This Bill is short sighted…

This Bill is short sighted due to the comparisons that are being made between the driving and cycling infrastructure and their respective use levels, when both the amount of time and money invested in these two aspects of infrastructure vary wildly. The driving and road infrastructure has had billions of dollars worth of investment, over multiple decades, into developing a system and network of routes that residents find useful and effective in getting around; drivers did not immediately exist to fully utilize these roads and routes, and instead the presence of this convenient mode of transport led to more drivers using this infrastructure. The same must be allowed for cycling to develop.

In order to compare cycling and driving in an even remotely fair way, fully fledged cycling networks need to be built and developed, so that residents may actually be able to see the utility and convenience that a connected network that does not rely on the automobile may have. It is not surprising that many more people drive in these areas than bike; these areas have well developed roads, but no bike networks. I am confident that if road networks were only paved in certain areas, and made up of dirt and gravel in other areas, that far fewer people would find driving convenient.

It is disingenuous and ignorant to suggest that bike lanes are worsening traffic, when it is widely studied and shown that for the same number of people trying to get around, cyclists take up far less room and are more efficiently using the space available.

Practically speaking, if any percentage of drivers are converted to cyclists due to the increased convenience and safety of a well built cycling network, this increase in cyclists directly corresponds to a reduction of drivers in cars, and an overall reduction in traffic volume. In this situation, the development and investment in cycling infrastructure actually serves to improve the experience of the drivers who have no other option than to drive, and reduce traffic. In no way is cycling infrastructure an attack on cars, if anything it will serve to make driving more convenient for those who have to drive. What is really does is provide a viable option for those reluctant drivers, who see driving as the only practical option due to infrastructure limitations.

It is also valuable to look at this from the perspective of access to safety. This dedicate cycling infrastructure serves to dramatically improve the safety of those who use it. It is ethically questionable to value the convenience of some drivers more than the safety of cyclists. Imagine a situation where one of the many safety features that drivers rely on simply wouldn't be there, such as a traffic light. In some ways, one could say that traffic lights create congestion and traffic because they stop the flow of traffic and lower overall average speed of drivers, and yet we would not consider the removal of traffic lights in intersections due to their invaluable contribution to safety. Imagine a situation where you no longer feel safe in your car due to the potential of a speeding vehicle not stopping in an intersection and potentially colliding with you; this is the reality of many cyclists every day when they cannot rely on safe infrastructure.