The Random thought thread

[nomadpete]

9 hours ago, willedoo said:

change their name to Superdear.

Supercheep and Repco are now a car accessory duopoly.

[old man emu]

Here's your answer:  Supercheap Auto is owned by Super Retail Group Limited (ASX: SUL), a publicly listed Australian retail company.  

 

Repco: Owned by Genuine Parts Company (GPC) through GPC Asia Pacific, a large American automotive parts giant.

 

Autobarn Australia is owned by the automotive aftermarket company Bapcor Limited. Bapcor also owns other well-known automotive networks, including Autopro, Burson Auto Parts, Midas, and Opposite Lock. 

 

Pedders Suspension & Brakes is a 100% Australian, family-owned company managed by the Pedder family (until they sell out to an American hedge fund mob).

[red750]

Independent politician Helen Haines has lost her second leg following the horrendous attack on her at Wangaratta. They keep saying this is the first political attack in Australia, but ALP leader Arthur Calwell survived an assassination attempt in 1966.

[Grumpy Old Nasho]

There were two others, one in 1921, and more recently John Newman, NSW State MP, killed by Vietnamese displaying their gratitude for being allowed into Australia.

[Marty_d]

He was killed by another politician/businessman who happened to be Vietnamese, but any opportunity for a bit of casual racism I guess 

[facthunter]

There was one bloke in Griffith who ended up disappeared too. McKay?   Lost of weed grown there, and No Vietnamese..Nev

[Litespeed]

Yes,

 

Donald McKay, was a local business man with a furniture shop and local politician.

 

Was rumoured to be turned into blood and bone, a nasty end.

 

 

[nomadpete]

Wiki:-

 

Donald Bruce Mackay (13 September 1933 – 15 July 1977) was an Australian businessman and anti-drug campaigner. He disappeared in 1977, but his body has never been found. In 1986, James Bazley was convicted for his murder.

 

 

Where does Vietmaneses migrants come into this?

 

I call BS on that

[facthunter]

You should be able to work that one out, Pete.. No Vietnamese to Blame. There are criminals in all races. Triads, Mafia various terrorists.  Mercenaries. Hit men. Nev

[nomadpete]

7 hours ago, Grumpy Old Nasho said:

John Newman, NSW State MP, killed by Vietnames

This one, yes the convicted killer was a ex Vietmanese migrant. Who was also a competing politician.

 

A weak case to try to paint all migrants as criminals. We don't call all whities criminals just because most crimes are committed by that group.

 

Co-incidence does not equal causation.

[pmccarthy]

My friend's ancestor shot a Royal in Australia, but only winged him. A prince I think, in about 1870.

[pmccarthy]

Looked it up

• Target: HRH Prince Alfred, the second son of Queen Victoria, who was visiting Sydney as captain of HMS Galatea.
•  
• Location: A public picnic and sailor's home benefit at the beachfront pleasure grounds in Clontarf(Sydney, New South Wales).
•  
• Assailant: Henry James O’Farrell, an Irish-born man with a history of mental instability and heavy drinking, shot the Prince in the back with a revolver.
•  

[old man emu]

I reckon that it should be made illegal to drive a motor vehicle into flowing water.

 

Just look at the news from Queensland of the number of rescues of people who had driven into fast flowing water. The example I saw only involved the driver, but how many time in recent years have we heard of both driver and passenger being drowned? Not only the lives of the vehicle occupants, but the lives of the rescuers are put at risk.

 

I believe that the death of a passenger after a driver drives into flowing water should be dealt with as Involuntary Manslaughter. This is a homicide where there is no intention to kill, resulting instead from criminal negligence or an unlawful and dangerous act where a reasonable person would realize the act exposes someone to a risk of serious injury. 

 

Am I being too harsh? I think that through the publicity of the results of driving into flowing water, a normal person should know that such an act is dangerous. Harming another person by an act that is dangerous is accepted as being wrong. We know that the Law evolves to deal with new situations. This practice of driving vehicles into flowing water is one of those new situations.

