Bill 10 amends New Brunswick’s Motor Vehicle Act to strengthen motorcycle-specific safety requirements and give peace officers explicit powers to inspect helmets. Key changes include authorizing officers to require riders and passengers to remove helmets and face coverings for inspection against regulatory standards, tightening registration-plate mounting rules, mandating two mirrors meeting a Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, and adding equipment and riding-position requirements (fenders, handlebar height, seat and passenger rules).
The bill also revises the Provincial Offences Regulations and the Act’s penalty schedule to list the new offence subsections. For government, police, manufacturers, and riders, the measure replaces some vague obligations with prescriptive criteria and an enforceable inspection procedure — but it leaves the technical helmet and mirror specifications to subordinate regulation, shifting practical compliance questions out of the statute.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds an express power for peace officers to require riders and passengers to remove helmets and face coverings and submit helmets for inspection to determine conformity with standards prescribed by regulation. It prescribes equipment and operation rules: minimum license-plate mounting height and horizontal fastening, two mirrors meeting CMVSS 111 (version at manufacture), fenders or mud flaps to reduce spray, and specific rider posture and handlebar-height limits.
Who It Affects
Directly affected are motorcycle riders and passengers in New Brunswick, motorcycle manufacturers and importers (for mirror and helmet compliance), provincial peace officers who will conduct inspections, and vehicle and licensing administrators responsible for enforcement and offence coding under provincial regulations.
Why It Matters
The statute converts several performance-based duties into concrete, enforceable requirements and creates an on-road helmet-inspection procedure — a practical shift that changes how safety compliance will be judged, who decides conformity (peace officers), and which technical standards apply (by regulation or by the CMVSS reference).
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill changes the Motor Vehicle Act at several points to create bright-line rules for motorcycle safety and give police a clear inspection tool. It inserts a power in the Act allowing a peace officer, after a safe stop, to require the driver and any passenger to remove helmets and face coverings and hand over helmets for inspection to determine whether they meet standards that a regulation will prescribe.
The offence of refusing that request is created expressly in the statute.
On equipment, the bill requires every motorcycle to have a fender, mud flap, or similar device to reduce water spray and mud thrown to the rear, and it mandates two mirrors — one on each side — that comply with the specific version of Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 111 that applied when the motorcycle was manufactured. Registration plates must be fastened horizontally, at a minimum height (measured from the bottom of the plate), be secure so they do not swing, be kept free of obscuring materials, and be clearly legible from in front and rear.The Act also tightens how motorcycles may be operated: riders must keep both hands on the handlebars except when signalling, both feet on pedals or footrests, sit on the permanent regular seat, ensure handlebars are firmly secured and no higher than the top of their shoulders when seated, and not carry another person unless the motorcycle is designed for a passenger — in which case the passenger must sit on a permanent passenger seat or in a sidecar.Finally, the bill amends the province’s Provincial Offences Regulations and the Motor Vehicle Act’s penalty schedule to list the new and reworded subsections as specific provincial offences.
The statute itself defers technical details — the helmet standards and any further measurement or testing criteria — to regulations and references the CMVSS mirror standard by the version in force at manufacture, preserving a link to federal vehicle-safety rules rather than creating new provincial technical specs.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill makes it an offence for a rider or passenger to refuse a peace officer’s request to remove a helmet or face covering and submit the helmet for inspection (new s.229(3)).
Registration plates must be fastened horizontally and mounted at a height of at least 30 cm from the ground measured from the bottom of the plate (revised s.30(2)(b)).
Motorcycles must have two mirrors (one per side) and each mirror must show an unobstructed rear view for at least 60 metres; the mirror specification must match CMVSS 111 as it applied when the motorcycle was manufactured (new ss.237(1)–(3)).
The bill requires handlebars to be no higher than the top of the rider’s shoulders when seated, and forbids carrying another person unless the motorcycle is designed for a passenger and the passenger uses the permanent passenger seat or a sidecar (revised s.199(1)(d)–(e)).
Provincial offence schedules (Regulation 91-50) are amended to add separate offence entries for each subsection of the new unsafe-operation provisions (199(1)(a)–(e)) and to add the new helmet-refusal offence (229(3)) to the fines and notice schedules.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Power to require helmet and face-covering removal for inspection
This amendment adds an explicit statutory authority allowing an officer to require drivers and passengers on motorcycles to remove helmets and face coverings and submit helmets for inspection to determine conformity with standards set by regulation. Practically, it creates the legal basis for on-road helmet checks; what counts as conformity will depend on regulations the government later issues, which control the scope and technical contours of inspections.
Registration plate mounting and legibility requirements
The bill replaces the registration-plate clause with prescriptive mounting rules: plates must be securely fastened so they do not swing, mounted horizontally, at least 30 cm above ground (measured from bottom of the plate), clearly visible, and kept free of foreign material so they are legible from the front and rear. Enforcement will be straightforward on paper, but the wording raises practical measurement questions for modified or lowered motorcycles and for certain trailer/sidecar configurations.
