Attitudes to the road toll

Good points about checking my speedo, I'll look into that.

Talking about other countries:

I think many would consider life cheap in 3rd world countries, and if you are on a main road when you shouldn't be, you may end up as an asphalt pizza.

Nearly 30 years ago I was in super busy Bangkok. I was crossing at the lights of one of these 6 lane busy roads, and I ended up crossing after the lights went green. I thought I was dead meat, staring in horror at a wall of cars that I envisioned were about to plough me down, but to my amazement EVERYONE stopped at the line and waited for me while I ran to get to the pavement.

And no angry shouts, gestures, or honking horns. Wow, was I impressed.

Imagine what would happen here, it would be like a horn orchestra with lots of "singing". Multiple conductors too, with all the arms waving in the cars. Sorry, couldn't resist LOL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beefy

Nearly 30 years ago I was in super busy Bangkok. I was crossing at the lights of one of these 6 lane busy roads, and I ended up crossing after the lights went green. I thought I was dead meat, staring in horror at a wall of cars that I envisioned were about to plough me down, but to my amazement EVERYONE stopped at the line and waited for me while I ran to get to the pavement.

---

Many years ago now, I turned left into the left hand lane of a six-lane street in Jakarta. A car stopped and let me in. My next challenge was that I was turning right in 100 metres. As soon as I flicked my indicator on to change lanes to the right the cars in all five lanes in turn slowed down to let me change lanes and I made it across into the right hand lane with maybe 50 metres to spare. Never try that in Melbourne.

Thing is - they have learned that they HAVE TO drive like that. Next time it might be them who needs to get across. Nearly 30 years later Australian drivers are still driving with a ME ME ME attitude.

We've gone a little off topic here, but that's okay. We're getting to the root cause of accidents, not necessarily road deaths. Most, if not all accidents are caused by drivers not paying attention, or being aware of their surroundings. IMHO, knowledge of road rules play a minor part in traffic accidents, attitude toward other road users plays a much larger part.

Have a look at this graphic from a recent newspaper article and tell me who you think was at fault. Try not look for reports of the accident, just give an opinion based on the graphic. I will post the link later.

Attachment 426781

2 is at fault. Traffic already on the road you are entering has right of way. Even if 1 was speeding, 2 needs to give way.

Just recently there was a head of the judiciary appointed in one state in Australia. She had the effrontery
to criticize those who are critical of decisions made by her fellow judges!

When we have a judiciary that believes, and acts, as though it is is beyond reproach or examination then we have problems aplenty!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grumpy John

Have a look at this graphic from a recent newspaper article and tell me who you think was at fault. Try not look for reports of the accident, just give an opinion based on the graphic. I will post the link later.

---

Impossible to tell from the information available, GJ. Depends on unknown circumstances of relative speeds, was someone exceeding the speed limit, inattentive, intoxicated or just downright stupid? From that graphic there is not enough to give enough detail to tell without jumping to an ill-informed conclusion.

Plenty of information Doug, who has right of way - the person already on the highway, or someone leaving a private property? The rules do not state whether you're speeding or drunk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grumpy John

Plenty of information Doug, who has right of way - the person already on the highway, or someone leaving a private property? The rules do not state whether you're speeding or drunk.

---

Maybe so if you take a narrow view of things from just what is available from the picture GJ, but "failure to give right of way " is just one of many potential contributing factors to that accident. How do we know for example that the car that left the school didn't come out when the road was clear and get caught behind other slow traffic only to get hit from behind by a speeding motorist who would have hit the car in front of them if they had not entered the road? Like I said, there's too much we do not know from just the picture so I will stick with my original answer and not make an ill informed accusation.

Whoever was first on the roundabout is not at fault (even if it came out of a private property) but the other is.

Road rules state that in entering a roundabout you must give way to cars on the roundabout which is different from the normal give way to the right on normal intersections.

Peter.

Okay Doug you make some good points, however in this case car #2 had no one either in front, or behind and there is a long stretch of clear road to the left. And they are leaving private property, they are NOT on public road.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doug3030

Maybe so if you take a narrow view of things from just what is available from the picture GJ, but "failure to give right of way " is just one of many potential contributing factors to that accident. How do we know for example that the car that left the school didn't come out when the road was clear and get caught behind other slow traffic only to get hit from behind by a speeding motorist who would have hit the car in front of them if they had not entered the road? Like I said, there's too much we do not know from just the picture so I will stick with my original answer and not make an ill informed accusation.

---

The accident happened IN the intersection on a straight section of road (it's also flat, but that's not necessarily apparent from an aerial photo). Short of car 1 traveling at a physically impossible speed, there's no way car 2 would not have been able to see it.

Also, this intersection is NOT a roundabout, despite how it might appear, so we can scratch those arguments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sturdee

Whoever was first on the roundabout is not at fault (even if it came out of a private property) but the other is.

Road rules state that in entering a roundabout you must give way to cars on the roundabout which is different from the normal give way to the right on normal intersections.

Peter.

---

There is no roundabout involved. The incident was passed the right turn onto the roundabout.

They had to give way to the right and also give way as they were entering a road off a private driveway.

BTW On a roundabout you can only have cars on your right so giveway to the right applies as normal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grumpy John

Okay Doug you make some good points, however in this case car #2 had no one either in front, or behind and there is a long stretch of clear road to the left. And they are leaving private property, they are NOT on public road.

---

Aha... additional information was needed :rolleyes:

From Vicroads:

Entering or leaving the road Hide

You must give way to all vehicles and pedestrians when you enter or leave the road from a driveway or adjacent land.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elanjacobs

The accident happened IN the intersection on a straight section of road (it's also flat, but that's not necessarily apparent from an aerial photo). Short of car 1 traveling at a physically impossible speed, there's no way car 2 would not have been able to see it.

Also, this intersection is NOT a roundabout, despite how it might appear, so we can scratch those arguments.

---

Do you live in the area EJ?

Sorry, from the photo showing the divided road and the centre turning island I presumed that it was a roundabout intersection. In that case car no 2 was in breach of the Road rules for failing to give way.

I don't believe that car no 2 was leaving a private driveway but a legally definition road. Same as shopping centres and fast food places carparks are public roads as RBT has often demonstrated.

Peter.

The school exit.

Attachment 426789

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grumpy John

The school exit.

Attachment 426789

---

I'm surprised that there is not a feeder lane to allow traffic exiting the school to accelerate up to highway speed before having to merge into the traffic on the highway. Would that be a contributing factor?

That is no longer an exit from a private driveway but officially classed as a road by evidenced by the give way sign, road markings and directional arrows on the other side.

Okay, here are two newspaper articles about the crash.

Mother and teenage daughter killed in horrific Cranbourne East smash

Man fronts court over Cranbourne crash that killed mother, daughter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sturdee

That is no longer an exit from a private driveway but officially classed as a road by evidenced by the give way sign, road markings and directional arrows on the other side.

---

Fair point Peter, but an even stronger case for having to give way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grumpy John

We've gone a little off topic here, but that's okay. We're getting to the root cause of accidents, not necessarily road deaths. Most, if not all accidents are caused by drivers not paying attention, or being aware of their surroundings. IMHO, knowledge of road rules play a minor part in traffic accidents, attitude toward other road users plays a much larger part.

Have a look at this graphic from a recent newspaper article and tell me who you think was at fault. Try not look for reports of the accident, just give an opinion based on the graphic. I will post the link later.

Attachment 426781

---

one of the Probable causative factors

the school entrance is "'protected" by a 40 km/h zone at regular school start and finish times. Driver exiting the school at 7:20 PM expected that traffic approaching from the right would slow to 40 km/h and only looked as far up the road as a vehicle travelling at 40 km/h would travel in around 5 seconds. At 40 km/h, 5 seconds is equivalent to 56 m -- not much further than the length of a 50 m swimming pool. At 100 km/h, 5 seconds equates to about 140 m.
This is a fairly common occurrence.

Ok GJ,

I am guessing that your point is that the mother who exited the school grounds failed to give way, resulting in the death of herself and her daughter, but the man in the commodore who was drunk, unlicensed and not in a fit mental state to drive will finish up paying for their error.

From the newspaper article I see that the driver No 1 has been charged with culpable driving causing death under the Crimes Act and not the standard road rules.

Twelve years ago I was part of a County court jury that dealt with a similar case involving speed, erratic driving and alcohol.

