A sad reminder - 5 die in M5 crash

[troppo]

Originally Posted by fmc351

Heaps of things contribute, road surface, skill, speed, objects, roadworthiness, and luck, lots of luck. Its a catch phrase to get a message across, imagine the advertisement that covered all of it. Think Coca Cola, 'Coke is it'. Its short and to the point. Speed leads to higher impacts, and without speed your brain does not mash so hard against the inside of the skull in said impact. Its natural protections can function effectively, at speed they are just not up to the task.

Those who claim speed does not kill, are splitting hairs that young lads grab hold of as gospel. And with proper training, proper facilities in a controlled environment that is fine, and I encourage it, there is a risk, but its for each person to choose. Problem is people take this notion on the road where the situation is much different and the result far more serious, and often for people who made better choices.

The message speed kills is correct, as I said, no-one making the road rules claims that simply driving fast kills. If that were so, the speed limit would be 20km/h obviously. They are well aware you can be killed at much lower speeds than 110.

The 110 limits and 60 limits are trying to balance risk, convenience and necessity. There is no failsafe answer that covers all scenarios, the law does not provide guarantees, it merely tries to minimise risk without overly effecting citizens needs.

Agreed there are a large number of contributing factors, but that catch phrase only highlights one. It's short all right but I think it misses the point. Also agreed that speed will directly affect the severity of an injury but you've ignored the fact that you don't go from speed to impact without something going wrong in between....which brings us right back to the other factors.

Again, what you call splitting hairs, I call facilitating a better understanding, and better understanding aids in better decision making. Everything we do is measured risk to some degree, walking across the road at slow speed can still get you killed. Understanding the ways increased speeds increase the risks when behind the wheel should help. Things like increased stopping distances, that reaction times will be the same but distances travelled during that time increase with speed. Hopefully a better understanding will make for safer roads.

Limits in populated area, no arguments from me. On the open highway, I'd prefer a return to the no limit laws, as per the NT until pre '07. Did I mention the NT road toll went up from 44 to 57 (almost 25%) with the introduction of open speed limits in '07? In most cases, if you have an open licence, you're legally an adult and old enough to weigh the risks yourself and drive accordingly. Noone makes you drive fast when the limit is removed.

[gtfpv]

I GUESS SOME PEOPLE WILL ONLY REALISE THAT SPEED KILLS WHEN IT HAPPENS TO THEM , OBVIOUSLY THIS IS WHY IT HAPPENS EVERYDAY( sorry caps) because people have a mental block in thier brains that going too fast ( speeding) will kill them when a situation arises, simply doesnt compute . the proof is in the media daily, and the attitude here re inforces my belief of why people die on the roads .
i guess if i said something like if mary poppins were to grab your head and smack it against the windscreen of your car as hard and fast as she could / and then mike tyson grabbed your head and done the same , the speed that your head hit the windscreen would be faster therefore creating a bigger impact force,in which your chances of dying would be greater with mike tyson smackinjg your head against the windscreen then mary poppins . would still create a disagreement here .
ohhhh well . i guess it's obvious , some people will never get it , and people will keep dying on the roads due to excessive speeding , especially p platers who are more likely to be over confident with the speed they think they can drive at.
it's as simple as black and white , ice cream and sh it , driving sensibly and speeding, but there are people out there who are colour blind, have no taste buds, and a low IQ.

[4Vman]

Surely were all smart enough to understand that the "SPEED KILLS" slogan is just a "catch phrase" to highlight the potential dangers.... You don't need to be a Mensa inductee to realise that speed alone doesnt kill, its travelling at a speed above what's appropriate for the conditions and surroundings that's the problem.... Therefore excessive speed CAN kill.

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by troppo

Limits in populated area, no arguments from me. On the open highway, I'd prefer a return to the no limit laws, as per the NT until pre '07. Did I mention the NT road toll went up from 44 to 57 (almost 25%) with the introduction of open speed limits in '07? In most cases, if you have an open licence, you're legally an adult and old enough to weigh the risks yourself and drive accordingly. Noone makes you drive fast when the limit is removed.

And where you and most with said argument miss the bigger picture is you live in a society. That road is funded by everyone, and thus used by everyone. Those risks youre weighing up have impacts on others who get no say in your risk assessment, yet they bear the burden of it just the same. Thank Christ the law tries to address that.

