Even this article cites the fire department objections.
It's a shame that Not Just Bikes didn't seem to catch that the lane _did_ get built, but his point seemed to focus on FDs objecting to bike lanes, and I think that Baltimore story is a prime example of that.
> The Fire Marshalls are required by law (and oath) to enforce the laws.
This isn't what they were doing. To quote from the baltimoresun article linked above
> She then detailed several incidents, including an alleged assault on May 14 at the Baltimore School for the Arts at a meeting to discuss a bike lane.
> Baltimore City firefighter Charles Mudra is accused of assaulting Austin Davis, a Baltimore city employee who attended the meeting and who lives on Cornish’s block. Mudra has a court date scheduled for Aug. 13. His lawyer did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
There is no legal obligation to criminally assault people you disagree with.
> Then, a bicyclist says a fire department employee cut her off with his pickup truck and screamed, “I still hate you!”
This is harassment, bordering on criminal (driving offences if not assault)
> Ford [the fire chief] said he was aware of the two incidents of physical confrontation involving members of the fire department
There is no legal obligation to engage in physical confrontations
> Ford said his opposition to changes to the fire code comes from concern for public safety, not animus against bike lanes.
There is no legal obligation to oppose changes to the fire code.
> The council held an oversight meeting Tuesday to question the agency as members consider stripping regulations from the fire code to make it easier for protected bike lanes and developments to be built — a move the fire department is lobbying against. Fire officials do not want the city to replace International Fire Code requirements with National Association of City Transportation Officials’ Urban Street Guidelines.
There is no legal obligation to lobby
> Liz Cornish, director of the advocacy group Bikemore, is alleging that fire department brass sent large vehicles in front of her house while making a video about how protected bike lanes impede firefighting.
This is not something that they are possibly required to do.
> Fire Chief Niles R. Ford said Tuesday he had no intention of intimidating Cornish when fire officials parked in front of her house to film a video to support their argument. He said he wanted to show how much-needed fire equipment has trouble fitting down streets made narrow by bike lanes.
There is clearly no legal obligation to
1. Film videos supporting their desire to have wide streets
2. Make public comments that they need wide streets.
This isn't even close to a case of them "just enforcing the law".
>There are plenty of sources in that article though?
There are no mentions of the fire department in that article except one in the last paragraph.
>“We’d love to talk to the fire and police departments and figure out a way to address safety concerns while keeping this corner a permanent fixture of the city,”
There are no other easily findable references on the internet.
All of this ignores the fact that the narrator of the video implied that the pedestrian mall was removed due to fire department interference, when it obviously wasn't and this conversation thread will not stray into any tangents and will focus on the fact that the narrator implied that the pedestrian mall was removed due to fire department interference, and that was a lie.
Not Just Bikes and Strong towns are different organizations that employ different people. They are pretty closely aligned ideologically and collaborate frequently, but they aren't the same entity.
The Fire Marshalls are required by law (and oath) to enforce the laws.
They are literally and legally required to object and grant exemptions as appropriate.
And the source for the Peekskill story in the "cited sources" is themselves.
They're using a sourceless article they wrote themselves as a source.
I just finished watching the video and the factual errors are... voluminous.