M
Moz
Softus
stunt involving a dragster - nothing to do with driving
exactly ,could of been worse he could of been film that explosion/brainiac show ..lol
stunt involving a dragster - nothing to do with driving
exactly ,could of been worse he could of been film that explosion/brainiac show ..lol
I just read this excerpt from a news report:
The company's owner, Colin Fallows, who set the British land speed record of 300mph in July, and his business partner, Mark Newby, issued their own statement: "The vehicle which Richard Hammond was driving all day yesterday had been prepared and was being operated to the highest of standards. Standards which we have maintained for many years in the safe operation of such vehicles.
How can the safe operation of something prepared to the highest standards have resulted in such an incident?
We all take the occasional liberty with the strict meaning of words, but this is a whole new realm of talking absolute b*llocks.
The company's owner, Colin Fallows, who set the British land speed record of 300mph in July, and his business partner, Mark Newby, issued their own statement: "The vehicle which Richard Hammond was driving all day yesterday had been prepared and was being operated to the highest of standards. Standards which we have maintained for many years in the safe operation of such vehicles.
How can the safe operation of something prepared to the highest standards have resulted in such an incident?
We all take the occasional liberty with the strict meaning of words, but this is a whole new realm of talking absolute b*llocks.
Softus said:
That is not what I meant to suggest. What I was putting forward was a possible answer to the question you posed. If it has now been established that the cause of the crash was tyre failure, which I was unaware of until now, I would think driver error would be ruled out. If it was tyre failure though, how could you possibly totally guarantee against that happening at such speed?
Better tyres?
And, in turn, I didn't mean to suggest that we know for certain that it was tyre failure, but the reports I've read suggest that this was the cause of the car veering to the right, before it started flipping.
My point was more about the owner's pre-emptive and grandiose-sounding implication that the car was as safe as it could possibly be, when there's already some evidence that it wasn't.
And, in turn, I didn't mean to suggest that we know for certain that it was tyre failure, but the reports I've read suggest that this was the cause of the car veering to the right, before it started flipping.
My point was more about the owner's pre-emptive and grandiose-sounding implication that the car was as safe as it could possibly be, when there's already some evidence that it wasn't.
Fair point. I agree they do appear to be covering their backs and it does appear a little insensitive, but if they genuinely believe this is the case, they do appear to be suggesting that it could only be a freak accident beyond their control or driver error. We'll know more clearly when the investigation has taken place.
I've not been following the story, and I know nothing about the possible tyre failure.Softus said:
But none of that matters - I don't see why you have a problem with a situation or device etc being "as safe as it could possibly be", and yet still not be "safe".
When people climb high mountains, I'm sure they make things as safe as they can possibly be, but that doesn't mean that what they do is safe.
Working on the basis that you're asking for an explanation, which you haven't, openly, it is thus:ban-all-sheds said:
When the enquiry is complete, and the findings published, certain directives will lead to certain changes, in one or more of the following: technical robustness; safety precautions; PPE. Given the inherently unsafe nature of the stunt (as you observe yourself, below), and the technical knowledge available to the human race in general, there is a reasonable certainty that hindsight is a luxury that should have been obviated on this occasion.
In other words, whatever the safety improvements turn out to be, the owner should have deployed them before the accident. Therefore, to claim that the 'vehicle' was as safe as possible is patently unjustifiable.
I don't see the analogy here - there is no 'mountain owner' who publicly announces that the situation has been made as safe as is possible. Quite the reverse, in fact - anyone in the know, if asked, advises that high mountains are inherently dangerous and urges people not to climb them without a lot of skill and experience. Even low mountains and high hills are considered too dangerous for the uninitiated.
I think you've roundly missed my point - my beef is against the bloke who provided the car, in which he knew a rank amateur would become as a passenger and risk his demise.
To reach any other reasoned conclusion is to believe that the owner did his best, and to be agnostic about it is to be suspiciously naive.
I disagree, in a general sense (i.e. I have no idea if in this case the vehicle was or was not as safe as it could possibly be, or if the owner did or could reasonably know if it was as safe as it could possibly be.)Softus said:
But if after exhaustive analysis of the crash, lessons are learned, then the people concerned will have new knowledge with which to make things safer. Because this is new knowledge, not previously available, then previously it could not have been used to make things safer - i.e. at the time it would have been impossible to use that information to improve safety, i.e. things were as safe as they could possibly be.
Whether the owner of this vehicle was telling the truth or not I don't know, but if he had done everything that was known to be necessary at the time, then the vehicle was as safe as it could possibly be at the time.
Indeed - but it is a good analogy.
It is an example of a situation where somebody could do absolutely every safety related thing that is known, i.e. he can make it as safe as it can possibly be, but it can still be dangerous, and there can still be things to learn that will make it safer in the future.
Whether he should have allowed a novice to drive it is a reasonable question, but at the end of the day Richard Hammond is an adult capable of making his own decisions.
The fact that the vehicle crashed does not mean that it was not as safe as it could possibly be, for two reasons:
1) It may have crashed due to a previously unknown cause.
2) It may have crashed because of driver error.
A passenger jet is as safe as it can possibly be, but it I tried to fly one and crashed, would that invalidate a statement from the owner saying that the plane was as safe as it could possibly be?
Presumption of innocence?
Why should we not be agnostic at this stage about whether the owner did his best?
I come back to my fundamental point. The fact that the car crashed does not prove that it was not as safe as it could possibly be.
Similar threads
