Criminal nuisance conviction for roading contractor after crash

[Motu]

Guys (and girls)

Remind me NEVER to go to a party, bar or any place I want to have a good time at if there is the slightest danger anyone that posted on this thread will be there....

In fact... I think the council or govt should put up WARNING signs....

"Danger, Unexpected Gusts of Hot Air and Righteous Indignation may BORE you to Death for the next 17 pages of posting"

Sweet Jesus... (sorry Zed)

"WOULD YOU ALL PLEASE GO RUN A COUPLE OF TANKFULLS OF GAS THROUGH YOUR BIKES AND LEAVE IT BE!"

In the words of Mr Smith... Streutharama


Funkyfly is trying to be the first to get to 1000 posts in only one thread - we're helping him along - just put in a word,your Grandmothers piklet recipie will do,and he will reply to it,complete with quotes.It's not entertaining that's for sure.

[Funkyfly]

Funkyfly is trying to be the first to get to 1000 posts in only one thread - we're helping him along - just put in a word,your Grandmothers piklet recipie will do,and he will reply to it,complete with quotes.It's not entertaining that's for sure.

I said about 100 posts ago "thats it no more from me" and Jim i think it was (trying real hard not to use quotes) accused me of packing up my toys just because i couldnt bring you guys around to my way of thinking. So i stayed around and annoyed a few people by the sounds of it.

Hey sorry bout that, you dont enyoy this thread then leave, i certainly wont hassle you for saying you've had enuff.

Sheesh i cant do anything right.

But before you go i would like to hear comments from JIM and MOTU on the 2nd newspaper article. post #246

[merv]

And you dont think they (including yourself) are knee jerking? All this talk about just banning motorbikes on NZ roads because of Chris's case?


No you are missing the point entirely, it is not us knee jerking, it is us simply talking about what a likely outcome might be by those that might knee jerk.

Remember I don't set bylaws, Councils do, so any amount of knee jerking on my part won't ban motorcycles unless my knee jerking is in the form of lobbying and people take up my point. That won't happen because I would be the last to suggest that it should happen as I am against it entirely. As a biker I want freedom and don't want it restricted, nor do I want my 4x4 restricted on beaches as another example.

Do you know the difference between discussing an issue and actually having the power to take action to implement a change and then really piss some one off?

What I was suggesting all the way through is that bikers that crash should think about whether it is wise to knee jerk and take legal action as they may wind up the bureaucrats to take a defensive position, the outcome of which is unlikely to meet our favour as bikers.

[merv]

Guys (and girls)


"WOULD YOU ALL PLEASE GO RUN A COUPLE OF TANKFULLS OF GAS THROUGH YOUR BIKES AND LEAVE IT BE!"

In the words of Mr Smith... Streutharama

Nah its too cold and wet we'd sooner play on our computers.

[NordieBoy]

Simple Pimple, he should have seen the water on the road, in the other lane, should have knwn that the approaching car might aquaplane,should have know it might bouce off the guard rail and into his lane, so he should have slowed down.

What about the Doctor doing 50 through the signposted 30 roadworks zone back up the road.
If he'd kept to the limit there he could have arrived on the scene to help instead of being involved.

[Mongoose]

What about the Doctor doing 50 through the signposted 30 roadworks zone back up the road.
If he'd kept to the limit there he could have arrived on the scene to help instead of being involved.


Ummmm, this is true?? Like some one clocked the Dr at this speed and there was road works up the road?

[Cynic]

Ummmm, this is true?? Like some one clocked the Dr at this speed and there was road works up the road?

No and no... there are no roadworks or 30Kph board between the impact point and 100Kph sign on SH45 when coming from Oakura, both vehicles were in the 100 zone... and as hammered out in a previous thread, radar would have been ineffective due to the crap weather so a speed reading is highly unlikely...

[SPman]

But the Dr had come out of a 50 zone and could have been accelerating, the cop would prob have been drifting down the hill, letting his speed decay before getting to the 50 k zone.
Buggrit
I support the campaign for intelligent use of road signs.
We''re all to blame for our actions, because we've been born!
It's all my fault!
Everything else is an abomination unto Nuggan!

[Posh Tourer :P]

Funkyfly, stop taking things so seriously.... Motu, FF and a few others are just having a dig.... I dont think they are seriously attempting to shut you up....

[Posh Tourer :P]

Out of the bounds of this thread - and I am cetainly not judging the cop who was killed - but how many times has anyone aquaplaned here? I never have,and I've driven some real shitters with bald tyres too fast in some heavy rain,I've hit some real deep spots and it felt like it slowed the car down as I went through,but never,ever aquaplane.A cop car would have good tyres I presume - but to aquaplane a cop car off the road at 100kph,I'd a thought it was time to slow down.Ok,I wasn't there,have no idea of what happened,but aquaplaning is a high speed condition,for it to happen at low speed sounds a bit suss.

Aquaplaned on the motorway, luckily towards the barrier not the other lane, good tyres, just deep(ish) ie maybe a few cm puddle, at 100kmh

[Motu]

Aquaplaned on the motorway, luckily towards the barrier not the other lane, good tyres, just deep(ish) ie maybe a few cm puddle, at 100kmh

Sheesh! well,you won't get me going that fast in the dungers I drive!

[Milky]

...good tyres...
they had tread on them i guess... you cant seriously call them 'good' though. legal maybe, but not good. t'was an interesting experience that...

[spudchucka]

and as hammered out in a previous thread, radar would have been ineffective due to the crap weather so a speed reading is highly unlikely...
Not ineffective, less effective. Heavy rain and pools of water on the road can make it difficult, (not impossible) for the radar to pick up the patrol cars ground speed, if it can't get a ground speed it can't calculate the target speed.

[Zed]

...Giving up already? You should take lessons from Zed.Hey! Leave me outta this pal. :done:

[Funkyfly]

I support the campaign for intelligent use of road signs.
We''re all to blame for our actions, because we've been born!
It's all my fault!
Everything else is an abomination unto Nuggan!

Welcome onboard.

Still waiting to hear form people, esp MOTU and JIM regarding post #246.

[Funkyfly]

No you are missing the point entirely, it is not us knee jerking, it is us simply talking about what a likely outcome might be by those that might knee jerk.

Remember I don't set bylaws, Councils do, so any amount of knee jerking on my part won't ban motorcycles unless my knee jerking is in the form of lobbying and people take up my point. That won't happen because I would be the last to suggest that it should happen as I am against it entirely. As a biker I want freedom and don't want it restricted, nor do I want my 4x4 restricted on beaches as another example.

Do you know the difference between discussing an issue and actually having the power to take action to implement a change and then really piss some one off?

Merv, the term "kneejerk" doesnt relate solely to those who have the power to take action to implement a change.

Kneejerk implies - an immediate reaction that does not allow you time to consider something carefully.

Straight off the bat there was talk that councils would ban bikes and only bikes due to this courtcase.

I call that a kneejerk reaction because upon consideration its very unlikely that if council was to implement new laws to curb further lawsuits that they would only be to ban just bikes.

PLease consider post #246 - regarding the 2nd newspaper article.

[Mongoose]

Out of the bounds of this thread - and I am cetainly not judging the cop who was killed - but how many times has anyone aquaplaned here? I never have,and I've driven some real shitters with bald tyres too fast in some heavy rain,I've hit some real deep spots and it felt like it slowed the car down as I went through,but never,ever aquaplane.A cop car would have good tyres I presume - but to aquaplane a cop car off the road at 100kph,I'd a thought it was time to slow down.Ok,I wasn't there,have no idea of what happened,but aquaplaning is a high speed condition,for it to happen at low speed sounds a bit suss.

Yes, have had this happen Motu in an old Nissan Wisetrack, one of the first ones. Must admit it was on *Car Sales* tyres but amussingly enough it was on what is locally referred to as the *Flood Free* Hi Way

[gav]

Great post ! Regarding the original crash by Chris whats his name, how long had he been riding? He crashed on gravel, what 10 days after it had been laid? Had any other motorcycles been through that area and had all of them crashed as well? If not, it seems hard to blame the gravel solely on his demise? I don't know the guy or his back ground but I'm picking Born Again biker? Used to ride 20 years ago now back into bikes? Has he done any recent riding training course? Maybe an advanced course? Ever ridden off road? Bit of gravel on road, panic, crash...... I'm with some of these other guys, poor form blaming some one else for his lack of ability, hell, why not sue Aprilia as the bike wasnt suitable in gravel, or the dealer as the bike was unsuitable for NZ roads?

[merv]

Straight off the bat there was talk that councils would ban bikes and only bikes due to this courtcase.

I call that a kneejerk reaction because upon consideration its very unlikely that if council was to implement new laws to curb further lawsuits that they would only be to ban just bikes.

PLease consider post #246 - regarding the 2nd newspaper article.

I guess the problem is you are newbie and we had already discussed this in depth before you came along back when Chris was first lodging his case. So there is no kneejerking on my part as I have long held that opinion.

It was a discussion about what Councils might do in defence not that they would do for sure.

The second newspaper article is just that, a newspaper article, that was posted by my old mate Bill. The opinion of the writer is just like any opinion being expressed here, its whoever wrote its opinion and no-one elses. If the Council were to take action the same reporter may end up writing about that too, that's the reporter's job. Anything else you still aren't clear on?

[merv]

... hell, why not sue Aprilia as the bike wasnt suitable in gravel, or the dealer as the bike was unsuitable for NZ roads?

Yeah the good old American way again! Like the case where the woman sued McDonalds when she spilt her coffee in her lap and it was hot. Same woman would probably have grizzled if her coffee was cold. Signage never worked in that one, the Maccas containers clearly say "Caution Hot" and have for years.

When I was in the States in '92 a big case hit the news where a woman sued because she had scalded her baby in hot water in the bath. She sued the landlord and the electricity company that supplied the power to heat the water FFS.

[magnum]

good job,fukn homos :kick:

[NordieBoy]

Ummmm, this is true?? Like some one clocked the Dr at this speed and there was road works up the road?

Umm.
No.

Just trying to illistrate the point that anything you do or don't do is a factor.
An extra fart and stretch in the morning could mean the difference between being an onlooker and a participant.

It's all to to with the trouser-legs of time

[Mongoose]

Umm.
No.

Just trying to illistrate the point that anything you do or don't do is a factor.
An extra fart and stretch in the morning could mean the difference between being an onlooker and a participant.

It's all to to with the trouser-legs of time


Well, I'll be :buggerd: , now it is all starting to make sense :confused2 :rolleyes:

[mangell6]

Would really like to hear your comments on this Motu and JIM.

While I am not Jim or Motu I will reply to post No 246

I look forward to the day that the chain link fences prevent the children, cyclists and pedestrians from coming onto the dangerous urban 50km streets so that I cannot run them over (have an accident) while I am driving my car or riding my bike, and that a defence of "Yes there was gravel on the side of the road" and even if I did see it, I wasn't "informed" so the person who put it there is responsible for me having an accident being legitimate. This is the kind of society that the reporters comments are leaning towards, where all individuals 'expect' to be fully informed and protected from themselves. At least I won't have to make a decision, someone else can do it for me.:doctor:

I see that the Waikato Hospital board has 'dictated' that staff are not allowed to wear rings when preparing food because once they have identified a hazard or a danger OSH requires them to deal to it. Preventing staff from wearing rings is a definite 'knee-jerk' reaction to a "perceived' problem where there are other, more common sense solutions.

Re the 'decisions that you make' refer to Jims note about the decisions that he made that lead to him being in the wrong place. I have had two instances where I made decisions and one that resulted in me NOT KILLING a guy who was riding a bike. One can call it Karma or 6th sense but what comes around goes around. For a definition on religion refer to item number four at dictionary dot com.

As for a Taranaki accident, know the bridge, know that particular piece of road and SLOW down when I cross it. Have experienced aquaplaning and what a thrill it is, really gets the adreniline and heart pumping, the ultimate relief is when one has control back again.

The current societal notion that others are responsibile for you and your actions is a falicy and will cause only grief.

Funkfly - How much longer can we all keep this thread going? :whistle:

Mike

[Funkyfly]

It was a discussion about what Councils might do in defence not that they would do for sure.


"Might do"? man i remember reading some "guarantees".

might pay to check.

[Funkyfly]

While I am not Jim or Motu I will reply to post No 246

I look forward to the day that the chain link fences prevent the children, cyclists and pedestrians from coming onto the dangerous urban 50km streets so that I cannot run them over (have an accident) while I am driving my car or riding my bike, and that a defence of "Yes there was gravel on the side of the road" and even if I did see it, I wasn't "informed" so the person who put it there is responsible for me having an accident being legitimate. This is the kind of society that the reporters comments are leaning towards, where all individuals 'expect' to be fully informed and protected from themselves. At least I won't have to make a decision, someone else can do it for me.:doctor:

I see that the Waikato Hospital board has 'dictated' that staff are not allowed to wear rings when preparing food because once they have identified a hazard or a danger OSH requires them to deal to it. Preventing staff from wearing rings is a definite 'knee-jerk' reaction to a "perceived' problem where there are other, more common sense solutions.

Re the 'decisions that you make' refer to Jims note about the decisions that he made that lead to him being in the wrong place. I have had two instances where I made decisions and one that resulted in me NOT KILLING a guy who was riding a bike. One can call it Karma or 6th sense but what comes around goes around. For a definition on religion refer to item number four at dictionary dot com.

As for a Taranaki accident, know the bridge, know that particular piece of road and SLOW down when I cross it. Have experienced aquaplaning and what a thrill it is, really gets the adreniline and heart pumping, the ultimate relief is when one has control back again.

The current societal notion that others are responsibile for you and your actions is a falicy and will cause only grief.

Funkfly - How much longer can we all keep this thread going? :whistle:

Mike

For the LAST time, i i do mean LAST time! My comments do not in any way praise chris's case, I DO agree more cases like his could force the coincils to tighten up laws regarding road users.

Got that? Please tell me you understand that?

My comments relate to trying to STOP further court action! and helping fellow riders!

How?

You could go back and read my other 100 odd posts but i will make it easy for.

By encouraging councils to encourage contractors to erect signs like they are obogated to.

With signs in place then people like Chris cant make a case!

Its VERY simple.

However people on here are arguing that by encouraging councils to talk to their contractors it will result in bikes being banned on our roads.

[Posh Tourer :P]

For the LAST time, i i do mean LAST time! My comments do not in any way praise chris's case, I DO agree more cases like his could force the coincils to tighten up laws regarding road users.

Ok. So you dont condone his case, but you think it might be useful to force councils to tighten up operating procedures. Kind of a wake up call to ensure it doesnt happen again.


Got that? Please tell me you understand that?.

Did I understand that correctly? I think I did


My comments relate to trying to STOP further court action! and helping fellow riders!
How?
You could go back and read my other 100 odd posts but i will make it easy for.
By encouraging councils to encourage contractors to erect signs like they are obogated to.
With signs in place then people like Chris cant make a case!
Its VERY simple.
However people on here are arguing that by encouraging councils to talk to their contractors it will result in bikes being banned on our roads.

Ok. So you have stopped further court action that might happen when contractors dont erect signs. The councils are now aware of this situation. Now apply this precedent to a wider situation. There are many areas in which this type of case could be a precedent. I go down a waterslide without using one of those foam mats, and break a finger because there was a ledge between two peices of plastic that I hit. I sue the swimming pool place, and point out a precedent/make my decision to sue based on the fact that this case succeeded.
My point is that while you may have won the battle, you havent won the war.
If this case succeeds, not only does the council have to tighten up in this area, but also other areas in which a precedent might have been set. People make a decision to sue based on the success of similar cases. There are some things that just have to be left at personal responsibility. Its all a matter of where you draw the line.

[merv]

"Might do"? man i remember reading some "guarantees".

might pay to check.

You won't find any comment like that in any of my posts.

[merv]

However people on here are arguing that by encouraging councils to talk to their contractors it will result in bikes being banned on our roads.


My only argument has been that if bikers take court action, Councils may get defensive. I am pleased to see you have now acknowledged that this point is a possibility.



For the LAST time, i i do mean LAST time! My comments do not in any way praise chris's case, I DO agree more cases like his could force the coincils to tighten up laws regarding road users.


... and we aren't going to catch up to the religious thread if you quit now.

[Funkyfly]

My only argument has been that if bikers take court action, Councils may get defensive. I am pleased to see you have now acknowledged that this point is a possibility.



... and we aren't going to catch up to the religious thread if you quit now.

i never dismissed the notion that councils might get defensive dude.

im not going to quit, im just not going to repeat the same stuff over and over becasue people dont read the other posts, takes up way to much time (i brought motoGP3)

[Funkyfly]

Ok. So you dont condone his case, but you think it might be useful to force councils to tighten up operating procedures. Kind of a wake up call to ensure it doesnt happen again.

ARGH! As riders cant cant "force" anything. Not sure how many times i used the word "encourage" in my posts but it was a few, maybe people here dont understand what it means?




Ok. So you have stopped further court action that might happen when contractors dont erect signs.

No No No! The idea is to encourage contractors TO erect signs, if they do this then the chances someone can blame "lack of signs" for their crash will be reduced!

There is no way i can see that you can "stop further court action that might happen when contractors dont erect signs" because if contractors arent doing their job then people CAN take them to court, as Chris did.

[Funkyfly]

You won't find any comment like that in any of my posts.
My apologies Merv, i must admit i do tend to lump you guys together.

Someone promoting the "council WILL ban bikes" side made a number of guarantees.

[James Deuce]

My apologies Merv, i must admit i do tend to lump you guys together.

Someone promoting the "council WILL ban bikes" side made a number of guarantees.


You do enjoy misquoting don't you? It's good form to attribute the quote to a person and include the text. I've been around long enough to see what a sustained government campaign to sway public opinion will do. I didn't say councils will ban bikes, I said the central government would, given enough ammunition of this type.

[Mongoose]

You do enjoy misquoting don't you? It's good form to attribute the quote to a person and include the text. I've been around long enough to see what a sustained government campaign to sway public opinion will do. I didn't say councils will ban bikes, I said the central government would, given enough ammunition of this type.

Also good to see the man admit when he got it wrong Jim2? So should the others involved in this court case, the contractor and/or council should have admitted a mistake and not have it go as far as a court hearing. Would have saved a lot of hassle had they made a simular offer as what the judge ruled and i suspect this Chris fella would have melted away and no one would have been the wiser.

[Hitcher]

You do enjoy misquoting don't you? It's good form to attribute the quote to a person and include the text. I've been around long enough to see what a sustained government campaign to sway public opinion will do. I didn't say councils will ban bikes, I said the central government would, given enough ammunition of this type.

Reminds me of a conversation we had during the South Africa v Pacific Islands test match on Saturday evening (WARNING: abstruse ramble starting) where I expressed displeasure at folk who refer to the PI team as "the polynesians", when in fact this team comprises people of polynesian and melanesian descent. A short conversation then followed regarding the geographic proximates required to be poly, micro or melanesian -- which led to a personal confession of being an amnesian...

[James Deuce]

Also good to see the man admit when he got it wrong Jim2? So should the others involved in this court case, the contractor and/or council should have admitted a mistake and not have it go as far as a court hearing. Would have saved a lot of hassle had they made a simular offer as what the judge ruled and i suspect this Chris fella would have melted away and no one would have been the wiser.
Absolutely. Common sense, while in short supply, is infinitely preferable to jurisprudence.

[pete376403]

But then Chris Parkin wouldn't have got his name in the paper and otherwise been talked about. And him being a politician, I suspect thats what he was REALLY after.

[Funkyfly]

You do enjoy misquoting don't you? It's good form to attribute the quote to a person and include the text. I've been around long enough to see what a sustained government campaign to sway public opinion will do. I didn't say councils will ban bikes, I said the central government would, given enough ammunition of this type.

Then replace "councils" with "Central govt" does it make any difference?

It was not intended to be a direct quote sorry, otherwise i would have mentioned the name, it was used to sum up the ideas of those posting, i.e. see below

Motu - "As with Merv I've seen nearly every area I've ridden on be lost to some council bullshit - prompted by my very own actions,I'll take the blame for that too.The threat to us as riders is very real"

Merv - "It was a discussion about what Councils might do in defence not that they would do for sure".....that refers to Chris and anyone else that takes action against them. i.e. push them (legally) and they will defend"

Indicating that they think its the COUNCIL who would act.

[merv]

I was commenting that it might be the Councils that take action in defence because they were suffering the legal action. The action may have been in the form of by-laws as they have the power at their fingertips to do that and as I showed by quoting existing by-laws straight from Wellington City Council they have already in place by-laws that cover their ability to place restriction on the use of any sort of vehicle on the road now if they wanted to use it - might cause an outcry of course. They could also lobby central goverment and get law changes and I guess that is what happened with the boy racer law - no doubt the Councils and Police looked for tighter controls as well as a bit of public opinion from those that didn't like what was going on.

[Funkyfly]

I was commenting that it might be the Councils that take action in defence because they were suffering the legal action. The action may have been in the form of by-laws as they have the power at their fingertips to do that and as I showed by quoting existing by-laws straight from Wellington City Council they have already in place by-laws that cover their ability to place restriction on the use of any sort of vehicle on the road now if they wanted to use it - might cause an outcry of course. They could also lobby central goverment and get law changes and I guess that is what happened with the boy racer law - no doubt the Councils and Police looked for tighter controls as well as a bit of public opinion from those that didn't like what was going on.

That is how i understood your comments, Council would likely be the first to react.

[Beemer]

I went for a ride with our club on Sunday and we were joined by a new couple on their new bike. About 30kms into the ride, he went slightly wide on a corner and - wouldn't you know it, there was loose pea gravel on the outside of the corner - result - bike meets strainer post, rider and pillion meet road. Shows how easy it is to do, whether or not there are road works and signs or not. Obviously there had been some road works done in this area recently - who knows how recently - and the gravel was actually covering where the white line would normally be painted. This to me is pretty bad, because you should reasonably expect to be able to use the whole lane whether in a car or on a bike. Just shows how easy it is for something small to have more serious consequences.

On a lighter note, I'd like to thump the club member who laid out the course and accidently marked the wrong roads on one section of the map - those at the front of the pack just followed him and did the correct roads, but those of us who stopped to help out at the crash then followed the map and experienced two gravel roads that were marked on the map by mistake! I hate gravel at the best of times, but to find out we didn't have to ride on it in the first place didn't impress me! Lucky I beat them all in the economy run!

[phil_elvey]

I don't know how you can hate gravel that much when your riding a bike that is darn close to an adventure bike anyway (just with road rims on). Prehaps if the gravel-rashed couple had had more experience on gravel they might not have come unstuck...

[merv]

Yep shows how you have to keep your eyes open as in many cases the hazards aren't road works - can be a damp patch, a spilled load, ice, cow shit, animals on the road or whatever. Sure a few are road works related like pea gravel (especially for ice in winter or for melted tar in summer).

[Funkyfly]

I went for a ride with our club on Sunday and we were joined by a new couple on their new bike. About 30kms into the ride, he went slightly wide on a corner and - wouldn't you know it, there was loose pea gravel on the outside of the corner - result - bike meets strainer post, rider and pillion meet road. Shows how easy it is to do, whether or not there are road works and signs or not. Obviously there had been some road works done in this area recently - who knows how recently - and the gravel was actually covering where the white line would normally be painted. This to me is pretty bad, because you should reasonably expect to be able to use the whole lane whether in a car or on a bike. Just shows how easy it is for something small to have more serious consequences.

At the risk of envoking your wrath.......

This does sound more like rider error (running wide on a new bike), however it would have been nice to know (via signs erected) about the recent road works, that way even more care would likely have been taken.

Hope no one was seriously hurt.