I am concerned the outcome…

I am concerned the outcome of the proposed legislation will result in a reduction of safety and urban access for cyclists. Further, provincial intervention into the sphere of delegated municipal powers and decisions should require a high bar of necessity which has not established in this environment by data or authoritative study.
I am a car driver, pedestrian, and a cyclist. A city functions well when citizens can move safely and efficiently using the mode of movement of their choosing. The experience of other major urban centres, such as New York, is that in establishing secure venues of travel for pedestrians and cyclist not only reduces injuries and fatalities but reduced vehicular travel times. However, the premise of this legislation is that the removal of specific dedicated cycling lanes will improve vehicular speed within urban areas. The benefit - if established - is negligible; the increased risk to non-vehicular users of dedicated cycling lanes is concerning. Dedicated cycling lanes are established to enhance the safety of growing proportion of a city's residents. Canadians using bicycles for daily commuting nearly doubled between 1996 and 2016. However, cycling commuting is not without risk: between 2016 and 2021 researchers found that 30,101 emergency care visits were initiated by cyclists whilst Toronto Police documented 2,362 injuries to cyclists during that period.
Ontario residents participate in municipal elections and select municipal councils. Councils consider municipal issues and needs as directed by the electorate. Provisioning of urban infrastructure is the responsibility of municipal and regional councils. Provincial intervention must meet a high threshold of necessity; an error in law / regulation, an egregious action affecting a wider sphere of citizens, or fiscal irregularities. None of these factors hold in the case of the proposed legislation.
Bill 212 proposes and unnecessary and unwarranted solution to perceived problem. The bill should be withdrawn.