*This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro*
REF below
>It seems this case should be appealed, if there is any chance it will
>be used as a precedent. It seems like it could be proven that that
>whole argument was specious, and should be stricken because:
>Maybe if the accident would have happened high in the forests of the
>Sierra Nevada mountains, but Sacramento?
While I agree about the whole rabid lawyer thing, and my paramedic
experience tells me that the lady didn't look, I have to say that her
lawyer had a point. Camouflage is not just applied to adapt an object to
its background, but to break up its outline/silhouette so as to confuse the
brain (not the eye) as to the identity of the object. The irregular shapes
of the pattern on the vehicle may have been identified by her brain as "not
a vehicle," especially in a sideways glance like many drivers make, and she
opted to proceed. This is a well documented and researched phenomenon. And
in a case which must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, who can say if she
honestly looked or not, other than her? And if she did, it might have
happened like I described. Here's another interesting thing. One of the
most readily recognizable things to the human brain is eye movement. Not
just the shape of the eye, but movement of that shape. Go to a novelty
store
and paste two moving eyes on the front of your vehicle, and this'll probably
never happen again.
john@astory.com
http://www.astory.com
===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@uller.skylee.com>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@uller.skylee.com>
Send administrative queries to <mil-veh-request@uller.skylee.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 05 2000 - 22:42:39 PST