Everyone needs to read this.

That mother was grieving after her two lost children and she did a brave thing to expose her emotions by writing up her story.

Unrestrained kids can cause more accidents than people realise.

A common cause; The mum makes sure that her two and three year old are strapped in well after doing the shopping and drives off.

Next she is in heavy go stop traffic and checks her rear view mirror to see the three year old is out of it's seat. She wasn't watching the car in front and there is a nose to tail collision.
.

V8ian, thanks for the reminder. Yes I did cry.
I'll do my best to remember this when I'm caught behind a truck, tractor, caravan, or anything that I perceive is slowing me up, or making my day not my way.


I'll leave the rest for others to kick around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vnx205

Sometimes calling a spade a spade actually dilutes the message.

People are so fixated on the offence that the comment causes that they don't notice the message at all.

The message is lost and the only thing remembered is the offence.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eevo

i understand what you're saying but thats their problem not mine.
as they say: you look intelligent so i'll do you the courtesy of being blunt.

The only people that struggle with being told the blunt truth are liars, people who avoid dealing with things, naive people and people who don't listen.

Who wants to hear the bad truths? Therefore, when an individual is realistic about or observant of something that others would rather ignore, they are deemed as negative, brutal people. thats isnt the case

---

I believe that the issue we are discussing here is evident in the story originally posted, so I consider our discussion to be relevant to this thread.

There are aspects of what you are saying that I agree with, but I don't believe that what you are saying is universally true.

Sharon Hourne chose to tell her story in a particular way, yet the way she told it appears to have distracted you from the message about road safety that others here have found in her account. No doubt she believes what she is saying and is "telling it as she sees it", yet it turned out to be a rather ineffective way of conveying her message to you. Does that mean that is your problem or hers?

It would seem that if she had left out the emotion and the religious comments she might have been more successful in getting some of her message across to you. One of the road safety messages on TV at the moment has the message "road accidents affect more than just you" and her story illustrates that. You might not like how she described the way she was affected, but there seems little doubt that the impact on her was profound.

She was blunt about how she was affected and you seem to have missed the point.

In a more general sense, there is a problem with applying your principle of being blunt. It might be a useful principle to apply if things were always clear cut and if all truths were absolute. Furthermore often when people think they are "telling the truth", they are merely offering their opinion.

I think you have a valid point about the importance of logic, the necessity for people to accept reality and the dangers of allowing emotion to control your life. However your blunt first post was a particularly ineffective way of conveying what I believe is a legitimate point. You were so focused on being blunt, honest and direct and avoiding sugar coating that you completely failed to get your point across.

You say that if people are offended and miss your point then that is their problem. That is fine as long as you are happy to waste your time by having your message lost. I think a better approach is to try to present the message so that people are at least prepared to listen.

I won't apologise if any of this seems harsh. :p:p

And of course, all this is merely my opinion rather than a universal truth. :p:p:p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by isuzurover

I got a similar message. The two people in the truck wearing seatbelts survived. The two that weren't didn't survive.

---

Can think of a car accident in Paris a few years ago that makes the statement here. Is such a classic example not sure why it has not been used in road safety campaigns. 4 people in the car which was speeding, drugs and drink involved. 3 died 1 survived. The survivor was the only one wearing a seat belt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Davo

Will, drive over the car next time if you have to, but don't flip a tractor and kill yourself because of someone like that. That's the problem with the original story, where a loaded truck with unrestrained passengers gave way to a car doing the wrong thing. That's one time when you've got to think of yourself first.

(Now, when it's the other way around and it's the big vehicle at fault I know from experience there's not much you can do. I stay a long, long way from roadtrains because of some of the things they've done.)

---

Actually its an offence to pull onto the side of the road and continue driving on the shoulder to let cars pass. While it may appear to be courtesy, as this story shows the shoulder may give way and it is a fact that trucks returning to the road to avoid obstacles on the shoulder have caused other crashes. (They're not accidents, because there are faults on behalf of human drivers.)

As suggested by people posting in this thread, there are numerous human factors resulting in the tragic outcome, unrestrained children, likely no seating for the two occupant children, neglient driving by the car and the truck leaving the made road surface.

It all gets too confusing to portray the important message.

i started reading the first post but stopped pretty quick as i could see which way it was heading.........

after reading some of the above replys i got the gist of the story........when i was young i was pretty reckless on the road, i count my lucky stars these days as i was lucky, i now drive to the conditions and defer rarely get the chance to overtake anything on the roads......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vnx205

I believe that the issue we are discussing here is evident in the story originally posted, so I consider our discussion to be relevant to this thread.

There are aspects of what you are saying that I agree with, but I don't believe that what you are saying is universally true.

Sharon Hourne chose to tell her story in a particular way, yet the way she told it appears to have distracted you from the message about road safety that others here have found in her account. No doubt she believes what she is saying and is "telling it as she sees it", yet it turned out to be a rather ineffective way of conveying her message to you. Does that mean that is your problem or hers?

It would seem that if she had left out the emotion and the religious comments she might have been more successful in getting some of her message across to you. One of the road safety messages on TV at the moment has the message "road accidents affect more than just you" and her story illustrates that. You might not like how she described the way she was affected, but there seems little doubt that the impact on her was profound.

She was blunt about how she was affected and you seem to have missed the point.

In a more general sense, there is a problem with applying your principle of being blunt. It might be a useful principle to apply if things were always clear cut and if all truths were absolute. Furthermore often when people think they are "telling the truth", they are merely offering their opinion.

I think you have a valid point about the importance of logic, the necessity for people to accept reality and the dangers of allowing emotion to control your life. However your blunt first post was a particularly ineffective way of conveying what I believe is a legitimate point. You were so focused on being blunt, honest and direct and avoiding sugar coating that you completely failed to get your point across.

You say that if people are offended and miss your point then that is their problem. That is fine as long as you are happy to waste your time by having your message lost. I think a better approach is to try to present the message so that people are at least prepared to listen.

I won't apologise if any of this seems harsh. :p:p

And of course, all this is merely my opinion rather than a universal truth. :p:p:p

---

Eloquently written!!!!!:arms::arms:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eevo

it was 1995

seatbelt laws came in during the 70's?

---

Not in trucks they didn't, I gave up driving interstate in 1987 and seat belts weren't mandatory in trucks then, though passengers other than a second driver were not covered by third Party Insurance, regards Frank.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3toes

Can think of a car accident in Paris a few years ago that makes the statement here. Is such a classic example not sure why it has not been used in road safety campaigns. 4 people in the car which was speeding, drugs and drink involved. 3 died 1 survived. The survivor was the only one wearing a seat belt.

---

But if that is true, how does this work?

Lady Diana died as she was involved in a vehicle collision at high speed and her seat belt was not done up... Fair enough...

Michael Hutchence was stationary and his belt was done up tight yet he died??? (I know... sorry! :twisted::eek: )

Digger are you posting from hospital that was a sick one:wasntme: