U-turn cop to stand trial

[Eddieb]

The Blenheim policeman charged with dangerous driving after a crash in the Buller Gorge that left two motorcyclists seriously injured has been committed to stand trial.

Full story at: http://www.stuff.co.nz/4579369a12855.html

[chanceyy]

Well so he should be ..

[Tank]

from stuff.co.nz

The Blenheim policeman charged with dangerous driving after a crash in the Buller Gorge that left two motorcyclists seriously injured has been committed to stand trial.

Blenheim-based Sergeant Anthony Dale Bridgman, 57, has denied two charges of dangerous driving causing injury to two Wellington motorcyclists who collided with his vehicle on December 1, while he was doing a U-turn.

Justices of the Peace Harry Baigent and Mary Harley concluded at the second day of a depositions hearing today that there was sufficient evidence to put Bridgman to trial.
Giving evidence in Nelson District Court yesterday motorcyclist Brent Russell said that the vehicle appeared suddenly across the road, leaving him only a few seconds to work out how to survive.

"But I thought I would probably die when I hit the car," he said.

Mr Russell told the court he was travelling with a group of motorcyclists from Wellington, intending to head to the West Coast.

He said one of the motorcyclists pulled over near the Buller Gorge Swingbridge and waved him and fellow rider Marty Collins past.
As they went around a bend, he saw Mr Collins steer to the right and a large white vehicle in front of him, lying diagonal to the road, the Nelson Mail reported.

"I realised I had very little room to manoeuvre and wondered what the hell I was going to do.

"I had thought of my wife and children and the consequences, obviously."

He said he suffered eight to 10 breaks in his pelvis, which required titanium plates.

He also lost the top of his right thumb and suffered a broken wrist - which required surgery - a broken pubic bone and concussion.

Mr Russell said Bridgman came over after the crash and asked him if he was okay.

He replied by asking "what the hell" Bridgman had been doing at that part of the road.

"His reply to me was that I was speeding. I replied to him an expletive, in effect go away."

Bridgman has remained working with Marlborough's highway patrol.

He was remanded at large to a callover on August 15.

[LittleJohn]

Hope he doesn't just get a slap on the hand like most other charges to cops....

[Skyryder]

Hope he doesn't just get a slap on the hand like most other charges to cops....

Even iffound guilty the Judge will tell him to appeal.............just like one did with Clark's drivers in Speedgate.


Skyryder

[jimbo600]

Hope he doesn't just get a slap on the hand like most other charges to cops....

Under the new code of conduct rules he'll get more than that.

If anything cops get hammered more than us normal types if found guilty.

[marty]

i'm sure they didn't need the judge to tell them to appeal.

and i know 2 cops that lost their licences, and subsequently their jobs, for dangerous/reckless driving.

[jimbo600]

i'm sure they didn't need the judge to tell them to appeal.

and i know 2 cops that lost their licences, and subsequently their jobs, for dangerous/reckless driving.

Ya see. Losing their jobs because of that is wrong. They're just folk like everyone else why should they get extra done. Pay the same penalty as everyone else no more no less.

[FLYMO]

heres the link with the pic of wats left
hope the barstard doesnt get off
http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelsonmail/4579212a6007.html

[mark247]

Ya see. Losing their jobs because of that is wrong. They're just folk like everyone else why should they get extra done. Pay the same penalty as everyone else no more no less.

I agree but disagree. He should not lose his job because of what happened. But the fact that he has lost his drivers licence ( well he bloody well should of ) means that the follow on effect for a patrol cop would be he loses his job because he cant do it without a licence. I know people can get exemptions or whatever to drive whilst disqualified for there job between certain hours but i wouldnt want to be pulled up for dangerous driving by a cop who has lost his licence for the same thing, although he is just doing his job. If anyone else caused that accident they would of lost there licence certainly, so should he. Maybe before pulling his massive ugly aussie tank out infront of two bikes he should of thought for a second or two.

[Stormer]

The police are here to uphold the law and set an example.
All PC crap aside, he should be nailed to the floorboards for this one.

[mstriumph]

Under the new code of conduct rules he'll get more than that.

If anything cops get hammered more than us normal types if found guilty.


which is only fair and reasonable ----- they are supposed to be a good example to us miscreants :sunny:

[Renegade]

He shouldnt lose his lively hood for that though, he has probably been a copper for the last 30 years and never had anything like this happen before, he should lose his licence, but not the job, maybe at his age its time to hang up the keys to the cop car, any other person who drive for a living dosnt lose their job if the are involved in a serious crash in the company car.

Granted that a conviction for such an offence would be hard to swallow for anyone let alone a cop.

What happened sux, but it happens every day to every day people, humans we are all.

[riffer]

The police are here to uphold the law and set an example.
All PC crap aside, he should be nailed to the floorboards for this one.

With all due respect to the riders involved in this incident, I would suggest that we consider him, like every other person charged with an offence or crime, innocent until proven guilty.

Wait for the trial Stormer. Truth will out.

[RantyDave]

A bad day for the very fine members of our law enforcement community. I see our upholders of moral and legal standards are also in trouble for beating the shit out of then repeatedly pepper spraying someone they picked up with some description of psychiatric disorder.

http://stuff.co.nz/4579293a10.html

Presumably the video footage will make the jury's job a lot easier. With any luck we can persuade the police to conduct their pack rapes, sorry, alleged pack rapes while on CCTV too.

Dave

[98tls]

He shouldnt lose his lively hood for that though, he has probably been a copper for the last 30 years and never had anything like this happen before, he should lose his licence, but not the job, maybe at his age its time to hang up the keys to the cop car, any other person who drive for a living dosnt lose their job if the are involved in a serious crash in the company car.

Granted that a conviction for such an offence would be hard to swallow for anyone let alone a cop.

What happened sux, but it happens every day to every day people, humans we are all. Well said,hes human he fucked up and should be punished accordingly.A cop or not shouldnt come into it.

[chanceyy]

With all due respect to the riders involved in this incident, I would suggest that we consider him, like every other person charged with an offence or crime, innocent until proven guilty.

Wait for the trial Stormer. Truth will out.


Agreed Riffer, he should be treated as an individual. as would be if Joe Bloggs had done the same thing. Regardless of how long he has been an officer, he made a gross error in judgment & needs to be held accountable for it. After all riders were seriously injured ..

[jimbo600]

Well said,hes human he fucked up and should be punished accordingly.A cop or not shouldnt come into it.

Agree with that, but a Eddy punch clock wouldn't lose his job over dangerous driving so why should a cop.

He shouldn't get off lightly either.

[Stormer]

How can a cop who`s been done for dangerous driving, be allowed back on the street and then go book someone for the same offence...???

[Slingshot]

This particular cop is obviously a cunt, it seems that he tried to shift the blame onto the victim.



He replied by asking "what the hell" Bridgman had been doing at that part of the road. "His reply to me was that I was speeding. I replied to him an expletive, in effect go away."

[CookMySock]

They're just folk like everyone else why should they get extra done.No they're not. They are on the road for earning a living, making them commercial drivers.

Commercial drivers play the statistics game - they are on the road ten times the amount of time that ordinary road users do, so, without changing their habits whatsoever, they are ten times more likely to have an accident. They therefore MUST adopt a new way of thinking, or they present a serious hazard to themselves and other road users - the opposite to what they purport themselves to be. Doing a U turn where he did is serious breach of this ethic, and DENYING accountability for it is a further serious breach. There is no way this person should ever be allowed to operate in such a position of responsibility again. God help us if he has an arms license - would you go hunting with him ?

DB

[Mikkel]

Personally I believe he should be done for careless use of a motor vehicle causing injury. The situation would not have been dangerous provided the motorcyclists had been able to stop in the distance they could see ahead.
But he most definately chose a bad place to do his U-turn - as such he was careless... I don't think dangerous will stick - but careless should!

Fair enough if he gets a disqualification. Like anybody else he should be given either an excemption to drive in relation to his job - or even better, be applied to do some proper policing instead of road toll collection.


How can a cop who`s been done for dangerous driving, be allowed back on the street and then go book someone for the same offence...???

Well, obviously he'd now have a better idea of what dangerous driving would be right. Besides, just maybe, someone who's been there themselves might be a bit more sympathetic.


Let's leave the fact that it was a police officer and motorcycles that were involved out of it. Legally it shouldn't make any difference if it had been a boyracer and a campervan...

[jimbo600]

No they're not. They are on the road for earning a living, making them commercial drivers.

Commercial drivers play the statistics game - they are on the road ten times the amount of time that ordinary road users do, so, without changing their habits whatsoever, they are ten times more likely to have an accident. They therefore MUST adopt a new way of thinking, or they present a serious hazard to themselves and other road users - the opposite to what they purport themselves to be. Doing a U turn where he did is serious breach of this ethic, and DENYING accountability for it is a further serious breach. There is no way this person should ever be allowed to operate in such a position of responsibility again. God help us if he has an arms license - would you go hunting with him ?

DB

Yeah I take your point. Stick him somewhere harmless than and not back on the roads.

BTW I think he's a cunt for the "you were speeding" remark and for trying to get away with it. But automatic loss of job is harsh. Maybe bang him up with the sodomites for a while instead.

[scumdog]

Hope he doesn't just get a slap on the hand like most other charges to cops....

Or as happens to most members of public eh???

[98tls]

Let's leave the fact that it was a police officer and motorcycles that were involved out of it. Legally it shouldn't make any difference if it had been a boyracer and a campervan... Nice sentiment mate but you forget this is "kiwiwhinger" and any thread with "cop fucks up" related to it brings out all the interweb bad arses out there that get wood in cyberspace.

[SPman]

Goody - another copper on the sharp end of a stick, thread.

Where can I put the boot in - er - make some constructive comments about yon coppers parentage...........ummm..........nail his head to the floor.

Older guy - should have known better - probably watched Goodbye Pork Pie once to often....

:shutup:

[scumdog]

I am gobsmacked at the restrained and reasonable responses on this thread - I did not expect so much rational comment on KB - well done.:hug:

[98tls]

Hope he doesn't just get a slap on the hand like most other charges to cops.... :cry:How many cops do you know?How many have had charges laid against them?How many have got off lightly?

[Katman]

Personally I believe he should be done for careless use of a motor vehicle causing injury. The situation would not have been dangerous provided the motorcyclists had been able to stop in the distance they could see ahead.
But he most definately chose a bad place to do his U-turn - as such he was careless... I don't think dangerous will stick - but careless should!


See - I knew, given time, we'd find something we agree on. :msn-wink:

[jimbo600]

I am gobsmacked at the restrained and reasonable responses on this thread - I did not expect so much rational comment on KB - well done.:hug:

We're bored of digging into you lot. As for those immigration tossers, well don't get me started.

[Headbanger]

Fire him.

No way a person should be entrusted to monitor and punish us for the standard of our driving if they aren't capable of those same standards.

[CookMySock]

Stick him somewhere harmless than and not back on the roads.if it were just the accident, then yes, but he is exercising the "get off scott-free" kiwi bloke trick, and that breaks the second rule, and that's no-go area for cops.


BTW I think he's a cunt for the "you were speeding" remark and for trying to get away with it.and thats a really big problem, because he is still acting like he is right.

Sorry, but he should have thought about it first, and then an hour later he should have thought about it some more, and months later he should have had a serious and major rethink by now, but we are not seeing it, so he goes. :bye:

DB

[Slingshot]

Or as happens to most members of public eh???

That's a good point, I'm continually amazed at the pitiful punishments handed out to the cocksuckers on Motorway Patrol. It's incredible how you can seriously injure someone but because you're driving a car for some reason you get off with nothing more than a slap on the hand and a small fine.

[Renegade]

i dont think th dangerous charge will stick either, dont they have to prove "intent" for that charge?? some how i dont think he intended to do what happened.

[Dakara]

Several comments about how he shouldn't loose his job, but I have to disagree... While I do feel sorry for the guy, he needs to face facts that he fucked up, and it'll cost him.

Yea, average joe blogs would loose their license but still retain their job. But for a cop, loss of license = loss of job. If he had this type of conviction when he applied for the cops I doubt they'd take him, so why make an exception?

As a Pilot, I know of a few people (other pilots) who have lost their whole careers due to Traffic convictions, (A DIC or Dagerous conviction can strip a pilot of their Medical). It comes with the job, and he (should) knows it.

-Edit-

And as for the "You were speeding" comment, I actually missed it! That makes me sick.... I said above that I felt a bit sorry for him, but fuck that! Even if the biker was doing 250kmph, to make a comment like that while someone's obviously seriously hurt is just disgusting... from anyone... and this guys a Cop! I hope the Judge/Jury see it the same way... it's virtually a confession. He knows he fucked up, so went straight onto the defensive.

Besides, 80km.... 100km.... 120km... 200km... who cares, you come around a blind corner with a car blocking the road, your gonna hit it regardless.

[98tls]

Several comments about how he shouldn't loose his job, but I have to disagree... While I do feel sorry for the guy, he needs to face facts that he fucked up, and it'll cost him.

Yea, average joe blogs would loose their license but still retain their job. But for a cop, loss of license = loss of job. If he had this type of conviction when he applied for the cops I doubt they'd take him, so why make an exception?

As a Pilot, I know of a few people (other pilots) who have lost their whole careers due to Traffic convictions, (A DIC or Dagerous conviction can strip a pilot of their Medical). It comes with the job, and he (should) knows it. Plenty of cops have lost there licence and been confined to a desk for the duration of loss.He made a mistake as plenty of us do,simple really.

