Here's an actual example of slightly stupid reporting

[Pies4shaw]

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/round ... xxtbj.html

I live about two blocks from this little monstrosity and have driven, cycled, walked or trammed though it many, many times in the last 35 years.

Nevertheless, I was intrigued to see it described as the "roundabout of death" because I couldn't recall ever seeing a serious (or frankly any) incident there. I thought I must be mistaken about that.

The article starts with "It's reviled as the 'roundabout of death' and loathed by Melbourne motorists, pedestrians and cyclists alike." It quickly descends into farce with this little gem: "Belying the nickname, there have been no reported deaths ...."

What's wrong with just saying that it's a bizarre, confusing, congested and time-wasting intersection and money is being put towards developing an alternative design?

Perhaps the problem was that reporting that 6.3 out of every 10,000,000 trips through the intersection over the last 4 years have ended in an injury of some sort (do the maths - 23 injuries in 4 years, with 25,000 trips a day through there) wouldn't have struck us all as a substantial cause for priority concern?

Anyway, it will be good when it's fixed. And - provided people do the right thing and refrain from having heart attacks whilst near the intersection - the risk of sudden unexpected death whilst travelling through the roundabout will probably go down (a bit).

[think positive]

i used to work at the old Melford motors back in the day, man that place gets a lot of traffic. A year ago i took the Ranger for its first service at the new Ford dealer up the road, because thats where we bought it,not a fun place to drive around.

but yes, dumb article that makes very little sense!