Thread: Attitudes to the road toll

This seems so typical of how it all works. Maniacs everywhere causing accidents, but so long as they aren't over the limit or drugged up, no big deal and the government isn't out there trying to clear up this everyday problem.

However, if someone is over the limit they'll get crucified, even if the lack of care and attention of the injured / killed party was what really caused the accident. No doubt drugs/alcohol are the cause of some bad accidents but taking the big picture I bet general maniac driving is causing a lot more. Of course that's more difficult to deal with so the government have their PR campaigns and come down heavy in other ways.

And look at the media, they're just as bad. Where's the considerations in the stories asking if the mother had took care crossing that road. The media seem more interesting in automatically insinuating blame on the drunk driver, while saying how the departed mum and daughter were lovely people.

Once again too much political correctness while not taking an unbiased view of things.

I'm sure the mum new the bad history of that road and its' speed. I know roads like that and hate pulling across them. Caution and careful observation of the cars on the highway are seriously on my mind. Unless there was sun in her eyes or some other mitigating factor, would the drunk driver not have been in clear enough view for quite some distance. She only had to drive the short distance over the road, which should not take a great deal of time. Based on the limited information we have does that not mean she's pulled out when he was RELATIVELY close, even if he was travelling significantly faster than the speed limit.

IF that is the case then the drunk driver is also a victim because he's getting the whole blame for "causing" the deaths. Granted, he may have been better able to avoid the collision or reduce its severity but I don't think he should take all the blame if both parties were at fault.

Originally Posted by Sturdee

Twelve years ago I was part of a County court jury that dealt with a similar case involving speed, erratic driving and alcohol.

We found the driver guilty of the offences charged and the 6 days spent hearing the evidence and seeing the crime scene had a serious effect on me and this case brings back awkward memories.

Sturdee has made the ultimate point - its effect on others.

This accident didn't just "happen" to the mum/daughter and Mr Scumbag - it is now happening to jurors, court staff, defence, prosecution, ambulance, fire brigade, police and tow truck drivers.

I have been trying to find a way to see the coroners report regarding this accident. I don't know if they are available to the public. It would be interesting to know other details such as how far away the Commodore was when she pulled out on to the road, what lane she pulled in to, or if she was going straight across. I drive past this school almost every day and always move over to the right lane as more than once people have pulled out of the driveway in front of me. The speed limit has been dropped from 100 down to 80 all the way from Cranbourne to Five Ways, but there is still no "school hours" speed limit for this school.

Originally Posted by beefy

IF that is the case then the drunk driver is also a victim because he's getting the whole blame for "causing" the deaths. Granted, he may have been better able to avoid the collision or reduce its severity but I don't think he should take all the blame if both parties were at fault.

If circumstances were different, for example if the mother survived the crash and her daughter was killed, you would probably find that mother would also be on a culpable or dangerous driving charge. But she isn't alive so obviously she cannot be charged. Her penalty is much more severe than that, so although it may appear that way she has not gotten off scott-free.

As I pointed out above, if the driver of car 1 is charged with culpable driving then he cannot then or at any later time be charged with drink-driving. If the jury find him not guilty of culpable or dangerous driving, then he can NEVER be charged with drink-driving. This would tell you that the police prosecutors believe that they have a very strong case. If he beats that charge he walks away free and blameless. He was three times the legal limit

The case does not go to court until 25 January so until the end of the trial it is only speculation on who gets what penalty.

After Peters post stating that he is withdrawing from this conversation I sent him a PM apologising for bringing up painful memories.
With his permission I have posted his reply explaining his decision.

"John you were not expected to know that this accident brought back bad memories so don't be upset.

The memories of my jury service had faded well and truly in the back ground but this brought it back.

Whilst I'm okay with that service and the decisions I had to reach I have no intention of reading armchair critics pontificating about such cases and as to who was right or wrong. What did happen and what should have happened. It is a tragedy that 2 people died and then as an armchair critic debating it is IMO not okay. But everybody drives a car so they are experts.

I had to inspect the scene of the accident in my case, listen to 4 days of evidence, see the graphic police photos, see the accused and the family of the victims all the time and then together with my other jurors reach a unanimous verdict knowing that if the accused was found guilty he would serve at least a minimum of 4 years in jail.

What ever happened it was tragic and this case is as well.

Peter."

"By all means publish it in the thread as it explains my personal reasons for not looking at the thread anymore. I know what is involved in such a case from now on and until you are closely involved in a judgmental capacity I believe we should not debate it and let the court system take its place.

Peter."

I think this thread is starting to open memories that some of us would prefer to leave buried.

Maybe it is time to quietly move on - PLEASE -

Originally Posted by Grumpy John

Do you live in the area EJ?

Nope, but that part of the world is pretty flat. I also did cheat a bit and check Steetview to confirm my suspicions

To get back towards the original thrust of this thread and to pick up on an earlier comment about what would happen in Norway and Sweden ...

