Winter Walking and Cycling

[jamincan]

As much as I disagree with Davey on this issue, you have to give him credit for having a dialogue about it.

[danbrotherston]

The simplest explanation is that, like most people, he's stubborn, and perhaps more stubborn than the norm. Thus, now that he's stated a position on something, it's almost impossible for him to change it. That's why he has to invent arguments like those concerning salt usage.

This quote from Gloria MacNeil in the article jumped out at me: "Generally our biggest concern is ice. Somebody could have done a fantastic job but there was one section where there was some ice, and we issued a notice. There are people who are very frustrated about that."

I'm one of those people who is very frustrated to hear that. Her "concern" is not about keeping sidewalks clear, but what kind of flak she's going to get from ratepayers who get notices. The bylaw officers should not be wasting their time writing up notices when homeowners have done a generally "fantastic job," not when there are properties which have not been cleared whatsoever and are literally impassable.

She's explaining that the bylaw officers have no discretion to issue notices in support of the goal of keeping sidewalks passable, or that they have another goal entirely. It's a purely bureaucratic exercise.

One way to fix this, now, this winter, would be to focus on complaints first. We can see from the numbers that those are more likely to be actual scofflaws that will never be clear (perhaps to any extent) without intervention. And by not "proactively enforcing," the municipality can avoid wasting time issuing notices to people who have done "fantastic jobs" for purely legal reasons, and focus on the properties that are causing enough inconvenience to get people to call in.

Going to have to disagree.  Ice is extremely dangerous, it cannot be left, people have to use salt (or another product), and use it properly to manage the risk.  Just because the snow has been removed does not mean a sidewalk is safe and passable.

I totally agree we have a disaster of a sidewalk clearing policy, and that enforcement is a joke, but I'm not going to give sheets of ice a pass just because other sidewalks are entirely blocked with snow.

I'd even go so far to say ice is more dangerous, it probably leads to more injuries, but less stranding...since it doesn't pose as obvious a barrier.

Of course, the real solution is to just have the city do it, lay down an appropriate amount of salt and hit it with a plow/brush.

CRAZY right...

[danbrotherston]

As much as I disagree with Davey on this issue, you have to give him credit for having a dialogue about it.

No I don't, and frankly, I've blocked him at this point.

Or more specifically, I disagree that he's having a dialog, he's not listening to issues, or evaluating facts, he's trying to justify himself, nothing more.

[ijmorlan]

I am of two minds on the ice issue. On the one hand, it’s nice if it can be eliminated. On the other hand, it’s not reasonable to expect there to be no ice at all anywhere in Canada in the winter. As far as I’m concerned, the use of “Icers” or similar footwear should be pretty much a pre-requisite to winning a slip-and-fall lawsuit. Which basically means no slip-and-fall lawsuits, because it’s pretty much impossible to slip while using them (except on very smooth surfaces, such as terrazo which one might find indoors).

But regardless, the City should be clearing sidewalks to some standard that probably involves little to no ice within a few days of an accumulation, rather than having every property do its own thing.

[danbrotherston]

I am of two minds on the ice issue. On the one hand, it’s nice if it can be eliminated. On the other hand, it’s not reasonable to expect there to be no ice at all anywhere in Canada in the winter. As far as I’m concerned, the use of “Icers” or similar footwear should be pretty much a pre-requisite to winning a slip-and-fall lawsuit. Which basically means no slip-and-fall lawsuits, because it’s pretty much impossible to slip while using them (except on very smooth surfaces, such as terrazo which one might find indoors).

But regardless, the City should be clearing sidewalks to some standard that probably involves little to no ice within a few days of an accumulation, rather than having every property do its own thing.

Sure, we cannot ensure there is no ice at any time.  But certainly it is also unreasonable to use no deicing products at all, which is what many homeowners do.

It's also worth noting that the climate study that was done in the region found that in the medium term, we will see far more freezing rain than we do today. This problem is only going to get worse.

[tomh009]

Going to have to disagree.  Ice is extremely dangerous, it cannot be left, people have to use salt (or another product), and use it properly to manage the risk.  Just because the snow has been removed does not mean a sidewalk is safe and passable.

Sand. Works even in 30C below zero, is inexpensive, has plentiful supplies, and has no negative environmental effects.

[jwilliamson]

Going to have to disagree.  Ice is extremely dangerous, it cannot be left, people have to use salt (or another product), and use it properly to manage the risk.  Just because the snow has been removed does not mean a sidewalk is safe and passable.

Sand. Works even in 30C below zero, is inexpensive, has plentiful supplies, and has no negative environmental effects.

I've heard mulch is quite good for traction. As more ice accumulates, sand tends to get buried but mulch will rise to the top. Probably more expensive though.

[MidTowner]

What kind of mulch, specifically?

I have a neighbour who tried wood ash last week. At first I thought it was a great idea (it definitely was worth a try), but it's so much softer than sand that it didn't provide much traction, and wound up mostly being a mess.

In the article, Ms. MacNeil referred specifically to giving notices to property owners who had done a "fantastic job" but for one reason or another there was a "section where there was some ice."

That doesn't to me sound like someone who has just skipped on a de-icing agent entirely. It sounds like a patch of ice that could conceivably cause someone to slip and that would resultingly be a potential liability for the city if they had already inspected. That's what they care about. As opposed to properties that were possibly sheets of ice last week, but didn't get inspected while bylaw officers were issuing all of these notices to properties that were merely imperfectly done.

[jamincan]

As much as I disagree with Davey on this issue, you have to give him credit for having a dialogue about it.

No I don't, and frankly, I've blocked him at this point.