[facthunter]

Education is better than Penalties. Nev

[old man emu]

57 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Education is better than Penalties. Nev

 What about the education program about drink driving? The vast majority of people have learned that lesson, yet some have not. The results of driving into flowing water have been publicised widely in news bulletins, a modern form of education. The lesson has not been learned by many. By creating a punisable offence for doing this dangerous act, Society enforces the requirement to learn the lesson. 

[facthunter]

There are Plenty of places were it's normal to go through flowing water. Depth indicators would help. Fines hurt poor people more than they hurt the rich..  It costs money to enforce Laws, and would not go down well when People are leaving their Houses or trying to get somewhere urgently. Adverts show vehicles going through water as a sales gimmick.. Nev

[old man emu]

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

here are Plenty of places were it's normal to go through flowing water.

You've backed me up!

 

Yes.  Under normal circumstances there are many places where flowing water can be crossed - when the water volume is small and the flow rate is small.  But you can't tell me that a watercourse holding rapidly moving flood water is a normal situation. If it was 'normal', you would not be seeing images of it on TV newscasts.

 

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

would not go down well when People are leaving their Houses or trying to get somewhere urgently.

Watercourses are lower than surrounding ground. Why not sit out the flooding? Better to arrive late, than dead on time.

 

I don't see a lot of these incidents being ones involving locals evacuating homes. More often it seems the victim is trying to push a big duel-cab ute across a watercourse - because the victim has seen his make of vehicle doing so in a TV ad.

 

My point is that by entering floodwaters, one is either suicidal, homicidal if being accompanied by others, or oblivious to the safety of those seeking to effect a rescue.

[facthunter]

I'm not saying it's NOT a stupid thing to do. Rescuers have to assess what they are attempting also. Some cars doors cannot be Opened in water. A lot who attempt it would make it IF they went slower.. Nev

[old man emu]

18 minutes ago, facthunter said:

A lot who attempt it would make it IF they went slower.. Nev

I think you should reconsider the physics in play in the situation.

 

The situation is one of change of Momentum. Just think about trying to land an airplane with a 90 degree crosswind. The faster the windspeed, the greater the momentum of the airmass, since the value of the momentum of an object is the product of its mass and velocity. The airplane has momentum also. The Law of Conservation of Momentum states that the total of a system, here the airmass and the airplane, remains constant.

 

To calculate the momentum of floodwaters yoiu would need to know the flow rate past a reference point in litres per unit time, and the speed of flow in metres per unit time. I can't quote figures off the top of my head, but use your imagination to distinguish between a lot of water moving fast and a small amount of water moving slowly. You can do it becasue you have experienced it every time you take a shower or fill a bathtub.

 

If you consider the case where a lot of water is moving quickly, you can soon see that the water provides the greatest amount of momentum to the water/vehicle system.  Therefore, the water is going to change teh vehicle's momentum more than the vehicle will change the water's. Just think of the situation of a grasshopper hitting the windscreen of a B-Double. So, if the vehicle is moving slowly, it has less momentum and will be affected more by teh water. That's why we often hear that a vehicle was swept away afte stalling in the floodwater.

[Litespeed]

I am with OME in this.

 

It is a f..kwit thing to endanger others entering swift water.

 

It's a obvious risk and should be treated as so.

 

It's not death by misadventure but a deliberate dangerous act.

 

 

Not just fines but jail should injuries or death occur.

 

Additionally it might be a case of refusal to payout on insurance for grossly negligent act.

[Jerry_Atrick]

I am sort of with both camps. We can't assume everyone has the rationalisation around driving the betters ones amongst us have (BTW, I put myself as average at best at driving). Therefore betted education has to be part of the mix. I am not sure what the driving theory syllabus is today, but it really only centred around road rules, don't drink and drive, and don't speed. I am sure it has improved (e.g. in Vic and I guess other states, there is a hazard perception test, which is video based where candidates identify hazards they need to slow down, stop, or maintain speed. The practice tests (https://transport.vic.gov.au/road-and-active-transport/registration-and-licensing/licences/probationary-licence/hazard-perception-practice-tests-for-probationary-drivers will give you an idea of them. However, they don't seem to cover a lot of the hazards especially prevalent in non urban areas, such as fast flowing water. When I was preparing for my license, I attended info sessions (hardly call them courses) by the RACV as well, and they more drove home message of no drink driving and speeding, and not anything terribly much wider. I am sure it has improved today.

