Ottawa’s Major Bike Lanes Are Unsafe …


… so do something about it.

For those of you who haven’t seen this video, here is how unsafe the O’Connor bike lanes are.

Please note there is coarse language in this video.

This is what happens when you take half-measures and not the safest method for ensuring bike safety.

Ottawa needs east-west and north-south streets devoted to bikes only and local traffic.

How many more accidents are we to have like this or much worse before city hall and some members of the cycling community catch on to this? Half-safe is unsafe.

This is a driver’s worst nightmare … hurting someone.



Back to The Bulldog’s home page, click here.

To comment on this post, use the reply box at the bottom of this page.

Bulldog Fetch brings you the best in politics, movies, entertainment, TV, travel, viral, style and news features. You can’t stay current without Bulldog Fetch. To read it, click here.



To get the finest in Canadian news and opinion, click here for Bulldog Canadian. Your one stop for Canadian politics.



For Ottawa’s complete summary of local news as it happens, Full Local is the place to go. If you need up-to-the-minute Ottawa news from Ottawa’s major sources now, click here.


weather icon

For The Bulldog’s detailed Ottawa 10-Day Forecast and Weather Alerts, click here.

Report a typo to

7 thoughts on “Ottawa’s Major Bike Lanes Are Unsafe …

  1. When the analysis/evidence doesn’t support the preferred conclusion, one can either change the conclusion or ignore the analysis/evidence.

    I am shocked, absolutely shocked (with apologies to Captain Renault of the Casablanca Prefecture) that the city chose the latter alternative.

    1. Ron:

      A lot of people will be seriously hurt or we might have another death due to the terrible setup of these lanes.

      It’s unconscionable.


      1. Ken, during the Harper years, we heard endless rhetoric about the Conservatives making decisions based on ideology, while ignoring evidence that did not support those decisions. I do not dispute the validity of that commentary. I do wish to point out that the willingness to ignore evidence that is contrary to the preferred conclusion does not reside solely in any one part of the political spectrum.

        As it relates to the bicycle lanes on O’Connor and on Laurier, there is an agenda at play that is driving the decision-making. The responsibility for the failures (property damage, injuries and fatalities being a subset thereof) will reside not just with the motorists and cyclists who make contact with each other, but also with the advocates (which is my attempt at a softer term than special-interest group), the city administrators, and the elected officials who pushed an agenda and made decisions that were not supported by the evidence and expert recommendations that they solicited.

        We are in agreement, their decisions are unconscionable.

  2. That cyclist’s head hit the road. I hope he went to or was taken to hospital. Head injuries, as we keep hearing, can be very dangerous, even if they don’t seem to be at the time.

  3. After the death of the young woman bicycling on Laurier, Mayor Jim Watson tweeted:

    “city investing a record amount to make cycling safer; O’Connor lane in progress; more coming to fedco next week due to fed $”

    Clearly, Watson doesn’t get it; to him: “a bike lane is a bike lane.” Later, he would call for a safety audit on the Laurier bike lane, but that seems more like political cover than problem solving. If Watson was prepared to ignore the consultant review of O’Connor for the “safest” recommendation, then what chance is there that he will follow all the recommendations of this safety audit?

    The media reported on the rally, in front of City Hall, organized after the death of this young cyclist: “Coun. Catherine McKenney, Coun. Jeff Leiper and Coun. Riley Brockington led the crowd for a moment of silence and speeches, which were punctuated by bike bells, cheers of ‘shame’ and ‘enough is enough.'”

    Exactly what were these city councillors doing when the decision for the O’Connor bike lane was before them? Did any of them speak up? Or, did they make, as Ron Benn has written, “decisions that were not supported by the evidence and expert recommendations that they solicited”?


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *