Ebikes are
such an effective way to reduce the environmental damage caused by our
addiction to cars that legislation has been enacted to actively promote their
use. Some countries (notably the This legislation
was derived from scientific methodology applied to extensive field tests and
public consultations. The rationale for each technical element in its Ebike
definition is explained within the act's "Analysis Statement" (see below).
Smart Government
encourages Ebiking by through enlightened legislation. Smart Industry encourages
Ebiking by capitalizing on that opportunity and building superior products that everyone can afford.
+++++++++++++++++++
Below is the English version of the law as published in the Canada Gazette.
2001-04-11 Canada Gazette Part II, Vol. 135, No. 8
SOR/2001-117 29 March, 2001
MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY ACT
Regulations Amending the Motor Vehicle Safety
Regulations (Power-assisted Bicycles)
P.C. 2001-483 29 March, 2001
Whereas, pursuant to subsection 11(3) of the Motor Vehicle
Safety Act a, a copy of the proposed Regulations Amending the
Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (Power-assisted Bicycles), substantially
in the annexed form, was published in the Canada Gazette,
Part I, on November 20, 1999, and a reasonable opportunity
was thereby afforded to interested persons to make representations
to the Minister of Transport with respect to the proposed
Regulations;
REGULATIONS AMENDING THE
MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY REGULATIONS
(POWER-ASSISTED BICYCLES)
AMENDMENTS MODIFICATIONS
1. (1) The portion of the definition “motorcycle”1 in subsection
2(1) of the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations2 before paragraph
(a) is replaced by the following:
“motorcycle” means a vehicle, other than a power-assisted bicycle,
a restricted-use motorcycle, a low-speed vehicle, a passenger
car, a truck, a multipurpose passenger vehicle, a competition
vehicle or a vehicle imported temporarily for special purposes,
that:
(2) The portion of the definition “restricted-use motorcycle”
3 in subsection 2(1) of the Regulations before paragraph
(a) is replaced by the following:
“restricted-use motorcycle” means a vehicle, excluding a powerassisted
bicycle, a competition vehicle and a vehicle imported
temporarily for special purposes, but including an all-terrain
vehicle designed primarily for recreational use, that:
(3) Subsection 2(1) of the Regulations is amended by adding
the following in alphabetical order:
(Note: the boldface below is added for emphasis and does not appear in the published legislation)
“power-assisted bicycle” means a vehicle that:
(a) has steering handlebars and is equipped with pedals,
(b) is designed to travel on not more than three wheels in
contact with the ground,
(c) is capable of being propelled by muscular power,
(d) has an electric motor only, which has the following characteristics,
namely:
(i) it has a continuous power output rating, measured at
the shaft of the motor, of 500 W or less,
(ii) if it is engaged by the use of muscular power, power
assistance immediately ceases when the muscular power
ceases,
(iii) if it is engaged by the use of an accelerator controller,
power assistance immediately ceases when the brakes are
applied, and
(iv) it is incapable of providing further assistance when
the bicycle attains a speed of 32 km/h on level ground,
(e) bears a label that is permanently affixed by the manufacturer
and appears in a conspicuous location stating, in
both official languages, that the vehicle is a power-assisted
bicycle as defined in this subsection, and
(f) has one of the following safety features,
(i) an enabling mechanism to turn the electric motor on
and off that is separate from the accelerator controller and
fitted in such a manner that it is operable by the driver, or
(ii) a mechanism that prevents the motor from being engaged
before the bicycle attains a speed of 3 km/h.
COMING INTO FORCE
2. These Regulations come into force on the day on which
they are registered.
REGULATORY IMPACT
ANALYSIS STATEMENT
(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)
Description
The purpose of this amendment is to relieve power-assisted bicycles
from having to comply with the federal safety standards,
provided they possess certain technical characteristics. At present,
power-assisted bicycles fall into the limited-speed motorcycle
subclass of the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations and accordingly
must comply with the safety standards applicable to that type of
vehicle.
This amendment was initiated in response to numerous requests
received by the Department of Transport to exempt
electric-powered bicycles that can be propelled by the combination
of a power source and muscular power from having to comply
with the safety standards prescribed for limited-speed motorcycles.
Following a technical study of electric-powered bicycles,
the findings of which are discussed below, and after consideration
of the comments received in response to the Department’s proposal
for changes, which are reviewed in the Consultation section,
the Department has decided to extend the scope of this amendment
to electric-powered bicycles that can be propelled by a motor
engaged by the use of an accelerator control.
The principle underlying the choice of the technical characteristics
contained in the definition of power-assisted bicycles is that
the use and performance of these vehicles must be similar to those
of conventional bicycles. A power-assisted bicycle should require
the use of pedals in order to be propelled by muscular power, and
its motor should be incapable of providing propulsion assistance
once the bicycle has attained a speed of 32 km/h. Furthermore,
the continuous power output rating of the motor shall not exceed
500 watts.
Currently, power-assisted bicycles fall into a subclass of motorcycles
called limited-speed motorcycles, the maximum speed
of which is 70 km/h. As a result, power-assisted bicycles are
called upon to comply with the safety standards for full-sized
motorcycles, with the exception that reduced performance of certain
lamps is permitted. They must be equipped with a headlamp,
tail lamp, and license plate lamp that must be on when the engine
is operating. In addition, they must have a mirror mounted on
each side, a 17-digit vehicle identification number, a horn, a fuel
control, a twist-grip throttle, a supplemental engine stop, front
and rear wheel brakes, and controls and displays that operate in a
specific manner. The noise emissions standard also applies to
these vehicles.
Continuing to subject power-assisted bicycles to the safety
standards for limited-speed motorcycles would, to all intents and
purposes, have prevented this type of vehicle from being marketed
in Canada, which would have deprived Canadians of a safe
and non-polluting alternative mode of transportation. In point of
fact, power-assisted bicycles are equipped with a power source
that is incapable of providing propulsion assistance while simultaneously
supplying power to the various light sources required
under the safety standards.
The Amendment to the Regulations
This amendment defines the term “power-assisted bicycle” and
excludes this type of vehicle from conformance with the safety
standards applicable to limited-speed motorcycles. The purpose is
not to relax the existing standards that apply to motorcycles and
limited-speed motorcycles, but rather to remove from compliance
with those standards a type of vehicle whose characteristics are
not comparable to those of a motorcycle or moped. The power
and speed limits set out here are similar to those of a bicycle and
not those of a motorcycle. Like any other vehicle, power-assisted
bicycles must comply with all applicable provincial or territorial
requirements.
The proposal that was initially published in the Canada Gazette,
Part I was limited to power-assisted bicycles that require
muscular power in order to engage the motor. Partly in response
to the numerous comments requesting that the Department do so,
the scope of this amendment was broadened to include powerassisted
bicycles that use an accelerator control to engage the
motor, and thus do not have to be pedalled. There were two main
reasons for this decision. The first was that an exhaustive study of
electric bicycles conducted by the Centre d’expérimentation des
véhicules électriques du Québec (CEVEQ) showed that these two
types of power-assisted bicycles offer comparable levels of
safety. The second reason was that, in accordance with its 2000
Sustainable Development Strategy, it is the Department’s policy
to promote and encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation
that can reduce traffic congestion in urban areas, while
also protecting the environment. Both types of power-assisted
bicycles represent viable alternatives, with some users even preferring
the power-assisted bicycle equipped with an accelerator
control as a means of transportation to and from work.
The purpose of the CEVEQ study, which was conducted over a
period of four months, was to assess the safety of electric bicycles
equipped with an accelerator control and those propelled by muscular
power. Three hundred and sixty-nine people participated,
who covered over 25,205 kilometres in four Canadian cities:
Quebec City, Montreal, Toronto and Saint-Jérôme. Fifty-four
electric bicycles from 10 different manufacturers were evaluated.
The bicycles were used differently in the cities in the province of
Quebec, where the 211 participants were able to travel to and
from work over a two-week period. Because Ontario law prohibits
the use of power-assisted bicycles on public roads unless they
comply with the standards applicable to limited-speed motorcycles,
the participants in that province were limited to riding their
power-assisted bicycles for two-hour periods in designated locations.
