ABC Report on Kearns accident unbiased

I thought the NRMA survey showed the current Commodore sedan to have the worst rear vision? The worst 4wd was the 90 series Prado?

It reminds me of a Seven Sunrise show when Kochie was giving 4wds heaps and then the sports guy (Baretta) pointed out that Kochie drove a Mitsubishi Outlander. Kochie said that it wasn't really a 4wd! A much as I agree :-) I wonder what Mitsubishi thought about it? Considering they are a sponsor.

Willie,

There are so many important matters that the media could address.

But they don't, do they? It is always the easy play, no matter how low it is.

I agree that the field of view could be improved in all vehicles. However this is missing the point that slow speed accidents (a common source of injury for children up to 5 yrs) occur because the child was not restrained or because the driver did not walk around the vehicle before moving. It is not adequate to check field of view solely from within the vehicle if children or pets could be in the vicinity.

So a prudent driver takes more precautions including enlisting the aid of an observer where necessary.

Most slow speed accidents happen in the driveway of the family home. This is often because the driveway and parking are not securely fenced off from play and living areas.

I guess I was able to observe a lot of good practical child care when I was young and this prepared me better for when I too had children. But then that was in an extended family where there were many opportunities to watch and learn. I learned is that chilkdren are unpredictable and they are not always concious of sources of danger. So they have to be watched and supervised at all times and especially where machinery, chemicals and electricity are involved.

I have oversimplified, there are many more reasons why children get hurt in slow speed accidents, but suffice it to say that rear vision could NEVER be improved enough to cope with small children, those who bolt for the car, those who hide under the vehicle etc etc.

Of course the journos know things are not as simple as they pretend, but why let facts get in the road of a good story?

Finally, if field of view is restricted in many vehicles (and it is), why don't the motoring journalists pick it up in their review? Has it never crossed the mind of the editor that his/her motoring journalist gave a big wrap to the vehicle/s they are presently sledging?

Has it ever crossed the mind of an editor that tired and busy people jsut make mistakes or that parents can be inexperienced and naive?

I noticed at the end of the ABC's 7.30 report on this subject a clip of a vehicle reversing down a driveway, with a child superimposed over the scene. Not a 4wd, but an MPV!! Now why don't the media get stuck into similar vehicles, and not just 4wd's? Doesn't fit their agenda?
Gerry

But is it not the onus on the driver to ensure that there is nothing behind the vehicle, be it a 4x4, sedan, people mover or whatever.

Each and every time I reverse out I make sure that there is nothing there, by physically checking ( I have a limited view as the canopy blocks most things below the " plastic" window).

As far as Harold Scrotum goes he should donate his time to more charitable pursuits like meals on wheels or the like, instead of his obsessional crusade against 4x4's.

Pity Today Tonight in Perth didn't match ABC unbiased coverage.

They showed two cars reversing over a cardboard cutout of a child. A Magna and a Nissan XTrail to represent 4WD's.

Yes the XTrail lost the cutout from view before the Magna, but at the speed both were reversing - far too fast - anything would have been at risk. ie it was a totally useless comparison but put up as proof of 4WD's being the baddies.

I was really pleased to see the ABC focus on visibility and driver attention as the issues, not the type of vehicle. Even the poor mother who knocked down and killed her own child a number of years ago quite openly said she should have taken more care and it didn't matter what vehicle type she was driving.

Don't get too het up folks, there are people with balanced views out there.

Tim

Didn't see it but that would have to be the first time Red Kez and the 7.30 report has presented an "unbiased" report on anything! As for the "Glasshouse", words fail me.

Hi....

Well, that just proves watching all the rubbish on the commercial "current affairs" shows is just that, ABSOLUTE RUBBISH. Always has, always will be. If it's not a disguised Ad, it's a cheap shot at someone who can't defend themselves.

One thing they did not mention on the 7:30 report (or any of the others, of course) was that the vehicle was actually moving FORWARD in this terrible accident!

So all that talk about poor rear vision was really not relevant in this particular case.

Cheers

I thought the ABC did a fair report.

However, no one on this site picked up on the expert who said that all vehicles should really exit a driveway forward, not backwards, due to the better visibility.
Not only thinking of the driveway, but also pedestrians on the footpath.

I thought it is illegal to reverse from private property onto roadway?

If we all reversed in, taking our time and while the kids were still in the car, or the house, might be a bit safer when leaving.

The newspapers got it WRONG

SMH retraction: http://www.smh.com.au/news/correction/corrections/2005/10/24/1130006061379.html

"Corrections

October 25, 2005

■ Yesterday's article "Accident sparks call for 4WD cameras" incorrectly said Phil Kearns was reversing his vehicle when his daughter was seriously injured. He was driving into his driveway."