SCU on TV1 - bike vs car fatal

[pete376403]

The shit "science " that these people are using. The car had a wof and the bike didn't so it looks like they are trying to fit the facts around the bike rider being at fault, eg " if the bike was in a high gear it must have been doing over the speed limit"

[98tls]

:brick:Bugger,saw that advertised but forgot to watch...

[scumdog]

The shit "science " that these people are using. The car had a wof and the bike didn't so it looks like they are trying to fit the facts around the bike rider being at fault, eg " if the bike was in a high gear it must have been doing over the speed limit"

But they never made an issue of those points in summing up.

In the end it seems lack of experience + a tad too much speed combined with a visibility issue on the part of the driver = crash.

[Maha]

The shit "science " that these people are using. The car had a wof and the bike didn't so it looks like they are trying to fit the facts around the bike rider being at fault, eg " if the bike was in a high gear it must have been doing over the speed limit"

To be fair, they summarised that both vehicles were in good working order even though the bike last got a warrant in 2010.
Noted that, even though they put the bike speed at around the 70kph mark (in a 50) even the riders father said, his son would have been more around the 100-120kph.

[scumdog]

To be fair, they summarised that both vehicles were in good working order even though the bike last got a warrant in 2010.
Noted that, even though they put the bike speed at around the 70kph mark (in a 50) even the riders father said, his son would have been more around the 100-120kph.

They said his MINIMUM speed would have been about 70kph given his slide stopped on impact with the car, ergo they couldn't conclusively say he was doing a faster speed.

Pretty sad for all concerned, particularly the father.

[scracha]

They said his MINIMUM speed would have been about 70kph given his slide stopped on impact with the car, ergo they couldn't conclusively say he was doing a faster speed.

Pretty sad for all concerned, particularly the father.

Can someone educate me on how they could calculate his MINIMUM speed? They couldn't tell where he started braking. They couldn't use skidmarks. They couldn't use the co-efficient of friction of the bike's fairing sliding on its side. They couldn't measure the distance the bike travelled as it was stopped on impact. How the fuck would his father know how fast he was going at that particular location on that particular day?

Young rider on bike with WOF that'd expired 2 years ago that he didn't have license for. Obviously at fault. Car driver couldn't have possibly pulled out without looking.

To be honest, I'm not saying the conclusion was wrong but it seemed as if the cops were trying their best to find the rider at fault without all the facts supporting it.

The "blued" rear brake disk leading to the conclusion that he regularly rode hard was a complete fucking joke no? All it would take is one hard stop (perhaps some other daft bint pulled out in front of one of the bike's owners). Shit...maybe at some point the bike had a stuck caliper or a rider inadvertently rode with their foot on the pedal.

In conclusion, I'd have said an open / inconclusive verdict would have been fairer. Not that it can bring the guy back to life.

[merv]

The force of impact was obvious - no need to be precious about him being a biker. His old man was right - he was speeding! Nothing unfair here at all. Just the SCU had to go through the motions to write it up I imagine.

[Motu]

Pretty sad for all concerned, particularly the father.

He is my brother in law, this has absolutely floored him, as a solo dad, he put everything into his boys and is now rudderless. It was everything he said at the time - poor visibility for the driver, and the boy was speeding. The road he knew well was dropped from a 1ookph to a 50kph, pretty hard to rein it back to half the speed you are used to...also mentioned by the father, he told him about the speed change. Also laying it down, not a bright move.

A family of riders - my wife as the eldest got a bike first, then all 8 kids and both parents rode motorcycles. This is the first one we've lost. You know my views on discussing motorcycle accidents, and his father took a tougher view than the investigators, proud of him for that.

[Wiki Drifter]

:brick:Bugger,saw that advertised but forgot to watch...

You can watch it on demand:

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/ondemand/serious-crash-unit/05-05-2015/series-7-episode-5

[Ender EnZed]

You can watch it on demand:

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/ondemand/serious-crash-unit/05-05-2015/series-7-episode-5

Can I watch it somewhere without signing up?

[The End]

Can I watch it somewhere without signing up?

Looks as though you have to make an account to watch things on TVNZ Ondemand now. You could always sign up with a bogus email address.

[The End]

"If the SCU can find out if the bike was in a high gear at the time of impact, they will know Christopher was travelling well above the speed limit of 50 km/h"


This is a load of rubbish. I frequently travel in 50km/h areas in 6th care on a larger bike than the CBR 400 in the show.

[Erelyes]

Takes a lot of mettle to go on TV like that, a ton of respect for the Dad.

A few of the comments seem a bit perplexing (heat marks on the rear disc = hard riding?) but I think the comments about the bike being likely to have been doing a fair clip are fair.

Puts 'laying it down' into perspective. I always thought that crashing to avoid a crash was a bad idea. If he'd gone over the top it wouldn't have been pretty, but he might have had a chance.

Perhaps he didn't intend to lay it down - grabbed a fistful and dropped the front.


This is a load of rubbish. I frequently travel in 50km/h areas in 6th care on a larger bike than the CBR 400 in the show.

Agree, most bikes can tottle along in 6th in a 50. Not that it's necessarily the best gear to be in, of course. But any extrapolations about gear = this speed are nonsense.

[Reckless]

I thought the fathers words may have been a bit harsh when watching it but after reading the comments on here I can understand his POV.
Condolences to him and ups to him for telling it like he see's it. My son now regularly rides (although he's past the learner stage and has had a crash) but this is a bit close to home for me. But for the grace of god there go us ??

The blue disk thing could have been the previous owner for all we know??

When I saw it and can only say what I might have been doing.

I thought the vegetation screened visibility for both vehicles but the onus was on the car driver because he knew he was turning blind and the bike may have been unaware there was an intersection there at all?
Secondly I would have possibly been slowly winding up in anticipation of the 100K signs just on the other side of what was probably an invisible intersection to the rider.
A heck of a lot of us would have been doing 70k on a road like that.
I can see the scenario where the rider coming round the corner see's the open road sign approaching in the right of his vison, then looks further up the road while starting to increase speed from 50 or 60k missing some vital seconds in assessing the intersection.

