Interesting sequel to Hume Highway accident

[aussiblue]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-2...harges/5850938

Transport operator denies manslaughter charges over fatal truck driver crash near Adelaide

Updated yesterday at 12:04pmWed 29 Oct 2014, 12:04pm


The operator of an Adelaide trucking company has denied killing one of his drivers by making him use an unroadworthy vehicle.

Fifty-five-year-old Peter Frances Colbert, owner-operator of Colbert Transport at Green Fields, pleaded not guilty of manslaughter in the Adelaide Magistrate's Court over the death of 45-year-old driver Robert Brimson.

Brimson died in March when the brakes on his truck allegedly failed and he crashed into a pole at Happy Valley, 20 kilometres south of Adelaide.

Colbert also pleaded not guilty to two counts of endangering the lives of two other people who had used the truck days before the fatal crash.

Prosecutor Elizabeth May told the magistrate in May that Colbert had failed to heed warnings from his drivers about brake failures.

Police allegedly intercepted phone calls and heard Colbert speak with an unqualified mechanic about undertaking work on at least one of three trucks to deceive inspectors at the Regency Park transport inspection depot.

Colbert remains in custody but is seeking bail after being ordered to face the District Court in December.

[aussiblue]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-1...ughter/6539224

Trucking company boss Peter Colbert ignored warnings about brake failure that led to driver's death, court hears

By court reporter James Hancock

Posted yesterday at 2:05pm

A trucking company boss accused of the manslaughter of a driver killed in one of the firm's trucks ignored repeated warnings about the vehicle's brakes, an Adelaide court has heard.

Peter Francis Colbert, 55, is accused of failing to maintain a truck which crashed into a pole on Main South Road at Happy Valley in March last year, killing driver Robert Brimson.

Colbert has today gone on trial but has denied responsibility for the death.

He has also pleaded not guilty to endangering the life of a second driver who, a few days earlier, managed to avoid a crash when the brakes failed on the same truck.

The Supreme Court heard Colbert was warned several times about brake problems on the 1994 Mitsubishi truck.

Prosecutor Tim Preston said Mr Brimson, 45, had only been employed by Colbert Transport at Green Fields for about 10 days before the fatal crash.

He said Brimson managed to avoid banked-up cars on Main South Road, before slamming the truck into a pole.

"That vehicle had a history of brake failures which were brought to the attention of the accused on a number of occasions and, despite that, the accused deliberately failed to deal with those reported failures," he said.

The jury was told the second driver, Shane ******, who regularly drove the truck, had earlier experienced brake failure on Dyson Road at Lonsdale.

He took emergency action and steered the truck at dangerous speed into a safe area.

Mr Preston said Colbert himself had previously driven the same truck on a regular basis.

He said a motor mechanic would give evidence that the brakes were in an "extremely poor" condition.

Colbert's lawyer Grant Algie said his client denied both charges, but conceded the cause of the fatal crash was "probably" brake failure.

"You might ask what Mr Colbert knew about the brakes or what did he believe about the state of the brakes on the truck?" Mr Algie told the jury.

"What maintenance had been done?"

Mr Algie said if the court found Colbert did fail to maintain the brakes, then it had to consider whether that amounted to a gross omission.

"You'll probably conclude the tragic accident on the 7th of March was caused by some sort of brake failure, but what caused the brake failure that led to the crash?" he said.

"Was it or has it been proven that it was a failure by Mr Colbert to maintain the brakes or was it something else?"

The trial is before Justice David Peek.

[aussiblue]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-1...t-told/6543016

Colbert Transport truck caught fire a month before crash killed driver, Adelaide court told

The trial of an Adelaide trucking company boss over a driver's death has heard the truck involved in the crash caught fire a month earlier.

Peter Francis Colbert, 55, has pleaded not guilty to the manslaughter of truck driver Robert Brimson, who was killed when the vehicle's brakes failed at Happy Valley.

The Tautliner, known as The Big Girl, slammed into a pole on Main South Road in March last year.

Colbert is also accused of endangering the life of another driver, Shane ******, after he avoided a crash when the brakes failed on the same truck a few days earlier.

The court was told Mr ******, along with others, warned Colbert about problems with the truck's brakes.