Since the Ontario participants logged only three percent of
the total number of kilometres, the safety assessment focussed
primarily on the results recorded in Quebec. The age of the participants
ranged from 20 to 60 years, with a few over the age
of 60. Nearly 25 percent were women.
Ninety-five percent of the cyclists who rode power-assisted bicycles
with an accelerator control felt that they had full control
over their bicycles, as did 96 percent of the riders of powerassisted
bicycles that used muscular power. When asked to assess
the safety of their bicycles, 85 percent of the cyclists who used
power-assisted bicycles with an accelerator control said they felt
safe, compared to 83 percent of the riders of bicycles requiring
muscular power. The participants who did not feel safe gave the
following reasons:
These percentages are broken down by the reason for a feeling
of insecurity cited by the cyclists who did not feel safe riding
power-assisted bicycles. The weight of the bicycle, not its speed
was the main cause of riders’ feelings of insecurity. Surprisingly,
there was a greater sense of security with power-assisted bicycles
than with conventional bicycles because participants had more
power from standing starts and could react faster in traffic. In
addition, participants were more likely to obey stop signs, since
the electric motor made the bicycle easier to start again.
With respect to speed, the study found that riders perceived no
benefit in using an electric bicycle if its propulsion assistance
were limited to 23 or 24 km/h, since this speed is slower than
their peak estimated speed of 30 km/h, with or without assistance.
Given that power-assisted bicycles are heavier than conventional
bicycles, greater effort would be required to maintain an acceptable
average speed if propulsion assistance were to be limited to
24 km/h, which would discourage the use of this alternative mode
of transportation.
In order to encourage the use of power-assisted bicycles, the
speed limit on propulsion assistance originally proposed to be
24 km/h in the Canada Gazette, Part I has been raised to 32 km/h.
This upper limit, which corresponds to the permissible speed limit
in several U.S. states for this type of vehicle, should promote
harmonization and facilitate trade between the two countries.
The continuous power output rating that was proposed remains
unchanged at 500 watts, a level that well-trained cyclists can
maintain for a short period of time. Since the underlying principle
of this amendment is to specify technical parameters that are
comparable to the performance of an average cyclist, a limit of
500 watts was considered safe and acceptable. Moreover, this
power threshold is sufficient for the propulsion of tricycles and
tandem bicycles. Raising the limit to 750 watts, as suggested by
two of the commenters, would not be representative of a cyclist’s
actual performance and could prove dangerous. Most power assisted
bicycles currently available on the market have a power
output rating of less than 500 watts.
The maximum pedal-to-power assistance ratio, which was
originally set at 1:1, has been eliminated. Such a ratio would have
prevented individuals with reduced muscle strength, such as senior
citizens and individuals with physical disabilities, from enjoying
the mechanical benefits of a higher ratio. A higher ratio
enables a cyclist to travel at faster speeds while applying less
power to the pedals than on a conventional bicycle. Moreover, it
would have been difficult to ensure compliance with the requirement,
since most power-assisted bicycles are equipped with an
electronic switching system that allows riders to change the
pedal-to-power assistance ratio with ease. The Department believes
that limiting the power of the motor and the speed of propulsion
assistance is sufficient to ensure public safety and that it
is unnecessary to regulate the maximum pedal-to-power assistance
ratio.
A clause has been added to the amendment that requires
power-assisted bicycles to bear a permanently affixed label
clearly stating that the power-assisted bicycle complies with the
requirements of the definition. This stipulation will enable provincial
and territorial governments to verify the compliance of the
power-assisted bicycles used within their jurisdictions.
This amendment also requires the installation of an on-off
mechanism to start and stop the motor when the power-assisted
bicycle is not equipped with an “intelligent” system that prevents
inadvertent starting of the motor. Since an electric motor is always
operational (“live”), the Department was concerned that
children might accidentally start the bicycle and possibly suffer
serious injury as a result. An on-off mechanism would prevent
this type of accident. Since most of the power-assisted bicycles
available on the market are equipped with such a device, this
measure will affect only new products. Instead of an on-off
mechanism, some power-assisted bicycles are fitted with a device
that prevents the motor from being engaged before the bicycle
reaches a speed of 3 km/h. In such a case, there is no risk of accident
and the amendment does not mandate the installation of an
on-off mechanism.
