Burnley Tunnel fire - Page 5

**Full Noise** · 24-03-2007, 02:08 PM

I’ve just returned from work and managed to read through this thread and the Herald Sun. I just can’t believe that this truck driver, Don Mcallef actually stopped just for a blown tyre. Personally I wouldn’t care if the entire case had separated from the rim. I would have dragged the whole bloody trailer out on its rims if I had to just to avoid stopping in this tunnel.

In a previous post I stated that “no truck driver in his right mind would stop in the tunnel just for this reason”. I still stand by that comment, however, I sit here at my computer totally stunned and disappointed by the actions of this individual. I’m quite sure that people can read between the lines here.

Speculation is one thing, but when he says it to the media (if he did actually say this) it leaves absolutely no doubt to the reason to why he stopped.

The only reason for stopping a vehicle (car or truck) in this tunnel is for a mechanical failure. A flat tyre can still be driven on, it’s as simple as that.

This was certainly a hot topic over the UHF last night and I can say that none of the people that I spoke to could believe that the truck stopped simply because of a blown tyre. Sadly as the story emerges, we are to be proved wrong.

Condolences to the families of the three deceased.

**GasoLane** · 24-03-2007, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Full Noise

I just can’t believe that this truck driver, Don Mcallef actually stopped just for a blown tyre.
bits snipped from here.........
This was certainly a hot topic over the UHF last night and I can say that none of the people that I spoke to could believe that the truck stopped simply because of a blown tyre. Sadly as the story emerges, we are to be proved wrong.

Condolences to the families of the three deceased.

Yep. there are LOT of drivers out here saying "What the effing hell did he stop there for with only a blowout?"

schmidty · 24-03-2007, 02:21 PM

I just cannot fathom why someone with 18 years experience could act so carelessly?

I've been in a truck for 6 months, and there i know from driving through that tunnel every day, i wouldnt even think about stopping, no matter what. And if i did for some reason break down in the bottom, i'd be flat out on the radio warning other drivers to get out of the left lane!

JC · 24-03-2007, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GasOLane

Yep. there are LOT of drivers out here saying "What the effing hell did he stop there for with only a blowout?"

And there are a lot of other people saying that a lack of inattention by the other drivers actually caused the accident. Yes, he shouldn't have stopped. But given that he did, then surely it is the duty of every motorist following, to drive to the previaling conditions - one of which happened to be a fiarly large semi stopped in the left hand lane. I don't care if you say he shouldn't have been there so they weren't expecting it - driving is not about getting from A to B expecting everything to go fine. It is about getting from A to B while taking account of what is happening around you and adjusting to the conditions.

Look at it from the point of view - What if instead of the truck pulling over from a single blown tyre, he pulled over because every tyre blew, and his engine seized, but that he had enough momentum to get the truck over to the left and stop safely(?!). Now, do you believe that the accident wouldn't have happened? I don't. Given the way the accident occurred, it would have happened no matter the reason he was pulled over. So does that make one reason to pull over any better than any other? Not to the people who died. At the end of the day, the truck that was pulled over created the potential for something to happen, but it was the drivers following along some time after he pulled over that actually created the carnage.

Scott · 24-03-2007, 02:26 PM

JC - the fact remains that if this *&^%$&^*(&^$%@##@^())_* didn't park in the middle of a motorway, in the middle of a tunnel this would not have happened. He provided the situation - no one else.

If every tyre blew and the engine seized, we would all be saying "what a freak accident", not "what a total moron".

GTpilot · 24-03-2007, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GasOLane

Yep. there are LOT of drivers out here saying "What the effing hell did he stop there for with only a blowout?"

Did you see the Pic of him in the Herald sun, looks like the chick stood next to him was saying the same thing!!!

:

Feathers · 24-03-2007, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by schmidty

It is law that heavy vehicles keep to a minimum of 50M following distance to the vehicle in front. Drive 1 and see what happens to your 50M gap when you're on a road such as the monash, westgate, tulla, or any congested melbourne rd you wish to name. It is simply seen as a nice open gap for people to jump lanes or push in. Everyone is in a hurry to go no where. So in 1 way or another you end up closer and closer as cars quickly fill the gap in front, or you follow closer to keep from being continuously pushed in on.

