Log in

View Full Version : Police killing us again!



Pages : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9

Ixion
21st April 2010, 16:29
You know I've been thinking a bit about this. We've been so busy blasting the fellow for being a policeman that we've not noticed one interesting similarity between Bridgman and this new fellow. They've both been doing traffic for more than 30 years.

Now that suggests to me that they're both ex-snakes. Not police.

Could it be that the merger of MOT into Police has had a detrimental effect not only on public attitudes to Police, but also that some of the snake attitudes might now be having a detrimental effect on the actual Police attitudes themselves?

Tooman is ex-snake also. But, have to say, I don't remember the snakes doing rash or dangerous stuff. Not to say they didn't of course.

peasea
21st April 2010, 16:34
You would be pleasantly surprised to see how many bikes would lie

I wish my bike would lie for me, it's just too damned honest for its own good.

MSTRS
21st April 2010, 16:36
what does the term snake refer to? comes up quite often and I still dunno what it is, TIA

Traffic officer. From the days pre-merger. I presume from the term 'snake in the grass'.
Any HW patrol can be termed thusly.

Bald Eagle
21st April 2010, 16:40
Now that suggests to me that they're both ex-snakes. Not police.

Could it be that the merger of MOT into Police has had a detrimental effect not only on public attitudes to Police, but also that some of the snake attitudes might now be having a detrimental effect on the actual Police attitudes themselves?

absolutely, merging a public service organisation that had a help people catch crooks ethos , with a revenue earning bunch of small car big dick syndrome people was never going to have a good outcome.

I think merging these two diametrically opposed organisations has been an unmitigated failure and should be reversed at the earliest opportunity.

shafty
21st April 2010, 16:40
Cameras in cars as per the U.S and U.K examples would greatly benefit both sides, not to mention save money in the long run through reducing court costs.

TOTALLY -- a no brainer

riffer
21st April 2010, 16:42
Tooman is ex-snake also. But, have to say, I don't remember the snakes doing rash or dangerous stuff. Not to say they didn't of course.

Really? You never got nearly run off the road by those idiots in the V3000s? I know those cars were lousy, but sheesh they really couldn't drive them well...

dipshit
21st April 2010, 16:44
I think it's because that's the only place they can hunt and meet the quota. The cops know that most people who exceed the arbitrary speed limit also look further ahead than the vehicle immediately in front and that gives them time to wipe off speed when they spot a rozza.

So the cops hang around blind bends to gain the element of surprise.

This is true. They also know radar detectors can pick them up from miles away in more straight flat areas. Undulating sections of road gives them a better chance of catching someone using a radar detector by surprise as well.

Ixion
21st April 2010, 16:47
Probably did, I just don't tend to remember that sort of stuff. Happens, dealt with, forgotten. I only remember the two cops who would have taken me out , if I did not have a well trained spidey, because it was soon after the Buller gorge incident, and both times I thought 'They just haven't learned anything at all'. Made it stick in my mind.

Prolly, too, I mainly remember the bikie snakes. Never took much notice of the car ones.

peasea
21st April 2010, 16:48
You know I've been thinking a bit about this. We've been so busy blasting the fellow for being a policeman that we've not noticed one interesting similarity between Bridgman and this new fellow. They've both been doing traffic for more than 30 years.

Now that suggests to me that they're both ex-snakes. Not police.

Could it be that the merger of MOT into Police has had a detrimental effect not only on public attitudes to Police, but also that some of the snake attitudes might now be having a detrimental effect on the actual Police attitudes themselves?

Snakes? I've heard them called that, but when I was a lad we called them maggots, and it was one particular maggot (who ended up getting stabbed, ironically) that inspired me to pen this when I was about 17/18. All in jest, of course.:innocent:

The Maggot.

"New Zealand abounds with those MOT runts
Posing as coppers and acting like cunts
There's no end to the hate those arseholes create
And I've got a feeling they all masturbate
But if maggots can breed the offspring are poor
Coz that's the result when you use the back door

Should you be stopped by a spotty-faced prick
Keep your legs crossed and mind out for your dick
Riding round town on their Japanese wrecks
Harrassing the public and doing spot checks

All night in the pub, drinking far too much rum
Behind you a car that's chock full of scum
They'll take you and break you and fondle your bum
But when you scream 'help' they'll beat you up some
If a maggot wants a fight, and most of them do
Stab him ten times and get his mate too

It's just another case of them versus us
But how can we argue with that lowlife pus?
They grease round a judge like green runny slime
Just to stick a poor biker for some petty crime

So if a maggot should visit, one grey day at work
Take him out back and carve up the jerk
There's no hope for us bikers, of that I am sure
If we do make the grade they'll just change the law

So when you're out riding on a hot summers day
And a maggot on wheels stops you going your way
Break out the sawn-off and blow him away
If you think they'll quit you need your head read
The day that I'm free is the day that I'm dead."

Tee hee.

denill
21st April 2010, 16:51
You all no doubt realise that no matter what sensible comments, or for that matter non-sensible comments, you make in this thread, it is not going to make a diddly squat of difference.

It won't bring poor Paul Brown (May he RIP) back. It sure as hell won't make Police change their pursuit of speeders at any cost attitude. In fact no one with any clout will even read this thread.

The thread is all about - making us feel good. :mellow:

Bald Eagle
21st April 2010, 16:52
You where a very angry young man

denill
21st April 2010, 16:54
what does the term snake refer to? comes up quite often and I still dunno what it is, TIA

My old man referred to them as snakes because no shit, they used to hide in the grass.

Ixion
21st April 2010, 16:55
You all no doubt realise that no matter what sensible comments, or for that matter non-sensible comments, you make in this thread, it is not going to make a diddly squat of difference.

.. It sure as hell won't make Police change their pursuit of speeders at any cost attitude. In fact no one with any clout will even read this thread.

The thread is all about - making us feel good. :mellow:

Maybe not. The press are takiing a definite interest in this, they are the ones saying that the policy should change. And I know for a fact that the press read this site. We know the police read it too. Public opinion can effect change, and public opinion is the sum of a lot of inputs that people think aren't noticed.

DougieNZ
21st April 2010, 16:58
The driver of a speeding ute - that a police car was turning to chase when was it was involved in a fatal motorcycle crash - is expected to carry the motorcyclist's coffin. Te Kauwhata man Carl Jackson's 38-year-old friend Paul Brown died when his motorcycle collided with a highway patrol car which was doing a three-point turn on a Waikato road to chase Mr Jackson. Although he felt "rat-shit for doing over the speed limit", and indirectly contributing to the collision, Mr Jackson said that members of the Te Kauwhata community had offered him support. "I've had a couple of people say 'don't blame yourself for what happened'." He expected to be a pall-bearer at Mr Brown's funeral, which is scheduled for Friday. Mr Jackson said he had known Mr Brown since they were children, and developed a strong friendship through motorcycle racing. Mr Jackson and Mr Brown also worked together for Jackson Engineering, which Mr Jackson operates in conjunction with his father. Mr Jackson, 43, is expected to be charged with speeding in relation to the incident, but disputes police suggestions he was travelling at 154kmh. He said his diesel-powered Mazda Bounty ute was not capable of that speed. He was "still numb" and dealing with Mr Brown's death. He had returned to the crash scene yesterday. "I still can't get my head around what the guy [the officer] was trying to do," Mr Jackson said. He was unaware Mr Brown was behind him, and did not see the crash between the police car and Mr Brown's motorcycle. Mr Jackson and Mr Brown were not travelling together. "I didn't know where Paul was: I didn't know if he had left our friend's, or was still there. He was sitting there finishing his drink when I left. I did not know he was behind me. "He [the police officer] was coming in the opposite direction. As I have gone past the cop, I have looked in my side mirror, seen his [the police officer's] brake lights come on. I naturally thought he was going to chase me." He said the officer had to take some responsibility for the collision. "It's a series of events that should never have happened. I'm not hiding from the fact what I did has probably contributed to the chain of events."

Interesting the way life is isn't it? This guy gets support and the police get blasted as a whole before the investigation has even taken place!

peasea
21st April 2010, 17:04
Maybe not. The press are takiing a definite interest in this, they are the ones saying that the policy should change. And I know for a fact that the press read this site. We know the police read it too.

Fuck!
They'll be riding motorcycles next and infiltrating rallies etc.
It really is a conspiracy.

miloking
21st April 2010, 17:04
The thread is all about - making us feel good. :mellow:

It certainly is! And whats wrong with that.. Do you want me to go and take out my anger/frustration on friends and family or do you want me to just let the steam off here by making fun of Indoo and Scumdog...?

Elysium
21st April 2010, 17:06
Yep. Just read that now. I'd be gutted to know afterwards my mate was behind me and got taken out by a cop.

peasea
21st April 2010, 17:06
My old man referred to them as snakes because no shit, they used to hide in the grass.

Like cowpats, only more smelly and rounder?

peasea
21st April 2010, 17:07
It certainly is! And whats wrong with that.. Do you want me to go and take out my anger/frustration on friends and family or do you want me to just let the steam off here by making fun of Indoo and Scumdog...?

You don't need to make fun of Scummy, he's a riot on his own.

smoky
21st April 2010, 17:08
NZ roads would be a far safer place if people would just kept to their side of the road.

Oh, and someone mentioned, what if a cow or horse was there instead? Well the owner would likely be in shit if they hadn't taken reasonable care to ensure it wasn't.
It's the same situation with a guy named John, last year, who came over a blind rise to find a milk tanker turning right out of farm drive blocking the whole road. RIP John

There was an approach to both land transport and Fonteria to discuss the possibility of tankers only being allowed to turn left out of the drive way if it's close to a corner or hill - not interested, either of them, not even in discussing the possibility

Ender EnZed
21st April 2010, 17:08
disputes police suggestions he was travelling at 154kmh. He said his diesel-powered Mazda Bounty ute was not capable of that speed.

Don't know what year or specific model he was driving but 154km/h on that bit of road would be very unlikely in most diesel utes I've had anything to do with.

peasea
21st April 2010, 17:17
Don't know what year or specific model he was driving but 154km/h on that bit of road would be very unlikely in most diesel utes I've had anything to do with.

I don't know the road but I'll agree with the sentiment re diesel utes. 154 in a Mazda Bounty? Fuck, I might go buy one!

Ixion
21st April 2010, 17:19
'Twould have been downhill though, the cop would have pinged him probably at the bottom of that hill. Still seems fast, that would over an indicated 160kph.

peasea
21st April 2010, 17:22
Don't know what year or specific model he was driving but 154km/h on that bit of road would be very unlikely in most diesel utes I've had anything to do with.

Just Google'd a few, top speed for some is touted to be 100mph (160kph-ish) but I'd say it would take a while to wind up to that unless it was the turbo'd, intercooled, facing downhill, tail-wind model.

(I see also that many are assembeld in Hiroshima. See? Two bombs weren't enough.)

miloking
21st April 2010, 17:25
(I see also that many are assembeld in Hiroshima. See? Two bombs weren't enough.)

hahaha,good one peasea i cant believe iam acutaly laughing at this...iam such an asshole :D

miloking
21st April 2010, 17:27
You don't need to make fun of Scummy, he's a riot on his own.

I get feeling all this "hasslin" of piggies on here will come down and bite me some day (pulled over on a side of the road likely)....but whata hell its probably worth it.

peasea
21st April 2010, 17:27
It's the same situation with a guy named John, last year, who came over a blind rise to find a milk tanker turning right out of farm drive blocking the whole road. RIP John

There was an approach to both land transport and Fonteria to discuss the possibility of tankers only being allowed to turn left out of the drive way if it's close to a corner or hill - not interested, either of them, not even in discussing the possibility

Ain't that fuckin' typical?
Pen-pushers...grrr. There's a bunch of louts hang around a local mall here but nobody said anything about them until the mayor nearly got mugged and then all of a sudden Nelson has a 'violence problem'. http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/news/3581363/City-violence-horrifies-mayor

Until shit happens to them they are quite safe in their ivory towers.
"Let them eat cake."

peasea
21st April 2010, 17:28
I get feeling all this "hasslin" of piggies on here will come down and bite me some day (pulled over on a side of the road likely)....but whata hell its probably worth it.

Go ahead, make everyone's day. Hassle the crap out of 'em, they'll probably want to buy you a beer in real life.

True....it happened to me once.

scumdog
21st April 2010, 17:32
miloking;
i'm not concerned with scummy's prattle. I've seen him and his buddies close ranks on KB and lie, bullshit and evade anytime the truth is too close

they are easy and when the goinmg gets tough; the cops show their true colours


Speaking for myself I don't believe that I 'lie, bullshit and evade anytime the truth is too close' even when the 'goinmg' (whatever THAT word means) gets tough - but I'm prepared to stand corrected, please feel free to quote where I am in those catagories I've mentioned.

Generally I keep quiet regarding the actual event in question and anything directly related to the event.

Why?

Because unlike the sorry-arsed cheese-dick knob-jockey key-board warriors posting on KB I don't KNOW enough to pass a valid comment, I wasn't there, I didn't see the event.

Oh, and again nice to see you still posting to your usual high standard Idol X 3!!!.:devil2:

scumdog
21st April 2010, 17:34
You don't need to make fun of Scummy, he's a riot on his own.

Somebody's been makin' fun of me?

Where?

Where?...

Coldrider
21st April 2010, 17:35
Somebody's been makin' fun of me?

Where?

Where?...failed your own attitude test ?

Stormer
21st April 2010, 17:42
If it was a PFC (Private Fucken Civilan) driving the car, they`d be toast...and lose their licence.

Riding on the road is like being in a combat zone.
Know your enemy.
Bad road conditions, roaming stock, idiot car drivers to name a few.
Now we have "Retard police doing 3-Point turns around blind corners and crests of hills" to add to the list.

Gooood Morning Vietnam!!!

peasea
21st April 2010, 17:48
Somebody's been makin' fun of me?

Where?

Where?...

It's ok, you missed it.

R6_kid
21st April 2010, 17:54
Somebody's been makin' fun of me?

Where?

Where?...

"Naked cop catches criminal" rings a bell

peasea
21st April 2010, 17:57
"Naked cop catches criminal" rings a bell

Which is why he won't get a no-bell prize.

Robert Taylor
21st April 2010, 18:23
hell yes!

the lying cop would not have got away with it if he'd had a camera in his car when he stopped me; in fact he wouldn't have even stopped me as it was bogus from the get go.

Regardless: I'm gonna go everywhere with a video camera now and film any cop giving me a ticket and i urge you all to do the same to prevent the lying bastards getting away with anything.

Well that allied with your brazen contempt for any form of authority and enforcement is going to get you off on the wrong foot straight away isnt it....

Everytime Ive been caught for speeding Ive always been polite and its always ''been a fair cop''. Maybe you are attracting too much attention.

idleidolidyll
21st April 2010, 18:32
Speaking for myself I don't believe that I 'lie, bullshit and evade anytime the truth is too close' even when the 'goinmg' (whatever THAT word means) gets tough - but I'm prepared to stand corrected, please feel free to quote where I am in those catagories I've mentioned.

Generally I keep quiet regarding the actual event in question and anything directly related to the event.

Why?

Because unlike the sorry-arsed cheese-dick knob-jockey key-board warriors posting on KB I don't KNOW enough to pass a valid comment, I wasn't there, I didn't see the event.

