Calgary Roads

[MalcolmTucker]

^ Canada's government with fused legislature and executive usually ensures that the left hand knows what the right hand is doing, at least in the legislative sense.

It is covered in the

Traffic Safety Act

In any proceedings in respect of a charge that a person has failed to comply with this Act,
(a) the evidence of any person involved in the manufacture, installation or operation of, or analysis or interpretation of data collected, reported or transmitted by, a recording device located in a motor vehicle may be given by affidavit [this is traditional photo radar];
(b) an affidavit referred to in clause (a) is proof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, of the facts stated in the affidavit;
(c) a copy of an affidavit referred to in clause (a) must be served on the defendant by ordinary mail at that person’s latest address, as indicated on the records of the Registrar, at least 14 days before the day of the hearing; [this allows serving by mail]
(d) the defendant may, with leave of the court, require the attendance of any person giving evidence by affidavit pursuant to clause (a) for the purpose of cross‑examination.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by kw5150

Winnipeg has been doing speed on green sice 2003 for sure. I should know. I got one going north on route 90....... and then another going south on my way home...... haha. Im so glad that I dont speed anymore!

Huh. Guess I've been away too long. Fortunately I never manage to get to the speed limit with the traffic there, so speeding tickets aren't much of a concern when I visit.

[korzym]

snow removal...jajaja McIver is no good for some bs reason: some fool will say something against his ideas, which are perfectly good..jajajaja.... Of course bronconnier is a no show on the issue
http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/an/loc...ub=CalgaryHome

[MalcolmTucker]

One would involve policy changes so Calgarians with snow plowing equipment could help on a volunteer basis.

Will never happen, will cause road damage - and who is liable for the traffic hazard of snow - bare pavement - snow, which will turn into snow - ice - snow during a mild chinook.

Another is to make City vehicles available to help in snow clearing during major snow storms.

What does this even mean, putting plows on fire trucks?

Alderman McIver wants the City to re-define things like what makes a road passable.

As long as he is willing to raise taxes to pay for the additional clearing, I see no problem with this.

As for Bronco's silence, every time he responds to an Alderman in a story he 'elevates' the Alderman to his level. Until the campaign starts, there likely will be little comment on things like this from Bronco. Plus, it is possible Bronco is on vacation, or the reporter didn't even ask as there was no 'we attempted to comment x and there was no response'.

[korzym]

your full of shit kid

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by korzym

your full of shit kid

That's a real constructive rebuttal you got there. At least try to have a mature debate on the subject you brought up.

[frinkprof]

Nevermind.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

Will never happen, will cause road damage - and who is liable for the traffic hazard of snow - bare pavement - snow, which will turn into snow - ice - snow during a mild chinook.

Um, drivers?

Seriously? You're going to claim that snow clearing is now hazardous because it *could* cause icy conditions depending on later weather? It's better to just leave the snow there?

Man, our litigious society will be the death of me. Literally.

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

Will never happen, will cause road damage - and who is liable for the traffic hazard of snow - bare pavement - snow, which will turn into snow - ice - snow during a mild chinook.

I think the bigger question of liability is if one of these volunteer snow plows hits a parked car. Who pays for that parked car? I would certainly hope not the city. But then, how do we ensure all volunteer plows have the proper insurance to cover them in case an incident like this happens?

[korzym]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

That's a real constructive rebuttal you got there. At least try to have a mature debate on the subject you brought up.

this shit he wrote is pure fallacy, how can you begin to take it seriously?

Its about time blades get put onto more city trucks. Sir.Humphrey.Appleby of course will bring up bogus examples, he would interpret "putting blades on city vehicles" as putting blades on aircraft if he could. When McIver said putting blades on more city vehicles, personally I interpreted that as saying he wants blades on the city's water rescue boats and hovercraft.

A lot of you are bringing up idiotic arguments whenever McIver makes a comment. Their either blatantly idiotic comments or so narrow minded, of course their not narrow minded if its for your own personal agenda

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by korzym

this shit he wrote is pure fallacy, how can you begin to take it seriously?

It is still his opinion to have, you should at least respect it as such.

