Trees lining roadways

xr6turbo2005 · 17-01-2010, 05:20 PM

I was going to mention this topic in the thread regarding the the tragic loss of 5 lives, but thought it best in a seperate topic.

I noticed in the photos, just how many large tress line the road on both sides. I just wonder how different the result may have been if the tree wasnt there.

I recall hearing about some studies being done on the subject of many deaths are caused by vehicles hitting unmovable objects such at trees, drain calverts etc. they have after all redesigned many of the road barriers so they crumple, wooden road post have been replaced by plastic ones etc, but nothing done about trees.

maybe it's about time governments spent some of the money raised from traffic fines into removing these in teh interest of safety.

This doesnt mean no trees at all, just not huge gums etc

geckoGT · 17-01-2010, 05:25 PM

By allowing the cars to plought through fences and into houses? Have a look at the pics, if that tree was not there, that car would have cleaned up that fence and probably the back of the house (most likely a childs bedroom).

Not saying your idea is without merit, just not in that situation. In that sort of area, lets have lots of big trees, keep the carnage on the street rather than in peoples houses.

FPV+fteT3 · 17-01-2010, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by geckoGT

By allowing the cars to plought through fences and into houses? Have a look at the pics, if that tree was not there, that car would have cleaned up that fence and probably the back of the house (most likely a childs bedroom).

Not saying your idea is without merit, just not in that situation. In that sort of area, lets have lots of big trees, keep the carnage on the street rather than in peoples houses.

I agree with this it was not the tree's fault in a 60k zone most tree accidents and electric poles wont kill you anything you hit at warp speed is dangerous and I bet that home owner is glad the trees were there and the fatality count is only 5 not more. If you can cut off a power pole or a huge tree a bit of brick and plaster is nothing.

geckoGT · 17-01-2010, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FPV+fteT3

I agree with this it was not the tree's fault in a 60k zone most tree accidents and electric poles wont kill you anything you hit at warp speed is dangerous and I bet that home owner is glad the trees were there and the fatality count is only 5 not more. If you can cut off a power pole or a huge tree a bit of brick and plaster is nothing.

Exactly, seen an Audi take out a large pole and still spread a brick wall all over the place. Admittedly it did hit 6 feet up the pole at about 160km/h, but this accident happened at 140, not much less. That house and fence would have meant nothing to nearly 2 tonnes moving at 140.

I say lets save our road safety money and change driving attitudes, somehow.

chrisfpv · 17-01-2010, 05:34 PM

If they didn't hit that tree, it would've been another tree some other time. Having unmovables objects on the side of the road such as massive trees should encourage young drivers who speed to stick to the speed limit. But they won't, because they're idiots.

The last thing road users want are other drivers in the mind set of "Even if I do go off the road, i'll smash right through that barrier or post because it's made out of plastic so i'll be fine".

Sizey · 17-01-2010, 05:41 PM

I'm with geckogt trees in lot of cases are native and were already there or just decortive. If someone wants to hurtle along and kiss a tree well its their own fault and as has been mentioned, on numerous occasions trees have stopped cars from ending up in all sorts of whacky places.

However in saying this, during the week a young driver died in RAH because a tree branch fell on her car whilst driving down greenhill rd. the gum branch fell on the car as she drove along she then lost control and crashed into 2 cars in a yard on the other side of the rd.

Sizey · 17-01-2010, 05:42 PM

So maybe trees should be better taken care of but they do more good than harm when it comes to car accidents me thinks.

FALCONXTV8 · 17-01-2010, 05:50 PM

As sad as it is that this tragedy happened.I can't help but think that if your in a vehicle doing that speed in a residential area you have to be prepared to cop the fate that may await you.It's pretty simple if you don't drive like a lunatic you will probavbly not become a statistic.It's the innocent victims of these kinds of incidents that i really feel for.It's would have been alot worse if the out of control vehicle had wiped out a family travelling on that road or had wiped out half a house instead of that tree.

