Jamie's Paper – Notes on the State of E-Bikes in Canada
Preface / Author’s Perspective
Jamie Stuckless (Ontario-based consultant, 15 years in active transportation & micromobility) authored the report.
Personal conviction: e-bikes can dramatically broaden cycling participation and accessibility.
Purpose of report:
Consolidate latest research, user stories, global & Canadian regulations.
Debunk myths, answer FAQs, outline strategies for access (rebates, tourism, municipal action).
Serve as a resource for policymakers, advocates, NGOs—not a buyer’s guide.
Terminology: conventional (non-electric) bikes used instead of acoustic/traditional/pedal.
Geographic lens: written from Ontario but intended for nationwide relevance.
Exclusions: deep-dive on e-cycle logistics/cargo-delivery—see Pembina Institute.
Stuckless Consulting mission: co-create sustainable, inclusive, healthy communities; sees e-bike support as integral.
/
1 Why Plan for E-Bikes
Only < 1/3 of transportation plans mention e-bikes → planning gap.
Policy motivations:
Safety perception: riders feel safer, can choose longer but safer routes & match traffic speed.
Car-trip replacement: studies show 20\%–86\% of car journeys replaced; estimated 225–460\ \text{kg CO}_2 savings/person/year.
Cycling uptake: frequency & distance almost double for many new users.
Physical activity: comparable health benefits to conventional cycling despite lower effort.
Equity & access: benefits women, families, seniors, persons with disabilities via longer range, load-carrying, hill assistance.
Market growth: e-bike sales outpace EVs in U.S.; ridership doubling yearly since 2015; Strava 2022 dataset → +26\% share; bikeshare users ride e-bikes 36\% more than conventional bikes.
2 Defining E-Bikes Globally
Variability in speed, power, weight, throttle vs. pedal-assist, licensing.
Snapshot:
Australia: two categories; max 200\,\text{W} (power-assist) or 250\,\text{W} (pedelec), cut-off 25\,\text{km/h} , < 50\,\text{kg}.
China 2019 standard: pedals required, ≤ 25\,\text{km/h}, ≤ 55\,\text{kg}, ≤ 400\,\text{W}; non-compliant = electric motorcycle.
EU: Pedelec ≤ 250\,\text{W}, 25\,\text{km/h} → bicycle; S-pedelec up to 45\,\text{km/h} requires “type approval”.
India: ≤ 250\,\text{W}, ≤ 25\,\text{km/h} , no license/insurance.
Israel 2019: ≥ 16 yrs, special license, helmet+vest, ≤ 25\,\text{km/h}.
Japan: assist until 24\,\text{km/h} then motor ceases; faster = motorbike.
Philippines: category L1a, ≤ 25\,\text{km/h}, helmet mandatory, no license.
Singapore: ≤ 20\,\text{kg}, ≤ 200\,\text{W}, ≤ 25\,\text{km/h}.
South Africa (proposed): ≤ 30\,\text{kg}, ≤ 25\,\text{km/h} treated as bicycle.
South Korea 2018 law: pedelec ≤ 25\,\text{km/h} , ≤ 30\,\text{kg} → bicycle paths; throttle & kits still banned.
USA: 3-Class system (adopted by ~40 states):
• All: pedals, saddle, motor < 750\,\text{W}, no license/insurance.
• Class 1: pedal-assist only, ≤ 32\,\text{km/h}.
• Class 2: throttle capable, ≤ 32\,\text{km/h}.
• Class 3: pedal-assist (sometimes throttle), ≤ 45\,\text{km/h}, ≥ 16 yrs, universal helmets.
User story: Happy Fiets (family cargo e-bikes) – cost, time, stress savings; catalyzed rental venture.
3 Defining E-Bikes in Canada
3.1 Federal Shift
Former federal “power-assisted bicycle” (PAB) spec (Motor Vehicle Safety Regs): pedals, ≤ 3 wheels, ≤ 500\,\text{W}, ≤ 32\,\text{km/h}.
Transport Canada PAB Definition: a bicycle with an electric motor that assists the rider while pedaling, with a maximum motor output of 500 watts and a maximum assisted speed of 32 km/h on level ground. It must have working pedals, handlebars, and two or three wheels. These bicycles are not considered motor vehicles and do not require a license to operate.
