Welcome Guest!
In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away.
or Create an Account




Thread Rating:
  • 4 Vote(s) - 4.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Walking in Waterloo Region
(12-11-2017, 08:32 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: I have no idea why removing personal vehicles would be a "stretch", the ONLY parking lot on Ring Rd. itself is the administration building.

On the Ring Road ...
Lot D: Needles Hall
Lot H: Across from Humanities
Lot HV: Across from SCH
Lot L: East of Burt Matthews
Lot M: West of Burt Matthews
Lot N: Across from Central Services
Lot R: Across from Burt Matthews

SLC also has a small handicapped parking lot, and the UW police/parking building also has a small parking lot. And there are a number of small spaces for deliveries.
Reply


@tom009. Yes there are a few small lots for accessible parking and deliveries. Those can be accommodated without opening ring road to all cars.

The rest of the public access lots are accessible off of Seagram Dr. Or Hagey Blvd.
Reply
(12-11-2017, 10:53 PM)Pheidippides Wrote: The cities should at least broadcast loud and clear that the snow has stopped falling and the clock is now ticking. Then at least you'd know if you were wasting your time calling to register a complaint only to discover that it won't be accepted because it is still technically snowing in some bureaucrat's opinion.

I was holding my breath watching someone in a mobility scooter heading westbound ON Highland at Patricia because the sidewalks were not clear. The 204 went wide around them, but a number of other vehicles did not give as wide a berth and some even honked (as if that person really WANTED to in that vulnerable a position).

I'm assuming that there is a guideline at the municipality indicating how to decide when the clock starts. It wouldn't do to have an employee reject a complaint that resulted in someone injury herself and taking it up with the city, only to find out that the employee had the wrong idea about when the snow ought to be cleared.

If the guideline exists, they could at least make it known to those of us who care, so we don't waste their time calling in complaints that can't be acted on.

That having been said, when I've asked staff in the past who decides when the snow has stopped, they haven't been able to give me an answer...
Reply
(12-11-2017, 11:49 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: @tom009. Yes there are a few small lots for accessible parking and deliveries.  Those can be accommodated without opening ring road to all cars.

The rest of the public access lots are accessible off of Seagram Dr. Or Hagey Blvd.

The parking lots I listed all have their entrances on Ring Road. It might be possible to reconfigure some of them to have entrances off University Ave or Columbia Rd, but I don't think that's a particularly good solution, either, though for different reasons. And lots D, L and M are on the inside of Ring Road so no other entrance is possible.
Reply
(12-12-2017, 08:14 AM)MidTowner Wrote:
(12-11-2017, 10:53 PM)Pheidippides Wrote: The cities should at least broadcast loud and clear that the snow has stopped falling and the clock is now ticking. Then at least you'd know if you were wasting your time calling to register a complaint only to discover that it won't be accepted because it is still technically snowing in some bureaucrat's opinion.

I was holding my breath watching someone in a mobility scooter heading westbound ON Highland at Patricia because the sidewalks were not clear. The 204 went wide around them, but a number of other vehicles did not give as wide a berth and some even honked (as if that person really WANTED to in that vulnerable a position).

I'm assuming that there is a guideline at the municipality indicating how to decide when the clock starts. It wouldn't do to have an employee reject a complaint that resulted in someone injury herself and taking it up with the city, only to find out that the employee had the wrong idea about when the snow ought to be cleared.

If the guideline exists, they could at least make it known to those of us who care, so we don't waste their time calling in complaints that can't be acted on.

That having been said, when I've asked staff in the past who decides when the snow has stopped, they haven't been able to give me an answer...

There is a guideline, but they don't really broadcast it.  It generally comes out to between 24 hours and 36 hours, because it's 24 hours after, but then if that happens at night, then it becomes the next day.

I'm not sure of the liability issue, I am guessing the laws are favourable to city because if they weren't virtually all liability claims would go through as it's easy to prove that the current clearing policy is completely useless.

The "wasting time" issue has been solved, because the CoK will now take complaints at any time, and then only investigate after the 24 hour wait time.