Sizey · 17-01-2010, 05:56 PM

Amen to that

xr6turbo2005 · 17-01-2010, 06:00 PM

i think you are all missing my point. im not referring only to this situation.

what about the poor innocent driver out on a country road at night, swerves for a roo , losses control on the gravel shoulder of the road and slams into a tree. If the tree wasnt there, all that may have happened was ploughed into a farmers fence and into the paddock. driver alive, with some damage to property that can be fixed.

dont they say, it's not the speed that kills you, its the sudden stop.

just saying that there must be better ways then using object such as large trees as a road barrier. in the case of suburbia, what about thick hedges etc.

we can all say it's the drivers fault, but governments want to reduce road tolls, (and they'd have you beleive no other result the ZERO is acceptable) and to do that i just think they need to think about out of the box and not blame it all on the drive and speed. admittedly that maybe the cause, but was it the ONLY contributing factor ??

Keepleft · 17-01-2010, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xr6turbo2005

i think you are all missing my point. im not referring only to this situation.

what about the poor innocent driver out on a country road at night, swerves for a roo , losses control on the gravel shoulder of the road and slams into a tree. If the tree wasnt there, all that may have happened was ploughed into a farmers fence and into the paddock. driver alive, with some damage to property that can be fixed.

NSW (and indeed for other states), for its *main* highways and rural arterials does clear trees typically 9.0m from the roadways edge. (A typical freeway median btw is 10m).

Its argued, based on crash history studies (80's), that doing so allows some vehicles a better chance to recover.

Not quite the extent I'd like as a minimum, but it seems the routine RTA/Council figure.

In relation to this event, its a built-up area, not the first time its happened, won't be the last, but it'll likely be used to;- 'appear to do something about the road toll' (tougher anti speed measures).

4Vman · 17-01-2010, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xr6turbo2005

i think you are all missing my point. im not referring only to this situation.

what about the poor innocent driver out on a country road at night, swerves for a roo , losses control on the gravel shoulder of the road and slams into a tree. If the tree wasnt there, all that may have happened was ploughed into a farmers fence and into the paddock. driver alive, with some damage to property that can be fixed.

dont they say, it's not the speed that kills you, its the sudden stop.

just saying that there must be better ways then using object such as large trees as a road barrier. in the case of suburbia, what about thick hedges etc.

we can all say it's the drivers fault, but governments want to reduce road tolls, (and they'd have you beleive no other result the ZERO is acceptable) and to do that i just think they need to think about out of the box and not blame it all on the drive and speed. admittedly that maybe the cause, but was it the ONLY contributing factor ??

Thank god there were trees in Mill Pk or that car would have ended up demolishing a house and its occupants too...
You cant remove solid objects from the sides of roads although you can minimise their risk, wire barriers seem to reduce damage to some degree.... people just need to drive more safely.

xr6turbo2005 · 17-01-2010, 09:01 PM

Quote:

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.

left · 17-01-2010, 09:51 PM

Quote:

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.

BENT_8 · 17-01-2010, 10:07 PM

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 · 17-01-2010, 10:08 PM

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 · 17-01-2010, 09:59 PM

Quote:

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....

Sizey · 17-01-2010, 06:08 PM

1. you should not swerve, the roo should be hit. Again in sa a woman swerved to miss a koala and slammed into a bridge on the freeway.

2. In the country the trees are native and not going to be pulled out due to a road there.

3. Hedges won't stop a car, rather the thing behind the hedge like the light pole will.

4. Trees were never intended to be used as a road barrier, people just like to use them as buffers.

I can see where you are coming from but I don't agree with it.

xr6turbo2005 · 17-01-2010, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sizey

1. you should not swerve, the roo should be hit. Again in sa a woman swerved to miss a koala and slammed into a bridge on the freeway. .

if everyone did what they shoud do, we would not be having this discussion , 5 young people would still be alive and we'd be living in Utopia.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sizey

I can see where you are coming from but I don't agree with it.

not asking you to agree, and i'm not saying its the right solution, just bring forward a discussion point. Yes, i do think somewhere in the future trees lining roadways will be subject to discussion by relevant authorities as there has been studies on it already.

PANELCORP · 17-01-2010, 06:38 PM

Its strange how things pop back in to your head

TOPGEAR had a story about how the UK rated it's roads from 1 to 5 about NON VEHICLE HAZARDS

It seems that the majority of incidents had some involvement of a non vehicle nature - trees, signs, traffic lights, barriers and so on

Trees are a major hazard if the road does not have barriers to stop you exiting the road

Many lives have been lost because local councils (I believe it is their problem) have chosen not to remove trees near busy roads

I know of several roads in NSW where the only things on the trees lining the roads are the crosses remembering those that have died

The melbourne crash would still have happened with or without the trees, but many sleepy drivers would still be alive if some clear regulations were put in place -

higher speed limit = fewer trees - not rocket science !!!