I have an existing opinion of McIver, but I haven't waded into this debate because I didn't catch all the details yet. However it appears that Sir Appleby has, and has offered his opinion on the ideas put forth.

[lubicon]

Originally Posted by MichaelS

I think the bigger question of liability is if one of these volunteer snow plows hits a parked car. Who pays for that parked car? I would certainly hope not the city. But then, how do we ensure all volunteer plows have the proper insurance to cover them in case an incident like this happens?

Not just hitting vehicles, but other items as well - fire hydrants, curbs, speed bumps etc. Not that I'm against this idea but I don't see how they could get around the liability issues.

On this note, there was a guy on my street who plowed our road after the big blizzard in early December. Worked out pretty well except for the fact that he filled my driveway with snow just after I had spent considerable effort shovelling it. Not a big deal, I spent a few more minutes moving the snow back onto the street.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by korzym

this shit he wrote is pure fallacy, how can you begin to take it seriously?

Its about time blades get put onto more city trucks. Sir.Humphrey.Appleby of course will bring up bogus examples, he would interpret "putting blades on city vehicles" as putting blades on aircraft if he could. When McIver said putting blades on more city vehicles, personally I interpreted that as saying he wants blades on the city's water rescue boats and hovercraft.

What's wrong with what he said? McIvor was talking about allowing volunteers with plowing equipment to help out during big storms. His point was that liabilty issues would make that impossible - and he's certainly correct on that point. People that have equipment and have insurance to cover themselves aren't going to be volunteering their time - especially when there are plenty of malls and shopping areas that are willing to pay them for their time.

McIvor also said that "city vehicles be made available" during a storm, and like Sir Appleby Said, that makes no sense either. Every vehicle that the city owns that's capable of being a help has already got a plow on it - unless you want to put plows on Fire trucks. He said nothing about putting plows on the patrol boats and aircraft. The city owns lots of light trucks that maybe could be helpful for light snow, but that's not the point. The point was to help out when there's lots of snow - and a half ton truck with a plow on the front simply isn't very helpful. The large sanding trucks with plows underneath weren't really even heavy enough for some of the snow we've had this winter.

[mersar]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

McIvor also said that "city vehicles be made available" during a storm, and like Sir Appleby Said, that makes no sense either. Every vehicle that the city owns that's capable of being a help has already got a plow on it - unless you want to put plows on Fire trucks. He said nothing about putting in plows on the patrol boats and aircraft. The city owns lots of light trucks that maybe could be helpful for light snow, but that's not the point. The point was to help out when there's lots of snow - and a half ton truck with a plow on the front simply isn't very helpful. The large sanding trucks with plows underneath weren't really even heavy enough for some of the snow we've had this winter.

Yep. The one example that they mentioned on the radio last night when they were discussing it was garbage trucks and buses (yeah, I can totally see the union letting CT install snow plows on the front of a bus </sarcasm>)

[Stang]

I honestly don't find "snow removal" to be a top priority. I could care less if my side street is covered in snow. It is winter, in Canada.

An area that could use some work would be how well the city prepares for and handles storms. There's an important distinction there, and it seems that many don't distinguish. I still believe that sometime mother nature hands us a real challenge and it is completely unrealistic to expect your commute times to remain the same in the middle of a freezing blizzard.

That being said, I think that there could be a bit more attention spent to preparing for storms. The city has said in the past that they prep the roads with a mixture prior to a snowfall, but there's something about that system that hasn't seemed to work on a few occasions this year. I don't see any harm in looking at ways to improve this. Of course, this isn't what Ric is on about. He's just appealing to those that have unrealistic expectations that their far-flung sidestreet will be plowed to the pavement within hours of a storm. Of course, everyone's tone will change when they realize that there will be a cost attached.

There's nothing wrong with looking at improving the way the city handles snow, however. But I don't want to be paying more taxes so that everyone's cul-de-sac is pristinely groomed.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by lubicon

Not just hitting vehicles, but other items as well - fire hydrants, curbs, speed bumps etc. Not that I'm against this idea but I don't see how they could get around the liability issues.

Who pays for this if a city vehicle hits them? That's right, the city.

