Officer charged over motorcycle crash

[EnzoYug]

A police officer who collided with two motorcyclists on Upper Buller Gorge has been charged with two counts of dangerous driving causing injury.

The crash happened on December 1 as Sergeant Tony Bridgman turned his patrol car around on State Highway 6 to follow another motorcyclist who had been speeding.
Wellington motorcyclists Brent Russell and Marty Collins rounded a bend, colliding with the car. Both riders suffered serious injuries.

Mr Bridgman, who heads a highway patrol team in Blenheim, will continue his duties in the patrol car while awaiting his appearance in Nelson District Court in late January....

Read more here: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10484144

[Clivoris]

Sauce for the goose....

[fireball]

so who wants to predict the outcome of this one?......

[Oakie]

He'll be found guilty and fined. He will not lose his license.

[fireball]

He'll be found guilty and fined. He will not lose his license.
but still remain a cop? as im sure you have to have a clean drivers record to be a cop.....

[Oakie]

but still remain a cop? as im sure you have to have a clean drivers record to be a cop.....

I'm not sure on what level of law breaking an existing cop can go to before getting the heave-ho. I wouldn't be surprised if a bit of desk-duty is the outcome but I reckon they'd be a bit reticent to say goodbye to cop if his record is otherwise clean.

[Swoop]

I'm not sure on what level of law breaking an existing cop can go to before getting the heave-ho.
Going by Clint Rickards... quite a lot actually.

[pete376403]

"If he is convicted, if he's disqualified then I'll have to find him something to do that doesn't involve driving a car," Tasman police district commander Grant O'Fee said.
Promotion?

[Drew]

The funny thing is, dangerous driving is a CRIMINAL conviction, not a traffic offence. The license issue is at the discretion of the court, so he may well keep it, however I'm confused about how he can keep his job if he does get found guilty.

Surely a criminal record equals not being a cop??? Scumdog, give us the skinny will ya! (Not details of the case, but the rules regarding the conviction like)

[Quasievil]

You Can be a cop even with a drink driving charge these days or other minor convictions

[scracha]

Cripes...don't hang the guy. I'm sure when it's all weighed up the benefits to NZ of him being a traffic cop outweigh everything else.

He made a mistake (it wasn't deliberate, he wasn't drinking and driving, etc) and he should be given a suitable punishment. Desk jockey for a few months followed by some driving training perhaps :cool:

I don't think its the fact he did the stupid U-turn that pissed everyone else off so much as they way he didn't admit being in the wrong and tried to blame speeding motorcyclists. The fact he didn't say "sorry, I made a terrible mistake" etc etc should be taken into consideration for his sentence.

I still say the crap about "cops being good judges of speed" is just that.

[Ixion]

Dangerous driving causing injury is a more serious offence than dangerous driving. Penalty up to 5 years gaol, $20000 fine, and mandatory disqualification for at least one year unless there are special reasons relating to the offence (Land Transport Act 1998 S36, 81). I imagine the courts will bend over backwards to find special reasons.

Although I must say that dangerous seems harsh, careless or at most reckless I would have thought. Not that the prick gets any sympathy after his "you were speeding " shit.

[Unit]

In my humble opinion, no one, especially a cop, should do a three point turn on the exit of a corner that is open road speed, period. What are they teaching in cop school these days? As Scratcha said, he may have an excellent record in service, but any of our lives can take a turn for the worse with one stupid decision.

[skidMark]

Going by Clint Rickards... quite a lot actually.


he was tied into contract.

wouldve cost them mega bucks to give him the kick.

was cheaper to buy him a car and wait out his contract.

[Renegade]

In my humble opinion, no one, especially a cop, should do a three point turn on the exit of a corner that is open road speed, period. What are they teaching in cop school these days? As Scratcha said, he may have an excellent record in service, but any of our lives can take a turn for the worse with one stupid decision.

i dont think cop school has any thing to do with it, being that he is a sergeant he is likely to have been around for at least the last 10 years, yeah he made a mistake, dosnt mean that he should get treated more hasrhly than any one else would have, so careless causing injury will no doubt be the outcome.

[sprag]

i say they will just give him a slap on the wrist and lower the charge as a bargin, that way he gets to keep his job

[DEATH_INC.]

Where's the 28 day instant loss?

[Mikkel]

As already stated, the thing that is a cause for aggravation is not that he did a U-turn at a badly chosen spot and caused an accident, it's the alleged statement of "You were speeding!" to the injured bikers.

I'd say dangerous is a bit over the top - I think careless use causing injury would be more appropriate.

Furthermore, it is neither impossible nor improbable that the bikers were speeding - however it doesn't change the fact that his ill-conceived "U-turn" was the cause of the accident and as such he should shoulder the blame (and not waste time preaching to injured bikers writhing in pain!)...

