What an awful event. It’ll kill tourism for a good while, and they’ll have to make some changes like the bollards near the green area and pub and Anzac memorial.
I doubt it will kill tourism but folks might be a bit cagey about outdoor eating near busy intersections for a while.
Are you suggesting that the real tragedy is the hit to tourism, and not the people who lost their lives?
I had to work on a few TAC client reports a few years back. The descriptions of children’s bodies after being hit by a car will haunt me to my dying day. My heart breaks for everyone involved.
I was volunteer CFA for a lot of my 20s, and once had to attend a road trauma involving a kid. Indelibly etched on my memory.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Detectives and forensic investigators are piecing together the events that led to a horrific crash in the regional Victorian town of Daylesford, which killed five people.
Emergency crews were called to the Royal Hotel in Daylesford just after 6pm on Sunday after a car drove through the pub’s beer garden.
Superintendent John Fitzpatrick said investigations overnight and into the morning would shed more light on the chain of events.
He said police were seeking relevant CCTV and dashcam footage, and urged anyone with information to contact investigators.
Daylesford is a picturesque town less than an hour-and-a-half’s drive north-west of Melbourne and is a popular day-trip location.
Ambulance Victoria regional director Trevor Weston says paramedics had been debriefed and would receive support after arriving to a “very confronting and chaotic” scene, including injured children.
The original article contains 543 words, the summary contains 126 words. Saved 77%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Ban all cars
Banning all cars is impractical because of last mile delivery and rural areas, but car usage must be dramatically decreased especially for commuting
also speed limits should be decreased in town centres and some car types (pickup trucks, etc) should be banned
Drivers need to be held accountable and there needs to be infrastructure in place so that individuals that cannot/ refuse to be held accountable have alternate transportation options.
If you crash your BMW (with dozens of driver assistance features) into a Pub, you should not be allowed to drive a vehicle. If you cannot share roads with other road users without getting angry, you should not be allowed to drive a vehicle. If you feel entitled to drive a vehicle on the roads, but believe that motorcyclists, trucks, cyclists and pedestrians should not receive those same entitlement, you should not be allowed to drive a vehicle. If your attention span is so short that you cannot drive a vehicle without getting distracted by a handheld device, you should not be allowed to drive a vehicle.
Amen 🙌
Last mile delivery:
that’s pretty cool but wouldn’t be nice in hilly areas
They’re usually electric assisted though; no problems with hills.
deleted by creator
Busses shouldn’t be profitable anyway, it’s meant to be a service
deleted by creator
It’s unreasonable to live there then. Your choice relies on the rest of the world paying the price of unnecessary car trips and the infrastructure for it. And not just now but people in the future will bear the consequences of your decision to live in a place that requires that.
How far is the train station?
deleted by creator
No worries. Ban the trucks and get an electric bike.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
In the short term, it would be time to either relocate to somewhere more practical, or change your lifestyle.
Before cars there were much more extensive public transport and freight systems, especially in regions that weren’t serviced by extant rail corridors.
Just in Western Gippsland;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strzelecki_railway_line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wonthaggi_railway_line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noojee_railway_line
Unfortunately, since these Alignments were abandoned by disuse, much of the land has been reclaimed by farmers and developers using colonial-era squatters rights laws. There would need to be extensive Eminent Domain claims raised to reestablish the type of coverage we had before Private vehicles became ubiquitous.
deleted by creator
Do you think innocent lives is a fair price to pay for your convenience?
deleted by creator
Driving a car creates a higher risk of killing people than anything else most people do in their lives. Just look at the road toll. Don’t kid yourself, we’re definitely talking about a trade-off between convenience and risk to people’s lives.
deleted by creator
Hope they lock him up and throw away the key.
he was sober and apparently unconscious? afaik he hasn’t been interviewed yet while he gets medical treatment.
I mean if he did it on purpose, sure, but dude you have zero idea - it is entirely possible this is a medical event he had no control over, and he now has to live with being the driver in this awful situation.
can’t you just care about the people affected without immediately wanting some completely uninformed revenge?