Operator posture, controls, handlebar height and passenger limits
This section prescribes how a motorcycle must be operated: both hands on handlebars except when signalling, both feet on pedals/footrests, seated on the permanent seat, and handlebars no higher than the rider’s shoulder tops while seated. It also bans carrying another person unless the vehicle is designed to do so and then requires the passenger to use a permanent passenger seat or sidecar. The practical effect is to outlaw many informal seating or handlebar modifications that some riders use.
Splash-reducing device required
The bill adds a requirement for every motorcycle to carry a fender, mud flap, or other device that effectively reduces water spray and the throwing of mud or slush to the rear. This is an equipment mandate aimed at reducing spray-related visibility hazards for following vehicles and pedestrians; compliance hinges on what the regulation or enforcement practice considers to be ‘effective’.
Helmet standard compliance and refusal offence
The statute requires wearing a helmet that complies with standards prescribed by regulation and that is securely fastened with manufacturer straps and fasteners. It then creates the post-stop inspection power and makes refusal to remove the helmet or face covering an offence. The measure places the duty to carry compliant helmets on riders and gives officers an on-scene test for compliance, but leaves detailed technical criteria to regulation.
Mirror requirements tied to federal CMVSS 111 at manufacture
Motor vehicles must have mirrors that give an unobstructed rear view for at least 60 metres; motorcycles must additionally have two mirrors, one per side, that conform to the version of Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 111 in force when the bike was manufactured. This ties provincial equipment compliance to a federal standard as of manufacturing date, which affects older vs newer bikes differently and limits the province’s need to set a separate mirror spec.
Adds and re-classifies motorcycle offences in schedules
The regulation changes add separate offence entries for each new unsafe-operation subsection of s.199 and add the helmet-refusal offence (229(3)) into Schedules A and B (provincial offence listings and fine schedules). The bill also adjusts the Act’s penalty schedule entries (Schedule A of the Act) to list the new subsection breakdowns. The statute changes the offence architecture; the actual fines and enforcement administrative procedures will follow the reworked regulations.
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
- Other road users (drivers, cyclists, pedestrians): clearer equipment and visibility requirements — two mirrors, plate-legibility, and spray-reduction devices aim to reduce blind spots and spray-related crashes.
- Peace officers and enforcement agencies: the statute gives an explicit on-road inspection power and specific equipment and mounting standards, reducing ambiguity when issuing charges or warnings.
- Insurers and road-safety analysts: more prescriptive standards (mirror specs linked to CMVSS 111, plate mounting) make post-crash investigations and underwriting risk assessments more consistent.
- Motorcycle manufacturers and compliant sellers: firms that already meet CMVSS mirror rules and helmet standards gain clearer legal cover and face lower adaptation costs than noncompliant importers or aftermarket suppliers.
Who Bears the Cost
- Motorcycle riders and passengers: they must possess helmets that meet the yet-to-be-published regulatory standards and comply with on-scene inspection requests; refusal is an offence, increasing exposure to fines or charges.
- Small importers and aftermarket parts suppliers: retrofitting older motorcycles with compliant mirrors, fenders, or plates may require inventory changes or technical adjustments to meet the CMVSS-linked and mounting specifications.
- Peace officers and courts: officers will need training and possibly guidance materials to determine helmet conformity during roadside inspections, and courts may see litigation over technical compliance, helmet-testing methods, or face-covering exceptions.
- Registries and enforcement agencies: administering and enforcing the new plate, equipment, and offence schedule changes will impose operational and communications costs while associated regulations are developed and published.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits two legitimate goals against each other: improving rider and public safety through prescriptive equipment and inspection powers, and limiting intrusive or technically fraught enforcement that can burden riders, police and small suppliers; achieving both will depend heavily on the clarity and accessibility of the regulations that must follow.
The bill delegates crucial technical detail to subordinate regulation. Helmet ‘standards prescribed by regulation’ are not set in the statute, so the scope of an officer’s inspection authority — and what constitutes a nonconforming helmet — will be defined later.
That delegation speeds passage but creates short-term uncertainty for riders, sellers, and enforcement: without published regulations, officers and courts must interpret enforcement powers and riders will lack clear buying guides.
The helmet-inspection power creates practical and legal challenges. Peace officers must assess whether a helmet meets technical standards during a roadside stop; that task can be complex (labelling, internal construction, certification markings) and may require guidance, training, or equipment.
The requirement to remove face coverings intersects with privacy and religious accommodation concerns; the statute creates an offence for refusal but does not set out exemptions or an alternative inspection protocol, which may produce disputes and litigation. Finally, tying mirror conformity to the CMVSS 111 version at manufacture protects older bikes from being held to later standards but complicates aftermarket compliance and enforcement where mirrors have been replaced or repaired.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.