City negligence

There is already a precedent in this city for a successful lawsuit.  

 In the case of Nelson (City) v. Marchi, the respondent, Taryn Joy Marchi, maintained that she suffered injuries due to the negligence of city personnel performing snow clearing activities. The slip and fall accident occurred because the snow plowing crew neglected to provide safe access to the sidewalk. The Supreme Court of Canada found that the city owed the respondent a duty of care and was not immune from liability.

The city believed they were immune, you can read all read all about it here

The case was settled out of court, settlement details confidential. 

Government immunity,   not so fast........3rd st. bike route is more than neglect, in my opinion gross negligence, turning all STOP signs with no traffic safety engineers approval or traffic monitoring to support this.

In my opinion the risk of a cyclist tragedy because the city turned all the STOP signs on 3rd St.  that should never have happend.  This goes beyond neglect as above.  

In my opinion the city knows what they have done but are willing to risk the potential of a tragedy, likely a cyclist.   But they are seemingly unwilling to admit the mistake.

Upon a tragedy, sooner or later, their will be an inquiry, lawsuit, and all will be revealed about not only what I believe is grant abuse but a dangerous result. 

In my opinion it amounts to gross negligence.

Gross negligence is a heightened degree of negligence representing an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of care. Falling between intent to do wrongful harm and ordinary negligence, gross negligence is defined as willful, wanton, and reckless conduct affecting the life or property or another.

In my opinion, this was a grant application to fool the grant selection committee, but a lack of due diligence on behalf of the BCAT grant people themselves to qualify the city for the grant or to follow up.  Grant eligibility required traffic monitoring before and after to determine success, the city claims monitoring yet the grant application says none was done for 3rd st.  Eligibility required a GHG savings estimate. stopping over a million vehicles a year on grade only increases 
GHG's. 

I also believe there is a possibility of personal lawsuits that could go deep into all those involved.  For example, say a parent on an ebike with a couple of kiddies end up with a lifetime of full time care, we are talking millions.  Insurance companies will go where the money is, there may be immunity to governments, but I have read of agregious cases where a judge has ignored this and the result, those involved wiped out financially to meet the costs.   Insurance companies have deep pockets.

Yes individuals might have political immunity, and be protected yet there are cases and judges where one must still defend themselves, regardless of how protected they are, or think they are individually.  This is where the deep pockets prevail, the costs of defending become so great, one is forced to settle.   

Having turned all 3rd St STOP signs is dangerous.  The grant required traffic monitoring before and after to determine success,  It was to be AAA, grades 3% or less.  All of Fairview except 3rd st. is 10 to 15% grades. The grant was to save GHG's.   

Everything about the grant fails what it was intended and created a dangerous bike route.   I see no way out for this city but honesty, they have failed us.

I live in Fairview, ride bikes, own ebikes, yet every time I use my vehicle I drive down to STOP at one of the 3rd st. stop signs, rarely if ever for a bicycle.