Printable View
Well we habe both, big ones for the steets, small one for the side walks. Usually the snow is plowed in a way that you end up with all the snow between the street and the sidewalk.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Like these?Quote:
Originally Posted by ']['ear
http://media.ostsee-zeitung.de/image...26fd52c9e1.jpg
We have them to clean the side walks and streets.
Amateurs? Snow shovelling? Geeze, you seem to think that it takes a whole lot of training to shovel snow since you make it sound like rocket science.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I just read a book where "Well, I'll give him a shovel. And I think I'll need to show him how to use it!" was used as an insult...
I fail to see how #2 is more dangerous than #1. That one you'll have to run by us again since it defies logic. You may want to look at what happens if youQuote:
1: It's only cleared by those who choose to clear it.
2: It's cleared badly by everyone
3: It's cleared well by a professional.
#2, which I'm vehemently objecting to, is the worst of both worlds. It doesn't enable the elderly to walk about, it will still be dangerous, it could even be worse. Yet it causes a lot of harm, with no tangible benefit. If amateurs clear the path leaving a lot of black ice behing the only people who'll be able to safely walk on the path are those that could safe walk on ice in the first place!
a) don't clear snow of the ground (hint: ice)
b) don't clear snow off ice (hint: even more ice)
Of course, your mythical patch of black ice comes about if people don't clear the snow in the first place.
And I'd like to introduce you to the words: Sand. Salt. Chippings.
Uh, no, that was not the reason. You completely misunderstood why people were allowed to sue - which is another WTF in itself (only in America, folks!)Quote:
As mentioned up-thread, this was started because people who genuinely wanted to do it voluntarily were doing it badly, so it was dangerous and people could sue.
If I shovel snow I'd shovel it to the point where I thought it was safe me to walk on, which is not necessarily the same as what somebody else would think. I would not remove 100% of it necessarily. When it snowed recently here I walked on a few pavements outside shops etc where it had been plowed/shovelled to various extents, some more treacherous than others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Since the first page its been there that people could sue in the US if you shovel because it still was unsafe, but if you're now disputing that I'd like you to proceed ... but I wonder why you've waited until Page 7 to do so.
Certainly anyone doing it manually would not do it the same as EarthJoker and Tear above referring to it being "spotless".
2 is more dangerous than 1 because the act of doing 2 is in itself dangerous.Quote:
I fail to see how #2 is more dangerous than #1. That one you'll have to run by us again since it defies logic. You may want to look at what happens if you
a) don't clear snow of the ground (hint: ice)
b) don't clear snow off ice (hint: even more ice)
Of course, your mythical patch of black ice comes about if people don't clear the snow in the first place.
And I'd like to introduce you to the words: Sand. Salt. Chippings.
Secondly where snow is visible people know its there and take adequate precautions, where it looks clear but isn't is where its the most treacherous.
OK what was the reason?Quote:
Uh, no, that was not the reason. You completely misunderstood why people were allowed to sue - which is another WTF in itself (only in America, folks!)
From the first page:Quote:
Originally Posted by ']['ear
I don't know how much snow you get where you live, but if I had to clean the side walks in front of our house it would take me at least half an hour, for a task that the blow machine makes in a minute.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Come on, Germany is not that backwards as you make it sound, do you also chop your trees with an axe? Cut your grass with a sickle?
:haha:
I was arguing from the viewpoint that Rand's country needs to save money, y'know? I find it astounding that one can harp about cuts here and there, shoddy medical distrubution, higher costs for universities - but when it comes to snow, God forbid, the Government has to do something!Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
That's the part I find astonishing - the likes of Rand all gripe about taxes, spending and how much money is wasted - but when they themselves are required to get off their butts, no, that can't be! They'd rather have higher taxes!
