Ontario regulators must have been monitoring this forum. It seems that they have changed their web site regarding new and alternative vehicles.

The new page (http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/dandv/vehicle/emerging/)adds tricycles and has removed the illustration of electric scooters from the electric bicycles subheading, and inserted that an electric bicycle "is designed to be propelled primarily by muscular power and to travel on not more than three wheels"

Hmm.

There is a God in Heaven after all. :thumb:

From the page: "The ministry has become aware of scooter-style vehicles that technically meet the pilot’s e-bike definition, but not the intent, as they are not primarily operated by muscular power due to their heavy weight."

Good on them for actually being so specific about it.

I like it. People trying to circumvent the law while risking the safety of others with their own selfishness. Justice will be served.

Ontario regulators must have been monitoring this forum. It seems that they have changed their web site regarding new and alternative vehicles.

The new page (http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/dandv/vehicle/emerging/)adds tricycles and has removed the illustration of electric scooters from the electric bicycles subheading, and inserted that an electric bicycle "is designed to be propelled primarily by muscular power and to travel on not more than three wheels"

Hmm.

Read the amendment...hohummm!! This is like going backwards with these guys....74230

From the amendment: "a mechanism that prevents the motor from
being engaged before the bicycle attains 3
km/hr".

Can you even get those scooter-style bikes going to 3 kph with the pedals? It may be possible in theory, but at 175lbs, I have my doubts.

From the amendment: "a mechanism that prevents the motor from
being engaged before the bicycle attains 3
km/hr".

Can you even get those scooter-style bikes going to 3 kph with the pedals? It may be possible in theory, but at 175lbs, I have my doubts.

Guys, come on....read before you quote...We all went though this back in October of 2006...Keep up with the program....
You don't have to be lawyer to comprehend this stuff...and yes you can to your statement....my bike weighs 132 lbs.

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 3
km/hr

NOTE: A commitment has been made to evaluate the pilot prior to its three-year expiry. The intent of the ministry’s pilot was to allow e-bikes that look and operate like conventional bikes in order to promote a safe, healthy and environmentally friendly alternative to current transportation modes.
The ministry has become aware of scooter-style vehicles that technically meet the pilot’s e-bike definition, but not the intent, as they are not primarily operated by muscular power due to their heavy weight. Therefore, in addition to evaluating how safely the e-bike can integrate with other motor vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians, the emergence of the scooter-style e-bikes requires the ministry to also assess if the pilot’s original intent continues to be appropriate. The ministry may clarify its position on the original intent of the pilot when final legislation is drafted.


Why not Quote the whole addition, If I understand it correctly the ministry is to assess if their "intent" was appropriate.

Of course their intent was not appropriate, How could they have not realized that scooter style bikes would appear. They had been on BC roads for 4 years prior!!

Take a look at this http://www.icbc.com/registration/reg_rules_low_pwr_mtr_asstd_cycles.asp

Or should we keep Ontario backazzwords :)

Guys, come on....read before you quote...We all went though this back in October of 2006...Keep up with the program....
You don't have to be lawyer to comprehend this stuff...and yes you can to your statement....my bike weighs 132 lbs.

No, actually, we didn't ALL go through it back in October of 2006. Not everybody has been into cycling all along. Chill out, man.

My apologies...

http://www.icbc.com/registration/images/MotorAss.jpghttp://www.icbc.com/registration/images/LimitSpeed.jpg
This is from the ICBC in BC a government owned and operated Insurance Company that has been "aware" of the
two styles from the beginning and has recognized both styles under the program...Since we are all mature adults it
is nice that we can have a choice since both styles attract a different audience and fulfill the "intent" of the Ministry to get people out of their cars and onto a bike without polluting the environment...I find personally the scooter style bike to do this more efficiently...but both e-bikes have a place in our society....

the official site is www.icbc.com (http://www.icbc.com) and search MAC (motor assisted cycles) and will explain the differences between a moped and motor assisted cycle....Let's not judge a bike, because of it's cover...LOL

I agree that it's great that there are a lot of choices out there for people to get out of their cars, at least for some trips, and onto e-bikes. I do have my doubts about whether all of these styles belong on MUPs, however. Until I see some data on the maneuverability and braking ability of the scooter-style e-bikes, my immediate reaction is that something that large/heavy shouldn't allowed to barrel down a MUP at up to 32kph when that MUP may be crowded with unpredictable pedestrians.

