 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Halbert <hal### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> Everyone was at fault in this story, both the workers and the pedestrian.
I wouldn't say the pedestrian was at fault. She would have noticed if
there had been proper barriers.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:13:01 -0400, Warp wrote:
> She would have noticed if
> there had been proper barriers.
There's a good chance she would've noticed if she'd been watching where
she was going, too.
One of my pet peeves is people who don't watch where they're going.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/13/09 11:11, Warp wrote:
> Doctor John<joh### [at] homecom> wrote:
>>
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/07/girl-falls-into-manhole-while-texting-parents-sue/
>
>> I'm not laughing, really .... :-D CTNOK
>
> Aren't there any regulations or laws establishing proper safety measures
> when city workers perform activities which can be dangerous to passersby,
> such as opening manholes? An unprotected open manhole *is* a safety hazard
Almost certain there are. Which is why she has a case against them.
--
AAHH!!! I've deleted all my RAM!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Tom Austin wrote:
>
>> the barriers were not sufficient enough to keep someone out of the
>> hole that was that dumb.
>
>
> From other reports I've read, there were no barriers or cones at all.
> They just opened the manhole cover and then went somewhere else without
> putting up any notice.
>
The story on 1010 Wins began with the workers claiming that they were
going to get the cones. In the final evolution they were just sitting
in the truck. Which sounds more believable.
Still, I too have zero sympathy for the girl. Though, as it sounded in
her interview, she was ready to blow the whole thing off anyway. The
suit may be the parents just looking for a way to pay for the MRI which
eventuated from the whole incident. Can't really blame them for that.
Those are a couple of grand, right?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Charter wrote:
> The story on 1010 Wins began with the workers claiming that they were
> going to get the cones.
Yeah. The right answer, of course, is to leave the whole covered until you
have the cones. :-)
> Still, I too have zero sympathy for the girl.
I can imagine it was surprising, and perhaps disgusting. I'm glad nobody was
seriously hurt.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:13:01 -0400, Warp wrote:
> > She would have noticed if
> > there had been proper barriers.
> There's a good chance she would've noticed if she'd been watching where
> she was going, too.
Yes, and people would not fall off stairs without handrails if they are
really careful.
How about small children falling into the manhole because there are no
barriers? Are you going to blame them?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> She would have noticed if
>> there had been proper barriers.
>
> There's a good chance she would've noticed if she'd been watching where
> she was going, too.
But do you really expect everyone to watch where they are going 100% of the
time? Have you never put up an umbrella, looked for something in a bag or
glanced at something sideways whilst walking? I am pretty sure that if we
looked back at all the walking you had done in your life, we could choose to
put an open manhole somewhere and get you to fall in :-)
Even if everyone on the planet watches where they are going 99% of the time,
that still leaves a huge amount of distance where people aren't looking, and
then accidents with other objects will happen just by chance.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> She would have noticed if
>> there had been proper barriers.
>
> There's a good chance she would've noticed if she'd been watching where
> she was going, too.
>
> One of my pet peeves is people who don't watch where they're going.
What if she had been blind? (There are people who really are.)
In this particular case it probably *was* that somebody just wasn't
paying attention. But let's face it, how many people expect there to be
a 12-foot vertical shaft in their path?
(Of course, the report doesn't give a lot of detail about this case. But
from the scant details available, it looks like the workmen didn't do
their job right.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> Even if everyone on the planet watches where they are going 99% of the time,
> that still leaves a huge amount of distance where people aren't looking, and
> then accidents with other objects will happen just by chance.
The trick is to 'buffer' your intended path, so you're fairly sure there's a
stretch of pre-checked non-manholed path ahead of you. Then you can safely
shift your attention 2 ur txtng lol
wo-aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah splosh
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Doctor John wrote:
> Tom Austin wrote:
>>
>> no really, they will likely win the case
>>
>> the barriers were not sufficient enough to keep someone out of the hole
>> that was that dumb.
>
> But not as dumb as walking down a street without looking forwards.
>
That's actually what I said, but an extra space and poor wording made it
sound like I was talking about the people who opened up the manhole. I
was referring to the person walking.
> Actually, the reason I found it funny was probably Schadenfreude; I've
> just come to the end of a really s**t day and needed some release
>
I was trying to add to it (the release that is), but failed miserably.
I shall now go for a walk with my phone in search of a manhole!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
