(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.