Thread: Two killed in Fraser

Originally Posted by cal415

Its sad to see people killed in the accident and all but its something that could have easily been avoided with a bit of thought.

Isn't that the case in most "accidents"?

Originally Posted by numpty

So I thought. But the Sunday Mail quotes a Senior Constable as saying the stretch of beach where the accident occurred is 100kph.

Last night the ABC news said that they had "swerved to avoid a wave"

Honestly when you think about it:

• Top heavy troopy with luggage on the roof
• 11 Occupants
• Skinny tires - probably at road pressure
• Likely inexperienced driver
• Swerving in possibly soft sand.

100.....80....60...ever 50 ...it's not going to be pretty

I don't think there is any easy answer. Experience is the key.

Maybe these hire vehicles need to come with an experienced driver.

I know they say they have to do some training... but honestly those I helped on the Island 18 months ago had no idea.

• They had been told specifically they were not to change the tire pressures ( They were at 40 psi )

• When I hopped in to try and help.. it turned out no one in the vehicle had any idea what the little gear stick did. ! Terrific training hey

I know many of us have traveled that beach at 80 or above.. and in many places that's quite safe.. ( I know cause I was doing 80 when the Garbage truck over took me )
But I'm sure we all adjust our driving to the conditions - something that is very hard to do without experience.

It's a sad situation - I just hope we are not all exposed to knee jerk government reactions - "solving the problem"... because no doubt it will be the wrong problem they solve, again

Mark

Regardless the experience of the friver I will never go in a troopie with 11 people on board!
Seating at the back there it is no way that a bad injure can be avoided if the vehicle roll over

Originally Posted by Chucaro

Regardless the experience of the friver I will never go in a troopie with 11 people on board!
Seating at the back there it is no way that a bad injure can be avoided if the vehicle roll over

You could sustain an injury without a collision

Originally Posted by V8Ian

You could sustain an injury without a collision

Yes seating at the back and go over a pot hole

Why it is tragic that people have needlessly lost their lifes in this incident it was NOT an accident.

Last year we spent some time on Fraser Island and I was horrified at the general conditions of the 4 x 4 for hire, the way that they were badly loaded and the inexperience of the drivers.

Barbara's son and then girlfriend were touring Australia as well last year. They were under strict instructions NOT to take a ride in these death traps. Barbara offered to pay the difference between a communal ride in an overloaded troop carrier and a small 4 x 4 vehicle for the two of them.

Most of the people who used these vehicles are young backpackers who probably have minimal driving experience. Let alone any experience of driving a badly maintained, badly and overloaded 4wd vehicle on nonsealed roads.

These vehicles would typically have over half a tonne on the roof. Lets say 12 rucksacks weighing 20-30 kg each plus tents, cooking gear, slabs of beer etc. What does that do to a already compromised centre of gravity? What is the legal pay load of these vehicles? Over 1.25 tonnes? I doubt it as 11 people = 750 kg plus 500kg luggage would overload most 4 x 4 vehicles

This incident happened due to in my opinion the inexperience of the driver and the money grabbing attitude of the hire companies.

Will it happen again? Most probably! Can it be avoided in the future? Probably not, irrespective of what legal restrictions/obligations placed on hire companies/drivers etc.

Regards



Brendan

Originally Posted by leeds

What is the legal pay load of these vehicles?

From memory GVM is 3300kg.
Our work ones have HD rear springs and are legally allowed up to 3700kg GVM.

Originally Posted by BigJon

From memory GVM is 3300kg.
Our work ones have HD rear springs and are legally allowed up to 3700kg GVM.

Just had a quick look at the Toyota site for Land Cruisers and found

(Note: Kerb, tare & payload weights are nominal and will vary depending on options and tray/body type.)
Kerb Weight (kg) 2335
Gross Vehicle Mass (kg) 3300
Seating capacity (includes driver) 5
Fuel Tank Capacity (litres) 180
Vehicle Towing capacity - with trailer brakes (kg) 3500
- Without trailer brakes (kg) 750

OK that is for a modern one so the payload would be 965 kg

I could not readily find a figure for the roof rack limit on Toyotas but for Defenders it is 150kg


A quick search also found THIS

The solution for owners/managers of Toyota Landcruiser 79 Series Cab Chassis and Troop Carrier vehicles who have a need to carry loads to a GVM of 3700 kg (up from 3200kg standard GVM), and Toyota Landcruiser 70 Series V8 Cab Chassis and Troop Carrier vehicles who have a need to carry loads to a GVM of 3900 kg (up from 3300kg standard GVM), while at the same time meeting the practical and documentary compliance requirements of Work Safety, Police Licensing, Insurance, Lessors and Fleet Managers.

WHY DO VEHICLES REQUIRE G.V.M (Gross Vehicle Mass) SUSPENSION UPGRADES?
Need to protect Business, Managers from claims for breaches of OH&S rules and employee negligence.
Possibility of Insurance companies to void payout if the vehicle is loaded beyond approved GVM.
Possibility of litigation under common law if the vehicle is operated beyond its legal Load Limits.
Requirements to load vehicle and operate safely with weight beyond current Original Equipment limits for heavy and/or remote work
SOLUTION

WHAT AMOUNT OF INCREASE SHOULD YOU EXPECT?
Officially sanctioned GVM Kit provides:

GVM to 3700kg on 79 Series and GVM to 3900kg on 70 Series
GVM increase of 500 kg on 79 Series and GVM increase of 600 kg on 70 Series.
Load carrying capacity of around 1500 kg (dependent on load bearing accessories

Now that kit costs A$3,100. Even if the upgraded suspension was fitted (which I doubt) then the vehicle was probably running close to if not over its GVM.


Assuming Australian driving law is similar to the UK then the driver is quite likely facing a jail sentence for causing death by dangerous driving. Dangerous driving due (a) swerving to miss an incoming wave which is a predictable event, (b) driving what at first sight appears to be an overloaded vehicle, (c) maintainence and general condition of the vehicle??? On this front I can feel sorry for the driver

The company who owns/maintains/rents out the vehicle are also culperable (IMO) in these deaths if it can be shown that the vehicle was (a) overloaded (b) not maintained to high standards.

Having seen some of the vehicles hired out on Fraser Island I would think it would be quite possible to prove the culability of the company.

Reducing the speed limit on the beach will not prevent further incidents. Best way to avoid such incidents is to make the companies more culpable for the condition and the way their vehicles are used.

Regards


Brendan