[Headbanger]

Plenty of cops have lost there licence and been confined to a desk for the duration of loss.He made a mistake as plenty of us do,simple really.

Doubt I'd keep my job if I pulled a stunt as stupid as that and people got seriously hurt, double that if I blamed the innocent party, triple that if it was my job to stop others pulling exactly the same sort of stunt.

Furthermore, If I had pulled such a shit stunt, I'd do what little I could to make amends (Not that this may be possible, You can't unhurt people) and I'd change career. The first step would be an apology.

[98tls]

Doubt I'd keep my job if I pulled a stunt as stupid as that and people got seriously hurt, double that if I blamed the innocent party, triple that if it was my job to stop others pulling exactly the same sort of stunt.

Furthermore, If I had pulled such a shit stunt, I'd do what little I could to make amends (Not that this may be possible, You can't unhurt people) and I'd change career. The first step would be an apology. Thats wonderful:2thumbsup the problem is this isnt about you:beer:I hope the guy gets what he deserves its that simple.Fuck me every time some dipshit in a car kills a motorcyclist theres outrage and rightly so but ive never seen a post on "kiwiwhinger" calling for him to lose his job.Whats the difference?:doh:silly me the guys a cop and as there not human i guess they cant make a mistake.

[mark247]

Thats wonderful:2thumbsup the problem is this isnt about you:beer:I hope the guy gets what he deserves its that simple.Fuck me every time some dipshit in a car kills a motorcyclist theres outrage and rightly so but ive never seen a post on "kiwiwhinger" calling for him to lose his job.Whats the difference?:doh:silly me the guys a cop and as there not human i guess they cant make a mistake.

too right. but if he loses his licence he cant do his job so hes gonna have to do something else, maybe a desk job

[Fatjim]

"You were speeding"

WTF? Was he sitting accross the road on the exit of a blind corner pointing his laser out the passenger window?

What a twat.


99% of coppers give the rest a bad name.

[Skyryder]

This particular cop is obviously a cunt, it seems that he tried to shift the blame onto the victim.


That's gota be the most accurate statement on this............to date.


Skyryder

[Headbanger]

Thats wonderful:2thumbsup the problem is this isnt about you:beer:I hope the guy gets what he deserves its that simple.Fuck me every time some dipshit in a car kills a motorcyclist theres outrage and rightly so but ive never seen a post on "kiwiwhinger" calling for him to lose his job.Whats the difference?:doh:silly me the guys a cop and as there not human i guess they cant make a mistake.

That was my point, I applied a similar scenario to a non-cop.

Get it now? he has proved he should not get to keep his position with his actions. Besides which, he is a cop, Its not a fact that can be discounted or a fact that should be ignored.

Wonderful indeed.

[scumdog]

This particular cop is obviously a cunt, it seems that he tried to shift the blame onto the victim.

Probably learnt that technique from all the 'buck-passers' he had stopped throughout the years....hehehheeh:banana::whistle:

[Swoop]

while he was doing a U-turn.

I believe it was a three-point-turn since the road was too narrow for a U-turn.

I see our upholders of moral and legal standards are also in trouble for beating the shit out of then repeatedly pepper spraying someone they picked up with some description of psychiatric disorder.

Presumably the video footage will make the jury's job a lot easier.
Yes. That affair is interesting. The four accused (chuckle - should be "video stars") cannot claim self defence on that one.

How can a cop who`s been done for dangerous driving, be allowed back on the street and then go book someone for the same offence...???
Well, he should have more insight as to the boundaries of the charge laid... "Ello, ello. That is a dangerous charge comin' your way. 'Bin done for the same mesself, so know I can do you for it!":rofl:

[98tls]

That was my point, I applied a similar scenario to a non-cop.

Get it now? he has proved he should not get to keep his position with his actions. Besides which, he is a cop, Its not a fact that can be discounted or a fact that should be ignored.

Wonderful indeed. :laugh:Uh huh.

[Katman]

"You were speeding"

WTF? Was he sitting accross the road on the exit of a blind corner pointing his laser out the passenger window?

What a twat.


99% of coppers give the rest a bad name.


So you buy the "about 95 kph" story, do you?

[Swoop]

So you buy the "about 95 kph" story, do you?
Well who can say what the truth is?

The cop? No, because he was stopped across the road.
The biker? Yes, because he was travelling through a windy road and could read the speedo.
Or were you there and can give an eye-witness guess at the speeds? Please enlighten the viewers.

[Katman]

Well who can say what the truth is?

The cop? No, because he was stopped across the road.
The biker? Yes, because he was travelling through a windy road and could read the speedo.
Or were you there and can give an eye-witness guess at the speeds? Please enlighten the viewers.

And it wouldn't surprise me if you actually believed what you've just written.

Because, of course, motorcyclists never lie to save their arses.

[Headbanger]

So you buy the "about 95 kph" story, do you?

The Anti-Biker has arrived.

I'm with you on this one, Those nasty bikers should have apologised to the cop, for hitting his car.

Lmfao.

[98tls]

Well who can say what the truth is?

The cop? No, because he was stopped across the road.
The biker? Yes, because he was travelling through a windy road and could read the speedo.
Or were you there and can give an eye-witness guess at the speeds? Please enlighten the viewers. :gob:Since when did the truth matter on here?

[Swoop]

Because, of course, motorcyclists never lie to save their arses.
I doubt lying about speed would have been on his mind while laying there with a broken pelvis...
Once again, who else could provide a truthful statement of the bikers speed?

The Anti-Biker has arrived.

I'm with you on this one, Those nasty bikers should have apologised to the cop, for hitting his car.
Also, apologising for bleeding all over his road would have been nice.

[Mikkel]

See - I knew, given time, we'd find something we agree on. :msn-wink:

I'll have to cry myself to sleep tonight then... :(

;)


And as for the "You were speeding" comment, I actually missed it! That makes me sick.... I said above that I felt a bit sorry for him, but fuck that! Even if the biker was doing 250kmph, to make a comment like that while someone's obviously seriously hurt is just disgusting... from anyone... and this guys a Cop! I hope the Judge/Jury see it the same way... it's virtually a confession. He knows he fucked up, so went straight onto the defensive.

I'm just wondering how many here have been involved in a "high-speed" accident? How many recall their state of mind immediately after the accident? How many can recall in detail exactly what happened leading up to and after the accident?

My point being, that while 'you were speeding' is a cunty thing to say to a fella who's just fallen off his motorbike - shock will do funny things to your brain. Besides let's remember that there was an exchange of words before this that have not been disclosed in detail - except I read the news article as if that exchange having been rather heated, and understandably so!

It's not that different from blaiming someone who smacked into you - although down the line you might be found to be at fault. And there are plenty of people on here who have expressed sentiments that they would do anything to get away from carrying the blame for an accident - and that admitting liability is the last thing you should do. Same difference.


Besides, 80km.... 100km.... 120km... 200km... who cares, you come around a blind corner with a car blocking the road, your gonna hit it regardless.

Well that's the thing really. If they had been doing a speed that allowed them to stop in their visible distance it wouldn't have happened. The difference between 95 km/h and 110 km/h could very well be a broken pelvis. And 200 km/h would probably have turned you into a human jigsaw puzzle.

[Toaster]

...If anything cops get hammered more than us normal types if found guilty.

Absolutely true and then there is also all the internal police disciplinary proceedures too... demotion being one possibility or loss of career or inability to futher his career.

[terbang]

Nice sentiment mate but you forget this is "kiwiwhinger" and any thread with "cop fucks up" related to it brings out all the interweb bad arses out there that get wood in cyberspace.

Kiwiwhinger? The greatest whingeing I see around here comes from the wannabe kiwis, whineing about the likes of their ADSL connection woes and the hoops they have to jump through for immigration.

More like ¨Kiwi can´t accept responsibility for my own actions¨ (or lets hide behind ACC). If I fuck up in my job, then I will lose my licence to do so (if I survive) which would then render me useless in my primary role. Out the door I would likely go. So the trick is, know your responsibilities, take them seriously and face up to them when you get it wrong.
In this case it seems that this ´professional driver´ and his buddies doesn´t want to do this.

[imdying]

Personally I believe he should be done for careless use of a motor vehicle causing injury. The situation would not have been dangerous provided the motorcyclists had been able to stop in the distance they could see ahead.
But he most definately chose a bad place to do his U-turn - as such he was careless... I don't think dangerous will stick - but careless should!I agree, bike was going faster than he was able to stop in, so not entirely the cops fault.


This particular cop is obviously a cunt, it seems that he tried to shift the blame onto the victim.No, he's just not stupid. Anyone that admits fault at the scene is stupid.


He shouldnt lose his lively hood for that though, he has probably been a copper for the last 30 years and never had anything like this happen before, he should lose his licence, but not the job,Exactly. Besides, if we strung up every officer who made a mistake (like every other human), then our understaffed force would be even more royally fucked.


"You were speeding"

WTF? Was he sitting accross the road on the exit of a blind corner pointing his laser out the passenger window?If by going faster than he could brake in is speeding, then yes, the biker was speeding.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Well that's the thing really. If they had been doing a speed that allowed them to stop in their visible distance it wouldn't have happened. The difference between 95 km/h and 110 km/h could very well be a broken pelvis. And 200 km/h would probably have turned you into a human jigsaw puzzle.

You really need to go look at the scene. I know that stretch of road very well having been a white water kayaker for years. that river is paddler central.

If this accident happened where i think it did, the speed that would "allow them to stop in the visible distance" would be about 30kph. Seriously.

Simply put, the driver (who happened to be a cop) made a stunningly bad call to do a three point turn on a road with limited visibility. (the question of "why" remains to be seen, but isnt really that relevant). Because he is a "professional driver" then his standard of accountability is, and should be, higher than that of an "average" driver: its the same principle as the standard applied to professional people (lawyers, accountants) dealing with their professional responsibilities: the standard is higher than for the ordinary punter.

I feel sorry for all involved, but taking the guy's occupation out of the equation, the legal position seems pretty clear.

[Katman]

If this accident happened where i think it did, the speed that would "allow them to stop in the visible distance" would be about 30kph. Seriously.



If that is the case, do you think that "about 95kph" is sensible? What if it had been a fallen tree or an animal blocking the road?

[yod]

You really need to go look at the scene. I know that stretch of road very well having been a white water kayaker for years. that river is paddler central.

If this accident happened where i think it did, the speed that would "allow them to stop in the visible distance" would be about 30kph. Seriously.

Simply put, the driver (who happened to be a cop) made a stunningly bad call to do a three point turn on a road with limited visibility. (the question of "why" remains to be seen, but isnt really that relevant). Because he is a "professional driver" then his standard of accountability is, and should be, higher than that of an "average" driver: its the same principle as the standard applied to professional people (lawyers, accountants) dealing with their professional responsibilities: the standard is higher than for the ordinary punter.

I feel sorry for all involved, but taking the guy's occupation out of the equation, the legal position seems pretty clear.


bloody hell mate, you might wanna keep sensible comments like that for another forum - this is KB after all

[mark247]

this thread is definately going to have to go into PD, these comments are just far too mature :bleh:

[HenryDorsetCase]

If that is the case, do you think that "about 95kph" is sensible? What if it had been a fallen tree or an animal blocking the road?

Yes, eminently. Why the powers that be have deemed that 100kph is perfectly safe but 101kph is not.

[Katman]

Yes, eminently. Why the powers that be have deemed that 100kph is perfectly safe but 101kph is not.

Sorry, I don't quite get what you're trying to say.

I'm asking if, in order to stop in the length of road visible to you, you need to be doing 30kph, is doing "about 95kph" sensible?

And I don't think the powers that be have ever made the blanket statement that 100kph is safe but 101kph isn't.

[HenryDorsetCase]

I need more time than I have at present to answer that. I can see where your argument is going though.

[imdying]

If this accident happened where i think it did, the speed that would "allow them to stop in the visible distance" would be about 30kph. Seriously.If that's all that particular piece of road is safe at, then I really have to doubt the sanity of anyone travelling at 'about 95' through it. I mean really, what would've happened if it'd been a rock fall? A broken down car? A full size fuck off cow? A head on between a campervan and a bus blocking the entire road?

The cop was a retard, but he wasn't the only one, not by a long shot. Fortunately that'll probably be what will save his bacon.

[unrealone]

Sorry, I don't quite get what you're trying to say.

I'm asking if, in order to stop in the length of road visible to you, you need to be doing 30kph, is doing "about 95kph" sensible?

And I don't think the powers that be have ever made the blanket statement that 100kph is safe but 101kph isn't.

Regardless, the onus is on the Police Officer... He pulled the dangerous (or careless) move not the Biker. Suggesting ways these bikers could've avoided this accident is meaningless.

Comments about "What if it were a tree, or a cat or a dog" or whatever are silly - if it were a tree, well that's just plain bad luck really, who can be blamed? No one, not the tree, it couldn't make a conscious decision to not fall on the road - unlike the cop that COULD make the decision to not make a dodgy U Turn.

The point being as that these two would most likely still be riding today had it not been for the stupid action of this police officer.

I think everyone else has said what I was going to say in regards to punishment of this cop. It's pretty damn black and white to me.

