Canadian judge rules law to remove bike lanes is unconstitutional, cyclists have a right to safety
-
What a bizarre story. Toronto voters elect a city government in favor of bike lanes, then for some reason the premier of Ontario decides he knows what Toronto needs better than Toronto voters do, and now a judge decides that removing bike lanes is somehow unconstitutional because apparently the constitution is detailed enough to specify things like that. (Does this mean that it's unconstitutional to have any roads without bike lanes, or is it just unconstitutional to remove existing bike lanes?) I drive, bike lanes piss me off, but they're a local matter that should be decided by the local government.
bike lanes piss me off
Agreed! Most bike lanes end up being nothing more than a painted bicycle gutter.
What we truly need is dedicated cycle paths adjacent to busy roads, and low-traffic, low-speed streets in commercial or residential areas where cyclists and pedestrians are prioritized over car traffic (see the Dutch city-planning concept of autoluw)
-
This post did not contain any content.
So, I'm studying law, and this was one of the first things I analyzed. I expected the constitutional challenge would win.
I suspect if they're granted leave to appeal higher, it'll lose there, too.
But as always, there are ways the government of Ontario can push it through despite a court ruling.
-
Have these fucks ever even walked?
Have you seen Doug Ford?
I'm not in Canada, but a recent quote from one of our city councilmen when asked about improving rail service between cities was:
"You should just fly like adults"
Walking? Using public transit? That's for poors.
