PDA

View Full Version : 3 point turn cop on trial



cheshirecat
23rd March 2009, 19:33
Surely that the cop thinks that the bikes in question were exceeding 100kph is subjective and irrelevant, as it's without evidence/proof and so not acceptable in court.
In the UK I was told this sort of evidence was not accepted, ie no proof. Even an eye witness to an accident can't say the vehicle was going too fast unless they have a calibrated speeding device

I'm not a lawyer but if this sort of evidence is accepted then an unfortunate precedent would be made going against the international norm - well UK law, Euro law and US?

Renegade
23rd March 2009, 19:41
unless it is proved that the bikes in question be it the actual bikes or identical equivilent riden at 100kph and at the point they were able to see the obstruction in the road, were able to stop safely in the distance available.

excess speed or rider error would be a contributing factor to the crash if they could have stopped.

Just saying.....i dont know the in's or outs of this case yet.

98tls
23rd March 2009, 19:47
As he is no longer a cop i cant imagine it worthy of a thread,lets face it for most interweb bikers that point was the attraction.

Beemer
23rd March 2009, 21:48
Sorry, but he was in the middle of a three-point turn to chase another motorcyclist so his concentration (what little he obviously had) would have been on that, so how on earth could he - while side on to the poor buggers who hit him - judge what speed they were doing? The fact is, he did a dumb thing in a dumb place and if he had been a civilian and they had been police bike riders then he would have had his arse kicked long ago.

His adrenaline rush from seeing a speeding motorcyclist he could chase would have overridden anything else. Hope he gets done and I would feel the same way if he was Joe Bloggs rather than a (at the time) cop.

It said in the news report he had 100m of clear road in front of HIM - but did the motorcyclists have 100m of clear road when they came around the corner and found a police car totally blocking the road?

puddytat
23rd March 2009, 22:37
I know that piece of road like the back of my hand....unfortuantly he made a fuck up.:oi-grr:

mdnzz
24th March 2009, 07:10
He made a mistake plain and simple that had a terrible outcome,
it's about time for him to stand up and accept responsibility for his actions.

Max Preload
24th March 2009, 08:21
Indeed. After 30 years of preaching to others, it's time he took responsibility for his own actions.

peasea
24th March 2009, 14:03
Sorry, but he was in the middle of a three-point turn to chase another motorcyclist so his concentration (what little he obviously had) would have been on that, so how on earth could he - while side on to the poor buggers who hit him - judge what speed they were doing? The fact is, he did a dumb thing in a dumb place and if he had been a civilian and they had been police bike riders then he would have had his arse kicked long ago.

His adrenaline rush from seeing a speeding motorcyclist he could chase would have overridden anything else. Hope he gets done and I would feel the same way if he was Joe Bloggs rather than a (at the time) cop.

It said in the news report he had 100m of clear road in front of HIM - but did the motorcyclists have 100m of clear road when they came around the corner and found a police car totally blocking the road?

He wouldn't have heard the bikes coming for the bells on the cash register. He says he spotted (clocked, whatever) a bike doing 125kph in the other direction; Ker-fucking-ching! From that point on nothing else mattered, least of all the safety of other road users.

It'll be interesting to what comes of all this. Coz he's no longer a cop will the PCA still whitewash everything to preserve the 'integrity' of the force? Or, conversely, coz he's no longer a cop let things pan out in court with no support? Because the charges were laid when he was a cop who pays for his defence? If there are no grey areas I'm sure the legal fraternity will create some.

Anyway, cop or no cop, stupid place to do a u-turn; make him pay for all the rehab' of the riders, bikes and all, then string him up.

peasea
24th March 2009, 14:06
Indeed. After 30 years of preaching to others, it's time he took responsibility for his own actions.

Now that he can't hide behind the blue cloth, perhaps he will. Pleading not guilty did him no good in my eyes though.

Headbanger
24th March 2009, 14:16
He is a piece of shit.

The right and honourable thing to do is to stand up like a man, admit he is at fault and apologise. People without honour can get fucked.

Anything else is bullshit and weak.

Duke girl
24th March 2009, 15:25
Why is it when accidents on our roads involving the Police being in the wrong happens, that they are quick to point the finger to those who were the innocent party involved in the accident.
How can they comment on the 2 motorcyclists riding over the speed limit when there is no proof that they were at the time of the accident.
Who in their right mind would do a 3 point turn where that cop did it?. Im sure they never got taught that when the were doing their training.
The two motorcyclists involved were very lucky in coming out of with the injuries they sustained from it, as by the scene of the accident it look pretty horrific.

scumdog
24th March 2009, 16:06
Why is it when accidents on our roads involving the Police being in the wrong happens, that they are quick to point the finger to those who were the innocent party involved in the accident.
How can they comment on the 2 motorcyclists riding over the speed limit when there is no proof that they were at the time of the accident.



Because that is the New Way (tm) and this is the 21st Century where NOBODY accepts responsibility and are always quick to point the finger at 'somebody else' when they're in the cack.:yes:

It's not JUST the Police that do this - hell, I'm sure they learned off the public they deal with so often...:whistle:

sunhuntin
24th March 2009, 16:21
Surely that the cop thinks that the bikes in question were exceeding 100kph is subjective and irrelevant, as it's without evidence/proof and so not acceptable in court.
In the UK I was told this sort of evidence was not accepted, ie no proof. Even an eye witness to an accident can't say the vehicle was going too fast unless they have a calibrated speeding device

I'm not a lawyer but if this sort of evidence is accepted then an unfortunate precedent would be made going against the international norm - well UK law, Euro law and US?

i had a cop down that way accuse me of speeding last time i went. couldnt get me on drink driving [funny how being sober does that...] so tried to tell me i was going over the limit instead. hmmm, lets see... cop on straight road within a limited speed zone [70k] id be a total dumbass to try that one. just cos i couldnt remember what the sign had said [read it, registered, adjusted speed accordingly and then got pulled up]

id love nothing more than to see this cop [retired or not] have the book thrown at him. i truly hope the two riders continue to recover and eventually move past this.

peasea
24th March 2009, 19:24
Because that is the New Way (tm) and this is the 21st Century where NOBODY accepts responsibility and are always quick to point the finger at 'somebody else' when they're in the cack.:yes:

It's not JUST the Police that do this - hell, I'm sure they learned off the public they deal with so often...:whistle:

The murderous public that travels at 111kph? That public?

scumdog
24th March 2009, 20:17
The murderous public that travels at 111kph? That public?

The very ones!!

And see post #3....

mujambee
24th March 2009, 22:30
Surely that the cop thinks that the bikes in question were exceeding 100kph is subjective and irrelevant, as it's without evidence/proof and so not acceptable in court.
In the UK I was told this sort of evidence was not accepted, ie no proof. Even an eye witness to an accident can't say the vehicle was going too fast unless they have a calibrated speeding device

I'm not a lawyer but if this sort of evidence is accepted then an unfortunate precedent would be made going against the international norm - well UK law, Euro law and US?

Not knowing exactly what you are talking about (could someone post a link to a piece of news?), I can tell you how it works here:

1. If there is no accident, just speeding, they can only accuse you if they have objective evidence (approved device, approved operator, tell you exactly what speed you where doing +- error, exact road and Km where you got caught...); and people has gotten so picky about it that it is hard for them (anyhow they get millions a day).

2. If there is an accident, forensic analysis of it may tell what speed you where doing, and that's quite accurate.

peasea
25th March 2009, 06:18
The very ones!!

And see post #3....

As it happens; I/we take a keen interest in most motorcycle accidents that we hear about for a number of reasons, not the least of which is to hear the names in case it's someone we know. In this case, the fact that he was a copper makes a difference because you KNOW he's going to try and run and hide behind the cloak of darkness, plead not guilty and use the bottomless pockets of the taxpayer to cover his arse.

He fucked up, we all do from time to time. If he hadn't been so focussed on making his ("non-existent") quota it probably never would have happened and two people's lives/bodies would not have been changed forever.

Geez, 125kph? Big fuckin' deal, let it go. It's not like this 'mystery biker' going the other way was reported to shot anyone's granny up the bum is it? If this biker does in fact exist he/she probably feels stink but is unlikely to break ground coz all the fingers would undoubtedly point their way. Especially the cops coz don't forget; it's human nature to want to blame everyone else for shit that goes down and if you have plenty of money to spend, why not give it a shot?

mdnzz
25th March 2009, 07:31
As he is no longer a cop i cant imagine it worthy of a thread,lets face it for most interweb bikers that point was the attraction.

I think that the attraction for most interweb bikers would be more the fact that fellow riders were downed by a driver doing a stupid move in an inappropriate place.

That this action nearly caused the deaths of their fellow riders.

That there have been so many court cases where the motorcyclist has been portrayed as the James Dean rebel without a cause and they the perpetrator was just an innocent bystander caught in the melee.

The fact he was a police officer at the time is just food for trolls and somewhat a bonus mayhap?

MSTRS
25th March 2009, 07:51
I think that the attraction for most interweb bikers would be more the fact that fellow riders were downed by a driver doing a stupid move in an inappropriate place.



We could read that as 'cager' and not be too far off the mark. The fact that he was a cop is just insult to injury. We all know that their primary function is to ensure safety for all on our roads. To do that, they employ all sorts of tactics. What they should not be doing is employing tactics that would earn anyone else a ticket (speeding to the donut shop excluded). How many here have had a ticket for, say, careless driving that caused no-one a problem, but just happened to be witnessed by a cop? Did you get off? Doubt it. And neither should he.

Nasty
25th March 2009, 08:07
from the other day

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2285426/Officer-on-trial-for-three-point-turn-crash

ynot slow
25th March 2009, 08:12
My pessimistic view is as the officer is now retired,did he get asked to perf and save being reprimanded or lose his job and perks.It stinks especially when an officer commits a crime they get bagged,but he could have said yes I was after a speedster and f.cked up,who knows maybe his superiors told him to fight it.

As an aside was going to Feilding Monday at 12.45pm and driving down Waughs Rd?,a police car was driving along the parralel road(Cambell?)fast,no lights on,how do I know it was fast,I was doing 110km and the car pulled away,then it came to intersection onto the road we were on,had to stop for traffic,merged behind a couple of cars and pootled into town,not an emergency obviously,but enjoying the quick trip,no problems with them doing that,but if I was doing the same you can bet an invoice would be given.

98tls
25th March 2009, 08:13
I think that the attraction for most interweb bikers would be more the fact that fellow riders were downed by a driver doing a stupid move in an inappropriate place.

That this action nearly caused the deaths of their fellow riders.

That there have been so many court cases where the motorcyclist has been portrayed as the James Dean rebel without a cause and they the perpetrator was just an innocent bystander caught in the melee.

The fact he was a police officer at the time is just food for trolls and somewhat a bonus mayhap? Yep Way back when the original thread on this was posted it ended up being more about the fact the guy that fucked up was a cop than anything else and endless boring cop bashing ensued.Car drivers fuck up and knock motorcyclists off there bikes every day but we dont hear about most of them on here...thank christ.I in no way support the guys actions but to me anyway what he does for a living matters not,so far as a result of those actions hes no longer employed by them anyway and am sure he will get whatever he deserves in court.Post 3 was merely pointing out that to many in the original thread what he did for a living seemed far more important than what he did,ridiculous.

Grahameeboy
25th March 2009, 08:19
Because that is the New Way (tm) and this is the 21st Century where NOBODY accepts responsibility and are always quick to point the finger at 'somebody else' when they're in the cack.:yes:

It's not JUST the Police that do this - hell, I'm sure they learned off the public they deal with so often...:whistle:

The Police are also the Public...The Public never accept responsibility so why should they expect a Cop who is after all just Human and has probably been told to button it like any good Lawyer would tell his Public client.

He made a mistake in the "agony of the moment"...a uniform does make him more than "Public".

And know I don't suck Cops dicks but opinion has have to have balance and that is what the Publicforget

MSTRS
25th March 2009, 08:21
.Post 3 was merely pointing out that to many in the original thread what he did for a living seemed far more important than what he did,ridiculous.

Not so sure it is ridiculous. Sure, he's people too, and people do fuck up. The big BUT comes from being a cop, the (fact?) is that we should be able to expect a higher standard of driving from someone in that profession, especially after 30 years in Traffic.

Grahameeboy
25th March 2009, 08:28
:Offtopic:
Not so sure it is ridiculous. Sure, he's people too, and people do fuck up. The big BUT comes from being a cop, the (fact?) is that we should be able to expect a higher standard of driving from someone in that profession, especially after 30 years in Traffic.

