Police killing us again! [Archive] - Page 8

Headbanger

13th August 2011, 20:43

Can't handle the obvious facts huh!! Hey, don't let the truth get in the way of a good story. Do you work in the media??

Workplace incident investigations is a large part of my role.

And a major facet of that is causal, contributing and direct causes of incidents.

The speeding ute is a lemon.

I would be looking at the mentality of the driver of the police car and the culture within the workforce that could cause them to pull such a shit stunt (this could indicate if there were big issues within that work force that need to be challenged), then I would be looking to see if he had the proven capacity to identfy it as a dangerous maneuver, In this case I would be looking to see if he was fit for his role and if he had training specifically for the tasks he was undertaking.

Either way, at the end of the day, he is the cock, not the driver of the ute. There could have been 100 drivers in that area breaking the law and only one of them caused the death of another person.

St_Gabriel

13th August 2011, 20:45

how would you feel...id be f**ken livered with myself.

If this was not such a serious thread, I could make a really offal joke about that

bogan

13th August 2011, 20:48

im not dismissing his point, the ute driver should feel like crap as a major player in his mates death, his poor decision was the trigger for a further poor decision or two.

Ask yourself honestly that if you were the driver of that ute, how would you feel...id be f**ken livered with myself.

Where do you draw the line though, what about the last person talking to him before he set off? If they hadn't said as much and let him leave a few seconds earlier....

The ute driver didn't create any risk though (to those behind him anyway), simply being one of the factors that allowed Paul, and the policeman to put Paul's life at risk is nothing to feel guilty about.

rustic101

13th August 2011, 21:01

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.

LENIHANS' crash; as tragic as it was, was not a Pursuit. The criteria to classify it as a 'Pursuit' was not even remotely close to being achieved. Therefore the "Pursuit Policy", is irrelevant.

Every Police crash involving serious injury or death is investigated by the IPCA, internally and or by the Coronial investigation at a minimum. This includes all documentation, Policy and Procedures used. All recommendations (if any) from the IPCA, Coroner, Judge, and or any internal investigation, if applicable, are included into a change package which is then distributed.

What happened was a tragic crash involving a number of factors, pure and simple.

riffer

13th August 2011, 21:06

LENIHANS' crash; as tragic as it was, was not a Pursuit. The criteria to classify it as a 'Pursuit' was not even remotely close to being achieved. Therefore the "Pursuit Policy", is irrelevant.

Bullshit...

he made the decision to chase.

The u-turn is the first part of the pursuit.

FJRider

13th August 2011, 21:23

Interesting the word pursuit is mentioned ... considering two vehicles (ute and bike) were travelling at similar speeds, less than 20 seconds (possibly less) apart ... not connected to the result ... ??? mmmmm

Art P

13th August 2011, 21:24

The cardinal sin (yet again) of doing shit in a blind spot...
How many times/investigations must there be, before a clear instruction is given..."Do not stop or turn without several hundred metres clear road in both directions"

Yes I see the officer only got a fine! If it was you or me the would have locked us up and thrown away the key one rule for them and another for us!

Robbo

13th August 2011, 21:27

Workplace incident investigations is a large part of my role.

And a major facet of that is causal, contributing and direct causes of incidents.

The speeding ute is a lemon.

I would be looking at the mentality of the driver of the police car and the culture within the workforce that could cause them to pull such a shit stunt (this could indicate if there were big issues within that work force that need to be challenged), then I would be looking to see if he had the proven capacity to identfy it as a dangerous maneuver, In this case I would be looking to see if he was fit for his role and if he had training specifically for the tasks he was undertaking.

Either way, at the end of the day, he is the cock, not the driver of the ute. There could have been 100 drivers in that area breaking the law and only one of them caused the death of another person.

Hey Headbanger, at last we've got something we both agree on. My original post was just a hypothetical look at three scenarios that if they had'nt happened Paul would still be alive today. Unfortunately this was'nt the case. Anyway, back to that U-turn. Yes, it was a very Bad decision especially given it's proximity to the brow of the hill and not the sort of thing i would have expected from our traffic police.
The whole subject of U-turns needs to be addressed and highlighted as they pose a great risk to us as bike riders. I have had quite a few close calls due to sudden and not indicated U-turns over the years as i'm sure you have too.
Maybe a series of TV adds to show the dangers of the U-turn and funded by the Govt. After all, they are raking in enough dollars from us through registration and ACC leveys etc.
Cheers

rustic101

13th August 2011, 21:28

Bullshit...

he made the decision to chase.

The u-turn is the first part of the pursuit.

Right, Never let the facts get in the way of your cause....

Go and have a good read of the latest Pursuit Policy, interpret, understand it and get back to us.

MarkH

13th August 2011, 21:35

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.

I DID read your post and I understood exactly what you were saying. I also thought about it and disagreed with it. If you read my post properly you might have understood what I was saying - the ute speeding didn't MAKE the cop try to turn where he did, it was the cop's decision to turn in a dangerous place and he could have decided something different, even though a ute had sped passed.

The ute driver was no more to blame than Dunkin' Donuts would have been if they were having a sale and someone had just told the cop all about it over the radio, leading him to make an unsafe U-turn attempt.

Genestho

13th August 2011, 21:37

This is the Independent Police Conduct Authority report on the Crash, I'm not sure if it's been posted here before, I have not read all of the thread..

www.ipca.govt.nz/includes/download.aspx?ID=115160

Pursuant to section 27(1) of the Independent Police Conduct Authority Act 1988 (the Act),
the Authority has formed the opinion that:

- Officer A’s decision to attempt a u-turn just below the brow of a hill and in an area where the speed limit was 100 kph was highly undesirable and notes its lawfulness is subject to adjudication by the Court; and

- the Police decision to lay criminal charges against Officer A [dangerous driving causing death and injury] was justified and appropriate.

Robbo

13th August 2011, 22:00

I DID read your post and I understood exactly what you were saying. I also thought about it and disagreed with it. If you read my post properly you might have understood what I was saying - the ute speeding didn't MAKE the cop try to turn where he did, it was the cop's decision to turn in a dangerous place and he could have decided something different, even though a ute had sped passed.

The ute driver was no more to blame than Dunkin' Donuts would have been if they were having a sale and someone had just told the cop all about it over the radio, leading him to make an unsafe U-turn attempt.

Yes Mark, we both agree that the U-turn was a dangerous manouvre especially because of it's location but he probably would'nt have attempted it if there had'nt been a speeding vehicle that had just passed towards him. After all, being a traffic patrolman that is his job to catch it. If it had been you or i there then nothing would have happened. I did'nt say that the ute caused the accident but it sure got the officers attention.
On another note, i think that the courts ruling and penalty was rather pathetic given the circumstances and the fact that a life was lost.

Cheers

Katman

13th August 2011, 22:16

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.

Are you seriously telling us that you can't stop within 120 metres from 100kph on a dry road? (Even taking into account reaction time).

HenryDorsetCase

14th August 2011, 00:08

Are you seriously telling us that you can't stop within 120 metres from 100kph on a dry road? (Even taking into account reaction time).

I'm not sure whats reasonable or not. Ima go read some road tests. If I was asked I'd probably say "that sounds about right" but I've never tried to put numbers on it. Is there published data on it ?(apart from magazine road tests?). serious question in case you're wondering.

pete376403

14th August 2011, 00:19

Right, Never let the facts get in the way of your cause....

Go and have a good read of the latest Pursuit Policy, interpret, understand it and get back to us.

At what point does a pursuit commence?

MarkH

14th August 2011, 00:20

On another note, i think that the courts ruling and penalty was rather pathetic given the circumstances and the fact that a life was lost.

The penalty irks me greatly - had the officer not been involved in an accident and instead caught up to the ute and issued an infringement notice, then the ute driver would have been up for a higher fine. It seems that travelling too fast deserves a higher fine than performing an illegal manoeuvre that leads to the loss of a man's life.

I've had a larger fine for driving along the motorway in perfect conditions and I hadn't been involved in the injury or death of anyone. What's the lesson here? Speeding is bad and stupid actions that contribute to the death of someone, not as bad?

Deano

14th August 2011, 08:05

The whole subject of U-turns needs to be addressed and highlighted as they pose a great risk to us as bike riders. I have had quite a few close calls due to sudden and not indicated U-turns over the years as i'm sure you have too.

Definitely a pattern - I've had threee similar experiences, one of which I was in the cop car. A boy racer came the other way speeding and the cop just swung on the wheel to do a u turn, right on a blind corner. Then she stalled it, mid three point turn. If she has just gone another 20m there was a nice driveway on a straight piece of road to turn in.

I think it is simply a matter of adrenalin and over zealous reaction - a perfectly human response in such situations. But it needs to be trained out of them. When they get a call to a job or see a speeder they need to take a deep breath and think about their next move a bit more carefully.

riffer

14th August 2011, 08:38

I think talk of when pursuit actually commences is a red herring.

Once the police officer decides to pursue, and commences to turn and follow a car, the pursuit is on from that moment, as the intention to pursue is there.

Splitting hairs about when the pursuit has commenced isn't going to help here.

The problem is the decision to pursue, and in a number of occasions it would appear that the police officers aren't being properly advised on how best to handle this situation.

Deano - its not that they are stalling the car. Anyone who's driven a Holden Commodore can talk about the traction control systems and what they do when you try and U-turn quickly.

The only way to properly do a wheel spinning u-turn in a Holden Commodore is to turn off the traction control. Otherwise it will KILL your drive and look like the car is stalled.

And herein lies a major rub. I'm not sure on Police procedure and I can't comment on whether the Police are allowed to disengage traction control systems. Or it could be that in the heat of the moment (red mist?) the officer simply forgot to disengage the system.

Either way, the heart of the problem here is the decision to pursue. And this is primarily due to the lack of other options Police have at their disposal, forcing the officers to believe that the only thing they can do is chase down the speeder.

Sooner or later a Police car traveling in excess of 200km/h to chase a motorist doing in excess of 150km/hr is going to collide with a family in another car.

rastuscat

14th August 2011, 08:41

At what point does a pursuit commence?

A pursuit commences when a normal stop morphs into a pursuit. Otherwise, by some posters definitions, every mobile normal traffic stop would be a pursuit.

Scuba_Steve

14th August 2011, 08:53

A pursuit commences when a normal stop morphs into a pursuit. Otherwise, by some posters definitions, every mobile normal traffic stop would be a pursuit.

and it always ends 30 seconds before the offender crashes :shutup:

terbang

14th August 2011, 09:28

Dodgy_Matt

14th August 2011, 09:31

PrincessBandit

14th August 2011, 09:40

Stupid adrenalin filled rozzer who did a Uey in front of motorcyclist (and KILLED him) on the brow of a hill keeps his licence and picks up a $250 for his efforts.

How many metres from the brow was the car when it turned? Or was it right on the brow?

riffer

14th August 2011, 09:45

How many metres from the brow was the car when it turned? Or was it right on the brow?

Read the IPCA report. It's posted about a dozen or so posts back.

Jack Miller

14th August 2011, 09:49

Why does the press report it as a U turn in their headlines? To save space probably but it was a 3-point-turn, which takes longer and highlights what an appallingly bad decision Lenihan made. Either he thought he could make it in one go and was wrong or he didn't care that he was going to block a road over a blind crest for more than 7 seconds. Either way it is an appallingly bad call for a "long standing highway patrol officer."

Jack Miller

14th August 2011, 09:52

The charge was reduced to a triviality and the fine was a pittance. Even so, this HP Officer now has a "Careless Driving" conviction. Can a convicted careless driver keep his job as a Highway Patrol officer? How many careless drivers have we got in the HP?

Biggles08

14th August 2011, 09:53

Stupid myopic woman who did a Uey in front of me (and nearly killed me) on the brow of a hill just lost her licence for six months and picked up a $2500 fine for her efforts.

Stupid adrenalin filled rozzer who did a Uey in front of motorcyclist (and KILLED him) on the brow of a hill keeps his licence and picks up a $250 for his efforts.

Equal justice for all, yeah right.
This does not surprise me and in essence is the issue. "Justice seen to be done."

Paul made a mistake by making bad choices = his penalty was his life. RIP mate.
Cop made a mistake by making bad choices = (he defended these choices to start with?!?!) and his penalty was $250?!

Not right and no one can convince me it is.

