Whenever someone invokes common sense or impugns the very concept of expertise to justify their stance, we've strayed from reason, logic and impartiality. I'm beginning to think that law school teaches rhetoric, rather than logic and ethics. I was hoping it was just the US. This makes me particularly sad because I just watched a summary of the V-Dem data, assessing Canada as one of our remaining strong democracies. That depends on rule of law, checks and balances, and public trust, among other metrics. When legal rulings clearly state they are based on personal bias and the government values the lives and rights of some citizens over others, it's hard to maintain trust. Whether the ruling is legally correct, I have no idea, but the justification - we should all expect more of our justices. Perhaps a test on recognizing logical fallacies and demonstrating an ability to view situations from multiple perspectives should be a requirement. I hope this is appealed.
If this is the end of the line, I'd love to see some malicious compliance from the city. When the bike lanes are removed, the resulting road must be used for traffic only. NO PARKING. And then see how the business owners like that they've gotten their way.
Lloyd, you are nearly incandescent with outrage and deservedly so. Here is some information from the city of Somerville MA about its traffic calming strategies that include protected bike lanes, and a link to an organization called Vision Zero that provides science based solutions for communities. Both may prove useful in your ongoing campaign to bring a measure of sanity to your home city.
As for "Justice" Grant Huscroft, perhaps he could be strapped to the rear seat of a tandem bicycle for an hour or two as it makes its way through city traffic at rush hour.
I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments. I can’t speak credibly to the legal issues, but we should not be turning back the clock on bike lanes. We should in fact be doing everything possible to encourage a reduction in vehicular traffic.
"“Under our constitution, the city is “a creature of the Province,” which has demonstrated that it can do pretty much whatever it wants. And should have stopped right there."
...
...
...
And so should have Lloyd for dismissing how his country's law are vertically oriented. Who has Power precedent over whom?
The issue itself in this case, bike lanes, is irrelevant. It hangs on the philosophy that Canada has adopted: who can make law at their level of Government? And the Judge was right - the LAW holds that the city of Toronto isn't that right level and can't do what it wants to - but the Province of Ontario can (to the limit that the Canadian federal Legislature allows it to do).
IMHO, in looking at this from a legal process, the judge was also right in determining that the Judiciary isn't a Legislature and can't make that decision - that is SOLELY the prerogative of the Legislature.
And that Legislature disagrees with the special interest group that Lloyd belongs to. This whole thing ISN'T about cars or bikes or anything else.
It's all about the Law, who gets to make the Law, and the Politics swirling about how the Law is made - and at which Level.
Look, ranting is Free Speech and everyone here is entitled to have one (or several, to make life interesting). But unless that ranting morphs into a hard process of making legislative friends (or getting YOUR friends to replace those that don't want to be your friends) and changing policy, that's all it will be.
As my son's T-Shirt that he gifted me, that has become a mantra for me, states: "Stop Whining, DO Something". Which in this case, start a new career in Politics!
Which level of Powers can rule over the others? I glanced through Canadian Constitution and Charter, and I think the bike lanes are a perfect example of who gets to set which Rules when. Here in the US, it's known as the theory of Federalism.
In short, our Constitution holds sway over what our Federal Legislators can do (or not), that our Constitution and Federal law holds sway over the States' constitutions and laws AS LONG as they "stay in their lane" (reference, the 10th Amendment which states that all Powers not specifically allotted to the President, Congress, and the Judiciary, are within the purview of the States. Now, that gets violated all the time, both the States trying to limit Federal Law and the Federal govt telling States to do something that the Constitution doesn't give them the Power to do. And that's how they end up in court and squabbling about who can do what to whom - and the monies involved.
Now back to Lloyd's missive, mostly, from above.
At the bottom of the ladder are the counties, cities, and towns. Can they make their own laws regardless of the Feds and States? The legal theory, and I think it may apply to Lloyd's sense of frustration and fury, is that it depends. They can't violate specific Fed Law nor State Law.
However, can they make their own (e.g., Toronto)? Here in the US, it depends on the type of State one is in:
- a Home Rule State in which a town, city, et al can make up any rule it wants AS LONG AS it doesn't violate any existing Federal or State law.
- a Dillon's Rule State in which a town, city, school district et al CANNOT make up any rules, ordinances, or laws UNLESS the State Legislature expressly gives a "subdivision of the State" the Power to do so (people have Rights, Govt has Powers).
