Police killing us again!

[MSTRS:Me]

That depends. There are plenty of twisty roads with good visibility. Slowing down for the odd blind corner or rise certainly doesn't make my rides boring. However, if you're a complete adrenaline junkie then I can well understand what you're saying. Horses for courses really. If you take the risk you also accept the consequences and must accept at least partial blame when it all turns to custard.

On a broader not, I do agree that living life afraid of what's around every corner (metaphorically speaking) is not a good idea.

There's that word again...

I'm with the 'if' brigade.
'When' is an absolute, and no matter what you are doing on the road, there ARE NO absolutes.
True - the further the boundaries are pushed, the greater the risk (edging closer to 'when') but still, no harm may occur. A (variable) combination of circumstances are required before 'if' becomes 'when'.

[Katman]

On a broader not, I do agree that living life afraid of what's around every corner (metaphorically speaking) is not a good idea.

I don't think anyone would suggest that living life afraid of what's around every corner is a good idea.

Considering what may be around a corner and taking steps to minimise the potential damage is a completely different thing though.

[Scuba_Steve]

On a broader not, I do agree that living life afraid of what's around every corner (metaphorically speaking) is not a good idea.

Thats the one I was getting at.

[Spearfish]

I don't think anyone would suggest that living life afraid of what's around every corner is a good idea.

Considering what may be around a corner and taking steps to minimise the potential damage is a completely different thing though.

There isn't anything around the corner that shouldn't be there, well at least it wasn't when I blew through last weekend!
See that's the trick, do the same track every weekend then nothing new can happen aye?

[swbarnett]

There's that word again...

I'm with the 'if' brigade.
'When' is an absolute, and no matter what you are doing on the road, there ARE NO absolutes.
True - the further the boundaries are pushed, the greater the risk (edging closer to 'when') but still, no harm may occur. A (variable) combination of circumstances are required before 'if' becomes 'when'.

You're right, it is a matter of degree. Some actions are "more likely" to result in an undesireable outcome but never with absolute certainty. 'if' would've fit what I was thinking when I wrote that just as well.

The only absolutes are the laws of physics and even those are flexible depending which universe you're in.

[marty]

I don't think anyone would suggest that living life afraid of what's around every corner is a good idea.

Considering what may be around a corner and taking steps to minimise the potential damage is a completely different thing though.

interesting comment.

many years ago, while working at a different employ, I often drove the Tapu-Coroglen Rd, and the 309 Rd - often at pace. 25 minutes Whitianga to Coromandel on the 309 was not uncommon.

I had a couple of big scares with unexpected traffic coming the other way (the old 'no-one else uses this road at xxx o'clock' syndrome)

I slowed right down after a while, only to subsequently have a HUGE crash with a monster 4x4 chev truck being driven by a friendly motorcycle 'club' member. luckily for me I was only going about 1/4 of the speed that I would have been travelling only a week before. Sure if I was going faster (having left at the same time) I may have been in a different place, and it may not have resulted in me writing off my quite new Commodore, but at least I was alive, which I may not have been had I been going my usual speed.

[PrincessBandit]

There isn't anything around the corner that shouldn't be there, well at least it wasn't when I blew through last weekend!
See that's the trick, do the same track every weekend then nothing new can happen aye?

[Biggles08]

Still, it's unfortunate that one paid with his life and the other got away pretty much scott free.

Bollocks!!!...its not "unfortunate"...its a bloody disgrace for a so called civilized, lawful country! I'm pissed at this injustice and it is wrong! The judge involved needs to be judged.

[_Shrek_]

The judge involved needs to be

[Kornholio]

Court imposed penalties rarely reflect the circumstances of what happened. Even if they had fined him a million dollars, it wouldn't have brought the rider back.

Penalty needs to reflect the level of carelessness, the outcome, the pointlessness of penalties in cases like this, lots of things.

All of that said, $250 appears manifestly inadequate. I just don't know what would have made any difference in the circumstances.

