Editor's note: Larry Pizzi is co-chair of PeopleForBikes' e-bike subcommittee and CEO of Pedego. He wrote the following in response to Hans Rey's letter to the industry, which we published in our March issue and online earlier this month.
By Larry Pizzi
Hans Rey is right about one big thing: if we blur the line between bicycles and small motorcycles, especially on natural-surface trails, we risk losing hard‑won e‑MTB access and public trust. But the answer to that problem is not to freeze e‑bike development at an early template or to let a single use case, class-1 e‑MTBs on singletrack, define what the entire category is allowed to be.
Every fast‑growing industry eventually faces a choice: use standards as a floor for safety or as a fence around innovation. E‑bikes in the United States are there right now. Federal law defines a "low‑speed electric bicycle" as a two or three‑wheeled vehicle with fully operable pedals, an electric motor of less than 750 watts, and a maximum speed of under 20 mph on level ground under motor power alone with a 170‑pound rider. That definition was visionary for its time: It clarified that these products are consumer bicycles rather than motor vehicles and gave industry and regulators a shared baseline. But if we treat that early legal construct as the final word on what an e‑bike is allowed to be, we risk locking the category at its first generation, safe and familiar, but permanently short of its potential.
At the same time, we need to remember who stands to gain the most if we get this right. E‑bikes and adaptive e‑bikes are already proving to be powerful mobility tools for older adults and people with disabilities, offering new independence, longer trips, and the ability to stay engaged in their communities. They also expand access for immigrant and underserved communities, especially when paired with bike‑share, rebates, or community programs that lower cost barriers. Done thoughtfully, e‑bike policy is not just about sport or recreation; it's about equity and everyday freedom of movement.
What the Current U.S. Baseline Does Well (and Where It Doesn't)
The federal low‑speed definition did several important things:
- It gave manufacturers a clear national pathway to build and sell e‑bikes as bicycles, not motor vehicles.
- It encouraged early adoption by aligning e‑bikes with familiar bicycle safety expectations instead of full motor‑vehicle regulation.
Where it has fallen behind, and where Hans' letter only partly addresses the real challenge, is in at least three areas:
- It doesn't explicitly recognize today's diverse use cases, like higher‑speed commuting, heavy cargo, and family transport, or commercial utility bikes that remain safe but sit beyond the original low-power envelope.
- It doesn't clearly separate truly out‑of‑class stealth "e-moto" products from legitimate e‑bikes in law and in the marketplace, which is the grey zone Hans rightly worries about.
- It says nothing about the role of safe infrastructure, protected bike lanes, safer intersections, connected low‑stress networks, which we know are at least as important as how motor wattage is measured when it comes to preventing crashes and conflicts.
If we only tighten motor-wattage limits in response to Hans' concerns, without addressing classification, enforcement, rider behavior, and infrastructure, we will punish the entire category, including seniors, disabled riders, immigrant workers, and low‑income communities, while doing too little to address the bad actors he calls out.
Where I Agree With Hans
There is a lot in Hans's letter that deserves broad support.
- I agree that quietly escalating motor power and peak output in bikes marketed as class‑1 e‑MTBs is a problem, especially when it is used to skirt the spirit of access rules on natural-surface trails.
- I agree that stealth "e-moto" products, vehicles that ride like light motorcycles but are sold as bicycles, endanger trail access and public trust, and should not be lumped in with legitimate e‑bikes.
- I agree that the industry has a responsibility to use clear definitions, avoid misleading marketing, and support enforcement against products and practices that deliberately live in the grey zones he describes.
If we fail to address those issues, states, municipalities, law enforcement, and land managers will do it for us, and they are unlikely to draw the fine distinctions that responsible riders and brands would prefer.
Where I Think We Need a Broader Approach
Where I differ is in how far his framing reaches. Hans is looking at the problem primarily through the lens of e‑MTBs and singletrack access; I think we need to widen that frame.
- Most e‑bike trips are not on mountain‑bike trails. They're on streets, bike lanes, shared‑use paths, and neighborhood greenways, supporting commuting, errands, family transport, and commercial deliveries. A policy lens defined only by trail concerns will miss the needs of the majority of riders.
- The people who benefit most from e‑bikes, seniors, disabled riders, immigrant workers, and low‑income communities often rely on them as essential transport, not recreation. We cannot protect trail access at the expense of their mobility and opportunity.
- Safety depends heavily on context and infrastructure, not just motor wattage. Protected bike lanes, safer intersections, and connected low‑stress networks are at least as important to crash and injury risk as headline power numbers. Municipalities and states have to evolve infrastructure as quickly as we evolve products.
So yes, we should draw clearer lines between bicycles and small motorcycles, and we should support reasonable limits and strong etiquette for class‑1 e‑MTBs on natural‑surface trails. But we also need classifications, enforcement, and infrastructure that recognize the full spectrum of legitimate e‑bike use, not just what happens in the woods.
A Values‑Driven Call to Action
If we take Hans's concerns seriously and also look beyond the trailhead, a shared set of values emerges.
We should all be able to agree that safety is non‑negotiable for riders, pedestrians, and other trail and road users. That means clear classes, honest labeling, responsible product design, and real consequences for out‑of‑class, "e-moto" machines and reckless behavior. It also means investing in the infrastructure, education, and enforcement that make safe choices the easy, obvious choices in our cities, suburbs, and recreation areas.
We should also be able to agree that access matters. E‑bikes are not just tools for mountain biking; they are lifelines for older adults, people with disabilities, immigrant workers, and under‑resourced communities that have long been left behind by car‑centric planning. A future where trails are protected but streets remain dangerous, or where sport riders are accommodated while essential riders are constrained, would be a failure of imagination and responsibility.
Finally, we should agree that innovation, done right, is a feature, not a bug, of this category. We need new form factors, better batteries, smarter controls, and business models that make safe, legal e‑bikes more affordable and more available, not less. The job of policy and industry leadership is to channel that innovation toward outcomes we care about: fewer crashes, more complete trips without cars, healthier people, and more connected communities.
So my call to the industry, advocates, and policymakers is simple:
- Draw a hard line against stealth "e-motos" and dangerous behavior.
- Protect and manage trail access with clear rules and strong etiquette.
- At the same time, build a framework of standards, infrastructure, and support that recognizes e‑bikes as essential mobility for millions of people.
If we hold those values — safety, access, and innovation in balance — we can honor what Hans is trying to protect in the woods while also delivering on the full promise of e‑bikes in our cities and in the lives of riders who may never shred a single track trail.
Larry Pizzi is a senior executive in the e‑bike industry and an active participant in national policy and advocacy efforts, collaborating with brands, dealers, and organizations like PeopleForBikes to advance safe, innovative, and inclusive e‑bike use across the U.S.
