Crash investigation results and that 30 car pile-up in NSW

"Mot Adv-NSW" <mot.adv@gotalk.net.au> wrote in message
news:2u5eimF25fnhrU1@uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Jacko" <jacko6777@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:uGXed.37883$5O5.4643@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>
> Mmmmm,
>
> Truck is unregistered and uninsured, had dodgy mechanicals... more later..

As BenOne alluded to, that's obviously the governments fault.

"athol" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:2u6ba7F27cq94U1@uni-berlin.de...
> Dale Jones <dale-google@monsya.net> wrote:
>
<snip>

> Actually, the statistics from overseas where freeway limits are
> actively being raised show that the increased limits actually drop
> the crash _rate_, so crashes become less inevitable...

In some places. Other places the rates increased. Of the ones that indicated
a decrease in crashes, there were some very suspect results being bandied
about that included some of the *highway* data including parts of the road
that weren't *highway* at all or even part of the original experiement.
I'll try and dig up a couple of those reports to show you what I mean.
<snip>

>> Jeremy, I think you'll have to face facts, most drivers aren't that
>> good at driving. I think simple approaches just don't work. You need
>> to understand 'why' people are doing what they are doing, and its not
>> because the speed limit is too low. In the same vein, dropping speed
>> limits is not going to help too much either.
>
> A small increase in speed limit can effect a noticable improvement
> in driver behaviour once they adjust to the new limit. I'd even go
> so far as to say that I would support limit raising in steps of 10
> or 20 rather than just jumping. I agree with Jeremy's suggestion
> that the maximum posted limit should be about 130, with derestriction
> being the next step.

I don't. Not across the board anyway. When motorist can show enough maturity
to drive safely at the limits in place now, then I'd suggest the authorities
might listen to your call. I also don't beleive it's all about training
either............it's only P platers *some* of the time.
>
> Hence, I'd like to see the existing 110 zones go up to 120 for say
> 6 months, then 130 for 6 months then derestriction. I know that
> there would be an issue with the cost of signs but I believe that it
> would be a safer way of implementing raised limits. It also allows
> for gathering of hard data on the improvement in safety that occurs
> with each increase.

There is no real evidence available to suggest that this experiment would be
successful. The argument thrown around in here about the limits being too
low which is causing crashes is a crock. The only crashes I seem to
investigate that indicate a speed differential being the sole reason is
where a car runs up the arse of a slow moving truck etc........higher limits
aren't going to reduce these crashes at all. I believe they will only make
the chances of survival less than they already are now.

>
>> I am amazed at how many people will sit close behind my car when I'm
>> over the speed limit. Yet when I move over left (while keeping exactly
>> the same speed) to let them pass, they either sit at the same speed,
>> move behind me, or slow down. (Yes some do overtake.... and then slow
>> down!) When they really piss me off, I slow down to 20ks below the
>> limit, and some still sit there. Go figure.
>
> I've seen all of those behaviours and more. They're not likely to
> improve without being forced to do so by licence retesting &/or by
> being booked for it.



> --
> Athol
> <http://cust.idl.com.au/athol>
> Linux Registered User # 254000
> I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.

athol <me@privacy.net> writes:

>Dale Jones <dale-google@monsya.net> wrote:

>> Jeremy, I think you'll have to face facts, most drivers aren't that
>> good at driving. I think simple approaches just don't work. You need
>> to understand 'why' people are doing what they are doing, and its not
>> because the speed limit is too low. In the same vein, dropping speed
>> limits is not going to help too much either.

>A small increase in speed limit can effect a noticable improvement
>in driver behaviour once they adjust to the new limit. I'd even go
>so far as to say that I would support limit raising in steps of 10
>or 20 rather than just jumping. I agree with Jeremy's suggestion
>that the maximum posted limit should be about 130, with derestriction
>being the next step.

>Hence, I'd like to see the existing 110 zones go up to 120 for say
>6 months, then 130 for 6 months then derestriction. I know that
>there would be an issue with the cost of signs but I believe that it
>would be a safer way of implementing raised limits. It also allows
>for gathering of hard data on the improvement in safety that occurs
>with each increase.

