Why do young people think theyre immortal??

[kiwigeo]

I'm sorry but I can't see the actions of the 19 year old driver of this vehicle as anything but criminal. Didn't any of his passengers appreciate the extreme danger associated with travelling at 140km with a P plater in control of the vehicle?? What can be done to change the attitudes of these young drivers??

From The Age:

About 100 friends and family gathered at the scene of a fatal car crash in Melbourne's north on Sunday to mourn the five young men killed.

The letters R.I.P. were spray-painted on the large tree knocked down by the force of the car, which police believe was travelling at speeds of about 140kmh when it spun out of control and crashed.

Five men, including the 19-year-old P-plate driver, were killed when the Ford XR6 sedan carrying six people from a party in Ivanhoe about 1.50am (AEDT) crashed on Plenty Road, Mill Park, in the city's north.

The crash impact ripped the tree from the ground, causing it to fall onto the car, tearing the vehicle apart.

A 15-year-old girl, the sole survivor of the crash, is in the Royal Melbourne Hospital with serious injuries.

Carload after carload of young people began arriving at the site on Sunday afternoon to pay their respects.

The mourners taped bouquets of flowers to the tree and placed other bunches beside it.

Some people stood, others sat and stared at the large crater where the tree was ripped from the ground by the force of the crash.

The mourners appeared stunned, gazing numbly at the scene, while others cried and hugged each other.

Flowers were placed at the site.

The girlfriend of the car's driver was among the mourners.

Natalie Bryant, 18, with red and swollen eyes, said her boyfriend had been "the nicest person on earth".

She said he had been a third-year apprentice roof tiler.

The crash killed the driver, from South Morang, along with another 19-year-old man, a 17-year-old male, and a 15-year-old boy, all from South Morang.

The 15-year-old survivor was from Epping.

Her 18-year-old brother, also from Epping, was among those killed.

[nine fingers]

I think they learned to drive by playing video games,if you crash you just press the restart button and carry on driving.
What a waste of young lives.:o John

[funkychicken]

Well the parents could have taught them responsibility in the first place

[Big Shed]

Well the parents could have taught them responsibility in the first place

FC, who's to say the parents didn't. Once young people get together in a group situation, a lot of those lessons learned go out the window and bravado and showing off take over.

You can lead a horse to water..................

[Ian Smith]

Well the parents could have taught them responsibility in the first place

FC - that's a cheap shot bordering on the offensive - You obviously either have no children or have been lucky - so far - with the ones you have.

It's exactly as Big Shed says.

Ian

[Dills58]

It's not just this accident, but this is the most recent that has rocked us all. There has to be a radical change to curb the sensless loss of life. I know there must be pro's & con's against speed restrictors, who is going to bitch if they see a P plater doing 90 klm's. As Big Shed states, education is only good if it is heeded. Peer pressure and excitement out weighs education most of the time. My thoughts go out to the surviving girl, she will need lots of help.

Dills.

[Groggy]

I have done stupid stuff like that when I was a young fool on the turps. I stopped doing it after about 21, or so it seems. I consider myself fortunate to have got through that stage without killing anyone else or myself.

If "I" were empowered for a day to fix the problem it would be:

1. Driving age of 21.
2. Zero tolerance for drink driving offences. Lose your licence for 12 months, lose your car permanently. If you are driving another person's car then the state takes an item of equivalent value or you do jail time.
3. Repeat offences: lose licence for 5 years, lose car, go to jail.

Unfortunately we treat driving as a right, and not a privilege.

[Big Shed]

One of the main problems with getting the message across on the dangers of speeding is that all governments are now addicted to the revenue of speed cameras (like they are addicted to the revenue of pokies).

If they could wean themselves off this addiction and put in place a serious anti-speeding campaign they would have more credibility.

We all speed at times, either advertently or in-advertently and we need to separate the "minor" offence, such as Asst Commissioner Ken Lay exceeding the 70km limit by 10km, from the "real" speeding offences.

[Calm]

FC - that's a cheap shot bordering on the offensive - You obviously either have no children or have been lucky - so far - with the ones you have.

It's exactly as Big Shed says.

Ian

His age is at the top of the post.:doh::doh:

I tend to agree with him - correct attitude is not always/very rarely taught

BUT

the driver was 19 that means he may have held a licence for almost 2 years

AND

I see drivers everyday (all ages) that should never hold a licence they are a danger to everyone not just themselves.

BTW i dont consider 140k's dangerous in some places/conditions it seems almost to be stationary. Like on the bike - i often get 160 or even 180 in the quiet night on the freeway heading home to Ballarat.:2tsup::2tsup:

Cheers

[Mr Brush]

:whs:

[Big Shed]

BTW i dont consider 140k's dangerous in some places/conditions it seems almost to be stationary. Like on the bike - i often get 160 or even 180 in the quiet night on the freeway heading home to Ballarat.:2tsup::2tsup:

Cheers

........or it isn't the speed that kills, but the sudden stop at the end:doh:

[Grumpy John]

FC - that's a cheap shot bordering on the offensive - You obviously either have no children or have been lucky - so far - with the ones you have.

It's exactly as Big Shed says.

Ian

Ian, you should check FC's age, he's 16. Perhaps he's speaking as a responsible teenager.

[Calm]

Dont even go down the line of speed restrictors/limiters - trucks have them now and they are the single most dangerous thing they have introduced. Until you get out beside a car doing 93km's an hour in a 68 tonne truck and it stops going (at 100 KPH) because the speed limiter cuts in you wont know the feeling of being totally useless. you just sit there, pray noone comes the other way, hope like hell the car driver backs off to let you in. you are usually too far past to get back in and the biggest problem is most car drivers have no idea the truck can phisically not do more than 100 in any circumstances (except coasting downhill)

Speedlimiters (at 100KPH) are the single most dangerous thing ever introduced in Australia. maybe 110 would be better/safer

Cheers

[Lignum]

i often get 160 or even 180 in the quiet night on the freeway heading home to Ballarat.:2tsup::2tsup:

Cheers

Considering the massive travesty that has just taken place, I cannot believe you posted that. And adding a few thumbs up makes it worse

[I_wanna_Shed]

SIX people in a SEDAN, 140kph.... it has absolute stupidity written all over it!!!! When I was young and stupid on P plates, yes I did silly things. But, I like to think that they were not this silly. Drink driving, definately was a no-no. 6 people in a 5 seater, never done.

Some will argue that cars nowadays are too powerful for teenagers, I guess an XR6 would be considered 'powerful'. To an extent that is true, but a Barina will still do 140kph (I know... from my P plate days, see what I mean?). On the flip side, it would be safer doing 140kph in a Falcon than a Barina.

Building up a rant here.... I live near Picton Road, which has had a high number of fatalities over recent years, and a high number in recent months. Everyone (public, council, government) is quick to blame this road, saying it urgently needs to be divided and have the surface improved. Ironically, its one of the best roads in the local shire.

My wife now drives along this road daily to and from work, so I follow this road's news with interest.

Looking at the previous accidents, they are all caused by driver fault - the last accident appeared 'suicidal' according to witnesses. Luckily the clown only took himself out and not the other driver. The one before that (5 people killed several weeks ago) was caused by a driver clipping a vehicle, sending it head on into a truck. My point is, there are just too many idiots and f***wits on the roads. It may be stereotyping, but most of these seem to be P platers or near-new licence holders.

Increasing the licence age to 18 or 21 would be interesting discussion. But like everything, the minority spoil it for all of the other responsible teenagers.

The best answer, and the easiest to implement, would be to increase the difficulty of the licence test. By this I mean still do the drive around the block, but also test all licence applicants (all ages) on their abaility to control a skid, slide, over/understeer, wet tarmac tests - basically an advanced driving course needs to be passed. Part of this would involve sitting through videos of the repurcussions of speeding and acting 'stupidly'.

Way too many people die on our roads, and all too often it is an innocent 3rd party that is killed.

Nathan.

[tea lady]

Considering the massive travesty that has just taken place, I cannot believe you posted that. And adding a few thumbs up makes it worse:no: Me neither. Although I know you would be careful Calm (and you are obviously an VERY experienced driver ), there are others who could be there and wouldn't be expecting the speed. :C

Although I have also been guilty of speeding.:doh: Less so these days. Having a Camry takes care of a lot of it.:rolleyes: And having other priorities, and other thrills in life.:cool::D (Fast spinning wood yeeeeee haaaaaaaaaaaah!:D )

[FRB Design]

Sadly it will never happen that everyone abides by the road rules and tragedies such as these will not cease to happen.

And sorry Calm but putting into print ( i often get 160 or even 180 in the quiet night on the freeway heading home to Ballarat ) is as irresponsible as the driver involved.

[Ian Smith]

Ian, you should check FC's age, he's 16. Perhaps he's speaking as a responsible teenager.
John,
Yeah I've often wondered about that - I 've watched most of his posts and he's either a very mature 16 year old or he's lying through his teeth - my money is on the latter.

However, even if I'm wrong it doesn't alter the fact that what he said lacks understanding/experience, and it raises the spectre of the attitude that if something bad happens to me then I must be able to blame somebody else for it.

Ian

[Groggy]

FC is a pretty sensible guy from what I have seen (yes, I've met him).

[ozhunter]

:ranton:

This is one of my pet hate subjects.

I believe the root of this problem is on many levels.

Most people try to the right thing with their kids, but at the end of the day you can only do what you can do.

One thing that is sadly lacking in kids nowadays, is lack of respect. When I was a kid, we got some pretty good hidings, and deserved it too. None of us ended up being armed robbers or drug addicts or murderers or child molesters because of it.

We were terrified of the local copper in the small country town I grew up near. We knew that if he caught us up to no good, not only would he give us a kick up the #### but then he'd drag us home so we could get the feather duster, or the belt or a slipper or whatever was handy. No serious physical damage was ever inflicted, but we have respect for the law, for our elders and our parents and our peers.

Kids today know that the police won't touch them, nor will a lot of parents (I have smacked my kids and will again if the situation is warranted) they get told this stuff at school. on the television and from other parents from a very early age. The net result is they have no respect. How many teenagers have you seen that will consistently stand so an elder or another adult can sit. I tried to bring my son up (he's 19 now) like this but he won't get out of a chair for an elder unless I give him "the look".

There are a lot of people who have children who don't have respect for themselves, so their off spring don't have any chance. Their should be a test before becoming a parent.

We were bought up that children should be seen and not heard. We were allowed to voice our opinion, but god help you if you butted into a conversation or disrespected an adult. Now, have a listen to the way kids talk to their parents when your in town next.

There have been a lot of things like this happening in recent years. About 18 months ago, when there was talk of stopping young people from driving certain types of cars to try and slow them down. In our local paper there was a flood of whinging from the local boy racers. Saying things like "Oh, like, how am I suppose to, like, learn to drive fast if I'm not allowed to own a fast car. We'll just go and, like, do it anyway, whether it's legal or not" Another one said "Oh man, I couldn't live without mu xyz fast car, it's like, everything to me."

And when someone does have a cock-up, they are not prepared to take responsibility for their own actions. A while ago, there was a 14 or 15 year old girl on the news who had had to file for bankruptcy. She had run up a three or four thousand dollar phone bill. She said on the news "Oh, I'll just fix it up with bankruptcy, lots of kids are doing it now" Then the mother started, "I blame the phone company for this." Yep, the phone company made that girl run that bill up, just to get more money. HELLO:(( Make the little troll pay the money back through community work, or giving out food to the homeless or picking up the crap that piles up on the side of the road. Make her do something that will remind her for a long time how stupid she was.

And street racers, does anyone remember the outcry from the boy racers when it was suggested anybody convicted of street racing should have their car crushed. :2tsup: and make them push the button to do it.

I don't know the answer, I have tried to bring my kids up as respectful, productive, good human beings. My son is a good kid, but he is infected to some extent, he carried on a right treat when he got booked for 10 k's over on his way home from work. I reminded him how tired he would get of the look of the inside of a bus for over an hour a day, 5 days a week for 6 months if he got caught again. He seemed to see my point. My daughter is just at the age when she is testing her boundaries and giving lip. I have been pretty hard on her and it's working. She is very polite and respectful to her elders (except SWMBO and I every now and then. But once they get out of the home environment, it is out of our control.

Sorry for the rant

[tea lady]

FC is a pretty sensible guy from what I have seen (yes, I've met him).:2tsup: Me too. And a few others of us. :cool: And yes! He is young.:) (But maybe not 16 anymore.:shrug: )

[ozhunter]

Sadly it will never happen that everyone abides by the road rules and tragedies such as these will not cease to happen.

And sorry Calm but putting into print ( i often get 160 or even 180 in the quiet night on the freeway heading home to Ballarat ) is as irresponsible as the driver involved.

:whs:

[dj_pnevans]

Well said ozhunter.
David

[graemet]

The ironic thing was that Channel 7 showed an ad for Ford featuring the XR6 immediately following the news item tonight!http://cdn.woodworkforums.com/images/smilies/standard/mad.gif

[Wood Borer]

You may be correct about your comments directed at young people but have you forgotten what it is like to be young?

Did you current oldies when you were young ever listen and take notice to old pharts rattling on about every possible topic ranging from sex to rock and roll?

I didn't, in fact I probably did quite the opposite to their advice just to stick it up them. Was that silly? Probably just as silly as the identical actions of all previous generations.

Do you really think young people are going to take notice of all the advice when you and I took no notice when we were young?

Of course it is horrific to hear of the loss, of course it was possibly due to human error and poor decisions but making laws and thinking up punishments will probably be as effective as it was when we were young and immortal.

I spoke to my father about this topic this evening and although he is now 86 he too recalls not taking much notice of the oldies when he was young.

I can vouch for Funky Chicken's age also.

[Waldo]

On a side note to the tragedy and allow me to digress.

I find it laughable and beggars belief that RACV made a call for trees in known blackspots (if I have the story right) that trees should be cut down a distance from the road so in the event of a car going off the road it is less likely to hit a tree.

What the hell :? ? What about power poles? I'm sure more of them are hit by cars than much else.:screwy:

Nothing can be done about a moments carelessness. I'm worried every time my SWMBO goes out on the road with the kids, not for her driving but all the nutters on the road. When driving with my family I'm more worried about their safety and you have even more care to drive properly.

But get a few kids (I reckon I was pretty immature on the road until I was about 21 myself at times) in a car a you quickly lower the collective I.Q. (dependent of course on the type of kids).

