[Author Index] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

RE: [ST] Accidents



>From: Masiak, Richard
>Main Entry: ac·ci·dent
>1 : an unfortunate event resulting from carelessness, unawareness, ignorance,
>or a combination of causes 
>How could you miss headlights coming at you.  If I had to guess, she saw them
>coming but misjudged the time she had to turn. Still, I agree that we all should
>be held to some varying level of accountability/liability for our screw-ups.  
>Although she did not intentionally mean to kill Adam, she made an error in
>judgment and should have some level of responsibility.

Unfortunately this definition is very short sighted and old fashioned,
since it doesn't seem (to want) to include the fact that people are
not perfect and can make errors even when not being careless. Human
beings are not perfect monitors (on the contrary) and everybody is
susceptible to routine errors and visual traps. There are no superhumans,
everybody can cause a dangerous situation because of the limitations of
human brain performance. A denial of the fact that we are human and
can make mistakes (eventhough you are very carefull and dedicated to
driving / riding / piloting) is actually the most dangerous (macho)
attitude of them all. 

It's a fact that human beings, especially cardrivers, naturally tend
to pick up car shaped objects easier than motorcycles. Some theories
say it has to do with the frontal view of a car resembling "eyes" of
a predator more than a motorcycle, but logically it has also to do
with the fact that it's plainly bigger. Disregarding the size, humans
in US traffic will regularly be *expecting*  to see a car or truck,
when looking to turn. A motorcycle does not fit the expectation and
can therefor easily be missed by the brain looking for something else.
Brain traps like this can be seen at any "magic" show where this
human vulnerability is being used to the fullest. But also in traffic,
and one doesn't have to be lazy or on a cell phone to make that mistake.
What doesn't help is that perhaps the 87 year old driver has reduced
eye sight and also can't think as fast as she could when she was 27.

It's also a fact that speed of approaching motorcycles is very hard
to judge, especially if they have one headlight and especially if the
headlight is set up too bright or shining too high, causing confusing
glare to the observer. There's all kinds of factors that can confuse
the brain. And it's also true that there's also a lot of distractions
that won't help judging or monitoring (bad as it is already), like
calling while riding or listening to the radio /  kids in the back etc.

Unfortunately there's a lot of drivers on the road today influenced
by these distractions, or by medication, alcohol, visual limitations,
sensory limitations, besides the standard limitations the human brain
has. But even the most aware, conscious and professional driver (/pilot)
can miss something or fall into an expectation, routine or visual trap.

A safe rider is one aware of his/her limitations and the risk involved,
realizing he / she is also susceptible to mistakes just like anybody
else. The difference is that he/she will built in safety routines with
checks and doublechecks and he/she will be more aware of possible traps
because of experience and forums like these :-).

It also reminds me of 2 motorcycle stories from friends who had
accidents when passing a car that had no turn indicator on or
to the right, just before turning left (one for a U turn, the
other one to turn into a spot across the street). If you read
about it you will recognise it sooner and take a more conservative
and safer decision.

I'm not saying that the 87 year old woman is not responsible for her
actions. But what about the organisation (government) that allowed
her to keep her license to drive when she perhaps has very poor eye
sight? After all, everybody has "the right to drive a car" in the US?
Or what about her family or doctor, not stopping her from driving
because of her possible deteriorating mental state? Sometimes things
aren't that black and white. Situations are created not just by the
decision of an individual, that's short sighted. And BTW, 747 captains
(or any other pilot in a multicrew) are allowed to take naps in their
seats (if there isn't a crewrest bunk or replacement crew already) during
flight. This because it's common sense to know that fatigue will kill
and irregular work and long flying days can cause fatique at the strangest
times. It's safer to acknowledge this human limitation and to let a pilot
take a controlled short nap than to pretend he's superhuman and letting
him participate in a busy approach in bad weather while his 4 AM pick up
after a short nightrest in a noisy hotel is still breaking him up.
Just my 2 €0.02...

Emile
www.piloot.com

_______________________________________________
Triumph Sprint ST/RS mailing list
Send list posts to ST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Change your list options at www.Triumphnet.com