Guy crossing flooded river finally charged

" Lahiff pleaded guilty to driving without due consideration for other road-users"

What about charging him with something along the lines of "Recklessly endangering life" given the risk to his kid??

Thats a great result, it was a sily thing to do and he should be taken to task for it.Well done to the Wallopers

Well as silly as the fella may or may not have been it could just have set a precident now where crossing a flooded river may be seen as an offence! Something I've seen hundreds of people do including driving around road closure signs where locals know the roads & depths. "Driving without due concideration for other road users" is garbage as only he & his son were endangered, no one else.
Also opens up another can of worms where an unsuspecting photographer who's posted what he's seen as an exciting river crossing on Utube for a bit of a laugh has now been used to prosecute the fella, something I doubt he intended to do. It's no wonder people black out their number plates in photo's as who really know's who's looking?
Cheers Craig.............

It is idiots like him that give 4WD owners a bad name. Good to see he finally got what he deserves!!!!!

This reminds me of the four police officers who were apparently doing some driver training near Meadows SA one day. They attempted to cross a flooded fast flowing creek in a 100 series, even though the depth marker indicated a 1.2 mt depth and it was fast flowing they still attempted it.
They got swept away, the 100s drowned and one of them had to be rescued by the SES and was treated for hyperthermia.
Dont know if the road was "closed" or not but no doubt no one was charged, maybe a reprimand by their superiors, who knows.
But this bloke in Qld drove on a closed road and that attracts a penalty no matter where the closed road is.

The kid in the pasenger seat has a grin from ear to ear - probably egged his Dad on

If this bridge is supposed to 6 0r 7 meters above the normal water level and it was not visible, how did he possibly know it was still intact. He risked a rather watery grave for his young companion and himself.

I know we should let the Darwin Awards take their course but the little fella had no input did he?

$70,000 vehicle & boat...and I wonder what he paid for a lawyer?

Is there any body on this forum who was at Murrays Bridge on the Condamine when this happened ....???????

Would be great to know any of the following points.

1/. ... Was the bridge closed or was the crossing not recommended ... according to the signage ??? - bit hard to tell looking at the back of the displayed signs.
2/. ... Were light vehicles only,... restricted from crossing ... or all vehicles ??
3/. ... What knowledge of the area did the driver have. ??
4/. ... Had someone, in actual fact, informed the driver that the road was intact beneath the water. ?? e.g. a local with a UHF or maybe even one of those modern, cant be without ... mobile telephone thingys ???


Whilst I am pretty sure that we are all in agreeance that the action was, at the least ... risky ... AND with a lot of " WHAT IF and MAYBE " situations tossed in ... downright stupid and life threatening ... what were the actual conditions at the time. ???

As with everyone else who is commenting on this event ... I only have the photos to go by. The photos show me .........

1/. ...A flooded river,
2/. ...A 4wd with water up to its windscreen,
3/. ...The tops of road markers and water cascading over the handrails/guard rails of a concrete bridge ... ( ooops ... I had to google the bridge to find out it was concrete )
4/. ...The fastest flowing water is in the the river 'channel' ... as one would expect ... and the water nearer the banks is hardly moving by comparison.
5/. ...The fast flowing current is slowed at the bridge because of the armco and bridge railings. This is shown by the movement of the vehicle when it gets to the eastern side of the bridge and leaves the protection of the railing area ...( he probably should have steered right a bit more prior to that point )
6/. ...A floating boat - sideways to the towing vehicle ... boats do that ... obviously is a good safe boat with lots of bouyancy, to happily lift trailer as well.
The nose of the boat pointing upstream actually reduces drag.
7/. ...The vehicle is a trayback and regardless of brand is much better suited to flowing water crossings, than a slabsided, all wheel drive station wagon. Water pressure on the vehicle is less, as water can get through the chassis and tray frame. That might help explain to some, why an apparently unladen ute didnt get washed off the eastern side of the bridge approach. ( East is basically the way the vehicle was heading ) I will briefly fall in line with the " what if " crowd and suggest that an aluminium tray instead of the steel one on the vehicle, might have been all that was needed to upset the weight balance and turn the event into a tragedy.
8/. ... A provided chart with the photos shows that the river had peaked at the time of the crossing. A river at its peak ... is also at its slowest ... Actually, less dangerous than a faster flowing, lower level of water. Anybody with a knowledge of estuary fishing will confirm this ... as will someone with two buckets, a funnel and a length of hose. Still not without its risks though........
9/. ...The term " raging waters " as bandied about, relates more to a Tully white water rafting trip than an overflowing river. Still ... its a good term to stir the emotions of those not having viewed or experienced such events ... " swift and strong " was the term in the newspaper report ... a surprisingly, subdued comment for a media article.

The presentation of the points above is not to to condone or promote the drivers actions nor to suggest others to do similiar ... They are simply a reality check, to help explain, why a person, who did something they shouldn't have done ( my view ), managed the crossing without mishap ... IMHO ... the driver failed to do so many things in preparation, which if carried out, would have made it plain to him not to cross at all !!

I for one, would not even attempt such a crossing in a new vehicle dependant on easily, water affected electronics to keep the engine running.. And from experience, I certainly would not tackle the water condition displayed in the photos, without having a semi / roadtrain in front of me, I could tuck in close behind .......

Oh and Brad S (SA) .... excellent signature ... probably should of just used that instead of typing all this .... lol