@Pheidippides That is sad to see, and I've seen it before with people parked blocking the sidewalk.  The people honking are just the same, cannot possibly put themselves in someone else's shoes.  I'm (temporarily) able and can walk over snowbanks, people like this are why I fight for sidewalk snow clearing.
Reply
What I mean is, how do I know when the snow has stopped falling? I know this might seem pedantic, but I have called and been told by an operator that the snow didn't stop falling until that morning, when I had last observed it the morning before. I don't think I was lied to, maybe I missed a few flakes while I was inside, or maybe it snowed a bit in Bridgeport or somewhere. But I do wonder who officially decides when it stopped snowing, and how.
Reply
Does anyone know how much the local cities/region pays out in claims for slipping on sidewalks?


Message to the city: Be nice, clear our ice

"...costing the city an additional estimated $10 million a year...the annual tab for snow removal per capita in Toronto would increase about $4 from $32.77."

"...the city currently pays out between $7 million and $20 million a year in claims from those who’ve slipped on icy city sidewalks."
Everyone move to the back of the bus and we all get home faster.
Reply


(12-16-2017, 05:16 PM)Pheidippides Wrote: Does anyone know how much the local cities/region pays out in claims for slipping on sidewalks?


Message to the city: Be nice, clear our ice

"...costing the city an additional estimated $10 million a year...the annual tab for snow removal per capita in Toronto would increase about $4 from $32.77."

"...the city currently pays out between $7 million and $20 million a year in claims from those who’ve slipped on icy city sidewalks."

This is a weird situation. The City should be doing the snow clearing, in part to get uniformity and in part to increase efficiency. But on the other hand, it should also be almost impossible to win a slip-and-fall claim based on ice. There are products — one brand is called “icers” — which strap on to boots, giving them studs that simply do not slip. You can walk right across a perfectly smooth ice surface as if it were clean dry concrete. Given the existence of such products, how is slipping and falling not the fault of the person falling? Even an extremely rigorous program of clearing snow and ice will miss spots occasionally, and the snow is a natural phenomenon, so expecting the outdoors to be completely non-slip is totally unreasonable. As far as I’m concerned, liability should not be incurred for slip-and-fall for anything short of deliberately making things worse.
Reply
Are you saying every citizen of the city should be expected to have the means to purchase such footwear, or the foreknowledge to realize their necessity? That's asking quite a bit.
Reply
(12-16-2017, 09:12 PM)KevinL Wrote: Are you saying every citizen of the city should be expected to have the means to purchase such footwear, or the foreknowledge to realize their necessity? That's asking quite a bit.

I think what they're getting at is... if it's cold outside, you put a coat on.  If you don't, it's your own damn fault you're cold.

It's a bit extreme to think you need to buy cleated football shoes to go for a stroll, but... you should be mindful and aware of your surroundings.
Reply
(12-16-2017, 09:39 PM)Canard Wrote:
(12-16-2017, 09:12 PM)KevinL Wrote: Are you saying every citizen of the city should be expected to have the means to purchase such footwear, or the foreknowledge to realize their necessity? That's asking quite a bit.

I think what they're getting at is... if it's cold outside, you put a coat on.  If you don't, it's your own damn fault you're cold.

It's a bit extreme to think you need to buy cleated football shoes to go for a stroll, but... you should be mindful and aware of your surroundings.

Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. I should emphasize that I think sidewalks should be cleared to a reasonable standard. But I am saying that suing after a slip-and-fall is unreasonable.

Anyway, I think the bigger social problem (as opposed to legal liability) is with large amounts of snow, not very thin but slippery bits of ice. There is no convenient footwear to deal with large amounts of snow (snowshoes are neither convenient, nor do they make walking as easy as on solid ground), but there is footwear to eliminate the problems associated with thin ice. This is even more so if we assume the ice is in patches, as will typically be the case when reasonable snow clearing measures are taken.
Reply
(12-16-2017, 09:12 PM)KevinL Wrote: Are you saying every citizen of the city should be expected to have the means to purchase such footwear, or the foreknowledge to realize their necessity? That's asking quite a bit.

I was going to reply only to the reply, but then I thought a bit about “foreknowledge”.

Really? You’re suggesting people can’t be expected to know what the climate is like here? And if they don’t, they get to sue the city for their ignorance?

