Some Facts About Electric Bicycles
A London Police Service media release:
There have been recent articles promoting the benefits of alternative “greener” or environmentally friendlier vehicles and the “electric bicycle” has certainly received a fair amount of coverage. With everyone looking to jump on the alternative vehicle bandwagon it’s important to educate the public about the laws of electric bikes before you find yourself wasting money on products that aren’t legal.
Electric bicycles were introduced to Ontario as part of a pilot project in 2006. Originally, the electric bicycle was suppose to resemble a “normal” looking bicycle except with an electric motor that would assist the rider when required. Quickly manufacturers saw an opportunity of increased sales by redesigning the electric bicycle to look more like the motorized “European” type scooter. In doing this they’ve also modified them reducing or eliminating the usefulness of the pedals. On April 23, 2009, Bill 126, Road Safety Act, 2009, received Royal Assent. Bill 126 included amendments to the Highway Traffic Act (HTA) definition of “bicycle” to include power-assisted bicycles (i.e., “e-bikes”) and to clarify that e-bikes must have operable pedals attached and must be capable of being propelled only by muscular power.
In order to be considered an electric bicycle and allowed in Ontario the device must have two wheels, with operable pedals as the primary means of propulsion. The electric motor must be no larger than 500Watts of power capable of a maximum speed of 32 km/hr.
There are a few additional specific requirements: the rider must be 16 years of age or older and must always wear a certified bicycle helmet. There is no requirement for a driver’s licence, insurance or a licence plate.
From an enforcement standpoint, the device is considered a bicycle under the Highway Traffic Act and all riders are subject to the rules of the road as any cyclist is. If the pedals are removed or become inoperable it no longer fits the definition of an electric bicycle and it will be subject to motor vehicle charges under the Highway Traffic Act.
For those people who have lost their licence because of a criminal conviction in court and think they can now get around on an electric bicycle instead of a car, the electric bicycle is considered a “motor vehicle” under the Criminal Code. You will not be allowed to ride the device on public streets or highways and if stopped you’ll face further serious criminal offences.
Before purchasing an “electric bicycle” do your homework, make sure that specific device meets the criteria for Ontario. Know the rules of operation, obey the rules of the road and then happy “green” trails.
Sergeant Tom O’Brien
Traffic Management Unit
London Police Service
© Fowler Media
If an electric bicycle is now considered a “Motor Vehicle”, does that mean they are no longer allowed on city bike paths?
I believe that traditional muscle-powered bicycles are allowed on city bike paths despite the fact that they’re considered by the province’s HTA to be vehicles. Note the qualifier. I haven’t read about police laying charges and I don’t have time to reference the HTA at the moment. However, it’s an interesting question, especially with respect to electric assisted bicycles, so I’ve sent an inquiry to LPS. I’ll let you know what response I get from them.
Road Safety Act, 2009
3 year trial (OReg 473/06 under Highway Traffic Act)
definition in the federal Motor Vehicles Safety Regulations
City of London excludes “motor assisted” cycles in the Parks & Rec by-law PR-2 (PDF 39 KB)
Josh: The first two links take me to the province’s website but it’s server gives an error message in each case.
The third link only took me to an update page on the Federal Access to Justice site, but subsequent tries have correctly displayed that same site’s ‘motor vehicles safety regulations’ page.
What’s the relevance of the last one? How do federal regs impact provincial transportation? Do they only apply to what happens on federally-owned land within the province, or armed forces vehicles, etc?
The Parks ‘n Rec by-law may only apply to pathways in parks and along the Thames (I haven’t had time to review it yet). I’m wondering if it applies to the bike paths along city streets or if those are (or would have to be) specified in the Streets by-law?
Thanks for taking the time that it took to check it out.
Let me offer a summary with some more stable links.