[Lignum]

I think the Hoon legislation needs to be beefed up. Just to impound a car for 48 hours is a joke. It needs to be 12 weeks first offence, and the car crushed for the second offence.. Its almost bragging rites now days to have it impounded for 2 days.

[Waldo]

I think the Hoon legislation needs to be beefed up. Just to impound a car for 48 hours is a joke. It needs to be 12 weeks first offence, and the car crushed for the second offence. Its almost bragging rites now days to have it impounded for 2 days.

:whs: :2tsup:

[Ian Smith]

Did you current oldies when you were young ever listen and take notice to old pharts rattling on about every possible topic ranging from sex to rock and roll?

I didn't,
....and neither did I, but when things turned to shyte because a bad decision I had made I took it on the chin and did not cast about for someone else to blame it on, and that was the point I was making about FC's post.

Several folks have confirmed FC's age, thank you, so I stand corrected but stand by my comment

Ian

[Lignum]

Heard a bloke on the radio today with the suggestion that for the first offence, the car should be spray painted bright pink (at the hoons expense)

imagine a tough young hoon in his hotted up Subaru driving around in a pink car… lol. That would deter any young macho rev head hoon:D

[ozhunter]

Heard a bloke on the radio today with the suggestion that for the first offence, the car should be spray painted bright pink (at the hoons expense)

imagine a tough young hoon in his hotted up Subaru driving around in a pink car… lol. That would deter any young macho rev head hoon:D

:2tsup: That I would like to see.

[Wood Borer]

I did the same Ian and fortunately for the both of us our bad judgements were not fatal to us or innocent people.

Lignum's suggestion I think is heading in the right direction.

When we are/were young the views of our peers take priority over the advice of others and over logic. As a young male it was important to be respected by your mates and especially the girls.

To risk being the laughing stock of your mates is something to be avoided at all costs.

Another factor though is having fun and getting your heart in your mouth and it seems to satisfy these, the real consequences are seldomly considered or understood.

I know of a retired policeman who has interviewed many young people responsible for the death(s) of their mate(s) on the roads and mucking around with knives and guns.

Many of the young people know their mate is dead and know they killed them but in almost every case he felt they were saying the words "I know they are dead" but not understanding the finality or seriousness of death.

Even as much older adults we have trouble understanding death so we can hardly expect younger and less experienced people to understand it.

[funkychicken]

FC, who's to say the parents didn't. Once young people get together in a group situation, a lot of those lessons learned go out the window and bravado and showing off take over.


True, but the circumstances of the crash (140kmh, 6 people in a sedan) goes beyond the usual larking about and into stupid territory.

You're right, just because the parents did a good job, that doesn't mean the kid is an angel. I'm a living testament to that:doh:
I wasn't blaming the kids parents for the crash, there's no doubt that the crash was the drivers (and goaders) fault. If I stuff up I take the blame, don't worry, I'm not the sort to pin the blame on others.

I think crushing hoon cars is fun idea, painting them pink might not work (You never know, some hoons might like it.) Maybe the hoon cars could be replaced (at offenders expense) with Volvos, have you ever seen anyone do a burnout in on of them:q


When we are/were young the views of our peers take priority over the advice of others and over logic. As a young male it was important to be respected by your mates and especially the girls.

Mostly. I was frequently the laughing stock at school so I got used to only caring about the opinion of a few people that mattered. The others yobs didn't affect me whatsoever.

[Lignum]

Even as much older adults we have trouble understanding death so we can hardly expect younger and less experienced people to understand it.

And the impact it has on all the Paramedics, Fire Brigade and Cops is massive. How must they be feeling right this minute. A good friend of mine used to head up Major Collision and told me of a story about Boxing Day about 7 or 8 years ago when he was called to an accident and in the wreckage was the “baby on board” sticker. No baby was found in the wreck, until it was discovered compacted in the glove box some time later. The Mother was breast feeding at the time of the accident.

It’s a shame that some how P Platers arnt forced into some form of mandatory “explicit” examples of road trauma. (not the crap on TV) but real life.

[ozhunter]

It’s a shame that some how P Platers arnt forced into some form of mandatory “explicit” examples of road trauma. (not the crap on TV) but real life.

I think that would work on a good percentage of them, but there are those that wouldn't bat an eyelid (they exist, I worked with that type of person for 18 years)


And the impact it has on all the Paramedics, Fire Brigade and Cops is massive.

A good friend of mine has just come out the other end of four very bad years. He was a cop for 20 years, last accident he went to, a toddler was killed and the mother put the little one in his arms, begging for him to bring it back to life.

The idiots don't think, or care I suspect, about the ripple effect that their actions have.


True, but the circumstances of the crash (140kmh, 6 people in a sedan) goes beyond the usual larking about.

I doubt anyone can say they didn't do their share of larking about, but as FC says, it's when it goes beyond that, that bad stuff happens. That is where the sense that we try to install in our kids (respect for the law, for others and for themselves and a good dose of plain old common sense) kicks in and stops normal people from crossing the line. But you have got to have those things yourself before your kids will, and there are a whole neighbourhoods in every town in the country with people that don't give a rodents orifice.

Sorry ranting again. I'll get off now

[Master Splinter]

You'd actually need to raise the driving age to about 25 to ensure that the majority of people had adequate frontal lobe development.

I seem to recall that the driving age in Australia was lowered so that it was more in line with the age you could join the army (if you are old enough to kill yourself one way....).

[China]

In defence of Calm most freeeways in this country are quite suitable and safe for those kind of speeds, the speed limits on our freeways are a joke, people from overseas stayed with me at Christmas and doubled up in laughter when I told them I was restricted to 110 kph. (I have the same model vehical involved in this collision) Maybe if once and while you could get out on the freeway and blow the cobwebs there would be less of it in suburban streets. Point two other people at the party said the driver was drunk and should not have been driving. I beleive young drivers need more education should be required to pass a test and the end of their p plate preiod and as said above spend time in a trauma recovery ward and talk to some of the people who have paid the price. None of this will save every one. Last of all the Government should be spending the millions of dollars they are bringing in with fraudulant speed detection devices on educating young drivers

[Calm]

I stand by what i said and something else for you people to think over.

Speed doesn't kill

It is a combination of a few things - lack of experience and conditions are what kills, it is when speed is used in conjunction with these that people get killed.

Maybe some of you people want to have a look at the way you drive. Having a go at me because i admit i drive fast is just taking a cheap shot - it doesn't worry me, you are probably that car that just stopped at the roundabout to see if someone was coming - then telling everyone how "safe" you are on the roads, when in reality all you do is frustrate everyone around you. Or were you the one that passed me on the lane on the freeway that is marked as being closed ahead - yep you gained 20 spots but don't worry those 20 cars didn't really mind stopping to allow you to push in..morons

We were all young once and some of us were taught responsibility and some of you were not. Some of us were lucky to get here as well. people are killed on the road everyday - why make a big thing and feel so sorry about someone who has probably murdered people he says are his freinds. get real you lot open your eyes and look around - it is societies attitude, selfishness, greed and "all about me" that is killing people not speed. I still think driving fast on goof roads is safer because you concentrate harder instead of dreaming.



cheers

P.s. BTW i'm off to work now - what do i do - i'm a professional driver thats right i get paid to drive - I will probably do about 3000 km's again this week - Do you think you will get through a tankfull of petrol or clock up another 100 km's.

