kb58 wrote:Junkyard_Dog wrote: It's official - Dragon is blocked off at the state line. TDOT now saying slide will be cleared on March 26, but some estimates are that it will continue to be closed until July or August...What are they using to clear it, plastic spoons?
Sporks 
kb58 wrote: A buddy pointed out - correctly I think - that it's the cop's fault here. I mean, why was the cop there - to block the road. He should have blocked the road with his car, instead of worrying about the media.
Kurt - I think that you've been in Socal too long.
What part of taking responsibility for one's own actions do you not understand? The scenario at hand is a variant on the old run-the-car-into-a-tree-while-watching-some-sweet-young-thing gag.
What are they using to clear it, plastic spoons?
FWIW I'd be damn nervous clearing a slide like that for fear that I might end up burried in it's successor.
kreb wrote: Kurt - I think that you've been in Socal too long. What part of taking responsibility for one's own actions do you not understand? The scenario at hand is a variant on the old run-the-car-into-a-tree-while-watching-some-sweet-young-thing gag.
If the cops weren't there I'd agree. Can someone please explain then, what function the police are fulfilling in this situation? Perhaps they just arrived, but it seems unlikely if the media is already there.
Suppose your sweet young thing has a sign saying the bridge around the blind curve ahead has been washed out, but doesn't hold it up for the driver to see? She has the knowledge to help the driver but doesn't, so is it still 100% driver error?
Eh, it isn't the first time I've challenged group-think.
kb58 wrote:plance1 wrote: You are kidding right? It's the cops fault? You later say no, its really the guy who was driving, it was actually his fault. Which is it?Okay, let me rephrase: Why wasn't the road blocked if the cops were already there?
The Policeman did not "block the road" because, as a rational human being with functioning eyes in his head, he was pretty much convinced that the ROAD WAS BLOCKED ......BY A BAZILLION TONS OF ROCK. Should he have foreseen that some imbecile was going to drive up onto A BAZILLION TONS OF ROCK? Let me ask you a question; Can you see the BAZILLION TONS OF ROCK? Do you need guidance in order to see the BAZILLION TONS OF ROCK? No. Because it is a perfectly fine day, and the BAZILLION TONS OF ROCK is wonderfully visible. Should law enforcement officers be able to anticipate every single act of stupidity humans are capable of? No. They should not. The job does not pay enough.
kb58 wrote:kreb wrote: Eh, it isn't the first time I've challenged group-think.Do you have a picture of chairman Mao in your wallet?
actually.. they probably should have had signs up way before the slide saying the road was closed...
I know here in NJ if they are fixing a pothole on the shoulder of the parkway.. they put up about 5 miles of cones ahead of time
Shaun wrote: Do you have a picture of chairman Mao in your wallet?
Have a spare?
Shaun wrote: The Policeman did not "block the road" because, as a rational human being with functioning eyes in his head, he was pretty much convinced that the ROAD WAS BLOCKED ......BY A BAZILLION TONS OF ROCK. Should he have foreseen that some imbecile was going to drive up onto A BAZILLION TONS OF ROCK? Let me ask you a question; Can you see the BAZILLION TONS OF ROCK? Do you need guidance in order to see the BAZILLION TONS OF ROCK? No. Because it is a perfectly fine day, and the BAZILLION TONS OF ROCK is wonderfully visible. Should law enforcement officers be able to anticipate every single act of stupidity humans are capable of? No. They should not. The job does not pay enough.
Then tell me why the cop was there.
mad_machine wrote: actually.. they probably should have had signs up way before the slide saying the road was closed... I know here in NJ if they are fixing a pothole on the shoulder of the parkway.. they put up about 5 miles of cones ahead of time
Do we know that was not the case? What do we know?
What we do know is a guy drives his car onto a huge pile of absolutely present and clearly identifiable rocks because, as he states, he was looking at the blinky lights. What else did he ignore on his way to the rock pile? Perhaps nothing, perhaps flares, perhaps some cones, perhaps he ignored a sign, perhaps he thought the people jumping up and down were cheering him on.
Why would anyone jump to the conclusion that the Police Officer is responsible for the result of the idiots actions based on this clip? All that is clear to me based on the clip is that the guy is an idiot. "group think"...?
kb58 wrote:Shaun wrote: The Policeman did not "block the road" because, as a rational human being with functioning eyes in his head, he was pretty much convinced that the ROAD WAS BLOCKED ......BY A BAZILLION TONS OF ROCK. Should he have foreseen that some imbecile was going to drive up onto A BAZILLION TONS OF ROCK? Let me ask you a question; Can you see the BAZILLION TONS OF ROCK? Do you need guidance in order to see the BAZILLION TONS OF ROCK? No. Because it is a perfectly fine day, and the BAZILLION TONS OF ROCK is wonderfully visible. Should law enforcement officers be able to anticipate every single act of stupidity humans are capable of? No. They should not. The job does not pay enough.Then tell me why the cop was there.
No. Figure it out for yourself.
Thanks, and as said before, I have: to block the road off.
This reminds me of the news media covering situations such as icy streets, placing a cameraman to best frame cars losing it and crashing into others. Based on the mentality here, there's nothing wrong with this, that it's 100% driver error and the media's simply an observer.
Or, could it also be that they're a participant, in that they provide a distraction, but worse, do nothing to warn oncoming cars about what's ahead. They possess the knowledge to help oncoming drivers, but don't do so. Is that situation much different than this one?
I will give the group this, after thinking it over, I take back that it's 100% the cop's fault, but I refuse to mindlessly go along with it being 100% driver error, either. A situation is rarely the fault of only one participant, but no one agrees, and since civilility is wearing thin, I'm out.
Heres my take..
The dude caused the problem cause he hit the rocks and was a tard...
Should the cop have been doing something useful instead of "guarding" some journalists.. YES! By guarding i mean probably standing around trying to hit on the cute lady journalist or get his "hi mom" mug shot on the evening news...
I haven't seen this much controversy since the last time I proposed a claim rule at the challenge...
spitfirebill wrote: He was probably texting.
That's what I thought. I hate people that text while driving.
TuffWork wrote:spitfirebill wrote: He was probably texting.That's what I thought. I hate people that text while driving.
With moobs like that, I'll bet he was sexting.
kb58 wrote: This reminds me of the news media covering situations such as icy streets, placing a cameraman to best frame cars losing it and crashing into others. Based on the mentality here, there's nothing wrong with this, that it's 100% driver error and the media's simply an observer.
There was a case here years ago in Philly where they were filming a snow and ice covered street ... a car was coming down the very slight hill, saw the newsvan and team, let their attention wander a bit.. lost control of their car.. and slammed into the back of the parked newsvan.
You'll need to log in to post.
