Police killing us again!

[scumdog]

Well that's a vindication of the 3 point turn.

It's like saying the guy in Taupo who shot the teacher brushing her teeth was vindicated because she was doing duck impressions

It was a deer impression.

Get it right.

(Or are you part of the media, the part that reports possibilities, 'almost'-facts, suppositions and quotes from unnamed sources?)

[StoneY]

I'm confident that Justice Goddard has appraised the situation fairly and appropriately.

There will always be those in the force that believe that every officer is beyond reproach.

Like the fascist bully boy in the wild west that reckons 8 people are all lying.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4876...ult-not-guilty
Hmmmmm
This is unreal..... some of the accusers were fellow Police officers......who testified against this thug.

Bodes poorley for any hope of a reasonable and unbiased trial in the case we discuss in this thread............

[phill-k]

Can we get something straight here, the road code and thus the laws under which you operate a vehicle on a public road state categorically that you must operate your vehicle in a safe manner, it further requires you to travel at a speed where you are able to stop your vehicle within the clear road space ahead.

The police officer made an error of judgement in commencing a "u" turn for what ever reason at the location where he did by virtue of the fact he crossed the yellow line and he will pay dearly for this more so than any ordinary user of public roads. However that was only one of the contributing factors to this sad loss of a life.

There are many other factors involved here, the rider himself contributed to the accident, in that he clearly did not stop in time to avoid the patrol car, the crash analysis experts will be able to determine with a fair measure of accuracy as to most of the circumstances surrounding the crash, other than perhaps what the riders intentions were when he first observed the obstacle.
As the rider was well skilled it is possible that he may have chosen to undertake an evasive manoeuvre rather than heavy braking and the movement of the patrol car actually blocked the escape route planned, this could be partially determined by where the first signs of braking from the bike occurred, where the patrol car was located and at what stage of his manoeuvre he was at for example was the vehicle still going forwards, in reverse or in fact was the manoeuvre almost complete.
If we are not going to have some faith in the integrity and ability of those tasked with establishing as much of the facts as we can, which can after all be proved through engineering and science where does this leave us as a biking community.

We all see and argue that Speed in its self does not kill, but unfortunately errors at speed have a much greater consequence.

The family of the biker will live with this for the rest of there lives, so to will the traffic officer and his family, who in his service to the community has placed himself in an unenviable position.

I would like to roundly condemn the officer for making what was a life taking decision but then that would be to say that decisions I make are all above reproach and that is not so. The courts however will I'm sure judge the actions and extract the pound of flesh all seem so keen to have.

[98tls]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4876...ult-not-guilty
Hmmmmm
This is unreal..... some of the accusers were fellow Police officers......who testified against this thug.

Bodes poorley for any hope of a reasonable and unbiased trial in the case we discuss in this thread............

Once upon a time a hiding in the cells was a lesson learned and off you went knowing that whatever dumb shit got you locked up in the first place wasnt a good idea so you didnt repeat it.Not these days eh its allfucking pathetic.No doubt they deserved a hiding and no doubt if the coppers found guilty some do gooder social worker will step in to make sure they get the appropriate counselling and handout from the taxpayer.

[denill]

Once upon a time a hiding in the cells was a lesson learned and off you went knowing that whatever dumb shit got you locked up in the first place wasnt a good idea so you didnt repeat it.Not these days eh its allfucking pathetic.No doubt they deserved a hiding and no doubt if the coppers found guilty some do gooder social worker will step in to make sure they get the appropriate counselling and handout from the taxpayer.

Gotta agree with that and well said.

[Max Preload]

...the rider himself contributed to the accident, in that he clearly did not stop in time to avoid the patrol car

You are assuming something that you are unable to substantiate. There is no way you can say that the rider was unable to stop within the distance of clear road ahead and that the cop didn't turn directly into that clear distance, having not actually seen the bike.

[trustme]

You are assuming something that you are unable to substantiate. There is no way you can say that the rider was unable to stop within the distance of clear road ahead and that the cop didn't turn directly into that clear distance, having not actually seen the bike.

The cop did commence his turn on a clear section of road without the rider in view. Problem was the rider was on the other side of the brow of a hump & was not visible. The cop was doing the u turn far to close to the crest of the rise. Under normal circumstances he would probably have got away with it, any vehicle approaching at speed and it was tragically a whole different story.
There is no assumption that that the rider was unable to stop in the clear road ahead. If he could have he most surely would have.

[red mermaid]

Probably about as much chance as there is of having a reasonable and unbiased debate on the forum in regard to this thread.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4876...ult-not-guilty
Hmmmmm
This is unreal..... some of the accusers were fellow Police officers......who testified against this thug.

