| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 72.1 | | DSSDEV::RUST | | Fri Jun 03 1994 10:04 | 31 |
| Hey, be fair. Those kids still have their father; the lion cub's an
orphan. <wry grin...>
Seriously - of all the news stories I heard about the case, I never
heard an appeal from the family for money, and would never have thought
that they needed any. I don't recall hearing much about monetary
contributions to families who've lost one parent via a car accident or
a fire, so why should I expect to hear of it when the cause of death is
"tried to outrun a mountain lion"? (Now, if the family really is in
need and there *was* an appeal for money for the kids, and it still
didn't add up to the money donated for the cub, well... either the
cub-fund people have better advertising contacts, or else most people
would rather donate to something cute and furry...)
[Actually, the greatest irony, to my mind, is people's often-generous
reaction to well-publicized and dramatic stories of somebody's plight,
while ignoring many of the more mundane needy just down the street. I
guess it sometimes seems much easier, and perhaps more satisfying, to
send a check to Fix-It International and "keep three <exotic, seen on
the news and everything> families from starving!" than it does to take
the trouble to carry excess groceries down to the local soup kitchen
for the benefit of those same scruffy people one sees on the sidewalk
every day... Hey, maybe the best way to deal with it would be for us to
donate to the needy in other countries and for other countries to
donate to ours! We could ask the Japanese to adopt hungry American
families, the British to help support children orphaned by wild-animal
attacks, the South Africans to give to legal defense funds for the
needy... "You will receive a photograph and a letter from the happy
recipient of your generous gift!"]
-b
|
| 72.2 | | AKOCOA::BBARRY | Laudabamusne Rex | Fri Jun 03 1994 15:15 | 4 |
| Also, why is it that some feel worse when a dog (or animal) is
hurt or killed in the movies, than when a person is?
/Bob
|
| 72.3 | | LEDS::BRAUN | Rich Braun | Fri Jun 03 1994 17:52 | 18 |
| Re: response .2
I think that's an easier question to answer than the question posed
in the base note. We all assume that an animal is without guile, and
some people think that humans are frequently deserving of whatever
comes of them (particularly when it's a bad guy or even just a somewhat
annoying character in the movies).
In response to the base note, I think it's more a demonstration of the
whims and the power of the media Establishment. Kids are orphaned
more often than mountain-lion cubs, so the latter is considered more
of an interesting story. So the little lion cub got more press,
fairly or otherwise.
-rich
Mass Storage Engineering OEM D&SG SHR1-3/O13 DTN: 237-2124
Work: [email protected] 508-841-2124
Home: [email protected] URL http://www.pn.com
|
| 72.4 | | OKFINE::KENAH | Every old sock meets an old shoe... | Fri Jun 03 1994 18:37 | 3 |
| Why? 'Cause life's neither fair nor logical.
andrew
|
| 72.5 | sad but true | MROA::MAHONEY | | Mon Jun 06 1994 16:37 | 3 |
| "because we humans are less important than animals..."
isn't this sad?
|
| 72.6 | | DSSDEV::RUST | | Mon Jun 06 1994 17:06 | 37 |
| Re .5: I'm confused. Are you saying:
1. We humans are less important than animals. [If you believe this, I
suppose it would be "Sad but true" - recognizing oneself as a
second-class lifeform must be daunting.]
or:
2. Many people seem to think that we humans are less important than
animals. [This seems a more likely meaning to me, although for every
person who seems to believe that - or who has claimed to believe that
in my hearing - I've known dozens, maybe hundreds, who believe the
opposite, as demonstrated by their words and actions towards animals.
They'd never dump an unwanted relative out the car window in a bag
(though they might want to at times!), but wouldn't hesitate to do it
to a litter of puppies or kittens; they'd never round up professional
baseball players who are past their best years, cram them into boxcars,
ship them to a slaughterhouse, hoist them by one ankle and cut their
throats while they're still kicking (much as one might want to,
especially if the guy cost your team the pennant), but they'll do it to
racehorses and cattle... Nah, I think the balance of opinion here
favors the "humans are more important" side.]