It is anticipated that the provinces and territories will add the
federal definition for power-assisted bicycles to their standards
governing conventional bicycles, thereby ensuring the integration
of all types of bicycles and avoiding potential safety problems for
cyclists and the general public. The provinces and territories
could adopt the federal definition as is or tailor it to meet their
own specific needs.
Effective Date Date
This amendment comes into effect on the date of its registration
by the Clerk of the Privy Council.
Alternatives
As was mentioned in the Canada Gazette, Part I, the Department
prepared a Preliminary Assessment Report on the Proposed
Amendment of Section 2 of the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations
on Power-Assisted Bicycles, dated January 7, 1998, to assess the
possible courses of action. This report was sent to the provinces
or their responsible agencies, the Motorcycle and Moped Industry
Council (MMIC), and other interested parties requesting their
comments with respect to each of the options. The four options
were as follows:
Option 1: Maintain the existing requirements unchanged
The Regulations would continue to require power-assisted bicycles
to be classed as limited-speed motorcycles and to comply
with the applicable safety standards.
Option 2: Harmonize with the U.S. state requirements
Define power-assisted bicycles as a separate vehicle type and
develop applicable safety standards similar to those of the individual
U.S. states, as suggested by the Motorcycle and Moped
Industry Council.
Option 3: Develop a unique Canadian regulation
Define power-assisted bicycles as a separate vehicle type and
develop applicable safety standards based on those prescribed for
bicycles by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission or by
the International Standards Organization (ISO 4210 “Cycles -
Safety Requirements for Bicycles”).
Option 4: Exclude power-assisted bicycles from compliance
with the prescribed classes of vehicles
Define power-assisted bicycles as a separate vehicle type and
exclude them from having to comply with the requirements applicable
to the prescribed classes of vehicles. This approach would
be similar to the manner in which these vehicles are treated in
other countries, including the U.S. and Japan.
Comments Received in Response to the Preliminary Assessment
Report
Comments were received from the governments of Manitoba,
New Brunswick, Alberta, Nova Scotia, and Saskatchewan, as
well as from the Société de l’assurance automobile du Québec
(SAAQ), the Entreprises Track Test, the Motorcycle and Moped
Industry Council, and the Insurance Corporation of British
Columbia (ICBC).
The responses to the Preliminary Assessment Report varied,
but most respondents supported harmonization with the requirements
of the individual U.S. states. There was also support for
defining power-assisted bicycles in the manner proposed and
exempting them from compliance with the standards for limitedspeed
motorcycles; however, there was some hesitation with regard
to this approach. One comment advocated maintaining the
status quo.
Conclusion
Harmonizing with the requirements of the U.S. states, as some
commenters favoured, would have been difficult because of the
wide variation in their individual requirements. Consequently, it
was decided to define power-assisted bicycles and remove them
from the safety standards applicable to limited-speed motorcycles.
Despite the fact that the benefits and costs of this amendment
have not been quantified, it will undoubtedly have a positive impact
on the environment and the economy. Subjecting powerassisted
bicycles to the requirements for limited-speed motorcycles
effectively exclude them from the Canadian market. The new
definition will allow the sale of a new means of transportation
that is attractive, safe, and environment-friendly. The technical
characteristics set out in the definition will contribute to the safety
of Canadians while having a minimal economic impact on the
manufacturers of power-assisted bicycles since most of their
products already meet the requirements of this amendment. The
anticipated effects on the environment will be positive because
this type of vehicle is powered by a non-polluting source of energy
and its use should help to alleviate urban traffic congestion.
Consultation
Notice of the Department of Transport’s intention to make this
amendment was published in the Canada Gazette, Part I on November
20, 1999. Vehicle manufacturers and importers, as well as
public safety organizations, were also informed of the proposed
amendment during their regular meetings with government representatives.
