First experience .. Vic law regarding passing emergency vehicle

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Syndrome

If people drove in a safe manner there would be no need for seat belts, air bags, etc. However we live in the real world so have to plan for the lowest common denominator. People make mistakes. People drive carelessly. Incidents and accidents will always occur.

Emergency services have the right to a safe working environment though, surely?

Too many are focussing on the dodgy traffic stop rather than the big picture. The issue is driver attitude.

[FoxtrotGolfXray 5.0]

Originally Posted by Full Noise

But there's an enormous difference in preparing to slow down and preparing to come to a complete stop when you're in a heavy vehicle, especially at high speed. I think that I can say with about a 100% surety that the two 4WD vehicles that were in the right lane of the motorway at the time of the crash would have hit the stationary vehicles as well. In this situation, their vision was not obscured by other vehicles and they would have had no chance of stopping in time. Even slowing to 40 if this had happend in Victoria would have been difficult for the two 4WDs here.

As the old saying goes, you can't fix stupid and the level of stupid here between the Corolla and the HWP are off the scale.

if there ever was a video to show how stupid this law is (in places other than NSW) then this is it.

I didn't take BossXR8's comments as being specifically in relation to the incident in the video. I took as more of a generalisation.

[Full Noise]

Originally Posted by prydey

Emergency services have the right to a safe working environment though, surely?

Too many are focussing on the dodgy traffic stop rather than the big picture. The issue is driver attitude.

Hang on.... In this situation and in many others, the emergency services are DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for making their "workplace" safer by not stopping vehicles "unnecessarily" in dangerous places. In many situations, they have the power to make their workplace safer by their actions.

[Syndrome]

Originally Posted by prydey

Emergency services have the right to a safe working environment though, surely?

Too many are focussing on the dodgy traffic stop rather than the big picture. The issue is driver attitude.

You are missing the point. Emergency stopping lanes are for emergencies only.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Full Noise

Hang on.... In this situation and in many others, the emergency services are DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for making their "workplace" safer by not stopping vehicles "unnecessarily" in dangerous places. In many situations, they have the power to make their workplace safer by their actions.

I agree however you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Rarely do accidents happen at a convenient location. Those people have to work where they happen. They don't get the luxury of moving it somewhere else.

Sure, the video you linked is a specific example however it doesn't make the law wrong. Perhaps legislation needs changing regarding traffic stops and the way traffic police use their lights. This would be a better solution than scrapping the law.

As for the video you linked, do you think the truck driver reacted to the flashing lights or the fact that the vehicles were suddenly stopped (or moving very slowly)? I'm not a truck driver so I can't comment on how far away the flashing lights would be visible however I do still think driver attitude toward them is a big part of the problem, generally speaking.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Syndrome

You are missing the point. Emergency stopping lanes are for emergencies only.

You are missing the point. I'm not talking about any specific incident. When you see flashing lights normally, if you are a competent driver paying attention, you will be too far away to see the reason for them. It could well be an emergency.

[Tassie f100]

[QUOTE=Full Noise;6459898]I know that you’re not an anti-truck person and this is not directed at you.

I’m just going to point out a few things that I’ve observed from the footage from this crash. I’m not going to get into a would have-could have scenario, I’m only interested in the facts. I haven’t been there for a while but I did travel that stretch often in a previous job.

1. The M7 is not a straight road, it has many curves and undulations.
2. The speed zone at the time was 100 kp/h. (variable limit)
3. The HWP (in my opinion) pulled this car over in a very dangerous place.
4. I wish I was joking here but there is a breakdown bay 320 metres ahead of where this crash occurred. There is also a large truck parking bay just past Chandos Road.
5. The white Corolla had NO REASON WHATSOEVER to STOP in the left running lane of the motorway.
6. Traffic was moderate so there would be no reason to not be able to maintain 100 kp/h at the time.
7. The tow truck with the dash cams only just avoided hitting the red car himself. If the tow truck had any load on whatsoever, he would have hit the red car.
8. DET, SUP Paul Glenn’s comment was “there was open visibility for probably around 200 metres, and ahh some people managed to stop” this comment alone shows that he is an utter moron.
9. Out of all the traffic, there was only one B-double in the group.
10. There was a white 4WD utility directly beside the B-double.

Note: The exact location of the crash is approximately 160 metres from the Saxony Rd overpass on the M7 northbound.

