People who do U-Turns of freeways!

[Cespenar]

We are all blaming the G'ment, aren't we? Whatever happened to many (thousands) of people telling the G'ment to do what is right? It wont happen in my lifetime.

[Black XR6]

Unless barriers were put up between all roads, people will make u-turns and even if they are put up people will just reverse down the wrong side of the road. Or do what some silly woman did last night on the Western Ring Road. She decided to reverse on to the carriageway in order to manouvere her car so she could jump start anther and reversed into a truck. The poor truckie pulled over to see if they were alright and then another female driver panics, hits the brakes. This causes another female driver to run up the back of her car. I arrive there and with the ambos and smokies, try to make sense of the scene. There for barely a minute when a third female hits the brakes hard, speeding through the scene, which cause a fourth female to run up the rear of her car.

I think I can see some sort of pattern here!

There should be a common sense law though forbiding law suites of this nature. I mean when you buy a gun, does it come with a disclaimer, holding the barrel to your head and pulling the trigger may be hazardous to your health?

[DivHunter]

Remove the warning signs/labels off everything, it'll sort itself out.

[[Tonko]]

Originally Posted by EDManual

She should go to jail for 3 years or something, its no different to drink driving and killing someone. Of course she will just get a fine of 100 bucks or something.

come on mate, this is australia... she will get a 12 month good behavior (sp?) bond and be sent on her merry way, probably keep her license too. anyone remember the woman that was text messaging when she killed the cyclist? good behavior (sp? again) bond for her and no conviction recorded, and she kept her license!

[frenzal]

the first thing the police should start doing on the F3 freeway to make it a safer, better, and more efficient road, is to start ing enforcing KEEP LEFT UNLESS OVERTAKING.
i drive part of the F3 everyday, and deadset 80% of drivers seem to be allegic to the far right lane. its horrible.

[Full Noise]

Originally Posted by frenzal

80% of drivers seem to be allegic to the far right lane. its horrible.

I think you mean far left lane. _2:

Cheers, Danny

[Keepleft]

Full Noise -I think you mean far left lane.

Hey FN; - He means the LEFT lane (of three laned sections). The middle-lane is not the left lane.

Auslandau wrote: you will never stop people from doing stupid things no matter how much the g'ment tries with regulations, fines, jail terms, death penalties, barriers, keep of the grass signs blah blah blah.

I agree to an extent, BUT - where their is median barrier the stupid, the intoxicated and otherwise inept or unfortunate - will not be able to cross the median into the path of oncoming (high-speed) traffic, AND ladies such as in our example here will not be able to physically do U-Turns because of the barrier and or 'bay' re-movable gate.

The median barriers are installed 'full-length' of Sydney's M7 after advocacy. (They have since learn't of an interlacing issue),

The design issue here relates to existing NATIONAL motorway construction standards (AUSROADS) AND state derivatives thereof. For the last forty years we have built to old US standards where it was 'accepted' that of ten vehicles that entered the median, one would cross into oncoming lanes, the rest would recover with or without some damage. Appalling odds.

I intend to arrest the ten for police attention as to why they crashed in the first case, AND PREVENT the single unit from potentialy wiping out innocent parties.

Auslandau continues: Just some people have no common sense and all the restrictions imposed will never stop someone from doing something totally stupid that will harm others! In fact I dont know the reason of this thread being started NOR keeplefts intentions as there are a million 'stupid' things that people do everyday.

Tightening up the existing penalty for doing U-Turns on motorway category roads from it's existing $75-125 range, up to a more Germanic $500 - 800 that will, or should make it clear to the stupids - the "SERIOUSNESS" of the offence.

That is seperate from taking action against a driver who has done the deed, and either crashed into oncoming traffic, causing damage, injury and/or death. Here, other serious actionable law is enacted by way of charge.

The INFRINGEMENT tells you the seriousness in potential of the offence, the second is used to take action in court.

Having p.i.s.s weak infringements for hideously dangerous practices is NO deterent.

XR6 Martin wrote: Nothing like driving down a freeway for ages because you took the wrong turn and theres no where to to turn and go back the way you came. Ill do a U turn if its safe, F@#$ it if its illegal, I ain't driving for miles the wrong way because the people who design roads assume everyone knows where they are going.

Then keep your eyes open, freeway category roads have LARGE EXIT and ENTRY & DIRECTIONAL signage when compared to other road categories.

These signs are posted WELL IN ADVANCE and AT the point of exit and entry.

You are required to know where you going AND are required to not run out of fuel for example. The latter is a UN Convention requirement.

Your 'position' on the matter is a clear signal of a couple of things:

1. We *must* get median barrier up; to
- prevent such characters from crossing over and pulling out in front of us.

2. To then target closure of SOME emergency service U-Turn bays, OR that removable barrier be placed across them so as to; -

- prevent the blind and stupid from carrying out a potentially dangerous manouvres.

We are discussing high-speed roads here, not typical residential streets or CBD networks.

Freeways are not meant to have interchanges every couple of kilometres, to do so lessens their safety per kilometre.

My argument is that we cannot, should not and will not raise the 110km/h speed limit until these things are done for each road length, to do otherwise I argue,- is inherently more dangerous than the current situation, keeping the damned 110kmh.

As driver's, we must have confidence that some A-hole will not suddenly loom out from the median bush into our path, OR from an emergency designated U-Turn bay. That confidence in our high speed road network is necessary for greater allowance/s.

Remember that 'freeway' lengths of road are of a higher standard than typical dual lane carriageways, the latter have 'intersections', the freeways 'grade seperated interchanges'. One catgeory is safer than the other, each is capable of being made MUCH safer.

REDRUM's post speaks of the potential of multi-vehicle impact by peoples actions highlighted. Further impacting serious legal and financial outcome for the driver at fault.

Buggered if I know why insurance companies have to shoulder so much - when I know the burden can be eliminated in some road design cases. I say we pay plenty enough by way of premiums, and I don't blame the insurance companies for that - when often its the infrustructure at fault.

I do know this for a fact - governments increasingly desire for road users to take 'greater' personal responsibility on the roads, and make no mistake, we will bear that 'heavily' at law in coming time, and well we should.

To some degree, here in NSW we are cutting the strings. This should in time allow some greater open allowances.

[wulos]

May I ask what the purpose of these 'grass breaks' in the median strip actually performs? In the section you talk about it is a fairly regular occurance for vehicles(not just cars - have seen fully laden semi trailors bogged in those grass breaks) and the like to have become bogged in attempting U-Turn maneuvours.
Surely it would be easier (and cheaper in terms of ongoing maintenance) to have the 'shrub barrier continuous. A cynic would suspect that these convenient 'rest locations' were strategically placed so as to enable for various 'revenue collection picnics' to take place.
How it is legal to expect a police officer to stand in the median of a freeway rated road & perform 'speed checks' with only a flouro vest on for protection is beyond belief. (What relevance to this thread does that statement have?? Plenty - Where do you think most of the police hide in plain sight?)

[frenzal]

Originally Posted by Full Noise

I think you mean far left lane. _2:

Cheers, Danny

haha yeah, sorry far left lane. i should of checked what i wrote.

and yeah when are people going to learn that sitting in the middle lane when there is 3 lanes is not keeping left.

and also anyone doing a u-turn on a freeway is an absolute moron.
ridiculously dangerous!

[Mechan1k]

Only time I have done a U-turn on a freeway is when there has been a major accident on thhe M5 .... and traffic was banked back for 30-odd km ... i waited patiently to do "said" U-turn .. and only entered traffic when there was nothing coming.

I think it comes down to common sense really ... and onlt having to do a U-turn in a dire emergency or due to being stuck for hours on end due to accident.

Some people have no common sense whatsoever ... and I am surprised they are still alive to this day.

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by Keepleft

Tightening up the existing penalty for doing U-Turns on motorway category roads from it's existing $75-125 range, up to a more Germanic $500 - 800 that will, or should make it clear to the stupids - the "SERIOUSNESS" of the offence.


Having p.i.s.s weak infringements for hideously dangerous practices is NO deterent.

