Pics from crash near Benalla yesterday

[OldManGhia]

Originally Posted by GreenEL

Why do you think that the limits should be reduced?

Like I said some drivers seem to think they can safely drive beyond the posted speed limit provided they are not more than 10k over that limit. ie. if the speed limit is 100 they can do 110 and wont be booked. Next time your on a freeway stick your cruise ctrl on the posted limit then watch them all pass you. It seems that fewer and fewer people are prepared to abide by the road rules.

[RG]

I travel down the freeway to work between 4-6 days per week. 100k each way. Yes there are a few people that sit slightly above the speed limit but only if it is safe. It is far more dangerous coming across the fool doing 20 under in the right hand lane. There is too much emphasis on speed limits and not enough on driver training.

[Keepleft]

Wulos wrote - The only thing that this accident proves is that the use of 'pre warning' safety devices are a complete load of B.S.

Wulos vs the world experience which is overwhelmingly positive lol, too funny. Look, take a chill pill and read on:-


If a MARKED POLICE CAR, sitting in plain site with lights blazing, AS WELL as the use of EFLARE's can't prevent a driver from having an accident? of such magnitude.

The EFLARE are a yank item not worthy of spit.


The belief that a 'safety triangle' even one so politically correctly designed and built to conform with "a European/United Nations Standard hazard-warning device" like "OFFICIAL FORD AUSTRALIA PART NO: A92SX 19F524AA" is clearly folly.

Ah no, in fact Spain recently mandated TWO per passenger car surprising even the EU Transport Commission, who'd issued a "directive" requiring one. Spain cited their many roads as being of a two-lane nature as being sub-standard, and felt on that basis they'd benefit by requiring two, also another way of asking for roads dollars!! Of course, NO system will prevent the ODD individual from causing grief, but OVERALL in the general populace they do serve well.

Remember too, our long standing requirement for a set of three for vehicles over 12 tonnes GVM. Here, I support AS3790 continuance, but not for MA, MB categories.


In the above accident it would appear that the equipment at the disposal of the police officers easily surpased what any normal road user would currently have in their vehicles.

BBBzzzzzt - wrong again. The Eflare is NO COMPARISION to a passive UN/ECE278R item, seriously. The Eflare serves only close in - try it and see, we have thrown ours away. We'll leave the issue of having to replace batteries aside and you need to look at the units daytime 'stand-out' ability.


The officers (I would expect) would also have recieved a higher degree of training in 'pre warning' then the average motorist that may have completed their only 'formalised' road training some 40 yrs ago.

Major assumption that drivers are all 60 years of age, 57 at youngest and also assumes young drivers have this training. Try again, though - you'd be partially right IF the young actually read their driver road code/manuals where we have text placed. Australian police (general duties) receive NO worthwhile training whatsoever in road crash scene management aside from 'flick on the flashers'.

That does not apply to dedicated rescue units, such as VRA in your area, Fire Brigade, Police Rescue etc - all whome understand that on approach to a scene - the need to quickly taper off an affected lane 200 metres or more prior to prevent the blind and ignorant from crashing.

I have in the past had to have Gosford HWP when on the F3 sit often a kilometre back at Jolls crash sites, to alert traffic, where they prior, a habit of stting in close with lights on, only then causing cars to panic and skid into each other.

A capable motorists, first on scene often sets a triangle to get traffic to slow down, and by my thousands of years of domestic experience it works, BUT the triangle must be built to the BEST STANDARD. The Ford unit is made in Finland by Hella, it meets UN standards and they are MUCH, MUCH BETTER than AS3790 Australian/Yank designed counterparts, which are at best s.h.i.t - worthy only of the heavy vehicle industry:-)

I'll NOT madate s.h.i.t designed by an Aussie dumbarses trained to deploy items designed for 90km/h maximums.


The idea of using a device req'd to be manually deployed a prescribed distance before an accident site, by person(s) that have either just been involved in a traumatic event, or just come across the accident, will directly involve putting those people in immediate danger.

You need to offset that 'danger' against doing nothing. In any case when in the past I drafted legislation and passed that around for comment, I received flack for NOT MANDATING the requirement of actually having to place the units. Here, I desired a purely OPTIONAL allowance. Now, EU which makes the devices mandatory in ALL passenger cars, mandates that you DO place them at crash scnes and breakdowns.


Under workcover legislation should they not perform a risk assessment, and refuse to perform any action that puts themselves at ANY risk of potential injury?