[Sebastiaan56]

There is lots of research on the teenage brain emerging. Risk taking appears to be biologically wired in. Here is a starting point What Makes Teens Tick - TIME (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,994126,00.html), I know its Time but bear with me.

I really dont think we have the right questions going here. Why is the military so interested in young men, because they are stupid enough to take the risks and malleable enough to be fed the propaganda to make them take the risks. Its why so many suicide bombers are young. The big question is how do we protect them from themselves and their peers? Its a bit late to blame the parenting when they are largely grown up.

BTW, a pink car would soon become a status symbol. There would be a lot of resprays for the fun of it.

[AlexS]

BTW i dont consider 140k's dangerous in some places/conditions it seems almost to be stationary. Like on the bike - i often get 160 or even 180 in the quiet night on the freeway heading home to Ballarat.:2tsup::2tsup:

Cheers
Seems like it's not only young people who think they're immortal and above the law.

[kiwigeo]

Some of you seem to have missed one important piece of information and a major factor in this accident apart from the excessive speed.....the driver was on P PLATES = not much experience. He was also in breach of the conditions of his P plates by having the passengers in his vehicle.

Every time we see such an accident we see the same old scene....the massive outpouring of grief....the flowers tied to the trees...the graffiti on the road...the groups of teens hugging each other and saying what a great person the driver was. Come on kids.....the driver killed a bunch of young people through an idiotic criminal act....he accepted no responsibility for his outrageous driving and for the safety of his friends. Come on kids....let's DO something to stop this carnage happening....it has to start with taking responsibility for your actions.

[Big Shed]

Dont even go down the line of speed restrictors/limiters - trucks have them now and they are the single most dangerous thing they have introduced. Until you get out beside a car doing 93km's an hour in a 68 tonne truck and it stops going (at 100 KPH) because the speed limiter cuts in you wont know the feeling of being totally useless. you just sit there, pray noone comes the other way, hope like hell the car driver backs off to let you in. you are usually too far past to get back in and the biggest problem is most car drivers have no idea the truck can phisically not do more than 100 in any circumstances (except coasting downhill)

Speedlimiters (at 100KPH) are the single most dangerous thing ever introduced in Australia. maybe 110 would be better/safer

Cheers

Calm, you say you consider yourself a professional driver, the facts above would seem to dispute that assessment.

1 You know you cannot go any faster than 100km/hr

2 You decide to overtake a car travelling at 93km/h in a 68tonne truck speed limited to 100km/h (using the length of your truck, do the math and see how many seconds and how many meters this will take you)

3 You "pray" that there will be no oncoming traffic (ie you cannot see that)

I just hope I won't meet you on my side side of the road on one of my frequent rips from Bendigo to Adelaide and back again.:o I also hope, for any oncoming traffic, that your "prayers" are answered more often than not:doh:
You are nornally relying on the goodwill of the drivers you are passing to "let you in".

On the next rise in the road your 100km/h speed limited truck will then struggle to do 90km/h and your holding up the person that just "let you in".

When you finish your shift (of however many hours) you then hop on your motorbike and take out the frustrations of the previous however many hours by "hooning" down the road at 160km/h.

All I can say is that your definition of "professional" is at variance with mine.

[Lignum]

3 You "pray" that there will be no oncoming traffic (ie you cannot see that)


like some hoon coming the other way on a motor bike doing 180kph

[kiwigeo]

The more I read about this horrific crash the more angry I get. From The Age:

1. quotes from one of the driver's friends defending his driving saying he drove at speed but was "always in control". A 19 year old on P plates driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs at 140km/hr in control of his vehicle......don't insult my intelligence.
2. the 19 year old P plate driver had already been ticketted on a previous occasion for speeding. IMO this guy was already in a group of drivers with a high chance of killing themselves and/or others.
3. there are accounts of the girl survivor's brother throwing himself over his sister at the last minute because he cared that much for her safety. If he was genuinely concerned about the safety of his sister then why did he 1. get in the car with his sister knowing the driver had been drinking and 2. let the driver hurtle along at 140km/hr with himself and his sister in the back of the vehicle??

[Waldo]

I'm going to go out on a limb here, it might sound harsh but...

Like a person being chased in a police pursuit and the driver being chased ends up crashing their car and is killed, it isn't the fault of the police and never should be - the onus starts and ends on the person the police were after.

Likewise with this, the tragedy is others were involved in the accident. I feel for the innocent involved, I feel for the families and friends, I do not however feel for the person driving.

Stupidity has its own consequences - pure and simple.

Now flame me.

[watson]

Now flame me.

That won't happen.

[jimbur]

Young people think they're immortal because all their experience of life points that way. They grow up (physically) getting bigger and stronger. You need to realise that things go downhill later to appreciate mortality.
The argument for early drivers' licences is in part because reactions are good at that age. However, fast reactions are no good if you haven't got the experience to cope with a situation. I'm not sure anyone has in all conditions - look at the number of racing drivers who have been killed on the road.
When I was on Ps we were limited to 50mph (80ks for the young ones) so everyone else was especially careful around us, giving us plenty of leeway knowing we were inexperienced and travelling at a slower speed. I suppose changing the law to let p-platers drive at the normal speed limit was more economic than building better roads to cope with increasing traffic.
Besides being immortal young people can't envisage things like paraplegia and having to have their nappies changed for the rest of their painful lives.
Sorry about the rant but as others have pointed out, it's the emergency services who have to clean up and they and the parent who have to live with the aftermath.
Jim

[AlexS]

Now flame me.
Absolutely no reason to - you are spot on.

[Chesand]

:whs:

[Lignum]

Talk about being irresponsible and completely stupid.

Last night a Hoon was clocked at 140kph only a few kilometres from the crash zone, and it turns out it was a mate of one of the teenagers that was killed. :?:?

[ajw]

I've just heard about this accident (didn't see/hear any news yesterday), and saw family/friends on the TV tonight saying the driver was a good kid. While I have sympathy for the families involved, I don't know how people can say "he was a good kid".

From what I heard, he was driving at high speed, with 5 passengers in a car equiped for 4 passengers, the car was unregistered, and he's had recent fines for speeding. To me, this puts him at the low end of the gene pool. He was an accident waiting to happen.

I suppose parents would always find it difficult to find fault with their kids, especially in a moment of grief like this one. The real shame is that he took so many other lives with his own.

ajw

[Groggy]

From what I heard, he was driving at high speed, with 5 passengers in a car equiped for 4 passengers, the car was unregistered, and he's had recent fines for speeding. To me, this puts him at the low end of the gene pool. He was an accident waiting to happen....ajw..AND I am pretty sure they said he had been restricted to only one other person in the car with him.

I wonder, if the driver had been the only one to survive the accident in place of that girl, what would the courts have done with him?

[Wood Borer]

I wonder, if the driver had been the only one to survive the accident in place of that girl, what would the courts have done with him?

The courts don't seem to be consistent with the views of the public so I guess they would slap him over the wrist.

Some commercial shock idiot would alert us "dumb gullible public" (shock jock does this to sell more ads). Us idiots would ring up talk back shows and complain.