In addition to considering the comments received following
pre-publication in the Canada Gazette, Part I, the Department
conducted two further rounds of consultations with the provinces
and the principal stakeholders in order to obtain their opinions on
changes to the proposed technical characteristics of the definition
of power-assisted bicycles and to garner their support for extending
the scope of the amendment to include power-assisted bicycles
equipped with an accelerator control.
The majority of respondents were in favour of the amendment.
The government of Ontario and the SAAQ were concerned about
widening its scope to include power-assisted bicycles equipped
with an accelerator control, while the government of Alberta,
the ICBC, and the government of the Yukon approved. The government
of Ontario stated that, if muscular power is not required
for its propulsion, then a power-assisted bicycle is similar to a
motorcycle or a moped and should, therefore, be subject to the
safety standards applicable to limited-speed motorcycles. This
opinion was shared by the MMIC. The Electric Vehicle Association
of Canada (EVAC), the Toronto Atmospheric Fund, and
Accessories Concepts Inc. were in favour of extending the scope
of the amendment because, in their opinion, both types of powerassisted
bicycles offer a comparable level of safety and doing so
would facilitate the marketing of this type of vehicle in Canada.
The results of the exhaustive study conducted by CEVEQ convinced
the Department that both types of power-assisted bicycle
provide a similar level of safety when they meet the maximum
power and speed requirements prescribed in the definition. Furthermore,
it is expected that this amendment will encourage the
use of this environment-friendly means of transportation, in accordance
with the intent of the Department’s sustainable transportation
policy, and facilitate the emergence of a new industry in
Canada.
The SAAQ, MMIC, Groupe Procycle Inc., EPS Energy and
Propulsion Systems, and CEVEQ agreed with the proposal to
limit the maximum power output rating of the motor to 500 watts,
but pointed out that, in order to avoid the installation of several
motors, the amendment should specify that this threshold applies
to the entire propulsion system. They also noted that it should
be made clear that the rated power is the continuous power
output. The Ford Motor Company suggested raising this level to
750 watts in order to aid in the propulsion of products such as
tandem bicycles and tricycles, whereas Vélo Québec proposed
limiting the power output to 400 watts. EVAC initially supported
a power threshold of 500 watts, which it considered reasonable
and effective as a means of limiting the performance of powerassisted
bicycles to acceptable levels, but subsequently came out
in favour of a maximum power output rating of 750 watts, which
it considered necessary to ensure good acceleration and to assist
in climbing hills.
Maximum power output is a key element in ensuring the safe
use of power-assisted bicycles. As already mentioned, a maximum
power output of 500 watts is comparable to the optimum
performance of a cyclist using a conventional bicycle, while
750 watts is well beyond the capability of the average cyclist.
Furthermore, 500 watts provides sufficient power for the propulsion
of a tandem bicycle or a tricycle. The elimination of the
pedal-to-power assistance ratio of 1:1 that was proposed in the
Canada Gazette, Part I gives flexibility to manufacturers and
makes possible the use of a ratio that will maximize the motor’s
power output when required. The Department was concerned
about the acceleration that could be achieved by a power-assisted
bicycle equipped with a 750-watt motor, particularly if operated
by a child. Power-assisted bicycles are intended to complement
conventional bicycles and, as such, it is acceptable for them to
require muscular effort on the part of the rider when going uphill.
To prevent the installation of several motors whose individual
characteristics would meet the requirements of the definition, but
which would exceed the prescribed limit of 500 watts for the propulsion
system as a whole, this amendment specifies that powerassisted
bicycles can be equipped with only one electric motor.
EPS Energy and Propulsion Systems wanted the power rating
requirement to be applied to the propulsion system as a whole in
order to allow the installation of an electric motor at each driving
position on a tandem bicycle. The Department will examine the
possibility of installing more than one electric motor in a subsequent
review.
