# Tribute to Car Accident Kids - I'm Angry!!!



## Duckman#72 (18 January 2010)

Gee I'm wild about this topic.

Are other people just as offended by vision of empty Jim Beam cans and cigarettes taped to a tree as a tribute to those 5 teenagers that died in last weeks car accident?

I cannot understand the mentality of some people. Regardless of whether or not drugs and alcohol played a part in the accident, that is not the point.

Someones son/boyfriend/brother/cousin/mate died last weekend. Surely when remembering these people, we find that their life amounted to more than an empty tinny and smokes. 

Honestly what is the thinking behind such a tribute?  Are they thinking - this is a way of saying "You're a lengend to the end"? Are they saying "Have a drink for me on the other side for us"? Are they saying "We'll have a drink for you"? Or are they just saying of all the memories they have of these people the one that resonates most to them, are those of them drinking? 

Anyway you dice it - it is inappropriate and borderline offensive, not just for those kids, but to anyone who has lost a loved one through alcohol and drugs. 

Duckman


----------



## akkopower (18 January 2010)

relax duckman,

Some people tape flowers to trees as tributes, somepeople place letters and some place art. 

flowers die, letters are hard to write, art, some people just dont have the skills. The friends of these teenagers are just trying to remember the good times.

What a person places as a tribute is a private emotional connection between them and the deceased. Who are u to say what can or cant be used to show their emotional connection. open your mind a little and relax

have a good day everyone
go eat some chocolate ice cream with chocolate sauce and chill duckman


----------



## stock nub (18 January 2010)

Did anyone notice what car they were in??????

Bright blue XR6 or XR8!

Now how many times do we see an over powered commodore/falcon wrapped around a tree with a p plater driving it?

I think the answer is a lot more than a p plater in a excel or any other less powerful car.

Connection between fast cars, young kids and crashes??

This happens over and over but the govt doesnt seem to want to step in and ban p platers driving over powered cars. If this occured then we may not see this as much.


----------



## Julia (18 January 2010)

Duckman, I'm very sympathetic to your view.  Such a tribute does seem tasteless at the very least.

But is it possible that someone did it more as a gesture toward saying "this is what can happen as a result of abuse of these substances"?


----------



## Teska (18 January 2010)

Who are you to be critical of someone's grieving process. We all deal with death in our own way, whether it be cultural, religious or as an individual. Relax!


----------



## nioka (18 January 2010)

Teska said:


> Who are you to be critical of someone's grieving process. We all deal with death in our own way, whether it be cultural, religious or as an individual. Relax!




The question is " should grieving be done privately or in public". "Should you inconvience others in your grieving when they are not involved and do not desire to be involved".


----------



## Duckman#72 (18 January 2010)

akkopower said:


> relax duckman,
> 
> Some people tape flowers to trees as tributes, somepeople place letters and some place art.
> 
> ...




Hi guys

I have had some strawberry ice-cream and have settled down a bit now. Thanks for the advice. I got a bit hot under the collar. However - can I just make these points.....

Flowers are respectful, letters are special and meaningful (and private), art is reflective and representative....but one thing they have in common is that they are not offensive(generally).

I disgaree with you concerning this being a private tribute. There are hundreds of people at this landmark and it is being screened across the country on TV. There is very little private about it. Tributes can offend and I think it is too easy to just say..."it's my way of dealing with it". To me that's a cop out. 

I cannot see why such a prominent position should be given to substances which may or may not have had a hand in their death - and if not their death, large numbers each year. 

Julia, you make a good point. I didn't think of that side of it. For mine, it is so lacking in judgement as a tribute, that perhaps it isn't. It is just a warning. Well I hope the right people get the message and don't see it as a badge of honor, or representation of these kids lives like this old "fuddyduddy" did.

Anyway thanks for calming me down and making me see a different point of view.

Duckman


----------



## Wysiwyg (18 January 2010)

Car accidents remind me of when I was mere seconds late for my own horror smash. Someone brought up on another thread about being late for a train or something but nevertheless each event leads to the next event and so on and so forth.

Anyway I was driving on the highway at 100k and up ahead I saw a vehicle veer sharply across the road. I thought they had crossed to take a side road rather abruptly but in fact had lost control of their vehicle.  I pulled over and assisted the dazed and biled occupants that had rolled in the vehicle and were now facing the opposite direction in a gully. Plain clothes boys arrived and took over from there.

What happened was their vehicle's left wheels had caught the gravel off the highway and the woman driving over corrected the vehicle and hence crossed in the path of oncoming (me) traffic and into the gully. At 100k it would not have been soft. I'm very patient these days.


----------



## treeman (18 January 2010)

When I saw it on the news I thought "wtf" are you serious? Doesn't this kid see the irony of putting a can of alcohol there and that's the best he can do for his friend?
But then I thought he does have a right to honor his friend in anyway he thinks is best, being in his position id be pretty furious if somebody - especially who doesn't know me or my friend was telling me what is appropriate or not.
So my final thoughts are mixed, think putting the can of alcohol there looks stupid to me but I respect their way of honoring a mate.


----------



## Duckman#72 (18 January 2010)

treeman said:


> But then I thought he does have a right to honor his friend in anyway he thinks is best, being in his position id be pretty furious if somebody - especially who doesn't know me or my friend was telling me what is appropriate or not.
> 
> So my final thoughts are mixed, think putting the can of alcohol there looks stupid to me but I respect their way of honoring a mate.




Yeah - maybe I just need to get over it. 

But the whole "tribute" thing just seems way overdone to the point of being chic. It is ALL ABOUT the mates left behind, and is a process that seems to forget about those deceased and their parents and family.  

I am waiting for the day a girlfriend pins a pack of condoms, a pair of handcuffs and a g-string on a tree, with the words "You were the best root I ever had". 

Well.....thanks for sharing....but somethings should remain private in my opinion. You mark my words -this will happen one day soon and there will be an outcry.

Duckman


----------



## Buckfont (18 January 2010)

nioka said:


> The question is " should grieving be done privately or in public". "Should you inconvience others in your grieving when they are not involved and do not desire to be involved".




It`s so tragic to have so many young lives lost, however as long as there newspapers, TV`s and radios, we are all part of it whether we like or not.


----------



## Agentm (18 January 2010)

i read it as 5 dead and a sixth in hospital

i also cant believe that car can carry six

i am convinced speed was a contributor, and i also believe the law disallows that driver to carry passengers..

every aspect of what we dont want to see our youth do in a car at night all fell together, unrestrained, overcrowded and high speed.. shearing a oak tree in the process i understand

too many things could have happened to prevent this, and responsibility is obvious here.. but there is no way of dealing with it when the person who delivered this is deceased 

will anyone ever be able to explain senseless carnage like this? never. most who attended the scene would need councilling for some time to come, and the family and friends will be having to deal with the most tragic of circumstances as best they can..

too young, too fast and too much hurt here.. imho its as bad as it gets..


----------



## Pager (18 January 2010)

When they crashed they were estimated to be traveling at 140klms 

Very sad for the family's of those killed but had they hit and killed other people rather than themselves they would be facing a media and public backlash and probably jail.

High powered cars and P plate drivers is a lethal combination, just hope government's take action.


----------



## gordon2007 (18 January 2010)

I have a very harsh view towards these type of deaths. 

They were  breaking the law, drinking and speeding and apparently too many people in the car too. The driver should be up for a darwin award.

If a man goes and robs a store and accidently shoots himself and dies, why is it so many think, 'the fool deserved it'. Yet when someone breaks the law and drives drunk, speeds and is generally a hoon, it's suddenly a tragic  event. 

