This title and article confuses me. After reading the article it seems like there were a few lanes of traffic that were originally normal road lanes, but had been converted to bicycle only lanes at some point, and they are now talking about converting them back into normal traffic lanes. Where is the law in this? This sounds like a civil engineering exercise not a legal one. Did someone sue the government over this? The article title made it seem like the government was trying to ban bicycle lanes, but the article paints a very different picture.
Edit: I’m talking about the title of this post that says “Canadian judge rules law to remove bike lanes is unconstitutional, cyclists have a right to safety”
Edit 2: did the article title change after this was posted? If not this post seems to be violating the rule that the post title must match the article headline.
Ah, now that I check it again the actual article title is different from the title posted on here. I was referring to the title on here.
ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
on 01 Aug 21:23
nextcollapse
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.
ToastedRavioli@midwest.social
on 01 Aug 21:29
nextcollapse
I see Ontario is the Missouri of Canada
mierdabird@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 01 Aug 21:46
nextcollapse
Pathological Pathway Prejudice is a real disease and it KILLS people!
Show some empathy!
ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca
on 01 Aug 23:03
nextcollapse
because apparently the constitution is detailed enough to specify things like that.
It’s impossible for laws to include every single possible detail. Lawyers and judges exist to apply generic laws to specific cases. In this case, a lawyer argued that removing bike lanes creates a saftey issue and since the constitution says the government must protect “life and security of the person”, removing bike lanes goes against the constitution. The judge agreed with the argument.
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)
Have these fucks ever even walked? Like be a pedestrian in Alberta for 1km and if you had a brain you would understand those intersections are already way too wide.
threaded - newest
That’s a decent W
Thank fuck! Good one Canada!
Yessssss
This title and article confuses me. After reading the article it seems like there were a few lanes of traffic that were originally normal road lanes, but had been converted to bicycle only lanes at some point, and they are now talking about converting them back into normal traffic lanes. Where is the law in this? This sounds like a civil engineering exercise not a legal one. Did someone sue the government over this? The article title made it seem like the government was trying to ban bicycle lanes, but the article paints a very different picture.
Edit: I’m talking about the title of this post that says “Canadian judge rules law to remove bike lanes is unconstitutional, cyclists have a right to safety”
Edit 2: did the article title change after this was posted? If not this post seems to be violating the rule that the post title must match the article headline.
Where does it say they want to ban bicycle lanes? They want to remove bicycle lanes on three main streets
Ah, now that I check it again the actual article title is different from the title posted on here. I was referring to the title on here.
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.
I see Ontario is the Missouri of Canada
I’m sorry, bike lanes piss you off?
Pissed off at bike lanes.
Perturbed by marked road shoulders.
Panicked by meridians.
Pathological Pathway Prejudice is a real disease and it KILLS people!
Show some empathy!
It’s impossible for laws to include every single possible detail. Lawyers and judges exist to apply generic laws to specific cases. In this case, a lawyer argued that removing bike lanes creates a saftey issue and since the constitution says the government must protect “life and security of the person”, removing bike lanes goes against the constitution. The judge agreed with the argument.
You prefer cyclists ride in the regular traffic lane then? Because that’s the alternative here.
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)
The brainless premier of Alberta is attempting to do the same with Edmonton and Calgary bike lanes.
Have these fucks ever even walked? Like be a pedestrian in Alberta for 1km and if you had a brain you would understand those intersections are already way too wide.
Have you seen Doug Ford?
Isn’t the current premier a soccer mom Karen?
Aside from being a total idiot, of course.
Yes in Alberta. Danielle Smith.
Doug Ford is the premier in Ontario.
Both idiots if you ask me lol
Very much agreed.
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.
Note that they put the ruling at the bottom of the article; I didn’t initially see it and was having a hard time finding the text online.
Also note that the government appears to be appealing the ruling, so probably going to be more to the story.
globalnews.ca/…/ontario-bike-lane-removal-plan-co…
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.