Your (generic you) decision as an adult usually effects others who made a different choice to you. Did I mention the old couple killed by the "street racers"?

You (generic you) have no right on public roads.

[Falc'man]

Originally Posted by flappist

NO SPEED DOES NOT KILL.

Driving beyond your abilities and doing stupid things in stupid places kills.

It really worries me that so many are just following the propaganda and believe anything they see on TV like a bunch of sheep.

Spot on.

Commiserations to the families involved. Yes, it should be a lesson to all the
young out there, learn to drive at high speed in the proper environment!

Originally Posted by FordACE

Just remember, at 80 km's hr if you hit a pole your going to die. So theoretically speed does kill and we should all travel below this speed to ensure that our lives are not wasted so tragically by speed.

Speed required to kill someone is 50km/h.

Originally Posted by FordACE

All that I'm trying to get at is that the government needs to put in more effort into driver training.

But... that would cost them money. They don't have money. They should put
speed cameras up on every corner and use the revenue to... err...



"Speed Kills." It makes me feel better every time I pay a speeding ticket that I
never killed myself when "speeding" 15km/h and under at the time.

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by Falc'man

"Speed Kills." It makes me feel better every time I pay a speeding ticket that I
never killed myself when "speeding" 15km/h and under at the time.

Make sure to log in and tell us what you feel if it does kill you. Makes as much sense as yours.


The young lad in question could have made your exact post right up till he crashed.

[Falc'man]

If speed kills me, it'll most likely be a head on collision with some idiot in the opposite lane concentrating too much on the speed he's doing lest he'll get a speeding fine.

Edit: Ok, just to make your night, I'm going out for some spirited driving in this lovely wet weather.

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by Falc'man

If speed kills me, it'll most likely be a head on collision with some idiot in the opposite lane concentrating too much on the speed he's doing lest he'll get a speeding fine.

Edit: Ok, just to make your night, I'm going out for some spirited driving in this lovely wet weather.

So keeping an eye speed turns you into Nanna huddled over the wheel.

How do you manage a head check when changing lanes? Or dont you bother looking for say bikes? Oh wait, the dial that is always in the same spot, with its speed marking in the same spot situated right in front of you is harder to see.

[Beetus]

arguing over this crap isnt gonna change the fact of what happened........ a few posts from people on a forum sitting on there high chairs isnt gonna change anything....... 500hp/m5 young bloke, wrong decision=5 dead. Should all just take it a lesson and be compationet to the families and friends left behind........

[BENT_8]

Fair call mate,
Lets just remember this thread when some new guy rocks up around here asking how to remove the speed limiter from his E-series!

[Falc'man]

Originally Posted by fmc351

So keeping an eye speed turns you into Nanna huddled over the wheel.

How do you manage a head check when changing lanes? Or dont you bother looking for say bikes? Oh wait, the dial that is always in the same spot, with its speed marking in the same spot situated right in front of you is harder to see.

Yep, I knew it. Every chance you get lol.

[troppo]

Originally Posted by fmc351

And where you and most with said argument miss the bigger picture is you live in a society. That road is funded by everyone, and thus used by everyone. Those risks youre weighing up have impacts on others who get no say in your risk assessment, yet they bear the burden of it just the same. Thank Christ the law tries to address that.

Your (generic you) decision as an adult usually effects others who made a different choice to you. Did I mention the old couple killed by the "street racers"?

You (generic you) have no right on public roads.

No I don't. The NT was still a society when we had open limits, one that I've lived and driven in for 15yrs. I'm not sure what you think happens when limits on the open road are removed but the odds of dying on the road today are not changed much from just over a year ago, if anything slightly increased. We still had 80 and 60 zones in towns and 25 zones around schools and zebra crossings. Society can still function with open limits you know.

You (generic you) put yourself at risk of factors beyond your control every time you leave your house...that's part of living in a society. Every time you get in a car, you put yourself at risk of dying from another persons actions, that doesn't change. Accidental death is a fact of life. Even if cars were legislated to 20km/h, what about all the other modes of transport that go over that? Bike deaths? Pedestrians being hit by moving objects? I'm sure horse related deaths were a lot more common prior to motor vehicles too. And you don't really have to leave your house to die, a trip on the stairs will do it. Would you have us all legislated to not move at all?

