Winter Walking and Cycling

[danbrotherston]

I was going to comment on the "improvement" mentioned earlier about making the fines only enough to recover costs.  That seems bananas to me.  The cost should be whatever is reasonable to enforce the behaviour you're saying you want to prevent.  And if there is no reasonable way to do that - then you should just admit failure at the start and find a different option.

At the very least there should always be escalating fines.  Maybe cost recovery makes sense for strike 1.  But after that (especially with a previous warning) the fines should escalate.

The ironic thing is a certain city councillor, who is on this forum, has repeatedly stated he feels the fines are too high and too punitive and should only cover costs, which, again, shows he hasn't listened to (or doesn't believe) staff who say the fines are already cost recovery, but also shows the disconnect here, the fines are actually quite high already--at least 10x a parking ticket, and as much as two fare evasion fines, but still ineffective. And I think there is a resistance to upsetting homeowners.

The problem is, there are many many different ways in which these fines manifest. How high does the fine need to be to convince a numbered corporation to maintain their derelict building which already owes half a million in back taxes? Vs. How likely does one need to be caught for a homeowner who's on vacation for 5 days and hopes there is no snowfall vs., a homeowner who clears one shovel width of snow from the walk and believes they've done a good job clearing.