And no, I don't think he should loose his job. He hasn't demonstrated that he's a bad cop - just that he is capable of making a mistake like all other human beings... Fair enough if he gets to be a desk jockey for a year or two though.

[Banesto John]

Dangerous is a bit harsh, Careless sounds closer. The difference between a criminal record (dismissal) and a conviction comes down to intention. Had he intended to smoke 2 bikers he would be gone by lunchtime, but given that it was clearly a balls up, well, even I have some sympathy.

It will be interesting to see what he does, guilty or not guilty. Not guilty will mean the bikers having to appear in court months from now, a guilty plea will see it all over a lot sooner.

To those who think a bloke should lose a career for making a mistake, have a look at your own history before passing judgement.

[Banesto John]

Its not used in this offence that im aware of.

There is no 28 day suspension for this circumstance.

[scumdog]

I must say that dangerous seems harsh, careless or at most reckless I would have thought.

Reckless is way more worserer than dangerous, f.i.y....

[Fatjim]

Thats funny, the last cop I talked to about this said the penalty was the same for reckless and dangourous, but reckless was far harder to prove.

[Mikkel]

Reckless is way more worserer than dangerous, f.i.y....

I assume Hitcher is away on holiday... don't let that fool you!

I suppose you mean FYI... ;)

Furthermore, I wasn't aware of that reckless being worse than dangerous. Thanks for clearing that up.

[scumdog]

Thats funny, the last cop I talked to about this said the penalty was the same for reckless and dangourous, but reckless was far harder to prove.

The MAXIMUM penalty may be the same - but try and get away with the same penalty on front of the judge when convicted of reckless....

[RantyDave]

I'd say dangerous is a bit over the top
Perhaps deliberately so? Go with dangerous and have a 90% chance that you won't be able to prove it (i.e. he gets off), or pick careless but only a 50% chance (or lower) that it won't fly. I bet that's the tactic involved here. They knew they had to charge him with something, best make certain it doesn't stick.

Dave

[Mikkel]

Perhaps deliberately so? Go with dangerous and have a 90% chance that you won't be able to prove it (i.e. he gets off), or pick careless but only a 50% chance (or lower) that it won't fly. I bet that's the tactic involved here. They knew they had to charge him with something, best make certain it doesn't stick.

Dave

I'm guessing here:

Well if the prosecution (sp?) does its job properly they won't be able to do it that way. It would then just mean that there's a risk that the offender might be convicted of a higher crime before having to face a careless charge.

Or how does it work?

Anyone here got charged with dangerous and went to court on it?


Just like you could be charged with murder one, be aquitted and instead convicted of involuntary manslaughter....

[Fatjim]

Bulllshitt

[gtr boy]

I don't understand why people always assume Police try and protect their own - it's kinda like "well if they are a Police Force of course they will protect their own...human nature and all that" - but its not true. They simply don't.

youve gotta be fkn joking buddy

[Nonbeliever]

He'll probably get some cruisey job walking the beat on the gold coast after a cover-up.

[jafar]

I don't understand why people always assume Police try and protect their own - it's kinda like "well if they are a Police Force of course they will protect their own...human nature and all that" - but its not true. They simply don't.

Good attempt @ the tui award there mate :niceone:

[spudchucka]

He'll be found guilty and fined. He will not lose his license.

Dangerous driving has a mandatory 6 month suspension.

[spudchucka]

You Can be a cop even with a drink driving charge these days or other minor convictions

EBA convictions almost always cost a cop their job, the Mokau incident is the only recent exception that I'm aware of.

[spudchucka]

Dangerous driving causing injury is a more serious offence than dangerous driving. Penalty up to 5 years gaol, $20000 fine, and mandatory disqualification for at least one year unless there are special reasons relating to the offence (Land Transport Act 1998 S36, 81). I imagine the courts will bend over backwards to find special reasons.

Although I must say that dangerous seems harsh, careless or at most reckless I would have thought. Not that the prick gets any sympathy after his "you were speeding " shit.

Its up to the defendant to prove special circumstances, not the courts.

Traffic offences in order of seriousness are Careless, Dangerous & Reckless.

[spudchucka]

Where's the 28 day instant loss?

For a crash resulting in a dangerous charge there isn't a 28 day suspension.

[spudchucka]

Thats funny, the last cop I talked to about this said the penalty was the same for reckless and dangourous, but reckless was far harder to prove.

Because you have to prove the intent (Mens Rea) aspect.

[Mikkel]

Dangerous driving has a mandatory 6 month suspension.

Well, not that mandatory. A mate of mine got stung on a DD charge (and it was bullshit btw) and went to court. So he paid the fine, and got convicted of dangerous driving but they let him keep his license...

And for the love of dog, try and collate your replies into one, or two tops, posts!!!