No you didn't mention the old couple until now, but it was only a matter of time before someone pulled the tried and true "if arguments don't work, use emotional blackmail" method made famous by the likes of ACA.

Like it or not, I have as much right as you.

[paul_r_d]

When I was at uni I did a program called "Fit To Drive". It involved a group of us visiting high schools and educating year 11 and 12 students on car safety and driving. It invloved small docos on car crashes, and stories of car crash survivors who are permanatley disabled/disfigured. Alot of the material was to have a "shock" effect.
It was basically a program on peer pressure and the ability to make correct decisions in life.
We took a small survey at the start, their attitude and thoughts on speeding, and drink driving. Basically it was males that came out worse. In fact 75% of the high risk cases were males.
But the end of the program we had people retell personal stories of car indcidents, and the tears these teens shed, I beleive has had them really think about the choices they will make.
I wish all schools of Australia would adopt this program, or create an even better one and have it mandatory for all year 11 and 12 students. Even if the message gets through to just a few- it is better than nothing.

My deepest sympathies to the familes of these boys....

[TheSneakiness]

Originally Posted by JC

Nail. Hammer. Head.

I agree with this statement 1000000000%

Speed is a calculation of Distance over time. If speed killed, then anyone not at rest would die immeditely they tried to move.

Inappropriate Speed kills - whether it be because of weather conditions, driver (in)ability, mechanical failure etc. And technicaly, it's usually the impact that does the killing, and the vehicle's velocity (speed) may be a contributing factor into the reason the impact occurred.

Was just gonna post something like if you drive along at 80km/h shouldn't you drop dead if speed killed, but this is a better way of putting it.

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by troppo

No I don't. The NT was still a society when we had open limits, one that I've lived and driven in for 15yrs. I'm not sure what you think happens when limits on the open road are removed but the odds of dying on the road today are not changed much from just over a year ago, if anything slightly increased. We still had 80 and 60 zones in towns and 25 zones around schools and zebra crossings. Society can still function with open limits you know.

Not anymore it cant theres far too much traffic on the road. The NT and outback WA might be OK still being so large and remote, but the rest of Aus has changed too much for that to be possible. Its not simply a matter of making your own choices, that would be fine if you were the only one to die as a result of your choices. The problem is your choices effect other people who made better choices than you, and in that you dont have the right. This is inevitable when individuals make the rules for themselves based on their own perceptions.

Originally Posted by troppo

You (generic you) put yourself at risk of factors beyond your control every time you leave your house...that's part of living in a society. Every time you get in a car, you put yourself at risk of dying from another persons actions, that doesn't change. Accidental death is a fact of life. Even if cars were legislated to 20km/h, what about all the other modes of transport that go over that? Bike deaths? Pedestrians being hit by moving objects? I'm sure horse related deaths were a lot more common prior to motor vehicles too. And you don't really have to leave your house to die, a trip on the stairs will do it. Would you have us all legislated to not move at all?

Nothing but a straw man. Just because life itself is a risk does not mean no steps should be taken to minimise them. Using your logic, we have no need to bother with sunscreen because there are so many other cancers out there anyway. Just because a river is polluted does not mean we can keep pumping pollution into it.

Originally Posted by troppo

No you didn't mention the old couple until now, but it was only a matter of time before someone pulled the tried and true "if arguments don't work, use emotional blackmail" method made famous by the likes of ACA.

Emotional blackmail or evidence that people cant be trusted to make appropriate decisions? These are the same people that will make poor decisions on open speed limit roads too, decisions that will effect innocent road users making better choices.

Originally Posted by troppo

Like it or not, I have as much right as you.

Yep, the right to obey the speed limit. At which point did you lose focus and assume I thought I had more right? Like it or not, youre on the losing side.

[troppo]

Originally Posted by fmc351

Not anymore it cant theres far too much traffic on the road. The NT and outback WA might be OK still being so large and remote, but the rest of Aus has changed too much for that to be possible. Its not simply a matter of making your own choices, that would be fine if you were the only one to die as a result of your choices. The problem is your choices effect other people who made better choices than you, and in that you dont have the right. This is inevitable when individuals make the rules for themselves based on their own perceptions.

Nothing but a straw man. Just because life itself is a risk does not mean no steps should be taken to minimise them. Using your logic, we have no need to bother with sunscreen because there are so many other cancers out there anyway. Just because a river is polluted does not mean we can keep pumping pollution into it.


Emotional blackmail or evidence that people cant be trusted to make appropriate decisions? These are the same people that will make poor decisions on open speed limit roads too, decisions that will effect innocent road users making better choices.


Yep, the right to obey the speed limit. At which point did you lose focus and assume I thought I had more right? Like it or not, youre on the losing side.

Poppycock. I'm advocating driver's being responsible and making their own decisions like how fast to drive. The amount of traffic on the road should be a factor in the decision, not the decision making process. A free society is about having choices my friend, the idea is to make choices that don't infringe on the same rights of others. Like alcohol for instance...very rarely does a persons alcohol consumption not have an effect on those around them, yet we don't put up posters on the side of every bus saying "Alcohol kills", when unlike speed, it will. Instead we encourage "responsible drinking", is it so hard to apply the same to driving?

A straw man should've been easy to disassemble, yet you failed miserably. You've confused minimisation with prevention. One is possible, the other is not. And on that, I think we've gone as far as we can with lagislation in regard to road risk minimisation. The reason the road toll is no longer decreasing is because we have hit that minimum. 95% of fatal accidents that happen these days already have legislation supposedly preventing the situation from occuring. This thread is a case in point, he went out of his way to do what he wanted to do and no amount of lagislation is going to prevent that. Same with the old couple, the laws are already in place but didn't help.

The fact remains you need 2 things to have an accident
1 motion
2 loss of control of some type.
So long as you and the experts of this world continue to focus on point 1 at the expense of point 2, pepole will continue to die on the roads. The only way to further reduce road toll is to look at point 2 and realise there is no substitute for education and experience.

I call it emotional blackmail. It's evidence that no matter how hard you try and protect people from themselves through legislation, there will always be an idiot who will ignore it and kill themselves and possibly others as well. It's usually followed by throwing to an interview of another couple who lost their son to a drunk driver who crashed for different reasons in a different place in a different car in different conditions which have absolutely nothing to do with the original story. Then follow that with another unrelated yet heartwrenching story from the police and ambos'...woops no you did that first up. Spare me please, my mother was a ambo volunteer in a small country town for over 30 years and had to scrape up many friends and aquantainces, most of whom she knew personally, I doubt you have anything that could shock me more.

I didn't assume you thought you had more right, just pointing out that my rights (or lack of, as you pointed out) are no different than yours.

[fastapasta]

[QUOTE=xquizd]Well said _2:


I am ler, I have been banned

[Blue Oval Mopar Man]

I have a question,

If I am travelling in a 40k school zone doing 40 but my car is on a big treadmill......................................... .................


:togo:

[xquizd]

Originally Posted by Blue Oval Mopar Man

I have a question,

If I am travelling in a 40k school zone doing 40 but my car is on a big treadmill......................................... .................


:togo:

Dam thats a big treadmill

[bingoTE50]

Originally Posted by paul_r_d

When I was at uni I did a program called "Fit To Drive". It involved a group of us visiting high schools and educating year 11 and 12 students on car safety and driving. It invloved small docos on car crashes, and stories of car crash survivors who are permanatley disabled/disfigured. Alot of the material was to have a "shock" effect.
It was basically a program on peer pressure and the ability to make correct decisions in life.
We took a small survey at the start, their attitude and thoughts on speeding, and drink driving. Basically it was males that came out worse. In fact 75% of the high risk cases were males.
But the end of the program we had people retell personal stories of car indcidents, and the tears these teens shed, I beleive has had them really think about the choices they will make.
I wish all schools of Australia would adopt this program, or create an even better one and have it mandatory for all year 11 and 12 students. Even if the message gets through to just a few- it is better than nothing.

My deepest sympathies to the familes of these boys....

This is similar to IAN Luffs programme.
Could not agree more with you , it should be mandatory !!!

[The Mighty Red]

very tragic...........hows all the morons on here arguing over speed kills ...........

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by troppo

Poppycock. I'm advocating driver's being responsible and making their own decisions like how fast to drive. The amount of traffic on the road should be a factor in the decision, not the decision making process. A free society is about having choices my friend, the idea is to make choices that don't infringe on the same rights of others. Like alcohol for instance...very rarely does a persons alcohol consumption not have an effect on those around them, yet we don't put up posters on the side of every bus saying "Alcohol kills", when unlike speed, it will. Instead we encourage "responsible drinking", is it so hard to apply the same to driving?