Oh, and again nice to see you still posting to your usual high standard Idol X 3!!!.:devil2:

damn near all your posts in my marathon thread about cops and speeding were evasion, manipulation, rank closing and bullshit

i wasnt at all surprised when your lot forced the thread off the open forum and into drivel even though it was a perfectly valid debate

speed does NOT kill; that's one of the dumbest absolute statements made by dumb ass coppers

i could drive up and down some roads in canterbury at 200kph for the rest of my life and never have an accident let alone die.

on the other hand, i could be killed by a fuckwit while doing 30kph

you brainwashed coppers piss all over your own arguments with your ridiculous assertions

so yes, i have no concern with your posts or those of the other dumb coppers here: you always end up making your own arguments ridiculous

btw: re typos; bite me, i don't give a fuck

Robert Taylor
21st April 2010, 18:51
"your brazen contempt for any form of authority and enforcement"

as usual Bob is full of shit and posts idiotic logical fallacies as if they had any basis in fact
hey bob, here's a test: which of these fallacies have you just posted:
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/

scummy and his uniformed gang use plenty of these too; check em out. basically, if it feels wrong it's probably listed

I can well understand why any policeman would not take a shine to you. Its probably also very lucky for you that you dont live in one of those tinpot left wing utopias where police brutality is used as an instrument of correction for those that are so voiciferous against the system.

As I have intimated in another post I have no issues with the police. Actually thats not quite true, theres a few louts about that could do with a good beating. If only the police were allowed to operate without their hands tied behind their backs.

bluelight
21st April 2010, 19:16
[B][COLOR=DarkOrange]

speed does NOT kill; that's one of the dumbest absolute statements made by dumb ass coppers

i could drive up and down some roads in canterbury at 200kph for the rest of my life and never have an accident let alone die.

on the other hand, i could be killed by a fuckwit while doing 30kph



In this case it would be you who is the fuckwit. Only thinking for yourself while travelling double the speed limit.

peasea
21st April 2010, 19:20
Its probably also very lucky for you that you dont live in one of those tinpot left wing utopias where police brutality is used as an instrument of correction for those that are so voiciferous against the system.

Like Auckland's North Shore?

peasea
21st April 2010, 19:21
In this case it would be you who is the fuckwit. Only thinking for yourself while travelling double the speed limit.

Who else would you "think for"?
Rupert the Bear?

miloking
21st April 2010, 19:22
In this case it would be you who is the fuckwit. Only thinking for yourself while travelling double the speed limit.

Like realy didnt you read what idleidolidyll said??? It was just an example to show that speed doesnt mean anything when there are other factors on the road to consider!!!!

You police guys are lost causes because you actualy believe the "speed kills" bullshit yourself....

Littleman
21st April 2010, 19:24
I think alll the white middle class males complaining here should stand around, hold hands, and chant "fight the power! fight the power!".

See how that works for you.

prvt parts
21st April 2010, 19:26
failed your own attitude test ?

i think you mean aptitude

miloking
21st April 2010, 19:37
I think alll the white middle class males complaining here should stand around, hold hands, and chant "fight the power! fight the power!".

See how that works for you.

Isnt this thread and various organizations formed agaist police stupidity example enough that we are doing it already?

Littleman
21st April 2010, 19:39
Isnt this thread and various organizations formed agaist police stupidity example enough that we are doing it already?


I encourage you to think 'bigger picture'.

bogan
21st April 2010, 19:42
I encourage you to think 'bigger picture'.

Bigger picture, like not focusing so much on speed and instead trying to bring the accident rate down? thats the biggest picture for road safety init?

miloking
21st April 2010, 19:45
I encourage you to think 'bigger picture'.

Like in thailand right now, you mean? be careful what you wish for.....

R6_kid
21st April 2010, 19:51
Like in thailand right now, you mean? be careful what you wish for.....

Good like finding enough people who are actually passionate enough about your cause, and honestly believe that the country is being fucked over by the cops.
If you get 1000 I'll shake your hand.
Get 10,000 and I'll kiss your ass.
Get more than 20,000 I'll do both of the above and then run down Queen Street naked - or if you like run up it, it'll probably take longer.

miloking
21st April 2010, 20:13
Good like finding enough people who are actually passionate enough about your cause, and honestly believe that the country is being fucked over by the cops.
If you get 1000 I'll shake your hand.
Get 10,000 and I'll kiss your ass.
Get more than 20,000 I'll do both of the above and then run down Queen Street naked - or if you like run up it, it'll probably take longer.

Ok as funny as it would be its still not going to achieve anything, simply just finding those people...there also needs to be will to do something about it from our MPs/Ministers otherwise we are just bunch of sheep with flags wasting time somewhere on the stairs in front of parliament.

Foxzee
21st April 2010, 20:45
Maybe you are attracting too much attention.

Aww Robert we all no this thread is no longer about a man who has lost his life, two kids without a dad, partner grieving for her loved one, family devasted, not to mention other lives that will be effected...it's all about the audition for Fear Factor KB...hmmmm who will be the first to suck eggs from a rotton chicken........

Ender EnZed
21st April 2010, 20:52
Aww Robert we all no this thread is no longer about a man who has lost his life, two kids without a dad, partner grieving for her loved one, family devasted, not to mention other lives that will be effected

It never was, that's what this one (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/122143-RIP-Paul-Brown?highlight=rip+paul) is for.

scumdog
21st April 2010, 20:55
damn near all your posts in my marathon thread about cops and speeding were evasion, manipulation, rank closing and bullshit

i wasnt at all surprised when your lot forced the thread off the open forum and into drivel even though it was a perfectly valid debate

speed does NOT kill; that's one of the dumbest absolute statements made by dumb ass coppers

i could drive up and down some roads in canterbury at 200kph for the rest of my life and never have an accident let alone die.

on the other hand, i could be killed by a fuckwit while doing 30kph

you brainwashed coppers piss all over your own arguments with your ridiculous assertions

so yes, i have no concern with your posts or those of the other dumb coppers here: you always end up making your own arguments ridiculous

btw: re typos; bite me, i don't give a fuck


Wow, top rant dude, inane and stupid but still a top rant, you have excelled this time!:killingme:whistle:

Oh, and still waiting for an example of my 'lie, bullshit and avade' stuff.....

Chrislost
21st April 2010, 21:00
While I agree with the sentiment I would hasten to point out that here we see a lack of basic driving skill, never mind 'on the job experience'. Nobody should be turning (for any reason) at that point in the road. Who gave that clown a license? (How old is this copper anyway?)

If it were say, a mere mortal like me, that pulled out onto him...
id be expecting manslaughter, reckless use, failing to pull over, some kinda speeding ticked(cos speed kills) and probably my car being crushed.
If he gets any of them ill be surprised

Foxzee
21st April 2010, 21:04
It never was, that's what this one (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/122143-RIP-Paul-Brown?highlight=rip+paul) is for.

It is cos otherwise this thread would not have been started.......

peasea
21st April 2010, 21:04
Wow, top rant dude, inane and stupid but still a top rant, you have excelled this time!:killingme:whistle:

Oh, and still waiting for an example of my 'lie, bullshit and avade' stuff.....

I'll bet you're not, ya fibber.

Morcs
21st April 2010, 21:05
If it were say, a mere mortal like me, that pulled out onto him...
id be expecting manslaughter, reckless use, failing to pull over, some kinda speeding ticked(cos speed kills) and probably my car being crushed.
If he gets any of them ill be surprised

Not to mention an anal drilling from ginga.

Smifffy
21st April 2010, 21:06
From NZTA website:


Making a turn over a no-passing line

You can cross over the solid yellow no-passing line (if it is safe to do so) when making a turn to enter a driveway or side road.

However, bear in mind that no-passing lines are often marked where visibility is limited, so special care is required. It may be safer to turn further along the road, where visibility is better. For more information about no-passing lines, see Passing.



Appears the only valid reason for crossing the line is to enter a driveway, or turn down a sideroad. I don't think they meant the sideroad signalled on the signpost either.



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.


Epic fail there.

Oh wait - there are mitigating circumstances of course.

List of mitigating circumstances:

1. It was a cop.
2. Ummmmm
3. Cops never do this kind of thing
4. There was a civilian passenger expecting a thrill ride with the doodah band and blinkenlights
5. There's gold in that thar hill
6. The road toll MUST come down
7. The maneuvre has been completed before, thousands of times
8. No policies or procedures were blatantly breached
9. You must ALWAYS blow on the pie

Therefore it is recommended that the veteran campaigner for road toll reduction be exonerated, given a medal at Queen's Birthday weekend, and appointed to a senior role at the Police Driving Instruction School, with accomodation funded from the public purse. Prior to his appointment it is further recommended that he receive ACC funded counselling to aid his recovery from any potential post-traumatic stress disorder.

In order to fund this initiative it is further recommended that the Waikato Police District increase the financial take from the issue of infringement notices by 5.3% by the end of Q3 2010.

peasea
21st April 2010, 21:12
And the cops continue to kill us.
This one is sure killing me.........rofl.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10639899

Ender EnZed
21st April 2010, 21:15
It is cos otherwise this thread would not have been started.......

It started with the title "Police killing us again" and a news link for some context. Post #2 was a link to the R.I.P. thread. I'd say this one was always about getting angry and abusing cops.

miloking
21st April 2010, 21:21
It started with the title "Police killing us again" and a news link for some context. Post #2 was a link to the R.I.P. thread. I'd say this one was always about getting angry and abusing cops.

I thought so too...umm obviously :D

sinned
21st April 2010, 21:21
Hmmm 815 posts, 17 watching the conversation. Reminder to myself; wait a few weeks for the police report, oh yes I do trust the Police to carry out a full review without bias.
Now - go and do something else.

Littleman
21st April 2010, 21:21
From NZTA website:


Appears the only valid reason for crossing the line is to enter a driveway, or turn down a sideroad. I don't think they meant the sideroad signalled on the signpost either.



Epic fail there.

Oh wait - there are mitigating circumstances of course.

List of mitigating circumstances:

1. It was a cop.
2. Ummmmm
3. Cops never do this kind of thing
4. There was a civilian passenger expecting a thrill ride with the doodah band and blinkenlights
5. There's gold in that thar hill
6. The road toll MUST come down
7. The maneuvre has been completed before, thousands of times
8. No policies or procedures were blatantly breached
9. You must ALWAYS blow on the pie

Therefore it is recommended that the veteran campaigner for road toll reduction be exonerated, given a medal at Queen's Birthday weekend, and appointed to a senior role at the Police Driving Instruction School, with accomodation funded from the public purse. Prior to his appointment it is further recommended that he receive ACC funded counselling to aid his recovery from any potential post-traumatic stress disorder.

In order to fund this initiative it is further recommended that the Waikato Police District increase the financial take from the issue of infringement notices by 5.3% by the end of Q3 2010.

Are you high?

miloking
21st April 2010, 21:21
It started with the title "Police killing us again" and a news link for some context. Post #2 was a link to the R.I.P. thread. I'd say this one was always about getting angry and abusing cops.

I thought so too...umm obviously :D

Foxzee
21st April 2010, 21:25
It started with the title "Police killing us again" and a news link for some context. Post #2 was a link to the R.I.P. thread. I'd say this one was always about getting angry and abusing cops.

I'm well aware how the thread started..and well aware of the RIP thread.....thanking god for KB rules over this stuff otherwise...he would have been dead before it happened

Smifffy
21st April 2010, 21:30
Are you high?

WTF?

Hmm more NZTA road code goodness from that bit about passing lanes:



No-passing line

On some sections of road there will be a solid yellow line painted on your side of the centre line. This line is called a no-passing line.

No-passing lines are usually there because it's unsafe to cross the centre line to pass, because features like hills and curves make it impossible to see if there is oncoming traffic.

Sometimes no-passing lines are marked because:

* there is already a passing lane on your side of the road and you must use that to pass
* the road is multi-laned, so you do not need to cross the no-passing line to pass.

You must not pass another vehicle if it means you have to cross over a no-passing line on your side of the centre line.

If you see a dashed yellow line on your side of the centre line, that means that a no-passing line is about to start. While you may come back over the dashed yellow line to finish passing, you must not cross it to start passing.


No-passing lines are usually there because it's unsafe to cross the centre line to pass, because features like hills and curves make it impossible to see if there is oncoming traffic.

Impossible they say.

Unsafe they say.

Glad there were no yellow lines in the pics I saw.

Another thing that troubles me:

Imagine you are in the poo, like seriously up shit creek, and you actually need a copper. Just by this amazing stroke of luck one happens to be there, right on hand in his fancy VE Commode with all of that trick cop shit hung off it. For whatever reason he decides he needs even more help, maybe even other emergency services, so he needs to get in touch with the people that organise all that bizzo.

What does he do?

Pulls out his cellphone to dial 111!!???

WTF?

You know you don't want him to be on XT!!

miloking
21st April 2010, 22:06
obviously what.......

You have found the threads that would be more up your ally...pointless dribble...it even changes colour for you

Ahh, iam too tired to explain shit to slow people...ok here it comes:

Ender ENzed said "I'd say this one was always about getting angry and abusing cops."

I quoted and said: I thought so too...umm obviously (obviously as in i've done my "cop bashing bit" & "getting angry" in last 100 or so posts")

And then you couldnt follow two posts back because it was too difficult and said: obviously what.......and all that other crap about being poitless dribble etc.

I can also draw you a picture if you still dont get it...

pete376403
21st April 2010, 22:08
WTF?Another thing that troubles me:
(snip)
What does he do?

Pulls out his cellphone to dial 111!!???

WTF?
(warning - Conspiracy-type theory follows)
That intrigued me in the witnesses comments, about "how the cop was so shaken he couldn't dial the cell-phone and so had to use the house phone, etc" - who was the cop calling? What did he have to report that couldn't have gone through the normal police comms centre? Surely that would have been the best and quickest way to get emergency services, especially ambulance for the rider (or was he already aware the rider was dead?)
From the pictures the car didn't appear so trashed that the radio would no longer work. Was he calling some sort of "clean-up" operation that sanitises police fuck-ups in some way?

miloking
21st April 2010, 22:15
(warning - Conspiracy-type theory follows)
That intrigued me in the witnesses comments, about "how the cop was so shaken he couldn't dial the cell-phone and so had to use the house phone, etc" - who was the cop calling? What did he have to report that couldn't have gone through the normal police comms centre? Surely that would have been the best and quickest way to get emergency services, especially ambulance for the rider (or was he already aware the rider was dead?)
From the pictures the car didn't appear so trashed that the radio would no longer work. Was he calling some sort of "clean-up" operation that sanitises police fuck-ups in some way?


he was calling his buddies to get there quick to help him hide the wrecks and remove the evidence....of course he coulnt use the radio, thats not secure. Also were they both so shaken that they couldnt dial "111"?

(also who was standing at the top of the hill making sure no other motorist ploughs into the wrecks? )

Smifffy
21st April 2010, 22:17
(warning - Conspiracy-type theory follows)
That intrigued me in the witnesses comments, about "how the cop was so shaken he couldn't dial the cell-phone and so had to use the house phone, etc" - who was the cop calling? What did he have to report that couldn't have gone through the normal police comms centre? Surely that would have been the best and quickest way to get emergency services, especially ambulance for the rider (or was he already aware the rider was dead?)
From the pictures the car didn't appear so trashed that the radio would no longer work. Was he calling some sort of "clean-up" operation that sanitises police fuck-ups in some way?

That was 30 years of training & experience in road trauma kicking in right there.

In the movies you always go to the isolated farm cottage to get help.

I seriously doubt that there is any conspiracy going on.

PrincessBandit
21st April 2010, 22:24
That was 30 years of training & experience in road trauma kicking in right there.

In the movies you always go to the isolated farm cottage to get help.

I seriously doubt that there is any conspiracy going on.

You do realise that this comment will either disappoint a whole lotta people or make them even more determined to prove there is one.....

Smifffy
21st April 2010, 22:31
You do realise that this comment will either disappoint a whole lotta people or make them even more determined to prove there is one.....