Actually no, a driver on a public road is NOT in his or her workplace. A police officer however is. When they pull you over for speeding at 88km/h in a 50 km/h zone or for 122km/h on the F3 - if YOU step out of the vehicle you are in their workspace. One of the reasons why they tell you to stand to the side of the road.


So what happens when the safety triangles are passed into law (and people fined for not using them correctly - more revenue raising??)

Two things:
1) A requirement to carry one per MA category (cars), either as an ADR (ADR 27) OR as a requirement supplementing existing ARR in relation to heavy vehicles, IS NOT a requirement to actually have to place the item.

My idea has always been to have one of these supplied as standard equipment in NEW market vehicles at showroom stage, first. For registered vehicles, an allowance over three years to comply for State and Territory registration, done by ARR process!

2) A requirement to place, would likely be of an optional nature (my personal preference).

The public servants I've spoken however, feel that point two should have a mandatory requirement, suggesting that this would benefit a mandatory carriage and enforcement program, this all then impacts an RIS and CBA (Reg Impact Statement and Cost Benefit Analysis).


And find that they don't work?

Think of 'market saturation', a situation where every vehicle has at least one of the world standard items. A person of group in a crash may not be in condition to alert approaching traffic where that is needed, BUT another helper arriving on scene before emergency services can use his AND borrowed units to get that traffic to pay attention.

Look, no system is perfect because not all driver's are at 100% all the time, but this 'systematic all encompassing approach' is well proven in Europe, a place 'designed' for speed.

The next item will be a safety vest, this is UN Transport Division 'policy'. You will see that BMW etc have these supplied in each car right now. As of this year it is *mandatory* in D, I, F and Hungary for ALL road users when on scene to throw the damned thing on when broken down and when attending to crash scenes.

Australia is many many years behind. We do however suggest, in each state driver manual that you wear a vest, your Iron Maiden, HIM, Foo Fighters T shirt doen't cut it in the safety stakes:-) Again, I am suggesting optional use.


installing a 'detachable New Jersey curbing style' mounted concrete roadblock fitted with revolving lights, screaming sirens painted in reflective paint, broadcasting warnings over every radio frequency known to man, that is towed behind every vehicle to completely shut down the road entirely?

We ask folk to call TMC here in NSW and reports are then given by VMS and radio, but really that applies to main key roads which ARE a very small minority of all roads.

[RG]

Enough with the bloody triangles already as they really are irrelevant to this thread and we all have heard about them before.

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by GreenEL

Enough with the bloody triangles already as they really are irrelevant to this thread and we all have heard about them before.

Grow up - the issue relates to the Benalla crash, read the thread and of what happened and then the initial posts.

If you can't get simple stuff right in comprehension, you think we'll raise speed limits????

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by AU98C-Wagon

Like I said some drivers seem to think they can safely drive beyond the posted speed limit provided they are not more than 10k over that limit. ie. if the speed limit is 100 they can do 110 and wont be booked. Next time your on a freeway stick your cruise ctrl on the posted limit then watch them all pass you. It seems that fewer and fewer people are prepared to abide by the road rules.

Just remember though - prior to June 1979 on the Pacific Highway we had speed derestriction, I too remember being at 140km/h and being quite safe as the old man, a judge and QC drove along. This of course was all quite legal.

Speed you see 'varied', this is simply not the case now where we are trained parrot fashion to do the speed limit.

[RG]

Originally Posted by Keepleft

Grow up - the issue relates to the Benalla crash, read the thread and of what happened and then the initial posts.

If you can't get simple stuff right in comprehension, you think we'll raise speed limits????

Intelligent response. Do you really think that this driver would have noticed the super duper triangles? I mean he failed to notice the police car with it lights operating until he hit it (look at the damage, doesn't appear that he slowed until he hit). No offence but it seems that every time you post it has something to do with those triangles.

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by GreenEL

Intelligent response. Do you really think that this driver would have noticed the super duper triangles? I mean he failed to notice the police car with it lights operating until he hit it (look at the damage, doesn't appear that he slowed until he hit). No offence but it seems that every time you post it has something to do with those triangles.

Look, the scene was a police car attending a crash - it then was rear ended. So yes, the issue of warning given and if this was proper certainly encourages such talk.

Police crash investigation staff now deal with this.

Now, I don't raise the triangle subject if discussing fog lights, camshafts, women, legal reform or wildlife, satellite TV, sheesh, but I do if the subject matter is appropriate, OR if I am asked of it in a thread, that has always been my position. It is also my Sig, I choose to use it sometimes and sometimes not. It is there to educate, not to cause serious emotional breakdown in a few. I'd be questioning the right to hold a license by way of 'review' if we have such 'emotional' drivers on the road. Remember, the national driver training scheme underway seeks to target out certain 'emotional' explosive types (road rage candidates), for additional behavioural attention. That is appropriate.

We will NOT get higher speed allowances or limits with current on-road driver behaviours and vehicle 'standards'. Quite frankly the public will not support higher speed limits. RTA get many complaints of 'cameras', but on the other hand get as many requesting lower limits and fewer of them???

[RG]

Originally Posted by Keepleft

Look, the scene was a police car attending a crash - it then was rear ended. So yes, the issue of warning given and if this was proper certainly encourages such talk.

Police crash investigation staff now deal with this.

Now, I'll not raise the triangle issue if discussing fog lights, camshafts, women, legal reform or wildlife, sheesh, but I do if it is appropriate. It is also my Sig, I choose to use it sometimes and sometimes not. It is there to educate, not to cause emotional breakdown in a few. I'd be questioning the right to hold a full license if we have such 'emotional' drivers. Remember the national driver training scheme underway seeks to target out certain 'emotional' explosive types (road rage candidates), for additional attention.

If I was a more sensitive person I could take that last remark as personal. Don't get me wrong I agree that safety triangles are a good idea, the amount of times I have come up on a person changing their tyre on a dark night and only seeing them just in time surprises even me, but to mention it as often as you do does become quite repetitive and could have the adverse effect of turning people off them.

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by GreenEL

If I was a more sensitive person I could take that last remark as personal. Don't get me wrong I agree that safety triangles are a good idea, the amount of times I have come up on a person changing their tyre on a dark night and only seeing them just in time surprises even me, but to mention it as often as you do does become quite repetitive and could have the adverse effect of turning people off them.

Okay, then buy Fords one - and I sincerely hope you never get to use it, really I do. My ONLY complaint is that it should be cheaper.

* NB - Not 'just in dark' - but 'daytime' too, the reason why the Ford item is good is that the standard it is contructed too has a bright, wide fluroescent inner daytime triangle AND has excellent wind survivability. Unlike an AS unit - it will not blow away, you CAN rely on them to perform.

I've learn't that from real world experience, often enough.

Now that's spamming, it's a fine line isn't it????

Shall we now discuss speed limits???

[RG]

Originally Posted by Keepleft

Okay, then buy Fords one - and I sincerely hope you never get to use it, really I do. My ONLY complaint is that it should be cheaper.

* NB - Not 'just in dark' - but 'daytime' too, the reason why the Ford item is good is that the standard it is contructed too has a bright, wide fluroescent inner daytime triangle AND has excellent wind survivability. Unlike an AS unit - it will not blow away, you CAN rely on them to perform.

I've learn't that from real world experience, often enough.

Now that's spamming, it's a fine line isn't it????

Shall we now discuss speed limits???

I think there are enough threads with enough of my views on speed limits. Also that would have bugger all to do with this thread.

[BA_Turbs]

What was this thread about originally?

[RG]

Originally Posted by BA_Turbs

What was this thread about originally?

Truck hit police car.

[Redrum]

Originally Posted by Keepleft

Relax - all said in relation to Big Trev's post, read that first then you'll understand.

I am more than aware of the multifactoral nature of crashes.

In relation to speed, I accept that boredom from such existing dizzy heights of allowances, brings on fatigue in longer trips:-)

The posted speed limit in this case had bugger all to do with the crash.

When drivers, truck drivers, use drugs to keep them awake and drive long stretchs without rest crashes like this are unavoidable regardless of speed limit and signage.

[BA_Turbs]

Originally Posted by GreenEL

Truck hit police car.

I thought so.

However it seems to have become one of those threads that is just a bunch of sooking about speed limits and people who only knowledge road safety is based on their own (sometime considerable) road usage.

Perhaps this thread should be closed and a search for "whinging on the internet instead of actually using the power that rests with the people in a democracy to do something about the problem" would find us a thread all ready in this vein.

[RG]

Originally Posted by BA_Turbs

I thought so.

However it seems to have become one of those threads that is just a bunch of sooking about speed limits and people who only knowledge road safety is based on their own (sometime considerable) road usage.

Perhaps this thread should be closed and a search for "whinging on the internet instead of actually using the power that rests with the people in a democracy to do something about the problem" would find us a thread all ready in this vein.

Well said.