Final Destination

[Lance 228]

poor dude....

 

http://www2.tricities.com/news/2010/aug/06/tenn-man-survives-wreck-dies-looking-cell-phone-ar-415957/

[Deleted Account 5,203]

poor dude....

 

http://www2.tricities.com/news/2010/aug/06/tenn-man-survives-wreck-dies-looking-cell-phone-ar-415957/

 

Poor driver of the F-150! Because of the Darwin Award Winner's stupidity, he's probably going to be charged with involuntary manslaughter. That's a shame.

 

Here's why I feel little, if any, sympathy toward the "victim".

1. He's 41 years old! That's 17 years older than I am! Did he learn nothing in the previous 40 years?

2. It's 3:00 AM. Let's break out the "nothing good happens at 3:00 AM principle"

3. Most of us learn between the ages of 3-5 not to walk out in traffic. It's elementary, in the purest sense of the word.

4. It's a freaking CELL PHONE. Money will replace it. Unless it had state secrets, it's not worth a life.

 

Add 1, 2, 3, and 4, mix in a little "ran off the road for no apparent reason", and it'll equal "this dude was REALLY drunk" about 90% of the time. I shouldn't say drunk. Perhaps he was under the influence of harder drugs. To be fair and all.

 

I will pray for the deceased's family, especially any wife or kids that may have lost a husband or father. That's the real tragedy here, for those who cared about him. However, I can't feel sorry for the man. If I did something that brainless, I wouldn't want anyone grieving over me.

Edited August 10, 2010 by UVAObserver

[deuceswild 15]

Poor driver of the F-150! Because of the Darwin Award Winner's stupidity, he's probably going to be charged with involuntary manslaughter. That's a shame.

 

Here's why I feel little, if any, sympathy toward the "victim".

1. He's 41 years old! That's 17 years older than I am! Did he learn nothing in the previous 40 years?

2. It's 3:00 AM. Let's break out the "nothing good happens at 3:00 AM principle"

3. Most of us learn between the ages of 3-5 not to walk out in traffic. It's elementary, in the purest sense of the word.

4. It's a freaking CELL PHONE. Money will replace it. Unless it had state secrets, it's not worth a life.

 

Add 1, 2, 3, and 4, mix in a little "ran off the road for no apparent reason", and it'll equal "this dude was REALLY drunk" about 90% of the time. I shouldn't say drunk. Perhaps he was under the influence of harder drugs. To be fair and all.

 

I will pray for the deceased's family, especially any wife or kids that may have lost a husband or father. That's the real tragedy here, for those who cared about him. However, I can't feel sorry for the man. If I did something that brainless, I wouldn't want anyone grieving over me.

 

Cold.

 

Accidents happen. Who knows what any of us would have done after being shaken up by a crash. Hopefully not wander off into traffic but who knows what types of head injuries the man might have sustained. I feel sorry for the victim and the family. I won't assume drugs were involved until someone says they were.. but either way, it sucks to avoid death and then get it seconds later.

[BigD4VT 11]

Poor driver of the F-150! Because of the Darwin Award Winner's stupidity, he's probably going to be charged with involuntary manslaughter. That's a shame.

 

Here's why I feel little, if any, sympathy toward the "victim".

1. He's 41 years old! That's 17 years older than I am! Did he learn nothing in the previous 40 years?

2. It's 3:00 AM. Let's break out the "nothing good happens at 3:00 AM principle"

3. Most of us learn between the ages of 3-5 not to walk out in traffic. It's elementary, in the purest sense of the word.

4. It's a freaking CELL PHONE. Money will replace it. Unless it had state secrets, it's not worth a life.

 

Add 1, 2, 3, and 4, mix in a little "ran off the road for no apparent reason", and it'll equal "this dude was REALLY drunk" about 90% of the time. I shouldn't say drunk. Perhaps he was under the influence of harder drugs. To be fair and all.

 

I will pray for the deceased's family, especially any wife or kids that may have lost a husband or father. That's the real tragedy here, for those who cared about him. However, I can't feel sorry for the man. If I did something that brainless, I wouldn't want anyone grieving over me.

Wow! Hopefully by the time you're 41 you will have learned a little respect...

[Deleted Account 5,203]

Cold.

 

Accidents happen. Who knows what any of us would have done after being shaken up by a crash. Hopefully not wander off into traffic but who knows what types of head injuries the man might have sustained. I feel sorry for the victim and the family. I won't assume drugs were involved until someone says they were.. but either way, it sucks to avoid death and then get it seconds later.