You should wait rather longer if you want statistically-meaningful
data; in particular allowing for regression-to-mean effects.
BTRE describes this phenomenon in it's notes on the black spot
programme:
http://www.btre.gov.au/docs/r104/htm/chapter5.htm

Failing to allow for regression-to-mean is characteristic of the
evidence used to "substantiate" claims made by the speed camera
crowd that they produce a 30% to 50% reduction in crashes in the
area. Turns out that you usually get the same "benefit" by placing
garden gnomes in those locations.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

Shane wrote:

> "BenOne©" <nosp@m.thanks.mate> wrote in message
> news:bekhlc.gmu.ln@192.168.11.2...
>
>>Shane wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"BenOne©" <nosp@m.thanks.mate> wrote in message
>>>news:417C2BF0.7050603@m.thanks.mate...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hi all,
>>>>
>>>>After seeing the big 30 car smash in NSW on the news I was wondering how
>>>>I could find out more about the results of the investigation that will no
>>>>doubt be undertaken.
>>>>
>>>>The road looked like a freeway, so I suspect it had a speed limit of 80
>>>>or more. I don't know what caused the crash - there was some mention of a
>>>>semi-trailer - but I can't see how anything but tailgating is to blame.
>>>>If that's the case, then it's more proof that the government is really
>>>>fucking up road safety by focusing solely on speeding in their road
>>>>safety campaigns. The endless loss of life single minded government
>>>>policy that isn't achieving anything positive almost brings me to tears!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Ben Thomas
>>>>Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
>>>>relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither
>>>>given nor endorsed by it.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Why do you bother?
>
>
>
> I was thinking exactly the same thing. All you do is whinge. You complain
> about anything the authorities do, and do it without knowing what you're
> talking about.

What else have I complained about? If you're going to tell me I don't know what
I'm talking about, then point out where I'm wrong. I don't think I've ever seen
you attempt that. All you do is say you're the expert and we should all shut up.

I complain about the ONE of the things the authorities claim to do about road
safety - the emphasis on exceeding the speed limit. The only other things the
government seem to focus on is drink driving and texting/talking on the mobile
phone while driving. I applaud their efforts but I don't think the penalties are
harsh enough.

The number of people I saw driving without headlights on this morning was
apalling. It was raining a lot and the clouds were so thick that the street
lights had come back on. Do we see any goverment ads to encourage people to use
their headlights when visibility is bad?

How about the fact that there are always more accidents when it rains. I drive
in peak hour traffic, and it always takes me a lot longer to get to work when
it's wet because the traffic is forced to go a lot slower and rarely manages to
get up to the speed limit. So people are having lots of crashes below the limit,
and all the government does is tell us to slow down. Don't you think there might
be some other aspect of people's driving that could be to blame, like tailgating
less or being more careful when changing lanes?

> Do you believe that perhaps it's YOU that's taken this
> *dumbing down* business too far? You seem to believe that any strategy the
> authorities take is measured only by revenue.

I have not mentioned revenue, so why raise it?

> Both myself and Spook have
> posted many times before what *really* goes on and how most highway patrol
> operate. If you chose to ignore information right from the coal-face and
> continue to dream up conspiracies all the time then that's your business.
> But, IMO it's gets a little tedious reading one post after another when all
> it contains is complaints without evidence to support your argument. Go find
> out the cause of the crash before you come to your stupid conclusions that
> any authority caused it. Perhaps it was a guy just like you that decided
> he'd do whatever speed he felt like doing and caused the crash when it all
> got too hot to handle?

People always do whatever speed they feel like doing. Often it's too fast for
the conditions but under the limit. Many young people don't know how to drive to
the conditions because they are not taught how. All the government does is tell
them not to drink and drive, not to SMS or hold their phone while driving, and
not to exceed the limit. Yet many crashes are occurring below the limit.



> Imagine if I posted that kind of argument straight
> away without knowing the facts? You just did exactly that! "but I can't see
> how anything but tailgating is to blame. If that's the case, then it's more
> proof that the government is really fucking up road safety by focusing
> solely on speeding in their road safety campaigns. The endless loss of life
> single minded government policy that isn't achieving anything positive
> almost brings me to tears!"
> Boring.