Let the city pick up the tab as part of allowing private citizens to do it. I don't know why people have such a hard time with this.

Unless we're going to claim that city employees are such skilled experts and private citizens are such clods that suddenly fire hydrants all over the place are going to be taken out if we dare let private citizens on the roads...

Sorry folks, but a couple of dented cars is a fair price to pay for reducing serious accidents (and actually allowing people to get out of their homes - did you guys see the drifts on that one street in the NE? these people were trapped for a week!).

[lubicon]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Who pays for this if a city vehicle hits them? That's right, the city.

Let the city pick up the tab as part of allowing private citizens to do it. I don't know why people have such a hard time with this.

Unless we're going to claim that city employees are such skilled experts and private citizens are such clods that suddenly fire hydrants all over the place are going to be taken out if we dare let private citizens on the roads...

Sorry folks, but a couple of dented cars is a fair price to pay for reducing serious accidents (and actually allowing people to get out of their homes - did you guys see the drifts on that one street in the NE? these people were trapped for a week!).

All valid points Freeweed. I won't argue over any of them.

Interesting that yuo bring up the street in NE Calgary. I think I know the one that you mean. Yes it's a shame that these people were drifted in for such a long period of time, BUT come on, does no one on that street own a shovel? I know it would be a hell of a job but if everyone pitched in and got to work I'll bet they could have dug themselves out to the point that the street was somewhat accessible. That's one of the many problems in this country. We all sit around and wait for the government to 'do something' about every problem that comes along instead of taking the initiative ourselves. Sitting on your ass for a week waiting for the City to rescue you seems a little over the top to me.

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Who pays for this if a city vehicle hits them? That's right, the city.

Let the city pick up the tab as part of allowing private citizens to do it. I don't know why people have such a hard time with this.

Unless we're going to claim that city employees are such skilled experts and private citizens are such clods that suddenly fire hydrants all over the place are going to be taken out if we dare let private citizens on the roads...

Sorry folks, but a couple of dented cars is a fair price to pay for reducing serious accidents (and actually allowing people to get out of their homes - did you guys see the drifts on that one street in the NE? these people were trapped for a week!).

Valid points, but all it takes is one very serious incident (like hitting and killing a pedestrian) to cost the City (and hence tax payers) a lot of money. Yes, snow filled streets clogging traffic cost the economy a lot as well, but if the City were to come out and say they would cover the cost of all damage caused by these volunteers, it would be such a huge financial liability. What would prevent people from sticking a sheet of plywood on to the front of their station wagon to clear their block (extreme case)? If you made it so you didn't have to worry about the consequences, I think you would just be opening it up to disaster.

I think it would be great if we could utilize a volunteer force to help clear residential streets. You would just need to ensure that each person willing to volunteer had the proper equipment and training, and the insurance to cover any damages they may cause. But that is a very large expense to get yourself to that point, and those that have won't volunteer out their services.

[korzym]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

What's wrong with what he said? McIvor was talking about allowing volunteers with plowing equipment to help out during big storms. His point was that liabilty issues would make that impossible - and he's certainly correct on that point. People that have equipment and have insurance to cover themselves aren't going to be volunteering their time - especially when there are plenty of malls and shopping areas that are willing to pay them for their time.

McIvor also said that "city vehicles be made available" during a storm, and like Sir Appleby Said, that makes no sense either. Every vehicle that the city owns that's capable of being a help has already got a plow on it - unless you want to put plows on Fire trucks. He said nothing about putting plows on the patrol boats and aircraft. The city owns lots of light trucks that maybe could be helpful for light snow, but that's not the point. The point was to help out when there's lots of snow - and a half ton truck with a plow on the front simply isn't very helpful. The large sanding trucks with plows underneath weren't really even heavy enough for some of the snow we've had this winter.

Theres plenty of international trucks in the fleet that can be outfitted with blades and what not. If you want to put some on fire trucks...well firemen are known to have lots of down-time, so why not let them get to work. Plus as McIver pointed out, in these snow storms the equipment cant even get out because they are trapped or limited as well

[frinkprof]

Nevermind.