 

Cold, perhaps. Can't argue with that: the truth is often cold and hard. But two things to consider:

 

First

 

The story was little more than a blurb. But if one reads between the lines, he/she can come up with 3 plausible explanations to why someone would run off the road at 3:00 AM. I list them in order of likelihood:

a. Under the influence of drugs/alcohol.

b. Asleep at the wheel.

c. Prescription medication interference.

 

Under all three, the deceased would be guilty of reckless driving/failure to control the vehicle. Under (a) and (b), and most of the time under ©, the deceased would be civilly liable for damages under recklessness. This is all BEFORE the aftermath of the crash. Leading me to:

 

Second

 

One can prepare/train themselves to behave reasonably in stressful situations. Perhaps having a military stepfather helped beat that into my head from an early age, and perhaps I'm wrong for thinking that it's reasonable for everyone to take the 5 minutes to plan for what he/she should do if in Situation X. This man may not have had it. He should have, though, since the deceased was a surgeon, and what profession has more stress and stresses pragmatism more than that one!

 

Let me give you an example. In April, I rear-ended a senior lady on an entrance ramp to PA-581. She accelerated to enter traffic, then slammed on her brake at the last possible moment because she thought that an oncoming car was much closer than it was. I couldn't decelerate in time. Messed up my perfect driving record. Accidents happen to everyone. My front license plate, the only thing that was damaged on my Jeep, went flying out into the middle of PA-581. Was I shocked? Yes. Was I shaking? Yes. Was I in tears? Actually, yes. Did I walk out in the middle of traffic looking for it? GOODNESS SAKES, NO!!! Why? Because I had mentally prepared myself for this situation. I knew that something material was not worth putting my life in extreme danger. I've known that for about 20 years now.

 

So how dare I think that someone who's lived about 45% longer than I have should be mentally prepared for a situation that the vast majority of people will face, most likely multiple times, at some point in their lives...

 

Wow! Hopefully by the time you're 41 you will have learned a little respect...

 

That's quite a strong statement to make, having never met me before. Unlike deuces above, you went straight for the "ad hominem", rather than attacking my position (which would be perfectly reasonable). I won't resort to ad hominem insults here.

 

If you want to show sympathy for the deceased, by all means, go ahead. However, I am not one to bemoan over a person who died by their own unreasonable, and most likely ignorant, actions. I already left aside the possibility that he wasn't under the influence of drugs or alcohol; I've seen too many deaths under the influence under similar circumstances to put anything else as my first guess. I also said that I would pray (and I have) for the family of the departed. I hope that no one else has to experience what they are experiencing today.

 

My sympathy is with them. Empathy, too: I grew up without my bio-father. But for the deceased? What's done is done, and may it be a lesson to others who think about getting behind the wheel unprepared and in an unsafe condition.

Edited August 10, 2010 by UVAObserver

[Lance 228]

Poor driver of the F-150! Because of the Darwin Award Winner's stupidity, he's probably going to be charged with involuntary manslaughter. That's a shame.

 

Here's why I feel little, if any, sympathy toward the "victim".

1. He's 41 years old! That's 17 years older than I am! Did he learn nothing in the previous 40 years?

2. It's 3:00 AM. Let's break out the "nothing good happens at 3:00 AM principle"

3. Most of us learn between the ages of 3-5 not to walk out in traffic. It's elementary, in the purest sense of the word.

4. It's a freaking CELL PHONE. Money will replace it. Unless it had state secrets, it's not worth a life.

 

Add 1, 2, 3, and 4, mix in a little "ran off the road for no apparent reason", and it'll equal "this dude was REALLY drunk" about 90% of the time. I shouldn't say drunk. Perhaps he was under the influence of harder drugs. To be fair and all.

 

I will pray for the deceased's family, especially any wife or kids that may have lost a husband or father. That's the real tragedy here, for those who cared about him. However, I can't feel sorry for the man. If I did something that brainless, I wouldn't want anyone grieving over me.

 

 

 

you being a lawyer wannabe should know by now that you need to know whats up before you open your mouth.

 

it says nothing about alcohol so you can't just make that leap...if the guy was driving home from work or a trip of some sort (who knows why he was out?) then maybe he dozed off or something? You can't just assume he was drinking. Also...if he had just run off the road and been involved in an accident he very well could have been stunned or in some sort of shock and not even realized he was in traffic. I doubt they will charge the guy driving the truck with anything...unless the DA is like you and just assumes that since he was out at 3am driving he was probably drunk as well.