I also asked how I could find out more about the accident and what the real
cause is, so that if my assertion that tailgating was to blame was wrong, then I
could be better educated.

Here's your chance but I sincerely doubt you'll take it. Instead you'll just
tell me to shut up,.


--
Ben Thomas
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.

Dale Jones wrote:
>
> In these situations, I've learnt to chill out and drop to a lower
> speed, in this case 100km/h, where I don't need to overtake as often,
> and therefore avoid the gooses in the RH lane. I really am quite fond
> of living and can live without any extra stress. 30 minutes late over
> 3 hours, who cares?

Is that daily, for years? You should care.
--
Ben Thomas
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.

Shane wrote:

> "Mot Adv-NSW" <mot.adv@gotalk.net.au> wrote in message
> news:2u5eimF25fnhrU1@uni-berlin.de...
>
>>"Jacko" <jacko6777@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>>news:uGXed.37883$5O5.4643@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>>Mmmmm,
>>
>>Truck is unregistered and uninsured, had dodgy mechanicals... more later..
>
>
> As BenOne alluded to, that's obviously the governments fault.
>
>

I don't believe I did. It was certainly not intentional.

My original post was posted in anger. I am sick and tired of seeing people
having accidents, particularly large ones. There's got to be a way to change
peoples attitudes or skill levels, and it seems to me the government not
addressing the real issues.

I could be wrong though.

--
Ben Thomas
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.

feral <plonked@home.ru> wrote in message news:<417c88fe$0$31709$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au>...
> Dale Jones wrote:
>
> > My solution, slow down to 100km/h and sit in the left hand lane until
> > after the Gosford exit, and resume speed back to 110+ km/h. Much more
> > sane, except for the groups of people that bunch up with the same
> > behavior.
> >
> > Is there any solution to this?
>
> Yes.
> You see, the drivers in the RH lane are really doing
> about 125k. So, if you're in the left lane doing 110k
> (?), when you see you are coming up behind a slow car,
> you accelerate to 125k to slip in between two doing this
> speed. Then you slip back into the left lane and slow to
> 110k again.

The only problem I've got with this 'solution' is that I don't feel
safe sitting a single car length between two cars at 125km/h. I'm
obviously a wally that can't drive. Either that or I really like
living and don't want to interrupt it with a stint in hospital.

You are assuming that I either don't know what my speed is, or cannot
judge the speed of other cars. If I'm doing 115km/h and the car next
to me stays next to me, what speed would you say it is doing? 125km/h?

Most of these people are too lazy or too frustrated to get out of the
RH lane, as they know that it'll be hard to get back in to overtake
the next slow car. The wankers that come up the back of the car in the
LH lane to cut into any buffer zone for the car in the RH lane are
probably another reason for this.

In these situations, I've learnt to chill out and drop to a lower
speed, in this case 100km/h, where I don't need to overtake as often,
and therefore avoid the gooses in the RH lane. I really am quite fond
of living and can live without any extra stress. 30 minutes late over
3 hours, who cares?

>
> You know what, I don't really believe your scenario, or,
> don't you know about NSW "tolerences".

I'm not sure what you don't believe, and probably can't help you. Do
you drive?

Seriously though, my speedo is pretty accurate, and I'm one of those
idiots that likes to sit within 1 or 2ks of the speed I want, down AND
up hills. If the limit's 110, I'll probably sit at 115. I've got the
speed alert configured as a digital speedo, and it seems a bit more
linear than the normal speedo.

NSW tolerances don't really appear to be the issue. Why should they?
Going by your logic, these tolerances change on double demerit
weekends, because on those days, a lot of people sit well below the
speed limit. My limited grasp of logic suggests that these people
aren't looking at their speedos that often.

>
> Why are people on the F3 so 'manic'?
>
> *Only* the F3. :-)

True, some roads are bad, but on the F6 you get fast people, but they
seem to drive smoothly. The geniuses on the F3 seem to want to do
anything to get in front or to stop anyone else getting in front.

> > It really feels like a race.
>
> It is.

To Gosford? No offence, I'm sure it's a nice place, but Sydney's not
that bad.

