Recently, during an inspection of a commercial center, law enforcement officers from the Miyun District Market Supervision Bureau in Beijing discovered that the operator had illegally modified the lithium battery circuit of a brand-name electric bicycle to a lead-acid battery circuit and installed a chair back on the rear seat of the vehicle. The authorities have initiated a case and are handling it according to the law.
Electric bicycles, valued for their convenience and affordability, are immensely popular among the public and have become an indispensable mode of daily transportation in both urban and rural areas. However, with the explosive growth in the number of e-bikes, safety hazards in the production, sales, and usage phases have gradually surfaced. Illegal activities such as unauthorized modifications and the sale of products that fail to meet national standards persist despite repeated prohibitions, posing a severe threat to public safety and property. Since the beginning of this year, market supervision departments across various regions have adopted a "zero-tolerance" approach, launching in-depth, full-chain campaigns to rectify e-bike safety hazards, resulting in the investigation and public exposure of numerous typical cases. These cases not only reveal industry malpractices but also demonstrate the determination and resourcefulness of market regulators in steadfastly defending safety baselines. Using these cases as a reference, this article provides a detailed analysis of the types, characteristics, causes, and governance pathways of e-bike violations, aiming to offer insights for building a long-term regulatory mechanism.
The forms of illegal activity in the e-bike sector are diverse, but they can be fundamentally categorized into three main types. The first type is illegal modification and retrofitting. This is the most common and prominent issue in e-bike violation cases. Sellers or repair shops, catering to some consumers' irrational demands for higher speed, extended range, or greater cargo capacity, make unauthorized structural and electrical alterations to vehicles, creating serious safety risks. Extended saddles are a major problem area. In a case involving Xinhongshun Motorcycle Store in Yacha Town, Baisha Li Autonomous County, Hainan, on-site measurements revealed that 26 e-bikes awaiting sale had saddle lengths of 540mm, far exceeding the national standard maximum of 350mm. Similarly, Ruixue Bicycle Store in Fengxian District, Shanghai, modified the saddles on three Tailg e-bikes from 33cm to lengths ranging from 51cm to 57cm, solely to "boost sales." Such modifications alter the vehicle's center of gravity, affecting handling stability and increasing the risk of accidents. Battery tampering is another serious issue. Following the traceability of a traffic accident, the Baoshan District Market Supervision Bureau in Shanghai uncovered that Shanghai Yunqian Electric Vehicle Sales Co., Ltd. had illegally installed a 60V battery on a Tailg e-bike rated for 48V. Over more than a year, Shanghai Songjiang Lege Electric Vehicle Sales Co., Ltd. modified and sold 10 Aima e-bikes, all fitted with 60V batteries. A vehicle store in Xianyang City, Shaanxi Province, was caught red-handed with a 60V battery pack intended for modifications. Increasing battery voltage directly elevates the risk of thermal runaway, a primary cause of e-bike fires. Structural "enhancements" and performance "unlocking" are also prevalent. In a case handled by the Haidian District Market Supervision Bureau in Beijing, officials discovered an operator in the act of installing protective bars on an e-bike. A vehicle store in Wuzhou City, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, openly promoted "modified vehicles" equipped with rear guards, backrests, and battery brackets. In a case involving a gang led by Yang Moumou in Qinzhou City, Guangxi, authorities dismantled a professional modification "black workshop," seizing 144 allegedly modified complete vehicles and a large quantity of parts on-site, with modifications covering core components like controllers, motors, and lights.
The second category involves selling products that do not comply with mandatory national standards. Some operators directly sell e-bikes that lack mandatory product certification (CCC), proper qualification certificates, or that have failed quality inspections, allowing problematic vehicles to enter the market under a "legitimate" guise. "Sample mismatch" and "bait-and-switch" tactics are common. In the warehouse of Nanjing Hongyou Vehicles Co., Ltd., the Jiangning District Market Supervision Bureau in Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, discovered 222 Tailg brand e-bikes whose appearance clearly differed from the diagrams on their product qualification certificates, with all measured saddle lengths exceeding standards. Similarly, 86 Luyuan brand e-bikes sold by Lvshun Electric Vehicle Store in Qinnan District, Qinzhou City, Guangxi, also failed standards for saddle and battery compartment tamper-resistance. Although these vehicles bore "reputable" brands, they had deviated from factory specifications. "Three-no" products and missing certification are also issues. At Nanjing Jienanchen Auto Sales Co., Ltd., the Jianye District Market Supervision Bureau in Nanjing, Jiangsu, found 9 Aixi brand e-bikes lacking both product inspection certificates and CCC certification marks, typical of "three-no" products. In Guiyang City, Guizhou Province, Guizhou Zhongjie Huizhi Business Trading Co., Ltd. was penalized for privately adding saddles and guards to 20 registered rental vehicles, making their actual condition inconsistent with certification information, and illegally using them in business operations. Failure in key inspection items is critical. During two separate spot checks, the Changping District Market Supervision Bureau in Beijing found that e-bikes sold by a sales center failed to meet flame retardancy standards. E-bikes sold by Kewang Bicycle Store in Jing'an District, Shanghai, failed inspections for overall vehicle mass and battery tamper-resistance. These不合格项目 directly impact the vehicle's safety performance in extreme situations like short circuits or collisions.