Deano

14th August 2011, 09:59

I Deano - its not that they are stalling the car. Anyone who's driven a Holden Commodore can talk about the traction control systems and what they do when you try and U-turn quickly.

No I'm not really familiar with the vehicle and its traction control foibles.

But it was an unmarked commodore and at the point where she tried to select reverse (it was an auto) it definitely stalled. The driver had to restart the engine.

blueblade

14th August 2011, 10:01

Katman

14th August 2011, 10:33

Jack Miller

14th August 2011, 10:33

How many motorcyclists have been killed or injured over recent years because of something stupid that a cop did??

How many motorcyclists have been killed or injured over recent years because they ride like idiots and treat the roads as race tracks??

Which is the bigger problem and therefore deserves more time and energy being expended on it ??

The medical profession has a different attitude that I think the Police could learn from. They admit that many medical interventions would be assaults in any other setting so their first principal is "above all do no harm." They have to be more cautious than normal and the Police should be the same.

Headbanger

14th August 2011, 10:37

How many motorcyclists have been killed or injured over recent years because of something stupid that a cop did??

How many motorcyclists have been killed or injured over recent years because they ride like idiots and treat the roads as race tracks??

Which is the bigger problem and therefore deserves more time and energy being expended on it ??

2 separate issues that both are worthy of further investigation and action, Trading them off against each other is slightly stupid and achieves nothing.

Though if we were to waste time on a pointless exercise then the police actions harming the populace is a far more severe problem then the private individual hurting themselves doing something they choose to do.

scumdog

14th August 2011, 10:38

Deano - its not that they are stalling the car. Anyone who's driven a Holden Commodore can talk about the traction control systems and what they do when you try and U-turn quickly.

The only way to properly do a wheel spinning u-turn in a Holden Commodore is to turn off the traction control. Otherwise it will KILL your drive and look like the car is stalled.

And herein lies a major rub. I'm not sure on Police procedure and I can't comment on whether the Police are allowed to disengage traction control systems. Or it could be that in the heat of the moment (red mist?) the officer simply forgot to disengage the system.

.
Anybody who has driven a late-model Commodore will tell you that despite how quickly you move the shifter you can't instantly go from Drive to Reverse (and back again), there's always a lag of a second or so between gears built in by the factory. (To save the transmission from being wecked I guess)

And to turn off the traction control mid turn is kinda akward to say the least - and having done so, if you then bin the car there's a shit-load of 'please explains' going to arrive in your lap.

Katman

14th August 2011, 10:40

The whole "a higher standard should be expected of the police" is just a smokescreen.

The reality is that they should be treated just as any other road hazard that we have to contend with.

Kickaha

14th August 2011, 10:42

Anybody who has driven a late-model Commodore will tell you that despite how quickly you move the shifter you can't instantly go from Drive to Reverse (and back again), there's always a lag of a second or so between gears built in by the factory. (To save the transmission from being wecked I guess)

Do they give you guys autos because you're not competent to drive with a manual gearbox?

Katman

14th August 2011, 10:43

Though if we were to waste time on a pointless exercise then the police actions harming the populace is a far more severe problem then the private individual hurting themselves doing something they choose to do.

Sorry HB, even the 'biker kills other biker' far out-weights the 'copper kills biker' ledger.

scumdog

14th August 2011, 10:44

Do they give you guys autos because you're not competent to drive with a manual gearbox?

No, it's because you need one knee free to hold the steering wheel as you drive around with both hands holding onto do-nut you're eating.

That and because they've not invented a 'cop-proof' manual trans..:shifty:

Jack Miller

14th August 2011, 10:45

"Calculations show any speed above 101 km/h may have been too fast for Mr Brown to stop his vehicle within the distance between first viewpoint and impact area." IPCA Report

Police admit it is reasonable to expect people to be travelling at up to 104kph on the open road due to speedo error and this is reflected in their enforcement policy. Therefore it is reasonable that a "Long standing HP Officer" would limit all his road-blocking maneuvers to situations where it would be safe if someone was approaching at 104. In this case it wasn't. Bad call resulting in death.

terbang

14th August 2011, 10:53

How many metres from the brow was the car when it turned? Or was it right on the brow?

Regardless of the metres and all of the other tiny technical aspects of this and my accident. The root of the problem was that some car drivers (for whatever reason) chose to do uey's on the brow of hills. Jees, if I'd been doing 75k's instead of 80, I'd have missed her.
And the big question is, did those car drivers really have to turn in those positions at such short notice?

The results speak for themselves.
-Me, a 27cm scar up my back and a deformed shoulder as a permanent reminder.
-Waikato Rider, permanent death.

MSTRS

14th August 2011, 10:58

The whole "a higher standard should be expected of the police" is just a smokescreen.

The reality is that they should be treated just as any other road hazard that we have to contend with.

Can't agree with that.
Cops have certain 'rights' (to do the job) that us mere plebs can only wish we had. Along with those extra rights go extra responsibilities. Like not doing stupid shit that any reasonable and prudent driver would not.

Jack Miller

14th August 2011, 11:06

The whole "a higher standard should be expected of the police" is just a smokescreen.
Even so, in the reality of today's world the Police are actually held to a LOWER standard:

Stupid myopic woman who did a Uey in front of me (and nearly killed me) on the brow of a hill just lost her licence for six months and picked up a $2500 fine for her efforts.
Stupid adrenalin filled rozzer who did a Uey in front of motorcyclist (and KILLED him) on the brow of a hill keeps his licence and picks up a $250 for his efforts.
Equal justice for all, yeah right.

The reality is that they should be treated just as any other road hazard that we have to contend with.
I agree 100%. As long as adrenaline filled, convicted careless drivers are retained by the Highway Patrol the AA would do well do develop a new hazard warning sign for us. It would depict a red-eyed Rozzer pulling a 3 pointer with white reversing lights facing us from the wrong side of the road.

FJRider

14th August 2011, 11:15

Can't agree with that.
Cops have certain 'rights' (to do the job) that us mere plebs can only wish we had. Along with those extra rights go extra responsibilities. Like not doing stupid shit that any reasonable and prudent driver would not.

Ignoring the responsibilities you have on the roads ... we ALL have on the roads ... is the primary cause of "accidents" ...

But the ... my rights are more important than your rights thinking ... seem to overule those responsibilities ...

nadroj

14th August 2011, 11:16

Even so, in the reality of today's world the Police are actually held to a LOWER standard:

I agree 100%. As long as adrenaline filled, convicted careless drivers are retained by the Highway Patrol the AA would do well do develop a new hazard warning sign for us. It would depict a red-eyed Rozzer pulling a 3 pointer with white reversing lights facing us from the wrong side of the road.

Maybe a cutout should be mounted at the site as a protest with a $250 sign then advise the press.

blueblade

14th August 2011, 11:37

2 separate issues that both are worthy of further investigation and action, Trading them off against each other is slightly stupid and achieves nothing.

Though if we were to waste time on a pointless exercise then the police actions harming the populace is a far more severe problem then the private individual hurting themselves doing something they choose to do.

You might say they are separate issues, but you dont usually get one without the other. A generalisation I know, but I have my own reasons for believing that is likely to be the case in this particular instance.

Also, this is not "police actions" - it was one individual Police Officer. I would not attempt to defend him and I think he deserved a much harsher penalty, but dont tar them all with the same brush. Too many times I have seen them cleaning up the mess we motorcyclists leave on the road.

You talk about private individuals "hurting themselves doing something they choose to do" but how many other private individuals do they potentially put at risk while they are having their fun??

Jack Miller

14th August 2011, 11:53

Ignoring the responsibilities you have on the roads ... we ALL have on the roads ... is the primary cause of "accidents" ...

Too right. Ignoring the responsibility to ride at a speed that would allow one to stop short of any obstruction can cause an accident. AND backing towards oncoming traffic during a 3-point-turn can cause an accident. Actually, now that I put it like that the first responsibility doesn't require one to anticipate vehicles reversing towards you on your side of the road, just stationary obstacles. The second failure was the more serious.

But the ... my rights are more important than your rights thinking ... seem to overule those responsibilities ...
Too right again, Red eyed rozzers think their rights are more important than everyone else's and it causes too many fatalities. This kind of thinking has to stop.

Kickaha

14th August 2011, 12:04

Red eyed rozzers think their rights are more important than everyone else's and it causes too many fatalities. This kind of thinking has to stop.

So as a comparison how many fatals have the "red eyed rozzers" caused compared to single motorcycle fatals or multiple vehicle accidents where the motorcycle was at fault?

Jack Miller

14th August 2011, 12:10

So as a comparison how many fatals have the "red eyed rozzers" caused compared to single motorcycle fatals or multiple vehicle accidents where the motorcycle was at fault?

You'd have to divide the answers by the number of kilometers travelled by rozzers, single motorcyclists and other vehicles respectively. Given that other vehicles do about 3 billion ks per year I'd estimate the answer would show the rozzers to be more dangerous.

PrincessBandit

14th August 2011, 12:18

So as a comparison how many fatals have the "red eyed rozzers" caused compared to single motorcycle fatals or multiple vehicle accidents where the motorcycle was at fault?

Jeez Kickaha, start playing the game! It's clear that lots of motorcyclists would rather place the blame anywhere but on themselves. I've only been around on this site for a few years but that message is one that comes through loud and clear time and time again.

We all know accidents are usually as a result of a sum of contributing factors - any number of "if only's" are pointless after the fact. Forward thinking is what is required, especially when you're vulnerably on two wheels with only good gear (one hopes) and better-than-passable road skills to help save your arse. But I guess riding at a speed which maximises your chances of survival when you can't see what's around the bend, or over the crest, or further up the road isn't very exciting for some.

scumdog

14th August 2011, 12:19

You'd have to divide the answers by the number of kilometers travelled by rozzers, single motorcyclists and other vehicles respectively. Given that other vehicles do about 3 billion ks per year I'd estimate the answer would show the rozzers to be more dangerous.

Figures.

facts.

Or it didn't happen.

Oh, that's right, this is KB - as you were, ignore the above...<_<

FJRider

14th August 2011, 12:27

... Actually, now that I put it like that the first responsibility doesn't require one to anticipate vehicles reversing towards you on your side of the road, just stationary obstacles.

Actually .... it does ...

If you DON'T ... you may die !!! (it's all about personal choice of actions ... I choose to live !!!)

The words ... I never thought THAT would happen ... are OFTEN heard in court ...

Pussy

14th August 2011, 12:28

Jeez Kickaha, start playing the game! It's clear that lots of motorcyclists would rather place the blame anywhere but on themselves.

Yeah, Kick! You should know by now that it's okay for a motorcyclist to ride like a cock or beyond their ability... and then have a big sook when it all goes pear shaped

Kickaha

14th August 2011, 12:30

Jeez Kickaha, start playing the game! .

Yeah, Kick! You should know by now that it's okay for a motorcyclist to ride like a cock or beyond their ability... and then have a big sook when it all goes pear shaped

Sorry guys I wont let it happen again well not until next time I don't agree with what's being said anyway

scumdog

14th August 2011, 12:36

Right, I've got more important things to do than sit in this kiddies sand-pit discussing bikers and what kills them and whose fault it is - it's snowing like hell out there and there's snow-balls to be thrown...:woohoo::dodge:

Headbanger

14th August 2011, 14:12

Sorry HB, even the 'biker kills other biker' far out-weights the 'copper kills biker' ledger.

I wasn't going by the numbers, I consider them largely irrelevant (1 is enough to prompt action) considering the other factors involved, Though I can see in your opinion there are no other factors.

Headbanger

14th August 2011, 14:17

Also, this is not "police actions" - it was one individual Police Officer

I don't agree, The bigger picture would indicate this is a problem within the police force, and while imo the cock who killed this guy should be hung for his actions there is also the need to implement systems into the police force at a much earlier level to curb this behavior before its causing havoc on the roads.

Training and monitoring will do far more then letting them be cocks and then giving them a slap on the wrist when they kill people.

Jack Miller

14th August 2011, 14:17

Actually .... it does ...

If you DON'T ... you may die !!! (it's all about personal choice of actions ... I choose to live !!!)

The words ... I never thought THAT would happen ... are OFTEN heard in court ...

Even so: "I didn't think someone would come over the hill at the speed limit" (which would have been enough to cause the accident in this instance) is a lot less credible and much more stupid than "I didn't think someone would be reversing towards me" (which would have been the case given that it was a 3-point turn.)