As to “means”, they aren’t very expensive, really. Less than a good winter coat.

http://www.leevalley.com/en/Garden/page....51676&ap=1
Reply
For someone on a fixed income $60 can be a lot.

Plus, much like the studded tires over in the cycling thread, those types of ice gripping attachments only work well on ice; really well in fact. We use to do running workouts on the canal in Ottawa during the winter sometimes with them when the trails were snow packed, but they actually have the opposite effect on clear concrete - you skate and slide over the place. Having those on your feet and a patchwork of cleared and uncleared sidewalks would mean taking them on and off as you travel - imagine switching tire types as you drove; hardly an equitable situation.

I think the analogy here would be be snow tires. Even if they are a bit expensive, and not everyone can afford them, even now that there is a financial incentive in the form of insurance discount to have them, but they aren't required to get around because in most cases all season tires work BECAUSE the cities made an effort to keep the roads clear. The key is that an effort was made.

With sidewalks the cities aren't even pretending to make an honest effort, so it seems weird to require some special equipment to go down their street.
Everyone move to the back of the bus and we all get home faster.
Reply


(12-16-2017, 10:59 PM)Pheidippides Wrote: For someone on a fixed income $60 can be a lot.

Plus, much like the studded tires over in the cycling thread, those types of ice gripping attachments only work well on ice; really well in fact. We use to do running workouts on the canal in Ottawa during the winter sometimes with them when the trails were snow packed, but they actually have the opposite effect on clear concrete - you skate and slide over the place. Having those on your feet and a patchwork of cleared and uncleared sidewalks would mean taking them on and off as you travel - imagine switching tire types as you drove; hardly an equitable situation.

I think the analogy here would be be snow tires. Even if they are a bit expensive, and not everyone can afford them, even now that there is a financial incentive in the form of insurance discount to have them, but they aren't required to get around because in most cases all season tires work BECAUSE the cities made an effort to keep the roads clear. The key is that an effort was made.

With sidewalks the cities aren't even pretending to make an honest effort, so it seems weird to require some special equipment to go down their street.

OK, I’ll admit to lack of knowledge of the specific instances in which cities pay out slip-and-fall settlements. But it actually seems “obvious” (could be wrong) that an area that has been cleared of snow would be more likely to have the occasional patch of slippery ice. If it isn’t clear at all, or very poorly, it will tend to have a mess of snow that, while terrible to walk on, doesn’t actually lead to much slipping and sliding, if only because there is too much snow for your foot to move much at all. If we plow however then the mass of snow is removed, leaving little bits here and there which can turn into ice.

Is there any feasible snow-clearing regime that leaves the city free of liability? If not then I think there is a problem with the liability system. You end up with the situation that many things are effectively illegal because of liability issues. The liability system isn’t good at recognizing that some activities have some inherent risk that it is not feasible or reasonable to eliminate. Just because somebody could have done something to avoid a specific instance doesn’t mean they could actually have eliminated all of it. Obviously, any specific patch of ice could be eliminated by any of a number of means. But how do you eliminate all ice everywhere that it could be a problem?

Maybe I’m wrong and a reasonable city effort to clear snow from all sidewalks would eliminate the legal liability. If so, then that is yet another reason for the city to do that. Rather than wasting money on settlements, spend it on clearing snow.

Re: the cost, don’t forget that those on fixed incomes are (indirectly) paying those settlements too. Besides, I’m not suggesting people should be required to buy those items, any more than I am suggesting that they should be required to buy a high-quality winter coat. The point is that they need to make their own choice and not blame others for their choice.
Reply
My bet is that if the city thinks it has a good chance of losing a lawsuit, it would offer a settlement. I'd guess that the lawsuit would hinge on what a reasonable person could expect. I don't think a reasonable person should wear mini-crampons in town. But court cases can be a bit random so sometimes cities will offer settlements to avoid the possibility of losing.
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)

About Waterloo Region Connected

Launched in August 2014, Waterloo Region Connected is an online community that brings together all the things that make Waterloo Region great. Waterloo Region Connected provides user-driven content fueled by a lively discussion forum covering topics like urban development, transportation projects, heritage issues, businesses and other issues of interest to those in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the four Townships - North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich.

              User Links