Slashdot Mirror


Heroic Engineer Crashes Own Vehicle To Save a Life

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."

56 of 486 comments (clear)

  1. Oh, snap! by menegator · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'm sure that the insurance guys will love this explanation!

    1. Re:Oh, snap! by wes5550 · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm sure that the insurance guys will love this explanation!

      Actually, if you read the article, you'll see that State Farm sent him a thank you letter.

    2. Re:Oh, snap! by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually they did; they paid for damages to his minivan and thanked him for his actions (I (gasp) RTFA). He saved them a lot of money, and probably saved a lot of people from getting injured or killed.

    3. Re:Oh, snap! by TamCaP · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It was the insurer of Pace (the unconscious guy), the State Farm, that paid all the costs. It's a simple calculation - the cost of damages was under $4k, while cost of damages if Pace was allowed to continue would probably be at least 10x, if not 100x as much. They saved a lot of money thanks to him, that's why they footed the bill (+ some good publicity).

    4. Re:Oh, snap! by UnknowingFool · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's good. Sometimes the insurance companies react strangely to accidents. I guess it depends on the company, agent, etc. Sometimes they seem to go for short term gains rather than long term gains. For example, State Farm was one of the companies that were denying claims in Mississippi after Katrina. Most often homeowners do not get flood insurance which is a separate policy. State Farm's basis of denial were that the homes in Mississippi were damaged by flood and not the hurricane force winds that hit them, ripped openings, and allowed the rain to come in. If Senator Trent Lott hadn't been one of the homeowners affected, State Farm probably would have fought it for longer than 3 years.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    5. Re:Oh, snap! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Actually, if you read the article...

      Hey, come on now, that's cheating!

    6. Re:Oh, snap! by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Informative

      Is State Farm his insurance company, or the other guy's?

      The other guy's.

      They paid the damages to the engineers car and thanked him.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    7. Re:Oh, snap! by RealGrouchy · · Score: 3, Funny

      Is State Farm his insurance company, or the other guy's?

      Well, State Farm's website says "State Farm® is a mutual company owned by our policyholders." So neither of the two men wholly owns State Farm.

      TFA happens to mention that Pace* is a policy holder, and does not mention whether Innes* is also a policyholder. So to answer your question, Pace partially owns State Farm, and in some sense, it is "his insurance company", Innes may also be a policyholder, and therefore it may be "his" as well.

      (*I'll let you figure out which one is 'the other guy', perhaps by reading TFA yourself)

      - RG>

      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    8. Re:Oh, snap! by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Informative

      I must say I am pleasantly surprised that State Farm paid Innes, instead of finding him at fault.

      As has been pointed out elsewhere, he likely saved them a truck-load of money, as well as the life of someone they insure.

      So, if the unconscious guy in the runaway truck had created the expected mayhem and crashed into someone, they would have had to pay out that settlement. And, if he died and had life insurance, they'd have to pay that.

      I'm pretty sure this was overall a far better result than would have otherwise been expected. I suspect they would have a hard time finding the engineer at fault -- I'm sure some form of good samaritan law would apply as well ... "yes your honour, I did smash up both cars, but I was doing it to save lives". At least, you'd like to hope that the law would be on his side.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    9. Re:Oh, snap! by Selfbain · · Score: 3, Insightful

      At the very least it would be a huge PR disaster for them to not pay out. This way they pay out mere peanuts and get lots of favorable press.

      --
      Well, it has never been successfully tested.
    10. Re:Oh, snap! by clone53421 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Since the law is basically written such that you must avoid hitting the cars in front of you (even if the driver of the car in front does something absurdly foolish like slams on the brakes), the insurance company has almost no choice but to attribute the fault in a rear-end collision to the driver of the vehicle in back.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    11. Re:Oh, snap! by Rich0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      While you'd like to hope that, I doubt this would be the case.

      Imagine if somebody invented a computer-driven car. It takes off and everybody is driving them. The annual death rate drops from 10k to year to 500 people per year.

      The end result? The car gets banned and the company is sued out of existence for bad engineering. The 10k people who used to die each year were victims of misfortune. The 500 people who die now are victims of the company.

      That is why we don't have computer-piloted cars/planes/etc. Our assignment of liability is way off. The first thing I thought of when I read this article was that this guy would going to get the book thrown at him. Sure, he did the right thing, but that isn't what counts in court. Fortunately everybody else seems to be doing the right thing as well, which is a rarity.

    12. Re:Oh, snap! by js3 · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      did you forget to take your meds?
    13. Re:Oh, snap! by SleazyRidr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's still good to point out when people do good things, even if it ends up being to their advantage anyway.

      They could have just as easily taken all those savings, and still gone after the guy for the damage he did do.

    14. Re:Oh, snap! by gorzek · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Do you have any evidence that this happened, or are you just jumping to conclusions and assuming the worst without anything to back it up?

