[BC] KSDK

[Cowboy]

On Tuesday 31 January 2006 09:54 am, Scott Cason wrote:
>>>The on the air person said it was no ones fault..
>
>Yes it was.  It was whoever was supposed to lower the mast's fault.  It was
>who ever by passed the interlocks to keep the engine from starting's fault.
>It was whoever decided not to get interlocks in the first place's fault.

 As anyone with a commercial license can tell you,
 it was the DRIVER's fault. Period.

 As anyone with a driver's license should know, it's the driver who
 cause the accident ( by virtue of moving an obviously unsafe vehicle )
 and is therefore the driver's fault.

 The DRIVER is responsible for checking that whoever was supposed to lower
 the mast did so.
 The DRIVER is responsible for accepting the responsibility of operating a
 vehicle without appropriate functional interlocks.
 The DRIVER is responsible for accepting the responsibility in lieu of interlocks
 if there are none.
 The DRIVER is responsible for *his* decision to move the vehicle, whether
 it was safe to move it, or not.
 
 It's my habit, born of a day or two experience, no matter the vehicle,
 with exception of a car. Just a car.
 Hitch, secure, safety chain, whatever.
 Complete walk-a-round. Check EVERYTHING !
 Walk around again. ( open gas cap, coffee left on the roof, whatever. CHECK ! )
 Look underneath for anything dangling that shouldn't be, wheel chuks, whatever.
 Move vehicle about 10 feet SLOWLY. Stop.
 Walk around again. Tug at any and all safety retaining devices.
 Procede to first available pull off, and check AGAIN. 

 Now, it's probably safe to drive, but not before !

 It isn't the owner's fault for the DRIVER failing to exercise due diligence.
 ( although I am not a lawyer.... )

-- 
Cowboy

http://cowboys.homeip.net

"The four building blocks of the universe are fire, water, gravel and
vinyl."
		-- Dave Barry