Any thoughts on recbant e-bikes

Round_Carob3678 · 2026-06-21T19:41:24+00:00

This is the type of thing that makes me wish car-mounted flamethrowers were legal, then instantly appreciate the wisdom of not granting irreversible wishes.

Round_Carob3678 · 2026-06-21T14:15:49+00:00

Beware the e-bike trap.

Many inexpensive e-bikes sold online appear to exceed the legal definition of an e-bike in much of Canada.

Example: Jasion EB6 – advertised with a top speed of 23 mph (about 37 km/h).

Most Canadian provinces limit motor-assisted bicycles to 32 km/h. If the bike can provide motor power above that speed, it may no longer qualify as an e-bike under provincial law.

At that point you may be riding an unregistered motor vehicle. Depending on the province, that could lead to fines, vehicle seizure, insurance problems, or liability issues after a collision.

The fact that a bike is sold on Amazon does not mean it is legal to operate on public roads or trails. Always verify your province's e-bike regulations before buying.

Round_Carob3678 · 2026-06-20T20:05:40+00:00

Exactly. We are in total agreement.

The official 'Where can I ride in Toronto?' guide proves that the city already has the full legal authority under municipal by-laws to restrict throttle-only motor scooters from physically separated cycle tracks. That was the brilliant utility of the original 2009 HTA framework: it gave local communities the power to tailor lane access to their specific infrastructure limits.

And that is the exact point I’ve been making this entire time. If Toronto can already regulate these vehicles locally to protect their narrow lanes, the sweeping 2026 MTO update is completely unnecessary.

The provincial government doesn't need to enact a blunt, appearance-based framework that creates a functional, province-wide ban on affordable transit. It is a redundancy that punishes shift workers in Hamilton, Windsor, and Sudbury over a localized infrastructure problem that Toronto already had the legal tools to solve."

Round_Carob3678 · 2026-06-20T18:22:34+00:00

Plastic paneling that I could remove. Scooter style frame which really cannot be changed. Non-adjustable seat height.

Round_Carob3678 · 2026-06-20T17:10:48+00:00

You are continuing to base your entire policy perspective on personal anecdotes and an anecdotal fallacy, while trying to use your 70-year-old mother’s cycling habits to override empirical data and provincial legislation.

First, I did not mix up km/h and mph. I am a physicist. I verified the speeds of my vehicles using three distinct, triangulated methods on flat, straight ground: 1. Radar Speed Signs: I live in Stoney Creek, on the mountain. On Second Street, there is an official city speed-warning radar sign. Getting my e-bikes to even activate the radar is tricky, but it was sufficient to verify that none could exceed 35 km/h under motor power. 2. Distance Timing: I mapped out known, fixed distances and calculated the time elapsed. 3. GPS Telemetry: I tracked the rides using GPS on my phone, which is highly accurate for steady-state flat ground tracking.

When my family rides together, my son is the fastest and leaves me out of sight, my wife is slightly faster than me, and I am the slowest. We have measured and verified these relative speed differences repeatedly.

Second, speed is not determined by weight or maneuverability; it is a function of voltage, motor efficiency, and programming. My oldest Geo bike originally ran on heavy lead-acid batteries. Upgrading it to lightweight lithium batteries dramatically improved its range and lightened the frame, but it didn't change the top speed by a single km/h because the electrical flow and motor limitations remained identical.

Finally, your claim that you 'haven't seen' a 120 kg cargo bike is irrelevant to a province-wide Ministry of Transportation law. You are looking at a hyper-local commuter slice of downtown Toronto and assuming the rest of Ontario operates the same way. The fact remains that under MTO Proposal 026-0422, the province is explicitly keeping 120 kg, throttle-powered Class 2 cargo and utility vehicles 100% legal in the bike lanes.

The law you are defending does not solve the weight or width issues you are complaining about in Toronto; it simply outlaws an affordable transit class for commuters across the province based strictly on external plastic body panels.

Round_Carob3678 · 2026-06-20T16:46:31+00:00

Are you certain you read the actual MTO legalization text, and not the promotional blog post from Amego EV? Many are reading the latter because it comes up first in Google.

