The Random thought thread

[Jerry_Atrick]

1 hour ago, old man emu said:

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.

The fault element of involuntary manslaughter is either unlawful and dangerous act; or criminal negligence. The question of legality is not as clear cut as people think. It isn't unlawful to cross a creek even if it is fast flowing. It probably is illegal to drive a car into the mouth of the Yarra river..  Also, the level of danger has to be such that it is a very high risk of injury or death. Importantly these are not strict liability offences - meaning there has to be a fault element (mens rea) and in the case of manslaughter, it is a subjective test - did the defendant actually perceive the level of danger. 

 

You're right - where these can be established, the charge will be manslaughter anyway. But the problem is, it is a high bar to reach and in road traffic accidents, there is a lot of grey area around these. For example, intentionally and at speed driving into a torrent of water will probably be evidence to meet the requirement for manslaughter. However, what if you were crossing what looked like a shallow creek with reasonably fast moving water, but it turned out it was quite a bit deeper than it looked? It would be hard to argue this would reach the bar required. So, the lesser offence, with the lesser bar, but still with a significant penal consequence available to the judge is there as a back up. 

 

I personally think this is correct, otherwise you risk catching other things in the manslaughter net that weren't intended to be. Maybe the briefings to law enforcement and judiciary should be to apply the provisions (s. 117 in the case of the NSW Road Transport Act) it more?

[nomadpete]

I consider driving through water ti be 'off road' driving.

It requires an individual risk assessment before the attempt.

 

It is unfair to compare it with running a red light which instantly places high risk of injury/ death to an unknown number of people who are likely to collide with the redlight runner.

 

I wonder how many commentors have actually done much driving through water, and in what (of the many different types of) vehicles they have gaind this experience.

 

I consider myself fairly experienced in water crossings, and I can see how easily the inexperienced/unwary driver can come to grief. But the same can be said of most motorists in otherwise normal driving.

Like all things, you cannot legislate common sense. With common sense and some risk management, most drivers should be trained to make safe decisions and either safely cross water or sensible decide not to.

 

Or maybe just ban motorcars because people can't be trusted to use them safely.

[willedoo]

One of the risks a lot of people forget about when driving through suburban flooded streets is running into a big hole where a manhole cover has washed away. Similar thing with bridges where a surface section can be washed away and not visible through the muddy water. Then there's what ome was referring to, floating away if you don't have enough weight or momentum. Another one is vehicles towing trailers or vans and they start to float and end up pulling the vehicle in with them. I remember years ago when I used to do a bit of interstate truck driving and we'd have a heap of semis pulled up at the water debating whether it was safe to go through, and sure enough, there's always some comedian in a car that thinks he can get through when experienced truckies with large, heavy, high clearance vehicles are having doubts.

[nomadpete]

All true, Will.

Most drivers have no concept of 'expect the unexpected.'

 

You raised a good one.

I used to commute in Bris, and at one point, there was two lanes of peak hr traffic all turning left together. After a heavy overnight storm, but the sun was out and the water had gone. A manhole cover had popped off, and believe it or not, no car had dropped a wheel into the hole! (maybe later?) So hundreds of motorists had good reactions that day!

 

Yes, it is true that few motorists can be trusted. But will new laws stop them doing thoughtless dangerous stuff?

[old man emu]

11 hours ago, nomadpete said:

you cannot legislate common sense

Aren't the drink/driving laws legislation to enforce commonsense? Aren't all the traffic regulations laws to enforce comonsense? Didn't your flight instructor tell you to never turn back in the event of engine failure during take-off? Those are examples of a dangerous situations being pointed out to the inexperienced and creating a prohibition to deter the inexperienced from entering them.

 

11 hours ago, nomadpete said:

I can see how easily the inexperienced/unwary driver can come to grief.

These are the people whose inexperience, or maybe bravado get themselves and others into danger.

 

11 hours ago, willedoo said:

there's always some comedian in a car that thinks he can get through

Nuff said.

[facthunter]

It's not really comparable with the other examples you list. Booking people  would not look good when you could just direct them to not drive there, (like in Bushfire situations. or where there is a crime scene or an accident.).   What washes vehicles away is Water pressure created by the Flowing water and at lower water levels it will only be acting on the wheels, or where they are actually floating.  Lower lighter cars would be Particularly susceptible..Nev

[Jerry_Atrick]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-10-24/watch-floodwaters-swallow-four-wheel-drive-in-six-minutes/107302040?utm_source=abc_news_app&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_campaign=abc_news_app&utm_content=other

[facthunter]

Good article Covering most aspects of it.  Opening windows can make the car sink more quickly.  Having a snorkel may give the Impression you can drive with the Bonnet under water. Once you float you move where the current takes you  Man hole covers are a City thing. There can also be  debris in the water that will impede your Progress.  Fine silt will often be very slippery. Don't be a hero. Play it safe. Nev

[old man emu]

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

Booking people  would not look good when you could just direct them to not drive there,

That would require police or SES to be stationed at each and every place that flood water flows across a road. In my opinion, if you tell people not to do something and back that up with a penalty for doing it, people won't do it. Or have we become a society in which it is wrong to punish disobedience? 

 

You can post any number of 'yes, but what about ..' situations. First you have to have a rule in order to describe exceptions.

[nomadpete]

OME, is there presently a fine for disobeying a 'Road Closed' sign?

Most roads that are known to be prone to flooding, at least those near highly populated places, are checked and closed when necessary.

[facthunter]

I think your Background is showing.. The type of Society you (apparently) Seek may not be liked by many. Surveille flooded areas and declare Roads closed  over a radio frequency. If you have Police to book them they could also be there to direct them. Nev

[red750]

If you can't see the road surface through the water, how do you know the road hasn't been washed away like this?

 

 

One of the worst locations in the Melbourne area is York St South Melbourne. The building with the diamond roofline is the South Melbourne Market.

 

 

After every decent rain this is a common scene.

 

 

 

[old man emu]

1 hour ago, nomadpete said:

is there presently a fine for disobeying a 'Road Closed' sign?

Not that I am aware of. Road closures are usually made by the local government for a number of reasons - flooded roads, processions like ANZAC Day or even severe damage. The creek which runs through my place crosses the local road nearby. The local council has erected a Road Closed sign when the creek is in flood. If a person drives around the sign, they are on their own as to consequences. It's pretty clear that closing a road is done for safety reasons, which is a duty of care that a local council bears.

[old man emu]

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

The type of Society you (apparently) Seek may not be liked by many.

No. All I am saying is that Society has to come up with rules to deal with new situations where safety is concerned. Remember back in the 60s when the wearing of seatblets was not mandatory? When it was realised that wearing one improved survivabilty in crashes, the Regulation to require wearing them was introduced.

 

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

f you have Police to book them they could also be there to direct them. Nev

My neighbours down the local road from my place have two ways to leave the area by road. Both roads have creeks which can flood and block them. There aren't enough Police  locally to guard those seldom used crossings.

[facthunter]

I think there are things happening "out there" that would claim   much higher priority than BOOKING fools who drive into water they don't Know the depth of.  Nev