Ontario wants your input on its draft cycling strategy

If you want to say anything about the Ontario Ministry of Transportation draft cycling strategy, you've got 60 days to do so.

The Ministry is among several provincial agencies that has had something to say about cycling in Ontario. The office of the Chief Coroner this summer released a cycling death review that had a lot to say to various ministries and governments about cycling safety. The Ontario Medical Association weighed in last year with its Enhancing Cycling Safety in Ontario, and various agencies of public health have contributed their thoughts about active lifestyles.

But this is the big one. The Ministry of Transportation actually designates money that builds things: whether that's paved, segregated bicycle lanes or bicycle storage at public transit facilities. And the ministry sets the tone for every new driver who is licensed in Ontario. If you want Ontario drivers to be trained to share the road, you have to have the Ministry of Transportation on side.

So really, you should read the draft strategy and offer your comments. And don't delay. Sixty days have a way of running out. In fact, if you are reading this on Saturday: only 59 days left.

You've probably read something about the draft strategy elsewhere. To recap, the strategy is looking at: better cycling infrastructure through a provincial cycling network, and through provincial support (cash, advice, policy) of municipally authorized cycling networks; better cycling safety, through education for cyclists and drivers and updates to the (incredibly outdated) Highway Traffic Act; and better overwatch, through monitoring and co-ordination (which sounds like a bonanza for consultants, but really does have a bearing on how improvements are made).

It is interesting that two recommendations of the Chief Coroner's report, made specifically to the Ministry of Transportation, are not in any way addressed in the draft strategy:

First, no mention of mandatory bicycle helmet legislation -- which really stirred up the beehive when it was suggested back in June of this year.

Second, no mention of the one-metre/three-foot passing law, which has been the subject of one private member's bill and many lobbying attempts. It appears that it continues to go nowhere fast.

Neither does the draft cycling strategy address the question of e-bikes. There has been a lot of energy generated about e-bikes, whether police are enforcing the law, whether the law is clear enough, whether e-bike users should be required to be licensed. Other than defining what an e-bike is and where it can be used, no discussion of the e-bike's future.

Of course, there are 60 days to discuss all of this. Go to the website, read the draft strategy and press the button to submit your responses.

Comments

[matt todd]

The Cycling Strategy's scant four pages are hardly worth reading.

The helmet and passing laws are covered - albeit in the appendix; not the plan proper as that part only offers, vaguely, something about legislation review.

The breadth of cycling in the province isn't covered. There are no clear reasons offered as to why any of this should get done. There are only vague references to a short list of benefits in the intro, but no specific benefits that Ontario is planning on capturing by embracing cycling.

I thought Ontario deserved better as far a bike plan goes, but, instead, this is what we got.

[Mike Davies]

This "Cycling Strategy" is rhetoric. It pays lip service to cycling without making any actual commitments, nor does it identify any real priorities. No firm programs will come of this, and there are no promises of any funding levels. It's pages are filled with many words that say a whole lot of NOTHING. This Strategy is beyond weak; it is impotent.

How about we get a "real plan" accompanied with a "real strategy" - plans and strategies with firm goals, reasonable timelines, actual priorities, real programs, and guaranteed funding commitments.

[gingerbeard]

In case no one noticed, they highway traffic act has been updated with regards to maximum speed for an ebike, the definition now is as follows:

motor assisted bicycle” means a bicycle,

(e) that does not have sufficient power to enable the bicycle to attain a speed greater than 50 kilometres per hour on level ground within a distance of 2 kilometres from a standing start; (“cyclomoteur”)

Yes that right, you can now get leagally drive your ebike at 50 kph. I am willing to bet this is the approach they are taking to lane sharing, make the cyclist faster so they do not interfear with the cars.

[Ryan]

There is mention of a helmet law. I took two screenshots of where it is mentioned.

http://bicyclestc.blogspot.ca/2012/12/ontarios-new-cycling-strategywhy-its.html

Essentially if they will look at the negative effects helmets WILL have on cycling rates, there shouldn't even be a concern for an all age helmet law.

[JC]

Mike, I think that's why they're asking for input... and why I already sent my comments in.

[dmatos]

@gingerbread:

'fraid not. "Motor assisted bicycle" has always been the term for a moped. E-bikes are separate entities, and are regulated by a separate section of the HTA (actually, I think e-bikes are still classified as a "pilot project," so regulations for them are not in the HTA directly). The MTO has a handy page on what the different types of alternative vehicles are, and what the restrictions are on each of them:

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/dandv/vehicle/emerging/index.shtml#motor

[D]

I just spent an hour typing in comments. I hope the government is sincere in soliciting them.

[Bill]

Thank you! My turn.

[Bill]

@gingerbeard Just catching up on some comments. Dmatos is correct about the difference between motor-assisted bicycles and e-bikes. Motor-assisted bikes are essentially mopeds, and you need a licence to operate them. Not so with e-bikes. The speed limit for e-bikes is still 32 km/h.