Two People Are Dead Following a Horrific Crash in Wantirna Overnight

HighAndDry on 25/09/2018 - 15:52
Last edited 25/09/2018 - 18:30 by 1 other user

https://www.news.com.au/news/national/two-people-are-dead-fo…

A WOMAN who went to offer her assistance after a nasty traffic collision in Melbourne’s east was one of two people who tragically lost their lives.

From another article I read on mobile (can't find the link) - speeding motorcyclist with drugs and cash on him smashed into a turning Audi. The woman stopped to try and render aid, and was hit by another passing motorist.

Not much to say, but please stay safe on the roads and look out for yourself first and foremost when trying to help others. Especially at night - pedestrians are basically invisible on the road if you're not in hi-vis.

Automotive

Comments

  • 87percent on 25/09/2018 - 16:35
    +11

    Last night driving back from dinner in the city, I barely saw a (profanity) idiot riding his bicycle on Dandenong Rd near Glenferrie Rd wearing all black AND a beanie!! No lights or reflecting light on his bike

  • Ugly on 25/09/2018 - 16:36
    +33

    Sad, but try & remember DRABC - it stands for Danger, Response, Airway, Breathing and Circulation. The first step is assess the Danger to yourself.

    The human impulse is to help, but if you rush in, you just might (as in this case) become another casualty.

    Awful to say it, but if you think it is too risky to respond, then don't. Call the emergency services and wait.

    • elgrande on 25/09/2018 - 17:34
      +12

      Agree the D is often overlooked.

      • hawkeye on 25/09/2018 - 18:30

        And 20 minutes is the critical window so they say.
        RIP poor lady heart goes out to you and family.

      • h4zey on 27/09/2018 - 12:53
        -3

        I know you are being serious, but my fck*d up mind can't help but thinking another thing.. Sorry mate..

      • Ghost47 on 27/09/2018 - 13:58

        I thought it was the B that was often overlooked.

    • magic8ballgag on 26/09/2018 - 08:00
      -8

      The human impulse is to help,

      I think you mean human instinct.

      • [Deactivated] on 26/09/2018 - 12:53
        +14

        No I think he means impulse; "a sudden strong and unreflective urge or desire to act", not instinct; "an innate, typically fixed pattern of behaviour in animals in response to certain stimuli".
        It is a mistake that many make.

        • SlickMick on 26/09/2018 - 16:05
          +11

          I normally hate the English lessons on ozbargain, but I really quite enjoy seeing the teacher being schooled :)

          • magic8ballgag on 28/09/2018 - 09:28
            -4

            @SlickMick: Am I wrong in saying that it's not instinctual for humans to want to help one another?

            • ensanguined on 29/09/2018 - 14:38
              +3

              @magic8ballgag: Sssshhh….

            • johnwinkle on 29/09/2018 - 16:46
              +1

              @magic8ballgag: you're wrong Price's theory of altruism states people only try to help themselves and their bloodline and have no inate altruism towards strangers. Price's theory depressed himself and led to him killing himself

              • magic8ballgag on 29/09/2018 - 18:25

                @johnwinkle: You mean his 'mathematical' theory?

                Price's theory depressed himself and led to him killing himself

                That escalated quickly.

              • Kangal on 30/09/2018 - 08:39

                @johnwinkle: Dawkin's theory is better, more meme-y.

                Basically there's genetic evolution and idea evolution, and not exactly linked to one another.
                With that said, evolution is based upon the foundation of empathy, that is every creature is the same animal/creature if you look at it through the lens of time (humans to microbes), and that selfishness always takes the backseat to empathy… ie "selective altruism".

            • SlickMick on 01/10/2018 - 22:38
              +1

              @magic8ballgag: Dunno, but some seem to have an instinct to criticise, which I believe needs to be beaten out of them

              • [Deactivated] on 02/10/2018 - 15:46

                @SlickMick: Most humans are ego-driven. A feature of this is that they always want to be 'right'. This is manifested in a search for conflict with others so that we can 'win' which puffs up our ego and makes us feel a little bit better about ourselves. However this is a short-lived feeling and we then deflate and go looking for our next conflict. Anonymity, such as on a forum such as this, gives the ego a free reign without the risk of being exposed.

                • try2bhelpful on 02/10/2018 - 15:54
                  +1

                  @[Deactivated]: Personally, I prefer an everyone wins situation. Why make enemies when you don’t have to.

    • singlemalt72 on 26/09/2018 - 11:47
      +7

      DRSABCD now ( the last D is defibrillation … but there should be another D to remind you to keep checking for danger.

      20 Year emergency services volunteer - can't express enough just how important it is to constantly be on the look out for danger - a continual rolling risk assessment is essential especially at a major incident site.

  • bluesky on 25/09/2018 - 17:54
    +13

    Another article on this. The 27-year old woman who tried to helped, and subsequently lost her life, had 2 kids under 10. The motorcylist she was trying to help was travelling at an irresponsible speed.

    • HighAndDry on 25/09/2018 - 17:59
      +8

      Ah damn. Tragic.

      • bluesky on 25/09/2018 - 18:04
        +2

        Very much so.

        Acting Detective Inspector McArthur said that the motorcyclist was known to police and "evidence of drugs" in the form of "white powder", plus "an amount of cash", was found on his body.

        • Diji1 on 25/09/2018 - 22:49
          +3

          "evidence of drugs"

          So he wasn't under the influence of drugs but for some reason they're using this phrase as though the drugs did something when they didn't?

          • Deridas on 26/09/2018 - 08:49
            +5

            @Diji1: Unless post-mortem report states it then the motorcyclist is "innocent until proven guilty", so can't state "under the influence", but it's worded in a way so it suggests to the reader it is very likely he was under the influence.

          • abb on 28/09/2018 - 10:38
            +1

            @Diji1:

            So he wasn't under the influence of drugs but for some reason they're using this phrase as though the drugs did something when they didn't?

            The implication seems to be that drug users/dealers are less deserving of life than good Samaritans.

            IMO it's irrelevant to this story whether he was carrying drugs, nuclear weapons, a research paper on quantum physics, or kidneys for a transplant. None of those things caused the bike to crash or the woman to help and subsequently be killed in a secondary collision.

            I'm actually interested in the circumstances as to how the helper got hit, would be interesting to see a diagram or something. Sounds like some irresponsible driver (probably not carrying drugs though) didn't slow down when passing a pretty obvious accident scene.

        • bluesky on 26/09/2018 - 00:49

          @Diji1:

          So he wasn't under the influence of drugs

          Maybe yes, maybe not. Only post-mortem toxicology test results will tell, and such tests can take some time, according to this article.

          they're using this phrase as though the drugs did something when they didn't?

          That sentence simply spelled out the facts. Reading the whole article, they seemed more concerned with the speed, which is the ultimate cause of the chain of events.

  • try2bhelpful on 25/09/2018 - 18:03
    +4

    The most important thing when going to the assistance of others is to make sure you aren't the next victim.The classics for that are people caught in rips and people overcome by fumes in tanks. Ring the emergency services first and only consider assisting if you can ensure you won't be next.

    I agree with the point about how invisible people are when they are dashing across the road. We were travelling down Gertrude St one night and someone had been hit, we didn't see the accident but the next thing we knew there were people running all over the road - it scared the hell out of us and we were lucky we didn't hit someone else.

    To me the tragedy is increased by how unworthy the guy was she tried to assist.

    I think it is time for us to buy a Hi Viz vest to put in the car.

    • bluesky on 25/09/2018 - 18:07
      +2

      I think it is time for us to buy a Hi Viz vest to put in the car.

      Yeah, worth looking into.

      • CMH on 26/09/2018 - 14:27

        Disagree. In a real emergency you won't be wasting precious seconds to put it on. There are other ways of dealing with danger that I think is more appropriate.

        An example would be using your own vehicle as a shield between you and traffic.

        Another would be to relocate the victim to the side if possible.

        If you're down on the ground giving CPR cars still may not see you until the last second even with a high vis vest on. On top of this it only alerts you to other drivers, not protect you physically which means that driver that's fiddling with his radio is more likely to wonder what's happening as you go under his tyres than to see you and stop.

        • bluesky on 26/09/2018 - 17:49

          Yeah, some valid points.

        • buckster on 27/09/2018 - 08:10

          Relocating car crash victims can be exceptionally risky for spinal damage so is not a really good option.

          Using the car as a shield and putting the hazards on is a good suggestion though

          • CMH on 27/09/2018 - 15:40
            +1

            @buckster: The choice is between "moving them to allow yourself to help them" vs "risking serious injury\death to yourself and treat on the spot."

            It's a tough choice so if there is a better alternative available, use it first. However there are times when moving is the only choice (burning car for example).

        • cameldownunder on 27/09/2018 - 16:11

          The idea is that before anything happens one person has to stop the traffic. Next person on the scene can help the injured.

          • CMH on 28/09/2018 - 14:16

            @cameldownunder: Sounds good, and definitely something to consider.

            Again, very situation specific. Sometimes might be a better choice to just move the victim and then have 2 people being able to help, rather than one person stuck on traffic duties.

            I mean, try doing CPR for 30 mins alone.

            Don't forget, we're talking about a potentially dying person here; better to risk making them a paraplegic (who says they aren't already one from the impact?) than letting them die with an intact back.

      • cameldownunder on 27/09/2018 - 16:10

        Mandatory in some European countries. Strange how they are always ahead in thinking.

  • [Deactivated] on 25/09/2018 - 18:04
    +14

    And the cops are focussing on the speed limits part of the picture.

    “If people took the time to obey the law in regards to speed limits, we’d be a lot better off. The road toll would certainly be reduced.”

    A well meaning mother of two is dead trying to help of a drug peddling moron but let's cash in on the opportunity to sell speed limits

    • try2bhelpful on 25/09/2018 - 18:10
      +7

      The guy speeding was what caused the initial accident. If he hadn't been speeding then the car that turned in front of him wouldn't have hit him. Yes, this guy was a drug peddling moron but that isn't what caused the accident which resulted in her running to his aid.

      • [Deactivated] on 25/09/2018 - 18:20
        +7

        … because the drug peddling guy is otherwise law abiding.

        • try2bhelpful on 25/09/2018 - 22:20
          +5

          I never said the motorcycle rider wasn't scum but it is irrelevant that he was a drug peddlar because the cause of the accident was his speeding. If he hadn't been speeding then he wouldn't have been hit and she wouldn't have gone to his aid. The cops message is very relevant for what happened.

        • [Deactivated] on 25/09/2018 - 23:29
          +1

          @try2bhelpful:

          If he hadn't been speeding then he wouldn't have been hit…

          The motorcyclist hit the SUV. The appropriate speed to hit the SUV is never. Anything above 0kmph would mean speed is a factor.

          • try2bhelpful on 26/09/2018 - 07:52
            +3

            @[Deactivated]: The guy who turned in front of him thought he had room, but, because the motorbike was speeding he was wrong. If bike not speeding then car drivers judgement is correct. As the speed increases the ability to judge the time required becomes harder. Speed limits aren’t just a government conspiracy to curb people’s freedom. Studies show that as the speed limits increase the death toll goes up. It is a dance between adequate forward progress and keeping the death rate acceptable.

          • singlemalt72 on 26/09/2018 - 11:53
            +3

            @[Deactivated]: But there is an inability for many drivers to recognise a high speed vehicle, especially at night. The initial response to an oncoming vehicle is to gauge distance which is related to the perception of assumed speed for that road. Hence (and especially at night) drivers often pull out in front of a speeding vehicle as they perceive the distance to be safe.

            That is why you should always look in each direction twice when coming into an intersection (or check your mirrors twice when changing lanes for that matter), the first look brings your awareness to perceived hazards, the second look allows your brain to determine what was incorrect about your first assumption.

            • [Deactivated] on 26/09/2018 - 12:07
              +7

              @singlemalt72: The drug peddlers speed was extremely excessive. Not trying to argue that. The idiot got what he deserved.

              The problem is trying to associate people who do 5,10,15 over the speed limit and trying to equate that to the same offence committed by the deceased fool.

              It's as ridiculous as saying vegetarians are significantly more likely to cause genocide because Hitler is a vegetarian. He had a protein defeciency and he whaled subsequently whaled on minorities.

              The motorcyclist was going so fast it spun the SUV 180 degrees around. You reckon he is concerned with demerit points and a fine? Of course not!

              What is the purpose of making a statement about speed limits? To justify dishing out monetary fines.

              If the police is really interested in preventing the recurrence of this scenario, highlight the problem with the drug culture and educate people about responding to dangerous situations.

              • singlemalt72 on 26/09/2018 - 12:21
                +1

                @[Deactivated]: I was making no claim as to the police commentary I was simply providing some background as to the why people have trouble with perception of speed - especially extreme speed.

                But, for the record, speeding is bad.

              • try2bhelpful on 26/09/2018 - 16:59
                +2

                @[Deactivated]: The police highlighted speeding as a, significant, contribution to the crash - which it was. What the police were indicating that the speed in this case would've increased the likelyhood that this crash would be fatal. The connection between these two things is not a fallacy, it is a direct link.

                There is also some debate as to whether Hitler was, in fact, a vegetarian - there seems to be a difference of opinion out there on that. Howeve, your example is specious as there is no known causal link between vegetarianism and being a mass murderer, however, there is plenty of evidence that speeding will increase both the likelyhood, and extent, of injuries in the case of an accident.

                Even if the toxocology comes back showing this guy was stoned off his gourd, there is no proof that this contributed to the accident more than the speeding. Someone who is stoned and driving at 10 Kph is less likely to cause somebody to die than someone doing 140 kph. For a start most other people on the road would just drive around him, and pedestrians can get out of his way.

                You might want to look at a few of these articles.

                https://www.science.org.au/curious/technology-future/physics…
                http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/publications/r…

                The thing to look at is how the increase in probability of the death of a pedestrian that occurs with relatively small increases in speed.

                The speed limit is the maximum you are allowed to drive. Nobody is saying you can't drive 5 Kph under the speed limit to ensure you don't get done for speeding. Teach the cops a lesson, ensure you cut off their revenue stream by obeying the law.

                • [Deactivated] on 26/09/2018 - 17:58
                  +1

                  @try2bhelpful: Speed is relative. Of course I would agree that speed causes collisions just as much as I'd agree movement causes collisions.

                  Speeding is a legal definition and not a physical one. Saying that speeding causes accidents is saying that breaking the law causes accidents.

                  All I'm saying is that you don't need to break the law to cause and accident, and just because you broke the law it doesn't mean an accident is inevitable.

                  We don't know the exact statistics of neither of the following, number of people that exceed the speed limit and number of mortalities and morbidities, nor the number of mortalities and morbities associated with drug use. I am willing to bet the risk of drug use is much higher. Poor decisions, ie jumping off a building or travelling at extreme speeds (ie out of reasonable control) on an urban road, is part of the drug problem.

                  Speeding, again, on the other hand, simply means going above legally defined limits.

                  I'm simply saying, maybe the drugs are a significantly bigger contributor.

                  Off course, illicit drug use related revenue is incomparable to speeding revenue.

                  Ps. Off course higher speed needs quicker response time, increases impact, and decreases chance of survival. This is true whether a vehicle travels on a street or a highway. By that reasoning, we should decrease highway speed to 30kmph. It's all about saving lives, right?

                  • try2bhelpful on 26/09/2018 - 19:03

                    @[Deactivated]: As I have indicated previously it is a trade off between saving lives and forward progression. Study after study shows that increasing speed limits on stretches of road tends to increase the incidence, and severity, of accidents. I’ve certainly seen highway speeds bounce between 100 and 110 depending on how bad the road toll is viewed as opposed to the forward progression argument.

                    The vast majority of deaths due to drug use are overdoses by the drug users themselves. I do not advocate that anyone take illicit drugs and, certainly they should not drive impaired; however until toxicology tell us this guy was drug impaired all we know is that he was speeding, which is what the cops highlighted. When the toxicology comes back that he was on drugs then that can be highlighted as well.

                    It is not about the revenue it is about reducing the accidents, deaths and injuries. There is a real easy way to not pay the fines, don’t travel at a rate that is faster than the kph rate posted on the signs.

              • abb on 28/09/2018 - 10:43

                @[Deactivated]:

                The drug peddlers speed was extremely excessive.

                What speed was he doing? I haven't seen the final incident report yet.

                • [Deactivated] on 28/09/2018 - 10:48

                  @abb: No idea. It's clearly something absurd to spin an SUV 180.

                  • abb on 28/09/2018 - 10:59
                    +1

                    @[Deactivated]: You might be surprised. I don't know which way the SUV was turning (towards or away from bike), if the road was wet (or oily), etc, but I have seen cars spin without being hit at all. The bike looks to have hit the front wheel, a reasonably effective spot to push to cause a spin. Also, it's not like the SUV driver has any incentive to bend the truth about what they were doing…

                    The bike looks to be substantially intact, and the rider presumably didn't have immediately obvious "injuries incompatible with life" (i.e. if his head was off, the woman probably wouldn't bother to render aid), which places some upper bound on the speed of impact.

                    He may well have been doing 120, but I'll wait for the expert investigators to make that call.

                    • CMH on 28/09/2018 - 14:22

                      @abb: I don't know about you, but I think the front wheel is the worst spot to try and cause a spin. That's where the majority of the weight of the vehicle is going to be. On top of that, braking would cause MORE weight to shift forwards.

                      If anything, behind the rear wheels is where you're most likely to spin a vehicle. To spin a vehicle you'd want to put force as far as possible from the center of mass (which in this case the COM is closer to the engine).

                      As for the cars spinning due to road conditions, that's a different kettle of fish. It's gotta be a very slippery surface, the SUV going a decent speed, or they caused the wheels to spin by applying the gas.

                      Possible, but I'd say unlikely. In any case, the proof would be on the road (tyre markings, car position, etc).

                      • abb on 28/09/2018 - 15:00

                        @CMH: I'll grant the rear would be better, but hitting the wheels is "good" (at causing the vehicle to spin) because wheels and axles don't readily deform. Thus more energy goes into rotating the car.

                        For all we know the SUV was doing 80 and floored the accelerator in their panic when they saw the bike.

                        As internet observers we can only make wild guesses and shouldn't act as if they're conclusive, that was my main point :)

      • cameldownunder on 27/09/2018 - 16:12
        +1

        He was speeding because he was chased. Let's stop chasing criminals !

        • [Deactivated] on 28/09/2018 - 10:51

          It's just crazy enough to work!

    • burningrage on 25/09/2018 - 19:38

      Well… it's kaching moment for them.

      • [Deactivated] on 25/09/2018 - 19:53

        I know and I feel your username checks out for me.

    • Baysew on 26/09/2018 - 14:27

      “If people took the time to obey the law in regards to speed limits, we’d be a lot better off. The road toll would certainly be reduced.”

      Where did the quote come from? It doesn't seem appear in either of the quoted news stories.

      • [Deactivated] on 26/09/2018 - 15:26

        It is either the link from OC (news) or the second comment (ABC).

        I copied and pasted. Perhaps it has been retracted.

        • Baysew on 26/09/2018 - 16:34
          +3

          Found it here - 'Hero' mum-of-two killed trying to assist motorcyclist hit by car

          "There's no words to describe it… it really is an absolute tragedy," Act. Det. Insp. McArthur said.
          "(The woman) is a hero as far as I'm concerned."
          He revealed the woman was a mother of two children under the age of 10.

          "They are now without a mother. And we've got a father who no longer has a partner to bring up their children," he said.

          "The effects of this crash will affect a huge amount of people for their entire lives."

          Act. Det. Insp McArthur said detectives will consider the lack of street lighting at the scene as a possible cause, but said the motorcyclist's actions were the main factor.

          The 37-year-old was known to police, and was carrying a quantity of drugs and cash at the time of the collision.

          "It’s driving behaviour that has caused this crash, not the road," he said.

          "If people took the time to obey the law in regards to speed limits, we’d be a lot better off. The road toll would certainly be reduced."

  • altomic on 25/09/2018 - 19:37
    -3

    bikies

    • smuggler on 25/09/2018 - 20:33

      plz dont

      That person needed a collision prevention assist.

  • Craze on 25/09/2018 - 21:23
    +3

    Interesting to be reading this when I came across this article just couple of days back… tragic news here but I'm consoled by the goodness in people compared to the example given.

    • HighAndDry on 25/09/2018 - 21:45
      +1

      Man, really no good deed goes unpunished.

      • try2bhelpful on 25/09/2018 - 22:20

        That was what I was thinking as well.

    • smux on 26/09/2018 - 15:26

      Wow, talk about an incompatible culture. I wouldn't want to be living among people who believe that you only help somebody because you're guilty of causing them harm in the first place.

      • Craze on 26/09/2018 - 19:05
        +1

        Reading a couple of other reports I think the behaviours started sadly after an unfortunate case of a Good Samaritan being slapped with forking out all medical bills for the victim. And the court decision set a precedence for that so people become naturally cautious in similar situations.

    • Chewy Chunks on 27/09/2018 - 16:53
      +1

      While individualism in China is a big thing, this situation is more related to the fear of being accused as the responsible of the accident, even when you just tried to help.

      Really? I thought it was Western culture that promoted individualism and Eastern cultures did the opposite. At least that is an idea many Westerners like to fetishise.

      The rule of thumb is that if a foreigner is involved in a trouble, it would be his fault.

      Ah, so they're racists too.

  • Diji1 on 25/09/2018 - 22:52
    +5

    Terrible story.

    As I don't consume most news I usually tend to avoid hearing about these things and I think my life is better for it.

    • Donaldhump on 27/09/2018 - 16:08
      +2

      agree, hate watching the news, its ultra depressing. i watch scooby doo and heman reruns instead

    • outlander on 28/09/2018 - 20:38

      Agree. Its all politics now. Hardly any mention of the driver that actually hit her

  • Roll Eyes on 26/09/2018 - 08:28
    +2

    Other drivers fly through crash scenes as well. Drivers are jerks that never want to slow down for anything. On the latest dash cam Australia YouTube video there is a car that is driving down the wrong side of a divided road head on into traffic. The cars in the lane that the idiot ISNT in, just keep driving at their speed. Won’t let the car move over that’s head to head with the idiot.
    Same happened to me on the freeway 110ks. Car pulled out from edge of road into my lane and stopped. I’m braking hard while on the horn, and the traffic in the overtaking lane just continue at full speed. Absolute dimwits. And people wonder why a nanny state has to be put in place.
    Brakes are the most advanced they’ve ever been and stupid drivers don’t know how to use them. They would swerve around something and take out another car rather than slow down. Which is also a clip on that YouTube video.

  • Oz8argain on 26/09/2018 - 14:21
    +7

    it's even worse that she gave her life trying to help a f**king degenerate

    • h4zey on 27/09/2018 - 12:54
      -2

      you don't need a reason to help someone!

      • Oz8argain on 27/09/2018 - 13:28
        +2

        Of course not. I'm just saying it's unfortunate because of that. But we should still be a good person like Henry Tandey and help others in need, even if they end up killing millions of people a few years later.

        • h4zey on 27/09/2018 - 13:35

          heard that story too! that bastard should have shot him! he should have known he was sparring the life of a person who will be responsible for millions of people's death!

          • bluesky on 27/09/2018 - 13:53

            @h4zey: He couldn't have known. The chap could have been someone like Major Karl Plagge or Oskar Schindler, or an average person conscripted into war - deserving of having his life spared.

          • Oz8argain on 27/09/2018 - 14:04

            @h4zey: hindsight 20-20

            • h4zey on 27/09/2018 - 14:14

              @Oz8argain: i thought we're trying to be smart*ss with our reply.. doh, clearly missed it.. i shall shamefully walk myself out then..

    • Lennox on 29/09/2018 - 12:14
      +1

      Healthcare workers are trained to treat each patient irrespective of their position in life. It is irrelevant what their opinions are they have to stay objective in order to do the best for their patient.

      • MessyG on 29/09/2018 - 13:40

        This.

  • Chris Topher on 26/09/2018 - 21:15
    +1

    DRABC - they already had one (bikie) patient (deceased irrelevant at that stage). Not checking for Danger (the D in DRABC) made it two patients. Don't be a number two.

    The bike was at 'high' speed… most car drivers expect to see a car/truck/bus at local speed limit. But when a bike is doing something far greater than the local speed limit… smaller, faster… also at night time the bike headlight size can also confuse the distance/speed and visibility. Imagine the old 7" headlight Vs a 5" or 3.5" at a distance…

    • cameldownunder on 27/09/2018 - 16:16

      Our brain computes the distance with the object increasing in size coming towards us. At night this is the distance between the 2 lights of the car. Bikes only have 1 light. Basically impossible to determine the distance. Stay put and let the bike pass.

  • DiscoJango on 27/09/2018 - 13:31
    +1

    Article should read: innocent Woman dies trying to save junkie bikie

    • Bren20 on 27/09/2018 - 15:56
      +1

      The age is on your side
      Headline - Motorcyclist who cost a young mother her life was career criminal
      https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/motorcyclist-who…

      I personally think it's disgraceful to say that the motorcyclist 'cost' the young woman's life. It's not the bikies fault she died, it's a horrible accident, regardless of how bad a person he was.

  • Herbse on 27/09/2018 - 19:52

    So is it wrong to say that there's responsibility for people to help others in a safe way?

    • happirt on 27/09/2018 - 22:19

      you can never be a hero with that mentality

    • outlander on 28/09/2018 - 20:36

      In this world, there are people who do harm, and there are people who help. Its such a critical part of their charactor, be it influenced by genetics or upbringing, that they cannot not help. They run into dangerous situations like a magnet drawing in a particle of iron. Its just who they are. They would have to do intensive training to change that, and even then while they where ensuring their own safety it would be highly unpleasant for them.

      The rest of us have more of a choice in the matter

      • Lennox on 29/09/2018 - 12:26
        +1

        Yes my girlfriend who is a nurse has done just that. It is ingrained in her as in others to help as you say plus she feels it is her responsibility to help others in need as she has the medical training to do so.

    • MessyG on 29/09/2018 - 13:44
      +1

      I don't think that's wrong at all - it's drilled into first responder training. Although that said, it's not like this doesn't happen to first responders either - it's possible she made an assessment that the scene was safe because there was no traffic around - until there was. What a horrible position to be in, stay on the side of the road and call 000 while someone is potentially dying just metres from you, when maybe simple pressure could stop them bleeding out - or look around, see no traffic, and risk it in order to maybe stop them dying. Awful scenario.

  • frostman on 27/09/2018 - 19:55
    +5

    Makes me think how lucky I am,

    Only 2 weeks ago I was driving on the Hume Hwy (Syd) and I drove over what seems to be a very large piece of metal shard (~1m long) in the middle of the road, seems to have fallen off a truck.

    So in order to help the public and avoid a situation of people diverting away at high speed and crashing, I stopped in the middle with the hazards and got out of the car to pick it up.
    You'd think the morons passing you by would slow down, nope, they just swerved around me.

    Australia is full of shit drivers

  • centrelink on 28/09/2018 - 00:01

    Guys I have created technology where our engines are synched with sensors much like east link tolls but on a far cheaper scale where it would limit the engine to the speed limit when you pass the sensor. I told my peers about it and laughed it was stupid because who wants to drive at the speed limit right?

    • CMH on 28/09/2018 - 00:24
      +3

      That's just silly. We would all be at the mercy of the idiots that calibrate our speedometers. I'd always be doing 10% below the speed limit that way.

      • [Deactivated] on 28/09/2018 - 10:55

        And the mercy of those who calibrate the speed readings.

        And the mercy of which gear you're in cause the engine wouldn't know what speed. It just outputs power not speed.

        If the engine was in very low revs, then lowering the engine power may stall the engine completely.

        Brain hurts.

    • Sage on 28/09/2018 - 11:39

      Better than that is full automation, for example it would stop the car is there's someone on the road.
      This technology already exists.

    • HighAndDry on 28/09/2018 - 18:28
      +2

      Christ it doesn't stop…

  • Dadidalol on 29/09/2018 - 08:18

    Sections of Boronia Rd are VERY dark with awful lighting. Very tragic incident.

  • idonotknowwhy on 29/09/2018 - 17:39

    A WOMAN

    Quick English question (I don't normally read news articles): Why is "WOMAN" in caps here?
    I noticed it isn't in the ABC article linked a little further above.

    • HighAndDry on 29/09/2018 - 17:55
      +2

      It's a weird journalism style-guide thing. Basically the first (substantive) word will be fully capitalised to grab attention and make it easier to see the start of the article.

      Not required in basically any other English writing at all.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join