Cop U-turn accident victim on Campbell tonight (19 December)

[Timber020]

One of the guys who was involved in the crash on the buller road. Should be an interesting take on the whole thing

[Swoop]

A good article.
I wonder who was sending emails to the programme before the article had ended?

Interesting pelvic scaffolding.

[Usarka]

I liked the cop, especially how he argued that it wasn't actually a pursuit because the definition of a pursuit means the motorist has to be aware that they are being followed by a police officer. Therefore infering that the policies on pursuit do not need reviewing.

Semantics are great. Almost as great as sarcasm.

[Katman]

Seems to me it would be a simple exercise to set up a car parked in exactly the spot the police car was and see whether a motorcycle travelling at 90-95kph would be able to stop once the car became visible. My guess would be that it could.

[Matt_TG]

I wonder what the policy on U Turns is?

Probably the same as for all of us. Without looking at the Road Code, I'd imagine it'd be something like:

100m clear visibility - It seemed to be a tree lined narrow windy rural road, hard to see around corners?

No traffic - Well the driver knew bikes were on the road, one just passed by before the U Turn. I'd bet my left testicle that the cop had seen other bikes on the road beforehand too.

Can carry out U Turn in the space available - Fail. The car looked to be doing a 3 point turn to me, perhaps preparing to reverse back into the lane?

As for saying to the biker lying in agony on the road with a shattered pelvis, thumb missing as so on "you were speeding"... lame.

[DMNTD]

Seems to me it would be a simple exercise to set up a car parked in exactly the spot the police car was and see whether a motorcycle travelling at 90-95kph would be able to stop once the car became visible. My guess would be that it could.

Would only work if the "test rider" didn't know that there would be a gimp parked in the middle of the road just around the corner.
Would be a good test that most of us should trial though.

[Katman]

Would only work if the "test rider" didn't know that there would be a gimp parked in the middle of the road just around the corner.


Not really - reaction time should be less than 1 second. If a braking marker was placed a few metres past the point where the car becomes visible I think it would prove to be a very telling test.

[MD]

Seems to me it would be a simple exercise to set up a car parked in exactly the spot the police car was and see whether a motorcycle travelling at 90-95kph would be able to stop once the car became visible. My guess would be that it could.

That might be a valid test If the Cop car had been "parked" in the position it ended up in the crash photos. That's not the case though is it.
They didn't get to enjoy an early warning sight of it "parked" on their side of the road. because it wasn't in that position yet. It was tucked into the other side of the hill obscured from their approaching line of sight and it swung out as they neared.
Take a look at the photos. The car continued forward about 1.5m to 2.0m AFTER the moment of impact. The two bikes and bike debris don't line up with the two dents in the car. Why, because the car was still in motion forward.

Just how good are your reaction times and brakes?

[Usarka]

Well said MD. The cop would not have been stationary, he was doing a u-turn (or a multiple point turn).

By the time the riders saw the car until they hit it, a number of seconds would have elapsed.

What cop would do a turn to "pursue" a speeder, stopping for a while in the middle of the turn on a corner? None, unless they're incompetent.

Great 'story", it showed bikers as being normal human beings with with families and jobs just like every one else.

[McJim]

Great 'story", it showed bikers as being normal human beings with with families and jobs just like every one else.

Eh? Aren't we supposed to be normal people with families and jobs like everyone else then?

How are we supposed to fund our bike habits without Jobs? Only Finn and DMNTD can do that.:rofl:

[HenryDorsetCase]

I liked the cop, especially how he argued that it wasn't actually a pursuit because the definition of a pursuit means the motorist has to be aware that they are being followed by a police officer. Therefore infering that the policies on pursuit do not need reviewing.

Semantics are great. Almost as great as sarcasm.

That cop lost all credibility as soon as that bullshit started spouting.

The pursuit started the instant the cop decided to change his direction of travel so that he could extract some revenue from the first biker. The fact the careless asshole nearly killed two other people should be grounds for instant dismissal and a criminal prosecution for dangerous driving causing injury. The state of mind of the pursued victim is irrelevant: the pursuer defines the state of being pursued, not whether the poor fucker in the front knows about it.

Think about an animal hunting in the wild. It is pursuing its dinner even though the dinner is unaware.. and becomes aware only when the teeth go into its throat. Just because the dinner had no clue, doesnt mean a pursuit wasnt happening!! Fucksakes, that arsehole weasel words really got my goat!

