micromobility - Ebikes, scooters, longboards: Whatever floats your goat, this is micromobility
Ebikes, bicycles, scooters, skateboards, longboards, eboards, motorcycles, skates, unicycles: Whatever floats your goat, this is all things micromobility!
"Transportation using lightweight vehicles such as bicycles or scooters, especially electric ones that may be borrowed as part of a self-service rental program in which people rent vehicles for short-term use within a town or city.
micromobility is seen as a potential solution to moving people more efficiently around cities"
Feel free to also check out
It's a little sad that we need to actually say this, but:
Don't be an asshole or you will be permanently banned.
Respectful debate is totally OK, criticizing a product is fine, but being verbally abusive will not be tolerated.
Focus on discussing the idea, not attacking the person.
view the rest of the comments
Having sat down to look into whether this court challenge will hold any water, I am thoroughly pleased with how nice the Canadians are, where their federal government annotates their Charter of Rights and Freedoms (a component of the overall Canadian Constitution), and where the environmental law firm taking up this case kindly included the lawsuit in their online press release. Such reader conveniences would be luxurious here in California and the USA.
Anyway, to start, we need to summarize what Bill 212 -- now enacted -- changed in the Ontario laws. Reminder: IANAL. The Royal Assent PDF version is the finalized changes to the laws, and it indicates five Acts were amended, by way of five Schedules in the bill. Of those, only Schedule 4 from the bill is relevant, which modified the Highway Traffic Act by adding Section 195.2-195.18. As of this writing, the web version of the Highway Traffic Act has not been updated with the new Sections, but they should appear soon.
The salient details added by Bill 212 are:
The Ontario Legislature uses its exclusive "Local Works and Undertakings" power from the Canadian Constitution to write and amend the Highway Traffic Act, meaning that federal law cannot preempt the Legislature on the topic of public works wholly within the province. Overall, it seems that the drafters wrote in all the necessary details seemingly needed for a valid bill.
The lawsuit challenges the Ontario Attorney General and Minister for Transportation, requesting the provincial court:
Section 7 of the Charter reads as:
The lawsuit specifically argues that the rights to life and security are infringed. Those are summarized as:
The challenge will turn on whether fundamental justice was done by Section 195.6, and notably the lawsuit does not seek to challenge any of the other sections, like 195.3 or 196.5. This may just be down to putting their strongest foot forward, since the outright inclusion of three streets by name could be considered arbitrary or gross disproportionality, which are against fundamental justice.
The full link on Section 7 goes into greater legal detail, but I want to point out something which American bicyclists frequently have to consider: if this lawsuit succeeds, could this be weaponized by motorists in future? I think it's unlikely, because the closest analogy would be if a 400-series Highway were being removed and a motorist wanted to sue to stop that from happening. But the Section 7 challenge can only work if life and security are at stake.
A motorist would struggle to argue that closing a freeway directly causes cars to use city streets, which imperils the lives of motorists who might get into car crashes, since divided highways tend to have lower death/injury rates. The argument fails because freeways aren't built for the explicit purpose of safer travel, although they do tend to achieve that by not having pedestrians around. It would also be too tenuous to argue that a freeway removal forces motorists to use the city street; they can also choose a different freeway, or take transit and not drive at all, and the Charter doesn't guarantee a right to drive an automobile.
Whereas it is the explicit purpose of Bloor Street's bike lanes to provide a safe path for bicyclists, separated physically from motor traffic by curbs and bollards. Physical safety is part-and-parcel to the core notion of a protected bike lane.
I'm not well versed in Canadian constituional law, but the lawsuit takes aim at the most time-sensitive part of Bill 212. And at least to me, it makes a colorable argument that has decent odds of obtaining the injunction to stop the demolition for the moment.