[imdying]

Regardless, the onus is on the Police Officer... He pulled the dangerous (or careless) move not the Biker.Travelling at 95 in a place that only 30 could be safe isn't dangerous? Hell, I'd be charging the biker with dangerous, and dropping the cops charge to careless.

[unrealone]

Travelling at 95 in a place that only 30 could be safe isn't dangerous? Hell, I'd be charging the biker with dangerous, and dropping the cops charge to careless.

Was there a sign or something saying that the SPEED LIMIT is 30 for this corner? It may seem lame to say 'well no one told me' but to be honest people rely on these 'speed limits' and 'recommended speeds' to gauge how fast they take a corner.

Personally, corners that I don't know I do definitely slow down, but I doubt that I would slow to 30 for a medium right hander (in a 100K zone) unless conditions were very wet.

The bikers did not break the law, the police officer has - end of story right there really.

[Deano]

Ya see. Losing their jobs because of that is wrong. They're just folk like everyone else why should they get extra done. Pay the same penalty as everyone else no more no less.

I lost a job as a delivery driver once because I lost my licence. I could have done office duty for the suspended time but the company was looking for an excuse to save some money on salaries. Unlike the cops who are in short supply and more are sorely needed.

[_Shrek_]

You really need to go look at the scene. I know that stretch of road very well having been a white water kayaker for years. that river is paddler central.

If this accident happened where i think it did, the speed that would "allow them to stop in the visible distance" would be about 30kph. Seriously.

Simply put, the driver (who happened to be a cop) made a stunningly bad call to do a three point turn on a road with limited visibility. (the question of "why" remains to be seen, but isnt really that relevant). Because he is a "professional driver" then his standard of accountability is, and should be, higher than that of an "average" driver: its the same principle as the standard applied to professional people (lawyers, accountants) dealing with their professional responsibilities: the standard is higher than for the ordinary punter.

I feel sorry for all involved, but taking the guy's occupation out of the equation, the legal position seems pretty clear.


HDC sorry for being a bit slow on the up take :stupid: "BUT YOUR POINT IS"

cop does u turn in front of 2 bikers on a blind piece of road end result a big mess
they are "taught safty first" for them & public he is a professional end of subject

bikers traveling at 95-100 kms on a road most of us like to do when we go down the Bullar when in fact we should be doing 60-70 kms again end result big mess goes with the territory
but they are still victims of an unnecessary accident

[Katman]

Personally, corners that I don't know I do definitely slow down, but I doubt that I would slow to 30 for a medium right hander (in a 100K zone) unless conditions were very wet.



Let me spell it out to you.

Taking a corner at 95kph that you would need to be doing 30kph in order to stop within the distance visible to you is not 'safe'. You might do it 99 times out of 100 and get away with it thereby making you believe that it is 'safe'. However, that 1 time out of 100 when things turn to shit you have to accept a large part of the responsibility for that shit.

[clint640]

I agree, bike was going faster than he was able to stop in, so not entirely the cops fault.
.

From the pics of the accident scene that were circulating when this happened, it looked like a distinct possibility that the HP car had pulled out in front of the bikes from his lane as he did the 3-point turn manuever. So the poor buggers on the bikes may have come around the corner, seen a clear lane in front of them and then been confronted by a car swinging across out of the less visible inside lane.
Joining the cop in saying that they were definitely going faster than they should have been is probably jumping to conclusions a bit.

Clint

[unrealone]

Let me spell it out to you.

Taking a corner at 95kph that you would need to be doing 30kph in order to stop within the distance visible to you is not 'safe'. You might do it 99 times out of 100 and get away with it thereby making you believe that it is 'safe'. However, that 1 time out of 100 when things turn to shit you have to accept a large part of the responsibility for that shit.

Let me spell it out to you.

Taking a corner at 95kph where there is no indication that it should be taken at a lower speed is not your fault.

I agree that maybe they could have been going slower, but really, would it have made a difference when someone unexpectantly swings out from the other side of the road? No, it wouldn't. Are you going to ride or drive around at 10KPH because someone possibly might swing out from the other side of the road? I doubt it.

Is that clear enough for an anti-biker such as yourself?

[imdying]

Was there a sign or something saying that the SPEED LIMIT is 30 for this corner?The SPEED LIMIT (Why the caps? I can read fine...) is a maximum, not a target to aim for. The Road Code is pretty clear on you being required to always adjust your speed to the conditions, and you being required to be able to stop in the road you can see ahead.

Personally, corners that I don't know I do definitely slow down, but I doubt that I would slow to 30 for a medium right hander (in a 100K zone) unless conditions were very wet.Shrug... you'll potentially die because of it... no loss to me I guess.

The bikers did not break the law, the police officer has - end of story right there really.I'm not sure whether being able to stop in the road you can see is law, or just what the Road Code recommends... someone else will know though... officers? :Police:

[Katman]

From the pics of the accident scene that were circulating when this happened, it looked like a distinct possibility that the HP car had pulled out in front of the bikes from his lane as he did the 3-point turn manuever. So the poor buggers on the bikes may have come around the corner, seen a clear lane in front of them and then been confronted by a car swinging across out of the less visible inside lane.
Joining the cop in saying that they were definitely going faster than they should have been is probably jumping to conclusions a bit.

Clint

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the cop car was hit near the left hand front and rear wheel arches.

[imdying]

So the poor buggers on the bikes may have come around the corner, seen a clear lane in front of them and then been confronted by a car swinging across out of the less visible inside lane. Yep, entirely possible, and if the courts find that, I'm sure they'll burn/fine/whatever him as appropriate :yes:

Let me spell it out to you.

Taking a corner at 95kph where there is no indication that it should be taken at a lower speed is not your fault.

Is that clear enough for an anti-biker such as yourself?If the corner being blind isn't an indication to you to slow down, then you're an accident waiting to happen.

Being pro survival isn't anti-biker.

[Ixion]

Whilst being able to stop in the clear length of road ahead is both a legal requirement, and wise practcie (though lamentably often ignored - NZ worst motoring dereliction), there will always be situations where it is not possible.

For instance you might be travelling along in your labne, nothing whatsoever in front of you. When without warning, an oncoming vehicle swerves out of HIS lane right in front of you at the last second. Stopping in such a case would be physically impossible.

The requirement to be able to stop presumes that other traffic sticks to its own lane. If you are on the wrong side of the road (or sideways!) you are in the wrong.

[Katman]

Is that clear enough for an anti-biker such as yourself?

What part of "being able to stop within the distance visible to you" don't you understand?

[imdying]

Whilst being able to stop in the clear length of road ahead is both a legal requirement, and wise practcie (though lamentably often ignored - NZ worst motoring dereliction), there will always be situations where it is not possible.Definitely, they have a justice system for sorting out sticky messes like this. Without the evidence, I'm not actually arguing that someone in particular was at fault, just that I can definitely see how it's potentially not all the cops fault, retarded move or not.

[Katman]

For instance you might be travelling along in your labne, nothing whatsoever in front of you. When without warning, an oncoming vehicle swerves out of HIS lane right in front of you at the last second. Stopping in such a case would be physically impossible.



And I'm sure you realise that is not the case in this particular incident.

[KiwiRat]

Can you honestly say that you take every blind corner at a speed which enables you to stop in the distance visible?

Every corner, every time?

Let's go on a ride together. You can lead.

Personally, I think you are full of it.

Didn't you use to be a hall monitor in school?

[Chrislost]

And it wouldn't surprise me if you actually believed what you've just written.

Because, of course, motorcyclists never lie to save their arses.

and cops never lie to cover theirs...
you DO know that some bikers actually follow every law to the letter 99.89% of the time dont you?

[Katman]

Can you honestly say that you take every blind corner at a speed which enables you to stop in the distance visible?



I can honestly say that every blind corner I take I am aware of the possibility that I may need to stop within the distance visible to me and therefore attempt to ride accordingly.

And if I should come to grief through my lack of riding to the conditions placed before me, you won't hear me bitching and moaning that it was totally someone else's fault.

[imdying]

Can you honestly say that you take every blind corner at a speed which enables you to stop in the distance visible?

Every corner, every time?I know I don't... and I know that given the roads, the other people on them, and all the other hazards combined, I know it'll bite me in the arse one day, potentially taking my life.

Just because the actions I take are commonplace, that doesn't make them any less retarded.

Having said that, I do make a conscious effort to let the 'fast boys' go do there thing, dragging pegs around blind corners, whatever. Every group ride I go on, I see the same retarded stuff... Car drivers aren't killing bikers anything like bikers are killing themselves.

[Deano]

The requirement to be able to stop presumes that other traffic sticks to its own lane. If you are on the wrong side of the road (or sideways!) you are in the wrong.

Unless the vehicle cannot physically fit in their own lane ?

(Trucks on the Rimutaka Hill Road.)

[dipshit]

Let me spell it out to you.
Taking a corner at 95kph where there is no indication that it should be taken at a lower speed is not your fault.

Try reading your road code again...

"You can drive at any speed under or equal to the limit, provided:

• you can stop in the length of clear lane you can see in front of you on a road with a centre line or lanes."




I agree that maybe they could have been going slower, but really, would it have made a difference when someone unexpectantly swings out from the other side of the road? No, it wouldn't. Are you going to ride or drive around at 10KPH because someone possibly might swing out from the other side of the road? I doubt it.

If you commit yourself to a corner that doesn't have much visibility ahead, how quickly will you be able to stop when cranked all the way over onto the ragged edge? Even modern sports bikes will have a lot of trouble. An owner of a R6 was even commenting how the bike feels like it wants to stand up in a corner when only moderately braking. This is one area where cars, especially ones with ABS, have it all over bikes.

Anything could be around that next corner. A fallen branch, a cow, even a rock as some other R6 rider experienced recently.

If you leave no margin for era or the unexpected, then you are taking a role of the dice.

[avgas]

too many wrongs for there to be a right.
Yes the cop should get the book chucked at him. He could not handle his vehicle - those holdens not only have fantastic turning circles, but can rear wheel steel very well. Doing a 3 point turn is impractical on that road.
Yes the boys on bikes were doing wrong - but they are paying for that mistake right now. The cop is not yet.

[Mikkel]

Simply put, the driver (who happened to be a cop) made a stunningly bad call to do a three point turn on a road with limited visibility. (the question of "why" remains to be seen, but isnt really that relevant). Because he is a "professional driver" then his standard of accountability is, and should be, higher than that of an "average" driver: its the same principle as the standard applied to professional people (lawyers, accountants) dealing with their professional responsibilities: the standard is higher than for the ordinary punter.

And you're in this saying that the standard of the 'ordinary punter' is adequate?


Yes, eminently. Why the powers that be have deemed that 100kph is perfectly safe but 101kph is not.


Was there a sign or something saying that the SPEED LIMIT is 30 for this corner? It may seem lame to say 'well no one told me' but to be honest people rely on these 'speed limits' and 'recommended speeds' to gauge how fast they take a corner.

FFS guys what about engaging your brain while riding - look at the road and ride accordingly. Putting your life in hands of some 'professional' who has decided to put a sign that may be more or less appropriate for your riding is a pretty short-sighted approach to survival.

A few words to consider as well:
Black Ice
Snow
Grit
Wet leaves
...

If you don't leave room for the unexpected you're likely to end up in a world of hurt very very quickly.


Comments about "What if it were a tree, or a cat or a dog" or whatever are silly - if it were a tree, well that's just plain bad luck really, who can be blamed? No one, not the tree, it couldn't make a conscious decision to not fall on the road - unlike the cop that COULD make the decision to not make a dodgy U Turn.

You can not control anything except your own riding. Throwing caution to the wind and putting your money on Lady Luck is having inadequate regard for the safety of yourself and others - as well as the property of you and others.


I think everyone else has said what I was going to say in regards to punishment of this cop. It's pretty damn black and white to me.

Of course it's black and white to you - it's not exactly difficult to make everything simple by just forming an opinion and sticking to it. Now english is my second language - but I believe the word for this is bigotry.


Can you honestly say that you take every blind corner at a speed which enables you to stop in the distance visible?

Every corner, every time?

Can't speak for anyone else. Sure enough I am not that sensible all of the time - but I wouldn't go blaming anyone but myself if it landed me in the shit.

Guys, no one here are saying that what the cop did was right. All that is being said is that the blame is not his alone.

[_Shrek_]

I can honestly say that every blind corner I take I am aware of the possibility that I may need to stop within the distance visible to me and therefore attempt to ride accordingly.

And if I should come to grief through my lack of riding to the conditions placed before me, you won't hear me bitching and moaning that it was totally someone else's fault.

you're wrong Katman you can be mr super safe & still have some :crazy: :wacko: pull out at a stop, give way sign or x over into your lane etc... & have no say in the matter :argh:

[clint640]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the cop car was hit near the left hand front and rear wheel arches.

Having impacted my RZ350 into the left side of a Holden Gemini I can assure you that it is indeed possible for someone to pull out in front of an unsuspecting motorcyclist & be hit on the left side.

Here's one of the pics: http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=1334996&postcount=393

Other pic: http://www.stuff.co.nz/4309873a6510.html

Clint

[Headbanger]

This argument is now even sillier then last night.

Yep, You have to travel at speed that enables you to stop in the viewable distance.

yep, a dumb fucker doing a u-turn on a blind corner is performing an extremely stupid and dangerous maneuver.

The bikers are injured, Lay charges against the driver, who in this case is a cop.