Watch now, as they spin it to blame the victim. And probably charge them with something like "failing to stop". GRRRRRRRRRR.

I don't often get angry watching TV, but tonight I did.

I can't believe how reasonable the guy in the hospital bed was being. Has anyone taken up a collection or whatever for them? I would like to contribute something tangible!

[NUTBAR]

That might be a valid test If the Cop car had been "parked" in the position it ended up in the crash photos. That's not the case though is it.
They didn't get to enjoy an early warning sight of it "parked" on their side of the road. because it wasn't in that position yet. It was tucked into the other side of the hill obscured from their approaching line of sight and it swung out as they neared.
Take a look at the photos. The car continued forward about 1.5m to 2.0m AFTER the moment of impact. The two bikes and bike debris don't line up with the two dents in the car. Why, because the car was still in motion forward.

Just how good are your reaction times and brakes?

most sensible comment i have heard yet.:niceone:

[Conquiztador]

That cop lost all credibility as soon as that bullshit started spouting.

The pursuit started the instant the cop decided to change his direction of travel so that he could extract some revenue from the first biker. The fact the careless asshole nearly killed two other people should be grounds for instant dismissal and a criminal prosecution for dangerous driving causing injury. The state of mind of the pursued victim is irrelevant: the pursuer defines the state of being pursued, not whether the poor fucker in the front knows about it.

Think about an animal hunting in the wild. It is pursuing its dinner even though the dinner is unaware.. and becomes aware only when the teeth go into its throat. Just because the dinner had no clue, doesnt mean a pursuit wasnt happening!! Fucksakes, that arsehole weasel words really got my goat!

Watch now, as they spin it to blame the victim. And probably charge them with something like "failing to stop". GRRRRRRRRRR.

I don't often get angry watching TV, but tonight I did.

I can't believe how reasonable the guy in the hospital bed was being. Has anyone taken up a collection or whatever for them? I would like to contribute something tangible!

Not much more to add here. Apart from the cops comment to Brent when he was lying there after the crash: "You were speeding". Amazing ability. He was not able to do a U-turn without a 3 point turn, but he was able to see that the bikes were speeding!! Makes you wonder what he was doing??

Here the link to the video: http://www.tv3.co.nz/Video/Motorcyclistsslowlyrecoveringfollowingcopcarcollis ion/tabid/309/articleID/42128/cat/84/Default.aspx?articleID=42128#video

[Chrislost]

thats more room then i had when i found a car reversing up the road.
i stopped easily.

the bike behind me didnt.

its really interesting that he has since deleted his account with kb and left his job at a well known bike shop

[Conquiztador]

its really interesting that he has since deleted his account with kb and left his job at a well known bike shop

Who are we talking about??

[PuppetMaster]

Who cares who hes talking about.


That cop in the interview got off very lightly. WTF, not in a pursuit ?
So, basically the copper wasnt in a pursuit, so he deliberately turned in front of the 2 bikes then ?

[imdying]

They need more hot woman coppers is what I took from that.

[yungatart]

Seems to me it would be a simple exercise to set up a car parked in exactly the spot the police car was and see whether a motorcycle travelling at 90-95kph would be able to stop once the car became visible. My guess would be that it could.

In the interests of road safety and your campaign, are you going to volunteer to do this?

[MSTRS]

In the interests of road safety and your campaign, are you going to volunteer to do this?

"We' would have to set this up in such a way that KM would have no idea that it was...
It's impossible to duplicate ALL the conditions/factors of the incident, so results will be just as much bullshit as the original suggestion.

[vifferman]

most sensible comment i have heard yet.:niceone:
That's terrible! :nono:
This forum is no place for sensible comments! If you can't post turgid, rambling, bullshit-filled prose full of assumptions, crazy ideas, exaggerations, outright lies, slander, character arse-assinations, assininity, cobblers, puerility, childish ideas, etc etc., then you should be BANNED.


Or something.

[Biggles08]

Would only work if the "test rider" didn't know that there would be a gimp parked in the middle of the road just around the corner.
Would be a good test that most of us should trial though.

I failed the test recently:crybaby:

[DMNTD]

I failed the test recently:crybaby:

You're shitting me! :dodge:

[onearmedbandit]

I think what katman is trying to say is that is was the naughty motorcyclists fault. If they had been paying more attention to what they were doing then they wouldn't of ruined that poor cop's day, and he could of pursued that nasty speeding motorcyclist who was endagering other peoples lives recklessly. I get you katman.

[Biggles08]

You're shitting me! :dodge:

Yep...actually I am...with bags of it!:niceone:

[Winston001]

Thanks for the link Conquiztador, it looked like a balanced story.

So far as the arguments over "pursuit" go, I'd guess that the Police Manual has a specific definition where the action of following a motorist becomes a pursuit when the motorist fails to stop on command. That makes sense in law enforcement terms.

From a common-sense perspective I agree with Conquiztador that it is silly for the police to deny the officer was pursuing the other biker.

[jim.cox]

From a common-sense perspective I agree with Conquiztador that it is silly for the police to deny the officer was pursuing the other biker.

But they will protect their own above everything else

so its going to be deny deny deny right down the line

did you really expect anything else?

[scumdog]

But they will protect their own above everything else

so its going to be deny deny deny right down the line

did you really expect anything else?

I guess they got that idea off the General Public eh?

[yungatart]

But they will protect their own above everything else

so its going to be deny deny deny right down the line

did you really expect anything else?

Well, I would expect my boss to stand up for me, whether or not the action I had done or allegedly done was right or wrong.

[Ixion]

True. But in your case, your boss would no doubt be standing up for you in an investigation by some third party. In this case the cops are standing up for, and defending , their own. One can understand that. But, it is those same cops who are investigating the crash, and will assign culpability for it. There is no independent investigation. The police are judge and jury in their own case. And ther bikers have no-one at all to speak up for them. They will be hung out to dry by the investigators, who are busy defending their own.

[scumdog]

True. But in your case, your boss would no doubt be standing up for you in an investigation by some third party. In this case the cops are standing up for, and defending , their own. One can understand that. But, it is those same cops who are investigating the crash, and will assign culpability for it. There is no independent investigation. The police are judge and jury in their own case. And ther bikers have no-one at all to speak up for them. They will be hung out to dry by the investigators, who are busy defending their own.

So, judging by the above post the cop will dust his hands off, shrug his shoulders and jump into another (unbent) car and carry on his merry way without hinderance or penalty?

Shee-it, I want to be a cop if that's the case!!

[spudchucka]

True. But in your case, your boss would no doubt be standing up for you in an investigation by some third party. In this case the cops are standing up for, and defending , their own. One can understand that. But, it is those same cops who are investigating the crash, and will assign culpability for it. There is no independent investigation. The police are judge and jury in their own case. And ther bikers have no-one at all to speak up for them. They will be hung out to dry by the investigators, who are busy defending their own.

You're almost cynical enough to be a cop!

[jim.cox]

You're almost cynical enough to be a cop!

Actually Spud it probably takes years to become as bitter as you appear to be

I think Ixion's attitude is probably one very close to that of the average kiwi

[more_fasterer]

So, judging by the above post the cop will dust his hands off, shrug his shoulders and jump into another (unbent) car and carry on his merry way without hinderance or penalty?

Shee-it, I want to be a cop if that's the case!!

Need some better work stories?

[Squiggles]

So, judging by the above post the cop will dust his hands off, shrug his shoulders and jump into another (unbent) car and carry on his merry way without hinderance or penalty?


Wasnt he back on the roads a couple of days later? the second part we shall just have to wait and see

[Squiggles]

Hate the way the officer answered the questions, we dont want to hear a politicians walk around answer (criticize the spelling instead of answering the question). Surely there are guidelines for engaging in potential "pursuits" (and if not, well there still are for everyone when it comes to pulling U-turns). The guy's not calling for your head, just an apology and an assurance no-one else will suffer the same fate

[mstriumph]

..............Just how good are your reaction times and brakes?

not good enough to stake my life on in this situation methinks ....

[spudchucka]

Actually Spud it probably takes years to become as bitter as you appear to beNot really, I just have a lot of natural ability.


I think Ixion's attitude is probably one very close to that of the average kiwiNot the average kiwis that I know. But then again maybe I'm just moving in above average circles!