FALCONXTV8 · 17-01-2010, 06:15 PM

The fact of the matter is that if everyone did the right thing on our roads like not speed,drink drive,drive tired,etc no one would die on our roads,but that will never happen,some people will ALWAYS take risks and as a result accidents will ALWAYS happen.

Feathers · 17-01-2010, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FALCONXTV8

The fact of the matter is that if everyone did the right thing on our roads like not speed,drink drive,drive tired,etc no one would die on our roads,but that will never happen,some people will ALWAYS take risks and as a result accidents will ALWAYS happen.

Exactly. The buck stops with the person behind the wheel. We can't legislate against stupidity.

[Tonko] · 17-01-2010, 06:36 PM

Should be more of them IMO. A few metres back though...

I think table drains 30cm from the road edge (like in my area) is worse.

reds89 · 17-01-2010, 06:39 PM

you can move trees,poles,bus seats and anything else on the side of the road,but no matter what, you will still get accidents like this happening,when we are young we are indestructible or so we think, and we can drive anything any way,police and governments can jump up and down and change laws etc,but while we are young......we are glad we become older and slower.

**Giant Cranium** · 17-01-2010, 07:21 PM

dont run off the road and you wont hit a tree. seems simple. its the douch in the drivers seat that is the problem not what is off the road!

**DJM83** · 17-01-2010, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by captain awesome

dont run off the road and you wont hit a tree. seems simple. its the douch in the drivers seat that is the problem not what is off the road!

So very true.

SM1DY · 17-01-2010, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by captain awesome

dont run off the road and you wont hit a tree. seems simple. its the douch in the drivers seat that is the problem not what is off the road!

But is death really a suitable sentence for being an idiot on the road?

Also, a lot of people in this thread and also the other thread have made comments regarding the driver being stupid and taking the lives of 4 other people because of his action, but when you consider no-one actually knows what happened in the car and it can't be proven that the passengers weren't being folish by egging the driver on. With six people in the car at once, I find it hard to believe that the driver was the only one making poor decisions last night

g220ba · 17-01-2010, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SM1DY

But is death really a suitable sentence for being an idiot on the road?

Also, a lot of people in this thread and also the other thread have made comments regarding the driver being stupid and taking the lives of 4 other people because of his action, but when you consider no-one actually knows what happened in the car and it can't be proven that the passengers weren't being folish by egging the driver on. With six people in the car at once, I find it hard to believe that the driver was the only one making poor decisions last night

regardless of if the passengers were egging the driver on, the driver is responsible for the 5 other people in that car. the fact there was 6 in the car was bad enough.

Back on topic i don't have a problem with trees lining the roadside, we as drivers should be skilled enough to keep our vehicles on the black stuff more often than not, yes things happen that are out of our control sometimes but most instances these sort of incidents are avoidable. Safer having a tree there than a house.

vztrt · 17-01-2010, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 84ltd

Back on topic i don't have a problem with trees lining the roadside, we as drivers should be skilled enough to keep our vehicles on the black stuff more often than not, yes things happen that are out of our control sometimes but most instances these sort of incidents are avoidable. Safer having a tree there than a house.

Unfortunately people push themselves to the limit. Long drives where they think they can do it and fall asleep, slippery roads bad tyres and panic and then there is high speed above a regular persons ability. Unfortunately all of this can be avoided but as is seen throughout a year it doesn't, people make bad choices and it ends poorly.

SM1DY · 17-01-2010, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 84ltd

regardless of if the passengers were egging the driver on, the driver is responsible for the 5 other people in that car. the fact there was 6 in the car was bad enough.

Your couldn't be more right about that, the driver is the sole person in charge of that vehicle, but if every person in that car were making resonsible decisions, then this accident may not have occur. 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.

As for the trees, if this particular road is infamous for speeding, then perhaps barriers on the side of the road are the right move. It's better than a car full of people being killed.