Another death on Victorian roads

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by gtxb67

i must be missing your point totally, because it seems to me that you are suggesting that running into someone in a car, is not as irresponsible as running into someone in a truck

what the media and most of the population think of a situation is not really relevant. the injury is the relevant factor. responsibility is needed for all of the three scenarios you gave. in the first one, you may have scored a pedestrian and killed them, which would make it as bad as killing someone in a truck. the aim is to avoid an accident - and to give yourself the best chance of that, you need to be responsible. for sure, being responsible in a truck means braking much earlier than in a car, but when it is all said and done all three vehicles needed to be stopped at the red light. the consequences are only relevant if the driver was not responsible and then it is all dependent on who else is in the intersection and their position at the time

unless you wish to make the news, responsibility is required for all vehicles - once again, avoiding the impact is the only thing that matters

You have missed my point, I am not talking about which is physically worse, I am talking about public expectation of a higher standard of driving from those that do it for a living.

I think I will leave it there.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by GT-E

The first people/police and the government need to do is stop calling these incidents ACCIDENTS, they are not an accident, but a crash.
Some iddiot was doing somthing wrong and that is what caused the C R A S H.
I am sick of Accident being used to soften the result.
I also wished the courts would hand out stiffer penalties. That moron who killed 6 kids in country victoria while drunk and letting his kid steer, got 10 years and is appealing the harshness of the sentance.
If my kid was killed by a scum moron like than, I would happily make him dead or a quadraplegic. An eye for an eye if the courts are too lame to do something about it.

Some good points there!

[russellw]

Speculation, the curse of the armchair expert, strikes again.

The section of road involved (see pic below) is straight and contains the all too common mixed bag of broken and unbroken lines that seem to have been designed by a dyslexic line marker. It is correct to say that at the particular point of the incident the line was solid on the Southbound side but it is broken shortly before and again shortly after.

There are also skid marks in the Southbound lane (the one the truck driver was originally in) that then diverge across the road toward the point of impact so that only leaves more questions unanswered at this point in time.

It is the role of the media to speculate but it is up to the Accident investigation squad and the coroner to determine what happened. Until then, any people involved (including the two other heavy vehicle drivers they wish to interview) are entitled to the benefit of doubt and I am sure that anyone of us in the same position would expect the same.

We would all like to know what bought about this tragedy and we would all like to hope that there is something to be learnt from that knowledge but sadly that is not always the case.

It does, perhaps, highlight the need for introduction of the system used in some parts of this country where marked arrows define where the right of overtaking starts and (more importantly) warns that it is about to end.

Russ

[mik]

here`s another pic.

[chrisfpv]

Originally Posted by mik

here`s another pic.

Am I the only one that got kind of sad when they saw the L plate on the back of the 4WD in that last pic? So young.

[GCFordChic]

While I absolutely respect and agree with some opinions that people have expressed in this thread regarding generalised situations (ie gecko I understand and completely agree and am thankful that you have this view considering the position you have) I have to address one thing that is nagging at me.

A few people have criticised the criminal justice system and I want to respond to that.

If you believe that the whole criminal justice system is biased towards being lenient on people you think should have the book thrown at them, consider your sources and the extent of the information you are relying on to come to that conclusion.

The majority of the community get their information from the media. Media push political and certain social issues. More and more the news is filled with an 'angle' rather than purely providing facts. When these cases get to court and sentencing, the 'angle' is pushed again. Important factors are left out, unimportant things are emphasised.

The information you get is limited and biased unless you do one of two things: (1) sit in court and listen for yourself or (2) read the transcript and judgements. In some very newsworthy and interesting cases I have sat in court next to reporters, listening to exactly the same things and yet in reading their reports later, would wonder if they were even in the same universe, let alone the same public gallery. I have emailed multiple news outlets you would generally consider trustworthy to correct mistakes they have published. Things from completely the wrong charge, to misidentifying defendants and charges to reasons for the sentence. Not once have they corrected their mistakes.

I don't profess to have an answer to every 'unfair' sentence ever handed down, but I can tell you that sometimes you don't know the half of it.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by GCFordChic

While I absolutely respect and agree with some opinions that people have expressed in this thread regarding generalised situations (ie gecko I understand and completely agree and am thankful that you have this view considering the position you have) I have to address one thing that is nagging at me.

A few people have criticised the criminal justice system and I want to respond to that.

If you believe that the whole criminal justice system is biased towards being lenient on people you think should have the book thrown at them, consider your sources and the extent of the information you are relying on to come to that conclusion.

The majority of the community get their information from the media. Media push political and certain social issues. More and more the news is filled with an 'angle' rather than purely providing facts. When these cases get to court and sentencing, the 'angle' is pushed again. Important factors are left out, unimportant things are emphasised.

The information you get is limited and biased unless you do one of two things: (1) sit in court and listen for yourself or (2) read the transcript and judgements. In some very newsworthy and interesting cases I have sat in court next to reporters, listening to exactly the same things and yet in reading their reports later, would wonder if they were even in the same universe, let alone the same public gallery. I have emailed multiple news outlets you would generally consider trustworthy to correct mistakes they have published. Things from completely the wrong charge, to misidentifying defendants and charges to reasons for the sentence. Not once have they corrected their mistakes.

I don't profess to have an answer to every 'unfair' sentence ever handed down, but I can tell you that sometimes you don't know the half of it.

Absolutely, many of us do realise there are often 2 stories, the real and the publicised, sometimes they completely different.

[platinumXR]

There's always three sides to every story; one side, the other side and the truth.

[jcxr]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Allegedly pulled onto the WRONG side of the road across the dividing lines just as the 4WD was going past....

They are now looking for the drivers of two trucks that were travelling ahead of the alledged fatal truck driver. It appears from reports these two trucks had slowed down quickly and the following pipe carrying truck had no where to go except veer right, into the oncoming traffic. Maybe tailgating involved, or faulty brakes? Inquest will reveal all I hope.

[LTDHO]

Originally Posted by GT-E

The first people/police and the government need to do is stop calling these incidents ACCIDENTS, they are not an accident, but a crash.
Some iddiot was doing somthing wrong and that is what caused the C R A S H.
I am sick of Accident being used to soften the result.
I also wished the courts would hand out stiffer penalties. That moron who killed 6 kids in country victoria while drunk and letting his kid steer, got 10 years and is appealing the harshness of the sentance.
If my kid was killed by a scum moron like than, I would happily make him dead or a quadraplegic. An eye for an eye if the courts are too lame to do something about it.

Is being pedantic helping the situation?
A crash or incident is called an accident because it is the opposite to intentional. Whilst the action of over taking was intentional, I doubt driving head on into a L plater was.

True the penalties are to soft on those that commit automotive homicide. In saying that you wil find that the magistrate knows the lack of responsibility that road users have as a rule. Not many fully understand the amount of responsibility that comes with a drivers licence.

[left]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

The consequences are higher and more lethal.

Granted you stand little to no chance against a B-double if you're in a car but those types of truck vs car collisions are not nearly as common as car-on-car or car-on-tree "accidents". The claim by another poster (to whom my response was directed) that 90% of truck drivers are high on drugs and sleep deprived is pure speculation at best and just a little OTT. Which leads me on to....

Originally Posted by geckoGT

What a load of crap. Most accidents do not involve any form of testing for drug use except breath testing for alcohol, only those that result in serious injury or death have drug toxicology, and then normally only during postmortem. So how did they come up with this figure?

I still can't find the article but those numbers came direct from Vic Police from memory and btw are not limited to accidents resulting in fatalities. Vic Police do test for drugs now too so I am not sure why you think they don't. I will try to find the article but in the meantime the best I could come up with was this from DoJ Nov 2009:

Police Minister Bob Cameron has announced $10 million worth of funding to replace drug-testing devices and expand roadside drug testing.

“Drug drivers are a growing concern with testing showing police are nearly three times more likely to detect impairing drugs in drivers compared to drivers with a blood alcohol content reading over .05 and we are taking action to curb this behaviour,” Minister Cameron said.

Around one in 67 drivers tested are found to have an illicit substance in their system, compared to around 1 in 160 with a blood alcohol content level over .05.

