Police killing us again!

[Katman]

It is a FACT that the slick tyre provided better braking power than a normal road tyre under the conditions at the time of the crash.

Edit: Or not ^

Did you conveniently miss the part where it said that the motorcyclist had 120 metres from the time he would have seen the car to the point of impact?

[rastuscat]

It's the job of a defence lawyer to elicit everything he/she can to deflect the blame from his/her client. Like it or not, it was always going to be dragged out, relevant or not. It's the adversarial system at its inglorious, grubby worst.

It won't matter a toss in the finish.

[MSTRS:Me]

I disagree with what the so called expert said. Go and see how hot a front slick gets from riding on the road in a straight line. A road racing slick needs to be above 100c to provide decent levels of grip, if they aren't then they have virtually no grip at all. The article said there were 2 skid marks left by the rider. I am guessing he stamped on both front and back brake at the same time. If a front tyre is at the right temp it will never lock from a sudden application of brakes, the bike will just endo. Not trying to take the blame away from the cop for doing the stupid u-turn, but the rider was stupid for running a racing tyre on the road.

Yep. Tyre temperature is all-important in determining it's performance.
So - running a race slick on the road may very well have increased the distance the bike could have stopped in?

Still - the truly pertinent fact is the officer's actions.

Crayton said Lenihan's turning manoeuvre obstructed the road and fell below the standard of a reasonable and prudent driver.

Lenihan, a long-serving Waikato Highway Patrol officer, later said he was confident he could complete a U-turn in the patrol car.

Police testing showed it was not possible to make a full turn on that section of road.

A three-point turn was estimated to take between 7.3-8.7 seconds.

Crayton said an intersection 150m further along Waerenga Rd would have provided Lenihan with an opportunity to complete a quick and safe turn.

[k14]

Yep. Tyre temperature is all-important in determining it's performance.
So - running a race slick on the road may very well have increased the distance the bike could have stopped in?

Still - the truly pertinent fact is the officer's actions.

Yeah definitely. If a road racing slick isn't up to temp it is very easy to lock it, which from reading the report is exactly what sounds like happened. I have locked them at low speed riding around in the pits before, at high speed the front would just fold instantly. If the investigator knew anything about bikes he would have said that.

[jellywrestler]

sounds like the old "with the clothes she was wearing she deserved to get raped..." shit to me
still if that's the most exciting bit the reporters have on the case seems that the offender has pretty well no legs to stand on

[HenryDorsetCase]

Did you conveniently miss the part where it said that the motorcyclist had 120 metres from the time he would have seen the car to the point of impact?

and was travelling between 114 and 158 kph according to the news report I heard.

I suggest to you that the speed the bike was travelling at is pretty much irrelevant to whether this crash occurred, on the following basis: lets look at a scenario where from seeing the lane bloced to impact is, as you suggest, 120 metres.

At 160kph we are travelling 44.45m/sec. So to cover that 120m takes three seconds. A bit less actually. So he has three seconds from seeing the lane blocked to impact. Three seconds, maybe a bit longer. Wonder what goes through your mind during that time? So obviously its the motorcycle riders fault, shouldnt have been going that fast. blah blah.

But, do the same maths at the legal open road speed limit: 100kph, 100000metres in an hour: at 100kph he is travelling at 27m/sec. That 120m takes 4.5 seconds. SUre, thats half as long again as the previous scenario, but I'm not sure that it would have made much of a difference really. Still would have been a crash, I suggest. Maybe even a survivable crash, we'll never know, too many variables.

But there wouldnt have been a crash AT ALL if the cop wasnt blocking the lane.

[Spearfish]

So from the point the rider spotted the obsticle to the point of impact was 120 meters?

So would the rider have hit the car if he had be at or under the speed limit considering the car driver still had 20 meters more than the minimum 100 meters your supposed to maintain until you complete a maneuver and would he have completed the maneuver in that 20 meters?

If the bike was at 200kph (deemed safe by bike mag editorials at the time of the crash ) then the same thing would have happened 100 or 200 meters further down the road, would it still be the car drivers fault then?

[Katman]

Maybe even a survivable crash, we'll never know, too many variables.

Absolutely certainly not a crash that would have thrown him a further 72 metres down the road.

[pzkpfw]

The law (and common sense) state that one should be able to stop in the distance of road visible. Thus whether the rider was "speeding" or not isn't really the issue. The issue for them was out-riding their stopping distance.

The reason for this law is the unpredictability of the road. That cop car might instead have been a just-broken-down car, or two cars that just had a crash, or a load dropped off a truck, or any number of other things.

There are of course things that happen that we simply can't prepare for within reason. An un-seen sheep bounds out of the grass in front of us. A sudden gust of wind blows something into us. A car does something totally bizzare. (etc) But that law is about what we can see ahead on the road - it is something under our control.

----

On the other hand, that cop was in charge of his car. He could have done his turn somewhere else, and then wouldn't have been an obsticle. If he hadn't done what he did, the rider would probably still be alive.

It's one thing to accidentally cause harm, it's another to choose to do something, that causes harm. Of course, cops are human too, and humans are do not always behave predictably... which takes me back to my first point.

----

Personally I have trouble figuring out what should happen here. In the end, I think the cop does need to "pay" for this in some way - but I don't think he deserves a lynch mob hanging him from a tree. It wasn't murder, but it was very very bad. Assigning "fault" doesn't remove the tragedy.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Absolutely certainly not a crash that would have thrown him a further 72 metres down the road.

but a 5m chuck down the road could have killed him. Whats the survivable limit for impact into a stationary vehicle, OTB superman styles, and land on the ground? serious question.

I think we're talking about angels dancing on pinheads, when the elephant in the room (to horribly mashup some metaphors) is the munter doing the u turn in an unsafe place.

[HenryDorsetCase]

The law (and common sense) state that one should be able to stop in the distance of road visible. Thus whether the rider was "speeding" or not isn't really the issue. The issue for them was out-riding their stopping distance.

The reason for this law is the unpredictability of the road. That cop car might instead have been a just-broken-down car, or two cars that just had a crash, or a load dropped off a truck, or any number of other things.

There are of course things that happen that we simply can't prepare for within reason. An un-seen sheep bounds out of the grass in front of us. A sudden gust of wind blows something into us. A car does something totally bizzare. (etc) But that law is about what we can see ahead on the road - it is something under our control.

----

On the other hand, that cop was in charge of his car. He could have done his turn somewhere else, and then wouldn't have been an obsticle. If he hadn't done what he did, the rider would probably still be alive.

It's one thing to accidentally cause harm, it's another to choose to do something, that causes harm. Of course, cops are human too, and humans are do not always behave predictably... which takes me back to my first point.

----

Personally I have trouble figuring out what should happen here. In the end, I think the cop does need to "pay" for this in some way - but I don't think he deserves a lynch mob hanging him from a tree. It wasn't murder, but it was very very bad. Assigning "fault" doesn't remove the tragedy.

well said.......

[Katman]

I think we're talking about angels dancing on pinheads, when the elephant in the room (to horribly mashup some metaphors) is the munter doing the u turn in an unsafe place.

No, the plain fact that people are refusing to recognise is that there were two people that fucked up that day.

One who did a U-turn in a stupid place and another who treated the road like a racetrack.

[HenryDorsetCase]

No, the plain fact that people are refusing to recognise is that there were two people that fucked up that day.

One who did a U-turn in a stupid place and another who treated the road like a racetrack.

We agree.

of course the legal system is about apportioning blame, which is where we're at presently.

[Deano]

but a 5m chuck down the road could have killed him. Whats the survivable limit for impact into a stationary vehicle, OTB superman styles, and land on the ground? serious question.

I've hit a stationary vehicle and gone over the bars twice.

First time at about 85kph impact and flew minimum of 5m onto the road. Full leathers and I got a few bruises and badly sprained ankle.

Second time was at Wangas last year - over the bars at about 75kph and flew about 4m onto grass - full leathers again and back protector and I got a few bruises.

I consider myself to have been pretty lucky on both occasions.

[MSTRS:Me]

... I think the cop does need to "pay" for this in some way - but I don't think he deserves a lynch mob hanging him from a tree. It wasn't murder, but it was very very bad. Assigning "fault" doesn't remove the tragedy.

Compare this one to the Buller Gorge incident.
Similar, in that a cop did a turn across a road, in a place that did not allow plenty of room for an 'innocent' motorcyclist to see him and avoid.
No-one died in that one, but the cop certainly got (rightly) hammered in the court.
That should have set an operational precedent to control where such manoeuvres were kosher.
Joe Public would be pilloried in the same situation. The cops are no different.