I agree but that does not make him immune from making a mistake...the first one after 30 years!!

I bet you expect a high standard from your kids but they fuck up and you say..."it's a learning curve Son"...now how do spell "Hypo...."

MSTRS
25th March 2009, 08:32
:Offtopic:

I agree but that does not make him immune from making a mistake...the first one after 30 years!!

I bet you expect a high standard from your kids but they fuck up and you say..."it's a learning curve Son"...now how do spell "Hypo...."

How do you know that? This guy may have made hundreds, and been caught out or not. Or maybe it was his first. Only sure thing is, he did make a mistake this time. And he's facing the consequences. Albeit that he is trying to make it the bikers' fault.
Oh, and it's 'hypochondriac' :lol:

Grahameeboy
25th March 2009, 08:38
How do you know that? This guy may have made hundreds, and been caught out or not. Or maybe it was his first. Only sure thing is, he did make a mistake this time. And he's facing the consequences. Albeit that he is trying to make it the bikers' fault.
Oh, and it's 'hypochondriac' :lol:

Geeze I am glad you don't go to Church and one of those Holyier than Thou do gooders...

Maybe he feels in his own mind that he was not at fault, or not entirely at fault...a human frailty

MSTRS
25th March 2009, 09:58
Right or wrong, would any of us attempt a 3 point turn in the middle of a blind corner on a narrow 100kph major road? And if we did, would it be considered 'careless'?
I think we all know the answer to that one.

cheshirecat
25th March 2009, 10:52
My point in starting this thread was that here we have a (past) representitive of the law, in a court of law, offering evidence through a barrister, (who should know what is evidence and what is not,) which is subjective at best as part of his defence. There's no mention in the article (but it is the Dominion or Minimon) about forensic evidence from the crash scene re speed of bikes or anything aside from the opinion of the officer that they collided because they were speeding. What if it were a 40 ton logging truck within the speed limit braking on a wet gravely surface that came across him.
In my past experience of this, abielt in a different country, this kind of evidence could not be offered, one's barrister would advise against. Standing on a street corner saying a vehicle is exceeding the speed limit is not admissable evidence surely.

Still, I'm not a lawyer. Cross fingers for the Bikes because aside from their misfortune, if they loose some very unfortunate precedents are set for us all

mujambee
25th March 2009, 11:48
http://static.stuff.co.nz/1237774129/518/2285518.jpg

Doesn't look like a high speed crash to me.

(tnx Nasty)

The Pastor
25th March 2009, 11:55
http://static.stuff.co.nz/1237774129/518/2285518.jpg

Doesn't look like a high speed crash to me.

(tnx Nasty)
yeah, that looks more like a 10kph accident.

mujambee
25th March 2009, 12:00
yeah, that looks more like a 10kph accident.

I've seen far more damage in urban crashes ...

Winston001
25th March 2009, 12:05
My point in starting this thread was that here we have a (past) representitive of the law, in a court of law, offering evidence through a barrister, (who should know what is evidence and what is not,) which is subjective at best as part of his defence...

In my past experience of this, abielt in a different country, this kind of evidence could not be offered, one's barrister would advise against. Standing on a street corner saying a vehicle is exceeding the speed limit is not admissable evidence surely.

Still, I'm not a lawyer. Cross fingers for the Bikes because aside from their misfortune, if they loose some very unfortunate precedents are set for us all

Just to clarify something, a police officer can allege excessive speed on the basis of his own judgement as a law enforcement officer. The actual speed can only be estimated so the charge is either exceeding the speed limit or possibly driving at a dangerous speed.

It is then up to the judge and the evidence. If credible witnesses say otherwise then there is a fair chance of being discharged.

As to this case, there is no precedent being set to worry us. These cases are a dime a dozen, so common they will send a judge to sleep, each case is decided on its own circumstances. Just had the distressing experience of seeing a woman discharged on a similar charge (u turn) - only in that case she killed my mates son who was on his motorcycle. The family are devasted.

MD
25th March 2009, 12:08
......

Geez, 125kph? Big fuckin' deal, let it go. It's not like this 'mystery biker' going the other way was reported to shot anyone's granny up the bum is it? If this biker does in fact exist he/she probably feels stink but is unlikely to break ground coz all the fingers would undoubtedly point their way. Especially the cops coz don't forget; it's human nature to want to blame everyone else for shit that goes down and if you have plenty of money to spend, why not give it a shot?

I think some of you have missed this old thread on the crash.

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=62178&page=10


I'm appearing at the trial so can't comment but it should be wrapped up by Friday.

One things for sure the past few days have greatly increased my respect for the Police. Some really nice people work there. Seeing the low-life good-for -absolutely-nothing scumbags they have to deal with all hanging around the courthouse. It just amazes me how Cops stay human in the face of such trash, I'd go postal.

rastuscat
25th March 2009, 12:12
Because that is the New Way (tm) and this is the 21st Century where NOBODY accepts responsibility and are always quick to point the finger at 'somebody else' when they're in the cack.:yes:

It's not JUST the Police that do this - hell, I'm sure they learned off the public they deal with so often...:whistle:

It's a process called neutralization. It's how we all react when accused of doing something we either think we didn't do, or which our mind can't believe we did.

It's the source of so many of these threads, have a look at it and wonder at your own reactions.
:bash:
Here is the guts of it.

Neutralization is defined as a technique, which allows the person to rationalize or justify a criminal act. There are five techniques of neutralization; denial of responsibility, denial of injury, denial of victim, condemnation of the condemners, and the appeal to higher loyalties.

Denial of responsibility is a technique used when the deviant act was caused by an outside force. This technique goes beyond looking at the criminal act as an accident. The individual feels that they are drawn into the situation, ultimately becoming helpless. These juveniles feel that their abusive families, bad neighborhoods and delinquent peers predispose them to criminal acts. A common statement used “It was not my fault.”

Denial of injury occurs when the criminal act causes no harm to the victim. Criminal acts are deemed deviant in terms of whether or not someone got hurt. Using this technique the delinquent views stealing as merely borrowing and views gang fighting as a private argument between consenting and willing participants. The use of this technique is reaffirmed in the minds of these juveniles when society does not look at certain acts, such as skipping school or performing practical jokes, as criminal, but merely accepts them as harmless acts. “I assumed that a criminal action meant hurting someone, we did not hurt anyone” (Coleman, 1987:411).





Denial of victim is used when the crime is viewed as a punishment or revenge towards a deserving person. This technique may be used by those who attack homosexuals or minority groups. “They deserve it.” This is also glorified in the stories about the character Robin Hood and his actions involving stealing from the rich.

The technique called the condemnation of the condemners, also known as rejection of the rejectors by McCorkle and Korn (1954), places a negative image on those who are opposed to the criminal behavior. The juvenile ends up displacing his/her deviant behavior on those they are victimizing and also viewing the condemners as hypocrites, such as corrupt police and judges.

The appeal to higher loyalties technique is used when the person feels they must break the laws of the overall community to benefit their small group/family. This technique comes into play when a juvenile gets into trouble because of trying to help or protecting a friend or family member.

BMWST?
25th March 2009, 12:14
http://static.stuff.co.nz/1237774129/518/2285518.jpg

Doesn't look like a high speed crash to me.

(tnx Nasty)

what are you on?The bike has bent the rear suspension!Look at the back wheel!

BMWST?
25th March 2009, 12:16
Will be an interesting one.We are supposed to travel on a laned road at a speed to be able to stop in the distance that is visible to us.....

rastuscat
25th March 2009, 12:16
And for the record, the serious crash unit know how fast the bikes were going. Physical evidence rarely lies.

mdnzz
25th March 2009, 12:39
And for the record, the serious crash unit know how fast the bikes were going. Physical evidence rarely lies.


Any an all evidence against the motorcyclists will certainly be presented in court, however a spanner here.

What if they were speeding?

Does that exonerate the driver from failing to ensure the safety of other road users during the course of his
maneuver? For not thinking that at any second another road user could round that blind corner?

Surely at the days end people are responsible for their own actions.

If the bikers were speeding the prosecute them for that, but still prosecute the driver for his inattention that contributed to the accident.

PirateJafa
25th March 2009, 12:55
What if they were speeding?

Does that exonerate the driver from failing to ensure the safety of other road users during the course of his
maneuver? For not thinking that at any second another road user could round that blind corner?

Surely at the days end people are responsible for their own actions.

If the bikers were speeding the prosecute them for that, but still prosecute the driver for his inattention that contributed to the accident.

You do recall that by law you must be able to stop within the visible distance?

Not that I'm defending the ex-cop in any way, shape or form, but it will be something interesting to bear in mind as the case goes to court.

Marmoot
25th March 2009, 13:00
the cop thinks that the bikes in question were exceeding 100kph

To quote the bible:
If he hadn't seen the bikes before/while doing the U-turn, how could he have estimated their speed.
Yet if he had seen the bikes and had guessed the speed correctly to be excessive, why had he turned in front of them?




Who is the prosecutor and why this question hadn't been asked? Incompetence? How can I email this to him/her?

peasea
25th March 2009, 13:42
To quote the bible:
If he hadn't seen the bikes before/while doing the U-turn, how could he have estimated their speed.
Yet if he had seen the bikes and had guessed the speed correctly to be excessive, why had he turned in front of them?




Who is the prosecutor and why this question hadn't been asked? Incompetence? How can I email this to him/her?

Don't email it, scribble it on a brick and............

cheshirecat
25th March 2009, 13:59
To quote the bible:
If he hadn't seen the bikes before/while doing the U-turn, how could he have estimated their speed.
Yet if he had seen the bikes and had guessed the speed correctly to be excessive, why had he turned in front of them?




Who is the prosecutor and why this question hadn't been asked? Incompetence? How can I email this to him/her?

You could contact 'MD' up above a few lines

peasea
25th March 2009, 14:11
This is the latest that I've spotted.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/news/2290573/Accounts-of-police-cars-flashing-lights-differ

"Differing accounts" indeed........

HenryDorsetCase
25th March 2009, 14:17
how could he tell that the bikes coming towards him were going at 125kph? really hard to judge speed of an object coming straight towards you I reckon, plus he would have had bugger all time to make the call.

peasea
25th March 2009, 14:20
how could he tell that the bikes coming towards him were going at 125kph? really hard to judge speed of an object coming straight towards you I reckon, plus he would have had bugger all time to make the call.

Have a read of the link I just posted, he's told a Sgt one thing and McGurk another, he's making shit up as he goes along I'd say.

Nothing unusual.:whistle:

LBD
25th March 2009, 15:29
Just to clarify something, a police officer can allege excessive speed on the basis of his own judgement as a law enforcement officer. The actual speed can only be estimated so the charge is either exceeding the speed limit or possibly driving at a dangerous speed.

.

From experience when you are in a position of iminent danger and about to be involved in an inevitable accident, time slows, judgment is distorted etc,
In this case if you couple that with the officer being occupied with his turning manouver...I would say his judgment of the speed of the bikes would have been very distorted.

mdnzz
25th March 2009, 16:41
You do recall that by law you must be able to stop within the visible distance?

Not that I'm defending the ex-cop in any way, shape or form, but it will be something interesting to bear in mind as the case goes to court.

Yes I am well aware of this law and also the law that states that anytime you pull out onto a road or do any type of maneuver on the road you are responsible in making sure that no other road users are put in danger.
Might not be those exact words but you get the gist.

If you can see someone traveling towards you what frame of mind would you have to be in too turn in front of them? Especially if you have just 'judged' them to be speeding towards you.


There has for the last 30 years in this country a plague of people not accepting their responsibilities, stepping up to plate and apologizing when they are wrong or generally having any empathy for their fellow human.

This is nothing about lefties, pc tree huggers or anything else, just a simple observation of how our country has gone.

HenryDorsetCase
25th March 2009, 16:49
this is OT but kind of relevant.

Who is paying for this man's (doubtless competent) defence? Does the Po-lice* trade union (sorry, Police association) step in and do it, or is he putting hand to pocket?

Signed, Curious of Christchurch




*Ive been watching "Cops" and Po- and -lice are two separate and distinct syllables such as when used in this context: "Po lice, Git awn tha graaaaaahhhhnd"! shouted by a large armed man with his angry face on.

peasea
25th March 2009, 16:50
[QUOTE=mdnzz;1997697]
If you can see someone traveling towards you what frame of mind would you have to be in too turn in front of them? QUOTE]

The 'money-extraction' frame of mind.