Bookkeeper Eryn Williams today gave evidence at the trial.

She said a month before the fatal smash, the truck caught fire on the Salisbury Highway when Colbert himself was driving.

She said she dropped off a fire extinguisher, and said Colbert later told her he did not have the money to fix the brakes.

Ms Williams said Colbert told her he had "just put a ball bearing in the brake line to stop the brake fluid from leaking which will then stop the fire."

She said he confronted Colbert after Mr ****** had a near miss in the same vehicle.

She said Colbert responded: "Drivers on the road need to know how to respect trucks because they don't understand how trucks work."

Mr Williams also said Mr ****** warned Colbert the brakes were faulty "and that they need to be fixed".

Ms Williams said Colbert did not respond and went back to smoking a cigarette.

Driver heard air hissing from rear of vehicle

Truck driver Dale Dahlhelm told the court he drove the truck for a day and the brakes were poor.

"I could hear air hissing from the rear of the vehicle and it was pretty hard to pull up sometimes," he said.

"When you put your foot on the brake, the vehicle wouldn't slow down in a hurry.

"If you needed to, you had to use the gears to slow down as well."

Mr Dahlhelm said, when he returned to the Colbert Transport depot at Green Fields, Colbert took a look at the truck.

He said Colbert told him: "The vehicle's fine. It's all right."

Mr Dahlhelm said he replied: "What about the air? It's not building up any air."

He said Colbert then jumped into the vehicle, revved it up, and said "there's your air".

"I said: 'I'm still getting the air leak at the back of the vehicle'."

[burnz]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-1...t-told/6543016

something's amiss in the story

when you cant build air you cant release the brakes, leaking air activates the brakes..

[aussiblue]

Perhaps the leak meant the trailer (or/and even the tractor) brake system was always partially applied to the point that the drum pads were rapidly worn down to the metal and/or overheated and were thus ineffective.

[burnz]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

Perhaps the leak meant the trailer (or/and even the tractor) brake system was always partially applied to the point that the drum pads were rapidly worn down to the metal and/or overheated and were thus ineffective.

the low air alarm would have sounded continually..until fixed,
if it wasn't serous leak, alarm nor the brakes would have been affected.

[Agent86]

Originally Posted by burnz

the low air alarm would have sounded continually..until fixed,
if it wasn't serous leak, alarm nor the brakes would have been affected.

not always, i've had leaking boosters that have been dragging the affected brake, but have not been bad enough to trigger the low air alarm, not drop the pressures noticeably.


That said, Shocking form on the owner and he should go to a hard labour camp without his ciggies.

[aussiblue]

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/nati...-1227400351893

A TRANSPORT company owner has denied he was repeatedly warned from several employees about brake failure on one of his trucks before it crashed and killed one of his drivers, a Supreme Court jury has heard.

Peter Francis Colbert, 55, is standing trial after pleading not guilty to the manslaughter of driver Robert Brimson and endangering the life of another employee in March last year.

Mr Brimson, 45, died when the 1994 Mitsubishi tautliner’s brakes failed on Main South Rd at Happy Valley on March 7, 2014.

Taking the stand in his defence today, Colbert said he had driven the truck, nicknamed “The Big Girl” and had no issues with the braking system.

He also denied the testimony of several other drivers and employees who said they had repeatedly warned him the truck was dangerous in the months leading up to the fatal crash.

In cross-examination, Prosecutor Tim Preston questioned Colbert about an alleged phone call one of his drivers made following a near miss at Lonsdale after which he told his boss to “get the f — king brakes fixed”.

Colbert denied the phone call occurred or that he had spoken to the driver about the near-miss when he returned.


He said he had little knowledge of the braking system in trucks and had left their maintenance up the company mechanic who had not informed him of the imminent danger.

“My knowledge of braking systems would fit into an eyeglass,” he said.

The court has previously heard Colbert operated about 12 trucks as the sole shareholder and director of Colbert Transport Pty Ltd since he took over the company in early 2014.

Mr Preston has told the jury that while Colbert had not intentionally put his drivers at risk, he had been “recklessly indifferent” to the alleged dangers and had omitted to perform property maintenance.

Colbert’s lawyer, Grant Algie SC, has told the jury there were a number of “critical issues” it would need to consider, including whether brake failure was the sole cause of the fatal crash.

Mr Algie said the jury would also need to decide whether Colbert’s alleged lack of maintenance amounted to a criminal act.

The trial, before Justice David Peek and a jury, continues.

[aussiblue]

http://www.smartcompany.com.au/growt...-roundup.html#

Truck company owner convicted of manslaughter after employee death
A jury in the South Australian Supreme Court has convicted the owner of an Adelaide trucking company of manslaughter after an employee lost his life when the brakes on one of the company’s trucks failed, reports the Adelaide Advertiser.

Peter Colbert, owner of Colbert Transport, now faces a maximum lifetime jail sentence for Robert Brimson, who died after the 1994 Mitsubishi Tautliner he was driving crashed in to a pole.

The court heard Colbert was aware of the safety concerns of the vehicle, with a former employee giving evidence he had warned Colbert about the truck’s brakes following “three to four near-misses” while driving it.

The landmark case is believed to be the first time a company owner has been held criminally responsible for an employee’s death because of work-practice negligence.

[b0son]

Lifetime sentence??? Wow, we really hate employers in this country, don't we? They don't even come close to contemplating that for violent assaults causing death.....

[5.8]

Originally Posted by b0son

Lifetime sentence??? Wow, we really hate employers in this country, don't we? They don't even come close to contemplating that for violent assaults causing death.....

I wouldn't get too carried away, he is only "facing" a lifetime sentence. It hasn't happened yet.

[aussiblue]

Wow, we really hate employers in this country, don't we?

I don't follow that; the number of employers jailed for OHS negligence in Australia is minimal; in fact I can't recall any. In most case it has involved the likes of mining companies and other public companies that just pay a fine.

[aussiblue]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-1...iation/6556162

Tougher laws on truck roadworthiness set to follow Colbert Transport driver's death

891 ABC Adelaide

Updated Thu at 12:02pm



A road transport organisation says it looks forward to a toughening of roadworthiness laws for heavy vehicles, in the wake of an Adelaide driver's death after his truck brakes failed.

Road Transport Association executive director Steve Shearer said the industry had been discussing the issues raised in the case since charges were first laid against the operator of Colbert Transport over the death of his driver when the company's truck hit a pole.

An Adelaide jury this week found Peter Francis Colbert, 55, guilty of manslaughter and endangering life over brake failure which caused the truck to crash at Happy Valley in March last year, killing its driver Robert Brimson.

Another driver for the company said the brakes also failed when he was in the truck just days earlier.

The court was told Colbert knew of problems with the truck but did nothing to rectify them.

Mr Shearer told 891 ABC Adelaide the Road Transport Association had won support for its concerns from SA Transport Minister Stephen Mullighan, who lobbied nationally on safety issues.

"Something we've been complaining about for many years as an industry is that the chain of responsibility in laws [which do cover breaches for such things as driver fatigue, excessive speed or overladen trucks] have not applied, and still don't apply today, to the roadworthiness of the truck," he said.

"[Mr Mullighan] successfully negotiated nationally to change that, so roadworthiness will become part of the chain of responsibility.

"It means anyone that owns a truck, but even customers sending and receiving freight, have a reverse onus of proof, which is not all that common in law, to make sure that they take all reasonable steps to make sure the truck is roadworthy."

He said changes to the law could see hefty personal fines imposed, and even higher corporate fines, for dangerous heavy vehicles.

Audits check paperwork, not trucks: Shearer

Mr Shearer said his organisation also remained keen to toughen the roadworthiness checks done on trucks.

"Your audits are done on paperwork, not looking at trucks, and we've been discussing with the Government the need to change that," he said.

"Again Minister Mullighan agrees, so there will be a more rigorous inspection regime and we welcome that as well.

"As police keep saying, it's a small recalcitrant minority but it only takes one to kill somebody."

Peter Francis Colbert
Photo: Peter Francis Colbert was found guilty, after the court heard he knew of the truck's problems before it crashed. (ABC News)

Mr Shearer said the thoroughness of safety checks on heavy vehicles currently varied widely between the states and territories.

"A once-a-year inspection on a truck does not mean a truck is roadworthy all year," he said.