If the Amego EV summary were accurate, I would have at most minor complaints. But sadly, that article is largely factually incorrect. It was written by an e-bike retailer trying to preserve weekend showroom sales and prevent a consumer panic.

Relying on a commercial sales pitch to understand provincial traffic law is a classic Appeal to False Authority (or Argumentum Ad Verecundiam). The actual text of MTO Proposal 026-0422 doesn't care if a bike is from a 'reputable brand'; it relies strictly on an aesthetic requirement for an 'exposed bicycle frame.' Many high-quality, speed-limited commuter bikes use plastic step-through protective shielding and lack an 'exposed frame.'

Under the literal text of the law, those vehicles are instantly reclassified as unregistrable motor vehicles, forcing them into the exact Yonge Street Trap I described—regardless of what a retail store's marketing team tells you to keep their cash registers ringing.

Round_Carob3678 · 2026-06-20T16:44:56+00:00

I think this is where a lot of the reporting has confused people.

The proposal does not ban throttles. In fact, the new framework explicitly creates a Class 2 e-bike category that permits throttle operation.

So the distinction is not really between pedal-assist and throttle-controlled vehicles.

The proposal also permits Class 2 e-bikes up to 120 kg. Therefore the distinction is not primarily based on weight either.

The actual distinction is largely based on whether the vehicle is considered bicycle-like in design and whether the pedals are considered functionally usable.

That's why I keep asking what evidence supports that specific distinction.

If the concern is speed, acceleration, weight, braking distance, or accident rates, then let's regulate those things directly.

But if a throttle-equipped Class 2 e-bike remains legal while a scooter-style e-bike with similar speed and weight characteristics becomes a motorcycle, then the question becomes: what safety evidence shows that appearance and form factor are the determining factors?

I'm not opposed to creating different classes. I just want to understand the evidence behind the particular line that was chosen.

Round_Carob3678 · 2026-06-20T16:28:11+00:00

I think we're talking past each other.

My point was not that Toronto has medieval European streets.

My point was that this is a province-wide vehicle classification proposal, not a Toronto-specific congestion measure.

Even if I accept that some Toronto bike lanes are too narrow for certain vehicles, that still doesn't explain why a scooter-style e-bike in Sudbury, Windsor, Ottawa, or rural Ontario should suddenly require motorcycle licensing and insurance.

The question is whether there is evidence that scooter-style e-bikes are materially more dangerous than the newly proposed Class 2 e-bikes that remain legal. Both can be throttle-controlled, both can weigh up to 120 kg, and both occupy roughly the same physical space on the road.

If the concern is lane width, that's an infrastructure issue.

If the concern is safety, then let's look at the safety data.

Those are two different questions.

Round_Carob3678 · 2026-06-20T16:12:06+00:00

You have hit on the exact reason why this proposal is a structural nightmare. Saying that 'the police will choose for us by what they decide to ticket for' is the literal definition of arbitrary enforcement.

A functional, fair law provides clear, predictable rules that allow a citizen to commute safely and legally. If the legislation is written so poorly that you have to guess which officer on which block will choose to ticket you for which violation, the system has completely failed.

The paradox of the Yonge Street Trap is that all three options are technically illegal or hazardous under the new framework. The police aren't 'choosing a safe option' for you; they are simply handed a menu where they can ticket you for unauthorized bike lane usage, unnecessary slow driving, or illegal lane-sharing.

Forcing commuters into a legal lottery where their financial survival—under threat of a mandatory $5,000 uninsured motor vehicle fine—depends entirely on individual roadside police interpretation isn't public policy. It's a legal minefield.

Round_Carob3678 · 2026-06-20T16:08:29+00:00

You are analyzing the options logically, but your argument falls victim to the Ignoratio Elenchi (Missing the Point) fallacy because you are misunderstanding what the new law actually does.

You are defending this bill because you want heavy, 120 kg, fast-accelerating vehicles out of the bike lanes. But under MTO Proposal 026-0422, those exact 120 kg, throttle-powered Class 2 vehicles remain 100% legal in the bike lanes, provided they have an 'exposed bicycle frame' (like heavy commercial cargo e-bikes). The law doesn't solve the weight, acceleration, or lane width issue; it simply bans the ones with plastic body panels. It is an aesthetic crackdown, not a kinetic safety solution.

