DV Info Net

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   The TOTEM Poll: Totally Off Topic, Everything Media (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/totem-poll-totally-off-topic-everything-media/)
-   -   Talk about breaking news! (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/totem-poll-totally-off-topic-everything-media/34541-talk-about-breaking-news.html)

James Emory November 5th, 2004 07:45 PM

Talk about breaking news!
 
www.beltmarks.com/video/crash.mpg

Imran Zaidi November 5th, 2004 08:33 PM

What's really interesting is the accident probably only happened because they were filming on an already dangerous street, obviously distracting the driver.

In addition, he was so busy reporting, he didn't even rush to help.

It's a perfect example of how reporters these days are so desperate for stories, they brazenly don't even think about the consequences of their actions.

Someone refresh my memory - what's the law in physics that you can't just observe something - the minute you observe you become a variable and therefore change the outcome...

Dylan Couper November 6th, 2004 12:35 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Imran Zaidi : What's really interesting is the accident probably only happened because they were filming on an already dangerous street, obviously distracting the driver.
-->>>

Does that make it the reporters fault?

Ken Tanaka November 6th, 2004 12:50 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Imran Zaidi : ... Someone refresh my memory - what's the law in physics that you can't just observe something - the minute you observe you become a variable and therefore change the outcome... -->>>

I believe that theory comes from quantum physics.

Ken Tanaka November 6th, 2004 12:57 AM

Speaking of physics, the Kansas landscape is a good setting to prove the conservation of momentum, as these two cars did.

John Hudson November 6th, 2004 12:27 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Imran Zaidi : What's really interesting is the accident probably only happened because they were filming on an already dangerous street, obviously distracting the driver.

In addition, he was so busy reporting, he didn't even rush to help.

It's a perfect example of how reporters these days are so desperate for stories, they brazenly don't even think about the consequences of their actions.

Someone refresh my memory - what's the law in physics that you can't just observe something - the minute you observe you become a variable and therefore change the outcome... -->>>

Come now.

He didnt rush to help: We only saw about :30 seconds of footage. We dont even know what happended after that. He did report it into the studio "There has been a major accident at 133rd Street and..."

I think the accident happended because the Driver of the car didnt look before crossing. The driver just pulls out as soon as the other car passes him. (Not dispelling the dangerous street idea). Now me? I'm looking both ways.


I wonder if they will put up stop signs now?

Pete Bauer November 6th, 2004 01:55 PM

Of course, we don't know what happened after the end of this short video clip. But based on what we know, I have to agree with John. The reporter did the exact correct thing: used the fastest means of communication available to him to report the accident -- with clear location. By way of example, even basic CPR procedures make calling for help the first step after establishing unresponsiveness of a victim. BTW, each and every one of you has CURRENT CPR TRAINING, right?

HOPEFULLY, he and/or his team were willing to put themselves at some risk to help the drivers once the info was passed.

I also agree with Dylan that it would not be the reporter's fault; there are all kinds of distractions along the road, and undoubtedly he and his crew were another one. The driver at the stop was clearly in the wrong for failure to yield right of way. None of the drivers was probably looking where they OUGHT to have been looking (res ipsa loquitur -- the affair speaks for itself)...and FWIW I couldn't see if anyone was blabbing away on their d*mn cell phone! None of us do that, do we!?

Let's all be extra safe today!

Cheers,

Jeff Donald November 6th, 2004 02:07 PM

My wife is a nurse and is liable for malpractice, in some states, if she were to treat an accident victim. Some states have what is known as "Good Samaritan" laws that protect from liability those that seek to give accident victims aide. My wife's insurance only protects her when she is on the job. In many ways it is unfortunate we live in such a litigious society today.

Pete Bauer November 6th, 2004 03:16 PM

Hi Jeff,

I certainly understand her worries; I always cringe when I hear, "If there is a physician aboard, would you please press your call button." It's happened to me at least 3 times that I can think of off the top of my skull.