[jafar]

Why? Just because they are a Police Department they protect their own? When i joined the Police i wondered what it was like - now that I have been in a while I can tell you they certainly don't. People don't want to hear that though. They want to hear that the Police look after their own, that they have horns growing out of their head and they would screw their grandmother over to get a ticket :crazy:Makes it easier to slam them when they do something people think they shouldn't or work in a way people don't agree with.

Nothing could be further from the truth, in all honesty New Zealand Police are probably still the least corrupt and have the highest integrity compared to an International standard. Almost every story in the media i have read that i have personally known about has had a side that is a lot less sensational but would most likely change a lot of peoples minds.

But hey the truth never got in the way of a good story.:sherlock:

Police do shield their own to a certain extent, same as members of any group will try to protect their own, getting off the odd ticket comes to mind.
I would have to agree that the NZ cops are a pretty good bunch, I can't recall meeting one that wasn't straight up in his dealings with me or my mates.
The old MoT traffic cops were a different breed though:bash:

[TOTO]

the most gonna happen is he gonna get a fine and possibly receive counceling/training and thats all.

When are we going to know the outcome ?

[pritch]

EBA convictions almost always cost a cop their job, the Mokau incident is the only recent exception that I'm aware of.

That was rather special circumstances and like most hereabout I have no problem with the outcome there at all.
(By "hereabout" I mean the Naki not KB :-)

[98tls]

No doubt this thread would be just as long if the guy that did the u-turn wasnt a cop.:laugh:I think not.

[Toaster]

People seem rather misguided about coverups and the details of the law.

The police are very heavily policed by their own and face not only the same laws as the rest of the population but also internal disciplinary measures as well.

Every example I saw of this when in the job was dealt with both professionally and severely. The cops do not get off anything lightly and professional standards go them big time investigating their own if they slip up and make a mistake.

[Toaster]

A mate who was in the police crashed his car on my watch one night.

He faced multiple charges including drink driving and dangerous driving causing injury x 3.

His career was over the moment he decided to get in that car and drive home drunk.

Bloody idiot.

[98tls]

People seem rather misguided about coverups and the details of the law.

The police are very heavily policed by their own and face not only the same laws as the rest of the population but also internal disciplinary measures as well.

Every example I saw of this when in the job was dealt with both professionally and severely. The cops do not get off anything lightly and professional standards go them big time investigating their own if they slip up and make a mistake. There not misguided Toaster they just have the advantage of owning there very own crystal balls,dont ya know.

[spudchucka]

Well, not that mandatory. A mate of mine got stung on a DD charge (and it was bullshit btw) and went to court. So he paid the fine, and got convicted of dangerous driving but they let him keep his license...

And for the love of dog, try and collate your replies into one, or two tops, posts!!!


35Contravention of section 7, or section 22 where no injury or death involved

(1)A person commits an offence if the person—

(a)Operates a motor vehicle recklessly on a road; or

(b)Drives or causes a motor vehicle to be driven on a road at a speed or in a manner which, having regard to all the circumstances, is or might be dangerous to the public or to a person; or

(c)Without reasonable excuse, contravenes section 22 by failing to stop and ascertain whether any person has been injured, after an accident where no other person has been injured or killed.

(2)If a person is convicted of an offence against subsection (1),—

(a)The maximum penalty is imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or a fine not exceeding $4,500; and

(b)The court must order the person to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for 6 months or more.

(3)The imposition of a mandatory disqualification under this section is subject to section 81.

Section 35(2)(b) is highlighted. The word "must" means that the court does not have discretion to not disqualify on a dangerous conviction.

The only discretionary offence is careless in regards to disqualification. The only exception to this is where the defendant can prove that there were special circumstances and then it will almost always result in a discount on the disqualification period.

If I knew how to collate or could be bothered finding out how to I would, but I can't be stuffed so I won't.

[Rashika]

that seem a bit strange then cos his boss says 'if' he loses his licence (altho he does also say 'if' he's convicted as well) and according to that paragraph he will definately lose it for a minimum of 6 months? (if convicted that is of course)

It is true what they say about the police complaints eventually trying to make right tho.
A friend of mine who lost her son in a work related driving incident where he was an unfortunate victim (several years ago now, so system is still far too slow), has finally had an apology from a bigwig officer after they brought a complaint, where the police basically cocked up the whole investigation by simply not breathtesting or blood testing the driver.
The good thing to come out of it is that now testing is meant to be done as standard in every work related/or driving/ or both, death. I was incrediably surprised that is wasn't normal practice. So maybe something good may come out of this mess.

Hope the guys are recovering ok, and at least the officer will get his day in court, something a whole heap of kbers were very doubtful about.
And I for one think 'Dangerous' is the appropriate charge: in those circumstances, on that road, a specialist driver who is responsible for moderating others behaviour (which is what his job is), should know better.

