Family Emergency. How fast would you go? Be honest.

[Potatoes]

Disastrous said:

It's a purely animalistic instinct of protection and if you can somehow over-ride it then you must be a very dispassionate man.

Yup, this.

[mph1977]

Disastrous said:

mph1977 said:

Disastrous said:

I think if you find driving as difficult as you seem to, it's probably for the best that you drive slowly and let others handle the emergency.

Rather than believing in the power of you leet skillz and becoming yet another statistic proving the Dunning - Kruger effect ?

driving is hazardous, response driving is even more hazardous and due to the laws of physics some of the outcomes are governed by squared or higher factors of severity ...

Yawn. Driving is easy, not hazardous.

Besides, this isn't about making a rational decision to 'be a hero'. It's about the life of a loved one being threatened. Rationality goes out the window for me and I'll do whatever I feel I need to, regardless of anything.

It's a purely animalistic instinct of protection and if you can somehow over-ride it then you must be a very dispassionate man.

Dunning - Kruger writ large ...

Driving is hazardous otherwise why , despite risk controls , active and passive safety systems in vehicles and the infrastructure , enforcement, and training do we still manage to kill thousands of people using the roads each year ?

[22]

I don't think many of us would make a rational decision given the scenario. A few years ago my wife's car was hit by a doctor in a speeding car (he was going off duty), flipped her car and it travelled 15 metres on the roof - so quite an impact. My baby son was with her in the car. The accident was on a roundabout outside Stoke Mandeville hospital, but I still drove like a loon to get there. No idea what I thought I could add to a fully functional A&E department but my brain decided to get there as quick as I could.

[mph1977]

Potatoes said:

Disastrous said:

It's a purely animalistic instinct of protection and if you can somehow over-ride it then you must be a very dispassionate man.

Yup, this.

It's called being an adult ... rather than an immature and somewhat sociopathic overgrown child .


It's also amazing how hard it is for the point and squirt merchants to lose a well driven 'inferior' vehicle on anything other than a bone dry and coompletely empty HQDC/ Motorway ...

but no there;s absolutely no reason why people do driver development after passing the DSA test , and absolutely no reason why the emergency services do at least 3 weeks of driver training before being let loose with lights, siresns and moving traffic exemptions ...

Edited by mph1977 on Tuesday 10th May 12:05

[Potatoes]

Disagree with you on that one.

I get that adults should be able to control themselves... this is not one of those situations.

[Disastrous]

mph1977 said:

Potatoes said:

Disastrous said:

It's a purely animalistic instinct of protection and if you can somehow over-ride it then you must be a very dispassionate man.

Yup, this.

it's called being an adult ...

No, it's called being an emotionally dysfunctional adult.

And stop just shouting Dunning Kruger. It's tedious and doesn't make you any more correct.

[mph1977]

Disastrous said:

mph1977 said:

Potatoes said:

Disastrous said:

It's a purely animalistic instinct of protection and if you can somehow over-ride it then you must be a very dispassionate man.

Yup, this.

it's called being an adult ...

No, it's called being an emotionally dysfunctional adult.

And stop just shouting Dunning Kruger. It's tedious and doesn't make you any more correct.

it doesn;t make you an emotionally dysfunctional adult ... arguably impulsive excessive risk taking is a sign or emotional dysfunction

and it is Dunning-Kruger it's quite clear that some if not most ofthe amateur heroes do not understand the risks , hazards and skill requirements of driving well in excess of the speed limit ...

stage 1 of the 4 stage model of skill development talks about learners do do not know what they do not know yet .

[Disastrous]

mph1977 said:

Disastrous said:

mph1977 said:

Potatoes said:

Disastrous said:

It's a purely animalistic instinct of protection and if you can somehow over-ride it then you must be a very dispassionate man.

Yup, this.

it's called being an adult ...

No, it's called being an emotionally dysfunctional adult.

And stop just shouting Dunning Kruger. It's tedious and doesn't make you any more correct.

it doesn;t make you an emotionally dysfunctional adult ... arguably impulsive excessive risk taking is a sign or emotional dysfunction

and it is Dunning-Kruger it's quite clear that some if not most ofthe amateur heroes do not understand the risks , hazards and skill requirements of driving well in excess of the speed limit ...

stage 1 of the 4 stage model of skill development talks about learners do do not know what they do not know yet .

