Trees lining roadways

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by FALCONXTV8

Even if they did put barriers on this particular road,it would still have gaping holes in it everywhere for peoples driveways,etc.I for one would not appreciate the council building an ugly barrier in front of my home just because some people can't control themselves and there vehicle.

If it gets to the point where we have to remove solid objects from the roadside we might as well replace the roads with rails and convert every car to a mini train...
As others have said, stay on the black stuff and there's nothing to worry about!

[SM1DY]

Originally Posted by FALCONXTV8

Even if they did put barriers on this particular road,it would still have gaping holes in it everywhere for peoples driveways,etc.I for one would not appreciate the council building an ugly barrier in front of my home just because some people can't control themselves and there vehicle.

Oh, I didn't realize, i thought the houses backed onto the road. I suppose your correct, I wouldn't like a barrier going across my front yard either.

[rodderz]

The stretch of road where the accident occurred has housing estates lining each side of the road, probably 20m or so further away from the road from where the trees are. If the tree had not of been hit the timber and colourbond fences would of done nothing to stop a 160km/hr car going through to the houses.

There has to be responsibility put back onto drivers to drive safely, and as someone else mentioned, it's safer to run into an animal that wanders across the road.

Councils wouldn't allow the cutting down of trees anyway, most areas they require a % of trees to be planted per m², plus it gives areas a good visual aspect as well and buffers residents from traffic noise and accidents.

[Elks]

I think we are getting a little off topic here.

As stated in the OP this is not simply about last nights crash, although it was the promt.

Roadside furniture as the boffins call is an issue.

This is the 3rd crash like this in recent times in metro melbourne. 1 on westgate young folk going to fast on westgate freeway, loose it, hit tree, game over. Eastren freeway 4 am fell asleep apparently of the road hit tree all dead.

Yes people should not do 140 in a 60 zone, or drive when tired etc. And may be as noted in the other thread "natural selection"

But if you can though some infrastructure upgrade put saftey barriers etc to stop or more likely reduce the outcomes of peoples stupidity its a good thing.

My 2c

[chrisfpv]

Nevermind, already covered by 84ltd.

[BENT_8]

I tend to agree with the OP, but from a different angle.
There is no doubt the tree in this instance was able to prevent the vehicle from doing further damage, but so could half a dozen smaller trees without the Falcon being destroyed.
Im a firm believer that councils should remove any trees greater than 25cm from road sides to prevent serious results like this.
I recall about 8-9 yrs ago a woman was killed doing 80 on Main Nth road when her car was squeezed off the road where 3 lanes merged to 2.
She hit a large gum tree, the only 1 within 100mtrs and died.

A friend of mine fell asleep whilst travelling through a small country town and hit a palm tree in his EF XR6, there wasnt another large tree in sight.
Had he gone through the medium density scrub he'd proberbly still be with us.

[g220ba]

Originally Posted by SM1DY

I was just trying to make the point that it is kind of harsh for people to place all the burden on the driver and that the passenger were effectively innocent casualties when there is absolutely no proof of this.

I agree with you to a degree, the car was overloaded which essentially means 6 people made a bad decision in that case. I don't think we will ever know what happened in that car but unfrotunetly the decisions the driver made vastly outweighed the decisions of everyone else in that car.

[g220ba]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

A friend of mine fell asleep whilst travelling through a small country town and hit a palm tree in his EF XR6, there wasnt another large tree in sight.
Had he gone through the medium density scrub he'd proberbly still be with us.

I don't want this to sound the wrong way as you did lose a mate in that instance but had they made the choice not to drive while drowsy they may still be with us.

