Bylaw clearly doesn't give two shats about these fully electric, non-pedal bikes and scooters/uni-wheels that haul ass all over the pathway system. Keep you head on a swivel and pray you don't get hit.
I saw a gasoline powered trike ripping on the pathways the other day
Bylaw clearly doesn't give two shats about these fully electric, non-pedal bikes and scooters/uni-wheels that haul ass all over the pathway system. Keep you head on a swivel and pray you don't get hit.
These things fall into a grey area that most municipalities likely don't have bylaws in place for. Olds is dealing with a similar issue. They are not road legal in Alberta while at the same time not really suitable for pathways/sidewalks either. Another example of technology changes coming faster than our governments can adapt to them. The solution here looks like it lies in a joint effort between the Province and municipalities to define what exactly these machines are, how to classify them, and where they can or cannot be driven.
I understand the disability issues, but this thing does not belong on a pathway or sidewalk. It's a mini car, complete with blind spots. Pathways require all users to be aware and adjust positioning so everyone can pass by safely. This includes people in wheelchairs, on bikes, and walking dogs. Could you even hear a bell in this? Are those headlights going to blind other users? You can't dip them down when oncoming cyclists are around.
I don't have a problem with wider pathways and other routes being created for these types of things, but there is no way a standard 2-3m pathway can accommodate these vehicles safely.
Quote:
Fisher’s sister Linda Brandson wrote an email to Town of Olds Mayor Judy Dahl on behalf of her brother and his plight.
“Are all electric scooters, wheelchairs, etc. under this same law,” she asked. “These scooters are sold all around Alberta, so there must be provisions for them in other towns.”
That's...not how the world works lady. Strapping a two stroke to a pedal bike and using it on pathways is also illigal, and also something you can buy.
...and just like that I had one of these little car thingies on my commute this morning. Was heading southbound on the Nose creek pathway by 16th avenue.
So what should be the rule?
If it relies solely on a motor to move then no pathway for you, as in no pedals or foot power?
Limited to 20 kmh? Something else?
I understand the disability issues, but this thing does not belong on a pathway or sidewalk. It's a mini car, complete with blind spots. Pathways require all users to be aware and adjust positioning so everyone can pass by safely. This includes people in wheelchairs, on bikes, and walking dogs. Could you even hear a bell in this? Are those headlights going to blind other users? You can't dip them down when oncoming cyclists are around.
I don't have a problem with wider pathways and other routes being created for these types of things, but there is no way a standard 2-3m pathway can accommodate these vehicles safely.
That's...not how the world works lady. Strapping a two stroke to a pedal bike and using it on pathways is also illigal, and also something you can buy.
Cautionary warning to road riders headed to Bragg Creek and back… in addition to the usual smaller gravel today came with a healthy dose of larger stones scattered here and there. Plus a LOT of roadies.
I was out with a bigger group and some rocks hits were unavoidable just due to poor visibility and speed and too many chunks without room to move. Lucky I didn’t go down. But one hit did give me an instant front tire flat whilst going 40-45kph.
These things fall into a grey area that most municipalities likely don't have bylaws in place for. Olds is dealing with a similar issue. They are not road legal in Alberta while at the same time not really suitable for pathways/sidewalks either. Another example of technology changes coming faster than our governments can adapt to them. The solution here looks like it lies in a joint effort between the Province and municipalities to define what exactly these machines are, how to classify them, and where they can or cannot be driven.
The sign heading into the Fishcreek pathways clearly states “No Motorized Vehicles”.
It does not say “No Gas Powered Vehicles”
Pretty clear to me the bylaw is already in place and covers anything with a motor, whether it be gasoline or electric. They just don’t enforce it
Maybe I’ll start riding my ZRX1100 on the pathways too
That isn’t the rule. The Alberta parks rules are as follows
Quote:
Cycling/E-bikes
Cycling is permitted on public roads in parks, and on designated pathways and trails designated for cycling.
Pedal assist electric-powered bikes (e-bikes) are permitted in parks where cycling is permitted.
Select "MTB/Cycling" or “e-Bike” under summer activities in Find a Park to identify parks with cycling opportunities.
What is a pedal-assist e-bike?
Pedal-assist e-bikes are defined as non-throttled electric powered bicycles that provide up to 500 Watts of continuous max output. Electric assist must stop when either pedaling stops or 32 km/h is reached. This is sometimes referred to as a class 1 e-bike.
Class 1 e-bikes were approved for use on designated pathways and trails following a two-year pilot project (2019 to 2021) in Kananaskis Country.
What is NOT a pedal-assist e-bike?
Throttle or power-on demand bicycles
More than 500 watts of maximum output
Provides power at over 32 km/h
Other electric-powered devices such as e-scooters and skateboards
For the safety and enjoyment of all park visitors, follow a few common-sense rules of cycling etiquette to keep yourself and others safe. Visit Outdoor Safety for more information.