And it has been a topic at just about every BLS, ACLS, and ATLS class I've ever been to. I'm sure the AHA won't mind if I briefly quote the 2001 ACLS manual:

>>>>>

"In the United States people may take legal action when they perceive damage or think that a person has harmed another, even unintentionally. Despite this legal environment, CPR remains widely used and remarkably free of legal issues and lawsuits. Although attorneys have included rescuers in lawsuits, no "Good Samaritan" has ever been found guilty of doing harm while performing CPR.

All 50 states have Good Samaritan laws that grant immunity to anyone who attempts CPR in an honest, "good-faith" effort to save a life. A person is considered a Good Samaritan if

- The person is genuinely trying to help
- The help is reasonable (you cannot engage in gross misconduct, such as doing chest compressions on someone's neck)
- The rescue effort is voluntary and not part of the person's job requirements...

...Failure to attempt CPR when there is no danger to the rescuer and the rescuer has the ability is considered an ethical violation by some."

>>>>>

We all worry about that sort of thing, but I feel that based on the statistics and our ethics, we probably shouldn't be so afraid that we won't be a Good Samaritan when fate (or more likely someone else's carelessness or stupidity) calls. I hope the news team in the video did render aid to whatever level they were capable...they made a good start by instantly calling it in.

Jeff Donald November 6th, 2004 03:43 PM

Quote:

Although attorneys have included rescuers in lawsuits, no "Good Samaritan" has ever been found guilty of doing harm while performing CPR.
Being found innocent is not much of a victory if your defense cost you tens of thousands of dollars. I know of people that have been found negligent in cases involving practices other than CPR. The immunity granted by "Good Samaritan" laws is very limited in some state laws. I haven't seriously investigated this in the last several years, but in the mid '90's there were quite a few states that had not enacted GS laws. So I'm surprised to see that all 50 states have GS laws as of 2001, but glad to hear that all states have some form of GS laws.

Imran Zaidi November 7th, 2004 05:03 AM

The accident was, sure, the driver's fault, and not the reporter's. My point was just that they were standing awfully close to corner, and we all know the rubber necking that happens when there's a big news van with that HUGE telescoping antenna and a camera and a light and a reporter. The reporter knows this and should have been more sensitive to the situation.

In addition, think about the driver who was not at fault. It's also highly likely that he was distracted by the news crew as well because it didn't seem like he noticed the rolling vehicle at all. Anyone who's seen those telescoping antennas in person can tell you first hand how attention grabbing they are. They direct your eyes up, away from the road.

The closer driver is legally at fault, but I'm just saying that the reporter probably did contribute to this particular accident because he was more concerned with getting the best angle he could to cover his story, and not applying good citizen sense.


Dylan Couper November 7th, 2004 12:02 PM

Sorry, I still have to disagree with you. If you can't pay attention to driving over everything else, you shouldn't be allowed on the road. I've nearly been in plenty of accidents from staring at bikini clad hotties walking down the sidewalk for a second too long. I wouldn't say those girls weren't sensitive to my driving needs by flaunting their booty that close to the road. ANd booty is much more distracting than a TV van, at least to me.


MMmmmmm....



Booooooty....

Imran Zaidi November 7th, 2004 03:56 PM

Sure, but the 'bikini clad hotties' aren't trying to show the world with great sincerity how dangerous the intersection is. The reporter should know better.

There are two realms of fault - for lack of a better word. One is legal fault, which is what we tend to get hung up on, as though our responsibilities as humans stop there. The second realm is about practicing good sense. It's the voice that should have gone off in the reporter's head - hey, you're doing a story about an intersection that is already pretty deadly, so maybe you should back away from the street a little and not be an additional distraction to possibly worsen the situation. We're all camera people here - we all know how you can cheat the field of view to make it seem like you're more in the thick of it than you are.

It's just the irony of it that strikes me. Luckily nobody was killed. I just think this small case is very representative of news reporting today. So eager, so desperate to get stories and make that next poignant statement that will 'ring through the ages'.

John Hudson November 7th, 2004 09:17 PM

Distracted. Hardly.