I don’t expect anyone here who has never driven a heavy vehicle to understand the dynamics of a semi trailer or B-double, but hear me out here.

I’m going back to DET, SUP Paul Glenn’s comment regarding the 200 metres visibility.

At 100 kp/h, you travel a distance of 27.78 metres a second. It would take 7.19 seconds to travel 200 metres.

So consider this.
Let’s for argument’s sake, say that the B-double driver had a quick glance in his mirror at the white ute, there’s 1 second gone. Then he looks ahead to assess the situation and by the time it’s registered (his reaction time) and he’s moved his foot to the brake pedal, that could be between 1 and 2 seconds. That leaves him with LESS THAN 5 SECONDS to bring a 60 + tonne vehicle to a COMPLETE STOP FROM 100 kp/h. Does anyone else see a problem here?

For those here who may not understand physics, try this little experiment.
Find a safe place with no traffic in a 100 zone and get to 100 kp/h in your car. Then get your mate to tell you to stop and time how long it takes you to come to a complete and (unexpected) stop. There will be two points. A reaction zone and a braking zone. The total stopping distance of a vehicle (Car) is made up of 4 components.

Human Perception Time
Human Reaction Time
Vehicle Reaction Time
Vehicle Braking Capability

So when it takes you at least 4 seconds to stop your 1600 kg car, how long do you think that it would take to stop a 63,000 kg B-double, regardless of the extra axles it has to assist with braking?
With a heavy vehicle, the load carried has to be added to the equation. Also consider that the two trucks involved may not have automatically expected the Corolla to stop in the running lane, hence why the tow truck nearly ran up the ar$e of the red car.

My opinion, for what it’s worth which is nothing.

I believe the B-double driver would have braked (obviously not hard enough) as soon as he saw what was going on and was probably hoping for the white ute who was beside him to maintain his speed and opening up a gap that would have allowed him to change lanes and narrowly miss everyone. The camera footage shows that this was not the case leaving the B-double with nowhere to go. There is a possibility that the B-double driver’s vision of the cars could have been obscured by the tow truck.

The simple fact that the B-double stopped where it did shows that he did indeed brake earlier, regardless of what the NSW police and the fake news media tell you.

The law of physics does not change just because someone from the NSW police wants it to.

There were many NSW police members who were against this stupid 40 km/h slow down law and that is one of the main reasons why the state government changed it.

I’m going to add the link again and have a look at a couple of details here.
I believe that this footage will work in favour of the B-double driver.

https://7news.com.au/news/nsw-police...hway-c-1134338

From 0.27 to 0.29 there is a white heavy vehicle that appears (in the distance and not the rigid) from the curve in the roadway, this is the distance that the B-double had to react in.

This is just me picking on some details here but when DET, SUP Paul Glenn describes how the officer involved narrowly avoided being hit, the way he describes it at 0.42 to 0.50 is not what the video shows at 0.55. This is only a minor detail, however, when you’re in court arguing against these people and your freedom for the next ten-years is on the line, remember this. They can’t even get their bloody story straight when there’s video footage of what “really” happened. [QUOTE]

You left out one VERY important factor Full noise( which if you are a truck driver should know)If everyone including the truck driver was driving to the conditions the crash would not have happened

[MercuryT]

I can see both sides of the debate.

I've never driven a truck outside the rental ones so I'll leave that argument there as no experience.

One thing I will say is I agree entirely with those who have said the Police car and officer should never have been there in the first place.

It scares bad driver's and causes accidents as people panic.

Utterly ridiculous, and unnecessarily dangerous to his own and others welfare and safety on a busy motorway.

[Tassie f100]

Originally Posted by MercuryT

I can see both sides of the debate.

I've never driven a truck outside the rental ones so I'll leave that argument there as no experience.

One thing I will say is I agree entirely with those who have said the Police car and officer should never have been there in the first place.

Utterly ridiculous, and unnecessarily dangerous to his own and others welfare and safety on a busy motorway.

The more we see and hear about some of these crashes makes me think that commonsense and HWP should NOT be used in the same sentence

[jstanovic]

It’s the onus on the person being pulled over to stop in a safe position, Maybe the cops intention was that they pull over in the upcoming emergency stopping section but that person panicked and stopped suddenly right there.

What if the car was already stopped there (flat tyre?) and the cop had just rocked up to see what was going on?

What if what if what if...

