COLUMN: Think Again – Life, liberty, and security of bike lanes

Last week, an Ontario Superior Court ruled that a key policy of the Ontario government was unconstitutional. Specifically, this policy violated Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

For those who don’t have a copy of the Charter with them, Section 7 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.”

At its most basic level, this clause protects citizens from arbitrary actions by the government. For example, police officers aren’t allowed to beat suspects to death, nor can Crown attorneys throw suspects in jail without bringing them to trial.

However, in the upper legal echelons, Section 7 can also be interpreted as guaranteeing the right of cyclists to not have their bike lanes taken away from them.

Now, if you are an ordinary person like me, you are likely confused by this statement. That’s because most reasonable people would find it hard to find a constitutionally guaranteed right to bike lanes in Section 7 of the Charter.

And yet, that is essentially what happened when Justice Paul Schabas overturned the Ontario government’s decision to remove 19 km of protected bike lanes. Schabas had originally granted a temporary injunction against the government’s order but then made that order permanent when he ruled that removing those bike lanes was unconstitutional.

In his ruling, Schabas concluded that since bike lanes improve safety for cyclists, removing them would put cyclists at undue risk. He argued that removing the bike lanes “will put people at increased risk of harm and death, which endangers the right to life and security of the person.” Hence, replacing bike lanes with vehicle lanes is a direct violation of Section 7 of the Charter.

I must say that this is an interesting piece of legal reasoning. It’s highly unlikely that any of the politicians who helped draft the Charter seriously thought that it would one day be used to uphold the constitutional right to bike lanes. This just shows how subjective many judicial decisions truly are.

Now, I happen to agree with the Ontario government’s argument that bike lanes often impede proper traffic flow. While I think cities should construct more cycling pathways, these pathways should not be located on regular streets. This is particularly true in areas like ours where winters are long and travelling by car is a necessity for most people. Making it harder for cars to get around is a surefire way to frustrate drivers and increase the number of accidents.

Of course, there are many people who disagree with me on this issue. Proponents of bike lanes argue that cycling will increase in popularity if we make it easier for cyclists to get around. They point to the smaller environmental footprint of bicycles and note that travelling by bike is a great way to save money and get some good exercise.

So, how do we resolve this issue? The answer is obvious—we let our elected officials have the final word. After all, this is how things should work in a democracy. If you want things to change, vote for a different candidate in the next election or run for office yourself.

What we should not do is allow unelected judges to usurp the proper role of elected officials. When judges start stretching the Charter to include the right to bike lanes, they have turned into politicians themselves.

The will of the people is best expressed by our elected governments, not by unelected judges.

Michael Zwaagstra is a high school teacher and deputy mayor of Steinbach. He can be reached at mzwaagstra@shaw.ca.