Concerning the assessment of penalties against a parent when a minor violates laws concerning the usage of certain electric vehicles, and, in connection therewith, authorizing the assessment of penalties against a parent for a minor's improp...
HB26-1125 would create a new civil penalty framework for parents or guardians who permit a minor child or ward to operate certain electric vehicles in violation of Colorado law. The bill covers electrical assisted bicycles, electric motorcycles, electric scooters, and electric skateboards, and it adds a statutory definition of “electric motorcycle” that includes electric dirt bikes meeting specified criteria. It also includes a legislative declaration stating that minors’ use of these vehicles has increased and that existing enforcement tools are insufficient.
Under the bill, a parent or guardian could be cited if a minor uses one of these vehicles in violation of age, location, safety gear, or other operating restrictions, including certain violations that could have resulted in serious bodily injury. The bill sets escalating civil penalties: up to $100 for a first violation, up to $200 for a second violation within two years, and up to $300 for a third or subsequent violation within two years, with possible additional compliance conditions for repeat violations. It also creates a rebuttable presumption that a parent or guardian permitted the use if the vehicle was purchased by, owned by, registered to, or primarily stored at the parent’s residence, or if the parent knew or should have known of the use, while allowing several defenses to rebut that presumption.
The bill’s impact on state law would be to expand Colorado’s traffic and vehicle enforcement scheme by adding parent-focused civil liability tied to minors’ operation of these electric vehicles. It would not create criminal liability or change the rules for adult riders, but it would give law enforcement a new mechanism to address underage misuse and to encourage compliance with existing age, helmet, roadway, and safety requirements. The bill would amend definitions in Title 42 and add a new subsection to the law governing bicycles, scooters, and other human-powered vehicles.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill text is supportive of stronger safety enforcement, with the measure framed as a narrowly tailored civil tool to improve minor safety and reduce risks to other roadway users. However, the bill did not advance in committee and was postponed indefinitely in the House Transportation, Housing & Local Government Committee, indicating that it did not secure enough support to move forward. No recorded votes or committee transcript excerpts were provided, so the available context suggests limited legislative traction rather than a clearly documented partisan or policy split.
The main point of contention appears to be the policy choice to shift enforcement pressure onto parents and guardians rather than relying solely on the minor rider. Potential concerns include whether the presumption of parental permission is fair, whether the penalties are appropriate for family-based conduct, and whether law enforcement can consistently determine when a parent truly permitted the violation. Supporters likely viewed the bill as a practical safety measure, while opponents or undecided members may have questioned civil liability, enforcement burden, and the breadth of the presumption.
The bill would amend Colorado Revised Statutes Title 42 by adding a definition of “electric motorcycle” and by creating a new civil infraction process in the law governing bicycles, electric scooters, and related vehicles. It would authorize police to assess penalties against parents or guardians when minors violate existing restrictions on the operation of electrical assisted bicycles, electric motorcycles, electric scooters, or electric skateboards, while preserving current rules for adult riders and expressly avoiding criminal liability. The measure would therefore expand the set of parties subject to enforcement from minors alone to include responsible adults in certain circumstances.
The bill is presented as a public-safety measure aimed at addressing growing use of electric vehicles by minors and the difficulty of enforcing existing restrictions. Its framing suggests a generally pro-enforcement, safety-oriented intent. At the same time, the bill was postponed indefinitely in committee, which indicates that the proposal did not generate enough support to continue, likely reflecting concerns about fairness, enforceability, or the appropriateness of penalizing parents for minors’ conduct.
The central controversy is whether parents and guardians should be civilly penalized for a minor’s unlawful use of an e-bike, electric motorcycle, scooter, or skateboard. Supporters appear to argue that adults are best positioned to prevent misuse and that the bill fills an enforcement gap, while critics may object to the rebuttable presumption of permission, the possibility of penalties even when the parent did not directly authorize the conduct, and the practical difficulty of proving knowledge or control. The committee’s decision to postpone indefinitely suggests unresolved concerns about the bill’s scope and enforcement mechanics.