[Mikkel]

Section 35(2)(b) is highlighted. The word "must" means that the court does not have discretion to not disqualify on a dangerous conviction.

The only discretionary offence is careless in regards to disqualification. The only exception to this is where the defendant can prove that there were special circumstances and then it will almost always result in a discount on the disqualification period.

If I knew how to collate or could be bothered finding out how to I would, but I can't be stuffed so I won't.

Well, I can only say that then either the court wasn't following the law or my friend has been lying to me about it. I think I'll trust my mate since he hasn't so far managed to get caught at being dishonest!

Well, as long as it's laziness I can kinda relate to it ;)

[Pixie]

I don't understand why people always assume Police try and protect their own - it's kinda like "well if they are a Police Force of course they will protect their own...human nature and all that" - but its not true. They simply don't.

Partly because you guys ( KB cops) tend to defend your colleagues to the hilt.:laugh::bleh:

[scumdog]

Partly because you guys ( KB cops) tend to defend your colleagues to the hilt.:laugh::bleh:

Could you quote all my posts where I've defended my colleagues??

[Conquiztador]

Why does the offending cop not walk in to the hospital and see the guys, tell them he is soo farking sorry he phucked up. And then the police provide both guys with new bikes? Personally I recon that would go a looooong way towards helping the situation in all ways.

[The Pastor]

Why does the offending cop not walk in to the hospital and see the guys, tell them he is soo farking sorry he phucked up. And then the police provide both guys with new bikes? Personally I recon that would go a looooong way towards helping the situation in all ways.
well you see dear conquiztador, that would be comon sence, somthing the police/nz/insert group here lack.

[Grahameeboy]

Why does the offending cop not walk in to the hospital and see the guys, tell them he is soo farking sorry he phucked up. And then the police provide both guys with new bikes? Personally I recon that would go a looooong way towards helping the situation in all ways.

Because case under investigation...mmmm.....may be embarrassed...worried about flack he may get.

As to hus speeding comment, this is a common response following an accident and in his own mind as far as he was concerned, they were not in view etc.....like a lot of drivers' responses..

[Winston001]

Why does the offending cop not walk in to the hospital and see the guys, tell them he is soo farking sorry he phucked up. And then the police provide both guys with new bikes? Personally I recon that would go a looooong way towards helping the situation in all ways.

I'm sure we are all saying that and I agree. However, assuming the officer pleads Not Guilty, he creates a problem for himself - saying sorry can sound like an admission of guilt. The Crown solicitor would grab that with both hands.

Even so, he could enquire about them through other officers and show a human interest in their welfare without saying sorry.

Don't forget, this officer probably genuinely believes the guys were speeding and should have been able to stop. If you genuinely believed something - would you admit guilt?

[Conquiztador]

Don't forget, this officer probably genuinely believes the guys were speeding and should have been able to stop.

A Tui anyone??;)

[Nonbeliever]

I'm sure we are all saying that and I agree. However, assuming the officer pleads Not Guilty, he creates a problem for himself - saying sorry can sound like an admission of guilt. The Crown solicitor would grab that with both hands.

Even so, he could enquire about them through other officers and show a human interest in their welfare without saying sorry.

Don't forget, this officer probably genuinely believes the guys were speeding and should have been able to stop. If you genuinely believed something - would you admit guilt?

Genuinely believes they were speeding?? LOL gimme a break he's only trying to cover his donut eating arse by trying to make it look like this accident was caused by the riders when it was his own fault by doing a Uturn in a stupid place.

[Conquiztador]

Because case under investigation...mmmm.....may be embarrassed...worried about flack he may get.
Brilliant! 2 guys are in hospital as a result of his actions and he is embarrassed.


As to hus speeding comment, this is a common response following an accident and in his own mind as far as he was concerned, they were not in view etc.....like a lot of drivers' responses.. I see, the old: "I did not see you". But he even got that wrong, as it is: "Sorry, I did not see you"

[mstriumph]

I don't understand why people always assume Police try and protect their own - it's kinda like "well if they are a Police Force of course they will protect their own...human nature and all that" - but its not true. They simply don't.

it is human nature for people to 'protect their own'
it does happen in most groups where an 'us and them' culture is the norm
it's therefore not really suprising that us civilians expect the police to act that way too

please don't take it personally
no disrespect is intended :no:

[homer]

i dont think cop school has any thing to do with it, being that he is a sergeant he is likely to have been around for at least the last 10 years, yeah he made a mistake, dosnt mean that he should get treated more hasrhly than any one else would have, so careless causing injury will no doubt be the outcome.

No true and also dosnt mean should get special treatment either

[homer]

No doubt this thread would be just as long if the guy that did the u-turn wasnt a cop.:laugh:I think not.