Could not agree with you more....when riding on a bike path...slow right down....I personally average 6 or 7 km per hour....In my case the bicycle path shaves off a good 15 minutes of riding....As I mentioned the riders of this style of bike are generally an older more sophisticated generation not the least bit interested in speed...I have a motorcycle licence but I have not had one in 20 years (wife won;t let me) these are not about the need for speed as they are a quiet, non polluting and inexpensive way to commute...Oh yeah and fun...the drum brakes on these vehicles I find to be excellent at any speed. I have never seen anyone doing 32 through a park on a bike path and there are at least a dozen riders in my area....and I agree with you that not even a bicyclist should "barrel" down a bike path...both are capable and both should not.

An examination of data covering the period 1975 - 2002 from Transport Canada [1,2], a federal government agency, shows that Canada is replicating the experiences of Australia and the US, where no effect of increased helmet use among cyclists can be detected from prevailing fatality trends. As with other studies, our analysis uses pedestrians as a control group since pedestrians are vulnerable road users and are likely to benefit equally with cyclists from general safety campaigns, such as those involving roadside breath-testing of motorists and speed surveillance using radar equipment.

Conclusions


It is apparent that mass helmet use is not contributing to the reduction in cyclist fatalities, at least not in any measurable way. The results suggest that traffic authorities should refocus to put their efforts into other proven measures. Programs aimed at motorist behaviour over the past 20 or so years have been effective in reducing fatalities among all road user groups, including pedestrians and cyclists. Pressure on aggressive drivers to change their habits should continue. However, targetting the behaviour of only one of the parties would be short sighted. Cyclist-specific measures are also needed. There are two important factors in cycling fatalities which currently get insufficient attention - cyclist behaviour and night lighting equipment. The vast majority of cycling accidents involve cyclist error or inappropriate practices. That includes collisions with motor vehicles [5]. Educational efforts to improve cyclists' skills should be accorded a high priority. School age children are the obvious target group. Responsible behaviour patterns need to be adopted at an early age. The corollary is stricter enforcement of bicycle night lighting laws. Over 90% of bicycles involved in night time fatalities have inadequate lighting [6]. Violaters increase their risks of being fatality statistics by a factor of four [7]. Data from Ontario show 20% to 30% of fatalities occur at dusk or during the hours of darkness [7-9].


There are many "accidents" with cyclists too....should they be outlawed or insured...absolutely not...
I love my scooter style bike alone for the overall nightime visibilty as I am tooling to the corner store....

An examination of data covering the period 1975 - 2002 from Transport Canada [1,2], a federal government agency, shows that Canada is replicating the experiences of Australia and the US, where no effect of increased helmet use among cyclists can be detected from prevailing fatality trends. As with other studies, our analysis uses pedestrians as a control group since pedestrians are vulnerable road users and are likely to benefit equally with cyclists from general safety campaigns, such as those involving roadside breath-testing of motorists and speed surveillance using radar equipment.

Conclusions


It is apparent that mass helmet use is not contributing to the reduction in cyclist fatalities, at least not in any measurable way. The results suggest that traffic authorities should refocus to put their efforts into other proven measures. Programs aimed at motorist behaviour over the past 20 or so years have been effective in reducing fatalities among all road user groups, including pedestrians and cyclists. Pressure on aggressive drivers to change their habits should continue. However, targetting the behaviour of only one of the parties would be short sighted. Cyclist-specific measures are also needed. There are two important factors in cycling fatalities which currently get insufficient attention - cyclist behaviour and night lighting equipment. The vast majority of cycling accidents involve cyclist error or inappropriate practices. That includes collisions with motor vehicles [5]. Educational efforts to improve cyclists' skills should be accorded a high priority. School age children are the obvious target group. Responsible behaviour patterns need to be adopted at an early age. The corollary is stricter enforcement of bicycle night lighting laws. Over 90% of bicycles involved in night time fatalities have inadequate lighting [6]. Violaters increase their risks of being fatality statistics by a factor of four [7]. Data from Ontario show 20% to 30% of fatalities occur at dusk or during the hours of darkness [7-9].


There are many "accidents" with cyclists too....should they be outlawed or insured...absolutely not...
I love my scooter style bike alone for the overall nightime visibilty as I am tooling to the corner store....


I've got to tell you, I've read your posts on this thread frontwards and backwards, and I have no idea how they relate to the thread. Do you need to start your own anti-helmet thread?

It is my understanding that this thread relates to e-bikes in Ontario, not electric scooters insurance in British Columbia or unsubstanciated helmet scrum. Please tell me if I'm wrong.

I've got to tell you, I've read your posts on this thread frontwards and backwards, and I have no idea how they relate to the thread. Do you need to start your own anti-helmet thread?

