Volkswagen Cleared by Coroner in Melissa Ryan "Unintended Deceleration" Case

[wai]

What people do not understand about reaction times is that it is the time to react. Then the person has to decide what to do. This time has to be added to the reaction time to work out what the total time is to do something after seeing something. It is one of the failings of the tests to establish reaction times. The test subject is told to "jump on the brakes when you see the light go red". The subject has already decided what it is that they are going to do. The results are markedly different when a test subject is given a number of possible choices and then told that they have to do "something" when a particular signal is seen. Now the so-called reaction time is very much greater.

What every driver must realise is that at 40 km/h, you are travelling at 11 m/s, at 50 km/h they are travelling at around 14 m/sec, and at 110 km/h, it is over 30 m/sec. So, if you are distracted for a couple of seconds while checking mirrors, or changing the radio, or changing a CD, it might not seem like a long time, but you have travelled a significant distance while not really seeing what has been happening. And, please, no one be fooled into thinking they are good at multi-tasking.

By the way, this is also why you need to keep with the flow and not be significantly slower than the rest of the traffic as long as you are not exceeding the speed limit.

[wai]

Isn't the meaning of maintaining the adequate distance that "you should always keep the adequate gap between your vehicle and the vehicle in front of you that you can safely stop when the vehicle in front of you slows down or stops" ? ...and if you need to look in the rear view mirror you have to adjust the gap to allow for that.

If the truck would've maintain the adequate distance prior to accident, the accident wouldn't happened.

Yes, with the qualifier that the vehicle in front does not do something that has been seen as unexpected.

I have seen too many instances where another vehicle sees the gap a truck has left and then decided to move into it with the truck driver then having to go hard on the brakes to stop. Heck, I have had that happen when I am driving a car. You leave a gap for just this and then find some other car decide they will have that and move in.

Yes, everyone does have to carry responsibility for their actions. Even in situations where you might say you have right of way, you cannot proceed where you have reason that, if you continue, there will be a collision. It requires everyone to be aware, and in this case, the coroner has made a finding that the use of a mobile telephone was more likely than not to have been the distraction that saw the vehicle slow dramatically and the result was that it was hit from behind and spun around, resulting in the death of the driver.

[Transporter]

That should not be an excuse in any case, otherwise all the accidents would be nobody's fault. If some one makes wrong decision he is responsible for it.

[Transporter]

Yes, with the qualifier that the vehicle in front does not do something that has been seen as unexpected.

I have seen too many instances where another vehicle sees the gap a truck has left and then decided to move into it with the truck driver then having to go hard on the brakes to stop. Heck, I have had that happen when I am driving a car. You leave a gap for just this and then find some other car decide they will have that and move in.

Yes, everyone does have to carry responsibility for their actions. Even in situations where you might say you have right of way, you cannot proceed where you have reason that, if you continue, there will be a collision. It requires everyone to be aware, and in this case, the coroner has made a finding that the use of a mobile telephone was more likely than not to have been the distraction that saw the vehicle slow dramatically and the result was that it was hit from behind and spun around, resulting in the death of the driver.

That's a common sense and the car driver made mistake driving dangerously position him/herself in front of the truck unexpectedly, however in M.Rayn's case the truck driver saw her car for some time and regardless what she did he should maintain a safe distance including reaction time, thinking time and who knows what else. The truck driver is a professional driver and he should know what to do how to drive and what the safe distance is. There should be no excuse, if you fail to maintain the safe distance and you hit something then it's your fault at least that's how the insurance companies operate and interpret the law.

[JonP01]

prior to the accident, the truck was maintaining an adequate (minimum) gap to the vehicle in front.

This is arguably an incorrect finding from the Inquest based upon what is in turn arguably flawed testimony offered by the Victorian Police. Heather Spooner's determination that the following distance was a safe is based upon testimony offered by Detective Sergeant Bellion of the Victorian Police Serious Crash Unit. In Bellion's testimony, he stated that the gap between the truck and Golf was approximately 2 seconds, or perhaps just over 2 seconds. He went on to say that this gap - or a slightly larger gap than this (due to the truck being a heavy vehicle) was safe. Even if you take the truck driver Mr. Mumford's testimony, where he claims his following distance was greater again (2.5 seconds to 3 seconds), this following distance is still nowhere near adequate or safe. Why is it not adequate or safe? Because the Victorian Government themselves provide a rule book for Heavy Vehicle drivers known as the Truck and Bus Driver's Handbook (an official Vic Roads publication required for heavy vehicle drivers).

