Finally some uplifting news, the judge also used common sense and logic.

Good for you!

The brainless premier of Alberta is attempting to do the same with Edmonton and Calgary bike lanes.

Thank fuck! Good one Canada!

That's a decent W

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.

https://globalnews.ca/news/11311369/ontario-bike-lane-removal-plan-court-defeat/

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.

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.

Yessssss

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.

Good news! Win one for the good guys.

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.

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.

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?

Is this at risk of being overruled by the nothwithstanding clause?

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.

But where will suburbanites sit and cause traffic? In the other lanes?!

The Chevrolet court probably had a couple of Honda judges back from their Odyssey during the decision.

Hooray.

I also really likes the news that said, "There have been no fatalities involving cyclists this year." Great news!

Notwithstanding clause coming in 3, 2, 1.....