[Itsme]

Originally Posted by jstanovic

It’s the onus on the person being pulled over to stop in a safe position, Maybe the cops intention was that they pull over in the upcoming emergency stopping section but that person panicked and stopped suddenly right there.

What if the car was already stopped there (flat tyre?) and the cop had just rocked up to see what was going on?

What if what if what if...

Valid points but you would hope the police would have common sense to direct you or pull you over in a safer place other than on side of a road/freeway/highway where it poses considerable risk to the public.
I've seen some situations where you shake your head in disbelief of their chosen actions.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by Syndrome

If people drove in a safe manner there would be no need for seat belts, air bags, etc. However we live in the real world so have to plan for the lowest common denominator. People make mistakes. People drive carelessly. Incidents and accidents will always occur.

Its about as ridiculous as TAC's 'toward zero' campaign in VIC - you'll never have 0 road deaths so why try set a ridiculous target you won't meet and this isn't achievable?

[Full Noise]

Originally Posted by jstanovic

It’s the onus on the person being pulled over to stop in a safe position, Maybe the cops intention was that they pull over in the upcoming emergency stopping section but that person panicked and stopped suddenly right there.

I hate to tell you mate but that's not the case. The person who is getting pulled over is not the person who is in control of this.

The onus is on THE POLICE to stop the vehicle in a safe place.

[FoxtrotGolfXray 5.0]

Seems to me that this whole discussion is based upon a whole heap of assumptions being made.

As someone who facilitates root cause analyses using the Apollo method (developed as a result of, and to determine the cause of, the Three Mile Island nuclear disaster) where the root cause is determined based around evidence (either proving something to be the case, or proving something to not be the case), does anyone here know the reason why the vehicle was being pulled over? All the article with the video in it says is that it was a 'traffic stop'. For all we know, there may have been a safety/emergency reason as to why that vehicle was pulled over where it was.

Unless someone know, it's purely conjecture and people are getting wrapped around the axles over 'what ifs'.

[zilo]

Originally Posted by prydey

At 100kmh a 2-3 second gap to the vehicle in front is around 55-80metres. Do you leave that sort of margin when you travel?

.

yawn....

You leave a 50- 80 metre gap on a freeway ?

You would endanger every one round you as most drivers including my mother in law would say...wtf is this idiot letting every car in for?

Then they would ALL cut you off.

Maybe if you quoted the recommended value of 3 car lengths minimum instead of 3 seconds...

[zilo]

Originally Posted by FoxtrotGolfXray 5.0

There will always be scenarios where laws don't make sense, but to argue that we shouldn't have a law at all because it doesn't apply in all circumstances is flawed logic IMHO.

It's flawed logic to accept flawed laws without challenging them.

Originally Posted by FoxtrotGolfXray 5.0

Fact is the law requires you to slow down to 40km/h (in Vic). Either you comply or you pay the resultant penalty if it is applied. Pretty simple. If neither of those are palatable, then you have the option of taking it to court to argue your position. Then the court will determine if your scenario is reasonable or not. Yes, I get that process is expensive and time consuming, but that is the process we have.

Pretty obvious that the law makers, (probably some half wits from vic roads or equivalent) dreamt up this suicidal legislation to include highway patrol intercepts as emergencies.

Even a drover's dog could predict that a speed transition of up to a 70km/h reduction makes for extreme braking events.


There is no other situation where such a reduction is demanded.
When exiting a highway to enter a town for example the speed limits are graduated...110km/h....then 80...then 60..

Can't remember the last time I saw a 100 to 60 let alone a 100 to 50


100 to 40km/h .....suicide....and a bad law that people will never be able to reliably comply with.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by zilo

yawn....

You leave a 50- 80 metre gap on a freeway ?

You would endanger every one round you as most drivers including my mother in law would say...wtf is this idiot letting every car in for?

Then they would ALL cut you off.

Maybe if you quoted the recommended value of 3 car lengths minimum instead of 3 seconds...

Yes, I do leave that gap. Why should I worry about other people's concern over the gap I'm leaving? I won't be running up the back of anyone. If you think it costs you any substantial amount of time I'd suggest maths is not your strong suit.

[zilo]

Originally Posted by prydey

Yes, I do leave that gap. Why should I worry about other people's concern over the gap I'm leaving? I won't be running up the back of anyone..

Right...you've never had an accident...just caused hundreds without knowing....

what other road habits you got?

Originally Posted by prydey

If you think it costs you any substantial amount of time I'd suggest maths is not your strong suit.