 

Regardless, education as part of learning to drive and continuing education would be a very good option. Over here, if you get done for speeding less than by a certain margin (can't recall) and you haven't previously been caught in the last 3 years, instead of a fine and points, you can pay a fee and attend a speed awareness course. Yes, I have done one, but every driver should be made to do one once per three years (online would be good enough) as the course was about driving, not just speed awareness, It covered technique, many hazardous situations, emergency handling theory, etc. I found my driving habits changed.. until I got complacent again, which is why I think it would be best to be best to repeat of a reasonable periodic basis. 

 

But, of course, as the person in control of a vehicle, one also has to take responsibility and suffer the consequences of the outcomes of one's actions. And if you deliberately or through negligence/recklessness cause harm or endanger people or property, then, as with other areas of life, you need to be held accountable. The fact that most road traffic offences are strict liability offences indicates people are in command of an inherently dangerous object and in normal circumstances there is no need to prove an intention - the fact it happens - with a couple of exceptions - means the person at the wheel is criminally liable  (https://www.ag.gov.au/crime/publications/commonwealth-criminal-code-guide-practitioners-0/part-22-elements-offence/division-6-cases-where-fault-elements-are-not-required/61-strict-liability).

 

However, I think most states have a general offence of dangerous driving and it could cover driving into a fast flowing water... but may not.. For example, under NSW law, it would require death or grievous bodily harm, and there was an impact. A good lawyer could probably successfully argue driving into flowing water is not an impact within the meaning of the law. Maybe what needs to be reviewed is the strict definition of the offence (e.g. materially increases the risk of causing death or grievous bodily harm and remove the necessity of an impact). Under NSW law, a max of 7 years imprisonment is allowed for the offence. 

[willedoo]

I don't know if it's nationwide or just our state but the government for several years has been using the slogan 'If it's flooded, forget it'. A lady on the ABC rang in a couple of days ago and was of the opinion the phrase is a bit old and worn and people are taking it for granted. She suggested a new slogan of 'Turn around, don't drown'. A bit more effective I thought and not a bad idea.

[willedoo]

Earlier in the week an ABC radio journalist saved a bloke from drowning in his vehicle. The journalist and another bystander made their way to the vehicle as the occupant was surviving on just a small amount of trapped air. They tried to kick the rear window in to no avail and eventually the journalst was able to get the door open. Lucky the occupant didn't panic when the open door flooded the cab, and he was able to hold his breath and get out.

[old man emu]

13 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

it would require death or grievous bodily harm, and there was an impact.

In NSW, when I was doing Crash Investigation as a specialist, the offence was called Culpable Driving. One of the elements was 'impact' - easily proved. Other elements were things like dangerous driving or driving while intoxicated by alchol or other drug. Even negligence through poor vehicle maintenance, or fatigue could be raised as elements. This offence was introduced in place of manslaughter since the public perceived those elements not to reach the higher standard of manslaughter. 

 

If however, the cause of the impact is due to really terrible actions, such as evading arest, or using the vehicle as a weapon, then manslughter is appropriate. I believe that knowingly driving into floodwaters is a premeditated act. There has been enough publicity of the outcomes for a reasonable person to know such an act is highly dangerous. The level of danger is akin to driving past a red traffic light to pass across an intersecting road. Sure, disobeying a traffic control light signal is an offence against the Regulations, but the Regulation is there to make using the road safer for all. 

 

Perhpas you think me overly harsh in calling for a charge of manslaughter in such cases. Let's at least agree that the road rules should include a prohibition of driving into floodwaters. First, let's get a law to protect others, then we can argue the toss about an appropriate penalty.

[facthunter]

Going fast in deep water will be More likely to flood the Motor with the Bow wave and is rude to other People . Going slow is always better. It's nothing to do with the car's Inertia. It will slow down a lot when it enters the water due to DRAG. If it tends to float the current will move it to somewhere else where the depth may be greater.. Nev