Doesn't fly in my book. I'd rather they kill themselves then kill some innocent family getting rammed by this moron and killing them.

Edited due to typo.


----------



## Duckman#72 (18 January 2010)

Agentm said:


> too young, too fast and too much hurt here.. imho its as bad as it gets..




Correct.

The Jim Beam cans probably represent fun, laughter, mateship, good times, youth and freedom. I can accept that.

But to many, it also represents lawlessness, drink driving, underage drinking, violence and abuse, addiction, excessive behaviour, stupidity and death.

Were the people making the tribute meaning the former? Most probably yes. But that doesn't mean that many others saw a very different message contained in the "tribute".  

Considering nature of the accident, anything promoting, condoning or  honouring excessive behaviour should have been avoided in my opinion.

Duckman


----------



## ThingyMajiggy (18 January 2010)

Pager said:


> When they crashed they were estimated to be traveling at 140klms
> 
> High powered cars and P plate drivers is a lethal combination, just hope government's take action.




How can you possibly blame speed and high powered cars for this, man this Sh!ts me off. 

Nearly ALL these cases there was drinking involved, car load of kids, all pissed or half pissed, yet its the speed that killed them, nothing to do with the booze?? Give me a break! And the high powered cars, pretty much all of these "high powered" cars you speak of, also have high performance brakes, high performance handling, high performance tyres to handle all this high performance, the part people don't understand is kids ARE going to do this, its what they do, no matter what car they are in, so why give them the biggest piece of crap under the sun with NO handling, NO brakes, even if it can't pull the skin off a custard, they WILL definitely try, ESPECIALLY with booze involved, it just makes a SURE thing that if/when they do crash, they are more likely to be killed because of the piece of crap underpowered car they are in that cant handle anything. 

What they should be doing is concentrating more on the drink driving, and bringing in a decent advanced driving course that is COMPULSORY before they can get their Ps etc, actually teach them how to keep calm and control the situation when things get out of control. Not panic and jam the brakes on whilst jerking it across the other side of the road when/if they run a wheel off into the dirt etc. 

To have a car load of kids, that have been drinking and crash, then blame it on the speed is just stupid. 

Alcohol and skill is the cause, not speed or the cars they are driving.


----------



## nulla nulla (18 January 2010)

akkopower said:


> relax duckman,
> 
> Some people tape flowers to trees as tributes, somepeople place letters and some place art.
> 
> ...




You see tributes everywhere, they send a clear message:

1. Someone died here as a result of a motor vehicle accident;
2. The people left behind are grieving for their loss; and
3. Slow down and take more care.

If these tributes make even only one person reconsider their speed and attitude to driving they acheive something valuable for the greater community. I sympathise with the families of the victoms for their irreplacable loss.

The point of inexperienced drivers in control of overpowered motor vehicles has been the subject of discussion with two of my own children currently on their learners permits. The agreed perspective is that they need to learn responsible driving habits regardless of whether they are behind the wheel of a 4 cylinder, a 6 cylinder or a v8. 
Small cars, overloaded with passengers, under the control of an inexperienced and possibly intoxicated driver can travel at high speeds with equaly disastrous results as an "overpowered" falcon or commodore.

The young need to be taught responsible driving habits from word go. As parents we may need to set a better example in respect of responsible driving and driving education, rather than flick passing the blame to the State and Federal Governments in respect of the quality of the roads we drive on and the power of the vehicles on the road.


----------



## GumbyLearner (18 January 2010)

ThingyMajiggy said:


> Alcohol and skill is the cause, not speed or the cars they are driving.




I totally agree with this statement SC.

However, I do note you used the word skill. This is where I disagree that P-platers should be driving high-powered vehicles. It takes time to master anything in life. It is unfortunate that these kids lives have ended so abruptly. Surely Vicroads or the TAC can do something to lobby the Government about giving young people more time to learn how to drive and do it with a 4 cylinder rather than XR6. The only people who know this are those who have been on the end of it from an inexperienced driver, myself included.

A car is a dangerous weapon just like a gun, knife or a set of nunchucks etc.. There are too many young people who do not have the wisdom of experience to realize this.


----------



## Go Nuke (18 January 2010)

Aren't you all forgetting that a little Hyundai Excell will get up to 140km/hr!

High powered cars will kill yes...but so will the less high powered cars.

I just can't understand why they haven't speed limited cars to say 120km/hr!

Why do we still make cars that are capable of doing twice that?? I'ts got me beat.
Until then, young people will keep dying..simple as that. I'm 31 now and have gotten past that stage of my life, but I can say Ive been there and done that. Sure its silly...but it didn't stop me from doing it.

Alot of young people feel 10 ft tall and bulletproof


----------



## GumbyLearner (18 January 2010)

Go Nuke said:


> Alot of young people feel 10 ft tall and bulletproof




So true Go Nuke


----------



## son of baglimit (18 January 2010)

stock nub said:


> Did anyone notice what car they were in??????
> 
> Bright blue XR6 or XR8!
> 
> ...




i remember in the 70's when cars were made of steel and weighed a ton, and only a few high powered cars & exotic european models could achieve 100km in under 10 secs. now pretty much every car can, whether its a xr6 or an excel. shows like top gear continue to promote the ability of these cars to do so. 

im not criticising top gear, or entering into the high powered cars argument, cos i dont know enough about them, but simple developments in car design mean EVERY CAR IS CAPABLE OF DOING THE DAMAGE SEEN TODAY.

the days of learning in a sturdy 15yo kingswood, falcon, sigma, morris etc are long gone, and why? cos kids want now, and parents wont tell them no.


----------



## GumbyLearner (18 January 2010)

son of baglimit said:


> i remember in the 70's when cars were made of steel and weighed a ton, and only a few high powered cars & exotic european models could achieve 100km in under 10 secs. now pretty much every car can, whether its a xr6 or an excel. shows like top gear continue to promote the ability of these cars to do so.
> 
> im not criticising top gear, or entering into the high powered cars argument, cos i dont know enough about them, but simple developments in car design mean EVERY CAR IS CAPABLE OF DOING THE DAMAGE SEEN TODAY.
> 
> the days of learning in a sturdy 15yo kingswood, falcon, sigma, morris etc are long gone, and why? cos kids want now, and parents wont tell them no.




That's a great post.

It's all a question of physics. Maybe more physics should be taught in schools. Because the message certainly doesn't appear to be getting through.


----------



## ThingyMajiggy (18 January 2010)

son of baglimit said:


> i remember in the 70's when cars were made of steel and weighed a ton, and only a few high powered cars & exotic european models could achieve 100km in under 10 secs. now pretty much every car can, whether its a xr6 or an excel. shows like top gear continue to promote the ability of these cars to do so.
> 
> im not criticising top gear, or entering into the high powered cars argument, cos i dont know enough about them, but simple developments in car design mean EVERY CAR IS CAPABLE OF DOING THE DAMAGE SEEN TODAY.
> 
> the days of learning in a sturdy 15yo kingswood, falcon, sigma, morris etc are long gone, and why? cos kids want now, and parents wont tell them no.




Sturdy mate?? I wouldn't say any of those cars are sturdy. Would you rather an old car for kids to learn in, with no airbags, no disc brakes, no decent tyres and handles like a boat rather than a modern car with all this and that handles half decent? This is my point, whether its driving a later model car or an old "sturdy" car, the same damage can be done, just think. Car load of young people, alcohol involved, they feel more confident, getting egged on by their mates, no matter WHAT car they are driving, it isn't going to end well, and NOT because of the speed, but because of the skill, or lack thereof mixed with alcohol and friends. These modern cars at least have half a chance of helping survival with the safety systems they have etc. 