With regard to increasing the maximum allowable speed of the
motor, the government of Alberta, the ICBC, the Yukon government,
Toronto Atmospheric Fund, Accessories Concept Inc., and
EPS Energy and Propulsion Systems were in favour. They considered
a threshold of 30 km/h to be safe, representative of the
cruising speed of the average cyclist, and in accordance with the
speed limits in most school zones and around the majority of
playgrounds across Canada. The SAAQ preferred a threshold of
24 km/h, which it considered safer. The Ford Motor Company
Inc. suggested a limit of 40 km/h, or at least 32 km/h, which is
equivalent to the 20-m/h speed limit permitted in many
U.S. states and which is the limit of the power-assisted bicycles
produced by the company. Vélo Québec recommended a limit of
20 km/h, while EVAC suggested 32 km/h as a maximum speed in
order to harmonize Canada’s requirements with those of many of
the U.S. states and to facilitate trade in power-assisted bicycles
between the two countries.
A speed of 40 km/h exceeds the performance level of the average
cyclist and is far too high to ensure the safety of riders. Conversely,
a speed of 24 km/h would eliminate any incentive to buy
a power-assisted bicycle, since a cyclist using a conventional
bicycle can achieve higher average speeds. Although 32 km/h is
not consistent with the speed limit in some school zones in
Canada, it harmonizes with the speed limit of several U.S. states
for this type of vehicle. In addition, the speed resulting from muscular
power with assistance from an electric motor may exceed
32 km/h, which eliminates the need to limit the speed to the level
prescribed in certain jurisdictions. The maximum speed of all the
power-assisted bicycles used in the CEVEQ study was 32 km/h or
less. It is believed that prescribing a maximum speed limit of
32 km/h on the motor of a power-assisted bicycle would have a
minimal economic impact on manufacturers.
Following pre-publication of the proposal in the Canada Gazette,
Part I, sseveral commenters, including the Ford Motor
Company, EVAC, Allwin Enterprises Inc., the MMIC, EPS Energy
and Propulsion Systems, and Currie Technologies Inc., expressed
their opposition to limiting the pedal-to-power assistance
ratio to no more than 1:1, which was considered too restrictive
and prevented maximum use of the motor’s power to assist cyclists
with reduced muscular strength. The SAAQ went so far as
to suggest that a study of higher pedal-to-power assistance ratios
be undertaken. The Department agreed with these comments and
decided to eliminate the requirement without, however, conducting
a formal study.
The Ontario government and the SAAQ requested that the Department
regulate power-assisted bicycles so as to prevent alterations
after their purchase for the purpose of increasing their power
or speed. Although after-purchase vehicle modifications fall under
provincial and territorial jurisdiction, the Department is sensitive
to the problem of identifying vehicles whose characteristics
may have been changed. It was partly with this in mind that the
restriction on the pedal-to-power assistance ratio was eliminated,
given that most power-assisted bicycles offer multiple settings.
While it is difficult, if not impossible, to prevent after-purchase
mechanical alterations, the problem is minimized by the fact that
power-assisted bicycles are equipped with electronic speed control.
The SAAQ pointed out that the proposal published in the
Canada Gazette, Part I lacked a requirement for a label, making
enforcement of the definition virtually impossible. The Department
agreed with the SAAQ and added a clause to that effect.
EVAC expressed concern about the absence of any device to
prevent the inadvertent starting of the motor if an unattended
child were to activate the accelerator control. Since an electric
motor is always “live”, the potential risk of an accident is high.
Ford of Canada Limited suggested adding a requirement for a
switch to be held closed by the cyclist when pressing the accelerator
control. EPS Energy and Propulsion Systems proposed that
it be permissible for the electric motor to be activated only when
a speed of 3 km/h was reached, which requires the cyclist to start
pedalling before the motor can be engaged. The company currently
markets bicycles with this feature. While both these recommendations
have merit, the Department did not have data regarding
their possible impact on manufacturers and riders and,
therefore, decided to add a requirement for either an on-off switch
that can be accessed by the rider or a mechanism that prevents the
motor from being engaged before the bicycle attains a speed of
3 km/h. The latter requirement will allow EPS Energy and Propulsion
Systems to continue to market its product, which is safe
even though it is not equipped with an on-off mechanism. This
requirement is also consonant with a comment made by the
SAAQ suggesting that the power switch indicate whether the
motor is on or off and that it be easily accessible to the cyclist.