Two things stand out for me, one it looked like that vegetation had been mowed in the past and should have been kept shorter.
The open road signs are far to close to the intersection IMHO.
But given the above, I do accept the popo assumption that the driver could have well been pulling out before the bike even appeared.
I also accept given the distance the intersection was from when visibility cleared for the rider at 50k he prob would be still here.

It just a damn pity he didnt have a few years riding under his belt because an experienced riders time in the saddle may have made the difference.

Overall I say the cops and his dad have it pretty right. Sad combination of factors condolences to his dad and the family. RIP Rider :(

[awayatc]

Can't even begin to imagine how it must be for the dad......

[Paul in NZ]

He is my brother in law, this has absolutely floored him, as a solo dad, he put everything into his boys and is now rudderless. It was everything he said at the time - poor visibility for the driver, and the boy was speeding. The road he knew well was dropped from a 1ookph to a 50kph, pretty hard to rein it back to half the speed you are used to...also mentioned by the father, he told him about the speed change. Also laying it down, not a bright move.

A family of riders - my wife as the eldest got a bike first, then all 8 kids and both parents rode motorcycles. This is the first one we've lost. You know my views on discussing motorcycle accidents, and his father took a tougher view than the investigators, proud of him for that.

Vicki and I are sorry for your loss mate...

Fault or not - its never good to see a young life ended like this...

[PrincessBandit]

I really felt for the dad - can't remotely imagine what it would be like getting that dreaded knock at the door.

The discussion on the show regarding the speed of the bike wasn't inflammatory; the only thing that got my hackles up a tad was the "if he'd been wearing a high viz..." God only knows that you could have a flourescent disco bike and matching hideous outfit and there would still be someone who 'wouldn't see you'.

It certainly made me think about how I ride on those semi-rural roads and the need to be constantly aware that the unexpected is um, well, always when you least expect it. Riders also need to be mindful of their ability to cope with those sorts of curveballs - they agreed that laying it down was not the right choice (I believe someone on the show said that he'd would have been better off going for the high side); but then you never know exactly what you're going to do until you have to do it. And whatever choice you make, it can still be the wrong one. It was a very sad watch.

[JimO]

The shit "science " that these people are using. The car had a wof and the bike didn't so it looks like they are trying to fit the facts around the bike rider being at fault, eg " if the bike was in a high gear it must have been doing over the speed limit"
my son was knocked off his old NZ250 a few years back by a 80 year old man who drove straight through a compulsory stop, he was in a line of traffic and several witnesses told the cop that attended that he wasnt speeding, at the accident scene the cop asked him several times if he was speeding and followed the ambulance to the hospital and continued on asking him even though he was told NO i wasnt speeding. He went over the bike at the scene looking for any reason to hand out a ticket, the car driver wasnt charged with anything but was advised to give up driving

[Erelyes]

The open road signs are far to close to the intersection IMHO.

Yeah, aye. Especially since there was an advisory 35 corner right after.

[FJRider]

Yeah, aye. Especially since there was an advisory 35 corner right after.

How about a STOP sign ... ??

[caseye]

No disrespect to our resident GC coppers, but in this day and age it seems that our Police Force is always looking for the easiest way out.
We all know of at least 3 or 4 people currently in jail who shouldn't be.
All of that aside this guys dad deserves a medal, he's accepted that his sons own actions most probably contributed to this tragic event and said so publicly.
Doesn't make it any easier to bear.
Blued brake disc, means Fuck all, who did it, when? Not conclusive.
Laid it down? OK, no braking marks, when did he lay it down? In conclusive.
Approaching an open road sign, yep we all increase our speed, car drivers included.In conclusive.
Wasn't wearing Hi Vis? OK, what difference would that have made if the SCU's conclusion that the flora and fauna(2 Foot high.MAX!) was stopping him from being seen as he approached the intersection. In Conclusive.
Rider going faster than newly posted speed sign, probably, OK, why is it, that IF this contributed to his being killed by a car driver pulling out in front of him, that the car driver hasn't been charged with careless use causing death? As they should have been, they were still totally in the wrong!
Bloody tragic that no one is trying to make all other intersections safer by simple shit, like mowing the grass, removing sight blocking obstacles ( whatever they are) putting road signs in far more driver /rider friendly places.
Why can't we all be asked for our opinions as riders what we'd like to see changed to make our roads safer?
Our No 1 request? to other road users, look properly! See us, not a smaller road user who will give way because we're going to come off second best if we don't!

Is this going to happen?
Sadly, Hardly!

[FJRider]

Rider going faster than newly posted speed sign, probably, OK, why is it, that IF this contributed to his being killed by a car driver pulling out in front of him, that the car driver hasn't been charged with careless use causing death? As they should have been, they were still totally in the wrong!


If it cannot be proved that the motorcyclist WAS in sight when the car driver pulled out from the intersection ... Careless use does not apply.

Then ... at worst ... just bad timing.


Each time we ALL climb on a motorcycle ... we ALL take the risk of such happening to us.

And the amount of increase/decrease of speed of speed matters little ... unless you prefer a shorter STOPPING distance ... when it is needed. YOU decide how much stopping distance you need ... and if you get it right ... you might live.

