Heroic Engineer Crashes Own Vehicle To Save a Life 486
scottbomb sends in this feel-good story of an engineer-hero, calling it "one of the coolest stories I've read in a long time." "A manager of Boeing's F22 fighter-jet program, Innes dodged the truck, then looked back to see that the driver was slumped over the wheel. He knew a busy intersection was just ahead, and he had to act fast. Without consulting the passengers in his minivan — 'there was no time to take a vote' — Innes kicked into engineer mode. 'Basic physics: If I could get in front of him and let him hit me, the delta difference in speed would just be a few miles an hour, and we could slow down together,' Innes explained."
This is how it looks when it works. (Score:5, Interesting)
This is how it looks when it works. Imagine the news story had it not saved the man's life and one of his kids had been killed instead. The guy took a HUGE risk here, which is an intrinsic part of being a hero, but I pity his kids a little. Were it just me in the car, okay, maybe. But with my little ones in tow? Not a chance. I guess that's why I'm not a hero and he is, eh? At any rate, the safety of the nameless citizen won out over the safety of his own, which strikes me as odd.
Hope (Score:5, Interesting)
I read this on FARK yesterday and I finally had a tiny bit of hope that maybe, if I'm in trouble, someone will be like me and just attempt to do what should be done. This morning, I go the restroom at work, and see that plastered in front of the urinals and on the backs of stall doors (for your easy reading, of course) are lists of ways you're required to respond to emergencies:
In the case of fire:
Calmly exit the building
For no reason, re-enter the building until given the OK by emergency responders
In the case of a shooting:
Run, hide, and call the police. Don't try to stop the shooter.
In case of violence:
Run, hide, and call the police. Don't try to intervene.
And the lists go on. I'm surrounded by warnings that if a good actions puts yourself at risk, then the action is BAD. And I weep a little...
Memories (Score:5, Interesting)
Something very much like this happened to me back when I was about 5 or 6 years old.
I was in the car with my siblings and our mother drove to the grocery store [google.com]. She parked and ran inside for just a few minutes to buy something and my younger brother started playing with the steering wheel, pretending to drive.
This car was a 1962 Chevy Bel Air and the shifter did not have an a key interlock so as he was flailing around he bumped the car into neutral and it started to roll backwards towards a busy street.
Some guy who was getting ready to pull out of the parking lot saw what was happening and drove behind us so that the car t-boned his truck instead of rolling out into the street.
Re:This is how it looks when it works. (Score:5, Interesting)
Same-as, as far as I'm concerned. I'd easily kill one hundred to save my own kid. Color me weird, but there it is.
Re:Hope (Score:4, Interesting)
And the lists go on. I'm surrounded by warnings that if a good actions puts yourself at risk, then the action is BAD. And I weep a little...
Feel free to ignore the warnings.
Psych studies show that in a crisis, most people are going to stand there like idiots and do nothing anyway, so encouraging them to get the hell out of danger is a good thing (for them, if not the human race in general.)
Very few people are going to attempt something heroic. If that's you, then you should go for it anyway.
Re:This is how it looks when it works. (Score:5, Interesting)
Same-as, as far as I'm concerned. I'd easily kill one hundred to save my own kid. Color me weird, but there it is.
Its not weird, and most feel the same way.
The question is at what point the line shifts.
Would you kill 1,000 to save your kid? 10,000 people? 1,000,000? 10,000,000 wiping out a species that holds a cure for cancer?
Would it matter if those killed included lots of other children?
Would it make a difference if you saw any/all of those children before?
Would it make a difference if you had to physically kill them yourself?
Not expecting an answer, just asking the question to provoke people to think about the answers. :)
Re:I wonder what his passengers thought. (Score:2, Interesting)
It isn't about the law, it's about rational thinking. You don't know that by doing nothing the damage would have been bigger and that more would have been hurt. Yet you accept this premise as a fact and that is why your argument breaks down.
Do Nothing:
1) Driver and passengers do not impact any vehicles and get out of the way...no added risk.
2) Possible added risk to those in the intersection.
Try to stop vehicle
1) Driver and passengers are exposed to greater risk from rear impact
2) Possibly lowered but not eliminated risk to those in intersection.
Given what he knew at the time, I feel the path to least net risk and least net harm would be to get out of the way, honking and flashing lights to warn the intersection.
Re:Cynics unite! (Score:3, Interesting)
Guy IS a hero, though the slashdot article comes off as a little weird... "engineer mode"? I mean, (a) this isn't a special brand of engineer-only heroism; and (b) the physical principles aren't exactly so esoteric that you need an engineering background to have figured it out. Can't we just salute his bravery and quick-thinking? Or was the submitter an engineer looking for reflected glory?
