From: Andy on 11 Jun 2007 03:00 George W. Frost wrote: > "Blue Heeler" <woof(a)bark.net> wrote in message >> Interesting thing on ABC radio in Brisbane last week, the presenter >> (Kelly Higgins-Devine) had her sister on the phone - sister apparently >> hit a train on exactly the same crossing a couple of years back - but >> in her case it was a goods train and her 4wd bounced back from the low >> carriage it hit. >> > > Just shows how stupid that women drivers in 4WD vehicles are LOL :-)
From: veritas on 11 Jun 2007 03:40 Blue Heeler wrote: > > Interesting thing on ABC radio in Brisbane last week, the presenter > (Kelly Higgins-Devine) had her sister on the phone - sister apparently > hit a train on exactly the same crossing a couple of years back - but > in her case it was a goods train and her 4wd bounced back from the low > carriage it hit. Off-topic from the subject; I relate the story of a guy who was trying to get councils who had ungated level crossings in their jurisdiction to place largish reflectors - on the other side of the tracks - so that the reflected "flashing strobe" (at night) created by the wheels, bogies and the like, might give an earlier warning that a freight train is traversing the roadway. He claimed that a considerable number of collisions were in that category. It sounded to be a reasonable argument - It wouldn't cost that much either
From: Michael on 11 Jun 2007 04:29 Noddy wrote: > "reg-john" <al(a)fddfd.com> wrote in message > news:M1Oai.11364$wH4.5969(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au... > >> how about in cars? surely it shouldnt matter right? > > It wouldn't bother me at all to be honest. > > In fact, I'd be happy to go one step further and have ignition control > devices that police can manipulate from within their cruisers fitted to > *all* road vehicles, purely in the interests of helping to prevent theft and > the deaths of innocents from car chases gone wrong. > >> i mean you in your car can legally drive indefinitely, not have a break, >> and if you have an accident, the only law that applies is the one >> concerning the accident. > > That's true, but then the average Joe Motorist isn't spending 24/7 behind > the wheel as part of his job, and if he falls asleep behind the wheel his > Falcon isn't likely to rip open a train carriage and kill a bunch of people. > > -- > Regards, > Noddy. > > Neither does anyone else Noddy. Mick C
From: Noddy on 11 Jun 2007 04:34 "jonz" <series11(a)landy> wrote in message news:466cff1f$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au... > wrong, dipshit, and you know that......... I don't know that at all actually. I presume you're a truck driver, and it's obvious to me that you have problems with the fact that a truck driver may have fucked up and killed 11 people. > .your argument is fucked............ My argument, for what it's worth, is that short of there being some pretty extenuating circumstance that would remove the blame from the truck driver, *he's* responsible for the death of 11 innocent bystanders, and I think that would be obvious to any casual observer. The fact that you have an issue with that is your problem, not mine. >.see if you can get a life, before its to late, That's pretty funny coming from someone who takes comments about a particular truck driver (and his actions) as if they're an attack on him personally. You need help. Lots of it, and pronto. -- Regards, Noddy.
From: Michael on 11 Jun 2007 04:36
veritas wrote: > Daryl Walford wrote: >> There are many "alternatives" that can prevent a repeat of last >> Tuesday's crash, better roads, better management of road transport >> which may be as simple as paying drivers a lot more so there won't be >> a driver shortage which causes people to work excess hours and we can >> put more freight onto trains but none of those measures will >> completely eliminate the possibility of it happening again. >> As I said previously even the very best drivers can have momentary >> lapses in concentration and thats all it takes. > > > AMEN! And god bless the people that have passed on. Mick C |