Bill 43 rewrites large parts of The Highway Traffic Act and amends The Drivers and Vehicles Act to create a new statutory category—"personal electric vehicle"—and fold those devices into Manitoba’s traffic code. It moves dozens of existing references that used "power‑assisted bicycle" to the new class, gives municipalities explicit authority to allow sidewalk parking or operation by by‑law or traffic control device, and adds helmet and operating rules.
The bill also tightens two other policy areas: it limits the use of automated driving systems on highways to vehicles authorized by a technology testing permit or a statutory pilot project, and it requires registration and plating for motor vehicles and trailers even where a permit exempts them from weight or dimension rules. Those two changes reallocate decision‑making to provincial permit and pilot frameworks and create new administrative obligations for registrars and insurers.
At a Glance
What It Does
Creates a statutory definition for "personal electric vehicle" and substitutes that term throughout the Highway Traffic Act; establishes operating rules (speed, age, where they can travel), helmet obligations, and sidewalk/parking exceptions under municipal control. Separately, it limits on‑road use of automated driving systems to permit or pilot project authorization and requires registration for overweight/overdimensional vehicles even when exempted by permit.
Who It Affects
Users and sellers of micro‑mobility devices, municipal councils (which gain sidewalk and parking authority), enforcement agencies, vehicle registrars and insurers, and organizations running automated‑vehicle tests or pilots. It also touches three‑wheeled light vehicles and power‑assisted bicycle operators.
Why It Matters
The bill moves micro‑mobility out of legal ambiguity into a defined regulatory box, giving regulators and municipalities tools to manage where and how these devices operate. It also draws a clear administrative boundary for automated driving experiments and closes a registration loophole for non‑compliant heavy or oversized vehicles, shifting more responsibility to provincial permitting and registration systems.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Bill 43 introduces a new, detailed statutory category—"personal electric vehicle"—meant to capture small, electrically propelled devices such as e‑kick‑scooters, skateboards, self‑balancing scooters and similar machines. The Act treats that class as a type of motor vehicle for many purposes, inserts the term throughout the Highway Traffic Act, and leaves power‑assisted bicycles as a related but distinct category.
Rather than leave local practice to case law or ad hoc municipal rules, the bill gives traffic authorities and municipal councils express authority to permit parking and, in some cases, operation on sidewalks via traffic control devices or by‑laws.
The bill imposes safety and operational controls tailored to the new class: it restricts maximum operating speed, sets a minimum operator age for personal electric vehicles (with a lower age allowed for power‑assisted bicycles), bans towing and most passengers on personal electric vehicles, and requires helmets for operators and certain passengers. It also prohibits operating personal electric vehicles on higher‑speed highways and clarifies lighting, reflector, and other equipment rules by bringing existing bicycle and power‑assisted bicycle requirements into alignment with the new category.
For three‑wheeled light vehicles, the Act adds parallel towing, passenger and helmet rules.On automated vehicles, the bill adopts SAE‑based language and narrows lawful use of on‑road automated driving systems: a person may not operate a vehicle with an automated driving system engaged unless explicitly permitted by a technology testing permit or a pilot project created under the Act. That converts deployment of levels 3–5 driving automation from an unregulated possibility to an administratively controlled experiment.
Finally, the Drivers and Vehicles Act change lets the registrar list overweight or overdimensional vehicles in the registry but forbids their driving on highways unless a separate permit under the Highway Traffic Act has been obtained; related consequential edits update off‑road vehicle and public insurance statutes.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill defines "personal electric vehicle" by technical limits: solely electric propulsion, max total motor rating 500 W, not capable of propelling faster than 32 km/h, mass ≤45 kg, and either a standing platform or a seat with minimum unladen height 650 mm.
It sets an operating speed cap of 25 km/h for personal electric vehicles on highways and bicycle facilities and bars their use on highways with posted speed limits over 50 km/h (except when crossing at intersections).
Minimum operator ages differ: operators of personal electric vehicles must be at least 16 years old; power‑assisted bicycle operators may be 14 or older. Owners must not allow underage operation.
The bill prohibits driving on a highway with an automated driving system engaged unless authorized by a technology testing permit or by a pilot project established under the Act; the Act adopts SAE J3016 language and treats levels 3–5 automation as within scope.
The registrar may register overweight or overdimensional vehicles but they cannot be driven on highways unless the owner obtains a separate permit under section 87 of The Highway Traffic Act; registration and plating are required even where a permit relieves dimensional or weight compliance.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Creates 'personal electric vehicle' class and updates statutory references
The bill inserts a multi‑element definition for "personal electric vehicle" and replaces many occurrences of "power‑assisted bicycle" with the new term throughout the Highway Traffic Act. That change makes these devices explicitly subject to traffic law rather than treated as a fuzzy subset of bicycles. Practically, this means equipment, lighting, offence and enforcement provisions that referenced bicycles or power‑assisted bicycles will now apply to personal electric vehicles unless the bill provides a separate rule.
Operating limits: speed, age, where they may be used, towing and passengers
Section 145 and its additions set operational boundaries: a 25 km/h speed limit on highways and bicycle facilities for personal electric vehicles, a prohibition on operation on highways with speed limits above 50 km/h (with a narrow crossing exception), a prohibition on towing from personal electric vehicles, and a ban on carrying passengers on personal electric vehicles (power‑assisted bicycles remain an exception for some rules). The owner liability provision makes owners responsible for preventing underage operation.
