Talk about breaking news!

[James Emory]

www.beltmarks.com/video/crash.mpg

[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...

[Dylan Couper]

<<<-- 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]

<<<-- 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]

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

[John Hudson]

<<<-- 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?