E-bikes are allowed where ever bikes are based on the above definition
The throttle /no throttle thing is such a ridiculous distinction as using your pedals to trigger a sensor and using your fingers to trigger a sensor are the same thing.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
Monthly Critical Mass ride rolls tonight, starts at 6:30pm at the ContainR site in Sunnyside at 2nd avenue. Just across the street from the Vendome building (now Acme Pizza). Tonight's ride will end at Lindsay Park, and they will also be installing a Ghost Bike where the cyclist was killed on 26th avenue on July 11th.
The Following User Says Thank You to Bigtime For This Useful Post:
I didn't know that the city was replacing the cycle pathway along Parkdale Blvd from the 7-11 to the gas station. I thought they were planning on just grinding down some of the bumps and patching things up but they are ripping up the pathway.
I didn't know that the city was replacing the cycle pathway along Parkdale Blvd from the 7-11 to the gas station. I thought they were planning on just grinding down some of the bumps and patching things up but they are ripping up the pathway.
Good, that pathway is the worst, I ride on the road over that pathway.
Take my chances with cars over bumps and idiots
__________________
I have Strong opinions about things I know very little about.
Good, that pathway is the worst, I ride on the road over that pathway.
Take my chances with cars over bumps and idiots
I didn't think the pathway was that bad. There are definitely worse sections like the south side of the river from Crowchild to the old Greyhound Station.
But also the city of Calgary sucks at adding bike lanes onto new streets at the expense of traffic. They have more to fear from this ruling then they benefit.
But also the city of Calgary sucks at adding bike lanes onto new streets at the expense of traffic. They have more to fear from this ruling then they benefit.
It isn't. the right to life, liberty and security of the person is charter protected.
This is a fascinating case, and an important ruling given the current absurd governance we see everywhere. A government needs to show its work if it wants to regress us back to the stone age.
Quote:
In this case, however, there is no evidence that the government based its decision on data,
manuals or expert “highway engineering”, or that its decision would “contribute to
highway safety.” Rather, the evidence is to the contrary. The matter of removing the target
bike lanes first arose in a statement by the Premier on October 22, 2024, after the Bill had
been introduced. The Bill was passed in the face of internal advice and public
representations, including from organizations with highway engineering expertise, that the
removal of the target bike lanes would make those roads less safe and would not reduce
congestion. Moreover, after passing Bill 212 the government retained CIMA, a highway
engineering firm, which gave the government the same advice, that the removal of the bike
lanes would lead to more collisions and injuries and that any “alleviation of congestion
may be negligible or short-lived.”
It's all spelled out logically and sensibly. It's worth reading, especially from page 31 on
Quote:
Section 7 of the Charter states:
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.
[161] In order to demonstrate a violation of s. 7, the Applicants must first show that the law
interferes with, or deprives them of, their life, liberty or security of the person. Once they
have established that s. 7 is engaged, they must then show that the deprivation in question
is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice
The applicant proved both of these things well; the province's rebuttals were frankly pathetic.
__________________
CP's 15th Most Annoying Poster! (who wasn't too cowardly to enter that super duper serious competition)
Indeed,
the City reported a 56% reduction in collision rates on a segment of the Bloor Street lanes
despite a 90% increase in cycling volumes.
Quote:
Finally, the Bill itself recognizes that removal of the target bike lanes and restoring car
lanes will cause accidents and injuries, as the government added ss. 195.10 – 195.14 to the
Bill at the same time as s. 195.6 in order to insulate it from lawsuits arising from injuries
and deaths that will flow from the removal of the protected bike lanes and restoration of
lanes for motor vehicles.
A fun citation of an unrelated case that used a cycling related analogy to prove its point:
Quote:
In Bedford, a similar argument was made that people choose to be sex workers and
therefore bring the risks associated with it on themselves. The Supreme Court, however,
observed that causation “does not require that the impugned government action or law be
the only or the dominant cause of the prejudice suffered by the claimant, and is satisfied
by a reasonable inference, drawn on a balance of probabilities”: Bedford, at para. 76. In
rejecting the government’s “choice” argument in Bedford, the Supreme Court stated at
para. 87:
The causal question is whether the impugned laws make this lawful activity more
dangerous. An analogy could be drawn to a law preventing a cyclist from wearing
a helmet. That the cyclist chooses to ride her bike does not diminish the causal role
of the law in making that activity riskier. [Emphasis added]
Quote:
Three central principles have emerged: “laws that impinge on life, liberty or
security of the person must not be arbitrary, overbroad, or have consequences that are
grossly disproportionate to their object”: Carter at para. 72. As the Court continued at para.
