Accident warning for all.

[James_bf]

Hello,

I was involved in two accidents on Melbourne's City Link last Friday.
In the first I was rear ended after I stopped when cut off. Not a big deal, these things happen.

We pulled into the left lane (no emergency lane), some way in front of a broken down van (the reason I was cut off), the driver that caused the accident just drove off!

After getting out of our vehicles, the car behind mine, was hit from behind, and in coming forward hit us (people) as well as my vehicle again. The three for us (two from the car behind mine and I) were not too badly injured, but may have been. If any of us were crushed between the two cars the outcome may have been very different.

So please, if you are in an accident and get out of your car, keep well away from the road and your car because another accident can occur. If you are out of your car you have no protection! This applies double where there is no emergency lane.

James.

[Yellow_Festiva]

Bugger.... as long as you're ok in the end.

Did you get the plate of the dog that did the runner??

[deesun]

KEEPLEFT will be here soon as this is one of his pet issues.
The bloke who "caused the accident" was really the bloke behind you because he didn't leave enough room between you and him, but I know what you are saying. In instances like your accident it is difficult to find a safe place particularly where there is no breakdown lane. Glad to hear no one was seriously injured. Many years ago a car 3 in front of me slowed and did a u turn over double yellow lines, 3 cars stopped and the one behind me didn't. We were in an 80k zone.

[Resurrection]

That is why freeways have warning signs on the entry ramps. It is dangerous to be stationary on the side when cars doing 100km/hr are passing within metres of you.

[mr smith]

A good reason to (if the cars are drivable) to move somewhere well away, a quick chat to agree all is good to move, then park somewhere safe, like a carpark/servo etc.
Ive told the missus to not stop on the fwy at all costs, everything bar the car being undrivable or a fatality can be sorted out somewhere safe.

[gcg2503]

Glad to hear all three of you are OK James

I eagerly await Sudzy's constructive input

[James_bf]

Didn't get the number of the guy that cut me off. I flashed my light at him, but he took off. I'm sure the police could find him/her if they wanted to, we had just gone through a toll gantry.

The second accident happend very quickly. We had just stopped and met between the cars and were moving (walking) off to the side. We'd barely spoken 10 words when it all happened.

As there was a broken down vehicle 100meters back, I thought the left lane would be OK, but it wasn't.

James.

[deesun]

Police won't go looking for the other car as it wasn't involved in the accident, thats the bottom line. You were lucky you had the peace of mind to think about your own safety and move away from between the vehicles, good thinking.

[XB GS 351 Coupe]

Police would not be interested in the person in front of you as he had no involvement in the collision, and would not be subject to any police action, so why waste resources to find him.

At the end of the day you were able to stop you vehicle in time and as such did the right thing by not colliding with the back of him had you hit him then police would want to speak to him.

The person that it you from the back is at fault, and caused the accident by either not paying attention to what is going on in front of him and/or not leaving enough gap to stop safely in an emergency.

The other person that hit your parked vehicles is just a moron, and he will most probably get charged with 'neg drive', as he is paying no attention what so ever what was going on around him, and more importantly right in front of him

Good point about the safety aspect though, it's common sense at it's most basic, but still a good point.

Originally Posted by Yellow_Festiva

Did you get the plate of the dog that did the runner??

I think you missed the part where he said all involved in the accident stopped and exchanged details, no one involved in the collision did the runner

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by James_bf

Didn't get the number of the guy that cut me off. I flashed my light at him, but he took off. I'm sure the police could find him/her if they wanted to, we had just gone through a toll gantry.

The second accident happend very quickly. We had just stopped and met between the cars and were moving (walking) off to the side. We'd barely spoken 10 words when it all happened.

As there was a broken down vehicle 100meters back, I thought the left lane would be OK, but it wasn't.

James.

So, did you or your party flick the hazard warning lights on?

How about that first unrelated vehicle 100m back?

Rem at 100km/h your at 28 meters per second, add in a drunks 1.3-2.0 second reaction time to an event, AND then the vehicles performance to stop. Often therefore, an approaching car is on top of you, too late.

Attended a couple of these types again (existing crash impacted by additional vehicle/s), and a crossover on the F3 of late - no median barrier.

So many who stop - don't think to use the hazards (uncool), let alone even know what a warning triangle is, or when it might be safe to use it. Safety vests? EN371 specification type cost as little as $4.50 in 'cheap shops' here in OZ - these, (two per car) are in ALL continental registered EU cars now and are kept inside the cabin - behind the backrests usually.

The warning triangle and safety vest items form part of tranche of new amendments to be adopted by states parties signatory to "The UN Convention on Road Traffic", including Australia. Time needed to comply, and this takes AUS about ten years to catch-up*.

* Including adopting the new Euro/UN working party emissions items via Global Technical Regulations for motor vehicles. YOUR 'domestic pollie' then sells it via media as something local; to give you the impression 'the party' has done something unique - for you!

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by gcg2503

Glad to hear all three of you are OK James

I eagerly await Sudzy's constructive input

Seems to be a recurring them these days. Can only suggest if it isnt possible to get off the road somewhere safe then if possible only get out of the left side of the car, and only stand to the left of cars not behind,between or infront of them.

perhaps people should consider carrying fluro witches hats, safety triangles etc and put them up some distance behind you.

I assume all vehicles had their hazard lights engaged?

[mik]

i totally agree the freeway is a dangerous place , get up behind the barrier if possible get well away from the road and car.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by mr smith

A good reason to (if the cars are drivable) to move somewhere well away, a quick chat to agree all is good to move, then park somewhere safe, like a carpark/servo etc.
Ive told the missus to not stop on the fwy at all costs, everything bar the car being undrivable or a fatality can be sorted out somewhere safe.

Good advice, no need to leave a drivable car in a high risk location if there are no serious injuries (i.e. obvious large bone fractures, chest injuries, head injuries, unconscious, entrapped occupants etc) or fatalities. In the minor crashes that most urban crashes are, the police have little interest in seeing the exact finishing position of the cars and the bulk of their decision is based on witness statements.

Obviously if anyone was knocked out, has neck pain, or you are not sure they are safe to move, leave them in the car and your friendly ambo's and fire service will sort it out. If you can, try and get an uninvolved car to stop 50m up the road as far over to the shoulder as possible with their hazard lights on (even better with a safety triangle). Many motorists will see a car with hazards on and slow down, therefore seeing the crash up the road.

Do not under any circumstance stand on the traffic side of the cars, in between them or in front of them. Beside them on the non traffic side is the safest on the road surface but the ultimate is to be off the road on the opposite side of the barrier. I might add there is no need to use the bonnet of one of the cars as a desk on which to exchange details, this is utter stupidity.

You would all be amazed how many crashes we attend are actually two separate crashes with one happening a short time after the first. Always ensure that if a member of the emergency services instructs you to move to a certain location, you do so without question, they are telling you for your own safety. Personal belongings in cars can be sorted out once a level of scene safety has been established by the emergency crews.

My last point, always remember that scene safety and the welfare of all involved far outweighs any consideration of who was at fault and leaving cars where they are for the purpose of showing the police.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by sudszy

I assume all vehicles had their hazard lights engaged?

Personally I believe it should be a mandatory design feature of all vehicles that the hazard lights automatically engage on an impact.

[StrokedXT]

Keepleft, if some idiot can't see three cars in broad daylight is a ****y little triangle going to make a difference. People pay so little attention to what's happening around them a safety vest and triangle won't do a thing.

I am regularly required to walk in traffic areas and I think people are attracted to the vests more than keeping clear.

[StrokedXT]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Personally I believe it should be a mandatory design feature of all vehicles that the hazard lights automatically engage on an impact.

I would rather my car cut the electrics in the event of an accident.

[BadMax]

My pet hate is when so many people have a crash and the leave the cars all over the road like it is a crime scene. If they are relatively safe to drive, move them off the road to prevent further accidents.
The epitome of stupidity is standing in between two cars after an accident!

[Yellow_Festiva]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Personally I believe it should be a mandatory design feature of all vehicles that the hazard lights automatically engage on an impact.

My Citroen had a feature where if you quickly went from accelerator to brake (such as in an emergency stop) the hazzards would automatically turn on...

Pretty good feature actually, I found this out when a person decided to cut across my path from the extreme right to their exit on the freeway that they almost missed...

[Yellow_Festiva]

Originally Posted by XB GS 351 Coupe

I think you missed the part where he said all involved in the accident stopped and exchanged details, no one involved in the collision did the runner

"My bad"... as the youngins say... But hang on:

Hello,

I was involved in two accidents on Melbourne's City Link last Friday.
In the first I was rear ended after I stopped when cut off. Not a big deal, these things happen.

We pulled into the left lane (no emergency lane), some way in front of a broken down van (the reason I was cut off), the driver that caused the accident just drove off!

I read it that the driver who did the rear-ending drove off???

[gtfpv]

to the OP glad you raised this point . i am always shocked at the amount of people who have a minor collision , then get out and stand between the 2 vehicles to exchange details ! this is the reason the aliens dont disclose themselves to us.
furthermore i'll add , after one accident , the risks of a 2nd are greatly increased , from 1 second later to 6 months . these are documented facts , so DRIVERS BEWARE .
Good point about not stopping in an unsafe place , many people think it is cool to get under the car to fix it in an emergency lane , 50 metres away from a rest area , or exit lane .
me , i told my wife not to wrorry about the mags if she gets a flat , but drive on the rim if necessary to get off the road entirely.

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by StrokedXT

Keepleft, if some idiot can't see three cars in broad daylight is a ****y little triangle going to make a difference.

Yes, 'people and cars' are a boring routine, a triangle is reflective at night/in fog etc, and has an inner fluroescent triangle form -for daytime use, its a device that 'different' to the typical road environment, people notice unusual things. This realisation is why the item was made a 'mandatory requirement' (along with EN471 vests) throughout EU. And soon, the world community. Dunno bout you - but I'm tired of hearing/reading/seeing incinerating women on freeways who had broken-down (their cars - not discussing teary waterworks).

People pay so little attention to what's happening around them a safety vest and triangle won't do a thing. I am regularly required to walk in traffic areas and I think people are attracted to the vests more than keeping clear.

I walk in traffic areas almost daily, and in high-speed environs OS that'd leave many an OZ crying for mummy and 110km/h speed limit maximums. So, after decades of this, I respectfully disagree.

IF we extrapolate your experience, THEN the world should accept your observations and *REMOVE*; from ALL emergency services; from the driving public in high-speed Europe; ALL traffic control cones; the existing requirement for a single warning triangle in cars in EU; safety vests from all EU registered cars AND high-vis vests and safety gear from the same emergency services - WORLDWIDE.

That is effectively what your saying.

NEVER enter into the equation will you, curves and bends in roads (afteral they are only straight AND people can see whats around every bend and curve, etc).

Don't ever comprehend that even on straight roads, a triangle placed 150-200m (steps) *before* a scene TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, OR side of an affected traffic lane - gives *advanced warning* of 'something' up ahead: In the eyes of the largely distracted and those suffering tunnel vision. Don't comprehend the simple realisation that a warning triangle, "of high specification" (NOT one that is only AS3790 compliant - these ARE GARBAGE and is evidence Aussies and yanks should NOT create trafic safety devices) CAN, and does - 'draw attention'!

SHOULD we accept then?! That T-shirts - patterned and even black in colour, and clothing generally about the body will suffice?! As afteral; people see you in a vest and your convinced - they try and run you down?!

Save your life man, get rid of the vest and any additional safety devices like traffic cones/high-vis stuff you might have.

I'll notify GovCo - we'll save our South Pacific Pesos big time by eliminating these items. (Shame then that BTRE puts each life lost at a figure exceeding two million dollars, - in 1996 figures). God forbid some Suzuki driver went to Bunnings and bought one of their $9.90 UNECE 27R warning triangles, he could kill hundreds!

I'll get to work straight away to REMOVE all tuition references to the placement of hazard warning triangles, the wearing of safety vests by car drivers now mentioned in our State and Territory driver manuals. (See WA's example in my SIG).

I'll then notify Ford Australia that their Finnish made, UNECE27R compliant triangle is a - '****y little thing'. Duh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMwEo5avtDo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kh8rv...eature=related

The answer otherwise, is to do "nothing". Accepting OF COURSE, no safety item is failsafe, people are capable of destroying most anything.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Keepleft

Yes, 'people and cars' are a boring routine, a triangle is reflective at night/in fog etc, and has an inner fluroescent triangle form -for daytime use, its a device that 'different' to the typical road environment, people notice unusual things. This realisation is why the item was made a 'mandatory requirement' (along with EN471 vests) throughout EU. And soon, the world community.



I walk in traffic areas almost daily, and in high-speed environs OS that'd leave many an OZ crying for mummy and 110km/h speed limit maximums. So, after decades of this, I respectfully disagree.

IF we extrapolate your experience, THEN the world should accept your observations and *REMOVE*; from ALL emergency services; from the driving public in high-speed Europe; ALL traffic control cones; the existing requirement for a single warning triangle in cars in EU; safety vests from all EU registered cars AND high-vis vests and safety gear from the same emergency services - WORLDWIDE.

That is effectively what your saying.

NEVER enter into the equation will you, curves and bends in roads (afteral they are only straight AND people can see whats around every bend and curve, etc).

Don't ever comprehend that even on straight roads, a triangle placed 150-200m (steps) *before* a scene TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, OR side of an affected traffic lane - gives *advanced warning* of 'something' up ahead: In the eyes of the largely distracted and those suffering tunnel vision. Don't comprehend the simple realisation that a warning triangle, "of high specification" (NOT one that is only AS3790 compliant - these ARE GARBAGE and is evidence Aussies and yanks should NOT create trafic safety devices) CAN, and does - 'draw attention'!

SHOULD we accept then?! That T-shirts - patterned and even black in colour, and clothing generally about the body will suffice?! As afteral; people see you in a vest and your convinced - they try and run you down?!

Save your life man, get rid of the vest and any additional safety devices like traffic cones/high-vis stuff you might have.

I'll notify GovCo - we'll save our South Pacific Pesos big time by eliminating these items. (Shame then that BTRE puts each life lost at a figure exceeding two million dollars, - in 1996 figures). God forbid some Suzuki driver went to Bunnings and bought one of their $9.90 UNECE 27R warning triangles, he could kill hundreds!

I'll get to work straight away to REMOVE all tuition references to the placement of hazard warning triangles, the wearing of safety vests by car drivers now mentioned in our State and Territory driver manuals. (See WA's example in my SIG).

I'll then notify Ford Australia that their Finnish made, UNECE27R compliant triangle is a - '****y little thing'. Duh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMwEo5avtDo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kh8rv...eature=related

The answer otherwise, is to do "nothing". accepting OF COURSE, nothing is failsafe.

Would you mind if I keep wearing my reflective safety vest and/or reflective rain jacket? I kind of like the idea of being more visible at the scene of road crashes.By the way, am I allowed to keep using the vehicle beacons as well or are they out too?

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Would you mind if I keep wearing my reflective safety vest and/or reflective rain jacket? I kind of like the idea of being more visible at the scene of road crashes.By the way, am I allowed to keep using the vehicle beacons as well or are they out too?

Mutter mutter, okay. (Notes in big brother diary under specifics - 'Gecko wants to keep dry and safe as possible - must be that QLD air').

AT AUSSIE GOVCO PTY LTD - WE'LL SAVE YAH!

http://www.thisfrenchlife.com/thisfr...g-triangl.html

France - requirement:-
http://www2.securiteroutiere.gouv.fr..._14-04-08.html

France - on education of the triangle and vest matter:-
http://www.securiteroutiere.gouv.fr/...id_article=184

[AMGC63]

As far as i can work out the only thing to take from this thread is dont pull over on the side of a HWY if you have a minor bingle, take the cars somewhere safer to exchange details, the guy who drove off did nothing at all wrong if he didnt have any contact with anyone else.

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by Wayne351

As far as i can work out the only thing to take from this thread is dont pull over on the side of a HWY if you have a minor bingle, take the cars somewhere safer to exchange details, the guy who drove off did nothing at all wrong if he didnt have any contact with anyone else.

Sure sport - in a minor one, but not all cars remain driveable, sadly.

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by Wayne351

As far as i can work out the only thing to take from this thread is dont pull over on the side of a HWY if you have a minor bingle, take the cars somewhere safer to exchange details, the guy who drove off did nothing at all wrong if he didnt have any contact with anyone else.

HMMM . some time its a matter of safety versus insurance . say for example you have an accident which blocks traffic , and the traffic is now pulling up and stopped . in some cases this can be a very good thing for people who arent at fault . because they can get witness contacts ;take photos,wait for the police and tow trucks etc . driving off minimises this fact and can actually cause an innocent party to be deemed at fault .
whilst driving off is the safest way to save your life . it's also the quickest way for those at fault to get away from witnesses and any evidence . i'ts a catch 22 unfortunately.

[venthan87]

thanks for the advice mate. will use it for sure.

[StrokedXT]

Must be sad when all you have in life Is the love of a triangle.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Personally I believe it should be a mandatory design feature of all vehicles that the hazard lights automatically engage on an impact.

Wouldn't have worked for me when I smashed the battery off my car.

My car was in the middle of the freeway for about 5 minutes because we where checking if we where all ok and sorting out what happened. Then we needed two of us to move it because the front wheels had the front of the car pushed on them.

Probably wasn't a good idea to stand in the middle of the freeway and next to my car, but you don't think of these things when you total your car.

When the cops where all over the place and traffic slowed down to have a look, one of them was stopping traffic and someone wasnt paying attention and nearly hit the cop because he was looking at our cars, lol.

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by StrokedXT

Must be sad when all you have in life Is the love of a triangle.

TROLL !!!