[Winston001]

True. But in your case, your boss would no doubt be standing up for you in an investigation by some third party. In this case the cops are standing up for, and defending , their own. One can understand that. But, it is those same cops who are investigating the crash, and will assign culpability for it. There is no independent investigation. The police are judge and jury in their own case. And the bikers have no-one at all to speak up for them. They will be hung out to dry by the investigators, who are busy defending their own.

Understandable but not accurate. An employer who is considering dismissal must make only neutral comments until all fair procedures are dealt with. Applies just as much with an employed police officer as to anyone else.

So far as the police investigating their own is concerned, they are quite vigorous and possibly tougher on one of their own than on a member of the public. That is because the police need to be seen as unbiased and the Riccard/Shipton etc prosecutions are the evidence of this policy.

[spudchucka]

C'mon Winston, they'll never believe that.

[jim.cox]

So far as the police investigating their own is concerned, they are quite vigorous and possibly tougher on one of their own than on a member of the public. That is because the police need to be seen as unbiased and the Riccard/Shipton etc prosecutions are the evidence of this policy.

Its going to take more than one example to rebuild all the confidence lost in the last twenty or thirty years.

The police are no longer seen as angels the way they once were, or as indeed they wish to be. Their halos have slipped and its going to take a lot of work to fix that.

[spudchucka]

Its going to take more than one example to rebuild all the confidence lost in the last twenty or thirty years.

There are heaps of examples. You just don't hear of them because they aren't considered news worthy.

[Swoop]

The police are judge and jury in their own case.
Very close to being the executioner, as well, in this case...

[MSTRS]

So far as the police investigating their own is concerned, they are quite vigorous and possibly tougher on one of their own than on a member of the public. That is because the police need to be seen as unbiased and the Riccard/Shipton etc prosecutions are the evidence of this policy.

You sure about that? I don't doubt that things have changed as a result of those prosecutions, but the only reason the prosecutions happened in the first place was because of persistent rumours and a journalist who sniffed out a story.

[Slingshot]

I hate to say it, but that officer has almost given a defense for running.

"sorry officer, I didn't realise that you were pursing me, therefore I was not running. You see, the mirrors on these fandangled sports bikes are useless and I wear earplugs cause the my pipes are just so loud"

[Deano]

I hate to say it, but that officer has almost given a defense for running.

"sorry officer, I didn't realise that you were pursing me, therefore I was not running. You see, the mirrors on these fandangled sports bikes are useless and I wear earplugs cause the my pipes are just so loud"

Touche.:clap:

[scumdog]

Its The police are no longer seen as angels the way they once were, or as indeed they wish to be. Their halos have slipped and its going to take a lot of work to fix that.

I haven't got a halo, it hasn't slipped and I'm not going to do anything to fix it.

[MSTRS]

I haven't got a halo, it hasn't slipped and I'm not going to do anything to fix it.

Don't pull on that thread tho....your cardy will unravel.

[Sanx]

So, judging by the above post the cop will dust his hands off, shrug his shoulders and jump into another (unbent) car and carry on his merry way without hinderance or penalty?

That's exactly what did happen. He was back in an unbent car patrolling the same roads just two days later. The least the cops could have done is suspended him from traffic duty until the SCU investigation had been completed.


I hate to say it, but that officer has almost given a defense for running.

"sorry officer, I didn't realise that you were pursing me, therefore I was not running. You see, the mirrors on these fandangled sports bikes are useless and I wear earplugs cause the my pipes are just so loud"

Very good point. According to that pratt of a Superintendent, it only becomes a pursuit when the pursuee is aware that he is being chased and has made a conscious decision not to stop. Ignoring the fact that in traffic offences, one is guilty until proven innocent, it would be very hard for a prosecutor to prove that the person being chased was actually aware of it, unless the pursuee had specifically acknowledged the chasing officer and indicated his intention to run.

[Movistar]

I guess the question that has to be asked is if a member of the public decided to do a U turn in that exact spot where the cop decided to and two bikers crashed into him/her, regardless of the speed they were doing, would that driver face prosecution?

IMO as soon as the officer decided to 'pursue' the alleged speeding motorcyclist, irrelevant of whether said biker realised he was going to be pursued or not, is when the pursuit started.
As it happens it's also where the pursuit ended.

Surely commensense would prevail and the first thing to ask himself would be "Is it safe to pursue this offender given the circumstances?"