With the additional drug testing kits the number of drivers tested is expected to double to 40,000 annually by 2012.

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Maybe this is primarily because the there is proportionately more cars than trucks and very little to do with better driving standards.

I stand by my comment that truck drivers are better drivers than the vast vast majority of people in passenger cars. Each to their own.

[LTDHO]

Originally Posted by left

Granted you stand little to no chance against a B-double if you're in a car but those types of truck vs car collisions are not nearly as common as car-on-car or car-on-tree "accidents". The claim by another poster (to whom my response was directed) that 90% of truck drivers are high on drugs and sleep deprived is pure speculation at best and just a little OTT. Which leads me on to....

Where do you get this info from, have you been in the trucking industry for long?

Originally Posted by left

I stand by my comment that truck drivers are better drivers than the vast vast majority of people in passenger cars. Each to their own.

Now you seem to contradict yourself.

You'r saying that better drivers are high on drugs and sleep deprived???

[Pomi]

It is just so tragic, and appears that this is a pure accident. While the one earlier in the week was also an accident I don't think that the alcohol and the fooling around makes it as pure as it could have been preventable.

I just feel so sad for all the families and friends who have to suffer and deal with it.

As for those 'mature age' drongos : that were caught miles over the limit in broad daylight......How do you educate the young ones when these D**k Heads are doing the same thing?

All the best to everyone on this site!

Cheers,

POMI

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by left

Granted you stand little to no chance against a B-double if you're in a car but those types of truck vs car collisions are not nearly as common as car-on-car or car-on-tree "accidents". The claim by another poster (to whom my response was directed) that 90% of truck drivers are high on drugs and sleep deprived is pure speculation at best and just a little OTT. Which leads me on to....



I still can't find the article but those numbers came direct from Vic Police from memory and btw are not limited to accidents resulting in fatalities. Vic Police do test for drugs now too so I am not sure why you think they don't. I will try to find the article but in the meantime the best I could come up with was this from DoJ Nov 2009:



I stand by my comment that truck drivers are better drivers than the vast vast majority of people in passenger cars. Each to their own.

My comment re the drug testing comes from my experience taking the drivers of motor vehicles to hospital. QLD police also have random drug testing but they do not drug test as a matter of process after an RTC (road traffic crash), they do alcohol but not drugs. The hospital also does not do any form of toxicology for drugs unless the is clinical need, which is almost never as the treatment of almost all drug OD's, except opiates, is life support and ride out the effect of the drugs (this applies to benzodiazepines, amphetamines, ecstasy, fantasy, cocaine, canabis and just about any other drug you can think of). In regards to opiates, they do not test for them, rather they make a clinical diagnosis based on patient presentation and give the reversal agent if indicated.

Now if Vic police are screening 100% of drivers involved in crashes for the presence of drugs, I stand corrected (limited to victoria, not australia wide) and they may have this statistic. I highly doubt they test 100% of drivers in all RTC's as I highly doubt the incidence of drug driving is that high. I know that QLD police would not have any reliable statistic applying to 100% of all RTC's.

I pick up drugged people for a living, and I am very good at spotting someone under the influence of drugs. I can tell you there is no way possible 30% of the drivers I attend at RTC's are under the influence of drugs. If anything I would say the incidence would be less than 1%.

Maybe Victoria is full of drug addicts and the incidence of drug driving is way higher than QLD.

It is just so tragic, and appears that this is a pure accident. While the one earlier in the week was also an accident I don't think that the alcohol and the fooling around makes it as pure as it could have been preventable

Based on the preliminary reports on the occurrences leading to the accident (notice I said, preliminary, we will have to wait until the findings of the investigation are made public), I fail to see how it was a "pure accident". I do not remember hearing reports that the hand of god came down and pushed the truck into the 4WD. I have heard that the truck may have been overtaking illegally and also police believe he may have been following too close, unable to stop when other vehicles braked heavily and had to swerve to the other lane to avoid collision, taking out the other car. Neither of these scenarios are an accident by any stretch of the imagination, they are examples of negligent and culpable driving. Why do we have to tolerate this negligent and culpable driving under the guise of it being an "accident"?