Driver charged over West Gate freeway crash which killed four youths

[gcg2503]

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...7-2862,00.html

More details to come I guess about what this driver did.

However, if his car didn't directly come into contact with the other causing teh fatalities then I think this is quite harsh.

[dom_105]

Very similar verdict to the one that came as a result of the Ferrari crash in the Yarra Valley.

I don't agree with it, but that's on face value. We all have to live with the consequences of our decisions. The decision of the driver in the Commodore ended up killing him and three of his mates. The responsibility lies with him, and only him, unless he was hit by another car.

But that's only my opinion, on face value.

[damir05]

spot on dom 105

[GT450]

I don't see how you can make any judgement based on the limited information in that story, but they are getting tough on idiot drivers and if you are a contributorto an accident, however big or small, then expect to pay the price.
Cheers
GT450

[J_Tank]

Sounds very much like there is an expectation that "someone" is brought to justice for the deaths of the four youths. The 4 counts of culpable driving causing death, in my opinion, are ridiculous and more than likely politically motivated. The other charges sound more appropriate but the tough charges are due to it being a high profile, high fatality crash in a high profile location.

[3vXT]

If i was driving along a straight bit of road and swerved onto the wrong side of the road causing another car to have an accident trying to avoid me is it my fault?

If i don't make contact with the other car then its not my fault right?

I have no idea about the circumstances behind that story but everything is not always black and white. Its not too hard to imagine either party being responsible. Its not as simple as 'The cars didn't touch so its the dead guys fault".

[J_Tank]

Originally Posted by ken2903

everything is not always black and white. Its not too hard to imagine either party being responsible. Its not as simple as 'The cars didn't touch so its the dead guys fault".

Absolutely Ken. All the stories I have been able to find suggest than the two vehicles involved were racing at the time.

[dom_105]

Originally Posted by ken2903

If i was driving along a straight bit of road and swerved onto the wrong side of the road causing another car to have an accident trying to avoid me is it my fault?

If i don't make contact with the other car then its not my fault right?

I have no idea about the circumstances behind that story but everything is not always black and white. Its not too hard to imagine either party being responsible. Its not as simple as 'The cars didn't touch so its the dead guys fault".

The distinction, i believe, is between an accident caused from internal factors (i.e, the driver of the car) as opposed to external factors (i.e, any other thing on the road)

You swerve to miss another car and hit a tree, that accident was caused by the driver of the other car. You choose to generally around on a public road, and hit a tree as a result, who's fault is that?

[3vXT]

Originally Posted by dom_105

The distinction, i believe, is between an accident caused from internal factors (i.e, the driver of the car) as opposed to external factors (i.e, any other thing on the road)

You swerve to miss another car and hit a tree, that accident was caused by the driver of the other car. You choose to generally around on a public road, and hit a tree as a result, who's fault is that?

Isn't that what i said? The point i was making is that in the link provided, its not clear what actually happened so we shouldn't jump on our high horses about it. Its possible that its the dead guys fault and its possible that its not.

Personally, i don't have too much of a problem taking the word of a "major collision unit" that's investigated the accident for 17 months, but that's irrelevant.

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by ken2903

Its possible that its the dead guys fault and its possible that its not.

it is very possible that at least 2 people can be responsible. just because a person does not crash, does not mean they were not irresponsible
most of us at some stage have blamed someone else for influencing our partners, children, bosses etc. when something goes wrong and yet when someone is influencing another in a dangerous way, that we have have done or may do we think they should be considered innocent

so many people come up with the "responsible for actions" line (many more than who actually do in my opinion). while taking responsibility for your actions is important there is something much more important
taking responsiblity before your actions. if everyone did this, accidents like the 2 mentioned in this thread probably would never have happened

i was not there, so am only guessing, but with the falcon/ferrari accident; if the falcon was not driving at high speed with the ferrari, would the ferrari have been driving at that speed or at a lower, safer speed. if driving slower, would the ferrari have crashed in such devastating circumstances. probably not -so, looking at what seemed happened, there are 2 driver's who are responsible for the accident. to what point is irrelvant, just who is. the law dictates what penalties must be handed down
the much better option is to be responsible in the first place

[pauljh74]

If the 2 were racing side by side and the Commodore driver made a mistake that resulting in him crashing, then it's no-one else's fault. But if the other car was playing chicken with him, swerving around and causing the Commodore to take sudden evasive action that resulted in the accident, then throw the book at him, even if there was no actual contact. In this scenario, it is highly likely the Commodore would have been hit and crashed anyway if they didn't take any evasive action.

[J_Tank]

Originally Posted by gtxb67

just because a person does not crash, does not mean they were not irresponsible

I couldn't agree more. This is where I believe the application of the secondary charges is necessary, related to driving dangerously.

Originally Posted by gtxb67

there are 2 driver's who are responsible for the accident. to what point is irrelvant, just who is. the law dictates what penalties must be handed down
the much better option is to be responsible in the first place

While I agree with the general thrust of your argument I still have an issue with the severity of the charge levelled against the "other" driver as it were. It seems to me this level of charge should be applied to the driver of a car if that driver's passengers were the fatalities. I must admit I am not familiar with Victoria's laws in this regard and will have to do some research, but I am troubled by the idea of directly linking the actions of one driver with deaths in another car unless the actions of the driver directly threatened the lives of those in the other car. While he may have had an influence on the driver of the car that crashed, ultimately my understanding of the law is that the driver is responsible for the lives of passengers within their own car.
I certainly do not hold the driver of the other car guiltless. Just not responsible for those deaths as the charges would suggest.

[dom_105]

Originally Posted by gtxb67

i was not there, so am only guessing, but with the falcon/ferrari accident; if the falcon was not driving at high speed with the ferrari, would the ferrari have been driving at that speed or at a lower, safer speed.

Probably not, but the Ford driver can drive as fast or as slow as he wants, it's not going to make much difference to the fate of the driver in the other car unless he makes the choice to drive fast as well.

Where does it stop? If someone overtakes me and has a head on with a car heading in the opposite direction, am I partly responsible? My car caused the accident, if I wasn't on the road at that particular time and at that particular spot, there would be no crash.

What happens if I was not driving, if I had broken down and couldn't get my car totally off the road, does that make a difference? Does anybody know if the law makes a distinction between these senarios?

[FPV+fteT3]

You can not IMO be responsible for anything that occurs to any other vehicle being driven by another person unless you donot give way to them where required or you come into contact with them or you cause them to do a manouver to miss hitting you cause you have done something dumb by simple accelerating fast and them trying to keep up and getting into difficulty on their own is not your fault. Why race your car if you dont have the ABILITY or EQUIPMENT to do it without picking out a pole or tree?

If a ricer wants to have a traffic light race and comes to grief it can be no one elses fault but their own take responsibility for your own actions you cannot keep blaming others for your own shortcomings or it will end with the person who sold you the car in the first place.......Damn ford selling those FPV's making you race and hit poles. I am sure no one put a gun to anyone's head and said race him or I will shoot you.

[GT69]

My old mechanic years ago built a young guy an engine, he handed over the money and in return recieved a powerful V8. Come one friday afternoon said young guy picks up his car and off he goes. Monday morning police officers arrive at the mechanics workshop. The young guy killed himself because the engine was to powerful.

Whose to blame?

I dont no much about this story, but whats been said in the last couple posts are correct, sure it might be a horrible right wing thing to say, but responsibility people. It lies on the judgement of the driver.

I see alot of themes on these forums, especially the pub, drink driving/losing licences and what not and they all come down to that one word.

[fpvluver]

r.i.p to young many people are being taken in senseless acts in cars.
its such a shame i have lost 8 friends in four years because of bad judgments and i am only twenty i hope i dont lose anymore frinds or family because of a drivers bad judgment

[Laminge]

Originally Posted by fpvluver

r.i.p to young many people are being taken in senseless acts in cars.
its such a shame i have lost 8 friends in four years because of bad judgments and i am only twenty i hope i dont lose anymore frinds or family because of a drivers bad judgment

Originally Posted by fpvluver

itd just them trying to scare or warn you mate just watch out for them and be a good boy hehehe and you will ba alright just dont do it where you can get caught lol it works for me

Your not doing yourself any favours by the above, lesson never learnt!

[Stattic]

Originally Posted by pauljh74

If the 2 were racing side by side and the Commodore driver made a mistake that resulting in him crashing, then it's no-one else's fault. But if the other car was playing chicken with him, swerving around and causing the Commodore to take sudden evasive action that resulted in the accident, then throw the book at him, even if there was no actual contact. In this scenario, it is highly likely the Commodore would have been hit and crashed anyway if they didn't take any evasive action.

pretty good points, it takes two to tango but if youre going to do rubbish like that then the person being aggressive is responsible for the crash. if its just two cars going fast i honestly dont see how either is to blame for the others actions, when you are handed a drivers license they assume you are mature enough to act like an ADULT...
i can see how theyre using harsh sentencing to deter street racing and i cant fault them on that but its really not fair because someone could go to jail to prove a point where people who have done the same/worse have gotten off lighter.
hell i think drink drivers get off easier than speeding drivers these days but thats another story

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by dom_105

Where does it stop? If someone overtakes me and has a head on with a car heading in the opposite direction, am I partly responsible?

Possibly, generally not.

My car caused the accident, if I wasn't on the road at that particular time and at that particular spot, there would be no crash.

1. A car cannot of itself cause a crash.
2. If you are on a road, being overtaken, and have not sped-up or otherwise moved out to intimidate the overtaking driver, then you are *not* responsible, nor is your car:-)
3. There would be 'no crash' IF,- the overtaking driver had better judged distance and closing-speed, had indicated>>>>> before moving out, kept those on till past you, then signalled left<<<< to move back in.

In addition, before overtaking, one is also allowed to give a quick flash of the high-beam headlights, to better alert traffic ahead of your presence.

Last bit is ideal for rural open-road driving and some freeway conditions, it arrived into AUS law decades ago because its a permitted action under the UN Road Traffic Convention.

What happens if I was not driving, if I had broken down and couldn't get my car totally off the road, does that make a difference? Does anybody know if the law makes a distinction between these scenarios?

A broken-down car is always a possibility, and sometimes will be crashed into by approaching traffic.

These become court matters where death results, or in the case of serious injury. Issues here of actionable negligence and contributory actions on the part of all involved come into question.

Basically - we are required to keep a breakdown scene as safe as possible; vis
* Hazard warning lights ON.
* Ignition switch OFF in crashed vehicles. (Reduces chance of fire).
* Passengers clear of the vehicle (not behind it masking taillights or in front masking flashers), and so moved WHEN its safe to do so.

That's the basic Aussie requirement. OS add these legal requirements and action;-
* All passengers on leaving broken-down cars et al must wear Specification "EN471" safety vests - to aid in pedestrian safety whilst attending it, or when standing nearby, particularly on the open road.
* Triangle must be placed well ahead (50-150m) of the scene, off the side of the road, or side of an affected traffic lane.

If the vehicle is stopped partially blocking a traffic lane for other than a breakdown (and even then), then the person can be at greater risk of legal challenge. Mitigating factors come into play - again - folk simply need to get the vehicle off the side of the road (left preferred) where at all possible.

NB - DOWNLOAD that WA Pdf Link in my Sig - explains further.

[Bud Bud]

Originally Posted by Keepleft

3. There would be 'no crash' IF,- the overtaking driver had better judged distance and closing-speed, had indicated>>>>> before moving out, kept those on till past you, then signalled left<<<< to move back in.[/B]

A little off topic now I know but complicating this situation further is the fact that the law does not allow or make any provision for the set speed limit to be exceeded in any way by a driver of a car that is overtaking either. This imo is very dangerous because I know that I have even found myself trying to keep the speed down during an overtaking manoeuvre and delaying the time spent on the wrong side of the road.

I am very conscious of this because, In SA I have even seen other people (not me) booked by waiting stationary police with hand held radars on the Dukes Hwy when people have exceeded the speed limit after entering an overtaking lane and haven overtaken another car at 10 kms over the speed limit after patiently following them just under the speed limit for 5 kms or so.

[Paddyboy]

Its definetly not black and white. We dont know the full details of this incident to be sure who's responsible, but before we jump to conclusions on whether the charges are fair, he may be found not guilty of the higher charges but guilty of the lower ones. Just because he's been charged means he's found guilty.
I personally believe that its political, someone is going to be made an example of, especially considering the huge police crack down on hoons in melbourne as its getting a bit out of control with illegal street racing. This guy may have innitiated a drag race and the 4 blokes in the commodore accepted and they went for it, but I still believe the sole responsibility lies with the driver of the crashed car, unless the other car swerved to hit him or got in his way.
who knows? just a sad story either way.