Rubbish. The mistake you are making is in thinking that the people who say they would rush as fast as they could are doing so thinking they have the skill set to do so. That would be Dunning Kruger but in actuality, most are saying that this is a purely emotional, instinctive response, rather than a calculated reaction.

That's not dysfunctional, it's human.

[Potatoes]

You're missing the point chap, most people aren't going there thinking they have the skill set to fix it... they're going there to be with a loved one in their time of need. Any emotionally functional parent would do it, any emotionally intelligent person would understand that to some degree.

[Devil2575]

Black_S3 said:

Impasse said:

"Phone for an ambulance, love. I'll wait for you at the hospital."

Exactly. The police, paramedics or fire brigade will be there faster than you and better equipped to deal with the problem on arrival.

This. Also the chance of you becoming a casualty yourself if you are going fast and distracted must be higher. You're not going to do your family much good if you're involved in a crash.

[k-ink]

I once followed an ambulance to the hospital, which was carrying my Nan. We didn't go that fast, but the limit was broken.

[Devil2575]

Potatoes said:

You're missing the point chap, most people aren't going there thinking they have the skill set to fix it... they're going there to be with a loved one in their time of need. Any emotionally functional parent would do it, any emotionally intelligent person would understand that to some degree.

Any emotionally functional parent would feel the desire to do it but hopefully most would recognise that it is the wrong course of action. By thinking about what you would do in this situation before it happens you can rationalise it and so help yourself if it ever does come up.

What you are saying is that because we are emotionally involved we would automatically "lose our head". This doesn't have to be the case. An important life skill is being able to keep your head and make rational decisions even when the st is hitting the fan.

[ali_kat]

Disastrous said:

I maintain that any correctly wired human animal would risk absolutely everyone's life to protect those of his family. It's just normal, human and completely understandable. The people here claiming they'd carry out a calm, measured risk assessment and drive to conditions just sound like wet little babies. Poor wives!

You may well maintain that thought process, however, 99.9% of the rest of us think you are wrong, including those that have driven to the side of family in an emergency. We aren't wet little babies; we're rational, mature adults.

Whilst it is normal, human and completely understandable to want to be with your family in times of emergency, it is not moral to risk the lives of others to do so. There's some stats somewhere based on human morals of a who would you save situation your wife/child or a group of unknown others, that show that most people would sacrifice their family for others.

"maturity begins to grow when you can sense your concern for others outweighing your concern for yourself" - John MacNaughton

I'm not going to say what you sound like, being willing to risk anyone's life to protect those of his family...

[MarkRSi]

Devil2575 said:

Black_S3 said:

Impasse said:

"Phone for an ambulance, love. I'll wait for you at the hospital."

Exactly. The police, paramedics or fire brigade will be there faster than you and better equipped to deal with the problem on arrival.

This. Also the chance of you becoming a casualty yourself if you are going fast and distracted must be higher. You're not going to do your family much good if you're involved in a crash.

+1

Probably wouldn't stop me going at hoon pace to the hospital or whatever though to meet up with them. I'd certainly ignore speed limits but wouldn't drive dangerously or spaz out if everyone didn't immediately throw their car off the road out the way.

Edited by MarkRSi on Tuesday 10th May 12:46

[Disastrous]

ali_kat said:

Disastrous said:

I maintain that any correctly wired human animal would risk absolutely everyone's life to protect those of his family. It's just normal, human and completely understandable. The people here claiming they'd carry out a calm, measured risk assessment and drive to conditions just sound like wet little babies. Poor wives!

You may well maintain that thought process, however, 99.9% of the rest of us think you are wrong, including those that have driven to the side of family in an emergency. We aren't wet little babies; we're rational, mature adults.

Whilst it is normal, human and completely understandable to want to be with your family in times of emergency, it is not moral to risk the lives of others to do so. There's some stats somewhere based on human morals of a who would you save situation your wife/child or a group of unknown others, that show that most people would sacrifice their family for others.

"maturity begins to grow when you can sense your concern for others outweighing your concern for yourself" - John MacNaughton

I'm not going to say what you sound like, being willing to risk anyone's life to protect those of his family...