 

sounds dumb doesn't it.

 

also if you read the comments, it says the guy that died was a Doctor....Orthopedic Surgeon.

 

here is the Obit:

http://www.johnsoncitypress.com/Obituaries/obituary.php?id=27823

 

says he was married and had 3 kids...9 yrs, 6 yrs, and a 4 month old baby boy.

[Deleted Account 5,203]

you being a lawyer wannabe should know by now that you need to know whats up before you open your mouth.

 

it says nothing about alcohol so you can't just make that leap...if the guy was driving home from work or a trip of some sort (who knows why he was out?) then maybe he dozed off or something? You can't just assume he was drinking. Also...if he had just run off the road and been involved in an accident he very well could have been stunned or in some sort of shock and not even realized he was in traffic. I doubt they will charge the guy driving the truck with anything...unless the DA is like you and just assumes that since he was out at 3am driving he was probably drunk as well.

 

sounds dumb doesn't it.

 

See my post above, Lance.

1. I talk about that fact that the story is little more than a blurb, leaving to the reader's imagination what happened.

2. I mention the three reasonable possibilities for what happened, and that all three leave the driver civilly/criminally liable.

 

Part of being in law school (and taking a law school exam) is seeing a fact pattern, and putting together possible explanations as to (a) why something happened and (b) the legal theories in play if the situation happened in a certain way.

 

Unless there is something completely out of left field here, what other reasonable explanation do you have for someone driving off the road and nailing a guardrail at 3:00 AM? I would've mentioned an animal jumping out in the middle of the road (deer, raccoon, possum, etc.), but the story isn't consistent with that description. He wouldn't have hit the guardrail with enough force to flip the car, unless he were gunning for it. Regardless, he failed to control his vehicle, which is reckless driving.

 

Any other explanation, Lance? I will admit that I'm wrong if you can give me ONE explanation that's as reasonable as the 3 I've already listed. Until then, don't play the high and mighty game with me.

[Lance 228]

See my post above, Lance.

1. I talk about that fact that the story is little more than a blurb, leaving to the reader's imagination what happened.

2. I mention the three reasonable possibilities for what happened, and that all three leave the driver civilly/criminally liable.

 

Part of being in law school (and taking a law school exam) is seeing a fact pattern, and putting together possible explanations as to (a) why something happened and (b) the legal theories in play if the situation happened in a certain way.

 

Unless there is something completely out of left field here, what other reasonable explanation do you have for someone driving off the road and nailing a guardrail at 3:00 AM? I would've mentioned an animal jumping out in the middle of the road (deer, raccoon, possum, etc.), but the story isn't consistent with that description. He wouldn't have hit the guardrail with enough force to flip the car, unless he were gunning for it. Regardless, he failed to control his vehicle, which is reckless driving.

 

Any other explanation, Lance? I will admit that I'm wrong if you can give me ONE explanation that's as reasonable as the 3 I've already listed. Until then, don't play the high and mighty game with me.

 

 

not playing high and mighty...just saying...you can't just assume the guy was drinking...maybe he dozed off or maybe he was distracted, maybe an animal ran out in front of him...who knows? likely at that hour no one saw exactly what happened...I know if alcohol is involved in something like this THAT usually does make the article doesn't it? No mention of it would make me believe it was not a factor.

 

all i'm saying is that i think you are way off base here...just my opinion.

[deuceswild 15]

If working at VT's Transportation Safety Institute has taught me anything from watching long hours of video recorded data of people in car accidents, is that there are about a million other things that could have resulted in that accident than the three you listed. Most of the data I've seen are of video taken from inside the vehicle, monitoring driver's actions, etc. I saw a truck driver flip 4 times off an embankment and die.. the cameras in the vehicle showed him getting stung by a bee and having an allergic reaction. People fall asleep, become distracted by mobile technology, or enter unfamiliar traffic patterns, or blah blah blah... it doesn't make them drug users, it just makes them unfortunately human and subsequently dead. The explanations you listed are, as you put and as I agree, the first things that would pop into your mind. But those aren't always the cause of late night/early morning crashes. A man died, one who has probably saved more people in his life than either of us ever will... yet he stumbles out in traffic to retrieve a phone after a near death experience, probably to call his kids and wife and tell them he's okay... and BOOM, he's dead. I couldn't feel more sorry for the man.

