Bikers collide with Police car in Buller Gorge (1 December) [Archive] - Page 2

orange dog

6th December 2007, 18:54

Boy there is a lot of pedantic bitchin on this thread !

I'm just looking for updates on the health of the riders and to see if there is any way I can be of support... and to see how the Police respond.

Claiming that the riders are in any way at fault due to not being able to stop within their viewable distance whether they were speeding or not, is PC crap ! As bike riders (particularly on a fantastic, winding road like the one in question) we at least assume that if we can not actually come to a halt, at least we can take evasive action (like going around, not an option in this case)

The cop did a stupid thing and is at fault period. Despite his actions making me damn pissed off, he is only human and is more likely a victim of crap training and pressure to meet quotas.

MD, thanks for your posts. I know you should'nt be saying anything, official or not but if you have any updates on the riders, let us know. Cheers

Pex Adams

6th December 2007, 20:49

One thing has just struck me, and no it wasn't the missus..

Yes she did... Don't lie to us:spanking:

Coldrider

6th December 2007, 22:09

terbang

7th December 2007, 02:00

Arguing over who is right and wrong in this instance is just sad.
Can't agree there mate.. Debate the isuue enough and we may actually force the truth and reality about why this accident happened as I smell arse covering at the moment. Then we can use that to prevent further similar occurances. Its called learning from our mistakes and sometimes people and organizations need to stand up and be honest when they make dangerous mistakes, such as this case.
Think of the pain and social cost if the same old accidents happened time and time again because people were too afraid (or devious) to face the truth and cannnot admit and learn from their own mistakes.
Now thats sad..

JimBob

7th December 2007, 05:15

Bugger being the poor lads coming round the corner and seeing no where to go. Whats the bet, the chap in ICU hit the rear wheel - worse possible place to hit a car (over the wheels), aim for the doors if you have too.

I would of thought aiming for the doors would be your worst option. More likely your body will get collected by the body of the vehicle. At the wheels, with a bit of luck, you will go over the vehicle and skate down the road. (assuming a sedan) Its the sudden stop that does the damage. I'm no expert, but I did whack the front of a car that drove straight out of a drive. I went over the bonnet and ended up near 80 metres down the road but didnt sustain any major injury. I am sure if I T-boned the car I would have collected the roof sill at the very least and done myself some serious damage.
Of course when a car suddenly appears in front of you, there is no time to "plan" anything. Good luck more than good managment determines the outcome.

JimBob

7th December 2007, 05:26

This has happened in Auckland, and that case was settled out of court by the police a month ago, a U turning vehicle collided with a police dog wagon, with lights on, no siren.
There is plenty of 'common law' built up on this, and anyone who has been charged with U turning dangerously will be watching very closely.
There will be no 'good' outcome of this instance no matter what, and the worse case scenario is that U turns can be made when they are morally bankrupt, so to speak.
I think with this one the initial investigation blamed both parties, the police car was doing 80k in a 50k area(within police guidlines) but had no siren, and it wasnt the greatest place to do a Uy. No action was going to be taken but later they decided to charge the car driver doing the Uy but not the policeman. This pissed the car driver off and he fought the charges vigorously to say the least.

JimBob

7th December 2007, 06:02

And I may as well put my tuppence worth in
I have often thought when I am flying around a corner (not neccessarily breaking the speed limit) "what if" Some corners you could be doing 80k and only have 20 metres visibility. About 1/2 a second? Not a lot of time to do much.
In this case the distance between the corner and where the turn was made, and the speed of the motorcycles around the corner will be the important.
All in relation to the environment, weather, visibility, road conditions etc etc
Responsibility will be apportioned and then it will be decided if anyone gets charged. The policman probably has a bit of a headstart in the responsibility stakes but it is by no means cut and dried.
Until then I will hold of hanging anyone in case I hang the wrong person.

Usarka

7th December 2007, 07:35

Much more dangerous to self and others to do a 3 point turn on a blind corner than to around it at a speed where you cannot stop in the visible distance.

orange dog

7th December 2007, 08:11

You can't say that. You don't know the circumstances, none of us do.

I don't do traffic and my forte is certainly front line policing but i can say as someone who has completed serious crash courses that it is too early to say who is at fault. Anyone can do a U turn on New Zealand roads, its one of the things you are tested on in the road code. A lot of countries have banned U turns all together because they easily cause accidents - I have had to pick a dead biker up who had a car do an illegal U turn in front of him and the car was totally at fault.

In this case you don't know if the cop pulled out without looking, if he did a three point turn with enough space for someone to stop if they were doing the speed limit and the bikes were going too fast to stop, whether he did not leave enough space for someone to stop and the bikes were doing the speed limit but were unable to stop due to the cops position on the road etc etc etc

As bikers some of us very quickly blame cars that knock us off, if it's a Police Officer who is involved a large portion move very quickly to the blame game without really knowing any of the facts or even having an informed opinion.

Im not having a dig at you, your opinion matches a lot of other people on here, just try and have an objective view.

You're right, it's just that I know the road well and this could have been me. don't want my kids to be fatherless just yet.

skelstar

7th December 2007, 08:20

Can't agree there mate.. Debate the isuue enough and we may actually force the truth and reality about why this accident happened as I smell arse covering at the moment.
Fair comment, but surely arguing about it online does shit-all until you take it out the real world. All it does is give know-it-alls and people-with-axes-to-grind something to puff their chests about. 15 pages of thread and no-one has really convinced anyone of what happened...

Now thats sad..
Isn't it :mellow:

Coldrider

7th December 2007, 08:30

I think with this one the initial investigation blamed both parties, the police car was doing 80k in a 50k area(within police guidlines) but had no siren, and it wasnt the greatest place to do a Uy. No action was going to be taken but later they decided to charge the car driver doing the Uy but not the policeman. This pissed the car driver off and he fought the charges vigorously to say the least.
From memory recollection the guy spent $120K to clear his name, the police having to stump up half of that to him. (Justice costs ?)
That is why the Buller Gorge incident is not a clear cut case, but will be most interesting. There is two processes going on, the Serious crash investigation, and the legal eagle process, regardless of the outcome of both.
I don't care whether the policeman is charged or what ever, my concern is the level of care required to be exercised when U turning into the public may be seriously eroded. There is moral duties we have to each other, over and above what the law requires.

Edit: I also wish the two gentleman injured have a speedy recovery, though serious injuries do take time to heal, and stay in the memory forever.
Good luck MD, you are a gentleman also.

Squiggles

7th December 2007, 09:03

How about ever body just shuts the F*&K up and does some F&%kin work for a change.

I'm on a day off so I'm allowed to waste my time if I want to, the rest of you loafers pull ya bloody heads in start paying your taxes so I can get pay rise.

omg lol, cant give you more rep :eek:

cruza

7th December 2007, 09:17

MSTRS

7th December 2007, 09:26

omg lol, cant give you more rep :eek:

Yep....Mods have decreed that SC cannot have any more....:innocent:

Ixion

7th December 2007, 09:26

On TV1 news tonight, yet another police car trashed in an urban area, ended up off the road on someones front lawn, 2 police, 1 car, one wet road, no one else involved, no defence offered by top brass. T'is getting a bit embarrassing isn't it.

An interesting insight into police attitude, which is quite relevant to the topic (from the Stuff report of the above crash)

Police said road conditions caused the car to lose control on a corner while it was en route to an accident.
Road conditions caused the crash? But aren't we all supposed to drive to the conditions , and slow down ?
The car lost control? What about the driver?

Any other driver, it would be "The driver lost control because he failed to drive to the road condition". But when it's a cop, the road condition becomes an excuse, and it's the car blamed for the loss of control. Subtle, but it clearly demonstrates the mindset.

EDIT: Where's Mr Katman when he's needed!

cruza

7th December 2007, 09:32

MSTRS

7th December 2007, 09:35

Subtle, but it clearly demonstrates the mindset.

Most people will not pick up the message on a conscious level. But the message does get through via subliminal means, whereby the reader may 'accept' that cops are blameless.
But we, as bikers, see through all the bullshit, one hopes?

pritch

7th December 2007, 09:43

I would of thought aiming for the doors would be your worst option. More likely your body will get collected by the body of the vehicle.

I hope I never have to use it but there is a theory for this situation.

The correct procedure is to stand on the pegs just prior to impact. This can save you breaking both femurs on the handle bars and may hopefully lift your trajectory enough that you pass over the vehicle.

Of course, in the Buller Gorge that could also put you over a fifty foot drop into the river?

Without pre-judging anything, and in this particular instance that isn't easy...
I can't remember the exact words but the British Police motorcycle riding manual warns against getting overwhelmed by the excitement of the occasion and letting judgement take a back seat.

Ixion

7th December 2007, 09:56

Received wisdom is that the least-worst place to hit a car is just abaft the front wheel arch, standing. Cars are squishy there, and you have a good chance of going over the bonnet. I am tempted to think that if you have sufficient time and control to select where to hit, then you have sufficient time and control to not hit at all.

Scouse

7th December 2007, 09:58

On TV1 news tonight, yet another police car trashed in an urban area, ended up off the road on someones front lawn, 2 police, 1 car, one wet road, no one else involved, no defence offered by top brass. T'is getting a bit embarrassing isn't it.I heard that the owner ofthe house asked police driver what did you do that for, the cop said to owner of the house that you were speeding.

Ocean1

7th December 2007, 10:04

I hope I never have to use it but there is a theory for this situation.

The correct procedure is to stand on the pegs just prior to impact. This can save you breaking both femurs on the handle bars and may hopefully lift your trajectory enough that you pass over the vehicle.

It don't make me an expert, but I've over-flown two cars, both having pulled out in front of me. One I hit immediately behind the front wheel and the other, (at more of an angle), immediately in front of the rear. Unfortunately I can't confirm that the above practice was what prevented me from intimate contact with the car, happened too quick, I just don't remember how I did it.
You're right though, the wee sojourn down the road cost me some scrapes and bruises but not the damage I'd have got otherwise.

Without pre-judging anything, and in this particular instance that isn't easy...
I can't remember the exact words but the British Police motorcycle riding manual warns against getting overwhelmed by the excitement of the occasion and letting judgement take a back seat.

Good advice, if your reactions are superhuman. In some situations you simply don't have time to think, barely enough to react. Those are the times professional athletes and soldiers train for, so the reaction is hard-wired, without needing the time to think. That's one reason I think learning riding skills on small off-road bikes is valuable, you crash, and you learn more about surviving crashes than you ever could on the road and remain alive.

JimBob

7th December 2007, 10:22

Much more dangerous to self and others to do a 3 point turn on a blind corner than to around it at a speed where you cannot stop in the visible distance.

I think they are both highly dangerous. One involves riding defensively and being aware, the other involves doing something (possibly)stupid. Unfortunately there was a coincidence in the space time continuum resulting in a crash.
Being unaware it wouldnt matter if it was a police car, campervan, deer, roadworks, another crash, the result would have been the same.
Doing something stupid speaks for itself.
Did the car turn in front of the bikes or was it already part way through its turn when the riders first sighted it? Makes a big difference.
It will all come out in the wash

spudchucka

7th December 2007, 10:29

Tax's thats going a bit low--- I thought you guys were self funding via the quota system:clap::clap:

That's what a lot of half wits think, which is why you'd never make it despite them lowering the intake standards.:Pokey:

terbang

7th December 2007, 10:46

Fair comment, but surely arguing about it online does shit-all until you take it out the real world. All it does is give know-it-alls and people-with-axes-to-grind something to puff their chests about. 15 pages of thread and no-one has really convinced anyone of what happened...
Isn't it :mellow:
Still don't agree with that either. I see some reasonably balanced debate on this thread (apart from one or two). Don't for one believe that we are the only ones reading here. The real world, what do you mean..? Ring them up, send them a letter or perhaps a personal visit? It doesn't get more real than motorcyclists dabating the un-neccesary demise of other motorcyclists. Remember, these guys came around a corner and were presented with a car, driven by someone who is supposed to be a professional, blocking the road. So its either, bikers slow to 10kph on all corners or dumb pricks driving cages should learn not to do youeys on corners. Take your pick... Also perhaps, excited cops should learn to put common sense and the safety of others (and themselves) first, before they get caught up in the chase. The Buller Gorge doesn't offer as many safe turning places as say the canterbury plains. The guy should have had a red flag in his head while in that area.
Yes maybe some people here have axes to grind, fair enough though remember, axe grinders can sometimes be right..!
There is a lot of anti motorcycle sentiment around, has been for a long time with the statement "temporary kiwi' being used for years. So its real easy to say "Oh well bloody bike must have been speeding" and thats it, sweep it under the mat. Lets face it, joe public doesn't really give a damn about bike riders, a senior cop states publicly that we are drunken old farts who are barely in control of our machines. So where do we go to air our concerns, meet other riders who share similar concerns and learn more about biking issues apart from the usual dishing up of bastardised media spin. Perhaps Kiwibiker! I am generally not anti cop and I understand the chase mentality asI also flew in law enforcement, where we hunted bad guys in the Timor and Arafura sea with an aeroplane. Often low level at night. These were real shit heads, people smugglers and drug importers and we saw some absolute misery out there beyond the horizon. The incentive was there to catch them for sure, but we had to put our own and others (includung the shit heads) safety ahead of the chase. Believe me, it was so hard to back off and let them get away with it. So whilst I sort of understand a cops dilemma, I also understand the discipline that the organization needs to do their job safely. I personally smell an unfortunate judgement error (the car driver) and an organization that would shirk their involvement and pass the buck if we let them. I hope I'm wrong.
We could all just sit back and say nothing and accept that the cops are right and have more common sense than us. Makes no difference to the victims of this crash anymore as its happened and they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. However we, bikers airin our concerns, could ensure that the next buch of riders going through the Buller Gorge at any speed greater than 10K won't be faced with a bloody great cop car parked across the road.

terbang

7th December 2007, 10:54

That's what a lot of half wits think, which is why you'd never make it despite them lowering the intake standards.:Pokey:

Present company and Scumdog exluded, I have also met some fairly dumb and brainwashed cops as well. Maybe this incident is highlighting a recruitment issue here..?

MSTRS

7th December 2007, 10:59

Terbang - that is just full of paranoia and speculation. Shame on you. :whistle:
How right you are, that's exactly what a lot of us are saying....it's not rocket science, eh?