Get it wrong ... :eek:

[98tls]

No disrespect to our resident GC coppers, but in this day and age it seems that our Police Force is always looking for the easiest way out.
We all know of at least 3 or 4 people currently in jail who shouldn't be.
All of that aside this guys dad deserves a medal, he's accepted that his sons own actions most probably contributed to this tragic event and said so publicly.
Doesn't make it any easier to bear.
Blued brake disc, means Fuck all, who did it, when? Not conclusive.
Laid it down? OK, no braking marks, when did he lay it down? In conclusive.
Approaching an open road sign, yep we all increase our speed, car drivers included.In conclusive.
Wasn't wearing Hi Vis? OK, what difference would that have made if the SCU's conclusion that the flora and fauna(2 Foot high.MAX!) was stopping him from being seen as he approached the intersection. In Conclusive.
Rider going faster than newly posted speed sign, probably, OK, why is it, that IF this contributed to his being killed by a car driver pulling out in front of him, that the car driver hasn't been charged with careless use causing death? As they should have been, they were still totally in the wrong!
Bloody tragic that no one is trying to make all other intersections safer by simple shit, like mowing the grass, removing sight blocking obstacles ( whatever they are) putting road signs in far more driver /rider friendly places.
Why can't we all be asked for our opinions as riders what we'd like to see changed to make our roads safer?
Our No 1 request? to other road users, look properly! See us, not a smaller road user who will give way because we're going to come off second best if we don't!

Is this going to happen?
Sadly, Hardly!
No its not,many years ago my 20 year old cousin was riding back to the Airforce base out of Blenheim on her GN250 when on a straight piece of road she was collected by an old bloke who for reasons only known to himself turned directly into her path in an attempt to go buy some fruit result ending in her declared brain dead etc,sad but not enough to anger even her mother until his court appearance and the slap on the wrist the old bloke got.

[98tls]

How about a STOP sign ... ??

:lol::lol:Jesus H....

[scumdog]

How about a STOP sign ... ??

We had a 50 to 70 change of speed 15 metres from the Stop sign by our place until recently so it's not unique..

[FJRider]

We had a 50 to 70 change of speed 15 metres from the Stop sign by our place until recently so it's not unique..

True ... and the corner speed advisory sign Erelyes mentioned ... was only advisory.

[98tls]

True ... and the corner speed advisory sign Erelyes mentioned ... was only advisory.

What about that bastard 15k :mad:sign over on the road back to Springs junction (possibly wrong)...15:killingme yea right all packed up with Mrs on the back and gear doing the "fuck im good" thing with V-twin music to boot i think :tugger:15k my arse then :crazy:good job there plenty of run off across the road.:sweatdrop

[Erelyes]

OK, why is it, that IF this contributed to his being killed by a car driver pulling out in front of him, that the car driver hasn't been charged with careless use causing death? As they should have been, they were still totally in the wrong!

Did you even watch the video? It was presented in a pretty simple fashion.

Time it takes to pull out from intersection - about 3 seconds.

Time it takes to cover the distance between 'when bike can first be seen' and the car at 50kph - about the same.

Chances the bike was doing a fair whack more than 50kph - high.

Or in other words, how fast does the biker have to be going before you think the car driver's no longer at fault?

If you have an inherent view that 'a fucking cager' is always at fault you're set for a rude awakening some day.


If it cannot be proved that the motorcyclist WAS in sight when the car driver pulled out from the intersection ... Careless use does not apply.
(...)
YOU decide how much stopping distance you need

Wot 'e said.

[caseye]

Did you even watch the video? It was presented in a pretty simple fashion.

Time it takes to pull out from intersection - about 3 seconds.

Time it takes to cover the distance between 'when bike can first be seen' and the car at 50kph - about the same.

Chances the bike was doing a fair whack more than 50kph - high.

Or in other words, how fast does the biker have to be going before you think the car driver's no longer at fault?

If you have an inherent view that 'a fucking cager' is always at fault you're set for a rude awakening some day.



Wot 'e said.
Actually I did watch the video, I watched the whole thing.
SCU, in this country is a joke.
They are there to determine that someone is at fault, this way revenue can be extracted from the assessed in the wrong party and no one leaves unscathed.
If you look but don't see me (this happens all the time, never mind the distance argument) You! are still damned well in the wrong.
Once upon a time, where an accident that caused death was being attended, the attending officers job was to asses who did what, record contact details, at a later date those people were interviewed, get the fucking road reopened with as little fuss as possible. Don't forget, there were nosey car drivers to attend to as well, fire helped keep traffic going, Ambo's who have always done sterling work, did all they could too.
You got any idea what it costs the country to have a main arterial road closed for any length of time?
bet you don't!
Today, a clear cut, pulled out in front of oncoming vehicle, means road closed all day while SCU attends, takes pics, maps scene, determines who did what, then and this is non negotiable, someone is charged, why?:Revenue, that's why, it's not about deducing how it happened, taking the lesson and making sure it doesn't happen again.
The same scenario is happening everyday here in NZ.
Name me one piece of road that is similar or close to the same as another where lessons learn't at a fatal accident scene have been applied.
It doesn't happen, it is all about the big stick and collecting as much as possible from our citizens, not doing all that can be done to protect them.
My view on dumb assed bike jockeys is well known by many I ride with. As bike riders it behooves us to make sure wer'e OK, first and foremost.Being right and DEAD is no real option now is it.

[FJRider]

What about that bastard 15k :mad:sign over on the road back to Springs junction (possibly wrong)...15:killingme yea right all packed up with Mrs on the back and gear doing the "fuck im good" thing with V-twin music to boot i think :tugger:15k my arse then :crazy:good job there plenty of run off across the road.:sweatdrop

Get an FJ1200. I can do it easy at 18 km's no issue .. :cool:

[marmel]

