Leaderboard

If the Landcruiser had not pulled out the accident would not have happened. Any rider with a fair bit of experience knows that many tin-top drivers make right turns in front of you and Hit you on roundabouts when you are on their right,and pull out from the side of the road without looking carefully. They ALL say "I didn't see you" as if that's a legitimate excuse. Yeah the rider was going too fast, but YOU are supposed to LOOK.

Qantas has been a very privileged and protected Airline many times during it's long History. Also some questionable management. Nev.

To look is to use sight to perceive an object. To see is to notice or become aware of objects and surroundings using your eyes. To perceive means to become aware of, to notice. Perception means coming to an opinion, interpreting a situation, based on on i the inputs of looking. There is a great deal of practical difference between looking, seeing and perceiving. You can look and see something, but be unable to perceive what the thing is doing. In my opinion, based on learning and experience, I conclude that the driver did not perceive the situation due to the speed of the bike being something the driver could not perceive due to an inability to form an opinion based on lack of experience of that partcular situation. When I was performing traffic law enforcement using radar, I would observe the approaching vehicle and, based on experience from watching vehicles approaching at speeds below the speed limit, would form an opinion as the whether the vehicle was travelling above the speed limit. Initially I never put a numerial value to that speed. The vehicle ws either 'up it', or not. Then I would release the beam of the radar and the instrument would calculate the speed and provide a numerical display. The number in the display window (if it was above the signposted speed limit) determined the penalty amount indicated on the infringement notice. I never could accurately determine the speed of a vehicle. The instrument did that for me. All I did was decide whether or not to take a shot with the beam.

How many jobs can you go into like they do without being accused of conflicts of interest or maybe insider trading. I also don't believe they are overpaid. Corporate type positions aren't really known for job security. My last 2 employers had several "clean outs ". A lot of wandering about weather people left or were pushed. I never said Snowy 2 is not a good concept. Who would have thought that that digging tunnels wouldn't have had issues.

The government doesn't own the buildings in industrial areas. I fully agree that the businesses that do should cover their roofs with solar, it would be economically good for them in most cases.

Not so much high wind areas but consistent wind. The turbine is then sized with rotor diameter and power output to suit. Could use the plains north of Adelaide as they get a sea breeze most summer evenings when the peak is. I would say that to many votes to lose though. Could see a V47? type size turbine from the London Eye. Several V90 3MW and what look like a Vestas 4MW (112 to 115m rotor) or Enventus (162-182m) platform in Amsterdam. Turnbull is slimy because as with all politicians they go and get cushy jobs with company's that they work with during their time in politics. He was a big influence on the snowy 2 project. In the real world away from politics this would be a conflict of interest. I know some people will say they need to do something when they leave politics which is fair enough but maybe the could lose their politicians pension if they do. I believe the pensions were when people use to put their lives/ careers on hold during their time in politics. People use to stay in the same job their whole lives.

Most bikes have headlights on permanently too. Sounds like speed was definitely a factor (although as OME says, it's probably based on a witness who would have no idea what 200kph looks like).

I wonder how they determined that the bike was traving at 200 kph? At a speed of 200 kph the bike would be coveing 55.4 metres per second. I know that the specialist crash investigators will be involved, but that collision only happened a few days ago. There's not enough time for them to calculate speed at impact. I guess that the "200 kph" came from a witness who was passed by the bike and formed the opinion that it was going like a shower of sh!t. I won't deny that the bike was flying. Also, for a bike to be capable of a very high speed, it would have to be a modern bike, with electronic speed display. Anything displayed on the instrument cluster would disappear with the loss of power at impact. Another factor relates to the ability of the driver of the motor vehicle to see the bike. Wwe know from our flight training that it is difficult to determine the speed of an object approaching from abeam. Further, the frontal area of a bike is small and often dark in clour. If it is dark, it would blend with the colour of the road surface, making it still more difficult to see. Then there the environmental factors such as light and theposition of the Sun. Were there clouds creating a dull background. Unfortunately, the strict liability of the Law places the blame on teh driver of the vehicle, but commonsense says that the cause was the bike rider.

why haven't the government covered every major industrial are in solar panels instead of transporting power hundreds of km with the associated power losses that brings. is it because there is more money in carbon credite for large windfarms. not to mention all the snouts in the renewable trough. even slimy malcolm turnbull is destroying prime farmland with a project. why couldn't you have wind turbines in an industrial area also.

love that area.

They don't all run around pretending to be the Spirit of Australia. Nev