SA Firefighter
General Discussion => SA Firefighter General => Topic started by: misterteddy on January 06, 2012, 02:14:08 PM
-
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/emergency-vehicles-speed-cut-law-dangerous-says-raa/story-e6frea83-1226237779375 (http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/emergency-vehicles-speed-cut-law-dangerous-says-raa/story-e6frea83-1226237779375)
So it seems the RAA don't believe that we (CFS, SAAS, MFS, SES and SAPOL) need protecting whilst on the road, and that drivers that are following too close to the vehicle in front of them and therefore are unable to stop in time should the car in front brake suddenly, are going to be unfairly treated if they dont comply with the proposed legislation. Wouldn't it have been nice for the peak motoring body to remind the motoring public of the danger of tailgaiting or insufficient Collision Avoidance Space when travelling through hilly areas where vision of the road ahead is obscurred - no, lets pat the poor hard done by motorist on the head and say they are being unfairly treated
As for the Uni of Adelaide...might be nice one day if they venture up into the Hills and see what we have to deal with every day, rather than comment on issues from the comfort of North Tce. Or better still, let them be on call with an electronic speed sign 24/7 for us to be able to call on...... prats!
For me: if the legislation is defeated or deferred again, for times when I am in the seat and for every job when my crew are required to work on or adjacent to a public road I will be closing EVERY ROAD INVOLVED immediately and entirely with no through traffic, until we have completed work. We in the CFS have precious little opportunity to "force" things as unlike the paid services we cant (or won't) withdraw non-essential labour. I believe this simple action should be a concerted action by all emergency services to draw attention to the problem and ensure the safety of our workforce in the absence of legislated protection.
-
Yes I was disappointed to see it stopped by some organisations especially after all the good work many people have put into getting this into law.
I was also amused at seeing the RAA not support this, but I guess I’ll just add that the many things I don’t understand about the RAA….
-
I can see the point that RAA and UNISA are making, when the speed limit is reduced by roadworks they have to use advanced warning signs, so say it was a normal 80 km/h speed zone the advanced warning signs would have to be nearly one kilometer from the workzone.
We have to be sensible about this law and not say well if it is good enough for roadworkers it's good for us... Well it's not, since we can not give motorist advanced warning, all we are doing is creating more danger to the public and ourselves.
We all know not everyone drives to the conditions and so forth, lets stick with what we have, 40km/h is good and but needs to be enforced more by SAPOL.
-
Meh, shut the road till its safe.
-
Meh, shut the road till its safe.
Genuine curiosity...how do you bring cars to a stop from 100km/hr without leadup signage when you shut the road, compared to slowing them down to 40 or 25 ?
I agree with 'shut the road' but in country areas & twisting roads without SAPOL everywhere, how ?
I assume you just call extra trucks to provide the road blocks away from the incident zone.
-
Ultimately SAPOL are responsible for traffic control but we all know the number of times that they have been unable to attend or provide the required level of service. Yes the responsibility lies with the OIC to ensure a safe workplace is provided for the crew (and) public. Now if this means closing down the road altogether, then if justified do it, but manage the situation appropriately. If you don't have SAPOL, get onto ADLFIRE and request additional appliances to place further down the road, around the bends etc to provide the warning to the approaching vehicles of the accident, giving them as much distance a possible to do the right thing and reduce their speed in a safe manner.
In the case of the SE freeway, there is a higher risk of secondary accidents occurring than the risk to emergency workers. Certainly, if the speed past the accident can be reduced, then "happy days" but it must be correctly managed.
-
I heard from a reliable source that the RAA have been badly quoted by news.com.au (is anyone surprised at that?) and that they weren't against the speed limits - just that they are difficult to (and normally not) enforce/d at the moment, so the focus should be on education rather than just changing the laws.
Makes sense to me.
Always liked this PSA video: http://www.safetycommunity.com/video/slow-down-its-no-picnic (http://www.safetycommunity.com/video/slow-down-its-no-picnic)
-
Meh, shut the road till its safe.
Genuine curiosity...how do you bring cars to a stop from 100km/hr without leadup signage when you shut the road, compared to slowing them down to 40 or 25 ?
eFlares attached to cones if there's a bend in the road.
Otherwise, Mr/Ms Public should see the flashy/blinky lights on the big truck(s) from a goodly distance.
General rule of thumb is to give the punters four seconds to wake up and do something.
I've seen something, somewhere that says if the speed limit is 100 km/h, set your first sign 150 metres away (i.e. 1.5 times the speed limit in metres). Seems pretty reasonable.
Advice I give people new to traffic control, "Always assume the public are drunk/stupid/homicidal and have at least two escape routes."
As OIC, if I don't like the scene, the road gets closed.
Safety of my crew is more important.
-
I assume you just call extra trucks to provide the road blocks away from the incident zone.
Yes, shutting the road could very well mean placing a truck a large distance from the incident itself.
If the road is 80 or 100 the use of cones, eflares, signage (some brigades carry 'traffic hazard ahead' signs) may help, but ultimately you may need to find a section straight enough to provide enough visibility to oncoming traffic.
-
ultimately you may need to find a section straight enough to provide enough visibility to oncoming traffic.
Some times even that doesn't matter. We were visible from about 1-2K's from night and some filtered still nearly ran me over.
Great advice :D
Advice I give people new to traffic control, "Always assume the public are drunk/stupid/homicidal and have at least two escape routes."
-
ultimately you may need to find a section straight enough to provide enough visibility to oncoming traffic.
Some times even that doesn't matter. We were visible from about 1-2K's from night and some filtered still nearly ran me over.
Great advice :D
Advice I give people new to traffic control, "Always assume the public are drunk/stupid/homicidal and have at least two escape routes."
Yep, still no available cure for 'stupid'
-
Just remember that the general road user is very concerned about what has happened and is really interested in and supportive of any safety related matter UNTIL they find out they may be inconvenienced or delayed for more than a nano-second, then they turn into a completely different beast!
Some of the reasons I've been quoted over the years as to why I should let someone through a crash scene are unbelievable!
-
If no cops shut the road till safe no doubt