It is my understanding that this thread relates to e-bikes in Ontario, not electric scooters insurance in British Columbia or unsubstanciated helmet scrum. Please tell me if I'm wrong.

they are power assisted bicycles......a scooter has a gas powered engine....you must have missed my point...but the info was from Transport Canada...

I've got to tell you, I've read your posts on this thread frontwards and backwards, and I have no idea how they relate to the thread.

Thats really not suprising Electrogreen

I think an easy way to define "motor assisted cycle" would be, can it be used, non-motor effectively?
I'd set up a test, 5 miles, mostly flat. If a vehicle could be ridden, non-motor at 12 mph average on the course, then it is a motor assisted cycle. If it can't it is a limited speed motorcycle. Seems simple enough.

http://www.icbc.com/registration/images/MotorAss.jpghttp://www.icbc.com/registration/images/LimitSpeed.jpg
]

I could ride the second vehicle 12 mph for 5 miles on flat ground. But not the first.
I guess it should be easy, is it primarily a motor vehicle, or a pedal vehicle?

a Speed and weight limit seems to be the most practical for a unlicensed unregistered vehicle. One should expect limitations on where that vehicle can be ridden though. Alberta has quite good regs on powered bicycle. I would like the weight to be slightly higher though. Seems hard to build a really practical and economical powered bike under 35kgs.
Ed

Maddyfish, Not a problem. We can build whatever we want. The Canadian Federal law defines a power assisted bike and it say's capable of being propelled by muscular power. It use to say primarally, they changed it. Why did they change it? Because they want to give people options.

I suspect it will be going back to the old definition. The veloteq makes a mockery of the law. Basically it is a motor scooter with pedals attached only so it can fit into the wording of the law. From what I have read the Alberta regs are pretty good. The easiest solution though is to require all motor vehicles to be registered and licensed.

I suspect it will be going back to the old definition
Possible, but a step backwards if it does. IMHO

The veloteq makes a mockery of the law. Basically it is a motor scooter with pedals attached only so it can fit into the wording of the law
The petals are not intended to mock the law. They are there to comply with the law that the bike has petals that are capable of propelling the vehicle. They do this quite well.



From what I have read the Alberta regs are pretty good

Yes, a province that makes how much from the sale of oil? They have a very big interest is seeing less cars on the road???

The easiest solution though is to require all motor vehicles to be registered and licensed.
I agree, but by law a power assited bike is not considered a motorized vehicles

VELOTEQS ARE MOTOR SCOOTERS, NOT BIKES!

Veloteqs are electric motor scooters that qualify as a power assisted bike. They are safe, they are fun, they are practical, they are a great forward thinking vehicle and will only get better.

Just because a Big Wheel has pedals, doesn't make it bike.
Your right, most would consider it a trike :)

All the dealers of scooter style e-bikes are sold out again...they are gone before they come in....
Those that oppose will always oppose...who cares....you certainly don't have to explain yourself to the thousands that own one...Ask someone what they think of a Ford...One person will say it is the best car on the road and one will say it is the worst car on the road...Opinions...doesn't make it true....

Dew is 100% right in what he said......

The people who ride a scooter style "ebike" will tell you it's a bicycle with motor assist.

The people who don't, say they are a motorized means of transport and should be treated as such.

It's public opinion. Does it matter in the long run???? No.

What matters right now is what the Government says, and in most of North America ( if not all), 500w or less with peddles attached is a bicycle.

Neither side will win the argument fully, because both sides have valid points + opinion.

If your for, let your local Government know your views, not people on a message board. If your against, also let your local Government know how you feel, because your only going to frustrate your self trying to argue the point with people who feel as strongly as you do.

In the end rules will be made, changed, or writen to suit the mix of Transport required by the people, but done so by the people who matter in the end.......The Government.

It does not matter a whole lot where I stand on the issue, because I am no more important then the next person, but I will make my thoughts known to any person I run across from Local Government.

I could ride the second vehicle 12 mph for 5 miles on flat ground. But not the first.
I guess it should be easy, is it primarily a motor vehicle, or a pedal vehicle?



a Speed and weight limit seems to be the most practical for a unlicensed unregistered vehicle. One should expect limitations on where that vehicle can be ridden though. Alberta has quite good regs on powered bicycle. I would like the weight to be slightly higher though. Seems hard to build a really practical and economical powered bike under 35kgs.
Ed


I hate to do this, really I do, because in a way it seems so cheep to find a loophole in anything.

You could ride the first at 12 mph for 5 miles on a flat through a slalom if needed. 2 minor changes required by the maker of these scooters.