HenryDorsetCase
25th March 2009, 16:50
Yes I am well aware of this law and also the law that states that anytime you pull out onto a road or do any type of maneuver on the road you are responsible in making sure that no other road users are put in danger.
Might not be those exact words but you get the gist.

If you can see someone traveling towards you what frame of mind would you have to be in too turn in front of them? Especially if you have just 'judged' them to be speeding towards you.


There has for the last 30 years in this country a plague of people not accepting their responsibilities, stepping up to plate and apologizing when they are wrong or generally having any empathy for their fellow human.

This is nothing about lefties, pc tree huggers or anything else, just a simple observation of how our country has gone.

but the sensible advice to anyone accused of a crime (for that is what this is) is "say nothing, admit nothing, exercise your right to silence and deny deny deny".

98tls
25th March 2009, 16:51
Yes I am well aware of this law and also the law that states that anytime you pull out onto a road or do any type of maneuver on the road you are responsible in making sure that no other road users are put in danger.
Might not be those exact words but you get the gist.

If you can see someone traveling towards you what frame of mind would you have to be in too turn in front of them? Especially if you have just 'judged' them to be speeding towards you.


There has for the last 30 years in this country a plague of people not accepting their responsibilities, stepping up to plate and apologizing when they are wrong or generally having any empathy for their fellow human.

This is nothing about lefties, pc tree huggers or anything else, just a simple observation of how our country has gone. Then again theres no bloody law thats had them accountable for there actions,my Cousin Julie riding a GN250 back to the Air force base in Blenhiem had an old coot make a right hand turn into an orchard in front of her on a straight a few kms long resulting in her death,the old bastard came up with the usual "i just didnt see her " excuse and in court received sweet fuck all for his actions,possibly because he was an old coot,go figure methinks thats why he fucked up,not an excuse.:Offtopic:

Katman
25th March 2009, 17:11
There's a big difference between being 'blameless' and knowing that your actions contributed to an eventual outcome.

What is careless?

Doing a U-turn in a questionable location or travelling at such a speed that you couldn't stop if you were confronted with a tree that had fallen onto the road in your path?

Badjelly
25th March 2009, 17:21
...What is careless?

Doing a U-turn in a questionable location or travelling at such a speed that you couldn't stop if you were confronted with a tree that had fallen onto the road in your path?

Both of those are careless in my opinion. Or arguably reckless.

cheshirecat
25th March 2009, 18:09
I think some of you have missed this old thread on the crash.

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=62178&page=10


I'm appearing at the trial so can't comment but it should be wrapped up by Friday.

One things for sure the past few days have greatly increased my respect for the Police. Some really nice people work there. Seeing the low-life good-for -absolutely-nothing scumbags they have to deal with all hanging around the courthouse. It just amazes me how Cops stay human in the face of such trash, I'd go postal.

Nice comment - good luck

JimO
25th March 2009, 18:30
Then again theres no bloody law thats had them accountable for there actions,my Cousin Julie riding a GN250 back to the Air force base in Blenhiem had an old coot make a right hand turn into an orchard in front of her on a straight a few kms long resulting in her death,the old bastard came up with the usual "i just didnt see her " excuse and in court received sweet fuck all for his actions,possibly because he was an old coot,go figure methinks thats why he fucked up,not an excuse.:Offtopic:

one of my boys got knocked off his bike last year by a old coot going through a comp stop, he said i didnt see him he must have been speeding, despite several witnesses saying he wasnt speeding the cop that turned up at the hospital asked him 5 times how fast were you going trying to catch him out

mdnzz
25th March 2009, 20:03
Then again theres no bloody law thats had them accountable for there actions,my Cousin Julie riding a GN250 back to the Air force base in Blenhiem had an old coot make a right hand turn into an orchard in front of her on a straight a few kms long resulting in her death,the old bastard came up with the usual "i just didnt see her " excuse and in court received sweet fuck all for his actions,possibly because he was an old coot,go figure methinks thats why he fucked up,not an excuse.:Offtopic:

I had an 'old coot' that was parked at a red suddenly drive thru at me while I was traveling on the green. This was right in front of a cop.
I stopped the car I was in an gave him the dressing down of his life regardless of the fact he towered over me.
Both him and the cop were left staggered, at anytime you are in a killing machine your awareness better be 200%. I'm sorry I didn't see you doesn't cut it, if you cannot see then get the f**K off the road.

Winston001
25th March 2009, 20:12
If he hadn't seen the bikes before/while doing the U-turn, how could he have estimated their speed.

Yet if he had seen the bikes and had guessed the speed correctly to be excessive, why had he turned in front of them?

Who is the prosecutor and why this question hadn't been asked? Incompetence? How can I email this to him/her?

Be cool, its not all over yet. The prosecutor will be very aware of this statement. If the defendant doesn't give evidence, then he can't be asked about this but his statement can be challenged.

What has happened here is a cop has made a mistake. He's u-turned thinking he could see clear road but got caught out. He has naturally assumed (being a cop) that the two bikes were speeding and keeps to that story because that's his excuse. He probably honestly believes it but the court may not accept it.

We expect police officers to be honourable and have integrity. If they make a mistake, fess up. Like the cop in the Bain trial who says he momentarily in Bain's presence, moved the glasses. He didn't have to admit that. Good on him.

peasea
25th March 2009, 20:15
... if you cannot see then get the f**K off the road.

That's it in a nutshell.

MarkH
26th March 2009, 09:58
if you cannot see then get the f**K off the road.

Maybe there would be less deaths each year if these incompetent drivers were banned for life!

mdnzz
26th March 2009, 10:52
Maybe there would be less deaths each year if these incompetent drivers were banned for life!

In a perfect world maybe, but statistics prove that regardless most recidivists offenders don't care about driving bans.

Patrick
26th March 2009, 11:09
Surely that the cop thinks that the bikes in question were exceeding 100kph is subjective and irrelevant, as it's without evidence/proof and so not acceptable in court.
In the UK I was told this sort of evidence was not accepted, ie no proof. Even an eye witness to an accident can't say the vehicle was going too fast unless they have a calibrated speeding device

I'm not a lawyer but if this sort of evidence is accepted then an unfortunate precedent would be made going against the international norm - well UK law, Euro law and US?

In this, there are matters of physics... Tyre marks, impact marks etc.... NOt fabricated, not made up, not anything. Just simple math.


2. If there is an accident, forensic analysis of it may tell what speed you where doing, and that's quite accurate.

As above.


use the bottomless pockets of the taxpayer to cover his arse.

Nope. No legal aid. The taxpayer is paying for the Prosecution, not the Defence.


,did he get asked to perf

If he is ex MOT, he doesn't get to perf. Only cops who were cops before the merger get to perf.


Just had the distressing experience of seeing a woman discharged on a similar charge (u turn) - only in that case she killed my mates son who was on his motorcycle. The family are devasted.

Blamed the dead man? Sorry to hear of the loss. A poor decision, in my opinion... the "casue" of the crash is the U turn, plain and simple.


And for the record, the serious crash unit know how fast the bikes were going. Physical evidence rarely lies.

More of the physics and math thingy....


Any an all evidence against the motorcyclists will certainly be presented in court, however a spanner here.

What if they were speeding?

Does that exonerate the driver from failing to ensure the safety of other road users during the course of his
maneuver? For not thinking that at any second another road user could round that blind corner?

Surely at the days end people are responsible for their own actions.

If the bikers were speeding the prosecute them for that, but still prosecute the driver for his inattention that contributed to the accident.

The U turn in the poor location is the cause. The speed is a contributing factor, but not the cause.


There's a big difference between being 'blameless' and knowing that your actions contributed to an eventual outcome.

What is careless?

Doing a U-turn in a questionable location or travelling at such a speed that you couldn't stop if you were confronted with a tree that had fallen onto the road in your path?

If this is about the tree that fell, right at that moment, into the immediate path of MUPPET, then no, that is not careless. If it is of a tree that fell onto a road, then along came MUPPET 30 seconds later, who couldn't stop in time... there is a difference...?


one of my boys got knocked off his bike last year by a old coot going through a comp stop, he said i didnt see him he must have been speeding, despite several witnesses saying he wasnt speeding the cop that turned up at the hospital asked him 5 times how fast were you going trying to catch him out

Nope. Its on the crash form. "Speed at time of accident." Just form filling, not catching out, especially if witnesses were already saying he wasn't speeding. Very very few don't know... and those ones are usually the ones in the wrong anyhow....

Katman
26th March 2009, 11:14
If this is about the tree that fell, right at that moment, into the immediate path of MUPPET, then no, that is not careless. If it is of a tree that fell onto a road, then along came MUPPET 30 seconds later, who couldn't stop in time... there is a difference...?


No, it wasn't said about that incident at all.

I could have used any number of examples of something lying on the road.

Winston001
26th March 2009, 12:09
Blamed the dead man? Sorry to hear of the loss. A poor decision, in my opinion... the "casue" of the crash is the U turn, plain and simple.



What happened to my friend's son is worth knowing about. A car outside shops u-turned and the son hit it while riding his bike. Dead. The road behind her was obscured by a stopped van waiting to turn into a park.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/news/1757475

The woman driver's defence was that he was speeding. Witnesses disagreed.

The bike had sliders fitted which the defence said were devices fitted on racing bikes. We know thats arrant nonsense but it sounds plausible to non-bikers.

The young man's speeding infringements were brought up by the defence. Strictly these are irrelevant but by doing so, the defence suggested he was likely to speed, plus sliders = u-turn driver must be given the benefit of the doubt.

The judge clearly found this a difficult case and reserved his decision but ultimately found her Not Guilty.


[72] After carefully considering and weighing the evidence as presented in the case, I consider that it is more probable than not the defendant was careless and that the manner of her driving was a real cause of injury to Ms Stewart and the death of Mr Moreton. However, that is not enough to secure a conviction. The prosecution must prove its case to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt before I can find the defendant guilty on either charge. That is a higher standard of proof than has been achieved by the prosecution in this case.


[73] I conclude that the prosecution have not established beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was careless. There is, in my view, a reasonable possibility that the Suzuki motorbike was travelling at excessive speed and that its presence on the roadway could not reasonably have been foreseen by the defendant.


[74] I conclude that the prosecution have not established beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant’s driving was the real cause of death of Mr Moreton or the injury to Ms Stewart. It is reasonably possible that excessive speed and loss of control of the motorbike were the real causes of the collision, and hence the resulting death and injury.


[75] For the foregoing reasons, I find the defendant not guilty on both charges. The charges are therefore dismissed.


A D Garland
District Court Judge.

cheshirecat
26th March 2009, 12:19
RE Patrick

Good read

thanks

MSTRS
26th March 2009, 12:45
The bike had sliders fitted which the defence said were devices fitted on racing bikes. We know thats arrant nonsense but it sounds plausible to non-bikers.

The young man's speeding infringements were brought up by the defence. Strictly these are irrelevant but by doing so, the defence suggested he was likely to speed, plus sliders = u-turn driver must be given the benefit of the doubt.



So where was the forensic evidence? Not important, since it was 'only' a motorcyclist that was killed?
"See there, y'honour...skid knobs...ergo he was speeding"
Quick fellas, get yer knobs off. :dodge: Best defence yet to get off a speeding charge. Precedence, don't you know.

FFS, Winston, your mate must have been gutted.

peasea
26th March 2009, 13:34
Update

http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/news/2293740/Jury-visits-scene-of-crash-in-Upper-Buller-Gorge

peasea
26th March 2009, 13:37
Nope. No legal aid. The taxpayer is paying for the Prosecution, not the Defence.


....


Are you sure? Your source?

JimO
26th March 2009, 13:41
I




Nope. Its on the crash form. "Speed at time of accident." Just form filling, not catching out, especially if witnesses were already saying he wasn't speeding. Very very few don't know... and those ones are usually the ones in the wrong anyhow....

they already interviewed him at the accident site and asked how fast was he going.....also anybody riding without a L plate that should have one be aware one policeman went over the bike looking for a reason to give him a ticket.

Indoo
26th March 2009, 14:47
The young man's speeding infringements were brought up by the defence. Strictly these are irrelevant but by doing so, the defence suggested he was likely to speed, plus sliders = u-turn driver must be given the benefit of the doubt.

Heh, funny how they can bring it up on the defence side, imagine if the prosecution could bring up all the convictions of a defendant so that the judge/jury could infer that he was likely to commit crime.