What he done is as stupid as driving through a red light at a busy intersection, There is NO defence for it.

[unrealone]

For instance you might be travelling along in your labne, nothing whatsoever in front of you. When without warning, an oncoming vehicle swerves out of HIS lane right in front of you at the last second. Stopping in such a case would be physically impossible.

Thank you Ixion, this is exactly what I am trying to say.

[dipshit]

Comments about "What if it were a tree, or a cat or a dog" or whatever are silly - if it were a tree, well that's just plain bad luck really, who can be blamed? No one, not the tree, it couldn't make a conscious decision to not fall on the road.

Why are you forgetting the motorcyclist?? He is the one that road his bike into the stationary object.

[KiwiRat]

I can honestly say that every blind corner I take I am aware of the possibility that I may need to stop within the distance visible to me and therefore attempt to ride accordingly.

And if I should come to grief through my lack of riding to the conditions placed before me, you won't hear me bitching and moaning that it was totally someone else's fault.

Point well taken.

[unrealone]

FFS guys what about engaging your brain while riding - look at the road and ride accordingly. Putting your life in hands of some 'professional' who has decided to put a sign that may be more or less appropriate for your riding is a pretty short-sighted approach to survival.

Note I also said people use them to GAUGE appropriate speed. 'Rely' may not have been the best choice of words. Apologies, I sure don't Rely on them myself however it does help in choosing an approach to the corner.

[Headbanger]

Posted speed on corners helps me, Add an extra 25km/h to her and its just about spot on.

[imdying]

What he done is as stupid as driving through a red light at a busy intersection, There is NO defence for it.If you want to be that cut and dry about it... what the bikers did is as stupid as driving through a red light at a busy intersection with their eyes closed... no defence for that either.

[Swoop]

If this accident happened where i think it did, the speed that would "allow them to stop in the visible distance" would be about 30kph. Seriously.

Simply put, the driver (who happened to be a cop) made a stunningly bad call to do a three point turn on a road with limited visibility.
Nicely put.

Wondering about this last night and I came to the conclusion that possibly the best way to have prevented this accident would have been for the bikes to have radar detectors.

[unrealone]

What part of "being able to stop within the distance visible to you" don't you understand?

I kindly refer you to Ixions post.

[imdying]

I kindly refer you to Ixions post.Which would be wonderful, if that's what happened, but it didn't...

[Mikkel]

Note I also said people use them to GAUGE appropriate speed. 'Rely' may not have been the best choice of words. Apologies, I sure don't Rely on them myself however it does help in choosing an approach to the corner.

No apologies needed ;)

I was just pointing out that this:


Add an extra 25km/h to her and its just about spot on.

Is a pretty damn quick way to get into trouble...

The recommended cornering speeds are most often very conservative and you can double the indicated speed, add 50, 40, 30, whatever km/h.

The thing is though, the signs are not consistent. E.g. they are much more conservative on the Campervan trails than they are on less travelled backroads.

However, if you use the signs just to get an idea about the lay of the land ahead of you and then ride to the vanishing point you have much better probability of avoiding undue harm.

[unrealone]

Giving evidence in Nelson District Court yesterday motorcyclist Brent Russell said that the vehicle appeared suddenly across the road, leaving him only a few seconds to work out how to survive.

That would seem to me like that is what happened...

[Mikkel]

Giving evidence in Nelson District Court yesterday motorcyclist Brent Russell said that the vehicle appeared suddenly across the road, leaving him only a few seconds to work out how to survive.

Appeared at the vanishing point as he was coming around the corner - or appeared coming into his field of vision from the side?

[unrealone]

Appeared at the vanishing point as he was coming around the corner - or appeared coming into his field of vision from the side?

Hard to tell, I guess. Only they will know.

[unrealone]

Try reading your road code again...

"You can drive at any speed under or equal to the limit, provided:

• you can stop in the length of clear lane you can see in front of you on a road with a centre line or lanes."

I know this and I was not disputing that. I am talking about the signs being helpful in helping you decide on an appropriate speed for the corner.

[clint640]

Hard to tell, I guess. Only they will know.

Exactly. That's why it's a bit harsh having a bunch of internet experts convicting the riders of going too fast when there's a good chance that they were quite able to stop in the length of lane visible to them, but that lane suddenly got filled by a cop car.

Clint

[Mikkel]

Exactly. That's why it's a bit harsh having a bunch of internet experts convicting the riders of going too fast when there's a good chance that they were quite able to stop in the length of lane visible to them, but that lane suddenly got filled by a cop car.

Clint

And vice versa for that matter...

[unrealone]

And there in lies the end our debate *wipes forehead*.

Wish the bikers a full recovery and justice is served to the Police officer.

[dipshit]

I know this and I was not disputing that. I am talking about the signs being helpful in helping you decide on an appropriate speed for the corner.

The signs are there to give you an indication on how tight the corner radius is.

Of course they have nothing to do with how much visibility *you* may have (you could be in a low sports car or sitting high up in a truck)... and how quickly *you* can stop *your* vehicle.

This is where engaging the grey matter and taking some responsibility for your own safety comes in. If you are incapable of this then it would probably pay to stick to public transport.

[Headbanger]

If you want to be that cut and dry about it... what the bikers did is as stupid as driving through a red light at a busy intersection with their eyes closed... no defence for that either.

Nope, if you want to put the bikers into my intersection scenario, They would have been going through the green light. Perhaps a tad too fast but without any evidence of this its a moot point, The car should not have been where in was, In their direct line of travel.

[Dakara]

Ok, huge debate raving about "Riding at a speed allowing you to stop in the visibe distance ahead". Yes it's in the road code, so point taken.

Now, what does the road-code say about U-turns?



Making a U-turn

You are normally allowed to make U-turns, as long as the road is clear in both directions and it is safe to do so. Make sure you have enough room to complete the turn and don't create a hazard for oncoming vehicles.

You aren't allowed to make U-turns if a 'No U-turn' sign is displayed.


So, if the corner was a "30kmph" corner, then I strongly doubt a U-turn would be obeying the above.

[Katman]

So, if the corner was a "30kmph" corner, then I strongly doubt a U-turn would be obeying the above.

And once again........

No-one is disputing the fact that what the cop did was stupid.

[MD]

Why are you forgetting the motorcyclist?? He is the one that road his bike into the stationary object.

Who's the dipshit. As reported on TV3 and newspapers - the car was in motion half way through it's turning manoeuvre when it came into the Riders sight and was still moving as they hit it a few seconds later. Must be bloody space age 2108 technology brakes on your bike then?



Exactly. That's why it's a bit harsh having a bunch of internet experts convicting the riders of going too fast when there's a good chance that they were quite able to stop in the length of lane visible to them, but that lane suddenly got filled by a cop car.

Clint

Thank you.
Katman and imdying really need to extract themselves from this discussion before they make bigger fools of themselves. The facts will come out at the trial. Don't forget to come back and apologise.

Lets go over the FACTs that are already known to the public.

The Riders did have clear visiblity of THEIR lane around the bend- so why the hell would they do 30 in a 100 zone in perfect summer conditions. They can't see through solid rock to where an opposing car was parked off the edge of the seal..about to pull out into their sight.

Even if the Bikes had not come along, the u-turn resulted in the car's under carriage lifting the front wheels off the ground and the car was stuck, blocking the entire westward lane side of the road. Look at the pictures!

The bikes impact/debris clearly shows that where the car ended up was not where it was at the instant that the bikes hit it. The bikes and their debris and the car damage don't line up- why? Because the car was still moving through it's turn from left to right as they hit it. Look at the pictures!

I really want to buy the brakes that katman, dipshit and imdying have on there bikes. They must be @#$% amazing. Please contact BMW so they can mass produce them like when they introduced ABS to the world.

[dipshit]

Who's the dipshit. As reported on TV3 and newspapers - the car was in motion half way through it's turning manoeuvre when it came into the Riders sight and was still moving as they hit it a few seconds later.

Some of you people need to get a grasp of quotes and reading. That comment wasn't talking about the original incident. I was replying on another comment... this is why I had it in the quote.

Originally Posted by unrealone
Comments about "What if it were a tree, or a cat or a dog" or whatever are silly - if it were a tree, well that's just plain bad luck really, who can be blamed? No one, not the tree, it couldn't make a conscious decision to not fall on the road."

"Why are you forgetting the motorcyclist?? He is the one that road his bike into the stationary object."

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=1602226&postcount=91

Do you see how a conversation takes place?




Must be bloody space age 2108 technology brakes on your bike then?

What are you talking about?

[terbang]

Try reading your road code again...

"You can drive at any speed under or equal to the limit, provided:

• you can stop in the length of clear lane you can see in front of you on a road with a centre line or lanes."


If you commit yourself to a corner that doesn't have much visibility ahead, how quickly will you be able to stop when cranked all the way over onto the ragged edge? Even modern sports bikes will have a lot of trouble. An owner of a R6 was even commenting how the bike feels like it wants to stand up in a corner when only moderately braking. This is one area where cars, especially ones with ABS, have it all over bikes.

Anything could be around that next corner. A fallen branch, a cow, even a rock as some other R6 rider experienced recently.

If you leave no margin for era or the unexpected, then you are taking a role of the dice.

Yeah yeah we all know that, but its also just common sense, common dog fuck (call it what you like) or just using yer grey matter, that parking or doing a Uey across the road in the middle of a corner is pretty stupid, especially for a road professional. Right? But we all know what the u turn motivation was here eh, get that speeding biker and keep the roads safe for everyone else. Right?

[Katman]

Katman and imdying really need to extract themselves from this discussion before they make bigger fools of themselves. The facts will come out at the trial. Don't forget to come back and apologise.


If, after the legal proceedings are over, the riders receive from the judge total absolution of any responsibility for the course of events (note I didn't use the word 'blame') I will be the first to stick my hand up and say I got it wrong. However, if it transpires that there was, in fact, something they reasonably could have done to avoid or lessen the severity of the incident then I hope you will also acknowledge that what I, and others, have been saying has been perfectly reasonable.

[imdying]

Lets go over the FACTs that are already known to the public.Sure, if you consider what's in the media to be facts. Mind you, if that were the case, they wouldn't need a trial.

why the hell would they do 30 in a 100 zone in perfectWhy indeed? Probably because:
They can't see through solid rock


Even if the Bikes had not come along, the u-turn resulted in the car's under carriage lifting the front wheels off the ground and the car was stuck, blocking the entire westward lane side of the road. Look at the pictures!That maneuver itself, even if executed cleanly, could've left shit strewn across the road, which in itself could've fucked the bikes coming too fast around a blind corner. Admittedly crap on the road is much less likely to cause a bin than a fookin huge police car :lol:


I really want to buy the brakes that katman, dipshit and imdying have on there bikes. They must be @#$% amazing. Please contact BMW so they can mass produce them like when they introduced ABS to the world.Don't know what you're on about... the idea that we're introducing is not that super brakes will save you, just the relying on your own abilities to pull up in an inadequate amount of room is foolhardy, and that you'd be better off treating blind bends with caution to reduce the likelihood of needing to in the first place.

If you think we're saying that the cop is not to blame then you're wrong, we're just putting out the suggestion that perhaps the bikers put themselves in harms way unnecessarily, and that by riding appropriately round a blind corner, they might've saved themselves a lot of grief. Being in the right is all well and good, but doesn't comfort your widow much I imagine.

Yes that suggestion isn't nearly as relevant in this case should it be shown the the policeman actually pulled out in front of them whilst they were in sight of each other, but I will never apologise for suggesting that, as a concept, it might well serve to keep more of us bikers alive.

[dipshit]

Yeah yeah we all know that, but its also just common sense, common dog fuck (call it what you like) or just using yer grey matter, that parking or doing a Uey across the road in the middle of a corner is pretty stupid, especially for a road professional. Right? But we all know what the u turn motivation was here eh, get that speeding biker and keep the roads safe for everyone else. Right?

Newsflash. As long as there are other people around and they have petrol to put in their cars... you will continue to run across other road users doing stupid things. It is as inevitable as the sun rising tomorrow.

Learn to deal with it and minimise your risk.

[MD]

And I'm sure you realise that is not the case in this particular incident.

Actually it pretty much described this incident i.e. a car approaching in the opposite direction to you decides to occupy you side of the road without warning.


Try reading your road code again...

"You can drive at any speed under or equal to the limit, provided:

• you can stop in the length of clear lane you can see in front of you on a road with a centre line or lanes."
...

.

Sorry if I misquoted you before.
Lets try this quote of yours. Much better.
The reason your comments annoy me is that they could have easily stopped in the clear lane of road that they could see ahead of them. That was until a car pulled out from an obscured position on the opposite side of the road to them.
Have a look at the scene photo I put on the original thread here back in December. They gave an understanding of what each party could see.
edit- here:
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=62178&page=27

I shouldn't say anymore until after the trial. I'm keeping to what has been made public so far.

Here's food for thought though. Why did a passing Doctor at the scene go public in the Chch Press, making a statement that she would take a private prosecution against the Officer for his behaviour at the accident scene, if the Police didn't?

[Deano]

You tell em MD. :yes:

[Badjelly]

And there in lies the end our debate *wipes forehead*.

If only :weep:

[Katman]

Look at the pictures!



Pictures can easily be deceiving.

However, I'd like to see a photo taken from the position the cops seat would have been at prior to the turn looking towards where the bikes were coming from and also a photo from where the cops car would have become visible looking in the direction the bikes were heading. Can anyone post them up?