"Under chain of responsibility laws, the owners would have to make sure the truck is safe all year, not just when it's inspected."

Lawyer Claire O'Connor, who chairs the Council for Civil Liberties, said Australia should look to countries such as New Zealand for an example of tougher vehicle safety obligations.

"New Zealand has a system where all vehicles, not just commercial, have to get an annual warrant of fitness [inspection check] and they can't be driven without one," she said.

"There's no reason why the industries using [trucks and buses] should be the only ones who are subject to that sort of inspection.

"We have no problem with randomly checking drivers for alcohol or drug use, so why can't we therefore insist that cars are also safe?"

[BENT_8]

None of that will come to fruition as most drivers will be too scared to speak up.

Its a cut throat industry with people lining up for driving jobs, so those currently in them will be hesitant to push the safety agenda with their employer for fear of losing their job.

If the authorities in SA want to be serious about this then trucks should have mandatory testing every year.

Putting this back on the driver via COR will not stop dodgy practices by owners, they'll just pass the buck and say they knew nothing and once you roll out of the driveway its all on the driver.

My Nephew drove for a bloke who pressured him to drive a Mitsi tautliner with the brake warning alarm screaming for weeks before he put it in to get repaired, same owner had me drive his HR tautliner down the same piece of road that the above bloke was killed on with a leaking booster that i had to rev the guts out of at lights to keep air up to.

My Wife works with the Cousin of the poor bugger in the above story, they tried to say he had a heart attack and crashed the truck.
Truth is he gave his own life to save those stopped at the lights in front of him.

[Full Noise]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

My Nephew drove for a bloke who pressured him to drive a Mitsi tautliner with the brake warning alarm screaming for weeks before he put it in to get repaired, same owner had me drive his HR tautliner down the same piece of road that the above bloke was killed on with a leaking booster that i had to rev the guts out of at lights to keep air up to.

Well, then you and your nephew are just as bad as the clown who owned the truck and wouldn’t fix it.

If a few more “so called” drivers grew a bigger set and actually stood up to some of these people, the problem would eventually go away.

For every dodgy boss out there, there’s usually many drivers who either don’t have the balls or are too stupid to stand up to these people.

I’m getting sick of these BS stories of “the boss wouldn’t fix the truck.” Well simple, if he won’t fix it, refuse to drive it.

If this bloke in Adelaide knowingly drove the truck with defective brakes, he’s an idiot, and look at the price he paid.

I’ve told many bosses over the decades where they could shove their truck and their jobs. It’s not that hard to take a stand, pity that there isn’t a few more around who will put their money where their bloody mouth is.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Full Noise

If this bloke in Adelaide knowingly drove the truck with defective brakes, he’s an idiot, and look at the price he paid.

there would be more to the story but we will never know. this truck obviously had a known defect, as more than one driver testified, so you would think if you were driving that truck (apart from being an idiot), you would drive it according to its capabilities?? easy to criticize from the sidelines, but you wouldn't get to that area where he crashed without realising earlier that you had an issue with your brakes. its also a big 'dipper' so if traffic is banked up, you can see it from some distance back.

regardless, i admit that those comments are speculation, and the driver did make the decision to crash himself rather than the innocent car drivers ahead. whether he was lacking in the proper awareness, who can say.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by Full Noise

Well, then you and your nephew are just as bad as the clown who owned the truck and wouldn’t fix it.

If a few more “so called” drivers grew a bigger set and actually stood up to some of these people, the problem would eventually go away.

For every dodgy boss out there, there’s usually many drivers who either don’t have the balls or are too stupid to stand up to these people.

I’m getting sick of these BS stories of “the boss wouldn’t fix the truck.” Well simple, if he won’t fix it, refuse to drive it.

If this bloke in Adelaide knowingly drove the truck with defective brakes, he’s an idiot, and look at the price he paid.

I’ve told many bosses over the decades where they could shove their truck and their jobs. It’s not that hard to take a stand, pity that there isn’t a few more around who will put their money where their bloody mouth is.