Actually I did watch the video, I watched the whole thing.
SCU, in this country is a joke.
They are there to determine that someone is at fault, this way revenue can be extracted from the assessed in the wrong party and no one leaves unscathed.
If you look but don't see me (this happens all the time, never mind the distance argument) You! are still damned well in the wrong.
Once upon a time, where an accident that caused death was being attended, the attending officers job was to asses who did what, record contact details, at a later date those people were interviewed, get the fucking road reopened with as little fuss as possible. Don't forget, there were nosey car drivers to attend to as well, fire helped keep traffic going, Ambo's who have always done sterling work, did all they could too.
You got any idea what it costs the country to have a main arterial road closed for any length of time?
bet you don't!
Today, a clear cut, pulled out in front of oncoming vehicle, means road closed all day while SCU attends, takes pics, maps scene, determines who did what, then and this is non negotiable, someone is charged, why?:Revenue, that's why, it's not about deducing how it happened, taking the lesson and making sure it doesn't happen again.
The same scenario is happening everyday here in NZ.
Name me one piece of road that is similar or close to the same as another where lessons learn't at a fatal accident scene have been applied.
It doesn't happen, it is all about the big stick and collecting as much as possible from our citizens, not doing all that can be done to protect them.
My view on dumb assed bike jockeys is well known by many I ride with. As bike riders it behooves us to make sure wer'e OK, first and foremost.Being right and DEAD is no real option now is it.
This is a ridiculous way of thinking.

For a start, unless there is some sought of external influence such as a big pothole or mechanical failure there is always someone at fault regardless of what you might think.

Do you really think the cops pay what would amount to millions of dollars in salary plus costs of vehicles and equipment just to try and get revenue back from motorists that have crashes serious enough to warrant SCU attending???

Have you been to court lately and seen the fines that get handed out, sweet fuck all. In 99% of the cases community work or home detention is the standard sentence for careless driving causing death. Which by the way costs millions of dollars more to put in place and monitor.

So no the SCU aren't there to gather revenue. They are there to establish why a crash happened and the liability of those involved, if any.

Anyone with a bit of common sense would easily see the SCU would certainly not be paying their own way, quite the opposite.

[caseye]

This is a ridiculous way of thinking.

For a start, unless there is some sought of external influence such as a big pothole or mechanical failure there is always someone at fault regardless of what you might think.

Do you really think the cops pay what would amount to millions of dollars in salary plus costs of vehicles and equipment just to try and get revenue back from motorists that have crashes serious enough to warrant SCU attending???

Have you been to court lately and seen the fines that get handed out, sweet fuck all. In 99% of the cases community work or home detention is the standard sentence for careless driving causing death. Which by the way costs millions of dollars more to put in place and monitor.

So no the SCU aren't there to gather revenue. They are there to establish why a crash happened and the liability of those involved, if any.

Anyone with a bit of common sense would easily see the SCU would certainly not be paying their own way, quite the opposite.

You are right about the fact that they don't and never will pay their on way.
You are wrong about why they are there. It is to establish who was in the wrong, yes.Then their recommendation as to who is and isn't prosecuted is acted upon with no regard for situation or circumstance, it is the worst sort of time wasting and yes, revenue gathering.
Of course it's not going to pay it's way, but it is going to inconvenience many other road users for many hours at a time, any idea what it costs to close a main arterial road for a few hours?
The real cost of goods arriving late, out of time frozens, organs that can't be transplanted, fresh produce that arrives too late to go to market, to name a few.
Tell me, a truck drops diesel for many K's without the driver knowing, a driver/rider comes around a corner, hits a patch and careers into oncoming traffic, who's at fault?
Is it possible to find the truck or it's driver?
Is this not a classic case of an accident for those involved?
Court, are you kidding me? Mix with NZ's most wanted, lowest of the low, none of whom can pay a fine anyhow, not for a long time I haven't and the longer that time gets the better I feel.

[marmel]

You are right about the fact that they don't and never will pay their on way.
You are wrong about why they are there. It is to establish who was in the wrong, yes.Then their recommendation as to who is and isn't prosecuted is acted upon with no regard for situation or circumstance, it is the worst sort of time wasting and yes, revenue gathering.
Of course it's not going to pay it's way, but it is going to inconvenience many other road users for many hours at a time, any idea what it costs to close a main arterial road for a few hours?
The real cost of goods arriving late, out of time frozens, organs that can't be transplanted, fresh produce that arrives too late to go to market, to name a few.
Tell me, a truck drops diesel for many K's without the driver knowing, a driver/rider comes around a corner, hits a patch and careers into oncoming traffic, who's at fault?
Is it possible to find the truck or it's driver?
Is this not a classic case of an accident for those involved?
Court, are you kidding me? Mix with NZ's most wanted, lowest of the low, none of whom can pay a fine anyhow, not for a long time I haven't and the longer that time gets the better I feel.
For a start SCU never recommend who is/isn't to be charged. There only role is to establish the circumstances surrounding the crash, why it happened, who caused it etc. Normally the O/C of the crash file would decide on a charge.

The SCU only attend crashes were very serious injury or death has occurred, hardly a situation where they are just out ot waste someones time.

Once again I repeat, serious crashes in NZ cost MILLIONS and MILLIONS, no one makes any money out of serious crashes, the revenue gathering statement couldn't be further from the truth. Even a basic prosecution for careless causing death would cost $10K plus taking into account the time of all the staff involved, including court staff, the judge etc. HOW is this revenue gathering again, spend tens of thousands of dollars to get $500 back????

If you are really worried about a road being closed and "inconveniencing" motorists spare a thought for the poor bugger whose loved one has just been killed. Do you think that perhaps they deserve a little more of your consideration to make sure they have all the facts around what happened and can be satisfied that a proper job has been done by the SCU as opposed to a quick 30 minute spray some paint down and make up the rest type of job?

If you want to enlighten yourself get along to an inquest in your local area, they are open to the public, it might make you appreciate that just about everything you are saying is clearly incorrect and based on anything but fact.

[FJRider]

For a start, unless there is some sought of external influence such as a big pothole or mechanical failure there is always someone at fault regardless of what you might think.

Bullshit. Bad timiming accounts for a high percentage of accidents. Sadly ... a lack of WOF seems to attract blame in some cases. Regardless of actual FAULT.


Do you really think the cops pay what would amount to millions of dollars in salary plus costs of vehicles and equipment just to try and get revenue back from motorists that have crashes serious enough to warrant SCU attending???

Return of revenue is NOT an SCU priority. Finding out what was the cause and (maybe) preventing it happening again ... IS .. !!!


Have you been to court lately and seen the fines that get handed out, sweet fuck all. In 99% of the cases community work or home detention is the standard sentence for careless driving causing death. Which by the way costs millions of dollars more to put in place and monitor.

Not an SCU issue/priority ...


So no the SCU aren't there to gather revenue. They are there to establish why a crash happened and the liability of those involved, if any.

WHY it happened is more their interest than WHOM was at fault.


Anyone with a bit of common sense would easily see the SCU would certainly not be paying their own way, quite the opposite.

How many lives saved by changes to road layout (with SCU reccommendation) after an "Accident" ... would amount to "Paying their own way" ... in YOUR considered opinion .. ???

[marmel]

Bad timing doesn't cause crashes, never has, never will. If both parties are following the road rules there has to be someone at fault, please explain to me how someone can crash just from bad timing. This accident wasn't caused by bad timing, it was cuased for the most part by the speed of the bike. Do you have some examples of where bad timing has caused a crash?

[madbikeboy]

If there is ever a decision of fault between a motorcyclist and a car driver, the car driver gets the benefit of the doubt. Bikers = less important than car people.

[marmel]

If there is ever a decision of fault between a motorcyclist and a car driver, the car driver gets the benefit of the doubt. Bikers = less important than car people.
Fairly emotive statement there, facts are facts at the end of the day. There is no magic "motorbike" equations, just normal physics which most of us learned in school.

[FJRider]

If there is ever a decision of fault between a motorcyclist and a car driver, the car driver gets the benefit of the doubt. Bikers = less important than car people.

Is fault relevant if ONE of those involved is dead ... ??

If fault is derived from deductions or guesswork ... will they still press charges against those (those they believe are) at fault ... even if they are dead .. ??

[marmel]

Is fault relevant if ONE of those involved is dead ... ??

If fault is derived from deductions or guesswork ... will they still press charges against those (those they believe are) at fault ... even if they are dead .. ??
I think fault is always relevant, even if the deceased is at fault. Most families want to know the truth regardless.

[FJRider]

Bad timing doesn't cause crashes, never has, never will. If both parties are following the road rules there has to be someone at fault, please explain to me how someone can crash just from bad timing. This accident wasn't caused by bad timing, it was cuased for the most part by the speed of the bike. Do you have some examples of where bad timing has caused a crash?

Bad timing ... to avoid accidents ... do you increase or lower your speed ... ???

Would arriving at at accident scene 20 seconds later/earlier than you did ... make any difference to the result ... if you were involved .. ??

[FJRider]

I think fault is always relevant, even if the deceased is at fault. Most families want to know the truth regardless.

In my opinion ... The SCU priority is CAUSE. NOT fault.

Only the media (and KB) are interested in fault.

[marmel]

Bad timing ... to avoid accidents ... do you increase or lower your speed ... ???

Would arriving at at accident scene 20 seconds later/earlier than you did ... make any difference to the result ... if you were involved .. ??
This is nothing to do with timing at all.

Time has absolutely no bearing on an accident if both parties are following the road rules does it?

Someone still needs to do something wrong to cause the crash, pull out in front of someone, going too fast, driunk etc etc.

The actions of the driver have caused the crash, not the time.

Like I said earlier if there is no external influence on an accident including mechanical failure, enviromental conditions, sudden acts of god, there is ALWAYS someone at fault, these things don't just happen randomly, hence why police tend to call them crashes rather than accidents.

[marmel]

In my opinion ... The SCU priority is CAUSE. NOT fault.

Only the media (and KB) are interested in fault.
Really?? Do you think a family of the deceased may want to know who was at fault? Of course they do, and like I said often regardless of whose fault it was, their loved one or someone else.

[FJRider]

This is nothing to do with timing at all.

Time has absolutely no bearing on an accident if both parties are following the road rules does it?

Someone still needs to do something wrong to cause the crash, pull out in front of someone, going too fast, driunk etc etc.

The actions of the driver have caused the crash, not the time.

Like I said earlier if there is no external influence on an accident including mechanical failure, enviromental conditions, sudden acts of god, there is ALWAYS someone at fault, these things don't just happen randomly, hence why police tend to call them crashes rather than accidents.

Timing .. is NOT the time of day. Merely ... wrong place at the wrong time ... Are you stupid .. ??

"Following the road rules" is NO guarantee of avoiding an accident. Nor always an absense of fault. Wrong (legal) decisions of action CAN be ..

[marmel]

Timing .. is NOT the time of day. Merely ... wrong place at the wrong time ... Are you stupid .. ??

"Following the road rules" is NO gurantee of avoiding an accident. Nor always an absense of fault. Wrong (legal) decisions of action CAN be ..
You still fail to acknowledge that one of the parties HAS TO BE AT FAULT. I can't say it any simpler than that for you. Following the road rules is a gaurantee of avoiding an accident as long as both parties are following the rules. If one party is not and an accident occurs, guess what THEY ARE AT FAULT.

You can wrap it up any way you like but you haven't made one statement based on fact which shows accidents are caused by bad timing.

Wrong place at the wrong time? Really? This is what you base your argument on.

Sorry your honor, I did pull out in front of that bike and yes he was killed but at the end of the day HE WAS IN THE WRONG PLACE AT THE WRONG TIME.

Oh well now you put it that way you are free to go, well argued sir.

[FJRider]

Really?? Do you think a family of the deceased may want to know who was at fault? Of course they do, and like I said often regardless of whose fault it was, their loved one or someone else.

THEIR darling is ... and ALWAYS will be innocent. As is EVERY BIKER in an accident involving a motorcar.

Jeez ... spend more time on KB and learn the truth ... <_<

[Erelyes]

If you look but don't see me (this happens all the time, never mind the distance argument) You! are still damned well in the wrong.

See we're gonna have to disagree on this one. I think in this instance the car driver looked and didn't see the rider cos he was still behind the crest in the road.

[marmel]

THEIR darling is ... and ALWAYS will be innocent. As is EVERY BIKER in an accident involving a motorcar.

Jeez ... spend more time on KB and learn the truth ... <_<
I wonder how long I will have to hang around for you to come up with just one example of an accident caused by "bad timing"?

[marmel]

See we're gonna have to disagree on this one. I think in this instance the car driver looked and didn't see the rider cos he was still behind the crest in the road.
Right so in this case had the bike been travelling at the speed limit the car driver under normal circumstances would have had time to pull out and complete his turn before the bike arrived on the scene. Fault goes to the bike rider.

Had the bike been travelling at the speed limit and the car pulled out because they didn't see the rider, fault goes to the car driver.

Had the road been designed so poorly that visibility is so badly compormised that conducting a safe manouvre was very difficult, external influences, ie the enviroment would be at fault.

[FJRider]

You still fail to acknowledge that one of the parties HAS TO BE AT FAULT. I can't say it any simpler than that for you. Following the road rules is a gaurantee of avoiding an accident as long as both parties are following the rules. If one party is not and an accident occurs, guess what THEY ARE AT FAULT.

If both parties are within the law ... (by your rules) no one is at fault .. right .. ?? :scratch:


You can wrap it up any way you like but you haven't made one statement based on fact which shows accidents are caused by bad timing.

If an accident happened at 11:43 am. And you being cynic ... decided to arrive early ... would the accident still happen .. ??


Wrong place at the wrong time? Really? This is what you base your argument on.[/QUOTE}

YES ... The term accident ... is meaning ... not my fault.

[QUOTE=marmel;1130860653]Sorry your honor, I did pull out in front of that bike and yes he was killed but at the end of the day HE WAS IN THE WRONG PLACE AT THE WRONG TIME.

Oh well now you put it that way you are free to go, well argued sir.

ACTUALLY ... YOU were in the wrong place at the wrong time ... so it was YOUR fault.

[FJRider]

I wonder how long I will have to hang around for you to come up with just one example of an accident caused by "bad timing"?

If you are unlucky ... you will find an example without my help.


Just hope you are lucky ...

[marmel]

This is getting a bit silly. Perhaps we should all start taking random 30 second stops just in case we were going to have an accident at a certain time?? We would still need someone to DO SOMETHING WRONG AND BE AT FAULT to actually cause the accident wouldnt we?

I think you lost this argument about 5 posts ago, just give up.

[marmel]

If you are unlucky ... you will find an example without my help.


Just hope you are lucky ...
You see this is the type of rubbish statement based on bullshit. If I have an accident one of three things are going to have happened.

1. I fucked up

2. Someone else fucked up

3. The road or a part on my bike fucked up or I got struck by lightning or a flash flood or a rabbit.

Something has to happen though eh?

The only thing good to come out of this thread is that I have wasted so many posts trying to explain the same basic concept that I am just about off my L-Plate.

[FJRider]

Right so in this case had the bike been travelling at the speed limit the car driver under normal circumstances would have had time to pull out and complete his turn before the bike arrived on the scene. Fault goes to the bike rider.

The speed of the motorcycle was not accurately confirmed. Therefore blame can not be placed ON the motorcyclist.


Had the bike been travelling at the speed limit and the car pulled out because they didn't see the rider, fault goes to the car driver.

The speed of the motorcycle was not accurately confirmed. Therefore blame can not be placed ON the car driver.

Being within speed limits cannot always be confermation of innocence. Stupid decisions can STILL be made UNDER set speed limits.


Had the road been designed so poorly that visibility is so badly compormised that conducting a safe manouvre was very difficult, external influences, ie the enviroment would be at fault.

So .. maybe road design was (could be) at fault ... not rider/driver input/actions .. ??

[marmel]

I think the speed of the bike was established to be not less than 70km? There are various ways of calculating speeds including how far one vehicle has encroached into another at impact, how far someone has been thrown etc etc and quite often speeds are calculated to within a very narrow range, ie 1-2km. I sat in on an
coroners inquest involving a 9 ton tractor which lost control and vaulted off of a hill, flew threw the air and ended up in a gulley killing thr driver. Speed was calculated to within 2km from memory, amazing what can be done with physics and a few forumlas.

So in this case with speed being established to be at least what it was then it wasn't hard to find fault with the young fella that died. Shame for the family but they appeared to accept it for what it was.

[FJRider]

3. The road or a part on my bike fucked up or I got struck by lightning or a flash flood or a rabbit.


The road ... ride to the conditions ...

Your bike ... your problem for not riding a roadworthy bike.

Lightning ... DEFINITELY YOUR FAULT ...

Flash flood .. Did you not expect or see it coming .. ?? flash floods often during heavy rain. (was it raining .. ???)


The only thing good to come out of this thread is that I have wasted so many posts trying to explain the same basic concept that I am just about off my L-Plate.

Lets hope you live long enough to achieve that status.

[marmel]

Yeah hopefully. Given that my bike is up on stands waiting for a new choke cable to come from the US I think I might just make 30 posts. Too much ice and grit around soon anyway which of course could be an enviromental influence or I could be at fault for not riding to the conditions, The answer will probably come to me as I am sliding down the road.

[FJRider]

Right so in this case had the bike been travelling at the speed limit the car driver under normal circumstances would have had time to pull out and complete his turn before the bike arrived on the scene. Fault goes to the bike rider.

Why the infactuation that if you travel at the speed limit ... you will be SAFE .. ?????????????????


Had the bike been travelling at the speed limit and the car pulled out because they didn't see the rider, fault goes to the car driver.

NO accurate speed of the motorcyclict was determined .. remember .. ??


