9 dead in 9 days

[fryingpan]

Well, I think this "under 90 in 09" campaign is well out of reach this keeps happening.

22 year old woman killed near Hahndorf yesterday, an innocent 22 year old guy killed last night because of some ****head drag racers, and a 15 year old girl killed this morning walking her dog.

How sad. Some of those drag racers should be charged with murder and sent away for life. What a disgrace that an innocent man is dead and his family's lives have changed in an instant forever because of the pure stupidity of others

 

[-CG-]

People really don't get the message do they?

Two of my friends died in a crash earlier this year in horrible circumstances and it really was a wake up call to all of my friends to drive safely.

To see that after the increased amount of crashes this year that people aren't slowing down and taking care is sad, it really is

 

[DirrtyBee]

Just watching the news and seeing it is quite sickening.
Wish people would take more care, but for those who purposely put themselves and others at risk ie drag racing are ignorant tools.

 

[TubbsFarquhar]

It just makes me sick thinking how stupid people are on the roads (especially drag racers).

 

[Macca19]

Ridiculous really.

The one with the WRXs...that car is ripped to shreds. They must have been travelling at some bloody speed. Sickening. Lock the ***** up for good.

 

[NSWCROW]

 

[StuPendus]

While it's extremely hard on the families of the injured or deceased, no one thinks of the emergency services people who have to go and pick up the mess day and night.

It becomes too much sometimes. Some scenes are just as bad as war casualties.

And they cannot just forget as soon as their shift over.

 

[Crow-mo]

These are horrible tragedies, no one can deny that. far more to the families involved, than to the wider public.

that said, there will always be a road toll, its the nature of the beast. its a folly to think it can be prevented, though of course we would all hope our loved ones are not the details in these statistics.

as % of the population, are we higher / lower, about the same other places? is there really a problem (over and above the norm) or is this just the year on year consistent average?

for example, every year 10,000's of people die from the Flu - but everyone got up in arms about some nonsense regarding swine flu.

I kinda think you need a sense of perspective, on an overall level. unless you are affected by such things, and then it becomes deeply personal and not a societal matter whatsoever.

put another way, 9 in 9 days is meaningless without context.

 

[Campbell's Chunky]

Yes, I knew a guy who was elite at the sport he played (would have represented Australia) that was killed because a drunk driver was speeding on the wrong side of the road.

It's all a bit sad.

 

[Macca19]

put another way, 9 in 9 days is meaningless without context.

I think SA is about 20 ahead of the same toll from last year.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

I think if you look at the stats, most deaths occur when 1.alcohol 2. drugs 3. no seatbelt & 4. excessive speed

thousands of crashes happen each year, most of them 'serious injuries'. And sometimes there is only a couple of cm's/km's/mins between 'death' and a serious injury. if that makes sense.

I think we were extremely luck last year with such a low count, its a shame its up this year.

You can also add in fatigue and inattention. Age is also a contributing factor. On a per km driven basis, teenage drivers are the most at risk group on the road. The younger the teen driver, the more at risk they are likely to be - sixteen year olds are the highest risk group of all. One line of speculation is that the part of the brain that measures risk and controls impulsive behaviour isn't fully developed until age 25.

Here are a couple of links to the US situation. Google away if you want more info, but it's a common picture:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-02-28-teen-drive-cover-usat_x.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/teenmvh.htm

Gender is also a contributing factor. Nearly 74% of people in South Australia who die in crashes and 62% of seriously injured are males.

The SA Police website states that relative to our population, South Australia has one of the highest fatality rates compared to other states and territories - 15% worse than the national average.

Road crashes on South Australian roads

* kill a person every 2 to 3 days;
* injure 24 people each day;
* admit 4 people to hospital every day; and
* cause serious damage to over 200 vehicles each day.

There had been a downward trend in road fatalities from the early 2000 figures in the mid-150s, to 2006 (117), 2007 (125) and 2008 (99). This year is trending towards the 2006-7 figures again.

Now and again South Australia raises the idea of a more restrictive Graduated Driver Licence system than we currently have - raising the age limit for full driver privileges, night driving curfews for younger drivers etc. These ideas have been around as a possible formal scheme for over 20 years. But nothing comes of it, sadly I suspect for inconvenience reasons.

The issue of driver training beyond the basics that are already delivered is raised now and again, but it has consistently been shown that extended driver training has little effect on road accident outcomes.

 

[Vader]

Just on a side note, I heard something on the radio that seemed strange. SA is now doing drug testing. Now, the drugs stay in your system for a couple of days, so technically you could get pulled over test positive, but not be under the influence of drugs. And the offender loses their license. So really someone is losing their license not because they are under the influence, but because they have taken a drug.

Does is seem strange to anyone or is just me?

They've been doing them in Victoria for a while now. They had a serious case of egg on face when they introduced it though. They made a big fuss over the first person charged - named & shamed in the papers, only for him to be found not guilty. Think he ended up suing them over it.

I haven't heard too many things since then, so I assumed they fixed up the glitches in the system and it all works smoothly now. Not really much difference between a drug test and a drink driving test.

As for drugs still being in the system after several days - what's your point? If the drugs you're taking are still in your system in sufficient quantities after this long, then you definitely shouldn't be driving.

 

[Vader]

I would assume that these tests would be good enough to determine the difference between "in the system" and "under the influence". Presumably they test for the "active ingredient" - that which gets you high/stoned.

That said, I'm not an expert on the subject. All I know is that Vic has had it for a while and I haven't heard any bad feedback since the well publicised first arrest.

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

Now that I'm an older man I look back and think it bizarre that a 16 year old boy is allowed to drive a car. Lets be honest at 16 your still a baby. To have that much power at your disposal is incredibly dangerous. I cant drink a beer or vote until I'm 18 but I can drive a car, crazy really.

 

[Ozzie]

I think they shouldnt restrict when you drive. I did alot of driving when I was younger at night, and I never once drank drive, or speed excessivly.


I do however think they should restrict what sort of car you drive. Dont let P platers have supped up cars.





Just on a side note, I heard something on the radio that seemed strange. SA is now doing drug testing. Now, the drugs stay in your system for a couple of days, so technically you could get pulled over test positive, but not be under the influence of drugs. And the offender loses their license. So really someone is losing their license not because they are under the influence, but because they have taken a drug.


Does is seem strange to anyone or is just me?

Under the current regulations for all machinary operators the legal limit is 0.00 in other words, no drug or booze is allowed. I was a Train Driver for 20 years and over that time I saw many changes. Most of the older drivers when I started would stay in barracks overnight drinking and be drunk and in charge of the train the next day. When these regulations came into effect, the men's drinking pattern began to change. Random breath tests came in and we were stopped en route to be tested. Before we started duty, as well as when we were finishing our shifts, I know of 5 who lost their jobs after being caught repeatly. Then it was taken further when the drug culture flourished. 3 of my close friends in the driving ranks were busted 3 times and all were sacked. Another one hit a car and he had weed in his system. he avoided gaol but his career was finished.

Proven tests show that weed stays in the system for 14 days and the effects linger. it is not strange it protects people's lives having these rules in place.

 

[Crow-mo]

Proven tests show that weed stays in the system for 14 days and the effects linger. it is not strange it protects people's lives having these rules in place.

I'm certain there was a study conducted at Stanford, probably about 15 years ago now, that showed drivers under the influence of weed were significantly *less* likely to have an accident than completely sober people.

make of that what you will.

 

[Alex99]

Now that I'm an older man I look back and think it bizarre that a 16 year old boy is allowed to drive a car. Lets be honest at 16 your still a baby. To have that much power at your disposal is incredibly dangerous. I cant drink a beer or vote until I'm 18 but I can drive a car, crazy really.

Agree with ya Springy.

 

[Ozzie]

I'm certain there was a study conducted at Stanford, probably about 15 years ago now, that showed drivers under the influence of weed were significantly *less* likely to have an accident than completely sober people.

make of that what you will.

Explain that to the Federal Government. They are the ones who make the laws for machinery Operators. Note that includes all types of machinery.

These studies I believe have since been discredited.

 

[Drummond]

I'm certain there was a study conducted at Stanford, probably about 15 years ago now, that showed drivers under the influence of weed were significantly *less* likely to have an accident than completely sober people.

make of that what you will.

Good to see you red carded for such a ridiculous post.

 

[Crow-mo]

Good to see you red carded for such a ridiculous post.

not sure someone who doesn't drink is worth listening to on this.

 

[Drummond]

not sure someone who doesn't drink is worth listening to on this.

Actually, I'm probably the only one worth listening to.

 

[Crow-mo]

Explain that to the Federal Government. They are the ones who make the laws for machinery Operators. Note that includes all types of machinery.

I don't have to explain anything to the federal government, and realised long ago that the authorities aren't necessarily great experts on anything. or even competent in some regards. it was an important study at one of the great research universities of the world.

I remember when they dropped the drink driving laws from 0.08 to 0.05 in line with the national limit. numerous doctors pointed out that this was an irrelevant distinction, and if you wanted to do it then it wasn't supported by medical evidence.

now, of course this is not argue one way or another on these things. nor I am arguing that the limit should be higher or lower. however, there is a huge amount of politics more than substance to this type of legislation. it is NOT based on knowledge or *consensus* meaningful causal evidence.

if you allow people to drive cars, there will be a road toll. it then becomes subjective as to what is an acceptable level. some people, who miss the point, will decry that no level is acceptable. but this is pointless and unhelpful, as the only way to have a 0% is to ban driving. some people will say dropping the speed limit from 60 - 50 - 40 - 20kmh whatever, is the answer but they don't do this based on knowledge or valid statistical proof (because this area of statistics is SO flawed as to be almost meaningless in any exercise requiring precision) but of an understanding of how emotive such subjects are, and how easy it is to decry opponents as not caring about people, children, puppies or baby seals.

let me give you an example of something so unbelievable it couldn't be possibly be true, but illustrates the politics of emotional sensitivities.

until 2 or 3 years ago, there was very heavy regulation in the UK of when a pub or bar could be open to serve drinks. the limit was 11:00 pm, even on saturday nights. This was old law, brought in to stop excess drinking distracting from the war effort. the first world war!!!!

everyone acknowledged this was daft, but there was a conservative opposition and it wasn't really on anyone's radar.

when the government, in consultation with the hotel industry and the police agreed this needed to change - nearly 100 years after it was brought in. the problem was that it caused a lot of street violence, as people chugged up at closing, and everyone got dumped out on the streets at once. very difficult to police obviously.

anyway on this agenda, legislation was put forward to amend this law. but rather unbelievably, there was huge opposition to this. the do gooders came out and declared this was decadent moral decay and would result in increased violence on the streets, leading to booze filled anarchy.

this was despite the evidence of the rest of the world, which demonstrated what a nonsense this was. despite the Police themselves campaigning for this, as in their opinion and in their investigations this would cut violence and drunken misbehaviour as it staggered people leaving the pubs, and discouraged lining up drinks at a single closing time.

didn't matter these people argued without evidence, emperical or statistical, without expert advice and almost carried the day. they argued against police spokespeople and lobbyists etc

the campaign was as simple as this: the change will cause more violence on the streets, lobby your MP to make sure they don't support it. that this was untrue, and unsupported didn't matter. people assumed that you couldn't say that if it wasn't true, or there wasn't evidence. wrong!!!! of course no one wanted more violence on the streets, so momentum built.

anyway, eventually it passed after a very big fight. and of course what happened? nothing, crime stats fell slightly, and the ensuing anarchy didn't materialise. surprise, surprise. the examples in the rest of the world held here too.

the point, just because someone legislates or argues something, it doesn't mean there is a reason. often there isn't one, but certain agenda's can run on industry lines, increasing government control, religious conservatism, all sorts of things. but you CANNOT assume a measured, informed and reasoned basis for such subjects. it might be true, it might not be.

as for a 0% drug ban while operating machinery. that sounds reasonable, and on that basis why wouldn't you support it. well you would, except the issues in identification and legislation. a substance stays in your system for 28 days, well after the influence has dissipated. no one would ever support the right of a fork lift driver to spliff up on the job, but equally in a fully disclosed campaign would you support the sacking of said driver if he had a spliff 2 weeks ago on holiday?

wouldn't that depend on the ability to accurately identify the situation? but I *guarantee* you that did not form a meaningful part of the debate. if you oppose a 0 tolerance, then you're a crazed wonk, rather than someone worried about the potential for abuse.

just like you support violence on the streets if you favour 21st century liquor licensing laws and agree with the police.

the nature of the subject is as important as anything in considering the debate and its implications.

These studies I believe have since been discredited.

really? you believe based on what? now, I don't know if it has or hasn't - but I suspect you don't either and this is pure guess work based on your personal working conditions.

which actually couldn't be more irrelevant, as the existence of your conditions has no bearing on how reasonable or not they are.

 

[Crow-mo]

Actually, I'm probably the only one worth listening to.

touche