That really annoys me when learning to drive the coaches. I leave the gap for a reason, especially when I'm not entirely used to the dimensions and capabilities/limitations of the vehicle.

JC · 24-03-2007, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTP006

JC - the fact remains that if this *&^%$&^*(&^$%@##@^())_* didn't park in the middle of a motorway, in the middle of a tunnel this would not have happened. He provided the situation - no one else.

If every tyre blew and the engine seized, we would all be saying "what a freak accident", not "what a total moron".

Yes, he provided the situation, but he did not DIRECTLY CAUSE the accident!

iCat · 24-03-2007, 04:53 PM

I asked earlier on, and ask again: is it impossible to see a very large stationary object in the left hand lane of the tunnel and take early, safe, evasive action?

Scott · 24-03-2007, 04:57 PM

It is if you're behind the truck that hit the truck.

congo3sr · 24-03-2007, 05:14 PM

seems to me theres a couple of professonal drivers on here,(truckies)that might be able to answer a question.
Why do alot of transport companies send there heavy vehicles out to do battle with the roads full of traffic,sometimes at max speed,on freeways etc,with 2nd or 3rd caps?OK there cheap to buy,but the damage they do not only to there own trailers,is it really worth the saving on the rubber?

:

schmidty · 24-03-2007, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hotwelder

seems to me theres a couple of professonal drivers on here,(truckies)that might be able to answer a question.
Why do alot of transport companies send there heavy vehicles out to do battle with the roads full of traffic,sometimes at max speed,on freeways etc,with 2nd or 3rd caps?OK there cheap to buy,but the damage they do not only to there own trailers,is it really worth the saving on the rubber?

:

We only run on new rubber, but imagine a company has 100 b-doubles. They each have 34 tyres on them, but you wouldnt run them on the steer, so 32 tyres that could be caps. If you can save even $100 per tyre, on 32 tyres, that $3200 per truck and trailers, x 100 trucks, = a saving of $320,000 per 180-200,000km each of these trucks drive.

Thats why.

We only run fresh tyres, as to us it's not worth the hassle of having the down time or the rooting around changing tyres on the road. But with only 6 trucks, the cost is no where near what the big operators are forking out if they were to change to clean skins.

**Full Noise** · 24-03-2007, 05:58 PM

All of our linehaul trucks and trailers are fitter with cleanskins (new tyres) as some of them travel up to 1800 kms per day. On some of the runs, one driver will jump out of the truck and another driver will jump in and continue to the final destination. This doesn’t give the tyres any chance to cool down so you have to run good gear. For local trucks, as stated by Schmidty, it’s just not cost effective. There’s not enough money in the job to cover these expenses.

By the way, you can still blow a cleanskin and they can do just as much damage as a cap.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iCat

I asked earlier on, and ask again: is it impossible to see a very large stationary object in the left hand lane of the tunnel and take early, safe, evasive action?

Unfortunately most car drivers lack the talent to look any further than a few metres in front of them. Looking into the distance is something that many people in cars don’t think is important. So the quick answer to you question is yes.

**GasoLane** · 24-03-2007, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hotwelder

seems to me theres a couple of professonal drivers on here,(truckies)that might be able to answer a question.
Why do alot of transport companies send there heavy vehicles out to do battle with the roads full of traffic,sometimes at max speed,on freeways etc,with 2nd or 3rd caps?OK there cheap to buy,but the damage they do not only to there own trailers,is it really worth the saving on the rubber?

:

That is a question only management can answer and unfortunately most of those high up in management are accountants!

Nostalgia · 24-03-2007, 10:04 PM

R.I.P To the deceased. Condolences to their family and friends. What does everyone think about the safety of the tunnel now. My main point being that Transurban is currently trying to sue Transfield and Obayashi Companies over faults in construction. The main one being the walls of the tunnel being too thin. Major accident with two explosions and ensuing fire which would have been burning at a very high temp. How well will the (thin) walls of this tunnel last in the future.

schmidty · 24-03-2007, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EAadam

R.I.P To the deceased. Condolences to their family and friends. What does everyone think about the safety of the tunnel now. My main point being that Transurban is currently trying to sue Transfield and Obayashi Companies over faults in construction. The main one being the walls of the tunnel being too thin. Major accident with two explosions and ensuing fire which would have been burning at a very high temp. How well will the (thin) walls of this tunnel last in the future.