I think you'll find the driver was new to the company and was driving the truck for the first time.
The other employees had complained about the truck and the poor bugger who died was filling in for the regular driver who had already complained about the truck and probably pulled a sickie to avoid driving it, but im sure you know more about it.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by prydey

there would be more to the story but we will never know. this truck obviously had a known defect, as more than one driver testified, so you would think if you were driving that truck (apart from being an idiot), you would drive it according to its capabilities?? easy to criticize from the sidelines, but you wouldn't get to that area where he crashed without realising earlier that you had an issue with your brakes. its also a big 'dipper' so if traffic is banked up, you can see it from some distance back.
regardless, i admit that those comments are speculation, and the driver did make the decision to crash himself rather than the innocent car drivers ahead. whether he was lacking in the proper awareness, who can say.

Not true at all, there is a set of lights at Lander rd just over the crest of the hill as you go down, if the truck was doing the posted speed limit and the brakes were as bad as they say he had no chance to pull up before the banked up traffic.
There is no other down hill section between the depot and that section of road to find out any earlier, he was a passenger.
I used to drive that stretch every day and nearly got caught out myself.
Infact our depot at Cavan was a 5 minute drive from their depot so i know the whole route he would have taken, drove the same size truck and know exactly what he would have experienced in the lead up.
The day the booster went on my truck i was heading past Flinders Medical centre on my way to Mclaren vale, rang my employer and was told to do the drop and bring it back.
I chose the southern expressway to avoid lights etc.

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by prydey

i don't do a lot of interstate driving but do drive to bris (from adelaide) every year, and very rarely have i ever been passed by a truck in a 100 zone and probably never in a 110 zone.

these guys are a minority.

Must be all a big joke then if 'you've' never actually seen it firsthand how scientific of you to conclude that.

I live close to a highway and I'd say like many others who've posted here.....I see it nearly every time I hit the highway. Always passed by trucks speeding! Often it's speeding up to make the next slope easier to climb.

What does everyone think of the famous..."without trucks, Australia stops" line???
Ive got news for them..while still very important(because of efficiency), obviously....without most trades and services Australia stops

What happens without police?.....
What happens without doctors?....
What happens without plumbers?.....

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

Must be all a big joke then if 'you've' never actually seen it firsthand how scientific of you to conclude that.

I live close to a highway and I'd say like many others who've posted here.....I see it nearly every time I hit the highway. Always passed by trucks speeding! Often it's speeding up to make the next slope easier to climb.

This would depend on the accuracy of your speedo.

Having spent the last 12 years running the Newell (and 30 years before that all over OZ) it is a very rare thing (these days) to see any Trucks going more than 5kmh over the open road limit

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

What does everyone think of the famous..."without trucks, Australia stops" line???
Ive got news for them..while still very important(because of efficiency), obviously....without most trades and services Australia stops

Seeing as all Supermarkets, Petrol Stations and most other stores require daily stock, If Trucks stop within 3 days there would be no food or fuel.

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

What happens without police?.....
What happens without doctors?....
What happens without plumbers?.....

And how do you think these services get their supplies........Taxi?

[Franco Cozzo]

Surely someone along the lines would have had to have serviced their trucks and noticed/reported on the issue when they worked on it?

I know that if I've worked on a customer's vehicle and I notice something thats additional to what I'm doing I always write it down and mention it.

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

This would depend on the accuracy of your speedo.

Having spent the last 12 years running the Newell (and 30 years before that all over OZ) it is a very rare thing (these days) to see any Trucks going more than 5kmh over the open road limit

Seeing as all Supermarkets, Petrol Stations and most other stores require daily stock, If Trucks stop within 3 days there would be no food or fuel.



And how do you think these services get their supplies........Taxi?

Where I am west of Brisbane.....the highways are rather hilly. I'm sure that's similar to many many highways around Australia. I'd love to hear the opinion of a truck driver as to how they approach these situations. As I've said. I've seen it many times, trucks speeding up for hills ahead.(let alone on the flats)
And even 5 Kay's over is a huge amount for a loaded tuck. They are limited to 100 for a reason. They don't handle or brake well......and as covered in the quoted article.....lots of people die when things go wrong.

And I never implied my opinion meant it was the 'majority' of trucks speed. Just my observation for where I live.(unlike the post that I quoted)

And I also didn't suggest trucks aren't important(I clearly stated otherwise)..... mearly a query as to why truckies think they're so important they can act like they're the 'only' needed commodity in our society. Without police for eg.....the streets would be a riot in hrs. No doctors and people would start dropping faster then flies.
Just food for thought really!

