Police killing us again! [Archive] - Page 7

oneofsix

13th April 2011, 08:10

Careful.

People will equate that statement to mean 'expert driver'

Most cops are average drivers, some only average at best.

Of course some are very good drivers too.

Cops are just like the general public they were plucked from, driver training is pretty minimal and not at all a regular item of training unlike the perception of an awful lot of people especially quite few KBers.

In defense of my previously held perception that they had special advanced training and held special silver or gold licences I feel I must point out that this perception has been encouraged by the police and the media.

MSTRS

13th April 2011, 09:15

It all seems pretty cut and dried to me.

Road Code says you must be able to stop within the clear distance ahead of you.

The Blind crest made assessment of the clear distance ahead difficult, thus rider assumed clear distance.

Police officer U-turned too close to the blind crest, reducing the clear distance available.

Due to the reduced clear distance and the (alleged) speed of the rider the opportunity to evade the incident was diminished.

My findings are thus:

1. Police officer acted with dangerous disregard to other road users.
2. Rider (alleged) speed didn't allow enough space to stop in time.

Therefore, Officer guilty of dangerous driving causing death. But rider didn't do himself any favours at all.

There's no point bleating about people doing stupid things in front of you. This will happen constantly to a motorcyclist. A superior rider will take many of these things into account - sometimes you can't do anything about it, other times you can.

In this case I believe the rider exacerbated the problem the Officer created.

Sounds quite reasonable.

Playing Devil's Advocate here...
Somewhere earlier in this thread was a post showing the distance between first possible sight of, and the car blocking the lanes. It wasn't very great to start with.
Something the rider did (or did not do) certainly exacerbated the situation.
(excessive) speed is the easiest one to point a finger at. There is no proof that he was in fact speeding, or at what rate. Much has been made of the force of impact, at what distance between the crown and impact the skid marks started, and where on the roadway. Remember, the rider was a racer, presumably with quick reactions, so it is quite possible that his first instinct was to go round the obstacle. The skid marks started on his opposing lane, which indicates that he was attempting to go round the cop. It is entirely possible that the cop was already reversing into that gap, at which point the rider was committed to that line, his only choice now to hit the brakes hard and locking up the rear. Of course, if this was the case, he wasted valuable braking distance to start with and would have hit the car carrying way more speed than if he had chosen the braking option earlier.
Or the rider had looked down to check his speed (or any other momentary distraction) at the moment he crowned the hill, meaning he could have travelled 20+m before he saw the obstuction.
Or he was speeding. Perhaps he could have been trying to catch up with the ute before it got home.
My point is that the clues left behind will always tell a story. What that story is may still be conjecture. The one thing we all know for a fact is the cop car was in the middle of a 3 point turn in a very stupid place to perform such a manoeuvre.

Spearfish

13th April 2011, 09:28

at least 10 characters.

MSTRS

13th April 2011, 10:35

How so? He maintains that the onus is on the rider to ride in such a manner as to avoid a crash, regardless what else may be happening. FWIW I agree with him, but...
In this case, the rider died, and it's being said there is only one way that might have happened. It is realistic to assume that the rider was travelling at excessive speed, but there are alternatives that lead to the same outcome.
KM never mentions those...

marie_speeds

13th April 2011, 10:42

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4876448/Police-sergeant-accused-of-assault-not-guilty
Hmmmmm
This is unreal..... some of the accusers were fellow Police officers......who testified against this thug.

Yep he took the stand and called them a bunch of liars...bonus of course if you ever get arrested in the future by any of those who testified against him....call them liars and plead not guilty :shutup:

MSTRS

13th April 2011, 10:53

Yep he took the stand and called them a bunch of liars...bonus of course if you ever get arrested in the future by any of those who testified against him....call them liars and plead not guilty :shutup:

But...but...but...
Cops don't tell lies in the stand.
If this is now the case, not a single defended traffic charge can succeed...
Or is it more a case of who's making the accusation of lying?

marie_speeds

13th April 2011, 10:58

But...but...but...
Cops don't tell lies in the stand.
If this is now the case, not a single defended traffic charge can succeed...
Or is it more a case of who's making the accusation of lying?

In all truthfulness I was surprised by the verdict as the credibility of the officers who testified against him will now be questioned by defence lawyers in any future cases they handle. As the public only ever get snippets of what is actually said in court, the jury must have heard a lot more than was ever reported by media.

scracha

13th April 2011, 13:58

Careful.

Most cops are average drivers, some only average at best.

Of course some are very good drivers too.

Cops are just like the general public they were plucked from, driver training is pretty minimal and not at all a regular item of training unlike the perception of an awful lot of people especially quite few KBers.

Really? It them seems unfathomable that a cop can estimate another driver's speed and issue a ticket based solely on that.

Spearfish

13th April 2011, 16:33

at least 10 characters.

Smifffy

13th April 2011, 18:44

Smifffy

13th April 2011, 18:46

Careful.

People will equate that statement to mean 'expert driver'

Most cops are average drivers, some only average at best.

Of course some are very good drivers too.

Cops are just like the general public they were plucked from, driver training is pretty minimal and not at all a regular item of training unlike the perception of an awful lot of people especially quite few KBers.

There seem to be a great many of them that feel that they are expert enough to be able to pass instant judgement on the standard of driving of others.

marie_speeds

13th April 2011, 20:19

This being able to stop in half the clear distance etc argument has a fundamental flaw.

Even on a straight unobstructed piece of road, the clear distance in front of you can go from miles to metres in a split second thanks to the actions of an imbecile that chooses to pull out into your path.

And that happens so often everyday! So many people I know including myself have very very close near misses as a result of the idiotic actions of other drivers. The one and only car accident I was ever involved in was coming around a corner and finding a milk tanker turning into a driveway. I was lucky, very very lucky. I managed in time to take evasive action and just clipped his bumper...and was grateful to walk away unscratched.

trustme

13th April 2011, 20:43

And that happens so often everyday! So many people I know including myself have very very close near misses as a result of the idiotic actions of other drivers. The one and only car accident I was ever involved in was coming around a corner and finding a milk tanker turning into a driveway. I was lucky, very very lucky. I managed in time to take evasive action and just clipped his bumper...and was grateful to walk away unscratched.

Just why was the tanker driver being an idiot. Surely he was doing what he does many times every day , pulling in & out of driveways, it's what milk tanker drivers do.
You should be more grateful that you were not speeding on a motorcycle

marie_speeds

13th April 2011, 20:51

Just why was the tanker driver being an idiot. Surely he was doing what he does many times every day , pulling in & out of driveways, it's what milk tanker drivers do.
You should be more grateful that you were not speeding on a motorcycle

It was early morning so suspect that he did it all the time and had never had a problem until I came along that morning. And yes very grateful that I was in a car, managed to take action in time and was not hurt. Truck bumper (minor ding to knock out) cost me $250 in repair bill, my car was another story :blink:. But it just goes to show something out of the ordinary can happen so quickly through the actions of others and it usually ends badly unfortunately.

trustme

13th April 2011, 21:36

But it just goes to show something out of the ordinary can happen so quickly through the actions of others and it usually ends badly unfortunately.

I drive trucks a fair bit so I realise that tankers can turn at any time, always , always treat them with care. They have huge blind spots if you are coming from behind.

Case Study
Some years ago a group of us came over the brow of a hill on a minor back road . Road was full of cattle, we all hit the picks & stopped safely. The last rider had been caught behind cars & was pushing to catch up. He came sailing past us all locked up & stopped among the closest cattle.[ They were heading away from us ]. Cocky should have had someone back up the road but it was bloody close, the following rider could have taken any of us out .

Case Study
A group of riders are on a windy road, one is a couple of hundred yards behind the rest and maintaining that distance. He comes over the crest of a sharp rise to be confronted by a 4x4 pulling out of a drive, nowhere to go he lays the bike down, Rider is bruised but OK , bike not so good. Driver had seen the bikes go by , road was clear & so he pulled out.

Question . How often is it the second bike in the group that gets in the shit in situations like this ??

idb

13th April 2011, 21:47

I drive trucks a fair bit so I realise that tankers can turn at any time, always , always treat them with care. They have huge blind spots if you are coming from behind.

Case Study
Some years ago a group of us came over the brow of a hill on a minor back road . Road was full of cattle, we all hit the picks & stopped safely. The last rider had been caught behind cars & was pushing to catch up. He came sailing past us all locked up & stopped among the closest cattle.[ They were heading away from us ]. Cocky should have had someone back up the road but it was bloody close, the following rider could have taken any of us out .

Case Study
A group of riders are on a windy road, one is a couple of hundred yards behind the rest and maintaining that distance. He comes over the crest of a sharp rise to be confronted by a 4x4 pulling out of a drive, nowhere to go he lays the bike down, Rider is bruised but OK , bike not so good. Driver had seen the bikes go by , road was clear & so he pulled out.

Question . How often is it the second bike in the group that gets in the shit in situations like this ??

Is "I'm not sure" a legitimate answer?

trustme

14th April 2011, 07:10

Is "I'm not sure" a legitimate answer?

I don't have an answer , only a suspicion from personal experience & observation.

MSTRS

14th April 2011, 08:33

marie_speeds

14th April 2011, 08:53

Were there no other 'clues' as to their presence up ahead?
1. A road cone just sitting on the verge?
2. Mud and/or crap all over the road?
3. Strong smell of stock?

Come on - we don't need to see something like stock to know they are there.

There may be some farmers who don't bother with warning, especially when they are used to a quiet road that does not get a lot of traffic?

But in my personal experience of coming across stock is that I and other traffic was slowed down to a crawl by the farm hands on quads, before we reached the herd being moved.

The Stranger

14th April 2011, 09:02

In defense of my previously held perception that they had special advanced training and held special silver or gold licences I feel I must point out that this perception has been encouraged by the police and the media.

Do we expect a judge know more about the law than the person he's judging - of course not. Do we expect teachers know more about teaching than our kids - of course not. Would we expect that a psychologist knows more about the mind than their patients - of course we don't.

So why on earth would one expect those judging you to be any better in their field than you? That's just outrageous.

MSTRS

14th April 2011, 09:03

oneofsix

14th April 2011, 09:11

Do we expect a judge know more about the law than the person he's judging - of course not. Do we expect teachers know more about teaching than our kids - of course not. Would we expect that a psychologist knows more about the mind than their patients - of course we don't.

So why on earth would one expect those judging you to be any better in their field than you? That's just outrageous.

The longer I live the more I suspect your sarcasm might actually represent the truth. BTW the police are note meant to judge, umm another Tui moment :drinkup:

The Stranger

14th April 2011, 09:16

In all truthfulness I was surprised by the verdict as the credibility of the officers who testified against him will now be questioned by defence lawyers in any future cases they handle.

I was surprised at the verdict as one has to assume that those that testified against him were actually there and are in general familiar with the situation on frequent basis.
Unruly crims are not exactly uncommon are they? Surely the cops that were testifying know what needs to be done at times to bring people under control and if an action is warranted or not.

Still, at least Folan will think carefully before he does it again - to ensure that there are no witnesses.

oneofsix

14th April 2011, 09:16

Usually farmers moving stock are pretty good at making motorists aware of their presence. Cones and/or warning signs. Or quads running interference.
But when a mob of sheep/cattle is on the road, they leave plenty of 'sign'...more than enough warning, IF you are approaching in the same direction of travel.

Great just imagine it, the cattle have just been moved out of the gate over the crest, leaving their 'sign' on the road. The biker comes over the crest, hits the picks and then the 'sign', :sick:. Bet that does great for the friction between tyre and road :facepalm: and if they should by unfortunate enough to lay the bike down :sick::eek5:

trustme

14th April 2011, 09:18

Were there no other 'clues' as to their presence up ahead?
1. A road cone just sitting on the verge?
2. Mud and/or crap all over the road?
3. Strong smell of stock?

Come on - we don't need to see something like stock to know they are there.

Nope nothing, I'm used to someone on a quad waving you down. I think he had just bought them out of a paddock. Guys at the front had no real issue. It was the guy coming last that got the real fright. I wonder if it is a subconcious thought that the guys ahead have cleared the way so it will be OK.

Much in all as Katman thinks there is always a clue or warning I'm not so sure.
Riding into Minginui I knew to watch for horses & slowed to about 80kph.
Horse bolts out from between a hedgerow & turns at the very last moment or I most definitely would have hit him. The guy behind me was still pissing himself when we stop. 'Fuck that was close, where the hell did he come from'
I can't ride along checking if every paddock gate is closed, I did slow down . What hell else do you do ??

MSTRS

14th April 2011, 09:25

oneofsix

14th April 2011, 09:33

We can all get caught out, sure. All depends on timing usually.
But many do 'get caught unawares' when in fact there was plenty of warning for them. If they were processing what they had to be seeing.

Oh yes the ideal world scenario but then if it was an ideal world the farmer would have had outriders behind the cattle and the biker wouldn't have to be interrupting clues and hints. Whilst we ride in the country some of us are city bikers so don't know the clues.
Better still in the ideal world the farmer would have an off road race for moving their stock.
nah can that. This discussion is a good way for the city rider to learn what the hints are.

MSTRS

14th April 2011, 09:41

This discussion is a good way for the city rider to learn what the hints are.

Perhaps. But the biggest lesson to be learned is when you can't see where the road goes...slow down.
I mean, there might be a cop parked across the road just over that brow, eh?

Spearfish

14th April 2011, 13:47

at least 10 characters.

avgas

14th April 2011, 15:11

With all this talk about vulnerability maybe bikes just aren't suited to NZ roads?
Nah the problem with NZ vehicle accidents are all the vehicle operators fault. Very few accidents occur without an operator.

oneofsix

14th April 2011, 15:14

Nah the problem with NZ vehicle accidents are all the vehicle operators fault. Very few accidents occur without an operator.

Too simplistic NZ vehicle operators are the same species that operate the same types of vehicles in other parts of the world. Other factors such as the state of the roads, their uses (e.g. cattle races), and our laws etc all play a part.

Spearfish

14th April 2011, 15:15

Nah the problem with NZ vehicle accidents are all the vehicle operators fault. Very few accidents occur without an operator.

Fair enough.

Spearfish

14th April 2011, 15:18

at least 10 characters.

Smifffy

14th April 2011, 21:04

I understand what your saying but if bikers present themselves as perpetual victims of cercumstance then who knows where that could lead...

Probably lead to an increase in costs administered by govt agencies in order to set up a speacialist team of bikers to advise on how bikers can reduce their risk of becoming victims of circumstances, and either encourage or eventually tax them off the road.

Nah, that could never happen in a democracy like godzone.

idb

15th April 2011, 00:03

I understand what your saying but if bikers present themselves as perpetual victims of cercumstance then who knows where that could lead...

Yep.
How often do you hear someone say "It was my own stupid fault...I cocked up"?
Bugger all.

StoneY

15th April 2011, 08:50

Probably lead to an increase in costs administered by govt agencies in order to set up a speacialist team of bikers to advise on how bikers can reduce their risk of becoming victims of circumstances, and either encourage or eventually tax them off the road.

Nah, that could never happen in a democracy like godzone.

Clever mate, nice use of irony.
You know, we see more and more issues from the same perspective, but due to one of the hats I wear in the very group you elude to here, I have to tread very carefully

One thing I am getting wound up to start making big noise about is the constant attacks on our lifestyle. the new rego hold laws are ridiculous
More grooming to make private services more attractive and regardless of any role I hold with TPTB I am thinking it may be time to roll out another bikeoi........

Spearfish

15th April 2011, 10:31

at least 10 characters.

oneofsix

15th April 2011, 10:35

MSTRS

15th April 2011, 10:46

These questions are not meant to sound smart arse but to some it could...

What is the bikers lifestyle?

if there is, is there just one?

Surly what affects one lifestyle affects the whole NZ community?(again said loosely)

Is calling bike riding a lifestyle de-powering in some way or empowering?

Are those who use bikes and scoots purely as a viable commuting alternative included? ( a bit of a grey area as people migrate from one to another or both throughout their riding life)

My take on the biker lifestyle is...
Some are attracted to bikes for the benefits they offer in commuting, parking, etc but far and away the majority are attracted to bikes for the leisure side, the illusion of freedom that riding offers, the thrill of feeling alive in the face of danger, the pleasure of the journey rather than the destination.
Threaten an addict with the removal of his 'fix' and see how he reacts - for many bikers, the feeling that someone is taking away the source of his pleasure is the same.
It's not that we need bikes to live, but we need them to feel alive.

Swoop

15th April 2011, 13:27

My take on the biker lifestyle is...
I thought it was tassles.
Being able to wear them without having to wear a full red-indian outfit as well.

idb

16th April 2011, 15:58

I thought it was tassles.
Being able to wear them without having to wear a full red-indian outfit as well.

I thought it was being able to wear leather trousers in public

Smifffy

16th April 2011, 23:19

I thought it was being able to wear leather trousers in public

I thought it was not having to wear trousers in public...

denill

6th May 2011, 07:30

Have read in this thread - drivers are required to be able to stop within half the clear distance ahead. :mad::eek5:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4968799/Coroners-warning-after-police-car-kills-teen

NighthawkNZ

6th May 2011, 07:57

roogazza

6th May 2011, 08:25

In defense of my previously held perception that they had special advanced training and held special silver or gold licences I feel I must point out that this perception has been encouraged by the police and the media.

Scumdog's post is absolutely correct in spite of that encouraged perception.
Basically if you can drive round the block without crashing and look like you know what you are doing, you get to drive Police cars.

Kiwi675

6th May 2011, 10:10

Familiar trend here, older cop, will do what they want and will defend there actions no matter what......this story is developing just like Buller Gorge episode.

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.php?c_id=1&objectid=10723709

MSTRS

6th May 2011, 10:45

....this story is developing just like Buller Gorge episode.

One has faith that the judiciary will get it right, with the same outcome.

red mermaid

7th May 2011, 12:53

One has faith that the judiciary will hear all the evidence, and on the basis of that, get the right decision.

One has faith that the judiciary will get it right, with the same outcome.

schrodingers cat

14th May 2011, 17:40

On a happy note; cheers to the nice mufti car today I encountered heading up to hilltop. He pulled over at the first opportunity and let me get on my way to Akoroa today. No attempt to U turn in front of me or anything.

Just to be sporting when I got to Akaoroa I turned around and rode straight back at normal speed giving him a 50/50 chance of adding me to his (quota) work list

theblacksmith

26th May 2011, 19:24

I ended up on the grass verge on a road near Te Awamutu 4 days ago because a police car kept coming towards me. He was very interested in something on his passenger seat and obviously wasn't paying attention to the road. I was interested in not hitting my gsx against a fence post(and the quickly approaching holden). Luckily I just bounced around and finally got back on tar seal. Hope it scared him enough to concentrate on the road from now on.

baptist

27th May 2011, 23:54

My take on the biker lifestyle is...
Some are attracted to bikes for the benefits they offer in commuting, parking, etc but far and away the majority are attracted to bikes for the leisure side, the illusion of freedom that riding offers, the thrill of feeling alive in the face of danger, the pleasure of the journey rather than the destination.
Threaten an addict with the removal of his 'fix' and see how he reacts - for many bikers, the feeling that someone is taking away the source of his pleasure is the same.
It's not that we need bikes to live, but we need them to feel alive.

I use my bike for both commuting and pleasure and the idea that I will be priced off the road is a bit of a worry. Bikes will never be banned but they can be removed from the roads via our wallets

I thought it was being able to wear leather trousers in public

:facepalm::facepalm: nah it's all about :ride::wavey:... isn't it?

I thought it was not having to wear trousers in public...

:facepalm::facepalm::sick::puke:

unstuck

28th May 2011, 10:41

http://hellforleathermagazine.com/2011/05/motor-cop-killed-in-head-on-collision-with-motor-cop/

Madness

6th July 2011, 17:04

http://www.sunlive.co.nz/news/14049-scooter-crash-clogs-traffic.html#vid

scumdog

6th July 2011, 17:35

http://www.sunlive.co.nz/news/14049-scooter-crash-clogs-traffic.html#vid

Fark, and I have to share this planet with the likes of 'shane' who posted the same innane post twice. (maybe he thought we'd miss his point the first time?).... :blink:

I certainly DON'T think he's a troll.:no:

Spearfish

6th July 2011, 17:43

Any scallops came up with this dredge?

denill

7th July 2011, 08:57

<a href=http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10736854>And Again:</A>

The result of another over zealous cop's actions. :angry:

Str8 Jacket

7th July 2011, 08:58

<a href=http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10736854>And Again:</A>

The result of another over zealous cop's actions. :angry:

How do we actually know that the cops actions were over zealous?

oneofsix

7th July 2011, 09:02

<a href=http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10736854>And Again:</A>

The result of another over zealous cop's actions. :angry:

Not sure if that was a result of the officer on sites actions or inaction i.e. not telling the speeder to move to a better location. I don't think the officer got the chance to pick a better location.
What did upset was the spokes persons attitude of 'it is ok for police to pull people over on yellow lines'. No it is permitted but not ok and for something like speeding it should possibly not be permitted, all stops should use a safe location. I have had a run in with a cop about this, he wanted to warn me for not stop immediately so i told him that made it obvious his actions were not about safety, I can't understand why he didn't like that.

Spearfish

7th July 2011, 09:14

Dunno, I think SMIDSY works both ways.

If a cop car "on the job" with lights on, possibly a blip from a siren, a car pulling over and the general "fark, what's that going on ahead" trigger that should make avoidance possible didn't work then you have to wonder if any SMIDSY campaign isn't fucked from the start.

DMNTD

7th July 2011, 17:40

How do we actually know that the cops actions were over zealous?

They weren't...poor old bugger farked up and paid a terrible price.

StoneY

7th July 2011, 18:03

They weren't...poor old bugger farked up and paid a terrible price.

Yes this is true the cop was well within the legals in the case of the elderly scooter rider
If anything the van that swerved 1m from the cop car (texting driver in the van has been quoted by one witness) and the scooter rider was very suddenly faced with the Police car in the usual position they take, covering the officers spot to stand on the road at te offenders driver door
No cop blame this week

DMNTD

7th July 2011, 18:08

No cop blame this week

But but but....please? :sunny:

denill

7th July 2011, 18:09

How do we actually know that the cops actions were over zealous?

Sorry, I was being overly gentle when I said, "Over zealous".

"Stupid" would have more appropriate.

WTF did he think the :angry:yellow lines were there for?

DMNTD

7th July 2011, 18:22

Sorry, I was being overly gentle when I said, "Over zealous".

"Stupid" would have more appropriate.

WTF did he think the :angry:yellow lines were there for?

I know the stretch of road very well. There is absolutely no reason why the poor guy on the scooter shouldn't have seen a car let alone a car with flashing red 'n blues (allegedly).
If he got a fright due to suddenly seeing the cop can once the van in front of him had moved, obviously he was traveling way too close to the van.

Once again...where the cop car had 'parked' is in plain view when driving/riding down that stretch of road.

DanielSumi

7th July 2011, 18:37

makes me wonder, who the fu** would decide to do an u-turn on a open road and close to a hill.
i'm disgusted. :angry:

scumdog

7th July 2011, 18:44

Sorry, I was being overly gentle when I said, "Over zealous".

"Stupid" would have more appropriate.

WTF did he think the :angry:yellow lines were there for?

Yeah, what was he thinking, just stopped right there, blue and red lights flashing and all - for NOOooo reason at all eh!

denill

7th July 2011, 19:18

Yeah, what was he thinking, just stopped right there, blue and red lights flashing and all - for NOOooo reason at all eh!

Oh silly me, put up the Christmas Tree and it's all right and cosher.

Except in this case - it was NOT!

If the cop hadn't done that the old guy would be still with us.

DMNTD

7th July 2011, 19:27

Oh silly me, put up the Christmas Tree and it's all right and cosher.

Except in this case - it was NOT!

If the cop hadn't done that the old guy would be still with us.

Did you even read my post? HUGE visibility with or without flashing lights where the cop had parked...fact.
Sadly the poor old fulla ballsed up

scumdog

7th July 2011, 19:42

Oh silly me, put up the Christmas Tree and it's all right and cosher.

Except in this case - it was NOT!

If the cop hadn't done that the old guy would be still with us.

Another aeroplane ducker...sheesh, talk about wasted effort...:facepalm:

DMNTD

7th July 2011, 19:45

Another aeroplane ducker...sheesh, talk about wasted effort...:facepalm:

I'm certain the KB admin could change his log in to Denial without too much fuss :facepalm:

StoneY

8th July 2011, 08:50

Oh silly me, put up the Christmas Tree and it's all right and cosher.
That's Kosher (wheres Hitch when we need him?) and well...what the hell else is a cop meant to do to be seen on a straight, wide, suburban st?

Except in this case - it was NOT!
What the hell...dude wake up...this is nothing like the u-turn on the hill..... this was a mistake by the rider and nothing else to it, sadly and tragically. I wish it were otherwise but it is not.

If the cop hadn't done that the old guy would be still with us.

If the cops ignored every speeder, drunk driver, reckless boy racer, there would be far more dead bikers than there is now. 90% of the rozzers out there are extremely safety conscious, do a great job, and have to put up with cocks like you abusing them for it.

You have either got your instances confused, or your just a thick moronic dickhead who hates the cops with no good reason and cant apply logic to any given scenario you are faced with...please do not ever ride beside me or in any group I am part of, idiots like you ruin the ride for real motorcyclists.

Pull ya head in

Rant over...carry on

nodrog

11th August 2011, 08:50

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10744342

nodrog

11th August 2011, 14:57

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/5429894/Crash-bike-had-illegal-tyre-court-hears

scumdog

11th August 2011, 17:47

Damn!

I believed it when some here said he would not ever be charged or if he was he'd get off...shoot, wou'ld a thunk KBers would get it wrong?:wacko:

Parlane

11th August 2011, 18:28

Damn!

I believed it when some here said he would not ever be charged or if he was he'd get off...shoot, wou'ld a thunk KBers would get it wrong?:wacko:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/5429894/Crash-bike-had-illegal-tyre-court-hears

Time for the bullshit ^

"A motorcyclist who crashed into a police car as it did a u-turn had an illegal tyre and would not have got a warrant, a court has heard."

"Under cross examination today Waikato Serious Crash unit investigator Senior Constable David Tidmarsh told the court that Brown's motorcycle had a slick front tyre which would not have allowed it to pass a warrant of fitness test.

Tidmarsh said while the tyre was not a factor in the crash and would likely have increased the grip available given the dry road conditions at the time it was illegal to use on a road registered motorcycle."

Katman

11th August 2011, 18:33

Time for the bullshit ^

Care to point out what part's bullshit?

Parlane

11th August 2011, 18:42

Care to point out what part's bullshit?

Hopefully you can accept a (twisted) summary:

The police officer could not safely make the turn, BUT the motorcycle was fitted with a tyre that was not warrantable at the time of the crash.

Defense:
Even though the tyre was not the cause of the crash, and actually decreased stopping distance in the conditions at the time, we will still make sure to mention it.

I say twisted, because obviously I am biased as it is a personal summary.
Reason I said bullshit, was because the mentioning of the non-WOF standard tyre meant nothing. It was a waste of time mentioning it. Which is what I call lawyer bullshit, the lawyer to me seems to be trying to make the motorcyclist out to be the one in the legal wrong therefore the cop was legally right..

Obviously the speed of the bike here is a true concern, the fact is, that if it wasn't the cop, it could have been anything else, rock fall etc, debris on the road.

Katman

11th August 2011, 18:47

Defense:
Even though the tyre was not the cause of the crash, and actually decreased stopping distance in the conditions at the time, we will still make sure to mention it.

So the tyre decreased the stopping distance.

Are you trying to tell us that he was probably travelling at the top end of (or above) the estimated speed?

Parlane

11th August 2011, 18:53

So the tyre decreased the stopping distance.

Are you trying to tell us that he was probably travelling at the top end or above the estimated speed?

Ahh, a very valid point. But I also assume that their measurements for their calculations of stopping causing skid marks are based on that type of tyre. Friction bias?

Katman

11th August 2011, 19:16

Ahh, a very valid point. But I also assume that their measurements for their calculations of stopping causing skid marks are based on that type of tyre. Friction bias?

I would be inclined to assume that their calculations are based on standard stopping distances for standard road going tyres.

Plus, we're talking about a motorcyclist for whom extreme braking technique would have been second nature.

MarkH

11th August 2011, 19:21

[url]Tidmarsh said while the tyre was not a factor in the crash and would likely have increased the grip available given the dry road conditions at the time it was illegal to use on a road registered motorcycle."

I don't really see what relevance this has - the rider isn't the one being prosecuted. Sure he was most likely speeding and his tyre was overdue for replacement, but the trial is about the police officer's actions on the day.
There were 2 people involved, both are each partly to blame for the outcome, the rider paid for his part in the crash with his life, now it is up to the courts to decide on what is a suitable punishment for the police officer for HIS poor judgement that contributed to the accident that cost a man his life.

Since the tyre didn't contribute to the crash and no one is looking to charge the deceased rider for having his bike not up to warrantable standards then what relevance does that fact have for this case? Except for a way to push some blame onto the other party of course. They even say that the tyre probably helped since it was a dry road, so in this instance the illegal tyre was actually better than a legal one.

To me it seems obvious that if the rider had been riding slower he would have had a better chance of stopping or at least scrubbing off enough speed so that the accident wouldn't have been fatal. But it is also pretty obvious that if the police officer had chosen his spot to perform a 3 point turn more safely there would not have been an accident and the rider would probably still be alive today. For his actions maybe the rider deserved a speeding ticket and even a ticket for the illegal tyre too, but he certainly didn't deserve to lose his life. I'm hoping the judge can look past the attempts to blame the rider and see that the police officer failed in his duty of care to the motoring public and rule accordingly.

Parlane

11th August 2011, 19:22

I would be inclined to assume that their calculations are based on standard stopping distances for standard road going tyres.

Plus, we're talking about a motorcyclist for whom extreme braking technique would be second nature.

I stand corrected (again). In that case, my defense is that the evidence that it was not possible to complete a safe U-turn on that part of the road is enough to show that the defendant should be charged for careless use of a motor vehicle.

riffer

11th August 2011, 19:23

Parlane

11th August 2011, 19:26

Sorry Parlane, you're clutching at straws.

In the interests of full disclosure, this sort of evidence MUST be presented. And of course, the media will report it.

FACT. The motorcycle had a non-warrantable tyre.

Everything else is your personal spin based on your biased opinion.

Fact; the motorcycle had a non-warrantable tyre that was more suited to the conditions than a warrantable tyre.

By choosing how much of the facts you disclose, you are putting a personal spin on it too.

riffer

11th August 2011, 19:28

riffer

11th August 2011, 19:29

And good luck to you presenting a slick to a WOF centre.

k14

11th August 2011, 19:31

Fact; the motorcycle had a non-warrantable tyre that was more suited to the conditions than a warrantable tyre.

By choosing how much of the facts you disclose, you are putting a personal spin on it too.
I disagree with what the so called expert said. Go and see how hot a front slick gets from riding on the road in a straight line. A road racing slick needs to be above 100c to provide decent levels of grip, if they aren't then they have virtually no grip at all. The article said there were 2 skid marks left by the rider. I am guessing he stamped on both front and back brake at the same time. If a front tyre is at the right temp it will never lock from a sudden application of brakes, the bike will just endo. Not trying to take the blame away from the cop for doing the stupid u-turn, but the rider was stupid for running a racing tyre on the road.

Parlane

11th August 2011, 19:32

No.

Listen carefully. I'll talk slowly.

In a court of law ALL evidence must be presented.

It is a FACT that the tyre was not warrantable.

Anything else is simply opinion.

There is no conspiracy theory.

It is a FACT that the slick tyre provided better braking power than a normal road tyre under the conditions at the time of the crash.

Edit: Or not ^

riffer

11th August 2011, 19:38

Didn't make any difference to the result though did it?

So why do you have a problem with it being presented as evidence?

In every case of this type they need to look at all the factors.

One factor was that the motorcycle was in unwarrantable condition.

Katman

11th August 2011, 19:41

It is a FACT that the slick tyre provided better braking power than a normal road tyre under the conditions at the time of the crash.

Edit: Or not ^

Did you conveniently miss the part where it said that the motorcyclist had 120 metres from the time he would have seen the car to the point of impact?

rastuscat

11th August 2011, 21:13

It's the job of a defence lawyer to elicit everything he/she can to deflect the blame from his/her client. Like it or not, it was always going to be dragged out, relevant or not. It's the adversarial system at its inglorious, grubby worst.

It won't matter a toss in the finish.

MSTRS

12th August 2011, 08:53

I disagree with what the so called expert said. Go and see how hot a front slick gets from riding on the road in a straight line. A road racing slick needs to be above 100c to provide decent levels of grip, if they aren't then they have virtually no grip at all. The article said there were 2 skid marks left by the rider. I am guessing he stamped on both front and back brake at the same time. If a front tyre is at the right temp it will never lock from a sudden application of brakes, the bike will just endo. Not trying to take the blame away from the cop for doing the stupid u-turn, but the rider was stupid for running a racing tyre on the road.
Yep. Tyre temperature is all-important in determining it's performance.
So - running a race slick on the road may very well have increased the distance the bike could have stopped in?

Still - the truly pertinent fact is the officer's actions.

Crayton said Lenihan's turning manoeuvre obstructed the road and fell below the standard of a reasonable and prudent driver.

Lenihan, a long-serving Waikato Highway Patrol officer, later said he was confident he could complete a U-turn in the patrol car.

Police testing showed it was not possible to make a full turn on that section of road.

A three-point turn was estimated to take between 7.3-8.7 seconds.

Crayton said an intersection 150m further along Waerenga Rd would have provided Lenihan with an opportunity to complete a quick and safe turn.

k14

12th August 2011, 13:30

Yep. Tyre temperature is all-important in determining it's performance.
So - running a race slick on the road may very well have increased the distance the bike could have stopped in?

Still - the truly pertinent fact is the officer's actions.
Yeah definitely. If a road racing slick isn't up to temp it is very easy to lock it, which from reading the report is exactly what sounds like happened. I have locked them at low speed riding around in the pits before, at high speed the front would just fold instantly. If the investigator knew anything about bikes he would have said that.

jellywrestler

12th August 2011, 14:01

sounds like the old "with the clothes she was wearing she deserved to get raped..." shit to me
still if that's the most exciting bit the reporters have on the case seems that the offender has pretty well no legs to stand on

HenryDorsetCase

12th August 2011, 14:56

Did you conveniently miss the part where it said that the motorcyclist had 120 metres from the time he would have seen the car to the point of impact?

and was travelling between 114 and 158 kph according to the news report I heard.

I suggest to you that the speed the bike was travelling at is pretty much irrelevant to whether this crash occurred, on the following basis: lets look at a scenario where from seeing the lane bloced to impact is, as you suggest, 120 metres.

At 160kph we are travelling 44.45m/sec. So to cover that 120m takes three seconds. A bit less actually. So he has three seconds from seeing the lane blocked to impact. Three seconds, maybe a bit longer. Wonder what goes through your mind during that time? So obviously its the motorcycle riders fault, shouldnt have been going that fast. blah blah.

But, do the same maths at the legal open road speed limit: 100kph, 100000metres in an hour: at 100kph he is travelling at 27m/sec. That 120m takes 4.5 seconds. SUre, thats half as long again as the previous scenario, but I'm not sure that it would have made much of a difference really. Still would have been a crash, I suggest. Maybe even a survivable crash, we'll never know, too many variables.

But there wouldnt have been a crash AT ALL if the cop wasnt blocking the lane.

Spearfish

12th August 2011, 15:31

So from the point the rider spotted the obsticle to the point of impact was 120 meters?

So would the rider have hit the car if he had be at or under the speed limit considering the car driver still had 20 meters more than the minimum 100 meters your supposed to maintain until you complete a maneuver and would he have completed the maneuver in that 20 meters?

If the bike was at 200kph (deemed safe by bike mag editorials at the time of the crash :blink:) then the same thing would have happened 100 or 200 meters further down the road, would it still be the car drivers fault then?

:corn:

Katman

12th August 2011, 15:33

Maybe even a survivable crash, we'll never know, too many variables.

Absolutely certainly not a crash that would have thrown him a further 72 metres down the road.

pzkpfw

12th August 2011, 15:36

The law (and common sense) state that one should be able to stop in the distance of road visible. Thus whether the rider was "speeding" or not isn't really the issue. The issue for them was out-riding their stopping distance.

The reason for this law is the unpredictability of the road. That cop car might instead have been a just-broken-down car, or two cars that just had a crash, or a load dropped off a truck, or any number of other things.

There are of course things that happen that we simply can't prepare for within reason. An un-seen sheep bounds out of the grass in front of us. A sudden gust of wind blows something into us. A car does something totally bizzare. (etc) But that law is about what we can see ahead on the road - it is something under our control.

----

On the other hand, that cop was in charge of his car. He could have done his turn somewhere else, and then wouldn't have been an obsticle. If he hadn't done what he did, the rider would probably still be alive.

It's one thing to accidentally cause harm, it's another to choose to do something, that causes harm. Of course, cops are human too, and humans are do not always behave predictably... which takes me back to my first point.

----

Personally I have trouble figuring out what should happen here. In the end, I think the cop does need to "pay" for this in some way - but I don't think he deserves a lynch mob hanging him from a tree. It wasn't murder, but it was very very bad. Assigning "fault" doesn't remove the tragedy.

HenryDorsetCase

12th August 2011, 15:59

Absolutely certainly not a crash that would have thrown him a further 72 metres down the road.

but a 5m chuck down the road could have killed him. Whats the survivable limit for impact into a stationary vehicle, OTB superman styles, and land on the ground? serious question.

I think we're talking about angels dancing on pinheads, when the elephant in the room (to horribly mashup some metaphors) is the munter doing the u turn in an unsafe place.

HenryDorsetCase

12th August 2011, 16:00

Katman

12th August 2011, 16:08

I think we're talking about angels dancing on pinheads, when the elephant in the room (to horribly mashup some metaphors) is the munter doing the u turn in an unsafe place.

No, the plain fact that people are refusing to recognise is that there were two people that fucked up that day.

One who did a U-turn in a stupid place and another who treated the road like a racetrack.

HenryDorsetCase

12th August 2011, 16:16

No, the plain fact that people are refusing to recognise is that there were two people that fucked up that day.

One who did a U-turn in a stupid place and another who treated the road like a racetrack.

We agree.

of course the legal system is about apportioning blame, which is where we're at presently.

Deano

12th August 2011, 16:23

but a 5m chuck down the road could have killed him. Whats the survivable limit for impact into a stationary vehicle, OTB superman styles, and land on the ground? serious question.

I've hit a stationary vehicle and gone over the bars twice.

First time at about 85kph impact and flew minimum of 5m onto the road. Full leathers and I got a few bruises and badly sprained ankle.

Second time was at Wangas last year - over the bars at about 75kph and flew about 4m onto grass - full leathers again and back protector and I got a few bruises.

I consider myself to have been pretty lucky on both occasions.

MSTRS

12th August 2011, 16:29

... I think the cop does need to "pay" for this in some way - but I don't think he deserves a lynch mob hanging him from a tree. It wasn't murder, but it was very very bad. Assigning "fault" doesn't remove the tragedy.

Compare this one to the Buller Gorge incident.
Similar, in that a cop did a turn across a road, in a place that did not allow plenty of room for an 'innocent' motorcyclist to see him and avoid.
No-one died in that one, but the cop certainly got (rightly) hammered in the court.
That should have set an operational precedent to control where such manoeuvres were kosher.
Joe Public would be pilloried in the same situation. The cops are no different.

Parlane

12th August 2011, 16:35

Compare this one to the Buller Gorge incident.
Similar, in that a cop did a turn across a road, in a place that did not allow plenty of room for an 'innocent' motorcyclist to see him and avoid.
No-one died in that one, but the cop certainly got (rightly) hammered in the court.
That should have set an operational precedent to control where such manoeuvres were kosher.
Joe Public would be pilloried in the same situation. The cops are no different.

The big problem with me, is that this has happened before.

How many times does this same mistake have to be made before they make it clear to the police to be setting good examples for turn and chase maneuvers ?

Should the police internal guidelines not say "Only turn to chase at a safe point where a U-turn (not a 3 point turn) can be made and ___m of visibility in both directions." ?

And if they do.. then there is definitely something wrong, if they don't.. then it needs to be made clear. If this happens AGAIN.. then there will be no doubt that something has gone wrong in the system, then we either blame the police training or the police officer who made a personal decision to ignore previously learnt mistakes.

pritch

12th August 2011, 16:37

and was travelling between 114 and 158 kph according to the news report I heard.

Interesting figures. That looks like an exercise in creating the impression of precision where it is conspicuous by its absence.

Why 114? Not 115, or even 120? Then 158, not 160?
After this obsessive accuracy we get a spread of 44kph which does not seem very precise at all?

Parlane

12th August 2011, 16:39

\m/

12th August 2011, 16:47

The pig only got a $250 fine. It's fucking insulting.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/news/5437342/Fatal-crash-officer-fined

HenryDorsetCase

12th August 2011, 16:48

Interesting figures. That looks like an exercise in creating the impression of precision where it is conspicuous by its absence.

Why 114? Not 115, or even 120? Then 158, not 160?
After this obsessive accuracy we get a spread of 44kph which does not seem very precise at all?

I agree. I was listening to radio news, and the pleece SCU figures were (IIRC) between 114 and 142. the private (ex pleece SCU guy) one engaged by the defence came up with the 158kph figure.

In another context, I have had to read an SCU technical analysis report. They are accredited expert witnesses, there is fairly robust science around these things but always a range of variables which inevitably effect the results. They start with what they know: body landed here, bike landed here, impact point here, skidmarks this long, road conditions X, Y, Z, and work backward to a "well, to achieve this result, depending on these variables [and that of course is the devil in the detail] then we estimate that this is what happened".

no one has summed it up better than Katman has in a sentence though.

HenryDorsetCase

12th August 2011, 16:50

The big problem with me, is that this has happened before.

How many times does this same mistake have to be made before they make it clear to the police to be setting good examples for turn and chase maneuvers ?

Should the police internal guidelines not say "Only turn to chase at a safe point where a U-turn (not a 3 point turn) can be made and ___m of visibility in both directions." ?

And if they do.. then there is definitely something wrong, if they don't.. then it needs to be made clear. If this happens AGAIN.. then there will be no doubt that something has gone wrong in the system, then we either blame the police training or the police officer who made a personal decision to ignore previously learnt mistakes.

I reckon that all cops should do handbrake turns. Not only would it get them spun round quicker, it would be a massive positive for recruitment. "Join the po po, get to drive like you're in Dukes of Hazzard, plus Daisy Duke will give you a blowjob"

Parlane

12th August 2011, 16:53

I reckon that all cops should do handbrake turns. Not only would it get them spun round quicker, it would be a massive positive for recruitment. "Join the po po, get to drive like you're in Dukes of Hazzard, plus Daisy Duke will give you a blowjob"

That's not even a bad idea lol. If all cops had that skill of driving, we would have way more awesome respect for them :P

The problem in this case was that the car took up the whole road basically. Had he just been stopped on the motorbike side of the road, the bike would have had more chance. I am just basing this on the fact that the bike hit the back of the car.

Katman

12th August 2011, 17:01

The big problem with me, is that this has happened before.

How many times does this same mistake have to be made before .........

Those exact same words could be used in a number of different scenarios.

jellywrestler

12th August 2011, 17:03

Parlane

12th August 2011, 17:07

Those exact same words could be used in a number of different scenarios.

Everyone has a personal responsibility to learn from their mistakes, but when you are a police force. You have a public responsibility to learn from them together. As in, one cop makes a mistake of doing a U-turn where it probably should not have been done. then the police force it self needs to look in to regulating it's rules to stop that same mistake being made again.

Kornholio

12th August 2011, 17:08

The pig only got a $250 fine. It's fucking insulting.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/news/5437342/Fatal-crash-officer-fined

It's a fucking insult...
RIP Paul mate

scracha

12th August 2011, 17:15

The pig only got a $250 fine. It's fucking insulting.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/news/5437342/Fatal-crash-officer-fined

Originally the Waikato Times reported "tests showed.......could have been..between 114km/h and 142km/h

Now they're reported between 141 and 158?

Defence Councillor "At worst it was careless" - nope... At worst it was manslaugter, at best it was careless.

I believed it when some here said he would not ever be charged or if he was he'd get off...shoot, wou'ld a thunk KBers would get it wrong

Wasn't advocating hanging him from a tree but $250.....that's just insulting.

MSTRS

12th August 2011, 17:18

There were questions around the speed of those Buller riders too. Has nothing to do with stupid manoeuvres in stupid places.
I'm disgusted that the court has set such a low value on this incident.

Parlane

12th August 2011, 17:20

There were questions around the speed of those Buller riders too. Has nothing to do with stupid manoeuvres in stupid places.
I'm disgusted that the court has set such a low value on this incident.

$250 is 62.5% of the fine I would get for riding my bike without a learners plate..

jellywrestler

12th August 2011, 17:22

move described by the judge as 'Careless'
fuck it, the driver was a trained proffesional it's negligence at the very least and an insult to us all, so being a work related accident i wonder how OSH would have veiwed his contribution to a death???

MSTRS

12th August 2011, 17:30

$250 is 62.5% of the fine I would get for riding my bike without a learners plate..

Sorry, no. Was dropped to $100 last year...

riffer

12th August 2011, 17:37

Interestingly the fine the officer got was less than the fine he could have delivered to the rider if he caught him at what the SCU said his speed was.

nadroj

12th August 2011, 17:39

Who was the judge?

We need to ensure an appeal of the sentence is lodged on Paul's behalf to see the judges decision reviewed by his peers.

Fluffy Cat

12th August 2011, 17:42

Incredible....speechless.
But
In line with all other sentences....the law is an ass!.
RIP.

riffer

12th August 2011, 17:42

Who was the judge?

We need to ensure an appeal of the sentence is lodged on Paul's behalf to see the judges decision reviewed by his peers.

That's a tricky one. I'd be seeking a legal opinion more learned than www.kiwibiker.co.nz (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz) before starting down that road.

Deano

12th August 2011, 17:42

Interestingly the fine the officer got was less than the fine he could have delivered to the rider if he caught him at what the SCU said his speed was.

Is this perhaps an issue for BRONZ to look in to ? The Judge has clearly laid more blame on the rider (perhaps for not being able to stop in the visible road distance due to speed), but to say the car driver's blame is worth only $250 fine ?

riffer

12th August 2011, 17:43

Is this perhaps an issue for BRONZ to look in to ? The Judge has clearly laid more blame on the rider (perhaps for not being able to stop in the visible road distance due to speed), but to say the car driver's blame is worth only $250 fine ?

We are. We will release a statement in due course Deano.

Toaster

12th August 2011, 17:45

FJRider

12th August 2011, 18:13

This officer clearly made a big error and met with a rider making another error by speeding so grossly over the limit and therefore limiting his own chance of survial if the unexpected happened.

AND ... clearly ... if either one ... didn't make that "error" ... an "accident" would not have occured ...

but it was ALL the cops fault ... right ... ?????

Bottom line is we ALL could do with two things - a higher level of skill, and enough sense to use that skill at all times and not get complacent.

Three things actually ... included would be a sense of shared responsibility, for the result of errors we make on the road.

Kiwi Graham

12th August 2011, 18:36

Disgusted with the outcome, $250!!??
Totally focused on one and couldn't give a fuck for others on the road. Killed one of the others and gets a fine equivalent to half a days wages :shit:

k14

12th August 2011, 18:41

Did the cop loose his job? If so then the $250 fine probably takes that into account. If not then at least it should have been 6 months disqualification.

MarkH

12th August 2011, 18:46

move described by the judge as 'Careless'
fuck it, the driver was a trained proffesional it's negligence at the very least and an insult to us all

I have to agree with this ^

Shouldn't we expect better of the people paid to enforce the laws, especially when the police claim that their enforcement of road rules is all about safety? Here we have a police officer making a hazard of himself and contributing to an accident that resulted in the death of a motorist, while supposedly his job is to improve safety for such motorists.

I'm glad there was a conviction, but $250 seems VERY light. I've had speeding tickets for more and that was without causing or contributing to the death of anyone! Considering that his careless driving resulted in the death of a man I would have thought that $2500 would have been much closer to a fair fine.

gwigs

12th August 2011, 18:55

I,d like to know what the average penalty for careless driving causing death is ?....bet its way more than a $250 fine.:mad:

merv

12th August 2011, 19:08

bogan

12th August 2011, 19:11

The moral of the story kiddies is take care out there, you never know when you are going to be thrown a curve ball like a cop car in your way (and as others have said many other sorts of likely objects) so lets see if we can all stay safe and avoid hitting these damn things.

+1, just watched JC's article on the RWC tourist drivers, maybe I stick to only essential driving on those few weeks....

But on the other hand, a message must be sent it isn't ok to throw curve balls. Messages for all!

Aristocat

12th August 2011, 19:16

$250 for a life. Going cheap these days.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/5437608/Police-officer-fined-after-u-turn-kills-motorcyclist

I want to say 'disappointed'; but that doesn't even begin to convey my thoughts on this matter.

HenryDorsetCase

12th August 2011, 19:34

That's a tricky one. I'd be seeking a legal opinion more learned than www.kiwibiker.co.nz (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz) before starting down that road.

the Crown prosecuted the case, they would have to appeal it.

How likely is that?

HenryDorsetCase

12th August 2011, 19:35

+1, just watched JC's article on the RWC tourist drivers, maybe I stick to only essential driving on those few weeks....

But on the other hand, a message must be sent it isn't ok to throw curve balls. Messages for all!

I saw that as well: bloody hell!

scumdog

12th August 2011, 19:36

Originally the Waikato Times reported "tests showed.......could have been..between 114km/h and 142km/h

Now they're reported between 141 and 158?

MAYBE 114 was a typo instead of 141?
who knows
who cares?

scumdog

12th August 2011, 19:38

Disgusted with the outcome, $250!!??
Totally focused on one and couldn't give a fuck for others on the road. Killed one of the others and gets a fine equivalent to half a days wages :shit:

Yeah, a $25,000 fine would have made the rider come alive again, eh?.

bogan

12th August 2011, 19:39

I saw that as well: bloody hell!

Yeh it's doable enough to ride so any stationary object on the road isn't going to be too damaging, but whent he fucker is doing 100 towards you, it's going to be a very different story. What dates are the RWC ones, and to be avoided?

FJRider

12th August 2011, 19:49

Shouldn't we expect better of the people paid to enforce the laws, especially when the police claim that their enforcement of road rules is all about safety? Here we have a police officer making a hazard of himself and contributing to an accident that resulted in the death of a motorist, while supposedly his job is to improve safety for such motorists.

We also have claims by motorcyclists ... that they can safely exceed the posted speed limit on such roads ...

Maybe ... most times ... they can. Some times ... SOME GUESS WRONG ...

Be it a Toyota 4WD ... a Campervan ... or Cop car ... which one would YOU want to kill you ... ??? and on what road will it happen ... ???

It seems sorta funny that the topic/content of the thread (Police killing us again) has changed ... to contributing to death ...

Regardless of what we ride or drive ... if we make a mistake/error of judgement/wrong assumptiom (OR NOT) ... WE MAY DIE ... !!!

Let those that are quick to apportion blame in such cases ... never have to be found guilty of making similar errors of judement and assumptions ...

Fluffy Cat

12th August 2011, 19:55

Just wondering....
If the cop had seen a car doing a 3 point turn at the same place time etc but without a fatality.....What would the charge/fine have been?.

scumdog

12th August 2011, 19:57

Just wondering....
If the cop had seen a car doing a 3 point turn at the same place time etc but without a fatality.....What would the charge/fine have been?.

Carless Use or Fails to Keep Left or??:confused:

CHOPPA

12th August 2011, 19:57

Let those that are quick to apportion blame in such cases ... never have to be found guilty of making similar errors of judement and assumptions ...

Im sure if I had turned in front of a police car and killed him I would have got more then a $250 fine.

We all make errors in judgement and it was his fault Paul died so why the fuck not be quick to apportion the blame!

CHOPPA

12th August 2011, 20:00

Yeah, a $25,000 fine would have made the rider come alive again, eh?.

You may have missed the point there einstein

jerrylynch

12th August 2011, 20:01

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/5437608/Police-officer-fined-after-u-turn-kills-motorcyclist

scumdog

12th August 2011, 20:02

You may have missed the point there einstein

Oh really??...<_<

Fluffy Cat

12th August 2011, 20:03

Whats the fine for that?. Just wondering if its possible that the fine would be higher than that given for causing careless death. Would have thought reckless would have been more appropriate?.

CHOPPA

12th August 2011, 20:06

Whats the fine for that?. Just wondering if its possible that the fine would be higher than that given for causing careless death. Would have thought reckless would have been more appropriate?.

There should be jail time and no fine

scumdog

12th August 2011, 20:07

Kiwi Graham

12th August 2011, 20:17

Yeah, a $25,000 fine would have made the rider come alive again, eh?.

That loud 'rushing' noise was 'the point' flashing by that wee head of yours.
Its not about the value of the $$ its about the value of the tragic decision he made and the outcome :facepalm:

I don't think any amount of money would be enough to bring a family member back but unfortunately our wonderful judicial system seems to think $250 is enough in this case :mad:

scumdog

12th August 2011, 20:20

Nice to see my $25,000 comment has provoked SOME reaction....

munster

12th August 2011, 20:25

I cannot believe that any other member of the public caught in the same or similar situation would have come out with as light a penalty as that.

Disgusting, unfair, repugnant etc and absolutely no deterrent to stop someone else doing a U-turn in an equally as stupid place.

scott411

12th August 2011, 20:26

Kickaha

12th August 2011, 20:26

What penalty did the dickhead that did the U turn at Buller and took the two bikes out get?

scumdog

12th August 2011, 20:27

Disgusting, unfair, repugnant etc and absolutely no deterrent to stop someone else doing a U-turn in an equally as stupid place.

NOTHING deters them - you have to be able to have imagination to be deterred.

munster

12th August 2011, 20:29

NOTHING deters them - you have to be able to have imagination to be deterred.

Careful now, this cop did the same thing as that cop in Buller. Are you saying Cops don't have imagination?

Mort

12th August 2011, 20:30

Disgusting.

scumdog

12th August 2011, 20:36

Careful now, this cop did the same thing as that cop in Buller. Are you saying Cops don't have imagination?

Some don't apparently - and there's times when I haven't imagined "There could be a bike doing about 140kph approaching right now"<_<

YellowDog

12th August 2011, 20:39

Personally I would like to see all NZ drivers do driving courses as part of their licence issue and renewal to the level of the NZ police training (they teach some great stuff) AND see our police do courses to the level of the UK police (which is FAR more superior and takes their skill level far beyond ours).

This officer clearly made a big error and met with a rider making another error by speeding so grossly over the limit and therefore limiting his own chance of survial if the unexpected happened.

Bottom line is we ALL could do with two things - a higher level of skill, and enough sense to use that skill at all times and not get complacent.

Good post. I was trained by a UK cop in the late 70s. I was too young at the time to appreciate the value of what he was teahing, but as my experience grew, I did become a better rider for it.

We've all heard that the road is not a racetrack however we sometimes find ourselves travelling at speeds where we would not be able to avoid the unexpected or indeed just a mistake by another road user. I like to believe that this is now quite a rare occurance then it used to be (for me).

IMO - the sentence handed out to the police officer who acted recklessly by not exercising due care and attention before making a U-Turn; is unjust and insulting to the memory of the dead rider. I say this regarless of the speed of said rider.

Expect the unexpected! We are told to! The Police should have to do the same.

munster

12th August 2011, 20:47

Some don't apparently - and there's times when I haven't imagined "There could be a bike doing about 140kph approaching right now"<_<

Expect the unexpected! We are told to! The Police should have to do the same.

Knowing that road, and having seen the paint markings after the crash, the bikers speed wouldn't have mattered a jot. It was a damn stupid reckless dangerous place to try & attempt & fail a u-turn.

bogan

12th August 2011, 20:49

it is not even a joke, its a disgrace,

The article certainly reads poorly of the verdict. His decisions meant he had no hope if there was an unexpected obstacle, I think we all agree that was a very bad choice. However, the officers decision to provide such an obstacle is classed as a momentary lapse? what the fuck. Surely those charged with keeping the roads safe should be held to a higher standard than this.

terbang

12th August 2011, 20:50

NZ police have just been given a licence to kill..! :facepalm:

Parlane

12th August 2011, 20:55

NZ police have just been given a licence to kill..! :facepalm:

Don't worry, the licence fee is $250. Atleast we have a precedent set. If I ever accidentally kill someone, I shall refer the judge to this case. :confused:

FJRider

12th August 2011, 21:08

At the minimum estimated speed of the rider ... from the time he would have seen the cop car, untill the point of impact ... Three seconds would have elapsed ... To evaluate and stop / avoid collision ...
Even at 100 km/hr ... 4 and a half seconds to cover that distance at that speed.

Not only do you need to be able to stop in that distance ... you have to figure out you need to stop - then brake ... in time ...

Who would need more time ... ???

Number One

12th August 2011, 21:09

the officers decision to provide such an obstacle is classed as a momentary lapse? what the fuck. Surely those charged with keeping the roads safe should be held to a higher standard than this.

I CONCUR!!! Especially given all the fancy pants training they get just to be able to pilot one of them tanks

FJRider

12th August 2011, 21:13

Don't worry, the licence fee is $250. Atleast we have a precedent set. If I ever accidentally kill someone, I shall refer the judge to this case. :confused:

Just ensure THEY were travelling at 140 km/hr plus ... and you were the one hit ...

and the SAME outcome ... may result ...

Good luck ... and a bit of care ... all the time ... and it wont happen ...

scumdog

12th August 2011, 21:13

I CONCUR!!! Especially given all the fancy pants training they get just to be able to pilot one of them tanks

OOOh yeah... that 30 minutes a year should really pay off....:rolleyes:

'Fancy pants' indeed....

(Keep your mind out of the gutter girl.)

FJRider

12th August 2011, 21:17

'Fancy pants' indeed....

Legend has it ... you don't need pants to catch law-breakers ... :innocent:

Renegade

12th August 2011, 21:19

OOOh yeah... that 30 minutes a year should really pay off....:rolleyes:

'Fancy pants' indeed....

Can it be called training?

Id like to add that yes, $250 is a bit on the nose and id feel fairly aggrieved if it was my loved one.

Id say the cop would have been through hell over this.

One can not deny that both party played and equal role in this event, some times fate just collides :mellow:

NJ83

12th August 2011, 21:24

And had that have been a truck coming over that rise rather than a bike?

Number One

12th August 2011, 21:25

OOOh yeah... that 30 minutes a year should really pay off....:rolleyes:

'Fancy pants' indeed.....)

Oh, is it only new recuits that get to do the car handling courses?

I used to run a course up by the Police College (I would regularly use their sports field for outdoor exercises) They have an awesome figure 8 course that they run hoses onto and practise sliding and handbrakees and other fun things you shouldn't practise on the road....I sooo want to have a go!

Fancy pants?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_6_io3WBd3Ag/TOTQd3WtDxI/AAAAAAAAAoM/UuZgmNkSj8U/s1600/Codpiece.jpg

(Keep your mind out of the gutter girl.)[/QUOTE]

scumdog

12th August 2011, 21:27

pete376403

12th August 2011, 21:33

Interesting that the top end of the estimated speed range has now become the accepted figure.

FJRider

12th August 2011, 21:38

Interesting that the top end of the estimated speed range has now become the accepted figure.

The TOP end of the estimated speed was 160 km/hr ... :confused: The rider would have had 2.7 seconds to react and stop, or avoid impact ...

NJ83

12th August 2011, 21:39

I guess the offending driver would not have a $250 fine to worry about..Ya really have to watch for them low-profile 140kph trucks eh....:shifty:

Fair point, Guess ya can't really sneak up on someone in a truck. :no:

munster

12th August 2011, 21:40

Legend has it ... you don't need pants to catch law-breakers ... :innocent:
Just a Baton

Spearfish

12th August 2011, 21:51

But he had 120 meters to stop didn't he?

nadroj

12th August 2011, 21:52

Just a Baton

More of a matchstick!

scumdog

12th August 2011, 21:54

More of a matchstick!

been looking again have you???

munster

12th August 2011, 22:13

been looking again have you???
Nah, if a subset group of the population have to resort to using phallic batons, they're obviously compensating for something. Basic Logic.

short-circuit

12th August 2011, 22:16

Nah, if a subset group of the population have to resort to using phallic batons, they're obviously compensating for something. Basic Logic.

Snap: http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/140915-So-you-can-buy-a-rugby-jersey-cheaper-overseas.../page3

Amateur - get back to trolling where you belong http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/122146-Police-killing-us-again!?p=1130128661#post1130128661 (defending your fellow bum chums in blue)....what's the sausage to taco ratio in that "institution"?

FJRider

12th August 2011, 22:16

But he had 120 meters to stop didn't he?

shhhhhh .... not so loud ... dont let facts stand in the way of a good rant ...

Spearfish

12th August 2011, 22:22

shhhhhh .... not so loud ... dont let facts stand in the way of a good rant ...

Oh shit, that's right.

Jantar

12th August 2011, 22:22

The TOP end of the estimated speed was 160 km/hr ... :confused: The rider would have had 2.7 seconds to react and stop, or avoid impact ...

No. The top end of the estimated speed was 142 kmh according to the police SCU report. The higher speed was one claimed by the cop's defence. However I guess I'm another one who, without all the facts, believes a higher speed is likely.

Katman put it nicely when said that there two people in the wrong and if either of them was acting correctly this accident might not have happened. I would go further and say there were three people in the wrong. Katman forgot the ute driver who provided the reason for the cop to do the U-turn.

BUT..... If we look at this from another point of view, I would ask just how slow would the rider have to be going to avoid the crash? The police report gives two points to consider:
a) The rider had only 120 m of visibility to the point of impact.
b) The cop would have taken around 7 seconds to complete the turn. This is the important point as the police car was not in the motorcyclist's lane when the rider was 120 m away, it was still on the other side of the road and braking.

So at the first point where the rider could see the police car there was no obstacle. 2 seconds later the motorcyclist's lane was blocked as the police car was a third of the way into the U-turn.

If the rider was travelling at the speed limit he would now have 64 m to react and stop. For a skilled rider that should be almost enough. Lets assume a half second reaction time, and a further half second to load up the brakes, so now its only 36 m to stop from 27.7 m/s. That is doable under perfect conditions, and with room to spare for another famous KB member who only needs 2 m.

Chances are that conditions weren't perfect, and an accident will still have happened at the legal speed limit. Chances are that an accident wouldn't happen at the speed limit if there was a stationary obstacle across the road when the rider was still 120 m away.

At 150 kmh (above the highest official estimate) the rider would have travelled 84 m before the lane was blocked, and he would only have 36 m to react, and stop. Not possible.

But he would probably have started slowing down even before the cop started the U-turn. (I know I would), and hence the skid marks. However at any speed higher than 100 kmh a crash was inevitable.

HenryDorsetCase

12th August 2011, 22:52

And had that have been a truck coming over that rise rather than a bike?

Ive been thinking about that too, in the context of some of that truck-cam footage on Campbell nearly Live tonight. a b train at 90kph wouldnt stop fuck all in 120m Just a smear of tin where a commodore used to be and a lingering smell of bacon.

its like those airplane disaster shows. when they reconstruct what happened, often its a sequence of little things, each maybe not that serious by themselves, that, when taken together, mean that 747 falls out of the sky in a rain of fire. that applies here only there were two cockups.

FJRider

12th August 2011, 22:55

No. The top end of the estimated speed was 142 kmh according to the police SCU report. The higher speed was one claimed by the cop's defence. However I guess I'm another one who, without all the facts, believes a higher speed is likely.

This report was wrong then ... ???
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/5437608/Police-officer-fined-after-u-turn-kills-motorcyclist

Katman put it nicely when said that there two people in the wrong and if either of them was acting correctly this accident might not have happened. I would go further and say there were three people in the wrong. Katman forgot the ute driver who provided the reason for the cop to do the U-turn.

And the motorcyclist probably never featured in the cops intentions ... already locked on to the ute ...

BUT..... If we look at this from another point of view, I would ask just how slow would the rider have to be going to avoid the crash? The police report gives two points to consider:
a) The rider had only 120 m of visibility to the point of impact.
b) The cop would have taken around 7 seconds to complete the turn. This is the important point as the police car was not in the motorcyclist's lane when the rider was 120 m away, it was still on the other side of the road and braking.

So at the first point where the rider could see the police car there was no obstacle. 2 seconds later the motorcyclist's lane was blocked as the police car was a third of the way into the U-turn.

At which time the cop would be checking the road behind him as the road ahead was clear ... when he looked ...

If the rider was travelling at the speed limit he would now have 64 m to react and stop. For a skilled rider that should be almost enough. Lets assume a half second reaction time, and a further half second to load up the brakes, so now its only 36 m to stop from 27.7 m/s. That is doable under perfect conditions, and with room to spare for another famous KB member who only needs 2 m.

Most likely the rider was expecting the cop to let him pass before turning ... assuming HE was the cops target ... he assumed wrong ... so just shaving speed off for a lower lock on speed may have been his intention ...

Chances are that conditions weren't perfect, and an accident will still have happened at the legal speed limit. Chances are that an accident wouldn't happen at the speed limit if there was a stationary obstacle across the road when the rider was still 120 m away.

Only the lucky, get more than ONE chance ...

At 150 kmh (above the highest official estimate) the rider would have travelled 84 m before the lane was blocked, and he would only have 36 m to react, and stop. Not possible.

Maths are not always a strong point for some motorcyclists ... some can't even figure out their fuel consumption ...

... However at any speed higher than 100 kmh a crash was inevitable.

I read that somewhere ... quite often actually ... :innocent:

HenryDorsetCase

12th August 2011, 22:57

Oh, is it only new recuits that get to do the car handling courses?

I used to run a course up by the Police College (I would regularly use their sports field for outdoor exercises) They have an awesome figure 8 course that they run hoses onto and practise sliding and handbrakees and other fun things you shouldn't practise on the road....I sooo want to have a go!

(Keep your mind out of the gutter girl.)[/QUOTE]

just get a job with any government department, say "I'm booking this car out for a cross town meeting, it might go on a bit, dunno when I'll be back" then go find somewhere a bit secluded, and practice practice practice. You'll be amazed at how quickly you learn.

Jantar

12th August 2011, 23:13

This report was wrong then ... ???
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/5437608/Police-officer-fined-after-u-turn-kills-motorcyclist
...
Either that, or this one http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/5429894/Crash-bike-had-illegal-tyre-court-hears is wrong. :confused:

rustic101

12th August 2011, 23:27

Tragic situation for all parties involved.

I've listed some data with respect to speed/time/distance for those trying to work out reaction time etc.

A vehicle travelling at:

100kph covers 27.7 metres per second
120kph covers 33.3 metres per second
130kph covers 36.1 metres per second
140kph covers 38.8 metres per second
150kph covers 41.6 metres per second
160kph covers 44.4 metres per second

FJRider

12th August 2011, 23:29

Either that, or this one http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/5429894/Crash-bike-had-illegal-tyre-court-hears is wrong. :confused:

That would be estimated at the start of the skidmarks ... 39 metres out from the patrol car ... From sighting the patrol car, to starting to skid ... 80 metres was traveled ...

Jantar

12th August 2011, 23:38

..... From sighting the patrol car, to starting to skid ... 80 metres was traveled ...
Exactly. But when the patrol car was first sighted it wouldn't have been in the rider's lane, but on the other side of the road, so just normal reactions required. Unless we can see the actual SCU report anything we comment on is just further speculation.

The Police report said the motorcyclist was travelling at between 114 and 142 kmh. The defence claimed 142 - 159 kmh. It doesn't matter how we split these hairs the result was still the same. Even 114 kmh would have resulted in a crash, but then >300 kmh and he would have been through before the lane was blocked.

Katman

12th August 2011, 23:47

Exactly. But when the patrol car was first sighted it wouldn't have been in the rider's lane, but on the other side of the road, so just normal reactions required.

Has that been recorded as fact?

Are you suggesting that the motorcyclist was visible to the police officer before he even started turning?

Or are you just indulging in a bit of speculation?

Jantar

13th August 2011, 00:20

Has that been recorded as fact?

Are you suggesting that the motorcyclist was visible to the police officer before he even started turning?

Or are you just indulging in a bit of speculation?

Isn't this whole thing just speculation? I have based my speculation on the position of the car across the road at the point of impact, and NO the motorcyclist probably wasn't in view at moment that the officer started to turn his steering wheel. Even at 100 kmh he wouldn't have been visible. But that is also irrellevent for a couple of reasons.

According to the witness who was in the police car, and on the side where the impact occured, the first indication of the presence of the motorcycle was the high pitched sound of his emergency braking.

According to the evidence it is also required that the police officer must have 100 m of clear visibility at the end of the turning manouver, not the beginning. 7 seconds to complete the turn means that he should have had 300 m of clear road visible before the turn, not 120 m.

So you were right in your earlier statement that there was more than one person at fault here.

Kiwi Graham

13th August 2011, 07:35

And had that have been a truck coming over that rise rather than a bike?

I guess the offending driver would not have a $250 fine to worry about..Ya really have to watch for them low-profile 140kph trucks eh....:shifty:

Ive been thinking about that too, in the context of some of that truck-cam footage on Campbell nearly Live tonight. a b train at 90kph wouldnt stop fuck all in 120m Just a smear of tin where a commodore used to be and a lingering smell of bacon.

I don't think it would have mattered 'what' was coming over that hill (speculation) If they had been travelling at the speed limit or slightly above they would have collected Lenihan. Had it been a truck there would probably been two deaths. A quote from Lenihan's passenger as the ute went by "I'm going to have him" and proceeded to do his fukin U turn (which according to experts would have taken more than 3 shunts) shows he was only focused on one thing. For Paul tragic and for him and his passenger bloody lucky it wasn't a truck.

The ruling is bullshit, I don't know how that judge went home, ate a meal and slept last night!

CHOPPA

13th August 2011, 08:22

It sounds like there were 2 people at fault, Paul and the Cop. If Paul was doing the speed limit maybe he would have stopped. If the Cop had not done the U turn he would not have hit the car.

It certainly seems that the penalties are heavily favoured toward the policemen.

Paul - Life
Policemen - $250

So this is what the issue is Scumdog. Are you a cop? If you are and you cant accept that he got off light then you have exactly the same ignorant mentality that highlights my point.

My friend instructs the police at Manfield and he said overall they are terrible drivers. The amount of crazy shit I have seen from Police that puts other motorists lives in danger just to chase a motorist that is slightly speeding.

I have been on patrol in 2 seperate police cars and we were having a hell of a time doing handbrake turns and as soon as we got a call the lights would be on and we would just drive in that direction flat stick for fun.

If I was a cop and I saw someone speeding I would do every thing I can to get them because it would be my job and my mission and a bit of a challenge and fun. You still have to be responsible for your actions. Im basically an electrician, if I were to leave a live cable out and electricuted some kid, just because the kid was waging school and shouldnt have been that wouldnt be an excuse

ynot slow

13th August 2011, 08:35

Choppa your point at the end is so true,re tools,work negligence.I had a case when little Johnny(actually Tarquinn)a spoilt little shite 4yr old who was annoying the fuck out of me onsite.I was installing a houselot of venetian blinds,the little shit would pull on the cords,genenerally doing his best to break them,his mummy kept saying "don't annoy Tony,he is busy",well I was.I went to the van to get an item,came back to find the shit had taken my stanley knife and was breaking the snap off blades on the vinyl floor,he had seen me do it and thought hmm give it a go,anyway Tarquinn managed to cut his finger,mummy wasn't pleased,but a day or so later I was contacted by OSH,seems the doctor had to notify them when itwas found the shit had been injured and a contractor was on site,was hauled over the coals for a while,until they realised I had shut the toolbox lid and the little shit went into the tools and took the knife,so was deemed a no fault accident on our behalf.

Bit long winded reply but two guys were in the wrong,sadly one is dead,other has it on his concience for life,to that extent the fine is irrelevant,if the cop is truly remorseful,but it wasn't the cops fault he got a piss poor fine,hnd the judge.

Kiwi675

13th August 2011, 08:53

What a fucking joke....... One rule for the establishment ....... Blah blah blah .........yup..... Do you think any non-police would have got that sentence...... It's just crap

insane1

13th August 2011, 09:02

this pig sould be jailed for what he did ,are driving standards that piss poor he only gets a fine for his balls up,has he even still got a job?.

Robbo

13th August 2011, 09:13

jetboy

13th August 2011, 09:19

Ultimately, no matter how you look at it, a vehicle pulled a 3 point turn in an unsafe location which sadly caused someone to lose their life.

But, because the vehicle was operated by a police officer and the person who lost his life was a motorcyclist, people are quick to judge and lay blame.

The media then peddles: The cop was a long-standing 50 year veteran, the motorcycle didn't have a current wof/rego. A ute was speeding.

But they are not relevant to the underlying cause of the unfortunate incident.

A vehicle pulled a 3 point turn in an unsafe location, which sadly caused someone to lose their life.

Headbanger

13th August 2011, 09:22

Just a thought, but if the driver of the ute had not been breaking the law by driving at 150km/hr then we would not even have had this tragic situation and this discussion would not be taking place.
Therefore three factors have led to this tragedy, the ute's speed, the location of the U-turn and the speed of the motorcycle.
In hindsite, i'm sure all three parties would have done things differently had they have foreseen this outcome.
Once again this is a reminder to always ride with your stopping ability in full view of you.
R.I.P. Paul

Rubbish, The driver of the ute is responsible for his actions and nothing else, You can take him out of the equation.

The speed of the motorcycle could be a contributing factor but unless I have missed something thats just pure guess work on behalf of the person who directly caused the collision, the cop, and as such can't be considered fact.

Fucker should have been hung. The fact is he put his car in the opposing lane at a place highly likely to kill someone.

Robbo

13th August 2011, 09:32

Rubbish, The driver of the ute is responsible for his actions and nothing else, You can take him out of the equation.

The speed of the motorcycle could be a contributing factor but unless I have missed something thats just pure guess work on behalf of the person who directly caused the collision, the cop, and as such can't be considered fact.

Fucker should have been hung. The fact is he put his car in the opposing lane at a place highly likely to kill someone.

Yes, you have missed the point. It was the ute's speed that triggered this whole unfortunate situation in the first place but as i suggested, the U-turn was not a sensible move given the location it took place in.

T.W.R

13th August 2011, 09:42

A couple of things no-one has mentioned:

Target fixation and panic :shit:

both the plod & the rider would be guilty of these two

jellywrestler

13th August 2011, 09:43

sounds like it is time for some good old UK RIOTS eh?

MSTRS

13th August 2011, 10:07

Going back to the Buller incident....
The cop there did a 3-point turn in an equally stupid place, also within 150m or less of a roadside turn-around area and his action caused 2 bikes to hit his car. Those bikes were also believed to have been speeding, but there was no proof of that in exact terms. That cop was eventually pinged for a dangerous manoeuvre and ordered to pay $30,000 to each rider (if I remember right).
The point is, the parallels between the 2 cases almost exactly line-up. So why, oh why, was the Te Kawhata cop only fined $250??

_Shrek_

13th August 2011, 10:13

the fact is if it was one of us that caused the acc we would have been done for dangerous driving causing death & lost our licence & had a very large fine as well

:angry2: so why is only a 250 fine orderd here? or is it ok to do u turns in front of :ride: just so Smith & his mates can justify their acc charges on us

Grubber

13th August 2011, 10:39

I guess the offending driver would not have a $250 fine to worry about..Ya really have to watch for them low-profile 140kph trucks eh....:shifty:

Seen this happen before so all ya smarty comments don't wash too well with me.

Some years ago i drifted slowly through a country road giveway only to be hit by a car coming out of a side road at 90kph. This was in a 70kph area. Fact is, i screwed up and failed to giveway. Issues arising are this, other driver was not wearing a seatbelt and was speeding. He suffered a small cut to his right forehead just above his eye. took 4 stitches to fix. Basically he walked away without any major injury as such.
I got charged with Careless use of a motor vehicle causing injury. Which i though was fair enough at the time.
The outcome was this, $550 fine plus court costs, $280 medical remuneration, 6 months loss of licence.

So you will excuse me if i find this most recent fine for the officer involved in this tragic death a WHOLE LOT OF BULLSHIT FINES FOR THE BOYS IN BLUE!:Police:

Sorry Scummy, but if you're gonna stand there and tell me this was justice then ya not the dude i thought you were.:no:

Headbanger

13th August 2011, 10:49

Yes, you have missed the point. It was the ute's speed that triggered this whole unfortunate situation in the first place but as i suggested, the U-turn was not a sensible move given the location it took place in.

The ute is irrelevant.

It would have made no difference if the cop had seen a horse in a field or a UFO in the sky before he decided on his course of action.

Headbanger

13th August 2011, 10:52

so why is only a 250 fine orderd here?

and to think I just handed over $1000 for doing something that resulted in no incidents, no deaths, no damage, no injury, nothing.

Robbo

13th August 2011, 11:12

The ute is irrelevant.

It would have made no difference if the cop had seen a horse in a field or a UFO in the sky before he decided on his course of action.

No the ute is not irrelevant. It was his speed that started this whole unfortunate incident. What is it that you do not understand about this.
No speeding ute
No need for a Police chase
No U-Turn
No subsequent crash
Simple as that!!:mellow:

scumdog

13th August 2011, 11:25

So this is what the issue is Scumdog. Are you a cop? If you are and you cant accept that he got off light then you have exactly the same ignorant mentality that highlights my point.

My friend instructs the police at Manfield and he said overall they are terrible drivers. The amount of crazy shit I have seen from Police that puts other motorists lives in danger just to chase a motorist that is slightly speeding.

Yeah, the penalty for that was pretty light - but I've been trying to point out that NOTHING would have made things right - regardless of penalty. (Some just don't seem to get that point).

And the gist of some comments on here are that this penalty is somehow the cops fault, nothing to do with the Court.

BTW: Best way to kill somebody in NZ is on the road - penalties seem to be way lighter than in any other non-road circumstances.

And everybody expects cops to be the best shot, the best driver, the most PC, the most polite, shee-it folks, they're average people (They even tell us that at the college) with a plethora of duties and tasks, add that to the fact there are 5,000 or so of them of various ages, experience and temprament you are (sadly) likely to have catastrophes like this.

scumdog

13th August 2011, 11:29

Sorry Scummy, but if you're gonna stand there and tell me this was justice then ya not the dude i thought you were.:no:

Sorry, I must have been too obtuse for you....read my comment on that in my last post.

Pixie

13th August 2011, 11:30

And everybody expects cops to be the best shot, the best driver, the most PC, the most polite, shee-it folks, they're average people (They even tell us that at the college) with a plethora of duties and tasks, add that to the fact there are 5,000 or so of them of various ages, experience and temprament you are (sadly) likely to have catastrophes like this.

It doesn't help that the Govt. and Police management don't even try to train cops to use guns an cars to a professional level.
Typical "she'll be right NZ atitude".

Pixie

13th August 2011, 11:45

No.

Listen carefully. I'll talk slowly.

In a court of law ALL evidence must be presented.

It is a FACT that the tyre was not warrantable.

Anything else is simply opinion.

There is no conspiracy theory.

All evidence?

They forgot to present the fact that the ride had taken a big dump just prior to leaving for home and that this improved his stopping distance by reducing the inertia of the bike/rider system.

scumdog

13th August 2011, 11:48

It doesn't help that the Govt. and Police management don't even try to train cops to use guns an cars to a professional level.
Typical "she'll be right NZ atitude".

True to a certain extent but it's more "It wiil cost us more and we'll need more staff" ($$$$) than 'she'll be right".

And it the odds of an event happening too - i.e. how likely is it that a cop is going to have to shoot somebody during their career = how much training is believed to be necessary.

scumdog

13th August 2011, 11:50

All evidence?

They forgot to present the fact that the ride had taken a big dump just prior to leaving for home and that this improved his stopping distance by reducing the inertia of the bike/rider system.

But the delay in leaving the 'dumping' site put him in exactly the location that he crashed at the precise time to do so...:whistle::corn:

Biggles08

13th August 2011, 12:10

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/5439438/Officers-acquittal-a-police-coverup

So he was driving "dangerously" and made a "brief mistake" that was "inexcusable" yet he got off with a $250 fine?!?!? WTF! :shit:

So what if Paul was speeding or not....talk about missing the point much!? THE COP STILL DIRECTLY "CAUSED" THE ACCIDENT BECAUSE OF HIS SHIT DRIVING! Sure choices were made by all parties involved and I don't believe it was 'entirely' the cops fault, but where is the justice in a $250 fine?! Consider for a moment what the penalty would have been to a civilian who pulled the same maneuver in front of a pursuing cop on a bike, at the same location, causing the same carnage. The book would have been launched at them that's for sure. This is simple political BS whatever way you try and justify it.

No wonder in general, no respect is given to traffic cops!

Pixie

13th August 2011, 12:13

Just wondering....
If the cop had seen a car doing a 3 point turn at the same place time etc but without a fatality.....What would the charge/fine have been?.

Wouldn't even bother to stop the turner.
After all it isn't speeding/drinking/driving without a seatbelt and therefore it's not a cause of accidents

nadroj

13th August 2011, 12:17

No the ute is not irrelevant. It was his speed that started this whole unfortunate incident. What is it that you do not understand about this.
No speeding ute
No need for a Police chase
No U-Turn
No subsequent crash
Simple as that!!:mellow:

I understand your point, however, whatever triggered the cop to do a U turn, he still had a responsibility to the general public to undertake his duties in a safe manner.

Indiana_Jones

13th August 2011, 12:28

So the life of a biker is worth $250?.....not even a years worth of rego....

Riot time?

-Indy

yod

13th August 2011, 12:34

So the life of a biker is worth $250?.....not even a years worth of rego....

Riot time?

-Indy

I could do with a new TV.

willytheekid

13th August 2011, 13:23

So sad....Such a great loss.

I can agree that the justice system has (once again) dropped the ball on dispensing a fair punishment....but I cannot agree with the hatred & negative attitudes displayed in this thread towards the cop & police in general :no:

Everyone makes mistakes...bad decisions....or simply fucks up from time to time....being a cop doesn't exclude you from making these same mistakes.
This particular police offer has served his community & the people of NZ for over 27yrs!......and this long time serving officer will live with the sickening knowledge that his "mistake"...has taken a dearly loved one from his kids and family.

Personally...I blame the Judge & the bullshit legal system that has handed down another "slap on the wrist" sentence...but unlike the usual scum that they let back into the community, this case just happened to involved a cop...who after so many years service, made a dumb decision that has taken the life of a talented motorcyclist, father and friend to many.

I simply cannot join the "hang em High" club in this thread, Ive been left lying on the side of the road a few times over the past 30yrs of riding, and its usually a cop holding my guts in, telling me everything will be ok, And during the quake I watched them put themselves at great personal risk to ensure the rest of us reached our family's safe.
...Yet some people on here seem to forget these sacrifices and services when ever the cops make a mistake or a bad apple comes to light...and instead just want to bay for blood!

There was more than one! mistake made that day, the cop for making a u-turn in a stupid place, by Paul's mate speeding in the Ute, and even by Paul himself for using an illegal tire and not compensating for a blind rise....but the biggest mistake so far was trusting in the NZ judicial system to hand out a fair & just sentence!

R.I.P Paul, our love and thoughts to your family & friends in this difficult time of injustice

-ride in paradise mate, you certainly haven't been forgotten down here.

rastuscat

13th August 2011, 13:31

So the life of a biker is worth $250?.....not even a years worth of rego....

Riot time?

-Indy

Court imposed penalties rarely reflect the circumstances of what happened. Even if they had fined him a million dollars, it wouldn't have brought the rider back.

Penalty needs to reflect the level of carelessness, the outcome, the pointlessness of penalties in cases like this, lots of things.

All of that said, $250 appears manifestly inadequate. I just don't know what would have made any difference in the circumstances.

Nobody wins in cases like this.

Max Preload

13th August 2011, 13:43

Gee, who'd have thought the cops would have whitewashed it?

MIXONE

13th August 2011, 14:14

Nobody wins in cases like this.

Agreed with this.

MSTRS

13th August 2011, 14:15

Gee, who'd have thought the cops would have whitewashed it?

Ya gotta wonder, eh? The Buller cop resigned...oops, I mean, retired...before the case went to court. So he wasn't part of the 'team' anymore...

maxlev

13th August 2011, 14:57

A few months after Buller Gorge U-turn, 2 bikers hospitalised for eons,
a Beamer hit a U-turn quota gatherer at Maramarua,
cop asked injured rider what direction he was travelling,
anyone remember the outcome?
treated like Joe Bloggs or wet bus ticket torture?

Number One

13th August 2011, 15:10

NOTHING would have made things right - regardless of penalty.

BTW: Best way to kill somebody in NZ is on the road - penalties seem to be way lighter than in any other non-road circumstances..

Agree completely no amount of 'hand slap/fine/jail time' IS EVER ENOUGH EVEN when the victim is NOT killed. Re the second point - why is this NOT changing? Why does someone who kills a puppy get more jail time than a pedofile and how come you can kill someone on the roads and NOT go to jail and just get a fine and some imaginary points taken off your license. Not really questions I want you to answer Scummy - I just wonder why NZ is effing soft on this stuff....

And everybody expects cops to be the best shot, the best driver, the most PC, the most polite

With great power comes great responsibliity though don't ya think? Personally I don't think it's out of line to expect every Police officer to behave in a way that is completely above reproach when they are exercising their duties. If one shit cop behaving badly has the power to bring negative attention to ALL others and in training you are told - sokay you just a normal person after all then doesn't that make positive public perceptions that much harder to win? Shouldn't the public be entitled to expect that level of professionalism from our law enforcement officials?? Despite the fact that they are just normal people under their uniforms and badges? Most organisations expect that level of behaviour from their workforce after all.

BTW not having a go Scummy I am genuinely interested in the idea exchange.

MarkH

13th August 2011, 15:15

No the ute is not irrelevant. It was his speed that started this whole unfortunate incident. What is it that you do not understand about this.
No speeding ute
No need for a Police chase
No U-Turn
No subsequent crash
Simple as that!!:mellow:

What you don't understand is that the cop decided to attempt a U-turn in a stupid place and that was his bad decision alone - the Ute driver wasn't involved in that decision. If the cop had continued a short distance on that road and safely turned around then none of this would have happened.

Even the cop himself wasn't arguing that "it wasn't my fault that I attempted the U-turn where I did, the ute driver made me do it" so I don't get why you are trying to present this ridiculous argument for him.

Robbo

13th August 2011, 15:20

I understand your point, however, whatever triggered the cop to do a U turn, he still had a responsibility to the general public to undertake his duties in a safe manner.

Yes, i agree nadroj. My original post was a hypothetical overview of the situation before it occured and the three "what if's" that may have avoided this tragic accident.
Unfortunately it did not turn out this way and resulted in the loss of Pauls life.
As for the U-turn, i certainly don't condone it given the location from a blind hill and the penalty that was handed out does not, in my opinion, reflect the seriousness of the event nor act as a future deterrant.
I do hope that all the publicity that this case has attracted causes the motoring public to be more aware and diligant in regard to performing U-turns in the future as they are a major cause for concern for all bike riders.

Robbo

13th August 2011, 15:27

What you don't understand is that the cop decided to attempt a U-turn in a stupid place and that was his bad decision alone - the Ute driver wasn't involved in that decision. If the cop had continued a short distance on that road and safely turned around then none of this would have happened.

Even the cop himself wasn't arguing that "it wasn't my fault that I attempted the U-turn where I did, the ute driver made me do it" so I don't get why you are trying to present this ridiculous argument for him.

With due respect Mark, you obviously did'nt read correctly or understand my first post. If the ute driver had'nt been speeding in the first place then the cop would never have been attempting to make a u-turn to chase him.
So don't go assuming that i am making excuses for him. Think before you post.

Blackflagged

13th August 2011, 15:41

Speeding and pursuits are common.But not usually with these results.

bogan

13th August 2011, 15:59

Court imposed penalties rarely reflect the circumstances of what happened. Even if they had fined him a million dollars, it wouldn't have brought the rider back.

Penalty needs to reflect the level of carelessness, the outcome, the pointlessness of penalties in cases like this, lots of things.

All of that said, $250 appears manifestly inadequate. I just don't know what would have made any difference in the circumstances.

Nobody wins in cases like this.

What I wanted to see, was enough of a deterrent to make others think about where they do their u-turns, and a change in policy to ensure others lives are not put at risk by careless u-turns in future. Instead it's just a slap on the wrist, shit happens, as you were.

How many more close calls, injuries, and deaths will be required before the system realises changes are required?

riffer

13th August 2011, 16:25

You've hit the nail on the head Bogan.

It's not about this case, or the one in Buller Gorge.

It's about the Police Pursuit Policy fullstop.

_Shrek_

13th August 2011, 16:26

Going back to the Buller incident....
That cop was eventually pinged for a dangerous manoeuvre and ordered to pay $30,000 to each rider (if I remember right).
The point is, the parallels between the 2 cases almost exactly line-up. So why, oh why, was the Te Kawhata cop only fined $250??

What I wanted to see, was enough of a deterrent to make others think about where they do their u-turns, and a change in policy to ensure others lives are not put at risk by careless u-turns in future.

:yes: two good points here, tarring the hole :Police: force etc.. is not going to change what happened
yes the ute was speeding, the bike had an un warrentable tyre, "BUT" it doesn't change the fact the the cop in Q stuffed up big time & the result was a fellow biker was killed & the justice system needs to front up

rebyl

13th August 2011, 16:28

Katman

13th August 2011, 16:30

You've hit the nail on the head Bogan.

It's not about this case, or the one in Buller Gorge.

It's about the Police Pursuit Policy fullstop.

Let's not forget, it's just as much about our own conduct on the road.

scumdog

13th August 2011, 16:37

I guess this proves that according to the judges and the Police Hi Racky, bikers lives are not worth shit but covering the arses of those that do harm is very important....say Hi to him if you see him in Paeroa...bet he gets posted soon....

Are you saying that the dead bikers lives are worth more than a non-biker lives?????:confused:

Or were you including all road users with bikers???

PeeJay

13th August 2011, 16:48

Yes, i agree nadroj. My original post was a hypothetical overview of the situation before it occured and the three "what if's" that may have avoided this tragic accident.
Unfortunately it did not turn out this way and resulted in the loss of Pauls life.
As for the U-turn, i certainly don't condone it given the location from a blind hill and the penalty that was handed out does not, in my opinion, reflect the seriousness of the event nor act as a future deterrant.
I do hope that all the publicity that this case has attracted causes the motoring public to be more aware and diligant in regard to performing U-turns in the future as they are a major cause for concern for all bike riders.

A trillion gazillion what ifs and this wouldnt have happened
If they had left 5 min earlier, 5 min later, turn left, turn right, if the bike had been going a bit quicker so it was 2 sec behind the ute instead of 10
If the policeman had of parked up on the other side of the road.
The list goes on
Blaming the ute driver for "causing" the policeman to chase him is like blaming a slow driver for "causing" someone to overtake and have a headon.

Everyone is responsible for their own actions despite the current NZ culture of blaming someone else

scumdog

13th August 2011, 17:03

Blaming the ute driver for "causing" the policeman to chase him is like blaming a slow driver for "causing" someone to overtake and have a headon.

You're dead right -but so many feel they 'have' to get past that slower vehicle, regardless of speed, circumstances, urgency etc...

Motos of the 21st century "It's somebody elses fault" "He/she made me do it" "It's not MY fault"

Personal responsibility has gone the way of 50-cent-a-litre-petrol and Brycreem...

Indoo

13th August 2011, 17:07

Gee, who'd have thought the cops would have whitewashed it?

Brilliant logic here....The 'cops' were the ones who charged him with dangerous driving causing death and another count of dangerous driving causing injury. And yet now it's a whitewash and a coverup because a Judge, after hearing all the evidence an open court before the media, decided that the charges laid were excessive.

riffer

13th August 2011, 17:07

Personal responsibility has gone the way of 50-cent-a-litre-petrol and Brycreem...

I'd happily welcome 50c a litre petrol and Brylcreem in return for personal responsibility.

riffer

13th August 2011, 17:12

Let's not forget, it's just as much about our own conduct on the road.

Oh definitely not forgotten KM.

I would however appreciate an answer as to exactly how the Police believe they can catch a vehicle that passes them on the other side of the road at 154km/hr when they are stopped?

Because I sure as hell believe they wouldn't be able to do it without also exceeding the speed limit by a ridiculous amount.

Yes Paul Brown made the situation a whole lot worse.

But the decision by Michael Lenihan to instigate the pursuit created the situation in the first place.

And absolutely NOTHING has come out of this, and Bridgeman's court cases to modify the Police Pursuit policy.

Therefore there is NOTHING to stop it happening tomorrow, the next day or whenever.

And it could happen to you. Even if you're doing 100km/hr. Or slower.