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.