Bodes poorley for any hope of a reasonable and unbiased trial in the case we discuss in this thread............

[98tls]

Probably about as much chance as there is of having a reasonable and unbiased debate on the forum in regard to this thread.

Here we go "reasonable and unbiased"its that kind of shite thats seen the ruin of the real world,surely one can speak the truth on the interweb without some do-gooder moaning.

[scracha]

so to will the traffic officer and his family, who in his service to the community has placed himself in an unenviable position.

So do drink drivers....should they get off scott free because they'll have to live with it for the rest of their lives? oh boo hoo.

replace the U turning vehicle with a flock of bulls who have got through a gate, after a naughty boy had been into the roadside paddock picking mushrooms and really guilty of anything - the road code clearly requires the operator of a vehicle to travel at a speed that will allow the vehicle to stop in the clear road ahead- I say again if there were cattle or some such on the road what of it then.

Ok, so lets say pulling a U-turn before a blind crest isn't criminally negligent. By your logic, I'd be able to pull a U in my car or motorcycle and if someone smacked into me it'd be 100% their fault. Get real

I don't think anyone is laughing at what happened to the rider, but at your diatribe that is what is laughable -

the crash analysis experts will be able to determine with a fair measure of accuracy as to most of the circumstances surrounding the crash, other than perhaps what the riders intentions were when he first observed the obstacle.

You don't need a degree in science or engineering to know that's utter crock. Thus my diatribe .

[Max Preload]

The cop did commence his turn on a clear section of road without the rider in view. Problem was the rider was on the other side of the brow of a hump & was not visible.

You don't know any of that.

The cop was doing the u turn far to close to the crest of the rise. Under normal circumstances he would probably have got away with it, any vehicle approaching at speed and it was tragically a whole different story.

If any vehicle was approaching it would be at speed or else it wouldn't be approaching - it'd be stationary.

There is no assumption that that the rider was unable to stop in the clear road ahead. If he could have he most surely would have.

You've fallen into exactly the same assumption trap as phil.k. It is an assumption to say that the rider was not travelling at a speed at which he was able to stop within the distance of clear road ahead. Also being on a bike he not only had greater visibility over the crest due to his height above the road, his helmet and even shoulders and abdomen being above the crest don't present a particularly large visual indicator of the approaching motorcycle for the driver to observe. It could well be the cop turned in front of him while in view of the rider without even seeing him.

[terbang]

It could well be the cop turned in front of him while in view of the rider without even seeing him.

Of course this has never happened before in the case of Car Vs Bike..! How could a bike be invisible to a driver? Especially a professional driver. Right?

Oh fuck it, lets just blame the rider, they are always speeding and taking risks anyway. Its just easier that way.

[riffer]

It all seems pretty cut and dried to me.

Road Code says you must be able to stop within the clear distance ahead of you.

The Blind crest made assessment of the clear distance ahead difficult, thus rider assumed clear distance.

Police officer U-turned too close to the blind crest, reducing the clear distance available.

Due to the reduced clear distance and the (alleged) speed of the rider the opportunity to evade the incident was diminished.

My findings are thus:

1. Police officer acted with dangerous disregard to other road users.
2. Rider (alleged) speed didn't allow enough space to stop in time.

Therefore, Officer guilty of dangerous driving causing death. But rider didn't do himself any favours at all.

There's no point bleating about people doing stupid things in front of you. This will happen constantly to a motorcyclist. A superior rider will take many of these things into account - sometimes you can't do anything about it, other times you can.

In this case I believe the rider exacerbated the problem the Officer created.

[trustme]

It all seems pretty cut and dried to me.

Road Code says you must be able to stop within the clear distance ahead of you.

The Blind crest made assessment of the clear distance ahead difficult, thus rider assumed clear distance.

Police officer U-turned too close to the blind crest, reducing the clear distance available.

Due to the reduced clear distance and the (alleged) speed of the rider the opportunity to evade the incident was diminished.

My findings are thus:

1. Police officer acted with dangerous disregard to other road users.
2. Rider (alleged) speed didn't allow enough space to stop in time.

Therefore, Officer guilty of dangerous driving causing death. But rider didn't do himself any favours at all.

There's no point bleating about people doing stupid things in front of you. This will happen constantly to a motorcyclist. A superior rider will take many of these things into account - sometimes you can't do anything about it, other times you can.

In this case I believe the rider exacerbated the problem the Officer created.

Works for me

[oneofsix]

Works for me

me too