Ontario court strikes down Ford government's plan to remove Toronto bike lanes
Judge ruled that the removal of the 3 bike lanes will put 'people at increased risk of harm and death'
The judge ruled Wednesday that Cycle Toronto and others "have established that removal of the target bike lanes will put people at increased risk of harm and death, which engages the right to life and security of the person."
The Ontario government has so much time away from provincial, region wide problems and issues that they have to take extra special time to deal with bike lanes in one city.
Those problems are clearly the federal liberals fault, and by extension the OLP.
I am not a lawyer but it's good to know the laws and your rights.
8 months ago these were exactly my arguments.
https://lemmy.ca/post/33484844/12989513
He is legislating people without mode, means, or capability to drive are another class of person who are restricted to their rights of freedom of movement set out in the charter.
He is causing intentional risk and potential harm/suffering to people seeking liberty and livelihood.
He is saying the public streets are not yours.
If I can’t access a street as he says now, then my right to seek out and gain/maintain livelihood and to be able to move freely within Canada are unnecessarily denied.
Good news! Win for the good guys.
Judge ruled that the removal of the 3 bike lanes will put ‘people at increased risk of harm and death’
The judge ruled Wednesday that Cycle Toronto and others “have established that removal of the target bike lanes will put people at increased risk of harm and death, which engages the right to life and security of the person.”
I'm no genius, but can't the exact same ruling be used in favour of urgently expanding cycling networks and infrastructure?
The lack of this infrastructure is putting "people at increased risk of harm and death, which engages the right to life and security of the person", does it not?
No, because the problem with the act was where it removed lanes already built, and the only justification provided had no evidence to support it.
The government can violate your section 7 rights, under section 1. This failed that test by being arbitrary.
That's @panda_abyss'es argument and it might work to add infrastructure where it doesn't exist but probably not to absolute zero cars. Which is fine. 😄
I actually don’t agree that this should be a legal standard but I am glad something is blocking this asinine waste of money gimmick.
I don’t like this because if we follow the argument to its natural conclusion there should be no car lanes at all.
I’m not pro car, I love biking (despite the shitty local infrastructure where we expect cyclists to ride in lanes filled with debris like glass, nails and trash, parked cars, and those square sewer grates with bike tire sized holes, or on bike lanes that randomly end or turn into pedestrian walkway’s). I just want sensible fucking policy.
If you make the argument in a vacuum, without considering all other variables in play and the ones that would come in play at every next stage of it, then you might end up without car lanes. If you however consider thouse, then at every next step you'd have to prove to the judge that harm is done. Soon the other side would point out for example that people would die in ambulances stuck in traffic and they'll have the evidence to back it up. And that's where your car lane cutting crusade would end. You may succeed in getting rid of some more car lanes (good) but you won't get to clean them all up.
Ambulances can drive on the bike paths, like in the Netherlands. Way easier to get out of the way of emergency vehicles on a bike.
if we follow the argument to its natural conclusion there should be no car lanes at all.
That's not the argument the decision makes. The law ordered the removal of bike lanes to improve traffic. Then they could not show that removing the bike lanes would improve traffic. So they're taking an action that would endanger members of the public for no benefit.
If they could justify it then it could be saved under the reasonableness clause but they can't.
If you're onboard with this and can afford it, chip in to Cycle Toronto since this is probably not going to be the end of it and lawyers cost money.
https://www.cycleto.ca/donate
Sent $20. Not a lot these days, but you're right. Our warriors fought hard and will need help to keep fighting.
Only if you can afford it. There are plenty of people who cycle and can afford it and they should contribute more. I contributed a chunk.
If this isn't the end, how can we hold the ontario government responsible for this ridiculous fight? We the people should not constantly be dishing out cash for legal fees to protect our own rights.
We shouldn't but this is the democratic system we live in. Voting happens at the ballot box, in the ledership races, in party fundraising, in union organizing, in the courts, in ad spending.. Turns out dollars are votes too and some have more of them than others. If curbing our rights is profitble for some with more cash, or sometimes just desirable, we'll have to raise our dollar votes against them. And if we're lucky, our ballot box votes might have made it cheaper. Never free. It's super fucking annoying and it's too much work. Improvements are possible but that's where we are today.
best-i-can-do-is.jpg