News24

Horror crash after car swerves to avoid dog

2012-03-31 11:25

Johannesburg - A teenager has died in a multiple car crash which left at least another 13 people critically injured on the N12 highway on Saturday, south of Johannesburg, paramedics said.

"Two cars, a bakkie and a very big truck were involved in a collision. When paramedics arrived there were people lying everywhere, including the children on the back of the bakkie," said ER24 spokesperson Derrick Banks.

"A child aged between 14 and 16 deteriorated on the scene, and unfortunately passed away."

He said the accident happened near the Southgate Mall around 08:00.

Netcare 911 spokesperson Jeffrey Wicks said it was believed that the accident occurred when one car swerved to avoid a dog which ran across the road.

The other vehicles then crashed into it, and skidded to a halt on the road.

He said three children, aged between six and 16, were trapped in the wreckage and seriously injured.

Paramedics were still on the scene around 10:00.

In a separate incident on Saturday morning, 16 people were injured when the minibus taxi they were travelling in crashed on the N1 south near the Rivonia offramp, said Banks.

He said three people were treated for suspected neck and back injuries while the others suffered minor injuries.

Comments
  • goyougoodthing - 2012-03-31 11:31

    1st rule of the road is you don't swerve to avoid animals unfortunately, as this is the result.

      Janice - 2012-03-31 11:40

      Horrible horrible accident. Condolences to all involved.

      goyougoodthing - 2012-03-31 11:47

      I agree Janice, sad.

      joanne.fairbrother - 2012-03-31 23:02

      Does this same rule apply if it's a person?

      Shaun - 2012-04-01 08:12

      agree

      Jason - 2012-04-01 08:53

      Yes Jo it does. You never swerve to avoid anything or anyone running in front of you, unless you are completely aware of whats around you! Which anybody licensed to drive a vehicle should be. This is why we constantly check our mirrors, so we have a mental image of the bigger picture at all times.

      maseratifittipaldi - 2012-04-01 09:23

      You should always do your utmost to avoid driving into a living thing crossing or stationary on the road. You only hit it when you have no other option. One should always drive defensively and be aware of the obstacles facing the drivers in front of you.

      Jason - 2012-04-01 11:50

      @Maserat...... where did you get your info from. You never swerve for a dog or cat or a duck or a buck...............and the only time you swerve for a person is if you are sure there is no one around you. Your swerving could result in multiple deaths.

      Saleé - 2012-04-01 16:40

      @JasonEye and @goyougoodthing - I would not say "never swerve for animals". The rule is that if you must, then swerve to the left (two-way street), if it is safe to do so. It does not matter what it is you are swerving for. Even a pothole qualifies (which most of us swerve for almost daily). Driving into a cow in the middle of the road could be more dangerous than swerving to the left, in order to avoid it. @maserat is 100% correct. The bottom-line is that a good driver will know when it is OK to swerve and when it is not and will, as you say, always have an image of the bigger picture. Swerve on, but swerve safely. What makes swerving dangerous half the time is that people drive too fast and then before they know it, there's an obstacle i front of them; and too little time to weigh up the different options. They then act instinctively and cause accidents.

      danie.theron - 2012-04-02 09:59

      @Salee - I agree 100 % with you, my concern is the % "good" drivers on the road....

      radlegend - 2012-04-02 13:26

      so so true! rather kill a dog and dent your fender than risk someone dying. RIP...

  • Shoosh - 2012-03-31 11:34

    "A child aged between 14 and 16 deteriorated on the scene, and unfortunately passed away." How the h** does a child deteriorate, surely it should read "a childs CONDITION deteriorated..

      Tony - 2012-03-31 12:02

      please shoosh

      Billy - 2012-03-31 12:52

      Focus on the tragic issue you idiot, not the grammar of the reporter.

      Robsschele - 2012-03-31 13:40

      I understood quite well what was meant, teacher Shoosh.

      Tony - 2012-04-01 06:16

      Such a tragic story..... but you need to point out that there was a synax error .. did you check the spelling too?

      susan.lagrange - 2012-04-01 10:19

      Matter of the fact is that if you want to have a job as a reporter do it properly. There are not only many dead people involved but also unemployed due to morons. I am sure you all are well educated people so you all shoosh please and WELL DONE SHOOSH

      Jabu - 2012-04-02 11:01

      @ Billy, it's unfair of u to call Shoosh an idiot, News24 reporting is pathetic to say the least, in this case u r the one who's an idiot!!!

      Ben - 2012-04-02 12:13

      @Shoosh...You spell HELL with 4 ****

  • Shirley - 2012-03-31 11:41

    Tragic.Once again also hi lights the danger of passengers on the back of a bakkie-they dont stand a chance!

