RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT
SAN RAMON VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
PREPARED BY DANVILLE SAFETY ADVOCATES AND E-BIKE ACCESS
This document was Not prepared by the San Ramon Valley Unified School District staff and has not been approved by the SRVUSD Board of Education.
January 5, 2026
Executive Summary
A school district faces significant legal and financial exposure when it affirmatively accommodates dangerous, illegal conduct by its students. Liability risk arises under aiding‑and‑abetting, negligence per se, and dangerous‑condition theories. Government immunity does not extend to affirmative assistance of unlawful activity.
The recent report by the Mineta Transportation Institute, commissioned by the California Legislature, documents over 200 dangerous, illegal e-motorcycles parked at San Ramon Valley Unified School District schools, with 71 at Stone Valley Middle School and 50 at Diablo Vista Middle School.
(Photo: Mineta Transportation Institute’s (MTI) Project 2423 - Exploring Electric Bicycle Safety Performance Data and Policy Options for California, December 2025, Figure 16. “Electric devices parked at Diablo Vista Middle School in Danville, California” - page #62)
To mitigate this serious risk —and protect the safety of its students—the district should immediately discontinue providing parking for these devices; adopt a clear compliance policy; issue written notice to families clarifying legal requirements and explaining its new policy; and coordinate with parents and law enforcement to implement the policy and reverse the effects of the district’s previous facilitation.
By providing parking for these illegal vehicles (commonly mislabeled and mischaracterized as “e-bikes”), the school district is facilitating and aiding/abetting illegal conduct (photo below: Stone Valley Middle School). More detailed reports and photographic evidence have been previously provided by Danville Safety Advocates and E-Bike Access.
The California Legislature-Commissioned Report by the Mineta Transportation Institute
Key findings of the MTI report include the following:
- Electric, throttle-activated two wheelers exceeding 750 watts or assisted speeds above 20 mph “are not legal electric bicycles,” even when marketed or labeled as such. They are considered “e-motos” or “out of class.” Students as young as 11 to 13 ride them on sidewalks, through parking lots, on campus, and in densely pedestrian areas during peak arrival and dismissal.
- “Labels, class stickers, and manufacturer-stated specifications cannot be relied upon for enforcement or safety assurance,” noting that software-based speed governors are “easily modified or disabled.”
- National injury and trauma data show that children and early adolescents—particularly ages 10–15—experience disproportionately high rates of injury from powered two-wheel devices. “Throttle-controlled electric devices are associated with higher injury severity than pedal-assist bicycles,” including increased rates of head injury, fractures, and emergency-department admissions.
- Over 200 “out-of-class” e-motos are parked at SRVUSD middle schools at a sample of seven schools, as reflected in this table.
- “Observation data from several California schools, where only 12% of two-wheeled electric devices were actually electric bicycles,” meaning that nearly nine out of ten devices exceeded statutory speed and/or power limits.
- Many devices marketed as e-bikes are “capable of speeds well above 20 mph on motor power alone” and are “often indistinguishable from compliant e-bikes in appearance.”[1]
- Public-health experts warn that the combination of youth, throttle acceleration, excessive speed, and pedestrian facilities “creates a high-risk operating environment with predictable injury outcomes,” not only for riders but for surrounding pedestrians—many of whom are younger children walking to and from school.
- “Without clear, enforceable rules governing where and by whom these devices may be operated, usage rates can be expected to increase.” Indeed, the table reprinted above shows a significant increase over the last year at most schools. They are rapidly becoming a primary mode of transportation for middle-school students within the district.
- “Normalization of illegal or unsafe electric-device use—especially in school contexts—undermines safety messaging and accelerates adoption.” “Institutional tolerance of known hazardous conditions increases foreseeability of harm.” And that environments involving children demand “heightened duty of care due to the severity and preventability of injuries.
- “Voluntary compliance strategies are ineffective when devices are capable of motorcycle-level performance but are socially perceived as bicycles.”
