Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Skilled legal advice with
accessible & personal attention

Braddon hit and run

By johnboy 10 February 2013 31

braddon hit and run

ACT Policing is seeking witnesses to a hit-run incident in Braddon earlier this morning in which a pedestrian suffered serious injuries.

Police were called to the incident location in Henty St, Braddon around 5.30am after it was reported that a white traytop had struck two pedestrians walking on the roadway, and then driven away.

The pedestrians, both 19-year-old men, were urgently conveyed to The Canberra Hospital. One of the men was reported as receiving minor injuries but the second was in a serious condition with head injuries.

Police cordoned off the crime scene, a section of the roadway behind the Canberra Rex Hotel, with the investigation conducted by the Collision Investigation and Reconstruction Team. CCTV vision which may be relevant to incident has been obtained and will be studied by police.

The vehicle which struck the men is described as a white Mitsubishi Triton trayback with silver tray sides and white tradesman’s tubs in the rear. The vehicle is likely to have damage to the front left hand side.

Acting Sergeant Graeme Cooper, from the CIRT team, said that initial investigations indicated the white traytop had driven past the location once, then returned a short time later and struck the two men.

The two victims were thought to have been walking north on Henty St in the company of two other men when the incident occurred.

Any witnesses to the incident who have not yet spoken to police and are able to assist with the investigation are urged to contact Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000, or via act.crimestoppers.com.au.

[Courtesy ACT Policing]


What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
31 Responses to
Braddon hit and run
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
caf 5:10 pm 18 Feb 13

Leon said :

ACT Road Rule 238 says, “A pedestrian must not travel along a road if there is a footpath or nature strip adjacent to the road, unless it is impracticable to travel on the footpath or nature strip.”

Yes, you’ll notice I posted a correction 8 minutes later.

Leon 4:24 pm 18 Feb 13

caf said :

It is actually perfectly permitted for pedestrians to walk along the road, unless there’s a “no pedestrians” sign.

ACT Road Rule 238 says, “A pedestrian must not travel along a road if there is a footpath or nature strip adjacent to the road, unless it is impracticable to travel on the footpath or nature strip.”

no idea 7:19 pm 11 Feb 13

Weatherman talk about opening your mouth and removing all doubt, you sir are a tool.

Weatherman 6:43 pm 11 Feb 13

The driver is in the wrong. He has driven off. We don’t know why yet because I’m not sure as to whether a motive has been established. There is concern as to the legalities as to these sort of incidents as to how roads are shared between pedestrians and cars. Who’s in the right and wrong when it comes to getting involved in an accident involving pedestrian victims that are not on pedestrian crossings or shared zones?

bundah 6:37 pm 11 Feb 13

I’ve just heard that the pedestrians had been allegedly involved in an altercation at a Braddon servo only moments earlier with the occupants of the ute.Enough said!

bundah 6:32 pm 11 Feb 13

@ Weatherman

It is fairly obvious from your jaywalking comment and that the pedestrians didn’t take due care that you have blamed the pedestrians for putting themselves in a situation of potential danger,totally ignoring the actions of the absolute farktard driving the ute.There is no doubt that they put themselves in greater risk by walking on the road however the actions of the driver were totally reprehensible and avoidable.In addition,FYI, there have been many instances where people walking on footpaths or sitting at bus stops have been cleaned up by drivers who have lost control of their vehicle.

Apportioning blame requires one to be measured by looking at all the facts rather than resorting to a knee jerk reaction!

Weatherman 6:05 pm 11 Feb 13

SleightOfHand said :

one day you may experience this trauma that they’ve had to and I’m sure that if it does happen to you that you will in no way say it’s the victims fault and it’s all the drivers doing.

I’m sorry for what has happened, it’s not good for anyone to be injured in such manner. However, I won’t experience that sort of trauma as I would walk along available footpaths, not along the road. It’s kinda foolish to walk along the road. It’s only a necessity if there is no footpath. It wasn’t appropriate for them to be walking along the road like that and unnecessarily risking drivers being charged with manslaughter or murder. The vehicles do have right of way in this situation where there is no pedestrian crossing or shared zone. Also, I never condone driving off after an accident. You have misrepresented me through someone else’s misconclusion.

SleightOfHand 3:35 pm 11 Feb 13

Genie said :

After watching the video there are 2 people standin on the opposite side of the street from those struck. The video finishes approx 5seconds after the incident, however these people are still standing there.

Did they not react at all ??

They did react but imagine what you would do if you had been out drinking all night with good mates and on your way home you see one of them be run down by a car? Would you not be stunned, even for a few seconds?

I also feel that people should just ignore the user ‘weatherman’, he clearly feels that in some idiotic way that this was partly caused by the two boys walking down the side of the road and not the driver who was so cold to not only hit the two boys but speed off into the night and not stop at all. Pathetic mate, one day you may experience this trauma that they’ve had to and I’m sure that if it does happen to you that you will in no way say it’s the victims fault and it’s all the drivers doing.

Genie 12:54 pm 11 Feb 13

DrKoresh said :

Genie said :

After watching the video there are 2 people standin on the opposite side of the street from those struck. The video finishes approx 5seconds after the incident, however these people are still standing there.

Did they not react at all ??

It’s not 5 seconds. It’s about a second. And I imagine they were wondering what the feckity fudge just happened.

Forgot to factor in the slow mo ! My bad.

Impact is at the 9th second while the video finishes after 14seconds

DrKoresh 11:52 am 11 Feb 13

Genie said :

After watching the video there are 2 people standin on the opposite side of the street from those struck. The video finishes approx 5seconds after the incident, however these people are still standing there.

Did they not react at all ??

