We seem to be entering the oddball territory of: throttle-only like a Class 2 ebike but no pedals like an e-scooter. Conceptually, this actually matches how lots of people are using micromobility today: hit the throttle, reach the speed governor, avoid death by inattentive motorists, and sail to their destination, with the only physical exertion being to balancing of the device.

I have no beef with that. The reason I say it’s an oddball is because of the legal situation. In California, the thing in the article thumbnail is a “motorized scooter” under CVC 21235, just like normal Lime scooters would be. The problem is that the laws here have grossly neutered scooters, when compared to bikes and ebikes.

Despite having larger wheels and a lower center of gravity, this Lime variant would still have the same 15 MPH (25 kph) speed limit. This is a hard limit, meaning that even if a scooter could whizz down a hill faster than this, it is prohibited. Bicycles and ebikes have a different criteria, which is that the motor cannot provide assistance above a certain speed, and so downhill bombing is legal on a bike but not on this almost, nearly-a-bike e-scooter. Weird.

Furthermore, e-scooters in California cannot make left turns. This is both absurd for this Lime scooter variant, and does not match what people actually do IRL. To be abundantly clear, this law requires e-scooter riders to dismount and cross the street on foot. Meanwhile, bikes and ebikes, motorcycles, and automobiles make left turns from the center of the road like normal traffic. And rollerbladers and skateboarders cross the street as pedestrians but can remain on their wheels. It’s only e-scooters that have this weird restriction.

What I’m getting at is that Lime has, rather sensibly, introduced a variant that matches what people want from micromobility. But in the rawest example of red tape, this would be legally neutered if brought to California, leading to the only practical options: 1) it just isn’t ever brought here, because its advantages cannot be legally utilized, or 2) Lime does it anyway and “hopes” that riders obey the (asinine) laws.

In a just world, we would pursue option 3: repeal or recast the e-scooter restrictions. Public policy is about making thoughtful tradeoffs, where something like personal, low-emission, readily-available, economically-viable transport should be encouraged, but needs to be regulated to prevent ER visits due to a mismatch of rider capability and motor power. I would rehash the 15 MPH limit to permit downhill running, and would abolish the left-turn prohibition (left turns still need to be executed safely).

Furthermore, I would recast Class 2 ebikes to include pedalless variants (which are currently considered the same as motorcycles) if the device is less than 20 kg. This would address the collision risk (less mass reduces third-party injuries) when operating at the now-higher 20 MPH (32 kph), also conveniently deals with clutter on sidewalks (because it should be easy to move rental scooters, which IMO should park in car spaces), and limits battery size in a way that us compatible with short-distance operations in urban spaces.

In this regime, a rental pedalless Class 2 in the city is a cross-city, one-seat mode of transport, whereas rental e-scooter remain useful for shuffling around a neighborhood or down a few blocks. For more range or more carrying ability, see the existing ebike categories.

TL;DR: California should make e-scooters law match reality, and create a weight-limited pedalless Class 2 ebike category

When does a “sit down scooter” become an e-bike? Or a motorcycle?