Nobody wins in cases like this.

Jail time would have been nice.

im not dismissing his point, the ute driver should feel like crap as a major player in his mates death, his poor decision was the trigger for a further poor decision or two.

Ask yourself honestly that if you were the driver of that ute, how would you feel...id be f**ken livered with myself.

He does and you shouldn't be a cock.

Workplace incident investigations is a large part of my role.

And a major facet of that is causal, contributing and direct causes of incidents.

The speeding ute is a lemon.

I would be looking at the mentality of the driver of the police car and the culture within the workforce that could cause them to pull such a shit stunt (this could indicate if there were big issues within that work force that need to be challenged), then I would be looking to see if he had the proven capacity to identfy it as a dangerous maneuver, In this case I would be looking to see if he was fit for his role and if he had training specifically for the tasks he was undertaking.

Either way, at the end of the day, he is the cock, not the driver of the ute. There could have been 100 drivers in that area breaking the law and only one of them caused the death of another person.

Roger that.

If this was not such a serious thread, I could make a really offal joke about that

It is so dont be a cock.

[slowpoke]

One rule for police and another for us? Nope, but a totally different penalty is justified because of where they work and what they have to do at that place of work, the speed with which decisions have to be made etc etc. They aren't Joe Blogg's gonna be 30sec late for work if he drives further down the road, they could very well get a call to say there's a family been killed by the bloke they didn't manage to pull over.

From the judge's point of view:

1. Following the original speedster, was it reasonable to assume someone else could be flying over the hill at close to 100mph? If you sat there and measured/counted vehicles and speeds, how many do you think would be doing that speed? 1 in 1000? 1 in 5000? Most people wouldn't even think of it.

2. The 120m distance has already been argued on here, and plenty don't see it as a shockingly short distance. I had a front row seat at the Cake-Tin the other week when the AB's belted the 'Bok's, and looking from deadball line to deadball line 120m seems like a loooong way by eye. So, not ideal but understandable.

3. Urgency is a part and parcel of police work. It's a fine line balancing apprehending someone as soon as reasonably practicable thereby reducing the risk to the public, and putting the public at risk in doing so.

4. Naming and shaming, career damage, etc had already played a large part in the cop's punishment. Think what you like but he won't be walking tall for a long time to come, possibly ever, after this tragedy.

So I can understand the judicial outcome to this tragic event, it's not a simple situation no matter how much people try to make it into one.

Faaark, I wouldn't be a cop for quids. They aren't making plastic bags or something where mistakes just get fed back to the front end of the machine, or transferring papers from the in box to the out box, they're doing a cunt of a job, and have to make snap decisions in a constantly changing environment where mistakes can be and are fatal. It's a huge responsibility that they certainly aren't paid for but should be.

My commiserations are with everyone involved.

[PrincessBandit]

One rule for police and another for us? Nope, ..................

From the judge's point of view:

1. Following the original speedster, was it reasonable to assume someone else could be flying over the hill at close to 100mph? If you sat there and measured/counted vehicles and speeds, how many do you think would be doing that speed? 1 in 1000? 1 in 5000? Most people wouldn't even think of it.

2. The 120m distance has already been argued on here, and plenty don't see it as a shockingly short distance. I had a front row seat at the Cake-Tin the other week when the AB's belted the 'Bok's, and looking from deadball line to deadball line 120m seems like a loooong way by eye. So, not ideal but understandable.

3. Urgency is a part and parcel of police work. It's a fine line balancing apprehending someone as soon as reasonably practicable thereby reducing the risk to the public, and putting the public at risk in doing so.

4. Naming and shaming, career damage, etc had already played a large part in the cop's punishment. Think what you like but he won't be walking tall for a long time to come, possibly ever, after this tragedy.

So I can understand the judicial outcome to this tragic event, it's not a simple situation no matter how much people try to make it into one.

Faaark, I wouldn't be a cop for quids. They aren't making plastic bags or something where mistakes just get fed back to the front end of the machine, or transferring papers from the in box to the out box, they're doing a cunt of a job, and have to make snap decisions in a constantly changing environment where mistakes can be and are fatal. It's a huge responsibility that they certainly aren't paid for but should be.

My commiserations are with everyone involved.

A lot of good points there. Unfortunately the death of the rider outweighs all other considerations to most here. Yes, a rider died and that is a tragedy. Yes, I do feel the cop got off with a seemingly light punishment.
How many times though have there been cases for the general public where there seems to be no rhyme or reason how one case gets a "suitably harsh" penalty while another which is just as bad gets off with a slap on the wrist? I'm sure folk here could think of plenty of instances of incomprehensible sentences handed out to those who have been prosecuted. It's not just a case of one law for the police and another for us - it's rife throughout the justice system for "us", depending on our profession, public profile etc.

[Spearfish]

Yesterdays discussion at work around the smoko table with the usual mix of men, women, riders, non riders and ages...

One hundred and twenty meters...just saying.....

In theory the car was in credit 20 meters before it had finished its manoeuvre when the bike had crested the hill. Considering road rules are based on 100 kph MAX if allowances have to be made for random higher speeds by other road users then the 100 meters will have to be increased by some random amount.

I guess the only question is if the bike hadn't hit the car would it have finished turning and left its required 100m clear if the bike was using the road with reasonable care?

( from the non bikers who kinda sympathise with bikers contribution in the event )
what if the bike was going faster and the car 150 meters down the road or 50% more than it has to would the driver still be charged?

Would there be the same shifting of blame if the biker had killed a kid crossing the road 120 meters away from the crest of a hill?


I guess your views on it just depends on who you are, who you identify with in the crash and what your own riding/driving personality is.

[_Shrek_]

Yesterdays discussion at work around the smoko table with the usual mix of men, women, riders, non riders and ages...

One hundred and twenty meters...just saying.....

In theory the car was in credit 20 meters before it had finished its manoeuvre when the bike had crested the hill. Considering road rules are based on 100 kph MAX if allowances have to be made for random higher speeds by other road users then the 100 meters will have to be increased by some random amount.

I guess the only question is if the bike hadn't hit the car would it have finished turning and left its required 100m clear if the bike was using the road with reasonable care?

( from the non bikers who kinda sympathise with bikers contribution in the event )
what if the bike was going faster and the car 150 meters down the road or 50% more than it has to would the driver still be charged?

Would there be the same shifting of blame if the biker had killed a kid crossing the road 120 meters away from the crest of a hill?


I guess your views on it just depends on who you are, who you identify with in the crash and what your own riding/driving personality is.

the 1st report I read said 70 meters below the crest & then 120 came out, how does this go with your theory,

ps: trolling here

[Jack Miller]

Yesterdays discussion at work around the smoko table with the usual mix of men, women, riders, non riders and ages...

One hundred and twenty meters...just saying.....

In theory the car was in credit 20 meters before it had finished its manoeuvre when the bike had crested the hill. Considering road rules are based on 100 kph MAX if allowances have to be made for random higher speeds by other road users then the 100 meters will have to be increased by some random amount.

I guess the only question is if the bike hadn't hit the car would it have finished turning and left its required 100m clear if the bike was using the road with reasonable care?

( from the non bikers who kinda sympathise with bikers contribution in the event )
what if the bike was going faster and the car 150 meters down the road or 50% more than it has to would the driver still be charged?

Would there be the same shifting of blame if the biker had killed a kid crossing the road 120 meters away from the crest of a hill?


I guess your views on it just depends on who you are, who you identify with in the crash and what your own riding/driving personality is.

Your smoko room analysis is wrong. The IPCA report concluded that the rider would have hit the car had he been doing 101kph, which is 3-9kph within the cops' own enforcement tolerance. Perfectly reasonable to expect a cop to drive as if someone was approaching at 101.