Municipal Malfeasance - John Dunn, Consultant, Ambertec, P.E., P.C.

I took this photograph not too long ago. We see a main east-west street of this neighborhood, looking to the east, where a broken irrigation sprinkler was sending a six-foot high arch of water right into the middle of the westbound lane.

Many drivers of westbound cars when coming to this water would swerve into the opposing eastbound lane, right into the path of oncoming eastbound traffic. I witnessed many near misses of head-on collisions. It is only by the grace of an unseen force that no such collisions actually took place, only the near misses.

 

Trying to report this was an excercise in pure frustration and futility. My calls to the police department and to the highway department were ignored. This water arch stayed as you see it here for several weeks. It was as if the attitudes of the municipal agencies were "The public be da.....ed.".

Finally, I got in touch with the local newspaper. They succeeded in identifying the owner of the property from which this water came and in getting in touch with that owner who happened to be away during that time, who then came back to turn this thing off.

My lingering question to myself is: Just how safe is it to live in this area? Why are public safety issues so easily ignored?

My further question to you is: How safe is it where you live?   

Comments

[Joel Koltner]

It's probably just as safe to live here as most anywhere else -- it's been some decades now since a cop would actually come out to personally interview you for, e.g., a petty theft case, right?

In general I don't think this is a major public safety issue -- lots of people have automated sprinkler systems, the nozzles certainly do fail once in awhile, and people certainly do routinely travel away from home. If anything, I'd say the safety issues are (1) training drivers to just drive through something like this, as it's safer overall that way than swerving into the opposite lane and (2) training neighbors that when they see something like this, it's OK to go over and stick a rock or chunk of a log or other "diverter" over the pipe so that the geyser just produces a bit of minor flooding rather than becoming a fountain into the street.

Indeed, that's what really surprises me here -- in several weeks, no one went and tried to fix the problem themselves? Is this because we think government is supposed to be doing all these things for us? Or are we too afraid of a lawsuit if we touch the guy's sprinkler?

[John Dunn]

Actually, Joel, someone did try to quell that water stream as you describe. There was some stuff put over the nozzle, but in a couple of days, it was gone. My guess is that sanitation did a pick-up.

The owners of the property turned out to be away during all that time with no knowledge of the broken nozzle.

What galls me is that municipal agencies who are entrusted with public safety responsibilities did nothing about the situation, but a local newspaper did.

This is by no means the only dereliction of public safety responsibilities I have taken note of in this area. I am at this very time engaged in bringing two other public safety issues to the attention of the proper authorities.

How successful I will be remains to be seen.

[tony stewart]

A "sense of Security" is a state of mind articulated by measurable symptoms based on awareness. It can range from a false sense of security to a rational statistical cost/benefit analysis. Its probability factors lend itself well to interpretation but test results are the proof.

Looks like municipal property to me within 10ft of the road and maybe someone drove over the sprinkler head.

Good catch though.

THe cost of insecurity is measured by accidents and crime stats, whereas the cost of security need only be the minimal cost to avoid the most common casual risk. It is impossible to have a zero % probability of risk.