[Deleted Account 5,203]

If working at VT's Transportation Safety Institute has taught me anything from watching long hours of video recorded data of people in car accidents, is that there are about a million other things that could have resulted in that accident than the three you listed. Most of the data I've seen are of video taken from inside the vehicle, monitoring driver's actions, etc. I saw a truck driver flip 4 times off an embankment and die.. the cameras in the vehicle showed him getting stung by a bee and having an allergic reaction. People fall asleep, become distracted by mobile technology, or enter unfamiliar traffic patterns, or blah blah blah... it doesn't make them drug users, it just makes them unfortunately human and subsequently dead. The explanations you listed are, as you put and as I agree, the first things that would pop into your mind. But those aren't always the cause of late night/early morning crashes. A man died, one who has probably saved more people in his life than either of us ever will... yet he stumbles out in traffic to retrieve a phone after a near death experience, probably to call his kids and wife and tell them he's okay... and BOOM, he's dead. I couldn't feel more sorry for the man.

 

I greatly appreciate this perspective, I truly do.

 

I hadn't thought about a bee sting, and you do make a fair point on that. However, wouldn't it be most reasonable to immediately pull to the shoulder of the road and phone for help? I would assume that he'd have knowledge of what the proper protocol would be for his specific situation, being that allergic to bees. Or was it a situation where his allergic reaction happened instantly and before he could get help? If that's the case, then I would agree with you.

 

Falling asleep at the wheel and getting distracted by technology are irresponsible to the highest order, almost equivalent to driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol: you've made a conscious decision to get behind the wheel even knowing that you aren't reasonably alert.

 

Again, I appreciate your perspective, but I by and large respectfully disagree with the end result, if a reasonably prudent person could have avoided the outcome.

[Lance 228]

it really doesnt matter if it was his fault or not...read the obit in the link i posted and read about the guy...who knows what happened? bottom line is the guy is dead and 3 kids, young kids, will grow up without a dad...i feel bad for everyone involved.

[Deleted Account 5,203]

it really doesnt matter if it was his fault or not...read the obit in the link i posted and read about the guy...who knows what happened? bottom line is the guy is dead and 3 kids, young kids, will grow up without a dad...i feel bad for everyone involved.

 

But you posted "poor guy" afterward, which was the part that struck a dissonant chord with me.

 

I agree in the long run, that there is a wife without a husband, and 3 young children without a father. I know firsthand what the latter is like, and my heart bleeds for them. Just not the father. I think we can leave it at that, my friend.

[deuceswild 15]

Most deaths are avoidable. Someone dies of black lung should've never mined. Someone dies of lung cancer should've never smoked. Someone dies of heart disease should've never ate at McDonalds. Someone dies of a snake bite should've worn thicker boots. Someone dies from being struck by a car shouldn't stumble out on to the road. I get all that. If the guy had botched a surgery that killed a family member of yours, I would understand the cold feelings.. but he's just a guy you don't know and he made a mistake and paid for it with his life. Its just too far, in my opinion, to ridicule someone after they've lost their life in an innocent way. If he survived it and stumbled off the road and made it on to Maury Povich, it would be a little different. But nah man, he's dead, and their family lost their father over this.

 

Sorry to drag this out, I just can't believe someone can just say those things in the wake of a tragedy that they know very little about.

[deuceswild 15]

And about the bee sting, it stung him on his face. He slammed on the brakes and swerved to the side of the road but the truck was moving too fast or the shoulder was narrow and it flipped off the side... horrible to watch. I guess he shouldn't be allergic to bees and let them into the cabin of his truck...dumbass, right?

[Deleted Account 5,203]

Most deaths are avoidable. Someone dies of black lung should've never mined. Someone dies of lung cancer should've never smoked. Someone dies of heart disease should've never ate at McDonalds. Someone dies of a snake bite should've worn thicker boots. Someone dies from being struck by a car shouldn't stumble out on to the road. I get all that. If the guy had botched a surgery that killed a family member of yours, I would understand the cold feelings.. but he's just a guy you don't know and he made a mistake and paid for it with his life. Its just too far, in my opinion, to ridicule someone after they've lost their life in an innocent way. If he survived it and stumbled off the road and made it on to Maury Povich, it would be a little different. But nah man, he's dead, and their family lost their father over this.

 

Sorry to drag this out, I just can't believe someone can just say those things in the wake of a tragedy that they know very little about.

 

I think we're going to get into a battle of cause-and-effect here.

 

The decision of one to mine coal is so far removed from the black lung death that a person gets that you can't point to ONE specific act and say "that act of ignorance killed him." Same for the decision to eat at McDonald's, with the exception that it's even MORE dilute, because the person eats so many other things that eating at McDonald's is a contributing factor, at best.