      Mathilda - 2012-04-01 05:46

      So true, Shirley. This is so sad, and also so unnecessary. In the almost 14 years we have lived in the USA now, I have NEVER seen a passenger on the back of any truck (bakkie), and I think they would immediately be pulled over and taken off the road if the police spotted it. Condolences to those grieving tonight, and speedy recovery to all the injured.

      Ronel - 2012-04-01 17:03

      Shirley,I see this every day,workers or kids on back bakkies.The Traffic ordanance is clear that it is illegal to transport people on the back of an open vehicle. I saw about 8 kids being put on at a creche. When I opened my mouth I was told to F>>>Off

      Chille - 2012-04-02 12:47

      In the States, it is illegal to transport a person on or even in (canopy) the back of a bakkie. All 2 legged occupants need to be buckled in (even in the back) and all 4 legged occupants in a car needs to be crated. I fully support this practice. The safety of my family is more important then my comfort or convenience.

      grant.hide - 2012-04-02 12:47

      Well with the brilliant work of our u know who, there isn't much money in the economy to have people purchase cars for the job at hand. Instead it goes to x5m's and the brother, and the friend who then only supports his other friend and so on. The money isnt leaving the rich, it's been contained by a select few who have the strings to pull higher up. What must they do, put the kids in a trolley and walk?

      skootzie - 2012-04-02 13:09

      Ronel: Regulation 250 of the National Traffic Act prohibits the transportation of people in the goods section of a vehicle for reward or for business purposes. However, Regulation 247 places limits on the transportation of people even for private use. The regulation states: "No person shall operate on a public road a goods vehicle conveying persons unless that portion of the vehicle in which such persons are being conveyed is enclosed to a height of at least 350mm above the surface upon which such person is seated." Meaning you can legally transport people in your bakkie, as long as a) you aren't charging them and b) they are seated on the floor of the bakkie.

      skootzie - 2012-04-02 13:10

      However, having said that, I think it's incredibly dangerous to transport anyone in the back of a bakkie, covered or otherwise.

  • hoyingomane - 2012-03-31 12:04

    My heart goes to those involved on the taxi,my relative could be on that taxi.

      Jabu - 2012-04-02 11:15

      It was a bakkie, awukhoni kufundza yini?NX!

      skootzie - 2012-04-02 13:11

      I'm wondering why you have so many Thumb Downs.. Wouldn't it be nice if people had the guts to respond with why they Thumb Down a post?

      Mvikeli - 2012-04-02 14:44

      @jabu: funda kahle, there are two separate accidents mentioned in the article

  • James - 2012-03-31 12:22

    Very tragic, condolences to all the families . RIP

  • acsteyn - 2012-03-31 12:28

    Although it's not the dog's fault, it would be intresting to know if the dog has an owner? In which case the dog should have been on a leesh. In this case the owner should take the wrap?

      karen.zyl - 2012-03-31 14:25

      Dogs come from informal settlements, I had the same accident, but I was lucky.

      karen.zyl - 2012-03-31 14:25

      BTW, If you love animals, most people swerve out for them, even for doves.

      Paul - 2012-03-31 17:32

      Rap!

      Paul - 2012-03-31 17:34

      Leash!!!!!!

      Peter - 2012-04-01 22:20

      intresting?leesh?wrap? SALife, get a life and spel propperlee!

      skootzie - 2012-04-02 13:12

      spell* properly* :P

  • smohloli - 2012-03-31 12:36

    I am sorry, but i am not avoiding no animal on a highway, human beings included, this is sad, especially since it cud have been avoided, may he/she RIP

  • Nicardo - 2012-03-31 12:51

    The driver of the swerved car must be arrested, period. That is dog, D-O-G, he should have killed it on the spot instead of killing those innocent kids. The dog was not supposed to be there in the first place...

      Shirley - 2012-03-31 12:59

      Swerving is almost an instinctive reaction,so I doubt vey much if a court would gind him guilty. The dog was there at the end of the day because somewhere along the line a human failed to look after him!!!!

      Shirley - 2012-03-31 13:08

      Sorry-should read "find"

      Sam - 2012-03-31 17:51

      Swerving to avoid something that suddenly appears in front of you is simply reflexive. Lots of times there are no consequences at all. To imply that this was a choice between killing a dog and killing kids is disingenuous. I suggest you hope and pray you're never in this situation - it could happen to any of us. Unfortunately.

      Jackie - 2012-04-02 12:21

      What a chop

      skootzie - 2012-04-02 13:14

      I'd be scared if I were driving with you, Nicardo, and knew that your instinctive reaction was to run down anything that appeared in front of your car. :)

  • Gershon Hutchinson - 2012-03-31 13:06

    My word, is the dog ok?

