Helm*ts and pedestrians

Two points to note in the story at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5002686.stm

1) another pedestrian killed on the pavement, where we are assured
cyclists kill large numbers of pedestrians but motorists don't kill
any

2) there was no call for pedestrian helmets by an organisation
funded by the taxpayer


The whole story is short, so as a service here it is in total

"Woman crushed to death under bus

"A woman has died after becoming trapped underneath a bus.

"She was hit by the double-decker when it mounted a pedestrian
island on Southampton Row in central London on Saturday evening.

"The bus had also ploughed into traffic lights before hitting the
27-year-old woman, who suffered multiple injuries and died at the
scene.

"The bus driver was treated for shock. Police are appealing for
witnesses to the accident."




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Mon, 22 May 2006 09:42:35 +0100, David Hansen wrote:


"The bus driver was treated for shock. Police are appealing for witnesses
to the accident."

The bus driver was treated for shock? TREATED FOR SHOCK?
He had just driven his bus over a pedestrian refuge, killing someone!
All of us have stood in pedestrian refuges on busy roads, thinking
ourselves safe. This is a chilling story.
Treated for shock - why not treated to a night in the cells for starters?
And "accident", good God, don't get me started. Buses don't drive
themselves.

John Hearns wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2006 09:42:35 +0100, David Hansen wrote:


"The bus driver was treated for shock. Police are appealing for
witnesses to the accident."

The bus driver was treated for shock? TREATED FOR SHOCK?
He had just driven his bus over a pedestrian refuge, killing someone!
All of us have stood in pedestrian refuges on busy roads, thinking
ourselves safe. This is a chilling story.
Treated for shock - why not treated to a night in the cells for
starters? And "accident", good God, don't get me started. Buses don't
drive themselves.

Without the full details of the incident, we aren't in any position to
speculate (until more is revealed, there's nothing to warrant the 'night in
the cells' statement).

cupra wrote:
John Hearns wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2006 09:42:35 +0100, David Hansen wrote:


"The bus driver was treated for shock. Police are appealing for
witnesses to the accident."

The bus driver was treated for shock? TREATED FOR SHOCK?
He had just driven his bus over a pedestrian refuge, killing someone!
All of us have stood in pedestrian refuges on busy roads, thinking
ourselves safe. This is a chilling story.
Treated for shock - why not treated to a night in the cells for
starters? And "accident", good God, don't get me started. Buses don't
drive themselves.

Without the full details of the incident, we aren't in any position to
speculate (until more is revealed, there's nothing to warrant the 'night in
the cells' statement).

Don't be silly, this is u.r.c where the normal rules of justice and
innocent-until-proven-guilty are suspended and most posters have
first-hand knowledge of event from which they were separated spatially
and temporally by hundreds or thousands of meter seconds. It's truly
inconceivable, in u.r.c world, than an incident involving a motor
vehicle can ever be an accident. The intersection of u.r.c world with
Hansen world is particularly mind bending (although not as mind bending
as the intercection of any world and MattB world).

--
Nobby Anderson

On Mon, 22 May 2006 12:49:43 +0100, cupra wrote:


Without the full details of the incident, we aren't in any position to
speculate (until more is revealed, there's nothing to warrant the 'night
in the cells' statement).
The bus "ploughed into traffic lights" and "mounted a pedestrian refuge"

If I "ran amok with a samurai sword" in my local shopping centre I would
expect to be cornered by armed police and led away in handcuffs.
Yes, this is a facetious point.


The point I am trying to make is that in motor vehicle crime, different
standards are applied. Not referring to this case,
but the media continually persist in trying to make out
that "the driver lost control" or that there was some sudden mechanical
failure. Very uncommon I would say on modern vehicles, or on public
service buses which will be maintained to a high standard.

John Hearns wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2006 12:49:43 +0100, cupra wrote:


Without the full details of the incident, we aren't in any position
to speculate (until more is revealed, there's nothing to warrant the
'night in the cells' statement).
The bus "ploughed into traffic lights" and "mounted a pedestrian
refuge"

If I "ran amok with a samurai sword" in my local shopping centre I
would expect to be cornered by armed police and led away in handcuffs.
Yes, this is a facetious point.


The point I am trying to make is that in motor vehicle crime,
different standards are applied.

Undoubtedly, but this sort of case is rarely 'open and closed' and the
report was only stating the known facts.

Not referring to this case,
but the media continually persist in trying to make out
that "the driver lost control" or that there was some sudden
mechanical failure. Very uncommon I would say on modern vehicles, or
on public service buses which will be maintained to a high standard.

It's also very uncommon on modern passenger airliners, but it still happens
nonetheless.

I think it's unhealthy to pass judgement on the driver simply because he is
such. If he is found to be culpable, I'd expect a charge to be laid.

John Hearns wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2006 09:42:35 +0100, David Hansen wrote:

"The bus driver was treated for shock. Police are appealing for witnesses
to the accident."

The bus driver was treated for shock? TREATED FOR SHOCK?

Of course. Anyone normal person who'd just killed an innocent person
would need treating for shock, regardless of blame.

--
Dave...

On 22 May 2006 08:59:47 -0700 someone who may be "dkahn400"
wrote this:-

Of course. Anyone normal person who'd just killed an innocent person
would need treating for shock, regardless of blame.

The police didn't treat the driver of the train which crashed at
Southall in this way. Rather they interrogated him for some time
about how the crash had happened. Given that most police officers
know bugger all about the causes of train crashes this was at best
foolish. It also had a more long lasting effect, because when those
that do know something about the causes of train crashes were able
to speak to the driver the police interrogation had rendered his
evidence much less useful.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

David Hansen wrote:

On 22 May 2006 08:59:47 -0700 someone who may be "dkahn400"
wrote this:-

Of course. Anyone normal person who'd just killed an innocent person
would need treating for shock, regardless of blame.

The police didn't treat the driver of the train which crashed at
Southall in this way. Rather they interrogated him for some time
about how the crash had happened.

Note I said they'd need treatment for shock, not that they'd
necessarily get it.

Given that most police officers know bugger all about the causes of
train crashes this was at best foolish. It also had a more long lasting
effect, because when those that do know something about the causes
of train crashes were able to speak to the driver the police interrogation
had rendered his evidence much less useful.

This simply confirms that in a civilised society it is important to
behave correctly and humanely towards everyone involved in an incident
like this regardless of apparent blame. We do not yet know what caused
this tragedy, but whether or not it eventually turns out to have been
the driver's fault, there is no justification for denying him medical
attention.

The treatment of the train driver that you describe was both inhumane
and incompetent. It was therefore doubly disgraceful.

--
Dave...

On Mon, 22 May 2006 10:36:04 -0700, dkahn400 wrote:

but whether or not it eventually turns out to have been the driver's
fault, there is no justification for denying him medical attention.
Medical attention? I'm sorry. As a doctor of this parish has explained,
there is a world of difference between the medical definition of shock and
the layman's.
I may have this wrong, but the medical definition is severe blood loss.
Layman's definition - person feeling anxious, and needs a hot cup of tea.