All of these findings are borne out here. Holding assemblies and attempting to educate parents and students have not stemmed the growing tide. Increasingly, SRVUSD campuses are being used as informal staging areas for unregistered motor vehicles operated by minors without licenses, without legal authorization, and often without helmets. These vehicles then disperse at speed through densely populated pedestrian corridors, including sidewalks, crosswalks, and school access points where younger children, parents, and staff are endangered. Students as young as 11 to 13 ride them on sidewalks, through parking lots, on campus, and in densely pedestrian areas during peak arrival and dismissal. The mentality is that if schools allow them, they must be OK.
[1] Under existing California law (Veh. Code 312.5(a)(2), any throttle-activated electric two-wheeler with a motor larger than 750 watts or capable of providing-assistance at speeds above 20 mph is not an e-bike. It is an e-motorcycle and is not street legal. To ride a motorcycle, a driver’s license is required, along with DMV registration and plates, proof of insurance, and specified safety equipment.
Applicable Legal Theories
Against this backdrop, the District’s facilitation of student operation of illegal e-motos exposes the District to legal and financial liability under several legal theories.
Aiding and Abetting: A district may be liable if it:
- Knows students are operating illegal motor vehicles;
- Knows minors cannot lawfully license or register those vehicles; and
- Provides substantial assistance or encouragement (e.g., parking, approval, etc.).
Intent may be inferred from continued accommodation after warnings, injuries, or legal guidance.
Negligence Per Se: Where statutes regulating licensing, registration, age, and equipment are enacted for public safety, a district’s violation of a statutory duty—or facilitation of known violations—may establish negligence as a matter of law if injury results.
Dangerous Condition of Public Property: Allowing high‑speed motorized vehicles on campus or in school‑controlled ingress/egress zones may create a dangerous condition when the risk is foreseeable and preventable and the agency has actual or constructive notice; and fails to take reasonable corrective action.
In addition to previous notices to the District, the MTI report establishes actual and constructive notice under California Government Code §835 as shown above. It documents the presence of illegal, high-powered electric devices on SRVUSD campuses through photographic evidence from Diablo Vista Middle School (page 62) and a districtwide table quantifying out-of-class electric devices at SRVUSD middle schools (page 65), published as part of a statewide legislative safety study. The District has:
- Photographic evidence
- Quantitative field inventories
- Repeated parent and community complaints
- Documentation of unlawful motor vehicles operated by minors
- Evidence of unsafe sidewalk and campus riding
- Clear engineering evidence that school routes and sidewalks are not designed for motorized devices
While public agencies enjoy immunity for some activities, discretionary‑act immunity does not protect operational decisions that knowingly enable illegal conduct. And failure‑to‑enforce immunity does not apply where the claim is affirmative facilitation, not passive non‑enforcement.
Potential financial impact is large. Catastrophic student-injury cases involving motor vehicles routinely result in:
- $1–5 million settlements
- $10–20+ million lifetime medical and care costs
- Substantial increases in insurance premiums
- Mandatory safety retrofits
The District should check with its insurance broker to determine if its liability policies apply when the District facilitates illegal conduct resulting in harm.
Recommended Corrective Action—Banning All Throttle-Controlled Devices Without Driver’s Licenses and DMV Registration
For the foregoing reasons, we recommend that the District adopt a policy prohibiting the parking of throttle devices as other school districts have done.
(See Proposed San Ramon Valley Unified School District E-bike & E-moto Policy
The sheer number of e-motos on SRVUSD campuses is evidence that attempts to educate parents and students have not succeeded, and that more is needed. As the MTI report explains, “education and outreach efforts are unlikely to succeed in the absence of clear, enforceable operating rules,” and visible tolerance of illegal devices “undermines safety messaging and compliance.” Behavior will not change as long as the District’s practices contradict its messaging. SRVUSD’s lack of policy places additional burden on police and the Town, which cannot act effectively without District alignment.
Across California, school districts are adopting strict policies to protect students, pedestrians, and school-zone safety as the speed, weight, and power of electric mobility devices increase. A growing number of districts now limit student commuting to Class 1 pedal-assist e-bikes only, while prohibiting throttle-controlled devices—including Class 2 and electric motorcycles. Several districts additionally also prohibit e-bikes on sidewalks and within campus pedestrian zones.
