Police say had the rider been wearing...

[Drew]

The assertion ... that this statement by the cop is an admission of future policy, and that all (or any) "accidents" in the future ... could be avoided if the riders are/were wearing a high vis vest ... I FIND STUPID. Again ... MY opinion.

Totally. The statement was likely on the spot by a cop who wasn't used to a camera in his face, and he said something he heard in all this "save bikers" initiative that was on the news last week.

There is probably no depth to what he said at all, but it was careless reporting to use it. And the rest for my interest thereafter, is as precedes here.

[Spearfish]

I kinda hope this thread keeps going until next week for the simple reason there hasn't been another rider down to start another.

I didn't check before posting this

[Wannabiker]

So do we all agree then?

The statement, regardless of who made it, that:

"The rider may have lived if he had been wearing a hi-vis vest"

a. Deflects responsibility from the other party
b. Reflects unfairly on the motorcyclist
c. was unfounded and unnecessary.

Nicely summarised. Thanks...it took a while

[Smifffy]

As I have stated in a previous post in THIS thread ... The cop may have been correct in this instance ... this one instance.

ONE time where had the rider been wearing a high vis' vest ... he May have been seen, and the "accident" avoided.

The assertion ... that this statement by the cop is an admission of future policy, and that all (or any) "accidents" in the future ... could be avoided if the riders are/were wearing a high vis vest ... I FIND STUPID. Again ... MY opinion.

I think suggesting that the cops statement is an indicator of future policy is a bit of a reach, however I do think that it is a strong reflection of NZ Police policy.

Eg, despite that fact that an officer stepped in front of a speeding, stolen vehicle to place road spikes, the principal outcome of the internal inquiry concerned the breach of protocol in him not wearing Hi-vis.

Again I believe that the officer in question would have still lost his life that night whether he was wearing hi-vis or not.

I also believe that the responsibility for that death lies solely with the driver of the car, mitigated somewhat by the judgment of the officer in the time required to lay the spikes.

Nevertheless, I don't believe that the wearing of hi-vis would have made a blind bit of difference to the outcome of the events on that night.

Nor would it have changed the outcome of the events outlined in the OP.

[lankyman]

Had an episode just like this on SHW45 a couple of weeks back...driver indicated left and pulled over, a situation in which I would normally pass to the right as though nothing happened. But something made me scrub all my speed off. Maybe they were acting a little un-predictable, maybe it was intuition, but sure enough they swung a full u-turn straight in front of me...lucky i was doing ~40kph by then. The truth of the matter is that sometimes motorists are doing other shit like looking for an address, and seem to completely forget that they are in control of one and a half tonnes of steel. Someone who drives trucks for a living should know much better. Oh, and the headlight on my TL is on all the time whether I like it or not (which I do), and is at least 1000 times more noticeable than the small piece of shiny vest you would be able to see from front on behind my fairing / tinted screen. NZ police need to think long and hard before they crucify a recently deceased man. My thoughts are with his family and freinds

[Crasherfromwayback]

So do we all agree then?

The statement, regardless of who made it, that:

"The rider may have lived if he had been wearing a hi-vis vest"

a. Deflects responsibility from the other party
b. Reflects unfairly on the motorcyclist
c. was unfounded and unnecessary.

I agree with that 100%. I promise....my last post on this cunting thread.

[That looks like fun]

The assertion ... that this statement by the cop is an admission of future policy, and that all (or any) "accidents" in the future ... could be avoided if the riders are/were wearing a high vis vest ... I FIND STUPID. Again ... MY opinion.

If you read back over the thread the first quote you will find that introduces the assertion you find stupid is this one
Perhaps instead of pissing your panties, you lot should realise that the comment suggests the probable introduction of wearing hi-viz as law.

I'd prefer we all learned to really open our fucking eyes and turn our fucking brains on when we ride rather than being forced to wear hi-viz.
I will leave you to research for yourself who introduced it to the thread

[FJRider]

So do we all agree then?

The statement, regardless of who made it, that:

"The rider may have lived if he had been wearing a hi-vis vest"

a. Deflects responsibility from the other party
b. Reflects unfairly on the motorcyclist
c. was unfounded and unnecessary.

a. The truck driver cannot deny he hit the biker. FACT.
It would seem he didn't SEE the biker. Truck drivers fault ... in my opinion ...

Had the biker been wearing the high vis vest ... the biker MAY have been seen (THAT is not a fact he WOULD have lived ... merely MAY have lived)

b. A rider riding within the law ... (headlight on I assume) was not seen. and probably riding with the assumption he had right-of-way. AND WAS SEEN.

If you ask the question ... could ... if the biker WAS wearing the vest ... lived (ie: the accident had not occured) even a maybe answer means the OP is reading too much into the "News" statement.

Riding within the law is not a guarantee of a long life ... "reflects unfairly" ... mmmmm
Riding with the assumption that the law will protect ... will reflect unfairly on the riders that do ... when shit happens. Because some of them may die.

c. It was the cop's opinion ... in the one instance he MAY have been correct ... and as THAT cop was on the scene gathering the FACTS ... and few of the posters in THIS thread (if any) were NOT ... I would be inclined to believe the cop.

IN MY OPINION ...

[FJRider]

If you read back over the thread the first quote you will find that introduces the assertion you find stupid is this one
Perhaps instead of pissing your panties, you lot should realise that the comment suggests the probable introduction of wearing hi-viz as law.

I'd prefer we all learned to really open our fucking eyes and turn our fucking brains on when we ride rather than being forced to wear hi-viz.
I will leave you to research for yourself who introduced it to the thread

Two OPINIONS ...

Your lives are in your hands ...

The steps you dont take to preserve those lives ...

May well kill you.

[That looks like fun]

Two OPINIONS ...

Your lives are in your hands ...

The steps you dont take to preserve those lives ...

May well kill you.

Nah sorry mate I dont follow you, you will need to clarify how this relates to your previous post and my reply

On second thoughts I am tired of this whole debacle this thread has become

ELVIS has left the building

[PrincessBandit]

ELVIS has left the building

With the other aliens?


Sorry, couldn't resist...

[steve_t]

Right. Is there anything left to say that hasn't already been said? This seems to be going in circles.

[Smifffy]

With the other aliens?


Sorry, couldn't resist...

Y'all should call into our Burger King some time, he actually sits at the table in the front corner and just watches the traffic go by.

[MSTRS:Me]

So, we are all in agreement that a dickhead newshound reported a throwaway comment by a cop about Hi-viz maybe saving the life of a biker? And everything else in this thread is also opinion, conjecture or personal agenda....

[Fatt Max]

So, we are all in agreement that a dickhead newshound reported a throwaway comment by a cop about Hi-viz maybe saving the life of a biker? And everything else in this thread is also opinion, conjecture or personal agenda....

.....apart from the Hotel California lyrics