The Ontario government says it is a “world-class leader in road safety” and will continue to support municipalities in their efforts to make roads safe. It funds a program to address aggressive driving, pedestrian safety and cycling safety. Thirteen Ontario municipalities, including Toronto, have adopted a strategy called Vision Zero, which helped Sweden cut its traffic deaths in half over two decades by increasing safe, healthy, accessible and affordable mobility options for all road users. 

But recent Ontario legislation aimed at easing worsening traffic congestion seems to disregard the province’s stated goal of road safety. The Reducing Gridlock, Saving You Time Act clearly favours automobility and suggests bicycles and related infrastructure are obstacles to traffic.

The social impacts and economic cost of traffic congestion in the province total more than $56 billion, a 2024 study says. The new law recognizes that “accidents and lane closures can worsen traffic congestion and impact the quality of life of Ontarians.” It says the solution is to speed up construction of priority highway projects and rip up some bike lanes.

But cyclists are not the problem and the solution is not more roads. Protected cycling infrastructure is crucial if Ontario is indeed to become a world-class leader in road-safety.

A double whammy

Treating cyclists as a problem grows out of two simultaneous phenomena. The first is motonormativity, which is a bias whereby people judge motor vehicles differently than other modes of transportation.

It suggests our brains have been wired to prefer motor travel and downplay the negative consequences. This doesn’t just apply to transportation but also land use. Minimum-parking requirements, for instance, tend to be associated with higher rates of car ownership.

Second is the phenomenon of “bikelash.” This is an organized opposition to bike-lane development and has been observed in cities around the world, for example, in New York, Sydney and Melbourne. Bikelash has also been evident in Canada, including in Vancouver and Montreal, and more recently in Ontario, where the provincial government wants to remove existing bike lanes on major Toronto streets like Bloor and Yonge.

But bike lanes are an efficient use of space, with a greater density of use than lone drivers on roads. Parked cars take up far more space than bikes.

Valorizing cars and villainizing bicycles is a double whammy that works against making cities safer, healthier and more livable.

Make it make sense

Building more roads has been shown to result in an increase in cars on them, that is, it induces demand. It’s a self-defeating cycle: More roads result in more cars, which result in even more congestion. Comments from public consultation on the bill that became Ontario’s new gridlock act supported that view.

Another factor to consider is the number of road accidents that can lead to injury or death. Police data show that in 2024 alone, 69,141 automobile accidents were reported in Toronto, of which 1,436 involved pedestrians.

Achieving Toronto’s Vision Zero road-safety plan requires that policies and infrastructure protect the most vulnerable road users. Tearing down protected bike lanes does the opposite by making cyclists more prone to accidents involving vehicles. This is especially concerning as several studies have shown that some drivers see cyclists, especially those with safety gear, as somehow less “human” and are more aggressive toward them.

The Ontario government is aware of these negative consequences. Internal government documents estimated that removing protected bike lanes would increase collisions by more than 54 per cent and put all road users, not only cyclists, at risk.

A people-centred policy

Active mobility (cycling and walking) is a no-brainer if the aim is healthy, attractive, livable cities.

Biking is a cost-effective solution to curb traffic congestion. Cities like Paris recognize this and have made permanent cycling paths that were introduced as temporary to reduce reliance on public transport and promote social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic. The city has since added more bike lanes. A study in the spring of 2024 found that 11.2 per cent of trips in central Paris were made on two wheels compared with 4.3 per cent on four.

Removing bike lanes in favour of motorized traffic is not how to become a world-class leader in road-safety. The Norwegian capital of Oslo reported zero pedestrian deaths in 2019 after curbing car traffic by removing regular street parking in the city core, converting parking lanes into bike lanes and closing through streets.

Investing in cycling infrastructure makes transportation more accessible to potential users. Toronto’s cycling network plan — wherein the city is giving greater priority to underserved neighbourhoods — is a step in the right direction. The city is also expanding the area covered by its bike-sharing program and is reducing bike-sharing fares for low-income residents in an effort to make cycling more accessible and affordable.

Similar efforts in Vancouver have led to increased use of bike-sharing in populations with limited financial means, which contributes to more equitable mobility. Ontario’s new law could worsen mobility inequities by depriving underserved communities of an affordable and accessible means of transport.

Ultimately, livable cities are designed for people irrespective of their preferred mode of transport. It is not so much about a war on cars or war on bikes. It’s making sure that cities are safe, healthy and inclusive for all residents. Bicycles tend to do a much better job of this than cars.

A people-centred transportation policy for Ontario must value bicycles as much as — if not more than — cars if transportation in cities is to be safer, more accessible and more equitable as urban populations continue to increase.

© Policy Options Politiques