People stand on the side of public roads to watch auto rallye cars whip by
at high speed. Sometimes, spectators are killed when drivers lose control,
caroming off the road and into a crowd. They run the bulls through towns in
Spain and Portugal at the beginning of the bullfighting season each year.
People choose to run with them and are sometimes maimed or killed. People
congregate to watch airshows, and despite reasonable efforts to clear low
altitude traffic and ground observers, people get killed. These examples all
involve illegal acts (speeding, stampeding, aerobating) that are condoned
within the context of an EVENT. These events are for the entertainment of
those people who choose to participate.

Those parked on the road were expressly there to witness low passes. They
congregated to get a closer look at something unusual, even dangerous. A
wise person might choose not to do this.

How many of the gliders would have crashed without the spectators in the
way? It appears that the actions of the pilots were not inherently unsafe
(to the pilots) - though certainly not wise.

This is a sad, sad incident, and rare among gliding competitions. But not at
all unusual in the context of observers wanting a close look at something
unusual and exciting.

Is there fault on the part of the pilot(s)? Of course. Their poor judgment
was amply reflected by their inability to alter their practices even with
emergency vehicles and a broken glider on the scene. But to insist that Mr.
Lawson was ignorant of the risk and just going about quotidian activities is
near sighted. Even worse is to suggest that the pilot was guilty of criminal
negligence. This was an environment of contrived, obvious risk. All who
participated were aware of the danger, and therefore incumbent on each
individual to manage his or her own risk.

The remedy is simple. The pilot can alter his practices. Or, the spectators
can stand well clear. If the specatators stand clear, it is an acceptable
practice. If there are people in the way, the pilot must alter his approach.
The condundrum is that the two are joined.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Heard in traffic court:

Defendant: Yes, I turned left in front of the oncoming car, but he was
speeding. That's why he hit me.

Judge: Why did you pull out in front of a speeding car?

Defendant: (silence)