No motorized vehicle access with E bike

[Everett]

Well by that definition e-bikes are legal.

If all else fails, consult the regulations.

E-bikes are designed to be self propelled by a motor. No go.


MotorVehicle - means a device in, on or by
which a person or thing is being or may be
transported or drawn, and which is designed
to be self propelled, and includes an ATV or
snowmobile, but does not include a device
designed to be moved by human, animal or
wind power; a device designed to be used
exclusively on stationary rails or stationary
tracks; or a boat propelled by motorized power

[Fisher-Dude]

Well by that definition e-bikes are legal.

How so? E-bikes are self propelled.

[Everett]

How so? E-bikes are self propelled.

E bikes don't work without peddles there for they are self propelled and not a motorized vehicle.

[pg83]

I'm no lawyer, but they seem to fall smack in the middle of the law.

Illegal in that they can be "self propelled"
Legal in that they can be "moved by human"

I would play it safe and use a regular bicycle, but I wouldn't judge the person who decided to use one. Until they come up with some clarification one way or the other.

[Bugle M In]

E bikes don't work without peddles there for they are self propelled and not a motorized vehicle.

Yes, you may have a "grey" area here....
But, I sure as heck wouldn't want to be "out in the field", on a year long planned trip, to only be stopped
by CO's and get fined or worse, have my bike taken away at that time.

Yes, maybe I could fight (although I think it does fall under "motorized"), and win, but sure wouldn't help me
at the time I needed the bike (or would have helped me at the time) to have my bike "Confiscated".

Better to get a ruling ahead of time....and if you do win the argument...."Get it in Writing".

[AgSilver]

Yes, you may have a "grey" area here....
But, I sure as heck wouldn't want to be "out in the field", on a year long planned trip, to only be stopped
by CO's and get fined or worse, have my bike taken away at that time.

Yes, maybe I could fight (although I think it does fall under "motorized"), and win, but sure wouldn't help me
at the time I needed the bike (or would have helped me at the time) to have my bike "Confiscated".

Better to get a ruling ahead of time....and if you do win the argument...."Get it in Writing".

Very much a new area that surely wasn't contemplated at the time of writing...it's definitely got a motor and that motor assists/operates to propel the vehicle but it also doesn't function without human propulsion and the motor just "assists", as it were. I'm going to bet they err on the side of caution and lump it into motorized, though.

[ryanb]

Where grey areas exist, they exist to be taken advantage of by people that understand when it comes to fighting charges in court, grey is never to the advantage of the crown.

Certainly the way motor vehicle is defined in the regs certainly leaves the door open for pedal assist e-bikes.

Insisting the regs be made black and white, will surely close that loophole.

This legal advice from a non - lawyer is worth what you paid for it.

[behemoth]

Some guys draw the line on what is ethical by referring to the law. So in this scenario you can aim for the grey area and you may very well be within the law and therefore meet your own ethical standards. They are your own ethics and its only up to you to judge them.

For me personally, I would look to the spirit of the law to determine whether it is ethical. I know from firsthand experience that areas that have no motorized access tend to have better hunting opportunity. So when an area has a ban, I respect that and wouldn't even consider looking for a loophole. I'm looking for the harder hunts that have difficult access and overcoming that adversity is a huge part of the satisfaction of the hunt.

Again, not trying to make a judgement, just suggesting that there are other ways to look at it

[Bugle M In]

Some guys draw the line on what is ethical by referring to the law. So in this scenario you can aim for the grey area and you may very well be within the law and therefore meet your own ethical standards. They are your own ethics and its only up to you to judge them.

For me personally, I would look to the spirit of the law to determine whether it is ethical. I know from firsthand experience that areas that have no motorized access tend to have better hunting opportunity. So when an area has a ban, I respect that and wouldn't even consider looking for a loophole. I'm looking for the harder hunts that have difficult access and overcoming that adversity is a huge part of the satisfaction of the hunt.

Again, not trying to make a judgement, just suggesting that there are other ways to look at it

"Spirit of the Law" is a good way to sum it up!
It was designed to have you only go in past that point of closure/restriction, on foot, or by horse.

[AgSilver]

Check out Motor Assisted Cycle in the MVA...it's actually probably fine. I'm not sure I'd want to test it because I can't find in the Regulations (not the Synopsis, but the ACTUAL regs where it discusses closures to motor vehicles)...but the MVA excludes motor assisted cycles from being considered motor vehicles or vehicles.

http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/...hicle%20Act%20[RSBC%201996]%20c.%20318/00_Act/96318_01.xml#section1