Michael Taube: Of course Ontario's activist judiciary would invent a right to bike lanes

National Post

2 days ago

Removing bike lanes is … unconstitutional?
Article content
I know it sounds completely insane. Yet, that's exactly what the Ontario Superior Court ruled on Wednesday with respect to Premier Doug Ford's plan to remove bike lanes on three busy Toronto intersections — Bloor Street, Yonge Street and University Avenue — to improve the flow of traffic and reduce congestion.
Article content
Article content
The advocacy group Cycle Toronto set out last December to prevent the lanes from being removed: in a notice filed to the court, it claimed the Ontario government had '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.' This, it added, was done 'in full awareness of, or lacking all concern about, the increased number of injuries and deaths that will result.' Hence, the cycling advocates wanted to bring an end to this 'reckless legislative act.'
Article content
Article content
Ontario Superior Court Justice Paul Schabas granted an injunction on April 22 that temporarily paused the removal of the bike lanes. This was ridiculous in itself, but even worse was his decision Wednesday to take the side of Cycle Toronto.
Article content
Article content
'The evidence shows that restoring lanes for cars will not result in less congestion, as it will induce more people to use cars and therefore any reduction in driving time will be short-lived, if at all, and will lead to more congestion,' Justice Schabas wrote. He also accepted the expert testimony on Cycle Toronto's behalf that 'bicycle lanes, and in particular separated or protected bicycle lanes, reduce motor vehicle traffic congestion by providing an alternative method of transportation that is safer for all users of the roads.'
Moreover, the removal of these bike lanes 'will put people at increased risk of harm and death, which engages the right to life and security of the person.' Hence, the ruling stated that 'any steps taken to 'reconfigure' the target bike lanes that removes their protected character for the purpose of installing a lane for motor vehicles in order to reduce congestion, would be in breach of s. 7 of the Charter.' (This particular section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ensures that 'everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.')
Article content
Article content
The Superior Court ruling is preposterous on many levels. Creating bike lanes in our cities and communities has always been an impediment to traffic. They reduce the amount of space on the roads for cars and trucks to move at proper speeds, which slows down the overall traffic flow and creates more congestion. At the same time, anyone who has ever driven a car on a busy street in a metropolitan city like Toronto knows that plenty of cyclists weave in and out of traffic. Cars and trucks are therefore forced to slow down to avoid hitting, injuring or killing cyclists who don't seem to care where a city's bike lanes have been painted.
Article content
While people are free to ride bikes for work, exercise and transportation, they're not making our roads any safer and they're consistently slowing down traffic. Any so-called 'expert' who suggests otherwise likely doesn't have much experience driving vehicles of the four-wheel variety.