If the witnesses, serious crash evidence and the evidence of the pillion stated that he wasn't speeding and the only 'evidence' that he was is the fact that he had previous speeding tickets, sliders and the fact that the Defendant didn't see him ergo he was speeding (of course bikes never get hit because people don't 'see' them), it seems a ridiculous decision and based more on the demographics involved, ie young reckless motorbike rider vs middle aged sensible mom than anything else.

MarkH
26th March 2009, 16:24
[74] I conclude that the prosecution have not established beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant’s driving was the real cause of death of Mr Moreton or the injury to Ms Stewart. It is reasonably possible that excessive speed and loss of control of the motorbike were the real causes of the collision, and hence the resulting death and injury.

I kinda think the prosecution should have done a better job here, maybe been a bit more forthright in their assertions about the victims speed (and should have researched crash bungs and carefully explained to the judge their purpose) and a strong suggestion that the defendant had failed to see the motorcycle due to its smaller size and failing to take due care rather than the speed of the motorcycle being anything other than within the legal limit. But I guess it is sometimes hard to prove anything either way conclusively.

I don't think the judge was saying that there was any evidence that the motorcycle was speeding, just not strong enough evidence that it wasn't possible. But I personally think that the statements from the pillion passenger + independent witnesses should be enough to show that the motorcycles speed wasn't a cause here. I guess the defendant was very lucky that I am not a judge and wasn't deciding this case, I suspect that I would have come up with a different verdict.

Winston001
26th March 2009, 17:00
So where was the forensic evidence? Not important, since it was 'only' a motorcyclist that was killed?
"See there, y'honour...skid knobs...ergo he was speeding"
Quick fellas, get yer knobs off. :dodge: Best defence yet to get off a speeding charge. Precedence, don't you know.

FFS, Winston, your mate must have been gutted.

Yeah he's pretty angry and sad. Its like his son died twice - and is now to blame for the accident. Which is clearly untrue.


Heh, funny how they can bring it up on the defence side, imagine if the prosecution could bring up all the convictions of a defendant so that the judge/jury could infer that he was likely to commit crime.



Its an awful irony: no-one can refer to the defendant's previous convictions, but a dead victim?.....open slather to smear him. :angry2:


I kinda think the prosecution should have done a better job here, maybe been a bit more forthright in their assertions about the victims speed......

I don't think the judge was saying that there was any evidence that the motorcycle was speeding, just not strong enough evidence that it wasn't possible. But I personally think that the statements from the pillion passenger + independent witnesses should be enough to show that the motorcycles speed wasn't a cause here. I guess the defendant was very lucky that I am not a judge and wasn't deciding this case, I suspect that I would have come up with a different verdict.

I'm satisfied the police did a good job and they certainly expected a conviction. This trial took place over two separate days because the defence called expert evidence to counter the police forensic findings. It was just enough to persuade the judge there was a reasonable doubt.

Pixie
26th March 2009, 17:16
Because that is the New Way (tm) and this is the 21st Century where NOBODY accepts responsibility and are always quick to point the finger at 'somebody else' when they're in the cack.:yes:

It's not JUST the Police that do this - hell, I'm sure they learned off the public they deal with so often...:whistle:

It's the Kiwi way! Brought into law the day the ACC act absolved all New Zealanders of ever having to accept fault

MSTRS
26th March 2009, 17:48
"Defence lawyer Garry Barkle had previously told the jury that Bridgman had a clear stretch of road of well over 100m in front of him when he did the turn, but was hit by the motorcyclists as they were speeding.

Tasman district police specialist crash investigator Simon Burbery told the court on Tuesday that it would take between nine and 9.3 seconds for Bridgman's patrol car to carry out the three-point turn at the scene of the crash.

He said Bridgman would have been able to see up to 120m in front of him while doing the turn.

It was possible a vehicle travelling about 100kmh which had not been within view at the start of the turn would arrive at the scene within the time it took to make the turn, Mr Burbery said."

At 100kph, a vehicle will travel 250m in 9 secs. Make of that what you will.

Katman
26th March 2009, 18:00
At 100kph, a vehicle will travel 250m in 9 secs. Make of that what you will.

At 100kph how short a distance can one stop in?

Shorter than 250m I imagine.

Make of that what you will.

MSTRS
26th March 2009, 18:10
Of course the cop had 'up to 120m' visibility when he started the turn. If those bikes had been 121m away then....
And of course the patrol car was more-or-less across both lanes at the mid point of his manouevre. No escape route for them.
On a road like that the rule is 'stop in the clear distance ahead'. I don't know what an average stopping distance is from 100kph but I'd assume that 121m isn't quite enough. At least for most of us. Because of the distance eaten up in the time taken to 'process and react'. And who of us would slow 'enough' upon approaching a corner of this nature on a major highway?

Katman
26th March 2009, 18:17
And who of us would slow 'enough' upon approaching a corner of this nature on a major highway?

Every corner, out on the open road, I look to the vanishing point and constantly ask myself "could I stop in that distance?"

Don't you?

scumdog
26th March 2009, 20:38
Every corner, out on the open road, I look to the vanishing point and constantly ask myself "could I stop in that distance?"

Don't you?

Yep.

And often know I couldn't.

Headbanger
26th March 2009, 21:51
Every corner, out on the open road, I look to the vanishing point and constantly ask myself "could I stop in that distance?"

Don't you?


Nope.

I know well enough what I and the bike can do without having to "ask myself" on every corner.

puddytat
26th March 2009, 22:14
Every corner, out on the open road, I look to the vanishing point and constantly ask myself "could I stop in that distance?"

Don't you?

Yep,every corner...followed by" Fuck I couldve gone fasterer":devil2:

rastuscat
27th March 2009, 05:26
Interesting too that the car he was driving has curtain airbags. That means the A-pillar is thick as a thick thing.

A few days later a cop in an identical car hit a motorcyclist up near Maramarua in very similar circumstances. He checked a vehicle at speed,, flicked a U-turn and hit the motorcyclist. Hadn't seen it.

Airbags are our friend, but big thick A-pillars aren't.

MSTRS
27th March 2009, 07:24
Yep.

And often know I couldn't.

Exactly!
And one time in a million, we find out for sure. Doesn't make us the cause of such an incident. Involved, yes, the primary cause, no.

scumdog
27th March 2009, 09:10
Interesting too that the car he was driving has curtain airbags. That means the A-pillar is thick as a thick thing.

A few days later a cop in an identical car hit a motorcyclist up near Maramarua in very similar circumstances. He checked a vehicle at speed,, flicked a U-turn and hit the motorcyclist. Hadn't seen it.

Airbags are our friend, but big thick A-pillars aren't.

Right on the button!!

The cynic in me says; they fitted those airbags to protect you in the crash you got into because the pillars holding said air-bags are so thick you couldn't see around them well enough to see what was coming.......

Pwalo
27th March 2009, 12:07
Interesting too that the car he was driving has curtain airbags. That means the A-pillar is thick as a thick thing.

A few days later a cop in an identical car hit a motorcyclist up near Maramarua in very similar circumstances. He checked a vehicle at speed,, flicked a U-turn and hit the motorcyclist. Hadn't seen it.

Airbags are our friend, but big thick A-pillars aren't.

Too true. The pillars in modern cars are thick enough to be a real hazard as far as visibility goes. Motorists simply don't appreciate how much can be hidden behind them.

It's still no excuse to do a manouvre such as a u-turn without sufficient visibility though.

Patrick
27th March 2009, 12:10
No, it wasn't said about that incident at all.

I could have used any number of examples of something lying on the road.

Gotcha.... Good call!:msn-wink:


What happened to my friend's son is worth knowing about. A car outside shops u-turned and the son hit it while riding his bike. Dead. The road behind her was obscured by a stopped van waiting to turn into a park.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/news/1757475

The woman driver's defence was that he was speeding. Witnesses disagreed.

The bike had sliders fitted which the defence said were devices fitted on racing bikes. We know thats arrant nonsense but it sounds plausible to non-bikers.

The young man's speeding infringements were brought up by the defence. Strictly these are irrelevant but by doing so, the defence suggested he was likely to speed, plus sliders = u-turn driver must be given the benefit of the doubt.

The judge clearly found this a difficult case and reserved his decision but ultimately found her Not Guilty.....

Soooo wrong....

Unfortunately, the prosecution is not privvy to the defence case. The defence however, is entitled to anything and everything, either to be given in evidence or not....

Sounds like the sliders was a broad side to the Prosecution. One of my bosses has slider knobs on his bike, only so if it falls over he won't dent the buggery out of his pride and joy. He rides like a nana apparently, so there is a simple explanation......

Attacking the credibility of the dead one is just so wrong. Why the pillion and witnesses, who all agreed speed was not a factor, were so ignored is beyond me. I assume serious crash attended and did their calculations???????

This is a poor decision (but I see that there was an expert defence witness, and can't help but wonder if the judge was baffled by bullshit or not...)


they already interviewed him at the accident site and asked how fast was he going.....also anybody riding without a L plate that should have one be aware one policeman went over the bike looking for a reason to give him a ticket.

Any vehicle involved in a crash is given a going over.....


Heh, funny how they can bring it up on the defence side, imagine if the prosecution could bring up all the convictions of a defendant so that the judge/jury could infer that he was likely to commit crime.

If the witnesses, serious crash evidence and the evidence of the pillion stated that he wasn't speeding and the only 'evidence' that he was is the fact that he had previous speeding tickets, sliders and the fact that the Defendant didn't see him ergo he was speeding (of course bikes never get hit because people don't 'see' them), it seems a ridiculous decision and based more on the demographics involved, ie young reckless motorbike rider vs middle aged sensible mom than anything else.

+1..........

Can an appeal be considered?

The sliders can be explained. His credibility was attacked. Does she have history of any sort?????? If so, she can be "exposed."


I kinda think the prosecution should have done a better job here, maybe been a bit more forthright in their assertions about the victims speed (and should have researched crash bungs and carefully explained to the judge their purpose) and a strong suggestion that the defendant had failed to see the motorcycle due to its smaller size and failing to take due care rather than the speed of the motorcycle being anything other than within the legal limit. But I guess it is sometimes hard to prove anything either way conclusively.

I don't think the judge was saying that there was any evidence that the motorcycle was speeding, just not strong enough evidence that it wasn't possible. But I personally think that the statements from the pillion passenger + independent witnesses should be enough to show that the motorcycles speed wasn't a cause here. I guess the defendant was very lucky that I am not a judge and wasn't deciding this case, I suspect that I would have come up with a different verdict.

See above. Defence is entitled to the Prosecution case in its entirely. The Prosecution is not entitled to the defence. It is a one way street.


At 100kph, a vehicle will travel 250m in 9 secs. Make of that what you will.


At 100kph how short a distance can one stop in?

Shorter than 250m I imagine.

Make of that what you will.

Even at 125, they should have been able to stop short.....

Is the call, though, that he did the turn into their path?
He didn't see them, even though they were there to be seen?

Either way, they had less than 120m to stop in... if this is the case....


Right on the button!!

The cynic in me says; they fitted those airbags to protect you in the crash you got into because the pillars holding said air-bags are so thick you couldn't see around them well enough to see what was coming.......

Gotta say, the new Common Whores blind spots are enormous nowadays....... front and rear at the 45 degree angles and then some.....

Grahameeboy
27th March 2009, 12:20
Of course the cop had 'up to 120m' visibility when he started the turn. If those bikes had been 121m away then....
And of course the patrol car was more-or-less across both lanes at the mid point of his manouevre. No escape route for them.
On a road like that the rule is 'stop in the clear distance ahead'. I don't know what an average stopping distance is from 100kph but I'd assume that 121m isn't quite enough. At least for most of us. Because of the distance eaten up in the time taken to 'process and react'. And who of us would slow 'enough' upon approaching a corner of this nature on a major highway?

Actually if you are doing 66mph (100kph) you should be able to stop in 84m including stopping distance.

If you cannot stop in 120m you would have been doing 125kph or more assuming good tyres (which stop you of course)

So really no escape routes required if keeping to the speed limit.

So if the cop did (I emphasis) have 120m of clear view then a) the bikes were there and he did not see them or b) the bikes were not in view

Food for thought

Nasty
27th March 2009, 13:01
Actually if you are doing 66mph (100kph) you should be able to stop in 84m including stopping distance.

If you cannot stop in 120m you would have been doing 125kph or more assuming good tyres (which stop you of course)

So really no escape routes required if keeping to the speed limit.

So if the cop did (I emphasis) have 120m of clear view then a) the bikes were there and he did not see them or b) the bikes were not in view

Food for thought


Rather strange that i can find no road rule that says you must be able to see anything wtih U Turns .. so I am assuming that the passing rules thing applies at least a little here.

At the end of the manuver you need to be able to see 100 meters ahead ... what it doesn't state is how many meters you need to be able to see at the beginning of a manuver - as with the u-turn done it a rather strange place ... may have always seen 100 meters .. but they would not necessarily been clear - as this was a windy piece of road .. oh well ... don't quote me on it .. seems strange that you can do such a strange move on that piece of road.

MSTRS
27th March 2009, 13:18
Actually if you are doing 66mph (100kph) you should be able to stop in 84m including stopping distance.

If you cannot stop in 120m you would have been doing 125kph or more assuming good tyres (which stop you of course)

So really no escape routes required if keeping to the speed limit.

So if the cop did (I emphasis) have 120m of clear view then a) the bikes were there and he did not see them or b) the bikes were not in view

Food for thought

[pedant mode] 62mph = 100kph [pedant mode]

So assuming all is 'normal' we can be reasonably sure that we can stop from 100kph in about 100m. Both riders who hit the cop car say they weren't speeding (at least at that point). Bridgeman says they were. We can understand that if they were within that 100/120m zone when the cop pulled across the road, then he never saw them, they 'came out of nowhere', therefore it might look as though they were speeding (to him). We do not know what the SCU boys findings are yet. So at this stage it is he said/she said.

tuonowill
27th March 2009, 13:57
My 2c:

If the police car could see 100m before he u-turned that means that the last x metres he could see were actually the road's arc as it dissappears around the last corner he drove through (presumably the cop was going slow looking for a place to turn).

As we all know motorcycles can't brake hard while cornering - the front never has enough grip in reserve after the cornering load.

So the bikes' braking distance is actually 100 - x metres, x being the distance the bikes would cover before being able to straighten up enough to brake hard - which could be as little as 50m. 50m is a big ask for anyone from 100kph.

I reckon if the corner reduced the bikes' ability to brake, then the cop is in the wrong (morally) but may be let off by the courts because as has been discussed there is nothing prescriptive in the road code for u-turns and visibility distance (or is there?). Is the road code subjective or prescriptive about u-turns?

Badjelly
27th March 2009, 14:09
Too true. The pillars in modern cars are thick enough to be a real hazard as far as visibility goes. Motorists simply don't appreciate how much can be hidden behind them.

As you turn, the area obscured by the A pillars moves, so a stationary object that's behind them will come into view. But an object moving at the right (wrong?) speed and direction move with the obscured zone. Then it suddenly appears, on a piece of road you thought you'd already scanned.

No excuse etc.

MSTRS
27th March 2009, 14:09
This is what the Road Code says...
Making a U-turn

You are normally allowed to make U-turns, as long as the road is clear in both directions and it is safe to do so. Make sure you have enough room to complete the turn and don't create a hazard for oncoming vehicles.

You aren't allowed to make U-turns if a 'No U-turn' sign is displayed.

Grahameeboy
27th March 2009, 14:19
[pedant mode] 62mph = 100kph [pedant mode]

So assuming all is 'normal' we can be reasonably sure that we can stop from 100kph in about 100m. Both riders who hit the cop car say they weren't speeding (at least at that point). Bridgeman says they were. We can understand that if they were within that 100/120m zone when the cop pulled across the road, then he never saw them, they 'came out of nowhere', therefore it might look as though they were speeding (to him). We do not know what the SCU boys findings are yet. So at this stage it is he said/she said.

No.....84m....was my post not within the distance you could see.....:lol:

Grahameeboy
27th March 2009, 14:25
This is what the Road Code says...
Making a U-turn

You are normally allowed to make U-turns, as long as the road is clear in both directions and it is safe to do so. Make sure you have enough room to complete the turn and don't create a hazard for oncoming vehicles.

You aren't allowed to make U-turns if a 'No U-turn' sign is displayed.

I have often said that following the rooad rules is dangerous.

As far as I am concerned doing a u-turn should be a no brainer as there is a high risk as you have to look each way and every where and at the same time doing a sharp maneouvre which involves blocking 2/3rd's of the road at a relatively slow speed.

Safer to find a side road or even a petrol station where you can turn around.

Bit like the 3 sec indicator rule...

Grahameeboy
27th March 2009, 14:30
My 2c:


As we all know motorcycles can't brake hard while cornering - the front never has enough grip in reserve after the cornering load.



Debatable....you can brake on a bend by straightening up and then braking...ie you head for side or centre line, brake hard and then crank it over again...

MSTRS
27th March 2009, 14:37
No.....84m....was my post not within the distance you could see.....:lol:

That was your post (braking distance)...I'd assume that was based on the figures for a car. In any case, braking distance increases in a corner. It is one thing to slow down because you are a little hot, quite another to actually stop. The problem here is that these 2 bikers saw the car across the lane, maybe nose into the rough, they braked and headed for the gap behind the car, at which point the unaware cop chucks it into reverse and moves into the 'gap'...now too late for them to change line, so heavy last minute braking until THUD!!!
The SCU guys will have all the evidence of who was doing what and where. I think one bike hit just behind the front wheel arch and the other one hit the rear wheel. That bit does have me wondering, unless the 2 were 1/2 wheeling :no:

Nasty
27th March 2009, 14:37
This is what the Road Code says...
Making a U-turn

You are normally allowed to make U-turns, as long as the road is clear in both directions and it is safe to do so. Make sure you have enough room to complete the turn and don't create a hazard for oncoming vehicles.

You aren't allowed to make U-turns if a 'No U-turn' sign is displayed.


He obviously caused one huge bloody hazard .. cos two bikes hit him! What a crock!

BMWST?
27th March 2009, 14:39
Any an all evidence against the motorcyclists will certainly be presented in court, however a spanner here.

What if they were speeding?

Does that exonerate the driver from failing to ensure the safety of other road users during the course of his
maneuver? For not thinking that at any second another road user could round that blind corner?

Surely at the days end people are responsible for their own actions.

If the bikers were speeding the prosecute them for that, but still prosecute the driver for his inattention that contributed to the accident.

+++++++++(plus hoowever many that is)

Grahameeboy
27th March 2009, 14:41
That was your post (braking distance)...I'd assume that was based on the figures for a car. In any case, braking distance increases in a corner. It is one thing to slow down because you are a little hot, quite another to actually stop. The problem here is that these 2 bikers saw the car across the lane, maybe nose into the rough, they braked and headed for the gap behind the car, at which point the unaware cop chucks it into reverse and moves into the 'gap'...now too late for them to change line, so heavy last minute braking until THUD!!!
The SCU guys will have all the evidence of who was doing what and where. And I can't see how the cop is not at fault.

Was just being funny in that post...however, a bike should pull up quicker than a car given the weight advantage....so I stick to my point and "walk away"

MSTRS
27th March 2009, 14:44
....so I stick to my point and "walk away"

Keep practising...30 Seconds might be looking for a new presenter....

BMWST?
27th March 2009, 14:49
There's a big difference between being 'blameless' and knowing that your actions contributed to an eventual outcome.

What is careless?

Doing a U-turn in a questionable location or travelling at such a speed that you couldn't stop if you were confronted with a tree that had fallen onto the road in your path?

Dont confuse one with the other.If they were speeding it doesnt make his actions right.I am sure you have been to the Buller gorge.To attempt a u turn or three point turn is absolutely stuoid(and as it turned out dangerous)I am sure part of the training they get is NOT to place other road users in danger.

MSTRS
27th March 2009, 14:59
This is what the Road Code says...
Making a U-turn

You are normally allowed to make U-turns, as long as the road is clear in both directions and it is safe to do so. Make sure you have enough room to complete the turn and don't create a hazard for oncoming vehicles.

You aren't allowed to make U-turns if a 'No U-turn' sign is displayed.

The big however though, is that this cop was not u-turning. He was having to do a 3 point turn because the road was too narrow for the poxy car's turning circle. A 3 point turn necessitates at least 2 stopped parts to it.

BMWST?
27th March 2009, 15:11
http://www.msf-usa.org/imsc/proceedings/a-Green-ComparisonofStoppingDistance.pdf

here are some motorycle stopping distances,on a dry road a vfr 800 can stop in 71-72 metres FROM 128KPH.

Grahameeboy
27th March 2009, 15:17
Dont confuse one with the other.If they were speeding it doesnt make his actions right.I am sure you have been to the Buller gorge.To attempt a u turn or three point turn is absolutely stuoid(and as it turned out dangerous)I am sure part of the training they get is NOT to place other road users in danger.

At the end of the day this was an unfortunate accident....cop was responding to a crime so in his mind he did not want to let the offence go...probably did check, saw nothing and blah blah.

Guys on bikes were probably doing 100kph or more...at this speed they would have covered 28 meters per 10 seconds so in almost the blink of an eyelid they would have been in view very quickly.

To be fair, the bikers would not have expected a car to be doing a u turn...at most a slow vehicle..maybe an animal so yes you could say that the cop should have considered the hazard over the guy speeding...which highlights the dangers of Police pursuits where adrenalin rather than the Brain tends to kick in.

neels
27th March 2009, 15:32
I'm sure that I've read somewhere that the skid marks from the motorcycle were about 45m long, but can't remember where I read it. Given that at 100kmh you are travelling 28m/s, 1.5 seconds of braking from 100 when presented with a stationary object blocking the road wouldn't seem unreasonable. I'm sure you could lose a couple of seconds in coming off a corner and reaction time before braking.

I have however escaped a careless driving charge when I had an accident doing a u-turn as there was some debate about the speed that the other car was travelling at, I guess the police didn't charge me as they thought that may be enough to get me off. Interesting to see if a jury thinks the same way.

ynot slow
28th March 2009, 09:10
Skimmed over this,but as said doing U turn,make sure all is clear,but with pursuit happening,the cop can accelerate the turn,something we can't do for losing the car with boy racer traction rules.The onus on the cop is he can do a U turn quicker than normal traffic drivers due to the no loss of traction legislation not applying to them in pursuit,so obviously he thought yep they are close,but if I accelerate I'll beat them,then he stuffed the turn up.

Headbanger
28th March 2009, 09:58
Skimmed over this,but as said doing U turn,make sure all is clear,but with pursuit happening,the cop can accelerate the turn,something we can't do for losing the car with boy racer traction rules.The onus on the cop is he can do a U turn quicker than normal traffic drivers due to the no loss of traction legislation not applying to them in pursuit,so obviously he thought yep they are close,but if I accelerate I'll beat them,then he stuffed the turn up.


The onus is on the cop to not pull shit stunts and hurt people.

He should never have attempted the move, especially if he thought he just had to do it really really fast so as not to kill anyone.

scumdog
28th March 2009, 12:18
Skimmed over this,but as said doing U turn,make sure all is clear,but with pursuit happening,the cop can accelerate the turn,something we can't do for losing the car with boy racer traction rules.The onus on the cop is he can do a U turn quicker than normal traffic drivers due to the no loss of traction legislation not applying to them in pursuit,so obviously he thought yep they are close,but if I accelerate I'll beat them,then he stuffed the turn up.


Ah, he would have had a car with traction control I'd hazard a guess.

Sure, he could turn it off but should he lose control and bin it there would be some nasty questions why he had turned off the traction control.

Of course maybe if he HAD turned it off and biffed the arse of the car around we wouldn't be yabbering on about this fiasco...

Headbanger
28th March 2009, 12:38
Of course maybe if he HAD turned it off and biffed the arse of the car around we wouldn't be yabbering on about this fiasco...

Of course, If he hadn't decided to pull the cunning stunt in the first place he would still have his career, he wouldn't be in court, and the two bikers would have had an excellent day, instead of being fucked up in hospital.

ynot slow
28th March 2009, 13:45
Ah, he would have had a car with traction control I'd hazard a guess.

Sure, he could turn it off but should he lose control and bin it there would be some nasty questions why he had turned off the traction control.

Of course maybe if he HAD turned it off and biffed the arse of the car around we wouldn't be yabbering on about this fiasco...

Traction control or not maybe a few more car skills should be part of regular updates,pretty hard to become a rally driver with a few hour only in basic training.

