Mostly sunny min 9° - max 20°Crash sparks call for safety barrier
12:00a.m. 9th May 2008
Credit Union Australia is refusing to reopen its Nambour branch amid fears staff and clients could be killed or injured after a car crashed through its offices yesterday morning.
In what was one of two similar incidents in the town on the same day, a 78-year-old female driver mistook the accelerator for the brake at a car park in front of the Credit Union and crashed through its window around 9.30am.
Ambulance crews took a 49-year-old female credit union employee to Nambour General Hospital with a suspected broken leg.
Two women who were sitting on a seat in front of the car before it struck them were also taken to hospital with suspected fractures and spinal injuries.
The driver was treated for shock.
Credit Union Australia acting CEO Rob Nicholls yesterday said staff and member safety at the branch was of the highest importance.
“CUA is committed to providing a safe environment and will not be reopening the branch until the owner of the shopping centre or the council can provide adequate protection,” Mr Nicholls said.
“That may include bollards.”
A car slightly cracked the Credit Union’s window when it mounted the kerb during an incident several months ago.
Nambour Police Beat Senior Constable Carl Christiansen attended both crashes and said they were eerily similar.
He said a barrier could help prevent further accidents.
“The only difference is the last car went back and this one went forwards,” Sen Cons Christiansen said.
“Previously, the elderly person inadvertently put their foot on the accelerator and that’s what we think happened this time.
“Prevention is the best cure and that could be done by erecting bollards.”
A spokeswoman for the owner of the shopping centre, Macquarie Countrywide, refused to say whether it was considering installing bollards.
“The police are investigating the incident and consequently it is not appropriate for us to comment further at this time,” she said.
Local councillor Paul Tatton said it was not the responsibility of the council to manage the problem.
Meanwhile, the 39-year-old female driver of a Toyota Corolla attempted to reverse park and mounted the kerb before crashing into a restaurant on Currie Street about 11.15am.
A 53-year-old woman, believed to be the restaurant owner, was taken to Nambour hospital after she was injured by falling debris.
People injured in both incidents were released from hospital yesterday afternoon and police did not expect to charge either of the drivers.
Emergency workers said it was lucky no one was killed.
Emergency workers help one of the victims of the crash at the Credit Union Australia branch in Nambour. Photo: Jason Dougherty/ 174589d
More RSS feeds
Install the news toolbar
Set up an email news alert 
Recent Comments
Why doesnt any other genre have the same problem?
And if a P-Plater or young male driver did the same thing we would have people up in arms calling for stricter guidelines and harsher penalties for young drivers.
This is blatant hypocrisy. Too often our pity for the aged and our rage at the youth is unjustified. I hope this elderly driver never drives again, lest next time someone is killed.
If you cant tell the difference between a brake pedal and accelerator pedal, you shouldnt be driving. Not to mention being unable to use roundabouts, driving with the indicator on, driving too slow....
You can't get a license before your 16 maybe you shouldn't be allowed to have one over a certain age. Or at the least maybe some form of yearly testing upon reaching that certain age???
The following may be meant as a joke but is so true.
I've sure gotten old! I've had two bypass surgeries, a hip replacement, new knees, fought prostate cancer and diabetes; I'm half blind, can't hear anything quieter than a jet engine, take 40 different medications that make me dizzy, winded, and subject to blackouts. Have bouts with dementia. Have poor circulation; hardly feel my hands and feet anymore. Can't remember if I'm 85 or 92. Have lost all my friends but, thank God, I still have my driver's license.
And once you have your licence, unless you're a professional driver, there's no more testing or retraining for life! Easy!!!
For example:
In Victoria in 2006, 23% of drivers killed were aged between 18 and 25 years. And yet, this age group only represents 14% of Victorian licence holders.
this story has made the headlines because they dont happen that often, whereas young driver crashes are the norm for everyday.
people's driving abilities can be affected for numerous reasons- not just age- a 45 year year old with diabetes can have impaired vision, sensation, cognition and reaction time, yet still hold a license- GPs are often hesitant to advise their patient against driving, as they often feel ill equipped to make that judgement, hence the need for a more logical system for the monitoring and assessment of driving abilities.
Contrary to popular belief a lot of people dont retire at 65years, and with regards to your comment that 70year olds should hand in their licence because their life is over.
Well if they had to rely on public transport, most of their precious days would be wasted waiting for the public transport to turn up. With the way the young ones drive, why dont we go a bit further and make it that no one can get a licence until they are 25yrs, that would be about the right age their brain has developed ?
'insurance companies are well aware of who causes more car accidents- thats why younger drivers' premiums are higher- they cause more crashes.'
Did you ever consider that the rest of us are able to react to, and avoid a lot of the collisions caused by elderly people who are unfit to drive? Crashes that 'might have been' are not reflected in your insurance company statistics.
I have seen some scary things on the road and i can say with total honesty that most of them were elderly drivers.
I strongly support regular practical driving tests for ALL drivers on our roads, not just the elderly. I for one would be more than happy to undergo a practical test every 5 years or so if it meant everyone else had to as well.
If you re-read my post you will see I used the word younger, not young.
Increasing age is not the only thing that affects reaction time - various medical conditions, medications, fatigue, blood sugar levels, concentration, to name a few.
My point simply is that age is not the only factor to consider, and I agree driving skills should be re-assessed - perhaps each driver should be assessed after every accident, whether major or minor?
I only made a post here because i took exception to you specifically mentioning 'younger' drivers when you were trying to make a point that poor driving can affect anyone and age is not the only factor. It just seemed a little counter productive to your argument. Hence i made my case against 'older' drivers in my peers defense.
My grandfather is in his 80's and is still a good driver, i am proud of this fact but i do recognize that a day will come when he will need to stop driving, and he may not be able to recognize it until (god forbid) he has an accident.
I don't agree that there should be testing after an accident as it is hardly a preventative measure. I am well aware that periodic compulsory testing for all drivers would be prohibitively expensive for our government and also not exactly an election winner, but i for one would be happy to do it if it meant everyone else had to.
Have your say
We welcome comments on our stories and blogs - after all it's your site. Please note comments should be on-topic and not abusive. Comments are checked before publication.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts
Your comments will be checked, for legal reasons, before being posted live.
Thanks again for contributing to the Daily's online community.
We value your views.
Comment again