Cynic mode ENGAGE:
The newspapers love to report on things that might positively affect the stock prices of certain companies in people's stock portfolios. Especially ones that might be titled "Seattle Times"
True fact: I once was a finalist in some local paper airplane contest done as an art project />
Newspaper headlines: "Boeing Engineer Wins Paper Airplane Contest" <rolls eyes
Re:This is how it looks when it works. (Score:5, Interesting)
And this kind of thing is why I've made the argument in the past that having children leads to a significant degradation in morals. You'd rather let some innocent person (someone else's child, parent, and/or spouse BTW) get T-boned at a busy intersection than put your kids at even mild risk (and if you have any confidence in your driving skills at all, mild risk is all we're talking about in this case). It is, to be fair, evolved into our brains to be this way, but it still sickens me a little bit.
He got lucky. (Score:3, Interesting)
So what if they were his children? I don't give my parents the implicit right to risk my life in an attempt to save someone else.
There are MANY other questions. He didn't know why the driver was slumped, perhaps he was asleep or passed out. What if the driver awoke when he impacted? What might he do? Engine power is nearly always enough to over-come braking power. The slumped driver might panic, hit the gas and then both vehicles are pushed into the intersection. What if the bumping caused the driver to fall to the side, turning the wheel and sending his car into pedestrian traffic?
It's not about not getting involved because "might get hurt" it's about the reasonable and most responsible action given known information.
Re:Oh, snap! (Score:4, Interesting)
State farm does take your money!. They raised my insurance from 162 to 225$ a month, no reason no nothing. Clean driving record, no tickets.. certainly did not grow 10 years in 1 month. The idea that they are nice because they can get publicity from a feel good story is naive at best.
All insurance companies are evil.
Re:This is how it looks when it works. (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh, why don't you just go ahead and Godwin it already...
Will you watch in silence while Nazis kill 2 million Jews if they might kill your kids if you speak up?
Wasn't trying to dance around Godwin, just felt it wasn't relevant to the discussion.
Some people have something that is their "This has to be stopped" point. Think of it as the Psychological "Here and No Farther" Trigger.
For some, its "The Baby Seals are being Clubbed", "That guy is about to mow through a crowd with his car", for others its "That guy with a gun is about to shoot my family". Once they hit that point they act, often without consciously knowing they've reached a point (heck, the truth is most people don't usually think about these things).
Phrasing the question as "what comes first your children or some/any number of random strangers" is disingenuous, since people will (I think) almost always choose their children first.
Likewise the question really isn't "Will you watch in silence while Nazis kill 2 million Jews if they might kill your kids if you speak up?"
The question is "At what point does a perceived impact on others/society at large overcome your desire to protect 'you and yours' from any possible hard?"
Personally I think its a much more interesting question.
Re:This is how it looks when it works. (Score:4, Interesting)
I never thought of it that way ( the degradation in morals) but I think you are absolutely correct. Before I had my son, 10 to 1, I'd be one of those guys berating those "selfish parents". But now that I have him, I'd literally do anything in my power to keep him safe.
Re:Oh, snap! (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6991ZE20101010 [reuters.com]
http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/2010/10/12/google-car-artificial-intelligence/ [personalmoneystore.com]
and elsewhere previously on /.
More likely they are just waiting to be sure 10k will drop to 500 and not rise to 20k....in the Google test the car was fine 99% of time, but "driver" had to take control is some situations to avoid accidents......the only accident they reported was getting rear-ended at a light
Re:Oh, snap! (Score:2, Interesting)
>That is why we don't have computer-piloted cars/planes/etc.
planes? sure??
on modern planes the pilots mainly program the FMS (flight management system) and talk to the human controllers and human passengers...
the flying itself - and avoiding a ton of human errors during this - is mainly done by computers. actually including for example virtually all of the landing process. heck, most pilots get a little distressed, if they have to do a manual approach, as they lack the routine.
of course, they'd take the blame for any incident (compare to Turkish Airlines Flight 1951 [wikipedia.org]. bottom line is the computer grounded the plane, as it was trying to land it well before the airport, because of a defective altitude sensor. guilty? not Boeing, but the two pilots not noticing the wrong behavior of the computer.
the same would apply for the car controlling bot. a driver in charge is still mandatory. they take the blame for those 500 accidents - but still the major part of the 10k will be avoided.
assisting systems in cars will be increasing significantly over the next decade.
Re:Memories (Score:3, Interesting)
Sorry a little off topic but...
So I'm over at my new (i'm recently married) brother in-law's house.
His wife's mother mentions that the school is close by, and starts complaining about it. The bus doesn't stop here!, The school expects them to walk a MILE (if that)
Then she starts talking about how she's going to to got PTA meetings and bring the milk cartons with missing kids. About how America was supposed to stop this sort of thing!
I had to bite my tongue. All I could think of was how great it would be if the kids were close enough to walk. And how child abduction is at its lowest ever. And how if you coddle your kids then they'll never grow up... /digress