> it's important to recognize times when you had a near-miss, and still fix those root causes as well.

I mentioned this principal to the traffic engineer when someone almost crashed into me because of a large sign that blocked their view. The engineer looked into it and said the sight lines were within spec, but just barely, so they weren't going to do anything about it. Technically the person who almost hit me could have pulled up to where they had a good view, and looked both ways as they were supposed to, but that is relying on one layer of the cheese to fix a hole in another, to use your analogy.

▲

kennethrc 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Likewise with decorative hedges and other gardenwork; your post brought to mind this one hotel I stay regularly where a hedge is high enough and close enough to the exit that you have to nearly pull into the street to see if there's oncoming cars. I've mentioned to the FD that it's gonna get someone hurt one day, yet they've done nothing about it for years now.

▲

avidiax 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Send certified letters to the owner of the hedge and whatever government agency would enforce rules about road visibility. That puts them "on notice" legally, so that they can be held accountable for not enforcing their rules or taking precautions.

▲

crote 8 hours ago | parent [-]

The problem is that they are legally doing nothing wrong. Everything is done according to the rules, so they can't be held accountable for not following them. After all, they are taking all reasonable precautions, what more could be expected of them?

The fact that the situation on the ground isn't safe in practice is irrelevant to the law. Legally the hedge is doing everything, so the blame falls on the driver. At best a "tragic accident" will result in a "recommendation" to whatever board is responsible for the rules to review them.

▲

mrandish 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

@Bombcar is correct. Once they've been legally notified of the potential issue, they have increased exposure to civil liability. Their lawyers and insurance company will strongly encourage them to just fix it (assuming it's not a huge cost to trim back the stupid hedge). A registered letter can create enough impetus to overcome organizational inertia. I've seen it happen.

▲

bombcar 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

All that applies for criminal cases, but if a civil lawsuit is started and evidence is presented to the jury that the parties being sued had been warned repeatedly that it would eventually occur, it can be quite spicy.

Which is why if you want to be a bastard, you send it to the owners, the city, and both their insurance agencies.

▲

ahmeneeroe-v2 6 hours ago | parent [-]

This is stupid. Unless you happen to be the one that crashes it won't be a factor at all.

	▲	thaumasiotes 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Well, it could be; you can watch out for accidents at that intersection and offer to support a case arising from one. If your goal is to get the intersection fixed, this is a reasonable thing to do.
	▲	bombcar 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Discovery’s a bitch which is why they settle.

▲

Mawr 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

To be fair, there is no way to fix this in the general case—large vehicles and other objects may obstruct your view also. Therefore, you have to learn to be cognisant of line-of-sight blockers and to deal with them anyway. So for a not-terrible driver, the only problem that this presents is that they have to slow down. Not ideal, but not a safety issue per se.

That we allow terrible drivers to drive is another matter...

	▲	lmm an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> there is no way to fix this in the general case—large vehicles and other objects may obstruct your view also Vehicles are generally temporary. It is actually possible to ensure decent visibility at almost all junctions, as I found when I moved to my current country - it just takes a certain level of effort.

▲

loeg 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

People love to rag on Software Engineers for not being "real" engineers, whatever that means, but American "Traffic Engineers" are by far the bigger joke of a profession. No interest in defense in depth, safety, or tradeoffs. Only "maximize vehicular traffic flow speed."

▲

windows_hater_7 4 hours ago | parent [-]

In this case, being a "traffic engineer" with the ability to sign engineering plans means graduating from an ABET-accredited engineering program, passing both the Fundamentals of Engineering exam and the Principles & Practice of Engineering exam, being licensed as a professional engineer, and passing the Professional Traffic Operations Engineer exam. I think they do a little more than "maximize vehicular traffic flow."

	▲	loeg 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> I think they do a little more than "maximize vehicular traffic flow." You would be mistaken. Traffic engineers are responsible for far, far more deaths than software engineers.