Top Gear also do it on in a controlled environment, this is what they need to make compulsory for young new drivers, have a course that is detailed and comprehensive and tough to pass, it will save their lives, teach them JUDGEMENT, how far you need before you pull out, and how fast you will hit that tree if you go off the road, give them techniques, have a course at a circuit somewhere, wet the corners, have a strip where its road and gravel, just like on the road, and tell them to run a wheel off so they get the feel of all this stuff.

I am young myself, and I have done a few track days, where we had exercises like this, it is a MASSIVE help, a life saver. Also being at the track makes you 10x more aware on the road, you notice how close that guard rail is or how close those trees are. 

It doesn't matter how fast the car can accelerate to 100km/h, thats not when they crash, its when they are already doing 100km/h+ and things get out of control, and pretty much any car can do the speed limit, and when you go off the road, whether you're doing 100km/h or 120 or 140, its not going to be pretty if you don't know how to react. Doing the activities + more that I have mentioned in their OWN car is a HUGE advantage too. 

IMO, this would make a world of difference. Places like Finland I think it is have this sort of system to get your license and as far as I know it HAS made a huge difference, young people know how to handle the car when things get sideways.

But if they are pissed behind the wheel, then it doesn't make any difference does it....oh, but its speed!


----------



## GumbyLearner (18 January 2010)

ThingyMajiggy said:


> But if they are pissed behind the wheel, then it doesn't make any difference does it....oh, but its speed!




you could substitute the word speed with the expression 'understanding of physics'. And anyone who has worked for the man driving a truck (meet your DEADlines) could probably substitute it with 'goeeeeee'.  

I stand by my last post. An understanding of physics and forceful consequences of it should be a pre-req for Learners and P-platers.


----------



## Wysiwyg (18 January 2010)

GumbyLearner said:


> I stand by my last post. An understanding of physics and forceful consequences of it should be a pre-req for Learners and P-platers.




Yes and how many of us testosterone pumped youths tried to push the limits of speed, height, distance, rules and stupidity? I could have died or been seriously injured three times in cars and on bike.


----------



## GumbyLearner (18 January 2010)

Wysiwyg said:


> Yes and how many of us testosterone pumped youths tried to push the limits of speed, height, distance, rules and stupidity? I could have died or been seriously injured three times in cars and on bike.




Plenty. That's not the point. Learn from history and the stats they provide or repeat the carnage. IMVHO!


----------



## Macquack (18 January 2010)

ThingyMajiggy said:


> But if they are pissed behind the wheel, then it doesn't make any difference does it....oh, *but its speed*!




Sam, I generally agree with what you say (particularly the track driving experience). However, to dismiss the "speed" factor is naive. 

If that falcon was doing 60km/h instead of 160km/h then they would have all survived. 

Maybe governors should be introduced for all cars driven by "P" plate drivers. Not for the rest of us responsible drivers.


----------



## ThingyMajiggy (18 January 2010)

Macquack said:


> Sam, I generally agree with what you say (particularly the track driving experience). However, to dismiss the "speed" factor is naive.
> 
> If that falcon was doing 60km/h instead of 160km/h then they would have all survived.
> 
> Maybe governors should be introduced for all cars driven by "P" plate drivers. Not for the rest of us responsible drivers.




Yes obviously, if the car wasn't moving they would be fine  etc etc. If we ban cars altogether there would be no accidents....but thats just silly isn't it. Change the speed limit to 60km/h everywhere, see what happens  If the car did 60km/h everyone would be fine, thats irrelevant, the fact is, people do speed, they always will, especially young people, and accidents will ALWAYS happen, we're all human, so concentrate on making them able behind the wheel, not useless. 

My point is they can go 60, 100, 150 in ANY car, so banning "high powered" cars wouldn't make any difference. As I said before, these cars also have the right components to handle these speeds, its the skill that needs attention.


----------



## gordon2007 (18 January 2010)

Maybe parents need to learn how to say 'no' to their children. Why kids need brand new or very late model cars for their first car is beyond me. Maybe parents need to understand that when their children get done for speeding, they got it because they really were speeding. Don't tell them it wasn't their fault and don't tell them the cops where just out to make a quick dollar off of them because they're an easy target. 

I get really annoyed when I hear "oh but they were such good kids". Bullcrap!. This kid was a drunken hoon who killed four others. I view him the same as a serial killer. 

With the history that we have of drink drivers, there is no way anyone cannot know the problems that can be caused by drink driving. It craps me off to no end how we're supposed to feel empathy towards killers like these.


----------



## son of baglimit (18 January 2010)

ThingyMajiggy said:


> Sturdy mate?? I wouldn't say any of those cars are sturdy. Would you rather an old car for kids to learn in, with no airbags, no disc brakes, no decent tyres and handles like a boat rather than a modern car with all this and that handles half decent? This is my point, whether its driving a later model car or an old "sturdy" car, the same damage can be done, just think. Car load of young people, alcohol involved, they feel more confident, getting egged on by their mates, no matter WHAT car they are driving, it isn't going to end well, and NOT because of the speed, but because of the skill, or lack thereof mixed with alcohol and friends. These modern cars at least have half a chance of helping survival with the safety systems they have etc.




sorry, let me expand. those old sturdy cars - many couldnt even reach 100kmh, let alone 140, when 15yo - the point is if you simply havent got the machine to achieve 100kmh, you aint gonna achieve it.
ALL CARS can achieve it now - yeah all cars have various level of safety added to them, but at 100kmh+, theres not much that IS gonna save you.
im not entering debates on top gear, alcohol, car specs, safety - this is simply an observation formed over recent years.


----------



## Macquack (18 January 2010)

ThingyMajiggy said:


> My point is they can go 60, 100, 150 in ANY car, so banning "high powered" cars wouldn't make any difference. As I said before, *these cars also have the right components to handle these speeds*, its the skill that needs attention.




Mate, you are *overrating the handling ability of modern high performance cars*. If anything, the modern cars are a lot smoother to drive, you appear to be going slower than you actually are, BUT you come unstuck a lot quicker with less warning.

 No car was designed to drive at 160km/h through suburban streets.


----------



## ThingyMajiggy (18 January 2010)

Macquack said:


> Mate, you are *overrating the handling ability of modern high performance cars*. If anything, the modern cars are a lot smoother to drive, you appear to be going slower than you actually are, BUT you come unstuck a lot quicker with less warning.
> 
> No car was designed to drive at 160km/h through suburban streets.




Rubbish. 

It depends totally on each car, but a lot quicker and less warning?? You can't be serious. Think about what is happening, most fatal crashes are at 100km/h+, if you had an old kingswood, falcon, magna, gemini, whatever and started trying to correct a panic slide, jam the brakes on for some reason or swerve, with the tyres, the brakes and the amount of body roll that would be going on, it would be FAR worse than something like the kids are driving these days, skylines, EVOs, WRXs, SSs, XR8s etc which have phenomenal brakes and handling IN COMPARISON to the old cars which they would be driving around if those cars were banned, reaching the same speeds anyway. I have been in an accident myself where the car I was in was able to pull up in time because of its brilliant brakes, and the person behind in an old laser crashed into the back of us because of the useless ability of the car. 

But as I said before and I'll say it again, if alcohol is involved it all goes out the window, that and SKILL are the key points, doesn't matter what car, how fast, teach them what to do in these situations. 

Anyway, thats enough from me, I've made my point clear.


----------



## jbocker (18 January 2010)

Macquack said:


> ...
> 
> No car was designed to drive at 160km/h through suburban streets.




That Macquack has HIT the nail on the head. End of argument.

Add to that it helps to have training to handle situations when things go bad (but there is NO GUARANTEE that you will not panic in a real situation), remember you are trained at road speed not 140kph. 
*Dont argue about it - Speed Kills.* For example, hit a pedestrian at 60km per hour or at 40kph the survival rate is increased enormously at 40kph.

I feel the pain for those families left with the tragedy. 
Talk to you kids. Ask them what it would feel like if you were the driver and survived.


----------



## Julia (18 January 2010)

gordon2007 said:


> I have a very harsh view towards these type of deaths.
> 
> They were  breaking the law, drinking and speeding and apparently too many people in the car too. The driver should be up for a darwin award.
> 
> ...



I agree.   These kids made a decision to do what they did.  It all went wrong and they're dead.  But at least they didn't charge straight into some innocent driver and kill or maim them as well.

I'd like to see cars simply taken off drunk drivers.  The penalties at present are no deterrent.  Mostly fines which are never paid.  Too easy by a long way.


----------



## Macquack (18 January 2010)

Sam, what you don't get is that the impact speeds of these type of accidents are getting faster all the time.

If you think "speed" is irrelevant, you must come from a different planet than me.


----------



## ThingyMajiggy (18 January 2010)

jbocker said:


> Add to that it helps to have training to handle situations when things go bad (but there is NO GUARANTEE that you will not panic in a real situation), remember you are trained at road speed not 140kph.




Mate have you even read my posts? My whole point is to have an advanced course ON A CIRCUIT where you DO those speeds and get a feel for what its like, what happens etc Put them in out of control situations on the safety of a circuit so they get a feel for what its like, know what to expect.  



jbocker said:


> *Dont argue about it - Speed Kills.* For example, hit a pedestrian at 60km per hour or at 40kph the survival rate is increased enormously at 40kph.




Does this not depend entirely on the car?? What speed you hit them at is totally dependent on your skill level(reaction time) and your brakes(high performance), that as well as your tyres play a HUGE part in what speed you hit IF you hit them. You need to find out the facts mate instead of being rammed by speed kills from TV and newspapers etc.


----------



## ThingyMajiggy (18 January 2010)

Macquack said:


> Sam, what you don't get is that the impact speeds of these type of accidents are getting faster all the time.
> 
> If you think "speed" is irrelevant, you must come from a different planet than me.




Impact speeds are getting faster? Since when? As I said, most of these crashes are all around the same speed area. 

Your not getting the point. When you are intoxicated, with a car load of mates, feeling confident as ever, speed was NOT the killer. 

Speed, the way you mentioned is irrelevant yes, "If the car was doing 60km/h", that means nothing, like if I had a gun a shot someone, but if I didn't have bullets in it, they wouldn't have died. Doesn't mean anything. They were doing 140km/h, someone will again, and it will happen AGAIN. NOT because of speed but because of skill and the car, and ofcourse intoxication.


----------



## Macquack (18 January 2010)

ThingyMajiggy said:


> You need to find out the facts mate instead of being rammed by speed kills from TV and newspapers etc.




I think we have a budding V8 supercar driver on our hands here at ASF. His name is ThingyMajiggy, look out for him at Bathurst and also your local school pedestrian crossings.


----------



## Boggo (18 January 2010)

ThingyMajiggy said:


> Impact speeds are getting faster? Since when? As I said, most of these crashes are all around the same speed area.
> 
> Your not getting the point. When you are intoxicated, with a car load of mates, feeling confident as ever, speed was NOT the killer.
> 
> Speed, the way you mentioned is irrelevant yes, "If the car was doing 60km/h", that means nothing, like if I had a gun a shot someone, but if I didn't have bullets in it, they wouldn't have died. Doesn't mean anything. They were doing 140km/h, someone will again, and it will happen AGAIN. NOT because of speed but because of skill and the car, and of course intoxication.




What a crock, if you were driving home with your family in the car are you saying that you would feel just as safe if a car load of drunken punks were coming towards you at 140kmh as you would be if they were doing 60 kmh.

That's the attitude that allows these little arseholes to endanger the public in the first place.
Thank god that it was a tree before some innocent family as it wasn't a matter of if but when it they were going to hit something/someone.

PS: Sam, you are correct, it's not the speed that kills. It's the sudden stop.


----------



## ThingyMajiggy (18 January 2010)

Macquack said:


> I think we have a budding V8 supercar driver on our hands here at ASF. His name is ThingyMajiggy, look out for him at Bathurst and also your local school pedestrian crossings.




Righto mate.  Dunno what that was for. I'm going from my own experience and how its helped me.



Boggo said:


> What a crock, if you were driving home with your family in the car are you saying that you would feel just as safe if a car load of drunken punks were coming towards you at 140kmh as you would be if they were doing 60 kmh.




Where the hell did you get this idea?! No **** you would feel scared with *DRUNKEN PUNKS* hurtling towards you at 140km/h, did I say you wouldn't? Hence why I said the DRUNKEN bit is the problem, not the speed, in case you hadn't noticed, people do stupid **** when they are drunk, and are alot more sensible when they aren't. 

Listen, if its possible for you lot, I'm NOT promoting speed or drunken punks, all I'm saying is, that speed shouldn't be blamed immediately in 100% of the cases, its just stupid when you have drunk drivers and passengers, a car that can't handle it, along with someone with skills that aren't up to it(even more so when drunk), yet it comes down to speed. 

Slam down on drink driving and teach people how to drive.


----------



## Macquack (18 January 2010)

ThingyMajiggy said:


> like if I had a gun a shot someone, but if I didn't have bullets in it, they wouldn't have died. Doesn't mean anything.




Sam, want to have another crack at that analogy cause it came out sounding real dumb.

If I'm going to be shot, I would prefer if the gun had no bullets in it.


----------



## Wysiwyg (18 January 2010)

Yeah I agree with Drac. There is a reason why speed limits are different depending on terrain and location. The present road speed limits are a major contributor to the safety of everyone using the roads. Adhering  to speed limits and driving to conditions (wet roads etc.) are two basic rules everyone needs to follow. Exceeding designated speed limits increases the danger to self and others. This cannot be understated.


----------



## Go Nuke (18 January 2010)

gordon2007 said:


> Maybe parents need to learn how to say 'no' to their children. Why kids need brand new or very late model cars for their first car is beyond me. Maybe parents need to understand that when their children get done for speeding, they got it because they really were speeding. Don't tell them it wasn't their fault and don't tell them the cops where just out to make a quick dollar off of them because they're an easy target.
> 
> I get really annoyed when I hear "oh but they were such good kids". Bullcrap!. This kid was a drunken hoon who killed four others. I view him the same as a serial killer.
> 
> With the history that we have of drink drivers, there is no way anyone cannot know the problems that can be caused by drink driving. It craps me off to no end how we're supposed to feel empathy towards killers like these.




Kids....make mistakes.
Its just that the potenial consequences just don't soak in and hit home.

I scared the crap out of myself when I was younger and lost control of my V8....learnt some good lessons then. Guess I was lucky..I didn't crash into anything nor injure anyone.


----------



## Boggo (18 January 2010)

Sam, if you ever get the opportunity to do a course on TEM (Threat and Error Management) then do it.

All disasters are initiated by one element.


----------



## ThingyMajiggy (18 January 2010)

Macquack said:


> If that falcon was doing 60km/h instead of 160km/h then they would have all survived.




You said this correct....still with me here sunshine?? 

What is the point of saying this? I said its like someone that gets shot(with a bullet coming out the end of the barrel and hitting them, therefore ending their life). But then someone says but if the gun had no bullets they would be alive still. 