We do encourage responsible driving, with speed limits and road rules. Using your logic, why bother with give way signs and traffic lights either? Surely we can be responsible.

Competing rights, thats what you are referring too. When the rights of one person infringe on the next person. Basic example, my right to have the stereo cranked in my home in suburbia from 5pm to 3am every night of the week cranking out the most god awful music you can imagine, and the neighbours right to sleep in peace. Your (and everyone elses including those without the capacity to make a decent decision) right to drive at their own limit on open roads v the right of the family returning from holiday to get home safely. Competing rights go both ways, the law has to go with the choice of least harm. Gee, is it really that hard to decipher which is which?

Society on mass does not have the mental capacity to operate as you suggest, it never will. And that is not due to dumbing down of society. Were selfish by nature, not very community minded, short sighted and for the most part dont plan very well and we only get wiser with age. There is a massive potential for damage in the mean time. Yeah not everyone is like that, but society is not isolated cases its a whole, a whole drawn to a limit by its weakest points not living in hope based on its best case scenarios.

Think about a car, it may have 600kw but if its got no brakes and no steering, its not wise to race it over Mt Panorama.

Originally Posted by troppo

A straw man should've been easy to disassemble, yet you failed miserably.

Try yelling that from the roof top and see if it comes true. I never failed, you failed to get the point preferring to stick with your straw man.

Maybe we should do away with underage sex laws too and let the adults decide for themselves what they want to do, surely they will make the right decisions. I mean surely we can be trusted to make appropriate decisions. That is your argument, we can be trusted to make appropriate decisions. You looked around you lately?

Originally Posted by troppo

You've confused minimisation with prevention. One is possible, the other is not.

Neither is possible except in your own mind. The public cant be trusted to make decisions like that for themselves, there are exceptions but you cant apply that as the norm. Obviously if the only person at risk was the party concerned then so be it, but they arent the only one. And thats the point everyone keeps forgetting.

Waits for the next silly argument about dumbing down society.

Originally Posted by troppo

And on that, I think we've gone as far as we can with lagislation in regard to road risk minimisation. The reason the road toll is no longer decreasing is because we have hit that minimum. 95% of fatal accidents that happen these days already have legislation supposedly preventing the situation from occuring. This thread is a case in point, he went out of his way to do what he wanted to do and no amount of lagislation is going to prevent that. Same with the old couple, the laws are already in place but didn't help.

And not having laws like speed limits results in no way to effectively prosecute them either. In other words, anarchy on the roads. The alternative is if there is any incident clearly you were breaking the law as the speed wasnt safe, but that wont always be true there may be other causes. I suggest you learn about the history of laws and why they are the way they are. Enforceability and effective operation are just a couple of important aspects of laws.

With hindsight youre correct with reference to this case, as I said at least he had the sense to do it off road. Its a tragic senseless waste of life and I prefer it never happened, but the choice was made by those in the car and I feel little sympathy for them, but a lot for their families. But on that note, how could he be sure there was no employee of the airport working before hours to keep the place ship shape so to speak? The assumption the place is closed so therefore no third party will be injured is exactly the situation Im talking about, there is no sense in that assumption. It is nothing more than an assumption and could just as easily go wrong, for some innocent third party.

Originally Posted by troppo

The fact remains you need 2 things to have an accident
1 motion
2 loss of control of some type.

Wrong, i can be stopped at the lights and be hit by someone else who failed to take account of the things you mention above. I could be changing a tyre in the emergency lane and collected by the clown who lost control because the law says he can do 200 if he thinks its safe. You keep revealing your focus is on the car choosing to drive quick and fail to account for the car that doesnt.

I dont need to be moving at all, thats the point.

Originally Posted by troppo

So long as you and the experts of this world continue to focus on point 1 at the expense of point 2, pepole will continue to die on the roads. The only way to further reduce road toll is to look at point 2 and realise there is no substitute for education and experience.

Id argue its people like yourself who split hairs over its not the speed its the sudden stop to a bunch of people who look for any excuse to speed have more to answer for.

