National Radio interviews Tooman and BRONZ re: fatal biker accident

[twotyred]

http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/national/ckpt/2010/04/19/bikers_say_motorcyclist_had_no_chance

here's the mp3 link for those that need it.

http://podcast.radionz.co.nz/ckpt/ckpt-20100419-1707-Bikers_say_motorcyclist_had_no_chance-048.mp3

"The Bikers Rights Organisation has described 38 year old Paul Brown as a well regarded racer and a skilful rider who knew the roads around his home town of Te Kauwhata."

http://podcast.radionz.co.nz/ckpt/ckpt-20100419-1710-Paul_Brown_descibed_as_skilful_rider-048.mp3

Morning Report 20/04/10 speaks to Pauls brother -in-law and also Brent Russell (Buller Gorge incident)

http://podcast.radionz.co.nz/mnr/mnr-20100420-0712-Motorcyclists_in_fear_of_police_pursuits-048.mp3

[nosebleed]

Wheres the BRONZ bit?

Thanks BTW

[twotyred]

Wheres the BRONZ bit?

Thanks BTW

hmmm,it was on the live transmission but has been removed from the archived version......

[nosebleed]

I smell conspiracy

[twotyred]

hmmm,it was on the live transmission but has been removed from the archived version......

found it... they posted it as a seperate segment.... updated above.

[quickbuck]

Stony,
Well said!!!! Very well balanced points of view.

[nosebleed]

Nice analogy with the stock-truck

[R6_kid]

What if the cop car was a broken down stock truck and there was another car coming the other way?

[Smifffy]

Has DB seen this? It needs to go international!!!

[miloking]

What if the cop car was a broken down stock truck and there was another car coming the other way?

What if? it wasnt a truck... it was cop trying to collect money!

[StoneY]

Thanks guys, radio NZ seem to call me on all biker issue's now , I never knew Paul so I do hope I did him justice with the media.
They edited out the bit where I mentioned Pauls family and asked thier privacy be respected as notified by a family friend, but never mind TV3 took care of that angle


My thoughts now turn to Pauls family, and there really is nothing more to be said

Lets hope the system changes to ensure no other bikers, or innocent Kiwi's suffer the same fate.

[Flip]

Has DB seen this? It needs to go international!!!

Ha. Good one.

[R6_kid]

What if? it wasnt a truck... it was cop trying to collect money!

Thanks for being so small minded. Yes, in this case it as a cop that fucked up by doing a 3-point turn in a stupid place. In the interview StoneY said the bike could have been a stock truck and then this would be a different story - all I'm saying is that the cop car could have just as easily been any other stationary vehicle hidden over the brow of the hill, perhaps a broken down and immovable car/van/ute/truck or even a crashed motorcycle, and the rider would still be dead.

Making cops safer drivers is one thing - but you still have another 2 million+ other road users to worry about though - starting with yourself.

[Ixion]

So you support the cop doing a three point turn there because he could have been a stock truck. Would you also support a stock truck doing the same thing because he could have been a cop? Your arguemnt is that no stupidity should ever be condemned because other instances of stupidty can always be found. So you not condemn a drunk driver who takes out a biker, because there will always be other drunk drivers ?

[Maha]

''He would have been coming over there (the crest) at 100kph''.....

How do you know that Stoney?.....

[miloking]

Thanks for being so small minded. Yes, in this case it as a cop that fucked up by doing a 3-point turn in a stupid place. In the interview StoneY said the bike could have been a stock truck and then this would be a different story - all I'm saying is that the cop car could have just as easily been any other stationary vehicle hidden over the brow of the hill, perhaps a broken down and immovable car/van/ute/truck or even a crashed motorcycle, and the rider would still be dead.

Making cops safer drivers is one thing - but you still have another 2 million+ other road users to worry about though - starting with yourself.

Ok yes i see your point, but if it was broken down truck, driver should still be in trouble for leaving his "broken down" truck in the middle of the road in such a dangerous place...

[Beeza]

A cop car doing a 3pt turn across both lanes in a road cutting 50m from the brow leaves anyone cresting that rise at 100km/h absolutely no chance to evade the obstacle or slow to a halt. A stalled car or a crashed bike blocks, at worst, one lane and therefore leaving a possible escape route to the oncoming motorcyclist/motorist. The cop car, doing a 3pt turn in a dangerous spot, blocks the entire road and so represents a worst-case scenario.

If it were you or me doing that 3pt manoeuvre in our car in that same spot, the cops will have charged us with culpable homicide and a whole raft of other stuff within minutes of arriving at the crash scene. They wouldn't faff and fudge about looking for any reasons not to lay charges as they're doing with this fool who simply happens to be their colleague.

[tomobedlam]

Excellent reporting and interviewing by National Radio. It nice to know that there is still a broadcaster who can report without the sway that many other news agency put on stories especially tv3. It will a be very sad day if the government has it's way and the news is outsourced.

[R6_kid]

So you support the cop doing a three point turn there because he could have been a stock truck. Would you also support a stock truck doing the same thing because he could have been a cop? Your arguemnt is that no stupidity should ever be condemned because other instances of stupidty can always be found. So you not condemn a drunk driver who takes out a biker, because there will always be other drunk drivers ?

Where did I say that Les? I don't support the cop, it was stupid a thing to do. What I'm trying to convey is that it could possibly have been any stationary object, vehicle or otherwise, blocking the path of the rider as they came over the crest, and the situation would potentially be no different, with no one at fault other than the rider. What if the object was a fallen tree?


Ok yes i see your point, but if it was broken down truck, driver should still be in trouble for leaving his "broken down" truck in the middle of the road in such a dangerous place...

Perhaps... in that case it may still not be the drivers fault that the vehicle is unable to move.


A cop car doing a 3pt turn across both lanes in a road cutting 50m from the brow leaves anyone cresting that rise at 100km/h absolutely no chance to evade the obstacle or slow to a halt. A stalled car or a crashed bike blocks, at worst, one lane and therefore leaving a possible escape route to the oncoming motorcyclist/motorist. The cop car, doing a 3pt turn in a dangerous spot, blocks the entire road and so represents a worst-case scenario.

And if there was a vehicle coming the other way, therefore blocking off that only other exit? Again, the cop doing a 3pt turn is stupid and in this case should be liable.

How about this... would you do 100kmh+ into thick fog if you couldn't see more than 50m in front of you? If you did, and you then crashed into a stationary vehicle - lets assume a person doing a 3pt turn on a straight, flat stretch of road. Would you hold any of the blame in that situation?

I wasn't at the crash scene - I don't know how fast the rider was going. I know that a cop did a 3pt turn in a blind spot of vehicles approaching from the other side of the crest - but I also know that it is not wise to approach any blind corner/crest/area at a speed for which you cannot stop in the visible distance.

[Ixion]

Ok yes i see your point, but if it was broken down truck, driver should still be in trouble for leaving his "broken down" truck in the middle of the road in such a dangerous place...

That's not quite the point though. A broken down truck comes under the "shit happens" category. Presumably the truck driver didn't deliberately break down in such a dangerous place (and one would hope that he'd walk back to the hilltop to warn oncoming traffic).

Motorcycling IS dangerous. No-one says otherwise. We can (are too often are) killed when "shit happens"

But this wasn't "shit happens". This was a deliberate act, by someone who should have known better.


I can accept the broken down trucks, and fallen trees and herds of cows. They are "shit happens"; like an Act of God , no different to being struck by lightning.

But I don't, and won't accept a deliberate act , patently negligent and stupid , that kills a biker, especially when it is done by someone we specifically place in a position of trust on the basis that they are supposed to be trained and competent enough that they WON'T do such things.

[R6_kid]

Yes Les, you are completely correct about the actions of the officer. My point is that as much as this could have been avoided by the cop taking more precaution when making the three point turn, the same could eqaully be said for the actions of the rider. It's not as if the patrol car appeared magically out of the ether, bang smack in front of the rider - the rider surely must have come over the crest at a speed for which he was unable to stop in the distance for which he could see. Therefore does some of the blame not also fall on the rider?

[Katman]

So you support the cop doing a three point turn there because he could have been a stock truck. Would you also support a stock truck doing the same thing because he could have been a cop? Your arguemnt is that no stupidity should ever be condemned because other instances of stupidty can always be found. So you not condemn a drunk driver who takes out a biker, because there will always be other drunk drivers ?

I find it disturbing that someone with such a blinkered viewpoint and, at times, such a laughable grasp of logic and understanding, could consider themselves in any way suitable to be in a position where they speak on behalf of all NZ motorcyclists.

[StoneY]

''He would have been coming over there (the crest) at 100kph''.....

How do you know that Stoney?.....

I dont KNOW it Maha.
But look at that road...highly unlikel;y he was doing 80, or 90 now is it?
And as the speed limit is 100 kmh, I took the liberty of stating he was travelling at that, the open road speed limit

Any vehicle crossing that hilltop would be doing at least the limit, if theyre someone who knew the road as Paul obviously did

I spoke with a few people who knew Paul before the interview went ahead, I simply did the best with the data I had Maha
It would not be reasonable to suggest Paul was doing anything over the speed limit from what I was told of his onraod riding habits

I state again, I HOPE I did justice to Paul, and summarised the situation with what information I had

The point about the stock truck was: the cops poor practise would have resulted in a dead cop and passenger, and a traumatised, possibly acccused driver of a heavy vehicle as an outcome

I do not believe there is any merit in flaming a witch hunt in the period that the Brown family and friends, are grieving.
There will be time for finger pointing, accusing, and analysis of the facts after the dust settles.

