 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/07/girl-falls-into-manhole-while-texting-parents-sue/
I'm not laughing, really .... :-D CTNOK
John
--
"Eppur si muove" - Galileo Galilei
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Doctor John wrote:
>
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/07/girl-falls-into-manhole-while-texting-parents-sue/
>
> I'm not laughing, really .... :-D CTNOK
>
> John
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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
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
John
--
"Eppur si muove" - Galileo Galilei
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Doctor John <joh### [at] home com> 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
in the exact same way as stairs without a handrail. It would be illegal to
build stairs without a handrail if there is the possibility of someone
falling.
If the open manhole was unsupervised and without any protection (such
as a fence), that could be a breach of safety regulations, and thus the
city would be held responsible.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4a5b5a65$1@news.povray.org...
> 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.
Then, yes, regardless of stupidity of the victim in the particular set of
events, she'll win the lawsuit. As is often the case, it takes multiple
failures for something like this to happen, but one failure does not
normally void another in the eyes of the law. It could have easily been a
toddler, a handicapped person (I guess that could be argued of this person
who was texting), elderly... etc.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I am 99% certain that our fair city ( of which Staten Island is a part,)
does require workers to erect a barrier when working in or on a man hole. In
Manhattan, I always see the barriers when they are working in the hole.
Everyone was at fault in this story, both the workers and the pedestrian.
--
H²
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Halbert <hal### [at] gmailcom> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott 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.
>
> 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.
>
a side topic
I once walked along a river in Metz France where if you didn't pay very
careful attention to where you were walking you would have some dog pile
stuck to your foot.
It was a real challenge to keep from stepping in it - there were piles
everywhere!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:03:40 +0200, Tom Austin <taustin> wrote:
> a side topic
>
> I once walked along a river in Metz France where if you didn't pay very
> careful attention to where you were walking you would have some dog pile
> stuck to your foot.
>
> It was a real challenge to keep from stepping in it - there were piles
> everywhere!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pF0ZrOtAm_I&fmt=18#t=0m40s
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tom Austin wrote:
> a side topic
>
> I once walked along a river in Metz France where if you didn't pay very
> careful attention to where you were walking you would have some dog pile
> stuck to your foot.
>
> It was a real challenge to keep from stepping in it - there were piles
> everywhere!
That's nothing. One time me and my dad walked through a field where the
cows had been...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Tom Austin wrote:
>
>> a side topic
>>
>> I once walked along a river in Metz France where if you didn't pay
>> very careful attention to where you were walking you would have some
>> dog pile stuck to your foot.
>>
>> It was a real challenge to keep from stepping in it - there were piles
>> everywhere!
>
> That's nothing. One time me and my dad walked through a field where the
> cows had been...
but that's normal
this was just wrong
the youtube that was posted was almost how dense it was
you really had to choose your steps carefully.
I remember my cousin saying that we must look down and pay careful
attention - he was not joking.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:03:40 +0200, Tom Austin <taustin> wrote:
>> a side topic
>>
>> I once walked along a river in Metz France where if you didn't pay
>> very careful attention to where you were walking you would have some
>> dog pile stuck to your foot.
>>
>> It was a real challenge to keep from stepping in it - there were piles
>> everywhere!
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pF0ZrOtAm_I&fmt=18#t=0m40s
>
>
That was it - literally - tho it was a little more down and out of the
way than that.
Great stuff!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> "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
Take more water with it Bill ;)
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Doctor John <joh### [at] homecom> wrote:
>
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/07/girl-falls-into-manhole-while-texting-parents-sue/
You know you've done too much ray tracing when...
.... you read that article, and first thing you think is "Great spiraling manhole
cover artwork - would make a nice POV-Ray project idea..."
(Uh - sorry for being off-topic :P)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tom Austin wrote:
>
> 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!
>
>
You are forgiven. I'm feeling happier today
John
--
"Eppur si muove" - Galileo Galilei
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
When I was young I knew a girl that broke
her leg falling in a manhole. The way I remember
how she said it happened was that the manhole
cover was loose in some manner, but looked
normal. When she stepped onto it, it promptly
flipped over, hinging about the middle, her leg
went down the hole, and the cover, now upside-
down, pinned her leg against the side of the hole,
breaking it below the knee.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:51:09 +0200, scott 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.
>
> 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.
There's a difference between glancing to the side while walking and
walking for several hundred yards while completely engrossed in something
on a handheld device. Or being so totally unaware of your surroundings
that you take three steps backwards and knock someone over or step into
the street.
When walking in a busy area or where there's a risk of danger, the
sensible thing to do is to not be distracted by texting a friend. Walk
over to the side of the sidewalk (don't just stop in the middle of the
sidewalk, that's nearly as bad as walking without paying attention when
the sidewalk is crowded) and stop for a second to send your message.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