>
> I've been to Gosford, I don't think its
> > 'that nice'. Why hurry?
> >
> Escaping Sydney? :-)

Death'll do that to you.

>
> T.C. Feral

Dale.

"Mot Adv-NSW" <mot.adv@gotalk.net.au> wrote in message news:<2u3oe4F25qsquU1@uni-berlin.de>...
> "Dale Jones" <d
>
> > I was lucky that I missed the accident, but I couldn't believe how
> > much a pain in the arse the F3 is. I am one of these people that like
> > to keep left when not overtaking.
>
> Keep left or middle??

Generally left. On three lane roads this is great as I can overtake
other cars that sit below the speed limit in the centre lane, and
often avoid people sitting in the RH lane also below the speed limit.
Its great!
(Before anyone comments about overtaking in a LH lane, read the road
rules, and no this is not Europe)

>
>
> I found that doing this meant that
> > you could not get back into the right hand lane when trying to get
> > past a car doing 100km/h because all the people in the right hand lane
> > were 2 car lengths apart, and never changing lanes themselves.
>
> Symptomatic of a too low speed limit - I propose divorcing it, marriage in
> traffic is deadly.

Jeremy, I think we are learning too much about you, and not about the
road. Too low a speed limit? I think in these conditions, no mater
what the limit was, these same people would stay in the RH lane as
they are too scared or unskilled to change lanes.

> We could raise the fine and points for not keeping
> adequate distance, but this will encourage drivers to drive slower which
> will add to frustration and outbreaks of greeat joy.
>
>
> > Is there any solution to this? Why are people on the F3 so 'manic'? It
> > really feels like a race. I've been to Gosford, I don't think its
> > 'that nice'. Why hurry?
<snip>
> Recall, it was 110km/h all the way through, so with the 90km/h imposition
> following an unusually wet Saturday, behaviour has worsened, people feel
> 'put upon' and we've had a tough time explaining 'why' the limit was imposed
> as championed by Gosford Police (RTA senior local staff do not go along with
> it).
>
> The other issue is 110km/h is simply too slow a speed limit for many a
> greater part. I'd raise it to 130km/h or even derestrict the road AFTER the
> median barrier in installed at the full length, the driver must therefore be
> given greater responsibility, rather than hiding their selfish actions
> behind numerical speed limits.

I like driving fast, but I don't think this approach will work. Most
modern cars are quiet and economical at high speeds. If you are not
looking at your speedo now, why would you change this habit just
because its a higher speedlimit? It'll just make the damage more
severe from the resulting accidents.

I think someone mentioned years ago about ending the RH lane when
lanes need to merge instead of the LH lane. I think this would tend to
make a lot of drivers stay in the left or middle lane. This would
probably cause some problems, but I can't help but thinking people
stay in the RH lane because its easier than changing lanes.

>
> Until this is addressed, I promise you more of the same as the pressure
> cooker increases.

Jeremy, I think you'll have to face facts, most drivers aren't that
good at driving. I think simple approaches just don't work. You need
to understand 'why' people are doing what they are doing, and its not
because the speed limit is too low. In the same vein, dropping speed
limits is not going to help too much either.

I am amazed at how many people will sit close behind my car when I'm
over the speed limit. Yet when I move over left (while keeping exactly
the same speed) to let them pass, they either sit at the same speed,
move behind me, or slow down. (Yes some do overtake.... and then slow
down!) When they really piss me off, I slow down to 20ks below the
limit, and some still sit there. Go figure.

>
> JP.
>

Dale.

Dale Jones wrote:
>
> The only problem I've got with this 'solution' is that I don't feel
> safe sitting a single car length between two cars at 125km/h. I'm
> obviously a wally that can't drive. Either that or I really like
> living and don't want to interrupt it with a stint in hospital.
>
I was having a lend Dale. ;-)

> You are assuming that I either don't know what my speed is, or cannot
> judge the speed of other cars. If I'm doing 115km/h and the car next
> to me stays next to me, what speed would you say it is doing? 125km/h?
>
+/- 20k :-)

> Most of these people are too lazy or too frustrated to get out of the
> RH lane, as they know that it'll be hard to get back in to overtake
> the next slow car. The wankers that come up the back of the car in the
> LH lane to cut into any buffer zone for the car in the RH lane are
> probably another reason for this.
>
There's still something wrong with that logic. Can you
see it?