Having higher penalties for this action would do absolutly nothing, zip, ziltch. How many people actually know what the fine is for doing most things wrong on the road and especially if travelling from state to state. Increasing penalties is crappola if they arent inforced. Make it the death penalty (& and proberly happens to some unfortunalty) but it will still happen. How many talk on mobile phones while driving!!!! 1,000's me included and know its wrong but have no idea what the penalty is until you get caught! I can think of a 1,000 more things that need to happen before we start putting barriers on high speed raods around Aust to stop STUPID PEOPLE!!! Fence every damn, water way, ocean, cliff, road, hole, cos stupid people might be stupid!!!!!

Any ways....had enough of this rubbish! :



| [/url] |

[Keepleft]

Auslandau - Having higher penalties for this action would do absolutley nothing, zip, ziltch. How many people actually know what the fine is for doing most things wrong on the road and especially if travelling from state to state.

One does not need to know what each $ penalty is - the seriousness of an offence is dictated by how a government deals with its road safety program. Weak states/jurisdictions with low driving requirement will have low penalities. Here in NSW we recently re-targetted the keep-left rule with greater punitive result by having increased late last year, - the fine to $275 PLUS 3 demerit points, up from a $125 or so.

The 'need' to target hogs was recognisedansd action undertaken. It still fell short of my $500 advocacy.

Increasing penalties is crappola if they arent inforced.

Enforcement is a matter for police, police numbers are another matter altogether.

Make it the death penalty (& and proberly happens to some unfortunalty) but it will still happen.

Then IF they are caught, 'that' penalty shall apply, - the driver is responsible for keeping up to date with road rules, and if one wishes, 'the rules'. It is not for the state to tell you each day per se, but does give you the 'tools' to do so. You can download the driver manual of each state AND see the penalties online.

How many talk on mobile phones while driving!!!! 1,000's me included and know its wrong but have no idea what the penalty is until you get caught!

So, you know its 'wrong', but continue to do it anyway. Until what?? You know the 'actual' penalty?? THEN will you STOP?? In NSW it exceeds $300. If the answer is 'yes', you'd stop IF you knew the penalty AND that penalty was high - then you've only confirmed my view the key penalties must be increased. I don't mean 'speed' here.

I can think of a 1,000 more things that need to happen before we start putting barriers on high speed raods around Aust to stop STUPID PEOPLE!!!

Not quite right - we install median barrier, full length, because we want to stop idiots routinely doing U-Turns. To HAVE this barrier will mean our freeway network will mirror the best motorway standards of Europe, where to stop idiots from doing U-Turns AND to stop crossover crashes, - they have this barrier as mandatory.

Fence every damn, water way, ocean, cliff, road, hole, cos stupid people might be stupid!!!!!

Totally unrelated - one is a mechanical task - the driving (and 'roads'), the other examples are not.


BTW - Your in Victoria - I note a 'no change' to existing VIC road enforcement policy in today's budget, indeed they Brumby states 'we make no apologies'. Shame its enforcement concentration is in one area.

[4vxc]

Originally Posted by Keepleft

In the past when folk have advocated raising a freeway speed limit beyond 110km/h, I've highlighted my opposition based on a couple of realities native to AUS;

1. Lack of continuous median barrier, for full length.

2. Designated U-Turn bays that 'encourage' people to treat such as 'intersections'. Much danger.

I now need 'modify' point two a little. The remedial answer here is adoption of point one. Sadly for this event, it point one *will* happen as the section is to be upgraded by a lane addition, therafter will be barriered.

In today's F3 example, mistakenly reported by some media to be a 'crossover', is in fact a case of a person, (woman) doing a U-Turn at Berowra. Not at an emergency service designated U-Turn bay which is 'bad enough', but on a 'nice' grassy strip either side of which is bounded by thick native trees and scrub that 'divides' both sides of traffic.

The grassy section 'softens' the visual impact of the median trees.

She drives south and then decides then to turn around and drive north, problem is,- she's done so and impacted a van, killing the male driver.

The crash happened shortly after 6am and at midday it is still being attended, naturally.


Prediction: She could sue because RTA had not had installed barrier from preventing her doing something stupid. Think along the lines of the person diving from a rock ledge resulting in spinal damage suing Wyong Council because they had not erected signs telling him was dangerous to do so.

OR of the bloke who, standing in the sea, dived forward and crashed head first into a sand-bank, he sued - because Council had not warned him of the sandbank. That they should have had signs telling him their was one.

OR of a teen who sued RTA for not repairing a damaged pedestrian barbed wire and similar fence, who suffered life long injury. The 'locals' are in the habit (still) of cutting side fences so they can run across the freeway (M5 Campbelltown) to the other neighbourhood.

I will seek change to NSW legislation seeking to 'drastically' toughen up the existing paltry infringement penalty fordoing U-Turns.

Sorry to tell you keepleft, but I was caught up in that on Sunday and had a good look as the traffic crawled by. She did in fact "crossover" into the path of the oncoming traffic (northbound) there were quite a few small trees and shrubs that had been flatten as she mowed across into the path of the van. When travelling slow it was a good time to note how easily a car can plough straight across onto the wrong side of the freeway as there is nothing but the native shrubs to slow you down before the inevitable with a approach speed of 220k's. Also saw a VT towing a large boat do a U-turn just past Jolls bridge!

[Walkinshaw]

I say we legalise shooting these people on site.

"sorry sir that was quite stupid, we can't let you live"

*bang*

problem solved

[4.9 EF Futura]

Originally Posted by Walkinshaw

I say we legalise shooting these people on site.

"sorry sir that was quite stupid, we can't let you live"

*bang*

problem solved

Lol. Amazes me how i wind up with the conservative reputation dan!

[wulos]

Originally Posted by 4vxc

Sorry to tell you keepleft, but I was caught up in that on Sunday and had a good look as the traffic crawled by. She did in fact "crossover" into the path of the oncoming traffic (northbound) there were quite a few small trees and shrubs that had been flatten as she mowed across into the path of the van.

If I read that post correctly then what you are saying is that the female driver was NOT actually attempting a 'U-Turn' maneuvour as first reported here by Keepleft.
Could the shrubery have been a left over from a previous incident? or definitely look like it was from Sunday Mornings crash?

[4vxc]

the skid marks went thru the bushes straight to the van and tinnie.

[4vxc]

to be more precise they stopped around the right hand lane (northbound) the van was in the far left lane (slow lane) pointing to the scrub on its left.

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by 4vxc

Sorry to tell you keepleft, but I was caught up in that on Sunday and had a good look as the traffic crawled by. She did in fact "crossover" into the path of the oncoming traffic (northbound) there were quite a few small trees and shrubs that had been flatten as she mowed across into the path of the van. When travelling slow it was a good time to note how easily a car can plough straight across onto the wrong side of the freeway as there is nothing but the native shrubs to slow you down before the inevitable with a approach speed of 220k's. Also saw a VT towing a large boat do a U-turn just past Jolls bridge!

Thank you 4VXC-
My information is government sourced and is meant to be 'solidly reliable', I'll now seek answers through investigative channels.

This does not negate the median barrier aspect (advocated for this section long ago) nor the U-Turn issue. IF this IS a 'crossover', - then each public party would have a 'very' strong negligence case, taking into account contributory actions of the road users'.


Some new NSW penalties, applicable mid 2006 (now):

* Making a U-turn without giving way to vehicle or pedestrian: $300 and FOUR demerit points.
(up from $225 and three points - 1 July 05).

* Stopping in a bus zone: $225 and two demerit points.
(up from $175 and NO demerit points - 1 July 05).

* Parking-stopping at crossings: $225 and two demerit points.
(Up from $225 and one demerit point - 1 July 05).

* Double parking: $225 and 2 demerit points.
(Up from $225 and no demerit points - 1 July 05).

* Using a mobile phone: $300 and four demerit points.
(Up from $225 and three demerit points - 1 July 05).


UPDATE ONE: As some will know - this section of F3 is to be upgraded to three lanes in each direction. Median barrier will be used 'full length', preventing future crossover situation.