On page 51 of that publication, there is a very specific table that lists the required following distance for heavy vehicles. It is based upon what speed the heavy vehicle is traveling at and the distance to the next vehicle ahead in terms of time. It covers speeds ranging from 25 kmh to the speed limited maximum of 100 kmh. It is very clearly stated in the table that at 90 kmh, the required gap is 5 seconds and at 100 kmh the required gap is 6 to 7 seconds. If you extrapolate the table for 95 kmh then the required gap would have been approximately three times the distance that Mr. Mumford was actually maintaining based on police calculations of his actual following distance, or approximately twice the following distance that Mr. Mumford was actually maintaining based upon Mr. Mumford's testimony.

In further statements offered by Detective Sergeant Bellion which could be described as misleading to the Inquest and at best dubious, he went on to say that there is nothing in the road rules to indicate what a safe following distance is, only that a safe distance should be maintained. Given that the above Vic Road's Truck and Bus Driver's Handbook lists the following distances for Heavy Vehicles as clear as night and day and even provides a handy reference based upon speed readout and seconds count to the vehicle in front, it is difficult to understand why the Victorian Police would even make such a statement to the Inquest.

Afterall, if you are going for your heavy vehicle driver's licence or want to keep holding one, like a car driver in any State of Australia you are expected to maintain your knowledge of the road rules. In doing that, you are not expected to carry the actual legislation around with you like a lawyer on their way to court, nor are you reasonably expected to download the relevant acts and learn them by heart. No, you are issued with a comprehensive rule book that gives you rules in plain English and you are required to understand them and pass written tests based upon those rules (and of course follow them at all times on the road). Whatever is written in those publications is understood to serve as the defacto "road rules" for whatever class of vehicle is involved. By understanding those rules you are then in a position to also follow the laws, and critically the various Police organisations within each state should also be enforcing those rules.

So, from this Inquest we have the following:

1. Ivan Mumford was following at - at best half the required following distance or - based upon calculations - one third of the required following distance. He collided with a car ahead which in turn caused a fatal injury to the occupant. Despite not maintaining anything remotely near the required safe gap, he was never charged with any offence, never received so much as a demerit point, let alone a fine. In the meantime, drivers along Victorian roads are getting booked by the Victorian Police on a daily basis for doing 10 kmh over the limit in perfect safety without killing anyone and receiving fines and demerit points as a result.

2. The Victorian Police stated at the Inquest that there is no stipulation anywhere as to what actual following distances are required - only that a safe distance needs to be maintained. This evidence completely contradicts the Truck and Bus Driver's Handbook issued by Vic Roads, where the required following distances are provided in a highly specific table on page 51.

3. The Victorian Police indicted that gap of slightly larger than 2 seconds is adequate for a heavy vehicle travelling at 95 kmh. This completely contradicts the aforementioned speed and distance table contained on page 51 of the Truck and Bus Driver's Handbook. The required gap in order maintain safety is approximately 3 times as large as that indicated by the Victorian Police to the Coronor Heather Spooner.

4. Coroner Heather Spooner's determination that Mumford was following at a safe distance was based upon evidence provided to her as per points 2 and 3 above.

[Transporter]

Thanks JonP01 for posting it.
I know that nothing will give back life to M.Ryan, but at the same time you expect that the justice is done when the life is lost on our roads, and this case was certainly dodged up and used for the wrong agenda.
What is even worst is that the similar drivers who drive too close know now that they can get away with that.

[stickshift3000]

In further statements offered by Detective Sergeant Bellion which could be described as misleading to the Inquest and at best dubious, he went on to say that there is nothing in the road rules to indicate what a safe following distance is, only that a safe distance should be maintained.

Given that the above Vic Road's Truck and Bus Driver's Handbook lists the following distances for Heavy Vehicles as clear as night and day and even provides a handy reference based upon speed readout and seconds count to the vehicle in front, it is difficult to understand why the Victorian Police would even make such a statement to the Inquest.

You need to understand the difference between a guide and a regulation (law). This cop was correct in what he said.

[Candyman]

You need to understand the difference between a guide and a regulation (law). This cop was correct in what he said.

If a trained police officer is incapable of stating a safe following distance, what value are they in this matter.

I agree with the earlier post, the comment from the officer was pointless.

Being a guideline or law is irrelevant except for any potential civil case that may follow (and it may)

Sent from my iPad using magic

[stickshift3000]

It's not irrelevant at all, the policeman stated that there was nothing in the road rules to indicate what a safe following distance is.

Hint: the keyword here is rules.

[wai]

This is arguably an incorrect finding from the Inquest based upon what is in turn arguably flawed testimony offered by the Victorian Police. Heather Spooner's determination that the following distance was a safe is based upon testimony offered by Detective Sergeant Bellion of the Victorian Police Serious Crash Unit. In Bellion's testimony, he stated that the gap between the truck and Golf was approximately 2 seconds, or perhaps just over 2 seconds. He went on to say that this gap - or a slightly larger gap than this (due to the truck being a heavy vehicle) was safe. Even if you take the truck driver Mr. Mumford's testimony, where he claims his following distance was greater again (2.5 seconds to 3 seconds), this following distance is still nowhere near adequate or safe. Why is it not adequate or safe? Because the Victorian Government themselves provide a rule book for Heavy Vehicle drivers known as the Truck and Bus Driver's Handbook (an official Vic Roads publication required for heavy vehicle drivers).

Well, the coroner's conclusions (page 44, paragraph 3) states:

- The overall import of the evidence was that the truck driver probably maintained a sufficient distance distance (albeit minimal) between his truck and Melissa's vehicle.

That is essentially what I said. The coroner's conclusions are that there was an adequate/sufficient distance (albeit minimal).

[Candyman]

Well, the coroner's conclusions (page 44, paragraph 3) states:

- The overall import of the evidence was that the truck driver probably maintained a sufficient distance distance (albeit minimal) between his truck and Melissa's vehicle.

That is essentially what I said. The coroner's conclusions are that there was an adequate/sufficient distance (albeit minimal).

The coroner clearly didn't take the time to read, eh

Sent from my iPad using magic

[JonP01]

You need to understand the difference between a guide and a regulation (law). This cop was correct in what he said.

The handbook is not a "guide" as you believe. It literally is the rule book by which drivers are tested and licensed.

You cannot make the judgement that the police are right and the regulations are not relevant here. That judgement is what the Coroner should have made and she should have made it based on information that she was not provided with. That is why I have used the terms "arguably and dubious" in my post - the matter I believe needed to be considered much more thoroughly and with more information provided. I understand the difference between acts and regulations. The law states a safe following distance is to be maintained. The regulations state what that distance actually is, and very precisely.

If you believe the police are correct, then please explain to all of us the 300% discrepancy between what the police state is "safe" and what the regulations state is required. Bear in mind that the handbook requires these following distances. It is not a suggestion, it's not a guideline - the specific phrase used in the book is "you need to", as in that is what you are required to do if you drive a heavy vehicle.

And why just stop at following distances? Let's chuck out everything else that isn't precisely documented in the acts, like the details of log books, log books hours, etc, etc. Let's forget it all, because according to you, handbooks - the very thing - and the only thing - that 99% of motorists use - don't count and are legality irrelevant. So from now on, anyone who gets booked can just get off on all manner of things because we can just ignore the handbooks from now on.

If you somehow feel that not furnishing the actual table in the regulation / handbook that shows this 300% discrepancy to the Coroner had no influence in the outcome of this inquest, then we will have to disagree. It's ignorance of what is written in these handbooks that cause accidents - not a driver's lack of knowledge of what is contained in the laws and acts themselves.

Perhaps the Coroner, given the additional information contained in the handbook, may still have come to the conclusion that the truck driver was maintaining a safe distance. Were that the case, I think many people would still say he got off on a technicality and that he is still as guilty as hell. Well, certainly professional, safe truck drivers and car drivers would think that way - of which thankfully there are still many around, some of which post on these forums, some of whom clearly don't.

At the very least, had the Coroner been made aware of the large discrepancy between what the police say is safe and what the handbook requires, she could at least have asked for this situation to be looked into as one of her recommendations, perhaps with a view of developing more precise definitions in the law itself. It is something I certainly would have recommended. Because as things stand at the moment, every truck driver pulling 60 tonnes behind them can now follow two seconds behind a car on a freeway in Victoria, with a ghost's hope in hell of stopping in time if the driver ahead has to perform an emergency stop.

[b c]

Interesting how similar this discussion is to those held after the death of a cyclist as a result of a car executing an illegal manouver - e.g. changing lane without giving way, turning across a lane without giving way. Typically the car driver is charged with the relatively minor road law violation, gets a few demerit points, and that's about it - meanwhile someone has died as a result. The road law penalties don't seem to address the impact of the violation (in this case a death), just that a violation happened. As the violation wasn't intentional (i.e. it was an accident) that's it.

[Transporter]

You need to understand the difference between a guide and a regulation (law). This cop was correct in what he said.

Yes, the distance you can stop your vehicle. It's impossible to say how many meters it has to be because every car will need a different distance. How ever there are norms that could be used.

I remember reading about the Peugeot 206 GTI that it will go from 100km/h-0km/h in 3 seconds, not many cars can do it, so I don't know where the coroner got hers 2seconds for the truck travelling at 100km/h ?

[The_Hawk]

I wonder if when talking stopping distances they take into account moving traffic, ie the idea that you are very unlikely to come across a completely stationary object so can take into account that the other object also had to slow down and stop.

As for maintaining distance, I challenge anyone to maintain *ANY* distance while in or around the major populations. I think if I tried to drive down the M5 in Sydney during the peak (or just about any time of day) while maintaining a 2-3 second gap, slowing if anyone pulled into that space, I'd just end up stopped in the middle of the road