Very true to
But there trained to know better ?
You know it should be harsher if your trained to know

[Mekk]

it is human nature for people to 'protect their own'
it does happen in most groups where an 'us and them' culture is the norm
it's therefore not really suprising that us civilians expect the police to act that way too

please don't take it personally
no disrespect is intended :no:

Even if it is "human nature" to protect our own, that can certainly be cancelled out by any number of different circumstances. The mentality you're implying could be on any number of scales as well.

This "human nature" you are referring to is by no means a rule.

You can spin it any way you like with that. I mean the police can be the "us" and the complaints authority, lawyers or whoever is prosecuting can be the "them". Or the police can be the "them" and the civilians can be the "us" as you've mentioned.

The thing that's overlooking all of this is the law. The fact that the officer is being charged at all is testament to the fact that this "human nature" aspect of it is being overridden. That is at least how I see it.

**EDIT: As a follow up note to that, this article (http://www.stuff.co.nz/4335427a11.html) gives an example of cops vs cops and suggests that they do NOT stand up for each other just because they're wearing the same uniform.

[Winston001]

Genuinely believes they were speeding?? LOL gimme a break he's only trying to cover his donut eating arse by trying to make it look like this accident was caused by the riders when it was his own fault by doing a Uturn in a stupid place.

You won't get any argument from me. It was a stupid stupid place to do a three point turn - especially for a law enforcement officer. I expect him to be convicted.

However that has nothing to do with his point of view. What's the bet his defence is the guys were speeding and contributed to the accident??!! There is every chance he genuinely believes that - doesn't mean his belief is reasonable, but it does explain his lack of sorry or interest in the riders.

Or alternatively as you say, he made it up on the spot and is sticking to it. He might be an officer who views all motorcyclists as speeders (er...with a tad of justification... :D).

For the sake of clarity the guy interviewed in hospital said he'd heard nothing from the officer.

[Jantar]

.... What's the bet his defence is the guys were speeding and contributed to the accident??!! There is every chance he genuinely believes that - doesn't mean his belief is reasonable, but it does explain his lack of sorry or interest in the riders. ....
Well that claim is unlikely to stand up in court. He said that when he started the turn the road was clear. Obviously while doing the turn he would have been watching the edge of the road as there isn't much width to the road, and it was stated that the first he was aware of the motorcycles was at the first point of impact. So how could he judge the speed of a bike he didn't see?

[rwh]

Well that claim is unlikely to stand up in court. He said that when he started the turn the road was clear. Obviously while doing the turn he would have been watching the edge of the road as there isn't much width to the road, and it was stated that the first he was aware of the motorcycles was at the first point of impact. So how could he judge the speed of a bike he didn't see?

By the simple fact that they hit him ... they were unable to stop in the distance they could see. Nothing to do with posted limits; putting a number on their speed makes no difference.

Richard

[Grahameeboy]

Brilliant! 2 guys are in hospital as a result of his actions and he is embarrassed.

Must be a Kiwi then!!

I see, the old: "I did not see you". But he even got that wrong, as it is: "Sorry, I did not see you"

Yep, the old ones are the best.


.................

[Grahameeboy]

Genuinely believes they were speeding?? LOL gimme a break he's only trying to cover his donut eating arse by trying to make it look like this accident was caused by the riders when it was his own fault by doing a Uturn in a stupid place.

He is still human..........and many drivers claim the same.

[Cary]

Cripes...don't hang the guy. I'm sure when it's all weighed up the benefits to NZ of him being a traffic cop outweigh everything else.

Na bugger that it's to good for him, drawn n quartered i say.

[Aitch]

At the risk of sounding like a wet blanket, is this matter not sub judice? Is it legal to speculate on the outcome in a public forum? Perhaps one of our resident legal eagles can clarify the matter for me....(A real legal eagle, not one of the bush variety please)

[Nasty]

At the risk of sounding like a wet blanket, is this matter not sub judicae? (sp?) Is it legal to speculate on the outcome in a public forum? Perhaps one of our resident legal eagles can clarify the matter for me....(A real legal eagle, not one of the bush variety please)

The wikipedia is interesting on this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub_judice

[slopster]

Don't forget, this officer probably genuinely believes the guys were speeding and should have been able to stop. If you genuinely believed something - would you admit guilt?

Thats not the point they shouln't have to stop. The car doing the U-turn/3point turn has to be able to do the turn without the other car having to take any evasive action at all.

[rwh]

Thats not the point they shouln't have to stop.

It's one of the points. If they had been able to stop, the accident wouldn't have happened, and they'd have been able to swear at the cop much more comfortably.

Richard

[Hawkeye]

It's one of the points. If they had been able to stop, the accident wouldn't have happened, and they'd have been able to swear at the cop much more comfortably.

Richard

Coming around a bend at 90k and meeting a car stopped. There are two possible escape routes. Left or right of the car.
However, in this case there were no escape routes. There was a car, on a very narrow road, parked sideways. Therefore protecting both escape routes.
Or are you suggesting that we all ride at 30k around any bend just incase there is a car sideways on the road.

