ACT Policing seeking witnesses to learner driver crash

Ruqi 30 July 2012 27

ACT Policing is seeking witnesses to an incident around noon today (Monday, July 30) in which a maroon-coloured VS Holden Commodore sedan ran off the road at high speed and hit trees.

The incident occurred northbound on Drakeford Drive, in Bonython.

The only occupant of the Commodore, a 21-year-old learner driver from Calwell, received injuries to his knees and was conveyed to The Canberra Hospital.

ACT Policing’s Collision Investigation and Reconstruction Team (CIRT) is seeking witnesses to the events which led up to the crash and which may have involved a gold-coloured Holden utility.

Any witnesses who can assist the investigation are urged to contact Crime Stoppers on 1800-333-000, or via the Crime Stoppers website on www.act.crimestoppers.com.au

[Courtesy ACT Policing]


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
27 Responses to ACT Policing seeking witnesses to learner driver crash
Filter
Order
HenryBG HenryBG 1:58 pm 01 Aug 12

buzz819 said :

HenryBG said :

buzz819 said :

HenryBG said :

Yes, it’s entirely possible the learner driver somehow lost his accompaniment through no fault of his own, wasn’t speeding, and didn’t do anything dangerous, careless, nor reckless to cause the accident. In fact, without witnesses, it will presumably be so much hard work trying to charge him for anything that they might find it more convenient to pin it on David Eastman.

Most probably, he has already been convicted by a jury for murder, I mean, there must have been no evidence for that to happen.

You’d think so, wouldn’t you? Only there wasn’t.

Really? From what I read there was a bit, what did you read?

Stop reading fairy tales then.

Forensic evidence linking him to the murder weapon? Nope.
Forensic evidence placing him at the crime scene? Nope.

Nada.

They employed a psychologist to (completely unethically, but that’s psychology for you) tell them the best way to make Eastman act bonkers for the jury and they implemented those recommendations successfully.

devils_advocate devils_advocate 1:13 pm 01 Aug 12

djk said :

“%” doesn’t mean what you think it does. And even if it did, I am struggling to picture what a “360% angle” is. Does it mean he went straight??

Doing a 360 would mean you did a complete spin and kept going in the same direction. No mean feat.

Also I blame the school system for this post.

Pork Hunt Pork Hunt 11:31 am 01 Aug 12

Tooks said :

HenryBG said :

Tooks said :

Pork Hunt said :

Instead of asking for witnesses, why don’t they just ask the f’wit behind the wheel?

Because drivers never lie so they should just take his word for it. What good could witnesses be in helping to build a strong brief? Genius.

Yes, it’s entirely possible the learner driver somehow lost his accompaniment through no fault of his own, wasn’t speeding, and didn’t do anything dangerous, careless, nor reckless to cause the accident. In fact, without witnesses, it will presumably be so much hard work trying to charge him for anything that they might find it more convenient to pin it on David Eastman.

Someone who knows jack s*** about the Eastman trial thinks there is a big conspiracy theory (despite no evidence). Colour me surprised. The moon landing was fake, US government blew up the WTC, Oscar the grouch shot JFK. Please keep reinforcing my view that conspiracy theorists are all cretinous nutbags.

I will not have you try to pin JFK’s death on Oscar the Grouch. He wasn’t even born until 10/11/69 according to wiki.

You grubby little man…

kittywitty kittywitty 10:34 am 01 Aug 12

To follow up on my other comment, the other car seen speeding down the road was dark blue, these two cars may possibly have some involvement in the incident, seems highly likely that they do, considering the timing, at the very least they would have seen what happened.

buzz819 buzz819 10:21 am 01 Aug 12

HenryBG said :

buzz819 said :

HenryBG said :

Yes, it’s entirely possible the learner driver somehow lost his accompaniment through no fault of his own, wasn’t speeding, and didn’t do anything dangerous, careless, nor reckless to cause the accident. In fact, without witnesses, it will presumably be so much hard work trying to charge him for anything that they might find it more convenient to pin it on David Eastman.

Most probably, he has already been convicted by a jury for murder, I mean, there must have been no evidence for that to happen.

You’d think so, wouldn’t you? Only there wasn’t.

Really? From what I read there was a bit, what did you read?

Tooks Tooks 10:10 am 01 Aug 12

HenryBG said :

Tooks said :

Pork Hunt said :

Instead of asking for witnesses, why don’t they just ask the f’wit behind the wheel?

Because drivers never lie so they should just take his word for it. What good could witnesses be in helping to build a strong brief? Genius.

Yes, it’s entirely possible the learner driver somehow lost his accompaniment through no fault of his own, wasn’t speeding, and didn’t do anything dangerous, careless, nor reckless to cause the accident. In fact, without witnesses, it will presumably be so much hard work trying to charge him for anything that they might find it more convenient to pin it on David Eastman.

Someone who knows jack s*** about the Eastman trial thinks there is a big conspiracy theory (despite no evidence). Colour me surprised. The moon landing was fake, US government blew up the WTC, Oscar the grouch shot JFK. Please keep reinforcing my view that conspiracy theorists are all cretinous nutbags.

