Don't Blame the Driver?



T

Tamyka Bell

Guest
scotty72 wrote:
>
> At least the next young (or old) driver might think twice if he sees a
> young life ruined by his own actions.


Gee mate, you sound so personally angrered by this, one
would think you have a guilty conscience about something.

You appear to be the only person here who doesn't think this
person has already ruined his life merely by being the
driver in this horrible accident.

You are clearly upset by the death of these kids, but you
seem to think that their driver, who was a close friend,
will feel no remorse - I reckon he'd feel really **** right
about now. I reckon there's no penalty you could dish up to
him to make him feel any worse.

I look at the accident. I think it's a shame that lives were
lost, I think it's a shame the driver has to live with the
knowledge that he contributed to his friends' deaths, and
that's enough for me to think about how quickly lives can be
lost, and how dangerous it is to be on the roads.

I don't need to see the poor kid driven to suicide in order
to feel this way. Do you?

Tam
 
B

BT Humble

Guest
Theo Bekkers wrote:
> Tamyka Bell wrote:
>
> > Excellent point. We should cull those pesky trees.

>
> They cut down the tree that Peter Brock attempted to kill.


Are they planning to put it in the Bathurst museum next to the one that
**** Johnson hit?


BTH
 
S

Stuart Lamble

Guest
On 2006-10-24, scotty72 <[email protected]> wrote:
[inspecting vehicles before use]
> No, but a busted spoke wont kill 4 people.


Point one: most tyre problems that you'll pick up in a visual inspection
will also affect the driving sufficiently that you won't reach the end
of the street before realising something's wrong.

Point two: by this logic, you should also check the brake lines, the
hydraulic fluid, and so on, every time you drive - if they've been cut,
you're in serious trouble.

Risk versus return. I have my tyres rotated regularly; the people that
do that will alert me if there's a problem with tread, etc., before I
take the car back on the street. This alert will come with *plenty* of
time to spare before they become dangerous. I check the air pressure
every couple of weeks; if I regularly find that the tyres are dropping
too much in that time frame, I get them checked for punctures.

By your logic, I would say that probably 99% of the car drivers in this
country are criminally negligent. Yet we don't see the accident rates
that this would imply ...

I'm with Tam (and others) on this one - the kid will have to live with
the fact that he's contributed to the deaths of several of his mates.
Even if there was nothing he could have done, there will still be
survivor guilt ("I'm alive while they're all dead. Why me? What could I
have done different?") Any attempt to throw the blame on him any further
could very easily drive him to suicide ... and how is society served by
that? *It isn't*. The people that need to hear any sort of message that
might be sent by such an event *will never hear it* - "it'll never
happen to me!"

--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".
 

LotteBum

New Member
Nov 2, 2004
1,138
2
0
42
I agree with Tam on this one - the media should at least try to abide by certain moral obligations. That said, I do hope the kid feels bad because that is certainly not always the case.

The boyfriend of a girl I went to school with was involved in a car 'accident', in which he killed someone, a few years ago. Witnesses couldn't believe his carry-on about being late for work etc. etc. He served a year in prison. To me, that's not enough. He should have served 20. It would be a totally different story if he had shown remorse.

As much as sure, it was the kid's fault, driving isn't seen as a privilege in Australia, rather it's seen as a right. That's not the kid's fault.

Bring on $2/litre petrol - that'll get rid of at least SOME cars (and yes, I know it'll push up the price of everything else, but so be it - I can afford it and don't care), and make driving less viable for young kids.

Lotte
 

scotty72

New Member
Jul 10, 2005
815
0
0
I'll deal with your comment as I believe yours is genuine (not throwing in red herrings, false logic etc).

I'm not saying the media should crucify the kid. My problem is with the parents who said something to the affect that he should not be blamed, that he should go through life without the burden of guilt.

Rubbish! He should. People died - he was the driver. People are coming up with more conspiracies about this than for JFK.

The tree did it. The council. The politicians. The road. Someone cut his brakes, the tyre etc.

And I'm sorry. Simply saying your sorry (or pretending to be sorry) for the senseless death of 4 people does not make it go away. Remorse is irrelevant as they are still just as dead if he was not sorry.

Your quite right. The culture is not the kid's fault in the same way that a fish is not responsible for the water it is in. My comments are aimed at the parents who seem to think this kid should be absolved.

As I've said before, licences are far too easy to get (and keep).

Why stop at $2 / l? Make it three and the kids may not be able to afford it. Adults will really start to respect their right to drive if it hurts their wallets.

SCotty

LotteBum said:
I agree with Tam on this one - the media should at least try to abide by certain moral obligations. That said, I do hope the kid feels bad because that is certainly not always the case.

The boyfriend of a girl I went to school with was involved in a car 'accident', in which he killed someone, a few years ago. Witnesses couldn't believe his carry-on about being late for work etc. etc. He served a year in prison. To me, that's not enough. He should have served 20. It would be a totally different story if he had shown remorse.

As much as sure, it was the kid's fault, driving isn't seen as a privilege in Australia, rather it's seen as a right. That's not the kid's fault.

Bring on $2/litre petrol - that'll get rid of at least SOME cars (and yes, I know it'll push up the price of everything else, but so be it - I can afford it and don't care), and make driving less viable for young kids.

Lotte
 
T

Terryc

Guest
cfsmtb wrote:

>
> Don't laugh, but this has previously been suggested, as has the removal
> or repositioning of bus shelters & street furniture. Personally I think
> the authorities should stop farting around and simply line the streets
> with armco or guardrail.


you sure?

I'm more in favour of far more kerbside tree planting. It is Darwinian.
You can go visit the lions, but why should the lion suffer because you
put your hand in the cage.
 
T

Terryc

Guest
Theo Bekkers wrote:

> Good Lord. Do you ping all your spokes before you ride down to the shops?


If I had eight of them I would
or is it 16?

but as I usually run 36+, I wait for the wobble.
 
T

Terryc

Guest
Stuart Lamble wrote:

> Point one: most tyre problems that you'll pick up in a visual inspection
> will also affect the driving sufficiently that you won't reach the end
> of the street before realising something's wrong.


Obviously you are talking only about yourself.

One day, we had arrived at the Dingo Gate on Barrington Tops after an
arduous walk up from the Allyn River to hear
bruddabruddabruddabruddabruddabruddabrudda.........

When along the road come a real LOL[1], whom we waved down and informed
that she had a flat rear tyre. Which, of course we also changed for her.
She had driven so long on it that it was 50-50 rubber-missing.

I've seen almost similar problems on good roads.


[1] Little Old Lady for those who don't known their TLAs.



> Point two: by this logic, you should also check the brake lines, the
> hydraulic fluid, and so on, every time you drive - if they've been cut,
> you're in serious trouble.


Don't you touch your brakes when you first start off?


> By your logic, I would say that probably 99% of the car drivers in this
> country are criminally negligent. Yet we don't see the accident rates
> that this would imply ...


No argument there.
 

ritcho

New Member
May 24, 2004
934
0
0
Terryc said:
cfsmtb wrote:

>
> Don't laugh, but this has previously been suggested, as has the removal
> or repositioning of bus shelters & street furniture. Personally I think
> the authorities should stop farting around and simply line the streets
> with armco or guardrail.


you sure?

I'm more in favour of far more kerbside tree planting. It is Darwinian.
You can go visit the lions, but why should the lion suffer because you
put your hand in the cage.

I'm unconvinced either way on this... whenever cars or roads get engineering improvements, good old human behaviour spends some of the safety benefit on riskier behaviour... too bad for other, more vulnerable road users. Nevertheless, one of the reasons for making those improvements is that death is a heavy penalty for an error of judgement. The kid might have just put his mates in hospital instead of the morgue.

I don't think there are any easy solutions and I don't like supporting bans on activities just because they wouldn't affect me. However, a group of young people in one car seems to have a multiplicative effect on the incidence of stupid behaviour (or errors of judgement, in a more pc speak).

Ritch
 

ritcho

New Member
May 24, 2004
934
0
0
Terryc said:
Theo Bekkers wrote:

> Good Lord. Do you ping all your spokes before you ride down to the shops?


If I had eight of them I would
or is it 16?

but as I usually run 36+, I wait for the wobble.

If you had only eight spokes and one of them broke, you're unlikely to get out of the garage on the bike!

I have 32 spoke wheels, so I have a bit less margin of error than Terryc :)

Ritch
 

scotty72

New Member
Jul 10, 2005
815
0
0
Terryc said:
When along the road come a real LOL[1], whom we waved down and informed
that she had a flat rear tyre. Which, of course we also changed for her.
She had driven so long on it that it was 50-50 rubber-missing.
Can I replace your LOL with SOLWAOOCSOGM (Stupid Old Lady Without An Ounce of Common Sense or Grey Matter)?

How is it that this SOLWAOOCSOGM is able to get with 10 feet of a car without being arrested?

SCotty
 
T

Terryc

Guest
ritcho wrote:
> Terryc Wrote:
>
>>cfsmtb wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Don't laugh, but this has previously been suggested, as has the

>>
>>removal
>>
>>>or repositioning of bus shelters & street furniture. Personally I

>>
>>think
>>
>>>the authorities should stop farting around and simply line the

>>
>>streets
>>
>>>with armco or guardrail.

>>
>>you sure?
>>
>>I'm more in favour of far more kerbside tree planting. It is
>>Darwinian.
>>You can go visit the lions, but why should the lion suffer because you
>>put your hand in the cage.

>
>
> I'm unconvinced either way on this... whenever cars or roads get
> engineering improvements, good old human behaviour spends some of the
> safety benefit on riskier behaviour...


eggs axctly.

> However, a
> group of young people in one car seems to have a multiplicative effect
> on the incidence of stupid behaviour (or errors of judgement, in a more
> pc speak).


The real problem is that we do not know how many die by other ways for a
real comparison.

e.g. (unfortunately not Oz) the USA AMA recently published that their
figures show that 106,000 die per annum in USA hospitals from drug
allergies. If Australia is same proportion, then ~7066 die here each
year, which is how many times our road toll?
 
Z

Zebee Johnstone

Guest
In aus.bicycle on Tue, 24 Oct 2006 19:32:05 +1000
Terryc <[email protected]> wrote:
> cfsmtb wrote:
>
>>
>> Don't laugh, but this has previously been suggested, as has the removal
>> or repositioning of bus shelters & street furniture. Personally I think
>> the authorities should stop farting around and simply line the streets
>> with armco or guardrail.

>
> you sure?
>
> I'm more in favour of far more kerbside tree planting. It is Darwinian.
> You can go visit the lions, but why should the lion suffer because you
> put your hand in the cage.


On the other hand, you could consider motorcyclists who lose traction
on oil or deisel or who are run off the road.

Street furniture is lethal to them. And possibly to, say, cyclists
doing fast descents.

Zebee
 
T

TimC

Guest
On 2006-10-24, cfsmtb (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
> Tamyka Bell Wrote:
>>
>>
>> Excellent point. We should cull those pesky trees.

>
> Don't laugh, but this has previously been suggested, as has the removal
> or repositioning of bus shelters & street furniture. Personally I think
> the authorities should stop farting around and simply line the streets
> with armco or guardrail.


I love that -- remove the bus shelters so the cars are free to run
into people sitting on the side of the road waiting for their bus.


Anyway, dontyaknow -- we just have to put up signs along roads saying
"trees close to road". That'll solve all our problems.

--
TimC
"Think of bicycles as rideable art that can just about save the
world." - Grant Peterson
 
T

TimC

Guest
On 2006-10-24, Tamyka Bell (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> scotty72 wrote:
>>
>> Then stop driving.
>>
>> If your not at least visually inpecting your tyres at least once every
>> few days - you're a menace - get off the road.
>>
>> How hard is it to walk a lap of your car? Are you that much of a lazy
>> slob?

>
> Shall I go walk a lap of my scooter every few days? I'd
> spend more time walking around it than driving it.


Big scooter, eh?

--
TimC
Computer screens simply ooze buckets of yang.
To balance this, place some women around the corners of the room.
-- Kaz Cooke, Dumb Feng Shui
 
T

TimC

Guest
On 2006-10-24, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Sir Lex wrote:
>
>> As for the legal driving age, many countries around the world let kids
>> as young as 14 obtain a restricted motorcycle/moped licence. They are
>> then allowed to start driving cars at 16.

>
> Some countries allows six year old children ride bicycles with no formal
> training. Allow teenagers to ride their unlicenced bicycles on the roads.
> Where are the safety checks, the training, compulsory vehicle checks?
>
> Think of the children!
>
> Theo
> Sarcasm, if you hadn't noticed.


Sarcasm presumably because you realise that bicycles, even in the
hands of those untrained 6 year olds, don't kill multiple people at a
time, nor do they kill anyone other than the rider, on the vast
majority of occasions?

--
TimC
All Tims are illusions, except for Lunch Tim, who is doubly so.
--screwtape on RHOD
 
T

Theo Bekkers

Guest
scotty72 wrote:
> No, but a busted spoke wont kill 4 people.


Scenario:- spoke breaks, extra load on the other 35 poorly maintained spokes
cause 5 more to snap, wheel collapses, rider falls into path of fuel tanker.
Tanker driver takes violent evasive action, runs over four cars, the seven
occupants all die. Tanker continues out of control and careers into a
school. Tanker explodes in a huge fireball. 300 children dead, 450 more
seriously burnt.

Why the hell didn't you check your goddam spokes this morning, ya lazy slob.
How can you live with yourself?

Do you get the point yet? No? I didn't think you would.

Have a nice life Scotty.

Theo
 
T

Theo Bekkers

Guest
LotteBum wrote:

> Bring on $2/litre petrol - that'll get rid of at least SOME cars (and
> yes, I know it'll push up the price of everything else, but so be it -
> I can afford it and don't care), and make driving less viable for
> young kids.


Whilst I agree with most of what you said, fuel will still be the smallest
cost of owning a motor vehicle. A $25,000 vehicle will cost you $120 a week
to pay off, rego and insurance will cost you at least another $40 a week. If
you do 12,000 kms a year, even at $2 a litre, the fuel will cost you $48 a
week, 23% of the total cost of ownership.

Theo
 
S

Stuart Lamble

Guest
On 2006-10-25, Theo Bekkers <[email protected]> wrote:
> Whilst I agree with most of what you said, fuel will still be the smallest
> cost of owning a motor vehicle. A $25,000 vehicle will cost you $120 a week
> to pay off, rego and insurance will cost you at least another $40 a week. If
> you do 12,000 kms a year, even at $2 a litre, the fuel will cost you $48 a
> week, 23% of the total cost of ownership.


Or look at it from my perspective. I've paid off my vehicle; I own it
outright. (Wish I could say the same about my home, but anyway. :)

Rego and insurance come to around $1,000 per annum, or $20 a week
(roughly). (Rating one driver - what can I say?) If I do 10,000 km a
year (which seems not unreasonable at my current rates), that's around
200 km a week. 20 litres of fuel a week - roughly - comes to $40/week.

Servicing? Let's be generous: $1,000 per annum. (probably less than
that).

Suddenly, the cost of fuel has jumped to 50% of the cost of owning a
vehicle ...

--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".