[swbarnett]

Or are you suggesting that we all ride at 30k around any bend just incase there is a car sideways on the road.
After any accident you ask yourself "What could I have done to prevent it?" Cornering at 30km/h would, in all likelihood, have prevented the accident. The question is one of who acted reasonably. In my opinion the bikers did, the cop didn't.

[Ixion]

..
Or are you suggesting that we all ride at 30k around any bend just incase there is a car sideways on the road.

Well, sometimes that's what it takes. Bear in mind, as Mr Spudchucka (I think) said: it could have been any sort of shit round the corner; fallen tree, slip, crashed car etc.

One of the principles of defensive driving is to do whatever it takes to avoid danger. And that often does mean going round a corner at a speed that is dictated by visibility , not by what you, or the bike, may be capable of .

So we may regret that the riders did not ride defensively, ensuring that they were able to stop for any hazard in the road.

But the other principle of defensive driving, and much more important, is never to do anything that puts yourself OR OTHERS in danger. And on that basis the cop failed miserably and totally. So we may condemn the cop for actively endangering other road users. He is not entitled to do that which endangers others and rely on their vigilance to compensate for his negligence.

The bikers could have been more careful. The cop should have been more careful.

And his trying to justify his actions by claiming the bikers were speeding is contemptible . Even if it were true it would not be a valid excuse. You do not endanger anyone else on the road, regardless of whether they may be themselving breaking the law.

[Squiggles]

And his trying to justify his actions by claiming the bikers were speeding is contemptible . Even if it were true it would not be a valid excuse. You do not endanger anyone else on the road, regardless of whether they may be themselving breaking the law.

Well said.

[scumdog]

And his trying to justify his actions by claiming the bikers were speeding is contemptible . Even if it were true it would not be a valid excuse. You do not endanger anyone else on the road, regardless of whether they may be themselving breaking the law.


I disagree.

Any motorist should expect approaching vehicle to be doing 'about' 100kph when making a right turn, backing out of a driveway, doing a U-turn or whatever.

If said approaching vehicles were doing 150kph+ it would be unreasonable to expect the motorist as above to take that into consideration.

I'm NOT saying this applies to the Buller Gorge crash.

[Ixion]

Legally, you may (or may not) be correct. But my comment was made in the context of defensive driving. The whole point of defensive driving is that you do not do what is 'reasonable'. You do whatever is required to keep yourself and other road users safe. Reasonable or not. Because when someone is dead (biker or cager) it is not really much consolation when people say "Well, what I did was reasonable". Yes, it may have been reasonable. But the crash still happened.

F'instance it may certainly be reasonable for me to assume that the cager staring at me has seen me. But reality says he may not have (even though he should have) , so I'll defensively assume he hasn't.

Failure to keep left is as much against the law as speeding. Legally, I may assume going round a corner that oncoming traffic will stick to its own, correct, side of the road. But defensively, I know that they don't . So I will make allowances for the possibility of a car on my side of the line. That may not be reasonable, but it's safe. Not putting myself or others into danger; doing whatever it takes to keep out of danger;

Defensive driving isn't about reasonable. It's about doing whatever it takes. You don't win any prizes for being right on the road.

[scumdog]

Soooo, when Farmer Brown (we got a lotta them down here) in his tractor with a trailer on behind is about to pull out of his paddock onto the main road you're saying he should take into consideration the approaching Subaru (or whatever) may be doing 155kph instead of the proscribed 100kph??

[Hawkeye]

Well, sometimes that's what it takes. Bear in mind, as Mr Spudchucka (I think) said: it could have been any sort of shit round the corner; fallen tree, slip, crashed car etc.

One of the principles of defensive driving is to do whatever it takes to avoid danger. And that often does mean going round a corner at a speed that is dictated by visibility , not by what you, or the bike, may be capable of .

So we may regret that the riders did not ride defensively, ensuring that they were able to stop for any hazard in the road.



While I agree that we all have to drive defensively, and believe me, I ride like a nana, there is also being practical.

A friend of mine was driving along (in a cage) at 40k in a 50k limit. Kid came out from between 2 parked cars just as he reached the driver's door of the first car. He had no chance of stopping in time. Whilst you can drive defensively, in this case he would have had to be driving at 15k to miss the kid. (thankfully he was able to turn enough to catch him with the side rather than full on).
What I'm saying is you can never ride to handle every eventuality. With extreme's like coming around a sweeper at 90k to find a cage parked sideways, the only way to ride defensively is to leave the bike at home.

[Ixion]

Soooo, when Farmer Brown (we got a lotta them down here) in his tractor with a trailer on behind is about to pull out of his paddock onto the main road you're saying he should take into consideration the approaching Subaru (or whatever) may be doing 155kph instead of the proscribed 100kph??