1) Change out of clip style peddles to slimmer crank style with minor slim up of the outer ABS shell to fit new peddles.

2) Replacement of heavy duty frame with Hybred Aluminum/Carbon fiber chassis ( added cost to end user on buy price, but a huge reduction in the kg's/lbs ).

Now that being said I know personally 3 people ( adults of limited ability ), who would not be able to human power a weight reduced normal bike through the same test. Would they then have to park their bikes?

They do not ever attempt to ride a normal road like an able body cyclist, but will travel to a bike path start point by car and take the bikes along the path for some outdoor activity.

A test like that is just not a fair way to pass laws, by laws, or rules.

"VELOTEQS ARE MOTOR SCOOTERS, NOT BIKES!"

Thanks for the Advertising and thanks for never mentioning "the other guys" LOL

Anytime the government sticks their nose in our business, it's never good. I'm for less regulation because I have faith in the majority of people. Those that will be reckless will do so regardless.

Anytime the government sticks their nose in our business, it's never good. I'm for less regulation because I have faith in the majority of people. Those that will be reckless will do so regardless.

Ok. I'll be buying my 20 megaton nuclear weapon tomorrow then.

"Just because it has pedals, doesn't make it a bike"

That is correct...to be a bike by definition, it requires 2 wheels...That is where the "bi" comes from.
A 3 wheeled is a Trike....."Tri" You see how it works....A MotorCycle and also be referred to as a Bike, because of it's two wheels. It Cycles with a motor, therefore it is a motorcycle...but cannot be pedalled...
An E-Bike is an electic bike or sometimes referred to as a power assisted bicycle....Two wheeled and propelled by either pedals or power....It's really easy....once you get the hang of it....LOL

I hate to do this, really I do, because in a way it seems so cheep to find a loophole in anything.

You could ride the first at 12 mph for 5 miles on a flat through a slalom if needed. 2 minor changes required by the maker of these scooters.

1) Change out of clip style peddles to slimmer crank style with minor slim up of the outer ABS shell to fit new peddles.

2) Replacement of heavy duty frame with Hybred Aluminum/Carbon fiber chassis ( added cost to end user on buy price, but a huge reduction in the kg's/lbs ).

Now that being said I know personally 3 people ( adults of limited ability ), who would not be able to human power a weight reduced normal bike through the same test. Would they then have to park their bikes?

A test like that is just not a fair way to pass laws, by laws, or rules.


Well Said! I choose to ride my scooter style on short commutes instead of taking my truck. It is a fun way to travel and inexpensive. It is also cheaper. I am not disabled, nor am I lazy. The majority of scooter style customers are just not bicycle people. They choose it over their automobile and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that decision, especially considering the alternative....They are without a doubt, in my opinion of course, one of the best things that hit the roads since the bicycle itself....

Well Said! I choose to ride my scooter style on short commutes instead of taking my truck. It is a fun way to travel and inexpensive. It is also cheaper. I am not disabled, nor am I lazy. The majority of scooter style customers are just not bicycle people. They choose it over their automobile and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that decision, especially considering the alternative....They are without a doubt, in my opinion of course, one of the best things that hit the roads since the bicycle itself....

Yes but perhaps they shouldn't be allowed on bike trails, multi-use trails and so on. Keep the no registration, no licence but restrict their use to roadways.

I agree that these things are great for getting people out of their cars but since they're not really bikes, or real eBikes, maybe they need a seperate classification.

Well Said! I choose to ride my scooter style on short commutes instead of taking my truck. It is a fun way to travel and inexpensive. It is also cheaper. I am not disabled, nor am I lazy. The majority of scooter style customers are just not bicycle people. They choose it over their automobile and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that decision, especially considering the alternative....They are without a doubt, in my opinion of course, one of the best things that hit the roads since the bicycle itself....


And you know I think that's great! My objection is that some people insist on calling them bicycles when plainly they are not. Once they are over that, we can all live together happily.

And you know I think that's great! My objection is that some people insist on calling them bicycles when plainly they are not. Once they are over that, we can all live together happily.

I for one have no problem referring to them as scooter style e-bikes, and if it makes peace with our fellow cyclist friends I encourage all from this moment on to refer to your power assisted bicycle as an e-bike... and to distinguish between the two styles, one being an open frame e-bike and the other a scooter style e-bike. Together We Stand, Divided We Fall...LOL

one of the things that's contributing to the argument is that there are laws that refer to scooter-style ebikes as "bicycles".

this is similar to many other things in the law: the meaning of a word like "bicycle" or "harrassment" in a written law is very different from what it means in every other context and everybody gets confused when someone uses the law-definition of the word outside of the lawyers-and-courtrooms context or thinks that the law-definition matters somehow outside that context.