[Fatjim]

Katman, The olde saying "it is better to keep quiet and be thought a fool, than open ones mouth and leave no doubt" really should be springing to your mind about now even though its too late.

MD has some personal insights into the said incident, it appears you are speaking from a position of ignorance.

[HenryDorsetCase]

The reason your comments annoy me is that they could have easily stopped in the clear lane of road that they could see ahead of them. That was until a car pulled out from an obscured position on the opposite side of the road to them.
Have a look at the scene photo I put on the original thread here back in December. They gave an understanding of what each party could see.
edit- here:
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=62178&page=27

Here's food for thought though. Why did a passing Doctor at the scene go public in the Chch Press, making a statement that she would take a private prosecution against the Officer for his behaviour at the accident scene, if the Police didn't?

That was my understanding, too. It must have come from the original thread.

The thing is, there are no winners here.

[Nade]

Having travelled that peice of road many times, and has been said by the locals, there are only 2 places to turn round safley in the gorge.....at the pub at each end. There is no room to turn a car 180 deg without doing a 3 point turn and no place ,to do it without a clear SAFE view of traffic from either direction. If it had been one of the coal trucks or a logging truck that came round the corner there would be nothing left of the cop car and I would say he would have been severly injured.
Speaking from 3rd hand info....my superviser is good friends with 2 of the cops workmates and they both have said and I quote "he's fucked".

Just my 2 cents.

[MD]

Pictures can easily be deceiving.

However, I'd like to see a photo taken from the position the cops seat would have been at prior to the turn looking towards where the bikes were coming from and also a photo from where the cops car would have become visible looking in the direction the bikes were heading. Can anyone post them up?

This is the view from the Riders direction. However, this was taken standing on the grass verge, not from the centre of the westward lane, so the Riders had less visibility.
The shadows against the hill (right side of pic) was where the cop was. He pulled well over onto the grass first, hard against the hillside (Red circle- car tyre marks showed that) to try and give himself more room to complete the u-turn.
I placed myself where the car driver would have been positioned before commencing right hand turn across the road. I can tell you, hard against the hill, you can't see far around the approaching bend. Similarly, you can't see far behind, so getting rear ended was also a possibility.
News photos with the car in the picture give a better perspective on how narrow the road was.
Notice there are no skid marks from the bikes.
edit- the road appears to straighten as it reaches the cameraman. It doesn't. It continues to curve at the same radius.

[Katman]

Have a look at the scene photo I put on the original thread here back in December. They gave an understanding of what each party could see.
edit- here:
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=62178&page=27



That photo shows absolutely nothing. It doesn't show what the cop might have seen and it doesn't show what the riders might have seen. Why you keep refering to it has me stumped.

[Badjelly]

That photo shows absolutely nothing. It doesn't show what the cop might have seen and it doesn't show what the riders might have seen. Why you keep refering to it has me stumped.

Jeez, mate, he's sharing the information he has in an effort to help you and others understand the situation. If the picture doesn't show what you want, go and take one yourself.

[munterk6]

Having travelled that peice of road many times, and has been said by the locals, there are only 2 places to turn round safley in the gorge.....at the pub at each end. There is no room to turn a car 180 deg without doing a 3 point turn and no place ,to do it without a clear SAFE view of traffic from either direction. If it had been one of the coal trucks or a logging truck that came round the corner there would be nothing left of the cop car and I would say he would have been severly injured.
Speaking from 3rd hand info....my superviser is good friends with 2 of the cops workmates and they both have said and I quote "he's fucked".

Just my 2 cents.

Too bad it was 2 bikes coming round that corner and not a logging truck, that glorified parking warden would have learnt a valuable lesson(albeit for a few brief seconds) NEVER NEVER NEVER do a 3 point turn on a narrow winding 100kmh road with VERY limited visibility....would have made all traffic cops(revenue collectors) sit up and take notice of the consequences....and he risked it all for what????? a few lousy dollars in fines..:argh:

[Headbanger]

That photo shows absolutely nothing. It doesn't show what the cop might have seen and it doesn't show what the riders might have seen. Why you keep refering to it has me stumped.

Thats because your pretty damn thick.

[Katman]

Jeez, mate, he's sharing the information he has in an effort to help you and others understand the situation. If the picture doesn't show what you want, go and take one yourself.

My post was in fact refering to the photo looking eastward. The westward looking photo was posted while I was typing my post. (It still doesn't show anything particularly relevant though).

[Stormer]

Too bad it was 2 bikes coming round that corner and not a logging truck, that glorified parking warden would have learnt a valuable lesson(albeit for a few brief seconds) NEVER NEVER NEVER do a 3 point turn on a narrow winding 100kmh road with VERY limited visibility....would have made all traffic cops(revenue collectors) sit up and take notice of the consequences....and he risked it all for what????? a few lousy dollars in fines..:argh:

My friend, that is so correct.
Out for the blood of another booking, and all thoughts of rationality and training go out the window...

[terbang]

Too bad it was 2 bikes coming round that corner and not a logging truck, that glorified parking warden would have learnt a valuable lesson(albeit for a few brief seconds) NEVER NEVER NEVER do a 3 point turn on a narrow winding 100kmh road with VERY limited visibility....would have made all traffic cops(revenue collectors) sit up and take notice of the consequences....and he risked it all for what????? a few lousy dollars in fines..:argh:

Hah, you are onto it. I can just see him standing at the pearly gates ¨Reckon I´m OK mate, it was the truckies fault, because he was going too fast and couldn't stop in the available distance, he´ll be the one geting the book thrown at him¨.

[Katman]

Hah, you are onto it. I can just see him standing at the pearly gates ¨Reckon I´m OK mate, it was the truckies fault, because he was going too fast and couldn't stop in the available distance, he´ll be the one geting the book thrown at him¨.


Can you not see how that works precisely from a motorcyclists point of view as well? Like has been said many times before - it's not much use saying "but it wasn't my fault" as they read you your last rites.

[imdying]

That photo shows absolutely nothing.Well that's not entirely true. I do feel that the maximum safe speed of 30km/hr as estimated by another member earlier in the thread is quite a bit under what would be safe, as that's not particularly blind. Having said that, I am assuming that the preceding curve is of a similar radius to the bit we can see.

Love your point munter... the cop is very lucky that it wasn't a logging truck that wouldn't have been able to stop in time.

[MD]

That photo shows absolutely nothing. It doesn't show what the cop might have seen and it doesn't show what the riders might have seen. Why you keep refering to it has me stumped.
You are a stubborn prick aren't you.
You asked for, quote "and also a photo from where the cops car would have become visible looking in the direction the bikes were heading. Can anyone post them up? "


This is an intelligence test just for you. Pick which of the following images does THAT picture show;

a. Angelina Jolie naked
b. vanilla icecream in a cone
c. wiring diagram for a 1974 Ford Cortina
OR
d. a view of the road showing exactly where this accident happened taken in the direction the bikes were heading.

Look carefully again at the photo of "absolutely nothing". The grey stuff on the ground is called the road. The green bits beside it are called grass. The taller green bits are trees - none of them are absolutely nothing. If you want to check ,bash your head at speed against a tree to get a sense of the difference between nothing and a tree.

With your conviction being so strong of what happened, I trust that you have contacted the police with your eye witness account.

[Katman]

You are a stubborn prick aren't you.
You asked for, quote "and also a photo from where the cops car would have become visible looking in the direction the bikes were heading. Can anyone post them up? "


This is an intelligence test just for you. Pick which of the following images does THAT picture show;

a. Angelina Jolie naked
b. vanilla icecream in a cone
c. wiring diagram for a 1974 Ford Cortina
OR
d. a view of the road showing exactly where this accident happened taken in the direction the bikes were heading.

Look carefully again at the photo of "absolutely nothing". The grey stuff on the ground is called the road. The green bits beside it are called grass. The taller green bits are trees - none of them are absolutely nothing. If you want to check ,bash your head at speed against a tree to get a sense of the difference between nothing and a tree.

With your conviction being so strong of what happened, I trust that you have contacted the police with your eye witness account.

Go re-read post #129.

Fuck me, there's some dumbfucks on here.

[Tony & Carolyn]

Katman you must be the bigest COCK on this whole site, FULL STOP!!!!

Every time i see you posting your idealistic crap i can't help thinking does this guy actually ride a bike? or is he just another keyboard jockey looking to stir it up...... Yes there is always a reason or reason's accidents happen and yes hindsight is a wonderful thing after the fact.

It would matter not whether It was a couple of guy's enjoying their passion for riding or a van load of school children, the only fact known for certain is the cop should not have atempted a u turn on a BLIND CORNER!!!!

And before you start preaching your shit to me yes i've thrown bikes down the road two of which were rider error!!! which i have learnt from, the third diesel on a corner followed imediatley by standing there watching another bike sliding around the same corner, and no speed was not a factor as it was in the first two. Shit happen's that is out of your control, all road user's take that chance every time they turn that key. But to have a officer of the law make such a fundametal judgement error is a bitter pill to swallow for all especially those injured and there family's.

MD know's more of this accident than all of us put together.He's a top chap and very skilled rider. You however are just a TOOL.......

[SixPackBack]

Katman you must be the bigest COCK on this whole site, FULL STOP!!!!

Every time i see you posting your idealistic crap i can't help thinking does this guy actually ride a bike? or is he just another keyboard jockey looking to stir it up...... Yes there is always a reason or reason's accidents happen and yes hindsight is a wonderful thing after the fact.

It would matter not whether It was a couple of guy's enjoying their passion for riding or a van load of school children, the only fact known for certain is the cop should not have atempted a u turn on a BLIND CORNER!!!!

And before you start preaching your shit to me yes i've thrown bikes down the road two of which were rider error!!! which i have learnt from, the third diesel on a corner followed imediatley by standing there watching another bike sliding around the same corner, and no speed was not a factor as it was in the first two. Shit happen's that is out of your control, all road user's take that chance every time they turn that key. But to have a officer of the law make such a fundametal judgement error is a bitter pill to swallow for all especially those injured and there family's.

MD know's more of this accident than all of us put together.He's a top chap and very skilled rider. You however are just a TOOL.......

Tony & Carolyn...........Utilise the ignore function and maximise your veiwing pleasure. Katman is on mine, so is skidmark and its fookin bliss:first:

[terbang]

Can you not see how that works precisely from a motorcyclists point of view as well?

Why do you ask such question..? Of course I can see it goes both ways, anyone with half a brain could figure that out.

[Jantar]

...
Fuck me, there's some dumbfucks on here.
For once I agree with you. Two dumbfucks out of 10000 members.:zzzz:

[Katman]

For once I agree with you. Two dumbfucks out of 10000 members.:zzzz:

You really shouldn't think so poorly of yourself.

[jimbo600]

yes i've thrown bikes down the road two of which were rider error!!!

Well...........nah I won't bother, its just too easy

[CookMySock]

PD time ?

DB

[terbang]

yup, surprised its not all blue by now

[twotyred]

he'll walk with a slap on the wrist... :corn:

[FLYMO]

looks like the type that would book ya for farting in public
oops hope ya didnt hear that

[MD]

Go re-read post #129.

Fuck me, there's some dumbfucks on here.

Ha. You did try that tree experiment.
When you can't come up with a sound reasonable reply you spit the dummy like a little baby throwing it's toys out of the cot, and resort to big swear words.

Enough from me. This is a pointless discussion. Leave it to the Court & Jury to decide.

[Horse]

Fuck me, there's some dumbfucks on here.

First intelligent thing I've seen you say all thread. Although I suspect we disagree on target....

[NordieBoy]

Regardless of how long he has been an officer, he made a gross error in judgment & needs to be held accountable for it. After all people lost their lives ..

Lost their lives?

[Katman]

Enough from me. This is a pointless discussion. Leave it to the Court & Jury to decide.

Yeah, I'm out of here too. But I'll leave you all with a parting though.

The cop was turning to pursue a speeding motorcyclist and seconds later was hit by two other bikes that were out riding that day with said speeding motorcyclist.

Draw your own conclusions.

(By the way MD, are you prepared to tell us what speed the radar clocked you at?)

[sunhuntin]

ummm, werent the so-far-unknown "speeder" and the two injured travelling in different directions, hence the need for the 3 point turn? i dunno, usually, when im riding with someone, we are both heading the same direction. :confused:

MD, you are officially my new hero on this site.

o yeh, T and C, definately make use of the ignore feature. makes the site much nicer to read.

[chanceyy]

Lost their lives?

:Oops: my bad, thought that crash caused death, revised my post to read

Regardless of how long he has been an officer, he made a gross error in judgment & needs to be held accountable for it. After all riders were seriously injured


thanks NordieBoy :)


also just catching up on the posts ..

I have to agree Katman you are such a tool, sighs but there is no point in saying any more than that cause your the type of person who can not look at anyone else's point of view with objectivity, you have to be right !!

I will watch with interest the outcome of the trial & the evidence that is produced .. after all this will be a high profile case.

hmmm & I may very well be wrong (& I am sure Katman will let me know soon enough), but it is not required that you need at least 100 meters of clear visablity to overtake a vehicle, so would this not also mean 100 meters clear visability to execute a u turn?

also must add here on the gut buster ride when the TEC got his flat tire & I was half way up a passing lane on a twistie section of road when a vehicle passed & pointed back saying he has a flat tire.