HenryBG HenryBG 9:59 am 01 Aug 12

buzz819 said :

HenryBG said :

Yes, it’s entirely possible the learner driver somehow lost his accompaniment through no fault of his own, wasn’t speeding, and didn’t do anything dangerous, careless, nor reckless to cause the accident. In fact, without witnesses, it will presumably be so much hard work trying to charge him for anything that they might find it more convenient to pin it on David Eastman.

Most probably, he has already been convicted by a jury for murder, I mean, there must have been no evidence for that to happen.

You’d think so, wouldn’t you? Only there wasn’t.

toriness toriness 7:58 am 01 Aug 12

Pork Hunt said :

He should be charged with trying to pervert the course of justice by having a maroon commodore instead of white.

+1

LSWCHP LSWCHP 9:59 pm 31 Jul 12

Pork Hunt said :

Instead of asking for witnesses, why don’t they just ask the f’wit behind the wheel?

No teeth left, perhaps? Paralysed? Dribbling and Moaning? Etc…

buzz819 buzz819 8:55 pm 31 Jul 12

HenryBG said :

Tooks said :

Pork Hunt said :

Instead of asking for witnesses, why don’t they just ask the f’wit behind the wheel?

Because drivers never lie so they should just take his word for it. What good could witnesses be in helping to build a strong brief? Genius.

Yes, it’s entirely possible the learner driver somehow lost his accompaniment through no fault of his own, wasn’t speeding, and didn’t do anything dangerous, careless, nor reckless to cause the accident. In fact, without witnesses, it will presumably be so much hard work trying to charge him for anything that they might find it more convenient to pin it on David Eastman.

Most probably, he has already been convicted by a jury for murder, I mean, there must have been no evidence for that to happen.

dreamboat dreamboat 11:18 am 31 Jul 12

djk, fair enough my mistake but all I was trying to get across is that whoever this was could have caused a major accident but luckily myself and the other drivers could see the way he was driving had the potential to cause a serious accident, luckily we all hung back because he ended up doing a complete spin and after his little show (that I am pretty sure wrecked his back wheel) he was facing the opposite direction.

Holden Caulfield Holden Caulfield 11:10 am 31 Jul 12
Pork Hunt Pork Hunt 10:49 am 31 Jul 12

He should be charged with trying to pervert the course of justice by having a maroon commodore instead of white.

HenryBG HenryBG 10:34 am 31 Jul 12

Tooks said :

Pork Hunt said :

Instead of asking for witnesses, why don’t they just ask the f’wit behind the wheel?

Because drivers never lie so they should just take his word for it. What good could witnesses be in helping to build a strong brief? Genius.

Yes, it’s entirely possible the learner driver somehow lost his accompaniment through no fault of his own, wasn’t speeding, and didn’t do anything dangerous, careless, nor reckless to cause the accident. In fact, without witnesses, it will presumably be so much hard work trying to charge him for anything that they might find it more convenient to pin it on David Eastman.

djk djk 10:12 am 31 Jul 12

dreamboat said :

This is not unlike some lunatic driving a red commodore (about two weeks ago), which came off second best to the kerb but nearly rolled, luckily myself and two other cars that he nearly hit slowed down and stopped at the round about which he managed to get around at 180% but couldn’t pull it out of the unsuccessful drift and ended up hitting the kerb at 360% angle and then hit the middle island which was across two lanes. He made himself look like a propper halfwit. I had my two sons in the car who are only 14 and 15 they thought he was an absolute idiot thank god.

“%” doesn’t mean what you think it does. And even if it did, I am struggling to picture what a “360% angle” is. Does it mean he went straight??

Tooks Tooks 9:13 am 31 Jul 12

Pork Hunt said :

Instead of asking for witnesses, why don’t they just ask the f’wit behind the wheel?

Because drivers never lie so they should just take his word for it. What good could witnesses be in helping to build a strong brief? Genius.

devils_advocate devils_advocate 8:45 am 31 Jul 12

Pork Hunt said :

Instead of asking for witnesses, why don’t they just ask the f’wit behind the wheel?

Because no-one is required to be a witness in their own prosecution.

dreamboat dreamboat 8:33 am 31 Jul 12

This is not unlike some lunatic driving a red commodore (about two weeks ago), which came off second best to the kerb but nearly rolled, luckily myself and two other cars that he nearly hit slowed down and stopped at the round about which he managed to get around at 180% but couldn’t pull it out of the unsuccessful drift and ended up hitting the kerb at 360% angle and then hit the middle island which was across two lanes. He made himself look like a propper halfwit. I had my two sons in the car who are only 14 and 15 they thought he was an absolute idiot thank god.

milkman milkman 7:56 am 31 Jul 12

goggles13 said :

sad accident, but why was a learner the only occupant of the maroon commodore?

Probably because they were breaking the law.

Young blokes and cars are, and have always been, a risky proposition.

buzz819 buzz819 7:38 am 31 Jul 12

Pork Hunt said :

Instead of asking for witnesses, why don’t they just ask the f’wit behind the wheel?

Wow, I wonder if they thought of that?

Maybe, just maybe, they talked to him, right, and he isn’t saying anything that would get his friend in trouble, but a witness stopped at the scene, right, and said they saw this commodore and a gold ute racing down Drakeford drive….

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top

Search across the site