Criticism: too broad; included mopeds.
Feb 2021: Transport Canada repealed PAB definition → provinces/territories now responsible (old def applies until replaced).
3.2 Provincial / Territorial Landscape (Mar 2023)
The MOMS Act 2021 (Mobility of Ontario's Municipalities and Safety Act) is legislation in Ontario that, once proclaimed, will classify e-bikes into different types. It includes:
Type 1 “bicycle-style” (Class 1 & 2 merged): For individuals ≥ 14 years old, weighing ≤ 55 kg, with power ≤ 500 W, and speed ≤ 32 km/h.
Type 2 “motor-scooter style”: For individuals ≥ 16 years old, with the same speed/power limits, but weighing ≤ 120 kg.
Type 3 “motorcycle style”: Details for this type are yet to be determined.
Cargo e-bike pilot (2021–2026): Allows for bikes with any weight > 55 kg, power ≤ 1,000 W, and speed ≤ 32 km/h, provided municipalities opt-in.
Weight cap controversy: many adaptive & family cargo bikes (~60\,\text{kg}) excluded unless pilot.
Other PT specs (highlights):
Age minimums vary 12–18 yrs; universal ≤ 32\,\text{km/h} except Nova Scotia (30\,\text{km/h}).
Power ceiling uniformly 500\,\text{W} (except adaptive MTB class in BC 800\,\text{W}).
Some provinces distinguish mopeds/LSMs as licensed category (AB, BC, NB, QC).
PEI & ON set max vehicle weight 120\,\text{kg}.
Municipal by-law latitude (sidewalks, trails, etc.) recognized in BC Parks, Yukon, Ontario cargo pilot.
3.3 Key Considerations for Regulating
Speed: North America’s 32\,\text{km/h} limit (vs. 25\,\text{km/h} globally) aligns with flow-of-traffic safety perception.
Throttle access: cheaper (2k-3k) & essential for riders with limited pedalling ability; restricting trails reduces equity.
Weight/design rules risk excluding cargo, adaptive trikes, Cycling-Without-Age trishaws.
Need Canadian research on regulation impact, especially trail interactions.
4 Common Misconceptions
“E-bikes are cheating” → social stigma documented; ignores goals (mobility, fun, errands). E-bikes democratize cycling.
“Just switch motor off where banned” → heavier bike + loss of assist defeats purpose; battery-dead anxiety documented.
“No exercise” → studies show similar physical-activity benefits; e-bike users ride farther & more often.
“Too fast for shared paths” → empirical avg only 1–4\,\text{km/h} faster than conventional; conventional riders also can speed. Class 3/S-pedelecs (≤ 45\,\text{km/h}) usually restricted.
Path conflicts tied to volume & design, not device per se; infrastructure design primary speed governor.
5 E-Bike Safety Findings
Literature mixed; People for Bikes 2019 review inconclusive.
Dutch data: higher crash risk/dismount injuries but age & distance-travelled explained difference; mounting/dismounting stability issues (heavier bikes).
Scoping review: 3 studies equal risk; 1 higher ED visits. Risk factors: unfamiliarity, exposure increase, older age, higher speed, lower fitness, slippery surfaces.
North-American specific research needed (local speed limits, throttle prevalence).
6 Municipal Role & Tools
Barriers within municipal scope: theft fears, insecure parking, traffic safety, infrastructure gaps, range anxiety, cost, regulatory confusion.
Regulatory authority: may classify e-bike types further & set access rules (only 14\% of muni surveyed have done so).
Examples:
• Peterborough: scooter-style banned on trails unless pedalling.
• Toronto: weight-based; <40\,\text{kg} pedelec ok everywhere; heavier & power-assist restricted.
• Whitehorse: full US 3-Class adoption; trail access stratified by class.
Promotion & education: include e-bikes in Bike Month etc.; clarify where allowed.
Infrastructure: build AAA facilities; design for speed management.
Secure parking: accommodate large cargo/adaptive; mandate in developments (Guelph example 100 secure spaces).
