Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Skilled legal advice with
accessible & personal attention

THE CARNAGE MUST STOP!

By johnboy 22 July 2010 55

Jon Stanhope, perhaps smarting from his foolish Vision Zero immediately before a series of freak accidents blew out the road toll, is taking his angry voice to all of you.

Sure it starts as an “appeal”, and moves on with some initiatives which give the appearance of action such as punishing p-platers using cough syrup, point to point cameras, and some more roadworks.

But by the end it’s all your fault:

“‘I want to send a clear message to the community: the carnage must stop, and it starts and ends with our own actions. I urge all drivers to make a commitment to themselves, and their families, to drive safely, obey the road rules and help prevent any further deaths on our roads.”

If only these initiatives had been rolled out before Mully stole that car in Quangers, they totally would have stopped this kind of thing!

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
55 Responses to
THE CARNAGE MUST STOP!
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
Oxspit 11:44 am 27 Jul 10

I don’t have any more information on Canberra-specific fatalities than anyone else here, but anecdotally from a driver’s perspective I can say that I’ve seen far more potentially life-threatening car-to-car situations on Canberra roads in the year since I moved here than anywhere else I’ve lived in Australia …. and I struggle to think of any where I’d say speeding was the culprit.

Probably the worst situation I was in was at the approach to a 2-lane roundabout when the car to my left indicated and changed lanes simultaneously into the space which only existed in front of me due to my reflexive hard braking – if I had not done this he would have hit me. The driver in question appeared oblivious to the fact that anything dangerous had occurred while I pulled over at the first opportunity a little in shock. Apart from the fact that this occurred after an unbroken line on the road (hence no lane-changing should have been occurring anyway), the manner of that lane change was pretty much STANDARD in the driving culture of Canberra – and it was this, along with the complete lack of positional awareness that can very easily go along with it, that almost caused the accident. It is fairly STANDARD not to indicate here (and flipping on the indicator simultaneously with actually turning IS NOT INDICATING).

In a chicken-and-egg like situation, of course, the reason why people don’t indicate and change lanes safely is that it is also reasonably standard for other drivers to completely ignore indication or, worse, take it as a cue to actually SPEED UP to cut the driver off. Canberra is the only city I’ve seen where such an activity is actually pretty standard.

Canberra is also the only place in Australia where the following absurd sight is not all that unusual either:

3: the number of lanes on the road.
2: the number of cars on the road.
1: the number of metres between those two cars.

There are a number of other amusing driving quirks people notice when they visit the place. They appear to be a part of a highly individualistic and non-communicative driving culture…. and they’re dangerous.

Canberra roads seem, if anything, a lot safer. There are plenty of speed cameras already and speed limits don’t strike me as being particularly high. Possibly the Canberra driving culture is what happens when you take Australian drivers and make the roads sufficiently wide and easy … I don’t know, but it seems to me that the elephant in the room is not speeding or drink driving.

Tooks 9:06 am 27 Jul 10

ML-585 said :

Tooks said :

ML-585 said :

Weren’t the 50 km/h speed limits supposed to reduce the number of crashes on ACT roads. What would the road toll be if the 50 km/h zones didn’t exist (and were 60 km/h instead)?

That’s right: EXACTLY THE SAME!

You said yourself that 50kmh limits were supposed to reduce the number of crashes on ACT roads (not the number of FATAL crashes). How do you know there haven’t been fewer crashes since the 50kmh limits came in?

Number of deaths, not number of crashes. My point is that lowering the speed limits hasn’t done much (or anything at all) to stop people dying on ACT Roads, despite what the politicians want you to believe. Although there is no way to prove it one way or the other.

If you meant number of deaths, then that’s what you should’ve said in the first place!

BTW, this is from the TAMS website:

During April/ May 2003 the ACT adopted a 50 km/h default speed limit. To enable this change the ACT modified signage and changed laws to allow for the new default limit. This means that if you don’t see a speed sign, it is 50 km/h.

The lower residential speed limit was in place for some time in many other parts of Australia and has led to a substantial reduction in road crashes and injuries in those areas.

In NSW, there was an overall decrease of 16% in crashes on roads where the 50 km/h speed limit was introduced. Much greater reductions were achieved in casualty crashes involving pedestrians, cyclists and older drivers, which fell by 60%, 40% and 33% respectively.

ML-585 11:37 am 26 Jul 10

Tooks said :

ML-585 said :

Weren’t the 50 km/h speed limits supposed to reduce the number of crashes on ACT roads. What would the road toll be if the 50 km/h zones didn’t exist (and were 60 km/h instead)?

That’s right: EXACTLY THE SAME!

You said yourself that 50kmh limits were supposed to reduce the number of crashes on ACT roads (not the number of FATAL crashes). How do you know there haven’t been fewer crashes since the 50kmh limits came in?

Number of deaths, not number of crashes. My point is that lowering the speed limits hasn’t done much (or anything at all) to stop people dying on ACT Roads, despite what the politicians want you to believe. Although there is no way to prove it one way or the other.

Spideydog 10:09 am 26 Jul 10

Tooks said :

I don’t want to get too off topic here, but why was your friend arrested and taken to the watch house for blowing 0.02? Unless he was a repeat offender? Just curious.

The sums aren’t adding up here, and I suspect there is more to this story than is being presented.

Spideydog 7:59 pm 25 Jul 10

dvaey said :

Actually, I drove him home from the club after he had the beer, we watched movies then he drove to his house, and was picked up along the way. I then picked him up from the police station after he was bailed. The magistrate said it was the lowest BAC that had ever been brought before her court (being ON the limit). So, nice try, but it wasnt a story ‘I was told’, I was a part of each step.

Sorry, I call BS. It is impossible to have a single beer and then watch 3 movies (4 hours) and still register, unless he drank rocket fuel.

Tooks 6:56 pm 25 Jul 10

dvaey said :

vg said :

One beer, 3 movies (so at least 5 hrs) then drove and got done for the 0.02 limit? I’m calling bollocks about the 1 beer and 5 hrs part. I bet this was a story you were told about what happened

Actually, I drove him home from the club after he had the beer, we watched movies then he drove to his house, and was picked up along the way. I then picked him up from the police station after he was bailed. The magistrate said it was the lowest BAC that had ever been brought before her court (being ON the limit). So, nice try, but it wasnt a story ‘I was told’, I was a part of each step.

I don’t want to get too off topic here, but why was your friend arrested and taken to the watch house for blowing 0.02? Unless he was a repeat offender? Just curious.

Mr Evil 3:41 pm 25 Jul 10

I’m wondering if here’s a link between all these road deaths in Canberra and the evil devil-worshipping acts that have been taking place on Mt Ainslie that Pastor Danny Nutjob keeps warning us about?

Oh, and we obviously we need more speed cameras too.

dvaey 3:22 pm 25 Jul 10

vg said :

One beer, 3 movies (so at least 5 hrs) then drove and got done for the 0.02 limit? I’m calling bollocks about the 1 beer and 5 hrs part. I bet this was a story you were told about what happened

Actually, I drove him home from the club after he had the beer, we watched movies then he drove to his house, and was picked up along the way. I then picked him up from the police station after he was bailed. The magistrate said it was the lowest BAC that had ever been brought before her court (being ON the limit). So, nice try, but it wasnt a story ‘I was told’, I was a part of each step.

The specifics of my story arent important anyway, my point is that a 0 BAC limit, will simply find those who werent guilty before, suddenly guilty of an offence. Seriously, how many incidents have been caused by P-platers who blew between 0.00 and 0.02? This is just another example of the government wanting to be seen to be tough on drivers while not actually achieving anything.

I-filed 9:52 am 25 Jul 10

WonderfulWorld said :

I heard one of the accidents on the weekend was deemed to be suicide. Very unfortunate and sad.

I hope not – not a good method. I met a sad 21-year-old at a party in NZ years ago, a blond jock uber-rich kid who had tried to kill himself by running into a tree over a failed romance. He had the bad luck to survive, with a mashed up face, restored by top surgeons as far as possible, but he looked like one of the WWII “guineapigs”. He carried around a picture of the way he used to look, and was avoiding accepting the reality.

Tooks 9:37 am 25 Jul 10

ML-585 said :

Weren’t the 50 km/h speed limits supposed to reduce the number of crashes on ACT roads. What would the road toll be if the 50 km/h zones didn’t exist (and were 60 km/h instead)?

That’s right: EXACTLY THE SAME!

You said yourself that 50kmh limits were supposed to reduce the number of crashes on ACT roads (not the number of FATAL crashes). How do you know there haven’t been fewer crashes since the 50kmh limits came in?

Spideydog 11:38 pm 24 Jul 10

vg said :

“A friend many years ago, was caught after having one beer, watching 3 movies at a mates house then driving home, blowing 0.020. How long should someone wait after drinking before driving then?”

One beer, 3 movies (so at least 5 hrs) then drove and got done for the 0.02 limit? I’m calling bollocks about the 1 beer and 5 hrs part. I bet this was a story you were told about what happened

I’m with vg on that one, you’ve been BS’d too ….. it is impossible to have one beer (even if it was a long neck) then watch 3 movies and still blow 0.02.

beep 9:23 pm 24 Jul 10

I’m with Special G.

I am one of the many Canberrans who have been caught drink driving. Going to court and losing your license is not fun.

Drinking? Don’t drive. No problem.

Special G 6:51 pm 24 Jul 10

Depends on what type and size of beer it was – Darwin stubby, middy of light, long neck full strength, super 40% home brew. Alcohol is metabolised by a healthy liver at approx 0.025 per hour.

It’s still very simple – if you plan on driving don’t drink.

vg 3:10 pm 24 Jul 10

“A friend many years ago, was caught after having one beer, watching 3 movies at a mates house then driving home, blowing 0.020. How long should someone wait after drinking before driving then?”

One beer, 3 movies (so at least 5 hrs) then drove and got done for the 0.02 limit? I’m calling bollocks about the 1 beer and 5 hrs part. I bet this was a story you were told about what happened

Pork Hunt 1:53 pm 24 Jul 10

Very Busy said :

@34 and @35

Very simplistic views indeed, and @35 wrong I might add. Legislation does prevent individual acts of stupidity. Do you seriously think that if all the road rules were taken away that the road death toll would not rise?

Mully + (at least) one act of stupidity = 4 dead.

Which chapter and verse of the law book was supposed to prevent that one?

Related Articles

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