I agree. Any bylaw is only as good as it’s enforcement and education campaign. It’s one thing to put it in place (so it looks like you’re doing something) and then let it collect dust on the books as another orphaned law.
This one seems especially tricky to enforce.
Differentiate between bike-lanes-in-streets vs recreational-paths:
Recreational-paths share single-moms with babies in strollers & toddlers running around them, inline-skates, bikes, unicycles, joggers, dreamy-eyed-lovers, etc…
The speed-limit should be low-enough that NO accidental cyclist-killing-surprise-toddler happens, which is probably 15km/h?
Depends on how closed/open the local terrain is, right?
And the crowding on that day/night, too.
Bike-lanes-in-streets, however, should be up around 25km/h limit, because crash-injury goes up with the SQUARE of the speed, and keeping cyclists from becoming nursing-home-inmates ( seen a couple of lives that earned that result, you don’t want to: it’s depressing ).
Ebikes, etc, should be limited, on parkways/roads/rural to 40km/h, because the distances are sooo much greater outside of core-city-streets…
This would both enable & protect, balancedly…
As a former winter-bike-courier, bike-lanes save lives, without any question.
Some lobbyists don’t understand that having 3 collisions per week on a bike-lane-street that has 1000 cyclists through it per week is better, statistically, than having 1 collision per week on a street with no bike-lane and 10 cyclists through it per week.
They are adamant that 1 collision-per-week is better than 3, no matter what percentage of the cyclists-using-that-pavement that is.
The collisions per cyclist/mile statistic is what those activists don’t understand/accept, and it they make it more-dangerous for us all, unfortunately.
Anyways, I hope the best-for-the-place solution is chosen, and the lives there benefit from the wonderful health available through cycling!
( :