Ford of Canada Limited requested a change to one of the defined
characteristics of the electric motor once it is engaged by
muscular power. For technical reasons, the company asked that
the motor’s propulsion assistance be allowed to stop three seconds
after muscular power ceases and not immediately, as prescribed
in the proposal. The Department did not accede to this
request. Allowing a three-second interval before the motor stops
could seriously endanger the safety of the rider. In the CEVEQ
study, one female cyclist barely avoided a very serious accident
when the motor did not stop providing propulsion assistance immediately
after she ceased pedalling.
The government of Alberta and the ICBC asked that the word
“throttle” be replaced by the term “accelerator control”, which is
a more general expression that gives greater flexibility to manufacturers
as to the type of control that can be used. It also resembles
more closely the French term “commande d’accélération”,
which was used in the proposal. The Department agreed and
amended the text accordingly.
The ICBC and Ford Motor Company raised questions regarding
the use of power sources other than an electric motor. Ford
pointed out that the proposed definition excluded solar-powered
methods of propulsion and low-emission combustion engines.
The ICBC wondered whether the amendment would allow the use
of hybrid systems that combine an electric motor with a combustion
engine. The final definition was clarified to eliminate all ambiguity.
An important goal of this amendment is to provide a safe,
viable, and non-polluting alternative to conventional means of
transportation. This alternative means must also perform on a
level comparable to that of the average cyclist using a conventional
bicycle. A bicycle equipped with an electric motor meets
these conditions. Bicycles equipped with a combustion engine are
subject to the requirements governing limited-speed motorcycles
or motorcycles. The Department will consider amending the definition
when other pollution-free power sources become available,
at which time it will analyze the impact of such new power
sources on the safety of riders and the public.
The MMIC asked for the addition of a clause to allow the installation
of a “carrying assist feature” that would help a dismounted
cyclist to push a power-assisted bicycle and that would
be deactivated automatically when the rider mounted the bicycle.
This feature is popular in Japan where cyclists consider it invaluable
when climbing hills. Since the amendment is silent with regard
to such a device, its installation would be permitted.
The SAAQ, the Quebec Department of Transportation,
the ICBC, and the Toronto Atmospheric Fund raised other relevant
issues that have not been addressed in this amendment. The
ICBC suggested including a “brake and safety performance
requirement that would ensure the motor drive mechanism and
energy storage mechanism are properly secured”. The government
of British Columbia is presently developing a regulation to
that effect. Similarly, the SAAQ plans to require the wearing
of safety helmets, to extend other conventional-bicycle standards
to power-assisted bicycles, and to restrict the age of riders. Vélo
Québec suggested an age limit of 14 years. The Toronto Atmospheric
Fund recommended regulating the size of the wheels and
noted that there is a lack of storage space for these vehicles. It
also mentioned that locking power-assisted bicycles to the types
of bicycle racks typically found in the city is difficult. The government
of Ontario suggested that, in cooperation with its counterpart
governments, educational material be developed to inform
riders how to operate power-assisted bicycles safely.
The Department believes that the technical requirements contained
in this amendment are sufficient to ensure the safety of
Canadians. Moreover, the terms of the definition of powerassisted
bicycles will allow the provinces and territories to add
any specific provisions that they may deem necessary, and manufacturers
will have the flexibility they need in order to offer a
product that is better adapted to the needs of cyclists.
Motor vehicle manufacturers and importers are responsible for
ensuring that their products comply with the requirements of the
Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations. The Department of Transport
monitors the self-certification programs of manufacturers and
importers by reviewing their test documentation, inspecting
vehicles, and testing vehicles obtained in the open market. When
a defect is found, the manufacturer or importer must issue a notice
of defect to owners and to the Minister of Transport. If a vehicle
does not comply with a safety standard, the manufacturer or
importer is subject to prosecution and, if found guilty, may be
fined as prescribed in the Motor Vehicle Safety Act.
Contact
Brian Jonah, Director
Motor Vehicle Standards and Research
Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation Directorate
Department of Transport
330 Sparks Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0N5
Tel.: (613) 998-1968
FAX: (613) 990-2913
Internet address: jonahb@tc.gc.ca