MSTRS

7th December 2007, 11:00

Maybe this incident is highlighting a recruitment issue here..?

Nope...apparently the cop in question is a seasoned veteran

terbang

7th December 2007, 11:03

Nope...apparently the cop in question is a seasoned veteran

Hmm, then perhaps its highlighing an issue with their refresher or recurrent training. They do do that don't they?

spudchucka

7th December 2007, 11:33

Present company and Scumdog exluded, I have also met some fairly dumb and brainwashed cops as well. Maybe this incident is highlighting a recruitment issue here..?

That was a coded message for Kooza, I mean cruza, he knows what I mean.

puddytat

7th December 2007, 11:55

To try & paint a picture of the accident site.....imagine a 'narrow' tree lined road with a bend in it...the road along there is narrow enough that you wonder how truckies cope meeting each other in places:shit:
At the point of impact it is narrower than most residential streets.From the outside lane lines you have maybe 200mmm till your in a ditch/bank,tree situation. The other side is slightly better as have mabe 5oomm of moss & leaf litter, you'd not hit a bank, but you would fly thru the trees on your way over a cliff to drop 20 odd metres if your lucky into the Buller river....
A 'vehicle ' can ONLY do a minimum 2 point turn here(mini sized). Id be doing well to do a Ue there on my bike (I wouldnt as its :doh:a blind corner) in two moves . A car has no room cause of the cliff on one side ,the ditch on the other,youd get stuck if you wernt careful.
The Policeman was lucky that it was the bikes that hit him,otherwise he'd be lying in hospital now too.
'Murph' in his V8 race car travelling at a normal speed for this stretch of road even with the bestest of brakes ,rubber & 2 extra wheels would NOT IMO have been able to stop in the distance from 1st reaction to impact. The riders would have also had only time to think:shit:,no option to swerve as there is nowhere to go...cause there's a the HP car across 90% of available space.
I'll give the investigating authorities the benefit of the doubt to come up with the same conclusion...as to a prosecution, well thats another story:shifty:

Coldrider

7th December 2007, 12:23

The Dog handler did not have his siren on - there is no requirement in law to have your siren going only your lights - and he would of done this due to the fact that he was going to a burglars on. When the crash occured neither the dog handler, supervisor or district commander wanted anyone charged. It instead went to an ex MOT Inspector who then stated that he wanted the other driver charged who did the U turn.

Then after he got off (which was about three months ago i think?) this ex MOT Inspector - now retired from the Police - came to Court and stated that the Police should never have charged him.:crazy::angry2:
The facts of whether the siren is off or on is not my arguement, or any of the rest of this incident. Are you a cop?
My arguement is that this case is fresh in the minds of the police, and it's decision/outcome sets presedents for future like for like incidences.
Our common law is derived by decisions of judges, based on statutes, that set a presedent over time, and determine how a particular law is to be interpreted and applied, and that presedent is hard to change (binding).
That is why judges and the courts are independant of police and government.

Coldrider

7th December 2007, 12:59

...crash yet. That case appears quite different as it was two cars travelling in the same direction with one doing a U turn on a four laned road.

The difference is where lawyers make their money, and why it will take awhile to investigate (that not too many are prepared to wait for). As previously stated, I have more interest in the outcome, rather than if anyone is charged.
That outcome directly affects my perceived personal safety on ther roads.

Skyryder

7th December 2007, 13:50

Because of the curve and the other factors mentioned the first bike would not be able to see the stationary vehicle until they had clear view past these obstacles. The two second rule has no bearing to this bike.

The second bike, following at a safe distance no doubt, can't see the stationary vehicle at the same moment as bike one, because of the curvature etc. However, he would have likely seen his mates brake lights come on or see the bike swerve or perhaps he even noticed the sudden eruption of brown lumps from the rear of the bike.

So, unless he was asleep or riding two abreast he should have had more warning, at least two seconds if he is good boy, than his mate did before seeing the stationary vehicle.

It is obvious that the two second rule would have help the second rider to some degree.

So what you are saying is that the first bike may not be at fault but the second could be? Interesting.........................novel but still interesting.
But the thing that interests me is how the cop 'knew' the biker was speeding. Now if you can tell me that I for one would be very interested..........just how do you determine the speed of an oncoming vehicle without electronics??

Skyryder

spudchucka

7th December 2007, 14:22

So what you are saying is that the first bike may not be at fault but the second could be? Interesting.........................novel but still interesting.
But the thing that interests me is how the cop 'knew' the biker was speeding. Now if you can tell me that I for one would be very interested..........just how do you determine the speed of an oncoming vehicle without electronics??

Skyryder

No Mr Twister that's not what I said at all.

If you go back to post 196 and read it again you'll see that I said it was interesting that they both collided with the stationary vehicle and pondered as to whether they were riding two abreast.

I then pointed out that IF they were riding single file the second rider SHOULD have had a better chance of avoiding the collision as he MAY have had the benefit of seeing his mates reactions prior to the stationary vehicle coming into his field of view. You will no doubt recall the mini discussion on the Peter Brock rule and how it applies to the two bike, blind corner, stationary vehicle situation.

Without being there I couldn't possibly say how the cop arrived at the decision that they were speeding. BUT, since this thread is all about speculation, why not suggest that he saw the rider come around the corner, knee down then saw the bike begin skidding wildly out of control, leaving 100 metres of skid marks on the road prior to pulling a stoppie for a further 30 metres before actually impacting with the floundering bumble-bee car. Being a veteran with some experience and in all likely-hood an ex MOT officer he would have been able to conclude from what he saw that the bike was probably speeding.

Coldrider

7th December 2007, 15:28

Coldrider

7th December 2007, 15:32

What do you mean the difference is where lawyers make their money? You can't bring previous case law into Court if it doesn't relate to the circumstaces which are before the Court. - it doesn't matter how good a lawyer you are.

The outcome will be whose at fault and who is at fault will most likely be charged unless it is not in the public interest to do so. Most certainly the cop will be charged if he is found at fault.

This case needs to be substantially different to arrive at a different conclusion. How different is the essence of the arguement stripped from the frilly bits.

Lawyers make their money as know the law is not black and white, can be argued either way.
that is why guilty people walk free from the courts.

I am not sure what your arguement is.

Coldrider

7th December 2007, 15:56

Laser's can only ping one car at a time, hence he cannot lase three cars at once and pull all them over. You may mock it but it doesnt change that fact that it is very true that Traffic Cops are excellent at telling wether someone is speeding by simply looking at the vehicle.

I laughed at the time, all doing the same speed equally spaced, then all of us were speeding or we weren't. Doesn't matter how many cars he can pickup or pull over at once, he misjudged the speed of all of us.

These are getting too off topic, have a safe weekend.

Usarka

7th December 2007, 16:01

Being a veteran with some experience and in all likely-hood an ex MOT officer he would have been able to conclude from what he saw that the bike was probably speeding.

What Spud is saying is quite true, I have been amazed how some of the traffic cops can accuratley pick the speed a car is going from looking at it and then flick their radar on and see how close they are too it. Certainly i don't doubt that an experienced traffic cop can tell if a car is speeding from just visually seeing it.

If the cop had time to see how fast they were going why did he turn in front of them????

Everything looks fast when it is going crash into you.

Usarka

7th December 2007, 16:13

Yeah so stop speculating coppas!!!! :bleh:

Any other driver, it would be "The driver lost control because he failed to drive to the road condition". But when it's a cop, the road condition becomes an excuse, and it's the car blamed for the loss of control. Subtle, but it clearly demonstrates the mindset.

Its obvious. you rarely hear "speed may have been a factor" in a police crash. People just want to be treated fairly - ie. no different from those in authority.

MSTRS

7th December 2007, 16:25

You said he was using a laser and pointed at you, it only works on one car so I can't see how he misjudged anything? Doesnt matter if you think other cars were doing the same speed, he locked onto you and pulled you over.

If you make statements you can expect them to be discussed and questioned as to their accuracy.

Did you read your statement and ascertain it's accuracy?:bleh: Where did Coldrider say he was pulled over? :oi-grr:And he may or may not have been correct when he stated that it was his red Commodore that was lasered...can hard to tell when in a line.<_<

spudchucka

7th December 2007, 16:42

If the cop had time to see how fast they were going why did he turn in front of them????

Lets think about that for a second shall we?..................................

The bikes weren't in view when he started turning, he was halfway through the move when the bikes appeared...............

Would be my best guess, speculatively speaking.

Mom

7th December 2007, 16:53

AHEM!!!!

Excuse me for interrupting here but...

Shhhhhhhhh

I have one question. The driver of the campervan that killed 4 bikers (well 3 and a child to be fair)on the same day has pleaded guilty in the court, has surrendered her passport and is awaiting her fate as I type this.

How come it is taking so long for this investigation to be completed?

SCU would have been involved at both crashes, maybe the fact that one driver admitted fault from the start makes the difference?

I go back to my earlier post on here, the longer this carries on the more some will smell the distinct smell of 2 rules apply depending on what you do for a living!

From outside appearances the car did the 3 pointer, in a place that may not have been prudent, careless anyone???

MSTRS

7th December 2007, 17:06

I understand what you are saying.

You can quite easily pin point cars with a Police laser - even in row it's not that hard you simply have to see a part of the car in the row, line it up in the laser sights and shoot. Its almost impossible to miss.

You understood?? I think not. Now pay attention while I clarify....
From the perspective of the driver of a car in a line, approaching a handheld laser, it could be difficult to be sure it was his/her car that was the target.
Have another :bleh::laugh:

Skyryder

7th December 2007, 18:13

No Mr Twister that's not what I said at all.

This is what you wrote on post 238.. It is in reference to the second rider. just to remind you

So, unless he was asleep or riding two abreast he should have had more warning, at least two seconds if he is good boy, than his mate did before seeing the stationary vehicle.

It is obvious that the two second rule would have help the second rider to some degree.

Now I don't know about you but I have interpreated that as the second rider being able to avoid or at least reduce his impact if he had done as you suggested. The inference from that is to reduce culpability for the officer in regards to second biker.

Skyryder

Skyryder

7th December 2007, 18:22

Being a veteran with some experience and in all likely-hood an ex MOT officer he would have been able to conclude from what he saw that the bike was probably speeding.

So what are the parameters of this 'experiance' that the officer used to come the conclusion that the bikes were speeding? Bearing in mind that speed is a formula of two measurements.

Skyryder

Skyryder

7th December 2007, 18:35

What Spud is saying is quite true, I have been amazed how some of the traffic cops can accuratley pick the speed a car is going from looking at it and then flick their radar on and see how close they are too it. Certainly i don't doubt that an experienced traffic cop can tell if a car is speeding from just visually seeing it.

I 'would' be amazed if it was true. But I have been informed by an optician who has done some research on this and his findings were, that it is opticaly impossible to accuralty measure speed with an oncoming vehicle. As we parted he said if the human eye could do this there would be no need for compulsary stops or give way signs as we could judge the speed of the oncoming vehicle. He also pointed out that it is more difficult to judge the distance of a vehicle with the lights on. Now there's clue here and we all know that with oncoming vehicle with lights we use more caution. Perhaps you and Spud can confer as you both seem to believe that it can be done. So how...........I await with interest as I believe others will too.

Skyryder

JimBob

7th December 2007, 18:40

Skyryder

7th December 2007, 18:46

The size of the dent in his car?

I'm sure the SCU will be looking at this but doubt if the officer was trained or indeed took the time to ascertain this. Bling sent.:banana:

Skyryder

spudchucka

7th December 2007, 19:31

Now I don't know about you but I have interpreated that as the second rider being able to avoid or at least reduce his impact if he had done as you suggested. The inference from that is to reduce culpability for the officer in regards to second biker.

Skyryder

The only inference was that the second rider should have had a better chance of avoiding the collision if they were in single file and following the first bike at a safe distance.

Anything else is just YOUR speculation.

spudchucka

7th December 2007, 19:33

So what are the parameters of this 'experiance' that the officer used to come the conclusion that the bikes were speeding? Bearing in mind that speed is a formula of two measurements.

Skyryder

Bear in mind also that courts can and often do except opinion evidence as to speed of vehicles and sobriety of persons from experienced police officers. I'm not explaining it any further than that.

spudchucka

7th December 2007, 19:43

I have one question. The driver of the campervan that killed 4 bikers (well 3 and a child to be fair)on the same day has pleaded guilty in the court, has surrendered her passport and is awaiting her fate as I type this.

How come it is taking so long for this investigation to be completed?

SCU would have been involved at both crashes, maybe the fact that one driver admitted fault from the start makes the difference?

The camper van lost control and crossed the centre line into the path of the oncoming bikes. The police car was stationary, the bikes crashed into it.

The results of the SCU investigation weren't necessary to determine who was at fault in the case of camper van.

The driver having been charged has accepted guilt and has plead guilty, therefore there is no need to wait for the SCU report in order to prove guilt.

However the SCU report may be required by the sentencing judge in order to help determine why the van driver lost control and thereby assist the judge to determine the level of carelessness and ultimately the degree of culpability involved.

In the case involving the police car the SCU investigation will need to survey the scene and determine at what point the stationary vehicle came into the biker's view and whether there was sufficient available ground to stop without hitting the object if the vehicle had been travelling at a safe speed, (amongst other things). In other words the results of the investigation will be required in order to determine who is culpable.

The detailed SCU examinations can take months to complete, they are very thorough and very professionally done.

pritch

7th December 2007, 19:47

Without pre-judging anything, and in this particular instance that isn't easy...
I can't remember the exact words but the British Police motorcycle riding manual warns against getting overwhelmed by the excitement of the occasion and letting judgment take a back seat.

I mentioned this just after writing about standing on the pegs but that wasn't what I was referring to. There had been a (too) subtle change of subject.

The warning in the manual is to Police officers, pointing out that they must remain calm and exercise good judgment no matter how dire (or exciting) the emergency.

I once had to take evasive action near East Cape to avoid hitting a Police ute on the drivers door, he was doing a U turn in front of me. Sure, he likely hadn't seen another vehicle in half an hour or more but...

Normally it's quite difficult to explain damage to your drivers door, it being on the right and all... Had I hit him though, I would not have been at all surprised to hear that I'd been speeding. Whether I had been or not.

