Why would he stop at removing bike lanes?

The MTO is on his side, and when his plan to reduce and remove bike lanes fails to ease traffic congestion (hint: because they aren’t causing it), why wouldn’t he go after banning all cycling from major roads using the same reasoning (that cycling itself is the cause of all our traffic problems)?

I don’t see any end to his overreach, and it’ll be a matter of time before ebikes, then regular bikes, become highly restricted in Ontario.

Convince me otherwise.

  • psvrh
    12·
    27 days ago

    He won’t, but only because the point of bike lane removal in the Act isn’t bikes or traffic.

    The point of the bike lane removal in the Act is to keep people talking about bike lanes, instead of how the Act also has provisions for skipping the environmental assessment of the 413, as well as bypassing the requirement for civil engineers, who are on strike and will be for a bit.

    The Act is all about getting the 413 built. The nonsense about bike lanes is to keep people from paying attention to the land grab and payoff to Ford’s developer buddies.

    Ford doesn’t give a shit about bike lanes in Toronto, or traffic in Toronto. He cares very much about getting the 413 built so that his donors can realized their real estate investments.

  • Funderpants
    11·
    27 days ago

    With right wing populism any stupid thing is possible. How could I convince you otherwise when it’s totally possible? Populist are always looking for their next outrage target to throw their simple solutions at.

    • Showroom7561OP
      2·
      27 days ago

      True, but I’m not talking about enforcement, though. I’m talking about laws and their implications, should this government decide to go nuclear on cyclists.

      For example, if the MTO says that bikes are banned from all roadways, what happens when a cyclist is injured or killed by a motorist?

      Will they be blamed for “illegally riding their bike”, or will there be some other consequence that goes along with riding them illegally, should something happen?

      Will the addition of riding being “illegal” mean that a driver is off the hook, in the same way a property owner wouldn’t be liable if someone is injured when they are on their property illegally?

      • CaptainCancel@sh.itjust.works
        2·
        27 days ago

        Ah. In that case, I think associations like CycleTO would need to launch a lawsuit against the provincial government to reverse the decision. The government lost big time on bill 124, which shows that our rights win out over time, as long as we’re willing to fight stupid ideas in court.

      • Avid AmoebaM
        1·
        27 days ago

        Not sure how a ban like that would work. Given that bikes aren’t allowed on sidewalks, this sounds like it would result in a near-complete ban on cycling in the city. That’s because I find it difficult to define what types of roads are allowed and what aren’t. There’s a decent distinction between highways and non-highways. But not so much between Lakeshore Rd and Evans. Perhaps number of lanes, but even that’s inconsistent.

        • Showroom7561OP
          2·
          27 days ago

          Just to give you an example.

          The e-scooter rules in Oshawa say that you aren’t allowed to ride on roads that have speed limits of over 50km/h… this actually means quite a few important routes would be cut off.

          There’s also a max speed limit set for those riders at 20 km/h, which is painfully slow. If this were enforced, it would effectively make it too inconvenient to bother using one.

          If this were to happen for cyclists, it would have severe implications, I would think.

          And keep in mind that presently, there are quite a few municipalities in Ontario that don’t allow the use of certain micromobility devices, like e-scooters.

          Taking it a step further to include all e-bikes, and regular bikes, doesn’t seem like much of a stretch for this Government.