No, I didn't realise that at all. Sorry to anyone I disappointed, and good luck to those determined few. I imagine the farmhouse phone records will form part of the investigation.

Toaster
21st April 2010, 22:41
(warning - Conspiracy-type theory follows)
That intrigued me in the witnesses comments, about "how the cop was so shaken he couldn't dial the cell-phone and so had to use the house phone, etc" - who was the cop calling? What did he have to report that couldn't have gone through the normal police comms centre? Surely that would have been the best and quickest way to get emergency services, especially ambulance for the rider (or was he already aware the rider was dead?)
From the pictures the car didn't appear so trashed that the radio would no longer work. Was he calling some sort of "clean-up" operation that sanitises police fuck-ups in some way?

Firstly, the officer, like anyone involved in a major vehicle crash would have likely crapped himself and be barely able to think straight given that he would be in shock.

Secondly, those radios have dead spots where it can be impossible to raise the communicators.

Thirdly, COMMS radio is one user at a time - if it was busy, he may not have been able to get through... happens alot when lots of stuff is going down at the same time.

Fourthly, Every man and his dog listens in on scanners and he may have tried to raise help without letting undesirables know so the scene could be secured and dealt with properly.

Lastly, and I make this very clear to those that hate the police - Police management deal with their own staff very harshly.

If you have a fatal crash, the serious crash unit investigates and will look at charges if you are found to be at fault.

If a cop does the same, they face further independent investigations, including CIB and also face conduct enquiries, which, even if cleared of charges could still lose their job, their income.

I would add though that I think they should face a very high level of review - they are expected to set an example.

scracha
21st April 2010, 23:43
900cc Kawasaki racing a diesel Mazda bounty. Oh gimmie a break. Anyone else consider the whole 154 kay thing may have been made up by the cop and his buddy to cover the fact they've pulled a fatal U-turn to pull a guy nipping along at 115? We'll never really know I guess.

crshbndct
21st April 2010, 23:44
Guys did you read this: http://www.3news.co.nz/Default.aspx?TabId=423&articleID=151811&ce2637=1#comment

probably old news but what realy gets me is this bit:

Local resident and past motor racer Frank Wilkin heard the incident form his home and says the motorbike was travelling at a fast speed.

I heard this motorbike coming and thought, ‘Wow, that’s travelling fast,’ and as it came I heard just a fraction of a movement, deceleration and then this boom,” he says

Who the fuck is 3news to twist shit like that....also no offence Mr. Wilkin the Motor racer, i am impressed at your hearing abilities to recognize speeding vehicle merely from doppler effect!!! You should work for Police, you would be uselful so we would save taxpayers money on lazer guns!

wow.
just, wow.
bikes always sound faster than cars.
i used to respect cops. but now? nah. if there is anything other than "dangerous driving causing death" and jail time here, i am going to go postal. they are digging up these people to support their story, yet noone has questioned how a mazda bounty can do 154 UP a hill (on the other side of the crest) i know that the last of the mazda bounty utes (the most powerful diesel ones, before the bt-50 came out) can do no more than 170(indicated, probably a lot less actual) on a flat. sounds like the cops are already piecing together their case.

i have dealt with the law. i know how cops really are. the truth is second to getting a conviction. just as road safety is second to $$$

miloking
21st April 2010, 23:51
i have dealt with the law. i know how cops really are. the truth is second to getting a conviction. just as road safety is second to $$$


Amen!!! To all you said.... i also have a nice graph to support the last statement :D

Ixion
21st April 2010, 23:55
From the pictures the car didn't appear so trashed that the radio would no longer work. Was he calling some sort of "clean-up" operation that sanitises police fuck-ups in some way?


He might have wanted to call his wife/partner/girlfriend/boyfriend/goat to say he was ok so she/he/it didn't freak out when he/she/it heard he had been in a fatal crash ? That sort of news travels fast and usually gets distorted.

idleidolidyll
22nd April 2010, 07:29
Wow, top rant dude, inane and stupid but still a top rant, you have excelled this time!:killingme:whistle:

Oh, and still waiting for an example of my 'lie, bullshit and avade' stuff.....

Actually, rather than just a simple single post, I offered an entire thread; one in which you and the other coppers all closed ranks and posted lies, bullshit, evasion and just plain nonsense almost every time you typed.

I'm more than happy to start that entire thread again as it was only deleted when you and the other coppers were getting your asses kicked. As usual, you'd descended into ad hominem and fallacy.

As for my "top rant", that's a simplistic childish brush off because you and yours once again refuse to honestly debate the topic raised. Here's the main point raised identidied by you as a "top rant":

"speed does NOT kill; that's one of the dumbest absolute statements made by dumb ass coppers

i could drive up and down some roads in canterbury at 200kph for the rest of my life and never have an accident let alone die.

on the other hand, i could be killed by a fuckwit while doing 30kph"

Are you and yours ready to debate the disgraceful collection of road taxes, the idiot savant mindset of coppers who will chase people until they are dead for the crime of speeding (upon whence you generally declare "I stopped the pursuit 3 seconds before the accident") and the idiocy of the "speed kills" absolutist statement yet, or are you, as above, merely going to waffle and run away again?

trustme
22nd April 2010, 07:54
1/ There is bugger all cell phone coverage in that area whioch may explain the cops actions.
2/ The local sport bike riders favourite party trick was to take the undulations on the Waerenga & Falls Rds fast enough to get airborne.

There is a bunch more to this than most of you realise. I've posted up twice , twice the post has failed to appear, I wonder who is doing the cover up.

Pixie
22nd April 2010, 08:00
No doubt that's true. But not in this case...or the Buller Gorge incident. Both cops had over 30 years in HW patrol.

30 years of bad driving with impunity finally caught up with them

Pixie
22nd April 2010, 08:11
So who's sent an email showing your concern to the ministers concerned?Instead of just whining to the pack.
Do it now


j.collins@ministers.govt.nz
steven.joyce@national.org.nz

Pixie
22nd April 2010, 08:19
Without reading the last 49 pages...


If you knew a ute doing a squillion kp/h passed a cop and then 10km down the road ploughed in to your family - killing them all - would you expect the cop to give chase? Would you be critical if he didn't do this as quickly as he thought was possible? I often am lead to ponder than question when i see the "driver killed while running from the police" headline.

We have seen from the Buller Gorge incident and actions after it that the police are taking these incidents seriously - whether or not you agree with the punishment the judge hands down.....



You should have read more before commenting - you wouldn't appear as silly.

If the cop chased the car in your hypothetical situation,would it make the crash worse or prevent it?Recent events may suggest the former.

As for taking it seriously - serious enough to prevent it happening twice more?It appears not.
Oh "serious" - you mean they fined the cop involved -that's a relief for the dead and injured.

Caleb Brown
22nd April 2010, 08:28
Thank you for all the support that you have shown us. As Pauls brother I would like to extend a welcome to other motorcyclists to attend his funeral on Friday at 1pm, Waerenga Hall, Sattlement Road, Waerenga. Please bring your bike. Any small donations to the familly would be greatly appreciated.

trustme
22nd April 2010, 08:28
You should have read more before commenting - you wouldn't appear as silly.

If the cop chased the car in your hypothetical situation,would it make the crash worse or prevent it?Recent events may suggest the former.

As for taking it seriously - serious enough to prevent it happening twice more?It appears not.
Oh "serious" - you mean they fined the cop involved -that's a relief for the dead and injured.

So plod should never persue. Speeding motorists should be left to get on with their right to break laws & drive in a dangerous manner. The scary thing is YOU are serious.

Fatjim
22nd April 2010, 08:29
Lastly, and I make this very clear to those that hate the police - Police management deal with their own staff very harshly.

If you have a fatal crash, the serious crash unit investigates and will look at charges if you are found to be at fault.
[/B]

What SCU? You mean the one guy in the whole of wellington reagion that only has time to show up and take photos. The police admit themselves that the SCU can't front up to court with any meaningful input.

Fatjim
22nd April 2010, 08:31
So plod should never persue. Speeding motorists should be left to get on with their right to break laws & drive in a dangerous manner. The scary thing is YOU are serious.

There's no arguing with the guy.

He probably recycles as well. Prolly wearing a white Poppy as we speak, and can't see what would be wrong with that.

Ronin
22nd April 2010, 08:44
Thank you for all the support that you have shown us. As Pauls brother I would like to extend a welcome to other motorcyclists to attend his funeral on Friday at 1pm, Waerenga Hall, Sattlement Road, Waerenga. Please bring your bike. Any small donations to the familly would be greatly appreciated.

Hey Caleb. Thanks for letting us know about that. I'm sure that all those who can will be there.

Please dont take to much notice of all the drivel in here.

Condolences to you and your Family.

Robert Taylor
22nd April 2010, 08:52
Aww Robert we all no this thread is no longer about a man who has lost his life, two kids without a dad, partner grieving for her loved one, family devasted, not to mention other lives that will be effected...it's all about the audition for Fear Factor KB...hmmmm who will be the first to suck eggs from a rotton chicken........

No, its just highlighted that there are some people out there with some really nasty attitudes. Its also ( again ) highlighted a kangaroo court mentality.

Swoop
22nd April 2010, 08:55
Thank you for all the support that you have shown us. As Pauls brother I would like to extend a welcome to other motorcyclists to attend his funeral on Friday at 1pm, Waerenga Hall, Sattlement Road, Waerenga. Please bring your bike. Any small donations to the familly would be greatly appreciated.
Hello Caleb. Deepest condolences for the loss of Paul. Kia Kaha.

Pixie
22nd April 2010, 08:59
I wish my bike would lie for me, it's just too damned honest for its own good.

Mine does!
It says how gorgeous I am and how well endowed
Unfortunately it is not very convincing

MSTRS
22nd April 2010, 09:02
I encourage you to think 'bigger picture'.

I may be reading this out of context, but to me it means that you think 'a little collateral damage'(1) is just fine, if it means that speeders etc get caught and fined.
*finger hovering over the red, pre-clarification*

(1) Innocents being maimed and killed

bogan
22nd April 2010, 09:09
Interesting isn't it, the speed kills campaign has become so ingrained to some people that to stop a speeder it is ok to put other road users at risk. Tell me, what is the point of stopping a speeder? isn't it to reduce the risk to other road users.

Katman
22nd April 2010, 09:11
Interesting isn't it, the speed kills campaign has become so ingrained to some people that to stop a speeder it is ok to put other road users at risk. Tell me, what is the point of stopping a speeder? isn't it to reduce the risk to other road users.

Oh what a conundrum.

terbang
22nd April 2010, 09:14
No, its just highlighted that there are some people out there with some really nasty attitudes. Its also ( again ) highlighted a kangaroo court mentality.

Not so mate, people are just really pissed off with this type of accident that seems to be recurring. A lot are highly suspicious of the worth and integrity of our current police force. Personally I don't blame them as their (so called police) copybook has become well blotted over recent years with many very public corruption (remember Clint and his mates?) and incompetence issues.
I think most would like the Police/Pollies to take a review of themselves and above all, would like to be able to brow a hill or take a bend (car or motorcycle) without the risk of a police car sitting in the middle of the road.

bogan
22nd April 2010, 09:14
Oh what a conundrum.

not really, just start the pursuit only when it's safe and the majority of speeders will still be ticketed. Or just get some goddamn cameras in the cop cars, stop buying such stupid fucking cars, get some cheaper ones and there will be plenty of money left over for the cameras.

Pixie
22nd April 2010, 09:15
WTF?


What does he do?

Pulls out his cellphone to dial 111!!???

WTF?

You know you don't want him to be on XT!!

Maybe the call was about something he did not want to go through "channels" with?

Kornholio
22nd April 2010, 09:19
Thank you for all the support that you have shown us. As Pauls brother I would like to extend a welcome to other motorcyclists to attend his funeral on Friday at 1pm, Waerenga Hall, Sattlement Road, Waerenga. Please bring your bike. Any small donations to the familly would be greatly appreciated.

Hi Caleb, Look forward to meeting you and the rest of the family... We will have a group riding up from Te Aroha tomorrow morning
See ya then :)
Rick


Hey Caleb. Thanks for letting us know about that. I'm sure that all those who can will be there.

Please dont take to much notice of all the drivel in here.

Condolences to you and your Family.

Oh, and what he said :)

trustme
22nd April 2010, 09:20
Interesting isn't it, the speed kills campaign has become so ingrained to some people that to stop a speeder it is ok to put other road users at risk. Tell me, what is the point of stopping a speeder? isn't it to reduce the risk to other road users.

Had the rider been riding at the legal speed limit I think he would have had every chance of stopping, & yes I know the road, the cop showed very poor judgement in choosing to turn there however , the speed at which the rider was travelling most certainly left him unable to miss the copper. Innocent rider, wrong place,wrong time, I'm afraid not.

On that road there are frequent milk tankers & stock trucks pulling in & out of farms, Bloody great tractors towing ag equipment, loose stock , tippers carting from Smythe's quarry, It is not a good place for high speed riding as there are blind spots eveywhere.
The locals had been warned that it would end in tears & someone would get killed.
Tragically the warning proved to be on the money.

Pixie
22nd April 2010, 09:21
So plod should never persue. Speeding motorists should be left to get on with their right to break laws & drive in a dangerous manner. The scary thing is YOU are serious.

Where's never?
I demand that they don't act like dogs spotting a rabbit and drive safely.
As for the rest,I direct you to Candor

miloking
22nd April 2010, 09:22
So who's sent an email showing your concern to the ministers concerned?Instead of just whining to the pack.
Do it now


j.collins@ministers.govt.nz
steven.joyce@national.org.nz


I did!! Who else?

(oh and i used spell check Indoo so dont worry i wont embarass you in front of your boss with my typos)

Kiwi675
22nd April 2010, 09:23
Now this guy is an idoit and we should have no sympathy for him................

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3609872/One-injured-one-arrested-after-Hamilton-crash

miloking
22nd April 2010, 09:26
Now this guy is an idoit and we shold have no sympathy for him................

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3609872/One-injured-one-arrested-after-Hamilton-crash

And you guys were worried I give motorcyclists bad name! What a moron...i used to pull shit like that when i was 14

bogan
22nd April 2010, 09:26
Had the rider been riding at the legal speed limit I think he would have had every chance of stopping, & yes I know the road, the cop showed very poor judgement in choosing to turn there however , the speed at which the rider was travelling most certainly left him unable to miss the copper. Innocent rider, wrong place,wrong time, I'm afraid not.

On that road there are frequent milk tankers & stock trucks pulling in & out of farms, Bloody great tractors towing ag equipment, loose stock , tippers carting from Smythe's quarry, It is not a good place for high speed riding as there are blind spots eveywhere.
The locals had been warned that it would end in tears & someone would get killed.
Tragically the warning proved to be on the money.

There was no gateway for tankers to pull out of where the crash happend (one could reasonably assume if he was speeding he slowed for such higher risk areas), and a tractor or other slow moving vehicle could have been seen going over the brow of the hill from a distance.

And you didn't answer my (i forgot the ? actually, but it was implied) question, do you think putting motorists at risk is worth catching a speeder? (your posts imply you do, but I'd like clarification)

bogan
22nd April 2010, 09:27
So who's sent an email showing your concern to the ministers concerned?Instead of just whining to the pack.
Do it now


j.collins@ministers.govt.nz
steven.joyce@national.org.nz

who are they and what do they do, I'll voice my concerns, but better to put it into context.

miloking
22nd April 2010, 09:29
who are they and what do they do, I'll voice my concerns, but better to put it into context.