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

Surely someone along the lines would have had to have serviced their trucks and noticed/reported on the issue when they worked on it?

I know that if I've worked on a customer's vehicle and I notice something thats additional to what I'm doing I always write it down and mention it.

Big trucking companies no doubt do most of their work in house I'd imagine? Hence pressure is probably put back on the mechanics who clear the trucks.
Either way, even if the work is out sourced, I'd imagine it wouldn't take much to 'make a deal'!
I also found it weird that truckies were getting away with fines because they couldn't pin point who was driving the truck at the time. I thought all that was regulated and drivers had to do logbooks. Hence if the books wearnt filled......there's another fine....on top of the fine for speeding that should have no bearing on who's driving anyway!

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

Surely someone along the lines would have had to have serviced their trucks and noticed/reported on the issue when they worked on it?

I know that if I've worked on a customer's vehicle and I notice something thats additional to what I'm doing I always write it down and mention it.

In a perfect world, yes, but not all owners give a toss.
The owner at the centre of the story weve been discussing had only taken control of the company recently. From all reports his 'mechanic' had flagged the brake issue but at the end of the day it comes down to how the owner of the business views safety and wether he has the capital to get the work done.
We arent talking about Toll or Scotts here, this was a small operator with 20yr old trucks who by his own admission knows bugger all about how trucks function.

[pottery beige]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

In a perfect world, yes, but not all owners give a toss.
The owner at the centre of the story weve been discussing had only taken control of the company recently. From all reports his 'mechanic' had flagged the brake issue but at the end of the day it comes down to how the owner of the business views safety and wether he has the capital to get the work done.
We arent talking about Toll or Scotts here, this was a small operator with 20yr old trucks who by his own admission knows bugger all about how trucks function.

I call out the owner of the business (having previously driven said truck) in his own admission. Would have been more than aware said truck was a bucket of ****.

It was his out card in court playing the chicken scratch.

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

Where I am west of Brisbane.....the highways are rather hilly. I'm sure that's similar to many many highways around Australia. I'd love to hear the opinion of a truck driver as to how they approach these situations. As I've said. I've seen it many times, trucks speeding up for hills ahead.(let alone on the flats)
And even 5 Kay's over is a huge amount for a loaded tuck. They are limited to 100 for a reason. They don't handle or brake well......and as covered in the quoted article.....lots of people die when things go wrong.

Yes, I've been down the Gap and the Range more times than I'd care to think, however 5k's over is nothing. (On the Newell most HP cars will let you get away with 5k)
As for not stopping or handling, most modern Trucks are more Hi-tech than many cars. This is how well they can stop....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ridS396W2BY

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

I also found it weird that truckies were getting away with fines because they couldn't pin point who was driving the truck at the time. I thought all that was regulated and drivers had to do logbooks. Hence if the books wearnt filled......there's another fine....on top of the fine for speeding that should have no bearing on who's driving anyway!

Knowing who was driving which truck and when is dead simple, and the Office will not wear a fine when it can be passed on to the Driver.

Compared to car drivers, Log Book fines are huge. I haven't been booked for one for years so not sure of the fine scale, but FULL NOISE may be able to help here.

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

Yes, I've been down the Gap and the Range more times than I'd care to think, however 5k's over is nothing. (On the Newell most HP cars will let you get away with 5k)
As for not stopping or handling, most modern Trucks are more Hi-tech than many cars. This is how well they can stop....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ridS396W2BYKnowing who was driving which truck and when is dead simple, and the Office will not wear a fine when it can be passed on to the Driver.

Compared to car drivers, Log Book fines are huge. I haven't been booked for one for years so not sure of the fine scale, but FULL NOISE may be able to help here.

Yeah exactly...I thought it was wierd they'd have to chase a driver down at all tho. If log books are legit then there's no hiding who was the offender.

And that's an amazing video. Too bad all trucks can't stop as fast as cars tho. Should be mandatory that ALL vehicles can hit a benchmark. And I'd be interested in throwing some potholes, corners and some bumps on there.....like a real road and see how that Volvo pulls up!!