> In these situations, I've learnt to chill out and drop to a lower
> speed, in this case 100km/h, where I don't need to overtake as often,
> and therefore avoid the gooses in the RH lane. I really am quite fond
> of living and can live without any extra stress. 30 minutes late over
> 3 hours, who cares?
>
Good approach.
>
> I'm not sure what you don't believe, and probably can't help you. Do
> you drive?
>
Only for 43 years. :-)

> Seriously though, my speedo is pretty accurate, and I'm one of those
> idiots that likes to sit within 1 or 2ks of the speed I want, down AND
> up hills. If the limit's 110, I'll probably sit at 115.

That's cool, but unless there is heavy traffic the RH
lane will still be about 120-125k. Right?

> NSW tolerances don't really appear to be the issue. Why should they?
> Going by your logic, these tolerances change on double demerit
> weekends,

Nah. Peoples trust of the "tolerence" and the fear of
extra monetary/points loss plus extra traffic would be
more to the point IMO.

because on those days, a lot of people sit well below the
> speed limit. My limited grasp of logic suggests that these people
> aren't looking at their speedos that often.
>
See above.
>
> To Gosford? No offence, I'm sure it's a nice place, but Sydney's not
> that bad.
>
Sydney is the pits IMHO Dale. I was born and bred there.
Moved out in 1975, not sorry. :-)
>
> Death'll do that to you.
>
There's life after Sydney. ;-)

T.C. Feral

Mot Adv-NSW <mot.adv@gotalk.net.au> wrote:

> Truck is unregistered and uninsured, had dodgy mechanicals...

Very interesting...

> more later..

Yes please.

Did it have plates on it?

Was it an over 8T vehicle, and if so, how did it get past Mt White?

--
Athol
<http://cust.idl.com.au/athol>
Linux Registered User # 254000
I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.

Dale Jones <dale-google@monsya.net> wrote:

> Too low a speed limit? I think in these conditions, no mater
> what the limit was, these same people would stay in the RH lane as
> they are too scared or unskilled to change lanes.

Then the HWP should be out there booking them for failing to keep
left. Shane has previously mentioned doing this on the Hume and
I applaud him for it.

> I like driving fast, but I don't think this approach will work. Most
> modern cars are quiet and economical at high speeds. If you are not
> looking at your speedo now, why would you change this habit just
> because its a higher speedlimit? It'll just make the damage more
> severe from the resulting accidents.

Actually, the statistics from overseas where freeway limits are
actively being raised show that the increased limits actually drop
the crash _rate_, so crashes become less inevitable...

Comprehensive installation of barriers in the correct places makes
sure that crashes only involve vehicles travelling in the same
direction, significantly reducing the severity of crashes. Barrier
installation should not be restricted to the median, either. The
outside of the carriageway often needs a barrier to keep vehicles
from swerving off, overcorrecting and spearing diagonally into the
median...

Addressing issues with unlicensed drivers and unregistered vehicles
would help too, considering that Jeremy mentioned that the truck
involved in the F3 crash was unregistered, etc..

> I think someone mentioned years ago about ending the RH lane when
> lanes need to merge instead of the LH lane. I think this would tend to
> make a lot of drivers stay in the left or middle lane. This would
> probably cause some problems, but I can't help but thinking people
> stay in the RH lane because its easier than changing lanes.

Merging the left lane and starting a new right lane is a better way
of doing it. I'd like to see that on climbing lanes on steep hills
on freeways. With the way that drivers here drive, it'd probably be
worth starting a new right lane and ending the left lane on almost
every small rise. :-)

> Jeremy, I think you'll have to face facts, most drivers aren't that
> good at driving. I think simple approaches just don't work. You need
> to understand 'why' people are doing what they are doing, and its not
> because the speed limit is too low. In the same vein, dropping speed
> limits is not going to help too much either.

A small increase in speed limit can effect a noticable improvement
in driver behaviour once they adjust to the new limit. I'd even go
so far as to say that I would support limit raising in steps of 10
or 20 rather than just jumping. I agree with Jeremy's suggestion
that the maximum posted limit should be about 130, with derestriction
being the next step.

Hence, I'd like to see the existing 110 zones go up to 120 for say
6 months, then 130 for 6 months then derestriction. I know that
there would be an issue with the cost of signs but I believe that it
would be a safer way of implementing raised limits. It also allows
for gathering of hard data on the improvement in safety that occurs
with each increase.

> I am amazed at how many people will sit close behind my car when I'm
> over the speed limit. Yet when I move over left (while keeping exactly
> the same speed) to let them pass, they either sit at the same speed,
> move behind me, or slow down. (Yes some do overtake.... and then slow
> down!) When they really piss me off, I slow down to 20ks below the
> limit, and some still sit there. Go figure.

I've seen all of those behaviours and more. They're not likely to
improve without being forced to do so by licence retesting &/or by
being booked for it.

--
Athol
<http://cust.idl.com.au/athol>
Linux Registered User # 254000
I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.

Hi all,

After seeing the big 30 car smash in NSW on the news I was wondering how I could
find out more about the results of the investigation that will no doubt be
undertaken.

The road looked like a freeway, so I suspect it had a speed limit of 80 or more.
I don't know what caused the crash - there was some mention of a semi-trailer -
but I can't see how anything but tailgating is to blame. If that's the case,
then it's more proof that the government is really fucking up road safety by
focusing solely on speeding in their road safety campaigns. The endless loss of
life single minded government policy that isn't achieving anything positive
almost brings me to tears!
--
Ben Thomas
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.

"BenOne©" <nosp@m.thanks.mate> wrote in message
news:417C2BF0.7050603@m.thanks.mate...
> Hi all,
>
> After seeing the big 30 car smash in NSW on the news I was wondering how I
> could find out more about the results of the investigation that will no
> doubt be undertaken.
>
> The road looked like a freeway, so I suspect it had a speed limit of 80 or
> more. I don't know what caused the crash - there was some mention of a
> semi-trailer - but I can't see how anything but tailgating is to blame. If
> that's the case, then it's more proof that the government is really
> fucking up road safety by focusing solely on speeding in their road safety
> campaigns. The endless loss of life single minded government policy that
> isn't achieving anything positive almost brings me to tears!



Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzz


> --
> Ben Thomas
> Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
> relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither
> given nor endorsed by it.
>

"BenOne©" <nosp@m.thanks.mate> wrote in message
news:417C2BF0.7050603@m.thanks.mate...
> After seeing the big 30 car smash in NSW on the news I was wondering how I
could
> find out more about the results of the investigation that will no doubt be
> undertaken.
>
> The road looked like a freeway, so I suspect it had a speed limit of 80 or
more.
> I don't know what caused the crash - there was some mention of a
semi-trailer -
> but I can't see how anything but tailgating is to blame. If that's the
case,
> then it's more proof that the government is really fucking up road safety
by
> focusing solely on speeding in their road safety campaigns. The endless
loss of
> life single minded government policy that isn't achieving anything
positive
> almost brings me to tears!

Ben

The road in question was the F3 Freeway specifically, the Mooney Mooney
Bridge which is a very high bridge between two mountains (for lack of a
better explanation). It normally has a posted limit of 110km/h. The
Sun-Herald reported that there was an accident southbound on the right hand
lane. Part of the northbound lanes were closed as a result. Apparently
there was a subsequent accident before a truck coming down the long downhill
section on the northbound lane reportedly lost its brakes. It clung to the
left shoulder but evidently collected multiple vehicles. I am not sure if
there were any other incidents that formed part of the "Pile-up".

I had the misfortune of travelling from NW NSW to Sydney on Friday night and
by the time we got to Mooney Mooney (about 9.00pm) the area was lit up with
big flood lights and there were literally flashing lights everywhere. The
RTA/police crews do a good job of managing the traffic around the accident
considering what they were up against.