      Meyer - 2012-04-01 15:10

      Can you read Adrian? Clearly not. Gershon asked is the dog okay? Ythis implies he is expecting a yes/know answer not a neanderthal-like Eff the dog.All the best with Grade 9....

  • Robert E Meise Esq - 2012-03-31 13:41

    Yes , is the dog ok and not in pain on the side of the road

  • Robsschele - 2012-03-31 13:50

    That is a golden rule on any road. Do not swerve out for a dog or other small animal. Try and stay in your lane and avoid heavy braking. This is where experience and conditioning comes in. Normal human behaviour says swerve but instinctively you should know that you can die if you swerve into another car.

  • karen.inward - 2012-03-31 14:19

    Once again children were transported on the back of a bakkie. I don't understand why this is allowed. All persons seated inside a car, front and back, must wear a seat belt by law, but it's ok to have people sitting in the open without any protection whatsoever.

  • simonesunshine - 2012-03-31 16:25

    My husband and sister were at the the accident scene this morning, they were two of the many people that got of their vehicles to assist the children involved . They witnessed the accident as they were driving behind . My husband said" the response time of the medical services were pathetic . The dog died. Our Hearts go out to the children and their families.

  • Paul - 2012-03-31 16:41

    Poor dog! Everyone, except the dog, WAS careless. Now carless.

  • James - 2012-03-31 17:39

    It is illegal for people to ride on the back of a Bakkie in the US. I brake for Animals...and people. Don't tailgate me. I do not swerve disregarding my own safety.

      skootzie - 2012-04-02 13:24

      This is why we have following distances, which people largely ignore - blithely unaware of the distance required to stop their 1+ ton hunk of metal.

  • Arvin - 2012-03-31 19:22

    "A child aged between 14 and 16 deteriorated on the scene, and unfortunately passed away." Then the child must be 15.

      Koos - 2012-03-31 22:00

      I was just about to comment about that and that by the reporter’s statement that “the child deteriorated” that left images of a disintegrating child in my mind.

  • greg.groenewald - 2012-03-31 21:55

    "A child aged between 14 and 16 deteriorated on the scene, and unfortunately passed away." ....."deteriorated"..??..who the hell wrote this?..Surely English grammar or even a vague idea of wording is a qualification for accurate reporting...

      skootzie - 2012-04-02 13:29

      A child dies and you're nazi'ing about the grammar? Seriously?

      skootzie - 2012-04-02 13:31

      The definition of "deteriorate" means to "become progressively worse", thus "A child aged between 14 and 16 became progressively worse on the scene and unfortunately passed away." Since you already know the child was involved in the accident, why is it necessary to include any additional wording? The child got worse and died, it's really that simple.

      cameronrh1 - 2012-04-02 20:00

      @skootzie, i think greg is referring to the manner in which the children were described as dying... Its a rude word to associate to with a childs death. An ethical journalist would say they passed away on the scene... Not deteriorated, it gives one the incentive to think of graphic images... Not actually sympathising with the children... But i suppose you wouldn't mind being referred to as deteriorated on the the scene of your death?

      skootzie - 2012-04-03 08:48

      From the journalist's perspective (and the editors') there was nothing wrong with their choice of words; the intent was to highlight the fact that the child's health deteriorated (a perfectly acceptable phrase) and he/she succumbed to their injuries and passed away. I don't disagree that that may have been Greg's intent nor with your view that the journalist could have chosen a more delicate turn of phrase / word, however, I believe it's a matter of a perspective on how people define/interpret words. Some people identify "deteriorate" as you do, while others identify it as I do. It's semantics and personal interpretation. :)

  • Sandy - 2012-04-01 09:39

    What a tragic accident, but it is instinct of a driver swerving.

  • Alex - 2012-04-01 10:09

    I was there that morning, the dog was dead in the middle lane. The cars in front of me saw it very late and it took up most of the lane. You had to change lanes to miss it which I did, SAFELY. The problem is there were other cars which came to a halt by the scene who decided to change lanes spontaneously joining the outer lanes in first gear. That's when I had to swerve out to avoid it. Felt very lucky to have NOT been in an accident after that, saw the scene again on the way back and felt even more so. The combination of the dead dog and the way some motorists react to it unfortunately made this a deadlier situation than it had to be.

  • zelda.runawaybride - 2012-04-01 13:27

    The poor dog is yes just a dog... Goodness THIS is CHILDREN we are talking about! And yes I do agree HOW the heck do you transport children on the back of a bakkie on THE HIGH WAY!!!!!! I am very very angry! This is my family and "E-TV" was irresponsible to send a BAKKIE to pick the kids up! (I understand from my sister they were transported for a play day or shoot by E-TV to some Mall for the day SO if I have my facts wrong I apologize).. May God have mercy on all involved.