The message was never speed alone kills, its just one ad campaign and its being misrepresented by your silly hair splitting in an attempt to win an argument youve already lost. Its just an ad like:
- Stop, Revive, Survive.
- Buckle up.
- No seatbelt, No chance
- Drink drive, Bloody idiot
- Look out look out, there are children about

Again, focus on one issue at a time over several campaigns and get the full message across. Oh wait, you want a 40 minute documentary to replace the ads so every facet of driving is covered under the one banner. Jesus, the public cant manage one at a time, how the hell will they manage a complex message like that?

Originally Posted by troppo

I call it emotional blackmail. It's evidence that no matter how hard you try and protect people from themselves through legislation, there will always be an idiot who will ignore it and kill themselves and possibly others as well. It's usually followed by throwing to an interview of another couple who lost their son to a drunk driver who crashed for different reasons in a different place in a different car in different conditions which have absolutely nothing to do with the original story.

So you want them to interview the dead couple? Maybe just interview the surviving drink driver? They are trying to get a message across to tools who keep thinking speed doesnt kill and then speed and kill someone (insert drink drive, seatbelt or whatever).

Ah crap, why do we need any laws at all if society can be trusted to make the right choices? Society being made up of many minds will never be able to work a trust or honour system in a situation with so many variables.


Oh and the ambos and police reference were to posters here who repeat the warnings, not a tug at heart strings. You should probably do something about your comprehension.

[xquizd]

Originally Posted by The Mighty Red

very tragic...........hows all the morons on here arguing over speed kills ...........

You Said It! In a nut shell it does no matter how much you twist it & how you word it. Have a good look at 99.99% of the very serious crashes involving deaths & tell me how many were doing the speed limit????

Brocky was a very capable driver but guess what...... SPEED KILLED HIM!
If he took that corner at 20k's he wouldnt be dead now would he!

Every one nows the risk of speeding including professional drag racers but thats just a chance they decide to take, next I guess someone will be telling me that no one has died running down the quarter, mind you controlled enviro & very capable drivers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Speed makes the crash alot more severe & has a MUCH harder impact.
So stop dressing the the wolf (speed) in a sheeps outfit.

[xquizd]

PS. fmc351 thats a hell of a read (your last post)

Let me go get a cuppa & have a good read

Hey what ever happened to fasta pasta further up ^

[flappist]

Originally Posted by xquizd

You Said It! In a nut shell it does no matter how much you twist it & how you word it. Have a good look at 99.99% of the very serious crashes involving deaths & tell me how many were doing the speed limit????

Brocky was a very capable driver but guess what...... SPEED KILLED HIM!
If he took that corner at 20k's he wouldnt be dead now would he!

Every one nows the risk of speeding including professional drag racers but thats just a chance they decide to take, next I guess someone will be telling me that no one has died running down the quarter, mind you controlled enviro & very capable drivers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Speed makes the crash alot more severe & has a MUCH harder impact.
So stop dressing the the wolf (speed) in a sheeps outfit.

You are missing the main point here. It is not that driving at high speed is not dangerous.
It is that the social engineers and wowser/nutters are constantly pushing the line that SPEEDING IS EXCEEDING A NUMBER ON A SIGN not going too fast for your skill or conditions.
i.e. If the speed limit is 100km/h the it is more dangerous to go 101km/h of a nice sunny dry day when there is no one else about than to do 95km/h in the pouring rain during peak hour.

Those who are against the concept of personal responsibility for you own actions and personal judgment in situation get extremely angry to the level of personal insults at anyone who questions their absolute right to control what others think or do.

Controlled conditions is NOT "when someone else tells you what to do and you OBEY blindly", it is when you ensure to the best of your ability that as little as possible is left to chance.

Speeding is travelling at a speed that is too high for a given condition or situation NOT going faster than a magic number on a sign. So if you are going below the posted limit but too fast for conditions YOU ARE SPEEDING even though the law says you are not.

But this thread has digressed for its origin.

Some young inexperienced people were driving a motor vehicle that demonstrated more performance than they were capable of understanding or controlling and on an airstrip, which is not a road and has no speed limits, unfortunately failed to control the vehicle which led to and accident and their deaths.

The lesson from this should be; don't exceed your capability or experience level in any situation as this can be dangerous to the level of being fatal.

Unfortuneately too many try and use emotion after a tragedy to further their social agenda "to make a better world".

[wulos]

However you wish to look at things here, there is tragedy involved for the families surrounding the dead youths, as well as a few behaviours that some would argue are not overly acceptable.
We are done here...