Pics from crash near Benalla yesterday - Page 2

12-05-2006, 01:24 AM

*waiting for the triangle talk*

Keepleft · 12-05-2006, 03:25 PM

BA_Turbs wrote (in bold):- Yes.

There were the lights on the car on PLUS additional lights and traffic direction devices set up on the road.

The thing would have been visible (given it was dark) from miles away.

Police had their usual flashers and had set up 'flares' nearby, these are actually rotating light items made by EFLARE.
http://www.eflarecorp.com/Images/Technical%20PDF's/Police%20Letter.pdf

Other trucks had managed to pass the incident without drama, until this bloke. I should add, I do NOT support electrical devices such as these or Big W's $43 LED flashing thing. Australian Standard Compliance is some things is nothing to boast about.

Police on scene were still waiting for VIC Roads to come along to place proper traffic warning and diversion notifications when impacted.

The official view of investigating police in relation to this crash, today, remains that; " device used to signal warning warning, particularly an advanced warning of a situation is certainly worthwhile in our view".

In this road situation, the Hume @ 110kmk/h, we educate the triangle be carefully placed 150 steps before the scene, to the side of the road.

People often ask/state, "gee mate, can't the 55watt roof flashers be seen well enough"?

Failing then to appreciate the meaning of 'advanced warning' meant also as 'advanced of scene', not just the reflex return given on the item at night or the daytime inner triangle sight distance.

Btw - NSW alone now records well over one hundred and fifty thousand crashes per year, some of these are rear-enders into existing 'scenes'.

Dauphin · 12-05-2006, 03:47 PM

Thought I would post this video of a truck being crashed into a line of cars for demonstration/education purposes.

video

falcon91 · 12-05-2006, 04:09 PM

I would of hated to have been arrested and sitting in the back!!!

Trevor 57 · 12-05-2006, 05:19 PM

and some people want to increase the speed on our highways - what a laugh!!!

M14A-Mclaren · 12-05-2006, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big_Trev

It was actually punted 500m up the road

Really, Half a kilometre?

**Full Noise** · 12-05-2006, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14A-Mclaren

Really, Half a kilometre?

I think it was closer to 150 metres.

Cheers, Danny

Keepleft · 12-05-2006, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big_Trev

and some people want to increase the speed on our highways - what a laugh!!!

Hey, don't look at me - I'm pushing for a rural default 80km/h here in NSW. Mind you, this might well be prima facie!

But, yes - could be an 'absolute'.

If the zone was 110km/h, If we reduced the limit to 100km/h - would the crash not have happened?

If not - at what speed would the crash not have happened?

RG · 13-05-2006, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keepleft

Hey, don't look at me - I'm pushing for a rural default 80km/h here in NSW. Mind you, this might well be prima facie!

But, yes - could be an 'absolute'.

If the zone was 110km/h, If we reduced the limit to 100km/h - would the crash not have happened?

If not - at what speed would the crash not have happened?

Pretty simplistic view don't you think? If the driver was paying full attention would this have occured? Was the driver over tired? Was the driver on an illegal substance at the time? I work within the transport industry myself at a distribution centre and the amount of drivers that come in here that really shouldn't be on the roads scares me. To say that it is just due to the speed limit is just not correct i'm sorry.

Keepleft · 13-05-2006, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreenEL

Pretty simplistic view don't you think? If the driver was paying full attention would this have occured? Was the driver over tired? Was the driver on an illegal substance at the time? I work within the transport industry myself at a distribution centre and the amount of drivers that come in here that really shouldn't be on the roads scares me. To say that it is just due to the speed limit is just not correct i'm sorry.

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.

MotherNatureVer2 · 13-05-2006, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keepleft

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.

I am glad you quantified yourself there ........ 80k speed limits in the bush is just unrealistic & going to create more prangs.

I do believe you should direct your time & expense into delving into the transport industry as GreenEL suggested ..... It is rort with drivers who should not be on the road (NOT including all Drivers either, there are some good ones out there)..... not into lowering speed limits out here .........

There are way too many of these type of prangs involving trucks & night driving ..... We had one out here not that long ago where 2 people were killed all because one was helping a broken down car .........

kyro_02 · 13-05-2006, 04:14 PM

my mate said he drove past that on the way to work .. he said he tried not to laugh

b2tf · 13-05-2006, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keepleft

BA_Turbs wrote (in bold):- Yes.

There were the lights on the car on PLUS additional lights and traffic direction devices set up on the road.