Why have traction control on full time,there are times it is warranted to be discontinued and pursuit turning would be one of these times.Quick turn around is one part,but it comes back to the road,it is a narrow road.Yep he stuffed up,retired from force with full super etc I'd imagine,if he was told admit no fault fine,now he has no alliance to the force he should man up and say I made a huge error in judgement,and was told to do this or that by those in charge.

Hell it is a big thing he has to keep for his life the thought he fucked 2 guys lives,hate to be in his place for sure,but he was performing his duty and the adrenelin kicked in and we know the end results.

Winston001
29th March 2009, 22:07
Yep he stuffed up,retired from force with full super etc I'd imagine,if he was told admit no fault fine,now he has no alliance to the force he should man up and say I made a huge error in judgement,and was told to do this or that by those in charge.


Are you serious? He's been charged by the Police, the organisation which employed him at the time. Do you honestly think his senior officers told him to deny responsibility....??? :eek: And then face prosecution??

This is a (now retired) experienced policeman. He's probably certain in his own mind that the guys who hit him were speeding - in fact he said that to one biker as he lay on the ground. He believes he did nothing wrong - and that's why there is a trial.

Even if convicted he may still reckon he was in the right. Human nature makes us excuse our own misjudgements, trying to blame events on something else. Some people simply cannot say "I was wrong". Nobody on KB of course.... :laugh:

ynot slow
30th March 2009, 09:14
Exactly he hasn't said he was wrong.And clearly did do something wrong.He says they were speeding,they said nope who is correct?I thought reading the police public line is they never admit neglegence or being wrong until after a trial,or hearing so nothing I said changes my statement he may have been told don't admit it was your error.If he is convicted I hope he does admit he was in the wrong,after all most people on trial say it wasn't me,then when guilty don't say I did it do they.

Winston001
30th March 2009, 09:54
I thought reading the police public line is they never admit negligence or being wrong until after a trial,or hearing so nothing I said changes my statement he may have been told don't admit it was your error. ...

This is just basic legal advice which anyone involved with the law - both police and crims, know very well. Deny, and say nothing. Let the prosecution prove it. So he's done nothing unusual, his solicitor would have told him to say nothing from the beginning.

The thing which puzzles me is according to news reports of the evidence, none of the following bikers or cars which turned up just after, had any difficulty stopping. That begs the question, why did the two bikes hit the cop car?

Skyryder
30th March 2009, 10:00
This is just basic legal advice which anyone involved with the law - both police and crims, know very well. Deny, and say nothing. Let the prosecution prove it. So he's done nothing unusual, his solicitor would have told him to say nothing from the beginning.

The thing which puzzles me is according to news reports of the evidence, none of the following bikers or cars which turned up just after, had any difficulty stopping. That begs the question, why did the two bikes hit the cop car?


One issue that has not recieved any attention (as far as I am aware) if the cop was in pursuite and this is what he is essentially saying was his siren lights activated?? It may well be that after the impact the cop activated his lights and this may well have been the reason other vehicles could have stopped in time.


Does anyone have any info on this??


Skyryder

Badjelly
30th March 2009, 10:11
The thing which puzzles me is according to news reports of the evidence, none of the following bikers or cars which turned up just after, had any difficulty stopping. That begs the question, why did the two bikes hit the cop car?

Because he moved into their path after they first saw him? Just speculation. Can it be ruled out?

riffer
30th March 2009, 11:18
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2301604/Police-three-point-turn-guilty-verdict

MSTRS
30th March 2009, 11:21
Of course he was. Glad that formality is out of the way. Now bring on the bus ticket...

Bruiser
30th March 2009, 11:27
One less to worry about!

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2301604/Police-three-point-turn-guilty-verdict




A former police officer who did a three-point-turn on a bend in the Upper Buller Gorge has today been found guilty of two counts of dangerous driving causing injury. Anthony Dale Bridgman had been on trial in the Nelson District Court having denied the counts, which were laid following a crash on State Highway 6 on December 1, 2007.

Bridgman, who was a Blenheim-based highway patrol sergeant, retired last December after 33 years of service.

The jury of eight women and four men took just under an hour to deliver the verdicts.

Judge Tony Zohrab this morning summed up the case for the jury, and urged them to put aside any sympathy they felt for the accused or the seriously injured motorcyclists.

He said the Crown's case had been that Bridgman clocked a motorcyclist travelling at 125kmh towards Westport.

Bridgman decided to pursue the motorcyclist and started doing a three-point-turn, which was when the collision happened.

The crown's case had been that it was dangerous to do a three point turn on that section of road, and Bridgman's actions had presented a real risk to the public.

Judge Zohrab said the defence case had been that the two motorcyclists were speeding and so unable to stop when they saw the patrol car. They would not have crashed into the car if they had been abiding by the law.

Judge Zohrab remanded Bridgman to May 26 for sentence.

McJim
30th March 2009, 11:29
Of course he was. Glad that formality is out of the way. Now bring on the bus ticket...

Remember it needs to be soaked first......

rastuscat
30th March 2009, 11:31
Okay, so what penalty will undo the harm that he caused?

Even hanging won't fix the bikes or the riders, so what's the point in a penalty?

MSTRS
30th March 2009, 11:33
Okay, so what penalty will undo the harm that he caused?

Even hanging won't fix the bikes or the riders, so what's the point in a penalty?

Why bother locking up rapists etc...after all, doing that won't fix the victim, will it?
Edit: - he needs to lose his licence for 1 year and 1 day. And be liable for all damages and costs suffered by the bikers. Plus a fine. He needs to have it hammered home so he won't forget. Pleading not guilty only aggravated the situation. A quick decision by the jury is a dead giveaway that he and his lawyer were 'trying it on'.
Oh - and his employer at the time (NZ Police, Traffic Division) also needs to be targetted in the fallout phase...it is partly their policy of targetting speed (at all costs?) that lead this guy to do something so stupid. Quotas are wrong!!!

Mully
30th March 2009, 11:46
Good. He (and his lawyer) should have been ashamed of himself for pleading not guilty in the first place.

Dakar
30th March 2009, 11:49
Maybe there is justice, the fact that the Jury only took 1 hour to reach their verdict is a compelling indication to how clear cut this case was. something anyone who has travelled this road would know.
its a shame the article does not mention how these chaps are doing, (i have not read all this thread but will search through now to see if any of you know).

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2301604/Police-three-point-turn-guilty-verdict

Mully
30th March 2009, 11:52
He's probably certain in his own mind that the guys who hit him were speeding - in fact he said that to one biker as he lay on the ground.


This is the bit that annoyed me the most. According the rider, there's wasn't even an "are you alright?" first


Pleading not guilty only aggravated the situation. A quick decision by the jury is a dead giveaway that he and his lawyer were 'trying it on'.

Agreed.

Number One
30th March 2009, 12:02
Good bloody job!

McJim
30th March 2009, 12:02
Okay, so what penalty will undo the harm that he caused?

Even hanging won't fix the bikes or the riders, so what's the point in a penalty?

Well when you think about it there is a bit of imbalance and injustice in today's society. Frinstance...a bloke grabs me by the arm against my will so I cuff him about the head until he lets go - it's self defence and I can reasonably expect to get charges dropped but if the guy happens to be a police officer then I get done with assaulting a police oficer which is far more serious. (even though he started it)

So if these guys have the law all sewn up to protect their arses over and above the rights of the average citizen then when they break the laws they are paid to uphold the penalties should be harsher to reflect the betrayal of trust perpetrated by the police officer in question.

Simple really.

Winston001
30th March 2009, 12:12
Frinstance...a bloke grabs me by the arm against my will so I cuff him about the head until he lets go - it's self defence and I can reasonably expect to get charges dropped but if the guy happens to be a police officer then I get done with assaulting a police oficer which is far more serious.

So if these guys have the law all sewn up to protect their arses over and above the rights of the average citizen then when they break the laws they are paid to uphold the penalties should be harsher to reflect the betrayal of trust perpetrated by the police officer in question.



Yeah but if you get grabbed its cos you're a Weegie and justifiable... :bleh:

The fact that he's a professional driver is an aggravating feature at sentencing. He will be held to a higher standard. However typical sentencing would be 12 months loss licence, maybe $2000 fine, reparation.

bistard
30th March 2009, 12:23
Lets now hope that the two riders can get some form of compensation for all the anguish,injuries & lack of earnings

Nasty
30th March 2009, 12:27
Lets now hope that the two riders can get some form of compensation for all the anguish,injuries & lack of earnings

They won't be eligible ... under the ACC system there is a thing about not being able to sue blah blah ... but if the auckland woman suceeds in suing the corrections department over the release of Williem Bell there may be an "in" with that precedent if it is set.

fireliv
30th March 2009, 12:39
However they will be able to ask for reparation & emotional harm payments when sentencing occurs.

The prick knew he was guilty thats why he retired.

Ixion
30th March 2009, 12:39
Because he moved into their path after they first saw him? Just speculation. Can it be ruled out?

No, it cannot indeed.

Check the picture here (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2301604/Police-three-point-turn-guilty-verdict). Note that the cop car is damaged at the extreme left front, despite the fact that the front of the car is way off the road in the verge.

Now, that damage was caused by one of the bikes. The bike certainly did not hit the car when it was stationary in the position it is parked in in the picture. So, the car continued forward across the road, onto the verge AFTER the bike hit it. Ergo, a high probability that the driver was turning across the road AS the bike hit it . Which is supported by the fact that the damage from the second bike , which would have hit a wee bit later, is at the rear wheel.

So strong indication that the car actually turned in front of the bikes. He didn't see them. None of the "stop in the distance" etc rules can cope with a vehicle that turns across immediately in front of you.

Cynos
30th March 2009, 12:40
Glad to see this guy got done, I could never figure out why, if he had "100m" visibility when he started the turn, the riders' skid marks were 50m long.

Bruiser
30th March 2009, 13:23
http://static.stuff.co.nz/1238371655/862/2301862.jpg



A former police officer who did a three-point-turn on a bend in the Upper Buller Gorge has today been found guilty of two counts of dangerous driving causing injury.

Anthony Dale Bridgman had been on trial in the Nelson District Court having denied the counts, which were laid following a crash on State Highway 6 on December 1, 2007.

Bridgman, who was a Blenheim-based highway patrol sergeant, retired last December after 33 years of service.

MarkH
30th March 2009, 14:18
So if these guys have the law all sewn up to protect their arses over and above the rights of the average citizen then when they break the laws they are paid to uphold the penalties should be harsher to reflect the betrayal of trust perpetrated by the police officer in question.

Not to mention that the police are trained professionals in the road safety stuff - they should know better than the average motorists about what is dangerous and could put the lives of other motorists at risk.

Also consider this:
If a biker had been speeding and impacted the cop car with enough force to kill the rider then the rider would not be blameless, however the cop would also be guilty of creating a danger and killing motorists for speeding is a bit over and above the mandate that the NZ police have.

scumdog
30th March 2009, 16:16
One issue that has not recieved any attention (as far as I am aware) if the cop was in pursuite and this is what he is essentially saying was his siren lights activated?? It may well be that after the impact the cop activated his lights and this may well have been the reason other vehicles could have stopped in time.


Does anyone have any info on this??


Skyryder

In that time frame and with manoeuvering the car I doubt he had time to call in a pursuit - which at that stage it was not anyway, he was merely attempting to turn around after all.

HenryDorsetCase
30th March 2009, 16:42
Good. He (and his lawyer) should have been ashamed of himself for pleading not guilty in the first place.

No no no no no no no

Have we learned nothing? The lawyer did what lawyers do: there is no moral imperative here at all. The lawyer would arguably have been negligent to have said do anything other than deny.

It does my head in, it really does.

HenryDorsetCase
30th March 2009, 16:49
They won't be eligible ... under the ACC system there is a thing about not being able to sue blah blah ... but if the auckland woman suceeds in suing the corrections department over the release of Williem Bell there may be an "in" with that precedent if it is set.

not really applicable here: Bell was a complete sociopathic ticking timebomb, and I think its clear that this guy was just careless or reckless. Corrections knew or should have known that Bell would go mental and hurt or kill someone, yet did nothing to stop it. Here the guy was careless, but I dont think it has been established he went "A ha, I will do my best to kill these motorcyclists" big difference. Also Susan Couch is suing in negligence (civil) and this is a criminal matter: different standards and burdens of proof, and remedies available.

the clue (for non-lawyers) is the phrase "duty of care": that means negligence i.e. civil.

sunhuntin
31st March 2009, 08:22
really glad the jury came back with the correct answer. id love the guys to be able to get compensation, but whether they will or not is a different story.