Thats for them to fight out. I'll still be using it on monday. Transurban only care from an investment point of view and what its going to do for the share price.

GT290 · 24-03-2007, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JC

I agree that your first point about checking speedo and having no idea what's go on around them is what has caused this accident. The truck pulling over in the tunnel, while plainly a stupid idea, was not the cause. The accident may have happened as an indirect result of his actions, but not as a direct result. I say it is indirect because by the time the accident happened, this guy had already moved over to the left, and had managed to stop, and put his hazards on, before any other vehicle was hit. To be a direct cause, he would've had to hit one of the cars involved on his way to pulling over.

It will be interesting to see if he's charged with anything at all, but unless there is an actual that you cannot stop in the tunnel, I doubt he will even get a fine. A lack of common sense is seldom a finable/chargeable offence.

As for needing to anticipate etc only when driving a truck, I'm sorry but I don't agree with this at all. You need to be able to anticipate and know what's happening around you if you are on a skateboard, bicycle, legging it, in a car, on a motorbike, driving a truck, bus, plane, boat or any other means of transportation known to man. Most of us have functioning eyes, ears, and other senses that we are supposed to use when driving, unfortunately, the Victorian government just about mandates that the only use for your eyes is to watch your speedo so you don't go over 2km/h more than the posted speed limit (and thus cop a speeding fine).

If the coronial inquest that follows this tragedy does not find the fixed, hidden speed cameras as a contributing factor to the distracted nature of the drivers involved in this accident, then there's no help for us. I think the Victorian government is morally negligent in this matter, and should be held accountable for contributing to the state of the driver's minds that led to the events that caused this tragedy.

Dead right mate, when you are driving in a hazardous or busy conjested situation, the last thing that is looked at is the speedo, thats why I have almost lost my licence in vic with their 3% and watching where I am going which I consider more responsible than the 3 k over or what ever it is.
I agree with you mate and unfortunately if you want your tax reduced you can expect more of this. They got to get it back some how.

GT290 · 24-03-2007, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GK5766

My guess is truck driver pulled over to stop any debris flying off into the tunnel
from the blow out, espeacially if it were a retread. (bits of rubber size of rocks)

That in a confined area like a tunnel could have caused accidents alone.

And anyway, if truckie pulled over with hazards on, other motorists should
of seen the warning signs in the tunnel and had their radios on for the PA voice over.
and be paying attention (trucks cars bikes)

lets not all blame the truckie. do you really think he stopped to cause an accident?
i would say he wanted to prevent one.

You do make a very good point. But almost as soon as a tyre blows it will spread debri instantly but if it did not and by stopping would avoid it then that would be the sensible thing to do. and hazards denote exactly that. ANY WAY WHO RUNS RETREADS. THEY SHOULD BE BANNED ON TRUCKS INFACT ANY VEHICLE. Sorry I wasn't yelling.

**GasoLane** · 24-03-2007, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GK5766

My guess is truck driver pulled over to stop any debris flying off into the tunnel
from the blow out, espeacially if it were a retread. (bits of rubber size of rocks)

Not quite. After you feel, and then hear, the tyre blow you've travelled 50-100mtrs. By the time you stop it could be 1/2 a kilometre down the road.

GK351 · 24-03-2007, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GasOLane

Not quite. After you feel, and then hear, the tyre blow you've travelled 50-100mtrs. By the time you stop it could be 1/2 a kilometre down the road.

Yes but what happens 2-3 min into the tunnel, you will be left with
nothing but alloy buds and a whole lot of tyre debris motorists have to dodge.

Imagine a motorbike or Car driver seeing a chuck of rubber or even the whole cap skin in some cases lying on the road and quickly swerving to miss it.
that itself could cause a chain reaction of smashes in a confined tunnel.

I still think truck driver wanted to prevent this because he had trust in the tunnel operators to switch on the appropriate safety signs to let other motorists know of the obstruction ahead and didnt want a lenghtly clean up
of picking up rubber debris for 2 km.

On the M5 tunnel in sydney their is an incident everyday weather it being a truck, car, bike or a stray dog running through they have good signage letting
motorists know of what danger lurks ahead.

