Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

‘That girl is going to get herself killed’ (2022)

longreads.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 474 posts

Re: ‘That girl is going to get herself killed’ (2022)

#361

Post by bradlys »

kibwen wrote: post #86
emtel wrote: post #48

One time, I was driving at night in the Sierra after a storm - roads were covered in snow. It's a drive I've made close to 100 times without incident. Going around a bend, I saw a car in the ditch on the outside of the curve. I stopped the car, put on the hazards, and went to see if there was anyone in the car. As I was about to cross the highway a car come sliding around the bend more or less sideways. I stopped and…

> Going around a bend, I saw a car in the ditch on the outside of the curve. I stopped the car, put on the hazards, and went to see if there was anyone in the car. As I was about to cross the highway a car come sliding around the bend more or less sideways. The lesson here is this: lightning strikes twice (frustratingly, the usual idiom is as wrong as can be). In other words, if you observe an outcome and have no oth…

Definitely take this into account when driving too! Don’t just rubberneck at the victims. Check surroundings to see what could’ve caused it.

I was out on pescadero creek road and saw a guy had wrapped his 911 turbo around a tree. This particular bend would send you off a hillside if not for the trees. I slowed not just to gawk at the loss of a great car or to have sympathy for a man who just lost a valuable asset but cause I was wondering, “how did he manage that? Is something wrong with the road?” Didn’t notice anything wrong with the road but I took it slow anyway.

He probably just took the corner too hot. Waved a happy wave to him as I finished the turn slowly then revved back up to the usual fun speeds to enjoy the remaining 150 bends.

Re: ‘That girl is going to get herself killed’ (2022)

#362

Post by Natsu »

swaggyBoatswain wrote: post #326

This reminds me of a time when I went to the grand canyon with some buddies. We stayed there for a few days. Then made the drive back to the airport to fly home Along the way to the airport some asshat setup traps along the highway. These were boulders the size of soccer balls scattered along the highway. We don't see these coming as there's a car in front of us Next thing you know that car in front is veering out of…

Was there no chance that the rocks were due to a rock slide, or was it out in the middle of nowhere such that it could only have either been put there or fallen off a truck?

Re: ‘That girl is going to get herself killed’ (2022)

#363

Post by giantg2 »

ip26 wrote: post #292
giantg2 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think she had fair warning. The story states that the ranger told her that statistically one of them would die that summer. Sure they didn't enumerate all the possible dangers, but who could? It's a wilderness or near wilderness setting with innumerable risks and scenarios. Simply saying it's so dangerous that one of you should die this summer should be sufficient for someone to then do their own research and take…

She was young and assumed it was the mountain climbers who were at risk. Is that her own fault? Yes. Would it still be tragic if youthful hubris & ignorance took her life in a senseless accident? Also yes.

I mean, if you want to be technical, anything involving death is tragic. That doesn't also mean I that I feel sorry or sad for them.

Re: ‘That girl is going to get herself killed’ (2022)

#364

Post by CamperBob2 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #360
CamperBob2 wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stopping distance at 65mph -> 525 feet Probably want to get those brakes checked. Stopping distance from 65 MPH should be no more than about 150 feet. Reaction time at 100 feet/second will probably be another 100-150 feet.

The non-metric rule of thumb [0] gives 490ft for 65mph; same ballpark. This incorporates reaction and actual braking, not just the latter. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braking_distance

Regardless of what Wikipedia says, if you take almost 1/10 mile to stop at 65 MPH, either you or your car is doing something wrong.

Re: ‘That girl is going to get herself killed’ (2022)

#365

Post by krsdcbl »

Very well written and impactful read. This story is about extreme examples, seemingly about people ignoring obvious dangers and thinking "it won't happen to me!".

But the conclusion resonates heavily with me, it bears a very fundamental and important truth that has nothing to do with the extremes of raging torrents or scorching heat pictured: real, actual nature bears fatal risks for anyone, if you are unprepared, uninformed and not cautious.

I'm living in Austria, a rather boring place but one of the countries with impressive natural landscapes and some of the highest peaks in the Alps. Most of these destinations have good infrastructure and are well visited touristic landmarks, and would seem tame compared to the extremes depicted in the article.

But every year we have countless helicopter rescues of utterly unprepared tourists surprised by Alpine weather, and luckily not often but still regular casualties. So common, that "stupid {German,Italian,Youcallit} tourist getting himself nearly killed because he thought mountaineering was a Sunday afternoon hike" has become a huge meme in our country.

And that struck me hard in this story. Even if you don't venture into really dangerous places, being naive or oblivious to the forces of nature will put you into seriously dangerous situations.

To put it in perspective: there's no summer here without some tourist getting maimed or nearly killed by a cow because they thought it's nice taking a picture, disregarding it's calves and threatening behaviour.

