All Activity

Pete, I wish we could give you some. If the forecasts for Saturday and Sunday are right, we'll end up with close to twenty inches for the week. A bit unusual for October, it's more like January, February weather.

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.

Crikey I wish it was wet. Today was 30 degrees, under 30% humidity and 30kts wind. Spent the day on the fireground only 10k from home. Rough country. It was blowing hard and gusting, towards our place. There were 5 choppers running water bombing all day. We had 2 x D8 dozers cutting a firebreak but the fire jumped that about the same time as one dozer broke down. The terrain was too steep to get our appliances within striking distance of the fire front. Tonight the wind dropped, the fire slowed down. Hoping for drizzle tonight but rain would be real nice. I'm not going out tomorrow (too tired)but there will still be a dozen firetrucks out. So far about 70 hectares still smouldering.

Completely normal!

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.

That "tenacity" peaks and troughs. At the moment, it is in peak mode, but there are times where I have blocked it from my mind, tbh.

How long is it since you have been in the US. I can tell you the average person is no different to us. On the news each night they have the same complaints we do.. Most want trump out,he is strangling his own people with tariffs .

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

Finally getting a bit of a break from the rain, just bits of drizzle today. All up since Sunday night 380mm or over 15 inches in the old scale. Photo is the valley flooded below my place, taken from my front yard. The water is up to the neighbour's house which is just across the street from my front gate.

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.

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.

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.

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

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. 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.

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

Tom Skerritt, the Emmy-winning actor who embodied a solid, wry authority figure, whether as a flight instructor in Top Gun, a tough-but-fair sheriff on TV’s Picket Fences or the doomed captain of Alien, has died. He was 93. Skerritt died Wednesday of natural causes, his family said in a statement.

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.

Education is better than Penalties. Nev

Neither appears to see a problem with killing people. Nev

So, to Trump and his Isreali mate, it's not a case of war halting elections. It's a case of elections halting wars. How sick is it that both these war criminals have decided to scale down their military actions until the elections which may or may not keep them in power are held?

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.