Katman

14th August 2011, 14:29

Even so: "I didn't think someone would come over the hill at the speed limit" (which would have been enough to cause the accident in this instance)

I'll ask you the same question I asked Kiwi Graham earlier.....

Are you telling us that you can't stop within 120 metres from 100kph on a dry road?

MarkH

14th August 2011, 14:46

How many motorcyclists have been killed or injured over recent years because of something stupid that a cop did??

How many motorcyclists have been killed or injured over recent years because they ride like idiots and treat the roads as race tracks??

Which is the bigger problem and therefore deserves more time and energy being expended on it ??

So we should ignore the stupid actions of police officer's unless they can kill enough of us to exceed the numbers of motorcyclists that kill themselves? Maybe the police should also ignore all traffic offences other than the one or two most likely to cause death of injury, because all the rest aren't nearly as important?
I don't understand the logic behind your reasoning so I'll just say: "what the hell?"

MarkH

14th August 2011, 14:50

Police admit it is reasonable to expect people to be travelling at up to 104kph on the open road due to speedo error and this is reflected in their enforcement policy. Therefore it is reasonable that a "Long standing HP Officer" would limit all his road-blocking maneuvers to situations where it would be safe if someone was approaching at 104. In this case it wasn't. Bad call resulting in death.

I'd go a bit further and say that it is reasonable to expect people to be travelling at speeds well in excess of the speed limit, after all didn't the cop just clock a ute doing exactly that?
Or is it acceptable to take the viewpoint "if they are speeding then let them die when they hit my car, fuck 'em".
My view is that the motorcyclist in this case paid too high a price for exceeding the speed limit and this just shouldn't have happened.

Katman

14th August 2011, 14:50

I don't understand the logic behind your reasoning

Removing your blinkers might make it a little clearer.

Headbanger

14th August 2011, 14:57

Removing your blinkers might make it a little clearer.

Or, You could just elaborate on why you think the numbers negate the issue.

One doesn't cancel out the other, they are unrelated and you are just trying to twist them together to support your point of view.

A point of view that I might add is the most affected by tunnel vision out of everyone on this entire forum.

FJRider

14th August 2011, 14:58

... is a lot less credible and much more stupid than ...

STILL credible ... :shifty: ... but less expected ... <_<

Amazing how stupid things are ... when it all goes pear shaped ... :shit:

But if it turns out ok ... :wings:

Katman

14th August 2011, 15:00

Or, You could just elaborate on why you think the numbers negate the issue.

One (count them - 1) motorcyclist has been killed by a u-turning police officer.

If you honestly think that figure comes even close to the number of motorcyclists killing themselves (and others) through their own stupidity then there is probably very little I can do to open your mind.

This issue is much the same as the Cheesecutter issue. Too much focus is placed on the single fatality and not enough on addressing the root cause.

Headbanger

14th August 2011, 15:05

One (count them - 1) motorcyclist has been killed by a u-turning police officer.

If you honestly think that figure comes even close to the number of motorcyclists killing themselves (and others) through their own stupidity then there is probably very little I can do to open your mind.

Sorry katman, Your argument is just shit.

Complete and utter shit.

They are separate issues, Its not a case of opening my mind, its a case of you engaging yours.

I know you have more intelligence then what you are demonstrating here, So I'll put it down to being pig headed.

Katman

14th August 2011, 15:08

They are separate issues,

But you choose to focus solely on the police officer's role in the accident and totally ignore the motorcyclist's degree of culpability?

Not particularly open-minded of you.

steve_t

14th August 2011, 15:08

One (count them - 1) motorcyclist has been killed by a u-turning police officer.

One is one too many. What about people injured?

Headbanger

14th August 2011, 15:15

But you choose to focus solely on the police officer's role in the accident and totally ignore the motorcyclist's degree of culpability?

Not particularly open-minded of you.

I'm sticking to known facts, the speed of the motorcycle is unknown, The only witness is the person who was the direct cause of the incident.

That aside, I'm well aware of the difference between contributing actions and direct actions.

Even accepting that the speed of the bike contributed to his death it was the actions of the cop that directly caused the incident. Even if the motorcycle had managed to avoid impact it would have still been an incident caused by the cop, the outcome would have changed due to the variance in the contributing factors.

MSTRS

14th August 2011, 15:15

I'll ask you the same question I asked Kiwi Graham earlier.....

Are you telling us that you can't stop within 120 metres from 100kph on a dry road?

I'll have a go at answering that...
I'd say that most of us could. But....
Factor in time to process what is happening up ahead, getting hand/foot on the brakes, adjust direction to assist in avoiding obstacle and all on a downhill (a reasonable incline, based on the photos). Not to mention the excess speed and the obstacle moving into your chosen avoidance space too.
Big call to say we could all manage that one.

Katman

14th August 2011, 15:18

Even accepting that the speed of the bike contributed to his death it was the actions of the cop that directly caused the incident.

If the motorcyclist had been doing the speed limit I believe he would have been able to stop in time. Therefore the police officer wouldn't have caused any accident.

(I refuse to believe that any motorcyclist can't stop within 120 metres from 100kph. If they can't, they shouldn't be riding motorcycles).

FJRider

14th August 2011, 15:19

An interesting read here ...

http://www.3news.co.nz/Motorcyclists-friends-blame-police-for-his-death/tabid/817/articleID/151977/Default.aspx

Apparently ... 154 kms/hr is not excessivly fast ...

Katman

14th August 2011, 16:23

I'm not sure whats reasonable or not. Ima go read some road tests. If I was asked I'd probably say "that sounds about right" but I've never tried to put numbers on it. Is there published data on it ?(apart from magazine road tests?). serious question in case you're wondering.

From the road codes that I've checked (US, UK and NZ) the generally accepted stopping distance (including reaction time) from 100kph is about 70-75 metres.

FJRider

14th August 2011, 16:29

From the road codes that I've checked (US, UK and NZ) the generally accepted stopping distance (including reaction time) from 100kph is about 70-75 metres.

Then I guess neither the ute driver or the motorcyclist ... (who knew each other apparently) were intending to stop ...

MarkH

14th August 2011, 16:58

One (count them - 1) motorcyclist has been killed by a u-turning police officer.

Yes, and it is that one incident that we are discussing in this thread. This attitude of "it is only one biker, it isn't a big deal" is astounding. If you aren't interested in this one case then why are you reading this thread and posting in it.

I don't recall anyone arguing that more motorcyclists are killed by police doing U-turns than by their own mistakes - do you think that it is possible that you are on one side of an argument that no one at all is on the other side of? It's like you are trying to pretend that others are saying something opposite of your point just to make yourself believe that people are arguing with you. How many people in this thread have even said that the motorcyclist had no part to play in this accident? Just because most of us think that what the police officer did was criminally negligent, it doesn't mean that the rider didn't also contribute to what happened - both things can be true at the same time!

Biggles08

14th August 2011, 17:01

If the motorcyclist had been doing the speed limit I believe he would have been able to stop in time. Therefore the police officer wouldn't have caused any accident.

(I refuse to believe that any motorcyclist can't stop within 120 metres from 100kph. If they can't, they shouldn't be riding motorcycles).
Katman don't be a fuckwit. This was a man...Paul Brown...a mate of many on here who has paid the ultimate price for his mistakes. The only point I can read from those contributing to this thread is, this was a price too high to pay for speeding/bike not up to warrant able standard. The cop fucked up also and should be held accountable...that's all. Paul has paid his price and this is not the point being debated. The cop has paid NOTHING for his fuckup.

Scuba_Steve

14th August 2011, 17:02

From the road codes that I've checked (US, UK and NZ) the generally accepted stopping distance (including reaction time) from 100kph is about 70-75 metres.

avg human reaction time from something unexpected to action is put at 2 secs so that leaves 2 secs to bring the bike from 100km/h to 0km/h. Anytime you want to prove yourself Katman I've got a landy your more than welcome to come hit :innocent:

Katman

14th August 2011, 17:09

The cop fucked up also and should be held accountable...that's all. Paul has paid his price and this is not the point being debated. The cop has paid NOTHING for his fuckup.

Believe me Marcus, the fine handed out to the police officer (which, for the record, I also believe is astounding) is only a part of this thread.

Katman

14th August 2011, 17:11

avg human reaction time from something unexpected to action is put at 2 secs so that leaves 2 secs to bring the bike from 100km/h to 0km/h. Anytime you want to prove yourself Katman I've got a landy your more than welcome to come hit :innocent:

Are you saying you can't stop from 100kph in 120 metres?

Jantar

14th August 2011, 17:13

Stupid myopic woman who did a Uey in front of me (and nearly killed me) on the brow of a hill just lost her licence for six months and picked up a $2500 fine for her efforts.

Stupid adrenalin filled rozzer who did a Uey in front of motorcyclist (and KILLED him) on the brow of a hill keeps his licence and picks up a $250 for his efforts.

Equal justice for all, yeah right.

The whole "a higher standard should be expected of the police" is just a smokescreen.....

Going by these two posts it sounds as if a LOWER standard is required by the Popo. That would seem illogical, so maybe we should be directing our anger at the stupid judge instead.

Scuba_Steve

14th August 2011, 17:16

Are you saying you can't stop from 100kph in 120 metres?

Nope I'm saying stopping a bike going 100km/h in 2secs is not an easy feat. Anytime your willing to put your money where your mouth is I'm more than willing to offer my landy as the "deadline" (hopefully not in a literal sense)

T.W.R

14th August 2011, 17:18

avg human reaction time from something unexpected to action is put at 2 secs so that leaves 2 secs to bring the bike from 100km/h to 0km/h.

:scratch: but here-in lies another question about it all, why emergency break to stop from hitting the/or any obstacle?? why not break enough to avoid :sherlock:
And none of make eye contact crap either...watch a vehicle's front wheels not the twat at the steering wheel.

And I'm not taking skatmans side in this either:pinch:

Scuba_Steve

14th August 2011, 17:26

:scratch: but here-in lies another question about it all, why emergency break to stop from hitting the/or any obstacle?? why not break enough not avoid :sherlock:

I think that one in most cases would be answered with 1 word... Panic!

Katman

14th August 2011, 17:32

Nope I'm saying stopping a bike going 100km/h in 2secs is not an easy feat. Anytime your willing to put your money where your mouth is I'm more than willing to offer my landy as the "deadline" (hopefully not in a literal sense)

Sorry, I don't follow what the 2 secs has to do with it.

Are you saying that the road code stopping distance figures are full of shit?

FJRider

14th August 2011, 17:37

:scratch: but here-in lies another question about it all, why emergency break to stop from hitting the/or any obstacle?? why not break enough not avoid :sherlock:
And none of make eye contact crap either...watch a vehicle's front wheels not the twat at the steering wheel.

And I'm not taking skatmans side in this either:pinch:

Depending on what that "obstacle" is doing ... stopped/moving forward/moving backwards ... trying to figure it out takes a second or three that you dont have ...

Changing lines during heavy braking isn't easy either ... it would take an experienced road racer to do it properly ...

T.W.R

14th August 2011, 17:39

I think that one in most cases would be answered with 1 word... Panic!

well well who would have guessed :shit: check my post a page or two back :msn-wink:

T.W.R

14th August 2011, 17:40

Depending on what that "obstacle" is doing ... stopped/moving forward/moving backwards ... trying to figure it out takes a second or three that you dont have ...

Changing lines during heavy braking isn't easy either ... it would take an experienced road racer to do it properly ...

:laugh: experienced road rider & racer wasn't he <_<

Scuba_Steve

14th August 2011, 17:56

Sorry, I don't follow what the 2 secs has to do with it.

Are you saying that the road code stopping distance figures are full of shit?

well ACC propaganda says in 3 secs @ 100km/h you can drive a rugby field (100m) your saying there was 120m so that would be covered in 4secs @ 100km/h now take out 2 secs for avg human surprise reaction you have 2secs left.
The road code is based on "go 100km/h heres where you start stopping" everything is determined. So not full of shit just not applicable

MSTRS

14th August 2011, 17:59

Sorry, I don't follow what the 2 secs has to do with it.

Are you saying that the road code stopping distance figures are full of shit?