Jacko

"Jacko" <
> The road in question was the F3 Freeway specifically, the Mooney Mooney
> Bridge which is a very high bridge between two mountains (for lack of a
> better explanation). It normally has a posted limit of 110km/h.


Ben, I cannot see your original post, but did recieve you email CC. (What
is a workable return address?)

Investigations continue - truck 'might' have had brake failure of sorts.
Few drivers had activated hazard warning lights to warn approaching vehicles
I suspect, let alone triangle and CB's to alert approaching Rigs. More
later.


This is what Scott Hillard posted on another forum:

Looks like 35 cars now, I crossed the bridge 10-15 minutes before the
collision, and it's easy to see how it happened.

A 4WD had managed to mount the Jersey barrier in the middle of the bridge,
blocking 2 Southbound lanes. Northbound peak traffic had slowed to
rubber-neck, causing near gridlock with 3 lanes of traffic moving at
40-50km/h in a 110km/h zone.

Madness.

Throw in the usual tailgating and appalling lane discipline you find on the
F3, and it was bound to happen. Only surprise was that more people weren't
killed.

Mot Adv-NSW wrote:

> "Jacko" <
>
>>The road in question was the F3 Freeway specifically, the Mooney Mooney
>>Bridge which is a very high bridge between two mountains (for lack of a
>>better explanation). It normally has a posted limit of 110km/h.
>
>
>
> Ben, I cannot see your original post, but did recieve you email CC. (What
> is a workable return address?)

Sorry about that. I forgot to include a real address. username is ben. company
is unico. it's an australian company. So it's like somebloke@mycompanyname.com.au.

> Investigations continue - truck 'might' have had brake failure of sorts.
> Few drivers had activated hazard warning lights to warn approaching vehicles
> I suspect, let alone triangle and CB's to alert approaching Rigs. More
> later.

Are you suggesting that the approaching rigs don't leave enough room to stop
should the traffic suddenly slow, and that they need members of the public to
place warning triangles on the road to alert them?

So is the info publicly available? Will it be broadcast on the news? Or are news
services only interested in the initial gore?

> This is what Scott Hillard posted on another forum:
>
> Looks like 35 cars now, I crossed the bridge 10-15 minutes before the
> collision, and it's easy to see how it happened.
>
> A 4WD had managed to mount the Jersey barrier in the middle of the bridge,
> blocking 2 Southbound lanes. Northbound peak traffic had slowed to
> rubber-neck, causing near gridlock with 3 lanes of traffic moving at
> 40-50km/h in a 110km/h zone.
>
> Madness.
>
> Throw in the usual tailgating and appalling lane discipline you find on the
> F3, and it was bound to happen. Only surprise was that more people weren't
> killed.

Thanks for forwarding it.


--
Ben Thomas
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.

Shane wrote:

> "BenOne©" <nosp@m.thanks.mate> wrote in message
> news:417C2BF0.7050603@m.thanks.mate...
>
>>Hi all,
>>
>>After seeing the big 30 car smash in NSW on the news I was wondering how I
>>could find out more about the results of the investigation that will no
>>doubt be undertaken.
>>
>>The road looked like a freeway, so I suspect it had a speed limit of 80 or
>>more. I don't know what caused the crash - there was some mention of a
>>semi-trailer - but I can't see how anything but tailgating is to blame. If
>>that's the case, then it's more proof that the government is really
>>fucking up road safety by focusing solely on speeding in their road safety
>>campaigns. The endless loss of life single minded government policy that
>>isn't achieving anything positive almost brings me to tears!
>
>
>
>
> Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzz
>
>
>
>>--
>>Ben Thomas
>>Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
>>relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither
>>given nor endorsed by it.
>>
>
>
>

Why do you bother?

--
Ben Thomas
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.

"Mot Adv-NSW" <mot.adv@gotalk.net.au> wrote in message news:<2u30cjF24ula3U1@uni-berlin.de>...
> "Jacko" <
<snip>
>
>
> This is what Scott Hillard posted on another forum:
>
> Looks like 35 cars now, I crossed the bridge 10-15 minutes before the
> collision, and it's easy to see how it happened.
>
> A 4WD had managed to mount the Jersey barrier in the middle of the bridge,
> blocking 2 Southbound lanes. Northbound peak traffic had slowed to
> rubber-neck, causing near gridlock with 3 lanes of traffic moving at
> 40-50km/h in a 110km/h zone.
>
> Madness.
>
> Throw in the usual tailgating and appalling lane discipline you find on the
> F3, and it was bound to happen. Only surprise was that more people weren't
> killed.

