National Radio interviews Tooman and BRONZ re: fatal biker accident

[miloking]

Thanks for being so small minded. Yes, in this case it as a cop that fucked up by doing a 3-point turn in a stupid place. In the interview StoneY said the bike could have been a stock truck and then this would be a different story - all I'm saying is that the cop car could have just as easily been any other stationary vehicle hidden over the brow of the hill, perhaps a broken down and immovable car/van/ute/truck or even a crashed motorcycle, and the rider would still be dead.

Making cops safer drivers is one thing - but you still have another 2 million+ other road users to worry about though - starting with yourself.

Ok yes i see your point, but if it was broken down truck, driver should still be in trouble for leaving his "broken down" truck in the middle of the road in such a dangerous place...

[Beeza]

A cop car doing a 3pt turn across both lanes in a road cutting 50m from the brow leaves anyone cresting that rise at 100km/h absolutely no chance to evade the obstacle or slow to a halt. A stalled car or a crashed bike blocks, at worst, one lane and therefore leaving a possible escape route to the oncoming motorcyclist/motorist. The cop car, doing a 3pt turn in a dangerous spot, blocks the entire road and so represents a worst-case scenario.

If it were you or me doing that 3pt manoeuvre in our car in that same spot, the cops will have charged us with culpable homicide and a whole raft of other stuff within minutes of arriving at the crash scene. They wouldn't faff and fudge about looking for any reasons not to lay charges as they're doing with this fool who simply happens to be their colleague.

[tomobedlam]

Excellent reporting and interviewing by National Radio. It nice to know that there is still a broadcaster who can report without the sway that many other news agency put on stories especially tv3. It will a be very sad day if the government has it's way and the news is outsourced.

[R6_kid:Me]

So you support the cop doing a three point turn there because he could have been a stock truck. Would you also support a stock truck doing the same thing because he could have been a cop? Your arguemnt is that no stupidity should ever be condemned because other instances of stupidty can always be found. So you not condemn a drunk driver who takes out a biker, because there will always be other drunk drivers ?

Where did I say that Les? I don't support the cop, it was stupid a thing to do. What I'm trying to convey is that it could possibly have been any stationary object, vehicle or otherwise, blocking the path of the rider as they came over the crest, and the situation would potentially be no different, with no one at fault other than the rider. What if the object was a fallen tree?

Ok yes i see your point, but if it was broken down truck, driver should still be in trouble for leaving his "broken down" truck in the middle of the road in such a dangerous place...

Perhaps... in that case it may still not be the drivers fault that the vehicle is unable to move.

A cop car doing a 3pt turn across both lanes in a road cutting 50m from the brow leaves anyone cresting that rise at 100km/h absolutely no chance to evade the obstacle or slow to a halt. A stalled car or a crashed bike blocks, at worst, one lane and therefore leaving a possible escape route to the oncoming motorcyclist/motorist. The cop car, doing a 3pt turn in a dangerous spot, blocks the entire road and so represents a worst-case scenario.

And if there was a vehicle coming the other way, therefore blocking off that only other exit? Again, the cop doing a 3pt turn is stupid and in this case should be liable.

How about this... would you do 100kmh+ into thick fog if you couldn't see more than 50m in front of you? If you did, and you then crashed into a stationary vehicle - lets assume a person doing a 3pt turn on a straight, flat stretch of road. Would you hold any of the blame in that situation?

I wasn't at the crash scene - I don't know how fast the rider was going. I know that a cop did a 3pt turn in a blind spot of vehicles approaching from the other side of the crest - but I also know that it is not wise to approach any blind corner/crest/area at a speed for which you cannot stop in the visible distance.

[Ixion]

Ok yes i see your point, but if it was broken down truck, driver should still be in trouble for leaving his "broken down" truck in the middle of the road in such a dangerous place...

That's not quite the point though. A broken down truck comes under the "shit happens" category. Presumably the truck driver didn't deliberately break down in such a dangerous place (and one would hope that he'd walk back to the hilltop to warn oncoming traffic).

Motorcycling IS dangerous. No-one says otherwise. We can (are too often are) killed when "shit happens"

But this wasn't "shit happens". This was a deliberate act, by someone who should have known better.


I can accept the broken down trucks, and fallen trees and herds of cows. They are "shit happens"; like an Act of God , no different to being struck by lightning.

But I don't, and won't accept a deliberate act , patently negligent and stupid , that kills a biker, especially when it is done by someone we specifically place in a position of trust on the basis that they are supposed to be trained and competent enough that they WON'T do such things.