Its just stupid. 

The FACT is they were doing 140km/h, they WERE drunk, there WILL be another case like this one, no point saying "oh but IF this and IF that". You going to hope the next case is doing 60km/h? Go on the facts, this will happen again. Whats the point of the 60km/h comment, do you want 60km/h speed limits everywhere? Which would still not achieve anything, people are going to speed, especially when they are drunk, its a fact. No point doing IFs and BUTs because they never happen, train people for situations that exist. 

Make sense now? or did you want me to break it down into syllables?


----------



## Duckman#72 (19 January 2010)

ThingyMajiggy said:


> Its just stupid.



Look Sam - I agree with you. Alcohol is a contibuting factor to road deaths, however look at the chain of events logically.

Alcohol is more likely to lead to an accident - fine.

But once a vehicle is in an accident, the damage/casualty is directly affected by - speed!! 

It doesn't matter if someone has a stroke, falls asleep at the wheel, has been drinking and misjudges a turn - once a vehicle has left the road - only speed (or lack of it) will determine your fate. Speed will kill regardless of whether you are the local teatotaller or local pisspot.  

You can have all the training, police cars on patrol, student driving courses, safety equipment in cars that you like - but once a car leaves the road at speed, your fate is sealed.

Duckman


----------



## ThingyMajiggy (19 January 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> but once a car leaves the road at speed, your fate is sealed.
> 
> Duckman




This is where the skill and car comes in. Whole idea is to stay on the road. The whole reason they go off the road is because of either or as well as being drunk and not having experience/training in car control, and potentially the car itself being a factor. 

But I'm over this, I'm talking to a wall. I've done the things I'm talking about, and its made an enormous difference, and seen it make an enormous difference on others that have done it too. If no one is interested in improving skills, driving a safer car, then so be it hey. Lets just blame speed. 

Drive safe everyone.


----------



## GumbyLearner (19 January 2010)

Julia said:


> I agree. But at least they didn't charge straight into some innocent driver and kill or maim them as well.
> 
> *I'd like to see cars simply taken off drunk drivers.*  The penalties at present are no deterrent.  Mostly fines which are never paid.  Too easy by a long way.




I'd like to see high-powered vehicles taken out of the hands of the Dumb**** Idaho Bathurst mentality of the youth of Australia. Too much death and misery IMO. Too easy to die by a long long way. Forget about sending them to Gallipoli, just give them a car that allows the adrenalin to pump and the third party consequences to dwell in the lower hippo-campus.  Must be a cash-cow for insurance companies and taxpayers to boot.


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 January 2010)

What people don't seem to realise about cars is that even a diesel van or ute today has more acceleration and a higher top speed than the average car on the road 30 or 40 years ago.

I'd certainly agree that high powered cars and inexperience are not a good combination. But I've seen quite a few horror smashes (through work) and the ones that immediately come to mind (multiple serious injuries, at least one fatality in each case, vehicle split into half etc) all involved ordinary (not high performance) cars running into stationary objects beside the road, including in the city centre. And most of them were full of young people. All were travelling at high speeds. And they were all at night, generally Friday or Saturday night.

I don't doubt that high performance cars in inexperienced hands are an issue. But nothing makes me cringe more than seeing any car carrying multiple passengers under their mid-20's and driven by an inexperienced driver. That's asking for trouble whether it's a V8 or a small 4 cylinder.

If I was going to change the law, it would be to ban P plate drivers from carrying more than one passenger under 25 after dark unless there is a legitimate need (eg driving directly to or from work / uni).


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 January 2010)

ThingyMajiggy said:


> This is where the skill and car comes in. Whole idea is to stay on the road. The whole reason they go off the road is because of either or as well as being drunk and not having experience/training in car control, and potentially the car itself being a factor.



Driving skill tends to be forgotten when there's 4 or 5 screaming, laughing and generally carrying on teenagers packed into the car, the driver is drunk and travelling at 100 km/h through on city streets and the stereo is turned up full blast. No amount of skill will make that situation safe.


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 January 2010)

Wysiwyg said:


> Yeah I agree with Drac. There is a reason why speed limits are different depending on terrain and location. The present road speed limits are a major contributor to the safety of everyone using the roads. Adhering  to speed limits and driving to conditions (wet roads etc.) are two basic rules everyone needs to follow. Exceeding designated speed limits increases the danger to self and others. This cannot be understated.



Any situation becomes more dangerous when the amount of energy involved is increased.

If the dam is 2 metres tall and it breaks then you're unlikely to have anything beyond a mess and lost water. If it's 200 metres tall and it breaks then literally the whole world will hear about it.

If you play with a 1.5 Volt AA battery then not much harm is likely. Play with 240V power and you could easily kill yourself. Go anywhere near 500,000 Volt equipment at a major substation and there will be nothing left of you.

Set a small amount of gas on fire and you've got a cigarette lighter. Use a bit more and it's an oven or BBQ. Setting a major gas works on fire is an entirely different situation...

Crash a car at 30 km/h and the chances of serious injury are very low. Do it at 300 km/h and the chances of survival are very low. And, of course, under typical urban conditions you're far more likely to crash at higher speeds in the first place due to sight distances etc.


----------



## GumbyLearner (19 January 2010)

Smurf1976 said:


> Driving skill tends to be forgotten when there's 4 or 5 screaming, laughing and generally carrying on teenagers packed into the car, the driver is drunk and travelling at 100 km/h through on city streets and the stereo is turned up full blast. No amount of skill will make that situation safe.




You might get some opposition from the civ lib subscribers to this thread with those kind of arguments Smurf. I agree wholeheartedly though. 

The problem remains, that young people are at high-speed wrapping themselves around trees and lightpoles.
How can it be stopped?


----------



## Tink (19 January 2010)

What an absolute waste of lives.

I dont know the answers but I feel for these families, and that girl. One and a half hours to get her out.

140kms in a suburban street - just crazy.

Lucky that they didnt collect another car in the process


----------



## nulla nulla (19 January 2010)

Go Nuke said:


> Aren't you all forgetting that a little Hyundai Excell will get up to 140km/hr!
> 
> High powered cars will kill yes...but so will the less high powered cars.
> 
> ...




The comment about being 31 and having gotten past that stikes a chord. The insurance companies have been collating data for many years to help them determine risk when approviing or declining insurance coverage for motor vehicles (drivers). Part of their determination in respect of risk is whether the drivers are:
1.  male or female;
2.  over or under the age of 25 years;
3. Driver history of previous driving convictions; and
4. Driver history of previous insurance claims.

You'd think the respective state governments could work out a risk assessment policy using the insurance data and identify the drivers most likely to be a danger to themselves and others before they got onto the roads. Then perhaps they could design some driver education programs that start when potential drivers are still in school, as part of the school curriculum. No pass in driver education, no drivers licence?


----------



## johnnyg (19 January 2010)

Go Nuke said:


> Alot of young people feel 10 ft tall and bulletproof




Thats the main problem, all the amount of teaching and warnings won't do much because of this



> In humans, the frontal lobe reaches full maturity around only after the 20s






> The executive functions of the frontal lobes involve the ability to recognize future consequences resulting from current actions,




Thats it, plain and simple. I use to drive like a goose on ocassions, think I was untouchable. I can recall a number of times driving back from my girlfriends place just out of town trying to wind my old murk off the clock (160km's) at night on a country road littered by animals. Did I care? No, it was a great rush.........Now I drive that same road a once or twice a week and don't do more then 90km (speed limit is 100) and cringe when I think of how reckless and stupid I was.


