Reducing gridlock to help…

Reducing gridlock to help individuals and business save time is an admirable goal, but Bill 212 does not do this.

Requiring Ministry approval of bike lanes in municipalities creates unnecessary bureaucracy and unnecessary work for the Ministry, and consequently is a waste of taxpayer money. The municipality is in the best position to decide whether and how to implement bicycle lanes.

Further, providing a review process by the Ministry to remove existing bicycle lanes also creates unnecessary bureaucracy and unnecessary work for the Ministry, and consequently is a waste of taxpayer money.

Such a review process could also lead to the absurd result where bicycle lanes that have already been put in place by the municipality, which is in the best position to decide whether and how to implement bicycle lanes, are removed against the municipality's wishes. This removal is a waste of taxpayer money, and such an outcome also turns the successful installation of existing bicycle lanes into potential wastes of taxpayer money.

This process, in addition to being a waste of money, is likely to result in making gridlock worse, not better.

Under the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter H.8, “vehicle” includes a motor vehicle, trailer, traction engine, farm tractor, road-building machine, bicycle and any vehicle drawn, propelled or driven by any kind of power, including muscular power, but does not include a motorized snow vehicle or a street car; “driver” means a person who drives a vehicle on a highway; and “highway” includes a common and public highway, street, avenue, parkway,
driveway, square, place, bridge, viaduct or trestle, any part of which
is intended for or used by the general public for the passage of
vehicles and includes the area between the lateral property lines
thereof.

From this, it follows that cyclists, except where specifically specified in the Act, have thes same rights and responsibilities as motorists. This means that, in the absence of bike lanes, bicycles have the right to occupy an entire lane of traffic.

Now, it is true that in some instances, such as motorists passing bicycles, regular lanes of traffic are shared.

(Every person in charge of a vehicle on a highway meeting a person
travelling on a bicycle shall allow the cyclist sufficient room on the
roadway to pass.  R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 148 (4).

Every person on a bicycle or motor assisted bicycle who is overtaken by a vehicle or equestrian travelling at a greater speed shall turn out to the right and allow the vehicle or equestrian to pass and the vehicle or equestrian overtaking shall turn out to the left so far as may be necessary to avoid a collision. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 148 (6).)

However, the minimum safe distance for a motor vehicle passing a bicycle is one metre.

(Every person in charge of a motor vehicle on a highway who is overtaking a person travelling on a bicycle shall, as nearly as may be practicable, leave a distance of not less than one metre between the bicycle and the motor vehicle and shall maintain that distance until safely past the bicycle. 2015, c. 14, s. 42.)

In dense urban environments, where bike lanes are most likely to be implemented by municipalities, it is almost never possible for a motor vehicle to safely pass a bicycle with these specific exceptions.

Therefore, bicycles have the right to occupy an entire lane of traffic, and in most cases the only way for a motor vehicle to pass that bicycle is by changing lanes, as it would for any other motor vehicle.

By removing bike lanes, you are not creating space for more cars. You are dedicating more road space to cyclists exercise their rights as drivers. Motorists who do not respect the rights of cyclists as drivers of vehicles as prescribed by the Highway Traffic Act are are in violation of the same.

Finally, and as should be unsurprising considering the foregoing, there are numerous studies that show the installation of bike lanes actually decreases travel time for motorists. Further, bike lanes lead to an increase in bike usage and consequently a decrease in car usage (one cyclist is potentially one fewer cars on the road). See, e.g., FLOW Project (2016). The Role of Walking and Cycling in Reducing Congestion: A Portfolio of Measures. Brussels. Available at http://www.h2020-flow.eu.

I repeat myself: reducing gridlock to help individuals and business save time is an admirable goal, but Bill 212 does not do this. The proposed processes around bike lane approval, review, and potential removal, will not improve gridlock and in fact are likely to make it worse. If motorists are frustrated with cyclists, the answer is more cycling infrastructure to keep them safely separated, not less.

Thank you.