We found the driver guilty of the offences charged and the 6 days spent hearing the evidence and seeing the crime scene had a serious effect on me and this case brings back awkward memories.

Consequently I don't want to know more about this and am leaving the discussion.

Peter.

I've now had a good look at this site using Google maps and StreetView.

The sight distance to a vehicle approaching from the right is measured in the hundreds of metres. At 100 km/h a vehicle needs about 160 m to stop. This includes reaction time (up to 2 seconds) and assumes average surface friction and tire tread depth.

Even if the vehicle "at fault" was doing 160 km/h there is more than enough sight distance for a vehicle exiting the school to see it approaching unless
1. it was dark and the approaching vehicle was travelling without lights
2. the approaching vehicle was hidden by the setting sun.

I'll stay with my assessment that the exiting driver didn't look properly.


But the "at fault" driver was DUI so unless he has very good legal representation he will be found guilty because someone other than an "innocent" mum and daughter must be at fault.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ian

But the "at fault" driver was DUI so unless he has very good legal representation he will be found guilty because someone other than an "innocent" mum and daughter must be at fault.

---

As Peter pointed out before departing for personal reasons that I can fully understand, the first driver is being charged with Culpable Driving Causing Death, under the Crimes Act 1958.

Quote:

---

Culpable driving causing death is the most serious of traffic offences in Victoria. Essentially it refers to causing the death of another person through one of four actions (and the charge must state which of the four is relevant):

• Driving recklessly. This basically means that the driver deliberately (and without any good reason) ignores a substantial risk that another person may die or suffer what is known as “grievous bodily harm” as result of their driving. This does not mean that the offence relates to situations where serious injury only is caused by the accident.
• Driving negligently. This basically means that a person fails majorly (and without any good reason) to take enough care to avoid the death or grievous bodily harm. Fatigue (that the person is likely to fall asleep) is specifically listed as a cause of negligence under the Act. Driving above or below the speed limit however, is not determinative of negligence
• Driving under the influence of alcohol). This is to such an extent that proper control of the vehicle cannot be maintained. Driving over the legal blood alcohol limit is not necessarily determinative.
• Driving while under the influence of drugs. This is to such an extent that proper control of the vehicle cannot be maintained.

Factors such as the condition of the driver (as noted above), the vehicle (whether the vehicle is in a state to be driven at all) and the roads, as well as other external factors, may all be relevant in such a consideration.
It is important to remember that culpable driving causing death is a standalone offence. If someone is charged with culpable driving causing death they cannot also be charged with other relevant offences, such as unlawful homicide or driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol under the Road Safety Act, whether at the same time or subsequently.

---

Read dot point 3. The prosecution will build a case that if he was sober and alert he may have been able to handle the situation of the other vehicle not giving way. Also note the last paragraph - the driver charged with culpable driving cannot also be charged with drink-driving.

Even though the second vehicle failed to give way there is obviously no point in charging the driver with anything.

This seems so typical of how it all works. Maniacs everywhere causing accidents, but so long as they aren't over the limit or drugged up, no big deal and the government isn't out there trying to clear up this everyday problem.

However, if someone is over the limit they'll get crucified, even if the lack of care and attention of the injured / killed party was what really caused the accident. No doubt drugs/alcohol are the cause of some bad accidents but taking the big picture I bet general maniac driving is causing a lot more. Of course that's more difficult to deal with so the government have their PR campaigns and come down heavy in other ways.

And look at the media, they're just as bad. Where's the considerations in the stories asking if the mother had took care crossing that road. The media seem more interesting in automatically insinuating blame on the drunk driver, while saying how the departed mum and daughter were lovely people.

Once again too much political correctness while not taking an unbiased view of things.

I'm sure the mum new the bad history of that road and its' speed. I know roads like that and hate pulling across them. Caution and careful observation of the cars on the highway are seriously on my mind. Unless there was sun in her eyes or some other mitigating factor, would the drunk driver not have been in clear enough view for quite some distance. She only had to drive the short distance over the road, which should not take a great deal of time. Based on the limited information we have does that not mean she's pulled out when he was RELATIVELY close, even if he was travelling significantly faster than the speed limit.