Had the road been designed so poorly that visibility is so badly compormised that conducting a safe manouvre was very difficult, external influences, ie the enviroment would be at fault.

The scene was NOT a high accident zone yet they crashed. Enviroment was at fault ... you want to blame a tree for growing .. ??

[marmel]

I never said travelling at the speed limit is a guarantee you will be safe. What I did say is that if the bike rider HAD been travelling at the speed limit the driver of the car would have most likely been able to complete his turn without coming into contact with the bike.

In fact it is probably almost as likely to have an accident travelling at the speed limit on a bike but in those cases you would not be at fault assuming you havent crossed the centre line or done something else as stupid.

[FJRider]

I fucked up



YOU WILL ... it's just a matter of time.

[marmel]

Perhaps, but if I do and live to tell the tale I won't be thinking wrong place wrong time thats for sure.

[Berries]

If there is ever a decision of fault between a motorcyclist and a car driver, the car driver gets the benefit of the doubt.
That is complete and utter shit.

[FJRider]

Perhaps, but if I do and live to tell the tale I won't be thinking wrong place wrong time thats for sure.

NOT thinking is the major cause of accidents. START THINKING ...

[marmel]

NOT thinking is the major cause of accidents. START THINKING ...
Yep I agree with you there, not being fully aware of your surroundings/speed on vehicles which can accelerate like a bat out of hell can be a recipe for disaster.

[FJRider]

Too much ice and grit around soon anyway which of course could be an enviromental influence or I could be at fault for not riding to the conditions

I see you live in Southland. I live in Central Otago. We get a fair amount of both up here ..


The answer will probably come to me as I am sliding down the road.

At times such as that ... answers will be the last of your worries.

The question will be ... when (where) it will END .. ?? but whose fault will it be .. ??

[marmel]

As long as I have the right gear on it's not so much sliding down the road that I would be worried about, just the sudden stop at the end.

[FJRider]

Yep I agree with you there, not being fully aware of your surroundings/speed on vehicles which can accelerate like a bat out of hell can be a recipe for disaster.

You'll be fine then .. :shifty:

[FJRider]

As long as I have the right gear on it's not so much sliding down the road that I would be worried about, just the sudden stop at the end.

It still hurts. Even if the stop is not sudden.

They haven't made gear that stops all of that.

[trustme]

Timing can matter . A mate was seriously injured in a bike accident a while back. He crested the brow of a hill at the legal speed just as a plumber doing a site inspection pulled out of a drive. SCU attended , no charges were laid.
They believed that the rider was not speeding but had almost no time to react. They believed the driver started his turn while the visible road was clear.

Another mate had exactly the same thing happen to him but he was uninjured. Both said they almost felt sorry for the driver, neither were speeding. Both are competent riders, one of them is possibly the most competent road rider I have ever ridden with.
Shit can happen.

Now katman will burst forth with , you must be able to stop in the distance ahead of you .

[Katman]

Now katman will burst forth with , you must be able to stop in the distance ahead of you .

It's certainly worth considering what may be around a blind corner or over a blind crest that may spoil your day though.

Do you take corners with an advisory speed sign of 35kph at 100kph simply because 100kph is the speed limit?

[willytheekid]

Shit can happen.

THIS! +1:yes: (sadly)

...and yet some on here are so fucking ignorant! that they believe this basic rule of life dosn't apply to them...because they have never had an accident, all due to there MAGICAL riding abilities and being able to control all others on the road, and the conditions, and even good & bad luck!:facepalm:

...Unicorns they is :yes:(They think there a "Rare magical breed"...Yet we all know they simply dont fucking exisit! and there actually just Donkeys!)

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/55/97/39/559739c770399959604b98af5382d23e.jpg

Were are all human (cept Nodrog!)...hence we all make the odd mistake or poor choice now and then that gets us into trouble:yes:...and, shit happens!...hence we can only try our best to keep ourselves safe on the roads.(As KM keeps reminding us all...get some fucking training!...then use it AND your brain to stay safe)


So "TRY" to Ride safe KBers:love:...Im kinda fond of you lot:wavey: (Why I have no idea:laugh:)

[marmel]

Timing can matter . A mate was seriously injured in a bike accident a while back. He crested the brow of a hill at the legal speed just as a plumber doing a site inspection pulled out of a drive. SCU attended , no charges were laid.
They believed that the rider was not speeding but had almost no time to react. They believed the driver started his turn while the visible road was clear.

Another mate had exactly the same thing happen to him but he was uninjured. Both said they almost felt sorry for the driver, neither were speeding. Both are competent riders, one of them is possibly the most competent road rider I have ever ridden with.
Shit can happen.

Now katman will burst forth with , you must be able to stop in the distance ahead of you .
So the outcome was the SCU found that the enviromental conditions were at fault, in this case the road layout. Timing is irrelevant really as the road design has to allow for this type of occurence, one vehicle driving along the road and another wanting to pull out. I will bet the SCU report didn't have bad timing as a causative factor because what are you saying if you say that, any accidents from here on at this intersection can be blamed on bad timing? The report would have had the design of the road, limited visibility, issues with the crest of the hill being close to the intersection as causes, not timing.

[marmel]

Another issue with blaming timing for an accident is that it would be just at valid to stand in the dock and say that the fact you had to wipe your arse more than usual that morning delayed your day by 10 seconds thereby putting you in that situation at that time of the day. Or perhaps blame the wind which slowed down your journey by 10 seconds, you could even blame the lovely scenery which you were looking at during your journey for slowing you down. ALL are completely valid arguments if you accept that timing can be the cause of a crash.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[TheDemonLord]

Timing can matter . A mate was seriously injured in a bike accident a while back. He crested the brow of a hill at the legal speed just as a plumber doing a site inspection pulled out of a drive. SCU attended , no charges were laid.
They believed that the rider was not speeding but had almost no time to react. They believed the driver started his turn while the visible road was clear.