The third category pertains to dereliction of duty by business entities. Some cases expose chaotic internal management and a failure to fulfill basic legal responsibilities. The product acceptance system often exists only on paper. Shanghai Yongjia Trading Co., Ltd., investigated by the Qingpu District Market Supervision Bureau in Shanghai, purchased 217 e-bikes in two batches but could not provide any purchase invoices, seriously violating the Product Quality Law's requirements for establishing and implementing an incoming product inspection and acceptance system. False advertising misleads consumers. Guangdong Shenzhen Cashiwear Technology Co., Ltd. publicly advertised on a live-streaming platform that its products could "achieve speeds over 50km/h after optimization" to attract customers; on-site inspections also revealed that the vehicle seat lengths exceeded standards. Such advertising not only constitutes fraud but also reinforces consumers' misconceptions about "non-compliant vehicles."
Confronted with diverse and complex violations, local market supervision departments have demonstrated flexible, pragmatic enforcement strategies and increasingly strong collaborative capabilities. Strengthening the administrative-penalty-to-criminal-case linkage is key for punishing serious crimes. For major cases suspected of constituting crimes, market supervision departments resolutely transfer them to public security organs, creating a powerful deterrent. The Xi'an Market Supervision Bureau in Shaanxi Province transferred the Longyu Electric Vehicle Sales Store case to the police for criminal investigation; this case involved 1,062 vehicles with a value exceeding 2 million yuan, and涉嫌伪造的电动自行车号牌 were seized on-site, indicating a significant case. In Qinzhou City, Guangxi, the Market Supervision Bureau collaborated with the Public Security Bureau to dismantle a criminal gang led by Yang Moumou, raiding 4 illegal modification dens, seizing 162 vehicles, with involved goods valued over 350,000 yuan, and imposing compulsory measures on 19 suspects. The seamless connection between administrative law enforcement and criminal justice effectively contains organized, professional crime. Emphasizing source governance throughout the entire chain is crucial. Enforcement efforts are increasingly extending to production sources and new business models. The Tianchang Market Supervision Bureau in Anhui Province targeted Anhui Lineng Electronic Technology Co., Ltd., investigating nearly 5,000 substandard chargers it produced, thereby plugging safety loopholes at the critical component level. Due to providing 60V and higher batteries incompatible with national e-bike standards, the Gulou and Jiangning District Market Supervision Bureaus in Nanjing separately filed cases against two battery-swapping cabinet companies, "Yizule" and "Hazhi Network," to prevent the new risk of "modification via swapping." In Beijing, certification bodies were guided to suspend, cancel, or revoke 216 problematic e-bike certification certificates, blocking violations at the production access stage. Utilizing local legislation enhances regulatory precision. Various regions are fully leveraging local regulations to precisely target violations. Based on the "Shanghai Non-Motor Vehicle Safety Management Regulations," Shanghai imposed fines of tens of thousands of yuan on Ruixue Bicycle Store and Yunqian Company for modification activities. Jiangsu Province, invoking the "Jiangsu Province E-bike Management Regulations," fined operators in Qixia and Qinhuai districts of Nanjing 40,000 yuan and 30,000 yuan respectively for illegal modifications. Hainan Province, under its own e-bike regulations, uniformly fined several stores in Haikou, Tunchang, and Baisha 8,000 yuan each. Local regulations often offer more detailed provisions and clearer penalties, boosting enforcement effectiveness. Innovative collaboration models are consolidating regulatory synergy. Cross-departmental and cross-regional cooperation is becoming the norm. Upon receiving a tip from public security, the Nanchang Market Supervision Bureau in Jiangxi Province immediately formed a joint task force with police and inspection agencies to swiftly uncover violations by Zuanbao Electric Vehicle Store. In Chongqing, market supervision, public security, and traffic police departments collaborated to clear and dispose of 258 non-compliant vehicles. Shaanxi Province adopted a "joint guidance, collaborative case handling" model, where the provincial Market Supervision Bureau and Provincial Public Security Department jointly guided Xi'an's investigation. This "information sharing, synchronized action" approach effectively overcomes the limitations of single-department enforcement authority and methods.