I'm not anti-Police, but experience so far has made me a realist.
(I'm still working on that :whistle: )

I don't think reference to the two second rule is particularly helpful in this instance. The Buller Gorge is quite tight in places and if travelling at the legal limit you would still cover some 56m in that 2 seconds. Reaction time would use up a sizeable chunk of that.

Mind you, this is the first time I've ever seen a hint that bikes in a staggered formation should stay two seconds behind the next bike. So the practical reality is that it's a one second - 28m rule. And proportionally an even bigger chunk of that would be reaction time.

Just as we ought not to jump to condemn the Police officer out of hand, neither should anyone condemn the bike riders similarly.

Mom

7th December 2007, 19:58

The camper van lost control and crossed the centre line into the path of the oncoming bikes.

Dont take me wrong here but...

The campervan driver, admitted to veering into the gravel shoulder of the road and over correcting, crossing onto the otherside of the road. SCU investigation reports not needed anymore.

The police car was stationary, the bikes crashed into it.

It appears that the stationary??? car was blocking the lane, while executing a 3 point turn, in a place that oncoming traffic was not left enough time to stop. Lets hope this does not turn into a failure to stop situation.

Mate you are making shit up as you go along here. We dont know what happened! We were not there. How do you know the car was stationary?

I think you should be shhhh now, let the SCU release their findings and then we can argue the result!

Skyryder

7th December 2007, 20:12

Bear in mind also that courts can and often do except opinion evidence as to speed of vehicles and sobriety of persons from experienced police officers. I'm not explaining it any further than that.

I just hope that you never ever have to give evidence against me on a visual. I can assure you that you 'will' have to explain further than you can here. That is what cross examination is for.

Skyryder

Skyryder

7th December 2007, 20:38

Dont take me wrong here but...

The campervan driver, admitted to veering into the gravel shoulder of the road and over correcting, crossing onto the otherside of the road. SCU investigation reports not needed anymore.

It appears that the stationary??? car was blocking the lane, while executing a 3 point turn, in a place that oncoming traffic was not left enough time to stop. Lets hope this does not turn into a failure to stop situation.

Mate you are making shit up as you go along here. We dont know what happened! We were not there. How do you know the car was stationary?

I think you should be shhhh now, let the SCU release their findings and then we can argue the result!

In some cases a stationary vehicle is deemed not to be at fault. For example if for any reason you enter a controled intersection on a red light and stop in the middle of intersection (stationary) and the vehicle on the green crashes into the red, the 'green' vehicle may not be liable. The reasoning behind this is that the moving vehicle should be able to avoid the stationary vehicle. Not too many people are aware of this............but the cops are. I'm picking that the cop has stated that his vehicle was stationary. Guess on my part but whose going to bet against me? You??

There are many instances where if the vehicle was moving it would be at fault but 'stationary' can shift the liability away from it. I believe that this is the tack that the police driver is betting on, coupled with the fact that he has claimed the bikes were speeding. And Spud is right when he states that the courts accept evidence from officers on this. I'm reading a 'cop out' (pun intended) on this and I'm dammed if I'm going to wait months before expressing my reasoning for it. :argh:

This site would be very boring indeed if we all sat back and waited for the official findings. :2thumbsup

Skyryder

KEN

7th December 2007, 21:14

The POLICE were very quick to nail the 'tourist'
and charge the driver of the camper van,that killed four motorcylists,
But what will happen to the COP that does a
U turn in the Buller Gorge,you watch the police
FUDGE the issue and move on.[and blame all motorcyclists??]

Skyryder

7th December 2007, 21:23

The POLICE were very quick to nail the 'tourist'
and charge the driver of the camper van,
But what will happen to the COP that does a
U turn in the Buller Gorge,you watch the police
FUDGE the issue and move on.[and blame all motorcyclists??]

Succinct and to the point. I'd run a poll on this but with two injured bikers one seriously it would be in poor taste.

Skyryder

Usarka

7th December 2007, 21:58

The police car was stationary, the bikes crashed into it.
where did you get that evidence from???

or is that speculation?

I heard he was turning.

and we cynically dont think the cops will treat the driver like anyone else....

[edit]
you think its bad blaming the cop before the evidence is out, dont you think it might be worse blaming the guy(s) who are seriously injured from this without knowing any evidence?

puddytat

7th December 2007, 22:15

If the cop had time to see how fast they were going why did he turn in front of them????

Everything looks fast when it is going crash into you.

:niceone:a very good point

erix

7th December 2007, 22:24

bummer....hope the cops ok.
lol, good one.
not matter whose fault, just hoping everyone involved is ok.

Sanx

8th December 2007, 00:56

OK. This is beginning to piss me off.

Speed was a factor in the accident. Namely, the fact that the cop was near enough stationary on the wrong side of the road round a blind bend. Even if he was moving whilst doing the three point turn, he was moving at pretty much 90 degrees to the road, therefore his relative movement compared to that of the bikers was near enough nill.
Trying to judge, by eyesight alone, the speed of an object coming towards you is bloody difficult. Calculating speed relies on either a time / distance measurement or the dopler effect. As only the former is possible using the human eye, the cop would have been relying on his mental measurement of the speed of the object approaching him. The smaller the distance over which one can make an observation, the greater the margin of error. As the bikers did not have time to come to a stop, or at least scrub a significant portion of their speed off before impact, then the distance was pretty bloody small. Any suggestion therefore by the cop involved that these particular bikers were speeding is laughable, and his assertion should be treated accordingly.
Spudchucka et al have suggested that we all wait until the SCU investigation has been completed before commenting further on the causes of the crash and apportioning blame. Sorry, too late. The investigating officer has already said that 'speed was a factor'. This was without the benefit of the results on the SCU investigation and as the bikers had not been interviewed at that stage, his sole source of information was the cop concerned. And I've already mentioned, the cop concerned was in no position to estimate speed to any level of accuracy. Should the investigating officer have kept his mouth shut and not immediately tried to blame the injured parties for the accident, Spudchucka might have had a point.
The fact that this officer is back on the road is indicative of the seriousness with which the Police are treating the case. Even if the officer is not 100% to blame for the accident, there should be enough doubt about his decision-making and risk-assessment to remove him off the road until such time as the SCU has fully determined the cause of the accident.

The manner in which this accident is being treated smacks of arse-covering. The investigating officer has publically pre-empted the investigation's findings. To make a comparison, if a detective says publically at the start of an investigation that "We haven't actually examined the scene or any evidence yet, but Mr XYZ did it", then any resultant court case would be laughed out of court. Why is this incident any different?

terbang

8th December 2007, 02:08

The manner in which this accident is being treated smacks of arse-covering.

Which could easily become an orchestrated lytany of lies...

terbang

8th December 2007, 03:10

Lets think about that for a second shall we?..................................

The bikes weren't in view when he started turning, he was halfway through the move when the bikes appeared...............

Would be my best guess, speculatively speaking.
Speculatively speaking, on the above, you could say that he may have chosen to turn in an area with very limited visibility. Speculatively speaking, turning in the middle of a narrow bend without adequate visibility could have played a major part in this accident.. Speculatively speaking, you could say that our friend, in his endeavours to enhance road safety, played a large part in degrading it.

Very easy for us all to say, yeah lets wait for the report. The aviation community did that back in 1979 with the Erebus crash and got a report that had been heavily slanted by the then Muldoon government. All to keep their national airline's name pretty. The huge outcry that went all the way to the privvy council revealed all sorts of crimes and cover ups, documents shredded, houses ransacked just to name a few. It was an absolute cover up. However the origional, in question, report still stands as the oficial today. Many still believe that a lot of the white-washed latent failures, that allowed that aircraft to crash, are still with us.
I'm not saying that people interfere with an investigation, but rather monitor it and ensure that it is being conducted in the true spirit of an investigation (Police investigating police arouses my suspicions). The aim is to find out what really happened regardless of who is involved. In other words to learn from our and others mistakes with a future proofing, preventative frame of mind...

spudchucka

8th December 2007, 06:25

I just hope that you never ever have to give evidence against me on a visual. I can assure you that you 'will' have to explain further than you can here. That is what cross examination is for.

Skyryder

If you give expert evidence you would expect your expertise to be questioned by the defence. But don't worry, I don't work in traffic and haven't dished out a ticket of any sort to any poor soul in over a year so there is no chance we'll be meeting in court any time soon.

spudchucka

8th December 2007, 06:36

The campervan driver, admitted to veering into the gravel shoulder of the road and over correcting, crossing onto the otherside of the road. SCU investigation reports not needed anymore.
I'm not sure what you are saying / asking here. What I said was that the SCU reports aren't need to prove guilt as she has already accepted responsibility and plead guilty. The reports will still be produced, the sentencing judge will require them and they will also be used at the following coroners enquiry into the cause of the deaths.

Mate you are making shit up as you go along here. We dont know what happened! We were not there. How do you know the car was stationary?I'm not making anything up. I've been to hundreds of crashes and have completed crash investigation course, (not to the SCU level though). The pictures of the scene that I saw showed the car with its front wheels well off the edge of the road and in fact they appeared to have dropped down slightly into a ditch. If it wasn't stationary at the time of impact it would have been very close to it.

I think you should be shhhh now, let the SCU release their findings and then we can argue the result!I think everyone should do that but as long as we have the self appointed experts painting the wrong picture I'll keep bringing some balance to the situation.

spudchucka

8th December 2007, 06:42

where did you get that evidence from???

or is that speculation?

I heard he was turning.

and we cynically dont think the cops will treat the driver like anyone else....

[edit]
you think its bad blaming the cop before the evidence is out, dont you think it might be worse blaming the guy(s) who are seriously injured from this without knowing any evidence?

I'm not blaming anyone.

Look at the pictures again, if he was moving at all it would have been very slow and certainly wasn't in the direction of the flow of traffic.

Grahameeboy

8th December 2007, 06:51

In some cases a stationary vehicle is deemed not to be at fault. For example if for any reason you enter a controled intersection on a red light and stop in the middle of intersection (stationary) and the vehicle on the green crashes into the red, the 'green' vehicle may not be liable. The reasoning behind this is that the moving vehicle should be able to avoid the stationary vehicle. Not too many people are aware of this............but the cops are. I'm picking that the cop has stated that his vehicle was stationary. Guess on my part but whose going to bet against me? You??

There are many instances where if the vehicle was moving it would be at fault but 'stationary' can shift the liability away from it. I believe that this is the tack that the police driver is betting on, coupled with the fact that he has claimed the bikes were speeding. And Spud is right when he states that the courts accept evidence from officers on this. I'm reading a 'cop out' (pun intended) on this and I'm dammed if I'm going to wait months before expressing my reasoning for it. :argh:

This site would be very boring indeed if we all sat back and waited for the official findings. :2thumbsup

Skyryder

So if a car pulls out, stops across your path and you hit it, you could be at fault cause you should have avoided it.

Do not know the accident location but to be honest, doing a u-turn at or near a blind bend is bloody dangerous because a cop should know the potential folly ahead and that he is a potential hazard to traffic energing from the bend.......a u-turn should only be done on a completely straight road with visibility for at least a few hundred metres.

If he had stopped, I suspect what he was doing was closer to a 3 point turn which requires stopping to select reverse etc and this is even worse so he would have to stop and a Holden is a long car so if it was stopped it probably would have taken up over half the road so limiting avoidance options.

It seems to me that the cop's mind was on the pursuit ie adrenalin pumping etc and he just didn't think

Skyryder

8th December 2007, 06:52

:niceone:a very good point

The cops on record as stating that the road was clear when he commenced the turn. Apart from the impossibilty of estimating the bikers speed to any degree of accuracy all the three point turns I have performed have require my sole attention. Given the 'fact' that two bikers crashed into the vehicle I can only conclude that the cop was doubly focused on what he was doing if only so that he could perform the manouvre in as shortest time as possible.

For those of you who believe that the cop should be given the benifit of the doubt until this investigation is over all I can say is THE COP PERFORMED AN UNSAFE MANOEUVRE AND TWO BIKERS WERE INJURED. If you want to dispute facts dispute that one.

Skyryder

Grahameeboy

8th December 2007, 07:00

The cops on record as stating that the road was clear when he commenced the turn. Apart from the impossibilty of estimating the bikers speed to any degree of accuracy all the three point turns I have performed have require my sole attention. Given the 'fact' that two bikers crashed into the vehicle I can only conclude that the cop was doubly focused on what he was doing if only so that he could perform the manouvre in as shortest time as possible.

For those of you who believe that the cop should be given the benifit of the doubt until this investigation is over all I can say is THE COP PERFORMED AN UNSAFE MANOEUVRE AND TWO BIKERS WERE INJURED. If you want to dispute facts dispute that one.

Skyryder

Agreed.............simple basics.

Looking at the cop car it was not badly damaged so was speed a factor?

Anyway, off now as Nats wants to play on the computer.........she will not go in her standing frame until she plays Alphabet Express.......geeze, talk about negotiation

spudchucka

8th December 2007, 07:01

322

Here's the Stuff articles again:

http://stuff.co.nz/4310146a19754.html

http://stuff.co.nz/4312187a24035.html

And the police media release:

http://www.police.govt.nz/news/updates/update.html?id=5370

Maha

8th December 2007, 07:02

So if a car pulls out, stops across your path and you hit it, you could be at fault cause you should have avoided it.

Shit yeah.....those bikers should be charged with 'Failing to stop'......:bleh:

spudchucka

8th December 2007, 07:04

Speculatively speaking, turning in the middle of a narrow bend without adequate visibility could have played a major part in this accident..

Yes. That's what I said.

On the face of the little I know about it it does appear to me that the main likely causative factor will be a miss-judgement or poor decision making on the part of the cop.

Skyryder

8th December 2007, 07:16

So if a car pulls out, stops across your path and you hit it, you could be at fault cause you should have avoided it.

If the car pulled out and you hit it in say the middle of the road and suddenly stop you could be at fault. Different if say you hit the car in the process as it was pulling our from the kerb. In the exampe that you have given if the car had to stop for say a cat etc as against useing a cell phone one could argue for stopping for a cat but useing a cell phone you might have a problem in justifying stopping in the road for that.

A stationary vehicle can be deemed to be the 'lesser' of the contributing factor. If the cop has said that he was stationary, and I have no reason for thinking that he has done so, then this could be used so as to reduce his culberbility. A biker has claimed that the cop has said that he was speeding so from the outside my conclusions and suspicians are justified along with others who think as I do on this.

Skyryder

spudchucka

8th December 2007, 07:33

Skyryder

8th December 2007, 07:43

Put it in perspective. The cop who allegedly said, "You were speeding" was just involved in the crash and probably in shock. Furthermore, he is a subject of the enquiry, not the person conducting they enquiry. His alleged comment will have no bearing on the outcome.

No it won't but if he states to the enquiry that the bikes 'were' speeding In all probability they will take his 'experiance' into account.

Skyyrder

Grahameeboy

8th December 2007, 08:22

If the car pulled out and you hit it in say the middle of the road and suddenly stop you could be at fault. Different if say you hit the car in the process as it was pulling our from the kerb. In the exampe that you have given if the car had to stop for say a cat etc as against useing a cell phone one could argue for stopping for a cat but useing a cell phone you might have a problem in justifying stopping in the road for that.

A stationary vehicle can be deemed to be the 'lesser' of the contributing factor. If the cop has said that he was stationary, and I have no reason for thinking that he has done so, then this could be used so as to reduce his culberbility. A biker has claimed that the cop has said that he was speeding so from the outside my conclusions and suspicians are justified along with others who think as I do on this.

Skyryder

So what you are saying then that the moving vehicle is at fault because it should have avoided the stopped vehicle? Agony of the Moment is the issue and a driver cannot be held liable for acting in the agony of the monent so if say he just froze, due to the hazard presented, and braked to avoid rather than swerve to avoid then that does not make him liable.

In the cat situation, how can the driver of the moving vehicle be contributory. The driver who pulled out and then stopped for the cat still left it late to pull out anyway as is often the case.....is it reasonable to stop for a cat to avoid an even bigger accident? Did he stop for an apparent reason..Pheasant Case in Binghams Law which is English but can still apply over here where the driver who stopped for no apparent reason and was shafted in the rear was deemed liable.

The question is whether the driver of the moving vehicle did anything negligent to contribute to the accident. If he did not then there is no joint tortfeasor so the driver who pulled out and stopped for the cat would be deemed liable. After all, if you see a vehicle pull out you may just slow a little but would expect the vehicle to join the flow of traffic and could not forsee a cat, if of course there was a cat.

I think the way of thinking you raise is very antiquated (not you) because it is all about negligence.

Grahameeboy

8th December 2007, 08:25

No it won't but if he states to the enquiry that the bikes 'were' speeding In all probability they will take his 'experiance' into account.

Skyyrder

To be fair though how could he accurately assess the speed factor whilst contemplating a possible pursuit and doing a u-turn / 3 point turn at the same time. It could be argued that his mind was on other things at time.

If a cop could say a vehicle was speeding then why do they need lasers etc....at best it is a guess on his part.

Grahameeboy

8th December 2007, 08:26

Shit yeah.....those bikers should be charged with 'Failing to stop'......:bleh:

But they did stop................when they hit the cop car!!

eliot-ness

8th December 2007, 08:37

Here's the Stuff articles again:

http://stuff.co.nz/4310146a19754.html

http://stuff.co.nz/4312187a24035.html

And the police media release:

http://www.police.govt.nz/news/updates/update.html?id=5370

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there two bikes involved, as reported in the 'Stuff' article, not one with a pillion as the police media release stated.

Grahameeboy

8th December 2007, 08:46

If the cop said to the guy that he was speeding that is dodgy..........a lot of accident occur because a driver fails to see another vehicle but they go into defence mode and assume that speed was a factor because they truely believe that it was clear when they commenced their manouevre............no reason why even a trained highway cop cannot fall into the same trap.

http://www.newcops.co.nz/GetStarted/Requirements/DoYouQualify/Step/1

Does not say anything about driving ability. But you need to be a competent swimmer?

spudchucka

8th December 2007, 08:47

No it won't but if he states to the enquiry that the bikes 'were' speeding In all probability they will take his 'experiance' into account.

Skyyrder

Not if there is scientific evidence from a surveyed scene that contradicts his opinion.

spudchucka

8th December 2007, 08:52

Does not say anything about driving ability. But you need to be a competent swimmer?

You need to hold a NZ driver licence, class 1 full.

You attend additional driver training and are assessed as part of your recruit training and then receive further training and assessment at district level once you graduate.

Grahameeboy

8th December 2007, 08:55

You need to hold a NZ driver licence, class 1 full.

You attend additional driver training and are assessed as part of your recruit training and then receive further training and assessment at district level once you graduate.

To be honest given the standard of NZ driver licence holders I still wonder how good the training is as cops are human and have bad habits, however, it would be interesting to know the full detail of the training.

I mean if a cop is trained to do a u-turn close to a blind bend then I have concerns.............safety first or pursuit first.

Don't get me wrong not bagging cops but just looking at from an arnchair perspective.

JimBob

8th December 2007, 09:03

Grahameeboy

8th December 2007, 09:11

Ixion

8th December 2007, 09:38

..

I'm not making anything up. I've been to hundreds of crashes and have completed crash investigation course, (not to the SCU level though). The pictures of the scene that I saw showed the car with its front wheels well off the edge of the road and in fact they appeared to have dropped down slightly into a ditch. If it wasn't stationary at the time of impact it would have been very close to it.

..

Hang on, that's arse about.

The picture certainly shows a car with its front wheels off the road, in a ditch. And, in that position I very much doubt it would be moving. But that picture was taken long after the actual crash. So the question is , was the car in that position at the moment of impact, or did it move into that position after the impact.

I doubt that a driver would deliberately run his wheels into the ditch like that when making a turn. It's possible, but unlikely. But it is quite possible that a driver moving across the road , intending to stop short of the ditch, suddenly and unexpectedly hit by a motorcycle might continue forward into the ditch . Especially in an automatic. Remember, the car's side air bags deployed, the driver would have gotten a hell of a fright. A side impact wouldn't do much if anything to reduce the cars forward speed.

So either the driver deliberately ran his car into a ditch and sat there waiting for someone to hit him, or he was moving across the road when he was unexpectedly hit and the shock of the impact meant he didn't brake as he intended to, and ended up in the ditch AFTER the impact. I know which one I reckon is more likely.

JimO

8th December 2007, 10:58

would the result be the same if it was a fully loaded logging truck that came around the corner and tboned the cop, could the cop get away with saying the truck was speeding, or do people just accept that because it was a couple of road bikes capable of more than doubling the speed limit that they would be speeding

spudchucka

8th December 2007, 11:03

Hang on, that's arse about.

The picture certainly shows a car with its front wheels off the road, in a ditch. And, in that position I very much doubt it would be moving. But that picture was taken long after the actual crash. So the question is , was the car in that position at the moment of impact, or did it move into that position after the impact.

Have a real close look at the pictures.

It will give you an indication.

The actual positions would be pretty obvious to anyone that was there but we'll have to wait for that info to be published.

spudchucka

8th December 2007, 11:05

To be honest given the standard of NZ driver licence holders I still wonder how good the training is as cops are human and have bad habits, however, it would be interesting to know the full detail of the training.

I mean if a cop is trained to do a u-turn close to a blind bend then I have concerns.............safety first or pursuit first.

Don't get me wrong not bagging cops but just looking at from an arnchair perspective.

1: Join up and do the training then judge for yourself.

2: No, they don't train you to do that.

3: No worries.

MSTRS

8th December 2007, 11:20

If a Traffic Cop was standing at a petrol station off centre to the road it would be very straight forward to aim and lase a vehicle which was in a row of cars. Have you ever used a Police laser?

:nono:Oh dear, you really are having trouble with this, aren't you? Were you deprived of oxygen at birth? At no point did I claim that the cop using the handheld device would not know which vehicle was being targetted. The device by it's very nature, has an extremely narrow, focussed beam and it can be assumed that, as in the case of a rifle with a (sighted-in) telescopic sight, the user of such a tool will be in no doubt that his intended target and the actual return are one and the same.
Now... I ' l l . s p e a k . s l o w l y . s o . y o u . c a n . f o l l o w . . . .
T h e . m a n . i n . t h e . c a r . w i l l . n o t . k n o w . f o r . s u r e . t h a t . h e . i s . t h e . t a r g e t
To sum up, M'Lud, I put it to the court that the officer known as Dynamytus50 is too stupid to remain an officer of the Law and should be promoted to Assistant Commisioner since Rickards is now unable to take the post.
:innocent:

MSTRS

8th December 2007, 11:24

I'll keep bringing some balance to the situation.

OK. This is beginning to piss me off.

Speed was a factor in the accident. Namely, the fact that the cop was near enough stationary on the wrong side of the road round a blind bend. Even if he was moving whilst doing the three point turn, he was moving at pretty much 90 degrees to the road, therefore his relative movement compared to that of the bikers was near enough nill.
Trying to judge, by eyesight alone, the speed of an object coming towards you is bloody difficult. Calculating speed relies on either a time / distance measurement or the dopler effect. As only the former is possible using the human eye, the cop would have been relying on his mental measurement of the speed of the object approaching him. The smaller the distance over which one can make an observation, the greater the margin of error. As the bikers did not have time to come to a stop, or at least scrub a significant portion of their speed off before impact, then the distance was pretty bloody small. Any suggestion therefore by the cop involved that these particular bikers were speeding is laughable, and his assertion should be treated accordingly.
Spudchucka et al have suggested that we all wait until the SCU investigation has been completed before commenting further on the causes of the crash and apportioning blame. Sorry, too late. The investigating officer has already said that 'speed was a factor'. This was without the benefit of the results on the SCU investigation and as the bikers had not been interviewed at that stage, his sole source of information was the cop concerned. And I've already mentioned, the cop concerned was in no position to estimate speed to any level of accuracy. Should the investigating officer have kept his mouth shut and not immediately tried to blame the injured parties for the accident, Spudchucka might have had a point.
The fact that this officer is back on the road is indicative of the seriousness with which the Police are treating the case. Even if the officer is not 100% to blame for the accident, there should be enough doubt about his decision-making and risk-assessment to remove him off the road until such time as the SCU has fully determined the cause of the accident.

The manner in which this accident is being treated smacks of arse-covering. The investigating officer has publically pre-empted the investigation's findings. To make a comparison, if a detective says publically at the start of an investigation that "We haven't actually examined the scene or any evidence yet, but Mr XYZ did it", then any resultant court case would be laughed out of court. Why is this incident any different?

There's your balance

JimBob

8th December 2007, 11:42

Why?....................
Because I am starting with an open mind.
For all I know the bikes were doing 140k, for all I know the cop saw them and turned in front of them. For all I know they might have been doing 80k,
In other words I dont know anything, so until some relevant facts (rather than heresay and innuendo) come along to move my opinion one way or another thats how it will stay.

It has been reported that they didnt even have time to hit the picks.
Common sense and experience tells me that if you are riding so fast (even at 90k) that you can only see a second ahead, you will have no hope of stopping or even slowing down in an emergency. You are probably going too fast.

90k is 25 m/s, 120k is 33 m/s
How far away was the car when it was first sighted?
25m? 50m?

I am quite happy to wait for the SCU to do their thing.

I used to ride that road on a regular basis so used to see how quick I could get through. As you do. So I know all about doing 100k around a corner with only about 10m of visible road.
I was lucky.

Jantar

8th December 2007, 14:09

.. The police car was stationary, ....

Isn't that also just speculation? From the crash photos I have seen I believe it very unlikely that the the HP car was stationary.

One of the early reports (unverified) stated that the cop had not seen any other vehicles prior to commencing the turn, and the first indication of the bikes being present was the impact. Now I still place a lot of faith on first statements as they are made before anyone has a chance to try and rationalise their thoughts.

As for judging the speed of on oncoming vehicle purely by sight: Simple maths will show that it is not possible. There must be a cross vision component or there is no relative motion.

Grahameeboy

8th December 2007, 15:45

1: Join up and do the training then judge for yourself.

2: No, they don't train you to do that.

3: No worries.

Fair call...too old now...........

Grahameeboy

8th December 2007, 15:55

Because I am starting with an open mind.
For all I know the bikes were doing 140k, for all I know the cop saw them and turned in front of them. For all I know they might have been doing 80k,
In other words I dont know anything, so until some relevant facts (rather than heresay and innuendo) come along to move my opinion one way or another thats how it will stay.

It has been reported that they didnt even have time to hit the picks.
Common sense and experience tells me that if you are riding so fast (even at 90k) that you can only see a second ahead, you will have no hope of stopping or even slowing down in an emergency. You are probably going too fast.

90k is 25 m/s, 120k is 33 m/s
How far away was the car when it was first sighted?
25m? 50m?

I am quite happy to wait for the SCU to do their thing.

I used to ride that road on a regular basis so used to see how quick I could get through. As you do. So I know all about doing 100k around a corner with only about 10m of visible road.
I was lucky.

Okay was just interested.

I guess travelling at 90k = 25m/s and allowing for co-efficient of road surface, tread depth of tyres, thinking distance before braking, a bike can travel a fair distance.

x² ÷ 20 + x = Overall stopping distance in feet.

x = speed

For example: If you are travelling at 30 mph
[INDENT][INDENT][INDENT][INDENT][INDENT][LEFT]30² ÷ 20 + 30 =
(30 x 30) ÷ 20 + 30 =
900 ÷ 20 + 30 = 75 ft.

<TABLE style="WIDTH: 931px; HEIGHT: 267px" cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=7 width=931 border=1><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=center width=728>
SPEED
</TD><TD vAlign=center width=728>
THINKING DISTANCE
</TD><TD vAlign=center width=728>
BRAKING DISTANCE
</TD><TD vAlign=center align=middle width=728>
OVERALL STOPPING DISTANCE
</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=728>20 mph
</TD><TD vAlign=top width=728>20 ft. (6 m)
</TD><TD vAlign=top width=728>20 ft. (6 m)
</TD><TD vAlign=top align=middle width=728>
40 ft. (12 m)
</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=728>30 mph
</TD><TD vAlign=top width=728>30 ft. (9 m)
</TD><TD vAlign=top width=728>45 ft. (14 m)
</TD><TD vAlign=top align=middle width=728>
75 ft. (23 m)
</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=728>40 mph
</TD><TD vAlign=top width=728>40 ft. (12 m)
</TD><TD vAlign=top width=728>80 ft. (24 m)
</TD><TD vAlign=top align=middle width=728>
120 ft. (36 m)
</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=728>50 mph
</TD><TD vAlign=top width=728>50 ft. (15 m)
</TD><TD vAlign=top width=728>125ft. (38 m)
</TD><TD vAlign=top align=middle width=728>
175 ft. (53 m)
</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=728>60 mph
</TD><TD vAlign=top width=728>60 ft. (18 m)
</TD><TD vAlign=top width=728>180 ft. (55 m)
</TD><TD vAlign=top align=middle width=728>
240 ft. (73 m)
</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=728>70 mph
</TD><TD vAlign=top width=728>70 ft. (21 m)
</TD><TD vAlign=top width=728>245 ft. (75 m)
</TD><TD vAlign=top align=middle width=728>
315 ft. (96 m)
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

So if they were travelling at 90-100k it would have taken them 240 Feet / 74 metres which is a long way,

Usarka

8th December 2007, 16:12

throw a ball straight up in the air at one precise point it will be stationary.

was the ball moving?

spudchucka

8th December 2007, 16:44

Isn't that also just speculation? From the crash photos I have seen I believe it very unlikely that the the HP car was stationary.