 

As far as a snakebite goes, it's not as simple as saying "that act of ignorance killed him". If he hiked in an area ridden with snakes wearing cloth moccasins, then yes, I'd say that his lack of common sense killed him. But what if the area wasn't known to be a snake breeding ground? What if he protected himself as best as he could? There are so many different variables there.

 

I know as much as anyone else on this board does, but it just takes a little inference to grasp what likely happened here. There aren't a lot of variables. I'll even list them:

1. Man gets behind wheel of car at 3:00 AM.

2. Man involved in a single-car accident without any noticeable reason why.

3. Man is lucky enough to walk away from this.

4. Man cannot find cell phone.

5. Man walks out onto an interstate highway to retrieve a cell phone.

6. 1999 Ford F-150 sends this man to Jesus.

 

What other variables are there? If he had a concussion, he should've remained at the scene until medical help arrived. Did he need his phone to call his work or family? It would've been far more prudent to wait and call them than to wander out onto the highway like a lamb to the slaughter. Better to be alive at 7:00 AM than be in the morgue by 6:00.

 

I was willing to agree to disagree, but having been drug into this again, I cannot find sadness in me for those who do something as brazenly stupid as wandering out onto an interstate to try to find a lost phone and die as a result of their actions. I'm not talking about the original crash (which may perhaps be attributed to fluke medical conditions), but wandering out onto I-40. I see no reasonable alternative that would make this man a victim of circumstance, wherein the real tragedy lies (like this man's family, the guy driving the F-150, etc). You might have more sympathy, and I'm not saying it's wrong or it's right. YOU are the one critiquing MY position, not vice versa.

Edited August 11, 2010 by UVAObserver

[Deleted Account 5,203]

And about the bee sting, it stung him on his face. He slammed on the brakes and swerved to the side of the road but the truck was moving too fast or the shoulder was narrow and it flipped off the side... horrible to watch. I guess he shouldn't be allergic to bees and let them into the cabin of his truck...dumbass, right?

 

That is indeed a tragedy, and my condolences to him and his family/friends.

 

Why the venomous drip on the end of your post, though? I'm not deriding you for your opinions; in fact, it's exactly the opposite. In fact, I don't think our positions are as dissimilar as you think. Your bee sting victim acted in a reasonable, prudent manner on exiting the highway in a manner that was befitting his special medical condition. The natural terrain of the mountain, which was out of his control, led to him tumbling down the mountain. The bee sting, which was out of his control, was the impetus for what followed.

 

Quite a bit different from a man who walks out into the middle of one of the busiest interstates in the USA to retrieve a cell phone, am I right?

[deuceswild 15]

I think we're going to get into a battle of cause-and-effect here.

 

The decision of one to mine coal is so far removed from the black lung death that a person gets that you can't point to ONE specific act and say "that act of ignorance killed him." Same for the decision to eat at McDonald's, with the exception that it's even MORE dilute, because the person eats so many other things that eating at McDonald's is a contributing factor, at best.

 

As far as a snakebite goes, it's not as simple as saying "that act of ignorance killed him". If he hiked in an area ridden with snakes wearing cloth moccasins, then yes, I'd say that his lack of common sense killed him. But what if the area wasn't known to be a snake breeding ground? What if he protected himself as best as he could? There are so many different variables there.

 

I know as much as anyone else on this board does, but it just takes a little inference to grasp what likely happened here. There aren't a lot of variables. I'll even list them:

1. Man gets behind wheel of car at 3:00 AM.

2. Man involved in a single-car accident without any noticeable reason why.

3. Man is lucky enough to walk away from this.

4. Man cannot find cell phone.

5. Man walks out onto an interstate highway to retrieve a cell phone.

6. 1999 Ford F-150 sends this man to Jesus.

 

What other variables are there? If he had a concussion, he should've remained at the scene until medical help arrived. Did he need his phone to call his work or family? It would've been far more prudent to wait and call them than to wander out onto the highway like a lamb to the slaughter. Better to be alive at 7:00 AM than be in the morgue by 6:00.

 

I was willing to agree to disagree, but having been drug into this again, I cannot find sadness in me for those who do something as brazenly stupid as wandering out onto an interstate to try to find a lost phone and die as a result of their actions. I'm not talking about the original crash (which may perhaps be attributed to fluke medical conditions), but wandering out onto I-40. I see no reasonable alternative that would make this man a victim of circumstance, wherein the real tragedy lies (like this man's family, the guy driving the F-150, etc). You might have more sympathy, and I'm not saying it's wrong or it's right. YOU are the one critiquing MY position, not vice versa.