I contemplated doing a U turn but as I did not have clear visability, even though it was 3 lanes, I deemed it to unsafe so I proceeded slowly til I found an appropriate place to turn around on the summit, off the side of the road, common sense has to come into play somewhere here ..

[_Shrek_]

hmmm & I may very well be wrong (& I am sure Katman will let me know soon enough), but it is not required that you need at least 100 meters of clear visablity to overtake a vehicle, so would this not also mean 100 meters clear visability to execute a u turn? ..


It's 100 meters through out the hole manoever when overtaking

am only assuming it would be the same in a U turn :Oops: not very good for a professional driver will rectify it asap
is there a :Police: that could help with this please

good stuff MD i gave up at post 87 its like talking to a brick wall :laugh:

[Ixion]

Yeah, I'm out of here too. But I'll leave you all with a parting though.

The cop was turning to pursue a speeding motorcyclist and seconds later was hit by two other bikes that were out riding that day with said speeding motorcyclist.

Draw your own conclusions.

(By the way MD, are you prepared to tell us what speed the radar locked onto you at?)

That doesn't follow. First bike was ahead of the others. Could well be that he had exited from the twisty section onto a straight and opened it up , as we all do. The ones back in the twisties could well have been still both under the limit and travelling at an appropriate speed for the conditions

(and from that photo, even I'd take that corner faster than 30kph).

[Patrick]

too many wrongs for there to be a right.
Yes the cop should get the book chucked at him. He could not handle his vehicle - those holdens not only have fantastic turning circles, but can rear wheel steel very well. Doing a 3 point turn is impractical on that road.
Yes the boys on bikes were doing wrong - but they are paying for that mistake right now. The cop is not yet.

They also have traction control - that MUST NOT be disabled... Unless you're stuck in the mud of course...

Still, could the bikers have done more to avoid this? The cop certainly could... but it can be a two way street to save your own arse.

I thought this is what Katman was saying. Oh well...

[Swoop]

ummm, werent the so-far-unknown "speeder" and the two injured travelling in different directions, hence the need for the 3 point turn?
No, they were travelling in the same direction, North.

...I contemplated doing a U turn but as I did not have clear visability, even though it was 3 lanes, I deemed it to unsafe so I proceeded slowly til I found an appropriate place to turn around on the summit, off the side of the road, common sense has to come into play somewhere here.
You did not have a quota to keep though.:whistle:

[chanceyy]

You did not have a quota to keep though.:whistle:

no but if I had decided to turn in a inappropriate place then I could have made a gross error in judgment, was one of those yeah - nah find somewhere safer moments ....

[Jdogg]

Anyone have any updates on this .......

[Racing Dave]

The last newspaper article I saw on Tony Bridgman (June 11) said "A call over for the case would be held on August 15." Does anyone know what this means, and is there an update? Was he in the Nelson court yesterday?

[Patrick]

The last newspaper article I saw on Tony Bridgman (June 11) said "A call over for the case would be held on August 15." Does anyone know what this means, and is there an update? Was he in the Nelson court yesterday?

Its a look to see when potential dates will be available for trial / hearing, suitable to all involved. Its been to depositions already, has it not?

[Racing Dave]

Yes, he's been committed for trial, I'm just wondering when. There's been nothing in this week's Press, and they've been following the pre-trial hearings closely.

[Vacarious]

the same thing happened to my mate a few months ago

he was just entering a 70k zone with a cop infront of him, the cop then pulls to the left so my mate goes to the right of him to get past and then the cop u turns right infront of him. mate goes over bars and lands unscared fortunately.

gets up has a few words to the driver and gets told "I didnt see you" from the cop even though it was around 6 oclock with his headlights vlaring in his rear view mirror.

mate was only on restricted licence riding a 750 but thats been written off as you could imagine.

i dont know the full story to wether or not he will get paid out, the police want to so i hear but their insurance company doesn't, if he does he will get a fine for breaching conditions of his licence and a few demerits.

oh and to top it off the police insurance company sent him a letter saying that the rider is liable for the damages even though the driver has been charged with dangerous driving.


im advising him to follow up on the accident and keep hounding them but it will be a while before he gets anything out of them

[Kiwi Graham]

The last newspaper article I saw on Tony Bridgman (June 11) said "A call over for the case would be held on August 15." Does anyone know what this means, and is there an update? Was he in the Nelson court yesterday?

A call over hearing is where a not guilty plea is maintained and a date for trial is to be set. Sometimes the defendant will enter a guilty plea at this hearing. However that doesnt seem to be the case in this instance. It lasts for just a few minuets.

[Okey Dokey]

I'm wondering what the status of this case is now. Has a date for the trial been set? Be good to hear from anyone who has more recent information, thanks.

[MD]

I'm wondering what the status of this case is now. Has a date for the trial been set? Be good to hear from anyone who has more recent information, thanks.

Date not set yet.
The Police delivered my witness summons recently. No available court times left this year. So expect some time early next year.

The officer was a top bloke and working hard on this. His concern for the well being of all the riders involved impressed me. As much as I don't want to see them on the road, as much as I object to trafffic tickets and demerits, you just have to meet a nice one to remind yourself of the respect Cops deserve.

[Okey Dokey]

Righto, I'll keep my eyes open for news early next year. Thanks for the update.

[Racing Dave]

From this morning's Chch Press: Tony Bridgman has retired from the Blenheim highway patrol, finishing on Dec 9.

Looks like the Buller Gorge will be slightly safer from now on...

No word on the date of his trial, however, at which point I trust all roads will become slightly safer, as I expect a conviction to result in loss of his license. Always assuming he is convicted.

[roy.nz]

The Blenheim policeman charged with dangerous driving after a crash in the Buller Gorge that left two motorcyclists seriously injured has been committed to stand trial.

Full story at: http://www.stuff.co.nz/4579369a12855.html

And i hope he gets done for more than careless driving :devil2:

[Okey Dokey]

Thanks for the update, Racing Dave. I am intensely interested in this upcoming trial. I'm glad he is off the force.

[raftn]

Thanks for the update, Racing Dave. I am intensely interested in this upcoming trial. I'm glad he is off the force.

That makes two of us..........and probably every one else on here

[MD]

I just realised that there are two threads running on this crash. One in Biker news.

Trial is set for late March. Officer has retired. Doubt the PCA can say anything until after the court case.

[Max Preload]

The result. (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10574642)

[sunhuntin]

about fucking time. nice to see some decent sentencing for a change. wonder if he will ever pay off the reparation?

Officer who hit motorcyclists ordered to pay $60,000
2:16PM Tuesday May 26, 2009

A former police officer who did a u-turn in the road, hitting and seriously injuring two motorcyclists, was today ordered to pay each victim $30,000 in reparation.

Anthony Dale Bridgman, 58, was found guilty of two counts of dangerous driving in March.

Bridgman was a Blenheim-based highway patrol sergeant when he did a u-turn in the Upper Buller Gorge to pursue a speeding motorcyclist in December 2007.

But his action resulted in two motorcyclists colliding with his patrol car. Both suffered serious head injuries.

Bridgman later retired from the police force after 30 years service.

He was also sentenced today to 100 hours community service and disqualified from driving for 12 months.

- NZPA

[ynot slow]

My thoughts were,ok he perfed out of the force,and 30 yrs will be good payout.But realisticly he was stung pretty damn hard,cop or not.A few people who have killed have got less,remember asian guy in forecourt ran over toddler,amongst one I think of.

But he still looked like a smug,what did I do wrong sir,type of person.

[dpex]

The Blenheim policeman charged with dangerous driving after a crash in the Buller Gorge that left two motorcyclists seriously injured has been committed to stand trial.

Full story at: http://www.stuff.co.nz/4579369a12855.html

His trial has ended. He gets to pay $30,000 to each victim. He lost his licence for 12 months, therefore he lost his job.

He made a bad mistake and has paid, hugely.

So lets not have any more of this, 'The cops always look after their own,' crap.

Personally, I think the penalty is manifestly unjust, compared to what would be handed out to a non-cop for a similar action. But that's just my view.

And frankly, I am appalled at some of the vicious comments regarding this cop.

He made a bad mistake. But none of you ever have, eh? But he's a cop. The enemy. So burn the bastard!

Some of you are seriously sad children.

[scumdog]

. He lost his licence for 12 months, therefore he lost his job.

He made a bad mistake and has paid, hugely.

So lets not have any more of this, 'The cops always look after their own,' crap.

Personally, I think the penalty is manifestly unjust, compared to what would be handed out to a non-cop for a similar action. But that's just my view.

He had resigned even before the verdict was announced, he didn't 'lose' his job!!

And yes, I have seen cases where people have killed others while drunk-driving and still never been given that level of sentence.

[98tls]

This is well outta hand,as ive said before he made a mistake,past or present job description has nothing to do with it,years back an old bloke made a mistake turning into an orchard killing my 21 year old GN250 riding cousin,the penance for his mistake was way less than this guy received.....way less.Take all the emotive we are biker brothers bullshit out of it and i say its a done deal.No amount of money will heal truely heal the guys on bikes wounds as will no amount of anything restore the coppers life,by all accounts "not a bad bloke" from those i know who have lived in his patch.Its life bad shit happens...go figure.

[monkey99]

Good to see the law has held this officer (ex) accountable for his poor driving!

Its amazing how many times cops actually do pull real bad habits out of their hats to pursue individuals

Article (http://bit.ly/HohGF)

[Farab]

Well, refer to my thread this morning. A bike got pulled over for what, I can't figure out, at most (I'm speculating) it could have been for lane splitting in peak hour traffic.

Now if that were the actual case, please tell me who caused and were the biggest hazard on the road? The 200-odd kg bike splitting (speculating at the actual "offence") at peak hour traffic speeds, or does this award go to the cop, in his 2000kg car, who took off at lighting speed from the far left lane (from my point of view looked as if he used portion of the busway to gain on the bike, I could be mistaken) then weave across 3 lanes to persue the bike. The biker then has the shock of seeing the lit up cop car in his mirrors (so concentration distracted) then tries to get out of cops way (did not realise it was him the cop was after) , then has to weave across 3 lanes and a bus lane to pull over for the cop.

Then cop no doubt lecturing the rider on dangerous driving, etc. + fine & demerits. Un-f#$%*ing-believable

[monkey99]

Exactly

Sometimes a police officer has the wrong idea of how to keep people safe..

might be the culture or some part of the training.. but without knowing the infraction (in this case) the cop could of tried to spot the direction and ask another unit or even the camera kids (in auck central) to tag the rego and deal with this later.. like writing a letter to said individ to express concern about driving etc

I know any time i get a letter with Police marks it gives me the cold shivers..

Still this would take a major shift in thinking for the girls n boys n blue... maybe?:stupid:

[Marmoot]

If by encouraging someone to kill a person you may be liable for accessory to murder, then the Highway Patrol office and Labour Party former transport minister should be partially held liable for the $60,000 fine for encouraging this sort of behavior that puts enforcement above common sense and safety.

[Bass]

It wasn't spelt out, so this is only my opinion, but I got the impression that the judge hammered him because he didn't accept that he had done anything wrong.

[Mikkel]

So lets not have any more of this, 'The cops always look after their own,' crap.

Personally, I think the penalty is manifestly unjust, compared to what would be handed out to a non-cop for a similar action. But that's just my view.

With power comes responsibility. I'd argue that policeofficers on duty are expected to act more responsibly than Joe Public.

That said, I suppose an example was made in this case. The punishment does seem harsh compared to other sentences - but then again, many other sentences are laughable and it is not uncommon to hear people calling for more significant punishments... at least not in here.


If by encouraging someone to kill a person you may be liable for accessory to murder, then the Highway Patrol office and Labour Party former transport minister should be partially held liable for the $60,000 fine for encouraging this sort of behavior that puts enforcement above common sense and safety.

That is a very good point indeed. A lot of issues in regards to speeding enforcement could do with a thorough review IMHO.

If this result will make every policeofficer out there be even more aware of when and where they do a U-turn to pursue "dangerous offenders" it is all good.

[EJK]

Saw the two rider's face on the papers this morning. They look very happy :)

[Maki]

He would most likely have gotten off next to scot free if he had immediately expressed remorse for his actions. He was hammered because of his attitude, not for what actually happened.

He deserved everything he got and then some. An officer of the law is there to SERVE AND PROTECT the public. Not put people lives in danger on revenue gathering excersises.

[lankyman]

Under the new code of conduct rules he'll get more than that.

If anything cops get hammered more than us normal types if found guilty.

And that's the way it should be. These guys (and gals) are meant to be our model citizens

[munterk6]

He would most likely have gotten off next to scot free if he had immediately expressed remorse for his actions. He was hammered because of his attitude, not for what actually happened.

He deserved everything he got and then some. An officer of the law is there to SERVE AND PROTECT the public. Not put people lives in danger on revenue gathering excersises.

Spot on there mate...my thoughts exactly! :2guns::Police:

[scumdog]

And that's the way it should be. These guys (and gals) are meant to be our model citizens

Bugger!

I wish I'd known THAT when I joined!:shit:

[caseye]

Wouldn't have changed a thing and you know it.

[dpex]

I've been thinking about the penalty this guy got, on and off, all day.

Many of us on this site are quick to point out the slightest of injustices perpetrated by the cops and courts.

