Between 2006 and 2023, seven people fell into Wellington Harbour and drowned; 17 more were rescued Every year since 2006, 253–421 people have died on NZ's roads The former gets hideous(ly expensive) fencing; the latter gets higher speeds, bigger vehicles, condemnation of the slightest safety infra
The Victorian Coroner is starting an inquest into the deaths of the people who were killed while dining outdoors at Daylesford. A key topic to be examined is the safety of outdoor dining. Not, you will notice, protecting people from errant motor vehicles. www.theage.com.au/national/vic...
We must always err on the side of caution and mitigate any risk, except, apparently, if it might do anything to inconvenience or impede motorists no matter how bad they are at driving
It's worse. The risk is never assigned to the movement of road vehicles. As here, it's always assigned to the activities in the vicinity of roads, which then carry the burden of mitigating the risk. I'll bet that it'll recommend fencing - paid for by dining establishment.
Joni Mitchell was clear about the paving and the parking lot but she neglected to mention the fences, which predominate in my experience
It's the only sensible idea that Mike Lee had in recent years - when the Ports wanted to put a fence around Queens Wharf edge bc, people, he told them NO. The only people who have fallen in have been drunk - like about two in past ten years.
...I'm not sure these are numbers that can be compared like-for-like? What's the cost per life saved?
Both are an activity the vast majority of people do without dying. But per capita, a Wellingtonian is *much* more likely to die on the roads than falling into the harbour. I think that's a fair enough comparison, yet we're fencing the waterfront while road safety infra gets vitriolic rants
Per-capita still isn't the right comparison though? We're comparing a small problem with a small cost of improvement, with a large problem with a large cost of improvement. What's the cost per life saved? NZTA theoretically sets its VSL at 12.5million; this would fall well within that.
Clearly road safety is much more important and should have much more spent on them, but I don't think the case that this is a *bad* investment has been made, only that it's not too important one way or the other.
I suppose I should have asked you to clarify because I was a bit uncertain and plowed on anyway. My point is more that in many settings we are increasingly risk-averse and will invest to mitigate even remote dangers—but anything that might impede or inconvenience drivers? forget it
I'd also suggest $7m is unwelcome right now given the state of council finances, even if normally that's not terribly large expenditure. Some of the 7 might have drowned anyway, as a fence won't stop a drunk determined to have a dip (see: the drunk and high guy who dived off a crane)
I don't disagree with any of that.
As a person who professionally works on the water, i'm all in favour of fencing to keep people from accidentally falling in. The other nonsense is complete nonsense and Aotearoa deserves better (fuck you Winston Peters)
StreetView touring, hmmmm of the before images. Not enough life-rings actually none spotted in sight.
I'd have sworn up and down that I recall life-rings along the Welly waterfront but maybe my memory is deceiving me...
StreetView I could get was from The Before Times (2019), things may have changed.
Oh that's what I mean, I'd swear that as a kid and young adult there were such things. But I could be very wrong, thinking of another waterfront!