Beemer
31st March 2009, 08:26
Story from the Press this morning - http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2302913/Payout-bid-by-pair-in-gorge-crash. The Dominion Post also had a story that mentioned the victims' injuries but they don't appear to have it online. One lost part of a finger or thumb, and it sounds like both are still suffering the effects of the accident.

Very pleased to see the cop was found guilty as there didn't seem to be any doubt he was totally in the wrong.

MSTRS
31st March 2009, 09:29
No no no no no no no

Have we learned nothing? The lawyer did what lawyers do: there is no moral imperative here at all. The lawyer would arguably have been negligent to have said do anything other than deny.

It does my head in, it really does.

I wonder how much difference it would make if lawyers did not get paid in a lose situation. By that, I mean - advise to plead not guilty and defend, then found guilty. At least in cases where the 'not guilty' is offered in hopes of a 'technicality'.

R1madness
31st March 2009, 10:57
Justice done? The man has been found guilty but what will his punishment be???

Winston001
31st March 2009, 13:11
really glad the jury came back with the correct answer. id love the guys to be able to get compensation, but whether they will or not is a different story.

ACC will take care of earnings compensation (yeah right) and insurance for the bikes - actually the taxpayer since a Crown employee caused the loss.

He might be ordered to pay a bit of reparation to the guys.

Lets keep things in proportion here. A dangerous driving conviction is very common - happens every day somewhere in a NZ court. Nothing special is going to happen to this ex-cop, in fact he's at the low end of the sentencing scale. No speed, no alcohol, probably got a clean record, mature man, acting in his capacity as a police officer, momentary misjudgement yadda yadda. Its possible to be discharged without conviction.

Winston001
31st March 2009, 13:13
While on the subject of compensation, didn't notice anyone calling for the dead Triumph rider's family/estate to pay out for those he killed on Banks Peninsula. That was a far far worse and deliberate case of dangerous driving than here.

Skyryder
31st March 2009, 18:46
I was listening to the radio yesterday (30-3-09) and one of bikers was being interviewed. He was asked if he was speeding and he replied he was doing over the hundred K limit.
So it appears that the cop was right in that the bikes were speeding.

I don't know the law on this but I would suspect that we have not heard the last of this.


Skyryder

Katman
31st March 2009, 18:58
He was asked if he was speeding and he replied he was doing over the hundred K limit.


If that's for real (would love to hear the soundtrack), it would rank as one of the dumbest foot in mouth moves ever.

Katman
31st March 2009, 20:34
Suddenly everyone seems lost for words.

:scratch:

98tls
31st March 2009, 20:38
Suddenly everyone seems lost for words.

:scratch: :drinkup::lol:seems so.

Katman
31st March 2009, 21:07
:drinkup::lol:seems so.

Oh how we chortled.

BMWST?
31st March 2009, 21:16
Skimmed over this,but as said doing U turn,make sure all is clear,but with pursuit happening,the cop can accelerate the turn,something we can't do for losing the car with boy racer traction rules.The onus on the cop is he can do a U turn quicker than normal traffic drivers due to the no loss of traction legislation not applying to them in pursuit,so obviously he thought yep they are close,but if I accelerate I'll beat them,then he stuffed the turn up.

he didnt stuff up the U turn.The gorge is so narrow he had to do a 3 pointer

scumdog
31st March 2009, 21:26
I was listening to the radio yesterday (30-3-09) and one of bikers was being interviewed. He was asked if he was speeding and he replied he was doing over the hundred K limit.
So it appears that the cop was right in that the bikes were speeding.

I don't know the law on this but I would suspect that we have not heard the last of this.


Skyryder

No shit?

Now THERE'S a surprise.....:rolleyes:

98tls
31st March 2009, 21:28
No shit?

Now THERE'S a surprise.....:rolleyes: Bet ya a woodie this ends up just shy of 37 pages.

BMWST?
31st March 2009, 21:30
Suddenly everyone seems lost for words.

:scratch:

so what if they were speeding.Speed may have been a factor in the accident,but the cause was this guy doing his three point turn.....matbe directly in front of the bikers

idb
31st March 2009, 21:31
He's a cop...therefore he deserves what's coming to him!!!












Don't you guys read this forum?

98tls
31st March 2009, 21:34
He's a cop...therefore he deserves what's coming to him!!!












Don't you guys read this forum? No doubt but whats the bet he wont see it coming:whistle:

SS90
1st April 2009, 05:51
Justice done? The man has been found guilty but what will his punishment be???

Too bloody right...... What ever happened to the Police officers in relation to the time that they "Escorted" Helen "man in a dress" Clark at over 120 KPH to the air port on South Canterbury roads, when she was late for a bloody Rugby game????

I am pretty certain Sweet F A happened to them.... they (the police) are supposed to make our roads safer..... one way of doing this would be to "make an example" of this guy, perhaps sentence him to 250 hours of community work, part of which can be spent filming Television ads, highlighting what a hippocrit he (and so many of his workmates) is/are.

The rest of the community service could be spent escorting school rugby teams to away games.

Don't want them to be late.:lol:

MSTRS
1st April 2009, 08:12
...He was asked if he was speeding and he replied he was doing over the hundred K limit.
...
Perhaps he/they have already been issued infringements? Otherwise...dumb admission. And sorry, but I have to say it...perhaps he/they have an inability to see what's ahead.

Too bloody right...... What ever happened to the Police officers in relation to the time that they "Escorted" Helen "man in a dress" Clark at over 120 KPH to the air port on South Canterbury roads, when she was late for a bloody Rugby game????

...
There's speeding and then there's speeding. It is well-documented that they travelled at speeds of 'up to 180kph'. I have to get into 2nd gear to go that fast.

Katman
1st April 2009, 08:47
The interview.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/search?mode=results&queries_all_query=Brent+Russell

peasea
1st April 2009, 10:45
Suddenly everyone seems lost for words.

:scratch:

I'm not. I was out of NZ for a few days and look what happens; a perfect opportunity for a cop bashing thread is missed by the masses.

He's been found guilty. I happen to live in Nelson and have a perfectly good stash of firewood. I say burn him. He's a witch.


<object width="480" height="295"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zrzMhU_4m-g&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zrzMhU_4m-g&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="295"></embed></object>

Skyryder
1st April 2009, 11:57
Perhaps he/they have already been issued infringements? Otherwise...dumb admission. And sorry, but I have to say it...perhaps he/they have an inability to see what's ahead.


Yes not the brightest admission. But this was the defence's arguement in that if the bikers had not been speeding they would have been able to stop.

Now I don't know the road so on this I can not say but an admission of speeding after a guilty verdict that was based on no evidence of speeding other than what the cop said has top raise doubt if the verdict was the correct one.

Skyryder

MarkH
1st April 2009, 12:28
Yes not the brightest admission. But this was the defence's arguement in that if the bikers had not been speeding they would have been able to stop.

But the obvious counter-argument would be that if he had not being making a 3-point turn they would not have crashed.

The police could go around erecting barriers near blind corners so that anyone that exceeds the speed limit would not be able to stop in time and have a crash, tough shit if you are breaking the law. But they don't do that, it seems that it is not considered the job of police to cause accidents, even if a motorist is speeding.

Regardless of whether the injured motorcyclists in this case were squeaky clean or not, the cop acted without due regard for the safety of other road users and deserves to be punished for that. If they feel like dishing out a $120 fine and 30 demerit points (or whatever) to the 2 motorcyclists as well, then I can accept that. But I would be pissed off if the cop didn't get a suitable punishment for his idiotic manoeuvre - he should have known better considering his job at the time.

Skyryder
1st April 2009, 17:08
Too bloody right...... What ever happened to the Police officers in relation to the time that they "Escorted" Helen "man in a dress" Clark at over 120 KPH to the air port on South Canterbury roads, when she was late for a bloody Rugby game????

They got off when they appealed the guilty verdict.


Skyryder

MD
1st April 2009, 20:02
Suddenly everyone seems lost for words.

:scratch:

Good point. From your post #114 below in the U-Turn cop thread you might want to stick your hand up and admit you got it wrong. The Court placed no blame on the speeding Rider or the two that crashed.


If, after the legal proceedings are over, the riders receive from the judge total absolution of any responsibility for the course of events (note I didn't use the word 'blame') I will be the first to stick my hand up and say I got it wrong. However, if it transpires that there was, in fact, something they reasonably could have done to avoid or lessen the severity of the incident then I hope you will also acknowledge that what I, and others, have been saying has been perfectly reasonable.

That Radio NZ interview isn't an admission of speeding. He said he may have been over the limit by a few kph. I wouldn't call that speeding.

Maybe I can clear up a few questions that have been asked.

I was never going to receive an infringement and the two Riders are not being charged with anything.

The Court process was long and drawn out over 6 days. The Police went into extreme detail in their case and investigations. I had my day in Court and was grilled like a roast dinner.

From the Police Expert crash Investigator Report;

1. There was no where safe to pull a car onto the verge on that stretch of road where the turn was made. The verge was 290cm. The car was 5.4m long and the entire road width 5.9m
2. Three Officers re-enacted the 3-point turn with a fastest time of just over 9 seconds
3. A vehicle coming at 100kph into sight of car had 3 seconds before impact [the Press reported this as 4.4s but I clearly heard him state three seconds]
4. The Officer had 90m visibility at the start of turn and 120m when across the roadway
5.The two Riders were travelling between 104 to 109kph around the bend

Other interesting points.

The Officer told the first 2 Cops to arrive that he didn't turn his red & blues on until after the crash. And he didn't know that he had been hit by bikes until he walked to the rear of the car to fix the radio aerial [damaged by a Rider's body]. He did this before offering aid/checking on the body he saw on the roadside first. He also didn't realise there were two Riders until the other riders arrived and asked.
Days later his formal statement was that he immediately turned on lights when seeing me [I watched carefully to see if he did- he didn't]
In his statement he claimed he swung across road, then saw two bikes speeding towards him knowing he couldn't get out of their way in time.

The following Riders stopped in time because, (a) the lead Rider had his radar going off and slowed and (b) they saw red and blue reflecting off the shadows in the bush way above the scene and knew something was up.

The Nelson Mail reported my comments at Court incorrectly. They stated I weighed up whether or not to stop when I came across the Cop and his radar set my detector off. This implies that I was going to do a runner. What I said was "I weighed up the likelihood that he would bother to come after me, because I knew he couldn't turn for a while on that stretch of road.
Why on earth would I run from a $170 traffic infringement. I only had 20 demerits then (and still now)
I passed two Cops leaving the scene. One was second to arrive at the crash. One nearer Westport who was operating a radar as I approached. I gave neither any reason to stop me.

I was responsible for giving the Officer a reason to issue me with a $170 traffic infringement, nothing more. I was not responsible for how he drove, and where and how he decided to turn.
I made the statement in Court that at 125kph and assuming he would take atleast one minute to turn to pursue me I would be 2km away. How fast was he prepared to drive a heavy car through a tight gorge to close that 2km gap before I reached the Inagahua Junction?

Katman
1st April 2009, 20:24
That Radio NZ interview isn't an admission of speeding. He said he may have been over the limit by a few kph. I wouldn't call that speeding.



That's laughable - and you well know it.

peasea
1st April 2009, 20:29
Good point. From your post #114 below in the U-Turn cop thread you might want to stick your hand up and admit you got it wrong. The Court placed no blame on the speeding Rider or the two that crashed.



That Radio NZ interview isn't an admission of speeding. He said he may have been over the limit by a few kph. I wouldn't call that speeding.

Maybe I can clear up a few questions that have been asked.

I was never going to receive an infringement and the two Riders are not being charged with anything.

The Court process was long and drawn out over 6 days. The Police went into extreme detail in their case and investigations. I had my day in Court and was grilled like a roast dinner.

From the Police Expert crash Investigator Report;

1. There was no where safe to pull a car onto the verge on that stretch of road where the turn was made. The verge was 290cm. The car was 5.4m long and the entire road width 5.9m
2. Three Officers re-enacted the 3-point turn with a fastest time of just over 9 seconds
3. A vehicle coming at 100kph into sight of car had 3 seconds before impact [the Press reported this as 4.4s but I clearly heard him state three seconds]
4. The Officer had 90m visibility at the start of turn and 120m when across the roadway
5.The two Riders were travelling between 104 to 109kph around the bend

Other interesting points.

