Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Daily flights from Canberra
to Singapore and the world

Road toll skips another one

By johnboy 23 May 2011 37

A 73-year-old Griffith man who died in The Canberra Hospital following a collision in Fyshwick on Friday, May 13 will not be counted towards the road toll.

The man was transported by ACT Ambulance to The Canberra Hospital where on admittance his condition deteriorated and he went into a coma. He died on Tuesday, May 17.

A post-mortem revealed the man had a heart attack which caused the collision. As such his death will not be included in the ACT’s road toll.

The road toll remains at seven for this year.

[Courtesy ACT Policing]

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
37 Responses to
Road toll skips another one
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
vandam 8:44 am 26 May 11

There’s a few good and bad points here.
Yes some older drivers shouldn’t be on the road, but there are some younger drivers who also shouldn’t be on the road.
Once someone hits 70 (I think) they are required to undergo a medical test each year.
The ‘medical’ death collisions generally only result in the death of themselves and don’t normally cause significant injury to other parties.
The older driver’s aren’t committing any offences when they crash (due to medical) where as younger drivers do.
Lastly, when your getting old, to take their licence away also takes away their independence. What a miserable way to spend your last years……

Whilst some older driver’s do die on our roads, it never exceeds the amount who die as a result of negligence/alcohol/drug/stupidity.

Mr Gillespie said :

They reported it in the media and were were keen to bump it up to 8 before the post-mortem revealed the man had a heart-attack and so had to concede it now remains at 7.

Who reported this, when did they report this and where was it reported?

AdventureTime 10:58 pm 25 May 11

It seems to me that stupidity contributes more to the road toll than advanced age. Perhaps all drivers should have to pass an IQ test? Or even better, a test of common-sense….

keepitup 7:55 pm 25 May 11

wildturkeycanoe said :

Do the doctors actually get in the car with these persons? Do they test how fast they can react to a red light, or how close to the speed limit they can drive? No. It’s one thing to be healthy enough physically, but another to be mentally fit.

Ridiculous . . every day I see several seemingly healthy young motorists who are incapable of reacting to a red light, or an orange light for that matter.

cranky 6:23 pm 25 May 11

Mr G @31,

You had better believe that the AFP were very circumspect about claiming this as a road death statistic.

In the past, they have certainly been guilty of assigning fault to unfortunate deaths occuring on the road to a range of driver failures.

However, it is to be commended that over the past year or so, discretion has been shown in suspect cases, and, from memory, all of these have been shown to be death caused by natural causes, not from road trauma.

dvaey 6:21 pm 25 May 11

colourful sydney racing identity said :

Mr Gillespie said :

Another less round of ammunition in defence of speed cameras.

Yes and another less round in the amunition in defence of breathalyzers.

Seriously what are you on about? How do you turn every post about traffic/driving/accidents/heart attacks into another example of your Jihad against speed cameras?

How can you compare breathalyzers to speed cameras? Breath testing has been proven to have a dramatic affect on the road toll, as have seat belts.. speed cameras on the other hand, have hardly been proven to do anything other than generate revenue with very little outlay. A police officer talking to a driver for a breathalyzer will detect more offences than a camera in a box on a post.

Jethro said :

Old people have heart attacks when driving, therefore police shouldn’t enforce traffic laws.

Wow. Your contributions to rationale debate are…. just… wow.

Maybe the contribution to the rational debate was stop claiming that automated financial penalties are a suitable road safety substitute for proper enforcement. By the way, stop thinking the speed cameras have anything to do with the police, they are run by a private business contracted to the ACT government. If they WERE operated by a road-safety-conscious group, they would be placed in high accident areas rather than areas where the law is broken but road safety generally isnt affected..

Mr Gillespie 4:41 pm 25 May 11

They reported it in the media and were were keen to bump it up to 8 before the post-mortem revealed the man had a heart-attack and so had to concede it now remains at 7.

Jethro 4:35 pm 25 May 11

Mr Gillespie said :

Jethro #17

You got the wrong end of the stick *again*

What I am saying is pretty much like what JC (#21) says about the Government using speed/the road toll as an excuse to justify deploying yet more speed cameras. Then when someone dies on the road, they are all too keen to jack up the magic number aka the “road toll”, blaming speed to bolster their case for more heavy-handed speed enforcement, before the post-mortem later on finds the single-vehicle fatal was as the result of nothing more a medical condition/heart attack.

My goodness navigating life must be difficult for you.

The OP is about the fact that the death has NOT been counted towards the road toll (and fair enough.. cause of death was a heart attack so no real reason to count it as a road death).