Or more specifically, I disagree that he's having a dialog, he's not listening to issues, or evaluating facts, he's trying to justify himself, nothing more.

With all due respect, I'm not sure how you can have an opinion on his motivation and sincerity if you've blocked him. It's possible for someone to disagree with you, assess a situation differently from you, and hold different opinions than you without operating in bad faith.

[danbrotherston]

Going to have to disagree.  Ice is extremely dangerous, it cannot be left, people have to use salt (or another product), and use it properly to manage the risk.  Just because the snow has been removed does not mean a sidewalk is safe and passable.

Sand. Works even in 30C below zero, is inexpensive, has plentiful supplies, and has no negative environmental effects.

Sand is an option, but it isn't as effective as salt at temperatures where salt functions well.  And sand does have negative environmental effects, it blocks up drainage channels--which are natural areas.  Nothing is without its tradeoffs.

[danbrotherston]

....

In the article, Ms. MacNeil referred specifically to giving notices to property owners who had done a "fantastic job" but for one reason or another there was a "section where there was some ice."

That doesn't to me sound like someone who has just skipped on a de-icing agent entirely. It sounds like a patch of ice that could conceivably cause someone to slip and that would resultingly be a potential liability for the city if they had already inspected. That's what they care about. As opposed to properties that were possibly sheets of ice last week, but didn't get inspected while bylaw officers were issuing all of these notices to properties that were merely imperfectly done.

We don't know for sure what MacNeil meant.

''fantastic" could be they did clear it really quickly. 

For clearing people's opinions of fantastic could differ.  Plenty of folks clear one shovel width, the might think that's fantastic but someone in a wheelchair would not. 

I'd put my money on he meant folks who shoveled their sidewalk well but then had runoff from warm weather which then froze and had an ice sheet.

Yes this sucks for those people, and frankly the bylaw doesn't address and is really really hard to deal with city clearing would suffer from this as well, but with the appropriate use of salt could be mitigated.

But I do think this is still problematic.  It does create a real danger.

Probably be gets complaints from people all over the spectrum of "I did a fantastic job and now I'm ticketed"

I doubt they're being ticketed because there's a snowflake on the sidewalk and nobody is affected by some bylaw officer feels it's technically in violation .

[danbrotherston]

No I don't, and frankly, I've blocked him at this point.

Or more specifically, I disagree that he's having a dialog, he's not listening to issues, or evaluating facts, he's trying to justify himself, nothing more.

With all due respect, I'm not sure how you can have an opinion on his motivation and sincerity if you've blocked him. It's possible for someone to disagree with you, assess a situation differently from you, and hold different opinions than you without operating in bad faith.

He wrote an extensive letter to the editor, and I had a long conversation with him on Twitter.  At some point I think it's reasonable to judge people. I didn't block him before speaking with him.

[MidTowner]

We don't know for sure what MacNeil meant.

''fantastic" could be they did clear it really quickly. 

For clearing people's opinions of fantastic could differ...

Okay, sure. I take "fantastic" to mean something positive, in the opinion of the director of bylaw enforcement in this case. Whether she means "fantastic" as in "quick" or "thorough," you're right that we don't know.

My point was just that the "proactive enforcement" forces would be better spent reacting. Per the Record article, of 1,700 "homes" proactively inspected, 381 notices were issued. Of these, some proportion were "fantastic" according to staff but not in compliance with the bylaw (which, if enforced to its letter, would not see any sidewalks in compliance almost ever) and, of these, only one required a contractor be called.

In contrast with that, reacting to 861 complaints led to an unknown number of notices issued (I wonder why this number was left out), and 35 referrals to contractors. Clearly, focusing on complaints address more actual issues.

[ijmorlan]

Sand. Works even in 30C below zero, is inexpensive, has plentiful supplies, and has no negative environmental effects.

Sand is an option, but it isn't as effective as salt at temperatures where salt functions well.  And sand does have negative environmental effects, it blocks up drainage channels--which are natural areas.  Nothing is without its tradeoffs.

I think a bit of extra sand is nothing compared to salt, which is basically a poison (depending on the dose, of course, as with all poisons).

Not an ecologist, however, so people in the know might know better.

[danbrotherston]

We don't know for sure what MacNeil meant.

''fantastic" could be they did clear it really quickly. 

For clearing people's opinions of fantastic could differ...

Okay, sure. I take "fantastic" to mean something positive, in the opinion of the director of bylaw enforcement in this case. Whether she means "fantastic" as in "quick" or "thorough," you're right that we don't know.

My point was just that the "proactive enforcement" forces would be better spent reacting. Per the Record article, of 1,700 "homes" proactively inspected, 381 notices were issued. Of these, some proportion were "fantastic" according to staff but not in compliance with the bylaw (which, if enforced to its letter, would not see any sidewalks in compliance almost ever) and, of these, only one required a contractor be called.

In contrast with that, reacting to 861 complaints led to an unknown number of notices issued (I wonder why this number was left out), and 35 referrals to contractors. Clearly, focusing on complaints address more actual issues.

I mean, we can argue the nitty gritty, certainly there are differing opinions on what is most effective, and it depends on what's the metric on good, and even then, I don't any any data to say for sure what is best.  But I do think we're wasting our time.  I don't believe homeowner clearing with bylaw enforcement will ever be an effective policy, so I don't think the particular policy implemented matters much.

As for the numbers, I don't actually believe them.  I reported 12 sidewalks on Queen St. which were never cleared until the weather melted it.  So I don't know whether they were ever inspected, but I suspect the 35 has more to do with the number of inspections they managed to do, vs. the number that were actually uncleared.