I have concluded the penalty the cop got was more than manifestly unjust and so consistency requires those who grieve about injustices to jump to this man's defence.

As Scumdog pointed out, even totally pissed-and-killed-someone drivers don't often get lumped with such penalty.

I intend to contact Mr Bridgens (I believe that is his name) to establish if he intends to appeal this appalling sentence. And, if he is, I will be offering a grand toward his legal costs because I believe manifest injustice sucks.

And so, are there any others out there who agree that manifest injustice sucks and who are also prepared to contribute a little to Mr Bridgens' appeal fund, should he decide to appeal?

And frankly, I don't care about the details of what he did to cause the bikers to get lumped. Many others have done as bad or far worse and got way less penalty; bikers included.

And so this is all about fair and reasonable judicial constancy.

[CookMySock]

Each to their own, but I think he had more than the usual responsibility to conduct himself in a safe manner on the road, as would any other person who was paid to be there.

Put the grand into another 600cc bike or similar, and keep doing the kids thing.

Steve

[Timber020]

Hopefully this has set a standard for what future simular things are judged by.

If so, awesome.

[Headbanger]

Hopefully this has set a standard for what future simular things are judged by.

If so, awesome.

My thoughts exactly.

[JimO]

its Bridgeman

[nodrog]

i got an $80 ticket for doing 115kph in a mazda 121, i dont think thats fair, can i have a grand to defend it?

cheers

[Conquiztador]

Interesting thought.

Lets consider this: You have pain in your leg. You ask your mate what is wrong with you. He says that you must have hit your leg and you be sweet in a week.

You also go to a doctor. He tells you that you have hit your leg and you need to rest and you be fine in a week.

Three months later you loose your leg as a result of cancer that could have been sorted if you had the right treatment straight away.

Your mate says sorry. You say hey, not your fault.

The doctor says sorry. You sue him as he should have known better.

Responsibility comes with the job.

Give the $1K to a family who have lost their husband/father policeman while doing his duty.

[Breed777]

Problem is in this country you can't sue a doctor for failing to pick up on your cancer or whatever. If you believe something is wrong then you have the right to get a second opinion. Otherwise we would be sueing for everything. Your banana has a bruise on it, sue the checkout operator who should have spotted it. Cops are human too. Mistakes will be made the question needs to be if it was you or I in his position how would we want to be treated?

[The Stranger]

The doctor says sorry. You sue him as he should have known better.


Yeah right - good luck there, this is NZ.
You struggle to find another doctor to support your cause as they stick together like shit to a blanket. He comes before the Medical Association (which of course exists to protect doctors form us, not the other way around - much like a law society or MVDI etc) and is disciplined with a $50.00 fine and costs of several thousand dollars (if in the very unlikely event they find he did any wrong at all) all the while continuing practising.

[The Stranger]

I intend to contact Mr Bridgens (I believe that is his name) to establish if he intends to appeal this appalling sentence. And, if he is, I will be offering a grand toward his legal costs because I believe manifest injustice sucks.



Actions speak louder than words!

How did those kiddes go at Puke anyway? I note you were keen to post the idea, but I missed the followup on your action.

[sinfull]

put the grand into another 600cc bike or similar, and keep doing the kids thing.


+2........

[Conquiztador]

Problem is in this country you can't sue a doctor for failing to pick up on your cancer or whatever. If you believe something is wrong then you have the right to get a second opinion. Otherwise we would be sueing for everything. Your banana has a bruise on it, sue the checkout operator who should have spotted it. Cops are human too. Mistakes will be made the question needs to be if it was you or I in his position how would we want to be treated?


Yeah right - good luck there, this is NZ.
You struggle to find another doctor to support your cause as they stick together like shit to a blanket. He comes before the Medical Association (which of course exists to protect doctors form us, not the other way around - much like a law society or MVDI etc) and is disciplined with a $50.00 fine and costs of several thousand dollars (if in the very unlikely event they find he did any wrong at all) all the while continuing practising.

Yes, I do realise that. It was more a indication on who has the responsibility here. I would expect someone who has the education/training to know the right thing to do. As with the police in this case.

[The Stranger]

Yes, I do realise that. It was more a indication on who has the responsibility here.

Precisely!
No one.

This is NZ, no one is responsible for anything here. Hey we only follow the example set by our great leaders.

[Grahameeboy]

Problem is in this country you can't sue a doctor for failing to pick up on your cancer or whatever. If you believe something is wrong then you have the right to get a second opinion. Otherwise we would be sueing for everything. Your banana has a bruise on it, sue the checkout operator who should have spotted it. Cops are human too. Mistakes will be made the question needs to be if it was you or I in his position how would we want to be treated?

I agree...Cops are human too....not robots...we cannot expect them to be super human....we are whatever we do primarily human and a cops uniform does not change that and I think it is harsh to expect a better level of "human" from cops.

[Pixie]

This is well outta hand,as ive said before he made a mistake,.

New Zealand - the land where there is always an excuse and you never need to take responsibility.

[Grahameeboy]

Precisely!
No one.

This is NZ, no one is responsible for anything here. Hey we only follow the example set by our great leaders.

I agree with the "responsibility" issue in NZ....but that is not to me the key issue here

[Grahameeboy]

New Zealand - the land where there is always an excuse and you never need to take responsibility.

In general I agree....the land of the long white lie

[Pixie]

An officer of the law is there to SERVE AND PROTECT the public. Not put people lives in danger on revenue gathering excersises.

to SERVE AND PROTECT is an American police moto.
In NZ,many,not all,cops adhere to SERVE ourselves AND PROTECT our arses.

[Grahameeboy]

Yes, I do realise that. It was more a indication on who has the responsibility here. I would expect someone who has the education/training to know the right thing to do. As with the police in this case.

Guess it could not just have been an accident....education and training still don't make you unfailable.....

[Nonbeliever]

the cop has no sympathy from me.

The timing of "retiring" from the force is interesting in relation too golden handshakes etc.

jerk

[Conquiztador]

Guess it could not just have been an accident....education and training still don't make you unfailable.....

That is true. But it does not wash.

When we are studying we are secure in the knowledge that the people doing the education has a higher level of knowledge then we have, they have degrees, masters etc that are far above what we are at that time trying to achieve.

In same fashion I would expect an officer of the law to know right from wrong and be a much better judge of risks then I am. If you are telling me that he does not have this knowledge (or even is expected to have it) then he is just another guy with more power then others. And that is not how it works. Any job we take comes with responibility. If you are not up to it, dont take the job.

[Grahameeboy]

That is true. But it does not wash.

When we are studying we are secure in the knowledge that the people doing the education has a higher level of knowledge then we have, they have degrees, masters etc that are far above what we are at that time trying to achieve.

In same fashion I would expect an officer of the law to know right from wrong and be a much better judge of risks then I am. If you are telling me that he does not have this knowledge (or even is expected to have it) then he is just another guy with more power then others. And that is not how it works. Any job we take comes with responibility. If you are not up to it, dont take the job.

This is the real world...he joined the force by qualifying. He was a cop for 30 years...don't tell me you expect him to be constant all this time."Better judge of risks than me"....we were not at the scene...in a Criminal Court they have to decide beyond all reasonable doubt and it is fair to say he did make a mistake...but like I said we are all human whether we have degrees, qualifications etc....people are trained to do the right things but at same time we are not like I said earlier robots...He was judged and punished but does that make him a bad cop..."No"

[Grahameeboy]

the cop has no sympathy from me.

The timing of "retiring" from the force is interesting in relation too golden handshakes etc.

jerk

Guess that is where you site name came from...I have sympathy for the cop despite the fact he made a mistake...it's called "Grace".

[Conquiztador]

This is the real world...he joined the force by qualifying. He was a cop for 30 years...don't tell me you expect him to be constant all this time."Better judge of risks than me"....we were not at the scene...in a Criminal Court they have to decide beyond all reasonable doubt and it is fair to say he did make a mistake...but like I said we are all human whether we have degrees, qualifications etc....people are trained to do the right things but at same time we are not like I said earlier robots...He was judged and punished but does that make him a bad cop..."No"

I have never argued for him being a bad cop. But as this was his job he is expected to do better then non-cops here. In same fashion as doctors, firemen, plumbers, sparkies, politicians etc. We pay them all to get it right.

I do not accept that someone who is paid to make decisions that will affect peoples lives can get away by saying "sorry".

Take a pilot who makes a mistake while landing that puts the passengers lives in jeopardy. Do you think he will fly again???

[Grahameeboy]

I have never argued for him being a bad cop. But as this was his job he is expected to do better then non-cops here. In same fashion as doctors, firemen, plumbers, sparkies, politicians etc. We pay them all to get it right.

I do not accept that someone who is paid to make decisions that will affect peoples lives can get away by saying "sorry".

Take a pilot who makes a mistake while landing that puts the passengers lives in jeopardy. Do you think he will fly again???

So what over his 30 years he made 1000's of good decisions to protect us and makes one mistake...same for pilot...he would probably get suspended and reviewed but he / she is responsible for more than a cop is as well as more highly trained..We will have to agree to disagree because that is a very draconian view of life...

[Mikkel]

Bugger!

I wish I'd known THAT when I joined!:shit:

Look at the brightside. You can now argue that you'd never have to ever pull a U-turn again - unless it's something quite a lot more serious than speeding (dunno what that could be, but a bus filled with WMDs and terrorists, maybe). As such your job should become a breeze from now on out ;)


the cop has no sympathy from me.

The timing of "retiring" from the force is interesting in relation too golden handshakes etc.

jerk

Care to guess at the size of this particular golden handshake?
Do you sign all your posts? :D

[The Stranger]

I've been thinking about the penalty this guy got, on and off, all day.

Many of us on this site are quick to point out the slightest of injustices perpetrated by the cops and courts.

I have concluded the penalty the cop got was more than manifestly unjust and so consistency requires those who grieve about injustices to jump to this man's defence.

As Scumdog pointed out, even totally pissed-and-killed-someone drivers don't often get lumped with such penalty.



Everyone makes mistakes. Should we all be punished for each of our mistakes? My personal view is NO we shouldn't - necessarily.

However, I know if I make a mistake in my line of work I put it right at my expense.

The 60k is simply fixing his mistake, that is NOT punishment.
The loss of license and community work is the punishment/penalty.

[terbang]

Mistakes in my line of work would cost me more than sixty grand. Such a consequence tends to clarify ones thoughts though.

[Conquiztador]

So what over his 30 years he made 1000's of good decisions to protect us and makes one mistake...same for pilot...he would probably get suspended and reviewed but he / she is responsible for more than a cop is as well as more highly trained..We will have to agree to disagree because that is a very draconian view of life...

Perhaps it is draconian. But it also comes down to trust and respect. I want to be able to trust that the police makes the right decisions. Every time! If they are only expected to make same decisions and mistakes as we would in same situation, then the respect goes away.

Just because he has made 1000's of good ones does not give him the right to make a bad decision. Each decision is measured on its own merit not on what has happened in the past.

[Marmoot]

Mistakes in my line of work would cost me more than sixty grand. Such a consequence tends to clarify ones thoughts though.

Mistakes in your job have a high probability of not costing you a cent.
Or should I say MistakE as singular?

[Winston001]

I've posted this in the other thread too:

Being frustrated with the minimal and barely accurate news reports, I have made my own enquiries. Incidentally the Otago Daily Times has the best report of sentencing http://www.odt.co.nz/58043/police-pa...osts-him-60000

For those who think Bridgman was convicted for being a liar, that's wrong. Here is what the judge said - "You thought at the time you were doing your duty in trying to apprehend a speeding motorcyclist and you made an awful mistake."

My earlier posts were not quite right - hate that. Here are the correct facts.

Bridgman was ultimately convicted because the jury visited the crash scene. This is unusual, but it meant they got to see how narrow the road is and the tight corner.

The NZ Police do not use insurance, they paid out directly for the bikes. All done some time ago.

The reparation ordered of $30,000 is payable to each motorcyclist. It represents compensation for post traumatic stress and emotional harm. It is payable by Bridgman personally, not the police.

I'm a bit shocked about that myself because it seems an extraordinary sum given what others pay - or don't pay.

Bridgman offered $20,000 each at the hearing so its hard for him to argue with the final result. He isn't a wealthy man but PERFd last year so 30 years superannuation should be enough to pay up.

[The Stranger]

The NZ Police do not use insurance, they paid out directly for the bikes. All done some time ago.

The reparation ordered of $30,000 is payable to each motorcyclist. It represents compensation for post traumatic stress and emotional harm. It is payable by Bridgman personally, not the police.



That is interesting. Should the police not therefore indemnify him.
As I understand it my third party cover (which does include public liability also) should cover this eventuality. Any employee of mine is similarly covered. Why should the police be any different - or am I missing something here?

[BMWST?]

That is interesting. Should the police not therefore indemnify him.
As I understand it my third party cover (which does include public liability also) should cover this eventuality. Any employee of mine is similarly covered. Why should the police be any different - or am I missing something here?

The "government" dont have insurance,the premiums would be intolerable.So they take the risk and pays the monies

[The Stranger]

The "government" dont have insurance,the premiums would be intolerable.So they take the risk and pays the monies

Exactly - just what I was saying. It's the govenrments risk.
Last company I worked for self insured (i.e. simply cancelled the insurance) vehicles and tools. Saved 80k pa in premiums, BUT they still accepted the liability and paid out whenever there was an at fault accident or break in etc.

