[txlseries4]

On an unrelated note, can anyone explain to me the shenanigans in terms of changing the definitions regarding e-bikes?

See https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-43/session-1/bill-197

The definition of “bicycle” in subsection 1 (1) of the Highway Traffic Act is amended by striking out “a tricycle, a unicycle and a power-assisted bicycle” and substituting “a tricycle and a unicycle”.

The definition of “motor vehicle” in subsection 1 (1) of the Act is amended by striking out “a power-assisted bicycle”.

No person who is the owner or is in possession or control of a motor assisted bicycle shall permit a person who is under the age of 16 years to ride on, drive or operate the motor assisted bicycle on a highway.

I've seen some people Tweet about it, and I am confused, does it mean it will be illegal to carry a child on an e-bike?

To me it seems the more narrow definition of "power-assisted" bicycle is gone, and only the more broader definition of " motor assisted" bicycle remains.

You might get closer to an answer reading/searching through the Hansard transcript for that bill when it was at the standing committee. From a quick look others share that concern

Committee Transcript 2024-Nov-15 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Committee Hansard Transcript - 2024-11-15 - Parliament 43 Session 1

www.ola.org

 

[evandyk]

Not entirely true.

If the government is acting in a reckless or wanton disregard for the safety or lives of others, then they can be, and have been, successfully sued. At least federally. See Taylor v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 where Health Canada was sued.

I doubt this act can avoid that, simply avoid some lesser suits. But I'm not a lawyer ... I only play one on Twitter.

Generally, you can't sue a government on the basis that "You created this law that caused me harm". There's a law called the "Crown Liability and Proceedings Act", and one of its provisions is:

Extinguishment of causes of action respecting certain governmental functions

Acts of a legislative nature

11 (1) No cause of action arises against the Crown or an officer, employee or agent of the Crown in respect of any negligence or failure to take reasonable care while exercising or intending to exercise powers or performing or intending to perform duties or functions of a legislative nature, including the development or introduction of a bill, the enactment of an Act or the making of a regulation.

Regulatory decisions

(2) No cause of action arises against the Crown or an officer, employee or agent of the Crown in respect of a regulatory decision made in good faith, where,

(a) a person suffers any form of harm or loss as a result of an act or omission of a person who is the subject of the regulatory decision; and

(b) the person who suffered the harm or loss claims that the harm or loss resulted from any negligence or failure to take reasonable care in the making of the regulatory decision..

This law really just restates that provision and expressly confirms that it applies to this law. You could still sue if you were injured due to the specific nature of the redesign of a specific street, but you can't sue just because this law generally makes it more likely you'll be hurt while cycling in Toronto.

 

[max]

Every time there's news on this bill I get this vibe...

 

[evandyk]

Yes there are bike lanes east west and north south a block over.

I honestly think 95% of it is comfort. Same reason the majority of dwellings have AC even though you only "need" heat. And yes, I laugh with the receipt checkers whenever I buy a single thing at Costco. I feel like people are mixing up "possible" and "preferable"

Same reason the majority of people drive to stores even though you only "need" to bike or walk.

I don't get the argument that there are bike lanes only a block away. There are car lanes only a block away too! Why do we expect cyclists to go out of their way, but never drivers? Drivers can use Harbord or Dupont instead of Bloor, why do they bitch about the traffic on Bloor?

 

[Midtown Hank]

This is not correct.

Actually it is.

Plausibly; but that certainly isn't a fact. It would depend on what condition you returned those curb lanes to.

In theory it is; which is what I said. You can create any number of caveats to counter it, but those other issues are the barriers to improving traffic flow, not the removal of the bike lanes in and of themselves.

Generally, this is true; but conversely, removing the cycle tracks would generally make an assumption of an increased number of cars using that stretch of road, which would again offset, at least partially, any benefit drivers might gain from removing said lanes.

Sure, but the bias is toward reduced congestion.

It wasn't silly. What most drivers care about is their daily commute, if most drivers aren't on Yonge north of Bloor each day, they couldn't care one whit about how well it does or does not move.

If the desire is to move traffic more quickly on the Gardiner, the 401 or Spadina/York, different investments in both roads and transit are required.

Agree, so apologies to GrimSweeper. On re-reading he makes a good point. I was focused solely on the 3 main streets where the province is proposing the removal of bike lanes.

This is potentially more accurate. However, its a lousy basis for making public policy.

Agree, but it's sadly common practice in politics.

 

[Midtown Hank]

It's not silly if the purpose of Bill 212 is to reduce congestion.

As it stands, Bill 212 will literally accomplish nothing to help congestion.

Not even counting the 401, DVP, Gardiner, 404, which are the worst spots - let's look at Toronto's busiest intersections.

Here is a list of the 10 Toronto intersections with the most traffic congestion in 2022:

1. Lake Shore Boulevard East & Lower Sherbourne Street

2. Finch Avenue West & Norfinch Drive/Oakdale Road

3. Finch Avenue West & 400 South Finch Westbound Ramp

4. Finch Avenue West & 400 North Finch Eastbound Ramp

5. Finch Avenue West & Signet Drive/Arrow Road

6. Lawrence Avenue East & Scarborough Golf Club Road

7. Lake Shore Boulevard East & Bay Street

8. Steeles Avenue East & Pharmacy Avenue/ Esna Park Drive

9. Islington Avenue & Finch Avenue West

10. Lake Shore Boulevard East & Parliament Street


You know what is not on any of them? Bike Lanes. (Exception of Bay & Sherbourne but those bike lanes did NOT remove a lane of traffic since the road is too narrow). Congestion here is called by cars merging into the one lane that goes onto the Gardiner. Nothing to do with cycling.

