Winter Walking and Cycling

[Canard]

https://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=1595288

[danbrotherston]

https://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=1595288

Oh, FFS, blaming phones...

Disappointing they gave little data on how many fines.  60 warning seems low, but it might be to do with the fact that there wasn't very long at all when they bylaw would have applied.

Of course, CTV payed ZERO mention of this, that the bylaw applies (and the warning response) applies only when nothing has fallen for 24 hours, meaning most of this week there was no bylaw whatsoever.

Edit: Never mind the annoyance of only having videos on CTV, I can't even see a date on them.

[Canard]

I think reminding people to keep aware of their surroundings is a great move, and I'm glad they did it. I'm so tired of people being unaware of what's going on around them.

[ijmorlan]

I think reminding people to keep aware of their surroundings is a great move, and I'm glad they did it.  I'm so tired of people being unaware of what's going on around them.

It’s not a bad thing, but I think it illustrates a formula that they seem to use: a little bit about the specific story, followed not by more details on the story itself but instead by a boilerplate story, in this case pro forma reminders to pedestrians to look around them. Wouldn’t the time have been better used explaining more details about the implications of the bylaw as written, or talking about what other cities do?

PS re the comment above about dates on the videos: it’s amazing how many large organizations haven’t the faintest clue how to run a proper website. The average independent blogger has a better website than many large media companies.

[danbrotherston]

I think reminding people to keep aware of their surroundings is a great move, and I'm glad they did it.  I'm so tired of people being unaware of what's going on around them.

It’s not a bad thing, but I think it illustrates a formula that they seem to use: a little bit about the specific story, followed not by more details on the story itself but instead by a boilerplate story, in this case pro forma reminders to pedestrians to look around them. Wouldn’t the time have been better used explaining more details about the implications of the bylaw as written, or talking about what other cities do?

PS re the comment above about dates on the videos: it’s amazing how many large organizations haven’t the faintest clue how to run a proper website. The average independent blogger has a better website than many large media companies.

Or at a minimum making clear that the harm they're talking about (broken bones, concussions) at the hospital are largely caused by a) property owners not clearing their sidewalks, and b) city council not making clear safe sidewalks a priority.

Instead they give advice that while, maybe helpful, is beside the point.  As a society, we barely acknowledge the existence of a society...

[MidTowner]

https://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=1595288

Oh, FFS, blaming phones...

Disappointing they gave little data on how many fines.  60 warning seems low, but it might be to do with the fact that there wasn't very long at all when they bylaw would have applied.

Of course, CTV payed ZERO mention of this, that the bylaw applies (and the warning response) applies only when nothing has fallen for 24 hours, meaning most of this week there was no bylaw whatsoever.

Edit: Never mind the annoyance of only having videos on CTV, I can't even see a date on them.

That's flabbergasting to me, actually. On Monday of last week, I probably encountered more than sixty properties where sidewalks weren't clear just walking to various destinations.

Perhaps it takes a long time for the officer to log a warning and put the notice in the mailbox (or affix it, or whatever they do). I understand it's going to take some amount of time. Does anyone know how many bylaw officers are on this file when the snow has fallen?

A few centimetres fell on Saturday, and plenty of sidewalks aren't clear from that fall, or even from the ice earlier in the week. But I'm guessing that no warnings will be issued today.

[danbrotherston]

Oh, FFS, blaming phones...

Disappointing they gave little data on how many fines.  60 warning seems low, but it might be to do with the fact that there wasn't very long at all when they bylaw would have applied.

Of course, CTV payed ZERO mention of this, that the bylaw applies (and the warning response) applies only when nothing has fallen for 24 hours, meaning most of this week there was no bylaw whatsoever.

Edit: Never mind the annoyance of only having videos on CTV, I can't even see a date on them.

That's flabbergasting to me, actually. On Monday of last week, I probably encountered more than sixty properties where sidewalks weren't clear just walking to various destinations.

Perhaps it takes a long time for the officer to log a warning and put the notice in the mailbox (or affix it, or whatever they do). I understand it's going to take some amount of time. Does anyone know how many bylaw officers are on this file when the snow has fallen?

A few centimetres fell on Saturday, and plenty of sidewalks aren't clear from that fall, or even from the ice earlier in the week. But I'm guessing that no warnings will be issued today.

By the forecast, and historical data, there's probably only a few hours of the working day when there would have been warnings issued in the past 5 days, and unlikely to be any until at least Wednesday.

This cannot be said loudly enough.  The bylaw is garbage.

[Bob_McBob]

I think reminding people to keep aware of their surroundings is a great move, and I'm glad they did it.  I'm so tired of people being unaware of what's going on around them.

Pedestrians are just as distracted as they were 25 years ago when nobody carried a phone. There is no major epidemic of people falling on sidewalks because they're too busy looking at their phones, and even bringing it up in the video is shifting the blame from the real cause. It's exactly the same thing as including a bit about pedestrians on their phones in a piece about distracted driving.

https://globalnews.ca/news/2640893/reali...riving-is/

[Canard]

I disagree. 25 years ago we didn’t have phones. People didn’t look down at something in their hands, now they do, it’s as simple as that really.

[danbrotherston]

I disagree. 25 years ago we didn’t have phones. People didn’t look down at something in their hands, now they do, it’s as simple as that really.

And yet, we still had people falling on ice...

[Bob_McBob]

I disagree. 25 years ago we didn’t have phones. People didn’t look down at something in their hands, now they do, it’s as simple as that really.

...did you read the article I linked?

[Canard]

False equivalence. It's like saying "How many drivers were wearing pink socks in 1965 vs. 2019". It makes no sense.

Ride your bike along the MUT that parallels the LRT through UWaterloo sometime.

[taylortbb]

I disagree. 25 years ago we didn’t have phones. People didn’t look down at something in their hands, now they do, it’s as simple as that really.

Back in the 90s I walked 20 minutes to school reading the free Toronto newspaper every day. Things haven't changed that much.

[tomh009]

I disagree. 25 years ago we didn’t have phones. People didn’t look down at something in their hands, now they do, it’s as simple as that really.

Back in the 90s I walked 20 minutes to school reading the free Toronto newspaper every day. Things haven't changed that much.

People did do that in their cars, too ...

[KevinL]

The main point that we seem to keep missing is that a distracted pedestrian is a danger to, mostly, themselves; a distracted driver is a danger to many, mostly those outside their vehicle.