I can’t find anything in the article about his state of consciousness.
Only;
Detectives had not been able to interview the 66-year-old driver from Mount Macedon as he was being treated in hospital for shock and minor injuries
And
He said the driver had been breath-tested and had no alcohol in his system.
We don’t know whether he was disabled due to a medical incident, whether he maliciously targeted the family, whether he was distracted driving, whether the vehicle malfunction or exactly why he crashed.
The thing is, if the X5 was in a roadworthy condition, the driver assistance systems should have been able to either prevent the accident outright or at least mitigate the damage caused by a runaway vehicle.
That is a reason, but not an excuse.
My dad was diabetic and didn’t look after himself. When he started having regular hypoglycaemic episodes, we would discourage him from driving anywhere and made him upgrade to a smaller vehicle with better safety systems.
He was an entitled baby boomer who didn’t respond well to his Silent Generation Wife and Gen X and Gen Y kids telling him what to do, but he was able to do much less damage to himself and others in a TS Astra than in a big HiLux CrewCab, especially if we hid the keys on him.
as replied elsewhere, yeah I agree that’s insanely irresponsible, but we didn’t know that until now.
Irresponsible? Yes. Avoidable? Maybe not.
Dad never wanted to have a hypo. It was just because he was out there doing something and got distracted from monitoring his bloody sugar. It sneaks up on you so you don’t notice until it hits you all at once.
This is why (in his later years) my mum was forced to be a part-time, on-call carer. Dad would have it under control, until he didn’t.
Having a blood sugar reaction is analogous to the guy that goes to the pub to drink one beer and drive home an hour later, but his mate buys him a beer, his other mate buys him a beer and the next thing he knows, he should be getting a taxi. The problem is that the diabetic can’t keep track of how many empty beer glasses there are.
just saw this as a follow up, thought you might be curious. i feel bad for everyone honestly. dude has to be an idiot but god, what a consequence to live with.
Judging by their answer, no.
Driving an X5 is a choice though, and having an unnecessarily large vehicle multiplies the damage when something does go wrong.
you want to jail everyone who drives an SUV for life?
i mean i fucking hate SUVs and melbourne is absolutely filthy with them - i absolutely think they should have a tax penalty to discourage anyone living there from owning them needlessly, but still - if this is some older farmer who had an unexpected minor stroke and has to wake up to the news he’s killed five people, i’m not going to be standing in the fucking hospital berating him about his choice of car and trying to make him feel like a murderer. that’s absolutely fucking awful.
have some opinions on sensible car regulation, sure, but this is gross. wait until you know what happened before calling for blood for owning a type of car or some shit.
They should not be driving a large vehicle if they have a medical history precluding them from operating heavy machinery.
The dude was diabetic and had a history of having hypos.
Epileptics don’t drive at night if they can avoid it, because of the flashing lights:
Why was this guy driving (especially such a large vehicle) when his blood sugar was not properly regulated?
agree completely. that’s fucked. I accept it may not have been malicious but it’s crazy irresponsible.
but that detail came out a day after the guy baying for his blood above, my point was if you have no idea what actually happened, focus on having compassion for people affected, not immediately getting a pitchfork and yelling for “justice”.
that kind of justice… well, it usually isn’t justice.
I think if you choose to do something that puts people at a higher risk than necessary, you should be responsible for the consequences.
If you drink drive and kill someone, you can’t say it was an accident. If you’re doing burnouts in a crowded street and kill someone, you can’t say you didn’t mean it. Same with speeding. Driving a death machine puts us all at a heightened risk, and when things go wrong, there should be consequences.
The people who died in Daylesford definitely had consequences of this drivers choice. Why shouldn’t the driver have consequences?
Generally you don’t prosecute someone who had a medical issue while driving regardless of how large their vehicle is.
What an utterly insane take you got here.
Why don’t you try giving a counter argument instead of resorting to hyperbole.
So your argument is that it’s not generally done? I know that it’s not generally done. I was talking about what I want to happen.
They won’t
