https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-01/children-killed-in-traffic-a...

Apparently these kids were not even on the road. The driver was drunk. We'll find out more about him including priors etc. And who is the owner of the vehicle? 

The reports say it is all about the families. Well, it is actually about the whole society and us being able to allow our children out the door, to be in public spaces.

As has been said over the years on this site, we need laws that confiscate vehicles in various situations including cases like this, laws to sell them and bank the money to state treasuries and in cases of vehicle write-offs, to take the insurance money. It is no different if the driver was not the vehicle owner unless it can be proven the vehicle was stolen at the time.

So often these hoons don't have licences so taking them away does little. Jail is not much of a deterrent. It is too little, too late.

Views: 461

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

4 have passed away, 3 from the same family.   Insurance wouldn't pay up as the driver tested positive to booze.

I'm waiting for the comments saying that children shouldn't be out after dark  :(

it wasn't even dark

his charges include going through a red light!!

Need some crash barriers too, if the driver lost control on the bend in the road evident on Streetview. Always worries me when footpaths are so close to roads with bends. Its a relatively new footpath too, they maybe could have put in barriers, even if just near the bend.

I had the misfortune to watch morning TV the other day where they were "discussing" a politician's idea to set school zones and parks 40km/h 24/7. Of course both sides of the discussion where heavily against such a "stupid idea". Apparently observing the speed signs is now too distracting for the poor motorists. I say if motorists have a problem observing the speed limit changes, make it 40km/h every f**king where, then you don't need to know if it is a school zone or not.

Putting lives at risk simply because it would be upsetting to motorists is plain and simply wrong.

Thanks for the rant.

they are going to be really pissed when 30 becomes the new 50 and spreads to residential streets, not just school zones. i imagine Bettington St might stay 50, but theyd have to mitigate the risks for pedestrians and cyclists.

And it's too hard to drive modern cars at these ridiculously low speeds *eyeroll*

Parramatta councillors calling for crash barriers.

Council could be sued for omitting them. Tragic that the path was a good idea, only grass before, but has put walkers and cyclists at risk. RMS have told me “we dont usually put barriers next to footpaths”- too expensive, but there are many bends and places where you could just about predict there will be a runoff at some stage. 

Pressure building to introduce alcolocks too.

Where do you stop?

The only way to completely prevent this sort of thing is to barrier off paths and roads entirely.

None of the knee-jerk solutions in that article would have prevented this tragedy.

- 0 BAC limit - nope. Driver was drunk.

- lower speed limits - nope. Driver was speeding

- redesigned streets - maybe. But driver went through red light and overtook on double yellows just before crash, so I doubt it.

- barriers on Bettington Rd - yes.  But that's *one* spot.

- alcohol interlock - maybe. Did the guy have priors?  He was only late 20's.

Vulnerable road user legislation? Anyone? A bit surprised that wasn't even mentioned in the article. Yeah, I know it's a *really* radical idea (though apparently 'everything needs to change' so hey, why not at least push the boat out??), but in countries that have such laws the all-round difference in driver behaviour is noticeable: instead of looking for reasons *to* misbehave (speed, get impatient, bomb through pedestrian crossings), they much more often look for reasons *not* to.

(I get that drunk drivers aren't thinking - about road safety or much else - but surely against a well-understood cultural backdrop of knowing that you will be held responsible for your actions on the road, you would be less likely to drink and drive in the first place...?)

Yes.

Legally switch the drivers social status from the top to the bottom.

Yes - definitely needed.

As John says above - drivers need to be at the bottom of the totem pole.

Professional drivers are held to a higher standard. Its far past time to legislate and educate that level of understanding of responsibility, accountability and liability to all automobile license holders.

Must say I dont know much about VRUL. A quick search around found this from USA, where a few states have it. https://www.velonews.com/2016/06/road/legally-speaking-vulnerable-r... Apparently introduced because motorists could kill a cyclist but only get a fine for the traffic violation, eg overtaking in a no overtaking zone. Surely our laws arent so bad?

RSS

© 2020   Created by DamianM.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service