The BIKE Act of 2025 amends 23 U.S.C. §405 to explicitly allow States to spend federal highway‑safety grant funds on ‘‘on‑bicycle education’’ for elementary and secondary students. It also directs the Secretary of Transportation to update Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 14 within one year to encourage nonmotorized safety education, specify core training elements (skills, traffic rules, helmet use), and push dissemination of curricula to State educational agencies.
This is a narrowly targeted bill: it creates a federal permission and guidance pathway rather than establishing new mandatory funding streams. For practitioners, the practical effect is twofold—States gain explicit authority to use existing Section 405 grant dollars for hands‑on bike training, and Federal guidance will be revised on a fixed timeline, with a 3‑year reporting requirement that could shape future grant priorities and metrics for program implementation.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends 23 U.S.C. §405(g)(5) to add on‑bicycle education for K–12 students as an allowable use of State highway‑safety grant funds. It requires the Secretary to revise Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 14 within one year to promote nonmotorized safety education and to encourage specific training elements including helmet use and traffic rules.
Who It Affects
State departments of transportation and State highway‑safety offices that administer Section 405 grants will be directly affected, as will K–12 school systems that could receive programming and curricula. Bicycle safety nonprofits, local trainers, and organizations that develop school curricula stand to interact with revised federal guidance and dissemination activities.
Why It Matters
By converting an implied activity into an explicit allowable expense, the bill lowers a legal/administrative barrier for States that want to fund hands‑on bike training. The mandatory guidance update and subsequent report create a federal reference standard that can influence what programs States choose to fund and how they document outcomes.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill makes a simple statutory change: it adds a new permissible use to the list in 23 U.S.C. §405(g)(5). That change lets States apply highway‑safety grant dollars to ‘‘on‑bicycle education’’ for elementary and secondary students.
The legislative language is narrowly focused—this is authorization of an allowable expense, not a new grant program or entitlement.
Separately, the Secretary of Transportation must revise Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 14 on Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety within one year. The revision must encourage nonmotorized safety education for K–12 students and specify five focal points: promoting on‑bicycle training, improving roadway navigation skills, emphasizing traffic rules, describing safety precautions, and stressing helmet use.
The bill instructs the Secretary to consult practitioners (including those who use tools like the Bike Walk friendly assessment) when updating materials.The bill also requires dissemination of the revised curriculum and guidelines to State educational agencies, which positions schools as a delivery channel for these programs. Finally, the Secretary must report to Congress within three years on how States used the guidance and materials, how the consultation and dissemination process worked, and how implementation is being tracked, including opportunities for States to share challenges and successes.
That reporting obligation creates an information loop that can be used to refine future guidance or funding priorities.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds 23 U.S.C. §405(g)(5)(E) permitting State use of Section 405 grant funds for on‑bicycle education for elementary and secondary students.
The Secretary must revise Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 14 within one year to encourage nonmotorized safety education and prescribe emphasis areas, including helmet use and traffic rules.
The revision must explicitly encourage on‑bicycle training focused on bicycling skills and roadway navigation, not just classroom instruction.
The Secretary must consult with practitioners and update existing materials and curricula—explicitly naming tools like the Bike Walk friendly assessment—for K–12 audiences.
Within three years of enactment the Secretary must submit to Congress a report covering implementation by States, consultation and dissemination activities, and a process for tracking program rollout and outcomes.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Establishes the act’s citation: ‘‘Biking Instruction, Knowledge, and Education Act of 2025’’ or the ‘‘BIKE Act of 2025.’
Adds ‘on‑bicycle education’ as an allowable use of Section 405 grants
This provision inserts a new subparagraph (E) into 23 U.S.C. §405(g)(5) so that on‑bicycle education for elementary and secondary students is an explicitly permitted use of highway‑safety grant funds administered under Section 405. Practically, this removes ambiguity that may have deterred States from allocating those funds to hands‑on bike training and gives state grant managers a clear statutory basis when authorizing program budgets and reimbursements.
Required update to Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 14
Directs the Secretary to revise Guideline No. 14 within one year to encourage nonmotorized safety education. The bill prescribes key content areas the revision must promote—on‑bicycle training, roadway navigation, traffic rules, safety precautions, and helmet use—thereby creating a federal template States can follow when designing or approving curricula.
Consultation with practitioners and dissemination to schools
Requires the Secretary to consult with education and practitioner stakeholders (including those familiar with the Bike Walk friendly assessment) when updating materials and curricula, and to disseminate the revised guidance to State educational agencies. That creates an expectation of stakeholder engagement and positions State education agencies as conduits for program rollout.
Three‑year report to Congress on implementation
Mandates a report within three years describing how States used the updated guidance and materials, the consultation process, and dissemination and promotion efforts, including training and opportunities for States to share implementation challenges and successes. That reporting requirement establishes metrics and accountability that could inform future federal guidance or grant conditions.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Transportation across all five countries.
Explore Transportation in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Elementary and secondary students — gain access to hands‑on bicycling instruction that explicitly targets skills, roadway navigation, and helmet use, potentially increasing safe active travel options to school.
- State departments of transportation and highway‑safety offices — receive clear statutory authority to program Section 405 funds for in‑saddle training, reducing legal ambiguity around allowable expenditures.
- K–12 school systems and State educational agencies — become formal targets for dissemination of curricula and may receive program support or partnership opportunities for active‑transport education.
- Bicycle advocacy and training organizations — stand to expand program delivery as States seek partners with curriculum and instructor capacity to implement on‑bicycle education.
- Public health and safety planners — benefit from a federal signal prioritizing prevention through education, which can be incorporated into broader active‑transport and injury‑reduction strategies.
Who Bears the Cost
- State grant administrators and DOTs — must decide how to allocate finite Section 405 dollars; funding on‑bicycle programs may reduce dollars available for other traffic‑safety projects unless additional resources are provided.
- Local school districts — may need to reallocate time, staff, facilities, or local funds to host training, purchase equipment, or provide helmets and storage if grant dollars do not fully cover expenses.
- Federal Highway Safety Office — must absorb administrative work to revise Guideline No. 14, coordinate stakeholder consultations, disseminate materials, and produce the 3‑year report within existing resources unless Congress appropriates implementation funding.
- Program implementers/instructors — face upfront costs to develop, certify, or scale curriculum and training capacity to meet a potential increase in demand from States and schools, even if future reimbursement is possible through grants.
- Families in underfunded areas — may face unequal access to equipment or supervised programs if State or local budgets fall short and the bill does not create an equipment grant stream.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between expanding practical, hands‑on bicycle safety education through an explicit federal permission and the limited nature of Section 405 funds: the bill enables States to invest in on‑bicycle instruction but does not increase funding or set standards, forcing a choice between program expansion and preserving other highway‑safety priorities while leaving implementation quality and equity to state and local discretion.
The BIKE Act is procedural and permissive: it authorizes an allowable use and sets a federal timeline for guidance but does not create new appropriations or requirements that States must adopt. That design reduces federal fiscal exposure but raises practical implementation questions.
States with constrained Section 405 budgets will need to choose between on‑bicycle education and other established safety activities, and the statute does not rank priorities or mandate set‑asides. The bill also leaves unanswered whether grant funds cover equipment (bikes, helmets, storage) or only instructor time and curriculum delivery—an ambiguity that will matter for program design and equity.
The guidance revision and the three‑year report aim to standardize practice, but the bill does not specify outcome metrics, instructor certification standards, or minimum curriculum hours. Those omissions create variability risk: some States could adopt brief, low‑intensity programs labeled ‘‘on‑bicycle education,’’ while others build robust curricula.
Similarly, consultation is required but the bill does not mandate representation or minimum stakeholder input, nor does it allocate funding for capacity building in underserved communities—raising a likelihood of uneven implementation across urban, suburban, and rural jurisdictions.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.