Posts: 1,693
Threads: 3
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
126
I am not missing the point. I actually addressed one of your points. You said "there is no legitimate reason whatsoever". I provided you with just one legitimate reason and I am confident there are many more reasons. If you don't like the rules and laws of engagement then advocate for change through the proper channels but don't arbitrarily say that the people are bad at their jobs. I suspect they followed the rules, and built this to conform with the rules to protect the public and the organization they work for. That means they actually did a good job.
Posts: 7,563
Threads: 36
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
196
Posts: 7,563
Threads: 36
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
196
(04-30-2020, 12:54 PM)Rainrider22 Wrote: I am not missing the point. I actually addressed one of your points. You said "there is no legitimate reason whatsoever". I provided you with just one legitimate reason and I am confident there are many more reasons. If you don't like the rules and laws of engagement then advocate for change through the proper channels but don't arbitrarily say that the people are bad at their jobs. I suspect they followed the rules, and built this to conform with the rules to protect the public and the organization they work for. That means they actually did a good job.
No, those are excuses. Reasons would be things like, the pedestrians actually want to go this way, and the fences protect private property of some kind.
Neither of those are true. I don't consider fear of litigation or other excuses as actual reasons why the world should be bad, those are just systems that we invented to govern ourselves descending into dysfunction.
The rules are open to interpretation, there is no law which says there must be a fence there, there might be a policy, there might have been a request, it would be the job of the people building it to push back against those things which make it worse. We do this reliably with roads....we rarely ever do it for pedestrians.
Posts: 1,693
Threads: 3
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
126
You are wrong. There are Rules and Regulations set out to follow for a reason. Most rules were not created out of something good. They were created out of necessity because something bad happened. Mitigating risk to others is never a bad thing even if it means you have to walk to the end of a pathway to get to where you want to go.
Posts: 2,002
Threads: 7
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
124
There are other examples of walkways adjacent to commercial properties that aren't fenced off, but there are also lots, probably the majority, of examples where they are fenced off. I agree with Dan that this is actually a fairly significant safety issue as it can prevent escape for a potential victim. In comparison, it's hard for me to believe that the risk to adjacent businesses is more than marginally higher. It's the sort of thing that would have been brought up immediately with public consultation.
Posts: 1,693
Threads: 3
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
126
It is fine to disagree when you are not the owner of the property who must do their due diligence. Dan is wrong to say the employees who planned this project are bad at their jobs. I was actually looking at this crossing in person just last week and I thought, wow, they did a great job. I am sure many people will see it as a good job as well.
Posts: 1,693
Threads: 3
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
126
(04-30-2020, 12:55 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: I think this is on point.
https://www.kitchenertoday.com/police-be...un-2294760 How so... ? By your statements above with respect to rules and subject to interpretation , pedestrians should just cross a street anywhere they want..
Posts: 7,563
Threads: 36
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
196
(04-30-2020, 01:35 PM)Rainrider22 Wrote: (04-30-2020, 12:55 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: I think this is on point.
https://www.kitchenertoday.com/police-be...un-2294760 How so... ? By your statements above with respect to rules and subject to interpretation , pedestrians should just cross a street anywhere they want..
So if you're not interested in a conversation, we don't have to discuss it.
This is a driver who hit a pedestrian and then drove off, why are you defending them.
Posts: 7,563
Threads: 36
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
196
(04-30-2020, 01:31 PM)Rainrider22 Wrote: It is fine to disagree when you are not the owner of the property who must do their due diligence. Dan is wrong to say the employees who planned this project are bad at their jobs. I was actually looking at this crossing in person just last week and I thought, wow, they did a great job. I am sure many people will see it as a good job as well.
There are numerous examples of why this is poorly done, the temporary wooden structure is anti-pedestrian, the connection between the crossing and the sidewalk is poorly aligned, the use of accessibility plates makes no sense, and the fence is something that should never have happened.
None of this means it isn't a crossing, but I'm not impressed.
I am utterly sick and tired of excuses for why our region is anti-pedestrian.
Posts: 7,563
Threads: 36
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
196
(04-30-2020, 01:03 PM)Rainrider22 Wrote: You are wrong. There are Rules and Regulations set out to follow for a reason. Most rules were not created out of something good. They were created out of necessity because something bad happened. Mitigating risk to others is never a bad thing even if it means you have to walk to the end of a pathway to get to where you want to go.
These rules exist to mitigate risk to business, nothing matters more in our society, with the possible exception of free access by cars.
And again, if these rules are to protect against something bad happening, they aren't functioning well and they shoudl have been worked around.