IF that is the case then the drunk driver is also a victim because he's getting the whole blame for "causing" the deaths. Granted, he may have been better able to avoid the collision or reduce its severity but I don't think he should take all the blame if both parties were at fault.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sturdee

Twelve years ago I was part of a County court jury that dealt with a similar case involving speed, erratic driving and alcohol.

We found the driver guilty of the offences charged and the 6 days spent hearing the evidence and seeing the crime scene had a serious effect on me and this case brings back awkward memories.

---

Sturdee has made the ultimate point - its effect on others.

This accident didn't just "happen" to the mum/daughter and Mr Scumbag - it is now happening to jurors, court staff, defence, prosecution, ambulance, fire brigade, police and tow truck drivers.

I have been trying to find a way to see the coroners report regarding this accident. I don't know if they are available to the public. It would be interesting to know other details such as how far away the Commodore was when she pulled out on to the road, what lane she pulled in to, or if she was going straight across. I drive past this school almost every day and always move over to the right lane as more than once people have pulled out of the driveway in front of me. The speed limit has been dropped from 100 down to 80 all the way from Cranbourne to Five Ways, but there is still no "school hours" speed limit for this school.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beefy

IF that is the case then the drunk driver is also a victim because he's getting the whole blame for "causing" the deaths. Granted, he may have been better able to avoid the collision or reduce its severity but I don't think he should take all the blame if both parties were at fault.

---

If circumstances were different, for example if the mother survived the crash and her daughter was killed, you would probably find that mother would also be on a culpable or dangerous driving charge. But she isn't alive so obviously she cannot be charged. Her penalty is much more severe than that, so although it may appear that way she has not gotten off scott-free.

As I pointed out above, if the driver of car 1 is charged with culpable driving then he cannot then or at any later time be charged with drink-driving. If the jury find him not guilty of culpable or dangerous driving, then he can NEVER be charged with drink-driving. This would tell you that the police prosecutors believe that they have a very strong case. If he beats that charge he walks away free and blameless. He was three times the legal limit

The case does not go to court until 25 January so until the end of the trial it is only speculation on who gets what penalty.

After Peters post stating that he is withdrawing from this conversation I sent him a PM apologising for bringing up painful memories.
With his permission I have posted his reply explaining his decision.

"John you were not expected to know that this accident brought back bad memories so don't be upset.

The memories of my jury service had faded well and truly in the back ground but this brought it back.

Whilst I'm okay with that service and the decisions I had to reach I have no intention of reading armchair critics pontificating about such cases and as to who was right or wrong. What did happen and what should have happened. It is a tragedy that 2 people died and then as an armchair critic debating it is IMO not okay. But everybody drives a car so they are experts.

I had to inspect the scene of the accident in my case, listen to 4 days of evidence, see the graphic police photos, see the accused and the family of the victims all the time and then together with my other jurors reach a unanimous verdict knowing that if the accused was found guilty he would serve at least a minimum of 4 years in jail.

What ever happened it was tragic and this case is as well.

Peter."

"By all means publish it in the thread as it explains my personal reasons for not looking at the thread anymore. I know what is involved in such a case from now on and until you are closely involved in a judgmental capacity I believe we should not debate it and let the court system take its place.

Peter."

I think this thread is starting to open memories that some of us would prefer to leave buried. :C

Maybe it is time to quietly move on - PLEASE -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grumpy John

Do you live in the area EJ?

---

Nope, but that part of the world is pretty flat. I also did cheat a bit and check Steetview to confirm my suspicions

To get back towards the original thrust of this thread and to pick up on an earlier comment about what would happen in Norway and Sweden ...

Sweden has a road safety concept called Vision Zero. In broad terms that means a road toll of ZERO.
To achieve that aim, the Swedes recognise that multiple factors need to be addressed and apart from safer cars and better (safer?) drivers, there also needs to be an emphasis on building a road environment where a small mistake doesn't result in death or serous injury. So
# if there is a possibility of hitting a pedestrian (or a cyclist) -- think urban street -- then the speed limit would be 40 km/h or less.
# if there is a possibility of a head-on collision -- think the typical two-lane, two-way rural highway -- the speed limit should be 70 km/h. In a modern vehicle a head-on crash where both vehicles are doing 70 km/h is considered "survivable". Higher speeds mean a higher standard of road -- either 4 lane divided carriageway or a wire barrier down the center of the road, overtaking being accommodated by occasionally providing an additional lane.
# if there is a possibility of T-bone crash -- the example discussed in the last 30 or so posts -- the speed limit would be 50 km/h (or less, I don't recall the exact value).


