Vol. 135, No. 8 — April 11, 2001

Registration
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(see footnote 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;

Therefore, Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Transport, pursuant to section 5(see footnote b) and subsection 11(1) of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act(see footnote c) hereby makes the annexed Regulations Amending the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (Power-assisted Bicycles).

REGULATIONS AMENDING THE MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY REGULATIONS (POWER-ASSISTED BICYCLES)

AMENDMENTS

1. (1) The portion of the definition "motorcycle"(see footnote 1) in subsection 2(1) of the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations(see footnote 2) 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"(see footnote 3) in subsection 2(1) of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

"restricted-use motorcycle" means a vehicle, excluding a power-assisted 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:

"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:

(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,

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.

The Current Regulations

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 power-assisted 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 power-assisted 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:

REASONS FOR CYCLIST INSECURITY (%)
	Power-assisted bicycles with an accelerator control	Power-assisted bicycles requiring muscular power	Combined results
Lack of control	11%	26%	20%
Too heavy	63%	33%	45%
Too fast	7%	2%	4%
Insufficient braking	4%	24%	16%
Difficult to handle in traffic	15%	14%	14%

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

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 limited-speed 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.

Benefits and Costs

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 power-assisted 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 power-assisted 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 power-assisted 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 power-assisted 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 power-assisted 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.

Compliance and Enforcement

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

Footnote a

S.C. 1993, c. 16

Footnote b

S.C. 1999, c. 33, s. 351

Footnote c

S.C. 1993, c. 16

Footnote 1

SOR/2000-304

Footnote 2

C.R.C., c. 1038

Footnote 3

SOR/2000-182

NOTICE:
The format of the electronic version of this issue of the Canada Gazette was modified in order to be compatible with extensible hypertext markup language (XHTML 1.0 Strict).