Just tattoo born to lose on the forehead

johnboy 23 January 2007 49

The ABC reports that a 19 year old Canberran has been arrested by Goulburn police doing 180 on the highway.

He was arrested after a short pursuit and his driver’s licence was suspended.

At the time, he had a female passenger and a young child in the car.

I’m sure it seemed like a good idea… at the time.

What's Your Opinion?

Please login to post your comments, or connect with
49 Responses to Just tattoo born to lose on the forehead
VYBerlinaV8_now with_added_grunt VYBerlinaV8_now with_added_grunt 10:44 pm 25 Jan 07

The unfortunate part is that this story illustrates how scare campaigns, and government speeding crackdowns have lots of people convinced that speeding is the root of all evil. The government uses fear campaigns, assisted by sensationalist media, to spread their message. Water is the latest example.

Come on people, think – and make up your own minds.

johnboy johnboy 9:06 pm 25 Jan 07

it may not be safe, but is *FUN*.

But when you get caught you stay caught.

schmerica_ schmerica_ 9:02 pm 25 Jan 07

Although I agree that some drivers may be more skilled and experienced than others, did you not forget that there was a child in the car?

Anybody willing to travel those speeds with a child in the car should not be on the road to start with. As soon as someone else gets into the car with you behind the wheel, you are no longer responsible for just yourself, but your passengers also. I would hate to be in a car going that fast. And yes, I’m a sook.

VYBerlinaV8_now with_added_grunt VYBerlinaV8_now with_added_grunt 4:09 pm 25 Jan 07

“If he was doing the posted speed limit on that corner (which I assume he wasn’t – given that it was a race and all) I doubt he’d have hit that tree; or even if he had, without the same lethal impact. “

Well gosh, maybe you should conduct your own independent investigation and let us all know exactly what really happened.

VYBerlinaV8_now with_added_grunt VYBerlinaV8_now with_added_grunt 4:07 pm 25 Jan 07

“hard physics (F=VM)”

Try F=MA that is, force equals mass multiplies by acceleration, not velocity. The issue is in how rapidly the object decelerates when it strikes an immoveable object, not how quickly it was moving when it starts to decelerate (although the two are linked).

Everyone knows people occasionally screw up, that’s not the issue. It’s about determining an acceptable level of risk, and then adjusting the factors to meet that threshold. Speed is but one of many factors.

Mr_Shab Mr_Shab 4:00 pm 25 Jan 07

el -whether Peter Brock was driving in a race or not, it demonstrates my point that even if everyone on the road was an excellent and extremely experienced driver (and patently, they’re not) we would still have fatalities aplenty.

If he was doing the posted speed limit on that corner (which I assume he wasn’t – given that it was a race and all) I doubt he’d have hit that tree; or even if he had, without the same lethal impact.

neanderthalsis neanderthalsis 3:50 pm 25 Jan 07

The roads around this part of the world are fairly thick with kangaroos, wombats and three toed sloths. Hitting a roo at 100 does a lot of damage to both the car and the roo. At 180 I guess it would be near fatal. (I have seen the effect a wombat had on a Landcruiser ute at 130 odd kph on dirt, destroyed the front end and caused the ute to roll)

Maelinar Maelinar 3:49 pm 25 Jan 07

If vehicles were designed differently, accidents would be less catastrophic. A skid mark and a tree with some scratches on it is no great loss when the driver was an idiot or drunk etc – infact the case for natural selection is strongly made. Its when enroute to the tree they collide with mom and 3 kids etc that it becomes a travesty and an injustice. Instead of producing vehicles that are impact resistant, perhaps they should be making ones that are drink-driver’esque resistant and let selection take its course.

el el 3:47 pm 25 Jan 07

Mr_Shab, come on. Peter Brock was driving in a _race_.

Mr_Shab Mr_Shab 3:31 pm 25 Jan 07

Having a conversation with Seepi is like talking a three year old bonfire? Your argumentative technique seems to be “I can drive safely, so screw the rest of you”, and then jamming your fingers in your ears and going “La la la la!”

