Quick Question re Vic Truck Jack-knife Footage

[Iggle Piggle]

Have a quick question for you 18-wheeler guys re this dash cam vid: http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/n...9727db06862977

My question is this...do you guys think that song he is listening to is a rip of that "Gotta Get Through This" song?

And any idea why Dave wasn't on channel?

Will also accept comments on the holy ****ness of it.

[STEALTHY]

Originally Posted by Iggle Piggle

Have a quick question for you 18-wheeler guys re this dash cam vid: http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/n...9727db06862977

My question is this...do you guys think that song he is listening to is a rip of that "Gotta Get Through This" song?

And any idea why Dave wasn't on channel?

Will also accept comments on the holy ****ness of it.

The song isn't even close.

Dave was changing his underwear.

It was the cyclists fault*

*For anyone who doesn't know the page, almost every vid has a comment 'its the cyclists faullt'

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by Iggle Piggle

Have a quick question for you 18-wheeler guys re this dash cam vid: http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/n...9727db06862977

My question is this...do you guys think that song he is listening to is a rip of that "Gotta Get Through This" song?

And any idea why Dave wasn't on channel?

Will also accept comments on the holy ****ness of it.

Bet you failed maths at school, very few '18 Wheelers' out here.

Journo's also need to know the meaning of jacknife as well.

[Adamz Ghia]

I drive fairly often down that way and it gets slippery even in the ute, so I can see how a truck going that quick could get tangled up. Amazing no one was killed.

[Iggle Piggle]

I figure if the chick couldn't stop her VW before holing her radiator on that tree then the truckie was always on a hiding to nothing.

[Franco Cozzo]

i dont even wtf

[marty351]

Truck driver is a legend not to have lost it completely.

As for the song.

Young hipster.

[nuthin' fancy]

Originally Posted by marty351

Truck driver is a legend not to have lost it completely..

The way he came off the brakes to straighten up and avoid the truck with the camera was great driving.

Sacrificed the girl's car but things happen.

[mik]

Originally Posted by nuthin' fancy

The way he came off the brakes to straighten up and avoid the truck with the camera was great driving.

Sacrificed the girl's car but things happen.

I'd say he didn't have a lot of choice with the ladies car, but, it was a good job to miss the truck all the same , by the same token her car probably would have been pretty stuffed after crashing over the log.

[mik]

One thing that occurs to me here , is just how dangerous accident scenes are after the initial event, my old man was a towie for some time and would always stress in the event of a prang to get right out of the road/right off the road to a safe area , but often at road accidents you see people standing around on the road , behind the crashed vehicle or in front , someone coming the other way only has to check their mirrors for two seconds , not expecting to look up and see **** happening in close proximity and no where to go.

[deesun]

Originally Posted by mik

One thing that occurs to me here , is just how dangerous accident scenes are after the initial event, my old man was a towie for some time and would always stress in the event of a prang to get right out of the road/right off the road to a safe area , but often at road accidents you see people standing around on the road , behind the crashed vehicle or in front , someone coming the other way only has to check their mirrors for two seconds , not expecting to look up and see **** happening in close proximity and no where to go.

You have been here long enough to remember KEEPLEFT a forum member who often sprouted the dangers of the secondary accident. Shame he got sh@t on so often.

[Squalo]

That's a great point Mik. If you're on the scene of a crash, whether you're directly involved or are a rescuer/helper - be seriously aware of the danger to yourself and others. Rescue personnel are taught that the first thing you do is check for danger to yourself, and then you continually monitor the potential threats.

[Express]

A change of undies all round would be needed.

[FoxtrotGolfXray 5.0]

Originally Posted by Squalo

That's a great point Mik. If you're on the scene of a crash, whether you're directly involved or are a rescuer/helper - be seriously aware of the danger to yourself and others. Rescue personnel are taught that the first thing you do is check for danger to yourself, and then you continually monitor the potential threats.

Not just rescue personnel. One of the fundamentals of health and safety in the workplace for most workers these days is to assess the danger to yourself and the working party before you start the job (Job Start Assessment (JSA), pre-start, take 5, risk assessment, etc) and then to continually assess as to whether any of the conditions have changed that may necessitate a reassessment.

Of course, with us being humans, as soon as we put under pressure (such as an accident or incident) a lot of those requirements get forgotten about (unless you train for them).

[Giant Cranium]

can steer!

[Bearman]

A serious sphincter puckering moment for sure!! That could have ended so badly.....

[snowcone]

Where's the jack knife?

[Carrion]

Originally Posted by snowcone

Where's the jack knife?

In Jacks pocket,

[Olbucko]

All three vehicles were at fault, it was a curvy narrow road with trees right up to the edge of the road, the first driver should have been driving within her vision and been looking out for hazards like fallen trees, very common on rural back roads, the second driver was just plain stupid stopping in the middle of a narrow road on a bend, and the truck driver, skilled as he was, driving far too fast for the conditions.

The truck driver could possibly be charged with neg driving as he hit a stationary vehicle. Although he was the unfortunate victim of the second persons stupidity, but if he was going a little slower and paying more attention to the road he may have been able to stop.

I lived on a rural back road like this for 30 years, It was narrow, had many bends, blind corners, and sections of dirt, and the occasional fallen tree, but it still had a speed limit of 100 kph, so some people tried to drive at that speed. In the last 30 years that 25 km section of road has killed at least 3 people.

You might know a road like the back of your hand, but you don't know where the next fallen tree or two cars stopped in the middle of the road with the drivers having a conversation will be.

