cardinalblue Posted July 6, 2006 Report Share Posted July 6, 2006 Again you are quoting out of context. How many times do i have to state every case is different as i have already given numerous expample of random or unforesen violence/accidents from happening... All you did was select an example that people have no control over as i stated with the aussie girl in the bar. Random violence and just was unlucky...As is your example of a plane crash or bus accident or a drunk driver (unless of course you were riding with him).. But if you have control or some contol of the situation then you can control or at least influence the outcome to maybe a much lessor degree.... You guys live in this eqalitarian world that you just blame fate for situations because you refuse to take responsibilty if and that is a big if BKKtraveler you control certain situations... Our NZ friend had some control over his situation along the way and probably could have minimize or prevented his demise. He was not a random victim of a crime but a victim that he helped put himself in a bad situation... As to knowingly or unknowing what are dangerous siutations, that is your responsility to find out. That is why thieves prey upon tourists who rent cars in unfamilar areas, the elderly, running alone in a park, ma and pa type shops, people who get drunk, etc To say that unknowing can be an excuse as not to contribute to an adverse outcome is weak; if something bad can happen to you and if you can lesson the probably by becoming educated or better equip yourself, then you need to do rather just say "i am a victim or it was fate or i just didn't know... It is no different that US hazrdous waste laws. Not knowing is no excuse. The gov deems it so important so ignorance is no excuse. It is your duty to find out what the hell is happening. If one chooses and it is a choice to conduct risky affairs, the that is his right to do but he needs to live (or not live) with probablities of negative consequences of actions.... The guy who sleeps with various BGs without condoms, is he not accountable for his own preservation regardless of whether that girl knew she had aids? That is why is it labeled high risk behavior.... CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cardinalblue Posted July 6, 2006 Report Share Posted July 6, 2006 If a rapist is sitting in the park, and two girls walk by at the same, the girls did the smart thing by walking together...probability of a bad outcome is reduced.... Now if she is walking alone, no one around, well, she has increased her chances of a bad outcome significantly. Does she have that right to walk alone in the park, at night? Yes, of course but she will also have to be accountable for those actions. We live in a society where for every behavior, there is an accepted level of risk or an unacceptable level of risk. The key is you define that risk to you abut the problem lies in one's own understanding of that risk, the ability or inability to have a near miss or dela with the consequences... Human variation in the same situation allows some people to avoid bad outcomes while others not. It might be cognitive abilities, experience, coordination, personality, instincts, attitude, or a host of other factors... Some leading safety experts say all accidents or preventable; incidents are another matter... CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted July 6, 2006 Report Share Posted July 6, 2006 Time to end this argument with penalty kicks ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cardinalblue Posted July 6, 2006 Report Share Posted July 6, 2006 I am hoping for italy but have this nagging feeling about france's superioity.... Can i have bkktraveller or farangman as the goalie? I would even kick left-footed... CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farangman Posted July 6, 2006 Report Share Posted July 6, 2006 I wouldn't even stand between the posts anyway because you'd be so far off the mark just like you've demonstrated in this thread :: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mekong Posted July 6, 2006 Report Share Posted July 6, 2006 As much as some of you may not agree with CB's point of view on this, I find myself nodding my head in agreement with his argument. I am not saying the Kiwi deserved it, but there were some precautions he could have taken prior to the event. What the fux do I know about it I hear some people say, well in my line of work I refer to ANSI/ISA-S84.01-1996 "Application of Safety Instrumented Systems for the Process Industries," and IEC 61508, "Functional safety of electrical/electronic/programmable electronic safety related systems," on an almost daily basis. The risk factors, probabilities, possabilities etc etc can all be quantified, Simple Expanation Here if anyone is interested Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cardinalblue Posted July 7, 2006 Report Share Posted July 7, 2006 Mekong, As someone performing CIH work, hazard assements, job safety analysis, risk assessments, failure mode and effect analysis, accident prevention and investigation training, its very hard to have a meaningful dialogue with application to real life events with people who don't have that background. Where do you start? As you know and as a safety professional, you do know a lot about human behavior and conditioning, human limitations, systems implementation and cause-effect, we view things differently from the layperson or the average supervisor ... In my