It’s not 5 seconds. It’s about a second. And I imagine they were wondering what the feckity fudge just happened.

caf 11:51 am 11 Feb 13

As a correction to my previous comment, pedestrians are only allowed to walk on the road if there’s no footpath/nature strip or it’s not practical to walk on the footpath/nature strip.

caf 11:43 am 11 Feb 13

Weatherman said :

In the CCTV footage, it looks like the victims were jaywalking during a time when driving visibility is low.

This was not jaywalking. Jaywalking is regarding crossing the road – a pedestrian must cross the road by the shortest safe route, mustn’t cross against the lights, and musn’t cross within 20m of a crossing except at the crossing.

It is actually perfectly permitted for pedestrians to walk along the road, unless there’s a “no pedestrians” sign (these are common on motorways, for example – I’m sure most of us can recall seeing a “No pedestrians, bicycles or animals permitted” sign at some point).

Genie 11:20 am 11 Feb 13

After watching the video there are 2 people standin on the opposite side of the street from those struck. The video finishes approx 5seconds after the incident, however these people are still standing there.

Did they not react at all ??

Zeital 9:16 am 11 Feb 13

Weatherman said :

Deckard said :

Weatherman said :

In the CCTV footage, it looks like the victims were jaywalking during a time when driving visibility is low.

So the guy drove past them once, wasn’t sure if he saw them or not so turned the car around for a closer look?

I know that area quite well. Often, vehicles will backtrack along if they think they are going the wrong way along Henty Street because it backtracks all the way along Lowanna to Ijong Street. It’s very easy to get lost there if you don’t know where you’re going.

Also, it’s a bit odd that people are going to great lengths to excuse jaywalking. There are footpaths there. The reason I mention visibility is because it is dawn. Your eyes are adapting to the increasing light during twilight.

Weatherman said :

In the CCTV footage, it looks like the victims were jaywalking during a time when driving visibility is low.

…which means its OK to drive off after hitting someone? Oh, OK, cancel the search for the driver then…

I don’t know how you came to that conclusion. I certainly wouldn’t condone driving off after the incident. The driver should have stopped if he was aware of what happened. I think there should be leniency when jaywalking is involved, as the pedestrians did not take due care themselves either.

They are walking beside the cars that a parked there, They wheren’t walking all over the damn street and wheren’t in the way of incoming traffic the driver swervered into them to hit them. Personally I would be walking where they did if I was on that street. The driver looks like he accelerated when he went to hit these poor people, so I think he was well aware of what he was doing

Deref 9:08 am 11 Feb 13

Aesyrian said :

There is no excusing the drivers actions, although there is a very good reason why people should use footpaths where available and should NEVER walk with their backs to traffic, it’s called risk mitigation,

It’s also called common sense.

And yes – it looks like a pretty clear case of attempted murder to me.

Aesyrian 8:33 am 11 Feb 13

There is no excusing the drivers actions, although there is a very good reason why people should use footpaths where available and should NEVER walk with their backs to traffic, it’s called risk mitigation, pretty sure it’s mentioned in the ACT Road Rules Handbook, but I don’t think people ever read it.

I hope the incident is an accident and not malicious and hitting and running is more common than people realise (how many times do vehicles get damaged form people backing into them and just leaving, still legally a hit and run incident), as natural liars people would rather avoid getting in trouble than be an honest and upstanding individual.

Anyone who drives knows there are always small moments when drivers are distracted by a number of things, and as much as people say they are good drivers, if you are a commuter in Canberra you know they most people have pretty poor road awareness, it’s increasingly common for people to brake then indicate they are turning, technically an indicator is used to indicate a drivers intention, and should be performed around 5 seconds before turning or changing lanes to allow other road users the opportunity to react, but hey I never see it, one reason I’d never ride a bicycle on the road here.

Weatherman 7:26 am 11 Feb 13

Deckard said :

Weatherman said :

In the CCTV footage, it looks like the victims were jaywalking during a time when driving visibility is low.

So the guy drove past them once, wasn’t sure if he saw them or not so turned the car around for a closer look?

I know that area quite well. Often, vehicles will backtrack along if they think they are going the wrong way along Henty Street because it backtracks all the way along Lowanna to Ijong Street. It’s very easy to get lost there if you don’t know where you’re going.

Also, it’s a bit odd that people are going to great lengths to excuse jaywalking. There are footpaths there. The reason I mention visibility is because it is dawn. Your eyes are adapting to the increasing light during twilight.

Weatherman said :

In the CCTV footage, it looks like the victims were jaywalking during a time when driving visibility is low.

…which means its OK to drive off after hitting someone? Oh, OK, cancel the search for the driver then…

I don’t know how you came to that conclusion. I certainly wouldn’t condone driving off after the incident. The driver should have stopped if he was aware of what happened. I think there should be leniency when jaywalking is involved, as the pedestrians did not take due care themselves either.

Postalgeek 11:25 pm 10 Feb 13

TheDancingDjinn said :

Weatherman said :

In the CCTV footage, it looks like the victims were jaywalking during a time when driving visibility is low.

I am trying to find a link to the CCTV footage – would you mind posting where you saw it?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-02-10/police-hunt-for-hit-and-run-vehicle/4510610?section=act

bundah 10:41 pm 10 Feb 13

Judging by the Crimes video the ute had its driving lights on and appeared to be travelling at around 40kmh so speed and visibility wasn’t a factor.Unless the POS driving was totally off his face and therefore potentially oblivious to what occurred,however unlikely,then it was premeditated and i repeat he should be charged with attempted murder.

PantsMan 9:53 pm 10 Feb 13

Footpath ahead of where they were hit is closed due to building work. There is a path, but you would not think so without knowing. Reasonable to step on to the roadway if you think it’s the only way through.

Also, happened right under a streetlight. Visibility was good.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site