      Irma - 2012-04-02 10:30

      Is legal action going to be taken against ETV? It would serve them right. However they have not issued any statement? It would be interesting to hear what they say.

  • zelda.runawaybride - 2012-04-01 13:42

    Little Sheldon is in the theater NOW as we speak! They are binding his skull and he also have injury to his one eye and his arm is badly cut! Please Dear god keep him safe and his Mommy strong!

      Alaina - 2012-04-01 15:40

      Wishing him all the best. <3

      Peter - 2012-04-01 22:27

      Zelda, you are in my prayers tonight and also little Sheldon. I am sure he will get better. Regards.

      Lestine - 2012-04-02 12:32

      Oh Zelda my deepest symphaty I actually watch this horror unfold in front of my eyes, it was like a movie where you can anticipate what's going to happen next. That's right I saw the truck approaching and knew that very moment it was gonna cause the accident.

  • jmlongwe - 2012-04-01 22:40

    Why would you swerve knowing you have kids in the back nogal, no man, i'd never swerve especially on the highway unless im moving under 80kmph. This driver just cant make good quick decisions which is a requirement of driving

      skootzie - 2012-04-02 13:41

      Half the people on our roads have the reaction time of a bowl of syrup.

      Lestine - 2012-04-02 15:00

      the guy did not swerve he crashed into a taxi - fender bender. This vehicle was in the process of moving towards the emergency lane following the taxi when a truck at full speed crashed into it

  • thabzmadi - 2012-04-02 08:05

    sad and terrible reminder of how fragile we are, always drive safely and defensively people.

  • Marina - 2012-04-02 08:37

    Why oh why do people allow their animals to run loose?

  • Blip - 2012-04-02 08:52

    Hit a dog at speed and the repair bill will make you eyes water.

  • ReportMe - 2012-04-02 08:54

    very tragic story

  • Tugwana - 2012-04-02 08:58

    I'd never swerve to avoid an animal esp on a busy public road. Look at what had just happened. Did he/she think the life of a "stray dog" dog is more important than the life of ppl and is also more valued than the cost of repairing a car that had knocked down a stray dog, cat, birds etc? The driver must surely be charged for reckless driving & inculpable homicide. Some ppl suffer from abnormal love of animals!

      Konrad - 2012-04-02 09:47

      @tugwana- please explain. what is inculpable homocide.first time i have heard of such a crime. also please explain,why do you say reckless driving??? where is the intent as per the definition of recless driving ???

  • ilsewepener - 2012-04-02 10:23

    Some of these comments are really stupid. Condolences to the families, what a terrible accident. For everyone judging - it is instinct to swerve for something. Secondly, people and animals are not allowed on highways, it is against the law. However, every week we hear of pedestrians being killed on the N1 or stray animals that cause accidents on the highways. Very very sad. And then the driver is always blamed...

  • Lestine - 2012-04-02 12:16

    the cause of this accident was neither the dog or the swerving it was a truck that approach an accident scene without slowing down having full vantage view the driver was aware that vehicles in front was slowing down and practically standing still. This happened almost a 30 seconds or more after the 'original incident'/dog.

  • Gareth69 - 2012-04-02 12:46

    here is a thought. Driving along diepsloot or kayalietsha at 2 am in the morning. You hit a person at 120 am, its a saturday early morning. Do you stop or do you go on to report it. Cause stoping likely to get you killed, especially if you a homes (whitey)

  • Jacky - 2012-04-02 12:52

    Hi all, are we all 100% sure that if the did not swerve out for the dog and hit him head on that there would not have been any incident I'm not so sure sometime your car can be badly damaged and also cause accicent if your engen is damaged????

      Gareth69 - 2012-04-02 13:27

      animals have more rights than humans

      Caleb - 2012-04-03 10:10

      Gareth, And I bet your pets sleep on your bed and you've named them human names, put sunblock on their noses and consider them at a higher level than innocent defensless kids.

  • molabakatleho - 2012-04-02 13:31

    what the hell was a dog doing in the street, i think the owner must be held responsible.

  • Atang - 2012-04-02 17:29

    hit the dog and save people's lives.

  • Caleb - 2012-04-03 10:06

    Unless we are highly trained commando's or marines etc, will we be able to have an evacuation plan for every eventuality. We are a ordinary citizens who react at the moment of distress.We don't prepare for every eventuality. We get a fright when someone scares us etc, etc, so to expect someone to react in a super calm rational way in order to prevent a catastrophe, is just not fair.

  • pages:
  • 1