And, it may sound strange to you, Joker, but we actually manage to get our sidewalks clean without government intervention. I don't see why we have to spend money on something that sits in a garage for most part of the year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
:haha:Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
It's a clear negative externality, no different to a power plant emitting pollution or someone building something on their property that reduces the value of surrounding properties. There has to be some mechanism to make the person compensate others, whether that's to have them pay for the cleanup or do the cleanup themselves. It's up to people in the town to decide which of the two they prefer (and if the person has to do the cleanup themselves, they can always hire someone else to do it for them).Quote:
Originally Posted by agamemnus
It is a bit of a gray line in that the city usually owns the sidewalk, but I don't think it's too unreasonable to claim the city owns something while the party that benefits most from the object takes care of it. After all, the alternative would be the city cleaning everything up and raising taxes to pay for it.
He didn't say that, he is just against the government forcing people to do something. That's quite a difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
To me this is a zero game. It doesn't matter if the government takes my time or my money in the end I could always work in my job for the same time and would be able to earn the same amount of money (time = money).Quote:
That's the part I find astonishing - the likes of Rand all gripe about taxes, spending and how much money is wasted - but when they themselves are required to get off their butts, no, that can't be! They'd rather have higher taxes!
I wrote several times that I heavily doubt that it would be more expensive. Because the government only has to be one or two of them. Also the same vehicle can be used to clean the streets in summer just with another tool attached on the front.Quote:
And, it may sound strange to you, Joker, but we actually manage to get our sidewalks clean without government intervention. I don't see why we have to spend money on something that sits in a garage for most part of the year.
In general we have to see that in high developed countries, labor is more expensive. At least in Switzerland you hardly will be able to find labor that could do the same work by hand that can be done by a simple plow machine. Of course in China the case is quite different.
So in other words, you want the weetle school-children and crazy wheelchair people who go out after a blizzard to shovel the sidewalk? There's not really any private benefit to having a sidewalk. (as opposed to just some grass, or dirt, or some trees rocks maybe)Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Rand, the reason we shovel to pavement is because walking on snow packs it down. Day temps and sun melt the top, which then turns to ice at night when temps drop. Then you see frozen footprints and have to walk around them. Same thing happens in roads after cars drive on snow, leaving icy tire tracks. That's why we spread salt and/or sand.
If it takes 30 mins to shovel your sidewalk, most folks will get a snow blower or pay others to do it for them. It's not wise to think an inch or two will melt, and do nothing. Melt and refreeze is a problem, and so is new snow on top of ice.
Yeah, Americans can try and sue for slip-'n-fall injuries....but that doesn't mean they always WIN. ;)
Really? No benefit to being able to walk in front of your house or to get into a car in front of it? And no negative externality from not letting people walk past your house without either going on the road or risk falling?Quote:
Originally Posted by agamemnus
Bingo. I'm quite happy with my status quo, nobody has to do anything. If something has to be done, I don't think we should conscript people. No hypocrisy there, I've never argued for cutting costs by conscripting people.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
NOW I will yell at you for being naive. The suits aren't meant to win, they are meant to harass to settle!Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
I do know that. :( Thank the insurance companies and lawyers for milking that, not townships for making ordinances.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
If more 'defendants' stuck it out to the end, wouldn't there be legal precedent to favor folks who try, within a reasonable standard to keep their sidewalks clean? Wouldn't that take away the ambulance chaser incentives that scare the crap out of people if they don't "settle"?
Right. And if something has to be done, it has to be done by the state which magically conjures people from the blue sky for free.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
We'll talk again when you're 80 and afraid to walk out of your home because the sidewalks are full of ice, okay?
I don't think RB objects to mostly free healthcare for frail 80-year-olds.
Driveway. Most ppl have it. If not, you might be right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
There is, but in many cases it is very small. And even if there is, an externality is not a private benefit, as we were discussing...Quote:
And no negative externality from not letting people walk past your house without either going on the road or risk falling?
Here is one other thing I noticed. There is also a physical (but not legal!) distinction between sidewalks with a grass buffer and sidewalks without one. You can throw snow onto the buffer, but if you don't have that buffer you have nowhere to put the snow.
aggie, you're thinking like a car instead of a pedestrian. Boston is full of homes without driveways that use street parking. Plenty of Bostonians without cars rely on walking, or walking to mass transit.
