Truck gets stuck under CBD rail bridge blocking afternoon traffic

 
Topic moved from News by bevans on 04 Oct 2019 13:49
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud

P*ss poor narrow highway with no shoulder at all, nowhere safe to pull over...That seems to me to be the root cause.

Apply the Substitution Test; how would you have reacted in the exact same circumstances, doing your best to ignore your 20:20 hindsight?
Lockspike
At last, thank-you! Can't pull over because you can't fully get off the carriageway and therefore put other motorists at risk - if you keep going at (say) 50 km/h looking for somewhere to pull over you're doing exactly what both truck drivers were doing anyway.

I honestly don't know how I would have reacted given those incredibly difficult circumstances. South Australia is full of rubbish narrow main highways with totally inadequate shoulders, intersections not clearly marked or signposted, lack of safety features.

We should have made more of a concerted effort in this state to keep bulk freight off the road system and on rail.

Sponsored advertisement

  route14 Chief Commissioner

All traffic participants have the obligation to avoid accidents so you can't just run into someone without endeavouring to brake even if the other party is at fault.  The public transport operator will sort out passengers' injuries.  The operator has insurance to cover that, which is why a commercial tram operator takes standees while trams at Sydney Tramway Museum are restricted to seating capacity.  It is for the same reason that I'm not supportive of the Apollo seating on B class, and the provision of open space without seats on low floor classes.  The higher proportion of passengers seated, the safer the trip will be.
    Nevertheless, I don't dispute that tram driving is a stressful job.
  Madjikthise Deputy Commissioner

Post-script: If you want to talk about the fact that heavy road haulage is more deadly than rail haulage then fair enough but please have an ounce of sympathy for the deceased and their families and the fact that their job hauling a massive B-double is dangerous and difficult.
I have all the sympathy in the world for the families, but there is no escaping the facts. . . the drivers failed to drive with proper regard for the conditions. QED!
So your decision would have been to kill motorists behind you by not properly pulling your truck off the road. Got it.

Off to prison with you, 3-5 years for manslaughter. The court says you made the wrong decision without due care for other road users - no sentence reduction on appeal.
So the last car in a line of stopped traffic should be held responsible for anyone hitting them from behind? Yeah that sounds logical.
In a dust storm with limited visibility you're travelling slowly driving according to the conditions - suddenly a stationary truck half on/half off the carriageway looms ahead of you. You brake but can't avoid hitting it even at reduced speed.

Who is responsible? Take your time and have a good think before you answer.

I notice that nobody wants to touch the tram driver's dilemma either. The answer to that one is the you're going to go to court either way and you'll possibly lose your job even though that scenario presented no safe option for you to react.
don_dunstan
Car ahead is stopped because there is a dust storm, car ahead is stopped because there is a line of traffic because of the dust storm. Either way the car was stopped and you hit it because you weren't driving to the conditions.

Stop saying you were driving to the conditions if you couldn't stop before a stationary object.
  Valvegear Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Richmond Vic
At last, thank-you! Can't pull over because you can't fully get off the carriageway and therefore put other motorists at risk - if you keep going at (say) 50 km/h looking for somewhere to pull over you're doing exactly what both truck drivers were doing anyway.
"don-dunstan"
Everybody on that piece of road was already at risk because of very poor visibility.

You've painted yourself into a corner by ignoring the basic rule of the road; "drive to the conditions".  The truck driver(s) failed to do so.  Many of us have pointed this out. There is no way out of this conclusion.

What you or I or old Uncle Tom Cobleigh might have done is irrelevant. (So are all the references to tram drivers).

If you think we are all lacking in sympathy for the families you are wrong, but you can't re-write events just to soothe peoples' feelings. Unfortunately, they have to deal with it as, for example, do the parents of a hoon who has killed people. The families are not to blame but are forced to suffer. Nobody likes it, but that's the way it is.

Please, once and for all; stop looking for a scapegoat and accept the obvious.
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
Please, once and for all; stop looking for a scapegoat and accept the obvious.
Valvegear
You really don't understand what I'm arguing.
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
Car ahead is stopped because there is a dust storm, car ahead is stopped because there is a line of traffic because of the dust storm. Either way the car was stopped and you hit it because you weren't driving to the conditions.

Stop saying you were driving to the conditions if you couldn't stop before a stationary object.
Madjikthise
Driving to conditions would be slowing down, looking for somewhere safe to pull off the road - which is what both truck drivers were doing.

None of you seem to understand that obstructing a carriageway is a serious offence in every single Australian jurisdiction; if you stopped your vehicle in a carriageway (or not completely pulled off a carriageway) and then people subsequently crash into you because you were stopped on the road that action would land you in court for manslaughter, no two ways about it.

You never - NEVER - stop your vehicle fully or partially in a carriageway.
  Valvegear Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Richmond Vic
There was an obstruction in conditions of limited visibility. Whether it's because someone can't see, or because of a crash doesn't matter.
You drive according to the conditions, which you appear incapable of understanding.
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
There was an obstruction in conditions of limited visibility. Whether it's because someone can't see, or because of a crash doesn't matter.
You drive according to the conditions, which you appear incapable of understanding.
Valvegear
But you break the law by stopping your vehicle in a carraigeway - end-of-story. "Conditions of the road" is incredibly subjective and very difficult to prove in a court of law but stopping in a carriageway is ALWAYS wrong.

I'll give you another example of how what you are saying is wrong. I was outbound on the Westgate Fwy one day years ago when I lived in Melbourne and suddenly it started pelting with hail - it was a bit of a worry but myself (and most other motorists) just slowed down to accommodate the decreased visibility and increased stopping distance. However there were people so panicked by the hail that they were stopping their cars underneath the overpasses right in the middle of the road. I actually saw a car crash because someone had stopped in the middle of the road.

Who is at fault there? According to you the people who stopped under the overpass and caused the accident were in the right.
  Madjikthise Deputy Commissioner

A stationary car is obstructing traffic, it is not at fault for collisions. The reason for it being stopped is irrelevant and only answerable to the police. It is up to you to either stop, or find a safe way around it.
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
A stationary car is obstructing traffic, it is not at fault for collisions. The reason for it being stopped is irrelevant and only answerable to the police. It is up to you to either stop, or find a safe way around it.
Madjikthise
Incorrect, read your road code. You can't stop in a carriageway unless:
  • A police officer, traffic signal/sign or roadworks sign instructs you
  • The road ahead is blocked for whatever reason, including traffic being backed up
But if you are simply stopped in the middle of the road because of a hail storm or a dust storm, fog, or decreased visibility you are breaking the law. You need to take your vehicle completely off the road and park where you are not obstructing traffic, otherwise you put the lives of other motorists at risk.
  Madjikthise Deputy Commissioner

A stationary car is obstructing traffic, it is not at fault for collisions. The reason for it being stopped is irrelevant and only answerable to the police. It is up to you to either stop, or find a safe way around it.
Incorrect, read your road code. You can't stop in a carriageway unless:
  • A police officer, traffic signal/sign or roadworks sign instructs you
  • The road ahead is blocked for whatever reason, including traffic being backed up
But if you are simply stopped in the middle of the road because of a hail storm or a dust storm, fog, or decreased visibility you are breaking the law. You need to take your vehicle completely off the road and park where you are not obstructing traffic, otherwise you put the lives of other motorists at risk.
don_dunstan
Yes you are breaking the law, and you would be fined accordingly if it was deemed safer to keep moving than to stop. It does not absolve other motorists from their need to avoid the collision, once again by driving to the conditions. Would you still blame the stopped car if it was on its roof due to an earlier accident?
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
A stationary car is obstructing traffic, it is not at fault for collisions. The reason for it being stopped is irrelevant and only answerable to the police. It is up to you to either stop, or find a safe way around it.
Incorrect, read your road code. You can't stop in a carriageway unless:
  • A police officer, traffic signal/sign or roadworks sign instructs you
  • The road ahead is blocked for whatever reason, including traffic being backed up
But if you are simply stopped in the middle of the road because of a hail storm or a dust storm, fog, or decreased visibility you are breaking the law. You need to take your vehicle completely off the road and park where you are not obstructing traffic, otherwise you put the lives of other motorists at risk.
Yes you are breaking the law, and you would be fined accordingly if it was deemed safer to keep moving than to stop. It does not absolve other motorists from their need to avoid the collision, once again by driving to the conditions. Would you still blame the stopped car if it was on its roof due to an earlier accident?
Madjikthise
I think we are actually agreeing at this juncture.
  allan Chief Commissioner

I can remember teaching my son to drive... It took a while to convince him to ignore the vehicle behind, and to ensure that he should go no faster than the vehicle in front!
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
I can remember teaching my son to drive... It took a while to convince him to ignore the vehicle behind, and to ensure that he should go no faster than the vehicle in front!
allan
Agreed, you've got to learn to keep scanning the road ahead for potential hazards and anticipate other people's mistakes ... although there's nothing I hate more than some tailgating knob, very distracting.
  Crossover Train Controller

Location: St. Albans Victoria
There was an obstruction in conditions of limited visibility. Whether it's because someone can't see, or because of a crash doesn't matter.
You drive according to the conditions, which you appear incapable of understanding.
But you break the law by stopping your vehicle in a carraigeway - end-of-story. "Conditions of the road" is incredibly subjective and very difficult to prove in a court of law but stopping in a carriageway is ALWAYS wrong.

I'll give you another example of how what you are saying is wrong. I was outbound on the Westgate Fwy one day years ago when I lived in Melbourne and suddenly it started pelting with hail - it was a bit of a worry but myself (and most other motorists) just slowed down to accommodate the decreased visibility and increased stopping distance. However there were people so panicked by the hail that they were stopping their cars underneath the overpasses right in the middle of the road. I actually saw a car crash because someone had stopped in the middle of the road.

Who is at fault there? According to you the people who stopped under the overpass and caused the accident were in the right.
don_dunstan
Someone keeping a good lookout on the road would have ascertained that the vehicle ahead was stopped and would not have crashed into them most likely especially in a heavy storm .
  Crossover Train Controller

Location: St. Albans Victoria
There was an obstruction in conditions of limited visibility. Whether it's because someone can't see, or because of a crash doesn't matter.
You drive according to the conditions, which you appear incapable of understanding.
But you break the law by stopping your vehicle in a carraigeway - end-of-story. "Conditions of the road" is incredibly subjective and very difficult to prove in a court of law but stopping in a carriageway is ALWAYS wrong.

I'll give you another example of how what you are saying is wrong. I was outbound on the Westgate Fwy one day years ago when I lived in Melbourne and suddenly it started pelting with hail - it was a bit of a worry but myself (and most other motorists) just slowed down to accommodate the decreased visibility and increased stopping distance. However there were people so panicked by the hail that they were stopping their cars underneath the overpasses right in the middle of the road. I actually saw a car crash because someone had stopped in the middle of the road.

Who is at fault there? According to you the people who stopped under the overpass and caused the accident were in the right.
Someone keeping a good lookout on the road would have ascertained that the vehicle ahead was stopped and would not have crashed into them most likely especially in a heavy storm .
  Crossover Train Controller

Location: St. Albans Victoria
There was an obstruction in conditions of limited visibility. Whether it's because someone can't see, or because of a crash doesn't matter.
You drive according to the conditions, which you appear incapable of understanding.
But you break the law by stopping your vehicle in a carraigeway - end-of-story. "Conditions of the road" is incredibly subjective and very difficult to prove in a court of law but stopping in a carriageway is ALWAYS wrong.

I'll give you another example of how what you are saying is wrong. I was outbound on the Westgate Fwy one day years ago when I lived in Melbourne and suddenly it started pelting with hail - it was a bit of a worry but myself (and most other motorists) just slowed down to accommodate the decreased visibility and increased stopping distance. However there were people so panicked by the hail that they were stopping their cars underneath the overpasses right in the middle of the road. I actually saw a car crash because someone had stopped in the middle of the road.

Who is at fault there? According to you the people who stopped under the overpass and caused the accident were in the right.
Someone keeping a good lookout on the road would have ascertained that the vehicle ahead was stopped and would not have crashed into them most likely especially in a heavy storm .
  Crossover Train Controller

Location: St. Albans Victoria
There was an obstruction in conditions of limited visibility. Whether it's because someone can't see, or because of a crash doesn't matter.
You drive according to the conditions, which you appear incapable of understanding.
But you break the law by stopping your vehicle in a carraigeway - end-of-story. "Conditions of the road" is incredibly subjective and very difficult to prove in a court of law but stopping in a carriageway is ALWAYS wrong.

I'll give you another example of how what you are saying is wrong. I was outbound on the Westgate Fwy one day years ago when I lived in Melbourne and suddenly it started pelting with hail - it was a bit of a worry but myself (and most other motorists) just slowed down to accommodate the decreased visibility and increased stopping distance. However there were people so panicked by the hail that they were stopping their cars underneath the overpasses right in the middle of the road. I actually saw a car crash because someone had stopped in the middle of the road.

Who is at fault there? According to you the people who stopped under the overpass and caused the accident were in the right.
Someone keeping a good lookout on the road would have ascertained that the vehicle ahead was stopped and would not have crashed into them most likely especially in a heavy storm .
  Crossover Train Controller

Location: St. Albans Victoria
There was an obstruction in conditions of limited visibility. Whether it's because someone can't see, or because of a crash doesn't matter.
You drive according to the conditions, which you appear incapable of understanding.
But you break the law by stopping your vehicle in a carraigeway - end-of-story. "Conditions of the road" is incredibly subjective and very difficult to prove in a court of law but stopping in a carriageway is ALWAYS wrong.

I'll give you another example of how what you are saying is wrong. I was outbound on the Westgate Fwy one day years ago when I lived in Melbourne and suddenly it started pelting with hail - it was a bit of a worry but myself (and most other motorists) just slowed down to accommodate the decreased visibility and increased stopping distance. However there were people so panicked by the hail that they were stopping their cars underneath the overpasses right in the middle of the road. I actually saw a car crash because someone had stopped in the middle of the road.

Who is at fault there? According to you the people who stopped under the overpass and caused the accident were in the right.
Someone keeping a good lookout on the road would have ascertained that the vehicle ahead was stopped and would not have crashed into them most likely especially in a heavy storm .
  Crossover Train Controller

Location: St. Albans Victoria
There was an obstruction in conditions of limited visibility. Whether it's because someone can't see, or because of a crash doesn't matter.
You drive according to the conditions, which you appear incapable of understanding.
But you break the law by stopping your vehicle in a carraigeway - end-of-story. "Conditions of the road" is incredibly subjective and very difficult to prove in a court of law but stopping in a carriageway is ALWAYS wrong.

I'll give you another example of how what you are saying is wrong. I was outbound on the Westgate Fwy one day years ago when I lived in Melbourne and suddenly it started pelting with hail - it was a bit of a worry but myself (and most other motorists) just slowed down to accommodate the decreased visibility and increased stopping distance. However there were people so panicked by the hail that they were stopping their cars underneath the overpasses right in the middle of the road. I actually saw a car crash because someone had stopped in the middle of the road.

Who is at fault there? According to you the people who stopped under the overpass and caused the accident were in the right.
Someone keeping a good lookout on the road would have ascertained that the vehicle ahead was stopped and would not have crashed into them most likely especially in a heavy storm .
  route14 Chief Commissioner

The modern driving books do say that when tailgated pull over where safe to do so and allow the following vehicle to overtake.
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
Google reviews for the Montague street bridge here .  It almost gets five stars as a Melbourne attraction (?).

I particularly like the idea of making it a tourist attraction and installing a grand-stand so that members of the public and tourists can sit and wait for the inevitable truck crashing into the structure... more entertaining than Federation Square anyway!

EDIT: Can't seem to make the link work but you get the idea.
  Valvegear Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Richmond Vic
This afternoon it's Richmond's turn. Some goose has crashed into the Swan Street Bridge bringing down tram lines and generally creating a monumental foul up.
Take the truck licences off these goons for life - if they're that stupid they shouldn't be out there.
  BrentonGolding Chief Commissioner

Location: Maldon Junction
This afternoon it's Richmond's turn. Some goose has crashed into the Swan Street Bridge bringing down tram lines and generally creating a monumental foul up.
Take the truck licences off these goons for life - if they're that stupid they shouldn't be out there.
Valvegear
Hold on, where did that come from? My 1885 MelWays clearly shows that there is a level crossing at this location! How am I expected to know about a bridge that doesn't exist!
  GoldenGirl Locomotive Driver

VG, monkey see, monkey do.
Road safety cameras, how does receiving a bluey in the post two weeks after the offence change behaviour, in the present tense? Note, I’ve never had one.
40kph school zones, agree with,I live in one. Driver behaviour is pathetic. U/three or five point turns over double lines common. As is double parking. And peanuts extracting kids from the drivers side , into traffic,,,,,
michaelgm
"Road safety cameras, how does receiving a bluey in the post two weeks after the offence change behaviour, in the present tense? Note, I’ve never had one."

Obvious you have not had one, otherwise you would know they are red and not blue Twisted Evil

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: bevans, RTT_Rules

Display from:   

Quick Reply

We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.