Hoons kill innocent driver

[dusty86]

What I mean, is where the victim pulled out, it is actually a U turn after a hill, so the victim wouldn't have been able to see over the hill even if he was speeding.
Curious to know if it is legitimately street racing, the car looked like a standard civic?

[xisled]

This is a very sad story. If it was street racing this is very unnecessary loss of life and the driver who was racing should feel the full force of the law.

Ok knowing the intersection , the place where the accident is a well known drag area, go to the highway on a Friday night, there are hundreds of cars that race up and down. More police and marked cars that patrol up and down the highway would stop all this.

[foxtrot3]

Originally Posted by ebxr8240

Whats the speed limit there ??
I've seen side impact on cars doing 80 kph and it's not pretty either...
Yep more red light and speed camera's ???
They do nothing ....

The speed limit is 60 dropping to a 40 roadworks limit which has been in place for over a year.
In the 20 years that I have lived in dandy I have only seen one speed trap there.
Cheers MD

[Professor Farnsworth]

Originally Posted by foxtrot3

The speed limit is 60 dropping to a 40 roadworks limit which has been in place for over a year.
In the 20 years that I have lived in dandy I have only seen one speed trap there.
Cheers MD

yes my mistake, i mis-read the map, thought it was further back near eastlink

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by dusty86

What I mean, is where the victim pulled out, it is actually a U turn after a hill, so the victim wouldn't have been able to see over the hill even if he was speeding.
Curious to know if it is legitimately street racing, the car looked like a standard civic?

And because its a stock looking car it means he isnt a street racer?

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by LTDHO

Innocent?
He broke the law, sure the ramificationswere high, but certainly not innocent.

The speeder/racer was not the only one in this incodent who broke the law. Or are we back on the 'speed kills' campaign?

Am i reading this right?
Are you saying the bloke who was killed was guilty of something?

From what i can see he was attempting to make a right turn into a side road and was t boned by some senseless idiot.
The only thing this bloke did wrong was misjudge the oncoming speed of a vehicle and not allow himself enough time to safely make his turn.
That is hardly illegal and when you consider the excessive speed the Civic was doing, completely understandable.
How do you know he didnt assume the oncoming Civic was doing the posted speed limit and therefore judged his move to be safe?

Theres only 2 guilty parties here and neither of them were the deceased!

[Professor Farnsworth]

from looking at the map further, it looks like the guy was doing a u-turn on the hill, where we do u-turns all the time to go to coles. It's a dodgy setup, due to the speed of normal oncoming cars and the crest of the hill.

We'll no longer be doing u-turns there.

[Spudz27]

Not sure if it has been said but if the owner of the Ford is a member on here hand yourself in.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by Professor Farnsworth

from looking at the map further, it looks like the guy was doing a u-turn on the hill, where we do u-turns all the time to go to coles. It's a dodgy setup, due to the speed of normal oncoming cars and the crest of the hill.

We'll no longer be doing u-turns there.

I dont know the area at all, but the reports i've read have said he was turning right, nothing about a u turn.
Either way, there is no way he could have expected oncoming cars to be doing 120-130k/hr.
The reports have said he was on his way home and could have quite possibly made that same turn many times safely before taking into account the road conditions and posted speed limits of the area.

Only speculation, but quite plausible.

[Professor Farnsworth]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

I dont know the area at all, but the reports i've read have said he was turning right, nothing about a u turn.
Either way, there is no way he could have expected oncoming cars to be doing 120-130k/hr.
The reports have said he was on his way home and could have quite possibly made that same turn many times safely before taking into account the road conditions and posted speed limits of the area.

Only speculation, but quite plausible.

if it's where i think it is, the right turn across oncoming traffic on the Princes Hwy enables you to either:

1.) U turn for Coles etc
2.) turn into the service road, which is basically just an elongated u-turn
3.) turn into the road

either way it's the same one we u-turn at regularly

[pauljh74]

Originally Posted by dusty86

knowing where that happened, that intersection is horrible, speeding or no speeding, they need to put traffic lights there

There's enough bloody traffic lights on the run into Dandenong as it is. 3 traffic lights in 500metres and 4 in 1km? Then there's all the lights on the other side of Clow st. Soon it'll be quicker navigating the Panama Canal.

When they said red late 90's Ford sedan I thought great, now my mates are going to give me crap and say it was me. FWIW I really was home all evening. That and I don't drag race. There'll always be someone with a quicker car and people who do - their next sentence after they tell you how they beat this guy is usually how few points they have left on their licence if they still have one.

[Full Noise]

Originally Posted by LTDHO

Innocent?
He broke the law, sure the ramifications were high, but certainly not innocent.

The speeder/racer was not the only one in this incident who broke the law. Or are we back on the 'speed kills' campaign?

It took 25 post for someone to actually point this out.

This is a very tragic situation, however, I don’t agree with the deceased driver being labelled as innocent.

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Am i reading this right?
Are you saying the bloke who was killed was guilty of something?

Yep.

Originally Posted by BENT_8

From what i can see he was attempting to make a right turn into a side road and was t boned by some senseless idiot.

The deceased driver wasn’t attempting to turn right, he did turn right… in front of on-coming traffic.

It doesn’t matter if the other car was doing 40 or 240, it’s still on-coming traffic.

Originally Posted by BENT_8

The only thing this bloke did wrong was misjudge the oncoming speed of a vehicle and not allow himself enough time to safely make his turn.

Not quite. See above.

Originally Posted by BENT_8

That is hardly illegal and when you consider the excessive speed the Civic was doing, completely understandable.

Hardly illegal is like a little bit pregnant. A good solicitor will fix this, in fact, even a bad one will.

Originally Posted by BENT_8

How do you know he didn’t assume the oncoming Civic was doing the posted speed limit and therefore judged his move to be safe?

Didn’t anyone ever tell you never to assume?

Would you trust the judgement of some clown in another car with your life?

I know this area well and there is a slight hump in the road (Princess Hwy) however, the deceased driver would have still had a couple of hundred metres of very clear visibility, so why did he turn?

Distracted perhaps, who knows?

A hypothetical.

If you were at a set of lights and they turned green, but there was a car approaching at high speed that quite clearly either wasn’t or was unable to stop, would you still go through because the light was green?

And before anyone here gets their frilly knickers in a twist, as I said, this is tragic and quiet honestly, I’d like to see this moron in the Civic do quite a bit of jail time for this, however, everyone involved in this accident played a part, there are no totally innocent parties here.

If the deceased driver was stopped and waiting to turn and the other clown lost control and hit him, then he would be totally innocent.

[Professor Farnsworth]

this thread is not doing anyone any good