Driveing trucks for a living is first nature to me and i can see/judge ahead.
why couldnt the motorists prepare themselves when the lorry stopped inside tunnel?

If 1 min 30 seconds worth of motorists passed the truck no problem
what was the driver that hit the truck doing that caused all this commotion?
only time will tell, not paying attention on the road thats for sure.

**GasoLane** · 24-03-2007, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GK5766

Yes but what happens 2-3 min into the tunnel, you will be left with nothing but alloy buds and a whole lot of tyre debris motorists have to dodge.

I doubt it, he has another tyre on that hub which will let him go a bloody long way, I have!

Quote:

Originally Posted by GK5766

Imagine a motorbike or Car driver seeing a chuck of rubber or even the whole cap skin in some cases lying on the road and quickly swerving to miss it.
that itself could cause a chain reaction of smashes in a confined tunnel.

Agreed, but by this time the driver can do nothing about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GK5766

I still think truck driver wanted to prevent this because he had trust in the tunnel operators to switch on the appropriate safety signs to let other motorists know of the obstruction ahead and didnt want a lenghtly clean up
of picking up rubber debris for 2 km.

C'mon!

GK351 · 24-03-2007, 11:22 PM

mabye truck driver was running single 385 trailer tyres
not a good sight if that were the case.

And besides i bet if VIC road inspectors saw a truck driveing on a blown
tyre they would book him.

NSW rta wouldnt be too happy of tyre bits flicking away at other
motorists.

jaydee · 24-03-2007, 11:22 PM

The tunnel fire got a mention on page 48 of the West australian here in Perth today.
What made front page??? Footballers on drugs, hooly dooly.
I'd have thought 3 people loosing their lives (RIP) in a tunnel crash would rate higher but there you go.

:

**GasoLane** · 24-03-2007, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GK5766

mabye truck driver was running single 385 trailer tyres
not a good sight if that were the case.

Doubtfull on a local Container truck.

Actually I'm surprised that no one's blamed Bin Laden yet

GK351 · 24-03-2007, 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GasOLane

Doubtfull on a local Container truck.

Actually I'm surprised that no one's blamed Bin Laden yet

I have seen many in Sydney with the singles doing stack runs
have you seen how much the tautliners lean with a blown single?

not a safe sight! top of container would of hit side tunnel partitions.

JC · 24-03-2007, 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GasOLane

Doubtfull on a local Container truck.

Actually I'm surprised that no one's blamed Bin Laden yet

Don't worry - my first thought was a terrorist attack on the tunnel. Collapse the whole thing, drain the Yarra, and flood the city. I'm glad it wasn't that, but not glad about what happened - the reality is not much better than my wild imagination, just death on a lesser scale.

MITCHAY · 24-03-2007, 11:52 PM

I heard about this on the radio. How terrible is all I can say!

cool65 · 25-03-2007, 12:05 AM

I personally run a fleet of over 20 prime movers around Melbourne metro
We spend over $4000 per month on citylink. It is (even in peak) the quickest way to get cross town as there are no lights.
There is not one truck driver out there who wants to be changing down through the gears (ROADRANGER box) in his prime mover with the reverberating noise whilst exiting the tunnel & carrying 26 tonnes (42.5 gross) so they ALL try to keep the momentum up as to stay close to the speed limit on the downhill.
Real truck drivers will basically stay left/middle & the steering wheel attendants/cowboys always right lane.
I heard this morning through the industry that there were definate sparks coming off the blown tyre and other truckies were on the cb to the driver telling him to pull over.
To my knowledge citylink has 24/7 towies on standby (incl. heavy) to remove vehicles from danger situations, but this was too sudden to react to but the safety sprinklers and emergency teams did a fabulous job responding after the tragedy.

Nostalgia · 25-03-2007, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JC

Don't worry - my first thought was a terrorist attack on the tunnel. Collapse the whole thing, drain the Yarra, and flood the city. I'm glad it wasn't that, but not glad about what happened - the reality is not much better than my wild imagination, just death on a lesser scale.

I reckon that tunnel will collapse in time.

schmidty · 25-03-2007, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EAadam

I reckon that tunnel will collapse in time.

Based on what????

That the newspaper said so? Or you just reckon?