19
submitted 13 hours ago by brianpeiris@lemmy.ca to c/toronto@lemmy.ca
top 7 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] brax@sh.itjust.works 1 points 52 minutes ago

Should be obvious... I've never met a driver who enjoys sharing the road with cyclists. Doug Ford and his voters apparently do, though.

[-] Jimius@lemmy.ml 12 points 12 hours ago

Bike lanes reduce congestion by giving people other options than travelling by car. Their removal is certain to increase congestion, especially in more densely populated areas where you normally put bike lanes down.

[-] Dave@lemmy.nz 2 points 8 hours ago

Don't forget that people will still bike without bike lanes. Now the cars are behind the bikes and can't get past because there isn't room.

[-] Jimius@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 hours ago

Yes, but that is far less safe, which means less people are willing to take that risk, which means they will choice to go by car instead.

[-] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 3 points 11 hours ago

What's the lawsuit alleging?

[-] brianpeiris@lemmy.ca 4 points 11 hours ago

They are seeking an injunction first, with a court hearing later on. Last I checked, they plan to contest the removal as a violation of the Charter of Rights given that it will lead to injuries and loss of life.

Here are the grounds from the Notice of Application from December:

  1. The Ontario Government has embarked on an ill-conceived, arbitrary, and hurried legislative campaign against people who ride bikes in the City of Toronto by mandating the removal of approximately 19 kilometres of protected bike lanes in each direction on Bloor Street, Yonge Street, and University Avenue (the "Target Bike Lanes"). It has done so in full awareness of, or lacking all concern about, the increased number of injuries and deaths that will result.
  2. This reckless legislative act infringes the rights of people who ride bikes (used interchangeably with "cyclists"), other road users, and/or pedestrians in the City of Toronto under s.7 of the Charter by depriving them of life and security of the person contrary to principles of fundamental justice.
  3. There is no rational connection between the purported object of the law (reducing traffic congestion and gridlock) and its effect. The seriousness of the increased risk of death or serious injury to cyclists is entirely disproportionate to that ostensible objective.

https://ecojustice.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Notice-of-Application-Cycle-Toronto-V-Attorney-General-of-Ontario.pdf

[-] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 2 points 9 hours ago

Thank you!

So these engineering opinions that point to increased risk of injury are important.

this post was submitted on 12 Mar 2025
19 points (100.0% liked)

Toronto

1811 readers
40 users here now

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Friends:
Support lemmy.ca

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS