Helm*ts and pedestrians

David Hansen said:

"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 said:

David Hansen said:

"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 said:

John Hearns said:

David Hansen said:

"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

cupra said:

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 said:

cupra said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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 said:

David Hansen said:

"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"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

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 said:

On 22 May 2006 08:59:47 -0700 someone who may be "dkahn400"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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...

dkahn400 said:

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.

cupra said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

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).

It was a *Bus Driver* f'f'sake.
That alone warrants a period of detention.

tt

John Hearns said:

I may have this wrong, but the medical definition is severe blood loss.

I think it's dramatic loss of blood pressure giving rise to various
symptoms such as fainting and so on. One of the possible causes of
shock is that you lose enough blood that the pressure in the pipework
can't be maintained, but you can also suffer shock from the mental
impact of an event.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

John Hearns said:

All of us have stood in pedestrian refuges on busy roads, thinking
ourselves safe.

Speak for yourself. I've never felt safe in a pedestrian refuge.

--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Subscribe to PlusNet <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/referral/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

David Hansen said:

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

Eh? You must be reading a different story.

--
Mike

Ian Smith said:

John Hearns said:

I may have this wrong, but the medical definition is severe blood loss.

I think it's dramatic loss of blood pressure giving rise to various
symptoms such as fainting and so on. One of the possible causes of
shock is that you lose enough blood that the pressure in the pipework
can't be maintained, but you can also suffer shock from the mental
impact of an event.

The definition I was taught when I did first-aid courses was loss of
blood rather than drop of blood-pressure.

I think the mental definition is rather more the "layman's" definition
rather than the medical one.

--
Tony Green
Ipswich, Suffolk, UK, http://www.beermad.org.uk
* This has been a Microsoft-free message *

In article said:

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

We are? I don't remember ever being assured either part of that.

Told that pavement cyclists are "a danger" while ignoring the danger
of motorists, yes, but not "kill large numbers".

On 22 May 2006 10:36:04 -0700 someone who may be "dkahn400"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

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.

I quite agree, which is why I did not criticise this part of the
treatment of the bus driver.

--
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 15:52:53 -0500 someone who may be "mb"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Eh? You must be reading a different story.

Are you making a point? If so, what is it?

--
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 23 May 2006 08:47:15 +0100 (BST) someone who may be
[email hidden] (Alan Braggins) wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

We are? I don't remember ever being assured either part of that.

See various threads in the past, especially involving residents of
uk.tosspot.

--
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

Tony Green said:

Ian Smith said:

John Hearns said:

I may have this wrong, but the medical definition is severe blood loss.

I think it's dramatic loss of blood pressure giving rise to various
symptoms such as fainting and so on. One of the possible causes of
shock is that you lose enough blood that the pressure in the pipework
can't be maintained, but you can also suffer shock from the mental
impact of an event.

The definition I was taught when I did first-aid courses was loss of
blood rather than drop of blood-pressure.

St John, St Andrew's and the Red Cross disagree with your first-aid
course trainer, however:

"This life-threatening condition occurs when the circulatory system
.... fails and, as a result, vital organs such as the the heart and
brain are deprived of oxygen."

"Shock can be made worse by fear and pain."

While loss of blood is one cause,
"Loss of other body fluids can also result in shock. Conditions that
can cause heavy fluid loss include diarrhoea, vomiting, blockage in
the intestine, and severe burns. In addition, shock may occur when
there is adequate blood volume but the heart is unable to pump the
blood. Other cause of shock include overwhelming infection, lack
of certain hormones, low blood sugar (hypoglycaemia), hypothermia,
severe allergic reaction (anaphylactic shock), drug overdose, and
spinal cord injury".

(quoted from the 8th edition of their first aid manual)

So actually, even my definition relying on blood pressure was too
specific.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|