    15. Re:Oh, snap! by Khyber · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "I wouldn't call it amazingly good, "

      I would, how many other people do you know capable of quick rational action in a very dire, time-is-of-the-essence emergency?

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  2. I saw this by geekoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In a CHiPs episode!

    Seriously, well done sir. I love it when I solve problems in real time with engineering.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  3. Burnout by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm still wondering why he didn't tap the "X" button to make a bigger explosion. He could have easily popped his car into the oncoming traffic and get like a 100x chain reaction bonus.

    1. Re:Burnout by hypergreatthing · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think we need a new meme, "Think of the points!", this can be applied to every inappropriate thought regarding real life and video games.

    2. Re:Burnout by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      how else are you going to unlock new cars?

  4. RE: Cynics unite! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    OK... I have a BIG problem with the driver not consulting the passengers while claiming "there was no time to take a vote". That is EXACTLY how dictatorships and police states are formed. He should have handed out paper ballots ("crash" or "don't crash") and then used the minivan's "On Star" service as electioneers to authorize, count and declare the vote. Then and only then should he have been allowed to do this. Hitler didn't do it either and look how that turned out. (Godwin!)

  5. Re:Cynics unite! by Gizzmonic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I pity the fool who wastes bandwidth whining about theoretical Slashdot users.

    --
    (-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
  6. Re:Cynics unite! by nomadic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

  7. Well that was disappointing by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Funny

    I wanted to hear how he used a F22 fighter-jet to stop a truck. But he used a minivan. Boooriiinng.

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:Well that was disappointing by tmosley · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, there's pretty much only one way you can stop a truck with an F-22, and it doesn't exactly take a rocket scientist to figure it out (though they were instrumental in making it work!).

    2. Re:Well that was disappointing by Fumus · · Score: 5, Funny

      Boooooeing.

      FTFY.

  8. This is how it looks when it works. by BobMcD · · 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.

    1. Re:This is how it looks when it works. by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is because you aren't a trained engineer. Based on the speeds overall speeds, and speeds differences, the risk was almost non existent. It literally would have had a freak incident to even cause a crash. It wasn't like he got in front of a car travelling 60 MPH and just locked up his breaks.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:This is how it looks when it works. by powerlord · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I guess that's why I'm not a hero and he is, eh? At any rate, the safety of the nameless citizens won out over the safety of his own, which strikes me as odd.

      Fixed that for you.

      Part of the calculation he said went through his head was that the Pickup was approaching a busy intersection and could easily take out of a row of cars.

      Still impressive (which is why he's a hero instead of ordinary news), but more than just "one person in trouble". Might have weighed more on his mind.

      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
    3. Re:This is how it looks when it works. by BobMcD · · Score: 4, 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.

    4. Re:This is how it looks when it works. by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Speaking as a parent, cut the apron strings. Yeah I get it, you never stop being a parent, but really, you would jump all over an adult child for saving lives, albeit at personal risk? Would you berate them for defusing IEDs for the Army or being a firefighter too? Adults have to set their own priorities and seek their own fulfillment. If their parents can't handle it that generally leads to estrangement.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    5. Re:This is how it looks when it works. by powerlord · · Score: 4, 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. :)

      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
    6. Re:This is how it looks when it works. by MozeeToby · · Score: 4, 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.

    7. Re:This is how it looks when it works. by lucifig · · 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.

    8. Re:This is how it looks when it works. by Fractal+Dice · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If I am ever offered the opportunity to trade my life for a million lives, I will look at the situation logically and conclude the highest probablity is that I misunderstood the offer.

      For every hero who sacrifices themselves for the greater good, there's a fool who forgot to carry the two.

  9. Re:Cynics unite! by mooncrow · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Can't...see...keyboard...faulty...tear ducts...

  10. Re:What about the passengers? by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Thats the point. He knew they would be fine because of his engineers skills. The truck is doing 40, you get in front of it and do 39, your risk is almost no existent. Once impact occurs, you can start to break. Control it.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  11. Re:Pretty amazing when even insurance companies re by eln · · Score: 5, Insightful

    According to TFA, he had a heart attack two days earlier and didn't know it. This restricted his circulation to the point that he ended up passing out at the wheel. There doesn't seem to be anything he could have done, except maybe go to the hospital every day just to make sure he hadn't had a heart attack recently.

  12. Re:What about the passengers? by Anonymous+Monkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And if you know your family well enough, you know what they would say. I know my wife would be mad if I wasted time asking her if it was ok. And if my dad took time to ask me I would ball him out for not acting when he needed to. People in the same family tend to think the same way.

    --
    We are the Borg...
  13. Re:Lucky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No, it won't. One of the specs for designing brakes is that they have to easily beat the engine at full throttle.