Charging access: public plugs, battery lockers; integrate in broader EV plans despite connector diversity.
Rebates: municipal programs possible (Edmonton, Saanich, Banff examples).
Ontario cargo e-bike pilot participation decisions (usage zones, parking, insurance, monitoring).
7 E-Bike Rebates
7.1 Cost Barrier
Average Canadian e-bike ≈ \$2{,}574; $6,00-$10,000 high-end .
Financial barrier repeatedly cited in literature.
7.2 Current Canadian Programs (snapshot)
British Columbia: Offers two types of rebates:
1,050 for individuals through the Scrap-It vehicle trade-in program.
1,700 per e-cargo bike for businesses, with a maximum of 5 bikes per business.
Yukon: Provides a 25% rebate, up to 750 for e-bikes and up to 1,500 for cargo e-bikes.
Nova Scotia: A 500 rebate for e-bikes costing over 1,200, provided the purchase is made within the province.
PEI: Offers a 500 rebate with a similar structure to Nova Scotia, and includes a point-of-sale option.
Alberta (Scrap-It): Grants a 500 rebate for e-bikes with a minimum price of 1,000.
Québec: Had a 2,000 cargo-bike rebate program, though its current status is uncertain.
Municipal Programs:
Edmonton: Previously offered a 30% rebate up to 750, but this program was cancelled after its first year.
Saanich: Has a tiered rebate system ranging from 350 to 1,600.
Banff: Also provides tiered rebates from 500 - 1,000.
7.3 Evaluation Results
Denver survey (n ≈ 1,000): avg 26\ \text{mi/week} e-biking, 3.4 car trips replaced; ~100{,}000 VMT reduced weekly; 30\% were non-cyclists prior; dissatisfaction with infrastructure persists.
Saanich + UBC study (n = 389 incentives): improved affordability, convenience, health; demand > supply; preliminary rec: target income-qualified only.
Overall: need more rigorous, standardized program evaluations.
7.4 Future Program Design Recommendations
Point-of-sale rebates via local retailers (reduces upfront burden).
Broaden eligible bike types (cargo, adaptive, conventional bikes).
Robust follow-up surveys/partnered academic evaluation.
Offer larger subsidies or free bikes for low-income (aim cost parity with conventional \$400$–$\$600); few programs consult residents on meaningful support level.
8 Tourism Opportunities
Market growth (52.37\ \text{B USD} proj. by 2030) + ageing population riding for recreation.
E-bikes enable longer distances, cargo/child carry → family tourism potential.
Group cohesion benefit (esp. for women wanting to match speed).
8.1 Addressing Tourist Barriers
Biggest fear: battery depletion → heavy bike.
Actions for operators/DMOs:
Coordinate charging network: public plugs, lockers; advertise locations.
Ensure municipal trail access; advocate pilots & evaluations where uncertain.
Publish clear rules/route info; select hill-friendly routes avoiding steep troughs.
Provide secure parking at attractions.
Foster welcoming culture (reduce stigma).
Offer rentals/demos; evidence shows pre-purchase trials raise acceptance.
Example: Great Waterfront Trail Adventure – e-bike share rose from 9.3\% (2022) to 13\% (2023); all recumbent riders now on e-assist; requirement: overnight power sources.
Hamilton-based corporation led by Jamie Stuckless.
Services: policy reviews, data strategies, pilot evaluations, speed/conflict management alternatives to enforcement, research & advocacy tools, e-bike demos for officials.
Notable projects: NS provincial AT data strategy, Canadian cycling-education resource hub, Hamilton Complete Streets engagement, Virginia Walkability Action Institute, NABSA micromobility policy subcommittee, Ontario MTO E-Bike Working Group.
WSP Canada 2019 – <\frac{1}{3} plans include e-bikes; average cost \$2{,}574.
McArthur et al. 2018 – North American e-bike owner survey.
Bourne et al. 2020 – International scoping review of e-cycling.
McQueen et al. 2020 – GHG reduction estimates.
People for Bikes 2019 – E-bike safety review.
Jenkins et al. 2022 – Policy/practice scoping review.
(For full citation list refer to report pp. 25-26)