The Officer told the first 2 Cops to arrive that he didn't turn his red & blues on until after the crash. And he didn't know that he had been hit by bikes until he walked to the rear of the car to fix the radio aerial [damaged by a Rider's body]. He did this before offering aid/checking on the body he saw on the roadside first. He also didn't realise there were two Riders until the other riders arrived and asked.
Days later his formal statement was that he immediately turned on lights when seeing me [I watched carefully to see if he did- he didn't]
In his statement he claimed he swung across road, then saw two bikes speeding towards him knowing he couldn't get out of their way in time.

The following Riders stopped in time because, (a) the lead Rider had his radar going off and slowed and (b) they saw red and blue reflecting off the shadows in the bush way above the scene and knew something was up.

The Nelson Mail reported my comments at Court incorrectly. They stated I weighed up whether or not to stop when I came across the Cop and his radar set my detector off. This implies that I was going to do a runner. What I said was "I weighed up the likelihood that he would bother to come after me, because I knew he couldn't turn for a while on that stretch of road.
Why on earth would I run from a $170 traffic infringement. I only had 20 demerits then (and still now)
I passed two Cops leaving the scene. One was second to arrive at the crash. One nearer Westport who was operating a radar as I approached. I gave neither any reason to stop me.

I was responsible for giving the Officer a reason to issue me with a $170 traffic infringement, nothing more. I was not responsible for how he drove, and where and how he decided to turn.
I made the statement in Court that at 125kph and assuming he would take atleast one minute to turn to pursue me I would be 2km away. How fast was he prepared to drive a heavy car through a tight gorge to close that 2km gap before I reached the Inagahua Junction?

Mate: you have my sympathy. Your actions do not, in any way, make you accountable for the actions of others.

I know, for a fact, that cops lie. They lie at the scene of incidents, in court and anywhere else they see a need to save their arse. I've seen/heard them do it and for them to gather up any respect from me is going to take a fucking long time indeed. They have a 'holier than thou' attitude throughout.

The Nelson Mail is known for its cheap, ill-informed, sensationalist "gutter" journalism (as proven with their "gang" shite of recent times) and anything they print should should be taken with a grain of salt.

I'd take the word of a biker over some lame-arse news-rag-slag or revenue-gathering liar any day.

Fuck them. They're liars, scum and worse.

Katman
1st April 2009, 20:36
I know, for a fact, that cops lie. They lie at the scene of incidents, in court and anywhere else they see a need to save their arse.

I don't disagree. (Hell, I'm waiting on an appeal application based on the fact that a cop blatantly lied under oath in court).

The thing is though - the police aren't the only ones guilty of lying in court. It's human nature to lie to save your arse - motorcyclists included.

scumdog
1st April 2009, 20:58
one way of doing this would be to "make an example" of this guy, perhaps sentence him to 250 hours of community work, part of which can be spent filming Television ads, highlighting what a hippocrit he (and so many of his workmates) is/are.

Let me be tactful here: HE IS NO LONGER A COP.:Pokey:

peasea
1st April 2009, 21:03
I don't disagree. (Hell, I'm waiting on an appeal application based on the fact that a cop blatantly lied under oath in court).

The thing is though - the police aren't the only ones guilty of lying in court. It's human nature to lie to save your arse.

Motorcyclists included.

Fair call, but................
Bikers are 'biker scum', right? You expect that if you're Joe Publc. (If you're judge, jury member or mass media journo et al.)

However; if you're a straight thinker, looking for the truth (hard to find, I know) then I'd still be looking sideways at the cop. History has a way of repeating itself. I know that doing a U-turn in the Buller Gorge is different to a mass murder but I'd be be keen to have a word with the bikers affected by the gorge incident and David Bain alike. Who did what, who put what where, and where is the truth? The police just want to close the case, not find the truth or obtain justice.

An expansion of Google Earth could be advantageous at times. I doubt the police would want that though.

In a way I pity Bridgeman; first up, he goofed it, we all do from time to time. Secondly, he was close to a retirement package (that he will most likely retain) and it's not a good way to out; finally,he might (might) feel badly about the event.

Whatever his sentence he will move on. Those who were injured may or may not.

peasea
1st April 2009, 21:10
Let me be tactful here: HE IS NO LONGER A COP.:Pokey:

Once a cop, always a cop. Like: I"m off duty, I won't bust you for smoking a spliff".

Bullshit.

I never go over 100k's either.

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. Cop he was, cop he is.

Like a 'Mongel Mob' tat on the forehead.

scumdog
1st April 2009, 21:13
Once a cop, always a cop. Like: I"m off duty, I won't bust you for smoking a spliff".

Bullshit.

I never go over 100k's either.

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. Cop he was, cop he is.

Like a 'Mongel Mob' tat on the forehead.

Oh.

So he'll be out on the road writing out tickets next week eh?

And doing half-arsed U-turns in the Buller Gorge and other cop shit too eh?

McJim
1st April 2009, 21:15
Once a cop, always a cop. Like: I"m off duty, I won't bust you for smoking a spliff".

Bullshit.

I never go over 100k's either.

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. Cop he was, cop he is.

Like a 'Mongel Mob' tat on the forehead.


Oh.

So he'll be out on the road writing out tickets next week eh?

And doing half-arsed U-turns in the Buller Gorge and other cop shit too eh?

You fellas should get a room :rofl:

scumdog
1st April 2009, 21:18
You fellas should get a room :rofl:

I have one.

Inside my head.

Where all the voices come from..........

NordieBoy
1st April 2009, 22:20
Once a cop, always a cop. Like: I"m off duty, I won't bust you for smoking a spliff".

Bullshit.

I never go over 100k's either.

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. Cop he was, cop he is.

Like a 'Mongel Mob' tat on the forehead.

Good thing you shifted to Nelson. It's toned you down :D

Katman
2nd April 2009, 07:30
Regardless of how far over the speed limit the motorcyclists were travelling there remains the responsibility to be able to stop within the distance available to you. There are countless blind corners without advisory speed warnings that are not safe to take even at 100kph.

It has become increasingly endemic for motorcyclists to blame everything and everyone who has the audacity to spoil their 'fun in the twisties'.

MSTRS
2nd April 2009, 08:12
Let me be tactful here: HE IS NO LONGER A COP.
What difference does that make? He was when he committed his crime, he should have known better, and now he has to pay. If I shot a few people, then sold my gun/s and handed in my FA licence, would that absolve me of the killings. I think not.


It has become increasingly endemic for motorcyclists to blame everything and everyone who has the audacity to spoil their 'fun in the twisties'.

It is becoming increasingly endemic for fuckwits who can't drive to use 'our' roads. :Pokey:
Time for these...

MarkH
2nd April 2009, 09:02
Regardless of how far over the speed limit the motorcyclists were travelling there remains the responsibility to be able to stop within the distance available to you. There are countless blind corners without advisory speed warnings that are not safe to take even at 100kph.

It has become increasingly endemic for motorcyclists to blame everything and everyone who has the audacity to spoil their 'fun in the twisties'.

I sure as fuck hope that you are not trying to suggest that the cop in this case was blameless!

Maybe the bikers were exceeding the speed limit - I don't know.
Maybe the bikers didn't react as quickly as they should have - I don't know.
The police officer should NOT have attempted to turn in such a dangerous place - this I know, he has been convicted for doing it. Some motorists may not realise just how dangerous such a stupid move was, but the cop definitely should have known!

There are lessons to be learnt for all of us in the misfortunes of others. In this case it would be that you need to stop if you come around a corner and see a car ahead performing a 3 point turn. You also need to react VERY quickly to danger. These 2 motorcyclists could well have been killed if they had taken just 1 second longer to start braking, their reaction times may not have saved them from a crash, but it was good enough to save them from death.
To be honest I think with the crash and injuries they have already paid enough for their part in this incident. Hopefully the court sentence will be enough for the cop to pay adequately for his part (though it wont surprise me if he gets off too lightly).

scumdog
2nd April 2009, 09:58
What difference does that make? He was when he committed his crime, he should have known better, and now he has to pay. If I shot a few people, then sold my gun/s and handed in my FA licence, would that absolve me of the killings. I think not...

See post #154.

The dude posting seems to say that the guy is still a cop - I KNOW it does not make effawl difference to what has happened though...and I don't believe his leaving will 'absolve him of the crash' ..nobody has yet said that.

Except maybe certain posters who by comments think/guess/dream it will.:rolleyes:

Katman
2nd April 2009, 12:02
It is becoming increasingly endemic for fuckwits who can't drive to use 'our' roads.

I realise that comment was probably made with a certain degree of tongue in cheek but that's the very attitude that is fucking things up for us. They're not 'our roads' - we share them with a number of different forms of transport and need to learn to ride accordingly.

MSTRS
2nd April 2009, 13:12
I realise that comment was probably made with a certain degree of tongue in cheek but that's the very attitude that is fucking things up for us. They're not 'our roads' - we share them with a number of different forms of transport and need to learn to ride accordingly.
Yes dad.
Ever noticed as the numbers of vehicles on our roads increase, how the percentage of driving fuckwittery seems to increase exponentially? And how the de facto open road speed is dropping through 80kph? And even then, they can't keep within the lane?
I mean, they have a right to be on the road (if they have the licence) and I don't mind that. What pisses me off is when they are on the same bit of road as me or my friends AT THE SAME TIME.
And getting back to the original subject, some of these idiots are cops.

Patrick
2nd April 2009, 14:36
If that's for real (would love to hear the soundtrack), it would rank as one of the dumbest foot in mouth moves ever.

Perhaps he was owning up and accepting his own responsibilities.... Heard that somewhere.... Hmmm...


Bet ya a woodie this ends up just shy of 37 pages.

Double that, and I bet David YALLOP, North and South Magazine or Joe KARAM write a book over his innocence...


Perhaps he/they have already been issued infringements? Otherwise...dumb admission.

Otherwise, statute of limitations have passed. Don't matter one jot....


.....Why on earth would I run from a $170 traffic infringement. I only had 20 demerits then (and still now)

Why indeed. That never happens.


I know, for a fact, that cops lie. They lie at the scene of incidents, in court and anywhere else they see a need to save their arse. I've seen/heard them do it and for them to gather up any respect from me is going to take a fucking long time indeed. They have a 'holier than thou' attitude throughout.

And all Maori are crims... and all old white guys are paedophiles... and all asians can't drive..... and all sheilas can't park cars...


Yes dad.
Ever noticed as the numbers of vehicles on our roads increase, how the percentage of driving fuckwittery seems to increase exponentially? And how the de facto open road speed is dropping through 80kph? And even then, they can't keep within the lane?
I mean, they have a right to be on the road (if they have the licence) and I don't mind that. What pisses me off is when they are on the same bit of road as me or my friends AT THE SAME TIME.
And getting back to the original subject, some of these idiots are cops.

One out of how many, over how long, again...?

MSTRS
2nd April 2009, 16:00
Otherwise, statute of limitations have passed. Don't matter one jot....


One out of how many, over how long, again...?

Didn't think there was such a thing. Other than a charge having to be heard by the court within a timely period (whatever that is).

Only one? I guess so, in this particular case there was only one cop involved...

Patrick
3rd April 2009, 10:30
Didn't think there was such a thing. Other than a charge having to be heard by the court within a timely period (whatever that is).

Only one? I guess so, in this particular case there was only one cop involved...

6 months limit for virtually all traffic stuff...

Yep... only one. I do recall one other, once upon a time....

Two then, in how long?

We deal with idiots 24/7... all day, every day..... That shit's gotta rub off some time, I suppose....

caseye
5th April 2009, 10:55
Well Justice has been seen to be done. The ex "Traffic Officer" I note that he'd spent 26 yrs in traffic enforcement, this makes him an ex T/O not a Policeman has been found guilty.
I sincerely hope that the sentence is appropriate.
MD thanks for keeping your head and explaining what happened to you, regards the way the Police treated you throughout.
The pity is that so many riders feel they are hard done by, when we could all try simply obeying the same road rules as everyone else.Being able to stop in the clear distance ahead is subjective at best in a situation like this.3+ seconds from on or just over 100K's per hour to stopped before impact.
Not possible.
Therefore barring any verbal BS from the driver involved this is simply an accident caused by his inattention, an accident that as with almost all accidents was completely avoidable.

I hope he gets the book thrown at him for attempting to use his credible witness status to try and say that he estimated their speed at 125 K's from side on and directly ahead. Thats Impossible!
While I no longer trust the NZ Justice system to get it right I can at least take some comfort from the fact that the jury took such a short time to see through the attempted defence and convict. Good for them.