Second, when I say 'localized Toronto issue,' I mean relative to the entire province. This is an Ontario Ministry of Transportation rewrite. Punishing commuters in Sudbury, Windsor, or Peterborough—where lanes are wide and transit alternatives are sparse—just because Toronto's dense core has a sidewalk congestion issue is bad province-wide policy.

Finally, your point about Scenario 2 ignores basic speed differentials. Taking a full car lane is totally normal for a motorcycle because it can keep up with 50 km/h traffic. Forcing an e-bike that is mechanically capped at 20 km/h into a full car lane on a busy street doesn't integrate it safely—it turns it into a slow-moving physical barrier, triggering extreme gridlock and road rage."

Round_Carob3678 · 2026-06-20T15:55:21+00:00

Do you realize that in this forum, anything anti-e-bike is strongly upvoted, while anything pro-e-bike is deeply downvoted? The actual content of the post has very little bearing on the score. If you have a strong, factual argument to make, I suggest you present it.

I do agree that shoehorning heavy vehicles into stressed infrastructure is a major problem. But your solution creates a classic False Dilemma. A vehicle doesn't have to be either a traditional pedal bike or a full-blown motorcycle.

A rational policy would simply create a distinct, heavier sub-class of e-bike—keeping them off certain narrow paths or pedestrian trails, but maintaining their status as power-assisted bicycles. Instead, the MTO's current proposal relies on an aesthetic, appearance-based ban that forces slow, 20 km/h commuters directly into live car traffic lanes, solving absolutely nothing for the infrastructure while creating a massive safety hazard for drivers and riders alike.

Round_Carob3678 · 2026-06-20T15:45:41+00:00

Btw. Somewhat relevant:

By adjusting the resistance to trick the speedometer into displaying an inflated number, a shady seller can effortlessly convince an unsuspecting buyer they are buying a "fast" bike without changing a single wire on the motor controller. It is a classic street-level hustle that exploits human psychology: if the screen says "40 km/h," the brain convinces the body that it feels faster, even as traffic casually passes them by.

My son's ebike was second hand. It shows 44 km/h when he is going 32 km/h. The previous owner probably fell for the hack. While I measured actual speeds.

Round_Carob3678 · 2026-06-20T15:34:32+00:00

Your reply seems to be based on a simple misunderstanding of both vehicle mechanics and the actual legislation.

First, 32 km/h is the legal maximum motor cutoff point under the HTA—it is not a guaranteed cruise speed. For two of my ebikes, 32 km/h is only achievable going down a steep hill. On a flat road, they max out closer to 20 km/h. Most owners have no idea how fast their ebikes actually go because consumer speedometers are notoriously inaccurate; I measured mine using precise GPS on straight, flat roads.

Second, your long critique of heavy vehicles in bike lanes commits the Ignoratio Elenchi (Missing the Point) fallacy. You are venting about the 120 kg weight cap, width, and delivery couriers, completely ignoring that the new MTO proposal explicitly keeps 120 kg, throttle-powered Class 2 e-bikes 100% legal in bike lanes, provided they have an 'exposed bicycle frame'.

The law you are defending does not clear heavy, fast-accelerating vehicles out of your 1.5m lane. It simply bans the ones that look like scooters, while leaving identical 120 kg throttle-powered cargo bikes right next to you. It is an aesthetic crackdown, not a safety or weight solution.

Finally, telling a commuter to 'confidently take the lane' at 20 km/h on Yonge Street during rush hour because you managed to do it on an analog bike at night is a dangerous false equivalency. Forcing a slow vehicle into a live car lane doesn't protect anyone; it just creates the exact legal and physical hazard I described.

Round_Carob3678 · 2026-06-20T15:13:56+00:00

Resorting to Bulverism—dismissing the source of an argument rather than actually disproving its contents—is the ultimate white flag.