OK, lets just say then if it was moving it appears that it would have been at a very low speed and in a direction close to 90 degrees opposite to the direction of travel relating to the two bikes.

spudchucka

8th December 2007, 16:45

throw a ball straight up in the air at one precise point it will be stationary.

was the ball moving?

There's a lot of balls moving around here, mostly because people are playing with them far too much.

Jantar

8th December 2007, 17:48

OK, lets just say then if it was moving it appears that it would have been at a very low speed and in a direction close to 90 degrees opposite to the direction of travel relating to the two bikes.
I agree completely on direction, but speed would be very hard to determine. He would have either been braking (most likely) or acellerating (least likely) quite hard. Doing a 3 point turn in that location at a constant low speed would be more like Dangerous than simply Careless.

However, like you, I am waiting for the SCU report.

Usarka

8th December 2007, 17:56

There's a lot of balls moving around here, mostly because people are playing with them far too much.

and you wonder why everyone things cops are arrogant dickheads who look after their own :lol:

take your own advice, stop speculating and stop posting shit. nothing worse than a hypocrite.

[Edit:] disclaimer: i dont think all cops are arrogant dickheads, just the ones that are arrogant dickheads

Skyryder

8th December 2007, 18:31

I think the way of thinking you raise is very antiquated (not you) because it is all about negligence.

That I raised were just that examples where you could justify stopping as where it would be difficult.

Bottomline if find yourself going through a set of red traffic lights and stop stationary in the centre and a car hits you you have a defence where as if your are moving you don't. On a bike it's a different story for a different reason.

I only mention this as there has been some speculation that the cop car was stationary when hit and if it was it will be taken into consideration by the SCU. I'm not saying I agree with the stationary concepts as it does not apply if you rear end a vehicle but if for example a wheel falls off and the car settles in the middle of the road it up to moving vehicles to take all avoidence to 'bypass' wheeless vehicle. It's not entirely clear cut but as I said a stationary vehicle has a defence antiquated or not.

Skyyrder

Skyryder

8th December 2007, 18:35

There's a lot of balls moving around here, mostly because people are playing with them far too much.

I think your problem spud is out on the street you expect all and sundry to kowtow to your uniform and warrent. On KB it does not work that way. We are all equal here.............. loony or not.

Skyryder

Skyryder

8th December 2007, 18:48

Skyryder
I agree with you in regard to Scott Watson, a shonky investigation from start to finish, and we have a lot of parallels here.
Jumping to conclusions on the flimsiest of evidence.
Suppositions being treated as fact
Vilification of one party to create a good versus evil scenario
I could go on but I'll jump to a conclusion and assume it wouldnt be worth the trouble
My personal view is both parties share responsibility for this crash. How it will be apportioned will be determined by the scu investigation.

We are not a court on here JB or part of the justice system Much of what KB is about is the very thing that you have pointed out. On eyball to eyeball situation I would be much mofe diplomatic and concilitory to the other view. It could be argued that this is the better approach and on the surface I would agree. Hopwever I take great delight in posting provocitive comments. That does not mean that I can not justify them. I have fun on here. Just hope that some enjoy what I write. I do.

As for both parties sharing responsibility for the crash.................... bollicks. Fact. Cop perfomed a manourve (three point turn........two bikers injured. Fact. No evidence to date that bikes were at fault.

Skyyrder

chris norman

8th December 2007, 20:49

Has anyone got an update on how the riders are?

Skyryder

8th December 2007, 22:34

Has anyone got an update on how the riders are?

Best post to date. No I have not.

Skyrder

terbang

9th December 2007, 04:49

We are splitting hairs here on small legal points, moving, stopped, wheel over the edge and stopping rules ETC... Not seeing the wood for the trees perhaps. Sure the SCU will gather lots of stuff and I suspect lawyers will pounce on some of that to try and weasel their clients a better deal. But the common sense question here, and whats really being debated is: Does anyone here think, bearing in mind the result, that our professional road user showed good judgement by doing a three point or U turn on that particular part of the road?
So, who are we at KB? Investigators? No. A court of law? No. However we are a bunch of people who know a fair bit about riding motorcycles, we do a fair bit of it OK. So I suspect none of us really want to face a turning car during a bend. Right? Hence the interest and debate on this thread. Remember we represent a fairly big crossection of the motorcycle community here with many collective K's under our belts so it would be fair to say that we, as a community, know more from a riders perspective than any SCU investigator or lawyer or whoever. I guess truckies, faced with a similar situation, would just say "oh well, he took his chances and I need to hose my truck down", different for us though eh..!
We need to have our say on this incident.

spudchucka

9th December 2007, 05:28

I think your problem spud is out on the street you expect all and sundry to kowtow to your uniform and warrent. On KB it does not work that way. We are all equal here.............. loony or not.

Skyryder

OK, so we've moved on to judging me personally now have we. That's all very interesting coming from someone that has never seen me work "out on the street". On KB all I'm doing is setting the ledger in balance, you can take heed or not, I don't care.

Shazz

9th December 2007, 06:50

(I'm almost tempted to suggest organising a protest ride against the attitude of a depressingly large number of motorcyclists. You know the one - "I'll ride however the fuck I want, and if you don't like it, go fuck yourself".):msn-wink:[/QUOTE]

Hey I like this suggestion, let me know when you got it going. I will be in.
With bells and whistles.
:msn-wink:

JimBob

9th December 2007, 07:29

As for both parties sharing responsibility for the crash.................... bollicks. Fact. Cop perfomed a manourve (three point turn........two bikers injured. Fact. No evidence to date that bikes were at fault.

Skyyrder
I take it that in your view it is 100% on the cop unless some contrary evidence comes to light.
The view that it is 100% on the bikers unless some contrary evidence comes to light is equally valid.
So when the factual hard evidence is in we will be in a better position to hold web court
I would be very surprised if the bikers dont carry some of the can for this crash. Perhaps not enough to stop a prosecution of the cop.
(By responsibility I mean personal as well as legal responsibility)

Reportedly doing 90-95 around a blind corner.
Was this a reasonable and prudent speed to do around this particular corner?
Bearing in mind they obviously couldn't see very far around it.
So whether we like it or not, speed around this corner may have been a contributing factor even if it was within the speed limit.

The trouble with this bloody country is its always someones else's fault
just an observation

Mrs Busa Pete

9th December 2007, 07:32

Laava

9th December 2007, 08:27

Doesn't the road code say that you must be able to stop in half the visible clear road? Or something like that?

Jantar

9th December 2007, 08:34

Doesn't the road code say that you must be able to stop in half the visible clear road? Or something like that?
On an un-marked road (ie no center line) that is correct, otherwise the vehicle must be able to stop within the clear visible distance ahead. This is why the issue of whether or not the cop was moving is important; the lane may have been clear right up to the moment that a brightly decorated car appears from nowhere right across the lane.

We do not have enough information to say whether this is the case or not. We have not been given maps, drawings, measurements etc. Only the SCU have all this data, and that is why we must wait for their report. Up to that time we can only speculate.

JimBob

9th December 2007, 08:36

I have read most of this and i have 1 question and 1 answer.

Question

Officer said that the road was clear for his u turn wright but if you are on a blind bend how could he of seen that the road was clear. I mean if the bikes could not see him doing a uy how did the cop see if they where coming.

Answer it has been said they where traveling at 90/95. Is anyone able to tell us the speed limit for that road.
This is the crux of the matter. The scu will measure how far the officer could see at various stages. They will also come around that corner and measure distances to the car.
The officer may have had a clear say 120m up to the bend when he decided to turn and chase the speeder.
However by the time he slowed and actually started to make the turn he could be down to 60m. At that point it would still be clear. Look behind, look ahead, all clear, commence turn, Bang.
Perhaps he still had a mental picture of 120m because he was starting to think about how he was going to catch this bike through the gorge. Who knows, thats what the SCU is for.
Of course this is all speculation based on nothing, just more internet blathering

MSTRS

9th December 2007, 09:19

Reportedly doing 90-95 around a blind corner.
Was this a reasonable and prudent speed to do around this particular corner?
Bearing in mind they obviously couldn't see very far around it.
So whether we like it or not, speed around this corner may have been a contributing factor even if it was within the speed limit.

The trouble with this bloody country is its always someones else's fault
just an observation

Of course each motorist has a duty of care etc...BUT...good motorcyclists tend to pick a (safe) speed and stick to it, in the assumption that the road is not blocked at a point currently out of sight. It can also be assumed that the highway with a 100kph limit will provide no real surprises. Familiarity with a particular road also comes into play. Perhaps these guys had been through this section several times that day (playing?) and 'knew' there were no issues to be encountered?

rwh

9th December 2007, 09:49

Of course each motorist has a duty of care etc...BUT...good motorcyclists tend to pick a (safe) speed and stick to it,

Sure, but how many of them are there?

in the assumption that the road is not blocked at a point currently out of sight.

Anyone relying on that assumption is, IMHO, mad. If you can't see it, you can't assume anything about it at all. A good motorcyclist relying on that assumption is an oxymoron.

It can also be assumed that the highway with a 100kph limit will provide no real surprises.

Pardon? The speed limit makes no claim that that speed is safe. And at best, obviously, it was appropriate when the sign was installed. I really hope you don't ride the highways on the assumption that nothing will surprise you.

Familiarity with a particular road also comes into play. Perhaps these guys had been through this section several times that day (playing?) and 'knew' there were no issues to be encountered?
I'm glad you put 'knew' in quotes to indicate that it's complete rubbish.

I agree, however, that familiarity is part of the problem. It's very easy to make such invalid assumptions if you've seen the road round the corner before.

Richard

spudchucka

9th December 2007, 09:52

What would have happened if there was a mob of cattle on the road?

Ixion

9th December 2007, 10:02

True. But might we not expect a police officer to make wiser and safer decisions than a herd of cattle? Any farmer will tell you that pigs are smarter than cows.

MSTRS

9th December 2007, 10:05

rwh

9th December 2007, 10:10

True. But might we not expect a police officer to make wiser and safer decisions than a herd of cattle? Any farmer will tell you that pigs are smarter than cows.

Absolutely. It certainly sounds like the police officer made a mistake. I don't think I've seen anyone on this thread arguing with that.

But from the point of view of the motorcyclists, what's the difference? They came round the corner, the road was obstructed, and they failed to stop in time. They failed to stop in the amount of clear road ahead.

It's not nice to criticise a fallen biker, but with the amount of rubbish being spouted, the picture wasn't very balanced. Better to just not comment on their behaviour than to try and claim it was blameless.

Richard

rwh

9th December 2007, 10:15

I'm just speculating using theories that I know are common to most of us.
I'm not implying that they weren't paying attention any more than I imply that others doing the same would not be paying attention.
Using the same theory would explain why the cop proceeded with his turn, the assumption being he saw nothing coming and thought he had time to safely complete the manouevre.
No matter how much care or attention we are paying, there is always a certain amount of assumption.

I guess what you're saying is that they made an error of judgment, rather than deliberately riding round the corner knowing that they couldn't stop fast enough? I'd certainly agree with that, and I've probably made the same error many, many times and been lucky. Unfortunately that doesn't put either them, or me, in the clear.

Richard

MSTRS

9th December 2007, 10:23

I guess what you're saying is that they made an error of judgment, rather than deliberately riding round the corner knowing that they couldn't stop fast enough? I'd certainly agree with that, and I've probably made the same error many, many times and been lucky. Unfortunately that doesn't put either them, or me, in the clear.

Richard

That is it exactly (there but for the grace of God......)

puddytat

9th December 2007, 11:04

Skyryder

9th December 2007, 12:26

OK, so we've moved on to judging me personally now have we. That's all very interesting coming from someone that has never seen me work "out on the street". On KB all I'm doing is setting the ledger in balance, you can take heed or not, I don't care.

I seem to recall that you responded to one of my posts in reference to me being a 'looney.' If that's not a judgment call I don't know what is. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Skyryder

SHELRACING

9th December 2007, 12:38

To do that corner @ legal speeds is easy....if theres no one parked in the middle.
I know someone who has been known to do that stretch regularly a lot faster....depending on time of day,& the number of other road users. That weekend there were heaps of bikes out thru there ,& on the day in question I was at work @ the Swingbridge & we had a very busy day ...so I assume there was a lot of campervans & cars as well.Not really the sort of conditions you'd be inclined to speed in,& the cop should have been aware of the high number of road users on it:yes:

You have made a very valid point.

Maybe the officer had tunnel vision.... Ah! ha! a biker speeding, I got you, you aint gona get away, your mine!

My thought is he should have been more aware of road and traffic conditions before making a decision to U turn.
We expect that every driver on the road should think carefully before doing a manouvre like that on such a narrow busy road. Yet time after time, drivers fail to observe the basic common sense decisions. He made a serious error in judgement.

Skyryder

9th December 2007, 15:55

What would have happened if there was a mob of cattle on the road?

Do you really want me to answer that?? I could think of several that would imply more intelligence on the part of the cattle than the officer.

Skyryder

chris norman

9th December 2007, 16:21

I repeat does anybody know how these guys are, the media seems to be silent.

spudchucka

9th December 2007, 16:55

Do you really want me to answer that?? I could think of several that would imply more intelligence on the part of the cattle than the officer.

Skyryder

It was hypothetical, an answer isn't required, just thought.

spudchucka

9th December 2007, 17:14

I seem to recall that you responded to one of my posts in reference to me being a 'looney.' If that's not a judgment call I don't know what is. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Skyryder

Actually I think I referred to the majority of people posting to this thread as looneys so don't go thinking you've been getting any preferential treatment.

9th December 2007, 17:34

I repeat does anybody know how these guys are, the media seems to be silent.

Good news all round today.:niceone:

Brent has been transferred from Nelson to Wgtn Hospital.

Even better, the other rider, Marty, regained consciousness today for the first time since the crash and has spoken a few words and wiggled his toes.
I guess this goes a long way to relieve fears of brain damage and paralysis.

Skyryder

9th December 2007, 17:58

Good news all round today.:niceone:

Brent has been transferred from Nelson to Wgtn Hospital.

Even better, the other rider, Marty, regained consciousness today for the first time since the crash and has spoken a few words and wiggled his toes.
I guess this goes a long way to relieve fears of brain damage and paralysis.

That's good to hear.

Skyyrder

ElCoyote

9th December 2007, 18:05

You have made a very valid point.

Maybe the officer had tunnel vision.... Ah! ha! a biker speeding, I got you, you aint gona get away, your mine!

My thought is he should have been more aware of road and traffic conditions before making a decision to U turn.
We expect that every driver on the road should think carefully before doing a manouvre like that on such a narrow busy road. Yet time after time, drivers fail to observe the basic common sense decisions. He made a serious error in judgement.

Immediately following this unfortunate incident the head Pig was seen on TV and on three occasions said the cop did a 3 point turn. Wasn't there don't know but a cop car in the middle of the road possibly reversing is scary.

_Shrek_

9th December 2007, 18:06

Absolutely. It certainly sounds like the police officer made a mistake. I don't think I've seen anyone on this thread arguing with that.

But from the point of view of the motorcyclists, what's the difference? They came round the corner, the road was obstructed, and they failed to stop in time. They failed to stop in the amount of clear road ahead.

It's not nice to criticise a fallen biker, but with the amount of rubbish being spouted, the picture wasn't very balanced. Better to just not comment on their behaviour than to try and claim it was blameless.

Richard

well said rwh & if we are all honest most of us have been caught out now & then these guys were unlucky

puddytat

9th December 2007, 18:31

PeeJay

10th December 2007, 04:02

I take it that in your view it is 100% on the cop unless some contrary evidence comes to light.
The view that it is 100% on the bikers unless some contrary evidence comes to light is equally valid.
So when the factual hard evidence is in we will be in a better position to hold web court
I would be very surprised if the bikers dont carry some of the can for this crash. Perhaps not enough to stop a prosecution of the cop.
(By responsibility I mean personal as well as legal responsibility)

Reportedly doing 90-95 around a blind corner.
Was this a reasonable and prudent speed to do around this particular corner?
Bearing in mind they obviously couldn't see very far around it.
So whether we like it or not, speed around this corner may have been a contributing factor even if it was within the speed limit.

The trouble with this bloody country is its always someones else's fault
just an observation

Not what anyone wants to hear when 2 of there mates are in hospital but your probley right

MSTRS

10th December 2007, 08:05

So whether we like it or not, speed around this corner may have been a contributing factor even if it was within the speed limit.

Of course it was. The riders had to actually be moving to be able to hit the car.

Skyryder

10th December 2007, 12:50

Actually I think I referred to the majority of people posting to this thread as looneys so don't go thinking you've been getting any preferential treatment.

Yep just as I thought. Your above post clearly states your mindset to those that have a different view than your own. It's a pity that you got personal I had given you some cred up to this point, but not now. I suggest you update your ignore list. Seems the 'honourable' thing for you to do.

Skyryder

Skyryder

10th December 2007, 13:04

Can anyone 'point me in the right direction' where the investigating authority has claimed 'speed was a factor.' I'd like to look at this before commenting. Thanks

Skyryder

HenryDorsetCase

10th December 2007, 13:38

Of course, in the Buller Gorge that could also put you over a fifty foot drop into the river?

potentially. the run from OSullivans thru to Iron bridge is one of the best whitewater runs in New Zealand.

Dropping fifty feet into a Grade 3+ 4 rapid wearing bike gear is probably not the good look, even if you DONT hit a big rock when you land.

I dont think I have EVER been quite as focussed as I was standing at the top of a rapid in there called "Gunslinger" going OK, river right first eddy, out, middle go LEFT dont go straight ahead then river right then eddy out...... Of course I screwed it up and went straight into the biggest hole I'd ever been in. Luckily it was flushing not holding that day........

Just thinking about it has made my palms sweat.

HenryDorsetCase

10th December 2007, 13:43

Not to make light of the situation, but surely this goes to prove that the handbrake turn is the only appropriate method of executing a quick 180. Plus its about the most fun thing you can do in a car. (I'm told.....)

orange dog

10th December 2007, 15:45

MD, Thanks for the update, good news so far. Shame there is bugger all media coverage

orange dog

10th December 2007, 15:58

Assuming you are riding / driving under the speed limit, can you actually be charged for not being able to stop within the viewable distance ? (and in this case, assuming a speed of under 100kmh, clear day, dry road, how much would that stand up in court.)

I don't know anybody who can claim they always drive to a speed that allows them to stop in their viewable distance, except perhaps my father-in-law and my granny.

avgas

10th December 2007, 16:05

Can't agree there mate.. Debate the isuue enough and we may actually force the truth and reality about why this accident happened as I smell arse covering at the moment. Then we can use that to prevent further similar occurances. Its called learning from our mistakes and sometimes people and organizations need to stand up and be honest when they make dangerous mistakes, such as this case.
Think of the pain and social cost if the same old accidents happened time and time again because people were too afraid (or devious) to face the truth and cannnot admit and learn from their own mistakes.
Now thats sad..
I hate to state the obvious here, but it has happened before, and it will happen again. No point it stopping time to try and fix it.
Just build the skill level, and the luck level to ensure it isnt you next is all i can offer. People learn. Communities/Organisations/Roads and Idiots do not. Ask Darwin.
You can lead a horse to water, just as you can state what was wrong with this crash. Just don't expect anything to change. Its not covering asses - its dealing with the problems that have a solution, rather than arguing to eternity over finger pointing rather than addressing the problem.
Nothing stops the world spinning.

10th December 2007, 17:38

I visited both today and passed on the well wishes from this site.
Brent is in chirpy spirits and positive about healing asap.
Marty was sleeping/out of it.

I don't want this picture to fuel more squabbling over who did what and who is at fault but I thought many would appreciate seeing what the road looked like when free of traffic. The driver would have been closer to the left cliff-face and therefore not have such an open view around the corner as you get from where this picture was taken.
The view is looking eastward. The riders were going westward i.e. towards the camera. The red circle is where the car would have pulled over to the left before commencing the 3-point turn. The square shows the impact point - there is light grey coloured sand on the 999's radiator spill.

What doesn't come through is that the apparent dense bush to the right of the road is actually the end of the terra firma - take one large step from the edge of the seal and you would be falling to the river below. The drop off is much more sudden than it looks.

manwithav8

10th December 2007, 17:48

I wouldn't even attempt to throw in a hand braky on that peice of road.. What was the cop thinking!!!

Tony & Carolyn

10th December 2007, 18:28

spudchucka

10th December 2007, 20:08

Yep just as I thought. Your above post clearly states your mindset to those that have a different view than your own. It's a pity that you got personal I had given you some cred up to this point, but not now. I suggest you update your ignore list. Seems the 'honourable' thing for you to do.

Skyryder

What's your fascination with ignore lists?

You have to be a really special sort of idiot to qualify for it as far as I'm concerned. You haven't qualified yet.

Skyryder

10th December 2007, 21:18

What's your fascination with ignore lists?

You have to be a really special sort of idiot to qualify for it as far as I'm concerned. You haven't qualified yet.

I'll take that as an apology for calling me a looney but it will take more than that for us to hold hands.:jerry:

Skyryder

Skyryder

10th December 2007, 21:20

I guess that picture say's it all......... what was he thinking!!! he clearly missed the safe turning area (where marks bike is parked) and in his hast caused all this pain and suffering to two guy's enjoying the freedom we all love.

We can only hope the lads make a full recovery an the police stand up and take ownership of this shocker!!! HP are meant to be highly trained/skilled.....not just parking wardens wandering our highways looking for there next victim.

Amen to that.

Skyryder

HenryDorsetCase

10th December 2007, 21:24

If that is where I think it is, does that area where the photo was taken become a 4wd track down to a terrace? If it does, thats the getin for a great paddling section.

If it IS where I think it is, the only possible safe place to turn around is in that pulloff where the camera person is standing. From memory the river is relatively placid at that point, the first rapid is downriver a ways.

HenryDorsetCase

10th December 2007, 21:37

I'll take that as an apology for calling me a looney but it will take more than that for us to hold hands.:jerry:

Skyryder

now the foreplay is over, why not just get a room?:jerry:

Skyryder

10th December 2007, 21:52

now the foreplay is over, why not just get a room?:jerry:

With bars and handcuffs..:Police:........................he wishes. :jerry:

Skyryrder.

spudchucka

11th December 2007, 06:19

I'll take that as an apology for calling me a looney but it will take more than that for us to hold hands.:jerry:

Skyryder

It would probably be different if we met face to face, even me & Lou can talk to each other in person without poking each other in the eye since we've met.

terbang

12th December 2007, 07:27

The driver would have been closer to the left cliff-face and therefore not have such an open view around the corner as you get from where this picture was taken.
.

Oh no lets wait for the report before speculating on the root cause here. You can't trust those camera lenses, it could be straighter than it looks.

JimBob

12th December 2007, 07:43

STJim

13th December 2007, 08:34

On Sumday 9 December ther was a serious accident in the Buller Gorge.
A police office did a U turn to chase a speeding biker. the suggestion from newspaaper reports is that when he started his turn the road was clear, but not for long. Before he could complete the turn two bikes t-boned him. Both Bikers were seriously injured.
The front page of Tuesday day mornings Hearld was full of a similar report of on incident on State Highway 2.
Another Police U turn in front of a Biker.
There has been some bebate on the Ulysses forum about these matters. I am enquiring of the wider Biker community to see if anyone knows or thinks they have answers to the following questions?
1 Does anyone know how the unfortunate riders are progressing? The best news we could all have is that they are well on the road to recovery.
2 We know that there will be a police enquiry and investigation into both accidents, but has anyone heard or have any idea who was at fault?

98tls

13th December 2007, 09:34

Have a look in Biker news section theres a thread in there regarding the Buller gorge incident.

Ixion

13th December 2007, 09:43

This (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=62178)one .

terbang

13th December 2007, 10:27

Oh rubbish, its a bend on a narrow road with trees on either side. Anyone considering a 3 pointer there would have rocks in their head (or full of adreniline). Hope they throw the book at him...

puddytat

13th December 2007, 21:38

Oh rubbish, its a bend on a narrow road with trees on either side. Anyone considering a 3 pointer there would have rocks in their head (or full of adreniline). Hope they throw the book at him...

Been there, seen that , & I totally agree...

Patrick

14th December 2007, 11:02

Cop looks to have made a bad mistake, doing a 3 pointer there...

Who hasn't made mistakes before? I have, but I got away with it and learned from the mistake. It will never happen again, that is for sure. He got caught out, as did the bikers.

As for fault, how about this...

Biker 1 who owned up and turned himself in alledgedly speeding - 1 x speeding ticket to him.

Cop - 2 x Careless Use Causing Injury charges

The two bikers - failing to stop short within the amount of clear road ahead.

Quota = 5 tickets...

Best wishes to the two bikers, hopefully on the mend.

Disappointing to "hear" (on here at least) that the cop has not made any contact with them to see how they are..... Or is that a crock?

MSTRS

14th December 2007, 11:52

rwh

14th December 2007, 15:50

Cop - 2 x Careless Use Causing Injury charges

2 charges for one incident? Interesting.

I realise there were 2 collisions, but they were due to the same careless move?

Richard

MSTRS

14th December 2007, 17:48

2 charges for one incident?

That is right. Think about it...if you had a sword, swung it in a circle and took off the heads of 3 people standing near, would you be charged with 1 or 3 counts of murder/manslaughter? All were a result of the same action.

McJim

14th December 2007, 18:12

That is right. Think about it...if you had a sword, swung it in a circle and took off the heads of 3 people standing near, would you be charged with 1 or 3 counts of murder/manslaughter? All were a result of the same action.

That would have to be a sharp sword....and a strong arm too...have you ever chopped someone's head off with a sword?:whistle:

yungatart

14th December 2007, 18:17

That would have to be a sharp sword....and a strong arm too...have you ever chopped someone's head off with a sword?:whistle:

He tried....but he said you moved:confused:

Patrick

14th December 2007, 18:25

That would have to be a sharp sword....and a strong arm too...have you ever chopped someone's head off with a sword?:whistle:

Samurai??????? Razor sharp feckers, those....

Usarka

14th December 2007, 18:26

That would have to be a sharp sword....and a strong arm too...have you ever chopped someone's head off with a sword?:whistle:

Not this century Connor MacLeod. Remember, there can be only one!

Ixion

14th December 2007, 18:32

I chopped the head off a rat a while back, with an Imperial Russian light cavalry sabre. Not a big target admittedly but the little buggers can move jolly fast.Nice clean cut when I checked the head , except that I did get a bit of shoulder blade. I'd have had another try except that I haven't been able to find another rat.

Yes, I know , a sabre is not really the most appropriate blade, but at such times one uses what comes immediately to hand.

yungatart

14th December 2007, 18:38

Jolly good show Ixion!
Never did like rodents!

note to self...don't piss Ixion off.....

spudchucka

15th December 2007, 05:56

If he simply hasn't, then the prick should be out on his ear.

Really? What obligation is anyone under to apologise or make contact in any way other than the basic exchanging of details to another party involved in an accident that they should lose their job if they don't, (apologise or make contact)?

MSTRS

15th December 2007, 08:25

Really? What obligation is anyone under to apologise or make contact in any way other than the basic exchanging of details to another party involved in an accident that they should lose their job if they don't, (apologise or make contact)?

