Caution! This message was sent from outside the University of Manitoba.
Unintended consequences of bike-safety policy
GREGORY MASON
https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/analysis/2026/05/29/unintended-con...
WELL, after decades of blemish-free driving, I received a speeding ticket. As I headed west across Maryland Street, I imagined the speed limit was 50 km/h, as it had been all winter. With construction on my right and a tailgater crowding me, I pressed on the gas and missed the sign warning of a 30 km/h zone ahead.
Just beyond the new speed zone sign, a police officer in an unmarked car pulled me over.
The police officer was indefatigably polite when I expressed surprise that I thought I was under the speed limit. He said, “You were, for April, but the speed limit changed on May 1.” I remarked that, “The city should make a more prominent sign with an alert about the change.”
His response is that he does not set policy and must enforce the law. After he explained that I had the option to challenge it, I might have a chance to avoid demerits and the fine, given my good record. On that note, we parted amicably, but with me still holding the ticket.
I spent the rest of the day imagining how I would prepare my case. I circled back to take a picture of the diminutive speed limit sign and how the construction activity could divert a driver’s attention. I imagined appearing before a justice of the peace, eloquently pleading my case as the champion of wronged drivers everywhere.
Then I heard my late wife whisper in my ear, “Greg, get over yourself.” I calculated the several hours I would spend crafting a brilliant legal argument, the time spent arranging a court date, and the time to travel to the court, the wait to give evidence, and then the time to offer my cogent analysis.
The opportunity cost of the time spent in preparing and delivering my legal arguments was too high.
Opportunity cost is the value of the next best option. The opportunity cost of reading this op-ed is the value of the best alternative use of your time, be it watching CNN or clipping your toenails.
But there is more to this story than just me getting tagged for inattention.
What we see in the city’s cycling program is an attempt to make the world safer for cyclists, a very laudable goal. This is especially since a couple of years ago, a cyclist was killed on Wellington Crescent. Now, it was not someone travelling at 30 km/h or even 50 km/h, but someone hurtling along at well over twice the speed limit.
No speed limit regulation could have prevented that accident, but the result was a widespread demand to lower the speed limit to 30 km/h on Wellington Crescent; many also advocate imposing a similar speed limit in residential areas.
As drivers learn of the 30 km/h speed limit on Wellington, they will switch to an alternative, most likely Academy Road. This increases congestion, leading to longer transit times from Kenaston Boulevard to the west and Sherbrook Street to the east. During rush hours, risky driving, such as accelerating to catch an amber light, will increase.
While I have no hard data on this, my casual observations suggest that an increasing number of motorists are running red lights. This delays those turning left, further contributing to frustration, impatience and recklessness. Guilty as charged.
The reduced speed on Wellington reduces the risk for cyclists but transfers it to motorists and pedestrians using Academy. This is the law of unintended consequences.
The creation of bike lanes that narrow existing streets has the same consequence of impeding and slowing traffic. Add to that the impending construction season and we have a perfect storm of frustration.
If successful, the move to slow traffic in residential areas to 30 km/h will divert even more cars to regional streets.
Data from the City of Winnipeg show that for 2022 (the most recent compilation), there were 25 traffic-related deaths, a big jump from previous years, for reasons that are not obvious. Of these, 12 were either drivers or passengers in a vehicle, 12 were pedestrians, and one was a cyclist. At first blush, if the goal is to save lives, then a safety program aimed at pedestrians would appear to have a greater payoff than investments in bike safety. The focus on safe cycling may reflect the power of the bicycle lobby in the city.
The law of unintended consequences is not done with us. As we invest more in bike safety measures, we can expect the number of cyclist- related accidents and deaths to increase, as the number of people using bikes increases. Reducing cycling risk but increasing bike use might result in more deaths. Cyclists’ average competence will also decline. I am not speaking of the 22-year-old in the tight shorts, travelling at 30 km/h, training for the Tour de France. It is the 72-year-old on an E-bike travelling at that speed who is likely to have poor reflexes.
Remember the law of unintended consequences in the future, when we discover that cyclist deaths rise despite investments in bike safety.
Gregory Mason is an associate professor of economics at the University of Manitoba.