The thing would have been visible (given it was dark) from miles away.

Police had their usual flashers and had set up 'flares' nearby, these are actually rotating light items made by EFLARE.
http://www.eflarecorp.com/Images/Technical%20PDF's/Police%20Letter.pdf

Other trucks had managed to pass the incident without drama, until this bloke. I should add, I do NOT support electrical devices such as these or Big W's $43 LED flashing thing. Australian Standard Compliance is some things is nothing to boast about.

Police on scene were still waiting for VIC Roads to come along to place proper traffic warning and diversion notifications when impacted.

The official view of investigating police in relation to this crash, today, remains that; " device used to signal warning warning, particularly an advanced warning of a situation is certainly worthwhile in our view".

In this road situation, the Hume @ 110kmk/h, we educate the triangle be carefully placed 150 steps before the scene, to the side of the road.

People often ask/state, "gee mate, can't the 55watt roof flashers be seen well enough"?

Failing then to appreciate the meaning of 'advanced warning' meant also as 'advanced of scene', not just the reflex return given on the item at night or the daytime inner triangle sight distance.

Btw - NSW alone now records well over one hundred and fifty thousand crashes per year, some of these are rear-enders into existing 'scenes'.

what the hell is all that about? i honestly did try to read it........

ford gawd's sake, PLEASE give us a break from "secondary advanced warning dinner cooking devices" or whatever the hell they are. please?

The G6ET Spot · 13-05-2006, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keepleft

Hey, don't look at me - I'm pushing for a rural default 80km/h here in NSW. Mind you, this might well be prima facie!

But, yes - could be an 'absolute'.

If the zone was 110km/h, If we reduced the limit to 100km/h - would the crash not have happened?

If not - at what speed would the crash not have happened?

There would be more accidents through boredom if the speed limit was reduced to 80k's.People are in a hurry and impatient now with the speed limit at 100k's.Imagine what they would be like if they were going away for a long weekend where it takes 4 hours now and add another hour or more onto that. But I suppose it would be a good revenue raiser for the government (sarcasm).And I think this accident probably would have happen even at 50k's as the driver was possibly asleep when it happened.

Keepleft · 13-05-2006, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RAPID XR8

There would be more accidents through boredom if the speed limit was reduced to 80k's.People are in a hurry and impatient now with the speed limit at 100k's.Imagine what they would be like if they were going away for a long weekend where it takes 4 hours now and add another hour or more onto that. But I suppose it would be a good revenue raiser for the government (sarcasm).And I think this accident probably would have happen even at 50k's as the driver was possibly asleep when it happened.

The NSW suggestion of a 'rural' default 80km/h would only apply to roads without signage, as current - these really are the worse of the worse - the rest ARE signposted. REM too, NSW had an 80km/h rural default up to July 1979, though it was 'prima facie' and signalled by the (//) sign, so you could legally exceed it BUT if you came under notice by police - would have to prove yourself innocent of 'the charge', whatever that might have been. Not legally good.

WA now studies a 90km/h rural default.

Canada has an 80km/h rural default but now seeks to raise some signposted freeway limits to 120km/h to mirror some US Western states. Read this small Pdf report here:
http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/publications...iew_Report.pdf

Back To the F - I had an internet connection issue with TPG here in NSW and couldn't log back in in time to tidy up the post. That said, I am sure most can savvy it. It IS within topic.

clontarf_x · 13-05-2006, 10:29 PM

WA still does support the Circle-Slash no speed limit in some areas (Augusta is a prime example). Of course this does not mean you can do 180km/hr, but I believe these should be put in place on some long-haul routes, with 80km/hr approaching major intersections.

Out of interest, can anyone post the max speed limits per state? I am sure WA used to be 140 until not long ago...

Keepleft · 13-05-2006, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clontarf_x

WA still does support the Circle-Slash no speed limit in some areas (Augusta is a prime example). Of course this does not mean you can do 180km/hr, but I believe these should be put in place on some long-haul routes, with 80km/hr approaching major intersections.

Out of interest, can anyone post the max speed limits per state? I am sure WA used to be 140 until not long ago...

In 'absolute' signposted terms 110km/h. In rural default - typically 100km/h, with WA at 110km/h, NT with (//). WA studies 90km/h now.

WA was never 140km/h in 'absolute' terms.

The speed derestriction sign as held in AS1742.4 of 1999 means to signal the END of ALL speed restrictions, that is, both signposted and default.