Think what you like. If I offered you the chance to have a complete stranger die to save someone you loved, you would of course choose the stranger.

[boz1]

mph1977 said:

the amount of comments in such threads that are 20 (community responders / air ambulances) , 30 (blue book paramedics) , 40 (NHS direct management of the ambulance service and near total provision of fully 'qualified' ( green book) Ambulance crews ) or even 50 years out of date ( the origins of BASICS and the Millar report are mid 1960s) are remarkable.

I assume I'm not alone in having no clue what you are saying...

[Devil2575]

Disastrous said:

Think what you like. If I offered you the chance to have a complete stranger die to save someone you loved, you would of course choose the stranger.

That's not the option. The question is would you kill someone to save a family members life.

However this is irrellevant anyway. The fact is the best thing you can do for your family is call 999. How much use are you to your family if you're dead after stacking your car racing to get home?

[ali_kat]

Disastrous said:

ali_kat said:

Disastrous said:

I maintain that any correctly wired human animal would risk absolutely everyone's life to protect those of his family. It's just normal, human and completely understandable. The people here claiming they'd carry out a calm, measured risk assessment and drive to conditions just sound like wet little babies. Poor wives!

You may well maintain that thought process, however, 99.9% of the rest of us think you are wrong, including those that have driven to the side of family in an emergency. We aren't wet little babies; we're rational, mature adults.

Whilst it is normal, human and completely understandable to want to be with your family in times of emergency, it is not moral to risk the lives of others to do so. There's some stats somewhere based on human morals of a who would you save situation your wife/child or a group of unknown others, that show that most people would sacrifice their family for others.

"maturity begins to grow when you can sense your concern for others outweighing your concern for yourself" - John MacNaughton

I'm not going to say what you sound like, being willing to risk anyone's life to protect those of his family...

Think what you like. If I offered you the chance to have a complete stranger die to save someone you loved, you would of course choose the stranger.

Only a sociopath would chose to actively KILL someone else in order to save the life of someone you loved.

[Esceptico]

Devil2575 said:

Any emotionally functional parent would feel the desire to do it but hopefully most would recognise that it is the wrong course of action. By thinking about what you would do in this situation before it happens you can rationalise it and so help yourself if it ever does come up.

What you are saying is that because we are emotionally involved we would automatically "lose our head". This doesn't have to be the case. An important life skill is being able to keep your head and make rational decisions even when the st is hitting the fan.

If you read Roadcraft (police training book) they put a lot of emphasis on mood and impact on high speed driving as it impairs your ability to judge situations properly.

Many responses on this thread are quite worrying. Driving quickly ie deliberately over the speed limit by some margin, overtaking and running red lights is hazardous even if done by trained police or paramedics (with sirens and lights to warn other drivers). Untrained drivers of average ability with no experience and not in a calm frame of mind. Much higher risk of causing an accident. And in almost all cases with no justification as not a case of life or death. Sounds like more an excuse to do something inexcusable.

Like most parents if actually necessary I would do anything up to and including sacrifice myself for the sake of my child. But that doesn't mean I'm justified in taking any action where there is no genuine emergency or I can't influence the outcome.

[Potatoes]

Devil2575 said:

Potatoes said:

You're missing the point chap, most people aren't going there thinking they have the skill set to fix it... they're going there to be with a loved one in their time of need. Any emotionally functional parent would do it, any emotionally intelligent person would understand that to some degree.

Any emotionally functional parent would feel the desire to do it but hopefully most would recognise that it is the wrong course of action. By thinking about what you would do in this situation before it happens you can rationalise it and so help yourself if it ever does come up.

What you are saying is that because we are emotionally involved we would automatically "lose our head". This doesn't have to be the case. An important life skill is being able to keep your head and make rational decisions even when the st is hitting the fan.

I get the concern Devil (and everyone else's concern), specifically with regard to me, I said I would fk the rules and would rush to their side. Not much more than that... what I probably should have said to clarify is I would drive VERY enthusiastically, take gaps in traffic that I probably wouldn't take in a normal situation and observe pedestrian crossings and town speed limits.

As an adult, I would hope I wouldn't totally loose my head but as a parent I would make progress at a higher than normal average speed.

I know I'm not alone in assuming this approach if put in such a situation, god forbid.