 

You're focusing too much on making arguments over the examples I laid out. My point is, most deaths are avoidable in some way. This man could have avoided his own and perhaps his actions weren't advised, but we still don't know the details. Maybe the truck driver that stopped to help him obscured the view of oncoming traffic, maybe the headlights off the truck blinded his view of the road, maybe the driver told him the road was clear. These things are still negligible and avoidable and perhaps his fault but who cares? He's dead. He doesn't have to be dead and be called an idiot, seems a little unwarranted and malicious. Especially from someone like you who always has respectful posts.

[deuceswild 15]

That is indeed a tragedy, and my condolences to him and his family/friends.

 

Why the venomous drip on the end of your post, though? I'm not deriding you for your opinions; in fact, it's exactly the opposite. In fact, I don't think our positions are as dissimilar as you think. Your bee sting victim acted in a reasonable, prudent manner on exiting the highway in a manner that was befitting his special medical condition. The natural terrain of the mountain, which was out of his control, led to him tumbling down the mountain. The bee sting, which was out of his control, was the impetus for what followed.

 

Quite a bit different from a man who walks out into the middle of one of the busiest interstates in the USA to retrieve a cell phone, am I right?

 

The "venomous drip" that you so poetically describe is just my way of mocking your view of the accident in question. In not so many words as you used, simply, a bee stung a man, man was surprised, freaked out, swerved an 18-wheeler, flipped over a bank and died. He didn't think about protocol, probably not his medical condition, or the natural terrain of the mountain. What he thought was what most of us think when we're driving and we're stung by a bee... "Holy @*#$ I've been stung!!!" and he probably was concerned that there were more about to sting him in his truck driver face. Don't over think it.. he didn't yank out a rulebook of procedures, he just quite simply wrecked and died from shear panic.

 

Our wreck survivor may have been acting out in a similarly shocked, panicked, and dazed manor... traumatic experiences will do that. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that there was some reason he chose to do what he did and give him that much respect instead of just calling him an idiot. Is it because I feel sorry for him and I'm hoping there's a good excuse even though there may not be one? Probably.

 

But naturally, I just can't be that heartless toward someone's innocent demise. Just can't do it.. The fact that you can makes you a bigger man than me and no doubt, one day, a great lawyer because of your abilities to remove all emotion from a scenario. Not me though.

[Deleted Account 5,203]

You're focusing too much on making arguments over the examples I laid out. My point is, most deaths are avoidable in some way. This man could have avoided his own and perhaps his actions weren't advised, but we still don't know the details. Maybe the truck driver that stopped to help him obscured the view of oncoming traffic, maybe the headlights off the truck blinded his view of the road, maybe the driver told him the road was clear. These things are still negligible and avoidable and perhaps his fault but who cares? He's dead. He doesn't have to be dead and be called an idiot, seems a little unwarranted and malicious. Especially from someone like you who always has respectful posts.

 

Perhaps I am overly focusing on the examples you've laid out, and I will try to do that less after this post. I don't do it to show up or belittle, but I do it to provide how I find it prudent to take everything on a case-by-case basis. You make the point now, and it comes through when I examined your examples before, that there are numerous variables that can affect the situation and how I might view it. Just like the bee sting and snakebite examples.

 

Even the variables you list here, I don't see how any of them override the common sense notion to stay on the shoulder of the interstate and do not venture onto it for any reason. Especially at night. Especially late at night. Especially when you've not 5 minutes ago escaped a harrowing accident.

 

1. If the truck driver obscured the view of oncoming traffic, that's just even more a reason not to walk onto a road.

2. If the headlights blinded him, that should have given extra cause for concern about walking where you can't see.

3. If the truck driver told him he was clear, we learn in Driver's Ed. that you never take the advice of passengers/third parties like that.

 

Believe me, friend. I've racked my brain trying to come up with a reasonable explanation for why anyone not in law enforcement/firefighting/paramedics would ever dare to walk onto an interstate. I come up with exactly one: to save a human life/lives. Just like the deeply-touching Craig Morgan song says, if it's something money can replace, then it's nothing in the grand scheme of things.

