SCU on TV1 - bike vs car fatal

[pete376403]

The shit "science " that these people are using. The car had a wof and the bike didn't so it looks like they are trying to fit the facts around the bike rider being at fault, eg " if the bike was in a high gear it must have been doing over the speed limit"

[98tls]

Bugger,saw that advertised but forgot to watch...

[scumdog]

The shit "science " that these people are using. The car had a wof and the bike didn't so it looks like they are trying to fit the facts around the bike rider being at fault, eg " if the bike was in a high gear it must have been doing over the speed limit"

But they never made an issue of those points in summing up.

In the end it seems lack of experience + a tad too much speed combined with a visibility issue on the part of the driver = crash.

[Maha]

The shit "science " that these people are using. The car had a wof and the bike didn't so it looks like they are trying to fit the facts around the bike rider being at fault, eg " if the bike was in a high gear it must have been doing over the speed limit"

To be fair, they summarised that both vehicles were in good working order even though the bike last got a warrant in 2010.
Noted that, even though they put the bike speed at around the 70kph mark (in a 50) even the riders father said, his son would have been more around the 100-120kph.

[scumdog]

To be fair, they summarised that both vehicles were in good working order even though the bike last got a warrant in 2010.
Noted that, even though they put the bike speed at around the 70kph mark (in a 50) even the riders father said, his son would have been more around the 100-120kph.

They said his MINIMUM speed would have been about 70kph given his slide stopped on impact with the car, ergo they couldn't conclusively say he was doing a faster speed.

Pretty sad for all concerned, particularly the father.

[scracha]

They said his MINIMUM speed would have been about 70kph given his slide stopped on impact with the car, ergo they couldn't conclusively say he was doing a faster speed.

Pretty sad for all concerned, particularly the father.

Can someone educate me on how they could calculate his MINIMUM speed? They couldn't tell where he started braking. They couldn't use skidmarks. They couldn't use the co-efficient of friction of the bike's fairing sliding on its side. They couldn't measure the distance the bike travelled as it was stopped on impact. How the fuck would his father know how fast he was going at that particular location on that particular day?

Young rider on bike with WOF that'd expired 2 years ago that he didn't have license for. Obviously at fault. Car driver couldn't have possibly pulled out without looking.

To be honest, I'm not saying the conclusion was wrong but it seemed as if the cops were trying their best to find the rider at fault without all the facts supporting it.

The "blued" rear brake disk leading to the conclusion that he regularly rode hard was a complete fucking joke no? All it would take is one hard stop (perhaps some other daft bint pulled out in front of one of the bike's owners). Shit...maybe at some point the bike had a stuck caliper or a rider inadvertently rode with their foot on the pedal.

In conclusion, I'd have said an open / inconclusive verdict would have been fairer. Not that it can bring the guy back to life.

[merv]

The force of impact was obvious - no need to be precious about him being a biker. His old man was right - he was speeding! Nothing unfair here at all. Just the SCU had to go through the motions to write it up I imagine.

[Motu]

Pretty sad for all concerned, particularly the father.

He is my brother in law, this has absolutely floored him, as a solo dad, he put everything into his boys and is now rudderless. It was everything he said at the time - poor visibility for the driver, and the boy was speeding. The road he knew well was dropped from a 1ookph to a 50kph, pretty hard to rein it back to half the speed you are used to...also mentioned by the father, he told him about the speed change. Also laying it down, not a bright move.

A family of riders - my wife as the eldest got a bike first, then all 8 kids and both parents rode motorcycles. This is the first one we've lost. You know my views on discussing motorcycle accidents, and his father took a tougher view than the investigators, proud of him for that.

[Wiki Drifter]

Bugger,saw that advertised but forgot to watch...

You can watch it on demand:

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/ondemand/seri...es-7-episode-5

[Ender EnZed]

You can watch it on demand:

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/ondemand/seri...es-7-episode-5

Can I watch it somewhere without signing up?

[The End]

Can I watch it somewhere without signing up?

Looks as though you have to make an account to watch things on TVNZ Ondemand now. You could always sign up with a bogus email address.

[The End]

"If the SCU can find out if the bike was in a high gear at the time of impact, they will know Christopher was travelling well above the speed limit of 50 km/h"

This is a load of rubbish. I frequently travel in 50km/h areas in 6th care on a larger bike than the CBR 400 in the show.

[Erelyes]

Takes a lot of mettle to go on TV like that, a ton of respect for the Dad.

A few of the comments seem a bit perplexing (heat marks on the rear disc = hard riding?) but I think the comments about the bike being likely to have been doing a fair clip are fair.

Puts 'laying it down' into perspective. I always thought that crashing to avoid a crash was a bad idea. If he'd gone over the top it wouldn't have been pretty, but he might have had a chance.

Perhaps he didn't intend to lay it down - grabbed a fistful and dropped the front.

This is a load of rubbish. I frequently travel in 50km/h areas in 6th care on a larger bike than the CBR 400 in the show.

Agree, most bikes can tottle along in 6th in a 50. Not that it's necessarily the best gear to be in, of course. But any extrapolations about gear = this speed are nonsense.

[Reckless]

I thought the fathers words may have been a bit harsh when watching it but after reading the comments on here I can understand his POV.
Condolences to him and ups to him for telling it like he see's it. My son now regularly rides (although he's past the learner stage and has had a crash) but this is a bit close to home for me. But for the grace of god there go us ??

The blue disk thing could have been the previous owner for all we know??

When I saw it and can only say what I might have been doing.

I thought the vegetation screened visibility for both vehicles but the onus was on the car driver because he knew he was turning blind and the bike may have been unaware there was an intersection there at all?
Secondly I would have possibly been slowly winding up in anticipation of the 100K signs just on the other side of what was probably an invisible intersection to the rider.
A heck of a lot of us would have been doing 70k on a road like that.
I can see the scenario where the rider coming round the corner see's the open road sign approaching in the right of his vison, then looks further up the road while starting to increase speed from 50 or 60k missing some vital seconds in assessing the intersection.

Two things stand out for me, one it looked like that vegetation had been mowed in the past and should have been kept shorter.
The open road signs are far to close to the intersection IMHO.
But given the above, I do accept the popo assumption that the driver could have well been pulling out before the bike even appeared.
I also accept given the distance the intersection was from when visibility cleared for the rider at 50k he prob would be still here.

It just a damn pity he didnt have a few years riding under his belt because an experienced riders time in the saddle may have made the difference.

Overall I say the cops and his dad have it pretty right. Sad combination of factors condolences to his dad and the family. RIP Rider

[awayatc]

Can't even begin to imagine how it must be for the dad......