If you can't complete the a move in the time that you have visibility to see, then you can't complete the move safely - Timing or not, pulling out when you can't properly see if it is clear or not seems like it should be illegal...

[Banditbandit]

Do you take corners with an advisory speed sign of 35kph at 100kph simply because 100kph is the speed limit?

Certainly !!!! Sometimes more than 100 ... The advisory speed posted on corners here (Bay of Plenty) is the "maximum comfortable speed for a passenger in the back seat". That has nothing whatsoever to do with road safety and driving to the conditions ...

When I come round a corner the only thing I worry about with speed is "will there be a cop coming round the bend ..."

Do I think such actions might get me killed ??? Fuck - I'm amazed I'm still alive anyway ... every day is a bonus ...

But I have listened to what you say .. and I can honestly say that I have not exceeded 200 klicks for oh .. a week at least ..so I am slowing down in my old age ..

[Latte]

If you can't complete the a move in the time that you have visibility to see, then you can't complete the move safely - Timing or not, pulling out when you can't properly see if it is clear or not seems like it should be illegal...

So the plumber could never leave the drive?

[TheDemonLord]

So the plumber could never leave the drive?

Move down the road on the hard shoulder/verge to a place where you have sufficient visibility to complete the turn safely

[madbikeboy]

That is complete and utter shit.

Aha. Because life is fair. Good guys finish first. People are all kind and honest. Etc. Get real.

[Katman]

Certainly !!!! Sometimes more than 100 ... The advisory speed posted on corners here (Bay of Plenty) is the "maximum comfortable speed for a passenger in the back seat". That has nothing whatsoever to do with road safety and driving to the conditions ...


An advisory speed sign is an indication that you may require a reduction in your speed to safely negotiate the corner.

Blind corners and crests should be treated in the same manner.

[PrincessBandit]

An advisory speed sign is an indication that you may require a reduction in your speed to safely negotiate the corner.

Blind corners and crests should be treated in the same manner.

Don't be so silly; everyone knows that a piece of road you can't see around is always the same as you've always travelled over it before.
I mean, gosh, some people might have to ease up on the throttle for what ends up being no particular reason!!

All comes down to people making assumptions - and we all know what they can lead to*...(but because I didn't crash into anything over a blind crest 99 times before I am going to believe that on the 100th, or 104th or 239th time it will still be uneventful and therefore safe to navigate at my usual speed d'oh)


*near misses and FUBARs

[FJRider]

For a start SCU never recommend who is/isn't to be charged. There only role is to establish the circumstances surrounding the crash, why it happened, who caused it etc. Normally the O/C of the crash file would decide on a charge.

The SCU investigating unit makes a report on the crash site they attended .... and their findings. Those at fault will then be charged. If they are still alive ... :done:


The SCU only attend crashes were very serious injury or death has occurred, hardly a situation where they are just out ot waste someones time.

I guess that's why they are called the Serious Crash Unit ... :shifty:


Once again I repeat, serious crashes in NZ cost MILLIONS and MILLIONS, no one makes any money out of serious crashes, the revenue gathering statement couldn't be further from the truth. Even a basic prosecution for careless causing death would cost $10K plus taking into account the time of all the staff involved, including court staff, the judge etc. HOW is this revenue gathering again, spend tens of thousands of dollars to get $500 back????

Contractors that change intersections on the basis of SCU findings DO make a lot of money.

Fines against the offending motorists ... vary ... depending on the serriousness of the actual offense that caused the crash. (I don't know where you got the $500 from)

Court staff/Judges are only involved if a person (remaining alive) is found to be at fault.

But at the end of the day ... many WILL make money from serious crashes. Many in industry base their livelihood on vehicle crash related occupations.


If you are really worried about a road being closed and "inconveniencing" motorists spare a thought for the poor bugger whose loved one has just been killed. Do you think that perhaps they deserve a little more of your consideration to make sure they have all the facts around what happened and can be satisfied that a proper job has been done by the SCU as opposed to a quick 30 minute spray some paint down and make up the rest type of job?

Not always ... sometimes they find their perfect driving loved one ... fucked up badly.


If you want to enlighten yourself get along to an inquest in your local area, they are open to the public, it might make you appreciate that just about everything you are saying is clearly incorrect and based on anything but fact.

This is KB ... who uses facts ... ??????????????

[scumdog]

This is a ridiculous way of thinking.

For a start, unless there is some sought of external influence such as a big pothole or mechanical failure there is always someone at fault regardless of what you might think.

Do you really think the cops pay what would amount to millions of dollars in salary plus costs of vehicles and equipment just to try and get revenue back from motorists that have crashes serious enough to warrant SCU attending???

Have you been to court lately and seen the fines that get handed out, sweet fuck all. In 99% of the cases community work or home detention is the standard sentence for careless driving causing death. Which by the way costs millions of dollars more to put in place and monitor.

So no the SCU aren't there to gather revenue. They are there to establish why a crash happened and the liability of those involved, if any.

Anyone with a bit of common sense would easily see the SCU would certainly not be paying their own way, quite the opposite.

I haven't read the rest of the thread yet - but I bet you get a string of replies/comments from those that have no idea what they're talking about...;)

[Berries]

Aha. Because life is fair. Good guys finish first. People are all kind and honest.
Those three statements are all just as true as the car driver always getting the benefit of the doubt if there is ever a decision of fault between a motorcyclist and a car driver, ie they are shit. Just because you have clearly had a particular experience doesn't mean it turns out that way for everybody else.

[Motu]

An update on this thread - I went to my brother in law's funeral yesterday. The loss of his son had a huge impact on him, and he never recovered...a heart attack at 57. Burried with his son, he had planned that back then, and 2 1/2 years later we are back to the same plot.

And before all the commiserations start, forget it, I'm not that type of person. He's dead, he's buried and that's it. Yes, I'm an unsympathetic hardarse - there has to be balance in the world. He was nothing to you, so don't get all weepy.