Different thing altogether.? 2 secs (or more) is the recommended following distance in the road code. It is intended to allow a buffer for your reaction time. Bear in mind that the vehicle ahead MAY be braking too...but it is still moving in the same direction you are, meaning your actual stopping distance once under brakes is extended.

swbarnett

14th August 2011, 18:06

take out 2 secs for avg human surprise reaction
This is when you're using your conscious mind to make the decision. An experienced rider/driver that is using their subconscious can react one hell of a lot faster.

I don't have any empiracal evidence but I am reasonably certain that I've stopped quite comfortably from 100kph in less than 100m ynder a "panic" situation. And I didn't even realise I was braking until halfway through the manoeuvre.

Katman

14th August 2011, 18:08

The road code is based on "go 100km/h heres where you start stopping" everything is determined. So not full of shit just not applicable

No it's not. If it was it wouldn't have the different coloured portion called 'distance covered during reaction time'.

<img src="http://www.transportpolicy.org.uk/Future/20mph/Figure2.jpg"/>

Jack Miller

14th August 2011, 18:12

I'll ask you the same question I asked Kiwi Graham earlier.....

Are you telling us that you can't stop within 120 metres from 100kph on a dry road?

It's less than 120m if the obstacle is reversing towards you.

Scuba_Steve

14th August 2011, 18:17

No it's not. If it was it wouldn't have the different coloured portion called 'distance covered during reaction time'.

<img src="http://www.transportpolicy.org.uk/Future/20mph/Figure2.jpg"/>

and what you have there is an average reaction chart, but a determined reaction time chart, I said surprise reaction like the one where you come over a brow & see a PIG your road not a determined one like when a guy sits next to you and yells "stop"

Katman

14th August 2011, 18:18

It's less than 120m if the obstacle is reversing towards you.

Don't make me laugh. A three-point turn doesn't involve any more than a few metres backward movement from the point at which it's executed.

Katman

14th August 2011, 18:23

and what you have there is an average reaction chart, but a determined reaction time chart, I said surprise reaction like the one where you come over a brow & see a PIG your road not a determined one like when a guy sits next to you and yells "stop"

And are you telling me it takes you 2 seconds (count them - 1 one thousand, 2 one thousand) between you thinking "Fuck!!!" and hitting the brakes?

quickbuck

14th August 2011, 18:30

well ACC propaganda says in 3 secs @ 100km/h you can drive a rugby field (100m) your saying there was 120m so that would be covered in 4secs @ 100km/h now take out 2 secs for avg human surprise reaction you have 2secs left.

Um, the whole point of putting on the brakes is to slow down. This means the time you have left actually increases exponentially. (Speed = Distance covered / time taken).

If I saw a big while car with blue writing on it in the middle of the road, i would hope my reaction time to get on the brakes would be closer to 0.2 seconds, not 2 full seconds. (okay, even if I was half asleep, 0.5 seconds).
If not, I should hang up my leathers.

FJRider

14th August 2011, 18:40

The TV3 news report ... Take a look at the road ...

http://www.3news.co.nz/Motorcyclists-friends-blame-police-for-his-death/tabid/367/articleID/151977/Default.aspx

blueblade

14th August 2011, 18:53

So we should ignore the stupid actions of police officer's unless they can kill enough of us to exceed the numbers of motorcyclists that kill themselves? Maybe the police should also ignore all traffic offences other than the one or two most likely to cause death of injury, because all the rest aren't nearly as important?
I don't understand the logic behind your reasoning so I'll just say: "what the hell?"

And exactly where did I say we should ignore the actions of the Police?? Try reading and understanding my entire post and you might have more chance of understanding my logic.

My point being we would save more lives if we could do something about a lot of motorcyclists attitudes to road safety than we would by doing something about Police behaviour. That does not mean I believe we should do nothing about Police behaviour - that is clearly something that also needs addressing.

Scuba_Steve

14th August 2011, 18:56

And are you telling me it takes you 2 seconds (count them - 1 one thousand, 2 one thousand) between you thinking "Fuck!!!" and hitting the brakes?

Um, the whole point of putting on the brakes is to slow down. This means the time you have left actually increases exponentially. (Speed = Distance covered / time taken).

If I saw a big while car with blue writing on it in the middle of the road, i would hope my reaction time to get on the brakes would be closer to 0.2 seconds, not 2 full seconds. (okay, even if I was half asleep, 0.5 seconds).
If not, I should hang up my leathers.

this is just avg times based on studies .5 is avg time for a "known" reaction 2 secs for a "surprise" reaction, many things make up this reaction time & it is NOT an absolute it is an avg. I think what you are forgetting is the brain is a computer & it speeds things up by "expecting", when something "unexpected" happens your brain has to do a complete recalculation this takes time, an avg of 1.5 secs more according to the studies.

Scuba_Steve

14th August 2011, 18:59

The TV3 news report ... Take a look at the road ...

http://www.3news.co.nz/Motorcyclists-friends-blame-police-for-his-death/tabid/367/articleID/151977/Default.aspx

I just watched that so where da fuck is this 120m coming from??? da PIG was 70m away from the top, taking the time at 100km/h to about 2 secs reaction to stop.

blueblade

14th August 2011, 19:08

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that both the cop car and the motorcyclist have height above the road surface and therefore line of sight is extended to the said 120m

Katman

14th August 2011, 19:12

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that both the cop car and the motorcyclist have height above the road surface and therefore line of sight is extended to the said 120m

Don't be ridiculous.

What would physics and geometry know?

bogan

14th August 2011, 19:15

Don't be ridiculous.

What would physics and geometry know?

Speaking of which, what was the incline on the road? It plays a rather large part in stopping distance.

Katman

14th August 2011, 19:23

Speaking of which, what was the incline on the road? It plays a rather large part in stopping distance.

Nice try.

Incline and the profile of the brow become extremely pertinant factors in stopping distances as speed increases significantly.

There would be very little influence over suspension or braking coming over that brow at 100kph.

bogan

14th August 2011, 19:31

Nice try.

Incline and the profile of the brow become extremely pertinant factors in stopping distances as speed increases.

There would be very little influence over suspension or braking coming over that brow at 100kph.

Nice try at what? Educating people about stopping distance factors is all I was hoping for. Too much to hope for?

Depends on the brow (and subsequent incline) doesn't it, which brings up another point, a changing incline also changes stopping distance.

Kendog

14th August 2011, 19:38

The TV3 news report ... Take a look at the road ...

http://www.3news.co.nz/Motorcyclists-friends-blame-police-for-his-death/tabid/367/articleID/151977/Default.aspx

And some of the comments show what people think of motorcycles

The NZ Police rock, the motor cyclist doesn't. To the cop who did the U turn, it wasn't your fault mate, that motor cyclist was a risk to all other road users. Fin

Scuba_Steve

14th August 2011, 20:28

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that both the cop car and the motorcyclist have height above the road surface and therefore line of sight is extended to the said 120m

I don't know this hill so I can't comment too much, but experience tells me theres usually always a 'black spot' when coming over a hill & it's quite surprising what can appear from "a clear road"

tnarg

14th August 2011, 20:48

And are you telling me it takes you 2 seconds (count them - 1 one thousand, 2 one thousand) between you thinking "Fuck!!!" and hitting the brakes?

The reaction time debate is not as simple as you make it out to be. 2 second reaction time for coming over a brow and seeing obstacle is very probable.
A copy paste for you.

Surprise vs. Reaction Time
The best research done on the affects of surprise on reaction time is by Dr. Marc Green. He has been studying the concept of reaction time for over 34 years. In one of his articles he discusses the difference between reaction time when the event is expected, or in a security scenario could relate to a driver who has done a route survey and knows the danger zones on the route, and when the event is a surprise which could relate to an inexperience driver, or a drive who has not done a route survey. As an example, when the driver knows they have to brake they can achieve the best possible reaction time. Dr Green says that the best estimate is 0.7 seconds. Of this, 0.5 is perception and 0.2 is movement, the time required to release the accelerator and to depress the brake pedal.

When the need to brake is a complete surprise reaction time is substantially different. In this case Dr. Green suggests that the best estimate is 1.5 seconds for something that may be coming at you from the side and a few tenths of a second faster for straight-ahead obstacles. Surprise creates a perception time of 1.2 seconds and a movement time of 0.3 second.

scumdog

14th August 2011, 20:57

you kids STILL fighting??

Katman

14th August 2011, 20:58

The reaction time debate is not as simple as you make it out to be. 2 second reaction time for coming over a brow and seeing obstacle is very probable.
A copy paste for you.

Surprise vs. Reaction Time
The best research done on the affects of surprise on reaction time is by Dr. Marc Green. He has been studying the concept of reaction time for over 34 years. In one of his articles he discusses the difference between reaction time when the event is expected, or in a security scenario could relate to a driver who has done a route survey and knows the danger zones on the route, and when the event is a surprise which could relate to an inexperience driver, or a drive who has not done a route survey. As an example, when the driver knows they have to brake they can achieve the best possible reaction time. Dr Green says that the best estimate is 0.7 seconds. Of this, 0.5 is perception and 0.2 is movement, the time required to release the accelerator and to depress the brake pedal.

When the need to brake is a complete surprise reaction time is substantially different. In this case Dr. Green suggests that the best estimate is 1.5 seconds for something that may be coming at you from the side and a few tenths of a second faster for straight-ahead obstacles. Surprise creates a perception time of 1.2 seconds and a movement time of 0.3 second.

So at 100kph in 1.5 seconds you've travelled about 30 metres.

That still leaves 90 metres.

FJRider

14th August 2011, 21:01

... A three-point turn doesn't involve any more than a few metres backward movement from the point at which it's executed.

With what I saw in the news vid ... paint marks on the road ... a few metres between hit or miss ...

At times like that on the road ... a few extra metres are always good ...

steve_t

14th August 2011, 21:05

I just watched that so where da fuck is this 120m coming from??? da PIG was 70m away from the top, taking the time at 100km/h to about 2 secs reaction to stop.

IPCA report linked in an earlier post says 120m but news reports say 70m.

FJRider

14th August 2011, 21:10

you kids STILL fighting??

Who won the snow-fight ... ???

_Shrek_

14th August 2011, 22:25

you kids STILL fighting??

:shifty: hell no scummy it's just so the :Police: :bash: can go on for a few more days/weeks :whistle:

meteor

15th August 2011, 05:42

IPCA report linked in an earlier post says 120m but news reports say 70m.

Is one a visibility and one an actual distance? Over a crest you see something further away as your higher than ground level. i.e. was the car visible from 120 meters away but was actually turning 70 meters from the crest?

KATMAN, a question, how much speed could be scraped off a Kwacka thou bike in 90 meters?

Katman

15th August 2011, 08:34

KATMAN, a question, how much speed could be scraped off a Kwacka thou bike in 90 meters?

That would depend on what speed it was going in the first place, wouldn't it?

trustme

15th August 2011, 08:46

If the rider was cresting the rise at over 160kph in an effort to get up on the back wheel as he continually used to do on that stretch of road, stating that the bike was more stable on the rear wheel at over 160 kph , I wonder what his stopping distance would have been then ?? No one will ever know for sure except the rider & he is not telling.

There are lessons in this sorry saga for all parties.

terbang

15th August 2011, 10:50

The outcome of this accident is certainly a travesty of justice.

Forget all the pedantic meters and seconds of stopping time and take a look at the big picture here.
Anyone who does a three point or U-turn on the brow of the hill (without the aid of a rangefinder, chronometer and MU meter) risks becoming a serious hazard to others on the road.
Professional drivers (and I loosely put cops into that category) usually know better than average joe bloggs amateur and don't take risks. However with experience, complacency can creep in.

In this instance the risk didn't pay off, a rider was killed.

However as this accident has also proved if you are a cop, and it appears this seems exclusive to cops where the blue uniform clearly builds in a huge buffer for stupidity, the risk is really worth only $250.

Kickaha

15th August 2011, 11:02

However as this accident has also proved if you are a cop, and it appears this seems exclusive to cops where the blue uniform clearly builds in a huge buffer for stupidity, the risk is really worth only $250.

Only is this case Bridgeman, who "only" injured two riders and didn't kill anyone was hit for $60,000

The Judge who applied the penalty is the one who should be copping it

FJRider

15th August 2011, 11:13

... There are lessons in this sorry saga for all parties.

Lessons are only for those that wish to learn ... and worthwhile only for those that will put what they learned into practice ...

I fear if you counted those that will ... you will still have a few spare fingers ...

T.W.R

15th August 2011, 11:17

The outcome of this accident is certainly a travesty of justice.