Having spent a good part of my life working in the area, the questions that are never asked about the example being discussed are:
# why was a high traffic volume land use (a school) approved in what is essentially a high speed rural environment?
# why weren't proper arrangements made for the traffic entering and leaving the school?
# and the saddest of all -- how many people have to die before these two negligent acts are corrected? This is the question that really gets my dander up as the answer is usually "many more than 2".

I was going to mention earlier, but didnt for my attitudes don't align well to macro-public, but if the punishment was to immediately have a car "cubed" and left on your driveway for 6 months, people might stop being idiots.

Speeding over 30k's? Cubed
Drink driving? Cubed
Drugs? Cubed
Hooning? Cubed
Mates car? Cubed
Hire car? Cubed

The cops pull you over, call a "cubing truck" and it rams the whole lot (minus people and animals, but EVERYTHING in the car, no exceptions) into a neat 1m x 1m cube. Right there and then. The cube is then delivered to the front of your driveway and left there.

Social embarrassment, extreme cost, severely disproportionate inconvenience plus the near-inability to obtain insurance for the next car might make people think.

The cubing and delivery is completely free :)

Boohoo people will whinge. Boo-bloody-hoo indeed. The other result is a mangled mess for someone else to clean up. Boo-bloody-hoo then.

I read this article yesterday which highlights just how stupid some people are: Tourist's 'ridiculous' driving prompts woman to take action

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodPixel

I was going to mention earlier, but didnt for my attitudes don't align well to macro-public, but if the punishment was to immediately have a car "cubed" and left on your driveway for 6 months, people might stop being idiots.

Speeding over 30k's? Cubed
Drink driving? Cubed
Drugs? Cubed
Hooning? Cubed
Mates car? Cubed
Hire car? Cubed

The cops pull you over, call a "cubing truck" and it rams the whole lot (minus people and animals, but EVERYTHING in the car, no exceptions) into a neat 1m x 1m cube. Right there and then. The cube is then delivered to the front of your driveway and left there.

---

While I agree in principle I just don't trust the cops enough whether it's unintentional or otherwise.
eg "I don't like the cut of your jib", Cubed?

"Looking at me in a funny way"........cubed
"Driving through a built up area wearing a loud shirt after 10pm"........cubed

This idea has great potential !! :2tsup:

There are some extreme attitudes here none of which would change a thing. These threads stir up extreme thoughts without addressing the basics, always have and always will and everyone criticises all the rest of the driving world as "other drivers" infererring the critic is an expert driver and every other driver is a dill. There is one sobering thought in all this and that is there is no such thing as an accident, they all have a root cause and the so called "accident" did not happen by chance. The big thing is that governments treat the driving population as a source of revenue, criticise the drivers for causing accidents, plead with them to stop it all when the ultimate problem was thiers to begin with because they did not educate the driving population to begin with. Mum and Dad and I include every one who has posted to this thread do not have the skills to teach safe driving and all they do is pass on bad habits and poor skill sets. I taught advanced and competition driving when I was younger, was a professional driver for a large part of my working life and I still reckon my skills as a driver could be improved even after the eight week full time course I did back when I was a young man. In fact it occurs to me that the longer the mum and dad tuition requirements (L plates) go on for the greater the opportunity is for bad habits, poor skill building because the tutor never had the skills in the first place and has no right to be teaching any young driver anything. No one here has identified what the driver pulling out through the give way sign should have done initially but I will leave it to the experts to tell us. I stopped posting here as I could see what way things were going and I will stop again as I have no desire to get caught up in the "punishment is the only answer" argument. Who sets the parameters for the punishment?

Chris, I think the people here are expressing frustration at continued anti social behaviour experienced by road users. Unfortunately repeat offenders do not respond to the softly softly approach, and drastic measures need to be taken.

I don't believe punishment is the only answer, but there needs to be accountability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodPixel

I read this article yesterday which highlights just how stupid some people are: Tourist's 'ridiculous' driving prompts woman to take action

---

I would love to see the woman in that article in Melbourne - She would not know which one to follow to their destination and give a lecture to.

Cheers

Doug