Re: ‘That girl is going to get herself killed’ (2022)

#366

Post by Natsu »

taeric wrote: post #159
kibwen wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Going around a bend, I saw a car in the ditch on the outside of the curve. I stopped the car, put on the hazards, and went to see if there was anyone in the car. As I was about to cross the highway a car come sliding around the bend more or less sideways. The lesson here is this: lightning strikes twice (frustratingly, the usual idiom is as wrong as can be). In other words, if you observe an outcome and have no oth…

Is it that lightning strikes twice, or that most events are not as rare and in need of as much setup as a lightning strike?

Lightning frequently hits the same places because they offer good paths to ground. Tall buildings, trees, etc. get hit all the time.

Re: ‘That girl is going to get herself killed’ (2022)

#367

Post by lmm »

nl wrote: post #351
naikrovek wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

things like this convince me that humanity is doomed. A) your car was tailgating if you couldn't see those stones soon enough to stop before hitting one. B) the asshat who placed those stones will do things like this the rest of their life, and/or will encourage others to do so. that kind of thinking doesn't get corrected, that kind of thinking learns how not to get caught.

> A) your car was tailgating if you couldn't see those stones soon enough to stop before hitting one. That's not the case. At any distance you can't see the road in front of the car in front of you (assuming equal height cars). As the OP noted "One of those boulders that hit his tires flies off towards us, but luckily we veer and it misses." - this could happen no matter how far away you are.

> At any distance you can't see the road in front of the car in front of you (assuming equal height cars).

Which is exactly why you should leave enough stopping distance.

> "One of those boulders that hit his tires flies off towards us, but luckily we veer and it misses." - this could happen no matter how far away you are.

It could, but you should be driving slowly enough and leaving enough space that you have time to react to it.

Re: ‘That girl is going to get herself killed’ (2022)

#368

Post by skrtskrt »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #364
dragonwriter wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The non-metric rule of thumb [0] gives 490ft for 65mph; same ballpark. This incorporates reaction and actual braking, not just the latter. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braking_distance

Regardless of what Wikipedia says, if you take almost 1/10 mile to stop at 65 MPH, either you or your car is doing something wrong.

It would be foolish to assume your tires and brakes and reaction time are all functioning at peak capability all the time.

Re: ‘That girl is going to get herself killed’ (2022)

#369

Post by [deleted] »

dguest wrote: post #103
emtel wrote: post #48

One time, I was driving at night in the Sierra after a storm - roads were covered in snow. It's a drive I've made close to 100 times without incident. Going around a bend, I saw a car in the ditch on the outside of the curve. I stopped the car, put on the hazards, and went to see if there was anyone in the car. As I was about to cross the highway a car come sliding around the bend more or less sideways. I stopped and…

I worked the lowest paying job in a ski lodge one winter. One day while waiting in the cafeteria line, one hand on the stainless steel counter, I noticed that I got a bit of a shock from the steel railing on the other side. There was also a stainless fryer on the counter, but insulated with plastic legs, so I did some experimenting by completing the circuit a few ways: - Counter to rail: weak shock - Counter to fryer…

[deleted]

Re: ‘That girl is going to get herself killed’ (2022)

#370

Post by leaving »

newaccount74 wrote: post #324
atoav wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If anyone would like to explain why that didn't kill me I'm all ears. What kills people is current, not voltage. With AC having your heart beat 50 times a second can also cause you to die hours or even days after receiving a shock, but even that requires enough current to flow and cross your skin resistance. Go to ghe hospital even if you are alive and feel well after an electrical shock! Your heart may have suffer…

> With AC having your heart beat 50 times a second can also cause you to die hours or even days after receiving a shock Can you point to any source for this? I have not been able to find any report of someone suddenly dying from cardiac problems days after an electric shock. It sounds kinda plausible, but I wonder if it is an urban legend. People lose limbs or die from severe electric burns, and people can die from c…

50 times a second is hyperbole. Your heart cannot beat that fast because there is a refractory period between one contraction and the next. Before that could actually take place your heart would go into ventricular fibrillation, a disorganized electrical depolarization of heart muscle where many small electrical impulses cause chaotic and ineffective contractions of correspondingly tiny and disparate parts of the heart muscle.

I've heard this idea before, that you can die hours or days after an electric shock without realizing anything is wrong, but I think it is very rare.

An electrical injury can certainly trigger an abnormal heart rhythm, but you would probably notice most of those and, hopefully, go get a cardiogram.

If you felt normal, but had a serious electrical injury to the heart that would later lead to fibrillation, one would have to postulate some sort of abnormal re-entrant (sort-of circular) depolarization current in the heart muscle that was very regular, say 60 beats per minute, but that was prone to deteriorate into fibrillation over time.

That is what I recall about the matter, off the top of my head.

Post reply on HN