Politicians wanting to get in on the action would demand a harsher sentence.

D%^ckhead kid gets harsher sentence.

We are all satisfied everyone will live happily ever after and we feel nice and warm inside.

Shock Jock get pay increase

Politician gets re-elected

Kid gets out early

More kids and innocent people are killed on the road by original idiot and a new crop of kamikaze drivers.

[Ray153]

I was going to stay out of this debate for reasons that may be clear to some later in my post, but I suspect some may not quite understand. I was quite prepared to stay out of it until I read several of the posts that have been made.

I suspect that my post will cause some angst amongst the Moderators, if so, I will accept whatever restriction/s they may place upon my privileges on the forum. I accept responsibility for that.

Unless you are a qualified road engineer I suspect you are not really qualified or equipped to make the sorts of blanket generalisations that have been made about what sort of speed is safe on a particular road.

Just because you may have made a number of trips at speeds in excess of the speed limit without mishap does not mean that the roads are "quite suitable and safe for those kinds of speeds" as has been suggested.

The vast majority of fatal and serious injury collisions occur on roads that are not classed as freeways but on roads that have traffic lights, intersections, etc etc in them to regulate traffic flow and allow access to areas.

In my opinion, anyone who believes that they are able to travel at 160 or 180 on any road in Australia is an absolute fool and has absolutely no right whatsoever to be on the roads.

Particularly if they then make the absolutely laughable claim that they are a professional driver. Crap, you deliver stuff for a living, it just happens that you deliver that stuff by truck. A person who drives to make a living is not a professional driver. They are a paid courier, thats all. Schumaker is a professional driver, Colin MacCrea is a professional driver, a vehicle tester for Ford or Holden is a professional driver.

I happen to be a copper and after going to many 1000's of collisions, dozens of them fatalities and more that resulted in serious injury, I have no problems with prosecuting those who think that they know better than qualified road engineers or believe that the freeways in this country can be driven on at speeds of 160 or 180 safely. Driving is a privilege, not a right and those who cannot abide by laws that apply to the exercise of that privilege can walk, use public transport, whatever. But if you cannot abide by the laws applicable to driving, then don't drive.

Nor do I have much time for those unthinking commentators who make blanket generalisations that the parents must have fallen down on the job as parents.

Next time you think about opening your mouth to come out with such offensive, rude, arrogant commentary on a subject that you have minimal experience of, just stop for one second and consider who is going to read what you post.

I have no doubt whatsoever, that within any random selected group of 100 forum members there will be at least one who has lost a family member, child, friend or work mate in a fatal collision and at least another dozen at a minimum who have been affected by the effects of serious injury collisions.

Any such forum members as I describe above who read that particular comment I refer to could not help but be anything but hurt, offended and angry at it and at the person who made it.

[Sturdee]

..I wonder, if the driver had been the only one to survive the accident in place of that girl, what would the courts have done with him?

About 4 1/2 years imprisonment. That is about the norm for these kind of offences, although the law provides a max of 20 years and a fine of $ 200k.

The jury case I was serving on a few years ago where the driver killed 2 persons and caused another long term brain damage got that.


Peter.

[Burnsy]

I was going to stay out of this debate for reasons that may be clear to some later in my post, but I suspect some may not quite understand. I was quite prepared to stay out of it until I read several of the posts that have been made.

I suspect that my post will cause some angst amongst the Moderators, if so, I will accept whatever restriction/s they may place upon my privileges on the forum. I accept responsibility for that.

Unless you are a qualified road engineer I suspect you are not really qualified or equipped to make the sorts of blanket generalisations that have been made about what sort of speed is safe on a particular road.

Just because you may have made a number of trips at speeds in excess of the speed limit without mishap does not mean that the roads are "quite suitable and safe for those kinds of speeds" as has been suggested.

The vast majority of fatal and serious injury collisions occur on roads that are not classed as freeways but on roads that have traffic lights, intersections, etc etc in them to regulate traffic flow and allow access to areas.

In my opinion, anyone who believes that they are able to travel at 160 or 180 on any road in Australia is an absolute fool and has absolutely no right whatsoever to be on the roads.

Particularly if they then make the absolutely laughable claim that they are a professional driver. Crap, you deliver stuff for a living, it just happens that you deliver that stuff by truck. A person who drives to make a living is not a professional driver. They are a paid courier, thats all. Schumaker is a professional driver, Colin MacCrea is a professional driver, a vehicle tester for Ford or Holden is a professional driver.

I happen to be a copper and after going to many 1000's of collisions, dozens of them fatalities and more that resulted in serious injury, I have no problems with prosecuting those who think that they know better than qualified road engineers or believe that the freeways in this country can be driven on at speeds of 160 or 180 safely. Driving is a privilege, not a right and those who cannot abide by laws that apply to the exercise of that privilege can walk, use public transport, whatever. But if you cannot abide by the laws applicable to driving, then don't drive.

Nor do I have much time for those unthinking commentators who make blanket generalisations that the parents must have fallen down on the job as parents.

Next time you think about opening your mouth to come out with such offensive, rude, arrogant commentary on a subject that you have minimal experience of, just stop for one second and consider who is going to read what you post.

I have no doubt whatsoever, that within any random selected group of 100 forum members there will be at least one who has lost a family member, child, friend or work mate in a fatal collision and at least another dozen at a minimum who have been affected by the effects of serious injury collisions.

Any such forum members as I describe above who read that particular comment I refer to could not help but be anything but hurt, offended and angry at it and at the person who made it.

Fantasticly put, could not agree more :2tsup::2tsup::2tsup::2tsup::2tsup::2tsup:

[kiwigeo]

Good post Ray....cant argue with any of your comments.

[jimbur]

Well said Ray
Jim

[Vernonv]

Speed doesn't killThat is one of the silliest things I have ever read on this subject. It has been proven that speed is one of the MAJOR causes of deaths (and serious injuries) in motor vehicle accidents. It's a no brainer - the slower you are going when you hit that tree, car, bus, truck, etc, the less likely you are to be killed or injured.

[Grumpy John]

I can't believe I saw at least 2 Jim Beam cans placed at the "Death Tree", how insensitive. Trouble is, it's typical of a lot of drivers' attitudes toward drink driving.

On another note, it looks like the governments alcho-pop tax is working :no:. Good one Kevin.

Regarding speed. Speed does not kill. If this were so there would be absolute carnage at every motor racing event. It is when unknown and uncontrollable factors enter the equation that speed becomes an issue, and the biggest factor is driver skill/ability. Even if you are Michael Schumacher or Valentino Rossi nothing will save you if you are doing 160+ and a kangaroo jumps out in front of you on that empty country freeway or a car unexpectedly pulls out of a driveway of a seemingly deserted road. We may have absolute control of the vehicle we are driving, but we have no control over the events happening around us, think about this before you put the "pedal to the metal".

[Vernonv]

Regarding speed. Speed does not kill. If this were so there would be absolute carnage at every motor racing event. There is a big difference between motor racing and driving down your average road. Much more is done to ensure driver safety in motor racing because they are traveling at such high speeds and it is understood that high speed increases the chances of being killed or injured.