MOREOVER, the sign is an international road traffic sign where it is catalogued in all UN Conventions on Road Traffic, Road Signs and Signals as a C,17a "END of ALL local prohibitions imposed on moving vehicles". Hardly default speed limit or 'open road speed limit'.

The Convention allows for certain vehicles and driver to remain speed-limited when passing the sign by way of 'speed limiters' and 'license conditions', example L and Platers.

A CONVENTION is not just some mere TREATY, it has particular legal bite on contracting states parties.

ARR 25 is, on a prima facie basis, in technical default of AS1742.4 of 1999 and the UN Convention. Here, national metrology comes into play when in conflict with ARR as a 'state' regulation, which effectively they become.

I am dealing, as advocate, with WA to either accept the (//) signs AS and UN meaning, or they simply must remove them. No if's no but's. It is not for any Australian public servant or agency to effectivelly steal and mis-represent international road traffic signs to their public.

The derestriction sign is mostly removed from roads in QLD, TAS, VIC, and NSW. Here in NSW - councils are no longer permitted to use them.

They CAN be re-introduced, but only if the state accepts the signs meaning either on a per length of road basis, OR if the jurisdiction does not state a geographical maximum, a la NT.

Indian example - see row 6.

http://www.delhitrafficpolice.nic.in...tory-signs.htm

Dezza · 13-05-2006, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keepleft

The NSW suggestion of a 'rural' default 80km/h would only apply to roads without signage, as current - these really are the worse of the worse - the rest ARE signposted. REM too, NSW had an 80km/h rural default up to July 1979, though it was 'prima facie' and signalled by the (//) sign, so you could legally exceed it BUT if you came under notice by police - would have to prove yourself innocent of 'the charge', whatever that might have been. Not legally good.

WA now studies a 90km/h rural default.

Canada has an 80km/h rural default but now seeks to raise some signposted freeway limits to 120km/h to mirror some US Western states. Read this small Pdf report here:
http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/publications...iew_Report.pdf

Back To the F - I had an internet connection issue with TPG here in NSW and couldn't log back in in time to tidy up the post. That said, I am sure most can savvy it. It IS within topic.

The problem with having a lower speed limit for non sign posted roads is that people could turn onto the road from a side street and not know whether it is 80 or 100. They could turn onto a road with a limit of 100, and drive along at 80 because they don't know what speed they are meant to be doing. This could frustrate other drivers who are forced to do 80 because of the car in front of them. This could cause impatience and more accidents. In my opinion, the biggest problem is not enough speed signs. Nobody knows what speed they are meant to be doing, and if you don't notice a sign, it could be kms down the road before you find out what speed you are meant to be doing.

bodes-sh · 13-05-2006, 11:16 PM

I dont know if anyone else on here has lived, or lives in the NT, but you can still get booked for travelling at excessive speeds. ie 180+. as much as it is stupid, derestriction signs give the police the power to book you if they want to, for an excessive speed

LUXO_8 · 13-05-2006, 11:18 PM

i think its got to do with excessive speed "for the conditions" ie, if you were doing 190 / 200 in driving rain, you're gone

Keepleft · 14-05-2006, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ea_silver_ghia

The problem with having a lower speed limit for non sign posted roads is that people could turn onto the road from a side street and not know whether it is 80 or 100. They could turn onto a road with a limit of 100, and drive along at 80 because they don't know what speed they are meant to be doing. This could frustrate other drivers who are forced to do 80 because of the car in front of them. This could cause impatience and more accidents. In my opinion, the biggest problem is not enough speed signs. Nobody knows what speed they are meant to be doing, and if you don't notice a sign, it could be kms down the road before you find out what speed you are meant to be doing.

It should not be a problem whatsoever, remember we have had two default speed limits (or allowances) since after the the second world war.

What applies in your example is simply one of the two defaults, either 'built-up area' (urban) or 'rural'. A built up area IS defined in the ARR Dictionary.

Whilst you call for more speed signs, remember the danger in that is yet more differing speed zones!! Here in NSW we are removing many 90km/h and 70km/h zones going back to the past somewhat. This takes years, literally to achieve.

Bodes-sh Yes, you can be done for an offence such as 'speed dangerous' to describe, or any number of other offences in a (//) zone. BUT AGAIN, you can also have this happen when within a posted or default speed limit as well, in any state or ACT. It IS appropriate that police target idiots in (//) zones, and there are many of them in NT such as tourists, and it is a little more difficult to achieve effective speed management, but certainly not impossible. I find most folk are actually quite okay.