This has probably been done to death in the papers by now, but if you
haven't read them:

I can confirm from a friend who was very close to the front of the
accident that it was from people rubber-necking the accident on the
other side that slowed the traffic down to this speed. It didn't cause
the pile-up directly but it probably could have been minimised or
avoided if the traffic was moving at the same speed or close to the
same speed as the truck.

I was lucky that I missed the accident, but I couldn't believe how
much a pain in the arse the F3 is. I am one of these people that like
to keep left when not overtaking. I found that doing this meant that
you could not get back into the right hand lane when trying to get
past a car doing 100km/h because all the people in the right hand lane
were 2 car lengths apart, and never changing lanes themselves.

My solution, slow down to 100km/h and sit in the left hand lane until
after the Gosford exit, and resume speed back to 110+ km/h. Much more
sane, except for the groups of people that bunch up with the same
behavior.

Is there any solution to this? Why are people on the F3 so 'manic'? It
really feels like a race. I've been to Gosford, I don't think its
'that nice'. Why hurry?

Dale.

Dale Jones wrote:

> My solution, slow down to 100km/h and sit in the left hand lane until
> after the Gosford exit, and resume speed back to 110+ km/h. Much more
> sane, except for the groups of people that bunch up with the same
> behavior.
>
> Is there any solution to this?

Yes.
You see, the drivers in the RH lane are really doing
about 125k. So, if you're in the left lane doing 110k
(?), when you see you are coming up behind a slow car,
you accelerate to 125k to slip in between two doing this
speed. Then you slip back into the left lane and slow to
110k again.

You know what, I don't really believe your scenario, or,
don't you know about NSW "tolerences".

Why are people on the F3 so 'manic'?

*Only* the F3. :-)
> It really feels like a race.

It is.

I've been to Gosford, I don't think its
> 'that nice'. Why hurry?
>
Escaping Sydney? :-)

T.C. Feral

"Dale Jones" <d

> I was lucky that I missed the accident, but I couldn't believe how
> much a pain in the arse the F3 is. I am one of these people that like
> to keep left when not overtaking.

Keep left or middle??


I found that doing this meant that
> you could not get back into the right hand lane when trying to get
> past a car doing 100km/h because all the people in the right hand lane
> were 2 car lengths apart, and never changing lanes themselves.

Symptomatic of a too low speed limit - I propose divorcing it, marriage in
traffic is deadly. We could raise the fine and points for not keeping
adequate distance, but this will encourage drivers to drive slower which
will add to frustration and outbreaks of greeat joy.


> Is there any solution to this? Why are people on the F3 so 'manic'? It
> really feels like a race. I've been to Gosford, I don't think its
> 'that nice'. Why hurry?

Many factors, 'late comers and residents', the earlier localised drivers
were generally faster on this road and more experienced with it, as it
developed over the years and you could appreciate how locals drove, with
increased residential movement from Sydney to the housing estates, primarily
from Sydneys west, we've had M4 type behaviour and 'big city' attitude
driving that goes with that. I raised this annoyance back in 1989. It has,
predictably, gotten worse, the behaviour. The F3 is now part of the Sydney
Road Network.

Recall, it was 110km/h all the way through, so with the 90km/h imposition
following an unusually wet Saturday, behaviour has worsened, people feel
'put upon' and we've had a tough time explaining 'why' the limit was imposed
as championed by Gosford Police (RTA senior local staff do not go along with
it).

The other issue is 110km/h is simply too slow a speed limit for many a
greater part. I'd raise it to 130km/h or even derestrict the road AFTER the
median barrier in installed at the full length, the driver must therefore be
given greater responsibility, rather than hiding their selfish actions
behind numerical speed limits.

Until this is addressed, I promise you more of the same as the pressure
cooker increases.

JP.





> Dale.