ScienceRules 4:11 pm 25 May 11

Based on your logic, people could also argue that young drivers are responsible for a higher percentage of accidents and should also not be in charge of a 1.5 tonne vehicle ….. just saying

Not so. The young ones by and large will get better with more experience, after all we have to start somewhere. The oldies, only worse…

Mr Gillespie said :

Jethro #17

You got the wrong end of the stick *again*

What I am saying is pretty much like what JC (#21) says about the Government using speed/the road toll as an excuse to justify deploying yet more speed cameras. Then when someone dies on the road, they are all too keen to jack up the magic number aka the “road toll”, blaming speed to bolster their case for more heavy-handed speed enforcement, before the post-mortem later on finds the single-vehicle fatal was as the result of nothing more a medical condition/heart attack.

Take the tin foil hat off for a minute and read the origianl post ‘As such his death will not be included in the ACT’s road toll.’

Mr Gillespie 3:55 pm 25 May 11

Jethro #17

You got the wrong end of the stick *again*

What I am saying is pretty much like what JC (#21) says about the Government using speed/the road toll as an excuse to justify deploying yet more speed cameras. Then when someone dies on the road, they are all too keen to jack up the magic number aka the “road toll”, blaming speed to bolster their case for more heavy-handed speed enforcement, before the post-mortem later on finds the single-vehicle fatal was as the result of nothing more a medical condition/heart attack.

Chop71 3:18 pm 25 May 11

ScienceRules said :

astrojax said :

not sure i see the point of this thread, though – isn’t the road toll there to count the deaths attributed to road trauma, not just the location of the death? if the man was whisked away by his god into heaven as a result of disease and not impact of a collision, then there shouldn’t be any issue to brook with the road toll ‘not counting one’ – like, if he had a heart attack while crossing the road, should that somehow be counted?? didn’t think so…

I think the issue was that old people are much more likely to just drop off the perch than normal folk and hence shouldn’t be in charge of a 1.5 tonne vehicle even if it is only going at 50km/hr down the Parkway

Based on your logic, people could also argue that young drivers are responsible for a higher percentage of accidents and should also not be in charge of a 1.5 tonne vehicle ….. just saying

astrojax 2:55 pm 25 May 11

aronde said :

Just curious re counting road toll deaths – what if a person has a heart attack in a car and crashes into someone else and kills them. Does the person who has a heart attack get excluded but the person they killed get counted towards the road toll?

i’d suspect that that is what happens as it seems to be entirely logical. q. what killed this person? a1 road trauma (old heart attack victim car runs into me, f’rinstance) so counted in road toll or a2 heart attack, so not counted in road toll, notwithstanding my vehicle then whizzed across lanes and collided with other traffic… no?

and you can’t police this – like let’s not let anyone alive drive as they may die while driving. it can happen, of course…

JC said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

Mr Gillespie said :

Another less round of ammunition in defence of speed cameras.

Yes and another less round in the amunition in defence of breathalyzers.

Seriously what are you on about? How do you turn every post about traffic/driving/accidents/heart attacks into another example of your Jihad against speed cameras?

What hapenned to you? One speeding ticket too many?

I think the point he is making is very valid. Every year the government justifies more speed camera’s on the road toll rather than actually looking at the toll and sorting out the underlying issues that are causing said toll. Speed is clearly an easy target and money earner.

SO what are you suggesting? Heart attack warning cameras?

EvanJames 10:26 am 25 May 11

Since crazed tailgating P Platers are clearly more dangerous that oldies shuffling along, we should look at the age at which people are safe to start driving as well. In terms of sheer danger to others on the roads, it’s pretty hard to argue that the wrinklies are worse than testosterone-poisoned/attitude-afflicted boys and girls.

I would much rather share the road with the oldies, at least they DO share.

Innovation 10:02 am 25 May 11

Sciencerules – I’m sorry but dictating an age such as 82 when people should not be on the road is a bit arbitrary and punitive. What age is acceptable to you for people to drive? I also think that claims like they are more dangerous than drunk or speeding drivers is a bit rich too. Logically, there would be a higher likelihood of people falling off the perch as they age but I don’t think it is so extreme that you should expect them all to cark it whenever they get in a car. Some drivers are assessed to drive with limitations (eg, within a certain distance from home, in daylight hours only and presumably subject to lower spped limits)

Also, extending this logic, should all drivers be tested for heart attack or stroke risk before they get in a car? There are probably plenty of candidates, obese, heavy smokers, heavy drinkers etc in their forties plus who have an even higher likelihood of croaking it.

However, I do think that that more rigorous assessment of older drivers is needed – although introducing it at any age is a bit arbitrary. As far as I can tell, fitness to drive depends solely upon the Dr’s annual assessment and this is clearly not enough.

JC 9:44 am 25 May 11

colourful sydney racing identity said :

Mr Gillespie said :

Another less round of ammunition in defence of speed cameras.

Yes and another less round in the amunition in defence of breathalyzers.

Seriously what are you on about? How do you turn every post about traffic/driving/accidents/heart attacks into another example of your Jihad against speed cameras?

What hapenned to you? One speeding ticket too many?

I think the point he is making is very valid. Every year the government justifies more speed camera’s on the road toll rather than actually looking at the toll and sorting out the underlying issues that are causing said toll. Speed is clearly an easy target and money earner.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site