Reposted by Paul.Bike
Yesterday’s Critical Mass was a stark reminder: when you refuse to protect cyclists, they will reclaim the road to protect themselves. #CriticalMassTO (3/3)
Paul.Bike
@paul.bike
250 followers 132 following 178 posts
#Toronto area #cyclist. #MTB, #gravel and #park riding. Passionate activist of getting around by #bike. Check out my YouTube channel youtube.com/@pauldotbike
![A Court of Appeal for Ontario
[59] The question, then, is this: is there a rational connection between the purpose of reducing traffic congestion and the decision to increase the number of lanes for motor vehicles by removing
bicycle lanes? The respondents were required to establish that there was no such connection. The appellants were not required to establish that the legislation will prove effective in reducing traffic congestion.
[60]
Common sense provides the answer here: increasing the number of lanes available for motor vehicles must, at least to some extent, and for some period of time, be capable of contributing to reducing traffic congestion. The legislation is therefore rational.
Assumptions grounded in everyday experience and common sense need not be established empirically: Gosselin v. Québec (Attorney General), 2002 SCC 84, [2002] 4 S.C.R. 429, at para. 56.
[61] The application judge acknowledged that "increasing the number of lanes available to motor vehicles may allow more cars to travel on a road" and that the respondents' expert "recognized the
possibility of a short-term benefit" from the removal of the bicycle lanes. But instead of accepting that a rational connection had been established and leaving the policy debate about the efficacy of the law to the political process, he went on to consider the expert's predictions of what would happen to motor vehicle traffic "over](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:csznv2oz7xajot566s4a2t4w/bafkreibtbmoqogibwg2s5iqlbtedzrfnc6qg56r4vqguiwi6jx7ol2uzyu)