Mandatory helmets and equipment conformity
The bill requires properly fitted and fastened helmets that meet regulatory standards for operators of personal electric vehicles and for passengers or towed persons on power‑assisted bicycles, with an explicit private property exception. Several equipment and lighting provisions are adjusted so the same basic visibility and lamp requirements that apply to bicycles now extend to personal electric vehicles; the regulations are empowered to set technical helmet and equipment standards.
Municipal control of sidewalk parking and marked sidewalk operation
A new parking exception lets traffic authorities—municipal councils via by‑law—authorize parking, stopping or standing personal electric vehicles on sidewalks. Separately, sidewalk operation remains prohibited generally, but the Act creates an explicit carve‑out permitting operation on sidewalks that are marked by a traffic control device authorizing such use. These two mechanisms give municipalities direct tools to tailor local practice but require local legislative or traffic control action to change sidewalk regimes.
SAE‑based ADS definition and a prohibition absent permit or pilot
The bill adopts SAE J3016 terminology, expands the statutory meaning of "drive" to include causing vehicle operation, and redefines "automated driving system" to be limited to SAE levels 3–5. It then adds an explicit prohibition on operating a vehicle on a highway with an automated driving system engaged unless a technology testing permit authorizes it or the vehicle is operating under a pilot project established under Part VIII.2—placing experimental ADS use under provincial permitting and pilot oversight.
Registrar powers for overweight vehicles and consequent statute clean‑up
The Drivers and Vehicles Act amendment lets the registrar register vehicles or trailers that do not meet weight or dimension requirements but conditions their lawful road use on the owner obtaining a permit under the Highway Traffic Act. Consequential edits bring personal electric vehicles into The Off‑Road Vehicles Act and update the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act and other provisions to reflect the new vehicle class and the registration/plating rule for permitted overweight/overdimensional vehicles.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Municipal councils and local traffic authorities — gain express power to authorize sidewalk parking and permit operation via traffic control devices or by‑law, enabling local management of micro‑mobility flows and curbspace.
- Personal electric vehicle users and retailers — receive statutory clarity about how devices will be treated under traffic law, reducing legal uncertainty for purchase, manufacture and local operation decisions.
- Public safety and road‑safety advocates — get a uniform helmet rule, clear speed and location limits, and a ban on towing/passengers that target high‑risk behaviours on small electric devices.
- Vehicle registries, insurers and developers of automated driving tech — obtain clearer administrative pathways: registrars can list overweight/oversized vehicles while insurers and test organizers have a permit/pilot framework for ADS testing.
Who Bears the Cost
- Municipal governments — must draft and approve by‑laws or install traffic control devices to manage sidewalk parking/operation and will face local enforcement burdens and potential litigation over curb use decisions.
- Retailers and manufacturers of higher‑powered or heavier micro‑mobility models — devices exceeding 500 W, >32 km/h capability, or 45 kg will fall outside the statutory PEV class and may require different regulatory treatment or be effectively prohibited for typical micro‑mobility markets.
- Police and enforcement agencies — get new, potentially technical offences to enforce (power rating, capability, vehicle weight, seat height), which are not easily assessed during roadside stops without regulatory testing standards or equipment.
- Provincial vehicle registry and MPI — take on additional administrative work to register overweight/overdimensional vehicles and update forms, plates and insurer rules; courts and administrative tribunals may see new permit‑appeal work.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between providing clear, enforceable safety limits for emerging micro‑mobility and automated vehicle technologies and preserving easy access, innovation and operational flexibility: strict technical thresholds, helmet and location bans protect pedestrians and reduce risk but are difficult to enforce and can exclude useful devices; delegating choices to permits, pilots and municipal by‑laws lets authorities tailor responses but risks fragmentation and administrative delay that can stifle adoption and create uneven compliance burdens.
The bill creates useful legal clarity but leaves critical implementation details to regulation and administrative practice. Key technical thresholds (500 W motor rating, 32 km/h capability, 45 kg mass, 650 mm seat height) are simple on paper but hard to verify in the field: enforcement officers cannot reliably measure motor watts or design‑speed without manufacturer data or test equipment, and manufacturers can tune controllers or market devices right at the limits to circumvent the intent.
The Act does authorize regulations to classify vehicle types and impose conditions, but those subordinate rules will determine how enforceable the new regime actually is.
Municipal control of sidewalks is a practical approach, yet it shifts pressure to councils to create by‑laws, which risks a patchwork of local regimes and inconsistent user expectations across neighbouring jurisdictions. The helmet mandate is broad and sensible from a safety perspective, but enforcement and the private‑property carve‑outs could create loopholes.
On automated driving systems, the permit/pilot requirement centralizes authority, but the bill does not set clear statutory criteria for issuing permits or allocating liability and insurance responsibilities for pilots; those details will matter to manufacturers and insurers and will determine whether Manitoba’s approach facilitates testing or simply erects administrative barriers.
Finally, permitting registration of overweight or overdimensional vehicles while forbidding their road use absent a permit makes registration an administrative stopgap rather than a substantive authorization; registrars, permit officers and law enforcement will need interlocking procedures to prevent gaps or misuse. The bill places many operational choices into regulations and municipal by‑laws; the timetable, resource allocation and specific regulatory drafting will shape whether the Act improves safety and predictability or creates new compliance friction and enforcement uncertainty.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.