81 of Carter:
…the principles of fundamental justice are derived from the essential elements of
our system of justice, which is itself founded on a belief in the dignity and worth of
every human person. To deprive a person of constitutional rights arbitrarily or in a
way that is overbroad or grossly disproportionate diminishes that worth and
dignity. If a law operates in this way, it asks the rights claimant to “serve as a
scapegoat” (Rodriguez, at p. 621, per McLachlin J.). It imposes a deprivation via a
process that is “fundamentally unfair” to the rights claimant
Quote:
In this case, the ostensible purpose of the impugned provision is to reduce congestion in
Toronto. Bill 212 is titled the Reducing Gridlock, Saving You Time Act, 2024. The
preamble “recognizes that accidents and lane closures can worsen traffic congestion.” The
Premier and the Minister of Transportation very specifically stated that a purpose of the
Bill was to get bike lanes off main streets in order to relieve congestion. The Minister said
safety was an objective as well.
The evidence presented by the Applicants, however, establishes that removing the target
bike lanes and restoring lanes for motor vehicles will not alleviate congestion or save time,
but will actually worsen congestion. The government was aware of this before enacting
Bill 212. To the extent the objective of the Bill is to make roads safer, removal of the
protected bike lanes will result in more accidents and injuries than occurred before their
installation, which the government also knew before the Bill was enacted.
Quote:
At the Committee hearings and through the ERO consultation process, several wellinformed organizations spoke against the removal of the bike lanes, confirming the thenundisclosed internal advice that the government had received.
... No individual or organization spoke in favour of removing the target bike lanes, nor was
any evidence presented to suggest that their removal would reduce congestion.
Quote:
The Respondent’s evidence, from Dr. Haider, does not address the impact of the removal
of the bike lanes and restoration of a lane for motor vehicles. As noted above, this is a
surprising, but telling, omission. The Respondent’s anecdotal evidence is entirely
unpersuasive
Quote:
c. It is reasonable to conclude that people who cycle will be injured and killed
when lanes for motor vehicles are installed and protected bike lanes are removed. That
impact is grossly disproportionate to the asserted benefit, taken at face value, of saving
some drivers of cars a few minutes of travel time.
__________________
CP's 15th Most Annoying Poster! (who wasn't too cowardly to enter that super duper serious competition)
One last little bit. The applicants lawyers took this case pro bono, but they're getting awarded their costs anyways. I suspect they knew this was possible/probable, but still a nice outcome...out of taxpayer's pockets of course because of a financially responsible conservative government.
Spoiler!
Quote:
Costs
[219] Costs usually follow the event and are paid by the unsuccessful party to the successful
party. There is no reason to depart from that general principle here.
[220] The Applicants were represented by counsel on a pro bono basis. However, as the Court
of Appeal recognized in 1465778 Ontario Inc. v. 1122077 Ontario Ltd., 2006 CanLII
35819 (ON CA) at para. 35, cost awards to pro bono counsel “promotes access to justice
by enabling and encouraging more lawyers to volunteer to work pro bono in deserving
cases.” This is especially applicable where, as here, the case raises important matters of
public interest. On this basis, the Applicants are entitled to their costs.
[221] The government has now changed the law and taken the position that the case is moot. In
such circumstances, the case law suggests that the government should pay costs, as it has
effectively conceded that the law required changes: Regional Municipality of York v.
Ontario (Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks), 2023 ONSC 5708 at
paras. 30-35; Broomer v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2004 CanLII 27253 (ON SCDC) at
para. 11. Accordingly, had I found that the matter was moot, I would also have awarded
costs of the application to the Applicants.
[222] The Applicants shall therefore have their costs of the application on a partial indemnity
basis fixed in the amount of $200,000.00, inclusive of HST and disbursements. This is
approximately what is sought in the Applicants’ Costs Outline and is precisely what the
Respondent would have sought if it had been successful. It is, accordingly, an amount that
the Respondent ought reasonably to have expected to pay in costs.
[223] The amount awarded includes costs of the original interim injunction motion heard by
Firestone R.S.J. on March 11, 2025, which were reserved to me as the judge hearing the
application: Cycle Toronto et al. v. Attorney General of Ontario et al., 2025 ONSC 1650
at para. 85. As I noted in my reasons granting an injunction following the argument of the
full application, the government took no steps to remove the target bike lanes prior to April
16, 2025, making the earlier motion an unnecessary use of court time caused by the
government’s intransigence: Cycle Toronto et al. v. Attorney General of Ontario et al.,
2025 ONSC 2424 at para. 37. The Applicants should therefore have their costs of that
motion as well.
__________________
CP's 15th Most Annoying Poster! (who wasn't too cowardly to enter that super duper serious competition)