The cop utterly fucked up, that is obvious, and thats the point I was trying to make without being too over the top and inflamatory on public radio.
As well as pointing out that the initial claims of the biker 'speeding' as reported on several broadcasts (see the friendly ex racer neighbour already covering the cops ass on TV3?) are unsubstantiated, un povable, and irrelevant
At any speed he was doomed due to this ridiculous 'must catch the speeder' attitude of our Police force

[StoneY]

I find it disturbing that someone with such a blinkered viewpoint and, at times, such a laughable grasp of logic and understanding, could consider themselves in any way suitable to be in a position where they speak on behalf of all NZ motorcyclists.

Rather Les than a one eyed troll like you Katman
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black

[StoneY]

the rider surely must have come over the crest at a speed for which he was unable to stop in the distance for which he could see. Therefore does some of the blame not also fall on the rider?

Ok crossing a blind crest, even at 100kmh exactly, and there in front of you, between 20-25 meteres, is a car right accross the road, the whole road, no escape room at all (banks either side)

NO CHANCE - dont care who ya are - of stopping ya bike, thats a collision that cannot be avoided, period!

There have been people speculating about the distance the bike could/might/should have seen the cop car
ALL BULLSHIT
The cop car should NOT have been there

As Les says it fails to be an 'act of god' obstacle because a professional Police Highway Patrol Officer was at the wheel
let the investigation finish before we start accusing and defending on partial facts, huh?

[Katman]

Rather Les than a one eyed troll like you Katman
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black

Better than being Les' puppet.

[R6_kid]

let the investigation finish before we start accusing and defending on partial facts, huh?

Exactly my point. For both sides of the story.

[Squiggles]

the rider surely must have come over the crest at a speed for which he was unable to stop in the distance for which he could see. Therefore does some of the blame not also fall on the rider?

Thats the sort've thinking that keeps me off the coro in teh weekends... s'not as good of a ride going 30kph for 6 hours :shit:

[PirateJafa]

The cop was incredibly foolish, yes. Shit does happen, yes. But also, as [presumably] responsible, licensed road-users, we do also have the onus upon us to be able to stop within the visible distance ahead.

Edit: Damn, forgot to hit "Submit" for 30mins and everyone ninja'd in and beat me.

[discodan]

The cop was incredibly foolish, yes. Shit does happen, yes. But also, as [presumably] responsible, licensed road-users, we do also have the onus upon us to be able to stop within the visible distance ahead.
]

Imagine you are following a car along a road and every time that car reaches a crest of a hill they slow down to about 30kmph, then speed up to 100kmph, then slow down again at the next crest / corner etc.

what's the bet you would get angry and pass that car...?

Being careful and alert is one thing but being pedantic about stopping distances is simply not practical. The rider was not to blame for this incident.

[Brian d marge]

Not sure anyone has pointed this out in such a tragic set of circumstances
but the police , did a u turn to catch another car that was doing 154 km/h over or even before a crest of a rise ,,,the alleged speeder would have airborne

This whole revenue gathering rort in NZ does have to change ,

Stephen

[StoneY]

Imagine you are following a car along a road and every time that car reaches a crest of a hill they slow down to about 30kmph, then speed up to 100kmph, then slow down again at the next crest / corner etc.

what's the bet you would get angry and pass that car...?

Being careful and alert is one thing but being pedantic about stopping distances is simply not practical. The rider was not to blame for this incident.

Good post DD

Add to the picture:
Double yellow lines either side of the crest for a few hundred meters, is it illegal to do a U-Turn on Double Yellows?
I believe it is
Reason for those double yellows and no 'speed suggestion' sign as in at corners, is its set up to ALLOW you to carry on over that crest AT 100 KMH

I am sure we all know the spots on the Desert road that are signed as "SLOW DOWN NOW STEEP CURVE" etc?
Does such a sign exist where Paul was riding?
I believe not

Cannot blame anyone for driving/riding at the posted speed limit if no speed warning/danger sign says 'take this crest at 30kmh in case someones done a u turn on the other side' can you?


And Katman I care not what you think, your a dickhead and everyone on these forums knows it, man we laugh our nuts off at your arrogant self flattering dribble in the Pub every weekend, so keep it up we appreciate the light entertainment

[twotyred]

I have updated the OP with todays Morning Report piece speaking to Brent Russell and also Paul Browns brother in law.

[R6_kid]

Being careful and alert is one thing but being pedantic about stopping distances is simply not practical. The rider was not to blame for this incident.

Really? Do you know something that the rest of us don't?

The only thing that is clear is that if the cop wasn't doing the three point turn that this wouldn't have happened. That doesn't automatically obsolve all blame from the other party and put it on the police officer. It just means that their actions were contributing factors in the accident - and not a single thing more.

[peasea]

I find it disturbing that someone with such a blinkered viewpoint and, at times, such a laughable grasp of logic and understanding, could consider themselves in any way suitable to be in a position where they speak on behalf of all NZ motorcyclists.

Perfect I would have said; that way we can deal with the 'powers that be' on a level playing field.

[discodan]

if the cop wasn't doing the three point turn that this wouldn't have happened.

That's what I mean.


That doesn't automatically obsolve all blame from the other party and put it on the police officer. It just means that their actions were contributing factors in the accident - and not a single thing more.

I don't think you can refer to the u-turn as a 'contributing factor', it was the CAUSE of the accident.

This was a clear demonstration that speed doesn't kill - stupidity does.

[terbang]

I find it disturbing that someone with such a blinkered viewpoint and, at times, such a laughable grasp of logic and understanding, could consider themselves in any way suitable to be in a position where they speak on behalf of all NZ motorcyclists.

Of course we need a narrow minded zealot instead.

[PirateJafa]

Imagine you are following a car along a road and every time that car reaches a crest of a hill they slow down to about 30kmph, then speed up to 100kmph, then slow down again at the next crest / corner etc.

what's the bet you would get angry and pass that car...?

Being careful and alert is one thing but being pedantic about stopping distances is simply not practical. The rider was not to blame for this incident.

I regularly button off when cresting blind rises. It's no different to approaching a blind corner.

I cringe when I see people gunning it over blind crests - some tools even use them for power wheelies.

What about people whose driveway are at the top of a blind crest? Do they deserve to have a fucktard like you plowing into their drivers door when they leave their own home?

What about farmers, driving their tractor along the road? Do they deserve to have to clean pieces of you and your SV out of the back of their tractor while they move between parts of their farm?

What about those farmers that have to move stock along the road? Do they deserve to have you suddenly plowing through their herd, slaughtering their livestock as you do it?

Pull your head in mate - your "I'm the most important person in the world, everyone else takes a backseat to me" attitude is pathetic.

[discodan]

I regularly button off when cresting blind rises. It's no different to approaching a blind corner.

I cringe when I see people gunning it over blind crests - some tools even use them for power wheelies.

What about people whose driveway is at the top of a blind crest? Do they deserve to have a fucktard like you plowing into their drivers door when they leave their own home?

What about farmers, driving their tractor along the road? Do they deserve to have to clean pieces of you and your SV out of the back of their tractor while they move between parts of their farm?

What about those farmers that have to move stock along the road? Do they deserve to have you suddenly plowing through their herd, slaughtering their livestock as you do it?

Pull your head in mate - your "I'm the most important person in the world, everyone else takes a backseat to me" attitude is pathetic.

So sorry that I quoted your post when trying to make my point... which was obviously lost on you during your fit of rage.

In this case the driver was at fault and if you suggest otherwise then you are dellusional.

[PirateJafa]

So sorry that I quoted your post when trying to make my point... which was obviously lost on you during your fit of rage.

In this case the driver was at fault and if you suggest otherwise then you are dellusional.

Indeed, I believe the car driver is at fault in this case (yellow lines on his side, lack of visibility - it's plain stupid). I guess that when I saw you had quoted my post, it may have meant you had actually read it. I guess that that would be beyond you, however.

But I am waiting to see what the actual facts are before I decide on how much at fault the biker is as well.

There is very little excuse for coming upon a stationary hazard and not being able to stop in time.

[R6_kid]

the police , did a u turn to catch another car that was doing 154 km/h over or even before a crest of a rise ,,,the alleged speeder would have airborne

This whole revenue gathering rort in NZ does have to change

WTF... what gives you the idea that a 1.5 possibly 2+ton ute would be airborne at 154kmh over the crest pictured- it's not an FMX ramp. As far as I'm aware 154kmh is well above the 'grey area' of speed that most people associate with revenue gathering.

The problem is that the police officer had a brain explosion when the vehicle went past at this alleged speed. Isn't it intriguing that nearly everyone on KB experiences a similar phenomenon whenever a biker is killed and another vehicle is involved.

[Ixion]

.. There is very little excuse for coming upon a stationary hazard and not being able to stop in time.

There is no evidence that the hazard was stationary , and perhaps some that it was not. That is, the car may have turned across the path of the bike (the driver admits he never saw the bike). And this would all have happened very fast, a different scenario to the broken down truck

Someone said that it would take three seconds to do the turn. I'm doubtful of that myself, but assuming it is, that would mean that if the car was stationary across the road it had completed half its turn. So it would have completed the turn and been accelerating away within 1.5 to 2 seconds.

Now the rider would have had at least 2 , probably 3 seconds after cresting the hill before impact, even if he didn't brake. At 100 kph he's travelling very roughly 30 metres per second. The visibility would have been 60 or 70 metres, depending on height etc . So that would be at least 2 seconds to reach the car. But if the car only needed 1.5 seconds to complete its turn, either the crash would not have happened, or it would have been a tail end crash.

The imponderables are too great to say that with certainty (in particular that three second figure, which is not mine). But equally, I don't think it can be said to be a case of a stationary obstruction.

And the one case where the 'able to stop" always rule fails, is if a car turns in front of an oncoming vehicle.

[Crasherfromwayback]

There is very little excuse for coming upon a stationary hazard and not being able to stop in time.

You're kidding us right? If not...you've got poo on the end of your knob. You'll cause a massive accident if you slow to 20kph over every rise in the fucking road.

[Brian d marge]

WTF... what gives you the idea that a 1.5 possibly 2+ton ute would be airborne at 154kmh over the crest pictured- it's not an FMX ramp. As far as I'm aware 154kmh is well above the 'grey area' of speed that most people associate with revenue gathering.

The problem is that the police officer had a brain explosion when the vehicle went past at this alleged speed. Isn't it intriguing that nearly everyone on KB experiences a similar phenomenon whenever a biker is killed and another vehicle is involved.

154 kmh

Not talking about the actions of the police officer , goes with out being said , but I do find that 154 kmh that was quoted , a little strange

now having cleared up that area

Dont involve me in idiotic 3 word posts

Stephen

[Squiggles]

I regularly button off when cresting blind rises. It's no different to approaching a blind corner.

Dont you be bringing sense into this....

Burn burn burn!

[Swoop]

Double yellow lines either side of the crest for a few hundred meters, is it illegal to do a U-Turn on Double Yellows?
I believe it is.
There was a single yellow line where the crash occurred. (See here (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/122146-Police-killing-us-again!?p=1129723578#post1129723578))
The double yellow lines are on the other side of the hill.

Still the fault of the cop, crossing the yellow line.


Agree with your final comment...

[PirateJafa]

There is no evidence that the hazard was stationary , and perhaps some that it was not. That is, the car may have turned across the path of the bike (the driver admits he never saw the bike). And this would all have happened very fast, a different scenario to the broken down truck

Someone said that it would take three seconds to do the turn. I'm doubtful of that myself, but assuming it is, that would mean that if the car was stationary across the road it had completed half its turn. So it would have completed the turn and been accelerating away within 1.5 to 2 seconds.

Now the rider would have had at least 2 , probably 3 seconds after cresting the hill before impact, even if he didn't brake. At 100 kph he's travelling very roughly 30 metres per second. The visibility would have been 60 or 70 metres, depending on height etc . So that would be at least 2 seconds to reach the car. But if the car only needed 1.5 seconds to complete its turn, either the crash would not have happened, or it would have been a tail end crash.

The imponderables are too great to say that with certainty (in particular that three second figure, which is not mine). But equally, I don't think it can be said to be a case of a stationary obstruction.

And the one case where the 'able to stop" always rule fails, is if a car turns in front of an oncoming vehicle.

That statement was not directed at this incident in particular, but rather in general.

Although in the situation you have outlined above, it would sound like the rider hadn't left himself enough room. Yes, the car should no be doing what it is doing, but unless it does it within your "stopping distance" (has happened to me once in the city), you should still be able to stop and avoid the crash.

"He shouldn't have done that" is not much consolation when you are fucked up or dead.

It will be interesting to see what the results are in this case.


You're kidding us right? If not...you've got poo on the end of your knob. You'll cause a massive accident if you slow to 20kph over every rise in the fucking road.

Please point out where I said you should slow to 20km/h for every bump in the road? For someone who is old enough to be allegedly running a bike store, your reading comprehension is lackadaisical to say the least.

If you are unable to ride at a speed that is appropriate and safe for the conditions (this is not always the same as the speed limit - it can be less than the speed limit, or even more than the speed limit), then you should get the hell off the public roads before you injure or kill another innocent party.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Please point out where I said you should slow to 20km/h for every bump in the road? For someone who is old enough to be allegedly running a bike store, your reading comprehension is lackadaisical to say the least.

If you are unable to ride at a speed that is appropriate and safe for the conditions (this is not always the same as the speed limit - it can be less than the speed limit, or even more than the speed limit), then you should get the hell off the public roads before you injure or kill another innocent party.

Please point out where it says I run a bike shop cocksmoker? So much for YOUR incredible reading skills eh? What I do read into your incredibly full of yourself post is this...you think that a perfectly innocent rider is dead because he's a fool for not being able stop in time for an unforseeable immovable object. Correct? Am I right? Did I read that right????

[Grubber]

Yes Les, you are completely correct about the actions of the officer. My point is that as much as this could have been avoided by the cop taking more precaution when making the three point turn, the same could eqaully be said for the actions of the rider. It's not as if the patrol car appeared magically out of the ether, bang smack in front of the rider - the rider surely must have come over the crest at a speed for which he was unable to stop in the distance for which he could see. Therefore does some of the blame not also fall on the rider?

I am guessing a little here but from the photo it looks like the car is around 50 to 100 metres off the brow of the hill. If the rider was doing a comfortable 110k's i doubt he would have too much room to move when he saw the car. Can't really see how he could be of any fault. Simple fact of the matter is, the car just shouldn't have been there fullstop. No car No accident!

[PirateJafa]

Please point out where it says I run a bike shop cocksmoker? So much for YOUR incredible reading skills eh?

From what I can recall of some of your past posts on this forum, I must have accidentally thought you did. Clearly I was badly mistaken - I'd also thought you had a clue. Never fear though, I won't make that mistake again.


What I do read into your incredibly full of yourself post is this...you think that a perfectly innocent rider is dead because he's a fool for not being able stop in time for an unforseeable immovable object. Correct? Am I right? Did I read that right????

Hi, I'm the thread. Please try reading me before applying your fingers to your keyboard.

This will help prevent other posters having to apply their palms to their faces.


Yes, the car should not be doing what it is doing, but unless it does it within your "stopping distance" (has happened to me once in the city), you should still be able to stop and avoid the crash.


Indeed, I believe the car driver is at fault in this case (yellow lines on his side, lack of visibility - it's plain stupid).


The cop was incredibly foolish, yes.

[Grubber]

I regularly button off when cresting blind rises. It's no different to approaching a blind corner.

I cringe when I see people gunning it over blind crests - some tools even use them for power wheelies.

What about people whose driveway is at the top of a blind crest? Do they deserve to have a fucktard like you plowing into their drivers door when they leave their own home?

What about farmers, driving their tractor along the road? Do they deserve to have to clean pieces of you and your SV out of the back of their tractor while they move between parts of their farm?

What about those farmers that have to move stock along the road? Do they deserve to have you suddenly plowing through their herd, slaughtering their livestock as you do it?

Pull your head in mate - your "I'm the most important person in the world, everyone else takes a backseat to me" attitude is pathetic.

Good stuff. Have to say i do the same on most occasions. Don't trust my instinct to well when it comes to blind crests. But in saying that, if you know the road well enough to know that it doesn't whip round a bend just as you go over the rise then one might still keep the throttle on. Most of what is being said here is all very interesting but at the end of the day it isn't going to bring Paul back. What we need to do is maybe learn what we can from this and perhaps button off a little when we crest a hill just in case.

[StoneY]

I am guessing a little here but from the photo it looks like the car is around 50 to 100 metres off the brow of the hill. If the rider was doing a comfortable 110k's i doubt he would have too much room to move when he saw the car. Can't really see how he could be of any fault. Simple fact of the matter is, the car just shouldn't have been there fullstop. No car No accident!

Police claim he was 60 meters approx from the brow of the hill
Allow that on his bike Paul might get a minor clearance of visibility the car did not have
Best guess ( I say guess) he MIGHT have seen the cop car in his path at 70 meters

I was at a training day at Taupo Racetrack about a month ago with Andrew Templeton of Roadsafe teaching us emergency stopping

I saw bikes take 50 meters to stop in a REAL effort at 80kmh
Best effort we saw was about 35 meters from an ABS equiped bike

So
Taking the 60 meters Police estimate, add 10 for height of rider on bike (as in LOS), add 20kmh speed to to a known stopping distance (tested on a track under instruction) and them riders knew they had to slam it on at that cone up ahead

Paul had to: see the car, react, apply brakes (whats that take 1 second?) at 100kmh there is 30 meters gone before his brakes start grabbing.........
40 meters left in which to stop/take escape route...........

He never stood a chance and now the cops are suggesting they will be 'assessing the speed' the rider was travelling, instead of looking at the fact the car did a 3 point turn in a blind spot

Paul carries NO BLAME here nor would any other rider, no matter how good they ride, this obstacle was unavoidable

And as stated above, the ONLY defense for not stopping in time is a vehicle pulling into your path within your braking distance. As the case is here

[shafty]

Sorry if this might seem to distract from the thread but....Yahoo has a Poll up FOR TODAY asking your opinon on this matter. Its at http://nz.yahoo.com - centre of page, Cheers, Shafty

[Ixion]

Paul had to: see the car, react, apply brakes (whats that take 1 second?) at 100kmh there is 30 meters gone before his brakes start grabbing......... 40 meters left in which to stop/take escape route...... One of the press articles mentions 30 metre skid marks. Which fits almost exactly with that calculation. The only imponderable is how much speed he had left when he hit. Which equates back to how far he flew after impact. So far the press has 7 metres, 30 metres, and 100 metres. take your pick.

It's also possible that a rider as experienced as he was would have been able to swerve and brake, he might have been trying to go round the rear.

[Squiggles]

*big post here*


let the investigation finish before we start accusing and defending on partial facts, huh?

Cool beans

[MSTRS]

... he might have been trying to go round the rear.

Of course he could have been. And there may well have been a gap when he committed to that action. A gap that was then closed by the cop reversing into it as the second part of his 3 point turn.

[MSTRS]

What about people whose driveway are at the top of a blind crest? .

Think about that. And then come back to us...

A blind crest is...for those approaching it. It's very rarely blind for those at the top. They can see what's coming both ways

[toycollector10]

I thought that Paul spoke very well with a well reasoned, logical attitude to the accident. The Police spokesman was just doing his job.

The Police need to implement a full-on training regime with their officers regarding making a 180 degree turn to pursue.

Adrenaline kills. Whether riding, flying your aircraft or driving your car or chasing that huge crayfish down too deep when you're out diving, for example.

If it's getting exciting you might be doing it wrong. The cop in this instance probably had a massive adrenaline hit and there you go. Maybe it was his first chance this week for a nice high speed pursuit, exciting stuff. He effed up big time and a rider's paid with his life. And the cop will pay with his job and by knowing that he's killed someone dead to rights.

And as usual, a thread on this website has denigrated to name calling, mud slinging and abuse. Mostly because some people can't comprehend plain written English and grammar.

[R6_kid]

I am guessing a little here but from the photo it looks like the car is around 50 to 100 metres off the brow of the hill. If the rider was doing a comfortable 110k's i doubt he would have too much room to move when he saw the car. Can't really see how he could be of any fault. Simple fact of the matter is, the car just shouldn't have been there fullstop. No car No accident!

Assuming he was at 110kmh. The article on the front page of the Harold today stated that the motorcyclists body was 30m from the point of impact. The pictures on the Harold website appear to show the police car was spun approximately 90 degrees with the impact occuring in the rear quarter of the car.

Taking these points into account - you have a 200kg motorcycle which has spun an 1800kg car through 90degrees. That is a lot of force. We also have an 80kg(ish) body which as been thrown past the point of impact for some distance.

From what StoneY has said regarding distances etc I would assume that your average motorcyclist travelling at 100kmh would have had enough time to scrub off sufficient speed such that the impact would not have spun the car or thrown the rider 7m, 30m or 100m further down the road. At a guess I'd say if you'd taken 30m to react and had another 30m of efficient braking you're speed would be down to 40-50kmh, certainly not a very fatal speed. Most studies I've seen suggest a good motorcyclist should be able to stop from 100kmh in about 80m in fair conditions, or just over 100m in the wet - including reaction time.

[shafty]

I thought that Paul spoke very well with a well reasoned, logical attitude to the accident. The Police spokesman was just doing his job.

The Police need to implement a full-on training regime with their officers regarding making a 180 degree turn to pursue.

Adrenaline kills. Whether riding, flying your aircraft or driving your car or chasing that huge crayfish down too deep when you're out diving, for example.

If it's getting exciting you might be doing it wrong. The cop in this instance probably had a massive adrenaline hit and there you go. Maybe it was his first chance this week for a nice high speed pursuit, exciting stuff. He effed up big time and a rider's paid with his life. And the cop will pay with his job and by knowing that he's killed someone dead to rights.

And as usual, a thread on this website has denigrated to name calling, mud slinging and abuse. Mostly because some people can't comprehend plain written English and grammar.

Agreed re adrenaline.

Who was the other Guy in the Patrol car f no a Cop? An observer?:

One of the first people on the scene, neighbour Frank Wilkin, said he raced outside after hearing a "horrific boom" and saw a police officer and another man get out of the patrol car.

"They looked very, very shocked, they didn't know what the hell they'd hit. They were as white as sheets."

[carver]

I dont KNOW it Maha.
But look at that road...highly unlikel;y he was doing 80, or 90 now is it?
And as the speed limit is 100 kmh, I took the liberty of stating he was travelling at that, the open road speed limit

Any vehicle crossing that hilltop would be doing at least the limit, if theyre someone who knew the road as Paul obviously did

I spoke with a few people who knew Paul before the interview went ahead, I simply did the best with the data I had Maha
It would not be reasonable to suggest Paul was doing anything over the speed limit from what I was told of his onraod riding habits

I state again, I HOPE I did justice to Paul, and summarised the situation with what information I had

The point about the stock truck was: the cops poor practise would have resulted in a dead cop and passenger, and a traumatised, possibly acccused driver of a heavy vehicle as an outcome

I do not believe there is any merit in flaming a witch hunt in the period that the Brown family and friends, are grieving.
There will be time for finger pointing, accusing, and analysis of the facts after the dust settles.

The cop utterly fucked up, that is obvious, and thats the point I was trying to make without being too over the top and inflamatory on public radio.
As well as pointing out that the initial claims of the biker 'speeding' as reported on several broadcasts (see the friendly ex racer neighbour already covering the cops ass on TV3?) are unsubstantiated, un povable, and irrelevant
At any speed he was doomed due to this ridiculous 'must catch the speeder' attitude of our Police force

i know that road...
i used to try and wheelie over the hills on my GSXR (there are a lot of em)
the road is pretty straight too

[Milts]

Just two points (or questions) re braking distance and speed at impact...
As someone pointed out, he may have been attempting to swerve to avoid the car while on the brakes. If that were the case, he may easily have not slowed down anywhere near as fast as is possible in a straight line.
Sorry if I sound ignorant here, I'm not exactly experienced, but if he's coming over the hill at speed and suddenly the road drops away, would that affect braking distance? Seeing as he is unoading the suspension coming over the crest, and reducing his traction with the road? Would this have a noticable impact on his braking distance?

[Katman]

Imagine you are following a car along a road and every time that car reaches a crest of a hill they slow down to about 30kmph, then speed up to 100kmph, then slow down again at the next crest / corner etc.

what's the bet you would get angry and pass that car...?

Being careful and alert is one thing but being pedantic about stopping distances is simply not practical. The rider was not to blame for this incident.

Would you be happy to race on a fast circuit with blind crests if there were no flag marshalls present?

[Crasherfromwayback]

But I am waiting to see what the actual facts are before I decide on how much at fault the biker is as well.

There is very little excuse for coming upon a stationary hazard and not being able to stop in time.

THIS is what I mean about you being an oily wankstain Piratefudgepacker.

How long have you been riding motorcycles for then eh? Do you think you're already more skilled than the innocent guy just killed? Are you that full of yourself and that sure of your own riding ability that you think you can say shit like that without being called on it? You say you're WAITING on the facts...then go on to say "There is very little excuse for coming upon a stantionary hazzard and not being able to stop"???

Who said it was fucking stationary? What's to say the poor guy didn't have an escape route round the back of the car when the fuckhead put it in reverse and killed him? I bet you're an unemployed pimply faced student that reads too much about everything, but does very little of nothing. Except tell us all how you would have avoided being killed cause you're so good/smart.

[Katman]

THIS is what I mean about you being an oily wankstain Piratefudgepacker.

How long have you been riding motorcycles for then eh? Do you think you're already more skilled than the innocent guy just killed? Are you that full of yourself and that sure of your own riding ability that you think you can say shit like that without being called on it? You say you're WAITING on the facts...then go on to say "There is very little excuse for coming upon a stantionary hazzard and not being able to stop"???

Who said it was fucking stationary? What's to say the poor guy didn't have an escape route round the back of the car when the fuckhead put it in reverse and killed him? I bet you're an unemployed pimply faced student that reads too much about everything, but does very little of nothing. Except tell us all how you would have avoided being killed cause you're so good/smart.

If you can't see the sense in his post then you're the fucking retard.

[Crasherfromwayback]

If you can't see the sense in his post then you're the fucking retard.

Ahhhh...no Cuntman...never called him a retard. You on the other hand...

[R6_kid]

How long have you been riding motorcycles for then eh? Do you think you're already more skilled than the innocent guy just killed? Are you that full of yourself and that sure of your own riding ability that you think you can say shit like that without being called on it? You say you're WAITING on the facts...then go on to say "There is very little excuse for coming upon a stantionary hazzard and not being able to stop"???

In any situation where you hit a vehicle already in your lane, you're liable for failing to stop.

[Crasherfromwayback]

In any situation where you hit a vehicle already in your lane, you're liable for failing to stop.

100% bullshit.

[R6_kid]

100% bullshit.

Sorry?

If you are travelling at a speed for which you cannot stop in the visible distance of clear road ahead of you - then you can be considered to be driving "dangerously" or "recklessly".

You were obviously tested on a different version of the road code to me because the one I learnt from said:
"on a road with lanes, you must be able to stop in the length of clear road you can see in front of you"
"on a road with no lanes, you must be able to stop in half the length of clear road you can see in front of you"

I'm not saying that is what happens, that is how you are supposed to be driving/riding.

[PirateJafa]

THIS is what I mean about you being an oily wankstain Piratefudgepacker.

How long have you been riding motorcycles for then eh? Do you think you're already more skilled than the innocent guy just killed? Are you that full of yourself and that sure of your own riding ability that you think you can say shit like that without being called on it? You say you're WAITING on the facts...then go on to say "There is very little excuse for coming upon a stantionary hazzard and not being able to stop"???

Who said it was fucking stationary? What's to say the poor guy didn't have an escape route round the back of the car when the fuckhead put it in reverse and killed him? I bet you're an unemployed pimply faced student that reads too much about everything, but does very little of nothing. Except tell us all how you would have avoided being killed cause you're so good/smart.

Clearly you have yet to read any of my posts.

Please pay attention in particular to post #47, although you may run out to fingers trying to count your way down to it.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Sorry?

If you are travelling at a speed for which you cannot stop in the visible distance of clear road ahead of you - then you can be considered to be driving "dangerously" or "recklessly".

You were obviously tested on a different version of the road code to me because the one I learnt from said:
"on a road with lanes, you must be able to stop in the length of clear road you can see in front of you"
"on a road with no lanes, you must be able to stop in half the length of clear road you can see in front of you"

I'm not saying that is what happens, that is how you are supposed to be driving/riding.

No need to be sorry. Just learn to differentiate between following too closely and riding over a crest to find a fucking police car in the middle of your lane.

[The Pastor]

You were obviously tested on a different version of the road code to me because the one I learnt from said:
"on a road with lanes, you must be able to stop in the length of clear road you can see in front of you"
"on a road with no lanes, you must be able to stop in half the length of clear road you can see in front of you"



(road code is not law)

[Crasherfromwayback]

Please pay attention in particular to post #47, although you may run out to fingers trying to count your way down to it.

Sorry. Unlike you and your relatives...I don't have 47 fingers.

[PirateJafa]

THIS is what I mean about you being an oily wankstain Piratefudgepacker.

How long have you been riding motorcycles for then eh? Do you think you're already more skilled than the innocent guy just killed? Are you that full of yourself and that sure of your own riding ability that you think you can say shit like that without being called on it? You say you're WAITING on the facts...then go on to say "There is very little excuse for coming upon a stantionary hazzard and not being able to stop"???

Who said it was fucking stationary? What's to say the poor guy didn't have an escape route round the back of the car when the fuckhead put it in reverse and killed him? I bet you're an unemployed pimply faced student that reads too much about everything, but does very little of nothing. Except tell us all how you would have avoided being killed cause you're so good/smart.

U mad?

Yeah, u mad.

Please, push the keyboard away from you until your time of the month has passed, and you feel free to rejoin civilised society.

I have no doubt that his riding abilities were much higher than my own. Any difference, I suggest, might have been in our attitudes towards riding on the public roads. Especially, if he rode on the road like other of his "Coro Demons" crew that I have seen.

Anything else is probably a figment of your clearly fevered imagination.

[R6_kid]

No need to be sorry. Just learn to differentiate between following too closely and riding over a crest to find a fucking police car in the middle of your lane.

Re-read the sentence. Taking particular note of "in the length of clear road". It does not differentiate between what object is stopping the lane from being clear.

[Crasherfromwayback]

U mad?

Yeah, u mad.

Please, push the keyboard away from you until your time of the month has passed, and you feel free to rejoin civilised society.

I have no doubt that his riding abilities were much higher than my own. Any difference, I suggest, might have been in our attitudes towards riding on the public roads. Especially, if he rode on the road like other of his "Coro Demons" crew that I have seen.

Anything else is probably a figment of your clearly fevered imagination.

Me...mad? Nope. Just get fucked off when I read shit from prepubescent wankers that think they're way better/smarter and wiser than they actually are. Get back to me when your balls drop and you have your own computer. You're slagging off a dead man that can't defend himself. That makes you a cunt as well as a wankstain.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Re-read the sentence. Taking particular note of "in the length of clear road". It does not differentiate between what object is stopping the lane from being clear.

How 'bout you re-read the "Blind crest" bit first then? "in length of clear road" isn't meant for "car in the middle of the fucking road over blind crest".

[R6_kid]

How 'bout you re-read the "Blind crest" bit first then? "in length of clear road" isn't meant for "car in the middle of the fucking road over blind crest".

Correctomondo! It refers to the fact that you can't see over the crest, and therefore should only be travelling at a speed for which you can stop in the distance between you and the point at which you can see no further over the crest.

[PirateJafa]

poo knob fucking cocksmoker oily wankstain fudgepacker shit fucking Cuntman retard fucked wanker balls cunt wankstain.

Is this what happens when people get old?

Why would anyone ever want to grow up if this is all you have to look forward to? Dementia AND Tourette's rolled into one package?

[onearmedbandit]

Re-read the sentence. Taking particular note of "in the length of clear road". It does not differentiate between what object is stopping the lane from being clear.

How does this work if a car suddenly pulls out in front of you from a parked position on the side of the road, while you are travelling at 50km/h in a 50 zone? From what you're implying we should ride/drive at a speed where you can stop safely when a vehicle 10m suddenly pulls out. I'm not trying to be a smart arse, but your quote above of

In any situation where you hit a vehicle already in your lane, you're liable for failing to stop.

is simply not accurate.

[blueblade]

When you ride a bike, it doesnt matter how "in the right you are", you are the one who is going to come out worse off in any car vs motorcycle collision. So if you want to become an old motorcyclist you will learn to assume that every parked vehicle with a driver at the wheel is going to pull out on you. You will also assume there is the possibility of an unexpected solid object in your lane around every blind corner or over every blind crest. That doesnt mean you creep around every corner at 30 kays so you can stop - but it should mean that you have enough margin up your sleeve to take significant evasive action. Its called defensive driving and I would venture to suggest that most "older bikers" have either mastered it - or been exceptionally lucky ........so far.

[Ronin]

One of the press articles mentions 30 metre skid marks. Which fits almost exactly with that calculation. The only imponderable is how much speed he had left when he hit. Which equates back to how far he flew after impact. So far the press has 7 metres, 30 metres, and 100 metres. take your pick.

It's also possible that a rider as experienced as he was would have been able to swerve and brake, he might have been trying to go round the rear.

Something else to consider in the calculations. Paul was passing over the brow of the hill when he would have had to apply the brakes (from the info we have), we all know how light a bike feels when doing that. It would increase the stopping distance substantially I would have thought. Cambell Live showed a line which I assume is Paul's braking mark curving out to the right so the observation that he went to go around the back is a pretty good guess. Now if the cop was doing a 3 point turn (and he really had to be there) then the car could well have been in reverse.

[discodan]

Don't bother Crasherfromwayback, no point in argueing with morons on the internet (Pirate, Katman, R6).

Paul was a much better rider than those three guys and if he couldn't avoid the cop car then they would have had no chance. I doubt that he would be on here analysing how he would have behaved differently and how it was thier fault however.

[MSTRS]

When you ride a bike, it doesnt matter how "in the right you are", you are the one who is going to come out worse off in any car vs motorcycle collision. So if you want to become an old motorcyclist you will learn to assume that every parked vehicle with a driver at the wheel is going to pull out on you. You will also assume there is the possibility of an unexpected solid object in your lane around every blind corner or over every blind crest. That doesnt mean you creep around every corner at 30 kays so you can stop - but it should mean that you have enough margin up your sleeve to take significant evasive action. Its called defensive driving and I would venture to suggest that most "older bikers" have either mastered it - or been exceptionally lucky ........so far.

Exactly. Caution coupled with commonsense and certain amount of 'faith'

[Katman]

Don't bother Crasherfromwayback, no point in argueing with morons on the internet (Pirate, Katman, R6).

Paul was a much better rider than those three guys and if he couldn't avoid the cop car then they would have had no chance. I doubt that he would be on here analysing how he would have behaved differently and how it was thier fault however.

Have you got an answer to the question in post #63?

And define "better".

[Crasherfromwayback]

Have you got an answer to the question in post #63?



I have. Hell no. But the speeds I do on a race track are well different to the speeds I do on the street.

[Kornholio]

Don't bother Crasherfromwayback, no point in argueing with morons on the internet (Pirate, Katman, R6).

Paul was a much better rider than those three guys and if he couldn't avoid the cop car then they would have had no chance. I doubt that he would be on here analysing how he would have behaved differently and how it was thier fault however.

Lol, he wouldn't know how to turn on a computer... he even hated his cellphone, he sure as hell wouldn't have the time to sit around here bitchin all day... He would let ya know what he thought and discussion would be over unless you made a very valid point

RIP mate

[phill-k]

I'm a returned bike rider, having ridden when a youngster, and now with only 6000km as I work through the licensing system, I joined KB to learn, I also have watched the DVD's and read as much as I can, including the Police riders handbook to better MC, I read these bloody posts firstly to learn but now more so out of amazement that such bitch fighting can and does go on, I'm guessing my time here will probably come to an end as I'm in it for the fun but want to stay alive and unfortunately KB seems to be headed down a “road”. I don’t much enjoy the abuse. (see me comment at the bottom of this post.)
On with the reason for my post:
There have been some very good posts on this tragic subject but as far as I can determine limited facts are actually known about this incident as yet.
The Police car
Attempting to reverse direction when initiating a pursuit – width of road and photographed position of vehicle indicates this was not possible in a single manoeuvre.
Vehicle crossed a yellow line to complete manoeuvre.
Impact was approximately 60mtrs from limited visibility crest in road.
Officer had local knowledge of road, and probable traffic conditions.
Motorcyclist
Very experienced rider, whose skills unless impaired would have been first rate.
Also had local knowledge
As reported in herald was following Boss / Friend in utility vehicle, this person has been reported as stating he might have been speeding, was not a witness to accident and returned later to scene.
The science
From the above mentioned book
At 50mph (80km) stopping distance is 53mtrs
At 70mph (112km) stopping distance 96mtrs
Stopping distance = reaction time & braking
Skid mark 30mtrs
Impact moved vehicle through 45degs and possibly more – force required
Damage to vehicle, bike, and rider
Victim thrown for some distance
From the scene and taking into account the information the SCU has they will be able to work out at what stage the vehicle was at in its turn, the amount of visibility available to the rider, the probable speed at IMPACT as gauged from the energy required to shunt the vehicle, I’m sure they will take into account, braking distances and effects on the bike as it came over the rise. The SCU will determine the cause – few accidents have but a single cause, thus contributing factors will also be accessed, and from that a finding will be made on the cause of the accident and any contributing factors. I believe that the cause is already apparent from the evidence we can see, the vehicles manoeuvre in a restricted visibility area as evidenced by the vehicles location and the yellow line painted on the originating side of the road. However the interest here is any contributing causes to the accident, I assume all the bullshit I’m reading here is about that.
Again from said book motorcycle handling is a system of control made up of 5 phases and I won’t go on but they are as follows Information, position, speed, gear, and acceleration.
All the above is constantly accessed, with information guiding the rest, within information comes the external environment, including clear visibility ahead.