This is a fun green transport vehicle for people to commute in or who cannot ride a bike for health reasons or personal choice. I personally ride a fairly custom e-bike and enjoy it alot. I go on 50-70 km rides, where prior to the e-bike my bikes were collecting dust in the storage. I think all e-bikes/ e-scooters/ bicycles are an awesome choice for the environment and for the health of people. My 2cents.

And you know I think that's great! My objection is that some people insist on calling them bicycles when plainly they are not. Once they are over that, we can all live together happily.

They are not bicycles. They don't look like bicycles, they are not ridden by bicycle-centric people. If everyone stopped insisting that electric scooters were bicycles, I would not have an issue.

I keep on hearing that they allows people who couldn't ride a bicycle get some exercise. that's great. Call them a mobility device, but don't call them a bicycle because they are not!

They are not bicycles. They don't look like bicycles, they are not ridden by bicycle-centric people. If everyone stopped insisting that electric scooters were bicycles, I would not have an issue.

I keep on hearing that they allows people who couldn't ride a bicycle get some exercise. that's great. Call them a mobility device, but don't call them a bicycle because they are not!

A mobility device is a mechanism such as a wheelchair, a hobcart or calipers, designed to aid individuals with mobility impairments. They can be either manually operated, or powered.You can also use a standing frame if wanted.

Anything that aids you from walking or running can be considered a mobility device with your way of thinking. A bicycle can be considered a mobility device. It aids you travel to places when you cannot make it by walking or running, by either physical disability or by choice. Children ride bicycles when they are young, and when they get to be bigger, they ride bigger bicycles to go to school, and then later in life even bigger ones to go to work. Some people work too far to ride their bicycles and choose another form of transportation to fit their needs. Some people choose an e-bike, an non polluting new vehicle on the market that can either resemble a bicycle or a scooter...but it is considered by law to be a power assisted bicycle....two wheeled refers to the word "bi". I like to call mine a scooter-style e-bike to clarify immediately the look of it. If I were to take the cosmetic fairings off the bike it would in fact resemble more of a bicycle than a scooter. Cosmetic fairings could be put on a children's tricycle to make it look like a rocket ship...It would not make it a rocket ship though would it? No of course not...It would still be a tricycle because what we learned today in school is that we should not "Judge a Bike by it's Cover." LOL

Schemantics, schemantics - I also own/ride a GoPed electric standup scooter. When I tell people I ride an electric scooter they think of a Vespa style machine. The language is never gonna be up to snuff - there will always be things falling through the cracks and infant laws don't make it any easier to understand.

I think of it like DOGS - they're all eBikes but the breeds are a little different from one another. IMO the Vespa looking things aren't electric bicycles - they're electric scooters. Call 'em eBikes if you want but don't call 'em "electric bicycles" just because they have pedals.

I also don't think they should be driven on bike paths or walkways. Since they look so much like motor vehicles they could cause people to panic and do strange things thinking some nut job has taken a vehicle onto the path.

NEV's are coming - eBikes will be part of it along with a whole array or glorified golf carts and other offerings. That's a good thing because we've been sucking down oil and burning air for way too long...

"they are not ridden by bicycle-centric people"
There is the problem. This tunnel vision type of thought, that if you are not a cycling purist then you cannot call yourself a cyclist nor can you see any form of cycling beyond what is believed to be the only way to cycle. This form of prejudice is just amazing. And I see it not just here. If you were to check out some motorcycle boards there is this same prejudice against motor scooters. I wish people could just accept, they do not have to agree with it but just accept that there are other forms other than what they participate in.
We keep going in this circle. It is too the point where one could almost cut and paste the arguments the way they are repeated, and sometimes by the same people.
I wish we could just have constructive discussions. Rather then always getting back to this same circle when there is something about scooter style e-bikes posted.

I agree.....A new and sustainable form of transportation was needed world wide and e-bikes of both styles meet the criteria. Both styles attract a different market and together can make a difference. While I may agree that certain pathways be restictive to either pedestrians or bikes, I think that bikes and e-bikes of all kinds can and should get along on a bike path. Whether one is pedaling along at 25km per hour or assisted to the same speed should not bother anyone. I have a MUP that I use under the Don Valley Parkway for about 6 km and on any given day I see the odd cyclist and very seldom a pedestrian. To say this long stretch should be only for a cyclist would be a waste of taxpayers dollars. One less car on the road is the goal...and certain paths are for most part unused and can accomodate alot more traffic if it alleviates road traffic.