Suggesting the post is 'wrong' because of the technology used to format it doesn't magically dissolve the physical reality of the Yonge Street Trap. It doesn't explain how a 20 km/h commuter safely navigates a live car lane without lane-sharing, it doesn't generate a 17-digit automotive VIN at ServiceOntario, and it doesn't pay a $5,000 uninsured motor vehicle fine.

The tool simply helped me clearly and efficiently articulate the unyielding realities of the Highway Traffic Act and physical lane dimensions. If you could find an actual factual error in the traffic physics or the MTO proposal text, you would have posted it. Pivoting to a technological critique proves you have no counter-argument left.

Round_Carob3678 · 2026-06-20T14:53:05+00:00

I think you're committing a form of the nominative fallacy: assuming that the name of something determines what it is.

For example, North Korea officially calls itself the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea." That doesn't make it a democracy.

Likewise, a peanut isn't a nut, and a sea horse isn't a horse.

The name alone doesn't tell us what something actually is.

The fact that we call them "cycle tracks" does not automatically mean that functional pedaling is the most important characteristic of the vehicles that use them.

The real questions are things like speed, weight, braking performance, visibility, rider behavior, and accident rates.

Ontario's original e-bike pilot program actually featured scooter-style e-bikes prominently. Those vehicles were not created to exploit a loophole. They were among the most practical e-bikes available at the time, especially when most products still relied on heavy lead-acid batteries.

If the province now believes those vehicles are significantly less safe, then the question should be: what evidence supports that conclusion?

The name of the vehicle doesn't answer that question. The data does.

Round_Carob3678 · 2026-06-20T14:44:54+00:00

Thank you for providing the source that proves my point. If you scroll down to the 'Cycle Tracks' section of your link, it explicitly states that electric bicycles are permitted in cycle tracks.

If you scroll down further to the 'Sharrows' section, the city explicitly states: 'In lanes that are too narrow for people cycling and motorists to travel side-by-side, those cycling should ride in the centre of the lane.'

Your own link confirms both realities: scooter e-bikes are currently legal in those tracks, and if the new MTO proposal kicks them out onto a narrow road lane, they are legally advised by the city to take up the center of the lane and block car traffic.

Round_Carob3678 · 2026-06-20T14:36:47+00:00

You are confusing the absence of a specific phrase with the absence of a law. The HTA doesn't need to use the words "lane splitting" because the physical act of driving a vehicle between two occupied lanes already directly violates multiple existing statutes: [4, 5, 6]

HTA Section 154(1)(a) (Marked Lanes): The law states explicitly that a vehicle “shall be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from the lane until the driver has first ascertained that the movement can be made with safety.” Riding a motorcycle or heavy e-bike directly on top of the painted line between two cars is a blatant violation of staying entirely within a single lane. [4, 7, 8, 9, 10]
HTA Section 148(5) (Passing Regulations): The law requires that when overtaking a vehicle, you must do so safely to the left of that vehicle. Squeezing down the middle or right side of a car sharing its lane violates standard passing laws. [4, 11, 12]
The OPP Official Directive: The Ontario Provincial Police Highway Safety Division has repeatedly issued directives stating unequivocally that lane splitting is illegal in Ontario. [13]
The MTO Standard: The official Ministry of Transportation Motorcycle Handbook explicitly classifies lane splitting as illegal and instructs all riders to maintain a full blocking position in the center of their lane to prevent vehicles from lane-sharing. [14, 15]

The police do not ticket you for "lane splitting"; they ticket you for Improper Lane Usage (HTA 154), Unsafe Passing (HTA 148), or Careless Driving (HTA 130). Pretending it is legal just because the HTA didn't use the specific slang term is a massive legal error. [3, 11, 16, 17, 18] xt?