Signs, pedestrians, cell phones, chicks, other drivers, the kids, the radio, accidents........

Gotta focus up on the task. Can't blame the reporter.

Imran Zaidi November 7th, 2004 10:03 PM

Again, I'm not blaming the reporter! But you can't possibly tell me that the reporter and his equipment's presence had absolutely nothing to do with this particular accident, in an intersection already known to be touchy.

Remember - either one of the two drivers could have averted the accident and if both are distracted by the sudden and out of the norm presence of a giant telescoping antenna and a camera crew... well, I can't really explain any better than that.

Being sensitive beyond just being legally blame free is something I wish more people had more of. It's like inflating a paper bag and popping it outside of a heart-patient's room at a hospital. Of course the person's own heart condition was the cause of death, but maybe the big popping bad had something to do with it? Just maybe it was a catalyst?

John Hudson November 7th, 2004 10:50 PM

definatley a catalyst.

Im just saying we are sorrounded by it constantly and the fault is of the driver and the driver only. The catalyst could have been a rabbit but its still the driver who lost focus.

Aaron Rosen November 8th, 2004 01:03 AM

That's just bad driving.

There is not really anything on the side of the road - so it apprears. A field of some sort and the news guy. It's not like they were in a congested area.

In the reporters defense...

SCENE SAFETY is most important.

Im not running into a street or freeway if the scene is not secured and traffic is still moving.



Points to the camera guy - stayed on target the entire time....

Imran Zaidi November 8th, 2004 11:21 AM

Actually Aaron there is indeed the usual news van with the spiraling antenna up top - watch for it near the end of the video. You have to see these things in real life to see how strange they really are, and how they seem to defy the laws of physics.

Marco Leavitt November 8th, 2004 12:05 PM

My first reaction to watching this clip was -- man, that's a hell of a camera man! He didn't get rattled at all and pulls off a pretty decent pan. The car never leaves the frame. If it had been me, I would've run like hell. I guess that's what separates the pros.

Aaron Rosen November 8th, 2004 01:02 PM

I have been to my fair shair of traffic accidents - deaths and all.


Still - Good work for the cam. guy.

George Ellis November 8th, 2004 01:57 PM

I spent a few years playing in traffic as a SCCA Flagging and Communications worker, aka corner worker, or marshall for you European types.

The only thing the reporter did wrong was standing with his back to traffic without an active spotter (the cameraman does not count as he is doing his job.) Nice save by the reporter. He got the "shhhii" out but did not finish the word. ;)

Having worked some big incidents, it is hard for someone who is not a first responder (and I mean someone who has to respond that watched the crash, not EMS) to respond correctly in a timely fashion. Unless you are trained for it, it is hard to jump from the trauma of the incident to doing the next thing. That would definitely ring true for someone who is trained to report 'incidents' as an ENG type. That is jumping from one job to another, so there is a difficulty jumping roles in a situation like this.

The reporter establishing the communications with the station and getting it reported was the BEST response he could have made. By getting that done, he established a call to EMS, which would be the first priority in this situation. If he did respond, the next responsibility would be to make sure that he and the videographer were safe (which they did not do very well reporting from that location). If safe, he can then triage the situation. Who needs what aid first? From that point it breaks down into the Good Samaritan stuff.

Note that the driver's vision was obscured by clutter on the left of a fence and sign. Cannot tell where the balk line is, but if it is where that driver stopped, it is too far back from the intersection. The DOT and the stuff on the corner did contribute to this crash. Also, the crossing van obscured the pickup's view of the crossing car. The pickup driver did react quickly and correctly when it became obvious. The pickup drivers attention was on the slow crossing van in all likelihood. He started braking about 40 feet from impact and did not steer right to avoid (into the pedestrians). The pickup carried left because of the direction of the car. If the car had been coming from the other direction, the reporter's story would have cutoff at impact plus .2 seconds.

This crash was probably written as a failure to yield.

