Dear Editor,
How come that the failure of a temporary structure is blamed on persons using the said structure for its given purpose? How come that the collapse of a bridge from wear and tear brought about by expected normal use is blamed on the users rather that those who neglect to perform maintenance?
A bridge providing access to a community has to be built and maintained to serve the reasonable and necessary needs of the community. And yes, this would include the use by trucks carrying sand, stone, earth and other materials used in construction. How can this usage of a bridge giving access to a community not be acceptable? How can a bridge be constructed to access a community not be constructed with such use in mind? How can a wooden bridge providing access to a large developing community be anything other than temporary?
Does the access bridge at Good Hope, ECD, have to collapse completely before someone turns up to lay blame on the sand trucks? Are persons supposed to fetch the sand with a wheelbarrow from the railway line road for a fraction of a mile into the village to be able to use it to develop and improve their lives, and thus the community and ultimately the country? Maybe this was what was expected of the residents of Providence before the access bridge collapsed.
Are the responsible authorities so far removed from the on-the-ground reality that they have not noticed the deterioration and the impending collapse of the bridge? Is this how civil works-related services to the populace are being conducted?
Let us know what is expected of us (the general public). If we have to carry sand and stone by wheelbarrow over a fifth of a mile to use on our homes, then let us know this. And let there be no exception − such is the nature of just dealings and justice. If not, then please build us a good, strong, permanent bridge at Good Hope.
Yours faithfully,
Ravindra Saul