What a pity that the ethical thing to do is no longer considered a necessity. Still, I suppose we have had 'good' role models in the form of Clark, Rickards and co...
Sad commentary on society in general

Katman

15th December 2007, 09:44

That would have to be a sharp sword....and a strong arm too...have you ever chopped someone's head off with a sword?:whistle:

Once upon a time that is precisely how Japanese sword makers rated their handiwork - by the number of slaves that could be dismembered by one swing.

spudchucka

15th December 2007, 11:58

What a pity that the ethical thing to do is no longer considered a necessity. Still, I suppose we have had 'good' role models in the form of Clark, Rickards and co...
Sad commentary on society in general

You're being utterly ridiculous!

MSTRS

15th December 2007, 12:04

You're being utterly ridiculous!

No. What is ridiculous about having ethical standards?
I suppose I could be considered ridiculous for expecting that anyone else, cops especially, would also have and display them.
And you lot wonder why you 'enjoy' such a lack of respect...
I guess you think that all that is needed for a 'healthy' society is the Law?

Ixion

15th December 2007, 12:09

Really? What obligation is anyone under to apologise or make contact in any way other than the basic exchanging of details to another party involved in an accident that they should lose their job if they don't, (apologise or make contact)?

The obligation of basic human decency ? But I think it unfair to condemn the cop for apparent heartlessness in this case, he will certainly be under strict orders to say nothing (I imagine his superiors think that he has already said altogether too much), and to have no contact with the injured victims. Orders is orders .

Winston001

15th December 2007, 12:31

Really? What obligation is anyone under to apologise or make contact in any way other than the basic exchanging of details to another party involved in an accident that they should lose their job if they don't, (apologise or make contact)?

You kidding right?? Apart from simple human decency, as Ixion says, and ethical behaviour, Judges are very interested in what steps offenders take to mitigate their actions.

OK, there is only a putative offender here until the officer is charged, but IMHO it wouldn't take much for him to show concern, through another officer if that was more appropriate. I fully understand that he'll have been told not to contact and to stay quiet, but there are ways.

spudchucka

15th December 2007, 16:11

No. What is ridiculous about having ethical standards?

You implied that the cop should lose his job because he hadn't (you assume) been in contact with the other parties involved in the crash since the event, which is ridiculous.

Don't try to gloss over your stupidity by playing the ethics card.

spudchucka

15th December 2007, 16:14

IMHO it wouldn't take much for him to show concern, through another officer if that was more appropriate.

How can any of you be sure that this hasn't been done in some way.

You're just fanning the fire with bullshit the for the sake of shit stirring.

MSTRS

15th December 2007, 16:17

You're just fanning the fire with bullshit to keep the for the sake of shit stirring.

And so are you, my blue shirted friend.

yungatart

15th December 2007, 16:35

How can any of you be sure that this hasn't been done in some way.

How can you be sure he has?
Truth is, no one on here knows either way.
You are a tad too defensive today, SC, take a chill pill, and stop taking this so personally.

kiwi cowboy

15th December 2007, 17:46

Hi MD
I hope all goes well for you I am particularly respectfull of the way you took yourself to the Police that gives me the feeling that you are a man of great integrety and also someone who's freinds mean a whole lot to you, fantastic.
my sentiments exactly

Jantar

15th December 2007, 21:04

Once upon a time that is precisely how Japanese sword makers rated their handiwork - by the number of slaves that could be dismembered by one swing.
But that wasn't just any sword; it was a Katana.. SXZ perhaps? :msn-wink:

spudchucka

16th December 2007, 05:04

And so are you, my blue shirted friend.

No. I'm providing counter measures to your bullshit.

spudchucka

16th December 2007, 05:10

How can you be sure he has?
Truth is, no one on here knows either way.
You are a tad too defensive today, SC, take a chill pill, and stop taking this so personally.

I'm not sure at all. But then I'm not the one making ridiculous suggestions like he should be sacked because he hasn't.

I'm not taking it personally, I am however sick of loud mouth cyber pricks that think they can pass off utter rubbish as if it were fact.

MSTRS

16th December 2007, 11:59

I'm not taking it personally, I am however sick of loud mouth cyber pricks that think they can pass off utter rubbish as if it were fact.

Oh, we are being opinionated today, aren't we?
Anyway, as long as 'you lot' behave like the law is important (and hide behind it or each other), but not ethical behaviour, my cynical disrespect will remain.
Call me names/whatever, I don't care because I'm not looking for your approval. Besides, it only makes you, and the Farce, look bad.

scumdog

16th December 2007, 12:37

Anyway, as long as 'you lot' behave like the law is important (and hide behind it or each other), but not ethical behaviour, my cynical disrespect will remain.
Call me names/whatever, I don't care because I'm not looking for your approval. Besides, it only makes you, and the Farce, look bad.

And the fun part? - we get paid regardless of how you think...mwahahahah!

MSTRS

16th December 2007, 12:41

Now SD, that sort of honesty I can live with....
Good thing we don't pay you what you are worth, eh?

scumdog

16th December 2007, 12:52

Now SD, that sort of honesty I can live with....
Good thing we don't pay you what you are worth, eh?

Well, honesty IS a good feature, don't ya think??

And yeah, good thing you don't pay me what I'm worth - ya wouldn't be able to afford it!!

(And if ya could I wouldn't be cruising around on a crappy old Harley and hob-nobbing with plebs the likes of you on KB!! :nya:)

MSTRS

16th December 2007, 13:08

And yeah, good thing you don't pay me what I'm worth - ya wouldn't be able to afford it!!

And how did I know that you would take it that way ??

spudchucka

16th December 2007, 13:14

Oh, we are being opinionated today, aren't we?

Yeah well apparently everyone else is allowed to but its some sort of an ethical outrage if I happen to voice one.

You have no idea of the ethical standards that I or anyone else in the "Farce" live up to. You're just being a typical KB blowhard and judging us all on the poor behaviour of the few.

MSTRS

16th December 2007, 13:45

Yeah well apparently everyone else is allowed to but its some sort of an ethical outrage if I happen to voice one.

You have no idea of the ethical standards that I or anyone else in the "Farce" live up to. You're just being a typical KB blowhard and judging us all on the poor behaviour of the few.

You seem to be having trouble with the concept that anyone can have an opposing view on a matter - insofar as that somehow allows you to get down and dirty by calling your detractor(s) names....
Take SD for example...he manages to engage in witty (or not:whistle:) repartee, and can give as good as he gets without resorting to gutter tactics.
Now, I'll admit that sometimes I will exaggerate, but just a little, and only for the sake of controversy. After all that is what makes this place interesting.
To continue that theme, perhaps you could take advantage of some free surgery and get that broomstick removed. You will find it is very liberating.

spudchucka

16th December 2007, 16:48

You seem to be having trouble with the concept that anyone can have an opposing view on a matter

Take whatever view you want but when it is blatant exaggerated BS intended for the sole purpose of "controversy", as you have alluded to doing, I will call it what it is. I don't care if that offends you.

Usarka

16th December 2007, 17:02

You're just being a typical KB blowhard and judging us all on the poor behaviour of the few.

I'd say you're a typical KB member...... :whistle:

MSTRS

16th December 2007, 17:05

Take whatever view you want but when it is blatant exaggerated BS intended for the sole purpose of "controversy", as you have alluded to doing, I will call it what it is. I don't care if that offends you.

Well, Excccuuusssee me.
I merely stated that a cop who is bereft of ethics should be sacked.

Highlander

16th December 2007, 17:16

scumdog

16th December 2007, 17:57

Having read my way through the previous 30 pages, most of which apear to be utter drivel and semi informed finger pointing, has the SCU finished their bit and announced if any charges are being laid?

Now ain't THAT mouthful?
Trouble is, none of the 'utter drivel and semi-informed finger pointers' don't realise you meant them..:calm:

Usarka

16th December 2007, 19:37

Trouble is, none of the 'utter drivel and semi-informed finger pointers' don't realise you meant them..:calm:

dude he was talking about your posts :lol:

(j/k)

has the SCU finished their bit and announced if any charges are being laid? Against which party?

MD, how are the guys doing in the recovery phase?

Both good questions.

16th December 2007, 19:55

Having read my way through the previous 30 pages, most of which apear to be utter drivel and semi informed finger pointing, has the SCU finished their bit and announced if any charges are being laid? Against which party?

MD, how are the guys doing in the recovery phase?

I visited the Lads on Friday. I would say that the seriously injured rider is not out of the woods yet and still in a bad way..head injuries on top of the numerous broken bones. He is in for a long haul recovery.
The other (Brent) is much better. He has more ops in front of him though.

They got a nice card from Greg O'Connor from the Police assn who we were chatting to at Murchison over lunch not long before the crash, and again the next day. A genuine good bloke.

Why on the subject someone who doesn't personally know either riders at all visited them, saying he knew me, so popped in -I AM NOT IMPRESSED.
His visit was way out of line and annoyed the families.

The PCA have not made any announcement but have been in contact with the injured Riders and sort of kept them informed of what's going on. Possibly they were hoping to get a statement from the most injured, but that's just not going to happen in his present state.

MSTRS

16th December 2007, 20:01

Thanks for the objective update. For all the bickering etc, we are concerned for the injured riders and wish them a speedy and full recovery. Can you pass this on MD, on behalf of us all?

Usarka

16th December 2007, 20:03

Thanks for the objective update. For all the bickering etc, we are concerned for the injured riders and wish them a speedy and full recovery. Can you pass this on MD, on behalf of us all?

Most definitely seconded.

spudchucka

16th December 2007, 21:30

Well, Excccuuusssee me.
I merely stated that a cop who is bereft of ethics should be sacked.

Know him personally do ya? Or are you some sort of clairvoyant too?

MSTRS

17th December 2007, 11:43

Know him personally do ya? Or are you some sort of clairvoyant too?

No. I don't need to, to have an opinion based on reported behaviour. And if that opinion is subsequently proved misguided, I'll apologise. Cos that's what ethical people do....
And yes, perhaps I am... I 'see' no broomstickectomy in your future since, being elective surgery, it will not be provided free of charge.

spudchucka

18th December 2007, 13:19

So why was it that you said he should be sacked, and where was that reported again?

scracha

18th December 2007, 14:27

You may mock it but it doesnt change that fact that it is very true that Traffic Cops are excellent at telling wether someone is speeding by simply looking at the vehicle.

Can I just say that's complete and utter bollocks.

Get well soon to the riders concerned.

If the copper involved has his arse on the line then any comments from him about "the bikes were speeding" should be taken with a pinch of salt. I'm sure he/she feels bad about it though.

19th December 2007, 16:27

Just heard on the telly that campbell Live will be covering this story tonight.

I wonder what their take on it will be...?

The latest NZ Autocar magazine has given this incident two wally of the year awards.

Deano

19th December 2007, 16:47

The latest NZ Autocar magazine has given this incident two wally of the year awards.

In what way MD ?

19th December 2007, 17:50

In what way MD ?

Someone showed me the magazine. from memory it was a series of "wally of the year awards"
The writer gave one for the Buller Gorge police car vs bikes crash for wally policing attempting a u-turn in a narrow gorge like the Buller, just to issue a speeding ticket.
Then they awarded the cop a wally for his contradicting statements that;
1. "he didn't see the bikes"
and
2. "you were speeding"
edit- to clarify, his radar was still locked on the bike that he was turning to pursue so he didn't use that to determine that the 2 bikes were speeding.

Usarka

19th December 2007, 18:13

Pixie

19th December 2007, 21:48

Then they awarded the cop a wally for his contradicting statements that;
1. "he didn't see the bikes"
and
2. "you were speeding"
edit- to clarify, his radar was still locked on the bike that he was turning to pursue so he didn't use that to determine that the 2 bikes were speeding.

Classic Arse Exposure Reduction Measures by a guilty pig.
1."he didn't see the bikes" - An excuse for the stupidity of the action.

2."you were speeding" - Try to get a shaken and injured victim to admit guilt.

Pixie

19th December 2007, 22:23

Assuming bike one applied the brakes its a safe assumption that bike two would have had more warning, at least two seconds more if they were following the Peter Brock rule.

Not true.
Each vehicle coming around a blind bend/crest and encountering an obstacle in it's path will have exactly the same warning.With the exceptions that the 2nd vehicle may get brake light warning from the first and the 2nd vehicle's escape options may be limited by the actions of the first vehicle.

Pixie

19th December 2007, 23:36

I 'would' be amazed if it was true. But I have been informed by an optician who has done some research on this and his findings were, that it is opticaly impossible to accuralty measure speed with an oncoming vehicle. As we parted he said if the human eye could do this there would be no need for compulsary stops or give way signs as we could judge the speed of the oncoming vehicle. He also pointed out that it is more difficult to judge the distance of a vehicle with the lights on. Now there's clue here and we all know that with oncoming vehicle with lights we use more caution. Perhaps you and Spud can confer as you both seem to believe that it can be done. So how...........I await with interest as I believe others will too.

Skyryder

To judge the speed of an object coming directly towards us,we use the apparant rate of change in size to determine it's velocity.
This is only efficient at closer distances and is responsible for the "looming" effect.Wide objects are easier to judge than narrow ones,thus bikes are particularly difficult to judge.
Cops may be using other clues than just visual to judge the speed of vehicles accuratly,such as body roll on corners or road noise coming from the target.

spudchucka

20th December 2007, 05:20

Not true.
Each vehicle coming around a blind bend/crest and encountering an obstacle in it's path will have exactly the same warning.With the exceptions that the 2nd vehicle may get brake light warning from the first and the 2nd vehicle's escape options may be limited by the actions of the first vehicle.

It is true as you have said.

I have been on plenty of group rides in the past where brake lights apparently mean nothing, which is why I don't group ride any more.

ynot slow

20th December 2007, 06:04

That fucking cock of a cop. "it wasnt a pursuit, a pursuit is only when the motorist is aware they are being followed"....

Who fucking cares? its semantics that dont mean shit in the reality of the situation (like we dont have quotas we have performance targets).

As people say and top cops,polititians WILL NOT,admit is they are revenue gatherers.Hence the reason to do a u turn on a narrow road,just below a crest.The bollocks of the area commander saying the lights were not on and therefore not a chase,wtf,once the car was turned around and behind the bike the fucken lights would be on,that is IF there was a bike.

If the bikes did this or you did the same manouvre whilst sitting your license test you would fail or be done for dangerous/careless use.

ynot slow

20th December 2007, 06:08

The biker interviewed,stated speed at 95 km.They did the correct thing in my mind,i.e choose best place to hit,the front one would have looked to swerve and thought no good swerving to right and taking the other guy out behind,and/or risk head on to any other traffic,so swerve left try to miss the gravel and grass on road verge,or hit bonet of car.

To their families hope you have a good xmas and they recover in time.

Skyryder

20th December 2007, 06:34

Cops may be using other clues than just visual to judge the speed of vehicles accuratly,such as body roll on corners or road noise coming from the target.

Oh please. Body roll and noise to judge the speed of oncoming bikes 'accurately.' What planet are you on?

Skyryder

Deano

20th December 2007, 07:52

I have been on plenty of group rides in the past where brake lights apparently mean nothing, which is why I don't group ride any more.

Hell no - brake lights are an opportunity to make up some ground on the dude in front. :dodge:

Coldrider

20th December 2007, 08:08

scumdog

20th December 2007, 10:45

VE Commodores engine management chip has huge memory for crash data & maintenance diagnostics. The can reveal much about what the movements of the car was prior to air bag deployment. Aussie manufactured cars lead the world in Big Brother systems, be warned.

That is why it is unwise to turn off the Electronic Stability Control etc.

If ya bin as a result they'll know.

Apparently.

Coldrider

20th December 2007, 11:03

That is why it is unwise to turn off the Electronic Stability Control etc.

If ya bin as a result they'll know.

Apparently.And the traction control. tried moving off wet grass ?

scumdog

20th December 2007, 11:07

And the traction control. tried moving off wet grass ?

Even worse - try to do a U-turn when your left rear wheel is on wet grass/mud.

Car takes off with the same alacrity of an asthmatic Bambina, potential to be very embarrasing.:doh:

roogazza

20th December 2007, 12:44

You need to hold a NZ driver licence, class 1 full.
You attend additional driver training and are assessed as part of your recruit training and then receive further training and assessment at district level once you graduate.

Correct spud, The last bit at District level is fairly new and I'm not familiar with it , but the other I have had lots to do with.

It just erks when you hear from news media/police dept. etc. of the highly trained/expert/skilled drivers within the police !!!!!!

They are not ! ..... a road code test, a few days driving, being shown cornering lines etc and a short day at Manfeild under strict guidelines does not produce anything but a good average driver, and thats what they are.
I heard just last week that the college component is now just 5 days. Gaz.

spudchucka

20th December 2007, 12:57

I agree the driver training is pretty lame, it really only confirms that the driver is competent, certainly not advance in any way. Although the training could identify drivers that do have advanced skills and this is noted on personal files etc.

But I'm not that familiar with when or where the media and in particular the police are publishing claims that police officers are highly trained drivers. In fact, about the only time I read that claim anywhere is right here on KB when you lot are on one of your FTP crusades.

IE: "... police officers are meant to be highly trained drivers....blah....blah...blah" etc.

Personally I think the police should be looking at advanced driver training course as the minimum.

The only police that get more advanced training that I'm aware of are the DPS & PPO's and one other squad that I won't name.

Fatjim

20th December 2007, 13:02

Well actually, if you go up the tukas on a Wednesday you'll more than likely see several cop cars full of piglets doing some driver training. They certainly travel at speeds in excess of those I would expect a someone charging by the hour in a toyota starlet with an L plate on the back to travel.

Oh, and driving for a living where "pursuit" is a reasonable common practice must count for something too.

Quasievil

20th December 2007, 13:26

Havent read much of this thread but saw it last night on campbell live.

I know Brett personally and I must say I laughed like hell when he said he was doing 90kmph.....................YEAH RIGHT

Cop prolly could have picked a better spot Im sure but the bikers Im very confident where not doing 90kmph so I think combination of two sets of stupidity equals the much talked about result.

feel sorry for me mate and I feel sorry for the Cop.

shit happens people, and often around the next corner........................................are you ready for it ???

scumdog

20th December 2007, 14:20

It just erks when you hear from news media/police dept. etc. of the highly trained/expert/skilled drivers within the police !!!!!!

They are not !

Ah, another myth to add to the "highly trained expert marksmen" that Police are meant to be.

FFS We would need another 300 extra staff to cover when the others were not on deck due to being away for 'expert' training for various elements over a month or so each year.

Highly Trained me arse!!

Deano

20th December 2007, 14:33

MSTRS

20th December 2007, 14:39

spudchucka

20th December 2007, 16:38

Hear what you are saying Quasi, but none of the evidence we've seen so far indicates they were travelling at significant speed. Those bikes were in 'reasonable' shape for having hit an (essentially) stationary car.

It seems to me that Quasi has the ability to look at this situation objectively, which is a quality sadly lacking around here.

MSTRS

20th December 2007, 16:52

It seems to me that Quasi has the ability to look at this situation objectively, which is a quality sadly lacking around here.

What the hell is 'objective' about saying you know the guys and 'yea right' to 90-95kph? Isn't it all about the physical evidence?

Jantar

20th December 2007, 17:18

It seems to me that Quasi has the ability to look at this situation objectively, which is a quality sadly lacking around here.

SC, I sometimes wonder just where people learn to differentiate between objective and subjective.

What the hell is 'objective' about saying you know the guys and 'yea right' to 90-95kph? Isn't it all about the physical evidence?

MSTRS, you have it right. A subjective assessment is a perceived one, whereas an objective assesmment is a measurable one. Quasi's comment about knowing the rider and hence what the speed may have been is not even subjective, it is guessed. An objective assessment will only be available when actual measurements are made public. eg The distance at which that part of the road would have been visible, the speed of the patrol car at the point of impact, and hence how far across the lane it would have travelled during the reaction time etc.

spudchucka

20th December 2007, 17:29

What the hell is 'objective' about saying you know the guys and 'yea right' to 90-95kph? Isn't it all about the physical evidence?

It appears that he has accepted it as being a possibility and can see that fault may not lie entirely with one party. You on the other hand appear to be in some sort of denial in regards to the possibility that the bikers may have contributed to their own demise in some way.

spudchucka

20th December 2007, 17:36

SC, I sometimes wonder just where people learn to differentiate between objective and subjective.

MSTRS, you have it right. A subjective assessment is a perceived one, whereas an objective assesmment is a measurable one. Quasi's comment about knowing the rider and hence what the speed may have been is not even subjective, it is guessed. An objective assessment will only be available when actual measurements are made public. eg The distance at which that part of the road would have been visible, the speed of the patrol car at the point of impact, and hence how far across the lane it would have travelled during the reaction time etc.

From the Oxford Dictionary:

Objective: Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions.

Quasi's comments in relation to knowing the individual reflect personal knowledge and therefore no doubt personal feelings so in that sense he isn't objective.

However his willingness to accept that there may be blame on other parties, not just the cop, indicates that he is being objective and not allowing any anti police feelings that he may harbour to cloud his assessment of the situation.

MSTRS

20th December 2007, 17:41

It appears that he has accepted it as being a possibility and can see that fault may not lie entirely with one party. You on the other hand appear to be in some sort of denial in regards to the possibility that the bikers may have contributed to their own demise in some way.

Utter bollocks. The only thing I am certain of is that the cop made a very dodgy choice in turning at that particular bit of road. That, and any member of the public doing the same thing with the same result would have been charged (probably with Careless Causing Injury) within hours .

GSVR

20th December 2007, 17:45

MSTRS

20th December 2007, 17:47

MD was obviously going faster as he was a bit ahead of them infact hasn't he been issued with a speeding ticket?.

He said he was a 'bit over the limit' and fronted up to the cops within a short time. He has not said that a ticket has been issued. Yet.

Quasievil

20th December 2007, 18:24

Sheesh some passion in the masses on this one.
No point getting all ranty people, I dont know the fact s...........hey neither do you, I can tell you that I would be very very surprised if the boys (known for a good ole blat around the south every year) where doing 90kmph on one of the nicest stretches of road, in fact I would be surprised if they where doing under 120kmph.
Point is......................dont cop bash and rant and rave about the innocents of bikers, two lots of situations made this go bad, the cop was one, the riders where possibly another, both unfortunate set of circumstance made this happen, not one action only.
not wanting to start or get into a shit fight on it, but to be objective open your minds up a little bit.
in summary, what do I know...........fuck all really, I know the standard of behaviour on the south island trips with these boys, I know what they have done in the past, and I very much doubt they where doing 90 kmph, I know the cop made a dum choice, thats all
cheers
now Im off to drink some beer and play some pool with cowpoos

love yas all:beer:

homer

20th December 2007, 18:35

oh come on

were back to this post again

Look its fucken simple
ok
you do a u turn and cause an accident ....ok

it your fucken fault

its like leaving a car park
or reversing

It dosnt matter what else happens it still your fault

Its not a discussion
its bloody black and white

if it happens to you ,got to court and see how far you get
:done:

Usarka

20th December 2007, 18:50

now Im off to drink some beer and play in the pool with cowpoos

love yas all
crikey! :shit:

Skyryder

20th December 2007, 20:16

spudchucka

20th December 2007, 21:37

Exactly. Don't care how fast the bikers were going it was the car in the middle of the road that should not have been there.

Skyryder

And if it was pile of rubble from the cliffs above or a mob of sheep you'd want it / them prosecuted too.

If you use public roads you will at some stage find obstructions on them.

McJim

20th December 2007, 21:41

And if it was pile of rubble from the cliffs above or a mob of sheep you'd want it / them prosecuted too.

If you use public roads you will at some stage find obstructions on them.

Y....essss. But with all due respect if you do U turns near blind corners you will at some stage get hit by a moving object too...

I have no opinion yet...I'm just a bare faced shit stirrer. At least I admit that up front.

homer

20th December 2007, 21:48

Exactly. Don't care how fast the bikers were going it was the car in the middle of the road that should not have been there.

Skyryder

Hell yeah
if the bikes were speeding , if they were
it is still the cops fault ,
you cant argue that they were speeding ,cause you did something unsafe
its like saying i didnt give way but its not my fault

spudchucka

20th December 2007, 21:51

Y....essss. But with all due respect if you do U turns near blind corners you will at some stage get hit by a moving object too...

I have no opinion yet...I'm just a bare faced shit stirrer. At least I admit that up front.

I'm not arguing for the cop, just for common sense.

But I don't think that anyone here that rides a bike like a 999 Duke or Benelli TNT could keep a straight face and say that they were only doing 90 - 95 through that section of road. MPH perhaps might be closer to the truth.

GSVR

21st December 2007, 06:40

I'm not arguing for the cop, just for common sense.

But I don't think that anyone here that rides a bike like a 999 Duke or Benelli TNT could keep a straight face and say that they were only doing 90 - 95 through that section of road. MPH perhaps might be closer to the truth.

They way I heard the interview on Cambell live was he said he was doing 90-95 when he exited the corner and saw the police car across the road and thought to himself what that %$#@ do I do here.

Can't brake hard and turn at the same time so he had to stand the bike up and brake hard I guess.

Back to the "section of road" are you talking about the whole road or the actual corner? Could a rider do 160kph around it? I got the impression it was a bit tighter than that.

Easy solution to this is ban all vehicles that can do more the 100kph. Like why the fuck would anyone buy one unless they wanted to break the law.
A good start would be removing all red ones as we all know red ones go faster.
Hang on that wont work as they can still speed in 50kph zones.

As insurance companys state even if you know your in the wrong don't admit to anything. Its just a fucked up old world we live in.

Quasievil

21st December 2007, 07:36

And if it was pile of rubble from the cliffs above or a mob of sheep you'd want it / them prosecuted too.

If you use public roads you will at some stage find obstructions on them.

thats right, but common spud bikers can ride as fast as they want and bear no responsibility for their own safety, its always the cars fault by default aint it.

MSTRS

21st December 2007, 08:00

I'm not arguing for the cop, just for common sense.

Oh yeah? In that case, common sense would tell you (as it has most of us) that the cop was a complete pillock turning where he did.
There has been plenty of conjecture on here as to whether the bikers were speeding, it is possible...but all reports attributed to them say 90-95kph. The biker that the cop was pursuing (cos that is what he was in the process of doing) said he was a bit quick. Does that mean the whole incident was his fault?

Grahameeboy

21st December 2007, 08:11

Oh yeah? In that case, common sense would tell you (as it has most of us) that the cop was a complete pillock turning where he did.
There has been plenty of conjecture on here as to whether the bikers were speeding, it is possible...but all reports attributed to them say 90-95kph. The biker that the cop was pursuing (cos that is what he was in the process of doing) said he was a bit quick. Does that mean the whole incident was his fault?

U-turns are dangerous and are a lazy way of turning to go back the way you have just come.

To do a u-turn you basically have to have all round vision and a head that can turn 360.

The slowness of a u-turn, blocking the whole road at some point is what makes them dangerous.

If you need to turn back just find a layby or side street and use that to turn safely.

Simple, like driving should be but many fail

scumdog

21st December 2007, 08:24

The slowness of a u-turn, blocking the whole road at some point is what makes them dangerous.

If you need to turn back just find a layby or side street and use that to turn safely.

Simple, like driving should be but many fail

Not sticking up for ANYBODY but it's not like there's a whole shitload of laybys or sidestreets in the gorge - yes, I know there was one layby close to THAT scene but they're few and far between, same in a lot of gorge roads.

MSTRS

21st December 2007, 08:28

Not sticking up for ANYBODY but it's not like there's a whole shitload of laybys or sidestreets in the gorge - yes, I know there was one layby close to THAT scene but they're few and far between, same in a lot of gorge roads.

True, but the whole area was/is that cop's patch and he would have to be familiar with pretty much all of it. Familiarity breeds contempt?
And Grahameeboy, it was a 3 point turn....the slowest of the lot.

Grahameeboy

21st December 2007, 08:32

Not sticking up for ANYBODY but it's not like there's a whole shitload of laybys or sidestreets in the gorge - yes, I know there was one layby close to THAT scene but they're few and far between, same in a lot of gorge roads.

True but if that is the case, no u-turn until you find one of those few and far between turning spots..........so the speeding bike gets a lucky break...........

This was an unfortunate accident which highlights many issues I guess.

I don't think the cop was necessarily reckless. However, I think this re-opens the rules of pursuits. Safety first, ticket next.

I think that cops should avoid patrolling any roads without decent laybyes, side roads to avoid this situation.....................and leave some nice roads free from speeding tickets myself;)