[FoxtrotGolfXray 5.0]

Originally Posted by Olbucko

All three vehicles were at fault, it was a curvy narrow road with trees right up to the edge of the road, the first driver should have been driving within her vision and been looking out for hazards like fallen trees, very common on rural back roads, the second driver was just plain stupid stopping in the middle of a narrow road on a bend, and the truck driver, skilled as he was, driving far too fast for the conditions.

The truck driver could possibly be charged with neg driving as he hit a stationary vehicle. Although he was the unfortunate victim of the second persons stupidity, but if he was going a little slower and paying more attention to the road he may have been able to stop.

I lived on a rural back road like this for 30 years, It was narrow, had many bends, blind corners, and sections of dirt, and the occasional fallen tree, but it still had a speed limit of 100 kph, so some people tried to drive at that speed. In the last 30 years that 25 km section of road has killed at least 3 people.

You might know a road like the back of your hand, but you don't know where the next fallen tree or two cars stopped in the middle of the road with the drivers having a conversation will be.

Whilst I appreciate where you're coming from, what do you expect the first truck driver to have done? There was a tree in front of him cutting him off from progressing further forward, and to have positioned his vehicle in such a way so that it was not a hindrance to other motorists, it looks like he would have had to reverse down the road, which to me seems like it could have created a greater risk than what he had done. The other factor to consider is the likelihood of other traffic approaching whilst he was pulled over towards the side of the road. How busy is the road? I have no idea myself, but the road doesn't appear to be too major and therefore would expect the traffic to be pretty light.

Remember risk is not just about consequence, but is also a factor of probability or likelihood.

[Olbucko]

Originally Posted by psychobimbo

Whilst I appreciate where you're coming from, what do you expect the first truck driver to have done? There was a tree in front of him cutting him off from progressing further forward, and to have positioned his vehicle in such a way so that it was not a hindrance to other motorists, it looks like he would have had to reverse down the road, which to me seems like it could have created a greater risk than what he had done. The other factor to consider is the likelihood of other traffic approaching whilst he was pulled over towards the side of the road. How busy is the road? I have no idea myself, but the road doesn't appear to be too major and therefore would expect the traffic to be pretty light.

Remember risk is not just about consequence, but is also a factor of probability or likelihood.

I see your point. I didn't realise that the second vehicle was a truck, makes for a very difficult situation, seems that it all boils down to the second truck going too fast round a blind corner. He should have seen a tree that size across the road from at least 100 metres away

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by Olbucko

I see your point. I didn't realise that the second vehicle was a truck, makes for a very difficult situation, seems that it all boils down to the second truck going too fast round a blind corner. He should have seen a tree that size across the road from at least 100 metres away

Strange that the Police said that no one was at fault and never charged anyone.

I might add that in 44 years of driving interstate (including most roads going over the Great Divide in all three states, as well as some over Mountain ranges in FNQ)
I could count on one hand the number of fallen Trees I've seen blocking the road, it's not a common occurrence.

[malazn mafia]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

Strange that the Police said that no one was at fault and never charged anyone.

I might add that in 44 years of driving interstate (including most roads going over the Great Divide in all three states, as well as some over Mountain ranges in FNQ)
I could count on one hand the number of fallen Trees I've seen blocking the road, it's not a common occurrence.

Was expecting the police to accuse the truck driver of speeding and demanding that the truck be impounded for excessive smoke and noise, not maintaining full control of vehicle and fish tailing down the road. seems some cops have sense.

[Olbucko]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

I might add that in 44 years of driving interstate (including most roads going over the Great Divide in all three states, as well as some over Mountain ranges in FNQ)
I could count on one hand the number of fallen Trees I've seen blocking the road, it's not a common occurrence.

Don't see fallen trees on main roads very often, but on backroads it can take the council several days to clear trees after a bad storm or heavy snow. If you can't wait you just get out there with your neighbour and your chainsaw and do it yourself. Happened on my road dozens of times in the last 30 years.

[Vesper Martini]

Originally Posted by Olbucko

I see your point. I didn't realise that the second vehicle was a truck, makes for a very difficult situation, seems that it all boils down to the second truck going too fast round a blind corner. He should have seen a tree that size across the road from at least 100 metres away

A couple of things pretty much every corner is a blind corner when driving in the bush.
it would take that truck longer than 100M to pull up. even if empty.

so what speed should he drive at on pretty much the whole road

That Driver did very well, he would have needed to come off the brakes to pull that trailer back in line, as well as get between the parked vehicles.

[JG33]

I like to see if the truck driver would have controlled it fully loaded.

[mike_nofx]

Originally Posted by JG33

I like to see if the truck driver would have controlled it fully loaded.

If fully loaded would the trailer still have slid like that? I'm assuming it may possibly have been more controlled, but of course taking longer to stop.

It doesn't look like the prime mover itself ever lost control, other than a bit of bounce over the tree.

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by mike_nofx

If fully loaded would the trailer still have slid like that? I'm assuming it may possibly have been more controlled, but of course taking longer to stop.

You can tell by the trailer bounce that it's empty.

Originally Posted by mike_nofx

It doesn't look like the prime mover itself ever lost control, other than a bit of bounce over the tree.

This is always a problem when you have ABS on the Prime Mover but not on the trailers.

[mike_nofx]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

You can tell by the trailer bounce that it's empty.

This is always a problem when you have ABS on the Prime Mover but not on the trailers.

Oh yeah I got that the trailer must be empty, was just wondering if a loaded trailer would have been 'safer' in this situation?

[JG33]

Originally Posted by mike_nofx

Oh yeah I got that the trailer must be empty, was just wondering if a loaded trailer would have been 'safer' in this situation?

Had it been fully loaded the outcome would have been different.
Trailer would have tipped over.