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
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
> "reg-john" <al(a)fddfd.com> wrote in message
>> 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.
Neither does anyone else Noddy.
From: Noddy on 11 Jun 2007 04:34
"jonz" <series11(a)landy> wrote in message
> 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
> .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
You need help. Lots of it, and pronto.
From: Michael on 11 Jun 2007 04:36
> 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.
And god bless the people that have passed on.