7 ms·
Or the footpath is so little used that extra safety provided by the clear zone is greater than the extra safety to pedestrians from having the barrier next to t
by EnigmaFlare 2y ago
Or the footpath is so little used that extra safety provided by the clear zone is greater than the extra safety to pedestrians from having the barrier next to the road.
Safety is often about statistics rather than being 100% perfect. I used to work in a sawmill where occasionally logs would fly off the machines and crash through walkways. The solution was requiring workers using the walkways to never loiter there so the odds of having a person there at the time a log hit it were reduced.
By the way, it's funny you said "inside" and the article said "outside". Thinking as a pedestrian, I considered "inside" means next to the bushes like how you used it. But if you're thinking in terms of the road/cars, that would be the outside.
- sandworm101 2y ago>> workers using the walkways to never loiter there so the odds of having a person there at the time a log hit it were reduced. Also the #1 safety factor when in avalanche country. When a threat is deadly, inevitable and unstoppable, speed becomes your best safety device. You don't loiter when crossing a gully on skis, nor do you stop to admire the view when driving though certain mountain valleys.
- Mawr 2y ago1. Make something unsafe 2. (nobody uses it, recognizing the lack of safety) 3. Argue against making it safer because nobody uses it
- EnigmaFlare 2y agoDo you really think low-foot-traffic footpaths are that way because people recognize it's not safe? What are they doing instead? Walking around the block?