🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov18.143813.23498@bmers145.bnr.ca> passier@bmerh9a1.BNR.CA (Chris Passier) writes:
>In article <1ebah5INNldv@agate.berkeley.edu>,
>cah@mycenae.cchem.Berkeley.EDU (Charlie A. Henze) writes:
>|>But seriously, I think the runner should know what kind of area
>|>he is into.  Some people have already posted that perhaps
>|>we (runners) shouldn't assume safety in every place all the time.
>|>
> "Perhaps"?? ..... Yes, I'd say that would be a rather elementary
> piece of advice for anyone, not just runners. The only thing that
> seems surprising or shocking about this thread are the number of
> people who are apparently surprised that this could happen in the
> first place.

It is entirely consistent to assume that you are never safe
and still to be surprised and even shocked when a tragic incident
such as this happens.
It's all in the probabilities.
I take a chance and run in thunderstorms at times,
I'm aware that this is not completely safe, but I still would
be shocked (no pun intended) to be hit by a lightning bolt.

OBVIOUSLY we're never completely safe, and OBVIOUSLY we
exercise common sense to avoid danger.
But each individual decides how much freedom they are willing
to sacrifice for the sake of safety.
I will indulge in the pleasure of running in the fall
in a game preserve even though I realize there is
a danger, hopefully of low probability,  of illegal hunting there.
If I am shot, I expect the illegal hunter to be blamed and to
suffer punishment.

The intent of my original posting was first to make
people aware of this particular danger and, second,
to try to reduce the danger.
This is not equivalent to lightning which we have no control
over. In the case of lightning it's OK to blame only the victim.
In this case, we have some contol over the hunters by law and penalties.
I expect the hunter to be blamed.
The danger can be reduced both by educating runners to be aware
of the hunting danger,
and by further controlling and restricting hunters.

John Schwebel