> I dunno about elsewhere but in Ontario the legality of a bike being on a sidewalk is based on wheel diameter to permit kids bicycles.
There is no Ontario-wide law, per the Highway Traffic Act, §185(2):
> (2) The council of a municipality may by by-law prohibit pedestrians or the use of motor assisted bicycles, bicycles, wheelchairs or animals on any highway or portion of a highway under its jurisdiction. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 185 (2).
> 2.12 Motor vehicle - bicycle - on sidewalk - exceptions No person shall, without lawful authority, either by himself or by permitting others, operate a motor vehicle or bicycle along a sidewalk. This section shall not apply to a person who, […] or (d) being under the age of 14, operates a bicycle along a sidewalk.
> Have it crossed your mind that they're just closer to truth than what Western propaganda spreads about Ukraine conflict and why it started and keep going?
It started because Putin wants the 'good old days' of the Soviet Union back, and he does not consider Ukrainians their own people, but just a bunch of folks that have forgotten they are really Russian/Soviet. The 'official' Rusian reason is/was because Ukraine was run by Nazis (never mind that Zelenskyy is Jewish).
> Is Putin the most powerful figure? It seems Bibi holds the most sway over Trump this month.
Power and influence can be considered two different things.
As for holding sway over Trump: it's often generally anyone that can flatter his ego and/or put money in his pockets. (Or for his swaying himself: whatever will get the most headlines, the most people talking about him.)
> Your entire formal military apparatus was destroyed, nuclear sites in rubble, defense industrial complex leveled, two levels of leadership KIA, and the only thing preventing you from permanent destruction or regime change is an impotent threat of attacking ships?
* Which doesn't mean much nowadays: see Ukraine, and the perseverance of the Taliban who eventually got their way.
* Are you talking about now? Or last year when everyone was told that the nuclear program was obliterated? If it was then, why was there a second round of attacks in this year? And it's not like the existing stockpiles of enriched uranium vanished.
* As Ukraine has shown, you can have a defence industry in people's basements churning out 4M drones per year that can do a lot of damage.
* Yes, the past leadership was KIA. And new people were put in place who are more hardliner hawks than what was taken out. So how is a more hawk-ish regime a "win" for the US?
* An "impotent attack" that has kept several thousand ships sidelined in the Gulf? That has caused fuel (petrol, diesel, kerosene, LNG) prices skyrocket? That have caused helium (needed in chip manufacturing, MRIs, etc) prices to triple? If that's "impotent" I would hate to see effective.
> "why aren't the discussions related to public matters be telecasted live like a football match to the whole world? why isn't the public privy to the discussions about its own future?"
It gives the parties more room to manoeuvre with regards to the give and take that is often/usually necessary when it comes to negotiating. If you demand X at one point, but revert so you can get Y, then the absolutists will be outraged (either actually or performatively) that you are being "soft" and "weak", etc.
There are a lot of people who think in zero-sum, winner-take-all ways, which is generally not how the world of foreign relations works. And modern-day outrage machine will create more difficult situations if you give here and take there (ignoring the fact that the other side gives there and takes here in return) even though it may be necessary to get a result (even it it's not perfect).
There is flip side to it. If one party has pre-determined not to negotiate, but is just following the script to show offical reachout and due process, then people don't know the real reason why the talks failed?
> […] then people don't know the real reason why the talks failed?
A party can always disclose what's going on in negotiations.
This is generally not done as it is often is a violation of trust, but if there's no good faith there in the first place it's hardly a loss. Negotiations can always be broken off with the reason being "the other side is not negotiating in good faith" without particular negotiated-to-day conditions being released.
But my original proposition keeps everyone honest and pragmatic which was the reason for the proposal. I truly believe in transparency as a way to keep everyone honest and not treat other people as childish that they can't understand complex matters.
There is no Ontario-wide law, per the Highway Traffic Act, §185(2):
> (2) The council of a municipality may by by-law prohibit pedestrians or the use of motor assisted bicycles, bicycles, wheelchairs or animals on any highway or portion of a highway under its jurisdiction. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 185 (2).
* https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90h08#BK286
London:
> 2.12 Motor vehicle - bicycle - on sidewalk - exceptions No person shall, without lawful authority, either by himself or by permitting others, operate a motor vehicle or bicycle along a sidewalk. This section shall not apply to a person who, […] or (d) being under the age of 14, operates a bicycle along a sidewalk.
* https://www.trekbicyclestorelondon.com/about/cycling-law-lon...
Toronto:
> Chapter 950-201 C(2) of the Toronto Municipal Code states that “no person age 14 and older shall ride a bicycle on a sidewalk of any highway.”
* https://www.toronto.ca/services-payments/streets-parking-tra...
Nothing about diameter/radius.
reply