What I’m attempting to understand and this is becoming a real issue with my riding (note limited experience) is the operation of a MC beyond (a) one’s ability – pretty much understood and as this improves (b) the visible road ahead,– some obstacle on road not yet visible. I’m just not prepared to ride at a speed that is beyond what I perceive is my ability to if not stop my MC bring it to a speed where any impact will be at least low speed. Thus if the road ahead is not visible that information effects the other 4 stages as noted above, I can’t comment of the crest in the picture as I’ve never ridden that road, but I assume it probably can be taken at a speed somewhere near the speed limit, some of the idiotic comments on here about slowing to 30km are just not helpful to constructive discussion, as can be seem from the stopping distances above slowing to 80kms would have given the opportunity to probably either stop or at least impact at a speed that survival was possible.
As a NZer I have a belief that our police force is very probably one of the most honest in the western world, more importantly I don’t think the outcome of this investigation is important enough to world politics that there will be an absolute whitewash, the officers involved in our SCU could only volunteer to undertake that sort of work (bit like a gynaecologist) if they had an absolute belief that their work helped to further understanding of road safety, I would doubt they would want their science tainted to cover a single officers position, overall our system of fines and demerits appears on a world basis to be fairly light, just look at Aussie for instance.

My final comment as per introduction above, to those who wish to post in reply telling me to fuck off, if you don’t mind I’ll make up my own mind as to when or if I choose to do this.

[Katman]

I have. Hell no. But the speeds I do on a race track are well different to the speeds I do on the street.

Unfortunately, all too often the speeds that some motorcyclists do on the road are not that far removed from those seen on a track.

And ultimately the racetrack is a far safer environment.

So if there's the need to consider what is over the crest on a racetrack why wouldn't you apply the same consideration to the road?

[R6_kid]

How does this work if a car suddenly pulls out in front of you from a parked position on the side of the road, while you are travelling at 50km/h in a 50 zone? From what you're implying we should ride/drive at a speed where you can stop safely when a vehicle 10m suddenly pulls out.

A vehicle pulling out and 'suddenly' appearing in your lane is not the same as a vehicle that was already (or potentially about to be) in your lane before it arrived into your field of view.


Don't bother Crasherfromwayback, no point in argueing with morons on the internet (Pirate, Katman, R6).

Paul was a much better rider than those three guys and if he couldn't avoid the cop car then they would have had no chance. I doubt that he would be on here analysing how he would have behaved differently and how it was thier fault however.

Cheers, good to see you can make a judgement call on me without having met me or seeing me ride. I haven't called his riding skills into question - he was a National Champ in Motard racing so I have no doubt that he'd be able to hand my ass to me on a bike. That doesn't mean that he was 'riding to the conditions' at the time of the accident though.

My logic is that if he was doing a speed for which he could stop in the distance of clear road in front of him he probably wouldn't have hit the police car at a potentially fatal speed.

Is it really fair to assume that one person is guilty until proven innocent and another is innocent until proven guilty?

People are saying that the cop is the only person to blame in this situation, I'm just saying that judgement on blame and fault should be held for the time when all the facts are presented.

RIP Paul - and for those who knew him I mean absolutely no disrespect to him.

[R-Soul]

There seems to be an assumption that the cop car was in the road already when the bike came over the hill. And then it would be faior to say that teh bike shouldhave been going slower and then they would have had enough time to stop. But who is to say the bike was not already over the hill, or even just a few metres away when the cop car pulled out? The cop may have pulled out while looking backwards - not even checking for oncoming traffic! That would have made it even worse...

[phill-k]

There seems to be an assumption that the cop car was in the road already when the bike came over the hill. And then it would be faior to say that the bike should have been going slower and then they would have had enough time to stop. But who is to say the bike was not already over the hill, or even just a few MITREs away when the cop car pulled out? The cop may have pulled out while looking back wards - not even checking for oncoming traffic! That would have made it even worse...

You are right to a degree, however the details at the scene indicate that the rider began avoidance as demonstrated by the 30mtr skid mark, this along with the force of impact and damage will indicate the motorcycles speed and thus whether at the commencement of the manoeuvre the rider might have been visible, or at some later stage - when the vehicle was put into reverse, if as admitted it was a 3 point turn rather than u turn.

[StoneY]

You are right to a degree, however the details at the scene indicate that the rider began avoidance as demonstrated by the 30mtr skid mark, this along with the force of impact and damage will indicate the motorcycles speed and thus whether at the commencement of the manoeuvre the rider might have been visible, or at some later stage - when the vehicle was put into reverse, if as suspected it was a 3 point turn rather than u turn.

Try 'as ADMITTED' the Police officer that was driving has stated clearly, and been reprted as such, that he 'initiated a 3 point turn to chase the offender'

[Tunahunter]

phill-k ....I appreciate your analysis and comment - it's very refreshing

[R-Soul]

Keeping things real here, and without any facts.

The bikers mate was driving in a ute ahead of him.
His mate was doing 154 km/hr in the ute.
I assume they were driving together.
The bike rider was a racer.
I would be very surprised if the bike was not speeding (using the above circumstances as an indication).

BUT Its still a stupid place to do a U-turn.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Keeping things real here, and without any facts.

The bikers mate was driving in a ute ahead of him.
His mate was doing 154 km/hr in the ute.
I assume they were driving together.
The bike rider was a racer.
I would be very surprised if the bike was not speeding (using the above circumstances as an indication).

BUT Its still a stupid place to do a U-turn.

You assume quite a bit there!

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3606479/Motorcyclists-mate-was-death-turn-cops-target

[twotyred]

" Mr Jackson, 43, is expected to be charged with speeding in relation to the incident, but disputes police suggestions he was travelling at 154kmh.

He said his diesel-powered Mazda Bounty ute was not capable of that speed. "

and he'd be right... if the speed of 154ks put forward by the cops is genuine then this guy probably isn't the one their looking for

[Crasherfromwayback]

" Mr Jackson, 43, is expected to be charged with speeding in relation to the incident, but disputes police suggestions he was travelling at 154kmh.

He said his diesel-powered Mazda Bounty ute was not capable of that speed. "

and he'd be right... if the speed of 154ks put forward by the cops is genuine then this guy probably isn't the one their looking for

Maybe he had a good run down the hill!

[avgas]

You assume quite a bit there!

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3606479/Motorcyclists-mate-was-death-turn-cops-target
Pretty sad really.
Cops always said speed kills. Pity they didn't say "Speed and poor judgement will kill your best mate".
Perhaps we all would slow down a bit then.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Pretty sad really.
Cops always said speed kills. Pity they didn't say "Speed and poor judgement will kill your best mate".
Perhaps we all would slow down a bit then.

The whole thing is extremely sad. I'm as guilty as most of us here are (I'm sure), for going too fast from time to time. BUT you don't expect to find a car/object of any sort over a blind crest. Yes...the experts can say you should always be aware etc...but that's not something we all do if we're honest with ourselves. Who here hasn't been over a gentle crest at 100kph or more?? Some people here say it could've been a tree branch etc?? Sure...but that'd purely be bad luck and tragic. This accident was avoidable, and just plain stupidity by the Police officer involved.

THAT's what really sucks.

[R-Soul]

You assume quite a bit there!

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3606479/Motorcyclists-mate-was-death-turn-cops-target

Yeah I am - and I admitted it upfront. I was just trying to put myself in the mind of those people - you know how things get when (competitive) mates are trailing each other or riding together.
But if the driver genuinely did not know that the bike was behind him, then those my assumptions are baseless...

[Maha]

Avoidable accident? Probably. Crash Scene Investigators look at three probable causes to any fatal accident.
The Environment/The Vehicles/The Drivers.
I think its best we await their findings as to why someone died in this particular accdident.

Go back to Daniels death on the Southern Motorway....was it the Vehicle/the Environment or the Rider?
Some would say the Rider (because he was doing a wheelie), some would say the Environment (because he hit a cheescutter barrier) and some would say it was bike (because it broke in half)
Truth is (if we are to be honest here) all three eliments played a part in his death.

Like Paul Browns brother has said '' theres alot of talk about what happened but thats not going to bring my brother back''.

[phill-k]

Having read that latest article in Stuff, I'm afraid there is going to be more bad news coming out of this - quote from article "I didn't know where Paul was: I didn't know if he had left our friend's, or was still there. He was sitting there finishing his drink when I left. I did not know he was behind me. I just bloody hope it was a coffee. That would be a very sound reason for one to be mute when being questioned by the media

[Mom]

Keeping things real here, and without any facts.

The bikers mate was driving in a ute ahead of him.
His mate was doing 154 km/hr in the ute.
I assume they were driving together.
The bike rider was a racer.
I would be very surprised if the bike was not speeding (using the above circumstances as an indication).

BUT Its still a stupid place to do a U-turn.

Far out mate, that is one hell of a lot of asumptions there. Have a little read of some of the other threads and articles about this. There is so much blarney and bullshit being touted it is not friggen funny. Quoting it back on here like some sort of expert is not helpful and only fuels the spread of the b and b/s.