Toronto is in Ontario Province which is effectively a Dillon's Rule State if viewed from the US side, thus can't "make stuff up". Lloyd actually states this:
I'm not a lawyer either here in the US or Canada but I do read and try to understand what the laws outline for a particular purpose that I'm interested in - and at what level. That MAY apply here or I can be completely wrong. However, I did pick up on a similarity. To recap what caught my eye in Lloyd's writing:
"This isn’t our first rodeo; Toronto always loses. I noted in my previous post that “Under our constitution, the city is “a creature of the Province,” which has demonstrated that it can do pretty much whatever it wants.” Cities in Ontario have no rights unless the Province grants them. As the Justice noted in his overview:
The bottom line is this: there is no constitutional obligation to regulate the use of roads in any particular manner – no constitutional obligation to build bicycle lanes or to retain any that have been built. The legislature is free to legislate to remove a bicycle lane from a road – indeed, it may remove a road entirely – without implicating the Charter.
Had Court of Appeal Justice Grant Huscroft stopped with his statement that “Courts play no role in the policy development process, no role in the choices made by the government in proposing legislation,” I probably wouldn’t be writing this, and would have accepted that once again, Toronto got fucked. Even after he bluntly says he doesn’t care if people get killed, the “fundamental justice” of the constitution rules:
“Even if removal of the bicycle lanes were properly understood as having effected a deprivation of life or security of the person, any such deprivation would be in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”
But he didn’t. He didn’t stay in his lane. He writes, “The Charter has nothing to say about whether bicycle lanes are a good or a bad idea – wise or unwise policy. These judgments are no business of the courts.”
So Shoshanna Saxe’ testimony must be dismissed because she’s a cycling advocate … while those advocate car-driving are just giving voice to “common sense”. You’re right, Lloyd, the judge comes across as seriously car-brained.
Interesting to learn from your column that the judge has long been regarded as far-right, and was appointed to the bench for that very reason.
This is a good time to put in a word for the new book The Great Driving Right Show: Cars, Crisis, and the Rise of Fossil Fascism.
Wow... just... Wow.
He couldn't help himself, had to sum up the entire conservative car brain in one ruling.
-I know because common sense
-researchers just making stuff up
-people gonna die whatever
-gotta have lanes because cars
Cars everywhere on this continent are too goddamn big! We're setting the planet on fire to protect everyone's right to drive an Escalade 🤬
A city can have crazy drivers AND a strong bike infrastructure as Montreal proves on an hourly basis.
Whenever someone invokes common sense or impugns the very concept of expertise to justify their stance, we've strayed from reason, logic and impartiality. I'm beginning to think that law school teaches rhetoric, rather than logic and ethics. I was hoping it was just the US. This makes me particularly sad because I just watched a summary of the V-Dem data, assessing Canada as one of our remaining strong democracies. That depends on rule of law, checks and balances, and public trust, among other metrics. When legal rulings clearly state they are based on personal bias and the government values the lives and rights of some citizens over others, it's hard to maintain trust. Whether the ruling is legally correct, I have no idea, but the justification - we should all expect more of our justices. Perhaps a test on recognizing logical fallacies and demonstrating an ability to view situations from multiple perspectives should be a requirement. I hope this is appealed.
If this is the end of the line, I'd love to see some malicious compliance from the city. When the bike lanes are removed, the resulting road must be used for traffic only. NO PARKING. And then see how the business owners like that they've gotten their way.
Lloyd, you are nearly incandescent with outrage and deservedly so. Here is some information from the city of Somerville MA about its traffic calming strategies that include protected bike lanes, and a link to an organization called Vision Zero that provides science based solutions for communities. Both may prove useful in your ongoing campaign to bring a measure of sanity to your home city.
1. https://www.somervillema.gov/departments/ospcd/transportation-and-infrastructure/traffic-calming
2. https://visionzeronetwork.org/about/vision-zero-network/
As for "Justice" Grant Huscroft, perhaps he could be strapped to the rear seat of a tandem bicycle for an hour or two as it makes its way through city traffic at rush hour.
Toronto is technically an adherent of vision zero but "technically" is doing ALL the work here
I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments. I can’t speak credibly to the legal issues, but we should not be turning back the clock on bike lanes. We should in fact be doing everything possible to encourage a reduction in vehicular traffic.
So horrible - and already spreading like covid across the country.
Alberta's minister of transport is already using this decision to craft legislation to rip out bike lanes in Edmonton and Calgary this fall.
Blood will flow.
Part 3:
"“Under our constitution, the city is “a creature of the Province,” which has demonstrated that it can do pretty much whatever it wants. And should have stopped right there."
...
...
...
And so should have Lloyd for dismissing how his country's law are vertically oriented. Who has Power precedent over whom?
The issue itself in this case, bike lanes, is irrelevant. It hangs on the philosophy that Canada has adopted: who can make law at their level of Government? And the Judge was right - the LAW holds that the city of Toronto isn't that right level and can't do what it wants to - but the Province of Ontario can (to the limit that the Canadian federal Legislature allows it to do).