 

I agree with you that he's dead, and there isn't anything that'll change that now. Putting logic and reason aside, perhaps I am so emotionless toward the surgeon here because I have an awfully low tolerance and no respect for mindless behavior. Perhaps it's also a bit that I feel like a sympathetic view toward the deceased takes away from what I consider the real moral message: take all precautions in the face of dangerous, deadly situations. Perhaps it's also that I feel that the true sympathy should be for the ones left behind, not the one already gone.

Edited August 11, 2010 by UVAObserver

[deuceswild 15]

Perhaps I am overly focusing on the examples you've laid out, and I will try to do that less after this post. I don't do it to show up or belittle, but I do it to provide how I find it prudent to take everything on a case-by-case basis. You make the point now, and it comes through when I examined your examples before, that there are numerous variables that can affect the situation and how I might view it. Just like the bee sting and snakebite examples.

 

Even the variables you list here, I don't see how any of them override the common sense notion to stay on the shoulder of the interstate and do not venture onto it for any reason. Especially at night. Especially late at night. Especially when you've not 5 minutes ago escaped a harrowing accident.

 

1. If the truck driver obscured the view of oncoming traffic, that's just even more a reason not to walk onto a road.

2. If the headlights blinded him, that should have given extra cause for concern about walking where you can't see.

3. If the truck driver told him he was clear, we learn in Driver's Ed. that you never take the advice of passengers/third parties like that.

 

Believe me, friend. I've racked my brain trying to come up with a reasonable explanation for why anyone not in law enforcement/firefighting/paramedics would ever dare to walk onto an interstate. I come up with exactly one: to save a human life/lives. Just like the deeply-touching Craig Morgan song says, if it's something money can replace, then it's nothing in the grand scheme of things.

 

I agree with you that he's dead, and there isn't anything that'll change that now. Putting logic and reason aside, perhaps I am so emotionless toward the surgeon here because I have an awfully low tolerance and no respect for mindless behavior. Perhaps it's also a bit that I feel like a sympathetic view toward the deceased takes away from what I consider the real moral message: take all precautions in the face of dangerous, deadly situations. Perhaps it's also that I feel that the true sympathy should be for the ones left behind, not the one already gone.

 

I realize its not your goal or maybe it is but your argument really comes off to me like you want to call out his "ignorant behavior" so you can play up and laud your "intolerances". When people do that, they do it to attempt to set themselves apart from a lesser people. In other words, you want to call him out so that you feel better about yourself for being so much smarter than that. Thats fine, I think we all do it but we keep that to ourselves so that we don't seem pretentious or arrogant. And I'm not even saying that because you went to UVA... I'm just saying, for this one debate, its the vibe I'm getting.

 

But anyway. We're agreeing to disagree here.. but a few points to note on your last submission...

 

Of all the roads that I would venture out onto to grab a cell phone, it would most likely be an interstate, at night, and hell, probably also after surviving an accident.

 

1) Interstates are more open, much straighter, and have way more visibility.

2) Interstates at night obviously have less traffic and are better lit than any other types of highways save for downtown stretches. You can see headlights further at night than you can a car during the day. I have a thesis on roadway lighting, its not entertaining in the least, but it provides some pretty interesting details about what can and what cannot be seen at night.

3) I just survived an accident, someone other than this trucker needs to know.. "where my phone at? "

 

Those are three decent enough reasons for anyone fuming from adrenaline after a car accident to go wandering dazed onto the road for a phone at any IQ level. I'm not saying I would do it but that guy definitely did, and being a surgeon, he seems like a bright enough guy, I bet he had at least one good reason to do it.

 

Preventable tragedies make me feel worse. Maybe I'm in the minority on that but if you die from something that could have been avoided, no matter the situation, I feel much worse than if you just kill over from old age. Much worse.

 

Either way, I think we see each other's points and I have nothing left to offer. Good round, sir. I hope I die in a manor that suits you one day that doesn't involve highways or cell phones... and I really mean that.

[Deleted Account 5,203]

I realize its not your goal or maybe it is but your argument really comes off to me like you want to call out his "ignorant behavior" so you can play up and laud your "intolerances". When people do that, they do it to attempt to set themselves apart from a lesser people. In other words, you want to call him out so that you feel better about yourself for being so much smarter than that. Thats fine, I think we all do it but we keep that to ourselves so that we don't seem pretentious or arrogant. And I'm not even saying that because you went to UVA... I'm just saying, for this one debate, its the vibe I'm getting.

 

But anyway. We're agreeing to disagree here.. but a few points to note on your last submission...

 

Of all the roads that I would venture out onto to grab a cell phone, it would most likely be an interstate, at night, and hell, probably also after surviving an accident.

