Boy dies while texting, blames car park - Page 4

lisa_spyder · 02-09-2011, 04:51 PM

TOTAL disregard??? Hell....that's rough.

What we can do is minimise a danger. Guess that's why we have laws of all sorts and codes of all sorts isn't it...some are overkill no doubt; but plenty are there for the greater good.

Red88Carrera · 02-09-2011, 04:53 PM

death=total

audiman08 · 02-09-2011, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red88Carrera

I'm neither laughing about it, nor taking pot shots at a dead kid. I've made many mistakes and sometimes wonder how I made it this far. All I'm saying is no matter how much you want to coddle and make things safer, you can't fix a total disregard for one's own safety.

I don't think adequate guard rails in a parking garage is coddling...guard rails can protect more than just unwary teenagers. As SammyG pointed out, if there is ice on the pavement, proper guard rails are a good thing.

I think there's more to your opinion; I don't understand why someone would be so vehemently opposed to safety measures.

lisa_spyder · 02-09-2011, 04:56 PM

Don,

here you go...I can see that we must agree to disagree on this one.

The 19yo boy in question took NO responsibility for his actions when he did not take due care when falling over a non-compliant carpark barrier.

and this

The family of the woman who blatantly broke the law by crossing a rail line when the gates were down and subsequently died should SUE anyone who will pay them for the loss of the law defying family member.

In the words of one of our politicians who is copping a load of flak at the moment....**** HAPPENS...

Red88Carrera · 02-09-2011, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by audiman08

I think there's more to your opinion; I don't understand why someone would be so vehemently opposed to safety measures.

There's no agenda here, and I'm not opposed to reasonable safety measures.
Here's a scenerio for you...
Same car park, after new, higher guards are installed. 2 kid are fighting next to the rail, and one of them gets thrown over the new, higher rail. Do we now make the owner of the garage close up the wall so this can't happen? Where does it stop?

audiman08 · 02-09-2011, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red88Carrera

There's no agenda here, and I'm not opposed to reasonable safety measures.
Here's a scenerio for you...
Same car park, after new, higher guards are installed. 2 kid are fighting next to the rail, and one of them gets thrown over the new, higher rail. Do we now make the owner of the garage close up the wall so this can't happen? Where does it stop?

Of course not, a rail that is about 3 ft. is just not adequate. What if it was icy and an older gentlemen who was not steady on his feet hit the rail. I can tell you, if it hits him below his center of gravity (which a 3 ft. rail would), the rail isn't going to stop him. Instead, it's going to flip him over the side. A taller rail would stop him, if it was chest level, for example. That sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

lisa_spyder · 02-09-2011, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red88Carrera

There's no agenda here, and I'm not opposed to reasonable safety measures.
Here's a scenerio for you...
Same car park, after new, higher guards are installed. 2 kid are fighting next to the rail, and one of them gets thrown over the new, higher rail. Do we now make the owner of the garage close up the wall so this can't happen? Where does it stop?

Well I consider meeting the standard code is reasonable.

Your scenario...would you then say if two kids were fighting on the street and one threw another into a brick wall; thus causing an injury causing death..that it would then follow that the owner of the brick wall would be forced to shield it in soft foam? In your scenario the one causing the injury should be held accountable...but then, if he got a 'nice' judge who believed in 'rehabilitation' he would probably just get a wrist slap and a few hours' community service

.

Red88Carrera · 02-09-2011, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lisa_spyder

the one causing the injury should be held accountable...

I agree!

lisa_spyder · 02-09-2011, 05:13 PM

You are incorrigible

...

'Throwing' someone over is NOT the same as 'falling' over...and you know it.

Red88Carrera · 02-09-2011, 05:14 PM

I'm tapping out... Anyone want to take over?

lisa_spyder · 02-09-2011, 05:16 PM

Got work to do anyway...thanks for the break from the myriad of papers on my desk

MFAFF · 02-09-2011, 10:42 PM

This is simply a very sad case of a teenager making a choice as to what he chooses to devote his attention to at a particular time.

The barrier that high is adequate to ensure an 'alert' person does not go over the edge and to provide sufficient restraint for the majority of 'unaware' incidents.

The move to a 1.0m or taller edge protection is a direct response to this type of incident. If somebody were to walk, without breaking step into a 90cm handrail there is a high chance that, with people's increasing height, the combination of momentum and centre of gravity will flip them over, but not an aware person or in the majority of cases someone slipping....agreed 1.0m height reduces that number even further but mainly it protects us from our own inattention.

However....this response (raising handrail heights) is because we label incidents such as this as an 'accidents'....and jump all over those who point out, perhaps harshly, that this guy made a mistake. Had he stepped into the roadway and died his actions would have been viewed differently.

He made a mistake, an easy one to understand, possibly similar to ones we have made, or not.. or less stupid than ones I know I have made.

The consequence is very sad, but its not unpredictable. As to raising the barrier height... in a perfect world the updated codes should apply retroactively...however that is not the case and if it were our view of 'bending over and taking it' would take on a new meaning.

968rz · 968rz's Garage

Just to be clear on my side; I posted this not to revel in ones pain but point out yet another person (grandma) blaming another (car park) for their own misfortune (the boy).
It is sad he passed away but it's hardly the parks fault.

Accept responsibility for your own actions!!!!

onlycafe · 02-11-2011, 09:56 AM

if he had not been texting........so obviously the fault lies with the cell phone manufacturer, and the signal provider. might as well add the person receiving the text as well.
the maker of the batteries too. wouldn;t want to leave anyone out.