05-02-2020, 12:17 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-02-2020, 12:20 PM by danbrotherston.)
(05-02-2020, 11:49 AM)jeffster Wrote: I'm going to go out on a limb here and say this: I don't believe that this fence was built to be anti-pedestrian. I am sure that there was a good reason for it, whether or not it was right reason, that's a different discussion.
I still believe it was built to avoid the potential for pedestrians (namely, young children) from being injured. Whether that is the reason, I don't know.
My second guess is that city property has to be fenced off from business/residential/industrial/etc in general. I can't think of any city properties that are attached to other properties without fencing.
You honestly believe this was built for the benefit of pedestrians using the infrastructure? I have never said it was built TO be anti-pedestrian, but it absolutely *IS* anti-pedestrian, and was built IN SPITE of being anti-pedestrian, because pedestrian convenience and safety is not a priority in our society. But if you honestly believe it is supposed to benefit pedestrians than we are far far far away from an agreement here.
You can't think of any city properties attached to other properties without fencing? How about every single road and sidewalk in the city? Why isn't every sidewalk fenced in? Being next to a road is vastly more dangerous for pedestrians especially young children than a parking lot.