If speed doesn't kill then I assume that hitting a tree at 100km/hr must be much the same as hitting a tree at 10km/hr.:rolleyes:

[Grumpy John]

There is a big difference between motor racing and driving down your average road. Much more is done to ensure driver safety in motor racing because they are traveling at such high speeds and it is understood that high speed increases the chances of being killed or injured.

If speed doesn't kill then I assume that hitting a tree at 100km/hr must be much the same as hitting a tree at 10km/hr.:rolleyes:

It's not the speed that kills it's the sudden stop. Seriously, if someone hits a tree at 100 Kph they will probably be killed - no doubt. It's the reason he/she left the road and hit the tree that I am alluding to.

As far as auto sports go, in most cases everyone is going in the same direction and the drivers are at a much higher level of training/competence, the track is isolated from other traffic and there are marshalls to warn of imminent danger thereby eliminating many of the unknowns that make driving on the open road at any speed dangerous.

[kiwigeo]

19 year old driver of the vehicle confirmed as having a blood alcohol level of 0.19. With a BA level that high surely the the guy must have been visibly drunk and at least one of the passengers should have had the intelligence to work out letting this idiot be in control of the vehicle was not a good idea.

[China]

Vernov you think that speed is a Major factor in collisions, don't beleive what you are told do your own reaserch and you will find that you statement is wrong, as for ray's comment, I beleive he is misinformed. Most people think speed camera's are acurate because that is what we are told but I am afraid it could not be farther from the truth. When this blatant misinformation is somehow reversed then we can start solving some of the real causes of motor vehical collisions

[Lignum]

Vernov you think that speed is a Major factor in collisions, don't beleive what you are told do your own reaserch and you will find that you statement is wrong,
Instead of waiting for Vernov to do his reaserch, can you enlighten us to why speed isnt a major factor in collisions


as for ray's comment, I beleive he is misinformed.

Of all those who have posted on this subject, Ray is the only one i can see who has had real life hands on experience with fatalities, as he has attended many in his line of work. Im curious why you would say he he is misinformed:?

[Wood Borer]

It seems that some of the latest posts are discussing the reason most of the occupants are dead - they hit a tree at high speed.

Obviously if you speed and don't collide with anything you get there in less time however if you collide with something then the damage dramatically increases with an increase in speed.

The consequences of high speed collisions are drastic and the problem is that it may not be the person who decided to speed who is injured or killed or gravely (no pun intended) affected.

Apart from the sole survivor the others are dead and we can't do much for them now apart from bury them or cremate them.

Can we do something particularly for the living younger people who are fit, have a great future and are clever but will tragically die in similar circumstances?

Some of the mates of the killed have been caught doing similar speeds within days of their mates being wiped out. Why?

Some people call them stupid and perhaps in our eyes they may appear stupid.

Some people have thoughts of showing young people casualty wards but the behaviour of the dead kids' mates indicates that might not work.

[Ray153]

Vernov you think that speed is a Major factor in collisions, don't beleive what you are told do your own reaserch and you will find that you statement is wrong, as for ray's comment, I beleive he is misinformed. Most people think speed camera's are acurate because that is what we are told but I am afraid it could not be farther from the truth. When this blatant misinformation is somehow reversed then we can start solving some of the real causes of motor vehical collisions

Ok China, as I said quite a few things in my post, can you be more specific as to where I am misinformed? You believe that I am misinformed, explain why you hold that belief please, rather than just claiming it without explanation. I am curious.

I am also curious as to why you believe that the statement by Vernon is wrong. How about instead of just making a claim that another is wrong, how about providing some evidence of your own to prove Vernon's statement wrong, rather than just saying it is wrong.

I am not sure how speed cameras came into this argument, but since it has, I will put my perspective forward. I am speaking for myself here, not in any way in an official capacity, something that I cannot do.

Speed cameras are accurate to a legal standard. A legal standard is not the same standard as a scientific standard. A legal standard can be reached through a scientific analysis of the instrument and establishing what the performance parameters are if certain operating conditions exist and criteria are met. The legal standard merely says that a device, operated in certain conditions and in a certain manner will give a result, accurate to within 2 or 3 kilometres per hour depending upon the instrument. That degree of precision or accuracy is accepted by legislators and Courts of law as a standard of accuracy or precision sufficient for the purposes of the Road Safety Act in Victoria. Is it a standard that a scientist would be satisfied with? Perhaps, perhaps not, it is largely irrelevant as scientists are not the people determining what the required standard should be.

Each speed measuring device, be it fixed or mobile radar, laser, digitector, camera of whatever description all have a tolerance. This tolerance varies from device type to device type and from laser to laser, radar to radar, camera to camera. Parliament has recognised this fact and to allow for that variance for a legal standard, the Act which names each device as a "prescribed device" for the purposes of the Act, the Act also legislates what that tolerance allowance must be.

That is why whenever a person is prosecuted for an offence whereby the evidence that we rely upon derives from one of these devices, the penalty notice or charge sheet always includes both the detected speed and the alleged speed. The Act states that the alleged speed is obtained by subtracting the prescribed tolerance from the detected speed.

If you believe that "speed kills" and other such theories are wrong, then I have no doubt that if you can prove them wrong and identify the real cause, I am sure that once you provide that evidence to Vic Roads, Monash University Accident Research Centre, lawmakers and legislators, Victoria Police, Traffic Accident Commission and all other parties who have an interest in the field, then the collective efforts would be refocussed in a second.

I haven't yet seen in any post a claim that speed is the ONLY cause of fatal or serious injury collisions. Are there other contributors? Absolutely.

Alcohol, drugs, speed, road condition, weather condition, human error, inexperience, fatigue, bad luck, poor decision making, peer pressure, ignorance, vehicle condition, vehicle design, vehicle malfunction, laws of physics, roadside environmental design, lack of confidence, misplaced or excessive confidence, poor reflexes, insufficient or non existent skills.

This is by no means an exhaustive list, but in every single collision I have ever been to, at least one of these factors has been the trigger for the collision.

My opinions as expressed in my first post are formed through attending over the course of the last 19 years, in excess of 30 fatal collisions and 100's if not 1000's of serious injury collisions and well into the 1000's minor injury and non injury collisions. It is formed through from a trained, experienced and thorough analysis of the human and physical evidence that is left behind in each and every collision scene. I have been able to give my opinions as to the cause of collisions and what happened in particular collisions to Magistrates, Judges and Coroners on numerous occasions and my expertise has been recognised and accepted by these Courts.

So now that I have put forward the basis upon which I have formed my opinions about the causes of fatalities or serious injury collisions, it is now your turn China. I await your post eagerly, explain to me how exactly I have been misinformed.

[TP1]

It is a fact that young people, and particularly our young men, have a greater feeling of immortality than others. Its programmed into our DNA and as a society we take advantage of it - who do we send off to war to fight in the front lines as cannon fodder? - young men because they will have less hesitation than others.

In terms of the attitude on our roads, our society has produced what we have today. In many parts of the country young people are brought up in a drinking culture and it is senseless to only rely on punitive measures to address the consequences of this.

Our politics and society are pitched toward individual rights and a "give me" attitude of many, and the greater good is often ignored. I'm afraid there will be no improvement in this area without changing some of the basic conditions that produce the attitudes in people we have today.

[AlexS]

Just to add to Ray's explanation of the tolerances of speed measuring devices....
As well as the legal standards required, there are Australian standards for the calibration of these devices, which are scientific standards. Devices calibrated according to these standards (and they all are - if you can show that a device wasn't you're off scott free) will have error bounds that are much less than the legal tolerances.

