Why do young people think theyre immortal??

[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]

[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

[kiwigeo]

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

[jimbur]

Well said Ray
Jim

[Vernonv]

Speed doesn't kill

That 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 . 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".