[Winston001]

That is interesting. Should the police not therefore indemnify him.
As I understand it my third party cover (which does include public liability also) should cover this eventuality. Any employee of mine is similarly covered. Why should the police be any different - or am I missing something here?

Good question and wondered about that myself. I think the answer is an employer is vicariously liable for the employees actions. Thus the police had to pay the cost of the bikes.

However an employer is not normally liable for penalties and fines etc imposed on the employee. Those are personal consequences of breaking the law.

For example how would an employer feel about being disqualified from driving because an employee caused an accident? :shit:

[The Stranger]

For example how would an employer feel about being disqualified from driving because an employee caused an accident? :shit:

I expect similar to being fined because a stupid employee cause a workplace accident.

[Ixion]

Mistakes in my line of work would cost me more than sixty grand. Such a consequence tends to clarify ones thoughts though.

Your employers, however, might be less willing to issue instructions along the lines of "Do X regardless of circumstances" eg "Ensure you land on time at the scheduled destination regardless of weather".

I suspect that Bridgeman's orders may have been "Ensure that you ticket speeding vehicles regardless of circumstances". He tried to comply.

[Conquiztador]

I suspect that Bridgeman's orders may have been "Ensure that you ticket speeding vehicles regardless of circumstances". He tried to comply.

Surely that is a Troll???

[Winston001]

Surely that is a Troll???

No no, its an Ixion. Looks similar to a Troll but more sarcastic :devil2:

[cowpatz]

Let me spell it out to you.

Taking a corner at 95kph that you would need to be doing 30kph in order to stop within the distance visible to you is not 'safe'. You might do it 99 times out of 100 and get away with it thereby making you believe that it is 'safe'. However, that 1 time out of 100 when things turn to shit you have to accept a large part of the responsibility for that shit.

Do you honestly believe that? I would expect any driver to know that doing a U turn after a corner is just blatantly stupid. For a cop to do it just demonstrates to me that he thinks he is above the law and can do as he thinks fit and where he sees fit. In this case it is quite clear, as the court has acknowledged, that he fucked up. As a rider and a driver you have to assume that other drivers have at least a basic understanding as to the responsibilities of handling a vehicle. None of us can see around corners. Unless you park and walk it first then whatever the speed you take the corner at will have an element of risk attached.

[Katman]

Do you honestly believe that?

Of course I fucking believe it. I wouldn't have said it if I didn't.


None of us can see around corners.

Exactly. What if it was a tree fallen across the road instead of a police car?

If you can't stop within the visible distance then you have to assume some (and sometimes all) of the responsiblity for the accident.


Unless you park and walk it first then whatever the speed you take the corner at will have an element of risk attached.

Bullshit.

[Ixion]

No no, its an Ixion. Looks similar to a Troll but more sarcastic :devil2:

No. Not a troll

We know that cops have a quota. And have been told very very emphatically "no discretion for speeding". "Anyone speeding gets a ticket". And we may suspect that Bridgman wasn't very popular with his bosses (cos they turned on him real quick). So, he sees the first bike blatting through at warp speed. Thinks, maybe, something like "Shit, he's way over. Wodda I do. Hell, the boss is already tearing me a new one about not making quota. And giving me the 'no discretion' spiel. if someone *555s that guy, and I haven't picked him up, the boss'll toast me. No turnoffs on this road, can't say I didn't see him. gotta turn round and get after him".

Not to excuse him, i've seen that road and only an idiot or an optimist would try a three pointer on it. Bad judgement, very bad judgement on his part. But, I still reckon the anti-speeding crusading zealotry of the police high command should take some of the blame. If the attitude from the top was more sensible, maybe he'd have thought "Shall i turn round and chase him - Nah , not here too dangerous, let him go"

[cowpatz]

Exactly. What if it was a tree fallen across the road instead of a police car?

If you can't stop within the visible distance then you have to assume some (and sometimes all) of the responsiblity for the accident.





Der yeah. But I dont assume responsibility for some moron doing a u turn. From a practical point of view most of us ride without necessarily being able to come to a complete stop within the visible distance on some corners and dont try and tell me you do. The fact is the court found him guilty...end of story.

[dpex]

He would most likely have gotten off next to scot free if he had immediately expressed remorse for his actions. He was hammered because of his attitude, not for what actually happened.

He deserved everything he got and then some. An officer of the law is there to SERVE AND PROTECT the public. Not put people lives in danger on revenue gathering excersises.

Yeah Mate! Like the fuck-head who killed the cop while he was laying spikes. Oh yeah, he showed remorse as he left the court 'Yeah Right' and got basically five years.

In prison the arsehole will be a bit of a hero on account of he's a cop-killer.

The cunt purposely ran over a cop doing what cops do to save your scrawny arse and mine from the real evil-doers, and got done for man-slaughter.

The max penalty for such is life in prison. This shit got 8.5 yrs, with parole in 5.

In other words he'll be out in 5, and while he's in he'll be a bit of a fucking hero.

[dpex]

No. Not a troll

We know that cops have a quota. And have been told very very emphatically "no discretion for speeding". "Anyone speeding gets a ticket". And we may suspect that Bridgman wasn't very popular with his bosses (cos they turned on him real quick). So, he sees the first bike blatting through at warp speed. Thinks, maybe, something like "Shit, he's way over. Wodda I do. Hell, the boss is already tearing me a new one about not making quota. And giving me the 'no discretion' spiel. if someone *555s that guy, and I haven't picked him up, the boss'll toast me. No turnoffs on this road, can't say I didn't see him. gotta turn round and get after him".

Not to excuse him, i've seen that road and only an idiot or an optimist would try a three pointer on it. Bad judgement, very bad judgement on his part. But, I still reckon the anti-speeding crusading zealotry of the police high command should take some of the blame. If the attitude from the top was more sensible, maybe he'd have thought "Shall i turn round and chase him - Nah , not here too dangerous, let him go"

That's a fucking good post, Ix. Good on ya.

[dpex]

So what over his 30 years he made 1000's of good decisions to protect us and makes one mistake...same for pilot...he would probably get suspended and reviewed but he / she is responsible for more than a cop is as well as more highly trained..We will have to agree to disagree because that is a very draconian view of life...

Good post GB.

[dpex]

Perhaps it is draconian. But it also comes down to trust and respect. I want to be able to trust that the police makes the right decisions. Every time! If they are only expected to make same decisions and mistakes as we would in same situation, then the respect goes away.

Just because he has made 1000's of good ones does not give him the right to make a bad decision. Each decision is measured on its own merit not on what has happened in the past.

You were brought up in a world of fairy tales and Disney, right?

Jesus H Christ! I fear for this nation where souls on the one side excuse their own every imperfection with ...not my fault....nobody told me... its was the Devil made me do it...I was...it was...things were, etc.

On the one hand such souls hold the cops out to be perfect, yet on the other they slag them whenever a cop takes exception to an action of the aggrieved.

Bastard-cops and perfect cops is he world's originally oxymoron.

[dpex]

Actions speak louder than words!

How did those kiddes go at Puke anyway? I note you were keen to post the idea, but I missed the followup on your action.

August is the time. Got a contingent of four. Should be a good day.

[dpex]

That is true. But it does not wash.

When we are studying we are secure in the knowledge that the people doing the education has a higher level of knowledge then we have, they have degrees, masters etc that are far above what we are at that time trying to achieve.

In same fashion I would expect an officer of the law to know right from wrong and be a much better judge of risks then I am. If you are telling me that he does not have this knowledge (or even is expected to have it) then he is just another guy with more power then others. And that is not how it works. Any job we take comes with responibility. If you are not up to it, dont take the job.


And here we see the product of successful social engineering which asserts, "I have no mind, no will. I do as I am told."

Jesus, but Hitler would have loved to have met you, sony.

[dpex]

What part of "being able to stop within the distance visible to you" don't you understand?

I read this and had to almost puke; mainly because the site's resident holier than-thou, pedant is correct.

But who takes any notice of the rule? Few. We mostly tool around the highways and byways in the supreme belief that 'it' ( a crash) will never happen to us, coupled to the other supreme belief that we will be able to stop in time anyway.

Tell that to the two guys who hit Mr Bridgen's car. And they did, because they failed to observe the lawful rule of traveling at a speed enabling them to stop within half of the clear distance ahead.

Which then brings us to a consideration of fault.

The law quire clearly states that one must travel at a speed enabling one to stop within 'half' of the clear road ahead.

So why is Mr Bridgens the only one to catch the flak? Why have not the two, so-called victims not been hauled up for failing to observe that rule?

[Katman]

and dont try and tell me you do.

Really? Well hang on to your hat 'cos that's exactly what I do.

[cs363]

Really? Well hang on to your hat 'cos that's exactly what I do.

X 2 on that. Although I have to admit that probably (actually, if I'm honest) that wasn't the case when I was younger and going through my 'indestructable' stage of youth. Luckily for me I survived, largely assisted no doubt by lower traffic volumes back then.

[Conquiztador]

You were brought up in a world of fairy tales and Disney, right?

Jesus H Christ! I fear for this nation where souls on the one side excuse their own every imperfection with ...not my fault....nobody told me... its was the Devil made me do it...I was...it was...things were, etc.

On the one hand such souls hold the cops out to be perfect, yet on the other they slag them whenever a cop takes exception to an action of the aggrieved.

Bastard-cops and perfect cops is he world's originally oxymoron.


And here we see the product of successful social engineering which asserts, "I have no mind, no will. I do as I am told."

Jesus, but Hitler would have loved to have met you, sony.

Not really sure what all this is about. But then again I am just a simple guy that has his own opinions.

Nobody ever said that cops are expected to be perfect. Not many humans are (are there any??). If I remember right this thread was about if what the judge decided was too harsh. That is what I have discussed in my posts. I say no, it was not. As a police officer he should have known better. That is what he is employed to do, to know better then Joe Average. If not, then we might as well have anybody as police. Just give them the badge and they are up to it. Surely that makes sense? If you are employed to do a job you are expected to do it w/o fuckups. If not, then we might as well take in our bikes to MacD for the service.

[The Stranger]

August is the time. Got a contingent of four. Should be a good day.

Wicked, what date please?
I should like to keep that day free and come along if I may.

[dpex]

Wicked, what date please?
I should like to keep that day free and come along if I may.

August 30th. Pukekohe.

[Grahameeboy]

Perhaps it is draconian. But it also comes down to trust and respect. I want to be able to trust that the police makes the right decisions. Every time! If they are only expected to make same decisions and mistakes as we would in same situation, then the respect goes away.

Just because he has made 1000's of good ones does not give him the right to make a bad decision. Each decision is measured on its own merit not on what has happened in the past.

You are a tough bastard....but :love: to you still

[Grahameeboy]

You were brought up in a world of fairy tales and Disney, right?

Jesus H Christ! I fear for this nation where souls on the one side excuse their own every imperfection with ...not my fault....nobody told me... its was the Devil made me do it...I was...it was...things were, etc.

On the one hand such souls hold the cops out to be perfect, yet on the other they slag them whenever a cop takes exception to an action of the aggrieved.

Bastard-cops and perfect cops is he world's originally oxymoron.

Ssscchhh...he is onto Hannah Montana now.......

[Winston001]

But, I still reckon the anti-speeding crusading zealotry of the police high command should take some of the blame. If the attitude from the top was more sensible, maybe he'd have thought "Shall I turn round and chase him - Nah , not here too dangerous, let him go"

Agreed, although I have the impression plenty of police officers - probably the traffic ones believe it too. Besides, he had a radio. He could have had the bike stopped.

Overall if I was a policeman I'd be a bit worried. Doing your job is fine, allowing for mistakes knowing the boss will back you up, all good. But being left swinging in the wind for $60,000......??

[terbang]

Agreed, although I have the impression plenty of police officers - probably the traffic ones believe it too. Besides, he had a radio. He could have had the bike stopped.

Overall if I was a policeman I'd be a bit worried. Doing your job is fine, allowing for mistakes knowing the boss will back you up, all good. But being left swinging in the wind for $60,000......??

Try being dismembered on a mountainside. Its all about personal responsibility that we don't see too much of here in NZ's ACC stupefied society.

[Winston001]

Try being dismembered on a mountainside. Its all about personal responsibility that we don't see too much of here in NZ's ACC stupefied society.

Erebus?? Think I'm missing something.

ACC - its a good system despite the faults. But you are right - we don't have a concept of personal responsibility hitting us in the pocket. In most countries a $60,000 award to a victim would be a yawn.

[ynot slow]

Agreed, although I have the impression plenty of police officers - probably the traffic ones believe it too. Besides, he had a radio. He could have had the bike stopped.

Overall if I was a policeman I'd be a bit worried. Doing your job is fine, allowing for mistakes knowing the boss will back you up, all good. But being left swinging in the wind for $60,000......??


A point lost on some people is why can't they radio ahead,the network is such a call takes a second to action.

But the hierachy did leave him out to dry,mind you maybe he was a prick,so an easy way to get him off the force maybe.My boss' always said we'll back you up,tell the client we(company)will fix the damage.Not good when a guy from the opposition knocked a plasma tv off a shelf($15000 tv at time)after he tripped on the carpet and stumbled onto tv cabinet.

[Fatjim]

The 60k is simply fixing his mistake, that is NOT punishment.
The loss of license and community work is the punishment/penalty.

Some punishment.