Or there's alternative 3: it's sad that people can't be more objective
about where to provide assistance such that it will do the most good,
and it's sad that the media often ignores the boring, everyday needy in
favor of the dramatic, once-in-a-lifetime needy, such that the kid who
fell down the well gets thousands while the thousands of kids who don't
get enough to eat are given nothing. And it's sad that people are
cruel to each other and to animals when there's no reason to be...
I'm not sure which one you meant, but I think I prefer #3. [All the
same, there most definitely are some people who are a good deal less
important to me than animals. I just hope I'm never put in a position
where I have to choose between them.]
-b
|
| 72.7 | | MIMS::ROBINSON_B | Lean,mean,(but sensitive)machine | Tue Jun 07 1994 09:16 | 14 |
|
People hear about other people getting killed everyday, not to
mention all of the people that get "killed" on TV. They seem to be
getting used to it.
On the subject of people against snimals; did you hear about the
tiger that killed his trainer yesterday? The trainer had avoided all
safety precautions to be in the yard with the bengal tiger. The tiger
obviously did not appreciate this. The mauled trainer was rushed to the
hospital but it was too late.
*B*
|
| 72.8 | More observations | AKOCOA::BBARRY | Laudabamusne Rex | Tue Jun 07 1994 13:45 | 11 |
| There was a news story I heard yesterday. A man, forgetting his baby
was strapped in the car seat, proceeded to go to work for his 8 hour
shift. Upon returning to the car, after work, he discovered his baby,
who died from heat exhaustion.
Having the misfortune to frequent various shopping malls, I often see
kids (not infants) left alone in cars. I never see security, or hear
police calls on the scanner, going to investigate. However, I often
hear police calls dispatching officers regarding dogs left in cars.
/Bob
|
| 72.9 | | DSSDEV::RUST | | Tue Jun 07 1994 14:28 | 24 |
| Re .8: Take heart; I've heard several stories recently - some firsthand
from the people involved - of folks who've spotted babies left in cars
and have either called the authorities or stood watch until the parents
came out. [Too often, when these people explained what they were doing
and warned the parents against leaving kids in the car, they got a load
of verbal abuse in return. I'd like to believe some of that was just
the parents' guilt coming out as anger, and that they'd learned a
lesson, but I'm not so sure...]
FWIW, I called in about a dog in a car once. Never spotted a baby in a
car, but if I had I'd have called on that, too. [Side note: back when
the "Baby On Board" signs were too much in vogue, I valiantly fought a
temptation to phone the police whenever I saw such a car in a parking
lot. "But, Officer, the sign on the car _said_ there was a baby inside,
and of course on a hot day like this what could any concerned citizen
do but break a window and search for the poor thing?"]
It's truly a shame nobody spotted the poor child mentioned in .8 - or
any of the other kids (or pets) who've died that way; it must be an
awful way to go. (Had I been the parent in .8, I suspect I'd have blown
my brains out at the earliest opportunity. I cannot *imagine* living
with that knowledge.)
-b
|
| 72.10 | | QUARK::LIONEL | Free advice is worth every cent | Tue Jun 07 1994 15:30 | 15 |
| Re: .8
I read that story - sat there shaking my head asking "How could anyone do
that?" But I know - I have found babies locked in cars in mall parking lots
and I have called the police (as well as leaving an angry note under the
wiper.) I would guess that this was a case of "wife wants baby, husband
doesn't" (or perhaps one that "just happened"); a father who actually WANTED
a child would, I would hope, never ever do something so irresponsible. I
would also guess that the couple's marriage doesn't have long to live.
There was a similar case last year with a father in Worcester, MA who left
his baby in a car seat on top of the car and then drove off. At least that
baby lived.
Steve
|
| 72.11 | | ASDG::GASSAWAY | Insert clever personal name here | Tue Jun 07 1994 15:56 | 17 |
| re: .8
I think this case happened last summer in North Carolina. I was living
there while on the GEEP program and this was big news.
The guy was supposed to take the kid to daycare. The wife had always
done it but this day there was some sort of conflict. I guess the kid
fell asleep while the father was driving, he forgot the kid was there,
and he went to work like usual, forgetting about daycare. What made
the story even bigger was that it was an especially brutal summer in
the south last year, and the daytime temps were between 95-100�F with
dewpoints in the high 70's.
There were TONS of safety reports after this about how hot your car
gets while it's sitting in the sun.
Lisa
|
| 72.12 | | AKOCOA::BBARRY | Laudabamusne Rex | Tue Jun 07 1994 16:03 | 17 |
| >There was a similar case last year with a father in Worcester, MA who left
>his baby in a car seat on top of the car and then drove off. At least that
>baby lived.
> Steve
I remember that story too. Hearing what I related in .8 made me
sick to my stomach. Many years ago, my secretary's husband, in a
drunken stuper, backed the car over his son in the driveway. The
boy lived, after much surgery and painful therapy, he can walk,
sort of.
All these people should be skinned alive, drawn and quartered, and
then burned. The do not deserve the blessing of children, they do
not deserve air. Sorry.
/Bob
|
| 72.13 | | QUARK::LIONEL | Free advice is worth every cent | Tue Jun 07 1994 16:24 | 9 |
| The report I read said that the incident was recent - perhaps another case
occurred last year?
Re: .12
I did read of a case just the other week about someone who backed over his
kid and killed him. This case wasn't alcohol-related, just carelessness.
Steve
|
| 72.14 | Instinct... | IAMOK::KELLY_G | | Wed Jun 08 1994 13:54 | 17 |
| I think that a lot of people feel worse when an animal gets hurt
or killed because in most cases, it is because of a human. Animals
are usually the innocent victims of humans.
If I ever had to choose between saving an animal, and saving a human
who I know abused an animal, I wouldn't even think twice. I would
save the animal first...and if by chance I had time to save the
scummy human, I guess I would. That may sound awful, but...when
humans hurt animals or abuse them, they know exactly what they
are doing. When an animal hurts or kills a human, it is usually
just instinctual. It's horrible when it happens, but the animals
intentions were probably just to survive.
I believe animals are equal to humans. God created us all, and
we should treat each other with love and respect.
GMK
|
| 72.15 | | DECWET::WANG | | Wed Jun 08 1994 21:50 | 5 |
| Well, I do not want to open a can of worms but... To follow up .-1, how do
you feel that a baby(or a cub) in mother's womb get aborted/killed? I am only
asking "feelings" in the thoughts of this topic, not right or wrong.
Wally
|
| 72.16 | | DELNI::SHOOK | Exit Stage Left | Thu Jun 09 1994 07:43 | 13 |
| All this remind me of someone I once knew who, while out on the
highway, swerved to avoid a dog in the road and totaled her car on a
bridge abutment. She said that she was less concerned about the fact
that she was injured and that the car was totaled, and more concerend
about the dog being okay. Having once lost a dog to a car, I can
appreciate the effort she made, but come on; a person's life is MORE
important than that of a dog, cat, squirrel, etc. If my dog was killed
as an alternative to the driver risking life or limb to him/herself or
others, then I can live with that.
|
| 72.17 | | DSSDEV::RUST | | Thu Jun 09 1994 10:27 | 39 |
| Re .15: Feelings about it? Hmmm. I've read about animals spontaneously
aborting when they're under stress - starvation, or being chased too
hard, that sort of thing. Under those circumstances it seems only
logical, and I don't feel particularly bad about it. [This can happen
to people, too, but doesn't seem to be quite as common; maybe people as
a species have always been under stress (from each other, if nothing
else!) that they had to learn to adjust to it in order to reproduce at
all.]
