Two killed as driver avoids road block

Were you able to deduce that the roadblock was setup incorrectly by reading the article?
As far as I know it is also illegal to drive a car when you are intoxicated.
Sadly we are not discussing what ifs but let’s say the roadblock was not there and he crashed into someone else further down the road.
 
When the police setup roadblocks to catch drunk drivers, people complain that they just want bribes and are avoiding real police work.

Then, when a drunk driver kills someone, they saw, where are the cops and why do they not check to make sure people are not drunk?

You can't have it both ways people.
 
Swa said:
Roadblocks that are only visible when you are in spitting distance of them is a recipe for accidents like this when people unsafely try to avoid them.
Click to expand...
If they were visible from a long way off then everybody would avoid them which kind of defeats the purpose.
 
Crowley said:
If they were visible from a long way off then everybody would avoid them which kind of defeats the purpose.
Click to expand...

Seeing that most roadblocks are actually harassment I have no problem in their purpose being defeated. Perhaps if the plods stopped sitting under trees and actually did some visible policing they'd pick up drunken drivers before they caused accidents.
 
Albereth said:
Probably wants it banned too.

Which is odd because liquor isn't a problem.

Spoons are though. They make you fat.
Click to expand...

Lies... its not spoons...

Its those deep fryers at KFC.. they must be banned immediately.
 
Crowley said:
If they were visible from a long way off then everybody would avoid them which kind of defeats the purpose.
Click to expand...
The purpose is to be a visible presence. That discourages lawlessness on the road just like speed camera warnings discourages speeding.

gregmcc said:
When you are drunk and in a accident you are less likely to suffer major injuries. You body is more relaxed.
Click to expand...
Somehow I don't think that is the explanation. People also tense up when they see a roadblock so it was probably just luck of the draw.
 
Swa said:
The purpose is to be a visible presence. That discourages lawlessness on the road just like speed camera warnings discourages speeding.
.
Click to expand...

Your argument fails in every way. If the road block was not there, the intoxicated driver would have caused an accident somewhere else. I'd wager that your argument in that scenario would be "Why don't we have more road blocks?" or "Why is there is no police presence" .

Fact is, road blocks serve a purpose. To take people off the roads who shouldn't be on them in the first place. It's completely idiotic to think they're a hazard and should be banned.
 
Slootvreter said:
*COULD
Click to expand...

I say would. He caused an accident that morning. He would have caused one somewhere else. So please let's not get hung up over could / would have etc.. My argument is still valid regardless how you see it
 
Tander said:
I say would. He caused an accident that morning. He would have caused one somewhere else. So please let's not get hung up over could / would have etc.. My argument is still valid regardless how you see it
Click to expand...

I think your argument is invalid. Otherwise every single drunk driver would kill people every single time. And they don't.
 
Swa said:
Yes we don't know the exact details apart from him crashing into a car that was going in the opposite direction. He obviously did a maneuver at the last moment so if that's anything to go by it was NOT very visible which is the case with most roadblocks.
Click to expand...

Roadblocks are visible and every road block I have seen on Hendrik Potgieter road have been visible. If you cannot see most roadblocks then you should not be driving.
 
Last edited:
Tander said:
Your argument fails in every way. If the road block was not there, the intoxicated driver would have caused an accident somewhere else. I'd wager that your argument in that scenario would be "Why don't we have more road blocks?" or "Why is there is no police presence" .

Fact is, road blocks serve a purpose. To take people off the roads who shouldn't be on them in the first place. It's completely idiotic to think they're a hazard and should be banned.
Click to expand...
Your counter fails in every way. He made an accident trying to avoid the roadblock in a hurry. He could have made an accident somewhere else but from the sheer number of drunk drivers on our roads daily with only a few resulting in accidents the statistics are against that. You are also turning the argument into no roadblocks where it was for visible roadblocks.

dlk001 said:
Roadblocks are visible and every road block I have seen on Hendrik Potgieter road have been visible. If you cannot see most roadblocks then you should not be driving.
Click to expand...
Then most of the people I talk to should not be driving as they all say the same thing. Or more likely they aren't visible as we already know.
 
Swa said:
Your counter fails in every way. He made an accident trying to avoid the roadblock in a hurry. He could have made an accident somewhere else but from the sheer number of drunk drivers on our roads daily with only a few resulting in accidents the statistics are against that. You are also turning the argument into no roadblocks where it was for visible roadblocks.
Click to expand...

So are you saying south Africa has a low vehicle accident and death rate? I can put words in your mouth since you are trying to shift the blame from the driver to the roadblock while you have no idea of how the roadblock was setup.

http://www.sadd.org.za/education/statistics
In South Africa, legislation sets drivers’ maximum blood alcohol concentration at the internationally acceptable level of 0.05 g/100 ml, yet almost half (46.5%) of all drivers killed in motor vehicle collisions were above this legal limit.
Click to expand...

http://www.aa.co.za/upload/documents/general/aa-foundation-drunken-driving.pdf
 
Tander said:
I say would. He caused an accident that morning. He would have caused one somewhere else. So please let's not get hung up over could / would have etc.. My argument is still valid regardless how you see it
Click to expand...

Your argument is invalid. You do not know that he would certainly have caused an accident somewhere else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X