[xr6turbo2005]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Thank god there were trees in Mill Pk or that car would have ended up demolishing a house and its occupants too...

lets stick to the facts shall we. nothing i've seen would indicate that to be the case and in fact the google map attached to your original post re the accident confirms that the road is at the rear of the house. it would need to cover some ground to get to the house as per google sat view.

i could argue that if the tree wasnt there the car may have hit the fence and stopped before the house. who knows, as thats not the point.

to all that say dont run into trees, stay on the road - yes thats the main idea in life, but again we dont live in Utopia and accidents happen. its about minimising the impact of an accident. having said that, i never meant this to be about this particular accident.

consider other safety aspects, think of a building site and exposed re bar sticking up in the air. these days they must all be covered by a domed protective cover so if someone falls they the risk of being impaled on the rebar is reduced. this has come about by experience.

in the case of road toll, i think we all agree, that having speed cameras capable to recording you speeding by 1 km over the limit is going to do SFA to the toll. not one thing by itself is going to stop these things happening, but a combined message of driving responsibly, driver education, law enforcement and other safety issues.

after all thats why we now have air bags, crumple zones in cars etc. however all these are useless if, as a result of a seeming minor accident someone dies from internal injuries caused by the sudden stop after hitting a tree or other unmoveable object.

[Elks]

I think we are getting a little off topic here.

As stated in the OP this is not simply about last nights crash, although it was the promt.

Roadside furniture, as the boffins call is an issue.

This is the 3rd crash like this in recent times in metro melbourne. 1 on westgate young folk going to fast on westgate freeway, loose it, hit tree, game over. Eastren freeway 4 am fell asleep apparently of the road hit tree all dead.

Yes, people should not do 140 in a 60 zone, or drive when tired etc. And it may be as noted in the other thread "natural selection"

But if you can through some infrastructure upgrades put saftey barriers etc to stop, or more likely reduce the outcomes of peoples stupidity its a good thing.

My 2c

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by 84ltd

I don't want this to sound the wrong way as you did lose a mate in that instance but had they made the choice not to drive while drowsy they may still be with us.

No dramas mate, your spot on, but im talking about removing the contributing factors.
Accidents like this happen regularly on country roads, only 5km down the road from where my mate was killed another local met his maker.
He didnt fall asleep though, he had a heart attack and plowed into a large tree.
Wether the heart attack would have killed him is unknown by myself, but the massive piece of his skull missing from the tree didnt help.

Lets consider something were all familiar with, motor racing and DJ's trip through the scrub at the top of Conrod.
He walked away.
Compare that to Brock who hit one single large tree.
Not so lucky.

[xr6turbo2005]

Originally Posted by Elks

I think we are getting a little off topic here.

As stated in the OP this is not simply about last nights crash, although it was the promt.

Roadside furniture as the boffins call is an issue.

This is the 3rd crash like this in recent times in metro melbourne. 1 on westgate young folk going to fast on westgate freeway, loose it, hit tree, game over. Eastren freeway 4 am fell asleep apparently of the road hit tree all dead.

Yes people should not do 140 in a 60 zone, or drive when tired etc. And may be as noted in the other thread "natural selection"

But if you can though some infrastructure upgrade put saftey barriers etc to stop or more likely reduce the outcomes of peoples stupidity its a good thing.

My 2c

thank you elks - back on topic

[vik351]

So what next...Gunna ban the Classic Adelaide from the Adelaide Hills...

Get real...Drive on the black stuff and to the road conditions...

Bet ya Brockie would be spewin if they cut down the tree that got him...!!!

vik...Be responsible for your own actions...!!! : : :

[XR6_661]

I didn't read most of this, but instead I'll post my own opinion.

Why should trees be removed from the sides of roads to make it safer for people who wish to speed and endanger their lifes as well as others?

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by XR6_661

I didn't read most of this, but instead I'll post my own opinion.

Why should trees be removed from the sides of roads to make it safer for people who wish to speed and endanger their lifes as well as others?

Your looking at it from the wrong point of view, forget the speeding side of it and consider other situations where un preventable incidents have led to people hitting a tree and getting killed.

If you were driving down a road signposted 100 and an oncomming car veered into your lane forcing you to swerve which results in you hitting a large tree killing a loved one, are you at fault for not staying 'on the black stuff'?
No the other driver is, but that doesn't make YOUR loss any easier to swollow

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by vik351

So what next...Gunna ban the Classic Adelaide from the Adelaide Hills...

Get real...Drive on the black stuff and to the road conditions...

Bet ya Brockie would be spewin if they cut down the tree that got him...!!!

vik...Be responsible for your own actions...!!! : : :

C'mon man, the classic Adelaide is a controlled event where the entrants know the risks involved.
My reference to Brock wasnt about the siutation it happened in, it was in regards to how multiple small trees act as a speed arrestor (in DJ's case) whereas single large trees have little mercy.

[left]

Originally Posted by xr6turbo2005

lets stick to the facts shall we. nothing i've seen would indicate that to be the case and in fact the google map attached to your original post re the accident confirms that the road is at the rear of the house. it would need to cover some ground to get to the house as per google sat view.

Mate, no offence but you're totally wrong on this.

If that car had not struck that tree it ABSOLUTELY would have gone in to someone's backyard at the very least; at an estimated 140 kmh (according to reports) there's no doubt about it. The back fences of those houses along Plenty Road are but 15 metres away from the shoulder. Even at the posted speed limit - which is 80 kmh contrary to what some members have said here - that car would not have been able to stop before crashing through someone's back fence at best.

For reference, I live a 5 minute drive from the "accident" scene and drive it at least weekly to visit the in-laws who happen to live about 200 metres away down Child's Road. Not that those kids were necessarily from that area, but Mill Park is close to being hoon capital of Melbourne and full of young d*ckheads doing circle work at all hours.

The accident had nothing to do with trees, nothing to do with poor weather conditions and everything to do with being stupid and driving at excessive speed. The driver confused his ability with his ambition. Residential streets - even at 2am - are no place to be thinking you're Craig Lowndes.

JMHO.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by xr6turbo2005

lets stick to the facts shall we. nothing i've seen would indicate that to be the case and in fact the google map attached to your original post re the accident confirms that the road is at the rear of the house. it would need to cover some ground to get to the house as per google sat view.

i could argue that if the tree wasnt there the car may have hit the fence and stopped before the house. who knows, as thats not the point.

to all that say dont run into trees, stay on the road - yes thats the main idea in life, but again we dont live in Utopia and accidents happen. its about minimising the impact of an accident. having said that, i never meant this to be about this particular accident.

consider other safety aspects, think of a building site and exposed re bar sticking up in the air. these days they must all be covered by a domed protective cover so if someone falls they the risk of being impaled on the rebar is reduced. this has come about by experience.

in the case of road toll, i think we all agree, that having speed cameras capable to recording you speeding by 1 km over the limit is going to do SFA to the toll. not one thing by itself is going to stop these things happening, but a combined message of driving responsibly, driver education, law enforcement and other safety issues.

after all thats why we now have air bags, crumple zones in cars etc. however all these are useless if, as a result of a seeming minor accident someone dies from internal injuries caused by the sudden stop after hitting a tree or other unmoveable object.

That car was travelling at 44 meters per second..... just think about that for a second... It could slide for over a 100 meters and still hit something with lethal force... The SOLID BRICK houses are about 20 meters from the road....

[BENT_8]

It would be interesting to have read replies to this topic if it had been posted yesterday before this accident.
Clearly the two threads are being confused.

[NC1183]

Christ all-might, this thread was not about last nights crash, but an in general thread stating that maybe some fatalities could be avoided by not having giant im-movable objects right at the edge of the road.


I vote this thread be closed before it get to much more out of control and off topic

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by NC1183

Christ all-might, this thread was not about last nights crash, but an in general thread stating that maybe some fatalities could be avoided by not having giant im-movable objects right at the edge of the road.


I vote this thread be closed before it get to much more out of control and off topic

The examples are perfectly relevent, even at 100kph you're travelling at over 28m per second... how far back off the edge of the road do you propose we remove solid objects?

[Auslandau]

I do agree ... there is a right and wrong time to discuss 'What ifs' and I do not think it is now. The other thread is becoming blurred into this one. There is a right and wrong time for this discussion but I do not think it is now .....



| [/url] |