MoT and Police

trustme
22nd April 2010, 09:42
There was no gateway for tankers to pull out of where the crash happend (one could reasonably assume if he was speeding he slowed for such higher risk areas), and a tractor or other slow moving vehicle could have been seen going over the brow of the hill from a distance.

And you didn't answer my (i forgot the ? actually, but it was implied) question, do you think putting motorists at risk is worth catching a speeder? (your posts imply you do, but I'd like clarification)

I am speaking generically of that road in general not that exact spot, the same could be said of Falls Rd which I deduce from the reports they had just travelled along. The cop undoubtedly showed extremely poor judgement
I sincerely hope that the cops do reaximne their procedure to stop such tragedies happening again
Unfortunately far to many motorcyclists seem to have a belief that it is their god given right to travel at what ever speed they
choose , wherever they choose & when it goes pear shaped it is everyone elses fault.
The real tragedy is a life has been wasted & the majority of motorcyclists transfer all blame to the copper & learn nothing.

terbang
22nd April 2010, 09:44
Had the rider been riding at the legal speed limit I think he would have had every chance of stopping Sheesh...
There were ya, radar gun in yer back pocket as well?
Are you trying to tell us that if all of us were to stick to the speed limit, then it would be OK for cops to do 3 pointers on the brow of a hill on a narrow country road?

Fair bit of fact and speculation mixed here:

Fact: Cop doing a U or three pointer on a blind hill brow..
Speculation: Motorcyclist was speeding.

Indoo
22nd April 2010, 09:58
well blotted over recent years with many very public corruption (remember Clint and his mates?)

Can you provide some more of these many very examples of public corruption outside of the one 24 years ago that you keep on quoting?

Maybe your getting us confused with Australia.

trustme
22nd April 2010, 10:04
I don't defend the cop , they need to review procedure. By the same token the rider is not blameless. Like I said before there has been a small group of local riders who rode a high speed on the local roads. 160 kph wheelies were common place [ their own speed estimate as the bike was more stable at that speed ] . Getting airborne over the humps was standard practice. One local had reservations about backing out of the drive in case one of the bikes came past as there was not time to see them .It is not hard to join the dots. The locals will support their own at this time but they are certainly not uncritical. I am not a local but have a very good friend who is & who has voiced his concerns to me on several occasions.

rastuscat
22nd April 2010, 10:08
...Fair bit of fact and speculation mixed here:

Fact: Cop doing a U or three pointer on a blind hill brow..
Speculation: Motorcyclist was speeding.



Amen. It was surely a bad place to do a U-turn.

bogan
22nd April 2010, 10:10
I am speaking generically of that road in general not that exact spot, the same could be said of Falls Rd which I deduce from the reports they had just travelled along. The cop undoubtedly showed extremely poor judgement
I sincerely hope that the cops do reaximne their procedure to stop such tragedies happening again

Agreed.


Unfortunately far to many motorcyclists seem to have a belief that it is their god given right to travel at what ever speed they
choose , wherever they choose & when it goes pear shaped it is everyone elses fault.
The real tragedy is a life has been wasted & the majority of motorcyclists transfer all blame to the copper & learn nothing.

Taking a leaf out of indoo's book here, do you have any figures to support your claim that bikers speed more than cars?

Goblin
22nd April 2010, 10:15
Can you provide some more of these many very examples of public corruption outside of the one 24 years ago that you keep on quoting?

Maybe your getting us confused with Australia.How about the incidents of cops being D.I.C. and their dubious ways of getting off, cop getting free sex with a prostitute by using his position of authority, the recent pepper spraying incident where the guy was handcuffed in a cell, beaten and sprayed, the Dunedin cop with the beastiality porn, some of the well publicised dubious convictions, Dougherty, Watson, Bain, Thomas etc...I could gould go on but you get the picture.

Pixie
22nd April 2010, 10:26
who are they and what do they do, I'll voice my concerns, but better to put it into context.

Collins : Minister for Police
Joyce: Minister of Everthing -includes Transport

nsrpaul
22nd April 2010, 10:27
MoT and Police

emails sent fom me!!!

Pixie
22nd April 2010, 10:30
How about the incidents of cops being D.I.C. and their dubious ways of getting off, cop getting free sex with a prostitute by using his position of authority, the recent pepper spraying incident where the guy was handcuffed in a cell, beaten and sprayed, the Dunedin cop with the beastiality porn, some of the well publicised dubious convictions, Dougherty, Watson, Bain, Thomas etc...I could gould go on but you get the picture.

Back in the '70s,a mate who was in the army told me how they would go to the cops to get confiscated porn for their stag parties

Indoo
22nd April 2010, 10:37
How about the incidents of cops being D.I.C. and their dubious ways of getting off

Do you really think cops would be breathtesting other cops, let alone charging them and bringing them before the courts in a corrupt force? They got off because of the poorly written and easily exploited laws we have around drink driving,


cop getting free sex with a prostitute by using his position of authority

Yep he was corrupt, but again was charged and convicted by his peers. In corrupt Police forces how many prostitutes would dare complain?


the recent pepper spraying incident where the guy was handcuffed in a cell, beaten and sprayed

You might argue thats Police brutality, even though a jury of peers after watching the tapes stated it wasn't, but it certainly isn't corruption.


Dougherty, Watson, Bain, Thomas etc...

You have a point with Thomas however many years ago that was now, but the others nah and including Bain in that list :gob:

It's the nature of the beast that you are going to get some corrupt cops, just as you are going to get some doctors who abuse drugs or sleep with patients, some teachers who have improper relationships with students etc etc....

And that should pretty much refocus the bashers...:corn:

onearmedbandit
22nd April 2010, 10:41
Back in the '70s,a mate who was in the army told me how they would go to the cops to get confiscated porn for their stag parties

Times were a lot harder before the 'net eh.

bogan
22nd April 2010, 10:42
Times were a lot harder before the 'net eh.

or less so, if you know what I mean...

Mr Merde
22nd April 2010, 10:42
....It's the nature of the beast that you are going to get some corrupt cops, just as you are going to get some doctors who abuse drugs or sleep with patients, some teachers who have improper relationships with students etc etc....

This is the whole point.

We shouldnt.

Those that are there to enforce the laws passed by the government should at first adhere to them.

How can they not do so and then for the sake of $$$ expect us to.

How can the management of the police department not identify these people and get rid of them

I'm not a religous person but the following should apply.

"Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone"

As a taxpaying member of the great majority who afford these people the opportunity to have a career in the police force I expect no less.

candor
22nd April 2010, 10:44
Hi Caleb, sorry about this unnecessary tragedy. For those who're too remote to come is there a bank account where small koha can go? You could PM it to me or post it. The costs can be awful especially if lawyers are needed at any stage like Coroners Court - 20g it cost my family to get a hearing and expose Police.

carver
22nd April 2010, 10:45
The Harold, quoting Mr Tooman (whose negative and contemptuous opinions of motorcyclists are well known, and have been the subject of official complaint by BRONZ)



What a contemptable and weaselly evasion of responsibility . Amounts to a "tough shit, we will do whatever we want"

I had a chat to the said mr tooman over the phone after the stunt, he did not seem like a bad guy.
he lives 3 streets away from my old house too

carver
22nd April 2010, 10:49
of couse, when there is a war on speed, or a war at all, people die

Goblin
22nd April 2010, 10:49
It's the nature of the beast that you are going to get some corrupt cops, just as you are going to get some doctors who abuse drugs or sleep with patients, some teachers who have improper relationships with students etc etc....

And that should pretty much refocus the bashers...:corn:Totally agree...there are bad apples in every proffession. It's only my opinion that all cops should be squeaky clean all the time. Those who uphold the law ought to be screened a whole lot better than they currently are.
This case will have to play out tho. I'm reserving my opinion until all the evidence is in. The KB Kangaroo Court is doing itself proud.

idleidolidyll
22nd April 2010, 10:54
Replying to the statement posited that cops should never chase speeders because it might result in an incident:

That's a Black or White fallacy argument (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/eitheror.html) . It ignores the grey area between in which we ALL expect coppers to act.

To be precise: Coppers should pursue speeding drivers if and when it is perfectly safe to do so both for the general road user nearby and for the copper and driver/rider being chased.

Unfortunately there seems to be a mentality in the police force that makes them think speeding sometimes deserves capital punishment to the point of execution by car chase. The "I pulled off the chase 3 seconds before the crash" excuse doesn't wash I'm afraid.

idleidolidyll
22nd April 2010, 10:58
replying to Bobby Taylors last post:

actually it's just debate

the crux of the debate, ignoring the side issues and name calling, is that bikers are cynical in general about the cops and probably for good reason.

what we want to see is cops who treat other cops the same as they treat us, who obey and respect the law and who don't lie or mislead; unfortunately too many of us have seen that the prevailing attitude of most cops is that motorcyclists always speed, whenever one crashes it was "due to excessive speed" but when they have done something incredibly stupid, illegal or otherwise wrong; they seem to hold themselves to a lower standard than they hold the general motoring public.

I'm not actually a cynic, I'm a realist through experience many times over

NighthawkNZ
22nd April 2010, 11:03
http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/7093997/passenger-injured-in-police-motorcycle-chase/

Then yah get dick head trying to kill them self and their pillions

Smifffy
22nd April 2010, 11:05
Actually, all I'd really like from the police and their colleagues is an acknowledgement that this appears to be a bad place to turn around, and doing so would heighten the risk for other road users. An agreement that perhaps if this was done much less than 100m from the brow of the hill, and on a solid yellow line (I say perhaps, since as has been pointed out I wasn't there) then there was a possibility the policies & procedures may heve been breached, and that possibility will have to be considered.

Instead we get "We do this maneuvre thousands of times" or "In our business sometimes tragedies occur"

To me it sounds arrogant and self-protecting.

If turning in such locations to commence pursuit is not a breach of policies & procedures, then I submit that the policies & procedures require review in light of the 5 incidents since 2007.

The road toll MUST come down

bogan
22nd April 2010, 11:06
actually it's just debate

the crux of the debate, ignoring the side issues and name calling, is that bikers are cynical in general about the cops and probably for good reason.

what we want to see is cops who treat other cops the same as they treat us, who obey and respect the law and who don't lie or mislead; unfortunately too many of us have seen that the prevailing attitude of most cops is that motorcyclists always speed, whenever one crashes it was "due to excessive speed" but when they have done something incredibly stupid, illegal or otherwise wrong; they seem to hold themselves to a lower standard than they hold the general motoring public.

I'm not actually a cynic, I'm a realist through experience many times over

I agree, those entrusted with keeping us safe should be held to a higher standard, with power comes responsibility etc.
and as you were saying before, excessive speed is not a number, its relative to the conditions. Making everyone drive slow doesnt really address the problem that we are still crashing!

Katman
22nd April 2010, 11:38
and as you were saying before, excessive speed is not a number, its relative to the conditions.

As well as being relative to the experience of the rider.

Hence why the term "excessive speed contributed to the accident" can very well be pertinent to an accident on an open road corner with an advisory sign of 50kph if taken at the legal limit of 100kph. (I don't think Idle has quite been able to grasp that concept yet).

MSTRS
22nd April 2010, 11:44
As well as being relative to the experience of the rider.

Hence why the term "excessive speed contributed to the accident" can very well be pertinent to an accident on an open road corner with an advisory sign of 50kph if taken at the legal limit of 100kph. (I don't think Idle has been able to grasp that concept yet).
If they only used that word, or better still 'inappropriate', we'd have less to bitch about.
But they don't. Leading to a whole section of accident stats that has questionable value because it is misleading.

Mr Merde
22nd April 2010, 11:50
"excessive speed contributed to the accident"

Couldnt this be applied to every accident.

You are travelling down a 50kph road at 45 kph and suddenly another vehicle pulls out from a drive or side road and your t-bone it or it t-bones you.

This fit all statement would now come into force as you were travelling at a speed that didnt allow you time to react to the situation and by that very fact, excessive.

smoky
22nd April 2010, 12:02
I heard from someone who attended the scene (clean up), that there was a lot of talk between the officers attending about this so called speeding ute that was supposedly the reason the cop was doing a U turn. There was nothing locked on the radar to indicate he had locked on to another vehicle, and where the accident happened just happens to be a spot where this cop catches a number of people, the insinuation is that he was doing a U turn to park just off the road to sit there and catch people speeding over the hill. Not turning to pursue a speeding ute as claimed

Interesting to note a friend of Pauls has admitted to being the ute driver, so I stand corrected on the rumors, however he has stated he was doing 120, not the speed supposedly stated by the cop, and his ute was green, not silver as stated by the cop!

I think the police should at the very lest admit the possibility of a mistake or poor judgement, instead of being so publicly focused on finding out the speed of the motorcyclist!

MSTRS
22nd April 2010, 12:07
Interesting to note a friend of Pauls has admitted to being the ute driver, so I stand corrected on the rumors, however he has stated he was doing 120, not the speed supposedly stated by the cop, and his ute was green, not silver as stated by the cop!

I think the police should at the very lest admit the possibility of a mistake or poor judgement, instead of being so publicly focused on finding out the speed of the motorcyclist!

Come on. They are going to look at everything. Eventually.
I'm sure that they are going to be looking hardest at those factors in the crash that were nothing to do with them. They will be wanting to find the biggest wrong, and they won't want it to be what the cop did, will they?

Mr Merde
22nd April 2010, 12:11
Come on. They are going to look at everything. Eventually.
I'm sure that they are going to be looking hardest at those factors in the crash that were nothing to do with them. They will be wanting to find the biggest wrong, and they won't want it to be what the cop did, will they?

Thats because in their eyes a cop can do no wrong.

Reme,ber they look after their own first.

That dickhead in the Buller Gorge incident was allowed to retire on full benifits prior to going to court, why?

Because if he was still in the job when found guilty he would have lost all his benifits.

Less than a year later he was booked for DUI and no licence.

MarkH
22nd April 2010, 12:22
By the same token the rider is not blameless.

You might want to be a bit more careful with the language. Sure the rider MAY have been speeding - but you have worded it like a statement of fact - the speed of the rider is only conjecture at the moment.

TBH I am not concerned if the rider was partly to blame - he has surely paid too much already for any mistake he may (or may not) have made. The issue remaining is the police officer and what he should pay for HIS role in this as well as police policy and what role IT played in this incident. If cops are making dangerous turns thousands of times and occasionally injuring or killing motorists that they are supposed to be protecting then that issue should be looked at - even if some motorists killed or injured may have shared some of the blame themselves.

Shared blame does not mean that the police officer did the right thing or should not be punished for recklessly endangering the life of someone else. We should all be careful going over blind crests and around blind corners AND police should be careful not to perform turning manoeuvres in dangerous places.


Remember:
We don't know how fast the rider was going - I don't think we should pretend that we do.
We don't know how fast the Ute was going - he may have been clocked at 112kph for all we know, we only have the cops word to go by.
We do know a police officer chose to turn close to a blind crest and a collision with a motorcycle occurred with the rider ending up dead.

What we do know is cause for concern!

MaxB
22nd April 2010, 12:28
snip.... By the same token the rider is not blameless. Like I said before there has been a small group of local riders who rode a high speed on the local roads. 160 kph wheelies were common place [ their own speed estimate as the bike was more stable at that speed ] . Getting airborne over the humps was standard practice....

Time to hang a few numbers on this. According to a paper from the Transport Research Laboratory, UK, 2007 it takes appox. 80 metres to stop from 100kmh. This assumes perfect conditions eg reaction times, good visibility etc.

Given the cop car was about 60 metres from the brow it is reasonable to assume that a collision was still going to happen. Given that a 50 kmh solid impact is similar to a grand piano being dropped on you from a first floor window, a bad outcome was highly likely.