I do feel terribly sad when I read about animals who've abandoned an
ailing offspring, though; sure, it's in the best interest of the
species for only the strong to survive, but the image of a wounded
tiger cub trailing its mother, calling and calling but always falling
farther behind... That really upsets me. [People abandon their own kids
for a number of reasons, sometimes while continuing to live in the same
house with them... That's horrible, too, but it doesn't evoke the same
reaction in me. I want to go pick up the lost cub; when it's people, I
want to go shake the parents and tell them to shape up. Go figure.]
No, I don't feel bad for aborted offspring, human or animal. I might
feel sympathy for the parents if they seem to mourn the loss, and I do
feel for those who are born into pain or are unwanted, but not for
those who don't get born at all.
Re .16: Yep. Since I don't want to injure animals *or* to harm my
car, myself, or random passers-by by swerving too suddenly to avoid
one, I try to drive as defensively as possible. That is, if I know
there's no car behind me, and a squirrel or something darts across my
path, I can safely slam the brakes on without getting rear-ended, but
if I haven't been watching my rear-view or if traffic's too busy for me
to be sure I have the room, then I won't brake for squirrels. [A
similar algorithm works for anything else that bolts in front of the
car, although I'd give greater weight to dogs and cats and small
children (not necessarily in that order, but don't press me on this
point!). And of course sometimes things happen so fast that one reacts
without thinking, and has to hope that training, reflexes, and luck
will conspire to provide an outcome that one can live with...]
-b
|
| 72.18 | | DECWET::WANG | | Thu Jun 09 1994 15:31 | 8 |
| I think I will try everything to avoid hitting a human but only "reasonable"
thing to avoid hitting an animal. I hit a small animal long time ago one
night driving back home and felt bad. My wife says that some birds and
anmials cross the road just before a car passing by purposely, may be just for
the thrill of it. Therefore I do not feel too responsible anymore for those
kind situations.
Wally
|
| 72.19 | | AKOCOA::BBARRY | Laudabamusne Rex | Thu Jun 09 1994 15:50 | 7 |
| <-- Sometimes things can happen so fast, that instinctive
reactions take over. We would like to think the choice
of action can be made on a case by case basis, but in
my experience, it's purely instinctive. A kid on a bike
can look alot like a dog when darting out in front of you.
/Bob
|
| 72.20 | Animals in Roads | WISKRS::STEGNER | | Mon Jun 13 1994 12:51 | 9 |
| True story:
Years ago, one of the families at our daycare was coming up from northern
New Hampshire. The parents were in the front, the two boys in the back. A
tractor trailer in the other lane swerved because there was a live skunk in the
road-- and ran right into their car. Those two boys are orphans now because
of a *skunk*.
I"m sorry, but I would have mowed the skunk down.
|
| 72.21 | Hope I never have to make that decision | IAMOK::KELLY_G | | Mon Jun 13 1994 13:34 | 23 |
| re. .20
That is horrible...
Of course, if I HAD to make the choice between hitting an animal
or an oncoming car, the only rational thing to do would be to hit
the poor animal. But if there was any way at all to avoid hitting
the animal without endangering anyone else, I would do all I possibly
could. I might even risk my own safety. That may sound really
stupid, but...I don't think I would crash into a stone wall or anything
like that, but if I had to go off the side of the road onto some grass
or something, then I would. I would't kill myself for it, but I'd
risk some injury to myself.
Now, if I had to make a choice between hitting an animal and hitting
a scumball who I KNOW abuses animals (or kids or his wife)...now
THAT would be a totally different story...
Sorry, but that's the way I feel...abusers should be shot anyway!!
GMK
|
| 72.22 | | JUPITR::KAGNO | | Mon Jun 13 1994 13:45 | 13 |
| Excuse me but I think a previous reply (Beth?) said it best. Many
times people just react instinctively without really thinking about the
ramifications. There's just no time. I love animals; I instinctively
swerve to avoid one unless it literally runs under my wheels and
there's no choice.
It's like I can talk all I want about what I'd do if an intruder broke
into my home, but I doubt if (hopefully never) the time comes I'd play
out the script.