As Ray says, if you can show that they are wrong, go for it.

[kiwigeo]

Speed not a factor in accidents?

Do a simple test. Drive at 50km/hr and see how long it takes to brake to a complete stop. Now drive at 100km/hr and notice how it takes a longer distance to bring the car to a halt. People do the test every day as they race past my house at up to 30-40kms over the posted 50km/hr speed limit.....usually with nothing more than a car length between themselves and the person in front of them who's observing the speed limit.

140km/hr, drunk 19 year old P plate driver with no concept of mortality, a car full of passengers he's out to impress......a straight out selfish criminal act and it shows the guy had a total lack of respect for other humans including his friends.

[mikm]

Keep up the good work, Ray.

After 18 years of driving, I have had one "failure to stop at a stop sign" (I got lazy, made a "rolling stop", took the fine and demerit points on the chin and now stop every time) and ZERO speeding fines. Don't like speeding fines? Get your foot off the go pedal and obey the numbers in a red ring by the side of the road. Very simple cause and effect relationship.

As for the idiot who killed his mates, I don't think there's a single solution. Certainly isn't a simple one. I like the idea of moderate consequences for minor speeding of up to 10 kph over the limit, with massive consequences for anything above that. A couple of k's over can be an honest mistake, but it's a deliberate act for 10+ and should be treated as such. Perhaps fines indexed to income would be good as well.
If you don't like the speed limits, tell your MP about it. We can't just pick and choose which laws to break just to suit ourselves. "You're not allowed to steal my car because the law says so, but I can break the law any time I like and speed when it suits me." :screwy:

[Gingermick]

I was fined for missing a sign showing the limit had reduced to 80 so was doing 20kph over the limit which is more than 10km over the limit but wasn't doing it intentionally. :)

[Vernonv]

Vernov you think that speed is a Major factor in collisions ...Not exactly. What I said was that speed was a major cause of death and serious injury. It's a no-brainer and doesn't take much research to figure out that the faster you are going when you hit something, the worse shape you will be in after the impact. Simple really.

Also as has already been pointer out, the faster you are traveling the less time you give yourself to react and the longer it takes you to stop in an emergency ... basic physics really.

Believe that.

[jimbur]

One of the worst road safety adverts is the one that says, "We'll catch you before you kill someone".
However, one fact is constantly missed even in this thread. Getting a licence is one thing but keeping it is contingent on obeying the road rules whether they relate to speed, drink, using mobiles etc.
Jim

[jimbur]

Just heard on the news that a drunk driver crashed his car in full view of a funeral for one of the victims of the accident which caused this thread.

[wheelinround]

The same thing, that made us oldies think we were immortal :rolleyes: listening to tall tales and truths, bravado, what the older generation got away with. How they didn't get caught, dodge the man with the big sickle.
We all do it trying to out do those who've come before.

[jimbur]

The same thing, that made us oldies think we were immortal :rolleyes: listening to tall tales and truths, bravado, what the older generation got away with. How they didn't get caught, dodge the man with the big sickle.
We all do it trying to out do those who've come before.

Too right. only the survivors tell the tall stories.

[mikm]

Unbelievable, but true...
Drunk driver crashes outside crash victim's funeral - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/21/2797842.htm)

[wheelinround]

Unbelievable, but true...
Drunk driver crashes outside crash victim's funeral - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/21/2797842.htm)

47 year old and reversing or rolling back over the limit :roll:

[Waldo]

Unbelievable, but true...
Drunk driver crashes outside crash victim's funeral - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/21/2797842.htm)

If it was related. It just stupifies me beyond understanding how when you add up all the other related incidents of friends leaving cans of Bourbon & Cola at the crash scene and doing burnouts etc. in the immediate area to the mentality of some groups in society.

[RETIRED]

If it was related. It just stupifies me beyond understanding how when you add up all the other related incidents of friends leaving cans of Bourbon & Cola at the crash scene and doing burnouts etc. in the immediate area to the mentality of some groups in society.
Particularly the last paragraph.

[Ray153]

If it was related. It just stupifies me beyond understanding how when you add up all the other related incidents of friends leaving cans of Bourbon & Cola at the crash scene and doing burnouts etc. in the immediate area to the mentality of some groups in society.

It is very common with freshly erected "shrines" for want of a better term for various associates to leave similar "offerings" for the deceased. Very tacky in my opinion where it is suspected/established that alcohol was a contributing factor.

As for the driver who got picked up outside the funeral, there does not appear to have been any association with the funeral, just happened to occur outside the church, but for any hour of the day, that is a very high reading. At around midday, that cannot just be put down to one or two beers at lunch.

[Groggy]

Ray, I have a mate who lives just up the road from the accident site and he is very worried about hitting someone there. He has had two near misses himself and knows of lots of others. The people going there are behaving like they have every right to park on the public thoroughfare illegally and saunter over to the site to have a beer. The traffic is a mess. It is one thing to allow the grieving to take place but this is likely to make the situation worse if other people are hit. Any idea why the authorities are allowing it to continue?

[Ray153]

Ray, I have a mate who lives just up the road from the accident site and he is very worried about hitting someone there. He has had two near misses himself and knows of lots of others. The people going there are behaving like they have every right to park on the public thoroughfare illegally and saunter over to the site to have a beer. The traffic is a mess. It is one thing to allow the grieving to take place but this is likely to make the situation worse if other people are hit. Any idea why the authorities are allowing it to continue?

It is always a delicate situation, every time we try to exercise some degree of control we are blasted for being insensitive, callous and uncaring. No matter how much we explain that we are not interfering with a persons right to be in a public place or to grieve, it often ends up just making the situation worse.

A softly softly approach is often taken which brings about a better result sooner. After a few days, you may well find that the local van will stop and have a chat to those gathered and try having a quiet chat. Often times a quiet chat with the informal leader amongst teenagers has the effect of getting some degree of peer-directed control.

People will still congregate, but in a safer manner and cause less disruption. Going in straight away, dishing out tickets for parking and blanket directions about rubbishing, moving people on etc will often have the inevitable result of prolonging the length of time these people will continue visiting and tends to escalate the anti social level of the behaviour while they are there.

[Groggy]

I thought it would be something like that. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.:(

Poor buggers driving through that area are scared to death of hitting one of those kids. Let's hope they can move on after the funerals.

[China]

Ray
You are misinformed if you think speed limits are set by road engineers,
You are also misinformed if you think speed camera's are accurate.
For speed camera's to have lawful status they would have to be tested buy an independant testing authority with traceble results they are not, "read the constitution"
Speed limits in this country are set by polititions, unlike just about any other country

[mikm]

Unbelievable, but true...
Drunk driver crashes outside crash victim's funeral - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/21/2797842.htm)

Hmmmm. That's a bit strange. My post quoted above was to confirm the post directly before mine (at the time), where the person posting said they heard something along those lines on the news. Since that post looks like it was deleted, mine in isolation looks rather tastelessly sensationalistic. Not at all what I intended - was just trying to help him/her out.

Something like "Yes, (insert name here), you heard correctly. It's unbelievable that some idiot is caught way over the limit outside the funeral of a kid killed in an accident where alcohol was a contributing factor." may have left me not quite so far out on a limb after the post was deleted. Oh well...