The proliferation of e-bike violations results from a complex interplay of market profit-seeking, consumer misconceptions, and regulatory challenges. Distorted market demand and operator profit-seeking are primary drivers. Some consumers harbor irrational desires for "faster speed, more cargo capacity, longer range," particularly those in industries like food delivery and courier services. Operators exploit this psychology, using modifications to enhance product "competitiveness" for higher profits. The Xi'an Longyu store's profit of over 1.68 million yuan from selling 886 modified vehicles is a classic example of profit-driven action. An imbalance between the cost and benefit of breaking the law persists. Although fines in some cases are substantial—for instance, Nanjing Hongyou was fined 581,400 yuan—compared to the potential revenue from large-scale sales of non-compliant products and the profits from illegal modifications, some operators still gamble. For smaller shops, fines typically ranging from a few thousand to tens of thousands of yuan, while constituting pressure, may not deter recidivism if not accompanied by strict industry bans or credit penalties. The high concealment of violations makes detection difficult. Some sales outlets display compliant vehicles but perform modifications upon customer pickup or through affiliated repair shops. In the case of Pan Moumou in Nanning, Guangxi, unlicensed assembly occurred in a sheet-metal shed in a remote village; a "black workshop" busted in Beijing was also hidden in a secluded location. These factors pose significant challenges for routine inspections and线索发现. Loopholes exist in product consistency supervision. Some manufacturers, to cater to market demands or reduce costs, might relax quality control after obtaining certification or design products with modification potential (e.g., overly spacious battery compartments, unlocked controller software). Downstream dealers can then easily achieve "capacity expansion and speed increase," making source governance even more critical.
Refining the governance system involves exploring mechanisms for long-term effectiveness through enforcement practice. Promoting standard evolution and technological innovation is essential. Learning from Shenzhen's case involving live-stream advertising of超标车速, standards should be updated to include technical requirements like anti-tamper software and irreversible data logging modules. Encouraging R&D in smart BMS and vehicle status monitoring technologies can enable real-time alerts for anomalies or speed limiting, technically narrowing the scope for illegal modifications. Holding sellers accountable and strengthening traceability management is vital. Cases in Shanghai and Nanjing penalizing failures in the acceptance system highlight the need to enforce entity responsibility. Comprehensive adoption of "one vehicle, one code" or electronic qualification certificate systems could allow consumers to scan and verify if vehicle information matches the physical product, tracing back to the manufacturer. Establishing "safety credit files" for sellers, linking violation records to credit ratings, is another step. Increasing penalties and implementing joint惩戒 are necessary. Severe fines and criminal liability must be pursued for major cases. Simultaneously, cross-department joint惩戒 mechanisms should be established, imposing market access bans, restrictions on bidding participation, loan limitations, etc., on seriously违规失信 entities and responsible individuals, ensuring "one violation leads to restrictions everywhere." Deepening societal co-governance and public education is key. Beijing's public solicitation of clues and the widespread exposure of typical cases have served as effective deterrents. Efforts should continue to broaden reporting channels, implement rewards, and encourage whistleblowers within the industry and consumer oversight. Public education campaigns using vivid examples to illustrate the dangers of illegal modifications can guide consumers to proactively purchase and use compliant products, refusing modification services. Consolidating collaborative mechanisms and smart监管 is the way forward. The cross-department, cross-regional cooperation models developed during the rectification campaigns should be institutionalized and normalized. Utilizing big data to monitor违规信息 like "decoder" or "speed boost service" ads on e-commerce platforms and social media; exploring traceability systems for key components like batteries and chargers; implementing registration and dynamic supervision for new models like battery-swapping cabinets—all contribute to achieving omnichannel, real-time smart监管.
Cases serve as the best textbook for the rule of law. The published typical cases of e-bike violations are not only a record of the market regulators' vigorous enforcement achievements but also a stark warning about the complex challenges facing industry development and safety governance. These cases clearly demonstrate that safeguarding e-bike safety is a protracted battle requiring sustained effort, multi-party coordination, and addressing both symptoms and root causes. Only by perfecting the全链条治理体系 can we fortify the safety防线, ensuring that this "national vehicle" brings convenience while also bearing the trust and responsibility for the safe travel of hundreds of millions of people.
The electric bicycles weaving through city streets daily carry the hustle and bustle of countless lives. Yet, the safety hazards left by illegal modifications lurk like invisible dangers on the road. Those lengthened saddles, up-sized batteries, and unlocked speed limits may seem to satisfy a temporary need for "faster and farther," but they quietly turn the dial towards risk. Every case severely punished by market regulators nationwide is not merely a penalty for the violator but a solemn guardianship of the public's safe travel. Safety standards are not constraints; they are the bottom line where life is paramount. Every component and parameter on a compliant vehicle is connected to the reunion and happiness of families. When we choose compliant vehicles and reject dangerous modifications, we take on more responsibility for our own and others' safety. Only by truly prioritizing safety over speed and convenience can our journeys be both convenient and secure.
Comments