So again where is the ROI on spending tens of millions and putting streets back into construction for months? There's no benefit.

Apologies GrimSweeper for calling your point silly. You make a valid point about overall congestion. I was focused purely on the 3 streets the province has selected for bike lane removal.

As for whether or not there is an ROI or any net benefit, it would depend on the eye of the beholder. Similarly one could argue that there is no ROI or net benefit to overall cycling safety throughout the GTA by adding a bike lane on Bloor.

 

[evandyk]

Apologies GrimSweeper for calling your point silly. You make a valid point about overall congestion. I was focused purely on the 3 streets the province has selected for bike lane removal.

As for whether or not there is an ROI or any net benefit, it would depend on the eye of the beholder. Similarly one could argue that there is no ROI or net benefit to overall cycling safety throughout the GTA by adding a bike lane on Bloor.

If you created a metric of "People cycling to more destinations than they did before" that you could measure, the Bloor, Danforth, Yonge and University lanes would make a very large difference in that metric. Assuming you think that getting people to cycle is a benefit (which the city obviously does, for obvious reasons), there is clearly a benefit from the lanes. Those four bike lanes, plus Richmond and Adelaide (which they're also polling about removing) are probably involved in a very significant share of bike trips in Toronto every day.

I am pretty sure the share of bike trips on those lanes vastly exceeds the share of car trips on those lanes. The real congestion on Toronto streets has nothing to do with those lanes, and will not be addressed by removing those lanes. That's a fact which was presented to the government in their own staff's analysis.

 

[TheGrimSweeper]

Apologies GrimSweeper for calling your point silly. You make a valid point about overall congestion. I was focused purely on the 3 streets the province has selected for bike lane removal.

As for whether or not there is an ROI or any net benefit, it would depend on the eye of the beholder. Similarly one could argue that there is no ROI or net benefit to overall cycling safety throughout the GTA by adding a bike lane on Bloor.

We have data that shows cycling accidents have gone down, business has gone up (Bloor BIA) since the bike lanes and the overall usage of bike lanes has gone up exponentially. So there is a net benefit if we are making data driven decisions (which we know the province is not).

 

[Midtown Hank]

This is clearly a BIA that supports the bike lanes. That’s one. What of the other BIAs along the bike lanes? I’m a big fan and user of our bikes lanes, but you can’t just pick those who share our views.

What I’d like to see Mayor Chow do is ask the Premier for a year’s grace to reduce automobile congestion without removing the bike lanes. This will be achieved through the following….

1. Reduce or eliminate construction-related lane closures.
2. Sequence traffic signals to expedite rush hour flow
3. Enact hardcore traffic enforcement to reduce block boxing and illegal parking/standing (consider to deputize citizenry with ticket bounty). Commercial trucks, shredding trucks, etc. seized for auction.
4. Cancel all in-lane patios or other dine TO blockage. Nothing goes in the roadspace.
5. Better control of signalized right turns so that pedestrians and cars flow better.
6. Reduce or eliminate left turns unless there’s a dedicated left turn lane, especially on streetcar routes.
7. As much as possible roadworks or utility work to be undertaken at night or weekends. Every roadwork project to be measured against its impact on congestion and how it can be avoided.
8. Expand hours for no parking during rush hour from 3pm to 7pm, along with hardcore enforcement #3.

We’d need the Premier to agree to support much of this both financially and legislatively.

Agree, but I think we know she doesn't have a year's grace. I would ask for the province to foot the bill for alternative bike lanes on streets that would act as alternatives to the streets where the province is intent on removing the bike lanes. I know there are no good options, but figure out the best alternative routes and make the ask.

 

[TheGrimSweeper]

Part of me hopes this will end after the low hanging fruit is addressed. Bloor West and Yonge from what I remember are really only painted lines and could be removed quickly, to give Doug his quick win before spring election.

I really struggle to imagine Doug wants to put the entirety of University and Bloor under construction for the next year to address their full removal. Where the city would have t o be involved for utilities, street posts etc. In many cases on Bloor it would not even give a lane of traffic back (unless they removed the on street parking).

Insane traffic caused by totally unnecessary construction on those roads during the election I can't see them wanting (but who knows).

 

[afransen]

My pessimism is moderated by my suspicious that this is just posturing that the province will back down from once they get their real priority advanced (413) and the election has passed. Maybe the point was just to introduce the legislation and get a lot of media attention, then let it die when the election is called.

 

[Natika33]

I'm not sure if that's just a joke, or minimum spends are actually a thing?

(I've never been in a Costco - don't you need a membership or something?)

Some wholesalers do have minimum spends, but Costco isn't one of them. Yes, you do need a membership there.

 

[Natika33]

Question - are cars not legally required to pass bikes with a 1-metre leeway? In some spots, doesn't that mean that bike lanes actually allow cars to pass closer to a cyclist than they'd technically be allowed to pass if there were no bike lane at all?

 

[littlewill1166]

Question - are cars not legally required to pass bikes with a 1-metre leeway? In some spots, doesn't that mean that bike lanes actually allow cars to pass closer to a cyclist than they'd technically be allowed to pass if there were no bike lane at all?

Yes, but not all drivers follow the law. I normally ride in the middle of the vehicle lane on roads where there isn't a bike lane or where the bike lane is obstructed.

If a driver rear ends you, the physical evidence of you being rear ended would also likely be more decisive than if you were sideswiped and lost balance (for example). This makes it easier to take legal action against the driver.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Yes, but not all drivers follow the law. I normally ride in the middle of the vehicle lane on roads where there isn't a bike lane

As a motorcyclist we’re drilled in training about defending or surrendering your ROW - you can be resolutely right and dead or sensible and live.