You also post about too-high Mass. taxes.....and IIRC your crappy inconsiderate neighbors.....what do you want when you can't have it all? :confused:
No, you're thinking of New York. Almost no one lives in the center of Boston. People here live in the suburbs.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
It's regrettable that a very small minority of people who need to use the sidewalks won't be able to, but you do not trample on the rights of others just because someone may want to use a sidewalk. It's all about basic freedom and constitutionality.
It's also about fairness. There is no way this law can be applied fairly.
* Some people have busy sidewalks near the center of town... some people have sidewalks near streets that are almost empty and safe to cross.
* Some can't afford it and/or can't shovel it.
* Some are on vacation.
* Some sidewalks haven't even been built by the city, but the spaces where they should be are still sitting right next to finished sidewalks. * Some sidewalks have nearby grass areas to shovel snow to, some don't.
* Some sidewalks are very narrow AND don't have adjoining grass - -no space to put the snow.
* Some streets have no place for anyone to shovel snow to except the sidewalks.
Right now, the Department of Public Works just goes after people who have been "reported" by others... "yeah, he's a Communist/Capitalist/Socialist/Terrorist, let's take him away."
Aren't there still poor urban areas, or slightly ex-urban areas in Boston? There are surely businesses, small mom 'n pop shops, alongside corporate offices. How do you expect people to walk around and conduct daily life, let alone commerce, if the sidewalks are a mess?
You say the law is about fairness, but can't be applied fairly. So what's your alternative proposal? If you gave one, I musta missed it.
Small stores can clear their own sidewalks. They have a private interest in doing so. There are not that many of them, anyway.Quote:
There are surely businesses, small mom 'n pop shops, alongside corporate offices. How do you expect people to walk around and conduct daily life, let alone commerce, if the sidewalks are a mess?
The law shouldn't about fairness. The law shouldn't exist because it violates freedom and constitutionality.
Despite this, if it does exist, it can't possibly be applied fairly or justly, and that is one more reason for it not to exist.
My proposal is to axe the law, and sell any important sidewalks to the abutter, allowing them to do whatever they want with it, with the provision that they have to be maintained as pedestrian walkway appropriately -- that means a 42 inch clearance out of 48 inches is out... 20 inches is more appropriate. Those who don't buy don't have to do anything.
Your proposal and provision seems to violate freeeedom, too. What does an "important" sidewalk even mean? You want to force folks who bought property decades ago, to fork out money to buy certain sidewalks? You say they can do "whatever they want", but add a provision? What the hell does appropriately even mean?
:p
Also, is Coolidge Corner considered Boston, or not?
You want tolls charged every few meters or perhaps blocks for pedestrians?Quote:
Originally Posted by agamemnus
No, you don't have to buy the sidewalk if you don't want to. The benefit would be more control of the sidewalk. Right now, any grass and trees on the sidewalk is usually controlled by the city, although you can landscape it slightly. (except to cut down trees, in most cities) You could have the ability to cut down trees and plant new ones yourself, or landscape the non-road parts of the sidewalk yourself, for example. Or put up a fence on the edge of the sidewalk that you wouldn't have had room for otherwise... etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
"Appropriately" means that there would be concrete rules, as I said-- for instance, you or your neighbor has to clear 20 inches instead of 42. And, instead of a daily and ever-increasing fine, perhaps the city will bill you MARKET RATE for snow removal if you don't do it yourself.
If it's in Brookline, then I'd say not.Quote:
Also, is Coolidge Corner considered Boston, or not?
No, I think you do!Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
:PQuote:
Originally Posted by Loki
When I'm 80 I wouldn't want to be compelled to clear the snow for others. Who said anything about it having to be done magically for free either?Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Aimless is right, I do agree with healthcare free at the point of use for 80 year olds.
Ah. Why 80? Why not 70? Or 65? What makes the number 80 so special?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I believe in free healthcare for them too.
How about 4 20-y-olds?
He's a socialist.