Christopher C. Murphy November 8th, 2004 04:27 PM

Can anyone confirm what happened to the driver of the car? Dead? Alive?

Murph

Yi Fong Yu November 8th, 2004 07:57 PM

it is fairly obvious the red sedan is @fault there. the pickup truck had the right of way. the red sedan has a stop sign. so unlucky... ah well.

Will Downing November 9th, 2004 08:33 AM

Christopher, I contacted our Troop F headquarters this morning, and both drivers survived. The pickup driver was held for observation then released, the car driver was in serious condition. Further information wasn't available to us regarding his release. Sedgewick County Sheriff's officers worked the accident.

This was the latest in a string of accidents in the Wichita area caused by inattentive driving. This particular location has no major distractions, nor does it have any large building/businesses. The sight distances are not obstructed, and the items mentioned by George, fence and clutter, are well back from the roadway. It is a wide open intersection, nothing around for miles.

Simply put, the driver of the car wasn't paying attention and drove out in front of the truck. If you watch, his head never turned left...he was watching the news crew the entire time. Sadly it punctuated a fact in our driving habits, we do not pay adequate attention to what we are doing while driving a 2000 lb projectile.

As far as the news crew, they were doing their jobs. They were not in the lane of travel, nor were they obstructions. Distractions, yes, obstructions no. I agree that the phojo did a hell of a job following the vehicles, and the reporter needed a spotter. I've worked both sides here, both as a truck operator, and now as a member of a law enforcement agency, and I always worry about oncoming traffic. As I do ride-alongs and work with troopers on the roadside, I worry more about oncoming traffic, since the looky-loos key in on us and drift onto the shoulder where we are. I've numerous shots of traffic doing this.

Anyway. George, still with the SCCA? My wife runs the Solo department now.

Thanks for letting me get on the KHP soapbox, and if you drive, watch out for the other guy and stay off the cell phone ;)

Will

Will Downing
Media Director (camera guy)
Kansas Highway Patrol

Christopher C. Murphy November 9th, 2004 11:23 AM

Thanks for the info. Will, I can't believe the guy survived. It looked like a direct hit!

Murph

Will Downing November 9th, 2004 01:40 PM

Oh yeah...he definitely had someone looking out for him. It's a testament to how much better cars are built and what a seatbelt can do for you in a crash as well.

It's just so dad-gum frustrating for our troops, when they roll up on a wreck, and the occupants are killed because of carelessness or not wearing a seatbelt. Senseless.

No matter how many programs our department produces, PSA's we make, or graphics/billboards/newpaper ads we run, we just can't get people to pay attention and take responsibility.

Oh yeah, before I forget. The station's producers were on the phone to 911 immediately, and apparently the dispatch switchboard lit up with people calling in the crash.

Will

Matt Perry November 9th, 2004 03:39 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Imran Zaidi :
Someone refresh my memory - what's the law in physics that you can't just observe something - the minute you observe you become a variable and therefore change the outcome... -->>>

You're thinking of quantum superposition which isn't applicable for non-quantum physics.

See <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition</a>

Imran Zaidi November 9th, 2004 03:41 PM

It was just a metaphor.

George Ellis November 9th, 2004 08:34 PM

Will,

Not much involvement in the last six years. I did Club Racing and all of the trade-off events at Road Atlanta. Too busy with my step-kids and video these days ;)

James Emory November 12th, 2004 09:50 AM

Articles on the accident
 
http://www.kwch.com/servlet/Satellit...77981746&path=


http://b-roll.net/ubb/ultimatebb.php...c;f=1;t=006819

Imran Zaidi November 12th, 2004 10:09 AM

Wow, that thread sounds awfully similar to this one. How weird.

James Emory November 12th, 2004 10:42 AM

That's because it is the same incident.

Imran Zaidi November 12th, 2004 11:04 AM

Hehe I know that - I was referring to the discussion about fault and blame, etc.

James Emory November 12th, 2004 01:35 PM

Okeedokee. Got it.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:43 AM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2019 The Digital Video Information Network