Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Skilled legal advice with
accessible & personal attention

The ACT Road Toll – 2010

By cranky 6 January 2011 33

Given that road safety related topics are so appreciated by RiotAct readers, I submit the following.

But first up, my condolences to anyone related to the following.

A (rough) breakdown of fatalities on ACT roads for 2010 shows:

Pushbikes – 2. Both were 60+ year old males.

Motorcycles – 4. The official stats have 5, but I am unable to find the 5th. 1 on a rural road, 3 at intersections.

Male, single vehicle, into unforgiving roadside furniture – 3

Male, single vehicle, into other vehicles – 4. Three were into trucks.

The above two catagories would have to include the possibility of suicide.

Multiple fatality – 1. Step up Mully.

Collisions at intersections – 2. The youngest was 74 years old.

Makes justifying red light/speed/point to point cameras a challenge.


What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
33 Responses to
The ACT Road Toll – 2010
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
parle 3:04 pm 07 Jan 11

@Vix, yes, a female driver who caused the death of a cyclist several years ago was found not guilty (i think it was dangerous driving occasioning death) because of a coughing fit. I’m sure there’s a sneeze or two acquittals out there as well.

vandam 2:59 pm 07 Jan 11

Every fatal last year involved someone at fault. There were no ‘accidents’.

Every fatal the year before that involved someone at fault. I could go on and on.

On red light camera’s. Majority of people will stop on the orange (as your legally obliged to) at intersections where camera’s are already installed.

Whilst I’m not sure what the stats would be, I’m guessing there have probably been a massive reduction in collisions at those intersections since the camera’s were installed.

I see people everyday trying to beat the red light at intersections where there are no camera’s installed.

Thumper 12:48 pm 07 Jan 11

“Cities across the map have been caught shortening yellow lights for profits.”

Source?

screaming banshee 12:33 pm 07 Jan 11

“Cities across the map have been caught shortening yellow lights for profits.”

Whats a yellow light for?

Vix 12:30 pm 07 Jan 11

Accidents while driving…? How about a sneeze?

georgesgenitals 9:39 am 07 Jan 11

“Not exceeding a speed limit means you can’t be booked for speeding, that’s about it, it’s not a defence that absolves you automatically from anything that a reasonable person would expect to encounter on a road in given conditions.”

Well said.

vg 9:10 am 07 Jan 11

“So you think it’s all about people who actually run red lights? WRONG! Cities across the map have been caught shortening yellow lights for profits. Cameras have been cited as having a large amount of errors, where the cameras will malfunction all on their own. Cameras have been in the news for catching people who have never driven the roads, dead, or while at work. Besides tell me how a camera that sends tickets 3 weeks later is going to have an effect on stopping an accident? It won’t. Besides, an officer can do a more through investigation during a traffic stop vs. the 1 or 2 citations a red light camera can get you for. I would rather have officers checking; insurance, driving records, warrants, ect. to ensure bad drivers get points and are removed from the road.”

Nice cut and paste from an American website.

Citations? Officers checking insurance?

parle 9:07 am 07 Jan 11

@Growling Ferret, oh okay, you mean wrong about the interpretation of an accident?

Right or wrong it’s just how you’re prosecuted. Happens to motorcyclists all the time as they’re more likely to sustain injuries in this sort of ‘accident’. Police will interview at the hospital bedside, take admission of guilt (I didn’t see it; it came out of nowhere, yes I was doing the full posted 80, yes I saw the roo sign, yes the sun had just gone down), okay Sir, thankyou for assisting the police, I hope your spine heals – the fine is in the mail.

As to your instance, from what you’ve wrote I think that you believe that because the ‘accident’ was unavoidable at the exact moment that you struck the dog (semi coming, blind driveway, maximum speed) that the entire event including all circumstances leading up to it was therefore also unavoidable, this is not true.

A dog off the chain is different to a kangaroo in the bush, the owner of the dog is liable, it’s either the negligence of the dogs owner that caused the collision or perhaps you were not paying full attention in a built up area where a reasonable person would expect to encounter these types of road hazards, either way, it was avoidable so an ‘accident’ is not possible. Even your insurance company agrees with this and applied liability to you by default.

If you had the details of the owner and the police had made a report that matched your story (or if the owner volunteered liability, ha ha) your insurance company would’ve pursued the owner for costs and you would’ve got your $500 back, eventually.

Not exceeding a speed limit means you can’t be booked for speeding, that’s about it, it’s not a defence that absolves you automatically from anything that a reasonable person would expect to encounter on a road in given conditions.

also keep in mind, there are lots of short 50 metre cul-de-sacs in canberra, they all have 50km speed limits, if you hit someone doing 50km on one would you say “It was unavoidable because I was doing the speed limit and had right of way”?, if you were the magistrate presiding do you think it reasonable that it be called an accident?.

My best kangaroo sighting was in Barton, during a work day, full size roo bouncing along past the old pm&c building on his way to the lake.

JC 8:45 am 07 Jan 11

Year to year comparison of road death stats in a place as small as the ACT are totally useless. One year we may have a single accident with multiple deaths that ‘blow’ out the stats, the next year we don’t. Bottom line is rather than worrying about a death tally each accident should be considered on it’s own with strategies to counter coming out of that. But alas it is tallies that attract newspaper and TV news headlines which in turn attracts opposition political parties.

stlouisx50 3:34 am 07 Jan 11

So you think it’s all about people who actually run red lights? WRONG! Cities across the map have been caught shortening yellow lights for profits. Cameras have been cited as having a large amount of errors, where the cameras will malfunction all on their own. Cameras have been in the news for catching people who have never driven the roads, dead, or while at work. Besides tell me how a camera that sends tickets 3 weeks later is going to have an effect on stopping an accident? It won’t. Besides, an officer can do a more through investigation during a traffic stop vs. the 1 or 2 citations a red light camera can get you for. I would rather have officers checking; insurance, driving records, warrants, ect. to ensure bad drivers get points and are removed from the road.

Jono 9:42 pm 06 Jan 11

“Motorcycles – 4. The official stats have 5, but I am unable to find the 5th. 1 on a rural road, 3 at intersections.”

It took a couple of minutes on the AFP website to find the details of the 5 motorcyclist deaths:

11 Feb – Amaroo
2 Apr – Uriarra
18 Apr – Macgregor
21 Jun – Isaacs
17 Jul – Fyshwick

Growling Ferret 9:14 pm 06 Jan 11

Parle

You are wrong.

I hit a dog that ran out of a blind driveway in a country town. I had no option of not hitting it, as there was a semi trailer coming at me in the opposite direction. Despite travelling at the posted 60kmh speed limit, the collision was unavoidable.

The dog ran away. I was up for $500 excess for the cracked front bumper, driving light and headlight mounts to be repaired under insurance.

I’ve also just missed a kangaroo that leapt out on a suburban street. What a kangaroo was doing in Stirling I’ll never know…

Spideydog 9:06 pm 06 Jan 11

Jim Jones said: “So, only deaths count, accidents aren’t important at all?”

+1 Exactly right. So collisions that result in serious injury, minor injuries or nil injury (but major/minor vehicle damage) is of no issue to the community? Lets see the stats for all collisions and then make a more informed comment…….

parle 7:40 pm 06 Jan 11

@Holden Caulfield; it’s called not driving to conditions, you were driving where there are roos yet chose to drive at a speed where you could not avoid them, not an accident at all. This is how the police would charge you when the collision results in injuries to people.

Holden Caulfield 6:53 pm 06 Jan 11

@GOF #17: “These are not accidents these are human factors at work causing a collision.”

They are also a very small example of circumstances to describe an accident or collision.

So when a kangaroo jumped in front of my car one night on the Coppins Crossing road, I suppose that was a collision and not an accident?

I was driving in my own lane at the speed limit. I saw the roo coming right at the last moment and slammed on my brakes doing my best to avoid contact, but there wasn’t really much else I could do.

I guess you’re right, the human factor involved was me being silly enough to drive my car. By jove, I think you’ve cracked it! Put on your tinfoil hats everyone and let’s ban humans.

And cars.

m_ratt 6:37 pm 06 Jan 11

@screaming banshee: I think that cranky might have meant single occupant vehicle.

@Grumpy Old Fart: Why not just ‘crash’. Would a single vehicle rollover on a flat open road be called a ‘collision’? If so, what exactly has the vehicle collided with? I wouldn’t say it’s collided with the ground, because it was in contact with that already.

Grumpy Old Fart 5:16 pm 06 Jan 11

There is no such thing as a motor vehicle accident they are collisions. Collisions involve a human factor leading to an impact. In Canberra that factor is normally slow reaction time compounded with the obligatory requirement to sit less than a metre from the vehicle in front.

The other one is coming down a merging ramp onto the Parkway doing 60km/h trying to merge into traffic doing 100km/h the driver then realizes they can’t merge and jams on the brakes and a collision occurs. This then causes the ‘rubberneckers’ on the other carriageway to slowdown and look causing another multi car pile up.

These are not accidents these are human factors at work causing a collision.

screaming banshee 3:35 pm 06 Jan 11

Cranky, could you please explain how a single vehicle accident occurs “into other vehicles”

Were they all parked?

LSWCHP 3:06 pm 06 Jan 11

I wonder how many motor vehicle accidents are really accidents in the true sense of the word (eg you’re driving carefully around a corner, lose traction and crash due to hitting a big pothole or something similar), and how many are the equivalent of a pilot performing a “controlled flight into terrain”. This is probably a similar theme to what GOF discusses…distraction, tiredness, drunkenness, confusion, loss of situational awareness, poor judgement etc.

The one “accident” I’ve been involved in was caused by the person behind me becoming distracted by the remnants of a two vehicle crash at the side of the road, and driving into the back of my car in a quite controlled manner and at moderate speed as I was stopped at a set of traffic lights. Most other accidents that people have described to me have had similar causes.

Does anyone know of any sources of background information to car crashes similar to air crash investigations?

Pork Hunt 2:37 pm 06 Jan 11

What GOF said.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2019 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site