Correct. If Farmer Brown is driving defensively. Because reality is that the said Subaru MAY sometimes be doing such a speed.

Look at it from another view point. If Farmer Brown looked down the road, saw the said Subaru, said to Mrs Brown beside the tractor " Shit that Subaru thing is motoring, he's going way way over 100kph. Still if he WERE only going 100kph, I'd have time to cross the road without him hitting me. So I'm going to do it anyway , if he hits me it's his own fault, cos he's speeding". Is Farmer Brown being reasonable, let alone defensive?

Of course, we would hope the Subaru driver was ALSO being defensive, and thinks "Hm, there's a farmer on a tractor. Bet he won't make allowances for the fact that I'm going a tad faster than some. Better be ready to slow down/stop/avoid"

So in an ideal world, the Subaru slows down (to avoid putting himself in danger); Farmer Brown waits (to avoid putting others in danger) ; both wave a happy gidday to each other , and once the Subaru is past, Farmer Brown crosses the road.

Of course, as Mr Hawkeye noted, sometimes in the real world , things don't work out perfectly, and we all sometimes have to push the envelope.

Which is why I say that we may regret that the riders were not able to stop. Ideally , they would have allowed for an obstruction round the corner. But we don't live in an ideal world. They had no reason to suspect a danger. The cop did have reason to suspect a danger - he knew (and must have known) that he was creating one. We therefore condemn his actions.

Don't put yourself in danger; don't put others in danger. Do whatever it takes to achieve that. It's really very simple.

[Conquiztador]

With extreme's like coming around a sweeper at 90k to find a cage parked sideways, the only way to ride defensively is to leave the bike at home.

Totally agree!!

Next Cold Kiwi will be soo different. All on foot... ;)

[scumdog]

Correct. If Farmer Brown is driving defensively. Because reality is that the said Subaru MAY sometimes be doing such a speed.


Don't put yourself in danger; don't put others in danger. Do whatever it takes to achieve that. It's really very simple.

I would not criticise a farmer for putting a Subaru driver in danger in the above circumstances - Darwin rules!
After all, how many times do YOU (or anybody) look long enough at approaching vehicles to 'accurately' judge their approach speed (especially if they're approaching from both directions) before making a right turn out of a side-road/driveway?? (In fact a shit-load of people don't LOOK - they glance - at best)

On your last sentence - I think I might stay in bed tonight....

[swbarnett]

in this case he would have had to be driving at 15k to miss the kid.
While I'm not advocating travelling at high speed in close proximity to parked cars I think this illustrates my point about timing. If your friend had been travelling faster they would've past the spot in question before this kid had a chance to put themselves in danger.

[Winston001]

Soooo, when Farmer Brown (we got a lotta them down here) in his tractor with a trailer on behind is about to pull out of his paddock onto the main road you're saying he should take into consideration the approaching Subaru (or whatever) may be doing 155kph instead of the proscribed 100kph??

Eerrraarrggghhh........confession time. If you substitute BMW R80RT for "Subaru" you have exactly the situation I found myself in a few days ago. I was er.. testing out my fairing extension for stability etc and since it was a windless day needed to simulate wind pressure. Acceleration seemed the best method.

So a few hundred meters ahead of me Farmer Brown began pulling out on the road with a humungous tractor. By the time I realised he wasn't going to wait for me to pass I was right on him - happily he stopped and I braked heavily.

Clear straight road, beautiful day, very sudden. My fault entirely and a lesson learned.

So I agree with Ixion about driving defensively and that being in the right isn't much comfort after the accident. At the same time all motorists are entitled to assume other roadusers are acting lawfully. If this were not the case, we'd have anarchy or nobody would drive above 30k.

[FJRider]

No doubt this thread would be just as long if the guy that did the u-turn wasnt a cop.:laugh:I think not.

Bikers KILLED near Fairlie . . . THE THREADS WERE JUST AS LONG IF NOT LONGER...you make a mistake on the road, people CAN die. I dont know anybody thats IMORTAL...just lots of lucky bikers

[FJRider]

It's one of the points. If they had been able to stop, the accident wouldn't have happened, and they'd have been able to swear at the cop much more comfortably.

Richard

Its not just a point, its LAW. You must be able to stop within HALF the distance of CLEAR road ahead. Traveling at Posted speed limits OR NOT.

[rwh]

Its not just a point, its LAW. You must be able to stop within HALF the distance of CLEAR road ahead. Traveling at Posted speed limits OR NOT.

Aargh. Covered several times - on a laned road, it's the whole distance. The rest of the argument stands.

Richard

[rwh]

Coming around a bend at 90k and meeting a car stopped. There are two possible escape routes. Left or right of the car.
However, in this case there were no escape routes. There was a car, on a very narrow road, parked sideways. Therefore protecting both escape routes.
Or are you suggesting that we all ride at 30k around any bend just incase there is a car sideways on the road.