The key document is the Road Safety Act, 2009, S.O. 2009, c. 5 – Bill 126 [229 KB] which gives the Minister power to make regulations (see O. Reg. 473/06 below) and references the definition of “power-assisted bicycle” in Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations [
(HTML page with definition 218 KB)(full document link PDF 8717 KB)] which reads:
Highway Traffic Act – O. Reg. 473/06 [72 KB] basically sets the age limit at 16 years and requires bicycle helmets:
But the Highway Traffic Act deals only with provincial roads. London’s parks and pathways are covered under the Parks & Rec by-law PR-2 (PDF 39 KB) for which
I think that in 2005 when the by-law PR-2 was enacted they had “power-assisted bicycle” in mind but called is something different. That is, something which travels significantly faster than most human-powered transportation. This by-law’s motor exclusion applies where “parks” and “recreation areas” are concerned–each of which is defined.
The Streets by-law S-1 (PDF 51 KB) provides in section 2.11 that
where in the definition section we read that
I take issue with this in two ways: many on- and off-road paths are not signed; and on-road paths are use by all sorts of vehicles. Since automobile right-side tires often pass through on-road paths which have been painted into lanes of traffic, then the prohibition of motor vehicles from bicycle paths ought to either be enforced or revised to explicitly not apply to power-assisted bicycles. As things stand now, I understand riding a bicycle in a bicycle path is optional.
Thanks for that additional contribution to the discussion.
I have to admit that I’ve always been a bit puzzled by on-road painted bicycle paths and I’d prefer to see them removed. I think they confuse the issue of who’s permitted where and that they impart a false sense of security to at least some cyclists. If bicycles are considered to be vehicles then they should be treated the same way and expected to fully occupy any lane which the operator chooses.
(We’re now off-topic of the post; I’ll still reply following this line of thought.)
I noticed one on-road bicycle path I used this week wasn’t painted into a lane of traffic: the pavement of the road was wider than usual.
I find the best lane position to occupy a full lane is in front of the driver behind you. This avoids the false confidence you mention. But…
1. Lane sharing is allowed. Why else are bicycles asked to ride
in the gutterat the edge of the road?2. What is not allowed is lane splitting–riding on or straddling the lines of paint which mark the lanes. I figure taking a lane too narrow to share discourages four-wheeled vehicles from lane splitting and encouraged them to pass me using the next lane.
Highway Traffic Act of Ontario (H-8)
I’m slowly building a habit of taking my lane when reaching a stop sign. Forcing the stop sign to be treated as a FIFO queue seems like the safest course of action because I can’t be hidden from sight by another vehicle, only to be revealed once it’s too late for someone to stop / turn out.
I cannot imagine making a left turn from next to the curb. This is necessarily across at least one automobile’s path — or else why would I be riding near the curb? However, this is how I interpret a suggestion I received from Sgt. O’Brien, Traffic Management Unit, London Police Service:
I should record more video because I find it very difficult to accurately convey or interpret descriptions of traffic flow. I anticipate that viewing examples will make these conversations easier by removing the hypothetical aspect.
Don’t you think that HTA 154(1) contradicts Tom’s contention that bikes ought to keep to the right?
I don’t mind that he expresses his personal opinion, but he should clearly identify that’s what it is. As opposed to what he says as a police officer, which should be strictly fact-based.
Tom may want to influence cyclists to keep to the right in order that traffic can move faster, but that’s a personal political position. By failing to identify it as such, he brings disrepute upon the legal system. The same as when he cherry-picks the questions that he will answer, and ignores the ones that he finds inconvenient. Like the obligation of drivers to not hit pedestrians who are crossing at unsignalized intersections, and his obligation to enforce that legal right of pedestrians to cross there.
I just had my Norco converted to an ebike with a chinese mail order kit and want to use it to commute to my work place downtown from the Bridle Path area. The way I would normally travel before the conversion is take the path at the end of Bridle Path out to William & Huron st, from there down the side streets to Richmond and then head towards Dundas and King. Am I allowed to use my ebike on the path still? I see they just painted in some bike lanes on Kipps, am I allowed to ride in them?
Thank you.