[Boob Johnson]

I guess they got that idea off the General Public eh?
The difference being an individual isn't representing anything other than himself. The police officer is however representing something rather important. Now you know im not a rabid police hater Scummy, quite the opposite but sometimes it's good to say your sorry when you have fucked up.



Hate the way the officer answered the questions, we don't want to hear a politicians walk around answer (criticize the spelling instead of answering the question). Surely there are guidelines for engaging in potential "pursuits" (and if not, well there still are for everyone when it comes to pulling U-turns). The guy's not calling for your head, just an apology and an assurance no-one else will suffer the same fateExactly Squigs, not asking for heads to roll, just front up like a man, apologise & move on.



I guess the question that has to be asked is if a member of the public decided to do a U turn in that exact spot where the cop decided to and two bikers crashed into him/her, regardless of the speed they were doing, would that driver face prosecution?

IMO as soon as the officer decided to 'pursue' the alleged speeding motorcyclist, irrelevant of whether said biker realised he was going to be pursued or not, is when the pursuit started.
As it happens it's also where the pursuit ended.

Surely common sense would prevail and the first thing to ask himself would be "Is it safe to pursue this offender given the circumstances?"
A lil over zealous chasing his quota maybe?

[Timber020]

I guess the question that has to be asked is if a member of the public decided to do a U turn in that exact spot where the cop decided to and two bikers crashed into him/her, regardless of the speed they were doing, would that driver face prosecution?

Sadly my guess is that they wouldnt, the rate of prosecution IMHO is far to low when a car causes an accident involving a bike. We see and hear about this again and again and again and again and again.

We are second class road users in the eyes of the law

[Coldrider]

Sadly my guess is that they wouldnt, the rate of prosecution IMHO is far to low when a car causes an accident involving a bike. We see and hear about this again and again and again and again and again.

We are second class road users in the eyes of the law
Yes, but we're higher up the foodchain than boy racers.

[Winston001]

I hate to say it, but that officer has almost given a defence for running.

"Sorry officer, I didn't realise that you were pursing me, therefore I was not running. You see, the mirrors on these fandangled sports bikes are useless and I wear earplugs cause the my pipes are just so loud"

Oh dear - Failing to keep a proper lookout, failing to operate a vehicle in a roadworthy condition.......

[Winston001]

I guess the question that has to be asked is if a member of the public decided to do a U turn in that exact spot where the cop decided to and two bikers crashed into him/her, regardless of the speed they were doing, would that driver face prosecution?

I think they would - careless use causing injury and there has to be a strong prospect that will happen.




Surely commensense would prevail and the first thing to ask himself would be "Is it safe to pursue this offender given the circumstances?"

Agreed except the question is "Is it safe to do a three point turn at this point or do I proceed a bit further to a safer spot down the road?"

[Winston001]

You sure about that? I don't doubt that things have changed as a result of those prosecutions, but the only reason the prosecutions happened in the first place was because of persistent rumours and a journalist who sniffed out a story.

Fair enough, I don't know why Louise Nicholas allegations were finally taken seriously - not that the jury believed her.

All I do know is that organisations like the Police which prosecute their own members tend to be very zealous in such prosecutions. That is because they hold themselves to a higher standard than applied to the general public and turn on "bad" members with a vengance.

The TV shows where "Internal Affairs" are viewed with loathing by cops is very real and shows the attitude these internal investigators have. No mercy.

[MSTRS]

Fair enough, I don't know why Louise Nicholas allegations were finally taken seriously - not that the jury believed her.

All I do know is that organisations like the Police which prosecute their own members tend to be very zealous in such prosecutions. That is because they hold themselves to a higher standard than applied to the general public and turn on "bad" members with a vengance.

The TV shows where "Internal Affairs" are viewed with loathing by cops is very real and shows the attitude these internal investigators have. No mercy.

Yep, if IA get to hear of the problem in the first place....

[Usarka]

I guess the question that has to be asked is if a member of the public decided to do a U turn in that exact spot where the cop decided to and two bikers crashed into him/her, regardless of the speed they were doing, would that driver face prosecution?
Yes they would be charged.

Even if the bikers were speeding or being dangerous themselves, doing a u-turn on a corner is dangerous.

Barring any valid mitigating circumstances, if he isn't charged then there will be another nail in the coffin of belief that law makers and enforcers in NZ are treated the same as everyone else.