Well, 30k may be excessively slow in many cases, but that's the general idea, yes. You must be able to stop in the distance of clear road ahead. Many go faster than that, and I probably do at times. I'd give it a damn good go, though, and hopefully wouldn't be traveling very fast by the time I hit.

Richard

[rwh]

A friend of mine was driving along (in a cage) at 40k in a 50k limit. Kid came out from between 2 parked cars just as he reached the driver's door of the first car. He had no chance of stopping in time. Whilst you can drive defensively, in this case he would have had to be driving at 15k to miss the kid. (thankfully he was able to turn enough to catch him with the side rather than full on).
What I'm saying is you can never ride to handle every eventuality. With extreme's like coming around a sweeper at 90k to find a cage parked sideways, the only way to ride defensively is to leave the bike at home.

The two situations are rather different. If you have seen the road to be clear, then suddenly it becomes obstructed (by children running out, or a campervan rolling towards you or whatever), there may well be little you can do about it. You can of course make a judgment about whether this is a likely location for children to run out between parked cars, but there will be situations you can't avoid.

In the Buller Gorge case though, it seems agreed[1] that the car was already obstructing the road by the time that bit of road came into view, so there should have been time to stop.

[1]The rider said he came round the corner and the car was there. The cop said he couldn't see the motorcyclists when he started his turn. This seems consistent to me.

Richard

[slopster]

Its not just a point, its LAW. You must be able to stop within HALF the distance of CLEAR road ahead. Traveling at Posted speed limits OR NOT.

It depends on exactly how it happened. Imagine yourself going round a corner consious of being able to stop in the amount of visible clear road. You pass the apex see 200m up the straight and wind on the throttle and then suddenly 30m ahead a car turns into your clear lane. I don't know exactly what happened but doing a 3 point turn anywhere where visibility is restricted is fucking retarded.

[Jantar]

It depends on exactly how it happened. Imagine yourself going round a corner consious of being able to stop in the amount of visible clear road. You pass the apex see 200m up the straight and wind on the throttle and then suddenly 30m ahead a car turns into your clear lane. I don't know exactly what happened but doing a 3 point turn anywhere where visibility is restricted is fucking retarded.
It appears that this is closer to what has happened than the road being blocked by a stationery policer car. According to MD in the orinional thread, the IPCA have established that the bikes were not speeding, which means that they were travelling at less than 28 m/s (100kmh) and were capable of stopping had the road remained clear. Even if the cop car was only travelling at 10 kmh during the 3 point turn, the road would have gone from clear to blocked in less than 2 seconds.

[rwh]

According to MD in the orinional thread, the IPCA have established that the bikes were not speeding

I obviously missed that post - I only saw a news article that mentioned a careful lack of comment on whether the bikes were speeding.

Richard

[Jantar]

In http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=1357465&postcount=574 is this comment:
To date the lads have not heard from the Officer involved but have had very supportive contact from the Senior Police/Investigators. Who have reiterated that all their enquiries show that the riders were not speeding.

[madbikeboy]

Going by Clint Rickards... quite a lot actually.

Is it just me, but if you stare at the name Clint while squinting, the word actually reads Cunt. In this case it's one and the same...

[Conquiztador]

Is it just me, but if you stare at the name Clint while squinting, the word actually reads Cunt. In this case it's one and the same...

Confused I am. (But that is not hard to achieve...) I was assuming that he went down the path to destruction as he was lacking the one in question?

[rwh]

In http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=1357465&postcount=574 is this comment:

Cheers.

Richard

[Winston001]

Anything happening with this?

[Patrick]

He left the job and the case is next month, from memory, without re-reading the thread....

[Racing Dave]

From the Chch Press, yesterday:

"The former Blenheim traffic officer who seriously injured two motorcyclists after turning his patrol car in front of them has been charged with driving while disqualified."

The article goes on to say that Anthony Dale Bridgman has also been charged with being in an unregistered vehicle.

He entered no plea, and was remanded to appear again on November 10.

[robo555]

Link to news article:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/news/2982562/Former-cop-Anthony-Bridgman-charged

[ukusa]

he looks like a smug prick!

[Cr1MiNaL]

COPS we all love them! anyone smell bacon?

[Conquiztador]

And the moral of the story is that just because one is a policeofficer it does not take away the factor that he/she might be human and have issues. There are rotten ones in all baskets.

[Patrick]

COPS we all love them! anyone smell bacon?


And the moral of the story is that just because one is a policeofficer it does not take away the factor that he/she might be human and have issues. There are rotten ones in all baskets.

He IS a cop??????????

What station does he work at?????????????????

[Swoop]

He IS a cop??????????
Some are slower than others around here...