[watson]

I can still see it.
http://www.woodworkforums.com/f43/why-do-young-people-think-theyre-immortal-111744/index3.html#post1099125

[Lignum]

After the last of the funerals the kids will get bored and move on. I don’t have a problem with them gathering and drinking like they are. They are just youngsters letting off steam and mourning in their own way. How many of us have been to a wake of a relo or close friend and got #### faced. It happens every day of the week all over the world.

The hoons doing burnouts and the one act of violence is unacceptable, but it appears to be isolated. We all seem to be to focused on them but have lost sight on what a massive tragedy and waste of human life that has just taken place. I say cut the (non hoons) some slack

[Gingermick]

You are misinformed if you think speed limits are set by road engineers,


Speed limits are set according to a road hierarchy, but any part of those roads that can not be safely navigated at the posted speed will have an advisory speed set that is designed by road engineers and designers.
I design roads for a living.

[Grumpy John]

Speed limits are set according to a road hierarchy, but any part of those roads that can not be safely navigated at the posted speed will have an advisory speed set that is designed by road engineers and designers.
I design roads for a living.

Mick, as you design roads for a living I am interested in what formula is used to determine advisory limits. Many times whilst driving on the open road (i.e. 100K limited) I have seen 127501 only to find that the bend can be safely negotiated at 100K. These advisory signs signs are just that "advice on a recommended speed/warning to negotiate a particular hazard" the trouble is you never know when the 80K bend sign means just that 80K no more.

[DJ’s Timber]

Hmmmm. That's a bit strange. My post quoted above was to confirm the post directly before mine (at the time), where the person posting said they heard something along those lines on the news. Since that post looks like it was deleted, mine in isolation looks rather tastelessly sensationalistic. Not at all what I intended - was just trying to help him/her out.



Just heard on the news that a drunk driver crashed his car in full view of a funeral for one of the victims of the accident which caused this thread.

Nope, still there

[Gingermick]

Gday John,
Mostly these come from the Road plannig and design manual, but the formula is E+F=V²/127R
Where E is pavement superelevation, F is side friction, V is car speed and R is radius of the curve. They are usually taken with conservative values of F (80km when it's a bit slippery) but you should still never really exceed them unless you know the road very well. Even then you probably shouldn't as it is sretting a bad example for your back seat drivers.

[Sturdee]

For speed camera's to have lawful status they would have to be tested buy an independant testing authority with traceble results they are not, "read the constitution"


I fail to see what the "read the constitution" has to do with the lawful status of speed cameras.

Firstly which constitution are you talking about, the commonwealth, or state constitution. If it is the commonwealth then it's a red herring as road laws are still a state matter and not a federal one.

If it is the state constitution then it is also irrelevant as the Victorian parliament made and can change the constitution at will and in fact regularly does so by passing legislation as required. The voters are not involved in this process.

Peter.

[AlexS]

You are also misinformed if you think speed camera's are accurate.
For speed camera's to have lawful status they would have to be tested buy an independant testing authority with traceble results they are not

They have to comply with the relevant Australian standards, which cover calibration and frequency of testing. There are different standards for different types of device. If you want to challenge a speed camera reading, you can go to court and require that the police or whoever produce the traceability documents. Don't you think more people would do so and get off if they weren't traceable?

[Ray153]

Ray
You are misinformed if you think speed limits are set by road engineers,
You are also misinformed if you think speed camera's are accurate.
For speed camera's to have lawful status they would have to be tested buy an independant testing authority with traceble results they are not, "read the constitution"
Speed limits in this country are set by polititions, unlike just about any other country

China, I never said an either of my posts on this topic that speed limits are set by road engineers.

What I said was, and I quote "Unless you are a qualified road engineer I suspect you are not really qualified or equipped to make the sorts of blanket generalisations that have been made about what sort of speed is safe on a particular road. "

However, speed limits are set in consultation with road engineers which to me is only logical. What constitutes a safe speed is governed primarily by the laws of physics and engineers are well equipped to apply the laws of physics to a surface.

Speed limits are determined by, set by and regulated by Vic Roads under the authority delegated to them by Parliament in Regulation 303(3) (a-h) of the Road Safety (Road Rules) Regulations 1999.

No matter how you may wish otherwise, speed cameras are legally accurate when they meet the requirements of Section 79 of the Road Safety Act and used in the prescribed manner as set out in Regulations 303, 308, 309 and 310 of the Road Safety (General) Regulations.

At no point do any of these regulations or sections say that there is any mandatory requirement from a legal standing point of view for the devices to be tested by an independent testing authority.

It is a little while since I saw a speed camera verification certificate, but I believe that they used to be and probably still are, tested verified and sealed by an outside service that holds the necessary technical qualifications and expertise.

You may wish that what you put forward should be the threshold to be met, but wishing it so does not make it the law.

Your suggestion to read the Constitution is not particularly helpful I have to say. I suspect that it is nothing more than a red herring thrown up on your part.

Yet again you seem to be content to make claims such as "Speed limits in this country are set by polititions, unlike just about any other country" without any attempt to substantiate these claims. Which politicians? What other Countries?

I do not think it unreasonable for you to make an attempt to lay out the basis for your claims, I have you and others the courtesy of explaining my views and reasoning.

I look forward to the time when you do the same.....

[mikm]

I can still see it.
http://www.woodworkforums.com/f43/why-do-young-people-think-theyre-immortal-111744/index3.html#post1099125


Nope, still there

Ooops. What a dill. Had it in my head that I was replying to a post immediately before but obviously should have looked a bit harder on previous pages. Thanks for spotting that, lads.

[China]

Sturdee the Australian constitution overides all state constitutions , AlexS You are correct "they have to comply with the relevent Australian standards" the only problem is they don't
Ray the Road safety Act is irrelevent it has never been gazeted therefore is not binding "At no point do any of these regulations or sections say that there is any mandatory requirement from a legal standing point of view for the devices to be tested by an independent testing authority" again read the constitution, you may learn something I can assure it was not include as a red hearing. I have personaly attended meatings at which speed limits were determind by politions with no consultation whatsoever. Alexs the people who do challenge these alleged infringements in a properly constituted court (chap III Commonwealth Constitution Act "Forge V ASIC") do and are winning cases.

[AlexS]

AlexS You are correct "they have to comply with the relevent Australian standards" the only problem is they don't

Where is your evidence for this statement?

Alexs the people who do challenge these alleged infringements in a properly constituted court (") do and are winning cases.

The case you cited has nothing to do with speed cameras - it's to do with Commonwealth powers and is a complete red herring.

There may be occasional cases of people challenging convictions successfully - that's the way the law works - and in NSW an internal audit resulted in a number of prosecutions being cancelled, but don't you think that every solicitor around would challenge every time, and the newspapers would report their numerous successes?

[Sturdee]

Sturdee the Australian constitution overides all state constitutions .

Hate to be pedantic, but having read the federal constitution a number of times, but I don't think you are correct.

The fact is that our federation came into being from the several colonies handing over only specific powers, and none of them were to do with road laws. Hence, despite the current efforts by the states to unify our road laws we still have different road laws.

Please tell us which section of the act states that it overides all state constitutions.

Peter.