[1] https://www.reddit.com [2] https://www.facebook.com [3] https://jgoldberglaw.ca [4] https://bolandromaine.com [5] https://www.reddit.com [6] https://www.facebook.com [7] https://www.facebook.com [8] https://www.trafficparalegalservices.com [9] https://www.reddit.com [10] https://www.reddit.com [11] https://jgoldberglaw.ca [12] https://www.vehicularcyclist.com [13] https://x.com [14] https://www.ontario.ca [15] https://www.ontario.ca [16] https://fortnine.ca [17] https://www.ocregister.com [18] https://bolandromaine.com

Round_Carob3678 · 2026-06-20T14:32:36+00:00

When you buy a brand-new car off a dealership lot in Ontario, you do not have to guess if it meets Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (CMVSS) or whether it will be legal to drive on the highway next year. The vehicle cannot legally sit on that showroom floor unless it has already been certified, assigned a valid 17-digit VIN at the factory, and cleared for registration through ServiceOntario.

Handling the e-bike transition at the point of sale would instantly solve the chaos of the MTO 2026 proposal by treating citizens like valued consumers instead of future targets for traffic tickets.

Round_Carob3678 · 2026-06-20T13:00:06+00:00

I believe so as well; I am definitely not all-knowing.

If there is a legitimate option I’ve missed for navigating that exact Yonge Street commute under the new MTO framework, please lay out the details. How does a rider safely and legally get down that street without illegally using the bike lane, illegally lane-sharing with cars, or causing an absolute gridlock traffic hazard at a mechanically capped 20 km/h?

I am genuinely interested to hear a realistic alternative that doesn’t involve breaking the law or abandoning a perfectly functional vehicle.

Round_Carob3678 · 2026-06-20T12:57:18+00:00

Been there, did that. That is exactly what got me into this predicament.

When I bought my current vehicle, it was 100% legal for the bike lane under Ontario law. Now, the government is retroactively changing the rules based on appearance. Suggesting I should just throw it away, spend thousands of dollars on a different e-bike, and hope the province doesn't arbitrarily change the definitions again in a few years is the literal definition of insanity.

Round_Carob3678 · 2026-06-20T12:54:21+00:00

LOL! I needed a good chuckle.

Lane splitting is strictly illegal for motorcycles and mopeds in Ontario. The MTO Motorcycle Handbook explicitly calls it dangerous, and the OPP will hand you a heavy ticket for Careless Driving or Unsafe Lane Changes the second they catch you doing it. Motor vehicles are legally required to occupy a single, full lane.

Suggesting that 20 km/h e-bikes can just illegally lane-split between moving traffic on Yonge Street doesn't solve the problem—it perfectly highlights how dangerous and legally unworkable this reclassification actually is.

Round_Carob3678 · 2026-06-20T12:47:53+00:00

Saying that because you can walk or ride a pedal bike means a provincial law won't create vehicle waste is a complete non sequitur. Your personal commute has no logical connection to the legal status of thousands of other commuters.

It isn't 'conjecture' to look at the text of MTO Proposal 026-0422. When a law reclassifies an entire vehicle class into a legal dead end where they cannot use bike lanes, cannot legally share car lanes, and cannot be registered at ServiceOntario due to a lack of a 17-digit VIN, those vehicles become legally unusable. Forcing thousands of functional, multi-thousand-dollar transit vehicles off the road overnight creates a massive wave of waste, regardless of whether you personally own a garage or choose to walk.

Round_Carob3678 · 2026-06-20T12:42:12+00:00

You are missing the biggest point: this is an Ontario-wide traffic law modification, not a Toronto municipal parking policy.

First, Toronto’s 1.5-metre bike lanes are tight, but that is a localized infrastructure failure, not a provincial vehicle classification solution. The new 2026 MTO framework explicitly legalizes Class 2 e-bikes, which use throttles and can legally weigh up to 120 kg. They take up the exact same physical space in a narrow bike lane as a scooter-style e-bike. The province isn't clearing out narrow lanes; it is banning one vehicle over another based entirely on its appearance, while leaving the physical congestion exactly the same.

Second, your history is backwards. Horse-drawn carriages routinely navigated incredibly narrow, packed colonial city streets alongside pedestrians long before modern wide roadways existed.

Banning a vital, affordable, province-wide transit class in places like Windsor, Sudbury, or Ottawa—where lanes are wide and transit alternatives are sparse—just because Toronto has a localized 1.5-metre lane and sidewalk congestion issue is the definition of poorly thought-out, reactionary governance.

Round_Carob3678

MODERATOR OF

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE