Fatal Trike crash Girrwaween, NT 27/10/13

[turboplanner]

The Darwin motorbike rider is a classic example of the old adage - "make something idiot-proof, and a better class of idiot will find a way around the idiot-proofing".Now, as an old Roads Scholar (road builder), I know there's a lot of roadworks instructional signs that could be vastly better, as regards the manner in which they've been set up.

But - despite having come across a fair few deficient roadworks sites, I have yet to damage a vehicle or seriously maim myself, because of the roadworkers skills deficiencies.

 

Perhaps it's because I was taught "defensive driving", where you make allowances for other people making serious errors in skill or judgement.

 

One of those defensive driving techniques I was taught, is to exercise caution and a greatly reduced speed, whenever you sight any kind of roadworks. I'd guess the Darwinian motorbike rider missed that lesson.

The Coroner's report on the motorbike rider was just that; a Coroner's report, and as others have said, he covered all aspects of the fatality, not just the medical cause of death. in my opinion, this is to be applauded, because it gives us some inkling into the contributory causes, which make it easier for an Industry to react, and change its ways to prevent more of the same. There are two other Coroner reports which stand out in my memory as being game changers.

A Speedcar driver was killed at Adelaide International. It was at a time when tracks were converting from sand/grit, where cars slid sideways through corners to clay, where the new sprintcar designs glued the cars to the track, dramatically reducing laps times. The disadvantage for other classes was that clay became bumpy, making it a wilder ride. On the day after the fatality a Club President stood facing the National News V Camera and declared the death was due to the rough track; not a good move by the way. I'll leave out the months of infighting over it, but it hadn't finished by the Coroner's hearing and several people inserted themselves into the process, condemning the track, while others defended the track. One of the condemners pointed out the track was so rough that the Ambulance could be seen bouncing on its way to the driver. Case closed they thought. However, in summing up, the Coroner referred to this and accepted the track was rough and the ambulance was bouncing. "But" he said, (or words to that affect) " I also note that video shows the car become airborne due to xxxx, and leave the ground 10 metres after the entry to turn one, remain airborne over the area where the ambulance was bouncing, and land heavily xx metres from the point where it left the ground flipping several times, so I find the condition of the track played no part in this death." He then when on to accurately describe what caused the death.

 

At a Victorian Road Transport Association conference, we have a segment where the Victorian State Coroner went through a case with us where a truck driver was loading his 9 tonne van using a well-known brand of hydraulic tailgate, using its remote control to ride up with the load (which was prohibited). The support arms of a tailgate rotate on the way up describing and arc where the tailgate on the ground is in line with the rear of the van, in mid-lift, is maybe 450 mm outwards of the van, and then swings the platform back in to the rear of the van. For whatever reason the driver took a step/slipped and fell down between the tailgate and the van with the tailgate on the way up. He still had the control in his hand, so still had the ability to stop the tailgate, but it didn't stop and guillotined him. Evidence was given to the coroner that the remote control cable was found to have bare wires, perhaps by previously being jammed between the tailgate and body, allowing the "UP" wires to remain in contact, this removing the ability of the driver to stop the tailgate. As part of his finding. the Coroner recommended a fool-proof remote control cable. The family-run tailgate company responded immediately, and he proudly held up the new remote control and said "You can pick the new one by this round green section embedded into the side."

 

With regard to your roadworks comments, the Shire of Wentworth case, where a driver who was plastered drove off a bend and became a quadriplegic, and the Shire lost the case, makes this clearer. Highway advisory signs are set to a National Standard which is gradually becoming an International Standard. These are for the same reason as the throttle response in all motor vehicles is much the same, the steering response is much the same, the barking response is much the same. It enables people to step from the car they normally drive to a different car without requiring an endorsement course, and it allows them to drive anywhere in Australia on a major road and be able to negotiate unknown hazards. So, for a given degree of road curvature there will be a curve sign, and for a given degree of curvature there will be a recommended speed sign. If you are driving a car, you may be comfortable taking the corner x km/hr above the advisory; if you're in a fuel tanker, you may stay on the advisory or even under it; but for the performance level of your vehicle there are no surprises, or shouldn't be. If you are in a diminished status; such as in heavy rain, fog, a bushfire, with marginal medical conditions, or intoxicated, these signs by their reflective nature still give you some warning of elevated risk.

 

If the standard isn't met Human Factors kicks in and suddenly you're out in no man's land, having to make a judgement without the tools usually provided to do it. So it was valid comment to draw attention to the road works. It would appear the rider contributed substantially to his own death, and if there is a public liability case resulting from this accidents, the lawyers are there to discuss the degree of contributory negligence by the rider, so the checks and balances are in place.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

There was a spectacular example of a stupid coroner some years ago in Australia. A glider had crashed following a cable-break and the coroner clearly thought is was like a crane-cable failure. If the GFA had not spent big dollars appealing, launching would have to be with great heavy cables now.

 

 

[turboplanner]

There was a spectacular example of a stupid coroner some years ago in Australia. A glider had crashed following a cable-break and the coroner clearly thought is was like a crane-cable failure. If the GFA had not spent big dollars appealing, launching would have to be with great heavy cables now.

He wasn't stupid, just not qualified, and that's the down side which can occur when Coroners look at high risk areas, like flying, where the safety level is maintained by complex equipment, training, compliance and enforcement. At the same time it's not the Coroner's job to go on like a Royal Commissioner and spread the investigation. A stronger cable, so there were less breaks is not a bad thought; if that makes it heavier that rules it out; if someone comes up with a light version, that may save a life.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

The main thing about training for winch launches is that of cable-breaks. The instructor will "pull the plug" several times when the student least expects it.

 

I have personally had 3 cable-breaks in a row.

 

In the case before the coroner, the break happened fairly high and had nothing much to do with the accident. And the coroner was told the physics by gliding people but didn't have the mental capacity to take in any new ideas.

 

 

[M61A1]

This is Australia; we are subject to Australian Law; those cases where I tried to show you how the law works were all based on Australian Law and its precedents. I've pointed out on may occasions that it's sometimes difficult to comprehend the law because of its "reverse nature, and recommended that if you don't understand it, you should spend about an hour's flying cost and get a briefing from a specialist lawyer in Public Liability cases. If people choose not to do that it doesn't worry me; they are responsible for their own actions.

We've been through this too many times.....Yes, I understand this Australian law.

Yes, I understand how it works.

 

What you seem to fail to understand is that I just happen to think that the way it functions is not a good thing. It's my OPINION...

 

You seem to think it's just awesome that just about anyone who does something stupid can manage to find a way to blame someone else and legally be compensated, I think it's atrocious, and does society no favours. All we have done is create a 'victim' mentality, and lost a lot of our freedoms in the process, and people like you are responsible for my loss of freedom in a pointless attempt to save society from themselves. I see no end in sight, but it's not sustainable and it is destroying our country.

 

Now, please understand,I have no problem with genuine compensation claims for genuine negligence, but here in Australia, we really have stretched the term 'negligent' to the point where it's no longer anything like it was meant to be.

 

He wasn't stupid, just not qualified, and that's the down side which can occur when Coroners look at high risk areas,

Well someone was stupid, for using someone unqualified to make recommendations about things they aren't qualified to understand. It doesn't seem to be an isolated occurrence, nor is it confined to the legal system.

Imagine the legal ramifications if someone decided to use a truck driver to do the engineering on multi-story buildings.

 

 

[M61A1]

If you are in a diminished status; such as in heavy rain, fog, a bushfire, with marginal medical conditions, or intoxicated, these signs by their reflective nature still give you some warning of elevated risk.

Do I have to have a collision and become paralysed to make a claim about their excessively reflective signage that is so bright that it actually diminishes your vision in poor conditions?

 

I know at least one death where a man was walking next to a large reflective sign, and was hit and killed because the driver didn't see him.

 

Common sense??? why do we need large dayglo bordered reflective signs for school zones which are never open at night?

 

Why do road signs need to cater for the intoxicated?

 

Seriously, they need to reduce the reflectivity of their signs, they are a hazard themselves.

 

 

[turboplanner]

The main thing about training for winch launches is that of cable-breaks. The instructor will "pull the plug" several times when the student least expects it.I have personally had 3 cable-breaks in a row.

In the case before the coroner, the break happened fairly high and had nothing much to do with the accident. And the coroner was told the physics by gliding people but didn't have the mental capacity to take in any new ideas.

It's never going to be mandatory for a Coroner to have a BE qualification let alone a detailed knowledge of aviation, which is why I would much prefer all aviation fatalities to be investigated by ATSB.

 

 

[turboplanner]

We've been through this too many times.....Yes, I understand this Australian law.Yes, I understand how it works.

I doesn't matter what you think; that's what you have to follow.

 

You seem to think it's just awesome that just about anyone who does something stupid can manage to find a way to blame someone else and legally be compensated, I think it's atrocious, and does society no favours.

What you are saying is simply not true. You cannot just "blame someone else and be legally compensated" that's fairyland stuff. Australian Law DOES make someone who is negligent responsible for paying for the victims recuperation and losses; nothing unfair about that. Australian Law requires that a victim PROVE negligence before he/she can claim a cent.

 

All we have done is create a 'victim' mentality, and lost a lot of our freedoms in the process, and people like you are responsible for my loss of freedom in a pointless attempt to save society from themselves. I see no end in sight, but it's not sustainable and it is destroying our country.Now, please understand,I have no problem with genuine compensation claims for genuine negligence, but here in Australia, we really have stretched the term 'negligent' to the point where it's no longer anything like it was meant to be.

The precedent for any claim is a 1932 case; any talk about creating a victim mentality, losing freedoms, no end in sight, destroying our country, stretching the term negligent is fantasy. When the Court opens on the case it is going to be judged as it was in 1932.

What does happen though is that serial rule flouters rail against organisations who prudently improve their safety standards after injuries and fatalities occur.

 

The alternative, of doing nothing, means that, as in 1932, if they were negligent, they pay. Now, much more often, the rule flouters pay; and that's where the squeals are coming from.

 

Well someone was stupid, for using someone unqualified to make recommendations about things they aren't qualified to understand. It doesn't seem to be an isolated occurrence, nor is it confined to the legal system.

That doesn't make him stupid, and remember, if he reads this and takes issue with it, he's got certain powers you don't have, that you won't like.

He/she makes recommendations, and due to the daily workload many of those will be outside his/her technical qualifications, but often based on evidence given by people qualified by education, or experience. Sometimes the recommendations are picked up and run with; sometimes they are not. Industry based investigations will always be more focused on the environment/specification aspects and can make it easier to take action to prevent repeats. That's just the system which has evolved over centuries.

 

 

[johnm]

Always like the sign ................... 'no lines - do not overtake unless safe'

 

there is an inference that where a road is line marked - you can overtake 'safe' or 'not safe' (disregarding no overtake lines of course)

 

 

[M61A1]

What you are saying is simply not true. You cannot just "blame someone else and be legally compensated" that's fairyland stuff. Australian Law DOES make someone who is negligent responsible for paying for the victims recuperation and losses; nothing unfair about that. Australian Law requires that a victim PROVE negligence before he/she can claim a cent.

Well , almost every case you present, showcases someone behaving like a dill, hurting themselves and then suing someone else for their stupidity. The Tasmanian case with the girl on the quad bike was a prime example. The very idea that someone else was responsible for her behavior is just plain offensive.

It has been mentioned quite a few times that what counts as negligence seems to have been stretched somewhat.

 

The very things that make you believe the system is great and functioning well, are the very things that make me believe that the system is broken.

 

Nothing you have put forward makes me think we have a good system, it just reinforces how perverse the system is. I don't like it, but I do understand it's what I have to live with.

 

BTW, criticism of our legal profession is perfectly acceptable (within certain bounds), but there is certainly room for improvement there, as even the Brits did away with scandalisng the court laws years ago.

 

 

[turboplanner]

It’s your right to miss the point of the examples I give. Just remember I didn’t make them up.

 

 

[Geoff13]

By tool, I mean any man made object.

Until I got to this line I thought you meant Tool being the person causing the incident.

 

Maybe you should rethink your definition.

 

 

[old man emu]

I was going to type 'machine', but I thought that was too restrictive. I wanted to include all objects which man makes to make the completion of a task easier. In that light, I think 'tool' is a wide enough description. It encompasses everything from a pointy stick to an industrial robot.

 

 

[DenisPC9]

[quote=

 

I'm about to release another video titled "Aussie Rescue" whereby I come upon two of your intrepid brethren Aussies paddling their tiny kayak down our 2]https://www.recreationalflying.com/xf2/uploads/emoticons/074_stirrer.gif.5dad7b21c959cf11ea13e4267b2e9bc0.gif[/img]