Nah...they learned me proper at Uni.

But I think you need to expand your knowledge and read more.
I recommend the road rules...
check back here if you need any more help with it?

[prydey]

Originally Posted by zilo

Right...you've never had an accident...just caused hundreds without knowing....

You'll have to educate me on how leaving a gap causes accidents.

And while I did have an at fault accident 20+ years ago (single vehicle, p plates, being a typical p plater), you are right. I've never run up the back of anyone.

[EBSXR6]

Originally Posted by Full Noise

I hate to tell you mate but that's not the case. The person who is getting pulled over is not the person who is in control of this.

The onus is on THE POLICE to stop the vehicle in a safe place.

Exactly.

[Tassie f100]

Originally Posted by zilo

Right...you've never had an accident...just caused hundreds without knowing....

what other road habits you got?





Nah...they learned me proper at Uni.

But I think you need to expand your knowledge and read more.
I recommend the road rules...
check back here if you need any more help with it?

I noted your suggestion given to Prydey re traffic gap etc.Don’t know about where you live, but in Australia there is NO minimum gap that drivers must maintain,but there is a suggeation of keeping a 2-3 second gap on the open road

[lra]

"I’m just going to point out a few things that I’ve observed from the footage from this crash. I’m not going to get into a would have-could have scenario, I’m only interested in the facts. I haven’t been there for a while but I did travel that stretch often in a previous job.

1. The M7 is not a straight road, it has many curves and undulations.
2. The speed zone at the time was 100 kp/h. (variable limit)
3. The HWP (in my opinion) pulled this car over in a very dangerous place."

I am an occasional user of the M7, (the whole length,) and to be truthful, it scares the s*** out of me.
It is not wide enough for the traffic volume, the variable speed is confusing, ( 100, 80, 60, then 40, because there is a crash ahead, then back to 100, and where was the crash ?), the emergency lane is a bad joke, and trucks rule ( the bigger, faster the better).
My last trip on 22Jun heading north in the RH lane, the speed limit was 80 in a section, traffic was doing about 70 all jammed up, and the reason was a large over-width load (with escorts) that you could easily see from over 100 metres back.
The semi driver behind me decided that I was driving too slow, so he came to less than a metre from my back tailgate, flashed all his lights and blasted the horn numerous times. My reaction was to think “Just where do you expect me to go ? Grow wings and fly over the cars in front ? Cowboy idiot.”
When the speed went back to 100 about 2 km later, he swapped to the LH lane and exited. Cowboy !!!!

And, yes, I do have a tad of experience of driving a heavy vehicle in traffic, but not a semi, so I am well aware of practical speed and braking distances.

[zilo]

Tassief100.....

I have been to court, in Victoria, and have witnessed first hand the judgement by a magistrate that 3 car lengths not being observed is "following too closely"on the eastern freeway in Melbourne.
It is discretionary by the magistrate....but I never heard him suggest a minimum of 12 car lengths....(or 20 car lengths as Prydey drives...)

1 demerit point.

That is the basis of fact that I rely on....not urban myths .

https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/lice...merit-offences

.

[Tassie f100]

Yeah right!but why slag off at Prydey accusing him of causing accidents by leaving a big gap.I’m sure no one has ever caused a crash by driving 15- 20 car lengths behind the car in front.By the way I use the term crash rather than accident because these incidents wouldn’t happen if everyone kept their distance and watched what was going on ahead rather than just day dreaming along

[fordomatic]

I always leave a gap of around 5 car lengths, people fill it and then i back off to get my gap back. Here in Canberra I drive the Monaro Highway every morning for work, leaving a gap has saved me countless times. That stretch of 11km I drive i see a rear ender every 2 days due to everyone following so closely.

My favourite is when the person behind me thinks i'm going slower because of the gap so they try and get up the left lane to get in front of me only to find themselfes one car in front following the flow of traffic, people are stupid. Take me back to Italy where people can actually drive, it's madness there but everyone is good defensive drivers and it's controlled mayhem.

Also, since having a dash cam i've found that if someone is tailgating me i just turn the LCD screen on and they back off. I think people think that im taking a photo because they are tailgating.

Stuff being a cop here dealing with these people, they can have their job. I also think it's the responsibility of the person being pulled over to find a spot that is safe. The amount of times i've seen people pull over straight away on a blind corner or the like is endless.

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by zilo

There is no other situation where such a reduction is demanded.
When exiting a highway to enter a town for example the speed limits are graduated...110km/h....then 80...then 60..

Can't remember the last time I saw a 100 to 60 let alone a 100 to 50


100 to 40km/h .....suicide....and a bad law that people will never be able to reliably comply with.

You need to get out more. There are numerous places in NSW that go from 110kmh to 60kmh with only a sign appx 100 metres out saying 60kmh ahead.

[jstanovic]

Originally Posted by Full Noise

I hate to tell you mate but that's not the case. The person who is getting pulled over is not the person who is in control of this.

The onus is on THE POLICE to stop the vehicle in a safe place.

So if the cop turns their lights and sirens on to pull someone over and the driver panics and stops in the middle of the lane, who’s in the wrong? Yeah it’s then the cops job to get that car to a safe spot but in the first instance the person should have pulled over safely.

Maybe this cop was getting out to tell them to move to a better location?

[prydey]

Originally Posted by zilo

Tassief100.....

I have been to court, in Victoria, and have witnessed first hand the judgement by a magistrate that 3 car lengths not being observed is "following too closely"on the eastern freeway in Melbourne.
It is discretionary by the magistrate....but I never heard him suggest a minimum of 12 car lengths....(or 20 car lengths as Prydey drives...)

1 demerit point.

That is the basis of fact that I rely on....not urban myths .

https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/lice...merit-offences

.

using time as a measure means the gap varies with speed. its just logic. some have it, others... not so much. some obviously think their reaction time varies depending on how fast they drive, but it doesn't. Not enough to matter.
As pointed out by FullNoise earlier, at 100km/h you are travelling north of 27metres/second. a 3 car length gap at 100 will nearly always end in tears if there is a sudden unexpected change in behaviour ahead. by the time you react you'll be in the back seat of the vehicle in front. You just can't change physics.
By leaving a larger gap, not only does it give you a much better chance of reacting and slowing in time, it also allows better visibility forward, and also allows you to slow in a more gentle manner in case some numpty is up your tail.

Originally Posted by fordomatic

My favourite is when the person behind me thinks i'm going slower because of the gap so they try and get up the left lane to get in front of me only to find themselfes one car in front following the flow of traffic, people are stupid.

This is so true. When you sit back and observe traffic behaviour and witness the moves some people make to get one car space further along, it beggars belief.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by prydey

using time as a measure means the gap varies with speed. its just logic. some have it, others... not so much. some obviously think their reaction time varies depending on how fast they drive, but it doesn't. Not enough to matter.
As pointed out by FullNoise earlier, at 100km/h you are travelling north of 27metres/second. a 3 car length gap at 100 will nearly always end in tears if there is a sudden unexpected change in behaviour ahead. by the time you react you'll be in the back seat of the vehicle in front. You just can't change physics.
By leaving a larger gap, not only does it give you a much better chance of reacting and slowing in time, it also allows better visibility forward, and also allows you to slow in a more gentle manner in case some numpty is up your tail.




This is so true. When you sit back and observe traffic behaviour and witness the moves some people make to get one car space further along, it beggars belief.

As I was driving home last night I took note of what a 3 second gap looks like on the road. You could get one and a half B doubles in the gap. No one in their right mind would drive like that all the time.

1-2 seconds is more than enough.

And the car in front can't just stop instantly. So the reasoning being that you need reaction time that long makes no sense. Unless the person in front hits a brick wall.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

As I was driving home last night I took note of what a 3 second gap looks like on the road. You could get one and a half B doubles in the gap. No one in their right mind would drive like that all the time.

Do you read that back to yourself and understand just how absurd it sounds? Its 2-3 seconds. How is that going to make a difference in your arrival time? you can still travel at the same speed. Its just a miniscule amount of time that 'could' save you. Why people feel the need to be right up the back of the car in front, when you can't actually go anywhere else, is beyond me.

60kmh, 2 seconds is probably fine. 100kmh 3 seconds is better.

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

And the car in front can't just stop instantly. So the reasoning being that you need reaction time that long makes no sense. Unless the person in front hits a brick wall.

A scenario. you are sitting behind a truck with limited forward visibility. They are not paying attention and come upon a line of traffic that is stopped due to an incident ahead. Truck swerves in to next lane and suddenly you are staring at the back of a parked car. Yes, it happens.

People tend to ignore these kinds of things due to how rarely they happen, but they can and do happen. Those that drive expecting the unexpected will have less accidents.