 

1) Interstates are more open, much straighter, and have way more visibility.

2) Interstates at night obviously have less traffic and are better lit than any other types of highways save for downtown stretches. You can see headlights further at night than you can a car during the day. I have a thesis on roadway lighting, its not entertaining in the least, but it provides some pretty interesting details about what can and what cannot be seen at night.

3) I just survived an accident, someone other than this trucker needs to know.. "where my phone at? "

 

Those are three decent enough reasons for anyone fuming from adrenaline after a car accident to go wandering dazed onto the road for a phone at any IQ level. I'm not saying I would do it but that guy definitely did, and being a surgeon, he seems like a bright enough guy, I bet he had at least one good reason to do it.

 

Preventable tragedies make me feel worse. Maybe I'm in the minority on that but if you die from something that could have been avoided, no matter the situation, I feel much worse than if you just kill over from old age. Much worse.

 

Either way, I think we see each other's points and I have nothing left to offer. Good round, sir. I hope I die in a manor that suits you one day that doesn't involve highways or cell phones... and I really mean that.

 

I still think that, without compelling evidence to the contrary, the only circumstance for which it is acceptable to venture out onto an interstate highway is to save a human life, and I strongly disagree with the three scenarios that you mention above (and in fact, I contested #3 directly in a previous post). As I said earlier, I'm not going to spend time examining the scenarios. Suffice it to say, as I have twice before already, that we'll agree to disagree on this.

 

As I have also said twice before, if you want to feel more sympathy during a tragedy caused by one's own lack of reasonable foresight, that's quite fine. I'm not stopping you, nor would I ever. However, there are many of us that aren't going to put this man on a pedestal of sympathy because he made one of the riskiest moves imaginable to retrieve a device worth a few hundred bucks. And it's a respectable view that deserves as much consideration as the alternative point.

 

What is greatly insulting on a personal level is that you're now bypassing this discussion and impugning my motives in having the discussion in the first place.

 

What we do on these message boards is state our opinions on certain topics of the day. Someone makes a post on how they think VT's season is doing to go. Someone else comes in, gives their opinion on that topic. Someone new comes in, gives their opinion on the original topic, then gives their opinion on the topic after that. I'm not "lauding intolerances" greater than anyone else who has posted in this thread strongly antagonistic to my perspective, including yourself. I am stating a well-reasoned opinion, be it cold and hard-line, that those who die by their own recklessness do not deserve sympathy but deserve to be heralded as an example of what not to do. I have went into the reasons in bloody, painstaking detail, and by and large have not received cause to reconsider the ultimate outcome. I have received a heaping helping of insults and flames, and a small portion of legitimate discussion.

 

I am not doing posting to make me feel better about myself. I simply enjoy the banter on this message board, and if I want to feel good about myself, I can get my kicks much easier than posting here. I am not posting this because I feel a sense of arrogance. I am posting it because I have intolerance toward gross negligence and recklessness, and have ever since I was in high school. One can be intolerant of something and not be arrogant about it: they are not mutually exclusive. And to address a point you made, even if I were arrogant, just because I say it does NOT make me any more or less arrogant. The fact that one BELIEVES it makes one arrogant. Saying it is just an outward showing. It may hurt your reputation, but your character will stand when your reputation's ablaze. Remember that.

 

I'm done with this discussion. We're tilling the same ground over, and over, and over again. This will be my last post in it. It's clear how the majority feels about the issue, and that's quite fine. But it cannot be said that I didn't provide enough reason to support my own reasonable opinion.

Edited August 11, 2010 by UVAObserver

[deuceswild 15]

By each paragraph.

 

1) Okay, you think that. That's okay, I think you're in the minority there.

2) Okay, you think that. That's okay, I think you're in the minority there, too.

3) I did not bypass the discussion. I was telling you why I think you think the way you do. But you can think what you want, that's okay. I think you're in the minority.

4) I know how a message board works, I've been around them a long time. Everyone has a perspective, that doesn't stop me or anyone else from labeling your personality or anyone else's as egotistic. And for the record, I disclaimered it and said I know its not your goal, its just how it was all coming off. I've read enough of your posts to know better.

5) Good. It just how it read. And I don't need your wise adages as much as you don't need my sympathy for your view in this whole debate.

6) I don't know that I would call your opinion "reasonable" since it is a little overboard but I will say your discussion about why you felt that way was thorough, so I'll give you credit there. It just doesn't seem like something that would normally come from you.

 

Good day, sir.