But I'm still not sure I agree with your assessment of speeding trucks. A truck limited too 100 should not go over 100 ever. It's bad enough cars speeding but as mentioned...trucks dont stop or handle well at all. I wonder how much further an extra 5klms per hr would take a 40ton truck to stop. 10 metres?......20?...50?. Not good at all.

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

But I'm still not sure I agree with your assessment of speeding trucks. A truck limited too 100 should not go over 100 ever. It's bad enough cars speeding but as mentioned...trucks dont stop or handle well at all. I wonder how much further an extra 5klms per hr would take a 40ton truck to stop. 10 metres?......20?...50?. Not good at all.

You should try it at an extra 30-50kmh over like we used to do before they took all the fun out of driving, by inventing stuff like radar, divided roads ABS etc

[Full Noise]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

Compared to car drivers, Log Book fines are huge. I haven't been booked for one for years so not sure of the fine scale, but FULL NOISE may be able to help here.

Yeah, touch wood, it’s been a long time since I’ve made a donation to our "extremely well run state governments" for an error in a log book. The last one I copped was in 2000 and that was when they were cheap, around $165 a page.

The understanding I have is that they start at around $750 ish per page for some BS they refer to as a minor breach. Then they have major and critical breaches that go straight to court. They also ground you on the side of the road for 24 hours.

I’ve heard some horror stories of how big the fines can be but because I can’t confirm it, I’ll just say that they can be substantial, in the many thousands.

There was some talk a while back about the NTC bringing in fines of around $180 ish for genuine typographical errors, however, I’m not 100% sure on this.

I tend not to read a lot of the BS in this thread as there’s some who have “NFI” yet push their opinions and stupid ideas on us like they’ve been in the game for 30 years.


Blah blah…

I was in my car the other day and some clown in a truck overtook me on the four lane section of the Monash Freeway. I was outraged. I rang the police, my mum, I even rang Tracy Grimshaw at A Current Affair. Sure my speedo was pointing at 90 and it was a 100 zone but that’s not the point. He overtook me and I could have been killed. Lucky for this bloke that the nearest school zone was on Waverly Rd otherwise all of the kids at Salesian College would have been killed as well. Hopefully the police will do something about these terror trucks that travel at 100 in a 100 zone.
Won’t someone think of the children?

PS
I’m still trying to find a transport company "ANY TRANSPORT COMPANY" that is willing to pay a huge fine just because they either don’t have the heart to forward it on or just can’t figure out who was towing their trailer when it went through a red light or speed camera.

Can any of the experts here help me?

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by Full Noise

Yeah, touch wood, it’s been a long time since I’ve made a donation to our "extremely well run state governments" for an error in a log book. The last one I copped was in 2000 and that was when they were cheap, around $165 a page.

The understanding I have is that they start at around $750 ish per page for some BS they refer to as a minor breach. Then they have major and critical breaches that go straight to court. They also ground you on the side of the road for 24 hours.

I’ve heard some horror stories of how big the fines can be but because I can’t confirm it, I’ll just say that they can be substantial, in the many thousands.

There was some talk a while back about the NTC bringing in fines of around $180 ish for genuine typographical errors, however, I’m not 100% sure on this.

I tend not to read a lot of the BS in this thread as there’s some who have “NFI” yet push their opinions and stupid ideas on us like they’ve been in the game for 30 years.


Blah blah…

I was in my car the other day and some clown in a truck overtook me on the four lane section of the Monash Freeway. I was outraged. I rang the police, my mum, I even rang Tracy Grimshaw at A Current Affair. Sure my speedo was pointing at 90 and it was a 100 zone but that’s not the point. He overtook me and I could have been killed. Lucky for this bloke that the nearest school zone was on Waverly Rd otherwise all of the kids at Salesian College would have been killed as well. Hopefully the police will do something about these terror trucks that travel at 100 in a 100 zone.
Won’t someone think of the children?

They seem like heavy fines for petty offences. Paperwork mistakes?...really? Wow. Perhaps the fines should be left for those drivers who actually offend dangerously. Like speed!

(Mind you, if you think those fines are heavy, try cutting the footpath crossover phone lines with a digger in or near a cbd. Upwards of hundreds of thousands to a million.......an HOUR)