- Joined
- Aug 23, 2002
- RO Number
- 9880
- Messages
- 1,837
Phil -
While technically correct that it is "related" (in that the person was on their way to Canal Day events), Beth's assertion that ...
... "Last year canal day was really bad I know of three deaths and all had something to do with canal day" ....
is extremely misleading.
That statement could easily leave the impression that Canal Day events were responsible for those deaths, or that the person's activities (drinking, etc.) at the Canal Day event was responsible.
In my opinion, even saying the deaths are "related" to Canal Day is somewhat vague. The person who drowned had just arrived in the basin by boat.
Sure, had he not been on his way to the event, then he wouldn't have drowned there. But, would we say that a person's death is "related" to a grocery store if that person, while on the way to the store, crashed his car at the entrance to the grocery store? I guess we could say it's "related" to the store, but it needs to be stated in a way that doesn't leave the impression that the grocery store was somehow responsible for that death. Sure, we could say, "had he not been heading to the grocerry store, he'd still be alive". That "but for / had they not" argument can always be stated for any accidental death, no matter where or why.
I have read numerous statements on boating forums, similar to the one Beth made, that show that people have no idea of what really happened.
While technically correct that it is "related" (in that the person was on their way to Canal Day events), Beth's assertion that ...
... "Last year canal day was really bad I know of three deaths and all had something to do with canal day" ....
is extremely misleading.
That statement could easily leave the impression that Canal Day events were responsible for those deaths, or that the person's activities (drinking, etc.) at the Canal Day event was responsible.
In my opinion, even saying the deaths are "related" to Canal Day is somewhat vague. The person who drowned had just arrived in the basin by boat.
Sure, had he not been on his way to the event, then he wouldn't have drowned there. But, would we say that a person's death is "related" to a grocery store if that person, while on the way to the store, crashed his car at the entrance to the grocery store? I guess we could say it's "related" to the store, but it needs to be stated in a way that doesn't leave the impression that the grocery store was somehow responsible for that death. Sure, we could say, "had he not been heading to the grocerry store, he'd still be alive". That "but for / had they not" argument can always be stated for any accidental death, no matter where or why.
I have read numerous statements on boating forums, similar to the one Beth made, that show that people have no idea of what really happened.