I am sorry for the children who are orphans but I'm sure the truck
driver reacted with instinct versus malice.
|
| 72.23 | | ASABET::J_TOMAO | Sixteen down, sixteen to go! | Mon Jun 13 1994 13:54 | 14 |
| Also.....consider this. The truck driver saw *something* in the road
in his path. Think of what may have gone through his mind. Do you
really believe he had time to decide between hitting an animal or
hitting a car full of people?
When a vehicle, car or 18-wheeler, is traveling at any speed, a solid
object in its path has dramatic effects on the operation of the vehicle
when hit.
Think about that the next time you swerve left (heading towards
on-coming traffice) to avoid a pothole or trash in the road.
Joyce_who_would_rather_drive_with_a_million_professional_truck_drivers
on_the_road_than_few_vacationers_driving_cars
|
| 72.24 | | DSSDEV::RUST | | Mon Jun 13 1994 14:21 | 23 |
| Isn't one of the defensive-driving exercises to *always* (well, OK,
"frequently") imagine what you would do if something suddenly appeared
directly in your path? That is, try to have an escape route in mind: if
there's room off the road away from oncoming traffic, that's the best
choice, but if that means a sidewalk full of kids or perhaps a sheer
cliff (down) it's not a good bet. (If it's a sheer cliff (up), on the
other hand, scraping along it might be safer than risking darting into
the oncoming lane and a potential head-on with a logging truck - or a
schoolbus...)
Admittedly, this sort of thing is easier in theory than it is in
practice, when one might be more apt to be worrying about how to switch
the radio away from that annoying Dunkin' Donuts commercial than about
how to avoid a mythical small-child-chasing-ball [not that I ever do
this myself - hang on a second while I switch off those Jordan's
Furniture guys]. But the only way I can think of to avoid making a
horrible mistake by reflex (i.e., steering into an oncoming car to
avoid a half-seen and unidentified object in the road) is to try to
condition your reflexes to make more optimum choices - and then, of
course, to accept that sometimes there really isn't anything you can do
but try to pick up the pieces.
-b
|
| 72.25 | | VICKI::CRAIG | Bill of Rights: Void Where Prohibited | Wed Jun 15 1994 14:36 | 12 |
| I agree only partially with .23. The weight of the vehicle, its
design, and its speed affect the outcome of contact with a solid
object. A truck driver who swerves to avoid a skunk and who chooses to
strike a vehicle traveling in a lawful manner should be charged with
manslaughter if the struck vehicle's occupants die, and with battery if
only injuries result.
I agree, however, that just about any solid object in the path of some
vehicles, motorcycles for example, will have a dramatic effect on their
operation. Motorcycle race tracks are "street swept" and then visually
inspected for the presence of even the tiniest pebbles by the corner
workers the first thing race day.
|
| 72.26 | Steering clear | LEDS::BRAUN | Rich Braun | Thu Jun 16 1994 16:11 | 17 |
| Re: -1
The point of .23 was not that a truck would be affected by a small
object in its path, but that when the human eye detects motion it
generates an instinctual get-out-of-the-way reaction. This
reflex operates a lot faster than the analytical process of asking
"what is it--is it something small I can ignore, or something big that
I have to risk life & limb to steer clear of?"
If the timing of collision is after the reflex but before the analysis
(between say 0.5 seconds and 1.5 seconds), then it's hard to claim
that an accident was any more intentional than that--it was an accident.
-rich
Mass Storage Engineering OEM D&SG SHR1-3/O13 DTN: 237-2124
Work: [email protected] 508-841-2124
Home: [email protected] URL http://www.pn.com
|
| 72.27 | | VICKI::CRAIG | Bill of Rights: Void Where Prohibited | Sat Jun 18 1994 16:57 | 50 |
| Rich,
Now that I go back and re-read that reply, I can see the second
interpretation. It wasn't immediately obvious to me.
However, I'm not sure I agree completely with what you're saying
regarding the dynamics of accident avoidance. Isn't the "get-out-
of-the-way reaction" you speak of stronger the closer an object is to
the eye? If so, since an 18-wheeler operator sees most objects "way
out there," the perceived threat of any given object should be less in
an 18-wheeler than in, say, a Honda Civic. The only exception would
be in the case of a "cab-over," those 18-wheeler cabs that put the
motor behind the operator (just in front of the trailer plate) and the
windshield and bumper no more than a foot or two in front of the
operator's face (these are mainly used as yard trucks but also are
used for short-haul purposes).
I understand that the *natural* reaction for someone perceiving a
near threat is to get out of the way, but this can be changed through
training. When I was putting myself through tech school, I had a
part-time job driving an 18-wheeler between Boston and Providence in
the wee hours of the morning. The training I had to go through to get
the limited Class-3 license I operated under emphasized that the
vehicle I was driving was not a Formula-I racer, that its handling
abilities were nonexistent. I was shown films of what had happened to
rigs whose operators had tried to steer out of trouble, and to what
happened to cars who were involved in the same accidents. We were
trained always to keep constantly aware of road conditions (including
surface, straightness, lane count, shoulder width and composition,
and traffic volume and position), trailer type, load type, and load
weight while driving.
Without going into a lot of boring what-if detail, I was taught to
swerve for nothing short of a gasoline truck, because the probable net
effect of acting otherwise would be highly negative in terms of loss
of life. The only exception to this was when I was driving a cab with
no trailer (but then the rules change again, mostly regarding
braking).
My point is that natural instinct must be replaced by trained instinct
when your job involves piloting a multi-ton vehicle down a public
street. I could yank any schmuck off the street, put him untrained at
the controls of an 18-wheeler, and not be too surprised to see him act
as the driver in question did. With proper training and testing, such
a person wouldn't have moved the wheel an inch were the object about
to be struck animal or human, given the same situation of there being
an approaching oncoming vehicle and the necessity of crossing the
center of the road in order to avoid the object. I think most truck
drivers fall into this latter category, otherwise today we'd be seeing
a lot fewer road kills and a lot more truck wrecks.
|
| 72.28 | | LEDS::BRAUN | Rich Braun | Mon Jun 20 1994 14:15 | 33 |
| Probably the truck driver referred to in .20 wasn't very well-trained,
or else there were extenuating circumstances which haven't been
described here (and the point of this conference is not to act as
judge & jury on behalf of a reader who has been traumatized by an
incident like this, so I'm not asking for any of the details of the
incident).
Even a well-trained driver is likely to at least twitch the steering
wheel, and ease off the accelerator, in response to motion in his path.
This might be enough in some circumstances to cause a collision.
Long experience and proper training will minimize this reflex, but
I find it difficult to believe that it is possible or even
desirable to completely eliminate the reflex--it was built into
our subconscious for a good reason.
I've taken flying lessons and learned some of the override-the-instinct
techniques myself, and it sure isn't easy. A friend of mine just
recently totalled an airplane (he's OK, after a month of hospital-
ization) in part because of reflexive actions taken after a muscle
cramp incapacitated him on takeoff. A pilot is trained to continue
forward, no matter what, and crash into whatever lies ahead if the
engine fails or the plane fails to increase altitude shortly after
takeoff. This friend, despite many hundreds of hours of flying,
apparently couldn't quite get control over the reflex to turn, and
in the few hundred milliseconds it takes to override the reflex, the
wings stalled irreversibly. It's hard to compare this case with the
one cited earlier--there was no loss of life--but I think it demon-
strates how hard it can be to control the things we've been born with.
-rich
Mass Storage Engineering OEM D&SG SHR1-3/O13 DTN: 237-2124
Work: [email protected] 508-841-2124
Home: [email protected] URL http://www.pn.com
|
| 72.29 | | AKOCOA::DOUGAN | | Fri Jan 06 1995 16:59 | 9 |
| re .0
This probably sounds really horrible...
There are 5+ billion humans on this planet, 250 million in the USA.
How many mountain lions are there? 10,000? (probably a lot less) So which
life is more valuable? Valuable to who? How do you measure this value?
|