Replies

O.K. I’ll continue to engage in this discussion by returning the ball to the field if for no other reason than to demonstrate my “reasonable” demeanor. However, in your statements cost and effort are the primary arguments you use over providing for increased levels of safety for the participants. If cost, safety and effort are not to be adequately addressed stringing Caution Tape would have sufficed in place of a motorcycle related to the subsequent cost of replacement as it was destroyed and posed a hazard to the public when hit. Tape would have been just as effective wouldn’t you agree? So much for cost, effort, ease of deployment and visibility. Sidewalks could be as easily marked for an equally effective barrier as well as a guide to accessibility of the event by the public. Yes?

I’ll address each of the issues you raised in your last post individually and as presented. I’m not asking you to accept my answers, only consider them and discard what you deem insufficient.

1. too much effort is needed to procure, maintain, install, and remove these barricades.
I eliminated K-Rail for the sake of argument in my last post, so again let us not reference the costs and deployment of an unwieldy and expensive solution. Standard barricades made of metal, wood, plastic and other materials and equipped with high visibility lighting as well as reflective surfaces for use at night, of sufficient height and width to attract the attention of errant drivers are readily available at low cost. They may be deployed in minutes and staged wherever desired for quick and effective placement prior to the event. Placement would be recommended away from the location of the event, staffed by an officer who would provide a reasonable warning regarding penetration of the barriers.

2. The disruption to the downtown loop would be too much. Businesses and the community would complain.
The event itself is a disruption. In effect they closed the street, inadequately, to traffic in order to allow it to take place.

3. This would result in fewer events
Providing for the relative safety of the participants warrants the expense. That is an issue for those who issue the permit for the event. We could have more events and make them impromptu occasions to frolic in the traffic-way if that is the desire. But consider the true costs resulting from the ramifications of an incident occurring without deploying even a modicum of barriers in excess of a placed motorcycle. The frequency of opportunities to have fun isn’t the issue is it?

4. The barricades could be too easily defeated
Agreed unless a permanent or semi-permanent barrier is used. Even so, these serve as inadequate defense against the issues you cite being intentional. The unmanned or manned motorcycle is evidence of a poor effort. A stand-off deployment would have placed the barrier further away from the center of the event affording a warning of danger when penetrated. This may or may not alert the driver when struck provided the alert methodology of the barriers mentioned above did not serve to do so. An intermediary placement of lighter, more quickly deploy-able barricades meant to serve as a second alert are usually added closure to the event. Admittedly, there is no ultimate unfailing defensive act that will serve as a guarantee. Additionally control of pedestrian traffic is effected to keep roadways clear as that is the obvious route an errant driver will follow. There is no ultimate solution to preclude people from doing as they wish, including placing their lives in danger.

5. The accidental person can also avoid the barricades, driving around them. That’s what drunk people do.
The “accidental” person will not intentionally drive around barricades. Driving around barricades is an intentional act and if a manned barrier is present that affords an opportunity for intervention against intentional acts. You are basing that opinion upon a poorly deployed barrier. I have experience in this area as indicated previously. Barrier placement, properly done, leaves no area open allowing a driver to intentionally avoid them. Intentionally drive through them, yes. But now you would be addressing deliberate wrong doing. Not a point being addressed here. Roadways and sidewalks are covered by that deployment and usually a MINIMUM of half a block away, usually located a block away. The addition of uniformed personnel at the site, paying attention to performance of the job assignment while avoiding distraction, serves as an additional deterrent. Not a guarantee.

6. It’s one thing to ask for reasoned preventative measures, but it’s another to ask for top level high maintenance systems that are too much buck (and effort) for the bang.
My suggestions are a result of reasoning based upon prior experience and were offered for consideration. The systems available are not cost exclusionary to the degree that responsibility for providing an effort toward public safety are to be ignored. Once again I state K-Rail has been excluded in the event you again raise that issue. Maintenance of the barriers in house is minimal and they are rented for use. In the case of publicly supported road departments they are owned and used as needed. In this specific instance the lack of expenditures for providing for more effective methods directed toward safety may result, depending upon the abilities of Solicitors and the victims willingness to bring litigation before the courts, and prove to expose the agencies authorizing the event to a cost higher than the costs of making the efforts. The tax payers would undoubtedly pay as a result not to mention suits initiated for deaths and dismemberment against the insurance companies involved as well as including the costs attributed to the economy through the loss of production. Bear in mind many suits are settled out of court and the public is never aware of those losses of tax dollars. The plaintiffs have better standing in the argument if better efforts are made, but losses will occur although again the results may not come into public view.

7. These WOULD NOT wind up preventing the public from being exposed to danger. If not, then why bother?
The first sentence is true. Danger cannot be eliminated and I offered no statement to the effect it would be. All prophylactic measures must be expected to fail to eliminate the reasons they are deployed. Safety protocols are instituted to lesson the likelihood of the dangers inherent in the activity engaged in from becoming a failure event. Not to guarantee against failure. As to the second sentence of your response as to “Why bother?” To mitigate against failure resulting in death or great bodily harm and property damage. Additionally those who are within the zone delineated are alerted to the possibility a threat may come from the area of the barriers and stand clear of those avenues from which the threat may come. Some will assume, falsely, that a barricade provides protection. That is the duty of the officers and event staff to mitigate against by informing persons in vulnerable areas to address.

“I would suggest people line up on the parade route in places other than intersections. I would also suggest it might be a good idea to position in front of a business with a recessed front facade. That way you could huddle back in there and avoid being struck by a car going by.”
Go ahead. Those are personal decisions based upon results of your evaluations of the circumstances applicable to addressing your personal safety. That does not address crowd or traffic control or preparations needed to address those broader issues.

“I’m not sure why you felt you had to part by insulting my attempt to explain my position as clearly as you did yours, but that was your choice to make”
My response was not intended as insult. I merely stated what observations I had made by reading your responses toward the issue at hand. At every turn it appeared you were going to raise the bar far beyond that which was truly being discussed. That issue being reasonable efforts toward reasonable threats presented to afford an expectation of control over traffic and pedestrians when closure of a roadway is to be achieved, regardless of the event type. Again K-Rail was excluded. Again I state that regardless of what measures are taken defeat of those measures whether by accident or intent cannot be expected to be guaranteed. But efforts and expense mitigate against them occurring. Ultimately agency protocols will necessarily need to be addressed through a cost/benefit analysis even before the dust of litigation settles and my responses are directed toward those issues as well as the inadequacy of the measures taken at this event such as they are known at this time.

I have addressed each issue you have raised. By doing so I have attempted to address them as if we were discussing this while having the benefit of consuming the drink of our choice in a relaxed as well as comfortable location. Further, no response I have offered should be interpreted as being offered to insult your intelligence or otherwise belittle you or the validity of the issues you bring to the discussion.

What I have offered in response is based upon acquired knowledge and experience, as previously mentioned. If you have other questions to pose, present them. But be advised, if you desire to cover ground already covered or wish to find fault in my explanations, remember my remarks are opinion based on that acquisition of knowledge and experience in the field. A dislike of my responses is not a justification for the continued consumption of bandwidth. We could always take this private if you wish.

Be well.