----------



## DocK (19 January 2010)

johnnyg said:


> Thats the main problem, all the amount of teaching and warnings won't do much because of this
> 
> Quote:
> In humans, the frontal lobe reaches full maturity around only after the 20s
> ...




This is partly why I think defensive driving courses are such a good idea for kids prior to getting their license.  Most kids (myself included at that age) tend to turn a deaf ear to parental lectures about road safety, speed etc as they either don't want to hear it or assume they're far more skilled than their parents.  Or "it won't happen to me".  Sometimes the best way to let kids learn a lesson is to let them make the mistake - a defensive driving course lets them do this safely.  There's nothing like being put in a car on a wet road with an obstacle in front of you and realising that no, you can't stop in the same distance at 120km/hr that you can at 60km/hr and if that were a real person they'd be dead because you'd misjudged the effect of speed.  Learning how to handle a skid is invaluable - hitting the brakes and oversteering at 100km/hr on a real road will generally end in tears - best to do it first at a defensive driving course and then learn the skills needed to keep you alive when a tyre blows out or a roo appears from nowhere.

I can sort of see where ThingyMajiggy is coming from - gaining some skills would probably help, but speed remains at the essence of most road tragedies.  Getting kids to see first hand the difference speed makes to their ability to keep control of their car might just get the message through to them why *"speed kills".*


----------



## dutchie (19 January 2010)

Smurf1976 said:


> Driving skill tends to be forgotten when there's 4 or 5 screaming, laughing and generally carrying on teenagers packed into the car, the driver is drunk and travelling at 100 km/h through on city streets and the stereo is turned up full blast. No amount of skill will make that situation safe.




I remember teaching my son how to drive. We were in the industrial area during the weekend and his driving ability was quite advanced.

All of a sudden I started screaming and shouting gibberish and yelling that he should go faster and I tried to distract him as much as possible.

He got the shock of his life at my outburst and later laughed at the incident - but I told him that that is what it can be like with a car load of friends - luckily he saw the seriousness of the matter and took it on board.


----------



## DocK (19 January 2010)

Excellent idea, Dutchie.  I'll remember that one for when my boys are old enough!  After they've done their defensive driving courses, naturally


----------



## awg (19 January 2010)

Here is what i would like to see for safety purposes for young drivers.

that is with newer vehicles going more and more towards electronic systems

imo, it would be quite easy to add a few programmable features to the electronic engine management system.

1) de-power mode..ie deactivate some cylinders, therby drastically reducing power on tap

2) rev and/or speed limiter.

3) in more advanced systems, it would be easy for sensors to detect the vehicle was being driven in a manner dangerous, and deactivate, or depower.

All this could be security programmmed by the parent.

I say all this as the parent of 3 teenage boys and the owner of many high powered vehicles.

recently taught one son to drive, with great emphasis on safety.

I always tell them to treat the car as you would pilot a plane...ie mistakes, innattention or poor procedures can lead to death.

dont know if other countries have this young driver problem, but the above ideas would be very easy and cheap to implement, easier than EST (Electronic Stability Control), which is a very good safety feature for drivers who have insufficient skills to correct a loss of control, but wont help you much if you are radically speeding. 

Obviously the above measures wont help if the young person is the vehicle owner


----------



## Mofra (19 January 2010)

Smurf1976 said:


> If I was going to change the law, it would be to ban P plate drivers from carrying more than one passenger under 25 after dark unless there is a legitimate need (eg driving directly to or from work / uni).



The driver of the car was one a restriction of only one passenger, and drinking too - it's not the law that caused the accident, it's stupidity.

The problem is all the restrictions in the world wont help someone who simply wont listen to reason. Education doesn't always help either - there's an immaturity to many younger drivers that education alone wont pierce.


----------



## moXJO (19 January 2010)

Mofra said:


> The problem is all the restrictions in the world wont help someone who simply wont listen to reason. Education doesn't always help either - there's an immaturity to many younger drivers that education alone wont pierce.




Yep I agree.
There are a lot of young drivers on our roads, and most will do something stupid from time to time. When you’re young there isn't a lot of thought for consequences. I don't think there is a lot more you can do that hasn't been done already. Most people are lucky and have a tale of recklessness in youth, but others pay the ultimate price.


----------



## gordon2007 (19 January 2010)

When are we going to stop being a nation of excuses? It wasn't the car that killed these people. It wasn't the lack of experience nor was it a lack of training.

What it was...was a man who made a conscience decision to drink drive, knowing full well that he could kill himself, people in the car and other innocent people driving on the road. 


He ended up doing just that!


----------



## donkeykong (19 January 2010)

Stopping p platers from owning high powered cars won’t help. When I was on my p’s I had a crap old car but always used to “borrow” my dads supercharged commodore and drive it at ridiculous speeds which i’ll be the first one to admit was totally moronic but if the cars have the ability to do it then teenage boys will always try to push the limits. Cars need to be limited to say 125-130kmph so the temptation isn’t there. The whole system of cars and roads is inherently dangerous and there will still be accidents even if we all are putting around at 40kmph but at least reducing the maximum speeds these cars can do will minimise some of these horror accidents. 

Thankfully I had a minor crash (not my fault at all, got tboned at an intersection) as well as knowing 5 guys my age from the country area I grew up with who all died in accidents before I turned 20 really set me straight as far as being responsible on the road. 

The police also need to stop being total c#$#s and busting people for doing 3kmph over the speed limit and instead put those resources into taking dangerous drivers off the road.


----------



## Tink (19 January 2010)

gordon2007 said:


> When are we going to stop being a nation of excuses? It wasn't the car that killed these people. It wasn't the lack of experience nor was it a lack of training.
> 
> What it was...was a man who made a conscience decision to drink drive, knowing full well that he could kill himself, people in the car and other innocent people driving on the road.
> 
> ...




Yep I agree with you. 

How much MORE education can we put out there about all this. 

Its on TV, newspapers, radio and I am sure parents are reinforcing it at home.

As Mofra said, this guy wasnt allowed passengers


----------



## Mr J (19 January 2010)

Regarding the tribute, my first impression was the same as Julia suggested - someone doing it not as a tribute, but to make a statement.



			
				ThingyMajiggy said:
			
		

> High powered cars and P plate drivers is a lethal combination, just hope government's take action.




No, cars and stupidity can be a lethal combination. The majority of owners of high-powered cars  and P-platers seem to be okay. It doesn't take a high-powered car to do 140km/h, and 140km/h isn't necessarily unsafe. It's not a matter of driver inexperience, speed, the car etc, it's driving inappropriately for the conditions. In short, the driver was an idiot.



> Nearly ALL these cases there was drinking involved, car load of kids, all pissed or half pissed, yet its the speed that killed them, nothing to do with the booze??




Exactly. Speed is always mentioned, and the "speed kills" mantra is constantly hammered into us. Often excess speed for the conditions contributes to the accident, but anyone who simply states that "speed kills" is not thinking for themselves. There are plenty of unsafe drivers who do not exceed the posted limit.



			
				Go Nuke said:
			
		

> Why do we still make cars that are capable of doing twice that?? I'ts got me beat.
> Until then, young people will keep dying..simple as that.




That sounds about as reasonable as the typical "think of the children" arguments. Cars capable of 120km/h+ are not the reason young people die on the roads. I have no idea of the stats, but I'd be surprised  if the majority didn't die within 20km/h of the speed limit (and the speed limit is usually quite a bit lower than it should be).



			
				GumbyLearner said:
			
		

> Because the message certainly doesn't appear to be getting through.




What message would that be? I can only recall the speed, fatigue and drinking messages. There don't seem to be any messages talking of the responsibility and consequence. I agree with drinking and fatigue, but there's nothing else that is done to address the problems. 