Examples of California School Districts with E-Bike Restrictions
| District | Policy Direction |
| San Ramon Valley Unified School District (Current Status) | No districtwide policy: throttle-controlled e-motos widely used by minors; no enforcement framework. |
| Los Altos School District | Allows Class 1 pedal-assist only; no throttle devices; safety training required. |
| Davis Joint Unified School District | Limits student use to Class 1 e-bikes; enforces no riding on school grounds or sidewalks. |
| San Mateo-Foster City School District | Prohibits throttle-controlled devices; enforces pedestrian-only zones. |
| Menlo Park City School District | Class 1 allowed; Class 2 and e-motos prohibited; campus riding ban enforced. |
| Carlsbad Unified School District | Restricts e-motos and high-powered devices; mandatory safety compliance and enforcement partnerships. |
| Irvine Unified School District | Enforces riding bans on campus; restricts throttle-based devices near school walkways. |
| Piedmont Unified School District | Requires Class 1 compliance; establishes designated parking and no-ride zones. |
The recommended policy banning all throttle devices will eliminate the need for; school administrators to struggle with distinguishing between the few legal e-bikes on campuses and the vast number of illegal e-motos. It will enable the schools to consistently regulate bike corrals and coordinate uniform enforcement. It will stop misleading students and parents into thinking that e-motos are legal and approved by the schools.
Overall Risk Rating
Likelihood of Injury – High: High-powered, throttle-controlled electric motorcycles are operated daily by minors in congested school and pedestrian environments, making collisions and falls highly foreseeable. Marin County Public Health data shows that electric device riders under 16 have 5X the serious accident rate requiring ambulances than any other age group.
Severity of Injury – High to Catastrophic: The speed, weight, and acceleration of these vehicles create a substantial risk of traumatic or life-altering injuries to child riders and nearby pedestrians. This is well-documented in the Mineta Report and medical studies.
School District Liability Exposure – High: The documented, known, and ongoing nature of this hazard establishes foreseeability and elevates the District’s duty to act under California dangerous-condition standards.
Overall School District Risk – High: The combination of frequent exposure, severe injury potential, and clear liability creates an unacceptably high and preventable risk absent immediate policy intervention.
The risk of injury is palpable and documented. It is foreseeable and preventable. And banning parking is a reasonable corrective action that imposes little burden on the District.
Conclusion
SRVUSD is now at a critical inflection point. Evidence from SRVUSD campuses, surrounding neighborhoods, and independent statewide research confirms that throttle-controlled electric motorcycles operated by middle-school–aged students present a severe, foreseeable, and escalating safety and liability risk. The presence of these devices on campus is no longer anecdotal or isolated; it is documented, quantified, and persistent.
Independent research commissioned by the California Legislature and published by the Mineta Transportation Institute in Project 2423, Exploring Electric Bicycle Safety Performance Data and Policy Options for California (December 2025), corroborates the findings of this Risk Assessment.
Prepared by:
Alan Kalin, COL, U.S. Army (Ret.), President Mount Diablo Cyclists (MountDiabloCyclists.org), Co-Chair Danville Safety Advocates (BikeDanville.org)
Bob Mittlelstaedt, Attorney and Co-Founder of E-Bike Access
Attachments Visit: Danville Safety Advocates
(See Proposed San Ramon Valley Unified School District E-bike & E-moto Policy
(See "E-Moto" Safety Assessment - San Ramon Valley Unified School District (November 1, 2025)
(See TV News Story: 70 E-motos & 12 Bicycles at Stone Valley Middle School BicycleCorral)
(See video documentation of sidewalk and park-path e-moto use)
For more information and amazing E-moto videos visit Danville Safety Advocates and E-Bike Access: Advocating Safe and Legal E-Biking
This document was Not prepared by the San Ramon Valley Unified School District staff and has not been approved by the SRVUSD Board of Education.