They've definitely done a heck of a good job discouraging many from getting it and making it inconvenient for those who do.

Well I guess it becomes a 2 step process to deal with that stupid law.

"We're removing lanes to enable more pedestrian access and vegetation"

1 year later: "we're adding bike lanes"

Naw, I'm just going to get a lot of free stuff in that case!

Lol. Exactly why no politician or closely affiliated individual should be allowed anywhere near elections and ridings boundary decisions.

Is there a chance they attack the definition of "residing" instead of the definition of person? I could see them making an argument that "illegals" are not resident in the state but rather are occupiers or invaders - I don't know if there's any grounds for it though.

I'm a little bit hurt that this wasn't about Edmonton.

That top row seems suspiciously stacked

4. Bikes should have priority. No unneeded stop signs for cyclists since cars are the threat on the roads.
5. Bike detectors that keep cyclists flowing would improve the experience.
6. Proactive enforcement to ensure that cars parked in the bike lane are removed quickly would help.

We have some thoughts:
1. Bike lanes aren't protected if cars have to pass through them to park.
2. Bike lanes are useless in the winter if they are not cleared quickly, and kept clear.
3. Transition points should be cargo bike friendly: no huge bumps, no tight turns.

Thank you

Or to have more fun, we stop taxing them and just tariff them. ;)