.

4 comments

This "article" has the hallmarks of badly-written AI slop. It is wrong that the law prohibits all speed modifications, it is wrong that an out-of-spec ebike automatically becomes a motor vehicle, it is wrong that modifying ebikes became illegal starting with this bill.
AB 1774 is quite simple, in that it added a blurb to an existing paragraph and added a new paragraph. This is the entirety of the operative changes, with the new stuff in bold:
(d) A person shall not tamper with or modify an electric bicycle described in subdivision (a) of Section 312.5 so as to change the speed capability of the bicycle, unless the bicycle continues to meet the definition of an electric bicycle under subdivision (a) of Section 312.5 and the person appropriately replaces the label indicating the classification required in subdivision (c) of Section 312.5.
(e) A person shall not sell a product or device that can modify the speed capability of an electric bicycle such that it no longer meets the definition of an electric bicycle under subdivision (a) of Section 312.5.
At large, it was already illegal for an end-user to modify their ebike beyond its classification. If they do and introduce the bike to a public road, the act of modification is an infraction, punishable by a fine. If a rider is pulled over for an out-of-spec ebike, the charge depends on whether this two-wheeler could fall into the "moped" category (which isn't legally a motor vehicle) or if it would be a motorcycle, which is definitely a motor vehicle.
Not having moped plates -- probably an infraction, plus maybe DMV late fees -- will be a lot less bad than failure to register a motorcycle, failure to keep proof of insurance, riding without a license, and so many other charges.
Before this law applied, the existing law could punish end-users caught riding, and could punish vendors that sold out-of-spec ebikes. But the law couldn't punish the vendors of devices solely designed to allow such modifications. So they changed the law to do exactly that. Today, any device that is sold for that explicit purpose, and is capable of taking a lawful ebike beyond the three-claas system, cannot be sold in California, with penalties on the seller.
Caveat: this new law is unclear on "multi use" devices. What if the only device needed is a UART to USB interface? This law only bans hardware, so wouldn't prohibit open-source software that writes commands to "unlock" an ebike to overspeed.
Caveat: a device is banned if it has any possibility of exceeding the three-class system. If the device can allow raising the speed above 28 MPH (45 kph), that is automatically banned. That is to say, a lawful device must stop after modifying an ebike to the max specs of class 3.
Caveat: the sale of modification devices is illegal, but not giving away or building such devices. FOSS hardware may one day exist to do this, and a tinkerer could legally build their own. Of course, actually doing the modification is still illegal per the older laws. But the point stands that only the for-money trade of these devices is what's prohibited, not their possession.
The article mentions none of this, and seems to have been generated by an LLM seeking to summarize the entire section CVC 24016, most of which is unchanged.
- In fairness, you (or I) are not paying for this "AI slop". IMO it's unrealistic in 2025 to expect a professional journalist to materialize and somehow produce, for peanuts of online ad revenue, an article of better quality than this. Especially given that it's based on legal smallprint, which is an ideal use case for AI.
  Perhaps next time the AI will incorporate your useful caveats and return something less sloppy.
  
  Fairness? Journalism? Did we read different articles?
  The link in question is for a blog post on the website of a law firm specializing in bicycle injuries. The entire point of every single article is to frame every bicycle-related current event to fit the byline: "Don’t try to navigate the aftermath of a crash alone. Contact
  <our law firm>
  today for a free, no-pressure consultation"
  There is no ad revenue because the blog posts are the ads. And being a law firm, they should know better than to irresponsibly use generated content without vetting it.
  No, law is definitely not a "best use case" for AI and this is definitely not exemplar of that notion. And even if it were, slop has zero value to the reader, because if they couldn't be bothered to write it, I and everyone shouldn't be bothered to read it.