I have kids who ride bikes…

I have kids who ride bikes and I fear for their safety all the time. How is removing protected bike lanes going to help them? When I drive, I feel it's much safer for everyone when cyclists have their own lane. I can't believe you would advocate removing bike lanes and having cyclists riding dangerously close and inter-mixed with cars. There has been much more aggressive and dangerous driving over the past few years. Routinely there are driver's uttering death threats. Two of my kids have been hit by cars while riding around Mississauga? One of the locations was at a school zone (Brookemede) to boot. Both cases were a hit and run, one reported to police with no action taken. We really need more safety. In just one month’s time, we have seen cyclists killed in Belleville, Toronto, Guelph, Elora area, and Niagara. This is to say nothing of the many pedestrians and motorists killed and injured across the province each week.

Re-locating major cycling infrastructure to side streets generally does not work. When I bike to work in Mississauga from the west to the east, it would be mind boggling to take 30-40 winding side streets to get there. I need a major straight road like Burnhamthorpe to get there. Biking into Toronto I really only have one option: Bloor Street. By car I have over 20 options. Removing bike lanes would not only make my commute longer, but chaotic and totally unsafe. I would challenge those who proposed this law to try commuting to work by bike and see why the bike lanes are there. This is not ideological dogma. I bike year-round so winter lanes are necessary too.

You can fit 18 cars in a lane in a city block, but you can fit 200 bikes in that same space. Bike lanes are not empty, but they are much more space efficient so they obviously don't seem as congested. Common sense would say bikes are very well suited to city streets. In fact, the consensus is that bike lanes are a critical tool for reducing congestion and increasing mobility. So, no, they don’t cause congestion - cars cause congestion. Bikes have been around since the early 1800's and in cities where bikes are dominant, there is no congestion. Bikes are a great means to get around and are not going away. So using common sense, I would argue ALL city streets are appropriate for bikes. What's not? Really only the 400-series highways.

You should be very cautious toward people complaining about underutilized bike routes. Many of the routes are new so cyclists are unaware of them. It takes time for people to change their ways and realize that cycling is an option. Many of the routes are incomplete and not safe since they tend to suddenly end. A less than confident cyclist is not going to use that kind of route until it is completed. How many cars drive on roads that suddenly end?

I would expect a protected bike lane would also protect the sidewalk along Yonge St. Do you not recall Alek Minassian who drove over and killed 10 pedestrians and injured 15 more in Apr 2018? We don't need more of that please.

The city has master plans for roads, bike lanes, sidewalks, and vision zero which has been a huge effort, many years in the making. It takes input from city officials as well as residents. Why would you be undermining all this planning and put in a law that takes in no consideration for the needs of the city? Why are you adding an extra layer of "oversight"? In Premier Ford's platform he promised to reduce red tape, not add more.

I bike for exercise and as a means to help reduce stress, anxiety, and tension. I am a productive part of society and work as an Engineer, but that job requires many hours sitting at a computer. Cycling to work is a great way to keep me functioning at my best.

My message is this - back off and let the mayors do their job! Again, this not ideological dogma as quite frankly, this bill could leave me and my family dead.