[R6_kid:Me]

Yes Les, you are completely correct about the actions of the officer. My point is that as much as this could have been avoided by the cop taking more precaution when making the three point turn, the same could eqaully be said for the actions of the rider. It's not as if the patrol car appeared magically out of the ether, bang smack in front of the rider - the rider surely must have come over the crest at a speed for which he was unable to stop in the distance for which he could see. Therefore does some of the blame not also fall on the rider?

[Katman]

So you support the cop doing a three point turn there because he could have been a stock truck. Would you also support a stock truck doing the same thing because he could have been a cop? Your arguemnt is that no stupidity should ever be condemned because other instances of stupidty can always be found. So you not condemn a drunk driver who takes out a biker, because there will always be other drunk drivers ?

I find it disturbing that someone with such a blinkered viewpoint and, at times, such a laughable grasp of logic and understanding, could consider themselves in any way suitable to be in a position where they speak on behalf of all NZ motorcyclists.

[StoneY]

''He would have been coming over there (the crest) at 100kph''.....

How do you know that Stoney?.....

I dont KNOW it Maha.
But look at that road...highly unlikel;y he was doing 80, or 90 now is it?
And as the speed limit is 100 kmh, I took the liberty of stating he was travelling at that, the open road speed limit

Any vehicle crossing that hilltop would be doing at least the limit, if theyre someone who knew the road as Paul obviously did

I spoke with a few people who knew Paul before the interview went ahead, I simply did the best with the data I had Maha
It would not be reasonable to suggest Paul was doing anything over the speed limit from what I was told of his onraod riding habits

I state again, I HOPE I did justice to Paul, and summarised the situation with what information I had

The point about the stock truck was: the cops poor practise would have resulted in a dead cop and passenger, and a traumatised, possibly acccused driver of a heavy vehicle as an outcome

I do not believe there is any merit in flaming a witch hunt in the period that the Brown family and friends, are grieving.
There will be time for finger pointing, accusing, and analysis of the facts after the dust settles.

The cop utterly fucked up, that is obvious, and thats the point I was trying to make without being too over the top and inflamatory on public radio.
As well as pointing out that the initial claims of the biker 'speeding' as reported on several broadcasts (see the friendly ex racer neighbour already covering the cops ass on TV3?) are unsubstantiated, un povable, and irrelevant
At any speed he was doomed due to this ridiculous 'must catch the speeder' attitude of our Police force

[StoneY]

I find it disturbing that someone with such a blinkered viewpoint and, at times, such a laughable grasp of logic and understanding, could consider themselves in any way suitable to be in a position where they speak on behalf of all NZ motorcyclists.

Rather Les than a one eyed troll like you Katman
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black

[StoneY]

the rider surely must have come over the crest at a speed for which he was unable to stop in the distance for which he could see. Therefore does some of the blame not also fall on the rider?

Ok crossing a blind crest, even at 100kmh exactly, and there in front of you, between 20-25 meteres, is a car right accross the road, the whole road, no escape room at all (banks either side)

NO CHANCE - dont care who ya are - of stopping ya bike, thats a collision that cannot be avoided, period!

There have been people speculating about the distance the bike could/might/should have seen the cop car
ALL BULLSHIT
The cop car should NOT have been there

As Les says it fails to be an 'act of god' obstacle because a professional Police Highway Patrol Officer was at the wheel
let the investigation finish before we start accusing and defending on partial facts, huh?

[Katman]

Rather Les than a one eyed troll like you Katman
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black

Better than being Les' puppet.

[R6_kid:Me]

let the investigation finish before we start accusing and defending on partial facts, huh?

Exactly my point. For both sides of the story.

[Squiggles]

the rider surely must have come over the crest at a speed for which he was unable to stop in the distance for which he could see. Therefore does some of the blame not also fall on the rider?

Thats the sort've thinking that keeps me off the coro in teh weekends... s'not as good of a ride going 30kph for 6 hours

[PirateJafa]

The cop was incredibly foolish, yes. Shit does happen, yes. But also, as [presumably] responsible, licensed road-users, we do also have the onus upon us to be able to stop within the visible distance ahead.

Edit: Damn, forgot to hit "Submit" for 30mins and everyone ninja'd in and beat me.

[discodan]

The cop was incredibly foolish, yes. Shit does happen, yes. But also, as [presumably] responsible, licensed road-users, we do also have the onus upon us to be able to stop within the visible distance ahead.
]

Imagine you are following a car along a road and every time that car reaches a crest of a hill they slow down to about 30kmph, then speed up to 100kmph, then slow down again at the next crest / corner etc.

what's the bet you would get angry and pass that car...?

Being careful and alert is one thing but being pedantic about stopping distances is simply not practical. The rider was not to blame for this incident.