http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/hole-in-road-tragedy-drug-factor/2008/06/02/1212258698618.html Apparently, when a family drove into the ditch left by a major road collapsing in front of them, drugs were a factor. Big deal! Anyone else see a problem here? A single vehicle went into a ditch that just appeared. You will never ever tell whether the hole appeared as they were on top of it, or when it was a hundred miles away from the car when it appeared. Whatever happened, the car wasn't in the ditch when they found it - it was washed downstream, so there was definately a lot of action happening at the time. So what is the point of headlining an article with "OMG drugs could have been a factor", and then spend 95% of the rest of the article talking about the road itself? That's like saying a guy dead in a field was dead because he was drunk, not because his parachute didn't have any lines connected, and then going on to talk about how the aircraft operator never changed the air in his tyres! Why the flock are taxpayers even paying for this enquiry? So we can label a scapegoat? Is something even going to happen when (if?) they come up with some lame bullshit response to "the road fell apart because the council didn't maintain it"?? We know they fcuked up - just give em a kick in the arse and fix the damned problem. If a short (criminal) investigation proves that someone refused to act on advice that the road was already dangerous, then institute legal proceedings in the usual manner. All this does is let beauracracts pat themselves on the back and say "see, he was drunk - there was nothing we could have done" to slide past the issue of poor maintenance, planning and forethought. Just like gov'ts start a war before an election to mask the issue of a poor economy imo! I think I need to slow down on the coffee.