Re: Cyclist killers in local paper.

Steven wrote: 
On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 21:35:08 GMT, "Sniper8052(L96A1)" <sniper8052@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


It is hardly a ringing endorsement ... better understanding.




We are entering into another field here, that of the body's reaction to
sustained or high energy exercise and the metabolic changes engendered by that in combination with acute competition.

During exercise the body exhibits a quite staggering array of metabolic
changes one of which is the reduction of blood supply and the increase of plasma. This reduction in blood flow reflects increased vascular resistance and increased nervous activity. This in short causes a reduction in available blood oxygen flow and triggers the release of adrenalin to equalize the danger to the system and trigger the repairative systems, which are a secondary sub system of adrenaline production. Sports men and women describe this as an adrenaline rush ­ they perceive no danger in its strictest sense of the word because they have trained themselves to expect this reaction. It would not be true to say that they are not experiencing stress induced stimuli which threatens the system, in fact it is being demonstrated by the production of adrenalin that this is precisely the experience they are aware of.

The continuation of exercise beyond the point that the body can reasonably sustain produces a programmed response to stop the body being exercised significantly beyond that point. In sports men and women they have trained themselves to ignore this response and to utilise the increased energy released by the adrenaline and its co-associated chemicals to repair and mitigate the stress on the system. One of these responses is the raising of blood pressure within the system and a re-increase in blood oxygen levels as a result. To continue exercise substantially beyond this point will eventually result in the nervous system starting to shut down the body in an attempt to protect the major organs and the brain. The first feeling that you wish to stop exercising is a rational programmed response to danger perceived by the body¹s nervous system. Whilst in sports men and women this response is triggered at a higher level and whilst they have learnt that this response can be controlled it cannot normally be controlled beyond the limit of the bodies ability to sustain that activity indefinitely; eventually they will have to stop or collapse.

Thus it is not that sports men or women are unaware of danger but that they have trained their minds to expect a programmed response to the
physiological changes brought about by exercise and over-ride that response to sustain the effort they are exerting. Part of the control they exercise over the effects and production of adrenaline and its associated sub chemicals is the setting of exercise goals. The fact that they have a pre-determined cut of point to the exertion helps to limit the production of adrenaline by comparing the stimuli received with the known target goal. It could be argued that the human can force exertion beyond the capability of the body and this is not an unknown occurrence in extreme circumstances however this requires conscious thought beyond being aware which is enough for the purpose of our discussion.

In combination with the desire to be first and adrenaline's other properties as a neurotransmitter it would hardly be fair to say that the body is not in a state of nervous shock or induced nervous excitement. In either state the system is producing adrenaline to relieve and remove the body from a perceived danger. Whether that perception was first perceived subconsciously or through abstract thought is to my interpretation neither important nor relevant. Indeed it is thought that humans are the only animals capable of generating an abstract thought of danger to bring about metabolic changes within the body.

The example of an aircraft pilot being subject to an adrenaline surge when they encounter an unexpected shock, as in turbulence, denies the
physiological response of the human body and the recognition of
neuroreceptors ability to pass visual and sensual data far faster than
conscious thought which then rushes to re-establish control over the mind which is in a state of nervous panic. The mind does not know there is no danger until it has re-established and checked all of the data being fired off by the nervous system. That jump in nervous activity is the body sensing danger and peaking adrenaline to empower the body to take preservative measures. Once the mind regains control it dismisses the feeling as one might driving over a hump backed bridge at speed.

Physiologically the body will at the onset of a 'shocking experience' remove blood from the extremities of the body and concentrate it in the liver. This is why people who experience deep shock lose colour. This causes a drop in blood pressure and hence triggers adrenaline supply to re-establish normal function. In extreme cases pure shock can lead to death although the mechanism by which this occurs is normally either a malfunction of the bodies reactions or because the subject in question continues to exert themselves whilst the nervous system is trying to prevent them from doing so.

Hence with both your examples each is aware of danger but has trained their mind to recognise the symptoms that adrenaline produces and cope with that in a pre-described manner given a pre-defined set of conditions. With the example of the pilot there is less likelihood that they will be unaware of danger but more that they will perceive that danger as an information panic or information overload. The runner recognises the system panic but controls its effects in the short term to utilise its effect. Both are aware of a threat to the system I.E. danger.

As to what went through the minds of this pair I would suggest that it was exactly what I have described in this and earlier posts. I cannot and do not believe that they were or are substantially retarded enough in the clinical sense of the word to have reactions which would differ from any five year old child.

I appreciate your position on this but it is clear that this pair

1)  Knew what they were doing and
2)  Were fully aware of the risks involved in doing so

Your position was that if it was possible to show that the pair knew the consequences of their actions would, or were likely to, result in a collision in which they or another could be injured or killed and that they carried on regardless of that then the incident would be removed from the remit of accident. I believe I have shown that it is highly unlikely that either of this pair was, or could have, been unaware of the possible consequences of their actions and that those actions cannot therefore rightly be regarded as accidents.

If as you maintain the dictionary definition is correct, something to which I do not ascribe - in that accident apportions responsibility and not blame, then it is only through debate in forums such as this that the common usage as you and others see it can be altered. I have never thought the term accident should be applied to any occurrence where negligence is an obvious route cause. There are very few genuine accidents where it could not reasonably be foreseen that something would happen. It is human nature to wish to ascribe a bad occurrence to some exterior force I.E. bad luck. Hence the use of a word to describe an act, as of God, which removes blame. It may be a common usage at present, that does not mean it should be or that it should remain so because the majority fail to appreciate it's true and proper meaning or implication. Not very long ago the word 'Gay' meant happy or colourful, it's common usage now is somewhat different to the point where its true and proper meaning can no longer be expressed.

As to the other matter you expressed I have already given a reason as to why I expressed myself in that manner toward yourself and no other. I do not wish to go over that ground again. You may note I deliberately worded my final posting on that subject in a more rounded way so that its message was not directed at any one person in particular but was more in the nature of advice and observation.

Sniper8052

.

Relevant Pages