04-09-2015, 10:27 AM
(This post was last modified: 04-09-2015, 10:30 AM by BuildingScout.)
Lastly, to round up the subject, organizations such as the rail safety association do not have a mandate to balance competing interests. For example, insurance company/tax auditors give the most conservative of recommendations since they have no interest in the counterbalancing arguments. I've seen first hand such reports. Often weak minded managers follow them to the letter without questioning the reasons. For example, I remember when I was a student a tax person advising the university that one could not treat another person for lunch while paying with the UW Card. Management following blindly only to reverse itself within a year when Revenue Canada said this was nonsense.
The same is the case here. Said rail safety association has no incentive to balance accessibility, view, and aesthetics. I can see the need for a fence. A six foot high one is just a safety committee running wild. Did they recommend it be electrified by any chance?
The same is the case here. Said rail safety association has no incentive to balance accessibility, view, and aesthetics. I can see the need for a fence. A six foot high one is just a safety committee running wild. Did they recommend it be electrified by any chance?