Even the best drivers screw up. Adding more speed to the equation just makes it less likely they can get themselves out of a tight spot, and more lethal if they can’t. Need I cite Peter Brock.

Your argument is right up there with the NRA “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”-line. People kill people alright – and will, guns or not. Dropping guns into the situation just makes people a whole lot more dangerous.

Controlling speed won’t stop road fatalities, but disregarding speed just makes accidents harder to avoid and more lethal. It’s that nasty nexus between hard physics (F=VM) versus hard biology (maximum membrane activation potential – AKA reaction time; and the inherent squishiness of anything living) where your problem lies. Your argument blithely disregards both.

VYBerlinaV8_now with_added_grunt VYBerlinaV8_now with_added_grunt 2:49 pm 25 Jan 07

…either way, all those people will be required to demonstrate a high degree of vehicular capability and control prior to being able to drive under the new world order anyway. Bring it on, I say – the number of oldies I have nearly had accidents with because they ‘didn’t see’ or ‘got confused’ is huge.

bonfire bonfire 2:30 pm 25 Jan 07

its like trying to hold a discussion with a three year old.

bonfire bonfire 2:30 pm 25 Jan 07

what about…

what about…

seepi you are a softhead.

seepi seepi 1:59 pm 25 Jan 07

OK for city dwellers, but what about all the oldies that live in small towns along the fed hwy (Gunning, gundaroo etc) and come into Canberra on the hwy for food and petrol. Or the teens who need to get to work at Maccas Marulan?

VYBerlinaV8_now with_added_grunt VYBerlinaV8_now with_added_grunt 1:54 pm 25 Jan 07

“VY your driving scenario would be great for gun drivers who drove Canberra to Sydney often (or other long distances), but not so good for young people driving to their part time jobs, or oldies driving to their local shop for groceries. I just don’t think it is feasible.”

And therein lies the point. Young people driving to their jobs and oldies going to the shops wouldn’t typically be using major interstate freeways. One of the interesting things about Europe where average highway speeds can be quite high, is that urban speeds are often lower than in Australia. Part of being responsible is understanding what an appropriate speed is. For example, would anyone here drive at 60km/h through the windy mini-streets in some of our new suburbs? I sure don’t. But the Hume Hwy on a Wednesday afternoon in perfect conditions? 150km/h is entirely acceptable to me. As I mentioned earlier, it’s about making drivers take greater responsibility, which means selecting an appropriate speed, not just sticking to the speed limit and assuming that you must therefore be ‘safe’.

seepi seepi 1:49 pm 25 Jan 07

just as you refuse to acknowledge that other drivers on the road will not drive exactly as you do at all times.

bonfire bonfire 1:21 pm 25 Jan 07

wasnt the speed at fault here seepi – i could have been doing 65kmh and the idiot actions of failing to indicate or look in ones mirror would still have occurred.

but with your single focus on the evils of speed, its typical you wouldnt recognise this.

seepi seepi 12:19 pm 25 Jan 07

and you still think 170km p/hr is a good idea – says a lot.

bonfire bonfire 12:10 pm 25 Jan 07

the closest i have come to a major accident was when i was travelling at about 170kmh to work one morning and saw a car some distance ahead.

as i overtook, it just pulled out into the rh lane without indicating. i had nowhere to go except gravel and managed to squeeze past by a fag paper.

the reason this person pulled out ?

cyclists on the road.

two abreast.

if the fool had looked in his mirror before his maneuver, or used hsi indicator – i would have had ampel time to slow down. but when you are about 30 meters away and they pull out – you need to react quickly.

and before you get all hot and bothered, this was in the nt in the mid 90’s.

mutley mutley 11:35 am 25 Jan 07

For arguments sake, how would a driver doing 110kph in the left hand indicate to the driver doing 160+ in the right hand lane, that he or she wished to change lanes?

ummm… with their indicator? Like they are *supposed* to now.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter


Search across the site