There were high banks either side of the cop car and bugger all run off. Paul had probably very little chance to avoid harm once he saw the cop car blocking his way. Poor guy.

There is a fixation from some quarters on the speed of the bike but given the above estimates are reasonable, then any average road user would have probably hit the cop car.

candor
22nd April 2010, 12:29
I think the police should at the very lest admit the possibility of a mistake or poor judgement, instead of being so publicly focused on finding out the speed of the motorcyclist!

Their checkboxes require a speed tick if possible and their spin Dr has them under no illusions about their civic duty to scream speed kills at every opportunity. It's like the ink blot test they teach at Trentham. What's this ink splodge look like, or that thar cloud - "um (ponders hard) speed". Correct (positive reinforcement for staying on message). Should this "assuming", all supposedly for the public good, be done at the expense of possibly truth and victim dignity though?

MSTRS
22nd April 2010, 12:29
"Safer Communities Together"

Right?

Varkp
22nd April 2010, 12:37
Specially because of the fact that the coppers have a "profit share scheme". No use in arresting taggers, child molesters and sundry, there is no money to be made in that.

Popping a wheelie, now who exactly are you going to hurt if that goes wrong ...besides ACC covers you if you f*ck it up badly enough !!!

Swoop
22nd April 2010, 12:37
Had the rider been riding at the legal speed limit...
Can you please supply evidence that the rider was, in fact, exceeding the speed limit? Thanks.

hospitalfood
22nd April 2010, 12:40
I think that even if the bike was speeding the speed of the bike does not matter, on the grounds that cops know people speed. The cop should have known better !
I hope he gets charged and this stops happening to bikes.
The cop who made this terrible mistake would be better off just owning it , but he may not be able to due to police rules.
It is a tradgedy for a man to lose his life because of a revenue gathering system.

onearmedbandit
22nd April 2010, 12:43
Specially because of the fact that the coppers have a "profit share scheme". No use in arresting taggers, child molesters and sundry, there is no money to be made in that.

Popping a wheelie, now who exactly are you going to hurt if that goes wrong ...besides ACC covers you if you f*ck it up badly enough !!!

Although sarcasm is hard to detect on a forum, I'm going to take it that your tongue is firmly planted in your cheek.

avgas
22nd April 2010, 12:59
"Safer Communities Together"
Right?
Safer Communities Apart? I like your neighbours

Grubber
22nd April 2010, 13:13
I don't know the road but I'll agree with the sentiment re diesel utes. 154 in a Mazda Bounty? Fuck, I might go buy one!

I got a Ford Courier Diesel (it's name sake) and it's good for over 160k.
Not that it means the said vehicle was doing 154k on the day. I was just making a point that they are capable. (before anyone starts at me)

MSTRS
22nd April 2010, 13:16
Safer Communities Apart? I like your neighbours

It's what is written on both sides of cop cars.
I don't understand your post. It could be because I'm apparently a mentally impaired old man, with one foot in the grave, who has yet to achieve any result wanking - according to one sterling example of the human race on here...

Coldrider
22nd April 2010, 13:26
Sometimes one has to look in the rearview mirror in order to go forward, helps stopping the dribble.
http://www.odt.co.nz/58043/police-patrol-driver039s-gross-error039-costs-him-60000
a brief summary of the Buller Gorge case

idleidolidyll
22nd April 2010, 13:27
I have a modern common rail turbo diesel Ssangyong (Korean mercedes motor) and the factory quotes max speed of 165. Frankly I doubt that is achievable in the Auckalnd region; maybe on one of those Canterbury straights.
The Ssangyong Actyon makes about 120kW and 320nM torque. I'd be surprised if a Bounty was anything like as quick. 150kph plus sounds pretty unlikely to me

idleidolidyll
22nd April 2010, 13:30
Gotta ssay: Even if the copper is convicted and fined, imprisoned or more, it's not enough.

I want the entire copper philosophy overhauled. Speeding (the ute) is not a capital offence and does not deserve this kind of result ever!

blackdog
22nd April 2010, 13:34
I have a modern common rail turbo diesel Ssangyong (Korean mercedes motor) and the factory quotes max speed of 165. Frankly I doubt that is achievable in the Auckalnd region; maybe on one of those Canterbury straights.
The Ssangyong Actyon makes about 120kW and 320nM torque. I'd be surprised if a Bounty was anything like as quick. 150kph plus sounds pretty unlikely to me

i have tried to stay as far away from this thread as possible mostly because i have no intention commenting on anything i do not have all the facts about.

i HAVE had mazda bounty utes in the past, and i KNOW that they are indeed capable of speeds in excess of 160km/h

feel free to be surprised

remember assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups

MSTRS
22nd April 2010, 13:42
Sometimes one has to look in the rearview mirror in order to go forward, helps stopping the dribble.
http://www.odt.co.nz/58043/police-patrol-driver039s-gross-error039-costs-him-60000
a brief summary of the Buller Gorge case

Bridgman had to accept that he was the main person responsible for what happened.
No different to this case

Spearfish
22nd April 2010, 13:44
The fact that a hill or obstruction to vision was involved makes things a bit tricky.
Yes the cop shouldn't have turned no argument there especially if he was not able to maintain 100 meters clear road throughout the manoeuvre and that will come out in the investigation.
But the rider has to be able to stop within the space available to him, in this case he wasn't robbed of the space to stop because he never new he had it in the first place just assumed like we all do from time to time?

So this cop gets busted and cops aren't allowed to u turn any more, does that fix the problem so it could never happen again or will just not be a cop next time? Considering the number of road users left I cant see how it will.
What if it wasn't a cop car that was hidden by the brow of the hill, it could have been anything, do we have to ban breaking down, fallen trees, rubbish bins on windy days, stock, tractors slower vehicles, road works, slips?

Coldrider
22nd April 2010, 13:45
Bridgman had to accept that he was the main person responsible for what happened.
No different to this caseExactly, the other factors questioned are just sideshows, but more importantly, the judge did not agree with Katman.

trustme
22nd April 2010, 13:50
The fact that a hill or obstruction to vision was involved makes things a bit tricky.
Yes the cop shouldn't have turned no argument there especially if he was not able to maintain 100 meters clear road throughout the manoeuvre and that will come out in the investigation.
But the rider has to be able to stop within the space available to him, in this case he wasn't robbed of the space to stop because he never new he had it in the first place just assumed like we all do from time to time?

So this cop gets busted and cops aren't allowed to u turn any more, does that fix the problem so it could never happen again or will just not be a cop next time? Considering the number of road users left I cant see how it will.
What if it wasn't a cop car that was hidden by the brow of the hill, it could have been anything, do we have to ban breaking down, fallen trees, rubbish bins on windy days, stock, tractors slower vehicles, road works, slips?

Please stop common sense from getting in the way of a damn good cop bashing thread

miloking
22nd April 2010, 13:58
So who's sent an email showing your concern to the ministers concerned?Instead of just whining to the pack.
Do it now


j.collins@ministers.govt.nz
steven.joyce@national.org.nz

Got my reply today after i finaly calmed down enough to write sensible email

Dear Mr King
The Hon Judith Collins, Minister of Police, has asked me to acknowledge and thank you for your correspondence of 22 April 2010, received by this office on 22 April 2010, regarding police pursuit policy.
The Minister has asked officials for advice on this matter. You will receive a response as soon as possible.

Yours sincerely

Inspector Troy Nicholson
Police Private Secretary

idleidolidyll
22nd April 2010, 14:05
i HAVE had mazda bounty utes in the past, and i KNOW that they are indeed capable of speeds in excess of 160km/h

KNOW in caps is a big call.

I KNOW that all my vehicles read well high on the speedo (confirmed with Garmin GPS on long straights); the Ssangyong reads approx 10% high or in numbers; when it says 160, its only doing 144.
The beemer is about the same, the KTM is not as bad but still high. Wifies Toyota is a bald faced liar like most Jap vehicles.

If you managed to get your Bounty to read 180, that MIGHT be around 160 in reality.

The latest bt-50 bounty 3 litre diesel, according to Mazda, makes less HP than my vehicle but more torque and its certainly less aerodynamic.
Torque = acceleration but HP and aerodynamics give top speed.

I still very much doubt the Bounty actually can hit speeds in excess of 160kph

The driver said he was going a bit over the speed limit, the cop said 154; i have seen cops lie in potentially less punative situations than this and lean toward the drivers statement as fact

Mr Merde
22nd April 2010, 14:12
Got my reply today after i finaly calmed down enough to write sensible email

Dear Mr King
The Hon Judith Collins, Minister of Police, has asked me to acknowledge and thank you for your correspondence of 22 April 2010, received by this office on 22 April 2010, regarding police pursuit policy.
The Minister has asked officials for advice on this matter. You will receive a response as soon as possible.

Yours sincerely

Inspector Troy Nicholson
Police Private Secretary

Dont expect a lot from Judith Collins. I've e-mailed her in the past on other matters and she has never replied herself. She always gets someone elkse to tell you what she thinks.

She seems incapable of having an opinion or expressing her own views in any matter.

bogan
22nd April 2010, 14:12
So this cop gets busted and cops aren't allowed to u turn any more, does that fix the problem so it could never happen again or will just not be a cop next time? Considering the number of road users left I cant see how it will.
What if it wasn't a cop car that was hidden by the brow of the hill, it could have been anything, do we have to ban breaking down, fallen trees, rubbish bins on windy days, stock, tractors slower vehicles, road works, slips?

No it doesnt completely fix the problem, but on the other hand, do you really want cops to think "well dangerous things already occur on the road, what does it matter if we add one more?" as that seems to be the resoning behind your argument.
An the other examples, break downs generally stop off to the side of the road as much as possible and at the bottom of slopes, fallen trees generally occur after bad weather, stock you see the tracks and a good number of cockies put out cones or drench containers etc, slower vehicles can be seen going over the top of such hills from a distance, road works are marked, slips again generally after bad weather. Point is, if it was policy to only do u-turns where it was safe, and if that policy was adhered to, Paul Brown would be alive today, isn't that reason enough?

miloking
22nd April 2010, 14:12
i HAVE had mazda bounty utes in the past, and i KNOW that they are indeed capable of speeds in excess of 160km/h

feel free to be surprised

remember assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups

Irony of your post is to assume that all mazda bounty utes are the same vehicle and then present that opinion as a fact!

Also it means fuck all if he did 112km/h or 154km/h or 327 ...fact is Mr.Jackson either deserves a ticket or not (depending if there is an evidence of the 154 or its something cop made up, remember cop saw silver ute and Mr.Jakcson drives green...so i dont know how he can prove that he saw a number plate)

Its just a distraction from a real issue here!

Spearfish
22nd April 2010, 14:16
I doesn't matter what speed the ute was doing, the cop could just as easily have turned because he saw a better place to take a leak, or a known crim that is wanted for bike thefts , or his wife with someone else...or a Labrador was driving...

miloking
22nd April 2010, 14:16
Dont expect a lot from Judith Collins. I've e-mailed her in the past on other matters and she has never replied herself. She always gets someone elkse to tell you what she thinks.

She seems incapable of having an opinion or expressing her own views in any matter.

Thats fine with me, as long as she gets "someone else" to do something about this issue :) (also doesnt that make her redundant...since she doesnt realy do much else apart from emotional statements on tv about crushing crapy cars?)

blackdog
22nd April 2010, 14:18
Irony of your post is to assume that all mazda bounty utes are the same vehicle and then present that opinion as a fact!

Also it means fuck all if he did 112km/h or 154km/h or 327 ...fact is Mr.Jackson either deserves a ticket or not (depending if there is an evidence of the 154 or its something cop made up)

Its just a distraction from a real issue here!

point taken

i know that the vehicle I was driving was capable of speeds in excess of 160km/h

bogan
22nd April 2010, 14:20
Irony of your post is to assume that all mazda bounty utes are the same vehicle and then present that opinion as a fact!

Also it means fuck all if he did 112km/h or 154km/h or 327 ...fact is Mr.Jackson either deserves a ticket or not (depending if there is an evidence of the 154 or its something cop made up)

Its just a distraction from a real issue here!

it's being used as a tenuous link to show the bike must have also been speeding, ute speeds, bike assumed to be following him, so assumed bike also speeding, then you must also assume that the bike also was speeding when going over the blind crest (he could easily catch up just speeding on the clear vis bits), so lots of assumptions, and you know what they say about those.

miloking
22nd April 2010, 14:23
point taken

i know that the vehicle I was driving was capable of speeds in excess of 160km/h

At the same time, i would like for the investigators to actualy borrow Mr.Jacksons ute and drive it over the crest with same amount of load it had in it on the day of the accident, for all we know it can do 154 up that hill

....but if it does is it going to simply justify the actions of the cop to the public?

Smifffy
22nd April 2010, 14:29
A visit with the jury to the scene of the crash during Bridgman's trial had only served to "underscore the magnitude of your error," the judge said.

It had been a "totally inappropriate place to undertake such a manoeuvre".





Defence lawyer Garry Barkle said Bridgman's offending resulted from a split second decision to pursue a speeding motorcyclist as part of local and national police policies to combat speed but said that it was relevant to sentencing that Collins and Russel were travelling "at a speed beyond 100kmh".

(emphasis mine)


Surely it is time for some education that combatting speed does not absolve an officer of sound judgement and safe driving.

"mean-spirited and derisory." - I think that's in the SOPs as well, isn't it Leo?

Jonno.
22nd April 2010, 14:43
I doesn't matter what speed the ute was doing, the cop could just as easily have turned because he saw a better place to take a leak, or a known crim that is wanted for bike thefts , or his wife with someone else...or a Labrador was driving...

Why did he park on a blind hill? No one forced him to park there.

NSR-Dan
22nd April 2010, 15:03
If it was a PFC (Private Fucken Civilan) driving the car, they`d be toast...and lose their licence.

Yeah but PFC's dont have bright flashing lights and fluresent markings on their cars.

Everyone will get pissed off and call for change but in reality there already is a law which is you must be able to stop in half your visual distance at all times. I think everyone is at fault.

The cop shouldnt of made a uturn where he did.
The biker waqs probably going to quick.
The Ute shouldnt of been speeding in the first place.

First its there should be no camera's cause it revenue generating
then its cops should not persue speeding vehicles because its dangerous to everyone.
really all everyone is saying "let us speed".

Jonno.
22nd April 2010, 15:10
Yeah but PFC's dont have bright flashing lights and fluresent markings on their cars.

Everyone will get pissed off and call for change but in reality there already is a law which is you must be able to stop in half your visual distance at all times. I think everyone is at fault.

The cop shouldnt of made a uturn where he did.
The biker waqs probably going to quick.
The Ute shouldnt of been speeding in the first place.

First its there should be no camera's cause it revenue generating
then its cops should not persue speeding vehicles because its dangerous to everyone.
really all everyone is saying "let us speed".
Cop shouldn't have been there full stop; the only way he could catch someone that way was doing a dangerous U turn.
If it was a milk tanker or a car it would be different but it wasn't; it was a cop who was pursuiting a ute in aid of "public saftey".

That's what irony is.

Max Preload
22nd April 2010, 15:18
Given the cop car was about 60 metres from the brow it is reasonable to assume that a collision was still going to happen. Given that a 50 kmh solid impact is similar to a grand piano being dropped on you from a first floor window, a bad outcome was highly likely.

That depends on the true geometric shape of the brow. The rider might well have been able to see the cop before the cop saw him just based on his height above his bike compared to the cop being below the top of his. The lights night have been on and the rider may have assumed the cop was just going straight. The cop likely wouldn't have been looking for vehicles approaching from the opposite direction immediately before the turn - he'd have looked to where he was going. If it was only then that the presence motorcycle became obvious he could have cut across while the bike was in full view and a lot closer.

And let's not overlook the fact motorcyclist's tiny helmet is fairly inconspicuous against the skyline compared to the roof of a white Commonwhore against the black seal so the bike could have again been closer with better vison without the cop actually seeing him.


The fact that a hill or obstruction to vision was involved makes things a bit tricky.
Yes the cop shouldn't have turned no argument there especially if he was not able to maintain 100 meters clear road throughout the manoeuvre and that will come out in the investigation.
But the rider has to be able to stop within the space available to him, in this case he wasn't robbed of the space to stop because he never new he had it in the first place just assumed like we all do from time to time?

As above, he may well have been robbed.

Smifffy
22nd April 2010, 15:38
If there had been 5 serious collisions with milk tankers in identical circumstances since 2007, I for one would be calling for a review of the policies & procedures relating to milk tankers. Same goes for tractors actually.

There is a common denominator in these situations, and I shall call it the "Rosco P Coltrane effect"

idleidolidyll
22nd April 2010, 15:43
Yeah but PFC's dont have bright flashing lights and fluresent markings on their cars.

Everyone will get pissed off and call for change but in reality there already is a law which is you must be able to stop in half your visual distance at all times. I think everyone is at fault.

The cop shouldnt of made a uturn where he did.
The biker waqs probably going to quick.
The Ute shouldnt of been speeding in the first place.

First its there should be no camera's cause it revenue generating
then its cops should not persue speeding vehicles because its dangerous to everyone.
really all everyone is saying "let us speed".

In a way yes, let us speed. In fact I've always believed bikes should be allowed to do 110 so they could legally get ahead of the most dangerous part of the road: amongst cars and trucks. For the sake of my life I'll do that anyway but I should have to break the law in order to keep myself safe.
And before you go there, going slower only means the idiots pile up behind you and do desperates to get past.

In the past the coppers were allowed to use their discretion and determine whether the 'offence' was dangerous or not. On a long straight road in Canterbury, on a sunny clear day with no traffic on the road, a bike is probably 'safe' doing 200kph.
However, in a 50kph area, near a school at 3.30pm; it is often unsafe to even do 50kph when that is the posted speed limit.

Problem is; the copper is likely to be hiding on that long straight in Canterbury because there is a hell of a lot of potential revenue to collect but there may be nobody watching school areas where folk doing 50kph are creating incredible danger.
So if a kid did run onto the road from between parked cars and got hit, is it safe to do 50 or even 40? Rhetorical of course: no, it isn't safe. Around a school at going home time it is rarely safe to do the legal speed limit.

The point is, it's police mentality created by government and senior police expectations that is a big part of the problem. Would that cop have done the U turn if the emphasis was REALLY on safety instead of speeding and revenue collecting?

terbang
22nd April 2010, 15:48
What if it wasn't a cop car that was hidden by the brow of the hill, it could have been anything, do we have to ban breaking down, fallen trees, rubbish bins on windy days, stock, tractors slower vehicles, road works, slips?

More What if what if what if... Way too much what ifs here. Be careful you lot the sky may fall onto you as well...
Fairly well established Fact: Cop did a Uey without 100m clear road.
Historical Fact: Cops have done this before causing injury and peril to motorists.
Speculation: Rider was speeding.

And no we don't ban those things like fallen trees slips E.T.C, we manage them. But we should ban those that don't obey the 100m clear road rule and do a U turn without it..
What just happened is proof that the 100m rule is there for a damn good reason.

Katman
22nd April 2010, 15:55
But we should ban those that don't obey the 100m clear road rule and do a U turn without it..


Now there's an idea - we should be allowed to pick and choose which laws we can be arsed obeying.

:eek:

Jonno.
22nd April 2010, 16:00
Now there's an idea - we should be allowed to pick and choose which laws we can be arsed obeying.

:eek:

Are you say people who download music should be held to the same repercussions as someone who murders?
Of course not because not all laws hold the same weight.

Smifffy
22nd April 2010, 16:02
Are you say people who download music should be held to the same repercussions as someone who murders?
Of course not because not all laws hold the same weight.

Another "crime" that has little to do with anything except money.

marty
22nd April 2010, 16:05
Can you please supply evidence that the rider was, in fact, exceeding the speed limit? Thanks.

and also, that there was only 60m visibility when the u-turn was initiated

Katman
22nd April 2010, 16:07
Are you say people who download music should be held to the same repercussions as someone who murders?
Of course not because not all laws hold the same weight.

Any sane person would consider having sufficient visibility to safely perform a U turn and being able to stop within the distance visible to you as being very much on a par with each other.

Mr Merde
22nd April 2010, 16:08
Another "crime" that has little to do with anything except money.

Havent you realised by now that money is the reason for everything.

Why is it that someone who pulls off a million dollar robery will get 20+ years inside whilst anothe who kills will get "life" and be out in 8 years if a good person.

The reason--- Money.

The police are only falling in line with everyone else and worshipping the all mighty dollar. If they kill someone in pursuit of such then its not their fault as they were only following orders. Mmm where have I heard that before?

Jonno.
22nd April 2010, 16:26
Any sane person would consider having sufficient visibility to safely perform a U turn and being able to stop within the distance visible to you as being very much on a par with each other.

Any sane person would realised that unsafely performing a u turn and killing an innocent motorcyclist is not the same as being unable to stop over a blind rise where someone would not expect to have a cop pulling u turns.

If he was in a ute then it would have been bye bye mr. Fuzz and if police tried to charge him with failing to stop then the whole country would laugh in their faces.

SPman
22nd April 2010, 16:26
People talk about..."being able to stop in the distance ahead", etc, etc, but, the risks of driving, like most of life, is a balance of probabilities to be weighed and acted on by all of us. Does everyone here slow right down when approaching the blind brow of a hill, in case there is something blocking the road! Probably not! Does everyone here ride with sufficient distance from the vehicle in front that they could stop in time if the vehicle miraculously stopped instantly from...whatever speed. Not stopped hard on full brakes, but instantly! No. Why...because such things almost never happen so our internal risk assesment drops it way down the scale and we carry on as if it won't, whilst (some of us) keeping a weee bit of margin, because , it might - but never really enough!
If people drove constantly aware of all the multitude of events that COULD happen on the roads, traffic would come to a crawling, erratic, standstill. So, to say Paul should have ridden in a manner that he would be able to come to a complete stop because of a blockage just over the brow of a rise, is not particularly valid. Is was a risk that was, perhaps, not as high on the scale as it should have been (given the number of prats that do U turns in similar positions), but is understandable. The only way you eliminate what he was doing would be to slow, markedly, approaching each and every rise, on high alert and covering the brake. And on the acceptable risk scale, most of us assume the road ahead will be clear and, at most, ease off on the throttle a bit.

Attempting a U turn, or worse, a 3 point turn, just over the brow of a rise, is less understandable. It is a risky manoeuvre, showing a total lack of thought and a cavalier disregard towards traffic, that was able to be easily eliminated (do it where the road is clear and visibility is good in both directions - as most sensible people would). On his risk assesment, habits of chucking U'ies to pursue errant motorists had over ridden his thought processes, and, throwing on the lights would warn off any traffic, wouldn't it...no worries mate!

This crash was not an accident! It was the result of a culmination of events that could have been averted if one or other of the parties had acted differently with regard to where he was!

Katman
22nd April 2010, 16:30
It was the result of a culmination of events that could have been averted if one or other of the parties had acted differently with regard to where he was!

I think that's exactly what we're saying.

There is no one person at fault here.

Max Preload
22nd April 2010, 16:38
Now there's an idea - we should be allowed to pick and choose which laws we can be arsed obeying.

:eek:

Like cops do, you mean? :scratch:


Any sane person would consider having sufficient visibility to safely perform a U turn and being able to stop within the distance visible to you as being very much on a par with each other.

In this situation the former is in evidence - the latter is not.


People talk about..."being able to stop in the distance ahead", etc, etc, but, the risks of driving, like most of life, is a balance of probabilities to be weighed and acted on by all of us. Does everyone here slow right down when approaching the blind brow of a hill, in case there is something blocking the road! Probably not!

Of course not. There'd be little traffic movement if we did. It's just another 'catch-all' regulation.


Does everyone here ride with sufficient distance from the vehicle in front that they could stop in time if the vehicle miraculously stopped instantly from...whatever speed. Not stopped hard on full brakes, but instantly!

I'm not aware of any such requirement anyway - you must simply follow at the prescribed distance (4m per 10km/h) and be able to stop short. Obviously, if the vehicle in front hits an immovable object (like another vehicle of the same weight travelling the opposite direction at the same speed) then you're fucked but you're not going to be prosecuted, I wouldn't think.

smoky
22nd April 2010, 16:42
Had the rider been riding at the legal speed limit I think he would have had every chance of stopping, &
The locals had been warned that it would end in tears & someone would get killed.

You don't know what speed he was doing
you have no idea if he could've stopped

I too know that road well, I use to live down there once upon a time. Given some comments from people who happened to have been traveling in the same direction as the rider at the time, it seems he may of been traveling at a respectable speed and at all excessive - but who knows.

But of course feel free to slight him based on your ability to assess the situation from Auckland

Smifffy
22nd April 2010, 16:44
I'm not aware of any such requirement anyway - you must simply follow at the prescribed distance (4m per 100km/h) and be able to stop short. Obviously, if the vehicle in front hits an immovable object (like another vehicle of the same weight travelling the opposite direction at the same speed) then you're fucked but you're not going to be prosecuted, I wouldn't think.

Actually there is a requirement, and you can collect 20 demerit points for it. I'm not sure how it is measured, it is probably up to the issuing officer's JUDGEMENT

More info available on the NZTA website road code section

Ixion
22nd April 2010, 16:52
People talk about..."being able to stop in the distance ahead", etc, etc, but, the risks of driving, like most of life, is a balance of probabilities to be weighed and acted on by all of us

Exactly so. When driving , we are all required, sometimes explicitly , sometimes implicitly,to be what the law terms 'a prudent and cautious person'. To take care to guard against such risks as a prudent and cautious person might think reaonably foreseeable. We are not required to guard against freakish and extraordinary circumstances. Were we so required , life and society would be impossible.

Should a prudent a nd cautious person have been able to forsee that performing a three point turn at that point could be dangerous. I think so.

A prudent and cautious driver should allow for conditions that may reasonably be expected in reality. Not for a hypothetical and perfect world, but for the real world we all live in. So, in this case he needs to allow for the fact that traffic will come over that brow at 'normal' open roads speeds for that road. Which may be somewhat greater than 100kph.

He , arguably, does not need to allow for the very improbable possibility that someone in a Ferrari is heading along that road at 350kph. He may ignore that possibility, not because 350kph is illegal, but because it is very very improbable. Taking that into account would not be prudent, it would be paranoid.

Likewise the cautious and prudent rider will allow for a possibility that an obstacle may lurk over the brow of a hill. But perhaps not for a moving obstacle, turning across his path. Cautiously, and prudently, he will , if necessary , reduce speed somewhat. To what extent, I cannot say without riding that road, and taking note.But he should be prudent, not paranoid. Sometimes the degree of risk mitigation required to protect against every improbable but imaginable contingency is impractical.

In this case, did the cop exercise the caution and prudence that we may reasonably expect from a road user (let alone a police officer)? I think not.

Did the rider exercise the caution and prudence that we may reasonably expect from a road user ? I do not know. If he came over the crest at 250kph, probably not. If he came over at 110 kph, probably .

Max Preload
22nd April 2010, 17:04
Actually there is a requirement, and you can collect 20 demerit points for it. I'm not sure how it is measured, it is probably up to the issuing officer's JUDGEMENT

More info available on the NZTA website road code section

There is no specific requirement to be able to stop if for any reason the vehicle in front stops 'instantaneously' just as you're not required to be able to stop if someone pulls out from a side road. Trust me, I know the regulations inside out. Forget the 'Road Code' - it's just a guide to the regulations. There is only following distance, stop within distance of clear road ahead on a road marked in lanes, or½ the distance clear road ahead on a road not marked in lanes.


Should a prudent and cautious person have been able to forsee that performing a three point turn at that point could be dangerous. I think so.

So that means not the cop, right?

idleidolidyll
22nd April 2010, 17:23
Havent you realised by now that money is the reason for everything.

Why is it that someone who pulls off a million dollar robery will get 20+ years inside whilst another who kills will get "life" and be out in 8 years if a good person.

The reason--- Money.

The police are only falling in line with everyone else and worshipping the all mighty dollar. If they kill someone in pursuit of such then its not their fault as they were only following orders. Mmm where have I heard that before?

Only to a point Merde:
we all 'know' that a burglar caught stealing from a home is often treated harsher than a white collar embezzler stealing millions of $$$ from Mom and dad accounts. And the white collar guy is quite likely to have a nice soft bed in a low security prison where he can get out and go shopping for the day while the other guy is probably sent to Pare or Mt Eden.

It's not just the money, it's WHO does the stealing. The wealthier criminal who starts an 'investment company' then rips it off is likely to have friends in high places who will make sure he gets a lighter sentence: judges, lawyers, politicians, senior coppers etc

idleidolidyll
22nd April 2010, 17:27
People talk about..."being able to stop in the distance ahead", etc, etc, but, the risks of driving, like most of life, is a balance of probabilities to be weighed and acted on by all of us. Does everyone here slow right down when approaching the blind brow of a hill, in case there is something blocking the road! Probably not! Does everyone here ride with sufficient distance from the vehicle in front that they could stop in time if the vehicle miraculously stopped instantly from...whatever speed. Not stopped hard on full brakes, but instantly! No. Why...because such things almost never happen so our internal risk assesment drops it way down the scale and we carry on as if it won't, whilst (some of us) keeping a weee bit of margin, because , it might - but never really enough!
If people drove constantly aware of all the multitude of events that COULD happen on the roads, traffic would come to a crawling, erratic, standstill. So, to say Paul should have ridden in a manner that he would be able to come to a complete stop because of a blockage just over the brow of a rise, is not particularly valid. Is was a risk that was, perhaps, not as high on the scale as it should have been (given the number of prats that do U turns in similar positions), but is understandable. The only way you eliminate what he was doing would be to slow, markedly, approaching each and every rise, on high alert and covering the brake. And on the acceptable risk scale, most of us assume the road ahead will be clear and, at most, ease off on the throttle a bit.

Attempting a U turn, or worse, a 3 point turn, just over the brow of a rise, is less understandable. It is a risky manoeuvre, showing a total lack of thought and a cavalier disregard towards traffic, that was able to be easily eliminated (do it where the road is clear and visibility is good in both directions - as most sensible people would). On his risk assesment, habits of chucking U'ies to pursue errant motorists had over ridden his thought processes, and, throwing on the lights would warn off any traffic, wouldn't it...no worries mate!

This crash was not an accident! It was the result of a culmination of events that could have been averted if one or other of the parties had acted differently with regard to where he was!

unfortunately "You have given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later." so I'll say it in person: perfectly stated SPMan

scumdog
22nd April 2010, 17:35
Actually, rather than just a simple single post, I offered an entire thread; one in which you and the other coppers all closed ranks and posted lies, bullshit, evasion and just plain nonsense almost every time you typed.

I'm more than happy to start that entire thread again as it was only deleted when you and the other coppers were getting your asses kicked. As usual, you'd descended into ad hominem and fallacy.

As for my "top rant", that's a simplistic childish brush off because you and yours once again refuse to honestly debate the topic raised. Here's the main point raised identidied by you as a "top rant":

"speed does NOT kill; that's one of the dumbest absolute statements made by dumb ass coppers

i could drive up and down some roads in canterbury at 200kph for the rest of my life and never have an accident let alone die.

on the other hand, i could be killed by a fuckwit while doing 30kph"

Are you and yours ready to debate the disgraceful collection of road taxes, the idiot savant mindset of coppers who will chase people until they are dead for the crime of speeding (upon whence you generally declare "I stopped the pursuit 3 seconds before the accident") and the idiocy of the "speed kills" absolutist statement yet, or are you, as above, merely going to waffle and run away again?

Remember the analogy of wrestling with a pig in mud?
Remember the moral?

Well guess who's the pig in this instance????:devil2::rofl::killingme:nya:

(Hint: It aint you!)

idleidolidyll
22nd April 2010, 17:36
I think that's exactly what we're saying.

There is no one person at fault here.

There almost never is but the accident happened BECAUSE the cop seems to have performed a really stupid action not because the biker was going too fast for the road (as observed by SPMan in refernce to well understood driving habits by pretty much EVERY Kiwi including coppers). The majority of fault should lie with the cop regardless of the speed of the bike.
Frankly, despite your rhetoric here; I very much doubt that you always follow at a distance in which you can stop for any event................I think that makes you a hypocrite doesn't it?.

The upshot is that the cop should be charged with dangerous driving causing death. If he is subsequently acquitted, there had better be a very clear explanation why and that should then apply to all ordinary motorists as well.

idleidolidyll
22nd April 2010, 17:44
Remember the analogy of wrestling with a pig in mud?
Remember the moral?

Well guess who's the pig in this instance????:devil2::rofl::killingme:nya:

(Hint: It aint you!)

So once again you evade the questions in favour of a little nonsense. As I said; you coppers are easy, you destroy your own credibility without us even tapping a key.

Once again scummy and in simple language that anyone can understand: Is it speed that kills or bad driving?

I hold that the statement "speed kills" is a ridiculous absolute and that it is in fact bad driving that kills.

Smifffy
22nd April 2010, 17:44
There's only 3 people that might know exactly what happened:

1 of them is dead - RIP
1 them was so traumatised he was unable to operate a cellphone
1 them is a mysterious civilian passenger

Apparently, at the time, none of them knew what hit them.

I find it incredible that the ute is even up for discussion. Is the pursuit of a ute (poetry) a greater imperative for turning there, than say going back for a pie, or missing a turn off, or maybe granny just called me on my cell and told me she was having a heart attack, and I had to go back to help her?

There's no doubt in my mind that if I was in a cage and did that, and offered any of those excuses for the turn, the book would be roundly thrown at me.

Tell me it would be any different for any of you.

scumdog
22nd April 2010, 17:53
So once again you evade the questions in favour of a little nonsense. As I said; you coppers are easy, you destroy your own credibility without us even tapping a key.

Once again scummy and in simple language that anyone can understand: Is it speed that kills or bad driving?

I hold that the statement "speed kills" is a ridiculous absolute and that it is in fact bad driving that kills.

Why ask me? eh? eh?
I'm pretty shit-hot but it wasn't ME that invented that phrase, ask whoever decided it was the phrse de jour..

It it HAD been me I would have said: "Stopping too quickly will kill you"

idleidolidyll
22nd April 2010, 17:53
Now there's an idea - we should be allowed to pick and choose which laws we can be arsed obeying. :eek:

Katman; That is actually what almost everyone on the planet does. I very much doubt that there are ANY people out there who can honestly say they have NEVER broken ANY laws; you included

idleidolidyll
22nd April 2010, 18:02
why ask you scummy?

because you're a cop and in the past you've held hands with your brother coppers to obfuscate, divert and lie about the statement

i'm inviting you, as a cop, to have an honest debate: but i'm not holding my breath

MSTRS
22nd April 2010, 18:03
- you must simply follow at the prescribed distance (4m per 100km/h)...

I am aware of the 2 second rule...It replaced the 'old' method of 1 car length/10mph.
But never heard of 4 metres /100kph.
4m is about the length of an average car.
How would anyone stop in that distance?

Ixion
22nd April 2010, 18:04
A thought occurs.

mr Tooman says




"The officer activated his lights and sirens and moved his vehicle to the left intending to carry out a turning manoeuvre to follow the speeding vehicle, partway through this Mr Brown has come over the brow of a hill and encountered the patrol car partway across his lane and collided with it," Mr Tooman said.



Now, if you are trampiong along, a bit over the limit, and you hear sirens close near, what do you do? Well, me, and I think most folk, first check mirrors and if there's nothing there (and more so if the siren seems to come from up ahead), slow down and put on an innocent expression. Would a rider really have gone fanging over the hill , with a siren wailing on the other side?

Robert Taylor
22nd April 2010, 18:06
Not so mate, people are just really pissed off with this type of accident that seems to be recurring. A lot are highly suspicious of the worth and integrity of our current police force. Personally I don't blame them as their (so called police) copybook has become well blotted over recent years with many very public corruption (remember Clint and his mates?) and incompetence issues.
I think most would like the Police/Pollies to take a review of themselves and above all, would like to be able to brow a hill or take a bend (car or motorcycle) without the risk of a police car sitting in the middle of the road.

No-one denies they need to clean their act up in certain areas and the evidence may point to the police car being as you said. But this thread is also an insight into how nasty people can be, thats one of the regretable reactions.
Ive also also had a good relationship with the police, have only had traffic infringements and have never tried to intimidate them. On most occassions if you treat people with respect you usually get respect back

idleidolidyll
22nd April 2010, 18:15
when people advocate beating others etc; it's impossible to respect them

doc
22nd April 2010, 18:15
A thought occurs.

mr Tooman says



Now, if you are trampiong along, a bit over the limit, and you hear sirens close near, what do you do? Well, me, and I think most folk, first check mirrors and if there's nothing there (and more so if the siren seems to come from up ahead), slow down and put on an innocent expression. Would a rider really have gone fanging over the hill , with a siren wailing on the other side?

I can't see much in my mirrors and only hear the sirens when they are usually along side me.

Robert Taylor
22nd April 2010, 18:16
replying to Bobby Taylors last post:

actually it's just debate

the crux of the debate, ignoring the side issues and name calling, is that bikers are cynical in general about the cops and probably for good reason.

what we want to see is cops who treat other cops the same as they treat us, who obey and respect the law and who don't lie or mislead; unfortunately too many of us have seen that the prevailing attitude of most cops is that motorcyclists always speed, whenever one crashes it was "due to excessive speed" but when they have done something incredibly stupid, illegal or otherwise wrong; they seem to hold themselves to a lower standard than they hold the general motoring public.

I'm not actually a cynic, I'm a realist through experience many times over

I say again, when Ive been pulled over for speeding on motorcycles Ive accepted my fate ( because on all occassions I was flipping guilty! ) and was treated on each and every occasion with total civility BECAUSE I WAS TOTALLY CIVIL. I havent detected any difference in attitude when Ive been pulled over for speeding convictions in cars.
If your approach to them mirrors the aggressive nature of many of the posts you have put up then I can well understand the book being thrown at you. Human nature, Id do the same if I was a policeman.

Mr Merde
22nd April 2010, 18:16
....... On most occassions if you treat people with respect you usually get respect back

Something I havent seen a lot of in this thread or in this forum.

Smifffy
22nd April 2010, 18:16
No-one denies they need to clean their act up in certain areas and the evidence may point to the police car being as you said. But this thread is also an insight into how nasty people can be, thats one of the regretable reactions.
Ive also also had a good relationship with the police, have only had traffic infringements and have never tried to intimidate them. On most occassions if you treat people with respect you usually get respect back

On most occasions yes. On this occasion what chance did Paul have?

People are angry, and it stems from empathy, if you imagine yourself in the role of the motorcyclcist, whether you are doing 70 km/h or 127 km/h, on that day, do you really think it would matter if you crested the hill and there was a blue & white in the middle of a 3 point turn?

If you were in your cage, and you were doing a 3 point turn in that location, and another road user died, do you think that you would be able to avoid responsibility by talking about a speeding ute that you didn't even know the colour of? Do you think you would avoid prosecution?

marty
22nd April 2010, 18:18
I am aware of the 2 second rule...It replaced the 'old' method of 1 car length/10mph.
But never heard of 4 metres /100kph.
4m is about the length of an average car.
How would anyone stop in that distance?

It's 4m/10kmh, to a max of 70kmh. You are then legally allowed to follow at 28m at any speed above that.

idleidolidyll
22nd April 2010, 18:19
I say again, when Ive been pulled over for speeding on motorcycles Ive accepted my fate ( because on all occassions I was flipping guilty! ) and was treated on each and every occasion with total civility BECAUSE I WAS TOTALLY CIVIL. I havent detected any difference in attitude when Ive been pulled over for speeding convictions in cars.
If your approach to them mirrors the aggressive nature of many of the posts you have put up then I can well understand the book being thrown at you. Human nature, Id do the same if I was a policeman.

assumptions assumptions: oh dear how sad

when a cop pulls you over and you were not speeding or doing anything illegal; how should you act?

I asked why? the COP was the one who didn't act with respect

don't project your silly theory onto me bobby; you are bereft of facts

Smifffy
22nd April 2010, 18:20
It's 4m/10kmh, to a max of 70kmh. You are then legally allowed to follow at 28m at any speed above that.

Given that there are 20 demerit points at stake (and a whole lot more at stake if you buy into the reason fro the rule). How exactly is this 28m determined?

Mr Merde
22nd April 2010, 18:22
Given that there are 20 demerit points at stake (and a whole lot more at stake if you buy into the reason fro the rule). How exactly is this 28m determined?

In all cases, by guestimate. Then once formed it is a matter of who's op[inion carries more weight in court.

Hint-- It wont be yours

Robert Taylor
22nd April 2010, 18:22
when people advocate beating others etc; it's impossible to respect them

Maybe a few more beatings would have helped...............

sidecar bob
22nd April 2010, 18:24
Now, if you are trampiong along, a bit over the limit, and you hear sirens close near, what do you do? Well, me, and I think most folk, first check mirrors and if there's nothing there (and more so if the siren seems to come from up ahead), slow down and put on an innocent expression. Would a rider really have gone fanging over the hill , with a siren wailing on the other side?

Oh dear, have you ever actually ridden a motorbike?
So apparently inside a decent helmet doing at least 100kmh on a four cylnder bike with a loudish pipe you can hear a police siren facing the other way at least 200metres away on the other side of a hill?

riffer
22nd April 2010, 18:27
Given that there are 20 demerit points at stake (and a whole lot more at stake if you buy into the reason fro the rule). How exactly is this 28m determined?


At 100 km/hr you are travelling at 27 metres per second. Pick a point. See the vehicle in front of you. Count one second. Add a tenth of a second more. That's 28metres. You should not pass that point before then. Best to do "One-elephant-two-elephant" for good measure. That would be anywhere between 40 and 60 metres to be sure, to be sure.

miloking
22nd April 2010, 18:29
Oh dear, have you ever actually ridden a motorbike?
So apparently inside a decent helmet doing at least 100kmh on a four cylnder bike with a loudish pipe you can hear a police siren facing the other way at least 200metres away on the other side of a hill?

And dont forget that every experienced biker that has some respect for his own hearing uses earplugs!

Of course not sure if Mr.Brown was wearing them or not on that fateful afternoon but if he was Mr.Tooman and his dumbass minion have lost another excuse to get them off the hook!

Robert Taylor
22nd April 2010, 18:29
On most occasions yes. On this occasion what chance did Paul have?

People are angry, and it stems from empathy, if you imagine yourself in the role of the motorcyclcist, whether you are doing 70 km/h or 127 km/h, on that day, do you really think it would matter if you crested the hill and there was a blue & white in the middle of a 3 point turn?

If you were in your cage, and you were doing a 3 point turn in that location, and another road user died, do you think that you would be able to avoid responsibility by talking about a speeding ute that you didn't even know the colour of? Do you think you would avoid prosecution?

I have been in this exact situation as a motorcyclist and I was doing a speed in excess of the speed limit. The RZ500 was so shortened that it was able to be placed lengthwise on the back of an HQ ute and the tailgate shut. It was adjudged as the other parties fault as there was enough clear distance to see me irrespective of the speed I was travelling.
But if I hadnt have been speeding maybe I could have had enough time to react, SPEED WAS A FACTOR!!!!
My fortune was that I was thrown clear.
I have complete respect for the policeman who was on the scene to he;p me prior to the arrival of the ambulance

Smifffy
22nd April 2010, 18:34
In all cases, by guestimate. Then once formed it is a matter of who's op[inion carries more weight in court.

Hint-- It wont be yours

I was hoping for one of our enforcement brethren, or their supporters to answer my question, but thanks anyway.

The answer I was expecting is that it is up to the issuing officer's JUDGEMENT

We, the taxpayers are employing the public servants, including the members of the Police Force to enforce the LAW of New Zealand, with good judgement. Whether it be a Judge ruling on dodgy finance dealings, a cop driving unsafely, or an MP doing house renovations.

MSTRS
22nd April 2010, 18:35
It's 4m/10kmh, to a max of 70kmh. You are then legally allowed to follow at 28m at any speed above that.

Perhaps MaxPreload made a typo? Whatever, guesstimating distance is an exercise in futility for most. The 2 second rule is much better.
Surely everyone can count One/One Thousand...Two/One Thousand, using a (anything stationary beside the road) as a point of reference?

Smifffy
22nd April 2010, 18:37
I have been in this exact situation as a motorcyclist and I was doing a speed in excess of the speed limit. The RZ500 was so shortened that it was able to be placed lengthwise on the back of an HQ ute and the tailgate shut. It was adjudged as the other parties fault as there was enough clear distance to see me irrespective of the speed I was travelling.
But if I hadnt have been speeding maybe I could have had enough time to react, SPEED WAS A FACTOR!!!!
My fortune was that I was thrown clear.
I have complete respect for the policeman who was on the scene to he;p me prior to the arrival of the ambulance

Speed was a factor, but it was the other party's fault.

Smifffy
22nd April 2010, 18:39
I have been in this exact situation as a motorcyclist and I was doing a speed in excess of the speed limit. The RZ500 was so shortened that it was able to be placed lengthwise on the back of an HQ ute and the tailgate shut. It was adjudged as the other parties fault as there was enough clear distance to see me irrespective of the speed I was travelling.
But if I hadnt have been speeding maybe I could have had enough time to react, SPEED WAS A FACTOR!!!!
My fortune was that I was thrown clear.
I have complete respect for the policeman who was on the scene to he;p me prior to the arrival of the ambulance

I have a great deal of respect for many policemen. How did you feel about the guy in the car?

MSTRS
22nd April 2010, 18:40
Given that there are 20 demerit points at stake (and a whole lot more at stake if you buy into the reason fro the rule). How exactly is this 28m determined?

That is the distance you will travel in 2 seconds at 100kph.
Very hard to judge in distance terms.

scumdog
22nd April 2010, 18:42
why ask you scummy?

because you're a cop and in the past you've held hands with your brother coppers to obfuscate, divert and lie about the statement

i'm inviting you, as a cop, to have an honest debate: but i'm not holding my breath


I ain't getting involved.

Why?

Because I would probably not give the answers you like.

And you would twist them to suit your own agenda.

MarkH
22nd April 2010, 18:43
Everyone will get pissed off and call for change but in reality there already is a law which is you must be able to stop in half your visual distance at all times. I think everyone is at fault.

The cop shouldnt of made a uturn where he did.
The biker waqs probably going to quick.
The Ute shouldnt of been speeding in the first place.

First its there should be no camera's cause it revenue generating
then its cops should not persue speeding vehicles because its dangerous to everyone.
really all everyone is saying "let us speed".

I wouldn't deny the cop's right to chase speeding vehicles, but if they could turn around to do so without being a hazard and killing other motorists then that would be a bonus :niceone:

The cop shouldnt of made a uturn where he did.
No he shouldn't have, in fact that error directly contributed to a man dying - that is not acceptable!!!

The biker was probably going to quick.
Maybe - but that is only speculation.
If he was then that would also have contributed to his death, but since he has already be penalised way too severely then surely you wouldn't suggest that he needs to be punished further?

The Ute shouldnt of been speeding in the first place.
No, it shouldn't have been - but what is your point? It better not be that if you speed in a ute then you deserve to have your mate on a motorcycle killed by an over zealous cop! Clearly the cop should have driven about 100 metres further along the road, then turned around safely and pursued the ute - giving out the standard fine & demerit points as proscribed by law, but that is not what happened here!

but in reality there already is a law which is you must be able to stop in half your visual distance at all times
No, that is not in reality at all. The reality is that on a marked road you must be able to stop in the distance you can see (not half the distance). I don't think that the punishment for failing to do that should be death. I also don't think that the police should be blocking the road to enforce that law. If it was a cow instead of a cop car then there would be questions asked about why a cow was standing in the middle of the road - the owner of the cow could be charged for not taking adequate steps to fence his livestock. If it was a car broken down and blocking the road had been unintentional and unavoidable then there may have been no charges and no one blamed - but this was a deliberate choice to turn a police car around in a dangerous spot causing a hazard that lead to the death of a person, from our understanding of what happened many of us are not very happy with the actions of the police here!

MarkH
22nd April 2010, 18:44
I am aware of the 2 second rule...It replaced the 'old' method of 1 car length/10mph.
But never heard of 4 metres /100kph.
4m is about the length of an average car.
How would anyone stop in that distance?

He probably accidentally gave the standard following distance for driving on the Auckland motorways. Everyone knows that 4 metres is more than enough for motorway driving!

Smifffy
22nd April 2010, 18:45
That is the distance you will travel in 2 seconds at 100kph.
Very hard to judge in distance terms.

What do you think the chances are of successfully defending an infringement notice by claiming that you were most definitely 29m behind the vehicle in front?

As per the earlier hint, 1 party will be believed, and it wont be you.

An in car camera could help prove it - but that's too expensive

marty
22nd April 2010, 18:46
Given that there are 20 demerit points at stake (and a whole lot more at stake if you buy into the reason fro the rule). How exactly is this 28m determined?

Actually - I just did some research, and the regulation has been amended, as here:

9 Stopping and following distances

(1) A driver must not drive a vehicle in a lane marked on a road at such a speed that the driver is unable to stop in the length of the lane that is visible to the driver.

(2) A driver must not drive a vehicle on a road that is not marked in lanes at such a speed that the driver is unable to stop in half the length of roadway that is visible to the driver.

(3) A driver must not drive on a road a vehicle following behind another vehicle so that the driver cannot stop the driver's vehicle short of the vehicle ahead if the vehicle ahead stops suddenly.

(4) No driver may drive a motor vehicle on any road following behind another vehicle at a distance behind that vehicle of less than—

(a) 16 m, if his or her speed is 40 km an hour or more but less than 50 km an hour; or


(b) 20 m, if his or her speed is 50 km an hour or more but less than 60 km an hour; or


(c) 24 m, if his or her speed is 60 km an hour or more but less than 70 km an hour; or


(d) 28 m, if his or her speed is 70 km an hour or more but less than 80 km an hour; or


(e) 32 m, if his or her speed is 80 km an hour or more but less than 90 km an hour; or


(f) 36 m, if his or her speed is 90 km an hour or more

marty
22nd April 2010, 18:46
What do you think the chances are of successfully defending an infringement notice by claiming that you were most definitely 29m behind the vehicle in front?

Pretty good.

Smifffy
22nd April 2010, 18:52
Actually - I just did some research, and the regulation has been amended, as here:

9 Stopping and following distances

(1) A driver must not drive a vehicle in a lane marked on a road at such a speed that the driver is unable to stop in the length of the lane that is visible to the driver.

(2) A driver must not drive a vehicle on a road that is not marked in lanes at such a speed that the driver is unable to stop in half the length of roadway that is visible to the driver.

(3) A driver must not drive on a road a vehicle following behind another vehicle so that the driver cannot stop the driver's vehicle short of the vehicle ahead if the vehicle ahead stops suddenly.

(4) No driver may drive a motor vehicle on any road following behind another vehicle at a distance behind that vehicle of less than—

(a) 16 m, if his or her speed is 40 km an hour or more but less than 50 km an hour; or


(b) 20 m, if his or her speed is 50 km an hour or more but less than 60 km an hour; or


(c) 24 m, if his or her speed is 60 km an hour or more but less than 70 km an hour; or


(d) 28 m, if his or her speed is 70 km an hour or more but less than 80 km an hour; or


(e) 32 m, if his or her speed is 80 km an hour or more but less than 90 km an hour; or


(f) 36 m, if his or her speed is 90 km an hour or more




Great!!

Who measures these distances to a degree of accuracy that may be relied upon in a court of law?

MSTRS
22nd April 2010, 18:52
What do you think the chances are of successfully defending an infringement notice by claiming that you were most definitely 29m behind the vehicle in front?

As per the earlier hint, 1 party will be believed, and it wont be you.

Well, I'd assume I was fucked. Because if my vehicle was up to standard (brakes/tyres) and I was paying attention, then TPTB say I should have been able to stop in time. Demonstrably, I didn't stop so I would be charged with Failing to stop within the clear road ahead. Possibly with Careless (lack of attention). Maybe even Operating a defective vehicle.

Smifffy
22nd April 2010, 19:01
Well, I'd assume I was fucked. Because if my vehicle was up to standard (brakes/tyres) and I was paying attention, then TPTB say I should have been able to stop in time. Demonstrably, I didn't stop so I would be charged with Failing to stop within the clear road ahead. Possibly with Careless (lack of attention). Maybe even Operating a defective vehicle.

But surely if the issuing officer was present, and was pursuing a policy of improved road safety, then you would have been stopped and issued with the infringement notice prior to colliding with the vehicle/object in front?

Waiting till after the crash to throw the book at you doesn't really do much to improve road safety does it?

Max Preload
22nd April 2010, 19:04
I am aware of the 2 second rule...It replaced the 'old' method of 1 car length/10mph.
But never heard of 4 metres /100kph.
4m is about the length of an average car.
How would anyone stop in that distance?

Sorry - typo - 4m per 10km/h. That's the actual regulation - 2 seconds is not - it's just an easier way for geometrically challenged folk to see if they're following too close. It's also 38% more than 4m per 10km/h tool.

riffer
22nd April 2010, 19:08
Actually - I just did some research, and the regulation has been amended, as here:

9 Stopping and following distances


(1) A driver must not drive a vehicle in a lane marked on a road at such a speed that the driver is unable to stop in the length of the lane that is visible to the driver.

(2) A driver must not drive a vehicle on a road that is not marked in lanes at such a speed that the driver is unable to stop in half the length of roadway that is visible to the driver.

(3) A driver must not drive on a road a vehicle following behind another vehicle so that the driver cannot stop the driver's vehicle short of the vehicle ahead if the vehicle ahead stops suddenly.

(4) No driver may drive a motor vehicle on any road following behind another vehicle at a distance behind that vehicle of less than—


(a) 16 m, if his or her speed is 40 km an hour or more but less than 50 km an hour; or




(b) 20 m, if his or her speed is 50 km an hour or more but less than 60 km an hour; or




(c) 24 m, if his or her speed is 60 km an hour or more but less than 70 km an hour; or




(d) 28 m, if his or her speed is 70 km an hour or more but less than 80 km an hour; or




(e) 32 m, if his or her speed is 80 km an hour or more but less than 90 km an hour; or




(f) 36 m, if his or her speed is 90 km an hour or more






Completely invalidated in this instance.

Not 1 - vehicle was not visible.
Not 2 - road able to be seen (up to the crest edge) was not impeded.
Not 3 - vehicle in front had not suddenly stopped.
Not 4 - vehicle in front was not moving forwards with motorcycle following.

Said rules do not, therefore, apply.

Max Preload
22nd April 2010, 19:13
It's 4m/10kmh, to a max of 70kmh. You are then legally allowed to follow at 28m at any speed above that.

That MIGHT be policing POLICY but I prefer the actual regulations (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/latest/DLM303092.html).

Smifffy
22nd April 2010, 19:16
I ain't getting involved.

Why?

Because I would probably not give the answers you like.

And you would twist them to suit your own agenda.

No hesitation getting involved earlier.

I don't expect you to answer this one either, but has there been a police memo or anything come out in the last few days advising "Traffic Safety Patrols" about circumstances to be aware of when executing 3 point turns, or initiating pursuits?

I know that the last fatality that occurred in my industry prompted a flurry of industry wide activity to address certain behaviours, while an investigation was underway. The advice was not in any way interpreted as a presaumption of the course of the investigation, merely a knee-jerk response to prevent similar events until the investigation could be completed and recommendations implemented.

scumdog
22nd April 2010, 19:20
No hesitation getting involved earlier.

I don't expect you to answer this one either, but has there been a police memo or anything come out in the last few days advising "Traffic Safety Patrols" about circumstances to be aware of when executing 3 point turns, or initiating pursuits?

I know that the last fatality that occurred in my industry prompted a flurry of industry wide activity to address certain behaviours, while an investigation was underway. The advice was not in any way interpreted as a presaumption of the course of the investigation, merely a knee-jerk response to prevent similar events until the investigation could be completed and recommendations implemented.

Not being a Traffic Safety Patrol person I have no idea if such a memo came out or exists......

EDIT: My 'involvement' earlier did not encompass the tragic event that started this sad thread.

Max Preload
22nd April 2010, 19:22
Not being a Traffic Safety Patrol person I have no idea if such a memo came out or exists......

Safety? :killingme

scumdog
22nd April 2010, 19:25
Safety? :killingme

Well, Smiffy started it....:blink:

R6_kid
22nd April 2010, 19:28
Completely invalidated in this instance.

Not 1 - vehicle was not visible.
Not 2 - road able to be seen (up to the crest edge) was not impeded.
Not 3 - vehicle in front had not suddenly stopped.
Not 4 - vehicle in front was not moving forwards with motorcycle following.

Said rules do not, therefore, apply.

1 - the vehicle was not invisible
2 - the road able to be seen - that automatically excludes what you cannot see, in this case, over and beyond the crest.
3 & 4 - the vehicle infront? It was a blocked lane, not a vehicle being followed. Therefore these two points are irrelevant.

FWIW, show me the relevant 'road rules' regarding the cops actions and I'll show you where he was in the wrong too - I'm only trying to balance out the argument.

There is no need to argue the stupidity of the police officers actions, we are all aware of it.

What is unknown is whether the motorcycle would have been in view of the police officer when he initiated the three point turn, or at any point in the maneuver when he should have been looking in the direction from which the motorcycle was coming.

Part of me wonders if in his adrenalin rush and apparent determination to catch the 'speeding ute' how likely it is that he was affected by inattentional blindness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inattentional_blindness) which would then absolve the rider of any blame whatsoever.

Smifffy
22nd April 2010, 19:32
EDIT: My 'involvement' earlier did not encompass the tragic event that started this sad thread.

No, it was all about attacking those who dare question the actions of members of the force.

Katman
22nd April 2010, 19:40
Frankly, despite your rhetoric here; I very much doubt that you always follow at a distance in which you can stop for any event................I think that makes you a hypocrite doesn't it?.


You really are lolable.

Judging my ability to stop within the distance to my vanishing point is something I'm always doing.

Blind crests and blind corners are always treated in a 'what if' manner.

Twat.

Spearfish
22nd April 2010, 19:41
What a diverse bunch bikers are...
some are haters some are the hated
some know it all, some know nothing, the rest know a little about a lot
some only learn from experience others will learn by explanation,
but they all have an opinion and rightly so
remember another life has ended and his family has permanently changed.
Sadly nothing will come from any of these stacked soapboxes and its all going to be repeated again.

Katman
22nd April 2010, 19:48
Sadly nothing will come from any of these stacked soapboxes and its all going to be repeated again.

Sadly, I think you speak the truth.

trustme
22nd April 2010, 19:52
Sadly, I know you speak the truth.

Fixed for you mate, no charge

Smifffy
22nd April 2010, 19:54
What a diverse bunch bikers are...

Sadly nothing will come from any of these stacked soapboxes and its all going to be repeated again.

I for one am on my soapbox in the hope that the last line will not be true.

I fear that it will be true

And if it proves to be true I will know that I am right

Prove me wrong. Please.

Please let's not have another person killed on the road through the actions (whether careless/reckless/lawful/well-intentioned) of those that are employed to ensure road safety.

Please let's not put enforcement and revenue collection above common sense, good driving and the safety of others.

Please let's not allow the people that can make changes to sweep Paul's death under the carpet, nor the injuries of those in Buller.

Let's do something about it.

Let's do it soon.

scumdog
22nd April 2010, 20:29
No, it was all about attacking those who dare question the actions of members of the force.

Attack?

Who?
How?

Robert Taylor
22nd April 2010, 20:43
I have a great deal of respect for many policemen. How did you feel about the guy in the car?

Angry ( obviously ) at his failure to take due care and attention before pulling out onto the road into my path. But I dont have a disdain for all farmers on the basis of one persons poor judgement. I never set eyes on the guy as I was unconscious for a long period of time.

Robert Taylor
22nd April 2010, 20:47
Speed was a factor, but it was the other party's fault.

I do not 100% agree that it was totally the other parties fault. I was speeding and the result was more catastrophic. Whether I could have stopped in time if I was doing the legal limit I do not know. Heck, my speed may have been the deciding factor in throwing me clear of the impact point, that Ill never know. Im just grateful that I survived and that my top shelf leathers and helmet assisted in that respect. Im also grateful that the other party wasnt hurt in any way.

Madmax
22nd April 2010, 20:54
If the cop was visable why would he still be speeding ?

peasea
22nd April 2010, 20:54
Now there's an idea - we should be allowed to pick and choose which laws we can be arsed obeying.

:eek:

And have a valid defence to go with it. Sounds good to me.

Smifffy
22nd April 2010, 20:56
Attack?

Who?
How?

Would you settle for derided?

Smifffy
22nd April 2010, 20:58
Angry ( obviously ) at his failure to take due care and attention before pulling out onto the road into my path. But I dont have a disdain for all farmers on the basis of one persons poor judgement. I never set eyes on the guy as I was unconscious for a long period of time.

What if the head man of federated farmers at the time publicly stated that the farmer was a great farmer, provided an excellent export income for the nation, and the naughty speeding biker was at fault?

scumdog
22nd April 2010, 20:59
Would you settle for derided?

Only if shown where I derided any person.:yes:

peasea
22nd April 2010, 21:00
Not being a Traffic Safety Patrol person I have no idea if such a memo came out or exists......

EDIT: My 'involvement' earlier did not encompass the tragic event that started this sad thread.

So you're not involved in Cycle Safety Week on the Riviera?
I thought you were the 'hub' of it and 'spoke' to everyone in the 'cycle' of events to 'pedal' your governing body's policies without a 'brake'.

Smifffy
22nd April 2010, 21:05
I thought you derided Les a little and maybe a couple of others, but I can't be arsed trawling back through the thread again to gather evidence.

Robert Taylor
22nd April 2010, 21:06
What if the head man of federated farmers at the time publicly stated that the farmer was a great farmer, provided an excellent export income for the nation, and the naughty speeding biker was at fault?

Then hed probably be right on 2 and a half counts.