Comment
A reduction in bike lanes on a specific street must have an alternate route specified nearby with strong , appropriate signage to divert bikes from the affected street onto a safe, side street. this has been done on many quiet, underutilized residential streets and promotes a safer enviroment for cycling. On streets that have no viable diversion onto a residential route, or alternate safe bike route, bike lanes must be maintained because cyclists then have no choice but to take the unsafe, unprotected road route which they must share with open traffic.
no alternate safe route=bike lanes a must
alternate safe route nearby=signage and notice of safe alternate route away from car only routes.
If cars are always looking for bikes , especially e bikes, then routes will stay slow, or unsafe , causing unwanted stress on drivers and injuries for cyclists.
If a road is known to be free of bikes, traffic can move along efficiently and less stressfully.
having protected bike lanes, bike routes , as well as car routes with no bikes is good policy.
Submitted November 2, 2024 2:01 PM
Comment on
Bill 212 - Reducing Gridlock, Saving You Time Act, 2024 - Framework for bike lanes that require removal of a traffic lane.
ERO number
019-9266
Comment ID
111092
Commenting on behalf of
Comment status