Posts: 1,693
Threads: 3
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
126
Please provide me where I stated I defend them ? You are blinded by your own personal bias. You often state people on this board dont know how to comprehend. You failed to comprehend what I stated. Time for self reflection and some emotional intelligence.
Posts: 1,303
Threads: 22
Joined: Apr 2016
Reputation:
99
I don't see why it is safer for pedestrians to walk across a parking lot from the front than walking the shorter distance across the parking lot from the side. It shows how little respect pedestrians have in this society when they are forced to walk across a parking lot to get to a business they wish to patronize. Retail businesses should be built right up to the sidewalk and parking lots should be located behind the buildings, but pedestrians are second class citizens so they do not build them that way.
Posts: 7,563
Threads: 36
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
196
(04-30-2020, 01:43 PM)Rainrider22 Wrote: Please provide me where I stated I defend them ? You are blinded by your own personal bias. You often state people on this board dont know how to comprehend. You failed to comprehend what I stated. Time for self reflection and some emotional intelligence.
Back up on that high horse again.
I'm pointing out that we have yet another example of a driver running down a pedestrian in this area, and you're like "meh, not relevant", when it is in fact, the whole point, so yeah, continue to point fingers at me, maybe I was wrong to say you were defending them, but you are defending the status quo situation which creates harms like this.
I've crossed that intersection a dozen times, I can see me being run over, and it makes me so angry. It's literally one of the worst places to be a pedestrian in the city, yet has a transit station...
Posts: 1,693
Threads: 3
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
126
(04-30-2020, 01:52 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: (04-30-2020, 01:43 PM)Rainrider22 Wrote: Please provide me where I stated I defend them ? You are blinded by your own personal bias. You often state people on this board dont know how to comprehend. You failed to comprehend what I stated. Time for self reflection and some emotional intelligence.
Back up on that high horse again.
I'm pointing out that we have yet another example of a driver running down a pedestrian in this area, and you're like "meh, not relevant", when it is in fact, the whole point, so yeah, continue to point fingers at me, maybe I was wrong to say you were defending them, but you are defending the status quo situation which creates harms like this.
I've crossed that intersection a dozen times, I can see me being run over, and it makes me so angry. It's literally one of the worst places to be a pedestrian in the city, yet has a transit station... First of all, I dont say "Meh", I am not 14 years old. You were saying above that is was ridiculous to have a fenced off walkway to keep pedestrian's safe from the vehicles in the parking lot. I am trying to understand why you are against a safety measure even if it is slightly inconvenient. Then you try to use an example of a pedestrian walking in a crosswalk who is struck by a vehicle as a "point" to a conversation about a private parking lot. You draw a conclusion that I have no compassion or sense of empathy for that unfortunate situation ? Then you need to add a comment about being on a high horse ? My comment about "Time for self reflection and some emotional intelligence" was a statement for me. Like, time for me to go have a drink.
Posts: 7,563
Threads: 36
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
196
(04-30-2020, 02:16 PM)Rainrider22 Wrote: (04-30-2020, 01:52 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Back up on that high horse again.
I'm pointing out that we have yet another example of a driver running down a pedestrian in this area, and you're like "meh, not relevant", when it is in fact, the whole point, so yeah, continue to point fingers at me, maybe I was wrong to say you were defending them, but you are defending the status quo situation which creates harms like this.
I've crossed that intersection a dozen times, I can see me being run over, and it makes me so angry. It's literally one of the worst places to be a pedestrian in the city, yet has a transit station... First of all, I dont say "Meh", I am not 14 years old. You were saying above that is was ridiculous to have a fenced off walkway to keep pedestrian's safe from the vehicles in the parking lot. I am trying to understand why you are against a safety measure even if it is slightly inconvenient. Then you try to use an example of a pedestrian walking in a crosswalk who is struck by a vehicle as a "point" to a conversation about a private parking lot. You draw a conclusion that I have no compassion or sense of empathy for that unfortunate situation ? Then you need to add a comment about being on a high horse ? My comment about "Time for self reflection and some emotional intelligence" was a statement for me. Like, time for me to go have a drink.
It is not a safety measure. No person is protected by this from any harm. Businesses are protected from risk. You'll notice there are parking spaces directly along the fence, those spaces will be filled with cars...cars which have occupants....who will then walk to the business.
Forcing someone to walk further through the parking lot does not make them safer. Nor will the fence stop an out of control car (although it could prevent someone from escaping an out of control person in or out of a car). So if we could stop pretending this is for anything other than protecting business from change, that'd be great.
" My comment about "Time for self reflection and some emotional intelligence" was a statement for me." -- hey fair enough, but that sentence has no subject, and the previous three sentences had an explicit "you" as a the subject, so you'll have to forgive me for missinterpting.
|