That brings me to another point - what is the problem? It seems that I hear about the road toll every day and how it compares to last year. There are obviously going to be people dying on the roads, yet we treat it as completely unacceptable? Most accidents are due to driver error, so why can't we just accept that occasionally people will make an error or do something stupid? Yes, each crash is a tragedy and is treated as such in the media, but all of this is completely overblown in my opinion.



			
				gordon2007 said:
			
		

> Maybe parents need to learn how to say 'no' to their children. Why kids need brand new or very late model cars for their first car is beyond me.




A lot of kids pay for their own car, so it's not like their parents have a say. Don't need to pay much to get a fast car.



			
				jbocker said:
			
		

> Dont argue about it - Speed Kills. For example, hit a pedestrian at 60km per hour or at 40kph the survival rate is increased enormously at 40kph..




So do you want to decrease all normal roads to 40km/h? Why are we restricting cars when it is often the pedestrian that walks out in front of a car? Why not teach pedestrian awareness instead? Oh, I know why. Lowering the limit satisfies the rabid "save the children" crowd, as well as bringing in greater revenue.

Errors or unfortunate events (such as hitting an oil slick) lead to accidents. Yes, speed can kill, but at *any* speed. The typical examples of "speed kills" are people who drive at a speed inappropriate for the conditions and their level of skill.



			
				Boggo said:
			
		

> What a crock, if you were driving home with your family in the car are you saying that you would feel just as safe if a car load of drunken punks were coming towards you at 140kmh as you would be if they were doing 60 kmh.




You're asking whether he would _feel_ as safe, but when does emotion equate to fact? The fact is that no, he isn't as save due to the increased force in a potential collision, but it's also likely that travelling more than double the limit is inappropriate for the conditions (unless it's going across the Harbour Bridge or Anzac Bridge).

As Sam says, drunken punks? I'd be far, far more concerned about their state of sobbriety than their speed.



			
				Wysiwyg said:
			
		

> Exceeding designated speed limits increases the danger to self and others. This cannot be understated.




That's not necessarily the case. While a higher speed means more force in a potential accident, the lower speed may increase the chance of an accident. We have a speed we naturally want to travel at  - a sweet spot between uncomfortable and boredom. If we go too fast, we obviously increase the chance of an accident due to exceeding our level of skill. If we go too slow, we risk an error due to lack of concentration at what we deem as too comfortable a speed.

Designated limits are often rubbish. Consider that they are the lowest common denominator. Some people will travel significantly slower than the posted limit, but most will travel around that limit, so obviousoly officials have to take that into account. There's also a lot of lowering of speed limits over the last 10-15 years (that I've noticed), which I think is largely due to collecting speeding fines. Also consider the speed cops travel at. Fine, they're apparently "highly-trained", but is that enough for them to travel at 100km/h when the public is deemed unsafe above 50km/h? I think it would be unreasonable to think so.



			
				Go Nuke said:
			
		

> Kids....make mistakes.




People of all ages do, it's just the idiot P-platers that tend to get plastered in the headlines. They seem to be a favourite target, and there are plenty of reasons why they are targeted.



			
				Smurf said:
			
		

> But I've seen quite a few horror smashes (through work) and the ones that immediately come to mind (multiple serious injuries, at least one fatality in each case, vehicle split into half etc) all involved ordinary (not high performance) cars running into stationary objects beside the road, including in the city centre. And most of them were full of young people. All were travelling at high speeds. And they were all at night, generally Friday or Saturday night.




I imagine young people average far more mileage on Friday and Saturday nights than other groups. Cars are also more likely to have more passengers on these nights, and of course drivers are more likely to be intoxicated. I'm not suggesting that young drivers aren't a higher risk on these nights, but it seems that none of this is ever considered.



> If I was going to change the law, it would be to ban P plate drivers from carrying more than one passenger under 25 after dark unless there is a legitimate need (eg driving directly to or from work / uni).




So the majority of P-platers have to be punished for the actions of the moronic minority? Yes, P-platers are at higher risk, but nowhere as high as portrayed in the media. It's certainly nowhere near high enough to justify such as an extreme measure. I'd go for blackboxes before I went for this, and I hate the idea of blackboxes.



			
				GumbyLearner said:
			
		

> The problem remains, that young people are at high-speed wrapping themselves around trees and lightpoles.
> How can it be stopped?




What problem? That P-platers are more likely to have an accident? That a minority act like idiots and give the rest an undeservedly bad reputation? How about problems for others groups, such as middle-aged men buying motorbikes (which I believe is the group at highest risk on the road)? Older people who can not drive at an appropriate level? People who struggle parking their cars?


----------



## Wysiwyg (19 January 2010)

I typed .... 


> Originally Posted by Wysiwyg
> Exceeding designated speed limits increases the danger to self and others. This cannot be understated.




You typed ..... 


Mr J said:


> *That's not necessarily the case. While a higher speed means more force in a potential accident, the lower speed may increase the chance of an accident. **We have a speed we naturally want to travel at  - a sweet spot between uncomfortable and boredom.* If we go too fast, we obviously increase the chance of an accident due to exceeding our level of skill. If we go too slow, we risk an error due to lack of concentration at what we deem as too comfortable a speed.
> 
> *Designated limits are often rubbish.* Consider that they are the lowest common denominator. Some people will travel significantly slower than the posted limit, but most will travel around that limit, so obviousoly officials have to take that into account. *There's also a lot of lowering of speed limits* *over the last 10-15 years (that I've noticed), which I think is* *largely due to collecting speeding fines.* Also consider the speed cops travel at. Fine, they're apparently "highly-trained", but is that enough for them to travel at 100km/h when the public is deemed unsafe above 50km/h? I think it would be unreasonable to think so.




Because I don't see any value in being argumentative, I will keep it brief by typing; you have a poor understanding of the social system.


----------



## awg (19 January 2010)

It would be enlightening to know if a similar debate exists in USA

A comparable Country, using relatively high power vehicles.

The notion that speed is not a major factor in the deaths of these young people is fallacious imo

The reaction time to correct is reduced as a direct linear factor of speed.

Even more so g-force due to acceleration ( and deceleration) is what really gets an inexperienced driver, the vehicle will obey the laws of physics, and is no longer under the drivers control.

As an example, my early cars were 1200-1500cc, low power, and while I could drive them both fast and dangerous, you really had to work at it.

By contrast, my modified 300hp+ beast has a throttle that still scares me, breaks traction at the slightest impropriety and would be a deadset killer with a young fool behind the wheel ( as opposed to an old fool)


----------



## ColB (19 January 2010)

> Originally Posted by *Duckman*
> 
> "...I am waiting for the day a girlfriend pins a pack of condoms, a pair of handcuffs and a g-string on a tree, with the words "You were the best root I ever had".




Geez Duckman, you can't be all that old remembering things like that


----------



## Mr J (19 January 2010)

Wysiwyg said:


> I typed ....
> You typed .....
> 
> Because I don't see any value in being argumentative, I will keep it brief by typing you have a poor understanding of the social system.




Expanding on a differing opinion isn't argumentative. I'm in the dark if you don't - I just had a workout and there's no blood going to my brain at the moment .



			
				awg said:
			
		

> The notion that speed is not a major factor in the deaths of these young people is fallacious imo




I don't think you'll find many people ruling out speed as a factor. Any speed is a factor in an accident, and clearly 140km/h was a major contributing factor in one way or another.



> It would be enlightening to know if a similar debate exists in USA




My guess is that it is worse. Cars are cheaper, and many get their licences earlier. Lots of freeway and a stronger street racing culture.