Only certainty here is an experienced motorcycle rider is dead after hitting a police car that was not where you would expect a vehicle to be just over a blind crest in the road. So, how about we stop crediting this ute with warp factor 10, them travelling together, the biker being a racer ergo he was likely speeding in your opinion and lets leave it to the investigations to discover the truth.

I for one will be happy to agitate to ensure that we do infact get the full story here.

[R6_kid]

" Mr Jackson, 43, is expected to be charged with speeding in relation to the incident, but disputes police suggestions he was travelling at 154kmh.

He said his diesel-powered Mazda Bounty ute was not capable of that speed.

Well there is only one way prove him wrong or right...

I call his bluff - I've had a clapped out 82 Hiace loaded with bikes up to 175kmh, the owner says he's gone faster. Pretty sure it was only a four speed too.

[miloking]

Well there is only one way prove him wrong or right...

I call his bluff - I've had a clapped out 82 Hiace loaded with bikes up to 175kmh, the owner says he's gone faster. Pretty sure it was only a four speed too.

Did you drive MR.Jacksons ute as well? Maybe you should give your statement in court then......Also dont forget to factor in the approximately 10% speedo error on your hiace at that speed!

[R6_kid]

Did you drive MR.Jacksons ute as well? Maybe you should give your statement in court then......Also dont forget to factor in the approximately 10% speedo error on your hiace at that speed!

No haven't, but like I said, it won't be hard to prove either way if that is his only defence.

[miloking]

No haven't, but like I said, it won't be hard to prove either way if that is his only defence.

Of course it wont be but for all we know Mr.Jacksons diesel ute has 300K Miles on the clock and fuck all compression left and probably will only make it to 130km/h on the other hand it could be some turbo V8 beast

...all iam saying is that as much as your hiace is a similar vehicle (well it has also 4 tyres) it doesnt prove anything in this case...

[R6_kid]

...all iam saying is that as much as your hiace is a similar vehicle (well it has also 4 tyres) it doesnt prove anything in this case...

You obviously never read my signature then.

[miloking]

You obviously never read my signature then.

Touche! :D

[crshbndct]

Of course it wont be but for all we know Mr.Jacksons diesel ute has 300K Miles on the clock and fuck all compression left and probably will only make it to 130km/h on the other hand it could be some turbo V8 beast

...all iam saying is that as much as your hiace is a similar vehicle (well it has also 4 tyres) it doesnt prove anything in this case...

not to mention this was on a crest. the cop came over the crest (at probably 100kmh) and saw him coming up the other side at 154kmh. i would say most diesel utes cannot acheive much more than 160kmh indicated on a flat, let alone an uphill. i know a mazda bt-50 can achieve at best 170kmh(indicated, which is probably 154 actual) on the flat.

someone made a good point. if it was a general public person who did the u turn and the guy was killed there would be charges of reckless negligence, murder, etc etc etc within minutes.
lets just let the investigation take place before getting too worked up hmm'kay!!

[crshbndct]

from another thread:
Making a turn over a no-passing line

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

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

the cop was not entering a driveway or side road, it was not safe to do so, and so someone dies.
simple. cop was at fault. there is no way at all to apportion any blame on the rider. on the road, you are supposed to watch the car in front of you, and be ready to react to what they are doing. hence why nose to tail incidents 99% of the time are the fault of the following car. you are simply not required to ride/drive in a way which takes into account what people in the oncoming lane are doing. if you suddenly do a u turn in front of a moving vehicle, which then hits you, YOU ARE ALWAYS AT FAULT!!
you are not:
supposed to worry about cars in the other lane.
required to assume that vehicles are going to be illegally parked in your lane over a crest (such as a stock truck)

[Katman]

from another thread:
Making a turn over a no-passing line

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

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

the cop was not entering a driveway or side road, it was not safe to do so, and so someone dies.
simple. cop was at fault. there is no way at all to apportion any blame on the rider. on the road, you are supposed to watch the car in front of you, and be ready to react to what they are doing. hence why nose to tail incidents 99% of the time are the fault of the following car. you are simply not required to ride/drive in a way which takes into account what people in the oncoming lane are doing. if you suddenly do a u turn in front of a moving vehicle, which then hits you, YOU ARE ALWAYS AT FAULT!!
you are not:
supposed to worry about cars in the other lane.
required to assume that vehicles are going to be illegally parked in your lane over a crest (such as a stock truck)

I certainly hope you base your riding practices on more than just words in a book.

[Berries]

from another thread.......

Yeah, I posted that quote from the Road Code due to comments on one of the threads about the yellow lines. You've bolded and underlined the last bit, but remember, this is the Road Code and not legislative. There is no offence for doing a u-turn across a single or double yellow line, the only offence is crossing it when overtaking someone moving in the same direction so they are pretty much irrelevant here. All they indicate is that there is limited visibility. It is performing a turn at a point of limited visibility that gives rise to careless driving causing death, which is what a member of the public would no doubt be charged with here.

I feel sorry for the cop because it has ruined his life, I feel sorry for everyone who knew Paul because it will affect them forever, and I feel sorry for Paul. Remember, that could have been anyone of us coming over the crest. Anybody who talks about riding at a speed that enables you to stop in the length of clear road you can see in front of you is either talking out of their arse or living somewhere very flat. Either way, they are not in the real world.

[Pixie]

I thought that Paul spoke very well with a well reasoned, logical attitude to the accident. The Police spokesman was just doing his job.

The Police need to implement a full-on training regime with their officers regarding making a 180 degree turn to pursue.

Adrenaline kills. Whether riding, flying your aircraft or driving your car or chasing that huge crayfish down too deep when you're out diving, for example.

If it's getting exciting you might be doing it wrong. The cop in this instance probably had a massive adrenaline hit and there you go. Maybe it was his first chance this week for a nice high speed pursuit, exciting stuff. He effed up big time and a rider's paid with his life. And the cop will pay with his job and by knowing that he's killed someone dead to rights.
.
Maybe he was trying to give his civilian "ride-a-long" a good show on a dull day?

[Pixie]

Assuming he was at 110kmh. The article on the front page of the Harold today stated that the motorcyclists body was 30m from the point of impact. The pictures on the Harold website appear to show the police car was spun approximately 90 degrees with the impact occuring in the rear quarter of the car.

Taking these points into account - you have a 200kg motorcycle which has spun an 1800kg car through 90degrees. That is a lot of force. We also have an 80kg(ish) body which as been thrown past the point of impact for some distance.



No one knows that the car "spun".
Maybe the cop at least had enough brains to try to get the car out of harms way from the next unsuspecting victim that may appear over the crest.

[Pixie]

As a NZer I have a belief that our police force is very probably one of the most honest in the western world,

The issue is one of competence,not honesty

[phill-k]

Anybody who talks about riding at a speed that enables you to stop in the length of clear road you can see in front of you is either talking out of their arse or living somewhere very flat. Either way, they are not in the real world.

this sort of statement is an example of why this forum seems unable to hold an informed intelligent conversation - I can certainly spin some bullshit if this is what you are referring to, but in this thread out of respect to the deceased I have wanted to contribute to the actual lessons that may be learned.
Yes I do ride, along with many others, at a pace where I can hopefully stop or at least have only a slow speed impact should I come round a corner or over a crest in a hill and find something in my lane. That does not mean I take every corner and crest of a hill at 30km, rather I might back of to 95km. I ride for the simple pleasure of riding, along with a desire to stay alive, hence as an inexperienced rider I come here to learn.
It is very obvious from the skidmark before impact and the damage to the car as well as the distance the deceased ended up from impact that the speed at impact was substantial. Taking the information we know - stopping distances as an example, you can begin to work out that if the car was 60mtrs from the crest, the skidmark before impact was 30mtrs and the avoidance manoeuvre began as soon as the vehicle was spotted he was doing well in excess of the speed limit at the crest - 112km stopping distance 96mtrs, thus 60mtrs down the hill the speed would have been significantly less, the damage less and possible survival. However if as an experienced rider he spotted the obstacle as the vehicle was completing the first stage of the turn, and decided to go around the vehicle on the wrong side of the road, but the vehicle began reversing and this option closed, he may then have commenced braking - again if doing the speed limit the skidmark or damage would be substantially less, an indication of whether this is what occurred can only be determined by the scene examination, likewise science will also be able to indicate impact speed. Others have tried to point out the cop is the only person to blame, yes his actions began the catalyst to the accident but the riders actions may well have also contributed.

[Katman]

So as others have tried to point out, the cop is the only person to blame, yes his actions began the catalyst to the accident but the riders actions may well have also contributed.

You might want to go back and edit your last sentence.

[MSTRS]

There are lots of facts in this (and every other) case. The only fact that we know for sure at this stage, is that it was a goddamned stupid place to try and turn. For that alone, the cop carries the greatest culpability in what happened.
Let us not forget that the bike was going downhill...therefore stopping distance would be somewhat greater. That is one thing that the SCU will be able to tell us, along with the likely speed at point of braking and at impact. We may even find out whether the cop reversed into the gap...

[phill-k]

The issue is one of competence,not honesty

I was more referring to the suggestion that we won't find out the full facts of the case, as far as competence is concerned, I'm not sure you could label this officer with the experience he has as lacking competence, after all he has been in the "job" a long time and if he was incompetent surely that would have be noticed before now. However one of the questions that needs to be answered is who was the passenger and what influence did that have on the officers decision to commence the manoeuvre. As the officer was an experienced officer it would be easy to label his actions as grossly negligent, and perhaps this will happen. As we have had previous incidents of this nature, and an individual was not only found guilty of causing injury to riders as a result of his similar action but also received what was a substantial award against him would indicate that a policy review was in order. If the policy review has not be undertaken, the person ultimately responsible for that could be deemed to be incompetent, if policy does exist governing this action then that reinforces the labelling of this as grossly negligent, but it still does not remove the potential for the rider contrbuting to the incident.

