27 replies to this topic

[Mike K.]

And I made no objection to that.

They are not however free to engage in ad hominem attacks or false characterizations of those who disagree with them.

Despite this being - as Ianforod says - the internet, if we are going to promote "high level discussions" I feel justified in asking that we actually talk about the issue rather than mocking and denigrating those whose opinions and experiences differ.

No no I get that, but when someone is referred to as a bully or that they are engaging in harassment then that is equally polarizing.

After 100 years or whatever the breakwater was suddenly deemed unsafe. And this is very much a product of our litigious and overly fearful society. We're so scared of ourselves we need to create safety buffers everywhere. Except where they're actually needed, of course.

For the record I like the railings. They make the breakwater an attraction as g-man said and that's a great thing. But having said that the breakwater as it was had a lot if sentimental value to a lot of Victorians and when that enters the equation emotion floods in.

[http]

Yes I guess you did.

 

The sarcastic, mocking posts repeatedly saying there was no danger and implying that anyone who felt nervous or uncomfortable on the old breakwater should just STFU are simply bullying. I can take a little harmless needling and lighthearted jabs but enough is enough.  There is no need to keep going on about it unless the intent is to torment and harass.

 

For those dealing with acrophobia, of course, or any number of common ailments that make losing balance more likely, the old setup was unsuitable.

 

Exactly zero of the posts in this thread suggest there was no danger, and some have pointed out that there were reasons to be nervous about it.  Some have pointed out that while the hazards might be real, the actual numbers (and perception of the actual numbers)) suggest the level of concern required is minimal.  Is taking an actuarial view somehow offensive?

 

While some attempts at humour have fallen short of the mark, I can't find any post saying that those uncomfortable about the previous setup should keep their opinions to themselves or act in a certain way.  I would like to not participate in bullying myself, and I thought I was pretty good at recognizing it.  Please, tell me what I have missed, because I can't see any bullying and I'm looking for it.

[Holden West]

Some have pointed out that while the hazards might be real, the actual numbers (and perception of the actual numbers)) suggest the level of concern required is minimal.  Is taking an actuarial view somehow offensive?

That's what I was getting at. A lot of expense for a very small actual danger for most people. As a society we've essentially vetoed the idea of defibrillators on every streetcorner and lifeguards at every beach and that's no insult to poor swimmers or people with weak hearts. For the record I'm in favour of the railings as it appears more people are enjoying the breakwater and that's important.

 

While some attempts at humour have fallen short of the mark

 

 

Whoa, whoa. Hey, now.

[James Bay walker]

After 100 years or whatever the breakwater was suddenly deemed unsafe. And this is very much a product of our litigious and overly fearful society. We're so scared of ourselves we need to create safety buffers everywhere. Except where they're actually needed, of course.
 

 

I had the impression it was mostly a workers' safety issue that decided matters and the public liability aspect was secondary.  Construction safety standards seem to have gone up a notch lately and so I think someone belatedly realized that the concrete walkway with zero railings protecting careless or inattentive workers falling to their death or injury represents a respectable hazard.

 

Not mentioned in this topic were actual assaults involving people being pushed off the breakwater (which I'd read about decades ago, but as I'm not readily finding reference to those through Google perhaps they're a figment of my imagination, or that pre-1992 stuff is just not always so easily findable).

 

jbw

[Mike K.]

Who are the workers though, and how often do workers actually need to get out there?

 

Judging by what's happened at the breakwater I will assume that the lower causeway will be upgraded to include new railings as well. Those little chains currently in place must present an equally concerning hazard.

[Bingo]

Good grief!  If you didn't feel safe walking the breakwater prior to the railings being installed,

and you still don't feel safe on the breakwater with the railings, then don't go there.

 

I didn't see any evidence of bullying on this thread, but I did see some light-hearted humour.

I welcome some of that humour when the conversation gets a bit tedious, and I thank the members who know how to apply that.

 

As for the end of the breakwater, I think the Harbour Authority could install a diving board there, as an added attraction.

[Jason-L]

I thought it was pretty much established that the railings were required after an insurance audit highlighted the potential liability if they weren't in place on the walkway.

[Mike K.]

That's right, I forgot. Add insurance-crazed to my previous list of modern day plights.