SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Selfie deaths: 259 people reported dead seeking the perfect picture
The quest for extreme selfies killed 259 people between 2011 and 2017, a 2018 global study has revealed.
Researchers at the US National Library of Medicine recommend that 'no selfie zones' should be introduced at dangerous spots to reduce deaths.
These would include the tops of mountains, tall buildings and lakes, where many of the deaths occurred.
Drowning, transport accidents and falling were found to be the most common cause of death.
But death by animals, electrocution, fire and firearms also appeared frequently in reports from around the world.
Selfies: A boon or bane? (open, DOI: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_109_18) (DX)
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
At Least 259 People Died Trying to Take Selfies Between 2011 and 2017
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 35 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Confess your sins to the Lord and you will be forgiven;
confess them to man and you will be laughed at.
-- Josh Billings
(Score: 5, Insightful) by jmorris on Sunday October 07 2018, @05:19AM (4 children)
So we are dealing with people so effing stupid they are doing things so dangerous they are dying. But they won't do it if we just put up some signs.
You know how this will work out. We will spend millions and millions arguing over where the signs should go, buying signs and paying to maintain the signs. The idiots will ignore the signs and still get themselves killed but now anytime an idiot dies somewhere *without* a sign the next of kin will get a huge check because there wasn't a sign, there will be a fresh frenzy of sign buying and installing to minimize liability, rinse and repeat. Eventually all public areas will simply forbid all photography and ruthlessly enforce it on non-idiots because of a quite rational fear of lawfare.
Where will the madness end up? Look at a ladder. Covered in warning stickers and still half the wholesale price goes to liability coverage for the manufacturer, people still do stupid things and injure themselves or die, they sue anyway and usually collect a check and if they killed themselves in a new way we get a fresh round of new stickers.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday October 07 2018, @09:15AM (3 children)
Warning labels on chainsaws, "Not for internal use." What does NOT have warning labels today? That is a fairly recent development. Looking back, I'd have to say it's more than thirty years ago, but definitely less than fifty, probably around 40.
Child proof medicine caps? When the elder two of my three sons were 2 and 3 years old, Granny couldn't get her medicine bottles open. She would hand a bottle to one of the boys, who would promptly open the bottle, and hand it back to Granny.
https://www.accountablescience.com/will-everything-sold-in-california-come-with-a-warning-label/ [accountablescience.com]
https://www.thethings.com/15-people-reason-put-warning-labels-everything/ [thethings.com]
Cracked.com was first hit on my little search - but noscript had a long list of sites that wanted approval, so I just shut it down. If you're brave, you might try http://www.cracked.com/photoplasty_48_if-everything-in-life-came-with-warning-labels/ [cracked.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 07 2018, @01:54PM
Warming labels have absolutely NOTHING to do with preventing injury or death, and EVERYTHING to do with liability.
Everyone knows you can't fix stupid, but you sure can try not to lose your business to it in costly, endless judicial litigations.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 07 2018, @06:10PM (1 child)
> Cracked.com was first hit on my little search - but noscript had a long list of sites that wanted approval, so I just shut it down.
So... a warning label? :D
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday October 07 2018, @06:44PM
You're shooting for funny, but I'll treat it seriously.
Not warning labels, per se. I've already told noscript that it should refuse scripts on a large number of sites. Noscript then informs me when one of those sites are trying to run a script on my computer. In turn, I must either forego the "pleasure" of viewing that page, or I must tell noscript to allow the scripts.
In general, I choose to not view that page. Why countermand my own orders, when there is little chance of any reward for doing so?