IMHO, in looking at this from a legal process, the judge was also right in determining that the Judiciary isn't a Legislature and can't make that decision - that is SOLELY the prerogative of the Legislature.
And that Legislature disagrees with the special interest group that Lloyd belongs to. This whole thing ISN'T about cars or bikes or anything else.
It's all about the Law, who gets to make the Law, and the Politics swirling about how the Law is made - and at which Level.
Look, ranting is Free Speech and everyone here is entitled to have one (or several, to make life interesting). But unless that ranting morphs into a hard process of making legislative friends (or getting YOUR friends to replace those that don't want to be your friends) and changing policy, that's all it will be.
As my son's T-Shirt that he gifted me, that has become a mantra for me, states: "Stop Whining, DO Something". Which in this case, start a new career in Politics!
Part 2:
Which level of Powers can rule over the others? I glanced through Canadian Constitution and Charter, and I think the bike lanes are a perfect example of who gets to set which Rules when. Here in the US, it's known as the theory of Federalism.
In short, our Constitution holds sway over what our Federal Legislators can do (or not), that our Constitution and Federal law holds sway over the States' constitutions and laws AS LONG as they "stay in their lane" (reference, the 10th Amendment which states that all Powers not specifically allotted to the President, Congress, and the Judiciary, are within the purview of the States. Now, that gets violated all the time, both the States trying to limit Federal Law and the Federal govt telling States to do something that the Constitution doesn't give them the Power to do. And that's how they end up in court and squabbling about who can do what to whom - and the monies involved.
Now back to Lloyd's missive, mostly, from above.
At the bottom of the ladder are the counties, cities, and towns. Can they make their own laws regardless of the Feds and States? The legal theory, and I think it may apply to Lloyd's sense of frustration and fury, is that it depends. They can't violate specific Fed Law nor State Law.
However, can they make their own (e.g., Toronto)? Here in the US, it depends on the type of State one is in:
- a Home Rule State in which a town, city, et al can make up any rule it wants AS LONG AS it doesn't violate any existing Federal or State law.
- a Dillon's Rule State in which a town, city, school district et al CANNOT make up any rules, ordinances, or laws UNLESS the State Legislature expressly gives a "subdivision of the State" the Power to do so (people have Rights, Govt has Powers).
Toronto is in Ontario Province which is effectively a Dillon's Rule State if viewed from the US side, thus can't "make stuff up". Lloyd actually states this:
Part 1:
I'm not a lawyer either here in the US or Canada but I do read and try to understand what the laws outline for a particular purpose that I'm interested in - and at what level. That MAY apply here or I can be completely wrong. However, I did pick up on a similarity. To recap what caught my eye in Lloyd's writing:
"This isn’t our first rodeo; Toronto always loses. I noted in my previous post that “Under our constitution, the city is “a creature of the Province,” which has demonstrated that it can do pretty much whatever it wants.” Cities in Ontario have no rights unless the Province grants them. As the Justice noted in his overview:
The bottom line is this: there is no constitutional obligation to regulate the use of roads in any particular manner – no constitutional obligation to build bicycle lanes or to retain any that have been built. The legislature is free to legislate to remove a bicycle lane from a road – indeed, it may remove a road entirely – without implicating the Charter.
Had Court of Appeal Justice Grant Huscroft stopped with his statement that “Courts play no role in the policy development process, no role in the choices made by the government in proposing legislation,” I probably wouldn’t be writing this, and would have accepted that once again, Toronto got fucked. Even after he bluntly says he doesn’t care if people get killed, the “fundamental justice” of the constitution rules:
“Even if removal of the bicycle lanes were properly understood as having effected a deprivation of life or security of the person, any such deprivation would be in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”
But he didn’t. He didn’t stay in his lane. He writes, “The Charter has nothing to say about whether bicycle lanes are a good or a bad idea – wise or unwise policy. These judgments are no business of the courts.”
.
.
.
Until everyone follows the rules of the road, you will have the "cars" against the "bikes".
So Shoshanna Saxe’ testimony must be dismissed because she’s a cycling advocate … while those advocate car-driving are just giving voice to “common sense”. You’re right, Lloyd, the judge comes across as seriously car-brained.
Interesting to learn from your column that the judge has long been regarded as far-right, and was appointed to the bench for that very reason.
This is a good time to put in a word for the new book The Great Driving Right Show: Cars, Crisis, and the Rise of Fossil Fascism.
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/804528/the-great-driving-right-show-by-the-zetkin-collective/
I have never heard of that book, just ordered it!