Comments on: titleless http://blog.rogersradiointernet.com/robmichaels/2008/07/04/111/ Sat, 22 Nov 2008 19:44:02 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=wordpress-mu-1.2.3-2.2.1 By: rob.michaels http://blog.rogersradiointernet.com/robmichaels/2008/07/04/111/#comment-65 rob.michaels Sun, 06 Jul 2008 01:07:24 +0000 http://blog.rogersradiointernet.com/robmichaels/2008/07/04/111/#comment-65 Hey frEEk, Thanks for the response to a very controversial topic. I agree with some points, however I heard that they couldn't open part of the bridge because of the noise hindering their ability to communicate with the suicidal jumper. I think the whole reason the minister of transportation said anything was because he was stuck in the closure. It's a lose lose situation here and it sucks for the delayed drivers and it sucks for the family who have to read about a large portion of upset long weekenders who have little patience to save a life. Thanks again for the comment and I encourage everyone to comment and let me know how you feel about the whole situation Hey frEEk,
Thanks for the response to a very controversial topic. I agree with some points, however I heard that they couldn’t open part of the bridge because of the noise hindering their ability to communicate with the suicidal jumper. I think the whole reason the minister of transportation said anything was because he was stuck in the closure. It’s a lose lose situation here and it sucks for the delayed drivers and it sucks for the family who have to read about a large portion of upset long weekenders who have little patience to save a life.
Thanks again for the comment and I encourage everyone to comment and let me know how you feel about the whole situation

]]> By: frEEk http://blog.rogersradiointernet.com/robmichaels/2008/07/04/111/#comment-64 frEEk Fri, 04 Jul 2008 21:54:05 +0000 http://blog.rogersradiointernet.com/robmichaels/2008/07/04/111/#comment-64 I know I'm setting myself for being labeled an asshole here, but I'm gonna have to (partly) disagree on the bridge incident. First of all, it's easy to say "whats the big deal" when you're not one of the people who spend an extra hour or more getting home (one of the many, many thousands of people). Even if it's just an extra hour, and just 2000 people are affected (lions gate runs 60-70,000 cars a day, and 2nd narrows is busier, so that's likely a conservative estimate) that is equal to 1 full year of work for a person. That doesnt consider the stress and inconvenience for each person (some may miss appointments etc). Secondly, is it necessary to shut down a whole bridge? why can't a lane or 2 be closed? Worst case, they can close down one whole side of the bridge and run bidirectional traffic on the other site (a la lions gate)? There are other obvious points but I won't go into them because while valid, they are a little heartless. Here's my core problem with situations like this, and of course we're very familiar with highway closures what with most readers living on the 99: closures seem to take much longer than necessary. I'm sure I don't have to remind anyone of the questions raised by council this past winter about frequent length 99 closures. I think we're in a situation of over-caution in the unquestionable and apparently infinite name of safety running rampant. Granted my point of view is an outside one, but it seems to me (and everyone i've discussed this with) that those in charge of emergency situations are completely disregarding any consideration due to the public _other_ than the individuals they are working hard to help. There is no reason emergency workers can't continue to provide excellent help to those who need it, while minimizing the impact on passers-by. *frEEk don's asbestos suit in preparation for the flames* I know I’m setting myself for being labeled an asshole here, but I’m gonna have to (partly) disagree on the bridge incident.

First of all, it’s easy to say “whats the big deal” when you’re not one of the people who spend an extra hour or more getting home (one of the many, many thousands of people). Even if it’s just an extra hour, and just 2000 people are affected (lions gate runs 60-70,000 cars a day, and 2nd narrows is busier, so that’s likely a conservative estimate) that is equal to 1 full year of work for a person. That doesnt consider the stress and inconvenience for each person (some may miss appointments etc).

Secondly, is it necessary to shut down a whole bridge? why can’t a lane or 2 be closed? Worst case, they can close down one whole side of the bridge and run bidirectional traffic on the other site (a la lions gate)?

There are other obvious points but I won’t go into them because while valid, they are a little heartless.

Here’s my core problem with situations like this, and of course we’re very familiar with highway closures what with most readers living on the 99: closures seem to take much longer than necessary. I’m sure I don’t have to remind anyone of the questions raised by council this past winter about frequent length 99 closures. I think we’re in a situation of over-caution in the unquestionable and apparently infinite name of safety running rampant. Granted my point of view is an outside one, but it seems to me (and everyone i’ve discussed this with) that those in charge of emergency situations are completely disregarding any consideration due to the public _other_ than the individuals they are working hard to help. There is no reason emergency workers can’t continue to provide excellent help to those who need it, while minimizing the impact on passers-by.

*frEEk don’s asbestos suit in preparation for the flames*

]]>