[nodrog]

......- I've had a clapped out 82 Hiace loaded with bikes up to 175kmh, the owner says he's gone faster. Pretty sure it was only a four speed too.

ha, you come on here preaching on and on about fuckin road rules and then you spit this out!

pot is that you?

[Pixie]

It is very obvious from the skidmark before impact and the damage to the car as well as the distance the deceased ended up from impact that the speed at impact was substantial.

Some have commented that the damage looks to be from a low speed impact.

From my own experience: I ran into the back of a stationary skyline at around 20 km/hr after braking from 100 km/hr (a moment of inattention).The impact crushed the car up to the rear window. I landed next to the rear wheel of the car-no injuries.
The car was written off.
It looked like I was doing 150km/hr when I hit

[Pixie]

I was more referring to the suggestion that we won't find out the full facts of the case, as far as competence is concerned, I'm not sure you could label this officer with the experience he has as lacking competence, after all he has been in the "job" a long time and if he was incompetent surely that would have be noticed before now. However one of the questions that needs to be answered is who was the passenger and what influence did that have on the officers decision to commence the manoeuvre. As the officer was an experienced officer it would be easy to label his actions as grossly negligent, and perhaps this will happen. As we have had previous incidents of this nature, and an individual was not only found guilty of causing injury to riders as a result of his similar action but also received what was a substantial award against him would indicate that a policy review was in order. If the policy review has not be undertaken, the person ultimately responsible for that could be deemed to be incompetent, if policy does exist governing this action then that reinforces the labelling of this as grossly negligent, but it still does not remove the potential for the rider contrbuting to the incident.

I'm sorry.By definition the three point turn on that piece of road is incompetence of the highest order.
You are far too forgiving.

[Katman]

I landed next to the rear wheel of the car-no injuries.




A bit different from the picture we're dealing with here.

(Unless you're suggesting something far more sinister than has been mentioned yet).

[R-Soul]

Avoidable accident? Probably. Crash Scene Investigators look at three probable causes to any fatal accident.
The Environment/The Vehicles/The Drivers.
I think its best we await their findings as to why someone died in this particular accdident.

Go back to Daniels death on the Southern Motorway....was it the Vehicle/the Environment or the Rider?
Some would say the Rider (because he was doing a wheelie), some would say the Environment (because he hit a cheescutter barrier) and some would say it was bike (because it broke in half)
Truth is (if we are to be honest here) all three eliments played a part in his death.

Like Paul Browns brother has said '' theres alot of talk about what happened but thats not going to bring my brother back''.

In law they look fro what was a causal "nexus" - that first factor without which no other cause would have occurred. I would have to say that in this case (and without knowing the facts), it was probably the wheelie...

[R6_kid]

ha, you come on here preaching on and on about fuckin road rules and then you spit this out!

pot is that you?

I don't remember saying that I adhered to them all the time? I was simply pointing them out.

[R-Soul]

this sort of statement is an example of why this forum seems unable to hold an informed intelligent conversation - I can certainly spin some bullshit if this is what you are referring to, but in this thread out of respect to the deceased I have wanted to contribute to the actual lessons that may be learned.
Yes I do ride, along with many others, at a pace where I can hopefully stop or at least have only a slow speed impact should I come round a corner or over a crest in a hill and find something in my lane. That does not mean I take every corner and crest of a hill at 30km, rather I might back of to 95km. I ride for the simple pleasure of riding, along with a desire to stay alive, hence as an inexperienced rider I come here to learn.
It is very obvious from the skidmark before impact and the damage to the car as well as the distance the deceased ended up from impact that the speed at impact was substantial. Taking the information we know - stopping distances as an example, you can begin to work out that if the car was 60mtrs from the crest, the skidmark before impact was 30mtrs and the avoidance manoeuvre began as soon as the vehicle was spotted he was doing well in excess of the speed limit at the crest - 112km stopping distance 96mtrs, thus 60mtrs down the hill the speed would have been significantly less, the damage less and possible survival. However if as an experienced rider he spotted the obstacle as the vehicle was completing the first stage of the turn, and decided to go around the vehicle on the wrong side of the road, but the vehicle began reversing and this option closed, he may then have commenced braking - again if doing the speed limit the skidmark or damage would be substantially less, an indication of whether this is what occurred can only be determined by the scene examination, likewise science will also be able to indicate impact speed. Others have tried to point out the cop is the only person to blame, yes his actions began the catalyst to the accident but the riders actions may well have also contributed.

There are lots of scenarios - the cop may have pulled out directly in front without having looked properly (looking over his shoulder at speeding ute), or reversed back into his path, or the bike may have been speeding.

Also keep in mind that while skid marks are present, the level of braking achieved by skidding the tyres would have been affected by the change of elevaton of the road as it comes over the rise - the bike would have lost traction to a large extent from the elevation change.

[nodrog]

I don't remember saying that I adhered to them all the time? I was simply pointing them out.

you should join the police force.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Also keep in mind that while skid marks are present, the level of braking achieved by skidding the tyres would have been affected by the change of elevaton of the road as it comes over the rise - the bike would have lost traction to a large extent from the elevation change.

Only 'if' the marks are directly after the drop in the road...otherwise the suspension would be quite well loaded up and traction good.

[R6_kid]

you should join the police force.

I don't like the uniform.

[onearmedbandit]

In law they look fro what was a causal "nexus" - that first factor without which no other cause would have occurred. I would have to say that in this case (and without knowing the facts), it was probably the wheelie...

Totally agree. No wheelie = no frame snapping = no impact with cheesecutter. The corner that took the use of my arm I've ridden many times since. Was it the decresing radius that contributed to my accident, the negative camber? Can't be because every other time I've ridden it I've made it to the other side. Guess it must've been me that ws different that day.

(I am in no way making any comparison or comment in regards to the main topic at hand as I know little of the facts of that accident.)

[StoneY]

I don't like the uniform.

Maybe the uniform does not like you my friend?
:-)

[Pixie]

A bit different from the picture we're dealing with here.

(Unless you're suggesting something far more sinister than has been mentioned yet).

The point I was making is that a bike can do a surprising degree of damage to a car even at low speed.
You can't just look at a picture and derive the velocity of a bike by the damage done to the car without extensive knowledge of the car's structural design

[phill-k]

The point I was making is that a bike can do a surprising degree of damage to a car even at low speed.
You can't just look at a picture and derive the velocity of a bike by the damage done to the car without extensive knowledge of the car's structural design
But you can assume that as the rider ended up some 30mtrs away the speed required to propel him such distance is more than a low speed collision

[Ixion]

Not necessarily. I know , from experience . that an impact at as low as around 30kph will throw a rider many metres. At least 10, maybe. It is quite surprising how far you fly , even at low speeds.

And in this case, the rider was heading downhill, and under heavy braking. He will have been flung from the bike with a very flat tractory. So, when he landed he will still have had a degree of forward momentum. His body may have slid quite a way, or rolled.

[Berries]

this sort of statement is an example of why this forum seems unable to hold an informed intelligent conversation - I can certainly spin some bullshit if this is what you are referring to, but in this thread out of respect to the deceased I have wanted to contribute to the actual lessons that may be learned.

Yes I do ride, along with many others, at a pace where I can hopefully stop or at least have only a slow speed impact should I come round a corner or over a crest in a hill and find something in my lane. That does not mean I take every corner and crest of a hill at 30km, rather I might back of to 95km.
There you go then, not sure why my post upset you as you just proved my point. What I was implying is that people do not ride/drive over crests and around corners at a speed where they can stop in the distance visible ahead, that would entail people dropping to sub 50km/h speeds on the open road, something I have never seen happen. As for lessons learned from this tragedy, for whom ? Seems to me that if the cop hadn't turned where he did then everyone would have got home ok. All the rest is subjecture and will probably remain that way.

[R-Soul]

Only 'if' the marks are directly after the drop in the road...otherwise the suspension would be quite well loaded up and traction good.

Sure - although the whole thing was about the biker coming over the crest of a hill , and not not having enough time to stop. so I presumed that the cop would be pulling out pretty close to the elevation change. But it may be further I guess...
It could also have been half braking under reduced traction, and half braking under norml traction (although then it would be braking through the transition).

[Crasherfromwayback]

Sure - although the whole thing was about the biker coming over the crest of a hill , and not not having enough time to stop. so I presumed that the cop would be pulling out pretty close to the elevation change. But it may be further I guess...
It could also have been half braking under reduced traction, and half braking under norml traction (although then it would be braking through the transition).

Whatever it was...bad luck is at the top of the list. That and stupidity on the officers part.

[StoneY]

Well I reckon this threads done its dash

Bottom line, an innocent biker died as result of a stupid manouver that should never have occurred

[GOONR]

Whatever it was...bad luck is at the top of the list. That and stupidity on the officers part.

Personally I would reverse those.

[terbang]

- all I'm saying is that the cop car could have just as easily been any other stationary vehicle hidden over the brow of the hill, perhaps a broken down and immovable car/van/ute/truck or even a crashed motorcycle, and the rider would still be dead.
.

What if, What if, What if... But it wasn't, it was a cop (someone who should know better) doing a U turn in an inappropriate place. Thats the reality of this incident and all the what if's in the world aren't going to change that. Dress it up how you like, but reality is, a stupid cop chose to do a stupid thing and as a result, killed a guy...