----------



## zzaaxxss3401 (19 January 2010)

gordon2007 said:


> When are we going to stop being a nation of excuses? It wasn't the car that killed these people. It wasn't the lack of experience nor was it a lack of training.
> 
> What it was...was a man who made a conscience decision to drink drive, knowing full well that he could kill himself, people in the car and other innocent people driving on the road.
> 
> He ended up doing just that!




Totally agree with all of your posts gordon2007! I think you're spot on and although a total waste of life I'm glad they're off our road. Just one question, if the parents / relatives suggested that they were "full of life", why did they perform such a life threatening act, with fatal consequences???


----------



## Macquack (19 January 2010)

awg said:


> ...my modified 300hp+ beast has a throttle that still scares me, breaks traction at the slightest impropriety and would be a deadset killer with a young fool behind the wheel ( as opposed to an old fool)




awg, what is your beast?


----------



## Duckman#72 (20 January 2010)

It was announced this morning that the blood alcohol reading of the driver was .19.  Now the arrows will be fired off.

Below is an article written in the Courier Mail in 2008. Very similar to this situation. If I was associated with the teenagers I'd be moving it as well.

*
SHOCKED relatives yesterday removed alcohol containers that were placed at a makeshift shrine to two young road crash victims.

Along with flowers and a cross, two unopened cans of bourbon, cola and guarana were left under the Welcome to Redcliffe sign at Clontarf, scene of the crash, along with empty beer bottles.

Paul Sorenson was appalled to hear about the "tribute" to his 20-year-old son Ian Murphy and nephew Garth Freeman, 16, "as that was a contributing factor towards my son's death". Ian and Garth were killed instantly last Saturday when their Holden Commodore struck a traffic island and flipped. Police estimate it was doing up to 140km/h and said there was a strong smell of alcohol in the vehicle.

One of the friends who left the bottles at the makeshift memorial emailed The Courier-Mail yesterday to explain.

"The alcohol was left as a sign of RESPECT," "G" wrote.

 Police said the use of alcohol in the tribute was in poor taste and sent completely the wrong message.

"Two young people have died here and we've got bottles of booze sitting on a cross. It's just tragic and senseless," said Redcliffe Traffic Branch Snr Sergeant Garth Peake.*

Duckman


----------



## Happy (20 January 2010)

Bad news is that it is not the last senseless death.

Good news is that not all drunk drivers got killed and chances are that some took notice.


----------



## stock nub (20 January 2010)

0.19 = ridiculously drunk + speeding. What a f---ing idiot.How can someone have so little respect for the passengers in the car? I guess they all chose to accept a lift/joy ride? However if you are the driver you are in control of other peoples lives! I have no sympathy for the driver.


----------



## gordon2007 (20 January 2010)

Happy said:


> Good news is that not all drunk drivers got killed and chances are that some took notice.




The good news is that there is one less mass murderer on the road that I need to worry about.

Perhaps if we, the local, state and the rest of our government start treating these people as the murderous scumbags they are, then maybe finally people will start to understand what can happen if you choose to drink drive. 

I personally wish the press and governments would talk and treat these people just as they do towards criminals.


----------



## Aussiejeff (20 January 2010)

gordon2007 said:


> The good news is that there is one less mass murderer on the road that I need to worry about.
> 
> Perhaps if we, the local, state and the rest of our government start treating these people as the murderous scumbags they are, then maybe finally people will start to understand what can happen if you choose to drink drive.
> 
> *I personally wish the press and governments would talk and treat these people just as they do towards criminals.*




Instead, the media quickly lunges for the Violin Of Sadness and publishes endless tributes from families & "friends" extolling the deceased's angelic "virtues".

*sigh*

Media absolutely pi$$ me orf when it comes to them peddling this crap.... :angry:

Fer chrisakes, can't they call a spade a frickin' spade for once??????

Where have all the "incisive", hard-hitting journos like old George Negus etc gone? What the hell has happened to our media??? 

**double sigh**


----------



## gordon2007 (20 January 2010)

Aussiejeff said:


> Instead, the media quickly lunges for the Violin Of Sadness and publishes endless tributes from families & "friends" extolling the deceased's angelic "virtues".




Well said. I think that's why I get so pissed off about these type of things. 

You want tragic, the girl that was driving her car along greenhill rd here in SA and a bloody gumtree branch fell on her car, causing her to crash and she died two days later. That was TRAGIC.


----------



## gordon2007 (20 January 2010)

And then we have this;

"Hoons caught close to site of Vic crash"

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/6699724/hoons-caught-close-to-site-of-vic-crash/


"Hoons caught doing burnouts near where five young people died were disrespecting the families of the dead, a senior policeman says.

Standing amid burnout rubber, skid marks and twisted wheel metal on Wednesday, Assistant Commissioner Tim Cartwright said he was incredibly frustrated the message about safe driving wasn't getting through.

"People just don't seem to be getting the message," he told reporters.

"Right here, on Monday night, our local traffic management people impounded a car, (after) a crazy piece of driving doing burnouts with four or five people in his car..."


----------



## GumbyLearner (20 January 2010)

GumbyLearner said:


> Dumb**** Idaho Bathurst mentality of the youth of Australia.




Absolutely ridiculous and the mentality rares its ugly meathead yet again.


----------



## Mr J (20 January 2010)

gordon2007 said:


> "People just don't seem to be getting the message," he told reporters.
> 
> "Right here, on Monday night, our local traffic management people impounded a car, (after) a crazy piece of driving doing burnouts with four or five people in his car..."




One example is not a proper description for "people". So many generalisations flying around. I realise that wasn't your statement Gordon.


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 January 2010)

gordon2007 said:


> You want tragic, the girl that was driving her car along greenhill rd here in SA and a bloody gumtree branch fell on her car, causing her to crash and she died two days later. That was TRAGIC.



Very nearly had that happen to me a few years ago and it's something I will never forget.

Travelling about 90 knm/h on the Lyell Hwy (Tas) heading west near the Tungatinah lakes. Big limb from a tree, about 40cm diameter, fell straight down onto the bonnet of the moving car literally straight in front of me. Had I been half a second earlier, it would have come straight through the windscreen and into my face...

End result - bonnet, all front lights and front bumper smashed. Car was still driveable and I did complete the trip including return past the same point a few hours later. Didn't stop immediately after the impact, I was too shocked and worried about anything else falling down, but I took photos on the way back.


----------



## gav (21 January 2010)

So Mr J, you're angry over the alcohol cans used as tributes?  How about this then?

*Drunk Driver Crashes at Mill Park Crash Teen's Funeral*

"POLICE have nabbed an unlicensed drunk-driver nearly six times over the legal limit outside the funeral of one of the five men killed in a car crash at the weekend."

http://www.news.com.au/national/dru...sh-teens-funeral/story-e6frfkvr-1225822117895


----------



## Tink (21 January 2010)

gav said:


> *Drunk Driver Crashes at Mill Park Crash Teen's Funeral*
> 
> "POLICE have nabbed an unlicensed drunk-driver nearly six times over the legal limit outside the funeral of one of the five men killed in a car crash at the weekend."
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/national/dru...sh-teens-funeral/story-e6frfkvr-1225822117895




*47 yo??*

Whats his excuse??

Makes my blood boil


----------



## Mr J (22 January 2010)

gav said:


> So Mr J, you're angry over the alcohol cans used as tributes?




No, I'm not really one for getting angry or being offended (sure you're not mixing up some of the replies? . I just think it's clear that those who left the cans didn't give it much thought, or intended it to be a warning or offensive.

I thought yesterday's story was actually pretty funny .


----------

