The New York City Council is gearing up for a marathon hearing on a suite of more than twenty micromobility bills. Lawmakers plan to convene this Wednesday in the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to debate measures that range from stricter enforcement against modified electric bikes to new liability mandates for food-delivery platforms. The proposals arrive at a moment when the city’s two-wheel traffic – from personal e-bikes to courier-grade mopeds – is expanding rapidly, prompting officials to ask how fast, how safe, and how accountable the fleet should be.
In 2020 the state legalized three classes of electric bicycles. Class 1 bikes provide pedal-assist up to 20 mph (32 km/h); Class 2 bikes add a throttle but keep the same top speed; and Class 3 bikes can reach 25 mph (40 km/h) without pedaling. Riders must be at least 16 years old, but a driver’s license, registration or insurance is not required for any of these categories. The new legislative package largely respects this framework, yet several bills would shift the line for the fastest class.
Targeting illegal vehicles and improving enforcement
One of the more technical proposals would empower the NYPD and the New York City Department of Transportation to install a dynamometer-based testing program. Officers could pull a suspect micromobility vehicle onto a portable device that measures motor output and maximum assisted speed, offering an objective way to determine whether a bike has been illegally modified or is actually an unregistered motorcycle masquerading as an e-bike. Similar roadside testing is already used in parts of Europe and provides a clear, data-driven alternative to visual inspections alone.
Delivery-platform accountability
Two bills focus specifically on food-delivery companies. Councilmember Gale Brewer introduced legislation that would require these platforms to carry liability insurance covering crashes involving workers who are actively delivering or on standby to deliver. A second proposal would compel apps to verify that any mopeds used by their couriers are properly registered, while a third would obligate companies to submit annual safety reports and detailed safety plans to the city. The Workers Justice Project estimates that about 80,000 e-bike delivery workers rely on these vehicles in New York, meaning the outcomes could affect a sizable labor segment.
The Class 3 e-bike controversy
Three bills zero in on the fastest legal e-bike category. Councilmember Crystal Hudson has put forward a measure that would bar retail outlets from selling or renting Class 3 e-bikes; the first offense would carry no fine, but repeat violations could be penalized up to $2,000. A companion bill would make riding a Class 3 bike on streets, parks or other public spaces unlawful, effectively eliminating the class from public thoroughfares. To soften the impact, Transportation Committee Chair Shaun Abreu proposes a trade-in program that would let owners of Class 3 or otherwise ineligible e-bikes exchange them for a Class 1 or Class 2 model, or receive a voucher toward such a purchase.
These proposals represent a departure from the city’s earlier stance of enforcing the existing 25 mph (40 km/h) ceiling. Last year, the city ordered the shared-bike operator Citi Bike to lower the assisted top speed of its gray e-bikes from 18 mph (30 km/h) to 15 mph (25 km/h), signaling a willingness to trim speeds for safety reasons. The new bills, however, would not merely tighten enforcement; they would redraw the legal speed boundary for an entire class of bikes, reshaping the market for manufacturers, retailers and riders alike.
What comes next?
The Wednesday hearing is only the first step in a multi-stage legislative process. Members of the public – both in person and via video – have been invited to testify, offering a chance for delivery workers, advocacy groups and everyday cyclists to voice support or concern. Whether any of the 20-plus measures survive committee markup, move to a full council vote, or become law remains uncertain, but the debate has already shifted from “should we regulate e-bikes?” to “where exactly should the line be drawn between illegal modifications and newly restricted legal devices.”