  14. Hope by eepok · · 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...

    1. Re:Hope by Johnny5000 · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
    2. Re:Hope by kevinNCSU · · Score: 4, Funny

      Calmly exit the building
      For no reason, re-enter the building until given the OK by emergency responders

      I had to re-read that like 5 times because I thought it meant I SHOULD randomly re-enter the building for the hell of it (without any reason to do so) until the Emergency Responders say it's OK. Then do whatever.

  15. Re:Pretty amazing when even insurance companies re by delinear · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Hey, he didn't sue the guy for trauma/whiplash - it might seem obvious to us that doing so would be a nasty move, but in this day and age not suing your rescuer is probably worthy of an honourable mention.

  16. Memories by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 4, 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. 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.

  17. Re:Lucky by bigrockpeltr · · Score: 3, Informative

    where do you live? and have you ever even driven a car? the first task in engineering a vehicle is to make sure the braking system is stronger than the engine.

    --
    $ unzip, strip, touch, finger, grep, mount, fsck, more, yes,fsck,fsck,fsck,umount, sleep
  18. Re: Cynics unite! by Defenestrar · · Score: 3, Funny

    I think they should make this into a movie - here's some snappy dialogue that I have a feeling might achieve a timeless immortality in pop culture

    Driver: We don't have time to discuss this in a committee"

    Passenger: I am not a committee

  19. Re:Cynics unite! by bsDaemon · · Score: 5, Funny

    It'll probably just get spun as "Decisive manager shows brilliant leadership by wrecking his car without notifying his passenger."

  20. Re:Lucky by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Dew not truss your spill chucker, you're spill chucker makes ewe seam like an ill iterate fuel.

    BRAKES, dammit!

  21. Re:Cynics unite! by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Guy IS a hero, though the slashdot article comes off as a little weird... "engineer mode"? ... Or was the submitter an engineer looking for reflected glory?

    Well, "engineer mode" is a direct quote from the Seattle Times. In fact, the entire summary is a quote from the actual article. The submitter had nothing to do with the terminology.

    And, really:

    "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,"

    means he was thinking like an engineer.

    It's the article that makes him sound like an engineer super-hero. And, I don't see much reason to detract from him that much.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  22. And then... by Minwee · · Score: 5, Funny

    The driver of the truck, who had only leaned forward to scratch an itch on his ankle, was a little bit pissed about the whole affair.

    Once he realized that he would have to deal with his insurance company, he faked a heart attack to get out of it. It's what we all would have done.

  23. Re:Cynics unite! by T+Murphy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ask a someone with a basic understanding of physics if two cars at a 5MPH relative velocity can collide safely, and they would say yes. But ask that same person what to do about a pickup doing 40MPH with a passed out driver, and they'd say "call 911". You need the problem solving instinct of an engineer to know calling 911 won't help, and then to trust your knowledge of physics well enough to let that pickup hit you. Even if someone did figure out they should stop the pickup themselves, they would likely do so by trying to run it off the road, or slam into it- again it takes an engineering state of mind to come up with an optimal solution that puts no one at harm, all within a few seconds. Now, an engineering degree isn't required, but you need to know enough to be able to think like one*.

    *Of course, prior training works too. For example, police should know how to do what this engineer did- I recall reading a police officer did something similar to stop a "runaway Prius" (I'm not looking to start a debate over the cause of that problem).

  24. Re: Cynics unite! by macshit · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... then they would wrestle, with the minivan careening crazily all over the road as they roll around and dangled off the back... pulling themselves up just in time as the pickup truck repeatedly bumped the back of the van, and then having a fistfight on the roof of the minivan, which would then plunge off a giant cliff in slow motion, with the (driver or passenger, whoever's the good guy) grabbing onto a tree on the edge of the cliff and saving himself with one hand while he snatched the unconscious pickup-truck driver to safety with other (as the pickup truck too plunged into the void). Then the pickup-truck driver would wake up and ask woozily what on earth he was doing dangling off this cliff and the hero would answer "just hanging around" (with an austrian accent).

    I'd watch it...

    --
    We live, as we dream -- alone....
  25. Re:Matched speeds by nedlohs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A pressed accelerator does not overpower brakes. Well except for people who press the wrong pedal.

    And don't forget said pickup is grinding along concrete.

    You really think if selective laws of physics stopped applying and he couldn't bring the pickup to stop that he wouldn't be able to floor his own accelerator and pull ahead and to the side?

  26. Re:I wonder what his passengers thought. by HungryHobo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Please never get a job that involves risk analysis or other people's safety.
    You're very bad at it.

  27. Re:I wonder what his passengers thought. by element-o.p. · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    What about the intersection after that? And the intersection after *that*, ad infinitum.

    If the driver of the other vehicle was slumped over the wheel, sooner or later, he was going to hit *something*. What the engineer did was logical, rational, and yes, heroic.

    --
    MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?