The weblink below, (Pdf 908kb) notifies this upgrade, it has 'before and after' pictures, in which you'll note the typical 'grassy medians' (and scrub). It is in these that folk commit U-Turns at times.
http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/constructi...idening_cu.pdf

[wulos]

Having traveled the exact section of the F3 several times this week(obviously I have no 'official investigative information - just what my eyes tell me), I am of the belief that the accident was NOT an attempted U-Turn at all.
The only 'fresh' crash investigation markings on the road surface are at the southernmost Berowra interchange, between the northbound exit ramp (to head off to Berowra) and the bridge itself.
There is a section of shrubbery knocked down (as pointed out by 4vxc) between the two carraigeways adjacent to one of the grass bays. Had the shrubbery been continuious without the grass section, perhaps the extra obstacles would have helped prevent the vehicle from making it to the northbound side (a proper median would have stopped it as well obviously)
I find it difficult to deduce that THIS accident(if it's in the spot I'm thinking it was), with the 'witness' markings on the road/native divider was the result of an attempted U Turn.
I guess this thread shows the importance of making sure that, we should gather as many truthful facts, rather then blindly accepting information on a singularly sourced - hearsay basis.(I'm sure we've all been a part of that on online forums though)

[4vxc]

keepleft, I don't understand why they would say it was a U turn there would have been a lot of people who saw the aftermath.
wulos, sounds like the place, the shrubs are flattened just to the northen side of the grass clearing.

[wulos]

that'd be the area - appears southbound car has run onto median area, knocked down some shrubs, til it ran out of bushes, continuing on with whatever speed it had left across the grass directly into the northbound lanes

[Deadman]

There's no 'Law' against jumping off a building. It's just plain stupid. Why? Because you're taught when you're young about gravity, about pain, about things that cause harm, and you work out that it's a stupid thing to do. Even if you were in hurry to get home, you'd wait for the elevator rather than jumping out the window.

Laws will only do so much. If drivers on our roads were educated enough to avoid making stupid and dumb decisions, we'd need less laws and less enforcement. That, and some people, not matter how much you educate them will still be stupid. In these cases, they shouldn't be allowed to drive.

Forget toughening up infringment, train these people right in the first place or stop them from getting on the roads with tougher tests. People know that there are big fines for drink driving, using a mobile phone etc etc but it doesn't stop them. If only we knew that all motorists on the road were of a certain higher standard (due to harder tests or something) - there would be less need for such a big brother approach to try and tell every motorist every little thing. Next they'll need a hand just find the ignition.

The above comments are made by an extremely hungry and therefore irate poster who is waiting to long for the oven to heat.

[frenzal]

On the topic of people who do actually do U-turns in freeways, in general and those who have admitted it in thiesthread the general consensus and the common defense and justification among these people in doing so has been how people all claim to make sure there is sufficient gap to safely pull out back on to the freeway.
the factor that everyone seems to forget, and the part i beleive is the most dangerous, is the approach to turning off to do a u-turn.

i had someone do a u-turn in front of me on my way home today. it is a common occurance because there is twin servos/restaurants at the location, so it is usually lazy workers who dont want to drive the extra 5 mins to the next exit and back.

these people seem to forget that they are in the right hand lane, the fast lane, which generally travels at 110 minimum and these people suddenly get on the anchors at the last minute to pull off.

its absolutely f..ing amazing how stupid people are.
ooo but i made sure there is a safe gap when i pull out.
what about the approach to pulling of you idiots!!

[King-3l]

Originally Posted by wulos

I guess this thread shows the importance of making sure that, we should gather as many truthful facts, rather then blindly accepting information on a singularly sourced - hearsay basis.(I'm sure we've all been a part of that on online forums though)

I would have thought the topic was more based on what is needed to stop this sort of accident, however it happened. Freeway driving is just out of the abilities of some of our road users, then again, so's parking.

If it was an illegal u turn, the barrier would have stopped the incompetent driver being able to enter the path of oncoming traffic.

On the other hand, if it was a cross over accident, the barrier would have stopped the out of control driver being able to enter the path of oncoming traffic.

Having known one person that was killed after another driver lost control of her RX7 on a wet M5 in sydney many years ago, I have seen the aftermath that is left behind. Having seen the damage done to the median barriers that have since been installed after being hit numerous times, I now know that other families have not had to hear their loved one was killed.

My 2c