Often in such (//) allowances a patrolling HWP with radar might just flash the emergency lights, or headlights - to signal you to drop speed back a bit, if that happens you'd better damned well do so.

I see no problem with this. In some way's, if treated properly (//) can be safer and then puts much greater onus on you, the driver, to drive at a safe speed by NOT relying on sign posted limits as being 'the speed to drive at'. Remember, over 80% of speed related crashes occur below the speed limit, camera enforcement only catches those above who may or may not be driving dangerously.

The (//) allowance is not to signal 'go at top speed', but rather,- drive to the prevailing conditions at a pace which is comfortable, typically 100 - 140km/h range, you slow down on approach to a speed limit sign or hazard notification.

Of a few of the crashes in NT (//) zones, where 'speed' is a factor, it might usually be a foreign tourist top-ending the car in a tricky spot (Thinking a Singaporean example where a VT lost it and killed two). Here, police advised - your really quite okay at 160km/h, but this bloke was going much faster than that. The road at that point narrowed somewhat, so had virtually no shoulder, you must drop speed when conditions reduce.

These are the rare NT crashes, most are idiots in built up area zones whom are drunk and have a habit of stepping into the path of vehicles everywhere.

Had a pedestrian who's car had broken down - killed by two Irish tourists in a van, you get that.

You must drive at a speed that allows you come to a full safe stop within the distance you can see, that 'distance' MUST include reaction time.

Anyhow - mildly going off topic.

Dezza · 14-05-2006, 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keepleft

Whilst you call for more speed signs, remember the danger in that is yet more differing speed zones!! Here in NSW we are removing many 90km/h and 70km/h zones going back to the past somewhat. This takes years, literally to achieve.

What I mean is not differing speed zones. What I am talking about, for example in a long stretch of road with a speed limit of 100, not just having a 100 sign at the start and maybe halfway along. I mean having 100 signs more frequently placed along the road. eg. maybe 2kms apart instead of 5kms apart. This doesn't bring in any more speed zones. It just makes it easier for the motorist to know what speed they are meant to be doing, decreasing the risk of a speeding fine.

outback_ute · 14-05-2006, 08:07 AM

A simple rule like any road that does not have 2 full bitumen lanes is 80km/h could work. Trouble is there are many km of those roads that have to be used by people to go places and I don't think they would appreciate the extra travel time. I don't see a problem with 100km/h on a properly maintained gravel road where you have adequate sightlines.

Speaking of sightlines, and getting back to the Hume, I drove most of it on Friday and there were parts (normally crests but also some curves with thick vegetation on the inside) where you can only see 200m or so ahead - not conducive to very high autobahn type speeds, particularly as there are a lot of intersections which can be just over crests. (even without the u-turn crossings keepleft has identified as a problem previously)

RG · 14-05-2006, 08:24 AM

I have also recently driven up the hume from Melbourne to Canberra. Great road until you get to Albury/Wodonga after that I felt that it was, in places, one of the most dangerous roads I have ever driven on. Sad really considering that it is the main link between the two largest cities in the country. The road from Melbourne to Adelaide is better and it's not the best of roads either.

kyro_02 · 14-05-2006, 09:50 AM

what do you mean dangerous as in the roads are narrow, or the roads have potholes and are really bumpy etc? i might be goin up that way later this year

RG · 14-05-2006, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kyro_02

what do you mean dangerous as in the roads are narrow, or the roads have potholes and are really bumpy etc? i might be goin up that way later this year

All of the above mixed with trucks, caravans, blind intersections, unsigned blind corners on hill crests etc etc.

WINDSR · 14-05-2006, 10:56 AM

Another down!!! How many more thousand to go?

OldManGhia · 14-05-2006, 11:04 AM

I reckon all speed limits should be reduced by 10kph. The only people that obey speed signs are the oldies. In my experience most people seem to think that coppers won't book them if they are less than 10k over the speed limit.

RG · 14-05-2006, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AU98C-Wagon

I reckon all speed limits should be reduced by 10kph. The only people that obey speed signs are the oldies. In my experience most people seem to think that coppers won't book them if they are less than 10k over the speed limit.

Why do you think that the limits should be reduced?

wulos · 14-05-2006, 11:14 AM

The only thing that this accident proves is that the use of 'pre warning' safety devices are a complete load of B.S.
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 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.
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. 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.
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. 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?
So what happens when the safety triangles are passed into law(and people fined for not using them correctly - more revenue raising??)and find that they don't work? 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?