Sweden has a road safety concept called Vision Zero. In broad terms that means a road toll of ZERO.
To achieve that aim, the Swedes recognise that multiple factors need to be addressed and apart from safer cars and better (safer?) drivers, there also needs to be an emphasis on building a road environment where a small mistake doesn't result in death or serous injury. So
# if there is a possibility of hitting a pedestrian (or a cyclist) -- think urban street -- then the speed limit would be 40 km/h or less.
# if there is a possibility of a head-on collision -- think the typical two-lane, two-way rural highway -- the speed limit should be 70 km/h. In a modern vehicle a head-on crash where both vehicles are doing 70 km/h is considered "survivable". Higher speeds mean a higher standard of road -- either 4 lane divided carriageway or a wire barrier down the center of the road, overtaking being accommodated by occasionally providing an additional lane.
# if there is a possibility of T-bone crash -- the example discussed in the last 30 or so posts -- the speed limit would be 50 km/h (or less, I don't recall the exact value).


Having spent a good part of my life working in the area, the questions that are never asked about the example being discussed are:
# why was a high traffic volume land use (a school) approved in what is essentially a high speed rural environment?
# why weren't proper arrangements made for the traffic entering and leaving the school?
# and the saddest of all -- how many people have to die before these two negligent acts are corrected? This is the question that really gets my dander up as the answer is usually "many more than 2".

I was going to mention earlier, but didnt for my attitudes don't align well to macro-public, but if the punishment was to immediately have a car "cubed" and left on your driveway for 6 months, people might stop being idiots.

Speeding over 30k's? Cubed
Drink driving? Cubed
Drugs? Cubed
Hooning? Cubed
Mates car? Cubed
Hire car? Cubed

The cops pull you over, call a "cubing truck" and it rams the whole lot (minus people and animals, but EVERYTHING in the car, no exceptions) into a neat 1m x 1m cube. Right there and then. The cube is then delivered to the front of your driveway and left there.

Social embarrassment, extreme cost, severely disproportionate inconvenience plus the near-inability to obtain insurance for the next car might make people think.

The cubing and delivery is completely free

Boohoo people will whinge. Boo-bloody-hoo indeed. The other result is a mangled mess for someone else to clean up. Boo-bloody-hoo then.

I read this article yesterday which highlights just how stupid some people are: Tourist's 'ridiculous' driving prompts woman to take action

Originally Posted by woodPixel

I was going to mention earlier, but didnt for my attitudes don't align well to macro-public, but if the punishment was to immediately have a car "cubed" and left on your driveway for 6 months, people might stop being idiots.

Speeding over 30k's? Cubed
Drink driving? Cubed
Drugs? Cubed
Hooning? Cubed
Mates car? Cubed
Hire car? Cubed

The cops pull you over, call a "cubing truck" and it rams the whole lot (minus people and animals, but EVERYTHING in the car, no exceptions) into a neat 1m x 1m cube. Right there and then. The cube is then delivered to the front of your driveway and left there.

While I agree in principle I just don't trust the cops enough whether it's unintentional or otherwise.
eg "I don't like the cut of your jib", Cubed?

"Looking at me in a funny way"........cubed
"Driving through a built up area wearing a loud shirt after 10pm"........cubed

This idea has great potential !!

There are some extreme attitudes here none of which would change a thing. These threads stir up extreme thoughts without addressing the basics, always have and always will and everyone criticises all the rest of the driving world as "other drivers" infererring the critic is an expert driver and every other driver is a dill. There is one sobering thought in all this and that is there is no such thing as an accident, they all have a root cause and the so called "accident" did not happen by chance. The big thing is that governments treat the driving population as a source of revenue, criticise the drivers for causing accidents, plead with them to stop it all when the ultimate problem was thiers to begin with because they did not educate the driving population to begin with. Mum and Dad and I include every one who has posted to this thread do not have the skills to teach safe driving and all they do is pass on bad habits and poor skill sets. I taught advanced and competition driving when I was younger, was a professional driver for a large part of my working life and I still reckon my skills as a driver could be improved even after the eight week full time course I did back when I was a young man. In fact it occurs to me that the longer the mum and dad tuition requirements (L plates) go on for the greater the opportunity is for bad habits, poor skill building because the tutor never had the skills in the first place and has no right to be teaching any young driver anything. No one here has identified what the driver pulling out through the give way sign should have done initially but I will leave it to the experts to tell us. I stopped posting here as I could see what way things were going and I will stop again as I have no desire to get caught up in the "punishment is the only answer" argument. Who sets the parameters for the punishment?

Chris, I think the people here are expressing frustration at continued anti social behaviour experienced by road users. Unfortunately repeat offenders do not respond to the softly softly approach, and drastic measures need to be taken.

I don't believe punishment is the only answer, but there needs to be accountability.

Originally Posted by woodPixel

I read this article yesterday which highlights just how stupid some people are: Tourist's 'ridiculous' driving prompts woman to take action

I would love to see the woman in that article in Melbourne - She would not know which one to follow to their destination and give a lecture to.

Cheers

Doug