years of experience in doing this line of work, employee or managerial attitude is the number one barrier in safety undertanding.. I tried to phrase things using language such as "conritbuting factors, causal effects, underlying root-cause, etc" but people just jump straight to a quick black-white ending - he did something wrong, everyone else is a victim having no involvement to what took place at all; always blaming others, blaming externalities and never seeing how their behavior, approach, anticipation, dealing or reacting to a situation/set of circumstances that can lead to events down the road... Some of the responses of this thread reminds me of the same things i saw (as understandable) in the supervisor's section of the accident investigation form. Quite a worthless section until managers are trained to the point of understanding how to use this section. Then it can be very valuable tool and start to unravel really what caused or lead to an injury or some other adverse outcome. In the mean-time, it is old common and superficial "be more careful next time; he did it - I'm innocent, i was only there" mentality and as you know that can be frustrating... My viewpoints and perspectives whether right or wrong, biased or unbiased, good or bad will not be the same perspective as the average duck on this type of subject matter... It is at least nice to know there is another voice out there who understands CIH, TLVs, PELs, STELs, JSAs, FMEAs, etc and while you might not agree with my own analysis in this specific case, you understand where i am coming from.... CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorro Posted July 8, 2006 Report Share Posted July 8, 2006 CB The problem I have with your line of reasoning is that by taking this line you somehow seem to lessen the culpability of the perpetrator of the crime. Further you can take this safety and precaution issue to such an extent that you could rationalise anything that happened with " didn't take due care etc" eg You are driving on a rainy night and you have an accident. which is totally not your fault but with your line of reasoning .....you shouldn't drive in the rain because it is more dangerous to drive in wet conditions therefore have to take some of the blame for the accident even thou it was not your fault. This line of reasoning would never hold up in a court of law. The fact is that this poor unfortunate guy was murdered and the perpetrator should face the full punishment of the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cardinalblue Posted July 8, 2006 Report Share Posted July 8, 2006 Zorro, First of all, i have not commented on the perpetrator on his innocence or guilt. Somehow, as you and others stated, i have implied " he is less guilty" I have never said that as only you are making that correlation to what i have said which is "the victim's contributed to his own demise. What does that have to do with the guilt or innocence in this case... As to your example and this line of reasoning wouldn't hold up in a court of law... I would differ that my line of reasoning is used everyday in court decisions whether criminal or civil cases. In criminal cases, it is known that people who are are abused over time by a spouse or other and finally snap and kill the abuser have in fact plays a significant role not in the guiltiness of the crime, but the sentencing that they recieve. Some judges do take in an account where sentencing can be as little as probation because their interpretation that the events leading up to the killing was far worse than the killing itself... As to your driving in the rain. That is a perfect example to support my argument. It is called acceptable community practice and is backed up in court cases every day. Environmental or working conditions do play a key role and will influence decisions handed down. At least in america, you can be ticketed and be held accountable if you are going under the speed limit and if the environmental conditions (ice, stormy conditions, wet or hazardous roads, etc) warrant thet by the definition of "acceptable community practice" that should have known and been going at a far lesser speed than you were traveling given the environenamental conditions which lead to an accident or potential accident. Reckless driving is defined by your driving within the existing environmental conditions (hospital zone, kids at play, bad weather conditions, population density, winding mountain road, slope of the road, etc)... CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mekong Posted July 8, 2006 Report Share Posted July 8, 2006 Zorro, Yourself and others are missing what CB is saying, nothing he has said is in the defence of the perpetrator, but merely how the situation may have been avoided. Even without knowing about the parties involved in the incident, based on what was reported one can summise what the chain of events were that lead to the final consuquences, and where "Risk" was involved, if only for the sole purpose of our own survival. As CB said, maybe mine and his working background is such that our minds are more analytical towards events that lead Consequences. In my mind an Accident is an unfortunate event resulting from carelessness, unawareness, ignorance, or a combination of causes, each of which is preventable. I Could go on for hours but I would probably only alienate myself from the board and bore most of you to tears, so I'll shut up now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.