True...but

Forget all the pedantic meters and seconds of stopping time and take a look at the big picture here.
Anyone who is racing their mate or chasing their mate on the road risks becoming a serious hazard to others on the road.
Professional drivers (and I loosely put cops into that category) usually know better than average joe bloggs amateur and don't take risks. However with experience, complacency can creep in.

In this instance the risk didn't pay off, a rider was killed.

However as this accident has also proved if you are a biker, and it appears this seems exclusive to bikers who are well known clearly builds in a huge buffer for stupidity, the risk is really worth only their lives.

TIBLE_90

15th August 2011, 11:22

This has taught me to slow down on the road and save the speed for the track. Not keen to come over a hill or around a corner to find a car either u-turning or going really slow in my lane while at speed :no:

As others have said there are two sides to every story and yes I agree that it was very wrong for the cop to do a u-turn where he did, however, if the motorcyclist was speeding that could have affected the outcome as he would not be able to stop nearly as well as if he would have been doing the speed limit.

Scuba_Steve

15th August 2011, 11:53

At the end of the day the PIG was at fault & the legal system was once again a fucking joke. You can see why even the "ordinary man" is starting to give up on our legal system from start to finish is is corrupt.
"Speed" is an "if" factor whereas pulling a stupid maneuver in a dangerous place is a "when" factor and 250$ for killing someone is a fucking joke, it costs more to drive without a licence.

imac

15th August 2011, 12:52

"Speed" is an "if" factor whereas pulling a stupid maneuver in a dangerous place is a "when" factor ....

What about speed in a dangerous place, surely that is a 'when' factor too?

Scuba_Steve

15th August 2011, 13:10

What about speed in a dangerous place, surely that is a 'when' factor too?

I see where your going but if it's a dangerous place, it's a dangerous place! regardless.
"Excessive speed" (too fast for conditions etc) I'd kick over to "dangerous driving" which is a "when" factor (if your a dangerous driver, your a dangerous driver & these people have opposites at the slow & dangerous positions too) but "speed" itself is just an "if" factor, It relies heavily on something else in the wrong circumstances before it becomes a problem.

swbarnett

15th August 2011, 16:01

your brain has to do a complete recalculation this takes time,
There's an easy answer to this - don't use your brain (at least not the conscious part) - it's too slow.

Scuba_Steve

15th August 2011, 16:10

There's an easy answer to this - don't use your brain (at least not the conscious part) - it's too slow.

These guys have tried that... (http://www.laughparty.com/funny-pictures/Cops-hit-wall-40.jpg)hint, it doesn't bring the best outcomes.

swbarnett

15th August 2011, 16:16

"Speed" is an "if" factor whereas pulling a stupid maneuver in a dangerous place is a "when" factor
It could also be said that coming over a blind rise at over 150kph is also a "when" factor.

swbarnett

15th August 2011, 16:26

These guys have tried that... (http://www.laughparty.com/funny-pictures/Cops-hit-wall-40.jpg)hint, it doesn't bring the best outcomes.
If you ride (or drive) enough you will start to recognise that most of what you do is automatic. What is happening is that your subconscious brain is taking over the actions that you do often enough. I have even had a situation where I wanted to hit the rear brake but my foot would not move. Afterwards I looked back and realised that if I'd hit the brake I almost certainly would've low-sided. My subconscious did the thinking for me and did a much better job.

Scuba_Steve

15th August 2011, 16:35

It could also be said that coming over a blind rise at over 150kph is also a "when" factor.

Nope an "if" factor as it is still heavily reliant on other factors to matter.

If you ride (or drive) enough you will start to recognise that most of what you do is automatic. What is happening is that your subconscious brain is taking over the actions that you do often enough. I have even had a situation where I wanted to hit the rear brake but my foot would not move. Afterwards I looked back and realised that if I'd hit the brake I almost certainly would've low-sided. My subconscious did the thinking for me and did a much better job.

FYI Those reaction times previous are based on subconscious, reaction is not really a conscious decision.

Katman

15th August 2011, 16:36

Nope an "if" factor as it is still heavily reliant on other factors to matter.

Keep clutching at those straws.

Kickaha

15th August 2011, 16:39

Nope an "if" factor as it is still heavily reliant on other factors to matter.

Bullshit it is, it's definitely a "when"

Scuba_Steve

15th August 2011, 17:02

Keep clutching at those straws.

Bullshit it is, it's definitely a "when"

hows it a when? if the PIG hadn't been in his lane how would have his (I see your choosing the upper & most likely far off limit) 150km/h mattered??? was the bike going to somehow destroy itself at that speed? maybee a little girl was going to spontaneously teleport onto the road because of the speed??? It was an "if" he knew the traffic (same lane) ahead, theres no houses for people to pull out of no real forceable danger, "if". The PIG was a "when" he did a 3-point-turn on the narrowest point with little visibility a foreseeable danger at every point.
If any of you are seriously trying to defend the PIG on this one you really need your fucking head checked!
But hey like I've offered to Katman I'm willing to offer to you others too, anytime you want to write-off your bike against the side of my landy just let me know. Of-course if you can pull your bike from 100km/h in 120m with a "surprise reaction" you get to keep your bike & I don't need dent repairs win-win. So anyone willing to put their money where their mouth is???

Jack Miller

15th August 2011, 17:15

If any of you are seriously trying to defend the PIG on this one you really need your fucking head checked!

Quite right. Even the Judge convicted him, which is not to say the cop was the only one at fault.

ktm

15th August 2011, 17:22

hows it a when? if the PIG hadn't been in his lane how would have his (I see your choosing the upper & most likely far off limit) 150km/h mattered??? was the bike going to somehow destroy itself at that speed? maybee a little girl was going to spontaneously teleport onto the road because of the speed??? It was an "if" he knew the traffic (same lane) ahead, theres no houses for people to pull out of no real forceable danger, "if". The PIG was a "when" he did a 3-point-turn on the narrowest point with little visibility a foreseeable danger at every point.
If any of you are seriously trying to defend the PIG on this one you really need your fucking head checked!
But hey like I've offered to Katman I'm willing to offer to you others too, anytime you want to write-off your bike against the side of my landy just let me know. Of-course if you can pull your bike from 100km/h in 120m with a "surprise reaction" you get to keep your bike & I don't need dent repairs win-win. So anyone willing to put their money where their mouth is???

Well put, only a complete fuck-wit would pull a U-Turn there, "I'll have him" was the quote, 150 kmh (shock horror) is not that fast on a modern bike, the PIG got away with murder, for $250.00. FUCK HIM the slimey arsewipe career hypocrite

blackdog

15th August 2011, 17:23

hows it a when? if the PIG hadn't been in his lane how would have his (I see your choosing the upper & most likely far off limit) 150km/h mattered??? was the bike going to somehow destroy itself at that speed? maybee a little girl was going to spontaneously teleport onto the road because of the speed??? It was an "if" he knew the traffic (same lane) ahead, theres no houses for people to pull out of no real forceable danger, "if". The PIG was a "when" he did a 3-point-turn on the narrowest point with little visibility a foreseeable danger at every point.
If any of you are seriously trying to defend the PIG on this one you really need your fucking head checked!
But hey like I've offered to Katman I'm willing to offer to you others too, anytime you want to write-off your bike against the side of my landy just let me know. Of-course if you can pull your bike from 100km/h in 120m with a "surprise reaction" you get to keep your bike & I don't need dent repairs win-win. So anyone willing to put their money where their mouth is???

Mate you are out to lunch.

It fucking scares me to think I share roads with you.

ANYONE travelling faster than it takes to stop in the amount of visible road ahead is a fucking liability.

To answer your question with a question, what is to say that someone hasn't lost an insecure load just around that corner that you haven't allowed yourself room to stop for? Sorry to burst your little 'I'm psychic' bubble, it's when not if.

superman

15th August 2011, 17:28

I think the policeman did a u-turn in a precarious position. I think the motorcyclist shouldn't have been hooning over a blind hill. Always pretend there's a cow on the road just out of your line of site is usually my rule. :laugh:

Sad a dude died, sad a cop isn't smarter with his maneuvers
Not much one can do.

Kickaha

15th August 2011, 17:30

If any of you are seriously trying to defend the PIG on this one you really need your fucking head checked!

He deserved a fuck sight more than what he got and I haven't seen anyone "seriously" trying to defend him

150 kmh (shock horror) is not that fast on a modern bike,

It's fast enough to get you killed when things turn to custard and that 50kmh over the limit can make a big difference when you need to stop in a hurry

thepom

15th August 2011, 17:34

I,m with ktm.................:laugh:

Scuba_Steve

15th August 2011, 17:51

Mate you are out to lunch.

It fucking scares me to think I share roads with you.

ANYONE travelling faster than it takes to stop in the amount of visible road ahead is a fucking liability.

To answer your question with a question, what is to say that someone hasn't lost an insecure load just around that corner that you haven't allowed yourself room to stop for? Sorry to burst your little 'I'm psychic' bubble, it's when not if.

If it scares you to share the roads with me I'm surprised you use them at all, I'm one of the best out there NOT the best but definitely up there.

"visible road" is a bullshit argument as visible road is a variable that changes all the time one second you could have 500m the next it could be 10m it only takes 1 second to lose 490m of clear visible road.

As for the insecure load that is the "when" again the "speed" is "if" it still relies on this other factor to matter, and I did qualify "speed" as a to the condition thing, "excessive speed" is "dangerous driving" and that is a "when".

scumdog

15th August 2011, 17:55

Well put, only a complete fuck-wit would pull a U-Turn there, "I'll have him" was the quote, 150 kmh (shock horror) is not that fast on a modern bike, the PIG got away with murder, for $250.00. FUCK HIM the slimey arsewipe career hypocrite

Wa-wa-fuckin'-wa...are you sorry lot STILL bangng on about this...:shit:

I'm away out to the snow-balls again, I get more sense from them...<_<

Owl

15th August 2011, 17:57

it only takes 1 second to lose 490m of clear visible road.

If you're traveling at 1764kph:D

blackdog

15th August 2011, 17:58

If it scares you to share the roads with me I'm surprised you use them at all, I'm one of the best out there NOT the best but definitely up there.

OMG. I'm guessing you are one of these guys that reckons there is no point seeking further rider training because you know it all already.

"visible road" is a bullshit argument as visible road is a variable that changes all the time one second you could have 500m the next it could be 10m it only takes 1 second to lose 490m of clear visible road.

You will find that visibility returns quickly after extracting your head from your arse.

As for the insecure load that is the "when" again the "speed" is "if" it still relies on this other factor to matter, and I did qualify "speed" as a to the condition thing, "excessive speed" is "dangerous driving" and that is a "when".

I see no difference between this and your teleporting girl theory

How are the fairies today?

HenryDorsetCase

15th August 2011, 17:59

So at 100kph in 1.5 seconds you've travelled about 30 metres.

That still leaves 90 metres.

40 metres. leaving 80.

I know somewhere I have read a magazine test (Cycle World) with Don Canet on the then-latest crop of supersports trying to beat ABS. fairly recent. I want to try and find it. That 70-75 metres you quoted from 100kph is interesting.

I did an "advanced" riding course a few years ago, and one of the drills was panic braking. So perfect conditions (dry racetrack), accelerate up to say 80 or 90, drop the picks. I locked the front wheel momentarily on one run (lesson: squeeze dont grab: works with boobies too) but we got to some quite surprisingly short stopping distances. but, no tapemeasure, just "crikey, that was shorter then last time".

I'm talking about riding generally now, by the way, not this accident.

HenryDorsetCase

15th August 2011, 18:00

If you're traveling at 1764kph:D

you'd need the afterburners on. and your g-suit. but quite do-able. (in an F-14)

Kickaha

15th August 2011, 18:01

If it scares you to share the roads with me I'm surprised you use them at all, I'm one of the best out there NOT the best but definitely up there.
According to who?

"visible road" is a bullshit argument as visible road is a variable that changes all the time one second you could have 500m the next it could be 10m it only takes 1 second to lose 490m of clear visible road.
Can't say I've ever struck a scenario in which I've lost 490m of visibility in 1 second, under what circumstances would that happen?

bogan

15th August 2011, 18:10

Can't say I've ever struck a scenario in which I've lost 490m of visibility in 1 second, under what circumstances would that happen?

One gi-fucking-normus bumble bee splatter!

Scuba_Steve

15th August 2011, 18:13

How are the fairies today?

Not sure, don't think I've ever met any, maybee chicks in fairy wings but no actual fairies. I'm assuming you have met them?

According to who?

Can't say I've ever struck a scenario in which I've lost 490m of visibility in 1 second, under what circumstances would that happen?

Me and I got no prob proving it neither unlike most.

You probably haven't struck it. 1 circumstance it could happen is if your on a straight 500m till the next car, trees covering the sides, & a car runs a give-way at speed 10m in-front of you your've suddenly lost 490m of clear road in 1 sec admittedly not likely to happen but neither is a PIG doing a 3-point in the most retarded place they could.

blackdog

15th August 2011, 18:24

...visible road is a variable that changes all the time one second you could have 500m... the next it could be 10m it only takes 1 second to lose 490m of clear visible road.

...suddenly lost 490m of clear road in 1 sec admittedly not likely to happen but...

Fuck me, you can't even agree with yourself!

Scuba_Steve

15th August 2011, 18:34

ktm

15th August 2011, 18:37

Wa-wa-fuckin'-wa...are you sorry lot STILL bangng on about this...:shit:

I'm away out to the snow-balls again, I get more sense from them...<_<

Good ole Scum Dog/ Pig Man, troll troll troll, what jolly fun you pigs have ay, no cares and no worries, just U-Turn, U-Turn, (Bridgeman? vs Brent Russel and co.) whoops, another dead/ maimed BIKER, what fun to be above the law....in your twisted mind....this is a biker forum for bikers, go start your own forum , say, Pig Forum for PIGS, you sick pervert, no concern at all for the dead and injured, key board and uniform HERO

HenryDorsetCase

15th August 2011, 18:42

Good ole Scum Dog/ Pig Man, troll troll troll, what jolly fun you pigs have ay, no cares and no worries, just U-Turn, U-Turn, (Bridgeman? vs Brent Russel and co.) whoops, another dead/ maimed BIKER, what fun to be above the law....in your twisted mind....this is a biker forum for bikers, go start your own forum , say, Pig Forum for PIGS, you sick pervert, no concern at all for the dead and injured, key board and uniform HERO

Good lord, you're quite insane.

StoneY

15th August 2011, 18:43

ktm

15th August 2011, 18:45

Good lord, you're quite insane.

Why thank you, may I return the compliment also?

_Shrek_

15th August 2011, 18:52

I'm away out to the snow-balls again, I get more sense from them...<_<

:laugh: :stupid: while you where keeping warm in your office we played in the snow :shifty:

:Oops: :Offtopic: :whocares:

swbarnett

15th August 2011, 18:54

Nope an "if" factor as it is still heavily reliant on other factors to matter.
So is doing a u-turn after a rise.

FYI Those reaction times previous are based on subconscious, reaction is not really a conscious decision.
Deciding to react is not a conscious decision but, in the novice, deciding what to do certainly is. Reaction times are much faster when the second part is also subconscious.

Kickaha

15th August 2011, 18:56

Good ole Scum Dog/ Pig Man, troll troll troll, what jolly fun you pigs have ay, no cares and no worries, just U-Turn, U-Turn, (Bridgeman? vs Brent Russel and co.) whoops, another dead/ maimed BIKER,

So two incidents then? is that all? do get just as wanky about single bike accidents where the riders are the only ones to blame?

what fun to be above the law....in your twisted mind....this is a biker forum for bikers, go start your own forum , say, Pig Forum for PIGS, you sick pervert, no concern at all for the dead and injured, key board and uniform HERO

If they were above the law neither of the two police mentioned would have even been charged dickhead

Dunno if you've got a uniform but keyboard hero would equally apply to you

scumdog

15th August 2011, 19:00

Good ole Scum Dog/ Pig Man, troll troll troll, what jolly fun you pigs have ay, no cares and no worries, just U-Turn, U-Turn, (Bridgeman? vs Brent Russel and co.) whoops, another dead/ maimed BIKER, what fun to be above the law....in your twisted mind....this is a biker forum for bikers, go start your own forum , say, Pig Forum for PIGS, you sick pervert, no concern at all for the dead and injured, key board and uniform HERO

Always glad to please!:woohoo:

swbarnett

15th August 2011, 19:03

hows it a when? if the PIG hadn't been in his lane how would have his (I see your choosing the upper & most likely far off limit) 150km/h mattered???
And if the biker had been riding at a speed that allowed them to stop in their visibility how would a "PIG doing a u-turn" have mattered?

if" he knew the traffic (same lane) ahead,
Sorry, by definition, driving at a speed that does not allowed you to stop in your visibility means you don't know what's ahead.

If any of you are seriously trying to defend the PIG on this one you really need your fucking head checked!
I'm not trying to defend the cop, just saying that the rider was not riding in a manner that had their own safety foremost in their mind. I leave it to each individual to make up their minds as to whether this is a problem or not.

Of-course if you can pull your bike from 100km/h in 120m with a "surprise reaction" you get to keep your bike & I don't need dent repairs win-win. So anyone willing to put their money where their mouth is???
I have done so (as I'm sure have many others) more than once.

Anyway, how do you propose to engineer a "surprise reaction"?

FJRider

15th August 2011, 19:06

So is doing a u-turn after a rise.

Deciding to react is not a conscious decision but, in the novice, deciding what to do certainly is.

Experience counts for a LOT here ... those not having the experience to know what to do ... usually means nothing is done ... soon enough.

Bikemad

15th August 2011, 19:07

Michael Jackson should have had his ass smacked more

ummm..........perhaps you should clarify in what context

Katman

15th August 2011, 19:08

Experience counts for a LOT here

Sadly, not in this instance though.

StoneY

15th August 2011, 19:19

ummm..........perhaps you should clarify in what context

Sue Bradford = epic fail hope that makes it clear?

ktm

15th August 2011, 19:19

So two incidents then? is that all? do get just as wanky about single bike accidents where the riders are the only ones to blame?

If they were above the law neither of the two police mentioned would have even been charged dickhead

Dunno if you've got a uniform but keyboard hero would equally apply to you

Kickahahaha, don't call me a dickhead unless you can do it to my face.......

FJRider

15th August 2011, 19:20

Sadly, not in this instance though.

Sadly life is full of decisions that have to be made ... right then/now ... lives (usually our own) depend on it. Time allowed to make them ... makes the difference...

If no time is available ... make a decision. You are either right or wrong. Doing nothing is seldom better than doing something.

Sometimes you get it right ... sometimes ...

ktm

15th August 2011, 19:21

Always glad to please!:woohoo:

Polite as always, (stifled laughter) what a gent

Scuba_Steve

15th August 2011, 19:30

And if the biker had been riding at a speed that allowed them to stop in their visibility how would a "PIG doing a u-turn" have mattered?
a lot less, but if there was no "PIG doing a u-turn" his speed would have been completely irrelevant, the PIG doing a 3-point where he did was dangerous regardles had it been my (road legal) landy at 100km/h (if it could achieve that) instead of the bike the only difference would be justice. The biker would be alive the PIG car would be a write-off & the PIG would be injured, justice would have been served because that landy doesn't stop in any short distance, I put the brakes on at Hamilton I'll be stopped by Auckland :laugh: 2-tonne cage with 4-wheel drum brakes & skinny knobby tyres pure performance on-road :innocent:

I'm not trying to defend the cop, just saying that the rider was not riding in a manner that had their own safety foremost in their mind. I leave it to each individual to make up their minds as to whether this is a problem or not.

It was a calculated risk most do it, he knew his mate was ahead he had a good view before the dip, theres no driveways along the road, his speed under normal circumstances is a non-issue

Anyway, how do you propose to engineer a "surprise reaction"?

thats a good point I guess the only way would be to know of a "cruise" ahead of time & randomly "pop out" somewhere along.

StoneY

15th August 2011, 19:32

Kickahahaha, don't call me a dickhead unless you can do it to my face.......

off to the dojo? I would pay to watch it! LOL

_Shrek_

15th August 2011, 19:41

I just :love: the :girlfight: on KB when there's a few differant points of view, especially when the :Police: are concerned :grouphug: now kiss a make up :blip:

gwigs

15th August 2011, 19:48

The last thing you want to see on the road when you are speeding is a cop car.
And that was the last thing this poor biker saw..
Speeding or not the cop was negligent in his duties in my opinion and needed to be punished accordingly.We should expect higher standards from our highway patrol officers.$250 is ridiculous,what would the speeder in the ute have been fined.?A lot more than $250...its a croc....

Dodgy_Matt

15th August 2011, 19:50

My PERSONAL opinion sits somewhat between Katman and KTM's viewpoints here

The U-Turn should never have happened

The rider should not have been speeding

Michael Jackson should have had his ass smacked more

Life carries on

Don’t you dare bring Sir Michael Jackson in to this, He was a misunderstood soul. He loved those boys with genuine sincerity ... and some lube

Kickaha

15th August 2011, 19:51

You probably haven't struck it. 1 circumstance it could happen is if your on a straight 500m till the next car, trees covering the sides, & a car runs a give-way at speed 10m in-front of you your've suddenly lost 490m of clear road in 1 sec admittedly not likely to happen but neither is a PIG doing a 3-point in the most retarded place they could.

Loosing clear road and loosing visibility are two different things and I would suggest that the with a car 10m in front of you that the other 490m have become somewhat irrelevant

Kickahahaha, don't call me a dickhead unless you can do it to my face.......

But insane is ok?:laugh:

It's ok I'll get the police to protect me

scumdog

15th August 2011, 19:51

It was a calculated risk most do it, he knew his mate was ahead he had a good view before the dip, theres no driveways along the road, his speed under normal circumstances is a non-issue
.

Didn't 'calculate' enough, did he?<_<

Sadly for him...

Scuba_Steve

15th August 2011, 19:56

Didn't 'calculate' enough, did he?<_<

Sadly for him...

na forgot to carry the '1' :shutup::innocent:

blackdog

15th August 2011, 19:58

Didn't 'calculate' enough, did he?<_<

Sadly for him...

What scares me is I think Steve actually believes what he is saying.

Consciously taking any risk, calculated or not is unacceptable on the road IMO.

T.W.R

15th August 2011, 19:58

The last thing you want to see on the road when you are speeding is a cop car.
And that was the last thing this poor biker saw..

TOECUTTER!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcaa40dNmis

FJRider

15th August 2011, 20:00

You probably haven't struck it. 1 circumstance it could happen is if your on a straight 500m till the next car, trees covering the sides, & a car runs a give-way at speed 10m in-front of you your've suddenly lost 490m of clear road in 1 sec admittedly not likely to happen but neither is a PIG doing a 3-point in the most retarded place they could.

I've struck it ... overtaking ... People pull out onto a main road turning LEFT ... they look RIGHT first ... but seldom look LEFT ...

One second road clear ...

Scuba_Steve

15th August 2011, 20:01

What scares me is I think Steve actually believes what he is saying.

Any risk, calculated or not is unacceptable on the road IMO.

yea I do believe what I say & if you belive what you just wrote then DON'T use the road, the road IS a risk!!! at all times. Anyone who thinks different is either ignorant or stupid.

Sable

15th August 2011, 20:14

It's ok I'll get the police to protect me

What a limpdick.

Jack Miller

15th August 2011, 20:25

So two incidents then? is that all?
No, there was also that RSA rider who survived the war fighting for our freedoms only to die on impact with a cop car that was illegally parked on a yellow line.

do get just as wanky about single bike accidents where the riders are the only ones to blame?

No because those riders don't boss other road users round and punish them when, in their opinion, they've ridden badly. If you're going to set yourself up as an arbiter of right and wrong on the road and dish out punishments then you bloody better make sure you are always right yourself. Otherwise you are a hypocritical, arrogant arsehole wanker.

Jack Miller

15th August 2011, 20:27

And if the biker had been riding at a speed that allowed them to stop in their visibility how would a "PIG doing a u-turn" have mattered?
Could've been an invisible spot of oil on the road just where the rider needed to hit the brakes in time to stop short of the obstruction.

blackdog

15th August 2011, 20:37

yea I do believe what I say & if you belive what you just wrote then DON'T use the road, the road IS a risk!!! at all times. Anyone who thinks different is either ignorant or stupid.

I meant consciously making a decision to take a risk on the road. I credited you with at least enough intelligence to see that was the point I was trying to make. I can see where I went wrong there.

Kickaha

15th August 2011, 20:44

What a limpdick.

You don't have to mention your personal problems on here but if you trot off to the doc you can get some pills to fix that

swbarnett

15th August 2011, 20:45

a lot less, but if there was no "PIG doing a u-turn" his speed would have been completely irrelevant,
Agreed.

the PIG doing a 3-point where he did was dangerous regardles had it been my (road legal) landy at 100km/h (if it could achieve that) instead of the bike
Also agreed.

the only difference would be justice. The biker would be alive the PIG car would be a write-off & the PIG would be injured,
At 100kph with 120m to stop and a cometant driver, chances are no collision would have insued.

It was a calculated risk most do it
As was the u-turn. Both contributed to the accident in probably about equal measure except for the fact that the cop intended to do a u-turn and mis-calculated the width of the road i.e. he did not know his turning circle at all. Still, it's unfortunate that one paid with his life and the other got away pretty much scott free.

swbarnett

15th August 2011, 20:50

I've struck it ... overtaking ... People pull out onto a main road turning LEFT ... they look RIGHT first ... but seldom look LEFT ...

One second road clear ...
This is exactly why you're not supposed to overtake while passing a side street. What happens if the vehicle you're passing does a right turn in front of you?

I learnt that lesson the hard way (almost). Thankfully, I managed to break enough to pull back and go past on the left.

swbarnett

15th August 2011, 20:52

Could've been an invisible spot of oil on the road just where the rider needed to hit the brakes in time to stop short of the obstruction.
Good point. You are, of course, also supposed to take the road surface and such debris in to account. Something that is not always practical.

marty

15th August 2011, 20:54

admittedly not likely to happen but neither is a PIG doing a 3-point in the most retarded place they could.

really? i can think of twice it's happened in recent memory.

Scuba_Steve

15th August 2011, 20:59

As was the u-turn. Both contributed to the accident in probably about equal measure except for the fact that the cop intended to do a u-turn and mis-calculated the width of the road i.e. he did not know his turning circle at all. Still, it's unfortunate that one paid with his life and the other got away pretty much scott free.

I wouldn't call that "calculated" it was "emotional"(for want of a better word) "I'll have him" followed by an attempted U'y in the worst place possible is not very "calculated" at the best of times, "calculated" would have been spinning it round up the road at the intersection & doing 200km/h to catch up again (assuming the road was fairly dead that night).
But none of this changes the fact the PIG was in the wrong & someone died just because he's been told to inforce the speed scam.

Scuba_Steve

15th August 2011, 21:00

really? i can think of twice it's happened in recent memory.

<_< yea yea, I thought of that when I was writing it

marty

15th August 2011, 21:02

<_< yea yea, I thought of that when I was writing it

yet you still wrote it. how fast are your reactions?

Katman

15th August 2011, 21:04

1 one thousand, 2 one thousand......

Spearfish

15th August 2011, 21:15

1 one thousand, 2 one thousand......

One thousand, nine hundred and forty four posts on the wall, One thousand, nine hundred and forty four posts.......

marty

15th August 2011, 21:18

1 one thousand, 2 one thousand......

should i brake? oh fuck. i should have. can't stop. must post.

reofix

15th August 2011, 21:31

Jack Miller

15th August 2011, 21:46

Good point. You are, of course, also supposed to take the road surface and such debris in to account. Something that is not always practical.

That's why I said "invisible." It happens.

Jack Miller

15th August 2011, 21:47

really? i can think of twice it's happened in recent memory.

Doesn't it happen every time a cop gives chase to someone that was coming towards them?

Kickaha

15th August 2011, 21:50

Jack Miller

15th August 2011, 21:58

if a cow had wandered on the road ... fuckin cows killing us again
if a tree had fallen on the road..... fuckin trees killing us again
if the road had washed away... fuckin rain killing us again
... would it be just possible
perhaps
maybe
............. that we should be able to stop in the space ahead

just so noone says... fuckin us killing us again

Not stupid at all. Difference is 3-point-turning Cops make a conscious decision to do put other road users at risk. The examples you give are just fate - no conscious decisions involved, no sentient beings involved who we could ask to please stop making the roads more dangerous than they already are. Except perhaps your first example where we could ask the farmer to maintain the fences. If the farmer refused to fix the fence and cows kept killing bikers the farmer would face exactly the same justified condemnation that careless 3-point-turning killer cops earn.

I agree we should ride at a speed that allows us to stop in the visible space ahead.

Katman

15th August 2011, 22:38

I agree we should ride at a speed that allows us to stop in the visible space ahead.

Would have saved 130 pages worth of bandwidth.

swbarnett

15th August 2011, 22:40

I wouldn't call that "calculated".
Indeed. Perhaps it would've been better stated as "failed to calculate".

it was "emotional"(for want of a better word)
Nothing wrong with that mate. Emotional it was.

someone died just because he's been told to inforce the speed scam.
Too true... Irrespective of how many factors contributed to the crash this was certainly at least first equal.

swbarnett

15th August 2011, 22:47

Would have saved 130 pages worth of bandwidth.
Indeed.

We all know that there are fuckwit drivers out there but we seem to keep riding as if they don't exist.

_Shrek_

15th August 2011, 22:58

Would have saved 130 pages worth of bandwidth.

yeah!!! but none of the key board warriors on here would have anything to bitch about :whistle:

Dave-

15th August 2011, 23:13

_Shrek_

15th August 2011, 23:18

yeah!!! but none of the key board warriors on here would have anything to bitch about :whistle:

:thud: nor would I :confused:

Jack Miller

16th August 2011, 00:06

A police officer doing a 3 point turn over a crest is the least of your road rider issues ffs.

one thing I will add to your discussion, you have to treat each persons mistakes as independant, the biker was speeding, the police officer was doing a 3 point turn, but neither was doing either as a result of the other (haha - read that a few times if you have to) therefore the events are independant.

Except that the events are dependent. The cop car wouldn't have been bent if the rider hadn't been speeding. The rider would be alive if the cop hadn't pulled the 3-pointer.

Spearfish

16th August 2011, 07:11

Except that the events are dependent. The cop car wouldn't have been bent if the rider hadn't been speeding. The rider would be alive if the cop hadn't pulled the 3-pointer.

.....The ute hadn't gone past sparking up the pursuit...The cops boss gave him another area to patrol......The rider stopped to take a leak so never arrived at the ridge at that moment...the consequences of compounding mistakes was never invented......

I personally think the old surveyors should have cut the road through the rise rather than going over it then this shit wouldn't happen...the bastards!!, what were they thinking??!!? What sort of anti biker shit is this? ,hills, curves, speed limits, rules for fucks sake its not like a bike is a cage!!!

oneofsix

16th August 2011, 07:18

.....The ute hadn't gone past sparking up the pursuit...The cops boss gave him another area to patrol......The rider stopped to take a leak so never arrived at the ridge at that moment...the consequences of compounding mistakes was never invented......

I personally think the old surveyors should have cut the road through the rise rather than going over it then this shit wouldn't happen...the bastards!!, what were they thinking??!!? What sort of anti biker shit is this? ,hills, curves, speed limits, rules for fucks sake its not like a bike is a cage!!!

Don't blame the surveyors, or the road construction company either, it was the bloody politicians as usual spending the roading budget on themselves instead of paying for the cutting. :laugh:

Not saying the biker was blameless, :shit: there are plenty of other poster that will happily say he wasn't, but I do feel the cop got off lighter than another driver, expect possibly an octogenarian +, for his part in this event.

Spearfish

16th August 2011, 07:28

Don't blame the surveyors, or the road construction company either, it was the bloody politicians as usual spending the roading budget on themselves instead of paying for the cutting. :laugh:

Not saying the biker was blameless, :shit: there are plenty of other poster that will happily say he wasn't, but I do feel the cop got off lighter than another driver, expect possibly an octogenarian +, for his part in this event.

Yeah but..
Unless a surveyer is an active bike rider they shouldn't get their degrees.:done::laugh:

PrincessBandit

16th August 2011, 07:39

There's an easy answer to this - don't use your brain (at least not the conscious part) - it's too slow.

Use the force, Luke...

Scuba_Steve

16th August 2011, 08:02

Indeed.

We all know that there are fuckwit drivers out there but we seem to keep riding as if they don't exist.

because if we didn't, riding would be very boring or even non-existant.

T.W.R

16th August 2011, 08:06

Use the force, Luke...

Newb......it's a process called soft eye :yes:

http://www.sportrider.com/ride/146_9504_improving_motorcycle_eyesight/index.html

oneofsix

16th August 2011, 08:44

so what bike does he ride? or could it be that the fine was unjust?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/blogs/drivetalk/5442976/Time-for-a-U-turn-on-U-turn-fine

It just makes you wonder why we are so inconsistent about traffic sentences and punishment when you look at the story on Friday about Constable Michael Lenihan being fined $250 for throwing what appears to be an ill-advised U-turn in his patrol car in front of a motorcyclist, who was killed as a result of the crash

Crikey, he may even have been carrying enough in his wallet to pay up on the way out of court

swbarnett

16th August 2011, 11:17

because if we didn't, riding would be very boring or even non-existant.
That depends. There are plenty of twisty roads with good visibility. Slowing down for the odd blind corner or rise certainly doesn't make my rides boring. However, if you're a complete adrenaline junkie then I can well understand what you're saying. Horses for courses really. If you take the risk you also accept the consequences and must accept at least partial blame when it all turns to custard.

On a broader not, I do agree that living life afraid of what's around every corner (metaphorically speaking) is not a good idea.

MSTRS

16th August 2011, 11:31

That depends. There are plenty of twisty roads with good visibility. Slowing down for the odd blind corner or rise certainly doesn't make my rides boring. However, if you're a complete adrenaline junkie then I can well understand what you're saying. Horses for courses really. If you take the risk you also accept the consequences and must accept at least partial blame when it all turns to custard.

On a broader not, I do agree that living life afraid of what's around every corner (metaphorically speaking) is not a good idea.

There's that word again...

I'm with the 'if' brigade.
'When' is an absolute, and no matter what you are doing on the road, there ARE NO absolutes.
True - the further the boundaries are pushed, the greater the risk (edging closer to 'when') but still, no harm may occur. A (variable) combination of circumstances are required before 'if' becomes 'when'.

Katman

16th August 2011, 11:51

On a broader not, I do agree that living life afraid of what's around every corner (metaphorically speaking) is not a good idea.

I don't think anyone would suggest that living life afraid of what's around every corner is a good idea.

Considering what may be around a corner and taking steps to minimise the potential damage is a completely different thing though.

Scuba_Steve

16th August 2011, 11:53

On a broader not, I do agree that living life afraid of what's around every corner (metaphorically speaking) is not a good idea.

Thats the one I was getting at.

Spearfish

16th August 2011, 12:17

I don't think anyone would suggest that living life afraid of what's around every corner is a good idea.

Considering what may be around a corner and taking steps to minimise the potential damage is a completely different thing though.

There isn't anything around the corner that shouldn't be there, well at least it wasn't when I blew through last weekend!
See that's the trick, do the same track every weekend then nothing new can happen aye?

swbarnett

16th August 2011, 15:59

There's that word again...

I'm with the 'if' brigade.
'When' is an absolute, and no matter what you are doing on the road, there ARE NO absolutes.
True - the further the boundaries are pushed, the greater the risk (edging closer to 'when') but still, no harm may occur. A (variable) combination of circumstances are required before 'if' becomes 'when'.
You're right, it is a matter of degree. Some actions are "more likely" to result in an undesireable outcome but never with absolute certainty. 'if' would've fit what I was thinking when I wrote that just as well.

The only absolutes are the laws of physics and even those are flexible depending which universe you're in.

marty

16th August 2011, 16:17

I don't think anyone would suggest that living life afraid of what's around every corner is a good idea.

Considering what may be around a corner and taking steps to minimise the potential damage is a completely different thing though.

interesting comment.

many years ago, while working at a different employ, I often drove the Tapu-Coroglen Rd, and the 309 Rd - often at pace. 25 minutes Whitianga to Coromandel on the 309 was not uncommon.

I had a couple of big scares with unexpected traffic coming the other way (the old 'no-one else uses this road at xxx o'clock' syndrome)

I slowed right down after a while, only to subsequently have a HUGE crash with a monster 4x4 chev truck being driven by a friendly motorcycle 'club' member. luckily for me I was only going about 1/4 of the speed that I would have been travelling only a week before. Sure if I was going faster (having left at the same time) I may have been in a different place, and it may not have resulted in me writing off my quite new Commodore, but at least I was alive, which I may not have been had I been going my usual speed.

PrincessBandit

16th August 2011, 17:18

There isn't anything around the corner that shouldn't be there, well at least it wasn't when I blew through last weekend!
See that's the trick, do the same track every weekend then nothing new can happen aye?

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Biggles08

16th August 2011, 22:50

Still, it's unfortunate that one paid with his life and the other got away pretty much scott free.

Bollocks!!!...its not "unfortunate"...its a bloody disgrace for a so called civilized, lawful country! I'm pissed at this injustice and it is wrong! The judge involved needs to be judged.

_Shrek_

16th August 2011, 23:00

The judge involved needs to be

:spanking: :spanking: :spanking: :spanking:

Kornholio

16th August 2011, 23:09

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.

Jail time would have been nice.

im not dismissing his point, the ute driver should feel like crap as a major player in his mates death, his poor decision was the trigger for a further poor decision or two.

Ask yourself honestly that if you were the driver of that ute, how would you feel...id be f**ken livered with myself.

He does and you shouldn't be a cock.

Workplace incident investigations is a large part of my role.

And a major facet of that is causal, contributing and direct causes of incidents.

The speeding ute is a lemon.

I would be looking at the mentality of the driver of the police car and the culture within the workforce that could cause them to pull such a shit stunt (this could indicate if there were big issues within that work force that need to be challenged), then I would be looking to see if he had the proven capacity to identfy it as a dangerous maneuver, In this case I would be looking to see if he was fit for his role and if he had training specifically for the tasks he was undertaking.

Either way, at the end of the day, he is the cock, not the driver of the ute. There could have been 100 drivers in that area breaking the law and only one of them caused the death of another person.

Roger that.

If this was not such a serious thread, I could make a really offal joke about that

It is so dont be a cock.

slowpoke

17th August 2011, 04:19

One rule for police and another for us? Nope, but a totally different penalty is justified because of where they work and what they have to do at that place of work, the speed with which decisions have to be made etc etc. They aren't Joe Blogg's gonna be 30sec late for work if he drives further down the road, they could very well get a call to say there's a family been killed by the bloke they didn't manage to pull over.

From the judge's point of view:

1. Following the original speedster, was it reasonable to assume someone else could be flying over the hill at close to 100mph? If you sat there and measured/counted vehicles and speeds, how many do you think would be doing that speed? 1 in 1000? 1 in 5000? Most people wouldn't even think of it.

2. The 120m distance has already been argued on here, and plenty don't see it as a shockingly short distance. I had a front row seat at the Cake-Tin the other week when the AB's belted the 'Bok's, and looking from deadball line to deadball line 120m seems like a loooong way by eye. So, not ideal but understandable.

3. Urgency is a part and parcel of police work. It's a fine line balancing apprehending someone as soon as reasonably practicable thereby reducing the risk to the public, and putting the public at risk in doing so.

4. Naming and shaming, career damage, etc had already played a large part in the cop's punishment. Think what you like but he won't be walking tall for a long time to come, possibly ever, after this tragedy.

So I can understand the judicial outcome to this tragic event, it's not a simple situation no matter how much people try to make it into one.

Faaark, I wouldn't be a cop for quids. They aren't making plastic bags or something where mistakes just get fed back to the front end of the machine, or transferring papers from the in box to the out box, they're doing a cunt of a job, and have to make snap decisions in a constantly changing environment where mistakes can be and are fatal. It's a huge responsibility that they certainly aren't paid for but should be.

My commiserations are with everyone involved.

PrincessBandit

17th August 2011, 06:57

One rule for police and another for us? Nope, ..................

From the judge's point of view:

1. Following the original speedster, was it reasonable to assume someone else could be flying over the hill at close to 100mph? If you sat there and measured/counted vehicles and speeds, how many do you think would be doing that speed? 1 in 1000? 1 in 5000? Most people wouldn't even think of it.

2. The 120m distance has already been argued on here, and plenty don't see it as a shockingly short distance. I had a front row seat at the Cake-Tin the other week when the AB's belted the 'Bok's, and looking from deadball line to deadball line 120m seems like a loooong way by eye. So, not ideal but understandable.

3. Urgency is a part and parcel of police work. It's a fine line balancing apprehending someone as soon as reasonably practicable thereby reducing the risk to the public, and putting the public at risk in doing so.

4. Naming and shaming, career damage, etc had already played a large part in the cop's punishment. Think what you like but he won't be walking tall for a long time to come, possibly ever, after this tragedy.

So I can understand the judicial outcome to this tragic event, it's not a simple situation no matter how much people try to make it into one.

Faaark, I wouldn't be a cop for quids. They aren't making plastic bags or something where mistakes just get fed back to the front end of the machine, or transferring papers from the in box to the out box, they're doing a cunt of a job, and have to make snap decisions in a constantly changing environment where mistakes can be and are fatal. It's a huge responsibility that they certainly aren't paid for but should be.

My commiserations are with everyone involved.

A lot of good points there. Unfortunately the death of the rider outweighs all other considerations to most here. Yes, a rider died and that is a tragedy. Yes, I do feel the cop got off with a seemingly light punishment.
How many times though have there been cases for the general public where there seems to be no rhyme or reason how one case gets a "suitably harsh" penalty while another which is just as bad gets off with a slap on the wrist? I'm sure folk here could think of plenty of instances of incomprehensible sentences handed out to those who have been prosecuted. It's not just a case of one law for the police and another for us - it's rife throughout the justice system for "us", depending on our profession, public profile etc.

Spearfish

17th August 2011, 07:41

Yesterdays discussion at work around the smoko table with the usual mix of men, women, riders, non riders and ages...

One hundred and twenty meters...just saying.....

In theory the car was in credit 20 meters before it had finished its manoeuvre when the bike had crested the hill. Considering road rules are based on 100 kph MAX if allowances have to be made for random higher speeds by other road users then the 100 meters will have to be increased by some random amount.

I guess the only question is if the bike hadn't hit the car would it have finished turning and left its required 100m clear if the bike was using the road with reasonable care?

( from the non bikers who kinda sympathise with bikers contribution in the event )
what if the bike was going faster and the car 150 meters down the road or 50% more than it has to would the driver still be charged?

Would there be the same shifting of blame if the biker had killed a kid crossing the road 120 meters away from the crest of a hill?

I guess your views on it just depends on who you are, who you identify with in the crash and what your own riding/driving personality is.

_Shrek_

17th August 2011, 08:53

Jack Miller

17th August 2011, 09:25

Jack Miller

17th August 2011, 09:29

4. Naming and shaming, career damage, etc had already played a large part in the cop's punishment. Think what you like but he won't be walking tall for a long time to come, possibly ever, after this tragedy.

Good. He should be sacked. We can't have drivers convicted of careless driving causing death in our Highway Patrol.

Plenty of criminals won't be walking tall after their crimes are found out - they still go to jail though.

Katman

17th August 2011, 09:43

Your smoko room analysis is wrong. The IPCA report concluded that the rider would have hit the car had he been doing 101kph, which is 3-9kph within the cops' own enforcement tolerance. Perfectly reasonable to expect a cop to drive as if someone was approaching at 101.

Wrong.

The IPCA report states.......

The crash investigator concluded "Calculations show that any speed above 101kph may have been too fast for Mr Brown to stop his vehicle within the distance between first viewpoint and impact area.

Bearing in mind that the comment was from the police crash investigator and not the independent investigator, I read it as a comment simply designed to support the police theory that any speed over 100 kph kills.

Did you also note the part in the report that states that the estimated impact speed was between 93-99kph?

jellywrestler

17th August 2011, 09:53

Good. He should be sacked. We can't have drivers convicted of careless driving causing death in our Highway Patrol.

forgive me if I'm wrong but I seem to recall he got off that charge?

riffer

17th August 2011, 10:23

forgive me if I'm wrong but I seem to recall he got off that charge?
You're absolutely right Graeme.

He was convicted merely of careless driving.

The judge decided that he did not cause death.

Jack Miller

17th August 2011, 12:25

forgive me if I'm wrong but I seem to recall he got off that charge?

Ok, the charge appears to have been "careless use of a motor vehicle." The point remains the same though: there should be no one with such a conviction in the Highway Patrol.

Parlane

17th August 2011, 14:05

Ok, the charge appears to have been "careless use of a motor vehicle." The point remains the same though: there should be no one with such a conviction in the Highway Patrol.

To be fair, he has been taken off highway patrol. (If my recollection of news media is correct)

Jack Miller

17th August 2011, 14:06

To be fair, he has been taken off highway patrol. (If my recollection of news media is correct)

I guess that at least is fair. I missed that aspect in the media.

Parlane

17th August 2011, 14:29

I guess that at least is fair. I missed that aspect in the media.

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

Specific line:
"Since the crash Lenihan had been pulled off road policing and was based in Paeroa on front-line work."

My opinion on the matter of police being human beings too and that they make mistakes:

Yes, yes they make mistakes. It's not hard to make a mistake if you are making decisions in split seconds.

Is it wrong for me to expect police to instead take time to make a well formulated decision instead of a split second reaction?

What happened:
~150km/h ute going in the other direction
Reaction in this instance:
Turn around and give chase
In MY opinion what should have happened:
Officer takes time to look around, check what blind spots may be in force, thinks about "hey, if I turned here could I definitely make it without it being a tight squeeze, and would all oncoming traffic be able to see me make this maneuver from far away, are there yellow lines that say a normal driver shouldn't make this turn, if so, can I safely do the turn, I am just a normal human after all, I'm not super human"

Could I turn after this hill, do I know this road? I maybe could still catch him if I managed to turn a bit further down, bit safer for me and maybe others.

Double yellow lines says: Do not cross here, do not pass here, do not turn here.

If you want to treat the cop as a normal human, then a normal human has been told that it is not safe to do those things here.

Jack Miller

17th August 2011, 14:47

Article is here:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/5439438/Officers-acquittal-a-police-coverup
Specific line:
"Since the crash Lenihan had been pulled off road policing and was based in Paeroa on front-line work."

Thanks for the quote. He was taken off while under investigation for "dangerous driving causing death." Now that the charge has been lessened to "Careless Driving" his employers might feel inclined to reinstate him. Certainly the Police Association Director seems extremely sympathetic to Linehan

I note also "Mr Jackson said they would now discuss appealing the decision." I hope they find the resources and fortitude to do so.

If you want to treat the cop as a normal human, then a normal human has been told that it is not safe to do those things (3-point-turn) here.
Nicely put.

Gearup

17th August 2011, 18:01

A lot of good points there. Unfortunately the death of the rider outweighs all other considerations to most here. Yes, a rider died and that is a tragedy. Yes, I do feel the cop got off with a seemingly light punishment.
How many times though have there been cases for the general public where there seems to be no rhyme or reason how one case gets a "suitably harsh" penalty while another which is just as bad gets off with a slap on the wrist? I'm sure folk here could think of plenty of instances of incomprehensible sentences handed out to those who have been prosecuted. It's not just a case of one law for the police and another for us - it's rife throughout the justice system for "us", depending on our profession, public profile etc.

Yes, but what do you think would have happened penalty wise if the bike rider was a cop on police business and the car was being driven by a member of the public?

scumdog

17th August 2011, 18:02

Ok, the charge appears to have been "careless use of a motor vehicle." The point remains the same though: there should be no one with such a conviction in the Highway Patrol.

Looks really bad for me then....

oh, and your rank is: "Poorly Informed Ranter"

Katman

17th August 2011, 18:08

Yes, but what do you think would have happened penalty wise if the bike rider was a cop on police business and the car was being driven by a member of the public?

I imagine a police motorcyclist would exercise a greater degree of care when negotiating a blind crest.

Parlane

17th August 2011, 18:10

Yes, but what do you think would have happened penalty wise if the bike rider was a cop on police business and the car was being driven by a member of the public?

Imagine what the penalty would have been if the bike was an officer responding to an event, and the car was just a normal guy who needed to turn around and decided it was possible there.

What would the punishment have been? Seriously? Should the guy in this scenario have turned here? Legally no. Same with the officer though.

Looks really bad for me then....

oh, and your rank is: "Poorly Informed Ranter"

What was that comment even about ?